UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2001

Themeeting came to orderat 9:00a.m.,in Room 13-245 of the Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C., Dennis Clough, Facilitator,presiding.

PRESENT: DENNIS CLOUGH, Facilitator DAVID GARMAN, DOE EDWARD POLLOCK,DOE MARK BAILEY, DOE FRANCINE PINTO, ESQ.,DOE QONNIE LAUGHLIN,DOE EUGENE MARGOLIS,DOE BRYAN BERRINGER,DOE CARL ADAMS, DOE BRENDA EDWARDS-JONES, DOE DEBORAH FORD, DOE MAUREEN MURPHY, DOE CYRUS NASSERI, DOE JIM RABA, DOE BARBAm TWIGG, DOE TOM ROBINSON, DOE NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701PRESENT: MARK FRIEDRICHS,DOE SANDY BEALL, DOE JIM McMAHON, LBNL MICHAEL J. McCABE, DOE KARIMAMRANE,Air-ConditioningandRefrigeration Institute DONALD BRUNDAGE, SouthernCompanyServices, Inc. ANDREW DELASKI,Appliance StandardsAwareness Project EUGENE C. FOLEY, JR.,Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers CHARLES FOSTER, Edison Electric Institute KYLE GILLEY, Lennox International WILBUR L. HAAG, JR.,A.O. Smith Water Products Company DAVIS ISSACS, Hewlett-Packard Co. BEN LIEBERMAN,Competitive Enterprise Institute JASON LINNELL, Electronic Industries Alliance JOSEPH MATTINGLY, Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association JAMES MEGGESTO, Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry STEVE NADEL,American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy HAMPTON NEWSOME, Federal Trade Commission BILL PRINDLE, The Alliance to Save Energy KURT W. ROTH, Ph.D.,Arthur D.Little, Inc. mRVEYM. SACHS, Ph.D.,American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy KEN J. SALAETS, Information Technology Industry Council CHARLES A. SAMUELS,Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers GLENN R. SCHLEEDE,Energy Market & Policy Analysis, Inc. MARK J. SHARP, Panasonic JAMES B. SHEIRE, Philips Electronics North America Corp. SRIRAM SOMASUNDARAM,PacificNorthwestNational Laboratory DAVE TRAVER, Sony Electronics, Inc. DR. STEPHENB.WHITAKER,Cassidy and Associates TED A. WILLIAMS,American Gas Association ROBERT W. WISBEY, NEMA STEVEN ROSENSTOCK,Edison Electric Institute EDWARD GRAY,NEMA

NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comPRESENT: (cont'd) JOHN W. HOLT,National Rural Electric Cooperative Association ELIZABETH McROBERTS, Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association CHUCK SCHLOSSER,Manitowoc Ice, Inc. RICHARDA.STEYER,ESQ.

### ,Howe,Anderson & Steyer ROBERT TANNER, Hill Phoenix



### NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISUNDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.cornIV. A-G-E-N-D-A PAGE Opening Remarks and Introductions 

### . 

## . . . . 5 Review of September 11th Meeting

. 

### . . 

## . . I1 Discussion of Selection Criteria 

### . . 

## . . . 19 and Information on Data Sheets Recommendations and Suggestions for 

### . 

## . . . 66 Prioritization of Products Nextsteps 

### . . . . . . . . 

## . . . 

## . . . 

## . 149

NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W.(9:08a.m.) MR. CLOUGH: Let's get ready to get started today. Hi, everybody. My name is Dennis Clough. I am with Aspen Systems Corporation, and I will be facilitating this meeting today. We have a busy day ahead of us, and to get us started I'd like to introduceDavidGarman,who is theAssistant Secretary for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,who will be making some opening comments and remarks for us today Mr. Garman? 

### MR. GARMAN: 

### I'm going to use this rather than stand up with a wireless mike to keep things moving ahead. I'll have to leave around noon to get to an Energy Star conference on the west coast, so 1/11be here until then. Thankyou all for coming, and, of course, we're here to continue the work that we began on September llth,andwe'11move ahead. What we're here to do is, of course, again facilitate some good discussion among us on appliance standards rulemaking priorities, potential expansion of the scope of the program as -- which is something the President's NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comNational Energy Policy asked us to do, the criteria and processes we should usewhen thinkingabout either expanding the program or using voluntary measures. We're looking fromyouforrecommendations mainly on criteria and process. We're looking for recommendations on whether or not products should be considered for further action, to include standards, negotiated agreements, legislation, Energy Star, whatever the realm of possibilities are. With that input,we will tell them our recommendations. We don't expect -- if you're expecting to have consensusat this meeting,we're not expecting to achieve that today. That's not our purpose. Our purpose is to, again, engage, listen, gather your input. As I've beendigging throughthisbooklet, it occurs -- a couple of things occur to me. Determining priorities is really a complex issue,and I recognize that. We all share a value of the desire to save energy. That's an important value. It's not

an absolute value. Thereare a lot of other criteriaand such that we need to consider -- the impact on innovation, consumer choice and preference. It's a mix of a lot of factors. We have to be mindful of all of those. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com7 This was a process that was designed solelyto promote energy efficiency, solely to look at which products would achieve the greatest energy savings. Without concern about any other criteria that would be easy. We wouldn't need tobe here. All

we would need to do is to come up with a fundamentally technical approach and process, and we'd be done with it. But,unfortunately,the situationwe have is far more complicated than that. We do have to consider impacts on innovation, consumer values, market impacts, and a whole host of other things. So with that said, it's a difficult process. It1 s a process that 

### I think we have to work through together, and to the greatest extent that we

can have good understandings with each other, the better we'll do. In terms of priority products for 2002, we've included all existing products for which rulemakingshave notbegun, including package terminal air conditioners and package terminal heat pumps and products previously categorized as medium and low priorities. So we've included that in this process,

so that we can be mindful of them. And Iwas seriouswhat I said amoment ago NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comabout the importance of working together and try to achieve consensus approaches to these things. To that end, I haven't quite decided whether it's better to establish a formal advisory committee or whether to continueto have more and more sessions like this that

are open to everybody A sessionlike this,while largerand more unwieldy, is also more inclusive, accommodates alternative points of view, and getsmore of us in the

room talking about these things. So the jury is still out in my mind on what approach we should take. Having said that, it is important in my mind that we do get together often and discuss these issues,and make it an iterativeprocess to the extent

we can. So with that, I will stop talking,and let's get to work. 

### MR. CLOUGH: Great. Thankyouvery much. Everyone inyourpacket shouldhave a copy of today's agenda. Let me run through this very quickly. After we go through some of thehousekeeping and introductions,Mr. Pollock from the Department of Energy is going to do a brief overview of the meeting from September 11th and some additional information for today,and thenwe're going to go into a larger -- is this a little too loud? NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com9 MR. GARMAN: No, that's this -- MR. CLOUGH: Oh. A larger discussion -- intoamore general discussionreviewing the selection criteria, some information on the data sheets, and then into a larger discussion in terms of recommendationsand suggestionsfortheprioritization of theproducts. And then, following up to that, into next steps and where we go from here. Does anybody have any questions or comments on the agenda? Or any suggestions for any topics for additional consideration? Great. Let's very quickly go around the

room and introduce ourselves. Again, my name is DennisClough,and 

### I'mwith Aspen Systems Corporation. MR.AMRANE: I'mKarimAmrane representing the Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute. MR. GRAY: Ed Gray, National Electrical Manufacturers Association. MR. SAMUELS: Chuck Samuels,Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. MR. MATTINGLY: Joe Mattingly, Gas Appliance ManufacturersAssociation. MR. NADEL: SteveNadel,American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. MR. DELASKI: Andrew Delaski, Appliance NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIrgross.comStandardsAwareness Project. DR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs, ACEEE. MR.WILLIAMS: Ted Williams,American Gas Association. MR. ROSENSTOCK: SteveRosenstock,Edison Electric Institute. MR. PRINDLE: Bill Prindle, Alliance to Save Energy. MS. PINTO: Francine Pinto, Office of General Counsel,Department of Energy. MR. GARMAN: Dave Garman. MR. POLLOCK: Ed Pollock, Department of Energy. MR. BERRINGER: Bryan Berringer, Department of Energy. MR. BAILEY: Mark Bailey, Department of Energy, representing the Energy Star Program. MR. CLOUGH: Great. Let me very quickly go through some ground rules. Excuse me. I'm sorry. Sorry. Please. MR. SHEIRE: Jim Sheire, Philips Electronics North America. PARTICIPANT: (Speaking from an unmiked location.) MR. SOMASUNDARAM: Sriram Somasundaram, NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comPacific Northwest National Laboratory. PARTICIPANT: (Speaking from an unmiked location. ) MR. BRUNDAGE: Don Brundage, Southern Company. MR. TRAVER: Dave Traver, Sony Electronics. MR. ADAMS: Carl Adams, Department of Energy. MR. 

### HAAG: Wilbur Haag,A.O. Smith Water Products Company. MR. SCHLEEDE: Glenn Schleede, citizen, consumer, and taxpayer. MR. HOLT: John Holt, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. MR. RAYMOND: Mike Raymond,Department of Energy. MR. NASSERI: CyrusNasseri,Department of Energy. MR. SCHLOSSER: ChuckSchlosser,Manitowoc Ice, Incorporated. MR. FOLEY: Gene Foley, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. MR. SHARP: Mark Sharp, Panasonic. MR. SALAETS: Ken Salaets, Information 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comTechnology Industry Council. MR. NEWSOME: Hampton Newsome, Federal Trade Commission. MR. TANNER: Robert Tanner, Hill Phoenix Refrigeration. PARTICIPANT: (Speaking from an unmiked location. ) MS. McROBERTS: Elizabeth McRoberts, Hearth, Patio & Barbecue Association. MR. ROBINSON: ThomasRobinson,Department of Energy. PARTICIPANT: (Speaking from an unmiked location.) MR.MARGOLIS: Eugene Margolis,Office 

### of General Counsel,Department of Energy. MS. FORD: Debbie Ford, Department of Energy. MS.EDWARDS-JONES: Brenda Edwards-Jones, Department of Energy. PARTICIPANT: (Speaking from an unmiked location. ) MS. TWIGG: Barbara Twigg, Department of Energy. MS. BEALL: Sandy Beall, Department of Energy. NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com13 MS.MURPHY: MaureenMurphy,Departmentof Energy. MR. JARNAGAN: Ron Jarnagan, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest, Arthur D. Little. DR. ROTH: Kurt Roth,Arthur D. Little. MR. McMAHON: Jim McMahon, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. MR.McCABE: Michael McCabe,Departmentof Energy. MS.LAUGHLIN: QonnieLaughlin,Department of Energy. MR. FRIEDRICHS: Mark Friedrichs, Department of Energy, Policy Office. MR. ISSACS: David Issacs, HewlettPackard. MR. LINNELL: Jason Linnell, Electronic Industries Alliance. DR.WHITAKER: SteveWhitaker onbehalf of Cassidy and Associates. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Thank you. MY apologies. Very quickly, let me go through some of the ground rules for today, some things to keep in 

## NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.commind as we move forward. Because this session is being recorded today, as we move forward please, as you speak, introduce yourself for the record. Iwon't go through all of those. I'm sure you're all very familiar with them. A couple things to keep in mind, though. Please wait until you're called on, so that we can keep the discussion to be able to be recorded. And if you're in the back, please come to one of the microphones to be recognized.And also, as we move forward,because of the amount of content to cover today, try and be as short and concise as possible. 

### I will do my best to capture the information on the flip charts and the recording, so that we have a good record of what has been discussed as we move forward. Any additional questions or comments before we get moving today? No? Great I'd like to introduce Ed Pollocknow,who is with the Buildings Office -- the Office of Building Research and Standards, who is going to give us a brief overview of some information for today and a review of the meeting on the 11th. MR. POLLOCK: One of the things -- most of you have been here, but Dennis knows where they are, 

### NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.combut in case you're -- you need to know in a hurry there are restrooms at either end of the corridor. If you brought computers with you, property passes, you need to see Brenda, so you can get a pass to get equipment back out of the building. Also, just so I don't forget it, because of our mail situation here, we're not receiving any letters. Our mailroom has been closed down. So in requests for comments,if youhave additional comments after this meeting today that you want to submit, either by e-mail or by fax, so that we make sure we get them in a timely manner. One other thing -- in the notice we had indicated that the comment period would end on November 20th. Given that the workshop is now on the 6th, I amproposing that we extend that day until the 6th of December, give you 30 days after this meeting today. Just very quickly, 

### I want to go through the -- where we were. Starting in September,we had the public meeting, and we were working through the criteria to be used, and I wanted them to spend a little bit of time talking about how we applied that criteria. We did ask for comments fromyou tohelp us begin that thinking,and these are -- they are sort of NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.coma summary of the comments that we received. The recommendations were that we should consider the following actions that we would do as far

as what we might do after we've determined which products should be considered for some sort of government action. And that would standards, negotiatedagreements, legislation,voluntaryprograms like Energy Star -- I'm sure there could be others that we have not identified here, Energy Star being the one that we do manage -- tax credits, other legislative actions. I don't know if I really need to spend a lot of time on this. I think most of you know the history behind why we're doing this. It was part of the National Energy Policy that standards should be expanded -- the program should be expanded, and so what we are in the process of doing is deciding howwe go about expanding that program, how we select products that we should do, how we prioritize the actions oncewe've identified theproducts that should be given additional attention. This is just a summary, for thosewho are not familiar with it, of the history behind this. This standards program was started back in 1972 and has had a number of amendments to it. Themost recent NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comonewas the Energy PolicyAct of 1992,which added the commercial equipment. What we want to do today is continue this process aswe've discussed --the review,the comments that we got from the September 11th meeting. And then, we have taken as many of those comments as we had time to address and rolled those into data sheets, whichwe've prepared which are in thepackage that you have today. And then, just to sort of focus the discussion,we arbitrarily drew a line at the maximum energy savings that we estimated of one quad. That left us with 12 products. Now, that does not mean thatwe're excluding the other products. We certainly want to hear your comments on that. And also, there may be situations where,

as David pointed out, just using the energy as a

reason for cutting -- for considering a product may not be adequate. Theremay be other things -- and I'm

sure there are other things which need to be considered. So some of those things in that top 12, those itemsmay, afterwe have receivedyour comments and talked about it today,we may decide to take those off the high priority grouping. Essentially,though,wehavenot attempted NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comto prioritize at all except that we did rank them by

our estimate on energy savings. There has got -- we've got to roll these other -- all these other factors into coming up with the priority. And I should point out that given the staff resources and the budget resources that we have inmy office,about four priority rules is all we can handle on standards rulemaking in a year, unless we find some other more -- less resource-intensiveways of getting to that standard level. Certainly, using public processes like ASHRAE and other voluntary programs is another way that we might want to consider,so that we canaddress

more of the products at one time. These are the -- just a list of the products, and 

### I think we had gone over this the last time,that are currently in our program. The original plan was that we would be -- have started actions on the high priorities this year. Given the need to go back and reevaluate the residential central air conditioning and heat pump standards, we have not started work on thepackage terminal airconditioners, commercial equipment. However,we are working on the other four right now. The original way we had this laid out was NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comthat the medium priority products would be the ones that would be picked up next. And as David pointed out, we are rolling those back into the whole list, because there are other products which came out with higher energy savings, and so we wanted -- since we have not investedresources inthoseproducts,and the package terminal one at this point,we will put them back into the pot, andwe'11 seewhat floatsup to the top as we apply this process. This is a list of the products. And, again, I think we had discussed this briefly, or at least looked at it briefly on September 11th. These are the residential products which we felt had some potential forenergy savings,largeor small,whichwe have now developed data sheets for with as much information as we have available. And these are the new commercialproducts which we have identified that are over and above the

ones that we're currently doing rules for. Let's now get into a little more of the meat of the process here. These are the criteria which we had proposed originally, and then at the bottom the two in italics are the two additional priority criteria which we've added based on the comments which we received from you. NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com20 I think they're all pretty much selfexplanatory. There was a comment about the manufacturer impact or cumulative burden. We believe that's actually captured under the one here which -- down about the center which says, "Other relevant regulatory actions affectingproducts." I think that captures it. I'd like,at thispoint, to entertain any questions or discussion about these particular criteria or issues that we haven't captured here, criteria that we haven't captured. And, Dennis, if you'll help me recognize people and keep them in order, that would be useful. MR. CLOUGH: Sir? And please introduce yourselves.MR. SAMUELS: Yes. 

### I'mChuck Samuels from AHAM. I appreciate your last comment about the fact thatyoubelieve that thevery important consideration of cumulative regulatory burden is contained in your statementof the relevant regulatory actionsaffecting products. But Idon't think it should be subordinated in any way. We don't want to lose the institutional history of the importance of this issue as this program was reviewed by Congress some years ago. And the fact of the matter is that, NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com21 particularly inmy industry,we havemanufacturers who have six,seven,eightproducts that have already been subject to over a dozen standards and an equal number of rulemakings. And it's an important consideration in prioritization to take that into account. And, you know,

### Idon't see that reflected, for example, in your -- and we can talk about this

more later -- in your cut in which you include dishwashersand clothes washers as possible prospects for additional rulemakings. And we can talk about that more specifically later if you want to. But I just want to emphasize that after the appropriationsmoratorium of a few years ago, the Congress made very clear, and DOE reflected very clearly in the process improvement rule, that cumulative regulatory burden would be explicitly considered. And I hope that that's not lost. 

### I haven't seen anywhere where you've revoked the process improvement rule. 

### I certainly hope that wouldn't be the case. And Iwould hope that you would be very explicit in your consideration of that important fact. MR. POLLOCK: Thank you. MR. CLOUGH: There's another comment in the back there, sir. NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com22 MR. DELASKI: Andrew Delaski, Appliance Standards Awareness Project. I think in the transcript from the last meeting there was raised the notion of the need to focus on peak, impact on peak demand of electricity. And I certainly would encourage the Department to include the impact onpeak in its evaluation of what the priority should be, certainly with the turnover of power. The liability issues inthepast coupleof years -- this is I think --go to the top for a lot of stakeholders,and the impact of this programand other energy programs as well, so we encourage you to include peak impacts in your considerations. Any reasonwhy that didn't get included in this cut? Has that been discussed? Given that it was raised in the 9/11 workshop. MR. POLLOCK: I'11 call onBryan,sincehe

was the staff person that's been working with the comments that we received MR. BERRINGER: I guess it was an oversight from our point. We did take most of the written comments. I tried to do a concise summary of all of those, so -- PARTICIPANT: (Inaudiblecomment from an unmiked location.) NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comMR.BERRINGER: That was Mike Rivest from ADL. He was saying that it -- MR. FRIEDRICHS: It's not on the slides, but it's on the data sheet. And while I'm on the subject of these criteria, innovation is on the slide but it's not on the data sheet. And we'll be looking for your help in developing criteria or a means by which we can quantify impact on innovation. MR. POLLOCK: One of the things which we

-- I want to spend a little time in the -- talking about these criteria here is the question of, how do we weight or come up with a way of evaluating the impact on innovation, for example? Often 

### I suspect there are things which industryareworking onwhich arenew informationthat they want to protect from the public, and so the challenge forus will be finding a way that we canbe educated about those new innovations but - - and protect it for those companies that are developing these innovations. We are going to need your help finding a way to do that effectively. Thank you, Mike. Did everyone hear his comment that we did put the issue of the peak loading

on the data sheets. It got missed on this slide. So it has been captured. 

### NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comMR. CLOUGH: Yes, sir. And then you. MR. FOSTER: Chuck Fosterwith the Edison Electric Institute. Followingup onAndrew's comment, I represent the electric utility industry, and if there's industrythatwould benefit from some sort of peak requirement, it's probably our industry. It would help us to flatten out our loads. Having said that, I've made this comment previously a number of times, and 1/11repeat it. I

am of the opinion that under the authority granted to the Department of Energy to develop standards it does not have the authority to regulate peak energy loads. And it would have to get an additional grant authority from Congress before it could do that. MR. CLOUGH: Didyouhave a comment? Yes, please. MR.LIEBERMAN: BenLieberman,Competitive Enterprise Institute. I just want to say that 

### I -- I strongly support using the impact on innovation as a criteria. One of the -- among the list of new appliances, the one that, in my mind, stuck out as being a little different than the others was personal computers, and, to a lesser extent, some of the peripheral devices. This is a littlebit different thanwhat's NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIrgross.combeen regulated in the past, and these are still relatively new technologies in the sense that there's

a lot of innovation going on with regard to PCs themselves, the interrelationship between PCs and other devices for application to the internet,and so forth. There's a lot of changes. In setting standards now and test procedures now, based on the limits of what we know now and not what we are going to learn about the development of these products, could pose some problems. So I do think that that should be a consideration. It hasn't been one in thepast because it didn't need to be. Things like refrigerators, air conditioners,water heaters -- these all had been on the market for several decades before the Department of Energy was even in existence, so there was a long period for manufacturers to improve upon these products,add new features to them,including features that may have increased the energy requirements, at least initially. And Ithink consumersbenefitted fromthis long period where manufacturers had a chance to make better, cheaper products free from the constraints of energy conservation standards. And now that we're NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com26 getting in relatively on the ground floor, I realize we're all on to our third PC now, but we're still talking about a relatively new technology,relatively new applications. I do think it is important to keep in mind that this is a rapidly changing field. MR. CLOUGH: Yes, sir? MR. ROSENSTOCK: SteveRosenstock,Edison Electric Institute. To follow up on that, 1/11just sayas a summarize - - technology/marketturnover,with many of these products that are listed. I would say

-- in fact, Iput in the written comments 15years ago the most common form of residential printer was a dot matrix printer. If the Department back then had made standards for thoseprinters the energy savings today would be zero,because no one is using them anymore because of the technology turnover in themarketplace. So 

### I think with a lot of these new products -- and, say, the ground floor of being innovated and being changed when you get right down to it -- I think that shouldbe a consideration for the Department of Energy as well. MR. CLOUGH: Yes, Mr. Prindle. MR. PRINDLE: Bill Prindle, Alliance to Save Energy. I have a comment on the energy security NEAL

### R.

### GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com27 issue that's listed here, and then also on DOE resources. Clearly, the biggest change that occurred since thismeeting was first started twomonths ago is

a whole new situationwith regard to energy security. I was at a workshop last month where Mary Hutzler, the Acting EIA Administrator, spoke. And 

### I asked her, "IsEIA doing any analysis onwhat the cost impact on the national energy supply system is going to be of, you know, the added security that's being required by NRC and DOT and the other agencies?" And she said, "No." And I said, "Well, it seems to me that you might want to take a look at that." And I've heard since that the Department is doing some other analysis through 

### I think Sandia and Los Alamos on some energy infrastructure costs. And 

### I would just encourage the Office of Building Research and Standards to make sure that these analyses get coordinated, so that DOE does not continue to rely on old annual energy outlook forecasts when there's new data being generated on, you know,what are the cost impactsgoing to be on our energy supply infrastructure as we try and make those difficult predictions on future energy prices. So that's one point. And then, there's a criteria here on the NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comimpact on incremental DOE resources required. We would just urge the Department tomake sure that there is an adequate budget request in the appropriate fiscal year. And some of us are happy to support that in Congress, but the request has to come first from the Department. So we just note that the resources have been tight lately, and it's -- as Ed said, it's hard to do more than a few rules a year. So if there's an ambitious agenda to be set, there need to be

resources. We're happy to support that. Thank you. MR. CLOUGH: Yes, please, at the microphone. 

### MR. SALAETS: Ken Salaets with ITI. Just

a couple of notes. You mentioned other relevant factors as one of the criteria. I'd just suggest that

we give particular consideration to international developments. Inmany particular product areas there

are international discussions. There might be standards or testing procedures that should be considered and taken into account. That1 s probably covered under here, but 

### I think it should receive particular emphasis. Thanks. MR. CLOUGH: Any more comments? Yes, sir. DR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs,ACEEE, and it's 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comreally a question for my esteemed colleague, Mr. Foster. Wouldyou joinus in supporting clarification of the intent of the law to includepeak demand if you feel that's necessary? MR. SALAETS: The devil is certainly in the details. But we would welcome any dialogue with you about that. DR. SACKS: Thank you. MR. CLOUGH: Any more questions or comments from the folks in the back of the room that have been a little quiet so far, before we move forward? No? Yes. MR. NADEL: Just one general observation. It's real easy -- MR. CLOUGH: Excuse me. Introduce yourself,please. MR.NADEL: Oh,okay. SteveNadel,ACEEE. It's real easy to pile on criteria which make for a large analysis burden. Recognize that this is just a very initial consideration and that there - - for products that are selected there will be a rulemaking which will allow all of these issues to be fully gelled, so we need to be careful to keep the list of criteria down and the level of analysis down to a preliminary analysis rather than trying to do NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comeverything twice. MR. CLOUGH: Any more questions or comments? Yes, please. MR. FRIEDRICHS: In that regard -- I I m sorry. Mark Friedrichs from the Policy Office at DOE. MR. CLOUGH: Thank you. MR. FRIEDRICHS: Comments on the importance of impacts onpeak are well taken I think, but the real question is going to be, how do we take peak impacts into account? How do we estimate the impacts on the costs? How do we -- how does that affect savings? think that's going our real difficulty inassessing peak aspart of the rulemaking process or in the priority-settingprocess MR. CLOUGH: Thanks. Steve,want to respond? MR. NADEL: Yes. I don't think peak is that difficult an issue. There are many standards that have already been set for whichDOEhas estimated peak impacts. As you start looking at some of these different things, given the standards that they are looking at,what are the potential peak impacts,you know, as you do efficiency measures. We're not saying think of every possible 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com31 load control measureyou ever could think of,but just trying to document what the peak impacts are of potential standard levels. Imean, the primary basis is energy savings and some of the other criteria in the legislation. Peak falls under other relevant factors considered relevant by the Secretary. But if aparticular measurewill save lots of peak in addition to the energy, versus another

measure that will savevery littlepeak, Iwould think the measure that does have peak savingswould receive priority, all other things equal. MR. CLOUGH: Yes, sir. 

### MR. SCHLEEDE: Glenn Schleede

### . Just want to remindyou as you talk about using -- applying all of these criteria, DOE still has a pretty sad record in coming up with valid, reliable,and representative data for assessing its standards. 

### I put all of this in a letter to Secretary Garman on September 11th. I think that letter probably got lost somewhere in the mail, because I don't see any reference to anything that was mentioned in the letter. But 1/11send another copy in. But keep in mind, data are required to apply criteria. DOE has a terrible record in getting the data. NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comMR. CLOUGH: The gentleman from EEI MR.ROSENSTOCK: SteveRosenstock,Edison Electric Institute. With peak demand, two of the big factors --and I've mentioned this with otherproducts

-- is the coincidence of the -- coincidence and diversity of the product usage. Coincidence with the systempeak,which does --whichmay vary from area to

area within the United States,and then the diversity in terms of how many products are actually being used during the peak time. With many of theseproducts,especiallyon the residential side, there is a huge variance in terms of how the products are used. So, again, the data -- in terms 

### of collecting the data on a national basis to CEP correlation, the data set -- it can be done, but, again, it is a lot of extra -- a lot of extra data collection, and it's a lot of --you know, there are going to be some regional variations. So, again, when you're adding peak into it, it is going to be a lot of extra effort Thank you. MR. CLOUGH: Onemore comment on this,and then we can -- we'll need to move forward MR. LIEBERMAN: Ben Lieberman, CEI. I just had a quick comment about if peak load is used as NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.coma criterion, I think it should be used in an evenhanded fashion. Obviously, if peak load is relatively more important and non-peak is relatively less important, then that might be a factorwith regard to maybe heating equipment,which, of course, isn't used in the summer or interior lighting, which is mostly used at night. So I see it not so much as something that's selectively used in favor of certain standards but something that's used in a more even-handed fashion in terms of priority setting MR. CLOUGH: Sir, one final comment on this, and thenwe'll have some time later today if we want to discuss this issue further. MR.GRAY: Yes,one of the things I'd like to point out is -- Ed Gray at the National Electrical Manufacturers Association -- is I think the peak load criteria is certainlyworthy and shouldbe considered. And when you do that, the standby power requirements 

### I think need to be looked at for a lot of devices like thermostats, appliance controls,things that actually reduce load,even though they might use more than one watt while they're doing it. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Thanks. Very quickly, I just want to checkand see 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comif there's anyone on the telephone that would like to make a comment related to selection criteria beforewe move forward. No? All right. Okay. Thank you. MR. POLLOCK: Just one comment which reflects on what Steve Nadel had said, as far as applying these criteria. We are not going to apply the level of analysis and accuracy for applying these criteria in the process of prioritization. This -- what 

### we need to do here is to be able to rank theseproducts and to make decisions,are these products which should be considered? Are the information, test procedures, those other factors whichwe have inhere,available so that we could move forward? So the accuracy -- relative accuracy is important,but the absolute answer is not important. And if you have comments or thoughts on that, 

### Iwould appreciate,you know, you getting back to us in the written comments on how we do that. But I'm more looking here as a way of ranking these products on relative importance for the actions that we might take. Okay. Now we can start to talk a little bit more in terms 

### of specifics. We already got a comment from Chuck Samuels about why are the clothes NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIrgross.comdryers and dishwashers -- I believe are on here -- given that AHAM manufacturers have stood the brunt of

a bunch of the original NAECA standards process. And as I pointed out in my opening comments, there -- this was only just grabbing the

onesbased on energy savings. We did not apply any of the other factors in making up this list. And now I think it would be good to open up the floor to discussion about applying those other criteria which

we just finished talking about. How do we put those -- what are the factors that we may --may want to weight -- and here I'm looking at, you know, I don't think any of those criteria that we just looked at on the previous slide

can necessarily be given all equal weight. Some of them are showstoppers. Some of them are not. Some of them are a weighting factor where you have a toss-up between two products And that's -- without coming to a consensus, what I would like is your thoughts and insight on how we go about using those criteria that we've just talked about in ranking these products or removing them from consideration because of the factors involved. And I'm going to sit down and let Dennis 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comwork the crowd here. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. If you can hold that comment. Just before we get into this, I wanted to askBryan Berringer to quickly describe thepackage of information that you've all been given that may help to support this discussion as we move forward. MR. BERRINGER: Yes, thank you, Dennis. Bryan Berringer,DOE. Just to make sure everybody is

on the samepage as far as what informationyou have, obviously you have your agenda that we've gone through. We've just gone through the slides,wasyour other package we've just completed. The next -- it1 s

a -- one page where you have -- it was actually a spreadsheet that has existing and new products on it. And, again,this sort of -- it's a summary of the data sheets,basically, and it talks about the various technologies. Again, it's just a way that we could have -- instead of looking through 50 pages of the data sheets for each -- for new and existing, we've summarized that, and we've sort of put some of the technologies on there. So what we've done,and you see the slide is still on -- up on front, that's a combination of

new and existing products. So you'll see one side, the shorter list that has 15 on it, is the existing 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comproducts that we've basically ranked by energy savings, and on the other side is the new products ranked the same way. So we just basically took the combination of those two lists and generated that slide on -- up front. And then as was mentioned, the data sheets,we have also new and existing, which is amore detailed analysis of the products. So we've tried to make it, again, concise. As Mike said, there's some new criteria as far as thepeak, some informationthat

we don't have, but -- so it's a reference to go back through when we're going through these products to say, "Where' s the more specific information and technology?" So are there any questions about what you have handed out or in general as far as -- does everybody understand what they have? MR. CLOUGH: All right. Let's open this up. Sir? MR. SAMUELS: Let me now get more specific in the comment 

### I made about cumulative regulatory burden and how it applies at least to AM products. First of all, let me statewhat we support in terms of positive regulatory actions with respect to our products, and this was contained -- some of this was NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comcontained in written comments that we submitted, although obviously with -- it's unclear how much you've circulated, given some of the things that have occurred in the last few months. First of all,we support extending theDOE program to commercial clothes washers, particularly those products that are essentially the same as residential clothes washers, although they may have

some kind of coin box or coin readermechanism. This has been an area of a lot of confusion. There hasn't been clear guidance by the Department with respect to which products were under NAECA and which weren't, but the recent rulemaking that we went through certainly brought this 

### to the fore and we think now that we ought to -- the Department ought to use its discretion to expand the program to apply to these clothes washers. Exactlyhow thatwouldworkprobably would require a short rulemaking that we all need to consider,but it's time to take that additional step. The second thing we recommend -- and 

### I don't know whether it's high priority or a medium priority -- is there's been a lot of interest in the standby energy use of microwave ovens among the 

### AHAM products. 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comAnd although, as 1/11get to in a second, we are opposed to standards for microwave ovens, and we think that you've put them in the wrong category because they're an existing product that's already been subject to rulemaking,we certainlydo think that it makes sense, as it may for other of our test procedures, to reviseour testprocedures to take into account standby energy. It isn't done now. It wasn't something that was considered when the original test procedure was developed. There's a lot of interest in it, and we would be happy to work with the Department and other people to revise the test procedure to adopt an appropriate definition of standby, product classes, and a test procedure that measures standby. With respect, though, to standards rulemaking, let me say that on microwave ovens, as I just said,you've got it inappropriately categorized. Microwave ovens has always been considered a kitchen range and oven. Under the original legislation, it

was part of a major rulemaking which at least was partially concluded in 1995with the decision that no standard could be justified for amicrowave oven. And

we don't see anything that has changed that. With respect to clothes dryers, we also NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comare disappointed to see that on the list of potential standards,because we just went through a multi-year rulemaking in which it was explicitly stated by the Department that no new standards would be set for clothes dryers,because we were going to incorporate into the test procedure and the standard for clothes washers the concept of retained moisture content, which in effect measures how dry the clothes are when they come out the clothes dryer, thereby dramatically affecting the energy use of the clothes dryer. This was an innovation by the Department for which it needs to be -- for which it should be applauded,which was avoiding additional millions of dollarsof investment in clothes dryersby, in effect, sort of -- excuse the expression -- front loading the design and the regulatory standard into the clothes washer So it is inappropriate at this point, given the specificunderstandingthat's in the Federal Register of what was done for clothes washers, to be looking at a standard for clothesdryers. And then if you apply the general principle of cumulative regulatory burden, certainly it wouldn't make any

sense given the kinds of investments that we still 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com41 have to make for the 2004 and 2007 clothes washer standard to now be contemplating the clothes dryer standard. Separately, you've got on the list some portable appliances like coffeemakers and fans,which

we represent,and in ourwritten comments Iwould ask the Department to look carefully at some of our initial evaluations of the energy savings opportunities which we think are really sort of minuscule. And it would be hard to imagine that in any list of the top four rulemakings that youwould be considering those products. So that would be my initial comments on the cuts that you have made here for -- I recognize only for discussion purposes. Thank you. MR. CLOUGH: Bryan, a response? MR. BERRINGER: Bryan Berringer, DOE. Just to respond to some of that, Chuck. The reason microwaves just --alongwith televisions --you know, there was no standard, so that's really -- they're looking at -- theyput it undernewbecause we weren't

-- it wasn't really considered in our existing priorities. It doesn't showup on theirhigh,medium, and low. And that's one of the reasons it was there. The other thing is, as you said at the 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comvery end, is this table right here that we have is a top 12, is only looking at energy savings. And it was for discussionpurposes only, just to look at it. So this isby nomeans the top 12 that the Department has selected. That's whywe wanted tohave this meeting to step through these products and say, "Okay. What are the things that are behind it?" And you've just addressed two of them that we are aware of. So thank you. MR. CLOUGH: Yes. MR.ROSENSTOCK: SteveRosenstock,Edison Electric Institute. Looking over the list -- and I'm looking at some of the language in the prioritysettingdocumentsthat were included -- forHID lamps, the energy savings it says, based on LBNL rough estimate, September 2001, and the reason it's interesting to me is that HID lamps have been -- are the energy efficient answer in many situations. They are the most efficient in terms of lumens per watt of any light source out there. And they have been used over the last I'd say at least 20 years to replace less efficient lighting. So over their history they have saved untold number of kilowatt hours, and I'm kind of -- 

### I don't know how the calculation -- what it does, but 

### NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comI'm kind of curious if this is still trying to replace indoor lighting versus where it's always being used, which is outdoor lighting which it dominates in the outdoor lighting use. So I am kind of curious to see how that calculationwas done, just from a technical standpoint. On some of the other items on the list, looking through there are -- in there it does show unit energy consumptions based on Arthur D. Little calculations. And for some of the equipment -- for example,VCRs -- the unit energy consumption is shown at 71 kilowatt hours per year. Now, 

### I remember -- 

### I think one of the provisions of NAECA was 100 kilowatt hours per year

was a cutoff for consideration under NAECA. so I again, I don't know how that plays into this decisionmaking process. But one other thing in terms of monitors, it's broken out commercial versus residential usage of

a computer monitor. And on the residential side for monitors, under different either best versus typical new, it's all under 100 kilowatt hours. However, in the commercial sector, obviously,the numbersare much higher. So I guess in that one it's kind of an NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.cominteresting interpretation because in one application it's always under 100 kilowatt hours. In another application itf s always over 100 kilowatt hours per year. So, again, I'm not sure if NAECA provides any guidance to that, but it is kind of an interesting fallout from that product. There are probably otherproducts in here

-- desktop computers being another example -- residential sector,56kilowatt hoursperyear,and in the commercial sectormuch higher. So I guess that's

one thing to also consider for this is remembering NAECA and then -- and it will be kind of fascinating, especially for those products that are so --have such

a high saturation in both the residential and commercial markets. Thank you. MR. CLOUGH: At the mike. MR. SCHLEEDE: Glenn Schleede

### . Just a quick question following up on Steve's comment. This based onLBNL rough estimate on the HID lamps,is that study/analysisavailable in --where canoneget that? Is it in the docket room or -- MR. CLOUGH: Somebody from the Department like to respond to that? MR.BERRINGER: Bryan Berringer,DOE. No, 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com45 that information is not in the docket. It may be -- I don't know if Jim McMahonl s - - or Mike Rivest or -- you know, someone is willing to step up to the microphone and talk a little bit about the analysis. But, again -- MR. SCHLEEDE: Can it be made available in paper form so one can look at it in detail? MR. McCABE: Yes. These are all numbers which were done to -- just to get us a ballpark figure. They're not analysiswhich is going to -- to give you a final number. 

### I believe we could probably give you a copy of the basis that was used in those calculations. 

### I do want to point out on HIDs, because there's been a lot of discussion on this, that that study was started several years agobecause EPACT, in 1992, added that as a product on the -- it was under

a special class with small motors and distribution transformers, that we were to do a study to make a determination if standards would result in energy savings. And thatpreliminary work was doneby LBL, but because of other priorities we have never completed that study. Ibelieve the numbers that are being cited here for HIDs are coming out of that. NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comSo the numbers were gathered up from a number of different sources, and sometimes we did calculationsbased on best on the market compared to the market average, that type of thing, to come up with a range of numbers. And we have specified these as ranges of numbers because we don't know precisely what the benefits would be. MR. SCHLEEDE: Well, this one shows up on your chart as a huge number, and it seems to me we at least ought to be able to see what it's based on. MR. McMAHON: Jim McMahon, Lawrence Berkeley Lab. We're happy to make the calculations available if the Department would like us to do so. 

### MR. GRAY: 

### Ed Gray from NEW. 

### I guess what I'd like to understand specifically on that product and all the others that might be on there is

a little more explanation -- andmaybe I'm new to this and that's my problem --as towhat themeasure really is. It's hard forme to understand just from, you know, four or five words what really is being proposed in this -- for example, in that category, what are we actually doing? We're replacing this before its end of life, or at its end of life with -- if so,with what? You know, that kind of thing. 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com47 MR. CLOUGH: Yes, Mr. Prindle. MR. PRINDLE: Bill Prindle, Alliance to Save Energy. I just wanted to make a comment -- a specific comment on the dishwasher issue, and then relate that to a somewhat larger issue. As the Department is well aware, the dishwasher test procedure issue is still unresolved, and so it's difficult to know where that number for dishwashers will go up or down. And as some of you know, a major manufacturer is now recommending that DOE remove the Energy Star label from dishwashers until this is resolved. And I think a lot of other people will weigh in on that issue, too. So kind of a -- just a reminder there. And that kind of raises the wider issue that I think Dave Garman mentioned earlier, which is that if we're not going to have a formal Advisory Committee process for the standardsprogram,which we at the Alliance -- we support that idea, it's fine with us if we use ameeting like this to discuss those kind of issues. But if that's going to be the case, we might want to broaden the agenda a littlebit, so that

some of these issues can come out. Of course,I'mnot 

## NEALR.

### GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comadvocating three-daymeetings,but Iwould like to see

some room for some of these wider issues to be included in the agenda, if we're not going to have a formal Advisory Committee process. MR. CLOUGH: Yes. MR. FOSTER: ChuckFoster, EdisonElectric Institute. I believe, just sticking with the HID lamps for a moment, I think maybe this is a good example of what Secretary Garman started out the meeting with, saying that there are a lot of factors that go into this analysis. If you look at HID lamps and think that a lot of the savings to be accomplished by their use is by replacing incandescentsor other forms of lighting with HID lamps, you could actuallyhurt that effort if you take an HID lamp and say, "Well,we can at the margin make it more efficient by whatever -- incorporating these otherdesign features and over the life cycle of the -- or lifetime of the product, it's life cycle cost effective." What you do is raise the cost marginally, but it makes it less of a substitute for a less efficient product that it's out there replacing right

now. And so I -- again, I think that's what the Secretarywas trying to make the point early on. 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com49 

### MR. CLOUGH: Yes, sir. MR. SAMUELS: Chuck Samuels,AHAM. 

### I just wanted to comment on the dishwasher situation that Bill raised appropriately. We,unfortunately,have a situation in the dishwasher test procedure where the technologymay have outrun even our attempt to respond to technological change. And it is true that our members are divided on the implications of that for the purposes of Energy Star. But what they're not divided on are two things. Number one,that it's absolutely critical to resolve this test procedure situation as soon as possible, and we hope that we will receive the next step in that,which is anADL report, immediately and then we should all be working hard to do something with that toget this thing resolved,because the fact of the matter is there are some very energy- and water-conservingdishwashers out there,and we should be promoting them, and we should be measuring them, what theydo. And it's in everyone*s interest tomove that thing ahead. The other thing that all of the manufacturers agree on is that it's inappropriate to

move forward on a standards rulemaking on dishwashers

as the Department determined a few years ago. But, NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comrather,we're extremely supportive of promoting some of the very energy efficient products that are out there through Energy Star and other things. So we do have this difficult problem, which Ihope is very temporary, and the take-awayfrom this ought to be let's work real hard to get it resolved as quickly as possible MR. CLOUGH: I'd like to solicit some comments from the folks in the back of the room who have been listening. Does anybody have anything to add at this point who hasn't joined inyet? No. Any

more comments? Steve? MR. NADEL: Okay. Iwanted to make a few comments. First,to respond towhat 

### I thought was the lead-in question, which was, given all of these different energy savings, given all of these other factors, how do we proceed to make sense of this muddle? What I would suggest is you have to recognize that it's going to be a little bit art. This is not a strictly quantitative thing where you weight everything in terms of numbers. It's -- there's going to be a little bit of art. My tendency would be to say that energy savings is the primary factor, but you need to use 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com51 some good, careful, professional judgment. Within each of these savings ranges, there is a wide range of measures, someof which, frankly,are impractical,and except for,you know,doing an analysis they're never going to possibly see the light of day in terms of a standard. So I think for each of thesemeasures,the 12 here, as well as for some of the others, you need to look at what is going to give 8.3 quads or 4.4 quads, and say, how reasonable is that to be a standard,given all of the other criteria -- the 12 or 13 other criteria that we said,and effectively knock down the savingson abunch of thembecause it'snever going to happen. Just to give one example - - and Chuckwill appreciate this, 

### I believe -- residential clothes dryers -- it gets 3.5 quads because of -- I think it

was a heat pump clothes dryer. Yes, you can do it. Every time we've looked at the economics they're abysmal. It's not going to be a standard absent some phenomenal technological breakthrough. So eliminate the 3.5. 

### I think the next

one comes -- microwave. That one also is pretty debatable. So all of a sudden clothes dryers, even ignoring the interactions with the clothes washer,the NEAL

### R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comavailable measures probablywill giveyoupretty small savings, and that one may decline the list, but applying that to each of these measures. And, frankly,I think onceyou start doing that a lot of them will start dropping down, and you'll need to potentially look at that next year -- you know, the .5 to one quad. 

### I think it will be very useful,and there will be judgment calls and you need to say why you eliminated them. But all of those different criteria give you reasons to eliminate them. Then there will be some closegrouped ones and you1 re going to have to applymore judgementgiven, okay,these threemeasures will all save -- 1/11make 

### up a number -- one quad, but this one has these three problems, this one has this benefit, and you can maybe prioritize a little bit that way. But for a first cut, 

### I think, you know, applying some common sense to these energy savings numbers, incorporating those other criteria,will get you a long distance. A few other comments and questions. One,

as I look at your list, I think it's important also to pay attention to what products group handily that would probably be part of a same rulemaking. There NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com53

are some cases, you know, of unit heaters, for example, where you have oil and gas. Traditionally, we've treated those together. Or anotherexample is commercial reach-in refrigeration. We have the reach-in refrigerators. We have the reach-in freezers. And then we have the beverage merchandisers, which have a lot in common with the glass door reach-inrefrigerators. That's probably one common rulemaking, so you need to look at if from a rulemaking perspective. Sometimes therewill be combinations. On occasion,it may mean splitting some. But I'd approach it from that perspective, because ultimately we're trying to prioritize. As Ed said, if we can do four or five rulemakings at a time,which are the four or five? We do have some specific commentson some of the numbers,but 

### I will leave that to our written comments. Let's see, one other thing that was unclear to us is,what timeframeare we talking about? Are we looking for identifying the rulemakingsfor the next 10 years? For the next two years? The reason 

### I ask that is there are someproducts whichwe've in the not-too-distantfuture set standards on that may be opportunities for other standards, subsequent 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comrevisions. And, you know, if the timeframe is one year,you know,probably not. If the timeframe is 10 years, you know, there are things like refrigerators, things like another round on commercial air conditioners,probably deserve to be there. And just that -- sorry -- residential air conditioners. The reason Imention that isnot the Sears thing, but there are some other issues that have recently come out, things dealing with the fans, things dealing with thermal expansion valves, that potentially have some very significant savings. I guess the final comment Iwould make is 

### I would agree it would be very helpful, particularly the HID lighting, to give some idea of what's involved. All of the other ones at least did -- even if it's a rough estimate, it says 10 percent above current standard, or it says halogen and IR technology. That's the one where just some unknown package, so at least some explanation of what's included to allowus to have some judgment. You know, is that a heat pump HID, or is it -- (Laughter. )

-- something reasonable? NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com(Laughter. ) MR. CLOUGH: I wanted to open this up a littlemore. The discussionhas focused a lot around the impact of potential standards on these products. But one of the things, if you recall from the presentationat thebeginning, was that the Department wanted to also look at Energy Star and tax creditsand other initiatives that they could take related to these products that may help to have an impact in terms of energy savings. When you look at this list here, and try and think in terms of some of those other initiatives that the Department could do, are there any things that -- any things that come to mind in terms 

### of some other techniques that they could look at related to

some of these products, in addition or in -- as an alternative to a standard? Yes. MR. ROSENSTOCK: SteveRosenstock,Edison Electric Institute. For some of those products up there, the Energy Star program has really worked pretty closely with the manufacturers on their -- especially like monitors and computers, and I think they might even be starting on ceiling fans. I can't exactly recall. But, again, it seems like the Energy Star NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIrgross.comprocess has worked, especially with those types of technologies that have very fast technology change rate or turnover rates in themarketplace. So,again, that should -- for certain products, it might be better to look at the Energy Starprocess rather than

a standard rulemaking process, just because it might take five years to do a rulemaking,but by then the technology has already turned over and people are using something else. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Gene? MR.FOLEY: Gene Foley,the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers

### . As we've all talked about,the Department of Energyhasundergone anumber of rulemakings already and put 

### in -- especially 

### for AHAM products -- a number of significant standards. If you look at the potential that was outlined originally in those rulemakings, the amount of quads that could be saved by those standards were quite significant

### . In fact,many of themwere many of the numbers that are on this -- on the board now. I think the Department needs to seriously consider means of accelerating the penetration of those products which already have new standards in there,and thepotential from those -- implementation of those types of programs could dwarf anything 

### NEAL

### R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comthat -- any new standard may actually be put into effect and sort of needs to keep that in mind when looking to allocate resources. There's a number of wonderful standards out there now. There's products that are available that just need a better saturation in the existing markets. MR. POLLOCK: This is Ed Pollock. Canyou expand on how you see that happening? MR. FOLEY: At the association, we've advocated for multiple-tierapproaches towards this, the use of Energy Star, to putting more awareness of people to understand the implications and the impacts of Energy Star,theuse of turning that into relevance to everyday consumers and what they can see in terms of value of implementing the new programs. There are several new standards that have just gone into effect, some others have been negotiated which could definitely benefit from more market exposure about what the benefits are. Tax credits -- we've always been big advocates of market incentives, tax credits, utility rebates,and other financial incentivesgiven to draw attention to consumers through the availability of thesehigh efficiencyproducts. All of these are sort NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com58 of part of the package that's available to the Department to help seat existing products into the marketplace. Fromour perspective,that's -- there's so much more to be gained there than to attempt to regulate sort of the tail ends of the significant products that are there. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Bill, did you have a comment? MR. PRINDLE: Yes, just briefly. In the

area of electronics and standby power, I mean, we're happy to see the Department has taken a -- you know,

a strong interest in the standby issue, and there's a lot of energy to be saved. 

### I think it's been pointed out that some of these products are very different in termsof their product life cycle and their technology innovation rates. And I think it is going to take a closer interaction between the standards program and the voluntary programs -- Energy Star and maybe -- maybe others,such that, youknow,if thevoluntaryprograms

move forward at a sufficient pace, there may be able to be consensus agreements that reduce the need for full-blownrulemakings. And 

### Iwould also suggest that there --you 

### NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comknow,given that some of theseproducts are currently handled by EPA under the Energy Star program, there just needs to be a closer working relationship with EPA, and I know there is on many of these. Hopefully, that kind of partnership will lead to standards where it's appropriate and just fastermarketpenetration where thevoluntaryprograms move faster. 

### MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Yes, sir. 

### DR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs,ACEEE. With all due respect to the comments fromAHAM, it appears from

a stratospheric level that there's tremendous variance inthe efficiencywithinproduct classes,dependingon the product class. We heard reference to a small tail of less efficient products. But in classes that look to us like commercial air conditioning, for example, commercialpackage air conditioning,where the drivers are still predominantly first cost, we don't have a tail. We have an awful lot of stuff clustered at whatever the floor is that's set by standards. And just a reminder that standardsdohave

a role in thosemarkets in ensuring that manufacturers

are trying to add value, are not continually undercut by those who would save a few bucks at the cost of -- NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comshort term as well as long term -- hits on the energy bill. So it varies by product class, and 

### I am certainlynot sure that I'm concerned about toasters. There are areaswhere we have tohave standards andwe have to work hard on them. 

### MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Steve? MR. NADEL: Yes. I wanted to make a comment onyour question about the voluntary program, particularlyEnergy Star. We're a strong supporterof Energy Star, and Energy Star has often been very successful. It has not always been very successful. I think it's very important as we look across these product classes to look at how viable in practice these voluntary programs are and to look at what the market shares,what can, in fact,be achieved. Give some examples -- in the case of PCs, monitors, we've had very high Energy Star participation rates. There are some interesting questions coming up as they seek to broaden Energy Star beyond just, does it have a sleep mode and lower

some of the wattages and so on? We have a good track record of getting substantial energy savings through Energy Star, so that may indicate at least for the time being we can use that approach. NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comLet's seehow they --whether a transition from some of the easy to do things to some things that may not be quite as easy to do -- you know, kind of put it out on the observe list. There are other products. Let me mention vending machines, for example, that there have been discussions about developing an Energy Star vending machine since 1994. It hasn't happened. There are major market barriers that have made it difficult to even agree on what do vending machines expect to be. If they're class -- third party decisionmakers, people who buy it don't pay the operating bills and you get some very complicated market issues as a result. 

### So that -- the voluntary hasn't worked thus far unless someone managed to pull

a rabbit out of a hat, and I know EPA is continuing to work on that. You know, this will be the seventh year. We have other products. The audio equipment comes to mind. The last I looked at the data the Energy Star market share was around 10 percent. It's a relatively new program. Maybe there's some -- it's going to quickly climb,but that implies to me unless there's some good explanation that, gee, for that product category, you know, the NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comvoluntary may not be working quite as well, and we need to be thinking more about standards. Chuck brought up dishwashers. The last I looked at that I think the Energy Star market share

was something around 15 percent. Not that high, and I think you need to really consider what the market share is. If it's around 15 percent, 

### I would say Energy Star doesnot replace the need for standardsat all. There is a very substantial additional market share. The vast majority of the markets are safe. So I don't think it's one size fits all. Gee, if you could come out -- somehow come up with an Energy Starprogram that's an alternative,youneed to look at the 

### market and look 

### at Energy Star reasonably

-- or potentially other voluntary approaches versus what would be left for additional savings of standards. 

### MR. CLOUGH: Okay. I think to follow on that a little bit and broaden it out -- are there any other products that you do not see on this list that you think maybe should be and should be consideredby the Department for some further analysis? Let me ask that question first, and then 1/11ask the opposing question to that. MR. NADEL: Clarification. Do you mean NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comthis list or the broader list? The list on the screen

or the broader list that you handed out? MR. CLOUGH: Let me ask the Department.

(Laughter. ) Let me ask the Department that question MR.POLLOCK: Actually,whatwe're looking for is the ones that need further evaluation,whether they are on the other data sheets or something we missed completely. What should we add -- this was sort of our first cut. These are the 12 that we think bear additional scrutiny. Now the question is: are there other products from the ones that we have in -- are data sheets included here that shouldbe brought up to this list,or are there ones that we just missed completely that should be added to this list? The other thing,we were just talking on the side here,what I'd like to do maybe to stimulate

a little different perspective is -- after we've addressed this issue is to take abrief break and then

come back and just go through these products -- you know,what are the actions that we thinkwe shoulddo? But let's put any other products that we think should be on this list for that discussion -- let's identify those now if we can. NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comMR. CLOUGH: Gene? MR. FOLEY: Gene Foley, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. It may even be worthwhile as an exercise. Steve had mentioned that

a number of the -- the high end numbers represent fairly impractical solutions. I suspect within the cumulative of the people around this table we could whittle down to what's practical and impractical pretty quickly in terms of culling this list and perhaps even the broader list that's available. One of my criteria that I would suggest that we use for whittling is whether or not the products are, in fact, commercially available today and to what extent. That way we get a sense of what's out there,what's available, and what's not. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Let me just ask the folks from the Department, doyou think that would be

a useful exercise? Why don't we hold that off until after the break,and maybe we can go through that very quickly once we're refreshed. Let's jump back to this very quickly before we take the break. Other products for the Department to consider as they're moving forward for

some deeper analysis. Anything? Steve,please start

us off. 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com65 MR. NADEL: Okay. First, in terms of products that you haven't yet analyzed, that potentially -- this is all preliminary. We may get

some additional comments. We just downloaded this thing late last week. But I think there may be some opportunities for residential central air conditioners, the follow-up rulemaking, and this depends on the -- the timeframe you have in mind. We also -- it doesn't include two measures that Congress is now talking about -- external power supplies, the little wall packs and other power supplies,and battery chargers I don't see here. So that would be useful to include. In terms of the things that you did analyze, that I would say potentially would make it into a top product list,one, I'dput inunit heaters, commercial unit heaters. There is a mistake in your table where you put unit heaters way down. In your worksheetsyouhave .73quads,not .13quads, forunit heaters. In our opinion,you made a -- you didn't properly adjust forthe seasonal efficiencyadvantages of sealed combustion. You've used strictly thermal efficiency. And when you do that, that unit heater will be above your one quad cutoff. NEAL R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comI'd also put commercial refrigerators -- if you -- as I pointed out before, there are three categories, subcategories effectively of commercial refrigerator freezers. If youadd those together that will be above your one quad cutoff. And potentially I put vending machines there. Probably the savings aren't quite as great, but because of the market barriers, standards may be the only way to address some of these problems. MR. CLOUGH: Others? No? Okay. How about very quickly -- no, let's -- we're going to do that after the break. All right. This is feeling like a good time to take the break. Let's take about 15 minutes, and we will get started again at about 20 minutes of

(Whereupon, the proceedings in the foregoing matter went off the record at 10:23 a.m.and went back on the record at



### MR. CLOUGH: Thank youvery much. Let me walk you very quickly through the process that we're going to complete for the morning. What we're going to do next is we're going to take a look at the products that we have discussed here, including the 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comtop 12 and some of the other ones that have been suggested for inclusion,andwe'regoing to go through

a very simple exercise here, just a discussion of trying to determine very briefly if we think that these products fall into the practical or not practical category for further discussion. I'd like you to keep in mind that no decisions are being made here. This, again, is going to be input for the Department to take into considerationas theymove forward. Sowe're going to go through this. In addition to that, Bryan is going to help me to capture your comments in terms of things that the Department shouldbe consideringas they look at these, understanding that each of these product linesmay have unique characteristics and things they need to determine and think about as they move forward. So we're going to go through this very quickly. The other things that we're going to do before we finish today is we're going to have a brief discussion on the Advisory Council, and then a talk about theprocess fromhere and next steps. And we're shooting to be finished at 12:30 today, sowe will not be breaking for lunch before then, and hoping that we NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com68

can get through that process by then. Sothat's the suggestedprocess from here. Does anybody have any questions or comments on that. If not, we will trudge forward. Trudging on, all right, so -- MR. ISSACS: I'm sorry. One process question. MR. CLOUGH: Yes. MR. ISSACS: We had addedproducts to that list. Is there an opportunity to suggest why certain products shouldn't be included? MR. CLOUGH: Yes, that's what we're going to do right now. What we're --yes, theproducts that

were added on, 

### and there were six that 

### I wrote down that -- that Steve had mentioned, and there were some others that Mr. Pollock had captured,we're going to bring those up also in addition to the 12 and just have a very brief discussion on whether we think that they should -- that they are practical or impractical for consideration. Is that answering your question? MR. I SSACS: I

### 'm not surewhat youmeanby "practicalor impractical. 'I MR. CLOUGH: Well, I think that we're really talking about the same thing in terms of, should they be included for further discussion or -- 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comI mean, for further analysis ornot included. Some of the discussion this morning talked about, you know, terms were used like "applyingcommon sense" to some of these things for the reason. We want to start to capture some of those

-- some of those issues that may be major factors for 

### why they should or shouldnot be includedas theymove forward. So does everybody understand what it is we're going to do here? This is -- hopefully, this will become a little clearer as we move forward. Let's jump right into it here. HID lamps -- looking at this as a product selection, does anybody have any comments 

### about if this is one that should or should not be included for further analysis? MR. GRAY: It's Ed Gray from NEMA. As I indicated earlier, I'd really like to understand what's being proposed here. Idon't reallyunderstand what the proposal is. MR. McMAHON: May I address that? MR. CLOUGH: Yes, please. MR. McMAHON: Jim McMahon, Lawrence Berkeley Lab. If you refer to the package that is labeled "2002Priority-SettingExisting Legislation," 

### NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.compage 27 has the standards determination page for HID lamps. MR. GRAY: Right. 

### I looked at that. MR.McMAHON: And what we1 re doinghere is assuming that mercury vapor lamps are being replaced by metal halide or high pressure sodium lamps. This is primarily outdoor lighting. We'll provide the specifics later,but it's primarily parking and aerial lighting. There are also some other applications, large indoor spaces, gymnasiums, and so forth. So that's what the proposal is. MR. GRAY: Well, there's a lot of issues there with, you know, the color rendition and that kind of thing that are important factors for any lighting applicationthat need to be lookedat besides just energy savings. MR. CLOUGH: Yes. MR. ROSENSTOCK: SteveRosenstock,Edison Electric Institute. I don't know if there's any lighting manufacturers here or not, but 

### I thought for many of those applications HID lighting was already 80, 90, 95 percent of the market. And in terms of replacingmercury vapor, I thought,you know,mercury vapor -- someone said that one manufacturer makes it

one day a year just to meet whatever low demand there NEAL

### R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com71 is. So, you know, the market might have already taken care of a lot of these savings or the trend has been HIDs might have been five percent 20 years ago, now they're 95 percent. Well, the market trend is pretty good, so I don't know, the savings might occur irregardlessofwhether theret s a standard

or not. So I am really curious to see some of the -- because we're not even talking about indoor lighting. I think with outdoor lighting, 

### I think HIDs already have 90 percent of the market already. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. So am I to interpret that the -- that you personally believe that this is something that should not be included for further analysis at this point? Or you believe that it should? MR. ROSENSTOCK: I'd want to see the original calculation first before I decided. But if itt s based on outdoor lighting fromwhat Iheard from Dr. McMahon, then in terms -- they're already there. They already have -- I don't have the exact figure, but if you can get some figure from lighting manufacturers or just designers or outdoor lighting designers, or maybe there might be some local codes, but 

### I think they have 90 percent of the market 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comalready, so 

### I don't see how much more of a savings you're going to get unless you're maybe talking some ballast technologies. So -- MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Thank you. Steve? MR. NADEL: I mean, I think this is just

-- we need a little bit more information on your analysis before people can give useful input as opposed to feelings off the top of their head. MR.CLOUGH: Understood. And it's part of the difficulty of just trying tohave some input. And maybe -- Ed, let me take a shot at what it is we're trying to do here. What the Department is trying to do is to get some -- just sort of some brief sort of cursory insight from the group as they're looking at this 12 

### to try and get some understanding of the 12,

or actually it's 18 products that have been discussed

now Does this group have some general feeling that maybe there are six of them that there's a good general feeling that those deserve furtherdiscussion? We're trying to take this larger list and pare it down

a little bit, just so that they can have some insight from the group as to where they should maybe think about focusing some of their initial effort. Keeping in mind we're not trying to come NEAL

### R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com73 to a consensus here,because what I'm hearing is that like on this product there may be very differing views, but the goal is to try and give them some additional guidance on where they should maybe focus their time. Ed? Ed, did I capture that? MR. POLLOCK: Thati s correct. As well as if there's something that we should be made aware of that we haven't even considered in our factors that

moves this product off of some of -- off of the list that we should consider. We just wanted to use this opportunity, since we have all of these experts in the room, to begin to focus our thinking on where we go next. MR. CLOUGH: Yes. And let me not -- let

me just -- to clarify, let -- remember that this exercise, although the nature of a T-chart makes it seem like it's black andwhite, it's one or the other. I think that the discussion, in and of itself, is the important thing. You know, in terms of these questions about needing to see the further analysis, understanding what is really taking place here in terms of the impact, that is equally as important as to looking at this and saying that we think that it is 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.compractical or impractical for certain reasons. So -- MR. GRAY: Ed Gray from NEMA again. I'm sorry. On the HIDs, also, you need to look at the number of manufacturers available in some of these technologies. My recollection is there is only one manufacturer for one of these lights if it's a high color rendition index light for like sodiumvapor. So you need to look at that really carefully. MR.CLOIJGH: Okay. And then toyou,Gene. MR. FOLEY: The last job Iwould have had

a lot to say. This job I'm going to keepvery quiet. (Laughter. ) It is painful, though. 

### DR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs,ACEEE. Let's

assume that Steve Rosenstock's medicine is correct, and that HIDs have a high market share today. That just illustrates that the standards have multiple purposes. One of them is to move the market, and at times it's useful to use standards to lock in the market to protect an efficiency goal which may have been reached,or almost reached, as Steve infers,from erosion by technologies that might offer nothing except a much lower first cost. So the fact that it has high penetration NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com75 is not necessarily an argument against a very quick consensus process to lock those -- that efficiency in. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Doesanybodyelse have any other comments? Yes, please. MR. BRUNDAGE: Don Brundage, Southern Company. 

### I think one thing you're going to need to watch out for are things like high intensity lighting

-- is that there's parties that would have 

### a strong interest in this that arenot necessarily represented. If you try to make people go to low color rendition lighting, the car retailers would be in absolute revolt at having to sell cars under yellow lights. I mean, you need to understand that just because somebody is not in the room doesn't mean they are liable to have strong opinions, and you need to think about some of these issues before you end up with another toilet that doesn't flush. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Any other comments? So I think very -- to wrap this up very briefly, I think it's understood there's a lot of factors that need to be taken into consideration here, and that this is something that -- that the Department needs to think more closely on. Yes, please, and then we'll move on. DR.SACHS: Harvey Sachs again. Don,with 

### NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com76 all due respect,my toilets flush. There areproducts

on the market available. With all due respect to this process, it has shown flexibility to separate -- separateoutNISHproducts for NISH applications. And we've seen that recently with air conditioners, and there's nothing which says that retail life cannot be considered to be a NISH application as well. We certainly are not trying to have my skin look yellow

on the retail lot. MR. CLOUGH: Yes. Monitors, product number two. Thoughts onmonitors in terms of, should they be included? Should they not? Practical/impractical? You start. Yes, please. MR. ISSACS: David Issacs with HewlettPackard Company. My comments are really going to be grouping together monitors and computers. First of all, I think, as the information on the data sheets show, there is very,very high Energy Star acceptance of these product categories. And, therefore, I think that's an indication that there's already been attentionpaid to energy efficiency in these areasand that program is working well. You know, so I think that's one reason why standards are inappropriate. But, secondly,and perhaps -- secondly, a the September 11th meeting, 

### I was the one who raised NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comthe point about impact on innovation. And the point there -- and I think there were some excellent points raised in the earlier discussion on that. But I think that we -- we have this mindset that we know what computing is going to look like three, five, 10years fromnow. And with all due respect, we don't have a clue, because products are going to be changing dramatically. They're going to be performingmultiple functions. Products are going to be converging. And so the thought of,you know, sitting behind a computer and doing word processing or looking at a couple of web pages is -- you know, what we do

nowwe probably didn't dream of doing that sevenyears from now - - seven years ago. And the things that we're going to be doing seven years from now, you know, are well beyond our --you know,we'll still be doing word processing, but we'll be doing a lot more. There will be product convergence where, you know,products are performing multiple functions and you're using them for different things that you don't conceive of today. And so I think given all of those trends,you're first going to -- some of those energy savings are going to be illusory because -- because they're going to be doing many things,and so NEAL

### R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com78 they might take over the energy consumption of existing products. And, secondly, I think setting standards would be potentially disruptive to those new -- the

new rollout of technology. And so,you know, 

### I think in terms ofprocessing speed, computer speed,what you do on a computer, all that could be impacted by the establishment of standards. And, therefore, 

### I think that it would be very much ill-advisedtogodown that road. 

### MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Any comments on what we just heard? Yes, please. 

### MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock,Edison Electric Institute. Just wanted to make additional comments. As I said earlier,monitors come under the category where, in the commercial sector, they're using over 100 kilowatt hours per year. In the residential sector they're using under 100 kilowatt hoursper year,according to the analysis shown in the thing. So,again, there is that interesting 1'11 say interpretation of NAECA for these type of products. I also wanted to show -- kind of talk about the concern. Well, it's very interesting because it does talk about for monitors a sleep mode

versus a deep sleep mode, but there also seems to be 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.coma focus on standby usage of monitors. And it also follows into other products. And there also seems to be a trend that

one -- whether one watt is feasible or not. And I guess I'm very concerned because, yes, the monitors might be in the standby mode, but I know I used to have a computer where it went into sleep mode. It would take 30 seconds to get out of its Energy Star

coma as I used to call it. That wasn't very productive. And, in fact, it led to a consumer backlashwhere there weremany stories about consumers

were in the office disabling the Energy Star feature because it was not user-friendly. So, and it 

### also looks like the energy savings seemed to be focused primarily on the standby mode. What happens if we reduce the sleepmode to this many watts or that many watts? Ignoring the activemode, ignoringwhat could happenespeciallywith networking productsoranything like that. So I think, again, for these type of products, it's the annual energy usage, not just the sleep modes that -- you know, obviously for the calculation -- hopefully for the calculation it just wasn't based on the standby mode, because that could 

### NEAL R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.combe totally inaccurate. Maybemanufacturers could say, "We 11just get one watt sleep mode, but we'll raise the active mode by about 80 watts.

### " Well, your annual energy savings go down to zero very quickly in that regard. So, thank you. MR. CLOUGH: Yes. MR. LINNELL: Jason Linnell, Electronic Industries Alliance. Just to build on what David Issacs said,many of these products, especially ones that are associated with the internet, also are contributing to energy savings in other areas. So just by looking at what the actual energy draw is, youmay not be getting a total picture ofwhat the complete contribution to energy efficiency is for these products, such as teleworking, telecommuting. If these products are advancing,they

can help further that process. You are displacing energy used in other areas. People don't have to travel, for instance. So that is a very important factorthat if

a rulemaking process -- a standard sets the maximum allowable energy,and that hinders the development of those technologies,thenyou could actuallybe hurting energy efficiency instead of saving energy. NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com81 MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Other comments. Steve? MR.NADEL: Yes. For monitors, computers, and TVs, I'd lump them all together,there is a number of intriguing technical opportunities you have here. There are a number of opportunities you have here, such as higher enabling rates that are really beyond the standard. I understand that, you know, Energy Star needs to be shipped enabled, and it's up to the

-- the users can disable it. So there may be some things you'd have to drop. As Imentionedbefore, in all these cases, the Energy Star spec is being revised, and it will be very interesting to see what they include there and how much savings could be captured for that. What I recommend is taking the analysis for these three products to thenext step,looking inparallel at what Energy Star does. And based onwhat Energy Star does,based

on what the next step analysis shows, then we can decide,yes, is this a potential DOE rulemaking or is the savings,you know, limited enough for Energy Star likely to take care of it, that we can drop it? But I wouldn't drop it at this point. The possible savings are large enough. NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comYou know, there are concerns that the industry seems to be -- canbe considered a little bit later. Let's take it to the next step while seeing where Energy Star is going. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Yes, please. MR. TRAVER: Dave Traver, Sony Electronics. Going back to the basics, if standards would result -- or some type of activity in energy savings, and then again this -- the ranges are based

on market data, and I think they are greatly overstaced and let me say why. Number one,electronics innovation,which

was brought up, is pretty rapid. 

### A lot of that data

-- I'm kind of wondering, did that include CRT, LCD, plasma, plasma display, rear projection, CRT, rear projection? That's an LCD projector. Basically, the electronics innovation is much faster than any standard-setting process, and

even in many cases research data. 

### I know the LBNL data back in '96 when we were looking at TVs had TVs up to 10 years old. So how fast we -- that's kind of

a hurdle. But Sony and all of the electronic manufacturers,we're committed to energy savings,and

we think that standby is the area for it. NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com83 On the onpower side,electronics tend to integrate very quickly, and we can go product after product, you know, from the cell phones that used to be a brick, and now they're little bitty things. So, again, that activity, that kind of natural integration, happens much faster than any standardsetting process. Let me talk a little bit about on power savings,because 

### I think it's greatlyoverstated. You

can look up -- everybody can look up at the OHP up there, or the LCD. Eighty percent of the power is in the light output. So if youwant to make it bright -- you want to save energy, just dim it. How about the contrast? The letters are kind of washed out a little bit there. If I want to improve the contrast,that takes more energy. Eighty percent, again, is in light output,and 

### I think of the old statement depending on the type of technology, it's really going to be hard to save really significant amounts of energy without cutting the brightness, the geometry. When you watch the Redskins make a touchdown, doyounotice how the thing bends inthere? Do you want the lines straight on the field or not? We need a few watts for deflection. We need -- most 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIrgross.comof the watts go for light,but we need deflection, we need color correction,we need contrast,all of these different features. It's not just heating. It's not just cooling. And these display technologies -- again, they integrate quickly. And I reallydon't think that you're going to save that much energy in the standardsetting process. Last but not least,other features. When it's not just the display, it's the TV and the tuner, digital tuner, whatever, those things make it very difficult. Anyway, in conclusion,Energy Star is the appropriate place for these electronics. We're working with Energy Star. I think they should be pulled off this list. Iwouldn't be against some kind of Advisory Committee activitywithin industry,but I really think the energy -- it's overstated the potential. Thank you. MR.CLOUGH: Thankyou. Anymore comments

onmonitorsbefore we justmove into computers? We're sort of discussing these all in one large group right

now. Sir. MR. SALAETS: Ken Salaets, IT1

### . Just one other comment regarding innovation. I think it would 

### NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com85 be important also to consider other uses. Jason pointed out some of thoseuses,but a case inpoint is Section 508,stableaccess to information technology. There are important considerations in terms of assistivetechnology thatwould be built into 

### IT that will make these products available forpeople who heretoforemaybe hadn't been able to use them, so we have to look at the array of impacts and not just in terms of energy consumption. 

### MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Thankyou. Let'smove into computers. Are there any additional comments on that? I know it'sbeen brought up some already in the discussion. Thoughts on -- any thoughts on energy savings? Inclusion for further analysis? Yes, please. MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI

### . It is interesting, it does talk about the market for laptops now as compared to desktops. I know in my office 

### Ihave a laptop computernow. I can take it on the road or sit in the office. So it seems like there's a huge market shift going on with desktop computers,and that'spart of my thing about technical change -- or market change turnovers in terms of the actual "energy savings. Again, market share -- 

### I bet the laptops 

### NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com86 is really rising quite rapidly. Thanks. MR. CLOUGH: Thankyou. Other thoughts on computers and their potential inclusion? Further analysis? No? Moving on,televisions. More thoughts on televisions? That was mentioned briefly as part -- we're going through this quickly. Yes, please. MR. LINNELL: Jason Linnell, Electronic Industries Alliance. Just, again,with televisions, the technology is developing. We're transitioning to digital television. Any standard that happens needs to be aware of that, or any -- any looking into that needs to be aware of the transition to digital television.And as you know, DOE looked into televisions back in '95, and many of these same arguments why there was no standard set still would apply today. So just in that -- the technology, the impact on innovation, whether TVswill be connected to the internet in the future, that is something that needs to be considered that would be another feature that would require energy. Just all --many of those arguments still apply for TV as well. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Steve? MR. NADEL: The one thing I'd add is, NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com87 yes, in '95, and earlier we looked at television standby power asnot part of those considerations. So there has been some evolution in thinking, so that analysisdoesn't -- didn'tdeal with that,and at some point it needs to be dealt with. I'd suggest continuing to look into it while seeing where the next round of Energy Star is going. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. MR. ROSENSTOCK: SteveRosenstock,Edison Electric Institute. As you show on your -- on the document about the standard setting, there are -- the convergence is really a strong factor, in this case TV/VCR combinations,TV/DVD combinations,TV/computer combinations. Again, technology turnover could really rapidly changewhat exactly isa television,and then, you know, it just -- the product categoriescould just be changing rapidly over the next few years as well. The convergence could have a huge impact on what kind of energy these -- this equipment is going to use. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. DR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs, ACEEE. The comments I've heard have been very impressive aswell as compelling,but they lead to a slightly different NEAL

### R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comquestion that -- particularly the comments from Sony

on the projection unit we're looking at. Makesme wonder if down the roadwe'renot looking at the questionnot of whether there shouldbe standard or not but how we can develop standards that help everybody. And one of those that is on the table now, of course, is standby. Another one is to think about displays in general, in terms of wattsper lumen rather than in terms of watts per year. And, again, I'm somewhere between tongue and cheek and serious in suggesting that part of the question iswhat metrics one wants to use rather than just the question of the energy consumption. MR. CLOUGH: 

### Ed? MR. POLLOCK: Harvey raisesa thought that we have talked about in the office, and that is on other things that couldbe done. It's not clear inmy mind, because I haven't been able to find the test procedure that actually measures the energy use of these three products under various different applications and definition of sleep mode or deep sleep, and so on. And so I would be interested in thoughts on, is it worthDOEputting some resources into coming up with standard test procedures so that the labels NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com89 would define and allow comparison of the different products, so that consumers can, if they are interested, and we could use other incentives to increasethat interest,pick productswhich really are more energy efficient. MR. CLOUGH: Yes,please. MR. TRAVER: Well, 

### I think maybe an Advisory Committeemight help,because otherwise this meeting would last forever. But let me talk about watts per lumen. Just quickly, on watts per lumen, depending on the type of technology, LCD versusdirect view versus plasma -- you know, again, they all have their applications. And I think if you go to Circuit 

### City right now you can buy a 17-inchdirect view monitor for under ahundred dollars. Life cycle cost analysis basically that justwas completedby DOE said it costs less energy to produce the direct view CRT than the LCD. So,but the onpower consumption is a littlebit different. What I'm really getting to is that the cost of that is a hundred dollars. If you go buy a 17-inch LCD, I thinkyou're going topay about $1,200. So if you look at just on power -- you just look at

one of the features, the on power LCD light lumen 

### NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comoutput, versus the other one, you're going to sit there and say, "Okay. You're going to regulate or say

a standard that the LCD ismuch more efficient in the

on power state." Or vice versa. Pick one of the technologies. I think it's very risky to do that. They both have their place in the market. You have to be able to I think allow the single family, as an example, to buy a 17-inchmonitor with a high quality display. So, I mean, there's reasons for the different technology. MR. CLOUGH: Sir, also in the back. Please introduce yourself. MR. SHARP: Mark Sharp with Panasonic

## . I want to go back to -- when we talk about TVs, the Energy Star spec is currently undergoing final revision, and itf s quite aggressive, 

### I might point out. And at this point in time, under the existing spec, between 65 and 

### I think 70 percent of TVs and TV/VCR combo units qualify for Energy Star. EPA has impressive numbers that show the amount of energy savings that have been generated by meeting the Energy Star spec to date. So I think just by focusing on standbywe're going to achieve largely the energy savings that we're all after,andwe really NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com91 don't need to even go down this road for regulating the operating power. 

### MR. CLOUGH: Thankyou. Any more comments

on these three general topics here of monitors, computers, or televisions, before we move on to something completely different? And we're off. Incandescent general service lamps. 

### MR. GRAY: Ed Gray, NEMA. Actually, there's two items on there that are related 

### I guess. They1 re both replacing existing incandescent with halogen lamps that -- and the reflector lamp which is further down your list. In the pages that are in the handout material, there are several different levels of performance here. So what we're going to do is go back with our lighting manufacturer members and see, you know, if you fall off a cliff at some point, you know, maybe there's 10 manufacturers that make something that has a three percent efficacy increase, and maybe nobody makes one that's 10 percent, you know, those kind of numbers. So that's the kind of,you know, comment we'll make on this -- is to indicate what other factorsmay be important indetermining whether ornot you want to regulate this. NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comMR. CLOUGH: Okay. MR.ROSENSTOCK: SteveRosenstock,Edison Electric Institute. I guess anything -- general service, again, I'mnot surewhat thepercentage ratio in terms of residential versus commercial applications, but, you know, and general service is especially very high, obviously, in the residential sector. If there is 10 or 20 -- if residential lighting is, say, 500 kilowatt hours per year total, if I divide that out by so many fixtures in the household, the per fixture usage, again, is probably less than 100 kilowatt hours per year. So, again, that's another possible interpretation for NAECA. But also, there are halogen A-line lamps out there. I've seen them. I know -- 

### I think there is at least one manufacturer. I've seen them in general hardware stores,etcetera. I think the cost differential, though, I think the -- for a regular, standard, incandescent, A-line lamp, 40 watt or 60 watt, a 60 watt let's say is about 30 cents, 1/11 say, retail,package of four $1.20. The halogen lamps that I've seen -- 

### Alines -- that couldbe just a direct replacement,I've

seen $3, $4. If you're talking about price increase, NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com93 factor of 10,you might be going down from 25 down to 20,or let's say 15 -- 1'11 just say 25 to 20 kilowatt hours per year. So the economics aren't exactly the greatest. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Steve? MR. NADEL: Yes. Steve Nadel. I have a question for LBL in terms of what technologies they had in mind in thinking about a one and a half and three percent efficacy increase. Is it the halogen technology, or do they have other things in mind? MR.McMAHON: JimMcMahon,LBL. Ibelieve these are reflector lamps, and possibly different gases inside the bulb. MR.NADEL: Okay. This is general service and not reflector, but maybe potentially different gases you're saying. MR. McMAHON: That's correct. MR. CLOUGH: All right. So we've had one comment about the economics,about aneconomical issue related to this product. Are there other issues that the Department needs to take into consideration? Steve and then to you, sir, from NEMA. MR. NADEL: 

### I guess I would agree with Steve Rosenstock,the halogen technology,the halogen IR technology, has been around for a bit, and it's NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com94 been difficult to make them cost effective across 

### a wide range of applications. I'd be interested in more information on the gas sale, so I would suggest that that's -- potentially at least getting abit more informationon to help decide whether, at least forgeneral service, thismakes sense. 

### I have somewhat different views on the reflector lamps,but we'll get to those in a few minutes. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Sir? From Nema. MR. 

### GRAY: NO. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. So other comments? I'm hearing some general agreement about the economic issue for the Department to take into consideration as theymove forward with this. Any other issues that -- related to this product that the Department should be thinking as they consider this? No? We'll move forward. Residential clothes dryers. MR. SAMUELS: Well, you've already heard my previous comments on clothes dryers. But let me add under other relevant factors that the last timewe went through this rulemakingwe actually --one of our manufacturers had a prototype of a microwave clothes dryer and tried to dry some clothes which burnt up. NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com(Laughter. ) We then supplied those clothes to the DOE docket and heard many complaints from the staff about how bad they smelled. (Laughter. ) Don't make us do it again.

(Laughter. ) MR. POLLOCK: Chuck, they'd never get through our mail system these days. (Laughter. ) MR. CLOUGH: Yes, sir. MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI. In terms of the microwave dryers,EPRI has done a lot of research on those. So, again, if you wanted to contact EPRI in terms of all of the researchthat they did -- I guess it was six, seven, 10 years ago, but they did quite extensive research on it, so it is I think good for background information. MR. NADEL: I agree with Chuck. The savings potential is pretty limited once you get rid of the heat pumps and the microwaves. MR. CLOUGH: Are there any other factors for the Department to consider as they're thinking about this? MR. ISSACS: I'm sorry. That's the only NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com96 product that we've concluded is not practical to proceed with? MR. CLOUGH: Actually, with the exception of the incandescent lamps,which Iheard some general agreement on, all of the other discussions have very much been very equally weighted in terms of pros and cons, so -- which is the reason why I haven't walked back. And keep inmind that this is really just, you know, just us taking notes. These are not general decisionsthat have been made or any documents tomove forward. So,but I'm just -- I'm just capturing that partially for my own edification, so that we have it 

### there. And it's also just my -- my personal interpretationof thediscussion thathas takenplace, but - - MR. ISSACS: I heard it a little bit different,but be that as it may -- MR. CLOUGH: Yes. MR. SHEIRE: I assume just, for example, in the case of HID lamps, just because of the difficulty inevaluating what's here and the fact that I've seen this for approximately three hours, Iwould

assume that the written comments could go to that -- more detail -- NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com97 MR. CLOUGH: Absolutely. MR. SHEIRE: -- extensively consulted in making these decisions. MR. CLOUGH: Yes, absolutely. So let me j

ust continue on here. MR. BERRINGER: Let me just make a point. I'm not sure of the -- are you able to get all of the comments that are coming in? Please identify yourself. If you're sitting down, come to the mike, to make sure that we canget this into the transcript. Thank you. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Ceiling fans. MR.ROSENSTOCK: SteveRosenstock,Edison Electric Institute. Looking at, again, the document, it breaks out the energy usage of the fanversus the lighting in the document, and it talks about -- also about howmany fansare shipping this lighting aspart of the unit.For those parts that are shipped without lighting,the energy consumption is 50 kilowatt hours per year,which is, again,under the 100 kilowatt hour threshold under NAECA. Lighting is shown as 227 kilowatt hours per year. Again, is that really the fan or the lighting? I mean, it's kind of a -- it's almost a NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comsemantic thing to kind of talk about. And then it talksabout themainpart of the savings arebasically placing the incandescent lamps with compact fluorescent lamps for the higher part of the savings. So, again, 

### I dont t know how you divide those out. Do you -- you do the standards with the fans and the lights and -- or doyou just -- it's kind of an interesting question in terms of what are you going to actually look at for this product. MR. BRUNDAGE: Don Brundage, Southern Company. One thing -- and you may do it,but I don't

see it on this sheet -- one of the common uses of ceiling fans is in moderate temperature conditions to defer setting on an air conditioner providing circulating without running the air. Are you figuring any sort of substitution effects or effects of that in theuse of ceiling fans? MR. CLOUGH: Would anyone from the Department like to the respond? DR.ROTH: Kurt Roth, ADL. No,we're not looking at -- we're looking at just the energy consumption of the device directly. MR. BRUNDAGE : I think it would be worthwhile to include some sort of estimates on that, because if you -- it can be kind of misleading, NEAL

### R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.combecause if you increase the price of a ceiling fan from the low end models, and we put less of them in and run the air conditioningmore, you may have a net increase in energy use. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Steve, and then to you, sir. MR. NADEL: SteveNadel,ACEEE. We agree that this is a good opportunity. If anything, we thinkyou've underestimated the savings opportunities. EPAhas just developedan Energy Star spec forceiling fans. It deals with the efficiency of the fan in moving air per watt as well as with the lighting. The potential model -- you know, even if you make 

### a few 

### -- the incremental costs seem to be relatively low, and so I think the adjustments that Don talks about are probably going to be secondary or tertiary factors. Iwould think this would be a very good one to continue working on. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Yes? MR. GRAY: Ed Gray from NEMA. Let me -- I just would like to point out that that Energy Star guideline, or whatever you want to call that, for the ceiling fan,when there are lights involved,theyhave to be in the box or they have to have designed to -- they'll take thepin-typefluorescentlighting,so the NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com100

-- in the Energy Star area, they did note that the lightingwas amajor use of electricity in the ceiling fan combination. MR. BRUNDAGE: To clarify my -- MR. CLOUGH: I'm sorry. Right back to you, sir. DR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs,ACEEE. I think the record ought to show that the Energy Star spec is based on a fanperformance test that was developed by the industry and accepted universally. Industry should be commended on that work. MR. CLOUGH: I'm sorry. Please. MR. BRUNDAGE: To clarify my earlier remarks on ceiling fans, 

### I'm not saying they're not 

### a legitimateproduct, orwouldn't havepotential energy savings. But there are some substitutioneffects that I think need to be included. MR. CLOUGH: Ed,did youwant to comment? MR. POLLOCK: Yes. The ceiling fans are

one of those products which fall in this general category that some of them fell off the list,and that is the real inefficiency here besides the light bulb is often that they used the lowest cost motors. And the motors are very inefficient. We are right now doing a study on small NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.commotors and those -- the question of whether we should do regulatory action there. So I am interested as we

--we looked at these, the interactions. Would there be -- or are there comments on, should we push for doing something for certain classes of small, less than onehorsepower motors? And thenhow -- you know, take some of these other products off the list. MR. CLOUGH: You, and then to you, sir. MR. GRAY: Ed Gray from NEMA again. Our view on standards on motors is in the fractional horsepower areawe have very efficient motors greater than a horsepower, more -- but in less than one horsepower our opinion is that those are typically motors that are in custom applications for some appliance or something, and ceiling fans is an example. So our view is if there are standards on the appliance, then certainly the motor should be analyzed along with whatever else is in there to get

an overall specification. But the motor itself shouldn't be subject to a requirement on its own. MR. NADEL: Ed, I'd just note in the case of ceiling fans, the motor is probably not the big issue. Thebig issue is the blade design. These tend to be very flat blades. They're great air beaters, 

### NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.combut not very good air movers. And better blade design is one of 

### the keys,as the GossamerWind, for example, better blade design, much better air movement efficiency, Ibelieve,with effectively the same type of motor. MR. GARMAN: That was Steve Nadel of ACEEE, and I'm David Garman of DOE reminding you all to use your names. (Laughter. ) I do read these transcripts,and I'd like to be reminded who said what. Thank you. MR. NADEL: Sorry about that. MR. CLOUGH: Any more commentson ceiling fans before we move on? Yes? DR. SACHS: I don't want to modify too much -- Harvey Sachs,ACEEE -- the comments from the ACEEE Executive Director. (Laughter. ) But I would want to emphasize that the analysesthat havebeen done indicate strongpotential both from the blades and themotors. At park mode,we

seemotor efficiencies down in the one to twopercent range for these fans,and this leadsme wandering off

onmy own to recommend consideration forwattsper CFM type standard rather than -- which allows 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com103 manufacturers the greatest flexibility in looking at air coils as well as motors. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Any additional comments on ceiling fans before we move forward? Seeing none, incandescent reflector lamps. I know we've talked a little bit about this as a broader topic. Any comments on this product line specifically? And your name, sir? MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel, ACEEE.

(Laughter. ) In contrast to what I said about the general service lamps, I think there are some good opportunitieshere on the reflector lamps. They fall into two categories. One, under the existing legislation,BR lampswere exempted. And I think it's worth -- and BR lamps were going to have extremely small sales at the time. I believe the sales have increased quite a bit. It would be useful to look at the sales of BR lamps and seewhether those should be regulated. That would be one opportunity. The other thing is, except for the BR lamps, most of the incandescent reflector lamps are now halogen lamps. And the halogen IR technology is

an incremental investment and is worth taking -- taking a serious look at. So this one I think is -- NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIrgross.com104 merits further consideration. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Other products or factors the Department should be considering related to this product line? Any comments from the back of the room who have been listening quite intently? No? We shall move on, then. Fluorescent lamps. Yes? MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock,Edison Electric Institute. I'm kindof curiousabout,again, this is another one where the savings calculation, just because a fluorescent lamp ballast rule has been

-- was announced years ago, and basically there has been amarket shift over to shade lamps,especially in the commercial sector, so I guess I'm kind of -- I'm kind of interested where most -- 

### are the savings really in the eight-foot or the U-2category? Or are they still considered in the four-foot,evenrealizing that since the ballasts have changedmost of the lamps are going to change with them? MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Is there any informationyou'd like to share with the group? MR. McMAHON: Steve, I don't have the answer to that right now, but we'll provide it. MR. NADEL: Thank you. MR. CLOUGH: Your name? MR. McMAHON: I'm sorry. Jim McMahon, NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comLawrence Berkeley Lab. MR. GRAY: Ed Gray from NEMA. I guess this is another case where I'd like to say the same thing. I don't really understand what the alternativesproposed are. I certainly understand if you're changing from T-12to T-8. In that case, I'd also like to know if you're changing, you know, the whole system out or just what the change is. And here again,youmay have

a situation where you go from recommended to best available under FEMP,where suddenlyyou ended up with hardly any suppliers left or that sort of thing. So I think, again,thenumberof suppliers available needs to be looked at there. MR. CLOUGH: What are the other factors for the Department to consider? MR. NADEL: Well, that's -- MR. CLOUGH: And your name? MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel, ACEEE again. I agree with Ed and Steve. I'd like a little bit more informationabout what's inmind. Inparticular, I'd point out that it gets very difficult to start legislating -- or through regulation having people switch from one category to another,where you need a different ballast. NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com106 If a lot of this is effectively switching to T-8lamps,we should get a lot of that as opposed to -- as a result of the electronic ballast standard. And Idon't knowwhat the additional savingswould be, but it should look at the additional savingsabove and beyond the electronic ballast standard and not be looking at, you know, changes -- further ballast changes the spec will require -- changes from one ballast type to another. MR.CLOUGH: Thankyou. Other thoughts or comments at this point? Yes. MR. SCHLEEDE: Glenn Schleede. 

### I just wanted to ask you again -- I got a commitment earlier that these LBNL rough estimates would be made available. Does that apply to everything that's in here? MR. CLOUGH: And "everything, you mean what, sir? MR. SCHLEEDE: All these different estimates -- there's a number of them -- the LBNL rough estimates. Will we get all of that data publicly available? Or is it selective, or what? MR. CLOUGH: Ed, do you want to respond? MR. POLLOCK: I think for those products which we decide not to carry forwardwe probably will 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comnot publish that. But for those which we do additional evaluation,we will make that available to everyone. MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel,ACEEE. I think comments from quite a fewpeople are saying for a few of these products it's difficult to give an opinion until we get somemore particulars. So I'd recommend, for thoseparticularproductsyouprovide the analysis soon, so people can get their comments in by the 6th and be -- an informed basis to make decisions about what to pursue further. MR. POLLOCK: Thank you, Steve. This is Ed Pollock. We will make the data available and the analysis that we have used as a basis for that for any product which we are considering further, and we'11 make that available as quickly as possible, so that you can comment on it,because it is --your comments

are important,not only on -- in the general sensebut

on the accuracy and appropriateness of the data that we've collected. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Great. Other comments

on this? Settop boxes. Yes. 

### MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock,Edison Electric Institute. 

### In the analysishere,at thehigh NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com108 end of the savings of 1.9 quads, it appears to be based on the fact -- again,it's based it seems solely

on the standby energy usage of settop boxes. And then it says in the document "onewatt standby." That if all of the boxes, whether digital

or wireless, at one watt standby you're going to be able to achieve this 1.9quads. However, if you look down in some of the text,there is language that says, "Onewatt standby feasibility unclear." If you go down lower it says, "Best available unit energy consumption, 8.8watts standby currently. So Ibelieve that, again, it appears that it -- for a product that might not even be -- the energy savings are based 

### on a product that might not

even be feasible because of all of the download information a settop box might be doing. So, again, that -- basing it, again, on that -- or the active mode, again, in terms of energy savings. So,again, I think that number inparticular might be overstated. Thank you. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Thank you. Other thoughts on that? Yes. MR. LINNELL: Jason Linnell, EIA. I also had that same comment that Steve just raised about -- and specificallyabout comparing apples to oranges in NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com109 this -- in some -- in estimating some of the energy savings, because there is a wide range of different types of settop boxes that the Energy Star program covers. And they are listedhere,and you can see how many different types of products and what their different capabilitieswould be. But just ingeneral for productsand where there is an Energy Star standby specification for settop boxes, it's generally recognized that standby power is used most of the time. That the Energy Star specification isout there is aprogram that's gaining acceptance,and I don't see -- I'm not surehow a DOE standard would work with the Energy Star standby standard, if they were to -- 

### if DOE were to look into standby,because Energy Star has been successful. It is based on the voluntary -- it is a voluntaryprogram,and 

### I don't see -- I just would not want to take away from the success of the Energy Star program because of a regulated standard. 

### MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Other comments? 

### MR.NADEL: SteveNadel,ACEEE. I'd point out a few things. One, the Energy Star, the 2004 Energy Star saves over one quad. So regardless of whether the one quad standby is achievable,we do show that the Energy Star spec for 2004 would have NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comsubstantial savings. So I think this should continue to be investigated. I'dbevery curious about themarket share for Energy Star. The last that I saw was it was relatively limited. I hope it's growing rapidly. It

was relatively limited. And I point out, this is the place where you do have classic third party decisionmakers,where the people who often buy these things -- you know, a cable company, for example, doesn't pay the energy bill. So that decreases the opportunities for a market-based program to be successful. So I'd recommend that we continue to look into this one. 

### MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Other comments? And I encourage some of you who have been listening to join in the discussion wherever you'd like. Let's move forward to torchieres. I'm sorry. Please. DR.SACHS: Harvey Sachs,ACEEE. I really want to salute the manufacturers of electronic equipment for the rate of technological progress. In particular,we're now seeingon themarket, ingeneral purpose laptops at least, as opposed to these dedicated purpose computers,what a settopbox really



### NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comWe're seeing machines which on the fly adjust their clock cycle depending on the needs. So

we get into things which are actually adaptive in an area between standby and full load, but they are adaptive in a way that prompts this very low standby with the ability not to sleep but to be awake if a signal interrupts. MR. CLOUGH: Thankyou. Other commentson settop boxes? No? Torchiere lamps? Factors or issues for the Department to consider. MR.ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock,Edison Electric Institute. Based onthe informationprovided in the document,page 31, it starts out that --well, the baseline of 

### a 300-watt fixture, but unit energy consumption of 427 kilowatt hours per year. And if that's the case,it's assuming that the fixturesbeing used at full load, at highest usage for four hours a day. Again, I'm not sure about that. Many of these fixturesdo have dimmer switches. I don't know what kind of studieshave been done for these halogen torchieres, whether they're primary versus secondary lighting systems. But in these cases there is a huge

-- 

### I would say a huge range of hours per use and also huge range of actual output. NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com112 Now, again,whether the dimmers actually reduce the watts used, I'm not exactly sure. But in this case there can be a huge difference in terms of if most people dim it, let's say 50 percent, and if it actually reduces the actualwattage by 50 percent, the baseline could instead of being 300watts couldbe 150 watts, for example. So, and if you set a limit at 190 watts, but that new unit does not have a dimmer switch, you're not saving any energy. 

### MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Any other comments? Yes. 

### MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel, ACEEE. 

### I agree that 

### it 

### is a good opportunity to look into energy savings. California is in the process of finalizing a standard. Also, the Senate energy legislation,both theRepublicanandDemocratic bills include standards. As I understand, the manufacturers have agreed to support a standard. I think,if anything, the savingsyouhave here are conservative. Some analysis we've done -- that have been actually based on some field studieson the energy use of both the efficient and less efficient equipment in New England. That's where the studies were done. NEAL

### R.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comMR. CLOUGH: Yes. MR. GRAY: Ed Gray of NEMA. Steve is correct. We did agree with putting this in the energy bill in the Senate. 

### I believe that the wattage level

we were looking at there was 190. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Other comments? Torchieres. We're flying now. All right. Dishwashers. Yes. Yourname, sir. MR. SAMUELS: Chuck Samuels, AHAM. I think on dishwashers what's feasible to do and what needs to be done is to get this test procedure ironed out, because even talking about energy savings makes

no sense unless we know that we've got 

### a test procedure that's reliable. For example,my guess is that on the high end that dishwasher energy savings is based on these very expensive European imports that save water, and thereby energy, by, for example, not having selfcleaning filtersand requiring consumers to clean the gunk out of the bottom of the dishwasher at the end of the cycle,whichdoesn't seem like the kind of product we want to necessarily require all Americans to purchase. On the otherhand,we knowwith the sensor NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comand some of the other technology that there's a huge potential for energy savings,and let's get the test procedures straightenedout,and then let's get Energy Star to be able to aggressively broaden the marketplace acceptance for these products so that we do a lot better than the 15 percent that Steve was talking about for these products. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Mr. Garman? MR. GARMAN: Let me ask a question. MR. CLOUGH: And your name, sir?

(Laughter. ) MR. GARMAN: David Garman, Department of Energy. With respect to the test procedures on the dishwashers 

### -- and 

### I don't want to get off on a tangent here -- but I was interested in the views around the room on the question of understanding we have an issue now with the dirt sensor in the dishwashers,would you recommend or would it be the recommendation that we proceed with test and determination standardson issuesother than that just to get it out there so that folks can look at that while we continue to work on that single issue that's

a bit of an irritant? Or do you think we should wait and do it all at once? MR. SAMUELS: Just for the record, AHAM 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comdoesn't have a view on that question. This is Chuck Samuels. But your having raised it now, we'll bring it back to our members and attempt to get you some comments on it, at least by individual companies,as

soon as possible. MR. CLOUGH: Any other comments on this? Yes. MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel, ACEEE. In general, I agree with Chuck that this is a very important issue to get the test procedure right. Let's really concentrate on that in fiscalyear 2002. We can decide on the priority for 2003 after we get the test procedure right. Our opinion is that this test procedure issue, in terms of the dirt sensor, is so important. We're now talking close to half of the products that

are affected, that maximum priority should be addressed at correcting this, and these other test procedure issues are secondary. So if it's going to delay correcting the dirt sensor to pursue those other issues, even a few days, just, you know, do them together. Let's get this dirt sensor issue solved. We've known about it for well over a year,and it has dragged on for quite

a while, basically because the manufacturers can't NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIrgross.comreachagreement among themselves. It's time to really resolve that before we all get some dirt in our face. MR. SCHLEEDE: Glenn Schleede

## . Just a reminder, in dishwasher standards the test procedure grossly overstates the cycles of use, so that all those yellow tags hanging on all of the dishwashers mislead consumers. If put the standardsout,maybe we

can get FTC to ask the manufacturers to put a big stampon theyellow stickers, "Don'tpay any attention to the numbers here." MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Yes, and your name. DR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs, ACEEE. 1, again,would strongly urge us to get a consensus on a test cycle lest we continue to be subject, as 

### a regulated and advocacy community, to abuse from the

common sense perspective that we're measuring dishwashersby the ability to clean cleandishes,and air conditioners,by a standardthat has two-thirdsof itshours whenmost peoplehave their air conditioners turned off. We have to map our standards into performance criteria that matter. MR. CLOUGH: Thank you. Any other thoughts related to dishwashers? Seeing none, let's

move into -- very quickly into some of the other products that were raised in the discussion for NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com111 consideration. We're doing very well on time. Let's move through some of these very quickly. Residential centralairconditioningunits

was one that was mentioned. Thoughts or factors to consider on this? Actually, let me start with you, Mr. Nadel, because this was one that you had raised, if you'd like to start the discussion. MR. NADEL: And this depends in part on the time schedule for this determination. I'm not suggestingwe do something in the next year,but what the determine -- the time schedule is. But to the extent it is a long time schedule, there are significant additional savings availablebeyond what was included either in themost recent NOPR or the previous final rule having to deal with thermal expansion valves or otherdevices tohelp achieve savings, given the fact that many of these units are not properly installed. Also, some recent research we've been doing shows that the fan savings are not adequately -- fan energy and, hence, available fan savings are not adequately reflected in the current test procedure that includesmuch to -- it assumes that duct systems are much better inpractice than they really are, and

a lot more energy is used by the fans. NEAL

### R.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com118 So there are significant savings beyond the question of SCER that currently is unlikely to be addressed. And we should be addressing these at some point. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Yes, sir. MR. AMRANE: This is Karim Amrane with ARI. 

### I don't think this should be included with centralA/C. Right nowwe are -- currently,we are in the middle of a rulemaking. The new standard that DOE will come up with will be in effect in 2006, so we have plenty of time to start thinking about a new center for residential air conditioning. And regarding the fan issue in the test procedures, which is accounted forand it's old energy input to the -- to the air conditioners are accounted for in the test procedures, so we don1 t see why we should be looking into fan energy efficiency. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Yes. DR. SACHS: This is Harvey Sachs,ACEEE. You all do a great job of measurements in the laboratory. We now are seeing close to 20,000 field measurements that indicate a strong gap between the assumptionsof the 10240 test procedure certification methods and what's actually happening out there. We're seeing much more duct leakiness, NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com119 which you're not particularly responsible for. But we're seeing also much higher static pressures that

are assumed in the rating method,which does directly impact energy. And there are increasing indications that the 365 watts per thousand CFM is utilized by a lot of manufacturers because it very much underestimates the actual draw. So we are asking that we be open to consideration of measures that relate to test procedure of the standards better than what we have learned by studies in the field instead of the laboratory.MR. CLOUGH: Any response? MR. AMFUXNE: This is Karim Amrane again with ARI. Again, test procedures is a different issue. There is a standard that is currently being revised by DOE. So it's not an ARI test procedure; it's a DOE test procedure. So 

### I think there is an opportunity foryou to comment on this issue during this proceeding. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Thank you. MR. ROSENSTOCK: SteveRosenstock,Edison Electric Institute. A couple of things. It shouldbe remembered that air conditioning manufacturers do not manufacture duct systems or install ductwork systems. 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com120 So,again, Idon't think they shouldbe penalized just because of ductwork that was not sealed properly or installed properly by people outside the air conditioning industry. And also, thinking about the test procedure, there are so many different ductwork configurations in residential units, I don't knowhow many different types of tests or how long --youknow, do you do a 100-foot run through ductwork? Do you have all sorts of elbows or -- that would be a very -- that could be pretty intensive in terms of trying to simulate field conditions for it to take care of the

-- what's happening in the ductwork and how it's affecting the static pressure and the fan energy. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Sir? MR. BRUNDAGE: Don Brundage, Southern Company. I'm unclear in the discussion from the two ACEEE representatives if they're referring at all to the efficiency standard air conditioners or whether they're talking only about the test procedure. Could Harvey or Steve clarify that? MR.NADEL: Sure. SteveNadel

### ,ACEEE. We

are talking some test procedure issues that have multiple quads at stake here. And it's the interrelationship between the test procedure and the NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323RHODEISLAND AVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com121 standard in order to help capture those quads. We'renot suggesting,you know,that,gee, you start looking at every single duct system. We're just noting that if you look at the typical duct system out there, it is very different from what is assumed in the test procedure, and we think the test procedure should assume a system much more typical of what's out there as opposed to now it1 s the extreme tail of that distribution. Likewise,the test procedure assumes that

a system is properly installed, proper refrigerant charge, proper air flow, when we know from lots of field data that is not the case probably in the majority 

### of cases. So the test procedure should better mimic what happens in the field, and as a result certain measures will become much more cost effective and result in substantial energy savings. They may not appear cost effective because we assume totally unrealistic field conditions. MR. CLOUGH: One final comment on this, please. MR. BRUNDAGE: A follow up on that -- MR. CLOUGH: And your name? Your name, please, sir? MR. BRUNDAGE: Don Brundage, Southern NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com122 Company. Test procedures are supposed to precede standards. If there aremajor modifications to a test procedure that affect the measurement of a standard, I think that causes something of a problem from a -- from DOE or the -- or you then having to reset the standard. Would you like to comment on that? MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel, ACEEE. I mean, my sense is there will be a standard published based

on the existing test procedure in the next fewmonths. We're talking about priorities for futurework, and I think it's coming out in this discussion. There are

some major issues that need to be dealt with in the test procedure, and once those are dealt with then there may well be significant opportunities for additional standards beyond, even ignoring the issue of SCER. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. I'd like to hold off

on continuing with this discussion of the products. Looking at the time, Mr. Garman has to leave around

noon to catch a plane, and I wanted us to move very quickly into a discussion related to the Advisory Committee, and the feasibility of the Advisory Committee in the future versus the continuation of these types of meetings. I think -- 

### I guess I wanted tomaybe hand NEAL

### R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 w.nealrgross.com123 it back toMr. Garman tomaybe start thiswith some of his thoughts, and then move into an open discussion. MR. GARMAN: David Garman, Department of Energy. Sure. 

### I just wanted to welcome comments on the advisability of an Advisory Committee. 

### I will tell you up front my initial bias that I can be dissuaded from. However, you know, advisory committees inevitably is a list of names thatmust,by necessity, practical reasons, exclude somebody. Not everybody

can be on the Advisory Committee. But anybody can walk into a meeting such as this and participate. That being the case,were we to -- to rely exclusively on meetings such as this, they might become unwieldy in and of themselves if everyone availed themselvesof the opportunity toparticipate. So those are some of the factors that I'm weighing in my mind as to whether or not to reconstitute, reestablish theAdvisory Committee,and I just wanted to share that and open the discussion to whether or not folks here in the room thought that an Advisory Committee was a good idea. And, if so, any thoughts that you might have on its constitution and charter. MR. CLOUGH: Yes. MR. SAMUELS: Chuck Sarnuels,AHAM. We are NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comon record in support of retaining the -- or reinstituting theAdvisory Committee. And 

### Iwould say that, as a practical matter, the way the Advisory Committee was run, it was quite similar to this meeting, and anybody in the public had the full opportunity to participate. Having said that, having an Advisory Committeeper se is not that important to us. What is important is to have meetings like this on a regular basis. And this is an excellent meeting. Everyone is having an opportunity to speak. We've got the Assistant Secretary and his staff here, and a lot of issues are being aired. And as long as this type of meeting would takeplace a couple,three times ayear, then from our point of view it doesn't make any difference whether it's anAdvisory Committee per se or apublic meeting. You basically have a convergence and it ends up being the same thing. So if you have either pragmatic or legal reasons why you would prefer one approach over another, then I would say from ourpoint of view we'd leave that toyou as long as there is this opportunity for comment throughout the year. 

### MR.CLOUGH: Okay. Let's turnback here. NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comMR. PRINDLE: Bill Prindle, Alliance to Save Energy. We also submitted comments last year I believe and asked that we continue this. Ourview is, yes,we need to have a forum to air these issues and get everybody around the table But as Chuck said, I'm somewhat indifferent as to whether it's a committee as, you know, regulated by the Advisory Committee Act, which has its own set of requirements for DOE. As long as there is a commitment to have regular maybe twice a year type meetings where all of the issues that are relevant to the stakeholdersare on the agenda,and as long as that happens,we're indifferent as to the -- the nomenclature that's used. MR. CLOUGH: Comment here in the front? 

### MR.LIEBERMAN: BenLieberman,Competitive Enterprise Institute. I just want to point out very quickly, I think probably the one group that's been underrepresentedinthese types ofprocedureshas been consumers, and also I think to an extent, as was elucidated today, some commercial end users of the products

### . So whateverwe arrive at,whether it's an Advisory Committee or not, Iwould certainly encourage full participation among the end users of these NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com126 products

### . MR.ROSENSTOCK: SteveRosenstock,Edison Electric Institute. We were part of the former Advisory Committee. Again, we thought it -- one reason that we thought it worked very well was the Advisory Committee had specific tasks to investigate. One was the economic analysis used by the Department of Energy. The secondone was the impactofvoluntary programs. And I think the third one was consumer impact or consumer feedback. So therewere three 1/11 say subcommittees. 

### I don't know if that's the proper term or not, but it -- one reason it worked well was that the input from theAdvisory Committeewas,again, spread out to all of the stakeholders,and it was -- you know, there were 

### -- I think what helped the Advisory Committee was that -- the fact that it was -- it had a certain focus to help the process along. So if that -- if you -- if the Department feels that there are certain issues that could use

some focus or some subgroups, then we would suggest that that -- the Advisory Committee is not a bad way to go. MR. SCHLEEDE: Glenn Schleede. I just wanted to comment that I thought the Advisory NEAL

## R.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comCommittee was a bit of a sham, and probably would become that again. Particularly, consumer -- real

consumerviews were not represented there. Theynever

were. People identified as consumer representatives could not and did not represent views of real

consumers. If DOE is going to proceed with one, 

### I hope theywill follow their own regulations. Theydid not last time -- or numerous aspects of DOE'S own internalrequirements, including the representationof contractors on the committee, that DOE just plain ignored. So if you're going todo it,please either repeal your existing regulations or else follow them. MR. CLOUGH: Thank you. Any other comments from the back of the room? Thank you. Please. MR. MATTINGLY: Joe Mattingly from GAMA. I dbasically like to agree with Chuck's comments. We find this to be a very valuable opportunity, these regular forums. Just face to face of people getting to stay in touch with one another on all sides of the issue we find to be very valuable. And whether it's called an Appliance Advisory Committee or just like this, I don't think it matters. I think it works the NEAL

### R.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comsame way. You might actually avoid some of the procedural problems if you just have it like you're doing it now. I would say, though, that it's very important to have the Assistant Secretary's presence here. That makes these extra special. Thank you. MR. CLOUGH: Yes. MR. FRIEDRICHS: Mark Friedrichs with the PolicyOffice. Without anAdvisory Committee, I think that the only thing that you lose is the ability to work together, either as a whole group or in subgroups, to come up with specific coordinated recommendations to the Department, which is allowed under the FOCA. Somaybeyou should think just about that, how important the ability to come up with coordinated recommendationsamong all of the stakeholders is. If that's not that important, then these kinds of meetings would certainly suffice. MR. CLOUGH: Does anyonehave any comments about why there shouldn't be an Advisory Committee? Okay. Any other thoughts on the topic? MR. BRUNDAGE: Don Brundage, Southern Company. Like theprevious speaker said,if youdon't NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comhave an Advisory Committee, you don't really vote or have formal opinions on things. It's just individual comments to DOE. But DOE was not bound by those in any

case. So I'm not sure that it makes a tremendous difference. I don't see a problem with doing it like this. Maybe this rule is on future priorities. You could do another one on something like economic issues and how you approach analyses. I think the sort of format you're discussing where it's a more informal group is workable. MR. CLOUGH: Any other thoughts on this? Steve? MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel, ACEEE. I'm hearing basically consensus. Everybody agrees that these types of get-togethersare useful. No one feels strongly that they have to be formal or informal as long as it's effective. MR. CLOUGH: Yes. That's what I've heard also. If -- one more. MR. PRINDLE: Just one last thought. Bill Prindle,Alliance to SaveEnergy. Itwould be helpful if there were some sort of process for stakeholdersto nominate agenda items or,you know, just to have the 

### NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comagenda floated for comment in advance, so that if there's something that somebody really wants to talk about that they get a chance to talk about it. MR. CLOUGH: So have some process for having input into the agenda. MR. PRINDLE: Yes. MR. CLOUGH: For these types of meetings. Any other comments? If none, David, 

### I wanted to hand it back to you, and then let you state

some closing stuff before you have to go. MR. GARMAN: No, I really have no other closing thoughts,and what I -- as long as I can stay, I'd like us to go back and to proceed with the work you were doing and continue to make the progress you

were doing. And I'll just slip out when I have to and -- MR. CLOUGH: Okay. MR. GARMAN: -- and Iwon't interrupt the proceedings at that time. But thankyou all verymuch for attendance and active participation today. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Thankyou. Let's jump right back into this again. We had gone through the first two. Let's talk -- had we actually gotten into external power supply? I don't believe we had. That was the next -- the next product for us to describe. NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comExternal power supply. Steve, because this was one you brought up,doyouwant to just characterize thisproduct line forus? Tell us what it is youbelieve it entails, so we all have a good understanding. MR. NADEL: Let me attempt to combine the next two in the -- MR. CLOUGH: Please. MR. NADEL: -- of time. MR. CLOUGH: Yes. MR. NADEL: But there are many, many products that have external power supplies, meaning the little wall packs or other -- sometimes they're called bricks that typically use several watts of power or -- even if the device they're connected to is turned off. Likewise, there are many, many devices that have battery chargers attached,which drawpower regardless of whether there's a battery in it or not, and then there's also the issue of even if they have

a fully charged battery they use at least a reasonable amount of power. Ibelieve consensus has been reached among the various interests to -- in the Senatebill to have DOE conduct a rulemaking to look at these NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comopportunities for standards on these two products. And I just wanted to make sure that they -- you know, DOE is starting to think about it just like the Senate is looking at it. MR. CLOUGH: okay. Any other thoughts on this? Sir? MR.ROSENSTOCK: SteveRosenstock,Edison Electric Institute. On the external power supply, it's not really what I would consider a separate appliance. It's part of many,many other appliances. So -- and, again, there are opportunities for energy savings. But, again, to break it out,you know,why not break out other things. Are you going to -- 

### I don't want to -- Chuck,don't kill me. Are you going to start thinking about clocks in microwave ovens? That should be a separate product or a separate category to look at. It's a part of an appliance, and if there's energy savings look at the whole appliance, not just -- it might be better or more useful to say look at the whole appliance because there could be -- again, I'm not sure what -- you know, for -- one of the main functions,obviously, for the externalpower supply is to keep the heat out of the appliance, transfer the voltage down from 120 down to 24 or 12 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com133 for many product utility purposes or safety reasons, etcetera. So it's not really, again, seeing it on the product. And, again, there is that -- if it's in

a residential -- and just looking at it by itself,

even using sevenwatts, it's still -- if you multiply that by 8.76, it's still under 100 kilowatt hoursper year. So -- MR. CLOUGH: Any other thoughts related to that? Do other people view it the same way? Is it deserving of having its own evaluation at thispoint? MR. POLLOCK: This is Ed Pollock. 

### I just need to correct one of your statements that Steve keeps coming back to. On the power supply or on the NAECA criteria,it's 100wattsper yearper household. Most households have three or four, maybe more, of these external power supplies. By lumping them as a group they could be covered under our current statutory authority. However, this meeting today was to focus

on things which we may need to go to the Hill for additional authority. It's not tobe limited to that. So I just want to make it clear that we're not trying to exclude it based on what authority we have today. MR.CLOUGH: Other thoughtsor commentson 

### NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com134 this product? Seeing none, unit heaters. Thoughts? Comments? Steve? MR. NADEL: Just to introduce it. This is

a significant type of commercial heating product that

was not covered as a result of the EPACT amendments. There is an ASHRAE standard in 90.1,but pretty much in those standards it keys in on thermal efficiency and doesn't deal with themain sourceof potential and cost effective energy savings,which is the off cycle losses. ASHRAE, in its most recent 1999 standard, for commercial furnaces addressed this by supplementing thermal efficiency with a prescriptive standard that you either need sealed combustion or electronic ignition event dampers as a proposal advanced by the manufacturers. There are some significant savings opportunities -- inour estimation,more than one quad

-- from extending that type of commercial furnace standard,which is an ASHRAE and a DOE standard, to this product class. And we recommend that it be seriously investigated. I'd also note that the Senate bill -- I believe theDemocraticandRepublican bills do include

a directive for DOE to look at that. NEAL

### R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comMR. CLOUGH: Okay. MR. MATTINGLY: Joe Mattingly from GAMA. I think Steve just went through the whole rulemaking for -- (Laughter. ) This is one where we did agree in the Senate bill that we would agree to regulation of unit heaters through a 

### DOE rulemaking process where the different interest groups can make their pitches for us and Steve and the rest. This is an areawhere if -- if there isn't

an energy bill that youhave the direction to do,that you would have to get legal authority, because you don't have legal authority to regulate thisproduct at the moment. And the thing we were interested in, if it is going to be regulated,of course,we would want to be certain that we have the federal preemption benefits of a final rule in this area. And Steve mentioned some prescriptive requirements,and I would just say that there is some controversy about whether those are appropriate for unit heaters. But in a rulemaking that's what it's for. We'll find out. MR. CLOUGH: Other thoughtsor commentson this? No. Commercial refrigerators. Keep things 

### NEALR.

### GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comcold. Any thoughts related to this? We are moving

on. (Laughter. ) MR. NADEL: Just briefly, to keep the record complete, I think,as I said before, there are three separate classesyou have here that effectively are very similarproducts whenyou lump them together. It looks like from your studies, which are based on theABL studies,there is anopportunity formore than

one quad of savings. There's anotherproduct classwhere,as I understand it, the ARI has agreed, as part of the Senate bill, that there should be a DOE rulemaking and -- MR. AMRANE: That's correct. This is Karim Amrane with ARI. We were not opposed to having DOE look into some commercial refrigeration products. However,we have to be very careful what we lump into commercial refrigeration. There are significant products. There are some testprocedures -- some have testprocedures,otherdonr thave testprocedures, for example. There are some sanitation and food safety issues that have to be considered. So it is a complicated area. We are not against DOE looking at 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comit. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Great. Any other thoughts on this? Vending machines. Oh, I'm sorry. Please. MR. ROSENSTOCK: 

### I guess the only other thing with commercial refrigeration, like all others, is just -- MR. CLOUGH: Your name, please. MR. ROSENSTOCK: Yes, I'm sorry. Steve Rosenstock,EEI

### . It's just the refrigerant phaseout, how that might affect some adequate -- MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Vending machines. Steve, start us off,please. MR.NADEL: Anotherproduct categorywhere there are significant opportunities for saving,there

are somemajor market barriers here, in that the vast majority of the machines are purchased by thebeverage distributors,but the operating costs are paid by the gas station, the hospitals, the schools, etcetera. We've been trying for an Energy Star program for sevenyears. It hasn't worked out, and 

### I think there would be some good opportunities for standards. Vending machine rulemaking is included in the House passed energy bill, and it is also in both NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com138 Republican and Democratic Senate bills. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI. I am kind of curiousabout any sort of test procedure, because it's somewhere -- I don't know what the percentage of any machine is indoorsversus outdoors, but there might be some interesting test procedure considerations for just different vending machine applications. MR. BRUNDAGE: Don Brundage, Southern Company. A good first cut of vending machines would be to set a test procedure for an indoor and an outdoor model. If you coulddo something to encourage people to put things inwith less lights,lessmotors, etcetera, in indoor environments, you'd have tremendous energy saving in some of these. And just sticking a yellow label on it without setting a formal standard it -- if it had indoor or outdoor unit on it, and the customer could say, "Why are you sticking an outdoor unit in my office?" I think could have some potential without having to go through this whole rulemaking process. MR. CLOUGH: Bill. MR. PRINDLE: Bill Prindle,Alliance to Save Energy. The preliminary work that I've seen in NEALR.

### GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comthis area seems to focus on some fairly simple prescriptive measures, and I -- it's not the entirety of the analysis to be done, but I would hope the Departmentwould take aperformance approach to this. I'm just beginning to seea fewinnovative technology solutionsbeing offered for these kinds of devices. So let's not limit the innovationpotential of the industry by -- you know,by focusing on just a fewprescriptive items and keep it onperformance and keep the innovation channel open. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Steve? MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel, ACEEE. There

were a number of commentsmade about test procedures. 

### I just wanted to point out there is 

### an ASHRAE test procedure for these products developed a few years ago. I believe there have been some slight refinements to that theCanadian Standards Association has developed, but there's a lot of work on test procedures, and hopefully not much more will be needed. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Thank you. Are there any other factors that the Department should consider regardingvending machines? No? Okay. Great. Yes? MR. FOLEY: Gene Foley,the Associationof Home Appliance Manufacturers. It shouldbe noted that NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comthe vending machine manufacturers are not represented at this meeting here. So that it's probably very difficult to have a take-awayof what their opinion is

on this particular issue. 

### I just want to make sure that was sort of captured in all of this. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. MR. POLLOCK: This is Ed Pollock from Department of Energy. Does ARI represent -- I know they represent commercial refrigerationnow. Do they represent the vending machines, too? MR. AMRANE: Not really, no. MR. POLLOCK: Okay. MR. CLOUGH: Ed, were there a couple of otherproducts thatyouhad captured in the discussion that you'd like to bring up? MR. POLLOCK: This is Ed Pollock. 

### I just wanted to make sure that we at least came back and recognized Chuck Samuels' two that he had identified, and that was the covering of commercial, small size, residential size clothes washers and also the question of if we did something with microwaves addressing standby power perhaps. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Yes. MR. SAMUELS: Chuck Samuels. When we do something with microwaves,meaning revising the test NEAL

### R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comprocedure to account for standby power. (Laughter. ) MR. CLOUGH: Okay. MR. SAMUELS: That's the something.

(Laughter. ) MR. CLOUGH: And with the residential commercial clotheswashers? Was that the other topic? Is that -- MR. SAMUELS: Yes,that's the issueof the laundromat or multi-family housing type clothes washers that have vending units on them for coins or electronically that we're suggestingnow that that be brought into the program. 

### MR. CLOUGH: Okay. So why don't we just discuss that singleproduct lineverybrieflyhere and if the -- determine if there are some other factors that the Department should be considering related to the clothes washers, if there are any in addition to what we've discussed here. Mr. Nadel? MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel, ACEEE. 

### I guess 

### I have mixed opinions about that one. On the one hand, there are a fair number of products being sold and significant energy savings available, though not anywhere near the one quad level thatwe've beenusing thus far. So there are potential savings. NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com142 It's unclear tome -- and I'm not a lawyer

-- whether that's a consumer product or a commercial product, so there may be some legal questions there. The other big issue is some states are developing standards, particularly the states have been very interested inwhat the water factor,and in trying to get some of the water savings. And to the extent DOE sets something thatpreempts state standards,it could be controversial. So Iguess bottom line, I'm not sure if we had to pick four or five people maybe this would be

one of mine. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Any other thoughts related to this product at this point? Let me open it up a little more broadly. As we've gone through thisdiscussion,have therebeen any other sort of factors or thoughts that you've had that maybe didn't get captured going through the discussion on a product-by-productbasis that you might like to bring up at this point. Yes. 

### MR. SALAETS: Ken Salaets, ITI. 

### I don't know if this quite fits that,but I'd add the comment that in terms of the data from LBL, and I guess Arthur D.Little, that it would only be shared -- it only consider sharing the information for products NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comthat are going to continue forward after this process. 

### I don't know what the timeframe is, but we're going to assume in the IT industry -- and we have aDecember 6thdeadline for comments,andwe need to develop those comments,and it would be extremely helpful and almost necessary to have the benefit of that data posted I think on the DOE website, so that

we can, you know, basically respond, you know, accordingly with an informed response. So I would recommend, in terms of an action item, the next step, that all of that data be posted. And a PDF format would be extremely helpful to us. 

### MR. POLLOCK: This is Ed Pollock. 

### I just got the nod from the contractors that have been involvedwith this. We will get it up on thewebsite. There's no reason why we can't do it in PDF, so that you can print it out. SEVERAL PARTICIPANTS: Spreadsheets. MR. POLLOCK: Spreadsheets? Is there -- so that PDF form would be difficult to do? All right. We'll see what we can do with it. We'll try to make it user-friendly. And you can always contact us if you're having trouble,and we'll try to get -- fax it or get it out to you some other way. 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com144 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Just, again,gettingback to the comment period -- MR. CLOUGH: Your name? MR. ROSENSTOCK: I'm sorry. Steve Rosenstock, EEI. Canwe assume that the new deadline for comments is December 6th? Because, you know, in the Register notice it says November 20th. MR. POLLOCK: This is Ed Pollock. Given the need to share this additional information on the datawithyou, I think it's appropriate thatwe extend the date, so that there is time for you -- for us to get the information to you and for you to do a good job of looking at it. MR. ROSENSTOCK: Thank you very much. MR. POLLOCK: Okay. MR.CLOUGH: Steve,didyouhave a general comment? MR. NADEL: Or, actually, to get back to products, I had mentioned one other product that I thought potentially should be on the list. And since 

### I mentioned that, I've thought of one other one that I think meets the one quad cutoff if you will. First, I have mentioned before that residential refrigerators at some point needs attention. Again, I'munclear what the timeframe is. NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comI'mnot suggesting we do it this year. But depending

on the timeframe for your analysis,your preliminary analysis showed even the Energy Star levelswill save

over one quad. There are units already on themarket now that exceed that, so -- MR. CLOUGH: And the other product was? MR. NADEL: The other product, I would say, is there's a -- these consumer electronic products,the audio equipment andVCRs, that use quite

a bit of power in standby. And if you add up the savings for them, more than one quad. There are Energy Star standards for them, some of them with decent participation rates, some with very low participation rates, but taken together think it's

a category that merits consideration. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Yes. MR. BRUNDAGE: Don Brundage, Southern Company. DOE just did a standard on residential refrigeration in the last year or two. 

### I thought the DOE was precluded from doing new standard making within,what is it, fiveyears of setting a standard. I did not think the residential refrigerators were open for discussion for a new standard making, that these were very preliminary discussions. NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comMR. CLOUGH: Ed,do youwant to respond to that? MR. POLLOCK: Yes, this is Ed Pollock. The statute on refrigerators is a five-yeartime from

one effective date to the next. Since it takes us about three years to do a rule, it's conceivable in a couple of years that they should be put back on the list,not at the present time, though. MR. CLOUGH: Yes, sir. MR. SAMUELS: Chuck Samuels, AHAM. Residential refrigerators would be particularly inappropriate as a subject of rulemaking any time in the near future. Been there,done that. We've given at the office. We've had three standards -- (Laughter. )

-- for refrigerators. We've spent hundreds of millions of dollars. Refrigerators use less energy than light bulbs. DOE needs to find some other segment of the economy to -- (Laughter. )

-- to participate in these proceedings. This would have to be a discretionary rulemaking. There is no statutory requirement for any further rulemakings with refrigerators,and we think it's not at all ripe for the regulatory review. NEAL

### R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comMR. CLOUGH: Duly noted. Thanks. MR. ROSENSTOCK: SteveRosenstock,Edison Electric Institute. Intermsof consumer electronics, in the new products, 2002 priority-setting for new products, VCRs they estimate savings of .25 to .3 quads, and that, again, is just -- considering just the standby value, not even considering the active mode. But, again,well under the one quad. Compact audio,compact stereo,0.1to 0.27 quads. The other one says compact audio, 0.47 to 0.57 quads. So a lot of the equipment doesn't meet the one quad threshold according to the DOE analysis. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. MR. LINNELL: Jason Linnell, EIA. I was also going to ask for a clarificationon that,because based on this chart here none of those products meet the one quad cutoff, even if you are counting two or maybe three of those products, assuming the best case scenario one loss standby. And on the subject ofVCRs, inparticular, the current Energy Star specifications for a loss of

-- 95 percent of the VCRs sold this year meet that f

our-watt standby that's being revised down to two watts. MR. CLOUGH: There was a comment in the 

### NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIrgross.comback of the room. I want to -- PARTICIPANT: Iwasgoing to basically say the exact comment that was just made. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Thank you. MR. BRUNDAGE: And to remind -- Don Brundage, Southern Company. And a reminder on consumer electronics. Given the effective dates and the statutory regulations DOE operates under, I predict that by the effective date, unless you had a

consensus -- voluntary standard to waive the dates, the number of units shipped on the effective date of

a VCR standard may well be zero, because everything would be DVDs or something that passes that. So you may be wasting your time on some of these because nothing is specific as a VCR. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Thankyou. One final comment,and thenwe're going to move intonext steps. MR. NADEL: On the consumer electronics, yes, Ihave taken several product classes together to get more than one watt -- I mean, more than one quad. It's basically that -- being able to sense for the remote control, so it's a very similar function, and it also applies to DVD. I certainly do want to look at the Energy Star market share on some of these products. I'm just saying it should be considered NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSAND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comgoing to the next stage. MR. CLOUGH: Great. Thank you. Let's move this into -- we've got about 10 minutes before 12:30, so I think -- it looks like we're going to finish on time. Let's talk about some of the followup action items and capture some of them. One of them that I have heard is that the Department will be posting some of this analysis informationon theirwebsite,

### Ibelieve inpreparation for the December 6th comment date. Ed, do you want to let the people know at this point or in the near future when they should expect that to be up there? MR. POLLOCK: This 

### is Ed Pollock. That depends on the contractors. 

### I don't know if they can give me an estimate at this point or we'll -- we'll send you an e-mail out to -- when it's up. But 

### I would anticipate that we're probably going to take about a week to format it. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. MR. POLLOCK: And they just affirmed a week is right. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. MR. POLLOCK: But we will - - we do have your e-mail,

### Ibelieve. Ifwe don't,make sure we do. 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comAnd we will send a broadcast e-mailout when it's up. 

### MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Ed, do you have any other next steps or action items that you have down? MR. POLLOCK: Well, there was the issue raised about future meetings like this,and I -- Iget the feelingthatprobably, frommyperspective anyway, it's a lot easier not to convene a formal advisory committee. It takes us several months, if not more, of effort working through the General Counsel's Office, to build a charter and to get an advisory committee constituted. Somy inclination is togowith additional workshops. There was the question raised -- agenda items for that workshop and submitting them. 

### I would encourage you -- and it does not have to be within the comment period --but think about the types of things that should be discussed at future workshops wef re planning. Perhaps we may need to have one additional

one on this subject and other topics prior to the regular agenda coming out in the -- the modifications in the springtime. But, so if you would think about those topics which you think should be discussed here with David'sparticipation, submit those tome or to Brenda for her to compile for us to use in this type of NEAL

### R.

### GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com151 forum. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Does anyone else have any comments or suggestions for followup action items

or things for the Department to consider as they move forward? MR. LINNELL: Just one question on the comments. Should they be directed at the products that meet the one quad cutoff,or are we -- shouldwe be discussing some of the other products, the new products that have been listed? MR. POLLOCK: I would like to have comments on the products that have been identified up here since they were raised as ones that should be considered, and so I'm putting them back on the list of -- for consideration, and so we're looking for comments on why they should be or why they should not be part of this list. MR. CLOUGH: Thank you. Ed or David, do you -- based on the discussions we've had today related to the Advisory Committee, do you see some time in the future where you'll be making a decision

onwhether or not youwill move forward oneway or the other? 

### MR. GARMAN: My inclination is to,again, to continue -- I will review this transcript again, 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.combecause sometimes memory fails me, and at my young age. But to the extent that we can continue to have meetings such as this that was a very good meeting, and I heard very loudly and clearly that all things consideredyouwould ratherhave me here thannot have

me here, 

### Iwould propose to continue along these lines and listen and participate as I did today. And until such time some -- something arises that compels us, for one reason or another, to forma formalAdvisory Committee subjected to FOCAand the rest. 

### MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Great. One note that's just been handed to me related to the comments due on December 6th, please ensure that you e-mail those comments in. Do not put them in an envelope because they may never make it. And is it clear where they should e-mail them to at this point? MR. POLLOCK: The e-mail address was in the notice that was sent out on this meeting. If you don't have that, check with Brenda before you leave here, and she'll make sure that you have the informationyouneed for e-mailingthem or faxing them in to us. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. One final note. When 

### NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com-- yes,please. MR. BRUNDAGE: Before we close, just a more general note to the priorities for the future. I don't think this particular item is really DOE'S fault,but 

### I would like to encourage DOE to get some greater consumer representation. The groups represented here have a strong environmental orientation, and that's good. That's a good viewpoint. But I think a lot of consumer economic interests are not well represented. 

### I think DOEhas tried to get some of these people involved,and they have not shown an interest in getting involved in this process. I'd like to encourage them to continue working to get some of those groups to attend these meetings. MR. POLLOCK: This is Ed Pollock. 

### I appreciate that concern. And as the staff person who has tried for years to recruit the various organizations whichwe believe represented consumers, I encourage all of you to talk with these groups, to talk with individualswho you think have knowledge or perspective that's important to our decisionmaking, and then not only come to participate in these workshops but in comments to our rulemakings. It is important for us to have the full range of concerns NEALR.GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.comand perspectives as we move forward with any of these actions. MR. CLOUGH: One final note. When should people expect the transcriptsand the notes from this meeting to be available? MR. POLLOCK: Brenda, what's the -- when will the transcripts be back to us, so we can put it in the reading room? Three days? It's a week turnaround on the transcript. You can also, if you wish to purchase it, talk with the person doing the transcribing today, and get a business card, buy a copy directly from them. MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Ed, any other closing comments that you'd 

### like to make at this point? MR. POLLOCK: I'd just like to endorse -- or to repeat what David has said. I certainly appreciateall of you takingyour time to be here this morning and to contribute to this. Continue to contribute through your comments and your assistance in helping us do these rules or make these decisions

onwhat otherproducts shouldbe considered certainly is a job which I,with my staff,don't want to try to do by ourselves. We depend on all of you to help us do this and do it right. MR. CLOUGH: Great. Well, if there's NEAL

### R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. (202)234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com155 nothing else, this meeting is adjourned. Thank you all for coming. Have a good afternoon. (Whereupon, at 12:31 p.m., the proceedings in the above-entitledmatter

were adjourned

### .)

NEAL

### R.GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701This matter of

Before:

Date:

Place:

represent aforement typewritis the ioned n9 CERTIFICATE

certify that the foregoing transcript in Public Hearing

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

November 6, 2001

Washington, DC

full and complete proceedings of matter, as reported and reduced