• 

• 

• 

1 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY 

Public Hearing on 

Clothes Washer Standards 

Wednesday, 

November 15, 2000 

The meeting was held at 9:00 a.m. in Room 

GE-069 of the Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, s.w., Washington, D.C. 20585, Bryan Berringer 

of the Department of Energy presiding. 

PRESENT: 

DOUG BROOKMAN 

KATHERINE N. DELVES 

TOM ECKMAN 

EUGENE C. FOLEY, JR. 

DAVID B. GOLDSTEIN, Ph.D. 

TONY GREGG 

MIKE GRIFFITH 

MEL HALL-CRAWFORD 

EARL F. JONES, JR. 

ALAN F. KESSLER 

BEN LIEBERMAN 

PHILIP J. MANTHEI 

DAVID B. MODTLAND 

STEVEN M. NADEL 

WILLIAM R. PRINDLE 

STEVEN J. ROSENSTOCK 

CHARLES A. SAMUELS 

GLENN W. SCHWANTES 

MICHAEL C. THOMPSON 

LARRY WETHJE 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

ALSO PRESENT: 

DONALD M. BRUNDAGE 

ANDREW de LASKI 

ERIC J. ESSMA 

DOUGLASS C. HORSTMAN 

MARSHALL B. HUNT 

JACK E. LINARD, Ph.D. 

STEVEN J. NABINGER 

MICHAEL C. RIVEST 

DOE REPRESENTATIVES: 

BRYAN BERRINGER 

PETER BIERMAYER 

QONNIE LAUGHLIN 

EUGENE MARGOLIS 

MICHAEL J. McCABE 

EDWARD POLLOCK 

ROBERT VAN BUSKIRK 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 

2 

www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

3 

A-G-E-N-D-A 

Opening remarks . 4 

Agenda review and overview . 11 

Participants' remarks 

Larry Wethje, AHAM . . . • • • • • . . • . . 15 

Chuck Samuels, AHAM . . . • . . • • 18 

Gene Foley, AHAM • . . . . . . . . • • . 26 

Ben Lieberman, CEI and Consumer Alert • • • • 

Mel Hall-Crawford, Consumer Federation of 

America . . . . -. . . . .. . . . . . . . . 32 

Steve Rosenstock, Edison Electric Institute 35 

Steve Nadel, American Council for an Energy 

Efficient Economy . . . . . • . . . . . • 38 

Bill Prindle, Alliance to Save Energy . . . 40 

Tom Eckman, Northwest Power Planning Council 43 

Tony Gregg, Water Conservation Manager, City of 

Austin, Texas . • . . . . . . . • . . • . 46 

Alan Kessler, Amana ...•...••••. 48 

David Goldstein, NRDC • • • • • . . . • • • 52 

BREAK • • • • • • 58 

A discussion of issues on which DOE has 

comments and/or requests to speak • • • . . 

received 

• 60 

Test procedures 

Rulemaking process 

Energy and economic analyses 

Impacts of standards . . . 

Other issues 

Recap . . . 

Adjourn . 

(202) 234·4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 

. . . . 61 

• 63 

• 75 

• • 89 

• 90 

• • 97 

• • • 98 

www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

4 

1 P-R-0-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 

2 9:01 a.m. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: If you could take your seats, 

4 we are about to begin. Good morning, everybody, and 

5 welcome. My name is Doug Brookman. I am a 

6 facilitator from a small company called Public 

7 Solutions in Baltimore, Maryland, and I welcome you. 

8 Thanks for being here on time so we can start on time. 

9 Let me start by turning it over to Bryan 

10 Berringer to make welcoming remarks. 

11 MR. BERRINGER: Good morning, everybody. Is 

12 this on? Can you hear? Good morning. Thanks for 

13 everybody coming today. I appreciate it . 

14 If you don't know, I'm the program manager 

15 for the clothes washers rulemaking here at the 

16 Department of Energy. Today joining me we have 

17 Michael J. McCabe from the front office staff. We 

18 should have a number of other people. 

19 We also have Gene Margolis who is here 

20 representing the general counsel. Mark Friedrichs 

21 from the policy office will also be joining us. I'll 

22 be the presiding officer today. Mr. Doug Brookman 

23 will be facilitating the meeting today. Again, on 

24 behalf of the Department I would like to thank you all 

25 for taking time to participate in this public hearing. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

5 

1 We have chosen this format for today 1 s 

2 workshop as a public hearing on our proposed 

3 rulemaking in order to facilitate and exchange ideas 

4 and information in a more informal manner. We're 

5 going to start out with some statements. Then later 

6 on we'll open it up for open discussion. 

7 Again, this workshop forum is for discussing 

8 changes to proposed rulemaking for clothes washers 

9 that were just published in the Federal Register on 

10 October 5th of 2000. The notice included announcement 

11 of this public hearing, and also the material as far 

12 as the TSD, the rulemaking, today's agenda is posted 

13 on our website . 

14 In your package you should have a handout 

15 that has that website information on there. Again, 

16 today the Department is seeking comments on the 

17 proposed conservation standards. 

18 Comments received today along with comments 

19 submitted during the written comment period, which 

20 ends December 4, will assist the Department in 

21 developing a final rule for clothes washers. 

22 In approximately two weeks you should have 

23 a completed transcript that will be available in the 

24 Department of Energy's Freedom of Information Room in 

25 Room lE-190. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

6 

1 Anybody wishing to obtain a purchase of the 

2 transcript can see the court reporter. There's also 

3 information on your handout that gives you the name 

4 and phone number of the court reporter as far as 

5 getting a copy of the transcript. 

6 To provide the Department with as much 

7 pertinent information, we want to see as many views as 

8 possible and get expressions from as many people as 

9 possible, their views. 

10 The workshop will be conducted in the 

11 following procedures. We'll begin with the 

12 introductions just around the table. Then we'll 

13 proceed with the list of people that have asked to 

14 speak and have submitted comments to speak. Following 

15 those comments we'll have a discussion period. 

16 As you see on the agenda, we've sort of 

17 broken it down. If there are other issues, we' 11 

18 discuss that. As time allows we' 11 invite unscheduled 

19 speakers to present their issues not covered. Then 

20 we'll also have time to discuss those. 

21 We should have ample time to raise and 

22 discuss all important issues. We ask, however, that 

23 all participants reframe from making overly lengthy 

24 remarks so that everyone gets a chance and time on the 

25 floor as needed. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.~. 

~ASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

7 

1 Doug Brookman, our facilitator, will enforce 

2 the ground rules. He will also limit debate with 

3 speakers when points have been made and are clear. 

4 Questions are welcome throughout the 

5 presentations unless you are advised otherwise. It 

6 may be necessary, however, to cut off debated topics 

7 to remain on schedule. 

8 There should be additional time at the end 

9 of a workshop to discuss issues. We encourage 

10 everyone to present and participate as much as 

11 possible so that we may get a full spectrum of 

12 opinions and issues raised. 

13 The workshop is scheduled to adjourn about 

14 2:45 today, earlier if possible. We may be able to 

15 finish before lunch depending on the issues that are 

16 raised. Topics, of course, that have not been fully 

17 discussed can also be addressed in written comments 

18 which are due December 4. 

19 All written comments and data submitted will 

20 be available for public inspection at the DOE Freedom 

21 of Information Reading Room. The telephone number we 

22 can also put on the board is (202) 586-6020 if anybody 

23 is interested in that. 

24 We ask you please send your written comments 

25 to Ms. Geraldine Paige, who is sitting in the back, 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005·3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

8 

1 here at the Department of Energy, reference docket EE2 RM-94-403. This information is also available on your 

3 handout, the address and so forth. 

4 We would like to have 10 copies of your 

5 comments and any supporting data along with electronic 

6 copies using WordPerfect 8.1 or Excel. We will not 

7 accept fax copies so any comments you have if you can 

8 give us an electronic copy, it would be appreciated. 

9 Anybody submitting information they feel is 

10 confidential and exempt from public disclosure should 

11 submit one copy signed with that information plus 10 

12 copies and a disk with that information omitted in 

13 accordance with the procedures established in 10 

14 C.F.R. Part 1004.11. The DOE will make its own 

15 determination whether this information is exempt from 

16 disclosure. 

17 Again, we thank everybody for coming today 

18 and preparing for this hearing. We are pleased to 

19 receive your comments. Our purpose today is for the 

20 Department to listen to your views. 

21 That is my prepared statement for today and 

22 part of our standard procedure. I would like to turn 

23 it over to Doug Brookman who will address our speakers 

24 that are scheduled for today. Thank you . 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Bryan. Thanks to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

9 

1 all of you for coming and for being here on time . 

2 This seems awfully loud to me. Okay. 

3 Let's start with introductions. I'm going 

4 to do a brief agenda review which Bryan has already 

5 kind of gone over briefly. 

6 Tom, can I start with you? Please say your 

7 name and your organizational affiliation. 

8 MR. ECKMAN: Tom Eckman, Northwest Power 

9 Planning Council. 

10 MR. PRINDLE: Bill Prindle, The Alliance to 

11 Save Energy. 

12 MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel, American Council 

13 for an Energy Efficient Economy. 

14 MS. DELVES: Katherine Delves, Natural 

15 Resources Canada. 

16 MR. GOLDSTEIN: David Goldstein, Natural 

17 Resources Defense Council. 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. GREGG: Tony Gregg, City of Austin. 

MR. THOMPSON: Mike Thompson, Whirlpool. 

MR. SAMUELS: Chuck Samuels, AHAM. 

MR. FOLEY: Gene Foley, AHAM. 

MR. WETHJE: Larry Wethje with AHAM. 

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, Edison 

Electric Institute. 

<202) 234-4433 

MR. MANTHEI: Phil Manthei, Alliance Laundry 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrQross.com 
• 

• 

• 

10 

1 Systems. 

2 MS. HALL-CRAWFORD: Mel Hall-Crawford, 

3 Consumer Federation of America. 

4 MR. SCHWANTES: Glenn Schwantes, Amana 

5 Appliances. 

6 MR. KESSLER: Alan Kessler, Aman a 

7 Appliances. 

8 MR. GRIFFITH: Mike Griffith, Electrolux. 

9 MR. MODTLAND: Dave Modtland, Electrolux. 

10 MR. POLLOCK: Ed Pollock, Department of 

11 Energy. 

12 MR. BERRINGER: Bryan Berringer and I would 

13 just like to make one correction in your package. If 

14 you're coming tomorrow for the central air, you have 

15 the other information on central air and we'll give 

16 you a copy of the website with the clothes washer 

17 information on it. That will be forthcoming. 

18 MR. MCCABE: Michael McCabe, Department of 

19 Energy. 

20 MR. BIERMAYER: Peter Biermayer, Lawrence 

21 Berkeley National Laboratory. 

22 MR. MARGOLIS: Eugene Margolis, Deputy 

23 Assistant General Counsel. 

24 

25 

MR. BROOKMAN: And could I ask others also 

to introduce themselves? 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

11 

1 (Whereupon, others at the table introduce 

2 themselves off the record.) 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. I believe all of 

4 you know Gerri . I hope all of you gave Gerri a 

5 business card. 

6 Bryan already did a very brief review of the 

7 agenda and covered the high points and they are that 

8 this is the final workshop prior to the Department 

9 considering many different views and preparing a final 

10 rule. 

11 To make sure that everybody gets a chance to 

12 comment on all of the developed work that's gone into 

13 the proposed rule and the other features in a 

14 prospective rule, we are asking that we have brief 

15 presentations this morning. 

16 Several people have contacted the Department 

17 of Energy and asked that they be able to speak and 

18 they are -- the list that I have presently is Larry 

19 Wethje representing AHAM; Chuck Samuels from AHAM; 

20 Gene Foley from AHAM; Ben Lieberman from CEI and 

21 Consumer Alert; Mel Hall-Crawford, Consumer Federation 

22 of America; Steve Rosenstock, EEI; Steve Nadel ACEEE; 

23 Bill Prindle, Alliance to Save Energy; Tom Eckman, 

24 Northwest Power Planning Council; Tony Gregg, Water 

25 Conservation Manager, City of Austin Texas; and Alan 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

12 

1 Kessler from Amana. 

2 What we hope to do, and if other people wish 

3 to speak at the opening, especially if there's time, 

4 but we want to find a way to kind of wedge you in and 

5 give you a chance to speak. We're hoping that people 

6 that have asked to present can limit their comments to 

7 in the range of five minutes. In other final 

8 workshops prior to the work going into a final rule, 

9 this format has worked well. 

10 You will note as you look at the agenda 

11 after these individuals give their comments for the 

12 record, the discussion continues subject area by 

13 subject area . 

14 You'll see after the participants' remarks 

15 we' 11 probably take a break mid morning, but then 

16 we'll move onto a discussion of test procedure, then 

17 following that rulemaking process, and then following 

18 that energy and economic analyses, and then impacts of 

19 standards, and then any other issues that have not 

20 been covered we'll take up before the end of the day. 

21 As Bryan said, it may very well be that this 

22 will be a short meeting today. We don't, however, 

23 wish to diminish people's ability to comment on issues 

24 that matter to them so we'll make sure we don't skip 

25 lightly over the things that are of concern to you. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

13 

1 Steve Nadel. 

2 MR. NADEL: Just to clarify, it sounds like 

3 the initial thing you want is brief opening remarks 

4 and to the extent we have further detailed comments on 

5 one aspect or another, hold that until later. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: That would be a nice way to 

7 do it. Thank you for clarifying that. Yes. And in 

B the segment that's listed on the agenda, that would be 

9 the time to develop those things. I think that's 

10 productive because then we can have a discussion. We 

11 can have an exchange of views. 

12 Are there questions or comments at this 

13 point on the agenda and the way this is structured? 

14 Let me suggest also that over the span of 

15 these years norms have emerged for these meetings and 

16 I'm going to ask that you do everything you can to 

17 cooperate with these norms. I'm simply going to 

18 request that you speak one at a time. When you do 

19 please say your name for the record. 

20 Listen as an ally. I find, and you' re 

21 getting tired of hearing me say it, that the quality 

22 of the discussion hinges entirely on the quality of 

23 the listening. Keep the focus here. 

24 

25 

Please turn off your cell phones, turn off 

your pagers, keep the side bars to an absolute 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

14 

1 minimum. If you need to do some work that' s not 

2 focused on where we are on the agenda, take it out of 

3 the room, please. Don't disturb these proceedings. 

4 We're going to try to stay on time today. 

5 We've got a lot of busy people here and there's a lot 

6 to be done. That's all about keeping the focus here. 

7 I will be queuing people to speak. 

8 Once we get past the initial comments from 

9 the speakers that I listed, I'll be queuing people to 

10 speak, but I'm also going to try to arrange for people 

11 to have follow-on comments. 

12 The Department benefits a lot from the 

13 exchange of views and it creates for clarity than just 

14 people reading from a written script. That's my goal 

15 as a facilitator. 

16 Questions or comments before we begin? Did 

17 I miss anything? Did anybody not get a chance to 

18 introduce him or herself? 

19 MR. LIEBERMAN: Ben Lieberman, CEI. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. And CEI is? 

21 MR. LIEBERMAN: We' re a public interest 

22 group. I'm also here representing Consumer Learning, 

23 a consumer advocacy group. 

24 

25 Rebecca? 

(202) 234-4433 

MR. BROOKMAN: Are you getting that, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, 0.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

15 

1 COURT REPORTER: It's faint. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: These microphones are not --

3 what do they call them, wide radius? You need to pull 

4 them up pretty close to your face to be heard. 

5 Michael McCabe. 

6 MR. MCCABE: Mike McCabe. As a follow-up to 

7 the remark that Steve Nadel made in the participants' 

8 remarks, I suspect that 1 s going to be very brief 

9 remarks by the individuals where they can find out 

10 what their issues are. We would hope that all parties 

11 will stay beyond their remarks so that there can be a 

12 discussion on those issues with them involved later 

13 on . 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: From my perspective of these 

15 participants' remarks, the first segment of the agenda 

16 is to hit the highlights. Just the major comments 

17 that you have. That's what we're hoping to achieve 

18 there. 

19 Okay. Let's being. The first individual is 

20 Larry Wethje. Can we start with you, please? 

21 MR. WETHJE: Larry Wethje, Vice President of 

22 Engineering Services with the Association of Home 

2 3 Appliance Manufacturers representing the manufacturers 

24 of clothes washers sold in the U.S. My comments will 

25 be limited to test procedure issues and other AHAM 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, O.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

16 

1 representatives will offer comments on other aspects 

2 of the rulemaking. 

3 I would like to start off just by thanking 

4 the Department for doing an excellent job, we think, 

5 of incorporating revisions to the clothes washer test 

6 procedures to clarify certain issues. 

7 They have helped us to facilitate a dialogue 

8 amongst many interested parties and we believe they've 

9 done a good job in incorporating many of the consensus 

10 comments that were discussed. 

11 However, we believe there are four brief 

12 issues that we think that further clarify and enhance 

13 the test procedures if they were incorporated in the 

14 final rule. I will briefly just summarize those four 

15 items. 

16 No. 1, we think that the test cloth should 

17 be specified to be able to be used up to 60 runs in 

18 Appendix J as it is proposed for Jl. There shouldn't 

19 be any distinction between usage of the test cloth 

20 between the two. I don't think that's very 

21 controversial. 

22 No. 2, specify that the Jl appendix is a 

23 test procedure that is to be used to determine which 

24 models meet Energy star requirements prior to 2004 . 

25 I think everybody agrees with that. We just want to 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.Y. 

YASHINGTON, O.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

17 

1 document it and put it in the final rule. 

2 No. 3, requires that a permanent marking be 

3 applied to future test cloth lots to assist in keeping 

4 those lots from being mixed up with different lots 

5 during testing. That would help the manufacturers and 

6 other agencies when they are testing the materials not 

7 to use test cloth from different lots. 

8 The last item would be to implement a 

9 process of verifying the correction factors on the 

10 future test cloth lots. We had had a conference call 

11 with many interested parties back in June and the 

12 minutes from that meeting recorded the following 

13 action • 

14 It would determine a process for approval 

15 and notification of the approved correction factors, 

16 laboratories and mills to be used, i.e., publishing a 

17 Federal Register on a website or by letter. We think 

18 to avoid potential confusion that the correction 

19 factor of the test block lot should be certified by 

20 DOE. 

21 We think this process should be published in 

22 the final rule and we are willing to work with DOE and 

23 dialogue with them on helping to establish an 

24 appropriate process . 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

That's pretty much all we have to say on 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

18 

1 test procedures. We can talk about it further in the 

2 appropriate segment. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Larry. 

4 The next person who is scheduled to speak is 

5 Chuck Samuels. 

6 MR. SAMUELS: Thank you. I think everyone 

7 knows that I'm the Government Relations Counsel for 

8 the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. We 

9 were, of course, involved in the discussions with 

10 energy efficiency advocates which led to the joint 

11 comments which proposed an industry standard which is 

12 reflected in DOE's proposal. 

13 The rule proposed by DOE is consistent with 

14 our position and we are here today to support it. The 

15 following companies support the proposed rule; 

16 Alliance Laundry Systems, ASKO, Amana Appliances, AB 

17 Electrolux, General Electric Appliances, Fisher and 

18 Paykel, Maytag, Miele, and Whirlpool. 

19 My colleague, Gene Foley, will provide some 

20 viewgraphs that will show much more detailed 

21 information, the very significant energy, water, 

22 environmental, and economic benefits of the rule to 

23 consumers in this country. 

24 I would like to discuss why we negotiated 

25 the standard and why it's a good standard under the 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.cOlll 
• 

• 

• 

19 

1 law and for this country. 

2 The manufacturers agreed to discuss with 

3 standards advocates a package including clothes washer 

4 standards for several reasons. It is clear under 

5 NAECA that a new energy standard had to be issued for 

6 clothes washers and there was a sufficient basis in 

7 the record for doing so. 

8 We had, in effect, threatened as early as 

9 1991 to require that all units would have to be front10 loading horizontal access or so-called "European 

11 style." 

12 Therefore, it was in the interest of 

13 consumers as well as manufacturers that the substance 

14 and timing of any standard be agreed to on a consensus 

15 basis as much as possible in order to mitigate any 

16 possible harms it might cause consumers, manufacturers 

17 and others and to ensure diversity of designs. 

18 That has been accomplished. There are already a 

19 number of models with a wide range of price points 

20 available which meet the 2007 standard. 

21 The benefits of the standard we propose are 

22 huge in terms of kilowatt hours, payback, life-cycle 

23 cost benefits to consumers, water conservation and 

24 

25 

carbon emissions avoided. Consumers will save 

billions of dollars in utility bills. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

20 

1 Industry is acutely aware of the potential 

2 damage caused by standards. We have not hesitated to 

3 aggressively criticize proposals that would have 

4 adverse consequences. Most of industry joined with 

5 allied industries to support an appropriations 

6 moratorium on the DOE standards process a number of 

7 years ago when we felt that our concerns were ignored. 

8 Since then, however, with respect certainly 

9 to the clothes washer standards there have been major 

10 improvements in the openness, transparency, and 

11 credibility of the DOE process. 

12 We found that although our discussion with 

13 the advocates was often quite difficult, ultimately we 

14 were able to develop a rule which benefits everyone, 

15 particularly consumers. 

16 This was done by setting reasonable standard 

17 levels with sufficient lead time to allow 

18 manufacturers to make a large investment to ensure 

19 that products will be available in the marketplace 

20 which not only meet the standards but, more 

21 importantly, meet the criteria of utility and consumer 

22 satisfaction. 

23 That is why one standard level will go into 

24 effect in 2004 clearing the marketplace of inefficient 

25 models but not requiring massive investment, while the 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

21 

1 much more significant standard will go into effect in 

2 2007 . 

3 We do not deny that the 2007 standard will 

4 be difficult to achieve and require a huge investment, 

5 but we are satisfied that there is sufficient lead 

6 time to allow even the smallest manufacturers to 

7 maintain the viability in their businesses and develop 

8 the models necessary to both satisfy the standards and 

9 important consumer interest. 

10 We believe the DOE analysis is fundamentally 

11 sound with respect to analyzing the engineering cost 

12 and other aspects of this rule and that no further 

13 analysis need be undertaken. Beyond the analysis, let 

14 me address several issues. 

15 The joint proposal is not the product of a 

16 formal negotiation sponsored by DOE, but rather 

17 informal negotiations as occurs frequently. 

18 Therefore, we do not expect the proposal to 

19 stand other than on its merits. Virtually all the 

20 analysis used to develop and justify the proposal, 

21 however, were publicly available before the 

22 negotiations began. 

23 The proposal fits well within the criteria 

24 of technical feasibility and economic justification in 

25 NAECA. 

(202) 234-4433 

Certainly some companies feel that both 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, O.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

22 

1 technical feasibility and economic justification are 

2 pushed to the limit by this proposal but, nonetheless, 

3 because of its structure, we believe that it can be 

4 accomplished without undue disruption. 

5 Because DOE did not sponsor a formal 

6 negotiation or "RegNeg, " there was no need for a 

7 public process to bring in all possible interested 

8 parties to the table, although, in fact, a wide range 

9 of views were heard. 

10 However, in retrospect, I believe that it 

11 would have been beneficial to allow additional 

12 interests to the process. On the other hand, major 

13 consumer groups like, CFA and AARP, have been part of 

14 the process improvement and advisory committee. These 

15 groups approved all the analytical tools used in this 

16 rulemaking. 

17 It should be kept in mind that there's been 

18 an open public regulatory process with countless 

19 workshops since 1991 and an advanced notice of 

20 proposed rulemaking in 1994. Most of the people in 

21 this room are so familiar with Doug Brookman's 

22 introduction that you could do it in order. 

23 

24 

25 

MR. BROOKMAN: And I would welcome that. 

MR. SAMUELS: But we want to make sure he 

keeps his hand in the business. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

23 

1 The proposed rule is well within the scope 

2 of what has been discussed for nearly 10 years. The 

3 proposed rule is not only well-founded technically and 

4 economically but, it is compatible with the important 

5 provisions of NAECA. For example, it has been alleged 

6 that the proposal, in effect, contains two rules at 

7 one time and this may violate NAECA, but that's not 

8 the case. 

9 There is one standard going into effect with 

10 two parts and effective dates and there is nothing in 

11 the definition of an energy conservation standard in 

12 42 u.s.c. 6291 which prohibits that structure, 

13 particularly when the minimum lead in period of three 

14 years is being followed for both parts of the 

15 standard. Further, NAECA contains very significant 

16 protection from consumers and manufacturers known as 

17 the "safe harbor" provision. 

18 This provision, which was critical to the 

19 industry 1 s original acceptance of the federal program, 

20 states that DOE cannot enact an amended standard if it 

21 finds that interested persons have established by a 

2 2 preponderance of the evidence that the standard is 

23 likely to result in the unavailability of products 

24 

25 

with performance characteristics including 

reliability, features, sizes, capacities, and volumes 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

24 

1 that are substantially the same as those generally 

2 available in the United States . 

3 Those most likely to make that argument, the 

4 manufacturers, do not believe that is the case. No 

5 one has provided credible evidence to substantiate it. 

6 The legal burden is on the proponents to show that 

7 these effects will occur, not on DOE to make a 

8 negative finding. 

9 Less legalistically but more importantly, 

10 there's good reason to believe that consumer choice 

11 both in product design and pricing will not be 

12 adversely affected by this rule. 

13 It's difficult to estimate the future, of 

14 course, and there are strict limits on what a trade 

15 association can do in gathering information for 

16 estimates for its numbers. 

17 We can look at the marketplace today and see 

18 that there are horizontal access machines which meet 

19 the 2007 standard and within that category there are 

20 significant diversity of features and designs of both 

21 the products that are imported from Europe and 

22 elsewhere and products that are made here in the 

23 United States. The horizontal access machine of 10 

24 years ago has been effectively "Americanized." 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

There are also more traditional "vertically" 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, O.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

25 

1 looking-type products, such as Whirlpool's Resource 

2 Saver and Calypso and Fisher Paykel's "Ecosmart. 11 

3 Maytag has just announced a super efficient 

4 vertical access which will be available later this 

5 year. These products meet the 2007 standard now. All 

6 these companies will have many more models in the 

7 coming years including top-loaders. 

8 It is much more difficult to discuss what 

9 future prices might be. I have not attempted to 

10 engage the manufacturers in any dialogue on this very 

11 sensitive subject. 

12 I have noticed, however, that in the 

13 marketplace and a number of retailers the Resource 

14 Saver and other products are selling for considerably 

15 less than the initial high efficiency products. 

16 Manufacturers still have seven years, the 

17 most stringent standard effective in order to develop 

18 designs in manufacturing approaches which will allow 

19 them to mitigate some of the cost index. 

20 Also, fortunately for consumers, but perhaps 

21 unfortunately for manufacturers, historically there is 

22 not much evidence that cost increases due to standards 

23 have been passed through to consumers due to a variety 

24 of factors including the competitive environment . 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

The real potential adverse effect of any 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

26 

1 standard would be to limit competition at the 

2 manufacturer level because of this very phenomenon. 

3 But we have designed the standard levels and their 

4 effective date to ameliorate this problem which is why 

5 we have support from smaller companies and larger 

6 companies. 

7 The process of interest parties developing 

8 this proposal is encouraged by the process improvement 

9 role, which itself was encouraged by Congress in 

10 appropriations language. The process has produced a 

11 well-balanced rule which will provide tremendous 

12 benefits to our society. 

13 The minimum three-year lead-in period is an 

14 important part of the proposal. Therefore, we urge 

15 DOE to finalize this rule at the earliest opportunity. 

16 Thank you. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

18 The next speaker is Gene Foley from AHAM. 

19 MR. FOLEY: My name is Gene Foley. I'm with 

20 the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. My 

21 comments are basically follow-on comments to Chuck 

22 Samuels, comments that I would like to sort of provide 

23 some numbers. I was originally going to use the 

24 viewgraph but everybody has a copy of what was handed 

25 out. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

27 

1 Just to give you some sense of the 

2 analytical framework that was used in discussions to 

3 arrive at the agreement that was arrived at and to 

4 give you a sense of the framework in which it was 

5 involved. 

6 Going to the first page real quickly, the 

7 clothes washer standard is defined in two parts. For 

8 2004 it's the 1.04 MEF. For 2007 it's the 1.26 MEF. 

9 The MEF equates to a current standard of approximately 

10 .817 MEF. As we get into discussions, I'm sure people 

11 will explain that is a rough estimation of what the 

12 equivalent is but that's where we are at this point. 

13 The expected results of the standards are 

14 significant. Ideally these estimates will be between 

15 4 and 5.5 quadrillion BTU's of energy saved. Also 

16 using DOE analysis they will be between some six and 

17 11 trillion gallons of water saved. 

18 Chuck also mentioned that there was 

19 significant consumer benefits to the standard that had 

20 been analyzed and discussed. Approximately $27.16 

21 billion in savings on utility bills, including water 

22 and energy, will be made available through the 

23 proposed Department of Energy standard. 

24 Looking at the next page, the standard is 

25 not without costs, however. We do acknowledge those 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

28 

1 costs. Manufacturers will suffer. There will be a 

2 loss of net present value considered to be estimated 

3 at about $528 million to businesses. 

4 There will also be additional costs to 

5 consumers through the increased price of products of 

6 approximately $15. 3 billion. If you flip to the other 

7 page behind us again, on the balance the consumer's 

8 benefit is the difference between the $27.16 billion 

9 and the additional cost of $15.3 billion. 

10 It is to this la~;t number, though, that I 

11 would like to make some additional comments about the 

12 forecast into the future. The first chart that I 

13 have, Producer Price Indices, shows that the washing 

14 machine prices have remained fairly flat and, in fact, 

15 have curved up and actually started curving down again 

16 compared to all finished good prices. In fact, at 

17 this point they will add by some 32 percent. There 

18 are significant margin pressures on manufacturers in 

19 producing clothes washers. 

20 If you go to the next page, you will see 

21 from the analysis done by individual manufacturers, 

22 that laundry products have not increased as regulatory 

23 burdens have been placed upon them. In fact, their 

24 pricing has remained fairly flat . 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

One could make a very strong case that the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, O.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

29 

1 cost increases generally are not absorbed by the 

2 consumer but, in fact, are absorbed by the 

3 manufacturers. 

4 The next chart shows the different standard 

5 levels that were proposed by the Department of Energy. 

6 Column 3 is the standard level of the proposed rule 

7 giving you a sense that the benefits based on the 

8 individual columns really do seem to maximize what is 

9 available to the consumer and to minimize the impact 

10 on the affected industries. 

11 There are significant environmental benefits 

12 available from a proposed rule. Between 60 and 95 

13 million metric tons of future carbon emissions are 

14 avoided. Put in perspective, this is approximately 

15 the same as five coal-fired electric power plants. 

16 Those then also relates into significant 

17 environmental benefits. We've already spoken about 

18 the carbon, but there are also significant NOX and S02 

19 benefits that can be gained shown from the very last 

20 column that are available. 

21 That is the extent of my remarks. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Gene. Thanks for 

23 getting through a lot of material fairly rapidly. 

24 The next person who is scheduled to speak is 

25 Ben Lieberman, CEI and Consumer Alert. 

(202) 234·4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS ANC1 TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLANC1 AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005·3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

30 

1 MR. LIEBERMAN: I 1 m going to break with 

2 precedent here and come in well under five minutes. 

3 I just want to make a very quick pitch for extending 

4 the comment period beyond the statutory minimum of 60 

5 days. 

6 As you all well know, this is not officially 

7 a negotiated rulemaking but something very similar to 

8 the negotiated rulemaking. Certainly for those of you 

9 who have done that process, you've had a chance to 

10 iron out any differences times prior to the NOPR. 

11 Certainly 60 days for you is more than enough. 

12 For groups like Consumer Alert, which 

13 applied for state holder status but were rejected, 

14 that only means that a little bit more went on behind 

15 closed doors than in the normal rulemaking. 

16 It often means that at least parts of the 

1 7 proposed rulemaking and the technical support 

18 documents were not available until October 5. I'm 

19 sure I'm the person in the room that probably learned 

20 the most on October 5, that we have only 60 days to 

21 file comments. 

2 2 For those of you who also want to comment on 

23 the air conditioner rule, we have to split our time 

24 between those two pretty challenging NOPRs . 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

I also suspect that there are some potential 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005·3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

31 

1 commentors who have been preoccupied with the 

2 elections until the first 30 of those 60 days which 

3 hasn't been particularly helpful. 

4 Then maybe the Congress might want to look 

5 at this and this has not been a very convenient 60 

6 days for Congress to pay mu.ch attention to something 

7 like this. 

8 I really do think it is particularly 

9 important to bring in the full range of consumer's 

10 perspectives on the clothes washer rule. I think this 

11 rule really has a treater potential for adverse 

12 consumer impacts than any previous appliance 

13 rulemaking . 

14 One thing I think we' re looking at, and 

15 correct me if I'm wrong, but we' re probably looking at 

16 the largest percentage increase in the initial cost of 

17 a regulated appliance. 

18 We' re also lookin9 at a payback period that 

19 was quite frankly not terribly impressive and reasons 

20 to believe that at least some, and maybe more than 

21 some consumers will be net losers if they buy a 

22 washing machine that meets the 2007 standards. 

23 I think we're also looking at some 

24 questions, and this is debateable, of course, but 

25 we're looking at some question about the features and 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

32 

1 reliability and so forth of what would be available on 

2 the market, particularly after the 2007 standard is in 

3 place. 

4 In sum, I would just like to advocate 

5 something of an addition to the comment period to 

6 bring in a whole range of views. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

8 The next person that is scheduled to speak 

9 is Mel Hall-Crawford, Consumer Federation of America. 

10 MS. HALL-CRAWFORD: Good morning. I 

11 appreciate the opportunity to speak at this hearing. 

12 Consumer Federation is a nonprofit association of some 

13 270 pro-consumer groups that was founded in 1968 to 

14 advance the consumer inter·est through advocacy and 

15 education. 

16 We handle a wide variety of consumer issues 

17 ranging from electricity restructuring to food safety, 

18 child safety, bankruptcy, savings initiatives, to 

19 indoor air quality. 

20 Among other thingrs, I am responsible for 

21 energy efficiency issues at CFA. The CFA foundation 

2 2 has been promoting increased consumer awareness of the 

23 economic environmental and health benefits of buying 

24 

25 

energy efficient products and 

specifically with the Energy Star. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 

those marked 

www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

33 

1 I serve on DOE 1 s advisory committee on 

2 Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards and chair the 

3 Consumer Information Subcommittee. I'm also a member 

4 of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project. While 

5 I'm not an expert by any means on these issues, I'm no 

6 stranger to them either. 

7 I know the process of getting to where we 

8 are today on clothes washers has not been an easy one 

9 or a fast one. You probably all know this better than 

10 I do. It started in November of 1994 when advanced 

11 notice of proposed rulemaking followed by a 

12 supplemental ANOPR in November 1998. 

13 I understand that there were intervening 

14 workshops and meetings to discuss design options and 

15 preliminary engineering analysis in November 1996 and 

16 public hearings on December 15, 1998. Then an 

17 additional opportunity to discuss the process in July 

18 of 1999. 

19 I would say there have been ample 

20 opportunities for concerned parties to be involved. 

21 Many consumer organizations belonging to CFA such as 

22 Florida Consumer Action Network, Arizona Consumer's 

23 Counsel, Citizen's Utility Board of Oregon have 

24 commented on the rulemaking urging a new and improved 

25 standard for clothes washers so that both energy and 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.~. 

~ASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

34 

1 water savings can be realized. 

2 We are now at the proposed rule stage of the 

3 comments due early next month. CFA was encouraged 

4 with the addition of a consumer overview section to 

5 the proposed rule. We think there is room for 

6 improvement and we plan to submit comments making 

7 suggestions. 

8 Overall, I would like to say in considering 

9 rulemaking such as these, we are concerned with the 

10 impact on the first cost or purchase price, as well as 

11 the impact on the life-cycle cost of the product, 

12 i.e., energy costs and, in this case, savings from 

13 reduced water consumption and a reasonable payback 

14 period given the savings. Basically the impact of the 

15 rule on affordability of the product for the average 

16 consumer, and especially the low and moderate income 

17 population. 

18 We are also interested in the environmental 

19 implications/benefits of a rulemaking. We believe 

20 that such information should be made available in 

21 terms so that the average consumer can grasp with 

22 ease. 

23 I hope this is helpful in highlighting the 

24 consumer perspective. I hope! the Department is able 

25 to move in an expedious manner that puts a new clothes 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

35 

1 washer standard in place that benefits consumers and 

2 the environment, and that encourages new and 

3 affordable technology. 

4 Thank you for your attention and the 

5 opportunity to comment. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

7 The next person scheduled to speak is Steve 

8 Rosenstock, Edison Electric Institute. 

9 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Thank you. I'm Steve 

10 Rosenstock with the Edison Electric Institute. 

11 For the record, the Edison Electric 

12 Institute is not opposing the proposed rule. However, 

13 we do have concerns about how this rule may affect 

14 other rulemakings in the future whether formal or 

15 negotiated. We raise these concerns as a stakeholder 

16 that has been active in these proceedings. 

17 EEI understands that some of the 

18 negotiations for clothes washers were mediated or 

19 moderated by the Department of Energy and that other 

20 negotiations were done in private without DOE 

21 involvement. Our comments concern those negotiations 

22 that were done in the presence of DOE personnel, or 

23 that used DOE facilities and the potential, as we call 

24 it, "spillover" effect into other rulemakings . 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

EEI and other interested stakeholders that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.~. 

~ASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

36 

1 were actively involved in the official rulemaking 

2 since 1997 or earlier were not informed of the time 

3 table of the negotiations that were held in the 

4 presence of DOE. 

5 EEI and other stakeholders were not allowed 

6 to participate in the negotiations held in the 

7 presence of DOE. EEI and other stakeholders were not 

8 even allowed to observe the proceedings. 

9 The announcements and press released after 

10 the rule was negotiated, there was language about 

11 utilities agreeing to the new standards when in 

12 reality only one municipal utility and one investor 

13 owned utility even had a chance to see the agreement 

14 before it was signed. 

15 For the future, EEI urges the Department of 

16 Energy to make the negotiated rulemaking process where 

17 held with DOE involvement as open as possible to all 

18 interested stakeholders. 

19 To exclude those stakeholders that had been 

20 active in the official rulemaking process would do 

21 severe damage to the work that DOE has done to make 

22 the rulemaking process a more open and fair activity. 

23 Excluding stakeholders is not a way to reach a 

24 consensus . 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

Item 2. In terms of the cost effectiveness 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

37 

1 of the new standards, EEI has praise and concerns. 

2 EEI has stated that we are in favor of standards that 

3 were cost effective for the highest number of 

4 consumers. We have stated that at least 90 percent of 

5 the consumers should have lower life-cycle cost under 

6 any new standard and under the DOE analysis. 

7 For the standard that goes into effect in 

8 2004 with a modified energy factor of 1.04, Table 7 

9 and Table 10 of the October 5, 2000, Federal Register 

10 Notice show that 89 to 90 percent of the consumers 

11 will have lower life-cycle cost. 

12 The rebuttable presumption payback is two 

13 and a half years shown in Table 9 of the notice. The 

14 immediate payback period is 3. 5 years. The mean 

15 payback period is 4. 6 years as shown in Table 8 of the 

16 Federal Register Notice. EEI finds these values to be 

17 acceptable. 

18 However, for the standard that goes into 

19 effect in 2007 with an MEF of 1.26, Table 7 and Table 

20 10 of the Federal Register Notice show that only 80 to 

21 81 percent of the consumers will have lower life-cycle 

22 cost and only 72 percent of these senior citizens will 

23 have lower life-cycle cost. 

24 The rebuttable payback period, mean payback 

25 period, and 

(202) 234-4433 

median payback period 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 

are all 

www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

38 

1 significantly longer under the standard that goes into 

2 effect in 2007 . 

3 As stated in the consumer overview, "Life4 cycle cost analysis estimates that the payback period 

5 for the high efficiency machine will be approximately 

6 seven years. " EEI is not comfortable with these 

7 values. 

8 EEI believes that the clothes washer 

9 standard proposed for 2007 should not set a precedent 

10 for other appliance energy efficiency standard 

11 rulemakings. The number of life-cycle cost losers and 

12 the payback periods are too high and should not be 

13 used for other products . 

14 Thank you very much for your time. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Steve. 

16 Steve Nadel, ACEEE. 

17 MR. NADEL: Speaking on behalf of the 

18 American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy in 

19 support of the proposed standard. We believe the 

20 standard does meet all the NAECA tests in terms of 

21 saving a significant amount of energy, saving 

22 significant money for consumers. 

23 It does not in any way compromise consumer 

24 utility and does not have significant adverse impacts 

25 on manufacturers so we recommend that we speedily move 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

39 

1 to a finalized standard. 

2 However, while we do support this standard, 

3 we believe that DOE has made some analysis errors that 

4 tend to overstate the cost and understate the benefits 

5 of the standards. A couple of previous people talked 

6 about long payback periods, for example. 

7 In our opinion, that's an artifact of some 

8 errors in the analysis. In fact, for our review the 

9 payback period, for example, is quite a bit shorter 

10 than what DOE says. I can talk about some of those 

11 particulars later. 

12 Finally, I guess I wanted to say that we 

13 encourage DOE to move speedily to a final rule under 

14 the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 

15 1987. This standard was supposed to take effect in 

16 1995, as I recall. 

17 We are now going to be nine years behind. 

18 It doesn't make sense to delay this process any 

19 further. There 1 s been I don't even know how many 

20 opportunities for comment at different workshops, 

21 advance notice, readvance notice, etc. 

22 I just don't think it's going to add 

23 anything except delay. I would note, as everybody 

24 knows, there will be a new administration. We don't 

25 know which 

(202) 234-4433 

party. Anytime 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 

there's a new 

www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

40 

1 administration it takes them months and months to have 

2 their appointees and at least a period of indecision . 

3 This is something that's been going on for 

4 many years. The point was raised about Congress. As 

5 I understand it, and I can't remember which is the 

6 rule, once a rule is published, this is a major rule, 

7 Congress does have 60 days to review this. So if this 

8 is published in December or January, there will still 

9 be 60 days for Congress to review during the period 

10 where Congress is in session. 

11 With that I guess I'll wrap up my comments. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Steve. Thank you. 

13 Bill Prindle, Alliance to Save Energy. 

14 MR. PRINDLE: Yes.. Bill Prindle, Alliance 

15 to Save Energy. I wanted to address several issues, 

16 one being the alleged narrowness of the stakeholders 

17 involved in the negotiation. Second being the issue 

18 of consumer choice. Third being the issue of cost. 

19 Fourth being the issue of the extension. 

20 First of all, the Alliance to Save Energy is 

21 itself a very broad-based alliance. Our associates 

22 include more than 60 organizations which do include a 

23 number of utilities, ma.nufacturers, consumer 

24 organizations, environmental qroups, research experts, 

25 and others. So just within our organization, we have 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND .WE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. .20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

41 

1 a huge diversity of views that we need to address. 

2 Secondly, the coalition that was involved in 

3 the negotiation process was a very broad-based 

4 coalition involving not just advocacy organizations 

5 but also state and local governments, utilities, and 

6 others. To assert that this is somehow a backroom 

7 deal among a small group with special interest is 

8 simply inaccurate. 

9 On the issue of consumer choice, I think 

10 anyone who examines the way the washer marketplace is 

11 moving now will say that consumer choice is increasing 

12 and not decreasing as a result of this agreement and 

13 other forces ongoing in the marketplace . 

14 There are several U.S. and foreign 

15 manufacturers that already make machines that exceed 

16 the 2007 standard and these are not of just one 

17 particular design. There's H-access, V-access, 

18 there's new H-access technologies, and so forth. 

19 I, myself, just bought a new machine from 

20 Sears that exceeds the 2007 standard. It was 

21 developed by Whirlpool. It is a vertical-access 

22 machine. It has a totally new washing system. That, 

23 in fact, has enhanced cleaning performance that allows 

24 the washing of larger loads of different fabrics that 

25 previously had been washed. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

42 

1 This technologry increases product 

2 performance, increases utility of the machine, and 

3 exceeds the energy savings target and, incidentally, 

4 the water savings benefits of the proposed standard. 

5 It's simply erroneous to say that somehow 

6 consumer choice is going to be limited. I think it is 

7 safe to assert that the kind of performance standard 

8 in this rulemaking is actually going to encourage 

9 manufacturers to further innovate. This is true in 

10 other appliance categories as well. 

11 A third issue is cost. I think the data 

12 we've seen today from AHAM, as well as data from the 

13 U.S. Census Bureau and other appliance categories, 

14 refrigerators and air conditioners, for example, show 

15 that historical trends are very clear that consumer 

16 prices do not significantly rise as a result of 

17 regulatory activity; that the market dictates prices 

18 and the market for consumer appliances is very 

19 competitive. 

20 As Steve just said, we're not going to see 

21 anywhere near the kind of analytically based consumer 

22 cost increases that the NOPR states. 

23 Finally, on the issue of the extension, we 

24 

25 

are more than five years behind already. We don't 

need to extend this process. I should also point out 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N. IJ. 

WASHINGTON, O.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

43 

1 that the entire DOE standards process was reinvented 

2 in 1996/97, in that time period, specifically to 

3 provide more opportunities for stakeholder input. 

4 That process, I think, is working extremely 

5 well and does not need to be somehow reinvented or 

6 reexamined at this point. Congress exercised that 

7 power in 1995 and I don't think they are going to go 

8 back again. 

9 There is one member of Congress who has 

10 proposed an extension in the rulemaking. We don't 

11 think that is going to be successful. I would also 

12 add that member is from the same party that is urging 

13 a speedy conclusion and no extensions in Florida's 

14 electoral situation. I'll say no more about that. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Please say no more about 

16 that. Thank you, Bill. 

17 Tom Eckman, Northwest Power Planning 

18 Council. I forgot a P, I think. 

19 MR. ECKMAN: There are lots of P's in that. 

20 I would like to start by indicating that the Power 

21 Planning Council does support the proposed rule. We 

22 are party to the negotiations and grudgingly accept 

23 them but we believe this is as far as we can go. 

24 I want to indicate that the Power Council 

25 had a serious deliberation before endorsing these 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AN~ TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealr9ross.com 
• 

• 

• 

44 

1 standards because they believed they didn't go quite 

2 far enough with respect to water savings. We are 

3 involved in a significant activity in the northwest to 

4 try and save salmon. 

5 It cost a lot of money to save salmon and 

6 getting water and keeping water in the rivers is an 

7 important aspect of that and keeping clean water there 

8 is more important. 

9 I should state for the record that the 

10 Council is more than just representatives of the 

11 utilities in the northwest. In fact, the Council is 

12 an interstate agency representing the four governors 

13 of the northwest and the constituencies that they 

14 represent, some $4 million households. 

15 I think we bring to bear some experience in 

16 this because we've got over 100,000 of these machines 

17 to beat the 2007 level standards in play as we speak 

18 and a growing number of consumers are seeing the 

19 benefits as we speak and they are quite satisfied from 

20 all the surveys that we had done with the 2000 level 

21 type machines. 

22 As Bill indicated earlier, they save a lot 

23 of water, they clean clothes better, and the consumers 

24 are exceedingly so much satisfied by them that 85 

25 percent of them are telling their friends that they 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

45 

1 should buy them by word of mouth as opposed to most 

2 consumers who advertise, "Don't tell your friends to 

3 buy a new washing machine." 

4 That's not the way these things get sold. 

5 With these new machines the word of mouth is driving 

6 the marketplace. Consumer satisfaction is quite high 

7 unlike we have seen in other white goods sold in this 

8 country. 

9 I would like to point out that we also 

10 believe that the economic benefits to consumers, the 

11 life-cycle cost estimates that have been made, are 

12 conservative. We think they are actually better than 

13 estimated by the Department . 

14 I, in particular, would indicate that the 

15 ratio of winners to losers here being both 

16 conservative is also much different and much higher 

17 than was required by the Department in prior 

18 rulemakings. Prior rulemakings require that the 

19 average consumer be benef i tted. That means that 

20 roughly 51 percent of the populous wins and 49 percent 

21 loses. 

22 We have a ratio here that is close to 80 and 

23 probably exceeds 80 percent of the populous if you 

24 take into account the fact that more life-cycle costs 

25 are probably underestimated because of higher consumer 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

46 

1 cost that we believe will be the basis and the 

2 ignoring of several of the benefits, particularly 

3 savings that we see by virtue of these new machines. 

4 In sum, because of all the technical points 

5 that were talked about, the Council supports the 

6 adoption of the standards. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Tom. 

8 Tony Gregg, Water Conservation Manager, City 

9 of Austin, Texas. 

10 MR. GREGG: Thank you. On behalf of many in 

11 the water industry including the American Waterworks 

12 Association, I want to express support for the 

13 proposed clothes washer standards. We hope the 

14 billion of gallons of projected water savings will 

15 become a reality as the standards take effect. 

16 There are many regions of the country where 

17 the projected water savings from the proposed standard 

18 are necessary to help meet future water supply needs 

19 due to population growth. 

20 Many utilities and regions simply do not 

21 have other options available for additional water 

22 supply except through ccmservation initiatives. 

23 Unfortunately, there is already a move among a few in 

24 Congress to delay the implementation of this proposed 

25 standard. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

47 

1 This opposition to a standard that has been 

2 scientifically researched, fully discussed, and agreed 

3 upon by all stakeholders through an open public 

4 process is very difficult to understand. 

5 Customer satisfaction for the products 

6 already on the market that meet the standard is 

7 approximately 97 percent. I would urge the Department 

8 of Energy to move forward with the swift and speedy 

9 adoption of these rules. 

10 Clothes washers use the most water of any 

11 household appliance in homes that already have 1. 6 

12 gallon per flush toilets. On average, a home could 

13 reduce its indoor water use by 10 percent by switching 

14 to a water efficient clothes washer. 

15 The average machine on the market today uses 

16 40 to 50 gallons of water for each wash. With a water 

17 efficient machine, the same load of clothes can be 

18 washed with approximately :25 gallons of water, and 

19 with better results than the less-efficient model. 

2 o Based on implementation of the proposed standards, 

21 water savings will be 0.17 trillion gallons by 2010, 

22 2. 57 trillion gallons by 2020, and 6. 39 trillion 

23 gallons by 2030. 

24 The standards in the agreement regulate the 

25 energy efficiency of clothes washers by what is called 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, O.C. 20005·3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

48 

1 the modified energy factor (MEF). In order to meet 

2 the MEF standards in the agn~ement, manufacturers will 

3 have to market machines that also save lots of water. 

4 Several efficient models already on the 

5 market such as the Frigidaire Gallery, the Maytag 

6 Neptune, and the Whirlpool Calypso already exceed the 

7 proposed standards. 

8 While the water industry supports the 

9 proposed standards and hope they are adopted quickly, 

10 the water industry would have preferred that a water 

11 factor standard be established in addition to the MEF 

12 standard in the rule to assure that projected water 

13 savings actually occur. However, I understand that 

14 the Department of Energy determined that it currently 

15 does not have the legal authority to propose a water 

16 factor standard. 

17 I would request that the Department of 

18 Energy seek authority to set a water factor standard 

19 for clothes washers, so that a future rule making 

20 process can implement a water factor standard that 

21 will ensure the water conservation benefits that are 

22 so important to many regions of this country. 

23 I want to thank the Department of Energy 

24 staff and contractors and all of the stakeholders for 

25 their dedication in putting forward the proposed 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

49 

1 clothes washer standards. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Tony. 

3 Alan Kessler, Amana. 

4 MR. KESSLER: Thank you. Amana Appliances 

5 manufacture and market clothes washers affected by 

6 this rulemaking. We are the smallest of the five 

7 major full line manufacturers. 

8 We also manufacture the most other covered 

9 products; refrigerators, freezers, room air 

10 conditioners, central air conditioners, furnaces, 

11 clothes dryers, household ranges, cook tops, ovens, 

12 and microwave ovens. 

13 Our business is significantly impacted by 

14 the cumulative burden of a number of these energy 

15 efficiency and environmental regulations. As members 

16 of AHAM we have participated in and support the 

17 standard and the joint comments submitted. 

18 We strongly believe, however, that the 

19 refrigerator/freezer Energy Star affectivity date 

20 needs to be corrected and we' 11 have written technical 

21 comments affecting the discount rate, washer sizes, 

22 category description, and maintenance cost. 

23 I would like to ci:>mplement the Department, 

24 the advocates, and the others involved as we achieve 

25 a substantial increase in clothes washer efficiency 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

50 

1 standards with the unique two-tier phased 

2 implementation. The resulting energy savings and 

3 associated water savings will have significant 

4 consumer, economic, and environmental impact that will 

5 affect the nation in a positive way. 

6 As part of the negotiated agreement, there 

7 were initial Energy Star levels for the associated tax 

8 credit for production of super efficient clothes 

9 washers and refrigerator/freezers. 

10 Unfortunately, the Department erred in their 

11 announcement implementing these revised Energy star 

12 levels. These integrated programs and efficiency 

13 levels were negotiated in good faith assuming the 

14 refrigerator/freezer Energy star levels would be 

15 changed effective July 1, 2001, consistent with prior 

16 announcements that were specifically noted in a 

17 November 19th letter to those it impacted. 

18 We were totally surprised by a May 22nd 

19 letter when the date was accelerated to January 1, 

20 2001, fully six months in advance of the new standards 

21 affectivity. 

22 Significant technical errors regarding the 

23 Energy Star efficiency levels were pointed out and 

24 subsequently corrected by the Department in a 

25 September 12, 2000, letter, but the date was not 

C202) 234·4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, O.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

51 

1 corrected. 

2 I'm here today calling upon the Department 

3 to correct this egregious error in accelerating the 

4 effective date of the Energy Star level six months in 

5 advance of the minimum standards increase. 

6 As it stands, I believe there will be 

7 confusion in the marketplace for consumers and the 

8 cumulative burden heaped upon the manufacturers to 

9 react to this surprised acceleration of the date is 

10 unacceptable. 

11 I would also like to compliment the 

12 Department and those involved in these standards and 

13 proceedings. I have probably been involved longer 

14 than anybody else beginning in the 1970 's when we 

15 started with standardized uniform test procedures and 

16 have been through a number of the efficiency impacts. 

17 I think the 1969 process rule improvement 

18 had a positive impact on achieving much better 

19 standards that have positively impacted the consumer, 

20 the economy, and the environment, while at the same 

21 time minimizing the cumulative damage to the 

22 manufacturing segment of the U.S. economy which is 

23 critical to the long term economic health of the 

24 nation. Thank you • 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Alan. My personal 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

52 

1 thanks to each of the speakers. It took some 

2 discipline to summarize your comments and hold it to 

3 five minutes so I appreciate that a lot. 

4 Are there any other that wish to summarize 

5 their comments at this time? David Goldstein. 

6 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Thank you. I'm David 

7 Goldstein. I've been the Director of NRDC's energy 

8 program for over 2 O years and working in this area for 

9 almost 30 years. I've generally not been in the 

10 habit of agreeing nearly 100 percent with the 

11 representatives of industry in supporting a 

12 regulation. 

13 I think it's significant that I'm here to do 

14 that, to reiterate NRDC's support for the joint 

15 comments and to agree with Chuck Samuels today because 

16 I think it shows that this is a technically correct 

17 answer, that this legally represents what DOE is 

18 required to be doing and ought to be doing. 

19 It is a process-wise correct answer in terms 

20 of taking the interest of all the important 

21 stakeholders, efficiency advocates, consumers, 

22 manufacturers, utilities, states, and so on into 

23 account in a rational way. 

24 This proceeding on clothes washers has been 

25 going on 

(202) 234-4433 

essentially since 1991 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005·3701 

under three 

www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

53 

1 presidential administrations. There has been more 

2 than adequate time to raise and address all of the 

3 technical issues, all the issues of manufacture 

4 impact, all the consumer issues, and to discuss them 

5 in a formal way on the record. 

6 The negotiation is not any kind of a 

7 backroom deal. It was as inclusive as we were aware 

8 of in terms of people that were interested in taking 

9 part of it. I think more important the results are 

10 those that could be reasonably foreseen as a 

11 consequence of all the formally published materials. 

12 In fact, I think that the reason we were 

13 able to reach an agreement is that each side sat down 

14 and said it looks like it's going to be headed more or 

15 less this way. If you do more than tweak the results 

16 a little bit, it's simply not going to meet the legal 

17 test. 

18 It's not going to be supported by the 

19 record. We believe the existing record supports the 

20 negotiated results and the DOE would have arrived at 

21 a very similar answer had there not been negotiations. 

22 Let me say a little bit about the role of 

23 consumers. NRDC has over 400,000 members that I'm 

24 representing at this workshop. We've worked closely 

25 with other 

C202) 234-4433 

environmental organizations whose 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

54 

1 membership exceeds 8 billion. 

2 We've also in the process of these 

3 negotiations and throughout the rulemaking worked with 

4 a number of other public and private sector 

5 organizations to make sure that we are representing 

6 positions that are not just one environmental 

7 organization but are broadly applicable. 

8 I would like to make a couple of comments on 

9 the analysis. Several other people have said, and I 

10 agree, that the benefits of the standard will be 

11 larger than what is predicted in the Notice of 

12 Proposed Rulemaking. 

13 In particular, the consumer will save more 

14 because of detergent savings. The consumer will 

15 benefit from getting their clothes cleaner and from 

16 longer fabric wear which is the common response that 

17 consumers are now presenting to Energy star models at 

18 the level of the 2007 standard. 

19 These products are being sold by utilities 

20 that we're working with not primarily on their energy 

21 savings but by their improved consumer performance and 

22 utility. 

23 We're seeing a range of consumer choice in 

24 terms of front-loaders, top-loaders, diagonal-loaders, 

25 horizontal access, vertical access. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 

The range of 

www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

55 

1 choice for consumers is the result of the proceedings 

2 leading to this standard is higher than it was before 

3 and will continue to get higher. 

4 We think manufacturers are being humble in 

5 their predictions of what this is going to do. I 

6 think through the trade association and given how 

7 competitive the industry is, that's what you could 

8 expect. 

9 In my personal observation of how 

10 manufacturers are meeting this, I would estimate that 

11 the costs of compliance are going to be about half of 

12 what DOE has projected so the price increase to 

13 consumers will be lower. The impacts on manufacturers 

14 will be lower. 

15 Companies are making higher prof its on 

16 current Energy Star models and we are hopeful that 

17 this standard will have favorable impacts, not 

18 negative impacts, on manufacturers based on the 

19 analysis and based on the record. 

2 O I would 1 ike to reiterate somebody' s comment 

21 that the two-tier standard is legal under the National 

22 Appliance Act. There are limits in terms of five 

2 3 years for subsequent rulemakings after an initial 

2 4 rulemaking but there are no 1 imi ts on the intermediate 

25 time between two steps within a single rulemaking and 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

56 

1 NAECA says nothing negative about adopting multi-tier 

2 standards rather than single-tier standards. 

3 What DOE is doing is very much consistent 

4 with the law. In fact, I think it's required by the 

5 law that DOE set standards at the maximum level of 

6 efficiency that is technologically feasible and 

7 economically justified. 

8 I'll make a note on the issue of percent 

9 winners. One is others have said that the percentage 

10 is higher than indicated in the analysis. But, two, 

11 the percentage of winners and losers is not one of the 

12 criteria in the law. 

13 In fact, the interest of manufacturers and 

14 Congress members in setting one uniform national 

15 standard at the expense of winners and losers, because 

16 obviously states with higher energy costs you can 

17 justify a higher standard. States with lower energy 

18 costs you can only justify a lower one. 

19 That would seem to imply the right answer is 

20 standards by states but that was explicitly rejected 

21 as an alternative with comments by stakeholders and 

22 Congress members in the congressional record when it 

23 was adopted saying, "No, we are willing to sacrifice 

24 that in order to achieve uniform national markets." 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

One small change I would like to propose in 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

57 

1 the standard that does not affect it substantively or 

.2 change our support of the joint comments. This is 

3 something we've been arguing for years in the 

4 proceeding and that is that there should be one class 

5 of products in the standard size range, not two based 

6 on a front-loader or top-loader. 

7 The reasons for that is this; manufacturers 

8 are innovating with their product the distinction 

9 between front and top-loading has become blurred. 

10 What are we going to do if we have a 45 degree access 

11 point rather than the 15 or so degrees that we are 

1.2 already getting now. 

13 The standards are the same. There's no 

14 evidence in the record for differences in utility or 

15 consumer satisfaction and products of all sorts can 

16 meet existing standards so let's avoid confusion in 

17 future standards or labeling by collapsing them into 

18 one single one. Thank you very much. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, David. 

20 Are there other individuals that wish to 

21 give brief summary comments at this time? Okay. I 

22 see no one. 

23 Let me ask you to refer to the agenda again 

24 if you would, please. I wish to confirm these topics 

25 and to assure that everybody's comments today are 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

58 

1 going to fall within these topics that are listed, or 

2 let's create another one. We do have the last one 

3 listed as other issues. Read through this with me. 

4 Test procedures, Rulemaking process, Energy 

5 and economic analyses, Impacts of standards and then, 

6 of course, Other issues. I'm hoping that everybody's 

7 comments will fit somewhere in those subjects. Please 

8 say so now if they do not. Okay. Great. 

9 It's now just about 10:15. You want to take 

10 a short break now and then go back and return to test 

11 procedures? Let's do that. We'll start back up at 

12 10:30. 

13 (Whereupon, at 10:10 a.m. off the record 

14 until 10:27 a.m.) 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Gerri has provided at each 

16 person's seat an updated information sheet which has 

17 the corrected DOE website where the most current 

18 information is available. It also lists the docket 

19 number for the submission of your comments. Please 

20 note that. It should be there at each person's seat. 

21 second, everybody that has so far given 

22 Gerri a business card should have now a Xerox copy of 

23 the attendees. A few people have joined us that 

24 weren't here at the very beginning so we'll give them 

25 a chance to introduce themselves in just a second. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.U. 

UASHINGTON, O.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

59 

1 I think that's it in terms of the 

2 housekeeping matters. Any other announcements or 

3 issues? 

4 Did you talk about property passes, Bryan? 

5 If you walked into the Forrestal Building 

6 with a laptop and you haven't yet got a property pass, 

7 they may not let you out with it. Or a cell phone. 

8 MS. PAIGE: (Off microphone.) 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Gotcha. If they don't have 

10 a property pass, they need to get a property pass. 

11 Okay. And you can give them a property pass. Right, 

12 Gerri? 

13 MS. PAIGE: Right. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Let me just anybody 

15 who didn't get a chance this morning to introduce him 

16 or herself at the outset. Let's give everybody a 

17 chance to say their name and organizational 

18 affiliation. Who was not here at the outset? 

19 MR. HORSTMAN: Doug Horstman with Maytag. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

21 MR. JONES: Earl Jones, GE Appliances. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Please use the 

23 microphone. 

24 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

MR. NABINGER: Steve Nabinger from NIST. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, O.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

60 

1 MR. DE LASKI: Andrew de Laski from the 

2 Appliance Standards Awareness Project . 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Others that 

4 didn't get a chance to introduce themselves? 

5 Okay. Let's start. The agenda suggest we 

6 move directly to test procedures. Larry Wethje in his 

7 comments gave some very specific things for the 

8 Department to consider in terms of test procedures. 

9 Other comments on test procedures? 

10 Mike Thompson. 

11 MR. THOMPSON: Not on test procedures. Can 

12 I make one short comment? I know I'm stepping out 

13 of --

14 MR. BROOKMAN: No, no. Go ahead. 

15 MR. THOMPSON: It will be very brief. I 

16 know this morning there were some concerns expressed 

17 over features and reliability and other issues. I can 

18 tell you that we've got products in the marketplace 

19 right now that will have been in the marketplace a 

20 full six years by the time 2007 standards roll around. 

21 The reliability of those products will have 

22 been fully tested. Actually, we were quite a long 

23 time in the production of the high efficiency top24 loading models that are currently in the marketplace . 

25 Reliability, at least from our perspective, will not 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

61 

1 be an issue. 

2 We' 11 have more features. The products that 

3 we are producing right now through 2007 will be the 

4 best performing products we've ever made. Some of 

5 the issues associated with cost, the models that we 1 re 

6 manufacturing right now some of them produce a six7 times payback over the life of the product versus the 

8 incremental cost. I just wanted to bring a few points 

9 about that. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks, Mike. 

11 Let me ask, Gene Foley, your machine was 

12 queued up to use this projector. 

13 Is anybody else going to use this projector? 

14 MR. FOLEY: I don't have to use them. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: I'm going to turn it off. 

16 Does anybody else want to use it? I'm going to ask 

17 somebody else to turn it off. Now it's blinking. I 

18 guess it's queuing itself off. 

19 Steve Nadel, before we proceed with test 

20 procedures. 

21 MR. NADEL: This is on test procedures. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Good. Let's go straight to 

23 it. Test procedure comments. 

24 

25 

MR. NADEL: The AHAM suggested comments, the 

changes look reasonable to me. In particular, I fully 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

62 

1 support the first three. In terms of No. 4, I'm 

2 supportive of doing that, although I have questions 

3 about how long it will take. 

4 My suggestion would be if AHAM could 

5 actually draft some suggestions since they represent 

6 many of the different interests. That may speed the 

7 process along. 

8 I think this is a relatively minor issue. 

9 If DOE can't resolve this quickly, it can finish this 

10 early next year while letting the rest of the 

11 standards move forward. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

13 MR. WETHJE: This is Larry Wethje from AHAM. 

14 I suppose we could do that but the Department offered 

15 to do that and agreed to do that so I would prefer 

16 that maybe they make the effort themselves. We would 

17 be happy to dialogue with them. It is something that 

18 really they are going to have to determine how they 

19 want to handle it. We can offer some guidance. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Does the Department want to 

21 comment now? 

22 MR. BERRINGER: Yes. Bryan Berringer, DOE. 

23 I would be willing to work with Larry and AHAM to 

24 

25 

resolve that. We've just been inundated working on 

the standards so it's been a lower priority. We will 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

63 

1 definitely make sure that is documented and 

2 incorporated in the final. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Other comments on test 

4 procedures? 

5 Larry, yours seemed quite specific to me. 

6 Other comments on test procedure? I see no 

7 additional comments on test procedures. Okay. Then 

8 let's move to a discussion of rulemaking process. 

9 Many of you had comments related to rulemaking 

10 process, the rulemaking process generally and specific 

11 aspects of it in your introductory remarks. Who would 

12 like to go first? 

13 David Goldstein . 

14 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Yes. First of all, I would 

15 like to commend DOE on the process. I agree with 

16 several other previous participants that the process 

17 has been successful in this particular proceeding due 

18 to the effort of DOE staff. 

19 I would like to speak in particular in 

20 opposition to any extension of the comment period for 

21 a number of reasons. First, DOE is almost six years 

22 late in promulgating this rule. It should have been 

23 five years after the previous rule which promulgated 

24 

25 

early in 1991. The reasons for further delay would 

have to be extremely strong in the face of that 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

64 

1 continuing violation. 

2 Secondly, there have been far more hearings 

3 than required by law. That's a result of DOE staff 

4 decorate in the process rule to be inclusive and 

5 provide lots of opportunities for public comment. 

6 In terms of the negotiations, I will note 

7 that the comment period being offered today and the 

8 timing is identical in the framework of this informal 

9 negotiation as to what it would have been without it. 

10 That is, DOE staff come up with the proposed 

11 rule on their own without negotiated input. It would 

12 still be a 60-day comment period happening about now. 

13 The negotiations really are not a reason that any 

14 additional public comment is needed. 

15 From a substantive point of view, these 

16 issues have all been discussed since 1991. There has 

17 been relatively little new information that would 

18 affect the decision coming on the table. We are 

19 pretty much making arguments on information that's 

20 been out there for years. 

21 To the extent there is new information, that 

22 new information enhances and supports the record that 

2 3 leads me to conclude that DOE must adopt the standards 

24 that are before them . 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

That is, the new information concerns what 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

65 

1 great progress manufacturers are making towards 

2 meeting the standard with products that are preferable 

3 to consumers . They have higher quality, better 

4 performance, and even bigger savings than projected 

5 and coming out at lower cost. 

6 So to the extent there's new information, 

7 all it 1 s doing is reinforcing the accuracy of the 

8 technical basis on which the negotiation was made. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

10 Yes, Bill. 

11 MR. PRINDLE: Bill Prindle, Alliance to Save 

12 Energy. I just want to point out that the negotiation 

13 process actually increased the ability of all parties 

14 to have a preview of the proposed standard. If there 

15 had not been an issue on some joint comments on May 

16 23rd as there was, no one would have seen the likely 

17 NOPR values until October 5th. 

18 As it was, people had all summer to at least 

19 take a look at what was generally understood to be the 

20 most likely proposed rule value. Granted, not all the 

21 analysis was there and so forth but, in my view, the 

22 negotiation process has actually increased the time 

23 available for people to take a look at this, think 

24 about it, make any arguments they wanted to make . 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

I don 1 t think there :Ls any way you could say 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

66 

1 the negotiation process somehow has cramped the 

2 ability of anyone to comment. I think the calendar 

3 shows it's actually increased. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

5 Ben Lieberman. 

6 MR. LIEBERMAN: I would like to point out 

7 certainly it's true that this dragged on at a snail's 

8 pace throughout much of the 1990s. I don't think the 

9 way to make up for that is to really rush through this 

10 critical point after the notice of proposed 

11 rulemaking. 

12 Particularly I think when there still is a 

13 number of issues that various consumer groups might be 

14 interested in commenting on regarding the negotiated 

15 rulemaking process or whatever. 

16 I would point out that the Executive 

17 Director for Consumer Alert did apply to become a 

18 participant in that process and he was rejected. I 

19 could provide whatever documentation there is for that 

20 if necessary. This was something of a closed door 

21 process. 

22 I do think that it would be useful for those 

23 who are not members of the club to have a chance to 

24 comment. In 60 days I can tell you from first hand 

25 experience there were more than a few things that were 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

67 

1 new in the notice of proposed rulemaking. 

2 For example, the somewhat reversal in the 

3 position that vertical access will be available in 

4 2007. Certainly support documents have a lot of 

5 detail, I think. Quite a bit to wade through. 

6 Those of us who are also trying to comment 

7 on the air conditioning rule which has the same 

8 schedule are very much behind the curve. It is a 

9 standard that doesn't take effect until 2 004. I can't 

10 imagine, and correct me if I'm wrong, having things 

11 being delayed too much if we add maybe 60 days or 120 

12 days to that period. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: On the same schedule. So you 

14 suggest how many days? 

15 MR. LIEBERMAN: Sixty, 120. I think the 

16 bill that was introduced was 120 days. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Bryan Berringer. 

18 MR. BERRINGER: This is Bryan Berringer, 

19 DOE. I would just like a clarification point because 

2 o you said Consumer Alert was rejected from the process. 

21 I think what you are referring to is the advisory 

22 committee group. 

23 There was nobody rejected in any of these 

24 open forums for comments. There was no rejection in 

25 this process at all. I think you're referring to the 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

68 

1 advisory committee. Could you comment on that? 

2 MR. LIEBERMAN: I ' 11 have to check with Fran 

3 Smith, the Executive Director. She made several 

4 communications. There were many times where she 

5 didn't hear back from you until after the meetings 

6 were over and so forth. Again, if that's important, 

7 I' 11 be able to provide whatever documentation is 

8 necessary. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Chuck Samuels. 

10 MR. SAMUELS: AHAM does not support 

11 extension of the comment period. One of the reasons 

12 for that is the law requires a free intervening period 

13 of time when the final rule is issued and can be 

14 effective. For that to occur in 2004, the rule must 

15 be finalized. That's an important component of our 

16 proposal to DOE that you will take the action 

17 necessary to make that possible. 

18 There is no aspect of the public rule that 

19 was not thoroughly discussed in public for many, many 

2 o years in terms of the levels, the effective date, 

21 technologies, the cost, etc. There is really nothing 

2 2 new here and we would ask DOE to complete this as soon 

23 as possible. 

24 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Nadel. 

MR. NADEL: Can I just add a couple of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005·3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

69 

1 additional comments on this question? One, under the 

2 Process Improvement Rule which many parties worked on 

3 for about a year in 1995, the whole new process was 

4 set out that basically front-loaded a lot more of the 

5 input. 

6 It said in the past we've done too much 

7 leading to a NOPR. We added a lot of steps for 

8 consultation and involvement of parties starting in 

9 the very beginning and there was a very conscious 

10 attempt to move that up earlier where it can have more 

11 impact. 

12 You have the type of comment period on the 

13 final rule as DOE proposed because there were going to 

14 be multiple times to discuss these issues previous to 

15 that. That was a very conscious decision to address 

16 some of the desires of Congress and other people to 

1 7 have a more open process where people could have input 

18 a lot sooner and could see what was going on. 

19 There's also talk about having clothes 

20 washers today, air conditioners tomorrow. We are a 

21 small nonprofit organization also. We are going to be 

22 getting our comments in. Additionally, we' 11 be 

23 getting comments in on transformers. We've in a very 

24 early part of the process there. We'll be able to do 

25 it on time with no problems. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

70 

1 MR. LIEBERMAN: But you do get Government 

2 funding. 

3 MR. NADEL: We do not get any Government 

4 funding for our work on standards. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 

6 comments on the process. 

7 Michael McCabe. 

8 MR. MCCABE: Mike McCabe. I would like to 

9 follow up on the exchange that Mr. Lieberman had with 

10 Berringer as to the membership rejection. If you 

11 could follow up to find out what transpired because 

12 the Department did not play a role in deciding who was 

13 or was not going to be participating in the 

14 negotiations between industry and other interested 

15 parties. 

16 However, Bryan did indicate it has its 

17 applied standards advisory committee and I was 

18 wondering whether or not -- the contacts CFA had for 

19 which department on the advisory committee which is a 

20 very different but related issue. 

21 MR. LIEBERMAN: I' 11 ask the Executive 

22 Director. 

23 COURT REPORTER: I'm not hearing you. 

24 MR. LIEBERMAN: The Executive Director for 

25 Consumer Alert is Fran Smith. I'll have her write a 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross-com 
• 

• 

• 

71 

1 letter detailing exactly what went on. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Can you still hear me now? 

3 COURT REPORTER: Yeah. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Say it again, Ben, for the 

5 record. We want to get it all on the record. 

6 MR. LIEBERMAN: Fran Smith is Executive 

7 Director of Consumer Alert. I will have her write a 

8 letter detailing exactly what communications she had 

9 with the agency regarding her attempts to be involved 

10 in the clothes washer standard setting process. 

11 I should address that to you, Mr. Berringer? 

12 MR. BERRINGER: Yes, please. 

13 MR. LIEBERMAN: Okay. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

15 Tony and then to Steve Rosenstock. 

16 MR. GREGG: Yes. I just want to add the 

17 American Waterworks also opposes any attempt to delay 

18 the standards process. I think extending the comment 

19 period more than 60 days, which to me seems more than 

20 adequate time to write comments, would essentially be 

21 a de facto way of delaying or possibly killing the 

22 standards process. 

23 The American Waterworks Association has 

24 already sent a letter to Congress requesting that 

25 there be no delay from the congressional side. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

72 

1 Certainly I would hope the Department of Energy would 

2 not extend the comment period which would basically 

3 have the same effect. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock. 

5 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, Edison 

6 Electric Institute. I just want to respond to some 

7 earlier comments about the informal negotiations that 

8 occurred. 

9 From our perspective, we thought that, yes, 

10 some of the informal negotiations were done behind 

11 closed doors. They were exclusionary. 

12 The fact that there are some utilities that 

13 are members of the Alliance to Save Energy, while 

14 there are some members of the Alliance to Save Energy 

15 that are associate members of Edison Electric 

16 Institute, I don't think the Alliance to Save Energy 

17 will be particularly happy if EEI said that, well, 

18 some of the Alliance to Save Energy members are part 

19 of EEI so we can represent the Alliance to Save Energy 

20 in a negotiation. I don't think that's a very fair or 

21 accurate thing to do. 

22 Yes, a lot of groups represent or are 

23 affiliated with a lot of other groups but, again, for 

24 them to say that they represent those other groups 

25 without even giving them the curtesy of being allowed 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

73 

1 to attend a negotiation I don't think is very fair. 

2 It's not very open. It's not a way to build 

3 consensus. 

4 Again, as I said before, hopefully in the 

5 future, for example, in the fluorescent lamp ballast 

6 rulemaking in the negotiations that were held under 

7 DOE auspices, other stakeholders, although we were not 

8 allowed to comment at the negotiations, at least we 

9 were allowed to observe the negotiations. 

10 For the clothes washer, informal 

11 negotiations held under DOE with DOE auspices, other 

12 stakeholders were not even allowed to observe the 

13 process . Again, this is for the future. If there 

14 isn't going to be an informal negotiation started and 

15 DOE is going to be involved in these informal 

16 negotiations, I think for the future to cover all the 

17 bases that DOE should try to invite all the 

18 stakeholders that have been active in the formal 

19 proceedings. 

2 O Even though one or the other parties may not 

21 appreciate it but, again, there are other stakeholders 

22 that might have comments that can help with an 

23 informal negotiation process. Thank you. 

24 

25 

MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments on the 

rulemaking process? Okay. Let' move on. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

l.IASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

74 

1 MR. JONES: Doug, before we close off on 

2 that. Sorry for the late mike grabbing here. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Earl Jones. 

4 MR. JONES: I do want to say a couple of 

5 points on this because as somebody who participated in 

6 this process from the beginning and, indeed, was one 

7 of the persons, I think, who helped kick it off, I 

8 would like to say from my understanding of this 

9 process, I thought this was something which industry 

10 and other interested parties were attempting to 

11 accomplish for the public good and then have meetings 

12 which they invited DOE to participate. 

13 This is not a DOE process or meeting. It 

14 was one which these parties determined to begin in the 

15 hopes of providing a forum for discussion of these 

16 issues and to give some guidance to the Department 

1 7 which has been done through the comments which we 

18 jointly submitted. 

19 The public process continued during that 

20 entire time for many years prior to those negotiating 

21 sessions. It continues today in the form of this 

22 hearing. 

23 It will continue in the form of any public 

24 comments or the opportunity to submit public comments 

25 as is provided for under the Department's procedures. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

75 

l Any claim that there's been any kind of exclusion is, 

2 I think, a little beside the point, aside from being 

3 not accurate. 

4 There's nobody who cannot fully participate 

5 in this process who has an interest in doing so and 

6 who has demonstrated the interest historically and who 

7 has a real stake in it. I think we ought to just 

8 focus on that fact. 

9 Those people who have a stake who wanted to 

10 participate did so and they did so for many years. 

11 There may be people who havE: lately, like Saul, had a 

12 revelation and have some interest in this process. 

13 The fact is that they were not there at the 

14 beginning and, therefore, I think that their comments 

15 put in that particular context in judging whether or 

16 not their belated interest in the process should be a 

17 basis for torpedoing what has been some very good work 

18 done by some very dedicated public citizens up to this 

19 point in time. Thanks. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: 0th.er final comments? Let's 

21 move on to energy and economic analyses. 

22 MR. NADEL: I prepared a couple of 

23 overheads. Given my last attempt to use PowerPoint at 

24 a DOE meeting, I decided overheads would be better . 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

I wanted to briefly talk about the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005·3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

76 

1 incremental cost of the higher efficiency levels, a 

2 little bit about detergent savings, and a touch about 

3 the manufacturer impact analysis. Focusing on three 

4 areas. 

5 Just to give the bottom line, I think that 

6 most of these things are things that can just be noted 

7 that there were questions in the record but there is 

8 no need to reanalyze. The one area where I think 

9 maybe DOE should pay a little bit of attention before 

10 a final rule is to publishing a range of costs of the 

11 standard. 

12 I think the costs has been estimated at the 

13 extreme high end of a range and the press and other 

14 people are picking up on that and it's 

15 mischaracterizing what the impact of the standards 

16 would be. I would recommend DOE look at a range of 

17 costs for the final rule. 'I'he other things are more 

18 just to note for the record. 

19 A couple of points. First, DOE in its 

20 analysis used the cost estimates provided by AHAM, I 

21 believe, in 1997. As I understand, those costs are 

22 prepared at a time when all the manufacturers thought 

23 that the only way to meet the proposed 2007 standard 

24 was with the horizontal-access machine . 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

Clearly good old ingenuity and many of us 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

77 

1 have prospered. We have two models that are actually 

2 -- three models that are vertical-access models that 

3 are now available for salE~ that do meet the 2 007 

4 standard. I heard another model is going to be 

5 introduced a little later this year. 

6 MR. THOMPSON: Steve, this is Mike. We have 

7 four top-loaders in the market right now. 

8 MR. NADEL: Okay. And then there's Fisher 

9 and Paykel and the forthcoming Maytag. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: That was Mike Thompson. 

11 MR. NADEL: Right. So I think those costs 

12 that DOE has, one, they tended to be high to begin 

13 with for reasons I'll point out . 

14 Two, they ignore the fact that there are a 

15 lot of vertical-access designs that can also meet the 

16 standard. 

17 Three, has Chuck pointed out, they ignore 

18 the fact that historically DOE has always over 

19 projected the cost of meeting standards relative to 

20 actual experience. 

21 Some of it may just be engineering 

22 improvement. People sharpen their pencils. Some of 

23 it has to do with competition between manufacturers 

24 and difficulty passing it on. For all these reasons, 

25 I think the cost estimates are very high. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAUD AVE., N.11. 

llASHINGTON, D.C.. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

78 

1 Just to give a couple of examples. One, 

2 this is from the Technica 1 Support Document. It 

3 refers to the reverse engineering analysis. DOE 

4 looked at the range of costs there. 

5 Even for the horizontal access the reserve 

6 engineering found lower costs than what DOE used for 

7 its primary analysis. Then for the vertical access 

8 the costs were lower still. 

9 I would also point out that these models in 

10 the upper half of the distribution tend to have an 

11 awful lot of features and I would think you would 

12 really need to look at the lower end of this 

13 distribution in terms of what would the incremental 

14 costs be of a baseline model as opposed to a model 

15 with lots of features. 

16 This is in addition before you start 

17 factoring in improvements as people start figuring out 

18 better ways to do things by 2007. 

19 To put this another way, this chart 

20 summarizes the DOE estimates of manufacturers and 

21 retail cost increases. I'll just focus on retail. 

22 DOE uses in this analysis $239. But if you look at 

23 the mid point of the v-access curve for reverse 

24 engineering, that's cut nearly in half . 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

Our guess is once you eliminate the extra 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

79 

1 features in some of those more efficient models and 

2 allow for engineering improvements over the next seven 

3 years, our best guest is the incremental cost will be 

4 around $50. 

5 I would be happy to bet anybody a bottle of 

6 nice wine to be opened in 2008 on what finally happens 

7 there. I think DOE really has over estimated the cost 

8 quite a bit. 

9 Another issue is detergent savings. Tom 

10 Eckman may talk about this a little bit in the future 

11 in a minute, but there was a survey of, I think, many 

12 of the people who have purchased efficient washers in 

13 the northwest and they looked at what people actually 

14 do. Many of the soap manufacturers do market low15 sudsing detergents for these high efficient machines. 

16 some people use them. There are certainly 

17 advantages to them. But some people do not use them. 

18 They for a variety of reasons choose to use 

19 conventional detergent. What we suggest is that the 

20 analysis should look on actual field experience with 

21 what people use. In that survey 77 percent of people 

22 said they used conventional detergents. 

23 You work it all through in terms of the 

24 value of the detergent savings, according to this 

25 Northwest study, and the number of loads that DOE 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.Y. 

YASHINGTON, O.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

80 

1 used. It's about an additional $23 a year in annual 

2 savings. In our opinion, DOE should note this in its 

3 final rule without doing a lot of new analysis. 

4 For example, this is something DOE, I think, 

5 in the fall of 1 99 put out a document that talks about 

6 changes to the clothes washer life-cycle cost analysis 

7 since the July 1 99 workshop. 

8 They did a bunch of scenarios effectively. 

9 People actually looked at what are the impacts of 

10 detergent savings. I think they used, as I recall, 

11 the Northwest results, in fact, that I just referred 

12 to. 

13 They found that using -- this is all using 

14 the original high cost estimates. Ignoring that issue 

15 and just on the question of detergent savings, if you 

16 don't include the detergent savings, you get about a 

17 seven year average payback. If you do include the 

18 detergent savings, it gets cut nearly in half. 

19 Again, for the detergent manufacturers, I'm 

20 not arguing that everyone will use the conventional 

21 detergents. I understand there are reasons that you 

22 think they should. I'm just saying this is how people 

23 are acting in the marketplace and that should be 

24 accounted for . 

25 Finally, there is the manufacture impact 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, O.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

81 

1 analysis. The manufacturers have noted how with the 

2 two-tier arrangement that significantly ameliorates 

3 the impacts on manufacturers and we think that's 

4 great. One of the nice things that came out of that 

5 compromised agreement. 

6 One of the reasons it helps ameliorate the 

7 impacts on manufacturers is that manufacturers have 

8 more time to prepare which means that they can better 

9 plan, better schedule their investments in the future. 

10 They are not going to be making investments in the 

11 current plan and then all of a sudden they only have 

12 three years to switch around. 

13 What DOE does in the analysis is the black 

14 line here is the ordinary capital expenditures that 

15 manufacturers would occur just to keep their plants in 

16 line with the standard that DOE says. Once the first 

17 standard takes effect, they say that the manufacturers 

18 will fail to decrease their ordinary capital 

19 expenditures. 

20 They will be making other more significant 

21 capital expenditures to incorporate in another part of 

22 the analysis prepared for 2007. There is a decrease 

23 for three years in the capital expenditures. 

24 Just one of the reasons we can reduce the 

25 impacts on manufacturers. In our opinion, that 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

82 

1 reduction should actually start with the effective day 

2 of the standard. The manufacturers are already 

3 preparing for that. 

4 Again, this is not a big issue I don't 

5 think. I would advise changing the analysis now but 

6 I point it out more for future rulemaking. 

7 With that, those are my comments on the 

8 engineering and economic analyses. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Follow-up comments based on 

10 Steve's comments or any additional comments at this 

11 time? 

12 Steve Rosenstock. 

13 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, Edison 

14 Electric Institute. Just a couple of things in 

15 reference to the Federal Register Notice and the 

16 Technical Support Document. 

17 One thing that we had made comments on 

18 before that and, again, we would hope that DOE takes 

19 into account, is we are still kind of concerned with 

20 some of the water price projections. We are seeing 

21 that as a mid point. 

22 I don't know if this is in the mean or 

23 median in terms of the analysis, but we are seeing 

24 3. 01 percent real change in water and sewer costs 

25 which is basically if you are assuming inflation about 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

83 

1 3 percent per year, 6 percent per year over 25 years, 

2 which would mean basically doubling of water and sewer 

3 costs every 12 years. 

4 That may happen. I'm not sure if it will or 

5 will not happen. Again, I'm kind of concerned that 

6 the number of data points was also pretty low for the 

7 water projections. It was like, I believe, 30 cities 

8 were used and the time frame was like 1986 to 1996. 

9 We are a little concerned about the use of that. 

10 Also, in terms of the economic analysis, 

11 again, DOE was using 379 cycles per year which is 

12 about seven loads of laundry per week. Obviously for 

13 those consumers who are using their laundry equipment 

14 three or four times per week, or about 200 cycles per 

15 year, the economics are not as good as what is showing 

16 in the DOE analysis. 

17 Again, it might be helpful, especially in 

18 the consumer statement, to say this is how many loads 

19 of laundry for this seven year payback based on this 

20 price projection which, again, DOE can change as it 

21 gets closer to 2004 or 2007. 

22 Based on these price projections and these 

23 number of loads per week, these are some of the 

24 paybacks that a typical consumer should realize . 

25 Thank you very much. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

84 

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments on energy 

2 and economic analyses? 

3 Yes. Please use the microphone and say your 

4 name for the record. 

5 MR. LINARD: Jack Linard, Unilever HPC. We 

6 market a wide range of laundry detergent products. 

7 I just want to comment on detergent savings. 

8 I thought I was going to get off easy here today. As 

9 Earl said, I've been involved in these workshops 

10 since, I guess, February of 1992, a meeting at NIST on 

11 test procedures. 

12 Just to echo some other comments people have 

13 said, I want to compliment DOE, Bryan Berringer, and 

14 how they have handled this process through all these 

15 years. 

16 Washing machines do not require detergents 

17 to operate. They don't need a detergent. You can run 

18 it, fill it up with water, throw clothes in, they 

19 still wash. When you put in the detergent, cleaning 

20 performance improves. To the best of my knowledge, 

21 you're talking about a cleaning performance standard 

22 then. 

23 Consumers can dose detergent. They can dose 

24 none at all. They can put in as much as they want . 

25 The actual operation of the machine does not depend on 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

85 

1 detergent. People use detergents to improve the 

2 performance . 

3 We do object to the -- I 'm trying to get the 

4 right language here -- to the inclusion of potential 

5 detergent savings and the life-cycle cost estimate. 

6 It is erroneous and arbitrary to state that you can 

7 save detergent because that's purely a voluntary 

8 consumer thing. 

9 They can put in as much as they want now 

10 with the current baseline machine. They can put in as 

11 much as they want later on with the high efficiency 

12 machine. If you're going to say there's detergent 

13 savings now, why not include detergent savings on 

14 standard machines we see now in the marketplace. 

15 To actually state detergent savings means 

16 you are implying a cleaning performance standard which 

17 the proposed standard does not actually address. I 

18 talked about this, I think, eight years ago. The 

19 simplest way to save energy is to unplug the hot water 

20 inlet. The energy rating skyrockets. 

21 People at that time said consumers are not 

22 going to be satisfied with the performance and that's 

23 true. That actually is not something that DOE 

24 addresses except in terms of consumer acceptability . 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

We do believe these machines are highly 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.~. 

~ASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

86 

1 I mean, consumers love these machines so I don't argue 

2 that, but just to include that in, I think, is purely 

3 arbitrary at the moment. 

4 I think our studies indicate once again, 

5 I' 11 say it again, that performance is up to the 

6 consumer. What we do is recommend what we think is 

7 the best performance for their money with a certain 

8 product but detergent savings I don't think should be 

9 part of the equation at all. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Mike Thompson. 

11 MR. THOMPSON: I guess my reaction is that 

12 whenever you do a wash you've got three legs. You've 

13 got a mechanical action leg, you have a thermal leg, 

14 and you have a chemical leg. All three of them we 

15 believe are necessary to optimize performance. 

16 I'm not aware that most consumers, or any 

1 7 consumers, don't use detergent when they wash clothes. 

18 It's just a given. So to exclude detergent from the 

19 equation for washing just seems to me as being a 

20 little bit short sighted. 

21 I will add that our latest model, a top22 loader clothes washer does use less detergent because 

23 of its concentrated wash action. It does optimize 

24 performance through the mechanical part of its 

25 cleaning cycle. All three are still necessary. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

87 

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Other comments? 

2 MR. JONES: Yeah, just one, Doug. Earl 

3 Jones, here. If anybody needs any better evidence of 

4 the fact that, indeed, our discussions were quite 

5 vigorous and there were points at which we did not 

6 always agree and that we got here through the process 

7 of real argument and hard discussion. We are going to 

8 show that by the extent to which we disagree with what 

9 Steve just said. 

10 And on both points. I think the point on 

11 detergent was very well covered here. Unless the 

12 Department wants to get in the business of 

13 recommending a standard or recommending that consumers 

14 risk being less than satisfied with the results, then 

15 I think we need to keep detergent out of this mix. 

16 The comment that Steve made about what 

17 looking back shows about how manufacturers have been 

18 able to control their cost:s better than might have 

19 been predicted in the rules is an interesting one. 

20 But the fact is that we have to deal with real 

21 consumers and what we understand their needs to be 

22 today attempting to project forward to the extent that 

23 we can. 

24 We have to deal with real investors who have 

25 to be satisfied that the costs of manufacturing are 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

88 

1 worth their supporting. We have to be involved with 

2 real employees whose jobs de:pend upon making the right 

3 choices. We do the best we can in providing 

4 information to DOE on which these estimates are made. 

5 If we tend to be wrong, we are glad that 

6 we're wrong on the high side. The worse thing that 

7 can happen to any of us -- any of us -- is that we are 

8 wrong on the high side -- on the low side rather. 

9 Then have to deal with the consequences of 

10 having made the wrong choices and producing products 

11 which don't perform as consumers want them which risk 

12 then the health of the manufacturers and, therefore, 

13 the jobs of their employees . 

14 I think that the balance is here. We are 

15 where we need to be. We think they are still wrong 

16 but not the way that Steve does. The balance has been 

17 struck. I think we just need to move on. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments? 

19 MR. GREGG: Yes. I was just looking back in 

20 the record here and, you know, the issue of the water 

21 price escalation has been raised before but I don't 

22 see any additional data that is presented beyond what 

23 was presented at the Decemb1:ir workshop in 1998. 

24 The average price being used for water and 

25 waste water is the $3.00 range and it's based on some 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005·3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

89 

1 national surveys that have been done. Certainly in 

2 many areas 1 ike the City o:E Austin that's less than 

3 half of what the water and waste water cost is 

4 already. 

5 I just want to say that 3 percent is more or 

6 less the amount DOE is using. We do have a lot of 

7 Safe Drinking Water Act rules coming down. They are 

8 cost utilities a lot and EPA is certainly looking at 

9 waste water regulations and increasing those 

10 regulations which will cost utilities additional. 

11 Also, these costs are all going to be passed 

12 on. I think the 3 percent is a reasonable estimate of 

13 what the escalation will be . 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Additional comments? 

15 Tom Eckman. 

16 MR. ECKMAN: I want to follow up on Tony's 

17 comment on waste water treatment. The current 

18 analysis basically doesn't include the cost of the 

19 electricity consumed in waste water treatment. 

20 It is a significant component of the advance 

21 treatment requirements that we see in secondary and 

22 tertiary treatment of waste water. We basically have 

23 not counted those costs in this analysis and I think 

24 it is a conservatism that rn:.~eds to be noted . 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

MR. BROOKMAN: Fin.al comments before we move 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

90 

1 to discussing impact of standards. Okay. Onto 

2 impacts of standards. 

3 Steve Rosenstock. 

4 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI. 

5 Impacts in what area? That's kind of a broad area. 

6 When I saw that I wasn't sure exactly any particular 

7 area? 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Maybe Bryan can comment on if 

9 there is anything specific or we can just leave it to 

10 the commentors. 

11 MR. BERRINGER: Bryan Berringer, DOE. I 

12 would just say from the standpoint of impacts to 

13 consumers, manufacturers. Any of those areas positive 

14 or negative. I think we 1 ve pretty much addressed most 

15 of those but if people feel there 1 s a strong influence 

16 on those areas, then we can address that. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Comments on the impacts to 

18 standards. I see none. No comments on impacts to 

19 standards? Okay. 

20 Then we are moving on to other issues. 

21 Comments on other issues. No one wishes to comment. 

22 Okay. Thank you. Tom Eckman. 

23 MR. ECKMAN: I will add my second to David's 

24 concern about leaving a two-class system or multi25 class system in place with the same standard for all 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005·3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

91 

1 classes. 

2 It seems a bit superfluous for the activity 

3 we are engaged in here. E:ven both H-access and v4 access machines will be required to meet the same 

5 standard and both types of machines do meet the same 

6 standards today. That seems a little bit redundant. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 

8 comments on other issues. Steve Rosenstock. 

9 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock. Yes, in 

10 terms of the consumer statement that was put in the 

11 Federal Register Notice, just a suggestion that if 

12 possible there seems to be a lot of justification in 

13 the consumer statement that if possible that you might 

14 want to, as Mel Hall-Crawford kind of indicated, there 

15 are some key information that you might want to put at 

16 the front of the consumer impact or the consumer 

17 statement. 

18 Like she was saying, like a first cost, 

19 life-cycle cost, other benefits, energy benefits, 

20 environmental benefits, to make it more informative 

21 like a table like food nutrition label almost or 

22 something like that. Again, some of the highlights 

23 that the Consumer Federation or some other groups 

24 might just say this is a prime concern for the 

25 consumers. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, O.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

92 

1 Again, they might want to see things on an 

2 individualized basis rather than on a national basis 

3 in terms of impacts since they are just buying one 

4 machine or one appliance. Again, that is a 

5 recommendation for the future maybe when the final 

6 rule is published and for other appliances. Thank 

7 you. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Ben Lieberman. 

9 MR. LIEBERMAN: Wel 1, just to expand on 

10 that, we're talking about, at least according to the 

11 initial analysis, washing machines that cost about 

12 $200 more and save B or 9 cents were load. So whether 

13 one is a net winner or net loser has much to do with 

14 how many loads of laundry one does. Consumers 

15 certainly know that. 

16 It might be very useful in order to have 

17 better consumer education to let people know maybe 

18 there is some sort of cutoff point where if you are 

19 well above X numbers of cycles you're a winner, but if 

20 you are well below you're a loser. That just may be 

21 some kind of information that consumers might get some 

22 value from in determining whether high efficiency 

23 models are beneficial to them. 

24 

25 

I just have one general question. I teamed 

with this standard and with others. I have a stack of 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

93 

1 press releases from DOE and E~nergy efficiency advocacy 

2 groups • Almost every time a new standard is 

3 announced, there's tremendous estimated energy 

4 savings, and now with this also water savings as well. 

5 I'm just wondering looking back now that 

6 we've had almost a decade or more of these standards, 

7 have we actually seen residential per capita 

8 electricity use decline beyond what it would otherwise 

9 have been? Is there really any work on that in terms 

10 of looking back at the track record and seeing how 

11 these estimates actually play out? 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Does anyone want to comment 

13 on that? 

14 MR. GOLDSTEIN: David Goldstein. There is 

15 some evidence that California, which has pursued the 

16 most assertive program of building energy efficiency 

17 standards and applying energy efficiency standards has 

18 had a decline in electricity use for GDP of about 

19 almost 1 percent per year for 30 years while the rest 

20 of the United States was about constant. 

21 So if you want to compare macro-economic 

22 results of one state that's pursued energy efficiency 

23 programs, not just mandatory ones, utility based ones 

24 as well, yes, it does show up and it shows up in a 

25 fairly large way. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005·3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

94 

1 You can also look at the rate of electricity 

2 growth and the rate of natural gas growth which has 

3 been below projections that were made before standards 

4 were implemented and see that these things are having 

5 about the effect that one would predict they would 

6 have. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Chuck. 

8 MR. SAMUELS : It's very hard to totally 

9 distinguish between the effects of standards and 

10 non standards in the marketplace developments, 

11 technology developments, etc. 

12 However, if you look at it on a per 

13 appliance basis, there's no question. There's a lot 

14 of information in this record and AHAM has a fact book 

15 which we can get you a copy of or you can look at it 

16 on our website. There's been very significant 

17 reduction in the energy consumption of average white 

18 goods and subsidies standards over the years. 

19 One issue always is maybe there is a 

20 reduction on these appliances but what about other 

21 things that are going on in the home with electrical 

22 devices that have been invented since these standards 

23 even began. 

24 Definitely, straightforwardly with respect 

25 to these products, there's been enormous reduction in 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

95 

1 energy use. Of course, with clothes washers -- which, 

2 by the way, this is the third standard, not the first 

3 one. There was an initial standard in 1990 and 

4 another one in 1994 -- there has been a significant 

5 reduction in energy and water use. There will be 

6 further significant reductions as we have discussed 

7 today. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: I saw Steve Nadel first and 

9 then Mike Thompson. 

10 MR. NADEL: Speaking more broadly, I believe 

11 the figures that are coming out of the Energy 

12 Information Administration is that residential energy 

13 use per household has been increasing slightly but, as 

14 Chuck pointed out, people have microwaves and home 

15 computers, larger TVs, etc. 

16 I have seen not published but unpublished 

17 analyses from some utilities where they do what is 

18 called conditional demand analysis. They look at 

19 electric bills and analyze them statistically based on 

20 what appliances are there and the coefficients that 

21 are, for example, related to refrigerators, which is 

22 a large one, that has been going down over time. It 

23 effectively shows as you look at electric bills that 

24 the average use per appliance is going down . 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

MR. BROOKMAN: So Mike Thompson and then I 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.U. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

96 

1 would like to return to any other additional issues 

2 people wish to talk about. 

3 MR. THOMPSON: ~rust to amplify on Chuck 

4 Samuel's comments. AHAM doias publish a fact book and 

5 it does show average energy use for clothes washers, 

6 dishwashers, refrigerators, and a number of other 

7 appliances down through the years, I think, going back 

8 to 1980. They used key numbers back in 1972. 

9 If you look at the years that new standards 

10 were implemented, you will usually see a sharp dip in 

11 kilowatt hours consumed annually in the appliances 

12 that are regulated. 

13 I will add that it's very difficult to 

14 discern total energy being cut as a result of energy 

15 standards because the numbers I 1 ve seen in the average 

16 size of the homes today, the square footage is larger 

1 7 than it was 10, 15, or 2 O yealrs ago. More appliances 

18 are being used in the house, more VCRs, etc. 

19 One dramatic example is the refrigerator. 

20 Going back to the very early days before the oil 

21 embargo days, the average refrigerator was in the area 

22 of about 18 cubic feet in the top-mount configuration. 

23 It consumed almost 2,000 kilowatt hours per year. 

24 

25 

Today the average kilowatt hours is 

somewhere around 650. It's been cut by about two-

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

97 

1 thirds in average energy use. There have been 

2 dramatic improvement in large measure because of 

3 standards. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. State your name 

5 for the record. 

6 MR. BUSKIRK: I'm Robert M. Buskirk from 

7 Lawrence Berkeley Labs. I just want to deal with the 

8 issue of the variable number of loads were household. 

9 We did do loads versus household size in the life10 cycle cost analysis and included the variable load 

11 sizes function of number of people in the household in 

12 the distribution of life-cycle cost results for the 

13 consumers • 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you for that 

15 verification. 

16 Additional comments related to other issues? 

17 Final comments on other issues? I see no more 

18 comments at this time. 

19 Before I turn it back to Bryan Berringer, 

20 let me from my perspective thank all of you for this 

21 meeting today. I thank all of you especially for the 

22 spirit of cooperation that you all have brought to 

23 these many years of effort and now we are starting to 

24 actually yield some very concrete results . 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

I congratulate you on your ability to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

98 

1 participate in this significant dialogue, and 

2 particularly to hang in there and continue working 

3 when things could have flown apart. Thanks to all of 

4 you for that. Best wishes to all of you. 

5 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Just to clarify, as of 

6 today the comments are due December 4. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: I 'm sure Bryan has some 

8 closing remarks. Travel safely. 

9 MR. BERRINGER: Bryan Berringer again. I 

10 just want to thank everybody for coming today and the 

11 good discussion we had. I appreciate everybody that 

12 traveled here. We had a couple of action items and 

13 obviously the comments we heard today we' 11 take 

14 consideration as we go forward with the final rule. 

15 As we talked about, the comment period does 

16 end December 4 at this time. We will take all 

17 comments received today into consideration and all 

18 written comments that we receive by December 4. Thank 

19 you very much. 

20 (Whereupon, at 11:21 a.m. the meeting was 

21 adjourned.) 

22 

23 

24 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
• 

• 

• 

99 

CERTIFICATE 

This is to certify that the foregoing transcript in the 

matter of: 

Before: 

Date: 

Place: 

Public Hearing on 

Clothes Washer Standards 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

November 15, 2000 

Washington, DC 

represents the full and complete proceedings of the 

aforementioned 

typewriting . 

matter, as reported and reduced to