e e 

## er» can Council for an Energy-Efficient 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 

# American Councilfor anEnergy-Efficient

# ~o*

Mr. Fred Brown Office ofHearings and Appeals U.S. Department ofEnergy 1000 Independence Ave. SW 20585
Re: Docket VEE-00S4
Dear Mr. Brown, WASHINGTON, DC



### ..
: .-1i.: D '" March 15, 1999



## . .): 0CJ

Attached please find the comments ofthe American Council for an**Energy-Effi~ient** Economy in the above-referenced proceeding. Ifyou have any questions about**the~,e** comments, please let me know. Sincerely,

# ~tJ\ 1rL

# (14) s1;::: M. Nadel Deputy Director
attachment

cc: Alan Kessler, AmanaAppliances

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

## a**~cyded ~pe(** 

## encan 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 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 

# American Councilfor an Energy-Efficient Economy WASHINGTON, DC

Comments ofthe 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. Weconduct**resear~h** on technologies, programs and policies to advance energy efficiency in the U.S. Among ourmanyproject areas is work on appliance efficiency. This work began in 1983 with the publication ofourreport Energy $aving Appliances and continued with the negotiation ofappliance efficiency standards in the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 and the Energy Policy Act of1992 (we were one of the lead negotiators). More recently, we played a leadingJole in the ne.gotiation ofconsensus 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 wereceived a copy ofAmana'spetition for exception. We oppose this petition becauseit is:
1. Premature; 2. Provides inadequatejustification for the reliefrequested; 3. Contains faulty and misleading information; 4. Seeks reliefthat is probablynot needed; 5. Seeks overlybroad and excessiverelief; 6. Not in the interest offair competition.
Each oftheseproblems are described 

### in more detail in the sections below. Petition is Premature • Amana claims thatit needs a speedy exceptionnow because it must soon make production decisions for refiigerators that meet the 2001 standard, and ifitdoesn't soonknow what blowing agent to use, it will suffer significant harm. Based on ourdiscussions with other manufacturers, webelievethat Amana'spetition is prematurebecause:

a. There are on-going discussions withAllied Signal about producing HFC 245fa, discussions that couldberesolved oneway oranotherin thenext few months and almost certainly will beresolved this calendaryear. To force a DOE decision nowbeforethese

1001 ConnecticutAvenue 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.

b.

c. negotiations are concluded couldwell lead to a suboptimal outcome.J UnderEPA regulations, HCFC 141b will notbephased out until Jan. 1,2003,providing plenty oftime to identify and phase-in a replacement. While Amana would preferto have the blowing agent issue resolved for its 2001 models, the issue need not beresolved until the 2003 models. To the extent the newblowing agent is a near-drop-in for HCFC 141b (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 especiallyburdensome to manufacturers, despite the fact that HCFC 141bwas not a drop-inreplacement for CFCs.
Other manufacturers we have talked to indicate that there is still sufficient time to conclude negotiations with Allied, and pursue alternative courses ofaction for 2001 models ifthe talks are unsuccessful. Amana should be able to do the same, and ifit cannot, it has much biggerproblems 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 iffaced with a choice between a relaxed DOE standard orpossibly delaying theHCFCphaseout, it may choose the latter, making a DOE action unnecessary. Petition Provides Inadequate Justification for ReliefRequested
In its petition, Amanarequests speedy and very extensiverelief, butprovides little solid evidence to support its claims. In ouropiniontheburden is on Amanato support its claims; DOEcannot and should not grant a petitionbased on unsupported claims. Forexample, among the critical claimsthat Amanamakesthat are notwell-supported in the filing (at least the version ofthe filing provided to ACEEE and otherparties) arethe following:

• That a decision ontheblowing agent mustbemadeinearly 1999, and that waitinguntil summerorfall 1999 is notpossible.

• That Amana is particularlydisadvantaged bytheDOE standardsbecauseit doesnothave overseasplants (This ignores the fact that someother

## u.s. refrigeratormanufacturers do nothave foreign plants and, as discussedbelow, maywell overstatethe benefitofthese foreign plants).

• Thatrefrigeratormanufacturers do nothavetheluxury ofincreasingthe outsideor external cabinet dimensions. (Amanaprovides a one sentence supporting statementthat

1In fact, Amana'spetitioncouldwell bepart ofits strategy to influencethenegotiations with Allied Signal. Byproffering an alternative to HFC 245fa, Amanamaybe seeking to pressureAllied to give it and othermanufacturers a betterdeal.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

is much too briefand addresses only one aspect ofthis issue. Then later, Amana acknowledges it can change volumeby 1.9 cfbutno more, again without supporting statements).

• That price increases in the marketplace cannot bepassed 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'spetition 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 percentagepoints).
b. Amana claims that the 2001 standards "were negotiated but not financiallyjustified" and argues that DOE found only 20% energy savings to be financiallyjustified. 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 thatunits 

### more efficient than the 2001 standarqs arejustified. In the case oftop mount auto defrost refrigerator-freezers (themostpopularunits 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% 

### belowthe 2001 standard. 

### In the caseofa side-by-side units with thru-the-doorice (the second most popularunits 

### inthe U.S.), theminimum lifecycle cost point is 508 kWh/year (see Table 4.4 in the TSD), which is morethan 20% 

### below the 2001 standard.

c. Amana claims that GE, Whirlpool and Woods canproducerefrigerators and freezers 

### in Mexico and Canadato get around EPAHCFCregulations, providing them with a competitive advantage. However, theplants GEand Whirlpool have in these other countries are primarilyto serve themarkets in theirhome countries, exports to the U.S. are limited. Theproductsproduced in Mexico are small units thathaveonly a small portion oftheU.S. market. To produce more and largerunits inMexico will require significant changes. As for Canada, ourunderstanding is that Woods onlyproduces freezers, which areproductsAmanadoes not make. Camco, a GE subsidiary, does produce refrigerators 

### inCanada,butthis is an inefficient plant that will have difficulty competing withU.S. plants, even ifthe Camcoplantcontinues to use HCFCs after 2003. Finally, there are major expenses inproducing largenumbers ofrefrigerators in other countries and exporting them to theU.S., expenses that have thus far keptU.S. manufacturers from doing this for most models. Thepotential to save $9-12 is unlikely to change this balance, particularly since undertheMontreal Protocol, Mexico too will bebanning 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-effectiveenergy 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. banning HCFC 141b in the future, and thus this advantage ofMexican production will only be temporary. d. As noted above, Amana says that exterior volume cannot be increased due to commonsizes ofcabinet openings in American kitchens. However, rarely is a refrigerator at the maximum width and height at the same time

-- ifone dimension can'tbe increased, the otherprobably 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 DOETSD 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
Reliefis ProbablyNot Needed
Amanarequests reliefthat is probably not needed because there are ways to meet the 2001 standard without this relief. First, ourunderstanding is that there is prooably a betterthan 50% chance that manufacturers and Allied Signal can.reach agreement onproducing HFC 245fa, providing an easypath to meeting the 2001 standard. Second, as noted above, Amana can continueto use HCFC 141b until 2003. SinceHCFC 141b has energy performance equal to ifnot superiorto 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 bemade later, once the situationwith HFC 245fa and otherpossible alternatives becomes clarified. Third, even in a worst case in which neither 245faor 141b can beused for 2001 models, and that manufacturers must usethenext-best existing alternative (C-pentane), there are alternative ways to meet the 2001 standard. Forexample, as noted above, the DOE lifecycle cost analysis found that there areotherways to cost-effectively exceed the 2001 standardby 10%or more. Someofthe improvementis from the Use ofslightlythickerwall insulation. Depending ontheparticulars ofeach model, this extrainsulation canbeaccommodatedbymakingunits wider, deeper andlorhigher. 

### Inaddition, the DOEanalysis found opportunities for cost-effective energy savings from increased condenserarea, adaptive defrost, reducingthe load ofthru-thedoor ice features, an improved evaporatorfan, andreducing gasket areaheat leaks. Furthermore,

2 

### In making this comparisonwe assume that Amana can pass onthe 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 there may be some opportunities to use more efficient compressors than were posited inDOE's analysis, an analysis which is now more than three years old. Based on ourdiscussions with multiple manufacturers, webelieve that these options canbring 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 providedbythe fact that a few existing refrigerator models already meet the 2001 standard, including at least one Amana model. Finally, as noted briefly above, ifnone ofthe above options allow manufacturers to meet the 2001 standards, there is a possibility that EPA could delay the phaseout ofHCFC 141b.
ReliefRequest is Overly Broad and Excessive
Ifnone ofthe four alternatives discussed above workout and somereliefis needed, the reliefAmana requests is overly broad and excessive. Thereliefis overlybroad because it applies to all units equally, even though the 2001 standard is easierto meet with some models than others. As discussed above, even without HFC 245fa and HCFC 141b, it should bepossible for many models to meet the 2001 standard. Forexample, as discussed above, the analYSIS in the DOE TSD shows that exceedingthe 2001 standard is easier for side-by-side models than topmount models. Thus, ifDOE grants relief, the reliefshould becarefully targeted to only those products for which Amana clearly demonstrates that reliefis needed.
Amana'srequest for a 10% relaxation in the standard is excessive. First, as noted above, the 10% figure is based on old data; Amana's ownFigure 2 supports an 8% figure, and with optimization, this 8% figure can bereduced, most likely to around 5%. Furthermore, for most models, cost-effectivemeasures exist that can reduce the amount ofreliefneeded even further. As argued in theparagraph above, 

### inmost cases these othermeasures reducethe needed reliefto zero. But in the few cases wherethis is not the case, these othermeasures can reduce energy use somewhat, leaving only a few percentagepoints for whichreliefis still needed.
In sum, in orderto get relief, webelievethat Amananeeds to demonstrate on a model-bymodel basisthe maximum efficiency it can achieve, and requestreliefonly for thedifference between thesemaximum's and the 2001 standard. Facedwith such a requirement, Amanamay only request relieffor the few products for which reliefis really needed, and not such a large and generous reliefas in the currentpetition.
Petition isNot in theInterest ofCompetition
Amanarequests an exception only for itself. Ifthis exception is granted, Amanawill enjoy a significant competitive advantage overits competitorsbecauseits refrigerators will need to meet a significantly different efficiency standard than everyone else. Appliance efficiency standards were created to provide a level playing field 

### inwhich all manufacturers must meet minimum efficiency requirements. Toprovide a different setofrequirements for Amanawould significantly tilt theplaying field 

### in favor ofAmana.
Amana alleges that it needs suchtreatment because it does not have foreignmanufacturing 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. manufacturing plants, but some ofits 

## u.s. competitors also do not have foreign plants. Furthermore, as noted above, Amana has notprovided good evidence why foreign plants owned by some ofits competitorsprovidethem with a significant advantage that DOE must correct. From ourknowledge ofthese foreign plants, 

### itis unlikely that theseplants would provide a large advantage to Amana's competitors ifthe 2001 standardproceeds as currently scheduled.

Conclusion
Amana raises important and complex issues in its petition, and seeks reliefthat can have profound implications for U.S. energy use, carbon emissions, and competition within theU.S. refrigerator industry. Amanahas not made a convincing case for its petition, and the reliefit seeks is overly generous even ifit could make a convincing case. Given the on-going nature of negotiations over the availability ofHFC 245fa, werecommend that DOE hold offproceedings on this issue for six months, and ifthe HFC 245fa availability issue is not resolved by then, convene a proceeding to considerwhether and how much reliefis needed by all manufacturers,and for which products suchreliefis needed. Ifreliefis needed, it should be carefully targeted to only those products for which it isreally needed, be at a level that minimizes consumer lifecycIe costs, and apply equallyto all manufacturers. This present petition is premature and is not the appropriate vehicle for such a proceeding. Therefore, we recommend that the present petitionbe 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

## ~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 ofAlliedSignal 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 ofthe 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, priorto the mid-1990's, AlliedSignal sold the U.S. appliance industry CFC-11, which, atthe time, was the blowing agent ofchoice 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 ofchoice. AlliedSignal today manufacturers and sells HCFC-141b tothe U.S. appliance industry. The migration to HCFC-141bwas 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 of3AlliedSignal'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 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 ofa viable third generation (zero OOP) blowing agent. Specificto 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 ofall possible HFC molecules thafmeet customer" requirements versus the economics involved in the manufacturing ofsaid 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 developmentwith our customers centered around the use of HFC-245fa as a blowing agent. • Design ofa commercial HFC-245fa manufacturing facility and an estimation ofthe 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 ofAmana'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) • equivalentthermal performance to HCFC-141b • superior thermal performance when compared to other zero-OOP alternatives (Le. hydrocarbons and HCFC-134a) • low order oftoxicity • lowTotal EquivalentWarming Impact (TEWJ) value

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

• The construction ofcommercial HFC-245fa manufacturing capacity for the appliance industry involves a Significant capital expenditure bythe Company. AlliedSignal has stated to the appliance industry that the Company is dedicated to expending the capital required upon receipt ofa contractual commitmentto the product by our appliance customers. AlliedSignal is working closely with the appliance industry through the Association of Home



### Page 2 of3Appliance 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,
^ ri B an C. Strauss Marketing Manager

CC: Alan Kessler, Amana Appliances AlliedSignal Internal Distribution



### Page 3 of 3 Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) to secure this commitment to the product. As part ofthis 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 ofthe supply agreement related concerns expressed by Amana in their application for exception.

• Under section 5 ofAmana's application for exemption, Amana claims thattheir 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-141b 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 ofthis 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-141b 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 ofAmana'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. Ifthere 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. , 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 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 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. 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 thatitwoukj sufur anyparicular hardship, inequity, or burden, much less thatanyinjury it might suter woukj be "serious," "gross," or "unt:lir." We oppose theAppfication forthree. 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 J& 

# ; . 9 tee,

1MLLIAM J. KEESE Chairman 

## u.s. Department of Energy March 15, 1999 Page 2
First, .Amana has notmade a sho'Ning that it will be harmed at all. The GEG agrees with thetechnical analysis submitted bythe 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 ifAmana's claims were taken at face value, the injury that .Amana describes would not constitute "serious," "gross," or "unhir" burdens. The legal criEria indicate thatan exception should be granted only ifapplication ofa regulation would result in a high and unusual level of harm. Amana's claims do notriseto that level. Finally, the reliefAmana 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 lastfor more than eight years, with no showing that the cirrumstances allegedly justifying the exception will lastthat long. If DOE grants an exception

- which it should notthe exception should befora much shorter time, with an allowance for Amana to applyfora further exception based on then-current cirrumstances. For all ofthese reasons, the GEG 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 CFR 

### § 1003.9(b), I certify 

### that I am a duly authorized representative ofthe California EnergyCommission.
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 DuPont Fluo'ovoducts Chestnut Run Plaza P.O. Box 80702 Wilmington, DE 19880·0702


### DuPont Fluoroproducts

Office ofHearings and Appeals U.S. Department ofEnergy 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 ofthe Amana Application for Exception ofthe Department ofEnergy, 10 CFR Part 430. Receipt ofthis notification was delayed resulting in our late response. I hope your offices can stilI incorporate our input. Ourtechnical staffhas studied the Amana request and compared it with both ourknowledge and experience withinDuPont as well as ourexperience based on interactions we routinely have with otherU.S. equipment producers. 

### Itis ouropinion that while many ofAmana's claims are correct andjustified, 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 asto allowthem to meet proposed DOE standards. The refrigerator/freezer polyurethane foaming technology has traditionally been based onblowing agents which are liquids at roomtemperature. When CFC blowing agents werephased out, new compounds and technologies were pursued and are being developed. Whilethere may beuncertainty around new liquid compounds (like HFC-245fa) for usein traditional technology, newtechnology usingblowing agents

.which are gases (lowboilingpoint) atroom temperature (e.g., HFC-134a) has progressed

significantly. Background data 

### in the report for HFC-134afoams is limited (confidentiality reasons), but theoverall discussion is concerned with lower insulation values for HFC-134a foams. As is thecasewith any newtechnology, initial results may not achieve desired performance. However, published research work has shown that the technology canbe optimized and that HFC-134atechnology iscommercially available for use today. In fact, HFC-134a appliance foam technology was commercially used in Europein 1993.

E. I du Pont de Nemours and Company @ Printed on Recycled Paper H.j)S788Since 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 Since gastechnology can require an additional processing step, some investment may beneeded 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 ofadditives, 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 madewith liquid blowing agents decreases at low temperature because the insulating gas is condensing.

• Gas foaming technology provides moreuniform 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 bettertoxicity than HCFC-I4Ib (higher allowable exposure limits).

• Per attachment A-I, HFC-134aand HCFC-22, at least, have low TEWI While werecognize that energy consumption for appliances involves the total unit design, it is importantto notethat gas (lowboilingblowing agents) foaming technology can provide insulation foams that perform at levels equivalent toHCFC-141b foams. Gas technology is a viable, competitive, and currently available option for replacing liquid foaming technology, and can produceinsulation foams that contribute as much as current foams toward meeting energystandards.

. Yourstruly,

# /~f- StevenH. Bernhardt, PhD Environmental Manager DuPontFluoroproducts

### 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 ofalternative 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 exceptionrelief 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 thatHFC-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 

### Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585 

### March 12, 1999

MEMORANDUMFOR

### TIffi OFFICE OFHEARlNGS AND APPEALS
FROM: Mark Ginsberg

# ~**~** Deputy 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 RelieffromDOE 7/1/2001**RefrigeratorlFre~zer** Efficiency Standards '
Amana has petitioned DOE's Office ofHearings and Appeals for an exception to the refrigerator energy efficiency standards whichwill be effective onJuly 1,2001. Amana has asked for a 10%increase in allowable energy consumption until 11112010, to allow for theuncertain future ofalternative blowing agents (especiallyHFC-245fa). Recognizing that some uncertainty still exists about the ultimate acceptability ofHFC-245fa, orothercomparable blowing agents, as well as some uncertainty regarding thetiming ofcommercial production ofsuch a product, the Department provided for exception·reliefin the preamble to the 1997Final Rule which promulgated the standards. (See preamble language in Attachment 

### A.)
The 1997Final Rule preamble states that any application for exception reliefmust provide "specific facts and information relevant tothe claim that compliance would cause special hardship, inequity orthe unfair distribution ofburdens." Special hardship could exist if "it was shown that HFC-245fa ora comparableproduct would not be available as a timely replacement for HCFC141b and theunavailability of HFC-245fa orcomparableproducts priorto theimposition ofthe ban on thefurther production ofHCFC-14Ibwould substantially increase the expected manufacturercosts 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-245faor comparable products priorto the imposition ofthe ban onthe further production ofHCFC-141b (set byEPA at 11112003) would substantially increase the expected manufacturer costs associated with complying withthis 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- '. standard.

CD Compliance would cause special hardship, inequity orthe unfair distribution ofburdens.
Amana's petition is premature and insufficient to support the criteria stated above:

CD Thepetition shows that timely availability ofHFC-245fa is at risk, but negotiations about the production schedule for HFC-245fa between Allied Signal (theHFC-245fa supplier) and AHAM are continuing. Even ifthese 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 ofcomplying with the DOE efficiency standard using an a1ternative blowing agent would have such adverse effects. This requires a current assessment ofthe costs ofcomplying:with the DOE standard using an alternative blowing agent.

• Amana states its competitors have foreign plants that manufacture refrigerator products which would enablethem to continue to use HCFC-141b past theEPA 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 ofthis 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 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 full**Iin~** 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 afterJuly 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-141b, 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



### 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 nearfuture because any incentive for expeditious handling ofthe 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, resultsjn 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 

### 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 andadopted 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 demonstratethat 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 "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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 denythe 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