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 

The meeting came to order at 9:00 a.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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
PRESENT : 

MARK FRIEDRICHS, DOE 

SANDY BEALL, DOE 

JIM McMAHON, LBNL 

MICHAEL J. McCABE, DOE 

KARIMAMRANE, Air-Conditioning andRefrigeration 

Institute 

DONALD BRUNDAGE, Southern Company Services, Inc. 

ANDREW DELASKI, Appliance Standards Awareness 

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. 

mRVEY M. 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, Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory 

DAVE TRAVER, Sony Electronics, Inc. 

DR. STEPHEN B. WHITAKER, Cassidy and Associates 

TED A. WILLIAMS, American Gas Association 

ROBERT W. WISBEY, NEMA 

STEVEN ROSENSTOCK, Edison Electric Institute 

EDWARD GRAY, NEMA 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
PRESENT : (cont ' d) 

JOHN W. HOLT, National Rural Electric 

Cooperative Association 

ELIZABETH McROBERTS, Hearth, Patio & Barbecue 

Association 

CHUCK SCHLOSSER, Manitowoc Ice, Inc. 

RICHARD A. STEYER, ESQ. , Howe, Anderson & Steyer 

ROBERT TANNER, Hill Phoenix 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISUND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.corn 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
IV. 

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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
(9:08 a.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 

introduce David Garman, who is the Assistant 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 

1/11 be here until then. 

Thank you all for coming, and, of course, 

we're here to continue the work that we began on 

September llth, and we' 11 move 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
National Energy Policy asked us to do, the criteria 

and processes we should use when thinking about either 

expanding the program or using voluntary measures. 

We' re looking from you for recommendations 

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 consensus at 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 been digging through this booklet, 

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. 

There are a lot of other criteria and 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 ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
7 

This was a process that was designed 

solely to 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 to be 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 situation we 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 

rulemakings have not begun, 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 I was serious what I said a moment ago 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
about 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 

continue to have more and more sessions like this that 

are open to everybody 

A session like this, while larger and more 

unwieldy, is also more inclusive, accommodates 

alternative points of view, and gets more 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 iterative process to the extent 

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

get to work. 

MR. CLOUGH : Great. Thank you very much. 

Everyone in your packet should have a copy 

of today's agenda. Let me run through this very 

quickly. After we go through some of the housekeeping 

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 then we're going to go into a larger -- 

is this a little too loud? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
9 

MR. GARMAN: No, that's this -- 

MR. CLOUGH: Oh. A larger discussion -- 

into a more general discussion reviewing the selection 

criteria, some information on the data sheets, and 

then into a larger discussion in terms of 

recommendations and suggestions forthe prioritization 

of the products. 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 

Dennis Clough, and I 'm with Aspen Systems Corporation. 

MR. AMRANE : I 'm Karim Amrane 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 Manufacturers Association. 

MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel, American Council 

for an Energy Efficient Economy. 

MR. DELASKI: Andrew Delaski, Appliance 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
Standards Awareness Project. 

DR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs, ACEEE. 

MR. WILLIAMS: Ted Williams, American Gas 

Association. 

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, 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, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
Pacific 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: Cyrus Nasseri, Department of 

Energy. 

MR. SCHLOSSER: Chuck Schlosser, Manitowoc 

Ice, Incorporated. 

MR. FOLEY: Gene Foley, Association of 

Home Appliance Manufacturers. 

MR. SHARP: Mark Sharp, Panasonic. 

MR. SALAETS: Ken Salaets, Information 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
Technology 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: Thomas Robinson, 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. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
13 

MS. MURPHY: Maureen Murphy, Department of 

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, Department of 

Energy. 

MS. LAUGHLIN: Qonnie Laughlin, 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: Steve Whitaker on behalf 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
mind as we move forward. Because this session is 

being recorded today, as we move forward please, as 

you speak, introduce yourself for the record. 

I won'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 Pollock now, who 

is with the Buildings Office -- the Off ice 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, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
but 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 you have 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 am proposing 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 from you to help us 

begin that thinking, and these are - - they are sort of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
a 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, 

negotiated agreements, 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 how we 

go about expanding that program, how we select 

products that we should do, how we prioritize the 

actions once we've identified the products that should 

be given additional attention. 

This is just a summary, for those who 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. The most recent 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
one was the Energy Policy Act of 1992, which added the 

commercial equipment. 

What we want to do today is continue this 

process as we'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, 

which we've prepared which are in the package 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 

that we'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. There may 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 items may, after we have received your comments 

and talked about it today, we may decide to take those 

off the high priority grouping. 

Essentially, though, we have not attempted 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
to 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 

in my office, about four priority rules is all we can 

handle on standards rulemaking in a year, unless we 

find some other more -- less resource-intensive ways 

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 can address 

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 the package terminal air conditioners, 

commercial equipment. However, we are working on the 

other four right now. 

The original way we had this laid out was 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
that 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 invested resources in those products, and the 

package terminal one at this point, we will put them 

back into the pot, and we' 11 see what floats up 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 for energy savings, large or small, which we 

have now developed data sheets for with as much 

information as we have available. 

And these are the new commercial products 

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. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
2 0 

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 affecting products. " I think that 

captures it. 

I'd like, at this point, 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 'm Chuck Samuels from 

AHAM. I appreciate your last comment about the fact 

that you believe that the very important consideration 

of cumulative regulatory burden is contained in your 

statement of the relevant regulatory actions affecting 

products. But I don' 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, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
2 1 

particularly in my industry, we have manufacturers who 

have six, seven, eight products 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, I don't see that reflected, 

for example, in your -- and we can talk about this 

more later -- in your cut in which you include 

dishwashers and 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 appropriations moratorium 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 I would 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. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
22 

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 on peak 

in its evaluation of what the priority should be, 

certainly with the turnover of power. 

The liability issues in the past couple of 

years -- this is I think -- go to the top for a lot of 

stakeholders, and the impact of this program and other 

energy programs as well, so we encourage you to 

include peak impacts in your considerations. 

Any reason why 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 on Bryan, since he 

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: (Inaudible comment from an 

unmiked location.) 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
MR. 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 

industry are working on which are new information that 

they want to protect from the public, and so the 

challenge for us will be finding a way that we can be 

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. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
MR. CLOUGH: Yes, sir. And then you. 

MR. FOSTER: Chuck Foster with the Edison 

Electric Institute. Following up on Andrew's comment, 

I represent the electric utility industry, and if 

there's industry that would 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 1/11 repeat 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: Did you have a comment? Yes, 

please. 

MR. LIEBERMAN: Ben Lieberman, 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 little bit different than what's 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
been 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 the past 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 I think consumers benefitted from this 

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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
2 6 

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: Steve Rosenstock, Edison 

Electric Institute. To follow up on that, 1/11 just 

say as a summarize - - technology/market turnover, with 

many of these products that are listed. I would say 

-- in fact, I put in the written comments 15 years ago 

the most common form of residential printer was a dot 

matrix printer. 

If the Department back then had made 

standards for those printers the energy savings today 

would be zero, because no one is using them anymore 

because of the technology turnover in the marketplace. 

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 

should be 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 ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
27 

issue that's listed here, and then also on DOE 

resources. Clearly, the biggest change that occurred 

since this meeting was first started two months ago is 

a whole new situation with regard to energy security. 

I was at a workshop last month where Mary 

Hutzler, the Acting EIA Administrator, spoke. And I 

asked her, "Is EIA doing any analysis on what 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 impacts going 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
impact on incremental DOE resources required. We 

would just urge the Department to make 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. In many 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
really a question for my esteemed colleague, Mr. 

Foster. Would you join us in supporting clarification 

of the intent of the law to include peak 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. Steve Nadel, 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
everything twice. 

MR. CLOUGH: Any more questions or 

comments? Yes, please. 

MR. FRIEDRICHS: In that regard -- I I m 

sorry. Mark Friedrichs from the Policy Off ice at DOE. 

MR. CLOUGH: Thank you. 

MR. FRIEDRICHS : Comments on the 

importance of impacts on peak 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 in assessing peak as part of the rulemaking 

process or in the priority-setting process 

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 which DOE has 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
3 1 

load control measure you ever could think of, but just 

trying to document what the peak impacts are of 

potential standard levels. I mean, 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 a particular measure will save lots 

of peak in addition to the energy, versus another 

measure that will save very little peak, I would think 

the measure that does have peak savings would receive 

priority, all other things equal. 

MR. CLOUGH: Yes, sir. 

MR. SCHLEEDE : Glenn Schleede . Just want 

to remind you 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 1/11 send 

another copy in. 

But keep in mind, data are required to 

apply criteria. DOE has a terrible record in getting 

the data. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
MR. CLOUGH: The gentleman from EEI 

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, Edison 

Electric Institute. With peak demand, two of the big 

factors -- and I've mentioned this with other products 

- - is the coincidence of the -- coincidence and 

diversity of the product usage. Coincidence with the 

system peak, which does -- which may 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 these products, especially on 

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: One more 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
a 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 factor with 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 then we'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 certainly worthy and should be 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 check and see 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
if there's anyone on the telephone that would like to 

make a comment related to selection criteria before we 

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 these products and to make decisions, are 

these products which should be considered? Are the 

information, test procedures, those other factors 

which we have in here, 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, I would 

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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
dryers 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 

ones based 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
work the crowd here. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. If you can hold that 

comment. Just before we get into this, I wanted to 

ask Bryan Berringer to quickly describe the package 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 same page as far as what information you have, 

obviously you have your agenda that we've gone 

through. We've just gone through the slides, was your 

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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
products 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 a more 

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 the peak, some information that 

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 state what we support in terms of 

positive regulatory actions with respect to our 

products, and this was contained -- some of this was 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
contained 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 the DOE 

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 reader mechanism. 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. 

Exactly how that would work probably 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. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
And although, as 1/11 get 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 certainly do think that 

it makes sense, as it may for other of our test 

procedures, to revise our test procedures 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 1995 with the decision that no 

standard could be justified for a microwave oven. And 

we don't see anything that has changed that. 

With respect to clothes dryers, we also 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
are 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 

dollars of investment in clothes dryers by, 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 specific understanding that's in the Federal 

Register of what was done for clothes washers, to be 

looking at a standard for clothes dryers. 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
41 

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 coffee makers and fans, which 

we represent, and in our written comments I would 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 you would 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 -- along with televisions -- you know, 

there was no standard, so that's really -- they're 

looking at -- they put it under new because we weren' t 

- - it wasn't really considered in our existing 

priorities. It doesn' t show up on their high, medium, 

and low. And that's one of the reasons it was there. 

The other thing is, as you said at the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
very end, is this table right here that we have is a 

top 12, is only looking at energy savings. And it was 

for discussion purposes only, just to look at it. 

So this is by no means the top 12 that the 

Department has selected. That's why we wanted to have 

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: Steve Rosenstock, Edison 

Electric Institute. Looking over the list -- and I'm 

looking at some of the language in the prioritysetting documents that were included -- for HID 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
I'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 calculation was 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 numbers are much 

higher. 

So I guess in that one it's kind of an 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
interesting 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 other products in here 

- - desktop computers being another example -- 

residential sector, 56 kilowatt hours per year, and in 

the commercial sector much 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 on LBNL rough estimate on the HID lamps, is that 

study/analysis available in -- where can one get 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, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
45 

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 analysis which 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 ago because 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 that preliminary work was done by LBL, 

but because of other priorities we have never 

completed that study. I believe the numbers that are 

being cited here for HIDs are coming out of that. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
So the numbers were gathered up from a 

number of different sources, and sometimes we did 

calculations based 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 -- and maybe I'm new to this 

and that's my problem -- as to what the measure really 

is. 

It's hard for me 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. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
47 

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 

Commit tee process for the standards program, which we 

at the Alliance -- we support that idea, it's fine 

with us if we use a meeting 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 little bit, so that 

some of these issues can come out. Of course, I 'm not 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
advocating three-day meetings, but I would 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: Chuck Foster, Edison Electric 

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 incandescents or other forms of lighting 

with HID lamps, you could actually hurt that effort if 

you take an HID lamp and say, "Well, we can at the 

margin make it more efficient by whatever -- 

incorporating these other design 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 

Secretary was trying to make the point early on. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
4 9 

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 

technology may 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 an ADL report, immediately and 

then we should all be working hard to do something 

with that to get this thing resolved, because the fact 

of the matter is there are some very energy- and 

water-conserving dishwashers out there, and we should 

be promoting them, and we should be measuring them, 

what they do. And it' s in everyone * s interest to move 

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, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
rather, 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 I hope is very temporary, and the take-away from 

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 in yet? No. Any 

more comments? Steve? 

MR. NADEL: Okay. I wanted to make a few 

comments. First, to respond to what 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
51 

some good, careful, professional judgment. Within 

each of these savings ranges, there is a wide range of 

measures, some of 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 these measures, 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 savings on a bunch of them because it' s never 

going to happen. 

Just to give one example - - and Chuck will 

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 ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
available measures probably will give you pretty small 

savings, and that one may decline the list, but 

applying that to each of these measures. 

And, frankly, I think once you 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 close grouped ones and you1 re going to have to 

apply more judgement given, okay, these three measures 

will all save -- 1/11 make 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
53 

are some cases, you know, of unit heaters, for 

example, where you have oil and gas. Traditionally, 

we've treated those together. 

Or another example 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-in refrigerators. 

That's probably one common rulemaking, so 

you need to look at if from a rulemaking perspective. 

Sometimes there will 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 comments on 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 timeframe are we talking about? 

Are we looking for identifying the rulemakings for the 

next 10 years? For the next two years? The reason I 

ask that is there are some products which we've in the 

not-too-distant future set standards on that may be 

opportunities for other standards, subsequent 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
revisions. 

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 I mention that is not 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 I would 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 allow us 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 ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
(Laughter. ) 

MR. CLOUGH: I wanted to open this up a 

little more. The discussion has focused a lot around 

the impact of potential standards on these products. 

But one of the things, if you recall from the 

presentation at the beginning, was that the Department 

wanted to also look at Energy Star and tax credits and 

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: Steve Rosenstock, 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
process has worked, especially with those types of 

technologies that have very fast technology change 

rate or turnover rates in the marketplace. So, again, 

that should -- for certain products, it might be 

better to look at the Energy Star process 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 Energy has undergone a number 

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 them were 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 the potential from those -- implementation 

of those types of programs could dwarf anything 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
that -- 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. Can you 

expand on how you see that happening? 

MR. FOLEY: At the association, we've 

advocated for multiple-tier approaches towards this, 

the use of Energy Star, to putting more awareness of 

people to understand the implications and the impacts 

of Energy Star, the use 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 incentives given to draw 

attention to consumers through the availability of 

these high efficiency products. All of these are sort 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
58 

of part of the package that's available to the 

Department to help seat existing products into the 

marketplace. 

From our 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 

terms of 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, you know, if the voluntary programs 

move forward at a sufficient pace, there may be able 

to be consensus agreements that reduce the need for 

full-blown rulemakings. 

And I would also suggest that there -- you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
know, given that some of these products 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 

faster market penetration where the voluntary programs 

move faster. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Yes, sir. 

DR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs, ACEEE. With all 

due respect to the comments from AHAM, it appears from 

a stratospheric level that there's tremendous variance 

in the efficiency within product classes, depending on 

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, 

commercial package 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 standards do have 

a role in those markets 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 -- 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
short term as well as long term -- hits on the energy 

bill. 

So it varies by product class, and I am 

certainly not sure that I'm concerned about toasters. 

There are areas where we have to have standards and we 

have to work hard on them. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Steve? 

MR. NADEL: Yes. I wanted to make a 

comment on your question about the voluntary program, 

particularly Energy Star. We're a strong supporter of 

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. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
Let's see how 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
voluntary 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 does not replace the need for standards at 

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 Star program that's an alternative, you need 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 considered by 

the Department for some further analysis? Let me ask 

that question first, and then 1/11 ask the opposing 

question to that. 

MR. NADEL: Clarification. Do you mean 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
this 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, what we' 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 should be 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 a brief break and then 

come back and just go through these products -- you 

know, what are the actions that we think we should do? 

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. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
MR. 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, do you 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. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
65 

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'd put in unit heaters, 

commercial unit heaters. There is a mistake in your 

table where you put unit heaters way down. In your 

worksheets you have .73 quads, not .13 quads, for unit 

heaters. 

In our opinion, you made a -- you didn't 

properly adjust for the seasonal efficiency advantages 

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 ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
I'd also put commercial refrigerators -- 

if you -- as I pointed out before, there are three 

categories, subcategories effectively of commercial 

refrigerator freezers. If you add 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 you very 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
top 12 and some of the other ones that have been 

suggested for inclusion, and we' re going 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 

consideration as they move forward. So we'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 should be considering as they look 

at these, understanding that each of these product 

lines may 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 the process from here and next steps. And we' re 

shooting to be finished at 12:30 today, so we will not 

be breaking for lunch before then, and hoping that we 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
68 

can get through that process by then. 

So that's the suggested process 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 added products 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, the products 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 sure what you mean by 

"practical or 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 -- 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
I mean, for further analysis or not included. Some of 

the discussion this morning talked about, you know, 

terms were used like "applying common 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 should not be included as they move 

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. I don't really understand 

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 "2002 Priority-Setting Existing Legislation," 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
page 27 has the standards determination page for HID 

lamps. 

MR. GRAY: Right. I looked at that. 

MR. McMAHON: And what we1 re doing here 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 application that need to be looked at besides 

just energy savings. 

MR. CLOUGH: Yes. 

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, 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 

replacing mercury 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.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
71 

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 irregardless of whether 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 from what I heard 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
already, 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 to have 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 further discussion? 

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.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
73 

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 and white, 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
practical 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 sodium vapor. So 

you need to look at that really carefully. 

MR. CLOIJGH: Okay. And then to you, Gene. 

MR. FOLEY: The last job I would have had 

a lot to say. This job I'm going to keep very 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
75 

is not necessarily an argument against a very quick 

consensus process to lock those -- that efficiency in. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Does anybody else 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 are not 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
76 

all due respect, my toilets flush. There are products 

on the market available. With all due respect to this 

process, it has shown flexibility to separate -- 

separate out NISH products 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 on monitors 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 

attention paid to energy efficiency in these areas and 

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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
the 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, 10 years from now. And with all due 

respect, we don't have a clue, because products are 

going to be changing dramatically. They're going to 

be performing multiple 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 

now we probably didn't dream of doing that seven years 

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 ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
78 

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 of processing 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-advised to go down 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 

hours per 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
a 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 

backlash where there were many 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 sleep mode to this many watts or that many 

watts? Ignoring the active mode, ignoring what could 

happen especially with networking products or anything 

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 ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
be totally inaccurate. 

Maybe manufacturers could say, "We 11 just 

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, you may not be getting a total picture 

of what 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 factor that if 

a rulemaking process -- a standard sets the maximum 

allowable energy, and that hinders the development of 

those technologies, then you could actually be hurting 

energy efficiency instead of saving energy. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
81 

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 I mentioned before, 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 the next step, looking in parallel at what 

Energy Star does. 

And based on what 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. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
You know, there are concerns that the industry seems 

to be -- can be 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. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
83 

On the on power 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 greatly overstated. 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 you want 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, do you notice how the thing bends in there? 

Do you want the lines straight on the field or not? 

We need a few watts for deflection. We need -- most 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
of 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 really don'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. I wouldn't be against some kind 

of Advisory Committee activity within industry, but I 

really think the energy -- it's overstated the 

potential. Thank you. 

MR. CLOUGH: Thank you. Any more comments 

on monitors before we just move 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
85 

be important also to consider other uses. Jason 

pointed out some of those uses, but a case in point is 

Section 508, stable access to information technology. 

There are important considerations in 

terms of assistive technology that would be built into 

IT that will make these products available for people 

who heretofore maybe 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. Thank you. Let's move 

into computers. Are there any additional comments on 

that? I know it's been 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 I have a laptop computer now. 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's part of my thing about technical 

change -- or market change turnovers in terms of the 

actual "energy savings. 

Again, market share -- I bet the laptops 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
86 

is really rising quite rapidly. Thanks. 

MR. CLOUGH: Thank you. 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 TVs will 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, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
87 

yes, in '95, and earlier we looked at television 

standby power as not part of those considerations. So 

there has been some evolution in thinking, so that 

analysis doesn' t - - didn' t deal 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: Steve Rosenstock, 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 change what exactly is a television, and then, 

you know, it just -- the product categories could 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 as well 

as compelling, but they lead to a slightly different 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
question that -- particularly the comments from Sony 

on the projection unit we're looking at. 

Makes me wonder if down the road we' re not 

looking at the question not of whether there should be 

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 watts per 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 is what metrics one wants to use rather than 

just the question of the energy consumption. 

MR. CLOUGH: Ed? 

MR. POLLOCK: Harvey raises a thought that 

we have talked about in the office, and that is on 

other things that could be done. It's not clear in my 

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 worth DOE putting some resources into coming 

up with standard test procedures so that the labels 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
89 

would define and allow comparison of the different 

products, so that consumers can, if they are 

interested, and we could use other incentives to 

increase that interest, pick products which really are 

more energy efficient. 

MR. CLOUGH: Yes, please. 

MR. TRAVER: Well, I think maybe an 

Advisory Committee might 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 versus direct 

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-inch direct view monitor 

for under a hundred dollars. Life cycle cost analysis 

basically that just was completed by DOE said it costs 

less energy to produce the direct view CRT than the 

LCD. So, but the on power consumption is a little bit 

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 think you're going to pay 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
output, 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 is much 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-inch monitor 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 standby we're going to achieve largely 

the energy savings that we're all after, and we really 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
91 

don't need to even go down this road for regulating 

the operating power. 

MR. CLOUGH: Thank you. 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 

factors may be important in determining whether or not 

you want to regulate this. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
MR. CLOUGH: Okay. 

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, Edison 

Electric Institute. I guess anything -- general 

service, again, I 'm not sure what the percentage 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 could be just a direct replacement, I've 

seen $3, $4. If you're talking about price increase, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
93 

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: Jim McMahon, LBL. I believe 

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 an economical 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
94 

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 a bit more information on 

to help decide whether, at least for general service, 

this makes 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 

they move 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 time we 

went through this rulemaking we actually -- one of our 

manufacturers had a prototype of a microwave clothes 

dryer and tried to dry some clothes which burnt up. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
(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 research that 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
96 

product that we've concluded is not practical to 

proceed with? 

MR. CLOUGH: Actually, with the exception 

of the incandescent lamps, which I heard 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 in mind that this is really just, 

you know, just us taking notes. These are not general 

decisions that have been made or any documents to move 

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 

interpretation of the discussion that has taken place, 

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 in evaluating what's here and the fact that 

I've seen this for approximately three hours, I would 

assume that the written comments could go to that -- 

more detail -- 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
97 

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 can get this into the transcript. 

Thank you. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Ceiling fans. 

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, Edison 

Electric Institute. Looking at, again, the document, 

it breaks out the energy usage of the fan versus the 

lighting in the document, and it talks about -- also 

about how many fans are shipping this lighting as part 

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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
semantic thing to kind of talk about. And then it 

talks about the main part of the savings are basically 

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 do you 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 the use 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 ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
because 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 conditioning more, you may have a net 

increase in energy use. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Steve, and then to 

you, sir. 

MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel, ACEEE. We agree 

that this is a good opportunity. If anything, we 

think you've underestimated the savings opportunities. 

EPA has just developed an Energy Star spec for ceiling 

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. I would 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, they have 

to be in the box or they have to have designed to -- 

they'll take the pin-type fluorescent lighting, so the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
100 

-- in the Energy Star area, they did note that the 

lighting was a major 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 fan performance 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 

legitimate product, or wouldn't have potential energy 

savings. But there are some substitution effects that 

I think need to be included. 

MR. CLOUGH: Ed, did you want 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
motors 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 one horsepower motors? And then how - - 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 area we 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. The big issue is the blade design. These tend 

to be very flat blades. They're great air beaters, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
but not very good air movers. And better blade design 

is one of the keys, as the Gossamer Wind, for example, 

better blade design, much better air movement 

efficiency, I believe, 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 comments on 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 

analyses that have been done indicate strong potential 

both from the blades and the motors. At park mode, we 

see motor efficiencies down in the one to two percent 

range for these fans, and this leads me wandering off 

on my own to recommend consideration for watts per CFM 

type standard rather than -- which allows 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
103 

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 

opportunities here on the reflector lamps. They fall 

into two categories. One, under the existing 

legislation, BR lamps were 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 see whether 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 -- 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
104 

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 kind of curious about, 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 a market 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-2 category? Or are 

they still considered in the four-foot, even realizing 

that since the ballasts have changed most of the lamps 

are going to change with them? 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Is there any 

information you'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, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
Lawrence 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 

alternatives proposed are. I certainly understand if 

you're changing from T-12 to 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, you may have 

a situation where you go from recommended to best 

available under FEMP, where suddenly you ended up with 

hardly any suppliers left or that sort of thing. 

So I think, again, the number of 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 

information about what's in mind. In particular, 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. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
106 

If a lot of this is effectively switching 

to T-8 lamps, we should get a lot of that as opposed 

to -- as a result of the electronic ballast standard. 

And I don't know what the additional savings would be, 

but it should look at the additional savings above 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: Thank you. 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 forward we probably will 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
not 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 few people are saying for a few 

of these products it's difficult to give an opinion 

until we get some more particulars. So I'd recommend, 

for those particular products you provide 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 sense but 

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 analysis here, at the high 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
108 

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 "one watt 

standby." That if all of the boxes, whether digital 

or wireless, at one watt standby you're going to be 

able to achieve this 1.9 quads. However, if you look 

down in some of the text, there is language that says, 

"One watt standby feasibility unclear." 

If you go down lower it says, "Best 

available unit energy consumption, 8.8 watts standby 

currently. So I believe 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 in particular 

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 specifically about comparing apples to oranges in 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
109 

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 listed here, and you can see how 

many different types of products and what their 

different capabilities would be. 

But just in general for products and 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 is out there is a program that's gaining 

acceptance, and I don't see -- I'm not sure how 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 

voluntary program, 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: Steve Nadel, 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
substantial savings. So I think this should continue 

to be investigated. 

I'd be very curious about the market 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 seeing on the market, in general 

purpose laptops at least, as opposed to these 

dedicated purpose computers, what a settop box really 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
We'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: Thank you. Other comments on 

settop boxes? No? Torchiere lamps? Factors or 

issues for the Department to consider. 

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, Edison 

Electric Institute. Based on the information provided 

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 fixtures being 

used at full load, at highest usage for four hours a 

day. 

Again, I'm not sure about that. Many of 

these fixtures do have dimmer switches. I don't know 

what kind of studies have 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. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
112 

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 actual wattage by 50 percent, the 

baseline could instead of being 300 watts could be 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 

the Republican and Democratic bills include standards. 

As I understand, the manufacturers have agreed to 

support a standard. 

I think, if anything, the savings you have 

here are conservative. Some analysis we've done -- 

that have been actually based on some field studies on 

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 REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
MR. 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. Your name, 

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 filters and requiring consumers to clean the 

gunk out of the bottom of the dishwasher at the end of 

the cycle, which doesn't seem like the kind of product 

we want to necessarily require all Americans to 

purchase. 

On the other hand, we know with the sensor 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
and some of the other technology that there's a huge 

potential for energy savings, and let's get the test 

procedures straightened out, 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 standards on issues other 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
doesn'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 fiscal year 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
reach agreement 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 standards out, maybe we 

can get FTC to ask the manufacturers to put a big 

stamp on the yellow stickers, "Don't pay 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 

dishwashers by the ability to clean clean dishes, and 

air conditioners, by a standard that has two-thirds of 

its hours when most people have 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
11 1 

consideration. We're doing very well on time. Let's 

move through some of these very quickly. 

Residential central air conditioningunits 

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 

suggesting we 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 

available beyond what was included either in the most 

recent NOPR or the previous final rule having to deal 

with thermal expansion valves or other devices to help 

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 includes much to -- it assumes that duct systems 

are much better in practice than they really are, and 

a lot more energy is used by the fans. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
118 

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 

central A/C. Right now we 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 for and 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 

assumptions of the 10240 test procedure certification 

methods and what's actually happening out there. 

We're seeing much more duct leakiness, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
119 

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 for you 

to comment on this issue during this proceeding. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Thank you. 

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, Edison 

Electric Institute. A couple of things. It should be 

remembered that air conditioning manufacturers do not 

manufacture duct systems or install ductwork systems. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
120 

So, again, I don't think they should be 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 know how 

many different types of tests or how long -- you know, 

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. Steve Nadel , 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
121 

standard in order to help capture those quads. 

We' re not 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
122 

Company. Test procedures are supposed to precede 

standards. If there are major 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 few months. 

We're talking about priorities for future work, 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 to maybe hand 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 w.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
123 

it back to Mr. Garman to maybe start this with 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 that must, 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 themselves of the opportunity to participate. 

So those are some of the factors that I'm weighing in 

my mind as to whether or not to reconstitute, 

reestablish the Advisory 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
on record in support of retaining the -- or 

reinstituting the Advisory Committee. And I would 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 

Committee per 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 

take place a couple, three times a year, then from our 

point of view it doesn't make any difference whether 

it's an Advisory Committee per se or a public 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 our point of view we'd 

leave that to you as long as there is this opportunity 

for comment throughout the year. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Let's turn back here. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
MR. PRINDLE: Bill Prindle, Alliance to 

Save Energy. We also submitted comments last year I 

believe and asked that we continue this. Our view 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 stakeholders are 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: Ben Lieberman, Competitive 

Enterprise Institute. I just want to point out very 

quickly, I think probably the one group that's been 

underrepresented in these types of procedures has been 

consumers, and also I think to an extent, as was 

elucidated today, some commercial end users of the 

products . 

So whatever we arrive at, whether it's an 

Advisory Committee or not, I would certainly encourage 

full participation among the end users of these 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
126 

products . 

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, 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 second one was the impact of voluntary 

programs. And I think the third one was consumer 

impact or consumer feedback. So there were 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 the Advisory Committee was, 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 REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
Committee was a bit of a sham, and probably would 

become that again. Particularly, consumer -- real 

consumer views were not represented there. They never 

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 they will follow their own regulations. They did 

not last time -- or numerous aspects of DOE'S own 

internal requirements, including the representation of 

contractors on the committee, that DOE just plain 

ignored. 

So if you're going to do 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 d basically 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 REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
same 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 

Policy Office. Without an Advisory 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. 

So maybe you should think just about that, 

how important the ability to come up with coordinated 

recommendations among all of the stakeholders is. If 

that's not that important, then these kinds of 

meetings would certainly suffice. 

MR. CLOUGH: Does anyone have 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 the previous speaker said, if you don' t 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
have 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-togethers are 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 Save Energy. It would be helpful 

if there were some sort of process for stakeholders to 

nominate agenda items or, you know, just to have the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
agenda 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 I won't interrupt the 

proceedings at that time. But thank you all very much 

for attendance and active participation today. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Thank you. 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. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
External power supply. 

Steve, because this was one you brought 

up, do you want to just characterize this product line 

for us? Tell us what it is you believe 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 draw power 

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. 

I believe consensus has been reached among 

the various interests to -- in the Senate bill to have 

DOE conduct a rulemaking to look at these 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
opportunities 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: Steve Rosenstock, 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 external power 

supply is to keep the heat out of the appliance, 

transfer the voltage down from 120 down to 24 or 12 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
133 

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 seven watts, it's still -- if you multiply 

that by 8.76, it's still under 100 kilowatt hours per 

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 this point? 

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 100 watts per year per 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 to be 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 thoughts or comments on 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
134 

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 the main source of 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 - - in our 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 the Democratic and Republican bills do include 

a directive for DOE to look at that. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
MR. 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 area where if -- if there isn't 

an energy bill that you have the direction to do, that 

you would have to get legal authority, because you 

don't have legal authority to regulate this product 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 thoughts or comments on 

this? No. Commercial refrigerators. Keep things 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
cold. 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 classes you have here that effectively 

are very similar products when you lump them together. 

It looks like from your studies, which are based on 

the ABL studies, there is an opportunity for more than 

one quad of savings. 

There's another product class where, 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 test procedures -- some have 

test procedures, other donr t have test procedures, 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
it. 

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: Another product category where 

there are significant opportunities for saving, there 

are some major market barriers here, in that the vast 

majority of the machines are purchased by the beverage 

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 seven years. 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
138 

Republican and Democratic Senate bills. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. 

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI. 

I am kind of curious about any sort of test procedure, 

because it's somewhere -- I don't know what the 

percentage of any machine is indoors versus 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 could do something to encourage 

people to put things in with less lights, less motors, 

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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
this 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 

Department would take a performance approach to this. 

I'm just beginning to see a few innovative 

technology solutions being offered for these kinds of 

devices. So let's not limit the innovation potential 

of the industry by -- you know, by focusing on just a 

few prescriptive items and keep it on performance and 

keep the innovation channel open. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. Steve? 

MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel, ACEEE. There 

were a number of comments made 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 the Canadian 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 

regarding vending machines? No? Okay. Great. Yes? 

MR. FOLEY: Gene Foley, the Association of 

Home Appliance Manufacturers. It should be noted that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
the vending machine manufacturers are not represented 

at this meeting here. So that it's probably very 

difficult to have a take-away of 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 refrigeration now. Do they 

represent the vending machines, too? 

MR. AMRANE: Not really, no. 

MR. POLLOCK: Okay. 

MR. CLOUGH: Ed, were there a couple of 

other products that you had 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.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
procedure to account for standby power. 

(Laughter. ) 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. 

MR. SAMUELS: That's the something. 

(Laughter. ) 

MR. CLOUGH: And with the residential 

commercial clothes washers? Was that the other topic? 

Is that -- 

MR. SAMUELS: Yes, that's the issue of the 

laundromat or multi-family housing type clothes 

washers that have vending units on them for coins or 

electronically that we' re suggesting now that that be 

brought into the program. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. So why don't we just 

discuss that single product line very briefly here 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 that we've been using 

thus far. So there are potential savings. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
142 

It's unclear to me -- 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 in what the water factor, and in trying to 

get some of the water savings. And to the extent DOE 

sets something that preempts state standards, it could 

be controversial. 

So I guess 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 this discussion, have there been 

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-product basis 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
that 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 a December 6th deadline for comments, and we 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 

involved with this. We will get it up on the website. 

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. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
144 

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Just, again, getting back 

to the comment period -- 

MR. CLOUGH: Your name? 

MR. ROSENSTOCK: I'm sorry. Steve 

Rosenstock, EEI. Can we 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 

data with you, I think it's appropriate that we 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, did you have 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'm unclear what the timeframe is. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
I'm not suggesting we do it this year. But depending 

on the timeframe for your analysis, your preliminary 

analysis showed even the Energy Star levels will save 

over one quad. 

There are units already on the market 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 and VCRs, 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, five years 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. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
MR. CLOUGH : Ed, do you want to respond to 

that? 

MR. POLLOCK: Yes, this is Ed Pollock. 

The statute on refrigerators is a five-year time 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 ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
MR. CLOUGH: Duly noted. Thanks. 

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, Edison 

Electric Institute. In terms of 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, 0.1 to 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 clarification on 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 of VCRs, in particular, 

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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
back of the room. I want to -- 

PARTICIPANT: I was going 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. Thank you. One final 

comment, and then we're going to move into next steps. 

MR. NADEL: On the consumer electronics, 

yes, I have 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
going 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 

information on their website, I believe in preparation 

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, I believe. If we don' t, make sure we do. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
And we will send a broadcast e-mail out 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 -- I get 

the feeling that probably, from my perspective 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. 

So my inclination is to go with 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's participation, submit those to me or to Brenda 

for her to compile for us to use in this type of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
151 

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 -- should we 

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 

on whether or not you will move forward one way or the 

other? 

MR. GARMAN: My inclination is to, again, 

to continue -- I will review this transcript again, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
because 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 

considered you would rather have me here than not have 

me here, I would 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 

form a formal Advisory Committee subjected to FOCA and 

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 

information you need for e-mailing them or faxing them 

in to us. 

MR. CLOUGH: Okay. One final note. When 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
-- 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 DOE has 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 which we believe represented consumers, 

I encourage all of you to talk with these groups, to 

talk with individuals who 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 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
and perspectives as we move forward with any of these 

actions. 

MR. CLOUGH: One final note. When should 

people expect the transcripts and 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 

appreciate all of you taking your 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 

on what other products should be 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 AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
155 

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-entitled matter 

were adj ourned . ) 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF
This 

matter of 

Before : 

Date: 

Place : 

represent 

af orement 

typewrit i 

s 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 

EE-PS-01-002 COMMENT 02FF