TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

In the Matter of:

AMENDMENT TO THE TEST PROCEDURE Docket EE-RM-93-701

FOR CLOTHES WASHERS

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

Pages 1 thru 68 Washington, D.C.

February 24, 1994

MILLER REPORTING COMPANY, INC.

507 C Street, N.E.

Washington , D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY 

_ - - - - - - - - x 

In the Matter of: 

AMENDMENT TO THE TEST PROCEDURE 

FOR CLOTHES WASHERS 

. Docket EE-RM-93-701 

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - x 

Pages 1 thru 68 Washington, D.C. 

February 24, 1994 

MILLER REPORTING COMPANY, INC. 

507 C Street, N.E. 

Washington, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb

MB UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

In the Matter of:

AMENDMENT TO THE TEST PROCEDURE

FOR CLOTHES WASHERS

Docket EE-RM-93-701

Thursday, February 24, 1994

Forrestal Building

Conference Room 1E-245

1000 Independence Ave S.W.

Washington, D.C.

The hearing in the above-entitled matter was

convened, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m.

BEFORE:

CARL E. ADAMS, Presiding Official

WILLIAM W. HUI

EUGENE MARGOLIS

JAMES KAO

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON , D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY 

-----------------------------------x 

In the Matter of: 

AMENDMENT TO THE TEST PROCEDURE 

FOR CLOTHES WASHERS 

Docket EE-RM-93-701 

-----------------------------------x 

Thursday, February 24, 1994 

Forrestal Building 

Conference Room 1E-245 

1000 Independence Ave S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 

The hearing in the above-entitled matter was 

convened, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. 

BEFORE: 

CARL E. ADAMS, Presiding Official 

WILLIAM W. HUI 

EUGENE MARGOLIS 

JAMES KAO 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb

A P P E A RAN C E S

On Behalf of Maytag Corporation:

DOUGLAS M. RINGGER, DIRECTOR

Product Planning

Maytag Corporation

One Dependability Square

Newton, Iowa 50208

On Behalf of Whirlpool Corporation:

MICHAEL THOMPSON, DIRECTOR

Government Relations

Whirlpool Corporation

701 Main Street (9025)

St. Joseph, MI 49085

On Behalf of Frigidaire Corporation:

DAVID B. MODTLAND, MANAGER

Washer Engineering & Hardies

Fridigaire Corporation

On Behalf of General Electric Appliances:

TERRY V. THIELE, SENIOR COUNSEL

GE Appliances

Appliance Park, AP2-225

Louisville, KY 40225

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

A P PEA RAN C E S 

On Behalf of May tag Corporation: 

DOUGLAS M. RINGGER/ DIRECTOR 

Product Planning 

May tag Corporation 

One Dependability Square 

Newton/ Iowa 50208 

On Behalf of Whirlpool Corporation: 

MICHAEL THOMPSON/ DIRECTOR 

Government Relations 

Whirlpool Corporation 

701 Main Street (9025) 

St. Joseph/ MI 49085 

On Behalf of Frigidaire Corporation: 

DAVID B. MODTLAND/ MANAGER 

Washer Engineering & Hardies 

Fridigaire Corporation 

On Behalf of General Electric Appliances: 

TERRY V. THIELE/ SENIOR COUNSEL 

GE Appliances 

Appliance Park/ AP2-225 

Louisville/ KY 40225 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb

C O N T E N T S

DIRECT STATEMENT OF: PAGE

Douglas Ringger 8

Michael Thompson 19

David Modtland 29

Terry Thiele 55

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

CON TEN T S 

DIRECT STATEMENT OF: 

Douglas Ringger 

Michael Thompson 

David Modtland 

Terry Thiele 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 

PAGE 

8 

19 

29 

55 
mb 

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S.

MR. ADAMS: It's 9:30, so I'd like to get started.

Good morning and welcome.

I'm Carl Adams, the Director of the Appliance

Standards Division of DOE's Office of Codes and Standards.

On behalf of the Department of Energy, I'd like to

thank you for taking the time to participate in this public

hearing concerning the Department of Energy's energy

conservation program for consumer products.

The purpose of today's hearing is to receive oral

testimony on the notice of proposed rulemaking regarding

amendmentsto the Department of Energy's test procedure for

clothes washers as discussed in the proposed rule in the

Federal Register on December 22, 1993.

The comments received here today and those

submitted during the written comment period will assist us

in developing the final rule.

The comment period for this rulemaking ends March

24, 1994.

All comments submitted on this proposed rule will

be considered before DOE publishes the final rule. Comments

received after the comment period will be considered to the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S. 

MR. ADAMS: It's 9:30, so I'd like to get started. 

Good morning and welcome. 

I'm Carl Adams, the Director of the Appliance 

Standards Division of DOE's Office of Codes and Standards. 

On behalf of the Department of Energy, I'd like to 

thank you for taking the time to participate in this public 

hearing concerning the Department of Energy's energy 

conservation program for consumer products. 

The purpose of today's hearing is to receive oral 

testimony on the notice of proposed rulemaking regarding 

amendmentsto the Department of Energy's test procedure for 

clothes washers as discussed in the proposed rule in the 

Federal Register on December 22, 1993. 

The comments received here today and those 

submitted during the written comment period will assist us 

in developing the final rule. 

The comment period for this rulemaking ends March 

24, 1994. 

All comments submitted on this proposed rule wil

be considered before DOE publishes the final rule. Comments 

received after the comment period will be considered to the 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 

fullest extent possible.

As the DOE presiding official for this hearing, I

will set forth the guidelines for conducting the hearing and

provide other pertinent information.

A complete transcript of this hearing will be

available for public inspection in the Freedom of

Information Reading Room as described in the notice.

Anyone wishing to purchase a copy of the

transcript may make arrangements with the court reporter.

This will not be an evidentiary or judicial type

of hearing. It will be conducted in accordance with Section

553, Title 5, United States Code, and Section 336 of the

Act.

To provide the Department of Energy with as much

pertinent informatkon and with as many views as can

reasonably be obtained, and to enable interested individuals

to express their views, the hearing will be conducted in

accordance with the following procedures.

Speakers will be called to testify based on a

schedule of those people who responded to the notice of

this hearing. The speakers have been alloted 20 minutes for

their oral statements.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

fullest extent possible. 

As the DOE presiding official for this hearing, I 

will set forth the guidelines for conducting the hearing an

provide other pertinent information. 

A complete transcript of this hearing will be 

available for public inspection in the Freedom of 

Information Reading Room as described in the notice. 

Anyone wishing to purchase a copy of the 

transcript may make arrangements with the court reporter. 

This will not be an evidentiary or judicial type 

of hearing. It will be conducted in accordance with Section 

553, Title 5, United States Code, and Section 336 of the 

Act. 

To provide the Department of Energy with as much 

pertinent informatkon and with as many views as can 

reasonably be obtained, and to enable interested individual

to express their views, the hearing will be conducted in 

accordance with the following procedures. 

Speakers will be called to testify based on a 

schedule of those people who responded to the notice of 

this hearing. The speakers have been alloted 20 minutes fo

their oral statements. 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 

Anyone may make an unscheduled oral statement

after all scheduled speakers have delivered their

statements, and at the conclusion of all presentations, each

speaker will be given the opportunity to make a rebuttal

statement subject to time limitations, and will be called in

the order in which the initial statements were made.

Questions may be asked only by the panel members

conducting the hearing. However, I will afford any

interested person an opportunity to question speakers who

have made oral presentations.

This opportunity will be afforded after any

rebuttal statements to the extent that I determine that such

question is likely to result in a more timely and effective

resolution of the issue.

Persons interested in making use of this

opportunity must submit their written question shortly after

the completion of any rebuttal statements to the

registration desk.

The questions submitted should be identified as

to who the author of the question is, and to whom the

question is being directed.

I will determine whether the question is relevant.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON , D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

Anyone may make an unscheduled oral statement 

after all scheduled speakers have delivered their 

statements, and at the conclusion of all presentations, eac

speaker will be given the opportunity to make a rebuttal 

statement subject to time limitations, and will be called in 

the order in which the initial statements were made. 

Questions may be asked only by the panel members 

conducting the hearing. However, I will afford any 

interested person an opportunity to question speakers who 

have made oral presentations. 

This opportunity will be afforded after any 

rebuttal statements to the extent that I determine that suc

question is likely to result in a more timely and effective 

resolution of the issue. 

Persons interested in making use of this 

opportunity must submit their written question shortly afte

the completion of any rebuttal statements to the 

registration desk. 

The questions submitted should be identified as 

to who the author of the question is, and to whom the 

question is being directed. 

I will determine whether the question is relevant

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 

If the question is allowed, I will ask it.

As mentioned earlier, the close of the comment

period is March 24, 1994. All comments received will be

available for public inspection at the Freedom of

Information Room in Washington.

These comments should be addressed to the

Department of Energy of energy as noted in the proposed rule

for today's hearing.

Ten copies of the written comments are requested.

In addition, the Department of Energy would appreciate an

electronic copy of the comments. We're currently using

Wordperfect 5.1. No fax comments will be accepted.

Any persons submitting information which he or she

believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public

disclosure should submit to the above mentioned address one

completed copy, and 9 copies from which information claimed

to be confidential has been deleted.

In accordance with the procedures established at

10 CFR 1004.11, the Department of Energy shall make a

determination as to whether or not the information shall be

exempt from publish disclosure.

The Department of Energy appreciates the time and

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

If the question is allowed, I will ask it. 

As mentioned earlier, the close of the comment 

period is March 24, 1994. All comments received will be 

available for public inspection at the Freedom of 

Information Room in Washington. 

These comments should be addressed to the 

Department of Energy of energy as noted in the proposed rul

for today's hearing. 

Ten copies of the written comments are requested. 

In addition, the Department of Energy would appreciate an 

electronic copy of the comments. We're currently using 

Wordperfect 5.1. No fax comments will be accepted. 

Any persons submitting information which he or sh

believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public 

disclosure should submit to the above mentioned address one 

completed copy, and 9 copies from which information claimed 

to be confidential has been deleted. 

In accordance with the procedures established at 

10 CFR 1004.11, the Department of Energy shall make a 

determination as to whether or not the information shall be 

exempt from publish disclosure. 

The Department of Energy appreciates the time and 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 

effort you have taken in preparing your statements and is

pleased to receive your comments and opinions.

I would now like to introduced the members of

today's panel.

Joining me this morning are William Hui, Program

Manager of the Office of Codes and Standards.

Eugene Margolis, General Counsel.

James Kao, Mechanical Engineer from the National

Institute of Standards and Technology.

At this time, I will start today's hearing by

calling the first speaker.

For the record, please state your name and whom

you represent.

Douglas Ringger.

MR. RINGGER: Good morning.

I'm Doug Ringger, Director of Product Planning for

Maytag and Admiral Products, Admiral Brands, and I'm

speaking this morning on behalf of the Maytag Corporation.

Rather than read through the entire statement,

which I've already submitted the written statement, I'm just

going to comment and highlight on certain sections.

First, as a general matter, our written statement

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

effort you have taken in preparing your statements and is 

pleased to receive your comments and opinions. 

I would now like to introduced the members of 

today/s panel. 

Joining me this morning are William Hui l Program 

Manager of the Office of Codes and Standards. 

Eugene Margolisl General Counsel. 

James Kao l Mechanical Engineer from the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology. 

At this timel I will start today/s hearing by 

calling the first speaker. 

For the record l please state your name and whom 

you represent. 

Douglas Ringger. 

MR. RINGGER: Good morning. 

11m Doug Ringgerl Director of Product Planning fo

May tag and Admiral Products I Admiral Brands I and 11m 

speaking this morning on behalf of the May tag Corporation. 

Rather than read through the entire statement l 

which lIve already submitted the written statement I 11m jus

going to comment and highlight on certain sections. 

First l as a general matterl our written statement 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 

addresses the-issue of timely communications by DOE with al

parties involved in matters such as test procedures which

heavily impact on the product planning of our products.

If as in the present situation, affected parties

had no opportunity to comment, DOE actions or inactions can

really unduly affect us in the marketplace. And I don't

want to dwell on this issue this morning because that's not

the purpose of the hearing, and we covered that at length in

our written statement.

What I'd like to focus on is some comments on some

critical aspects of the proposed amendment, and then invite

any questions that you might have.

Generally we support the purpose of the amendment

which is to close the loophole in the existing rule and we

have some suggestions on how that might be structured.

First, if you want to go to page four, Section 3,

it's titled, " Proposed lead time is excessive and

unnecessary." That's the first area that I just want to make

a few comments on.

We raise the issue in that section about Maytag

being at a competitive disadvantage until the test loophole

allowing a warm rinse lockout is closed. Using this

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

addresses the issue of timely communications by DOE with al

parties involved in matters such as test procedures which 

heavily impact on the product planning of our products. 

If as in the present situation, affected parties 

had no opportunity to comment, DOE actions or inactions can 

really unduly affect us in the marketplace. And I don't 

want to dwell on this issue this morning because that's not 

the purpose of the hearing, and we covered that at length in 

our written statement. 

What I'd like to focus on is some comments on som

critical aspects of the proposed amendment, and then invite 

any questions that you might have. 

Generally we support the purpose of the amendment 

which is to close the loophole in the existing rule and we 

have some suggestions on how that might be structured. 

First, if you want to go to page four, Section 3, 

it's titled, " Proposed lead time is excessive and 

unnecessary." That's the first area that I just want to mak

a few comments on. 

We raise the issue in that section about May tag 

being at a competitive disadvantage until the test loophole 

allowing a warm rinse lockout is closed. Using this 

MILLER REPORTING CO. I INC. 

507 C STREET , N.E. 

WASHINGTON I D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 1

loophole, a manufacture could offer five wash/rinse

temperature combinations versus only four for other

manufactures not using the loophole.

It is important to get this inequity, we think,

rectified as soon as possible to eliminate what we view as

an unfair position to those not using the loophole. And

that's the position we find ourselves in.

DOE is recommending that manufactures be allowed

180 days beyond the 180-day mandate after the test procedur

is finalized and is adopted to comply with the amended test

procedure.

Now, our engineers have evaluated what needs to be

done to change a control from a warm rinse lockout to a

nonwarm rinse lockout, and our evaluation shows that all

that needs to be done is some switch changes, switch

changes in the panel, and fascia changes, and we think that

would be done in a six to eight-week period. We see no

justification for the additional 180 days. And then, for

that reason, we strongly urge that that additional time not

be allowed.

MR. MARGOLIS: When you say " 6 to 8 weeks" , are

you saying that would be to make the entire line that you

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

1

loophole, a manufacture could offer five wash/rinse 

temperature combinations versus only four for other 

manufactures not using the loophole. 

It is important to get this inequity, we think, 

rectified as soon as possible to eliminate what we view as 

an unfair position to those not using the loophole. And 

that's the position we find ourselves in. 

DOE is recommending that manufactures be allowed 

180 days beyond the 180-day mandate after the test procedur

is finalized and is adopted to comply with the amended test 

procedure. 

Now, our engineers have evaluated what needs to b

done to change a control from a warm rinse lockout to a 

nonwarm rinse lockout, and our evaluation shows that all 

that needs to be done is some switch changes, switch 

changes in the panel, and fascia changes, and we think that 

would be done in a six to eight-week period. We see no 

justification for the additional 180 days. And then, for 

that reason, we strongly urge that that additional time not 

be allowed. 

MR. MARGOLIS: When you say" 6 to 8 weeks" , are 

you saying that would be to make the entire line that you 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 1

would be manufacturing to switch it over in that space of

time?

MR. RINGGER: What we're saying is if we were to

make a change, and we're assuming that the engineering work

has been done, because that very likely has been done,

because that's the way it was in the first place, we're

saying that to make fascia changes and switch changes, these

are fairly quick. You could go to the fascia manufacturer,

and they could silkscreens or whatever they need to do, and

six weeks is a very common period of time to get that done

and then get them sent and in the plant.

MR. MARGOLIS: Even while you're-- I mean, this is

mid-- you know, you've already started your manufacturing of

it, and midline-- in other words, it would be like a

midline change, and you're saying during that midline

change, all you would need is six to eight weeks.

MR. RINGGER: It's switch changes and silkscreen

changes and those are fairly quick. Even if it required a

timer change, you can completely redo a timer in six months

from scratch. I mean, you can completely redesign it. This

wouldn't-- we don't see the need for a timer change, but

even if it required just a modification of the timer, it

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

1

would be manufacturing to switch it over in that space of 

time? 

MR. RINGGER: What we're saying is if we were to 

make a change, and we're assuming that the engineering work 

has been done, because that very likely has been done, 

because that's the way it was in the first place, we're 

saying that to make fascia changes and switch changes, these 

are fairly quick. You could go to the fascia manufacturer, 

and they could silkscreens or whatever they need to do, and 

six weeks is a very common period of time to get that done 

and then get them sent and in the plant. 

MR. MARGOLIS: Even while you're-- I mean, this is 

mid-- you know, you've already started your manufacturing o

it, and midline-- in other words, it would be like a 

midline change, and you're saying during that midline 

change, all you would need is six to eight weeks. 

MR. RINGGER: It's switch changes and silkscreen 

changes and those are fairly quick. Even if it required a 

timer change, you can completely redo a timer in six months 

from scratch. I mean, you can completely redesign it. Thi

wouldn't-- we don't see the need for a timer change, but 

even if it required just a modification of the timer, it 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 1

certainly-- it certainly would be less than six months. And

so, what we see is, you know, you have the time from now

until the rule is finalized, and then there's 180 days, six

months, and then on top of that, they were given another six

months. We just think that's just way too long. That's not

necessary.

MR. MARGOLIS: Thank you.

MR. RINGGER: Okay. Now, if we go to page 5,

Section 4, " Observations on the content of the amendment,"

we have concern that this amendment will really not prevent

further manipulation of the normal cycle in ways other than

locking out warm rinse. We think there's some other things

that could be done other than just locking out warm rinse.

For example, you could design a control to lock

out hot wash, so the normal cycle only gives you warm

wash/cold wash; you could lock out hot wash.

You could design a control that would only allow

partial fill on the regular cycle.

And so, you know, there's a lot of other ways, we

think, that even though you call it the normal cycle, there

are some work arounds that could be done that could even

have greater impact than just locking out warm rinse.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

1

certainly-- it certainly would be less than six months. An

so, what we see is, you know, you have the time from now 

until the rule is finalized, and then there's 180 days, six 

months, and then on top of that, they were given another six 

months. We just think that's just way too long. That's no

necessary. 

MR. MARGOLIS: Thank you. 

MR. RINGGER: Okay. Now, if we go to page 5, 

Section 4, " Observations on the content of the amendment," 

we have concern that this amendment will really not prevent 

further manipulation of the normal cycle in ways other than 

locking out warm rinse. We think there's some other things 

that could be done other than just locking out warm rinse. 

For example, you could design a control to lock 

out hot wash, so the normal cycle only gives you warm 

wash/cold wash; you could lock out hot wash. 

You could design a control that would only allow 

partial fill on the regular cycle. 

And so, you know, there's a lot of other ways, we 

think, that even though you call it the normal cycle, there 

are some work arounds that could be done that could even 

have greater impact than just locking out warm rinse. 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 1

So,-there's some other things that even would be

more serious than this, we feel.

So, based on that, what we're doing, we're

recommending that a test cycle be defined or bounded rather

than simply using the name " normal cycle. " We're

suggesting that a test cycle be defined, rather than saying,

" Test your washer using the normal cycle," we're saying,"

test your washer using the test cycle," and then define the

test cycle.

And what that does, it leaves the-- all of the

energy calculations just like they are. The TUF's stay the

same. The calculations all stay the same. And you don't

get into this " What percent of the time is regular used,

and what percent of the time is nonregular used. IT I think

someone had suggested perhaps 75 percent of the time today a

normal cycle is used. We put in our testimony that we think

it's about-- today, the way the cycles are today, about 67

percent of the time, the normal cycle is used.

If you degrade the normal cycle, if you change the

normal cycle so it's not as attractive to the customer, the

percent of the time it's being used is going to

substantially decrease.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

1

SOl-there's some other things that even would be 

more serious than this, we feel. 

So, based on that, what we're doing, we're 

recommending that a test cycle be defined or bounded rather 

than simply using the name" normal cycle. " We're 

suggesting that a test cycle be defined, rather than saying

" Test your washer using the normal cycle," we're saying," 

test your washer using the test cycle," and then define th

test cycle. 

And what that does, it leaves the-- all of the 

energy calculations just like they are. The TUF's stay th

same. The calculations all stay the same. And you don't 

get into this " What percent of the time is regular used, 

and what percent of the time is nonregular used. " I think 

someone had suggested perhaps 75 percent of the time today 

normal cycle is used. We put in our testimony that we think 

it's about-- today, the way the cycles are today, about 67 

percent of the time, the normal cycle is used. 

If you degrade the normal cycle, if you change th

normal cycle so it's not as attractive to the customer, the 

percent of the time it's being used is going to 

substantially decrease. 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 1

If you put a normal cycle on a washer that's not

too appealing to the customer, it's not going to be 75

percent. It's going drop down to some lower number. So,

we'd always have to be adjusting on that percentage, I feel.

So, what we're saying is, why don't we just defin

the test cycle criteria. For example, the things we

outlined in our written statement was," The wash time should

be set for a minimum of 9.75 minutes of agitation, or wash

time recommended for normal soils, and at the regular

operation speed. "

Secondly, we say," All offered wash/rinse

temperature combinations be included in the energy

calculations. "

So, if on any of your cycles you offer hot/warm,

that should be included in the energy calculations. Or all

rinse temperatures for that model. Use them all. Because

that's the way it is today.

And I don't think that allows anyone to lock out

or work around that.

And then, finally, the maximum water level, and

maximum spin speed offered by that model be included in the

calculations and that would, again, prevent somebody from,

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

1

If you put a normal cycle on a washer that's not 

too appealing to the customer, it's not going to be 75 

percent. It's going drop down to some lower number. So, 

we'd always have to be adjusting on that percentage, I feel

So, what we're saying is, why don't we just define 

the test cycle criteria. For example, the things we 

outlined in our written statement was," The wash time shoul

be set for a minimum of 9.75 minutes of agitation, or wash 

time recommended for normal soils, and at the regular 

operation speed. " 

Secondly, we say," All offered wash/rinse 

temperature combinations be included in the energy 

calculations. " 

So, if on any of your cycles you offer hot/warm, 

that should be included in the energy calculations. Or all 

rinse temperatures for that model. Use them all. Because 

that's the way it is today. 

And I don't think that allows anyone to lock out 

or work around that. 

And then, finally, the maximum water level, and 

maximum spin speed offered by that model be included in the 

calculations and that would, again, prevent somebody from, 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 1

on the regular cycle, going to a lesser than the maximum

water level.

We would suggest that no option such as prewash,

presoak, extra rinse, and those kind of things would be

included in the calculations.

We think that this approach, as I indicated

before, would not change the method of calculation. You

could just leave all the formulas and the TUF's and

everything all the same, but would simply in your

definition, rather than normal cycle, say " test cycle"

rather than normal cycle.

And so, those are the two areas that I really

wanted to comment on in our written testimony.

And that's all I have, unless you've got some

further questions.

MR. ADAMS: Thank you. I do have one question.

And that has to do with the-- this last item that

you talked about, defining a test cycle.

You've given us some suggested criteria. You say,

such as, the wash time, and so on and so forth.

It would seem that a difficulty with having a test

cycle would be if we define something that then was not

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

1

on the regular cycle, going to a lesser than the maximum 

water level. 

We would suggest that no option such as prewash/ 

presoak, extra rinse, and those kind of things would be 

included in the calculations. 

We think that this approach, as I indicated 

before, would not change the method of calculation. You 

could just leave all the formulas and the TUF's and 

everything all the same, but would simply in your 

definition, rather than normal cycle, say " test cycle" 

rather than normal cycle. 

And so, those are the two areas that I really 

wanted to comment on in our written testimony. 

And that's all I have, unless you've got some 

further questions. 

MR. ADAMS: Thank you. I do have one question. 

And that has to do with the-- this last item that 

you talked about, defining a test cycle. 

You've given us some suggested criteria. You say

such as, the wash time, and so on and so forth. 

It would seem that a difficulty with having a tes

cycle would be if we define something that then was not 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 1

common or didn't exist on some machines, so I'm wondering i

in your written testimony if you could include a description

of what Maytag would feel would be a reasonable inclusive

definition of a-- of such a test cycle that would not cause

difficulties for all machines to have a cycle that had those

particular features. I mean, obviously, we don't want to

make it too loose. We don't want make it too complicated,

either.

MR. RINGGER: It's not an easy matter to try to

cover all possible options that are out thereMR. ADAMS: That's why I'd like your opinion on

that.

MR. RINGGER: Okay. You want me just to direct

something to you. ?

MR. ADAMS: If you could just include it as a--

MR. RINGGER: An amendment to our testimony?

MR. ADAMS: Right, that would be fine, or a

separate comment, either one.

Gene?

MR. MARGOLIS: Taking what Carl has said, and

assuming that a test cycle can be developed to meet the

objections that have just been possibly raised, would you

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

1

common or didH't exist on some machines, so I'm wondering if 

in your written testimony if you could include a description 

of what May tag would feel would be a reasonable inclusive 

definition of a-- of such a test cycle that would not cause 

difficulties for all machines to have a cycle that had those 

particular features. I mean, obviously, we don't want to 

make it too loose. We don't want make it too complicated, 

either. 

MR. RINGGER: It's not an easy matter to try to 

cover all possible options that are out there--

MR. ADAMS: That's why I'd like your opinion on 

that. 

MR. RINGGER: Okay. You want me just to direct 

something to you. ? 

MR. ADAMS: If you could just include it as a--

MR. RINGGER: An amendment to our testimony? 

MR. ADAMS: Right, that would be fine, or a 

separate comment, either one. 

Gene? 

MR. MARGOLIS: Taking what Carl has said, and 

assuming that a test cycle can be developed to meet the 

objections that have just been possibly raised, would you 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 1

then have to manufacture or produce a different machine?

Would the machines that are on the market today, would no

engineering be required, therefore-- I want to get back to

your lead time.

MR. RINGGER: Except in the case where you're a

manufacture locking out the warm rinse, I don't see right

new a need for a change in the current production washers,

but I'd have to look at that a little more carefully, but I

think if you followed these criteria, I don't think anyone

would have to change other than someone who might have

locked out the warm rinse option.

MR. MARGOLIS: Why would he have to change if he

would have the warm rinse option on a different cycle? I'm

not saying the normal cycle anymore. It would say in the

test cycle--

MR. RINGGER: Okay. You would just have to--

well, if he's relying on the lockout to meet the '94

standards, then he would have to change it. If he didn't

rely on that to meet the '94 standards, he wouldn't have to

change it. So, that would be the difference.

MR. MARGOLIS: Thank you.

MR. ADAMS: Jim?

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

1

then have to manufacture or produce a different machine? 

Would the machines that are on the market today, would no 

engineering be required, therefore-- I want to get back to 

your lead time. 

MR. RINGGER: Except in the case where you're a 

manufacture locking out the warm rinse, I don't see right 

new a need for a change in the current production washers, 

but I'd have to look at that a little more carefully, but I 

think if you followed these criteria, I don't think anyone 

would have to change other than someone who might have 

locked out the warm rinse option. 

MR. MARGOLIS: Why would he have to change if he 

would have the warm rinse option on a different cycle? I'm 

not saying the normal cycle anymore. It would say in the 

test cycle--

MR. RINGGER: Okay. You would just have to--

well, if he's relying on the lockout to meet the '94 

standards, then he would have to change it. If he didn't 

rely on that to meet the '94 standards, he wouldn't have to 

change it. So, that would be the difference. 

MR. MARGOLIS: Thank you. 

MR. ADAMS: Jim? 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 1

MR._KAO: The test cycle, like you said, on the

lockout will have to be changed. How about some other

things. If we put in the test procedure which it doesn't

fit your washer exactly, doing the test you have to make

certain modifications, would that be acceptable?

MR. RINGGER: I'm not quite sure I follow the

question. I'm sorry.

MR. KAO: Suppose the past procedure for a certain

manufacture's product, you can't just set the knobs and do

the testing. You may need to do some kind of small

modifications.

MR. RINGGER: I'm not aware of any modifications

that would need to be done; but again, I'm not positive that

that's the case.

MR. KAO: I don't know any specific, either.

MR. RINGGER: Yes.

I think no matter how this is written, from a

long-term standpoint, there's going to have to be amendments

because designs are going to change. New things will come

out, and no matter how this is structured, it's never going

to meet all possible manufacturer's designs that are in the

future. I don't think that's going to happen. There's

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

1

MR. -KAO: The test cycle, like you said, on the 

lockout will have to be changed. How about some other 

things. If we put in the test procedure which it doesn't 

fit your washer exactly, doing the test you have to make 

certain modifications, would that be acceptable? 

MR. RINGGER: I'm not quite sure I follow the 

question. I'm sorry. 

MR. KAO: Suppose the past procedure for a certain 

manufacture's product, you can't just set the knobs and do 

the testing. You may need to do some kind of small 

modifications. 

MR. RINGGER: I'm not aware of any modifications 

that would need to be done; but again, I'm not positive tha

that's the case. 

MR. KAO: I don't know any specific, either. 

MR. RINGGER: Yes. 

I think no matter how this is written, from a 

long-term standpoint, there's going to have to be amendment

because designs are going to change. New things will come 

out, and no matter how this is structured, it's never going 

to meet all possible manufacturer's designs that are in the 

future. I don't think that's going to happen. There's 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 1

going to have-to be changes, obviously, as we go along. We

think this is a good way to get at this fairly quickly, with

a minimum amount of change in the test protocol. In other

words, pretty much leave the calculationss as they are, a

quick and dirty fix, if you will. And yet, we're not

pretending that this is the fix to end all fixes because

obviously, down the road somewhere, something else is going

to come up. But we think at least for a short term, it's

probably is good way to get at this fairly quickly.

MR. ADAMS: Anything else, Jim?

MR. KAO: No.

MR. ADAMS: Bill?

MR. HUI: No.

MR. ADAMS: Thank you very much.

MR. RINGGER: Thank you.

MR. ADAMS: The next speaker is Michael Thompson.

MR. THOMPSON: Good morning, gentleman.

I'm Mike Thompson, Director of Government

Relations for Whirlpool.

Today I'm here to offer some comments regarding

DOE's proposal to amend test procedures used in measuring

the energy consumption of clothes washers.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

1

going to have-to be changes, obviously, as we go along. We 

think this is a good way to get at this fairly quickly, with 

a minimum amount of change in the test protocol. In other 

words, pretty much leave the calculationss as they are, a 

quick and dirty fix, if you will. And yet, we're not 

pretending that this is the fix to end all fixes because 

obviously, down the road somewhere, something else is going 

to come up. But we think at least for a short term, it's 

probably is good way to get at this fairly quickly. 

MR. ADAMS: Anything else, Jim? 

MR. KAO: No. 

MR. ADAMS: Bill? 

MR. HUI: No. 

MR. ADAMS: Thank you very much. 

MR. RINGGER: Thank you. 

MR. ADAMS: The next speaker is Michael Thompson. 

MR. THOMPSON: Good morning, gentleman. 

I'm Mike Thompson, Director of Government 

Relations for Whirlpool. 

Today I'm here to offer some comments regarding 

DOE's proposal to amend test procedures used in measuring 

the energy consumption of clothes washers. 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 2

As most of you know, and by way of background,

Whirlpool is a leading manufacture of major home appliances

and clothes washers, of course, is one of our most dominant

products. Our plant at Clyde, Ohio, supplies virtually all

of Whirlpool's needs basically, domestically, and for North

America, and in some instances, in international

distribution.

Because the proposal affects a design option

being used by Whirlpool, we have a very deep interest in

this rule. And my comments today basically focus on DOE's

questions and issues posed in the proposed rule.

Specifically, they pertain to some of the

questions posed later where you ask questions about the

accuracy and workability of the rule, amendments,

appropriateness of using 75 percent to prorate temperature

settings and normal cycle under lockout circumstances, and

the appropriateness of proposed definitions pertaining to

the most energy intensive and the non-normal cycle.

Before beginning the discussion, I'd guess I'd

like to talk a little bit of the the background.

We're here today because of a Whirlpool

interpretation of the clothes washer test procedure which

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

2

As most of you know t and by way of background t 

Whirlpool is a leading manufacture of major home appliances

and clothes washers t of course t is one of our most dominant 

products. Our plant at Clyde t Ohio t supplies virtually all 

of Whirlpoolts needs basicallYt domesticallYt and for North 

America t and in some instancest in international 

distribution. 

Because the proposal affects a design option 

being used by Whirlpoolt we have a very deep interest in 

this rule. And my comments today basically focus on DOEts 

questions and issues posed in the proposed rule. 

SpecificallYt they pertain to some of the 

questions posed later where you ask questions about the 

accuracy and workability of the rule t amendments t 

appropriateness of using 75 percent to prorate temperature 

settings and normal cycle under lockout circumstancest and 

the appropriateness of proposed definitions pertaining to 

the most energy intensive and the non-normal cycle. 

Before beginning the discussion t rtd guess rtd 

like to talk a little bit of the the background. 

Wetre here today because of a Whirlpool 

interpretation of the clothes washer test procedure which 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 2

pertains to lockout of warm water rinses in normal cycle,

that it's been ruled permissible by the DOE.

Our attempt to resolve questions pertaining to

this issue actually began in late 1992, and were not finally

resolved until late 1993.

Our initial questions in that area pertain to more

of a labeling question series with respect to the console

itself rather than the lockout feature which apparently it

evolved into. And among the key issues which came to light

in the string of 1993 was the method by which warm water

lockout in a normal cycle would be measured.

Whirlpool has always interpreted the rule to allow

for a warm water lockout in normal cycle since the test

procedure in the following order defines normal cycle as the

cycle recommended by manufacturers for cottons and linens,

giving some flexibility in that area to the manufacturer.

No. 2 requires the manufacture to set the cycle

selector to normal cycle prior to beginning the test.

Three, requires the manufacturer to set the

temperature selector to the hottest setting available.

And four, requires the manufacturer to repeat the

tests for all other temperature selections available in

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

2

pertains to lockout of warm water rinses in normal cycle, 

that it's been ruled permissible by the DOE. 

Our attempt to resolve questions pertaining to 

this issue actually began in late 1992, and were not finally 

resolved until late 1993. 

Our initial questions in that area pertain to mor

of a labeling question series with respect to the console 

itself rather than the lockout feature which apparently it 

evolved into. And among the key issues which came to light 

in the string of 1993 was the method by which warm water 

lockout in a normal cycle would be measured. 

Whirlpool has always interpreted the rule to allow 

for a warm water lockout in normal cycle since the test 

procedure in the following order defines normal cycle as th

cycle recommended by manufacturers for cottons and linens, 

giving some flexibility in that area to the manufacturer. 

No. 2 requires the manufacture to set the cycle 

selector to normal cycle prior to beginning the test. 

Three, requires the manufacturer to set the 

temperature selector to the hottest setting available. 

And four, requires the manufacturer to repeat the 

tests for all other temperature selections available in 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 2

those cycles..

The DOE agreed with Whirlpool's interpretation of

how the test procedure should be conducted in a letter on

October 20, 1993, and further supported this interpretation

with its statement, quote, text of the normal cycle

definition neither specifically requires an independent

temperature selector, nor, specifically provides for an

alternative cycle to be used for testing purposes if the

cycle, quote, recommended for washing cotton and/or linen

clothes uses only cold water rinses.

However, because of the above lack of specificity

for a requirement for an alternate test cycle to test all

rinse temperature options, DOE is today proposing to clarify

the rule to require such measurement by factoring in the

most energy intensive energy use with that of the normal

cycle.

Basically, we have no objections to this DOE

proposal and we strongly support DOE's pledge to provide

manufacturers one year of lead time to make design

alterations following promulgation of the final rule.

This lead time is critical to Whirlpool in the

event further design changes become necessary as a result of

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON , D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

2

those cycles.-

The DOE agreed with Whirlpool's interpretation of 

how the test procedure should be conducted in a letter on 

October 20, 1993, and further supported this interpretation 

with its statement, quote, text of the normal cycle 

definition neither specifically requires an independent 

temperature selector, nor, specifically provides for an 

alternative cycle to be used for testing purposes if the 

cycle, quote, recommended for washing cotton and/or linen 

clothes uses only cold water rinses. 

However, because of the above lack of specificity 

for a requirement for an alternate test cycle to test all 

rinse temperature options, DOE is today proposing to clarify 

the rule to require such measurement by factoring in the 

most energy intensive energy use with that of the normal 

cycle. 

Basically, we have no objections to this DOE 

proposal and we strongly support DOE's pledge to provide 

manufacturers one year of lead time to make design 

alterations following promulgation of the final rule. 

This lead time is critical to Whirlpool in the 

event further design changes become necessary as a result o

MILLER REPORTING CO. r INC. 

507 C STREET r N.E. 

WASHINGTON r D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 2

such changes in the test procedure.

Now, we have some specific comments regarding the

accuracy and workability of the proposed amendment.

Whirlpool feels the proposed amendments are

workable. We believe that the 75 percent factor to prorate

temperature settings in the normal cycle for clothes

washers that lockout warm water rinses reflects usage

patterns based on P&G data which I will submit to you. I

said attached. It wasn't, but--

Although use of the most energy intensive cycle

probably tends to overstate the average energy use of the

machine, it would be difficult the pick a cycle which would

exactly depict such average energy consumption.

Thus, we have no specific recommendations on

alternative cycle use for the test procedure at this time.

We'll probably address that more fully in our

written comments on March 24th.

In conclusion, Whirlpool strongly supports DOE's

interpretive rule to permit testing in the normal cycle with

design options that lockout warm water rinse.

We strongly support DOE's pledge to allow

manufacturer's one year to make design option changes

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

2

such changes in the test procedure. 

Now, we have some specific comments regarding the 

accuracy and workability of the proposed amendment. 

Whirlpool feels the proposed amendments are 

workable. We believe that the 75 percent factor to prorate 

temperature settings in the normal cycle for clothes 

washers that lockout warm water rinses reflects usage 

patterns based on P&G data which I will submit to you. I 

said attached. It wasn't, but--

Although use of the most energy intensive cycle 

probably tends to overstate the average energy use of the 

machine, it would be difficult the pick a cycle which would 

exactly depict such average energy consumption. 

Thus, we have no specific recommendations on 

alternative cycle use for the test procedure at this time. 

WeIll probably address that more fully in our 

written comments on March 24th. 

In conclusion, Whirlpool strongly supports DOE's 

interpretive rule to permit testing in the normal cycle wit

design options that lockout warm water rinse. 

We strongly support DOE's pledge to allow 

manufacturer's one year to make design option changes 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 2

following promulgation of the final rule. We accept the

concept of the proposed test procedure amendment that

incorporates the 75/25 split for TUF's that are locked out

in the normal cycle.

And we accept the concept of the test procedure

amendment as it pertains to definition of the most energy

intensive cycle and the use of such cycle in calculating

energy efficiency.

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to

comment this morning. Today I have with me Mr. Vince

Anderson, Curt Reichman. Curt is our Chief Engineer for

Energy at Whirlpool, and together we'll be happy to answer

any questions you may have.

MR. ADAMS: Thank you. I do have a question.

Regarding the 75 percent factor, you say that it

reflects current usage patterns based on P&G data. I'm

wondering if at this point, since I presume you have some

experience with these machines with the lockouts now,

whether or not you have any field data that would indicate

the percentage of usage of the normal cycle that these with

the lockout, this new restriction, so to speak. There seems

to be concern that as the normal cycle, if it's made less

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

2

following promulgation of the final rule. We accept the 

concept of the proposed test procedure amendment that 

incorporates the 75/25 split for TUFts that are locked out 

in the normal cycle. 

And we accept the concept of the test procedure 

amendment as it pertains to definition of the most energy 

intensive cycle and the use of such cycle in calculating 

energy efficiency. 

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to 

comment this morning. Today I have with me Mr. Vince 

Anderson t Curt Reichman. Curt is our Chief Engineer for 

Energy at Whirlpoolt and together wetll be happy to answer 

any questions you may have. 

MR. ADAMS: Thank you. I do have a question. 

Regarding the 75 percent factor t you say that it 

reflects current usage patterns based on P&G data. Itm 

wondering if at this pointt since I presume you have some 

experience with these machines with the lockouts nowt 

whether or not you have any field data that would indicate 

the percentage of usage of the normal cycle that these with 

the lockout t this new restrictiont so to speak. There seems 

to be concern that as the normal cycle t if itts made less 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 2

useful, that perhapss people would use it less, but until

your design, nobody had any data on that, and I'm wondering

if you have any data at this point.

MR. THOMPSON: We are still developing that data.

Mr. Reichman is in the process of conducting field surveys.

We do not have machines in the field at this point in time

of any quantity at all. If we do, it's very limited numbers

in the distribution channels right now. We're right on the

leading edge of starting to release some of those machines.

But if you go back, all the way back to 1966 at

the P&G data, it indicates that from '66 through '79,

through '81, through '88, that the usage patterns basically

are fairly consistent in that 75 percent range. We believe

that that's where it will show when we get that field data

back. That's in process, though, to get that most current

information.

MR. ADAMS: Okay. Thank you.

Gene?

MR. MARGOLIS: Mike, would your turn to page five,

the first paragraph, above conclusions, the last sentence

that you said, IT This lead time is critical to Whirlpool in

the event further design changes become necessary. "

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

25 

useful, that perhapss people would use it less, but until 

your design, nobody had any data on that, and I'm wondering 

if you have any data at this point. 

MR. THOMPSON: We are still developing that data. 

Mr. Reichman is in the process of conducting field surveys

We do not have machines in the field at this point in time 

of any quantity at all. If we do, it's very limited number

in the distribution channels right now. We're right on the 

leading edge of starting to release some of those machines. 

But if you go back, all the way back to 1966 at 

the P&G data, it indicates that from '66 through '79, 

through '81, through '88, that the usage patterns basically 

are fairly consistent in that 75 percent range. We believe 

that that's where it will show when we get that field data 

back. That's in process, though, to get that most current 

information. 

MR. ADAMS: Okay. Thank you. 

Gene? 

MR. MARGOLIS: Mike, would your turn to page five, 

the first paragraph, above conclusions, the last sentence 

that you said, " This lead time is critical to Whirlpool in 

the event further design changes become necessary. " 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 2

Okay. We heard from Maytag, for the first time,

talking about a test cycle. And I asked him the question,

would there be any-- if we're going to use a test cycle,

and we define it according to the way Carl was saying, that

we cover all the possibilities, if there is no changes

made-- in other words, by using the test cycle, you use the

products that are out there today, and there are no-- Maytag

is going to come back an let us know if they think there

might have to be any changes made, but that's what I'm

getting at.

If the products are already out there and we

define the test cycle to cover the products that are out

there, then would there necessarily have to be a design

change to the Whirlpool product?

MR. THOMPSON: As Doug Ringger was talking, we were

talking among ourselves about a uniform test cycle, and the

comments that came back between us was we'd like very much

to see what that test cycle is. We'd like to make comments

on it. It's an interesting concept. We don't necessarily

reject it. We'd just like to see what it is.

I'm confused, though, about the first part of your

question, " if there's no changes to this test cycle." Are

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

2

Okay. We heard from May tag , for the first time, 

talking about a test cycle. And I asked him the question, 

would there be any-- if we're going to use a test cycle, 

and we define it according to the way Carl was saying, that 

we cover all the possibilities, if there is no changes 

made-- in other words, by using the test cycle, you use the 

products that are out there today, and there are no-- May tag 

is going to come back an let us know if they think there 

might have to be any changes made, but that's what I'm 

getting at. 

If the products are already out there and we 

define the test cycle to cover the products that are out 

there, then would there necessarily have to be a design 

change to the Whirlpool product? 

MR. THOMPSON: As Doug Ringger was talking, we wer

talking among ourselves about a uniform test cycle, and the 

comments that came back between us was we'd like very much 

to see what that test cycle is. We'd like to make comments 

on it. It's an interesting concept. We don't necessarily 

reject it. We'd just like to see what it is. 

I'm confused, though, about the first part of you

question, " if there's no changes to this test cycle." Are 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 2

we talking about no changes to this test cycle in the

context of the lockout feature and the proposal as

currently written? Is that what we're talking about?

MR. MARGOLIS: Well, what I'm saying is that we

define the test cycle--

MR. THOMPSON: Oh, define the test cycle, okay. It

would depend on what that definition is. There would be a

great deal of variability depending on that definition.

That's why I say we'd like to see what the proposal is,

Eugene.

MR. MARGOLIS: But that might-- therefore, there

might not have to be any. It's all hypothetical.

MR. THOMPSON: There could very will be massive

changes, too. It could go either way, quite easily.

MR. MARGOLIS: And so therefore-- but could you, in

your comments, you know, the March comments, could you give

us your thoughts on the use of a test cycle?

MR. THOMPSON: Okay. On a test cycle and provide a

definition--

MR. MARGOLIS: Yes.

MR. THOMPSON: Okay.

MR. MARGOLIS: I mean, this is something that I

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

2

we talking about no changes to this test cycle in the 

context of the lockout feature and the proposal as 

currently written? Is that what we're talking about? 

MR. MARGOLIS: Well, what I'm saying is that we 

define the test cycle--

MR. THOMPSON: Oh, define the test cycle, okay. It 

would depend on what that definition is. There would be a 

great deal of variability depending on that definition. 

That's why I say we'd like to see what the proposal is, 

Eugene. 

MR. MARGOLIS: But that might-- therefore, there 

might not have to be any. It's all hypothetical. 

MR. THOMPSON: There could very will be massive 

changes, too. It could go either way, quite easily. 

MR. MARGOLIS: And so therefore-- but could you, in 

your comments, you know, the March comments, could you give 

us your thoughts on the use of a test cycle? 

MR. 

definition--

MR. 

MR. 

MR. 

THOMPSON: Okay. On a test 

MARGOLIS: Yes. 

THOMPSON: Okay. 

MARGOLIS: I mean, this is 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 

cycle and provide 

something that I 
mb 2

would consider-- I mean, in our thinking is something new

and novel, and it's interesting.

MR. THOMPSON: Sure will.

MR. MARGOLIS: Thank you very much.

MR. ADAMS: Jim?

MR. KAO: I don't have any questions.

MR. ADAMS: Bill?

MR. HUI: I'm just kind of curious. You say

Whirlpool had always interpreted the rule, does that predate

the 1992 when we started this discussion?

MR. THOMPSON: It goes back to late '92 when we

talked about some of the labeling issues, and we had no

concept that DOE was thinking two or three different ways

about the lockout feature, and once that came to light, the

lockout issue, basically in the spring of '93, it took some

time, until October of '93, to get a resolution.

But as you well know, we were so far down the pike

in terms of design at that time, and commitments to

suppliers, et cetera, it was very difficult at that point in

time to back out of a lockout type situation where we had

already made some design commitments to vendors and

suppliers, and customers.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

2

would consider-- I mean, in our thinking is something new 

and novel, and it's interesting. 

MR. THOMPSON: Sure will. 

MR. MARGOLIS: Thank you very much. 

MR. ADAMS: Jim? 

MR. KAO: I don't have any questions. 

MR. ADAMS: Bill? 

MR. HUI: I'm just kind of curious. You say 

Whirlpool had always interpreted the rule, does that predat

the 1992 when we started this discussion? 

MR. THOMPSON: It goes back to late '92 when we 

talked about some of the labeling issues, and we had no 

concept that DOE was thinking two or three different ways 

about the lockout feature, and once that came to light, the 

lockout issue, basically in the spring of '93, it took some 

time, until October of '93, to get a resolution. 

But as you well know, we were so far down the pik

in terms of design at that time, and commitments to 

suppliers, et cetera, it was very difficult at that point in 

time to back out of a lockout type situation where we had 

already made some design commitments to vendors and 

suppliers, and customers. 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 2

I would like to make one more comment. Doug

Ringger was right about six to eight weeks on one model.

That's what I would say, one model. But when you're talking

massive changes, you can't begin to make a turnaround in

less than a year for all the changes that would be necessary

in terms of more testing, the promotional literature, the

use and care guides, the sales floor literature, the display

models, the introduction, the pre-pilot, the pilot; there's

lots of lead time built in when you're talking more than

just a few models.

He's absolutely correct, one model you can do in

six to eight weeks, but not lots of models.

MR. ADAMS: Thank you.

The next speaker is David Modtland.

MR. MODTLAND: Good morning.

My name is Dave Modtland with the Frigidaire

Company. I'm the Manager of Washer Engineering. I'm going

to have to make a little change here to do a viewgraph

presentation, if I may.

MR. ADAMS: Okay.

MR. MODTLAND: Is this movable? It blocks the view

of--

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

2

I would like to make one more comment. Doug 

Ringger was right about six to eight weeks on one model. 

That's what I would say, one model. But when you're talking 

massive changes, you can't begin to make a turnaround in 

less than a year for all the changes that would be necessary 

in terms of more testing, the promotional literature, the 

use and care guides, the sales floor literature, the display 

models, the introduction, the pre-pilot, the pilot; there's 

lots of lead time built in when you're talking more than 

just a few models. 

He's absolutely correct, one model you can do in 

six to eight weeks, but not lots of models. 

MR. ADAMS: Thank you. 

The next speaker is David Modtland. 

MR. MODTLAND: Good morning. 

My name is Dave Modtland with the Frigidaire 

Company. I'm the Manager of Washer Engineering. I'm going 

to have to make a little change here to do a viewgraph 

presentation, if I may. 

of--

MR. ADAMS: Okay. 

MR. MODTLAND: Is this movable? It blocks the view 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 3

I'd-like to thank you first for the opportunity

to speak at this public hearing. I do appreciate this

opportunity.

It's our position is that the proposed amendment

for the test procedures should not be adopted for the

following reasons:

First of all, the hot water usage is understated.

75/25 apportionment is inappropriate, and I'll be getting

into that in more detail through my presentation. It makes

the test procedure unnecessarily complicated. It provides

an unfair competitive advantage, and it will have a negative

affect on the energy consumption to the appliance industry,

particularly in the washers used.

Why I feel the hot water usage is understated, and

why the 75/25 is inappropriate, the data is based-- the

75/25 data is based on past history. Now that we've

introduced a change in the system, that data is no longer

valid on this change. They didn't have the ability to

lockout a warm rinse with a hot wash option in the past.

In the past, the data was based on having a

hot/warm cycle available in the normal cycle. So, I don't

think it's valid to say that the data is going to stay the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

3

lid-like to thank you first for the opportunity 

to speak at this public hearing. I do appreciate this 

opportunity. 

It/s our position is that the proposed amendment 

for the test procedures should not be adopted for the 

following reasons: 

First of alII the hot water usage is understated. 

75/25 apportionment is inappropriate I and I/ll be getting 

into that in more detail through my presentation. It makes 

the test procedure unnecessarily complicated. It provides 

an unfair competitive advantage I and it will have a negativ

affect on the energy consumption to the appliance industrYI 

particularly in the washers used. 

Why I feel the hot water usage is understated l an

why the 75/25 is inappropriate I the data is based-- the 

75/25 data is based on past history. Now that we/ve 

introduced a change in the systeml that data is no longer 

valid on this change. They didn/t have the ability to 

lockout a warm rinse with a hot wash option in the past. 

In the past l the data was based on having a 

hot/warm cycle available in the normal cycle. SOl I don/t 

think it/s valid to say that the data is going to stay the 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 3

same as it has in the past 30 years when you introduce a

change in the way things are being done.

As Mr. Ringer stated in his comments, it is a

little different now. You're going to be using-- with less

utility in that cycle, and that utility transferred to an a

different cycle, a heavier or regular or whatever you name

it other than normal, you're going to shift usage into that

cycle more.

The hot water energy calculation can decrease the

value by up to 25 percent, possibly more, again, additional

interpretations that we'll be talking about later. Again,

we'll emphasize that with no loss and cut in consumer

utility, still has a hot/warm option available to them, and

a fast agitation, fast spin mode, use a different name in

the trim plait, be effectively it's the same cycle.

The energy efficiency standard should change on a

product that has this lockout feature because a product that

wouldn't comply, a five-temperature product, namely, could

not comply with this amended test procedure.

Getting into a little detail on the calculation--

I won't bore you too much with them-- but I'm sure somebody

in the audience and most of the panel here have a good

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON , D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

3

same as it hag in the past 30 years when you introduce a 

change in the way things are being done. 

As Mr. Ringer stated in his comments I it is a 

little different now. You/re going to be using-- with less 

utility in that cycle l and that utility transferred to an a 

different cycle l a heavier or regular or whatever you name 

it other than normal I you/re going to shift usage into that 

cycle more. 

The hot water energy calculation can decrease the 

value by up to 25 percent I possibly morel againl additional 

interpretations that weill be talking about later. Again l 

weill emphasize that with no loss and cut in consumer 

utilitYI still has a hot/warm option available to them l and 

a fast agitationl fast spin model use a different name in 

the trim plait l be effectively it/s the same cycle. 

The energy efficiency standard should change on a 

product that has this lockout feature because a product tha

wouldn/t complYI a five-temperature product I namelYI could 

not comply with this amended test procedure. 

Getting into a little detail on the calculation--

I won/t bore you too much with them-- but 11m sure somebod

in the audience and most of the panel here have a good 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 3

appreciation for the calculation.

Using the nomenclature that's in the test

procedure, I've a abbreviated somewhat to save space, but

essentially, I think you'll recognize the calculation is a

summation for the maximum hot water consumption energy

calculation, and likewise for the minimum water level

calculation, and calculating the total energy used in that,

and the 72/28 apportionment for a large-- a high fill versu

a small fill, and with this-- with a five temperature

hot/warm, hot/cold, warm/warm, warm/cold, cold/cold cycles,

using the current test procedure, you would calculate based

on test data on a sample machine. In this case, we used an

actual machine based on ETL data where they averaged three

runs through the test procedure, you get a total hot water

energy calculation of 3.34 kilowatt hours.

For comparison, the same five temperature

selections, offered with the amended procedure, assuming

that the machine has a lockout feature, would give you a

calculation with the amended procedure of 2.51 kilowatt

hours.

Again, for comparison, if you had used a four

temperature selection, eliminated hot/warm entirely which we

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

3

appreciation for the calculation. 

Using the nomenclature that's in the test 

procedure, I've a abbreviated somewhat to save space, but 

essentially, I think you'll recognize the calculation is a 

summation for the maximum hot water consumption energy 

calculation, and likewise for the minimum water level 

calculation, and calculating the total energy used in that, 

and the 72/28 apportionment for a large-- a high fill versu

a small fill, and with this-- with a five temperature 

hot/warm, hot/cold, warm/warm, warm/cold, cold/cold cycles, 

using the current test procedure, you would calculate based 

on test data on a sample machine. In this case, we used an 

actual machine based on ETL data where they averaged three 

runs through the test procedure, you get a total hot water 

energy calculation of 3.34 kilowatt hours. 

For comparison, the same five temperature 

selections, offered with the amended procedure, assuming 

that the machine has a lockout feature, would give you a 

calculation with the amended procedure of 2.51 kilowatt 

hours. 

Again, for comparison, if you had used a four 

temperature selection, eliminated hot/warm entirely which w

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 3

believe was the intent of the standard, again, same

calculations would result in total hot water energy of 2.29

kilowatt hours.

Summarizing that information, if you took the hot

water energy using the current test procedure for five

temperature, the difference of what the proposed test

procedure, with again, what the five temperature was,

divided by the baseline of the current five temperature, you

would show nearly a 25 percent reduction in the calculation

of the hot water energy, again with essentially the same

machine.

You drop the hot/warm cycle, doing the same

calculation, 3.34 minus the 2.29, you've gone from a five

temperature to a four temperature, which we believe was the

intent, then you get an actual true savings, 31.4 percent

reduction in the energy.

Another comment is this amended test procedure

unnecessarily complicates the procedure, and again that is

not one of the goals, I know, of the Department of Energy.

One of the missions is to try to make that as clear and

concise and unambiguous as possible. The additional

procedure required some additional test burdening to all

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

3

believe was the intent of the standard, again, same 

calculations would result in total hot water energy of 2.29 

kilowatt hours. 

Summarizing that information, if you took the hot 

water energy using the current test procedure for five 

temperature, the difference of what the proposed test 

procedure, with again, what the five temperature was, 

divided by the baseline of the current five temperature, yo

would show nearly a 25 percent reduction in the calculation 

of the hot water energy, again with essentially the same 

machine. 

You drop the hot/warm cycle, doing the same 

calculation, 3.34 minus the 2.29, you've gone from a five 

temperature to a four temperature, which we believe was the 

intent, then you get an actual true savings, 31.4 percent 

reduction in the energy. 

Another comment is this amended test procedure 

unnecessarily complicates the procedure, and again that is 

not one of the goals, I know, of the Department of Energy. 

One of the missions is to try to make that as clear and 

concise and unambiguous as possible. The additional 

procedure required some additional test burdening to all 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 3

nonnormal cycles. Reference the paragraph mentioned here,

3.2.2.8.3, it states in that if you have a lockout feature

that you must test all non-normal cycles that have the

temperature that have been locked out from the the normal

cycle.

Regardless whether it might be a two-minute cycle,

it might be a permanent press cycle, delicate cycle, rather

than some other cycle that could be used for cotton linens

or cotton sturdy type thing, you have to go through all

those test procedures and everytime, over and over again,

even though you had data-- at least that's my

interpretation-- data to prove that the delicate cycle was

always much lower, you would still have to run those tests;

thus, you increase your testing time significantly.

As Mr. Ringer also had mentioned previously,

there's opportunities for additional ambiguities with this

amended test procedure. As we were bouncing around in our

company of how to calculate it, and I want to admit, there

were several interpretations of what was meant by the

statements and how the calculations should be interpreted.

Again, as Doug had mentioned, one of the things

that was thought about-- well, getting ahead of myself a

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

3

nonnormal cycles. Reference the paragraph mentioned here t 

3.2.2.8.3 t it states in that if you have a lockout feature 

that you must test all non-normal cycles that have the 

temperature that have been locked out from the the normal 

cycle. 

Regardless whether it might be a two-minute cycle 

it might be a permanent press cycle t delicate cycle t rather 

than some other cycle that could be used for cotton linens 

or cotton sturdy type thing t you have to go through all 

those test procedures and every timet over and over againt 

even though you had data-- at least thatts my 

interpretation-- data to prove that the delicate cycle was 

always much lowert you would still have to run those tests; 

thust you increase your testing time significantly. 

As Mr. Ringer also had mentioned previouslYt 

therets opportunities for additional ambiguities with this 

amended test procedure. As we were bouncing around in our 

company of how to calculate itt and I want to admitt there 

were several interpretations of what was meant by the 

statements and how the calculations should be interpreted. 

Againt as Doug had mentioned t one of the things 

that was thought about-- wellt getting ahead of myself a 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 3

little bit-- more interpretations could develop over time.

Again, the thing with the water levels, you could

now lockout water levels; you could lock out different

things that's just going to be building on itself, and

creating additional loophole areas.

As far as different interpretations, there were

some questions on whether that applied-- these test

procedures applied just to units that didn't have a lockout

feature or did we have to do this type of testing for all

units even if it didn't have a lockout in the cycle.

There's some confusion about that.

This amendment also provides an unfair competitive

advantage. One manufacturer has a significant head start.

That's quite obvious. Almost ready to produce to the best

of my knowledge of the other manufacturers, are just

learning about the possibility of doing such a thing.

The proposed test procedures should not go into

effect until sufficient time is allowed for other

manufacturers to take advantage of this desired condition.

Allowing manufacturers a year to comply does not really

rectify the situation. They already have that advantage.

Giving other manufacturers to follow suit will not correct

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

3

little bit-- more interpretations could develop over time. 

Again, the thing with the water levels, you could 

now lockout water levels; you could lock out different 

things that/s just going to be building on itself, and 

creating additional loophole areas. 

As far as different interpretations, there were 

some questions on whether that applied-- these test 

procedures applied just to units that didn't have a lockout 

feature or did we have to do this type of testing for all 

units even if it didn't have a lockout in the cycle. 

There's some confusion about that. 

This amendment also provides an unfair competitiv

advantage. One manufacturer has a significant head start. 

That's quite obvious. Almost ready to produce to the best 

of my knowledge of the other manufacturers, are just 

learning about the possibility of doing such a thing. 

The proposed test procedures should not go into 

effect until sufficient time is allowed for other 

manufacturers to take advantage of this desired condition. 

Allowing manufacturers a year to comply does not really 

rectify the situation. They already have that advantage. 

Giving other manufacturers to follow suit will not correct 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 3

that. The only way to correct that in our eyes is to delay

that amendment that would be desired to take place, until

all the the manufacturers have had sufficient time, probably

up to a year as Mr. Thompson stated, to develop a product

line to match that before such ruling should take effect.

The procedure in negotiating and communicating

this change in this matter requires improvement. It may

take folks-- in their written comments touched upon that a

little bit, I guess we'd just like to accentuate that a

little bit as well, that we do need to find a way to correct

communications so that the information is distributed in a

timely and fair manner so that all can react accordingly.

I don't want to dwell on that too much, again,

because that's-- we want to look forward on how to improve

rather than what's been in the past.

We also feel it will have a negative effect on

energy consumption. We believe it's inconsistent with the

intent of the law. The savings are not going to be realized

as I explained in my slides before. If it's approved it

will do nothing more than encourage the remaining

manufacturers to follow suit and put out machines that

consume more energy than be necessary, and the whole

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

3

that. The only way to correct that in our eyes is to delay 

that amendment that would be desired to take place, until 

all the the manufacturers have had sufficient time, probabl

up to a year as Mr. Thompson stated, to develop a product 

line to match that before such ruling should take effect. 

The procedure in negotiating and communicating 

this change in this matter requires improvement. It may 

take folks-- in their written comments touched upon that a 

little bit, I guess we'd just like to accentuate that a 

little bit as well, that we do need to find a way to correc

communications so that the information is distributed in a 

timely and fair manner so that all can react accordingly. 

I don't want to dwell on that too much, again, 

because that's-- we want to look forward on how to improve 

rather than what's been in the past. 

We also feel it will have a negative effect on 

energy consumption. We believe it's inconsistent with the 

intent of the law. The savings are not going to be realized 

as I explained in my slides before. If it's approved it 

will do nothing more than encourage the remaining 

manufacturers to follow suit and put out machines that 

consume more energy than be necessary, and the whole 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 3

activity kind-of gives the appliance industry a black eye.

Rather than trying to conform with the intent of

the law in developing and providing the consumers more

energy efficient units, we're spending effort on trying to

find ways to get our labeling of the products down without

losing anything in terms of consumer utility, without

actually doing anything that's end result going to save

energy for this country.

In conclusion, our recommendation would be; one,

to discontinue proceeding with the amended test procedure a

developed. Or, another option would be to revise the energy

standard for models with the lockout feature in the normal

cycle. This essentially would require a new category to be

developed through these types of products, and that our

proposal would be that that energy factor be of such a

nature that a unit that could marginally comply today would

also marginally comply for this new standard. Or, if that

wasn't adopted, we would revise the apportionment value, the

75/25 value to prevent understating the energy consumption.

And off the top, I guess the only way we see that is 100

percent in the energy intensive cycle. Because there's

nothing to prevent the consumer from using hot/warm in that

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

3

activity kind-of gives the appliance industry a black eye. 

Rather than trying to conform with the intent of 

the law in developing and providing the consumers more 

energy efficient units, we're spending effort on trying to 

find ways to get our labeling of the products down without 

losing anything in terms of consumer utility, without 

actually doing anything that's end result going to save 

energy for this country. 

In conclusion, our recommendation would be; one, 

to discontinue proceeding with the amended test procedure a

developed. Or, another option would be to revise the energ

standard for models with the lockout feature in the normal 

cycle. This essentially would require a new category to b

developed through these types of products, and that our 

proposal would be that that energy factor be of such a 

nature that a unit that could marginally comply today would 

also marginally comply for this new standard. Or, if that 

wasn't adopted, we would revise the apportionment value, th

75/25 value to prevent understating the energy consumption. 

And off the top, I guess the only way we see that is 100 

percent in the energy intensive cycle. Because there's 

nothing to prevent the consumer from using hot/warm in that 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 3

cycle as much-as me would if it was in the normal cycle.

That's it.

MR. ADAMS: Okay. I do have a question.

I guess in regards to what you just said, and you

indicated it's obviously off the top of your head, that if

we revise the apportionment value to a hundred percent on

the most energy intensive cycle, or presumably that could be

a defined test cycle also, I guess. Is it your opinion

therefore that having a lockout of warm rinse on the normal

cycle or what is presented to be the most used cycle, that

there actually are no energy savings from that, or could

there possibly be some energy savings?

In other words, would people use a warm rinse that

was offered somewhat less if it were offered in that

particular way?

MR. MODTLAND: Yes. I guess what I'm saying is, I

don't see how the proposed lockout saves any energy at all.

I don't see that it offers any opportunity through that. It

will just require the consumer to use is different named

cycle to get the results or to get the water temperatures

that they want to use. That's my-- our opinion. That's why

the preference would be to not follow through with the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

3

cycle as much-as me would if it was in the normal cycle. 

That/s it. 

MR. ADAMS: Okay. I do have a question. 

I guess in regards to what you just said l and you 

indicated it/s obviously off the top of your head l that if 

we revise the apportionment value to a hundred percent on 

the most energy intensive cycle l or presumably that could b

a defined test cycle also l I guess. Is it your opinion 

therefore that having a lockout of warm rinse on the normal 

cycle or what is presented to be the most used cycle l that 

there actually are no energy savings from that l or could 

there possibly be some energy savings? 

In other words I would people use a warm rinse tha

was offered somewhat less if it were offered in that 

particular way? 

MR. MODTLAND: Yes. I guess what 11m saying iS I I 

don/t see how the proposed lockout saves any energy at all. 

I don/t see that it offers any opportunity through that. I

will just require the consumer to use is different named 

cycle to get the results or to get the water temperatures 

that they want to use. That/s my-- our opinion. That/s wh

the preference would be to not follow through with the 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 3

amendment because doing the other two basically results in

the same net effect and just adds additonal complications t

the test procedure.

MR. ADAMS: Gene?

MR. MARGOLIS: In line with Carl's question, the

consumer, therefore, would be-- if the lockout is on the

normal cycle, and he would want the warm water, he would

just say-- he would turn to another cycle. Don't you feel

that-- I mean, say, B is an average consumer. I turned to

the normal cycle. I mean, that's what I would turn. I

would wash my clothes-- the machine says " normal cycle".

I'd turn to the normal cycle. I mean, aren't you giving a

lot more credit, then, to the consumer to realize all these

other shenanigans he could do? I mean, to me, the normal

cycle, that's what I'd put my clothes on.

MR. MARGOLIS: Yes, I would accept that, that

there's going to be some consumers that would out of habit

use the same cycle and not read the fine print on the

console graphics and select the hot/warm and put it on

normal cycle and end up getting a hot/cold, and-- yeah, I

acknowledge that that-- there's a potential that-- there's a

probability that it will occur to some extent. To what

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

3

amendment because doing the other two basically results in 

the same net effect and just adds additonal complications to 

the test procedure. 

MR. ADAMS: Gene? 

MR. MARGOLIS: In line with Carl's question, the 

consumer, therefore, would be-- if the lockout is on the 

normal cycle, and he would want the warm water, he would 

just say-- he would turn to another cycle. Don't you feel 

that-- I mean, say, B is an average consumer. I turned to 

the normal cycle. I mean, thatts what I would turn. I 

would wash my clothes-- the machine says" normal cycle". 

I'd turn to the normal cycle. I mean, aren't you giving a 

lot more credit t then t to the consumer to realize all these 

other shenanigans he could do? I meant to me, the normal 

cycle, that's what ltd put my clothes on. 

MR. MARGOLIS: Yes, I would accept that, that 

there's going to be some consumers that would out of habit 

use the same cycle and not read the fine print on the 

console graphics and select the hot/warm and put it on 

normal cycle and end up getting a hot/cold t and-- yeah, I 

acknowledge that that-- therets a potential that-- there's 

probability that it will occur to some extent. To what 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 4

extent, who knows. And that, I guess, in essence would

result in some savings, but I think once they realize that

they're taking their clothes out and they're cold rather

than hot, they're going to call the serviceman and say,"

This isn't operating right" , and then they're going to be

instructed on how to use it properly. Or if that's what

they desire, that they've got to do this and this and this

to get-- to do what they used to be able to do in just a

hot/warm normal cycle. And at that point, they don't get

any energy savings, again.

You change their habits. But granted, there will

be a period where someone selects the hot/warm and not get

it, and realize some savings.

I acknowledge that.

MR. MARGOLIS: Could you go back to your-- the

third from last page.

MR. MODTLAND: Yes.

MR. MARGOLIS: I'd like to ask your third point.

I'm not too sure I understand exactly where your trying to

take us.

MR. MODTLAND: Okay.

MR. MARGOLIS: You're saying" Proposed test

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

4

extent, who knows. And that, I guess, in essence would 

result in some savings, but I think once they realize that 

they're taking their clothes out and they're cold rather 

than hot, they're going to call the serviceman and say," 

This isn't operating right" , and then they're going to be 

instructed on how to use it properly. Or if that's what 

they desire, that they've got to do this and this and this 

to get-- to do what they used to be able to do in just a 

hot/warm normal cycle. And at that point, they don't get 

any energy savings, again. 

You change their habits. But granted, there will 

be a period where someone selects the hot/warm and not get 

it, and realize some savings. 

I acknowledge that. 

MR. MARGOLIS: Could you go back to your-- the 

third from last page. 

MR. MODTLAND: Yes. 

MR. MARGOLIS: I'd like to ask your third point. 

I'm not too sure I understand exactly where your trying to 

take us. 

MR. MODTLAND: Okay. 

MR. MARGOLIS: You're saying" Proposed test 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 4

procedure should not go into effect until sufficient time is

allowed for other manufacturers to take advantage of this

change if desired. "

What of "this change"?

MR. MODTLAND: Okay. This change would be the

amended test procedure as proposed. It's my understanding

that if that would be adopted, the other manufacturers would

have up to a year to comply. Correct?

MR. MARGOLIS: Right.

MR. MODTLAND: Well, I'm saying that rather than

doing that, you should say that it's not going to be adopted

for a year or 18 months or whatever the period is, to allow

all manufacturers that same period. " Now, this is what the

rules are. The rules have changed. Now, you've got

time--", everybody has the same amount of time, or at least

sufficient time in order to change their product line, you

know, change their components, change their marketing

strategy, if that manufacturer so desires to do that, which

I believe most will. Because it offers a competitive

marketing feature.

MR. MARGOLIS: Maytag speaker said that it would

take six to eight weeks.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

4

procedure should not go into effect until sufficient time i

allowed for other manufacturers to take advantage of this 

change if desired. " 

What of "this change"? 

MR. MODTLAND: Okay. This change would be the 

amended test procedure as proposed. Itts my understanding 

that if that would be adopted t the other manufacturers woul

have up to a year to comply. Correct? 

MR. MARGOLIS: Right. 

MR. MODTLAND: Well t Itm saying that rather than 

doing that t you should say that itts not going to be adopte

for a year or 18 months or whatever the period iS t to allow 

all manufacturers that same period. " Now t this is what the 

rules are. The rules have changed. Now t youtve got 

time--"t everybody has the same amount of timet or at least 

sufficient time in order to change their product line t you 

know t change their components t change their marketing 

strategYt if that manufacturer so desires to do that t which 

I believe most will. Because it offers a competitive 

marketing feature. 

MR. MARGOLIS: May tag speaker said that it would 

take six to eight weeks. 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 4

Whirlpool agreed with that per model.

And so, I don't know why one year would not be

sufficient to allow all manufacturers to take advantage of

the amended test procedure. You're saying-- I don't know

what time period you'd be saying, are you saying two years?

Three years?

MR. MODTLAND: Okay. I understood Maytag's

comments to say it would that I can six to eight weeks to

undo what had been done, to revert back to a four

temperature, in essence. I don't know if that's correct,

but that's why I interpreted them to be saying rather than

for other manufacturers to get that feature into their

product.

Big difference.

It's easier to go back to what you had before, or

not offer something that don't have rather than to develop

and add a new feature to a product line. Particularly, and I

would agree that, again, with some of the hardware, yes, you

can make timer changes in six to eight weeks. That's fairly

standard-type turn around. You can make trip light and

graphics changes in that time frame. I mean, probably get

your literature and those types of things; but to develop a

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

4

Whirlpool agreed with that per model. 

And so, I don't know why one year would not be 

sufficient to allow all manufacturers to take advantage of 

the amended test procedure. You're saying-- I don't know 

what time period you'd be saying, are you saying two years? 

Three years? 

MR. MODTLAND: Okay. I understood May tag's 

comments to say it would that I can six to eight weeks to 

undo what had been done, to revert back to a four 

temperature, in essence. I don't know if that's correct, 

but that's why I interpreted them to be saying rather than 

for other manufacturers to get that feature into their 

product. 

Big difference. 

It's easier to go back to what you had before, or 

not offer something that don't have rather than to develop 

and add a new feature to a product line. Particularly, and 

would agree that, again, with some of the hardware, yes, yo

can make timer changes in six to eight weeks. That's fairly 

standard-type turn around. You can make trip light and 

graphics changes in that time frame. I mean, probably get 

your literature and those types of thingsj but to develop a 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 4

cohesive marketing line to step-- for the dealers to handle

a line that has a proper step up, those types of things, to

do an offer of a whole complete line, requires a little more

thought and time. What the actual time would be, I'm not

sure what that would be. I would require some more time and

I'm sure other manufacturers would like to comment on that,

that same time period was sufficient. What I feel is

sufficient for our company may not be sufficient for other

manufacturers. And in doing that, again, could have some

unfair advantages of one company other another in terms of

one has a faster turnaround because they have a smaller

product line, or--

MR. MARGOLIS: Do you envision filing additional

comments by the March 24th date?

MR. MODTLAND: I wasn't planning on it. I guess I

thought this wouldMR. MARGOLIS: Well, if you would consider, could

you go into and give us some more reasons from your company

for what would be a sufficient amount of time.

MR. MODTLAND: Okay. I'd be happy to do that.

MR. MARGOLIS: Thank you.

MR. ADAMS: But now, you're talking about-- the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

4

cohesive marketing line to step-- for the dealers to handle 

a line that has a proper step UPI those types of things I to 

do an offer of a whole complete line l requires a little mor

thought and time. What the actual time would bel 11m not 

sure what that would be. I would require some more time an

11m sure other manufacturers would like to comment on that l 

that same time period was sufficient. What I feel is 

sufficient for our company may not be sufficient for other 

manufacturers. And in doing that l againl could have some 

unfair advantages of one company other another in terms of 

one has a faster turnaround because they have a smaller 

product line l or--

MR. MARGOLIS: Do you envision filing additional 

comments by the March 24th date? 

MR. MODTLAND: I wasn/t planning on it. I guess I 

thought this would--

MR. MARGOLIS: Well, if you would considerl could 

you go into and give us some more reasons from your company 

for what would be a sufficient amount of time. 

MR. MODTLAND: Okay. lid be happy to do that. 

MR. MARGOLIS: Thank you. 

MR. ADAMS: But now, you/re talking about-- the 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 4

change that you're talking about is to change your product

to, or for a manufacturer, to change its product to include

a warm rinse lockout similar to the WhirlpoolMR. MODTLAND: Correct.

MR. ADAMS: And so your third bullet here is that

we should allow enough time for other manufacturers to

produce that type of machine if they desire to do so--

MR. MODTLAND: Right.

MR. ADAMS: And that then at some point further

on, we would make this change to the test procedure that

would treat those sorts of machines differently, either a

revised standard or a different test method, or what have

you.

MR. MODTLAND: Yeah, but there are all kind of--

they're interrelated. I guess my first preference would be

to eliminate this amendment. Okay.

Now, if they's not acceptable, then the secondary

would be to create a standard that makes it fair in terms of

calculating the energy, the true energy value that we

anticipate from that machine. That's why I'm saying the

75/25 is incorrect.

The third, if that wasn't allowed, and in doing

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

44 

change that you're talking about is to change your product 

to, or for a manufacturer, to change its product to include 

a warm rinse lockout similar to the Whirlpool--

MR. MODTLAND: Correct. 

MR. ADAMS: And so your third bullet here is that 

we should allow enough time for other manufacturers to 

produce that type of machine if they desire to do so--

MR. MODTLAND: Right. 

MR. ADAMS: And that then at some point further 

on, we would make this change to the test procedure that 

would treat those sorts of machines differently, either a 

revised standard or a different test method, or what have 

you. 

MR. MODTLAND: Yeah, but there are all kind of--

they're interrelated. I guess my first preference would be 

to eliminate this amendment. Okay. 

Now, if they's not acceptable, then the secondary 

would be to create a standard that makes it fair in terms o

calculating the energy, the true energy value that we 

anticipate from that machine. That's why I'm saying the 

75/25 is incorrect. 

The third, if that wasn't allowed, and in doing 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 4

so, that basically takes away any advantage in doing such a

feature.

So, again, if there's no advantage to it, might a

well go back to the first, and not even talk about in the

first place.

Now, the third is if you don't agree with either

one of those, then the third is to at least allow a level

playing field for other manufacturers to comply, and they's,

again, the least desirable because in my mind, that does not

service the consumer or the country in terms of energy

consumption, because it just allows the five temperature

options to continue, which was, or we believe, was one of

the intents was trying to save energy, and I don't feel

that this would do that.

So, it's kind of a step phase, if you would, in

how to handle that.

MR. ADAMS: But doesn't the-- if we discontinued

the proceeding, in other words, not implement the amended

test procedure, that leaves us with what has been referred

to as the "loop hole" that would allow all manufacturers if

they desired to produce a machine with warm--

MR. MODTLAND: Without-- energy consumption at

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

4

so, that basically takes away any advantage in doing such a 

feature. 

So, again, if there's no advantage to it, might a

well go back to the first, and not even talk about in the 

first place. 

Now, the third is if you don't agree with either 

one of those, then the third is to at least allow a level 

playing field for other manufacturers to comply, and they's

again, the least desirable because in my mind, that does no

service the consumer or the country in terms of energy 

consumption, because it just allows the five temperature 

options to continue, which was, or we believe, was one of 

the intents was trying to save energy, and I don't feel 

that this would do that. 

So, it's kind of a step phase, if you would, in 

how to handle that. 

MR. ADAMS: But doesn't the-- if we discontinued 

the proceeding, in other words, not implement the amended 

test procedure, that leaves us with what has been referred 

to as the "loop hole" that would allow all manufacturers i

they desired to produce a machine with warm--

MR. MODTLAND: Without-- energy consumption at 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 4

MR. ADAMS: I mean, we would be left with the test

procedure that we current have today.

MR. MODTLAND: And that's-- I'm a little bit

ignorant of the proceeding methods, if you will; but in my

mind, I don't think there is a loophole that exists today.

I mean, it's an incorrect interpretation, and it would

require a reversal of decisions that were made last October.

But in my mind, there is no loophole that exists.

MR. ADAMS: Okay. I understand that. Thank you.

MR. MODTLAND: That's my premise.

MR. ADAMS: Jim.

MR. KAO: Yes. I'm interpreting the proposed

change here. You mentioned about testing all cycles for

washers without the lockout. Could you give another

example? I thought that one was clear.

MR. MODTLAND: I think that one was fairly clear

because. Because it addresses, if you have a lockout, then

you follow this test procedure. If it doesn't have a

lockout, it's the same as it is today. So, I don't think

that one's too hard to overcome.

MR. KAO: Do you have any other examples?

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

4

all--

MR. ADAMS: I meanl we would be left with the test 

procedure that we current have today. 

MR. MODTLAND: And that/s-- 11m a little bit 

ignorant of the proceeding methods l if you will; but in my 

mind l I don/t think there is a loophole that exists today. 

I meanl it/s an incorrect interpretationl and it would 

require a reversal of decisions that were made last October

But in my mind l there is no loophole that exists. 

MR. ADAMS: Okay. I understand that. Thank you. 

MR. MODTLAND: That/s my premise. 

MR. ADAMS: Jim. 

MR. KAO: Yes. 11m interpreting the proposed 

change here. You mentioned about testing all cycles for 

washers without the lockout. Could you give another 

example? I thought that one was clear. 

MR. MODTLAND: I think that one was fairly clear 

because. Because it addresses I if you have a lockout I then 

you follow this test procedure. If it doesn/t have a 

lockoutl it/s the same as it is today. 

that one/s too hard to overcome. 

MR. KAO: Do you have any other examples? 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 4

MR._MODTLAND: Yes. There was another one but it

escapes me right now.

Do you remember, Sheryl? We have Sheryl Wrighett

with us from our Compliance and Standards.

MS. WRIGETT: Another interpretation of that one?

MR. MODTLAND: Yes.

WRIGHETT: I have one about locking out a

temperature and a water level. Locking out the high fill

and only using the medium fill level, therefore using less

hot energy, or hot water, and the energy would go down that

way. So, although you are locking out a warm cycle from the

rinse, you could lock out a load level and get the same

results as far as the temperature calculation or energy

calculation-- so, there were a lot of-- we used a cycle with

a lot of hot water, then it just gets smaller number of

clothes or a smaller load, versus a larger load, and a

delicate cycle, and you have to calculate them all, yes.

MR. ADAMS: Bill?

MR. HUI: When you you go to the-- where you do the

interpretation, are we talking about the actual equation

that you come out with several different methods of arriving

at those numbers.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

4

MR .. MODTLAND: Yes. There was another one but it 

escapes me right now. 

Do you remember, Sheryl? We have Sheryl Wrighett 

with us from our Compliance and Standards. 

MS. WRIGETT: Another interpretation of that one? 

MR. MODTLAND: Yes. 

WRIGHETT: I have one about locking out a 

temperature and a water level. Locking out the high fill 

and only using the medium fill level, therefore using less 

hot energy, or hot water, and the energy would go down tha

way. So, although you are locking out a warm cycle from the 

rinse, you could lock out a load level and get the same 

results as far as the temperature calculation or energy 

calculation-- so, there were a lot of-- we used a cycle with 

a lot of hot water, then it just gets smaller number of 

clothes or a smaller load, versus a larger load, and a 

delicate cycle, and you have to calculate them all, yes. 

MR. ADAMS: Bill? 

MR. HUI: When you you go to the-- where you do th

interpretation, are we talking about the actual equation 

that you come out with several different methods of arriving 

at those numbers. 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 4

MR.-MODTLAND: Not so much that, I think, as what's

been previously stated in terms of the opportunity to

lockout other features such as the water level, opportunity

to, I guess we've only had a limited time to look at this,

in thinking that if you're trying to find a way to get

around something or get creative with the interpretation,

the more you have in it, the more opportunities you offer.

You know, there's just more opportunities available to find

a different way to go, you know, it's opened up a new

paradigm to look at how to minimize your calculation of

energy, but with a lockout-type technique. You know,

lockout speeds. That wouldn't offer too much advantage, but

you could lock out reduced agitation times, or fills, or-- I

don't know, we really haven't come up with anything. Just

thinking that there's other opportunities there that coulg

be identified and fall in the same boat, six or eight

months, ten months, two years, four years, down the road.

MR. HUI: Are you basing the fact that this

amendment will not result in energy savings on accomplishing

what you just presented to us a few minutes ago that there

was a 24.9 percent reduction in.

MR. MODTLAND: The calculation yields a 24.9

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

4

MR.-MODTLAND: Not so much that, I think, as what'

been previously stated in terms of the opportunity to 

lockout other features such as the water level, opportunity 

to, I guess we've only had a limited time to look at this, 

in thinking that if you're trying to find a way to get 

around something or get creative with the interpretation, 

the more you have in it, the more opportunities you offer. 

You know, there's just more opportunities available to find 

a different way to go, you know, it's opened up a new 

paradigm to look at how to minimize your calculation of 

energy, but with a lockout-type technique. You know, 

lockout speeds. That wouldn't offer too much advantage, bu

you could lock out reduced agitation times, or fills, or-- 

don't know, we really haven't come up with anything. Just 

thinking that there's other opportunities there that coulg 

be identified and fall in the same boat, six or eight 

months, ten months, two years, four years, down the road. 

MR. HUI: Are you basing the fact that this 

amendment will not result in energy savings on accomplishin

what you just presented to us a few minutes ago that there 

was a 24.9 percent reduction in. 

MR. MODTLAND: The calculation yields a 24.9 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 4

percent reduction, and my argument is that there should be

no reduction. It's the same five temperature machine. In

essence you're just doing through two different cycles to

get there. But, you know, it's still the same--

MR. HUI: Because I think that what you have there

might be using not the correct method of interpreting the

equation, and because you base this number on the actual

test procedure using only the 75/25 percent, but the way I

feel that you use the equation, I don't think it's correct.

MR. MODTLAND: Okay. Again that would reinforce

the point about interpretationMR. HUI:-- Either something high or low in term of

the 24.9 percent that you just presented to us.

MR. MODTLAND: Do you want to walk through that

quickly, or afterwards, or--

MR. HUI: I think afterwards is fine.

MR. MODTLAND: Because I can point out quickly what

my assumptions are on that.

MR. MARGOLIS: Could you-- would you do it for the

record, please.

MR. MODTLAND: Surely.

This is the one with the lockout in the normal

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

4

percent reduction, and my argument is that there should be 

no reduction. It's the same five temperature machine. In 

essence you're just doing through two different cycles to 

get there. But, you know, it's still the same--

MR. HUI: Because I think that what you have there 

might be using not the correct method of interpreting the 

equation, and because you base this number on the actual 

test procedure using only the 75/25 percent, but the way I 

feel that you use the equation, I don't think it's correct. 

MR. MODTLAND: Okay. Again that would reinforce 

the point about interpretation--

MR. HUI:-- Either something high or low in term o

the 24.9 percent that you just presented to us. 

MR. MODTLAND: Do you want to walk through that 

quickly, or afterwards, or--

MR. HUI: I think afterwards is fine. 

MR. MODTLAND: Because I can point out quickly wha

my assumptions are on that. 

MR. MARGOLIS: Could you-- would you do it for the 

record, please. 

MR. MODTLAND: Surely. 

This is the one with the lockout in the normal 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 5

cycle. This first component-- we'll just take the V Max,

the first component here is the hot water gallons in what

would be a hot/warm cycle. Okay. Now, take in the fact,

this is hot/warm in the normal cycle, you're cold rinse. So,

this is in essence your agitation fill, your wash fill.

Take that times the usage factor, .18 for a hot/warm, take

that times the 75 apportionment factor.

The second component of that is the 25 percent

component. It's in the most energy intensive cycle. It has

the hot/warm, uses 34.97 gallons. Again, using the same

hot/warm apportionment factor, TUF, temperature utilization

factor.

The next factor term in here is for the hot/cold

cycle. Again, you'll notice the gallon usage is the same

for the hot/warm in the normal cycle. The hot/cold is

available in the normal cycle, so you don't have to take the

75/25. It's available, so you don't have to do the other

non-normal cycle. The apportionment value for for hot/cold

in five temperature select for temperature utilization

factor is 12 percent, or .12.

Going to the next term of the equation, it's for--

I'm sorry.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

5

cycle. This first component-- we'll just take the V Max, 

the first component here is the hot water gallons in what 

would be a hot/warm cycle. Okay. Now, take in the fact, 

this is hot/warm in the normal cycle, you're cold rinse. So

this is in essence your agitation fill, your wash fill. 

Take that times the usage factor l .18 for a hot/warm, take 

that times the 75 apportionment factor. 

The second component of that is the 25 percent 

component. It's in the most energy intensive cycle. It ha

the hot/warm, uses 34.97 gallons. Again, using the same 

hot/warm apportionment factor, TUF, temperature utilization 

factor. 

The next factor term in here is for the hot/cold 

cycle. Again, you'll notice the gallon usage is the same 

for the hot/warm in the normal cycle. The hot/cold is 

available in the normal cycle, so you don't have to take th

75/25. It's available, so you don't have to do the other 

non-normal cycle. The apportionment value for for hot/cold 

in five temperature select for temperature utilization 

factor is 12 percent, or .12. 

I'm sorry. 

Going to the next term of the equation, it's for-

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 5

Yeah. That would be for the warm/warm. Okay. My

assumption here is that the warm, again, was locked out in

the normal cycle. So, you just get the warm wash fill,

okay, which would be the same. Now, that's taking time, the

TUF of .3, the 75 percent apportionment factor again for the

normal cycle. You select the warm/warm on the normal cycle,

it's locked it out. You only get hot water when you

measure to run that cycle, warm/warm on the selector, normal

cycle, you only get hot water and it will be in the first

fill, your cold water in the second fill.

Okay. Now, the second portion of that term is if

you use the other cycle, the non-normal cycle, most energy

intensive cycle in the warm/warm setting. Now you get a

warm wash and a warm rinse. You use more gallons of hot

water, 23.67 to be exact in this case. And a temperature

utilization factor, again, of .3, apportionment factor

of.25.

The final term, is for a warm/cold, with a gallon

usage, 11 gallons. It's the same as warm/warm in the normal

cycle because in essence that's what you're doing. You're

getting warm/cold when you ask for warm/warm. Since that's

offered in the normal cycle, you use the utilization factor,

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

5

Yeah. That would be for the warm/warm. Okay. My 

assumption here is that the warm, again, was locked out in 

the normal cycle. So, you just get the warm wash fill, 

okay, which would be the same. NOw, that's taking time, the 

TUF of .3, the 75 percent apportionment factor again for the 

normal cycle. You select the warm/warm on the normal cycle

it's locked it out. You only get hot water when you 

measure to run that cycle, warm/warm on the selector, norma

cycle, you only get hot water and it will be in the first 

fill, your cold water in the second fill. 

Okay. Now, the second portion of that term is if 

you use the other cycle, the non-normal cycle, most energy 

intensive cycle in the warm/warm setting. Now you get a 

warm wash and a warm rinse. You use more gallons of hot 

water, 23.67 to be exact in this case. And a temperature 

utilization factor, again, of .3, apportionment factor 

of. 25. 

The final term, is for a warm/cold, with a gallon 

usage, 11 gallons. It's the same as warm/warm in the norma

cycle because in essence that's what you're doing. You're 

getting warm/cold when you ask for warm/warm. Since that's 

offered in the normal cycle, you use the utilization factor

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 5

the TUF of .25 for that calculation.

MR. HUI: You say the volume for hot/warm and the

warm/warm are from their most energy intensive cycle or are

they volumes in the normal cycle?

MR. MODTLAND: Both.

MR. HUI: Yes to both.

MR. MODTLAND: They are both by the way we

interpret the test procedure. It says to take the energy

that would be done on a normal cycle, take that times 75

percent, take the energy in the most energy intensive cycle,

and take that times 25 percent.

Now, the gallons of hot water is going to be

different between the two, because even when we select

hot/warm in both cases, in the normal cycle you're going to

get hot/cold; in the most energy intensive cycle when you

select hot/warm, you'll get hot/warm because you don't have

the lockout feature.

Now, that was out interpretation of the law, and I

guess if that's incorrect, that just stands to point--

MR. ADAMS: Bill, are you addressing the fact that

the most energy intensive cycle might have slightly higher

usage than the normal cycle for the same--

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

5

the TUF of .25 for that calculation. 

MR. HUI: You say the volume for hot/warm and the 

warm/warm are from their most energy intensive cycle or are 

they volumes in the normal cycle? 

MR. MODTLAND: Both. 

MR. HUI: Yes to both. 

MR. MODTLAND: They are both by the way we 

interpret the test procedure. It says to take the energy 

that would be done on a normal cycle t take that times 75 

percent t take the energy in the most energy intensive cycle 

and take that times 25 percent. 

Now t the gallons of hot water is going to be 

different between the two t because even when we select 

hot/warm in both casest in the normal cycle youtre going to 

get hot/cold; in the most energy intensive cycle when you 

select hot/warmt youtll get hot/warm because you dontt have 

the lockout feature. 

Now t that was out interpretation of the law t and 

guess if thatts incorrect t that just stands to point--

MR. ADAMS: Billt are you addressing the fact that 

the most energy intensive cycle might have slightly higher 

usage than the normal cycle for the same--

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 5

MR.-HUI: I would expect the volume in the most

energy intensive cycle would have a higher volume of water

usage than the normal cycle.

MR. MODTLAND: And that's what I'm showing here.

MR. ADAMS: Now, I think that the 22.07 that you

you have there would be a--

MR. MODTLAND: Normal cycle.

MR. ADAMS: -- a normal cycle hot wash, and the

warm- -

MR. MODTLAND: Hot wash.

MR. ADAMS: -- and the warm rinse locked out, so

you've got a cold--

MR. MODTLAND: So you've got a hot/cold which is

the same as this term right here which is a hot/cold. The

hot/cold-- in a normal cycle, hot/warm and hot/cold are the

same cycle with a lockout feature.

MR. ADAMS: Yes.

MR. MODTLAND: And warm/warm and warm/cold could

potentially be the same cycle. So, actually, you've got

three cycle, three temperature selections in the a normal

cycle with a lockout.

MR. ADAMS: Okay. So, it's the 23.67, which is the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

5

MR.-HUI: I would expect the volume in the most 

energy intensive cycle would have a higher volume of water 

usage than the normal cycle. 

MR. MODTLAND: And that's what I'm showing here. 

MR. ADAMS: Now, I think that the 22.07 that you 

you have there would be a--

MR. MODTLAND: Normal cycle. 

MR. ADAMS: -- a normal cycle hot wash, and the 

warm--

MR. MODTLAND: Hot wash. 

MR. ADAMS: and the warm rinse locked out, so 

you've got a cold--

MR. MODTLAND: So you've got a hot/cold which is 

the same as this term right here which is a hot/cold. The 

hot/cold-- in a normal cycle, hot/warm and hot/cold are the 

same cycle with a lockout feature. 

MR. ADAMS: Yes. 

MR. MODTLAND: And warm/warm and warm/cold could 

potentially be the same cycle. So, actually, you've got 

three cycle, three temperature selections in the a normal 

cycle with a lockout. 

MR. ADAMS: Okay. So, it's the 23.67, which is the 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 5

most energy intensive cycle--

MR. MODTLAND: Well, actually the 34.97, which is

the most energy intensive cycle for the hot/cold. Okay?

Roughly, it's 20 gallons of water, 22 gallons of

water per fill on this particular unit that we tested.

Okay? So, if it's all hot water, you've got 22 gallons, this

is just the hot water usage because that's where the energy

is consumed in that. If it's a hot fill, the whole 22

gallons are hot water.

MR. ADAMS: Correct.

MR. MODTLAND: If it's a warm fill, roughly, for

the case of this you should see, it's roughly 50/50 mix in

the water valve at this time when this unit was tested, so a

warm fill would be 11 gallons of hot water for each fill.

So, if you've got-- that's why the hot/warm term in the

normal cycle only shows one hot fill. The first fill fills

up hot, the warm rinse is locked out, you don't get warm

rinse, you get cold rinse only. So, you only use energy in

the first wash cycle.

MR. ADAMS: I guess it's the comparison-- I just

want to make sure I'm getting this right-- the 22.07 is

lower-- there's a lower number than the 23.67, and does that

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

54 

most energy intensive cycle--

MR. MODTLAND: Well, actually the 34.97, which is 

the most energy intensive cycle for the hot/cold. Okay? 

Roughly, it's 20 gallons of water, 22 gallons of 

water per fill on this particular unit that we tested. 

Okay? So, if it's all hot water, you've got 22 gallons, thi

is just the hot water usage because that's where the energy 

is consumed in that. If it's a hot fill, the whole 22 

gallons are hot water. 

MR. ADAMS: Correct. 

MR. MODTLAND: If it's a warm fill, roughly, for 

the case of this you should see, it's roughly 50/50 mix in 

the water valve at this time when this unit was tested, so 

warm fill would be 11 gallons of hot water for each fill. 

So, if you've got-- that's why the hot/warm term in the 

normal cycle only shows one hot fill. The first fill fills 

up hot, the warm rinse is locked out, you don't get warm 

rinse, you get cold rinse only. So, you only use energy in 

the first wash cycle. 

MR. ADAMS: I guess it's the comparison-- I just 

want to make sure I'm getting this right-- the 22.07 is 

lower-- there's a lower number than the 23.67, and does tha

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 5

represent the-fact that the 23.67 is a more energy intensive

cycle than is the normal cycle that the 22.07 came from?

MR. MODTLAND: Not really. What this indicates,

this is a warm cycle, and what you get then is in the spra

rinse; you'll pick up the additional gallon or so, in the

warm spray rinse where this would have had a cold spray

rinse by the temperature selection process. So, that's the

difference, and essentially that was a gallon and a half of

spray rinse water, which is dependent upon the temperature

switch selection when the rinse comes in if it's a

conventional rinse following the wash. It depends on how

the electrical system is hooked up. It's usually would be

the same temperature as, or could default into cold rinse

all the time. It just depends on how the electrical system

is set up. But, that's difference for that.

MR. ADAMS: Anything else?

Thank you very much.

I'd like the call the last scheduled speaker Terru

Thiele.

MR. THIELE: Good morning.

My name is Terry Thiele. I'm Senior Counsel for

Government Relations with the General Electric Company, and

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

5

represent the-fact that the 23.67 is a more energy intensive 

cycle than is the normal cycle that the 22.07 came from? 

MR. MODTLAND: Not really. What this indicates, 

this is a warm cycle, and what you get then is in the spray 

rinse; you'll pick up the additional gallon or so, in the 

warm spray rinse where this would have had a cold spray 

rinse by the temperature selection process. So, that's the 

difference, and essentially that was a gallon and a half of 

spray rinse water, which is dependent upon the temperature 

switch selection when the rinse comes in if it's a 

conventional rinse following the wash. It depends on how 

the electrical system is hooked up. It's usually would be 

the same temperature as, or could default into cold rinse 

all the time. It just depends on how the electrical system 

is set up. But, that's difference for that. 

MR. ADAMS: Anything else? 

Thank you very much. 

I'd like the call the last scheduled speaker Terru 

Thiele. 

MR. THIELE: Good morning. 

My name is Terry Thiele. I'm Senior Counsel for 

Government Relations with the General Electric Company, and 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 5

unless you really want me to, I will decline to read the

statement I've already submitted to the record, but rather

simply go back and highlight a couple of major points,

summarizing the comments.

First and foremost, I have to say that this

rulemaking should not be taking place. Listening to the

testimony this morning to this point simply highlights for

me the difficulty of a regulatory agency promulgating rules

that affect the marketplace when the agency has no

sensitivity for, or appreciation of, what goes on in the

marketplace.

The issue is really two different substantive

rules that the Department of Energy has addressed.

One, in October of '93, when it changed its

interpretation on how to test product; and the second, the

notice of public rulemaking that came out in December.

Unfortunately, before we can get to the December

rulemaking, we have to address what took place in October;

and I would respectfully submit that the Department of

Energy's decision in October of 1993 to change its

interpretation of the test procedure violates due process,

has an adverse economic consequence, and destroys the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

5

unless you really want me to, I will decline to read the 

statement I've already submitted to the record, but rather 

simply go back and highlight a couple of major points, 

summarizing the comments. 

First and foremost, I have to say that this 

rulemaking should not be taking place. Listening to the 

testimony this morning to this point simply highlights for 

me the difficulty of a regulatory agency promulgating rules 

that affect the marketplace when the agency has no 

sensitivity for, or appreciation of, what goes on in the 

marketplace. 

The issue is really two different substantive 

rules that the Department of Energy has addressed. 

One, in October of '93, when it changed its 

interpretation on how to test producti and the second, the 

notice of public rulemaking that came out in December. 

Unfortunately, before we can get to the December 

rulemaking, we have to address what took place in Octoberi 

and I would respectfully submit that the Department of 

Energy's decision in October of 1993 to change its 

interpretation of the test procedure violates due process, 

has an adverse economic consequence, and destroys the 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 5

integrity of that test procedure.

Let me speak first to the economic effect, becaus

I think it's important for the Department of Energy to

appreciate what's going on here. It is not simply a

question of how much time it takes to amend or change your

product design to allow you to avail yourself of the

interpretation.

As the speaker for Whirlpool pointed out, you

can't make a turnaround in less than a year because not only

do you have to design and manufacture the product, you have

to market it.

The commercialization of a product entails taking

the product out in the field to the retailers who purchase

it from you and selling that product to the retailers. It

involves an integrated marketing strategy for your entire

product line where you attempt to assess what the end

consumer is going to want, you build your product line up

based upon that, around price points that are unique to each

industry, and you attempt to go to the retailer with a

package of products that attempt to address the retailers

concern in terms of those price points.

Getting your product into the field and

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

5

integrity of that test procedure. 

Let me speak first to the economic effect, becaus

I think it's important for the Department of Energy to 

appreciate what's going on here. It is not simply a 

question of how much time it takes to amend or change your 

product design to allow you to avail yourself of the 

interpretation. 

As the speaker for Whirlpool pointed out, you 

can't make a turnaround in less than a year because not onl

do you have to design and manufacture the product, you have 

to market it. 

The commercialization of a product entails taking 

the product out in the field to the retailers who purchase 

it from you and selling that product to the retailers. It 

involves an integrated marketing strategy for your entire 

product line where you attempt to assess what the end 

consumer is going to want, you build your product line up 

based upon that, around price points that are unique to eac

industry, and you attempt to go to the retailer with a 

package of products that attempt to address the retailers 

concern in terms of those price points. 

Getting your product into the field and 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 5

commercializing it, selling it to the retailers, introducing

it to the retailer, making the retailer aware of the

features, and how it performs, takes time.

If I could wave a magic wand right now and turn

all GE product into product that complied with the October

interpretation, it still would be too late in many respects

for us to market that product in 1994 because we would have

to go back to square one and resell it all over again, and

it's too late for that.

The fact that there's going to be an adverse

economic effect is well demonstrated by the-- one of the--

Exhibit B to the Maytag submission where they show a

KitchenAid document referring to Maytag 1994 laundry, and

I'm going to quote from this.

" What happened to Maytag's hot/warm temperature

option? That temperature option still is available on the

following 1994 KitchenAid models" , and it lists them. "

This option is available in every cycle except the regular

cycle. "

It closes out by saying," Better luck next time,

Maytag. "

I think the point that's made by that document in

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

5

commercializing it, selling it to the retailers, introducing 

it to the retailer, making the retailer aware of the 

features, and how it performs, takes time. 

If I could wave a magic wand right now and turn 

all GE product into product that complied with the October 

interpretation, it still would be too late in many respects 

for us to market that product in 1994 because we would have 

to go back to square one and resell it allover again, and 

it's too late for that. 

The fact that there's going to be an adverse 

economic effect is well demonstrated by the-- one of the--

Exhibit B to the May tag submission where they show a 

KitchenAid document referring to May tag 1994 laundry, and 

I'm going to quote from this. 

" What happened to May tag's hot/warm temperature 

option? That temperature option still is available on the 

following 1994 KitchenAid models" , and it lists them. " 

This option is available in every cycle except the regular 

cycle. " 

May tag. " 

It closes out by saying," Better luck next time, 

I think the point that's made by that document in 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 5

the commercialization of the product is that your features

sell, and having more temperature selections sells more

product than having fewer temperature selections. The

interpretation that was allowed by the Department of Energy

in October allows a manufacturer to produce product with

more temperature selections than the previous

interpretation.

I think based upon the testimony given by the

other major manufacturers this morning, it should be

relatively clear that the other major manufacturers based

their product design upon the interpretation that the

Department of Energy made earlier in the year which was

circulated to us all in July, and which basically banned

lockout.

Let me speak to due process.

The October 1993 was a substantive rule as far as

administrative law is concerned. It has an adverse economic

impact as I have just demonstrated. If it is a substantive

rule under standard administrative law, there are three

piles of things that have to be addressed. One pile is

notice and comment.

The second pile is regulatory impact.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

5

the commercialization of the product is that your features 

sell, and having more temperature selections sells more 

product than having fewer temperature selections. The 

interpretation that was allowed by the Department of Energy 

in October allows a manufacturer to produce product with 

more temperature selections than the previous 

interpretation. 

I think based upon the testimony given by the 

other major manufacturers this morning, it should be 

relatively clear that the other major manufacturers based 

their product design upon the interpretation that the 

Department of Energy made earlier in the year which was 

circulated to us all in JulYI and which basically banned 

lockout. 

Let me speak to due process. 

The October 1993 was a substantive rule as far as 

administrative law is concerned. It has an adverse economi

impact as I have just demonstrated. If it is a substantive 

rule under standard administrative law, there are three 

piles of things that have to be addressed. One pile is 

notice and comment. 

The second pile is regulatory impact. 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 6

And-the third is lead time.

There was no notice and comment on the

interpretation in October. I'm a student of irony, and

irony number one here is that a waiver petition mechanism

was available, and in fact, DOE quoted the presence of that

waiver petition in its correspondence with Whirlpool. That

could have readily addressed these issues and afforded

everyone an opportunity to comment on the substance and

utility of that change, and it was not used.

The regulatory impact of the rule was not

addressed.

The second irony here is that Executive order

12866 had been promulgated the month prior, which clearly

spoke about the need to address the adverse effect on

competition in any industry arising from a rulemaking.

And of course, the third irony is lead time, and

that is basically the contrast between the October

interpretation which took place immediately to the benefit

of one manufacturer, and the notice of proposed rulemaking

in December which went on at great length describing why

lead time was necessary in order for everyone to be able to

comply.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

6

And-the third is lead time. 

There was no notice and comment on the 

interpretation in October. I'm a student of irony, and 

irony number one here is that a waiver petition mechanism 

was available, and in fact, DOE quoted the presence of that 

waiver petition in its correspondence with Whirlpool. That 

could have readily addressed these issues and afforded 

everyone an opportunity to comment on the substance and 

utility of that change, and it was not used. 

The regulatory impact of the rule was not 

addressed. 

The second irony here is that Executive Order 

12866 had been promulgated the month prior, which clearly 

spoke about the need to address the adverse effect on 

competition in any industry arising from a rulemaking. 

And of course, the third irony is lead time, and 

that is basically the contrast between the October 

interpretation which took place immediately to the benefit 

of one manufacturer, and the notice of proposed rulemaking 

in December which went on at great length describing why 

lead time was necessary in order for everyone to be able to 

comply. 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 6

I guess my question is if lead time was so

important in the December rulemaking, why was it not

important in the October interpretation?

The lead time is critical to Whirlpool as they

have stated in the rulemaking. It is also critical to the

rest of the industry in terms of the October interpretation,

and the Department of Energy has not afforded us that lead

time.

Finally, let me speak to the integrity of the tes

procedure which is, unfortunately, now gone.

The primary problem with the lockout

interpretation is that it is easy to manipulate. The

Frigidaire spokesman discussed that in one respect. I'll

discuss it in another.

I here on the slide simply a copy, and I brought

copies to pass out if you gentleman want a copy. It's

simply a copy of a faceplate of a GE washer. And what I

want to point out-- let's see if I can get it on here-- is,

here's the regular cycles, light soil, normal, heavy cycle

for this particular product.

The point that needs to be made with the lockout

design is that if you bring your selector around to normal,

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

6

I guess my question is if lead time was so 

important in the December rulemaking, why was it not 

important in the October interpretation? 

The lead time is critical to Whirlpool as they 

have stated in the rulemaking. It is also critical to the 

rest of the industry in terms of the October interpretation

and the Department of Energy has not afforded us that lead 

time. 

Finally, let me speak to the integrity of the tes

procedure which is, unfortunately, now gone. 

The primary problem with the lockout 

interpretation is that it is easy to manipulate. The 

Frigidaire spokesman discussed that in one respect. I'll 

discuss it in another. 

I here on the slide simply a copy, and I brought 

copies to pass out if you gentleman want a copy. It's 

simply a copy of a faceplate of a GE washer. And what I 

want to point out-- let's see if I can get it on here-- is, 

here's the regular cycles, light soil, normal, heavy cycle 

for this particular product. 

The point that needs to be made with the lockout 

design is that if you bring your selector around to normal, 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
6

at that point-you lock out the warm rinse.

However, if you design your selector so that once

you take it past that indent, into your heavy soil regular

cycle, you can defeat the lockout.

Now, the question was raised earlier, well, what

consumer is going to appreciate these nuances. The point to

be made is that if there is a consumer who wants a warm

rinse, and I believe many consumers do want a warm rinse in

something that they consider to be a normal cycle, and they

find to their dismay that it is not available, and then they

call the answer center and they complain about it, all the

answer center has to do is tell them, "Just take the dial

past the indent and you've got your warm rinse back."

That is only one example of the many different

ways that you could manipulate the controls to defeat the

lockout. What makes this so frustrating is that the

alternative to this entire matter was so simple, and that

was simply to clarify the definition of availability, either

through the waiver petition process, which could have been

induced by simply saying no to the interpretation, or

through a rulemaking on the October interpretation itself

rather than simply making it by fiat.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

6

at that point-you lock out the warm rinse. 

However/ if you design your selector so that once 

you take it past that indent/ into your heavy soil regular 

cycle/ you can defeat the lockout. 

Now/ the question was raised earlier, well, what 

consumer is going to appreciate these nuances. The point to 

be made is that if there is a consumer who wants a warm 

rinse/ and I believe many consumers do want a warm rinse in 

something that they consider to be a normal cycle/ and they 

find to their dismay that it is not available/ and then they 

call the answer center and they complain about it, all the 

answer center has to do is tell them/ "Just take the dial 

past the indent and you/ve got your warm rinse back." 

That is only one example of the many different 

ways that you could manipulate the controls to defeat the 

lockout. What makes this so frustrating is that the 

alternative to this entire matter was so simple/ and that 

was simply to clarify the definition of availability, eithe

through the waiver petition process, which could have been 

induced by simply saying no to the interpretation/ or 

through a rulemaking on the October interpretation itself 

rather than simply making it by fiat. 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 6

I'd-like to point out that banning lockout from a

interpretive matter is not a loss of utility to the consume

because what lockout does is it takes away an option that

the consumer currently has. The statutory requirement that

an energy standard not limit design options talks about wha

is useful and available to the consumer, not necessary what

is useful and available to the manufacturer.

I'd like to conclude by saying that if we had as

an industry, had an opportunity to comment on the October

1993 interpretation, the Department of Energy of energy

might have realized the market consequences for that

interpretation for the year 1994. The fact that the 1994

energy standard for this year, at least, is for all intents

and purposes, gutted, the fact that the test procedure is

easily manipulated and easily defeated.

And finally, and I believe most troubling, the

consequences of this sorry process for the entire energy

rulemaking process involving all the other product

categories, and other manufacturing industries that DOE now

has to work with going forward. I don't have any ready

solutions to the Department of Energy as to how to get

themselves out of the hole that they've dug with this one,

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

6

I'd-like to point out that banning lockout from a

interpretive matter is not a loss of utility to the consume

because what lockout does is it takes away an option that 

the consumer currently has. The statutory requirement that 

an energy standard not limit design options talks about wha

is useful and available to the consumer, not necessary what 

is useful and available to the manufacturer. 

I'd like to conclude by saying that if we had as 

an industry, had an opportunity to comment on the october 

1993 interpretation, the Department of Energy of energy 

might have realized the market consequences for that 

interpretation for the year 1994. The fact that the 1994 

energy standard for this year, at least, is for all intents 

and purposes, gutted, the fact that the test procedure is 

easily manipulated and easily defeated. 

And finally, and I believe most troubling, the 

consequences of this sorry process for the entire energy 

rulemaking process involving all the other product 

categories, and other manufacturing industries that DOE now 

has to work with going forward. I don't have any ready 

solutions to the Department of Energy as to how to get 

themselves out of the hole that they've dug with this one, 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 6

quite frankly; but it is a big hole as far as I'm concerned.

And the lack of due process and the lack of sensitivity to

the manufacturers' competitive needs is most troubling.

I'm going to repeat myself for just a second.

When it come to the marketplace, cost is

everything. And while in an energy standard rulemaking, the

fact that something costs more but is still technically

feasible, that may be determininative. Technical feasibility

is irrelevant in the marketplace. Cost is everything. Coast

and timing. And to the extent that every other manufacturer

has to add cost in order to come up with the same features

package that the Whirlpool Corporation is allowed to

produce, thanks solely to two different interpretations that

were made on the test procedure, it has a severe economic

consequence that I hope we never see repeated.

Thank you.

MR. ADAMS: Thank you.

Gene?

MR. MARGOLIS: I have no questions.

MR. ADAMS: Jim?

MR. KAO: No questions.

MR. ADAMS: Bill?

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

6

quite frankly; but it is a big hole as far as I'm concerned

And the lack of due process and the lack of sensitivity to 

the manufacturers' competitive needs is most troubling. 

I'm going to repeat myself for just a second. 

When it come to the marketplace, cost is 

everything. And while in an energy standard rulemaking, the 

fact that something costs more but is still technically 

feasible, that may be determininative. Technical feasibility 

is irrelevant in the marketplace. Cost is everything. Coas

and timing. And to the extent that every other manufacture

has to add cost in order to come up with the same features 

package that the Whirlpool Corporation is allowed to 

produce, thanks solely to two different interpretations tha

were made on the test procedure, it has a severe economic 

consequence that I hope we never see repeated. 

Thank you. 

MR. ADAMS: Thank you. 

Gene? 

MR. MARGOLIS: I have no questions. 

MR. ADAMS: Jim? 

MR. KAO: No questions. 

MR. ADAMS: Bill? 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 6

MR.-HUI: You say on page 6 here that this problem

with a precise definition of the calculation and there is--

it's probably that someone would interpret it several

different ways.

Do you have list of how they would interpret,

and--

MR. THIELE: I don't have that list with me. We

can certainly provide that. That was the advice that I was

given be our engineering staff, and I didn't get the

elaboration, but I certainly can provide that.

MR. ADAMS: Thank you.

At this point, I would like to ask if there are

any unscheduled speakers who would like to make a comment?

Seeing none, do any of the speakers who testified

wish to make rebuttal statements regarding any of the

testimony that was given today? Okay.

MR. RINGGER: I can just do it from here.

I just have one point that I--

MR. ADAMS: Could you identify yourself for the

record, please?

MR. RINGGER: Doug Ringger from Maytag Company.

MR. ADAMS: Thank you.

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

6

MR.-HUI: You say on page 6 here that this problem 

with a precise definition of the calculation and there is--

it's probably that someone would interpret it several 

different ways. 

Do you have list of how they would interpret, 

and--

MR. THIELE: I don't have that list with me. We 

can certainly provide that. That was the advice that I was 

given be our engineering staff, and I didn't get the 

elaboration, but I certainly can provide that. 

MR. ADAMS: Thank you. 

At this point, I would like to ask if there are 

any unscheduled speakers who would like to make a comment? 

Seeing none, do any of the speakers who testified 

wish to make rebuttal statements regarding any of the 

testimony that was given today? Okay. 

MR. RINGGER: I can just do it from here. 

I just have one point that I--

MR. ADAMS: Could you identify yourself for the 

record, please? 

MR. RINGGER: Doug Ringger from May tag Company. 

MR. ADAMS: Thank you. 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 6

MR.-RINGGER: I guess from the standpoint of

however this amendment or however this is resolved, I feel

that the manufacturer that didn't follow the intent of the

rule to save the most energy with the product changes should

be the one required to change their product line, not those

of us who followed the intent and those of us who, I think,

would result in the most energy savings, which is really

what the intent of the whole DOE ruling is. I guess I just

wanted to make that point.

MR. ADAMS: Thank you. Are there any questions

by--

statement?

Whirlpool.

MR. THOMPSON: I'd like to make one comment.

MR. ADAMS: Okay. We have one other rebuttal

MR. THOMPSON: For the record, Mike Thompson with

Basically, the comment is that throughout the

testimony from the other manufacturers here, we heard

repeatedly that this design does not save energy. It is

inconsistent with the intent of the law. This is a design

option that we firmly believe would save energy from its

inception. We felt very, very, vehemently about it from the

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

6

MR. -RINGGER : I guess from the standpoint of 

however this amendment or however this is resolved, I feel 

that the manufacturer that didn't follow the intent of the 

rule to save the most energy with the product changes shoul

be the one required to change their product line, not those 

of us who followed the intent and those of us who, I think, 

would result in the most energy savings, which is really 

what the intent of the whole DOE ruling is. I guess I just 

wanted to make that point. 

MR. ADAMS: Thank you. Are there any questions 

by--

MR. THOMPSON: I'd like to make one comment. 

MR. ADAMS: Okay. We have one other rebuttal 

statement? 

MR. THOMPSON: For the record, Mike Thompson with 

Whirlpool. 

Basically, the comment is that throughout the 

testimony from the other manufacturers here, we heard 

repeatedly that this design does not save energy. It is 

inconsistent with the intent of the law. This is a design 

option that we firmly believe would save energy from its 

inception. We felt very, very, vehemently about it from th

MILLER REPORTING CO. r INC. 

507 C STREET r N.E. 

WASHINGTON r D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 6

very beginning.

I would say that the purpose of a test procedure

in and of itself is to measure energy, not necessarily to

save energy. But notwithstanding that, we absolutely

believe that the design that we've factored in as a lockout

will save energy.

There is an awful long history of consumer use

pattern that indicates a very heavy use in the normal cycle.

If that use pattern remains consistent-- and we're counting

on it that it does, and we're, again, attempting to develop

survey data that updates that-- it will save energy.

We strongly believe that there is a heirarchy of

selection when a consumer steps up to the clothes washer and

begins to operate the machine. We believe that that

heirarchy is cycle first which quite, predominantly is in

the normal cycle.

That would be followed by wash temp options

thereafter, and rinse temps options following that as a

third tertiary selection cycle. If that's locked out,

assuming that use pattern continues of at least 75 percent,

there's got to be some savings realized.

Mr. Thiele pointed out on a GE console that by

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

6

very beginning. 

I would say that the purpose of a test procedure 

in and of itself is to measure energy, not necessarily to 

save energy. But notwithstanding that, we absolutely 

believe that the design that we've factored in as a lockout 

will save energy. 

There is an awful long history of consumer use 

pattern that indicates a very heavy use in the normal cycle

If that use pattern remains consistent-- and we're counting 

on it that it does, and we're, again, attempting to develop 

survey data that updates that-- it will save energy. 

We strongly believe that there is a heirarchy of 

selection when a consumer steps up to the clothes washer an

begins to operate the machine. We believe that that 

heirarchy is cycle first which quite, predominantly is in 

the normal cycle. 

That would be followed by wash temp options 

thereafter, and rinse temps options following that as a 

third tertiary selection cycle. If that's locked out, 

assuming that use pattern continues of at least 75 percent, 

there's got to be some savings realized. 

Mr. Thiele pointed out on a GE console that by 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666 
mb 6

changing the indent a couple of notches you can go from

normal cycle to heavy cycle. That's not going to happen on

the Whirlpool machine. The normal cycle in its entirety is

locked out. The heavy cycle will be a separate cycle

selection, in and of itself, as will the other cycles of

permanent press and knits, and that's basically my comments.

MR. ADAMS: Thank you.

There being no other rebuttal statements, or

questions, I would adjourn this hearing. Thank you very

much for your attendance.

( Whereupon, at 11:00 a. m., the hearing was

adjourned. )

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC.

507 C STREET, N.E.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002

(202) 546-6666

 EE-RM-93-701 COMMENT 0I

6

changing the indent a couple of notches you can go from 

normal cycle to heavy cycle. That's not going to happen on 

the Whirlpool machine. The normal cycle in its entirety is 

locked out. The heavy cycle will be a separate cycle 

selection, in and of itself, as will the other cycles of 

permanent press and knits, and that's basically my comments

MR. ADAMS: Thank you. 

There being no other rebuttal statements, or 

questions, I would adjourn this hearing. Thank you very 

much for your attendance. 

adjourned. 

( Whereupon, at 11:00 a. m., the hearing was 

MILLER REPORTING CO., INC. 

507 C STREET, N.E. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20002 

(202) 546-6666