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.

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 340

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 of the 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 for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers that are established 

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

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

The California Energy Commission (CEC) is the California agency 

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

implementation of that policy, for enacting and enforcing energy efficiency 

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

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

Cal. Code of Regulations §§ 1601 - 1608. 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 9 rant an exception to a regulation only if the 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 that it would suter any particular hardship, inequity, or burden, 

much less that any injury it might sufur would be "serious," "gross," or "unf3ir." 

We oppose the Application for three basic reasons. 

~ 

~ 

7 
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, 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

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 340

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 

CEe agrees with the technical analys is submitted by the Oregon 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 that an exception should be granted only if application 

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

do notrise to thatleV€1. 

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 

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

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

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

applyfora fur1her exception based on then-current circumstanres. 

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

Application. 

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

Pursuant to 10 GFR § 1003.9(b), I cer1ify that I am a duly authorized 

representative of the California EnergyGommission. 

Sinrerely, 

V\fILUArvl J. KEESE 

Chairman