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 

# oftbe mlniteb**~tateg** 

## J!}ouge ofl\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 ofEnergy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585 CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT June 5, 2014

The Honorable GinaMcCarthy 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 ofEnergy (DOE) rulemakingthat would establishnew 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 consumptionby 2017, as compared to the 2005 standard. We have serious concernsthat such a requirement would increase ACIM development and production costs, putting significant financial strain on manufacturers and consumers. Furthermore, DOE announcedthis rule might be expanded to covernew standards for ACIM with capacities greaterthan 2,500 pounds per 24-hour period. We strongly oppose expansion ofthis rule to larger capacity commercial ice makers and urge youto reconsider the decision given the potential negative consequences. Ofgreatest concern, the DOE rule does not account for research, development and productiontimeframes. On average, redesigning all machines would take six to eight years, assuming the required parts are available. Giventhat most ACIM in use today would not meet DOE'sproposed 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 ofthe component parts for ACIM are unable to make the necessary parts due to pending SignificantNewAlternative Policy (SNAP) regulations currently being developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The apparent lack of coordinationbetween DOE and EPA on conflictingregulations 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 EPArule regarding the viability ofcomponent parts. These manufacturers are already workingtirelessly to develop, test, and manufacture products that qualify for EPA's ENERGY STARcertification, a program that recognizes the most efficient products inthe market. In fact, EPAhas recognized

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPERseveral ACIMmanufacturers as "ENERGY STARPartner ofthe Year" multiple times dating backto 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 manufacturingjobs in communities around the country. Giventhe serious negative impacts the proposedrule 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 setthe new energy efficiency standards been provento be attainable for U.S. manufacturers? Please provide any analyses or related materials to support yourresponse. 2. Have the analysis and theoretical models used by DOE to set these standards beentested and/or accurate? Please provide any analyses orrelated materials to support your response. 3. Has DOE conducted a cost-benefit analysis ofthis rule and its impactto 

### delay equipmentupgrades? Please provide any analyses orrelated materials to support your response. 4. Detail the coordinationbetweenDOE and EPA onthe two overlapping regulations, including meetings, correspondence and other communications, as well as any related materials.

# ~~. Howard Coble (NC-06)

Member ofCongress

-03) Member ofCongress Sincerely, 

# I l

Charles W. Dent (PA-15) Member ofCongress



### Member ofC: :