UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

PUBLIC MEETING 

 

 

ON 

 

 ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS: 

ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR REFRIGERATORS, 

REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND FREEZERS 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20585 

 Room 8E-089 

 

 Thursday 

October 14, 2010 

 

Chair: 

Doug Brookman 

Public Solutions 

Baltimore, MD 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

2

Participants Identified: 

Jennifer Cleary 

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers 

Kevin Messner 

AHAM 

Meg Waltner 

National Resources Defense Council 

Jeffrey Poston 

Energetics, Incorporated 

Hoi Yee Lam 

Energetics, Incorporated 

Jacob Talbot 

American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy 

Joanne Mauer 

ASAP 

Kelly Kline 

GE 

Martin Severance 

GE Appliance 

Margaret Sheppard 

SNAP Program 

Amanda Stevens 

Energy Star 

John Taylor 

LG Electronics 

Dave Hall 

Electrolux 

Monica Shimamura 

Environmental Protection Agency 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

3

Gregory Rosenquist 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

Luke Harms 

Whirlpool 

Tom Eckmann 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council 

Jeffery Greenblatt 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

Jack Henry-Rhoads 

D&R International 

Claudette Papathanasopoulos 

Greenpeace USA 

Participants from DOE:

Michael Kido 

DOE General Counsel’s Office 

Subid Wagley 

Department of Energy 

Robert van Buskirk 

Department of Energy 

From Navigant Consulting:

Detlef Westphalen 

Jeffrey Kingman 

Tommaso Gomez 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

4

I N D E X

AGENDA ITEMS PAGE

Welcoming Remarks 5 

 MR. WAGLEY 

Introductions 5 

 MR. BROOKMAN 

Agenda Review 7 

 MR. BROOKMAN 

Opening Remarks 10 

 MR. BROOKMAN 

Background and Regulatory History 9 

 MR. WAGLEY 

Stakeholder Opening Statements 13 

Market and Technology Assessment 22 

Screening Analysis 58 

Engineering Analysis 62 

 MR. WESTPHALEN 

Markups 73 

Energy Use 75 

Lief Cycle Cost, Shipments, National Impact 

Analysis 82 

 MR. WESTPHALEN 

Utility and Environmental Impacts, 86 

Employment Impact, and Regulatory Impact 

Analysis 

 DR. GREENBLATT 

Proposed Standard Levels 89 

 DR. GREENBLATT 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Consideration 94 

 MR. KINGMAN 

Conclusions and Closing Remarks 95 

 MR. WAGLEY 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

5 

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 9:02 a.m. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Please take your seats. 

Let’s begin. Good morning, everybody and welcome. 

We’re going to start this morning with welcoming 

remarks by Subid Wagley, of the Department of 

Energy. 

 MR. WAGLEY: Good morning. I am Subid 

Wagley, US Department of Energy. I would like to 

welcome you on behalf of the Department to the 

Public Meeting to discuss the proposed standards, 

conservation standards, for refrigerators, 

refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. 

Introductions 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Glad you could 

make it, early start on a rainy day here in 

Washington, DC. It’s our tradition to start off 

doing introductions, so let’s do that and we’ll go 

around the room, your name and organizational 

affiliation. Yes, please hit the little green LED 

button, yes. 

 MS. WALTNER: Meg Waltner, NRDC. 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

6

 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer, Appliance 

Standards Awareness Project. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. ECKMANN: Tom Eckmann, Northwest Power 

and Conservation Council. 

 MS. CLEARY: Jennifer Cleary, Association 

of Home Appliance Manufacturers. 

 MR. MESSNER: Kevin Messner, AHAM. 

 MR. HARMS: Lou Harms, Whirlpool. 

 MS. KLINE: I’m Kelly Kline, GE. 

 MR. SEVERANCE: Marty Severance, GE. 

 DR. GREENBLATT: Jeffery Greenblatt, 

Lawrence Berkeley National Labs. 

 MR. KIDO: Michael Kido, Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel. 

 MR. WAGLEY: Subid Wagley with US 

Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program.

 MR. POSTON: Jeffrey Poston with 

Energetics, Incorporated. 

 MS. LAM: Hoi Yee Lam, Energetics, 

Incorporated. 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: Detlef Westphalen, 

Navigant Consulting. 

 MR. KINGMAN: Jeffrey Kingman, Navigant 

Consulting. 

 MR. van BUSKIRK: Robert van Buskirk, 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

7

1 Department of Energy. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 DR. TALBOT: Jacob Talbot, American 

Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. 

 DR. SHIMAMURA: Monica Shimamura, EPA. 

 MS. STEVENS: Amanda Stevens, Energy Star 

Appliance Program. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Are you going 

to introduce yourself, Greg? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Hi. Greg Rosenquist, 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 

Agenda Review 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Just on time. For those of 

you who were here yesterday as well, I know Joanna 

was. Yesterday I read today’s agenda yesterday. So 

for those of you that were here yesterday, you can 

just zone out for the next minute. This is the 

general form in which these meetings get conducted. 

 All of you received a packet of 

information when you checked in this morning. A 

copy of the power point slides that will be the 

focal point for presentation as the day goes on. In 

that packet are also, in addition to all this 

information, are the specific queries, the things 

that the Department would like to see you respond 

specifically to. 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

8

 Immediately following this agenda review, 

we are going to have an opportunity for -- we’re 

going to have an introduction, background, and some 

regulatory history from Subid. The agenda is 

slightly out of order. After that introduction, 

then there’s an opportunity for anybody who wishes 

to do so, to make brief summary remarks about key 

issues and concerns. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 And then we’ll move from there straight 

into the more detailed content, market and 

technology assessment. We’ll take a break midmorning, along about 10:25, maybe 10:30-ish. 

Following that mid-morning break, screening 

analysis, engineering analysis, and the markups, 

energy use, life cycle cost, shipments, national 

impact analysis. 

 We’ll break for lunch along about noon, 

and then following lunch, utility and environmental 

impacts, employment impact, and regulatory impact 

analyses, proposed standard levels. If we need to 

take a break mid-afternoon, we will, if we’re going 

rapidly and efficiently, we’ll just keep going for a 

while. We won’t discomfort anybody, I hope and we 

will follow on and then do Regulatory Flexibility 

Act considerations, and conclusions and closing 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

9

1 remarks at the end of the day. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 Typically it’s the case the Department 

wants to offer yet another opportunity for any 

additional issues to be raised at the end of the 

day, another comment period that’s open. So that’s 

the plan for today. Questions and comments on the 

agenda? 

 I’d ask for your consideration, please, if 

you would, speak one at a time. Say your name for 

the record. There will be a complete transcript of 

this meeting. 

 As always, today I’m going to be cueing 

individuals by name as best I can. Please say your 

name each time you speak so that we know who is 

speaking. If we keep the focus here, turn your 

cell phones on silent, and limit your sidebar 

conversations. Please remember to turn your 

microphone on before you speak. And you could be 

concise, share the air time, that would be helpful. 

 So let’s then turn it back to Subid. 

Background and Regulatory History 

 MR. WAGLEY: So once again, welcome to the 

public meeting. Just to provide you a brief 

background on the proposed standards rulemaking. 

The purpose of today’s meeting is to present revised 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

10

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

methodologies based on your feedback and 

characterize results of those analyses, and to 

discuss specific issues related to each analysis, 

and to seek input from attendees who are present 

here as well as those via webinar -- if time 

permits, we’ll have to manage that accordingly -- 

on the methodologies, substances and data sources 

and to describe remaining steps before the issuance 

of final rule. 

 Well, throughout the presentations today 

you’ll see boxes like these. That means we’re 

asking you or DOE welcomes the comments, data, and 

information concerning any of the issues that we’ve 

raised with regard to the rulemaking. 

 Again, about the regulatory background, 

back in 1989, the final rule was published that set 

performance standards effective January ’93. There 

was another one, rule correction affecting three 

product classes published in October 1990. A second 

round, final rule, published April 28, 1997 for 

standards effective July 2001. Analysis published 

in October 2005 to support priority setting for 

additional refrigerator rulemaking. And the EISA 

2007, we call Energy Independence and Security Act, 

requires publication of updated standards by 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

11

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

December 31st this year, to take effect in January 

2014. 

 As you’re all aware, that there were joint 

recommendations or joint comments by various groups 

representing manufacturers, energy, environmental 

groups, as well as consumer advocates, submitting 

the joint comments or recommendations on August 12, 

2010. The comments recommend specific energy 

conservation standards for refrigerator and 

refrigeration products that, in their view, would 

satisfy the requirements under EPCA. 

 DOE was not a member of the group and did 

not organize it, but made its contractors available 

to perform data analysis. Consistent with its legal 

obligations when developing an energy conservation 

standard, DOE is providing the public or 

stakeholders or interested parties with the 

opportunity to comment on the proposed levels that 

DOE is considering adopting for refrigeration 

products, which mirror those in the joint 

recommendation. 

 Again, you’re very familiar with the 

rulemaking process. We initially start with the 

framework documents, the preliminary analysis, and 

then NOPR, and that’s where we are today. And then 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

12

1 after the public comments period ends, 60 days from 

2 the issuance of the proposed rulemaking on Federal 

3 Register, we’ll have a final rule published. 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

 Again, interested parties, stakeholders, 

participants today are invited to provide summary 

comments or statements, and again, I’d like to 

repeat that on the folks on the webinar, we’ll see 

how we have to manage that, given how much time we 

have in the day. 

 For this NOPR, the comment period closes 

on November 26, 2010, that gives 60 days from the 

12 Federal Register publication. 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 The EPCA directs DOE to consider seven 

factors when setting an energy conservation 

standards. I’m not going to go through the details 

of these, but these are the main seven factors and 

analysis to come up with those factors, and they are 

provided to you in hard copies. 

 In the NOPR analysis phase, these are 

several analyses that we conduct to come up with the 

proposed standards levels, and after this, the final 

stage of the rulemaking is final rule, where we’ll 

revise the NOPR analysis and have a final review 

through the process of rulemaking and publish it. 

 So with that, I’d like to turn back to 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

13

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Doug, and again, once again, welcome to DOE, and on 

behalf of our team who’s working on this, welcome. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: And the webinar is working 

like it should. Good, we’re making good progress on 

that. It’s good for everybody. 

 Wanted to, as we promised, invite anybody 

to make brief summary statements here at the outset. 

Kevin, you look like you’re ready. 

Stakeholder Opening Statements 

 MR. MESSNER: You can read my body 

language. Just wanted to well first thank DOE for 

working to move this forward and pleased that the 

NOPR mirrors the agreement that we worked so hard to 

come to conclusion on. So that’s good news. Open 

with the good news. 

 We have some significant issues that we’ll 

address throughout the day, but want to highlight to 

you overall, is that we’re in a very bad situation 

here with a combination of having to get this done 

by the end of the year, but having standards 

equations, with no test procedure. So we have no 

way of determining what proper crosswalk is, and 

whether or not this actually -- it mirrors the 

agreement in the calculations, but it’s a purely 

analytical calculation to get to the new standard 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

14

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

levels, and does not encompass potential other test 

procedure changes which will impact energy. I mean 

it’s just -- the NOPR for the test procedure, 

actually talks about including additional energy 

from cool-down. That, over the description of what 

it’s doing, has to impact the energy. Variable 

anti-sweat heater energy has to impact energy. So 

those impacts and others are not represented in 

these equations, even if you get over the hump that 

the calculation to get to these equations represents 

the real world. 

 So we need to work through this somehow, 

and we need to get a test procedure finalized before 

-- well before the standards are finalized so that 

we can ensure everything is going to happen 

correctly come 2014 when these standards are 

effective. And any input that DOE can provide or 

any test procedure that we could get, we need it 

now, because lab space is very difficult and 

expensive in these companies to have to test these 

products. And we only have 60 days or less than 60 

days at this point to try to figure out what it is 

to get comments to DOE so that they can -- and I 

know they want to do -- and everybody wants to have 

the equations right at the end of the day. So I 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

15

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

think we all want to be there, we just need to 

figure out how we can get there accurately. 

 We’ll have more details as we go through, 

but anything that DOE can say on that would be very 

much welcomed. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob, why don’t you find a 

microphone. 

 MR. van BUSKIRK: Robert van Buskirk. I 

guess the green light means it’s on. Robert van 

Buskirk, Department of Energy. The standards in the 

current NOPR are levels that represent the test 

procedure as it was proposed in the test procedure 

NOPR. So there’s going to be two issues. One issue 

is how well, given that the test procedure NOPR is 

the reference for the current proposal, what 

differences, if any, are there between today’s 

proposal and the consensus agreement? So that’s 

issue number one. 

 Issue number two is in the test procedure 

NOPR, there were modifications proposed to -- there 

were modifications discussed to the test procedure 

that may show up in the test procedure final rule. 

So the key technical question on that is if there 

are changes from the test procedure NOPR, what would 

the appropriate crosswalk be between today’s 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

16

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

proposal and a final rule that incorporates those 

changes? 

 So I think that frames it so that it’s a 

technical question. The current proposal is 

precisely defined. There may be technical 

modifications, but I think that helps precisely 

define issues, and does that set a path forward for 

framing your comments? 

 MR. MESSNER: No, we’re not persuaded. I 

mean there’s a couple of things. First of all, the 

crosswalk does not, we believe, as far a we can tell 

at this point, represent the NOPR test procedure. 

There are a number of issues in the NOPR that came 

in at the end of the day to be effective in 30 days. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Are you going to describe 

them later today? 

 MR. MESSNER: Yes, we’ll get into those, 

but there’s -- 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Before you go any further, 

can you address, Robert, the issue of the timetable 

he was referencing, how these timetables sync up? 

 MR. van BUSKIRK: There’s no -- 

 MR. MESSNER: And even with those test 

procedure changes -- so the NOPR -- the calculations 

in our mind, we don’t know whether it represents the 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

17

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

final test procedure. Certainly it doesn’t 

represent the NOPR because the NOPR had a number of 

13 or a number of other items that were brought it. 

Additionally, the crosswalk that’s there today that 

talks -- that deals with temperature and volume is 

based on a theoretical calculation. Some of the 

data, we had provided during the PTSD for some of 

the product classes, but now we’re at 36, 37 product 

classes, so it took five or whatever the number of 

product classes’ data and used those to try to fit 

in the remaining 32 product classes, and uses other 

product classes to -- difference of a couple product 

classes divided by to get slopes for other product 

classes, so it’s a very theoretical crosswalk at 

this point. 

 And maybe, when you have a refrigerator in 

a lab and you test it, the theoretical calculations 

match reality, and if that happens, fantastic. But 

if it doesn’t, we just need to make sure that it 

does because not always what happens on a piece of 

paper applies to the real world. 

 MR. van BUSKIRK: And I think today’s 

meeting provides an opportunity to discuss the 

degree to which the crosswalk that’s in the current 

proposal is as accurate as it can be, or, you know, 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

18

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

has uncertainties, and today’s meeting provides an 

opportunity to discuss how, given uncertainties that 

may arise between the equations in the proposal and 

what may happen in the real world, what the best 

technical approach for addressing those 

uncertainties might be. 

 MR. MESSNER: Yeah, and it’s -- we’ll try 

to comment, but it’s -- you can’t -- I think where 

the gap is, is you can’t talk about equations 

without a test procedure. I think we all understand 

that the normal procedure, you do the test procedure 

first, and then you do the standards. We’re doing 

the standards and we’re trying to comment and 

discuss about standards without a test procedure. 

So it’s difficult to comment on, and speculate on a 

test procedure that doesn’t -- that we don’t know 

what it is. 

 And so if the test procedure had only 

temperature and volume changes, and we would then go 

and test those, or double check the calculation for 

the other product classes that we had done before, 

then we could do that. But we don’t know that. We 

don’t know if anti-sweat heater or variable -- we 

don’t know a cool down. We don’t know what all’s 

going to be in there. So it’s hard to say oh, your 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

19

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

methodology and crosswalk is great based on a test 

procedure that doesn’t exist -- final test procedure 

that doesn’t exist, and a NOPR that brought in other 

factors that we don’t know how those are going to be 

addressed in the final test procedure. I mean, 

there’s no way to do it. It’s not possible. 

 MR. van BUSKIRK: For the sake of clarity 

in discussion, I want to try to break those issues 

down into components. So one issue is whether or 

not the test procedure that assumed in the proposal 

is well defined. The other issue is, given the 

rulemaking schedule, how much time there is 

available to address all the test procedure issues 

involved. So I’m going to separate those two. 

 On the first issue the sort of 

definitional assumption of the current proposal is 

that the test procedure is whatever it was defined 

in the test procedure NOPR. 

 MR. MESSNER: That’s but -- okay, how are 

the 13 or some-odd things that are in that NOPR -- 

that’s what I guess I’m having trouble. The cooldown, the anti -- variable anti-sweat -- there’s a 

number of things in there, 13 items that were 

supposed to come into effect in 30 days. 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: We’re kind of in an 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

20

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

opening remarks -- 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah, right. Right. So 

let me just say, these are key issues, glad you’re 

raising them. We need to do our best to try and 

deal with them in the course of the day. Let me say 

also that this meeting was composed for appliance 

standards, not a test procedure, specifically, so I 

may have to rely on the Department of Energy to 

guide this discussion, tell me where these 

boundaries are, noting that they’re linked, of 

course, as you say. 

 So let’s proceed then with opening 

statements. And Robert, thanks for the 

clarification. We want to get to these issues as 

best we can. We’ll proceed with that and then as 

we’re going through the content in the remainder of 

the day, we’ll get into as much depth as we think is 

possible without subordinating our principal 

purpose. 

 MR. MESSNER: I think the first comment 

block gets into this. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So are you finished 

with your initial comments, Kevin? 

 MR. MESSNER: I am. Sorry, everybody. 

 MR. WAGLEY: And I would like to repeat 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

21

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

that in the presentations there are sections that we 

have indicated there are issues that are particular 

to those. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments here at the 

outset? Tom Eckmann. 

 MR. ECKMANN: Tom Eckmann, Northwest Power 

and Conservation Council. I just, on behalf of the 

other side of the table, want to say that we 

support, we continue to support the consensus 

agreement that was submitted in August. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Tom, I think it’s helpful 

to have a sense on the record of the level of 

support that it’s been sustained and that it’s going 

forward as planned, that sort of thing. Can you 

represent that to us? 

 MR. ECKMANN: Yes, I think I can. We’re 

falling behind the agreement. We have these 

technical issues to work out in terms of the 

crosswalk, that was a major discussion point around 

the table, knowing that that had to happen, so 

that’s still an issue, but the levels that were 

acceptable to all the parties are the levels that 

are still acceptable to all -- 

 MR. BROOKMAN: I’m just going to press 

this point just a little bit. 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

22

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. ECKMANN: Yes. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: The parties that are 

acknowledged as being in agreement surrounding this 

proposal, they’re still in agreement? 

 MR. ECKMANN: Yes. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, that’s what I 

wanted on the record. 

 MR. ECKMANN: All the parties that were 

signatories, still would sign it. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, great. Thank you. 

Other comments here at the outset before we get into 

the content? Okay, then, so let’s then march into 

it. Detlef. 

Market and Technology Assessment 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: Thanks, Doug. I think I 

introduced myself earlier. Detlef Westphalen with 

Navigant Consulting. I’m going to be talking about 

some of the analyses done initially as part of the 

preliminary analyses that have been revised as part 

of the NOPR analyses, the market and technology 

assessment, screening analysis, and engineering 

analysis. 

 You’ll notice if you’ve taken a glance 

through the presentation that we’re not providing as 

much detail as might have been done in previous 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

23

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

meetings. There’s been sort of a guidance provided 

from management that these meetings need to be 

shortened, and we need to focus and be concise. And 

for this particular presentation, we do need to make 

sure that all these issues for where we request 

comments are put up on the table, and that’s how we 

structured it to provide background leading into 

those requests for comments. So you’ll see that 

that’s how we’ve structured the entire presentation. 

 That doesn’t mean if you have other issues 

and concerns that you can’t bring them up, and 

certainly Doug and Subid will work to make sure that 

that’s done in an orderly fashion. 

 For the market and technology assessment, 

the issues that I’ll be talking about are the test 

procedure, max tech levels, and product classes. 

And, as Kevin mentioned, test procedures early in 

the agenda here. The test procedure schedule: the 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in May 

of this year. We had a public meeting on June 22nd, 

and DOE is in the process of finalizing the final 

rule. 

 We already talked about some of the 

proposed changes affecting the measured energy use, 

the compartment temperature changes and the volume 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

24

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

measurement method. Those were the two test 

procedure changes primarily considered in the 

establishment of the equations, and coming up with 

the energy standard NOPR. And there was an 

adjustment of the current standard levels, current 

baseline energy use levels, to account for these 

test procedure changes, and that’s discussed in the 

TSD. The engineering section talks a little more 

about the details of some of that work that was 

accomplished with input of AHAM data. We’ll get 

into that a little bit later. 

 But issue 23, the test procedure changes, 

DOE requests comment on its adjustment of the 

current energy standards to account for the test 

procedure changes, in particular, DOE requests 

comment on the approach used to adjust the standard 

levels to address the compartment temperature 

changes and the volume measurement method changes. 

 And DOE also requests comment and seeks 

information on whether any other proposed test 

procedure changes should be considered in setting 

the new standard. DOE seeks information quantifying 

the impact of the energy use measurement of these 

additional test procedure changes, and it would also 

be helpful to have some insight as to how the energy 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

25

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

standard level for a product class might be 

adjusted. There are more details than just, okay, 

here’s one product that has this kind of a 

measurement change. Because these are standards 

that affect all the products in the product class. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Well, I’d like to ask you a 

question, Detlef. I notice it says in the preceding 

slide, your third bullet, “DOE is in the process of 

finalizing the final rule.” Can you say anything 

more about that timetable or is it hard to say? 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: Can we say anything, 

Michael? 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael Kido. 

 MR. KIDO: It will be finalized. I don’t 

know if I can say imminently, but we expect it to be 

finalized before the final rule for the standards is 

ready to go out. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So that’s helpful because 

that gets to Kevin’s issue that -- it’s going in the 

direction of your issue concerning timing. 

 MR. MESSNER: Yeah, and I understand you 

have to say -- it has to be done before the 

standard, but that could be the day before and I 

also heard you say imminently, which was a good word 

to hear. Imminently to before the standard is a big 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

26

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

-- could be tomorrow or the day before. 

 MR. KIDO: All I can say is we are doing 

our best to try to get it out as quickly as 

possible. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: I hear a reflection in that 

that they heard you. 

 MR. Messner: DOE is always a good 

listener. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: I want to make sure -- did 

we capture that on the record? Did we get that one? 

 Okay. So you see the comment box is here. 

Let’s see if we can respond to the comment, issue 

number 23 is listed here. 

 MR. MESSNER: I’ve got plenty more to say 

but I don’t want to -- if others want to chime in on 

this issue. Well, maybe we can pick up where we 

left off, testing -- Detlef you said, the testing, 

each of these aspects for 18 product classes, doing 

that and getting a final test procedure and then 

testing again to make the crosswalk, all of this in 

under 60 days. Put aside company lab space and huge 

burdens in cost though it has to be done to test all 

these products, and then if you test one factor, 

let’s say the variable anti-sweat heat and energy 

conduit, or the whole special compartment operating 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

27

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

in the highest energy use, each of those factors, 

you test them separately, is that -- are they 

additive? Do they impact each other? I don’t know. 

Maybe some folks here from companies know, but is 

that equivalent to testing the whole test procedure 

at once, and then doing the crosswalk, and seeing 

how those impacts, whether they’re additive or 

synergies, or I don’t know. 

 And so I hear you, that you’d like to have 

information on each of these and how they impact the 

energy, but if we have 60 days to make the crosswalk 

and -- it’s hard to see how that even could happen, 

even put aside resources and funding and cost 

implications. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: What is the effective date? 

 MR. MESSNER: 2014, January 1, 2014. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So I’m confused about -- 

isn’t there a time lag where -- 

 MR. MESSNER: Yeah, there’s a three year 

lead-in time. The problem is that if you have a 

standard equation finalized by the end of the year, 

and you have that three years, we negotiated, let’s 

say a 25 percent increase, the new equation, we 

think, reflects that 25 percent increase, but then 

we get a test procedure, test the refrigerator and 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

28

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

realize crosswalk was off 20 percent. If it’s 20 

percent in one direction, it’s only a five percent 

increase. If it’s 20 percent in the other, it’s a 

45 percent increase, and that equation is final, 

it’s not -- the compliance data’s not until 2014, 

but it’s final. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: You need that three years 

to work it all out? 

 MR. MESSNER: No, it has to be done before 

the 60 days is up. We need to have the equations 

right -- here’s the situation, you’ve got three 

years until those become effective. We don’t have 

any time to do -- we have to change those equations 

before the 60 days is up, and you can’t do it 

without a test procedure. 

 MR. van BUSKIRK: Okay. So now I do 

understand that. So keep going. 

 MR. MESSNER: You were saying how the 

NOPR, the crosswalk reflects a NOPR, but I guess I’m 

unclear how it reflects the NOPR, because the 

crosswalk just talks about the calculations for 

temperature and volume changes, and doesn’t address 

anything about the anti-sweat heat, and the 

compartmental changes, the cool down, all these 

other issues that -- I mean, as described the 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

29

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

convertible special compartments operate in their 

highest energy use position. That’s new. It’s 

highest energy use. That’s got to impact energy, 

probably. So that’s where I think I’m missing the 

disconnect. 

 MR. van BUSKIRK: Robert vanBuskirk, 

Department of Energy. So there may be a bit of a 

disconnect because the -- I think one issue we need 

to discuss at this meeting is what would the 

criteria for a crosswalk be. So the -- I’m not 

sure, I think, Detlef correct me if I’m wrong, but I 

think our current criteria for a crosswalk is that 

if you test a sort of reasonable population of 

refrigerators with the new test procedure, that used 

the range of technologies in the engineering 

analysis, that they could comply with the standard 

at the cost that’s expressed in the engineering 

analysis. Is that basically our criteria for the 

crosswalk? 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: Well, let me address that 

by saying that the EPCA requirement for a crosswalk 

does not have much meat on it at all. It talks 

about testing some product -- I don’t know what the 

exact words are, but it doesn’t say anything about 

statistical representations of all the products in 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

30

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

the class. 

 MR. van BUSKIRK: So our main criteria is 

whether or not a refrigerator can be built with that 

test procedure at the cost that is expressed in the 

engineering analysis. 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: I think the issue here is 

that if I picked a baseline refrigerator of 

particular characteristics and did the crosswalk 

testing, I would get one result. But if somebody 

else tested [a different unit], they would get a 

different result, and it depends on the product 

characteristics. 

 MR. van BUSKIRK: Right and I think the 

issue at hand is there is a tremendous diversity of 

sort of features and designs in the actual 

population of refrigerators. 

 MR. MESSNER: No, it’s actually -- well, 

yes, but that’s not -- I guess I’m still back at in 

our agreement we talked about the crosswalk is you 

test a minimally compliant product. In a perfect 

world you have a minimally compliant product, you 

test it in the old test procedure, and then you test 

it in the new test procedure. If it’s 500 kilowatt 

hours per year under the old test procedure and it’s 

505 kilowatt hours under the new test procedure, 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

31

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

that’s your crosswalk, 500 to 505, then you take 25 

percent, 25 percent efficiency off of that, so you’d 

have to test a minimally compliant and if it’s a 

little more, then you’d have to make those 

adjustments to back those standards. But that’s the 

crosswalk. 

 MR. van BUSKIRK: So the question I have 

is, is the minimally compliant refrigerator well 

defined? 

 MR. MESSNER: Yeah, you just find a 

refrigerator that meets the standard as close to the 

standard today for the product class. 

 MR. van BUSKIRK: But if the new procedure 

is testing a new feature, like anti-sweat heaters -- 

 MR. MESSNER: Right. 

 MR. van BUSKIRK: -- then there may be a 

minimally compliant refrigerator with anti-sweat 

heaters and one without. And so when you’re adding 

a feature to a test procedure, that wasn’t in the 

older version of the test procedure, then that 

breaks apart the sort of good definition of what a 

minimally compliant refrigerator might be. 

 MR. MESSNER: Right. 

 MR. van BUSKIRK: And I think what we want 

to understand is how much in the crosswalk we’re 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

32

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

trying to construct are we capturing some 

refrigerators that maybe have high energy using 

features that just weren’t measured before, and in 

the crosswalk, are we trying to allow those 

inefficient versions of those features to still 

operate unchanged? Or is the standard level with 

the new test procedure putting some pressure on 

those new features? 

 MR. MESSNER: Well, see, the agreement was 

to have -- 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Let me interrupt. I just 

want to make sure for the record, this is exchange 

is going between Robert and Kevin. Kevin, go ahead. 

 MR. MESSNER: The agreement is that the 

minimally compliant refrigerator today, I should 

pick a number probably closer to a 25 percent 

increase. You take a refrigerator that maybe has 

anti-sweat heater. It’s compliant today. Let’s say 

it’s right on, just hits the standard. Were this in 

a perfect world, you make the crosswalk and it’s 

compliant tomorrow -- I guess I should say minimally 

compliant -- let’s say it’s 25 percent more 

efficient than the standard today. With the 

crosswalk, it should be in compliance tomorrow, and 

given that there are some products in that product 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

33

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

class, there’s going to be variation, you’re going 

to have to test one at a low volume, and one at a 

high volume, get the line and not every 

refrigerator’s going to be on that line. But 

whether or not the crosswalk that’s done here is a 

representation of the line because it ignores all of 

the additional attributes that are out there today. 

That’s what we need to figure out, and I would say, 

for example, testing convertible and special 

compartments with compartments operating at their 

highest energy use position, I would imagine that’s 

a lot of refrigerators that have special 

compartments, and compartments operating. I don’t 

think that’s a niche market. 

 MR. van BUSKIRK: So I think a technical 

issue that is before us, this is Robert vanBuskirk, 

DOE, is when there is variation in that minimally 

compliant refrigerator, should the crosswalk be for 

the population average of the minimally compliant 

refrigerator, or should it be for the sort-of 

minimally efficient population? 

 MR. MESSNER: Yes, it’s the minimally 

compliant. I think we used the term, average. But, 

yeah, there’s going to have to be something, but 

you’ve got to do a low volume and a high volume, and 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

34

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

then -- so yeah, there’s going to be some above and 

some below the line, looking at the curve. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: I thought what Robert was 

describing and watching you that he was just trying 

to do something that was conceptually possible. 

 MR. van BUSKIRK: Yeah, if I may comment. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Robert. 

 MR. van BUSKIRK: I think we understand 

each other, so we both recognize that when the test 

procedure changes, there may be variation in the 

performance of a minimally compliant refrigerator 

under a new test procedure. When there is variation 

in -- so what I’m hearing from the comment is that 

when there is variation in the population of 

minimally compliant refrigerators, that the 

reference point is the average performance. And a 

crosswalk should take the average performance of a 

population of minimally compliant refrigerators and 

have that population average still be compliant in 

the new test procedure. 

 MS. MAUER: Yes, and I think that’s -- 

I’ll double check our agreement, it’s been a few 

months, but I think it’s actually those words that 

we used. It’s certainly the word conceptually, the 

lowest common denominator and -- 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

35

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. BROOKMAN: And does that accommodate 

any additional features that are listed here? 

 MR. MESSNER: No, that address, I think 

conceptually, like we said, we’re all on the same 

page, but that does not address the overarching 

question is, you can’t do any of that without the 

test procedure, because you can’t test at a low and 

a high and we have our member companies test -- get 

a population, do a curve fit from a low and a high 

volume based on the new test procedure, and get a 

slope based on a regression analysis, and get a 

line. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: It’s a good thing that you 

understand each other conceptually. 

 MR. van BUSKIRK: And I think there is -- 

the follow up, so to repeat my understanding of this 

follow up comment, is what I hear is that because 

there are interactions between the different 

features of a refrigerator, you are commenting that 

it is difficult to test feature by feature or make 

the crosswalk feature by feature, that because of 

those interactions one has to do the crosswalk from 

a full test procedure to a full test procedure. 

 MR. MESSNER: Yes, that is what I’m 

saying. Well, we don’t know whether, if you do 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

36

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

feature by feature and you add them, because there’s 

so many combinations, we’d have to just guess, okay, 

let’s do an anti-sweat, let’s do a compartment, and 

let’s go separate and then add those together. 

Okay. But that’s not the test procedure. The test 

procedure says I can do cool down and the antisweat, so that actually would have an impact. So 

you don’t know, there’s so many hypothetical or so 

many possibilities, we’re just pulling our hair out, 

couldn’t test every possible, you know, 13 -- factor 

13 or whatever, possibilities. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Kelly. 

 MS. KLINE: I’m Kelly Kline from GE. I 

just want to reiterate what Kevin is saying, and 

that certainly is the case from a manufacturer’s 

perspective. We think it’s critical to be able to 

really truth test that, truth test the crosswalk, in 

practice. And I guess just to pick up on another 

point that Kevin, I think, explained our concerns 

that we share very well. We are on the same page 

here. One of the reasons why we are concerned about 

it, and the additional 13 factors, we do think there 

are some in there that could have a significant 

impact, so it’s not -- these are things not just 

very within the margins here. We do think there are 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

37

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

some that could have some observable impacts that we 

would need to really focus on and make sure got 

captured in the crosswalk. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

 MS. KLINE: I guess just one final 

thought. I appreciate DOE discussion on the timing 

of the issuance of the NOPR. To the extent we were 

able to look at the NOPR, as much time as we had to 

look at that and digest the final test procedure 

piece would allow us to much more fully comment and 

be more educated about the specific impacts we think 

that we would have in our comments on this 

rulemaking. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you for that. 

So my sense is we’ve covered a lot of ground here. 

I’m wondering if there’s other ground to be covered 

now or whether we should move on. Kevin, yes. 

 MR. MESSNER: I’m sorry, for the rest of 

the day I probably won’t talk as much, this is it. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: This has been ground to 

cover. Go ahead. 

 MR. MESSNER: It’s kind of the 

foundational of this whole NOPR. Is there any other 

option -- and I realize DOE’s on the deadline of 

December 31st, thinking outside the box of options 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

38

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

you could extend that deadline, and we could resolve 

this properly. Or figure out a way, if a final 

[test procedure rule], if it’s imminent and coming 

out -- imminent in my mind means next few days, next 

Monday or Tuesday, that would be something to work 

with. If those two options aren’t there, the only 

third option that I -- and I don’t know if there is 

other regulatory options available to DOE, NODAs or 

some posting test procedure preliminary test 

procedure that’s not final, I don’t know. That’s 

where lawyers can get creative. 

 MR. KIDO: Well, the statute requires that 

we issue something by December 31, 2010, and just 

for the record, in case you care to look at the 

calendar, December 31, 2010 is actually a federal 

holiday, which means that we actually have to get 

this thing, the standard, the final rule, out by the 

30th. 

 In terms of some sort of preliminary 

approach, I guess one thing that I suppose could be 

considered, I’m not saying that this would 

necessarily be appropriate here, would possibly be 

an interim final rule that addresses certain aspects 

of our proposal. But in doing so, that would mean 

that certain other aspects would have to be 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

39

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

addressed at a later point in time. 

 For example, if the issue here is really 

all with the test procedure itself, and there are 

certain things that raise a whole lot of ambiguities 

that no one really understands what the exact 

impacts are going to be, it’s -- it might be 

possible to defer those items later on, but I’d have 

to go back and take a look. But that would also 

assume that there are certain things that everyone 

agrees upon. 

 So what I heard today was temperature, and 

volume -- those might be things that everyone is on 

the same page in terms of what that means for the 

potential standard impacts. I would say that a 

common theme that DOE has raised over and over 

again, with respect to a lot of the different things 

that we proposed in that Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking from May 2010 of the test procedure, was 

that if, for example, there are certain things that 

are likely -- certain things that we propose that 

are likely to have a significant impact on energy, 

I’m pretty certain that we had asked, what do you 

think that impact is going to be? Can you quantify 

it? Are there computer models that can be done 

based on the proposal that we had back in May that 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

40

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

can help give you guys an idea, and help us in 

figuring out what these potential impacts would be, 

and maybe we could use that to sort of feed into the 

crosswalk. 

 We don’t have all that data, and I think 

individual manufacturers might be in a better 

position to try to come up with estimates, 

reasonable estimates as to those values. So there 

might be options, but we’d have to explore them and 

it’s not entirely clear that those options would 

necessarily need to be exercised at this point. But 

we’ll examine them. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Robert, go ahead. 

 MR. van BUSKIRK: I think, you know, it’s 

not my role to give legal interpretations, but one 

of the legal constraints on the Department is what 

we call the anti-backsliding provision. And a 

possible interpretation of that anti-backsliding 

provision is that when there’s a change, it doesn’t 

necessarily -- it may not necessarily apply to the 

population average. So if there is variability, and 

if there is an anti-backsliding provision, then that 

change in the regulation needs to assure that no 

individual product can backslide. So that’s a 

tighter constraint potentially, when you’re trying 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

41

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

to do a crosswalk based on the population average. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Kevin. 

 MR. MESSNER: Kevin Messner. But then the 

anti-backsliding, that applies when you do a test 

procedure and no standards changed. So we’re 

talking about a standards change, so I’m not sure 

how the anti-backsliding plays in, unless you’re 

talking about -- 

 MR. van BUSKIRK: This is speaking to say 

changes that may happen later in a test procedure. 

So if you were asking for legal possibilities on 

maybe making some changes now and some changes 

later. 

 MR. MESSNER: I think the bottom line is 

we want to make sure we’re not in a position where 

we end up making certain changes and later on we 

ended up having a less stringent standard down the 

road. So I think that’s the bottom line in that. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: That was useful I thought, 

Kevin, you want to keep going? 

 MR. MESSNER: No, I think that’s -- we’ve 

probably beat this to death. Other folks have said 

all they can. I appreciate it. It’s helpful. 

It’ll be helpful when we see the either interim or 

final test procedure, the sooner the better, and we 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

42

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

can start checking it out and start getting to where 

we all want to be. So thanks a lot. And thanks 

for the Department, it’s always helpful to hear 

what’s possible from their perspective. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, let’s proceed with -- 

are there other responses to this comment box that 

you see here before you on slide 14? 

 MR. MESSNER: Well, I guess for the 

record, I just wanted to list kind of the four major 

test procedure proposals that would have an impact 

on measured energy, for the record. We kind of 

alluded to them in our discussion, but the test 

procedure for variable anti-sweat heat energy 

contributions, the DOE proposes to modify the GE 

waiver and that’ll result in higher measured energy 

use. We’ll get into why, but it’ll all affect the 

energy use. 

 Testing convertible and special 

compartments with the test procedure to state that 

other temperature controllable compartments with 

controls set in the highest energy use. The current 

test procedure provides a temperature control 

compartments be tested with the control set at the 

coldest setting. So those are not necessarily the 

same. 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

43

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 Third, a proposal to capture precooling 

energy, capture precooling energy that just by 

themselves is going to impact energy, and DOE stated 

on the test procedure NOPR that the precooling can 

represent about two percent of the total energy. 

 And fourth, proposal to address multiple 

defrost cycle types. The DOE proposed that the 

second part of the test be applied separately to 

each of the defrost cycles, so that’ll impact the 

energy as well. 

 So those are the four that I wanted to 

highlight that will impact the energy use and will 

affect all the things that we kind of more in the 

weeds and what we’ve been talking about. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Subid. 

 MR. WAGLEY: I would just like to 

emphasize on Michael’s point before that, we’re open 

for comments period and we’ll really appreciate-- I 

mean it doesn’t have to wait until the final test 

procedure comes out, but if there’s any relevant 

information that we can utilize for the current 

rulemaking in the standards aside, please feel free 

to submit them. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: I presume you mean 

quantified? 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

44

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. WAGLEY: Correct. 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: Yeah, this is Detlef. I 

was going to ask Kevin if any of -- if there has 

been any quantification of those four effects that 

you could share, that the manufacturers could share 

with DOE at this point. 

 MR. MESSNER: No, I don’t have anything to 

share with you today. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Luke. 

 MR. HARMS: Yeah, I just want to -- this 

is Luke Harms -- I just want to reemphasize a few of 

the things that Kevin mentioned. First of all, with 

regard to the anti-sweat heating devices, we firmly 

believe that there is significant opportunity for 

energy use changes as a result of the test 

procedure. And I also want to mention that there’s 

also a significant test burden. The last piece that 

Kevin mentioned, you’re adding at least an 

additional week to the testing for these products, 

so there’s a major concern there as well. 

 And then I just wanted to give an example 

on the special compartment issue. There are 

currently refrigerators on the market that have 

devices such as heaters and/or fans that help in 

situations for the refrigerators in a very cold 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

45

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

environment to prevent refrigerated food from 

freezing, and that’s one example where they have 

higher energy usage. And there’s a test burden 

there as well because certainly if you have to test 

at the highest energy use and when these other 

features are running, there’s additional testing 

required. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks for that. 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: Again, this is Detlef. 

I’d like to ask perhaps for these special 

compartments that might have heaters or fans, 

whether there’s additional data that might help DOE, 

such as what model numbers have these, or what 

percentage of models, what kind of wattages of 

heaters and/or fans are involved and whether there’s 

any understanding of the energy use impacts 

associated with the switching to highest energy use 

position. 

 MR. MESSNER: No, we don’t have any -- it 

kind of gets to the point I was talking about 

earlier is the manufacturer’s labs could be just 

devoted to testing all these different issues, and 

we’re trying to kind of balance. We want to do this 

right. We want to give DOE the data that it needs, 

but spending three months of lab space testing all 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

46

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

different pieces, 13 different pieces in different 

iterations, and then testing again on the crosswalk, 

it’s just a mountain too high to climb. I mean, 

we’ve got to figure out a way to minimize this 

testing burden to get you guys what you need and get 

the crosswalks to where we need it. So that we can 

produce some testing within this tight timeframe, 

but testing every single solitary specific, and 

every possible model and then giving it to you, I’m 

not sure that even gives you what you want because 

then is it additive? You know, like I said before, 

is this -- can you add it to this, and that to that, 

and then put them all together, and then you’ve got 

to retest again, so we need to try to figure how to 

balance that within the next 45 days or whatever we 

have left. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Kelly. 

 MS. KLINE: Just to pick up on what Kevin 

said, I mean I think part of it’s kind of a catch 22 

because from a manufacturer’s perspective, before 

embarking on the testing, we would like to have the 

exact formula, the exact test procedure that we 

would be using to test. So it’s -- I think what 

you’re seeing here, partly is waiting to see what 

parameters should define the exact test that we 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

47

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

would then be using. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Gotcha. I think 

we’ve covered this sufficiently now. Yes? So we’re 

going to move on. 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay, next topic here is 

max tech -- the max tech efficiency levels are 

listed in, I believe it’s Section 3 of the NOPR. 

They’re generally, for the product classes analyzed, 

higher than the max available efficiency levels, and 

this reflects consideration of max tech designs and 

the analysis that may not been cost-effective, and 

therefore not in current products. 

 This slide is intended to show the 

distribution of design options used for different 

product classes and the analysis, and I note there 

are two mistakes in this chart. The variable antisweat heater control should not be in the five 

built-in, and the adaptive defrost should not be in 

the 3A built-in, all-refrigerator built-in. I think 

this is correct in the TSD, it might not be in the 

NOPR. 

 MR. WAGLEY: Could you just repeat those 

corrections? Got the five built-in -- 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: Five built-in does not 

include the variable anti-sweat control. 3A built-
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

48

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

in does not include adaptive defrost. 

 MR. WAGLEY: And we’ll make those changes 

before we post it on line. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Subid. 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: And the request for 

comment on Max-Tech levels, DOE requests comments 

on the max-tech levels identified and on the 

combinations of design options considered applicable 

to achieve max-tech designs. DOE requests the 

comment also address, as appropriate, the 

differences in applicable design options for 

different product classes. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Comments on these preceding 

slides, max-tech levels? No comments. Okay. 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: Next topic is product 

classes. This is kind of a big topic, the number of 

product classes has increased. DOE is proposing to 

add product classes as follows. First of all, 

French-door, bottom mount refrigerator-freezers with 

through-the-door ice service, the product class 5A. 

This is a product class that was established through 

the exception relief process through the Office of 

Hearing and Appeals. 

 Also chest freezers with automatic 

defrost, again established through the Office of 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

49

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Hearing and Appeals process. 

 The third bullet here, all-refrigerators. 

This includes product classes 1A, 3A, 11A, and 13A. 

This set of product classes was split out from their 

product classes in the current energy standard 

because of the compartment temperature changes in 

the test procedure. All-refrigerators are currently 

tested with a 38 fresh food compartment temperature, 

which will move to 39, whereas the basic 

refrigerators or refrigerator-freezers, those are 

products with sizable freezers, currently tested 

with a 45 degree fresh refrigerator which will move 

down to 39. So clearly, for one set of products, 

energy will increase significantly, for the other 

set of products, it will go down, so there’s an 

inconsistency there. The EPCA allowance for the 

product features of value that distinguish products 

with sizable freezers is justification for splitting 

these product classes. 

 Products with automatic ice makers without 

through-the-door ice service, the proposed test 

procedure includes a fixed place holder value adder 

for the energy use associated with automatic ice 

makers. That energy, for products with through-thedoor ice service, there’s no difference. The 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

50

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

assumption is you always have an ice maker because 

it has through-the-door ice service. However, 

products that do not have through-the-door ice 

service could have an ice maker or could not have an 

ice maker, so those product classes have been 

separated out. There’s a designator “I” next to the 

product class number that indicates that that 

particular product class has an ice maker. 

 And then finally, built-in products. This 

product class was discussed throughout the 

rulemaking-- starting in the framework, there were 

some comments made, the preliminary analysis 

provided some initial indications of potential 

efficiency capability differences of these product 

classes, and so new product classes have been 

established to address these product classes. 

 Issues for public comment. There’s two 

issues here. First of all, product classes for 

automatic ice makers, DOE requests comments on 

establishing product classes for refrigeration 

products with automatic ice makers, and on the 

proposed approach to account for ice makers in the 

product class structure. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Comment on these? Kevin. 

 MR. MESSNER: I was just going to make a 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

51

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

general comment, Detlef, we’ve got some technical -- 

we’re going through the descriptions on the charts 

and things like that, and we’ll have some comments 

to provide you on that, and some product classes 

that do have ice makers that you need an I class for 

that aren’t in there, so we’re trying to get all, to 

make sure we’ve got everything done right and we’ll 

provide those in more detail in the written 

comments. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Other comments on 

these two boxes? 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: I think Kevin’s comment 

addresses issue five, additional product classes to 

address additional combinations of ice making and 

built-in. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So why don’t you proceed to 

the next slide. 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: Yep. This slide 

addresses potential combination of product classes. 

DOE does not propose at this time to combine product 

classes 1 and 2, nor to combine product classes 11 

and 12. This had been discussed at the preliminary 

analysis phase, and DOE requests comment on the 

decision at this point not to propose combination of 

these product classes. 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

52

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Comments on this? 

 MR. MESSNER: I would just say it mirrors 

the agreement. It’s good. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: We are on issue -- comment 

box number six. Kevin. 

 MR. MESSNER: This is Kevin Messner. I 

was just saying this mirrors this agreement. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: I see Tom nodding his head. 

 MR. ECKMANN: Yes, we agree. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: The proposed definition 

for built-in products. DOE proposed a definition to 

distinguish these products from other conventional 

free-standing products. Built-in refrigerator, 

refrigerator-freezer or freezer means any 

refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer with 

7.75 cubic foot or greater total volume, and 24 

inches or less depth, not including handles, and not 

including any custom front panels; is designed to be 

encased in the sides and rear by cabinetry; is 

designed to be securely fastened to adjacent 

cabinetry walls or floor and has sides which are not 

fully finished and are not designed to be visible 

after installation. 

 The 7.75 cubic foot limit was introduced 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

53

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

as recognition that as part of the 2001 standards, 

relief was provided for compact product classes, and 

DOE did not feel that, as described in the NOPR in 

more detail, that it was appropriate to include the 

compact products in the built-in split of product 

classes. 

 The issue for public comment, DOE requests 

comment on the proposal to establish separate 

product classes for built-in refrigeration products, 

and requests comment on the proposed definition. Is 

it sufficiently strong to distinguish built-in 

products from conventional products? Is there 

something that can be done to strengthen it without 

disqualifying true built-in products? And also 

whether the proposed 24-inch dimension specified is 

appropriate, or should that be adjusted? 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So comments on this? 

 MR. ECKMANN: This is Tom Eckmann from 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. It’s not 

exactly what we proposed, so I don’t think we have a 

consensus to comment on it yet. 

 MR. MESSNER: I guess we’re wondering why 

-- yeah, why -- why the changes were made. 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: Some of those were made, 

tightening up some of the language, and Michael may 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

54

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

be able to speak to that more. The 24 inches 

restriction was inserted because in a lot of the 

discussion regarding built-ins and why they use more 

energy, the shallow depth was mentioned as a key 

reason. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael Kido. 

 MR. KIDO: Like Detlef said, I think one 

of the considerations that we had was that the 

definitions that were -- I think -- I don’t know if 

they were part of any kind of consensus agreement, 

but I do recall seeing something that AHAM had 

proposed, and we were concerned that the language 

that was proposed by AHAM as an alternative would 

have created the risk of potential gaming. Now if 

there is -- and because there is some wiggle room 

with respect to some of the terms that were used, 

and as the comment says, if you’ve got some 

suggestions as to how we can ensure that any true 

built in product is adequately covered by the 

definition, while ensuring that we don’t have a 

situation where anyone can sort of indicate that 

they’ve got a built-in product when it really isn’t, 

that would be extremely helpful. 

 MR. MESSNER: Yes, this is Kevin with 

AHAM. Our agreement does have a definition. It’s 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

55

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

not an AHAM definition, and we talked about this 

definition and talked about that exact issue, to 

ensure it’s air-tight, or as air-tight as you can 

make it. So we had a consensus agreement on the 

definition, and that’s why I was curious that this 

does not mirror that agreed-upon definition, and we 

did talk about that gaming -- potential gaming issue 

at length, and thought there were plenty of caveats 

in there to ensure that didn’t occur with the walls 

and the side test and the finishing and that type of 

thing. 

 MR. ECKMANN: This is Tom Eckmann. It 

would be helpful if we could hear your thinking on 

what was in the consensus agreement and what this 

definition provides that is somehow or another more 

gaming-proof. Because we were trying to write one 

that was. And if we missed something, maybe we 

could take it up. 

 MR. KIDO: Right. I’d probably have to 

have both versions before me so I can sort of go 

through them, but the recollection that I have was 

that there were certain sections in that definition, 

consensus definition, that left certain things openended, and I’m not certain that we wanted to 

necessarily leave things -- 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

56

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. ECKMANN: Could you be specific about 

those? 

 MR. KIDO: Like I said, I can’t do it 

unless -- if I had it in front of me, I could 

probably do it, but if you want to meet later to 

discuss it, I’d be more than happy to. 

 MR. ECKMANN: I’m sure we have a copy. 

 MS. KLINE: Yeah, I have a copy of that. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So maybe -- 

 MR. KIDO: Do we want to address this now 

or should we address it during the break? 

 MR. BROOKMAN: You can look at it during 

the break and we can capture your thoughts on the 

record when we return from break. 

 MR. ECKMANN: Our intent is the same, but 

we’re just trying to get to, you know, if there’s a 

reason for a difference, then we may not have a 

difference. 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: Just as a note, when we 

were developing the NOPR, we had the AHAM definition 

as part of the AHAM comments for the preliminary 

that we worked with, and the NOPR provides detailed 

explanation of why we made certain changes from 

that. Now the consensus definition might have 

additional changes we could consider that haven’t 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

57

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

been really reflected in the NOPR. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Do you need the consensus 

agreement, or do you have it? 

 MR. KIDO: Well, the definition I guess I 

had been thinking about was the AHAM definition, so 

maybe it’s -- maybe the consensus definition isn’t 

one that I’ve seen before. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So we’ll take this 

up again, perhaps after the break, after Michael’s 

has had a chance to look at it. Very good, so let’s 

move on. 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: Also regarding product 

class definitions, DOE proposes to eliminate the 36 

inch height restriction for compact products. This 

is explained in detail in the NOPR as to why DOE is 

making this proposal. Essentially, it has to do 

with an inability to explain why the 36 inch height 

restriction makes a difference in ability to improve 

efficiency. 

 Issue for public comment is DOE requests 

comment on the proposal to eliminate the current 36 

inch height limitation for compact products. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Joanna. 

 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. The consensus 

agreement does not include any change to the 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

58

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

definition of compact products, so it still includes 

this 36 inch height limitation, the way it currently 

is the definition. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So then -- okay, thank you. 

Kevin, you want to -- yes. 

 MR. MESSNER: I agree. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. I think that takes 

care of it then. 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: Unless we want to take a 

break, I’ll move on to screening analysis. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: I think we can go a little 

bit longer before we take a break. 

Screening Analysis 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: Screening analysis issues 

raised for comment address compressors, vacuum 

insulated panels, and isobutane refrigerant. 

 On compressors, during some of the 

discussions with manufacturers and looking over some 

of the information that came during the NOPR 

analysis, there was a suggestion that there might be 

supply issues associated with the highest efficiency 

and variable speed compressors. DOE did some 

investigation of this issue and concluded that the 

supply base will be able to ramp up to provide the 

products with efficiency levels and characteristics 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

59

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

as used in the NOPR analyses. 

 The issues for public comment, DOE 

requests comments on DOE’s findings regarding 

projections of supply of high efficiency and 

variable speed compressors. In particular, DOE 

seeks information that would confirm or cast doubt 

on DOE’s conclusions regarding compressor supply. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Kelly. 

 MS. KLINE: Just a note, we can provide 

further detail in our written comments, but that is 

something that we’re still concerned with and don’t 

necessarily agree with that conclusion. And we’ll 

provide more detail in our written comments. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. I just wonder if we 

have another manufacturer or two or AHAM that wishes 

to make a representation here? Nothing more? Okay. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: And the other issues that 

are listed there that are related to the screening 

analysis. Any comment on those? 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: Vacuum insulated panels -

- this was discussed at the preliminary. Some of 

the investigations DOE conducted as part of the NOPR 

analyses described in the TSD, Appendix 4A, I 

believe, and some of that is also in the NOPR. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

60

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: And isobutane 

refrigerant, any comments on DOE’s treatment of 

isobutane refrigerant in the analysis. 

 MS. KLINE: Kelly Kline, GE. Yeah, a 

couple comments here. I think that this is actually 

not the right conclusion that isobutane would not be 

viable but only for compact refrigerators. Based on 

a couple things, looking at the DOE analysis. First 

of all, I think a lot of the reasoning is grounded 

in the 50 gram charge limit, which I understand, 

that is the current version of the UL rule, which as 

noted is being considered to be revised to include 

some revisions to the charge limitation. 

 But primarily, in terms of the UL 

standard, I think what DOE was not focusing on here 

is that that will allow a 50 gram charge per sealed 

system. So primarily, it’s not -- it’s not a single 

limit for the refrigerator. It does allow for 50 

grams per sealed system. So that’s the primary 

point. 

 And the second point is that as DOE, as I 

understand it, looked at products existing on the 

market and showing that full sized refrigerators 

were not currently designed for 50 gram charge 

limitation, I think that what that’s not realizing 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

61

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

is that manufacturer plans have really been 

dependent on the EPA SNAP approval for this 

refrigerant, which of course the proposed rule has 

been issued which would provide that approval. 

We’re waiting on the final rule. That is really 

going to be the trigger when you’ll see, for the 

most part, those sorts of products on the US market. 

 So you can’t look at what’s out there now 

and say there’s nothing other than compacts that 

would need it, because the products are really only 

going to be introduced when the EPA snap approval is 

finalized, and those would be new designs, new 

designed refrigerators to meet the UL limitations 

and have UL certification. 

 So I think for both of those reasons, the 

analysis that 50 grams, the UL charge limitation 

rules out the use of isobutane in household 

refrigerators is flawed. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: That was helpful, thank 

you. 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: May I ask whether DOE 

could be provided with additional technical 

information that would support any revision of the 

analyses, technical detail on potential designs that 

would address the 50 gram limits with new 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

62

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

technology? 

 MS. KLINE: We can certainly provide some 

additional information. I think there would be some 

sensitivity around providing specific design 

information for new products that would meet those 

limitations, but we can certainly provide additional 

information on the UL standard, I think. I 

certainly can’t speak for EPA, but I think EPA would 

also be useful in weighing in here, and I’d be 

curious to hear other comments in the room, but I 

think that we could certainly provide further 

information on how products would be able to meet 

those charge limitations. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. Okay. Good. 

Additional comments on isobutane refrigerant. Okay. 

Engineering Analysis 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: Now moving on to the 

engineering analysis, if we’re all going strong. 

 This slide touches on the crosswalk issue 

again a little bit. It goes into some of the 

details of the way this was done for the analysis. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s take a break now, 

shall we? It’s now 10:25. We’ll break for 15 

minutes. Is that okay with everybody? Yeah. We’ll 

break for 15 minutes, which means we resume at 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

63

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

10:40. Make sure you wear your badge in the 

building. 

 (Whereupon, the hearing was off the record for 

a 16-minute recess.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. If you could all 

take your seats we’re going to start back up. 

Before we went to the break, we had cued up that 

Michael Kido was going to look at the definition 

issue that was raised earlier. So Michael Kido. 

 MR. KIDO: Thanks, Doug. And looking at 

the definition that was given to me by a 

representative from NRDC, it looked like the one 

aspect of that definition that gave me a little bit 

of pause was there is a phrase in there about “is 

intended to” and it’s not entirely clear what would 

constitute intent. So I think that was the main 

concern that we had about how do you ensure that 

that particular term is narrowly construed in a way 

that doesn’t allow for potential gaming by a 

manufacturer. Otherwise, it looked like the other 

elements of the definition seem to marry up fairly 

closely with what was proposed. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Seeing as how this is an 

aspect of consensus agreement, could you provide 

guidance to them on how that might be addressed, or 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

64

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

should they come back to you with some additional 

assurance? How might this be advanced? 

 MR. KIDO: Well, I think I’d like to let 

the folks over at NRDC and the manufacturers, and 

ASAP and NPCC to use their creative thinking. I 

think there’s some options there. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. So now 

we’re going to proceed with Detlef. 

Engineering Analysis 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay. We were just 

launching into the engineering analysis part of the 

presentation here, and this slide here talks about 

the baseline energy use for the new test procedure; 

steps through the process used to establish what we 

call baseline energy use equations according to the 

new test procedure. This was initially explained in 

the preliminary TSD and is also repeated in the NOPR 

TSD. 

 This was based on receipt of AHAM data 

that described for a number of different product 

classes, the percent change and energy use 

measurement and volume measurement for a number of 

product classes. This was modeled -- Kevin 

mentioned the modeling -- this was modeled in such a 

way that the energy use of the two test procedures 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

65

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

was assumed to be proportional, such that the energy 

use ratio could be applied to the current energy use 

measurement to determine an average new test 

procedure energy use measurement. 

 We were kind of restrained to that 

interpretation by the form of the data. We didn’t 

have the data, we just had top level information. 

Likewise with the volume calculation adjustment 

factor, which adjusts the calculated adjusted volume 

from the current test procedure value to the new 

test procedure value. 

 Then given these relationships between 

current and new energy use, and current and new 

volume measurement, the TSD goes through the algebra 

to determine how the new intercept and slope should 

be determined from the old intercept and slope. And 

so we get a new intercept value that is the ESAF 

times the old intercept value and the new slope 

value that is ESAF divided by VCAF times the old 

slope value. 

 DOE also raised the slopes of the baseline 

energy use equations for three product classes. The 

intercepts were lowered to maintain equal average 

energy use. And this was done for product classes 

4, 5, and 5A. For product class 4, DOE used the 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

66

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

energy use equation slope for product class 7 -- 

both products are side-by-sides, one has through the 

door ice. It’s not clear why having the through the 

door ice would impact the trend with size increase, 

so the product class 7 value, which is a side by 

side with through the door ice, was used for product 

class 4, which is a side by side without through the 

door ice. 

 For product class 5, DOE obtained data for 

two pairs of products that differed just in size, 

and this data shows that the current slope is about 

half as much as it should be, and DOE chose the 

average of the slopes of product classes 3 and 7 for 

product class 5. The product class 3 and 7 slopes 

are fairly close, one of them was 10.7, the other 

was about 11.3, and a slope of 11 was used for 

product class 5. 

 And then, the intercepts were reduced so 

that the average of all the energy use of a 

distribution of products would be the same. And DOE 

does not have information on distribution of 

products as with how many are in each size, so DOE 

instead used the point in the center of a reasonable 

range of product sizes, and DOE would welcome any 

data that would allow refinement of that selection 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

67

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

of the pivot point. 

 So on the issue for public comment, slope 

adjustments for baseline energy use, these equations 

-- and I’m not going to read through all of this, 

but basically we request comment on the approach 

used for the adjustment of these slopes and also any 

data that would perhaps help us adjust this to more 

accurately reflect something that would provide a 

result which when changing the intercept, that might 

be equal -- the initial baseline energy use 

equation. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Please. 

 MR. HALL: Dave Hall with Electrolux. On 

the previous slide, 29, where it’s saying the 

intercepts were lowered to maintain an equal average 

energy use, then you describe that some mean product 

size was used here. Does that mean that it is the 

average of 7.75 cubic feet and 30 cubic feet for all 

of these cases? Because that would be one method. 

And if not, what actual method was used for each 

class for determining its average? 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: Well, we did this only 

for a few classes as mentioned, and you can see in 

the plot here for product class 4, we selected a 

small end of the range that represents the smallest 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

68

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

side by side product class 4 that you would expect 

to see on the market, and a large end of the range 

that would represent the largest. I believe that 

might have been 20 cubic foot on the small end, and 

30 cubic foot on the large end. So we adjusted the 

intercept so that the equation was reduced at the 

small end by the same amount that it was increased 

at the high end. So that if you add up the energy 

use of all of those products, if there’s an equal 

distribution from the 20 cubic foot to the 30 cubic 

foot, you get the same number before and after the 

adjustment of intercept slope. Did you follow that? 

 MR. HALL: I do, I just question that it 

seems more of an aggregate approach to an entire 

category, summing and that sort, rather than taking 

a specific volume at a low end and mean, lack of a 

distribution of a current market for a current 

class, say 5A, taking whatever is currently in the 

market, for example, and doing the distribution 

based on what the market is, versus 7.75 to 30 cubic 

foot. Because I’ve heard two different volumes for 

one particular class, and I’m not sure it’s based on 

the real market for that class. And at the same 

time, doing that, is it confirmed -- has it been 

confirmed that by doing this certain products on the 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

69

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

market will not be penalized by the averaging method 

used? 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: I think you have multiple 

questions there. In response to the question about 

whether some products may or may not be penalized, I 

think because of the variation inherent in how the 

current products respond to the compartment 

temperature changes, some products will benefit and 

not increase energy use as much with the compartment 

temperature changes as others. Some products will 

have more increase associated with the compartment 

temperature changes, and they will have more 

difficulty getting down to the new standard. This 

is an issue that has been inherent in this process 

from the start. 

 As mentioned before, the data that we 

received from AHAM was top level. If we had the 

individual data points, we could have determined the 

slope, because we would have had the information on 

this product has this volume has this energy use and 

this increase with the new test procedure. And 

this, at a larger volume has this increase. But we 

didn’t have that individual data, so we couldn’t do 

that. And we would welcome that data. We asked for 

it a long time ago. 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

70

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments. Kevin? 

 MR. MESSNER: That was actually the same 

question I had, but just so I’m clear, looking at 

that curve, essentially what you’re saying is the 

area under -- on each side of that where they pivot, 

the area under each of those sides are equivalent. 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: Right, that’s the intent. 

 MR. MESSNER: So depending on how far down 

you go lower, that was your intent to turn it around 

too? 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: Right, and the other 

issue is, this assumes equal distribution from small 

to large. We don’t know what the distribution 

really is. We presume that that’s a fair way to do 

this adjustment, to say shipment weighted average 

energy use remains the same. 

 MR. MESSNER: That’s not a shipment weight 

average, that’s just a strict average that you’re 

saying. 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: Because we don’t have the 

input. 

 MR. MESSNER: Okay. I understand. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So you see it’s a rather 

detailed comment box there, take a peek at it, see 

if there are additional comments that you would like 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

71

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

to make at this juncture. 

 Nothing additional? Okay. 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: So the next two slides 

reiterate the modifications made in the engineering 

analysis. This table was provided in a NOPR. I’m 

not going to go through all of these details. It’s 

in the NOPR, it’s here in the handout. 

 Based on the comments made during the 

preliminary analysis phase and additional 

information obtained during the NOPR phase, many 

changes were made to the analyses, and this kind of 

gives a blow by blow of all of those changes. If 

you have any questions about particular changes feel 

free. 

 And I believe there is an error on the 

second of these two pages, the variable defrost 

compressor run time between defrosts, for the NOPR 

analysis, it say 30 hours, but I think we actually 

used 24 hours. I need to confirm that and we can 

correct that. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Since they have the tables, 

you can proceed to the comment box. 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay. So the issue for 

public comment here is on treatment of design 

options and the engineering analysis, DOE requests 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

72

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

comment on its treatment of design options in the 

NOPR phase analyses. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s just pause for a 

moment, give you a chance to look. 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. I’m looking 

especially at the industry reps here. Okay. 

Proceed. 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: We have an additional 

issue for public comment. As described in the NOPR 

and also the TSD, the engineering analysis was based 

heavily on energy use modeling using the ERA 

program, and DOE requests comments, information 

and/or data that would permit the adjustment of 

energy modeling inputs in our results that would 

allow more accurate representation of the energy use 

impacts of the design options using the ERA energy 

model. 

 The model was placed on the DOE website 

some time this spring, I forget the exact date, so 

it’s available for review. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: I don’t see any -- we’re 

just seeking general comments on the modeling 

effort. Comments? 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay. So this is where 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

73

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

my part of the presentation transitions. I think I 

may have a role later on. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Jeff Greenblatt. 

Markups, Energy Use, Life Cycle Cost, Shipments, 

National Impact Analyses 

 DR. GREENBLATT: Hello everyone. My name 

is Jeffery Greenblatt with Lawrence Berkeley 

National Lab. I’ll be talking about several 

subsequent steps in the analysis, starting with 

markups, and going through to the national impact 

analysis, I believe. 

 We’re not going to be covering all of 

these steps in detail, but again, only the ones for 

which DOE specifically requested comment. 

Markups

 The first topic I wanted to discuss was 

the issue of markups. DOE did receive some comments 

on the use of incremental markups in the analysis 

for determining the final consumer price. Just as a 

quick background, all of you probably know this, and 

it’s been like this since the preliminary analysis. 

Several markups are applied to the initial 

manufacture cost in order to determine the final 

cost that the consumers see according to a supply 

model which is pretty simple. It goes from 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

74

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

manufacturer to retailer to consumer. 

 The issue was over the appropriateness of 

the use of incremental markups for the retailer, and 

after careful consideration of the data that DOE 

had, it was determined that an incremental markup 

approach is still appropriate. Essentially, the 

argument being that not all of the costs increase 

proportionately when an increase in efficiency is 

incurred for a product. Most of the cost of 

maintaining a retail outlet don’t change, perhaps 

except some costs associated with increased 

advertising and so on, and this has been described 

in detail in the TSD. 

 The DOE did examine the number that had 

been used in the preliminary analysis and updated it 

using slightly newer US census data, so the new 

incremental markup is 1.17, but DOE feels that the 

incremental markup approach is still appropriate. 

 So DOE requests information regarding the 

likely retail responses to an incremental change in 

efficiency and whether this would be correctly 

reflected in the approach that DOE chose. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

 DR. GREENBLATT: Shall I go on, Doug? 

 MR. BROOKMAN: I don’t see any response, 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

75

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

so yes, keep going. 

Energy Use

 DR. GREENBLATT: The next topic I’ll cover 

is Energy Use, and energy use load characteristic. 

So there are a few topics here. I’ll discuss these 

adjustment factors in a moment, but first a couple 

of things to mention. In response to some comments 

from stakeholders, DOE decided that there was a way 

to distinguish top and bottom mount products in the 

distribution of data provided by the residential 

energy consumption survey, or RECS, which DOE uses 

heavily to determine distributions of energy use and 

other characteristics for a number of home 

appliances. Because of data that was provided to 

DOE from AHAM, which examined the relationship 

between household income and the type of standard 

size refrigerator-freezers that were owned, DOE 

determined that we could essentially scale the RECS 

data which -- RECS doesn’t distinguish between top 

and bottom mount freezer-refrigerators, so they’re 

all just one big pool. But there is a strong 

relationship between income and the ownership of 

bottom mounts. So more people who are wealthy own 

bottom mounts as opposed to top mounts. 

 So what DOE decided to do was weight more 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

76

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

heavily households that had higher income when we 

produced the bottom mount refrigerator distributions 

as opposed to top mounts, who were weighted much 

more heavily in the other direction, and this 

allowed us to obtain two samples that were not the 

same when producing our distributions of ownership 

for these two product classes. So this only applied 

to product classes 3 and 5. 

 Similarly, since built-in products were 

not initially part of the preliminary analysis, and 

is not indicated at all in the RECS data, built-in 

versus regular refrigerator, because of the income 

relationship with ownership of built-ins, DOE was 

able to determine a distribution for built-in 

product ownership that was more heavily weighted for 

higher income users. So, for instance, things like 

probability of having a large size refrigerator, or 

the probability of having a side by side that’s also 

a built in, could be reflected, at least 

approximately, through this method based on income. 

So DOE used this AHAM relationship for determining 

the built-in household distributions. 

 Finally, and the reason I’m mentioning all 

these together is there’s only one issue box here 

that sort of summarizes them. DOE also noticed that 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

77

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

the raw volumes from RECS did not -- for product 

classes 5 and 7 -- did not seem to reflect 

accurately, at least from sales data from NPD Group, 

it seemed to be biased low by between 16 and 18 

percent, compared to NPD Group, which has sales data 

from 2007 and 2008. And because we use RECS data 

which is from 2005, as a forward-looking prediction 

for where the market may be in 2014, DOE decided it 

would be better to scale up the average volume for 

these two product classes in order to reflect where 

the market was in 2007, 2008, which of course 

reflects just new models. And so we used -- we 

essentially just scaled up the volumes for all of 

the units coming out of the RECS Monte Carlo 

stimulation by these amounts. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: You see the comment box 

there. Subid? 

 MR. WAGLEY: I would just like to 

reiterate that we’re not saying it is true, but just 

for the analysis purposes and coming up with the 

results, this is the methodology that we used, so 

we’re just asking for comments whether this is a 

true representation of the analysis or not. 

 MR. ECKMANN: Tom Eckmann, I think that’s 

a reasonable approach, given what clearly is an 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

78

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

income-related event here, purchase of a more 

expensive refrigerator is certainly connected to 

income. 

 MR. WAGLEY: And when you come to the 

income and the demographics and all that, and all 

kinds of issues and theories thrown at it, so we 

just wanted to make sure that the approach and the 

methodology that we used is somewhat -- makes sense 

to come to a result. 

 MR. ECKMANN: There’s a statistical 

connection. Pretty much. I don’t know what the 

correlation is, but probably is reasonably above 

point five. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks, Tom. 

Jennifer? 

 MS. CLEARY: I think AHAM would continue 

to oppose the use of the RECS data for determining 

energy use as we consistently have and urge using 

the test procedure as a better approach. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Other comments 

on this series of issues related to scaling? Okay. 

 DR. GREENBLATT: Then the next comment, 

which may be Jennifer’s comment more particularly 

would address the usage adjustment factors for 

determining the energy use of refrigerators and 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

79

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

freezers in the field. There was considerable 

stakeholder feedback in the use of RECS data that 

included an estimate of energy use by household. 

And in response to that, DOE developed a new 

approach based on field meter data. After basically 

looking in whatever sources were available for field 

metered studies that have been done in prior years, 

we were able to obtain high quality data from seven 

different metered studies between 1994 -- the 

metering dates between 1994 and 2004, a total of 

over 1500 data points, also representing a number of 

geographic areas in the west, northeast, and the 

Midwest. And used this data to perform statistical 

analyses from which new usage adjustment factors 

were obtained for standard size products, that is 

standard sized refrigerators and standard sized 

freezers. 

 Once we obtained these UAF functions, they 

were then applied to the RECS household variables, 

so just to be clear, we’re not using the RECS energy 

use any more, but we’re using household variables to 

drive this UAF function, which is then multiplied by 

the test energy consumption associated with each of 

those RECS household refrigerators or freezers, to 

come up with a field energy consumption projection. 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

80

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 The variables that we used from RECS 

included heating and cooling degree days [which is 

a] reflection of geographic location, the location 

within the home, the number of occupants and the 

unit age. 

 This table shows the change in the mean 

UAF from the preliminary analysis, and you can see 

that in each case the mean UAF has decreased, in 

some cases significantly. Also just emphasize that 

there is a function of age for standard size 

refrigerators, and so what’s shown here is both the 

average value for the entire sample in year one as 

opposed to year 20, and then also the average over 

the lifetime. In addition, there’s slightly 

different UAF values given for the built-in product 

classes because, as was described earlier, the 

household distribution is slightly different. 

 So DOE requests comments on its approach 

for developing these UAFs to determine field energy 

consumption. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Tom Eckmann. 

 MR. ECKMANN: Well, since we asked you to 

go get some metered data, I can’t say anything but, 

very good job. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: As I look at this chart, I 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

81

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

think it’s a really good chart. I like this chart. 

It’s clear, complete. I like it. Kevin. 

 MR. MESSNER: I just had one question on 

the RECS households. 

 DR. GREENBLATT: Yes. 

 MR. MESSNER: Mine’s a little fuzzy 

memory, is that -- what were those households? Is 

that where you guys went into college dorms? 

 DR. GREENBLATT: Oh, no, not college 

dorms. No. The RECS households are the -- around 

4000, statistically sampled households from across 

the country. 

 MR. MESSNER: Okay. 

 DR. GREENBLATT: Yeah, to be clear, we 

examined data from a number of sources and also 

excluded about 500 data points from our initial 

sample in order to produce what we see. So the 

college dorm -- actually, it wasn’t college dorms, 

it was hotels -- and that was excluded. We felt the 

sample wasn’t sufficiently representative to use. 

 MR. MESSNER: Okay. Thanks. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So let’s move to the 

comment box. 

 DR. GREENBLATT: Okay. DOE requests 

comments on its approach to the developing UAFs 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

82

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

using field metered data. We’ve already received 

one comment. Additional comments? 

 MR. BROOKMAN: No additional comments. 

Life Cycle Cost 

 DR. GREENBLATT: Thank you. Within the 

section of the NOPR analysis dealing with life cycle 

cost and payback period analysis, there is one 

change that we wanted to highlight and request 

comment on. This is a flow diagram showing all the 

steps that are used in producing life cycle cost and 

payback periods. Based on stakeholder feedback, DOE 

made a change to the estimate of the repair cost, 

which if you recall from the preliminary analysis, 

it was assumed that there was no incremental change 

in repair cost. 

 DOE has since obtained data from a number 

of sources in order to estimate component by 

component, the repair rates and incremental costs, 

so the results -- I’m just going to skip all this -- 

if people have questions, you’re of course, free to 

comment, but the results are that we now have 

estimates for the baseline annual repair cost which 

vary from product class from about $1.43 to $22 per 

year, but that doesn’t change with efficiency level. 

What’s important is the incremental repair cost, 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

83

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

[which] varies with product class from about 67 

cents to about $2.58 per year, and this has now been 

included in the life cycle cost analysis. 

 DOE requests comment on the approach used 

for estimating these repair costs. 

 MR. ECKMANN: Tom Eckmann. So how was the 

data, I guess, manipulated, to get at the 

incremental repair cost, given that maybe you’re 

looking at -- are these high efficiency equipment 

repair costs? 

 DR. GREENBLATT: Yes, first I would 

emphasize the numbers -- sorry, I wasn’t clear or I 

didn’t clarify this. The numbers I’m showing here 

for incremental repair costs, that’s at the max tech 

level that we analyzed it, so they would be lower at 

the proposed standard level. 

 MR. ECKMANN: So these are scaled with the 

level? 

 DR. GREENBLATT: Yes, so we have a chart 

that actually shows as a function of efficiency 

level for each product class what the incremental 

repair costs would be. 

 MR. ECKMANN: And those are extrapolated 

from max tech? 

 DR. GREENBLATT: It’s based -- so it’s not 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

84

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

an extrapolated -- 

 MR. ECKMANN: The slide said max tech is 

not available for most of these product classes, so 

I wondered how you got there. 

 DR. GREENBLATT: All of the cost data -- 

so I can explain in one more level of detail without 

getting into the nitty-gritty, unless people want me 

to. We used the incremental component cost from the 

engineering analysis in order to obtain these repair 

costs. Essentially it’s a product of a probability 

of a repair being needed, times the cost of that 

component being replaced, plus the markup, of 

course. So yes, it is theoretical in the sense that 

there may not be a product that has all of these 

components present in the same product, but it is 

based on existing products, as I understand it from 

the engineering analysis, at least at the component 

level, such as the presence of a variable speed 

compressor, we’re looking at the incremental cost of 

that compressor being replaced, times the 

probability of it breaking. 

 MR. ECKMANN: I’ll read it. 

 DR. GREENBLATT: Okay. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So Jeffery, explain the 

approach comments on repair cost estimates. 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

85

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 DR. GREENBLATT: Okay. So the next topic 

is base and standard case efficiency distributions. 

Base case distributions are used to project market 

shares of higher efficiency products in the absence 

of standards, so recognizing that not all consumers 

purchase products that have the base efficiency 

level, but there’s a fraction that purchase at 

Energy Star or other levels in between, or beyond 

Energy Star. These base case efficiency 

distributions were determined using 2007 and 2008 

data supplied by AHAM. 

 The main change is that now that we had 

2008 data, there was a change in the Energy Star 

level for 2008 for standard size refrigeratorfreezers and this was taken into account, allowing 

Energy Star. So for 2008, the Energy Star market 

share, understandably, was lower than what it was in 

2007, and we allowed the Energy Star market shares 

in future years to slowly return to the pre-2008 

level, following the data that we had by product 

class. 

 The main reason for us doing this had to 

do with a stakeholder comment concerning the very 

high market share of Energy Star for product class 5 

which are the bottom mount freezers, and so that has 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

86

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

been revised. It’s now lower because in 2008 it was 

significantly lower, but still quite a bit above the 

25 percent, which is typically assumed to be the 

target for Energy Star, so it’s very product class 

specific. 

 Also for predicting Energy Star levels in 

terms of where the Energy Star level would be set, 

this used a five year payback period criterion that 

Energy Star -- conversations with people at Energy 

Star said is used in determining where to set that 

level. 

 And then for the standards case efficiency 

distribution, which is again -- now we assume that 

there is a new standard and where -- what would be 

the distribution of actual purchases by consumers 

under that standard, we applied the roll-up approach 

used in the preliminary analysis, but also assigned 

Energy Star -- future Energy Star levels using the 

same five year payback criterion, and noted that 

because of the cost efficiency curve, the Energy 

Star level vanishes for efficiency levels higher 

than 15 percent above the current baseline. In 

other words, that there was no five year -- there 

was no level at which the payback period was five 

years or less in all cases. 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

87

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 So DOE requests comment on both the base 

case efficiency use distribution approach, and in 

forecasting the base and standard cases efficiency 

levels, the approach used for forward forecasting. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments on 

these subjects? Okay, no additional comments. 

Utility and Environmental Impacts, Employment 

Impact, and Regulatory Impact Analysis 

 DR. GREENBLATT: Now moving on to the NOPR 

analysis, there are a number of steps, most of which 

DOE has no specific requests for comment, but there 

is a request for comment under environmental impact 

analysis. The emissions baseline -- 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Would you pause right there 

just for a moment. 

 DR. GREENBLATT: Yes. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So go back to the slide 47. 

No specific requests for comments on those analyses 

listed, however there is an opportunity to do so 

should anybody wish to make a comment before we move 

on. Life cycle cost subgroup, trial standard 

levels, manufacturer impact analysis, employment 

impact analysis, regulatory impact analysis. 

 MR. WAGLEY: This is Subid Wagley. As I 

described, these are the factors for the analysis 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

88

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

required to measure the factors by EPCA. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

Environmental Impacts

 DR. GREENBLATT: Yes, so moving on to the 

environment impact analysis. DOE had a request for 

comment about one specific part of the regulatory 

emissions reductions calculations. The emissions 

baseline is based on the latest Annual Energy 

Outlook forecast, and we -- DOE actually uses the 

same code NEMS, modified slightly because we’re 

looking at a different scenario, so we call that BTNEMS, in order to calculate the emissions reductions 

under the standard. 

 For NOx in particular, it accounts for 

regulatory emissions reductions through 2008, 

including the CAIR rule, but not CAMR, which is the 

mercury rule. Because CAIR only applies to 28 

states which essentially is setting a cap, so if 

there was a decrease in say, consumption, because of 

the efficiency standard, because there exists a cap 

in these states, people could essentially buy and 

sell permits and the overall amount of NOx would not 

change. However for the 22 states that do not 

participate in CAIR, the BT-NEMS calculate that 

there would be a reduction in NOx, which is why we 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

89

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

calculate one in our analysis. 

 DOE requests comments on its baseline 

treatment of this emissions reduction, specifically 

for NOx. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Comments on NOx? No 

comments. Okay. 

Proposed Standard Levels 

 DR. GREENBLATT: Okay. We’re actually at 

the proposed standard levels, so I think we were 

going to do this together, Detlef and I, but -- do 

you want to stand up here? It may not be necessary, 

but -- 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: There’s not much here 

that you can’t say. 

 DR. GREENBLATT: Probably, but it was 

listed to share, but you can hover. 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: I can jump in. 

 DR. GREENBLATT: All right. So the 

proposed standards, as you know, are presented as 

functions of adjusted volume on the pages listed of 

the NOPR. There is a correction for product class 

5A-BI. Yes, you wanted to interject a 

clarification? 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: The decimal point was in 

the wrong place for 5A-BI 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

90

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. BROOKMAN: That’s good to know. 

 DR. GREENBLATT: Yes, it could make a 

difference. 

 PARTICIPANT: It would have been obvious, 

I hope. 

 DR. GREENBLATT: At very high level -- 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So for the record, Detlef 

adds that there was -- the correction is that there 

was a decimal point in the wrong spot, so DOE has 

corrected that. Proceed. 

 DR. GREENBLATT: Rather than go into all 

35 product classes or whatever, we thought we would 

just present a high level summary here. All the 

TSLs for individual -- sorry, all the trial standard 

levels for individual product classes are, of 

course, listed in the NOPR, and the TSD. The 

proposed standard level, which is essentially a 

basket of these various actual efficiency levels 

grouped by product -- similar product classes, is 

shown here. The national energy savings and net 

present value calculations and impact on industry 

net present value are all summarized here. 

 The one thing -- I mean, I’ll pause here 

and ask if stakeholders have any specific comments 

on the proposed levels chosen, emphasizing that 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

91

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

these do mirror what were in the joint comments. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Joanna. 

 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. I think there’s 

just one small discrepancy for one of the product 

classes between the level in the consensus agreement 

and the proposed level, so it’s -- in the consensus 

agreement for product classes 13 and 15, which are 

the compact top and bottom mounts, we agreed to the 

same equation for both product classes, even though 

currently those product classes do not have the same 

standard level. And there may have been an 

oversight on our part, I think we presented the same 

equations, but I think in kind of a summary table 

where we had the percentage reductions of energy 

use, I think we may have listed those two categories 

together with a 15 percent reduction energy use, so 

that may have been an oversight on our part, that it 

actually should have been a slightly different 

percentage reduction, so that the final equations 

for those two product classes were the same. 

 DR. GREENBLATT: So does that mean you all 

need to submit some additional information to the 

Department? 

 MS. MAUER: We can certainly clarify in 

our written comments. 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

92

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. MESSNER: Well, the chart shows -- it 

says 13/15, basically merged the two. So 15 is 

using 13, so you can either say 13/15 using product 

class 13 equation, or you can keep them as 13/15 and 

use -- it’s product class 15 is using product class 

13’s equation. 

 DR. GREENBLATT: Equations. So if I can -

- this is Jeff Greenblatt -- so if I can just ask 

for a clarification there. So the percentage 

reduction from the baseline, then, for these two 

product classes are not going to be the same. It’s 

the equation is the same but there’ll actually be a 

sort of -- 

 MR. MESSNER: Right, the cons of how we 

were presenting agreement is we were merging 15 into 

13, so that product class has that percent increase, 

but 15 is merged into there, so it might be -- 

you’re right, it’ll be like 16 percent, or something 

like that. 

 DR. GREENBLATT: I understand. 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: So the product class 13 

should have the 15 percent reduction, and then the 

product class 15 should have the same energy use as 

product class 13? 

 MR. MESSNER: Exactly. 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

93

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Good. So we got all that 

on the record. That’s sufficient? Okay. 

 DR. GREENBLATT: Good. DOE did request 

comment on the proposed levels for built-ins, and 

really the reason why is as you can see from this 

chart, built-in products have a negative net present 

value, both the 3 and the 7 percent discount rates, 

which is typically not chosen, however, given that 

there were some other factors to consider, DOE did 

go with these levels, again, mirroring what the 

joint agreement had recommended. 

 And if I can say summarily, it’s a small 

percentage of the market. These are very -- the 

impact on industry in percentage terms is smaller 

than for any of the other product classes here, and 

for the consumers who would choose to purchase these 

products, even though it is a negative NPV, it’s a 

very small percentage, I believe it’s less than two 

percent of the cost of a new model, which is 

obviously much smaller than for the other products, 

because of the high price of these units. And so 

for all these reasons, DOE felt that this higher 

recommended level was justified. 

 But DOE requests comments on its 

consideration leading to the proposed standards for 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

94

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

built-in refrigeration units. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Kevin. 

 MR. MESSNER: It mirrors the agreement, 

and we’re pleased to support it. 

 DR. GREENBLATT: Okay. Thank you. I 

think I’m now going to turn things over to Detlef. 

 MR. WESTPHALEN: One thing that is being 

considered for the test procedure rule is to require 

round off of energy use measurements to the nearest 

kilowatt hour per year. And so this is also being 

proposed for the standard, and essentially to avoid 

issues where you round off the measurement and 

you’re point two kilowatt hours over the standard, 

and so DOE requests comment on the proposal for 

round off of energy standard. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Kevin. 

 MR. MESSNER: We would support the 

rounding. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: I think IRS did this in the 

past, right? Next topic, Jeff Kingman will address. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Considerations 

 MR. KINGMAN: Jeff Kingman with Navigant 

Consulting. And this is the last specific comment 

that DOE is requesting. DOE is required to consider 

the impact on small business manufacturers if it can 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

95

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

certify that any proposed rule won’t have a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number 

of small entities, and DOE only identified one small 

business manufacturer, and so it didn’t complete 

this full analysis. So we just request comment on 

that determination. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Impact on small businesses, 

small manufacturers. Any comment? 

 MR. KINGMAN: I don’t see any here today. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. No additional 

comment on that. Let’s advance to the last slide. 

Conclusions and Closing Remarks 

 MR. BROOKMAN: There is another 

opportunity for additional issues to be raised, 

summary remarks, things you don’t feel have been 

addressed sufficiently during the course of this 

public hearing today. So we’ll hear those now. 

Subid, yes. 

 MR. WAGLEY: Subid Wagley. I would also 

like to provide an opportunity for those who are on 

webinar, see if there are any clarifying questions 

that you would like to ask. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Great, and so those can 

come in while we’re receiving these final comments 

here in the room. 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

96

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 Closing remarks? Final comments? Tom 

Eckmann. 

 MR. ECKMANN: I’d like to express my 

appreciation to DOE and the consultant staff that 

helped in the negotiations. The value added was 

material in that process, so I want to express our 

gratitude for their participation. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Kevin. 

 MR. MESSNER: I’ll chime in and support 

that, it was very helpful during the whole to have 

them there during the process to bounce ideas off of 

and having their unbiased opinion. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Good. We didn’t 

give them much time, those that are joining in the 

webinar, see if any questions come in here. No. 

Okay. So then for my part, I’ll turn it back to 

Subid. Thank you. This was a very, very 

constructive meeting, a lot of very focused, 

beneficial exchange, good questions, good comments, 

good back and forth, so thanks to all of you and 

Subid. 

 MR. WAGLEY: Yes, and again, on behalf of, 

you know, the team who put this together and all of 

us here with the support team, we’d like to thank 

you for coming on board. I was really hoping to go 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

97

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

to the whole day meeting, but happy to say that 

we’re able to understand each other with the issues 

that were raised, and be able to explain. 

 So we look forward to receiving comments. 

It is open and we have our notes, so we will be 

making corrections to the PowerPoint slides, errors 

and things like that, so if you see anything in the 

next few days, feel free to let us know. 

 And again, thank you. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Safe travels. 

 (Whereupon, at 11:31 a.m., the hearing in the 

above captioned matter was adjourned.) 
Executive Court Reporters 

 (301) 565-0064 

98

1 

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

 This is to certify that the attached proceedings 

before: 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

In the Matter of: 

 ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS: 

ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR REFRIGERATORS, 

REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND FREEZERS 

 Were held as herein appears and that this is the 

original transcript thereof for the file of the 

Department, Commission, Board, Administrative Law 

Judge or the Agency. 

 Further, I am neither counsel for or related to 

any party to the above proceedings. 

 

 

Wendy Greene 

 Official Reporter 

Dated: October 15, 2010