STATE OF CAUFORN~- Tt£ RESOURCES AQENCY ARNOlD SCHWARZENEGGER ~

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION

1518 NINTH STREET

~. CA 1681~12

Douglas L. Faulkner

Acting Assistant Secretary

Energy Efficiency aDd Renewable Energy

United States Department of Energy

Section 327 Petitions, Appliance Efficiency Standards

F orrestal Building

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, D.C. 20585

Petition to EIempt from Preemptiol

California's Water Conservation Standards for Residen

Your Letter of November 18, 2005

Dear Mr. Faulkner,

On September 16,2005, DOE received the California Energy Commission's

(CEC) petition for exemption from federal preemption of California's water

conservation standards for residential clothes washers. As you are aware, DOE's

regulations state:

(1) Within:fifteen (15) days of the receipt of a petitio~ the

Secretary will either accept it for filing or reject it, and the petitioner

will be so notified in. writing. The Secretary will serve a copy of this

notification on each other party served by the petitioner. Only such

petitions which conform to the requirements of [DOE's regulations]

and which contain sufficient information for the purposes of a

substantive decision will be accepted for filing. Petitions which do

not so conform will be rejected and an explanation provided to

petitioner in writing.

(2) For purposes of [federal statutory law

regulations], a petition is deemed to be filed on the date

for filing.

10 C.F.R.. § 430.42(f).

December 5, 2005

10

tial Clothes Washers:

and DOE's

it is accepted

1

 EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 02
Despite the l5-day deadline, the CEC received no notification in writing

until November 18, when you sent me a letter concerning the petition. (For

reasons unknown to me, the letter was not received in my office until November

28.) In your November 18 letter, you stated:

DOE has reviewed the petition, and determined that the regulatory

requirements have not been met. The statement required by 10 C.F.R.

430.42(c), on whether "[to the best knowledge of that petitioner] the

same or related issue, act or transaction has been or presently is bei~g

considered or investigated by any State agency, department, or

instrumentality," was not included in the petition. Please supply DOE

with information in writing sufficient to satisfy this filing requirement

and DOE will complete its review of your petition and provide you

with the notice required under 10 C.F.R 430.42(£).

The CBC hereby states that to its best knowledge, the same or related issue, act, or

transaction has not been and is not presently being considered or investigated by

any State agency, department, or instrumentality, other than the CEC' s adoption of

the standards described in the petition, and the filing of the petition itself.

In providing "an explanation. . . in writing" of the nonconformity of the

CEC's petition to regulatory and information requirements (10 C.F.R. §

430.42(£)(1», your November 18 letter listed no "regulatory requirements" that

were not met, other than the lack of the statement required by 1 0 C.F .R. section

430.42(c). Nor did your letter describe any lack of "sufficient information for the

purposes 'of a substantive decision" (10 C.F.R. § 430.42(t)(I». Therefore, with the

provision of the section 430.42(c) statement above~ all requirements for a petition

have been met, and the CEC anticipates DOE's very rapid acceptance of the

petition for filing and docketing, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. section 430.42(t)-(g).

Thank you for your assistance.

cc: see next page

Sincerely,

;J.4..; ~~l1...t:-"

Jonathan Blees

AssistantChief Counsel

2

 EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 02
CEC:

Valene Hall

G. William Pennington

William Staack

cc:

Charles A. Samuels

General Counsel, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers

Mintz, Levin, Co~ F ems, Lovsky, and Popeo, PC

Suite 900

701 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, DC 20004

3

 EE-RM-PET-100 COMMENT 02