er» can Council for an Energy-Efficient e e

E ®® y

WASHINGTON, DC

March 15, 1999

09

Mr. Fred Brown

Office of Hearings and Appeals

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Ave. SW 20585

Re: Docket VEE-0054

Dear Mr. Brown,

Attached please find the comments of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient

Economy in the above-referenced proceeding. If you have any questions about these comments,

please let me know.

Sincerely,

Steven M. Nadel

Deputy Director

attachment

cc: Alan Kessler, Amana Appliances

1001 Connecticut Avenue N.W. a Suite 801 • Washington, D.C. 20036 • (202) 429-8873 / FAX (202) 429-2248

0 zc cied

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 339

American Council for an Energy-Efficient ~o* 

Mr. Fred Brown 

Office of Hearings and Appeals 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Ave. SW 20585 

Re: Docket VEE-00S4 

Dear Mr. Brown, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

.. 

: .-1i.: 

D '" March 15, 1999 . .): 0 CJ 

Attached please find the comments of the American Council for an Energy-Effi~ient 

Economy in the above-referenced proceeding. If you have any questions about the~,e comments, 

please let me know. 

Sincerely, 

~tJ\ 1rL (14) s1;::: M. Nadel 

Deputy Director 

attachment 

cc: Alan Kessler, Amana Appliances 

1001 Connecticut Avenue N.W .• Suite 801 • Washington, D.C. 20036 • (202) 429-8873/ FAX (202) 429-2248 

a ~cyded ~pe( 
encan Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy

WASHINGTON, DC

Comments of the American Council for an Energy -Efficient Economy on

Amana's Petition for Exception

March 15, 1999

The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) is a non-profit

research organization formed in 1980. We conduct research on technologies, programs and

policies to advance energy efficiency in the U.S. Among our many project areas is work on

appliance efficiency. This work began in 1983 with the publication of our report Energy $aving

Appliances and continued with the negotiation of appliance efficiency standards in the National

Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 and the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (we were one of

the lead negotiators). More recently, we played a leading role in the negotiation of consensus

refrigerator standards in 1993-1994. Currently, we work with utilities and others on the design of

programs to promote appliance energy efficiency, and also participate in DOE appliance

standards rulemakings.

Approximately two weeks ago we received a copy of Amana's petition for exception.

We oppose this petition because it is:

1. Premature;

2. Provides inadequate justification for the relief requested;

3. Contains faulty and misleading information;

4. Seeks relief that is probably not needed;

5. Seeks overly broad and excessive relief,

6. Not in the interest of fair competition.

Each of these problems are described in more detail in the sections below.

Petition is Premature `

Amana claims that it needs a speedy exception now because it must soon make

production decisions for refrigerators that meet the 2001 standard, and if it doesn't soon know

what blowing agent to use, it will suffer significant harm. Based on our discussions with other

manufacturers, we believe that Amana's petition is premature because:

a. There are on-going discussions with Allied Signal about producing HFC 245fa,

discussions that could be resolved one way or another in the next few months and almost

certainly will be resolved this calendar year. To force a DOE decision now before these

1001 Connecticut Avenue N.W. • Suite 801 • Washington, D.C. 20036 • (202) 429-8873 / FAX (202) 429-2248

0 recycled paper

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 339

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Comments of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy on 

Amana's Petition for Exception 

March 15, 1999 

The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) is a non-profit 

research organization fonned in 1980. We conduct resear~h on technologies, programs and 

policies to advance energy efficiency in the U.S. Among our many project areas is work on 

appliance efficiency. This work began in 1983 with the publication of our report Energy $aving 

Appliances and continued with the negotiation of appliance efficiency standards in the National 

Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 and the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (we were one of 

the lead negotiators). More recently, we played a leading Jole in the ne.gotiation of consensus 

refrigerator standards in 1993-1994. Currently, we work with utilities and others on the design of 

programs to promote appliance energy efficiency, and also participate in DOE appliance 

standards rulemakings. 

Approximately two weeks ago we received a copy of Amana's petition for exception. 

We oppose this petition because it is: 

1. Premature; 

2. Provides inadequate justification for the relief requested; 

3. Contains faulty and misleading information; 

4. Seeks relief that is probably not needed; 

5. Seeks overly broad and excessive relief; 

6. Not in the interest of fair competition. 

Each of these problems are described in more detail in the sections below. 

Petition is Premature • 

Amana claims that it needs a speedy exception now because it must soon make 

production decisions for refiigerators that meet the 2001 standard, and ifit doesn't soon know 

what blowing agent to use, it will suffer significant harm. Based on our discussions with other 

manufacturers, we believe that Amana's petition is premature because: 

a. There are on-going discussions with Allied Signal about producing HFC 245fa, 

discussions that could be resolved one way or another in the next few months and almost 

certainly will be resolved this calendar year. To force a DOE decision now before these 

1001 Connecticut Avenue N.W .• Suite 801 • Washington, D.C. 20036 • (202) 429-8873/ FAX (202) 429-2248 

a recycled ~pe( 
negotiations are concluded could well lead to a suboptimal outcome.'

Under EPA regulations, HCFC 141b will not be phased out until Jan. 1, 2003 , providing

plenty of time to identify and phase-in a replacement. While Amana would prefer to have

the blowing agent issue resolved for its 2001 models, the issue need not be resolved until

the 2003 models. To the extent the new blowing agent is a near-drop-in for HCFC 141 b

(and HFC 245fa is), there is not much to be lost by using HCFC 141b in 2001 models,

and switching to an alternative blowing agent later . In fact, when CFCs were phased out,

manufacturers first met the 1993 standard, and then phased out CFCs by 1995 -- a two

step process that w4 not especially burdensome to manufacturers , despite the fact that

HCFC 141b was not a drop-in replacement for CFCs.

c. Other manufacturers we have talked to indicate that there is still sufficient time to

conclude negotiations with Allied, and pursue alternative courses of action for 2001

models if the talks are unsuccessful. Amana should be able to do the same, and if it

cannot, it has much bigger problems than the DOE standard.

d. Finally, before making a decision to relax the DOE energy standard, DOE should consult

with EPA. EPA is very interested in energy efficiency, and if faced with a choice

between a relaxed DOE standard or possibly delaying the HCFC phaseout, it may choose

the latter, making a DOE action unnecessary.

Petition Provides Inadequate Justification for Relief Requested

In its petition, Amana requests speedy and very extensive relief, but provides little solid

evidence to support its claims. In our opinion the burden is on Amana to support its claims;

DOE cannot and should not grant a petition based on unsupported claims. For example, among

the critical claims that Amana makes that are not well-supported in the filing (at least the version

of the filing provided to ACEEE and other parties) are the following:

• That a decision on the blowing agent must be made in early 1999, and that waiting until

summer or fall 1999 is not possible.

That Amana is particularly disadvantaged by the DOE standards because it does not have

overseas plants (This ignores the fact that some other U.S. refrigerator manufacturers do

not have foreign plants and, as discussed below, may well overstate the benefit of these

foreign plants).

• That refrigerator manufacturers do not have the luxury of increasing the outside or

external cabinet dimensions. (Amana provides a one sentence supporting statement that

' In fact, Amana's petition could well be part of its strategy to influence the negotiations

with Allied Signal. By proffering an alternative to HFC 245fa, Amana may be seeking to

pressure Allied to give it and other manufacturers a better deal.

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 339

b. 

c. 

negotiations are concluded could well lead to a suboptimal outcome. J 

Under EPA regulations, HCFC 141b will not be phased out until Jan. 1,2003, providing 

plenty of time to identify and phase-in a replacement. While Amana would prefer to have 

the blowing agent issue resolved for its 2001 models, the issue need not be resolved until 

the 2003 models. To the extent the new blowing agent is a near-drop-in for HCFC 141 b 

(and HFC 245fa is), there is not much to be lost by using HCFC 141b in 2001 models, 

and switching to an alternative blowing agent later. In fact, when CFCs were phased out, 

manufacturers first met the 1993 standard, and then phased out CFCs by 1995 -- a two 

step process that w~ not especially burdensome to manufacturers, despite the fact that 

HCFC 141b was not a drop-in replacement for CFCs. 

Other manufacturers we have talked to indicate that there is still sufficient time to 

conclude negotiations with Allied, and pursue alternative courses of action for 2001 

models if the talks are unsuccessful. Amana should be able to do the same, and if it 

cannot, it has much bigger problems than the DOE standard. 

d. Finally, before making a decision to relax the DOE energy standard, DOE should consult 

with EPA. EPA is very interested in energy efficiency, and if faced with a choice 

between a relaxed DOE standard or possibly delaying the HCFC phaseout, it may choose 

the latter, making a DOE action unnecessary. 

Petition Provides Inadequate Justification for Relief Requested 

In its petition, Amana requests speedy and very extensive relief, but provides little solid 

evidence to support its claims. In our opinion the burden is on Amana to support its claims; 

DOE cannot and should not grant a petition based on unsupported claims. For example, among 

the critical claims that Amana makes that are not well-supported in the filing (at least the version 

of the filing provided to ACEEE and other parties) are the following: 

• That a decision on the blowing agent must be made in early 1999, and that waiting until 

summer or fall 1999 is not possible. 

• That Amana is particularly disadvantaged by the DOE standards because it does not have 

overseas plants (This ignores the fact that some other u.s. refrigerator manufacturers do 

not have foreign plants and, as discussed below, may well overstate the benefit of these 

foreign plants). 

• That refrigerator manufacturers do not have the luxury of increasing the outside or 

external cabinet dimensions. (Amana provides a one sentence supporting statement that 

1 In fact, Amana's petition could well be part of its strategy to influence the negotiations 

with Allied Signal. By proffering an alternative to HFC 245fa, Amana may be seeking to 

pressure Allied to give it and other manufacturers a better deal. 
is much too brief and addresses only one aspect of this issue. Then later, Amana

acknowledges it can change volume by 1.9 cf but no more, again without supporting

statements).

• That price increases in the marketplace cannot be passed on to consumers (This is a

complex issue, and while there are some situations in which it is probably true there are

also many situations in which it is not true).

Petition Contains Faulty and Misleading Information

In some instances where Amana does provide information, the information is faulty or

misleading. For example:

a. Amana claims, based on a 1994 document, that alternative blowing agents will have at

least-a 10% energy use penalty relative to HCFC 141b. This information is dated, as

even Figure 2 in Amana's petition shows only an 8% penalty for C-Pentane, and this 8%

penalty is for non-optimized formulations (with optimization the penalty is likely to

decline by several percentage points).

b. Amana claims that the 2001 standards "were negotiated but not financially justified" and

argues that DOE found only 20% energy savings to be financially justified. In fact, DOE

did do detailed financial calculations and published these in a July 1995 Technical

Support Document. Contrary to Amana's claims, this DOE TSD found that units more

efficient than the 2001 standards are justified. In the case of top mount auto defrost

refrigerator-freezers (the most popular units in the U.S.), the minimum life-cycle cost (at

a 6% real discount rate) was 437 kWh a year (see Table 4.1 in the TSD), which is

approximately 10% below the 2001 standard. In the case of a side-by-side units with

thru-the-door ice (the second most popular units in the U.S.), the minimum lifecycle cost

point is 508 kWh/year (see Table 4.4 in the TSD), which is more than 20% below the

2001 standard.

c. Amana claims that GE, Whirlpool and Woods can produce refrigerators and freezers in

Mexico and Canada to get around EPA HCFC regulations, providing them with a

competitive advantage. However, the plants GE and Whirlpool have in these other

countries are primarily to serve the markets in their home countries , exports to the U.S.

are limited. The products produced in Mexico are small units that have only a small

portion of the U.S. market. To produce more and larger units in Mexico will require

significant changes. As for Canada, our understanding is that Woods only produces

freezers, which are products Amana does not make. Cameo, a GE subsidiary, does

produce refrigerators in Canada, but this is an inefficient plant that will have difficulty

competing with U.S. plants, even if the Cameo plant continues to use HCFCs after 2003.

Finally, there are major expenses in producing large numbers of refrigerators in other

countries and exporting them to the U.S., expenses that have thus far kept U.S.

manufacturers from doing this for most models. The potential to save $9-12 is unlikely

to change this balance, particularly since under the Montreal Protocol, Mexico too will be

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 339

is much too brief and addresses only one aspect of this issue. Then later, Amana 

acknowledges it can change volume by 1.9 cfbut no more, again without supporting 

statements). 

• That price increases in the marketplace cannot be passed on to consumers (This is a 

complex issue, and while there are some situations in which it is probably true there are 

also many situations in which it is not true). 

Petition Contains Faulty and Misleading Information 

In some instances where Amana does provide information, the information is faulty or 

misleading. For example: 

a. Amana claims, based on a 1994 document, that alternative blowing agents will have at 

least-a 10% energy use penalty relative to HCFC 141b. This information is dated, as 

even Figure 2 in Amana's petition shows only an 8% penalty for C-Pentane, apd this 8% 

penalty is for non-optimized formulations (with optimization the pel1alty is likely to 

decline by several percentage points). 

b. Amana claims that the 2001 standards "were negotiated but not financially justified" and 

argues that DOE found only 20% energy savings to be financially justified. In fact, DOE 

did do detailed financial calculations and published these in a July 1995 Technical 

Support Document. Contrary to Amana's claims, this DOE TSD found that units more 

efficient than the 2001 standarqs are justified. In the case oftop mount auto defrost 

refrigerator-freezers (the most popular units in the U.S.), the minimum life-cycle cost (at 

a 6% real discount rate) was 437 kWh a year (see Table 4.1 in the TSD), which is 

approximately 10% below the 2001 standard. In the case of a side-by-side units with 

thru-the-door ice (the second most popular units in the U.S.), the minimum lifecycle cost 

point is 508 kWh/year (see Table 4.4 in the TSD), which is more than 20% below the 

2001 standard. 

c. Amana claims that GE, Whirlpool and Woods can produce refrigerators and freezers in 

Mexico and Canada to get around EPA HCFC regulations, providing them with a 

competitive advantage. However, the plants GE and Whirlpool have in these other 

countries are primarily to serve the markets in their home countries, exports to the U.S. 

are limited. The products produced in Mexico are small units that have only a small 

portion of the U.S. market. To produce more and larger units in Mexico will require 

significant changes. As for Canada, our understanding is that Woods only produces 

freezers, which are products Amana does not make. Camco, a GE subsidiary, does 

produce refrigerators in Canada, but this is an inefficient plant that will have difficulty 

competing with U.S. plants, even if the Camco plant continues to use HCFCs after 2003. 

Finally, there are major expenses in producing large numbers of refrigerators in other 

countries and exporting them to the U.S., expenses that have thus far kept U.S. 

manufacturers from doing this for most models. The potential to save $9-12 is unlikely 

to change this balance, particularly since under the Montreal Protocol, Mexico too will be 
banning HCFC 141b in the future, and thus this advantage of Mexican production will

only be temporary.

d. As noted above, Amana says that exterior volume cannot be increased due to commonsizes of cabinet openings in American kitchens. However, rarely is a refrigerator at the

maximum width and height at the same time -- if one dimension can't be increased, the

other probably can. Also, there is a third dimension -- depth -- which can sometimes be

increased as well.

e. Amana claims that possible future price increases for HFC 245fa "would make it even

more uneconomical", implying that it is uneconomical today. Overall, the DOE TSD for

the 2001 standard estimated an average increase in retail refrigerator prices of

approximately $69 for the top-mount auto defrost class for about 30% energy savings

relative to the 1993 standard. DOE found this cost increase to be cost-effective to

consumers. This works out to about $23 per 10% energy savings, much more than the

$9-12 cost increase for HFC-245fa that Amana complains about.'

Relief is Probably Not Needed

Amana requests relief that is probably not needed because there are ways to meet the

2001 standard without this relief.

First, our understanding is that there is probably a better than 50% chance that

manufacturers and Allied Signal can .reach agreement on producing HFC 245fa, providing an

easy path to meeting the 2001 standard.

Second, as noted above, Amana can continue to use HCFC 141b until 2003. Since HCFC

141b has energy performance equal to if not superior to HFC 245fa, it will be straight-forward to

meet the 2001 standard with HCFC 141b. Decisions about what to do in 2003 and beyond can

be made later, once the situation with HFC 245fa and other possible alternatives becomes

clarified.

Third, even in a worst case in which neither 245fa or 141b can be used for 2001 models,

and that manufacturers must use the next-best existing alternative (C-pentane), there are

alternative ways to meet the 2001 standard. For example, as noted above, the DOE lifecycle cost

analysis found that there are other ways to cost-effectively exceed the 2001 standard by 10% or

more. Some of the improvement is from the use of slightly thicker wall insulation. Depending

on the particulars of each model, this extra insulation can be accommodated by making units

wider, deeper and/or higher. In addition, the DOE analysis found opportunities for cost-effective

energy savings from increased condenser area, adaptive defrost, reducing the load of thru-thedoor ice features, an improved evaporator fan, and reducing gasket area heat leaks. Furthermore,

' In making this comparison we assume that Amana can pass on the higher cost to

consumers, a likely event since this cost increase affects all manufacturers equally.

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 339

banning HCFC 141b in the future, and thus this advantage of Mexican production will 

only be temporary. 

d. As noted above, Amana says that exterior volume cannot be increased due to commonsizes of cabinet openings in American kitchens. However, rarely is a refrigerator at the 

maximum width and height at the same time -- if one dimension can't be increased, the 

other probably can. Also, there is a third dimension -- depth -- which can sometimes be 

increased as well. 

e. Amana claims that possible future price increases for HFC 245fa "would make it even 

more uneconomical", implying that it is uneconomical today. Overall, the DOE TSD for 

the 2001 standard estimated an average increase in retail refrigerator prices of 

approximately $69 for the top-mount auto defrost class for about 30% energy savings 

relative to the 1993 standard. DOE found this cost increase to be cost-effective to 

consumers. This works out to about $23 per 10% energy savings, much more than the 

$9-12 cost increase for HFC-245fa that Amana complains about.2 

Relief is Probably Not Needed 

Amana requests relief that is probably not needed because there are ways to meet the 

2001 standard without this relief. 

First, our understanding is that there is prooably a better than 50% chance that 

manufacturers and Allied Signal can.reach agreement on producing HFC 245fa, providing an 

easy path to meeting the 2001 standard. 

Second, as noted above, Amana can continue to use HCFC 141b until 2003. Since HCFC 

141b has energy performance equal to ifnot superior to HFC 245fa, it will be straight-forward to 

meet the 2001 standard with HCFC 141b. Decisions about what to do in 2003 and beyond cart 

be made later, once the situation with HFC 245fa and other possible alternatives becomes 

clarified. 

Third, even in a worst case in which neither 245faor 141b can be used for 2001 models, 

and that manufacturers must use the next-best existing alternative (C-pentane), there are 

alternative ways to meet the 2001 standard. For example, as noted above, the DOE lifecycle cost 

analysis found that there are other ways to cost-effectively exceed the 2001 standard by 10% or 

more. Some of the improvement is from the Use of slightly thicker wall insulation. Depending 

on the particulars of each model, this extra insulation can be accommodated by making units 

wider, deeper andlor higher. In addition, the DOE analysis found opportunities for cost-effective 

energy savings from increased condenser area, adaptive defrost, reducing the load ofthru-thedoor ice features, an improved evaporator fan, and reducing gasket area heat leaks. Furthermore, 

2 In making this comparison we assume that Amana can pass on the higher cost to 

consumers, a likely event since this cost increase affects all manufacturers equally. 
there may be some opportunities to use more efficient compressors than were posited in DOE's

analysis, an analysis which is now more than three years old. Based on our discussions with

multiple manufacturers, we believe that these options can bring many models into compliance

with the 2001 standard, particularly mass-production models that account for the majority of

refrigerator sales. Support for this view is provided by the fact that a few existing refrigerator

models already meet the 2001 standard, including at least one Amana model.

Finally, as noted briefly above, if none of the above options allow manufacturers to meet

the 2001 standards, there is a possibility that EPA could delay the phaseout of HCFC 141b.

Relief Request is Overly Broad and Excessive

If none of the four alternatives discussed above work out and some relief is needed, the

relief Amana requests is overly broad and excessive. The relief is overly broad because it applies

to all units equally, even though the 2001 standard is easier to meet with some models than

others. As discussed above, even without HFC 245fa and HCFC 141b, it should be possible for

many models to meet the 2001 standard . For example, as discussed above, the analysis in the

DOE TSD shows that exceeding the 2001 standard is easier for side-by-side models than topmount models. Thus, if DOE grants relief, the relief should be carefully targeted to only those

products for which Amana clearly demonstrates that relief is needed.

Amana's request for a 10% relaxation in the standard is excessive . First, as noted above,

the 10% figure is based on old data; Amana's own Figure 2 supports an 8% figure, and with

optimization, this 8% figure can be reduced, most likely to around 5%. Furthermore , for most

models, cost-effective measures exist that can reduce the amount of relief needed even further.

As argued in the paragraph above, in most cases these other measures reduce the needed relief to

zero. But in the few cases where this is not the case, these other measures can reduce energy use

somewhat,

leaving only a few percentage points for which relief is still needed.

In sum, in order to get relief, we believe that Amana needs to demonstrate on a model-bymodel basis the maximum efficiency it can achieve , and request relief only for the difference

between these maximum 's and the 2001 standard. Faced with such a requirement, Amana may

only request relief for the few products for which relief is really needed, and not such a large and

generous relief as in the current petition.

Petition is Not in the Interest of Competition

Amana requests an exception only for itself. If this exception is granted, Amana will

enjoy a significant competitive advantage over its competitors because its refrigerators will need

to meet a significantly different efficiency standard than everyone else. Appliance efficiency

standards were created to provide a level playing field in which all manufacturers must meet

minimum efficiency requirements. To provide a different set of requirements for Amana would

significantly tilt the playing field in favor of Amana.

Amana alleges that it needs such treatment because it does not have foreign

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 339

there may be some opportunities to use more efficient compressors than were posited in DOE's 

analysis, an analysis which is now more than three years old. Based on our discussions with 

multiple manufacturers, we believe that these options can bring many models into compliance 

with the 2001 standard, particularly mass-production models that account for the majority of 

refrigerator sales. Support for this view is provided by the fact that a few existing refrigerator 

models already meet the 2001 standard, including at least one Amana model. 

Finally, as noted briefly above, ifnone of the above options allow manufacturers to meet 

the 2001 standards, there is a possibility that EPA could delay the phaseout ofHCFC 141b. 

Relief Request is Overly Broad and Excessive 

If none of the four alternatives discussed above work out and some relief is needed, the 

relief Amana requests is overly broad and excessive. The relief is overly broad because it applies 

to all units equally, even though the 2001 standard is easier to meet with some models than 

others. As discussed above, even without HFC 245fa and HCFC 141b, it should be possible for 

many models to meet the 2001 standard. For example, as discussed above, the analYSIS in the 

DOE TSD shows that exceeding the 2001 standard is easier for side-by-side models than topmount models. Thus, if DOE grants relief, the relief should be carefully targeted to only those 

products for which Amana clearly demonstrates that relief is needed. 

Amana's request for a 10% relaxation in the standard is excessive. First, as noted above, 

the 10% figure is based on old data; Amana's own Figure 2 supports an 8% figure, and with 

optimization, this 8% figure can be reduced, most likely to around 5%. Furthermore, for most 

models, cost-effective measures exist that can reduce the amount of relief needed even further. 

As argued in the paragraph above, in most cases these other measures reduce the needed relief to 

zero. But in the few cases where this is not the case, these other measures can reduce energy use 

somewhat, leaving only a few percentage points for which relief is still needed. 

In sum, in order to get relief, we believe that Amana needs to demonstrate on a model-bymodel basis the maximum efficiency it can achieve, and request relief only for the difference 

between these maximum's and the 2001 standard. Faced with such a requirement, Amana may 

only request relief for the few products for which relief is really needed, and not such a large and 

generous relief as in the current petition. 

Petition is Not in the Interest of Competition 

Amana requests an exception only for itself. If this exception is granted, Amana will 

enjoy a significant competitive advantage over its competitors because its refrigerators will need 

to meet a significantly different efficiency standard than everyone else. Appliance efficiency 

standards were created to provide a level playing field in which all manufacturers must meet 

minimum efficiency requirements. To provide a different set of requirements for Amana would 

significantly tilt the playing field in favor of Amana. 

Amana alleges that it needs such treatment because it does not have foreign 
manufacturing plants, but some of its U.S. competitors also do not have foreign plants.

Furthermore, as noted above, Amana has not provided good evidence why foreign plants owned

by some of its competitors provide them with a significant advantage that DOE must correct.

From our knowledge of these foreign plants, it is unlikely that these plants would provide a

large advantage to Amana's competitors if the 2001 standard proceeds as currently scheduled.

Conclusion

Amana raises important and complex issues in its petition, and seeks relief that can have

profound implications for U.S. energy use, carbon emissions, and competition within the U.S.

refrigerator industry. Amana has not made a convincing case for its petition, and the relief it

seeks is overly generous even if it could make a convincing case. Given the on-going nature of

negotiations over the availability of HFC 245fa, we recommend that DOE hold off proceedings

on this issue for six months, and if the HFC 245fa availability issue is not resolved by then,

convene a proceeding to consider whether and how much relief is needed by all

manufacturers,and for which products such relief is needed. If relief is needed, it should be

carefully targeted to only those products for which it is really needed, be at a level that minimizes

consumer lifecycle costs, and apply equally to all manufacturers. This present petition is

premature and is not the appropriate vehicle for such a proceeding. Therefore, we recommend

that the present petition be denied, and that an alternative schedule and proceeding be provided.

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 339

manufacturing plants, but some of its u.s. competitors also do not have foreign plants. 

Furthermore, as noted above, Amana has not provided good evidence why foreign plants owned 

by some of its competitors provide them with a significant advantage that DOE must correct. 

From our knowledge of these foreign plants, it is unlikely that these plants would provide a 

large advantage to Amana's competitors if the 2001 standard proceeds as currently scheduled. 

Conclusion 

Amana raises important and complex issues in its petition, and seeks relief that can have 

profound implications for U.S. energy use, carbon emissions, and competition within the U.S. 

refrigerator industry. Amana has not made a convincing case for its petition, and the relief it 

seeks is overly generous even ifit could make a convincing case. Given the on-going nature of 

negotiations over the availability ofHFC 245fa, we recommend that DOE hold off proceedings 

on this issue for six months, and if the HFC 245fa availability issue is not resolved by then, 

convene a proceeding to consider whether and how much relief is needed by all 

manufacturers,and for which products such relief is needed. If relief is needed, it should be 

carefully targeted to only those products for which it is really needed, be at a level that minimizes 

consumer lifecycIe costs, and apply equally to all manufacturers. This present petition is 

premature and is not the appropriate vehicle for such a proceeding. Therefore, we recommend 

that the present petition be denied, and that an alternative schedule and proceeding be provided. 
lliedSigna

C H E M I C A L S

March 15, 1999

Mr. Fred L. Brown

Deputy Assistant Director

Office of Hearings and Appeals

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20585-0107

AtlieciSignsl Inc

P.O. Box 1053

Morristown, NJ 07962-1053

1S5q ;;, E, A la 35

Subject: Case Number VEE-0054: Amana Appliances' Application For Exception To The

Department Of Energy, 10 CFC Part 430, Energy Conservation Program For

Consumer Products: Energy Conservation Standards For Refrigerators,

Refrigerator/Freezers, & Freezers; Final Rule

Dear Mr. Brown:

AlliedSignal has recently received written notification from Amana Appliances regarding their

above referenced application for exception. AlliedSignal would like to take this opportunity to

provide formal comments on Amana's application. Prior to commenting, however, a brief

description of AlliedSignal and AlliedSignal's interests in this matter is appropriate.

AlliedSignal is an advanced technology and manufacturing company serving customers

worldwide with aerospace and automotive products, chemicals, fibers, plastics and advanced

materials. AlliedSignal is a Fortune 100 company; additionally, it is one of the 30 stocks that

make up the Dow Jones Industrial Average. The Company employs 70,400 people in some 40

countries. Within AlliedSignal's Specialty Chemicals business resides the Fluorine Products

division. AlliedSignal Fluorine Products is engaged in the manufacture and sale of-

• Hydrofluoric Acid

• Fluorocarbons (CFC's, HCFC's, HFC's) used in refrigerant, foam blowing, solvent, industrial

aerosol , and metered dose inhaler aerosol applications

• Industrial Fluorine Products (SF6, UF6, SbF5, IF5)

• Fluorine Based Pharmaceutical Intermediates

• Fluorocarbon Based Sterilants s

Of note, AlliedSignal has been in the fluorocarbon business for more than 40 years.

Specifically, with regard to foam blowing, AlliedSignal has a long history manufacturing and

selling fluorocarbon blowing agents to various foam end uses including refrigerator/freezer

manufacturers. With regard to refrigeratorstfreezers, prior to the mid-1990's, AlliedSignal sold

the U.S. appliance industry CFC-11, which, at the time, was the blowing agent of choice in the

industry. CFC's, as we now know, are ozone depleting substances. In the mid-1990's in the

U.S., the appliance industry migrated to the use of HCFC-141 b as the blowing agent of choice.

AlliedSignal today manufacturers and sells HCFC-141 b to the U.S. appliance industry. The

migration to HCFC-141 b was only an interim solution, however, as HCFC-141 b, although not as

damaging to the ozone layer as CFC-11, still has ozone depletion potential (ODP). As such,

and in conjunction with current U.S. regulations, HCFC-141 b is scheduled for phase out in the

U.S. on 01/01/2003.

Page 1 of 3

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 339

~liedSignal CHEMICALS 

March 15, 1999 

Mr. Fred L. Brown 

Deputy Assistant Director 

Office of Hearings and Appeals 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20585-0107 

AIliedSignallnc 

P.O. Box 1053 

Morristown, NJ 07962-1053 

.: :. A.. t o •• "' \. , 

Subject: Case Number VEE-0054: Amana Appliances' Application For Exception To The 

Department Of Energy, 10 CFC Part 430, Energy Conservation Program For 

Consumer Products: Energy Conservation Standards For Refrigerators, 

Refrigerator/Freezers, & Freezers; Final Rule 

Dear Mr. Brown: 

AlliedSignal has recently received written notification from Amana Appliances regarding their 

above referenced application for exception. AlliedSignal would like to take this opportunity to 

provide formal comments on Amana's application. Prior to commenting, however, a brief 

description of AlliedSignal and AlliedSignal's interests in this matter is appropriate. 

AlliedSignal is an advanced technology and manufacturing company serving customers 

worldwide with aerospace and automotive products, chemicals, fibers, plastiCS and advanced 

materials. AlliedSignal is a Fortune 100 company; additionally, it is one of the 30 stocks that 

make up the Dow Jones Industrial Average. The Company employs 70,400 people in some 40 

countries. Within AlliedSignal's Specialty Chemicals business resides the Fluorine Products 

division. AlliedSignal Fluorine Products is engaged in the manufacture and sale of: 

• Hydrofluoric Acid 

• Fluorocarbons (CFC's, HCFC's, HFC's) used in refrigerant, foam blowing, solvent, industrial 

aerosol, and metered dose inhaler aerosol applications 

• Industrial Fluorine Products (SFs, UFs, SbFs, IFs) 

• Fluorine Based Pharmaceutical Intermediates 

• Fluorocarbon Based Sterilants 

Of note, AlliedSignal has been in the fluorocarbon business for more than 40 years. 

Specifically, with regard to foam blowing, AlliedSignal has a long history manufacturing and 

selling fluorocarbon blowing agents to various foam end uses including refrigerator/freezer 

manufacturers. With regard to refrigeratorslfreezers, prior to the mid-1990's, AlliedSignal sold 

the U.S. appliance industry CFC-11, which, at the time, was the blowing agent of choice in the 

industry. CFC's, as we now know, are ozone depleting substances. In the mid-1990's in the 

U.S., the appliance industry migrated to the use of HCFC-141b as the blowing agent of choice. 

AlliedSignal today manufacturers and sells HCFC-141 b to the U.S. appliance industry. The 

migration to HCFC-141b was only an interim solution, however, as HCFC-141b, although not as 

damaging to the ozone layer as CFC-11, still has ozone depletion potential (ODP). As such, 

and in conjunction with current U.S. regulations, HCFC-141b is scheduled for phase out in the 

U.S. on 01/01/2003. 

Page 1 of3 
AlliedSignal's interest in the matter at hand centers around HFC-245fa. HFC-245fa is a blowing

agent candidate to replace HCFC-141 b. Unlike HCFC-141 b, and CFC-11 before it, HFC-245fa

contains no chlorine, and thus, has zero ODP. Within the fluorocarbon industry as a whole,

AlliedSignal has taken the lead in the development of a viable third generation (zero ODP)

blowing agent. Specific to AlliedSignal's development of HFC-245fa, the Company has

expended considerable man hours and significant research and development funds (>$20

million) to develop this product. AlliedSignal has had an active HFC-245fa development

program in place since 1994. This HFC-245fa development program has entailed:

• Working with customers to identify the key characteristics needed in a third generation

blowing agent.

• Identification of possible HFC molecules that meet customer requirements.

• Analysis of all possible HFC molecules thaf meet customer requirements versus the

economics involved in the manufacturing of said molecules.

• Selection of HFC-245fa as the candidate of choice.

• Process development centered around the commercial manufacture of HFC-245fa.

• Toxicological testing of HFC-245fa.

• Production of significant HFC-245fa pilot plant material to support both commercial process

design and customer trials.

• Technical development with our customers centered around the use of HFC-245fa as a

blowing agent.

• Design of a commercial HFC-245fa manufacturing facility and an estimation of the capital

dollars needed to build said facility.

As can be seen from the above, AlliedSignal has made a considerable investment in HFC245fa. It is the "potential unavailability of HFC-245fa" on which Amana has based it's

application for exception. AlliedSignal is not in the business of manufacturing refrigerators,

freezers, or refrigerator/freezers. As such, AlliedSignal has no formal position, for or against,

concerning the actual granting or rejecting of Amana 's application for exception . AlliedSignal,

does, however, wish to provide the following specific comments relating directly to HFC-245fa:

• HFC-245fa is AlliedSignal's candidate molecule to replace HCFC-141 b in foam blowing

applications. HFC-245fa possesses the following positive attributes:

• zero-ODP

• non-flammable

• non-VOC

• liquid X59. 5° F boiling point)

• equivalent thermal performance to HCFC-141 b

• superior thermal performance when compared to other zero-ODP alternatives (i.e.

hydrocarbons and HCFC-134a)

• low order of toxicity

• low Total Equivalent Warming Impact (TEWI) value

• AlliedSignal is working diligently to commercialize HFC-245fa prior to the 01/01/2003 HCFC141 b phase out. At this point in time, AlliedSignal fully expects that HFC-245fa will be

commercially available prior to said phase out date.

• The construction of commercial HFC-245fa manufacturing capacity for the appliance

industry involves a significant capital expenditure by the Company. AlliedSignal has stated

to the appliance industry that the Company is dedicated to expending the capital required

upon receipt of a contractual commitment to the product by our appliance customers.

AlliedSignal is working closely with the appliance industry through the Association of Home

Page 2 of 3

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 339

AlliedSignal's interest in the matter at hand centers around HFC-245fa. HFC-245fa is a blowing 

agent candidate to replace HCFC-141b. Unlike HCFC-141b, and CFC-11 before it, HFC-245fa 

contains no chlorine, and thus, has zero OOP. Within the fluorocarbon industry as a whole, 

AlliedSignal has taken the lead in the development of a viable third generation (zero OOP) 

blowing agent. Specific to AlliedSignal's development of HFC-245fa, the Company has 

expended considerable man hours and significant research and development funds (>$20 

million) to develop this product. AlliedSignal has had an active HFC-245fa development 

program in place since 1994. This HFC-245fa development program has entailed: 

• Working with customers to identify the key characteristics needed in a third generation 

blowing agent. 

• Identification of possible HFC molecules that meet cUstomer requirements. 

• Analysis of all possible HFC molecules thaf meet customer" requirements versus the 

economics involved in the manufacturing of said molecules. 

• Selection of HFC-245fa as the candidate of choice. 

• Process development centered around the commercial manufacture of HFC-245fa. 

• Toxicological testing of HFC-245fa. 

• Production of significant HFC-245fa pilot plant material to support both commercial process 

design and customer trials. 

• Technical development with our customers centered around the use of HFC-245fa as a 

blowing agent. 

• Design of a commercial HFC-245fa manufacturing facility and an estimation of the capital 

dollars needed to build said facility. 

As can be seen from the above, AlliedSignal has made a considerable investment in HFC245fa. It is the "potential unavailability of HFC-245fa" on which Amana has based it's 

application for exception. AlliedSignal is not in the business of manufacturing refrigerators, 

freezers, or refrigerator/freezers. As.such, AlliedSignal has no formal position, for or against, 

concerning the actual granting or rejecting of Amana's application for exception. AlliedSignal, 

does, however, wish to provide the following specific comments relating directly to HFC-245fa: 

• HFC-245fa is AlliedSignal's candidate molecule to replace HCFC-141b in foam blowing 

applications. HFC-245fa possesses the following positive attributes: 

• zero-OOP 

• non-flammable 

• non-VOC 

• liquid {59.5° F boiling point) 

• equivalent thermal performance to HCFC-141b 

• superior thermal performance when compared to other zero-OOP alternatives (Le. 

hydrocarbons and HCFC-134a) 

• low order of toxicity 

• low Total Equivalent Warming Impact (TEWJ) value 

• AlliedSignal is working diligently to commercialize HFC-245fa prior to the 01/01/2003 HCFC141b phase out. At this point in time, AlliedSignal fully expects that HFC-245fa will be 

commercially available prior to said phase out date. 

• The construction of commercial HFC-245fa manufacturing capacity for the appliance 

industry involves a Significant capital expenditure by the Company. AlliedSignal has stated 

to the appliance industry that the Company is dedicated to expending the capital required 

upon receipt of a contractual commitment to the product by our appliance customers. 

AlliedSignal is working closely with the appliance industry through the Association of Home 

Page 2 of 3 
Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) to secure this commitment to the product. As part of this

process, AlliedSignal has provided the appliance industry with unprecedented access to

both the manufacturing and capital costs associated with HFC-245fa. AlliedSignal is on an

aggressive path to address all of the supply agreement related concerns expressed by

Amana in their application for exception.

® Under section 5 of Amana's application for exemption, Amana claims that their competitors

with manufacturing facilities outside the U.S. would have a significant cost advantage. That

cost advantage would be grounded in a scenario where said foreign manufacturing locations

could continue to produce refrigerators/freezers with HCFC-141 b and ship them into the

U.S. beyond the 01/01/2003 phase out date. AlliedSignal acknowledges that this scenario

could exist. The HCFC-141b would be considered an article and, based on current EPA

regulations, could be allowed as an import into the U.S. However, in informal discussions

with the EPA, AlliedSignal has learned that the EPA is aware of this potential "loophole".

Further, AlliedSignal has been informed that EPA is investigating this matter and can

independently close the "loophole" by baring articles containing HCFC-141 b from entering

the U.S. after 01/01/2003. AlliedSignal would encourage DOE to contact the EPA for further

comment with regard to this issue.

Again, AlliedSignal has no formal position, for or against, concerning the actual granting or

rejecting of Amana's application for exception. AlliedSignal's comments above are intended to

clarify certain aspects relating to HFC-245fa and blowing agents from the Company's point of

view.

If there are additional questions concerning these matters, please contact me at (973) 455-

3187.

Sincerely,

B an ri C. Strauss

^

Marketing Manager

CC: Alan Kessler, Amana Appliances

AlliedSignal Internal Distribution

Page 3 of 3

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 339

Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) to secure this commitment to the product. As part of this 

process, AlliedSignal has provided the appliance industry with unprecedented access to 

both the manufacturing and capital costs associated with HFC-245fa. AlliedSignal is on an 

aggressive path to address all of the supply agreement related concerns expressed by 

Amana in their application for exception. 

• Under section 5 of Amana's application for exemption, Amana claims that their competitors 

with manufacturing facilities outside the U.S. would have a significant cost advantage. That 

cost advantage would be grounded in a scenario where said foreign manufacturing locations 

could continue to produce refrigeratorsifreezers with HCFC-141 b and ship them into the 

U.S. beyond the 01/01/2003 phase out date. AlliedSignal acknowledges that this scenario 

could exist. The HCFC-141b would be considered an article and, based on current EPA 

regulations, could be allowed as an import into the U.S. However, in informal discussions 

with the EPA, AlliedSignal has learned that the EPA is aware of this potential "loophole". 

Further, AlliedSignal has been informed that E?A is investigating this matter and can 

independently close the "loophole" by baring articles containing HCFC-141 b from entering 

the U.S. after 01/01/2003. AlliedSignal would encourage DOE to contact the EPA for further 

comment with regard to this issue. 

Again, AlliedSignal has no formal position, for or against, concerning the actual granting or 

rejecting of Amana's application for exception. AlliedSignal's comments above are intended to 

clarify certain aspects relating to HFC-245fa and blowing agents from the Company's point of 

view. 

If there are additional questions concerning these matters, please contact me at (973) 455-

3187. 

SinCerelYC~ 

e1.;c. Strauss 

Marketing Manager 

CC: Alan Kessler, Amana Appliances 

AlliedSignal Internal Distribution 

Page 3 of3 
I

STATE OF CALIFORNIA -THE RESOURCES AGENCY

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION

WILLIAM J. KEESE. CHAIRMAN

1516 NINTH STREET - MS-32

SACRAMENTO, CA 95814-5512

Telephone (916) 654-5000

Telefax (916) 654-4420

Office of Hearings and Appeals

COMMENTS

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585

Attn: Mr. Fred Brown

March 15, 1999

BY FAX (202-426- 1415) AND BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY

Docket No. VEE-0054:

Comments of the California Energy Commission on

Amana's Application for an Exception from Refrigerator Standards

Dear Mr. Brown,

GRAY DAMS, Govemor

On February 18, 1999 Amana Appliances filed with the Department of

Energy (DOE) an Application for Exception (Application) to the energy efficiency

standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers that are established

in 10 CFR § 430.32(a) and that go into effect on July 1, 2001. Amana's

Application was filed pursuant to 10 CFR Part 1003, Subparts A and B.

The California Energy Commission (CEC) is the California agency

responsible for establishing state energy policy and, as part of the.,

implementation of that policy, for enacting and enforcing energy efficiency

standards for appliances, including refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and

freezers. See Cal. Public . Resources Code §§ 25007, 25309.2, 25402(c); 20

Cal. Code of Regulations §§ 1601 - 1608. The .CEC has a direct interest in the

amount of energy that will be saved by the federal appliance efficiency

standards; any reduction in savings from the federal standards means that

additional power generation, with its concomitant economic and environmental

effects, will be necessary to meet California's needs.

The CEC opposes Amana's Application and recommends that DOE

deny it. DOE may grant an exception to a regulation only if the regulation would

result in "serious hardship, gross inequity or unfair distribution of burdens." 10

CFR § 1003.25(b)(2). Amana engages in speculation, not supported by any

analysis, that it might suffer some undefined harm, but it has not made a

concrete showing thatitwould suffer anyparicular hardship, inequity, or burden,

much less that any injury it might suffer would be "serious," "gross," or "unfair."

We oppose the Application for three basic reasons.

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 339

, STATE OF CALIFORNIA -THE RESOURCES AGENCY 

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION 

WILLIAM J. KEESE, CHAIRMAN 

1516 NINTH STREET - MS·32 

SACRAMENTO, CA 95814·5512 

Telephone (916) 654-5000 

T elefax (916) 654-4420 

Office of Hearings and Appeals 

COMMENTS 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW 

'Washington, DC 20585 

Attn: Mr. Fred Erown 

March 15, 1999 

BY FAX (202-426-1415) AND BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY 

Docket No. VEE-0054: 

Comments of the California Energy Commission on 

Amana's Application for an Exception from Refrigerator Standards 

DearMr. Brown, 

GRAY DAVIS:" GOIl'emor 

On February 18, 1999 Amana Appliances filed with the Departnent of 

Energy (DOE) an Application for Exception (Application) to the energy efficiency 

standards for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers that are established 

in 10 CFR § 430.32(a) and that go into effect on July 1, 2001. .Amana's 

Application was filed pursuant to 10 CFR Part 1 003, Subparts A and B. 

The California Energy Commission (CEC) is the California agency 

responsible for establishing state energy policy and, as part of the 

implementation of that policy. for enacting and enforcing energy efficiency 

standards for appliances, including refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers. and 

freezers. See Cal. Public" Resources Code §§ 25007, 25309.2, 25402(c); 20 

Cal. Code of Regulations §§ 1601 -1608. TheCEC has a direct interest in the 

amount of energy that will be saved by the federal appliance efficiency 

standards; any reduction in savings from the federal standards means that 

additional power generation, with its concomitant economic and environmental 

effects, will be necessary to meet California's needs. 

The CEC opposes Amana's Application and recommends that DOE 

deny it. DOE may grant an exception to a regulation onlyifthe regulation would 

result in "serious hardship. gross inequity or unfair distibution of burdens." 10 

CFR § 1003.25(b)(2). .,Amana engages in sperulation. not supported by any 

anatysis, that it might suter some undefined harm. but it has not made a 

concrete showing that it woukj sufur any paricular hardship, inequity, or burden, 

much less that any injury it might suter woukj be "serious," "gross," or "unt:lir." 

We oppose the Ap pficati on for three. basic reasons. 
U.S. Department of Energy

March 15, 1999

Page 2

First, Amana has not made a showing that it will be harmed at all. The

CEC agrees with the technical analysis submitted bythe Oregon Office of Energy,

which demonstrates that Amana's claims of unavailability of materials and of

economic harm are at best overstated and in many cases are completely

unjustified.

Second, even if Amana's claims were taken at face value, the injury that

Amana describes would not constitute "serious," "gross," or "unfair" burdens.

The legal criteria indicate that an exception should be granted only if application

of a regulation would result in a high and unusual level of harm. Amana's claims

do not rise to that level.

Finally, the relief Amana has requested is far out of proportion to the harm

it claims. Amana asks thatit be allowed to exceed the standards by ten percent,

with no showing that such an exceedence is necessary to compensate for

Amana's alleged injury. Worse, Arnana asks that its exception last for more than

eight years, with no showing that the circumstances allegedly justfying the

exception will last that long. If DOE grants an exception - which it should not -

the exception should be fora much shorter time, with an allowance for Amana to

applyfora further exception based on then-current circumstances.

For all of these reasons, the CEC recommends that DOE deny Amana's

Application.

I am enclosing two copies of these comments . Please return one filestamped copyto me in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope.

Pursuant to 10 CFR § 1003.9(b), I certify that I am a duly authorized

representative of the California Energy Commission.

Sincerely,

LAj; . 9 tee, J&

1MLLIAM J. KEESE

Chairman

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 339

u.s. Department of Energy 

March 15, 1999 

Page 2 

First, .Amana has not made a sho'Ning that it will be harmed at all. The 

GEG agrees with the technical analysis submitted by the Oregon Office of Energy, 

which demonstrates that .Amana's claims of una\Bilability of materials and of 

economic harm are at best o~rstated and in many cases are completely 

unjustified. 

Second, even if Amana's claims were taken at face value, the injury that 

.Amana describes would not constitute "serious," "gross," or "unhir" burdens. 

The legal criEria indicate that an exception should be granted only if application 

of a regulation would result in a high and unusual level of harm. Amana's claims 

do notriseto that level. 

Finally, the relief Amana has requested is far out of proportion to th-e harm 

it claims. Amana asks thatit be allavved to exceed the standards by ten percent, 

with no sho'Ning that such an exceedence is necessary to compensate for 

.Amana's alleged injury. Worse, Amana asks that its exception last for more than 

eight years, with no showing that the cirrumstances allegedly justifying the 

exception will last that long. If DOE grants an exception - which it should notthe exception should be fora much shorter time, with an allowance for Amana to 

apply for a further exception based on then-current cirrumstances. 

For all of these reasons, the GEG recommends that DOE deny Amana's 

Application. 

I am enclosing two copies of these comments. Please return one filestamped copy to me in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped en\€lope. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR § 1003.9(b), I certify that I am a duly authorized 

representative of the California Energy Commission. 

Sincerely, 

V\IILUAM J. KEESE 

Chairman 
RD NT

DuPont Fluoroproducts

DuPont Fluoro;,roducts

Cnestnut Run Plaza

P.O. Box 80702

Wilmington, DE 19880-0702

cc: Alan F. Kessler

March 4, 1999

Office of Hearings and Appeals

U. S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585-0107

Amana Application for Exception

I

We are in receipt of a copy of the Amana Application for Exception of the

Department of Energy, 10 CFR Part 430. Receipt of this notification was delayed

resulting in our late response. I hope your offices can still incorporate our input.

Our technical staff has studied the Amana request and compared it with

both our knowledge and experience within DuPont as well as our experience based on

interactions we routinely have with other U.S. equipment producers. It is our opinion

that while many of Amana's claims are correct and justified, we feel their request should

not be accepted. Other manufacturers have been able to develop options beyond those

listed in the Amana request in such a way as to allow them to meet proposed DOE

standards.

The refrigerator/freezer polyurethane foaming technology has traditionally

been based on blowing agents which are liquids at room temperature. When CFC

blowing agents were phased out, new compounds and technologies were pursued and are

being developed. While there may be uncertainty around new liquid compounds (like

HFC-245fa) for use in traditional technology, new technology using blowing agents

which are gases (low boiling point) at room temperature (e.g., HFC-134a) has progressed

significantly.

Background data in the report for HFC-134a foams is limited

(confidentiality reasons), but the overall discussion is concerned with lower insulation

values for HFC-134a foams. As is the case with any new technology, initial results may

not achieve desired performance. However, published research work has shown that the

technology can be optimized and that HFC-134a technology is commercially available

for use today. In fact, HFC-134a appliance foam technology was commercially used in

Europe in 1993.

E. I du Pont de Nemours and Company Printed on Recycled Paper

ti-69798

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 339

DuPont Fluo'ovoducts 

Chestnut Run Plaza 

P.O. Box 80702 

Wilmington, DE 19880·0702 

DuPont Fluoroproducts 

Office of Hearings and Appeals 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20585-0107 

cc: Alan F. Kessler 

March 4, 1999 

Amana Application for Exception o 

U1 

We are in receipt ofa copy of the Amana Application for Exception of the 

Department of Energy, 10 CFR Part 430. Receipt of this notification was delayed 

resulting in our late response. I hope your offices can stilI incorporate our input. 

Our technical staff has studied the Amana request and compared it with 

both our knowledge and experience within DuPont as well as our experience based on 

interactions we routinely have with other U.S. equipment producers. It is our opinion 

that while many of Amana's claims are correct and justified, we feel their request should 

not be accepted. Other manufacturers have been able to develop options beyond those 

listed in the Amana request in such a way as to allow them to meet proposed DOE 

standards. 

The refrigerator/freezer polyurethane foaming technology has traditionally 

been based on blowing agents which are liquids at room temperature. When CFC 

blowing agents were phased out, new compounds and technologies were pursued and are 

being developed. While there may be uncertainty around new liquid compounds (like 

HFC-245fa) for use in traditional technology, new technology using blowing agents 

. which are gases (low boiling point) at room temperature (e.g., HFC-134a) has progressed 

significantly. 

Background data in the report for HFC-134a foams is limited 

(confidentiality reasons), but the overall discussion is concerned with lower insulation 

values for HFC-134a foams. As is the case with any new technology, initial results may 

not achieve desired performance. However, published research work has shown that the 

technology can be optimized and that HFC-134a technology is commercially available 

for use today. In fact, HFC-134a appliance foam technology was commercially used in 

Europe in 1993. 

E. I du Pont de Nemours and Company @ Printed on Recycled Paper 

H.j)S788 
Since gas technology can require an additional processing step, some

investment may be needed for a conversion. Gas blowing agent technology, however,

offers potential advantages which can also make it economically attractive:

• Gasses like ETC- 134x, HFC-152a, HCFC-124, HCFC-22, HCFC-142b are

commercially available today at competitive prices.

• Through reformulation and use of additives, foam k-factors are equivalent to those for

HCFC-141 b foams. (I-1FC-134a foam k-factors have been measured as low as 0.135

BTU-in/ft2-hr-°F, which is the k-factor cited for HCFC-141b foams.)

• Insulation value for foams made with blowing agent gases increases at low

temperature, while foams made with liquid blowing agents decreases at low

temperature because the insulating gas is condensing.

• Gas foaming technology provides more uniform foam densities and improves the

foam's dimensional stability at low temperatures (potential foam cost savings).

• HFC gases have zero ODP

• HFC-134a, HCFC-22, and HCFC-124 are non-flammable

• The HFC and HCFC gases have better toxicity than HCFC-141b (higher allowable

exposure limits).

• Per attachment A-i, HFC-134a and HCFC-22, at least, have low TEWI.

While we recognize that energy consumption for appliances involves the

total unit design, it is important to note that gas (low boiling blowing agents) foaming

technology can provide insulation foams that perform at levels equivalent to HCFC-141b

foams. Gas technology is a viable, competitive, and currently available option for

replacing liquid foaming technology, and can produce insulation foams that contribute as

much as current foams toward meeting energy standards.

Yours truly,

Steven H. Bernhardt, PhD

Environmental Manager

DuPont Fluoroproducts

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 339

Since gas technology can require an additional processing step, some 

investment may be needed for a conversion. Gas blowing agent technology, however, 

offers potential advantages which can also make it economically attractive: 

• Gasses like HFC-134a, HFC-152a, HCFC-124, HCFC-22, HCFC-142b are 

commercially available today at competitive prices. 

• Through reformulation and use of additives, foam k-factors are equivalent to those for 

HCFC-141b foams. (HFC-134a foam k-factors have been measured as low as 0.135 

BTU-inlft2-hr-oF, which is the k-factor cited for HCFC-141b foams.) 

• Insulation value for foams made with blowing agent gases increases at low 

temperature, while foams made with liquid blowing agents decreases at low 

temperature because the insulating gas is condensing. 

• Gas foaming technology provides more uniform foam densities and improves the 

foam's dimensional stability at low temperatures (potential foam cost saving$l. 

• HFC gases have zero ODP 

• HFC-134a, HCFC-22, and HCFC-124 are non-flammable 

• The HFC and HCFC gases have better toxicity than HCFC-I4I b (higher allowable 

exposure limits). 

• Per attachment A-I, HFC-134a and HCFC-22, at least, have low TEWI 

While we recognize that energy consumption for appliances involves the 

total unit design, it is important to note that gas (low boiling blowing agents) foaming 

technology can provide insulation foams that perform at levels equivalent to HCFC-141 b 

foams. Gas technology is a viable, competitive, and currently available option for 

replacing liquid foaming technology, and can produce insulation foams that contribute as 

much as current foams toward meeting energy standards. . 

Yours truly, 

/~f- Steven H. Bernhardt, PhD 

Environmental Manager 

DuPont Fluoroproducts 
Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20585

March 12, 1999

MEMORANDUM FOR THE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

FROM: Mark Ginsberg

Deputy Assistant Secretary

Building Technology, State and

Community Programs

SUBJECT: Comments on Amana Appliances (Amana) Petition to Office of.Hearings &

Appeals for Exception Relief from DOE 7/1/2001 Refrigerator/Freezer Efficiency

Standards

Amana has petitioned DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals for an exception to the

refrigerator energy efficiency standards which will be effective on July 1, 2001. Amana has asked

for a 10% increase in allowable energy consumption until 1/1/2010, to allow for the uncertain

future of alternative blowing agents (especially HFC-245fa). Recognizing that some uncertainty

still exists about the ultimate acceptability of HFC-245fa, or other comparable blowing agents, as

well as some uncertainty regarding the timing of commercial production of such a product, the

Department provided for exception relief in the preamble to the 1997 Final Rule which

promulgated the standards. (See preamble language in Attachment A.)

The 1997 Final Rule preamble states that any application for exception relief must provide

"specific facts and information relevant to the claim that compliance would cause special hardship,

inequity or the unfair distribution of burdens." Special hardship could exist if "it was shown that

HFC-245fa or a comparable product would not be available as a timely replacement for HCFC141b and the unavailability of HFC-245fa or comparable products prior to the imposition of the

ban on the further production of HCFC-141b would substantially increase the expected

manufacturer costs associated with complying with this revised standard."

Applicants requesting an exception must provide specific facts and information

demonstrating:

• HFC-245fa or a comparable product would not be available as a timely replacement for

HCFC-141b

• The unavailability of HFC-245fa or comparable products prior to the imposition of the ban

on the further production of HCFC-141b (set by EPA at 1/1/2003) would substantially

increase the expected manufacturer costs associated with complying with this revised

Printed with soy ink on recycled paper

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 339

Department of Energy 

Washington, DC 20585 

March 12, 1999 

MEMORANDUM FOR TIffi OFFICE OF HEARlNGS AND APPEALS 

FROM: Mark 

Deputy 

Ginsberg 

Assistant Secretary 

~ ~ . 

Building Technology, State and 

Community Programs 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

SUBJECT: Comments on Amana Appliances (Amana) Petition to Office of Hearings & 

Appeals for Exception Relieffrom DOE 7/1/2001 RefrigeratorlFre~zer Efficiency 

Standards ' 

Amana has petitioned DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals for an exception to the 

refrigerator energy efficiency standards which will be effective on July 1,2001. Amana has asked 

for a 10% increase in allowable energy consumption until 11112010, to allow for the uncertain 

future of alternative blowing agents (especially HFC-245fa). Recognizing that some uncertainty 

still exists about the ultimate acceptability ofHFC-245fa, or other comparable blowing agents, as 

well as some uncertainty regarding the timing of commercial production of such a product, the 

Department provided for exception· relief in the preamble to the 1997 Final Rule which 

promulgated the standards. (See preamble language in Attachment A.) 

The 1997 Final Rule preamble states that any application for exception relief must provide 

"specific facts and information relevant to the claim that compliance would cause special hardship, 

inequity or the unfair distribution of burdens." Special hardship could exist if "it was shown that 

HFC-245fa or a comparable product would not be available as a timely replacement for HCFC141b and the unavailability of HFC-245 fa or comparable products prior to the imposition of the 

ban on the further production ofHCFC-14Ib would substantially increase the expected 

manufacturer costs associated with complying with this revised standard." 

Applicants requesting an exception must provide specific facts and information 

demonstrating: 

• HFC-245fa or a comparable product would not be available as a timely replacement for 

HCFC-14Ib 

• The unavailability ofHFC-245fa or comparable products prior to the imposition of the ban 

on the further production of HCFC-141 b (set by EPA at 11112003) would substantially 

increase the expected manufacturer costs associated with complying with this revised 

@ Printed with soy ink on recycled paper 
standard. -

• Compliance would cause special hardship, inequity or the unfair distribution of burdens.

Amana's petition is premature and insufficient to support the criteria stated above:

The petition shows that timely availability of IBC-245fa is at risk, but negotiations about

the production schedule for HFC-245fa between Allied Signal (the HFC-245fa supplier)

and AHAM are continuing. Even if these negotiations fail, Amana must also demonstrate

that no other "comparable product" will be available prior to 2003. In this regard, relief

for Amana could also come from the EPA.

• The petition discusses cost increases resulting from the unavailability of HFC-245fa in a

general way, but is not specific about the cost increase, and does not show that it would

be substantial. Amana should be required to demonstrate not only that the foaming agent

and related costs could have an adverse impact, but that the overall costs of complying

with the DOE efficiency standard using an alternative blowing agent would have such

adverse effects. This requires a current assessment of the costs of complying mith the

DOE standard using an alternative blowing agent.

• Amana states its competitors have foreign plants that manufacture refrigerator products

which would enable them to continue to use HCFC-141b past the EPA 1/1/2003 ban,

whereas Amana has no such foreign plants. Amana does not demonstrate that it would be

likely these competitors would use these foreign plants to produce significantly more

refrigerators for the domestic market, nor does Amana state specifically what the cost

penalty of this scenario would be.

Attachment:

CONCURRENCE: GC

PO-

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 339

'. 

standard. 

CD Compliance would cause special hardship, inequity or the unfair distribution of burdens. 

Amana's petition is premature and insufficient to support the criteria stated above: 

CD The petition shows that timely availability ofHFC-245fa is at risk, but negotiations about 

the production schedule for HFC-245fa between Allied Signal (the HFC-245fa supplier) 

and AHAM are continuing. Even if these negotiations fail, Amana must also demonstrate 

that no other "comparable product" will be available prior to 2003. In this regard, relief 

for Amana could also come from the EPA 

CD The petition discusses cost increases resulting from the unavailability ofHFC-245fa in a 

general way, but is not specific about the cost increase, and does not show that it would 

be substantial. Amana should be required to demonstrate not only that the foaming agent 

and related costs could have an adverse impact, but that the overall costs of complying 

with the DOE efficiency standard using an a1ternative blowing agent would have such 

adverse effects. This requires a current assessment of the costs of complying :with the 

DOE standard using an alternative blowing agent. 

• Amana states its competitors have foreign plants that manufacture refrigerator products 

which would enable them to continue to use HCFC-141b past the EPA 1/1/2003 ban, 

whereas Amana has no such foreign plants. Amana does not demonstrate that it would be 

likely these competitors would use these foreign plants to produce significantly more 

refrigerators for the domestic market, nor does Amana state specifically what the cost 

penalty of this scenario would. be. 

Attachment: 

CONCURRENCE: 
THE OFFICE OF HEARINGS & APPEALS /g9

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY RAR fi

RESPONSE OF GE APPLIANCES

TO THE PETITION FILED BY AMANA APPLIANCES FOR EXCEPTION

RELIEF TO THE FINAL RULE ON ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS

FOR REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS AND FREEZERS

CASE NO. VEE-0054

MARCH 15, 1999

These comments are submitted on behalf of GE Appliances, a leading fullline manufacturer of major household appliances, including, as specifically

relevant to these proceeding, refrigerator-freezers. GE Appliances, a potentially

aggrieved party within the meaning of the Office of Hearings and Appeals

("OHA") regulations, has its headquarters at Appliance Park, Louisville, Kentucky.

1. Introduction and Summary

Amana Appliances ("Amana") has filed an application ("Application")

seeking an exception to the Department of Energy's ("DOE") Final Rule on

Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Energy Conservation

Standards for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers and Freezers, 10 C.F.R. Part

430 (Final Rule). This Final Rule, promulgated on April 23, 1997, mandates that

refrigerator products manufactured after July 1, 2001, use approximately 30%

less energy than such products manufactured under today's energy conservation

standard.

The specific relief requested by Amana is that covered products

manufactured by it on or after July 1, 2001, not be required to comply with the

Final Rule but be given "10% relief' until January 1, 2010. Thus, rather than

manufacturing refrigerators that use 30% less energy than today's models,

Amana's new products would be permitted to use 10% more energy than

comparable competitive models manufactured in compliance with the more

stringent standard. Moreover, Amana seeks to maintain this cost-avoidance

advantage for a period of eight and one-half years.

Amana offers as the basis for its Application the "uncertain future of

alternative blowing agents (especially HFC-245fa)." (See Application, p.6.) It

argues that the unavailability of HFC-245fa in early 1999 together with the

scheduled 2003 phase-out of HCFC-141 b, the foam-blowing agent used by most

of the industry, poses an insurmountable obstacle to its ability to comply with the

1

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 339

THE OFFICE OF HEARINGS & APPEALS 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

I. ; 

' ..... :.... ~\ ..... :- .... '\i { 

1999 MAR {t; .• ~ r ., 

RESPONSE OF GE APPLIANCES 

.. - A /(): 23 

TO THE PETITION FILED BY AMANA APPLIANCES FOR EXCEPTION 

RELIEF TO THE FINAL RULE ON ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS 

FOR REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS AND FREEZERS 

CASE NO. VEE-0054 

MARCH 15, 1999 

These comments are submitted on behalf of GE Appliances, a leading fullIin~ manufacturer of major household appliances, including, as specifically 

relevant to these proceeding, refrigerator-freezers. GE Appliances, a potentially 

aggrieved party within the meaning of the Office of Hearings and Appeals 

("OHA") regulations, has its headquarters at Appliance Park, Louisville, Kentucky. 

I. Introduction and Summary 

Amana Appliances ("Amana") has filed an application ("Application") 

seeking an exception to the Department of Energy's ("DOE") Final Rule on 

Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Energy Conservation 

Standards for Refrigerators, Refrigerator-Freezers and Freezers, 10 C.F.R. Part 

430 (Final Rule). This Final Rule, promulgated on April 23, 1997, mandates that 

refrigerator products manufactured after July 1, 2001, use approximately 30% 

less energy than such products manufactured under today's energy conservation 

standard. 

The specific relief requested by Amana is that covered products 

manufactured by it on or after July 1, 2001, not be required to comply with the 

Final Rule but be given "10% relief' until January 1, 2010. Thus, rather than 

manufacturing refrigerators that use 30% less energy than today's models, 

Amana's new products would be permitted to use 10% more energy than 

comparable competitive models manufactured in compliance with the more 

stringent standard. Moreover, Amana seeks to maintain this cost-avoidance 

advantage for a period of eight and one-half years. 

Amana offers as the basis for its Application the "uncertain future of 

alternative blowing agents (especially HFC-24Sfa)." (See Application, p.6.) It 

argues that the unavailability of HFC-24Sfa in early 1999 together with the 

scheduled 2003 phase-out of HCFC-141 b, the foam-blowing agent used by most 

of the industry, poses an insurmountable obstacle to its ability to comply with the 

- 1 -
Final Rule.' Thus, Amana seeks an exception to the Final Rule to permit a

reduction in the energy efficiency standard as applied to it so that more energy

efficient foams can be developed.

GE Appliances submits that the Application is premature and OHA should,

therefore, deny the relief sought.

Ile Amana's Application is Premature

A. The fate of HFC-245fa is not determined

As Amana acknowledges in its Application, the appliance industry, acting

through the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers ("AHAM"), has begun

discussions with AlliedSignal, the only U.S. company licensed to manufacture

HFC-245fa, regarding production and sale of quantities of HFC-245fa to meet the

industry's requirements. This all-industry effort was necessary to improve the

chances that sufficient demand volume would be aggregated to justify

construction of a new plant.

The manufacturers retained AD Little to review confidentially AlliedSignal's

estimates of the capital investment and operating costs to produce HFC-245fa.

A report of their findings was given to participating industry members, who,

based on the report's findings, are in the process of reviewing their requirements,

their price sensitivity and their position on other terms and conditions offered by

AlliedSignal.

A new budget has been agreed to for a follow-up project, also led by AD

Little, to start negotiating the terms of a possible deal.

Coming as it does in the middle of the parties' extensive efforts to assure

future availability of HFC-245fa, the Application sends the wrong signal by

prejudging the outcome. It is simply too early to predict that HFC-245fa will not

be available. One thing is clear, however: Granting Amana's request for relief

will ensure that HFC-254fa will not be produced in the near future because any

incentive for expeditious handling of the discussions with AlliedSignal will be lost.

' Amana concedes, however, that the unavailability of HFC-245fa will not prevent it from

manufacturing products that will meet the 2001 energy requirements. It argues that it is

nevertheless entitled to relief because available foams are less efficient, thereby requiring thicker

application, which, results in less internal volume. One might view the Application as presenting

this issue to OHA: Does the loss of refrigerator internal storage volume constitute a "special

hardship, inequity or unfair distribution of burdens" that justifies an adjustment of the Final Rule

pursuant to Section 504 of the Department of Energy Organization Act? [2 U.S.C. § 7194(a)]. We

think it does not.

2

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 339

Final Rule.' Thus, Amana seeks an exception to the Final Rule to permit a 

reduction in the energy efficiency standard as applied to it so that more energy 

efficient foams can be developed. 

GE Appliances submits that the Application is premature and OHA should, 

therefore, deny the relief sought. 

II. Amana's Application is Premature 

A. The fate of HFC-24Sfa is not determined 

As Amana acknowledges in its Application, the appliance industry, acting 

throLJgh the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers ("AHAM"), has begun 

discussions with AlliedSignal, the only U.S. company licensed to manufacture 

HFC-245fa, regarding production and sale of quantities of HFC-245fa to meet the 

industry's requirements. This all-industry effort was necessary to improve the 

chances that sufficient demand volume would be aggregated to justify 

construction of a new plant. 

The manufacturers retained AD Little to review confidentially AlliedSignal's 

estimates of the capital investment and operating costs to produce HFC-245fa. 

A report of their findings was given to participating industry members, who, 

based on the report's findings, are in the process of reviewing their requirements, 

their price sensitivity and their position on other terms and conditions offered by 

AlliedSignal. 

A new budget has been agreed to for a follow-up project, also led by AD 

Little, to start negotiating the terms of a possible deal. 

Coming as it does in the middle of the parties' extensive efforts to assure 

future availability of HFC-245fa, the Application sends the wrong signal by 

prejudging the outcome. It is simply too early to predict that HFC-245fa will not 

be available. One thing is clear, however: Granting Amana's request for relief 

will ensure that HFC-254fa will not be produced in the near future because any 

incentive for expeditious handling of the discussions with AlliedSignal will be lost. 

Amana concedes, however, that the unavailability of HFC-24Sfa will not prevent it from 

manufacturing products that will meet the 2001 energy reqUirements. It argues that it is 

nevertheless entitled to relief because available foams are less efficient, thereby requiring thicker 

application, which, results jn less internal volume. One might view the Application as presenting 

this issue to OHA: Does the loss of refrigerator internal storage volume constitute a "special 

hardship, inequity or unfair distribution of burdens" that justifies an adjustment of the Final Rule 

pursuant to Section 504 of the Department of Energy Organization Act? [2 U.S.c. § 7194(a)]. We 

think it does not. 

2 
B. Amana has failed to show that HFC-245fa unavailability - in-1999

is a basis for relief from the Final Rule

The difficult decisions that Amana describes as necessary to achieve

compliance with the Final Rule were thoroughly considered by DOE when it

established the July 1, 2001 effective date.

The Application asserts:

"Retooling an entire refrigeration product line would take significant time,

major capital, and vast human resource requirements. Insulation

thickness must be defined in early 1999 such that the product can be

designed to meet the 7/1/01 DOE Standards2. Amana must select an

insulation of choice at that time such that the product may be optimized for

internal volume." (P.2)

In any event, even if it were to be established that HFC-245fa might not be

available under the schedule that industry hoped would be met, it has not been

demonstrated that it will not be available for use in 2003, which is the key date in

the Final Rule.

The argument that 1999 is critical for foam selection is appealing. Indeed,

GE Appliances made similar arguments about the adverse effects of a lack of

coordination between 2001 compliance and 2003 phase-out of HCFC-141 b. But

DOE rejected those pleas and adopted a Final Rule that explicitly acknowledges

that a double retooling might be required.

DOE has already determined that the potential unavailability of HFC-245fa

before 2001, although unfortunate, is irrelevant.

The Application should be denied as premature.

M. Amana has failed to demonstrate that it meets the

requirements for § 504 relief

Amana is owned by Goodman Industries, Inc., a privately held company.

This means that its financial resources-capital, assets, cash, indebtedness and

credit worthiness-are not subject to the scrutiny of outsiders.

How, then, can GE Appliances and other competitors comment on

Amana's claim that it will be disadvantaged by having to invest for 2001 and

2003? We can all sympathize with this statement:

2 In 1997, AlliedSignal advised industry members that it would not have a chemical plant in place

in time to produce HFC-245fa for use in meeting the July 1, 2001 DOE energy standard.

3

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 339

B. Amana has failed to show that HFC-245fa unavailability in 1999 

is a basis for relief from the Final Rule 

The difficult decisions that Amana describes as necessary to achieve 

compliance with the Final Rule were thoroughly considered by DOE when it 

established the July 1, 2001 effective date. 

The Application asserts: 

"Retooling an entire refrigeration product line would take significant time, 

major capital, and vast human resource requirements. Insulation 

thickness must be defined in early 1999 such that the product can be 

designed to meet the 7/1/01 DOE Standards2

. Amana must select an 

insulation of choice at that time such that the product may be optimized for 

internal volume." (P.2) 

In any event, even if it were to be established that HFC-245fa might not be 

available under the schedule that industry hoped would be met, it has not been 

demonstrated that it will not be available for use in 2003, which is the key date in 

the Final Rule. 

The argument that 1999 is critical for foam selection is appealing. Indeed, 

GE Appliances made similar arguments about the adverse effects of a lack of 

coordination between 2001 compliance and 2003 phase-out of HCFC-141b. But 

DOE rejected those pleas and adopted a Final Rule that explicitly acknowledges 

that a double retooling might be required. 

DOE has already determined that the potential unavailability of HFC-245fa 

before 2001, although unfortunate, is irrelevant. 

The Application should be denied as premature. 

III. Amana has failed to demonstrate that it meets the 

requirements for § 504 relief 

Amana is owned by Goodman Industries, Inc., a privately held company. 

This means that its financial resources-capital, assets, cash, indebtedness and 

credit worthiness-are not subject to the scrutiny of outsiders. 

How, then, can GE Appliances and other competitors comment on 

Amana's claim that it will be disadvantaged by having to invest for 2001 and 

2003? We can all sympathize with this statement: 

2 In 1997, AlliedSignal advised industry members that it would not have a chemical plant in place 

in time to produce HFC-24Sfa for use in meeting the July 1, 2001 DOE energy standard. 

3 
"Amana does not want to retool an entire line of refrigerators within an 18-

month period due to the uncertainly of the foam-blowing agent, and

therefore, the uncertainty of the energy consumption of the refrigerator

itself."

Without the ability to scrutinize Amana's financial situation, there is no

basis to conclude that retooling "within an 18-month period" constitutes a "special

hardship, inequity or unfair distribution of burdens" that justifies an adjustment of

the Final Rule pursuant to Section 504 of the Department of Energy Organization

Act.

Nor is there evidence that Amana's situation is different from that of other

manufacturers.

It cites the joint venture operations of GE Appliances and Whirlpool in

Mexico, where HCFC-141b use will be lawful beyond 2003, as evidence of

potential competitive disadvantage (see Application, p. 4.) This is a red herring.

Amana has cited no plans by either company to alter import patterns post-2003.

If such factors are relevant to ruling on this Application then other factors

affecting the ability of the manufacturers to achieve compliance, including

financial resources, technical competence and many others, should be examined

by OHA in public hearings so that a full record can be developed. This is the

only way that a decision could withstand attack by adversely affected parties.

IV. Conclusion

For all the above reasons, GE. Appliances respectfully requests that OHA

deny the relief sough by Amana's Application.

Please contact the undersigned if you require additional information. By

my signature below I certify that 1 have complied with the requirements of the

OHA regulation, 10 C.F.R. § 1003.23(d).

cc: Alan F. Kessler, Amana Appliances

4

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 339

"Amana does not want to retool an entire line of refrigerators within an 18-

month period due to the uncertainly of the foam-blowing agent, and 

therefore, the uncertainty of the energy consumption of the refrigerator 

itself." 

Without the ability to scrutinize Amana's financial situation, there is no 

basis to conclude that retooling "within an 18-month period" constitutes a "special 

hardship, inequity or unfair distribution of burdens" that justifies an adjustment of 

the Final Rule pursuant to Section 504 of the Department of Energy Organization 

Act. 

Nor is there evidence that Amana's situation is different from that of other 

manufacturers. 

It cites the joint venture operations of GE Appliances and Whirlpool in 

Mexico, where HCFC-141 b use will be lawful beyond 2003, as evidence of 

potential competitive disadvantage (see Application, p. 4.) This is a red herring. 

Amana has cited no plans by either company to alter import patterns post-2003. 

If such factors are relevant to ruling on this Application then other factors 

affecting the ability of the manufacturers to achieve compliance, including 

financial resources, technical competence and many others, should be examined 

by OHA in public hearings so that a full record can be developed. This is the 

only way that a decision could withstand !lttack by adversely affected parties. 

IV. Conclusion 

For all the above reasons, GEAppliances respectfully requests that OHA 

deny the relief sough by Amana's Application. 

Please contact the undersigned if you require additional information. By 

my signature below I certify that I have complied with the requirements of the 

OHA regulation, 10 C.F.R. § 1003.23(d). 

cc: Alan F. Kessler, Amana Appliances 

4