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 DAVIS, Goer



### On February 18, 1999 Amana Appliances filed with the Departent 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 § 43032(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 thatitwoukl suffer anyparficular hardship, inequity, or burden, much less that anyinjury it might suffer would be "serious," "gross," or "unfair." We oppose the Application for three basic reasons. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

- T1iE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY OAVlS, Governor 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 ofthe California Energy Commission on Amana's Application for an Exception from Refrigerator Standards
Dear

### Mr. Brown, On February 18, 1999 ftmana Appliances filed with the Departnent of Ene/yy (DOE) an ,Appfication for Exception (Application) to the energy efficiency standards forrefrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, andfreezers thatare established in 10 CFR 

### § 430.32(a) and that go into effect on July 1, 2001. ftmana's Applicationwasfiled pursuantto 10 CFR Part 1003, Subparts Aand 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 CEe opposes Amana's Application and recommends that DOE deny it. DOE may 9rant an exception to a regulation onlyifthe regulation would result in "serious hardship, gross inequity or unfair disiribution of burdens." 10 CFR 

### § 1003.25(b)(2)- Jlmana engages in speaJlation, not supported by any analysis, that it might sufur some undefined harm, but it has not made a concrete showing thatitwould suter anyparticular hardship, inequity, or burden, much less thatanyinjury it might sufur would be "serious," "gross," or "unf3ir." We oppose theApplicationforthree basic reasons.

## ~

# ~ 

# 7U.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, Amana asks that its exception last for more than eight years, with no showing that the circumstances allegedly jus1lfying 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 forAmana to apptyfora further exception based on then-current circumstances. For all of these reasons, the C.EC 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,

WILLIAM J. KEESE Chairman U.S. Department of Energy March 15, 1999 Page 2

First, Amana has notmade a showing that it will be harmed at all. The CEeagrees with thetechnical analysis submitted bytheOregon Office of Energy, which demonstrates that Amana's claims of una\eilability 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 wouki not constitute "serious," "gross," or "unt3ir" burdens. The legal**cri~ria** indicate thatan exception should be granted only if application ofa regulation would result in a highand unusual level of harm. Amana'$ claims do notriseto thatleV€1. Finally, the relief.Amana has requested is far outof proportion to the harm itclaims. Amana asks thatitbe allowed to exceed the standards byten percent, with no showing that such an exceedence is necessary to compensate for /\mana's alleged injury. Worse, Amana asks thatits exception lastfor morethan eight years, with no showing that the cirrumstanres allegedly justifying the exception will lastthat long. If DOEgrants an exception

- which it should nottheexception should befora much shortertime, with an allQlNance forAmana to applyfora fur1her exception based on then-currentcircumstanres.
For all ofthese reasons, the GEC recommends that DOE denyAmana's Application. 

### I am enclosing two copies of these comments. Please return one 

### filestamped copyto me in theenclosed self-addressed, stamped en\€lope.
Pursuant to 10 GFR 

### § 1003.9(b), 

### I cer1ify that 

### I am a duly authorized representative ofthe California EnergyGommission.
Sinrerely,

V\fILUArvl 

### J. KEESE Chairman