LYNN A. WESTMORELAND 

3RO DISTRICT, GEORGIA 

WASHINGTON OFFICE· 

FINANCIAL SERVICES 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS 

AND CONSUMER CREDIT 

2433 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 

(202) 225--5901 

DISTRICT OFFICE 

1601 EAS1 HIGHWAY 34 

SUITE B 

NEWNAN, GA 30265 

(770) 683-2033 

~ongregg of tbe mlniteb ~tateg 

J!}ouge of l\epresentattttes 

~asb1ngton, i!H! 20515-1003 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND INSURANCE 

SL'BCOMMITTEE ON CAPITAL MARKETS AND 

GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISE 

HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT 

COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE 

DEPUTY WHIP 

The Honorable Ernest Moniz 

Secretary 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20585 

CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

June 5, 2014 

The Honorable Gina McCarthy 

Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dear Secretary Moniz and Administrator McCarthy, 

We are writing to request information regarding a U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE) rulemaking that would establish new energy efficiency standards for automatic 

commercial ice makers (ACIM) with capacities between 50 and 2,500 pounds per 24-

hour period. These proposed standards would require ACIM manufacturers to meet a 

70% reduction in energy consumption by 2017, as compared to the 2005 standard. We 

have serious concerns that such a requirement would increase ACIM development and 

production costs, putting significant financial strain on manufacturers and consumers. 

Furthermore, DOE announced this rule might be expanded to cover new standards for 

ACIM with capacities greater than 2,500 pounds per 24-hour period. We strongly oppose 

expansion of this rule to larger capacity commercial ice makers and urge you to 

reconsider the decision given the potential negative consequences. 

Of greatest concern, the DOE rule does not account for research, development and 

production timeframes. On average, redesigning all machines would take six to eight 

years, assuming the required parts are available. Given that most ACIM in use today 

would not meet DOE's proposed energy efficiency requirements, the industry will have 

to divert limited R&D resources to meet the new stringent standard. Moreover, the 

technology to achieve the proposed standard is not currently available because 

manufacturers of the component parts for ACIM are unable to make the necessary parts 

due to pending Significant New Alternative Policy (SNAP) regulations currently being 

developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The apparent lack of 

coordination between DOE and EPA on conflicting regulations significantly impacting 

one industry is troubling. The result would leave companies with a Catch-22; either 

violate the DOE rule on energy efficiency or violate the EPA rule regarding the viability 

of component parts. 

These manufacturers are already working tirelessly to develop, test, and 

manufacture products that qualify for EP A's ENERGY STAR certification, a program 

that recognizes the most efficient products in the market. In fact, EPA has recognized 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 
several ACIM manufacturers as "ENERGY STAR Partner of the Year" multiple times 

dating back to 2009, demonstrating their good faith and concern for energy efficiency. 

The DOE rule would have a direct cost to customers and almost exclusively 

impacts small businesses that provide scarce manufacturing jobs in communities around 

the country. Given the serious negative impacts the proposed rule will have on 

manufacturers and consumers, we respectfully request you to please respond to the 

following questions by June 20, 2014: 

1. Has the technology used by DOE to set the new energy efficiency standards been 

proven to be attainable for U.S. manufacturers? Please provide any analyses or 

related materials to support your response. 

2. Have the analysis and theoretical models used by DOE to set these standards 

been tested and/or accurate? Please provide any analyses or related materials to 

support your response. 

3. Has DOE conducted a cost-benefit analysis of this rule and its impact to delay 

equipment upgrades? Please provide any analyses or related materials to support 

your response. 

4. Detail the coordination between DOE and EPA on the two overlapping 

regulations, including meetings, correspondence and other communications, as 

well as any related materials. 

~~. Howard Coble (NC-06) 

Member of Congress 

-03) 

Member of Congress 

Sincerely, 

I l 

Charles W. Dent (PA-15) 

Member of Congress 

Member of C: :