LYNN A. WESTMORELAND 3RO DISTRICT, GEORGIA
WASHINGTON OFFICE· 2433 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 1202) 225-5901

DISTRICT OFFICE 1601 EAST HIGHWAY 34 SUITE B NEWNAN, GA 30265

(7701 683-2033 

# C!ongreS's oftbe Wntteb**~tates** 

## j!)ouse of 11\epresentatibes**~asbtngton.** 1JBQC 

### 20515-1003

DEPUTY WHIP

The Honorable Ernest Moniz Secretary U.S. Department ofEnergy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585-0800

Dear Secretary Moniz, April 1, 2014 COMMITTEES FINANCIAL SERVICES SUBCOMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND CONSUMER CREDIT SUBCOMMITTEE ON HousH\G ANO INSURANCE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CAPITAL MARKETS AND

GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISE HOUSE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT

I am writing to oppose the U.S. Department ofEnergy rulemaking that would establish newenergy efficiency standards for commercial ice makers with capacities between 50 and 2,500 pounds per 24-hourperiod. I have serious concernsthat these new guidelines would impose great strain onmanufacturers in both their development and product costs in orderto be compliant ofa 70% reduction in energy efficiency from the 2005 standard by 2017. Additionally, DOE announced this rule might be expandedto cover new standards for those with capacities above 2,500 poundsper25-hourperiod. I strongly oppose expansion ofthis rule to larger capacity commercial ice makers and urge youto reconsider the decision considering the negative consequences it will have. Ofgreatest concern, the DOE rule does not account for research, development and productiontime frame. On average, redesigning all machines would take six to eight years ifthe parts were available. As most commercial ice makers in use today do not meet the new energy efficiency requirements, the industry will have to invest heavily in research and development. This process is already underway; however, the technology to achieve the proposed standard is not currently available. Manufacturers ofthe component parts for commercial ice makers do not currently have energy efficientparts available due to pending SignificantNewAlternative Policy (SNAP) regulations, which are currently under development atthe Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Itconcerns me greatly there seems to be no coordinationbetween DOE and EPA onregulations that would significantly impact one industry. The result would leave companies with a Catch22; either violate the DOErule on energyefficiency orviolate the EPA rule regarding the viability ofcomponentparts. Notwithstanding the disconnect between DOE and EPA, the DOErule would have a direct cost to customers who will find commercial ice makers are more expensive. As a result, companies will likely delay needed equipmentupgrades. I request Secretary Monizto please respond to the following questions by April 15, 2014:

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER1. Has the technology used byDOE to set the newenergy efficiency standards been provento be attainable for U.S. manufacturers? 2. Have the analysis and theoretical models used byDOE to set these standards been tested and/or accurate? 3. Has DOE conducted a cost-benefit analysis ofthis rule and its impact to delay equipment upgrades? 4. Detail the coordination betweenDOE and EPA on two overlappingregulations?

Sincerely,

Westmoreland (GA-03) ember ofCongress