202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 1

 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

 ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY 

 ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR 

 RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS, DEHUMIDIFIERS, 

 AND COOKING PRODUCTS, AND COMMERCIAL 

 CLOTHES WASHERS 

 COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS SUPPLEMENTAL 

 NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING (SNOPR) 

 PUBLIC MEETING 

 MONDAY 

 NOVEMBER 16, 2009 

 The Public Meeting convened in 

Room 1E-245 in the Forrestal Building, 1000 

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C., 

at 9:00 a.m., Douglas Brookman, Facilitator, 

presiding, 

PRESENT 

DOUGLAS BROOKMAN, Facilitator 

TIM BALLO, Earthjustice 

JAMES BATTAGLIA, Navigant Consulting 

DEBRA BRUNK, Association of Home Appliance 

 Manufacturers 

ROBERT CARMICHAEL, Navigant Consulting 

BELINDA CARR, Energetics, Inc. 

LEAH COGSWELL, Department of Energy 

LANCE DeLAURA, Southern California Gas Company 

J.D. DONALDSON, White & Case 

TOM ECKMAN, Northwest Power and Conservation 

 Council 

BRENDA EDWARDS, Department of Energy 

JOSHUA FORGOTSON, ICF International 

MARK FRIEDRICHS, Department of Energy 

LUKE HARMS, Whirlpool 

JERROD KAPPLER, General Electric 

JEFFREY KINGMAN, Navigant Consulting 

ELIZABETH KOHL, Department of Energy 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 2

PRESENT (CONT.) 

KELLEY KLINE, General Electric 

RON LEWIS, Department of Energy 

AMANDA LOWENBERGER, American Council for an 

 Energy Efficient Economy 

PHILIP J. MANTHEI, Alliance Laundry Systems, 

 Inc. 

EDWARD R. OSANN, Appliance Standards Awareness 

 Project 

JUDITH REICH, Navigant Consulting 

GREGORY ROSENQUIST, Lawrence Berkeley National 

 Laboratory 

DOUG ROSSIN, Navigant Consulting 

EVETTE R. TIPPETT, Entiepell Enterprise 

CONSTANTIN von WENTZEL, Navigant Consulting 

STEPHEN WITKOWSKI, Department of Energy 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 3

 A G E N D A 

WELCOME ...................................5 

OPENING REMARKS, INTRODUCTIONS, AND 

AGENDA REVIEW .............................5 

 Doug Brookman 

RULEMAKING OVERVIEW ......................10 

 Stephen Witkowski 

COMMENTS FROM PARTICIPANTS ...............21 

 Doug Brookman 

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS .....................35 

 Constantin von Wentzel 

ENERGY USE ANALYSIS, MARKUPS FOR EQUIPMENT 

PRICE DETERMINATION, AND LIFE-CYCLE COST 

ANALYSIS .................................77 

 Gregory Rosenquist 

SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS AND NATIONAL IMPACT 

ANALYSIS .................................81 

 Gregory Rosenquist 

TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS, CONSUMER SUBGROUP 

ANALYSIS, AND MANUFACTURER IMPACT 

ANALYSIS ................................117 

 Gregory Rosenquist 

 Constantin von Wentzel 

UTILITY IMPACT ANALYSIS, EMPLOYMENT IMPACT 

ANALYSIS, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, 

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS ..............152 

 Gregory Rosenquist 

DISCUSSION OF OTHER ISSUES ..............163 

 Doug Brookman 

NEXT STEPS AND CLOSING REMARKS ..........164 

 Stephen Witkowski 

ADJOURN 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 4

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

2 (9:00 a.m.) 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Good morning, 

4 everybody. Welcome. Glad to see you. This 

5 is the U.S. Department of Energy's public 

6 meeting on Energy Conservation Standards for 

7 Residential Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, and 

8 cooking products, and commercial clothes 

9 washers. My name is Doug Brookman. We're 

10 going to start off this morning with welcoming 

11 remarks from Stephen Witkowski, Department of 

12 Energy. 

13 MR. WITKOWSKI: Good morning, 

14 everyone. On behalf of the Department of 

15 Energy, I want to welcome you to this public 

16 meeting on the Commercial Clothes Washer 

17 Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, or 

18 SNOPR. As with all these public meetings, 

19 you're strongly encouraged to participate, 

20 provide input, and to discuss the various 

21 analyses that we go through in the rulemaking. 

22 And I'll have a little bit more to say on 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 5

1 this in a minute, but welcome, and we're glad 

2 you're all here this morning. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, I'll 

4 start over here to my left. These microphones 

5 are all turned off. We can all practice 

6 turning them on as we go around. Please say 

7 your name, and organizational affiliation. 

8 MR. OSANN: I'm Ed Osann, 

9 Consultant on Energy and Water Efficiency. 

10 I'm here today on behalf of the Appliance 

11 Standards Awareness Project. 

12 MS. LOWENBERGER: Amanda 

13 Lowenburger with the American Council for an 

14 Energy Efficient Economy. 

15 MR. DONALDSON: Jamie Donaldson 

16 with White & Case, a law firm in D.C. We 

17 represent Alliance Laundry. 

18 MR. MANTHEI: I'm Phil Manthei 

19 from Alliance Laundry Systems. 

20 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo from 

21 Earthjustice. 

22 MS. BRUNK: Debra Brunk from the 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 6

1 Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. 

2 MR. KAPPLER: Jerrod Kappler from 

3 General Electric. 

4 MS. KLINE: Kelley Kline from 

5 General Electric. 

6 MR. DeLAURA: Lance DeLaura with 

7 Sempra Energy Utilities in Los Angeles. 

8 MR. ECKMAN: Tom Eckman, Northwest 

9 Power and Conservation Council. 

10 MR. HARMS: Luke Harms, Whirlpool 

11 Corporation. 

12 MR. WITKOWSKI: Stephen Witkowski 

13 with the Department of Energy, and Mr. Ron 

14 Lewis will be sitting next to me. He stepped 

15 out for a moment. 

16 MR. VON WENTZEL: Constantin von 

17 Wentzel, Navigant Consulting. 

18 MS. REICH: Judith Reich from 

19 Navigant Consulting. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: I'm not sure we 

21 need to do that for every single -- go ahead. 

22 MR. ROSENQUIST: Greg Rosenquist, 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 7

1 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, please. 

3 (Off mic introduction.) 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Who have I missed? 

5 Please introduce yourself. 

6 (Off mic introductions.) 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, did I 

8 miss anybody? I think all of you received a 

9 packet of information as you came in the door. 

10 In there was a copy of the agenda. I'm going 

11 to run through this very briefly. In 

12 addition, there is a copy of the PowerPoint 

13 slides that will be the basis for presentation 

14 and discussion as the day goes on. 

15 Following this brief agenda 

16 review, we're going to have a rulemaking 

17 overview from Stephen. And following that 

18 overview, there's an opportunity for anybody 

19 that wishes to do so, to make brief summary 

20 remarks about issues that matter to them. 

21 We'll do that for a short amount of time. 

22 Then we'll go directly into the Engineering 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 8

1 Analysis. We'll break mid-morning, round 

2 about 11:00 or so. Following the mid-morning 

3 break, we'll have a description of Energy Use 

4 Analysis, Markups for Equipment Price 

5 Determination, and Life-Cycle Cost Analysis. 

6 That ought to run us pretty close to lunch. 

7 We'll break for lunch noonish, and 

8 then unless we move into the Shipments 

9 Analysis prior to lunch, we'll do Shipments 

10 Analysis, and National Impact Analysis. And 

11 following that, Trial Standard Levels, 

12 Consumer Subgroup Analysis, and Manufacturer 

13 Impact Analysis, and then go straight into 

14 Utility Impact Analysis, Employment Impact 

15 Analysis, Environmental Assessment, and 

16 Regulatory Impact Analysis. 

17 We'll take a break mid-afternoon, 

18 round about 2:45 or so. And then following 

19 the mid-afternoon break, or whenever we get 

20 there, we will not tarry. We will go as 

21 efficiently as possible. There's yet another 

22 opportunity for people to raise additional 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 9

1 issues that are of concern to them, and get 

2 that information into the record. We'll close 

3 today with next steps and closing remarks. We 

4 expect we'll adjourn today no later than 4:30. 

5 That's the plan. 

6 Questions and comments about the 

7 agenda, as written? And, in particular, 

8 anything that people wish to raise that 

9 wouldn't be included in this agenda? Okay. 

10 So, as a matter of consideration, I'd ask you 

11 please, if you would, speak one at a time. 

12 Please say your name for the record each time 

13 you speak. You don't need to say your 

14 organizational affiliation again, just say 

15 your name. John will keep track of that. 

16 This public meeting, there will be 

17 a complete transcript of it available to you. 

18 It will be posted on the EERE website within 

19 say seven or ten days. Okay. Quickly, maybe 

20 we'll have some clarification on that as we go 

21 along. 

22 I'm going to be cuing people to 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 10

1 speak by name as best I can. I also wish to 

2 encourage follow-on comments. If you would 

3 please keep the focus here, that is, turn off 

4 your cell phones, turn them on silent mode, 

5 and please keep your side bar conversations to 

6 a minimum. These microphones actually work 

7 pretty well, so we can hear you. In fact, if 

8 you're not speaking, you can turn them off. 

9 And if you would, please try to be 

10 concise, share the air time. We'll try and be 

11 as effective and efficient as possible today. 

12 And I think that's all I have at this point. 

13 Stephen Witkowski. 

14 MR. WITKOWSKI: Okay. First of 

15 all, I just want to make you aware that the 

16 information on this SNOPR is available at this 

17 website. We will try to get the presentation 

18 material up there, today's presentation 

19 material, as soon as possible after this 

20 meeting. 

21 The purpose of the meeting is to 

22 invite comment on the proposed Energy 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 11

1 Conservation Standard Level TSL 3 for 

2 Commercial Clothes Washers, referred to as 

3 CCWs, of course, to present methodologies, and 

4 characterize results for this rulemaking 

5 analysis, including updates to the analysis 

6 presented in the Supplemental Notice of 

7 Proposed Rulemaking, referred to as an SNOPR, 

8 to discuss specific issues related to each 

9 analysis, to seek input from interested 

10 parties on the methodologies, assumptions, 

11 data sources and results from the analysis, 

12 and to describe the next steps. 

13 We strongly encourage comments and 

14 participation from the attendees. 

15 Participants are invited to provide summary 

16 comments or statements. Participants are 

17 invited to raise additional issues for 

18 disclosure today. And please note that the 

 th

19 SNOPR comment period closes December 9 , 

20 2009. 

21 Very briefly, the chronology for 

22 the statutory authority for this rulemaking 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 12

1 is, first of all, the Energy Independence and 

2 Security Act of 2007, or EISA, as amended, to 

3 prescribe standards for dishwashers, 

4 dehumidifiers. 

5 DOE is not proposing standards for 

6 these because they are covered under EISA. 

7 DOE published a final rule addressing energy 

8 conservation standards for residential 

9 electric and gas ranges, and ovens, and 

 th

10 microwave ovens on April 8 , 2009. And the 

11 proposed notice addresses, in part, the 

12 requirements of Section 136 of the Energy 

13 Policy Act. I'm not going to read all the 

14 legalese. It's there in black and white, and 

15 bold. 

16 DOE actions on commercial clothes 

17 washers, test procedures. The final rule for 

18 commercial clothes washers, which adopted the 

19 EPACT 2005 amendments to EPCA, requiring that 

20 CCWs be rated according to the residential 

21 clothes washer test procedure, which was 

 th

22 published on October 18 , 2005. 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 13

1 Energy Conservation Standards, 

2 Notice of Availability of Framework Document 

 th

3 published on March 27 , 2006. Advanced 

4 Notice of Public Rulemaking, or ANOPR, 

 th

5 published on November 15 , 2007. Technical 

6 Support Document, Notice of Public Rulemaking, 

7 or NOPR, and the SNOPR published in the 

 th

8 Federal Register of November 9 , 2009, which 

9 we're discussing at this meeting. And the 

10 final rule is scheduled for publication in 

11 January 2010. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed Osann. 

13 MR. OSANN: This is Ed Osann. 

14 With regard to test procedures, the Department 

15 currently has under review the test procedures 

16 for residential clothes washers, and there may 

17 be some revisions that come out of that review 

18 process. Under the terms of EPACT 2005, will 

19 those changes in the test procedure apply to 

20 determinations of compliance with this 

21 standard that is currently proposed for 

22 commercial clothes washers? 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 14

1 MR. WITKOWSKI: Ron, would you 

2 like to address that, since it's a compliance 

3 issue, primarily? 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Ron Lewis. 

5 MR. WITKOWSKI: Ron Lewis, excuse 

6 me. 

7 MR. LEWIS: I went up to make sure 

8 we had somebody from General Counsel here that 

9 could represent any requests for 

10 interpretation, something that you want to 

11 leave with them. But this is on the 

12 commercial clothes washers, and right now I 

13 don't want to intermix the two. It's a fair 

14 question, and I expect that we'll have to get 

15 an answer for you, but right now the focus is 

16 on commercial clothes washers, and the things 

17 that are represented here as far as test 

18 procedures and everything are stand alone 

19 right now. What we have in this -- referenced 

20 in here, what's applicable is the topic for 

21 today. So things that are yet to come, 

22 changes that are yet to come, we can't really 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 15

1 address things that haven't been announced or 

2 finalized, so I don't really want to 

3 speculate, or talk about what may come. 

4 MR. OSANN: Okay. Let me rephrase 

5 the question then, because I'm not asking for 

6 speculation about what might happen on the 

7 substance of the revised test procedures. But 

8 the question is, what test procedures will 

9 commercial clothes washers be required to 

10 employ to demonstrate compliance with the rule 

11 that will be announced for commercial clothes 

12 washers in January 2010? 

13 MR. WITKOWSKI: That's the 

14 commercial clothes washer test procedure. 

15 MR. LEWIS: Right. 

16 MR. WITKOWSKI: It's that simple. 

17 MR. LEWIS: As far as a reference, 

18 or -- do you want a specific citation of where 

19 that is, or something - 

20 MR. WITKOWSKI: If you want the 

21 citation, I believe it's on our website. If 

22 it's not, if you - 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 16

1 MR. BROOKMAN: The existing test 

2 procedure. 

3 MR. OSANN: The existing test 

4 procedure. 

5 MR. LEWIS: Right. 

6 MR. OSANN: Okay. Thank you. 

7 MR. WITKOWSKI: Again, on slide 5, 

8 a little bit more chronology here. On October 

9 2008, the NOPR proposed an amended Energy 

10 Conservation Standards for certain products 

11 and equipment, including commercial clothes 

12 washers. That rulemaking was published as a 

13 final rule in March 2009, well ahead of the 

14 CCW statutory deadline of January 1, 2010. 

15 Commercial clothes washers were 

16 not among the products covered in the final 

17 rule because of comments on the adequacy, and 

18 the stated max-tech efficiency for top loading 

19 CCWs led to three sample max-tech top loading 

20 units being tested, none of which achieved the 

21 efficiency standard stated by the 

22 manufacturer. And DOE, in fulfilling its 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 17

1 obligation to develop an SNOPR based on the 

2 new information, since the NOPR had been --

3 was proposed - excuse me - since the NOPR had 

4 proposed a TSL for top loading CCWs at that 

5 max-tech level. This SNOPR presents the 

6 revised analysis, and proposes new standard 

7 levels for comment. 

8 Slide six shows the EPCA direction 

9 for DOE to follow. The seven factors that we 

10 consider when setting Energy Conservation 

11 Standards. For Factor number one, economic 

12 impacts on consumers. The analysis includes 

13 life-cycle cost analysis, and manufacturer 

14 impact analysis. For factor two, lifetime 

15 operating cost savings - I'm sorry - we have 

16 the life-cycle cost analysis. For factor 

17 three, total projected energy savings, the 

18 analysis is a national impact analysis. For 

19 factor four, impact on utility performance, 

20 the analyses are both the screening analysis, 

21 and the engineering analysis. Factor five, 

22 impact on any lessening of competition, the 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 18

1 analysis is a manufacturer impact analysis. 

2 Six, a need for National Energy Conservation. 

3 Again, it is a National Impact Analysis, 

4 excuse me. And then seven, other factors that 

5 the Secretary considers relevant, which can 

6 include environmental analysis - excuse me - 

7 environmental assessment, utility impact 

8 analysis, and employment impact analysis. 

9 Slide number seven, selection of 

10 proposed standards. DOE considered five trial 

11 standard levels, or TSLs, beginning with the 

12 most efficient level, TSL 5, and worked down 

13 to the level where the benefits of the 

14 potential standards outweigh the burdens. DOE 

15 tentatively concludes that at TSL 5 and TSL 4, 

16 the benefits of energy savings, economic 

17 benefits, and emissions reductions would be 

18 outweighed by the potential for 

19 disincentivizing consumers to purchase high 

20 energy front loading CCWs, and the large 

21 capital conversion cost that could result in a 

22 substantial reduction in manufacturer's INPV. 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 19

1 

2 DOE tentatively concludes that TSL 

3 3 saves a significant amount of energy, and is 

4 technologically feasible, and economically 

5 justified. At TSL 3, DOE tentatively 

6 concludes that the potential adverse impacts 

7 on one low-volume manufacturer, and, 

8 therefore, the potential adverse impacts on 

9 the CCW market competition would be minimized. 

10 DOE has also taken into consideration the 

11 Department of Justice's review of the 

12 standards proposed in the October 2008 NOPR; 

13 that is, competitive impacts are discussed in 

14 more detail in the manufacturer impact 

15 analysis section of this presentation. 

16 Slide eight, the proposed amended 

17 Energy Conservation Standards for commercial 

18 clothes washers, TSL 3, we have two product 

19 classes for top loading washers, 1.6 modified 

20 energy factor, 8.5 water factor. For front 

21 loading, 2.0 modified energy factor, and a 5.5 

22 water factor. 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 20

1 Now, before we go into your 

2 comments, I'm going to skip ahead to slide 

3 ten, so that I won't have to come up again for 

4 one slide, and this will follow-through. And 

5 then we can open up the session for comments. 

6 And this is just a summary of the issues 

7 which DOE seeks comments on. These are SNOPR 

8 Issues 1-7. I'll skip ahead here. 

9 One, whether the method of loading 

10 clothes washers, or any other characteristic 

11 commonly associated with traditional top 

12 loading, or front loading clothes washers are 

13 features within the meaning of 42 USC 

14 6295(0)(4) in EPCA, and whether the 

15 availability of such feature or features would 

16 likely be affected by eliminating separate 

17 classes for these equipment types previously 

18 established by DOE. 

19 Two, the revised Energy Efficiency 

20 Levels, including the revised max-tech level 

21 for top loading CCWs. Issue three, 

22 technological feasibility of the proposed maxEERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 21

1 tech CCW, including washing and rinsing 

2 performance measures for CCWs, and population 

3 data for water heating CCWs. Issue four, the 

4 determination of short and long run price 

5 elasticities of demand and cross-price 

6 elasticities for top loading versus front 

7 loading CCWs, and use -- CCWs in use versus 

8 front loading CCWs, excuse me. Issue five, 

9 the determination of manufacturer impacts, 

10 including the effects of manufacturer tax 

11 credits and competitive concerns. Issue six, 

12 determination of environmental impacts. And, 

13 Issue seven, the newly proposed Energy 

14 Conservation Standards. 

15 So, at this time, we welcome 

16 remarks, and interested parties are requested 

17 to please present. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Every 

19 now and then, people submit a request to speak 

20 at this time in advance. We don't want that 

21 to hold anybody back. Anybody that wishes to 

22 make brief summary remarks at this point, 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 22

1 would be welcome to do so. Who would like to 

2 start? Phil. 

3 MR. MANTHEI: Phil Manthei, 

4 Alliance Laundry Systems. J.D. Donaldson from 

5 White & Case, and I will both make comments at 

6 this point in time. 

7 Alliance Laundry System has 

8 participated in good faith offering relevant 

9 data, technical data, financial data, 

10 manufacturing facility site examination. An 

11 enormous effort has been mounted by Alliance 

12 Laundry, and we're just a very small company, 

13 to provide DOE with data. Significant 

14 resources have been devoted to gather data 

15 through testing and estimating, et cetera. 

16 DOE's max-tech top loading 

17 commercial clothes washer is inappropriate for 

18 a minimum standard. There is no true hot 

19 water provided by the max-tech model, and 

20 we've measured 112 degrees, which 120 and 

21 greater is considered hot water. So, the 112 

22 is considered warm water. Also, we measured 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 23

1 the warm water setting. It measures 73 

2 degrees, which is cold, anything less than 80 

3 is cold water. 

4 Users of commercial clothes 

5 washers who believe they are paying for hot 

6 water should be allowed to get hot water, just 

7 the same as residential clothes washer users 

8 can. Rinsing is minimal with only three spray 

9 rinses in spin mode, consisting of 

10 approximately three gallons each, instead of 

11 the typical complete submersion clothes load 

12 to allow sand, or heavy sediment and suds 

13 trapped between layers to be properly 

14 evacuated. The GE model WNRD2050G has 

15 received almost no acceptance by the industry 

16 based on comments of Alliance's top 20 multi17 housing customers. 

18 I know DOE says that they've 

19 observed, they believe that the GE model is as 

20 rugged as other residential commercial units 

21 on the market. However, those are residential 

22 commercial clothes washers. This is a 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 24

1 commercial clothes washer, not a residential 

2 clothes washer rulemaking. 

3 DOE has failed to consider the 

4 welfare effects of adversity affecting 

5 apartment residents' ability to clean clothes 

6 versus residential clothes washing machines. 

7 DOE's belief is flawed that all 

8 manufacturers can achieve a top loading 

9 minimum standard, MEF of greater than or equal 

10 to 1.6, and a water factor less than or equal 

11 to 8.5. Alliance's long-term bank covenants 

12 currently limit borrowing to 19.2 million, as 

13 shown in our recent SEC 10Q filing. In 

14 addition, the credit facility must be 

 th

15 refinanced before January 27 , 2011, where 

16 tightened credit interest terms are likely. 

17 ALS estimates investment of 18.4 

18 million to achieve the proposed top loading 

19 standard based on DOE's max-tech model 

20 designated as GE model WNRD2050G. 

21 Even if funds were available to 

22 ALS, which is yet to be determined upon future 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 25

1 refinancing, for a dramatic redesign of its 

2 commercial top loading clothes washers costing 

3 more than two times our normal capital 

4 expenditures, and regardless of the method 

5 used to calculate the financial payback, such 

6 an expenditure could never be justified, and, 

7 therefore, would never be approved for funding 

8 by our investors for a product that does not 

9 meet our customers' minimum requirements. 

10 DOE's proposed commercial clothes 

11 washer standard places 292 union laborers in 

12 the Ripon, Wisconsin plant at risk of losing 

13 their jobs. For DOE's SNOPR, 150 are 

14 attributed to the commercial clothes washer, 

15 and the remainder, 142, are associated with 

16 companion commercial clothes dryer, with an 

17 additional 40 non-production jobs. 

18 MR. DONALDSON: Hopefully, 

19 everyone had a chance to pick up the slides 

20 that Alliance Laundry provided. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: J.D., please say 

22 your name. 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 26

1 MR. DONALDSON: Sorry. J.D. 

2 Donaldson, White & Case. We represent 

3 Alliance Laundry. Hopefully, the folks here 

4 got an opportunity to pick up the slide 

5 presentation that Alliance has provided for 

6 this SNOPR. 

7 They summarize the points that 

8 Phil has walked through. I want to walk 

9 through two other of the points. The first is 

10 -- the first that I'd like to cover appears on 

11 page 3. This is the second point, and this 

12 deals with, DOE has asked the Department of 

13 Justice's Anti-Trust Division to analyze the 

14 effects of the proposed standard on 

15 competition. For those of you who don't know, 

16 the Anti-Trust Division is the expert agency 

17 on keeping things competitive so that 

18 consumers benefit. 

19 There is a letter from the DOJ 

20 that's attached to the end of Alliance 

21 Laundry's slide presentation. And the DOJ 

22 found that there was a very real risk that the 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 27

1 proposed standard could not be met by at least 

2 one commercial washer manufacturer. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Pardon me, J.D. So, 

4 now that people have these slides, you're 

5 referring to page 3. Is that what you said? 

6 MR. DONALDSON: I'm referring to 

7 page 3 of the slide presentation. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Let's see if 

9 we can find that. Okay? Please proceed. 

10 MR. DONALDSON: So, the DOJ found, 

11 and the full text of the letter is attached at 

12 the very end of this presentation. It's the 

13 last page of that letter. 

14 MR. MANTHEI: And to the SNOPR, as 

15 well. 

16 MR. DONALDSON: The DOJ found that 

17 there was a very real risk that the proposed 

18 standard would result in one of the 

19 manufacturers not being able to meet it, 

20 therefore, forcing it out of the business. 

21 Here, the low-volume manufacturer sells 

22 approximately half of the commercial clothes 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 28

1 washers in the United States. It's really 

2 only considered the low-volume manufacturer 

3 because it doesn't sell anywhere near the 

4 number of residential machines that the other 

5 two manufacturers do. 

6 DOJ's concern is that the exit 

7 here would leave only two manufacturers left 

8 in the CCW business, which could lead to 

9 higher prices. As you can see from the 

10 letter, DOJ concluded that, and I quote, "To 

11 maintain competition, the DOE should consider 

12 keeping the existing standard in place for top 

13 loading CCWs." That's from the U.S. Expert 

14 Competition Agency. 

15 The second point I want to cover 

16 appears on pages 6 and 7 of the slides. And, 

17 essentially, what that is, is -- I would 

18 submit that it wouldn't make any sense to 

19 impose an efficiency standard, if the standard 

20 would prevent commercial clothes washers from 

21 working well. The purpose of a clothes washer 

22 is to clean your clothes, but there's been no 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 29

1 showing that the current standard, as it's 

2 currently embodied in the GE machine, does a 

3 good job of cleaning clothes. 

4 We know that the current 

5 commercial clothes washers do a good job of 

6 cleaning clothes, however, using the current 

7 standard. It's kind of like requiring that 

8 light bulbs only use a certain amount of 

9 electricity. That's great if they only use a 

10 certain amount of electricity, but it really 

11 doesn't do much good if they don't light up a 

12 room. So, I would submit that the standard, 

13 any standard that wouldn't do a good job 

14 cleaning clothes would be an arbitrary and 

15 capricious one. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

17 Additional comments here at the outset? Let's 

18 let Phil follow-on. Please, go ahead. 

19 MR. MANTHEI: Yes. I'd like to 

20 summarize here. So, in summary, we believe 

21 that GE machine is not an appropriate model 

22 for the commercial laundry market. We believe 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 30

1 that DOJ's recommendation to keeping the 

2 existing standard in place for top loading 

3 commercial clothes washer is the appropriate 

4 course of action. And in the spirit of 

5 cooperation, and with a mind to continually 

6 improving overall energy efficiency, we could 

7 support the following standards, an MEF of 

8 1.42 or less, I mean, or greater, and a water 

9 factor of 9.5 or less for the top load. And 

10 the MEF greater than or equal to 2, and water 

11 factor of 5.5 or less for the front loading. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks for 

13 those summary remarks. Tim Ballo. 

14 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, 

15 Earthjustice. We submitted some detailed 

16 comments on the last iteration of the NOPR on 

17 why we believe the Department is not required 

18 to adopt separate product classes. The 

19 product class issue is a key one for the 

20 efficiency advocates. 

21 We believe that the sensible 

22 standard is to adopt a strong unitary standard 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 31

1 that applies to both top loading, and front 

2 loading washers. If the Department determines 

3 that it cannot do that because of impacts to 

4 the manufacturers, impacts on competition, not 

5 that we agree with the extent of the impacts 

6 the Department feels there would be. We 

7 believe those impacts are overstated, to some 

8 extent. 

9 If the Department determines that 

10 it has to adopt a standard that preserves top 

11 loading washers in the market, we are 

12 particularly concerned about issues like the 

13 cross-price elasticity of demand, the impact 

14 that a stronger standard for front loaders 

15 that also preserves a market niche for top 

16 loaded washers would have, and would 

17 ultimately recommend, again, only if the 

18 Department really believed that it cannot 

19 adopt a strong standard that would apply to 

20 all washers, a standard that would apply a 

21 single standard to all products, that top load 

22 washers would be able to meet, such as the 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 32

1 1.60 MEF that I believe the Department 

2 proposed. 

3 Again, we don't like this, but if 

4 the Department really believes that the 

5 competition and manufacturer impacts are 

6 unacceptable, that that would be an 

7 alternative for the Department to consider. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Did you want to say 

9 anything about water factor? 

10 MR. BALLO: The Department 

11 proposed, I think, 8.5, and, again, we think 

12 1.60 and 8.5, if that's the way it has to come 

13 out. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Debra. 

15 MS. BRUNK: Debra Brunk from AHAM. 

16 First, I just want to thank DOE for offering 

17 the supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

18 on commercial clothes washers, and for re19 evaluating the max-tech, and the proposed MEF 

20 and water factor levels for top load 

21 commercial clothes washers. 

22 Two points, and I will make 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 33

1 comments on these later, as well, but AHAM 

2 does support the proposed MEF and water factor 

3 levels that DOE has put forward for front 

4 loading commercial clothes washers, and we do 

5 support the two separate product classes, one 

6 for top load, and one for front load 

7 commercial clothes washers. And I know that 

8 that's a comment later, and I will get into 

9 more details at that point. Thank you. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Other 

11 comments here at the outset? Okay. Yes, Ed. 

12 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann for ASAP. I 

13 think even the most cursory reading of the 

14 Supplemental NOPR indicates that a lot of the 

15 analysis is driven by the Department's concern 

16 for their view of a precarious position 

17 presented by the low-volume manufacturer. We 

18 remain somewhat unconvinced that the numbers 

19 are as stark as contained in the revised 

20 manufacturer's impact analysis, and perhaps we 

21 can get into that a little later this 

22 afternoon. 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 34

1 But given the potential benefits 

2 of a standard, a stronger standard, and the 

3 relatively narrow costs that would be incurred 

4 to meet the standard, this is really a case 

5 that cries out for a different solution than 

6 the one the Department has presented in this 

7 Supplemental NOPR. 

8 I noted that Alliance here today 

9 pointed out that the Department of Justice, 

10 the Anti-Trust Division, is responsible for 

11 keeping things competitive, so that consumers 

12 benefit. And I think that is actually pretty 

13 apt, because, ultimately, Anti-Trust law is 

14 not simply about the protection of companies. 

15 It's about the protection of consumers. And 

16 we have hundreds of millions, actually, 

17 billions of dollars of potential savings to 

18 consumers that may be forfeited by a standard 

19 that is not as strong as it should be. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

21 Additional comments? We're going to move into 

22 the analysis, then. Okay. Let's do that. 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 35

1 The first analysis area is Engineering 

2 Analysis. Constantin. 

3 MR. Von WENTZEL: Good morning. 

4 I'm here to talk about the Engineering 

5 Analysis. And, as you can see, the purpose is 

6 to characterize manufacturer cost efficiency 

7 relationships, to evaluate design options, and 

8 improve -- and also to do a sensitivity 

9 analysis to look at current material prices. 

10 We looked at two commercial clothes washer 

11 equipment classes. And for the NOPR, the 

12 industry supplied two data points, and we 

13 supplemented that with relevant information 

14 and data from manufacturers in confidential 

15 interviews. And for the SNOPR, we revised the 

16 top loader max-tech efficiency level, and 

17 adjusted the prices to 2008 dollars. 

18 When evaluating and establishing 

19 Energy Conservation Standard, DOE divides 

20 covered products or equipment into classes, 

21 typically by type of energy use, capacity, or 

22 other performance-related features. And for 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 36

1 the ANOPR commercial clothes washers were 

2 analyzed as a single product class, and for 

3 the NOPR, and for the SNOPR, they were 

4 analyzed in two. And you can see some of the 

5 precedents that were mentioned here, EPCA, the 

6 Resident Clothes Washer Rulemakings, as well 

7 as the CEC Commission petition waiver denial. 

8 As you may recall, the California 

9 Energy Commission made a petition to DOE for a 

10 separate efficiency standard for California 

11 that was denied by DOE on three grounds. 

12 Number one, DOE felt that it did not have the 

13 statutory authority to issue a final rule 

14 within the date that was requested. They also 

15 felt that -- DOE also felt that CEC had not 

16 established an unusual or compelling reason, 

17 as in water interests. And the third reason 

18 was, is that it could lead to the 

19 unavailability of top loading clothes washers 

20 in California. And just I think it was two 

 th

21 weeks ago, the 9 Circuit Court of Appeals 

22 reversed the Department of Energy's denial, 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 37

1 and remanded the petition for further 

2 proceedings. That was too late for us to 

3 consider, so we await further resolution on 

4 that. 

5 So, for the SNOPR, DOE tentatively 

6 concluded that top loading vertical axis 

7 commercial clothes washers provide unique 

8 utility, and maintained that the axis of 

9 access is a feature pursuant to EPCA. So, we 

10 have two equipment classes under 

11 consideration, top loading and front loading, 

12 and DOE is willing, however, to reconsider its 

13 previous conclusions as part of this 

14 rulemaking. 

15 If a single equipment class were 

16 to be established, DOE would give considerable 

17 weight to the potential adverse effect of a 

18 single standard to competition in the 

19 commercial clothes washer market. And DOE 

20 does not intend to set a standard that would 

21 produce significant adverse effects on 

22 competition. 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 38

1 So, we come to Issue number one. 

2 Ed? 

3 MR. OSANN: Excuse me. This is Ed 

4 Osann. Was that last comment in the slide 

5 deck anywhere? 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: It's the final 

7 bullet on slide 15. 

8 MR. Von WENTZEL: It's the last 

9 one. The order is the other way, so you start 

10 at the bottom, and you go to the top, and then 

11 you go over to the next page. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Somehow, the slides 

13 got inverted. Do you see it? 

14 MR. OSANN: Yes. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

16 MR. Von WENTZEL: Okay. So, this 

17 brings us to the number one -- the first 

18 issue, I should say, not the number one issue 

19 per se, which is with regard to equipment 

20 classes. DOE invites comment on whether the 

21 method of loading clothes washers, and you can 

22 see all the further definitions there, whether 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 39

1 DOE, basically, should maintain two equipment 

2 classes or one. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: I would note that 

4 we're talking about slide 16 here, and it's 

5 kind of -- it's counter intuitive that we need 

6 to move up to move to the next slide, but 

7 please do find the comment question there, so 

8 that you can respond. Debra. 

9 MS. BRUNK: Debra Brunk from AHAM. 

10 As I noted earlier, I wanted to make some 

11 comments on the two product classes for 

12 commercial clothes washers. As I noted 

13 earlier, AHAM supports two product classes for 

14 this product. EPACT allows DOE to establish 

15 different product classes, and that has been 

16 noted in this SNOPR, as well as the NOPR. 

17 Something else that isn't talked 

18 about very much is that the law directs DOE to 

19 create "certain categories, classes of 

20 products, depending upon their energy use or 

21 performance characteristics." 

22 We did a lot of analysis for the -

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 40

1 - I think it was the ANOPR piece of this 

2 rulemaking, and noted that top and front 

3 loading commercial clothes washer 

4 efficiencies, there's a clear distinction. 

5 That's a bimodal distribution between these 

6 two product classes, and, therefore, we 

7 believe that that is a distinction between the 

8 energy use of these two types of products. 

9 Another concern that we have that 

10 we believe supports the two product class 

11 approach is, you take a look at, again, this 

12 bimodal distribution, or the MEF and water 

13 factor proposed by DOE for the front load 

14 product class. This is beyond the capability 

15 of a traditional, or even a non-traditional 

16 top load style washer. And our concern is 

17 that if DOE moves forward with a single 

18 product class, you kind of end up with a lose19 lose situation. You end up with a product 

20 class that a top load style product could not 

21 meet, but you end up with a MEF and water 

22 factor that is pretty easy to achieve with the 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 41

1 front load style. So, on one end, your -- it 

2 just doesn't make a lot of sense, which is why 

3 we believe that the two product classes is the 

4 best way to go. 

5 In this way, you continue to 

6 conserve energy and water with the front load 

7 units. And you are also conserving water with 

8 the top load units, energy and water, with the 

9 top load units, albeit at a different level, 

10 or on a different basis. 

11 So, again, those are our points to 

12 support the two product classes that DOE has 

13 proposed for commercial clothes washers. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Tim 

15 Ballo. 

16 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo with 

17 Earthjustice. Just briefly, to AHAM's point 

18 that a distinction in energy use between two 

19 products would justify a separate product 

20 class, that seems sort of at odds with what 

21 the entire EPCA program is designed to do 

22 here. Whenever two examples of a product use 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 42

1 different amounts of energy, the whole idea is 

2 that a standard would weed out the ones that 

3 use too much energy. 

4 I think what that's getting at is 

5 in 6295, I think it's P, rather Q(1)(a), 

6 products that consume a different kind of 

7 energy, the Department is empowered to adopt a 

8 distinct product class for such products. 

9 That would be a situation where say some 

10 washers used natural gas instead of 

11 electricity to power the motor that spins the 

12 agitator, I guess. That's clearly not the 

13 situation here. 

14 The Department has been concerned 

15 all along with 6295-04, which is a mandatory 

16 provision, providing that DOE cannot set a 

17 single standard if that single standard would 

18 eliminate certain features from the market 

19 that are substantially different than the 

20 features that exist in that market presently. 

21 We believe that we've already made 

22 the case that top loading and front loading, 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 43

1 method of loading is not a feature, that even 

2 if the Department could somehow determine that 

3 it is a feature, that top loading was a 

4 feature, that front leading is substantially 

5 the same as top loading, as the statute, the 

6 plain language says, and that even leaving 

7 those issues aside, a strong standard would 

8 not eliminate top loading washers from the 

9 market. 

10 And, again, this is where the CEC 

11 case is very much on point, because the court 

12 determined that DOE can't look at just the 

13 market today. It has to look at what the 

14 market would be when the standard takes 

15 effect. In this case, I think that's 2012. 

16 DOE would have to find by preponderance of the 

17 evidence that the strong standard would 

18 eliminate top loaders from the market in 2012. 

19 We believe that's not the case that that that 

20 would happen as the existence of very 

21 efficient top loading washers in the 

22 residential market shows. 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 44

1 As to the last issue on whether 

2 the equipment classes should be the same 

3 between commercial clothes washers, and 

4 residential clothes washers, we don't see the 

5 need for DOE to decide that issue in this 

6 rulemaking. We think there is some 

7 differences between these two markets, and 

8 regardless of whatever the Department does 

9 here, it should reconsider that issue in the 

10 residential clothes washer rulemaking. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Kelley. 

12 MS. KLINE: Hi, Kelley Kline from 

13 GE. We just wanted to really reiterate, and 

14 we agree with AHAM's comments on the 

15 importance of DOE maintaining the two, or 

16 having the two separate product classes. We 

17 think DOE has the ability to do that, given 

18 the important differences between the 

19 products. 

20 In addition to what Debra 

21 outlined, we would just note that we think 

22 consumer preference is a big question, and 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 45

1 real preference issues with top loads versus 

2 front loads, in addition to cycle time, and 

3 cost to consumers, we think are all very 

4 important differentiators, which counsel in 

5 favor of maintaining the two different product 

6 classes. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

8 Yes, please, Luke. 

9 MR. HARMS: Luke Harms. I would 

10 just reiterate what both AHAM and GE just 

11 indicated. And also add that, in addition to 

12 the impact on the consumer, there is also an 

13 impact on the route operators, the multi14 housing complexes, in which most of them have 

15 specialized in one product class, front load, 

16 or top load, so there's a major reinvestment 

17 required for those companies who have invested 

18 in one platform versus the other, with 

19 technical training, and also with parts 

20 inventories and those sorts of things. So, 

21 there's a major interest in maintaining two 

22 product classes. 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 46

1 In addition, there's also -- it's 

2 also consistent with energy standards for 

3 refrigeration, which has separate classes for 

4 side-by-side, top freezer, and bottom freezer. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

6 Let me go to Ed, and then I'll come back. 

7 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann, ASAP. I'd 

8 just point out with regard to the route 

9 operators, there's a single product class now. 

10 They're operating in a one product class 

11 environment today, and managing the issues 

12 that you identified. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Phil. 

14 MR. MANTHEI: Phil Manthei, 

15 Alliance Laundry Systems. We delivered to the 

16 Department the same comments that we made at 

17 the residential clothes washer hearing or 

18 framework meeting in September, and, 

19 basically, we support, of course, the two 

20 classes. The points that we point out here, 

21 of course, are that EPCA allows for that. 

22 Basically, the top loading door design has 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 47

1 allowed consumers to choose the lowest cost 

2 design between the two classes. Basically, 

3 it's impossible to put a front loading door on 

4 a vertical axis clothes washer, which I know 

5 we keep dancing around the issue, but when 

6 we're talking about top loading, we're really 

7 talking about vertical axis, we're talking 

8 about horizontal axis with front loading. So, 

9 they're really the two design concepts. 

10 In my comments here, when you 

11 start looking at the cost difference between 

12 top loading and front loading door, the top 

13 loading is pretty easy. You've got a piece of 

14 sheet metal, and you've got some very simple 

15 hinges, and that's it. On a front loading 

16 door, it gets much more complicated. There's 

17 glass that's very costly. It has to be 

18 treated to withstand the temperature, and 

19 impact resistance, very sophisticated lock 

20 system to keep the door locked, very big hinge 

21 system because people have a tendency to want 

22 to jar the door, and abuse it, especially in a 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 48

1 commercial environment. And then we have the 

2 issue of the ability to stoop down for people 

3 to get the clothes out of the washer, and so 

4 what has developed is manufacturers have 

5 developed pedestals to put the clothes washers 

6 on. In the retail market, these pedestals 

7 sell from $199 to $250. If you look at the 

8 retail price, at Best Buy it's $250. If you 

9 add that on to the cost difference between a 

10 top load and a front load, there's at least 

11 $500 difference. Top loading is undeniably a 

12 feature for consumers because of its low cost. 

13 Convenience is another feature 

14 inherent to the top loading. We talked about 

15 the ability to stoop down versus not having to 

16 stoop down. Certainly, top loading washers 

17 are more convenient than front loading 

18 washers. In fact, the front loading washer, 

19 most of them are locked during the cycle. 

20 Therefore, if you interrupt the cycle to add a 

21 forgotten garment it has to drain the water 

22 out, and allow the lock to open. It's just 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 49

1 not as convenient. 

2 The other thing is, if you look at 

3 the latest additional of Consumers Report, I 

4 guess it was the February 2009 edition, and 

5 really read it, the biggest thing that they 

6 talked about with front loaders is, the front 

7 loader cycle times are getting longer. Many 

8 take more than 90 minutes per load. If you 

9 look at the top loading clothes washers, the 

10 cycle times are generally 30 to 85 minutes. 

11 It's very apparent that a top loading door 

12 location is associated with providing 

13 consumers with your expected good washing 

14 performance, and a convenient washing cycle 

15 time of around 55 minutes, instead of 115 

16 minutes. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Tim. 

18 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, 

19 Earthjustice. Just very quickly to respond to 

20 something that Whirlpool mentioned. The 

21 separation in EPCA of refrigerators by method 

22 of access, side-by-side versus top and bottom 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 50

1 doors was codified by Congress as two distinct 

2 standards, Congressionally enacted standards. 

3 And, in fact, Congress actually enacted a 

4 single standard for all commercial clothes 

5 washers, so I don't think that what Congress 

6 chose to do for refrigerators, that it speaks 

7 to all issues that DOE is confronting today. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. We've 

9 got a lot of response on these issues. Any 

10 additional comments before we move on? 

11 MS. TIPPETT: I have one. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Please use 

13 the microphone and say your name. 

14 MS. TIPPETT: My name is Evette 

15 Tippett. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Would you say who 

17 you represent? 

18 MS. TIPPETT: I'm from Entiepell 

19 Enterprise. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

21 MS. TIPPETT: Okay. You're 

22 welcome. And I was just -- have a question 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 51

1 about are you looking to the future with 

2 washing machines with the possibility of them 

3 being operated by solar energy? 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

5 MS. TIPPETT: And how would that 

6 affect - 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Let me see if 

8 anybody wishes to comment on that. Constantin, 

9 can you? 

10 MR. Von WENTZEL: We based the 

11 current analysis on clothes washers that are 

12 currently available in the market. As to 

13 solar powered clothes washers, I'm not sure 

14 that would be a covered product, because the 

15 energy source would not be our traditional 

16 energy source, but I think we'd have to leave 

17 that to General Counsel for clarification. 

18 Sorry. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Do you want to try 

20 that now, or do you want to - 

21 MS. KOHL: Sure. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Please say your 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 52

1 name, Betsy. 

2 MS. KOHL: Hi, this is Betsy Kohl 

3 with DOE General Counsel's office. Part of 

4 the problem is the definitions in the statute, 

5 when they talk us setting energy efficiency 

6 standards, is for energy sources like oil, and 

7 natural gas, and not solar. So, there 

8 wouldn't really be any statutory authority for 

9 us to look at making solar products more 

10 efficient. 

11 MS. TIPPETT: Does that mean if 

12 you have a - 

13 COURT REPORTER: You have to come 

14 to the microphone if you want to be on the 

15 record. 

16 MS. TIPPETT: Does that mean that 

17 if there is a washing machine that is produced 

18 for solar, then it wouldn't be under any kind 

19 of statutory regulations or anything? 

20 MS. KOHL: Correct. Yes. 

21 MS. TIPPETT: So, it would just --

22 are you considering regulating that, though, 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 53

1 finding a standard for it? 

2 MS. KOHL: No. For the reasons 

3 that I mentioned, we don't have the statutory 

4 authority to regular a solar product, and try 

5 and make it more efficient, which is the 

6 purpose of EPCA. 

7 MS. TIPPETT: Okay. Thank you. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. So, 

9 final comments on this cluster of issues 

10 before we move on. Yes, Ed. 

11 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann. Some of the 

12 speakers have -- manufacturers have supported 

13 the two product class distinction as a 

14 workable approach to commercial clothes 

15 washers, but the analysis indicates that the 

16 standard proposed for front loaders is already 

17 met by almost 97 percent of the front loaders 

18 on the market. Seldom, if ever, has DOE 

19 proposed a standard that has such low impact 

20 on the marketplace, and that suggests that 

21 there are some difficulties in going forward 

22 with two product classes here, and attempting 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 54

1 to achieve substantial savings in the front 

2 loader part of the market. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Phil. 

4 MR. MANTHEI: I think -- this is 

5 Phil Manthei, Alliance Laundry Systems. I 

6 think that it's indicative of the fact that 

7 we've reached the end of the line. You have 

8 to have water, and you have to have energy to 

9 clean clothes. And we're at the end of the 

10 line. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: You've gone as far 

12 as you can go. 

13 MR. MANTHEI: We have. The 

14 product is now -- it's not going to be able to 

15 wash clothes. That's the point. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. 

17 Then, I'm going to queue Constantin. Let's 

18 keep going. 

19 MR. Von WENTZEL: Okay. Looking 

20 at the efficiency levels, and, in particular, 

21 at the max-tech top loading efficiency level, 

22 the max-tech efficiency level for top loading 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 55

1 commercial clothes washers was taken from the 

2 California Energy Commission website, or I 

3 should say the database on that website. And 

4 for the NOPR, DOE proposed setting a standard 

5 at that max-tech efficiency level for top 

6 loading clothes washers, commercial clothes 

7 washers. 

8 At the NOPR meeting, Alliance 

9 Laundry Systems stated that it had purchased 

10 such a max-tech clothes washer, and that this 

11 clothes washer had not achieved the stated 

12 efficiency standards. And Alliance also 

13 mentioned a number of inconsistencies 

14 regarding the labeling of that unit. 

15 As a result, DOE tested a sample 

16 of three clothes washers of the same model 

17 type in independent laboratory, and the tested 

18 efficiency did not match the stated or the 

19 rated efficiency of the clothes washer, so 

20 this sample of three clothes washers achieved 

21 a 1.63 MEF, versus a 1.76 MEF, and 8.4 water 

22 factor versus 8.3 water factor. 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 56

1 Even though the max-tech energy 

2 efficiency levels had to be revised, this 

3 model is still the max-tech model on the 

4 market, even with this downward revision. So, 

5 for the SNOPR, DOE has revised the max-tech 

6 efficiency level for top loading clothes 

7 washers, and the revised level represents what 

8 DOE believes the max-tech clothes washer can 

9 actually achieve, given the tolerances and 

10 repeatability of the test procedure. And that 

11 new max-tech efficiency level is the same as 

12 the next efficiency level down from the NOPR 

13 max-tech energy efficiency level, so that 

14 would be 1.6 and 8.5 water factor. 

15 That brings us to the revised 

16 efficiency level chart. As you can see, we've 

17 got four TSLs here, or, excuse me, four 

18 efficiency levels here, and the revised max19 tech energy efficiency level for top loaders 

20 is at efficiency level 2. And we now invite 

21 comments on these revised energy efficiency 

22 levels. 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 57

1 MR. BROOKMAN: And we're referring 

2 to slide 18 here. Yes, Lance. 

3 MR. DeLAURA: This is Lance 

4 DeLaura with Southern Utilities. I guess my 

5 question, given all the discussion that we've 

6 had so far is, at this revised level, can 

7 manufacturers comply with this revised 

8 standard? 

9 MR. MANTHEI: I think our opening 

10 comments - 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Phil Manthei. 

12 MR. MANTHEI: Phil Manthei, 

13 Alliance Laundry Systems. I think our opening 

14 comments suffice. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Any 

16 other comments here? Tom. 

17 MR. ECKMAN: Tom Eckman. Since 

18 the testing revealed that the max-tech level 

19 didn't satisfy what the advertised MEF and 

20 water factor were for that particular machine, 

21 has DOE entertained testing on both the H-axis 

22 and V-axis other levels to see whether, 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 58

1 particularly towards the top end, we're 

2 actually getting the performance, as 

3 advertised? 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Constantin, you 

5 want to go to Kelley next with -- Kelley, go 

6 ahead. 

7 MS. KLINE: Kelley Kline with GE. 

8 I just wanted to note there, that was GE max9 tech model that was referenced. We've asked 

10 DOE for some further information on their 

11 testing. We want to explore that further, 

12 because that data doesn't agree with our own. 

13 So, we are looking into the testing results, 

14 and, obviously, we'll correct any issues, if 

15 we find them on our end. But we want to 

16 explore that further in terms of what may be 

17 some differences in the test methodology, or 

18 things like that. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Or interpretation, 

20 or something. 

21 MS. KLINE: Yes. Thank you. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Can you 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 59

1 respond to -- Ron Lewis. 

2 MR. LEWIS: In this SNOPR, we 

3 considered the information that we collected 

4 at the NOPR stage where there is question of 

5 data, and we tested that, but we have no plans 

6 of doing further testing on this right now. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Ron, since you have 

8 the microphone there, Tom is asking about the 

9 H-axis. 

10 MR. ECKMAN: Have those been 

11 tested? 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 

13 MR. LEWIS: I think the rulemaking 

14 right now includes everything that we intend 

15 to include in it, but we've gathered more 

16 information now. But with anything we've 

17 collected, and the testing that's been done to 

18 date, and the engineering analysis that was 

19 done originally, I believe that we're moving 

20 forward with what we have. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: So, you see, once 

22 again, referring to slide 18, the revised 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 60

1 efficiency levels, and DOE might even comment 

2 on what's here on the page. No additional 

3 comment. Okay. 

4 MR. Von WENTZEL: Shall I move on? 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 

6 MR. Von WENTZEL: Okay. So, DOE 

7 looked at the technological feasibility of the 

8 max-tech top loader commercial clothes washer. 

9 DOE noted that it is currently only marketed 

10 to on-premise laundry facilities. It is based 

11 on a residential vertical axis clothes washer 

12 platform that has a traditional agitator in 

13 it. It's got four manually set water levels, 

14 and most commercial clothes washers have three 

15 or less. It has five wash programs, most 

16 commercial clothes washers have fewer than 

17 that. And it had, in our testing, relatively 

18 low wash water temperatures, and it achieved 

19 those, apparently, through some feedback, so 

20 those were very consistent. Had use of spray 

21 one system, and DOE was not able to observe 

22 any proprietary technologies in that platform. 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 61

1 The market acceptance of this particular 

2 model is -- which depends on wash performance 

3 is still unknown. And suitability for non4 institutional use, i.e., laundry mats, is also 

5 unknown. And DOE received some comments that 

6 front loading commercial clothes washers with 

7 electric heaters used in some part of the 

8 northern United States or Canada would perhaps 

9 not be able to meet the proposed front loading 

10 standards. 

11 So, DOE invites comments on the 

12 technological feasibility of the proposed max13 tech top loading commercial clothes washer, as 

14 well as wash and rinse performance 

15 measurements for commercial clothes washers 

16 and population data for water heating 

17 commercial clothes washers. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed Osann. 

19 MR. OSANN: Yes. I'd like to ask 

20 why a product that is not marketed to, and not 

21 present in either of the two principal 

22 segments of the commercial -- of the market 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 62

1 for covered commercial clothes washers, that 

2 is, laundromats and multi-housing laundry 

3 rooms, why this is a suitable platform for 

4 consideration in the CCW proceeding, and 

5 products that have a growing round of market 

6 acceptance and operating experience in the 

7 residential market are not suitable platforms 

8 for consideration in this analysis? 

9 On-premise laundry is a market 

10 area, and a pattern of usage that is distinct 

11 from laundromats and multi-family laundry 

12 rooms. So, if we can go to a different venue 

13 to look at a platform that's present in that 

14 market, and its operating characteristics, why 

15 can't we go to the residential market and look 

16 at products that are available there, and 

17 their operating characteristics? I think that 

18 DOE is not confining itself, clearly not 

19 confining itself to products that are present 

20 in the laundromat and multi-housing market 

21 segments of covered products today. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Lance. 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 63

1 MR. DeLAURA: Could I just add on 

2 to that? I think the other piece that's 

3 missing is, when these products are assessed, 

4 and the comment is made that it's unclear, 

5 maybe they will be durable, or whether they'll 

6 have the longevity for commercial use, it 

7 seems like DOE would want to test for that, 

8 not just for the efficiency, but test for the 

9 durability. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Can someone 

11 respond to Ed's question? 

12 MR. Von WENTZEL: Constantin von 

13 Wentzel here. I believe there is --

14 manufacturers in their literature do not 

15 appear to make as much -- I guess, as much of 

16 a distinction between institutional versus 

17 multi-family home, versus laundromat 

18 applications for their clothes washers that 

19 would indicate clearly that a clothes washer 

20 is only good for institutional use. Do you 

21 see my distinction? I don't see - 

22 MR. OSANN: No, I'm not following 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 64

1 it. 

2 MR. WITKOWSKI: I am not aware of 

3 where DOE has received this different -- any 

4 comments concerning this differentiator 

5 before. So, in that respect, I think we would 

6 have to look at it as speculative, until we 

7 receive more than just an opinion. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Stephen. 

9 MR. OSANN: If I could follow-up? 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's let -- okay, 

11 go ahead, Ed. Yes. 

12 MR. OSANN: As was noted by Lance, 

13 the question of the distinctive nature of the 

14 commercial clothes washer market has always 

15 been presented to stakeholders as 

16 characterized by the need for durability, and 

17 resistance to the potential for overloading 

18 and misuse. If you think about the two 

19 sectors of the commercial -- of the market for 

20 covered products, being laundromats and multi21 housing laundry rooms, in both cases, those 

22 are operated by -- the machine is being loaded 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 65

1 and used by the general public, or residents, 

2 or whatever. 

3 In the case of on-premise laundry 

4 facilities, the machine is being loaded and 

5 used by employees, by employees with 

6 supervisors. So, there's a big, big 

7 difference to be drawn there. And my point is 

8 that if you can go outside of the laundromat 

9 multi-housing portions of the commercial 

10 clothes washer market to look for examples of 

11 platforms to evaluate for their suitability 

12 for use as covered products, then you're 

13 overlooking the elephant in the middle of the 

14 room if you're not also looking at residential 

15 products that have characteristics that are 

16 worth evaluating, and have operating 

17 experience, and production experience. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

19 MR. Von WENTZEL: My only response 

20 would be that every manufacturer we spoke to 

21 that evaluated the use of non-traditional 

22 vertical axis clothes washers in a commercial 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 66

1 setting indicated that the primary reason that 

2 these units had not been marketed and were not 

3 being planned on being marketed was their lack 

4 of tolerance for overloading, which, 

5 apparently, is very common in a commercial 

6 clothes washer application. So, that's why 

7 these kinds of residential technologies were -

8 - are not currently found in the commercial 

9 clothes washer market, and as best as we can 

10 tell, will not be found in the commercial 

11 clothes washer market for the foreseeable 

12 future. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional 

14 questions or comments? Yes, Tom. 

15 MR. ECKMAN: I'd like some 

16 clarification on the bottom line comment 

17 there, where some of the proposed commercial 

18 clothes washers with electric water heat 

19 wouldn't comply. Can you expand on why that 

20 is? 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Maybe you can 

22 explain what that is, first, Constantin. 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 67

1 MR. Von WENTZEL: Sure. 

2 MR. ECKMAN: Are those 

3 supplemental heaters in the water, in the 

4 clothes washer? 

5 MR. Von WENTZEL: That's correct. 

6 I'll start a little bit, and then I'll let 

7 Phil continue, because he's a much better 

8 expert on this than I, because his company 

9 actually makes that clothes washer. 

10 It's my understanding that in some 

11 areas of the United States, and Canada, the 

12 ground water temperatures are so low that by 

13 the time you get the water into the clothes 

14 washer, the line having run through the 

15 foundation, or whatnot, the water simply isn't 

16 up to temperature to get an acceptable wash 

17 performance. And, therefore, some of these 

18 front loading commercial clothes washers are 

19 available with cal rods that heat up the water 

20 to whatever the desired end temperature is. 

21 But I'll let Phil continue, because, as I 

22 said, he's the expert. 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 68

1 MR. MANTHEI: Phil Manthei, 

2 Alliance Laundry. Yes, we make a front loader 

3 with a heater. Basically, the heater adds 

4 additional energy compared to if you test it 

5 without a heater. So, it's an adder, so it's 

6 going to use more energy. Basically, what 

7 happens, of course, in the front loader, 

8 especially these as we get down to the water 

9 factor of so low, the amount of water that 

10 comes in is six, seven gallons. You know, the 

11 first three gallons may be at 50, 60 degrees. 

12 It's not going to -- when you select hot. 

13 It's not going to be 135 or 120, or even 100. 

14 So, now when you dump that into a tub, 

15 especially most of the manufacturers have 

16 stainless steel tubs, now the heat goes into 

17 the steel. You've got clothes in there. The 

18 clothes absorb some of the heat, and then as 

19 you're tumbling, it's going to continue to 

20 absorb into the product. I mean, people that 

21 are thinking of getting hot water, they're not 

22 washing in hot water. So, in climates where 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 69

1 our company exists, we live, when it's 20 

2 below zero, that water that's coming into your 

3 clothes washer is very, very cold, the first 

4 couple of gallons. And when you're talking 

5 about product that only uses six or seven 

6 gallons to fill on your wash, you've got to 

7 have a heater. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Tom. 

9 MR. ECKMAN: Can I follow-up on 

10 that? It seems to me we have a different 

11 condition there than the test procedures. 

12 MR. MANTHEI: No, the test 

13 procedure accounts for this. 

14 MR. ECKMAN: It accounts for inlet 

15 water temperature? 

16 MR. MANTHEI: It accounts for 

17 heating electrically. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: As an additional 

19 aspect of the - 

20 MR. MANTHEI: Yes. The test 

21 procedure allows testing and recording all of 

22 the energy, the hot water heating energy, and 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 70

1 all of the machine electrical energy, so the 

2 electrical energy is accounted for and the 

3 heater when you record the machine energy. 

4 MR. ECKMAN: The question I am --

5 well, I guess I'm asking DOE, in the standard 

6 test procedure, is there minimum inlet water 

7 temperature that's used? 

8 MR. MANTHEI: Yes. 

9 MR. ECKMAN: And what is that 

10 temperature? 

11 MR. MANTHEI: It is 60 degrees, 

12 plus or minus, I believe 5, for - 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: That's Phil 

14 speaking. 

15 MR. MANTHEI: I'm sorry. Phil 

16 Manthei. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: That's okay. 

18 MR. ECKMAN: So, it's not 35 

19 degrees, or 40 degrees, it's 60. 

20 MR. MANTHEI: No. Correct. So 

21 the issue is, we are designing it for use by 

22 people that actually have those other 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 71

1 conditions. 

2 MR. ECKMAN: I understand that. 

3 I'm just saying for the test procedure, which 

4 would qualify the machine for compliance with 

5 the standard, you're using 60 degree water. 

6 MR. MANTHEI: Right. Being heated 

7 75 degree, to 135 is where we control the 

8 thermostat on the heater. 

9 MR. ECKMAN: Right. So, that 

10 activation would be based on a 60 degree inlet 

11 water temperature. 

12 MR. MANTHEI: Correct. 

13 MR. ECKMAN: For the test 

14 procedure, and for the rating requirements. 

15 MR. MANTHEI: Correct. 

16 MR. ECKMAN: So, I don't see how 

17 it would not comply at 60. If it complies at 

18 60, the fact that it has to activate the cal 

19 rod at 40 is an application separate from the 

20 test procedure. 

21 MR. MANTHEI: You have to - 

22 MR. ECKMAN: I understand, but the 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 72

1 testing and rating starts at 60 degrees. In 

2 the application, they may get 40 degree water, 

3 but that would not affect the rating of the 

4 machine. It would affect the consumption on 

5 that site. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: In a testing 

7 laboratory. 

8 MR. ECKMAN: But not in - 

9 MR. MANTHEI: Comparing a machine 

10 without a heater to one with a heater, you 

11 have to test the cycle that uses the most 

12 energy. You have to activate the heater 

13 cycle. 

14 MR. ECKMAN: With an inlet water 

15 temperature of 60. 

16 MR. MANTHEI: Yes. And it will 

17 use more energy than a machine that does not 

18 have a heater. 

19 MR. ECKMAN: Not arguing that. 

20 MR. MANTHEI: Oh, I thought you 

21 were. 

22 MR. ECKMAN: No. 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 73

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks, 

2 Phil. That's helpful, that practical 

3 experience. So, we're still looking for 

4 additional comments on the features listed in 

5 19, and particularly, you can see that the 

6 Department is quite specific in the way 

7 they've laid this out. So, any additional 

8 specificity, I think would be helpful. 

9 Okay. No additional comments. 

10 Then we're going to move on. Okay. Thank 

11 you, Constantin. Gregory Rosenquist. 

12 MR. ROSENQUIST: Good morning, 

13 everyone. I'm here to talk about the Life14 Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses that 

15 were conducted for the Supplemental NOPR. 

16 For the most part, the methods and 

17 inputs that were used were, basically, the 

18 same as what was used for the NOPR. So, what 

19 I'll be doing here is, basically, reviewing 

20 all those methods and pointing out when data 

21 was updated. 

22 The Life-Cycle cost and Payback 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 74

1 Period Analysis is actually composed of three 

2 parts, the energy and water use 

3 characterization, markups for determining 

4 equipment prices, and the life-cycle cost and 

5 payback period analysis, itself. 

6 On the energy and water use 

7 characterization analysis, its purpose is to 

8 develop the energy, and water savings you get 

9 from these various standard levels. Those, in 

10 turn, are coupled with energy and water 

11 prices, so it gives you energy and water costs 

12 savings due to these various standard levels. 

13 The purpose of the markups 

14 analysis is to first determine how the 

15 equipment is distributed from the manufacturer 

16 to the end user, and then to determine how to 

17 markup those manufacturing costs from the 

18 engineering analysis into consumer equipment 

19 prices. And the life-cycle cost and payback 

20 period analysis, it's designed to determine 

21 the LCC savings and payback periods from the 

22 standard levels that are analyzed. 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 75

1 The approach used for the energy 

2 and water use characterization is based on 

3 taking per cycle energy and water use values 

4 at the baseline of various standard levels, 

5 and multiplying them by the usage of the 

6 product. DOE confined its approach to only 

7 two product applications, multi-family and 

8 laundromats. Based upon data from the 

9 Consortium for Energy Efficiency, this is the 

10 overwhelming -- the overwhelming majority of 

11 commercial clothes washers are in these two 

12 applications. 

13 DOE reviewed various studies and 

14 determined a wide range of usage patterns. 

15 For the purpose of multi-family, that range 

16 was from 1 to 10.9 cycles per day, with an 

17 average of 3.4 cycles per day. That 

18 translates roughly into around 1,200 cycles 

19 per year. For laundromats, the range is from 

20 3 to 8 cycles per day, with an average of 6 

21 cycles per day, which is roughly around 2,100 

22 cycles per year. 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 76

1 As I mentioned before, the purpose 

2 of the markups analysis is to figure out how 

3 the equipment is actually distributed from the 

4 manufacturer to the end user. DOE, again, 

5 focused on two product applications, 

6 laundromats and multi-family housing. That's 

7 because data from, again, the Consortium for 

8 Energy Efficiency indicated that the 

9 overwhelming majority of washers were sold to 

10 these two applications. 

11 For the market going to 

12 laundromats, you have a manufacturer selling 

13 to a distributor, who in turn sells to a 

14 laundromat. For multi-family housing, you 

15 have a manufacturer selling to a route 

16 operator, who leases the equipment to the 

17 multi-family property owner. 

18 DOE, for purposes of determining 

19 equipment prices, based the equipment prices 

20 only on the distribution chain that involved 

21 distributors and laundromats. The assumption 

22 is that the prices coming out of that analysis 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 77

1 were representative of the prices that you 

2 would get from a route operator in multi3 family housing situation. 

4 DOE determined overall baseline 

5 markup of 1.93, that is for baseline washer 

6 use, that markup to convert it from a 

7 manufacturing cost into a consumer equipment 

8 price. And for incremental changes in the 

9 manufacturing cost due to a standard, DOE used 

10 a 1.59 markup to convert that into incremental 

11 change in a consumer equipment price. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed Osann. 

13 MR. OSANN: Question. Was this 

14 characterization of the market based entirely 

15 on the CE's study from the `90s? Is there any 

16 indication in the market today that any -- the 

17 manufacturers are making direct sales to large 

18 routes, or sophisticated property management 

19 firms that might be able to manage their own 

20 equipment? 

21 MR. ROSENQUIST: We had this out 

22 for comment at the NOPR stage, and didn't 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 78

1 receive any additional data indicating that. 

2 MR. OSANN: Okay. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: You think there may 

4 be a class of consumers here that would not be 

5 represented in these channels. 

6 MR. OSANN: Right. Potentially --

7 yes. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 

9 MR. OSANN: Large direct 

10 purchasers. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Do you wish to 

12 comment? 

13 MS. TIPPETT: Yes. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Please use the 

15 microphone. Say your name again. 

16 MS. TIPPETT: Evette Tippett. I 

17 was asking the gentleman to repeat the 

18 question, the statement that he had just made 

19 about the property management, and the leasing 

20 of the machines. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Do you want 

22 to repeat that? 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 79

1 MR. OSANN: My initial question 

2 was to the DOE consultant about whether --

3 about the origin of the -- where the diagram 

4 of the distribution channels came from, 

5 whether it was based upon a 10-year old study 

6 by the Consortium for Energy Efficiency, or 

7 some other source. And the answer was that it 

8 came from the study from the Consortium for 

9 Energy Efficiency. And my follow-up question 

10 was whether DOE has discerned -- run across 

11 any information since then that there may be 

12 direct sales by manufacturers to large 

13 property owners, or managers directly, not 

14 through a distributor, or through a route 

15 operator. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Tom Eckman. 

17 MR. ECKMAN: Tom Eckman. Looking 

18 ahead on slide 35, which says the shipments, 

19 it seems to be zero amount of fluctuation over 

20 periods of time, looking like there are cycles 

21 of replacements. Do you know whether the CE 

22 data was taking sort of a longitudinal look at 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 80

1 what that mix between route operators and 

2 distributors were, whether that was a point in 

3 time? 

4 MR. ROSENQUIST: It was, 

5 basically, a point in time. That study was, 

6 as Ed pointed out, was conducted in 1998, so 

7 it was representative of the market at that 

8 time. 

9 MR. ECKMAN: For that year? 

10 MR. ROSENQUIST: For that time, 

11 yes. For that year. 

12 MR. ECKMAN: Well - 

13 MR. ROSENQUIST: The prior two 

14 years to 1998 - 

15 MR. ECKMAN: Prior two years. 

16 MR. ROSENQUIST: -- when that 

17 report was released. 

18 MR. ECKMAN: Because there's a 

19 fair amount of differential in sales. It seems 

20 to me longitudinal data may be more 

21 respective. It's hard to know whether that 

22 reveals anything or not, but there's clearly a 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 81

1 sale cycle going on there that's fairly 

2 significant year to year. I don't know 

3 whether that's economics, or whether it's 

4 replacement of machines that got all - 

5 MR. ROSENQUIST: It's basically --

6 when you see that cycle like that, it's due 

7 to replacement of machines. 

8 MR. ECKMAN: Yes, but is it -- if 

9 you're looking at two years, is it -- who's 

10 replacing the machines? Is it multi-family or 

11 route operators, or what? 

12 MR. ROSENQUIST: Right. The 

13 distinction between route operators and 

14 laundromats wasn't made in the shipments 

15 analysis. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: So, we can delve --

17 we can go deeper into this when we get to 

18 that slide, but I want you to keep pressing on 

19 with your presentation, Greg. 

20 MR. ROSENQUIST: Okay. This slide 

21 talks about the approach that was used to 

22 conduct the life-cycle cost and payback period 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 82

1 analysis. Again, the purpose of the analysis 

2 is to determine the impacts to consumers, so 

3 the analysis is done from that perspective. 

4 The life-cycle cost is the 

5 combination of the first cost, that is the 

6 total install cost, plus the lifetime 

7 operating expenses, future lifetime operating 

8 costs are discounted to the present year using 

9 a discount rate. 

10 The analysis is implemented in a 

11 Excel spreadsheet for transparency purposes, 

12 and then an add-in called Crystal Ball is used 

13 to be able to do a Monte Carlo simulation. 

14 What we do there is characterize many of the 

15 inputs to the analysis with probability 

16 distributions to capture the uncertainty and 

17 variability in those inputs. So, the analysis 

18 then, the Monte Carlo simulation approach, 

19 generates a distribution of life-cycle cost 

20 savings for each standard level, as well as 

21 the distribution of payback periods for each 

22 standard level. 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 83

1 So, there are many, many inputs 

2 that go into the life-cycle cost and payback 

3 period analysis, and this slide starts with 

4 the energy and water prices. For electricity 

5 prices, DOE captured regional variability at 

6 13 regions, the nine census divisions in four 

7 large states. DOE relied on information from 

8 the Energy Information Administration Form 861 

9 data that provides sales and revenue for 

10 electric utilities serving commercial 

11 customers. DOE derived an average electricity 

12 price for each utility by simply dividing the 

13 revenues by their sales. And then because the 

14 data also provides number of customers 

15 supplied by the utility, DOE could come up 

16 with a customer weighted average electricity 

17 price for each of the 13 regions. 

18 For natural gas prices, DOE again 

19 captured regional variability for the 13 

20 regions. Here, DOE used EIA's natural gas 

21 monthly which provides state level monthly gas 

22 prices, and DOE used population data to come 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 84

1 up with population weighted average gas prices 

2 for each of these 13 regions. Water and waste 

3 water prices were based upon data from 

4 Raftelis Consultants, and the American Water 

5 Works Association. They produce every three 

6 to four years water and waste water rate 

7 survey. This data doesn't include as many 

8 utilities as the EIA data, so the analysis was 

9 limited to only providing our regional 

10 variability at the four census region level. 

11 Future energy prices were 

12 forecasted with data from the 2009 Annual 

13 Energy Outlook, and, again, this is one point 

14 where there was an update from what was done 

15 for the NOPR. DOE used the most recently 

16 available Energy Outlook to forecast future 

17 energy prices. And water and waste water 

18 prices were forecasted based on historical 

19 data in the Consumer Price Index for National 

20 Water Prices, using that historical data from 

21 1970 to 2008, it forecasted a historical trend 

22 based upon a linear extrapolation. 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 85

1 Next are the installation costs. 

2 DOE used data from the RS Means Mechanical 

3 Cost Data Book to establish the installation 

4 cost of installing the commercial clothes 

5 washer at the site. This cost did not vary 

6 with the efficiency level of the clothes 

7 washer. DOE determined annualized repair and 

8 maintenance costs based upon a function that 

9 was equal to one-half the consumer equipment 

10 price, divided by the equipment lifetime, so 

11 repair and maintenance costs were a direct 

12 function of the equipment price. This 

13 algorithm was used by DOE in past standard 

14 rulemakings. 

15 Discount rates were used to, 

16 again, convert future operating cost expenses 

17 to a present value. DOE based the discount 

18 rates on the finance cost of purchasing 

19 commercial clothes washers. And DOE used a 

20 weighted average cost of capital technique to 

21 establish the debt and equity of firms that do 

22 purchase commercial clothes washers. The 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 86

1 weighted average value turned out to be a 5.7 

2 percent real. Equipment lifetimes were based 

3 upon various sources, primarily those from 

4 Appliance Magazine and past DOE technical 

5 support documents. The lifetime for multi6 family was longer than that for laundromats, 

7 simply because in multi-family settings, it's 

8 not used as frequently as in a laundromat. 

9 And DOE characterized lifetimes with rival 

10 distributions. 

11 The last input into the LCC and 

12 payback period analysis are the equipment 

13 cited in the base case, that was the case 

14 without standards. So, DOE wants to try to 

15 capture those consumers or end users who are 

16 already purchasing more efficient clothes 

17 washers than the baseline level in order to 

18 avoid overstating the benefits from a 

19 particular standard level. 

20 The data that was used was data 

21 from the California Energy Commission's 

22 database, the February 2009 version. And that 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 87

1 database only provides the number of models 

2 available, so this data, these percentages are 

3 represented by each efficiency level, and not 

4 based upon the actual shipments into the 

5 market. But, again, model availability. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: On the retail 

7 floor. Is that what it is? Pardon me, not 

8 retail. Yes, but available -- yes, okay. I'm 

9 with you. Okay. 

10 MR. ROSENQUIST: And this presents 

11 the average LCC savings versus installed cost 

12 only for the multi-family application. And, 

13 again, on the Y axis LCC savings, on the X 

14 axis is the installed cost. It shows how the 

15 efficiency levels impact both of those things 

16 for both top loaders, and front loaders. And 

17 you can see quickly here that there's only one 

18 efficiency level that actually results in 

19 increase in life-cycle costs. All the other 

20 efficiency levels for the other product 

21 classes, for all the product classes result in 

22 life-cycle cost savings. 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 88

1 So, at this point, I'll stop and 

2 see if there's any additional comments on 

3 anything I've gone over for the energy and 

4 water use characterization, the markups, or 

5 life-cycle costs and payback period analysis. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Lance. 

7 MR. DeLAURA: Mine is more of a 

8 customer satisfaction question. Looking at 

9 the chart, the equipment assignment in the 

10 base case, going back to one of the 

11 manufacturer's comments, it looks like the 

12 higher energy efficiency, the highest energy 

13 efficiency, the market share is quite low for 

14 top loaders. Is there any data on the 

15 satisfaction of customers that are using these 

16 high efficient machines? I heard the comment 

17 earlier that it wouldn't be possible to get 

18 the clothes clean, or you might not be getting 

19 the hot water in the clothes to get the 

20 desired effect. Do we know anything about 

21 that? 

22 MR. ROSENQUIST: I don't believe 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 89

1 DOE has collected specific data on that, with 

2 the exception of talking to manufacturers. I 

3 don't know if Constantin, you have any 

4 specific information on that? 

5 MR. Von WENTZEL: Constantin von 

6 Wentzel here. I believe one of the primary 

7 issues is that there is no standard precluding 

8 poor rinse performance in the United States, 

9 so, therefore, there's no way for DOE to 

10 assess cleaning performance for any clothes 

11 washer. And I don't believe that there is a 

12 single standard available on -- from any 

13 resource on the planet at this time. They're 

14 all proprietary. 

15 MR. DeLAURA: And that's the 

16 second part of my question. I'm assuming 

17 manufacturers probably would not share the 

18 information of customer satisfaction related 

19 to the various products at the efficiency 

20 level. That goes without saying. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Tom. 

22 MR. ECKMAN: In other rulemakings, 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 90

1 DOE has been able to get market share based on 

2 product sales, as opposed to just listings. 

3 Why was just the CE directory used here, 

4 instead of actual product sales? 

5 MR. ROSENQUIST: Again, because 

6 that data was not made available to the 

7 Department by the industry. 

8 MR. ECKMAN: Was a request made? 

9 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yes, the request 

10 was made. Yes. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: So, a lot of 

12 information here in these slides. Additional 

13 comments about what's here? Ed Osann. 

14 MR. OSANN: Just to follow-up on 

15 that. The last data on unit shipments that 

16 was received from AHAM was -- the last year 

17 was of actual unit shipments was 2006, or 

18 2005? 

19 MR. ROSENQUIST: I think it was 

20 2006, but I would have to double check on 

21 that. 

22 MR. OSANN: And a request was 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 91

1 made2 MR. ROSENQUIST: A request was 

3 made at the time we first started the 

4 rulemaking, which was back at that point, back 

5 at that time. And this rulemaking has been 

6 going on since 2006. 

7 MR. OSANN: Right. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Seems like 

9 now would be not a bad time to take a break. 

10 Let's take a short break. It's now by my 

11 watch 10:46, so let's resume at 11. 

12 (Whereupon, the proceedings went 

13 off the record at 10:48 a.m., and went back on 

14 the record at 11:06 a.m.) 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's begin. We're 

16 back with Greg. 

17 MR. ROSENQUIST: Okay. Returning 

18 to the floor diagram, next I'll be going over 

19 the national impact analysis, and again, what 

20 I'm doing is just a brief overview because 

21 really there really wasn't much changed for 

22 the SNOPR compared to the NOPR. So, again, 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 92

1 just a quick review of what was done in terms 

2 of the shipments analysis and the national 

3 impact analysis. 

4 The purpose of the national impact 

5 analysis is, one, to develop shipments 

6 forecasts for both the base case -- that's the 

7 case without standards -- and the standards 

8 case -- that's the cases where you have 

9 standards implemented. 

10 The national impact itself 

11 generates national energy savings resulting 

12 from these different standard levels, and also 

13 national economic impacts, and that's 

14 evaluated in terms of what's called the net 

15 present value, which I'll explain a little bit 

16 later. 

17 For the shipments analysis, the 

18 approach starts off with estimating shipments 

19 to the base case. Again, that's the case 

20 without standards, and shipments forecasts are 

21 conducted from the assume effective date of 

22 the standard, which is 2013, over a 30-year 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 93

1 time period out to 2043. 

2 The model accounts for shipments. 

3 The shipments model that we developed 

4 accounts for shipments to the new construction 

5 market and also accounts for replacements. 

6 DOE does a calibration for the 

7 shipments model by looking at historical 

8 shipments data. So the model produces 

9 historical forecasts, what I like to call back 

10 casts. Compare that to the historical 

11 shipments data and any discrepancies and 

12 allocate it to another market segment. 

13 And for the case of commercial 

14 clothes washers it's called non-replacements. 

15 What DOE found is that rental units are being 

16 converted to townhouses and condominiums, and 

17 so there's no longer that need for common area 

18 laundry facilities like there once was. So 

19 some of these commercial clothes washers that 

20 were once replaced are no longer being 

21 replaced. 

22 The substitute are actually 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 94

1 consumers buying washers for that unit that 

2 they are living in, residential washers. 

3 After the base case shipments are 

4 forecasted, then the standard case shipments 

5 are forecasted. It uses primarily the same 

6 data as for the base case shipments, with the 

7 exception that DOE takes into account the 

8 purchase price increase and the operating cost 

9 savings, and factor that into how it affects 

10 the base case shipments. 

11 To do that, DOE developed relative 

12 elasticity price of demand based upon 

13 historical price, product price, efficiency 

14 and shipments data for residential appliances. 

15 DOE relied on residential data because there 

16 were no specific data to commercial clothes 

17 washers. 

18 This elasticity was developed and 

19 shown to be that purchase prices have the most 

20 dominant effect on the impact to shipments. 

21 One thing DOE did not do for this 

22 analysis is develop a cross-price elasticity 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 95

1 of demand to study the interaction between the 

2 top loading and the front loading markets. 

3 One thing DOE did do as well in terms of 

4 developing a relative price elasticity demand 

5 is figure out how that price elasticity would 

6 change over time, and based upon the 

7 literature showing that for consumers of 

8 automobiles, they became less sensitive to 

9 that initial jump in purchase prices. Does 

10 had the price elasticity become more inelastic 

11 over time. 

12 For consumers that forego a 

13 purchase of a new washer, DOE assumed that 

14 that consumer would instead purchase a used 

15 washer, and in doing that, DOE again did not 

16 analyze the cross-price elasticity between the 

17 used clothes washer market and the new clothes 

18 washer market. 

19 So this leads us to the next issue 

20 for which DOE seeks public comment on, and 

21 that's how DOE conducted its standards case 

22 shipments forecast, and each of these four 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 96

1 items address what I just got done explaining 

2 in terms of how DOE developed its shipments' 

3 impacts for the standards. 

4 The first one pertains to the 

5 development of the relative price elasticity 

6 of demand, the issue here being that DOE used 

7 data from residential appliances and applied 

8 it to the commercial clothes washer market. 

9 So DOE is looking for comment on whether or 

10 not that's an appropriate thing to do. 

11 The second one has to do with the 

12 fact that DOE assumed that this elasticity 

13 became more inelastic over time, again, based 

14 upon consumer purchase decisions over 

15 automobiles. Again, DOE is looking at whether 

16 or not it's appropriate to have that 

17 elasticity become more inelastic over time. 

18 The third one has to do with the 

19 cross-price elasticity of demand. Again, DOE 

20 did not develop such a cross-price elasticity 

21 between the top loading and front loading 

22 market. So DOE could not analyze the 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 97

1 interactions between those two markets. 

2 For example, if the price for top 

3 loaders went up higher than front loaders, DOE 

4 explicitly an account for how that interaction 

5 may take place. 

6 And then finally, as I mentioned 

7 before, DOE assumed that consumers foregoing a 

8 clothes washer purchase would instead buy a 

9 used clothes washer, but in doing that, DOE 

10 did not develop a cross-price elasticity for 

11 the used market versus the new market. 

12 So at this point I'd just like to 

13 point out to folks to determine whether or not 

14 they have any input at this time on any of 

15 these issues. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Tom Eckman. 

17 MR. ECKMAN: Tom Eckman. 

18 Greg, did you look at the 

19 elasticity results of this and compare that 

20 with the results of the shipments model that 

21 was produced as part of the residential 

22 rulemaking in '99? 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 98

1 MR. ROSENQUIST: No, we did not. 

2 I mean, that analysis was done specifically 

3 for residential clothes washer data, and we 

4 felt this time was to try to take a more 

5 broader look over more appliances, to try to 

6 get, I guess, a better feel for how it might 

7 occur for commercial clothes washers 

8 considering that we didn't have data 

9 specifically for commercial clothes washers. 

10 MR. ECKMAN: Because as I recall, 

11 that model has built in some cross-elasticity 

12 at least with used units and the substitution 

13 effect that might occur from that. 

14 MR. ROSENQUIST: Okay. 

15 MR. ECKMAN: So it would be worth 

16 at least looking to see whether you see 

17 similar kinds of ranges of effects there. 

18 And the second part of the 

19 question, if I can follow up here, is again, 

20 looking ahead at Slide 35, those pulses as we 

21 were talking over the break may be drive more 

22 by multi-family housing starts than by 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 99

1 replacements, and so it would be worthwhile 

2 looking into whether or not the price 

3 elasticity is driving the market or just plain 

4 housing starts, which are the dominant 

5 variable in the equation rather than price. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

7 I'm thinking that probably the 

8 department should issue CEU credits for 

9 economists on this slide. 

10 (Laughter.) 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: But don't let me 

12 deter you. Keep going. 

13 MR. ECKMAN: As a recovering 

14 economist, Doug. 

15 (Laughter.) 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Almost totally 

17 recovered by now, remembering why I'm no 

18 longer an economist. 

19 These are some rather detailed 

20 questions. I'd like to really get into as 

21 much probing as possible on these. 

22 Ed, you had a comment? Please. 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 100

1 MR. OSANN: With regard to the 

2 third item, although you have indicated that 

3 DOE did not develop a specific -- did not 

4 attempt to actually model this cross-price 

5 elasticity of demand between top loading and 

6 front loading washers, it is a concern, and it 

7 was mentioned. It was identified as a concern 

8 and a factor in the selection of the TSL. The 

9 Federal Register notice indicates that DOE is 

10 concerned, for instance, at TSL-5 that 

11 significant numbers of potential consumers of 

12 front loading commercial washers would choose 

13 to purchase a less efficient top loading unit 

14 instead. 

15 Doesn't this simply underscore, in 

16 effect, the interchangeability between top 

17 loading and front loading washers in a 

18 commercial setting, the fact that this 

19 interchangeability could be so broad and 

20 substantial that it would actually facilitate 

21 potential recapture of market share by less 

22 efficient, but less expensive top loaders? 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 101

1 I mean, the real distinction here 

2 is a price point, isn't it, rather than any 

3 specific consumer utility? 

4 MR. ROSENQUIST: Well, that was 

5 the reason why, one of the reasons why DOE 

6 backed off from TSL-5, for example, is their 

7 sensitivity or concern or uncertainty over 

8 whether or not increasing the standard for 

9 front loaders would actually cause consumers 

10 to start purchasing top loaders, less 

11 efficient top loaders instead. 

12 So I don't know if that answers 

13 your question directly, but I wanted to 

14 basically state that was one of the reasons 

15 DOE gave. 

16 MR. OSANN: Well, let me convert 

17 that from a question to an observation, that 

18 the fact that this looms so large in DOE's 

19 thinking, that it influences the selection of 

20 the TSL in the final analysis suggests that 

21 there is a considerable amount of 

22 interchangeability that's recognized between 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 102

1 top loaders and front loaders, and that a 

2 consumer in the market for a new replacement 

3 machine could select one or the other. 

4 And we think that this underscores 

5 the preference to maintain or the 

6 recommendation that we and others have made to 

7 maintain a single product class for these 

8 products. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

10 I believe we have received comment 

11 on at least the top three issues. Anybody 

12 wish to weigh in on the acquiring used top 

13 loading machines? Did anybody comment on that 

14 yet? 

15 MR. ECKMAN: My comment on that 

16 was that the residential model that was used 

17 in the '99 rulemaking had used as one of the 

18 potential options that the consumer might 

19 revert to if prices increased. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks, Tom. 

21 Thank you. 

22 Okay. So final comments on this 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 103

1 series of issues, on Slide 34 before we move 

2 on? 

3 (No response.) 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

5 MR. ROSENQUIST: So this slide 

6 summarizes the results for two specific 

7 standard levels, one for top loaders, one for 

8 front loaders, to show what sort of impact the 

9 standards do have on the base case shipments 

10 forecast. 

11 The base case shipments forecasts 

12 are in the blue, and the standard case are in 

13 that purplish color. 

14 For top loading washers, what 

15 we're looking at is the standard level with 

16 1.60 MEF and the 8.5 water factor, and you can 

17 see that has fairly appreciable impact on 

18 shipments. As I said before, in the relative 

19 price elasticity that we're using, the most 

20 dominant effect is purchase price, and the 

21 price increase to go from the baseline level 

22 to this standard level is on the order of 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 104

1 around $200. So that's why you're seeing 

2 that's sort of an effect. 

3 For front loading washers what 

4 we're looking at is the 2.0 MEF 5.5 water 

5 factor, standard level, and again, that has a 

6 very minimal pricing increase. So the 

7 standards case shipments are virtually 

8 identical to that for the base case. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Lance. 

10 MR. DeLAURA: I just wanted to get 

11 a finer cut on those numbers in your charts. 

12 What does that mean in actual numbers? It's 

13 kind of hard to tell with the scale that 

14 you've got there, especially on the top 

15 loaders. 

16 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yes, the top, 

17 it's about seven percent drop in shipments. 

18 MR. DeLAURA: And what does that 

19 mean in real units? 

20 MR. ROSENQUIST: Well, what we're 

21 saying there is about it looks like 140,000 

22 units. 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 105

1 MR. DeLAURA: Thank you. 

2 MR. ROSENQUIST: Okay. This last 

3 slide for the national impact analysis talks 

4 about the general approach that's used to 

5 conduct the analysis. I first want to 

6 emphasize that national impact analysis 

7 generates national energy savings over the 

8 time period from the assumed effective date of 

9 2013 out for 30 years to 2043. 

10 The same thing is done for the 

11 economic impacts, again, looking over that 

12 same analysis period of 2013 to 2043. 

13 The National MPV consists of the 

14 difference in the increases in national 

15 equipment cost and the national operating 

16 costs. 

17 As I have mentioned before, the 

18 base case already incorporates the penetration 

19 of more efficient products into the market, 

20 and what's done in the standards case is to 

21 characterize how standards affect equipment 

22 efficiencies by using what's called a roll-up 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 106

1 scenario, and this table gives you an example 

2 of how that roll-up scenario is used by DOE. 

3 This is for front loading clothes washers. 

4 I want to point you to the base 

5 case to reestablish what the existing base 

6 case distribution is. Three, point, five 

7 percent is at the baseline level, almost 74 

8 percent, and it's down Level 2, and almost 23 

9 percent is down Level 3. 

10 Using the example of standard 

11 Level 2, what happens under the roll-up is 

12 that that 3.5 percent of the market rolls up 

13 into the standard level we're analyzing, that 

14 is, standard Level 2, causing 78 percent of 

15 the market now being represented by that 

16 particular standard level. 

17 Under the roll-up, efficiency 

18 levels above the standard level we're 

19 analyzing are not affected. They remain 

20 unchanged. So that 23 percent of the market 

21 at standard Level 3 remains 23 percent when 

22 we're looking at the standards case. 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 107

1 So what this table summarizes are 

2 what happens with the roll-up scenario for 

3 each of the five standard levels that were 

4 analyzed, and when you match up those 

5 distributions with the actual efficiency 

6 results in shipment weight and modified energy 

7 factors and instrument weighted water factors, 

8 which you can see in the table. 

9 So those efficiencies then are 

10 used to characterize the equipment performance 

11 that comes into the market as dictated by the 

12 shipments model, and then the associated costs 

13 in energy uses of that equipment are based 

14 upon inputs from the LCC analysis. The LCC 

15 analysis gives us the per unit total installed 

16 cost, energy consumption, repair and 

17 maintenance cost, and those values are 

18 effectively -- those per unit values are 

19 effectively multiplied by the shipments to 

20 come up with the national costs and energy 

21 consumption and water consumption. 

22 So that's the national impact 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 108

1 analysis. There is no slide asking for 

2 additional comment, but certainly I'll take 

3 any additional comment at this time for 

4 shipments or the national impact analysis. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Tom Eckman. 

6 MR. ECKMAN: Yes, I think it's 

7 probably an overstatement to say this is 

8 shipment weighted data. What you have is 

9 model availability data for the distributions, 

10 not shipments. 

11 MR. ROSENQUIST: That's correct. 

12 MR. ECKMAN: So I think we should 

13 characterize it that way, and there is 

14 considerable uncertainty whether that 

15 represents anywhere close to shipments. So 

16 I'm a bit concerned that this analysis is 

17 pretty shaky relative to that in terms of what 

18 the sales weighted efficiency really is. We 

19 don't really know what it is today, and we 

20 certainly don't know what it's going to be 

21 anything like this in the future. That's one 

22 comment. 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 109

1 And the second comment, I think 

2 given that uncertainty it would be at least 

3 useful to think about both a roll-up and a 

4 market shift scenario so that you look that if 

5 this distribution is actually what we have, 

6 that we get a similar distribution of market 

7 shares going forward, that the market shifts 

8 doesn't just roll forward to a truncated 

9 distribution. 

10 So I would think we can show both 

11 of these in this case, given that we don't 

12 really have sales data. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Tom 

14 Additional comments on national 

15 impact analysis? Ed. 

16 MR. OSANN: I have two. One is I 

17 wanted to, since we've come back to the 

18 subject of shipments versus models, I just 

19 wanted to clarify a point from the morning, 

20 from the session before the break, and that is 

21 DOE made a request, one request, perhaps more 

22 than one request to AHAM for shipment 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 110

1 information, and that request was not 

2 fulfilled; is that correct? 

3 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yes, we made a 

4 request to the industry for shipments broken 

5 out by efficiency level. 

6 MR. OSANN: Shipments broken out 

7 by efficiency level. 

8 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yes. 

9 MR. OSANN: The other point I 

10 wanted to raise here on the national impact 

11 analysis goes to the presumed split between 

12 the share of the market for covered products 

13 going to laundromats versus the share of the 

14 market for covered products going to multi15 housing where the distinctive use 

16 characteristics result in a life cycle cost 

17 analysis of significant differences between 

18 the two due to the shorter lifetime of the 

19 laundromat units and their higher usage 

20 levels, which present greater savings 

21 opportunities for those machines. 

22 ASAP and others raised concern on 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 111

1 the previous NOPR that the split was based 

2 upon a ten year old or actually over a ten 

3 year old estimate developed by a nonprofit, 

4 the Consortium for Energy Efficiency, of 85 

5 percent multi-housing and 15 percent 

6 laundromat. 

7 And we highlighted for DOE in 

8 comments that Alliance holding half of the 

9 market share here was estimating in their 

10 annual reports that the North American market 

11 for those two sectors was more of a ratio -- 

12 rather than 85-15 was more in a ratio of 60-40 

13 the other way, and this is sales, not units. 

14 So it's dollars that were being reported. 

15 But these were being reported in 

16 Alliance's annual reports. I believe these 

17 are Sarbanes-Oxley compliant annual reports. 

18 They're estimates of the North American 

19 market. 

20 And the response in the Federal 

21 Register notice to that comment seemed to be, 

22 well, we're sticking with the CEE report. 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 112

1 It's better than more recent information from 

2 one company. 

3 This seems like a pretty big miss 

4 for DOE 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Are you suggesting 

6 that DOE can take those bits of information 

7 you just supplied and do a different 

8 interpretation? 

9 MR. OSANN: Well, clearly there 

10 should be some sensitivity analysis done to 

11 see how a different mix of product share, 

12 laundromat versus multi-housing, would affect 

13 the -- how it would flow through the analysis. 

14 We had some off-line discussion here today 

15 during the break about to what extent it would 

16 affect shipments. It's not clear how it might 

17 affect shipments. 

18 It clearly affects the national 

19 impact analysis because the laundromat 

20 machines present much greater savings 

21 opportunities. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's see. Greg, 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 113

1 do you have any comment on this? 

2 MR. ROSENQUIST: Well, what Ed 

3 said is exactly right. I mean, that was the 

4 response that was in the supplemental NOPR. 

5 But I would personally like to get more 

6 comment from the industry themselves as to 

7 whether or not they feel that split is 

8 representative. That is the 85 percent-15 

9 percent split 

10 MR. LEWIS: Doug. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 

12 MR. LEWIS: Can I just -- 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Ron Lewis. 

14 MR. LEWIS: This just highlights 

15 at every one of these meetings, every one of 

16 these rulemakings when we start off, the whole 

17 purpose we're starting off with a framework 

18 document to say we're starting a rulemaking 

19 and we're going to be doing a lot of analysis, 

20 and we start right then asking for data, 

21 asking for shipments, asking for cooperation 

22 from industry so we can do the analysis and 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 114

1 get it as accurate as possible. 

2 Those requests that we make, this 

3 has been going on now since early 2006. We've 

4 had a pre-NOPR or ANOPR. We have a NOPR. We 

5 have an SNOPR. We published assumptions, 

6 approaches. We've had public meetings. In 

7 trying to get information from people that 

8 would be helpful to get this right, this is 

9 not like the first meeting we've had. This is 

10 not like the first dialogue. 

11 And the difficulties that we have 

12 of coming up with precise answers when we've 

13 got data points here and there and not a lot 

14 of information makes it very difficult for us. 

15 Ed, I agree in spirit that, you 

16 know, things would be much better if we had 

17 more current information and we had more 

18 information. We go through this on every 

19 single rulemaking, of starting off and asking 

20 for input. If our authority and out mission 

21 is to set efficiency standards, that becomes 

22 important in distinguishing between products 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 115

1 on an efficiency basis. 

2 We really need cooperation, and 

3 the input is really important to us. We can't 

4 go out and speculate or sometimes we're 

5 looking for what we can find in the absence of 

6 a lot of data, and one of the things that we 

7 have the least impact on doing is coming up 

8 with the shipment data, which is not something 

9 that's generally in the public purview. 

10 So this is not the rulemaking 

11 that's underway, and some of these same 

12 participants are involved in other ones. We 

13 need cooperation and we need data early if 

14 we're going to get it right to do the 

15 analysis. 

16 So I don't disagree, Ed. It would 

17 have been better if we had more information or 

18 a lot. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: J.D. 

20 MR. DONALDSON: J.D. Donaldson 

21 with Y.M. Case. 

22 I was just going to say to the 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 116

1 extent that Mr. Osann is summarizing the 

2 annual reports of Alliance Laundry, that 

3 information is publicly available, and it 

4 speaks for itself. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

6 Yes, Tim. 

7 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, Earth 

8 Justice. 

9 Just a quick follow-up. To the 

10 extent the department is frustrated with the 

11 data manufacturers provided us, I just want to 

12 remind the department of 42 U.S. Code 6299 

13 gives the department very broad authority to 

14 subpoena information that it believes is 

15 necessary to develop these standards. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

17 Ed. 

18 MR. OSANN: Just to follow Ron's 

19 point, I just want to point out that I was 

20 raising an issue that we have raised, we 

21 raised in previous comments. We placed into 

22 the record the information that Alliance had 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 117

1 made available in public filings, and the 

2 response is, frankly, a nonsubstantive 

3 response in the Register notice indicating how 

4 comments were responded to. It's really not a 

5 substantive response. 

6 MR. LEWIS: Okay. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Well, let's press 

8 on then. 

9 MR. ROSENQUIST: So that brings us 

10 to the end of the national impact analysis, 

11 and also to the end of the revisions to the 

12 analysis that were connected for the NOPR. So 

13 now we're talking about the trial standard 

14 levels and how they're selected. 

15 The purpose of selecting trial 

16 standard levels is to come up with a set of 

17 candidate standard levels from each of the two 

18 product classes so that one set of levels can 

19 be analyzed in the national impact analysis, 

20 the manufacturer impact analysis, the utility 

21 and environmental impact analyses, and the 

22 employment impact analyses. 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 118

1 Again, as I said, each TSL, each 

2 trial standard level, consists of a candidate 

3 standard level from each product class. So 

4 what I'm going to do now is just summarize 

5 what each of the five trial standard levels 

6 are for commercial clothes washers. 

7 The first TSL, TSL-1, represents 

8 the efficiency levels from each class that 

9 requires the least design change, and that's 

10 the candidate standard level, the first 

11 candidate standard level from each one of 

12 those product classes. 

13 TSL-2 is trying to come up with a 

14 TSL that represents a large fraction of the 

15 market beyond the baseline level, and what 

16 that means is moving up the standard level for 

17 front loaders to the next one while keeping 

18 the standard levels for top loaders at the 

19 same level as for TSL-1. 

20 The purpose of developing TSL-3 is 

21 to come up with a pair of candidate standard 

22 levels from each class that minimizes the 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 119

1 price difference between the two product 

2 classes. What that resulted in was keeping 

3 the candidate standard level the same for 

4 front loaders as for TSL-2, but moving up the 

5 standard level for top loaders into the next 

6 level. 

7 That next level for top loaders is 

8 actually the max-tech level, 1.60 MEF with an 

9 8.5 water factor. 

10 TSL-4 simply increments the front 

11 loading clothes washer, front loading standard 

12 level to the next one, to the next standard 

13 level, and TSL-5 represents the mass tech 

14 efficiency levels for both product classes. 

15 And this table summarizes the 

16 efficiency levels for top loaders and front 

17 loaders that correspond to each of the TSLs 

18 that were considered. Based upon a seven 

19 percent discount rate, the range of NPVs for 

20 these TSLs go from $.01 billion to just over 

21 half a billion dollars. So all of the TSLs 

22 yield positive net present values. That is 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 120

1 benefits to the country. 

2 The next step in the analysis is 

3 the consumer subgroup analysis. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Greg. 

5 Ed Osann. 

6 MR. OSANN: On Slide 39 where you 

7 have the range of net present value, is it 

8 correct that if there were to be, in fact, a 

9 richer mix of laundromat machines into the 

10 hole, that the NPV number at the high end 

11 would be greater? 

12 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yes, yes. The 

13 NPV for all the TSLs would be greater. 

14 MR. OSANN: Okay. Thank you. 

15 MR. ROSENQUIST: Again, the reason 

16 being that in laundromats the commercial 

17 clothes washers are used more frequently, used 

18 more heavily than a multi-family setting. So 

19 the amount of energy and water use, and that's 

20 the amount of energy and water savings that 

21 you can get from a standard would be greater. 

22 So back to the chevron diagram and 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 121

1 on to the consumer subgroup analysis. The 

2 purpose of this analysis is to try to identify 

3 any particular subgroups that may be 

4 disproportionately impacted by the standards 

5 that DOE is looking at. 

6 For this analysis, for commercial 

7 clothes washers, DOE identified two subgroups, 

8 small businesses and those consumers that 

9 don't use municipal water and waste water. 

10 DOE conducted the analysis by refining the LCC 

11 spreadsheet that was used for the general 

12 population, and the output of LCC savings and 

13 simple payback periods for the standard 

14 levels, and DOE determined that the LCC 

15 savings and simple payback period don't really 

16 change that significantly from the general 

17 population. That is, the results are 

18 basically the same. 

19 So on that I'll turn it over back 

20 to Constantin von Wentzel to talk about the 

21 manufacturer impact analysis. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: We're making good 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 122

1 progress. We are, in fact, ahead of schedule, 

2 but I expect we'll keep going until at least 

3 noon before we break for lunch. 

4 MR. VON WENTZEL: Okay. As you 

5 can see, the manufacturer impact analysis, the 

6 purpose is to assess the impacts of standards 

7 on commercial clothes washer manufacturers; to 

8 identify subgroups of manufacturers that might 

9 be differentially impacted versus the rest of 

10 the industry, and in this rulemaking we 

11 identify one low volume manufacturer in 

12 particular that would be disproportionately 

13 affected by any efficiency standard because it 

14 derives so much of its income from commercial 

15 clothes washers relative to its competitors; 

16 and to examine the impact of cumulative 

17 regulatory burdens on the industry as a whole. 

18 Our method consisted of analyzing 

19 the industry cash flow and net present value 

20 through the use of the government regulatory 

21 impact model, or GRIM; to interview 

22 manufacturers in order to refine the inputs 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 123

1 into the GRIM; and to assess the impacts on 

2 the subgroups as well as qualitative issues. 

3 And for the SNOPR the GRIM was 

4 updated for 2009 base year with the results 

5 being expressed in 2008 dollars, and based on 

6 some comments that we received at the NOPR 

7 meeting, we also reviewed the impact of 

8 manufacturer tax credits. 

9 As you can see here, there are 

10 three phases for the MIA, and here are the 

11 updated INPV results, that is, industry net 

12 prevent value results, by TSL level, and there 

13 are two different scenarios that were 

14 considered. One was the preservation of gross 

15 margin percentage markup with base case 

16 shipments, and the other one was the 

17 preservation of gross margin percentage markup 

18 with price elasticity of demand shipments. 

19 And the trial standard under 

20 consideration here is TSL-3. So the net 

21 impact on the industry is projected to be 

22 either, depending on which scenario you're 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 124

1 using, between 7.8 and 11 percent, and that 

2 would correspond to 1.6 water factor -- excuse 

3 me -- 1.6 MEF and an 8.5 water factor for the 

4 top loaders and a 2.0 MEF and 5.5 water factor 

5 for the front loaders. 

6 Specific to the manufacturer 

7 production tax credits, the level of tax 

8 credits and the eligibility requirements have 

9 changed a little bit over the years, but the 

10 bottom line is that only one manufacturer in 

11 the United States qualifies for them under the 

12 rules for commercial clothes washers, which is 

13 to say that they actually manufacture the 

14 product in their own facility and the product 

15 is manufactured in the United States. 

16 And basically the way that it 

17 works is that it's a function of how many 

18 additional washers, high efficiency clothes 

19 washers you sell over the previous years. So 

20 you don't earn any credits unless you can 

21 actually increase your shipments of high 

22 efficiency clothes washers. 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 125

1 So as we stated, only one 

2 manufacturer qualified for these tax credits 

3 and that was the low volume manufacturer. Its 

4 two competitors either source product that 

5 would qualify in terms of the energy 

6 efficiency. They either source it from 

7 another manufacturer or they source it from 

8 abroad. 

9 Most of the tax credits, as noted 

10 here, actually occur or the benefit thereof 

11 occurs outside the period that would be 

12 affected by these standards, and the level of 

13 benefit was somewhat lower than what other 

14 advocates here have stated or were projecting. 

15 There is one slight update to this 

16 due to the LVM actually publishing its latest 

17 10Q fairly recently. We were projecting that 

18 they would derive a $400,000 production tax 

19 credit in 2009, and it turns out that they 

20 were actually able to exceed that, and we're 

21 now projecting a tax credit as high as one 

22 million dollars. 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 126

1 It does not materially impact the 

2 impact on the manufacturer of these tax 

3 credits, but it is a slight update that I 

4 wanted to share with the group. 

5 So the total income from producer 

6 tax credits for the LVM thus would not be the 

7 $2.8 million as projected on page 47. It 

8 would be approximately 3.4 based on our latest 

9 projections. 

10 Yes, Mr. Osann. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Mr. Osann. 

12 MR. OSANN: Yes. How do you get 

13 the -- working with the appendix from the TSD, 

14 Appendix 13(c) that addresses the federal 

15 production tax credit, there's an estimate for 

16 2007 through '09 in there, and you're revising 

17 2009 to be up to a million dollars. 

18 MR. VON WENTZEL: Yes. 

19 MR. OSANN: Okay. That would seem 

20 to total close to five million, maybe four and 

21 three-quarters million altogether through 2009 

22 without regard to 2010. 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 127

1 MR. VON WENTZEL: This 2.8 million 

2 might be -- excuse me. This 2.8 million was 

3 for 2008. I apologize. So the total actually 

4 would have been higher than that. You're 

5 absolutely correct. So if the total projected 

6 benefit was on the order of four and a half 

7 million dollars, it would not be around five 

8 million dollars. That's correct. 

9 But I don't have the total number 

10 in front of me here. Doug, do you recall the 

11 total tax credit? 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: If you do, use the 

13 microphone. Maybe you can search for it while 

14 we continue. 

15 MR. VON WENTZEL: Yes. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, okay. 

17 MR. OSANN: And if I can follow 

18 up, are you estimating that there will be no 

19 credit available to the low volume 

20 manufacturer based on 2010 production? 

21 MR. VON WENTZEL: Our projection, 

22 and that's all it is, is a projection because 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 128

1 we're not the low volume manufacturer, is that 

2 because of the structure of the tax credits, 

3 the fact that you only get a tax credit for 

4 increasing your marginal production of high 

5 efficiency clothes washers, we believe that 

6 they are reaching the limit of how many 

7 additional high efficiency clothes washers 

8 they can sell. 

9 What actually will happen in the 

10 marketplace is completely up in the air. All 

11 we can do is use the best data that we can put 

12 together. 

13 MR. OSANN: Just to be sure I 

14 understand you, you believe they're reaching a 

15 limit on what they can sell or what they can 

16 produce? 

17 MR. VON WENTZEL: My 

18 understanding, well, only the manufacturer 

19 would know whether they are reaching either of 

20 those limits. I can't -- 

21 MR. OSANN: But I'm asking about 

22 the DOE assumption with regard to 2010. 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 129

1 MR. VON WENTZEL: the DOE 

2 assumption is that if they wanted to increase 

3 production they could increase production. 

4 MR. OSANN: And you're assuming 

5 that they're not. 

6 MR. VON WENTZEL: I'm assuming or 

7 I should say we're assuming that they're not 

8 going to be able to sell additional units 

9 beyond what they're already selling now. 

10 Therefore, they wouldn't get that additional 

11 benefit, but what will actually happen depends 

12 on so many factors that we can't control. 

13 MR. OSANN: is there an analysis 

14 of any type to support that estimate of a cap 

15 on machines that would qualify for the 

16 production credit? 

17 MR. VON WENTZEL: Well, the 

18 analysis is based on what the low volume 

19 manufacturer has published in its 10Q and 10K 

20 statements in terms of its past performance 

21 under these various production tax credit 

22 programs. 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 130

1 MR. OSANN: There's a forward 

2 looking statement about sales for 2010? 

3 MR. VON WENTZEL: No, there's not. 

4 MR. OSANN: Okay. 

5 MR. VON WENTZEL: What I'm saying 

6 is the assumptions are based on previous 

7 statements made by the low volume manufacturer 

8 in its securities documentation. 

9 MR. OSANN: So the previous sales 

10 data? 

11 MR. VON WENTZEL: Correct, 

12 previous sales data in conjunction with what 

13 we have been told are the current market 

14 shares for front loading and top loading 

15 clothes washers. So unless that market share 

16 were to change, it's unlikely that the number 

17 of clothes washers that the LVM could sell 

18 that would qualify would actually increase 

19 significantly. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

21 MR. VON WENTZEL: Shall I 

22 continue? 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 131

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, continue. 

2 Tom, do you want in? 

3 MR. ECKMAN: Yes. It would seem, 

4 given that information, is that affecting what 

5 the distribution of the shipment efficiencies 

6 are then? It seems to me that we have 

7 evidence that higher efficiency equipment is 

8 the bigger share of the market or a growing 

9 share of the market if it's increasing their 

10 tax credit each year. 

11 MR. VON WENTZEL: To you -- sorry. 

12 Go ahead. 

13 MR. ECKMAN: I just -- since we 

14 don't have shipments data, the presumption is 

15 that whatever was in the CEC directory is 

16 biased to the low side. 

17 MR. VON WENTZEL: Well, I would 

18 qualify that a little bit because we did 

19 update our analysis using the latest shipments 

20 data that we got from manufacturers in our 

21 manufacturer impact interviews. 

22 MR. ECKMAN: But not the 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 132

1 efficiencies. 

2 MR. VON WENTZEL: It included 

3 efficiency in an indirect sense because we 

4 were told that the market share for vertical 

5 versus horizontal axis has shifted to 70-430 

6 mix from the 80-20 that was in the pre-NOPR. 

7 So our analysis does include that shift from 

8 80-20 to 70-30 at present. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, yes. 

10 MR. VON WENTZEL: And Greg. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Greg, please. 

12 MR. ROSENQUIST: That is also 

13 reflected in the shipments analysis. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks, Greg. 

15 Keep going, Constantin. 

16 MR. VON WENTZEL: Okay. As has 

17 been mentioned before there was a -- the 

18 Department of Energy received a letter from 

19 the Department of Justice regarding the 

20 proposed efficiency level in the NOPR, which 

21 was 1.6 MEF and 8.3 water factor for 

22 commercial clothes washers that are top 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 133

1 loading, and we've gone over this statement a 

2 couple of times, but one of the things that 

3 bears perhaps a reminder is that we have at 

4 least two manufacturers who are very close to 

5 the proposed efficiency standard. For 

6 instance, the low volume manufacturer 

7 currently manufactures a product at 1.55 MEF 

8 with an 8.6 water factor, which is very close 

9 to 1.6 MEF, 8.5. 

10 So at this point DOE invites 

11 comments on the determination of manufacturer 

12 impacts, including effects of manufacturer tax 

13 credits and competitive concerns. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: I'm looking over 

15 there toward Doug. I think you're still 

16 digging for that, right? Have you got it? 

17 Come up to the microphone. 

18 MR. VON WENTZEL: You need to come 

19 to the microphone. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: And say your name 

21 for the record. 

22 MR. ROSSIN: The 2.8 that was 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 134

1 pointed out, that's for including 2007, sorry, 

2 2008 and 2009 combined. 

3 MR. VON WENTZEL: Okay. 

4 MR. ROSSIN: So with the 

5 additional that the department is estimating, 

6 it would go to 3.5. 

7 MR. VON WENTZEL: So for 2008 and 

8 2009. 

9 MR. ROSSIN: Right, correct. 

10 MR. VON WENTZEL: Okay, but the 

11 total would still be around -- would therefore 

12 bump up to around five million; is that 

13 correct? 

14 MR. ROSSIN: That total that I 

15 just mentioned is what is counted in the 

16 analysis. 

17 MR. VON WENTZEL: Okay. 

18 MR. ROSSIN: So the outside, 

19 there's additional numbers. Do you want the 

20 whole number? 

21 MR. VON WENTZEL: Maybe we'll just 

22 answer Ed's question. We'll just work through 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 135

1 it over lunch and we'll give him his answer 

2 then. We can get it after lunch. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Ed. 

4 MR. OSANN: Then do I understand 

5 that the production credits received for 2007 

6 production were not included in the analysis? 

7 MR. ROSSIN: Doug Rossin. 

8 They fall outside the base year. 

9 MR. VON WENTZEL: The base year is 

10 the date that the standard becomes effective. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: So what's the -- 

12 MR. ROSSIN: So 2008 and on gets 

13 counted. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Right. Thank you. 

15 that's the clarification we wanted. Okay. 

16 Thank you. 

17 Okay? 

18 MR. OSANN: No, I'm not 

19 understanding that at all. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: You think 2007 

21 should be included in the base year? 

22 MR. OSANN: This is base year for 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 136

1 what purpose? 

2 MR. VON WENTZEL: Base year for 

3 the effective date of the standard. When we 

4 -- and, Doug, correct me if I'm wrong -- we 

5 start from the date that the standard or the 

6 final rule gets published, correct? That's 

7 when we start counting? 

8 MR. ROSSIN: It depends on the 

9 rulemaking. For this rulemaking it's starting 

10 out 2009, sorry, base case. Base case year 

11 extended starts from 2009 and on, but we 

12 calculated the tax credits beginning in 2007 

13 up until an estimated 2010, but like we were 

14 saying, that's counted in the analysis in 

15 2009. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: You needed to 

17 project from something. 

18 MR. ROSSIN: Yes. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Right. 

20 MR. VON WENTZEL: In terms of the 

21 impact on the net present -- 

22 MR. ROSSIN: -- 2008 projections 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 137

1 or the estimates are not counted for that 

2 INPV. 

3 MR. VON WENTZEL: You need to 

4 credit a base year for the INPV calculation, 

5 correct? So base case versus the standards 

6 case, and so we've now moved up to 2009. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks, 

8 Doug. Okay. 

9 Yes, Tim. 

10 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo with 

11 Justice. 

12 The department stated that it will 

13 review its position on product class issue. 

14 If the department adopts a, as we recommend, 

15 strong standard that applies to all clothes 

16 washers, that would move the market toward a 

17 higher modified NG factor. 

18 Hopefully the department will look 

19 at the tax credit projection for 2010. 

20 Presumably manufacturers aren't going to 

21 suddenly start producing the more efficient 

22 washers in 2013. They will likely ramp up 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 138

1 production over time. 

2 One other point. On the impact on 

3 competition, I don't know if anyone from DOJ 

4 is here. Hopefully DOJ and DOE will review 

5 that issue very carefully. 

6 We think that the impact is likely 

7 overstated. These are products for which 

8 there are very similar, analogous products 

9 available in the residential market. Even if 

10 a manufacturer exited this market it would be 

11 very likely that any adverse impact on 

12 competition would persist for only a short 

13 time because there are very low barriers to 

14 entry for one of the more diverse population 

15 of residential clothes washer manufacturers to 

16 modify their machines to enter the commercial 

17 market if there is, in fact, a lack of 

18 competition. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

20 MR. MANTHEI: Phil Manthei, 

21 Alliance Laundry Systems. 

22 I would like to make a few 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 139

1 comments because this is a very important 

2 area. I know you alluded to that we have a 

3 model that's very close to the standard that's 

4 been proposed in the top loading side. I've 

5 told you before in these rulemakings that that 

6 is not an appropriate model. It is not 

7 accepted universally by our customers. It was 

8 done to provide a model that customers could 

9 get an Energy Star rebate for and CEE rebates 

10 for. 

11 Not all customers will use that 

12 model. That model uses a technique for 

13 rinsing that consumer or customers will not 

14 all accept. 

15 Okay. On the front load washer 

16 side, again, driving by Energy Star, CEE -- 

17 actually it was CEE -- we developed and took 

18 away water basically to achieve a Tier 3 on 

19 the CEE level front load clothes washer. It's 

20 probably right at the edge of what's 

21 acceptable for clothes washing in the 

22 commercial market. 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 140

1 One of our competitors, when we 

2 open the clothes washer that it sells at Tier 

3 3, after the first wash the interior of the 

4 load is not even wet with water. 

5 We've got stop. This is crazy. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

7 So we have these two slides here, 

8 our DOJ review and manufacture of production 

9 tax credits still available for comment. Ed. 

10 MR. OSANN: I have several 

11 comments on the manufacturer impact analysis. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

13 MR. OSANN: Is this the right 

14 place for that? 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, this is the 

16 right place, I think, and shortly we'll pause 

17 for lunch. 

18 MR. OSANN: Are we at Slide 49? 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: No. Well, actually 

20 I guess we are at Slide 49. Yes, we are. 

21 MR. VON WENTZEL: Yes. 

22 MR. OSANN: In Chapter 13 of the 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 141

1 TSD on the manufacturer impact analysis, 

2 there's a discussion of the impact on the low 

3 volume manufacture of various issues, and 

4 there is considerable discussion of a scenario 

5 where the low volume manufacturer shifts all 

6 production to front loaders. Presumably this 

7 is either because of -- perhaps because of a 

8 single product class or because that is set at 

9 a standard that only a front loader can meet 

10 or perhaps because the low volume manufacturer 

11 doesn't have confidence that products that 

12 must meet the top loader standard can 

13 effectively be sold in the market, and we've 

14 heard more about that today, in fact, just a 

15 moment ago. 

16 Either way, there's an analysis of 

17 the impact on the low volume manufacturer of 

18 shifting production entirely to front loading 

19 format. 

20 There a couple of questions that 

21 come to mind. This is clearly an important 

22 issue, the effect on the low volume 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 142

1 manufacturer, but it seems as though that DOE 

2 has set up a strawman hypothesizing that this 

3 scenario would be addressed through the 

4 development of a new greenfield site, and then 

5 identifying the costs and the impacts of new 

6 greenfield site to produce 100,000 units. 

7 There's no indication in the TSD 

8 as to why this kind of a transitional issue 

9 where the manufacturer already has 25 percent, 

10 headed towards 30 percent of production in a 

11 front loading format, and under this scenario 

12 he's withdrawing from the top loading market, 

13 would need to build a new plant in a 

14 greenfield location to address this rather 

15 than winding down to loading production and 

16 winding up front loading production. 

17 And the effect of this is not 

18 inconsequential. The cost components, the 

19 capital cost components, for instance, are 

20 assumed to include out of a total of $54 

21 million -- I'm reading from TSD, page 13-26 -- 

22 of a total of $54 million fully 40 percent of 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 143

1 that is a new building, over $20 million as 

2 contrasted with tooling and equipment costs. 

3 And so not only do you have a much 

4 larger up front expense, but the effect of the 

5 building make the depreciation of this more 

6 attenuated. It extends the depreciation of 

7 the whole package a considerable amount 

8 because depreciation on buildings is not as 

9 rapid as on equipment. 

10 So from a financial standpoint it 

11 makes it much more burdensome for the 

12 manufacturer to understand. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: So can you restate 

14 your question? 

15 MR. OSANN: One question is: 

16 what's the basis for the assumption that a 

17 shift to full front loader production would 

18 involve a greenfield manufacturing facility at 

19 all? 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

21 MR. VON WENTZEL: Well, the basis 

22 of that would be a visit to the manufacturing 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 144

1 site, and realization that the current front 

2 loading manufacturing line is shoe-horned into 

3 a facility; that there is virtually no shared 

4 component between the V axis and the H axis, 

5 and that, therefore, if you were to increase 

6 your production by a factor of four-fold or 

7 three and a half-fold depending on how much of 

8 the market you retain, you would actually 

9 probably have to build an addition to the 

10 facility to accommodate that additional 

11 demand. 

12 MR. OSANN: Even though under this 

13 stipulated scenario top loader production is 

14 ceasing? 

15 MR. VON WENTZEL: As I've stated 

16 before, top loaders and front loaders share 

17 almost no parts. Therefore, whether you 

18 produce a million parts -- well, I shouldn't 

19 say a million. The facility was originally 

20 built to produce 400,000 top loaders, give or 

21 take, and about 25,000 front loaders. So 

22 whether you're producing 100,000 top loaders 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 145

1 or 50,000 top loaders or 25,000 top loaders, 

2 you still need to maintain and use all of the 

3 same equipment that you needed at a higher 

4 production capacity. 

5 It's not as if you can just take 

6 Lego style blocks out and say, "Oh, I've got 

7 all of this additional room now." That's not 

8 how manufacturing works. 

9 So in order to actually 

10 accommodate a much higher production level on 

11 the front axis -- excuse me -- horizontal 

12 axis, you would actually have to add 

13 significant capacity to that existing facility 

14 to accommodate that. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Phil, I thought you 

16 wanted to chime in here. 

17 MR. MANTHEI: No. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

19 MR. MANTHEI: He said it very 

20 well. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

22 MR. MANTHEI: Excuse me. Phil 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 146

1 Manthei, Alliance Laundry Systems. 

2 You can't turn one thing off one 

3 day and start the other in the same building. 

4 You have to keep producing the top loaders at 

5 the same rate because that's what the 

6 customers want. 

7 There's no room to shoe-horn as 

8 Constantin said. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

10 Ed. 

11 MR. OSANN: Yes, I've got an 

12 additional question, and that is in addition 

13 to these hard capital costs, there's also an 

14 R&D expense that I believe is in the vicinity 

15 of $10 million that's projected for this. Why 

16 is there any R&D at all involved in scaling up 

17 production of a product that currently 

18 represents 25 to 30 percent of the product, of 

19 the unit shipments? 

20 MR. VON WENTZEL: As the TSD 

21 mentions elsewhere, this scenario included the 

22 projection that a transition to a single 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 147

1 product class -- excuse me -- equipment class 

2 market would require the manufacturer, the low 

3 volume manufacturer, to actually come up with 

4 a lower cost horizontal axis clothes washer to 

5 compete with its much higher volume 

6 competitors. 

7 If you recall, the competitors 

8 have to shift their entire production of top 

9 loading commercial clothes washers to H axis. 

10 It would have required them to only increase 

11 their H axis production by a factor of 

12 approximately five percent because the 

13 commercial clothes washer market is so small. 

14 On the other hand, the low volume 

15 manufacturer being a low volume manufacturer 

16 would have to increase its front loaders' 

17 production by a factor of like three and a 

18 half or 350 percent. 

19 And, further, in discussions with 

20 manufacturers we discussed that there was a 

21 very real possibility that once you create a 

22 market disruption by requiring all route 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 148

1 operators to cease buying top loaders, and the 

2 reason for which they stopped buying top 

3 loaders is -- let's just leave that aside. It 

4 could be people are not satisfied with the 

5 wash performance. Manufacturers may decide 

6 that they can't sell equipment at those 

7 efficiency ranges and get acceptable wash 

8 performance. 

9 Whatever it is, you create a 

10 market disruption, and that market disruption 

11 could allow competitors to come in much more 

12 easily than they currently can. 

13 We had a comment earlier about how 

14 residential clothes washer manufacturers that 

15 currently do not operate in the commercial 

16 market could very easily make the transition 

17 of their residential products over to 

18 commercial. If that was true, I believe we 

19 would see more competitors, but we don't. 

20 There are high switching costs. 

21 There is a lot of inventory that these route 

22 operators have accumulated over the years. 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 149

1 There's a lot of institutional knowledge as to 

2 how to maintain, overhaul and run these 

3 clothes washers. 

4 When you create a market 

5 disruption, those switching costs start to go 

6 away, and you could see a need or we project a 

7 need for a lower cost horizontal axis clothes 

8 washer that does not employ, for instance a 

9 stainless steel tub as a current LVM design 

10 does. 

11 That takes a lot of money, and in 

12 discussions with clothes washer manufacturers 

13 as to the cost of developing a new horizontal 

14 axis clothes washer platform, all of them were 

15 in agreement that the cost would be around $10 

16 million to do so. 

17 And it's not just because of the 

18 engineering resources required, which is part 

19 of it, but because you have to go through 

20 extensive in-field testing to actually verify 

21 the performance, reliability, et cetera, all 

22 of the factors that your consumers expect of 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 150

1 you and of your products before they can 

2 release the product to market. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: So your comments 

4 are based on the data that you have 

5 accumulated. 

6 MR. VON WENTZEL: Correct. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So then 

8 additional comments on manufacturer impacts 

9 and questions? Yes, Lance. 

10 MR. DeLAURA: Thank you. 

11 Just a question about the moisture 

12 content and the clothes that I heard a little 

13 while ago. I'm assuming that DOE is following 

14 up on those issues. I'm not taking a position 

15 one way or another, but you know, there's a 

16 factoid that's laid out. I'm assuming DOE is 

17 following up on that and can verify it one way 

18 or another that with the lower water content 

19 that there is a moisture problem in the 

20 clothes. 

21 That's a question. 

22 MR. LEWIS: We noted that that 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 151

1 input has been given today, and we will take a 

2 look at it. The design of washing machines in 

3 trying to minimize, in some aspects that's a 

4 plus of having sort of the cost reduced, so 

5 how you weigh that once you find out what the 

6 moisture content is, it's still open to 

7 discussion on whether that's a plus or a minus 

8 because it has got several attributes. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks, Ron. 

10 Phil, please. 

11 MR. MANTHEI: Phil, I think you're 

12 misunderstanding here. We're talking about 

13 the moisture content at the end of the first 

14 wash. The clothes are supposed to be wet. 

15 The clothes have never gotten wet. 

16 MR. LEWIS: Thank you for that 

17 clarification. I didn't understand that when 

18 you first gave it. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, okay. Thank 

20 you. 

21 So I'm wondering where we are. I 

22 think most of us are due for lunch, and though 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 152

1 I do want to make sure we provide an 

2 opportunity to get additional comments or 

3 questions related to manufacturer impacts up 

4 to slide 49 where we are now. 

5 Okay. So let's pause then. It's 

6 now 12:15. We're hoping to lock this room, 

7 and you can leave your computers, and we'll 

8 return at 1:15. 

9 (Whereupon, at 12:14 p.m., the 

10 meeting was recessed for lunch, to reconvene 

11 at 1:15 p.m., the same day.) 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. We will 

13 resume. We are on slide 50, and proceeding 

14 with Gregory. 

15 MR. ROSENQUIST: Okay. Welcome 

16 back, everyone, from lunch. I'm going to pick 

17 it up at the Utility Impact Analysis, and 

18 carry us through to the end, to the Regulatory 

19 Impact Analysis. 

20 So, this is quickly summarizing 

21 what was done on the Utility Impact Analysis. 

22 Again, its purpose is to investigate how 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 153

1 standards impact electricity and gas sales. 

2 And for the electric utility industry, how it 

3 affects the installed generation capacity. 

4 The methods that's used take the 

5 National Energy Savings results on the 

6 National Impact Analysis, input it into the 

7 Energy Information Administration's National 

8 Energy Modeling System, also called NEMS. 

9 It's tailored specifically for appliance 

10 standards, and given the names NEMS BT, the BT 

11 standard for building technologies. 

12 What we do with this model is we 

13 run a reference case. That's the case without 

14 standards, and then input the National Energy 

15 Savings to see how these various outputs are 

16 affected by the standards; namely, how 

17 electricity and gas sales are affected, and 

18 the installed generation capacity is affected. 

19 So, the output is just what I 

20 said. In addition to that, it also provides 

21 some of this information by region. And for 

22 commercial clothes washers, the impact to the 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 154

1 electric utility industry is very, very small. 

2 It's only from five to 12 megawatts in the 

3 year 2014. That's primarily because we're 

4 talking about a product that has shipments of 

5 around 200,000 units per year. There's just 

6 not much in the way of commercial clothes 

7 washers in the building stock in the U.S. 

8 Does anyone have any questions 

9 about the Utility Impact Analysis? Okay. If 

10 not, I'll move on to the next, which is the 

11 Employment Impact Analysis. And its purpose 

12 is to determine that indirect impacts from 

13 standards to employment in the U.S.; indirect, 

14 in that changes in consumer's operating costs, 

15 for example, are perpetuated through the rest 

16 of the economy by using this spreadsheet model 

17 called ImSET, ImSET standing for Impact of 

18 Sector Energy Technologies, again, to analyze 

19 how these changes on the consumer side 

20 propagate themselves through the rest of the 

21 economy affecting employment elsewhere in the 

22 economy. 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 155

1 I want to emphasize that the 

2 Manufacturer Impact Analysis assesses the 

3 direct impacts to the manufacturers of this 

4 product. This analysis looks, again, at the 

5 indirect impacts of standards to the U.S. 

6 economy. 

7 For this analysis, we did see a 

8 change in employment, but very, very tiny. 

9 So, you can't really say that it's 

10 significant, that the net increase in jobs 

11 created by this standard is all that much, 

12 because when measured against the overall 

13 employment in the U.S., it's on the order of 

14 .001 percent, so it's extremely small. And I 

15 don't know if the department has less 

16 certainty whether or not these actual job 

17 gains will occur, because of that, because of 

18 the size of the increase. 

19 Does anyone have any questions 

20 about the employment impact analysis? Okay. 

21 Moving right on, then we'll go into the 

22 Environmental Assessment. And its purpose is 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 156

1 to estimate the environmental impacts of the 

2 standards, primarily in the form of reduced 

3 power plant emissions, reduced airborne 

4 emissions of carbon dioxide, NOx, mercury, and 

5 sulfur dioxide. DOE also looks at how 

6 emissions at the site are affected, because 

7 commercial clothes washers use heated water 

8 that's generated from gas water heating. They 

9 also account for energy savings at gas dryers. 

10 So, again, DOE looks at how carbon dioxide 

11 and NOx are affected by the standards from on12 site emissions, as well. 

13 The method for estimating the 

14 power plant emissions, again, using the same 

15 model as used for the Utility Impact Analysis, 

16 and that's the National Energy Modeling 

17 System, or NEMS. 

18 Again, so the output from this 

19 analysis, again, is to generate these 

20 reductions in CO2, reductions in NOx, 

21 reductions in mercury, and also looking at 

22 possible reductions in SO2. Now, for SO2, 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 157

1 since there have been caps on SO2 since 

2 effectively 1990, due to Clean Air Act 

3 amendments, standards are -- do not affect SO2 

4 emissions from power plants, but what DOE does 

5 look at is whether or not the standard does 

6 affect the allowance price of SO2, because 

7 there is a market for SO2 in the U.S. 

8 Another thing that DOE did for 

9 this rulemaking, which we also did for the 

10 NOPR, was to monetize the value of the 

11 emission reductions for carbon dioxide, NOx, 

12 and mercury. And this leads to the next 

13 issue, which is just seeking any comment on 

14 the analysis that was performed to estimate 

15 these emissions impacts, as well as monetizing 

16 those emission impacts. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed Osann. 

18 MR. OSANN: Yes. You used the 

19 NEMS model to calculate the reduction of power 

20 plant emissions. How do you calculate the 

21 reduction in on-site emissions where gas 

22 appliances are used? 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 158

1 MR. ROSENQUIST: You know, from 

2 doing a literature search, there's emission 

3 factors, essentially, for fossil fuel burning 

4 equipment in the residential and commercial 

5 building sectors. I, unfortunately, can't 

6 cite to you off the top of my head what those 

7 sources are, but I can certainly get that 

8 information to you. 

9 MR. OSANN: Is that in the TSD? 

10 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yes, it's in the 

11 TSD. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Other 

13 comments or questions related to the 

14 Environmental Assessment? 

15 MR. ECKMAN: Just one question on 

16 the NEMS model. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. 

18 MR. ECKMAN: Tom Eckman. Greg, 

19 does the NEMS model generate the heat rates at 

20 the margin? Is that what you're using? 

21 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yes. Yes. 

22 MR. ECKMAN: The new additions are 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 159

1 the dispatch at the margin is what the heat 

2 rates - 

3 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yes, and that's 

4 what's used to convert the site energy savings 

5 to source energy savings. And then that's 

6 what gets input into the model to estimate the 

7 emission impacts. 

8 MR. ECKMAN: So, it's not the 

9 average of the existing fleet, it's the --

10 it's what's being dispatched at the margin - 

11 MR. ROSENQUIST: Right. Right. 

12 It depends. You know, I haven't really looked 

13 at the -- coal fired power plants, as well as 

14 gas fired power plants are affected by the 

15 standard according to NEMS, so some emission 

16 savings are also coming from coal fired power 

17 plants. I guess it if was a more peaky end 

18 use, where maybe gas fired power plants are 

19 used to provide that power, for example, maybe 

20 in the case of air conditioning, you'd see 

21 more of the emissions coming solely from gas 

22 fired power plants. But, in this case, it is 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 160

1 also coming from coal. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Tim. 

3 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, 

4 Earthjustice. Just to clarify a couple of 

5 things on the Environmental Assessment. You 

6 have an estimate for water savings in billions 

7 of gallons. I assume that's at the machines 

8 themselves, and not at the utilities. 

9 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yes, it's the 

10 waste water savings, but yes, at the site. 

11 Exactly. How much water that is used by that 

12 plant actually goes back down the drain. 

13 MR. BALLO: There's also a little 

14 bit of discussion in the Environmental 

15 Assessment of the impacts of reductions in 

16 waste water use. I don't think there's 

17 anything on the impact of reductions in 

18 natural water consumption. Is there a 

19 rationale for that? 

20 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yes. The 

21 National Energy Savings -- the National Impact 

22 Analysis estimates the water savings from the 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 161

1 standards, so -- just to clarify, what we also 

2 estimate the waste water savings from the 

3 standards, as well. That is -- again, like I 

4 said before, how much water is used by the 

5 plant that gets drained. And virtually all 

6 the water that's used by the appliance also 

7 gets also into the drain, as well. Some of 

8 the water gets into the clothes, is retained, 

9 and then it evaporated, either in a dryer or 

10 hanging the clothes on the line, or something 

11 like that. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments 

13 on these? Questions? Okay. 

14 MR. ROSENQUIST: And now on to the 

15 last analysis, which is the Regulatory Impact 

16 Analysis. And its purpose is to investigate 

17 non-regulatory alternatives to mandatory 

18 energy efficiency standards. And the non19 regulatory alternatives that were analyzed 

20 included consumer rebates, commercial customer 

21 tax credits, voluntary efficiency targets, 

22 that is Energy Star, manufacturer tax credits, 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 162

1 replacements programs, and bulk government 

2 purchases. Think of that as a program 

3 administered by the Federal Energy Management 

4 program, that last item. 

5 What's done is the inputs into the 

6 National Impact Analysis spreadsheet model are 

7 modified in order to analyze each one of these 

8 options. And what's generated, again, is 

9 similar to what's generated from the National 

10 Impact Analysis; that is, national energy 

11 savings, and the present value due to each one 

12 of these non-regulatory alternatives. 

13 In all cases, the non-regulatory 

14 alternatives do not yield as much in the way 

15 of energy savings, and economic impact as the 

16 mandatory efficiency standards. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Questions and 

18 comments on Regulatory Impact Analysis? No. 

19 Okay. 

20 MR. ROSENQUIST: And this brings 

21 us back to the issues which DOE has identified 

22 in the Supplemental NOPR for which it wants 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 163

1 public comments. These are the same issues 

2 that you saw at the beginning of the day in 

3 the morning. I'm not going to go ahead and 

4 repeat them. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: I'm glad you left 

6 it on this slide. This is good. Everybody 

7 can take a chance to look at the key issues 

8 that DOE was seeking comment on. And then we 

9 can roll this straight into your closing 

10 remarks, additional issues that people wish to 

11 raise. Okay. So, now it's the opportunity 

12 for people to raise -- individuals to raise 

13 any other issues. Tim. 

14 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, 

15 Earthjustice. We heard a lot about the 

16 adverse impacts to the low-volume manufacturer 

17 of both the front loading standard, and the 

18 top loading standard, the ones that DOE 

19 proposed. I think I explained our position at 

20 the beginning, that to the extent that DOE is 

21 particularly concerned about adopting the 1.06 

22 MEF standard for machines, the low-volume 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 164

1 manufacturer, I understand, produces a yield 

2 of 1.55 MEF. The department has only analyzed 

3 a couple of possible TSLs, and it might be 

4 helpful to see what adopting the standard of 

5 1.55, what the economics of that would be, and 

6 what the impacts for the low-volume 

7 manufacturer would be, if there's time between 

8 now and when this rule comes out. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

10 Other comments here as we're moving towards 

11 closing. I think everybody is aware of that. 

12 This is the opportunity for people to raise 

13 any additional comments, or to briefly 

14 summarize. Okay. I guess I see nothing 

15 additional. Tom, you have something? 

16 MR. ECKMAN: Yes, just in the way 

17 of summation. I think there's frustration 

18 around our side of the table on the efficiency 

19 side, seeing something in the range of 100 

20 million to 500 million plus, and that's a 

21 conservative estimate given in terms of net 

22 present value benefit on the table for 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 165

1 consumers. 

2 And having the weight of the 

3 decision rest of a $50 million investment to 

4 fix the problem. And I would just say I'm 

5 frustrated by that equation, and would there 

6 would be some other answer to that problem, 

7 when consumers have a two to one, or a five to 

8 one benefit, or ten to one benefit, at least, 

9 and we can't get past the $50 million cost. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Are you offering 

11 anything that's not in the record that would 

12 help the department - 

13 MR. ECKMAN: It seems to me in the 

14 regulatory options discussion, a resolution of 

15 that problem, some exploration of options to 

16 address that problem, to mitigate that hurdle 

17 to get passed that -- so we get those 

18 benefits. And those are not including the 

19 environmental benefits that we're trying to 

20 seek here. It seems to me there ought to be 

21 some effort made beyond simply listing what 

22 those options are, some exploration of those 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 166

1 options in a serious way. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Ed Osann. 

3 MR. OSANN: Yes, I agree with 

4 Tom's remarks. I think the -- I'm struck by 

5 the potential savings that DOE has identified, 

6 recognizing that the savings are probably 

7 significantly understated due to the flawed 

8 assumptions regarding the mix between machines 

9 in the laundromat sector, and machines in the 

10 multi-housing sector. The savings are likely 

11 to be considerably greater. And it does seem 

12 as though those savings are too much to walk 

13 away from. 

14 We recognize that the 

15 consideration for the low-volume manufacturer 

16 is an important consideration for DOE. It's 

17 one that the department has a statutory 

18 obligation to perform, and for good cause. 

19 But we remain unconvinced that the financial 

20 implications of a stronger standard than is 

21 recommended are as dire as the department has 

22 -- would lead us to believe, based on the 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 167

1 analysis that it's placed in the record. 

2 I do have a question for DOE at 

3 this point, and that is, do you believe that 

4 under current law, you have the authority to 

5 set in this rulemaking a standard that would 

6 go into effect in two tiers, at two different 

7 dates? 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Betsy. 

9 MS. KOHL: Sorry. This is Betsy 

10 Kohl from DOE. It's very -- EPCA uses 

11 different language formulations for basically 

12 product on that issue. We've wrestled with it 

13 before for different products, so we can 

14 certainly take a look at that, but I don't 

15 know off the top of my head. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks for 

17 the question. 

18 MS. OSANN: That may be one way to 

19 address the conundrum that DOE seems to be 

20 facing, particularly if it can provide a bit 

21 more time to -- for some of the capital 

22 finance issues of the low-volume manufacturer 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 168

1 to resolve themselves. They are dealing with 

2 debt issues, and rolling over their debt 

3 facility, and a bit more time might provide a 

4 useful bit of accommodation. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

6 Additional closing remarks, 

7 summary statements? Okay. 

8 So, then, from my perspective, I 

9 thank all of you. We had a very productive day 

10 today, many good issues raised. I'd ask you 

11 at the back of your packet, there's an 

12 evaluation form. Please take one minute to 

13 fill it out. The department reads them 

14 carefully, and I'll turn it back for closing 

15 remarks to Stephen Witkowski. 

16 MR. WITKOWSKI: Okay. Very 

17 quickly, I just would like to direct you to 

18 page 61, how to submit your comments, and the 

19 time frame. These have to be in by December 

 th

20 9 of 2009. Please submit them as given on 

21 page 61. On behalf of DOE, I'd like to thank 

22 you all for attending and participating, and 

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 169

1 we look forward to additional submitted 

2 comments by the closing date. Thank you. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Safe 

4 travels, everyone. 

5 (Whereupon, the proceedings went 

6 off the record at 1:40 p.m.) 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 170

A

ability 24:5 44:17

48:2,15

able 27:19 31:22

54:14 60:21 61:9

77:19 82:13 90:1

125:20 129:8

abroad 125:8

absence 115:5

absolutely 127:5

absorb 68:18,20

abuse 47:22

accept 139:14

acceptable 67:16

139:21 148:7

acceptance 23:15

61:1 62:6

accepted 139:7

access 37:9 49:22

accommodate

144:10 145:10,14

accommodation

168:4

account 94:7 97:4

156:9

accounted 70:2

accounts 69:13,14

69:16 93:2,4,5

accumulated

148:22 150:5

accurate 114:1

achieve 24:8,18

40:22 54:1 56:9

139:18

achieved 16:20

55:11,20 60:18

acquiring 102:12

Act 12:2,13 157:2

action 30:4

actions 12:16

activate 71:18

72:12

activation 71:10

actual 87:4 90:4,17

104:12 107:5

155:16

add 45:11 48:9,20

63:1 145:12

adder 68:5

addition 7:12 24:14

44:20 45:2,11

46:1 144:9 146:12

153:20

additional 8:22

11:17 25:17 29:17

34:21 49:3 50:10

60:2 66:13 68:4

69:18 73:4,7,9

78:1 88:2 90:12

108:2,3 109:14

124:18 128:7

129:8,10 134:5,19

144:10 145:7

146:12 150:8

152:2 161:12

163:10 164:13,15

168:6 169:1

additions 158:22

address 14:2 15:1

96:1 142:14

165:16 167:19

addressed 142:3

addresses 12:11

126:14

addressing 12:7

adds 68:3

add-in 82:12

adequacy 16:17

adjourn 3:22 9:4

adjusted 35:17

administered 162:3

Administration

83:8

Administration's

153:7

adopt 30:18,22

31:10,19 42:7

adopted 12:18

adopting 163:21

164:4

adopts 137:14

advance 21:20

Advanced 13:3

adverse 19:6,8

37:17,21 138:11

163:16

adversity 24:4

advertised 57:19

58:3

advocates 30:20

125:14

affect 51:6 72:3,4

105:21 112:12,16

112:17 157:3,6

affiliation 5:7 9:14

afternoon 33:22

agency 26:16 28:14

agenda 3:3 7:10,15

9:7,9

agitator 42:12

60:12

ago 36:21 141:15

150:13

agree 31:5 44:14

58:12 114:15

166:3

agreement 149:15

AHAM 32:15 33:1

39:9,13 45:10

90:16 109:22

AHAM's 41:17

44:14

ahead 6:21 16:13

20:2,8 29:18 58:6

62:22 64:11 79:18

98:20 122:1

131:12 163:3

air 10:10 128:10

157:2 159:20

airborne 156:3

albeit 41:9

algorithm 85:13

Alliance 2:4 5:17

5:19 22:4,7,11

25:20 26:3,5,20

34:8 46:15 54:5

55:8,12 57:13

68:2 111:8 116:2

116:22 138:21

146:1

Alliance's 23:16

24:11 111:16

allocate 93:12

allow 23:12 48:22

148:11

allowance 157:6

allowed 23:6 47:1

allows 39:14 46:21

69:21

alluded 139:2

ALS 24:17,22

alternative 32:7

alternatives 161:17

161:19 162:12,14

altogether 126:21

Amanda 2:3 5:12

amended 12:2 16:9

19:16

amendments 12:19

157:3

American 2:3 5:13

84:4 111:10,18

amount 7:21 19:3

29:8,10 68:9

79:19 80:19

101:21 120:19,20

143:7

amounts 42:1

analogous 138:8

analyses 4:21 17:20

73:14 117:21,22

analysis 3:8,9,10

3:12,12,14,15,17

3:17,18 8:1,4,5,9

8:10,10,12,13,14

8:15,16 11:5,5,9

11:11 17:6,12,13

17:14,16,18,18,20

17:21 18:1,1,3,6,8

18:8 19:15 33:15

33:20 34:22 35:1

35:2,5,9 39:22

51:11 53:15 59:18

62:8 74:1,5,7,14

74:18,20 76:2,22

81:15 82:1,1,3,10

82:15,17 83:3

84:8 86:12 88:5

91:19 92:2,3,5,17

94:22 98:2 101:20

105:3,5,6,12

107:14,15 108:1,4

108:16 109:15

110:11,17 112:10

112:13,19 113:19

113:22 115:15

117:10,12,19,20

120:2,3 121:1,2,6

121:10,21 122:5

129:13,18 131:19

132:7,13 134:16

135:6 136:14

140:11 141:1,16

152:17,19,21

153:6 154:9,11

155:2,4,7,20

156:15,19 157:14

160:22 161:15,16

162:6,10,18 167:1

analyze 26:13

95:16 96:22

154:18 162:7

analyzed 36:2,4

74:22 107:4

117:19 161:19

164:2

analyzing 106:13

106:19 122:18

Angeles 6:7

announced 15:1,11

annual 84:12

111:10,16,17

116:2

annualized 85:7

ANOPR 13:4 36:1

40:1 114:4

answer 14:15 79:7

134:22 135:1

165:6

answers 101:12

114:12

Anti-Trust 26:13

26:16 34:10,13

anybody 7:8,18

21:21,21 51:8

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 171

102:11,13

apartment 24:5

apologize 127:3

apparent 49:11

apparently 60:19

66:5

Appeals 36:21

appear 63:15

appears 26:10

28:16

appendix 126:13

126:14

appliance 1:15 2:5

5:10 6:1 86:4

153:9 161:6

appliances 94:14

96:7 98:5 157:22

applicable 14:20

application 66:6

71:19 72:2 87:12

applications 63:18

75:7,12 76:5,10

applied 96:7

applies 31:1 137:15

apply 13:19 31:19

31:20

appreciable 103:17

approach 40:11

53:14 75:1,6

81:21 82:18 92:18

105:4

approaches 114:6

appropriate 29:21

30:3 96:10,16

139:6

approved 25:7

approximately

23:10 27:22 126:8

147:12

April 12:10

apt 34:13

arbitrary 29:14

area 35:1 62:10

93:17 139:2

areas 67:11

arguing 72:19

ASAP 33:12 46:7

110:22

aside 43:7 148:3

asked 26:12 58:9

asking 15:5 59:8

70:5 78:17 108:1

113:20,21,21

114:19 128:21

aspect 69:19

aspects 151:3

assess 89:10 122:6

123:1

assessed 63:3

assesses 155:2

assessment 3:17

8:15 18:7 155:22

158:14 160:5,15

assignment 88:9

associated 20:11

25:15 49:12

107:12

Association 1:15

6:1 84:5

assume 92:21

160:7

assumed 95:13

96:12 97:7 105:8

142:20

assuming 89:16

129:4,6,7 150:13

150:16

assumption 76:21

128:22 129:2

143:16

assumptions 11:10

114:5 130:6 166:8

attached 26:20

27:11

attempt 100:4

attempting 53:22

attendees 11:14

attending 168:22

attenuated 143:6

attributed 25:14

attributes 151:8

authority 11:22

36:13 52:8 53:4

114:20 116:13

167:4

automobiles 95:8

96:15

availability 13:2

20:15 87:5 108:9

available 9:17

10:16 24:21 51:12

62:16 67:19 84:16

87:2,8 89:12 90:6

116:3 117:1

127:19 138:9

140:9

Avenue 1:10

average 75:17,20

83:11,16 84:1

85:20 86:1 87:11

159:9

avoid 86:18

await 37:3

aware 10:15 64:2

164:11

Awareness 2:5 5:11

axis 37:6,8 47:4,7,8

60:11 65:22 87:13

87:14 132:5 144:4

144:4 145:11,12

147:4,9,11 149:7

149:14

a.m 1:11 4:2 91:13

91:14

B

back 21:21 46:6

88:10 91:4,4,13

91:16 93:9 109:17

120:22 121:19

152:16 160:12

162:21 168:11,14

backed 101:6

bad 91:9

Ball 82:12

Ballo 1:14 5:20,20

30:13,14,14 32:10

41:15,16,16 49:18

49:18 116:7,7

137:10,10 160:3,3

160:13 163:14,14

bank 24:11

bar 10:5

barriers 138:13

base 86:13 88:10

92:6,19 94:3,6,10

103:9,11 104:8

105:18 106:4,5

123:4,15 135:8,9

135:21,22 136:2

136:10,10 137:4,5

based 17:1 23:16

24:19 51:10 60:10

71:10 75:2,8

76:19 77:14 79:5

84:3,18,22 85:8

85:17 86:2 87:4

90:1 94:12 95:6

96:13 107:13

111:1 119:18

123:5 126:8

127:20 129:18

130:6 150:4

166:22

baseline 75:4 77:4

77:5 86:17 103:21

106:7 118:15

basically 39:1

46:19,22 47:2

68:3,6 73:17,19

80:5 81:5 101:14

121:18 124:16

139:18 167:11

basis 7:13 41:10

115:1 143:16,21

BATTAGLIA 1:14

bears 133:3

beginning 18:11

136:12 163:2,20

behalf 4:14 5:10

168:21

belief 24:7

believe 15:21 23:5

23:19 29:20,22

30:17,21 31:7

32:1 40:7,10 41:3

42:21 43:19 59:19

63:13 70:12 88:22

89:6,11 102:10

111:16 128:5,14

146:14 148:18

166:22 167:3

believed 31:18

believes 32:4 56:8

116:14

BELINDA 1:16

benefit 26:18 34:12

125:10,13 127:6

129:11 164:22

165:8,8

benefits 18:13,16

18:17 34:1 86:18

120:1 165:18,19

Berkeley 2:6 7:1

best 10:1 41:4 48:8

66:9 128:11

Betsy 52:1,2 167:8

167:9

better 67:7 98:6

112:1 114:16

115:17

beyond 40:14

118:15 129:9

165:21

biased 131:16

big 44:22 47:20

65:6,6 112:3

bigger 131:8

biggest 49:5

billion 119:20,21

billions 34:17

160:6

bimodal 40:5,12

bit 4:22 16:8 67:6

92:15 108:16

124:9 131:18

160:14 167:20

168:3,4

bits 112:6

black 12:14

blocks 145:6

blue 103:12

bold 12:15

Book 85:3

borrowing 24:12

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 172

bottom 38:10 46:4

49:22 66:16

124:10

break 8:1,3,7,17,19

91:9,10 98:21

109:20 112:15

122:3

BRENDA 1:19

brief 7:15,19 21:22

91:20

briefly 7:11 11:21

41:17 164:13

brings 38:17 56:15

117:9 162:20

broad 100:19

116:13

broader 98:5

broken 110:4,6

Brookman 1:11,13

3:4,7,20 4:3,9 5:3

6:20 7:2,4,7 13:12

14:4 16:1 21:18

25:21 27:3,8

29:16 30:12 32:8

32:14 33:10 34:20

38:6,12,15 39:3

41:14 44:11 45:7

46:5,13 49:17

50:8,12,16,20

51:4,7,19,22 53:8

54:3,11,16 57:1

57:11,15 58:4,19

58:22 59:7,12,21

60:5 61:18 62:22

63:10 64:8,10

65:18 66:13,21

69:8,18 70:13,17

72:6 73:1 77:12

78:3,8,11,14,21

79:16 81:16 87:6

88:6 89:21 90:11

91:8,15 97:16

99:6,11,16 102:9

102:20 103:4

104:9 108:5

109:13 112:5,22

113:11,13 115:19

116:5,16 117:7

120:4 121:22

126:11 127:12,16

130:20 131:1

132:9,11,14

133:14,20 135:3

135:11,14,20

136:16,19 137:7

138:19 140:6,12

140:15,19 143:13

143:20 145:15,18

145:21 146:9

150:3,7 151:9,19

152:12 157:17

158:12,17 160:2

161:12 162:17

163:5 164:9

165:10 166:2

167:8,16 168:5

169:3

Brunk 1:15 5:22,22

32:15,15 39:9,9

BT 153:10,10

build 142:13 144:9

building 1:10 143:1

143:5 146:3

153:11 154:7

158:5

buildings 143:8

built 98:11 144:20

bulbs 29:8

bulk 162:1

bullet 38:7

bump 134:12

burdens 18:14

122:17

burdensome

143:11

burning 158:3

business 27:20 28:8

businesses 121:8

buy 48:8 97:8

buying 94:1 148:1

148:2

C

cal 67:19 71:18

calculate 25:5

157:19,20

calculated 136:12

calculation 137:4

calibration 93:6

California 1:17

36:8,10,20 55:2

86:21

call 93:9

called 82:12 92:14

93:14 105:22

153:8 154:17

Canada 61:8 67:11

candidate 117:17

118:2,10,11,21

119:3

cap 129:14

capability 40:14

capacity 35:21

145:4,13 153:3,18

capital 18:21 25:3

85:20 142:19

146:13 167:21

capricious 29:15

caps 157:1

capture 82:16

86:15

captured 83:5,19

carbon 156:4,10

157:11

carefully 138:5

168:14

Carlo 82:13,18

CARMICHAEL

1:16

CARR 1:16

carry 152:18

case 1:18 5:16 22:5

26:2 34:4 42:22

43:11,15,19 65:3

86:13,13 88:10

92:6,7,8,19,19

93:13 94:3,4,6,10

95:21 103:9,11,12

104:7,8 105:18,20

106:5,6,22 109:11

115:21 123:15

136:10,10 137:5,6

153:13,13 159:20

159:22

cases 64:21 92:8

162:13

cash 122:19

casts 93:10

categories 39:19

cause 101:9 166:18

causing 106:14

CCW 16:14 19:9

21:1 28:8 62:4

CCWs 11:3 12:20

16:19 17:4 18:20

20:21 21:2,3,7,7,8

28:13

CE 79:21 90:3

cease 148:1

ceasing 144:14

CEC 36:7,15 43:10

131:15

CEE 111:22 139:9

139:16,17,19

cell 10:4

census 83:6 84:10

certain 16:10 29:8

29:10 39:19 42:18

certainly 48:16

108:2,20 158:7

167:14

certainty 155:16

cetera 22:15

149:21

CEU 99:8

CE's 77:15

chain 76:20

chance 25:19 163:7

change 77:11 95:6

118:9 121:16

130:16 155:8

changed 91:21

124:9

changes 13:19

14:22 77:8 154:14

154:19

channels 78:5 79:4

Chapter 140:22

characteristic

20:10

characteristics

39:21 62:14,17

65:15 110:16

characterization

74:3,7 75:2 77:14

88:4

characterize 11:4

35:6 82:14 105:21

107:10 108:13

characterized

64:16 86:9

chart 56:16 88:9

charts 104:11

check 90:20

chevron 120:22

chime 145:16

choose 47:1 100:12

chose 50:6

chronology 11:21

16:8

Circuit 36:21

citation 15:18,21

cite 158:6

cited 86:13

clarification 9:20

51:17 66:16

135:15 151:17

clarify 109:19

160:4 161:1

class 30:19 36:2

37:15 40:10,14,18

40:20 41:20 42:8

45:15 46:9,10

53:13 78:4 102:7

118:3,8,22 137:13

141:8 147:1,1

classes 19:19 20:17

30:18 33:5 35:11

35:20 37:10 38:20

39:2,11,13,15,19

40:6 41:3,12 44:2

44:16 45:6,22

46:3,20 47:2

53:22 87:21,21

117:18 118:12

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 173

119:2,14

clean 24:5 28:22

54:9 88:18 157:2

cleaning 29:3,6,14

89:10

clear 40:4 112:16

clearly 42:12 62:18

63:19 80:22 112:9

112:18 141:21

climates 68:22

close 8:6 9:2 108:15

126:20 133:4,8

139:3

closes 11:19

closing 3:21 9:3

163:9 164:11

168:6,14 169:2

clothes 1:4,5 4:8,16

11:2 12:16,18,21

13:16,22 14:12,16

15:9,11,14 16:11

16:15 19:18 20:10

20:12 22:17 23:4

23:7,11,22 24:1,2

24:5,6 25:2,10,14

25:16 27:22 28:20

28:21,22 29:3,5,6

29:14 30:3 32:18

32:21 33:4,7

35:10 36:1,6,19

37:7,19 38:21

39:12 40:3 41:13

44:3,4,10 46:17

47:4 48:3,5 49:9

50:4 51:11,13

53:14 54:9,15

55:1,6,6,10,11,16

55:19,20 56:6,8

60:8,11,14,16

61:6,13,15,17

62:1 63:18,19

64:14 65:10,22

66:6,9,11,18 67:4

67:9,13,18 68:17

68:18 69:3 75:11

85:4,6,19,22

86:16 88:18,19

89:10 93:14,19

94:16 95:17,17

96:8 97:8,9 98:3,7

98:9 106:3 118:6

119:11 120:17

121:7 122:7,15

124:12,18,22

128:5,7 130:15,17

132:22 137:15

138:15 139:19,21

140:2 147:4,9,13

148:14 149:3,7,12

149:14 150:12,20

151:14,15 153:22

154:6 156:7 161:8

161:10

cluster 53:9

coal 159:13,16

160:1

Code 116:12

codified 50:1

COGSWELL 1:17

cold 23:2,3 69:3

collected 59:3,17

89:1

color 103:13

combination 82:5

combined 134:2

come 13:17 14:21

14:22 15:3 20:3

32:12 38:1 46:6

52:13 83:15,22

107:20 109:17

117:16 118:13,21

133:17,18 141:21

147:3 148:11

comes 68:10

107:11 164:8

coming 69:2 76:22

114:12 115:7

159:16,21 160:1

comment 10:22

11:19 17:7 33:8

38:4,20 39:7 51:8

60:1,3 63:4 66:16

77:22 78:12 88:16

95:20 96:9 99:22

102:10,13,15

108:2,3,22 109:1

111:21 113:1,6

140:9 148:13

157:13 163:8

comments 3:6 9:6

10:2 11:13,16

16:17 20:2,5,7

22:5 23:16 29:17

30:16 33:1,11

34:21 39:11 44:14

46:16 47:10 50:10

53:9 56:21 57:10

57:14,16 61:5,11

64:4 66:14 73:4,9

88:2,11 90:13

102:22 109:14

111:8 116:21

117:4 123:6

133:11 139:1

140:11 150:3,8

152:2 158:13

161:12 162:18

163:1 164:10,13

168:18 169:2

commercial 1:4,5

4:8,16 11:2 12:16

12:18 13:22 14:12

14:16 15:9,11,14

16:11,15 19:17

22:17 23:4,20,22

24:1 25:2,10,14

25:16 27:2,22

28:20 29:5,22

30:3 32:18,21

33:4,7 35:10 36:1

37:7,19 39:12

40:3 41:13 44:3

48:1 50:4 53:14

55:1,6 60:8,14,16

61:6,13,15,17,22

62:1 63:6 64:14

64:19 65:9,22

66:5,8,10,17

67:18 75:11 83:10

85:4,19,22 93:13

93:19 94:16 96:8

98:7,9 100:12,18

118:6 120:16

121:6 122:7,14

124:12 132:22

138:16 139:22

147:9,13 148:15

148:18 153:22

154:6 156:7 158:4

161:20

Commission 36:7,9

55:2

Commission's

86:21

common 66:5

93:17

commonly 20:11

companies 34:14

45:17

companion 25:16

company 1:17

22:12 67:8 69:1

112:2

compare 93:10

97:19

compared 68:4

91:22

Comparing 72:9

compelling 36:16

compete 147:5

competition 17:22

19:9 26:15 28:11

28:14 31:4 32:5

37:18,22 138:3,12

138:18

competitive 19:13

21:11 26:17 34:11

133:13

competitors 122:15

125:4 140:1 147:6

147:7 148:11,19

complete 9:17

23:11

completely 128:10

complexes 45:14

compliance 13:20

14:2 15:10 71:4

compliant 111:17

complicated 47:16

complies 71:17

comply 57:7 66:19

71:17

component 144:4

components 142:18

142:19

composed 74:1

computers 152:7

concepts 47:9

concern 9:1 28:6

33:15 40:9,16

100:6,7 101:7

110:22

concerned 31:12

42:14 100:10

108:16 163:21

concerning 64:4

concerns 21:11

133:13

concise 10:10

concluded 28:10

37:6

concludes 18:15

19:2,6

conclusions 37:13

condition 69:11

conditioning

159:20

conditions 71:1

condominiums

93:16

conduct 81:22

105:5

conducted 73:15

80:6 92:21 95:21

121:10

confidence 141:11

confidential 35:14

confined 75:6

confining 62:18,19

confronting 50:7

Congress 50:1,3,5

Congressionally

50:2

conjunction 130:12

connected 117:12

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 174

conservation 1:3

1:18 4:6 6:9 11:1

12:8 13:1 16:10

17:10 18:2 19:17

21:14 35:19

conservative

164:21

conserve 41:6

conserving 41:7

consider 17:10

24:3 28:11 32:7

37:3

considerable 37:16

101:21 108:14

141:4 143:7

considerably

166:11

consideration 9:10

19:10 37:11 62:4

62:8 123:20

166:15,16

considered 18:10

22:21,22 28:2

59:3 119:18

123:14

considering 52:22

98:8

considers 18:5

consisted 122:18

consistent 46:2

60:20

consisting 23:9

consists 105:13

118:2

Consortium 75:9

76:7 79:6,8 111:4

Constantin 2:8 3:8

3:16 6:16 35:2

51:8 54:17 58:4

63:12 66:22 73:11

89:3,5 121:20

132:15 146:8

construction 93:4

consultant 5:9 79:2

Consultants 84:4

Consulting 1:14,16

1:22 2:6,7,8 6:17

6:19

consume 42:6

consumer 3:14

8:12 44:22 45:12

74:18 77:7,11

84:19 85:9 95:14

96:14 101:3 102:2

102:18 120:3

121:1 139:13

154:19 161:20

consumers 17:12

18:19 26:18 34:11

34:15,18 45:3

47:1 48:12 49:3

49:13 78:4 82:2

86:15 94:1 95:7

95:12 97:7 100:11

101:9 121:8

149:22 165:1,7

consumer's 154:14

consumption 72:4

107:16,21,21

160:18

CONT 2:1

contained 33:19

content 150:12,18

151:6,13

continually 30:5

continue 41:5 67:7

67:21 68:19

127:14 130:22

131:1

contrasted 143:2

control 71:7 129:12

conundrum 167:19

convened 1:9

Convenience 48:13

convenient 48:17

49:1,14

conversations 10:5

conversion 18:21

convert 77:6,10

85:16 101:16

159:4

converted 93:16

cooking 1:4 4:8

cooperation 30:5

113:21 115:2,13

copy 7:10,12

Corporation 6:11

correct 52:20 58:14

67:5 70:20 71:12

71:15 108:11

110:2 120:8 127:5

127:8 130:11

134:9,13 136:4,6

137:5 150:6

correspond 119:17

124:2

cost 3:10 8:5 17:13

17:15,16 18:21

35:6 45:3 47:1,11

48:9,12 73:14,22

74:4,19 77:7,9

81:22 82:4,5,6,19

83:2 85:3,4,5,16

85:18,20 87:11,14

87:22 94:8 105:15

107:16,17 110:16

142:18,19 147:4

149:7,13,15 151:4

165:9

costing 25:2

costly 47:17

costs 34:3 74:11,17

82:8 85:1,8,11

87:19 88:5 105:16

107:12,20 142:5

143:2 146:13

148:20 149:5

154:14

Council 1:19 2:3

5:13 6:9

counsel 14:8 45:4

51:17

Counsel's 52:3

counted 134:15

135:13 136:14

137:1

counter 39:5

counting 136:7

country 120:1

couple 69:4 133:2

141:20 160:4

164:3

coupled 74:10

course 11:3 30:4

46:19,21 68:7

court 36:21 43:11

52:13

covenants 24:11

cover 26:10 28:15

covered 12:6 16:16

35:20 51:14 62:1

62:21 64:20 65:12

110:12,14

CO2 156:20

crazy 140:5

create 39:19

147:21 148:9

149:4

created 155:11

credit 24:14,16

125:19,21 126:15

127:11,19 128:3

129:16,21 131:10

137:4,19

credits 21:11 99:8

123:8 124:7,8,20

125:2,9 126:3,6

128:2 133:13

135:5 136:12

140:9 161:21,22

cries 34:5

cross-elasticity

98:11

cross-price 21:5

31:13 94:22 95:16

96:19,20 97:10

100:4

Crystal 82:12

cuing 9:22

cumulative 122:16

current 29:1,4,6

35:9 51:11 114:17

130:13 144:1

149:9 167:4

currently 13:15,21

24:12 29:2 51:12

60:9 66:8 133:7

146:17 148:12,15

cursory 33:13

customer 83:16

88:8 89:18 161:20

customers 23:17

25:9 83:11,14

88:15 139:7,8,11

139:13 146:6

cut 104:11

cycle 45:2 48:19,20

49:7,10,14 72:11

72:13 73:14 75:3

81:1,6 110:16

cycles 75:16,17,18

75:20,21,22 79:20

D

D 3:1

dancing 47:5

data 11:11 21:3

22:9,9,9,13,14

35:12,14 58:12

59:5 61:16 73:20

75:8 76:7 78:1

79:22 80:20 83:9

83:14,22 84:3,7,8

84:12,19,20 85:2

85:3 86:20,20

87:2 88:14 89:1

90:6,15 93:8,11

94:6,14,15,16

96:7 98:3,8 108:8

108:9 109:12

113:20 114:13

115:6,8,13 116:11

128:11 130:10,12

131:14,20 150:4

database 55:3

86:22 87:1

date 36:14 59:18

92:21 105:8

135:10 136:3,5

169:2

dates 167:7

day 7:14 75:16,17

75:20,21 146:3

152:11 163:2

168:9

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 175

days 9:19

deadline 16:14

dealing 168:1

deals 26:12

Debra 1:15 5:22

32:14,15 39:8,9

44:20

debt 85:21 168:2,2

December 11:19

168:19

decide 44:5 148:5

decision 165:3

decisions 96:14

deck 38:5

deeper 81:17

definitions 38:22

52:4

degree 71:5,7,10

72:2

degrees 22:20 23:2

68:11 70:11,19,19

72:1

dehumidifiers 1:3

4:7 12:4

DeLAURA 1:17

6:6,6 57:3,4 63:1

88:7 89:15 104:10

104:18 105:1

150:10

delivered 46:15

delve 81:16

demand 21:5 31:13

94:12 95:1,4 96:6

96:19 100:5

123:18 144:11

demonstrate 15:10

denial 36:7,22

denied 36:11

department 1:1,17

1:19,20,22 2:2,9

4:5,11,14 6:13

13:14 19:11 26:12

30:17 31:2,6,9,18

32:1,4,7,10 34:6,9

36:22 42:7,14

43:2 44:8 46:16

73:6 90:7 99:8

116:10,12,13

132:18,19 134:5

137:12,14,18

155:15 164:2

165:12 166:17,21

168:13

Department's

33:15

depending 39:20

123:22 144:7

depends 61:2

129:11 136:8

159:12

depreciation 143:5

143:6,8

derive 125:18

derived 83:11

derives 122:14

describe 11:12

description 8:3

design 35:7 46:22

47:2,9 118:9

149:9 151:2

designated 24:20

designed 41:21

74:20

designing 70:21

desired 67:20

88:20

detail 19:14

detailed 30:15

99:19

details 33:9

deter 99:12

determination 3:10

8:5 21:4,9,12

133:11

determinations

13:20

determine 43:2

74:14,16,20 82:2

97:13 154:12

determined 24:22

43:12 75:14 77:4

85:7 121:14

determines 31:2,9

determining 74:3

76:18

develop 17:1 74:8

92:5 94:22 96:20

97:10 100:3

116:15

developed 48:4,5

93:3 94:11,18

96:2 111:3 139:17

developing 95:4

118:20 149:13

development 96:5

142:4

devoted 22:14

diagram 79:3

91:18 120:22

dialogue 114:10

dictated 107:11

difference 47:11

48:9,11 65:7

105:14 119:1

differences 44:7,18

58:17 110:17

different 34:5

39:15 41:9,10

42:1,6,19 45:5

62:12 64:3 69:10

92:12 112:7,11

123:13 167:6,11

167:13

differential 80:19

differentially 122:9

differentiator 64:4

differentiators

45:4

difficult 114:14

difficulties 53:21

114:11

digging 133:16

dioxide 156:4,5,10

157:11

dire 166:21

direct 77:17 78:9

79:12 85:11 155:3

168:17

direction 17:8

directly 7:22 79:13

101:13

directory 90:3

131:15

directs 39:18

disagree 115:16

discerned 79:10

disclosure 11:18

discount 82:9

85:15,17 119:19

discounted 82:8

discrepancies

93:11

discuss 4:20 11:8

discussed 19:13

147:20

discussing 13:9

discussion 3:19

7:14 57:5 112:14

141:2,4 151:7

160:14 165:14

discussions 147:19

149:12

dishwashers 1:3

4:7 12:3

disincentivizing

18:19

dispatch 159:1

dispatched 159:10

disproportionately

121:4 122:12

disruption 147:22

148:10,10 149:5

distinct 42:8 50:1

62:10

distinction 40:4,7

41:18 53:13 63:16

63:21 81:13 101:1

distinctive 64:13

110:15

distinguishing

114:22

distributed 74:15

76:3

distribution 40:5

40:12 76:20 79:4

82:19,21 106:6

109:5,6,9 131:5

distributions 82:16

86:10 107:5 108:9

distributor 76:13

79:14

distributors 76:21

80:2

diverse 138:14

divided 85:10

divides 35:19

dividing 83:12

Division 26:13,16

34:10

divisions 83:6

document 13:2,6

113:18

documentation

130:8

documents 86:5

DOE 12:5,7,16

16:22 17:9 18:10

18:14 19:2,5,10

20:7,18 22:13

23:18 24:3 26:12

28:11 32:16 33:3

35:19 36:9,11,12

36:15 37:5,12,16

37:19 38:20 39:1

39:14,18 40:13,17

41:12 42:16 43:12

43:16 44:5,15,17

50:7 52:3 53:18

55:4,15 56:5,8

57:21 58:10 60:1

60:6,9,21 61:5,11

62:18 63:7 64:3

70:5 75:6,13 76:4

76:18 77:4,9 79:2

79:10 83:5,7,11

83:15,18,20,22

84:15 85:2,7,13

85:17,19 86:4,9

86:14 89:1,9 90:1

93:6,15 94:7,11

94:15,21 95:3,13

95:15,20,21 96:2

96:6,9,12,15,19

96:22 97:3,7,9

100:3,9 101:5,15

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 176

106:2 109:21

111:7 112:4,6

121:5,7,10,14

128:22 129:1

133:10 138:4

142:1 150:13,16

156:5,10 157:4,8

162:21 163:8,18

163:20 166:5,16

167:2,10,19

168:21

DOE's 22:16 24:7

24:19 25:10,13

101:18

doing 59:6 73:19

91:20 95:15 97:9

113:19 115:7

158:2

DOJ 26:19,21

27:10,16 28:10

138:3,4 140:8

DOJ's 28:6 30:1

dollars 34:17 35:17

111:14 119:21

123:5 125:22

126:17 127:7,8

dominant 94:20

99:4 103:20

Donaldson 1:18

5:15,15 22:4

25:18 26:1,2 27:6

27:10,16 115:20

115:20

door 7:9 46:22 47:3

47:12,16,20,22

49:11

doors 50:1

double 90:20

Doug 2:7 3:4,7,20

4:9 99:14 113:10

127:10 133:15

135:7 136:4 137:8

Douglas 1:11,13

downward 56:4

drain 48:21 160:12

161:7

drained 161:5

dramatic 25:1

drawn 65:7

drive 98:21

driven 33:15

driving 99:3

139:16

drop 104:17

dryer 25:16 161:9

dryers 156:9

due 74:12 77:9 81:6

110:18 125:16

151:22 157:2

162:11 166:7

dump 68:14

durability 63:9

64:16

durable 63:5

D.C 1:10 5:16

E

E 3:1

earlier 39:10,13

88:17 148:13

early 114:3 115:13

earn 124:20

Earth 116:7

Earthjustice 1:14

5:21 30:15 41:17

49:19 160:4

163:15

easily 148:12,16

easy 40:22 47:13

Eckman 1:18 6:8,8

57:17,17 59:10

66:15 67:2 69:9

69:14 70:4,9,18

71:2,9,13,16,22

72:8,14,19,22

79:16,17,17 80:9

80:12,15,18 81:8

89:22 90:8 97:16

97:17,17 98:10,15

99:13 102:15

108:5,6,12 131:3

131:13,22 158:15

158:18,18,22

159:8 164:16

165:13

economic 17:11

18:16 92:13

105:11 162:15

economically 19:4

economics 81:3

164:5

economist 99:14,18

economists 99:9

economy 2:3 5:14

154:16,21,22

155:6

Ed 5:8 13:12,13

33:11,12 38:2,3

46:6,7 53:10,11

61:18 64:11 77:12

80:6 90:13 99:22

109:15 113:2

114:15 115:16

116:17 120:5

135:3 140:9

146:10 157:17

166:2

edge 139:20

edition 49:4

EDWARD 2:5

EDWARDS 1:19

Ed's 63:11 134:22

EERE 9:18

effect 37:17 43:15

88:20 94:20 98:13

100:16 103:20

104:2 141:22

142:17 143:4

167:6

effective 10:11

92:21 105:8

135:10 136:3

effectively 107:18

107:19 141:13

157:2

effects 21:10 24:4

26:14 37:21 98:17

133:12

efficiencies 40:4

105:22 107:9

131:5 132:1

efficiency 1:2 5:9

16:18,21 20:19

28:19 30:6,20

35:6,16 36:10

52:5 54:20,21,22

55:5,12,18,19

56:2,6,11,12,13

56:16,18,19,20,21

60:1 63:8 75:9

76:8 79:6,9 85:6

87:3,15,18,20

88:12,13 89:19

94:13 106:17

107:5 108:18

110:5,7 111:4

114:21 115:1

118:8 119:14,16

122:13 124:18,22

125:6 128:5,7

131:7 132:3,20

133:5 148:7

161:18,21 162:16

164:18

efficient 2:3 5:14

10:11 18:12 43:21

52:10 53:5 86:16

88:16 100:13,22

101:11 105:19

137:21

efficiently 8:21

effort 22:11 165:21

EIA 84:8

EIA's 83:20

eight 19:16

EISA 12:2,6

either 61:21 123:22

125:4,6 128:19

141:7,16 161:9

elasticities 21:5,6

elasticity 31:13

94:12,18,22 95:4

95:5,10,16 96:5

96:12,17,19,20

97:10,19 99:3

100:5 103:19

123:18

electric 1:21 2:2

6:3,5 12:9 61:7

66:18 83:10 153:2

154:1

electrical 70:1,2

electrically 69:17

electricity 29:9,10

42:11 83:4,11,16

153:1,17

elephant 65:13

eligibility 124:8

eliminate 42:18

43:8,18

eliminating 20:16

ELIZABETH 1:22

embodied 29:2

emission 157:11,16

158:2 159:7,15

emissions 18:17

156:3,4,6,12,14

157:4,15,20,21

159:21

emphasize 105:6

155:1

employ 15:10

149:8

employees 65:5,5

employment 3:17

8:14 18:8 117:22

154:11,13,21

155:8,13,20

empowered 42:7

enacted 50:2,3

encourage 10:2

11:13

encouraged 4:19

Energetics 1:16

energy 1:1,2,2,3,17

1:19,20,22 2:2,3,9

3:9 4:6,12,15 5:9

5:14 6:7,13 8:3

10:22 12:1,7,12

13:1 16:9 17:10

17:17 18:2,16,20

19:3,17,20,21

20:19 21:13 30:6

35:19,21 36:9

39:20 40:8 41:6,8

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 177

41:18 42:1,3,7

46:2 51:3,15,16

52:5,6 54:8 55:2

56:1,13,19,21

68:4,6 69:22,22

70:1,2,3 72:12,17

74:2,6,8,10,11

75:1,3,9 76:8 79:6

79:9 83:4,8 84:11

84:13,16,17 86:21

88:3,12,12 92:11

105:7 107:6,13,16

107:20 111:4

120:19,20 125:5

132:18 139:9,16

153:5,7,8,14

154:18 156:9,16

159:4,5 160:21

161:18,22 162:3

162:10,15

Energy's 4:5 36:22

engineering 3:8

7:22 17:21 35:1,4

59:18 74:18

149:18

enormous 22:11

enter 138:16

Enterprise 2:8

50:19

entertained 57:21

Entiepell 2:8 50:18

entire 41:21 147:8

entirely 77:14

141:18

entry 138:14

environment 46:11

48:1

environmental

3:17 8:15 18:6,7

21:12 117:21

155:22 156:1

158:14 160:5,14

165:19

EPACT 12:19

13:18 39:14

EPCA 12:19 17:8

20:14 36:5 37:9

41:21 46:21 49:21

53:6 167:10

equal 24:9,10 30:10

85:9

equation 99:5

165:5

equipment 3:9 8:4

16:11 20:17 35:11

35:20 37:10,15

38:19 39:1 44:2

74:4,15,18 76:3

76:16,19,19 77:7

77:11,20 85:9,10

85:12 86:2,12

88:9 105:15,21

107:10,13 131:7

143:2,9 145:3

147:1 148:6 158:4

equity 85:21

especially 47:22

68:8,15 104:14

essentially 28:17

158:3

establish 39:14

85:3,21

established 20:18

36:16 37:16

establishing 35:18

estimate 111:3

126:15 129:14

156:1 157:14

159:6 160:6 161:2

164:21

estimated 136:13

estimates 24:17

111:18 137:1

160:22

estimating 22:15

92:18 111:9

127:18 134:5

156:13

et 22:15 149:21

evacuated 23:14

evaluate 35:7 65:11

evaluated 65:21

92:14

evaluating 32:19

35:18 65:16

evaluation 168:12

evaporated 161:9

everybody 4:4

163:6 164:11

Evette 2:8 50:14

78:16

evidence 43:17

131:7

exactly 113:3

160:11

examination 22:10

examine 122:16

example 97:2 101:6

106:1,10 154:15

159:19

examples 41:22

65:10

exceed 125:20

Excel 82:11

exception 89:2 94:7

excuse 14:5 17:3

18:4,6 21:8 38:3

56:17 124:2 127:2

145:11,22 147:1

exist 42:20

existence 43:20

existing 16:1,3

28:12 30:2 106:5

145:13 159:9

exists 69:1

exit 28:6

exited 138:10

expand 66:19

expect 9:4 14:14

122:2 149:22

expected 49:13

expenditure 25:6

expenditures 25:4

expense 143:4

146:14

expenses 82:7

85:16

expensive 100:22

experience 62:6

65:17,17 73:3

expert 26:16 28:13

67:8,22

explain 66:22

92:15

explained 163:19

explaining 96:1

explicitly 97:4

exploration 165:15

165:22

explore 58:11,16

expressed 123:5

extended 136:11

extends 143:6

extensive 149:20

extent 31:5,8

112:15 116:1,10

163:20

extrapolation

84:22

extremely 155:14

F

facilitate 100:20

Facilitator 1:11,13

facilities 60:10 65:4

93:18

facility 22:10 24:14

124:14 143:18

144:3,10,19

145:13 168:3

facing 167:20

fact 10:7 48:18

50:3 54:6 71:18

96:12 100:18

101:18 120:8

122:1 128:3

138:17 141:14

factoid 150:16

factor 17:11,14,16

17:19,21 19:20,20

19:21,22 24:10

30:9,11 32:9,20

33:2 40:13,22

55:22,22 56:14

57:20 68:9 94:9

100:8 103:16

104:5 119:9 124:2

124:3,4 132:21

133:8 137:17

144:6 147:11,17

factors 17:9 18:4

107:7,7 129:12

149:22 158:3

failed 24:3

fair 14:13 80:19

fairly 81:1 103:17

125:17

faith 22:8

fall 135:8

family 77:3 86:6

far 14:17 15:17

54:11 57:6

favor 45:5

feasibility 20:22

60:7 61:12

feasible 19:4

feature 20:15 37:9

43:1,3,4 48:12,13

features 20:13,15

35:22 42:18,20

73:4

February 49:4

86:22

federal 13:8 100:9

111:20 126:14

162:3

feedback 60:19

feel 98:6 113:7

feels 31:6

felt 36:12,15,15

98:4

fewer 60:16

figure 76:2 95:5

filing 24:13

filings 117:1

fill 69:6 168:13

final 12:7,17 13:10

16:13,16 36:13

38:6 53:9 101:20

102:22 136:6

finalized 15:2

finally 97:6

finance 85:18

167:22

financial 22:9 25:5

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 178

143:10 166:19

find 27:9 39:7

43:16 58:15 115:5

151:5

finding 53:1

finer 104:11

fired 159:13,14,16

159:18,22

firm 5:16

firms 77:19 85:21

first 10:14 12:1

26:9,10 32:16

35:1 38:17 66:22

68:11 69:3 74:14

82:5 91:3 96:4

105:5 114:9,10

118:7,10 140:3

151:13,18

five 17:21 18:10

21:8 60:15 106:6

107:3 118:5

126:20 127:7

134:12 147:12

154:2 165:7

fix 165:4

flawed 24:7 166:7

fleet 159:9

floor 87:7 91:18

flow 112:13 122:19

fluctuation 79:19

focus 10:3 14:15

focused 76:5

folks 26:3 97:13

follow 17:9 98:19

116:18 127:17

following 7:15,17

8:2,11,18 30:7

63:22 150:13,17

follow-on 10:2

29:18

follow-through

20:4

follow-up 64:9 69:9

79:9 90:14 116:9

forcing 27:20

forecast 84:16

95:22 103:10

forecasted 84:12

84:18,21 94:4,5

forecasts 92:6,20

93:9 103:11

forego 95:12

foregoing 97:7

foreseeable 66:11

forfeited 34:18

FORGOTSON

1:20

forgotten 48:21

form 83:8 156:2

168:12

format 141:19

142:11

formulations

167:11

Forrestal 1:10

forward 33:3 40:17

53:21 59:20 109:7

109:8 130:1 169:1

fossil 158:3

found 26:22 27:10

27:16 66:8,10

93:15

foundation 67:15

four 17:19 21:3

56:17,17 60:13

83:6 84:6,10

95:22 126:20

127:6

four-fold 144:6

fraction 118:14

frame 168:19

framework 13:2

46:18 113:17

frankly 117:2

freezer 46:4,4

frequently 86:8

120:17

FRIEDRICHS

1:20

front 18:20 19:20

20:12 21:6,8

30:11 31:1,14

33:3,6 37:11 40:2

40:13 41:1,6

42:22 43:4 45:2

45:15 47:3,8,12

47:15 48:10,17,18

49:6,6 53:16,17

54:1 61:6,9 67:18

68:2,7 87:16 95:2

96:21 97:3 100:6

100:12,17 101:9

102:1 103:8 104:3

106:3 118:17

119:4,10,11,16

124:5 127:10

130:14 139:15,19

141:6,9,18 142:11

142:16 143:4,17

144:1,16,21

145:11 147:16

163:17

frustrated 116:10

165:5

frustration 164:17

fuel 158:3

fulfilled 110:2

fulfilling 16:22

full 27:11 143:17

fully 142:22

function 85:8,12

124:17

funding 25:7

funds 24:21

further 37:1,3

38:22 58:10,11,16

59:6 147:19

future 24:22 51:1

66:12 82:7 84:11

84:16 85:16

108:21

G

G 3:1

gains 155:17

gallons 23:10 68:10

68:11 69:4,6

160:7

garment 48:21

gas 1:17 12:9 42:10

52:7 83:18,20,21

84:1 153:1,17

156:8,9 157:21

159:14,18,21

gather 22:14

gathered 59:15

GE 23:14,19 24:20

29:2,21 44:13

45:10 58:7,8

general 1:21 2:2

6:3,5 14:8 51:17

52:3 65:1 105:4

121:11,16

generally 49:10

115:9

generate 156:19

158:19

generated 156:8

162:8,9

generates 82:19

92:11 105:7

generation 153:3

153:18

gentleman 78:17

getting 42:4 49:7

58:2 68:21 88:18

give 37:16 135:1

144:20

given 34:1 44:17

56:9 57:5 109:2

109:11 131:4

151:1 153:10

164:21 168:20

gives 74:11 106:1

107:15 116:13

glad 4:4 5:1 163:5

glass 47:17

go 4:21 5:6 6:21

7:22 8:13,20 9:20

20:1 29:18 38:10

38:11 41:4 46:6

54:12 58:5,5

62:12,15,22 64:11

65:8 81:17 83:2

103:21 114:18

115:4 119:20

131:12 134:6

149:5,19 155:21

163:3 167:6

goes 7:14 68:16

89:20 110:11

160:12

going 4:10 7:10,16

9:22 12:13 20:2

34:21 53:21 54:14

54:17,18 68:6,12

68:13,19 73:10

76:11 81:1 88:10

91:6,18 99:12

108:20 109:7

110:13,14 113:19

114:3 115:14,22

118:4 122:2 129:8

132:15 137:20

152:16 163:3

good 4:3,13 22:8

29:3,5,11,13 35:3

49:13 63:20 73:12

121:22 163:6

166:18 168:10

gotten 151:15

government 122:20

162:1

great 29:9

greater 22:21 24:9

30:8,10 110:20

112:20 120:11,13

120:21 166:11

greenfield 142:4,6

142:14 143:18

Greg 6:22 81:19

91:16 97:18

112:22 120:4

132:10,11,14

158:18

Gregory 2:6 3:11

3:13,15,18 73:11

152:14

GRIM 122:21

123:1,3

gross 123:14,17

ground 67:12

grounds 36:11

group 126:4

growing 62:5 131:8

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 179

guess 42:12 49:4

57:4 63:15 70:5

98:6 140:20

159:17 164:14

H

H 144:4 147:9,11

half 27:22 111:8

119:21 127:6

147:18

half-fold 144:7

hand 147:14

hanging 161:10

happen 15:6 43:20

128:9 129:11

happens 68:7

106:11 107:2

hard 80:21 104:13

146:13

Harms 1:21 6:10

6:10 45:9,9

head 158:6 167:15

headed 142:10

hear 10:7

heard 88:16 141:14

150:12 163:15

hearing 46:17

heat 66:18 67:19

68:16,18 158:19

159:1

heated 71:6 156:7

heater 68:3,3,5

69:7 70:3 71:8

72:10,10,12,18

heaters 61:7 67:3

heating 21:3 61:16

69:17,22 156:8

heavily 120:18

heavy 23:12

help 165:12

helpful 73:2,8

114:8 164:4

Hi 44:12 52:2

high 18:19 88:16

120:10 124:18,21

125:21 128:4,7

148:20

higher 28:9 88:12

97:3 110:19 127:4

131:7 137:17

145:3,10 147:5

highest 88:12

highlighted 111:7

highlights 113:14

hinge 47:20

hinges 47:15

historical 84:18,20

84:21 93:7,9,10

94:13

hold 21:21

holding 111:8

hole 120:10

home 1:15 6:1

63:17

Hopefully 25:18

26:3 137:18 138:4

hoping 152:6

horizontal 47:8

132:5 145:11

147:4 149:7,13

hot 22:18,21 23:5,6

68:12,21,22 69:22

88:19

housing 23:17

45:14 64:21 76:6

76:14 77:3 98:22

99:4 110:15

hundreds 34:16

hurdle 165:16

hypothesizing

142:2

H-axis 57:21 59:9

I

ICF 1:20

idea 42:1

identical 104:8

identified 46:12

100:7 121:7

162:21 166:5

identify 121:2

122:8,11

identifying 142:5

impact 3:12,14,17

3:17,18 8:10,13

8:14,14,16 17:14

17:18,19,22 18:1

18:3,7,8 19:14

31:13 33:20 45:12

45:13 47:19 53:19

87:15 91:19 92:3

92:4,10 94:20

103:8,17 105:3,6

107:22 108:4

109:15 110:10

112:19 115:7

117:10,19,20,21

117:22 121:21

122:5,16,21 123:7

123:21 126:1,2

131:21 136:21

138:2,6,11 140:11

141:1,2,17 152:17

152:19,21 153:1,6

153:22 154:9,11

154:17 155:2,20

156:15 160:17,21

161:15 162:6,10

162:15,18

impacted 121:4

122:9

impacts 17:12 19:6

19:8,13 21:9,12

31:3,4,5,7 32:5

82:2 92:13 96:3

105:11 122:6

123:1 133:12

142:5 150:8 152:3

154:12 155:3,5

156:1 157:15,16

159:7 160:15

163:16 164:6

implemented 82:10

92:9

implications

166:20

importance 44:15

important 44:18

45:4 114:22 115:3

139:1 141:21

166:16

impose 28:19

impossible 47:3

improve 35:8

improving 30:6

ImSET 154:17,17

inappropriate

22:17

include 18:6 59:15

84:7 132:7 142:20

included 9:9 132:2

135:6,21 146:21

161:20

includes 17:12

59:14

including 11:5

16:11 20:20 21:1

21:10 133:12

134:1 165:18

income 122:14

126:5

inconsequential

142:18

inconsistencies

55:13

incorporates

105:18

increase 87:19 94:8

103:21 104:6

124:21 129:2,3

130:18 144:5

147:10,16 155:10

155:18

increased 102:19

increases 105:14

increasing 101:8

128:4 131:9

incremental 77:8

77:10

increments 119:10

incurred 34:3

Independence 1:10

12:1

independent 55:17

Index 84:19

indicate 63:19

indicated 45:11

66:1 76:8 100:2

indicates 33:14

53:15 100:9

indicating 78:1

117:3

indication 77:16

142:7

indicative 54:6

indirect 132:3

154:12,13 155:5

individuals 163:12

industry 23:15

35:12 90:7 110:4

113:6,22 122:10

122:17,19 123:11

123:21 153:2

154:1

inelastic 95:10

96:13,17

influences 101:19

information 7:9

9:2 10:16 17:2

35:13 58:10 59:3

59:16 79:11 83:7

83:8 89:4,18

90:12 110:1 112:1

112:6 114:7,14,17

114:18 115:17

116:3,14,22 131:4

153:7,21 158:8

inherent 48:14

initial 79:1 95:9

inlet 69:14 70:6

71:10 72:14

input 4:20 11:9

86:11 97:14

114:20 115:3

151:1 153:6,14

159:6

inputs 73:17 82:15

82:17 83:1 107:14

122:22 162:5

INPV 18:22 123:11

137:2,4

install 82:6

installation 85:1,3

installed 87:11,14

107:15 153:3,18

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 180

installing 85:4

instance 100:10

133:6 142:19

149:8

institutional 61:4

63:16,20 149:1

instrument 107:7

intend 37:20 59:14

interaction 95:1

97:4

interactions 97:1

interchangeability

100:16,19 101:22

interest 24:16

45:21

interested 11:9

21:16

interests 36:17

interior 140:3

intermix 14:13

International 1:20

interpretation

14:10 58:19 112:8

interrupt 48:20

interview 122:21

interviews 35:15

131:21

introduce 7:5

introduction 7:3

introductions 3:3

7:6

intuitive 39:5

inventories 45:20

inventory 148:21

inverted 38:13

invested 45:17

investigate 152:22

161:16

investment 24:17

165:3

investors 25:8

invite 10:22 56:20

invited 11:15,17

invites 38:20 61:11

133:10

involve 143:18

involved 76:20

115:12 146:16

in-field 149:20

issue 14:3 20:21

21:3,8,11,13

30:19 36:13 38:1

38:18,18 44:1,5,9

47:5 48:2 70:21

95:19 96:6 99:8

116:20 137:13

138:5 141:22

142:8 157:13

167:12

issues 3:19 7:20 9:1

11:8,17 20:6,8

31:12 43:7 45:1

46:11 50:7,9 53:9

58:14 89:7 97:15

102:11 103:1

123:2 141:3

150:14 162:21

163:1,7,10,13

167:22 168:2,10

item 100:2 162:4

items 96:1

iteration 30:16

i.e 61:4

J

J 2:4

JAMES 1:14

Jamie 5:15

January 13:11

15:12 16:14 24:15

jar 47:22

JEFFREY 1:22

Jerrod 1:21 6:2

job 29:3,5,13

155:16

jobs 25:13,17

155:10

John 9:15

JOSHUA 1:20

Judith 2:6 6:18

jump 95:9

Justice 34:9 116:8

132:19 137:11

Justice's 19:11

26:13

justified 19:5 25:6

justify 41:19

J.D 1:18 22:4 25:21

26:1 27:3 115:19

115:20

K

Kappler 1:21 6:2,2

keep 9:15 10:3,5

47:5,20 54:18

81:18 99:12 122:2

132:15 146:4

keeping 26:17

28:12 30:1 34:11

118:17 119:2

Kelley 2:2 6:4

44:11,12 58:5,5,7

key 30:19 163:7

kind 29:7 39:5

40:18 42:6 52:18

104:13 142:8

kinds 66:7 98:17

KINGMAN 1:22

Kline 2:2 6:4,4

44:12,12 58:7,7

58:21

know 23:18 26:15

29:4 33:7 47:4

68:10 79:21 80:21

81:2 88:20 89:3

101:12 108:19,20

114:16 128:19

138:3 139:2

150:15 155:15

158:1 159:12

167:15

knowledge 149:1

Kohl 1:22 51:21

52:2,2,20 53:2

167:9,10

L

labeling 55:14

laboratory 2:7 7:1

55:17 72:7

laborers 25:11

lack 66:3 138:17

laid 73:7 150:16

Lance 1:17 6:6

57:2,3 62:22

64:12 88:6 104:9

150:9

language 43:6

167:11

large 18:20 77:17

78:9 79:12 83:7

101:18 118:14

larger 143:4

late 37:2

latest 49:3 125:16

126:8 131:19

Laughter 99:10,15

laundromat 62:20

63:17 65:8 76:14

86:8 110:19 111:6

112:12,19 120:9

166:9

laundromats 62:2

62:11 64:20 75:8

75:19 76:6,12,21

81:14 86:6 110:13

120:16

laundry 2:4 5:17

5:19 22:4,7,12

25:20 26:3 29:22

46:15 54:5 55:9

57:13 60:10 61:4

62:2,9,11 64:21

65:3 68:2 93:18

116:2 138:21

146:1

Laundry's 26:21

law 5:16 34:13

39:18 167:4

Lawrence 2:6 7:1

layers 23:13

LCC 74:21 86:11

87:11,13 107:14

107:14 121:10,12

121:14

lead 28:8 36:18

166:22

leading 43:4

leads 95:19 157:12

LEAH 1:17

leases 76:16

leasing 78:19

leave 14:11 28:7

51:16 148:3 152:7

leaving 43:6

led 16:19

left 5:4 28:7 163:5

legalese 12:14

Lego 145:6

lessening 17:22

letter 26:19 27:11

27:13 28:10

132:18

let's 27:8 29:17

34:22 54:17 64:10

91:10,11,15

112:22 117:7

148:3 152:5

level 11:1 17:5

18:12,13 20:20

35:16 41:9 54:21

54:22 55:5 56:6,7

56:11,12,13,16,19

56:20 57:6,18

82:20,22 83:21

84:10 85:6 86:17

86:19 87:3,18

89:20 103:15,21

103:22 104:5

106:7,8,9,11,13

106:14,16,18,21

110:5,7 118:2,3

118:10,11,15,16

118:19 119:3,5,6

119:7,8,12,13

123:12 124:7

125:12 132:20

139:19 145:10

levels 3:14 8:11

17:7 18:11 20:20

32:20 33:3 54:20

56:2,18,22 57:22

60:1,13 74:9,12

74:22 75:4 87:15

87:20 92:12 103:7

106:18 107:3

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 181

110:20 117:14,16

117:17,18 118:5,8

118:18,22 119:14

119:16 121:14

Lewis 2:2 6:14 14:4

14:5,7 15:15,17

16:5 59:1,2,13

113:10,12,13,14

117:6 150:22

151:16

life 73:13 110:16

lifetime 17:14 82:6

82:7 85:10 86:5

110:18

lifetimes 86:2,9

life-cycle 3:10 8:5

17:13,16 73:22

74:4,19 81:22

82:4,19 83:2

87:19,22 88:5

light 29:8,11

limit 24:12 128:6

128:15

limited 84:9

limits 128:20

line 54:7,10 66:16

67:14 124:10

144:2 161:10

linear 84:22

listed 73:4

listing 165:21

listings 90:2

literature 63:14

95:7 158:2

little 4:22 16:8

33:21 67:6 92:15

124:9 131:18

150:12 160:13

live 69:1

living 94:2

load 23:11 30:9

31:21 32:20 33:6

33:6 40:13,16,20

41:1,6,8,9 45:15

45:16 48:10,10

49:8 139:15,19

140:4

loaded 31:16 64:22

65:4

loader 35:16 49:7

54:2 60:8 68:2,7

141:9,12 143:17

144:13

loaders 31:14

43:18 49:6 53:16

53:17 56:19 87:16

87:16 88:14 97:3

97:3 100:22 101:9

101:10,11 102:1,1

103:7,8 104:15

118:17,18 119:4,5

119:7,16,17 124:4

124:5 141:6

144:16,16,20,21

144:22 145:1,1

146:4 147:16

148:1,3

loading 16:18,19

17:4 18:20 19:19

19:21 20:9,12,12

20:21 21:6,7,8

22:16 24:8,18

25:2 28:13 30:2

30:11 31:1,2,11

33:4 36:19 37:6

37:11,11 38:21

40:3 42:22,22

43:1,3,5,8,21

46:22 47:3,6,8,12

47:12,13,15 48:11

48:14,16,17,18

49:9,11 54:21,22

55:6 56:6 61:6,9

61:13 67:18 95:2

95:2 96:21,21

100:5,6,12,13,17

100:17 102:13

103:14 104:3

106:3 119:11,11

130:14,14 133:1

139:4 141:18

142:11,12,15,16

144:2 147:9

163:17,18

loads 45:1,2

location 49:12

142:14

lock 47:19 48:22

152:6

locked 47:20 48:19

long 21:4

longer 49:7 86:6

93:17,20 99:18

longevity 63:6

longitudinal 79:22

80:20

long-term 24:11

look 35:9 40:11

43:12,13 48:7

49:2,9 52:9 62:13

62:15 64:6 65:10

79:22 97:18 98:5

109:4 137:18

151:2 157:5 163:7

167:14 169:1

looked 35:10 60:7

159:12

looking 47:11 51:1

54:19 58:13 65:14

73:3 79:17,20

81:9 88:8 93:7

96:9,15 98:16,20

99:2 103:15 104:4

105:11 106:22

115:5 121:5 130:2

133:14 156:21

looks 88:11 104:21

155:4 156:5,10

looms 101:18

Los 6:7

lose 40:18,19

losing 25:12

lot 33:14 39:22

41:2 50:9 90:11

113:19 114:13

115:6,18 148:21

149:1,11 163:15

low 48:12 53:19

60:18 67:12 68:9

88:13 122:11

125:3 127:19

128:1 129:18

130:7 131:16

133:6 138:13

141:2,5,10,17,22

147:2,14,15

LOWENBERGER

2:3 5:12

Lowenburger 5:13

lower 125:13 147:4

149:7 150:18

lowest 47:1

low-volume 19:7

27:21 28:2 33:17

163:16,22 164:6

166:15 167:22

Luke 1:21 6:10

45:8,9

lunch 8:6,7,9 122:3

135:1,2 140:17

151:22 152:10,16

LVM 125:16 126:6

130:17 149:9

M

machine 29:2,21

52:17 57:20 64:22

65:4 70:1,3 71:4

72:4,9,17 102:3

machines 24:6 28:4

51:2 78:20 81:4,7

81:10 88:16

102:13 110:21

112:20 120:9

129:15 138:16

151:2 160:7

163:22 166:8,9

Magazine 86:4

maintain 28:11

39:1 102:5,7

145:2 149:2

maintained 37:8

maintaining 44:15

45:5,21

maintenance 85:8

85:11 107:17

major 45:16,21

majority 75:10

76:9

making 52:9 77:17

121:22

manage 77:19

management 77:18

78:19 162:3

managers 79:13

managing 46:11

mandatory 42:15

161:17 162:16

Manthei 2:4 5:18

5:18 22:3,3 27:14

29:19 46:14,14

54:4,5,13 57:9,11

57:12,12 68:1,1

69:12,16,20 70:8

70:11,15,16,20

71:6,12,15,21

72:9,16,20 138:20

138:20 145:17,19

145:22 146:1

151:11

manually 60:13

manufacture

124:13 140:8

141:3

manufactured

124:15

manufacturer 3:14

8:12 16:22 17:13

18:1 19:7,14 21:9

21:10 27:2,21

28:2 32:5 33:17

35:6 65:20 74:15

76:4,12,15 117:20

121:21 122:5,11

123:8 124:6,10

125:2,3,7 126:2

127:20 128:1,18

129:19 130:7

131:21 133:6,11

133:12 138:10

140:11 141:1,5,10

141:17 142:1,9

143:12 147:2,3,15

147:15 150:8

152:3 155:2

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 182

161:22 163:16

164:1,7 166:15

167:22

manufacturers

1:15 6:1 24:8

27:19 28:5,7 31:4

35:14 48:4 53:12

57:7 63:14 68:15

77:17 79:12 89:2

89:17 116:11

122:7,8,22 131:20

133:4 137:20

138:15 147:20

148:5,14 149:12

155:3

manufacturer's

18:22 33:20 88:11

manufactures

133:7

manufacturing

22:10 74:17 77:7

77:9 143:18,22

144:2 145:8

March 13:3 16:13

margin 123:15,17

158:20 159:1,10

marginal 128:4

MARK 1:20

market 19:9 23:21

29:22 31:11,15

37:19 42:18,20

43:9,13,14,18,22

48:6 51:12 53:18

54:2 56:4 61:1,22

62:5,7,9,14,15,20

64:14,19 65:10

66:9,11 76:11

77:14,16 80:7

87:5 88:13 90:1

93:5,12 95:17,18

96:8,22 97:11,11

99:3 100:21 102:2

105:19 106:12,15

106:20 107:11

109:4,6,7 110:12

110:14 111:9,10

111:19 118:15

130:13,15 131:8,9

132:4 137:16

138:9,10,17

139:22 141:13

142:12 144:8

147:2,13,22

148:10,10,16

149:4 150:2 157:7

marketed 60:9

61:20 66:2,3

marketplace 53:20

128:10

markets 44:7 95:2

97:1

markup 74:17 77:5

77:6,10 123:15,17

markups 3:9 8:4

74:3,13 76:2 88:4

mass 119:13

match 55:18 107:4

material 10:18,19

35:9

materially 126:1

mats 61:4

matter 7:20 9:10

max 20:22 56:18

58:8 61:12

max-tech 16:18,19

17:5 20:20 22:16

22:19 24:19 32:19

35:16 54:21,22

55:5,10 56:1,3,5,8

56:11,13 57:18

60:8 119:8

mean 30:8 52:11,16

68:20 98:2 101:1

104:12,19 113:3

meaning 20:13

means 85:2 118:16

measured 22:20,22

155:12

measurements

61:15

measures 21:2 23:1

Mechanical 85:2

meet 25:9 27:19

31:22 34:4 40:21

61:9 141:9,12

meeting 1:7,9 4:6

4:16 9:16 10:20

10:21 13:9 46:18

55:8 114:9 123:7

152:10

meetings 4:18

113:15 114:6

MEF 24:9 30:7,10

32:1,19 33:2

40:12,21 55:21,21

57:19 103:16

104:4 119:8 124:3

124:4 132:21

133:7,9 163:22

164:2

megawatts 154:2

mentioned 36:5

49:20 53:3 55:13

76:1 97:6 100:7

105:17 132:17

134:15

mentions 146:21

mercury 156:4,21

157:12

met 27:1 53:17

metal 47:14

method 20:9 25:4

38:21 43:1 49:21

122:18 156:13

methodologies 11:3

11:10

methodology 58:17

methods 73:16,20

153:4

MIA 123:10

mic 7:3,6

microphone 50:13

52:14 59:8 78:15

127:13 133:17,19

microphones 5:4

10:6

microwave 12:10

middle 65:13

mid-afternoon

8:17,19

mid-morning 8:1,2

million 24:12,18

125:22 126:7,17

126:20,21 127:1,2

127:7,8 134:12

142:21,22 143:1

144:18,19 146:15

149:16 164:20,20

165:3,9

millions 34:16

mind 30:5 141:21

Mine 88:7

minimal 23:8 104:6

minimize 151:3

minimized 19:9

minimizes 118:22

minimum 10:6

22:18 24:9 25:9

70:6

minus 70:12 151:7

minute 5:1 168:12

minutes 49:8,10,15

49:16

missed 7:4

missing 63:3

mission 114:20

misunderstanding

151:12

misuse 64:18

mitigate 165:16

mix 80:1 112:11

120:9 132:6 166:8

mode 10:4 23:9

model 22:19 23:14

23:19 24:19,20

29:21 55:16 56:3

56:3 58:9 61:2

87:5 93:2,3,7,8

97:20 98:11 100:4

102:16 107:12

108:9 122:21

139:3,6,8,12,12

153:12 154:16

156:15 157:19

158:16,19 159:6

162:6

Modeling 153:8

156:16

models 87:1 109:18

modified 19:19,21

107:6 137:17

162:7

modify 138:16

moisture 150:11,19

151:6,13

moment 6:15

141:15

MONDAY 1:8

monetize 157:10

monetizing 157:15

money 149:11

Monte 82:13,18

monthly 83:21,21

morning 4:3,10,13

5:2 35:3 73:12

109:19 163:3

motor 42:11

mounted 22:11

move 8:8 34:21

39:6,6 50:10

53:10 60:4 73:10

103:1 137:16

154:10

moved 137:6

moves 40:17

moving 59:19

118:16 119:4

155:21 164:10

MPV 105:13

multi 23:16 45:13

64:20 77:2 86:5

110:14

multiplied 107:19

multiplying 75:5

multi-family 62:11

63:17 75:7,15

76:6,14,17 81:10

86:7 87:12 98:22

120:18

multi-housing 62:2

62:20 65:9 111:5

112:12 166:10

municipal 121:9

N

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 183

N 3:1

name 4:9 5:7 9:12

9:15 10:1 25:22

50:13,14 52:1

78:15 133:20

names 153:10

narrow 34:3

national 2:6 3:12

7:1 8:10 17:18

18:2,3 84:19

91:19 92:2,4,10

92:11,13 105:3,6

105:7,13,14,15

107:20,22 108:4

109:14 110:10

112:18 117:10,19

153:5,6,7,14

156:16 160:21,21

162:6,9,10

natural 42:10 52:7

83:18,20 160:18

nature 64:13

Navigant 1:14,16

1:22 2:6,7,8 6:17

6:19

near 28:3

necessary 116:15

need 6:21 9:13 18:2

39:5 44:5 64:16

93:17 115:2,13,13

133:18 137:3

142:13 145:2

149:6,7

needed 136:16

145:3

NEMS 153:8,10

156:17 157:19

158:16,19 159:15

net 92:14 119:22

120:7 122:19

123:11,20 136:21

155:10 164:21

never 25:6,7

151:15

new 17:2,6 56:11

93:4 95:13,17

97:11 102:2 142:4

142:5,13 143:1

149:13 158:22

newly 21:13

NG 137:17

niche 31:15

nine 83:6

non 61:3 161:18

nonprofit 111:3

nonsubstantive

117:2

non-production

25:17

non-regulatory

161:17 162:12,13

non-replacements

93:14

non-traditional

40:15 65:21

noon 122:3

noonish 8:7

NOPR 13:7 16:9

17:2,3 19:12

30:16 33:14 34:7

35:11 36:3 39:16

55:4,8 56:12 59:4

73:15,18 77:22

84:15 91:22 111:1

113:4 114:4

117:12 123:6

132:20 157:10

162:22

normal 25:3

North 111:10,18

northern 61:8

Northwest 1:18 6:8

note 11:18 39:3

44:21 58:8

noted 34:8 39:10

39:12,16 40:2

60:9 64:12 125:9

150:22

notice 1:6 4:17 11:6

12:11 13:2,4,6

32:17 100:9

111:21 117:3

November 1:8 13:5

13:8

NOx 156:4,11,20

157:11

NPV 120:10,13

NPVs 119:19

number 17:11 18:9

28:4 36:12 38:1

38:17,18 55:13

83:14 87:1 120:10

127:9 130:16

134:20

numbers 33:18

100:11 104:11,12

134:19

O

obligation 17:1

166:18

observation 101:17

observe 60:21

observed 23:19

obviously 58:14

occur 98:7,13

125:10 155:17

occurs 125:11

October 12:22 16:8

19:12

odds 41:20

offering 22:8 32:16

165:10

office 52:3

off-line 112:14

Oh 72:20 145:6

oil 52:6

okay 9:9,19 10:14

15:4 16:6 27:8,9

29:16 30:12 33:11

34:20,22 38:15,16

45:7 46:5 50:21

51:4 53:7 54:3,16

54:19 58:22 60:3

60:6 63:10 64:10

65:18 70:17 73:1

73:9,10 78:2,21

79:16 81:20 87:8

87:9 91:8,17

98:14 102:9,20,22

103:4 105:2 116:5

117:6 120:14

122:4 126:19

127:16 130:4,20

132:9,16 134:3,10

134:17 135:3,15

135:17 137:7,8

139:15 140:6,12

145:18,21 146:9

150:7 151:19,19

152:5,12,15 154:9

155:20 158:12

161:13 162:19

163:11 164:9,14

166:2 167:16

168:5,7,16

old 79:5 111:2,3

once 59:21 93:18

93:20 147:21

151:5

ones 42:2 115:12

163:18

one-half 85:9

on-premise 60:10

62:9 65:3

on-site 157:21

open 20:5 48:22

140:2 151:6

opening 3:3 57:9

57:13

operate 148:15

operated 51:3

64:22

operating 17:15

46:10 62:6,14,17

65:16 82:7,7

85:16 94:8 105:15

154:14

operator 76:16

77:2 79:15

operators 45:13

46:9 80:1 81:11

81:13 148:1,22

opinion 64:7

opportunities

110:21 112:21

opportunity 7:18

8:22 26:4 152:2

163:11 164:12

opposed 90:2

options 35:7

102:18 162:8

165:14,15,22

166:1

order 38:9 86:17

103:22 122:22

127:6 145:9

155:13 162:7

organizational 5:7

9:14

origin 79:3

originally 59:19

144:19

Osann 2:5 5:8,8

13:12,13,13 15:4

16:3,6 33:12,12

38:3,4,14 46:7,7

53:11,11 61:18,19

63:22 64:9,12

77:12,13 78:2,6,9

79:1 90:13,14,22

91:7 100:1 101:16

109:16 110:6,9

112:9 116:1,18

120:5,6,14 126:10

126:11,12,19

127:17 128:13,21

129:4,13 130:1,4

130:9 135:4,18,22

140:10,13,18,22

143:15 144:12

146:11 157:17,18

158:9 166:2,3

167:18

ought 8:6 165:20

outlined 44:21

Outlook 84:13,16

output 121:12

153:19 156:18

outputs 153:15

outset 29:17 33:11

outside 65:8 125:11

134:18 135:8

outweigh 18:14

outweighed 18:18

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 184

ovens 12:9,10

overall 30:6 77:4

155:12

overhaul 149:2

overloading 64:17

66:4

overlooking 65:13

overstated 31:7

138:7

overstatement

108:7

overstating 86:18

overview 3:5 7:17

7:18 91:20

overwhelming

75:10,10 76:9

owner 76:17

owners 79:13

P

P 42:5

package 143:7

packet 7:9 168:11

page 26:11 27:5,7

27:13 38:11 60:2

126:7 142:21

168:18,21

pages 28:16

pair 118:21

Pardon 27:3 87:7

part 12:11 37:13

52:3 54:2 61:7

73:16 89:16 97:21

98:18 149:18

participants 3:6

11:15,16 115:12

participate 4:19

participated 22:8

participating

168:22

participation 11:14

particular 9:7

54:20 57:20 61:1

86:19 106:16

121:3 122:12

particularly 31:12

58:1 73:5 163:21

167:20

parties 11:10 21:16

parts 45:19 74:2

144:17,18

passed 165:17

pattern 62:10

patterns 75:14

pause 140:16 152:5

payback 25:5

73:14,22 74:5,19

74:21 81:22 82:21

83:2 86:12 88:5

121:13,15

paying 23:5

peaky 159:17

pedestals 48:5,6

penetration 105:18

people 8:22 9:8,22

21:19 27:4 47:21

48:2 68:20 70:22

114:7 148:4

163:10,12 164:12

percent 53:17 86:2

104:17 106:7,8,9

106:12,14,20,21

111:5,5 113:9

119:19 124:1

142:9,10,22

146:18 147:12,18

155:14

percentage 123:15

123:17

percentages 87:2

percent-15 113:8

perform 166:18

performance 17:19

21:2 39:21 49:14

58:2 61:2,14

67:17 89:8,10

107:10 129:20

148:5,8 149:21

performance-rel...

35:22

performed 157:14

period 11:19 73:14

74:1,5,20 81:22

83:3 86:12 88:5

93:1 105:8,12

121:15 125:11

periods 74:21

79:20 82:21

121:13

perpetuated

154:15

persist 138:12

personally 113:5

perspective 82:3

168:8

pertains 96:4

petition 36:7,9 37:1

phases 123:10

Phil 5:18 22:2,3

26:8 29:18 46:13

46:14 54:3,5

57:11,12 67:7,21

68:1 70:13,15

73:2 138:20

145:15,22 151:10

151:11

PHILIP 2:4

phones 10:4

pick 25:19 26:4

152:16

piece 40:1 47:13

63:2

place 28:12 30:2

97:5 140:14,16

placed 116:21

167:1

places 25:11

plain 43:6 99:3

plan 9:5

planet 89:13

planned 66:3

plans 59:5

plant 25:12 142:13

156:3,14 157:20

160:12 161:5

plants 157:4

159:13,14,17,18

159:22

platform 45:18

60:12,22 62:3,13

149:14

platforms 62:7

65:11

please 5:6 7:2,5

9:11,12 10:3,5,9

11:18 21:17 25:21

27:9 29:18 39:7

45:8 50:12 51:22

78:14 99:22

132:11 151:10

158:17 168:12,20

plus 70:12 82:6

151:4,7 164:20

point 10:12 21:22

22:6 26:11 28:15

33:9 41:17 43:11

46:8,20 54:15

65:7 80:2,5 84:13

88:1 91:4 97:12

97:13 101:2 106:4

106:6 109:19

110:9 116:19,19

133:10 138:2

167:3

pointed 34:9 80:6

134:1

pointing 73:20

points 26:7,9 32:22

35:12 41:11 46:20

114:13

Policy 12:13

poor 89:8

population 21:2

61:16 83:22 84:1

121:12,17 138:14

portions 65:9

position 33:16

137:13 150:14

163:19

positive 119:22

possibility 51:2

147:21

possible 8:21 10:11

10:19 88:17 99:21

114:1 156:22

164:3

posted 9:18

potential 18:14,18

19:6,8 34:1,17

37:17 64:17

100:11,21 102:18

166:5

Potentially 78:6

power 1:18 6:9

42:11 156:3,14

157:4,19 159:13

159:14,16,18,19

159:22

powered 51:13

PowerPoint 7:12

practical 73:2

practice 5:5

precarious 33:16

precedents 36:5

precise 114:12

precluding 89:7

preference 44:22

45:1 102:5

preponderance

43:16

prescribe 12:3

present 1:12 2:1

11:3 21:17 61:21

62:13,19 82:8

85:17 92:15

110:20 112:20

119:22 120:7

122:19 132:8

136:21 162:11

164:22

presentation 7:13

10:17,18 19:15

26:5,21 27:7,12

81:19

presented 11:6

33:17 34:6 64:15

presently 42:20

presents 17:5 87:10

preservation

123:14,17

preserves 31:10,15

presiding 1:11

press 117:7

pressing 81:18

Presumably 137:20

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 185

141:6

presumed 110:11

presumption

131:14

pretty 8:6 10:7

34:12 40:22 47:13

108:17 112:3

prevent 28:20

123:12

previous 37:13

111:1 116:21

124:19 130:6,9,12

previously 20:17

pre-NOPR 114:4

132:6

price 3:10 8:4 21:4

48:8 77:8,11

83:12,17 84:19

85:10,12 94:8,12

94:13,13 95:4,5

95:10 96:5 97:2

99:2,5 101:2

103:19,20,21

119:1 123:18

157:6

prices 28:9 35:9,17

74:4,11,19 76:19

76:19,22 77:1

83:4,5,18,22 84:1

84:3,11,17,18,20

94:19 95:9 102:19

pricing 104:6

primarily 14:3

86:3 94:5 154:3

156:2

primary 66:1 89:6

principal 61:21

prior 8:9 80:13,15

probability 82:15

probably 89:17

99:7 108:7 139:20

144:9 166:6

probing 99:21

problem 52:4

150:19 165:4,6,15

165:16

procedure 12:21

13:19 15:14 16:2

16:4 56:10 69:13

69:21 70:6 71:3

71:14,20

procedures 12:17

13:14,15 14:18

15:7,8 69:11

proceed 27:9

proceeding 62:4

152:13

proceedings 37:2

91:12 169:5

process 13:18

produce 37:21 84:5

128:16 142:6

144:18,20

produced 52:17

97:21

producer 126:5

produces 93:8

164:1

producing 137:21

144:22 146:4

product 19:18 25:8

30:18,19 33:5

36:2 39:11,13,14

39:15 40:6,10,14

40:18,19,20 41:3

41:12,19,22 42:8

44:16 45:5,15,22

46:9,10 51:14

53:4,13,22 54:14

61:20 68:20 69:5

75:6,7 76:5 87:20

87:21 90:2,4

94:13 102:7

112:11 117:18

118:3,12 119:1,14

124:14,14 125:4

133:7 137:13

141:8 146:17,18

147:1 150:2 154:4

155:4 167:12

production 65:17

124:7 125:18

126:15 127:20

128:4 129:3,3,16

129:21 135:5,6

138:1 140:8 141:6

141:18 142:10,15

142:16 143:17

144:6,13 145:4,10

146:17 147:8,11

147:17

productive 168:9

products 1:4 4:8

16:10,16 31:21

35:20 39:20 40:8

41:19 42:6,8

44:19 52:9 62:5

62:16,19,21 63:3

64:20 65:12,15

89:19 102:8

105:19 110:12,14

114:22 138:7,8

141:11 148:17

150:1 167:13

program 41:21

162:2,4

programs 60:15

129:22 162:1

progress 122:1

project 2:5 5:11

136:17 149:6

projected 17:17

123:21 126:7

127:5 146:15

projecting 125:14

125:17,21

projection 127:21

127:22 137:19

146:22

projections 126:9

136:22

propagate 154:20

properly 23:13

property 76:17

77:18 78:19 79:13

proposed 1:6 4:17

10:22 11:7 12:11

13:21 16:9 17:3,4

18:10 19:12,16

20:22 21:13 24:18

25:10 26:14 27:1

27:17 32:2,11,17

32:19 33:2 40:13

41:13 53:16,19

55:4 61:9,12

66:17 132:20

133:5 139:4

163:19

proposes 17:6

proposing 12:5

proprietary 60:22

89:14

protection 34:14

34:15

provide 4:20 11:15

22:13 37:7 139:8

152:1 159:19

167:20 168:3

provided 22:19

25:20 26:5 116:11

provides 83:9,14

83:21 87:1 153:20

providing 42:16

49:12 84:9

provision 42:16

public 1:7,9 4:5,15

4:18 9:16 13:4,6

65:1 95:20 114:6

115:9 117:1 163:1

publication 13:10

publicly 116:3

published 12:7,22

13:3,5,7 16:12

114:5 129:19

136:6

publishing 125:16

pulses 98:20

purchase 18:19

85:22 94:8,19

95:9,13,14 96:14

97:8 100:13

103:20

purchased 55:9

purchasers 78:10

purchases 162:2

purchasing 85:18

86:16 101:10

purplish 103:13

purpose 10:21

28:21 35:5 53:6

74:7,13 75:15

76:1 82:1 92:4

113:17 117:15

118:20 121:2

122:6 136:1

152:22 154:11

155:22 161:16

purposes 76:18

82:11

pursuant 37:9

purview 115:9

put 33:3 47:3 48:5

128:11

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-...

4:1

p.m 152:9,11 169:6

Q

qualified 125:2

qualifies 124:11

qualify 71:4 125:5

129:15 130:18

131:18

qualitative 123:2

question 14:14

15:5,8 39:7 44:22

50:22 57:5 59:4

63:11 64:13 70:4

77:13 78:18 79:1

79:9 88:8 89:16

98:19 101:13,17

134:22 143:14,15

146:12 150:11,21

158:15 167:2,17

questions 9:6 66:14

99:20 141:20

150:9 152:3 154:8

155:19 158:13

161:13 162:17

queue 54:17

quick 92:1 116:9

quickly 9:19 49:19

87:17 152:20

168:17

quite 73:6 88:13

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 186

quote 28:10

Q(1)(a) 42:5

R

R 2:5,8

Raftelis 84:4

raise 8:22 9:8 11:17

110:10 163:11,12

163:12 164:12

raised 110:22

116:20,21 168:10

raising 116:20

ramp 137:22

range 75:14,15,19

119:19 120:7

164:19

ranges 12:9 98:17

148:7

rapid 143:9

rate 82:9 84:6

119:19 146:5

rated 12:20 55:19

rates 85:15,18

158:19 159:2

rating 71:14 72:1,3

ratio 111:11,12

rationale 160:19

reached 54:7

reaching 128:6,14

128:19

read 12:13 49:5

reading 33:13

142:21

reads 168:13

real 26:22 27:17

45:1 86:2 101:1

104:19 147:21

realization 144:1

really 14:22 15:2

28:1 29:10 31:18

32:4 34:4 44:13

47:6,9 49:5 52:8

91:21,21 99:20

108:18,19 109:12

115:2,3 117:4

121:15 155:9

159:12

reason 36:16,17

66:1 101:5 120:15

148:2

reasons 53:2 101:5

101:14

rebate 139:9

rebates 139:9

161:20

recall 36:8 98:10

127:10 147:7

recapture 100:21

receive 64:7 78:1

received 7:8 23:15

61:5 64:3 90:16

102:10 123:6

132:18 135:5

recessed 152:10

recognize 166:14

recognized 101:22

recognizing 166:6

recommend 31:17

137:14

recommendation

30:1 102:6

recommended

166:21

reconsider 37:12

44:9

reconvene 152:10

record 9:2,12 52:15

70:3 91:13,14

116:22 133:21

165:11 167:1

169:6

recording 69:21

recovered 99:17

recovering 99:13

redesign 25:1

reduced 151:4

156:2,3

reduction 18:22

157:19,21

reductions 18:17

156:20,20,21,22

157:11 160:15,17

reestablish 106:5

reference 15:17

153:13

referenced 14:19

58:9

referred 11:2,7

referring 27:5,6

57:1 59:22

refinanced 24:15

refinancing 25:1

refine 122:22

refining 121:10

reflected 132:13

refrigeration 46:3

refrigerators 49:21

50:6

regard 13:14 38:19

46:8 100:1 126:22

128:22

regarding 55:14

132:19 166:8

regardless 25:4

44:8

region 84:10

153:21

regional 83:5,19

84:9

regions 83:6,17,20

84:2

Register 13:8 100:9

111:21 117:3

regular 53:4

regulating 52:22

regulations 52:19

regulatory 3:18

8:16 122:17,20

152:18 161:15,19

162:18 165:14

Reich 2:6 6:18,18

reinvestment 45:16

reiterate 44:13

45:10

related 11:8 89:18

152:3 158:13

relationships 35:7

relative 94:11 95:4

96:5 103:18

108:17 122:15

relatively 34:3

60:17

release 150:2

released 80:17

relevant 18:5 22:8

35:13

reliability 149:21

relied 83:7 94:15

remain 33:18

106:19 166:19

remainder 25:15

remains 106:21

remanded 37:1

remarks 3:3,21

4:11 7:20 9:3

21:16,22 30:13

163:10 166:4

168:6,15

remembering

99:17

remind 116:12

reminder 133:3

RENEWABLE 1:2

rental 93:15

repair 85:7,11

107:16

repeat 78:17,22

163:4

repeatability 56:10

rephrase 15:4

replaced 93:20,21

replacement 81:4,7

102:2

replacements

79:21 93:5 99:1

162:1

replacing 81:10

report 49:3 80:17

111:22

reported 111:14,15

REPORTER 52:13

reports 111:10,16

111:17 116:2

represent 5:17 14:9

26:2 50:17

representative 77:1

80:7 113:8

represented 14:17

78:5 87:3 106:15

represents 56:7

108:15 118:7,14

119:13 146:18

request 21:19 90:8

90:9,22 91:2

109:21,21,22

110:1,4

requested 21:16

36:14

requests 14:9 114:2

require 147:2

required 15:9

30:17 45:17

147:10 149:18

requirements

12:12 25:9 71:14

124:8

requires 118:9

requiring 12:19

29:7 147:22

Resident 36:6

residential 1:3 4:7

12:8,20 13:16

23:7,20,21 24:1,6

28:4 43:22 44:4

44:10 46:17 60:11

62:7,15 65:14

66:7 94:2,14,15

96:7 97:21 98:3

102:16 138:9,15

148:14,17 158:4

residents 24:5 65:1

resistance 47:19

64:17

resolution 37:3

165:14

resolve 168:1

resource 89:13

resources 22:14

149:18

respect 64:5

respective 80:21

respond 39:8 49:19

59:1 63:11

responded 117:4

response 50:9

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 187

65:19 103:3

111:20 113:4

117:2,3,5

responsible 34:10

rest 122:9 154:15

154:20 165:3

restate 143:13

result 18:21 27:18

55:15 87:21

110:16

resulted 119:2

resulting 92:11

results 11:4,11

58:13 87:18 97:19

97:20 103:6 107:6

121:17 123:4,11

123:12 153:5

resume 91:11

152:13

retail 48:6,8 87:6,8

retain 144:8

retained 161:8

return 152:8

Returning 91:17

revealed 57:18

reveals 80:22

revenue 83:9

revenues 83:13

reversed 36:22

revert 102:19

review 3:3 7:16

13:15,17 19:11

92:1 137:13 138:4

140:8

reviewed 75:13

123:7

reviewing 73:19

revised 15:7 17:6

20:19,20 33:19

35:15 56:2,5,7,15

56:18,21 57:6,7

59:22

revising 126:16

revision 56:4

revisions 13:17

117:11

richer 120:9

right 14:12,15,19

15:15 16:5 59:6

59:14 71:6,9 78:6

81:12 91:7 113:3

113:20 114:8

115:14 133:16

134:9 135:14

136:19 139:20

140:13,16 155:21

159:11,11

rinse 61:14 89:8

rinses 23:9

rinsing 21:1 23:8

139:13

Ripon 25:12

risk 25:12 26:22

27:17

rival 86:9

ROBERT 1:16

rod 71:19

rods 67:19

roll 109:8 163:9

rolling 168:2

rolls 106:12

roll-up 105:22

106:2,11,17 107:2

109:3

Ron 2:2 6:13 14:1,4

14:5 59:1,7

113:13 151:9

Ron's 116:18

room 1:10 29:12

65:14 145:7 146:7

152:6

rooms 62:3,12

64:21

Rosenquist 2:6

3:11,13,15,18

6:22,22 73:11,12

77:21 80:4,10,13

80:16 81:5,12,20

87:10 88:22 90:5

90:9,19 91:2,17

98:1,14 101:4

103:5 104:16,20

105:2 108:11

110:3,8 113:2

117:9 120:12,15

132:12 152:15

158:1,10,21 159:3

159:11 160:9,20

161:14 162:20

Rossin 2:7 133:22

134:4,9,14,18

135:7,7,12 136:8

136:18,22

roughly 75:18,21

round 8:1,18 62:5

route 45:13 46:8

76:15 77:2 79:14

80:1 81:11,13

147:22 148:21

routes 77:18

RS 85:2

rugged 23:20

rule 12:7,17 13:10

15:10 16:13,17

36:13 136:6 164:8

rulemaking 1:6 3:5

4:17,21 7:16 11:4

11:7,22 13:4,6

16:12 24:2 32:17

37:14 40:2 44:6

44:10 59:13 91:4

91:5 97:22 102:17

113:18 114:19

115:10 122:10

136:9,9 157:9

167:5

rulemakings 36:6

85:14 89:22

113:16 139:5

rules 124:12

run 7:11 8:6 21:4

67:14 79:10 149:2

153:13

R&D 146:14,16

S

Safe 169:3

sale 81:1

sales 77:17 79:12

80:19 83:9,13

90:2,4 108:18

109:12 111:13

130:2,9,12 153:1

153:17

sample 16:19 55:15

55:20

sand 23:12

Sarbanes-Oxley

111:17

satisfaction 88:8,15

89:18

satisfied 148:4

satisfy 57:19

saves 19:3

savings 17:15,17

18:16 34:17 54:1

74:8,12,21 82:20

87:11,13,22 92:11

94:9 105:7 110:20

112:20 120:20

121:12,15 153:5

153:15 156:9

159:4,5,16 160:6

160:10,21,22

161:2 162:11,15

166:5,6,10,12

saw 163:2

saying 71:3 89:20

104:21 130:5

136:14

says 23:18 43:6

79:18

scale 104:13

scaling 146:16

scenario 106:1,2

107:2 109:4

123:22 141:4

142:3,11 144:13

146:21

scenarios 123:13

schedule 122:1

scheduled 13:10

screening 17:20

se 38:19

search 127:13

158:2

SEC 24:13

second 26:11 28:15

89:16 96:11 98:18

109:1

Secretary 18:5

section 12:12 19:15

sector 154:18 166:9

166:10

sectors 64:19

111:11 158:5

securities 130:8

Security 12:2

sediment 23:12

see 4:4 27:8 28:9

35:5 36:4 38:13

38:22 44:4 51:7

56:16 57:22 59:21

63:21,21 71:16

73:5 81:6 87:17

88:2 98:16,16

103:17 107:8

112:11,22 122:5

123:9 148:19

149:6 153:15

155:7 159:20

164:4,14

seeing 104:1

164:19

seek 11:9 165:20

seeking 157:13

163:8

seeks 20:7 95:20

segment 93:12

segments 61:22

62:21

Seldom 53:18

select 68:12 102:3

selected 117:14

selecting 117:15

selection 18:9

100:8 101:19

sell 28:3 48:7

124:19 128:8,15

129:8 130:17

148:6

selling 76:12,15

129:9

sells 27:21 76:13

140:2

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 188

Sempra 6:7

sense 28:18 41:2

132:3

sensible 30:21

sensitive 95:8

sensitivity 35:8

101:7 112:10

separate 20:16

30:18 33:5 36:10

41:19 44:16 46:3

71:19

separation 49:21

September 46:18

series 103:1

serious 166:1

serving 83:10

session 20:5 109:20

set 37:20 42:16

60:13 114:21

117:16,18 141:8

142:2 167:5

setting 17:10 23:1

52:5 55:4 66:1

100:18 120:18

settings 86:7

seven 9:19 17:9

18:4,9 21:13

68:10 69:5 104:17

119:18

shaky 108:17

share 10:10 88:13

89:17 90:1 100:21

110:12,13 111:9

112:11 126:4

130:15 131:8,9

132:4 144:16

shared 144:3

shares 109:7

130:14

sheet 47:14

shift 109:4 132:7

143:17 147:8

shifted 132:5

shifting 141:18

shifts 109:7 141:5

shipment 107:6

108:8 109:22

115:8 131:5

shipments 3:12 8:8

8:9 79:18 81:14

87:4 90:15,17

92:2,5,17,18,20

93:2,3,4,7,8,11

94:3,4,6,10,14,20

95:22 96:2 97:20

103:9,11,18 104:7

104:17 107:12,19

108:4,10,15

109:18 110:4,6

112:16,17 113:21

123:16,18 124:21

131:14,19 132:13

146:19 154:4

shoe-horn 146:7

shoe-horned 144:2

short 7:21 21:4

91:10 138:12

shorter 110:18

shortly 140:16

show 103:8 109:10

showing 29:1 95:7

shown 24:13 94:19

shows 17:8 43:22

87:14

side 10:5 131:16

139:4,16 154:19

164:18,19

side-by-side 46:4

49:22

significant 19:3

22:13 37:21 81:2

100:11 110:17

145:13 155:10

significantly

121:16 130:19

166:7

silent 10:4

similar 98:17 109:6

138:8 162:9

simple 15:16 47:14

121:13,15

simply 34:14 67:15

83:12 86:7 100:15

119:10 165:21

simulation 82:13

82:18

single 6:21 31:21

36:2 37:15,18

40:17 42:17,17

46:9 50:4 89:12

102:7 114:19

141:8 146:22

site 22:10 72:5 85:5

142:4,6 144:1

156:6,12 159:4

160:10

sitting 6:14

situation 40:19

42:9,13 77:3

six 17:8 18:2 21:11

68:10 69:5

size 155:18

skip 20:2,8

slide 16:7 17:8 18:9

19:16 20:2,4 26:4

26:21 27:7 38:4,7

39:4,6 57:2 59:22

79:18 81:18,20

83:3 98:20 99:9

103:1,5 105:3

108:1 120:6

140:18,20 152:4

152:13 163:6

slides 7:13 25:19

27:4 28:16 38:12

90:12 140:7

slight 125:15 126:3

small 22:12 121:8

147:13 154:1

155:14

SNOPR 1:6 4:18

10:16 11:7,19

13:7 17:1,5 20:7

25:13 26:6 27:14

35:15 36:3 37:5

39:16 56:5 59:2

91:22 114:5 123:3

solar 51:3,13 52:7

52:9,18 53:4

sold 76:9 141:13

solely 159:21

solution 34:5

somebody 14:8

somewhat 33:18

125:13

soon 10:19

sophisticated 47:19

77:18

sorry 17:15 26:1

51:18 70:15

131:11 134:1

136:10 167:9

sort 41:20 79:22

103:8 104:2 151:4

sorts 45:20

source 51:15,16

79:7 125:4,6,7

159:5

sources 11:11 52:6

86:3 158:7

Southern 1:17 57:4

SO2 156:22,22

157:1,3,6,7

speak 9:11,13 10:1

21:19

speakers 53:12

speaking 10:8

70:14

speaks 50:6 116:4

specialized 45:15

specific 11:8 15:18

73:6 89:1,4 94:16

100:3 101:3 103:6

124:6

specifically 98:2,9

153:9

specificity 73:8

speculate 15:3

115:4

speculation 15:6

speculative 64:6

spin 23:9

spins 42:11

spirit 30:4 114:15

split 110:11 111:1

113:7,9

spoke 65:20

spray 23:8 60:20

spreadsheet 82:11

121:11 154:16

162:6

stage 59:4 77:22

stainless 68:16

149:9

stakeholders 64:15

stand 14:18

standard 3:14 8:11

11:1 13:21 16:21

17:6 18:11 22:18

24:9,19 25:11

26:14 27:1,18

28:12,19,19 29:1

29:7,12,13 30:2

30:22,22 31:10,14

31:19,20,21 34:2

34:2,4,18 35:19

36:10 37:18,20

42:2,17,17 43:7

43:14,17 50:4

53:1,16,19 55:4

57:8 70:5 71:5

74:9,12,22 75:4

77:9 82:20,22

85:13 86:19 89:7

89:12 92:12,22

94:4 101:8 103:7

103:12,15,22

104:5 106:10,13

106:14,16,18,21

107:3 117:13,16

117:17 118:2,3,5

118:10,11,16,18

118:21 119:3,5,11

119:12 120:21

121:13 122:13

123:19 133:5

135:10 136:3,5

137:15 139:3

141:9,12 153:11

155:11 157:5

159:15 163:17,18

163:22 164:4

166:20 167:5

standards 1:3 2:5

4:6 5:11 12:3,5,8

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 189

13:1 16:10 17:11

18:10,14 19:12,17

21:14 30:7 46:2

50:2,2 52:6 55:12

61:10 86:14 92:7

92:7,9,20 95:21

96:3 103:9 104:7

105:20,21 106:22

114:21 116:15

121:4 122:6

125:12 137:5

153:1,10,14,16

154:13 155:5

156:2,11 157:3

161:1,3,18 162:16

standing 154:17

standpoint 143:10

Star 139:9,16

161:22

stark 33:19

start 4:10 5:4 22:2

38:9 47:11 67:6

101:10 113:16,20

136:5,7 137:21

146:3 149:5

started 91:3

starting 113:17,18

114:19 136:9

starts 72:1 83:3

92:18 98:22 99:4

136:11

state 83:21 101:14

stated 16:18,21

55:9,11,18 125:1

125:14 137:12

144:15

statement 78:18

130:2 133:1

statements 11:16

129:20 130:7

168:7

states 1:1 28:1 61:8

67:11 83:7 89:8

124:11,15

statute 43:5 52:4

statutory 11:22

16:14 36:13 52:8

52:19 53:3 166:17

steel 68:16,17

149:9

step 120:2

Stephen 2:9 3:5,21

4:11 6:12 7:17

10:13 64:8 168:15

stepped 6:14

steps 3:21 9:3

11:12

sticking 111:22

stipulated 144:13

stock 154:7

stoop 48:2,15,16

stop 88:1 140:5

stopped 148:2

straight 8:13 163:9

strawman 142:2

strong 30:22 31:19

34:19 43:7,17

137:15

stronger 31:14

34:2 166:20

strongly 4:19 11:13

struck 166:4

structure 128:2

studies 75:13

study 77:15 79:5,8

80:5 95:1

style 40:16,20 41:1

145:6

subgroup 3:14 8:12

120:3 121:1

subgroups 121:3,7

122:8 123:2

subject 109:18

submersion 23:11

submit 21:19 28:18

29:12 168:18,20

submitted 30:15

169:1

subpoena 116:14

substance 15:7

substantial 18:22

54:1 100:20

substantially 42:19

43:4

substantive 117:5

substitute 93:22

substitution 98:12

suddenly 137:21

suds 23:12

suffice 57:14

suggesting 112:5

suggests 53:20

101:20

suitability 61:3

65:11

suitable 62:3,7

sulfur 156:5

summarize 26:7

29:20 118:4

164:14

summarizes 103:6

107:1 119:15

summarizing 116:1

152:20

summary 7:19

11:15 20:6 21:22

29:20 30:13 168:7

summation 164:17

supervisors 65:6

supplemental 1:5

4:17 11:6 32:17

33:14 34:7 67:3

73:15 113:4

162:22

supplemented

35:13

supplied 35:12

83:15 112:7

support 13:6 30:7

33:2,5 41:12

46:19 86:5 129:14

supported 53:12

supports 39:13

40:10

supposed 151:14

sure 6:20 14:7

51:13,21 67:1

128:13 152:1

survey 84:7

switching 148:20

149:5

system 22:7 47:20

47:21 60:21 153:8

156:17

Systems 2:4 5:19

22:4 46:15 54:5

55:9 57:13 138:21

146:1

S.W 1:10

T

table 106:1 107:1,8

119:15 164:18,22

tailored 153:9

take 8:17 40:11

49:8 91:9,10 97:5

98:4 108:2 112:6

144:21 145:5

151:1 153:4 163:7

167:14 168:12

taken 19:10 55:1

takes 43:14 94:7

149:11

talk 15:3 35:4 52:5

73:13 121:20

talked 39:17 48:14

49:6

talking 39:4 47:6,7

47:7 69:4 89:2

98:21 117:13

151:12 154:4

talks 81:21 105:3

targets 161:21

tarry 8:20

tax 21:10 123:8

124:7,7 125:2,9

125:18,21 126:2,6

126:15 127:11

128:2,3 129:21

131:10 133:12

136:12 137:19

140:9 161:21,22

tech 21:1 56:19

58:9 61:13 119:13

technical 13:5 22:9

45:19 86:4

technique 85:20

139:12

technological 20:22

60:7 61:12

technologically

19:4

technologies 60:22

66:7 153:11

154:18

tell 66:10 104:13

temperature 47:18

67:16,20 69:15

70:7,10 71:11

72:15

temperatures

60:18 67:12

ten 9:19 20:3 111:2

111:2 165:8

tendency 47:21

tentatively 18:15

19:2,5 37:5

terms 13:18 24:16

58:16 92:1,14

95:3 96:2 108:17

125:5 129:20

136:20 164:21

test 12:17,21 13:14

13:15,19 14:17

15:7,8,14 16:1,3

56:10 58:17 63:7

63:8 68:4 69:11

69:12,20 70:6

71:3,13,20 72:11

tested 16:20 55:15

55:17 59:5,11

testing 22:15 57:18

57:21 58:11,13

59:6,17 60:17

69:21 72:1,6

149:20

text 27:11

th 11:18 12:9,21

13:2,4,7 24:14

36:20 168:19

thank 5:3 7:2,7

16:6 21:18 29:16

32:14,16 33:9,10

34:20 38:15 41:14

44:11 45:7 46:5

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 190

49:17 50:8,20

53:7,8 54:16

57:15 58:21 64:8

73:10 89:21 99:6

102:9,21 105:1

109:13 116:5,16

120:4,14 135:14

135:16 138:19

140:6 143:20

146:9 150:10

151:16,19 164:9

168:5,9,21 169:2

169:3

Thanks 30:12 73:1

102:20 132:14

137:7 151:9

167:16

thereof 125:10

thermostat 71:8

thing 49:2,5 94:21

95:3 96:10 105:10

146:2 157:8

things 14:16,21

15:1 26:17 34:11

45:20 58:18 87:15

114:16 115:6

133:2 160:5

think 7:8 10:12

32:11,11 33:13

34:12 36:20 40:1

42:4,5 43:15 44:6

44:17,21 45:3

50:5 51:16 54:4,6

57:9,13 59:13

62:17 63:2 64:5

64:18 73:8 78:3

90:19 102:4 108:6

108:12 109:1,3,10

133:15 135:20

138:6 140:16

151:11,22 160:16

162:2 163:19

164:11,17 166:4

thinking 68:21

99:7 101:19

third 36:17 96:18

100:2

thought 72:20

145:15

three 16:19 17:17

20:21 23:8,10

36:11 55:16,20

60:14 68:11 74:1

84:5 102:11 106:6

123:10 144:7

147:17

three-quarters

126:21

Tier 139:18 140:2

tiers 167:6

tightened 24:16

Tim 1:14 5:20

30:13,14 41:14,16

49:17,18 116:6,7

137:9,10 160:2,3

163:13,14

time 7:21 9:11,12

10:10 21:15,20

22:6 45:2 49:15

67:13 79:20 80:3

80:5,8,10 89:13

91:3,5,9 93:1 95:6

95:11 96:13,17

97:14 98:4 105:8

108:3 138:1,13

164:7 167:21

168:3,19

times 25:3 49:7,10

133:2

tiny 155:8

Tippett 2:8 50:11

50:14,15,18,21

51:5 52:11,16,21

53:7 78:13,16,16

today 5:10 9:3,4

10:11 11:18 14:21

34:8 43:13 46:11

50:7 62:21 77:16

108:19 112:14

141:14 151:1

168:10

today's 10:18

told 130:13 132:4

139:5

tolerance 66:4

tolerances 56:9

Tom 1:18 6:8 57:16

57:17 59:8 66:14

69:8 79:16,17

89:21 97:16,17

102:20 108:5

109:13 131:2

158:18 164:15

Tom's 166:4

tooling 143:2

top 16:18,19 17:4

19:19 20:11,21

21:6 22:16 23:16

24:8,18 25:2

28:12 30:2,9 31:1

31:10,15,21 32:20

33:6 35:16 36:19

37:6,11 38:10

40:2,16,20 41:8,9

42:22 43:3,5,8,18

43:21 45:1,16

46:4,22 47:6,12

47:12 48:10,11,14

48:16 49:9,11,22

54:21,22 55:5

56:6,19 58:1 60:8

61:13 87:16 88:14

95:2 96:21 97:2

100:5,13,16,22

101:10,11 102:1

102:11,12 103:7

103:14 104:14,16

118:18 119:5,7,16

124:4 130:14

132:22 139:4

141:12 142:12

144:13,16,20,22

145:1,1 146:4

147:8 148:1,2

158:6 163:18

167:15

topic 14:20

total 17:17 82:6

107:15 126:5,20

127:3,5,9,11

134:11,14 142:20

142:22

totally 99:16

townhouses 93:16

track 9:15

traditional 20:11

40:15 51:15 60:12

training 45:19

transcript 9:17

transition 146:22

148:16

transitional 142:8

translates 75:18

transparency

82:11

trapped 23:13

travels 169:4

treated 47:18

trend 84:21

trial 3:14 8:11

18:10 117:13,15

118:2,5 123:19

true 22:18 148:18

truncated 109:8

try 10:9,10,17

51:19 53:4 86:14

98:4,5 121:2

trying 114:7

118:13 151:3

165:19

TSD 126:13 141:1

142:7,21 146:20

158:9,11

TSL 11:1 17:4

18:12,15,15 19:2

19:5,18 100:8

101:20 118:1,7,14

123:12

TSLs 18:11 56:17

119:17,20,21

120:13 164:3

TSL-1 118:7,19

TSL-2 118:13

119:4

TSL-3 118:20

123:20

TSL-4 119:10

TSL-5 100:10

101:6 119:13

tub 68:14 149:9

tubs 68:16

tumbling 68:19

turn 10:3,4,8 74:10

76:13 121:19

146:2 168:14

turned 5:5 86:1

turning 5:6

turns 125:19

two 14:13 17:14

19:18 20:19 25:3

26:9 28:5,7 32:22

33:5 35:10,12

36:4,20 37:10

39:1,11,13 40:6,8

40:10 41:3,12,18

41:22 44:7,15,16

45:5,21 46:19

47:2,9 50:1 53:13

53:22 61:21 64:18

75:7,11 76:5,10

80:13,15 81:9

97:1 103:6 109:16

110:18 111:11

117:17 119:1

121:7 123:13

125:4 133:4 140:7

165:7 167:6,6

type 35:21 55:17

129:14

types 20:17 40:8

typical 23:11

typically 35:21

U

ultimately 31:17

34:13

unacceptable 32:6

unavailability

36:19

uncertainty 82:16

101:7 108:14

109:2

unchanged 106:20

unclear 63:4

unconvinced 33:18

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 191

166:19

undeniably 48:11

underscore 100:15

underscores 102:4

understand 71:2

71:22 128:14

135:4 143:12

151:17 164:1

understanding

67:10 128:18

135:19

understated 166:7

underway 115:11

unfortunately

158:5

union 25:11

unique 37:7

unit 55:14 90:15,17

94:1 100:13

107:15,18 146:19

unitary 30:22

United 1:1 28:1

61:8 67:11 89:8

124:11,15

units 16:20 23:20

41:7,8,9 66:2

93:15 98:12

104:19,22 110:19

111:13 129:8

142:6 154:5

universally 139:7

unknown 61:3,5

unusual 36:16

update 84:14

125:15 126:3

131:19

updated 73:21

123:4,11

updates 11:5

usage 62:10 75:5

75:14 110:19

USC 20:13

use 3:9 8:3 21:7,7

29:8,9 35:21

39:20 40:8 41:18

41:22 42:3 50:12

60:20 61:4 63:6

63:20 65:12,21

68:6 70:21 72:17

74:2,6 75:2,3 77:6

78:14 88:4 110:15

120:19 121:9

122:20 127:12

128:11 139:11

145:2 156:7

159:18 160:16

useful 109:3 168:4

user 74:16 76:4

users 23:4,7 86:15

uses 69:5 72:11

94:5 107:13

139:12 167:10

utilities 6:7 57:4

83:10 84:8 160:8

utility 3:17 8:14

17:19 18:7 37:8

83:12,15 101:3

117:20 152:17,21

153:2 154:1,9

156:15

U.S 4:5 28:13

116:12 154:7,13

155:5,13 157:7

V

V 144:4

value 85:17 86:1

92:15 120:7

122:19 123:12

157:10 162:11

164:22

values 75:3 107:17

107:18 119:22

variability 82:17

83:5,19 84:10

variable 99:5

various 4:20 74:9

74:12 75:4,13

86:3 89:19 129:21

141:3 153:15

vary 85:5

venue 62:12

verify 149:20

150:17

version 86:22

versus 21:6,7 24:6

45:1,18 48:15

49:22 55:21,22

63:16,17 87:11

97:11 109:18

110:13 112:12

122:9 132:5 137:5

vertical 37:6 47:4,7

60:11 65:22 132:4

vicinity 146:14

view 33:16

virtually 104:7

144:3 161:5

visit 143:22

volume 122:11

125:3 127:19

128:1 129:18

130:7 133:6 141:3

141:5,10,17,22

147:3,5,14,15

voluntary 161:21

von 2:8 3:8,16 6:16

6:16 35:3 38:8,16

51:10 54:19 60:4

60:6 63:12,12

65:19 67:1,5 89:5

89:5 121:20 122:4

126:18 127:1,15

127:21 128:17

129:1,6,17 130:3

130:5,11,21

131:11,17 132:2

132:10,16 133:18

134:3,7,10,17,21

135:9 136:2,20

137:3 140:21

143:21 144:15

146:20 150:6

V-axis 57:22

W

waiver 36:7

walk 26:8 166:12

walked 26:8

want 4:15 10:15

14:10,13 15:2,18

15:20 21:20 26:8

28:15 32:8,16

47:21 51:19,20

52:14 58:5,11,15

63:7 78:21 81:18

105:5 106:4

116:11,19 131:2

134:19 146:6

152:1 155:1

wanted 39:10 44:13

58:8 101:13

104:10 109:17,19

110:10 126:4

129:2 135:15

145:16

wants 86:14 162:22

warm 22:22 23:1

wash 54:15 60:15

60:18 61:2,14

67:16 69:6 140:3

148:5,7 151:14

washer 4:16 12:21

15:14 22:17 23:7

24:1,2 25:11,14

27:2 28:21 30:3

35:10 36:6 37:19

40:3,16 44:10

46:17 47:4 48:3

48:18 55:10,11,19

56:8 60:8,11

61:13 63:19 64:14

65:10 66:6,9,11

67:4,9,14 69:3

77:5 85:5,7 89:11

95:13,15,17,18

96:8 97:8,9 98:3

119:11 122:7

138:15 139:15,19

140:2 147:4,13

148:14 149:8,12

149:14

washers 1:4,5 4:9

11:2 12:17,18

13:16,22 14:12,16

15:9,12 16:12,15

19:18,19 20:10,12

23:5,22 25:2 28:1

28:20 29:5 31:2

31:11,16,20,22

32:18,21 33:4,7

36:1,19 37:7

38:21 39:12 41:13

42:10 43:8,21

44:3,4 48:5,16,18

49:9 50:5 51:11

51:13 53:15 55:1

55:6,7,16,20 56:7

60:14,16 61:6,15

61:17 62:1 63:18

65:22 66:18 67:18

75:11 76:9 85:19

85:22 86:17 93:14

93:19 94:1,2,17

98:7,9 100:6,12

100:17 103:14

104:3 106:3 118:6

120:17 121:7

122:15 124:12,18

124:19,22 128:5,7

130:15,17 132:22

137:16,22 147:9

149:3 153:22

154:7 156:7

washing 21:1 24:6

49:13,14 51:2

52:17 68:22

139:21 151:2

Washington 1:10

wasn't 81:14 91:21

waste 84:2,6,17

121:9 160:10,16

161:2

watch 91:11

water 5:9 19:20,22

21:3 22:19,21,22

23:1,3,6,6 24:10

30:8,10 32:9,20

33:2 36:17 40:12

40:21 41:6,7,8

48:21 54:8 55:21

55:22 56:14 57:20

60:13,18 61:16

66:18 67:3,12,13

67:15,19 68:8,9

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 192

68:21,22 69:2,15

69:22 70:6 71:5

71:11 72:2,14

74:2,6,8,10,11

75:2,3 83:4 84:2,3

84:4,6,6,17,17,20

88:4,19 103:16

104:4 107:7,21

119:9 120:19,20

121:9,9 124:2,3,4

132:21 133:8

139:18 140:4

150:18 156:7,8

160:6,10,11,16,18

160:22 161:2,4,6

161:8

way 32:12 38:9

41:4,5 73:6 89:9

108:13 111:13

124:16 141:16

150:15,17 154:6

162:14 164:16

166:1 167:18

website 9:18 10:17

15:21 55:2,3

weed 42:2

weeks 36:21

weigh 102:12 151:5

weight 37:17 107:6

165:2

weighted 83:16

84:1 85:20 86:1

107:7 108:8,18

welcome 3:2 4:4,15

5:1 21:15 22:1

50:22 152:15

welcoming 4:10

welfare 24:4

went 14:7 91:12,13

97:3 169:5

Wentzel 2:8 3:8,16

6:16,17 35:3 38:8

38:16 51:10 54:19

60:4,6 63:12,13

65:19 67:1,5 89:5

89:6 121:20 122:4

126:18 127:1,15

127:21 128:17

129:1,6,17 130:3

130:5,11,21

131:11,17 132:2

132:10,16 133:18

134:3,7,10,17,21

135:9 136:2,20

137:3 140:21

143:21 144:15

146:20 150:6

wet 140:4 151:14

151:15

we'll 7:21,22 8:1,3

8:7,9,17 9:2,4,20

10:10 14:14 58:14

122:2 134:21,22

135:1 140:16

152:7 155:21

we're 4:9 5:1 7:16

13:9 22:12 34:21

39:4 47:6,6,7 54:9

57:1 58:1 59:19

73:3,10 91:15

103:15,19 104:4

104:20 106:13,18

106:22 111:22

113:17,18,19

115:4,14 117:13

121:22 125:20

128:1 129:7

151:12 152:6

154:3 164:10

165:19

we've 22:20 42:21

50:8 54:7 56:16

57:5 58:9 59:15

59:16 109:17

114:3,6,9,12

133:1 137:6 140:5

141:13 167:12

whatnot 67:15

Whirlpool 1:21

6:10 49:20

white 1:18 5:16

12:14 22:5 26:2

wide 75:14

willing 37:12

winding 142:15,16

Wisconsin 25:12

wish 9:8 10:1 78:11

102:12 163:10

wishes 7:19 21:21

51:8

withdrawing

142:12

withstand 47:18

Witkowski 2:9 3:5

3:21 4:11,13 6:12

6:12 10:13,14

14:1,5 15:13,16

15:20 16:7 64:2

168:15,16

WNRD2050G

23:14 24:20

wondering 151:21

work 10:6 134:22

workable 53:14

worked 18:12

working 28:21

126:13

works 84:5 124:17

145:8

worth 65:16 98:15

worthwhile 99:1

wouldn't 9:9 28:18

29:13 52:8,18

66:19 88:17

129:10

wrestled 167:12

written 9:7

wrong 136:4

X

X 87:13

Y

Y 87:13

year 75:19,22 80:9

80:11 81:2,2 82:8

90:16 111:2,3

123:4 131:10

135:8,9,21,22

136:2,10 137:4

154:3,5

years 80:14,15 81:9

84:6 105:9 124:9

124:19 148:22

yield 119:22 162:14

164:1

Y.M 115:21

Z

zero 69:2 79:19

$

$10 146:15 149:15

$199 48:7

$2.8 126:7

$20 143:1

$200 104:1

$250 48:7,8

$400,000 125:18

$50 165:3,9

$500 48:11

$54 142:20,22

0

001 155:14

01 119:20

09 126:16

1

1 16:14 75:16

1E-245 1:10

1,200 75:18

1-7 20:8

1.06 163:21

1.42 30:8

1.55 133:7 164:2,5

1.59 77:10

1.6 19:19 24:10

56:14 124:2,3

132:21 133:9

1.60 32:1,12 103:16

119:8

1.63 55:21

1.76 55:21

1.93 77:5

1:15 152:8,11

1:40 169:6

10 3:5

10K 129:19

10Q 24:13 125:17

129:19

10-year 79:5

10.9 75:16

10:46 91:11

10:48 91:13

100 68:13 164:19

100,000 142:6

144:22

1000 1:10

11 91:11 124:1

11:00 8:2

11:06 91:14

112 22:20,21

115 49:15

117 3:15

12 154:2

12:14 152:9

12:15 152:6

120 22:20 68:13

13 83:6,17,19 84:2

140:22

13(c) 126:14

13-26 142:21

135 68:13 71:7

136 12:12

140,000 104:21

142 25:15

15 13:5 38:7 111:5

150 25:13

152 3:18

16 1:8 39:4

163 3:19

164 3:21

18 12:22 57:2 59:22

18.4 24:17

19 73:5

19.2 24:12

1970 84:21

1990 157:2

1998 80:6,14

2

2 30:10 56:20 106:8

106:11,14

2,100 75:21

2.0 19:21 104:4

124:4

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 193

2.8 127:1,2 133:22

2:45 8:18

20 23:16 69:1

200,000 154:5

2005 12:19,22

13:18 90:18

2006 13:3 90:17,20

91:6 114:3

2007 12:2 13:5

126:16 134:1

135:5,20 136:12

2008 16:9 19:12

35:17 84:21 123:5

127:3 134:2,7

135:12 136:22

2009 1:8 11:20

12:10 13:8 16:13

49:4 84:12 86:22

123:4 125:19

126:17,21 134:2,8

136:10,11,15

137:6 168:20

2010 13:11 15:12

16:14 126:22

127:20 128:22

130:2 136:13

137:19

2011 24:15

2012 43:15,18

2013 92:22 105:9

105:12 137:22

2014 154:3

2043 93:1 105:9,12

21 3:6

23 106:8,20,21

25 142:9 146:18

25,000 144:21

145:1

27 13:3 24:15

292 25:113 3 11:1 19:3,5,18

26:11 27:5,7

75:20 106:9,21

139:18 140:3

3.4 75:17 126:8

3.5 106:12 134:6

30 49:10 105:9

142:10 146:18

30-year 92:22

34 103:1

35 3:8 70:18 79:18

98:20

350 147:18

39 120:6

4

4 18:15

4:30 9:4

40 25:17 70:19

71:19 72:2 142:22

400,000 144:20

42 20:13 116:12

47 126:7

49 140:18,20 152:4 5 5 3:2,3 16:7 18:12

18:15 70:12

5.5 19:21 30:11

104:4 124:4

5.7 86:1

50 68:11 152:13

50,000 145:1

500 164:20

55 49:15

6

6 28:16 75:20

60 68:11 70:11,19

71:5,10,17,18

72:1,15

60-40 111:12

61 168:18,21

6295 42:5

6295(0)(4) 20:14

6295-04 42:15

6299 116:12 7 7 28:16

7.8 124:1

70-30 132:8

70-430 132:5

73 23:1

74 106:7

75 71:7

77 3:10

78 106:148 8 12:10 75:20

8.3 55:22 132:21

8.4 55:21

8.5 19:20 24:11

32:11,12 56:14

103:16 119:9

124:3 133:9

8.6 133:8

80 23:2

80-20 132:6,8

81 3:12

85 49:10 111:4

113:8

85-15 111:12

861 83:8

9

9 11:19 13:8 36:21

168:20

9.5 30:9

9:00 1:11 4:2

90 49:8

90s 77:15

97 53:17

99 97:22 102:17

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4
(202) 234-4433 www.nealrgross.com

L94

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify thac the foregoing transcript.

in the matter of: Commercial Clothes Washers

Crr^hl6h6-f r'l \T^f i no af Drnnnca^

Rulemaking (SNOPR)

Douglas Brookman, Faci litator

Date: November 16, 2009

Place: wasnJ.ngEon, uu

Before:

ranr6c671t-< fh6

a forement ioned

t-rmar,rri t- i na

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHtNGTON, D.C. 20005-3701

f r r ' 1 I : n d . ' . \ m n l o f o n r n n o o d i n . r < ^ f J - h a

matter, as reported and reduced to

EERE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 67.4