UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

CLOTHES WASHER WORKSHOP

Room 1E-245 United States Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. Friday, November 15, 1996

U.S. Department of Energy DOUGLAS BROOKMAN VALERIE GRAFF MICHAEL McCABE , BRYAN BERRINGER 

# GI\

# AL MARK LaFRANCE CARL ADAMS QONNIE LAUGHLIN CYRUS NASSERI ED POLLOCK Office of Codes and Standards ED LEVY, ESQ. Office of General Counsel DEBORAH MILLER, EE-1 Other Attendees KURT W. RIEGEL, Director Environmental Technology Assistant Secretary of the Navy Pentagon 4A686 Washington, D.C. 20350-1000 PETER J. BIERMAYER Energy Analysis Program Energy and Environment Division Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory 1 Cyclotron Road Berkeley, California 94720

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY CLOTHES WASHER WORKSHOP Room 1E-245 United states Department of Energy 1000 IndependenceAvenue, SW Washington, D.C. Friday, November 15, 1996 U.s. Department of Energy DOUGLAS BROOKMAN VALERIE GRAFF MICHAEL McCABE BRYAN BERRINGER MARK LaFRANCE CARL ADAMS QONNIE LAUGHLIN CYRUS NASSERI ED POLLOCK Office of Codes ED LEVY, ESQ.

# ORIGlr~AL

and Standards Office of General Counsel DEBORAH MILLER, EE-1 OtherAttendees KURT W. RIEGEL, Director Environmental Technology Assistant Secretary of the Navy Pentagon 4A686 Washington, D.C. 20350-1000 PETER J. BIERMAYER Energy Analysis Program Energy and Environment Division Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory 1 Cyclotron Road Berkeley, California 94720

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 12 Other Attendees (Continued) EUGENE C. FOLEY, JR., Program Manager The Alliance to Save Energy 1200 18th Street, NW Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20036 MARY S. GAGLIARDI, Senior Scientist Laundry Additives SBU The Clorox Company Technical Center P.O. Box 493 7200 Johnson Drive Pleasanton, California 94588-8004 LINDA A. GREINER, Director Industry/Government Relations White Consolidated Industries 1317 F Street, NW Suite 350 Washington, D.C. 20004 DOUGLASS C. HORSTMAN, Vice President Government Affairs Maytag Corporation 1310 G Street, NW Suite 720 Washington, D.C. 20005 RONALD L. JACOBSEN Principal Research Engineer Laundry and Cleaning Products Sector The Procter and Gamble Company Ivorydale Technical Center 5299 Spring Grove Avenue Cincinnati, Ohio 45217 EARL F. JONES, JR., Senior Counsel Government and Industry Relations General Electric Company Appliance Park, AP2-225 Louisville, Kentucky 40225

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 other Attendees (continued) EUGENE C. FOLEY, JR., ProgramManager The Alliance to Save Energy 1200 18th Street, NW suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20036 MARY S. GAGLIARDI, Senior scientist LaundryAdditives SBU The Clorox Company Technical Center P.O. Box 493 7200 Johnson Drive Pleasanton, California 94588-8004 LINDA A. GREINER, Director Industry/Government Relations white Consolidated Industries 1317 F street, NW suite 350 Washington, D.C. 20004 DOUGLASS C. HORSTMAN, Vice President Government Affairs Maytag Corporation 1310 GStreet, NW Suite 720 Washington, D.C. 20005 RONALD L. JACOBSEN Principal Research Engineer Laundry and Cleaning Products Sector The Procter and Gamble Company Ivorydale Technical Center 5299 SpringGrove Avenue Cincinnati, Ohio 45217 EARL F. JONES, JR., Senior Counsel Government and Industry Relations General Electric Company Appliance Park, AP2-225 Louisville, Kentucky 40225

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 23 Other Attendees (Continued) DR. JAMES E. McMAHON, Staff Scientist Energy Conservation Policy Group Energy Analysis Program Energy and Environment Division Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory University of California Berkeley, California 94720 STEVEN M. NADEL, Deputy Director American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20036 CHARLIE STEPHENS, Policy Analyst Oregon Office of Energy Conservation Division 625 Marion Street, NE Salem, Oregon 97310 TERRY V. THIELE, ESQ. Associate General Counsel Electrolux, WCI Legal Department White Consolidated Industries, Inc. 11770 Berea Road Cleveland, Ohio 44111-1686 RICHARD E. STILWELL, Director Engineering Services Research and Development Newton Laundry Products Maytag Appliances 403 West Fourth Street North Newton, Iowa 50208 RICHARD F. TOPPING, P.E., Vice President Arthur D. Little, Inc. Acorn Park Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140-2390 MICHAEL WASSON Standards and Quality Assurance Manager ASKO, Inc. 1161 Executive Drive West Richardson, Texas 75081

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 otherAttendees (Continued) DR. JAMES E. McMAHON, Staff Scientist Energy Conservation Policy Group EnergyAnalysis Program Energy and Environment Division Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory University of California Berkeley, California 94720 STEVEN M. NADEL, Deputy Director American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 1001 ConnecticutAvenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20036 CHARLIE STEPHENS, PolicyAnalyst Oregon Office of Energy Conservation Division 625 Marion Street, NE Salem, Oregon 97310 TERRY V. THIELE, ESQ. Associate General Counsel Electrolux, WCI Legal Department White Consolidated Industries, Inc. 11770 Berea Road Cleveland, Ohio 44111-1686 RICHARD E. STILWELL, Director Engineering Services Research and Development Newton Laundry Products Maytag Appliances 403 West Fourth StreetNorth Newton, Iowa 50208 RICHARD F. TOPPING, P.E., Vice President Arthur D. Little, Inc. Acorn Park Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140-2390 MICHAEL WASSON Standards and QualityAssurance Manager ASKO, Inc. 1161 Executive Drive West Richardson, Texas 75081

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 34 Other Attendees (Continued) JOHN ADAMS Whirlpool Corporation St. Joseph Technical Center St. Joseph, Missouri 49085 S. AZIMI Energetics, Inc. 7164 Gateway Drive Columbia, Maryland RICHARD BEST Whirlpool Corporation 701 Main Street St. Joseph, Missouri 49085 LAKE COULSON NEMA 1300 North 17th Street Rosslyn, Virginia 22209 CHUCK LESTER EEI 701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. JAMES GORDON 527 Lancaster Court Louisville, Kentucky 40222 MARK HASKELL Travis and Goode/Whirlpool 1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 301 Washington, D.C. ROBERT D. HARRIS, P.E. Consultant, Raytheon Appliances 4625 Stonewood Drive Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901 JAMES KAO National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 otherAttendees (Continued) JOHN ADAMS Whirlpool Corporation st. Joseph Technical Center st. Joseph, Missouri 49085 S. AZIMI Energetics, Inc. 7164 Gateway Drive Columbia, Maryland RICHARD BEST Whirlpool Corporation 701 Main street st. Joseph, Missouri 49085 LAKE COULSON NEMA 1300 North 17th Street Rosslyn, Virginia 22209 CHUCK LESTER EEl 701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. JAMES GORDON 527 Lancaster Court Louisville, Kentucky 40222 MARK HASKELL Travis and Goode/Whirlpool 1275 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW suite 301 Washington, D.C. ROBERT D. HARRIS, P.E. Consultant, Raytheon Appliances 4625 Stonewood Drive Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54901 JAMES KAO National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 45 Other Attendees (Continued) R. MICHAEL MARTIN California Energy Commission 1516 Ninth Street Sacramento, California 95814 TED POPE, Consultant Natural Resource Defense Council 2051 Interlaken Place East Seattle, Washington 98112 DOUG RINGGER Maytag Corporation One Dependability Square Newton, Iowa 50208 GLENN R. SCHLEEBE EMPA, Inc. P.O. Box 3875 Reston, Virginia 20195-1875 JOHN TOMLINSON Oak Ridge National Laboratory Box 2008 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6070

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 other Attendees (Continued) R. MICHAEL MARTIN California Energy Commission 1516 Ninth street Sacramento, California 95814 TED POPE, Consultant Natural Resource Defense Council 2051 Interlaken Place East Seattle, Washington 98112 DOUG RINGGER Maytag Corporation One Dependability Square Newton, Iowa 50208 GLENN R. SCHLEEBE EMPA, Inc. P.O. Box 3875 Reston, Virginia 20195-1875 JOHN TOMLINSON Oak Ridge National Laboratory Box 2008 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831-6070

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 56 AGENDA AGENDA ITEM: PAGE: Opening Remarks, Introductions, 7 Agenda Review Overview of Clothes Washer Rulemaking 23 Schedule Summary of DOE Reports 23 Summary of Peer Reviewer Findings 51 Open Discussion on Design Options 75 Design Options Analyzed Preliminary Results of Screening Criteria for Establishing Product Classes Afternoon Session Open Discussion on Preliminary Engineering 138 Analysis Alternative Options for Improving Data Validity Stakeholder Feedback on Assumptions, Approaches, Methodologies and Necessary Expertise Issues to be Resolved 205 Next Steps 215 Open Discussion on How to Improve Future 234 Workshops Closing Remarks, Adjournment 235

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**----------~**



### AGEN D A AGENDA ITEM: openingRemarks, Introductions, Agenda Review overview of ClothesWasher Rulemaking Schedule Summary of DOE Reports Summary of PeerReviewer Findings Open Discussion on Design Options Design OptionsAnalyzed PreliminaryResults of Screening Criteria for Establishing Product Classes Afternoon Session PAGE: 7 

### 23 23 51 75



### Open Discussion on PreliminaryEngineering 138 Analysis Alternative Options for Improving DataValidity Stakeholder Feedback on Assumptions, Approaches, Methodologies and Necessary Expertise Issues to beResolved 205 Next Steps 215 Open Discussion on How to Improve Future 234 Workshops ClosingRemarks, Adjournment 235

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 67 1 P RO CE ED I NG S 2 9:10 a.m. 3 Opening Remarks, Introductions, 4 Agenda Review 5 MR. BROOKMAN: Welcome and good morning. My 6 name's Doug Brookman. 7 Thanks to all of you for coming and thanks to 8 all of you especially for getting here so we can start 9 just about on time. We have a very full day. 10 I will be facilitating the session today, 11 along with Valerie Graff, and, so, with no further ado, 12 after saying thank you for being here and allowing us 13 to start, let me turn it over to Bryan Berringer. 14 MR. BERRINGER: Good morning. As Doug said, 15 my name is Bryan Berringer. I'm currently the team 16 leader on the Clothes Washer Team for the Office of 17 Codes and Standards. 18 There's also on the team Mark LaFrance, 19 Qonnie Laughlin, Carl Adams, Barry Balin from the 20 Office of Codes and Standards, General Counsel Ed Levy, 21 and Mark Freedrich from Policy and International 22 Affairs. 23 Again, on behalf of the Department of Energy, 24 I'd like to thank everybody for coming today and 25 participating. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 7 

### 1 PROC E EDING S 2 9:10 a.m. 3 

### OpeningRemarks, Introductions, 4 

### Agenda Review 5 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Welcome and goodmorning. My 6 name's Doug Brookman. 7. 

### Thanks to all ofyou for corning and thanks to 8 all of you especially for gettinghere sowe can start 9 just about on time. We have a very full day. 10 I will be facilitating the sessiontoday, 11 alongwithValerieGraff, and, so, with no further ado, 12 after sayingthankyou for beinghere and allowingus 13 to start, letme turn itover to BryanBerringer. 14 

### MR. BERRINGER: Good morning. As Doug said, 15 my name is BryanBerringer. I'mcurrentlythe team 16 leader on the ClothesWasher Team for the Office of 17 Codes and Standards. 18 There's also onthe teamMark LaFrance, 19 QonnieLaughlin, CarlAdams, BarryBalin from the 20 Office of Codes and Standards, General Counsel Ed Levy, 21 andMark Freedrich from Policy and International 22 Affairs. 23 Again, on behalf of the Department of Energy, 24 I'd liketo thank everybody for corning today and 25 participating. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-00648 1 This is the first public workshop under the 2 new process set forth in the interpretive rule. The 3 purpose of this workshop is to consider stakeholder 4 input on the design options and to receive stakeholder 5 feedback on the preliminary engineering analysis. 6 I'd like everybody to please note that under 7 the new process, we would just be having a screening 8 workshop, looking at the design options, but the 9 engineering analysis was done prior to the new process. 10 So, we're just putting that out for consideration 11 today, and we want to get into that a little bit more 12 this afternoon as far as engineering analysis. 13 The department did send a letter out on 14 October 15th announcing the workshop and providing the 15 two draft reports on design options and the preliminary 16 engineering analysis. Public notice was put in the 17 Federal Register. 18 Anybody attending the workshop today will

-- 19 who submitted comments, will be added to the workshop, 20 and anybody knew, we'll make sure on future 21 distributions that you get future information. 22 Comments received for this, received today 23 and comments received at the workshop today, will be 24 used in developing the supplemental advance notice of 25 proposed rulemaking which we've tentatively planned for EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**---~** --- ------------

8 1 

### This isthe first publicworkshop under the 2 newprocess set forth inthe interpretiverule. The 3 purpose of thisworkshop is to consider stakeholder 4 input onthe design options andto receive stakeholder 5 feedback onthepreliminaryengineering analysis. 6 I'd likeeverybodytopleasenote that under 7 the newprocess, we wouldjustbe having a screening 8 workshop, looking atthedesign options, but the 9 engineering analysiswas done priorto the newprocess. 10 So, we'rejustputtingthat out for consideration 11 today, andwe wanttoget intothat a littlebitmore 12 this afternoon as far as engineering analysis. 13 Thedepartment did send a letter out on 14 October 15thannouncingtheworkshop andprovidingthe 15 two draft reports on design options and the preliminary 16 engineering analysis. Publicnoticewas put inthe 17 Federal Register. 18 Anybody attendingtheworkshop today will

-- 19 who submittedcomments, will be added to theworkshop, 20 and anybodyknew, we'llmake sure on future 21 distributionsthatyou get future information. 22 Comments received for this, received today 23 and comments received attheworkshop today, will be 24 used indevelopingthe supplemental advance notice of 25 proposedrulemakingwhichwe've tentativelyplanned for EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-00649 1 April '97. 2 I'll be the presiding official today, 3 officer. Doug Brookman and Valerie Graff will be 4 facilitating. They'll be setting the guidelines for 5 the workshop and directing traffic and other 6 information. 7 In approximately two weeks, we'll -- we 8 should have the transcripts available for inspection at 9 the Freedom of Information Reading Room in 1E-190, 10 which is right down the hall. If anybody wishes to 11 purchase copies of that, you can leave your name with 12 the court reporter. 13 To provide as much input as -- that we can 14 receive today and for everybody to receive input and 15 express their views, we'd like to follow, you know,

-- 16 do the following procedures. 17 The focus of the workshop is to listen to 18 comments pertaining to the draft reports. We'll be

-- 19 we'll be getting introductions. We'll do agenda 20 review. Doug Brookman will be doing that. DOE will 21 remain on the agenda as the lead presentations in their 22 areas. We will have open discussion as -- as noted in 23 the agenda. 24 We'll be having lunch about noon, providing

- 25

- providing everything is going on schedule. We will

- EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 9 

### 1 April '97. 2 I'llbethepresiding official today, 3 officer. Doug Brookman andValerie Graff will be 4 facilitating. They'll be settingtheguidelines for 5 theworkshop and directing traffic and other 6 information. 7 In approximately twoweeks, we'll -- we 

### 8 shouldhave the transcripts available for inspection at 9 the Freedomof InformationReadingRoom in IE-190, 10 which isright down thehall. If anybody wishes to 11 purchase copies of that, you can leaveyour name with 12 the courtreporter. 13 To provide asmuch input as -- that we can 14 receive today and for everybody to receive input and 15 expresstheirviews, we'd liketo follow, youknow, -- 16 do the following procedures. 17 The focus of theworkshop is to listento 18 commentspertainingtothe draftreports. We'll be 19 we'll be getting introductions. We'll do agenda 20 review. Doug Brookmanwill be doingthat. DOE will 21 remain onthe agenda as the leadpresentations intheir 22 areas. We willhave open discussion as -- as noted in 23 the agenda. 24 We'll behaving lunch about noon, providing

- 25

- providing everything isgoing on schedule. We will

- EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006410 1 - there is a snack bar below us, one level down. 2 There's a DOE cafeteria on the second floor for lunch. 3 There's also a number of restaurants up the street in 4 the underground mall, L'Enfant Plaza. Lunch is on your 5 own. We'll try to have a timely lunch and get back 6 here in time. 7 We'd like to reduce interruptions. Everybody 8 -- if Doug -- Doug will recognize you as far as 9 speaking. Please remember to use the microphones, 10 state your name and company -- and company name each 11 time before you speak for the court reporter. 12 We want to try and keep side conversations to 13 a minimum. If you could go to the back or please go to 14 the hall to make your discussions, if you have lengthy 15 discussions, and it may be necessary to limit topics so 16 we can have a full agenda, so we can get everything 17 discussed today. 18 There will be time at the end of the workshop 19 to discuss unresolved issues, issues that haven't been 20 addressed. We'll also give time in the agenda review 21 to discuss that. We want everybody here to be able to 22 speak and give full participation. 23 This workshop's going to -- will end at 4 24 p.m. or sooner, if everything is completely covered. 25 If additional data and written comments, submissions, EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 10 1 - there is a snackbar belowus, one level down. 2 There's a DOE cafeteria on the second floor for lunch. 3 There's also a number of restaurants up the street in 4 the undergroundmall, L'EnfantPlaza. Lunch is onyour 5 own. We'll try tohave a timely lunch and get back 6 here intime. 7 

### We'd like toreduce interruptions. Everybody 8 -- ifDoug -- Doug will recognize you as far as 9 speaking. Please remember touse themicrophones, 10 state your name and company -- and companyname each 11 time beforeyou speak for the court reporter. 12 We want to try andkeep side conversations to. 13 a minimum. Ifyou couldgototheback orpleasego to 14 the hall tomake your discussions, ifyou have lengthy 15 discussions, and itmay be necessary to limittopics so 16 we canhave a full agenda, sowe canget everything 17 discussed today. 18 Therewill be time atthe end of theworkshop 19 to discuss unresolved issues, issuesthathaven't been 20 addressed. We'll also give time inthe agenda review 21 to discuss that. We want everybodyhere to be able to 22 speak andgive full participation. 23 Thisworkshop's goingto -- will end at 4 24 p.m. or sooner, if everything is completely covered. 25 If additional data andwritten comments, submissions, EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-00641 following the workshop, we'll decide that at the end of 2 the day, if we -- when we might want to receive new 3 data, new data is available or additional comments. 4 We'll try and do that in the Next Steps and determine 5 that. 6 All comments and data submitted will be 7 considered in, again, in the supplemental advance 8 notice of proposed rulemaking. All written comments 9 and data submission will be available for public 10 inspection at the Department of Energy Freedom of 11 Information Reading Room. The telephone number is 12 (202) 586-6020. Written comments should be addressed 13 to the Department of Energy as noted in today's notice 14 for the Federal Register of today's workshop. 15 We need 10 copies of comments or data. In 16 addition, the department would appreciate electronic 17 copies of comments and data. We're currently using 18 Word Perfect 6.1. Please, no faxes. 19 If anybody is submitting information they 20 believe is confidential and exempt by the law about 21 public disclosure, you should submit one complete copy 22 of the information with full disclosure and 10 copies 23 of the information with the confidential information 24 either removed or deleted. 25 In accordance with the procedures established EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 11 1 following theworkshop, we'll decide that at the end of 2 the day, ifwe whenwe mightwant to receive new 3 data, new data is available or additional comments. 4 We'll try and do that inthe Next steps and determine 5 that. 6 All comments and data submittedwill be 7 considered in, again, inthe supplemental advance 8 notice of proposedrulemaking. All written comments 9 and data submissionwill be available for public 10 inspection atthe Department of Energy Freedom of 11 InformationReadingRoom. Thetelephone number is 12 (202) 586-6020. written comments should be addressed 13 to the Department of Energy as noted in today's notice 14 for the Federal Register of today'sworkshop. 15 We need 10 copies of comments or data. In 16 addition, the departmentwould appreciate electronic 17 copies of comments and data. We're currently using 18 Word Perfect 6.1. Please, no faxes. 19 If anybody is submitting informationthey 20 believe is confidential and exempt by the law about 21 public disclosure, you should submit one complete copy 22 of the informationwith full disclosure and 10 copies 23 of the informationwiththe confidential information 24 eitherremoved or deleted. 25 In accordancewith theprocedures established EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006412 *1 in 10 CFR 1004.11, the department will make its own 2 determinations as to whether the information shall be 3 exempt from public disclosure. 4 In keeping with the regulations of this 5 building, there is no smoking in this building or this 6 room. The restrooms are down the hall to your left and 7 right. Phones are also located in the main lobby here. 8 Again, we appreciate the time and effort 9 you've taken to prepare for this workshop, and we're 10 pleased to receive your comments and opinions. 11 I'd like to reiterate the purpose of this 12 workshop is to consider your input on the design 13 options and receive your feedback on the preliminary 14 engineering analysis. 15 At this time, I'd like to turn it over to 16 Michael McCabe to begin introductions, opening remarks, 17 welcome, and then we'll go to agenda review with Doug 18 and Valerie. 19 Thank you. 20 MR. McCABE: Good morning. As Bryan said, 21 I'm Michael McCabe. I think I know the majority of 22 people here. I would say that I'm looking forward to 23 the end of my throw-away line, 1995. It's been a very 24 long, busy year. Someone said that 1997 is the year 25 coming up, but I'm not sure if I've seen '96 yet *0g~~ 

### ~~EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 12 1 in 10 CFR 1004.11, the department will make its own 2 determinations as to whether the information shall be 3 exempt from public disclosure. 4 Inkeepingwith the regulations of this 5 building, there is no smoking in this building or this 6 room. The restrooms are down the hall toyour left and 7 right. Phones are also located in themain lobbyhere. 8 Again, we appreciate the time and effort 9 you've taken toprepare for this workshop, and we're 10 pleasedto receiveyour**comm~:mts** 

### and opinions. 11 I'd liketo reiteratethe purpose of this 12 workshop is to consider your input on the design 13 options andreceiveyour feedback on the preliminary 14 engineering analysis. 15 At this time, I'd like to turn it over to 16 Michael McCabe to begin introductions, openingremarks, 17 welcome, and thenwe'll go to agenda reviewwith Doug 18 andValerie. 19 Thankyou. 20 

### MR. McCABE: Good morning. As Bryan said, 21 I'mMichael McCabe. I think I know themajority of 22 peoplehere. I would say that I'm looking forward to 23 the end ofmy throw-away line, 1995. It's been a very 24 long, busy year. Someone saidthat 1997 is the year 25 comingup, but I'mnot sure if I've seen '96 yet EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006413 1 because it's been -- we have been very involved in the 2 last -- over a year in working on developing a new 3 process. 4 It's -- we have situations such as what we're 5 dealing with today, with the clothes washers, where we 6 are in transition, as Bryan said. We had already 7 started to prepare an engineering analysis, that under 8 the new process, we would -- we would not be -- we 9 would not have an engineering analysis draft or 10 anything in hand at this point in time. We would

-- 11 the purpose of this meeting would be truly and strictly 12 to discuss the various design options that are possible 13 to manufacture, whether or not they're practicable to 14 manufacture, and service, and whether or not those 15 would have any effect on consumer utility, and based on 16 the answers to those questions, we would then determine 17 what design options to be included in the engineering 18 analysis. 19 As the way we stand right now, we have done 20 much of that already. It has been shared in the last 21 year or so with many of you. It's been updated. So, 22 we do have and have shared with most everybody here, 23 and if you have not received it, draft engineering 24 analysis, we have that. 25 So, we're, some would say, you know, a step EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 13 

### 1 because it's been -- we have been very involved in the 2 last -- over a year inworking on developing a new 3 

### process. 4 

### It's -- we have situations such as what we're 5 

### dealing with today, with the clothes washers, where we 6 

### are in transition, as Bryan said. We had already 7 

### started to prepare an engineering analysis, that under 8 

### the newprocess, we would -- we would not be we 9 

### would not have an engineering analysis draft or 10 

### anything inhand at this point in time. We would 11 

### the purpose of this meetingwould be truly and strictly 12 

### to discuss the various design options that are possible 13 

### tomanufacture, whether or not they're practicable to 14 

### manufacture, and service, and whether or not those 15 

### would have any effect on consumer utility, and based on 16 

### the answers to those questions, we would then determine 17 

### what design options to be included in the engineering 18 

### analysis. 19 

### As the way we stand right now, we have done 20 

### much of that already. Ithas been shared in the last 21 

### year or sowithmany of you. It's been updated. So, 22 we do have and have sharedwithmost everybody here, 23 and if you have not received it, draft engineering 24 analysis, we have that. 25 So, we're, some would say, you know, a step EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006414 1 ahead, and others would say that we are two steps 2 behind. But it's going to certainly -- I recognize 3 that that's going to cause some problems with -- with 4 the flow of this workshop because we're going to start 5 talking about -- there will be questions about the 6 particular design options and what their costs would 7 be, what their impact would be on the manufacturers, 8 what the impact would be on competition, what the life 9 cycle costs would be to consumers, whether or not it 10 would affect the consumer usage such that the usage 11 patterns would change by going up and use the product 12 more often or go down, use it less frequently, and 13 those are questions that under a -- strictly under the 14 new process we would be dealing with in subsequent 15 meetings. 16 We will, however, try to deal with them as 17 best as possible at today's meeting, but I'd like 18 everybody to appreciate that the principal reason why 19 we are here is for the screening workshop to look at 20 the various design options that we have identified and 21 to discuss their practicability to manufacturers, 22 service and effect on utility. 23 The -- those design options which we -- which 24 clear this hurdle, this phase of the process, will be 25 included in the engineering analysis. Some will be EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 14 1 ahead, and otherswould saythatwe are two steps 2 behind. But it'sgoing to certainly

-- I recognize 3 

### that that's going to cause someproblems with with 4 the flow of thisworkshop becausewe're going to start 5 talking about

-- therewill be questions about the 6 particulardesign options andwhat their costswould

( 

### 7 be, what their impactwouldbe on themanufacturers, 8 what the impactwouldbe on competition, what the life 9 cycle costswould be to consumers, whether or not it 10 would affectthe consumer usage such thatthe usage 11 patternswould changebygoingup and use theproduct 12 more often orgodown, use it less frequently, and 13 those are questions thatunder a -- strictlyunder the 14 newprocess we would be dealingwith in subsequent 15 meetings. 16 We will, however, try to deal with them as 17 best as possible at today's meeting, but I'd like 18 everybodyto appreciate thattheprincipal reasonwhy 19 we are here is for the screeningworkshop to look at 20 thevarious design optionsthatwe have identified and 21 to discuss theirpracticabilitytomanufacturers, 22 service and effect onutility. 23 The

-- those design options whichwe -- which 24 clear thishurdle, thisphase of theprocess, will be 25 included inthe engineering analysis. Some will be EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006415 1 very simple and straightforward for us to consider. 2 Others will be more difficult because of the limited 3 amount of information, because different -- differing 4 information from manufacturers and trying to balance 5 information from one manufacturer may have one set of 6 costs as opposed to another, different set of costs. 7 We -- following the engineering analysis, we 8 will share the preliminary results of the engineering 9 analysis with interested parties in order to get your 10 input through a peer review process, and then that 11 analysis will be used for the purpose of conducting a 12 consumer and national economic impact analysis. 13 There will be meetings and information 14 exchanged to develop the input for those analyses, 15 whether or not that information is the cost of energy 16 to be used in calculating the life-cycle costs or 17 performing an energy forecast or whether or not it is 18 trying to develop information as to what would be the 19 likely market share of new and more efficient 20 technologies that would come into the market in advance 21 or without standards. 22 But those are all issues that we will be 23 focusing on in detail in subsequent meetings, 24 subsequent exchanges. 25 Again, with the process that we are -- we EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 15 1 very simple and straightforward for us to consider. 2 Others will bemore difficultbecause of the limited 3 amount of information, because different -- differing 4 information frommanufacturers and trying tobalance 5 information from onemanufacturermay have one set of 6 costs as opposed to another, different set of costs. 7 We -- following the engineering analysis, we 8 will sharethepreliminaryresults of the engineering 9 analysis with interestedparties in order to get your 10 inputthrough a peerreviewprocess, and then that 11 analysiswill beused for thepurpose of conducting a 12 consumer and national economic impact analysis. 13 Therewill bemeetings and information 14 exchanged to develop the input for those analyses, 15 whether or not that information is the cost of energy 16 to be used in calculatingthe life-cycle costs or 17 performing an energy forecast orwhether or not it is 18 tryingto develop information as towhatwould be the 19 likelymarket share of new andmore efficient 20 technologies thatwould corne intothemarket in advance 21 orwithout standards. 22 Butthose are all issues thatwe will be 23 focusing on in detail in subsequentmeetings, 24 subsequent exchanges. 25 Again, withthe process thatwe are -- we EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006416 1 have committed to, the purpose of this workshop is to 2- screen design options. 3 I appreciate your participation, and 4 hopefully that today's meeting will be more productive 5 than what we've anticipated. It is not going to be our 6 typical meeting with talking heads, that we will have 7 an exchange, and we will try to answer questions and in 8 turn ask questions to the extent possible. 9 Again, I'd like to thank everybody for their 10 attendance and participation. 11 Thank you. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Good morning, again, 13 everybody. 14 Perhaps we could just start off by everybody 15 introducing themselves. I don't think we need to 16 capture this in the record. We're going to ask 17 individuals -- everybody as you speak to say your name 18 and your organizational affiliation, if that's 19 appropriate. 20 Perhaps we could just start off and go around 21 the table, and then I'll come back this way. If you 22 could just say who you are, so everybody in the room 23 will know who's here. 24 May I start with you, please? 25 (Introductions off the record.) EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 16 1 have committedto, the purpose of this workshop is to**~** 

### screen design options. 3 I appreciateyourparticipation, and 4 hopefully thattoday'smeetingwill bemoreproductive 5 thanwhatwe've anticipated. It is not going tobe our 6 typical meetingwithtalkingheads, that we will have 7 an exchange, andwe will try to answer questions and in 8 turn ask questions to the extentpossible. 9 Again, I'd liketo thank everybody for their 10 attendance andparticipation. 11 Thankyou. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Goodmorning, again, 13 everybody. 14 Perhapswe couldjust start off by everybody 15 introducingthemselves. I don't thinkwe needto 16 capturethis intherecord. We're going to ask 17 individuals -- everybody as you speakto sayyour name 18 andyour organizational affiliation, if that's 19 appropriate. 20 Perhapswe couldjust start off and go around 21 the table, and then I'll come backthisway. If you 22 couldjust saywho you are, so everybody inthe room 23 will knowwho's here. 24 May I startwithyou, please? 25 (Introductions off the record.) EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006417 1 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 2 Let me -- let me once again thank you all for 3 coming this morning and then allowing us to start on 4 time. We have a very busy calendar. We're hoping to 5 make it through this very full agenda. 6 Before we actually launch into the substance 7 of the meeting, I'd like to ask for your attention to 8 focus on the agenda just for a moment. 9 We're trying to make certain that we discuss 10 the issues that fit with the purpose of this workshop 11 and the outcomes of the workshop as listed at the top 12 of the page on your agenda, and I'd like to ask you, as 13 I go through this agenda step-by-step, if there are any 14 major issues that I've listed there that you would like 15 to see us consider. 16 So, the first substantive element is to be 17 providing an Overview of -- yes? Terry? 18 MR. THIELE: Yes, right at the outset. 19 MR. BROOKMAN: And please state your name for 20 the record. 21 MR. THIELE: Terry Thiele, Frigidaire. 22 I'm looking at the interpretive rule, and the 23 interpretive rule says that after design options are 24 identified and screened, DOE will perform the 25 engineering analysis and the benefit cost analysis and EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 17 1 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Thankyou. 2 Letme -- letme once again thank you all for 3 corning thismorning andthen allowingus to start on 4 time. We have a verybusy calendar. We'rehopingto 5 make itthrough this very full agenda. 6 Beforewe actually launch intothe substance 7 of themeeting, I'd like to ask for your attentionto 8 focus onthe agendajust for a moment. 9 We're trying tomake certainthatwe discuss 10 the issuesthat fit withthepurpose of this workshop 11 and the outcomes of theworkshop as listed atthe top 12 of thepage on your agenda, and I'd like to askyou, as 13 I go through this agenda step-by-step, if there are any 14 major issues that I've listedthere that you would like 15 to seeus consider. 16 So, the first sUbstantive element is tobe 17 providing an Overviewof -- yes? Terry? 18 

### MR. THIELE: Yes, right atthe outset. 19 

### MR. BROOKMAN: And please stateyour name for 20 therecord. 21 MR. THIELE: TerryThiele, Frigidaire. 22 I'm looking atthe interpretiverule, and the 23 interpretiverule saysthat after design options are 24 identified and screened, DOE will performthe 25 engineering analysis andthebenefit cost analysis and EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006418 1 select the candidate standard level based on these 2 analyses, and they will be published. 3 As part of that, the identification of 4 engineering analytical methods and tools. DOE in 5 consultation with outside experts will select the 6 specific engineering analyses tools to be used in the 7 analysis of the design options identified as a result 8 of the screening analysis. 9 I'm curious as to how this all fits together 10 because I think we seem to have moved further down the 11 process than the interpretive rule calls for. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 13 MR. THIELE: So, from an agenda standpoint, 14 I'd be very interested in the discussion up front as to 15 where we stand from the department's standpoint in the 16 integration of the interpretive rule in the department. 17 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Let me ask Mark. The 18 first substantive item on the agenda is Overview of 19 Clothes Washer Rulemaking Schedule. Will you address 20 some of these issues in your comments? 21 MR. LaFRANCE: Not particularly. 22 MR. BROOKMAN: Who's in a position to address 23 Terry's comments, and where does it fit in the agenda? 24 (No response) 25 MR. BROOKMAN: Are you picking up all this EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 -- --- ---------



### 18 1 select the candidate standard level based on these 2 analyses, and theywill bepublished. 3 As part of that, the identification of 4 engineering analyticalmethods and tools. DOE in 5 consultationwith outside expertswill select the 6 specific engineering analyses tools tobeused in the 7 analysis ofthe design options identified as a result 8 of the screeninganalysis. 9 I'mcurious as to how this all fits together 10 because I thinkwe seemtohavemoved further down the 11 process thanthe interpretiverule calls for. 12 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 13 

### MR. THIELE: So, from an agenda standpoint, 14 I'dbe very interested inthe discussionup front as to 15 wherewe stand from the department's standpoint inthe 16 integrationof the interpretiverule inthe department. 17 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Letme askMark. The 18 first sUbstantive itemonthe agenda is overview of 19 ClothesWasherRulemaking Schedule. will you address 20 some of these issues inyour comments? 21 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Notparticularly. 22 MR. BROOKMAN: Who's in a positionto address 23 Terry's comments, andwhere does it fit inthe agenda? 24 (No response) 25 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Are youpickingup all this EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006419 1 for the record? Yes, you are. 2 The question, as I understand it, -- are you 3 with us? 4 MR. McCABE: Yes, I am. 5 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. The question, as I 6 understand it, is that the interpretive rule specifies 7 rather clearly the flow of this, and we have the 8 merging, in fact, of the old process and the new 9 process in this -- in this particular workshop today. 10 So, I'm wondering who is going to be in a 11 position to address how, in fact, the old fits with the 12 new, and how this workshop might diverse from what's 13 written in the interpretive rule. Is that

-- 14 MR. THIELE: Yes, because one could make the 15 argument, and one probably will, that the specific 16 engineering analysis tools that are selected pursuant 17 to the interpretive rule would lead to a different 18 analysis of the design options in the screening process 19 than what we are currently have dealt with in the old 20 LBO report. 21 MR. BROOKMAN: Let me suggest that maybe we 22 try and address that after the -- in the first block, 23 Overview of Clothes Washer Rulemaking Schedule, and 24 we'll find some way for DOE to try to address that 25 question there. Okay? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 19 1 for therecord? Yes, you are. 2 Thequestion, as I understand it,

-- are you 3 withus? 4 

### MR. McCABE: Yes, I am. 5 

### MR. BROOKMAN: okay. The question, as I 6 understand it, isthatthe interpretiverule specifies 7 rather clearlythe flow of this, andwe have the 8 merging, in fact, of the oldprocess and the new 9 process inthis

-- inthisparticularworkshoptoday. 10 So, I'mwonderingwho is going to be in a 11 positionto addresshOW, in fact, the old fits with the 12 new, andhow thisworkshopmight diverse from what's 13 written inthe interpretiverule. Is that

-- 14 

### MR. THIELE: Yes, because one couldmake the 15 argument, and oneprobablywill, thatthe specific 16 engineering analysis tools that are selectedpursuant 17 to the interpretiverulewould leadto a different 18 analysis of thedesign options inthe screeningprocess 19 thanwhatwe are currentlyhave dealtwith in the old 20 LBO report. 21 MR. BROOKMAN: Letme suggest thatmaybe we 22 try and address that after the

-- inthe first block, 23 Overviewof ClothesWasherRulemaking Schedule, and 24 we'll find someway for DOE to try to address that 25 questionthere. Okay? 

### EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-00641 Let's move on with the rest of the agenda. 2 This is helpful. We want to get your issues out on the 3 table and deal with them here today. Now's the time to 4 do it. So, I'd like you to look again at the agenda. 5 So, the first segment is going to be a brief 6 presentation by Mark LaFrance. The -- and to talk 7 about specifically design options and preliminary 8 engineering analysis. We'll also someone to talk about 9 the larger issue of how this workshop fits with the 10 interpretive rule. 11 Then we're going to have -- oh, we'll have 12 brief comment and question based on that overview. 13 We'll have a Summary of the DOE Reports. Mark LaFrance 14 is going to be once again providing the brief 15 presentation, and then we're going to have a brief 16 summary of the peer reviewer, from the peer reviewers, 17 their findings. Then we can double back later in the 18 day, if that becomes necessary and useful. 19 We'll take a short break, and then we'll 20 begin to get into the guts of this session today. A 21 discussion surrounding the design options, specifically 22 the ones listed there. I'd like you to see if that's 23 inclusive, that list. Design Options Analyzed, 24 Preliminary Results of Screening, Criteria for 25 Establishing Product Classes, EP, Utility of Horizontal EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 20 1 Let'smove onwith the rest of the agenda. 2 This ishelpful. We want togetyour issues out on the 3 table and deal with themhere today. Now's the time to 4 do it. So, I'd likeyouto look again atthe agenda. 5 

### So, the first segment isgoing to be a brief 6 presentationbyMarkLaFrance. The

-- and to talk 7 about specificallydesign options andpreliminary 8 engineering analysis. We'll also someone to talk about 9 the larger issue ofhow thisworkshop fits with the 10 interpretiverule. 11 Thenwe'regoingtohave

-- oh, we'll have 12 brief comment andquestionbased on that overview. 13 We'llhave a Summary of the DOE Reports. Mark LaFrance 14 is goingtobe once againprovidingthebrief 15 presentation, andthenwe'regoingtohave a brief 16 summary of thepeerreviewer, from thepeer reviewers, 17 their findings. Thenwe can double back later in the 18 day, ifthatbecomes necessary anduseful. 19 We'll take a shortbreak, and then we'll 20 beginto get intothe guts of this session today. A 21 discussion surroundingthe design options, specifically 22 the ones listedthere. I'd likeyou to see if that's 23 inclusive, that list. DesignOptionsAnalyzed, 24 PreliminaryResults of Screening, criteria for 25 EstablishingProduct Classes, EP, utilityofHorizontal EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-00641 Access. 2 Is that list complete enough to get us off 3 and running? I'm seeing some heads shaking up and down 4 yes, but from the rest of you, I have seen nothing. 5 MR. JONES: Earl Jones, GE. That could cause 6 a problem because I hear what you're saying, Doug, but 7 it's not quite clear from the agenda in what you said 8 exactly what will be discussed. 9 MR. BROOKMAN: I see. I guess I'm looking 10 for subtitles, Earl. I'm looking for, you know, 11 discreet chunks that could be identified, that could be 12 added to this list, that would make this more complete. 13 MR. JONES: Well, we won't know that until 14 we've heard what's been said, it seems to me. 15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So, if that's the way 16 it's going to work, then I'm going to ask all of you to 17 be taking notes about where the omissions are, so we 18 can fill those gaps. Does that -- are you comfortable 19 with that? We can proceed. See where we end up. I 20 see everyone yes. Let's try and see how that works. 21 After we have this Open Discussion on Design 22 Options, we're going to go to lunch, and once again, as 23 Bryan said, you're on your own for lunch, and there are 24 DOE staff persons and several of us who work in this 25 area a lot can direct you to different places, but you EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 21 1 Access. 2 Is that list complete enough to get us off 3 and running? I'm seeing some heads shaking up and down 4 yes, but from the rest of you, I have seen nothing. 5 

### MR. JONES: Earl Jones, GE. That could cause 6 a problembecause I hearwhat you're saying, Doug, but 7 it's not quite clear from the agenda in what you said 8 exactlywhat will be discussed. 9 

### MR. BROOKMAN: I see. I guess I'm looking 10 for subtitles, Earl. I'm looking for, you know, 11 discreet chunks that could be identified, that could be 12 added to this list, that would make this more complete. 13 

### MR. JONES: Well, we won't know that until 14 we've heardwhat's been said, it seems to me. 15 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So, if that's the way 16 it's going towork, then I'mgoing to ask all of you to 17 be taking notes aboutwhere the omissions are, so we 18 can fill those gaps. Does that

-- are you comfortable 19 with that? We canproceed. See where we end up. I 20 see everyone yes. Let's try and see how that works. 21 After we have this Open Discussion on Design 22 Options, we're going to go to lunch, and once again, as 23 Bryan said, you're on your own for lunch, and there are 24 DOE staff persons and several of us who work in this 25 area a lot can directyou to different places, but you EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006422 1 haven't got a heck of a lot of time, and we really need 2 to start on time in the afternoon to cover the -- the 3 agenda. 4 In the -- after the lunch time segment, 5 Valerie is going to be facilitating that session, and 6 we're going to have an Open Discussion on the 7 Preliminary Engineering Analysis. 8 We'll make a running list, by the way, as we 9 go along of issues that don't seem to be fitting where 10 we are in the agenda, to take them up later on in the 11 day, so that we don't skip anything. 12 On the items that are listed there under Open 13 Discussion in the 1 to 2:15 time segment, Alternative 14 Options for Improving Data Validity, Stakeholder 15 Feedback on Assumptions, Approaches, Methodologies, are 16 there any more subtitles that should be included that 17 aren't listed there that you can think of? 18 (No response) 19 MR. BROOKMAN: As Earl said earlier, we don't 20 know how this might progress. You're not saying 21 anything, and you're not showing me anything. 22 MR. JONES: Because we don't know anything. 23 MR. BROOKMAN: Because we don't know 24 anything. I doubt that to be the case. Okay. 25 So, then let's proceed and -- and -- and get EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 22 1 haven't got a heck of a lot of time, andwe really need 2 to start on time inthe afternoon to cover the -- the 3 agenda. 4 

### Inthe afterthe lunch time segment, 5 Valerie isgoingtobe facilitating that session, and 6 we're goingtohave an Open Discussion on the 7 Preliminary EngineeringAnalysis. 8 

### We'llmake a running list, by theway, as we 9 go along of issuesthatdon't seemto be fitting where 10 we are inthe agenda, totakethemup later on inthe 11 day, sothatwe don't skip anything. 12 On the itemsthat are listedthereunder Open 13 Discussion inthe 1 to 2:15 time segment, Alternative 14 options for ImprovingDataValidity, stakeholder 15 Feedback onAssumptions, Approaches, Methodologies, are 16 there anymore subtitles that shouldbe includedthat 17 aren't listedthere thatyou can think of? 18 (No response) 19 

### MR. BROOKMAN: As Earl said earlier, we don't 20 knowhow thismightprogress. You're not saying 21 anything, andyou're not showingme anything. 22 MR. JONES: Becausewe don'tknow anything. 23 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Becausewe don'tknow 24 anything. I doubt that tobe the case. Okay. 25 So, then let'sproceed and -- and EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### and get23 1 going with this. I'd like to suggest, though, before 2 we do begin, one very simple set of ground rules to 3 guide our discussion today, and this will be no 4 surprise to anybody that's participated in meetings 5 with me or Valerie before. 6 I'd like to ask simply as a matter of 7 consideration that everybody speak one at a time, focus 8 on the future as much as you can today. This is about 9 looking ahead and trying to be constructive in 10 influencing the rulemaking process that lies ahead. 11 Say your name for the record, try and stay on the 12 topic. That will really help us to get through and add 13 the most value to the record today. Be concise. 14 I'm going to help you if it becomes necessary 15 to be concise, and I'd like to also encourage everybody 16 to listen as an ally, and by that, I mean listen 17 constructively. 18 So, that's what I'm hoping that we can do 19 today collectively, and having said that, let me turn 20 it over to Mike for his brief, brief presentation, 21 Mark? Okay. 22 Overview of Clothes Washer Rulemaking Schedule 23 and Summary of DOE Reports 24 MR. LaFRANCE: Good morning. I'm Mark 25 LaFrance. We thought that we would give everybody an EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 ------**--~** --**-~--**

23 

### 1 goingwith this. I'd liketo suggest, though, before 2 we do begin, one very simple set of groundrules to 3 guide ourdiscussiontoday, and thiswill beno 4 surpriseto anybodythat'sparticipated inmeetings 5 withme orValeriebefore. 6 I'd liketo ask simply as a matter of 7 considerationthat everybody speak one at a time, focus 8 onthe future asmuch as you cantoday. This is about 9 lookingahead and tryingtobe constructive in 10 influencingthe rulemakingprocessthat lies ahead. 11 Sayyour name for therecord, try and stay on the 12 topic. Thatwill reallyhelpus to get through and add 13 themostvaluetotherecordtoday. Be concise. 14 I'mgoing tohelpyou if itbecomes necessary 15 to be concise, and I'd liketo also encourage everybody 16 to listen as an ally, and by that, I mean listen 17 constructively. 18 So, that'swhat I'mhopingthatwe can do 19 today collectively, andhaving saidthat, letme turn 20 it over toMike for his brief, briefpresentation, 21 Mark? Okay. 22 

### overviewof ClothesWasher Rulemaking Schedule 23 

### and Summary of DOE Reports 24 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Good morning. I'mMark 25 LaFrance. We thought thatwe would give everybody an EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006424 1 overview of the Clothes Washer Rulemaking Schedule for 2 long-term planning purposes. 3 As you can see, here we are -- can everybody 4 see that? I believe everybody has hand-outs, though. 5 Does everybody have their hand-outs? It's right behind 6 the agenda. 7 (Pause) 8 MR. LaFRANCE: Today is a screening workshop, 9 which is the first step of the new process. Following 10 the screening workshop will be the engineering 11 analysis, and as we've already indicated, we have a 12 preliminary analysis for informational purposes today, 13 which will help us get input to continue with that 14 effort. 15 We plan to come up with a revised version and 16 allow comment prior to the publication of a 17 supplemental ANOPR. 18 Also, we plan on meeting with stakeholders 19 prior to conducting a consumer analysis and national 20 forecasting analysis to get your inputs for 21 consideration before we conduct the analysis. So, 22 that's per the interpretive rule, and what we agreed to 23 do. 24 In April, we will be publishing the 25 supplemental ANOPR. That's the overall schedule from EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 24 1 

### overview of the ClothesWasher Rulemaking Schedule for 2 long-termplanningpurposes. 3 

### As you can see, here we are -- can everybody 4 

### see that? I believe everybodyhas hand-outs, though. 5 

### Does everybodyhave theirhand-outs? It's right behind 6 

### the agenda. 7 

### (Pause) 8 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Today is a screeningworkshop, 9 

### which is the first step of the newprocess. Following 10 

### the screeningworkshop will be the engineering 11 

### analysis, and as we've already indicated, we have a 12 

### preliminary analysis for informational purposes today, 13 

### which will help us get input to continuewith that 14 

### effort. 15 

### We plan to come up with a revised version and 16 

### allow comment prior to the publication of a 17 

### supplemental ANOPR. 18 

### Also, we plan onmeeting with stakeholders 19 

### prior to conducting a consumer analysis and national 20 

### forecasting analysis to get your inputs for 21 

### considerationbefore we conduct the analysis. So, 22 

### that's per the interpretiverule, and what we agreed to 23 

### do. 24 

### InApril, we will be publishingthe 25 supplemental ANOPR. That's the overall schedule from EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006425 1 now till April. There will be several times in there, 2 of course, where we will request your participation and 3 comment. 4 From April until the final rule, that's 5 consistent with the interpretive rule which established 6 a goal of 18 months for the publication of a final 7 rule, and, of course, these steps in here really aren't 8 the subject of today's workshop at all. 9 So, if anyone has any questions, I could 10 answer them, but basically these are the -- the large 11 steps that need to take place from now until then. 12 There are going to be many detailed steps in various 13 areas of participation which we really don't need to 14 get into. 15 Any questions about the overall schedule at 16 this point in time? 17 MR. JONES: Yeah. I've got one. Earl Jones 18 here. 19 Just the notion of the supplemental ANOPR, 20 that's a -- I've never heard of one before. What 21 exactly is that, and how does that tie into your 22 interpretive rule? Does it provide, for example, for 23 such

-- 24 MR. LaFRANCE: It's basically just a name 25 that -- that indicates -- it's the second document from EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 25 1 now tillApril. There will be several times in there, 2 of course, where we will request your participation and 3 comment. 4 FromApril until the final rule, that's 5 consistentwith the interpretive rulewhich established 6 a goal of 18 months for the pUblication of a final 7 rule, and, of course, these steps inhere really aren't 8 the subject of today's workshop at all. 9 So, if anyonehas any questions, I could 10 answer them, but basicallythese arethe -- the large 11 steps that need to take place from now until then. 12 There are going to bemany detailed steps in various 13 areas ofparticipationwhichwe really don't need to 14 get into. 15 Any questions about the overall schedule at 16 this point in time? 17 

### MR. JONES: Yeah. I'vegot one. Earl Jones 18 here. 19 Just the notion of the supplementalANOPR, 20 that's a -- I'venever heard of one before. What 21 exactly is that, and how does that tie into your 22 interpretive rule? Does itprovide, for example, for 23 such -- 24 

### MR. LaFRANCE: It'sbasicallyjust a name 25 that -- that indicates -- it'sthe second document from EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006426 1 the original ANOPR that was published in November of 2 '94, and in that ANOPR, we will have everything that 3 we've agreed to provide in the interpretive rule 4 process. 5 For example, we've agreed to complete the 6 engineering analysis before publishing a supplemental 7 ANOPR. We have agreed to provide preliminary consumer 8 impact analyses. They will be very rough draft 9 analyses. That will be built within that supplemental 10 ANOPR. 11 The reason that we call it a supplemental is 12 because we haven't withdrawn the previous November 13 ANOPR. 14 MR. JONES: What does the interpretive rule 15 provide for in this regard? 16 MR. LaFRANCE: Maybe Mike can answer that. 17 MR. McCABE: The interpretive rule talks 18 about the process for, as we've interpreted it, a new 19 rulemaking. 20 Since we already have an advance notice of 21 proposed rulemaking published, and the legislation does 22 not provide an -- the Energy Policy Conservation Act as 23 amended does not provide for withdrawing the advance 24 notice of proposed rulemaking, what we are -- our 25 supplemental advance notice will be consistent with EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 26 1 the originalANOPR thatwaspublished in November of 2 '94, and inthatANOPR, we will have everythingthat 3 we've agreed toprovide inthe interpretiverule 4 process. 5 For example, we've agreedto completethe 6 engineering analysisbeforepublishing a supplemental 7 ANOPR. We have agreedtoprovidepreliminary consumer 8 impact analyses. Theywill beveryrough draft 9 analyses. That will bebuiltwithin that supplemental 10 ANOPR. 11 The reason thatwe call it a supplemental is 12 becausewe haven'twithdrawnthepreviousNovember 13 ANOPR. 14 

### MR. JONES: What does the interpretiverule 15 provide for inthisregard? 16 

### MR. LaFRANCE: MaybeMike can answer that. 17 

### MR. McCABE: The interpretiverule talks 18 about theprocess for, aswe've interpreted it, a new 19 rulemaking. 20 Sincewe alreadyhave an advance notice of 21 proposedrulemakingpublished, and the legislationdoes 22 notprovide an -- the Energy Policy ConservationAct as 23 amended does notprovide for withdrawingthe advance 24 notice ofproposedrulemaking, what we are -- our 25 supplemental advance noticewill be consistentwith EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006427 1 what we have in the interpretive rule as described in 2 the advanced notice. 3 It will include, as Mark said, the 4 engineering analysis, the consumer analysis, and 5 preliminary -- consumer analysis, preliminary national 6 impact analysis. 7 We are calling it a supplemental ANOPR for 8 the only reason, the fact that there is already one out 9 on the table, but for all practical purposes, this is 10 the ANOPR. This will be a complete document as 11 described in the interpretive rule. 12 MR. JONES: So, if I understand, Michael, 13 from the interpretive rule, provided in Section 2, the 14 department will conduct a case-by-case review to decide 15 whether any of the analytical or procedural steps 16 already completed should be repeated. 17 Do I understand then that the department has 18 done that and has made a determination that it will do 19 what? 20 MR. McCABE: Finish the sentence. 21 MR. JONES: Well, it will do what? It says 22 here, "The interpretive rule makes a clear distinction 23 between those matters which were not yet at the ANOPR 24 stage prior to August 14, 1996", and it says, "With 25 respect to the things which were already at that stage EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 27 1 whatwe have inthe interpretiverule as described in 2 the advanced notice. 3 Itwill include, asMark said, the 4 engineering analysis, the consumer analysis, and 5 preliminary -- consumer analysis, preliminarynational 6 impact analysis. 7 We are calling it a supplemental ANOPR for 8 the onlyreason, the fact thatthere is already one out 9 on the table, but for allpracticalpurposes, this is 10 theANOPR. Thiswill be a complete document as 11 described inthe interpretiverule. 12 

### MR. JONES: So, if I understand, Michael, 13 from the interpretiverule, provided in Section 2, the 14 departmentwill conduct a case-by-casereviewto decide 15 whether any ofthe analytical orprocedural steps 16 already completed shouldberepeated. 17 Do I understandthenthat the department has 18 done that andhasmade a determination that itwill do 19 what? 20 

### MR. McCABE: Finishthe sentence. 21 

### MR. JONES: Well, itwill do what? It says 22 here, "The interpretiverulemakes a clear distinction 23 betweenthosematterswhich were not yet at theANOPR 24 stagepriortoAugust 14, 1996", and it says, "With 25 respect to the thingswhichwere already at that stage EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006428 1 by that time, the department will do case-by-case 2 review and decide what to do." 3 The obvious implication behind that sentence 4 is that if you are not at that stage by that date, then 5 there is no case-by-case analysis, and in fact you 6 begin from scratch. 7 MR. McCABE: And we are -- 8 MR. JONES: So, my question is, are you 9 determining that -- that this section of the rule does 10 not require you to begin from scratch? That's the 11 first question. 12 And the second, if indeed it doesn't in your 13 view, what does it require you to do, and how do you 14 apply it here? 15 MR. McCABE: We are -- that one, I've always 16 found difficult to answer, Earl, as far as beginning 17 from scratch with clothes washers because we are trying 18 to begin from scratch, and we do recognize that there 19 are data analyses which we have completed today, and we 20 will try to draw from those. 21 But if, after the end of this meeting or in 22 other meetings, we determine that those analyses are 23 flawed and need to be disposed of and redone, we will 24 do that. Wherever we can, draw upon work that was 25 already completed as far as identifying design options, EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 28 1 bythattime, the departmentwill do case-by-case 2 review anddecidewhat to do." 3 The obvious implicationbehindthat sentence 4 is that ifyou are not atthat stagebythat date, then 5 there is no case-by-case analysis, and in fact you 6 begin from scratch. 7 

### MR. McCABE: And we are -- 8 

### MR. JONES: So, my question is, are you 9 determiningthat

-- that this section of the rule does 10 notrequireyoutobegin from scratch? That's the 11 first question. 12 And the second, if indeed itdoesn't inyour 13 view, what does itrequire youtodo, and how do you 14 apply ithere? 15 

### MR. McCABE: We are -- that one, I've always 16 found difficultto answer, Earl, as far as beginning 17 from scratchwith clotheswashers becausewe are trying 18 tobegin from scratch, andwe do recognize that there 19 are data analyses whichwe have completedtoday, andwe 20 will try to draw from those. 21 But if, afterthe end of this meeting or in 22 othermeetings, we determine thatthose analyses are 23 flawed andneedtobe disposed of and redone, we will 24 do that. Whereverwe can, drawupon work thatwas 25 already completed as far as identifyingdesign options, EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064_1 and in future analyses which will be the subject of 2 future meetings as far as the cost, economic impact, we 3 will try on those available analyses. 4 MR. JONES: Thank you. 5 MR. BROOKMAN: I want to make certain we 6 provide ample opportunity to clarify where we are in 7 the process, but I want to let Mark continue with his 8 presentation, and then this seems germane to the 9 question that Terry asked at the beginning of the 10 meeting. 11 So, let's take -- let's let Mark continue, 12 and then we'll get back into this discussion. 13 Mark, keep going. 14 MR. LaFRANCE: Okay. I am going to provide a 15 brief overview of the reports that were made available 16 approximately a month ago, and also just touch base on 17 some future analyses that will be conducted. 18 Now, these analyses -- these analyses are not 19 part of today's workshop, but just to give people a 20 context for some of the things that we will be doing in 21 the future. 22 In the design option report, we segregated 23 the clothes washer product into two classes by 24 capacity, compact and standard, and the analyses to 25 this date are only conducted on the standard capacity. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 29 1 and in future analyses whichwill be the subject of 2 future meetings as far as the cost, economic impact, we 3 will tryon those available analyses. 4 

### MR. JONES: Thankyou. 5 

### MR. BROOKMAN: I want tomake certainwe 6 provide ample opportunityto clarifywhere we are in 7 the process, but I want to letMark continuewithhis 8 presentation, and thenthis seems germane to the 9 question thatTerry asked at the beginning of the 10 meeting. 11 So, let's take -- let's letMark continue, 12 and thenwe'll get back into this discussion. 13 Mark, keep going. 14 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Okay. I am going to provide a 15 brief overviewof the reports thatweremade available 16 approximately a month ago, and alsojusttouch base on 17 some future analyses thatwill be conducted. 18 Now, these analyses -- these analyses are not 19 part of today's workshop, butjustto givepeople a 20 context for some of the things thatwe will be doing in 21 the future. 22 In thedesign optionreport, we segregated 23 the clotheswasherproduct intotwo classes by 24 capacity, compact and standard, and the analyses to 25 this date are only conducted on the standard capacity. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006430 1 To consider design options, it must be 2 technically feasible, and we must have public data for 3 the analysis to be conducted, and technically 4 feasibility is defined as at least at a prototype 5 stage. 6 In the design option report, we analyzed 20 7 discreet design options, and within those 20, they were 8 a combination of DOE-proposed design options and 9 industry-proposed design options. 10 Design options are screened with the 11 following criteria: ease of manufacturability, 12 installation and servicing, and we considered negative 13 impacts to utility, availability, health and safety. 14 We've conducted a preliminary screening, and 15 from that screening, we've potentially eliminated eight 16 of the 20 design options analyzed. 17 Now we're moving on to the second segment of 18 today's meeting, to discuss preliminary engineering 19 analysis, where we're looking for feedback relative to 20 the approach and methodology in conducting the 21 analysis. 22 The preliminary engineering analysis was 23 based on industry data submitted from AHAM, and I 24 believe there's a chronology of the events on the 25 rulemaking for the new process which will show people EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 30 

### 1 To consider design options, itmust be 2 technically feasible, andwe must have public data for 3 the analysis tobe conducted, andtechnically 4 feasibility isdefined as at least at a prototype 5 stage. 6 In the design optionreport, we analyzed 20 7 discreet design options, andwithin those 20, theywere 8 a combination of DOE-proposeddesign options and 9 industry-proposeddesign options. 10 Design options are screenedwiththe 11 following criteria: ease ofmanufacturability, 12 installationand servicing, andwe considerednegative 13 impacts toutility, availability, health and safety. 14 We've conducteda preliminary screening, and 15 from that screening, we've potentiallyeliminated eight 16 of the 20 design options analyzed. 17 Now we'removing onto the second segment of 18 today'smeeting, to discuss preliminary engineering 19 analysis, wherewe're looking for feedback relativeto 20 the approach andmethodology in conductingthe 21 analysis. 22 The preliminaryengineering analysis was 23 based on industrydata submitted from AHAM, and I 24 believethere's a chronology of the events on the 25 rulernaking for the new processwhichwill showpeople EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006431 1 that -- whoever's interested when that data was made to 2 the department. 3 The analysis was conducted with the intention 4 of promulgating a modified energy factor. A modified 5 energy factor includes the electrical, hot water, and 6 dryer energy attributable to the clothes washer. 7 Also, the analysis was conducted with the 8 future test procedure. Now, I -- I'm aware that, you 9 know, the industry has been successfully involved. 10 They suggested a test procedure for us -- to us, to 11 adopt, and we considered that and proposed a future 12 test procedure last April, and for some of the non13 industry stakeholders, if you do not have copies 14 currently, I believe we have some at the informational 15 desk for your review. 16 The analysis provides some -- some results 17 relative to energy, water, and annual consumption and 18 efficiency ratings. This is a table that shows you the 19 overall matrix, but if you look in your preliminary 20 engineering report, you will see detailed assessments 21 for various characteristics in the design options. 22 The next steps for the engineering analysis. 23 We are here today to get your inputs relative to the 24 approach we should take to complete the engineering 25 analysis or provide the next revision of it, and any -- EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 31 1 that

-- whoever's interestedwhen that data was made to 2 the department. 3 The analysiswas conductedwith the intention 4 ofpromulgating a modified energy factor. Amodified 5 energy factor includes the electrical, hotwater, and 6 dryer energy attributableto the clotheswasher. 7 Also, the analysiswas conductedwith the 8 future testprocedure. Now, I

-- I'm aware that, you 9 know, the industryhas been successfully involved. 10 They suggested a testprocedure for us -- tous, to 11 adopt, andwe consideredthat andproposed a future 12 testprocedure lastApril, and for some of the non13 industry stakeholders, ifyou do nothave copies 14 currently, I believewe have some atthe informational 15 desk for your review. 16 The analysisprovides some -- some results 17 relative to energy, water, and annual consumption and 18 efficiencyratings. This is a table that shows you the 19 overallmatrix, but ifyou look inyour preliminary 20 engineeringreport, youwill seedetailed assessments 21 for various characteristics inthe design options. 22 The next steps for the engineering analysis. 23 We arehere todayto getyour inputs relative to the 24 approachwe shouldtake to complete the engineering 25 analysis orprovidethe nextrevision of it, and any EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006432 1 anything that we should consider before we conduct the 2 next step in the new process, which is conduct the 3 engineering analysis. 4 The overall schedule that I provided at the 5 beginning showed a time frame that we will provide that 6 revised engineering analysis. So far, we have not 7 established a final date because it's dependent upon 8 what we learn today and what we need to do to finish 9 this -- this work. 10 Now I'm going to touch briefly on some of the 11 future analyses we need to conduct in the rulemaking. 12 The first analysis is a consumer national forecasting 13 analysis, and this includes projected water and energy 14 savings. 15 We plan to meet with stakeholders 16 approximately in February. This is -- we have a date 17 here set up, but that's subject to feedback from 18 stakeholders and also availability of space, but we 19 plan to meet with you prior to conducting any analysis, 20 and we will make available a report which presents 21 various options that we can consider, and certainly 22 we're open to any new approaches or anything you may 23 have, and that's why we want to meet with you, and 24 that's the intention of the interpretive rule, is to 25 get your input prior to conducting the analysis, to EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 32 1 anythingthatwe should considerbeforewe conductthe 2 next step inthe newprocess, which is conduct the 3 engineering analysis. 4 The overall schedulethat I provided atthe 5 beginning showed a time frame thatwe will provide that 6 

### revised engineering analysis. So far, we have not 7 establisheda final datebecause it'sdependent upon 8 whatwe learntoday andwhatwe need to do to finish 9 

### this thiswork. 10 Now I'mgoingto touch brieflyon some of the 11 future analyseswe needto conduct inthe rulemaking. 12 The first analysis is a consumer national forecasting 13 analysis, andthis includesprojectedwater and energy 14 savings. 15 We plantomeetwith stakeholders 16 approximately in February. This is -- we have a date 17 here setup, butthat's subjectto feedback from 18 stakeholders and also availability of space, butwe 19 plantomeetwithyoupriorto conducting any analysis, 20 andwe willmake available a reportwhichpresents 21 various options thatwe can consider, and certainly 22 we're open to anynew approaches or anything youmay 23 have, and that'swhy we want tomeet with you, and 24 that's the intention of the interpretiverule, is to 25 getyour inputpriorto conductingthe analysis, to EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006433 1 make it a very transparent process. 2 MR. SCHLEEBE: May I ask you a question? 3 Glenn Schleebe. I'm confused by your term 4 "stakeholders". 5 MR. LaFRANCE: Okay. I'm sorry. Interested 6 parties. 7 MR. SCHLEEBE: Let me ask you. Does it 8 include consumers, and, if so, at some point during 9 this meeting today, will you tell me how you're 10 actually going to hear from real consumers? 11 MR. LaFRANCE: Thank you for bringing up that 12 important issue. That's something we certainly need to 13 consider, is the consumer impact. That will be a prime 14 subject for the February workshop, and -- but consumers 15 are certainly a stakeholder because what we do 16 definitely impacts the consumers. 17 So, that should -- the answer is yes, they 18 are stakeholders, and we certainly want to listen

-- 19 deal with that issue, but it's really not the subject 20 of today's meeting. 21 And we hope to get a draft consumer impact 22 analysis completed concurrently and made available with 23 the supplemental ANOPR. 24 Another significant future analysis tool will 25 be the manufacturer impact. Currently, the department EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 33 1 make ita very transparentprocess. 2 MR. SCHLEEBE: May I askyou a question? 3 Glenn Schleebe. I'mconfusedbyyour term 4 "stakeholders". 5 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Okay. I'm sorry. Interested 6 parties. 7 

### MR. SCHLEEBE: Letme askyou. Does it 8 includeconsumers, and, if so, at somepointduring 9 this meeting today, will you tellme how you're 10 actually goingtohear from real consumers? 11 MR. LaFRANCE: Thankyou for bringingup that 12 important issue. That's somethingwe certainly need to 13 consider, is the consumer impact. Thatwill be a prime 14 subject for the Februaryworkshop, and

-- but consumers 15 are certainlya stakeholder becausewhatwe do 16 definitely impacts the consumers. 17 So, that should

-- the answer is yes, they 18 are stakeholders, andwe certainlywant to listen

-- 19 dealwiththat issue, but it'sreally not the subject 20 of today'smeeting. 21 And we hope to get a draft consumer impact 22 analysis completed concurrently andmade availablewith 23 the supplementalANOPR. 24 Another significant future analysis tool will 25 be themanufacturer impact. Currently, the department EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064

### 34 1 is revisiting the entire methodology to conduct 2 manufacturer impact, and that's a separate task that is 3 going on in parallel with the clothes washer 4 rulemaking, and we will have a workshop in February to 5 get your inputs relative to that important part of the 6 new process. 7 For clothes washers, we will need to consider 8 any proprietary design issues that may exist in the 9 marketplace. 10 We also will be conducting a utility and 11 environmental analysis. For this rulemaking, it will 12 include gas and electric utilities, and environmental 13 impacts will be estimated for water and energy 14 savings -- water and emission reductions. 15 We also have to set the impact to competition 16 -- impact on competition. DOJ makes a determination 17 regarding the lessening of competition from consumers. 18 Previously, DOJ was only involved in the 19 process when a NOPR was actually published. We have 20 met with DOJ, and we are going to work early with them 21 at the beginning of the manufacturer impact analysis, 22 and they will be involved much earlier than in the 23 past, and we will -- we have a strong commitment that 24 they are willing to participate with us. 25 And this is the conclusion of my EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 34 

### 1 is revisitingthe entiremethodology to conduct 2 manufacturer impact, andthat's a separatetaskthat is 3 going on inparallelwiththe clotheswasher 4 rulemaking, andwe willhave a workshop in February to 5 getyour inputsrelativeto that importantpart of the 6 newprocess. 7 For clotheswashers, we will need to consider 8 anyproprietarydesign issuesthatmay exist in the 9 marketplace. 10 We alsowill be conducting a utility and 11 environmental analysis. For this rulemaking, itwill 12 include gas and electricutilities, and environmental 13 impacts will be estimated for water and energy 14 savings -- water and emissionreductions. 15 We alsohaveto setthe impact to competition 16 -- impact on competition. DOJ makes a determination 17 regardingthe lessening of competition from consumers. 18 Previously, DOJ was only involved inthe 19 processwhen a NOPR was actuallypublished. We have 20 met withDOJ, andwe are goingtowork earlywith them 21 atthebeginningofthemanufacturer impact analysis, 22 andtheywill be involvedmuch earlier than inthe 23 past, andwe will -- we have a strong commitment that 24 they arewillingtoparticipatewithus. 25 And this is the conclusion ofmy EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006435 1 presentation. The remaining hand-outs are for later 2 parts of today. I'll just preface the next slide, 3 which I'd like to introduce the gentlemen who reviewed 4 the draft reports, and they are Dick Topping from ADL, 5 Jim Gordon, an independent consultant, and John 6 Tomlinson from Oak Ridge National Lab. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's take questions 8 surrounding Mark's presentation. Brief questions, 9 comments at this point surrounding what he has put up. 10 Could we turn the lights back on? Questions, 11 comments on the hand-out and Mark's presentation? Yes, 12 Mark? 13 MR. PERLIS: You indicated

-- 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Mark, I think you're going to 15 need to use the microphone to get on the record. 16 MR. PERLIS: My name's Mark Perlis. You 17 indicated the scheduling for your manufacturers impact 18 workshop. Is the department still planning to hold a 19 generic manufacturers impact workshop at the end of 20 January? 21 MR. LaFRANCE: Okay. Thank you. That's a 22 very good point. I wasn't clear in my presentation. 23 That workshop that I indicated is exactly that. I 24 think it slipped from the end of January to early 25 February at this point in time. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 35 

### 1 presentation. The remaininghand-outs are for later 2 parts of today. I'lljustprefacethe next slide, 3 which I'd liketo introducethe gentlemenwho reviewed 4 the draftreports, and they are DickTopping fromADL, 5 JimGordon, an independent consultant, and John 6 Tomlinson from OakRidge National Lab. 7 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Let's take questions 8 surroundingMark'spresentation. Brief questions, 9 comments atthispoint surroundingwhathe has putup. 10 

### Couldwe turn the lights back on? Questions, 11 comments on thehand-out andMark's presentation? Yes, 12 Mark? 13 

### MR. PERLIS: You indicated

-- 14 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Mark, I think you're going to 15 need tousethemicrophone to get onthe record. 16 

### MR. PERLIS: My name's Mark Perlis. You 17 indicatedthe scheduling for yourmanufacturers impact 18 workshop. Is thedepartment stillplanningtohold a 19 genericmanufacturers impactworkshop atthe end of 20 January? 21 MR. LaFRANCE: Okay. Thank you. That's a 22 very goodpoint. I wasn't clear inmy presentation. 23 Thatworkshop that I indicated is exactlythat. I 24 think it slipped from the end ofJanuary to early 25 February atthispoint intime. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006436 1 There are several people in the department 2 that are working on that effort. So, the manufacturing 3 impacts workshop for clothes washers will not be until 4 June or July, and that will be the -- the initial kick5 off for that. 6 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional questions? Yes, 7 Michael? 8 MR. MARTIN: Michael Martin, California 9 Energy Commission. I think this is one for your list 10 of parts, but I'm confused as to how we do all this 11 stuff based on a test method that hasn't become final 12 yet. 13 MR. LaFRANCE: That's a very good point. I 14 think I could touch on that real quickly. 15 We -- we do have a proposal, and per the 16 interpretive rule, we have committed to providing a 17 final rule for significant test procedure changes, and 18 this certainly would be one. So, we anticipate a final 19 rule definitely before the ANOPR is published in April. 20 We anticipate it to be earlier than that, but it 21 could -- you know, if it gets delayed, it definitely 22 will be done before the ANOPR is published. 23 MR. BROOKMAN: Your new work on manufacturer 24 impact analysis and those methodologies, you expect 25 they'll be done in time to work -- do the work for EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 36 

### 1 There are severalpeople inthe department 2 that areworking onthat effort. So, themanufacturing 3 impactsworkshop for clotheswashers will not be until 4 June orJuly, andthatwill be the

-- the initialkick5 off for that. 6 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Additional questions? Yes, 7 Michael? 8 

### MR. MARTIN: MichaelMartin, California 9 Energy Commission. I think this is one for your list 10 ofparts, but I'mconfused as tohow we do all this 11 stuffbased on a testmethod thathasn't become final 12 yet. 13 

### MR. LaFRANCE: That's a verygoodpoint. I 14 think I couldtouch onthatreal quickly. 15 We

-- we dohave a proposal, andper the 16 interpretiverule, we have committedtoproviding a 17 final rule for significanttestprocedure changes, and 18 this certainlywould be one. So, we anticipate a final 19 rule definitelybeforetheANOPR ispublished inApril. 20 We anticipate ittobe earlierthan that, but it 21 could

-- youknow, if itgets delayed, itdefinitely 22 will be done beforetheANOPR ispublished. 23 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Your newwork onmanufacturer 24 impact analysis and thosemethodologies, you expect 25 they'll bedone intime towork

-- do thework for EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006437 1 clothes washers? 2 MR. LaFRANCE: Right. To do the work with 3 clothes washers, yeah, but that's a separate issue, of 4 course, yeah, and that will -- that may be after the 5 ANOPR is published, but I was referring to test 6 procedures. 7 Test procedures being definitely completed 8 and finalized before the supplemental ANOPR is 9 published. 10 MR. MARTIN: And do they look like being 11 close to what you proposed? 12 MR. LaFRANCE: Oh, very close. I think the 13 only point that -- the only substantive change is that 14 we will be discounting the -- the anticipated energy 15 savings for remaining moisture content by approximately 16 25 percent. 17 Not every manufacturer agrees with that, but 18 there is a strong consensus in the industry, and it was 19 an issue raised by General Electric last summer, that 20 some consumers may not always use an improved moisture 21 feature. So, that's a good point. 22 MR. BROOKMAN: And, of course, since this is 23 still being formulated, we'd welcome additional 24 comments. 25 MR. LaFRANCE: Right. Yes. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 37 

### 1 clotheswashers? 2 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Right. To do thework with 3 clotheswashers, yeah, butthat's a separate issue, of 4 course, yeah, and thatwill

-- thatmay be after the 5 ANOPR ispublished, but I was referring to test 6 procedures. 7 Testprocedures beingdefinitely completed 8 and finalized before the supplementalANOPR is 9 published. 10 

### MR. MARTIN: And dothey look like being 11 close towhat youproposed? 12 MR. LaFRANCE: Oh, very close. I think the 13 onlypointthat

-- the only sUbstantive change is that 14 we will be discountingthe

-- the anticipated energy 15 savings for remainingmoisture contentby approximately 16 25 percent. 17 Not everymanufacturer agrees with that, but 18 there is a strongconsensus inthe industry, and itwas 19 an issueraisedby General Electric last summer, that 20 some consumersmay not always use an improvedmoisture 21 feature. So, that's a goodpoint. 22 

### MR. BROOKMAN: And, of course, since this is 23 stillbeing formulated, we'dwelcome additional 24 comments. 25 MR. LaFRANCE: Right. Yes. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-00641 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Additional questions, 2 comments at this point? 3 MR. JONES: I have a couple of questions. 4 One, the -- the criteria laid out in the -- on the 5 overheads, it's also contained in the -- in the report 6 we saw. 7 MR. LaFRANCE: I mean as far as the criteria, 8 if it's a quick question, I'll be more than glad to 9 answer it, but if -- if it's discussing actually the 10 screening criteria and how we applied it and all that, 11 that's really supposed to be for this afternoon

-- 12 later this morning. I have like an hour and a half for _* 13 those issues. 14 If it's a quick question, I'll be more than 15 glad to -- to -- to answer it. If it's

-- 16 MR. JONES: Well, I don't know. It really 17 depends upon how quick your answer is. 18 MR. DAVID: Okay. 19 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's try it and see where it 20 goes. 21 MR. JONES: Okay. Really, you had three 22 criteria here. Well, I guess my question -- never 23 mind. I won't ask the question. 24 My question really is to whom should these 25 questions be put, Mark? I don't want to deal with the 0gJ~~ fe~EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 38 

### 1 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Additional questions, 2 comments atthispoint? 3 

### MR. JONES: I have a couple of questions. 4 

### One, the -- the criteria laid out inthe on the 5 overheads, it's also contained inthe -- inthe report 6 we saw. 7 

### MR. LaFRANCE: I mean as far as the criteria, 8 if it's a quickquestion, I'llbemore than glad to 9 answer it, but if -- if it'sdiscussing actuallythe 10 screening criteria andhowwe applied it and all that, 11 that's really supposed tobe for this afternoon -- 12 laterthismorning. I have like anhour and a half for 13 those issues. 14 If it's a quickquestion, I'llbe more than 15 glad to -- to -- 

### to answer it. If it's -- 16 

### MR. JONES: Well, I don'tknow. Itreally 17 depends uponhow quickyour answer is. 18 

### MR. DAVID: Okay. 19 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Let'stry it and seewhere it 20 goes. 21 MR. JONES: Okay. Really, you had three 22 criteriahere. Well, I guessmy question -- never 23 mind. I won't askthequestion. 24 

### My questionreally istowhom shouldthese 25 questions beput, Mark? I don'twantto deal with the EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006439 1 consultants and answer these questions. I want to deal 2 with the department. 3 So, if not you, who is it? 4 MR. LaFRANCE: It's -- I'm one representative 5 of the department, and I'll be more than glad to answer 6 the question. 7 MR. JONES: Tell me how you want to do it. 8 Later? 9 MR. LaFRANCE: I guess the question -- is 10 your question relative to the actual screening criteria 11 applied or the results of how we applied it? 12 MR. JONES: Well, it's how they're applied, 13 and why and how they resulted in the fall-out of 14 certain design options. 15 MR. LaFRANCE: Okay. That's certainly the 16 subject for about a half an hour from now. 17 MR. JONES: Okay. 18 MR. LaFRANCE: Because that's -- we have a 19 couple more slides. If you look in your presentation, 20 where it shows actually the

-- 21 MR. JONES: That's fine. 22 MR. BROOKMAN: And I note that you've written 23 that down. 24 MR. JONES: The second question was with 25 respect to the peer reviewers. These are peer EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 39 

### 1 consultants and answer thesequestions. I want to deal 2 withthe department. 3 

### So, if not you, who is it? 4 

### MR. LaFRANCE: It's I'monerepresentative 5 of thedepartment, and I'llbemore than glad to answer 6 the question. 7 

### MR. JONES: Tellme how youwant todo it. 8 Later? 9 

### MR. LaFRANCE: I guess the question

-- is 10 your questionrelativetothe actual screening criteria 11 applied ortheresults ofhow we applied it? 12 

### MR. JONES: Well, it'show they're applied, 13 andwhy andhow theyresulted inthe fall-out of 14 certaindesign options. 15 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Okay. That's certainly the 16 subject for about a half anhour from now. 17 

### MR. JONES: Okay. 18 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Becausethat's

-- we have a 19 couplemore slides. Ifyou look inyour presentation, 20 where it shows actuallythe 21 

### MR. JONES: That's fine. 22 MR. BROOKMAN: And I note that you've written 23 thatdown. 24 

### MR. JONES: The secondquestionwas with 25 respect to thepeerreviewers. These arepeer EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-00641 reviewers of what? 2 MR. LaFRANCE: They reviewed the two reports 3 that we have made available for people

-- 4 MR. JONES: But my question is, what is the 5 relationship between their selection for that purpose 6 and what the interpretive rule provides for, including 7 stakeholder input, in selection of the peer reviewers? 8 MR. LaFRANCE: Well,

- 9 MR. McCABE: There isn't necessarily any -- 10 this is Michael McCabe. We will -- for further 11 analyses, we will be consulting with a whole range of 12 parties to identify peer -- either stakeholders or 13 peers -- peer reviewers to subject analysis to review. 14 So that we took the work that had been done 15 to date, and

-- 16 MR. JONES: Why did you consult with the 17 stake -- with these parties on their selection? I 18 don't understand. 19 MR. BERRINGER: If I may say something, 20 that -- that is -- this is Bryan Berringer. That's one 21 of the subjects that we put in the -- in the notice. 22 We're not limiting it to -- that's -- we realize some 23 of the work was done prior. So, this workshop is 24 another thing that the stakeholders can identify. 25 We're still early in the process, and we EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 40 

### 1 reviewers ofwhat? 2 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Theyreviewed the two reports 3 thatwe havemade available for people 4 

### MR. JONES: Butmy question is, what is the 5 relationshipbetweentheir selection for thatpurpose 6 andwhat the interpretiveruleprovides for, including 7 stakeholder input, in selectionof the peer reviewers? 8 MR. LaFRANCE: Well,-- 

### 9 MR. McCABE: There isn't necessarily any 10 this isMichaelMcCabe. We will -- for further 11 analyses, we will be consultingwith a whole range of 12 parties to identifypeer -- either stakeholders or 13 peers -- peerreviewers to subject analysis to review. 14 So thatwe tookthework thathad been done 15 to date, and 16 

### MR. JONES: Why didyou consultwith the 17 

### stake withtheseparties on their selection? I 18 don't understand. 19 

### MR. BERRINGER: If I may say something, 20 that -- that is -- this is BryanBerringer. That's one 21 of the subjects thatwe put inthe in the notice. 22 

### We're not limiting itto -- that's we realize some 23 of theworkwas doneprior. So, this workshop is 24 another thing that the stakeholders can identify. 25 We're still early intheprocess, and we EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006441 i* 1 haven't finalized anything, that this workshop have 2 suggestions for the peer reviewers, additional peer 3 reviewers, that is open for discussion for today's 4 meeting. 5 So, we haven't -- we haven't ruled that out. 6 So, if you do have people, please -- please bring that 7 up at the appropriate time. 8 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments or 9 questions on Mark LaFrance's presentation? I didn't 10 see much additional interest out there. 11 I noticed -- I note there's one question, and 12 that's the one that Terry asked first, and I think it 13 fits with Earl's concerns as well, which was something 14 like where this workshop fits in with the interpretive 15 rule, Michael. I think that was the thrust of it. 16 MR. McCABE: Right. The -- Terry's question 17 was focusing on the analytic models and tools. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: Is that right, Terry? 19 MR. THIELE: Sure. 20 MR. McCABE: In the analysis, which has been 21 performed to date, the department relied on data from 22 AHAM and manufacturers for determining the efficiency 23 potential for individual design options, that it is

-- 24 as far as engineering models, computer models and the 25 like, and other tools, they were -- as with other EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 41 1 haven't finalized anything, that this workshop have 2 suggestions for the peerreviewers, additional peer 3 reviewers, that is open for discussion for today's 4 meeting. 5 So, we haven't -- we haven'truled that out. 6 So, ifyoudohavepeople, please -- please bringthat 7 up atthe appropriate time. 8 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments or 9 questions onMarkLaFrance'spresentation? I didn't 10 seemuch additional interest outthere. 11 I noticed -- I note there's one question, and 12 that's the one thatTerry asked first, and I think it 13 fits with Earl's concerns as well, whichwas something 14 likewhere thisworkshop fits inwiththe interpretive 15 rule, Michael. I think thatwas the thrust of it. 16 

### MR. McCABE: Right. The -- Terry's question 17 was focusing on the analyticmodels and tools. 18 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Is thatright, Terry? 19 

### MR. THIELE: Sure. 20 

### MR. McCABE: Inthe analysis, which has been 21 performedto date, the department relied ondata from 22 AHAM andmanufacturers for determining the efficiency 23 potential for individual design options, that it is -- 24 as far as engineeringmodels, computermodels and the 25 like, and other tools, theywere -- as with other EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006442 1 products, were not relied on. 2 I think that the approach that has been done 3 for clothes washers, relying on the data from the 4 individual manufacturers and the associations, has, for 5 most of the design options, provided some -- the data 6 that are -- meet our needs for conducting the 7 rulemaking, and I would like input from -- from those 8 here as to whether or not that approach is appropriate 9 to -- to use in completing the economic -- the 10 engineering analysis. 11 MR. BROOKMAN: You are hoping that will come 12 out in the context of this workshop today? 13 MR. McCABE: Yes. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. I heard Earl ask a 15 slightly different question, and I note that, Mike, you 16 had your hand up. We'll give you a chance in a moment. 17 I'm going to ask you to move to the mike in just a 18 moment, and I'm going to let Michael McCabe finish 19 talking. 20 I thought I heard Earl ask the question, what 21 is required to do in the interpretive rule, and how to 22 apply it here. I believe that's what you said. 23 MR. JONES: Right. 24 MR. McCABE: The -- I mean the advance notice 25 of proposed rulemaking, which has been published EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 42 1 products, were notrelied on. 2 I thinkthatthe approach thathas been done 3 for clotheswashers, relying onthe data from the 4 individualmanufacturers and the associations, has, for 5 most of the design options, provided some -- the data 6 that are -- meet our needs for conductingthe 7 

### rulemaking, and I would like input from from those 8 here as towhether or not that'approach is appropriate 9 

### to -- touse in completingthe economic the 10 engineering analysis. 11 MR. BROOKMAN: You arehoping thatwill corne 12 out inthe context of thisworkshop today? 13 

### MR. McCABE: Yes. 14 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. I heard Earl ask a 15 slightlydifferent question, and I note that, Mike, you 16 hadyourhandup. We'll giveyou a chance in a moment. 17 I'mgoing to askyoutomove to themike injusta 18 moment, and I'mgoingto letMichaelMcCabe finish 19 talking. 20 I thought I heard Earl ask the question, what 21 isrequiredto do inthe interpretiverule, and how to 22 apply ithere. I believethat'swhat you said. 23 

### MR. JONES: Right. 24 MR. McCABE: The -- I mean the advance notice 25 ofproposedrulemaking, whichhas beenpublished EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006443 1 earlier, has not been withdrawn. The purpose of this 2 process that we're going through, and what we've 3 identified as a supplemental advance notice, is to pick 4 up all of that that is in the interpretive rule that 5 has not been covered by the ANOPR and apply it in this 6 process. 7 MR. JONES: So, the question, filling in the 8 gaps, if there are any identified, then filling them in 9 as we go forward? 10 MR. McCABE: And we have an awful lot of 11 gaps. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: And I guess talking about gaps 13 means also improving where that is appropriate. 14 Okay. I saw Michael Thompson first, and then 15 to this gentleman in the back. 16 MR. THOMPSON: Mike, my question's for you, 17 and it's just -- I think you've amplified already on -- 18 you've answered in part the -- my question. 19 My question was, it's from the ANOPR that was 20 published back in November of '94, and the comments 21 that were received in January of '95, I presume that 22 you received quite a bit of data from that -- from that 23 request for comments, and you had quite a bit of 24 engineering analysis and data leading up to it. 25 I'm gathering from your comments that much of EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 43 

### 1 earlier, has notbeenwithdrawn. The purpose of this 2 process thatwe're going through, and what we've 3 identified as a supplemental advance notice, is topick 4 up all of that that is inthe interpretiverule that 5 has notbeen coveredbytheANOPR and apply it inthis 6 process. 7 

### MR. JONES: So, thequestion, filling in the 8 gaps, if there are any identified, then filling them in 9 as we go forward? 10 

### MR. McCABE: And we have an awful lot of 11 gaps. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: And I guess talking about gaps 13 means also improvingwhere that is appropriate. 14 

### Okay. I sawMichaelThompson first, and then 15 to this gentleman intheback. 16 

### MR. THOMPSON: Mike, my question's for you, 17 and it'sjust -- I thinkyou've amplified already on -- 18 you've answered inpartthe -- my question. 19 My questionwas, it's from theANOPR thatwas 20 publishedback inNovember of '94, andthe comments 21 thatwere received inJanuary of '95, I presume that 22 you receivedquite a bit of data from that -- from that 23 request for comments, andyouhadquite a bit of 24 engineering analysis and data leadingup to it. 25 I'mgathering from your comments thatmuch of EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006444 1 the data still has relevance to the supplemental ANOPR, 2 and that much of that data is applicable as we go 3 forward from this point. 4 MR. McCABE: There was a great deal of 5 engineering data, comments on the design options, and 6 cost information that had been provided. In the time 7 that has since passed, we will -- things have changed, 8 and in the -- between now and the publication of the 9 next ANOPR, the supplemental ANOPR, we will be 10 looking -- meeting with interested parties, collecting 11 data to develop the holes to fill in for this, where 12 the holes may exist, develop the data to fill in the 13 holes, and look and evaluate those data and information 14 that was provided to make sure that it is still 15 appropriate given today's situation. 16 MR. THOMPSON: Okay. Just a follow-up 17 question then. If you're gathering additional data and 18 additional analysis, I'm gathering from the time table 19 that you've established that you've built in enough 20 time and built in or calculated into your -- your time 21 tables the additional supplemental information that 22 you'll get as far as more engineering data, more 23 engineering analysis, etc. 24 MR. McCABE: Maybe Mark or Bryan could 25 respond to the question of time tables. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 44 

### 1 the data stillhas relevance to the supplemental ANOPR, 2 and thatmuch of that data is applicable as we go 3 forward from thispoint. 4 

### MR. McCABE: Therewas a great deal of 5 engineeringdata, comments onthe design options, and 6 cost informationthathadbeenprovided. In the time 7 

### thathas sincepassed, we will things have changed, 8 and inthe -- between now and thepUblication of the 9 nextANOPR, the supplementalANOPR, we will be 10 looking -- meetingwith interestedparties, collecting 11 data todevelop theholes to fill in for this, where 12 theholesmay exist, develop the data to fill inthe 13 holes, and look and evaluate those data and information 14 thatwas providedtomake surethat it is still 15 appropriategiventoday's situation. 16 

### MR. THOMPSON: Okay. Just a follow-up 17 question then. Ifyou're gathering additional data and 18 additional analysis, I'mgathering from the time table 19 thatyou've establishedthatyou've built in enough 20 

### time and built in or calculated intoyour your time 21 tables the additional supplemental informationthat 22 you'll get as far asmore engineering data, more 23 engineering analysis, etc. 24 

### MR. McCABE: MaybeMark or Bryan could 25 respondtothequestion oftime tables. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006445 1 MR. LaFRANCE: I'm sorry, Mike. Could you 2 repeat that again? I'm sorry. 3 MR. THOMPSON: The time table that you 4 showed, Mark. My question is, we're filling in holes. 5 I presume that there will be no slippage from the time 6 table that you presented today. No anticipated 7 slippage. 8 MR. LaFRANCE: Exactly. We realize that we 9 need to conduct a lot of analyses on engineering before 10 we can go to the supplemental data, but we also believe 11 that we can conduct those -- those efforts in time

-- 12 in a timely fashion and still make the critical 13 milestones. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional -- yes, Terry? 15 MR. THIELE: Terry Thiele with Frigidaire. 16 The one comment I'd make, and maybe this is the wrong 17 time to make it, but I don't know when, is I would 18 submit not a question of just filling in the holes, but 19 it may be a question of throwing out old work. 20 I -- I frankly am extremely disappointed that 21 the draft report on the preliminary -- preliminary 22 engineering analysis was published with a manufacturer 23 cost versus modified energy factor rating in there. 24 That manufacturer cost table on Page 11, 25 Figure 1, was based upon cost data, shipment weighted EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 45 

### ·1 MR. LaFRANCE: I'm sorry, Mike. Couldyou

2 repeat that again? I'm sorry. 3 

### MR. THOMPSON: The time table thatyou 4 showed, Mark. My question is, we're filling inholes. 5 I presume thattherewill beno slippage from the time 6 table thatyoupresentedtoday. No anticipated 7 slippage. 8 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Exactly. We realize thatwe 9 need to conduct a lotof analyses on engineeringbefore 10 we cango to the supplemental data, butwe also believe 11 thatwe can conductthose -- those efforts intime 12 in a timely fashion and stillmake the critical 13 milestones. 14 15 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Additional -- yes, Terry? MR. THIELE: TerryThielewith Frigidaire. 16 The one comment I'dmake, andmaybe this is thewrong 17 time tomake it, but I don'tknowwhen, is I would 18 submit not a question ofjust filling inthe holes, but 19 itmay be a question of throwing out oldwork. 20 I -- I frankly am extremelydisappointed that 21 the draftreport onthe preliminary -- preliminary 22 engineering analysiswas publishedwith a manufacturer 23 costversusmodified energy factor rating inthere. 24 Thatmanufacturer costtable on Page 11, 25 Figure 1, was basedupon cost data, shipment weighted EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006446 1 average from the industry, left over from DOE's old 2 average manufacturer analysis approach. 3 It was our understanding that the entire 4 purpose behind this past year and the interpretive 5 rule's genesis was to correct some of those analytical 6 approaches, especially to account for the disparity 7 between large and small manufacturers in all 8 rulemakings, but certainly given the gross disparity 9 between the largest and the smallest in this industry, 10 and yet the industry's data that we are being asked to 11 fill in holes around is predicated right back on that 12 average manufacturer analysis that we spent the past 13 year fighting. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Those comments and 15 comments like that that we'll receive from others are 16 especially helpful. Detailed comments just like that 17 will be helpful to the department. 18 Let me note that the bulk of that discussion 19 happens right after lunch, when we talk about 20 engineering analysis. 21 So, I'd like to continue focusing on design 22 options which is where we are going to head next. This 23 gentleman has been patient. You're next. You want to 24 go to the microphone, please, and state your name for 25 the record? And then we're going to move shortly to a EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 46 

### 1 average from the industry, left over from DOE's old 2 averagemanufacturer analysis approach. 3 Itwas ourunderstanding thatthe entire 4 purpose behindthispastyear and the interpretive 5 rule's genesiswas to correct some of those analytical 6 approaches, especiallyto account for the disparity 7 between large and smallmanufacturers in all 8 rulemakings, but certainlygiventhegross disparity 9 betweenthe largest andthe smallest inthis industry, 10 andyet the industry's data thatwe are being asked to 11 fill inholes around ispredicatedright back on that 12 averagemanufacturer analysis thatwe spent thepast 13 year fighting. 14 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Those comments and 15 comments likethat thatwe'll receive from others are 16 especiallyhelpful. Detailedcomments just like that 17 will behelpful to the department. 18 Letme note thatthebulk of that discussion 19 happens right after lunch, when we talk about 20 engineering analysis. 21 So, I'd liketo continue focusing ondesign 22 options which iswherewe aregoingtohead next. This 23 gentlemanhas beenpatient. You're next. You want to 24 goto themicrophone, please, and stateyour name for 25 therecord? And thenwe'regoingtomove shortlyto a EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006447 1 brief presentation from the peer reviewers. 2 MR. FOSTER: Chuck Foster. Aside from the 3 question of whether or not relying on the older -- old 4 data was -- is a good point, does the department 5 believe it had the authority to withdraw the prior 6 ANOPR and start afresh? Did it consciously decide to 7 rely on the stuff or does it believe it is bound by the 8 prior publishing of the ANOPR to rely on that older 9 data? 10 MR. McCABE: We are not bound on relying on 11 those data. Those data are provided more for the 12 benefit of all parties, that that is information that 13 we have, and it gives -- by making it available, it

-- 14 if we didn't make it available, there would be 15 questions about, you know, what are you going to do 16 with it, why don't you rely on it. 17 It's kind of -- I feel that we're in one of 18 the situations you're damned if you do and damned if 19 you don't. We are providing it as information as far 20 as what we have at this point in time. 21 If it is -- if there are anything in those 22 data that are appropriate and correct and can be 23 applied to the analysis which will be completed next 24 year, then we will pull from that and use it, and we're 25 -- we appreciate comments to say these -- the data that EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 47 

### 1 briefpresentationfrom thepeerreviewers. 2 MR. FOSTER: Chuck Foster. Aside from the 3 question ofwhether ornotrelying on the older -- old 4 

### datawas is a goodpoint, does the department 5 believe ithad the authoritytowithdraw theprior 6 ANOPR and start afresh? Did itconsciouslydecide to 7 rely on the stuff ordoes itbelieve it is bound by the 8 priorpublishingof theANOPR torely on that older 9 data? 10 

### MR. McCABE: We are notbound onrelying on 11 those data. Those data areprovidedmore for the 12 benefit of all parties, thatthat is information that 13 we have, and itgives -- bymaking it available, it -- 14 ifwe didn'tmake itavailable, therewould be 15 questions about, youknow, what areyou going to do 16 with it, why don'tyourely on it. 17 It'skind of -- I feel thatwe're in one of 18 the situationsyou're damned ifyou do and damned if 19 you don't. We areproviding itas information as far 20 as whatwe have atthispoint intime. 21 If it is -- ifthere are anything in those 22 data that are appropriate and correct and canbe 23 applied tothe analysis whichwill be completed next 24 year, thenwe willpull from that anduse it, andwe're 25 

### -- we appreciate comments to saythese the data that EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006448 1 you have for the proto-typical firms done on the old 2 scenario seems with this range of design options to be 3 appropriate for large or small manufacturers, medium 4 size, and you should be using it, but you need to go 5 ahead and develop these data for this situation. 6 That is very valuable input for us to use 7 because if there's something there, whether or not it's 8 a piece or entirely that we can use, I would rather use 9 that than go out and develop new data which will come 10 up and give us the same results. 11 MR. FOSTER: I understand that. I was just 12 curious as to why a supplemental ANOPR is being issued 13 rather than withdrawing the original ANOPR and moving 14 forward completely afresh under the interpretive rule, 15 bringing in this data that you're just suggesting right 16 now may have value in this -- in this docket. 17 It just seems like a cleaner approach would 18 have been to withdraw the old ANOPR and -- and start 19 fresh under the interpretive rule, and I -- and for 20 that reason, I was wondering whether the department 21 thought that it was without the authority to withdraw 22 that prior ANOPR. 23 MR. McCABE: Right. Given -- given my -- my 24 chemical engineering and law degree and the discussions 25 that we've had, I don't feel that we had the authority EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 48 

### 1 youhave for theproto-typical firms done on the old 2 scenario seemswith this range of design options tobe 3 appropriate for large or smallmanufacturers, medium 4 size, andyou shouldbeusing it, butyou needto go 5 ahead anddevelopthesedata for this situation. 6 That is veryvaluable input for us touse 7 because ifthere's somethingthere, whether or not it's 8 a piece orentirelythatwe canuse, I would ratheruse 9 thatthango out and develop newdatawhich will corne 10 up and giveus the sameresults. 11 MR. FOSTER: I understand that. I wasjust 12 curious as towhy a supplementalANOPR is being issued 13 ratherthanwithdrawingthe originalANOPR andmoving 14 forward completely afreshunderthe interpretiverule, 15 bringing inthis data thatyou'rejust suggestingright 16 nowmay havevalue inthis -- inthis docket. 17 Itjust seems like a cleaner approachwould 18 have beentowithdrawthe oldANOPR and --,and start 19 freshunder the interpretiverule, and I -- and for 20 thatreason, I was wonderingwhether the department 21 thought that itwas without the authorityto withdraw 22 thatpriorANOPR. 23 

### MR. McCABE: Right. Given -- givenmy -- my 

### 24 chemical engineering and lawdegree and the discussions 25 thatwe'vehad, I don't feel thatwe had the authority EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006449 1 to withdraw that rule, but what -- whether or not we 2 withdrew it or not, we would be in the same situation, 3 that if we had -- if we could withdraw it, that is 4 still work that is out there. 5 There are other reports, other information, 6 that we would look to to rely on to draw information 7 from anyways. So, we'd be in the same situation. 8 MR. FOSTER: Thank you. 9 MR. BROOKMAN: A final question before we 10 move on in the program. 11 (No response) 12 MR. BROOKMAN: I don't see any. Okay. One 13 of the things that came from the interpretive rule and 14 from the discussion, all the discussions on process 15 improvement, was finding ways to make all of the 16 analyses that were conducted more open and have other 17 people then -- have more people involved and a broader 18 spectrum of individuals involved in the analysis. 19 So, that's one of the reasons why peer review 20 was introduced. Let me introduce Dick Topping. Dick 21 is going to give a brief presentation based on the 22 results of the peer reviewers, is that right, Dick? 23 And, Dick, when you get up here, would you 24 please introduce the peer reviewers to the group? 25 Gene, a brief comment? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 49 

### 1 towithdrawthat rule, butwhat whether or notwe 2 withdrew itor not, we would be inthe same situation, 3 that ifwe had -- ifwe couldwithdraw it, that is 4 stillwork that is outthere. 5 There are otherreports, other information, 6 thatwe would lookto torelyonto draw information 7 from anyways. So, we'd be inthe same situation. 8 

### MR. FOSTER: Thankyou. 9 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Afinal questionbeforewe 10 move on intheprogram. 11 (No response) 12 MR. BROOKMAN: I don't see any. Okay. One 13 of the things that came from the interpretiverule and 14 from the discussion, all the discussions onprocess 15 improvement, was findingways tomake all of the 16 analyses thatwere conductedmore open andhave other 17 peoplethen -- havemorepeople involved and a broader. 18 spectrumof individuals involved inthe analysis. 19 So, that's one of thereasons why peerreview 20 was introduced. Letme introduce DickTopping. Dick 21 is going togive a briefpresentationbased on the 22 results of thepeerreviewers, is that right, Dick? 23 And, Dick, when you getuphere, would you 24 please introducethepeerreviewers to the group? 25 Gene, a brief comment? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-00641 MR. FOLEY: Yeah. I'm just curious how the 2 peer reviewers were selected. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 4 MR. FOLEY: Just before we get them 5 introduced for the record and get started. 6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Is there -- who can 7 describe how the peer reviewers were selected from the 8 department? 9 MR. LaFRANCE: Okay. First of all, the 10 gentlemen that reviewed this -- the existing reports

-- 11 you know, I don't want to offend anybody. They are not 12 the peer reviewers. They were available to us to 13 conduct the existing information that we had. 14 We felt it would be helpful to get objective 15 third party information for this meeting, and they were 16 -- ADL has experience with clothes washers. The 17 industry had consulted with them in the past. We 18 thought they were a good choice. 19 Jim Gordon has over 30 years of experience in 20 the clothes washer industry, and John Tomlinson has 21 worked on high-efficiency programs for market pull 22 strategies in the department. 23 So, they were used because they were 24 available. We wanted objective third party 25 information, but we will certainly consider your inputs EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 50 1 

### MR. FOLEY: Yeah. I'mjust curioushow the 2 peer reviewerswere selected. 3 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 4 

### MR. FOLEY: Justbeforewe getthem 5 introduced for therecord and get started. 6 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Is there -- who can 7 describehow thepeer reviewerswere selected from the 8 department? 9 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Okay. First of all, the 10 gentlementhatreviewedthis -- the existingreports 11 youknow, I don'twantto offend anybody. They are not 12 thepeer reviewers. Theywere available to us to 13 conduct the existing informationthatwe had. 14 We felt itwouldbehelpful to get objective 15 thirdparty information for thismeeting, and theywere 16 -- ADL has experiencewith clotheswashers. The 17 industryhad consultedwiththem inthe past. We 18 thought theywere a good choice. 19 JimGordonhas over 30 years of experience in 20 the clotheswasher industry, andJohn Tomlinsonhas 21 worked onhigh-efficiencyprograms for market pull 22 strategies inthe department. 23 So, theywereused because theywere 24 available. We wanted objectivethirdparty 25 information, butwe will certainlyconsideryour inputs EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006451 1 relative to future peer reviewers for future analyses, 2 and certainly a peer reviewer on an engineering 3 analysis may be very different from a peer reviewer on 4 a consumer analysis. So. 5 MR. BROOKMAN: So, I guess what I heard you 6 say there was that as you go forward with peer review, 7 this was your first -- this is the first time you tried 8 to apply peer review under the new interpretive rule, 9 but you're interested and willing to receive comment 10 from a spectrum of stakeholders on how to obtain good 11 peer review in the future? 12 MR. LaFRANCE: Right. That's correct. 13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Dick Topping is going 14 to give a brief presentation. He just clarified for me 15 that in fact all three of the peer reviewers are going 16 to give a brief presentation. Brief is the word, 17 right? 18 Okay. I'd like to get on with the discussion 19 here shortly. 20 Summary of Peer Reviewer Findings. 21 MR. TOPPING: Good morning. I'll tell you 22 what -- what I thought my role as a peer reviewer was 23 for our company and that was basically not to solve 24 problems but to identify issues for discussion today, 25 and I think what you'll see is that all the peer EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 51 1 relative to future peerreviewers for future analyses, 2 and certainly a peer reviewer on an engineering 3 analysis may bevery different from a peer reviewer on 4 a consumer analysis. So. 5 

### MR. BROOKMAN: So, I guess what I heard you 6 say therewas that as you go forward withpeer review, 7 this was your first -- this is the first time you tried 8 to applypeer reviewunder the new interpretive rule, 9 but you're interested andwilling to receive comment 10 from a spectrumof stakeholders onhow to obtain good 11 peerreview in the future? 12 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Right. That's correct. 13 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. DickTopping is going 14 to give a brief presentation. He justclarified for me 15 that in fact all three of the peer reviewers are going 16 to give a briefpresentation. Brief is theword, 17 right? 18 

### Okay. I'd liketo get onwith the discussion 19 here shortly. 20 Summary of Peer**RE~viewer** 

### Findings. 21 

### MR. TOPPING: Good morning. I'll tell you 22 what -- what I thoughtmy role as a peer reviewer was 23 for our company and thatwas basicallynot to solve 24 problems but to identify issues for discussion today, 25 and I thinkwhat you'll see is that all the peer EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006452 

### *1 reviewers have reviewed the two reports and opened up 2 some issues that certainly need to be resolved and 3 hopefully will start to be resolved today and in future 4 weeks and months. 5 Ihave to apologize to the people in the back 6 of the room. Iknow it'sprobably going to be pretty 7 hard to see these viewgraphs. 8 MR. BROOKMAN: These are not in the packet? 9 MR. TOPPING: No, but I -- what I will do is 10 give a hard copy to -- to DOE, and if anyone wants 

### 11 copies later, I'm sure they can arrange to get them to 12 you. 13 We basically reviewed the draft design option 14 and preliminary engineering analysis reports, and in 15 summary, these are the key issues that we identified. 16 First, there are clearly consumer utility 17 considerations associated with certain design options, 18 probablymost notably horizontal axis. 19 The data that has been used is, I think, 20 typically two years or -- or more old. There is some 

### 21 question in this rapidly-changing industry whether the 22 data is up-to-date enough and needs to be updated. 23 Regarding that data, there's ahigh degree of 24 variability in the data indicating some significant 25 differences from the submittals from the individual EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 52 1 reviewershave reviewed the tworeports and openedup 2 some issuesthat certainlyneedtoberesolved and 3 hopefullywill starttoberesolvedtoday and in future 4 weeks andmonths. 5 I have to apologize tothepeople in theback 6 of the room. I know it'sprobablygoing to bepretty 7 hard to seetheseviewgraphs. 8 

### MR. BROOKMAN: These are not in thepacket? 9 

### MR. TOPPING: No, but I -- what I will do is 10 give a hard copyto -- toDOE, and if anyonewants 11 copies later, I'm suretheycan arrange to get themto 12 you. 13 We basicallyreviewedthedraftdesign option 14 andpreliminary engineering analysis reports, and in 15 summary, these are thekey-issues thatwe identified. 16 First, there are clearlyconsumerutility 17 considerations associatedwith certaindesign options, 18 probablymost notablyhorizontal axis. 19 Thedata thathas beenused is, I think, 20 typicallytwoyears or -- ormore old. There is some 21 question inthis rapidly-changing industrywhether the 22 data isup-to-date enough and needs tobeupdated. 23 Regarding thatdata, there's a highdegree of 24 variability inthe data indicating some significant 25 differences from the submittals from the individual EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006453 1 manufacturers. There are certain implications of -- of 2 how you use that data when there's high variability in 3 it. 4 And then, second, lastly, I guess, there's 5 one comment regarding the -- the new test procedure. 6 Could I ask you to flip those? It would be a 7 lot easier than going back and forth. 8 Just a few comments on the design options. 9 You know, we concur that the seven options eliminated 10 really do appear not to meet DOE's screening criteria. 11 The numbers differ in seven or eight, I think, based on 12 the RMC now has been split up into four design options. 13 I consider them just as one. 14 In addition, there's one design option adding 15 insulation that appears not to have much merit, both 16 from the standpoint of energy savings and also some 17 health and safety concerns as a product ages and the 18 potential for some insulation perhaps getting into 19 the -- into the washing tub, and, so, we would suggest 20 to DOE that they may consider eliminating that one as 21 well right up front. 22 Then there are two design options that, in my 23 view, perhaps remove choice from the -- from the 24 consumer. These are options that basically 25 automatically sense certain things and therefore adjust EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 53 

### 1 manufacturers. There are certain implications of

-- of 2 howyou use that datawhen there'shigh variability in 3 it. 4 And then, second, lastly, I guess, there's 5 

### one commentregardingthe the new testprocedure. 6 

### Could I askyouto flip those? Itwould be a 7 lot easierthangoingback and forth. 8 Just a few comments on the design options. 9 You know, we concurthatthe seven options eliminated 10 reallydo appear not tomeet DOE's screening criteria. 11 The numbers differ in seven or eight, I think, based on 12 theRMC now has been splitup into four design options. 13 I considerthemjustas one. 14 In addition, there's one design option adding 15 insulationthat appears not tohavemuch merit, both 16 from the standpoint of energy savings and also some 17 health and safetyconcerns as a product ages and the 18 potential for some insulationperhaps getting into 19 the

-- intothewashingtub, and, so, we would suggest 20 to DOE thattheymay considereliminatingthat one as 21 well rightup front. 22 Thenthere are two design options that, inmy 23 view, perhaps remove choice from the

-- from the 24 consumer. These are options thatbasically 25 automatically sense certainthings and therefore adjust EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006454 1 the washer to -- to wash clothes based on -- on -- on 2 what it senses. 3 That may be perfectly acceptable for many 4 consumers, but as you probably all know, there are some 5 people that take a lot of pride in -- in doing their 6 laundry and doing their laundry in certain ways, and 7 for those consumers, flexibility to adjust the washer 8 to many different cycles probably has some merit. 9 I'm just suggesting that that is perhaps a 10 utility issue that needs to be addressed, and that 11 consumer feedback needs to be gathered on. 12 And then, lastly, while -- speaking of 13 utility, certainly in these reports, there is not 14 enough data, we don't believe, to basically answer the 15 question on whether horizontal axis does have utility 16 implications. 17 I'm sure everybody in this room has a very 18 strong opinion about that, but I think the issue is not 19 opinion; the issue is fact, and the issue is what does 20 the consumer feel, and, so, we're suggesting that 21 additional work needs to be done to assess the utility 22 implications of horizontal axis. 23 If it -- you know, if it is proven that 24 horizontal axis does have a different utility, even 25 vertical axis, then because of its potential for saving EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 54 

### 1 thewasher to

-- towash clothes based on -- on -- on 2 what it senses. 3 Thatmay beperfectly acceptable for many 4 consumers, but as youprobably allknow, there are some 5 peoplethattake a lot ofpride in

-- indoingtheir 6 laundryand doingtheir laundry in certainways, and 7 for those consumers, flexibility to adjust thewasher 8 tomany different cyclesprobablyhas somemerit. 9 I'mjust suggestingthat that isperhaps a 10 utility issuethat needs tobe addressed, and that 11 consumer feedback needstobegathered on. 12 And then, lastly, while

-- speaking of 13 utility, certainly inthesereports, there is not 14 enoughdata, we don't believe, tobasically answer the 15 question onwhetherhorizontal axis does have utility 16 implications. 17 I'm sure everybody inthis roomhas a very 18 strong opinion about that, but I think the issue is not 19 opinion; the issue is fact, andthe issue iswhat does 20 the consumer feel, and, so, we're suggestingthat 21 additional work needs tobe done to assess the utility 22 implications ofhorizontal axis. 23 If it

-- youknow, if it isproventhat 24 horizontal axis does have a different utility, even 25 vertical axis, then because of itspotential for saving EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-00641 significant amounts of energy and water, perhaps it 2 should be a separate product class, and that there 3 should be a standard for that product class. 4 Again, that's not a recommendation. That's 5 just an issue for discussion. 6 Next slide. 7 MR. JONES: I have to ask a question. How 8 did you -- how does that question default? Does that 9 default to saying in the absence of evidence, there 10 should be or unless there is evidence, there should be? 11 MR. BROOKMAN: That was Earl Jones. 12 MR. TOPPING: Yeah. How about letting me 13 finish or go through this, and then perhaps see whether 14 that's answered? Maybe the best issue is to bring up 15 these discussions in light of all the peer reviews. 16 But in -- in regard to this, and someone 17 mentioned it earlier, I think one of the weaknesses of 18 this -- of the DOE process in the past is that the true 19 voice of the customer probably has not been adequately 20 factored into these analyses. 21 Again, there are groups here that very 22 sincerely believe that they represent the customer, and 23 I'm sure they do, but these issues are important enough 24 to ensure that the true voice of the customer is 25 reflected in these decisions and deliberations. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 55 1 significantamounts of energy andwater, perhaps it 2 shouldbe a separateproduct class, and that there 3 shouldbe a standard for thatproduct class. 4 

### Again, that's not a recommendation. That's 5 justan issue for discussion. 6 Next slide. 7 

### MR. JONES: I have to ask a question. How 8 

### didyou how does that questiondefault? Does that 9 default to saying inthe absence of evidence, there 10 shouldbe orunless there is evidence, there shouldbe? 11 MR. BROOKMAN: Thatwas Earl Jones. 12 MR. TOPPING: Yeah. How about lettingme 13 finish or go through this, and then perhaps seewhether 14 that's answered? Maybe thebest issue is tobringup 15 these discussions in light of all thepeer reviews. 16 But in

-- inregardto this, and someone 17 mentioned itearlier, I think one of the weaknesses of 18 this

-- of the DOE process inthepast is that the true 19 voice of the customerprobablyhas not been adequately 20 factored intothese analyses. 21 Again, there are groups here that very 22 sincerelybelieve thattheyrepresent the customer, and 23 I'm surethey do, butthese issues are important enough 24 to ensurethatthe truevoice of the customer is 25 reflected inthese decisions and deliberations. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006456 1 We're suggesting that significant effort be 2 put into judging consumer response to some of these 3 utility issues. That can be done a number of different 4 ways in consumer research. There is some indication 5 that consumer research may be available that hasn't 6 been publicly disclosed. Perhaps those that have done 7 that work are willing to do that. 8 And then when you look at consumers, not only 9 do you look at the "average" consumer, we feel it's 10 very important in this case to look at subgroups of 11 consumers, people that don't have the same needs 12 perhaps and would respond to certain products in a 13 different way, suggested to senior citizens and 14 handicapped consumers. 15 Now going on to the data issue, as I said 16 earlier, the data that was submitted by AHAM, which is 17 a compilation of data, I believe, submitted by the 18 individual manufacturers, is -- is getting old. I 19 believe it's at least a couple of years old, and I 20 think the issue needs to be discussed on whether that 21 data is still contemporary and -- and adequate for

-- 22 for the use that's intended. 23 Also, because of the way it's submitted in 24 terms of it's submitted as a -- as an average, as a 25 compilation of sales weighted averages, it's very EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 56 

### 1 We're suggestingthat significant effortbe 2 put intojudgingconsumerresponse to some of these 3 utility issues. That canbe done a number of different 4 ways in consumerresearch. There is some indication 5 that consumerresearchmay be available thathasn't 6 beenpubliclydisclosed. Perhapsthosethathave done 7 thatwork arewillingtodo that. 8 And thenwhen you look atconsumers, not only 9 doyou look atthe "average" consumer, we feel it's 10 very important inthis caseto look at subgroups of 11 consumers, peoplethatdon't have the same needs 12 perhaps andwouldrespondto certainproducts in a 13 differentway, suggestedto senior citizens and 14 handicapped consumers. 15 Now going onto the data issue, as I said 16 earlier, thedata thatwas submittedbyAHAM, which is 17 a compilationof data, I believe, submittedby the 18 individualmanufacturers, is

-- isgetting old. I 19 believe it's at least a couple of years old, and I 20 think the issueneeds tobediscussed onwhether that 21 data is stillcontemporary and

-- and adequate for

-- 22 for the use that's intended. 23 Also, because of theway it's submitted in 24 terms of it's submitted as a -- as an average, as a 25 compilation of salesweighted averages, it'svery EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006457 1 difficult to really assess the variability and the 2 differences in the data the way that it is -- is 3 submitted. 4 As you can see, the standard deviations are 5 huge. In some respects, the standard deviations are 6 bigger than the numbers. In that sort of a situation, 7 very, very difficult to assess impact, particularly 8 when you average those numbers and then use the 9 averages mean as the number. 10 Perhaps really what we're talking about here 11 is that the impact on manufacturers is the cumulative 12 impact of several different impacts on each 13 manufacturer, and that's certainly an analysis issue 14 that -- that needs to be -- be addressed. 15 Just as an example, in the next chart, what 16 we plotted is some variability. This is plus or minus 17 one standard deviation unit on two build-ups of design 18 options on one vertical axis and the other horizontal 19 axis, and you can see that based -- just using one 20 standard deviation unit as reported in the AHAM data, 21 the variability becomes huge. It becomes so large that 22 really it's -- it's almost impossible to pick out what 23 the number really is, and, so, this whole issue of

-- 24 of -- of variability is -- is, I think, a key issue 25 that DOE needs to address and can only address it EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 57 

### 1 difficulttoreallyassess thevariabilityand the 2 differences inthedatatheway that it is -- is 

### 3 submitted. 4 As you can see, the standarddeviations are 5 huge. In somerespects, the standarddeviations are 6 biggerthanthenumbers. Inthat sort of a situation, 7 very, verydifficult to assess impact, particularly 8 whenyou averagethose numbers and thenuse the 9 averagesmean asthenumber. 10 Perhaps reallywhatwe'retalking abouthere 11 isthatthe impactonmanufacturers isthecumulative 12 impact of several different impacts on each 13 manufacturer, andthat's certainlyan analysis issue 14 that -- that needs tobe -- be addressed. 15 Just as an example, inthe next chart, what 16 we plotted is some variability. This isplus orminus 17 one standarddeviationunit ontwo build-ups of design 18 options on one vertical axis and the otherhorizontal 19 

### axis, andyoucan seethatbased justusing one 20 standarddeviationunit asreported intheAHAM data, 21 the variabilitybecomeshuge. Itbecomes so largethat 22 really it's

-- it's almost impossibletopickoutwhat 23 thenumberreally is, and, so, thiswhole issue of

-- 24 of -- ofvariability is -- is, I think, a key issue 25 that DOE needs to address and can only address it EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006458 1 really with the help of -- of the industry. 2 MR. BROOKMAN: Can those of you in the back 3 read this? Yes? 4 MR. TOPPING: So, again, we'd like to suggest 5 for your consideration and discussion later today some 6 alternative data-gathering and reporting options. One 7 would be actually to consider soliciting from 8 individual manufacturers cost efficiency curves. This 9 would give the manufacturers the flexibility to build 10 up efficiencies in the way that is most suitable to 11 their engineering and production capabilities. 12 Second would be to report non-weighted data, 13 very difficult to look at variability and -- and deal 14 with some of these issues when -- when all that DOE 15 gets basically is -- is -- is process data. That would 16 possibly include providing raw data to DOE, assuming 17 that confidentiality could be dealt with. 18 Another thought might be instead of DOE 19 trying to interpret data, which is difficult for them 20 to interpret, perhaps asking AHAM to form a review 21 group that could look at the whole issue of data 22 accuracy, the fact whether it's up-to-date or not, and 23 the variability, and basically help DOE deal with some 24 of these variability issues with much more firsthand 25 knowledge of the situation. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 58 

### 1 reallywiththehelp of

-- of the industry. 2 MR. BROOKMAN: Can those of you intheback 3 read this? Yes? 4 

### MR. TOPPING: So, again, we'd like to suggest 5 for your considerationanddiscussion latertoday some 6 alternative data-gathering and reporting options. One 7 would be actuallyto consider soliciting from 8 individualmanufacturers costefficiencycurves. This 9 would givethemanufacturers the flexibility to build 10 up efficiencies intheway that ismost suitableto 11 theirengineeringandproductioncapabilities. 12 Secondwould be toreport non-weighted data, 13 verydifficult to look atvariability and

-- anddeal 14 with some ofthese issueswhen

-- when all that DOE 15 getsbasically is

-- is

-- isprocess data. Thatwould 16 possibly includeprovidingrawdata toDOE, assuming 17 that confidentialitycouldbedealtwith. 18 Another thoughtmightbe insteadof DOE 19 tryingto interpretdata, which is difficult for them 20 to interpret, perhaps askingAHAM to form a review 21 group thatcould look atthewhole issue of data 22 accuracy, the fact whether it'sup-to-date ornot, and 23 thevariability, andbasicallyhelpDOE deal with some 24 of thesevariability issueswithmuchmore firsthand 25 knowledge of the situation. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006459 1 And then, lastly, as DOE does publish cost 2 efficiency curves in the future, to provide some 3 variability band around those curves just to recognize 4 the fact that this is not precise science. 5 And then my final comment has to do with 6 future test procedure, and as you know, tub size is 7 still being used as the determinant of washer 8 performance, and the energy efficiency descriptor 9 basically is calculated by dividing the energy used by 10 tub capacity, I guess it's vice versa actually. 11 Tub capacity may not accurately determine 12 maximum wash load, as you know. That's particularly an 13 issue when you go to very different design options, and 14 you compare, let's say, vertical axis with horizontal 15 axis. 16 And, so, for discussion, I think it's the 17 issue of whether tub size is -- is still the best 18 number to use in terms of assessing performance. 19 MR. BROOKMAN: I have one quick question, and 20 that is, explain briefly how this peer review group 21 conducted its work. The thrust of your comments was 22 that, Dick, you're an independent reviewer representing 23 Arthur D. Little, and this is your report, is that 24 correct? 25 MR. TOPPING: That's correct. There were EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 59 

### 1 And then, lastly, as DOE does publish cost 2 efficiencycurves inthe future, toprovide some 3 variabilityband aroundthose curvesjustto recognize 4 the fact that this is notprecise science. 5 And thenmy final commenthas to dowith 6 future testprocedure, and as youknow, tub size is 7 stillbeingusedas the determinant ofwasher 8 performance, andthe energy efficiencydescriptor 9 basically is calculatedbydividingthe energyused by 10 tub capacity, I guess it'svice versa actually. 11 Tubcapacitymay not accurately determine 12 maximumwash load, as youknow. That'sparticularly an 13 issuewhenyou gotoverydifferent design options, and 14 you compare, let's say, vertical axis withhorizontal 15 axis. 16 And, so, for discussion, I think it's the 17 issue ofwhether tub size is

-- is stillthe best 18 number touse interms of assessingperformance. 19 

### MR. BROOKMAN: I have one quickquestion, and 20 that is, explainbrieflyhow this peer review group 21 conducted itswork. The thrust ofyour comments was 22 that, Dick, you're an independentreviewerrepresenting 23 Arthur D. Little, and this isyour report, is that 24 correct? 25 

### MR. TOPPING: That's correct. Therewere EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-00641 three groups. We worked independently and in 2 isolation. I think you will see that the comments 3 are -- we did share our comments with DOE in a 4 conference call after our review, and I think you'll 5 see that several of the comments are -- are similar, 6 but they were done independently. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: Perhaps we could take a few 8 brief questions that are germane specifically to Dick's 9 presentation, and, Dick, I'll let you make the call 10 about whether they're to be further addressed by other 11 reviewers. 12 Comments, questions, following Dick's 13 presentation? I see -- yes, Ted? 14 MR. POPE: I had one question, Dick, and I 15 may have missed your point. You said that -- something 16 about creating more flexibility for manufacturers to 17 use whatever design options they choose that meet the 18 criteria. 19 I thought they had full flexibility now to 20 use whatever technology

-- 21 MR. TOPPING: Well, they do. Obviously the 22 analysis is used -- is done based on certain assumed 23 design options, and DOE then uses that data to come up 24 with cost efficiency curves. 25 One alternative way is for industry to EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 60 

### 1 three groups. We worked independently and in 2 isolation. I thinkyouwill seethatthe comments 3 are -- we did share our commentswith DOE in a 4 conference call after ourreview, and I thinkyou'll 5 

### seethat several of the comments are are similar, 6 but theyweredone independently. 7 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Perhapswe couldtake a few 8 brief questions that aregermane specificallyto Dick's 9 presentation, and, Dick, I'll letyoumake the call 10 aboutwhether they're tobe further addressed by other 11 reviewers. 12 Comments, questions, following Dick's 13 presentation? I see -- yes, Ted? 14 

### MR. POPE: I had one question, Dick, and I 15 may havemissedyourpoint. You saidthat -- something 16 about creatingmore flexibility for manufacturers to 17 usewhatever design options they choose thatmeet the 18 criteria. 19 I thought theyhad full flexibility now to 20 usewhatevertechnology 21 MR. TOPPING: Well, they do. Obviouslythe 22 analysis isused -- isdone based on certainassumed 23 design options, and DOE thenuses that data to corne up 24 with costefficiencycurves. 25 One alternativeway is for industryto EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-00641 provide cost efficiency curves. I believe that's 2 done -- I believe ARI -- I believe the air conditioning 3 industry does it that way, and in that respect, DOE 4 isn't all that concerned about design options. 5 What DOE is concerned about is the accuracy 6 of the industry's predictions on what the costs would 7 be to achieve different efficiency levels. So, the 8 analysis is done in a different way. 9 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve? 10 MR. NADEL: Just to clarify that, I know

-- 11 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Nadel. 12 MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel. I know ARI had 13 proposed that method. It has not yet been used, and 14 there are some controversies because it makes it much 15 more difficult for anybody else to review data. 16 I agree there may be ways to -- I don't know 17 whether AHAM can provide the data for the manufacturers 18 but allow DOE to have the data, but to provide a curve 19 where no one could kind of understand the assumptions 20 that underlie it and make it very difficult to -- to 21 use in a rulemaking. 22 MR. TOPPING: Good point. 23 MR. BROOKMAN: I'd like to move quickly to 24 the next presentation. Final question? 25 MR. JONES: Are we getting copies of these? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 61 1 provide cost efficiencycurves. I believethat's 2 done -- I believeARI -- I believe the air conditioning 3 industrydoes itthatway, and inthatrespect, DOE 4 isn't all that concerned about design options. 5 What DOE is concerned about is the accuracy 6 of the industry'spredictions onwhat the costswould 7 be to achieve different efficiency levels. So, the 8 analysis isdone in a differentway. 9 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Steve? 10 

### MR. NADEL: Just to clarifythat, I know -- 11 MR. BROOKMAN: SteveNadel. 12 MR. NADEL: SteveNadel. I knowARI had 13 proposed thatmethod. Ithas not yet beenused, and 14 there are some controversies because itmakes itmuch 15 more difficult for anybody elsetoreview data. 16 I agree theremay beways to -- I don'tknow 17 whetherAHAM canprovidethe data for themanufacturers 18 but allowDOE tohave the data, but toprovide a curve 19 where no one couldkind ofunderstand the assumptions 20 thatunderlie itandmake itvery difficult to -- to 

### 21 use in a rulemaking. 22 MR. TOPPING: Good point. 23 MR. BROOKMAN: I'd like tomove quickly to 24 the next presentation. Final question? 25 

### MR. JONES: Arewe gettingcopies of these? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006462 1 MR. BROOKMAN: By all means. 2 MR. TOPPING: I'm going to give this to this 3 lady, and hopefully she'll make some xeroxes. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Sandy? Would you make the 5 request of Sandy sitting over there next to the door? 6 She will get you a copy of these viewgraphs. 7 Are you the next presenter, Jim? Please 8 proceed. Are you using viewgraphs? 9 MR. GORDON: Yes. 10 MR. BROOKMAN: This is Jim Gordon, 11 independent reviewer, formerly from -- employed by GE. 12 Okay. 13 MR. GORDON: I'm a relative newcomer to this 14 review process. I've had the reports about two weeks. 15 So, my background certainly is not as deep in this 16 process as any of you, and I've taken a broadbrush look 17 at these issues. 18 I realize that sometimes the devil's in the 19 details, and that's true, but I've tried to give a 20 broad perspective. 21 The design options report, I've identified 22 two issues that I'd like to discuss, and the first one, 23 there were two rejection criteria that were identified 24 in the first report, product utility and product 25 availability, yet they were not considered or utilized EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 62 1 MR. BROOKMAN: By allmeans. 2 

### MR. TOPPING: I'mgoing to give this to this 3 lady, andhopefully she'llmake some xeroxes. 4 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Sandy? Wouldyoumake the 5 request of Sandy sittingoverthere next to the door? 6 Shewill getyou a copy of theseviewgraphs. 7 

### Areyouthe nextpresenter, Jim? Please 8 proceed. Areyouusingviewgraphs? 9 

### MR. GORDON: Yes. 10 

### MR. BROOKMAN: This isJimGordon, 11 independentreviewer, formerly from -- employedbyGE. 12 Okay. 13 

### MR. GORDON: I'ma relativenewcomer to this 14 reviewprocess. I'vehadthereports about two weeks. 15 So, my background certainly is not as deep inthis 16 process as any ofyou, and I'vetaken a broadbrush look 17 atthese issues. 18 I realizethat sometimes the devil's inthe 19 details, andthat's true, but I'vetriedto give a 20 broadperspective. 21 The design options report, I've identified 22 two issues that I'd liketo discuss, and the first one, 23 therewere two rejectioncriteriathatwere identified 24 inthe first report, productutility andproduct 25 availability, yettheywere not considered orutilized EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006463 1 in any of the selection process, and they weren't 2 discussed. 3 I think they're very important and should be 4 considered, and that's all I'd like to say right now, 5 and I'll talk about that a little bit later when I talk 6 about the analysis review. 7 Second issue is the quantity and vintage of 8 the energy reduction ideas. There are a lot of ideas 9 there. I'm not sure how old they are. Certainly I 10 don't believe that those are all of the ideas that are 11 available. 12 All of you in the industry know that the 13 idea-generation process is an on-going process. It 14 never stops. So, is it time to revisit the idea15 generation phase? And just as a -- some for instances, 16 I'm not proposing these as ideas to be evaluated, but 17 as I just thought about it a little bit, there probably 18 are a lot of ideas out there that could be combined and 19 should be considered. 20 MR. JONES: Jim, could you move to the side a 21 little bit? 22 MR. GORDON: Oh, sure. That's all right. 23 I'll lay them over. Thank you. 24 Are there other ideas that should be 25 considered, and is it appropriate to ask industry to EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 ----------

63 

### 1 in any of the selectionprocess, and theyweren't 2 discussed. 3 I thinkthey'revery important and shouldbe 4 considered, and that's all I'd liketo sayright now, 5 and I'll talk about that a littlebit laterwhen I talk 6 about the analysis review. 7 Second issue is thequantity and vintage of 8 the energyreduction ideas. There are a lot of ideas 9 there. I'mnot surehow oldthey are. Certainly I 10 don'tbelievethatthose are all of the ideas that are 11 available. 12 All ofyou inthe industryknow thatthe 13 idea-generationprocess is an on-goingprocess. It 14 never stops. So, is ittime to revisit the idea15 

### generationphase? And just as a some for instances, 16 I'mnotproposingthese as ideas to be evaluated, but 17 as I justthought about it a littlebit, thereprobably 18 are a lot of ideas outthere that couldbe combined and 19 shouldbe considered. 20 

### MR. JONES: Jim, couldyoumove to the side a 21 littlebit? 22 MR. GORDON: Oh, sure. That's all right. 23 I'll laythemover. Thankyou. 24 Are there other ideas that shouldbe 25 considered, and is itappropriate to ask industryto EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006464 1 submit ideas for this process or how would you generate 2 these ideas? 3 MR. BROOKMAN: I note that you didn't

-- 4 perhaps you could read those just for the record. 5 MR. GORDON: Yeah. All right. Optimizing 6 wash cycle parameters is one. For instance, very 7 simplistically, cleanliness is a function of wash time, 8 water temperature, agitator power. Would modeling 9 review be a useful minimum in this respect? 10 Energy savings monitor. Currently 11 dishwashers have a monitor on the front, and when the 12 consumer selects the cycle, they can do that with the 13 understanding of the relative impact on energy 14 consumption. Does that have any place in the washer 15 standards? Could it be a factor in setting the 16 standards? 17 And then the washer load application 18 efficiency. One of the options shown was improvement 19 of motor efficiency, and, of course, we all know that 20 if you specify a higher motor efficiency, then the 21 motor manufacturer takes that as a signal to raise the 22 price. 23 If you maintain the same motor efficiency and 24 better match the agitator or the integrated average 25 load to the peak efficiency, would there be some EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 64 

### 1 submit ideas for thisprocess orhow wouldyou generate 2 these ideas? 3 MR. BROOKMAN:' I note thatyou didn't

-- 4 perhaps you couldread thosejust for therecord. 5 

### MR. GORDON: Yeah. All right. Optimizing 6 wash cycleparameters is one. For instance, very 7 simplistically, cleanliness is a function of wash time, 8 water temperature, agitatorpower. Wouldmodeling 9 reviewbe a usefulminimum inthis respect? 10 

### Energy savingsmonitor. Currently 11 dishwashers have a monitor on the front, and when the 12 consumer selectsthe cycle, they can do that with the 13 understanding ofthe relative impact on energy 14 consumption. Does thathave anyplace in thewasher 15 standards? Could itbe a factor in settingthe 16 standards? 17 And then thewasher load application 18 efficiency. One ofthe options shownwas improvement 19 ofmotor efficiency, and, of course, we all know that 20 ifyou specifya highermotor efficiency, then the 21 motormanufacturer takes that as a signal to raise the 22 price. 23 Ifyoumaintainthe samemotor efficiency and 24 bettermatchthe agitator orthe integrated average 25 loadto the peak efficiency, would there be some EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064

### 65 1 options to save energy or could that be tied with this, 2 where you have some trade-offs between the two? And 3 really the bottom line is can industry be expected to 4 help generate some of these options for evaluation? 5 Okay. The engineering analysis report. Here 6 again, I focus on the broad issues, and I've identified 7 a couple issues that I think are significant. Dick 8 Topping has talked on this first one. I won't say too 9 much about it. 10 Standard deviation of the AHAM data that was 11 submitted. If you look at the total energy data, and 12 you normalize the standard deviation by the certain 13 weighted average, it's a very narrow range for total 14 energy and indicates good agreement among 15 manufacturers. 16 However, if you look at the cost data, a very 17 broad range, and that's not really surprising because 18 cost effectiveness is really manufacturing specific, 19 and it would be difficult to have any average cost of 20 any particular option. 21 So, the rank order of the alternates will 22 vary by manufacturer, and here again, as Dick had 23 pointed out, it is possible that each manufacturer 24 could submit a cost energy curve that might be 25 identified by AHAM or compiled into some kind of an EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 65 

### 1 optionsto save energy or could that be tiedwith this, 2 whereyouhave some trade-offs betweenthe two? And 3 really thebottom line is can industrybe expectedto 4 help generate some of these options for evaluation? 5 

### Okay. The engineering analysis report. Here 6 again, I focus onthebroad issues, and I've identified 7 a couple issuesthat I think are significant. Dick 8 Toppinghas talked onthis first one. I won't saytoo 9 much about it. 10 Standarddeviation oftheAHAM data thatwas 11 sUbmitted. Ifyou look at the total energy data, and 12 you normalize the standarddeviationby the certain 13 weighted average, it's a very narrowrange for total 14 energy and indicatesgood agreement among 15 manufacturers. 16 However, ifyou look atthe cost data, a very 17 broadrange, andthat's not really surprising because 18 costeffectiveness isreallymanufacturing specific, 19 and itwouldbe difficulttohave any average cost of 20 anyparticular option. 21 So, the rank order ofthe alternates will 22 varybymanufacturer, andhere again, as Dickhad 23 pointed out, it ispossiblethat eachmanufacturer 24 could submit a costenergy curve thatmight be 25 identifiedbyAHAM or compiled into somekind of an EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006466 1 average smoothing curve by AHAM. 2 The other issue, and I've mentioned that in 3 the first report, the acceptance rejection criteria, 4 product utility and product availability. The H-axis 5 base is designed to show a very large energy reduction 6 over the base vertical axis design, about 63 percent, 7 if you look at the washer only. That may be 40 some 8 percent if you include the power of the dryer. 9 But the H-axis -- certainly there's a lot of 10 conversation about product utility, and you say, well, 11 how do you define product utility? It might be a 12 combination of costs, performance, and the consumer's 13 interface on the showroom floor, and it's the influence 14 of the purchasing decision. 15 How big is this issue, and can it be 16 quantified? That's one question. And then the H-axis 17 product availability, even with that large energy 18 savings, there's no national energy impact until you 19 get market penetration, and that begs the question, 20 what's the estimated growth rate, the ultimate share, 21 and then that suggests the question, can one standard 22 serve both designs? 23 If a single standard is set that challenges 24 the V-axis energy, then basically the H-axis gets a 25 free ride because in the data that's presented, there's EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 66 1 average smoothing curve byAHAM. 2 The other issue, and I'vementioned that in 3 the first report, the acceptancerejection criteria, 4 product utility andproduct availability. TheH-axis 5 base is designedto show a very large energyreduction 6 over the base vertical axis design, about 63 percent, 7 ifyou look atthewasher only. Thatmay be 40 some 8 percent ifyou includethepower of the dryer. 9 ButtheH-axis -- certainlythere's a lot of 10 conversation aboutproductutility, andyou say, well, 11 how do you defineproductutility? Itmight be a 12 combination of costs, performance, and the consumer's 13 interface onthe showroom floor, and it's the influence 14 of the purchasingdecision. 15 How big is this issue, and can itbe 16 quantified? That's one question. And then the H-axis 17 product availability, evenwith that large energy 18 savings, there's no national energy impactuntil you 19 getmarket penetration, andthat begs the question, 20 what's the estimatedgrowthrate, the ultimate share, 21 andthen that suggeststhequestion, can one standard 22 serveboth designs? 23 If a single standard is set that challenges 24 theV-axis energy, then basicallytheH-axis gets a 25 free ride because inthe data that'spresented, there's EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006467 

### 1 really two families of energy savings, and they don't 2 overlap at all; They don't even come close. 3 If a single standard challenges the H-axis 4 energy, then does this signal the demise of the V-axis 5 washer? Itwould, if you look at the data that's 6 proposed today. 7 Setting two standards could challenge each 8 option, but the question here is, do the H-axis issues 9 justify two standards, or how could they be justified 10 if they should be? So, here again, industry help is 11 needed to address these issues. 12 MR. JONES: Could you read that again? 13 MR. GORDON: Sure. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Jim will make these viewgraphs 15 -- we'll get copies made. Leave your name with Sandy, 

### 16 and she'll make these viewgraphs available. 17 MR. GORDON: Okay. That's all Ihave. Thank 18 you. 19 MR. BROOKMAN: Brief follow-on questions for 20 Jim before we move to our next and final speaker? 21 (Noresponse) 22 MR. BROOKMAN: I see none. Okay. Who's 23 presenting for -- thank you. Thank you. This is John 

### 24 Tomlinson, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 25 MR. TOMLINSON: I think that it will become EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 67 

### 1 reallytwo families of energy savings, and they don't 2 overlap at all. They don't even come close. 3 If a single standardchallenges the H-axis 4 energy, then does this signal the demise of theV-axis 5 washer? Itwould, ifyou look atthe data that's 6 proposedtoday. 7 Settingtwo standards could challenge each 8 option, butthequestionhere is, do the H-axis issues 9 justifytwo standards, orhow couldtheybejustified 10 ifthey shouldbe? So, here again, industryhelp is 11 neededto address these issues. 12 MR. JONES: Couldyouread that again? 13 

### MR. GORDON: Sure. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Jimwillmake these viewgraphs 15

-- we'll get copiesmade. Leaveyour name with Sandy, 16 and she'llmake theseviewgraphs available. 17 

### MR. GORDON: Okay. That's all I have. Thank 18 you. 19 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Brief follow-on questions for 20 Jim beforewe move to our next and final speaker? 21 (No response) 22 MR. BROOKMAN: I seenone. Okay. Who's 23 presenting for

-- thankyou. Thankyou. This isJohn 24 Tomlinson, OakRidge National Laboratory. 25 

### MR. TOMLINSON: I think that itwill become EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006468 1 obvious -- well, I think it's obvious that while there 2 may be some -- some talking that went on with the three 3 peer reviewers, some of our comments are, I think, 4 independent. 5 Basically some comments and observations on 6 the draft report, and I chose to speak to two design 7 options that were -- I looked at in particular. One is 8 the idea of reducing the remaining moisture content 9 down to levels like 40 percent. 10 Apparently it's achievable on the basis of 11 the design option report, but of all the options, 12 that's the one that is not going to be transparent to a 13 user. If the clothes come out more wrinkled, the user 14 is going to know that, and there may be an issue with 15 that. 16 So, basically, the question is, will the 17 consumer accept or use that feature, and I think that 18 it wasn't obvious in the -- in either report that that 19 issue had been looked at thoroughly. From an 20 engineering standpoint, certainly it can be done, but 21 from a consumer standpoint, would it be useful? 22 The second is the design option of a 23 thermally-controlled mixing valve, and it wasn't clear 24 where the savings came from. If you look at a 143 hot25 water supply, you say, well, we want to send a 135 to EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 68 

### 1 obvious

-- well, I think it'sobvious thatwhile there 2 may be some -- some talking thatwent onwith the three 3 peer reviewers, some of our comments are, I think, 4 independent. 5 Basically some comments and observations on 6 the draftreport, and I chose to speakto two design 7 

### options thatwere I looked at inparticular. One is 8 the idea of reducingtheremainingmoisture content 9 down to levels like 40 percent. 10 Apparently it's achievable on the basis of 11 the design optionreport, but of all the options, 12 that's the one that is notgoingtobe transparent to a 13 user. If the clothes come outmore wrinkled, the user 14 isgoingtoknow that, andtheremay be an issuewith 15 that. 16 So, basically, thequestion is, will the 17 consumer accept oruse that feature, and I think that 18 

### itwasn't obvious inthe in eitherreport that that 19 issuehad been looked at thoroughly. From an 20 engineering standpoint, certainly itcanbe done, but 21 from a consumer standpoint, would itbe useful? 22 The second is the design option of a 23 thermally-controlledmixingvalve, and itwasn't clear 24 where the savings came from. If you look at a 143 hot25 water supply, you say, well, we want to send a 135 to EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006469 1 the washer, it's clear that the mixing valve can do 2 something for you. 3 But these savings depend on what the test 4 procedure is, and there's a discussion in the design 5 option report that leads -- leads one to believe that 6 in a real setting, in a home, it may be the thermally7 controlled mixing valve doesn't deliver the savings 8 that might be necessary. 9 And I think this has been shown by the other 10 two speakers, and that is, there's a large deviation in 11 a lot of these -- a lot of these numbers that were -- 12 we see. There's a standard deviation, and there's

-- 13 there's an average sales weighted number, and in some 14 cases, the standard deviation exceeds that number. 15 Well, I then looked at the second bullet up 16 there, focus on the future, and I think this sort of 17 echoes what Dick Topping brought up, and that is that 18 the idea of capacity and normalizing energy consumption 19 against tub volume is something that -- that might be 20 looked at. 21 Energy factor, the modified energy factor, 22 and if you have the engineering design report, Figure 23 1, all show data based on tub volume, and yet in the 24 report, the laundry throughput, meaning the pounds of 25 wash, was the same for all the design options, and EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 69 

### 1 thewasher, it'sclearthatthemixingvalve can do 2 something for you. 3 Butthese savings depend onwhat the test 4 procedure is, andthere's a discussion inthe design 5 optionreport that leads -- leads one to believethat 6 in a real setting, in a horne, itmay be the thermally7 controlledmixingvalvedoesn't deliver the savings 8 thatmight be necessary. 9 And I thinkthishas been shown by the other 10 two speakers, andthat is, there's a large deviation in 11 a lot of these -- a lot of these numbers thatwere 12 we see. There's a standarddeviation, andthere's 13 there's an average salesweighted number, and in some 14 cases, the standarddeviation exceeds that number. 15 Well, I then looked atthe secondbulletup 16 there, focus onthe future, and I think this sort of 17 echoeswhat DickToppingbroughtup, and that is that 18 the idea of capacity and normalizing energy consumption 19 against tubvolume is somethingthat -- thatmightbe 20 looked at. 21 Energy factor, themodified energy factor, 22 and ifyouhave the engineeringdesign report, Figure 23 1, all showdata based ontubvolume, and yet inthe 24 report, the laundrythroughput, meaningthepounds of 25 wash, was the same for all the design options, and EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-00641 laundry throughput is important to consumers. 2 So, the suggestion is that we think toward 3 the future of normalizing -- having the energy factor 4 normalized to the throughput of laundry, which is a 5 more appropriate performance matrix, and then beyond 6 that, I think this -- this may echo a little bit of Jim 7 Gordon's idea, and that is the area of cleaning 8 effectiveness. 9 It was alluded to in the design report, 10 design option report, that there had been a study done 11 of several different machines, a laboratory study done, 12 I think it was conducted by A.D. Little, that shows 13 there's variability in cleaning performance, and yet 14 that's one area that's completely ignored in looking at 15 the performance of units. 16 Cleanliness is affected, as Jim pointed out, 17 too, by mechanical action, temperature and time. 18 There's nothing in either the existing standard or the 19 proposed standard to look at that as a matrix, and 20 basically the suggestion is that cleaning performance 21 be simply explored in -- as a -- as a part of a future 22 overall performance standard. 23 MR. BROOKMAN: Questions, comments? 24 (No response) 25 MR. BROOKMAN: None? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 70 

### 1 laundry throughput is important to consumers. 2 So, the suggestion is thatwe think toward 3 the future of normalizing -- having the energy factor 4 normalized to the throughput of laundry, which is a 5 more appropriateperformancematrix, and then beyond 6 that, I think this -- thismay echo a littlebit of Jim 7 Gordon's idea, and that is the area of cleaning 8 effectiveness. 9 Itwas alluded to in the design report, 10 design optionreport, that there had been a study done 11 of several differentmachines, a laboratory study done, 12 I think itwas conductedbyA.D. Little, that shows 13 there's variability in cleaningperformance, and yet 14 that's one area that's completely ignored in looking at 15 the performance of units. 16 Cleanliness is affected, as Jimpointed out, 17 too, bymechanical action, temperature and time. 18 There's nothing in eitherthe existing standard or the 19 proposed standardto look at that as a matrix, and 20 basicallythe suggestion is that cleaningperformance 21 be simply explored in -- as a as a part of a future 22 overall performance standard. 23 24 25 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Questions, comments? (No response) MR. BROOKMAN: None? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) SEiS-006471 1 MR. SCHLEEBE: One general comment about

-- 2 MR. BROOKMAN: Your name, please, for the 3 record. 4 MR. SCHLEEBE: Glenn Schleebe. All the 5 presentations and information in the design report rely 6 on information coming from manufacturers. 7 Has the Department of Energy or the Justice 8 Department, individually or together, looked at the 9 implications of this collection and sharing of 10 information among the manufacturers as to whether that 11 constitutes anti-competitive behavior? 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Can anybody answer that? 13 Bryan? 14 MR. BERRINGER: I'd just like to -- Bryan 15 Berringer -- that we have met with DOJ earlier, 16 discussed these -- we didn't particularly go over the 17 clothes washer issues in detail. We talked about the 18 manufacturing impact in general. 19 So, we have discussed it with them, and we 20 plan to do further work with DOJ to -- to look at the 21 issues as far as anti-competitive, but we're not at the 22 stage -- we should be further along in the 23 manufacturing stage before we really get into the 24 details about that. 25 MR. SCHLEEBE: Is there some sort of an EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 71 1 

### MR. SCHLEEBE: One general comment about 2 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Your name, please, for the 3 record. 4 

### MR. SCHLEEBE: Glenn Schleebe. All the 5 presentations and information inthe design report rely 6 on informationcoming frommanufacturers. 7 Has theDepartment of Energy ortheJustice 8 Department, individually ortogether, looked at the 9 implications of this collection and sharing of 10 information among themanufacturers as towhether that 11 constitutes anti-competitivebehavior? 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Can anybody answer that? 13 Bryan? 14 

### MR. BERRINGER: I'djust liketo -- Bryan 15 Berringer -- thatwe havemetwith DOJ earlier, 16 discussed these -- we didn'tparticularlygo over the 17 clotheswasher issues indetail. We talked about the 18 manufacturing impact in general. 19 So, we have discussed itwith them, andwe 20 planto do further workwith DOJ to -- to look at the 21 issues as far as anti-competitive, butwe're not atthe 22 stage -- we shouldbe further along in the 23 manufacturing stagebeforewe reallyget intothe 24 details about that. 25 

### MR. SCHLEEBE: Isthere some sort of an EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006472 1 exemption that prevents manufacturers and trade 2 associations to share this kind of information? 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Terry, can you comment? 4 MR. THIELE: Terry Thiele from Frigidaire, 5 and counsel for Frigidaire, and, Earl, correct me if 6 I'm wrong, but in all industry activity, with regard to 7 rulemakings, we have AHAM counsel present, and their 8 express purpose is to ensure compliance with 9 appropriate antitrust laws and regulations. 10 In addition to that, for purpose of 11 legislation and regulation, there is an exemption that 12 allows manufacturers to develop common positions with 13 respect to legislation and regulation that affects 14 their respective industries. 15 The problem we have is not so much the 16 collusion among the manufacturers, it is the 17 department's and the other stakeholders' expectations 18 that we collude in order to get them the results that 19 they want. 20 We are constantly having to push back against 21 the department and the other stakeholders for not 22 sharing more information and not coming in with common 23 positions. 24 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. I think it's important 25 to note what I know about this process of collecting EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 72 

### 1 exemptionthatpreventsmanufacturers and trade 2 associations to sharethiskind of information? 3 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Terry, canyou comment? 4 

### MR. THIELE: TerryThiele from Frigidaire, 5 and counsel for Frigidaire, and, Earl, correctme if 6 I'mwrong, but in all industry activity, withregardto 7 rulemakings, we haveAHAM counsel present, and their 8 expresspurpose is to ensure compliancewith 9 appropriate antitrust laws and regulations. 10 In additionto that, for purpose of 11 legislation and regulation, there is an exemptionthat 12 allowsmanufacturersto develop common positionswith 13 respectto legislationand regulationthat affects 14 theirrespective industries. 15 Theproblemwe have is not somuch the 16 collusionamong themanufacturers, it is the 17 department's andthe other stakeholders' expectations 18 that we collude in orderto getthemtheresults that 19 theywant. 20 We are constantlyhavingtopushback against 21 the department andthe other stakeholders for not 22 sharingmore information andnot coming inwith common 23 positions. 24 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. I think it's important 25 to notewhat I know about thisprocess of collecting EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006473 1 the data, and correct me if I'm wrong, I -- as I 2 understand it, AHAM received data from the individual 3 manufacturers. AHAM then masked that data and then 4 transmitted it to the department. 5 So, the data submittal was done independently 6 to a third party, that then manipulated it somehow, and 7 that -- so, the -- the different manufacturers, as I 8 understand it, did that independently. 9 MR. SCHLEEBE: Is that the case, that the 10 third party in this case is an association of the 11 manufacturers? 12 MR. BROOKMAN: It is the case in this case, 13 yes, that it is an association. I think that's the 14 only way that I know of procedurally to address your 15 concern. 16 But perhaps that's a -- that's a discussion 17 you could have with one of these other individuals that 18 was closer to that action. 19 I want us to go to break shortly. 20 MR. SCHLEEBE: I would like to put that on 21 the list for something that

-- 22 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 23 MR. SCHLEEBE: -- the Department of Energy 24 and Justice address. 25 MR. BROOKMAN: Which is -- tell me what it EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 73 

### 1 the data, and correctme if I'mwrong, I -- as I 2 understand it, AHAM receiveddata from the individual 3 manufacturers. AHAM thenmaskedthat data and then 4 transmitted itto the department. 5 So, the data submittalwas done independently 6 to a thirdparty, thatthenmanipulated it somehow, and 7 that -- so, the -- the differentmanufacturers, as I 8 understand it, didthat independently. 9 

### MR. SCHLEEBE: Is that the case, that the 10 thirdparty inthis case is an association of the 11 manufacturers? 12 MR. BROOKMAN: It isthe case inthis case, 13 yes, that it is an association. I think that's the 14 onlywaythat I know of procedurallyto address your 15 concern. 16 Butperhaps that's a -- that's a discussion 17 you couldhavewith one of these other individuals that 18 was closertothat action. 19 I wantus togo tobreak shortly. 20 

### MR. SCHLEEBE: I would like toputthat on 21 the list for somethingthat -- 22 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 23 

### MR. SCHLEEBE: -- the Department of Energy 24 andJustice address. 25 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Which is -- tellme what it EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-00641 is. 2 MR. LEVY: Well, we're not able to address it 3 at this meeting. It may be something that we should 4 look into, but

-- 5 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 6 MR. LEVY: -- we're not in a position to talk 7 about that here today. This is Ed Levy, DOE's Office 8 of General Counsel. 9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Let's take a break. 10 It's just about quarter till. We're running a little 11 bit behind schedule. Can I ask you to be back here

-- 12 let's -- let's start up at 11, and we're going to start 13 at 11. So, please, there are restrooms right down

-- 14 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.) 15 MR. BROOKMAN: As we go into this 16 conversation, which is the comment period, which is 17 where you really hear -- I don't like to ask for your 18 special consideration, and part of that consideration 19 is about being decisive and being specific. So, if you 20 can do both of those, it will help us, and in 21 particular, there's -- I would like to have your sense 22 of sharing the air time. 23 We've tried to provide as much time for 24 comment as possible. So, if you can stay on point and 25 be concise, it will be very helpful, not only for those EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 74 

### 1 is. 2 MR. LEVY: Well, we're not able to address it 3 atthismeeting. Itmay be somethingthatwe should 4 look into, but

-- 5 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 6 MR. LEVY: we're not in a position to talk 7 about thathere today. This isEd Levy, DOE's Office 8 of General Counsel. 9 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Let's take a break. 10 It'sjust aboutquarter till. We're running a little 11 bitbehind schedule. Can I askyou to be backhere

-- 12 let's

-- let's startup at 11, andwe're going to start 13 at 11. So, please, there arerestrooms right down

-- 14 

### (Whereupon, a recesswas taken.) 15 

### MR. BROOKMAN: As we go intothis 16 conversation, which is the comment period, which is 17 whereyou reallyhear

-- I don't liketo ask for your 18 special consideration, andpart of that consideration 19 is about beingdecisive and being specific. So, ifyou 20 cando both ofthose, itwill help us, and in 21 particular, there's

-- I would liketohave your sense 22 of sharingthe airtime. 23 We've triedtoprovide asmuch time for 24 comment as possible. So, ifyou can stayonpoint and 25 be concise, itwill beveryhelpful, not only for those EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006475 1 who wish to understand what you're saying but for the 2 people that are recording this for the record. 3 So, we've had brief comments at this point on 4 the nature of the peer reviews reports, peer reviewers 5 and what they said. Brief comments. Did you like 6 them? Were they good? What you expected? What do you 7 think? I see a few heads nodding yes, but that's not 8 on the record. 9 MR. MARTIN: Very helpful. 10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Anything else? About 11 the level that you expected? Should they have gone 12 deeper? Should they have gone farther? About right. 13 Okay. Thanks for that. 14 Open Discussion on Design Options 15 MR. BROOKMAN: These are the design options 16 that were eliminated, the eight design options listed 17 up here. Maybe we can start by talking about these. 18 Michael, would you like to make a statement 19 at the outset? Michael McCabe. Briefly, right? 20 MR. McCABE: Someone said there's nothing 21 brief when I start rambling, babbling. 22 I appreciate every -- the questions to date. 23 One of the points I'd like to make -- provide some 24 information to everybody is that with respect to the 25 design options and in some discussions that we have EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 75 

### 1 who wish tounderstandwhat you're saying but for the 2 people that are recordingthis for the record. 3 So, we've hadbrief comments at thispoint on 4 the nature of thepeer reviews reports, peer reviewers 5 andwhat they said. Brief comments. Did you like 6 them? Were they good? What you expected? What do you 7 think? I see a few heads nodding yes, but that's not 8 on the record. 9 

### MR. MARTIN: Veryhelpful. 10 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Anything else? About 11 the level that you expected? Should they have gone 12 deeper? Should theyhave gone farther? About right. 13 Okay. Thanks for that. 14 

### OpenDiscussion on Design Options 15 

### MR. BROOKMAN: These are the design options 16 thatwere eliminated, the eight design options listed 17 uphere. Maybewe can startbytalking about these. 18 

### Michael, would you like tomake a statement 19 at the outset? Michael McCabe. Briefly, right? 20 

### MR. McCABE: Someone saidthere's nothing 21 briefwhen I startrambling, babbling. 22 I appreciate every -- the questions to date. 23 One of thepoints I'd liketomake -- provide some 24 information to everybody is thatwith respect to the 25 design options and in some discussions thatwe have EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006476 ^1 had, that I've had, with representatives from 2 Whirlpool, that -- issues have been -- been discussed 3 at length for some time now with respect to Whirlpool's 4 designs, as to whether or not those designs will be on 5 the record to be evaluated, and I have been informed 6 that Whirlpool has -- acknowledges that they have four 7 patented prototype proprietary designs which include 8 both vertical and horizontal axis platforms, and that 9 they will be providing us with copies of the patents or 10 patent applications in the near future as of next week. 11 I have been informed that it is their belief 12 that these designs are capable of being manufactured 13 and do not affect the utility of the product. 14 We will -- the design options that are 15 identified to us, that we will evaluate them under 16 those criteria as to whether or not they are capable of 17 being manufactured, serviced and what impact they have 18 on the utility, and such as Whirlpool will be 19 providing, and make determination with all the input 20 that we can gather as possible as to whether or not 21 they in fact meet those specials and can be and should 22 be included in the engineering analysis. 23 When the -- the information will be put in 24 the docket, into the record, for this rulemaking, and 25 it will be, I suspect, what they provide and what EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 76 

### 1 had, that I'vehad, with representatives from 2 Whirlpool, that -- issues have been -- been discussed 3 at length for some time now with respect toWhirlpool's 4 designs, as towhether or not those designs will be on 5 the recordto be evaluated, and I have been informed 6 thatWhirlpool has -- acknowledges that they have four 7 patentedprototypeproprietary designs which include 8 bothvertical and horizontal axis platforms, and that 9 theywill be providingus with copies of the patents or 10 patent applications in the near future as of next week. 11 I have been informed that it is their belief 12 that these designs are capable of beingmanufactured 13 and do not affect the utility of the product. 14 We will -- thedesign options that are 15 identifiedto us, thatwe will evaluatethemunder 16 those criteria as towhether or not they are capable of 17 beingmanufactured, serviced andwhat impact theyhave 18 on the utility, and such asWhirlpool will be 19 providing, andmake determinationwith all the input 20 thatwe cangather as possible as towhether or not 21 they in fact meet those specials and can be and should 22 be included in the engineering analysis. 23 When the -- the informationwill be put in 24 the docket, intothe record, for this rulemaking, and 25 itwill be, I suspect, what theyprovide and what EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006477 1 others may provide as far as their own design options 2 that have not been considered but they believe DOE 3 should consider, and we expect all those design options 4 will be given a great deal of attention and be focused 5 on in the debate. 6 But at this point, I have shared with you the 7 information which I have that they are -- they are 8 either patented or patent applications have been 9 submitted, that those will be provided to us, that they 10 include both vertical and horizontal axis platforms, 11 and it's -- the level of efficiency is such that it's 12 in the high range. I do not have information as to 13 specifically what it is at this point in time. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Let me ask, before I take 15 questions, if Whirlpool has any brief follow-on 16 comments they feel are really important at this point, 17 brief, let me emphasize that, to add to Michael 18 McCabe's comments. 19 MR. THOMPSON: The only thing -- this is Mike 20 Thompson. The only thing that Mike left out was the 21 fact that we also have working prototypes of each of 22 those designs. We built them. We feel confident about 23 what they can do, their performance, and we feel that 24 they meet all the criteria that we're going to be 25 discussing today. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 77 1 othersmay provide as far as their own design options 2 thathave notbeen consideredbut they believe DOE 3 should consider, andwe expect all those design options 4 will be given a great deal of attention and be focused 5 on inthe debate. 6 But atthispoint, I have sharedwith you the 7 informationwhich I have thatthey are -- they are 8 eitherpatented orpatent applicationshave been 9 submitted, thatthosewill beprovidedto us, that they 10 includebothvertical andhorizontal axisplatforms, 11 and it's -- the level of efficiency is such that it's 12 inthehighrange. I do nothave information as to 13 specificallywhat it is atthispoint in time. 14 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Letme ask, before I take 15 questions, ifWhirlpool has any brief follow-on 16 comments they feel arereally important at thispoint, 17 brief, letme emphasize that, to add toMichael 18 McCabe's comments. 19 

### MR. THOMPSON: The onlything -- this isMike 20 Thompson. The onlythingthatMike left outwas the 21 fact thatwe alsohaveworkingprototypes of each of 22 those designs. We builtthem. We feel confident about 23 what they cando, theirperformance, and we feel that 24 theymeet all the criteriathatwe're going tobe 25 discussing today. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006478 1 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 2 Terry, you had a question? 3 MR. THIELE: Just a clarification as to 4 whether those four designs encompass the design that 5 Whirlpool publicly announced a year ago June as its 6 replacement for its then-at-that-time publicly-stated 7 commitment to a horizontal axis product. 8 My only question is whether the high9 efficiency design Whirlpool announced is encompassed 10 within those four design options or it turns out being 11 a fifth design option. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike, are you in a position to 13 respond to that? 14 MR. THOMPSON: It's encompassed within all 15 four designs. 16 MR. THIELE: Great. Thank you. 17 MR. THOMPSON: But all -- all of the designs 18 are capable of reaching high-efficiency levels and 19 meeting the performance levels. 20 MR. BROOKMAN: That may not have been heard 21 on the record. Mike responds that it's encompassed 22 within those four designs, and he amplified on that. 23 Questions? Any more questions? 24 (No response) 25 MR. BROOKMAN: I'm very eager to proceed. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 - -**~--~-----** -------

78 1 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Thankyou. 2 Terry, youhad a question? 3 

### MR. THIELE: Just a clarification as to 4 whether those four designs encompass the design that 5 Whirlpool publiclyannounced a year ago June as its 6 replacement for itsthen-at-that-timepublicly-stated 7 commitment to a horizontal axisproduct. 8 My onlyquestion iswhether the high9 efficiencydesignWhirlpool announced is encompassed 10 within those four design options or itturns out being 11 a fifth design option. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike, are you in a positionto 13 respond to that? 14 

### MR. THOMPSON: It's encompassedwithin all 15 four designs. 16 

### MR. THIELE: Great. Thankyou. 17 

### MR. THOMPSON: But all

-- all of the designs 18 are capable ofreachinghigh-efficiency levels and 19 meetingtheperformance levels. 20 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Thatmay not have beenheard 21 on therecord. Mike responds that it's encompassed 22 withinthose four designs, andhe amplified on that. 23 24 25 

### Questions? Any more questions? (No response) MR. BROOKMAN: I'mvery eagertoproceed. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-00641 We've got a very limited amount of time. Let's get 2 after this, please. 3 As a way of -- as a way of breaking down this 4 discussion so that it's structured, I'm going to 5 suggest that we talk about the eight design options 6 that were eliminated, then talk about the 12 options 7 that were considered in engineering analysis, and then 8 proceed from there. 9 So, with your permission, I'd like to do it 10 -- yes, Terry? 11 MR. THIELE: Well, again, I -- I -- with all 12 due respect, I don't know what the right time is to 13 raise it, but I sure as hell would hate to spend a lot 14 of time talking about eliminated design options when we 15 still have open questions as to how the interpretive 16 rule should affect this whole analytical process. 17 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 18 MR. THIELE: Because arguably we're going 19 down the wrong path with the wrong analysis because we 20 haven't done what the interpretive rule told us to do 21 up until this point. 22 MR. BROOKMAN: What Michael McCabe said 23 earlier about his -- his sense of the interpretive rule 24 and what that implies for this workshop, that didn't 25 satisfy -- that didn't satisfy your concerns? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 79 

### 1 We've got a very limited amount of time. Let's get 2 after this, please. 3 As a way of

-- as a way of breakingdown this 4 discussion so that it's structured, I'mgoing to 5 suggestthatwe talk about the eightdesign options 6 thatwere eliminated, thentalk about the 12 options 7 thatwere considered in engineering analysis, and then 8 proceed from there. 9 So, withyourpermission, I'd liketo do it 10

-- yes, Terry? 11 MR. THIELE: Well, again, I

-- I

-- with all 12 due respect, I don'tknowwhat theright time is to 13 raise it, but I sure as hell wouldhate to spend a lot 14 of time talkingabout eliminateddesign optionswhen we 15 stillhave openquestions as tohow the interpretive 16 rule should affectthiswhole analytical process. 17 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 18 

### MR. THIELE: Because arguablywe're going 19 down thewrongpathwiththewrong analysis becausewe 20 haven't done what the interpretiverule toldus to do 21 upuntil thispoint. 22 MR. BROOKMAN: WhatMichaelMcCabe said 23 earlier abouthis

-- his sense of the interpretiverule 24 andwhat that implies for thisworkshop, that didn't 25 satisfy

-- thatdidn't satisfyyour concerns? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006480 1 MR. THIELE: Nope. 2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 3 MR. LaFRANCE: Excuse me. I'd just like to 4 ask a question for clarification. What do you see 5 being the first -- first step of the new process? 6 MR. THIELE: Well, I -- I'm not an engineer. 7 So, I -- I wouldn't want to speak to the engineering 8 analysis. I'll let Dick do that. But what I would 9 like to see happen would be to disclose or discuss the 10 appropriate steps we have to take to satisfy the 11 interpretive rule requirements, and the interpretive 12 rule lays out that, among other actions, there's going 13 to be a review of manufacturing impact analysis model 14 and methodologies, and a review of non-regulatory 15 approaches. 16 Now, we've already done a prioritization of 17 the rules, but in those two exercises, the 18 manufacturing impact analysis and the non-regulatory 19 approaches, the outcome of those two in some part could 20 dictate the sort of information you want about design 21 options. 22 I don't know whether the cost data we 23 currently collect is the right cost data that that 24 analysis would ultimately come out asking for. Maybe 25 it is, maybe it isn't. But until we know what we need EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**-----~---** --**--~** -- ---- -------

80 

### 1 MR. THIELE: Nope. 2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 3 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Excuseme. I'djust liketo 4 ask a question for clarification. What do you see 5 beingthe first

-- first step of the newprocess? 6 

### MR. THIELE: Well, I

-- I'mnot an engineer. 7 So, I

-- I wouldn'twant to speakto the engineering 8 analysis. I'll letDickdo that. Butwhat I would 9 like to seehappenwouldbe to disclose or discuss the 10 appropriate stepswe have to take to satisfythe 11 interpretiverulerequirements, andthe interpretive 12 rule lays outthat, among other actions, there's going 13 tobe a review ofmanufacturing impact analysis model 14 andmethodologies, and a review of non-regulatory 15 approaches. 16 NOw, we've alreadydone a prioritization of 17 therules, but inthose two exercises, the 18 manufacturing impact analysis andthe non-regulatory 19 approaches, the outcome of those two in some part could 20 dictatethe sort of informationyouwant about design 21 options. 22 I don'tknow whether the cost data we 23 currentlycollect is the right cost data that that 24 analysiswouldultimatelycome out asking for. Maybe 25 it is, maybe it isn't. Butuntil we knowwhatwe need EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006481 

### 1 for manufacturer impact analysis in terms of cost data, 2 I think it's premature to go through adesign analysis 3 because we don't know how to factor in the dollar 4 figures that go along with the designs. 5 Now, I also was under the impression that 6 with regard to the engineering part in particular, that 7 DOEwould go through aprocess that would identify

-- 8 again, I'm reading out of the rule, that it would talk 9 about the identifying of procedures and methodologies 10 for engaging in this engineering analysis. 11 One of the key questions there, of course, is 12 how do you pick yourproduct classes, and Idon't think 13 any of us was involved in the selection of product 14 classes at this point. 15 MR. BROOKMAN: Iwant to give DOE a chance to 16 respond, but this gentleman has to speak first. Please 17 say your name for the record. 18 MR. HASKELL: Yes, I'm Mark Haskell, counsel 19 for Whirlpool. One point we wanted to make very 20 clearly and very early in the process relates to the 21 scope of the proceeding. 22 From our perspective, the scope of this 23 exercise today is simply to identify the maximum 24 technologically-feasible solutions consistent with the 25 expressedmandate of the statute. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 81 1 for manufacturer impact analysis interms of costdata, 2 I think it'sprematuretogothrough a design analysis 3 becausewe don'tknow how to factor inthe dollar 4 figures thatgo alongwiththe designs. 5 Now, I alsowas underthe impressionthat 6 withregardto the engineeringpart inparticular, that 7 DOE would go through a process thatwould identify 8 again, I'mreading out of therule, that itwould talk 9 aboutthe identifying ofprocedures andmethodologies 10 for engaging inthis engineering analysis. 11 One ofthekey questions there, of course, is 12 how do youpickyourproduct classes, and I don't think 13 any of uswas involved inthe selectionof product 14 classes atthispoint. 15 

### MR. BROOKMAN: I want to give DOE a chance to 16 respond, butthis gentlemanhas to speak first. Please 17 sayyour name for therecord. 18 MR. HASKELL: Yes, I'mMark Haskell, counsel 19 for Whirlpool. One pointwe wantedtomake very 20 clearly and very early intheprocess relates to the 21 scope of theproceeding. 22 From ourperspective, the scope of this 23 exercise today is simplyto identifythemaximum 24 technologically-feasible solutions consistentwith the 25 expressedmandate of the statute. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006482 1 We would object strenuously to -- to the 2 injection of any issues relating to economic impact in 3 today's proceedings. We should stay focused in our 4 view on the technical issues, and there are many which 5 have been separate discussions today. 6 MR. BROOKMAN: I myself would like to find 7 some way to, for example, answer your question, Terry, 8 but not subordinate the -- the focal -- the focus

-- 9 the central purpose of this meeting. 10 I'm wondering if we could have a more 11 detailed discussion over lunch or something briefly 12 into

-- 13 MR. LEVY: Well, to -- to respond, I think, 14 to Terry's point, and I think this is what underlay 15 Mark's question to him, the first step in the process 16 under the interpretive rule is to determine what design 17 options would be considered, which ones would be the 18 subject of further analysis. 19 The questions that you're raising are then 20 addressed subsequently in terms of evaluating the 21 economic feasibility of -- of those various design 22 options. So, I think that the step that we're taking 23 here, and Mike may want to follow on with that, he's 24 got his hand raised, the step we're taking here is 25 entirely within the framework and is not dictated by EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 82 1 We would object strenuouslyto

-- to the 2 injection of any issues relating to economic impact in 3 today'sproceedings. We should stay focused in our 4 view on the technical issues, and there aremanywhich 5 have been separatediscussions today. 6 

### MR. BROOKMAN: I myselfwould like to find 7 someway to, for example, answeryour question, Terry, 8 but not subordinatethe

-- the focal

-- the focus

-- 9 the centralpurpose of thismeeting. 10 I'mwondering ifwe couldhave a more 11 detaileddiscussion over lunch or something briefly 12 into

-- 13 

### MR. LEVY: Well, to

-- torespond, I think, 14 to Terry'spoint, and I think this iswhatunderlay 15 Mark's questiontohim, the first step inthe process 16 under the interpretiverule is to determinewhat design 17 options would be considered, which oneswould be the 18 subjectof further analysis. 19 Thequestions that you're raising are then 20 addressed subsequently interms of evaluatingthe 21 economic feasibility of

-- of those various design 22 options. So, I thinkthat the stepthatwe're taking 23 here, andMikemay want to follow onwiththat, he's 24 gothishand raised, the stepwe're takinghere is 25 entirelywithin the framework and is not dictatedby EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006483 1 the interpretive rule. 2 MR. McCABE: Agreeing with that, and adding 3 to it, in answering one of your questions, for example, 4 Terry, that based on the design options that are -- are 5 identified and are determined to be technologically6 feasible, practical manufacturer, do not affect -- and 7 evaluating with respect to the utility, that we will be 8 going through an interactive process with many of the 9 parties here and others to evaluate those and make the 10 final decisions on the very issue that Dick and Ed 11 raised with respect to the -- and others, Jim had 12 raised as well, regarding the classes. 13 The -- we identified two classes in the 14 engineering analysis that had been circulated to date, 15 but those classes are not final nor is the analysis 16 that we have shared final, but if, based on this first 17 step in the process and subsequent steps, we determine 18 that changes are warranted, including new classes or 19 scrapping the engineering analysis entirely, we are 20 willing to do that. 21 The first step in the process, though, is to 22 identify what are the design options, and then to 23 perform the engineering analysis based on those, and we 24 -- this whole process is -- appears -- because we do 25 have a body of work that is present, we'd like to take, EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 83 

### 1 the interpretiverule. 2 MR. McCABE: Agreeingwith that, and adding 3 to it, in answering one ofyourquestions, for example, 4 Terry, thatbasedon thedesign options that are -- are 5 identified and are determinedtobe technologically6 feasible, practicalmanufacturer, do not affect

-- and 7 evaluatingwithrespect to theutility, thatwe will be 8 goingthrough an interactiveprocesswithmany of the 9 partieshere and others to evaluatethose andmake the 10 final decisions on thevery issuethat Dick and Ed 11 raisedwithrespect tothe

-- and others, Jimhad 12 raised as well, regardingthe classes. 13 The

-- we identifiedtwo classes inthe 14 engineering analysis thathadbeen circulatedto date, 15 butthose classes are not final nor is the analysis 16 thatwe have shared final, but if, based onthis first 17 step intheprocess and subsequent steps, we determine 18 that changes arewarranted, includingnew classes or 19 scrappingthe engineering analysis entirely, we are 20 willingtodo that. 21 The first step inthe process, though, is to 22 identifywhat arethe design options, and thento 23 performthe engineering analysis based on those, andwe 24



### -- this wholeprocess is appears -- because we do 25 have a body ofwork that ispresent, we'd like to take, EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006484 1 for no other reasons than economic reasons that we've 2 already paid for it, you've paid for it, we'd like to 3 take and use as much of it as can be, but we're not 4 wedded to that if we determine for whatever reason it 5 is not appropriate to go forward with the work that's 6 been done to date. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: I would like to ask that 8 questions about the larger issue of what the 9 interpretive rule means and how it progresses forward 10 like that, we put them on hold for just a moment. 11 Can we initiate a conversation about that 12 over lunch and see where it leads us? Can we do that? 13 MR. THIELE: My only concern, and I'll just 14 summarize it, is that I hate like hell to start down a 15 process where I don't know what the whole process looks 16 like. 17 MR. BROOKMAN: I see. Let's talk about that 18 over lunch. It seems as though they -- the department 19 at least has some clear ideas about where it leads

-- 20 where it starts and where it's leading us. I'm sure 21 they're interested in having that discussion with you. 22 I'd like very much to turn to the major 23 purpose of this workshop, which is to consider these 24 design options now. These are the eight that got 25 kicked out. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 84 

### 1 for no otherreasons than economic reasons thatwe've 2 alreadypaid for it, you'vepaid for it, we'd liketo 3 take anduse asmuch of it as canbe, butwe're not 4 wedded to that ifwe determine for whateverreason it 5 is not appropriate to go forward withthework that's 6 beendone todate. 7 

### MR. BROOKMAN: I would liketo ask that 8 questions about the larger issue of what the 9 interpretiverulemeans andhow itprogresses forward 10 likethat, we put them onhold for justa moment. 11 Can we initiatea conversation about that 12 over lunch and seewhere it leadsus? Canwe do that? 13 

### MR. THIELE: My onlyconcern, and I'lljust 14 summarize it, isthat I hate likehell to startdown a 15 process where I don'tknow what thewhole process looks 16 like. 17 

### MR. BROOKMAN: I see. Let's talk about that 18 over lunch. It seems as thoughthey

-- the department 19 at leasthas some clear ideas aboutwhere it leads

-- 20 where it starts andwhere it's leadingus. I'm sure 21 they're interested inhaving that discussionwith you. 22 I'd likeverymuch to turn to themajor 23 purpose of thisworkshop, which is to consider these 24 design optionsnow. These are the eightthat got 25 kicked out. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006485 1 Earl, do you have comments for any of the 2 design options? 3 MR. JONES: I absolutely do. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you so much. 5 MR. JONES: Unfortunately, they -- you can't, 6 as so neatly, Doug, I think sort of divide 7 consideration of design options from -- from 8 consideration of this process. 9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. I appreciate your help 10 with that. 11 MR. JONES: I'll do my best to do that, and I 12 will only do it in this respect. First, I think that 13 having a workshop is a great idea. I think the 14 department should be commended. We wouldn't be dealing 15 with these questions, unfortunately, if the department 16 had laid out to us more about how this process was to 17 work, and also what was to be accomplished today. 18 Now, getting back, for example, I noticed 19 that in the discussion of the various design options in 20 the report dated October 15th, there is lots of 21 discussion about cost. There is discussion about 22 energy savings, which is a cipher for cost, and those 23 were used then as the basis for knocking out certain of 24 these design options, and therefore I think it is a 25 relevant question to say, if that is true then, why is EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 85 1 Eari, doyouhave comments for any of the 2 design options? 3 

### MR. JONES: I absolutely do. 4 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Thankyou somuch. 5 

### MR. JONES: Unfortunately, they -- you can't, 6 as so neatly, Doug, I think sortof divide 7 considerationof design options from -- from 8 considerationof thisprocess. 9 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. I appreciateyour help 10 withthat. 11 MR. JONES: I'lldomy bestto do that, and I 12 will onlydo it inthis respect. First, I think that 13 having a workshop is a great idea. I think the 14 department shouldbe commended. We wouldn't be dealing 15 with thesequestions, unfortunately, if the department 16 had laid outtousmore abouthow thisprocess was to 17 work, and alsowhat was tobe accomplished today. 18 Now, gettingback, for example, I noticed 19 that inthe discussion of thevarious design options in 20 thereport dated October 15th, there is lots of 21 discussion about cost. There is discussion about 22 energy savings, which is a cipher for cost, and those 23 wereused then as thebasis for knocking out certainof 24 these design options, andtherefore I think it is a 25 relevant question to say, ifthat is true then, why is EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006486 ^1 not cost also relevant in including certain ones, sort 2 of leaving them on the table for review? 3 Again, I mean if you want to -- let's focus 4 now specifically on the ones which have been knocked 5 out. The -- for example, it says here ozinated 6 laundering. I'm not a big fan of ozinated laundering, 7 by the way. So, let's not misunderstand my comment 8 here. 9 The expected cost of energy consumption for 10 residential ozinated washes are unknown. Now, why are 11 we considering cost and knocking that option out or at 12 least not considering it? 13 With respect to bubble action, standardized 14 tests have not yet been conducted on the performance, 15 and therefore the energy saving potential is unknown. 16 I mean I think the department needs to be consistent in 17 what exactly it's going to be doing here. 18 If indeed it is considering costs in knocking 19 stuff out, then one must assume that it is assuming it 20 is considering costs in keeping things in, which gets 21 right back to Terry's question, what is the basis of 22 the cost -- what -- how -- how are you measuring the 23 cost to keep it in or out? It must go back to the

-- 24 the analysis which you received, one assumes, and isn't 25 that supposed to be impacted by this rule? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 86 

### 1 not cost alsorelevant in includingcertain ones, sort 2 of leavingthem onthe table for review? 3 Again, I mean ifyouwant to

-- let's focus 4 now specificallyonthe oneswhichhavebeenknocked 5 out. The

-- for example, it sayshere ozinated 6 laundering. I'mnot a big fan of ozinated laundering, 7 by theway. So, let'snotmisunderstandmy comment 8 here. 9 The expectedcostof energy consumption for 10 residential ozinatedwashes areunknown. Now, why are 11 we consideringcost andknocking that option out or at 12 leastnot considering it? 13 withrespect tobubble action, standardized 14 testshave not yetbeen conductedon theperformance, 15 and thereforethe energy savingpotential isunknown. 16 I mean I thinkthe department needs to be consistent in 17 what exactly it'sgoingtobedoinghere. 18 If indeed it is considering costs inknocking 19 stuff out, then onemust assume that it is assuming it 20 is consideringcosts inkeepingthings in, which gets 21 right backtoTerry'squestion, what is thebasis of 22 the cost

-- what

-- how

-- how areyoumeasuring the 23 costtokeep it in or out? Itmust gobackto the

-- 24 the analysis whichyoureceived, one assumes, and isn't 25 that supposedtobe impactedby this rule? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006487 1 MR. BROOKMAN: It seems, Terry -- let me -- 2 it seems as though one thing that Earl's uncovering 3 here is whether costs -- well, he mentioned that cost 4 is embedded as an element in some of these issues for 5 which design options were removed, and I'm asking 6 myself the question, is it the central element? 7 MR. JONES: Well, I mean, you know, you can 8

-- 9 MR. BROOKMAN: I'm asking. I'm not -- I'd 10 like to put that question to the peer reviewers or to 11 anybody else who's in a position to comment on that 12 because it seems that cost, of course, is always an 13 important issue. 14 MR. JONES: The only person that can comment 15 on it is the person who drafted this report. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: Perhaps. Perhaps this 17 gentleman -- your name, please? 18 MR. BIERMEYER: Peter Biermeyer. 19 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 20 MR. BIERMEYER: I wrote this report, and on 21 the next page is the reason it was -- it was 22 eliminated. It says there does not appear to be any 23 commercially-available working prototype residential 24 clothes washer using this design option, and, so, that 25 it was eliminated for one of the -- the four stated EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 87 

### 1 MR. BROOKMAN: It seems, Terry

-- letme 2 it seems as though one thing that Earl'suncovering 3 here iswhether costs

-- well, hementionedthat cost 4 is embedded as an element in some of these issues for 5 whichdesign optionswere removed, and I'm asking 6 myself thequestion, is itthe central element? 7 

### MR. JONES: Well, I mean, youknow, you can 8 9 

### MR. BROOKMAN: I'm asking. I'mnot

-- I'd 10 liketoputthatquestionto the peerreviewers orto 11 anybody elsewho's in a positionto comment on that 12 because it seems that cost, of course, is always an 13 important issue. 14 

### MR. JONES: The onlypersonthat can comment 15 on it is thepersonwho draftedthis report. 16 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Perhaps. Perhaps this 17 gentleman

-- your name, please? 18 

### MR. BIERMEYER: Peter Biermeyer. 19 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 20 

### MR. BIERMEYER: I wrote this report, and on 21 the nextpage isthereason itwas -- itwas 22 eliminated. It says there does not appear to be any 23 commercially-availableworkingprototype residential 24 clotheswasherusing this design option, and, so, that 25 itwas eliminated for one ofthe

-- the four stated EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006488 1 reasons in the interpretive rule for eliminating design 2 options, and -- and sometimes when I have these 3 descriptions, I add information that I know about it, 4 it doesn't mean that's the reason it was eliminated. 5 You know, I -- I try to get information

-- 6 looked at information on each of these design options, 7 and then just summarized what it is, say what I know 8 about it. If I know something about costs, then I put 9 it in just for information purposes. 10 MR. JONES: By the same token, automatic fill 11 control contains the comment in your last sentence 12 there, "using manufacturer-supplied cost and efficiency 13 data, this design option is analyzed as a method to 14 improve clothes washer efficiency." 15 So, therefore, we must presume, based upon 16 your own -- your own statements here that you're 17 including cost as a factor in deciding what is to be 18 reviewed further. 19 MR. BIERMEYER: No, I am not. I am just 20 saying that

-- 21 MR. JONES: Oh, I see. It's just observing, 22 but it's not a factor. 23 MR. LaFRANCE: Let me elaborate on this as 24 well. First of all, there are four criteria that 25 you're very well aware of, and those are used for EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 88 1 reasons inthe interpretiverule for eliminatingdesign 2 options, and -- and sometimeswhen I have these 3 descriptions, I add informationthat I know about it, 4 itdoesn'tmean that's thereason itwas eliminated. 5 

### You know, I I tryto get information -- 6 looked at information on each of these design options, 7 and thenjust summarizedwhat it is, saywhat I know 8 about it. If I know something about costs, then I put 9 it injust for informationpurposes. 10 

### MR. JONES: By the same token, automatic fill 11 control contains the comment inyour last sentence 12 there, "usingmanufacturer-supplied cost and efficiency 13 data, this design option is analyzed as a method to 14 improve clotheswasher efficiency." 15 So, therefore, we mustpresume, basedupon 16 your own -- your own statementshere that you're 17 including cost as a factor indecidingwhat is tobe 18 reviewed further. 19 

### MR. BIERMEYER: No, I am not. I am just 20 sayingthat -- 21 MR. JONES: Oh, I see. It'sjust observing, 22 but it's not a factor. 23 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Letme elaborate on this as 24 well. First of all, there are four criteriathat 25 you'reverywell aware of, andthose are used for EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064

### 89 1 screening. 2 One other issue that comes up is energy 3 savings, and that is, if something doesn't save energy 4 to begin with, then it's not even truly a design option 5 because the whole intention of the proceeding is to 6 save energy. 7 Now, any other consideration, such as cost, 8 is informational. These other things are provided as 9 informational statements, and every one of these design 10 options were eliminated for one of the four criteria, 11 except for bubble action, and basically bubble action, 12 we're saying if it doesn't save any energy, then it's 13 not even on the table to begin with. So, it shouldn't 14 have even been considered on the original 20. 15 MR. BROOKMAN: It's helpful that he refers 16 back to the criteria. It gets us back on track, 17 talking about the design options. 18 Earl, it seems the thrust of your comment is 19 why is the issue of cost central, and where does it get 20 factored into this analysis. The thrust of what I've 21 heard, based on what Peter said, and when I read this 22 document, was that in this preliminary screening phase, 23 cost is not the central feature. 24 Is that -- am I interpreting that correctly? 25 MR. LaFRANCE: That is correct, and I'd like EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 89 

### 1 screening. 2 One other issuethat comes up is energy 3 savings, andthat is, if somethingdoesn't save energy 4 tobeginwith, then it'snot eventruly a design option 5 becausethewhole intention of theproceeding is to 6 save energy. 7 NOw, any other consideration, such as cost, 8 is informational. These otherthings areprovided as 9 informational statements, and everyone of these design 10 optionswere eliminated for one of the four criteria, 11 except for bubble action, andbasicallybubble action, 12 we're saying if itdoesn't save any energy, then it's 13 not even on the table tobeginwith. So, it shouldn't 14 have evenbeen considered onthe original 20. 15 MR. BROOKMAN: It'shelpful thathe refers 16 back to the criteria. Itgetsus back on track, 17 talking about the design options. 18 Earl, it seems thethrust of your comment is 19 why isthe issue of cost central, andwhere does itget 20 factored intothis analysis. The thrust of what I've 21 heard, based onwhatPeter said, andwhen I read this 22 document, was that inthispreliminary screeningphase, 23 cost is notthe central feature. 24 Is that

-- am I interpreting that correctly? 25 

### MR. LaFRANCE: That is correct, and I'd like EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006490 1 to give you an example for that. If we had looked at 2 cost as a criteria, we probably would have thrown out 3 insulation, direct dry motor. There are other things 4 in here that, because we have information that your 5 industry presented to us, we know in -- we have 6 information to determine whether or not what's most 7 effective initially. 8 But we visited that in screening. That's not 9 a screening-type issue. Cost is certainly not a 10 screening criteria, and that's why we moved on to the 11 next step. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: I'd like to see -- 13 MR. JONES: Well, again, -- and I accept what 14 you're saying, Mark. My only point is that it is

-- 15 that I want you to say that, okay, because it's not 16 said any place in this proceeding so far, and so long 17 as we've got a clarification from the department that 18 indeed cost is not an issue at this point in the 19 proceeding, okay, and that's not relevant for inclusion 20 in or out, then I'm fine. 21 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Thank you very 22 much. 23 Terry, a brief follow-on before -- I'd like 24 to see if we can generate very quickly -- because how 25 many of you have planes to catch this afternoon? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 90 

### 1 togiveyou an example for that. Ifwe had looked at 2 cost as a criteria, we probablywouldhave thrown out 3 insulation, directdrymotor. There are otherthings 4 inhere that, becausewe have information that your 5 industrypresentedtous, we know in -- we have 6 informationtodeterminewhether or notwhat's most 7 effective initially. 8 

### Butwe visitedthat in screening. That's not 9 a screening-type issue. Cost is certainlynot a 10 screeningcriteria, and that'swhy we moved on to the 11 next step. 12 

### MR. BROOKMAN: I'd liketo see -- 13 MR. JONES: Well, again, -- and I acceptwhat 14 you're saying, Mark. My onlypoint is that it is -- 15 that I want youto saythat, okay, because it'snot 16 said anyplace inthisproceeding so far, and so long 17 as we've got a clarification from the department that 18 indeed cost is not an issue atthispoint in the 19 proceeding, okay, and that's notrelevant for inclusion 20 in or out, then I'm fine. 21 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Thankyou. Thankyou very 22 much. 23 Terry, a brief follow-on before -- I'd like 24 to see ifwe cangenerate veryquickly -- becausehow 25 many of youhaveplanesto catchthis afternoon? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006491 1 (Show of hands) 2 MR. BROOKMAN: I mean we need to get after 3 this subject. This is the opportunity we brought 4 everybody to town to do this, and if we need to stay 5 late and keep working on this, I suggest we should keep 6 after it. 7 So, I'd really like to see if we can keep 8 this focused as possible. Terry? 9 MR. THIELE: Well, one question I have before 10 we go into specific design options is for DOE to 11 comment on how it arrived at product classes because 12 product classes in large part define your design 13 options, and that seems to have been a bit of a fait 14 accompli here. 15 MR. BROOKMAN: Mark? 16 MR. LaFRANCE: Doug, if you show your three 17 slides you have up there, just to try to focus the flow 18 of this morning's discussion -- the one after that,

-- 19 okay. One more, the next one. 20 That's the criteria for establishing product 21 classes, and we know there's going to be a significant 22 discussion relative to utility for H-axis. The reason 23 for putting this last, okay, is because if we didn't 24 have this subject right now, we may never get into the 25 other 19 design options or 18 design options. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 91 1 

### (Show ofhands) 2 MR. BROOKMAN: I meanwe need to get after 3 this subject. This is the opportunitywe brought 4 everybody totown todo this, and ifwe need to stay 5 late andkeepworking on this, I suggestwe shouldkeep 6 after it. 7 So, I'dreally liketo see ifwe cankeep 8 this focused as possible. Terry? 9 

### MR. THIELE: Well, one question I have before 10 we go into specificdesign options is for DOE to 11 comment onhow it arrived atproduct classes because 12 product classes in largepartdefineyour design 13 options, and that seems tohave been a bit of a fait 14 accompli here. 15 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Mark? 16 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Doug, ifyou showyour three 17 slides youhaveup there, justto try to focus the flow 18 of this morning's discussion

-- the one afterthat,

-- 19 okay. Onemore, the next one. 20 That'sthe criteria for establishingproduct 21 classes, and we know there's goingtobe a significant 22 discussionrelativetoutility for H-axis. The reason 23 for puttingthis last, okay, isbecause ifwe didn't 24 have this subjectright now, we may never get intothe 25 other 19 design options or 18 design options. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006492 1 So, if we can justmove quickly through these 2 from the beginning, which is we've tentatively 3 eliminated eight design options. Do people agree or 4 disagree with those eight? And if we can get some 5 feedback on that, let's say in the next five minutes, 6 then we can move on to the next step, the remaining 12, 7 and then we certainly -- we don't need to discuss 8 product classes and consumer utility for H-axis. 9 MR. THIELE: It makes no difference to me 10 whether we hit the wall at the beginning of the path or 11 the end of the path. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Great. Thank you for being 13 patient and being optimistic. 14 Let's talk about these for a moment. These 15 eight options eliminated. Comments on these eight 16 options, yes, their utility, whether they should be 17 eliminated, whether they should be included. 18 Ted? 19 MR. POPE: We have a question why the 36 20 percent RMC was cut out so early in the game, you know, 21 given that manufacturers already have products on the 22 shelf that are, you know, within less than one percent 23 of that -- that number. 24 We haven't seen any research to suggest there 25 is a problem with that at this point. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 92 1 So,'ifwe canjustmove quickly throughthese 2 from thebeginning, which iswe've tentatively 3 eliminatedeightdesign options. Do people agree or 4 disagreewiththose eight? And ifwe canget some 5 feedback onthat, let's say inthe next five minutes, 6 thenwe canmove on to the next step, theremaining 12, 7 andthenwe certainly -- we don't needto discuss 8 product classes and consumerutility for H-axis. 9 

### MR. THIELE: Itmakes no difference tome 10 whether we hitthewall atthe beginning of the path or 11 the end of thepath. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Great. Thank you for being 13 patient andbeingoptimistic. 14 

### Let'stalk about these for a moment. These 15 eight options eliminated. Comments on these eight 16 options, yes, theirutility, whether they shouldbe 17 eliminated, whether they shouldbe included. 18 Ted? 19 

### MR. POPE: We have a questionwhy the 36 20 percentRMC was cut out so early inthe game, youknow, 21 giventhatmanufacturers alreadyhaveproducts on the 22 shelf that are, youknow, within less than onepercent 23 

### of that that number. 24 We haven't seen anyresearch to suggestthere 25 is a problemwith that atthispoint. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006493 1 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Additional comments on 2 these eight options? 3 MR. LEVY: Just a point of clarification. 4 What do you mean by on-the-shelf? 5 MR. POPE: There are products available in 6 the U.S. on the market. 7 MR. LEVY: Being sold? 8 MR. POPE: Right, right. 9 MR. LEVY: Okay. Thank you. 10 MR. BROOKMAN: That: was Ed Levy. Thank you 11 for that clarification. 12 Additional comments, questions? 13 MR. LaFRANCE: At this point, we're not aware 14 of any -- somewhere in the high 30s, and also a lot has 15 to do with how they were tested. So, if we can -- if 16 that's true, and they are available, then we would 17 consider it, and we need to receive data on that. 18 MR. POPE: I believe that the last time we 19 had some information, they certified their product in 20 the clothes washer program, I believe they certified at 21 35.8 RMC. That's my understanding. 22 MR. NADEL: And I would add, even your report 23 talks about 36 percent being

-- 24 MR. LaFRANCE: That's true, but no offense, 25 but 36 is not 35, and -- and 40 -- I mean we're EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 93 1 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Additional comments on 2 these eight options? 3 

### MR. LEVY: Just a point of clarification. 4 What do youmean by on-the-shelf? 5 

### MR. POPE: There areproducts available in 6 the

## u.s. on themarket. 7 

### MR. LEVY: Being sold? 8 

### MR. POPE: Right, right. 9 

### MR. LEVY: Okay.**']~hank** 

### you. 10 MR. BROOKMAN: That: was Ed Levy. Thank you 11 

### for that clarification. 12 Additional comments, questions? 13 MR. LaFRANCE: At 1:hispoint, we're not aware 14 of any -- somewhere in the high 30s, and also a lothas 15 to do withhow theywere tested. So, ifwe can if 16 that's true, and they are available, thenwe would 17 consider it, andwe needto receive data on that. 18 MR. POPE: I believethat the last time we 19 had some information, they certifiedtheir product in 20 the clothes washer program, I 

### believe they certified at 21 35.8 RMC. That'smy understanding. 22 MR. NADEL: And I 

### would add, even your report 23 talks about 36 percent being -- 24 MR. LaFRANCE: That's true, but no offense, 25 but 36 is not 35, and and 40 -- I meanwe're EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006494 1 considering 50-40-35 and 30. 2 Another concern that we could have put on 3 here but the reason we didn't was because the jury's 4 still out, and that is on the wrinkling aspects for 5 consumer utility. 6 We've heard some concern about 40 percent 7 negatively impacting utility, and that was raised by 8 the peer reviewers. So, since we do not know of any 9 machines at 35, and the utility issues, we believe that 10 35 should be screened out at this point in time. But 11 we're certainly willing to reconsider that if we 12 receive data to the contrary. 13 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments on -- 14 Dick? 15 MR. STILWELL: Yes, Dick Stilwell. Under 16 some types of loads, under certain conditions, probably 17 -- but in the real world, there's no way to have all 18 the loads at that extraction. I think this is what 19 this says here, that this 35 percent across the board 20 is just not possible, even with my machine. 21 MR. BROOKMAN: You are supporting the basis 22 for removing this? 23 MR. STILWELL: Yes. 24 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments on the 25 ones that have been removed? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 94 

### 1 considering 50-40-35 and 30. 2 Another concern thatwe couldhave put on 3 herebutthereasonwe didn'twas becausethejury's 4 still out, andthat is onthewrinkling aspects for 5 consumerutility. 6 We'veheard some concern about 40 percent 7 negatively impactingutility, andthatwas raisedby 8 thepeerreviewers. So, sincewe do notknow of any 9 machines at 35, and theutility issues, we believe that 10 35 shouldbe screened out atthispoint intime. But 11 we're certainlywillingtoreconsider that ifwe 12 receive data to the contrary. 13 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments on -- 14 Dick? 15 

### MR. STILWELL: Yes, Dick Stilwell. Under 16 some types of loads, under certainconditions, probably 17 -- but inthe realworld, there's noway tohave all 18 the loads atthat extraction. I think this is what 19 this sayshere, that this 35 percent across the board 20 isjustnotpossible, evenwithmy machine. 21 MR. BROOKMAN: You are supportingthe basis 22 for removing this? 23 

### MR. STILWELL: Yes. 24 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments on the 25 ones thathave beenremoved? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006495 1 (Noresponse) 2 MR. BROOKMAN: No additional comments? This 3 is not controversial. What they've got here makes 4 sense to the manufacturers and to the non-manufacturers 5 in the room. 6 Steve? 7 MR. NADEL: One little thing. Bubble action, 8 you said it's eliminated for no known energy saving. I 9 think what you really mean there is no good thoroughly10 documented study. I mean there's been a lot of work 11 that says there's some savings, but DOE determined that 12 there are no savings. The stuff is not well 13 documented. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Okay. Additional 15 comments around these eight? 16 (No response) 17 MR. BROOKMAN: Moving on, we'll come to it, 18 if you come up with anything based on what follows 19 here. Design options considered in the preliminary 20 engineering analysis. What about these? Are there any 21 of these that you -- would you like to do that? 22 Michael McCabe? 23 MR. McCABE: I would just like to point out 24 and remind everybody that there already have been some 25 comments, specific comments with some of these with EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 95 

### 1 (No response) 2 MR. BROOKMAN: No additional comments? This 3 is not controversial. What they've gotheremakes 4 senseto themanufacturers and to the non-manufacturers 5 intheroom. 6 steve? 7 

### MR. NADEL: One littlething. Bubble action, 8 you said it's eliminated for noknown energy saving. I 9 thinkwhat youreallymean there is no good thoroughly10 documented study. I mean there's been a lot of work 11 that says there's some savings, but DOE determined that 12 there are no savings. The stuff is notwell 13 documented. 14 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Okay. Additional 15 comments aroundthese eight? 16 (No response) 17 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Moving on, we'll come to it, 18 ifyou come upwith anythingbased onwhat follows 19 here. Design options considered inthepreliminary 20 engineering analysis. What about these? Are there any 21 of these thatyou -- wouldyou like to do that? 22 MichaelMcCabe? 23 

### MR. McCABE: I wouldjust like topoint out 24 and remind everybodythatthere alreadyhave been some 25 comments, specific commentswith some of thesewith EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-00641 respect to the comments that Dick Topping had raised. 2 So, it might be useful just to go through them 3 individually, and Dick and Jim have made comments about 4 them, and maybe they want to reiterate those comments. 5 MR. BROOKMAN: Well, we already heard from 6 Dick and Jim already, and that's on the record. I'd 7 like to see if there are other comments, and then maybe 8 Dick or Jim or someone else can amplify based on those. 9 Additional comments, questions on these 10 design options that are -- that the department is 11 suggesting should be considered in preliminary 12 engineering analysis? 13 (No response) 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Does the list make sense to 15 you? 16 MR. JONES: Well, I have a couple of 17 questions, of course, and I -- I have never understood 18 how the department can consider horizontal axis design 19 to be a mere design option when in fact in order to

-- 20 to have such a machine, one has to fundamentally 21 redesign the entire machine. 22 That's like saying that a washing machine, 23 everything except the tub and the basket and the 24 suspension, okay, and the motor and the transmission. 25 So, what you have is a washer is a case which one would EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**----~------- ----~**  -------------

96 

### 1 respect tothe comments thatDickToppinghad raised. 2 So, itmight beuseful justtogo through them 3 individually, andDick andJimhavemade comments about 4 them, andmaybe theywant toreiteratethose comments. 5 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Well, we alreadyheard from 6 Dick andJim already, andthat's on therecord. I'd 7 like to see if there are othercomments, and thenmaybe 8 Dick orJim or someone elsecan amplifybased onthose. 9 Additional comments, questions on these 10 design options that are -- that the department is 11 suggesting shouldbe considered inpreliminary 12 engineering analysis? 13 (No response) 14 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Does the listmake sense to 15 you? 16 

### MR. JONES: Well, I have a couple of 17 questions, of course, and I -- I have never understood 18 how the department canconsiderhorizontal axis design 19 tobe a mere design optionwhen in fact in order to -- 20 tohave such a machine, onehas to fundamentally 21 redesign the entiremachine. 22 That's like sayingthat a washingmachine, 23 everythingexceptthe tub and thebasket and the 24 suspension, okay, andthemotor and the transmission. 25 So, what youhave is a washer is a casewhich onewould EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006497 1 presume you can just sort of fill with water or put 2 stones in it, I suppose, and then you -- you add your 3 design options, one of which might be a horizontal 4 axis. 5 I mean only a person who's the manufacturer 6 of a washer could possibly have come up with that as a 7 design option. So, I think that that -- there's a 8 fundamental question about that, and -- but since I 9 consider that to be a comment that will get absolutely 10 no where in this proceeding,

-- 11 MR. LaFRANCE: Well, I don't think that's 12 true at all. I mean really the sheets that we have up 13 -- a couple more sheets is basically discussion of why 14 we segregate products into classes, and it's definitely 15 germane to your point. 16 I mean, but on this list, besides the H17 axis

-- 18 MR. JONES: My point is some design options 19 are so much more than that, that they really get to the 20 question of product classes before you get to the 21 question of design. 22 MR. LaFRANCE: But product class is based on 23 fuel type and related issues. 24 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed, you had a follow-up 25 comment? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 97 1 

### presume you canjust sort of fill with water orput 2 stones in it, I suppose, and then you -- you add your 3 

### design options, one of which might be a horizontal 4 

### axis. 5 I 

### mean only a personwho's the manufacturer 6 

### of a washer couldpossiblyhave come up with that as a 

### 7 design option. So, 

### I think that that

-- there's a 

### 8 fundamental question about that, and

-- but since 

### I 9 

### consider that to be a comment that will get absolutely 10 

### no where in thisproceeding,

-- 11 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Well, I 

### don't think that's 12 

### true at all. I 

### mean really the sheets that we have up 13 

### a couplemore sheets is basicallydiscussion of why 14 

### we segregateproducts into classes, and it's definitely 15 

### germane to your point. 

### 16 I mean, but on this list, besides the 

### H17 

### axis 18 

### MR. JONES: My 

### point is some design options 19 

### are so much more than that, that they really get to the 20 

### question of product classes before you get to the 21 

### question of design. 22 MR. LaFRANCE: Butproduct class is based on 23 

### fuel type and related issues. 24 25 

### comment? MR. BROOKMAN: Ed, you had a follow-up

EXECUTIVE 

### COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006498 1 MR. LEVY: Yes. It's not an utility, but 2 we'll talk about that later. But a question for you, 3 Mark. When -- when you got that as a design option, 4 isn't that one where you're considering the total 5 package of features as a design option in effect for 6 horizontal axis? 7 MR. LaFRANCE: Yes, the design option for 8 horizontal axis would be a step function of a design 9 option, but it would be by itself, and then we add 10 other things to that, and that's really -- the subject 11 of that -- of adding design options together and coming 12 up with efficiency levels is the subject of the 13 engineering analysis. So, we really don't want to 14 tread that right now, but it's something that this 15 afternoon, we can discuss if people want. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments on these 17 once again preliminary engineering analysis options, 18 the options to be included? Are there additional 19 options that -- Steve? Steve? 20 MR. NADEL: Well, one other thing I would add 21 is from a consumer utility point of view, because there 22 are some questions, and we'll, I'm sure, as part of the 23 proceeding, we'll get more data, but some questions 24 about the wrinkling performance at RMC of 40 percent. 25 I think we should also include RMC of 45 percent as an EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 98 

### 1 MR. LEVY: Yes. It'snot anutility, but 2 we'll talk about that later. But a question for you, 3 Mark. When -- when you got that as a design option, 4 isn'tthat onewhereyou're consideringthe total 5 package of features as a design option in effect for 6 horizontal axis? 7 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Yes, the design option for 8 horizontal axiswould be a step function of a design 9 option, but itwouldbeby itself, and thenwe add 10 otherthings to that, andthat's really -- the subject 11 of that -- of addingdesign optionstogether and coming 12 up with efficiency levels is the subject of the 13 engineering analysis. So, we reallydon't want to 14 treadthatright now, but it's somethingthat this 15 afternoon, we candiscuss ifpeoplewant. 16 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments on these 17 once againpreliminaryengineering analysis options, 18 the options tobe included? Are there additional 19 options that -- Steve? Steve? 20 MR. NADEL: Well, one otherthing I would add 21 is from a consumerutilitypoint of view, because there 22 are some questions, andwe'll, I'm sure, as part of the 23 proceeding, we'll getmore data, but some questions 24 about thewrinklingperformance atRMC of 40 percent. 25 I thinkwe should also includeRMC of 45 percent as an EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-006499 1 option because it may, depending on the data, provide 2 intermediate data point, you know. 3 The costs are fairly similar, but I think the 4 issue is going to be where these are getting very 5 substantial wrinkling problems, they might need to be 6 eliminated. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 8 Additional things to be considered as we look 9 at these preliminary options? Yes, Terry? 10 MR. THIELE: Obviously we have to await the 11 four patent applications for full disclosure because I 12 would assume that one or more of those may be 13 additional design options that we need to put on this 14 list or have to, given that they say they're working 15 prototypes. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael? 17 MR. BEST: Dick Best, Whirlpool. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: Can you get near a microphone, 19 please, Dick? 20 MR. BEST: Dick Best, Whirlpool. We'd just 21 like to go on the record to say that we agree that 22 these 12 design options here, we do consider acceptable 23 as defined as design options. 24 MR. BROOKMAN: Can you respond to Terry's 25 comment about the utility of having -- that's probably EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 99 1 optionbecause itmay, depending onthe data, provide 2 intermediatedata point, youknow. 3 The costs are fairly similar, but I think the 4 issue isgoing tobewhere these are gettingvery 5 sUbstantialwrinklingproblems, theymight need tobe 6 eliminated. 7 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Thankyou. 8 

### Additional things tobe considered as we look 9 at thesepreliminary options? Yes, Terry? 10 

### MR. THIELE: Obviouslywe have to await the 11 four patent applications for full disclosure because I 12 would assume that one ormore of thosemay be 13 additional design options thatwe need toput on this 14 list orhave to, giventhatthey say they'reworking 15 prototypes. 16 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Michael? 17 

### MR. BEST: Dick Best, Whirlpool. 18 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Can you get near a microphone, 19 please, Dick? 20 

### MR. BEST: Dick Best, Whirlpool. We'djust 21 liketo go ontherecordto say thatwe agree that 22 these 12 design optionshere, we do consider acceptable 23 as defined as design options. 24 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Can you respond to Terry's 25 comment about the utilityofhaving -- that'sprobably EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064100 1 the wrong word -- the necessity of having your four 2 options on the table and included in this analysis? 3 MR. BEST: I think they are on the table at 4 this point in the regards that we have agreed to 5 acknowledge them and include them in engineering 6 analysis. 7 As far as the discussion, these designs are 8 still proprietary at this point, and we do not think 9 it's proper to open discussion on either technical 10 issues or other information regarding those designs in 11 this meeting. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: In this meeting. Okay. So, 13 with that

-- 14 MR. THIELE: I didn't mean to suggest that, 15 if you took it that way. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you, Terry. 17 Other issues related to preliminary 18 engineering analysis? I'm about to move on to the next 19 slide, which may get more interesting. 20 (Noresponse) 21 MR. BROOKMAN: So, I'm taking that largely 22 folks are pretty comfortable with these 12 design 23 options that are considered in a preliminary way to be 24 included in engineering analysis. 25 MR. JONES: Well, when you say things like EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 100 1 thewrong word

-- the necessity ofhavingyour four 2 options on the table and included inthis analysis? 3 

### MR. BEST: I think they are on the table at 4 thispoint intheregards thatwe have agreed to 5 acknowledge them and includethem in engineering 6 analysis. 7 As far as the discussion, these designs are 8 stillproprietary atthispoint, andwe do not think 9 it'sproperto opendiscussion on eithertechnical 10 issues or other informationregarding those designs in 11 thismeeting. 12 

### MR. BROOKMAN: In thismeeting. Okay. So, 13 with that 14 

### MR. THIELE: I didn'tmean to suggest that, 15 ifyou took itthatway. 16 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thankyou, Terry. 17 

### Other issuesrelated topreliminary 18 engineering analysis? I'm about tomove on to the next 19 slide, whichmay getmore interesting. 20 (No response) 21 

### MR. BROOKMAN: So, I'mtaking that largely 22 folks areprettycomfortablewith these 12 design 23 options that are considered in a preliminaryway to be 24 included in engineering analysis. 25 

### MR. JONES: Well, when you saythings like EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064101 1 that, don't characterize it. Just say that nobody has 2 any -- no one is proposing to delete them. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. I appreciate that. 4 MR. JONES: Okay. 5 MR. McCABE: This is one of the problems of 6 where we are in this entire process. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. That's helpful. I 8 appreciate that. Keep us on track that way. 9 MR. McCABE: This is Michael McCabe. I'm 10 somewhat frustrated by the level of discussion because, 11 for example, Dick Topping raised some very valid 12 concerns that we will as an agency have to consider 13 regarding the utility safety of some of the designs, 14 such as the insulation, and it would really be useful 15 to us to get some comments on those. 16 I appreciate the comment that Dick Best had 17 made regarding all of these, but, for example, in 18 insulation, the concerns that Dick had raised, without 19 having -- hearing anything from any of the other 20 manufacturers, for example, to me, on the face of it, I 21 will discount the concerns that have been raised by 22 Arthur D. Little in their review. 23 MR. JONES: Well, see, Michael, again, I -- 24 with all due respect, I think that's totally 25 inappropriate and kind of unfair. It's kind of like, EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 101 1 that, don't characterize it. Just saythat nobodyhas 2 any -- no one isproposingtodeletethem. 3 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Thankyou. I appreciatethat. 4 

### MR. JONES: Okay. 5 

### MR. McCABE: This is one of theproblems of 6 wherewe are inthis entireprocess. 7 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. That's helpful. I 8 appreciatethat. Keep us on track thatway. 9 

### MR. McCABE: This isMichaelMcCabe. I'm 10 somewhat frustrated bythe level of discussion because, 11 for example, DickToppingraised some very valid 12 concerns thatwe will as an agency have to consider 13 regarding the utility safety of some of the designs, 14 such as the insulation, and itwould reallybe useful 15 tous to get some comments onthose. 16 I appreciatethe comment thatDick Besthad 17 made regarding all of these, but, for example, in 18 insulation, the concerns thatDickhad raised, without 19 having

-- hearing anything from any of the other 20 manufacturers, for example, tome, onthe face of it, I 21 will discount the concerns thathave beenraisedby 22 Arthur D. Little intheirreview. 23 

### MR. JONES: Well, see, Michael, again, I

-- 24 with all due respect, I think that's totally 25 inappropriate andkind ofunfair. It'skind of like, EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064102 1 you know, come to a workshop and be sandbagged. 2 It would have been nice to have had Dick 3 Topping's report before we came to this workshop, to 4 have some notion of what he was talking about. We 5 could have come prepared to discuss it in more detail. 6 To sort of say now on the strength of seeing 7 four slides with that amount of time to consider them, 8 without even having the copies ourselves yet, have a 9 chance to analyze them, to say that we therefore

-- 10 we're sort of adopting that or not endorsing these 11 comments is really unfair. 12 MR. LaFRANCE: Earl, I think we definitely 13 will accept comments within, you know, -- it's still 14 open. I mean -- 15 MR. JONES: Well, the question -- what kind 16 of a discussion can you have, Mark, on the question? 17 What kind of a discussion can you have? How -- how 18 relevant can it be on the strength of the information 19 we've received today? 20 MR. LaFRANCE: Well, I think your point is 21 valid, and we should have peer review results prior 22 to -- be made available prior to the workshop, and we 23 will definitely improve that in the future. 24 For -- for example, we're going to be 25 conducting an approach document for consumer impacts, EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 102 1 youknow, come to a workshop andbe sandbagged. 2 Itwouldhave been nice to have had Dick 3 Topping'sreport beforewe came to thisworkshop, to 4 have some notionofwhat hewas talking about. We 5 couldhave comepreparedtodiscuss it inmore detail. 6 To sort of saynow onthe strength of seeing 7 four slideswiththat amount of time to consider them, 8 without evenhaving the copies ourselves yet, have a 9 chance to analyze them, to saythatwe therefore -- 10 we're sortof adoptingthat ornot endorsingthese 11 comments isreallyunfair. 12 MR. LaFRANCE: Earl, I thinkwe definitely 13 

### will accept commentswithin, youknow, it's still 14 open. I mean 15 

### MR. JONES: Well, thequestion -- what kind 16 of a discussion canyouhave, Mark, onthe question? 17 Whatkind of a discussion canyouhave? How -- how 18 relevant can itbe on the strength of the information 19 we've receivedtoday? 20 MR. LaFRANCE: Well, I thinkyour point is 21 valid, andwe shouldhavepeerreviewresultsprior 22 to -- bemade availablepriorto theworkshop, andwe 23 will definitely improve that inthe future. 24 For -- for example, we're going to be 25 conducting an approachdocument for consumer impacts, EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064103 1 and we plan to have the peer review completed before we 2 distribute it

-- 3 MR. JONES: We're talking about this 4 workshop. 5 MR. LaFRANCE: I know, and it's unfortunate 6 we don't have that. I apologize for that, but 7 certainly the record's still open for added insulation 8 and adaptive controls, and anything else that -- that 9 you want to comment on. 10 So, we certainly haven't precluded anything 11 right now. We're just -- I think what -- what Doug was 12 saying was everybody feels relatively comfortable. We 13 don't have any burning issues about these 12. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's not characterize. Let's 15 follow on what we said. Let's not characterize. Earl, 16 I appreciate your suggestion that the thrust be that 17 this stuff needs to get out in advance to everybody so 18 they can review it. 19 Would you say your name, please, for the 20 record? 21 MS. WREGHITT: Sheryl Wreghitt with 22 Frigidaire. Just in reviewing what is in this report 23 on added insulation, and looking over what it says, I 24 guess it's sort of elementary that if you added an inch 25 of fiberglass and only changed the degree of the water EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**-~----------------------**



### 103 1 andwe plantohave thepeerreviewcompleted beforewe 2 distribute it 3 

### MR. JONES: We're talking about this 4 workshop. 5 

### MR. LaFRANCE: I know, and it'sunfortunate 6 we don'thave that. I apologize for that, but 7 certainlytherecord's still open for added insulation 8 and adaptive controls, and anything else that -- that 9 youwant to comment on. 10 So, we certainlyhaven'tprecluded anything 11 rightnow. We'rejust -- I thinkwhat -- what Dougwas 12 sayingwas everybody feels relatively comfortable. We 13 don'thave anyburning issues about these 12. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's not characterize. Let's 15 follow onwhatwe said. Let's not characterize. Earl, 16 I appreciateyour suggestionthatthe thrustbe that 17 this stuff needs toget out in advance to everybody so 18 they canreview it. 19 Would you sayyour name, please, for the 20 record? 21 MS. WREGHITT: SherylWreghittwith 22 Frigidaire. Just inreviewingwhat is inthis report 23 on added insulation, and looking overwhat it says, I 24 guess it's sort of elementarythat ifyou added an inch 25 of fiberglass and onlychangedthe degree of thewater EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064104 1 by one degree, that DOE would actually come to the 2 conclusion that perhaps that design option is not doing 3 any benefit to you at all, and it is not something that 4 we -- to me, it's in black and white right here. So, 5 it's not something to say we agree with that, and this 6 is not a good idea. 7 I mean we need to analyze this a lot further 8 and -- and can supply comments to that effect, but in 9 just looking at what is on this piece of paper, I think 10 the -- you've drawn your own conclusion, and it's 11 redundant for us to

-- 12 MR. LaFRANCE: I -- Sheryl, I absolutely 13 agree with you, and the -- added insulation is -- was 14 not screened out for one of the criteria. Certainly 15 because we have the information available to us made by 16 AHAM a year ago, everybody in this -- can look at it 17 and say this thing is not cost effective. We all know 18 it's not cost effective, and -- and by discussing it, 19 we're probably wasting the time of the day, but because 20 something's not cost effective is not a reason to 21 screen it out, getting back to Earl's earlier point. 22 So, therefore, it's still on the table, but I 23 think everybody knows this is really not viable for big 24 savings. Let's face it. 25 MR. BROOKMAN: This fits with where you are EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 -------------------------------------



### 104 1 by one degree, thatDOE would actuallycome to the 2 conclusionthatperhaps that design option is not doing 3 anybenefittoyou at all, and it is not somethingthat 4 we -- tome, it's inblack andwhiterighthere. So, 5 it'snot somethingto saywe agreewith that, and this 6 is not a good idea. 7 I meanwe needto analyze this a lot further 8 and -- and can supply comments to that effect, but in 9 just looking atwhat is on thispiece ofpaper, I think 10 the -- you've drawn your own**conclusion~** 

### and it's 11 redundant for us to 12 MR. LaFRANCE: I -- Sheryl, I absolutely 13 agreewithyou, and the added insulation is -- was 14 not screened out for one of the criteria. Certainly 15 becausewe have the information available to us made by 16 AHAM a year ago, everybody inthis -- can look at it 17 and say this thing is not cost effective. We all know 18 it'snot costeffective, and -- and bydiscussing it, 19 we'reprobablywastingthetime ofthe day, but because 20 something's not cost effective is not a reason to 21 screen itout, gettingback to Earl's earlierpoint. 22 So, therefore, it's still on the table, but I 23 think everybodyknows this isreally notviable for big 24 savings. Let's face it. 25 

### MR. BROOKMAN: This fits withwhere you are EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064105 1 on the screening process. 2 MR. LaFRANCE: Right. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: That level of analysis, that 4 level of screen. We had a comment from you, and then 5 I'm going to ask Michael if he wants to flag a few of 6 these other issues to see if he can get more specific 7 comment like the one we just received. 8 MR. LEVY: Just a procedural point. This was 9 something Bryan mentioned in his opening statement, and 10 maybe it didn't get across, is that we do contemplate 11 that people have additional comments to make after this 12 workshop, that there would be an opportunity to do so, 13 and that we'd entertain them, and they'd be able to put 14 that on your list to make sure that that's something 15 that is addressed at the conclusion of the workshop, 16 which is what the timing would be on that. 17 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael, can you say -- can 18 you flag one or two of these additional items that are 19 especially -- that were referenced in Dick's report 20 that you would like to have a special comment on before 21 we move on to the next five? 22 MR.McCABE: The items that -- that Dick had 23 raised as to where he had concerns with respect to 24 the -- either the performance, the utility, the 25 attractability to the manufacturer, health and safety, EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 105 1 on the screeningprocess. 2 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Right. 3 

### MR. BROOKMAN: That level of analysis, that 4 level of screen. We had a comment from you, and then 5 I'mgoingto askMichael ifhewants to flag a few of 6 these other issues to see ifhe cangetmore specific 7 comment likethe onewe justreceived. 8 

### MR. LEVY: Just a procedural point. This was 9 somethingBryanmentioned inhis opening statement, and 10 maybe itdidn'tget across, is thatwe do contemplate 11 thatpeoplehave additional comments tomake afterthis 12 workshop, thattherewould be an opportunityto do so, 13 and thatwe'dentertainthem, and they'dbe able toput 14 that onyour listtomake surethat that's something 15 that is addressed atthe conclusion of the workshop, 16 which iswhat the timingwouldbe on that. 17 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Michael, can you say -- can 18 you flag one ortwo of these additional items that are 19 especially -- thatwere referenced in Dick's report 20 thatyouwould liketohave a special comment on before 21 we move onto the next five? 22 

### MR. McCABE: The items that -- that Dickhad 23 raised as towherehehad concernswithrespect to 24 the -- eithertheperformance, the utility, the 25 attractabilityto themanufacturer, health and safety, EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064106 1 one was the added insulation, second was automatic fill 2 control and soil sensing, and the other, the last, 3 which he was getting to was more of the class issue, 4 which would be discussed at length two slides from now 5 as far as the horizontal axis. 6 I guess the three technologies were the 7 insulation, automatic fill control and automatic soil 8 sensing, as to whether or not there are performance 9 problems, safety problems, issues there, that we need 10 to consider. 11 MR. BROOKMAN: Comments on those issues or 12 any other items that are on the list? Noting that the 13 department would welcome additional comments. 14 (No response) 15 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's move on to the next 16 slide. I guess the question here is are there any 17 more? Are there any other design options the 18 department should consider? Yes, Carl? 19 MR. ADAMS: Carl Adams, DOE. Just going back 20 to the automatic fill control and the issue that Dick 21 raised, I don't know that it's -- he raised the issue 22 of the loss of consumer choice in being able to 23 manually control the clothes washer, and I guess I'm 24 not sure that an automatic fill control or sensor would 25 be only able to be used a hundred percent of the time, EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 106 lonewas the added insulation, secondwas automatic fill 2 control and soil sensing, and the other, the last, 3 whichhe was gettingtowas more of the class issue, 4 whichwould be discussed at length two slides from now 5 as far as the horizontal axis. 6 I guess the three technologieswere the 7 insulation, automatic fill control and automatic soil 8 sensing, as towhether or not there are performance 9 problems, safetyproblems, issues there, thatwe need 10 to consider. 11 MR. BROOKMAN: Comments on those issues or 12 any other items that are on the list? Noting that the 13 departmentwouldwelcome additional comments. 14 (No response) 15 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Let'smove on to the next 16 slide. I guess the questionhere is are there any 17 more? Are there any other design options the 18 department should consider? Yes, Carl? 19 

### MR. ADAMS: CarlAdams, DOE. Just going back 20 to the automatic fill control and the issue that Dick 21 raised, I don'tknow that it's he raised the issue 22 of the loss of consumer choice in being able to 23 manually control the clothes washer, and I guess I'm 24 not surethat an automatic fill control or sensorwould 25 be only able to be used a hundredpercent of the time, EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064107 1 that there would not be a manual override, and I guess 2 I'm not remembering in the test procedure, J-l, whether 3 there's any sort of a factor for that or not. 4 I know with clothes dryers, where there is 5 automatic sensor for shut-off, that there's also 6 manual, and that there's some consideration given to 7 the amount of time that it's used in the manual as 8 opposed to the automatic mode. 9 It seems like that certainly would apply to 10 automatic fill control and the sensors as well, if 11 there's any additional comment on that. 12 MR. LaFRANCE: This is Mark LaFrance. There 13 is a factor of 50 percent in the test procedure, 14 although that may or may not have been considered by 15 manufacturers submitting the data. That's something we 16 should definitely revisit. 17 MR. NADEL: The one other comment I would add 18 is this is getting slightly ahead to the engineering 19 analysis, but basically for added insulation, it shows 20 zero percent savings. In other words, the savings was 21 the first decimal point, less than 0.1 percent. 22 So, I would say on the basis of no energy 23 savings, we're probably looking at this standard. 24 MR. BROOKMAN: It's that fundamental. So, 25 here are the criteria for establishing product classes. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 107 1 that therewouldnotbe a manual override, and I guess 2 I'mnotremembering inthe testprocedure, J-1, whether 3 there's any sortof a factor for that ornot. 4 I knowwithclothesdryers, where there is 5 automatic sensor for shut-off, that there's also 6 manual, andthat there's some considerationgiven to 7 the amount of time that it'sused inthemanual as 8 opposed to the automaticmode. 9 It seems likethat certainlywould apply to 10 automatic fill control andthe sensors as well, if 11 there's any additional comment on that. 12 MR. LaFRANCE: This isMark LaFrance. There 13 is a factor of 50percent inthe testprocedure, 14 although thatmayormay nothave been consideredby 15 manufacturers submittingthedata. That's somethingwe 16 shoulddefinitelyrevisit. 17 MR. NADEL: The one other comment I would add 18 is this isgetting slightlyahead to the engineering 19 analysis, butbasically for added insulation, it shows 20 zeropercent savings. In otherwords, the savingswas 21 the first decimal point, less than 0.1 percent. 22 So, I would say on thebasis of no energy 23 savings, we'reprobably looking atthis standard. 24 

### MR. BROOKMAN: It'sthat fundamental. So, 25 here are the criteria for establishingproduct classes. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064108 1 MR. JONES: So, Doug, can I ask a question 2 here? 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, sir. 4 MR. JONES: So, we -- what have we concluded 5 at this point respecting the 12 design options? Would 6 someone please sort of summarize from the department's 7 perspective what they're taking from where we are at 8 this stage of the workshop respecting those 12 design 9 options? 10 MR. BROOKMAN: Bryan? Mark? Michael? Who 11 would like to comment? 12 MR. BERRINGER: Just looking over the notes 13 -- sorry. Bryan Berringer. We had comments from Steve 14 Nadel to add 40 percent RMC. 15 MR. JONES: No, I don't want to know what 16 everybody said, Bryan. My question is, summarize for 17 me what it is -- where we are in terms of -- of -- of 18 what the state -- what is the department's sort of 19 taking from the comments it's heard so far about those 20 options? 21 MR. LaFRANCE: Well, certainly, Earl, we 22 won't make any decisions today because you have an 23 opportunity to comment. So, we would consider 24 everything that we heard up to -- up to this point. 25 Additional comments in the next so many days, EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 108 1 

### MR. JONES: So, Doug, can I ask a question 2 here? 3 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, sir. 4 

### MR. JONES: So, we whathave we concluded .5 

### at this point respectingthe 12 design options? Would

6 

### someoneplease sort of summarize from the department's 7 

### perspectivewhat they're taking from where we are at 8 

### this stage of theworkshop respectingthose 12 design 9 

### options? 10 MR. BROOKMAN: Bryan? Mark? Michael? Who 11 would liketo comment? 12 MR. BERRINGER: Just looking over the notes 13 -- 

### sorry. BryanBerringer. We had comments from steve 14 

### Nadel to add 40 

### percentRMC. 15 

### MR. JONES: No, I don'twant toknowwhat 16 

### everybody said, Bryan. My question is, summarize for 17 

### me what it is -- wherewe are in terms of -- of 

### of 18 what the state -- what isthe department's sort of 19 taking from the comments it'sheard so far about those 20 options? 21 MR. LaFRANCE: Well, certainly, Earl, we 22 won'tmake any decisions todaybecause you have an 23 opportunity to comment. So, we would consider 24 everythingthatwe heardup to -- up to this point. 25 Additional comments in the next somany days, EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064109 1 whatever is established at the end of today, and then 2 from there, you know, at some point in time when we -- 3 we publish the supplemental ANOPR, we will have to 4 justify why we screened things out, and whether or not 5 added insulation is on that list or not due to no 6 energy savings or utility -- I should say safety 7 impacts, will be determined by the department, you 8 know, later on. 9 We're not going to decide right now, but 10 certainly we're going to consider everything we've 11 heard, and we plan to keep that open for so many days. 12 MR. JONES: And then based upon the 12 that 13 are on the table, plus whatever you get by way of 14 comments, that will form the basis then of the 15 engineering analysis which will proceed from that? 16 MR. LaFRANCE: Right. And this afternoon, 17 we'd like to get your inputs on how to do that 18 analysis, which may include describing everything that 19 happens to this point. But we need to hear from 20 people, what should we do. 21 MR. BROOKMAN: This is the slide that some of 22 you have been waiting for, I believe, which is to 23 discuss the issue of classes and criteria surrounding 24 the establishment of the classes. 25 Comments on this slide? Terry? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 109 1 whatever is established at the end of today, and then 2 from there, youknow, at somepoint in time when we 3 we publishthe supplementalANOPR, we will have to 4 justifywhy we screenedthings out, andwhether or not 5 added insulation is onthat list or not due to no 6 energy savings or utility -- I should say safety 7 impacts, will be determined bythe department, you 8 know, later on. 9 We're not going to decide right now, but 10 certainlywe're going to consider everythingwe've 11 heard, and we plan tokeep that open for somany days. 12 MR. JONES: And then basedupon the 12 that 13 are on the table, plus whatever you get byway of 14 comments, thatwill form the basis then of the 15 engineering analysiswhichwill proceed from that? 16 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Right. And this afternoon, 17 we'd liketo get your inputs onhow to do that 18 analysis, whichmay include describing everythingthat 19 happens to this point. Butwe need to hear from 20 people, what shouldwe do. 21 MR. BROOKMAN: This is the slide that some of 22 youhave beenwaiting for, I believe, which is to 23 discuss the issue of classes and criteria surrounding 24 the establishment of the classes. 25 

### Comments onthis slide? Terry? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) Sj5S-0064110 1 MR. THIELE: I think the one interesting 2 issue that has already been raised, and I'd be 3 interested in how the department would react to it, is 4 that at present, we -- we have based product class 5 determinations standards of contact based upon tub 6 volume, and -- and the number of the peer reviewers 7 have suggested that that doesn't accurately correlate 8 to energy performance, and from a very front-end, you 9 know, that -- that will have then an impact, whether 10 you're talking about a large-size product or the big 11 tub or a small-size product with a small tub on -- on a 12 lot of the design options. 13 They are influenced by the size of the 14 product. How the department views those peer reviewer 15 comments and whether the department views the need to 16 establish that sort of analysis in their selection, 17 because at the present, we only have a standard and a 18 compact product line. 19 MR. LaFRANCE: Terry, I believe your question 20 -- if I don't have it, please stop me. You're 21 referring to the test methodology for -- which uses 22 capacity as a means for energy efficiency regulation? 23 MR. THIELE: Right. 24 MR. LaFRANCE: Okay. 25 MR. THIELE: And then we have product classes EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 ---------- ----



### 110 1 MR. THIELE: I thinkthe one interesting 2 issue thathas alreadybeenraised, and I'dbe 3 interested inhow thedepartmentwouldreact to it, is 4 that atpresent, we -- we have basedproduct class 5 determinations standards of contact basedupon tub 6 volume, and -- and the number of the peerreviewers 7 have suggestedthat that doesn't accurately correlate 8 to energyperformance, and from a very front-end, you 9 know, that -- thatwillhave then an impact, whether 10 you're talking about a large-sizeproduct orthe big 11 tub or a small-sizeproductwith a small tub on -- on a 12 lot of the design options. 13 They are influencedby the size of the 14 product. How the departmentviews those peer reviewer 15 comments andwhether thedepartmentviews the need to 16 establishthat sort of analysis intheir selection, 17 because atthepresent, we onlyhave a standard and a 18 compactproduct line. 19 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Terry, I believeyour question 20 -- if I don'thave it, please stopme. You're 21 referring to the testmethodology for -- whichuses 22 capacity as a means for energy efficiencyregulation? 23 24 25 

### MR. THIELE: Right. MR. LaFRANCE: Okay. MR. THIELE: And thenwe haveproduct classes EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-00641 that are capacity driven. 2 MR. LaFRANCE: Right. And also there's the 3 issue between whether or not a vertical axis is the 4 same amount of weight of clothing as an H-axis, which 5 is somewhat

-- 6 MR. THIELE: And -- and how the different 7 design options relate to big products versus small 8 products. An RMC impact on a very small tub is going 9 to be very different than an RMC impact on a very large 10 tub. 11 MR. LaFRANCE: Based on the diameter of that 12 tub and not necessarily the volume. 13 MR. THIELE: Right. Well, sure. 14 MR. LaFRANCE: But -- okay. The department 15 raises this issue in the April proposal for test 16 procedures. We are concerned from previous comments 17 about the method that we compare H-axis to vertical 18 axis in the marketplace and for the cleaning ability, 19 and we said that we used capacity as a proxy for the 20 ability to clean clothing, and that proxy in the past 21 has been consistent among various vertical axis clothes 22 washers, and it may or may not be consistent when we 23 consider horizontal axis clothes washers. 24 Unfortunately, we haven't received any 25 substantive data from -- from commenters relative to EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 111 1 that are capacitydriven. 2 MR. LaFRANCE: Right. And also there's the 3 issuebetweenwhether or not a vertical axis is the 4 same amount ofweight of clothing as an H-axis, which 5 is somewhat 6 

### MR. THIELE: And

-- andhow the different 7 design optionsrelatetobigproducts versus small 8 products. An RMC impact on a very small tub is going 9 to be verydifferentthan anRMC impact on a very large 10 tub. 11 MR. LaFRANCE: Based onthe diameter of that 12 tub andnot necessarilythevolume. 13 

### MR. THIELE: Right. Well, sure. 14 

### MR. LaFRANCE: But

-- okay. The department 15 raises this issue intheApril proposal for test 16 procedures. We are concerned from previous comments 17 about themethod thatwe compareH-axis to vertical 18 axis inthemarketplace and for the cleaning ability, 19 andwe saidthatwe used capacity as a proxy for the 20 abilityto clean clothing, and thatproxy in the past 21 has been consistent among various vertical axis clothes 22 washers, and itmayormay notbe consistentwhen we 23 considerhorizontal axis clotheswashers. 24 Unfortunately, we haven'treceived any 25 

### sUbstantivedata from from commenters relative to EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-00641 that issue. I believe Maytag raised an issue of

-- 2 presented a response, and they indicated that they may 3 provide data. So far, we haven't received it, and as 4 you know, we have been working very closely with 5 industry on the new test procedures, and to go to a 6 performance-type test, which tries to categorize the 7 cleanliness of the clothing, may be extremely 8 burdensome for industry. 9 So, -- so, we're very willing to consider 10 this -- this -- this issue, and we're looking to 11 industry energy to help us with it, but so far, the 12 industry hasn't really wanted a performance standard. 13 MR. THIELE: Well, I just would -- I guess my 14 question was a little different, and -- and certainly 15 you've had a hard time getting industry to collude on a 16 common position on this, and as a result, I was simply 17 asking if, notwithstanding the fact you haven't had us 18 tell you what it is you want or we want, whether you 19 had an opinion on the issue one way or the other, that 20 you had independently developed. 21 MR. JONES: And if I could just supplement 22 that, Doug, with basically some comment from the 23 department on what its reaction is to its selected peer 24 reviewers' comments in this regard. 25 MR. LaFRANCE: I think the reaction is it's a EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 112 1 that issue. I believeMaytagraised an issue of -- 2 presented a response, and they indicatedthattheymay 3 provide data. So far, we haven'treceived it, and as 4 youknow, we have beenworkingvery closelywith 5 industry onthe new testprocedures, andto go to a 6 performance-typetest, which tries to categorize the 7 cleanliness of the clothing, may be extremely 8 burdensome for industry. 9 So, -- so, we'reverywillingto consider 10 this -- this -- this issue, andwe're looking to 11 industryenergytohelpus with it, but so far, the 12 industryhasn't reallywanted a performance standard. 13 

### MR. THIELE: Well, I justwould -- I guessmy 14 questionwas a littledifferent, and -- and certainly 15 you'vehad a hardtime getting industryto collude on a 16 common position onthis, and as a result, I was simply 17 asking if, notwithstanding the fact youhaven'thadus 18 tell youwhat it isyouwant orwe want, whether you 19 had an opinion onthe issue oneway or the other, that 20 youhad independentlydeveloped. 21 MR. JONES: And if I couldjust supplement 22 that, Doug, withbasically some comment from the 23 department onwhat itsreaction is to its selectedpeer 24 reviewers' comments inthis regard. 25 

### MR. LaFRANCE: I thinkthe reaction is it's a EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064113 1 concern, and it's a concern that we were aware of 2 before, and we've raised this -- this similar concern 3 in a proposed rule, looking for possible options and 4 alternatives. 5 Unfortunately, we didn't receive anything, 6 and

-- 7 MR. JONES: Well, in some -- in some large 8 part, I'm sure that's because -- I mean you -- you -- 9 you have sort of -- you've defined the playing field on 10 how these issues should be analyzed by your -- your 11 design option process, and, quite frankly, the issues 12 which have been surfaced by your -- by your reviewers, 13 as I understand it, make -- call a lot of that into 14 question, and I'm not sure. 15 Are you prepared to readjust that? Are you 16 prepared then to sort of basically ask for -- to 17 resolicit information respecting how this whole thing 18 might be approached? Because unless you indicate that 19 you're prepared to do that, I don't think you are going 20 to get a response because what's the point if you're 21 still heading down the same path you've done now for 22 three rulemakings? 23 MR. LaFRANCE: Well, Earl, maybe I'm not 24 quite understanding -- I don't fully understand your 25 question or your comment. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 113 1 concern, and it's a concernthatwe were aware of 2 before, andwe'veraisedthis -- this similar concern 3 in a proposedrule, looking for possible options and 4 alternatives. 5 Unfortunately, we didn'treceive anything, 6 and -- 7 

### MR. JONES: Well, in some -- in some large 8 part, I'm surethat'sbecause -- I mean you -- you -- 9 youhave sort of -- you've defined the playing field on 10 how these issues shouldbe analyzed by your -- your 11 design optionprocess, and, quite frankly, the issues 12 whichhave been surfacedbyyour -- byyour reviewers, 13 as I understand it, make call a lot of that into 14 question, and I'mnot sure. 15 

### Areyoupreparedtoreadjust that? Are you 16 preparedthento sort of basically ask for -- to 

### 17 resolicit informationrespectinghow this whole thing 18 might be approached? Becauseunless you indicate that 19 you'repreparedto do that, I don't think you are going 20 toget a response becausewhat's thepoint if you're 21 stillheadingdown the samepathyou've done now for 22 threerulemakings? 23 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Well, Earl, maybe I'm not 24 quiteunderstanding -- I don't fully understand your 25 question oryour comment. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064114 1 Let me just think if I'm getting this right. 2 You're indicating that are we prepared to redo the test 3 procedure because that's what we're getting at, is the 4 test methodology. 5 MR. JONES: Peer review has raised questions 6 about whether or not the capacity is an appropriate 7 factor, and if it is, then how might it be looked at 8 differently. 9 MR. LaFRANCE: And that's a -- that's a 10 significant concern. 11 MR. JONES: Right. And, so, therefore, are 12 you prepared to do something in response to that 13 question? 14 MR. LaFRANCE: Well, I think we certainly are 15 with information and data, and so far, I mean it's an 16 issue that we're aware of. We raised it in a -- in a 17 rulemaking. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael first. 19 MR. McCABE: As Mark has indicated, the 20 question that have been raised goes to -- goes to the 21 test procedure and how we define efficiency for the 22 product. 23 Given the history of this program, the 24 appliance standards program going through the mid-'70s, 25 this issue has been recognized and discussed at length EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 114 1 Letme justthink if I'mgettingthis right. 2 You're indicatingthat arewe prepared to redo the test 3 procedurebecausethat'swhatwe're getting at, is the 4 testmethodology. 5 

### MR. JONES: Peerreviewhas raised questions 6 aboutwhether or not the capacity is an appropriate 7 factor, and if it is, thenhowmight itbe looked at 8 differently. 9 MR. 

### LaFRANCE: And that's a -- that's a 10 significant concern. 11 MR. JONES: Right. And, so, therefore, are 12 youpreparedtodo something inresponse to that 13 question? 14 MR. LaFRANCE: Well, I thinkwe certainly are 15 with information and data, and so far, I mean it's an 16 issue thatwe're aware of. We raised it in a -- in a 17 rulemaking. 18 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Michael first. 19 

### MR. McCABE: As Markhas indicated, the 20 questionthathave beenraisedgoes to

-- goes to the 21 testprocedure andhow we define efficiency for the 22 product. 23 Giventhehistory of thisprogram, the 24 appliance standardsprogramgoing through themid-'70s, 25 this issuehas beenrecognized and discussed at length EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064115 1 on this product and other products, and to date, there 2 has been -- we have not been able to identify any other 3 approach to that -- to measure efficiency that is 4 repeatable and reproducible and does not result in a 5 burden on manufacturers to conduct, that at this point 6 in time, we don't see any other approach to be taken 7 and are headed in that direction. 8 If a solution approach does identify itself, 9 we are certainly -- on this product or others, we will 10 be willing to change the approach, but we, at this 11 point in time, don't see that as being likely. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Earl or any of the other 13 manufacturers, if you have any specifics, I think now 14 would be a good time. Is it Dick? 15 MR. BEST: Yes. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: Would you speak on the 17 microphone, please? I believe I saw Steve Nadel and 18 maybe someone else on this side of the room. Dick? 19 MR. BEST: Yeah. Again, Dick Best, 20 Whirlpool. I think, first of all, we -- Whirlpool 21 would like to say that we support the criteria that's 22 currently there for product class differentiation, and 23 some of the reasons for this are that there are many 24 ways of measuring the efficiency of the product, both 25 on the performance basis, capacity basis, and actually EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 115 1 on thisproduct and otherproducts, and to date, there 2 has been we have not been able to identify any other 3 approach to that -- tomeasure efficiencythat is 4 repeatable and reproducible and does not result in a 5 burden onmanufacturers to conduct, that at this point 6 in time, we don't see any other approach to be taken 7 and are headed in that direction. 8 If a solution approach does identify itself, 9 we are certainly -- onthisproduct or others, we will 10 bewilling to change the approach, butwe, at this 11 point in time, don't see that as being likely. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Earl or any of the other 13 manufacturers, ifyouhave any specifics, I think now 14 would be a goodtime. Is itDick? 15 MR. BEST: Yes. 16 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Wouldyou speak on the 17 microphone, please? I believe I saw SteveNadel and 18 maybe someone else onthis side of the room. Dick? 19 

### MR. BEST: Yeah. Again, Dick Best, 20 Whirlpool. I think, first of all, we -- Whirlpool 21 would liketo say thatwe support the criteria that's 22 currently there for product class differentiation, and 23 some of the reasons for this are that there aremany 24 ways of measuring the efficiency of the product, both 25 on the performance basis, capacitybasis, and actually EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064116 1 Whirlpool, as many of you know, manufacture and sell 2 washing machines in many parts of the world. 3 We also deal with other agencies and other 4 governments and people that have different methods of 5 evaluating performance and efficiencies. Some of them 6 do use performance-base. One in particular, the 7 Australians, if any of you happen to deal with product 8 there, and it is a rather burdensome process on the 9 manufacturers, and that was part of the discussions 10 throughout the development of these test procedures, 11 was not to put extremely large burdens on manufacturers 12 through the test procedures and development of the 13 standards, and for that reason, we oppose trying to 14 reinvent the standard and reinvent the efficiency 15 method, and, so, we at this point strongly support the 16 current method of classification and -- and the energy 17 measurement methods. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: I saw Steve Nadel first, and I 19 believe Ted Pope as well. Steve? 20 MR. NADEL: Okay. I was just going to say I 21 don't think there's any desire to stick this issue 22 under the carpet. I mean I remember meeting back at 23 NIST, it must have been early '93, with a lot of the 24 AHAM technical people, and it was discussed. 25 It's just that despite multiple years of EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 116 1 Whirlpool, asmany ofyouknow, manufacture and sell 2 washingmachines inmany parts of theworld. 3 We also dealwith other agencies and other 4 governments andpeoplethathave differentmethods of 5 evaluatingperformance and efficiencies. Some of them 6 douseperformance-base. One inparticular, the 7 Australians, if any ofyouhappento deal withproduct 8 there, and it is a ratherburdensomeprocess on the 9 manufacturers, andthatwas part of the discussions 10 throughout thedevelopment of these testprocedures, 11 was not toput extremely large burdens onmanufacturers 12 through the testprocedures and development of the 13 standards, and for that reason, we oppose trying to 14 reinvent the standard andreinvent the efficiency 15 method, and, so, we atthispoint strongly support the 16 currentmethod of classificationand -- and the energy 17 measurementmethods. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: I saw steveNadel first, and I 19 believeTed Pope as well. Steve? 20 

### MR. NADEL: Okay. I was justgoing to say I 21 don't thinkthere's any desire to stickthis issue 22 under the carpet. I mean I remembermeetingback at 23 NIST, itmust have been early '93, with a lot of the 24 AHAM technicalpeople, and itwas discussed. 25 It'sjustthat despitemultiple years of EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064117 1 attention, no one has come up with something better, 2 and now three years later, your representatives are in 3 the room, you've got something, at least put it on the 4 table, but people have really been trying, and they 5 haven't been able to come up with something better. 6 MR. BROOKMAN: Ted? 7 MR. POPE: I just want to -- Ted Pope -- go 8 on record as saying we support the single class because 9 we don't believe there's any substantial utility 10 difference between the horizontal technology and the 11 vertical axis, and there's no justification for doing 12 that. So, we believe DOE has made the right 13 recommendation or suggestion. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: In this case, when you say 15 there's no significant utility difference, you mean -- 16 would you like to elaborate on that? 17 MR. POPE: Yeah. Consumer utility. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: Consumer utility. Okay. 19 MR. POPE: And also I'm not sure. I'm 20 confused about the issue of size. It seems to me that 21 there's a difference between the H-axis construct and 22 the vertical axis construct are all well within the 23 large capacity size and the old size classes. 24 MR. BROOKMAN: Terry? 25 MR. THIELE: Well, just to elaborate on the EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**---------------~-**



### 117 1 attention, no onehas come upwith something better, 2 andnow three years later, your representatives are in 3 theroom, you've got something, at leastput it on the 4 table, butpeoplehave reallybeentrying, and they 5 haven't been able to come upwith somethingbetter. 6 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Ted? 7 

### MR. POPE: I justwant to -- Ted Pope -- go 

### 8 onrecord as sayingwe support-the single classbecause 9 we don'tbelievethere's any sUbstantial utility 10 difference between thehorizontal technology and the 11 vertical axis, and there's nojustificationfor doing 12 that. So, we believeDOE has made theright 13 recommendation or suggestion. 14 

### MR. BROOKMAN: In this case, when you say 15 there's no significantutilitydifference, youmean 16 wouldyou liketo elaborate onthat? 17 MR. POPE: Yeah. Consumer utility. 18 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Consumerutility. Okay. 19 

### MR. POPE: And also I'mnot sure. I'm 20 confused about the issue of size. It seems tome that 21 there's a differencebetween theH-axis construct and 22 thevertical axis construct are all well within the 23 large capacity size and the old size classes. 24 25 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Terry? MR. THIELE: Well, justto elaborate onthe EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064118 1 size issue, I wasn't speaking about the difference 2 between horizontal and vertical as much as the 3 disadvantage that a large size horizontal axis machine 4 has against a small size vertical axis machine given 5 these design options and the current measurements 6 because a larger sized tub has a very different dynamic 7 when you're supposed to be meeting an RMC of 40 percent 8 than a smaller sized tub, and if they're both standard, 9 then that advantages the smaller sized tub from an 10 energy standard while from a utility standard, the 11 consumer would prefer the larger sized tub. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie? 13 MR. STEPHENS: I -- we've looked at some of 14 this before. I think that same large sized tub, if you 15 look at the water consumption, has an advantage. It 16 may have a disadvantage in the RMC, but it will have an 17 advantage in the water consumption per pound of load 18 washed, and I suspect when you use an energy factor 19 that takes all of that into account, it allows a 20 manufacturer a considerable amount of flexibility to 21 design the product with features that will balance 22 those all out and come up with a single number at the 23 end that will work. 24 I mean that's a matter of where you set the 25 standard, I suppose. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 118

. 1 size issue, I wasn't speaking about the difference 2 betweenhorizontal andvertical asmuch as the 3 disadvantage that a large sizehorizontal axis machine 4 has against a small sizevertical axismachine given 5 thesedesign options and the currentmeasurements 6 because a larger sizedtubhas a very different dynamic 7 whenyou're supposedtobemeeting anRMC of 40 percent 8 than a smaller sizedtub, and if they're both standard, 9 then that advantages the smaller sizedtub from an 10 energy standardwhile from a utility standard, the 11 consumerwouldpreferthe larger sizedtub. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie? 13 

### MR. STEPHENS: I -- we've looked at some of 14 this before. I think that same large sizedtub, ifyou 15 look atthewater consumption, has an advantage. It 16 may have a disadvantage intheRMC, but itwill have an 17 advantage inthewater consumptionperpound of load 18 washed, and I suspectwhenyouuse an energy factor 19 that takes all of that into account, it allows a 20 manufacturer a considerable amount of flexibility to 21 designtheproductwith features that will balance 22 those all out and come up with a single number at the 23 end thatwill work. 24 I mean that's a matter of where you set the 25 standard, I suppose. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064119 1 MR. THIELE: Well, but you've got to be able 2 to recognize those trade-offs, and if you in the 3 process aren't able to distinguish because you're not 4 able to measure the differences necessarily given the 5 procedure, you know, it's one thing to hope that the 6 one offsets the other, but I'd rather plan

-- 7 MR. LaFRANCE: Excuse me. This is Mark 8 LaFrance. Terry, actually the test methodology for 9 tackling RMC favors smaller capacity drums because you 10 take the maximum test load size, a lot of times .52, 11 okay, to give you an average load size, and that .52 is 12 based on the shipped weighted average, which is a large 13 number. 14 But when you get -- when you get small on the 15 scale for capacities, and you actually take half the 16 maximum load, you actually get down to a point where 17 it's -- it can actually be smaller than a minimum load. 18 So, there is a sliding scale there. It's too 19 detailed to discuss right now, but certainly all of the 20 engineers have looked at this, and there are advantages 21 and disadvantages with everything you do in the test 22 procedure, and at this point in time, the general 23 consensus from the industry, from the comments we've 24 received, indicates that it's a representative 25 calculation for all capacity. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 119 1 MR. THIELE: Well, butyou've got to be able 2 torecognizethosetrade-offs, and ifyou inthe 3 process aren't abletodistinguishbecauseyou're not 4 able tomeasurethe differences necessarilygiven the 5 procedure, youknow, it's onething tohope thatthe 6 one offsetsthe other, but I'dratherplan -- 7 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Excuseme. This isMark 8 LaFrance. Terry, actuallythetestmethodology for 9 tacklingRMC favors smaller capacitydrums becauseyou 10 take themaximum test load size, a lot of times .52, 11 okay, togiveyou an average load size, and that .52 is 12 based onthe shippedweighted average, which is a large 13 number. 14 Butwhenyou get -- when you get small on the 15 scale for capacities, andyou actuallytake half the 16 maximum load, you actuallyget down to a pointwhere 17 it's -- itcan actuallybe smallerthan a minimum load. 18 

### So, there is a sliding scale there. It's too 19 detailedto discuss right now, but certainly all of the 20 engineershave looked atthis, and there are advantages 21 and disadvantageswith everythingyou do inthe test 22 procedure, and atthispoint intime, the general 23 consensus from the industry, from the comments we've 24 received, indicates that it's a representative 25 calculation for all capacity. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064120 1 MR. THIELE: Again, I'm not trying to 2 replicate the industry discussion. I was trying to 3 solicit a DOE opinion. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. That's helpful. Does 5 DOE wish to offer an opinion at this point? 6 MR. LaFRANCE: Opinion relative to what you 7 want -- RMC is treated fairly with various sized 8 capacities? Is that your concern? 9 MR. THIELE: No. 10 MR. LaFRANCE: What is your concern? 11 MR. THIELE: That's one example. That was 12 one example. The issue has been made by the peer 13 reviewers that there is a problem with measuring by 14 capacity. 15 MR. LaFRANCE: I see. 16 MR. THIELE: That issue has been discussed ad 17 nauseam by the test procedure task force. The industry 18 as a whole is unable to come to closure on that because 19 we're competing against each other, and different 20 aspects of that favor different manufacturers in 21 different ways. 22 So, we can't all agree on how we want it to 23 be done. All right. So, you're getting silence rather 24 than consensus out of the industry because we don't 25 necessarily share the same view. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 120 1 

### MR. THIELE: Again, I'mnot trying to 2 replicatethe industrydiscussion. I was trying to 3 solicit a DOE opinion. 4 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. That'shelpful. Does 5 DOE wish to offer an opinion atthispoint? 6 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Opinionrelative towhat you 7 want -- RMC is treated fairly withvarious sized 8 capacities? Is thatyour concern? 9 

### MR. THIELE: No. 10 MR. LaFRANCE: What isyour concern? 11 MR. THIELE: That's one example. Thatwas 12 one example. The issuehas beenmade by the peer 13 reviewers that there is a problemwithmeasuringby 14 capacity. 15 

### MR. LaFRANCE: I see. 16 

### MR. THIELE: That issuehas been discussed ad 17 nauseamby the testproceduretask force. The industry 18 as a whole isunable to come to closure on that because 19 we're competing against each other, and different 20 aspects of that favor differentmanufacturers in 21 differentways. 22 So, we can't all agree onhowwe want itto 23 be done. All right. So, you're getting silencerather 24 than consensus out of the industrybecausewe don't 25 necessarily sharethe sameview. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064121 1 Excuse me, Ted. Let me just finish my point. 2 You got an opinion out of the industry. I'm asking for 3 your opinion. 4 MR. LaFRANCE: Okay. The opinion of the 5 department on this issue was stated in the proposed 6 rule, which said basically unless we receive -- unless 7 we receive additional information, we will -- we will 8 maintain the use of capacity as is unless we can 9 justify otherwise, and then getting back to your point 10 you just made, Terry, which I really don't quite 11 understand it, the AHAM has provided comments which 12 most manufacturers belong to AHAM agree to. 13 On several issues, manufacturers choose to 14 submit individual comments to us. For example, your 15 company disagreed with discounting the RMC value from a 16 hundred percent down to 75 percent for consumers that 17 use RMC less frequently, and you were the only 18 manufacturer that made that position. 19 So, certainly on that issue, you separated 20 yourself from AHAM, and actually which basically 21 implied that we should use RMC fully all the time, 22 which is contrary to -- I really don't quite 23 understand. 24 MR. THIELE: I'm sorry. I -- we're getting 25 way off base with this. Okay. Again, I'm not trying EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 121 1 Excuseme, Ted. Letme just finish my point. 2 You got an opinion out of the industry. I'm asking for 3 your opinion. 4 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Okay. The opinion of the 5 department onthis issuewas stated intheproposed 6 rule, which saidbasicallyunless we receive

-- unless 7 we receive additional information, we will

-- we will 8 maintaintheuse of capacity as is unless we can 9 justifyotherwise, andthengettingbackto your point 10 youjustmade, Terry, which I really don't quite 11 understand it, theAHAM has provided commentswhich 12 mostmanufacturers belongtoAHAM agree to. 13 On several issues, manufacturers choose to 14 submit individual comments tous. For example, your 15 companydisagreedwithdiscountingthe RMC value from a 16 hundredpercentdown to 75 percent for consumers that 17 use RMC less frequently, andyou were the only 18 manufacturer thatmade thatposition. 19 So, certainlyon that issue, you separated 20 yourself fromAHAM, and actuallywhich basically 21 impliedthatwe shoulduseRMC fully all the time, 22 which is contraryto

-- I reallydon't quite 23 understand. 24 

### MR. THIELE: I'm sorry. I

-- we're getting 25 way off basewiththis. Okay. Again, I'mnot trying EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064122 1 to replicate the industry data on this. I was simply 2 trying to solicit, given what the peer reviewers have 3 said, whether DOE's opinion on this position has 4 changed or what DOE's opinion is, and whenever I ask 5 you, all you tell me is what you've heard from the 6 industry as opposed to what you as a regulator 7 independently think. That's what I was trying to 8 solicit. 9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 10 Additional and very brief follow-up comments, 11 because I think we should observe the time on the 12 agenda, so we can go to lunch on time. 13 Additional follow-up comments on this 14 subject? 15 (No response) 16 MR. BROOKMAN: I don't see any. Let me say 17 that this last half an hour where we've had actual 18 exchange, I think, has been very constructive, and I 19 really thank all of you for keeping your comments 20 confined and concise and specific. That's especially 21 helpful to the department. 22 Let's take an hour for lunch. Let's start

-- 23 please, we've got a lot to cover. Let me note that the 24 entire afternoon is discussion. We will cover a lot of 25 ground this afternoon. Start up at 1:00, and let me EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 122 1 toreplicatethe industrydata on this. I was simply 2 trying to solicit, givenwhat the peerreviewers have 3 said, whether DOE's'opinion onthispositionhas 4 changed orwhat DOE's opinion is, andwhenever I ask 5 you, all you tellme iswhatyou've heard from the 6 industryas opposedtowhatyou as a regulator 7 independentlythink. That'swhat I was trying to 8 solicit. 9 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thankyou. 10 Additional andverybrief follow-up comments, 11 because I thinkwe should observethe time on the 12 agenda, sowe cango to lunch on time. 13 Additional follow-up comments on this 14 subject? 15 (No response) 16 

### MR. BROOKMAN: I don't see any. Letme say 17 thatthis lasthalf anhour where we've had actual 18 exchange, I think, has beenvery constructive, and I 19 reallythank all ofyou for keepingyour comments 20 confined and concise and specific. That's especially 21 helpful to the department. 22 Let's take anhour for lunch. Let's start -- 23 please, we'vegot a lotto cover. Letme note thatthe 24 entire afternoon is discussion. We will cover a lot of 25 ground this afternoon. startup at 1:00, and letme EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064123 1 remind you that Sandy over here has copies of the slide 2 presentations from the peer reviewers. 3 So, thank you. We'll start up at 1. Good 4 start this morning. 5 (Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the meeting was 6 recessed, to reconvene this same day, Friday, November 7 15th, 1996, at 1:00 p.m.) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 123 1 remind you that Sandy overherehas copies of the slide 2 presentations from thepeer reviewers. 3 

### So, thank you. We'll startup at 1. Good 4 startthismorning. 5 (Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the meetingwas 6 

### recessed, to reconvene this same day, Friday, November 7 

### 15th, 1996, 

### at 1:00p.m.) 8 9 

### 10 11 12 13 14 

### 15 16 

### 17 18 19 

### 20 21 22 23 24 

### 25 EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301).565-0064124 1 AFTERNOON SESSION 2 1:00 p.m. 3 MS. GRAFF: We'd like to start out this 4 afternoon going back to the issue of product classes, 5 feeling that maybe the conversation was a little cut 6 off, and, so, I'd like to draw your attention back to 7 the conversation we were having shortly before lunch. 8 This was the slide that we were on, and I was 9 wondering if there were any additional comments or 10 anything that anyone wanted to add. Again, we're 11 looking for input on the product class issue. 12 MR. THIELE: Terry Thiele. Again, I'm asking 13 for DOE's opinion. The data that came to us in the 14 discussion is pre-interpretive rule, and it assumes a 15 single standard product class, and my question is, a 16 lot of discussion has been whether any of this data is 17 valid or what we should do with it. So, it's hard to 18 tell what DOE thinks is good and what DOE thinks is bad 19 within this information. 20 What's DOE's opinion on product classes? 21 MS. GRAFF: Okay. Who would like to respond 22 to that? 23 MR. LaFRANCE: I guess I would. 24 MS. GRAFF: Mark LaFrance? 25 MR. LaFRANCE: We have looked at product EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 124 1 

### AFTERN0 0 N S E S S ION 2 1:00

### p.m. 3 

### MS. GRAFF: We'd liketo start outthis 4 afternoongoingbackto the issue ofproduct classes, 5 feeling thatmaybethe conversationwas a littlecut 6 off, and, so, I'd liketodrawyour attentionback to 7 the conversationwe werehaving shortlybefore lunch. 8 Thiswas the slidethatwe were on, and I was 9 wondering iftherewere any additional comments or 10 

### anythingthat anyonewantedto add. Again, we're 11 looking for input ontheproduct class issue. 12 MR. THIELE: TerryThiele. Again, I'masking 13 for DOE's opinion. The data that came to us in the 14 discussion ispre-interpretiverule, and it assumes a 15 single standardproduct class, andmy question is, a 16 lot of discussionhas beenwhether any of this data is 17 valid orwhatwe should dowith it. So, it'shard to 18 tellwhat DOE thinks is good andwhat DOE thinks isbad 19 withinthis information. 20 

### What's DOE's opinion onproduct classes? 21 22 to that? 23 

### 24 25 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. Who would liketorespond

MR. LaFRANCE: I guess I would. MS. GRAFF: Mark LaFrance? MR. LaFRANCE: We have looked atproduct EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064125 1 classes based on loading access. Okay. In the past, 2 we had differentiated between top loading and front 3 loading. We now know that that is no longer the case 4 with horizontal axis clothes washers. They come in 5 both configurations. 6 In regards to utility, at this point in time, 7 the only data we have indicates that there is not a 8 negative impact on cleaning performance with cold water 9 with horizontal axis clothes washers, and, frankly, we 10 know a lot of people in this room have points -- I mean 11 have their positions relative to that topic, and we 12 really are here to get more information and data., if 13 possible. 14 MS. GRAFF: Did that help, Terry? 15 MR. THIELE: Well, I am inferring from what 16 you said that you don't see a difference in consumer 17 utility between horizontal axis and vertical axis 18 sufficient to justify separate product classes. Is 19 that fair? 20 MR. LaFRANCE: At this point in time. We're 21 early in that decision. 22 MR. JONES: Just following up on that,

-- 23 MS. GRAFF: Earl Jones. 24 MR. JONES: -- the question becomes then, 25 tell me, Mark, what are the department's plans EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 ---- -----

### ------

125 1 classesbased on loading access. Okay. In the past, 2 we had differentiatedbetweentop loading and front 3 loading. We now know that that is no longer the case 4 withhorizontal axis clotheswashers. They come in 5 both configurations. 6 Inregards toutility, atthis point intime, 7 the onlydatawe have indicates that there is not a 8 negative impact on cleaningperformancewith coldwater 9 withhorizontal axis clotheswashers, and, frankly, we 10 know a lotofpeople inthisroomhavepoints -- I mean 11 have theirpositions relativeto that topic, and we 12 really are here togetmore information and data., if 13 possible. 14 

### MS. GRAFF: Didthathelp, Terry? 15 MR. THIELE: Well, I am inferring from what 16 you saidthatyou don't see a difference in consumer 17 utilitybetweenhorizontal axis and vertical axis 18 sufficienttojustify separateproduct classes. Is 19 that fair? 20 

### MR. LaFRANCE: At thispoint in time. We're 21 early inthatdecision. 22 MR. JONES: Just following up onthat, -- 23 

### MS. GRAFF: Earl Jones. 24 

### MR. JONES: -- the questionbecomes then, 25 tellme, Mark, what are the department'splans EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064126 1 following up on the comments made by its peer reviewers 2 on that topic? 3 MR. LaFRANCE: If I can summarize the peer 4 reviewers, I think they basically -- the ones that 5 touched base on the utility aspects said that they 6 think that the industry should provide data to us, and 7 I think that's something that we look forward to as 8 well. 9 I mean what we plan on doing right now is 10 considering the information made available today, and 11 hopefully your company can offer some -- some 12 information and data to the subject, so we can make 13 that determination. 14 MR. JONES: Surely you don't expect that 15 question. I would think you would want that fully 16 addressed and resolved, right? 17 MR. LaFRANCE: Right. 18 MR. JONES: Okay. So, what I understood the 19 consultants to have said was that there is -- there are 20 issues or questions whether or not there are utility 21 impacts that need to be resolved. 22 I think I understood them to say that the 23 industry should provide that. The question was whether 24 or not there is information or data available to 25 consumer research to provide that information. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 126 1 following up onthe commentsmade by itspeerreviewers 2 onthat topic? 3 

### MR. LaFRANCE: If I can summarizethe peer 4 reviewers, I thinkthey basically -- the ones that 5 touched base ontheutility aspects saidthat they 6 think thatthe industry shouldprovide data to us, and 7 I thinkthat's somethingthatwe look forward to as 8 well. 9 I meanwhatwe plan ondoing right now is 10 consideringthe informationmade available today, and 11 hopefullyyour company can offer some -- some 12 information and data to the subject, sowe canmake 13 that determination. 14 

### MR. JONES: Surelyyou don't expect that 15 question. I wouldthinkyou would want that fully 16 addressed andresolved, right? 17 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Right. 18 

### MR. JONES: Okay. So, what I understood the 19 consultants tohave saidwas thatthere is -- there are 20 issues or questions whether or not there are utility 21 impacts that need toberesolved. 22 I think I understoodthemto saythatthe 23 industry shouldprovidethat. The questionwas whether 24 or not there is information or data available to 25 consumerresearch toprovidethat information. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064127 1 Since indeed there are no such products on 2 the market of the kind you're describing in this 3 country made by American manufacturers to American 4 consumer specifications, then the question is what are 5 the department's plans to get that information? You 6 can't get it from us if we don't have it. 7 MR. LaFRANCE: Well, I mean there are many 8 companies represented in the room, and I know that 9 Frigidaire is currently marketing a large capacity 10 horizontal axis clothes washer -- front loading. Okay. 11 Stabler is also selling a top loader. I 12 don't know what the capacity is there. There are also 13 other technologies that manufacturers have worked on 14 prototypes. Maytag has announced they've worked on. 15 Whirlpool has announced they've worked on various 16 technologies, and a lot of companies conduct pseudo17 consumer testing with employees and in employees' homes 18 and other things. 19 So, we believe there's additional data 20 available. Unfortunately, we haven't seen it to date. 21 MR. JONES: And what happens if you don't get 22 it, which you haven't gotten to this point? 23 MR. LaFRANCE: I think maybe Carl can answer 24 that question. That's a little out of the scope of 25 what I can answer for future plans and commitments. I EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 127 1 Since indeedthere are no suchproducts on 2 themarket of the kind you're describing in this 3 countrymade byAmericanmanufacturers toAmerican 4 consumer specifications, thenthe question is what are 5 the department's plans to get that information? You 6 can't get it fromus ifwe don't have it. 7 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Well, I mean there aremany 8 companies represented inthe room, and I know that 9 Frigidaire is currentlymarketing a large capacity 10 horizontal axis clotheswasher -- front loading. Okay. 11 Stabler is also selling a top loader. I 12 don't knowwhat the capacity is there. There are also 13 other technologies thatmanufacturers have worked on 14 prototypes. Maytaghas announced they'veworked on. 15 Whirlpool has announcedthey'veworked on various 16 technologies, and a lot of companies conductpseudo17 consumer testingwith employees and in employees' homes 18 and other things. 19 So, we believethere's additional data 20 available. Unfortunately, we haven't seen itto date. 21 MR. JONES: And what happens if you don't get 22 it, whichyouhaven't gottento this point? 23 

### MR. LaFRANCE: I thinkmaybe Carl can answer 24 that question. That's a little out of the scope of 25 what I can answer for future plans and commitments. I EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064128 1 really can't provide that, Earl. 2 MS. GRAFF: Okay. So, we -- 3 MR. JONES: Excuse me. There is a question 4 pending for the department. 5 MS. GRAFF: Yeah. I -- I heard that there is 6 a question pending. I also see a couple hands. The 7 question is -- Carl, are you prepared to answer that? 8 And then we can go to Charlie. 9 MR. ADAMS: Well, it's fair to say that 10 notwithstanding what the peer reviewers have said and 11 what other people have said, that in terms of the 12 criteria for establishing product classes in terms of 13 capacity or performance-related features, we have not 14 seen any information, other than anecdotal-type claims 15 or inferences, that would lead us to believe that there 16 are any capacity or performance-related differences as 17 to the orientation of the axis of the clothes washer. 18 MR. JONES: Well, excuse me, Carl. If I 19 understood correctly, the department's previous product 20 class position was based on utility, on consumer 21 utility, as I recall, having to do with the mode of 22 access. 23 My question was specifically dealing with 24 that. If indeed it's the department's view that that 25 issue has been resolved, how are we going to be -- how EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 128 1 really can'tprovidethat, Earl. 2 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. So, we -- 3 

### MR. JONES: Excuseme. There is a question 4 pending for thedepartment. 5 

### MS. GRAFF: Yeah. I -- I heard that there is 6 a questionpending. I also see a couplehands. The 7 question is

-- Carl, areyoupreparedto answer that? 8 And thenwe cangoto Charlie. 9 

### MR. ADAMS: Well, it's fair to saythat 10 notwithstandingwhat thepeerreviewers have said and 11 what otherpeoplehave said, that interms of the 12 criteria for establishingproduct classes interms of 13 capacityorperformance-related features, we have not 14 seen any information, otherthan anecdotal-type claims 15 or inferences, thatwould leadus tobelievethatthere 16 are any capacityorperformance-relateddifferences as 17 to the orientationof the axis of the clotheswasher. 18 MR. JONES: Well, excuseme, Carl. If I 

### 19 understood correctly, the department'sprevious product 20 classpositionwas based onutility, on consumer 21 utility, as I recall, havingto do with themode of 22 access. 23 My questionwas specificallydealingwith 24 that. If indeed it'sthe department's viewthat that 25 issuehas beenresolved, how arewe going tobe

-- how EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064129 1 are you going to determine whether that is true or not? 2 What data will you have to verify or justify that 3 conclusion? Not compatibility, not performance. Those 4 things are not relevant in terms of whether you load 5 the thing from the top or the front. 6 MR. THIELE: You're asking about how they 7 justify changing from their existing product class? 8 MR. JONES: Exactly. Thank you, Terry. That 9 was clearer that maybe I made it. 10 MR. LaFRANCE: Okay. There are top-loading 11 horizontal axis clothes washers. 12 MR. JONES: Which ones? 13 MR. LaFRANCE: Well, there are some in 14 Europe, and there's the Stabler product. 15 MR. JONES: Yeah. And my -- you take me 16 right back to my question, Mark. What data does the 17 department have on the question of consumer utility 18 which is a different question than whether or not the 19 products exist? 20 MR. LaFRANCE: Right. Okay. 21 MR. JONES: What data does the department 22 have on consumer utility which it uses to base its, I 23 presume, preliminary conclusion that we have abandoned 24 the old product classes, particularly since your own 25 peer reviewer has put that issue squarely on the table? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 129 1 areyou going todeterminewhether that is true or not? 2 What datawillyouhavetoverify orjustifythat 3 conclusion? Not compatibility, notperformance. Those 4 things are notrelevant interms of whetheryou load 5 the thing from thetop orthe front. 6 

### MR. THIELE: You're asking about how they 7 justifychanging from their existingproduct class? 8 

### MR. JONES: Exactly. Thankyou, Terry. That 9 was clearerthatmaybe I made it. 10 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Okay. There are top-loading 11 horizontal axis clotheswashers. 12 MR. JONES: Which ones? 13 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Well, there are some in 14 Europe, and there's the Stablerproduct. 15 

### MR. JONES: Yeah. And my -- youtakeme 16 rightbacktomy question, Mark. What data does the 17 departmenthave onthequestion of consumer utility 18 which is a different question thanwhether ornot the 19 products exist? 20 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Right. Okay. 21 MR. JONES: What data does the department 22 have on consumerutilitywhich ituses to base its, I 23 presume, preliminaryconclusion thatwe have abandoned 24 the oldproduct classes, particularly sinceyour own 25 peerreviewerhas putthat issue squarely on the table? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064130 1 MS. GRAFF: All right. Hold on. Do you have 2 something related to this or -- 3 MR. JONES: No. The question is what is the 4 department doing? Unless you're going to tell us, 5 Dick, what you know, what the department's answer to 6 that question is,

-- 7 MR. LaFRANCE: Earl, I think

-- 8 MR. JONES: -- the question is, what is the 9 department's position. 10 MR. LaFRANCE: In the absence of valid data, 11 the presumption is there is not a negative impact. 12 Now, certainly we could discuss that. There has been 13 projects done with a thermal effort. 14 John Tomlinson is currently conducting other 15 demonstration programs, and -- and like I said before, 16 we know that manufacturers do conduct these types of 17 tests, and that information is very confidential and 18 proprietary, but if anything like that could be 19 disclosed to us, we would be pleased to receive it. 20 MS. GRAFF: So, what I'm hearing then in 21 response to the question then is that -- that the 22 department doesn't have any, that they're presuming 23 that there is no negative impact, and that they would 24 like to have any information that would be out there 25 and that would be available, is that correct? Okay. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 130 1 

### MS. GRAFF: All right. Hold on. Do youhave 2 something relatedto this or -- 3 

### MR. JONES: No. The question is what is the 4 department doing? Unless you're going to tell us, 5 Dick, what youknow, what the department's answer to 6 that question is, -- 7 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Earl, I think -- 8 

### MR. JONES: the question is, what is the 9 department's position. 10 MR. LaFRANCE: In the absence of valid data, 11 the presumption is there is not a negative impact. 12 Now, certainlywe coulddiscuss that. There has been 13 projects donewith a thermal effort. 14 JohnTomlinson is currently conducting other 15 demonstrationprograms, and -- and like I saidbefore, 16 we know thatmanufacturers do conduct these types of 17 tests, and that information isvery confidential and 18 proprietary, but if anything like that couldbe 19 disclosed to us, we would bepleasedto receive it. 20 

### MS. GRAFF: So, what I'mhearing then in 21 response to thequestion then is that -- that the 22 department doesn'thave any, that they'represuming 23 that there is no negative impact, and that theywould 24 liketo have any information thatwould be out there 25 and thatwould be available, isthat correct? Okay. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-00641 That's the answer. 2 MR. JONES: Well, I want -- that's not a good 3 enough answer. I want the justification for the 4 decision that there's no apparent -- there's no impact. 5 MR. LEVY: I am going to interrupt at this 6 point. First of all, there hasn't been a decision as 7 you put it. 8 MR. JONES: Okay. 9 MR. LEVY: I mean what our position is now 10 based on what we know, and we're not going to make a 11 decision here just as you stated a few minutes ago that 12 you were not in a position to comment on the -- what 13 the peer reviewers had to say right on the spot. 14 I think we're not in a radically-different 15 position from that. We have the comments. We're going 16 to consider them. We're going to consider whatever 17 information we can get on the subject. 18 I don't really see much point in belaboring 19 the issue of whether the department's going to make a 20 decision right here and now. 21 MR. JONES: Nobody is asking you to. My 22 question was -- 23 MR. LEVY: You did that three times. 24 MR. JONES: No. It was a very specific one. 25 I said what is the basis for your preliminary EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 131 1 That's the answer. 2 MR. JONES: Well, I want -- that's not a good 3 enough answer. I want thejustificationfor the 4 decision that there's no apparent -- there's no impact. 5 

### MR. LEVY: I am going to interrupt at this 6 point. First of all, therehasn'tbeen a decision as 7 you put it. 8 

### MR. JONES: Okay. 9 

### MR. LEVY: I meanwhat our position is now 10 based onwhatwe know, andwe're not going tomake a 11 decisionherejust as you stated a few minutes ago that 12 you were not in a positionto comment on the -- what 13 the peer reviewers had to sayright on the spot. 14 I thinkwe're not in a radically-different 15 position from that. We have the comments. We're going 16 to consider them. We're goingto considerwhatever 17 informationwe can get onthe subject. 18 I don't really seemuch point in belaboring 19 the issue ofwhether the department's going tomake a 20 decision right here and now. 21 MR. JONES: Nobody is asking you to. My 22 questionwas -- 23 

### MR. LEVY: You didthat three times. 24 

### MR. JONES: No. Itwas a very specific one. 25 I saidwhat is the basis for yourpreliminary EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064132 1 conclusion? I was very careful to make it a 2 preliminary conclusion, not a decision. You want to 3 characterize it different than that, not even 4 preliminary, pre-preliminary. 5 What is the basis of the -- of the going-in 6 assumption? Call it anything you want. 7 MR. ADAMS: I think, Earl, it's fair to say 8 that based on existing clothes washers that are 9 available in the marketplace today, that access to the 10 clothes washer, be it from the front or from the top, 11 is not dependent upon the axis orientation. 12 MR. JONES: And that's based on, as I 13 understand, Carl, two products or at least one you said 14 is the Stabler and the other one is the -- the what? 15 MR. ADAMS: Well, there are European 16 machines. 17 MR. JONES: Which ones? I mean do we know or 18 are you saying you believe it? 19 MR. ADAMS: There's quite a number of brands 20 in Europe

-- 21 MR. JONES: Look, guys, we ought to have a 22 record here on which the department is acting, but we 23 have assumptions. If we want to deal with assumptions, 24 then you put them all on the table. I'm just asking

-- 25 MR. LEVY: Information that other people have EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 132 1 conclusion? I was very careful tomake it a 2 preliminaryconclusion, not a decision. You want to 3 characterize itdifferentthan that, not even 4 preliminary, pre-preliminary. 5 What is thebasis of the -- of the going-in 6 assumption? Call itanythingyouwant. 7 

### MR. ADAMS: I think, Earl, it's fair to say 8 thatbased on existingclotheswashers that are 9 available inthemarketplacetoday, that access tothe 10 clotheswasher, be it from the front or from the top, 11 is not dependent uponthe axis orientation. 12 MR. JONES: And that'sbased on, as I 13 understand, Carl, twoproducts or at leastoneyou said 14 is the Stabler and the other one is the -- thewhat? 15 

### MR. ADAMS: Well, there are European 16 machines. 17 

### MR. JONES: Which ones? I mean do we know or 18 are you sayingyou believe it? 19 

### MR. ADAMS: There's quite a number of brands 20 inEurope 21 MR. JONES: Look, guys, we ought tohave a 22 recordhere onwhichthe department is acting, butwe 23 have assumptions. Ifwe want todeal with assumptions, 24 thenyouputthem all on the table. I'mjust asking -- 25 

### MR. LEVY: Informationthat otherpeoplehave EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064133 1 is relevant to your question. 2 MR. JONES: It's not information. 3 MR. LEVY: That's what we're here to do, is 4 to gather it. 5 MS. GRAFF: All right. Let's do one at a 6 time, and I understand, Earl, that you have a question, 7 and you're not getting the answer that you want, but we 8 are getting out the information that is available, and 9 that is what we here to do. 10 I saw Charlie. I saw Dave. I saw Mike. 11 MR. BEST: I do have information. 12 MS. GRAFF: I don't know that you're getting 13 picked up, Dick. 14 MR. BEST: Dick Best with Whirlpool again. I 15 do have information that I think is relevant to the 16 questions being asked, but I -- I would like one thing 17 clarified. 18 Before, I think Mr. Jones asked the question 19 or stated that the current H-axis and V-axis, based on 20 access, is what determines the class. I believe that 21 class was determined by energy use, not by whether it's 22 front-loading or top-loading or horizontal or vertical. 23 Could someone from DOE clarify that point for 24 us? How is the -- the current differentiation today? 25 It's based on energy, Ibelieve, is that correct? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 133 1 is relevant to your question. 2 MR. JONES: It's not information. 3 MR. LEVY: That's what we're here to do, is 4 to gather it. 5 

### MS. GRAFF: All right. Let's do one at a 6 time, and I understand, Earl, thatyou have a question, 7 and you're not gettingthe answer that you want, butwe 8 are getting out the information that is available, and 9 that iswhatwe here to do. 10 

### I saw Charlie. I sawDave. I sawMike. 11 MR. BEST: I do have information. 12 MS. GRAFF: I don't:know that you're getting 13 pickedup, Dick. 14 

### MR. BEST: Dick BestwithWhirlpool again. I 15 do have information that I think is relevant to the 16 questions being asked, but I

-- I would like one thing 17 clarified. 18 Before, I thinkMr. Jones asked the question 19 or statedthat the currentH-axis andV-axis, based on 20 access, iswhat determines the class. I believe that 21 classwas determined by energyuse, not bywhether it's 22 front-loading or top-loading orhorizontal or vertical. 23 Could someone from DOE clarifythatpoint for 24 us? How is the

-- the current differentiation today? 25 It'sbased on energy, I believe, is that correct? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064134 1 MS. GRAFF: Between the two classes, no. DOE 2 or -- 3 MR. LaFRANCE: Currently, we have five 4 product classes, two of which are top-loading, 5 differentiated by capacity, size. The other three, you 6 have front-loader, semi-automatic and sudsy. Okay. 7 And, so, basically, the previous determination by the 8 department was that a front-loader and a top-loader 9 were -- were in different product classes based on the 10 access to the consumer. 11 Okay. Now, that question probably could be 12 debated because dryers have front-loading access. 13 Front-loading also provides advantages to disabled 14 people, and -- but in -- in answer to that discussion, 15 there are top-loading horizontal axis clothes washers. 16 So, there's no longer any need to -- to make a 17 distinction, unless it's proven that a top-loader 18 horizontal axis clothes washer negatively impacts 19 utility, you know, and that's something that we're here 20 to get comment on. 21 MR. JONES: So, the department's position at 22 this point is the fact that one manufacturer with a 23 market share which cannot be measured by any known 24 device, and European products which don't suit American 25 consumers' needs, are the basis for its position that EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### i 134 1 

### MS. GRAFF: Betweenthe two classes, no. DOE 2 or -- 3 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Currently, we have five 4 product classes, two ofwhich are top-loading, 5 differentiatedby capacity, size. The other three, you 6 have front-loader, semi-automatic and sudsy. Okay. 7 And, so, basically, theprevious determination by the 8 departmentwas that a front-loader and a top-loader 9 were -- were indifferentproduct classes based on the 10 access to the consumer. 11 Okay. Now, thatquestionprobably could be 12 debatedbecause dryers have front-loading access. 13 Front-loading alsoprovides advantages to disabled 14 people, and -- but in -- in answer to that discussion, 15 there are top-loadinghorizontal axis clotheswashers. 16 So, there's no longer any needto -- tomake a 17 distinction, unless it'sproven that a top-loader 18 horizontal axis clotheswasher negatively impacts 19 utility, youknow, and that's somethingthatwe'rehere 20 to get comment on. 21 MR. JONES: So, the department's position at 22 thispoint is the fact that onemanufacturerwith a 23 market sharewhich cannotbemeasured by anyknown 24 device, and Europeanproductswhich don't suitAmerican 25 consumers' needs, are thebasis for itsposition that EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-00641 point of access is not relevant? 2 MR. LaFRANCE: There's also the issue of the 3 fact that you can -- right along side of the clothes 4 washer is the dryer that is only front access. 5 MR. JONES: Well, but you have that when you 6 have the two classes. 7 MR. LaFRANCE: I wasn't here to give the 8 historical perspective on why they made that when they 9 did, and that might have been something that was done 10 before the rulemaking and probably the test procedures. 11 I don't know. 12 MS. GRAFF: Okay. So, the department -- the 13 department has the position as of right now, but I'm 14 also hearing that the department wants to get more 15 information and that's part of the purpose of today and 16 the comment period that will follow today as well as 17 the comments that will follow the engineering analysis, 18 the next iteration. 19 MR. BEST: Yes, I'd like to continue with my 20 comments, if I could. 21 MS. GRAFF: Sure. Dick? 22 MR. BEST: Whirlpool is a producer of both 23 vertical axis and horizontal axis machines, both here, 24 Europe and Asia, and we've also built the top-loading 25 horizontal axis machines as well in France, and they're EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 135 1 point of access is not relevant? 2 

### MR. LaFRANCE: There's also the issue of the 3 fact that you can -- right along side of the clothes 4 washer is the dryer that is only front access. 5 

### MR. JONES: Well, but you have thatwhen you 6 have the two classes. 7 

### MR. LaFRANCE: I wasn't here to give the 8 historical perspective on why theymade that when they 9 did, and thatmight have been something thatwas done 10 beforethe rulemaking andprobably the testprocedures. 11 I don't know. 12 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. So, the department -- the 13 departmenthas theposition as of right now, but I'm 14 also hearing that the department wants to get more 15 information and that's part of thepurpose of today and 16 the comment periodthatwill follow today as well as 17 the comments thatwill follow the engineering analysis, 18 the next iteration. 19 

### MR. BEST: Yes, I'd like to continuewithmy 20 comments, if I COUld. 21 

### MS. GRAFF: Sure. Dick? 22 

### MR. BEST: Whirlpool is a producer of both 23 vertical axis andhorizontal axis machines, bothhere, 24 Europe andAsia, andwe've also built the top-loading 25 horizontal axis machines as well in France, and they're EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064136 1 sold in several other countries. So, it's -- it's not 2 an unknown product. 3 Whirlpool does acknowledge that load size, 4 loading methods, cycle times and such are recognized 5 and significant consumer utility issues for the U.S. 6 market. 7 We also recognize as pointed out by the DOE 8 third party peer reviewers and others that much of the 9 data upon which the options have and are being 10 evaluated here is somewhat outdated, and in the case of 11 H-axis utility, the information used in the analysis is 12 almost entirely European design base data, and it's 13 either on products that are -- are currently in the 14 market or were in the market two or three years ago. 15 It's significant to point out that one major 16 U.S. manufacturer has recently introduced a new H-axis 17 product, and a second major U.S. manufacturer has 18 announced the same intention to do so in 1997, and 19 included within the four design options that Whirlpool 20 acknowledged earlier today are both vertical and 21 horizontal axis products, and these will be included in 22 the engineering analysis. 23 All of these designs are top-loading designs 24 with easy access, with capacities and cycle times 25 comparable to today's vertical axis products that all EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 136 1 sold in several other countries. So, it's

-- it's not 2 anunknown product. 3 

### Whirlpool does acknowledge that load size, 4 loadingmethods, cycletimes and such are recognized 5 and significant consumerutility issues for the u.S. 6 market. 7 We also recognize as pointed out by the DOE 8 thirdpartypeerreviewers and others thatmuch of the 9 data uponwhich the options have and are being 10 evaluatedhere is somewhat outdated, and in the case of 11 H-axis utility, the informationused in the analysis is 12 almost entirely European design base data, and it's 13 either onproducts that are -- are currently in the 14 market orwere inthemarket two or three years ago. 15 It's significanttopoint out that onemajor 16 u.S. manufacturerhas recently introduced a new H-axis 17 product, and a secondmajor u.S. manufacturer has 18 announced the same intentionto do so in 1997, and 19 includedwithin the four design options thatWhirlpool 20 acknowledged earliertoday are bothvertical and 21 horizontal axis products, and these will be included in 22 the engineering analysis. 23 All of these designs are top-loading designs 24 with easy access, with capacities and cycletimes 25 comparable to today's vertical axis products that all EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064137 1 of our competitors are selling, and it will be 2 demonstrated that there is no significant difference at 3 all between the vertical axis and H-axis from the 4 consumer utility standpoint, and this information will 5 be made available to DOE and will be submitted. 6 MS. GRAFF: Any other comments on the issue 7 of the product classes? Since we're here to provide 8 input into the engineering analysis as well as the 9 design options, anything else? Oh, Terry? 10 MR. THIELE: Just as a closing comment, Terry 11 Thiele, that obviously the discussion we're having now 12 is premature. 13 MS. GRAFF: You want to add any more? 14 MR. THIELE: Since we don't have those 15 Whirlpool designs, and we haven't had a chance to 16 evaluate them, we're not going to be able to have a 17 meaningful conversation on those product classes. 18 MS. GRAFF: All right. Any other comments? 19 (No response) 20 MS. GRAFF: So, have we finished what we need 21 to say about the product classes? 22 MR. JONES: No, we haven't. 23 MS. GRAFF: And is there anything else that 24 we can say today that would be helpful or do we want to 25 continue during the comment period? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 137 1 of our competitors are selling, and itwill be 2 demonstratedthat there is no significantdifference at

, 

### 3 all betweenthevertical axis andH-axis from the 4 consumerutility standpoint, andthis informationwill 5 bemade availableto DOE and will be submitted. 6 

### MS. GRAFF: Any other comments on the issue 7 of theproduct classes? Sincewe'rehere toprovide 8 input intothe engineering analysis as well as the 9 design options, anythingelse? Oh, Terry? 10 

### MR. THIELE: Just as a closing comment, Terry 11 Thiele, that obviouslythe discussionwe'rehaving now 12 ispremature. 13 MS. GRAFF: You want to add anymore? 14 

### MR. THIELE: Sincewe don't have those 15 Whirlpool designs, andwe haven'thad a chance to 16 evaluatethem, we're not goingtobe able tohave a 17 meaningful conversationon thoseproduct classes. 18 

### MS. GRAFF: All right. Any other comments? 19 

### (No response) 20 

### MS. GRAFF: So, havewe finished whatwe need 21 to say about the product classes? 22 MR. JONES: No, we haven't. 23 

### MS. GRAFF: And is there anything else that 24 we can saytodaythatwouldbehelpful or dowe want to 25 continue duringthe commentperiod? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064138 1 Okay. Anything else for today? 2 (No response) 3 MS. GRAFF: All right. Good. Bryan, we want 4 to move on to Engineering Analysis. 5 Open Discussion on Preliminary Engineering Analysis 6 MR. BERRINGER: We've had quite a bit of 7 discussion today about engineering analysis. We've had 8 comments from our peer reviewers. They had questions 9 about the validity and uncertainty of the data. 10 They've also come up with a few suggestions of what 11 possible options they may have to go with the data. 12 Again, I'd like to reiterate we've talked 13 quite a bit about the engineering analysis and the 14 interpretive rule and its response again. 15 As I stated in my opening statement that this 16 is the first workshop under the new process 17 improvement, this data has been put out for 18 information. It's not -- it's been put out for 19 discussion to be part of the open process. 20 So, we're looking at today to see what we can 21 do to either improve it or if we need to scrap it as 22 was discussed earlier, that's one of the options. But 23 we want to try and go forward from here, and what we're 24 going to do is, based on some of the conversations 25 we've had with the peer reviewers and telephone EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 138 1 

### Okay. Anything else for today? 2 (No response) 3 

### MS. GRAFF: All right. Good. Bryan, we want 4 tomove on toEngineeringAnalysis. 5 Open Discussion onPreliminaryEngineeringAnalysis 6 

### MR. BERRINGER: We'vehadquite a bit of 7 discussiontoday about engineering analysis. We've had 8 comments from ourpeerreviewers. Theyhad questions 9 about the validity anduncertainty of the data. 10 They've also come upwith a few suggestions of what 11 possible options theymay have to go with the data. 12 Again, I'd liketoreiteratewe've talked 13 quite a bit about the engineering analysis and the 14 interpretiverule and itsresponse again. 15 As I stated inmy opening statementthatthis 16 is the first workshopunder the newprocess 17 improvement, this data has beenput out for 18 information. It'snot -- it'sbeenput out for 19 discussion tobepart of the openprocess. 20 So, we're looking attodayto seewhatwe can 21 do to either improve itor ifwe need to scrap it as 22 was discussed earlier, that's one of the options. But 23 we want to try and go forward from here, andwhat we're 24 goingto do is, based on some of the conversations 25 we've hadwiththepeerreviewers andtelephone EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064139 1 conferences -- LBL was also involved. 2 At this time, I'd like them to come and give 3 their -- what information they have on the validity and 4 uncertainty, and after their presentation, we'd like to 5 open it up for open discussion on where we should 6 proceed and what we can do to improve or move forward 7 with the engineering analysis. 8 MS. GRAFF: Please be sure you state your 9 name. 10 MR. McMAHON: My name is Jim McMahon from 11 Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. Thank you, Bryan. 12 As Dick Topping indicated in a similar slide, 13 there's a very large range of uncertainty in the cost 14 data provided by AHAM in the preliminary engineering 15 analysis. 16 Just to review what was provided, we were 17 provided with average cost information averaged from 18 individual submittals of manufacturers and a standard 19 deviation. 20 What I'm showing on this slide for each of 21 the design options along the orizontal access are 22 manufacturer cost. The center point is the average, 23 the shipment weighted average as calculated by AHAM, 24 and the bars indicate one standard deviation. 25 I'd like to call your attention to the EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 139 1 conferences -- LBL was also involved. 2 At this time, I'd likethemto come and give 3 their -- what informationtheyhave onthe validity and 4 uncertainty, and aftertheirpresentation, we'd like to 5 open itup for opendiscussiononwherewe should 6 proceed andwhatwe cando to improve ormove forward 7 withthe engineering analysis. 8 

### MS. GRAFF: Pleasebe sureyou stateyour 9 name. 10 

### MR. McMAHON: My name isJimMcMahon from 11 Lawrence BerkeleyNational Lab. Thankyou, Bryan. 12 As DickTopping indicated in a similar slide, 13 there's a very largerange ofuncertainty in the cost 14 dataprovidedbyAHAM inthepreliminary engineering 15 analysis. 16 Just toreviewwhatwas provided, we were 17 providedwith average cost information averaged from 18 individual submittals ofmanufacturers and a standard 19 deviation. 20 What I'm showing on this slide for each of 21 the design options alongthe orizontal access are 22 manufacturer cost. The centerpoint is the average, 23 the shipmentweighted average as calculatedbyAHAM, 24 and thebars indicate one standard deviation. 25 I'd liketo callyour attentionto the EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064140

s 1 horizontal axis here. The value -- the average is a 2 $101. This is incremental cost over the baseline unit. 3 The standard deviation is a $110. So, one standard 4 deviation brings you down to a range that shows that if 5 you were moved to accept this range, there's a 6 significant probability -- there's a significant 7 probability that horizontal axis will be cheaper than 8 baseline. 9 Since this is only one standard deviation, I 10 can tell you that outside of that bar, there is a 37 11 percent chance that the cost will be either higher than 12 the $200+ or lower than the minus a few dollars that * 

### ~13 are there. 14 I view that as unacceptable, but I'd be 15 curious to know what the reaction of the stakeholders 16 are to those, and I'd like to talk a little bit about 17 howwe can do a little better with the data on hand and 18 also possible alternative approaches that would allow a 19 better analysis. 20 MR. FOLEY: Are these slides going to be made 21 available? 22 MR. McMAHON: Copies were -- I don't know if 23 there are any left. There were copies on the table. 24 MS. GRAFF: They're being passed around right 25 now, is that right? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 140 1 horizontal axis here. Thevalue

-- the average is a 2 $101. This is incremental cost over thebaselineunit. 3 The standarddeviation is a $110. So, one standard 4 deviationbringsyou down to a range that shows that if 5 youweremoved to accept thisrange, there's a 6 significantprobability

-- there's a significant 7 probabilitythathorizontal axiswill be cheaperthan 8 baseline. 9 sincethis is only one standarddeviation, I 10 cantellyouthat outside ofthatbar, there is a 37 11 percentchancethat the costwill be eitherhigher than 12 the $200+ or lower thantheminus a few dollars that 13 are there. 14 I viewthat asunacceptable, but I'dbe 15 curious toknowwhatthereaction of the stakeholders 16 are tothose, and I'd liketo talk a littlebit about 17 howwe can do a littlebetterwith the data onhand and 18 alsopossible alternative approachesthatwould allow a 19 better analysis. 20 MR. FOLEY: Are these slidesgoing tobemade 21 available? 22 MR. McMAHON: Copieswere -- I don'tknow if 23 there are any left. Therewere copies on the table. 24 MS. GRAFF: They'rebeingpassed around right 25 now, is thatright? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064141 1 MR. McMAHON: We probably need more copies. 2 Okay. I need to make a couple of background 3 remarks to understand the concepts here. First of all, 4 we are dealing with both variability and uncertainty, 5 and these are different. In the engineering analysis 6 as -- engineering data, cost data, provided so far, we 7 cannot separate those. 8 The range of values comes from two sources, 9 variability and uncertainty, which I will define. 10 Whether you're dealing with variability or uncertainty, 11 you need to define these things carefully. 12 Now, for this slide, I've gone to an ASHRAE 13 document that tells engineers how to process 14 experimental data, but there are lots of statistical 15 treatments that one can look at. I'll be happy to give 16 sources to people. 17 When you are providing an estimate of an 18 uncertain quantity, you need to provide three things. 19 One is your best estimate, and in this case, we 20 understand each of the manufacturers provided their 21 best estimate for the cost of design options. The 22 range of uncertainty, and something about your 23 confidence level. 24 For example, an incremental cost 25 hypothetically might be best estimate $100, and now EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 141 1 

### MR. McMAHON: We probably need more copies. 2 

### Okay. I need tomake a couple of background 3 remarks to understand the concepts here. First of all, 4 

### we are dealing with both variability and uncertainty, 5 

### and these are different. In the engineering analysis 6 

### as -- engineeringdata, cost data, provided so far, we 7 

### cannot separate those. 8 

### The range of values comes from two sources, 9 

### variability and uncertainty, which I will define. 10 

### Whether you're dealingwith variability or uncertainty, 11 

### you need to define these things carefully. 12 

### NOw, for this slide, I've gone to anASHRAE 13 

### document that tells engineers how to process 14 

### experimental data, but there are lots of statistical 15 

### treatments that one can look at. I'll be happy to give 16 

### sources to people. 17 

### When you are providing an estimate of an 18 

### uncertain quantity, you need to provide three things. 19 

### One is your best estimate, and in this case, we 20 

### understand each of themanufacturers provided their 21 

### best estimate for the cost of design options. The 22 

### range of uncertainty, and something about your 23 

### confidence level. 24 

### For example, an incremental cost 25 

### hypotheticallymight be best estimate $100, 

### and now EXECUTIVE 

### COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064142 F1 consider this a value provided by one manufacturer for 2 one design option. That manufacturer might believe 3 that the range of uncertainty was from 70 to a 130 or 4 plus or minus $30, and they might have a confidence of 5 90 percent. 6 An interpretation of the confidence is 7 there's a 10 percent chance that in fact in the real 8 world, the actual cost will wind up being outside that 9 range. This is a complete description of uncertainty. 10 This is not what's been provided so far. 11 Within that framework, there are a number of 12 different functional forms that can be provided -- can 13 be used to characterize the uncertainty. Uniform looks 14 like that. It says you have an average value, plus or 15 minus some range, and they all have equal probability. 16 So, with the range of 70 to a 130, all values are 17 equally likely. 18 A normal curve or a bell curve is something 19 that's used very commonly. Looks like that. Has long 20 tails. That's normally associated with a standard 21 deviation. 22 Triangle looks like that. Triangles are 23 simple. You specify your best estimate and the high 24 and low points. You notice I have triangle on here 25 twice, symmetric and non-symmetric. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 142 1 considerthis a valueprovidedby onemanufacturer for 2 one design option. Thatmanufacturermight believe 3 thattherange of uncertaintywas from 70 to a 130 or 4 plus orminus $30, andtheymight have a confidence of 5 90 percent. 6 An interpretationof the confidence is 7 there's a 10percent chance that in fact inthe real 8 world, the actual costwill windupbeing outside that 9 range. This is a complete description of uncertainty. 10 This is notwhat's beenprovided so far. 11 withinthat framework, there are a number of 12 different functional forms that can beprovided

-- can 13 beusedto characterizetheuncertainty. Uniform looks 14 like that. It saysyouhave an average value, plus or 15 minus some range, andthey all have equal probability. 16 So, with therange of 70 to a 130, all values are 17 equally likely. 18 Anormal curve or a bell curve is something 19 that'susedvery commonly. Looks likethat. Has long 20 tails. That'snormally associatedwith a standard 21 deviation. 22 Triangle looks likethat. Triangles are 23 simple. You specifyyour best estimate and the high 24 and lowpoints. You notice I have triangle onhere 25 twice, symmetric andnon-symmetric. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064143 1 In -- one of the other indicators that was 2 provided by AHAM is a confidence level. The confidence 3 level is not the statistical definition of a confidence 4 level as I understand how they collected the data, but 5 rather a subjective estimate of how comfortable 6 manufacturers were with their cost estimate. 7 So, since the average confidence levels for 8 many of the design options were on the order of 70 9 percent, that indicates to me that the manufacturer's 10 best estimate was not at the center of the symmetric 11 distribution but rather towards one side. 12 So, the triangle may look like that, which is 13 why there's a 70 percent confidence. Here's your 70 14 and 30 on the other side. These markers are terrible. 15 Okay. So, this is background for how 16 information could be provided. There is an 17 inconsistency between providing the information the way 18 it was done. I'm not criticizing AHAM because we're 19 early in this process, and we're trying to figure out 20 how to do it, but I have some specific suggestions 21 about how the data was processed this time that would 22 improve it if AHAM's going to process the data again. 23 Let's first deal with variability, and I'm 24 very curious to hear Terry Thiele's reaction or anybody 25 else's later on about how to deal with this. My EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 143 1 

### In

-- one of the other indicators thatwas 2 providedbyAHAM is a confidence level. The confidence 3 level isnotthe statisticaldefinition of a confidence 4 level as I understandhow they collectedthe data, but 5 rather a subjective estimate ofhow comfortable 6 manufacturerswere with their cost estimate. 7 So, sincethe average confidence levels for 8 many of the design optionswere onthe order of 70 9 percent, that indicates tome thatthemanufacturer's 10 bestestimatewas not atthe center of the symmetric 11 distributionbutrathertowards one side. 12 So, thetrianglemay look likethat, which is 13 why there's a 70 percent confidence. Here's your 70 14 and 30 on the other side. Thesemarkers are terrible. 15 

### Okay. So, this isbackground for how 16 information couldbeprovided. There is an 17 inconsistencybetweenprovidingthe information theway 18 itwas done. I'mnot criticizingAHAM becausewe're 19 early inthisprocess, andwe're trying to figure out 20 how todo it, but I have some specific suggestions 21 abouthow the datawas processedthis time thatwould 22 improve it ifAHAM's goingtoprocess the data again. 23 Let's first deal withvariability, and I'm 24 very curioustohearTerryThiele'sreaction or anybody 25 else's later on abouthow to deal with this. My EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064144 1 example of variability is that we recognize different 2 manufacturers have different costs for the same energy 3 factor or for even for the same design option. 4 In the current data, individual manufacturers 5 provided estimates of costs for design options or 6 combinations to AHAM. AHAM calculated the shipment 7 weighted average costs. They also calculated an 8 unweighted standard deviation, and those were the 9 numbers provided to us. 10 The issue here is that the unweighted 11 standard deviation is inconsistent with the average, 12 and I believe that it will overstate the variability. 13 I think this is one reason why the variability is as 14 large as it is. 15 The solution is to calculate the standard 16 deviation using shipment weights. That will make it 17 consistent with the way the average was calculated and 18 should help. 19 In the package is the equation for doing that 20 calculation. I'm not going to walk you through it, but 21 if there are questions, I'd be happy to answer them 22 later. 23 This is a hypothetical example, not one of 24 the ones -- since I don't have the raw data that AHAM 25 used, I can't redo the calculation, but we did a EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 -------**------------~---**



### 144 1 example of variability isthatwe recognize different 2 manufacturershave different costs for the same energy 3 factor or for even for the samedesign option. 4 In the current data, individualmanufacturers 5 provided estimates of costs for design options or 6 combinations toAHAM. AHAM calculated the shipment 7 weighted average costs. They also calculated an 8 unweighted standarddeviation, and thosewere the 9 numbers providedtous. 10 The issuehere isthattheunweighted 11 standarddeviation is inconsistentwith the average, 12 and I believethat itwill overstatethe variability. 13 I thinkthis is onereasonwhy the variability is as 14 large as it is. 15 The solution is to calculatethe standard 16 deviationusing shipmentweights. Thatwill make it 17 consistentwiththeway the averagewas calculated and 18 shouldhelp. 19 In thepackage is the equation for doing that 20 calculation. I'mnotgoingtowalk you through it, but 21 if there are questions, I'dbehappy to answer them 22 later. 23 This is a hypothetical example, not one of 24 the ones -- since I don'thave therawdata thatAHAM 25 used, I can'tredo the calculation, butwe did a EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-00641 hypothetical calculation. The blue line is the 2 straight average distribution, and the red or pink line 3 is the shipment weighted average, and you can see that 4 it narrows the distribution. 5 But in this case, it does not completely 6 solve the problem. You still see some negative values 7 there, and that may occur still for the horizontal 8 axis. Okay. So, that's one correction that I suggest 9 be made. 10 Secondly, there are only a few respondents to 11 this data question. Two to five manufacturers 12 responded for each design option. As a result, the 13 normal distribution is not applicable. You need at 14 least 20 and preferably a hundred data points to apply 15 a normal distribution with statistical validity. 16 Again, I think this will lead to an over17 statement of the variability, and it comes back to 18 Terry's comment earlier that these are discreet 19 respondents with very different costs. 20 In addition, there are missing values. Not 21 all manufacturers provided costs for all the design 22 options. That can lead to situations where it is 23 difficult to compare one design to the one next to it, 24 if a different set of manufacturers answered those 25 questions. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 145 1 hypothetical calculation. The blue line is the 2 straight averagedistribution, and the red orpink line 3 is the shipmentweighted average, andyou can see that 4 itnarrows the distribution. 5 But inthis case, itdoes not completely 6 solvetheproblem. You still see some negative values 7 there, and thatmay occur still for the horizontal 8 axis. Okay. So, that's one correctionthat I suggest 9 bemade. 10 Secondly, there are only a few respondents to 11 this data question. Two to five manufacturers 12 responded for eachdesign option. As a result, the 13 normal distribution is not applicable. You need at 14 least 20 andpreferably a hundred data points to apply 15 a normal distributionwith statisticalvalidity. 16 Again, I think this will leadto an over17 statement of the variability, and itcomes back to 18 Terry's comment earlierthatthese are discreet 19 respondentswithverydifferent costs. 20 In addition, there aremissingvalues. Not 21 allmanufacturersprovided costs for all the design 22 options. That can leadto situationswhere it is 23 difficult to compare onedesignto the one next to it, 24 if a different set ofmanufacturers answered those 25 questions. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064146 1 You may have the appearance of a reduction in 2 cost in going from one design to the next only because 3. different manufacturers answered the question, and it 4 may not be good guidance about whether in fact it is a 5 reduction in cost. 6 With the common approach, a normal 7 distribution for the cost of the horizontal axis shows 8 a large probability that the horizontal axis design 9 will be lower than the baseline. I showed that in this 10 slide. 11 Can we do anything about this? Yes, we can. 12 The "student" T distribution uses average and standard 13 deviation from the small sample set to calculate the 14 confidence limits. 15 The point of this approach is that it 16 accounts for the number of respondents. So, if you 17 have fewer respondents, you have greater uncertainty. 18 It also can be used to calculate the minimum and 19 maximum values in this case for the case per unit, and 20 I would suggest that that is still not the end of the 21 process, but those come back to the stakeholders for 22 review. 23 I think that if this approach were used, this 24 approach was developed in 1907, it's well known in the 25 statistical community, it is what you have to use when EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 146 1 You may have the appearance of a reduction in 2 cost ingoing from one designto the next onlybecause 3. 

### differentmanufacturers answered the question, and it 4 may not begood guidance about whether in fact it is a 5 reduction in cost. 6 withthe common approach, a normal 7 distribution for the cost of thehorizontal axis shows 8 a largeprobabilitythatthehorizontal axis design 9 will be lower than the baseline. I showed that inthis 10 slide. 11 Canwe do anything about this? Yes, we can. 12 The "student" Tdistributionuses average and standard 13 deviation from the small sample set to calculate the 14 confidence limits. 15 Thepoint ofthis approach is that it 16 accounts for the number of respondents. So, ifyou 17 have fewer respondents, youhave greateruncertainty. 18 It also canbeusedto calculatetheminimum and 19 maximum values inthis case for the caseperunit, and 20 I would suggestthat that is still not the end of the 21 process, butthose come back to the stakeholders for 22 review. 23 I thinkthat ifthis approachwere used, this 24 approachwas developed in 1907, it'swell known inthe 25 statistical community, it iswhat youhave tousewhen EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064147 1 you have a small number of respondents. 2 Okay. However, that still may not resolve 3 all the problems, and I would value a discussion in 4 substance about alternative approaches. One approach, 5 down here on the bottom, is to analyze the costs 6 separately for each manufacturer. 7 I'm not going to belabor these because I 8 don't have all the solutions. I'm offering these up 9 for discussion. 10 From the existing data, if possible, the 11 manufacturers might comment not only on the average but 12 on minimum average and high costs and those could be 13 put together. 14 Another solution might be to group the 15 manufacturers into high, mid and low cost, however that 16 makes sense, and to get aggregate data for those 17 groups. We're still dealing with a small number of 18 manufacturers, but this comes back to the question of 19 small versus large manufacturers or some other way of 20 dis-aggregating the respondents to respect their 21 differences. 22 Finally, another approach is to obtain 23 consensus on the variability. We might go back to that 24 first graph and see if we could all agree that 25 horizontal axis is a hundred dollars, plus or minus 50, EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 147 1 youhave a small number ofrespondents. 2 Okay. However, that stillmay not resolve 3 all theproblems, and I would value a discussion in 4 substance about alternative approaches. One approach, 5 down here onthebottom, is to analyze the costs 6 separately for eachmanufacturer. 7 I'mnotgoingtobelabor these because I 8 don'thave all the solutions. I'mofferingthese up 9 for discussion. 10 From the existingdata, ifpossible, the 11 manufacturersmight comment not only on the average but 12 onminimum average andhigh costs and those couldbe 13 put together. 14 Another solutionmight be togroup the 15 manufacturers intohigh, mid and low cost, however that 16 makes sense, andtoget aggregate data for those 17 groups. We're stilldealingwith a small number of 18 manufacturers, butthis comes back to the question of 19 small versus largemanufacturers or some otherway of 20 dis-aggregatingtherespondents to respect their 21 differences. 22 Finally, another approach is to obtain 23 consensus on the variability. We might go back to that 24 first graph and see ifwe could all agree that 25 horizontal axis is a hundred dollars, plus orminus 50, EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064148 1 or some number, and that's another approach that could 2 be pursued. 3 Finally, uncertainty. Each manufacturer has 4 incomplete information about what the future costs of a 5 design option will actually be. Currently, confidence 6 levels in quotes are provided as an indication of how 7 certain the manufacturers are of costs, of mass 8 production success, and of marketing success, three 9 different indicators. The standard deviation is also 10 provided for those. 11 Again, the most complete and accurate 12 analysis could be done if detailed information was 13 provided with best estimate confidence intervals and 14 the range from each of the respondents. Otherwise, we 15 could just use the confidence levels when ranking the 16 design options, that's a possibility, something new 17 that we could discuss, or compare manufacturer-specific 18 cost efficiency curves where the manufacturers have 19 freedom to rank the design options. 20 So, as distinct from having a single ranking 21 of design options and asking for costs in that order, 22 let the manufacturers rank the design options 23 themselves and provide a cost versus efficiency curve 24 of their own construction. 25 Those are my suggestions, and I'll be happy EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 148 1 or some number, andthat's another approach that could 2 bepursued. 3 

### Finally, uncertainty. Eachmanufacturerhas 4 incomplete informationaboutwhatthe future costs of a 5 design optionwill actuallybe. Currently, confidence 6 levels inquotes areprovided as an indication of how 7 certainthemanufacturers are of costs, ofmass 8 production success, and of marketing success, three 9 different indicators. The standard deviation is also 10 provided for those. 11 Again, themost complete and accurate 12 analysis couldbedone if detailed informationwas 13 providedwithbestestimateconfidence intervals and 14 therange from each of therespondents. Otherwise, we 15 couldjustuse the confidence levelswhen ranking the 16 design options, that's a possibility, somethingnew 17 thatwe could discuss, or comparemanufacturer-specific 18 cost efficiencycurveswhere themanufacturers have 19 freedom to rankthedesign options. 20 So, as distinct from having a singleranking 21 of design options and asking for costs inthat order, 22 letthemanufacturers rank the design options 23 themselves andprovide a costversus efficiencycurve 24 of their own construction. 25 Those aremy suggestions, and I'llbehappy EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064149 1 to entertain questions. 2 MS. GRAFF: At this point, we're looking at 3 the engineering analysis, and data was one of the 4 issues raised by both the peer reviewers as something 5 the department wants to get response on. 6 Any questions for understanding, I think, 7 first, and then we can get into reactions and 8 responses? 9 (No response) 10 MS. GRAFF: Okay. We all understand it? 11 Good. Reactions or responses on the data? Got Terry. 12 MR. THIELE: Terry Thiele, Frigidaire. This 13 goes back to my opening comment which is that it is 14 extremely difficult for us to assess the utility of the 15 cost analysis and the preliminary engineering analysis 16 when we do not yet know what the manufacturer impact 17 analysis is going to be subsequent to the interpretive 18 rule. 19 For example, I don't know if they're going to 20 use the net present value cash flow analysis embodied 21 in Grimm or some other set of methodologies to assess 22 manufacturer impact, especially recognizing the need to 23 hear from large and small manufacturers in general and 24 particularly in this industry, given the disparity in 25 the market share. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 149 1 to entertainquestions. 2 MS. GRAFF: Atthispoint, we're looking at 3 the engineeringanalysis, and datawas one of the 4 issues raisedby boththepeerreviewers as something 5 the departmentwants togetresponse on. 6 Any questions for understanding, I think, 7 first, and thenwe canget intoreactions and 8 responses? 9 (No response) 10 

### MS. GRAFF: okay. We all understand it? 11 Good. Reactions orresponses onthe data? GotTerry. 12 MR. THIELE: TerryThiele, Frigidaire. This 13 goesbacktomy opening commentwhich is that it is 14 extremelydifficult for us to assess the utilityof the 15 cost analysis andthepreliminary engineering analysis 16 whenwe do notyetknow what themanufacturer impact 17 analysis isgoingtobe subsequentto the interpretive 18 rule. 19 For example, I don'tknow if they'regoingto 20 use the netpresentvalue cash flow analysis embodied 21 in Grimm or some other set of methodologies to assess 22 manufacturer impact, especiallyrecognizing the need to 23 hear from large and smallmanufacturers in general and 24 particularly inthis industry, given the disparity in 25 themarket share. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064150 1 And to that end, when you look at the cost 2 data that's provided with these design options, I do 3 not know whether anyone in this room can say whether 4 those are the appropriate cost parameters that would 5 have to be measured for that manufacturer impact 6 analysis. 7 So, frankly, until we know what the 8 manufacturer impact analysis is, this cost data isn't 9 worth warm spit. 10 MS. GRAFF: Okay, Terry. Any other 11 reactions? 12 MR. McCABE: Let me make one response to 13 that, is that we have made a commitment to -- as part 14 of the manufacturer impact analysis, it will include 15 the cash flow analysis at a minimum. We are looking at 16 other analyses to include as part of that impact 17 analysis, but it -- it will include the cash flow 18 analysis as one part of it. 19 MR. THIELE: That's great. My only question 20 is whether or not the specific cost data parameters 21 that we've identified and collected data on are going 22 to continue to be the appropriate cost data parameters 23 for that future analysis, and until we have that locked 24 in, you know, there's not much point talking about the 25 data to be collected. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 150 1 And to that end, when you look at the cost 2 data that'sprovidedwiththese design options, I do 3 notknowwhether anyone inthis room can saywhether 4 those are the appropriate costparameters that would 5 have tobemeasured for thatmanufacturer impact 6 analysis. 7 So, frankly, untilwe knowwhat the 8 manufacturer impact analysis is, this costdata isn't 9 worthwarm spit. 10 MS. GRAFF: Okay, Terry. Any other 11 reactions? 12 MR. McCABE: Letme make one response to 13 that, is thatwe havemade a commitment to -- as part 14 of themanufacturer impact analysis, itwill include 15 the cash flow analysis at a minimum. We are looking at 16 other analyses to include as part of that impact 17 analysis, but it -- itwill include the cash flow 18 analysis as onepartof it. 19 

### MR. THIELE: That's great. My onlyquestion 20 iswhether or not the specific cost data parameters 21 thatwe've identified and collecteddata on are going 22 to continuetobe the appropriate cost data parameters 23 for that future analysis, anduntil we have that locked 24 in, youknow, there's notmuch pointtalking about the 25 data tobe collected. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064151 1 MR. JONES: What is the answer to that 2 question, Michael? Whether or not the information 3 we've got to date will be used in the manufacturer 4 impact analysis or -- or, in other words, you're going 5 to redo it and use the same old data, or you're going 6 to get new data and then apply it to the process? 7 MR. THIELE: Or different than. 8 MR. JONES: Different, whatever. 9 MR. McCABE: If -- given the age of the data, 10 if the data are out of date and are now wrong, 11 incorrect, we will get the new data and use those new 12 data in the analysis. 13 MR. JONES: How will we determine whether 14 there -- whether the data is still valid? How will you 15 determine that? 16 MR. McCABE: One is we -- in providing those 17 data that we do have is to give you the opportunity to 18 comment on it and tell us whether or not they are valid 19 or not. 20 MR. JONES: You have no models or other 21 assumptions which you can come to a conclusion on your 22 own? 23 MR. McCABE: We will be going through the 24 review that we have had with Jim Gordon and others to 25 identify areas where they are -- data are deficient, so EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 151 1 MR. JONES: What is the answer to that 2 question, Michael? Whether or not the information 3 we've got to datewill be used in themanufacturer 4 impact analysis or -- or, in otherwords, you're going 5 to redo it anduse the same old data, or you're going 6 to get new data and then apply itto the process? 7 

### MR. THIELE: Or different than. 8 

### MR. JONES: Different, whatever. 9 

### MR. McCABE: If -- given the age of the data, 10 if the data are out of date and are now wrong, 11 incorrect, we will get the new data anduse those new 12 data in the analysis. 13 

### MR. JONES: How will we determine whether 14 there -- whether the data is stillvalid? How will you 15 determine that? 16 

### MR. McCABE: One iswe -- inproviding those 17 data thatwe do have is to give you the opportunityto 18 comment on it and tell us whether or not they are valid 19 or not. 20 

### MR. JONES: You have no models or other 21 assumptions whichyou can come to a conclusion on your 22 own? 23 

### MR. McCABE: We will be going through the 24 reviewthatwe havehadwithJimGordon and others to 25 identify areaswhere they are -- data are deficient, so EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064152 1 as to identify what data we need at a minimum to go out 2 and collect on our own. 3 MR. JONES: So, just to make sure I 4 understand, is -- is the point of this workshop again 5 that it somehow we -- you -- you don't get a different 6 input if -- if -- if the manufacturers and others don't 7 yell loudly enough and you proceed on the assumption 8 that you've got what you need, and it isn't up to us, 9 Michael, to -- to -- to convince the department that 10 you've got good data or -- or you're going to take some 11 independent action to verify the state of your own 12 record? 13 MR. McCABE: We -- we share responsibility in 14 that area. We will be taking independent action. 15 MS. GRAFF: Next question? Charlie? Steve? 16 Terry? 17 MR. STEPHENS: Yeah. It wasn't clear to me 18 when I read through this how the manufacturers 19 calculated their original cost data. I would hate to 20 think we'd go through a long effort to decide how we're 21 going to calculate it and only to discover at the end 22 that it's substantially the same as the way the current 23 data was calculated, whether it's current or not. 24 Is there some way that we can get the 25 manufacturers or AHAM to provide the basis upon which EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 152 1 as to identifywhat datawe need at a minimumto go out 2 and collect on our own. 3 

### MR. JONES: So, justtomake sure I 4 understand, is

-- isthepoint of thisworkshop again 5 that it somehowwe -- you -- you don't get a different 6 input if

-- if

-- ifthemanufacturers and others don't 7 yell loudly enough andyouproceed onthe assumption 8 thatyou'vegotwhat you need, and it isn'tup tous, 9 Michael, to

-- to

-- to convincethe department that 10 you've got good data or -- oryou're going to take some 11 independent actiontoverifythe state of your own 12 record? 13 

### MR. McCABE: We

-- we shareresponsibility in 14 that area. We will be taking independent action. 15 MS. GRAFF: Nextquestion? Charlie? Steve? 16 Terry? 17 

### MR. STEPHENS: Yeah. Itwasn't cleartome 18 when I read throughthishow themanufacturers 19 calculatedtheir original cost data. I wouldhate to 20 thinkwe'd go through a long effort to decidehow we're 21 going to calculate it and onlyto discover at the end 22 that it's substantiallythe same as theway the current 23 datawas calculated, whether it's current or not. 24 Isthere some way thatwe canget the 25 manufacturers orAHAM toprovidethe basis upon which EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064153 

### 1 their original costs were calculated and what -- what 2 fraction or fixed costs are included, what the 3 amortization period is, and all the other life cycle 4 costs, the costing of -- of plant and equipment? 

### .5 Imean, you know, on what basis are we going 6 to

-- 7 MR. THIELE: Can I respond to that? With all 8 due respect, I think it's the other way around. First 9 of all, somebody's got to tell us what data they want 10 and define the data terms, and then we can provide it. 11 Frankly, if we don't know what the 12 manufacturer impact analysis requirements are, then we 13 may not be providing the right data and get exactly to 14 your point. We're going to come up garbage in/garbage 15 out. 16 So, we have to understand the economic aspect 17 of the analysis beforewe can put the cost numbers to 18 it, and then somebody's got to -- we've got to agree or 

### 19 DOE's got to tell us when they say labor, what do you 20 mean by labor, and define it so that we're all giving 21 the same answers. 22 MS. GRAFF: Next? Oh, Charlie? 23 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens again. I

-- 24 Idon't have any of that stuff to judge what Ihave 25 now. How do I know that, you know, -- why would I 

### EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 153 1 their original costswere calculated andwhat -- what 2 fraction or fixed costs are included, what the 3 

### amortizationperiod is, and all the other life cycle 4 

### costs, the costing of -- ofplant and equipment? .5 I 

### mean, youknow, onwhat basis arewe going

6 

### to -- 7 

### MR. THIELE: Can I respond to that? with all 8 due respect, I think it'sthe otherway around. First 9 of'all, somebody's gotto tell us what data theywant 10 and define the data terms, and thenwe canprovide it. 11 Frankly, ifwe don'tknowwhat the 12 manufacturer impact analysis requirements are, thenwe 13 may notbeprovidingtheright data and get exactlyto 14 yourpoint. We're goingto come up garbage in/garbage 15 out. 16 So, we have to understand the economic aspect 17 of the analysis beforewe canputthe costnumbers to 18 

### it, andthen somebody's got to we've got to agree or 19 DOE's got to telluswhen they say labor, what do you 20 mean by labor, and define it so thatwe're all giving 21 the same answers. 22 MS. GRAFF: Next? Oh, Charlie? 23 

### MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens again. I 24 I don'thave any ofthat stuff tojudgewhat I have 25 now. How do I know that, youknow, -- why would I EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064154 1 formulate a new plan if I can't even judge whether what 2 we've got with the old one? 3 MR. THIELE: Because you don't have the 4 choice. The interpretive rule says you're supposed to 5 formulate a new plan. The interpretive rule says you 6 can't do average manufacturer analysis by itself any 7 more. 8 The interpretive rule says you got to do 9 something to account for the impact on smaller 10 manufacturers. 11 MR. JONES: To say nothing of the fact that 12 the peer reviewers are saying there's a problem with 13 the data we've got in the process, which was raw data. 14 MR. THIELE: How do you -- 15 MR. JONES: I don't know how -- ask Mr. 16 McMahon. The point I'm trying to make is we know we 17 got crap, but I guess we're stuck with it unless you 18 guys tell us how to do our job, and I think that's a 19 real problem. 20 It seems to me that that's what the 21 department needs to do. 22 MR. NADEL: Yeah. A couple of

-- 23 MS. GRAFF: Steve? 24 MR. NADEL: -- comments. 25 MS. GRAFF: Steve Nadel. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 154 

### 1 formulate a newplan if I can't evenjudgewhetherwhat 2 we've gotwiththe old one? 3 

### MR. THIELE: Becauseyou don'thave the 4 choice. The interpretiverule says you're supposedto 5 formulate a newplan. The interpretiverule says you 6 can'tdo averagemanufacturer analysis by itself any 7 more. 8 The interpretiverule says you got to do 9 somethingto account for the impact on smaller 10 manufacturers. 11 

### MR. JONES: To say nothing of the fact that 12 thepeer reviewers are sayingthere's a problemwith 13 the datawe've got intheprocess, whichwas rawdata. 14 

### MR. THIELE: How do you -- 15 

### MR. JONES: I don'tknow how askMr. 16 McMahon. The point I'mtrying tomake iswe know we 17 got crap, but I guesswe're stuckwith itunless you 18 guys tell us how todo ourjob, and I think that's a 19 real problem. 20 It seems tome that that'swhat the 21 department needs to do. 22 23 24 

### 25 

### MR. NADEL: Yeah. Acouple of

-- MS. GRAFF: Steve? MR. NADEL:

-- comments. MS. GRAFF: steveNadel. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064155 1 MR. NADEL: It seems like yes, there is a 2 high standard of deviation, but until someone looks at 3 the individual data points and starts getting into what 4 the distribution is and what the -- are there outliers 5 and all these different kinds of issues, it's going to 6 be very difficult to come up with a resolution. 7 I guess my first question, which is to 8 probably someone from AHAM, is it possible to have the 9 raw data points provided to DOE, in confidence, quite 10 possibly hiding the manufacturers, they become A-B-C-D11 E, so that someone can get a better handle on what the 12 data points are that contribute to the variability? 13 MR. JONES: Is that what the department 14 wants, Steve? 15 MR. NADEL: As one of the interested parties, 16 I'm asking may that be possible, because I'm trying to 17 explore ways to deal with this issue. 18 My second comment is in terms of is this data 19 out of date. I mean I would look to the people who 20 provided that data to say do they still stand by their 21 estimates or do they wish to introduce revised 22 estimates for their data points? 23 I note with interest, for example, that two 24 manufacturers did revise their data estimates between 25 the first and the second AHAM submission. It didn't EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 155 1 

### MR. NADEL: It seems likeyes, there is a 2 high standard of deviation, butuntil someone looks at 3 the individual datapoints and startsgetting intowhat 4 the distribution is andwhat the -- are there outliers 5 and all these differentkinds of issues, it'sgoing to 6 beverydifficultto corne upwith a resolution. 7 I guessmy first question, which is to 8 probably someone fromAHAM, is itpossible tohave the 9 rawdata pointsprovidedto DOE, in confidence, quite 10 possiblyhiding themanufacturers, theybecomeA-B-C-D11 E, so that someone canget a betterhandle onwhat the 12 datapoints are that contributeto the variability? 13 

### MR. JONES: Is thatwhat the department 14 wants, Steve? 15 MR. NADEL: As one of the interestedparties, 16 I'maskingmay thatbepossible, because I'mtrying to 17 exploreways todealwiththis issue. 18 My 

### second comment is interms of is this data 19 out of date. I mean I would looktothepeoplewho 20 providedthat data to saydo they still standby their 21 estimates or do theywishto introduce revised 22 estimates for their data points? 23 I notewith interest, for example, that two 24 manufacturers did revise their data estimatesbetween 25 the first andthe secondAHAM submission. Itdidn't EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064156 1 change the overall average very much, but if people 2 think that their data is wrong, they have better 3 estimates, they should provide it, just like they have 4 in the past. 5 MR. THIELE: That's true. It depends on what 6 data we're asked to present. I keep coming back to the 7 fact that garbage in/garbage out, and until we know the 8 appropriate criteria, definitions, types of data that 9 the department's going to need to run its manufacture 10 impact analysis, I don't see any point in getting out 11 the snow shovel and just

-- 12 MS. GRAFF: Okay. So, what I'm hearing then 13 is that a request for specific data points from the 14 department, and I'm hearing the department say we want 15 to continue basically the inputs here. 16 So, at some point -- and I suggest that we do 17 that later on this afternoon, in about an hour, when we 18 talk about next steps, and we talk about specifically 19 what's needed for both sides, okay, and get on -- 20 MR. THIELE: Well, let me just elaborate. I 21 don't think you captured my drift. 22 MS. GRAFF: I'm sorry. 23 MR. THIELE: I'm saying we need the 24 manufacturer impact analysis

-- 25 MS. GRAFF: Analysis. Okay. I was going to EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 156 1 change the overall averageverymuch, but ifpeople 2 thinkthat their data iswrong, theyhave better 3 estimates, they shouldprovide it, just likethey have 4 inthe past. 5 

### MR. THIELE: That's true. It depends onwhat 6 datawe're asked topresent. I keep comingback to the 7 fact that garbage in/garbage out, anduntil we know the 8 appropriate criteria, definitions, types of data that 9 the department's going to needtorun itsmanufacture 10 impact analysis, I don't see anypoint in getting out 11 the snow shovel andjust 12 MS. GRAFF: Okay. So, what I'mhearing then 13 is that a request for specificdata points from the 14 department, and I'mhearing thedepartment saywe want 15 to continuebasicallythe inputshere. 16 So, at somepoint -- and I suggest thatwe do 17 that later on this afternoon, in about anhour, when we 18 talk about next steps, andwe talk about specifically 19 what's needed for both sides, okay, and get on -- 20 

### MR. THIELE: Well, letme just elaborate. I 21 don't thinkyou capturedmy drift. 22 MS. GRAFF: I'm sorry. 23 

### MR. THIELE: I'm sayingwe need the 24 manufacturer impact analysis -- 25 

### MS. GRAFF: Analysis. Okay. I was going to EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064157 1 get to that. 2 MR. THIELE: That -- that's something 3 different than the definition of each data point. 4 MS. GRAFF: Right. And let's be reminded 5 again what's the track for the manufacturer impact 6 analysis? There's a generic analysis as well as the 7 analysis for this particular product? 8 MR. BERRINGER: There is a workshop scheduled 9 right now tentatively for February 5th on manufacturing 10 impact to look at that. So, I mean that would be 11 another -- another place to look at it. I mean we're 12 not at the stage of giving answers as far as what it's 13 going to entail because we don't know

-- 14 MS. GRAFF: If you could answer that, there 15 would be opportunity to comment as well as at that 16 workshop, and how will that affect the analysis for 17 this project? 18 MR. BERRINGER: Again, we are looking into 19 the future as far as what we're doing as far as the 20 approach. So, I mean at this workshop, that wasn't the 21 focus of looking at the manufacturers there, but we're 22 going to -- we're currently looking at ballasts and 23 going through that, and then use that, you know, in the 24 February workshop, go forward with that, and then in 25 the same time frame that we're looking at and the time EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 ------.-----------------------



### 157 1 gettothat. 2 

### MR. THIELE: That

-- that's something 3 differentthanthe definition of eachdatapoint. 4 

### MS. GRAFF: Right. And let'sbereminded 5 againwhat's the track for themanufacturer impact 6 analysis? There's a generic analysis as well as the 7 analysis for thisparticularproduct? 8 

### MR. BERRINGER: There is a workshop scheduled 9 rightnow tentatively for February 5thonmanufacturing 10 impactto look atthat. So, I mean thatwould be 11 another

-- anotherplaceto look at it. I mean we're 12 not atthe stageof giving answers as far as what it's 13 going to entailbecausewe don'tknow 14 MS. GRAFF: Ifyou could answer that, there 15 wouldbe opportunityto comment aswell as at that 16 workshop, andhowwill that affect the analysis for 17 thisproject? 18 

### MR. BERRINGER: Again, we are looking into 19 the future as far as whatwe're doing as far as the 20 approach. So, I mean atthis workshop, thatwasn't the 21 focus of looking atthemanufacturers there, butwe're 22 going to

-- we're currently looking at ballasts and 23 goingthroughthat, and thenuse that, youknow, inthe 24 Februaryworkshop, go forward with that, and then in 25 the same time frame thatwe're looking at and the time EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064158 1 of the supplemental advance notice, to -- to go 2 forward. 3 I mean there's -- I mean we're just not at 4 that stage yet for the clothes washer. We probably 5 won't be there for about a year. 6 MR. THIELE: Can I make one last observation, 7 and then I'll shut up for maybe 15 minutes? 8 MS. GRAFF: Okay. We're holding you to that, 9 Terry. 10 MR. THIELE: Okay. The simple fact of the 11 matter is we all have to realize that the design 12 options that are going to dictate over 50 percent of 13 the market for all we know aren't on this list yet. 14 Okay? 15 So, when you start aggregating your design 16 options, and you do your curves in terms of how you 17 increment them all up, none of us have had a chance to 18 evaluate and respond or give any cost data or estimates 19 on one of those four design options that Whirlpool's 20 going to use that's going to wind up dictating 50 21 percent of the market at some point in the future. 22 So, at the moment, we're looking at the tail 23 of the dog when we're looking at these design options. 24 MS. GRAFF: Okay. So, you're concerned about 25 the design options and that we don't have enough EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 158 1 of the supplemental advance notice, to

-- to go 2 forward. 3 I mean there's

-- I meanwe'rejustnot at 4 that stageyet for the clotheswasher. We probably 5 won'tbe there for about a year. 6 

### MR. THIELE: Can I make one last observation, 7 and then I'll shutup for maybe 15minutes? 8 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. We'reholding you to that, 9 Terry. 10 

### MR. THIELE: Okay. The simple fact of the 11 matter iswe all have torealizethatthe design 12 options that are goingtodictate over 50 percent of 13 themarket for allwe know aren't on this listyet. 14 Okay? 15 So, when you startaggregatingyour design 16 options, andyou do your curves interms of how you 17 incrementthem all up, none ofus havehad a chance to 18 evaluate andrespond or give any cost data or estimates 19 on one of those four design options thatWhirlpool's 20 going touse that's goingtowindup dictating 50 21 percent of themarket at somepoint inthe future. 22 So, atthemoment, we're looking at the tail 23 of the dogwhenwe're looking atthese design options. 24 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. So, you're concerned about 25 the design options and thatwe don't have enough EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064159 1 available information right now to eliminate or add or 2 change the ones that have been up for consideration, 3 and what I also heard, I think, Michael say earlier on 4 is that the engineering analysis is still in a process 5 of coming together, and that there's going to be ample 6 opportunity for more reaction from the stakeholders 7 into that analysis. 8 Okay. We have -- I think it's Wayne in back. 9 Do you -- thanks. State your name. 10 MR. MORRIS: Wayne Morris with AHAM. I'd 11 just like to respond to Charlie's question and just 12 simply say that I'm a little surprised by the -- by the 13 question that you raised about how you could arrive at 14 the calculations. 15 AHAM has made no secrets about how the cost 16 aggregation and calculations were ever done. That 17 information was released to Peter and to Mark at the 18 earliest stages. In fact, we worked with LBL and with 19 the Department of Energy to arrive at those 20 calculations. 21 So, if there's any questions about how that 22 information, the aggregate cost data, was arrived at, 23 we'd certainly be -- you know, that's all public 24 information, and there's no secretive situations in 25 terms of the calculations or formulas used, and I don't EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 159 1 available informationright now to eliminate or add or 2 change the ones thathave beenup for consideration, 3 andwhat I alsoheard, I think, Michael say earlier on 4 isthatthe engineering analysis is still in a process 5 of comingtogether, andthatthere's going to be ample 6 opportunity for morereaction from the stakeholders 7 intothat analysis. 8 Okay. We have

-- I think it'sWayne inback. 9 Do you -- thanks. stateyour name. 10 

### MR. MORRIS: Wayne MorriswithAHAM. I'd 11 just like torespondto Charlie's question andjust 12 simply saythat I'ma little surprisedby the

-- by the 13 question thatyou raised abouthow you could arrive at 14 the calculations. 15 AHAM hasmade no secrets about how the cost 16 aggregation and calculationswere ever done. That 17 informationwas releasedto Peter and toMark at the 18 earliest stages. In fact, we workedwithLBL andwith 19 the Department of Energy to arrive atthose 20 calculations. 21 So, if there's any questions about how that 22 information, the aggregate cost data, was arrived at, 23 we'd certainlybe

-- youknow, that's all public 24 information, and there's no secretive situations in 25 terms of the calculations or formulas used, and I don't EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064160 1 want to

-- 2 MR. STEPHENS: No. Charlie Stephens. 3 There's a disconnect here. Ihave no questions about 4 how you aggregate the data. That -- that did not have 5 to do -- Imean I'm advancing Terry's concerns about 6 how the manufacturers derived the data that they gave 7 to you. That was a different question than what you 8 asked originally. 9 The only AHAM mention Imade was that I hoped 10 that AHAM might be able to help sort out how that data 11 was arrived at, what basis was used to calculate the 12 manufacturer costs that were given to you, so that 13 the -- you know, you could mask them as you -- 14 MS. GRAFF: If you could step up to the mike 15 and state your name, please. 16 MR. PERLIS: My name is Mark Perlis. I have 17 one technical question about the hand-outs. The 18 confidence level. I take it you view confidence level 19 as what I think economists or statisticians call 20 exogenous rather than endogenous; that is, it's 21 something that you provide as a data entry. It's not 22 something you solve as a statistical matter in the 23 course of your analysis, is that correct? 24 MR. McMAHON: That's right. 25 MR. PERLIS: Okay. And I -- I guess then EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 160 1 want to 2 MR. STEPHENS: No. Charlie Stephens. 3 There's a disconnect here. I have no questions about 4 how you aggregate the data. That -- that did not have 5 to do -- I mean I'm advancing Terry's concerns about 6 how themanufacturers derived the data that they gave 7 to you. Thatwas a differentquestion thanwhat you 8 asked originally. 9 The onlyAHAM mention I made was that I hoped 10 thatAHAM might be able to help sort outhow that data 11 was arrived at, what basiswas used to calculate the 12 manufacturer costs thatwere givento you, so that 13 the -- youknow, you couldmask them as you -- 14 

### MS. GRAFF: If you could stepup to themike 15 and stateyour name, please. 16 MR. PERLIS: My name isMark Perlis. I have 17 one technical question about the hand-outs. The 18 confidence level. I take ityou view confidence level 19 as what I think economists or statisticians call 20 exogenous rather than endogenous; that is, it's 21 something that youprovide as a data entry. It's not 22 somethingyou solve as a statisticalmatter in the 23 course of your analysis, is that correct? 24 MR. McMAHON: That's right. 25 

### MR. PERLIS: Okay. And I -- I guess then EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064161 

### 1 you're recognizing that for some of the variables that 2 are of interest here in all of the studies -- I guess I 

### 3 should make the observation that your entire analysis 4 isn't limited to manufacturers' costs. The variability 5 and uncertainty factors that you've identified here 6 apply to every single quantitative element in the 7 department's engineering analysis, whether it be for 8 operating costs, any of the elements, the life cycle 9 cost analysis, including the product price that the 10 consumers will pay, the electricity prices or the other 11 input prices that go into operating costs, life 12 products, etc., etc. 13 All of those factors should be subjected to 14 this same type of variability and uncertainty analysis, 15 and what you're suggesting is that we all need to come 16 up with uncertainty numbers, and I think that's very 17 interesting. 18 As a representative of the ballast 19 manufacturers who were just presented here as the test 20 case for how the manufacturer impacts are going to 21 work, Michael, the ballast manufacturers have been 22 given no details as to what the criteria or factors or 23 elements are of any manufacturer's impact analysis. 24 So, to the extent any data is now being 25 collected from the industry, it's being collected EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 161 1 you'rerecognizingthat for some of thevariables that 2 are of interesthere in all ofthe studies

-- I guess I 3 shouldmake the observationthatyour entire analysis 4 isn't limitedtomanufacturers' costs. The variability 5 anduncertainty factors thatyou've identified here 6 apply to every singlequantitative element inthe 7 department's engineering analysis, whether itbe for 8 operatingcosts, any of the elements, the lifecycle 9 cost analysis, includingtheproductprice that the 10 consumerswill pay, the electricityprices or the other 11 inputpricesthatgo into operating costs, life 12 products, etc., etc. 13 All of those factors shouldbe subjectedto 14 this same type of variability anduncertainty analysis, 15 andwhatyou're suggesting isthatwe all needto corne 16 upwithuncertainty numbers, and I think that's very 17 interesting. 18 As a representative of the ballast 19 manufacturerswho werejustpresentedhere as the test 20 case for how themanufacturer impacts are going to 21 work, Michael, theballastmanufacturers have been 22 given no details as towhat the criteria or factors or 23 elements are of anymanufacturer's impact analysis. 24 So, to the extent any data is now being 25 collectedfrom the industry, it's being collected EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064162 ^1 without any sort of framework in mind as to how it's 2 going to be evaluated, and I think that before the 3 generic manufacturer's impact workshop is held in 4 February, it would be helpful if the department or LBL 5 or someone has -- whether it be for our product or 6 clothes washers, which may be the two most furthest 7 along, maybe our product's the most -- the furthest 8 along, I don't know, but that you give us some idea 9 and so we have some agenda in advance of the meeting to 10 begin to think about what manufacturers' impact means. 11 I would only point out here that 12 manufacturers' impact has at least two very different 13 meanings. One is that in your life cycle cost, you 14 have to come up with product price and that's based in 15 part on manufacturer's costs, although it's not 16 exclusively based on manufacturer's cost. You 17 obviously have mark-up and other factors that go into 18 it. 19 The second is that under that interpretive 20 rule, there's a whole separate inquiry called for now, 21 called manufacturer's impact, that gets into a lot of 22 other factors, such as how many workers might lose 23 their jobs, what the capital investment requirements 24 might be, financing costs, etc. The actual impact on 25 the manufacturing company. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 162 1 without any sort of framework inmind as to how it's 2 goingto be evaluated, and I 

### think that before the 3 

### genericmanufacturer's impactworkshop isheld in 4 

### February, itwouldbehelpful if the department or LBL 5 

### or someonehas -- whether itbe for ourproduct or 6 

### clotheswashers, whichmay be the twomost furthest 7 

### along, maybe our product's themost -- the furthest 8 

### along, I 

### don'tknow, but thatyou give us some idea 9 

### and sowe have some agenda in advance of themeetingto 10 

### beginto think about whatmanufacturers' impactmeans. 11 I 

### would onlypoint outhere that 12 manufacturers' impacthas at leasttwo very different 13 

### meanings. One isthat inyour lifecycle cost, you 14 

### have to come up withproductprice and that's based in 15 

### part onmanufacturer's costs, although it's not 16 exclusivelybased onmanufacturer's cost. You 17 

### obviouslyhavemark-up and other factors that go into 18 

### it. 19 The second is that under that interpretive 20 rule, there's a whole separate inquiry called for now, 21 calledmanufacturer's impact, that gets into a lot of 22 other factors, such as howmany workers might lose 23 theirjobs, what the capital investment requirements 24 might be, financing costs, etc. The actual impact on 25 themanufacturing company. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064163 1 Those are two very different concerns. Both 2 of them need to be subject to this type of analysis, 3 and the final point I want to make, which I consider 4 the most important point, frankly, is in the 5 engineering analysis, I consider the most important 6 paragraph here to be on Page 5, the last paragraph in 7 3.2. 8 I won't read the whole thing out loud, but it 9 -- the authors here suggest that there are approaches 10 to account for variability and uncertainty. Methods, 11 such as the one mentioned above, have been used on 12 other products. Frankly, I'm not sure if any of these 13 variability or uncertainty methods have been used in 14 any of your products, but maybe they have, and I'd like 15 to know which products they have been used on. 16 You then say, "However, these metrics are 17 currently not the subject of engineering analysis." 18 MR. JONES: Excuse me, Mark. What are you 19 reading from? 20 MR. PERLIS: The engineering analysis, the 21 preliminary engineering analysis draft report, Page 5, 22 the last paragraph of Section 3.2. It's the only place 23 in the entire document that the recognition of how 24 important variability and uncertainty is, and then the 25 report seems to be saying that it's not been taken into EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 163 1 

### Those are two verydifferent concerns. Both 2 of themneedtobe subjectto this type of analysis, 3 and the final point I want tomake, which I consider 4 themost importantpoint, frankly, is inthe 5 engineeringanalysis, I considerthemost important 6 paragraphhere tobe onPage 5, the lastparagraph in 7 

### 3.2. 8 I won'tread thewhole thing out loud, but it 9 the authors here suggestthatthere are approaches 10 to account for variability anduncertainty. Methods, 11 such as the onementioned above, have beenused on 12 otherproducts. Frankly, I'mnot sure if any of these 13 variabilityoruncertaintymethods have beenused in 14 any ofyour products, butmaybe they have, and I'd like 15 toknowwhichproductstheyhave beenused on. 16 You then say, "However, thesemetrics are 17 currentlynot the subject of engineering analysis." 18 

### MR. JONES: Excuseme, Mark. What are you 19 reading from? 20 

### MR. PERLIS: The engineering analysis, the 21 preliminaryengineeringanalysis draft report, Page 5, 22 the lastparagraph of section 3.2. It's the onlyplace 23 inthe entiredocument that therecognition of how 24 important variability anduncertainty is, and thenthe 25 report seems to be sayingthat it'snot been taken into EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064164 1 account yet. That's what I sense. It says, "These 2 metrics are currently not the subject of the 3 engineering analysis." 4 In fact, although I've not seen every 5 product's engineering analysis, certainly all the 6 products that I have seen, there has never been any 7 variability and uncertainty analysis. All that there 8 is is a high, medium and low, and I would submit that 9 based on your presentation, and you're the DOE 10 contractor, on your presentation today, you're 11 suggesting that just a high, medium and low approach is 12 too simplistic, that there has to be a more 13 sophisticated statistical approach to the significance 14 of variability and uncertainty. 15 I couldn't agree more, and I think it's 16 striking that in this study, the first one under the 17 interpretive rule, you explicitly disavowed any intent 18 to undertake the analysis, and I think that that's not 19 supportable, and I think for ballasts as well as for 20 clothes washers and all the other products that you're 21 going to do hereafter, someone's going to have to step 22 back now and say that we can't do a life cycle cost 23 analysis or the newly-created manufacturer's impact 24 analysis the same way we've done them in the past. 25 We've got to introduce variability and EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 164 1 accountyet. That's what I sense. It says, "These 2 metrics are currentlynotthe subject of the 3 engineering analysis." 4 In fact, although I'venot seen every 5 product's engineering analysis, certainly all the 6 products that I have seen, therehas never been any 7 variability anduncertainty analysis. All that there 8 is is a high, medium and low, and I would submit that 9 based onyourpresentation, and you're the DOE 10 contractor, onyourpresentationtoday, you're 11 suggestingthatjusta high, medium and low approach is 12 too simplistic, thattherehas tobe a more 13 sophisticated statistical approach to the significance 14 ofvariabilityanduncertainty. 15 I couldn't agreemore, and I think it's 16 strikingthat inthis study, the first one under the 17 interpretiverule, you explicitlydisavowed any intent 18 to undertake the analysis, and I thinkthat that's not 19 supportable, and I think for ballasts as well as for 20 clotheswashers and all the otherproducts that you're 21 goingto dohereafter, someone's going tohave to step 22 back now and saythatwe can'tdo a lifecycle cost 23 analysis orthe newly-createdmanufacturer's impact 24 analysis the sameway we'vedone them inthepast. 25 We've gotto introducevariability and EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064165 1 uncertainty criteria, and just to give one example, 2 which has come up with the ballasts that's of interest 3 to every product, it's not manufacturer's impact; it's 4 the electricity prices. 5 The department has always relied upon the 6 department's own internal forecasts of electricity 7 prices, and whatever the range of uncertainty was, it 8 was never disclosed, but whatever it was, for a long 9 time, electricity prices, until the next 1970s, were 10 pretty easy to predict. Then the '70s came along, and 11 they were less predictable. Maybe in the last 10 12 years, they've been a little easier to predict, but 13 going forward for the next 10 or 15 years, the 14 confidence level for anybody's estimate of what 15 electricity prices are has gone, if it ever were at 90 16 percent, it's now 50 percent or something like that. 17 No one knows what's going to happen to 18 electricity prices in the unregulated and deregulated 19 environment that we will have before any of these new 20 rules go into effect for products in the next century. 21 So, you've got to figure out how you're going to take 22 that into account, and I'm glad that there's 23 recognition of this here, and I hope the department 24 will address these concerns for all the products for 25 the next workshop on manufacturer's impact analysis EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 165 1 uncertainty criteria, andjusttogive one example, 2 whichhas corne upwiththe ballasts that's of interest 3 to everyproduct, it'snotmanufacturer's impact; it's 4 the electricityprices. 5 The departmenthas always reliedupon the 6 department's own internal forecasts of electricity 7 prices, andwhatever therange of uncertaintywas, it 8 was never disclosed, butwhatever itwas, for a long 9 time, electricityprices, until the next 1970s, were 10 prettyeasytopredict. Thenthe '70s carne along, and 11 theywere lesspredictable. Maybe inthe last 10 12 years, they'vebeen a littleeasier topredict, but 13 going forward for the next 10 or 15 years, the 14 confidence level for anybody's estimate of what 15 electricityprices arehas gone, if iteverwere at 90 16 percent, it'snow 50percent or something like that. 17 No oneknowswhat's goingtohappento 18 electricityprices intheunregulated and deregulated 19 environmentthatwe will have before any of these new 20 rules go into effect for products inthe next century. 21 So, you've got to figure outhow you're going to take 22 that into account, and I'mglad that there's 23 recognition of thishere, and I hope the department 24 will address these concerns for all theproducts for 25 the nextworkshop onmanufacturer's impact analysis EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-00641 specifically and for each of the products in which 2 you've got your on-going rulemakings, and we've got 3 some ideas that we'd like to share with you about how 4 to do this, and I think that you need to encourage 5 other industries to develop their ideas on this type of 6 very, very important analysis. 7 MR. McMAHON: Valerie, I need to respond. 8 MS. GRAFF: I -- I saw a -- I'm not sure 9 which one. 10 MR. McMAHON: I think I need to respond to 11 the characterization of that paragraph in the report. 12 That's not an expression that there is no intention to 13 pursue uncertainty analysis. That's a statement that 14 in this report as you have it in your hand, the 15 uncertainty analysis has not been done. 16 We fully intend to pursue that. That's part 17 of the discussion here, is how should that be done? 18 Can it be done with the data in its present form? 19 Should other approaches be used? Should different data 20 be provided? 21 It's not an -- it's not a statement of intent 22 not to do uncertainty analysis. 23 MR. PERLIS: Let me just respond to that. 24 That's great. Within your own organization at LBL, 25 there was presented at the ballast workshop a metric, EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 166 1 specificallyand for each oftheproducts inwhich 2 you'vegot your on-goingrulemakings, andwe've got 3 some ideas thatwe'd liketo sharewithyou about how 4 to do this, and I think thatyou need to encourage 5 other industriesto develop their ideas on this type of 6 very, very important analysis. 7 

### MR. McMAHON: Valerie, I needto respond. 8 

### MS. GRAFF: I

-- I saw a -- I'mnot sure 9 which one. 10 

### MR. McMAHON: I think I need to respond to 11 the characterization ofthatparagraph inthe report. 12 That's not an expressionthatthere is no intentionto 13 pursueuncertainty analysis. That's a statementthat 14 inthis report as youhave it inyour hand, the 15 uncertainty analysishas not beendone. 16 We fully intendtopursue that. That'spart 17 of thediscussionhere, ishow should that be done? 18 Can itbe done with thedata in itspresent form? 19 Should other approaches beused? Shoulddifferent data 20 beprovided? 21 It'snot an -- it'snot a statement of intent 22 not todouncertainty analysis. 23 

### MR. PERLIS: Letme justrespond to that. 24 That's great. withinyour own organization atLBL, 25 therewas presented attheballastworkshop a metric, EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064167 1 if you will, since you all like to use that term, a 2 metric for doing uncertainty analysis for individual 3 variables as part of a life cycle cost analysis. 4 MR. McMAHON: That's correct. 5 MR. PERLIS: And that's at least one approach 6 that ought to be more fully explored for all the 7 product areas. I don't know whether it can apply to 8 manufacturer's impact analysis. 9 There's a lot more variables that will go 10 into determining the manufacturer's impact, and I don't 11 even know what the formulas are that are being 12 considered for what manufacturer's impact means, but at 13 the very least, LBL does have -- has tried to present a 14 few curves, if you will, that showed variable effects 15 of a particular standard on population as you, you 16 know, -- so, either -- they -- uncertainty 17 considerations on electricity price, and then they 18 said, well, we can therefore say that it's possible 19 that X percent of the people will be hurt, and Y 20 percent of the people will be helped, and that type of 21 analysis is very different from what we've seen in the 22 traditional life cycle cost engineering analysis, and

- 23

- and from a legal perspective, I would suggest the 24 department ought to consider whether they can even rely 25 on the old methods of doing the analysis any longer, EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 167 1 ifyou will, sinceyou all liketo use that term, a 2 metric for doinguncertainty analysis for individual 3 variables aspartof a lifecycle cost analysis. 4 

### MR. McMAHON: That's correct. 5 

### MR. PERLIS: And that's at least one approach 6 that ought tobemore fully explored for all the 7 product areas. I don'tknow whether it can apply to 8 manufacturer's impact analysis. 9 There's a lotmore variables thatwill go 10 into determiningthemanufacturer's impact, and I don't 11 evenknowwhat the formulas are that are being 12 considered for whatmanufacturer's impactmeans, but at 13 the very least, LBL doeshave

-- has triedtopresent a 14 few curves, ifyouwill, that showedvariable effects 15 of a particular standard onpopulation as you, you 16 know,

-- so, either

-- they

-- uncertainty 17 considerations on electricityprice, and then they 18 said, well, we cantherefore saythat it'spossible 19 thatXpercent of thepeoplewill behurt, and Y 20 percent of thepeoplewill be helped, and thattype of 21 analysis isverydifferent fromwhatwe've seen in the 22 traditional life cyclecost engineering analysis, and

- 23

- and from a legal perspective, I would suggestthe 24 department ought to considerwhether they can evenrely 25 on the oldmethods of doingthe analysis any longer, EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064168 ^1 and whether under your interpretive rule it's incumbent 2 on you to develop the newer statistical approaches, and 3 that as you do that, you do it through a notice and 4 comment and a workshop process, and it's the sort of 5 thing, Michael, why I was so insistent this summer in 6 the interpretive rulemaking process that you all think 7 about having a -- not just an advisory committee but 8 generic

-- 9 MS. GRAFF: Okay. I am going to have to cut 10 you off. We're here on the engineering analysis for 11 the clothes washer workshop, and I just want to make 12 sure we stick to the point. We've got a very short 13 period of time, and I think your points are well taken. 14 I wasn't sure, Dick, before I get to you, if 15 Jim or Peter -- no? Okay. 16 MR. BIERMEYER: I was just going to say that 17 on the paragraph you just read there, those sentences 18 about variability and concerning consumer impacts, I 19 was thinking about, Jim, the approach that you used for 20 ballasts. Maybe that's something we could ask, that 21 maybe something like that could be done, not 22 necessarily for the engineering analysis. 23 MS. GRAFF: Okay. All right. Dick? 24 MR. BEST: Dick Best again, Whirlpool, and 25 I'm one of those guys that are associated with the soEXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 ----------

### -------

168 1 

### andwhether underyour interpretiverule it's incumbent 2 onyoutodevelopthe newer statistical approaches, and 3 that asyou do that, you do itthrough a notice and 4 comment and a workshopprocess, and it's the sort of 5 thing, Michael, why I was so insistentthis summer in 6 the interpretiverulemakingprocess thatyou all think 7 abouthaving a -- notjustan advisory committee but 8 generic 9 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. I am goingtohave to cut 10 you off. We'rehere on the engineering analysis for 11 the clotheswasherworkshop, and I justwant tomake 12 surewe stick to thepoint. We've got a very short 13 period of time, and I thinkyourpoints arewell taken. 14 I wasn't sure, Dick, before I get to you, if 15 Jim orPeter -- no? 

### Okay. 16 

### MR. BIERMEYER: I wasjustgoing to saythat 17 on theparagraphyoujustread there, those sentences 18 about variability and concerning consumer impacts, I 

### 19 was thinking about, Jim, the approach thatyouused for 20 ballasts. Maybe that's somethingwe could ask, that 21 maybe something likethat couldbe done, not 22 necessarily for the engineering analysis. 23 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. All right. Dick? 24 

### MR. BEST: Dick Best again, Whirlpool, and 25 I'm one 

### of thoseguys that are associatedwiththe soEXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064169 1 called the "dog", the 50 percent guys, and I just 2 wanted to respond to a few of the comments, and it's 3 not directly towards the sensitivity analysis or -- or 4 distributions, but the issue of cost and utility. 5 One of the reasons that this one company has 6 50 percent is because they've focused on the customer, 7 providing value and utility to those -- to what the 8 consumer's looking for, and the four designs that we've 9 offered to DOE for inclusion into this analysis 10 maintains that same utility to the customer. 11 On the issue of cost, I think that is 12 something that definitely needs to be part of the 13 analysis, and as such, we're certainly going to 14 cooperate with DOE on evaluating the cost of it, and I 15 think it's not proper for us to, as proposed, to turn 16 it over for discussion with the industry for evaluating 17 the cost, but certainly an independent study of cost is 18 appropriate, and in that light, it would not be 19 Whirlpool's numbers that would be put into the analysis 20 but independently-arrived at data. 21 MS. GRAFF: Anything else here? We're

-- 22 we've been focusing on the costs and the data. 23 Anything else to be said about that? 24 MR. LaFRANCE: This is Mark LaFrance. I just 25 wanted to clarify one thing that Terry had mentioned EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 169 1 calledthe "dog", the 50 percent guys, and I just 2 wanted torespond to a few of the comments, and it's 3 not directlytowards the sensitivity analysis or -- or 

### 4 distributions, butthe issue of cost and utility. 5 One of thereasons that this one companyhas 6 50 percent isbecausethey've focused on the customer, 7 providingvalue andutilitytothose -- towhat the 8 consumer's looking for, andthe four designs thatwe've 9 offeredto DOE for inclusion intothis analysis 10 maintains that same utilitytothe customer. 11 On the issue of cost, I think that is 12 something thatdefinitely needs to bepart of the 13 analysis, and as such, we're certainlygoing to 14 cooperatewith DOE on evaluatingthe cost of it, and I 15 think it'snotproper for us to, as proposed, to turn 16 itover for discussionwith the industry for evaluating 17 the cost, but certainlyan independent study of cost is 18 appropriate, and inthat light, itwould not be 19 Whirlpool's numbers thatwould beput intothe analysis 20 but independently-arrived at data. 21 MS. GRAFF: Anything elsehere? We're 22 we'vebeen focusing onthe costs andthe data. 23 Anything elsetobe said about that? 24 

### MR. LaFRANCE: This isMark LaFrance. I just 25 wantedto clarifyone thing thatTerryhadmentioned EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064170 1 earlier, and, Terry, you -- you asked a question about 2 what costs should be defined -- what types of costs do 3 we need, and you referred to manufacturer impact. 4 Of course, that's something that's a generic 5 parallel path, and we're working on it, but 6 specifically for engineering analysis, so far, the only 7 thing I think we're using is an incremental 8 manufacturer cost mark-up, which, of course, is based 9 on a particular company's planning and long-term 10 capital investment activities, however they relate to 11 incremental cost. 12 My question is, are there any thing -- are 13 there any other types of cost information that we would 14 use for an engineering analysis besides incremental 15 manufacturer cost? 16 I know there are many of these that have a 17 manufacturing impact, but for just engineering 18 analysis, what do we need? What do you think we need? 19 MR. THIELE: I mean I'm not -- I'm not 20 prepared to comment definitively on that right now. I 21 would assume that the numbers that the industry has 22 identified in the past for purely that limited function 23 may suffice. 24 My concern was whether the data that was 25 collected would also then fulfill the function of doing EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 170 1 earlier, and, Terry, you -- you asked a question about 2 what costs shouldbe defined what types of costs do 3 we need, and you referredtomanufacturer impact. 4 Of course, that's something that's a generic 5 parallelpath, andwe'reworking on it, but 6 specifically for engineering analysis, so far, the only 7 thing I thinkwe're using is an incremental 8 manufacturer costmark-up, which, of course, is based 9 on a particular company's planning and long-term 10 capital investment activities, however they relate to 11 incremental cost. 12 My question is, are there any thing -- are 13 there any othertypes of cost information that we would 14 use for an engineering analysis besides incremental 15 manufacturer cost? 16 I know there aremany of these thathave a 17 manufacturing impact, but for justengineering 18 analysis, what dowe need? What do you thinkwe need? 19 

### MR. THIELE: I mean I'mnot -- I'm not 20 prepared to comment definitively onthat right now. I 21 would assume that the numbers that the industryhas 22 identified in thepast for purely that limited function 23 may suffice. 24 My concernwas whether the data thatwas 25 collectedwould also then fulfill the function of doing EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-00641 the manufacturer impact analysis because the one 2 inevitably leads to the other. 3 You can't say that this set of numbers is 4 going to lead you to an engineering analysis, and not 5 say that the same set of numbers also goes to your 6 manufacturing analysis because as was pointed out, the 7 cost of the product will dictate the price of the 8 product, they say industry value or manufacturer value. 9 MR. LaFRANCE: I guess the point I'm just 10 trying to clarify is that there are many other criteria 11 that -- that one would look at for manufacturer impact, 12 whereas in engineering, I -- I think it's very limited 13 to just come up with a manufacturer cost efficiency 14 curve, it's extremely limited, and if people could 15 focus in on those values and -- and provide additional 16 information that those numbers are wrong -- 17 MR. THIELE: Well, but -- but the curves are 18 going to be dictated upon how the department decides to 19 address small manufacturers versus large manufacturers. 20 Are you going to have a single curve or are you going 21 to do individual manufacturer analyses? 22 I would submit that a single curve, when one 23 of the five inputs represents 50 percent of the market, 24 that curve ain't worth much, and, so, the question is, 25 how you do your analysis is going to dictate the EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 ---

### --------------



### 171 1 themanufacturer impact analysis becausethe one 2 inevitably leads to the other. 3 You can't saythat this set of numbers is 4 goingto leadyouto anengineering analysis, and not 5 saythatthe same set of numbers also goes toyour 6 manufacturing analysis because aswas pointed out, the 7 cost of theproductwill dictate the price of the 8 product, they say industryvalue ormanufacturer value. 9 

### MR. LaFRANCE: I guess the point I'mjust 10 tryingto clarifyis that there aremany othercriteria 11 that -- that onewould look at for manufacturer impact, 12 whereas in engineering, I -- I think it'svery limited 13 tojustcorne upwith a manufacturer cost efficiency 14 curve, it'sextremely limited, and ifpeople could 15 focus in onthosevalues and -- andprovide additional 16 informationthatthose numbers arewrong -- 17 MR. THIELE: Well, but -- butthe curves are 18 goingtobe dictateduponhow the department decides to 19 address smallmanufacturers versus largemanufacturers. 20 Are you goingtohave a singlecurve or are you going 21 todo individual manufacturer analyses? 22 I would submitthat a single curve, when one 23 of the five inputs represents 50percent of themarket, 24 that curve ain'tworthmuch, and, so, the question is, 25 how you do your analysis isgoingto dictatethe EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064172 1 numbers you need, and I don't know how you're going to 2 do your analysis yet, and I don't think that 3 engineering analysis is -- is in any way protected from 4 the requirement in the interpretive rule that you 5 account for small manufacturers. 6 MR. LaFRANCE: So, is that -- I guess what 7 we're getting into pretty shortly here is the 8 methodologies for conducting the engineering analysis, 9 and what I'm hearing from you is you seem to be 10 promoting individual submissions of cost data that we 11 can look at that and do an assessment. 12 MR. THIELE: Well, I feel like a Republican 13 Congress. I'd like to have the Administration tell me 14 what they're going to do, and then I'd like to edit it 15 rather than constantly being asked to come up with the 16 department's game plan for the department. 17 You tell me how you propose to handle it, and 18 then we can edit it. But it's very difficult to come 19 to an industry where you've got five manufacturers who 20 are at war and ask them to give you a consensus 21 position on how to get -- how to handle the rulemaking. 22 MR. LEVY: What's your position? 23 MR. THIELE: I don't have a position yet 24 until I have something to look at. I refuse to be put 25 in a position where I start

-- EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 172 1 numbers you need, and I don'tknowhow you're going to 2 do your analysis yet, and I don't think that 3 engineering analysis is -- is in any way protected from 4 the requirement inthe interpretiverule thatyou 5 account for smallmanufacturers. 6 

### MR. LaFRANCE: So, isthat -- I guesswhat 7 we're getting intopretty shortlyhere is the 8 methodologies for conductingthe engineering analysis, 9 andwhat I'mhearing fromyou isyou seemtobe 10 promoting individual submissions of cost data thatwe 11 can look atthatanddo an assessment. 12 MR. THIELE: Well, I feel like a Republican· 13 congress. I'd liketohave theAdministration tellme 14 what they're going to do, and then I'd liketo edit it 15 rather than constantlybeing asked to come upwith the 16 department's gameplan for the department. 17 You tellme how youpropose to handle it, and 18 thenwe can edit it. But it'sverydifficult to come 19 to an industrywhere you've got five manufacturers who 20 are atwar and ask themtogive you a consensus 21 position onhow toget -- how to handle the rulemaking. 22 MR. LEVY: What's yourposition? 23 

### MR. THIELE: I don'thave a positionyet 24 until I have somethingto look at. I refuse to beput 25 in a positionwhere I start EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064173 1 MR. LEVY: So, you don't have an opinion on 2 how we should do the analysis? 3 MR. THIELE: Not -- not at this point, 4 because I haven't heard any guidance from the 5 department on how they want to implement their 6 interpretive rule. 7 MS. GRAFF: Okay. I've -- we've heard this a 8 couple times, and I think the point's clear, and is 9 there anything else that we can add to the data -- the 10 validity of the data that hasn't been said before? Any 11 other comments that -- Dick? 12 MR. STILWELL: Dick Stilwell. I just wanted 13 to talk a little bit about the origin of some of the 14 costs on the design options, and basically what we do 15 is give this list of design options to our engineers. 16 They're asked to estimate what it would cost to apply 17 these particular design options to our washer designs. 18 They're not designing the part, not evaluating the 19 design, just estimate what it would cost to apply this 20 design option to our product. 21 MR. JONES: Assuming it existed. 22 MR. STILWELL: Assuming it existed. And it's 23 going -- and that is going to be done differently, I'm 24 guessing, for every company. Every engineer is going 25 to take a little bit different approach in the EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 173 1 

### MR. LEVY: So, you don'thave an opinion on 2 howwe shoulddo the analysis? 3 

### MR. THIELE: Not -- not at thispoint, 4 because I haven'theard anyguidance from the 5 department onhow theywant to implement their 6 interpretiverule. 7 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. I've -- we've heard this a 8 coupletimes, and I think thepoint's clear, and is 9 there anything elsethatwe can add to the data -- the 10 validity ofthe data thathasn'tbeen saidbefore? Any 11 othercomments that -- Dick? 12 

### MR. STILWELL: Dick Stilwell. I justwanted 13 to talk a littlebitabout the origin of some of the 14 costs on the design options, and basicallywhatwe do 15 isgive this list of design options to our engineers. 16 They're askedto estimatewhat itwould costto apply 17 these particulardesign options to ourwasher designs. 18 They're not designing thepart, not evaluatingthe 19 design, justestimatewhat itwould cost to apply this 20 design optionto ourproduct. 21 

### MR. JONES: Assuming itexisted. 22 MR. STILWELL: Assuming itexisted. And it's 23 

### going and that isgoing tobe done differently, I'm 24 guessing, for every company. Every engineer is going 25 to take a littlebitdifferent approach inthe EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064174 1 application of that design option to his machines, it's 2 going to be different than ours is. 3 So, it's not surprising that there's quite a 4 bit of variability in the cost in some instances. 5 MS. GRAFF: Earl? 6 MR. JONES: Yeah. I just want to go back to 7 the -- to the point that -- I guess upsetting would be 8 the word, but I'm really kind of puzzled also by the 9 department's insistence upon asking us what it should 10 do to fulfill its statutory responsibilities. 11 We don't have the obligation. You have the 12 obligation. So, the question is, how are you going to 13 do your work? And you particularly take on 14 responsibilities of this interpretive rule, and, so, 15 the question becomes, how are you going to apply the 16 interpretive rule, which you published? 17 You're not -- you're not -- you -- your -- 18 your -- your response to some of the questions being 19 put to the department this way is -- is rather 20 puzzling. It's almost kind of antagonistic, by the 21 way, because it's as if'somehow we're attacking you or 22 your client, if you want to put it that way, by asking 23 you questions about what your view is on what your 24 responsibilities are. 25 So, that's a little kind of off-putting. I'm EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 174 1 applicationof that design optiontohismachines, it's 2 going tobe differentthan ours is. 3 So, it'snot surprisingthatthere's quite a 4 bit of variability inthe cost in some instances. 5 

### MS. GRAFF: Earl? 6 

### MR. JONES: Yeah. I justwant to go backto 7 

### the

-- tothepointthat I guessupsettingwould be 8 theword, but I'mreallykindofpuzzled also by the 9 department's insistenceupon askingus what it should 10 do to fulfill its statutoryresponsibilities. 11 We don'thave the obligation. You have the 12 obligation. So, the question is, how areyou going to 13 doyourwork? And youparticularlytake on 14 responsibilities of this interpretiverule, and, so, 15 thequestionbecomes, how areyou goingto apply the 16 interpretiverule, whichyoupublished? 17 You're not

-- you're not

-- you -- your -- 18 your -- yourresponse to some ofthe questions being 19 puttothe department thisway is

-- israther 20 puzzling. It's almostkind of antagonistic, by the 21 way, because it's as if'somehowwe're attackingyou or 22 your client, ifyouwant toput itthatway, by asking 23 you questions aboutwhat yourview is onwhat your 24 responsibilities are. 25 

### So, that's a littlekind of off-putting. I'm EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064175 1 not sure what your objective is in doing that. But I 2 do think it's important for the department to tell us 3 what it wants to do, and then we will respond 4 accordingly. 5 The point that Terry makes about the division 6 in the industry is a very key one, and therefore I 7 would go back and ask the department in view of the 8 fact that you have retained peer reviewers at least for 9 the work done so far, you might ask them what their 10 thoughts are on these questions. What data is 11 relevant? How might it be collected? I would suggest 12 you do that. It would be very helpful. 13 Beyond that, if -- I suppose at some point, 14 we'll get to the question of consultants and peer 15 reviewers, but certainly the people who perform that 16 job going forward should also have a role to play in 17 this process. 18 The difficulty here is, you should understand 19 this, if the department wants to say we have made up 20 our minds the data is as good as it is, we're not going 21 to change it unless you tell us why, then I think you 22 ought to be honest enough and tell us that. 23 If you have honest conflicts about where you 24 go, then you ought to tell us that, and then come up 25 with suggestions about how they might be resolved, but EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 175 1 not surewhatyour objective is indoing that. But I 2 do think it's important for the department to tell us 3 what itwants todo, andthenwe will respond 4 accordingly. 5 ThepointthatTerrymakes about the division 6 in the industry is a verykey one, and therefore I 7 would go back and askthe department inview of the 8 fact thatyouhave retainedpeerreviewers at least for 9 thework done so far, youmight ask themwhat their 10 thoughts are onthesequestions. What data is 11 relevant? How might itbe collected? I would suggest 12 you do that. Itwould beveryhelpful. 13 

### Beyond that, if I suppose at some point, 14 we'll getto thequestion of consultants andpeer 15 reviewers, but certainlythepeoplewho performthat 16 jobgoing forward should alsohave a role toplay in 17 thisprocess. 18 

### The difficultyhere is, you shouldunderstand 19 this, ifthedepartment wants to saywe have made up 20 ourminds thedata is as good as it is, we're not going 21 to change itunless you tell uswhy, then I thinkyou 22 ought tobe honest enough and tell us that. 23 If youhavehonest conflicts aboutwhere you 24 go, thenyou ought to tellus that, and then come up 25 with suggestions abouthow theymight be resolved, but EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064176 1 don't look to us for the answer to your question, and 2 then if you don't get them, sort of get pissed off. 3 MS. GRAFF: Okay. Thanks, Earl. 4 Getting back to the data validity issue, is 5 there anything else that could be added, value-added 6 comments at this point? We're about five minutes from 7 the end of this discussion. We still need to look at 8 methodologies, approaches and assumptions. 9 Steve Nadel? 10 MR. NADEL: Yeah. The one additional thing 11 I'd add about the data variability is if manufacturers 12 are able to come up with different estimates, I think 13 it would be very useful and possible to look at why 14 those estimates vary, and to what extent is it because 15 there are legitimate differences between manufacturers 16 versus to what extent maybe one manufacturer has 17 figured out a better, cheaper way to make a mouse trap. 18 So, to the extent that people could -- the 19 contractors can look at the individual manufacturers' 20 data, go back to the manufacturers and try to 21 understand it and make some of those judgment calls, I 22 think that may be a way to reduce, not eliminate, the 23 variability. 24 MS. GRAFF: Okay. Another suggestion for the 25 way that the department handles the data validity EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**--------~---**

176 

### 1 don't look to us for the answer to your question, and 2 

### then if you don't get them, sort of getpissed off. 3 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. Thanks, Earl. 4 

### Gettingback to the data validity issue, is 5 

### there anything else that couldbe added, value-added 6 

### comments at this point? We're about five minutes from 7 

### the end of this discussion. We still need to look at 8 

### methodologies, approaches and assumptions. 9 

### Steve Nadel? 10 

### MR. NADEL: Yeah. The one additional thing 11 

### I'd add about the data variability is ifmanufacturers 12 

### are able to come up with different estimates, I think 13 

### itwould be very useful and possible to look at why 14 

### those estimates vary, and to what extent is it because 15 

### there are legitimate differences betweenmanufacturers 16 

### versus towhat extentmaybe onemanufacturer has 17 

### figured out a better, cheaper way to make a mouse trap. 18 

### So, to the extent that people could

-- the 19 

### contractors can look at the individual manufacturers' 20 

### data, go back to the manufacturers and try to 21 

### understand it and make some of those judgment calls, I 22 

### think thatmay be a way to reduce, not eliminate, the 23 

### variability. 24 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. Another suggestion for the 

### 25 way that the department handles the data validity EXECUTIVE 

### COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064177 1 issue. 2 Any other value-added comments? 3 MR. SCHLEEBE: Question. When you say data 4 question -- Glenn Schleebe -- data question, are you 

### 5 talking about energy prices as part of that data or 6 manufacturing cost data? 7 MS. GRAFF: I think we're talking about all 8 the data that we have available. 9 MR. SCHLEEBE: Well, I think you need to be 10 clear about that. 11 MS. GRAFF: Okay. Mark, what do we want? 12 MR. LEVY: I think at this point, we have 13 covered themanufacturer incremental cost data for 14 design options. What Mr. Schleebe is referring to is 15 an assumption for the analysis, which is actually the 16 next -- one of the next topics on the agenda. It's 

### 17 something that we considered obviously. 18 MS. GRAFF: Well, let's -- we might be ready 

### 19 to go into the assumptions. Are we ready? Ted? 20 MR. POPE: One question on the fixed cost 21 being amortized over a five-year period. I wonder if 22 that's a realistic assumption based on the type of 23 costs they represent. 24 MS. GRAFF: Good question. Who's in a good 25 position to answer that? Jim? Mark or Bryan? Repeat EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 177 1 issue. 2 Any othervalue-added comments? 3 

### MR. SCHLEEBE: Question. When you say data 4 question -- Glenn Schleebe -- data question, are you 5 talking about energyprices as part of that data or 6 manufacturingcost data? 7 MS. GRAFF: I thinkwe're talking about all 8 the data thatwe have available. 9 

### MR. SCHLEEBE: Well, I thinkyouneed tobe 10 clear about that. 11 MS. GRAFF: Okay. Mark, what do we want? 12 

### MR. LEVY: I think at thispoint, we have 13 coveredthemanufacturer incremental costdata for 14 design options. WhatMr. Schleebe isreferring to is 15 an assumption for the analysis, which is actuallythe 16 next -- one of the next topics on the agenda. It's 17 somethingthatwe considered obviously. 18 

### MS. GRAFF: Well, let's -- we might be ready 19 to go intothe assumptions. Arewe ready? Ted? 20 

### MR. POPE: One question on the fixed cost 21 being amortized over a five-year period. I wonder if 22 that's a realistic assumptionbased on the type of 23 costs theyrepresent. 24 

### MS. GRAFF: Good question. Who's in a good 25 positionto answer that? Jim? Mark orBryan? Repeat EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064178 1 the question. 2 MR. POPE: The assumption that the fixed 3 costs are amortized over five years seems fairly 4 conservative on the part of the analysis, and I 5 question whether the plant expansion and so forth 6 really need to be amortized over that short period of 7 time. 8 MR. LaFRANCE: Can I respond to that? 9 MS. GRAFF: Do you have an answer to that? 10 MR. LaFRANCE: I think I do. 11 MS. GRAFF: Okay. 12 MR. LaFRANCE: You can tell me if I'm wrong, 13 but I think that the answer is that the statute 14 contemplates that manufacturers are obliged to reinvest 15 on a five-year cycle because after five years, they got 16 another standard to look at. 17 So, you're right, in the real world, we'd 18 love to have a whole lot more time to amortize those 19 costs, but in the regulatory world, at the end of five 20 years, we got to reinvest. 21 MR. POPE: Yeah. I don't think that it's 22 clear you have to reinvest the entire plant expansion 23 and all that stuff. I think that exaggerates the 24 assumption that everything's amortized. 25 MR. LaFRANCE: Perhaps, perhaps. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 178 1 the question. 2 

### MR. POPE: The assumptionthatthe fixed 3 costs are amortized over five years seems fairly 4 conservativeon thepart ofthe analysis, and I 5 questionwhether theplant expansion and so forth 6 reallyneedtobe amortizedoverthat shortperiodof 7 time. 8 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Can I respond to that? 9 

### MS. GRAFF: Do youhave an answer to that? 10 

### MR. LaFRANCE: I think I do. 11 MS. GRAFF: Okay. 12 MR. LaFRANCE: You cantell me if I'mwrong, 13 but I thinkthatthe answer isthatthe statute 14 contemplates thatmanufacturers are obligedto reinvest 15 on a five-year cyclebecause after five years, they got 16 another standardto look at. 17 So, you'reright, inthereal world, we'd 18 love tohave a whole lotmore time to amortize those 19 costs, but intheregulatoryworld, at the end of five 20 years, we gotto reinvest. 21 MR. POPE: Yeah. I don't think that it's 22 clearyouhave toreinvestthe entireplant expansion 23 and all that stuff. I think thatexaggerates the 24 assumptionthat everything's amortized. 25 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Perhaps, perhaps. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064179 1 MS. GRAFF: Yeah. Okay. 2 MR. LEVY: I just wanted to address Earl's 3 last comment briefly at the risk of carrying the mode 4 of expression too far. I'm puzzled that you're 5 puzzled. 6 MR. JONES: Come on. 7 MR. LEVY: The purpose of the workshop is 8 just

-- 9 MR. JONES: This is not a legal debate. 10 MR. LEVY: The purpose of the workshop is for 11 us to gather information, for us to understand what 12 your views are, and to gather data

-- 13 MR. JONES: Ask the right question, you'll 14 get the right information. When you don't ask 15 questions, you won't get information. All I'm saying 16 is what are the questions? 17 MS. GRAFF: All right. I think this 18 discussion is really clear to all of us, if we can put 19 it to rest, and anyway, we're on to assumptions, 20 methodologies, approaches. We're going to have to 21 start squeezing our time here a little bit. 22 Do we want to want start with the ADL? 23 Comment -- review comments on the approaches? Bryan, 24 did you want to bring that up here? 25 MR. BERRINGER: Yeah. These were -- what EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 179 1 

### MS. GRAFF: Yeah. Okay. 2 MR. LEVY: I justwantedto address Earl's 3 last commentbriefly at therisk of carrying themode 4 of expressiontoo far. I'mpuzzledthat you're 5 puzzled. 6 

### MR. JONES: Corne on. 7 

### MR. LEVY: Thepurpose of theworkshop is 8 just -- 9 

### MR. JONES: This is not a legal debate. 10 

### MR. LEVY: Thepurpose of the workshop is for 11 us to gather information, for us tounderstandwhat 12 yourviews are, andtogatherdata -- 13 MR. JONES: Askthe rightquestion, you'll 14 get theright information. When you don't ask 15 questions, youwon'tget information. All I'm saying 16 iswhat arethequestions? 17 

### MS. GRAFF: All right. I think this 18 discussion isreallyclearto all ofus, ifwe canput 19 ittorest, and anyway, we're onto assumptions, 20 methodologies, approaches. We're going to have to 21 start squeezing ourtimehere a littlebit. 22 Do we want towant startwith theADL? 23 Comment -- reviewcomments onthe approaches? Bryan, 24 didyouwant tobringthatuphere? 25 

### MR. BERRINGER: Yeah. Thesewere -- what EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064180 1 we're doing is -- I was going to bring a piece of ADL 2 comments, and we could just finish discussing them. 3 MS. GRAFF: Okay. And are there additional 4

-- 5 MR. LaFRANCE: Maybe right here a point

-- 6 Earl, just -- just to go back a second here, I mean 7 this

-- 8 MS. GRAFF: Mark, I'm going to

-- 9 MR. LaFRANCE: This is the discussion that 10 we're talking about on assumptions. Okay. We -- we 11 presented a draft engineering analysis which people 12 have articulated that was premature for the process, 13 okay, but it was available to us. It is one approach 14 for conducting an engineering analysis, and it's on the 15 table for discussion. 16 Now, you've indicated, you know, in one case, 17 you know, we shouldn't be doing that work ahead of 18 time, and in the other case, you know, we should 19 provide something for you to comment versus coming to 20 you for input. 21 Now, the interpretive rule says we come to 22 our stakeholders and ask their input on how to do 23 analysis, and that's why we're here today. This draft 24 report shows one approach, and we'd like to get 25 comment. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 180 1 we're doing is -- I was goingto bring a piece ofADL 2 comments, and we couldjust finish discussing them. 3 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. And are there additional 4 5 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Maybe right here a point -- 6 

### Earl, just justto go back a secondhere, I mean 7 this -- 8 

### MS. GRAFF: Mark, I'mgoing to -- 9 

### MR. LaFRANCE: This is the discussion that 10 we're talking about on assumptions. Okay. We -- we 

### 11 presented a draft engineering analysis which people 12 have articulatedthatwas premature for the process, 13 okay, but itwas available to us. It is one approach 14 for conducting an engineering analysis, and it's on the 15 table for discussion. 16 

### Now, you've indicated, you know, in one case, 17 you know, we shouldn'tbe doing that work ahead of 18 time, and in the other case, youknow, we should 19 provide something for you to comment versus coming to 20 you for input. 21 Now, the interpretive rule says we come to 22 our stakeholders and ask their input on how to do 23 analysis, and that'swhy we're here today. This draft 24 report shows one approach, and we'd like to get 25 comment. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064181 1 Do you agree with the approach? Now we might 2 disagree on the cost elements, but do we agree on the 3 fundamental approach that you -- you know, the 4 methodology? That's something we have on the table. 5 So, we do have a position -- I mean a presentation to 6 discuss, and without any input from the stakeholders, 7 you know, we don't know how to change that approach. 8 MR. JONES: Well, you know, the really 9 difficult part about this, Mark, is, and it's really 10 the point I was making earlier about maybe getting some 11 input from other parties, it is entirely possible, and 12 I think it's likely, that the stakeholders don't have 13 the creativity or -- or -- or somehow locked into a bad 14 process. 15 We've been doing it so long, we don't know 16 how to do it. It's broken so bad we can't even begin 17 to think how to fix it. You might take -- you might 18 get better answers if you asked somebody who looks at 19 this thing with fresh eyes. That's my only point. 20 MR. LaFRANCE: And that's a good point, Earl, 21 and at this point, that was one of the reasons to have 22 objective people look at it, and we have. 23 MR. JONES: But you're not even acknowledging 24 their input. They said stuff, and you guys just turned 25 right around. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 181 1 Do you agree with the approach? Now we might 2 disagree on the cost elements, but do we agree on the 3 fundamental approach that you -- youknow, the 4 methodology? That's somethingwe have on the table. 5 So, we do have a position -- I mean a presentation to 6 discuss, andwithout any input from the stakeholders, 7 youknow, we don't know how to change that approach. 8 

### MR. JONES: Well, youknow, the really 9 difficultpart about this, Mark, is, and it's really 10 the point I was making earlier about maybe getting some 11 input from otherparties, it is entirelypossible, and 12 I think it's likely, that the stakeholders don't have 13 the creativity or -- or -- 

### or somehow locked into a bad 14 process. 15 We've been doing it so long, we don't know 16 how to do it. It'sbroken sobadwe can't even begin 17 to thinkhow to fix it. You might take -- you might 18 get better answers if you asked somebodywho looks at 19 this thingwith fresh eyes. That'smy onlypoint. 20 

### MR. LaFRANCE: And that's a goodpoint, Earl, 21 and at thispoint, thatwas one of the reasons tohave 22 objectivepeople look at it, andwe have. 23 

### MR. JONES: Butyou're not even acknowledging 24 their input. They said stuff, and you guys justturned 25 right around. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064182 1 MR. LaFRANCE: No, no. Okay. The -- one 2 significant point was the validity of data or 3 uncertainty of data. That is a major concern according 4 to our peer reviewers. Do we agree on that at least, 5 Earl? 6 MR. JONES: I thought that's what they said, 7 too, yes. 8 MR. LaFRANCE: Okay. So, we can agree. Now 9 we're saying, you know, please help us improve the 10 validity of the data. 11 MR. JONES: I think you should go back to 12 them and say, guys, what do you think would be 13 appropriate given DOE's charter and what DOE laid out 14 for you to say these are our objectives, now what 15 process would you suggest would be the way to have more 16 -- get more reliable data? Don't ask that -- these

-- 17 MR. LaFRANCE: Okay. 18 MR. JONES: -- are the bad things, to make it 19 better. 20 MR. LaFRANCE: Okay. And I -- maybe -- maybe 21 Dick Topping can elaborate on this, I thought -- I 22 thought he gave a few suggestions during this morning's 23 presentation. 24 For example, individual submissions of data 25 or reworking the already-submitted data. I think there EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 182 1 

### MR. LaFRANCE: No, no. Okay. The

-- one 2 significantpointwas the validityof data or 3 uncertaintyofdata. That is a major concern according 4 to ourpeerreviewers. Do we agree onthat at least, 5 Earl? 6 

### MR. JONES: I thought that'swhat they said, 7 too, yes. 8 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Okay. So, we can agree. Now 9 we're saying, youknow, pleasehelpus improvethe 10 validity ofthe data. 11 MR. JONES: I thinkyou shouldgoback to 12 them and say, guys, whatdoyouthinkwouldbe 13 appropriategivenDOE's charter andwhatDOE laid out 14 for youto saythese are our objectives, now what 15 processwouldyou suggestwouldbetheway tohavemore 16



### -- getmorereliabledata? Don'taskthat these

-- 17 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Okay. 18 MR. JONES: are the badthings, tomake it 19 better. 20 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Okay. And I

-- maybe

-- maybe 21 DickTopping canelaborate onthis, I thought

-- I 22 thoughthe gave a few suggestions during thismorning's 23 presentation. 24 For example, individual submissions of data 25 orreworkingthe already-submitteddata. I think there EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064183 1 are a few suggestions put on the table, and it would be 2 very helpful to get people's, you know, feedback. 3 MR. JONES: You want our permission? 4 MR. LaFRANCE: No. Feedback. We're here to 5 meet with you to hear your concerns. Does it make 6 sense to get new data or does it make sense to revamp 7 the whole data? 8 MR. JONES: Well, I mean we took the 9 position, Mark, or at least some of us did that the 10 process needs to start over based upon the assumptions 11 of the interpretive rule. I don't know how else you 12 can say that that means get new data. 13 MS. GRAFF: All right. I'm going to -- I 14 want to -- I want to interrupt this. I think we're 15 covering the same ground, and I think -- right. I 16 understand that, and at the same time, we are here to 17 get input from all the stakeholders, and at the same 18 time, the stakeholders are giving you a lot of input. 19 So, let's keep it moving. Michael? 20 MR. MARTIN: I was just going to say that's 21 what we want to hear the rest of this agenda. I want 22 to sleep in my own bed tonight. My family are coming 23 in to Sacramento from all kinds of places. I know 24 exactly what Earl thinks, and I would love to get on 25 with it, and maybe you should be a little meaner. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 183 1 are a few suggestionsput onthe table, and itwouldbe 2 veryhelpful to getpeople's, youknow, feedback. 3 

### MR. JONES: You want ourpermission? 4 

### MR. LaFRANCE: No. Feedback. We'rehere to 5 meetwithyoutohearyour concerns. Does itmake 6 senseto getnew data ordoes itmake sense to revamp 7 thewhole data? 8 

### MR. JONES: Well, I meanwe tookthe 9 position, Mark, orat least someof us didthatthe 10 process needs to startoverbaseduponthe assumptions 11 of the interpretiverule. I don'tknow how elseyou 12 can saythatthatmeans getnew data. 13 MS. GRAFF: All right. I'mgoing to -- I 

### 14 want to -- I want to interruptthis. I thinkwe're 15 coveringthe sameground, and I think -- right. I 16 understandthat, and atthe sametime, we arehereto 17 get input from all the stakeholders, and atthe same 18 time, the stakeholders aregivingyou a lot of input. 19 

### So, let'skeep itmoving. Michael? 20 

### MR. MARTIN: I wasjustgoingto saythat's 21 whatwe wanttoheartherestof this agenda. I want 22 to sleep inmy own bedtonight. My family arecoming 23 into Sacramento from allkinds ofplaces. I know 24 exactlywhat Earl thinks, and I would lovetogeton 25 with it, andmaybeyou shouldbe a littlemeaner. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064



### , j1 You've been too nice to us. 2 MS. GRAFF: With your permission, I'll be a 3 little meaner. Okay. Assumptions, methodologies and 4 approaches. We need to cover that fairly quickly and 5 to the point. Do we have a starting point from DOE or 6 do we want to hop right into it? Okay. Hop right into 7 it, Terry. 8 MR. THIELE: My 15 minutes, I note, has 9 been

-- 10 MS. GRAFF: Oh, 45, Terry. 11 MR. THIELE: I just have a question, and on 12 one of the general assumptions, the water and sewage 13 costs came from Seattle, and why Seattle? 14 MS. GRAFF: Okay. Why Seattle? Peter? 15 MR. BIERMEYER: It's not Seattle data. Alan 16 Peterman of Seattle compiled this data. So, that's 17 just the reference, and it's nationwide data from an 18 Ernest and Young report. He compiled it and came up 19 with the average nationwide data. 20 MR. THIELE: So, that is national average, 21 right? 22 MR. BIERMEYER: Right. 23 MS. GRAFF: Okay. All right. National. 24 AUDIENCE COMMENT: Is that referenced in here 25 somewhere? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 184 1 You've beentoo niceto us. 2 

### MS. GRAFF: withyourpermission, I'llbe a 3 littlemeaner. Okay. Assumptions, methodologies and 4 approaches. We need to coverthat fairly quickly and 5 to thepoint. Do we have a startingpoint from DOE or 6 do we want tohopright into it? Okay. Hop right into 7 it, Terry. 8 

### MR. THIELE: My 15minutes, I note, has 9 been

-- 10 

### MS. GRAFF: Oh, 45, Terry. 11 MR. THIELE: I justhave a question, and on 12 one of the general assumptions, thewater and sewage 13 costs carne from Seattle, andwhy Seattle? 14 MS. GRAFF: Okay. Why Seattle? Peter? 15 MR. BIERMEYER: It'snot Seattle data. Alan 16 Peterman of Seattlecompiledthis data. So, that's 17 justthe reference, and it'snationwide data from an 18 Ernest and Young report. He compiled it and carneup 19 with the average nationwide data. 20 

### 21 right? 22 23 24 

### 25 somewhere?MR. THIELE: So, that is national average,

MR. BIERMEYER: Right. MS. GRAFF: Okay. All right. National. AUDIENCE COMMENT: Is thatreferenced inhere

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064185 1 MR. BIERMEYER: Yes, there's a cite in the 2 ANOPR comment. 3 MS. GRAFF: Okay. Assumptions, methodologies 4 and approaches. Any other questions, comments? Glenn? 5 MR. SCHLEEBE: Glenn Schleebe again. On the 6 energy crisis, could DOE please tell me why it intended 7 using old data and even insisting on using EIA data 8 from the 1996 Annual Energy Outlook when they say right 9 in the report that the prices data forecast do not take 10 into account the restructuring and increasing 11 competition now underway in the industry? 12 They are admitting their own forecasts

-- 13 MS. GRAFF: So, your question

-- 14 MR. SCHLEEBE: -- doesn't -- isn't worth 15 looking at. Why do you continue insisting on using it? 16 MS. GRAFF: Okay. Who wants to answer about 17 the use of the data? 18 MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe. EIA data and 19 EIA's evaluating their forecast. They have a separate 20 study underway to -- as to how to change those 21 forecasts. It is our intention at this point in time 22 for national average values to continue to use the EIA 23 forecast, and as part of a sensitivity to use other 24 forecasts. 25 GRI, for example, has a forecast which we EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 185 1 

### MR. BIERMEYER: Yes, there's a cite in the 2 ANOPR comment. 3 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. Assumptions, methodologies 4 and approaches. Any other questions, comments? Glenn? 5 

### MR. SCHLEEBE: Glenn Schleebe again. On the 6 energy crisis, couldDOE please tellme why it intended 7 using olddata and even insistingon using EIA data 8 from the 1996Annual Energy Outlookwhen they sayright 9 inthe report that theprices data forecast do not take 10 into account the restructuring and increasing 11 competitionnow underway inthe industry? 12 They are admittingtheir own forecasts 13 

### MS. GRAFF: So, your question -- 14 

### MR. SCHLEEBE: -- doesn't -- isn'tworth 15 looking at. Why do you continue insistingon using it? 16 MS. GRAFF: Okay. Who wants to answer about 17 the use of the data? 18 MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe. EIA data and 19 EIA's evaluatingtheir forecast. Theyhave a separate 20 studyunderway to -- as tohow to change those 21 forecasts. It is our intention at thispoint in time 22 for national average values to continue to use the EIA 23 forecast, and as part of a sensitivityto use other 24 forecasts. 25 GRI, for example, has a forecast which we EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064186 1 will use that, consider that, or other similar 2 forecasts. 3 In addition, the -- Mark Perlis from NEMA had 4 made a comment earlier about the -- some of the 5 preliminary work that LBL had done on sensitivity 6 analysis work for life cycle costs, for looking at the 7 different prices of electricity in the -- throughout 8 the country, that as part of that sensitivity analysis, 9 we will look at and identify the high and low prices, 10 evaluate those and use that information to -- for 11 selecting and developing our sensitivity analysis, and 12 looking at the share that a particular utility or state 13 has in it, and to consider -- to try to use that 14 information as far as to get an estimate as to what 15 percentage of the consumers, whether or not they're 16 residential or commercial consumers, will be affected 17 one way or another, so as to make the sensitivity 18 analysis more robust, so that it considers the current 19 variability in prices as well as some -- the 20 uncertainty in forecasts of where prices may go in the 21 future. 22 MR. SCHLEEBE: That would be helpful. You do 23 recognize that even the data now being used are all 24 considerably out of date with current prices? Every 25 analysis you put out, the prices are significantly EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 186 1 will use that, considerthat, or other similar 2 forecasts. 3 In addition, the -- Mark Perlis from NEMA had 4 made a comment earlier about the -- some of the 5 preliminarywork thatLBL haddone on sensitivity 6 analysiswork for lifecycle costs, for looking atthe 7 differentprices of electricity inthe -- throughout 8 the country, that aspart ofthat sensitivity analysis, 9 we will look at and identifythehigh and lowprices, 10 evaluatethose anduse that informationto -- for 11 selectingand developing our sensitivity analysis, and 12 looking atthe sharethat a particularutility or state 13 has in it, and to consider -- to try to use that 14 information as far as to get an estimate as towhat 15 percentage of the consumers, whether or not they're 16 residential or commercial consumers, will be affected 17 oneway or another, so as tomake the sensitivity 18 analysismore robust, so that itconsiders the current 19 variability inprices as well as some -- the 20 uncertainty in forecasts ofwhere pricesmay go inthe 21 future. 22 MR. SCHLEEBE: Thatwould behelpful. You do 23 recognize that even the data now beingused are all 24 considerablyout of datewith currentprices? Every 25 analysis you

### put out, theprices are significantly EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064187 1 higher than what they are now, and the prices are on 2 the down swing, not on the up swing. 3 MR. McCABE: Hm-hmm. 4 MR. SCHLEEBE: DOE does recognize that? 5 MR. McCABE: Yes, yes. 6 MR. SCHLEEBE: And

-- 7 MR. McCABE: Future analyses

-- 8 MR. SCHLEEBE: -- will any proposed rules go 9 ahead prior to redoing the economic analysis? 10 MS. GRAFF: That's not the subject of this 11 discussion. I think we are on the clothes washer and 12 the approaches specifically for this. So, if we can -- 13 MR. McCABE: Any proposed -- all proposed 14 rules will be done based on new analysis. 15 MR. SCHLEEBE: All proposed rules. 16 MS. GRAFF: Okay. Good. Okay. Any other 17 questions or comments or inputs for the department on 18 the approaches, assumptions and methodologies of the 19 engineering analysis? Ted Pope? 20 MR. POPE: A couple. I have a couple 21 questions on the decision to assume a 75 percent use of 22 the high-speed spin and 25 knot. Is there anything 23 backing that up or is that

-- 24 MR. LaFRANCE: This is Mark LaFrance. That 25 is a tentative decision, based on comment we received EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 187 1 higherthanwhat they are now, andthe prices are on 2 

### the down swing, not on theup swing. 3 

### MR. McCABE: Hm-hmm. 4 

### MR. SCHLEEBE: DOE does recognize that? 5 MR. 

### McCABE: Yes, yes. 6 

### MR. SCHLEEBE: And

-- 7 

### MR. McCABE: Future analyses 8 

### MR. SCHLEEBE:

-- will anyproposedrules go 9 aheadpriortoredoingthe economic analysis? 10 

### MS. GRAFF: That's not the subjectof this 11 discussion. I thinkwe are on the clotheswasher and 12 the approaches specificallyfor this. so, ifwe can 13 

### MR. McCABE: Any proposed -- all proposed 14 rules will bedonebased on new analysis. 15 

### MR. SCHLEEBE: Allproposedrules. 16 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. Good. Okay. Any other 17 questions or comments or inputs for the department on 18 the approaches, assumptions andmethodologies of the 19 engineering analysis? TedPope? 20 

### MR. POPE: Acouple. I have a couple 21 questions on the decisionto assume a 75 percentuse of 22 the high-speed spin and 25 knot. Is there anything 23 backingthatup or is that 24 

### MR. LaFRANCE: This isMarkLaFrance. That 25 is a tentative decision, based on commentwe received EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064188 1 to the April proposal for test procedure, and it is 2 based on Procter and Gamble data. So, possibly Ron can 3 answer more on that. 4 Okay. The department -- the industry raised 5 a concern that consumers might not use the high-spin 6 feature all the time. It's likely that manufacturers 7 would provide options of improved moisture extraction 8 could be spin speed or time, and this was an issue, I 9 believe, that was brought up by General Electric. 10 So, the department responded after hearing 11 the stakeholder input, and we proposed that you take 12 the most and least energy-intensive results for spin 13 speed and average the two with lack of consumer usage 14 habits. That was in the April proposed rule for test 15 procedures. 16 Industry responded using data that indicates 17 consumers use delicate cycles approximately 25 percent 18 of the time. Therefore, it's inferred that the 19 consumer might only use a high-spin speed feature 75 20 percent of the time, and there was general agreement 21 among most of the manufacturers, not all the 22 manufacturers agreed to that, as I indicated earlier, 23 that Frigidaire disagreed with that, and there were 24 some other companies that disagreed. 25 Tentatively, from everything we've looked at, EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 188 1 to the April proposal for testprocedure, and it is 2 based on Procter and Gamble data. So, possibly Ron can 3 answer more on that. 4 

### Okay. The department -- the industry raised 5 a concernthat consumers might not use the high-spin 6 feature all the time. It's likelythat manufacturers 7 would provide options of improvedmoisture extraction 8 could be spin speed or time, and this was an issue, I 9 believe, that was broughtup by General Electric. 10 So, the department responded after hearing 11 the stakeholder input, and we proposed thatyou take 12 the most and least energy-intensive results for spin 13 speed and average the two with lack of consumer usage 14 habits. That was inthe April proposed rule for test 15 procedures. 16 Industry responded using data that indicates 17 consumers use delicate cycles approximately 25 percent 18 of the time. Therefore, it's inferred that the 19 consumer might onlyuse a high-spin speed feature 75 20 percent of the time, and there was general agreement 21 among most of themanufacturers, not all the 22 manufacturers agreed to that, as I indicated earlier, 23 that Frigidaire disagreedwith that, and there were 24 some other companies that disagreed. 25 Tentatively, from everything we've looked at, EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064189 1 that appears to be a reasonable approach, and that's 2 what we're leaning towards, towards the final report on 3 the test procedures. 4 MS. GRAFF: Okay. You said you had a couple 5 questions? 6 MR. POPE: Yeah. Under the detergent issue, 7 I know it's a fairly commonly-held view that new 8 detergents are being reformulated for H-axis products. 9 I guess the research that we've seen shows 10 that you get at least equivalent cleaning performance 11 with the standard detergents at lower -- lower 12 concentration and lower dosage ratios. 13 If consumers are willing to spend the extra 14 money to use the new detergent, we feel that there 15 should be a certain value associated with the 16 detergent, and we think that ought to be shown in the 17 analysis as an economic benefit to the consumers. 18 MR. THIELE: I'm sorry. Say that -- I'm 19 sorry. Say that again. I just didn't understand. 20 MR. POPE: Yeah. Detergent right now is 21 designed for top-loading washers. Excuse me. Vertical 22 axis, and current horizontal axis washers have been 23 using standard detergent at a small dosage. I think 24 that's pretty commonly understood. 25 The research that we've seen shows that the EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 189 1 that appears to be a reasonable approach, and that's 2 what we're leaning towards, towards the final report on 3 the testprocedures. 4 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. You saidyouhad a couple 5 questions? 6 

### MR. POPE: Yeah. Under the detergent issue, 7 I know it's a fairly commonly-held viewthat new 8 detergents are beingreformulated for H-axis products. 9 I guess the research thatwe've seen shows 10 that you get at least equivalent cleaningperformance 11 withthe standard detergents at lower -- lower 12 concentration and lower dosage ratios. 13 If consumers are willing to spend the extra 14 money to use the new detergent, we feel that there 15 should be a certainvalue associatedwith the 16 detergent, andwe think that ought to be shown in the 17 analysis as an economic benefitto the consumers. 18 MR. THIELE: I'm sorry. Say that -- I'm 19 sorry. Say that again. I justdidn't understand. 20 

### MR. POPE: Yeah. Detergentright now is 21 designed for top-loadingwashers. Excuseme. vertical 22 axis, and currenthorizontal axiswashers have been 23 using standard detergent at a small dosage. I think 24 that's prettycommonlyunderstood. 25 The researchthatwe've seen shows that the EXECUTIVE COURT :REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064190 1 wash performance is equivalent using the smaller dosage 2 in the H-axis compared to the vertical axis and full 3 dosage, and I do understand there are different aspects 4 of detergent chemistries. So, that's being 5 reformulated, but shoppers may not necessarily choose 6 that higher-value detergent, and if they do, it implies 7 an economic benefit. They're getting cleaner clothes, 8 and that's not being carried out or shown in the 9 calculations at all. 10 MR. THIELE: So, you're saying if they 11 purchase the horizontal axis-configured version at a 12 higher cost, that they're buying an added benefit? 13 MR. POPE: Right. So, we're saying it's not 14 a clear assumption that they're going to pay more for 15 the detergent. So, that -- that savings are taken out 16 by saying they're going to buy the new formulation, and 17 that's not necessarily true. 18 MR. THIELE: Okay. So, I -- I guess the last 19 part is what I'm not understanding, whether you're 20 saying that the benefit is that they could stay with 21 existing detergent and use one-third

-- 22 MR. POPE: Right. 23 MR. THIELE: -- as opposed to the benefit 24 being cleaner clothes with the new detergent. Which 25 was the benefit you were talking about? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 190 1 washperformance is equivalentusing the smaller dosage 2 intheH-axis compared to thevertical axis and full 3 dosage, and I dounderstandthere are different aspects 4 of detergent chemistries. So, that's being 5 reformulated, but shoppersmay notnecessarily choose 6 thathigher-value detergent, and if they do, it implies 7 an economic benefit. They're getting cleaner clothes, 8 and that's not being carriedout or shown in the 9 calculations at all. 10 MR. THIELE: So, you're saying if they 11 purchasethehorizontal axis-configuredversion at a 12 higher cost, thatthey'rebuying an added benefit? 13 

### MR. POPE: Right. So, we're saying it's not 14 a clear assumptionthat they're goingtopaymore for 15 the detergent. So, that -- that savings are taken out 16 by sayingthey'regoingtobuy the new formulation, and 17 that's not necessarilytrue. 18 

### MR. THIELE: Okay. So, I -- I guess the last 19 part iswhat I'mnotunderstanding, whether you're 20 sayingthatthe benefit is thatthey could staywith 21 existingdetergent anduse one-third 22 MR. POPE: Right. 23 

### MR. THIELE: -- as opposed to thebenefit 24 being cleanerclotheswiththe new detergent. Which 25 was thebenefityouwere talking about? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064191 1 MR. POPE: Well, basically, I'm saying you're 2 showing some savings on the detergent side. 3 MR. THIELE: From using existing detergent? 4 Okay. I just

-- 5 MR. POPE: That consumers will use the new 6 detergent,

-- 7 MR. THIELE: Existing detergent. 8 MR. POPE: -- and there will be an economic 9 benefit. 10 MS. GRAFF: Any other

-- 11 MR. JACOBSEN: Yeah. Ron Jacobsen, P&G. 12 MS. GRAFF: I was wondering when you all 13 would

-- 14 MR. JACOBSEN: I believe that we took the 15 position awhile back that the detergent savings would 16 not be included as part of the economic justification. 17 Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that's where we 18 were. 19 Secondly, yes, consumers will have the choice 20 as to what detergent they can use. We believe that 21 detergent dosage, when all is said and done, is going 22 to basically even out to about where it is today, based 23 upon an overall final evaluation of cleaning 24 performance. 25 You can show in studies on stain removal and EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 191 1 MR. POPE: Well, basically, I'm sayingyou're 2 showing some savings onthe detergent side. 3 

### MR. THIELE: Fromusing existingdetergent? 4 Okay. I just 5 

### MR. POPE: That consumerswill use the new 6 detergent, -- 7 

### MR. THIELE: Existingdetergent. 8 

### MR. POPE: -- andtherewill be an economic 9 benefit. 10 

### MS. GRAFF: Any other.-- 11 MR. JACOBSEN: Yeah. Ron Jacobsen, P&G. 12 MS. GRAFF: I was wonderingwhen you all 13 would -- 14 

### MR. JACOBSEN: I believethatwe took the 15 position awhile backthat the detergent savings would 16 notbe included as part of the economicjustification. 17 Correctme if I'mwrong, but I thought that's wherewe 18 were. 19 Secondly, yes, consumerswill have the choice 20 as towhat detergent they canuse. We believe that 21 detergent dosage, when all is said and done, is going 22 to basicallyeven out to aboutwhere it is today, based 23 upon an overall final evaluation of cleaning 24 performance. 25 You can show in studies on stainremoval and EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064192 1 some soil removal can be achieved at lower dosages in 2 horizontal axis machines. You can get equal 3 performance in terms of soil removal, but there are 4 other aspects, such as keeping the soil off the 5 clothes, and a whole host of other things that are 6 being reformulated by the detergent manufacturers to 7 try and maintain the equivalence of performance. 8 We believe that's going to end up with 9 detergent dosage coming out to be about the same as it 10 is today. In fact, if you compare dosage in the 11 machines that have been using horizontal axis low water 12 machines for years, dosages are about the same as they 13 are today. 14 Admittedly, the jury is still out on this in 15 a sense. It has to be looked at, but taking the best 16 information that we have, and looking at that and 17 trying to project where this will all end up in the 18 future, we believe that it's going to come out about 19 even, and, furthermore, that the dosages of 20 reformulation work even if we can get the lower 21 dosages, certainly our industry has been trying to get 22 the lower dosages all the way along, even if that does 23 happen, the costs may not be any different given the 24 cost of the reformulation. 25 So that there may not be a price benefit here EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 192 1 some soilremoval canbe achieved at lower dosages in 2 horizontal axismachines. You canget equal 3 performance interms of soilremoval, but there are 4 other aspects, such as keeping the soil off the 5 clothes, and a wholehost of otherthings that are 6 beingreformulatedbythe detergentmanufacturers to 7 try andmaintain the equivalence ofperformance. 8 We believe that's goingto endup with 9 detergentdosage coming outtobe about the same as it 10 is today. In fact, ifyou compare dosage inthe 11 machines thathave beenusinghorizontal axis lowwater 12 machines for years, dosages are about the same as they 13 aretoday. 14 Admittedly, thejury is still out on this in 15 a sense. Ithas to be looked at, but takingthe best 16 informationthatwe have, and looking at that and 17 tryingtoprojectwhere thiswill all endup inthe 18 future, we believethat it'sgoing to come out about 19 even, and, furthermore, that the dosages of 20 reformulationwork even ifwe can get the lower 21 dosages, certainlyour industryhas been trying to get 22 the lower dosages all theway along, even if that does 23 happen, the costsmay not be any different given the 24 costof thereformulation. 25 So that theremay notbe a pricebenefithere EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064193 1 or even cost savings. So, it really gets down to the 2 choice that consumers will have between using 3 detergents that are formulated for this market or 4 whether they will drop off and use current detergent, 5 although probably at some lower dosage. That all has 6 to be worked out in the long run, and in the long run, 7 we think it's going to balance out to be about the 8 same, and therefore we recommended that the detergent 9 savings not be considered a part of the economic 10 analysis. 11 MS. GRAFF: Yes? We've got -- I saw Earl, 12 and I'm not sure of your name -- Jack, to the point of 13 the detergent. 14 MR. JONES: Just one quick question to Ron. 15 It is clear that in Europe, that the detergent is more 16 expensive than comparable U.S. dosage, that on a per17 cycle basis, European detergents, which are formulated 18 for H-axis, are more expensive by five cents? 19 MR. JACOBSEN: I don't have that data. I 20 don't know if they are more expensive or not. 21 MR. JONES: Okay. They are. We'll get that 22 in the record, no doubt. 23 MS. GRAFF: Okay. Okay. 24 AUDIENCE COMMENT: Is that before taxes or 25 after taxes?EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 193 1 or even cost savings. So, itreallygets down to the 2 choicethat consumerswillhavebetweenusing 3 detergents that are formulated for this market or 4 whether theywill drop off anduse currentdetergent, 5 althoughprobably at some lower dosage. That all has 6 tobeworked out inthe longrun, and inthe longrun, 7 we think it'sgoingtobalance outtobe about the 8 same, and thereforewe recommended that the detergent 9 savings notbe considered a part of the economic 10 analysis. 11 MS. GRAFF: Yes? We've got -- I saw Earl, 12 and I'mnot sure ofyour name -- Jack, to the point of 13 the detergent. 14 

### MR. JONES: Just one quickquestion to Ron. 15 It is clearthat inEurope, that the detergent ismore 16 expensivethan comparable

## u.s. dosage, that on a per17 cycle basis, Europeandetergents, which are formulated 18 for H-axis, aremore expensiveby five cents? 19 MR. JACOBSEN: I don't have that data. I 20 don'tknow ifthey aremore expensive or not. 21 MR. JONES: Okay. They are. We'll get that 22 intherecord, no doubt. 23 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. Okay. 24 

### AUDIENCE COMMENT: Is that before taxes or 25 aftertaxes?EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064194 1 MS. GRAFF: Okay. We have somebody at the 2 microphone. 3 MR. WASSON: Michael Wasson from ASKO. I can 4 answer Earl's question as far as European. Yes, they 5 are more expensive, and so is the cost of living. Gas 6 is more expensive, homes are more expensive, everything 7 is. So, you cannot go -- you cannot go just 8 detergent's more expensive than the U.S. So is 9 everything else. 10 MS. GRAFF: All right. Thank you. 11 MR. LEONARD: Jack Leonard, Lever Brothers. 12 We currently market a product for horizontal axis 13 machines in the U.S. Our data, which we have presented 14 publicly, has shown that on certain aspects of cleaning 15 performance, one-third dosage is not going to give you 16 what we call comparable performance to a top-load 17 vertical axis machine. 18 Generally, we feel that the performance of 19 the amount of detergent that you actually need to put 20 in is dependent mostly upon the load weight, the fabric 21 that you're putting in, and also the level of soiling 22 that that fabric has. 23 The detergent is designed to separate soil 24 from fabric, not to go down the drain with the water. 25 So, therefore, we believe that you really need EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 194 1 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. We have somebody at the 2 microphone. 3 

### MR. WASSON: MichaelWasson fromASKO. I can 4 answer Earl's question as far as European. Yes, they 5 aremore expensive, and so is the cost of living. Gas 6 ismore expensive, homes aremore expensive, everything 7 is. So, you cannot go -- you cannot gojust 8 detergent'smore expensive thantheu.S. So is 9 everything else. 10 

### MS. GRAFF: All right. Thankyou. 11 MR. LEONARD: Jack Leonard, Lever Brothers. 12 We currentlymarket a product for horizontal axis 13 machines in the u.S. Our data, whichwe have presented 14 publicly, has shown that on certain aspects of cleaning 15 performance, one-thirddosage is not goingto give you 16 whatwe call comparableperformance to a top-load 17 vertical axismachine. 18 Generally, we feel that the performance of 19 the amount of detergent that you actually need to put 20 in is dependentmostlyupon the loadweight, the fabric 21 that you'reputting in, and also the level of soiling 22 that that fabric has. 23 The detergent is designed to separate soil 24 from fabric, not togo down the drain with the water. 25 So, therefore, we believethatyou really need EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064195 *1 comparable dosages to what you see now in the future, 2 even with lower water volume. 3 MS. GRAFF: Okay. All right. Any other 4 comments on the -- again, we're here to give input to 5 the department on the engineering analysis assumptions, 6 methodologies, and approaches. 7 (No response) 8 MS. GRAFF: No? We're done with that. 9 MR. BERRINGER: I'd just like to -- Bryan 10 Berringer. We also put on the agenda at the end 11 necessary expertise. This goes back to Earl Jones. 12 You talked earlier about peer reviewers. 13 So, if not today, within the comment period, 14 if you have or anybody here today has information, we 15 recommend this peer reviewer meet with us -- 16 MS. GRAFF: Okay. 17 MR. JONES: Are there any parameters for 18 that, Bryan? I mean -- 19 MR. BERRINGER: Well, expertise. I mean -- 20 MR. JONES: Is there a limit on the number? 21 Anything at all? 22 MR. BERRINGER: I think my point in part 23 here, Earl, is -- is to present what types of expertise 24 are required to assess engineering analysis, that sort 25 of thing. You know, if you want to recommend people, EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 195 1 comparabledosages towhat you see now inthe future, 2 evenwith lowerwatervolume. 3 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. All right. Any other 4 comments onthe -- again, we'rehere to give input to 5 the department onthe engineeringanalysis assumptions, 6 methodologies, and approaches. 7 (No response) 8 

### MS. GRAFF: No? We're done with that. 9 

### MR. BERRINGER: I'djust liketo -- Bryan 10 Berringer. We alsoputonthe agenda at the end 11 necessary expertise. This goesbackto Earl Jones. 12 You talked earlieraboutpeerreviewers. 13 So, ifnot today, withinthe commentperiod, 14 ifyouhave or anybodyhere todayhas information, we 15 recommendthispeerreviewermeetwithus -- 16 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. 17 

### MR. JONES: Arethere anyparameters for 18 that, Bryan? I mean 19 MR. BERRINGER: Well, expertise. I mean -- 20 

### MR. JONES: Is there a limit on the number? 21 Anything at all? 22 MR. BERRINGER: I thinkmy point inpart 23 here, Earl, is -- istopresentwhat types of expertise 24 arerequired to assess engineering analysis, that sort 25 of thing. You know, ifyouwant torecommendpeople, EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064196 1 that's fine, but primarily we're interested in what 2 types of qualifications expertise is needed to do the 3 analysis. 4 MS. GRAFF: Okay. And I was hoping to get to 5 that actually for the Next Steps, so that we can be 6 very clear what the next steps are, and the peer 7 review, I think, is simply -- then, are we done with 8 this -- oops. I'm sorry. 9 AUDIENCE COMMENT: Are you talking about 10 assumptions in this analysis? 11 MS. GRAFF: That's correct. 12 AUDIENCE COMMENT: Are we talking about 13 detergents? Because that was one of the assumptions. 14 MS. GRAFF: Can you state your name and 15 title? 16 AUDIENCE COMMENT: I heard both say that we 17 have equivalent dosages or that's something that you're 18 looking for. Any ideas about what the cost per dosage 19 might be considering all the work that's going to need 20 to go into reformulating the detergent? 21 (Multiple conversations) 22 MR. JACOBSEN: Well, I would expect that the 23 costs will come in fairly close to where they are 24 today. I don't think we're looking at -- at changes in 25 approach and chemistry that are going to be different EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 196 1 that's fine, butprimarilywe're interested inwhat 2 types of qualifications expertise isneeded to do the 3 analysis. 4 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. And I was hoping to getto 5 that actually for theNext steps, sothatwe canbe 6 very clearwhatthenext steps are, andthepeer 7 review, I think, is simply -- then, arewe done with 8 this -- oops. I'm sorry. 9 

### AUDIENCE COMMENT: Areyou talking about 10 assumptions inthis analysis? 11 MS. GRAFF: That's correct. 12 AUDIENCE COMMENT: Arewe talking about 13 detergents? Becausethatwas one of the assumptions. 14 

### MS. GRAFF: Can you stateyour name and 15 title? 16 AUDIENCE COMMENT: I heardboth saythatwe 17 have equivalentdosages orthat's somethingthatyou're 18 lookingfor. Any ideas aboutwhat the costperdosage 19 mightbe considering all thework that's goingto need 20 to go intoreformulatingthedetergent? 21 (Multipleconversations) 22 MR. JACOBSEN: Well, I would expect that the 23 costswill come in fairly close towhere they are 24 today. I don'tthinkwe're looking at -- at changes in 25 approach and chemistrythat are goingtobe different EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064197 1 enough that they're going to cause a higher or a 2 substantially higher cost basis. 3 There may be some higher costs associated 4 with distribution as it's going to be difficult to 5 distribute this product to current retailers or through 6 800 line, UPS, that kind of distribution system. So, 7 there could be some higher costs there, and until we 8 can establish sufficient distribution systems through 9 normal retail channels, but I think in terms of the 10 chemistry itself, I don't think it's going to be that 11 much different from where we are today. 12 AUDIENCE COMMENT: I was thinking that you 13 might have to amortize some of your R&D costs for the 14 new product. 15 MR. JACOBSEN: That's a possibility. 16 MR. LEONARD: Jack Leonard again. I think 17 one thing that the detergent manufacturers have in 18 common is generally we are global in nature. We do 19 sell and market a lot of products for horizontal axis 20 machines globally. 21 So, in many respects, the -- the research has 22 already been done. It's not a -- not like the 23 inventing something new for us. We -- we do it in 24 Europe. We do it elsewhere around the world. So, in 25 that sense, the work is done. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 197 1 enoughthatthey'regoingtocause a higher or a 2 substantiallyhigher costbasis. 3 Theremay be somehigher costs associated 4 with distributionas it'sgoingtobe difficult to 5 distributethisproductto currentretailers or through 6 800 line, UPS, thatkind of distribution system. So, 7 there couldbe somehigher coststhere, anduntilwe 8 can establish sufficientdistribution systems through 9 normal retail channels, but I think interms of the 10 chemistry itself, I don't think it'sgoing tobe that 11 much different fromwherewe are today. 12 AUDIENCE COMMENT: I was thinking thatyou 13 mighthave to amortize some ofyourR&D costs for the 14 newproduct. 15 

### MR. JACOBSEN: That's a possibility. 16 

### MR. LEONARD: JackLeonard again. I think 17 one thingthatthe detergentmanufacturers have in 18 common is generallywe are global in nature. We do 19 sell andmarket a lot ofproducts for horizontal axis 20 machines globally. 21 So, inmany respects, the

-- theresearchhas 22 alreadybeen done. It'snot a -- not like the 23 inventing somethingnew for us. We

-- we do it in 24 Europe. We do itelsewhere around theworld. So, in 25 that sense, thework isdone. 

### EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064198 1 As Ron said, distribution costs, that's a 2 whole different story, but in terms of R&D on a 3 formulation, we're pretty much there as it is. There 4 may be some things we have to do, but I don't think the 5 cost is going to be anything significant. 6 MS. GRAFF: Okay. Thank you. Okay. 7 Anything else on assumptions, approaches, 8 methodologies? 9 AUDIENCE COMMENT: I had one more question. 10 MS. GRAFF: Sure. 11 AUDIENCE COMMENT: Some of the previous 12 analysis that was done by LBL in calculating costs to 13 benefit analysis, this current analysis has no mark-up. 14 Any comment on that? 15 MR. LaFRANCE: That's correct. The mark-up 16 would be the first step of a consumer impact analysis. 17 So, this is a truly engineering analysis where we don't 18 look at mark-ups, just manufacturer costs and operating 19 -- I mean manufacturer cost versus efficiency, and the 20 point about what's an appropriate mark-up, which, of 21 course, they're going to be different for antitrust 22 issues, is going to be something that we discuss like 23 at the consumer analysis approach workshop anticipated 24 for February. 25 AUDIENCE COMMENT: So that the cost -- the EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 198 1 As Ron said, distribution costs, that's a 2 wholedifferent story, but interms ofR&D on a 3 formulation, we'reprettymuch there as it is. There 4 may be some thingswe have todo, but I don't thinkthe 5 cost isgoing tobe anything significant. 6 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. Thankyou. Okay. 7 Anythingelseon assumptions, approaches, 8 methodologies? 9 

### AUDIENCE COMMENT: I had onemore question. 10 

### MS. GRAFF: Sure. 11 AUDIENCE COMMENT: Some of theprevious 12 analysis thatwas done byLBL incalculating costs to 13 benefit analysis, this current analysis has nomark-up. 14 Any comment onthat? 15 

### MR. LaFRANCE: That's correct. The mark-up 16 wouldbethe first stepof a consumer impact analysis. 17 So, this is a truly engineering analysiswherewe don't 18 look atmark-ups, justmanufacturer costs and operating 19 -- I meanmanufacturer costversus efficiency, andthe 20 point aboutwhat's an appropriatemark-up, which, of 21 course, they're goingtobe different for antitrust 22 issues, is goingtobe somethingthatwe discuss like 23 atthe consumer analysis approachworkshop anticipated 24 for February. 25 AUDIENCE COMMENT: So thatthe cost -- the EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064199 1 manufacturer cost as compared to the consumer savings 2 in this analysis doesn't appear to pay back. It's not 3 really

-- 4 MR. LaFRANCE: Absolutely. That was just a 5 -- a metric or a ratio that -- to order the design 6 options. 7 MS. GRAFF: Okay. Earl? 8 MR. JONES: From time to time, the question 9 of the pyramiding of the various design options and 10 their compatibility has been raised with DOE. 11 Do I -- do I understand that the department 12 is taking the position that with respect to the 13 configurations that they have put here in, I guess it 14 is, Chart Table 2, and it's beyond that, too, but that 15 the -- the assumption -- the department assumption is 16 that those are all compatible and that indeed the 17 savings there are additive? 18 MR. LaFRANCE: If that is true, Earl,

-- 19 MR. JONES: Is that based upon your analysis 20 or is that based upon what you think you've been told 21 by the manufacturers or what? 22 MR. LaFRANCE: I believe it's a combination 23 of both. For example, I know this is historical, but 24 we had initial preliminary engineering analysis over a 25 year ago that we went up to each manufacturer and EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 199 1 manufacturer cost as compared to the consumer savings 2 in this analysis doesn't appear topay back. It's not 3 really

-- 4 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Absolutely. Thatwas just a 5

-- a metric or a ratio that

-- to order the design 6 options. 7 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. Earl? 8 

### MR. JONES: From time to time, the question 9 of the pyramiding of the various design options and 10 their compatibilityhas beenraisedwith DOE. 11 Do I

-- do I understand that the department 12 is taking thepositionthatwith respect to the 13 configurations that theyhave puthere in, I guess it 14 is, ChartTable 2, and it's beyond that, too, but that 15 the

-- the assumption

-- the department assumption is 16 that those are all compatible and that indeed the 17 savings there are additive? 18 

### MR. LaFRANCE: If t:hat is true, Earl,

-- 19 MR. JONES: Is that: basedupon your analysis 20 or is that baseduponwhatyou thinkyou've been told 21 by themanufacturers orwhat? 22 MR. LaFRANCE: I**bE~lieve** 

### it's a combination 23 of both. For example, I know this is historical, but 24 we had initial preliminaryengineering analysis over a 25 year ago thatwe went up to eachmanufacturer and EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064200 1 discussed it with them, and at one point in time, we 2 had like reduced tub tolerance with higher RMC, and we 3 were told by the manufacturers that sort of combining 4 that option was really not technically feasible or 5 really not likeable or whatever, so we split those out 6 into different patterns of co-efficiency. 7 MR. JONES: So, it's not that those are 8 incompatible. What about whether they're truly 9 additive? In other words, if -- if -- if this design 10 option yields five percent improvement, and this one 11 yields five percent, do the two of them indeed yield 10 12 percent? 13 MR. LaFRANCE: Well, we've done a few things 14 to address that, Earl, and this is a discussion point 15 because it needs to be discussed a little further. 16 One is -- one thing we did was we asked for 17 combinations of design options from manufacturers, and 18 that's how the data was submitted to us. The other 19 thing we do is if one design option saves 10 percent, 20 let's say you have a hundred -- a hundred percent in 21 the beginning, and you save 10 percent, now -- and you 22 get another design option that saves 10 percent, when 23 you add the second design option, it's 10 percent of 90 24 percent, not 10 percent of the original hundred 25 percent. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 200 1 discussed itwith them, and at onepoint in time, we 2 had likereduced tubtolerancewithhigher RMC, and we 3 were toldbythemanufacturers that sort of combining 4 that optionwas reallynot technically feasible or 5 really not likeable orwhatever, sowe split those out 6 into differentpatterns of co-efficiency. 7 

### MR. JONES: So, it's not that those are 8 incompatible. What about whether they're truly 9 additive? In otherwords, if

-- if

-- if this design 10 option yields five percent improvement, and this one 11 yields five percent, do the two of them indeed yield 10 12 percent? 13 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Well, we've done a few things 14 to address that, Earl, and this is a discussion point 15 because itneeds to be discussed a little further. 16 

### One is one thingwe didwas we asked for 17 combinations of design options from manufacturers, and 18 that'show the data was submittedto us. The other 19 thingwe do is if one design option saves 10 percent, 20 let's sayyouhave a hundred

-- a hundredpercent in 21 the beginning, and you save 10 percent, now -- and you 22 get another design optionthat saves 10 percent, when 23 you add the seconddesign option, it's 10 percent of 90 24 percent, not 10 percent of the original hundred 25 percent. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064201 1 So, if you've already made some savings, and 2 you're going to take a percentage of the remaining 3 energy that's left, not the original energy, but 4 there's more here that goes into this, and possibly 5 Peter may want to respond a little more because he did 6 the analysis

-- 7 MR. BIERMEYER: No. I thought you explained 8 it very well. It's not just additive. We don't have 9 the same response. 10 MR. JONES: Yeah. How can -- how can the 11 rest of us sort of look at your work, Peter, and 12 understand exactly what you've done, and whether or not 13 we agree with it? 14 MR. BIERMEYER: Well, there's -- if you have 15 any questions on specific design options, I'd be glad 16 to tell you exactly how I got specific numbers. 17 MR. JONES: But Imean don't you think you 18 should tell us that rather than sort of

-- 19 MR. BIERMEYER: Well,

-- 20 MR. JONES: If it's here, then, fine. 21 MR. LaFRANCE: I think it's discussed

-- 22 discussed in the report. If your suggestion is for the 23 department to provide an example in the future, then 24 that's something we certainly will -- will consider and 25 EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 201 1 SO, ifyou've alreadymade some savings, and 2 you're going to take a percentage of the remaining 3 energythat's left, not the original energy, but 4 there'smorehere thatgoes intothis, andpossibly 5 Petermay want torespond a littlemore becausehe did 6 the analysis -- 7 

### MR. BIERMEYER: No. I thought you explained 8 itverywell. It'snotjust additive. We don'thave 9 the same response. 10 MR. JONES: Yeah. How can -- how can the 11 rest of us sort of look atyourwork, Peter, and 12 understand exactlywhatyou'vedone, and whether ornot 13 we agreewith it? 14 

### MR. BIERMEYER: Well, there's -- if youhave 15 anyquestions on specificdesign options, I'dbe glad 16 to tell you exactlyhow I got specific numbers. 17 

### MR. JONES: But I mean don'tyouthinkyou 18 shouldtellus thatratherthan sort of -- 19 

### MR. BIERMEYER: Well, 20 MR. JONES: If it'shere, then, fine. 21 MR. LaFRANCE: I think it'sdiscussed 22 discussed inthereport. Ifyour suggestion is for the 23 department toprovide anexample inthe future, then 24 that's somethingwe certainlywill -- will consider and 25 EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064202 1 MS. GRAFF: Any suggestions along those 2 lines? Earl, no? Any -- okay. Are we done on this 3 point? 4 (Noresponse) 5 MS. GRAFF: Okay. Jerry, and we're getting 6 towards the end here. 7 AUDIENCE COMMENT: One more question on 8 assumptions. Can I interpret Michael's response that 9 in terms of looking at individual cases, saying whether 10 you're heating water entirely by gas or entirely by 11 electricity, that those things will be sorted out 12 separately, whether and assuming that everybody heats 13 their water 51 percent for one and 49 for the other? 14 Will that actually be done individually? 15 MR. McCABE: The question deals with in 16 particular the life cycle cost analysis, where the most 17 recent analysis had assumed that the water was being 18 heated by a mixture of gas and electricity. That was, 19 as I understand it, a suggestion that had been made to 20 us in order to simplify the calculations. 21 In an earlier analysis we had done two 22 separate calculations, one for the life cycle cost with 23 a product with a gas water heater, and second with an 24 electric water heater, and it certainly -- it's a 25 reasonable thing to do, to go back and to look at those EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 ---------- ----



### 202 1 MS. GRAFF: Any suggestions along those 2 lines? Earl, no? Any -- okay. Arewe done on this 3 point? 4 (No response) 5 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. Jerry, and we're getting 6 towards the endhere. 7 

### AUDIENCE COMMENT: Onemore questionon 8 assumptions. Can I interpretMichael's response that 9 interms of looking at individual cases, sayingwhether 10 you'reheatingwater entirelyby gas or entirely by 11 electricity, thatthosethingswill be sorted out 12 separately, whether and assumingthat everybodyheats 13 theirwater 51percent for one and 49 for the other? 14 Will that actuallybe'done individually? 15 MR. McCABE: The question dealswith in 16 particularthe life cycle cost analysis, where themost 17 recent analysishad assumed that thewaterwas being 18 heatedby a mixture of gas and electricity. Thatwas, 19 as I understand it, a suggestionthathad beenmade to 20 us in orderto simplifythe calculations. 21 In an earlier analysiswe had done two 22 separate calculations, one for the life cycle costwith 23 a productwith a gaswaterheater, and secondwith an 24 electricwaterheater, and itcertainly -- it's a 25 reasonable thingto do, togo back and to look at those EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064203 

### 1 two as well. 2 MS. GRAFF: Okay. Any others? 3 MR. LaFRANCE: I justwanted to mention we 4 have looked at the fraction of gas and electric dryers 5 as well in past analyses, and it's something we will 6 consider in the future. 7 MR. JONES: Some of the information on the 8 incremental costs, this is on Table 2, for example, is 9 different from what the AHAM data shows, and I'm 10 curious about the -- why there's a difference? 

### 11 MR. LaFRANCE: Earl, Ibelieve your question 12 goes to the two submissions of AHAM data, and, 13 unfortunately, this table is not that transparent to 14 show where each individual component came from, and 15 we're supposed to be having some -- a revised table 16 with -- indicating which submission the data came from, 

### 17 whether it came from Submission 1 or 2,which will help 18 youwith that. 19 I'm not sure if it's -- it's right here now, 

### 20 but we will get it as soon as we can. 21 MR. BIERMEYER: Ihave a series of overheads. 22 Do you want to do that now or -- 

### 23 MR. JONES: Well, do we have copies of them? 24 (Multiple conversations) 25 MS. GRAFF: Is that what you want? Copies? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

### (301) 565-0064 

### 203 1 two as well. 2 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. Any others? 3 

### MR. LaFRANCE: I justwanted tomentionwe 4 have looked at the fraction of gas and electricdryers 5 as well inpast analyses, and it's somethingwe will 6 consider inthe future. 7 

### MR. JONES: Some of the information on the 8 incremental costs, this is on Table 2, for example, is 9 different fromwhat theAHAM data shows, and I'm 10 curious about the -- why there's a difference? 11 MR'. LaFRANCE: Earl, I believeyour question 12 goes tothe two submissions ofAHAM data, and, 13 unfortunately, this table isnotthattransparent to 14 showwhere each individual component came from, and 15 we're supposedtobehaving some -- a revised table 16 with -- indicatingwhich submission the data came from, 17 whether itcame from Submission 1 or 2, which will help 18 youwith that. 19 I'mnot sure if it's -- it'srighthere now, 20 butwe will get itas soon aswe can. 21 MR. BIERMEYER: I have a series of overheads. 22 Do youwant to do that now or -- 23 24 25 

### MR. JONES: Well, dowe have copies of them? (Multiple conversations) MS. GRAFF: Isthatwhatyouwant? Copies? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064204 1 If we can get copies of your slides then, that would be 2 really helpful to add to the information mix. 3 MR. LaFRANCE: I think alsowe have the broad 4 data here that was submitted from AHAM, the two 5 submissions at the table. So, with that additional 6 sheet, you'll be able to find out which submission came 7 from -- which cost came from which table. 8 MS. GRAFF: Okay. Good. I am going to 9 suggest that we seem to be catching some questions 10 here. Are there any more questions or is it time for a 11 break? I think it's time for a break. We can briefly 12 touch back on this, and then move on to the unresolved 13 issues as well as -- I'm sorry. Mike Thompson? 14 MR. THOMPSON: Yeah. I just have one 15 question for Mike McCabe. Mike, I just want to come 16 back to this energy crisis thing and gas versus 17 electric. I just want to make sure I understand this. 18 When you say you're going to take into 19 consideration the differences between houses that have 20 electric hot water heat and houses that have gas hot 21 water heat, how are you going to do that? I mean you 22 can't write a standard for houses that have different 23 kinds of fuel supply to the hot water. 24 MR. McCABE: In doing a life cycle cost 25 analysis, do separate analyses to be able to evaluate EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 204 1 Ifwe canget copies ofyour slides then, thatwould be 2 reallyhelpful to add tothe informationmix. 3 

### MR. LaFRANCE: I think also'wehave the broad 4 data here thatwas submitted fromAHAM, the two 5 submissions atthe table. So, withthat additional 6 sheet, you'll be able to find outwhich submission came 7 from -- which costcame from which table. 8 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. Good. I am going to 9 suggestthatwe seemtobe catching some questions 10 here. Are thereanymore questions or is ittime for a 11 break? I think it'stime for a break. We can briefly 12 touchback onthis, andthenmove onto the unresolved 13 issues aswell as -- I'm sorry. Mike Thompson? 14 

### MR. THOMPSON: Yeah. I justhave one 15 question for MikeMcCabe. Mike, I justwant to come 16 backto this energy crisis thing and gas versus 17 electric. I justwant tomake sure I understand this. 18 When you sayyou're going to take into 19 considerationthedifferences betweenhouses thathave 20 electrichotwaterheat andhouses thathave gas hot 21 waterheat, how areyou goingto do that? I meanyou 22 can'twrite a standard for houses thathave different 23 kinds of fuel supplyto the hotwater. 24 MR. McCABE: Indoing a life cycle cost 25 analysis, do separate analyses tobe able to evaluate EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064205 1 candidate standard levels as to what the impact would 2 be with -- on consumers if the -- based on the water 3 heater that they have. 4 When we do national impact calculations, we 5 will be taking a market share of water heaters that are 6 fired by gas, electric, oil, what have you, and the 7 energy savings calculations and net present value, all 8 those economic benefits, costs and benefits, will be 9 based on the national figures as far as -- 10 MR. THOMPSON: Okay. So, it's an averaging 11 process? 12 MR. McCABE: In looking at it from a national 13 perspective, yes. 14 MS. GRAFF: Okay. All right. I -- I really 15 do want us to get off to a break, and we can touch back 16 on this. Can we be back by 3:00, please? 3:00. 17 (Whereupon,a recess was taken.) 18 Issues to be Resolved 19 MS. GRAFF: I'd like us to come back in here 20 and get our seats and get oriented for the last hour. 21 We're going to pick back up very quickly on the 22 engineering analysis and methodologies, approaches, 23 assumptions and expertise, and I'd like to start out 24 with Dick Topping's comment a little bit earlier on as 25 one of the peer reviewers, and the idea was to present EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 205 1 candidate standard levels as towhat the impactwould 2 bewith -- on consumers ifthe -- based on thewater 3 heater thattheyhave. 4 When we do national impact calculations, we 5 will be taking a market share ofwaterheaters that are 6 fired bygas, electric, oil, whathaveyou, andthe 7 energy savings calculations and netpresentvalue, all 8 those economicbenefits, costs and benefits, will be 9 based on the national figures as far as -- 10 

### MR. THOMPSON: Okay. So, it's an averaging 11 process? 12 MR. McCABE: In looking at it from a national 13 perspective, yes. 14 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. All right. I -- I really 15 do want us to get off to a break, and we can touch back 16 on this. Canwe bebackby 3:00, please? 3:00. 17 

### (Whereupon, a recesswas taken.) 18 

### Issues to beResolved 19 

### MS. GRAFF: I'd likeus to corne back inhere 20 and get our seats and get oriented for the lasthour. 21 We'regoingtopickbackup veryquickly on the 22 engineeringanalysis andmethodologies, approaches, 23 assumptions and expertise, and I'd like to start out 24 withDickTopping's comment a littlebit earlier on as 25 one of the peer reviewers, and the ideawas topresent EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-00641 some of those issues that haven't been addressed to 2 make sure that we're covering everything we want to 3 here. 4 Dick, did you want to come up or -- 5 MR. TOPPING: I can do it from here. It will 6 only take a second. 7 MS. GRAFF: Everybody's got the

-- 8 MR. TOPPING: I guess the peer review has 9 gotten a lot of -- a lot of press today. Maybe this is 10 not a rebuttal but just, I guess, a question back to 11 the group. 12 Basically in my presentation, I'm sure with 13 Jim and John as well, in my presentation, there were 14 two pages of very specific recommendations. One was 15 Page 3, in which we recommended that DOE should obtain 16 some direct consumer input to assess the utility of 17 some of the design options that have been under 18 discussion. 19 It was not so much to necessarily get that 20 data from the industry, if it's not available, but to 21 take a very active role in going out and getting the 22 voice of the customer in terms of how the customer 23 might respond to some of these utility issues, and I 24 was surprised, quite honestly, that there wasn't much 25 comment on that in terms of whether people agreed that EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 206 1 some of those issues thathaven'tbeen addressedto 2 make surethatwe're covering everythingwe want to 3 here. 4 Dick, didyouwant to comeup or -- 5 

### MR. TOPPING: I cando it from here. Itwill 6 onlytake a second. 7 

### MS. GRAFF: Everybody's got the -- 8 

### MR. TOPPING: I guess the peer reviewhas 9 gotten a lotof -- a lotofpress today. Maybe this is 10 not a rebuttal butjust, I guess, a questionbackto 11 thegroup. 12 Basically inmy presentation, I'm sure with 13 Jim andJohn as well, inmy presentation, there were 14 twopages of very specificrecommendations. One was 15 Page 3, inwhichwe recommended that DOE should obtain 16 some direct consumer inputto assess the utility of 17 some of thedesign optionsthathave beenunder 18 discussion. 19 Itwas not somuch to necessarilyget that 20 data from the industry, if it'snot available, but to 21 take a very activerole ingoing out and gettingthe 22 voice of the customer interms ofhow the customer 23 mightrespond to some ofthese utility issues, and I 24 was surprised, quitehonestly, thatthere wasn't much 25 comment on that interms of whether people agreedthat EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064207 1 that's a good idea or don't think it's a good idea, and 2 that's one. 3 And then, Number 2, in terms of specific 4 recommendations, and I know Earl mentioned this, you 5 know, if you go to Page 6 of -- of my presentation, 6 there were five specific things recommended. 7 Again, not so much that one is better than 8 the other, but I thought it might elicit a lot of 9 discussion. I was surprised that -- that there has not 10 been much discussion in these areas. 11 One, the whole viability of having the 12 industry supply cost efficiency curves for washers as 13 opposed to the traditional design option analysis. I 14 know Steve has a concern about that, but it's certainly 15 something to talk about. 16 Another major issue is whether the industry 17 would be willing to supply raw data to DOE under 18 confidentiality provisions to try to get around some of 19 these variability and uncertainty issues that we've 20 talked about. 21 Another was whether AHAM could -- could do 22 more working with DOE as part of a review group to sort 23 out some of these data issues. You know, in the past, 24 it's been here's the data, DOE analyzes it, people come 25 back and say no, it didn't do a good job. Instead, EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 207 1 that's a good idea ordon't think it's a good idea, and 2 that's one. 3 And then, Number 2, interms of specific 4 recommendations, and I know Earlmentioned this, you 5 know, ifyou go toPage 6 of

-- ofmy presentation, 6 therewere five specificthings recommended. 7 Again, not somuch that one is better than 8 the other, but I thought itmight elicit a lot of 9 

### discussion. I was surprisedthat that there has not 10 beenmuch discussion inthese areas. 11 One, thewholeviability of havingthe 12 industry supply costefficiencycurves for washers as 13 opposed to the traditional design option analysis. I 14 know stevehas a concern about that, but it's certainly 15 somethingto talk about. 16 Anothermajor issue iswhether the industry 17 wouldbewillingto supplyrawdata to DOE under 18 confidentialityprovisions to trytoget around some of 19 these variability anduncertainty issues thatwe've 20 talked about. 21 Anotherwas whetherAHAM could

-- could do 22 moreworkingwith DOE as partof a reviewgroup to sort 23 out some of these data issues. You know, inthepast, 24 it'sbeenhere'sthe data, DOE analyzes it, people corne 25 back and sayno, itdidn't do a goodjob. Instead, EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064208 1 trying to short-circuit that a little bit in a good way 2 by working together through the process. 3 And then the last one was again to reflect 4 uncertainty or sensitivity in the -- in the results to 5 reflect some of the issues we've talked about, impact 6 on small manufacturers, impact on other groups, and 7 whatever, and, so, I'm -- to be honest with you, I was 8 a little surprised that we didn't get more discussion 9 on -- on those issues today, and this is unresolved 10 issue time. So, I thought I would bring it up. 11 MR. SCHLEEBE: Let me just say on the 12 recommendation on the consumer input, I thought they 13 were great observations and recommendations. They 14 didn't reserve any more time. They just ought to be 15 adopted. 16 MS. GRAFF: Okay. Be adopted. Thank you. 17 Linda? 18 MS. GREINER: Well, I just wanted to say that 19 these are very valid ideas, and I appreciate seeing 20 them today, but they're new to us today. We really 21 haven't had this option in front of us before or really 22 thought about it very much. So, we'd like to do 23 written comments and discuss it with our engineers and 24 so forth. 25 MS. GRAFF: Okay. Thank you, Linda. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 208 1 trying to short-circuit that a littlebit in a good way 2 byworking together through the process. 3 And then the last one was again to reflect 4 uncertainty or sensitivity in the -- in the results to 5 reflect some of the issues**WE~'ve** 

### talked about, impact 6 on smallmanufacturers, impact on other groups, and 7 whatever, and, so, I'm -- tobehonest with you, I was 8 a little surprised thatwe didn't getmore discussion 9 on -- on those issues today, and this is unresolved 10 issue time. So, I thought I would bring it up. 11 MR. SCHLEEBE: Letme just say on the 12 recommendation on the**consumE~r** 

### input, I thought they 13 were great observations and recommendations. They 14 didn't reserve anymore time. Theyjust ought to be 15 adopted. 16 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. Be adopted. Thank you. 17 

### Linda? 18 

### MS. GREINER: Well, I justwanted to say that 19 these are veryvalid ideas, and I appreciate seeing 20 themtoday, but they're new to us today. We really 21 haven'thad this option in front of us before or really 22 thought about itverymuch. So, we'd like to do 23 written comments and discuss itwith our engineers and 24 so forth. 25 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. Thank you, Linda. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064209 1 Any other responses to the ADL? 2 MR. BROOKMAN: I might just make a follow-on 3 comment, this is Doug, that when you do provide those 4 written comments, if you could suggest ways that you 5 think they could be applied, you know, that is the 6 thrust of it from your perspective. You can say how 7 you think it would work to do what Dick's suggesting by 8 way of recommendations. That would also be useful. 9 MS. GRAFF: Okay. Any others? Steve? 10 MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel. Just to respond to 11 the suggestion about additional information about the 12 research information of consumers on the reaction to 13 the different design options, my understanding is a lot 14 of this type of data has been collected in the

-- 15 relatively recently, and I think it would be 16 appropriate to review that as much as possible. 17 I think a lot of the manufacturers have done 18 a lot of market research, and they have come out with 19 new high-efficiency washers, and I'm assuming all of 20 them at least have major market data. 21 There is also a consortium of utilities 22 working with the electric inequity. That might be a 23 whole project to do. A one and a half million dollar 24 research project looking at consumer response to a lot 25 of these things, and I would think you should contact EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 209 1 Any otherresponses to theADL? 2 

### MR. BROOKMAN: I mightjustmake a follow-on 3 comment, this is Doug, thatwhen you do provide those 4 written comments, if you could suggestways thatyou 5 thinkthey couldbe applied, youknow, that is the 6 thrust of it fromyourperspective. You can sayhow 7 youthink itwouldwork to dowhat Dick's suggestingby 8 way of recommendations. Thatwould alsobeuseful. 9 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. Any others? Steve? 10 

### MR. NADEL: SteveNadel. Just torespond to 11 the suggestion about additional information about the 12 research information of consumers on thereaction to 13 the differentdesign options, my understanding is a lot 14 of this type of datahas been collected inthe 15 relativelyrecently, and I think itwould be 16 appropriate toreviewthat asmuch as possible. 17 I think a lotof themanufacturers have done 18 a lot ofmarketresearch, andtheyhave come out with 19 newhigh-efficiencywashers, and I'm assuming all of 20 them at leasthavemajormarket data. 21 There is also a consortium of utilities 22 workingwith the electric inequity. Thatmight be a 23 wholeprojecttodo. Aone and a half milliondollar 24 researchproject looking at consumerresponse to a lot 25 ofthese things, and I would thinkyou should contact EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064210 1 EPRI to see if they can get a hand on that data. 2 I believe this is data again that is being 3 shared with the EPRI and the participating utilities, 4 and maybe there's a way for -- in fact, DOE has even 5 sponsored -- DOE, I think, is a sponsor of that. 6 MR. TOMLINSON: DOE is a co-sponsor of that. 7 MR. NADEL: You're right. So, look at that. 8 So, there may be a lot of this information already 9 available. 10 MS. GRAFF: I forget your name, and

-- 11 MR. TOMLINSON: John Tomlinson. 12 MS. GRAFF: John Tomlinson, DOE is a sponsor 13 of that effort, and, so, the information should be 14 available, is that correct? Okay. Good. Okay. Some 15 good suggestions here. 16 Any other suggestions? Any other comments? 17 (No response) 18 MS. GRAFF: No. Okay. Can we move into then 19 unresolved issues? There are a couple of issues that 20 we had in the part here, and the first issue has to do 21 with how to incorporate the comments and concerns of 22 actual consumers, and I think we were actually getting 23 on to that, and there were a number of suggestions 24 given for DOE, DOJ/DOE concerns about competitive 25 practices. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 210 1 EPRI to see iftheycanget a hand onthat data. 2 I believethis isdata again that is being 3 sharedwiththe EPRI andtheparticipatingutilities, 4 andmaybe there's a way for -- -in fact, DOE has even 5 sponsored -- DOE, I think, is a sponsor of that. 6 

### MR. TOMLINSON: DOE is a co-sponsor of that. 7 

### MR. NADEL: You'reright. So, look atthat. 8 So, theremay be a lotof this information already 9 available. 10 MS. GRAFF: I forget your name, and -- 11 MR. TOMLINSON: JohnTomlinson. 12 MS. GRAFF: JohnTomlinson, DOE is a sponsor 13 of that effort, and, so, the information shouldbe 14 available, is that correct? Okay. Good. Okay. Some 15 good suggestionshere. 16 

### Any other suggestions? Any other comments? 17 

### (No response) 18 

### MS. GRAFF: No. Okay. Canwe move intothen 19 unresolved issues? There are a couple of issues that 20 we had intheparthere, andthe first issuehas to do 21 withhow to incorporatethe comments and concerns of 22 actual consumers, and I thinkwe were actually getting 23 on to that, andtherewere a number of suggestions 24 given for DOE, DOJjDOE 

### concerns about competitive 25 practices. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064211 1 Now, as I understand it, this is going to 2 come a little bit later on in the process, is that 3 correct? That should come later on in the process. 4 So, that's not something that we really have to pay 5 attention to, but people do want to hear about that as 6 soon as it's appropriate, is that correct? Yeah. 7 Okay. 8 And we heard that DOE and DOJ are working 9 together on this. So, there should be more on that, 10 and then we've come to the issue of timing, methods for 11 additional comment on these issues, and that -- that 12 refers to the entire discussion that we've had today, 13 as I recall, since Doug took those notes, is that 14 correct? Okay. Follow-on from here, and that sort of 15 segues into Next Steps. 16 Now, maybe before we get to that, I should 17 raise, did we capture all the unresolved issues that 18 needed to be -- where there needed to be some input, 19 some comment, on in the spirit of this workshop? 20 Terry? 21 MR. THIELE: Well, we discussed it, but you 22 don't have it on the board, and that is the need, going 23 back to my initial comment, to understand the entire 24 rulemaking procedure, given the new interpretive rule, 25 so we know how this all fits together, specifically the EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 211 1 Now, as I understand it, this is going to 2 come a littlebit later on intheprocess, is that 3 correct? That should come lateron inthe process. 4 So, that's not somethingthatwe reallyhave topay 5 attentionto, butpeopledo want tohear about that as 6 soon as it's appropriate, isthat correct? Yeah. 7 Okay. 8 And we heard thatDOE and DOJ areworking 9 together onthis. So, there shouldbemore on that, 10 and thenwe've come tothe issue of timing, methods for 11 additional comment onthese issues, and that

-- that 12 refers to the entirediscussionthatwe'vehad today, 13 as I recall, since Doug tookthose notes, is that 14 correct? Okay. Follow-on from here, and that sort of 15 segues intoNext Steps. 16 Now, maybe beforewe get to that, I should 17 raise, didwe capture all theunresolved issues that 18 needed tobe

-- where there needed tobe some input, 19 some comment, on inthe spirit of this workshop? 20 Terry? 21 MR. THIELE: Well, we discussed it, butyou 22 don'thave iton theboard, andthat is the need, going 23 backtomy initialcomment, tounderstand the entire 24 rulemakingprocedure, giventhe new interpretiverule, 25 sowe knowhow this all fits together, specificallythe EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064212 1 manufacturer impact analysis, so that we need -- so we 2 know what sort of cost data is appropriate to get out 3 of the next round of design reviews. 4 MS. GRAFF: Okay. So, you want to understand 5 the entire process, where we are in this process, in 6 particular given where the manufacturing impact 7 analysis is, and because there seems to be some link in 8 terms of cost between the engineering analysis and the 9 manufacturing impact analysis, is that correct? 10 MR. THIELE: Correct. 11 MS. GRAFF: All right. So, we're going to 12 need to hear more on that. Any other unresolved 13 issues? 14 MR. THOMPSON: I guess I'd come back to

-- 15 MS. GRAFF: Mike Thompson. 16 MR. THOMPSON: -- the issue of the 17 manufacturer impact. Again, we're going to have

-- 18 we're going to be talking about this ad nauseam. I 19 think the main thing is we want to make sure that we've 20 got crystal clear the screening question. That's the 21 title of the meeting today, and I think we've addressed 22 a number of those issues. 23 I guess that's what I'd like to focus on and 24 finish out. 25 MS. GRAFF: Okay. So, in terms of the EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**~--------** ------



### 212 1 manufacturer impact analysis, so thatwe need

-- sowe 2 knowwhat sort of cost data is appropriate to get out 3 of the nextround of designreviews. 4 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. So, youwant to understand 5 the entireprocess, wherewe are inthisprocess, in 6 particulargivenwhere themanufacturing impact 7 analysis is, and becausethere seems to be some link in 8 terms of cost between the engineering analysis and the 9 manufacturing impact analysis, is that correct? 10 

### MR. THIELE: Correct. 11 MS. GRAFF: All right. So, we're going to 12 needtohearmore onthat. Any otherunresolved 13 issues? 14 

### MR. THOMPSON: I guess I'dcome back to

-- 15 

### MS. GRAFF: MikeThompson. 16 

### MR. THOMPSON:

-- the issue of the 17 manufacturer impact. Again, we're going tohave 18 we're goingtobetalking about this ad nauseam. I 19 think themainthing iswe want tomake surethatwe've 20 got crystal clearthe screeningquestion. That's the 21 title of themeetingtoday, and I thinkwe've addressed 22 a number of those issues. 23 I guess that'swhat I'd like to focus on and 24 finish out. 25 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. So, interms of the EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064213 1 screening issues, have we actually finished

-- 2 MR. THOMPSON: Have we finished all that? 3 MS. GRAFF: That we finished all that. 4 MR. THOMPSON: And that we've had 5 discussions. No, we have not. Is there additional 6 data that will come in in the ensuing 30-day comment 7 period relative to the screening options and the four 8 things that we deem to talk about? Product utility, 9 technological feasibility, manufacturability, and 10 what's the fourth one? Safety. Yeah. Safety and 11 health. 12 MS. GRAFF: Okay. 13 MR. THOMPSON: And I didn't hear a lot of 14 dissension, I did hear some, but that there was a lot 15 of mention of -- with respect to the time options that 16 DOE has. 17 MS. GRAFF: Okay. 18 MR. THIELE: With the recognition that we 19 still have four design options that have not yet been 20 presented, that we've got to have the opportunity to 21 look at and comment. 22 MS. GRAFF: All right. 23 MR. THOMPSON: Also with the recognition that 24 we've got at least 12 that we know of existing in the 25 marketplace, and we need to see if they have some EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 213 1 screening issues, havewe actually finished

-- 2 

### MR. THOMPSON: Havewe finished all that? 3 

### MS. GRAFF: Thatwe finished all that. 4 

### MR. THOMPSON: And thatwe'vehad 5 discussions. No, we havenot. Is there additional 6 data thatwill come in inthe ensuing 30-day comment 7 

### periodrelativeto the screening options and the four 8 

### things thatwe deemto talkabout? Productutility, 9 technological feasibility, manufacturability, and 10 what's the fourth one? Safety. Yeah. Safety and 11 health. 12 MS. GRAFF: Okay. 13 MR. THOMPSON: And I didn'thear a lot of 14 dissension, I didhear some, but that therewas a lot 15 ofmention of

-- withrespect to the time options that 16 DOE has. 17 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. 18 MR. 

### THIELE: with therecognition thatwe 19 stillhave four design options thathave not yetbeen 20 presented, thatwe've gottohave the opportunityto 21 look at and comment. 22 

### MS. GRAFF: All right. 23 MR. THOMPSON: Alsowiththe recognition that 24 we'vegot at least 12 thatwe know of existing inthe 25 marketplace, andwe need to see

### iftheyhave some EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064214 *1 viability. 2 MS. GRAFF: Okay. So, we do have some. 3 We've got some additional design options that will be 4 considered. We have a comment period, and we've got a 5 period in which the data will be made available, so 6 people can comment on, right? Okay. 7 Any -- anything else in terms of the 8 unresolved issues that need to get captured up here 9 that we haven't heard about yet? 10 MR. LaFRANCE: This is Mark LaFrance. I'd 11 just like to follow up what Mike Thompson said. 12 Somebody suggested that we look at 45 percent RMC, and 13 that's an option as well, and if we can receive 14 comments relative to the linerality of 40 or 50 percent 15 RMC. So, can we pro-rate the differences for cost? 16 I know you all didn't agree with the cost 17 initially, but if you could all agree -- 18 (Multiple conversations) 19 MR. LaFRANCE: Please provide comments as to 20 how we would assess the cost for 45 percent. 21 MS. GRAFF: All right. All right. So, the 22 issue would be 45 percent RMC, and is it linear from 40 23 to 50 percent, and you'd like to have that

-- 24 MR. LaFRANCE: If not, please provide

-- 25 MS. GRAFF: And if not, please provide

-- EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 214 1 viability. 2 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. So, we dohave some. 3 We've got some additional design options that will be 4 considered. We have a commentperiod, andwe've got a 5 period inwhich the datawill bemade available, so 6 people can comment on, right? Okay. 7 Any -- anything else interms of the 8 unresolved issuesthat needto get capturedup here 9 thatwe haven'theard aboutyet? 10 MR. LaFRANCE: This isMark LaFrance. I'd 11 just liketo followupwhatMike Thompson said. 12 Somebody suggestedthatwe look at 45 percentRMC, and 13 that's an option as well, and ifwe canreceive 14 comments relativeto the lineralityof 40 or 50 percent 15 RMC. So, canwe pro-ratethedifferences for cost? 16 I knowyou all didn't agreewith the cost 17 initially, but if you could all agree 18 (Multiple conversations) 19 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Pleaseprovide comments as to 20 howwe would assess the cost for 45 percent. 21 MS. GRAFF: All right. All right. So, the 22 issuewould be 45 percentRMC, and is it linear from 40 23 to 50percent, andyou'd liketohave that -- 24 25 

### MR. LaFRANCE: If not, pleaseprovide MS. GRAFF: And ifnot, pleaseprovide EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-00641 MR. LaFRANCE: -- the ratio. 2 MS. GRAFF: -- the ratio. Okay. Good. Any 3 other unresolved issues that need to get mentioned at 4 this time? 5 (No response) 6 MS. GRAFF: I feel like an auctioneer. My 7 grandfather's an auctioneer. You know, at the end, 8 three times, you say any more bids, any more bids, any 9 more bids? 10 MR. McCABE: You say going, and we're all 11 gone. 12 MS. GRAFF: Yeah. Okay, Michael. 13 Next Steps 14 MS. GRAFF: All right. Good. Let's get into 15 then the Next Steps. Some of which will be -- we 16 raised in terms of what's going to happen after this, 17 what's the intersection between engineering analysis 18 and manufacturing impact, what are we going to do with 19 those new designs? Bryan? This is what we want to get 20 to now. Let's get some

-- 21 MR. BERRINGER: Yes, if it's agreeable by 22 everybody, we'd like to set the -- set the comment 23 period by 30 days. That would give us until about 24 December 15th, if that's acceptable. If people need 25 more time

--EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 215 1 

### MR. LaFRANCE: -- theratio. 2 

### MS. GRAFF: theratio. Okay. Good. Any 3 otherunresolved issuesthat need to getmentioned at 4 this time? 5 (No response) 6 

### MS. GRAFF: I feel like an auctioneer. My 7 grandfather's an auctioneer. You know, atthe end, 8 three times, you say anymore bids, anymore bids, any 9 more bids? 10 MR. McCABE: You saygoing, and we're all 11 gone. 12 MS. GRAFF: Yeah. Okay, Michael. 13 Next Steps 14 MS. GRAFF: All right. Good. Let's get into 15 thenthe Next Steps. Some ofwhichwill be -- we 

### 16 raised interms ofwhat's goingtohappen after this, 17 what's the intersectionbetween engineering analysis 18 andmanufacturing impact, what arewe going to do with 19 those new designs? Bryan? This iswhatwe want to get 20 to now. Let's get some -- 21 MR. BERRINGER: Yes, if it's agreeable by 22 everybody, we'd liketo setthe -- set the comment 23 periodby 30 days. Thatwould giveus until about 24 December 15th, if that's acceptable. Ifpeopleneed 25 more time EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064216 1 MR. THIELE: 30 days from the receipt of the 2 Whirlpool design options is acceptable. I think when 3 they're available to us to comment on, then give us 30 4 days. 5 MR. LaFRANCE: I think that's reasonable. If 6 -- you know, if you want to comment on those design 7 options

-- 8 MS. GRAFF: Michael? 9 MR. MARTIN: It seems to me we're looking at 10 the possibility of standards based on what we know, and 11 if we don't know what Whirlpool hasn't told us yet, we 12 don't need to stop dead and wait for this. Can't we 13 make it 30 days based on what we know in 30 days? 14 MR. LaFRANCE: How about 45 days? That gets 15 us to Christmas time, because there are holidays coming 16 up and everything else. Thanksgiving is coming up. I 17 mean this would give you to the end of -- end of the 18 year. 19 MR. THIELE: The simple fact of the matter is 20 the major designs that are going to dictate where this 21 industry goes are not yet on the table, and I think the 22 smaller manufacturers deserve at least 30 days to be 23 able to digest those designs and make some sort of 24 intelligent assessment as to what they're going to do. 25 MS. GRAFF: Okay. So, we're talking about 30 EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 216 1 

### MR. THIELE: 30 days from the receipt of the 2 Whirlpool design options is acceptable. I thinkwhen 3 they're available tous to comment on, then give us 30 4 days. 5 

### MR. LaFRANCE: I think that's reasonable. If 6

-- youknow, if youwant to comment on those design 7 options 8 

### MS. GRAFF: Michael? 9 

### MR. MARTIN: It seems tome we're looking at 10 thepossibility of standards based on what we know, and 11 ifwe don'tknowwhatWhirlpool hasn't told us yet, we 12 don't need to stop dead and wait for this. Can'twe 13 make it 30 days based onwhatwe know in 30 days? 14 

### MR. LaFRANCE: How about 45 days? That gets 15 us to Christmas time, because there are holidays corning 16 up and everything else. Thanksgiving is corning up. I 17 mean this would give you to the end of

-- end of the 18 year. 19 

### MR. THIELE: The simple fact of thematter is 20 themajor designs that are going to dictatewhere this 21 industrygoes are not yet on the table, and I think the 22 smallermanufacturers deserve at least 30 days to be 23 able to digest those designs andmake some sort of 24 intelligent assessment as towhat they're going to do. 25 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. So, we're talking about 30 EXECUTIVE COURT :REPORTERS, INC. (301) SEiS-0064217 1 days from receipt of the information on the design. Is 2 that okay with everybody? Yes or no? Steve? 3 MR. NADEL: I just checked with them. I 4 mean, Michael, people who want the patent numbers 5 today, you want -- the patent applications is my 6 understanding, right? Whenever the paper gets 7 available, whenever they are, so we can grab them,

-- 8 MR. THIELE: That's fine. 9 MR. NADEL: I think we came here today with 10 the information, so you can -- 11 MR. THIELE: Start from today then. 12 MR. THOMPSON: They're not available, Steve. 13 It's not available. 14 We would be happy to talk about the 15 efficiency levels. I don't have the patent numbers 16 with me, no. I don't have them with me. I -- I can 17 tell you they've been in the Patent Office since last 18 summer. They're there for anybody to go get them if 19 they want. We will supply them to you as soon as we 20 can. 21 MR. JONES: That is not an accurate statement 22 of what the Patent Office provides or the state of the 23 patent law. Unless you're going to tell us you're 24 going to waive it, Michael, I'm a happier company. 25 MR. THOMPSON: Oh, no, we're not revealing EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 ------ 

### ---------------



### 217 1 days from receipt ofthe information on the design. Is 2 that okaywith everybody? Yes orno? steve? 3 

### MR. NADEL: I justcheckedwith them. I 4 mean, Michael, peoplewho want thepatent numbers 5 today, youwant -- thepatent applications ismy 6 understanding, right? Whenever the paper gets 7 available, whenever they are, sowe can grab them, 8 

### MR. THIELE: That's fine. 9 

### MR. NADEL: I thinkwe camehere today with 10 the information, soyou can -- 11 MR. THIELE: start from today then. 12 MR. THOMPSON: They're not available, steve. 13 It'snot available. 14 We would behappyto talk about the 15 efficiency levels. I don'thave thepatent numbers 16 withme, no. I don'thave themwithme. I -- I can 17 tell you they'vebeen inthe Patent Office since last 18 summer. They're there for anybody to go getthem if 19 theywant. We will supplythemtoyou as soon as we 20 can. 21 MR. JONES: That is not an accurate statement 22 ofwhat the PatentOfficeprovides orthe state of the 23 patent law. Unless you'regoingto tell us you're 24 going towaive it, Michael, I'ma happier company. 25 

### MR. THOMPSON: Oh, no, we're not revealing EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064218

s 1 records. 2 MR. JONES: Because they're not available 3 until at issue. You cannot get them from the Patent 4 Office. So, let's make sure we understand that. 5 MR. THOMPSON: These are public domain now. 6 MR. JONES: So, you mean the ones which have 7 issued? 8 MR. THOMPSON: Yeah. 9 MR. JONES: And which ones of the four have 10 issued? 11 MR. THOMPSON: All of them. 12 MR. JONES: All of them have issued. 13 MS. GRAFF: Let's have a clarification. 14 Linda? 15 MS. GREINER: Excuse me, Mike. I think you 16 were about to say that the performance data was 17 available? 18 MR. THOMPSON: We were prepared to say today, 19 I don't think it came out in Mike's comments, that all 20 of these machines fit somewhere between 2.8 and 3.2 21 energy factor. As a diversion for the ADL, they're in 22 that range. 23 MS. GRAFF: So, that data is now available? 24 So, 30 days from today for the comment period? Is that 25 what we're talking about? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 218 1 records. 2 MR. JONES: Becausethey're not available 3 until at issue. You cannotgetthem from the Patent 4 Office. So, let'smake surewe understand that. 5 

### MR. THOMPSON: These arepublicdomain now. 6 

### MR. JONES: So, youmean the ones whichhave 7 issued? 8 

### MR. THOMPSON: Yeah. 9 

### MR. JONES: And which ones of the four have 10 issued? 11 MR. THOMPSON: All of them. 12 MR. JONES: All of themhave issued. 13 

### MS. GRAFF: Let's have a clarification. 14 Linda? 15 

### MS. GREINER: Excuseme, Mike. I thinkyou 16 were aboutto saythattheperformance data was 17 available? 18 MR. THOMPSON: We were preparedto saytoday, 19 I don't think itcarne out inMike's comments, that all 20 of thesemachines fit somewherebetween 2.8 and 3.2 21 energy factor. As a diversion for theADL, they're in 22 thatrange. 23 MS. GRAFF: So, that data is now available? 24 So, 30 days from today for the comment period? Is that 25 what we're talkingabout? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064219 1 MR. THIELE: I'm sorry. I'm going to be a 2 pain in the ass. If we're going to get them provided 3 to DOE, correct, Mike, you are going to give these to 4 DOE, is there any problem with running it from the time 5 DOE can provide it to the industry? 6 MS. GRAFF: Is there? DOE? 7 MR. McCABE: When we get the patent numbers, 8 we can share -- we get the numbers before we get copies 9 of the patent, we can share them because patents are 10 available

-- 11 MR. THIELE: Give it to Chuck so it gets 12 disseminated to industry, so everybody gets it at the 13 same time. 14 MS. GRAFF: Okay. Is there agreement on that 15 from the industry folks? Okay. Good. 16 MR. LaFRANCE: So, we're talking about the 17 four patent numbers? 18 MS. GRAFF: The four patent numbers? 19 MR. LaFRANCE: For the sake of procedural 20 purposes, the -- if we set the time by 45 days, the end 21 of the year, okay, then this will be -- if we get the 22 information -- the time between the 15th of December 23 and the 30th of December is not going to make a big 24 difference to the department's procedure. Okay? 25 So, I mean this way, everybody will have time EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**~---------** ---



### 219 1 

### MR. THIELE: I'm sorry. I'mgoing tobe a 2 pain inthe ass. If we're going togetthemprovided 3 to DOE, correct, Mike, you aregoing to give these to 4 DOE, is there anyproblemwithrunning it from the time 5 DOE canprovide ittothe industry? 6 

### MS. GRAFF: Isthere? DOE? 7 

### MR. McCABE: When we get thepatentnumbers, 8 

### we can share -- we getthe numbers beforewe get copies 9 

### of thepatent, we can sharethembecausepatents are 10 available 11 MR. THIELE: Give itto Chuck so itgets 12 disseminatedto industry, so everybodygets it atthe 13 same time. 14 MS. GRAFF: Okay. Is there agreement on that 15 from the industry folks? Okay. Good. 16 

### MR. LaFRANCE: So, we're talking about the 17 four patentnumbers? 18 

### MS. GRAFF: The four patentnumbers? 19 MR. LaFRANCE: For the sake of procedural 20 purposes, the -- ifwe setthe time by 45 days, the end 21 of the year, okay, then thiswill be -- ifwe getthe 22 information -- the timebetweenthe 15thof December 23 andthe 30thof December isnot going tomake a big 24 difference to thedepartment'sprocedure. Okay? 25 So, I 

### mean thisway, everybodywill have time EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064220 ^1 within a week or two to get their information to you. 2 For some reason, if we don't have the information 3 within the next two weeks, then we can think about 4 extending that time frame. 5 MS. GRAFF: Okay. So, we're talking about 6 December 30th, the department will get the information. 7 We'll send it to AHAM, who will then distribute it to 8 everyone, is that -- okay. 9 MR. LaFRANCE: So, the deadline for comment 10 is December 30th. 11 MS. GRAFF: Got it? Okay. Good. We'll move 12 on. 13 What else in terms of next steps need to be 14 addressed? The issue of peer review? Bryan? 15 Expertise for peer review? 16 MR. BERRINGER: One of the things that was 17 discussed was, you know, people have ideas for 18 qualifications as far as comments. Earl had asked us 19 what the qualifications are. We know -- if you feel 20 there's somebody else, there's other -- other aspects 21 as far as contractor concern that expertise is needed 22 or consultation is needed, please provide that. 23 MR. McCABE: Let me add just to that some 24 background as to enhance what had been said already by 25 the trio that we did ask or task to review the EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 220 1 within a week ortwo toget their information to you. 2 For some reason, ifwe don'thave the information 3 within the next twoweeks, thenwe can think about 4 extendingthattime frame. 5 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. So, we're talking about 6 December 30th, the departmentwill getthe information. 7 

### We'll send ittoAHAM, who will then distribute itto 8 

### everyone, is that -- okay. 9 

### MR. LaFRANCE: So, the deadline for comment 10 is December 30th. 11 MS. GRAFF: Got it? Okay. Good. We'll move 12 on. 13 What else interms of next steps need tobe 14 addressed? The issue ofpeerreview? Bryan? 15 Expertise for peer review? 16 

### MR. BERRINGER: One of the things thatwas 17 

### discussedwas, youknow, peoplehave ideas for 18 

### qualifications as far as comments. Earl 

### had asked us 19 what the qualifications are. We know -- ifyou feel 20 there's somebody else, there's other -- other aspects 21 as far as contractor concern that expertise is needed 22 or consultation is needed, pleaseprovidethat. 23 MR. McCABE: Letme addjustto that some 24 background as to enhancewhathad been said alreadyby 25 thetriothatwe did ask ortasktoreviewthe EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064221 1 analysis, and how and why we came up with that, that 2 there is a body of experience at Oak Ridge National 3 Labs in performing research on many of the appliances 4 that are covered by this program. 5 So that looking -- we looked to Oak Ridge 6 because of their experience. However, we recognize 7 that being a national laboratory that gets very bright 8 people there, it may or may not have any experience in 9 the industry. 10 So, given a researcher's experience, we 11 thought that would be valuable and looked to them to 12 provide that. We asked them whether or not there was 13 somebody available that they knew of that might have 14 experience within the industry, that has had some 15 experience with this particular product and understand 16 what the issues are, and to be able to look at this 17 from that, one would call, real-life experience, and 18 that's how Jim Gordon came about. 19 Also recognized that there are people

-- 20 contractors in the private sector who have a wealth of 21 experience, and we have dealt with Arthur D. Little 22 going back over the years, both in supporting this 23 program and doing engineering analysis as well as 24 supporting DOE's research program, that they've done 25 work on refrigerator analysis and other products. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 221 1 analysis, andhow andwhy we cameup with that, that 2 there is a bodyof experience at OakRidge National 3 Labs inperformingresearch onmany of the appliances 4 that are coveredby thisprogram. 5 So that looking -- we looked to OakRidge 6 because of their experience. However, we recognize 7 that being a national laboratorythat gets verybright 8 peoplethere, itmayormay not have any experience in 9 the industry. 10 So, given a researcher's experience, we 11 thought thatwould be valuable and looked to themto 12 providethat. We askedthemwhether or not therewas 13 somebody availablethattheyknew of thatmight have 14 experiencewithinthe industry, thathas had some 15 experiencewiththisparticularproduct andunderstand 16 what the issues are, andtobe able to look at this 17 from that, onewould call, real-life experience, and 18 that'showJimGordon came about. 19 Also recognized that there arepeople -- 20 contractors intheprivate sectorwho have a wealth of 21 experience, andwe have dealtwithArthur D. Little 22 goingback overtheyears, both in supportingthis 23 programand doing engineering analysis as well as 24 supportingDOE's researchprogram, that they've done 25 work onrefrigerator analysis and otherproducts. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064222 1 They have worked for individual 2 manufacturers, so that we identified them, but this

-- 3 through -- that these were three entities which we 4 identified in the very -- what we call relatively short 5 period of time, but those were some of the skills that 6 I and we were looking to see if we could draw on and 7 that we felt would be of benefit. 8 It's not -- it's -- it's -- is there -- are 9 there any other skills that we should draw on? Are 10 there particular individuals that people think that 11 might be uniquely qualified to give some background and 12 to also offer, and then I'll make it even broader, that 13 these we were looking at for the design options because 14 they have an engineering background and can contribute 15 there. That's not to say that you may not have 16 individuals that you would have wished to recommend for 17 future parts of the analysis, consumer analysis, 18 manufacturer impact analysis, national analysis, that 19 would be different than these three. 20 MR. LEVY: You did a peer review on this? 21 MR. McCABE: Correct, yes. 22 MS. GRAFF: Okay. When would be a good time 23 frame to have that information? 30 days? 24 MR. BERRINGER: The same time frame. 25 MS. GRAFF: Everything in the same time EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 222 1 Theyhaveworked for individual 2 manufacturers, so thatwe identifiedthem, but this 3 through -- thatthesewere three entitieswhichwe 4 identified inthevery -- whatwe call relatively short 5 period of time, butthosewere some of the skills that 6 I andwe were lookingto see ifwe could draw on and 7 thatwe felt wouldbe of benefit. 8 

### It'snot it's -- it's is there -- are 9 there any other skills thatwe shoulddraw on? Are 10 thereparticular individualsthatpeoplethink that 11 might beuniquelyqualifiedtogive some background and 12 to also offer, andthen I'llmake itevenbroader, that 13 thesewe were looking at for the design options because 14 theyhave an engineeringbackground and can contribute 15 there. That's not to saythatyoumay not have 16 individuals thatyouwouldhavewished torecommend for 17 future parts ofthe analysis, consumer analysis, 18 manufacturer impact analysis, national analysis, that 19 would be differentthan these three. 20 

### MR. LEVY: You did a peerreviewon this? 21 MR. McCABE: Correct, yes. 22 MS. GRAFF: Okay. When would be a good time 23 frame tohave that information? 30 days? 24 25 

### MR. BERRINGER: The same time frame. MS. GRAFF: Everything inthe same time EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064223 1 frame? Okay. Good. Okay. 2 MR. BERRINGER: The data submission for input 3 on -- additional input for the design report, for the 4 engineering report that would also be encompassed in 5 that December 30th date. 6 MS. GRAFF: Okay. Additional data. What 7 else in terms of next steps? I was thinking can you 8 re-outline for us what's happening between now and 9 April when the supplemental ANOPR is coming out? 10 MR. BERRINGER: Look back at Mark's schedule. 11 MR. JONES: Can I ask a question before you 12 get to that? 13 MS. GRAFF: Sure. 14 MR. JONES: The question that you just asked 15 or that we just talked about in terms of this peer 16 reviewer, is that right,

-- 17 MS. GRAFF: Right, right. 18 MR. JONES: -- for the engineering analysis? 19 MS. GRAFF: Right. 20 MR. JONES: That is to be done? 21 MS. GRAFF: Right. It's going to be 22 continuing. 23 MR. JONES: Okay. Now, what about the 24 selection of the person of the -- whoever is going to 25 be reviewing the engineering analysis? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 223 1 frame? Okay. Good. Okay. 2 

### MR. BERRINGER: Thedata submission for input 3 on -- additional input for the design report, for the 4 engineeringreport thatwould alsobe encompassed in 5 thatDecember 30thdate. 6 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. Additional data. What 7 else interms of next steps? I was thinking canyou 8 re-outline for uswhat'shappeningbetween now and 9 April whenthe supplementalANOPR is coming out? 10 

### MR. BERRINGER: Lookback atMark's schedule. 11 MR. JONES: Can I ask a questionbeforeyou 12 getto that? 13 MS. GRAFF: Sure. 14 

### MR. JONES: The question thatyoujustasked 15 orthatwe justtalked about interms of thispeer 16 reviewer, is thatright,

-- 17 

### MS. GRAFF: Right, right. 18 

### MR. JONES:

-- for the engineering analysis? 19 

### MS. GRAFF: Right. 20 

### MR. JONES: That is tobe done? 21 

### MS. GRAFF: Right. It'sgoingto be 22 continuing. 23 MR. JONES: Okay. Now, what about the 24 selectionof theperson of the

-- whoever is going to 25 bereviewingthe engineering analysis? EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064224 1 MS. GRAFF: Good question. 2 MR. JONES: What about that? 3 MR. LEVY: Well, I thought on that point, 4 that Mark or Bryan had started to make the point 5 earlier that on that point, pursuant to the 6 interpretive rule, what we're looking for is 7 suggestions that the interested parties might have as 8 to the expertise that we need in order to have that 9 analysis done. 10 MR. JONES: Is that what you said, Bryan, or 11 the engineering analysis or the peer reviewer? 12 MR. BERRINGER: Well, it's -- in all cases, 13 there's qualifications or consultants that can improve 14 the data or put the engineering analysis

-- 15 MR. JONES: Well, but let me make sure I 16 understand. Are we talking about doing an engineering 17 analysis and selecting a contractor to do that, or are 18 you talking about somebody who is going to somehow 19 supplement what's already been done? I'm not sure I 20 understand. 21 MR. BERRINGER: Well, I don't think we've 22 gotten adequate input today in this workshop to tell us 23 that we're going in the wrong -- we talked about 24 approaches and stuff, and that was one of the things we 25 wanted to try and get out of this workshop, but I -- I EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 224 1 MS. GRAFF: Good question. 2 MR. JONES: What aboutthat? 3 

### MR. LEVY: Well, I thought on thatpoint, 4 thatMark orBryanhad startedtomake the point 5 earlierthat onthatpoint, pursuantto the 6 interpretiverule, whatwe're looking for is 7 suggestionsthatthe interestedpartiesmight have as 8 tothe expertisethatwe need in ordertohave that 9 analysis done. 10 

### MR. JONES: Isthatwhatyou said, Bryan, or 11 the engineering analysis orthepeer reviewer? 12 

### MR. BERRINGER: Well, it's -- in all cases, 13 there's qualifications or consultants that can improve 14 the data orputthe engineering analysis -- 15 

### MR. JONES: Well, but letme make sure I 16 understand. Are we talking about doing an engineering 17 analysis and selectinga contractortodo that, or are 18 youtalking about somebodywho isgoing to somehow 19 supplementwhat's alreadybeen done? I'mnot sure I 20 understand. 21 

### MR. BERRINGER: Well, I don't thinkwe've 22 gotten adequate inputtoday inthisworkshop to tell us 23 thatwe're going inthewrong -- we talked about 24 approaches and stuff, andthatwas one of the things we 25 wanted to try and get out of thisworkshop, but I -- I EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064225 1 don't feel that we accomplished that yet. 2 In the written comments, people can give us 3 ideas on how we should approach the engineering 4 analysis or the methodologies, then we'd be very 5 receptive to hearing that. I don't think we received 6 that today. 7 MS. GRAFF: Okay. So, we've got until the 8 December 30th deadline to get all that information in. 9 I see Dick. 10 MR. BEST: Yes. I -- I question the need for 11 another peer review. Certainly we didn't expect to 12 hear that there was one when we came here today. If it 13 had not been presented, the meeting would have gone on. 14 I think having a critique of another analysis 15 or the next analysis might be efficient for DOE to feel 16 better about what they're presenting, but I don't see 17 where it has a lot of value to the process for the 18 stakeholders. 19 MS. GRAFF: Okay. Thank you. Bryan? Bryan, 20 you were reviewing what is going to happen between now 21 and April, so it's very clear what we're doing. Where 22 we are in the process. 23 MR. BERRINGER: Again, looking at Mark's 24 schedule, then we have another report as far as the 25 consumer analysis approach, which will be independent EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 225 1 don't feel thatwe accomplished that yet. 2 Inthewrittencomments, people cangiveus 3 ideas onhowwe shouldapproachthe engineering 4 analysis orthemethodologies, thenwe'd be very 5 receptive tohearingthat. I don't thinkwe received 6 thattoday. 7 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. So, we've got until the 8 December 30thdeadline toget all that information in. 9 I seeDick. 10 MR. BEST: Yes. I -- I question the need for 11 another peerreview. certainlywe didn't expectto 12 hear thattherewas onewhenwe carne here today. If it 13 had not beenpresented, themeetingwouldhave gone on. 14 I thinkhaving a critique of another analysis 15 orthe next analysismight be efficient for DOE to feel 16 better aboutwhatthey'representing, but I don't see 17 where ithas a lot ofvalue to theprocess for the 18 stakeholders. 19 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. Thankyou. Bryan? Bryan, 20 youwere reviewingwhat isgoing tohappen between now 21 andApril, so it'sveryclearwhat we're doing. Where 22 we are intheprocess. 23 

### MR. BERRINGER: Again, looking atMark's 24 schedule, thenwe have anotherreport as far as the 25 consumer analysis approach, which will be independent EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064226 1 there. I think as far as based on comments that we've 2 received, additional data from Whirlpool, that there's 3 going to have to be some new work done, you know, and 4 we can -- either we have a workshop tentatively 5 scheduled in February that can either be a follow-on on 6 engineering analysis and consumer workshop or we can 7 send it out for comment. 8 I think it would be a good idea for the group 9 to discuss what they -- what they suggest we do. Do we 10 need to have another workshop to follow up on the new 11 data or shall we send it out for comment? 12 MR. BEST: I think my comment was it seems 13 like you're asking us for credentials or things or 14 having peer -- outside peer reviews, is that correct? 15 MR. BERRINGER: Additional -- we feel there's 16 additional peer review needed to be done or you have 17 suggestions

-- 18 MR. BEST: But my comment had nothing to do 19 with additional workshops. 20 MS. GRAFF: Okay. 21 MR. BERRINGER: Well, then that's -- I guess 22 my question is posed to the group, as a follow-on, if 23 we get the new data that we're going -- it's going to 24 be made available as far as Whirlpool's patents, 25 consider that as a design option, an engineering EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 226 1 there. I think as far as based on comments thatwe've 2 received, additional data fromWhirlpool, that there's 3 goingtohave tobe some newwork done, youknow, and 4 we can -- eitherwe have a workshop tentatively 5 scheduled inFebruarythat can eitherbe a follow-on on 6 engineering analysis andconsumerworkshop orwe can 7 send itout for comment. 8 I think itwould be a good idea for the group 9 to discusswhatthey -- what they suggestwe do. Do we 10 need tohave anotherworkshop to follow up on the new 11 data or shallwe send itout for comment? 12 

### MR. BEST: I thinkmy commentwas it seems 13 likeyou're askingus for credentials orthings or 14 havingpeer -- outsidepeerreviews, is that correct? 15 

### MR. BERRINGER: Additional we feel there's 16 additional peerreviewneeded tobe done oryou have 17 suggestions -- 18 

### MR. BEST: Butmy commenthad nothing to do 19 with additional workshops. 20 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. 21 

### MR. BERRINGER: Well, thenthat's -- I guess 22 my question isposedtothe group, as a follow-on, if 23 we getthe new data thatwe're going -- it'sgoing to 24 bemade available as far asWhirlpool'spatents, 25 consider that as a design option, an engineering EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064227

s 

### 1 analysis, obviously that would have to go back out for 2 review. 3 Does the group feel that it would be 4 productive to have another workshop, to send that out 5 for comment and receive comment, or as far as the next 6 step? We do have something tentatively planned in 7 February for the consumer approach workshop. We can 8 combine it then. 9 MR. STEPHENS: Ihave a question before I 10 answer that. Are you talking about another workshop 11 for the engineering analysis specifically? 12 MR. BERRINGER: Iguess if wewere going to

__ ~13 do that, I'd want to have some faith that there would 14 be some engineers there to do it. I -- I would like to 

### 15 have some faith in the end that engineers had actually 16 reviewed the engineering analysis, and, so, to the 17 extent that you can get that kind of a group together 18 to really stick to the engineering and the inputs and 19 the assumptions from an engineering point of view, and 20 we can do those other issues later, I'd come to another 21 workshop as an engineer. 22 MS. GRAFF: Okay. Mike Thompson? 23 MR. THOMPSON: Ivote not to have another 24 workshop. There's going to be plenty of opportunity to 25 revisit the engineering analysis later. Imean we're EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 227 1 analysis, obviouslythatwouldhave to go back out for 2 review. 3 Does thegroup feel that itwould be 4 productivetohave anotherworkshop, to send that out 5 for comment andreceive comment, or as far as the next 6 step? We dohave somethingtentativelyplanned in 7 February for the consumer approachworkshop. We can 8 combine itthen. 9 

### MR. STEPHENS: I have a questionbefore I 10 answer that. Are you talking about anotherworkshop 11 for the engineering analysis specifically? 12 MR. BERRINGER: I guess ifwe were going to 13 do that, I'dwant tohave some faith that there would 14 be some engineersthere todo it. I -- I would like to 15 have some faith inthe endthat engineers had actually 16 reviewedthe engineeringanalysis, and, so, to the 17 extentthatyou cangetthatkind of a group together 18 toreally stickto the engineering andthe inputs and 19 the assumptions from an engineeringpoint of view, and 20 we can do those other issues later, I'd come to another 21 workshop as an engineer. 22 MS. GRAFF: Okay. Mike Thompson? 23 

### MR. THOMPSON: I vote not tohave another 24 workshop. There's goingtobeplenty of opportunityto 25 revisitthe engineering analysis later. I meanwe're EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064228 1 going to have another iteration of this when we get 2 into the ANOPR. We can focus the discussion then. I 3 think it's a waste of time, and I think it's a waste of 4 your resources. 5 MS. GRAFF: Okay. All right. Earl, and then 6 Michael Martin. 7 MR. JONES: Is there going to be a full 8 engineering analysis of the -- of the yet-to-be9 submitted design options? 10 MS. GRAFF: Is that a question? 11 MR. JONES: Yeah. 12 MR. LaFRANCE: This is Mark LaFrance. 13 Certainly we need to consider what's going to be 14 submitted. Right now, we do not have it, okay, and, 15 you know, certainly we will -- we intend to do an 16 engineering analysis on it. 17 MR. JONES: Okay. 18 MR. LaFRANCE: What that's going to be, who 19 knows, I mean, but we certainly intend to. Maybe for 20 some reason, you know, we'll -- we will screen out one 21 of the four. Who knows. I mean it's just -- it's 22 going to -- we're going to do our assessment of it and 23 make that information available to everybody. 24 MR. JONES: And are you asking us for 25 suggestions as to who might do that engineering EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 228 1 going tohave another iterationof this when we get 2 intotheANOPR. We can focus thediscussionthen. I 3 think it'sa waste of time, and I think it's a waste of 4 your resources. 5 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. All right. Earl, and then 6 MichaelMartin. 7 

### MR. JONES: Isthere goingtobe a full 8 

### engineering analysis ofthe of the yet-to-be9 submitteddesign options? 10 

### MS. GRAFF: Isthat a question? 11 MR. JONES: Yeah. 12 MR. LaFRANCE: This isMarkLaFrance. 13 Certainlywe needto considerwhat's going to be 14 submitted. Right now, we do not have it, okay, and, 15 youknow, certainlywe will -- we intendto do an 16 engineering analysis on it. 17 

### MR. JONES: Okay. 18 

### MR. LaFRANCE: What that's going to be, who 19 knows, I mean, butwe certainly intendto. Maybe for 20 somereason, youknow, we'll -- we will screen out one 21 of the four. Who knows. I mean it'sjust -- it's 22 goingto -- we'regoingtodo our assessment of it and 23 make that information availableto everybody. 24 

### MR. JONES: And areyou askingus for 25 suggestions as towho might do that engineering EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064229 1 analysis or -- or do you have somebody selected? 2 MR. LaFRANCE: No. 3 MR. JONES: That's the question. 4 MR. LaFRANCE: Okay. Simple question. I 5 think all we're asking for is tell us what types of 6 requirements or equities the person that reviews 7 anything should have. 8 For example, Whirlpool has indicated they're 9 going to have these new designs on the table and 10 establish efficiencies, and the next question is what 11 -- what -- what it costs for General Electric to -- to 12 manufacture or Frigidaire or anybody else. Okay. And 13 we probably need to have that done by an independent 14 consultant to establish the cost data. 15 Now, we are looking for -- to you and 16 everybody else to make suggestions as to what types of 17 qualifications and expertise are required from the 18 individual to do that work, and if you have suggestions 19 of people, sure, you can provide them as well, but

-- 20 MR. JONES: Okay. 21 MR. LaFRANCE: And it's totally wide open. 22 We have not selected anybody for that job, and we 23 really encourage information relative to that, and as 24 soon as the -- the sooner the better. 25 MS. GRAFF: All right. I saw Michael Martin, EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 229 1 analysis or -- ordo youhave somebody selected? 2 MR. LaFRANCE: No. 3 

### MR. JONES: That'sthe question. 4 

### MR. LaFRANCE: Okay. Simplequestion. I 5 think all we're asking for is tell us what types of 6 requirements or equitiesthe personthatreviews 7 anything shouldhave. 8 For example, Whirlpool has indicatedthey're 9 goingtohave these new designs on the table and 10 establishefficiencies, and the next question iswhat 11

-- what

-- what itcosts for General Electric to

-- to 12 manufacture or Frigidaire or anybody else. Okay. And 13 we probablyneedtohave that done by an independent 14 consultantto establishthe costdata. 15 Now, we are looking for

-- to you and 16 everybody elsetomake suggestions as towhat types of 17 qualifications and expertise are required from the 18 individual todo thatwork, and ifyouhave suggestions 19 ofpeople, sure, you canprovidethem as well, but

-- 20 

### MR. JONES: Okay. 21 MR. LaFRANCE: And it'stotallywide open. 22 We have not selected anybody for thatjob, and we 23 really encourage informationrelativeto that, and as 24 soon as the

-- the soonerthebetter. 25 

### MS. GRAFF: All right. I sawMichaelMartin, EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064230 1 and then Gene Foley. 2 MR. MARTIN: I'd just like to vote for the 3 concept that you've got plenty of workshops scheduled, 4 and you don't need an extra one. 5 MS. GRAFF: Okay. So, comments that no 6 workshop. 7 MR. FOLEY: It just has to do with the 8 process of peer review. I mean having gone through the 9 whole process -- improvement process, it seemed from 10 that it was -- the manufacturers very strongly wanted 11 input into who was looking at the data, who was making 12 those particular decisions. In fact, that was repeated 13 time and time again. 14 From what I was aware of, they were not 15 pleased with what LBL is doing and wanted somebody else 16 to do it. It seems to me now that DOE is saying, all 17 right, if you want somebody else to do it, who is it? 18 Specifically, who is it that you think is appropriate 19 to do this data, because otherwise if you don't tell us 20 what to do, we're going to have our people do it, and 21 you better like it. 22 MS. GRAFF: Okay. Good. I think we covered 23 that point. Any other points? We're back at the 24 schedule, and what's going to happen between now and 25 April with the supplemental ANOPR. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 230 1 and thenGene Foley. 2 

### MR. MARTIN: I'djust liketovote for the 3 conceptthatyou've gotplenty of workshops scheduled, 4 andyou don't need an extra one. 5 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. So, comments that no 6 workshop

.. 7 

### MR. FOLEY: Itjusthas to dowith·the 8 process ofpeerreview. I meanhavinggone through the 9 wholeprocess -- improvementprocess, it seemed from 10 that itwas -- themanufacturers very stronglywanted 11 input intowho was looking atthe data, who was making 12 thoseparticulardecisions. In fact, thatwas repeated 13 time andtime again. 14 Fromwhat I was aware of, theywere not 15 pleasedwithwhat LBL is doing andwanted somebody else 16 to do it. It seems tome now thatDOE is saying, all 17 right, ifyouwant somebody else to do it, who is it? 18 Specifically, who is itthatyou think is appropriate 19 to do this data, because otherwise ifyou don't tellus 20 what to do, we'regoingtohave ourpeople do it, and 21 you better like it. 22 MS. GRAFF: Okay. Good. I thinkwe covered 23 thatpoint. Any otherpoints? We're back at the 24 schedule, andwhat's going tohappen between now and 25 April withthe supplementalANOPR. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064

### 231 1 MR. BERRINGER: Based on the schedule, those 2 are -- those are things. I see there's no support to 3 have a workshop. So, we'll just -- when the data is 4 available, after comments are received, and we'll 5 proceed as far as putting it out for comment and 6 review. 7 MR. JONES: Well, I mean I think workshops 8 may in fact be valuable, but the problem is you really 9 couldn't make that judgment based on today's. So, I 10 mean I really say that with all due respect, I hope, 11 but I mean it really depends upon what -- what -- what 12 is sort of given out beforehand, so that people are 13 actually in a position to make contributions and to 14 make suggestions. 15 People have to have the opportunity to 16 understand what the implications of the data are before 17 they can comment on whether or not it's good, bad or 18 indifferent, and we didn't have that opportunity this 19 time. 20 If you could make the data available in 21 advance, it may very well be another workshop would be 22 helpful, but I don't know whether that's true or not, 23 and we really shouldn't make the judgment based upon 24 today's. 25 MS. GRAFF: Okay. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 231 

### 1 MR. BERRINGER: Based on the schedule, those 2 

### are -- those are things. I see there's no support to 3 

### have a workshop. So, we'll just -- when the data is 4 

### available, after comments are received, and we'll 5 

### proceed as far as putting it out for comment and 6 

### review. 7 

### MR. JONES: Well, I mean I thinkworkshops 8 

### may in fact be valuable, but the problem is you really 9 

### couldn'tmake that judgment based on today's. So, I 10 

### mean I really say thatwith all due respect, I hope, 11 

### but I mean itreally depends upon what -- what -- what 12 

### is sort of given out beforehand, so thatpeople are 13 

### actually in a positiontomake contributions and to 14 

### make suggestions. 15 

### Peoplehave to have the opportunity to 16 

### understand what the implications of the data are before 17 

### they can comment onwhether or not it's good, bad or 18 

### indifferent, and we didn't have that opportunity this 19 

### time. 20 

### If you couldmake the data available in 21 

### advance, itmay verywell be another workshop would be 22 

### helpful, but I don't knowwhether that's true or not, 23 

### and we really shouldn'tmake the judgment based upon 24 

### today's. 25 

### MS. GRAFf: 

### Okay. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064232 1 MR. LaFRANCE: Excuse me, Earl. Are you 2 referring to additional data that Whirlpool is going to 3 be providing? 4 MR. JONES: Any kind of data, Mark, whether 5 it's that or whether it's the next workshop or 6 whatever. I don't know. 7 MR. LaFRANCE: I'm not trying to antagonize 8 you. I'm just -- maybe I need to learn a little. 9 Maybe if I get -- you know, one of the things we did 10 today, we provided the information we have available at 11 this point in time, and we heard a lot of complaints 12 that we shouldn't have provided it. 13 We did provide information, and we also are 14 looking for people to give us feedback on the approach 15 that we've taken. 16 MR. JONES: Well, what I'm meaning to say is 17 if we had seen the -- if I had seen the comments of the 18 peer reviewers, I would have been in a much better 19 position to have people here who could comment on their 20 comments and make a contribution regarding what they 21 said, to give you all directions going forward, which 22 we cannot do today, obviously. 23 MR. LaFRANCE: Okay. Well, certainly I'm 24 sorry you didn't get the information in advance, and 25 any future peer reviews will be provided prior to EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 232 1 MR. LaFRANCE: Excuseme, Earl. Are you 2 referringto additional data thatWhirlpool is going to 3 beproviding? 4 

### MR. JONES: Any kind of data, Mark, whether 5 it'sthat orwhether it'sthe nextworkshop or 6 whatever. I don'tknow. 7 

### MR. LaFRANCE: I'mnot trying to antagonize 8 

### you. I'mjust maybe I need to learn a little. 9 

### Maybe if I get youknow, one of the things we did 10 today, we providedthe informationwe have available at 11 this point intime, andwe heard a lot of complaints 12 thatwe shouldn'thaveprovided it. 13 We didprovide information, and we also are 14 looking for peopleto giveus feedback on the approach 15 thatwe've taken. 16 

### MR. JONES: Well, what I'mmeaningto say is 17 ifwe had seenthe

-- if I had seenthe comments of the 18 peerreviewers, I wouldhave been in a much better 19 positiontohave peopleherewho could comment on their 20 comments andmake a contributionregardingwhat they 21 said, to giveyou all directions going forward, which 22 we cannot do today, obviously. 23 MR. LaFRANCE: Okay. Well, certainly I'm 24 sorryyou didn't getthe information in advance, and 25 any future peerreviews will beprovidedpriorto EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064233 1 workshops. 2 MS. GRAFF: Okay. All right. Bryan, are you 

### 3

-- 4 MS. GREINER: May I just add one more point? 5 MS. GRAFF: Sure. Go ahead. It's Linda. 6 MS. GREINER: It's Linda Greiner with 7 Frigidaire. I assume that we -- I mean most of us in 8 this room, if not all of us, realize that there are a 9 lot of good engineers in this room, and, Charlie, I 10 assume you know that. We -- you were probably making 11 the point that you wanted us to stick to that subject 12 instead of the other stuff. 13 A lot of work has gone into the procedures 14 and the interpretive rule, a lot of that. So, 15 unfortunately, we do have to do that part, but I wanted 16 you to know, we certainly brought engineers to the 17 meeting, and I see that everybody else did, too, and I 18 wanted to be sure that was on your report. 19 MS. GRAFF: Okay. Engineers are present. 20 MS. GREINER: And they probably would have 21 liked to speak more than the rest of us, too. 22 MS. GRAFF: All right. Anything else to add? 23 Bryan? 24 (No response) 25 MS. GRAFF: Okay. So, we're pretty clear on EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 233 1 workshops. 2 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. All right. Bryan, are you 3 4 

### MS. GREINER: May I justadd onemorepoint? 5 

### MS. GRAFF: Sure. Go ahead. It'sLinda. 6 

### MS. GREINER: It'sLinda Greinerwith 7 Frigidaire. I assume thatwe -- I meanmost of us in 8 this room, if not all of us, realize that there are a 9 lot of good engineers inthis room, and, Charlie, I 10 

### assume youknow that. We youwereprobablymaking 11 the pointthatyouwantedus to stickto that subject 12 instead ofthe other stuff. 13 Alotofworkhas gone intotheprocedures 14 and the interpretiverule, a lotof that. So, 15 unfortunately, we dohave to do thatpart, but I wanted 16 youtoknow, we certainlybrought engineers to the 17 meeting, and I seethat everybody elsedid, too, and I 18 wantedtobe surethatwas onyour report. 19 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. Engineers arepresent. 20 

### MS. GREINER: And theyprobablywould have 21 likedto speakmore thantherest of us, too. 22 MS. GRAFF: All right. Anything elseto add? 23 Bryan? 24 (No response) 25 

### MS. GRAFF: Okay. So, we'reprettyclear on EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064234 1 what the next steps are. 2 Open Discussion on How to Improve Future Workshops 3 On the agenda, we had open discussion on how 4 to improve future workshops. We're at about 20 to 4. 5 I'm kind of wondering what's the best way to handle it. 6 We do have evaluations, and we've heard a lot of 7 feedback during the meeting about what folks here would 8 like to see in terms of future workshops. 9 So, I'm kind of wondering if you all will 10 fill out the evaluations and leave them with us or send 11 them in to Sandy or the department, if that will do it, 12 and then we can have closing comments and maybe move 13 out a little earlier. That's my proposal. Is that 14 yours? Okay. We'll start handing those out. Okay. 15 Sandy, can you -- 16 MR. BROOKMAN: We would request that you hand 17 them in now rather than sending them, because sending 18 them in, we frequently don't get any. 19 MS. GRAFF: Yeah. And it's important for us 20 to understand completely what your experience has been, 21 and, so, Sandy will be at the door. 22 I'd like to, before we turn it back over to 23 Michael, acknowledge that we're really early in the 24 process. This is the first workshop that's taken place 25 under process improvement, and what we've done here, I EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 234 1 what the next steps are. 2 Open Discussion onHow to Improve FutureWorkshops 3 On the agenda, we had open discussion onhow 4 to improve future workshops. We're at about 20 to 4. 5 I'mkind of wonderingwhat's the bestway to handle it. 6 We do have evaluations, andwe've heard a lot of 7 feedback during themeeting aboutwhat folks herewould 8 liketo see in terms of future workshops. 9 So, I'mkind of wondering if you all will 10 fill out the evaluations and leave themwithus or send 11 them into Sandy or the department, if thatwill do it, 12 andthenwe canhave closingcomments andmaybe move 13 out a little earlier. That'smy proposal. Is that 14 yours? Okay. We'll starthandingthose out. Okay. 15 

### Sandy, canyou 16 

### MR. BROOKMAN: We wouldrequest that you hand 17 them in now rather than sending them, because sending 18 them in, we frequently don't get any. 19 

### MS. GRAFF: Yeah. And it's important for us 20 to understand completelywhat your experience has been, 21 and, so, Sandywill be at the door. 22 I'd liketo, beforewe turn itback over to 23 Michael, acknowledge thatwe're really early in the 24 process. This is the first workshop that's taken place 25 under process improvement, andwhatwe've done here, I EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064235 1 think, will really help the progress that will be made 2 on this rule as well as other ones. 3 So, I'd like to acknowledge that and to thank 4 you all for participating, and I'd like to also turn it 5 over to Michael. 6 Closing Remarks

- Adjournment 7 MR. McCABE: I'd like to thank -- thank 8 everybody for their participation. I can appreciate 9 some of the frustration. This reminds me of days 10 sitting down with Russ Sesnet, and this is a good test 11 to see who's -- how long people have been involved, to 12 see who remembers who Russ Sesnet is. 13 Russ had been with -- he was with GE and has 14 since retired and was a part of a team to develop the 15 process that we evolved into and the process we evolved 16 away from and now the change again. 17 But early on, we had -- we were trying to do 18 a number of things concurrently, developing the 19 financial impact model, which was the -- at the same 20 time with energy forecasting with the Oak Ridge 21 residential energy model, and the financial impacts 22 model was then scrapped and became the manufacturer 23 impact model, and then the government regulatory impact 24 model was appended to that and became the evolutionary 25 process. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 235 1 think, will reallyhelptheprogress thatwill bemade 2 on this rule as well as other ones. 3 So, I'd liketo acknowledge that and to thank 4 you all for participating, and I'd like to also turn it 5 overtoMichael. 6 ClosingRemarks

- Adjournment 7 

### MR. McCABE: I'd liketo thank

-- thank 8 everybody for theirparticipation. I can appreciate 9 some of the frustration. This reminds me of days 10 sittingdown withRuss Sesnet, and this is a good test 11 to seewho's

-- how longpeoplehave been involved, to 12 seewho remembers who Russ Sesnet is. 13 

### Russhad beenwith hewas withGE andhas 14 since retired and was a part of a teamto develop the 15 process thatwe evolved into and the processwe evolved 16 away from andnow the change again. 17 But earlyon, we had

-- we were trying to do 18 a number of things concurrently, developing the 19 financial impactmodel, whichwas the

-- atthe same 20 timewith energy forecasting withthe Oak Ridge 21 residential energymodel, andthe financial impacts 22 model was then scrapped and became the manufacturer 23 impactmodel, andthenthe governmentregulatory impact 24 model was appendedto that and became the evolutionary 25 process. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064236 *1 The Oak Ridge residential energy model became 2 the product, the residential energy model that LBL 3 improved, but in that early process, the amount of 4 frustration and hair-pulling was significant because 5 what we're doing on this one was frustrating because 6 they didn't know how it was going to relate, and I can 7 appreciate the comments that Terry made about a 8 manufacturer impact methodology, what's happening 9 there, because it does affect the engineering analysis 10 at least on one level, if not multiple levels. 11 It's a matter of what data are going to be 12 collected for the manufacturer impact model, and that's 13 one question, but is it -- are the data -- those data 14 that are going to be collected, are they going to be 15 reported by small, medium and large, that's a 16 completely different question. 17 The process -- we will try to share 18 information with all of you as quickly as possible, all 19 the information that we have, and I will apologize now 20 and I will apologize in the future for the confusion 21 that it's going to cause because it's a work-in22 progress. 23 With the manufacturer impact analysis that we 24 will develop, it's going to include cash -- cash flow 25 analysis, but I think it's also going to include some EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 236 1 The Oak Ridge residential energymodel became 2 theproduct, theresidential energymodel that LBL 3 improved, but inthat earlyprocess, the amount of 4 frustration andhair-pullingwas significantbecause 5 whatwe're doing onthis onewas frustrating because 6 theydidn'tknow how itwas goingtorelate, and I can 7 appreciatethe comments thatTerrymade about a 8 manufacturer impactmethodology, what'shappening 9 there, because itdoes affectthe engineering analysis 10 at least on one level, if notmultiple levels. 11 It's a matter ofwhat data are going tobe 12 collected for themanufacturer impactmodel, and that's 13 onequestion, but is it

-- arethe data

-- those data 14 that are goingtobe collected, are they going to be 15 reportedby small, medium and large, that's a 16 completelydifferentquestion. 17 Theprocess -- we will tryto share 18 informationwith all ofyou as quickly as possible, all 19 the informationthatwe have, and I will apologize now 20 and I will apologize inthe future for the confusion 21 that it'sgoing to causebecause it'sa work-in22 progress. 23 withthemanufacturer impact analysis thatwe 24 will develop, it'sgoingto include cash

-- cash flow 25 analysis, but I think it's alsogoingto include some EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064237 * 1 other parts that have yet to be defined because there 2 are certain -- and there will be a -- I'm hoping that 3 we can have a first cut analysis, kind of does it make 4 sense, which may not require anything more than 5 surveying manufacturers to look at a particular level. 6 Does this max tech level, whatever makes 7 sense, what sort of first order impacts does that have 8 on you as a business? What sort of -- what sort of 9 first order impacts is it going to have on consumers, 10 you, Mr., Mrs., Ms. Consumer? 11 Those are not data requirements, but when you 12 hear me or my staff kind of stepping back and saying, 13 well, I'm not sure what we're going to do yet, 14 appreciate that that's some of what we're coming from, 15 is that it's not just a data issue, it's an analytic 16 issue as well, but the cash flow analysis, we are 17 committed to performing that, and that will be a major 18 element of the analysis, but not the only part of the 19 manufacturer impact analysis. 20 The -- I appreciate the input on the design 21 options. We will -- any additional design options 22 beyond the four that Whirlpool will be providing that 23 others may want to put into the next one will be 24 considered. I don't expect that we will see many more, 25 if any, but it's -- I am -- had a conversation earlier EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 237 1 otherparts thathaveyettobe definedbecausethere 2 are certain

-- andtherewill be a -- I'mhoping that 3 we canhave a first cut analysis, kind of does itmake 4 sense, whichmay notrequire anythingmore than 5 surveyingmanufacturers to look at a particular level. 6 Does thismax tech level, whatevermakes 7 sense, what sortof first order impacts does thathave 8 onyou as a business? What sortof

-- what sort of 9 first order impacts is itgoing tohave on consumers, 10 you, Mr., Mrs., Ms. Consumer? 11 Those are not datarequirements, butwhen you 12 hearme ormy staffkind of steppingback and saying, 13 well, I'mnot surewhatwe're going to do yet, 14 appreciatethat that's some ofwhat we're coming from, 15 is that it'snotjusta data issue, it's an analytic 16 issue as well, butthe cash flow analysis, we are 17 committedtoperformingthat, and thatwill be a major 18 element of the analysis, but not the onlypart of the 19 manufacturer impact analysis. 20 The

-- I appreciatethe input onthe design 21 options. We will

-- any additional design options 22 beyond the four thatWhirlpool will beprovidingthat 23 othersmay want toput intothe next onewill be 24 considered. I don't expectthatwe will seemanymore, 25 if any, but it's

-- I am -- had a conversationearlier EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064238 1 this afternoon with Glenn Schleebe, and if I can recall 2 some of that conversation, he had asked whether or not 3 efficiency improvements are going to happen without 4 regulation, and with this one product, probably more 5 than any other product, definitely that's going to 6 happen. That has happened, but I have to step back 7 because I think that's a qualified statement because in 8 May of 1991, we made a statement in a final rule that 9 played some part in many manufacturers making some 10 decisions as to what they were going to do. 11 I won't profess to say that I know how much 12 of a part it may -- I may be presumptuous in saying it 13 will play some part in it. Some manufacturers have 14 made that statement. 15 I am very excited by what I see happening 16 here as far as the process and how it's developing. 17 It's an evolutionary process for the rulemakings. It's 18 going to be a product-by-product process because it's 19 not going to -- one of the things which I think we 20 committed to is that one size doesn't fit all. 21 So, we cannot expect to be able to develop a 22 process for clothes washers that's going to be 23 interpreted for ballasts. Mark Perlis has already 24 left. But there are very different issues there, but 25 we will try to structure our rulemaking that gets your EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 238 1 this afternoonwithGlenn Schleebe, and if I canrecall 2 some of that conversation, hehad askedwhether ornot 3 efficiency improvements aregoingtohappenwithout 4 regulation, andwiththis oneproduct, probablymore 5 than any otherproduct, definitelythat's going to 6 happen. Thathas happened, but I have to step back 7 because I thinkthat's a qualified statementbecause in 8 May of 1991, we made a statement in a final rule that 9 played somepart inmanymanufacturers making some 10 decisions as towhattheywere goingto do. 11 I won'tprofessto saythat I knowhowmuch 12 of a part itmay -- I may bepresumptuous in saying it 13 will play somepart in it. Some manufacturers have 14 made that statement. 15 I am very excitedbywhat I seehappening 16 here as far as theprocess andhow it'sdeveloping. 17 It's an evolutionaryprocess for the rulemakings. It's 18 going tobe a product-by-productprocess because it's 19 not goingto one of the thingswhich I thinkwe 20 committedto is that one sizedoesn't fit all. 21 So, we cannot expecttobe able to develop a 22 process for clotheswashers that's goingtobe 23 interpreted for ballasts. MarkPerlishas already 24 left. Butthere arevery different issues there, but 25 we will tryto structure ourrulemakingthat getsyour EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-00641 input, whether or not it's not to manufacturers, 2 efficiency advocates, states, consumers, in as early as 3 possible for us to give you feedback prior to those

-- 4 that information being used in the analysis, so that 5 questions as far as the workshops on engineering 6 analysis -- that's open-ended, but the one commitment 7 which you see in the schedule that we've made is that 8 before an advance notice of proposed rulemaking is 9 published, we will -- you will have an opportunity to 10 do engineering analysis, if, based upon the information 11 that we get and the comments by the end of the year, 12 our own evaluation of that information, and what we 13 have developed, we find that we need to get further 14 input, we will have the flexibility, and we will do 15 that. 16 We hope -- we have an aggressive schedule. 17 We'd like to keep to that schedule, but if -- if the 18 world is going to come to an end, I'm not going to

-- 19 by my stepping off the cliff, the world -- I'm not 20 going to step off that cliff. There is -- we have to 21 recognize that we have committed to improving the 22 analysis and improving the rulemaking, and part of that 23 commitment is to take the blinders off of us and to 24 recognize all that's going on and what we hear and see 25 around us. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 

### 239 1 input, whether or not it'snot tomanufacturers, 2 efficiency advocates, states, consumers, in as early as 3 possible for us togiveyou feedback prior to those

-- 4 that informationbeingused inthe analysis, so that 5 questions as far as theworkshops on engineering 6 analysis

-- that's open-ended, butthe one commitment 7 whichyou see inthe schedulethatwe'vemade is that 8 before an advance notice ofproposedrulemaking is 9 published, we will

-- youwillhave an opportunityto 10 do engineeringanalysis, if, basedupon the information 11 thatwe get and the comments by the end of the year, 12 our own evaluationof that information, and what we 13 have developed, we find thatwe need to get further 14 input, we willhave the flexibility, andwe will do 15 that. 16 

### We hope we have an aggressive schedule. 17 We'd liketokeepto that schedule, but if

-- ifthe 18 world is going to corne to an end, I'mnot going to 19 

### bymy stepping off the cliff, theworld I'mnot 20 

### going to step off that cliff. There is we have to 21 recognize thatwe have committedto improvingthe 22 analysis and improvingtherulemaking, andpart of that 23 commitment is totake theblinders off of us and to 24 recognize all that's going on and whatwe hear and see 25 aroundus. EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064240 1 The -- I'd like in particular to thank Earl 2 and Terry for challenging us because I think that 3 that's what is valuable and what needs -- needs to be 4 done because it's that -- those sorts of questions that 5 at least will help me and my staff think about what it 6 is that this process is going to be. 7 I'd like to thank everybody for their 8 participation and continued participation in this 9 process. 10 I congratulate Mark and Bryan in particular 11 for what I consider to be a job well done. 12 Thank you. 13 (Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the meeting was 14 adjourned.) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 240 

### 1 The -- I'd like inparticular to thank Earl 2 andTerry for challengingus because I think that 3 that'swhat isvaluable andwhat needs -- needs to be 4 done because it'sthat -- those sorts of questions that 5 at leastwillhelpme andmy staff think aboutwhat it 6 is thatthisprocess isgoingtobe. 7 I'd liketothank everybody for their 8 participationand continuedparticipation inthis 9 process. 10 I congratulateMark and Bryan inparticular 11 for what I considertobe a jobwell done. 12 Thankyou. 13 (Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., themeetingwas 14 adjourned.) 15 16 17 18 19 20 

### 21 22 23 24 25 EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064

### .W 

### 2. 

## - REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE. -

. - . - - . . 

## 3

- This *is to certify that theattached proceedings--before: DEPT.-OF ENERGY

-

- 5f C T WASHER-W ' 6' 7 

## In the Matter of: CLOTEES 

### WASHERWORKSHOP 3 9 10 i_L 11 

## .:- *were he ias herein appears and that this isthe 1= 

## original transcript thereof for the file of the

'14 

## Departmet, Commission, Administrative Law Judge 15 

## or the A.ency.

. 

### 16

- 

### - _ . 

### :



# Date

- 

# d:

- Official Reporter.

- :' 19-

- - - '-

- 

## 20 -

## Dated: "NOVEMBER 15,-,1995

- -21 - - 22 23 24 ... . 

### 24

.',

. *

. *

. . - 

### O' '25 EEC'UTVE COURTREPORTERS (301)565-0064 1



### - :2 :3 ,! 

### ,- .J 6 7 l3 

# I , 

# I 9 

### , I i 10 

# I 11 I')

.I.. 

# .' '; " 

## - ,13**~ 14~** 



### 16

,17

18 19 

### 20 '21"

22 

### 23

. 

### 24 25 .. -, --,

- .--- 

## REPORTER I

## SCERTIFICATE, This'is toceft;fy'thattheattache'd -proceedings-,-before: DEPT.-OF ENERG'Y.-



## In theMatter

# of: CLOTEES WASHER-rvORKSHOP



## were he1j 

## as hereinappears,and,thatthis 1

## s.the origina1 transcript thereof'forthefi1 eofthe Departme:'

## t,'Commission, Administrative LawJudge orthe**P~;ency.**

. ---

.....

# ~

# .•

,Dated:,NOV:EHBER 15,**-;)~Q95** '

,EXECUTIVECOURTREPoRTEIis':

,,:(301)565-0064 

# .. , I -: 'I ! I I 

### , ,

I 

### i 

## I I 'j I 

# I ! i i I I 

## t I