U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCYAND RENEWABLEENERGY.

TEST PROCEDURES FORWATER HEATERS,RANGES,OVENS,

COOKTOPSANDMICROWAVE OVENSAND CLOTHESWASHERS

JULY 12 & 13, 1995

VOLUME I JULY 12, 1995 

# a'PANELMEMBERS: IngridM.Watson,PresidingOfficial Office ofCodes andStandards U.S.Departmentof Energy ProgramManager KitchenProducts Marc LaFrance, ProgramManager Officeof Codes andStandards U.S.Departmentof Energy ProgramManager ClothesWashers BryanBerringer Officeof Codes andStandards U.S. Departmentof Energy ProgramManager. WaterHeaters EugeneMargolis Attorney Officeof Codes andStandards U.S. Departmentof Energy SteveNabinger National Instituteof Standards andTechnology TestEngineer KitchenProducts BrianDougherty National Institute of Standards andTechnology Test Engineer WaterHeaters JimKao National Institute of StandardsandTechnology Test Engineer ClothesWashersINDEX

PAGE

Welcome andOpeningRemarks

- IngridWatson 5

PRESENTATIONS:

WATERHEATERS: Frank Stanonik GasApplianceManufacturersAssociation 10 Questions andAnswers 18 Matt Chwalowski Manager, ElectrotechnologyPolicy Edison Electric Institute 21 Questions andAnswers 32

RANGES: Charles Samuels 36 JackWeizeorick 41 Associationof HomeAppliance Manufacturers Questions andAnswers 49

MICROWAVEOVENS: JackWeizeorick Association ofHome ApplianceManufacturers 58 Questions andAnswers 64 JoyW. Daniel Association ofHome ApplianceManufacturers 76 Questions andAnswers 864

INDEX

CLOTHESWASHERS: Charles Samuels,AHAM 91 Dick Stilwell,AHAM 94 Questions andAnswers 102 CurtReichman,AHAM 120 Questions andAnswers 126 Earl Jones General Counsel, General Electric 132 Questions andAnswers 138 Larry Hawkins SeniorEngineer, General Electric 142 Questions andAnswers5 1 PRO C EED NG 2 MS. WATSON: Goodmorning and welcome. I'm 3 IngridWatson, programmanager forkitchen products, 4 and today's presiding official. 5 On behalf of the Department of Energy, I 6 would like to thankyou for taking the time to 7 participate in this public hearing concerning the 8 Department's test procedures concerning the energy 9 conservation program for consumer products. 10 The purpose of today's publichearing is to 11 receive oral testimony on the notice ofproposed 12 rulemaking regarding the Department's test procedures 13 forwater heaters, kitchen ranges, ovens and 14 microwave ovens, and clotheswashers, as discussed in 15 the proposed rule, published in the Federal Register 16 onMarch 23rd, 1995. 17 The comments received today and those 18 submitted during the written comment periodwill 19 assist us in developing the final rule. 20 The comment period for this rulemaking ends 21 August 31st, 1995. 22 All comments submitted on this proposed 23 rulemaking will be considered before DOE establishes6 1 the Final Rule. 2 Comments received after the comment period 3 will be considered to the fullest extent. 4 Hearing Guidelines: 5 As DOE's presiding official for this 6 hearing, Iwill set forth the guidelines for 7 conducting the hearing andprovide other pertinent 8 information. A complete transcript of this hearing 9 will be available at the Department of Energy's 10 Freedom on InformationReading Room, as described in 11 the notice. Anyone wishing to purchase a copy of the 12 transcript,may make arranges with the court 13 reporter. 14 This will notbe an evidentiary or judicial 15 type ofhearing. It will be conducted in accordance 16 with Section 553, title 5, United States Code, in 17 Section 336 of the Act. 18 To provide the Department of Energy withas 19 much pertinent information and asmany views as can 20 reasonablybe obtained and to enable interested 21 persons.to express their views, the hearing will be 22 conducted in accordance with the following 23 procedures:7 1 Speakers will be called to testify based on 2 a schedule of those people who responded to the 3 notice of thishearing; 4 Speakers have been allotted 10 to 30 5 minutes for their oralpresentations. Some people 6 will be shorter than 10minutes; 7 Anyone may make anunscheduled oral 8 statement of all scheduled speakers have delivered 9 their statements; and, 10 At the conclusion of allpresentations, 11 each speakerwill be given the opportunity tomake a 12 rebuttal statement, subject to time limits, and will 13 be called in the order in which the initial 14 statements weremade. 15 Questions may be asked only by the panel 16 members conducting the hearing, however, the 17 presiding official will allow any interestedperson 18 an opportunity to question speakers who havemade 19 oral presentations. 20 This opportunitywill be allowed after any 21 rebuttal statements, to the extent that the presiding 22 official determines that such question is likely to 23 result in amore timely and effective resolution of8 1 the issue. 2 Persons interested inmakinguse of this 3 opportunitymust submit their request shortly after 4 the completion of any rebuttal statement to the 5 registration desk. I ask that youpleasewrite your 6 name and who you represent on the card provided and 7 leave it at the registration desk. 8 As mentioned earlier, the close of the 9 commentperiod is August 31st, 1995. All comments 10 received will be available forpublic inspection at 11 the DOE Freedom of Information Act. Such comments 12 should be addressed to the Department of Energy, as 13 noted in the Proposed Rule for today's hearing. 14 Ten copies of the written comments are 15 requested. In addition, the Departmentwould 16 appreciate an electronic copy in Word Perfect 5.1 of 17 the comments. No faxed comments will be accepted. 18 Anypersons submitted information which he 19 or shebelieves to be confidential and exempt by law 20 frompublic disclosure, should submit to the same 21 address one complete copy andnine copies fromwhich 22 information claimed tobe confidential has been 23 deleted.9 1 In accordancewith the procedures 2 established in 10 CFR 1004.11, the Department of 3 Energy shall make its own determination as to whether 4 ornot the information shall be exempt frompublic 5 disclosure. 6 We appreciate the time and effortyou have 7 taken inpreparingyour statements and arepleased to 8 receiveyour comments and opinions. 9 Iwould like to introduce themembers of 10 the panel. 11 Joiningme this morning is SteveNabinger, 12 test engineer at the National Institute of Standards 13 and Technology; 14 Brian Dougherty, test engineer forwater 15 heaters at NIST; 16 Bryan Berringer, programmanager for water 17 heaters at Department of Energy; 18 Jim Kao, test engineer at NIST, for clothes 19 washers; 20 Marc LaFrance, program manager of clothes 21 washers at the Department of Energy; and, 22 Eugene Margolis, attorney at the Office of 23 General Counsel.10 1 At this time, Iwould like to call the 2 first speaker, Frank Stanonik. Couldyou state your 3 name andwho you represent. 4 FRANK STANONIX 5 GASAPPLIANCE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION 6 MR. STANONIK: Good morning, I'm Frank 7 Stanonikwith the Gas ApplianceManufacturers 8 Association. 9 GasAppliance Manufacturers Association is 10 anational trade association whosemembership 11 includes almost allU.S. manufacturers of residential 12 gas, oil and electric water heaters. 13 We appreciate the opportunity to comment on 14 DOE's Proposed Rule, published in theMarch 23rd 15 Federal Register, to revise the efficiency test 16 procedures for residentialwater heaters. 17 As noted in the discussion section of that 18 notice, GAMAhad previously indicated the need to 19 amend the water heater efficiency test procedures to 20 correct the calculation for the first hour rating and 21 to add covering formodels of less than 30 gallons 22 storage capacity. We are pleased that DOEhas 23 initiated this process.11 1 In theMarch 23rd Federal Register notice, 2 DOE listed several issues onwhich it was 3 specifically seeking comments. To the extent that we 4 can, at this time, we will address those issues. I 5 say "at this time," because inmany caseswe are 6 working ondoing tests, comparative tests or tests on 7 some of the proposals, and until we have that datawe 8 really can't provide full comments on howwe see the 9 proposed revisions. 10 It should alsobe noted that, to our 11 knowledge, allmodels of storage waterheaters having 12 less than 20 gallons capacity are electric water 13 heaters. 14 Our comments on that issue, for those 15 models, will bewithin that context. We'll be 16 talking only about electric. 17 With that introduction, Iwill get into the 18 issues that DOE identified. 19 The first onewas adding electric and oil 20 instantaneous water heaters: 21 We agreewith the concept that residential 22 electric and oil instantaneous water heaters should 23 be covered by the testprocedures. However, we are -12 1 not awarepresently of the existence of anymodels of 2 oil-fired instantaneous waterheaters. Youmay be 3 putting coverage in that will not ever be used. 4 Also, with regard to electric instantaneous 5 water heater, DOEmay wish to distinguishmodels that 6 could servemultiple points of use as opposed to 7 small models intended for a single point of use, such 8 as asink, orwhatever. They are very different 9 units. 10 The next issue that was listedwas the draw 11 rate for less than 20 gallonmodels: 12 The draw schedule and draw rate formodels 13 with less than 20 gallons of storage capacity needs 14 to be corrected. The proposed 1gallonperminute 15 rate for withdrawingwater from the unit is toohigh 16 formodelswith values of only 5 gallons or so. 17 Consider that the firstmeasurement in the 18 testprocedures of the outlet temperature occurs at 19 15 seconds after the start of the test. Subsequent 20 measurements are at 5 second intervals. 21 At a 1 gallonper minute flow rate, that 15 22 seconds is a 1/4 of agallon. Compared to the total 23 1.5 gallons of the draw; that 1/4 gallon represents13 1 over 16 percent of the total draw. We believe that 2 is too large arelative volume of water to draw 3 without anymeasurement of its temperature. 4 GAMAmembers are currently conducting some 5 comparative tests at 1and 1/2 gallon per minute flow 6 rates, and we will provide that data to DOE when the 7 tests are completed. Our solutionwould be to go 8 with the smaller flow rate. 9 The next issuewas the efficiency 10 requirement for less than 20 gallon models:- 11 It is not appropriate, in our opinion, to 12 extend the current minimum efficiency standard, the 13 .93-.00132 times the volume, to apply to modelswith 14 less than 20 gallons storage capacity. 15 The current federal minimum efficiency 16 requirements for residential storage waterheaters 17 were developed based ondata and information 18 involving the models covered by the existing DOE 19 efficiency test procedure; that is, modelswith 20 volumes between 100 and 120 gallons. 21 Furthermore, theminimum efficiency 22 requirement for electric residential storagewater 23 heaters was selected to be a slight improvement over14 1 the 4wattsper square foot of tank surface area, 2 maximum standby loss criterion that was specified in 3 ASHRAE Standard 90A-1980 for those size water 4 heaters. 5 The complete requirement inASHRAE 90A-1989 6 was an hourly standby loss not greater than 4watts 7 per square foot of tank surface area, or 43 watts, 8 whicheverwas greater. 9 That requirement properly recognized that 10 as the tank surface area became smaller, the four 11 watts per square foot criteria became too stringent 12 because fitting losses became too large aportion of 13 the total standby loss. 14 The small volumemodels, less than 20 15 gallons, have the same fittings and connection losses 16 as the larger volumemodels, yet their tank surface 17 area if significantly smaller. It is exactly these 18 models towhich the 43 watts per hour maximum standby 19 loss specification applies. 20 These smaller volumemodels were not 21 consideredwhen the federal minimum efficiency 22 standards were established, and a separate minimum 23 efficiency requirement for those models must be15 1 established. 2 The results of our testing which wewill 3 provide to DOE, when it's available, should be 4 helpful in determining an appropriate comparable 5 minimum efficiency requirement. 6 As further evidence of the inapplicability 7 of the current federal minimum efficiency requirement 8 to small volume models, Ihave attached a calculation 9 which shows the maximumhourly standard loss that 10 would be allowed for a 15-gallon water and a 6-gallon 11 water heater, if the .93-00132 times the volume 12 minimum energy factorwere applied to those two 13 models. 14 You can look at the calculations, but you 15 will see that the resultanthourly standby loss is 16 significantly less than 43 watts. It's avery low 17 number. I'm not sure, but I suspect practically 18 unacceptable. 19 The next issue was the definitions: 20 We have no specify comments on the propose 21 definition ofheat pumpwater heaters. However,we 22 do not understand the purpose of this expanded 23 definition.16 1 We just bring that to your attention 2 because the definition hasbeen significantly 3 expanded and, at this point, it's not clear what the 4 intent of that was, and it may be something we can 5 discuss further. 6 We also do notunderstand why adefinition 7 for solar water heater is being added. The 8 definition that is proposed is imprecise. 9 The percentage of water heating done by 10 solar energy is dependent on the specific 11 installation and geographic location. 12 The proposed specification that a solar 13 waterheater is awater heater designed to obtain 50 14 percent of the annual water heating energy from the 15 sundoes not seem to be an essential defining 16 characteristic of that type of waterheater, the 17 point being, what if it's 40, what if it's one-third; 18 it's still a solarwater heater. 19 The last one, we have a comment or an issue 20 the DOE identified, was the test procedure for heat 21 pumpwater heaters:. 22 We recommend that the test procedure for 23 heat pump water heaters be revised to properly17 1 recognize that a significant percentage of thewater 2 heating they do is still being done by the backup 3 electric resistance elements. This could be done by 4 either changing the draw schedule to be more 5 representative of a typical usage schedule in a 6 residence or by adding a separate test to estimate 7 whatpercentage of the total water heating is done by 8 an electric resistance element. 9 We are running some differentdraw schedule 10 tests on aheat pump waterheater at ETL Testing 11 Laboratories, and will provide that information to 12 DOE once thework is completed. 13 One issue not listed in the Federal 14 Register notice onwhich we have a comment, is the 15 piping connections for under the counter and counter 16 top water heaters. 17 Section 4 should bemodified to separately 18 address the under the counterwater heaters and 19 counter top water heaters. While these two types of 20 water heatersmay appear somewhat similar, they are 21 intended for different installations. 22 Specifically, the water connections for a 23 counter topmodel will bewithin the waterheater18 1 jacket so that the model can be installed flush to 2 the back wall. This is not the case for an under the 3 countermodel. 4 Also, separate piping arrangements should 5 be provided for the models less than 20 gallons, 6 which are floor mounted. 7 Attached to my statement are suggested 8 revisions to Section 4.1, 4.3, revised figures 4a and 9 4b, and new figures 5 and 6,which reflect our 10 comments. 11 We appreciate this opportunity to present 12 our comments and intend toprovide additional data as 13 the result of ETL's testingbecomes available. 14 MS. WATSON: Thank you. 15 QUESTIONSAND ANSWERS 16 MS. WATSON: Are there any questions? 17 Steve? 18 MR. NABINGER: No. 19 Brian? 20 MR. DOUGHERTY: Right.- As far as the 21 instantaneous waterheaters, the electric, I'm aware 22 that they have a 9watt. Do you know the other 23 intervals that they have, as far as under 12 watt

--19 1 KW -- 12KW? 2 MR. STANONIK: No, I'mnot aware. Imean, 3 I'd say sporadically Ihaveheard comments orhad 4 people call me and say they areworking on or they 5 have an electric instantaneous water heater that they 6 intendwould be comparable towhat I'm going to call 7 awhole housewater heater, a unit that could satisfy 8 the demands of thewhole house. 9 But I'll tell you, inmost of the cases I 10 -donot see any followup that actually tells me what 11 thismodel is, what it's input is. I think froma 12 realistic standpoint and the limitations of 13 housewaring,probably 9KW, in fact, is prettyhigh. 14 MR. DOUGHERTY: Right. 15 How about on the electric storage tank 16 water heaters? Do they.go as lowas 1 gallon and 17 thenmaybe to 2 gallons, orhow do they jump around? 18 MR. STANONIK: The typical sizes, in 19 talking to ourmembers, are something around 15. 20 They either have perhaps a 10 or a 12, and then it 21 appears to be 9, 6, either a 4 or a 5 and then a 2. 22 I think in terms of what they offer for 23 that kind of unit, 2 is probably the smallest.20 1 Something less, you're now looking at, for lack of a 2 better description, what I'm going to call the 3 Insinkerator or the instantheater that attaches to 4 the incominghot water line atyour sink or 5 something, which those I don't think hold -- I'm not 6 sure how much volume they hold. 7 MR. DOUGHERTY: Okay. 8 MS. WATSON: Marc? 9 MR. LaFRANCE: No questions. 10 MS. WATSON: Eugene? 11 MR.MARGOLIS: No questions. 12 MS. WATSON: Jim? 13 MR. KAO: No questions, thank you. 14 MR. STANONIK: Thankyou. 15 MS. WATSON: All right. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2321 1 MS. WATSON: Iwould like to call the next 2 speaker, Dr. Matt Chwalowski. Would you state your 3 name andwho you represent. 4 MATT CHWALOWSKI 5 MANAGER OF ELECTROTECHNOLOGY POLICY 6 EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE 7 DR. CHWALOWSKI: Goodmorning. I am 8 Matt Chwalowski. I amwith Edison Electric 9 Institute. We are a trade association of investor10 owned electric utilities. 11 Ourmembers provide about three-quarters of 12 electric energynationwide. 13 My comments this morningwill be limited to 14 issues related exclusively towater heating testing 15 procedures. Our comments are based on an extensive 16 analysis, which was doneby Dr. Carl Hiller, at 17 Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI. 18 Our industryhas identified several 19 critical aspects of the Depart's proposal that, in 20 ourview, are technically incorrect or fail to 21 reflect the reality of hotwater usage. 22 While some elements of the proposal are an 23 improvement over previous DOE rulings in this area,22 1 we are still very concerned with several issues, and 2 we urge the Department to take ourviews into 3 consideration. 4 Today, Iwill summarize our principal 5 concerns, focusing, inparticular, on the first-hour 6 ratingprocedure. We will provide additional 7 comments to the Department on all aspects of the 8 proposal in our written comments. 9 Here are our preliminary conclusions: 10 First-hour testing and rating procedure: 11 The proposed first-hour testing and rating 12 procedure,while an improvement over the method 13 currently in use, and over the 1991 procedure, is 14 still flawed and shouldnot be implemented. 15 These arevery harsh words, however, we 16 believe that they are justified. 17 In particular, the proposed first-hour 18 ratingprocedure is based on an unrealistic water 19 consumption behavior patterns and, as a result, the 20 first-hour concept, an arbitrarily defined time 21 period, means little in relation to how hotwater is 22 actually used and not useful in sizing waterheating 23 svstems.

- - -

r -- -23 1 Today,wewould like to propose an 2 alternative to theproposed hot waterdelivery 3 testing and rating systembut eliminate the 4 shortcoming ofpast and current DOE approacheswhile 5 beingmuch faster, easier, and more reliable to use. 6 Let me first highlight the shortcomings of 7 a currentlyproposed DOE first-hour rating procedure. 8 EPRI is conducting extensive research. 9 It's an 18-month study to showhow unimportant the 10 first-hour rating period is for the performance and 11 operation ofwater heaters. 12 We notice that in the DOE notice, there is 13 no justification offeredwhy the hot water delivery 14 capability should be evaluated over such an arbitrary 15 period, such as onehour. 16 Secondly: Large tanks in these procedures 17 arepenalized relative to smaller tanks because the 18 test procedures uses a fixed flow rate for 19 withdrawingwater from tanks. As a result, the 20 procedure assumes that large tanks will be in a 21 drawdownmode for greater portion of the first hour, 22 thereby delaying and shortening useful recovery time. 23 Moreover, andbetter significance, the24 1 currently proposed procedure allows draws to continue 2 past the end of the one-hour period, if water at 3 useful temperature is available, so it allows for 4 arbitrary times. 5 Water heater may be operating for the next 6 30 seconds, but onemay be drawing water for the next 7 perhaps 45 minutes. 8 Due to this, the actual period of atest 9 can be dramatically different for different sizes and 10 types ofwater heaters because of the allowance to 11 continue drainingwater after the one-hour period is 12 over. 13 Allowing each tank to be tested over a 14 different time period in an unregulated manner gives 15 an unfair advantage to some systems and reduces the 16 comparability of ratings based on theproposed 17 procedure. 18 Thirdly: The proposed first-hour rating 19 procedures gives artificially high first-hour ratings 20 for systems having highheat input rates, relative to 21 some having lower heat input rates, byvirtue of the 22 drawbehavior patterns imposed. 23 The drawbehavioral patterns imposed often25 1 cause draw/no draw decisions to be madebut are 2 dramatically different in one system compared to 3 another, even though in reality the system are 4 behaving very similarly. 5 Let me give you abrief example. 6 If you have two tanks and you are 7 conducting a test, making a draw, and then waiting 8 until the uppermost reaches 110 -- let's say we have 9 two tanks, and one tank reaches 109, which is short 10 just one degree of 110; the procedure says that you 11 can impose a draw at the end of one-hour period, but 12 then you have to stop after 30 seconds. 13 Let's say that the other tank reaches the 14 temperature of 112. Let's say it's a large tank. 15 You cango andmake your draws every three minutes 16 for the next hour. 17 From the point ofview of a customer, 18 there's twominutes differential in time, but 19 involves perhaps going from 109 to 112, is 20 immaterial, irrelevant. 21 The danger of using this procedure is that 22 it allows for a lot of gaining to occur. Froma 23 mathematical, physical point of view, it is clearly26 1 something wrong where such ahuge function is allowed 2 where the time delay involved is so small. 3 So we very strongly feel that, here, the 4 procedure simply breaks down, and this is what we 5 consider one of the major flaws, because what's going 6 to happen-is you have those two tanks and you can 7 justmanipulate with burn rates, with thermostats 8 maybe slightly different. 9 In one case say you have 40 gallon rating, 10 in another case, if you go to 112, you can get 60- 11 hour rating, andwe would rather not see a situation 12 where such gaining is allowed. 13 Will gaining occur? Sure, it will, and be 14 some advantage to somebody. 15 Fourth: The proposed first-hour rating 16 procedure fails to account for the differences in 17 energy content ofwater delivered at different 18 temperatures during the first-hour testing and rating 19 procedures., 20 In other words, the way the procedure is 21 written right now,water at temperature 130 and 110 22 has the same energy content. DOE states that there 23 areno manufacturers that currently inducemixing of27 1 hot and coldwater to deliver a large amount of not 2 quite so hot water, before there is a need to adjust 3 hot water delivery ratings. 4 In fact, we know that there is at least one 5 U.S. manufacturer who has recently purchased the 6 right to manufacture and sell the equivalent of such 7 an internal mixingproduct and intends to bring the 8 technology tomarket in the not-so-distant future. 9 From the perspective of this industry, you 10 may know thatwe are going through apossible 11 restructuring, and it'smore andmore likely that 12 energy use at off-peakwould bemore significant in 13 the competitive situation. That's why we urge the 14 Department tomake sure that it considers such 15 situations as they become more prevalent. 16 Fifth: The DOEproposed first-hour rating 17 procedure as applied to instantaneouswater heater is 18 inappropriatebecause consumers maymistakenly 19 compare instantaneous and storage typewater heaters 20 as being equivalent if similarly first-hour rated. 21 The first-hour rating for instantaneous 22 water heaters should be abandoned in favor of a 23 maximum gallons per minute capability rating at 5028 1 degree Fahrenheit temperature rise. This will reduce 2 applicationmistakes. 3 Basically, we do notwant a situationwhere 4 a customer sees first our rating and goes and 5 purchases an instantaneous water heater. We want him 6 to choose storage type water heater if that's the 7 proper application forhim. 8 Before Ibrieflypropose our first-hour 9 rating procedure, let memake additional comments to 10 other aspects of DOE proposal. 11 Similarly to GAMA,we have concerns about 12 requirements for tanks less than 20 gallons; the 13 requirements of same energy factor as for larger 14 water heater is not correct, because energy factor 15 was developed at a flow rate of -- data consumption 16 of 64.3 gallons, and that exists at only one 17 consumption level. 18 In other words, DOE has to develop new 19 curves for tanks less than 20 gallons. 20 The reasons for that are explained inmy 21 testimony. 22 We alsohave a concern aboutvery small 23 tanks. There are some applications where there are29 1 one and two-gallon water heaters -- gourmet kitchens, 2 and applications like that. These tanks simply 3 cannotmeet the draw schedule, which is required, 4 without severely depleting the tank. 5 So amuch less severe draw schedule should 6 be used for such tanks but recognizes the nature of 7 use ofhis equipment or perhaps such tanks shouldbe 8 eliminated from considerations. 9 We also have concerns about some of the 10 definitions andwording and specifically about add-on 11 heat pump water heater definition andheat pumpwater 12 heater storage tank. 13 My suspicion is that these definitions come 14 from last year's hearing when DOE wanted to eliminate 15 electric resistance water heaters, but the problem 16 that is occurring is that you attempt to create new 17 definitions, but essentially you have two almost 18 identical tanks. One you label electric resistance 19 and the other one the add-onheat pump water heater. 20 Simply, common sensewould indicate that it 21 would increase the cost to consumers and 22 unnecessarily create additional barriers. This is 23 ill advised. These new tanks are essentially of30 1 identical construction. They will meet two separate 2 definitions. They will create confusion and 3 potentially increase the cost of heat pump water 4 heaters. 5 Regarding ourproposed first-hour or 6 alternative tohot water delivery rating test, Ihave 7 outlined it inmy proposal,where wewill provide 8 specify information with examples and with equations 9 by August 31st to the DOE. 10 I justwant to highlight that in our 11 proposed procedure we eliminate the drawbacks that 12 DOE procedures suffer from right now. What we do is 13 we impose draws up front and times zero is at the T14 25 degrees. 15 Then the only thing that is done iswe 16 measure the time required for temperature in the tank 17 ofupper thermal couple to reach 110 and do simple 18 mathematical calculation, thereby reaching very 19 quickly the rating for the tank. 20 This is simple, this is reproducible, it 21 provides useful information. It eliminates the 22 potential for gaming and eliminates what is important 23 for our industry bias, based on tank size, draw31 1 patterns, and tank type. 2 Regarding instantaneous water heaters, we 3 are opposed to allowing instantaneouswater heaters 4 to be tested under different draw flow rates and then 5 be given a first-hour rating similar to tank-type 6 water heaters. This could cause a lot of 7 misapplication ofwater heaters. 8 Again, Iwant to stress thatwe would like 9 to see that instantaneous water heaters be listed in 10 different sections and be rated in terms ofmaximum 11 gallons per minute delivered at 50 degree temperature 12 rise. 13 In summary, the Department has raised 14 several important issues regarding testing procedures 15 forwaterheaters. 16 Our industry believes there are serious 17 implications for the marketplace if the currently 18 proposed procedures are allowed to go forward. These 19 proposals have significant andburdensome 20 consequences that they raise and numerous technical 21 concerns and, ifunaltered,may actually create a new 22 barrier to high efficiency water heating 23 technologies.32 1 We request that the Department consider our 2 comments and conduct athorough reconsideration of 3 water heater test proposals. 4 Thankyou. 5 MS. WATSON: Thank you. 6 QUESTIONSAND ANSWERS 7 MS. WATSON: Do you have any questions or 8 comments, Steve? 9 MR.NABINGER: Ihave no questions. 10 MS. WATSON: Brian. 11 MR. DOUGHERTY: Yes. 12 Will the proposed first-hour rating that is 13 being developed be able to differentiate single 14 element versus two-element electric water heaters? 15 DR. CHWALOWSKI: The answer is yes. 16 MR. DOUGHERTY: Okay. 17 DR. CHWALOWSKI: But Iwant to stress that 18 we are primarily, as the industry, focused on two19 tank elements -- excuse me -- two-element tank 20 because of significantdisadvantages for consumers 21 with single element tank. But the answer is yes. 22 MR. DOUGHERTY: Okay. That was one of the 23 driving factors behind the change in the '79 version33 1 to the

-- 2 DR. CHWALOWSKI: I understand that. I 3 understand that. 4 MR. DOUGHERTY: Okay. The second thing 5 was, would you be able toprovide data showing the 6 proposed method as far as the discontinuityproblem? 7 That was, in fact, the problemwith the '89 8 version, and therewas an attempt this time to try to 9 minimize thediscontinuity problem. 10 Canyou provide exampleswhere that is 11 shown to be excessive now? 12 DR. CHWALOWSKI: Whatwewill do is by 13 August 31st we will provide a number of examples, 14 including the test data thatwe are collecting from 15 an 18-month old study. The studies, right now, is in 16 the 10-month, so by nextmonth we should have some 17 data that we candraw some conclusions from, and we 18 will be able to share that with the Department. 19 MR.DOUGHERTY: At that time, too, willyou 20 have a better feel on whatmay be a -- I agree, there 21 is nothingmagical about one hour. Whether or not 22 there's abetter interval to say. the sizing should 23 be based on anhour-and-a-half. Would that be34 1 available at this time or does that have to wait 2 maybe until the study is completely finished? 3 DR. CHWALOWSKI: What we have done is, 4 Dr. Hiller from EPRI has conducted literallyhundreds 5 of rounds on watts, and thatwill be available. 6 We are in the process of getting some tests 7 done by ETL Labs, to verify those computer runs, and 8 I don't knowwhether thatwill be available by August 9 31st, frankly. 10 MR. DOUGHERTY: Okay. The last Iwanted to 11 say, I just wanted to thankyou and Frank both for 12 makingvery constructive comments. I appreciate 13 that. 14 DR. CHWALOWSKI: Thank you. 15 MS. WATSON: Doyou have any questions, 16 Marc? 17 MR. LaFRANCE: No questions. Thankyou. 18 MS. WATSON: Jim? 19 MR.KAO: No questions. 20 MS. WATSON: Gene. 21 MR.MARGOLIS: Yes. Am I correct in 22 stating thatyou will be submitting changes to the 23 first-hour rating procedure, not that youwish that35 1 the first-hour rating procedure be eliminated? 2 DR. CHWALOWSKI: We do not wish that to be 3 eliminated. We think that customers should be 4 provided that additional information, in addition to 5 the energy factor. 6 What we will be providing is a significant 7 revision to the proposal. 8 MR. MARGOLIS: It still would be considered 9 a first-hour rating. The reason why I am saying that 10 is that the FTC labeling program forwater heaters 11 uses the first hour rating. 12 DR. CHWALOWSKI: Yes. Whatyou will see in 13 our equation as we provide them, it can still be 14 called a first-hour rating. Just like currently we 15 have a first-hour rating, even though in reality it 16 is not a first-hour rating. 17 Basically, the difference is that our time 18 zero starts after T -25 degrees, so we are still 19 within that same 60-minute concept. We are just 20 doing things in reversed order. 21 MR. MARGOLIS: Thankyou verymuch. 22 DR. CHWALOWSKI: Thankyou. 23 MS. WATSON: Thankyou.36 1 DR. CHWALOWSKI: Thank you. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2337 1 MS. WATSON: Going to ranges, the next '2 speaker, Charles Samuels. 3 CHARLES SAMUELS 4 AHAM 5 MR. SAMUELS: Thank you. 6 I'm Charles Samuels, and I'm government 7 relations counsel for theAssociation of Home 8 Appliance Manufacturers. 9 We appreciate the opportunity to testify 10 today. We particularly appreciate your accommodating 11 us by organizing the testimony byproducts. 12 I'm going to make some brief comments about 13 ranges andmicrowave oven test procedures now, and 14 then later I'll make somebrief comments about 15 clotheswasher test procedures. 16 We believe that as comparedwithwhereyou 17 stood about ayear ago or so whenyou proposed the 18 range and the microwave energy conservation 19 standards, that you have made great strides forward 20 in the range ormicrowave oven test procedures and 21 you're getting closer and closer to what we think is 22 agood representation of the energy consumption. 23 You're going to hear some technical38 1 comments about some changes that still need to be 2 made on ranges andmicrowaves. 3 Thenyou're going to hear some comments 4 that aren't really technical but are very important 5 andvery substantive, which will showyou that you 6 still are significantly overstating the annual energy 7 use of theseproducts. 8 You still don't have an empirical basis for 9 the numbers that you're using in the proposed test 10 procedures. We are going to, again, provide you with 11 somebetter data and analysis, and we urge you to 12 adopt it. 13 This is significant, not only because it 14 willmean that your test procedure will comply with 15 the legal requirements in NECA but also because it 16 will be very compelling evidence that the energy use 17 of ranges andmicrowave ovens is a lot less than you 18 have thought it is over the last few years, and it 19 undermines, really, the substantive and legal case 20 for energy standards, becauseyou're simply not going 21 to get the energy benefits that you thoughtyouwere 22 going to get in the Proposed Rule. 23 So this is important not only for test39 1 procedure purposes but also for the justification of 2 the pendingproposed standards. 3 For example, if you take a take a look at a 4 comparison of range andmicrowave oven use to 5 television sets, you have just essentiallywithdrawn 6 yourproposed product standards for television sets; 7 yet, even usingyour own inflated numbers for 8 microwave oven and range use, your proposed 9 television standard rulewould have saved 10 significantlymore energy thanwhat you believe 11 you're going to save inyour proposedmicrowave oven 12 and range standard. 13 In terms of energyuse, byyour ownpresent 14 account, televisionsuse more energy thanmicrowave 15 ovens. 16 So I think onceyou are able to relate in 17 the testprocedure to what the actual range or 18 microwave oven use ismore likely to be in the 19 United States, you're not onlygoing to have abetter 20 test procedure, but you'll see significantdiminution 21 in the justification for standards. 22 That's basicallywhatmy comments are on 23 ranges andmicrowave ovens.40 1 Jack Weizeorick is going to testify on, 2 first, ranges, and then he'll be happy to take 3 questions on the range test procedure; then he'll 4 move into themicrowave oven test procedure, and then 5 we'll have some further comment onmicrowave ovens, 6 as well. 7 Thank you. 8 MS. WATSON: Thank you. 9 MR. SAMUELS: Any questions? 10 MR.NABINGER: Idon't have any questions. 11 MR. DOUGHERTY: No questions. 12 MR. BERRINGER: No questions. 13 MS. WATSON: Ihave a comment. 14 MR. SAMUELS: Sure. 15 MS. WATSON: The numbers that were used in 16 the test procedurewere based onmetered studies 17 between 1988 and 1994? 18 MR. SAMUELS: You're talking about 19 microwave ovens? 20 MS. WATSON: For all of the products. 21 MR. SAMUELS: We're going to specifically 22 address that. We think there are -- 23 MS.WATSON: That's just the comment that I41 1 wanted tomake. 2 MR. SAMUELS: Sure. And I think there are 3 serious flaws in the studies. We've pointed them out 4 before. You have adjusted, somewhat, but youhaven't 5 adjusted appropriately, andwe're going to bevery 6 specific about that in the next two testimonies. 7 MS. WATSON: Okay. 8 MR.MARGOLIS: That's my question. 9 Who is going to? Inyour lead in, you said 10 youwere to do that, but then whenyou saidwho's 11 going to testify, Idon't knowwho is going to be 12 presenting that. 13 MR. SAMUELS: I'm sorryyou're confused. 14 Jack Weizeorick is going to talk about 15 ranges next andmake some comments, also, about the 16 microwave oven test procedure. He's going to talk 17 about annual energy use for ranges, and then 18 Joy Daniel of Sharp Corporation, on behalf ofAHAM, 19 is going to, as she did in the prior hearing, discuss 20 annual energyuse formicrowave ovens. 21 MR. MARGOLIS: Thankyou. 22 2342 1 JACK WEIZEORICK 2 AHAM 3 MR. WEIZEORICK: Ihave copies of my 4 statement and Iwill give them to you. Iwas going 5 to put them over at the desk, but I see nobody is 6 there. 7 Thank you verymuch. My name is Jack 8 Weizeorick. I'mVice President of Engineer Services 9 for the Association of Home ApplianceManufacturers. 10 The testimony that I'm about to give is 11 presented on behalf ofAHAM's members that 12 manufacture gas and electric ranges and refers to the 13 DOE range testprocedure,published in the Federal 14 Register onMarch 23rd, 1995, which was Docket No. 15 EE-RM-94-230. 16 The initial comments that Ihave, as Chuck 17 Samuels has said, addresses the annual useful cooking 18 energy output. 19 Youwill recall that on June 7th, 1994, the 20 Department held ahearing onproposed appliance 21 energy standards for ranges, in whichAHAM commented 22 on this very subject. 23 Specifically,we stated that the43 1 demographics in the United States are changing and, 2 to the extent thatthere aremany smaller families 3 that do less home cooking than in the past and, as a 4 result, the amount of energy used in today's 5 household for cooking purposes has been drastically 6 reduced. 7 AHAM advised -- well, it was supported by 8 both the Gas Research Institute and Arthur D. Little 9 on research with regard tometered studies for 10 cooking energy. One of these studies noted was a 11 totallymetered study and, to ourknowledge, the only 12 viable and objective study that's available today. 13 Just so it's perfectly clear, this was not 14 an industry study. Itwas done by Northern Illinois 15 Gas Company. The industrywas not apart of it, but 16 it supports that study. Theway itwas done it was 17 completelymetered an independent study. 18 The values that came out of that study, 19 which are endorsed byAHAM, are different from what 20 the DOE has listed -- significantly different. 21 For instance, the gas cook top. That study 22 recommends 429.5 kiloBtuper year for the annual 23 useful cooking energy output instead of the DOE44 1 recommendation of 732.5 kiloBtus per year. 2 Gas ovens is 91.8 in the study,kiloBtuper 3 year, versus 124.2. 4 In the electric cook tops, the NIE gas 5 study was 157 kilowatt hours per yearversus DOE's 6 recommendation of 209.4 kilowatt hoursper year, and 7 for electric ovens, the NIE gas study was 26.6 versus 8 the 35.5. 9 These are significantly different values, 10 andwe urge that.these values be adopted by DOE. 11 In fact, we believe that DOE owes industry 12 aresponse onwhy these valueswere not immediately 13 selected over themore subjective studies and surveys 14 used to arrive at the valuesyou presented. 15 While the annual energy usage remains the 16 single biggest disagreement between DOE and industry, 17 there are other items of lesser concern that require 18 AHAM to comment. 19 Specifically, in paragraph 2.9.2, we agree 20 withyou totally, in the elimination of the use of a 21 standard continuous flow calorimeter for gas cooking 22 products. Themeasurements should be left to the 23 discretion of themanufacturers and testing45 1 laboratories, as long as accuracy is maintained. 2 Referring to paragraph 2.9.3.5, you have 3 recommended a tolerance of plus or minus 0.45 degrees 4 Fahrenheit for surface temperature measurement 5 measuring devices. We think that tolerance is too 6 tight. 7 Your previous test procedurehad aplus or 8 minus 1degree Fahrenheit tolerance over the range of 9 65 degrees to 90 degrees F., for surface temperature 10 measuring devices. 11 We think that's the correct tolerance and 12 represents good laboratory practice. Wewould 13 recommend that you continue that. 14 In paragraph 4.1.2.3, that paragraph deals 15 with the number of self-cleaning cycles. DOEhas 16 continued to use values thatwe consider extremely 17 high. 11 annual self-cleaning operations for 18 conventional electric ovens and 7 annual self19 cleaning operations for conventional gas ovens. 20 With the use of ranges declining, we think 21 that that number ismuch toohigh. We would propose, 22 based on some studies done by our members -- internal 23 studies these are -- that the number would be more in46 1 the order of 4 self-cleaning cycles peryear for both 2 gas and electric self-cleaning ovens. 3 In addition,we reallydon't see any reason 4 why there shouldbe adifference between electric and 5 self-cleaning. They shouldbe used approximately the 6 samenumber of times. 7 Paragraph 4.3 refers to combined components 8 and states that the annual energy consumption and the 9 cooking efficiency can be summed. 10 We agree that the annual energy consumption 11 canbe summed but efficiencies cannot be summed. We 12 propose aminor wording change to take care of that, 13 and it's in the testimony. 14 Paragraph 4.1.2.4 addresses annual clock 15 energy consumption anduses a symbol 8k'to refer to 16 the number of hours in ayear. 8k is normally used 17 for aheating value, andwe think it causes confusion 18 touse it here. We suggestyou change to another 19 symbol, just to avoid confusion. 20 In terms of the clock energy consumption, 21 also, the clock energy consumption is added to the 22 oven energy consumption in the formulas. This 23 implies that the clock energy can be separated from47 1 the oven. 2 There are some ovens, such as electronic 3 ovens, that you cannot turn off the clock andmeasure 4 it separately. It's an integral part of the oven. 5 Wewould recommend that you change the 6 wording to indicate that it's not necessary to 7 disconnect the clock, if it's an integral part of the 8 system,because you get energy anywaywhenyou 9 measure the oven, so it sort ofmakes itmore 10 permissive than the way it presently stands. 11 Paragraph 3.1.1, second paragraph,has an 12 editorial error. There's aphrase that appears to be 13 missing: higher than room ambient, in about the third 14 sentence. Thatphrase is used later on in the 15 paragraph correctly, andwe'd suggest it be brought 16 up there, also, to correct that editorial problem. 17 In Section 3.2.1 and 3.3.5, we support the 18 Department proposal for convection mode testing, 19 becausewe believe it truly recognizes that 20 convection ovens are becoming amoreprominent 21 cooking feature in U.S. homes. 22 Now, whileAHAM firmly believes and 23 recommends the reduction of the annual energy48 1 consumption for electric cooktops to 157.0 kilowatt 2 hoursper year, there is an inconsistency in the 3 publication of the number you have used. 4 In one case, in paragraph 4.2.2.1, you use 5 209.4 kilowatt hoursper year as the annualuseful 6 cooking energy output for conventional electric 7 cooktops, while in the Preamble to the test 8 procedures, Section 2.b(2), it's listed strictly as 9 209 kilowatt hoursper year, so there's an 10 inconsistency there. It's a small number, but we 11 thought we'dpoint it out. 12 In a related issue, there's another area 13 that was brought out in our testimony presented to 14 the DOE on July 18th. 15 We think it's necessary to define a 16 separate product class for high capacity ranges and 17 ovens. 18 Without this action, theseproducts 19 effectivelywould be banned if DOE elects to adopt 20 energy standards, notwithstandingAHAM's 21 recommendation to the contrary. 22 AHAM's testimonyprovided DOE with 23 definitions forhigh capacity gas ranges, cooktops,49 1 and ovens, and we would reiterate that wewould like 2 to see those incorporated. 3 In conclusion,AHAM recommends that all of 4 the above changes be incorporated into the Appendix, 5 and that DOE adoptAHAM's recommended annual useful 6 cooking energy output stated above and include these 7 in the final testprocedure. 8 We also urge DOE to review carefully AHAM's 9 comments submitted on July 18th, 1994, regarding 10 proposed appliance energy conservation standards for 11 ranges, ovens, and cooktops. 12 These comments provide numerous data 13 indicating that ranges use so little energy that it's 14 difficult to cost-justify anymodification for the 15 purpose of saving energy -- for energy savings. 16 Finally, we believe that there should beno 17 energy standard issued for these products. 18 Iwill entertain any questions on ranges 19 that youmay have. 20 21 22 2350 1 QUESTIONS ANDANSWERS 2 MS. WATSON: Steve, do you have any 3 questions? 4 MR.NABINGER: Yes. Yes, I do. 5 You saidyou think 11 and 7 for the cycles, 6 for the ovens -- excuse me, for self-cleaning ovens - 7

- is too much, and that you believe 4 cycles; is that 8 correct? 9 MR.WEIZEORICK: Yes. We recommend a 10 number somewhere more on the order of 4. We think 11 11 and 7 -- well, first, we don't see any reason why 12 they should be different, number one; and, 13 Number two: 11 and 7,with the decreasing 14 use of ranges, just seems too high. 15 I said that there are some internal 16 manufacturer studies. We haven't collected them, we 17 do nothave that data, but I'm sure if you want it we 18 could try to pull it together. 19 MR.NABINGER: If you could provide it. 20 That was my question, really. 21 MR. WEIZEORICK: Okay. We don'thave that 22 information right at themoment. Iwillmake an 23 effort to get it.51 1 MR.NABINGER: Thank you. I agree with you 2 thatyou can't sum efficiencies, so thankyou for 3 that comment, and also for the symbols. 4 Do you have other definitions or symbols 5 that you find confusing,please let us know. 6 MR. WEIZEORICK: We came up with an "A". 7 Wedidn'thave one. 8 MR. NABINGER: Okay. Now, couldyou 9 reiteratewhat your problemwas orwhat that was on 10 your clock energy? 11 MR. NABINGER: Yeah. That's a little 12 confusing. Ithink if you look at the wayyou 13 calculate the energy consumption,you add in the 14 clock energy, and there is a section in there where 15 you actuallymeasure the clock energy, separately, so 16 you come up with it and then you add it in. 17 In electronic oven, I guess you could 18 measure it if you turned everything else off and 19 measured it separately, but then whenyou ran the 20 oven, it's going to be running also, so you add it in 21 twice. 22 MR.NABINGER: Yes. 23 MR.WEIZEORICK: So the easiest way to do52 1 it is just somehow or other make it permissive that 2 you don'thave to add it in if you haven'tmeasured 3 it separately. Justmake sure it's running. 4 MR. NABINGER: Okay. Iunderstand. 5 The clock does not use much energy. 6 MR.WEIZEORICK: No. 7 MR.NABINGER: 2,4, 6, 8watts. Compared 8 to the oven, it's almost insignificant. 9 MR.WEIZEORICK: Yes. 10 MR.NABINGER: But the time that the oven 11 is read is much less thanwhat the clock is running. 12 MR.WEIZEORICK: Then what the clock runs. 13 Yes. 14 MR.NABINGER: So do you have anyproposal 15 to come upwith away to state thepower, or 16 something like that, of the clock, and then take an 17 annual usage for the clock separately and add it to 18 the energy? 19 MR.WEIZEORICK: Maybe actually have to 20 back out the clock energy. I don't know. If you 21 can't turn it off, perhapsyoumeasure it twice, and 22 it's included inyour oven energy, and maybe at that 23 point, you back it out. You canmeasure it53 1 separately by turning everything else off, so it can 2 be done. 3 MR.NABINGER: All right. Thank you. 4 Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy of 5 the 209 kilowatthours. 6 You say that DOE has been sent some 7 recommended definitions. Ihaven't seen those, but 8 they may be around. Can you send a copy tome? 9 MR. NABINGER: Iwill be glad to but they 10 are in the testimony -- the written AHAM testimony 11 presented onJuly 18th, 1994. 12 MR. NABINGER: All right. Thank you. 13 That's all the questions Ihave. 14 MS. WATSON: Questions? 15 MR.MARGOLIS: First, Iwould like to 16 comment that the questions I'm asking is for the 17 purpose of obtaining information and doesn't mean 18 whether we agree or disagreewith some of your 19 statements here. 20 As another comment that Iwould like to 21 make, you're saying that NIGAS -- Northern Illinois 22 Gas Company -- study is not a manufacturer's study, 23 is an independent study, andwould some way seem to54 1 me, if itwas amanufacturer's study, therewould be 2 some bias in it. 3 I'm just saying, as forme, I disagree with 4 the inference that you're makinghere. It doesn't 5 matter whether it's amanufacturer's study or a 6 utility study or what, the study stands on what it 7 shows andhow it was done. 8 If it was amanufacturer's study, to me, it 9 carries the sameweight and it's not biased at all. 10 I justwanted tomake that comment. 11 MR. NABINGER: Thankyou. 12 MR. MARGOLIS: Now, with regard to the 13 numbers that you are saying the useful cooking energy 14 output are, you give numbers that are considerably 15 different from the numbers that LBLhas given from 16 theirworking a number of studies. 17 Now, my question is: Do you have the study 18 itself that you could submit to us, so thatwe could 19 see how the studywas made and how it was done? 20 You're saying it's the onlyviable and 21 objective study that is available today. Inyour 22 written comments, canyou tell us why that is true? 23 LBL in the Federal Register notice said55 1 that it obtained its data from a number of studies 2 that it looked at. 3 Iwould like to get information to show why 4 this study is better and should be used than the 5 other studies, orwhy shouldn't this study be added 6 to the other studies. And if the other studieshave 7 differentvalues and then are averaged to obtain the 8 DOEvalue, that this study, then, should not be used 9 in conjunctionwith them and not by itself. 10 So, obviously, if it's used in conjunction, 11 itwould raise the number that you havehere. If 12 it'susedby itself, these numbers would stand. 13 As Mr. Samuels so eloquently stated before, 14 using these numbers would show that no standard is 15 necessary. That'swhy the validity ofNIGAS and the 16 other studies is very, very important. 17 MR.WEIZEORICK: Okay. I think I 18 understand the intent ofwhat you're saying. In 19 effect, Ibelieve we haveprovided DOE with the NIGAS 20 study. Iwillmake sure that that is correct. I 21 believe it was part of our July 18th, 1994 22 testimony -- written comments, I should say. 23 MS. WATSON: TheNIGAS was included and is56 1 used in conjunction with several

-- 2 MR. WEIZEORICK: Yes. 3 MR.MARGOLIS: Excuse me. Used in 4 conjunction with several

-- 5 MS. WATSON: Metered. 6 MR. MARGOLIS: -- LBLs to arrive at these 7 numbers? 8 MS. WATSON: Yes. 9 MR.MARGOLIS: But you are saying that this 10 shouldbe used by itself and not with the others, and 11 therefore, again, I askyou for reasons why your 12 statement that this is the onlyviable and objective 13 study that is available today. If you can give that 14 to us, it's very important. 15 MR.WEIZEORICK: We will attempt to 16 elucidate on that point. Ithink that's enough said 17 for now. In our final testimony, in our written 18 comments, wewill add additional reasons for that 19 conclusion,much of which are already stated in our 20 previous testimony andprevious comments submitted on 21 July 18th, but Iwill review them and make sure that 22 theybecome apart of this testimony also. 23 MR.MARGOLIS: From your point of view, in57 1 these comments, if the other study -- if you have 2 stated why the other studies are not good or should 3 not apply or have not stated that, if you can do it 4 at this time, because it's either way -- why this one 5 is good orwhy the others are no good. 6 MR.WEIZEORICK: Yes, wewill do that. 7 MR.MARGOLIS: Again, I'm saying we're not 8 agreeing withyou or disagreeing withyou, but this 9 is to elicit information for us to base a conclusion 10 on. 11 MR. WEIZEORICK: I appreciate that. I 12 think it's good. It gives us some comfort that you 13 recognize also thevery importance of this very basic 14 information. 15 MR. MARGOLIS: I'd like to speak for a 16 moment on the tolerance issue that you raised. 17 MR.WEIZEORICK: Okay. 18 MR. MARGOLIS: We are proposing .45 degrees 19 Fahrenheit, as against what's there now of 1degree. 20 I am not familiar with this testprocedure 21 as such, but in other products that your trade 22 associationhas an interest in, manufacturers have 23 stated to us that they believe the tolerances should58 1 be closed up because if they don't, if they are not, 2 there are other manufacturers in testing that they 3 may game, as that wordwas used earlier, the 4 standard. 5 Here, we're trying to close up the 6 tolerance. I do not know that the purpose of closing 7 it up is that, but Iwould like, inyour written 8 comments, if you could look at that, that this may 9 be -- and I'm not saying it is -- a loophole that 10 allows, quote, "other", unquote, manufacturers to get 11 higher efficiencies than they really deserve, because 12 Iknow,with another product, that has been told to 13 me. 14 This is only one, so itmight not be that, 15 but I'mnot sure, and Iwould just like a discussion 16 on that issue. 17 Thankyou verymuch. Ihave no other 18 questions. 19 MS. WATSON: Thank you. 20 21 22 2359 1 MS. WATSON: Ontomicrowave ovens with Jack 2 Weizeorick. 3 MR.WEIZEORICK: I'm still the same person, 4 Iguess. 5 MICROWAVE OVENS 6 MR.WEIZEORICK: This testimony will 7 concern theAHAM's microwave oven council's position 8 on themicrowave oven test procedure. Thiswill be 9 followed by testimony presentedby Joe Daniels 10 concerning the annual energy consumption concerning 11 microwave ovens. 12 That testimony has been reviewed byAHAM's 13 microwave oven council, and they agree with it 14 totally. So it's anAHAM position that Joy Daniels 15 will be presenting. 16 AHAM certainly applauds the DOE's efforts 17 to conceptually adopt the international standard for 18 determiningmicrowave oven power output. 19 However, we believe that there are some 20 problems in the process and it seems that certain 21 aspects of the international IEEC testmethod for 22 microwave ovens have been -- I use the word 23 "misinterpreted," andmaybe it would be better to say60 1 "misapplied". 2 We would urge, as a general rule, strict 3 adherence to the IEEC Standard 705, AmendmentNo. 2. 4 Specifically, some of the things that are 5 at issue is, youpropose to use awatthourmeter to 6 obtain the energy consumption in paragraph 3.2.3 7 because of start-up transients. The IEEC 705 method 8 addressed this in paragraph 12.6 when it said that 9 the filament heat-up time formagnetrons is not 10 included. 11 That's when these transients generally 12 occur, soby the time you get past that point, you're 13 not in a transient situation any longer, so awatt 14 meter certainly is adequate for power going in 15 instead of having to takewatt hourmeters over the 16 entire length of the test. 17 The change in the wattmeter for the 18 duration of the test is very small, andwe admit that 19 there are ovens where thepower will change somewhat 20 with usage, but the duration of this test is so short 21 that that change does not come intoplay in this 22 instance. 23 So we would suaaest you stick with the TREC

-- __ - __ -__- - -  a- - - - -- ___ I-

- ___ ____ ____ I61 i method using awattmeter instead of deviating from 2 that IEECprocedure. 3 The IEEC calculates efficiency inparagraph 4 4.4.4, or I should say the DOE calculates efficiency 5 in 4.4.4, according to the IEECmethod, but then 6 doesn't use it anywhere. Instead, you try to use 7 input energy versus outpoint energy to determine the 8 energy factor. 9 Itmakes it a little more difficult to get 10 to, and franklywe do not support this change from 11 the IEEC procedure. Wewould prefer an efficiency 12 calculation using the ratio from output to input 13 power. 14 We think it probably is a small point, and 15 you come upwith essentially the same answer. We 16 would urge the adoption of the 705 Standard to 17 promote consistency and standardization of testing 18 with the international community. 19 Themethod DOEuses to calculate the 20 microwave oven energy factor in paragraph 4.4.5 seems 21 confusing and convoluted. If the DOE testmethod 22 prevails, it shouldbe modified to calculate the 23 microwave oven test power output in 4.4.2 first.62 1 You've got the number there, youmight aswell use 2 it. 3 The number can then bemultiplied by time 4 T, whichyou don't evenuse, but itwas used as an 5 output of the IEEC test procedure, determined in the 6 power output test and divided by the conversion 7 factor He to calculate themicrowave oven test energy, 8 which is then used to calculate the microwave oven 9 annual energy consumption. 10 This would be, if you read through that 11 carefully, amore understandable logic on how to 12 reach thevalues and the conclusions. 13 I've served as the Secretary of the IEEC 14 Microwave Oven Standard Subcommittee since 1970, and 15 during these past 25 years, Ihave participated in 16 the advances of the state of the art ofmicrowave 17 ovenmeasurement. 18 The U.S. has been the leader in the 19 development of this testmethod,which is used by the 20 microwave oven industry throughout the world. This 21 is one industry, at least, and one area in the 22 appliance industrywhere we have successfully applied 23 an international standard.63 1 The IEEC standard represents the state of 2 the art as it exists today throughout the world. 3 However, DOEmust be aware that the IEEC standard is 4 a living document. 5 Itwill continuallyundergo changes and 6 modifications as the state of the art for analyzing 7 and evaluating these products advances. These are 8 relatively newproducts. They've only been around 9 for 30 or 40 years. 10 Evennow, Ican advise you that as a result 11 of arecentmeeting of the IEEC Standards Group in 12 Zurich, Switzerland,held last April. There are some 13 changes being processed through the International 14 Standards Systems to this testmethod. These changes 15 will appear in final form, probably in the next two 16 or three years. 17 While they are not radical changes and they 18 don't substantially alter the testmethod, theywill 19 make the test easier to conduct and are expected to 20 improve the repeatability. 21 Manufacturers throughout theworld will be 22 gaining experience with these new changes over the 23 next several years, so thatwhen they are finally64 1 published in final form, there will be testmethods 2 that have been tried and are expected. 3 Therefore, it's important that DOE keep 4 abreast of the activities of this International 5 Standards Group and propose changes to the DOE 6 microwave oven test procedure tokeep it consistent 7 with these advances. 8 In addition,AHAM alsowould like to review 9 AHAM's final comments on DOE's Notice of Proposed 10 Rulemaking on Energy Consumption Standards for 11 Microwave Ovens. 12 These comments recommended the adoption of 13 a number of different classes ofmicrowave ovens. 14 I've listed five there in the testimony,which are 15 the five that we recommended. 16 The adoption of these classes is absolutely 17 necessary in order to preventproducts with proven 18 utility from being banned from the marketplace if DOE 19 elects to adopt energy standards, notwithstanding 20 AHAM's recommendation to the contrary. 21 Thismatter is intrinsically related to the 22 DOE test procedure formicrowave ovens because the 54 23 percent efficiency used by DOE to calculate the65 1 annual useful cooking energy reflects an average 2 efficiency of all of these classes. 3 So, therefore, you need to go back and take 4 a look at each class individually and the data 5 assigned to that class if energy consumption 6 standards are to be established. 7 We make this recommendationwhile we 8 continue to support the position that energy 9 standards for these products are not necessary 10 becausemicrowave ovens consume a relatively small 11 amount of energy and that it's difficult, if not 12 possible, to cost justify any energy standard for 13 these products. 14 Thankyou, and I'll entertain any comments. 15 MS. WATSON: Thankyou. 16 QUESTIONSANDANSWERS 17 MS. WATSON: Steve, do you have any 18 questions or comments? 19 MR. NABINGER: Yes, Ido have a couple 20 questions and comments. 21 One is, that it talks about strict 22 adherence to the IEC 705, but the 705, at times, is 23 unclear. For example,powermeasurements. Whendo66 1 youmeasure the power? It says: When the current is 2 reached, 90 percent of its minimum at themaximumhad 3 been reached. 4 Then, through some tests, we've seen in 5 particularly microwave ovens, that the power can 6 change as much as 3.5 and 5percent. Now if you 7 would use the higher number for power as the input 8 power or the lower, you!re going to have abig 9 difference in efficiency. I say "big," Imean your 10 efficiencywill vary from test to test, depending.on 11 whatyou use asmuch as plus orminus 5percent, 12 especially if you have apowermeter that onlyhas a 13 5percent accuracy rating,which todayyou can easily 14 get 1percent meters and they are relatively 15 inexpensive. 16 MR. WEIZEORICK: Well, my comment is -- or 17 Ihave aquestion. You sayyou're seeing 3-1/2 to 5 18 percent change inpower input? 19 MR.NABINGER: Into the microwave. 20 MR.WEIZEORICK: Power input to the 21 microwave. During the duration of the test? 22 MR.NABINGER: During the duration of the 23 test. ves.

--- -I z-- -67 1 MR.WEIZEORICK: I think that's extremely 2 high. Look atyour voltage variation. 3 MR.NABINGER: Thevoltage is specified and 4 needs to be 120, plus orminus 1volt. 5 MR. WEIZEORICK: Yes. I'd look and see if 6 you don't have -- if you have regulated voltage to 7 the point where you'remaintaining that voltage 8 throughout the test, because we don't -- over the 60- 9 secondduration of the test, we have no reports of 10 anything close to that kind of a change, at this 11 point in time. 12 We'll look at it again, as well, but our 13 indications are that apower reading taken midway 14 through the test is as good a reading as you're going 15 to get anywhere. 16 Now, I'd really like to visityour lab and 17 witness some of these tests. It would behelpful for 18 me to see how you're doing it, because our indication 19 is that certainly the power reading is very 20 consistent throughout the test, and if you take a 21 reading midway through the test, it's as good a 22 reading as you can possibly get. 23 It's a lot easier to do than having to68 1 record thewatt hour reading at the start of the test 2 and thewatt hour reading at the finish of the test, 3 particularly if it's amoving target, because you 4 have to eliminate the filament heat-up time, which is 5 the first couple of seconds that you turn the oven 6 on. 7 You have to make sure that you cut it off 8 at the right point. 9 MR. NABINGER: Thankyou. 10 About the filament heat-up time,how long 11 is that time? It seems tomeasure between .5to as 12 much as 2seconds, at times. 13 MR.WEIZEORICK: It can go as long as three 14 seconds in some ovens, yeah. 15 MR. NABINGER: That's about 4percent of 16 the time, andyetmy comment wouldbe, if that's 4 17 percent of the time, I'mnot surehow much that 18 affects the energy consumption, if you usepower to 19 calculate efficiency,what the differencewould be? 20 Do you have numbers on it? 21 MR.WEIZEORICK: No, I don't. Idon'thave 22 any.numbers on that. 23 MR.NABINGER: All right.69 1 Am I correct in saying thatyour point in 2 having the different classes of microwaves is that

-- 3 or is your point that you need to have the different 4 classes? 5 MR.WEIZEORICK: Oh, yes. 6 MR.NABINGER: And in each class, there 7 should be a different energy consumption factor? 8 MR. WEIZEORICK: Yes. If you're going to 9 have energy standards, you need different standards 10 for each class, and I guess the relationship there is 11 that you took -- we provided data for each of these 12 product classes, and that datawas lumped together, 13 and you come up with the 54 percent efficiency. 14 The 54 percent efficiencywas then used to 15 calculate the annual energyuse. 16 That annual energy use is now being applied 17 to all classes of products. Now, I'm not sure that's 18 accurate. I just question it. 19 MR. NABINGER: I understand. Thankyou. 20 Ihave no further questions. 21 MS. WATSON: I have a question. 22 You had stated that you did not support 23 this change from the IEC in respect to the energy70 1 fact, whereas the energy factor -- we are deviating 2 from the IEC, we are simply stating, to use the watt 3 hourmeter, do the IEC, butwhat is the energy factor 4 from using thewatt hourmeter? 5 I did not have that intent to merge the 6 two, itwas just an additional step. 7 MR. WEIZEORICK: Yes. It seemed to us that 8 therewas a force fit to force the energy factor 9 calculation into an energy calculationwhen it's much 10 easier to do it on apower basis. 11 Power output over power input gives you 12 efficiency. 13 Energy input over energy output givesyou 14 efficiency -- both of them are energy factors, and 15 both come up with the same number. It just seemed 16 like therewas a force fit to move it over to energy 17 whenpower seemed to fall out very nicely. 18 Itwon't change the number. If the test is 19 done accurately and correctly, the energy factor 20 should be the same. 21 MS. WATSON: Ihad another comment. 22 Idon't understandyour opposition to not 23 using awatt hourmeter, in additionwith using a71 watt meter also. MR.WEIZEORICK: Well, thewattmeter gives you the instantaneouspower, obviously, and all we're saying is that awatthour meter you've got to record the whole time, and you're getting into an energy situation. It's an energy situationversus apower situation. Advertisingmicrowave ovens is done on the basis ofpower output of the microwave ovens so we concentrate onpower. MS. WATSON: In our test procedure,we have to concentrate on energy. MR.WEIZEORICK: But, see,youmake the conversion later on. MS. WATSON: Yes, you can. MR. WEIZEORICK: It doesn't matterwhere youmake the conversion. Youmake it very early. We're just suggestingwe'd like to see itmade later. MS. WATSON: Okay. Thankyou. MR.MARGOLIS: I just want to reiterate Ms. Watson's comment. You had saidwe do not support this change from the IEC procedurewhich determines efficiencyby 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2372 1 calculating the ratio of output to inputpower. As 2 she had said, we are not changing it. We are just 3 adding another measure. Sowe are not changing the 4 IEC procedure, and that'swhat Iwish to point out to 5 you. 6 My other comment is that DOE is keeping 7 abreast of the activities of the group that's meeting 8 or thatmet in Zurich. We will, once we get these 9 test procedures in place, if modification to these 10 aremade by the trade,we will then consider if they 11 arepertinent enough or important enough to amendthe 12 test procedures because we do have the guidingpost 13 that we should use -- manufacturers or trade 14 association standards or test procedures, to the best 15 of our ability. And that's whatwe are trying to do. 16 So if these,which are the IEC test 17 procedures, are then put inplace and further 18 amendments occur, wewill, of course, if they are 19 pertinent go outwith amendments to the then current 20 test procedure to add them. 21 MR.WEIZEORICK: In response to that, I 22 would just like tomake further comment thatmy 23 testimony said Iwas the Secretary of the IEC73 1 Subcommittee on Standards for the past 25 years. I 2 am the only Secretary of that Committee. That 3 Committee was formedwhen Iwas appointed. I amwell 4 aware ofwhat goes on there. 5 That is theU.S. industry procedure. We do 6 not have another procedure. We elected, back in 7 1970, not to write our own procedurebut to use the 8 international standard and toput our efforts into 9 make that standard the best standard in the world, 10 and that's the waywe've done it. 11 MR.MARGOLIS: And this amendment is to put 12 those standards inplace. 13 MR. WEIZEORICK: Yes. 14 MS. WATSON: Steve. 15 MR.NABINGER: Yes. Ihad a question about 16 the IEC. Youmade a statement that the state of arts 17 is continually changing and the IEC wants to keep up 18 with the state of the art. 19 It's known now that induction type 20 meters -- that we have newmeters and are more state 21 of the art than induction type. Imean,meters are 22 meters. You have a 1percent accuracy, then that 23 stands as it is. It doesn'tmatterwhat themeter74 is. It says youmust use an induction type meter in the IEC standard, and it also comments that it should be 5percent accuracy. Is there any work going on to look into changing that to a tighter

-- MR. WEIZEORICK: No. I think I've stated that there are some changes coming, and Ithink you'll see it in that area. MR.NABINGER: Okay. Thankyou. One other question just formy own information. It talks aboutpotable water now. Distilled water is potable water, and I don't know that that's what each lab uses, and I don't knowhow muchpotable watervaries. Italked to a chemist and he said that the mineral content of potable water considers significantly across the United States, and he thought that theremight be some factor involved there with adifferentmineral content. If one sample ofwaterwere used in some place where the mineral contentwas high and someone elseused distilled water, the outcome could be skewed and get different results. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22 2375 1 Has anybody ever looked into that? 2 MR.NABINGER: Yes. Years ago the IEChad 3 used distilled water with salt in it, a certain 4 measure of salt, in order to try to standardize the 5 water. We ran intomore problems with salt than we 6 ever ran into withusingplain potable water, tap 7 water and, for that reason,we elected on aworldwide 8 basis to go to potable water. 9 We couldn't find significant differences in 10 power outputmeasures as aresult of differences in 11 mineral content. 12 We did find considerable differences in the 13 use of salt, although I think -- and that was at 2450 14 megahertz frequencies. 15 If you go to the 915 megahertz, you've got 16 a totally different system and, fortunately, that 17 system really isn't used verymuch in household 18 microwave ovens today. Itwas back in the '70s, but 19 it is not anymore. 20 So allmicrowave ovens today are 2450 21 megahertz, and the water quality difference does not 22 seem to affect the output. 23 MR.NABINGER: Are all microwaves rated at76 1 120 volts? In otherwords, the IEC standard says to 2 test it at the rate voltage, whereas DOE's proposed 3 rule states 120 volts on occasion. 4 MR.WEIZEORICK: Obviously,you have 5 different ratings, andmost of them are 230 volts, 6 because they use a 230 volt, 50 hertz system. 7 All microwave ovens -- I shouldn't say all; 8 we'vegot some combination ovens thatmight be at 9 240. 10 MR. NABINGER: Sowould the numbers be 11 recorded orwouldyou use the 115 volts with the 240? 12 MR.WEIZEORICK: I'm going to have to check 13 on that. I don'tknow if the microwave portion of a 14 combination oven operates at 230 or not. That would 15 require a different magnetron, and I suspect itmay 16 be still operating at the 120 system, but I'll have 17 to check on that. It's agood question. 18 MS. WATSON: Thank you. 19 I'd like to call the next speaker. 20 State your name and who you represent, 21 please. 22 2377 1 JOY WEIS DANIEL 2 AHAM 3 MS. DANIELS: I'm JoyWeis Daniel, the 4 productdevelopmentmanager of the appliance division 5 of Sharp Electronics Corporation,which is located in 6 Mahwah,New Jersey.. 7 Currently, Sharp is the No. 1 seller of 8 home usemicrowave ovens, however, today Iam here on 9 behalf ofAHAM and themicrowave oven industry. 10 In theMarch 23, 1993 DOE CFR Part 430, 11 there was aquote that Iwould like to read: 12 "DOE is proposing to change the annual 13 useful cooking energy from 34.2 kilowatt hours per 14 year to 77.3 kilowatthours peryear. This revision 15 to the annual useful cooking earning reflects current 16 U.S. microwave oven cooking usage," end of quote. 17 This figure translates to input of 143.2 18 kilowatt hoursper year for amicrowave oven. Now, 19 we choose to believe that this revision, down from 20 your previously suggested 270 kilowatt hours to 143.2 21 kilowatt hours, is the result of the additional 22 studies you were able toprocure, aswell as our 23 testimony on behalf of themicrowave industry during78 1 lastyear's proceedings. 2 However, we againhave carefully reviewed 3 the latest findings and believe that there is ample 4 evidence to encourageyou to rethinkyour conclusion. 5 The following remarkswill address four 6 areas. 7 Conditionaldemand analysis; 8 Metered studies and their relationship to 9 accepted energy consumption percentages for microwave 10 ovens. 11 First: Conditional demand analysis, 12 otherwise known as CDA, is an application of linear 13 regression analysis which uses as variables the 14 customer's total annual use of electricity and other 15 variables characteristic of specific customers. 16 CDA end use consumption can be estimated 17 from survey and billing data. 18 It sounds good, but is it? One would 19 certainly suspect thevalidity of such amethod for 20 microwave ovenswhen one reads in the literature some 21 of the quotes. Inmywritten comments, there are 8 22 quotes, Iwill just choose three. 23 The CDA methodology can give seriously79 1 biased estimates of appliance end-use electricity 2 consumption if the assumptions of the underlying 3 regressionmodel are not fully satisfied. 4 The widest range of unit energy consumption 5 values in almost every enduse comes from conditional 6 demand studies where estimates frequentlyvary by as 7 much of a factor of 5 or 10 within the same end use. 8 Finally, the last quote: 9 CDA appears to produce significantly 10 different mean estimatesmore frequently than other 11 methods. Perhaps due to the sensitivity of CDA 12 results to the specification of the underlying 13 regression model invariables. 14 Let's take a look now at some studies of 15 the conditional demand analysis so that you can be 16 very clear about why I'm concerned about them. These 17 studies are listed in the bibliography. There are 9 18 citations, there are some here, but let's take a 19 look. 20 The Sierra Pacific Power, has a kilowatt 21 hour recommendation of 203, with a standard deviation 22 of 182. 23 Or thev used. in that same studv. a randnm

- _ . --- r - __ -- - - - - -. r - -- --80 1 coefficient regression inwhich the final is 284 with 2 a standard deviation of 142. That's pretty,pretty 3 wide standard deviation. 4 Or look at the range on residential end use 5 consumption done in 1989. A range of 162 to 687 or, 6 in theutility estimate study, a range of 96 to 980. 7 That's a terriblywide range. 8 If you looked at all of these, you would 9 get an average conditional demand of 256. Just kind 10 of tuck that intoyourmemory for a fewminutes. 11 Now let's take a look at another subject: 12 that's the end-usemetering. As Itold you last 13 year, Ibelieve that that is the only true way of 14 determining actualmicrowave oven usage because it is 15 the way that you determine what is actually cooked 16 with the microwave oven. 17 Yes, I am aware that end-use studies done 18 bymetering are costly and are usually only completed 19 with a small sample of consumers. Last year, you may 20 recall, Iwas only able touncover one of them. 21 However, I still believe, as upheld by the 22 literature, that this is the best way. 23 There are six quotes inmy report, Iwill81 1 onlymention three. 2 One: With careful sampling, 3 instrumentation, quality control, and data analysis, 4 the directmetering approach can give unbiased 5 estimates of the average end-use consumption of the 6 target appliances. 7 Two: These findings confirm the importance 8 of direct metering of end-use electricity 9 consumption; and, 10 Three: These results confirm the importance 11 of EIP's direct metering approach for collecting 12 unbiased and reliable end-use energy consumption. 13 Let's take looknow at what the literature 14 shows us about end-use metering studies. 15 The first onewas the first one that I 16 mentioned last year, the Sierra Pacific study of 77 17 kilowatt hours. 18 Wewould, in addition, be able to find all 19 the rest of these, including the three thatwere 20 reported in the LBL's baseline data. 21 Notice what happens whenyou segregate the 22 end-usemetering studies. 23 Now, this is certainly awider universe,82 1 and yet the range on this universe is as low as 68 to 2 ahigh of 114. 3 Apretty narrow range when you consider the 4 range that we just talked about under the conditional 5 demand analysis. 6 Ifyou take all of these together, you get 7 an averaged metered study of 91.4. That certainly 8 seems to me to be farmore accurate than whatwe had 9 talked about earlier. 10 The third areawhich Ibelieve you need to 11 revisit is the study of baseline data for the 12 residential sector and development of a residential 13 forecasting database, whichwas completed in May 1994 14 and is supported by the assistant secretary for 15 energy efficiency and renewable energy. 16 Now, Iwas really excited to have this sent 17 tome byJack Weizeorick, becausemy assumption, 18 before I read it andmaybe even as I started to read 19 it, that this work shouldbe totally accurate. 20 Well, let's take a look at some of the 21 conclusions: On page 111 of the study, we read the 22 following: 23 Quote. "TheUECs for cookina in the

-I ---- --I

--- ----83 1 residential forecasting data base are 130 kilowatt 2 hours per year formicrowave ovens." 3 Well, that was pretty good, but can you 4 tellmewhy the DOE didn'tuse the 130 kilowatthour 5 figure from the study, whichyou supported, rather 6 than the 143.2, which is listed in the Federal 7 Register? 8 The total for cooking in ahome where 9 electricity is used for cookingwould be 945 kilowatt 10 hours for all the cooking. 11 The study relates that cooking accounts for 12 about 7percent of residential electricity 13 consumption. Well, that sounded okay, but let's take 14 that a little further. 15 Given these conclusions that 945 would 16 represent 7percent of the residential electricity 17 consumption, itwould bedetermined that the average 18 household where electricitywas used for cooking, 19 would have an annual electricity consumption of 20 13,500. 21 Well, is this correct? A search of all of 22 the studies found the following estimated residential 23 electric consumption. One was 9383, all the way up84 1 to 10,967, which gives an average consumption of 2 10,200. 3 Now, obviously,LBL's estimate is 32 4 percentmore than that. I guess my question is, how 5 can you accept assumptions, based on something that 6 can't be justifiedwhenyou look into the literature. 7 Now, if you use LBL's assumption of the 7 8 percentpower and the microwave energy usage, and you 9 use the 10,200, then thatwould reduce LBL's 130 10 kilowatt hoursper year to 111 kilowatthoursyear, 11 and Iwould like to use that 111, whichyou will see. 12 The 7percent electricity used for cooking 13 that LBL uses, certainlydisagrees with your very own 14 household energy consumption and expenditures, which 15 Ishowed you last year, that says there is .7percent 16 for amicrowave oven and 3.8 for the ranges in the 17 oven, whichwould giveyou a total of 4.5 percent. 18 Now, in that 4.5 percent -- I realize this 19 figure is from 1987; we heard Jack say there's less 20 use, probably, of ranges and ovens andperhaps 21 slightlymore use for amicrowave oven, but even 22 given the fact that thismight change within the.4.5 23 percent, even if thiswent up to 1percent of the85 1 microwave oven, that's only 100 kilowatt hoursper 2 year. 3 I can find no evidence to show that there 4 has been an increase in cooking, whichwould 5 translate into an increase in electric consumption, 6 to go somewhere between 4-1/2 and 7. I don't know 7 how to do that. 8 Ican findmyriads of studies that show 9 there is a decline in cooking because there aremore 10 women working, because there are busierhouseholds, 11 and certainly because of thewider availability of 12 prepared foods, which simply need to be reheated. 13 Now, the amount of electricity used by 14 microwave ovens is so small that certainly it seems 15 tomicrowave industry that it doesn't want, norwould 16 it be cost-beneficial to have an energy standard for 17 microwave ovens. 18 In summary, then, what is it that we, the 19 microwave oven industry want? 20 Well, one, we would likeyou not to use 21 conditional demand analysis for determiningmicrowave 22 ovenusage until the underlying assumptions used in 23 their regression analysis, are realistic. LBL did86 1 use them in their study. 2 No. 2: We really encourage and want you to 3 use the end-usemetering studies, particularly since 4 their number of studies availablehas increased and 5 the results arevery, very similar. 6 No. 3: Wewould ask you to reevaluate the 7 \LBL baseline studymore carefully so that all of the 8 assumptions are logical and are confirmedwith other 9 known data sources. 10 And, finally: We would ask that you accept 11 AHAM's original figure that 100 kilowatt hoursper 12 year be used formicrowave ovens. Please recall that 13 the end-usemetered studies average 91.4 kilowatt 14 hours. 15 Please recall that even if we said that 1 16 percent of the energy that's usedby themicrowave 17 oven, that's around 100.2 kilowatt hours per year, 18 and if we used the 111 kilowatt hours based on a 19 reasonable total household usage, rather than the 20 130, which was based on extremely high household 21 usage from the LBL study, then the averagingwould be 22 101.2 kilowatt hoursper year. 23 We appreciate the opportunity to discuss87 1 our concerns andhopefullyyour willingness toreview 2 and revise the figure of 143.2 kilowatt hours per 3 year, to the 100 kilowatt hours peryear for 4 microwave ovens. 5 Finally, to paraphrase Marcia Clark: The 6 microwave oven industry rests. 7 Thankyou. 8 MS. WATSON: Steve, do you have any 9 questions? 10 MR. NABINGER: Ihave no questions. 11 Brian. 12 Bryan. 13 MS. WATSON: Ihave a comment. 14 QUESTIONS ANDANSWERS 15 MS. WATSON: What conditional demand 16 analysis are you referring to the LBLuse? 17 MS. DANIEL: Theymentioned in this study 18 andyou'll see it listed in here, they had several 19 studies that they included in their analysis of the 20 130. 21 If you look in theAppendix, it reiterates 22 each one of them. 23 MS. WATSON: Doyou have any of the88 1 reports? 2 MS. DANIEL: Yes, the one that you 3 provided, the LBL. The full study reiterates them. 4 Ican give you page and number. Idon't have it with 5 me right now, but that's where I got it. 6 MS. WATSON: Okay. I alsohave a 7 discrepancywith your average. The three reporting 8 and baseline. 9 MS. DANIEL: Yes. You'll find that in the 10 study. 11 MS. WATSON: Well, the 1990 -- the first 12 three were three that Ithought were included. 13 MS. DANIEL: No. These three, the 1994, 14 are three reported in the baseline figure, and they 15 use '96 as their figure. That's in the LBL study, 16 thepublished study. 17 MS. WATSON: The published. Okay. 18 MS. DANIEL: It's in the published study. 19 It's, Ithink, three different ones. 20 MS. WATSON: Iunderstand what you're 21 sayingnow. 22 MS. DANIEL: It's in a chartwhere theydo 23 conditional demand analysis in one column; the89 1 engineering report,which there are none, for 2 microwave ovens, there's an end-usemetering study, 3 and a utilities efficiency study,which I did not 4 address. 5 MS. WATSON: In the Federal Register,we 6 noted thatwe used the first three studies that 7 you've noted here. I just wanted to make sure that 8 you understood that. 9 MS. DANIEL: Right. But you cameup with 10 143.2, and considering that LBL had used conditional 11 demand analysis, I request that you take those 12 figures out. 13 MS. WATSON: Okay. 14 MR.MARGOLIS: Iwas wondering if you could 15 explainparagraph 2on page 1,whereyou say that DOE 16 is proposing to change the annual useful cooking 17 energy from 34.2 to 77.3 kilowatthours per year. 18 What number are you saying that it should 19 be? 20 MS. DANIEL: The 143.2 is the 77.3 with the 21 54 percent efficiency; it's the same number. In 22 there, you're talking about annualuseful cooking 23 energy, and Iwas referring to the input to the90 1 microwave oven, whichyou have used the 54 percent 2 efficiency. 3 MR.MARGOLIS: I see. That's all. 4 MS. WATSON: Thank you. 5 Will someone be speaking for DennisWilson 6 today? 7 MR.WEIZEORICK: I incorporated his 8 testimony withmine. 9 MS. WATSON: Okay. We'll do onemore 10 speaker for clothes washer. 11 Chuck Samuels, will you be speaking for 12 clotheswashers? 13 MR. SAMUELS: Sure. 14 MS. WATSON: Okay. 15 MR. SAMUELS: What is your intention, to do 16 a lunch break after I speak or to continue? 17 MS. WATSON: Approximately how long will 18 CurtRiechman's presentation be? 19 MR. RIECHMAN: About 10 minutes. 20 MR. SAMUELS: 10 minutes. 21 MS. WATSON: 10minutes. WE'd like to 22 includeyou in and thenbreak for lunch. 23 MR. STILWELL: It is in a different order.91 1 I think I was going to be first. I had 30 minutes 2 allowed. 3 MS. WATSON: Your name is? 4 MR. SAMUELS: Dick Stilwell. 5 MR. MARGOLIS: Excuseme. How long do you 6 think this clothes washer presentation will be? 7 MR. SAMUELS: I believe we could complete 8 this all within an hour, and although obviously we're 9 in your hands, we would prefer just to proceed. We 10 thinkwe could wrap this up. 11 MS. WATSON: Okay. That's fine, then. 12 We can take a five-minute break. 13 [Recess] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2392 1 MS. WATSON: Canwe please start the 2 hearing. We are going to reconvene. 3 Iwould like to ask, if there are any 4 unscheduled speakers toplease go to the registration 5 desk andyou'll see ablank card. Fill out your name 6 and the company that your represent. 7 Iwould like to reconvene with clothes 8 washers with Charles Samuels. 9 MR. SAMUELS: Thank you verymuch. 10 CLOTHESWASHERS 11 CHARLES SAMUELS 12 MR. SAMUELS: I just wanted to make two or 13 three comments. 14 The first thing is that the revision of the 15 clotheswasher testprocedure is a complicated 16 situation becausewe have several factors in play. 17 We have an ongoing rulemaking, we have the 18 fact that technology is changing, and we have the 19 fact that we want tomake some changes on an interim 20 basis and thenmake some changes on a longer-term 21 basis. 22 The interaction between all of these 23 elements is very complicated, andwe compliment DOE93 1 on the way that you are attempting to juggle this. 2 Marc LaFrance, in particular, is doing an excellent 3 job in trying to understand the substantive issues 4 and try and dealwith questions of process and 5 timing. 6 The second point Iwant to make is that we 7 will be presenting testimony today on behalf ofAHAM, 8 with respect to interim and sort of long-term or 9 final or full test procedures. 10 AHAMhasno position, however, on the 11 energy conservation standards that might be proposed. 12 It's important that the two not be 13 confused. So, therefore, although the industry as a 14 whole is supportingmethods to measure RMC, AHAM is 15 not taking any position on whether RMC should be 16 included, ultimately, in standards, whether or not 17 it's legally justified or justified as amatter of 18 policy. I justwant tomake that distinction. 19 The other thing Iwant to say, our 20 testimony today, as Imentioned,will be on both the 21 interim and the final or full test procedure. We 22 recognize and support that the interim test 23 procedure, as you have proposed, with whatever94 1 revisions wemight recommend, should go into effect 2 fairly quickly, and that the final or full test 3 procedure shouldnot go into effect until the 4 effective date of a new standard. 5 However, we think that it's very 6 important -- and I think that you agree with this

-- 7 any proposal for a full revision to the test 8 procedurebe dealt withby DOE now, in the process of 9 this rule making, so that the materials we have 10 previously supplied to you and that we're, in effect, 11 supplying to you in this hearing as aproposal for a 12 final testprocedure, shouldbe publicly 13 disseminated,how ever you feel appropriate now. 14 Comments on it should be made on it in the 15 course of thisproceeding, even if that means that 16 you feel itmight be useful to publish some 17 additionalmaterial in the Federal Register and 18 perhaps extend the commentperiod. We leave that up 19 toyou. 20 But, in any case, what you want todo is to 21 integrate the test procedure rulemaking so that 22 industry and all other interestedparties, and there 23 are other interestedparties, will know as soon as95 1 possible what you think the final test procedurewill 2 be thatwill apply to products that are manufactured 3 under new standardswith asmuch lead time notice 4 about that aspossible and, of course, that that test 5 procedurewill be available for people to use when 6 theymake their comments onwhat energy standards for 7 theseproducts should be. 8 So those are just the preliminary points I 9 wanted tomake before our technical peoplemake their 10 comments. Does anyonehave any questions or comments 11 about that? 12 MR. LaFRANCE: Not at this point. Thank 13 you for your remarks we'll talkmore from the 14 technical issues when Jack comes up and all the 15 others. Thanks. 16 DICK STILWELL 17 MR. STILWELL: My name is Dick Stilwell. I 18 am director of design andmaterial evaluation at 19 Maytag and research anddevelopment, and also 20 chairman of AHAM Laundry Task Force Group. 21 Sincewe have already submitted the 22 completed test procedure to DOE, I'm going to confine 23 my remarks today to some of the background and hit96 1 some of the high spots and the highlights of the 2 major changes in the test procedure. 3 Obviously, to go into this test procedure 4 in detail at this time would take abetter part of a 5 day,maybemore than a day, sowe'll hit the high 6 spots. 7 This started back in February of '93. 8 There was ameeting held atNISTwith all of the 9 majorU.S. manufacturers and other stakeholders. I 10 think of the detergentmanufacturers werepresent and 11 suppliers to the appliance industrywere present. 12 Thismeetingwas prompted, basically, by 13 two factors. One was the fact that DOE had 14 recognized the need for an update. The test 15 procedure that wewere usingwas developed over 20 16 years ago and there have been a lot of changes in 17 consumerhabits and practices since that period of 18 time. 19 The other reasonwas that there was a need 20 expressedby, Ibelieve it was Steve Nadel of ACEEE 21 for formulas that couldbe used for the utility 22 industry in determining rebates and that would 23 include, of course, water consumption.97 1 One of the other factors I think thathe 2 was interested inwas improved extractions, some way 3 of factoring that in, a test procedure for that. 4 As a result of that meeting, basically, a 5 task force was organized that included allmajor U.S. 6 manufacturers,plus Asko andMiele. 7 The goals of the task force, which weren't 8 all developed right away but some goals were added as 9 developments dictated, obviously was to update 10 temperatureuse factors with the latest consumer 11 data. 12 As I indicated earlier, there have been a 13 lot of changes over 20 years, and the changes 14 basically were away from the use of hot water, toward 15 the use of cold water, and so that the old test 16 procedure really significantly overstated the energy 17 consumption ofwashing machines. 18 There were a couple of other reasons that 19 it overstated it. Ithink one was an error in one of 20 the calculations and another reasonwas the fact that 21 hot water assumption was higher than actual hot water 22 usage is today. 23 One of our other aoals was to clarify98 1 language and errors thatwere subject to 2 interpretation, and wewere also trying to make the 3 test proceduremore friendly toward any new energy 4 saving technologies. 5 I think looking down the road we could see 6 the potential for a succession ofpetitions for 7 waiver of testprocedure, for electronic controls or 8 new energy saving technologies thatmight emerge that 9 weren't adequately handled by the test procedure. 10 One of our other goals was to tie the 11 washing and drying process together through the use 12 of remainingmoisture content. Obviously, extraction 13 is amajor factor in overall energy consumption, and 14 we developed a test procedure and then it ties these 15 two things together. 16 Our last goalwas to simplify the test 17 procedure and, frankly,we failed badly on that one. 18 It's gotten more complicated than simpler. 19 Idid want tomention that this was avery 20 significant effort by the industry. We spent a lot 21 ofhours and a lot of dollars. 22 This was amajor effort to totally redo 23 this test procedure. We did this basically at a time99 1 whenmost all of us were in the midst ofvery 2 engineering-intensive activities in ourwon facility, 3 so itwas amajor effort. A lot of us put a lot of 4 hours in. 5 During this process, we held two workshops 6 with all interested parties invited. They didn't 7 always attend but they were invited. 8 The second workshop, we reviewed the test 9 procedure to that date and time in great detail, line 10 by line, and during thiswhole process, therewas a 11 lot of coordination and discussions back and forth 12 with DOE andNIST during the development of this test 13 procedure. 14 Themost important thing is that, although 15 most of us in the industry can't agree on anything 16 else, wehave agreed on the testprocedure as it is 17 submitted to DOE. There is unanimous consensus on 18 that. 19 I'll hit some of the highlights of the 20 changes -- major changes -- in the test procedure. .21 We hope we have gotten rid of some of the 22 ambiguity and the language. We've used language and 23 termination and technology that we hope will leave100 1 less room formultiple interpretations. 2 We also, obviously, updated temperatureuse 3 factors. This is based on the latest Proctor & 4 Gamble survey data. 5 We've also changed the hotwater 6 temperature assumption. I think that's gone from 140 7 to 135 degrees. 8 We have included aprocedure for washers 9 with adaptive fill controls. Obviously, one of the 10 areas for potential energy savings is controlling the 11 amount ofwater that's used in the machine, since 12 most of the energy thatwashers use is the energy 13 required to heat thewater that goes into it. 14 We know that consumers are notoriouslypoor 15 judges of load size. They'll put in amedium load 16 and fill it clear upwith water. So there's a 17 potential for energy savings there. 18 We have also included aprocedure for the 19 European type machines,most of which have only a 20 cold tap water connection and heat thewater 21 internally. We have developed aprocedure for 22 evaluating the energy consumption of those machines. 23 We are also runningmost of our tests with101 1 test loads, and those test load sizes are based on 2 washbasket capacity. 3 We have also included a formula forwater 4 consumption. This formula does not enter in the 5 energy calculation in any waybut is there primarily 6 just for theuse of utilities for any rebate purposes 7 itmight have. 8 The remaining moisture content is avery 9 important number because that is the connection 10 between thewasher and the dryer. That-number is 11 used to determine the dryer energy, which is amajor 12 factor then in the modified energy factor, which we 13 are suggesting be used fromnow on. 14 The modified energy factor includes total 15 washer energy and total dry energy and is based on 16 capacity. 17 MR. MARGOLIS: Excuse me. 18 MR. STILWELL: Yes. 19 MR. MARGOLIS: Youhave developed this 20 modified energy factorwhich includes drying energy. 21 MR. STILWELL: Yes. 22 MR.MARGOLIS: But Iheard Mr. Samuels say 23 that AHAM is noncommittal on whether or not it102 1 supports or doesn't support a standard being based on 2 this. 3 MR. STILWELL: That's correct. 4 MR. MARGOLIS: My question is, why do we 5 have it? Imean, if you don't support it, then why 6 did you come to a test procedure for it, which would 7 thenbase a standard on it. Sinceyou have a test 8 procedure, then you couldbase a standard on it. 9 MR. STILWELL: That's true. This is just a 10 procedure, and this procedure allows for the use of 11 washer extraction to be factored on. We're not 12 suggesting that it be factored in or not factored in, 13 the test procedure does allow for it. 14 MR.MARGOLIS: Andyou're saying everyone, 15 allmanufacturers, the environmentalists, and the 16 trade association, AHAM, support the test procedure? 17 MR. STILWELL: That's correct. 18 MR. MARGOLIS: Okay. 19 MR. STILWELL: Thenwe anticipate there are 20 probably going to be some types of controls or some 21 machines that are going to be so different that this 22 test procedure will not.adequately measure the energy 23 consumption of those units, so we have developed a103 1 standardized field test procedure for those systems. 2 It's there, then, if anymanufacturer feels 3 that the test proceduredoes not adequatelymeasure 4 theirwasher, they can use a field test, to then use 5 that information to pursue awaiver of test 6 procedure. 7 That is essentially the changes. 8 Of course, Idid want to mention that the 9 modified energy factor is very different from the 10 energy factor-number that we have today. The two 11 numbers arenot comparable, so obviously any new 12 standard that is to be developed should be developed 13 using this new test procedure. 14 Questions? 15 QUESTIONSAND ANSWERS 16 MR.NABINGER: Ihave no questions. 17 MS. WATSON: Questions? 18 MR. STILWELL: Iwas just reminded thatwe 19 cannot say that all of the environmentalists support 20 this. We don't know of any objection to it, but, by 21 the same token, theyhave not told us that they all 22 support it either. 23 MR.MARGOLIS: ACEEE and NRDC, have been104 1 consulted? 2 MR. STILWELL: They were invited to the 3 workshop but they did not come. 4 MR.LaFRANCE: And they have been provided 5 a copy lastweek and are presently reviewing it and 6 will provide comment by the end of the comment 7 period. 8 MS. WATSON: Marc, any comments? 9 MR. LaFRANCE: Ihave a couple of comments. 10 First of all, Iwould like to thank AHAM 11 for initiating this effort. It has really been 12 helpful to move ahead with the future test procedure 13 for the use of next round of standards. 14 Iguess Ihave several technology 15 questions, and I'mnot really sure at whatpoint in 16 time I should ask them, because I knowyou have 17 severalpresenters coming up here. 18 Do you think I should wait until the end of 19 yourpresentations to call the questions? Right now 20 wouldbe agood time to go over a few things. 21 Since you talked about theMEF equation, I 22 notice that you're using a .83 with a DUF -- a dry 23 utilization factor. TNGhas recommended 84.4.105 1 MR. STILWELL: That's correct. 2 MR. LaFRANCE: Iwas wondering if you 3 provide the basis for the .83. 4 MR. STILWELL: Ithink we probably need to 5 caucus on that but I'm guessing that we would 6 probably go along with .84. 7 MR.LaFRANCE: Okay. Also, on the tufs 8 (ph), that's been apoint of contention, I guess, to 9 some extent over several revisions; the last revision 10 or the final version that was presented to us, is 11 very close to the original thatwas presented to us. 12 At that point in time, the basis was like 13 P&G data for 1992 and 1993. 14 We're curious if that's still the same 15 basis orwas it done on a different type of 16 regression or something, because Iknow there was 17 quite a lot ofwork done on that effort. 18 MR. STILWELL: I'm not sure I can answer 19 that right off the top ofmy head. 20 AUDIENCE: Iwill be talking about that, 21 Marc, inmy testimony. 22 MR. LaFRANCE: Okay. 23 Also, you've recommended that we adopt

. ,106 1 several things. You said several elements of your 2 newproposed test procedure into the DOE proposed 3 test procedure referred to as the interim test 4 procedure. 5 MR. STILWELL: Yes. 6 MR. LaFRANCE: It appears that some of the 7 comments relate to test burdens, for example, getting 8 rid of the ranges for the scale and things like that. 9 Is that the primarypurpose for something like that, 10 to produce ambiguity in the test procedure

-- 11 existing interim test procedure? Not the existing, 12 but theproposed interim test procedure? 13 MR. STILWELL: Yes. Whenwe developed the 14 new testprocedure, we tried to develop it in all 15 areas, including the definitions and also in the test 16 equipment used and the tolerances, andwe thought 17 thiswould also be a good time to lift that section 18 out andput it right into the interim test procedure, 19 just kind of make an orderly transition then. 20 MR. LaFRANCE: Okay. I guess one thing 21 thatw have proposed in the interim test procedure is 22 ameans of testing an automatic water-filled 23 controlled clothes washer or amachine-controlled107 1 clothes washer. 2 Inotice that that is not one of your 3 recommendations for adoption into the interim. In 4 other words, your version of the adaptivewater5 filled controlled feature or provision in the test 6 procedure. 7 The initial remarks from Chuck said that 8 you support everything else in the existing DOE 9 procedure. 10 So if that were to be the case, then I 11 believe AHAM is saying that you agree with the 12 Department's version of the automatic fill control 13 provisionversus theAHAMprovision that has been 14 proposed? 15 Because Ibelieve that the Departmentmay 16 give too large of a credit inwhat wepropose versus 17 what has been developedby AHAM. 18 MR. STILWELL: Our position -- our industry 19 position -- is basically that there was no consensus 20 within the industry on using this adaptive control 21 test procedure at this time. 22 Whenwe developed the new testprocedure as 23 proposed, the new test procedure anticipated that108 1 this wouldbe put into effect sometime in the future, 2 this adaptive fill control, and there was not 3 agreementwithin the industry to go ahead andpick 4 that particular one out and put it in the interim 5 test procedure. Itwas amatter of timing. 6 MR. LaFRANCE: Right. Possibly, if AHAM 7 could elaborate on that particularpoint or its 8 members provide individual comments relative to what 9 we should adopt for the interim. In other words, 10 right now, we've proposed ameans of testing those 11 types of machines because it's an improve in energy 12 efficiency, and we want to encourage that, obviously. 13 So if we couldget comment from the members 14 aswell as AHAM, if it's something thatAHAM really 15 can't provide us because of the situation. 16 Let's see. 17 Also,maybe you all could give some 18 elaboration on the Department proposed a consumption 19 factor, and the AHAM test procedureprovides ameans 20 of testing the total consumption. 21 But in amarketplacewithvarying capacity 22 sizes, it'll just show.the total amount of water 23 that's consumed by that particularmachine, andwon't109 1 put it on an equal basis, which iswhat the factor 2 was supposed to do. 3 We'd be interested in getting some comment 4 relative to what's the advantage of not having a 5 consumption factor versus having a consumption 6 factor. 7 I guess, also, AHAM is proposing to change 8 themethod ofmeasuring the capacity in the interim 9 testprocedure. 10 It's.prettymuch the same thing, except the 11 Departmentproposed two versions, one whichwould 12 address front loader type of machines and one that 13 address top loadermachines. 14 Basically, the clothes washer wouldhave to 15 be turned on its side versus standing there at its 16 normal duration. 17 Is that something that you feel is 18 intuitive to theperson running the test or they have 19 to turn it over, otherwise, you can't fill it up? 20 MR. STILWELL: Right. Yes. 21 MR. LaFRANCE: It's just a simple thing 22 where it's self-explanatory? 23 MR. STILWELL: We assume that everybody110 1 will be able to figure outhow to measure the volume 2 of one, whether it's vertical or horizontal. 3 MR. LaFRANCE: All right. One thing about 4 the capacity, Iguess, is a concern, which wasn't 5 presented in the Proposed Rule, but is something that 6 we've learned about that we're a little concerned 7 about. 8 That is, on a top loader, conventional, 9 vertical axis machine, there is the tub ring, I guess 10 you'd call it. I'm not sure if there's a terminology 11 within the industry of what you call that. And 12 there's the basket that comes up, and then you have 13 the ring on top. 14 Right now, to measure the capacity, the 15 industry is going to the uppermost limit for the test 16 procedures, which says, right at the top, and that 17 amount of space for the ring varies by model. It 18 could be maybe ahalf an inch to asmuch as three 19 inches. 20 MR. STILWELL: Yes. 21 MR. LaFRANCE: That is kind of a concern 22 because the definition -- I shouldn't say definition 23 but the measure of testing -- specified that111 1 something close to the usable space for the clothing, 2 and it seems tome that that ring space wouldn't 3 really beusable space on the clothing because it's 4 not even the basketpart. 5 That seems to be that that could provide a 6 larger credit to that type of test. 7 MR. STILWELL: That's correct. 8 MR. LaFRANCE: It's a concern to us, and if 9 AHAM couldprovide comment on that, or its members, 10 wewould appreciate that as well. 11 MR. STILWELL: I'd like to comment on that. 12 We did try to tackle that situation early 13 on, and one of our suggestions was to move the 14 maximum fill level as the usable volume of the 15 washer. 16 However, in thinking towards the future, 17 there's thepossibility that people may be able to 18 figure outhow towash in avertical axis washerwith 19 very small amounts of water. In this case, that kind 20 of ameasurementwould penalize them, sowe didn't go 21 that direction. 22 About the onlyway we could come up with is 23 the one that we'reusing now, realizing that it's not112 1 totally accurate but it's the best we could do. 2 MR. LaFRANCE: Wouldn't there be away to 3 possiblydefine it by saying to the uppermost portion 4 of the basket, not including any type of ring 5 surface, or something like that, that would at least 6 keep it down to that lower surface within the basket? 7 We all know the water level may change 8 within the basket itself, which could drop it below 9 the topportion, but that seems to be the space or 10 the clothing. Is there any way that that could 11 possibly bedefined? 12 Because, right now, depending on the 13 thickness of that ring, there could be apretty large 14 disparity as to the measurement of the volume, the 15 usable volume versus that testmethod. 16 MR. STILWELL: Well, we can certainly 17 revisit that and discuss it again, see if there is a 18 more accurate way of doing it. As I say, the first 19 time wewent through this, we couldn't come up with 20 one that everybodywould agree to. We can take 21 another look at it. 22 MR. LaFRANCE: All right. I guess the last 23 question Ihave deals with the warmwash.113 1 The proposed test procedure calculates the 2 warmwash energy consumptionversus testing for 3 uniformly distributed temperature selections. 4 MR. STILWELL: Yes. 5 MR. LaFRANCE: It also says that you must 6 test fornon-uniformly distributed temperature 7 selections. Iguess the problem Ihave is that there 8 is not adefinition as towhat is uniformly 9 distributed. 10 So, for example, if you have amachine that 11 has 60 degree cold and 135 degree hot, and if the 12 uniformly distributedmachine would have 97.5 degree 13 warmth, what's the tolerance on that 97.5? 14 MR. STILWELL: Well, the intermediate 15 temperature doesn't have to be a fixed number. It 16 can be any number inbetween, as long as the number 17 on the other side of warm is also spaced equally. 18 MR. LaFRANCE: Right. So, in other words, 19 if the cold was 70 and the hot was not 125, in other 20 words, that's uniformly distributed no matter where 21 you are in that range, sowherever the cold is and 22 the hot is, the warmwould be between thorn two? 23 MR. STILWELL: Not necessarily.114 1 MR. LaFRANCE: Okay. I guess I need to get 2 further explanation on that. 3 MR. STILWELL: No. For example, ifyou had 4 135 degreehot and youhad 95 degree warm, youmight 5 have an intermediate temperature that was 105, and 6 thatwouldbe 10 degrees abovewarm. You might have 7 one thatwas 85, itwould be 10 degrees below warm. 8 Theywould be equally distributed, but they 9 wouldn't behalfway between, necessarily, between 10 warm andhot andwarm and cold. 11 MR. LaFRANCE: Okay. Well, I guess that 12 explainsmy concern about howwould we define 13 uniformly distributed as a concern. 14 Also, since the calculation is bsed on the 15 135, becauseyou're basically testing the hot, and 16 everythingyou're calculating for warm is based on 17 what the hot temperature is. 18 If you're looking at a range of warms that 19 are below or above themedium from cold to hot, then 20 you couldhave aproblem. Iguess it needs to be 21 defined better. 22 Also, the procedure goes on to say if it's 23 not uniformly distributed, you need to te-t all of115 1 them. 2 I believe there are machines today -- I'm 3 not sure about this, and hopefully you can clarify 4 that -- that have infinite temperature selections. 5 So in that scenario, and it was not uniformly 6 distributed, for example. 7 MR. STILWELL: Well, if they were infinite, 8 theywould be uniformly distributed. 9 MR. LaFRANCE: No matterwhat it would be. 10 Okay. So thatwould cover that scenario. 11 MR. STILWELL: Right. 12 MR. LaFRANCE; All right. Just getting 13 back to thatpoint then,uniformly distributed, if 14 that could bedefined, Ithink it could be somewhat 15 of aproblem, at least from a test point. 16 The manufacturer knows it's uniformly 17 distributed, but the person testing it, if it was an 18 independent lab or whatever else, we'd need to know. 19 Okay. That's all. Thank you verymuch. 20 MR. STILWELL: Okay. 21 MS. WATSON: Gene, any comments? 22 MR. MARGOLIS: Yes. We've proposed amended 23 test procedures, andAHAM cameback with comments on116 1 our proposal,whichwe'll call the interim, and then 2 came backwith a test procedure to cover the time 3 when amended standards would go into place. 4 My concern or question -- and Iwould have 5 to -- it's notnecessary for you to comment on now, 6 but if you wish, of course, youmay -- but inyour 7 written comments, to give us your reasons whyyou 8 think we can go finalwith this final test procedure 9 whenwe had not proposed it, but that you have come 10 back in this hearing with comments on a new final 11 test procedure. 12 MR. STILWELL: I'm not sure Iunderstand 13 that question. Areyou saying that we -- 14 MR. MARGOLIS: It'smore directed to 15 Mr. Samuels. That you have given DOE comments on our 16 proposed testprocedure for a completely new test 17 procedure to go into effect '99 or some -- 18 MR. STILWELL: Whenever anew standardgoes 19 into effect. 20 MR.MARGOLIS: Yes, something like that. 21 We did notpropose that. Wemade a 22 proposal whichwe areproposing now to be the 23 interim. I'm asking, wouldyou giveus your117 1 thoughts. I'm not'disagreeingwith you. I justneed 2 to elicit informationwhy we can go, say, final with 3 the so-called final test procedures and nothave to 4 repropose them. 5 MR. SAMUELS: Letme just respond to that 6 now and I can respond to it further inwriting if you 7 want. 8 What our problem is is thatwhen this 9 enterprise between DOE andNIST andAHAM began, it 10 looked like there was enough time to do the interim 11 test procedure and then the so-called final test 12 procedure and do them in separate rulemakings. 13 What's nowhappened is the time ismoving 14 now and collapsing, and the two activities are 15 running into each other, so it's desirable to do them 16 all once, even though the final test procedure won't 17 be in effect until final standards go in effect. 18 We recognize; of course, that you didn't 19 publish whatwe'venowproposed, and that's why I 20 suggested to you thatyou might want to do that. 21 I leave it up toyou whetheryou need to 22 call it a reproposal or just simply say thismaterial 23 was presented to us, and we nowwant the public also118 1 to comment on this, and then you can extend the 2 commentperiod, for someperiod of time, given the 3 opportunity to do that. 4 What we discourageyou from doing, because 5 we know that it will create a significant time lag, 6 is to start awhole new rulemaking. 7 So foryou tohave a comfort level, you 8 need to go out in the Federal Register again, that's 9 fine. We've tried to help you out by circulating our 10 test procedure to all people that we know that are 11 interested, but obviously it could be other people 12 that are interested. 13 I think the easiest thing for you to do is 14 to republish, with any commentary youmight want to 15 put on it, whatwe've given you in the Federal 16 Register, immediately extend the comment period a few 17 weeks and keep it all in the same rule making and 18 then youwon't have anyproblem, or you could call it 19 an amended proposed rule or whateveryou want to do. 20 So that's what we're trying to dealwith 21 here. We're trying to balance the need to get this 22 completed andpublic and, of course,withyour need 23 to followproperprocedure, but I don't think there119 1 should be anyproblem in doing that if you followmy 2 suggestion or some variation on it. 3 MR.MARGOLIS: Thankyou verymuch. 4 MS. WATSON: Jim, didyou have any 5 questions forMr. Stilwell? 6 MR. KAO: Couple questions. 7 In connectionwith Marc's question about 8 the uniformlydistributed temperature, in a non9 uniformity is the temperature control. If that test 10 all of the intermediate, seems to me that's not

-- 11 you know, would that be 10 intermediate or 20 12 intermediate? 13 MR. STILWELL: Whatever they are. Whatever 14 they are. If they're not uniformlydistributed, 15 right. Imean, there could be amachine that could 16 have 3, it could have 10, I suppose. Unlikely, but 17 it could. If ithad that many and they weren't 18 evenly distributed, then you would have to check them 19 all. 20 MR. KAO: But non-uniformly, any could 21 occur. 22 MR. STILWELL: Yes. They're non-uniformly 23 distributed throughout the range of cold tohot.120 1 MR.KAO: The second question is about the 2 moisture removal, the remaining moisture. 3 You have aminus 4percent. Was that 4 because of the last 4percent energyyou put in to 5 remove it? You're moving the energy, is really keep 6 the thing up. 7 MR. STILWELL: Yes. That's about the 8 natural moisture content of most fabrics, is about 4 9 percent, especially cotton fabrics, right. 10 MR.KAO: Do you have any kind of apass or 11 something? 12 MR. STILWELL: Yes. 13 MR. SAMUELS: It's the way the dryer test 14 is done. 15 MR. KAO: My lastpoint is, in the paper 16 you sent to AHAM to recommend that certain sections 17 be point in this rulemaking, that's not really 18 complete. Some of the sections really ought to be 19 in, if we fully incorporate that procedure, so it's 20 not completely numbers on sections. 21 MR. SAMUELS: No. 22 MR. STILWELL: That'll be addressed by the 23 next speaker, regarding the interim test procedurre.121 1 MR. KAO: Thankyou. 2 MS. WATSON: Thankyou. 3 MR. STILWELL: Thankyou. 4 MS. WATSON: Will the next speaker come 5 forth,please. 6 CURT REICHMAN 7 AHAM 8 MR.REICHMAN: Hello. My name is Curt 9 Reichman. I'm manager in laundry technology for 10 Whirlpool Corporation. Iam amember of theAHAM 11 laundry testprocedure task force, and I am speaking 12 today on behalf ofAHAM. 13 My comments are going to be directed to the 14 interim testprocedure for the clothes-washers. 15 Rather than spending a lot of time discussing 16 definitions, what I'd like to do is focus on five 17 major changes thatAHAM isproposing, and comments 18 concerning the definitions and some of the other 19 areas will be included in written comments by AHAM 20 that will be submitted by the August 31st deadline. 21 The five topics I'd like to discuss today 22 are clothes container capacity, remaining moisture 23 content, test loads, modified energy factor, and non122 1 conventional wash systems. 2 These proposals are very similar to the 3 AHAM test procedures submitted to the DOE and 4 Mr. Dick Stilwell spoke of earlier. 5 Number one: Clothes container capacity. 6 AHAM recommends that the DOE adopt the 7 measurement method as proposed. In the AHAM state 8 procedure, the only real changewould be that we 9 would have to change the energy test cycle, as we 10 refer to it, as the normal cycle, as what is 11 currently referred to in the DOE test procedure. 12 The benefits the of the AHAMprocedure 13 would be, if no reference to the clothes container 14 opening position, whether it's on the side or front 15 or top, or at an angle, we think it's intuitive to 16 themanufacturers how to measure that. 17 It requires that all parts be in place that 18 are recommended for use in the normal cycle, and that 19 includes agitators or baffles or, for instance, some 20 unitsmay have whatwe call aplugged door, that 21 would take up space in the clothes container, and 22 those should all be in place. 23123 1 It alsoprovideswater temperature for the 2 measurement of the volume anddensity that is 3 associated with thatwater temperature. 4 The next topic: Remainingmoisture content. 5 AHAMrecommends that the remaining moisture 6 content be measured using theAHAM proposed method. 7 If testing withwarm rinse is desired, temperature 8 use factor for the warmrinse should be set between 9 21 and 33 percent, as in theAHAM proposed procedure. 10 There was not consensus as among AHAM 11 members as to what that should be, and so that's the 12 reason for the range. 13 The benefits of the AHAMproposed procedure 14 are a standalone procedure. It's very simple to go 15 in and identify whereyou'remeasuring RMC and how 16 this is to be measured. 17 It requires only one load sizeper testing 18 sowe don't have a three-pound load and a 7-pound 19 load to test, we justhave one test load to go to. 20 The loads are based on themachine 21 capacity. RMC can be compared across the different 22 sizes of theproducts. 23 Test loads: AHAM recommends that a test124 1 loadbe implemented for use with the remaining 2 moisture content procedures and calculation of the 3 modified energy factor. The loadvaries based upon 4 the volume of the clothes container capacity. 5 Asyou can see, the table goes up in volume 6 increments of .1 cubic foot, and there's a load 7 associatedwith that. The load is based upon some 8 calculations based on P&G data. 9 The modified energy fact: AHAM is proposing 10 a revisedmodified energy factor, where the dryer 11 energy is tied to the capacity of the washer. This 12 is necessary sounits with equivalent energy factors, 13 remainingmoisture contents, but differentvolumes 14 will produce relatively equivalent modified energy 15 factors. 16 Asyou can see, the first two examples 17 there, both have an energy factor of 2and an RMC of 18 60 percent, but the capacity is different, and you 19 comeupwith two significantly different modified 20 energy factors. 21 Ifyou're using the same amount of energy 22 based on capacity andyou come up with the same RMC, 23 they should be roughly the same.125 1 TheAHAM proposed, Ihave three examples 2 there; again, two that vary by quite abit, and one 3 also shows variationwithin the range on the load 4 chart, so asyou go through the calculations there, 5 you endup withmodified energy factor numbers that 6 come outvery close to each other. 7 MR.MARGOLIS: Could I ask you a question 8 now on thismodified energy factor? 9 MR. REICHMAN: Sure. 10 MR. MARGOLIS: Is the clothes washer tied 11 inwith a certain clothes dryer? 12 MR. REICHMAN: No. We have a standard 13 factor thatwas used for clothes dryer energy. 14 Factor in the equation that takes into consideration 15 kind of an average dryer andwhat it ta!es an average 16 dryer to remove moisture from the clothes lead, so 17 it's not tied to any specific dryer combination of 18 washer-dryers. 19 MR.MARGOLIS: Thenwhat in the clothes 20 washer, would it be ahigher spin speed, th!t would 21 be the thing that we're concerned with to crt more 22 water out of the clothes? 23 MR.REICHMAN: There are sever?1 things126 1 that impact the remainingmoisture content. It could 2 be temperature of the rinse, it could be spin speed, 3 it couldbe the diameter of the basket, it could be 4 length of time in spin, so there are several 5 different methods to impact the remainingmoisture 6 content. 7 MR.MARGOLIS: Thank you. 8 MR. RtICHMAN: A'couple of other factors 9 thatAHAM included in the calculation for theMEF is 10 a load adjustment factor, which basically uses a 11 multiplication factor times the size of clothes load 12 in the load chart, to bring that down tomore of an 13 average size load. 14 Also, a dryerutilization factor,which 15 takes into consideration the amount of clothes that 16 arewashed in the washer but do not go into.adryer 17 for dryer. Not all clothes,loads go into a dryer for 18 drying, and not all articles out of onewash loadmay 19 go into the dryer for drying. 20 The last topic is the nonconventional wash 21 system testing. It is likely that therewill be new 22 technology in the washer industry before a totally 23 new test procedure is adopted. Therefore,AHAM is127 proposing that the nonconventional wash system consumption test be added. This would be the basis for a test procedure waiver, should a manufacture wish to pursue that. That concludes my presentation. We feel that these things can be added to the interim test procedure without impacting the current standards and requiring changes to the current standard. MS. WATSON: Thank you. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS MS. WATSON: Did you have any questions or statements, Steve? MR. NABINGER: I have no questions. MS. WATSON: Brian. MR. DOUGHERTY: No. MS. WATSON: Bryan. MR. BERRINGER: No. MS. WATSON: Marc. MR. LaFRANCE: Yes, I have a few questions. One part of your proposed test procedure references the AHAM test detergent for preconditioning. For the Department to do that, we'd 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23128 1 have to incorporate the records, which has similarly 2 been done before in other testprocedures. 3 Also,AHAM has aprocedure for 4 preconditioning on the testpart, andwouldAHAM 5 support the Department adopting the AHAM procedure 6 from doing that, instead of defining the detergent? 7 Imean, right now,we'd have to incorporate 8 the AHAM test detergent by reference,which is part 9 of the preconditioning. 10 Does AHAMrecommend thatwe incorporate the 11 preconditioning or support us referencing the 12 preconditioning test procedure? 13 MR. REICHMAN: I don't have an answer for 14 that. That was not a top of discussion, and so we 15 wouldhave to go back and take a look at that. 16 MR. LaFRANCE: If someone could provide the 17 written comment, I'd appreciate it. 18 Also, at the workshop you had in February, 19 you provided reference material whichwas relative to 20 many issues that have been discussed today and that 21 are apart ofyour proposed test procedure. However, 22 your proposed test procedure has changed from that 23 point in time, and thatworkshop referencematerial - -129 1 is notpart of this docketbecause it was prior to 2 being incorporated. 3 So if you could provide all of the 4 pertinent referencematerial in your final comments, 5 itwould behelpful. 6 For example, you referred to the 7 calculations for the test load, and Iknow that's one 8 of the sheets that you had and you include that. 9 You talked about the nonconventional test 10 methods which you proposed field testing -- you 11 establish the field testing requirements which would 12 be used for awaiver commission. 13 Iguess wewould also be interested in 14 hearingAHAM's position on if we actually use that 15 procedure, the manufacturer conducted the field 16 testing, submitted awaiver based on that testing, 17 and was granted the waiver for that particularmodel 18 ormodels involved. 19 What does AHAM believe to be theprocedure 20 for incorporating the intent of that waiver into the 21 testprocedure, or is it AHAM's position that we 22 wouldhave manywaivers that would exist for an 23 indefinite amount of time? In otherwords, what130 1 would be the next step to incorporate those potential 2 waivers into the final testprocedure, or a new 3 version of the test procedure? 4 MR.REICHMAN: Probably verymuch the same 5 aswhatyou're doing right nowwith the currentwater 6 heating clotheswashers and trying to incorporate 7 them into the test procedure as more changes become 8 necessary. 9 MR. LaFRANCE: I guess my concern is if 10 Manufacturer Ahad a certain type of adaptive 11 controlledmachine and Manufacturer Bhad a different 12 type, and in the field they both performed 13 differentlywhere you really couldn't correlate some 14 kind of fudge factor or something; Imean, itmight 15 be to early to discuss that. 16 Now, do you have any thoughts as to howwe 17 would attempt to incorporate those waivers based on 18 these non-conventional testing -- or non-conventional 19 machines, I should say. 20 MR.REICHMAN: Okay. 21 MR. LaFRANCE: One last thing: With your 22 moderate energy factor, it address the remaining 23 moisture content and includes it with the other131 1 energy. 2 Now, there has been some concern about 3 having a lower RMC, let's say, on a newmachine. 4 That could be selectable -- consumer selectable. For 5 example, a consumermay wish tohave a lower RMC on 6 certain types of fabrics and not on other ones. Like 7 maybe they wouldn'twant a lower RMC ondelicates, 8 for example. 9 Is that something that shouldbe considered 10 into the equation, thepossible percentage? In other 11 words, how often a lowerRMC will be used, if it's 12 selectable? 13 MR.REICHMAN: Ibelieve in the test 14 procedure thatwas submitted, we recommendwhatever 15 is specified for cottons and linens. 16 MR. LaFRANCE: Okay. So, basically, 17 whatever is recommended by the manufacturer's 18 literature is what will be tested? 19 MR. REICHMAN: Correct. 20 MR. LaFRANCE: Okay. If it was selectable, 21 is that something themanufacturer wouldusually 22 recommend at aparticular speed or for that type of 23 fabric?132 1 MR.REICHMAN: Iwould assume that that 2 would be referenced in the literature, similar to 3 what the normal cycle is recommended for cottons and 4 linens. 5 MR. LaFRANCE: All right. Thankyou. 6 That's all Ihave. 7 MS. WATSON: Gene. 8 MR.MARGOLIS: No further questions. 9 MS. WATSON: Jim. 10 MR. KAO: Ihave one question. On the test 11 completion, it doesn't make any difference with the 12 nonwater-heating washers orwater-heatingwashers. 13 We did some testing for low load. It could make a 14 difference, for instance, 10 degree, room 15 temperature. 16 The difference maybe over 3percent 17 different than energy consumption. 18 Do you have any to set the condition for 19 the room capacity or the washer precondition so that 20 everybody for the water-heating washers will be 21 testing at the same. 22 MR. REICHMAN: Ambient room conditions? 23 MR. KAO: Either ambient or the washer.133 1 MR. REICHMAN: We were not aware that it 2 made thatmuch difference. We did not include 3 anything like that. We wouldbe interested in seeing 4 the data, and I think we could include something like 5 that. 6 MS. WATSON: Thank you. 7 Next speaker, please. 8 EARL JONES 9 MR. JONES: Goodmorning,Ms. Watson and 10 Panelmembers. Myname is Earl Jones. I'm senior 11 counsel with GE Appliances. We are testifying

-- 12 myself and Larry Hawkins -- here this morning. 13 Iwant to address Iguess what I call 14 policy questions regarding the test procedure which 15 you all are proposing, and then AHAM's comments on 16 that, and then go beyond that to talk about some of 17 the issues regarding the technology as they're 18 implicated by the test procedures and certain other 19 issues. Those will be addressedby Mr. Hawkins. 20 We're bothup here together because, rather 21 than displaying some ofmy total ignorance on some of 22 the issues, I'm going to turn to him, should that be 23 necessary.134 1 First: GEAppliances, as amember of AHAM, 2 supports the testimony,which you've heard this 3 morning, regarding the changes to the interim test 4 procedure, whichAHAM suggests, andwe also, of 5 course, support the ultimate adoption of the test 6 procedure as proposed byAHAM. 7 Just want to emphasize the point, aswas 8 done by Dick Stilwell, the competitive pressures 9 affecting this particular segment of the industry, 10 I'm sure you all are very familiar with them, but 11 notwithstanding that, we have managed to pull 12 together to draft whatwe consider to be avery good 13 product. On that basis alone, it should command 14 particular attention from DOE. 15 It, of course, recognizes the fact that 16 therehave been significant changes in consumer usage 17 patterns over the last 20 years. It also makes 18 provision for adaptive controls when that day 19 arrives, when those kind of controls are introduced 20 into ourproducts, the efficiency benefits of which 21 I'm sure we all understand. 22 We also want to echo and to support 23 Chuck Samuels' comments regarding, if you will, a135 1 single-step process as being the best way to approach 2 the test procedure issue, to his point whether that's 3 some kind of a supplemental notice in the Federal 4 Register, advising persons the opportunity to comment 5 on the AHAMdraft or whether it's areproposal of the 6 test procedurewith your proposed rule, with somehow 7 theAHAMdraft attached as an appendix to something, 8 whatever is the appropriate procedure. 9 The notion of doing this once and for all, 10 getting it overwith now; giving us all asmuch 11 notice as possible, as we begin to pull together our 12 productplans, going forward, just on the notice, if 13 we want to talk about different level efficiency, and 14 that's governmental efficiency, and certainly 15 efficiency of resources in industry, taking the time 16 todeal with this process, we would appreciate doing 17 it once andnot having to do it two times. 18 On another issue, on the question of -- and 19 Ithink, Mr. LaFrance, youmay have raised this 20 question -- why other aspects of the AHAM draft 21 proposal are not suggestedby AHAM to be incorporated 22 into the interim testprocedure. Again, as you 23 appreciated, there are reasonswhywe have been136 1 unable to agree upon that. 2 Iwant to just state clearly, fromGE's 3 point ofview,we are opposed to incorporation of any 4 provisions from the AHAMdraft into the interim test 5 procedure, other than those which the industry has 6 agreed upon. 7 The reasons for this, I think, are several. 8 Again, from my limited acquaintance with the whole 9 issue of energy efficiency standards and test 10 procedures, I know that this industry, or at least 11 somemembers of this industry, have been very badly 12 burned by theway certain aspects of testprocedures 13 affectingwashers has beenhandled by DOE over the 14 years, themost recent example ofwhich was this 15 whole question ofwarmwater rinse lockout. 16 Ithink DOE should be very carefully and 17 trod very carefully when they have an opportunity to 18 impact the competitive situation. 19 We believe that adopting the AHAMdraft, in 20 time if you will or in anticipation for the new 21 standard which is beingworked on, is the best way to 22 guarantee a level playing field, to reduce the 23 opportunity for competitive gamesmanship, as we have137 1 seen toomuch of in the past. 2 Again, it provides adequate notice to all 3 of the parties as to where we are going. If someone 4 wants to make aproposal regarding one aspect of 5 that, we all have notice of that and opportunity to 6 comment. 7 Ithink that'svery, very important. To a 8 certain extent, the credibility of this Department, 9 this section, and the ability of the industry to work 10 together with you all to resolve some of these issues 11 is dependent upon our being able to understandwhat's 12 going on and not to be surprised. 13 On that basis alone, we believe that there 14 should be no incorporation beyond what's being 15 suggested. 16 I'd like to go on just for amoment now 17 beforeMr. Hawkins comments on some of the more 18 technologically critical portions of this rule to 19 address the issue of RMC. 20 Mr. Margolis, one of the questionsyou 21 askedwas why isAHAM proposing an NEF factor, which 22 we're not suggesting that a standard be based on 23 that. Of course, DOE, in its interim proposal,made138 1 that suggestion. We had simply taken that, if I 2 understand correctly,AHAMhas, and refined it. If 3 you're going to do it, do it the right way, and 4 that'swhat the industry is suggesting. 5 We do believe, though, that in adopting a 6 test procedure and certainly looking beyond that to a 7 standard, that the statute under which these 8 activities are being conducted, does not permit DOE 9 to adopt the standard which requires attainment of 10 any level of RMC. 11 So, although GE supports the idea that DOE 12 may facilitate themeasurement of RMC, forwhatever 13 purpose, including by theway, attaining a standard 14 level, DOEmay not require, in that standard, that 15 any level of RMC be reached, and that's true because 16 achieving a certain level of RMC, obviously, requires 17 the consumption of increased energy in the washer, 18 and I think it's sort of ironic or contradictory for 19 the Department to require the use ofmore energy and 20 achieving less energy, when the less energy is being 21 consumed in adifferent product. 22 Of course, the statute requires its 23 standard to be set for eachproduct, so youmay not,139 then, by requiring a minimum level of RMC in the washer, in effect anticipate or compensate for the failure, to set a standard for the dryer, since the law requires you to set standards by products. Of course, we believe the facts alone will show that no standard is justified for dryer, and we don't have to, in effect, concede on that point in order to have you all not do something which is inappropriate for dryers. Those are the points I wanted to make. Again, Mr. Hawkins will address the question about the technology involved and the other aspects of the test procedure. MR. LaFRANCE: Could I ask one question before we move on here? MR. JONES: Sure, as long as they're within my --. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS MR. LaFRANCE: Okay. In regards to not adopting anything else that hasn't already been proposed by AHAM in the interim test procedure, I guess I still have concerns about one particular issue; that is, the automatic fill control provision 1 2 3 4

5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23140 1 that the Departmentproposed in the March 23rd 2 notice. 3 In that equation, the Department proposed 4 testing at a 3pound and 7pound load. Ibelieve 5 Curt just explained the advantages for the future 6 procedure, that you only test one load, for example. 7 I'm sorry, thatmight have been for the 8 RMC. I'm sorry. 9 But for the automatic fill control, we 10 proposed testing the minimum and maximum test loads 11 that are presently used for front loadermachines, 12 3pounds and 7pounds. 13 TheAHAMproposed test procedure for the 14 future uses the -- I believe it prorates between the 15 maximum average and minimum test loads. 16 So if you take the shift weighted average 17 clotheswasher for capacity of approximately 2.9 18 cubic feet, and you were to run the DOE testversus 19 the AHAMproposed test, theAHAMprocedure woulduse 20 a 27 percent larger load on average than the DOE test 21 procedure. 22 So the DOE testprocedurewould provide a 23 larger credit thanprobably is actually justified for141 1 that type ofmachine versus theAHAM test procedure. 2 So, obviously, you said you do support the 3 addition of any additional provisions into the 4 existing test procedure. Then could youplease 5 provide comment on the DOEproposed provision for 6 automatic fill control andwhether you think that's 7 acceptable or reasonable, considering it does use a 8 smaller test load than theAHAMproposed test 9 procedure. 10 MR. JONES: I suspect that you went beyond 11 my canton. If youwant us to comment on that, 12 certainly after the fact we will do that. Idon't 13 know, Larry, whether youwant to comment on it now. 14 If you can, let's do so; otherwise,we'll submit it 15 later. 16 MR.HAWKINS: Yes, I can add one comment, 17 Marc. Our position is primarilybasedupon the 18 conceptmore than themechanics of how it's executed, 19 the concept of it and the advanced technologybeing a 20 machine control fill or an adaptive fill, more than 21 the AHAMversus the DOEprocess. 22 If wewere to saywhich processwe support, 23 we support the one thatwe participated in and142 1 developedwithAHAM as aprocedure. The question is 2 the timeliness of adoption. 3 MR. LaFRANCE: I guess the purpose of 4 today's hearing and one of theprovisions is to adopt 5 ameans of testing automatic water filled controlled 6 machines. The Department is aware of companies that 7 have those machines on themarket today, that we 8 actually have issued awaiver to one of the companies 9 for that particular design feature. 10 Sowe realize the need to provide that 11 provision into the test procedures, and that was the 12 purpose of, one of the purposes of, today's proposed 13 rule, was to provide that provision for energy 14 efficient clothes washers that have automatic or 15 water-filled controlled capability. 16 It seems as if we have proposed it, it's 17 something wedo want to adopt because there's aneed 18 for it, and if we're going to adopt something, then 19 obviously we want to adopt the bestmethod of testing 20 that. 21 If you couldprovide comment as towhether 22 the -- or I think you just did -- that the AHAM 23 procedure is better than the DOE proposed procedure;143 1 and, frankly, Ihave to agree withyou, I think it is 2 aswell. 3 So if you couldpossibly lookback, from an 4 individual company's standpoint or from an AHAM 5 standpoint and address thatparticular subject 6 because, at this point in time, AHAM is not endorsing 7 thatparticular provision of their procedure into our 8 procedure, butyet ourproposal still stands, at this 9 point in time, andwe haven'theard any negative 10 comment to it. 11 I guesswe need to get that clarified. 12 That's all. 13 MR. JONES: We'll attempt to do that. I 14 would only add, by the way, that the fact that the 15 waiverprocess does exist, we wouldhope it would 16 satisfy whateverneeds there are. 17 In otherwords, our proposal or our 18 positionhere hopefullydoesn't stand in theway of 19 people getting credit forwhat they are due. Our 20 issue is amore limited one than that. 21 But, again, wemay go back, if we can, and 22 take a look and specifically address what's in the 23 interimprocedure and comment.144 1 MR. LaFRANCE: Right now, we have awaiver 2 that is in effect for thatparticular design feature. 3 Ifwe are required by the statute to resolve that 4 into a final test procedure, that's what we're 5 attempting in parts of these rulemaking. 6 So it's just a concern, and like I said, 7 you will address it, and I appreciate that. Thank 8 you. 9 MR. JONES: Yes. 10 MR.MARGOLIS: When you address that, we 11 would have to put into the final test procedure, of 12 say the interim final test procedure, and also the 13 final test procedure the granting of the waiver, so 14 that it could be testedby any manufacturer. 15 We can't leave off that becausewe did 16 grant the waiver, and therefore part of the 17 regulations are that once we grant awaiverwe then 18 have to hold a -- since the waiver is only granted to 19 amanufacturer, anothermanufacturer using the same 20 device, say, has to come in for awaiver. 21 So that's why in the testprocedure we have 22 to then publish procedures that would allow for any 23 manufacturer to do what the waiverwas granted for.145 1 MR.HAWKINS: Okay. We'll address that. 2 MS. WATSON: Jim. 3 MR. KAO: No. 4 MR. HAWKINS: Are there any other 5 questions? If not, I'll start onmypart of the 6 presentation. 7 MR. JONES: Thanks, Larry. 8 LARRYHAWKINS 9 MR.HAWKINS: Ihave some charts Iwant to 10 talk from. One of the questions that you asked a 11 minute ago, Marc -- incidentally, I'm Larry Hawkins. 12 I'm a senior engineer with the General Electric 13 Company, and I'm speaking on our behalf. 14 You asked a question about how we arrived 15 at the temperature usage factor values that are in 16 theAHAM recommended new test procedures. This chart 17 addresses that question. 18 MR. MARGOLIS: Can you give to the court 19 reporter a copy of these charts so that they could be 20 put into the testimony. 21 MR. HAWKINS: Yes. 22 Table 1 [see following page], shown at the 23 top of this chart, represents the temperature usage

## ExhibitB AHAMTemperatureUsageFactors(TUF's)

AHAM'sTestProcedure TUF's

P&G'srawdata,Table2below,wasusedtodetermine thewashandrinsetemperatureusagetrends andforecastvaluesto theyear1999.Theforecastedvalueforthe warmrinse TUFwas12.6%wasnormalizedbasedontheagreeduponwarm rinseoptionmodelmix. Table1:AHAMSim)lifiedTemperature UsageFactors' TemperatureSelection WashCycle RinseCycle' 

## L_ Hot 14 - Warm 47 1 21

Cold

. 39 79 P&GRawData Thefollowingtableisapresentationofthe P&G informationdataused intheanalysis,exceptforthe1975data.Itis consistentwithdata3P&GgavetoDOEpreviously. Selection Year 75 78 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 HotWash 27 23 21 19 19 19 19 18 '17 17 19 18 16 16 14 16 WarmWash 50 51 52 52 54 53 53 55 57 56 51 51 49 51 50 48 ColdWash 23 26 27 29 27 28 28 27 26 27 30 31 35 33 36 36 Warm/HotRinse- 38 32 30 27 30 27 27 24 24 26 22 23 21 20 18 Cold/CoolRinse

- 62 68 70 73 70 73 73 76 76 74 78 77 79 80 82 WarmRinseSelection Warmrinsedatayieldedameanvalueof12.6%witha95%confidenceintervalof(9.7to15.5). RegressionFittoWarmRinseData 40 T e m P c r a t r * 35 30 25 20 15 10 70 75 S0 S5 90 95 Year 100

* 'AHA.M'sTest ProcedureTaskforce providedtheupdatedTUF'saspartofDOEClothes Washer Test ProceduresRev#8. 2TheAHAMTaskforcereachedagreementonthewashTUF'sasshown; however, therinseTUFispresentedinRev#8changesas arangefrom21%to33%. GEAperformedthe data analysisanditwasourrecommendationtotheTaskforcethattheappropriatevaluetobeusedis21%. 'ComparisonofdataprovidedtoGEAbybothP&GandDOEisfoundtobeinagreementforyears1987through1994. 1975datadidnotmatchandwasnot used intheanalysis.Thedataforyears1978through1986wasnotinthe earlier dataprovidedtoDOE.146 1 factors that is in the AHAMprocedure for hot wash, 2 warmwash, cold wash, warm rinse and cold rinse. 3 The raw data came from Proctor & Gamble. 4 The analysis technique of analyzing the data to come 5 up with these proposed temperature usage factor 6 numbers was consistent for both wash and rinse 7 cycles. 8 The raw data is shown in the table, and I'd 9 like to note that I did check our data against the 10 data that DOEprovided us earlier. 11 I found that our data is consistentwith 12 the data that DOEhas, with the exception that 1975 13 numbers did not agree, and also with the exceptions 14 that our data contains values, information for the 15 years 1978 through 1986, which was not inclusive in 16 the data that DOE had. 17 Regarding the 1975 year, where we did not 18 have agreement, we did notuse that data nor did we 19 use 1978 data in our analysis, primarily because it 20 was not sequential in nature. There were years of 21 separation. 22 Startingwith 1981, going forward, we had 23 one-year separation points. We used that data in our147 1 analysis. 2 Whenwe analyzed the data, we did it using 3 several statistical techniques. We used regression 4 analysis, we used regression analysis that was both 5 linear and nonlinear. Nonlinear making themore 6 sense because it would then not have usage factors 7 going below zero. 8 However, we also looked at the data and 9 found that there is a factor called auto correlation 10 that exists within the data. 11 Auto correlationmeans, as we see often in 12 time series data, that any oneyear's value is 13 related to theprevious years of data. There is a 14 relationship that exists. 15 A common technique for removing that auto 16 correlation is to take the differences of the years, 17 from oneyear to another to another. For instance, 18 taking the 1982 data, subtracting away 1981 data, and 19 coming up with an incremental change for that one20 year increment. 21 We did thatprocess for the years 1981 22 through '84, averaged those values, and then 23 projected out to 1999, using those averages to extend148 1 the data. 2 In the process of doing it, wewere able to 3 eliminate the auto correlation, as Ihavementioned, 4 and also it provides us the ability to do confidence 5 interval bounding of the data. 6 For all of the data that was presented, 7 AHAM agreedwith us on thewash cycle data. We did 8 not reach agreement on thewarm rinse cycle data. 9 But Iwant to restate that the analysis techniques 10 were the same for all the sets of data. 11 Therewas a question as towhether we had 12 used the mixed ratio of units of available in the 13 marketplace, which offered awarm rinse selection, 14 versus those available in the marketplace, which it 15 did not use awarm rinse selection. Our data said 16 that's a 60 percent ratio. 17 As you cannote, I took the warm rinse 18 number of 12.6, divided it by the 60 percent to come 19 up with the 21 percent recommended number. So I 20 believe it's consistent with the earlierways that we 21 in the AHAM group agreedwith how to treat the warm 22 rinse. 23 As far asmarket mix ratio and the warm149 1 rinse data itself, it's consistent in technique to 2 howwe analyze the wash data, and wepropose it's the 3 appropriate number to use. 4 We believe that extrapolation out to 99 in 5 this manner is also the proper way to treat the data, 6 since it follows the prevailing trend, over the 7 period from '81 to '94, to stop it short in either 8 '94 or '95, as previouslyproposed by DOE. 9 We'd presume that the prevailing trend 10 stops at that point in time and no change would occur 11 from '94 through '99. We do not believe that that is 12 the better way to treat the data. We believe that 13 the appropriatewaywould be to follow the trend. 14 MR. JONES: Imight note, by theway, 15 Mr. Margolis, that the written comments, which we did 16 submit and you all should have received last week, 17 has two exhibits, and this chart is an exhibit to 18 those written comments. 19 MR. LaFRANCE: Actually, that was one of my 20 questions. The top chart, you're saying, should be 21 reflected in the test of the final testing 22 procedure, which was provided to us last week. 23 Ibelieve we have a difference, because the150 final procedure that came to us shows 14, 50 and 36;

not 39, not 47. So there's a little bit of concern here.

MR. HAWKINS: That has to be an error. That's not what we agreed to. Jack, can you help on that one?

MR. JONES: While he's researching that, I believe, unless someone here would like to say differently, that we, as a body, agree to the 14, 47, 39 numbers, that are presented to the AHAM group, and

we were in disagreement on the warm rinse number. The changes to the test procedure should have reflected 14, 47, and 39. Would you like for me to wait for Jack to pull his notes or go on with the next chart, or do

you have other questions, Marc?

MR. LaFRANCE: Well, let me say that the final version that I received, they were the numbers that you agreed to, and I want to get the basis of that, and here you're providing the basis but they're just numbers.

I think these numbers here are much closer

to the linear regression to the year 1994, '95, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23151 1 versus projecting into '99. They were very, very 2 close,within two percentage points, for thewarm 3 versus hot. 4 Now,here, we get a larger variationversus 5 the NIST regression, and it's because of the 6 projection to the year '99. 7 MR. JONES: That's correct. 8 MR. LaFRANCE: I guess we'll address that. 9 Obviously,we've had a concern about that, and that's 10 still our position. 11 AUDIENCE: Jack, according to our notes, 12 Larry is correct. 13 MR. JONES: Larry is correct. Yes, yes. 14 These were theprior ones. Thankyou. 15 Would youmake a note of that, Marc, that 16 these are the correct numbers. 17 MR. LaFRANCE: Right. 18 MR. JONES: You realize, as Larry said,we 19 are only speaking for AHAM respecting the medical 20 column. 21 MR. HAWKINS: Andwe're speaking for 22 ourselves respecting thewarm rinse column, or the 23 rinse cycle factors.

....... ~ ......... -- -152 1 MR. LaFRANCE: Since you're talking about 2 the rinse column, Iknow that the final versionhas a 3 range for the warmrinse. 4 MR.HAWKINS: Yes, sir. 5 MR. LaFRANCE: Okay. Obviously, AHAM is 6 supporting the range and various companies support 7 one number or the other, and you've just expressed 8 that you support this particular number, the 21. 9 Now, Iwould imagine that there are 10 companies that support the 33 percent. 11 ThroughAHAM, or obviously from General 12 Electric, you've just provided the rationale for 21. 13 So if AHAM couldprovide the rationale, or maybe not 14 AHAM but other companies provide the rationale for 15 the 33, we would appreciate that sowe can assess 16 both numbers or any number in between. 17 MR. HAWKINS: Ihad as abackup chart; 18 again, just in case there is confusion, I thinkmost 19 people in doing any data analysis is familiar with 20 regression techniques. I'mnot sure that everyone 21 followed the differencing technique. 22 This chart, which we will leave for the 23 record, reflects how that is done. The hot wash153 1 column, you see the raw data from P&G. Thenext 2 column over says Year to Year. It'swhere the 3 prevailingyear is subtracted from the previous year 4 and carried down to an average, and then that average 5 is used to incrementally project into the future, 6 1994 data being 16 percent, had .5percent subtracted 7 away to get 15.5 and so forth. Wewill leave this 8 for the record. That supports the Summary chart. 9 MR. LaFRANCE: Okay, great. 10 Also, are you aware ofwhen P&G's summary 11 will be complete for 1995, when that will be 12 available? Because, here,you have aprojection for 13 '95, and it's just curious to see what the actual 14 results will be for '95. 15 MR.HAWKINS: Can I get some help, Ron? 16 MR. JACOBSON: We are moving to running 17 this data on a two-year basis. Ibelieve therewill 18 be no data for '95, there will be for '96. 19 MR. LaFRANCE: I'm sorry to hear that. 20 Thankyou. 21 MR. JONES: Everybodyhas cost concerns. 22 MR. HAWKINS: Okay. If Imay, I'd like to 23 shift gears to another topic you talked about, and I

### E.d± 

## Q

CONSUMERTEMPERATURE USAGEDATAANALYSIS USINGDIFFERENCINGTOELIMINATEAUTOCORRELATION

SURVEY Hot Wash WarmWash ColdWash WarmRinse

YEAR DATA YRtoYR DATA YRtoYR DATA YRtoYR DATA YRtoYR 1975 27 __50 __23 1978 23 51 26 38 1981 21 -2.00 52 1.00 27 1.00 32 -2.00 1982 19 -2.00 52 0.00 29 2.00 30 -3.00 1983 19 0.00 54 2.00 27 -2.00 27 3.00 1984 19 0.00' 53 -1.00 28 1.00 30 -3.00 '1985 19 0.00 53 0.00 28 0.00 27 0.00 1986 18 -1.00 55 2.00 27 -1.00 27 -3.00 1987 17 -1.00 57 2.00 26 -1.00 24 0.00 1988 17 0.00 56 -1.00 27 1.00 24 2.00 1989 19 2.00 51 -5.00 30 3.00 26 -4.00 1990 18 -1.00 51 0.00 31 1.00 22 1.00 1991- 16 -2.00 49 -2.00 35 4.00 23 -2.00 1992 16 0.00 51 2.00 33 -2.00 21 -1.00 1993 14 -2.00 50 -1.00 36 3.00 20 -2.00 1994 16 2.00 48 -2.00 36 0.00 18 -1.08 1995 15.50 47.79 36.71 13.69 1996 15.00 47.57 37.43 13.69 1997 14.50 47.36 38.14 13.69 1998 14.00 47.14 38.86 13.69 1999 13.50 _46.93 _39.57 12.62 YRtoYRAverages: -0.50 -0.21 

### I 0.71

NormalizeWannRinsebasedonMarketMix 12.62/0.60 = 21.03 IA 0.71

TABLE-5.XLS154 1 believe the Curt Reichman also talked about, from a 2 question asked. This talks about RMC. 3 We believe that based upon the desire to 4 develop a linkage between clothes washer energy 5 consumption and RMC measurements of the load coming 6 out of thewasher, we would like to present and 7 discuss some of the designparameters alternatives 8 for reaching lower RMC numbers and also state whatwe 9 feel tobe some concerns with some of themethods 10 used. 11 As this chartpresents, we know of at least 12 4parameters that are available to us as design 13 alternates for decreasing the RMCvalue, onebeing to 14 increase the spin speed, which most people are aware 15 of; another is to increase the spin time. 16 We also are aware that increasing the load 17 size and/or increasing the basket diameter to 18 increase capacity will reduce the RMC. 19 We have data that says there is a 20 relationship between increasing rinse temperature and 21 decreasing RMC. 22 When we look at spin speed,we see that 23 there are limitations therewith conventional dry

## t·FJ-2 

# PARAMETERSAFFECTINGR.M.C.|

U 

### ON1 40

SpinSpeed *55%to50%withtraditionaldrive

system...600rpmto660 rpm *50%to40%willrequiredrivesys/

tub/basketredesign.withOOB controltoachievehighspin speed.

·Below40%°is.unknownterritory

includingclothesdamagepotential 

### SpinTime

---- *Incremental improvement

withtimerchange. *Consumerdissatisfaction iftimeisextendedtoolong. *Diminishingreturnslimits

anysignificantimprovement. *Opportunityforelectronics? 

### LoadSize-.- *Largercapacitybasket

providesimprovement 

### *Bigger diameterbasketalso improveswaterextraction. *Increasedwrinklinglikely. 

### RinseTemp--- *Biggestwildcardtous. *TradeofFsbetweenEC

andRMC possible. *Exactcharacteristics andinteractionswith otherfactorsmustbe studied. 

## *Impactofhigherspinspeedsonclothingdamageisbigunknown

...issueraiseatrecent HLTechnologyConference,includingAHAM,SDA,&AATCC

..noonehadexperience. 

## *P&Galsostatedsameclothingdamageconcern,wrinklingissues,etcintheirANOPRcomments. *Highspinspeedinforeignproducts usuallydoneonlyforshorttimeperiodsandreglbenefits achievingreal lowwaterextraction(below45%)arenotbeingexperienced. *Wrinkling&clothescare issuesdictateconsumerselectablespinspeedoptions...willrequire discountingRMC

## credit. .LLH 7/1019 

# @3

U

0 

### .U



# * LsasmsearacacreBs8ase, 

# *

.I155 1 systems thatyou canmore than likely get in the 50 2 to 55 percentrange and not gomuch below there 3 without designmodifications. 4 Some of these designmodifications have 5 significant implications to the washer design itself, 6 meaning thatwewould have to redesign the drive 7 transmission to abasket system andpossibly provide 8 an out of balance device to protect consumer and 9 washer against the higher spin speeds. 10 We have noted that from the data that we've 11 collected, that we know of no one getting below 40 12 percent; have not really seen data below 45, but we 13 think that's in a territory that is really unknown 14 what it would take to get there from a spin speed or 15 the implications that would be inherent in trying to 16 get there through spin speed. 17 Spin time is possible. Ithas diminishing 18 returns, it also has customer dissatisfaction issues. 19 If you go too long in cycle time to try to achieve 20 lower RMCs, sowhile some opportunity, it's limited. 21 You coulduse electronics to get the 22 optimum out of it but there's cost associatedwith 23 that.156 1 Load size and basket capacity will lead to 2 lowerRMCs, but there's also issues there with 3 wrinkling and other clothes care concerns. 4 To us, anyway, we're not sure of the true 5 relationship between rinse temperature and extraction 6 levels; how far you can gowith that, howmuch 7 penaltyyou wouldpay, orwarm water rinse, to raise 8 the rinse temperature. So it may provide benefits 9 and lower RMC, but not provide true energy saving 10 benefits. 11 In summary,we'd like to say that the 12 impact of higher spin speeds on clothing, damage and 13 clothing issues is an issue to us. It's also an 14 issue thatwe don't believe there's manypeople in 15 the field that it can address. 16 We know for sure that it was asked at a 17 recent conference, includingAHAM, soap detergent 18 manufacturers, and the textilemanufacturers. No one 19 at that conference could provide any concrete data or 20 information to help in that understanding. 21 We are aware that Proctor & Gamble alsohas 22 reflected similar kind of concerns in their comments 23 earlier thisyear.157 1 We think that when you look at all of these 2 potential issues from a clothes care consumer 3 satisfaction level that, at least in the interim, we 4 asmanufacturers don't foresee that we wouldbe able 5 to come forwardwith some of these options, 6 especially spin speed,without offering aconsumer a 7 switch to deselect high spin speed, and we believe 8 that would require some discounting of the RMC 9 credit. 10 That was not discussed with AHAM, that I'm 11 aware of, or with any AHAMgroup. That's our 12 position that if you had a switch, you'd have to 13 provide some kind of adiscounting credit for RMC. 14 MR. JONES: These are sort of cautionary 15 points, Marc, Ithink, becausewhat is implicit in 16 the request for information on the standard and the 17 way the test procedure is sort of laid out, is that 18 RMC is like apanacea. I guess our onlypoint here 19 is that we should not assume that industry is capable 20 and that consumers will be willing to accept ever 21 increasing, or rather lower RMC numbers, anduntil 22 those issues are resolved .forDOE to proceed on the 23 assumption that we can get there, is a great risk.158 1 MR. LaFRANCE: Couldyou elaborate on 2 Mr. Reichman's statement relative to the option? I 3 believe, toparaphrase what he said, was something to 4 do with, the manufacturer would recommend a certain, 5 say, spin speed orRMC, andyoumentioned the 6 selectable. 7 Obviously, these other parameterswould be, 8 maybe you could control the time and the spin speed 9 by one knob that would say lower RMC, or whatever you 10 would label it on themachine. 11 Mr. Reichman had mentioned that that would 12 be something that the literature would recommend, 13 that aparticular setting be used, and that's what's 14 being recommended for the MEF test. Thatwould be on 15 the energy test, like for cotton and linen. 16 So if a machine -- and this is 17 hypothetically speaking now -- were to have some type 18 of knob that said lower arm,which included time and 19 speed, then is that something thatyou would normally 20 put in your literature? 21 In otherwords, if you could,maybe in your 22 written comments, explain the differences betweenhis 23 statements and your statements as to the concern159 1 aboutwhether we shouldhave some type of factor for 2 the selectable RMCprovision. 3 MR.HAWKINS: Okay. We can follow-up in 4 our comments on that, but we do believe that, with 5 the limited knowledge that we have now of the 6 clothing issues associated, especiallywhenyou're 7 trying to get to the kinds of RMCs, like in some of 8 the design options, we foresee that, yes, there would 9 be clothing damage issues that to provide consumer 10 satisfactoryperformance, we wouldhave words in the 11 use and care advising themwhen and how to use them 12 and an option to bypass them. We canprovidemore 13 data. 14 MR. LaFRANCE: You also provided here the 15 chart showing the load size, how RMC decreases with 16 larger load size. Iguess that's somewhat of a 17 concern because the AHAMpresentation said that, I 18 guessprobably from amanufacturer standpoint, that 19 to test theRMC level with one loadbeing themaximum 20 load, and it does reduce test burden. 21 But if you couldprovide some type of 22 empirical data on this that would show, thatwould 23 quantify, the slope of that line, because if it's a160 1 minimum amount -- it does decrease but it's 2 minimal -- thenmaybe the concern for test burden 3 would certainly outweigh the need for additional 4 testing, but if the credit it significant -- I 5 shouldn't say credit, but if the RMC level increases 6 with the smaller load size, then possibly the tests 7 should be conductedwith an average size load, which 8 is reflective of consumers' washhabits, they 9 traditionally use average more thanmaximum. 10 So, in otherwords, possibly the MEF for 11 AHAMmight be providing too big of a credit if that 12 slope is large. If you have any information to back 13 up, toprovide that point, even on a confidential 14 basis, wewould be interested in receiving it, as 15 well asAHAMdata or other manufacturers. 16 If they have any information at all, to 17 definewhat the slope of that line is, wewould 18 appreciate it. 19 MR. HAWKINS: Okay. Any other questions or 20 comments? 21 [No response.] 22 MR. HAWKINS: Ihave one final chart to go 23 throuah.161 1 Letme say at the outset that this is again 2 a GPA chart, and this has nothad reviewwithin the 3 industry. That is ExhibitA in our comments 4 submitted earlier to yourselves. 5 We are proposing that, with the Table 5.1, 6 that's in the AHAM test procedures, that sets out an 7 increasing or decreasing, as youwould, load size 8 based upon capacity of the washer, that it also 9 provides theutility to now talk about the total 10 cycles per year on a capacity basis aswell. 11 This chart speaks to that subject. It's 12 one way of looking at howyoumight go about doing 13 that. 14 The way the columnwas created on this 15 chart was to take the P&G data, whichwe had 16 available to us; the average load size data, the 17 average cycles peryear data, to mathematically then 18 calculate a total pounds of laundrywashed per year 19 on the average for standard size washers. 20 Then using the average load size from 21 Table 5.1 of the testprocedures, to come up with the 22. adjusted annual cycle that is shown on this chart. 23 So that instead of calculating the energyExhibitA TABLE5.1 TESTLOADSand ADJUSTEDANNUAL CYCLES

-V

DEFINITIONS: 1. P&GAverageLoadsize(AL): Regularwashers =5.7lbs Lareewashers =6.7Ibs Combinedaverage=6.2Ibs 2. P&GAveragenumberofwashCyclesperyear(AC):392 3. AveragePoundsofLaundry (APL)peryear: APL=(AL*AC)=2430 4. AverageLoadSize(ALS)isshowninTable5.1above 5. AdjustedAveragenumberofCyclesperyear(AAC): AAC= APL/ALS Thisistheannualnumberoflaundrycyclesperyear,afteradjustments are madeforwashercapacity.Thisvalueisusedtocalculatetheannual costofoperation.

TABLE-5.XLS TestLoadSizes Minimum Maximum Average4 3.0 3.0 3.00 3.0 3.5 3.25 3.0 3.9 3.45 3.0 4.3 3.65 3.0 4.7 3.85 3.0 5.1 4.05 3.0 5.5 4.25 3.0 5.9 4.45 3.0 6.4 4.70 3.0 6.8 4.90 3.0 7.2 5.10 3.0 7.6 5.30 3.0 8.0 5.50 3.0 8.4 5.70 3.0 8.8 5.90 3.0 9.2 6.10 3.0 9.6 6.30 3.0 10 6.50 3.0 10.5 6.75 3.0 10.9 6.95 3.0 11.3 7.15 3.0 11.7 7.35 3.0 12.1 7.55 3.0 12.5 7.75 3.0 12.9 7.95 3.0 13.3 8.15 3.0 13.7 8.35 3.0 14.1 8.55 3.0 14.6 8.80 3.0 15 9.00 3.0 15.4 9.20162 1 consumption toproduct in amanner that we do now, 2 using a fixed 392 cycles peryear, itwould reflect 3 whatwe believe is the real usage pattern that larger 4 machines will do fewer loads, smallermachines will 5 do more loads, to do the effectively same amount of 6 laundry. 7 MR. LaFRANCE: Could you explain how this 8 would be produced, what type of applicationyou would 9 use this for? Would it be for a standard analysis or 10 would it be for the labeling? 11 Ibelieve the FTC is in the process of 12 getting away fromdollar labels and providing 13 efficiency labels. 14 MR.HAWKINS: Okay. This was intended to 15 be a replacement for the 392 cycles that's used to 16 calculate the label value, to try to at least put all 17 units on a level playing field from the annual cost 18 of operation. 19 MR. LaFRANCE: Right. So even if it's not 20 used by FTC, at leastyou're proposing to put it in 21 the test procedure, so that if anybody wants to 22 calculate howmuch energy it's going to costme to 23 run this particularwashing machine,you would have a

# Extrapolation

Time 

# I

Time163 1 provision to do that, based on capacity? 2 MR. HAWKINS: That is correct. 3 MR. LaFRANCE: But from a standard analysis 4 standpoint, it wouldn't really matter, because we're 5 using a ship weighted average in a certain number of 6 cycles, and if you were to increase the capacity and 7 decrease the cycles, orvice versa, it would still 8 come upwith the same amount of average, annual 9 consumption, or average costperyear, I should say. 10 So from an analysis standpoint, Idon't 11 think itmatters and possibly from an FTC standpoint 12 itmight notmatter, however, you're making the 13 presentation that if somebody wants to look at the 14 actual cost to run aparticular washingmachine, then 15 there should be aprovisionmade for the capacity? 16 MR.HAWKINS: That's correct. 17 MR. LaFRANCE: Okay. 18 MR. JONES: Just as DOE is facilitating 19 other, ifyouwill, external uses of its data, this 20 is the one thatwe would suggest as well; whether 21 it'swater, whether it'sRMC, whether it's some other 22 purpose. If you all are going to be thekeepers of 23 information as it relates to appliances, then make it164 1 complete and have it useful for all people for all 2 purposes. 3 MR. HAWKINS: Thank you. 4 MR. LaFRANCE: Thankyou. ;5 MS. WATSON: Gene, do you have any 6 questions? 7 MR.MARGOLIS: No questions. 8 MS. WATSON: Jim. 9 MR.KAO: I just have one comment about top 10 numbers. Iguess we have different opinions. we 11 don't agree that they should be projected five years 12 from--. 13 MR. HAWKINS: Okay. 14 MR. JONES: Iguess I'd like to ask a 15 question. What's the basis of your disagreement? I 16 mean, it's all well and good to say you disagree, but 17 what's the basis ofyour disagreement? At least

-- 18 MR. KAO: It just won't project beyond the 19 data you have. 20 MR. JONES: You're saying that as amatter 21 of statistical validity, one never does that or you 22 don't do that? 23 MR.KAO: Yes. People prolected $50 barrel 7165 1 oil someyears ago, never got to that. 2 MR. JONES: Soyou believe it's more 3 appropriate, then, to assume that in 1999 we'll be 4 exactly where we are in 1994? 5 MR.KAO: Well, use whatever data we have 6 oryou have. 7 MR. HAWKINS: Yes. Wewould propose that, 8 in fact, when you want to acknowledge it, you're 9 going to be extrapolating one form or another, and 10 that's represented by this chart here. 11 If you stop the data in 1994 and you talk 12 about 1999, then you are, in fact, extrapolating the 13 hockey stick curve. You're extrapolating that it's 14 going to stay the 'sameright on out through time. 15 If you follow the technique that we are 16 proposing, then you would do it like the curve on the 17 right and it projects following the trend that's been 18 established from a longperiod of time, '81 through 19 '94, as continuing on. 20 Wewould suggest that the error inwhere 21 you would wind up would be less with the right 22 process than it wouldbe with the left. 23 MR. KAO: I understand your point, but if166 1 you keep the same reasoning, youmay have a negative 2 project in the future. 3 MR. JONES: We made provisions for exactly 4 that, todiscount that possibility. I think that was 5 explained before. Maybe we ought to go back through 6 that again if that point wasn't adequately understood 7 or made. 8 MR. HAWKINS: Yes. We looked at using 9 nonlinear regression to see where that point would 10 be, aswell as linear regression, aswell as a 11 differencingmethod. In fact, we found close 12 agreement among the three techniques. 13 We chose touse a differing method because 14 itwas statistically more valid to eliminate the auto 15 correlation. 16 MR. JONES: Is there another methodwhich 17 DOE suggests, orNIST suggests, is more appropriate, 18 or is it just that you don't believe in 19 extrapolation; extrapolation other than continuity? 20 MR. LaFRANCE: Ithink we received your 21 comments and we need to consider them, and we also 22 will consider otherpeople's comments on this 23 particular point.167 1 Iguess, what are some of the reasonswhy 2 the temperatures have come down over time? Iwould 3 imagine that they have to dowith developments with 4 detergent and also on consumer preference. 5 But, now, consumers use hot water formost 6 soiled loads. For example, diapers. Now, there's a 7 fixed number of diapers, and maybe fluctuatesmore 8 frompopulation or whatever, but basically there's a 9 fixed amount of soiled loads. Is it really going to 10 continue on that same exact slope? 11 I'mnot a statistician, so I really can't 12 answer this question, obviously, but Iguess ifwe 13 could learn more aboutwhat are the reasons why the 14 temperatures have come down, and if we couldmake 15 some type of subjective opinion as to whether those 16 type of thingswill continue; in other words, if it's 17 based on detergent advancement, then possibly we 18 could learn from the detergentmanufacturers if they 19 expect that to continue, or if it's based on the 20 types of fabric that's available in themarketplace, 21 more use of permanent press versus other types of 22 things. I don't know. 23 But if we learnmore about that,maybe we168 1 could, in addition to looking at it from apurely 2 analytical standpoint, being the projection or 3 nonprojection, maybe there's somebody else that could 4 give us additional information that couldmaybe have 5 more merit versus the other. 6 MR. HAWKINS: Yes, possibly. 7 MR. JONES: That's avalid point. In fact, 8 we assume that the detergent manufacturers are as 9 good as they have been to date, and theywill 10 continue their advances in use of coldwater tolerant 11 detergents, increasing use of liquids; that fabrics 12 becomemore andmore coldwater friendly. 13 Theuse of natural dyes is increasing, and 14 therefore the need for more clothes care, as usually 15 the case with coldwater. 16 I'mnot sure that there's a fixed number of 17 diapers, Marc. Ihave a feeling that that number is 18 actuallydeclining, and people go for plastic, I'm 19 sure. Some of our P&G friends would support that, 20 too, for other reasons. 21 But, again, and I appreciate Mr. Kao's 22 point, that you can'tproject forever, but avalid 23 statistical analysis can take these things into169 1 account and beginpossibly to flatten that curve out 2 somewhat, so it doesn't get to zero. 3 That's an issue, I guess, for the 4 statisticians, but there should be doubt about the 5 fact that that is technicallypossible to be done, 6 and that's where the design station. If you all 7 believe in design, as Iunderstand your design 8 options to say, then Iwould suggest you take a look 9 at this more appropriate approach. 10 We'll put this in the record, too. 11 Can I ask you all if it would be 12 appropriate to continue the same exhibit numbers, so 13 if submittedA and B,we just number these C, D, and 14 E, or does it matter? 15 MR. LaFRANCE: Thatwould be fine. 16 MR. JONES: Thank you. 17 MR. LaFRANCE: Thank you. 18 MS. WATSON: Thank you. 19 MR. JONES: Thank you. 20 MS. WATSON: Therehas not been any 21 unscheduled speakers. 22 Are there any rebuttal statements? 23 [No response.]170 1 Are there any other questions? 2 MR. ANDERSON: I'd just like tomake one 3 comment. 4 MS. WATSON: Couldyou come forward and 5 state your name and whoyou represent. 6 MR. ANDERSON: VinceAnderson from 7 Whirlpool. Just abrief comment in response to one 8 of the things that my peers from GE commented on, as 9 far as the consumer selection of spin speed issue, 10 that is addressed in theAHAM test procedure, 11 paragraph 2.1.1, where it's stated in there that the 12 test procedure would be to use the energy test cycle 13 consistent with comments that Curt had made. 14 So Iguess there's somewhat of a 15 discrepancy there, if GE supports the proposed AHAM 16 test procedure as it's written, and that includes 17 Section 2.1.1. 18 On the other hand, if they think there 19 ought to be a factor in there for the selection of a 20 higher or lower spin speed, that's an inconsistency 21 there. 22 Iwould just like to point out that the 23 position that Curt stated is consistent with the AHAM171 1 test procedure. 2 That's it. 3 MS. WATSON: Thank you. 4 Are there any more statements to make about 5 any other products? 6 [No response.] 7 MS. WATSON: Iwould like to take this time 8 to thank you again for coming and making your 9 statements. They will be fully evaluated in 10 establishing our final rule. 11 I would like to ask that each of you that 12 spoke, if you haven't, leave a copy of your statement 13 and any presentations on the vugraph that you 14 presented today. 15 Did any other member panel have closing 16 remarks? 17 [No response.] 18 Okay. This hearing is closed. 19 (Whereupon,the hearing was closed.) 20 21 22 23