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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

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 

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 

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 

1 
2

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

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 

May tag 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 

2 
3

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

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 

May tag 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 

3 
4

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

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 

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 

4 
5

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

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 

May tag 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 

5 
6

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

AGE N D A 

AGENDA ITEM: 

opening Remarks, Introductions, 

Agenda Review 

overview of Clothes Washer Rulemaking 

Schedule 

Summary of DOE Reports 

Summary of Peer Reviewer Findings 

Open Discussion on Design Options 

Design Options Analyzed 

Preliminary Results of Screening 

Criteria for Establishing Product 

Classes 

Afternoon Session 

PAGE: 

7 

23 

23 

51 

75 

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 

6 
7

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

7 

1 PRO C E E DIN G 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 corning 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 corning today and 

25 participating. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
8

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

8 

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 
9

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

9 

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 IE-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 
10

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

10 

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 
1 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

11 

1 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 
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 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

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 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 comm~:mts 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 

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 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

13 

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 
14

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

14 

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 
15

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

15 

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 corne 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 
16

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

16 

1 have committed to, the purpose of this workshop is to 

~ 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 
17

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

17 

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

2 Let me -- let me once again thank you all for 

3 corning 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 
18

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

18 

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 
19

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

19 

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 
1 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

20 

1 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 
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 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

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 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 
22

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

22 

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 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 

and get 
23

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

23 

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 
24

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

24 

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 
25

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

25 

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 
26

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

26 

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 
27

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

27 

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 
28

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

28 

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 
_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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

29 

1 and in future analyses which will be the subject of 

2 future meetings as far as the cost, economic impact, we 

3 will tryon 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 
30

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

30 

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 rulernaking for the new process which will show people 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
31

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

31 

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 
32

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

32 

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 
33

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

33 

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 
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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

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 
35

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

35 

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 
36

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

36 

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 
37

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

37 

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 
1 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

38 

1 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 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
39

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

39 

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 
1 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

40 

1 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 
41

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

41 

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 
42

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

42 

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 corne 

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 
43

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

43 

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 
44

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

44 

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 
45

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

45 

·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 

15 

MR. BROOKMAN: Additional -- yes, Terry? 

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 
46

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

46 

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 
47

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

47 

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 
48

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

48 

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 corne 

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 
49

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

49 

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 
1 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

50 

1 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 
51

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

51 

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 RE~viewer 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 
52

*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 I have to apologize to the people in the back

6 of the room. I know it's probably 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 probably most 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 a high 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

52 

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 I have to apologize to the people in the back 

6 of the room. I know it's probably 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 probably most 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 a high 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 
53

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

53 

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 
54

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

54 

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 
1 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

55 

1 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 
56

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

56 

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 
57

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

57 

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 
58

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

58 

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 
59

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

59 

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 
1 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

60 

1 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 corne up 

24 with cost efficiency curves. 

25 One alternative way is for industry to 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
1 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

61 

1 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 
62

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

62 

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 
63

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

63 

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 
64

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

64 

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 
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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

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 
66

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

66 

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 
67

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? It would, 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 I have. Thank

18 you.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Brief follow-on questions for

20 Jim before we move to our next and final speaker?

21 (No response)

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

67 

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? It would, 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 I have. Thank 

18 you. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Brief follow-on questions for 

20 Jim before we move to our next and final speaker? 

21 (No response) 

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 
68

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

68 

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 
69

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

69 

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 horne, 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 
1 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

70 

1 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 

24 

25 

MR. BROOKMAN: Questions, comments? 

(No response) 

MR. BROOKMAN: None? 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) SEiS-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 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

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 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 
72

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

72 

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 
73

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

73 

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 
1 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

74 

1 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 
75

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

75 

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 
76

^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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

76 

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 
77

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

77 

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 
78

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

78 

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 

24 

25 

Questions? Any more questions? 

(No response) 

MR. BROOKMAN: I'm very eager to proceed. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
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 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

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 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 
80

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

80 

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 
81

1 for manufacturer impact analysis in terms of cost data,

2 I think it's premature to go through a design 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 DOE would go through a process 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 your product classes, and I don't think

13 any of us was involved in the selection of product

14 classes at this point.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: I want 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 expressed mandate of the statute.

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

81 

1 for manufacturer impact analysis in terms of cost data, 

2 I think it's premature to go through a design 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 DOE would go through a process 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 your product classes, and I don't think 

13 any of us was involved in the selection of product 

14 classes at this point. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: I want 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 expressed mandate of the statute. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
82

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

82 

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 
83

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

83 

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 
84

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

84 

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 
85

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

85 

1 Eari, 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 
86

^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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

86 

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 
87

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

87 

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 
88

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

88 

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 
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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

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 everyone 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 
90

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

90 

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 
91

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

91 

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 
92

1 So, if we can just move 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

92 

1 So,' if we can just move 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 
93

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

93 

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. ']~hank you. 

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

11 for that clarification. 

12 Additional comments, questions? 

13 MR. LaFRANCE: At 1:his 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 
94

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

94 

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 
95

1 (No response)

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

95 

1 (No response) 

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 
1 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

96 

1 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 
97

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

97 

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 

25 comment? 

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

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
98

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

98 

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 
99

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

99 

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 
100

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 (No response)

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

100 

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 (No response) 

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 
101

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

101 

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 
102

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

102 

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 
103

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

103 

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 
104

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

104 

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 
105

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

105 

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 
106

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

106 

lone 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 
107

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

107 

1 that there would not be a manual override, and I guess 

2 I'm not remembering in the test procedure, J-1, 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 mayor 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 
108

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

108 

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 
109

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

109 

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) Sj5S-0064 
110

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

110 

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 

24 

25 

MR. THIELE: Right. 

MR. LaFRANCE: Okay. 

MR. THIELE: And then we have product classes 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
1 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

111 

1 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 mayor 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 
1 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

112 

1 that issue. I believe May tag 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 
113

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

113 

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 
114

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

114 

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 
115

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

115 

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 
116

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

116 

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 
117

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

117 

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 

25 

MR. BROOKMAN: Terry? 

MR. THIELE: Well, just to elaborate on the 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
118

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

118 . 

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 
119

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

119 

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 
120

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

120 

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 
121

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

121 

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 
122

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

122 

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 
123

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

123 

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 
124

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

124 

1 AFT ERN 0 0 N S E S S ION 

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 

22 to that? 

23 

24 

25 

MS. GRAFF: Okay. Who would like to respond 

MR. LaFRANCE: I guess I would. 

MS. GRAFF: Mark LaFrance? 

MR. LaFRANCE: We have looked at product 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
125

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

---- ----- 

125 

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 
126

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

126 

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 
127

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

127 

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. May tag 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 
128

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

128 

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 
129

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

129 

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 
130

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

130 

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 
1 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

131 

1 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 
132

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

132 

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 
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, 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, I believe, is that correct?

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

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, 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, I believe, is that correct? 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
134

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

134 

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 
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 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

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 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 
136

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

136 

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 
137

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

137 

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 
138

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

138 

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 
139

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

139 

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 
140

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 how we 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

140 

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 how we 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 
141

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

141 

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 
142

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

142 

1 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 
143

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

143 

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 
144

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

144 

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 
1 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

145 

1 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 
146

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

146 

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 
147

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

147 

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 
148

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

148 

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 
149

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

149 

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 
150

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

150 

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 
151

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

151 

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 
152

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

152 

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 
153

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 I mean, 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 before we 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 I don't have any of that stuff to judge what I have

25 now. How do I know that, you know, -- why would I

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

153 

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 I mean, 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 before we 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 I don't have any of that stuff to judge what I have 

25 now. How do I know that, you know, -- why would I 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
154

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

154 

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 

23 

24 

25 

MR. NADEL: Yeah. A couple of --

MS. GRAFF: Steve? 

MR. NADEL: -- comments. 

MS. GRAFF: steve Nadel. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
155

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

155 

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 corne 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 
156

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

156 

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 
157

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

157 

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 
158

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

158 

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 
159

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

159 

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 
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 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 I made 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

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 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 I made 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 
161

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

161 

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 corne 

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 
162

^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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

162 

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 
163

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

163 

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 
164

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

164 

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 
165

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

165 

1 uncertainty criteria, and just to give one example, 

2 which has corne 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 carne 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 
1 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

166 

1 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 
167

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

167 

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 
168

^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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

168 

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 
169

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

169 

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 
170

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

170 

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 
1 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

171 

1 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 corne 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 
172

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

172 

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 
173

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

173 

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 
174

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

174 

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 
175

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

175 

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 
176

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

176 

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 
177

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 the manufacturer 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

177 

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 the manufacturer 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 
178

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

178 

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 
179

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

179 

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: Corne 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 
180

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

180 

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 
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 -- 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

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 -- 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 
182

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

182 

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 
183

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

183 

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 

, 

j 
1 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

184 

1 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 carne 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 carne up 

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 that referenced in here 

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, 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

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, 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 
186

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

186 

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 
187

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

187 

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 
188

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

188 

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 
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 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

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 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 
190

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

190 

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 
191

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

191 

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 
192

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

192 

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 
193

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

193 

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 
194

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

194 

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 
195

*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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

195 

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 
196

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

196 

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 
197

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

197 

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 
198

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

198 

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 
199

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

199 

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 t:hat 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 bE~lieve 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 
200

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

200 

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 
201

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 I mean 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

201 

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 I mean 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 
202

1 MS. GRAFF: Any suggestions along those

2 lines? Earl, no? Any -- okay. Are we done on this

3 point?

4 (No response)

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

----

202 

1 MS. GRAFF: Any suggestions along those 

2 lines? Earl, no? Any -- okay. Are we done on this 

3 point? 

4 (No response) 

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 
203

1 two as well.

2 MS. GRAFF: Okay. Any others?

3 MR. LaFRANCE: I just wanted 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, I believe 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 you with 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: I have 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

203 

1 two as well. 

2 MS. GRAFF: Okay. Any others? 

3 MR. LaFRANCE: I just wanted 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, I believe 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 you with 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: I have a series of overheads. 

22 Do you want to do that now or --

23 

24 

25 

MR. JONES: Well, do we have copies of them? 

(Multiple conversations) 

MS. GRAFF: Is that what you want? Copies? 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
204

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

204 

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 also'we 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 
205

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

205 

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 corne 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 
1 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

206 

1 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 
207

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

207 

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 corne 

25 back and say no, it didn't do a good job. Instead, 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
208

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

208 

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 consumE~r 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 
209

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

209 

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 
210

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

210 

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, DOJjDOE concerns about competitive 

25 practices. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
211

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

211 

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 
212

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

~-------- ------

212 

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 
213

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

213 

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 
214

*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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

214 

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 

25 

MR. LaFRANCE: If not, please provide 

MS. GRAFF: And if not, please provide 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
1 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

215 

1 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 
216

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

216 

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 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 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) SEiS-0064 
217

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

217 

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 
218

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

218 

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 carne 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 
219

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

~--------- ---

219 

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 
220

^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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

220 

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 
221

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

221 

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 mayor 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 
222

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

222 

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 

25 

MR. BERRINGER: The same time frame. 

MS. GRAFF: Everything in the same time 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
223

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

223 

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 
224

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

224 

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 
225

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

225 

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 carne 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 
226

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

226 

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 
227

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: I have a question before I

10 answer that. Are you talking about another workshop

11 for the engineering analysis specifically?

12 MR. BERRINGER: I guess if we were 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: I vote not to have another

24 workshop. There's going to be plenty of opportunity to

25 revisit the engineering analysis later. I mean we're

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

227 

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: I have a question before I 

10 answer that. Are you talking about another workshop 

11 for the engineering analysis specifically? 

12 MR. BERRINGER: I guess if we were 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: I vote not to have another 

24 workshop. There's going to be plenty of opportunity to 

25 revisit the engineering analysis later. I mean we're 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
228

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

228 

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 
229

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

229 

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 
230

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

230 

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 
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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

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 
232

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

232 

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 
233

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

233 

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 
234

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

234 

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 
235

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

235 

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 
236

*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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

236 

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 
237

* 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

237 

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 
238

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

238 

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 
1 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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

239 

1 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 corne 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 
240

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

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

240 

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 
.W 2. - REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE. -

. - . - - . .

3 - This *is to certify that the attached

proceedings--before: DEPT.-OF ENERGY -

- 5f C T WASHER-W

' 6'

7 In the Matter of: CLOTEES WASHER WORKSHOP

3

9

10

i _L

11

.: - * were he i as herein appears and that this is the

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 COURT REPORTERS

(301) 565-0064

 EE-RM-94-403 COMMENT 55L

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 S CERTI FICATE, 

Thi s 'i s to ceft; fy 'that the attache'd 

-proceed i ngs -,-before: DEPT.-OF ENERG'Y .-

In the Matter of: CLOTEES WASHER -rvORKSHOP 

were he 1 j as herei n appears,and ,that th is 1 s .the 

ori gi na 1 t ranscri pt thereof 'for the fi 1 e of the 

Departme:' t, 'Commission, Administrative Law Judge 

or the P~;ency. 

. ---

..... ~ .• 

, Dated:, NOV:EHBER 15, -;)~Q95 ' 

, EXECUTIVE COURT REPoRTEIis ': 

, ,: (301) 565-0064 

.. 

, I -: 'I 

! 

I 

I 

, 

, 

I 

i 

I 

I 

'j 

I 

I 

! 

i 

i 

I 

I 

t 

I