Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM: SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR STANDBY MODE AND OFF MODE FOR MICROWAVE OVENS

U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave., SW Washington, D.C. 20585 Room SE

- 089 Review Center

Wednesday March 14, 2012

Facilitator:

Doug Brookman Public Solutions Baltimore, MDExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 2 Participants Identified:

Mark Sharp Panasonic

Adam Christiansen Appliance Standards Awareness Project

Meg Waltner Natural Resources Defense Council

Jen Cleary Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers

Steve Leybourn Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers

Participants from DOE:

Wes Anderson Building Technologies, Department of Energy (DOE)

Ari Altman General Counsel’s Office , Department of Energy (DOE)

Participants from Consultants:

Judith Reich Navigant Consulting

Ben Barrington Navigant Consulting

Greg Rosenquist Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Troy Watson Navigant Consulting

James Battaglia Navigant Consulting

Camilla Dunham Whitehead Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Tim LongExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 3 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Participants via Webinar:

Steve Polinski Miele, Inc.

Yoolanda Williams General Electric

Nolan Polley Whirlpool Corporation

Christopher Johnson LG Electronics USA, Inc.

George Vazquez Panasonic

Timothy Ballo Earth j ustice

David Baker GE

Sel Yamashita PanasonicExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 4

AGENDA

ITEM PAGE

Welcome, Doug Brookman 5

Welcome for DOE, Rulemaking overview Wes Anderson 5

Introductions 7

Agenda Review, Doug Brookman 9

Regulatory History, Ms. Reich 11

Rulemaking Analysis, Ms. Reich 20

Technology Options, Ms. Reich 30

Engineering Analysis, Ms. Reich 39

Revisions of Analyses for SNOPR Mr. Rosenquist 45

National Input and Shipment Analyses Mr. Rosenquist 51

Manufacturer Impact Analysis Mr. Barrington 57

Proposed Standards, Mr. Barrington 60

Next Steps, Mr. Anderson 62Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 5

P R O C E E D I N G S 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s get started. Good 2

morning everyone and welcome. This is the U.S. 3

Department of Energy’s public meeting on energy 4

conservation standards for standby mode and off

- mode 5

for microwave ovens. Today is Wednesday, March 6

14th, here in the Forrestal Building, 2012, in 7

Washington, D.C. This is the supplemental Notice of 8

Proposed Rulemaking. Glad you could be with us here 9

this morning. 10

My name’s Doug Brookman f rom Public 11

Solutions in Baltimore. We’re going to start off 12

this morning with welcoming remarks from Wes 13

Anderson of the Department of Energy. 14

Welcoming Remarks 15

MR. ANDERSON: Hello everyone. My name’s 16

Wes Anderson, as Doug said. I’d like to welcome y ou 17

today to the Department of Energy’s discussion on 18

the SNOPR Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rule , 19

where the Department is going to discuss its 20

proposal to amending the energy conservation 21

standards for microwave ovens standby and off

- mode. 22

Basically, a microwave oven, as everybody 23

knows, is an appliance that consists of a 24Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 6 compartment that heats or cooks food or liquids by 1

microwave energy

– primarily through microwave 2

energy. And the average single microwave consumes 3

about 166 kilowatt

- hours per year. Nationally, that 4

equates to primary energy accounting of about one

5

third of one percent of residential energy use, 6

which is

– equates to another total of .06 percent 7

of the total U.S. energy, of which 15 percent of 8

that is standby and off mode. 9

Tod ay we’re going to talk about how DOE 10

came up with its TSL or trial standard levels that 11

will affect that energy use. First we’ll start off 12

with Judy

– Judith R e ich who will discuss the 13

engineering and go through the history of what has 14

gone on with this r ule, it’s been a storied history, 15

and talk about the environmental , industry impacts 16

that made some changes where we had to repeal the 17

active mode test procedure and put out an interim 18

test procedure. And then we also

– she’ll discuss 19

the market and technical assessments, screening 20

analysis, engineering analysis. 21

Greg Rosenquist will do the LCC and pay 22

back analysis discussion, using the shipment 23

analysis, national energy savings, utility 24

employment, and impact analysis and environmental 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 7 assessments. Then follow

– that followed by Ben 1

Barrington who will go into further detail about the 2

manufacturing impacts and discuss the TSLs. 3

And throughout this process, this is an

– 4

I 'd like to make it known that this is an 5

interactive - iterative and interactive process 6

where you’re asked today, the major component, we’re 7

going to pose some questions to you and we would 8

request that if you have answers, let us in on it, 9

or provide them by the end of the comment period. 10

And towards the end of the presentation, w e’ll talk 11

about how to submit comments, where they need to go 12

and answer any questions that you have. I don’t 13

have anything else to say, so Doug, take it away. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. It’s our 15

tradition to start with the introductions. You can 16

get used to turning these microphones on and off and 17

illuminating the little green button. We’ll start 18

over here to my left. Please say your name and 19

organizational affiliation. 20

Introductions 21

MR. SHARP: Mark Sharp representing 22

Panasonic. 23

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 24

MR. CHRISTIANSEN: Good morning. My name 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 8 is Adam Christiansen with the Appliance Standards 1

Awareness Project. 2

MS. WALTNER: Meg Waltner with the Natural 3

Resources Defense Council. 4

MS. CLEARY: Jen Cleary with the 5

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. 6

MR. LEYBOURN: Steve Leybourn also from 7

the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. 8

MR. BATTAGLIA: James Battaglia, Navigant 9

Consulting. 10

MR. BARRINGTON: Ben Barrington, Navigant 11

Consulting. 12

MR. ALTMAN: Ari Altman, Department of 13

Energy, General Counsel’s office. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Wes has already introduced 15

himself. Please stand up. 16

MR. WATSON: Troy Watson, Navigant 17

Consulting. 18

MS. REICH: Judith Reich, Navigant 19

Consulting. 20

MR. ROSENQUIST: Greg Rosenquist, Lawrence 21

Berkeley National Laboratories. 22

MR. LONG: Tim Long, LBNL. 23

MS. WHITEHEAD: Camilla Dunham - Whitehead, 24

LBNL. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 9 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you all for being 1

here and allowing us to get an early start on this 2

meeting today. We should also welcome those that 3

are joining us via the web. Do we have folks 4

joining us being the web? 5

PARTICIPANT: Yes, we have four. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Great. The Department of 7

Energy is trying to make these meetings accessible 8

to folks that can only come via the web, so welcome. 9

Glad you’re here. 10

Wes already did an agenda review. 11

Agenda Review 12

MR. BROOKMAN: All of you received a 13

packet of information as you came into the room 14

today. In that packet, there’s both the agenda and 15

the PowerPoint slides which I’ll be referring t o and 16

will be the reference point for discussion today and 17

also the Federal Register notice. 18

I would ask for your consideration. I’m 19

going to run through what we expect are the ground 20

rules for today, but immediately following this, 21

there’s an opportun ity for anybody that wishes to do 22

so, to make opening statements, raise issues that 23

are important to you. Please speak one at a time

. 24

Please say your name for the record. There will be 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 10 a complete transcript of this meeting available to 1

you and to the De partment. I’m going to be cueing 2

individuals by name as best I can. I also wish to 3

encourage follow

- on comment. I find that’s 4

sometimes very useful to the Department to have that 5

back and forth on the record. If you can keep the 6

focus here. Please turn your phones on silent mode. 7

Try to be concise today, share the air time. 8

As you look at the agenda, you’ll note 9

that the Department anticipates we’ll probably 10

finish this in a half a day or so, so we’ll probably 11

work

– we’ll take a brea k mid

- morning, but try and 12

get this done before the afternoon reaches in here. 13

Okay? So that’s the general plan. 14

Questions and comments on the agenda? 15

Okay, so let’s have opening statements, remarks, 16

things that matter to you and your constituents. 17

Jen, nothing? No? No one else has opening remarks 18

here? Okay. Then let’s go straight into the 19

meeting content. Wes. 20

MR. ANDERSON: Hi, Wes Anderson with DOE. 21

I’d like to let you know that the transcript will be 22

available on the web in

– I want to say about a week 23

a fter. It’ll take some editing and review on our 24

part, so it will be up on the web for your reading 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 11 pleasure or downloading pleasure. 1

Also we found that we needed to make a 2

change on some slides. The slides between 32 and 3

43, which you guys will remind everybody to go to 4

the insert for that. And if there are no questions, 5

Judy, you can go ahead and get started. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: And Wes is referring to

– 7

there are two segments, there’s a supplement that’s 8

a separate stapled copy there. Okay. So now then, 9

to Judith Reich. 10

Regulatory History 11

MS. REICH: Good morning everybody. I’m 12

Judith Reich from Navigant Consulting. And I’m 13

going to jump ahead to slide four or so, because Wes 14

has already introduced the purpose of this meeting, 15

and just to let you know at various points in the 16

presentation we will have opportunities for comment 17

that are indicated as such with one of these blue 18

boxes. However, please feel free to comment at any 19

point. 20

So the first thing that I’m going to talk 21

about is how we got to where we are today, to show 22

you the history of this rulemaking. And it started 23

out in 2006 with the Notice of Availability of the 24

F ramework D ocument in which DOE presented its 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 12 thoughts on proceeding with an analysis for a number 1

of different products. This rulemaking was 2

originally bundled together with quite a few other 3

products: dishwashers, dehumidifiers, all cooking 4

products, and commercial clothes washers. 5

The preliminary analysis was presented in 6

the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and at 7

that point the analysis was based on the existing 8

efficiency metric for microwave ovens, which was an 9

energy factor. However, stakeholders commented in 10

response to the ANOPR that power was of particular 11

interest for microwave ovens, and therefore, when 12

the NOPR was issued in 2008, separate analyses were 13

provided for the active mode, that cooking 14

efficiency portion of microwave ovens, and a 15

separate standby power analysis. 16

I’ll talk in a little bit more detail 17

about this, but stakeholders in response to the NOPR 18

indicated that there were reasons that the microwave 19

ovens standby power portion should be continued. 20

Therefore, the rulemaking went to a final rule for 21

microwave ovens just for the active cooking 22

efficiency. And as it turned out, in that 2009 23

final rule, DOE determined that no standards were 24

justified, so it maintained a no

- standard standard 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 13 for microwave oven cooking efficiency. 1

I also want to point out that in parallel 2

with this rulemaking , there has been a test 3

procedure rulemaking to incorporate measures of 4

standby and off

- mode power into the cooking products 5

test procedure. They were not available for 6

microwave ovens prior to this, so at the NOPR stage 7

for the standards rulemaking, a NOPR for a new test 8

procedure was published. 9

So the purpose of the NOPR was to 10

specifically analyze standby power separately from 11

cooking efficiency. The NOPR also proposed a one 12

(1) watt standard for microwave ovens. In response 13

-- and this is based on the proposed methodology in 14

the test procedure to use the existing international 15

method for measuring standby power , t he 16

International Electr o t echnical Commission’s IEC 17

62301. The proposed test procedure at that time was 18

based on the current version, which was edition one. 19

But in response to the standards NOPR, DOE received 20

comments from stakeholders that they were aware that 21

the IEC was updating 62301 and that the second 22

version was expected shortly. 23

So the decision was made by DOE to 24

continue the microwave oven standby power rulemaking 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 14

– energy conservation standards rulemaking, rather 1

than going to a final rule so that DOE could 2

consider the second edition of IEC 62301. And the 3

reasons why it chose to do that was that EPCA has a 4

– EPCA, the Energy Policy Conservation Act

– 5

contains a statutory requirement that DOE must 6

consider the most current version of 62301. And 7

then secondly, because manufacturers of microwave 8

ovens sell their products into many markets. The 9

majority of microwave ovens here are imported. 10

There was a desire to have international 11

harmonization. So, once the second edition would 12

come out, many other markets would be requiring the 13

use of that, so in the interest of harmonization, 14

DOE decided that it would consider that second 15

edition also. 16

So while that was the primary focus for 17

going to a supplemental NOPR, there are some other 18

topics that are addressed for comments that were 19

received in response to the NOPR, and what we’ll 20

present today are the updates and the revisions that 21

were made to the NOPR resulting from those comments. 22

The SNOPR was published this past January, 23

January 31 st

– I’m sorry, issued. It was published 24

on Valentine’s Day, February 14 th , and today is the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 15 public meeting. DOE is very interested in 1

soliciting comments from stakeholders, both at 2

today’s m eeting and written comments until the 3

comment period closes on April 16 th . All of these 4

comments will be reviewed and taken into 5

consideration, and subsequently a final rule will be 6

published in accordance with the statutory 7

requirements. 8

As I mentioned , there’s a parallel test 9

procedure rulemaking. An interim final rule was 10

published on March 9 th , last year, and this newly 11

included in the cooking products test procedure, 12

measures of standby mode and off

- mode energy use. 13

Because at the time that the analysis was conducted 14

for that test procedure, IEC first edition was the 15

official issued version from IEC, the interim final 16

test procedure, interim final rule was based on 17

provisions from that and incorporated by reference 18

certain sections of the first edition. But I should 19

also mention that DOE did consider the draft second 20

edition that was available at that time, and so some 21

of the language from the draft second edition, mode 22

definitions, were also included in that interim 23

final rule. 24

To give you a sense of the timing, the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 16 second edition actually published on January 27, 1

2011, so DOE decided to issue the final rule as an 2

interim to allow stakeholders the opportunity to 3

comment on it, provided a 180

- day comment period, 4

and in response to comments that were received, DOE 5

subsequently published a supplemental NOPR for the 6

test procedure in November 2011. And the primary 7

topics that that covered included new proposals to 8

incorporate by reference the second edition of IEC 9

62301 and to address the issue of what constitutes 10

covered products. Comments on that proposal are 11

currently under consideration for the next stage of 12

that rulemaking. 13

Let me just get to the punch line here for 14

today’s SNOPR, to give you a chance to comment on 15

them. The SNOPR proposes energy conservation 16

standards for microwave oven standby power only, and 17

for reasons I’ll talk about, it’s just standby mode, 18

and not off mode. Standby power, prescriptive 19

levels, and I’d like to call your attention to two 20

changes that have been made since the NOPR. The 21

first is that an additional product class has been 22

defined, and the initial product class has been 23

clarified so that the product classes consist of 24

microwave

- only ovens and that constitutes all types 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 17 that just have a microwave oven cavity, including

– 1

these would include counter

- top and over

- the

- range 2

units. And product class one also includes 3

countertop combination microwave ovens, where a 4

combination microwave oven consists of a single 5

cavity with microwave capability and convection 6

capability. 7

The second product class is

– comprises 8

combination microwave ovens that are both built

- in 9

and over

- the

- range. 10

The proposed standards for product class 11

one reflect the same level that was proposed in the 12

NOPR for just microwave ovens, and that is a one 13

watt maximum standby power level. DOE’s 14

additionally proposing a maximum standby power of 15

2.2 watts for product class number two. And as we 16

talk through the analysis, these proposed levels 17

correspond to trial standard level or TSL number 18

three. 19

The compliance date, the date at which 20

manufacturers would be required to meet these levels 21

for any products produced on or after that date, 22

would be three years from the publication of the 23

final rule. 24

At this point, I’d like to invite comments 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 18

on these newly proposed standards. 1

MR. ANDERSON: This is Wes of DOE. Before 2

you bring up your comments, there was a question 3

brought up from the web. Is the PowerPoint 4

available for download? For those that are out 5

there in cyberspace, you would have to get the 6

PowerPoint presentation from the cooking products 7

web page, and it should be up there this morning. 8

Last night

– I loaded it last night, but the system 9

was under maintenance, so they promised to get it up 10

this morning. So if anyone out there ca n’t get it, 11

please give me a call. My phone number is 202

- 586

- 12

7335, and I will try to help you out. I’ll e

- mail it 13

to you. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Will they be able to ring 15

in here and now or will that be when you get back to 16

your office? 17

MR. ANDERSON: Oh, af ter the meeting, I’ll 18

be back in my office, or you can leave a message, 19

let me know that there are problems, and I’ll try to 20

fix them once the meeting’s done. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Do we have a URL? 22

MR. ANDERSON: I don’t have it memorized 23

right now but I’ll come up with it in a bit. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah, let’s do that. Let’s 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 19 make it

– 1

MR. ANDERSON: It’s kind of a long

- winded 2

thing, but we can do that, I guess. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So comments, please. 4

There’s a

– Judy did a nice job of explaining the 5

changes that are here. Jen? 6

MS. CLEARY: Jen Cleary from AHAM. I just 7

wanted to comment that AHAM agrees, obviously, with 8

the statutory compliance date of three years from 9

the publication of the final rule, but in the SNOPR 10

itself, there’s some kind of confusing dates, I 11

think, assuming that this was going to be published 12

in 2011. So the years are kind of off of that three 13

years, so we just want to note that for, I guess, 14

correction or in our discussion today, if that can 15

be clarified. Thank you. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Does AHAM have any 17

additional comments on the standard levels that are 18

listed here in slide eight, for example, or the new 19

product class? Anything

– 20

MS. CLEARY: We’ll provide that in our 21

written comments. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 23

Additional comments? Judith did a good job of 24

describing several new features here. Let’s see if 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 20 there are any comments on those? Okay. Then we’ll 1

proceed. 2

MS. REICH: Well, the next slide was to 3

invite additional comment, but I think we can move 4

o n. 5

Rulemaking Analyses 6

So this slide presents a map, if you will, 7

of the rulemaking analyses that were conducted. 8

Again, these are revisions to the analysis that was 9

presented in the NOPR. And it gives you a sense of 10

the relationship among each of the pieces of the 11

rulemaking analyses. 12

So I’ll start off with the highlit boxes 13

on the left, the first two pieces, which are the 14

market and technology assessment and the screening 15

analysis. I’d also like to point out that again, 16

we’re presenting just upd ates, so for complete 17

details of the analysis I can refer you to the 18

Notice and the TSD, the Technical Support Document. 19

So the first update s were, of course, as I 20

mentioned, in the product classes, and DOE divides 21

covered products into classes based on several 22

criteria. One will be the type of energy used, for 23

example, electricity or gas; capacity or it can 24

include other performance

- related features that 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 21 affect consumer utility and efficiency. 1

The regulatory definition of microwave 2

oven is “A class of kitchen ranges, ovens, which is 3

a household cooking appliance consisting of a 4

compartment designed to cook or heat food by means 5

of microwave energy.” 6

So at the time the initial analysis was 7

presented in the NOPR, DOE proposed a single product 8

class which would consist of all microwave ovens, 9

with or without additional thermal elements that are 10

intended for surface browning. It specifically 11

excluded combination microwave ovens, or those with 12

convection systems because at the time DOE was 13

considering active mode energy use as well as 14

standby and DOE stated that it did not have 15

appropriate efficiency information or means to 16

determine the efficiency of a product that had both 17

microwave capability and the convection system. So 18

therefore it was not included in the NOPR. 19

Comments were received that caused DOE to 20

reconsider that position and for today’s SNOPR, DOE 21

notes that it, in fact, has determined that 22

combination microwave ovens would be considered 23

covered products because it meets that regulatory 24

definition. It is a product that is capable of 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 22 heating food or cooking it by means of microwave 1

energy, therefore it would properly fall within that 2

definition. 3

Newly considering combination products, 4

DOE looked into whether there are performance

5

related features that would justify different 6

product classes and therefore potentially separate 7

energy conservation standards. DOE looked at 8

products that are microwave

- only, or those that have 9

the convection capability, the combination units, 10

and also looked at whether the configuration or 11

installation of the product would make a difference. 12

And the three configurations that were evaluated are 13

shown here: a counter

- top unit, it's just a stand

14

alone product, portable product. Built

- in units, 15

obviously, are installed in the wall. And the third 16

configuration is over

- the

- range, where it’s intended 17

to be installed over a cook

- top and these products 18

typically contain additional features that allow it 19

to perform properly in that sort of environment, and 20

also provide some consumer utility, and these 21

features would be things like an exhaust fan, or a 22

light for the cook

- top. 23

So the first evaluation that DOE performed 24

was to compare configurations for microwave

- only 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 23 units, comparing an over

- the

- range installation, 1

versus a counter

- top unit. And DOE conducted a 2

survey of over

- the

- range units that are available in 3

the market in the U.S. and determined that key 4

features that relate to standby power are comparable 5

between those in counter

- top and those in over

- the

6

range units, specifically display technologies, that 7

the range of available display technologies were the 8

same for both types, so these would include light 9

emitting diode displays, liquid crystal displays, 10

and vacuum fluorescent displays. So that entire 11

suite of display types were available for both. 12

The other portion of the analysis that DOE 13

performed was to do some limited testing, in

- store 14

testing, of over

- the

- range units and the standby 15

power levels that were measured there were similar 16

to those in DOE’s m uch more extensive evaluation and 17

testing of countertop microwave

- only units. 18

So therefore, for the SNOPR, DOE is 19

tentatively concluding that there are no features or 20

consumer - related utilities that would warrant a 21

separate product class for over

- the

- range units 22

versus countertop units, just for microwave

- only 23

use. DOE notes that the over

- the

- range units may 24

have additional components that are energized during 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 24 active mode operation, for example, those fans or 1

lights, but DOE testing demonstrated that those 2

features do not impact standby power, and therefore, 3

for the purposes of standby power product classes, 4

DOE is putting them all together in product class 5

number one. 6

DOE then looked at, for countertop units, 7

what the potential differentiation could be for 8

products that are microwave

- only and products that 9

also incorporate convection systems. For the S NOPR, 10

DOE conducted standby power testing on a 11

r epresentative sample of 13 combination microwave 12

ovens, and for countertop combination ovens, DOE 13

noted that the display technologies were comparable 14

between the two types, between microwave

- only and 15

combination, and again, the standby power 16

consumption that was measured was the same typical 17

range as countertop microwave

- only units have. So 18

because of this similarity, again, DOE concluded 19

that there were no utility or efficiency

- related, in 20

terms of standby power, characteristics that would 21

warrant countertop combination microwave ovens as 22

being a separate class from product class number 23

one. 24

DOE also evaluated built

- in and over

- the

- 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 25 range combination units, and in this case, the 1

testing that was conducted showed that the standby 2

power was, in fact, uniformly higher than the range 3

of standby powers for either countertop combination 4

units or over

- the

- range microwave

- only units. The 5

range that was measured was 4.1 to 8.8 watts, and 6

DOE, after it performed this testing, performed 7

tear

- downs on the products, and determined through 8

this reverse engineering that there are specific 9

additional components that are included in those 10

products that allow the over

- the

- range combination 11

ovens to handle the thermal loads, and that it’s due 12

to this built

- in or over

- the

- range configuration 13

that these features are required, both for the 14

protection from the thermal conditions, and for 15

consumer utility. 16

In particular, there are a significant 17

number of relays, additional relays, that are 18

associated with the control board, and therefore the 19

power supply required also gets larger, and 20

therefore standby power grows. So for that reason, 21

DOE concludes for the SNOPR, that built

- in and over

22

the

- range combination microwave ovens do, in fact, 23

warrant a separate product class. Those are defined 24

as product class number two, and that all of the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 26 microwave

- only units and countertop combination 1

microwave ovens would still properly be included in 2

product class number one. 3

At this point, we seek any comment on 4

utility or performance impacts to built

- ins at the 5

standard level proposed by DOE. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Jen. 7

MS. CLEARY: Jen Cleary, AHAM. Actually, 8

I have just a comment on the product classes 9

themselves. The proposed classes fail to 10

differentiate between countertop and over

- the

- range 11

microwave

- only units because DOE has based the 12

product classes only on standby mode power 13

consumption. And we think this approach is short

14

sighted because it only is considering standby and 15

not considering active mode, and we recognize there 16

is currently not an active mode test procedure, 17

however should there be one in the future, and I 18

know that’s something that’s being considered, we 19

think that this will, you know, this will not 20

continue on in the future with these product 21

classes. So we’ve previously commented that there 22

are significant differences between the countertop 23

and over

- the

- range microwave

- only units. I know 24

that some of the analysis in this SNOPR disagrees 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 27 with that, so we will provide some expanded comments 1

in our written comments. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. So there 3

you see the request box, and additional comments? 4

Yes, please. Jen. 5

MS. CLEARY: I have a question as well. 6

Judith, can you just expand a little bit on the 7

testing that was done. I know this is kind of in 8

the TSD, but just wondering which version of IEC was 9

used for all of the testing. I believe it was the 10

first edition, but wanted to get confirmation on 11

that. 12

MS. REICH: Right. It was

– there were 13

three different methods that were used. One was the 14

IEC 62301 first edition that requires a five minute 15

measurement period. The second method was, 16

obviously not for in

- store testing, but for some of 17

the testing was the 12 hour test, and this was 18

performed for units which have clocks that vary 19

their power consumption as a function of the time 20

that’s displayed. Similarly, for those types of 21

units, a ten minute test was performed that was 22

determined to be an equivalent to the 12 hour test. 23

MS. CLEARY: Okay. And is

– has there 24

been any thought given if the test procedure adopts 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 28 the second edition of 62301 to doing any of this 1

testing under that procedure? 2

MS. REICH: Well, the test procedure 3

rulemaking is considering the second edition, and at 4

such point as the test procedure were finalized, 5

then that topic could be considered in the standards 6

rulemaking. 7

MS. CLEARY: Okay. Thank you. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments? Okay. 9

I should also note that our webmaster says that she 10

has sent the link to the presentation to all web 11

attendees, so if you haven’t

– if you aren’t able to 12

access the slides, send an email and we’ll see if we 13

can get you linked in. Okay. Thanks. Back to 14

Judy. 15

MS. REICH: Okay, the next topic for 16

updates in the SNOPR are the operating modes. The 17

interim final rule for the test procedure provides 18

definitions for standby and off mode based upon 19

draft language in the draft version of the second 20

edition of IEC 62301. And I won’t read through the 21

whole definitions, but I do want to point out a few 22

key portions of the definitions. For standby mode, 23

it persists for an indefinite time and it can 24

facilitate activation of other modes, or continuous 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 29 functions, such as status displays or sensor

- based 1

functions, and in particular for microwave ovens, a 2

sensor - based function could include a cooking 3

sensor. 4

Off mode. It also persists for an 5

indefinite time and it’s not providing any active or 6

standby mode function. It also should be noted that 7

the definition includes an indicator that only shows 8

the user that the product is in off mode, would keep 9

it in the definition of off mode. That would not 10

put it into standby mode. 11

So, based on that new definition in the 12

amended test procedure, for the energy conservation 13

standards NOPR, DOE considered off mode. In the 14

NOPR, DOE had noted that it was not aware of any 15

microwave ovens in its test sample that had 16

capability of operating in off mode, nor did its 17

research show that there were any products available 18

in the U.S. that were capable of such operation. No 19

information was provided in response to the NOPR 20

that would change that position, but even so, DOE 21

investigated the potential for microwave ovens to 22

incorporate an on/off switch, mechanical on/off 23

switch, that would allow the product to operate in 24

off mode. The conclusion was that because when the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 30 switch is off, the product is consuming zero energy, 1

that there is no benefit or no possibility of a 2

standard in off mode because there is no means to 3

further reduce off mode energy use. Therefore in 4

today’s SNOPR, DOE only proposes a standby power 5

standard. 6

This is a topic DOE is seeking further 7

information on. Any input and data regarding off 8

mode power consumption for microwave ovens. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Comments on this proposal? 10

None at this time. Okay. 11

Technology O ptions 12

MS. REICH: The next area in which DOE 13

revisited for the SNOPR were the technology options 14

that were identified for reduction in standby power. 15

At the NOPR stage, DOE had identified a number of 16

components in microwave ovens that impact standby 17

power, and these include: 18

cooking sensors which are included to allow the 19

product to infer the state of the food load 20

during the process and modify the process 21

accordingly; 22

various display technologies that are 23

available, as I mentioned, the LED, LCD or VFD 24Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 31 displays; 1

and also the potential feature, which we’re 2

calling an auto power shut down, in which there 3

are control boards and logic provided that turn 4

off power to some of the standby power 5

consuming components after a specified period 6

of user inactivity. 7

DOE investigated in its sample of 8

countertop combination microwave ovens and also 9

over - the

- range microwave

- only units, investigated 10

whether any of these features would be different 11

than for countertop microwave

- only units, and the 12

testing showed that, in fact, the standby 13

characteristics were very similar. Further, the 14

same conclusion was drawn for over

- the

- range 15

combination microwave ovens, not that the standby 16

power was the same, but the same features that were 17

noted for the other types of products were the 18

controlling factor for the determination of how much 19

standby power the product used. So the same suite 20

of technology options were evaluated for both 21

product classes. 22

The first technology option, as I 23

mentioned, are cooking sensors, and DOE, for the 24Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 32 NOPR, noted that there are piezoelectric steam 1

sensors available in microwave ovens currently on 2

the market in the U.S. that have zero standby power, 3

as compared to the typical power consumption of an 4

absolute humidity sensor might be something on the 5

order of a watt. And also that other types of 6

sensors, infrared, weight, or relative humidity 7

sensors either have been integrated into products in 8

markets other than the U.S. or have been identified, 9

for example, during manufacturer interviews, as 10

potentially feasible for a microwave application. 11

In response to that discussion in the 12

NOPR, stakeholders commented both that there were 13

concerns about the availability, reliability, and 14

accuracy of these zero standby power sensors, and 15

there was also concern about whether these represent 16

proprietary designs so that there would be 17

intellectual property issues. 18

In response, DOE performed additional 19

research for the SNOPR, and first noted that these 20

alternative sensor technologies, some of them have 21

been available on the market outside of the U.S. for 22

years, and therefore over the potential lifetime of 23

a microwave oven, these sensor technologies have 24

been shown to be applicable. DOE is also not aware 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 33 of data indicating sensors wouldn’t have the same 1

reliability and accuracy that’s presently obtained 2

using absolute humidity sensors that are most 3

commonly employed, for example, fouling of the 4

sensor due to humidity in the cavity, but there’s no 5

data to indicate that that would be different than 6

for current sensors. DOE also did not discover any 7

intellectual or patent infringement issues for any 8

of the types of zero standby power sensors that it 9

was investigating. 10

The next technology option that it 11

revisited are the display technologies. Again, the 12

three different types of displays, and in particular 13

LCDs, can also have backlighting associated with 14

them. There were concerns raised on the NOPR about 15

the applicability of certain types of display 16

technologies in the environment that microwave ovens 17

are expected to operate in. In particular, concerns 18

about reliability in higher heat installations, 19

particularly in the over

- the

- range applications; 20

questions raised about whether each of the display 21

technologies provides the same utility of the 22

viewing angle for the consumer and visibility; and 23

third, whether there would be sufficient ability to 24

have various colors, sizes, and complexities of 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 34 characters for higher end products, where these are 1

potentially installed as a suite of products from a 2

manufacturer, so it’s desirable to have a consistent 3

look across the displays of each of the products. 4

Therefore, DOE researched this topic and 5

determined that each one of those types of displays 6

are currently available in more than one over

- the

7

range model, so it appears that they are suitable 8

for that type of environment. But also looking at 9

what the manufacturers of the displays, the 10

information that they provide on them, the 11

temperature ratings for all three are comparable, 12

and that there are displays of all three types that 13

are rated to have the same types of brightness and 14

viewing angle, and ability to show complex 15

characters. So therefore, they are applicable to 16

both the countertop and over

- the

- range applications. 17

No display was observed to have intermittent 18

backlighting or any other kind of limitation that 19

would reduce consumer utility. 20

Therefore, DOE states in the SNOPR, it 21

continues to believe that all display technologies 22

are suitable for countertop and over

- the

- range 23

microwave ovens with no impact on utility. 24

So I’d like to provide an opportunity for 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 35 parties to comment on the utility provided by 1

specific features that contribute to standby power, 2

in particular, on the utility of display 3

technologies and zero standby power cooking sensors. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Comments on these features? 5

No comments at this time. 6

MS. REICH: Okay. Let’s move on then to 7

the power supply and control boards. DOE had 8

identified in the NOPR that changing from a 9

conventional linear power supply to a switch mode 10

power supply could improve standby power consumption 11

because switch mode power supplies typically can 12

achieve 75 percent conversion efficiency at the 13

types of power consumption that are required by a 14

microwave oven ' s control board. And this compares 15

to about a 55

- or - so percent conversion efficiency 16

for a traditional linear power supply. 17

But DOE noted in the NOPR that it believed 18

that these types of

– that switch mode power 19

supplies had not yet been proven long

- term in a 20

microwave oven application. So DOE investigated 21

this further for the SNOPR and the research 22

indicates that switch mode power supplies are 23

currently incorporated into many consumer products 24

and appliances, including some microwave ovens. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 36 Other products include computers or battery 1

chargers, and laundry products. So that suggests 2

that the reliability and durability of these power 3

supplies is adequate. DOE does not have any data on 4

the re liability to show that it’s any different than 5

a conventional linear power supply again over the 6

typical lifetime of the product. 7

DOE had received comments that there are 8

switch mode power supplies that achieve higher than 9

75 percent efficiency, up to 92 percent efficiency, 10

but those are different consumer applications, that 11

have different power requirements , and DOE’s 12

research confirmed that it still is not aware of any 13

switching power supplies that have greater than 75 14

percent efficiency. And again, as I mentioned 15

before, DOE observed that certain combination 16

microwave ovens did include switch mode power 17

supplies when it tore them down. 18

That brings me to the final technology 19

option, the automatic power down, and this is a 20

strategy that allows a manufacturer, by 21

incorporating a function to shut off power to most 22

of the power consuming components during standby 23

mode, and just supply power to the microwave 24

controller with a transformerless power supply 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 37 during standby. It allows

– it reduces standby 1

power significantly, and allows manufacturers to 2

potentially incorporate other features that would be 3

shut off. So it allows design trade

- offs. 4

Normally what DOE considered for the NOPR 5

was that this process would happen automatically 6

after a period of inactivity, after the last 7

consumer interaction with the microwave oven. And 8

stakeholders requested DOE also consider the 9

situation of user

- activated control to just turn off 10

the display. Under the proposed definitions, mode 11

definitions, when that display is switched off, 12

whether it would go into standby mode or off mode 13

would depend on whether there were any other 14

features that were still energized that would, under 15

that definition, classify it as a standby mode. 16

DOE did not find any products on the 17

market currently that incorporate this type of 18

control, nor does it have any information about how 19

consumers might use it, how often they might make 20

use of the feature. 21

So therefore, for the SNOPR, DOE did not 22

consider

– it was unable to evaluate it, but notes 23

that there’s nothing about the proposed standard 24

that would preclude a manufacturer to incorporate it 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 38

– a user - activated control to turn off the display 1

if they so desire. 2

Specific request for comment include 3

requests for input and data on control strategies 4

available that would enable manufacturers to make 5

design trade

- offs between incorporating standby 6

power consuming features, such as displays or 7

cooking sensors, and including a function to turn 8

power off to those components during standby mode, 9

essentially the auto

- power shutdown option. DOE 10

also seeks comment on the viability and cost of the 11

control board circuitry that could accommodate 12

transistors that would switch off sensors and 13

displays. 14

Okay. Further, DOE solicits information 15

on whether switching or similar power supplies can 16

operate successfully in a microwave oven 17

environment, and the associated efficiency impacts 18

on the standby power. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: So two comment boxes there. 20

Questions or comments? 21

MS. REICH: No? Okay. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 23

MS. REICH: That brings us to the next 24

analysis in the rulemaking, the engineering 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 39 analysis. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: We’re at a point where we 2

should take a short break. 3

MS. REICH: Okay. Okay. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: It’s now ten o’clock. 5

We’ve covered a lot of ground already this morning. 6

Let’s take a 15 minute break that means we’ll resume 7

at 10:15. Please wear your badge in a visible place 8

as you’re walking around the For r estal building. 9

There are rest rooms at both ends of the hall. The 10

coffee shop is on the ground floor. Please go there 11

directly if you’re going to get coffee so you can 12

make it back by 10:15, when we will resume. So, see 13

you back here then. 14

(Whereupon, at 10:00 a.m., the meeting was 15

recessed for a 16 minute period.) 16

MR. BROOKMAN: So we’re back. Let’s 17

resume. And once again, Judith Reich. 18

Engineering Analysis 19

MS. REICH: The stage of the analysis that 20

I’m talking about now is the engineering analysis, 21

and the ultimate goal is to develop curves that 22

capture the relationship between incremental 23

improvements or reductions in standby power and 24

incremental manufacturing cost. DOE performs the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 40 engineering analysis by soliciting data from 1

sources, performing its own research, conducting 2

testing, tearing down products, and interviewing 3

manufacturers and other experts. 4

The updates that were made between the 5

NOPR and the SNOPR

– well, first I’ll talk about the 6

standby power levels that are defined, and these 7

actually are not different levels than were 8

developed for the NOPR. And just a quick run 9

through. 10

The baseline level corresponds to a product 11

that has all the consumer utility associated 12

with it, for example, cooking sensor and 13

display, and would have the conventional power 14

supply, so the highest typical standby power 15

consumption for such a product in product class 16

one was determined to be four watts. 17

The next level

– this is basically an 18

efficiency level approach. 19

The next level is defined by the Federal Energy 20

Management Procurement, I think is FEMP, 21

efficiency recommendation, and that is a two 22

watt level. 23

The third level is the IEA’s one watt program, 24Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 41 international program targeting one watt of 1

standby power. 2

And in between standby power level one and 3

three, gap fill was developed or inserted based 4

on products that are available on the market. 5

And then finally, efficiency level four, it’s 6

the max

- tech level, that corresponds to standby 7

power that would be associated with automatic 8

power shutdown, and DOE at the time that the 9

NOPR was developed, based that value on a 10

product that was available on the Korean 11

market. 12

Although DOE has included more products, it 13

has now included countertop combination products in 14

this product class one, it still believes that the 15

standby power levels which it’s also defining as 16

equivalent to trial standard levels, and the 17

analyses that were used to develop them remain valid 18

for the SNOPR. So these are the same. 19

For product class two, for the SNOPR, this 20

is a new product class and therefore DOE newly 21

developed standby power levels. And to do so it 22

reverse engineered a sample built

- in and over

- the

23

range combination units, and analyzed the components 24Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 42 within them that contribute to standby power and 1

then determined what the incremental standby power 2

contribution of each of those components is. This 3

was more of a design option approach and was done 4

because, as you can see, the resulting standby power 5

levels are higher, except for the max

- tech levels, 6

than the levels that were used in the efficiency 7

level approach for product class one. What these 8

correspond to again, the baseline product has a 9

conventional power supply, cooking sensor, was 10

determined to be 4.5 watts. To move to standby 11

power level one, the cooking sensor, the traditional 12

one , was replaced with a zero standby one, resulting 13

in a .8 watt drop. 14

The next level was obtained by changing 15

the linear power supply to a switch mode power 16

supply, dropped it another watt. 17

Standby power level three is a n optimized 18

version of the switch mode power supply and changing 19

from conventional electromechanical relays to solid 20

state relays. That brought it down to 2.2 watts. 21

The max

- tech level, again, was assumed to 22

be a n automatic power down option. This is a little 23

bit higher than it was for product class one because 24

of the complexity and additional features necessary 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 43 for a built

- in or over

- the

- range combination unit. 1

The next step was to identify the 2

incremental manufacturing costs associated with each 3

of the standby power levels. Because, as noted 4

previously, DOE believes the same incremental 5

standby power levels and the components and 6

component improvements associated with them remain 7

the same are still valid from the NOPR to the S NOPR, 8

the only change that were made to these incremental 9

costs was to scale them to more recent values. They 10

were scaled to 2010 dollars using the Producer Price 11

Index. 12

For product class number two, DOE used the 13

sample of 13 combination microwave ovens and 14

performed tear

- downs on them, developed structured 15

models, bill of materials for them, and analyzed the 16

control board costs in them. It estimated the cost 17

associated with each of the component changes 18

associated with each standby power level. It 19

determined these costs by using quotes from various 20

suppliers to determine what the manufacturing cost 21

at the scale of production that would be expected 22

for them for each design option, and the costs are 23

presented here. They range from $2.29 to

– well, 24

the highest is at $9.44 for TSL

- 3. Again, because 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 44 manufacturers can make different trade

- offs when 1

they use an auto power down option, this analysis 2

estimates a lower incremental cost at max tech than 3

it does at TSL

- 3. 4

DOE invites any thoughts, any comments on 5

these incremental manufacturing cost s , as well as 6

the assumed approaches, I guess, to get to each TSL 7

level, but in particular, TSL

- 3 for microwave oven 8

standby and off mode, and DOE seeks comment on 9

whether any intellectual property or patent 10

infringement issues are associated with any of the 11

design options associated with those standby power 12

levels. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: We have a question from 14

someone who’s joined us via the webinar. This is 15

Nathan Polley, if I’m pronouncing Nathan’s

– oh, 16

pardon me, it’s Nolan Polley from Whirlpool who 17

asks, would the built

- in product class include 18

products with multiple cavities? 19

MS. REICH: That is a topic that is being 20

addressed in the test procedure. It is under 21

consideration right now. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: So no answer

– 23

MS. REICH: DOE has

– yes, DOE has yet to 24

make a determination, but that will be proposed in 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 45 the next phase of the test procedure. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: So, anyone who has a 2

comment on that issue should send it in in the 3

written comments to DOE. Okay. You can see the 4

comment box, requesting comment on assumed 5

approaches and also intellectual property or patent 6

infringement issues. No comments. Okay. 7

MS. REICH: That is the end of my section. 8

I will turn it over to Greg Rosenquist. 9

Revisions and Analyses for the SNOPR 10

MR. ROSENQUIST: Thank you, Judy. Again, 11

my name is Greg Rosenquist. I’m from Lawrence 12

Berkeley National Laboratory, and I’ll be going over 13

the revisions that were made for the SNOPR since the 14

last NOPR was issued back in 2008, focusing first on 15

the life

- cycle cost and payback period analysis 16

which also includes the markups that determine 17

equipment price, as well as the analysis to 18

determine energy use. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: We should also note that 20

this is where the slides supplement begins. 21

MR. ROSENQUIST: Right. So this slide 22

provides the various inputs to the life

- cycle cost 23

and payback period analysis and also shows the 24

comparison between what was done for the NOPR versus 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 46 what was done for the supplemental NOPR. Starting 1

first with the product costs, that was determined by 2

taking the manufacturing costs, multiplying them by 3

a manufacture markup, multiplying them by a 4

distributor or retailer markup and sales taxes, to 5

come to a consumer retail price. And for the NOPR 6

it was forecast out into the future using constant 7

real prices. For the supplemental NOPR, the same 8

process of marking up manufacturing cost to a 9

consumer retail price was used, but here instead an 10

experience curve was used to forecast that price out 11

into the future, and that was done by correlating 12

the P roducer P rice I ndex for electric cooking 13

products to the cumulative shipments for electric 14

cooking products. And that yields a price decline 15

out into the future. 16

Moving on into the inputs that affect 17

operating costs versus the annual energy use, and 18

this is simply calculated by taking the standby 19

power , multiplying it by the hours that the 20

microwave oven is in standby power mode. 21

Variability on that usage on the number of hours in 22

standby mode, DOE used the 2005 R esidential E nergy 23

C onsumption S urvey. For the NOPR, the number of 24

standby hours was 71, and that same number and same 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 47 method was used for the supplemental NOPR. 1

On electricity prices, DOE used for the 2

NOPR, the Energy Information Administration’s Form 3

861 data, which provides effectively the average 4

prices for different regions of the country. That 5

same method was used for the supplemental NOPR with 6

the exception that it was updated to the 2009 Form 7

861 data. For electricity price trends, DOE relies 8

on the Annual Energy Outlook to forecast prices out 9

into the future. Again, the same method was used 10

f or both the NOPR and the supplemental NOPR, with 11

the exception that DOE updated to the 2010 Annual 12

Energy Outlook for the supplemental NOPR. 13

On repair and maintenance costs, the same 14

assumptions were made for both the NOPR and 15

supplemental NOPR, that is, decreasing standby would 16

not increase repair and maintenance cost for the 17

microwave oven. 18

Moving on to those inputs that help us 19

determine how to get the present value of operating 20

cost savings in the future. First is the product 21

lifetime, and that was determined for the NOPR with 22

a Weibull probability distribution for a narrow 23

range of lifetimes from seven to ten years, the 24

average value was nine years. The same probability 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 48 distribution was used for the supplemental NOPR. 1

Discount rates. Those are used again to 2

value future operating cost savings and to a present 3

value. DOE looks at how the interest rate 4

associated with consumer debt and equity to purchase 5

microwave ovens as a proxy for discount rates. DOE 6

uses many distributions to come up with this value. 7

The average value is 4.8 percent real . T hat was the 8

value used for the NOPR. The same data, the same 9

process was used for the supplemental NOPR. 10

And then finally the compliance date of 11

the standard was 2012 for the NOPR and that was 12

moved to 2014 for the supplemental NOPR. 13

MR. ALTMAN: Greg, this is Ari from the 14

General Counsel’s office. Those dates that you’re 15

referring to, those are just used for your estimates 16

right now, because given the current date, they 17

probably may not be accurate, is that correct? 18

You’re actually estimating when the final rule will 19

be published? 20

MR. ROSENQUIST: Right, I’m assuming that 21

for the final rule, we’ll be updating that 22

compliance date to 2015, to correspond to three 23

years after the issuance of the final rule. 24

A key input into the life

- cycle cost and 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 49 payback period analysis are what’s called the base 1

case and standards case efficiency distributions. 2

They look at how consumers currently buy microwave 3

ovens at the various standby power levels that the 4

Department’s considering. And DOE tries to 5

establish the market share of each one of those 6

standby power levels in both the base case, that is 7

the case without standard, and each of these 8

standard cases, in order to make sure that they 9

don’t overestima te the benefits that would happen 10

from any particular standby power requirement. 11

To come up with the base case efficiency 12

distribution, again, that’s the distribution of 13

efficiencies or standby power levels without any new 14

standards. DOE relied on data, test data, that was 15

conducted by both

– a test conducted by both DOE and 16

AHAM on 52 units. Again, looking at that 17

distribution of test data, DOE was able to, as a 18

proxy, come up with the market share of each one of 19

the standby power levels. That same data was used 20

for the supplemental NOPR. 21

Standards case efficiency distributions 22

were generated using a roll

- up scenario, a roll

- up 23

approach, which will become more clear in the next 24

slide. So this shows the actual base case and 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 50 standards case efficiency distributions for the 1

product class number one, that’s the microwave

- only 2

and also countertop combination microwave oven. You 3

can see in this column under base case, that shows 4

you the market share that’s been attributed to each 5

one of the standby power levels. So 46 percent of 6

the market was assumed to be at the baseline or four 7

watts at standby; 35 percent at two watts; and 19 8

percent at 1.5 watts, which result in a shipment 9

weighted standby power consumption of 2.83 watts for 10

the baseline, for the base case, and that 11

corresponds to a shipment

- weighted energy use of 12

24.6 kilowatt hours per year. 13

For the roll

- up scenario, you can see how 14

that’s done by just taking standards case one as an 15

example. You can see there that the 46 percent of 16

the market at the baseline just rolls up to the 17

standard level of interest, in this case, standard 18

level one, which result in 81 percent market share 19

for that particular standard level. The higher 20

standby power levels, their market shares are 21

unaffected, results in a weighted standby power 22

energy

– shipment

- weighted standby power consumption 23

of 1.9 watts for standard level one, with a 24

corresponding annual energy use of 16.5 kilowatt 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 51 hours per year. And that same process is used for 1

these various other standards cases. 2

This slide shows the exact same process, 3

base case and standards case efficiency 4

distributions for product class two. Here DOE 5

didn’t have any data, so they just assumed that 100 6

percent of the market was at the baseline level. 7

And so when you apply the rollup approach, that just 8

moves that 100 percent of the market to the 9

standards level that is under consideration. 10

Which brings us to the first and only 11

issue that DOE is seeking comment on for the life

12

cycle cost and payback period analysis, and that’s 13

on these efficiency distributions, and in 14

particular, the market share in the base case for 15

product class one, the market share at one watt, and 16

the market share at 2.2 watts for the product class 17

two. These again are the proposed standards that 18

D OE has issued. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Comments on these? Okay. 20

National Impact and Shipment Analyses 21

MR. ROSENQUIST: Okay. I’ll move on now 22

to the next analyses which are the national impact 23

and shipments analysis. Again, any revisions made 24

to the national impact analysis will affect all 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 52 these downstream analyses including the manufacturer 1

impact analysis, the utility, environmental impact 2

analysis, the employment impact analysis, and the 3

regulatory impact analysis. 4

I’m going to walk you through now t hese 5

various inputs that went into the shipments 6

analysis, and whether or not there were any changes 7

from the NOPR to the supplemental NOPR. For the 8

number of product classes , we’ve heard DOE only 9

analyzed one class for the NOPR, two classes for the 10

supplemental NOPR. The key thing here is that 99 11

percent of the market is captured by product class 12

one, while only one percent by product class two. 13

Shipments to new construction. The same 14

method is used for both the NOPR and the 15

supplemental NOPR, that’s taking housing forecasts 16

and multiplying them by the saturation of microwave 17

ovens in new housing. DOE used a 95 percent 18

saturation value, and that was based upon a 19

combination of AHAM data and data from the 20

R esidential E nergy C onsumption S urvey. The only 21

update for the supplemental NOPR was to use a more 22

recent housing forecast, that from the AEO 2010. 23

Shipments to the replacement market were 24

done in the same way. DOE established a retirement 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 53 function based upon that lifetime distribution that 1

I discussed earlier for the life

- cycle cost analysis 2

and just used that retirement function to figure out 3

when microwave ovens in the housing stock would fail 4

and would need to be replaced. 5

Going on with additional shipments 6

analysis inputs. There are the historical 7

shipments, data sources for the NOPR were both from 8

AHAM and from Appliance Magazine. The same data was 9

used for the supplemental NOPR with the exception 10

that a few more years of data from Appliance 11

Magazine were added because of the additional time 12

we had to do the updated analysis. 13

To calculate the impact of lowering the 14

standby power level on standards case shipments, DOE 15

developed what’s called a relative price elasticity, 16

and this takes into account the increased purchase 17

price, the operating cost savings, and household 18

income. The most dominant effect, though, is the 19

increase in purchase price. DOE looked at price 20

efficiency data for refrigerators, clothes washers, 21

and dishwashers to develop this price elasticity, 22

and assumed it just applied to microwave ovens as 23

well. That value turned out to be minus point three 24

four (

- .34) which means that for a ten percent 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 54 increase in the relative price, or really, the 1

purchase price, there would be a corresponding 2

decrease of 3.4 percent in the product shipments. 3

And this same process was used for the supplemental 4

NOPR. 5

Fuel switching was not considered at all, 6

that means that DOE did not consider that microwave 7

oven consumers would switch over to a different type 8

of electric cooking product or gas cooking product. 9

Moving on now to inputs that are used for 10

the national impact analysis. I’ve already gone 11

over the base case and standards case forecast 12

efficiencies. One point I wanted -- back in the LCC 13

analysis

– one point I wanted to make here is that 14

DOE assumed a frozen efficiency trend for both the 15

base case and standards case, meaning that whatever 16

it assumed as a shipment

- weighted standby power 17

level at the compliance date, it was held constant 18

over the forecast period. 19

The annual energy consumption per unit, 20

the total installed cost per unit, which is also the 21

retail price of the microwave oven, and the energy 22

cost per unit are all a function of the shipment 23

weighted standby power level for any given year. 24

And that process of determining those three inputs 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 55 was done in the same way for both the NOPR and the 1

supplemental NOPR. There is one important change 2

that for the purchase price of the equipment, the 3

experience curve was used to forecast prices out 4

into the future. 5

And then moving on, the repair and 6

maintenance cost per unit, as discussed earlier in 7

the life

- cycle cost analysis, DOE assumed that there 8

would be no increase in repair and maintenance costs 9

due to lowering the standby power level. There’s no 10

change from the NOPR and supplemental NOPR on that 11

particular input. 12

The energy price forecast, as I discussed 13

earlier in the life

- cycle cost analysis, are done in 14

the same way with the forecast from the annual 15

energy outlook. 16

Site

- to

- source conversion factors are used 17

to convert the site electricity for a microwave oven 18

to its source energy consumption, taking into 19

account the efficiency of the power plant and 20

transmission and distribution losses. DOE uses the 21

national energy modeling system, or NEMS, to come up 22

with these factors, and although it says no change 23

there, the method had no change, but DOE used the 24

most recent version of NEMS to come up with those 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 56 conversion factors for the supplemental NOPR. 1

For discount rates, these are used to 2

convert future economic impacts to a present value, 3

and these are dictated by the Office of Management 4

and Budget. They’re done at discount rates of three 5

and seven percent real. And then the present year 6

that was used for this discounting for the NOPR was 7

2007, and for the supplemental NOPR was 2011. 8

And finally, we’re moving on to the last 9

slide which I’m going to present which is the trial 10

standard levels. This just shows you what the trial 11

standard levels are for each of the product classes. 12

There’s four trial standard levels per product class 13

which equate to the number of standby power levels 14

that were considered in both the engineering and 15

life

- cycle cost analysis. 16

So that’s the end of my presentation. 17

I’ll take any questions. 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Or anything specifically 19

you would like to see if they would address? 20

MR. ROSENQUIST: Only, you know, whether 21

we got the market shares correctly for the base case 22

efficiency distribution, but other than that, 23

nothing in particular. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Comments now on these 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 57 materials? Okay. 1

MR. ROSENQUIST: Okay. Then I’ll hand it 2

over to Ben Barrington from Navigant to talk about 3

the manufacturing impact analysis. And for this 4

we’re going back to the original packet, the 5

original PowerPoint packet. 6

M anufacturing I mpact A nalysis 7

MR. BARRINGTON: Thanks very much, Greg. 8

I'm Ben Barrington with Navigant Consulting a nd I’m 9

going to take you through some of the adjustments 10

that we made to the manufacturing impact analysis 11

as part of this SNOPR. 12

So the manufacturing impact analysis is a 13

downstream analysis so the majority of the updates 14

that we made are as a result of changes to other 15

analyses, so primarily the engineering and shipments 16

analysis as described earlier. With the adjustments 17

to the engineering analys e s, the MIA now makes use 18

of new MPCs [Manufacturer Production Costs] for both 19

product classes, and all of those costs were 20

converted to 2010 dollars using the PPI [Producer 21

Price Index]. 22

Additionally, we updated the shipments and 23

efficiency distributions for both product classes as 24

well, and incorporated new price trends into the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 58 analysis as Greg described previously, through the 1

experience curve. 2

Additionally, we also updated the 3

conversion costs required by manufacturers to 4

produce compliant products. These are the capital 5

conversion costs which are upgrades to existing 6

manufacturing facilities and capital equipment to 7

bring products into compliance, as well as the 8

research and development and marketing budgets, 9

which are considered the product conversion costs. 10

These were segmented across both product classes 11

based on the previously mentioned split as described 12

by him, 99 percent to product class one, one percent 13

to product class two. Additionally, we used that 14

same split for these product conversion costs and 15

converted them to 2010 dollars using the PPI as 16

well. 17

And so the result of incorporating those 18

changes into our analysis, the impacts on INPV, 19

which is the Industry Net Present Value for the 20

microwave oven manufacturing industry now range from 21

approximately a negative 52.9 million to minus 73.6 22

million, which is a change of either minus 4.7 23

percent to minus 6.5 percent, depending on which 24

markup scenario is being analyzed. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 59 The base case industry value is estimated 1

to be $1.1 billion in 2010 dollars, and the required 2

conversion costs are estimated to be 94.7 million at 3

TSL

- 3, and this primarily relates to increased 4

budgets for research and development efforts 5

necessary to bring products into compliance. As an 6

indication of the magnitude of these conversion 7

costs, the cash flow in the year preceding the 8

standard date decreased by approximately 29.9 9

percent to $59 million dollars, compared to a base 10

case value of $84.2 million dollars. 11

The incremental changes to manufacturing 12

production costs at TSL

- 3 are estimated to be $1.31 13

for product class one and $9.44 for product class 14

two. The range of these impacts on the cash flow at 15

TSL

- 3 varies depending on the ability of 16

manufacturers to pass through these costs to their 17

customers and those effects are modeled in the 18

different markup scenarios, which, for reference, 19

are the preservation of gross margin as a percentage 20

or in absolute dollars. 21

Aside from the impacts on industry net 22

present value, the manufacturing impact analysis 23

also tracks the impact on domestic manufacturing, 24

but since the vast majority of these products are 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 60 made overseas, we anticipate those effects to be 1

small. 2

I guess at this point in time I should 3

take any questions on the MIA, and the adjustments 4

we made to the analysis. (No response.) 5

Okay. With that, I’ll move on. 6

Proposal for New Standard Levels 7

MR. BARRINGTON: I’m just going to walk 8

you through our proposal for the new standard 9

levels. So, DOE considered four TSLs in evaluating 10

this SNOPR and we worked down to where the benefits 11

of potential standards would outweigh the potential 12

burdens. Right now DOE tentatively concludes that 13

at TSL

- 4, the benefits of energy savings, economic 14

gain, and the emissions reductions would be 15

outweighed by the potential economic burden o n 16

consumers from loss of product utility. That 17

primarily relates to the automatic off mode that we 18

analyzed as part of TSL

- 4, as well as the large 19

capital conversion cost that would result in a 20

reduction of INPV for manufacturers. 21

However, once past TSL

- 4, we get to TSL

- 3, 22

which DOE tentatively concludes saves a significant 23

amount of energy and is technologically feasible 24

and economically justified. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 61 And so just a few of the quantitative 1

highlights of TSL

- 3: 2

The national energy savings for product class 3

one is shown in the left

- most column, are 0 .41 4

quads, and for product class two are one

- one 5

hundredth of a quad. 6

At the three percent discount rate, the net 7

present value for the NIA is $3.58 billion 8

dollars, and $1.81 billion dollars at the 9

seven percent discount rate. 10

For product class two, they’re significantly 11

less, two

- hundredths of a billion dollars, and 12

one - one - hundredth of a billion dollars. 13

And the industry net present value is shown to 14

be millions, not billions

– I’m trying to keep 15

my units straight here. So $1031 million 16

dollars, so one billion, 31 million dollars to 17

$1,050 m illion dollars for product class one, 18

which is a change in net present value of 6.5 19

to 4.8 percent negative. For product class 20

two, that’s an INPV of $22 million dollars, t o 21

– sorry, $22.3 million dollars to $23.9 22

million dollars for product class two, which 23

is a decrease in INPV of 7.1 to 0.3 percent. 24Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 62 A lot of numbers, so if anyone has any 1

comments. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Comments or questions on 3

this summary slide on proposed standards? Nothing 4

additional? Okay. 5

MR. BARRINGTON: Okay. With that, I think 6

from here, it’s just instruction s on how to submit 7

written comments. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: There is, as provided in 9

the agenda, another opportunity for anybody that 10

wishes to, to make additional comments, or raise 11

issues that haven’t been raised fully so far. I 12

see no additional comments at this time, I’ll just 13

turn it back to Wes Anderson. 14

Next Steps 15

MR. ANDERSON: I’d like to

– also you can 16

submit your comments through the government web 17

site, by

– and if you do a search on the reference 18

docket number or the RIN number, or you can type in 19

the title of the rule, you can find all the 20

comments that are submitted for this particular 21

session. And if you want to do something, if you 22

want to send it by the old fashioned method, the 23

address is there. 24

I’d like to thank you guys for coming out. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 63 It’s a beautiful day so I can understand why we have 1

such a low turnout, but I’d also like to thank the 2

people on the webinar session. This is a new 3

process and we appreciate your patience and also 4

submitting your comments and questions. If there 5

are no further requests from the group, I’d like to 6

adjourn the meeting, and have a nice day. 7

(Whereupon, at 10:54 a.m., the meeting in 8

the above captioned matter was adjourned.) 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 64 1

2Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 65 1

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the attached proceedings

before:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

In the Matter of:

PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM: ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR STANDBY MODE AND

OFF MODE FOR MICROWAVE OVENS

Were held as herein appears and that this is the

original transcript thereof for the file of the

Department, Commission, Board, Administrative Law

Judge or the Agency.

Further, I am neither counsel for or related to

any party to the above proceedings.



### Wendy Greene Official Reporter

Dated: March 19, 2012