# •

•

• 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY Public Hearing on Clothes Washer Standards Wednesday, November 15, 2000 The meeting was held at 9:00 a.m. in Room GE-069 of the Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

## s.w., Washington, D.C. 20585, Bryan Berringer of the Department of Energy presiding. PRESENT: DOUG BROOKMAN KATHERINE N. DELVES TOM ECKMAN EUGENE C. FOLEY, JR. DAVID B. GOLDSTEIN, Ph.D. TONY GREGG MIKE GRIFFITH MEL HALL-CRAWFORD EARL F. JONES, JR. ALAN F. KESSLER BEN LIEBERMAN PHILIP J. MANTHEI DAVID B. MODTLAND STEVEN M. NADEL WILLIAM R. PRINDLE STEVEN J. ROSENSTOCK CHARLES A. SAMUELS GLENN W. SCHWANTES MICHAEL C. THOMPSON LARRY WETHJE

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• ALSO PRESENT: DONALD M. BRUNDAGE ANDREW de LASKI ERIC J. ESSMA DOUGLASS C. HORSTMAN MARSHALL B. HUNT JACK E. LINARD, Ph.D. STEVEN J. NABINGER MICHAEL C. RIVEST DOE REPRESENTATIVES: BRYAN BERRINGER PETER BIERMAYER QONNIE LAUGHLIN EUGENE MARGOLIS MICHAEL J. McCABE EDWARD POLLOCK ROBERT VAN BUSKIRK

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 2

www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 3 

### A-G-E-N-D-A Opening remarks
. 4 

### Agenda review and overview . 11 Participants' remarks Larry Wethje, AHAM
. . . • • • • • . . • . . 15 Chuck Samuels, AHAM
. . . • . . • • 18 Gene Foley, AHAM • . . . . . . . . • • . 26 Ben Lieberman, CEI and Consumer Alert • • • • Mel Hall-Crawford, Consumer Federation of America
. . . . -. . . . .. . . . . . . . . 32 

### Steve Rosenstock, Edison Electric Institute 35 Steve Nadel, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy . . . . . • . . . . . • 38 Bill Prindle, Alliance to Save Energy . . . 40 Tom Eckman, Northwest Power Planning Council 43 Tony Gregg, Water Conservation Manager, City of Austin, Texas . • . . . . . . . • . . • . 46 Alan Kessler, Amana ...•...••••. 48 David Goldstein, NRDC • • • • • . . . • • • 52 BREAK • • • • • • 58 

### A discussion of issues on which DOE has comments and/or requests to speak • • • . . received • 60 

### Test procedures Rulemaking process Energy and economic analyses Impacts of standards 

# . . . Other issues Recap . 

# .. Adjourn
.

(202) 234·4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 . . . . 61
• 63
• 75
• • 89
• 90
• • 97
• • • 98

www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 4 1 P-R-0-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 2 9:01 a.m. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Ifyoucouldtakeyour seats, 4 we are about to begin. Good morning, everybody, and 5 welcome. My name is Doug Brookman. I am a 6 facilitator from a small company called Public 7 Solutions in Baltimore, Maryland, and I welcome you. 8 Thanks for beinghere ontime sowe can start ontime. 9 Let me start by turning it over to Bryan 10 Berringer to make welcoming remarks. 11 MR. BERRINGER: Goodmorning, everybody. Is 12 this on? Can you hear? Good morning. Thanks for 13 everybody coming today. I appreciate it
. 14 If you don't know, I'm the program manager 15 for the clothes washers rulemaking here at the 16 Department of Energy. Today joining me we have 17 Michael J. McCabe from the front office staff. We 18 should have a number of other people. 19 We also have Gene Margolis who is here 20 representing the general counsel. Mark Friedrichs 21 from the policy office will also be joiningus. I'll 22 be the presiding officer today. Mr. Doug Brookman 23 will be facilitating the meeting today. Again, on 24 behalf of the Department I would liketothankyou all 25 fortakingtimetoparticipate inthispublichearing.

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 5 1 

### We have chosen this format for today1

### s 2 workshop as a public hearing on our proposed 3 

### rulemaking in order to facilitate and exchange ideas 4 

### and information in a more informal manner. We're 5 going to start out with some statements. Then later 6 on we'll open it up for open discussion. 7 Again, thisworkshopforumisfordiscussing 8 changes to proposed rulemaking for clothes washers 9 that were just published in the Federal Register on 10 October5thof2000. Thenoticeincludedannouncement 11 of this public hearing, and also the material as far 12 as the TSD, the rulemaking, today's agenda is posted 13 on our website
. 14 

### In your package you should have a handout 15 that has that website information on there. Again, 16 today the Department is seeking comments on the 17 proposed conservation standards. 18 Comments receivedtoday alongwithcomments 19 submitted during the written comment period, which 20 ends December 4, will assist the Department in 21 developing a final rule for clothes washers. 22 In approximately two weeks you should have 23 a completed transcript that will be available in the 24 Department ofEnergy's Freedomof InformationRoom in 25 

### Room lE-190.

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 6 1 Anybodywishing to obtain a purchase of the 2 transcript can see the court reporter. There's also 3 information on your handout that gives you the name 4 and phone number of the court reporter as far as 5 getting a copy of the transcript. 6 To provide the Department with as much 7 pertinent information, we wantto seeasmanyviews as 8 possible and get expressions from as many people as 9 possible, their views. 10 The workshop will be conducted in the 11 following procedures. We'll begin with the 12 introductions just around the table. Then we'll 13 proceed with the list of people that have asked to 14 speakandhavesubmittedcommentsto speak. Following 15 those comments we'll have a discussion period. 16 As you see on the agenda, we've sort of 17 broken it down. If there are other issues, we'11 18 discussthat. As timeallowswe'11 inviteunscheduled 19 speakers to present their issues not covered. Then 20 we'll also have time to discuss those. 21 We should have ample time to raise and 22 discuss all important issues. We ask, however, that 23 all participants reframe from making overly lengthy 24 remarks sothateveryonegetsa chance andtime onthe 25 floor as needed.

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.,**N.~. ~ASHINGTON,**  D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 7 

### 1 DougBrookman, ourfacilitator, willenforce 2 the ground rules. He will also limit debate with 3 

### speakers when points have been made and are clear. 4 

### Questions are welcome throughout the 5 

### presentations unless you are advised otherwise. It 6 may be necessary, however, to cut off debated topics 7 to remain on schedule. 8 There should be additional time at the end 9 

### of a workshop to discuss issues. We encourage 10 everyone to present and participate as much as 11 possible so that we may get a full spectrum of 12 opinions and issues raised. 13 The workshop is scheduled to adjourn about 14 

### 2:45 today, earlier if possible. We may be able to 15 finish before lunch depending on the issues that are 16 raised. Topics, of course, that have not been fully 17 discussed can also be addressed in written comments 18 which are due December 4. 19 Allwrittencommentsanddatasubmittedwill 20 be available for public inspection at the DOE Freedom 21 of InformationReadingRoom. The telephone numberwe 22 canalsoputontheboard is (202) 586-6020 ifanybody 23 is interested in that. 24 We askyoupleasesendyourwrittencomments 25 

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

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005·3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 8 1 hereattheDepartment ofEnergy, referencedocketEE2 RM-94-403. This information is also availableonyour 3 handout, the address and so forth. 4 We would like to have 10 copies of your 5 commentsandany supportingdataalongwithelectronic 6 copies using WordPerfect 8.1 or Excel. We will not 7 accept fax copies so any comments you have if you can 8 give us an electronic copy, it would be appreciated. 9 Anybody submitting informationthey feel is 10 confidential and exempt from publicdisclosure should 11 submit one copy signed with that information plus 10 12 copies and a disk with that information omitted in 13 accordance with the procedures established in 10 14 C.F.R. Part 1004.11. The DOE will make its own 15 determinationwhetherthis information is exempt from 16 disclosure. 17 Again, we thank everybody for coming today 18 and preparing for this hearing. We are pleased to 19 receive your comments. Our purpose today is for the 20 Department to listen to your views. 21 That is my prepared statement for today and 22 part of our standard procedure. I would like to turn 23 itovertoDoug Brookmanwho will address our speakers 24 that are scheduled for today. Thank you. 25

(202) 234-4433 MR. BROOKMAN: Thankyou, Bryan. Thanks to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 9 1 all of you for coming and for being here on time
. 2 This seems awfully loud to me. Okay. 3 Let's start with introductions. I'm going 4 to do a brief agenda review which Bryan has already 5 kind of gone over briefly. 6 Tom, can I start with you? Please say your 7 name and your organizational affiliation. 8 MR. ECKMAN: Tom Eckman, Northwest Power 9 Planning Council. 10 MR. PRINDLE: Bill Prindle, TheAlliance to 11 Save Energy. 12 MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel, American Council 13 for an Energy Efficient Economy. 14 MS. DELVES: Katherine Delves, Natural 15 Resources Canada. 16 MR. GOLDSTEIN: David Goldstein, Natural 17 Resources Defense Council. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. GREGG: Tony Gregg, City of Austin. MR. THOMPSON: Mike Thompson, Whirlpool. MR. SAMUELS: Chuck Samuels, AHAM. MR. FOLEY: Gene Foley, AHAM. MR. WETHJE: Larry Wethje with AHAM. MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, Edison Electric Institute.

<202) 234-4433 MR. MANTHEI: PhilManthei, AllianceLaundry NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrQross.com

# •

•

• 10 1 Systems. 2 MS. HALL-CRAWFORD: Mel Hall-Crawford, 3 Consumer Federation of America. 4 MR. SCHWANTES: Glenn Schwantes, Amana 5 Appliances. 6 MR. KESSLER: Alan Kessler, Amana 7 Appliances. 8 MR. GRIFFITH: Mike Griffith, Electrolux. 9 MR. MODTLAND: Dave Modtland, Electrolux. 10 MR. POLLOCK: Ed Pollock, Department of 11 Energy. 12 MR. BERRINGER: Bryan Berringer and I would 13 just like to make one correction in yourpackage. If 14 you're coming tomorrow for the central air, you have 15 the other information on central air and we'll give 16 you a copy of the website with the clothes washer 17 information on it. That will be forthcoming. 18 MR. MCCABE: Michael McCabe, Department of 19 Energy. 20 MR. BIERMAYER: Peter Biermayer, Lawrence 21 Berkeley National Laboratory. 22 MR. MARGOLIS: Eugene Margolis, Deputy 23 Assistant General Counsel. 24 25 MR. BROOKMAN: And could I ask others also to introduce themselves?

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 11 1 (Whereupon, others at the table introduce 2 themselves off the record.) 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. I believe all of 4 you know Gerri
. I hope all of you gave Gerri a 5 business card. 6 Bryanalreadydida verybriefreviewofthe 7 agenda and covered the high points and they are that 8 this is the final workshop prior to the Department 9 consideringmanydifferentviewsandpreparinga final 10 rule. 11 Tomake surethateverybodygets a chanceto 12 comment on all of the developed work that's gone into 13 the proposed rule and the other features in a 14 prospective rule, we are asking that we have brief 15 presentations this morning. 16 SeveralpeoplehavecontactedtheDepartment 17 of Energy and asked that they be able to speak and 18 they are -- the list that I have presently is Larry 19 Wethje representing AHAM; Chuck Samuels from AHAM; 20 Gene Foley from AHAM; Ben Lieberman from CEI and 21 ConsumerAlert;MelHall-Crawford, ConsumerFederation 22 ofAmerica; SteveRosenstock, EEI; Steve Nadel ACEEE; 23 Bill Prindle, Alliance to Save Energy; Tom Eckman, 24 Northwest Power Planning Council; Tony Gregg, Water 25 Conservation Manager, City of Austin Texas; and Alan

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 12 1 Kessler from Amana. 2 Whatwe hopetodo, and ifotherpeoplewish 3 to speak at the opening, especially if there's time, 4 but we want to find a way to kind of wedge you in and 5 give you a chance to speak. We're hoping that people 6 thathave askedtopresentcan limittheircommentsto 7 in the range of five minutes. In other final 8 workshops prior to the work going into a final rule, 9 this format has worked well. 10 You will note as you look at the agenda 11 after these individuals give their comments for the 12 record, the discussion continues subject area by 13 subject area. 14 You'll see after the participants' remarks 15 we'11 probably take a break mid morning, but then 16 we'll move onto a discussion of test procedure, then 17 following that rulemakingprocess, and then following 18 thatenergyandeconomicanalyses, andthen impactsof 19 standards, and then any other issues that have not 20 been covered we'll take up before the end of the day. 21 As Bryan said, itmayverywellbe thatthis 22 will be a short meeting today. We don't, however, 23 wishtodiminishpeople's abilitytocommenton issues 24 that matter to them so we'll make sure we don't skip 25 lightly over the things that are of concern to you.

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 13 1 Steve Nadel. 2 MR. NADEL: Just to clarify, it sounds like 3 the initial thing you want is brief opening remarks 4 andtothe extentwe have furtherdetailedcomments on 5 one aspect or another, hold that until later. 6 MR. BROOKMAN: That would be a nice way to 7 do it. Thank you for clarifying that. Yes. And in B the segmentthat's listedontheagenda, thatwouldbe 9 the time to develop those things. I think that's 10 productivebecause thenwe can have a discussion. We 11 can have an exchange of views. 12 Are there questions or comments at this 13 point on the agenda and the way this is structured? 14 Let me suggest also that over the span of 15 these years norms have emerged for thesemeetings and 16 I'm going to ask that you do everything you can to 17 cooperate with these norms. I'm simply going to 18 request that you speak one at a time. When you do 19 please say your name for the record. 20 Listen as an ally. I find, and you're 21 getting tired of hearing me say it, that the quality 22 of the discussion hinges entirely on the quality of 23 the listening. Keep the focus here. 24 25 Please turn off your cell phones, turn off your pagers, keep the side bars to an absolute

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 14 1 minimum. If you need to do some work that's not 2 focused on where we are on the agenda, take it out of 3 the room, please. Don't disturb these proceedings. 4 We're going to try to stay on time today. 5 We've got a lot of busy peoplehere and there's a lot 6 to be done. That's all about keeping the focus here. 7 I will be queuing people to speak. 8 Once we get past the initial comments from 9 the speakersthat I listed, I'll be queuing people to 10 speak, but I'malsogoingtotrytoarrange for people 11 to have follow-on comments. 12 The Department benefits a lot from the 13 exchangeofviews and itcreatesfor claritythanjust 14 people reading from a written script. That's my goal 15 as a facilitator. 16 Questions orcomments beforewe begin? Did 17 I miss anything? Did anybody not get a chance to 18 introduce him or herself? 19 MR. LIEBERMAN: Ben Lieberman, CEI. 20 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. And CEI is? 21 MR. LIEBERMAN: We're a public interest 22 group. I'm alsohere representing Consumer Learning, 23 a consumer advocacy group. 24 25 Rebecca?

(202) 234-4433 MR. BROOKMAN: Are you getting that,

NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, 0.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 15 1 COURT REPORTER: It's faint. 2 MR. BROOKMAN: Thesemicrophones are not
-- 3 what dothey call them, wide radius? You needto pull 4 them up pretty close to your face to be heard. 5 Michael McCabe. 6 MR. MCCABE: MikeMcCabe. As a follow-upto 7 the remarkthat SteveNadel made in theparticipants' 8 remarks, I suspect that1s going to be very brief 9 remarks by the individuals where they can find out 10 what their issues are. We wouldhopethat allparties 11 will stay beyond their remarks so that there canbe a 12 discussion on those issues with them involved later 13 on. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Frommy perspective ofthese 15 participants' remarks, thefirst segmentoftheagenda 16 is to hit the highlights. Just the major comments 17 that you have. That's what we're hoping to achieve 18 there. 19 Okay. Let'sbeing. The first individual is 20 Larry Wethje. Can we start with you, please? 21 MR. WETHJE: LarryWethje, VicePresidentof 22 Engineering Services with the Association of Home 2 3 ApplianceManufacturersrepresentingthemanufacturers 24 of clothes washers sold in the U.S. My comments will 25 be limited to test procedure issues and other AHAM

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, O.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 16 1 representatives will offer comments on other aspects 2 of the rulemaking. 3 I would like to start off just by thanking 4 the Department for doing an excellent job, we think, 5 of incorporatingrevisions to the clotheswashertest 6 procedures to clarify certain issues. 7 Theyhavehelpedustofacilitatea dialogue 8 amongstmany interestedpartiesandwebelievethey've 9 donea goodjob in incorporatingmanyoftheconsensus 10 comments that were discussed. 11 However, we believe there are four brief 12 issues that we thinkthat further clarifyand enhance 13 the test procedures if they were incorporated in the 14 final rule. I will brieflyjust summarize those four 15 items. 16 No. 1, we think that the test cloth should 17 be specified to be able to be used up to 60 runs in 18 AppendixJ as it 

### is proposed for Jl. There shouldn't 19 be any distinction between usage of the test cloth 20 between the two. I don't think that's very 21 controversial. 22 No. 2, specify that the Jl appendix 

### is a 23 test procedure that is to be used to determine which 24 models meet Energy star requirements prior to 2004
. 25 I think everybody agrees with that. We just want to

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.Y. YASHINGTON, O.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 17 1 document it and put it in the final rule. 2 No. 3, requires that a permanentmarkingbe 3 appliedto future testclothlotsto assist inkeeping 4 those lots from being mixed up with different lots 5 duringtesting. Thatwouldhelpthemanufacturersand 6 otheragencieswhentheyaretestingthematerialsnot 7 to use test cloth from different lots. 8 The last item would be to implement a 9 process of verifying the correction factors on the 10 future test cloth lots. We had had a conference call 11 with many interested parties back in June and the 12 minutes from that meeting recorded the following 13 action• 14 It would determine a process for approval 15 and notification of the approved correction factors, 16 laboratories and mills to be used, i.e., publishing a 17 Federal Register on a website orby letter. We think 18 to avoid potential confusion that the correction 19 factor of the test block lot should be certified by 20 DOE. 21 Wethinkthisprocessshouldbepublishedin 22 the final rule andwe arewillingtoworkwithDOE and 23 dialogue with them on helping to establish an 24 appropriate process. 25

(202) 234-4433 That's pretty much all we have to say on NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 18 

### 1 test procedures. We can talk about it further inthe 2 appropriate segment. 3 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Larry. 4 Thenextpersonwho isscheduledtospeakis 5 Chuck Samuels. 6 

### MR. SAMUELS: Thank you. I think everyone 7 knows that I'm the Government Relations Counsel for 8 the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. We 9 were, of course, involved in the discussions with 10 energy efficiency advocates which led to the joint 11 comments whichproposed an industry standardwhich is 12 reflected in DOE's proposal. 13 The ruleproposedbyDOE is consistentwith 14 

### ourpositionandwe areheretodayto support it. The 15 following companies support the proposed rule; 16 Alliance Laundry Systems, ASKO, Amana Appliances, AB 17 Electrolux, General Electric Appliances, Fisher and 18 Paykel, Maytag, Miele, and Whirlpool. 19 My colleague, Gene Foley, willprovide some 20 viewgraphs that will show much more detailed 21 information, the very significant energy, water, 22 environmental, and economic benefits of the rule to 23 consumers in this country. 24 I would like to discuss why we negotiated 25 

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

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.cOlll

# •

•

• 19 1 law and for this country. 2 The manufacturers agreed to discuss with 3 standardsadvocatesa packageincludingclotheswasher 4 standards for several reasons. It is clear under 5 NAECA that a new energy standard had to be issued for 6 clothes washers and there was a sufficient basis in 7 the record for doing so. 8 We had, in effect, threatened as early as 9 1991to require that all unitswouldhave tobe front10 loading horizontal access or so-called "European 11 style." 12 Therefore, it was in the interest of 13 consumers as well as manufacturers that the substance 14 and timing of any standardbe agreedto on a consensus 15 basis as much as possible in order to mitigate any 16 possibleharms itmightcauseconsumers, manufacturers 17 and others and to ensure diversity of designs. 18 That has been accomplished. There are already a 19 number of models with a wide range of price points 20 available which meet the 2007 standard. 21 The benefits ofthe standardwe propose are 22 huge in terms of kilowatt hours, payback, life-cycle 23 cost benefits to consumers, water conservation and 24 25 carbon emissions avoided. Consumers will save billions of dollars in utility bills.

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 20 1 Industry is acutely aware of the potential 2 damage causedby standards. We have not hesitated to 3 aggressively criticize proposals that would have 4 adverse consequences. Most of industry joined with 5 allied industries to support an appropriations 6 moratorium on the DOE standards process a number of 7 years agowhenwe felt that ourconcernswere ignored. 8 Sincethen, however, withrespect certainly 9 to the clothes washer standards there have beenmajor 10 improvements in the openness, transparency, and 11 credibility of the DOE process. 12 We found that although our discussion with 13 theadvocateswasoftenquitedifficult, ultimatelywe 14 were able to develop a rule which benefits everyone, 15 particularly consumers. 16 Thiswasdonebysettingreasonable standard 17 levels with sufficient lead time to allow 18 manufacturers to make a large investment to ensure 19 that products will be available in the marketplace 20 which not only meet the standards but, more 21 importantly, meetthecriteriaofutilityandconsumer 22 satisfaction. 23 That is why one standard level will go into 24 effect in2004 clearingthemarketplaceofinefficient 25 modelsbutnotrequiringmassive investment, whilethe

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 21 1 much more significant standardwill go into effect in 2 2007
. 3 

### We do not deny that the 2007 standard will 4 bedifficulttoachieve andrequirea huge investment, 5 but we are satisfied that there is sufficient lead 6 time to allow even the smallest manufacturers to 7 maintaintheviabilityintheirbusinessesanddevelop 8 themodelsnecessarytobothsatisfythe standardsand 9 important consumer interest. 10 WebelievetheDOEanalysisisfundamentally 11 sound with respect to analyzing the engineering cost 12 and other aspects of this rule and that no further 13 analysisneedbeundertaken. Beyondtheanalysis, let 14 

### me address several issues. 15 

### The joint proposal is not the product of a 16 formal negotiation sponsored by DOE, but rather 17 informal negotiations as occurs frequently. 18 Therefore, we do not expectthe proposal to 19 

### stand other than on its merits. Virtually all the 20 analysis used to develop and justify the proposal, 21 however, were publicly available before the 22 negotiations began. 23 The proposal fits well within the criteria 24 oftechnical feasibilityandeconomicjustificationin 25 NAECA.

(202) 234-4433 

### Certainly some companies feel that both NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, O.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 22 1 technical feasibility and economic justification are 2 pushedtothelimitbythisproposalbut, nonetheless, 3 because of its structure, we believe that it can be 4 accomplished without undue disruption. 5 Because DOE did not sponsor a formal 6 negotiation or "RegNeg," there was no need for a 7 public process to bring in all possible interested 8 parties to the table, although, in fact, a wide range 9 of views were heard. 10 However, in retrospect, I believe that it 11 would have been beneficial to allow additional 12 interests to the process. On the other hand, major 13 consumer groups like, CFA and AARP, have beenpart of 14 theprocess improvementandadvisorycommittee. These 15 groups approved all the analytical tools used in this 16 rulemaking. 17 It should be kept in mind that there'sbeen 18 an open public regulatory process with countless 19 workshops since 1991 and an advanced notice of 20 proposed rulemaking in 1994. Most of the people in 21 this room are so familiar with Doug Brookman's 22 introduction that you could do it in order. 23 24 25 MR. BROOKMAN: And I would welcome that. MR. SAMUELS: But we want to make sure he keeps his hand in the business.

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 23 1 The proposed rule is well within the scope 2 of what has been discussed for nearly 10 years. The 3 proposedruleisnotonlywell-foundedtechnicallyand 4 economicallybut, it is compatiblewith the important 5 provisions ofNAECA. Forexample, ithasbeenalleged 6 that the proposal, in effect, contains two rules at 7 one time and this may violate NAECA, but that's not 8 the case. 9 Thereisonestandardgoingintoeffectwith 10 two parts and effective dates and there is nothing in 11 the definition of an energy conservation standard in 12 42 

## u.s.c. 6291 which prohibits that structure, 13 particularlywhen theminimum lead inperiodofthree 14 years is being followed for both parts of the 15 standard. Further, NAECA contains very significant 16 protection from consumers and manufacturers known as 17 the "safe harbor" provision. 18 This provision, which was critical to the 19 industry1s originalacceptanceofthefederalprogram, 20 statesthat DOE cannotenact anamended standard ifit 21 finds that interested persons have established by a 2 2 preponderance of the evidence that the standard is 23 likely to result in the unavailability of products 24 25 with performance characteristics including reliability, features, sizes, capacities, andvolumes

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 24 1 that are substantially the same as those generally 2 available in the United States
. 3 

### Thosemostlikelytomakethatargument, the 4 manufacturers, do not believe that is the case. No 5 onehasprovidedcredibleevidencetosubstantiateit. 6 The legal burden is on the proponents to show that 7 these effects will occur, not on DOE to make a 8 negative finding. 9 Less legalistically but more importantly, 10 there's good reason to believe that consumer choice 11 both in product design and pricing will not be 12 adversely affected by this rule. 13 It's difficult to estimate the future, of 14 

### course, and there are strict limits on what a trade 15 association can do in gathering information for 16 estimates for its numbers. 17 We canlookatthemarketplacetodayandsee 18 that there are horizontal access machines which meet 19 the 2007 standard and within that category there are 20 significantdiversityof features and designs ofboth 21 the products that are imported from Europe and 22 elsewhere and products that are made here in the 23 United States. The horizontal access machine of 10 24 years ago has been effectively "Americanized." 25

(202) 234-4433 

### Therearealsomoretraditional "vertically" NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, O.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 25 1 looking-type products, such as Whirlpool's Resource 2 Saver and Calypso and Fisher Paykel's "Ecosmart. 11 3 Maytaghasjustannounced a super efficient 4 vertical access which will be available later this 5 year. Theseproductsmeetthe 2007 standardnow. All 6 these companies will have many more models in the 7 coming years including top-loaders. 8 It is much more difficult to discuss what 9 future prices might be. I have not attempted to 10 engage themanufacturers in any dialogue on this very 11 sensitive subject. 12 I have noticed, however, that in the 13 marketplace and a number of retailers the Resource 14 Saver and otherproducts are selling for considerably 15 less than the initial high efficiency products. 16 Manufacturers still have seven years, the 17 most stringent standard effective in orderto develop 18 designs in manufacturing approaches which will allow 19 them to mitigate some of the cost index. 20 Also, fortunatelyforconsumers, butperhaps 21 unfortunatelyformanufacturers, historicallythereis 22 notmuch evidencethatcostincreasesdueto standards 23 havebeenpassedthroughtoconsumersdueto a variety 24 of factors including the competitive environment
. 25

(202) 234-4433 The real potential adverse effect of any NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 26 1 standard would be to limit competition at the 2 manufacturer level because of this very phenomenon. 3 But we have designed the standard levels and their 4 effectivedatetoamelioratethisproblemwhichiswhy 5 we have support from smaller companies and larger 6 companies. 7 The process of interest parties developing 8 thisproposal isencouragedbytheprocessimprovement 9 role, which itself was encouraged by Congress in 10 appropriations language. The process has produced a 11 well-balanced rule which will provide tremendous 12 benefits to our society. 13 Theminimum three-year lead-inperiod is an 14 important part of the proposal. Therefore, we urge 15 DOE to finalizethisruleattheearliestopportunity. 16 Thank you. 17 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 18 The next speaker is Gene Foley from AHAM. 19 MR. FOLEY: My name is Gene Foley. I'mwith 20 the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. My 21 comments are basically follow-on comments to Chuck 22 Samuels, commentsthat I would liketo sort ofprovide 23 some numbers. I was originally going to use the 24 viewgraph but everybody has a copy of what was handed 25 out.

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 27 1 Just to give you some sense of the 2 analytical framework that was used in discussions to 3 arrive at the agreement that was arrived at and to 4 give you a sense of the framework in which it was 5 involved. 6 Going to the first page real quickly, the 7 clothes washer standard is defined in two parts. For 8 2004 it's the 1.04 MEF. For 2007 it's the 1.26 MEF. 9 TheMEF equatesto a current standardofapproximately 10 .817 MEF. As we get intodiscussions, I'm surepeople 11 will explain that is a rough estimation of what the 12 equivalent is but that's where we are at this point. 13 The expected results of the standards are 14 significant. Ideallythese estimateswill bebetween 15 4 and 5.5 quadrillion BTU's of energy saved. Also 16 using DOE analysis they will be between some six and 17 11 trillion gallons of water saved. 18 Chuck also mentioned that there was 19 significantconsumerbenefitstothe standardthathad 20 been analyzed and discussed. Approximately $27.16 21 billion in savings on utility bills, including water 22 and energy, will be made available through the 23 proposed Department of Energy standard. 24 Looking at the next page, the standard is 25 not without costs, however. We do acknowledge those

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 28 1 costs. Manufacturers will suffer. There will be a 2 loss of net present value considered to be estimated 3 at about $528 million to businesses. 4 There will also be additional costs to 5 consumers through the increased price of products of 6 approximately $15.3billion. Ifyou fliptotheother 7 page behind us again, on the balance the consumer's 8 benefit is the difference between the $27.16 billion 9 and the additional cost of $15.3 billion. 10 It is to this**la~;t** number, though, that I 11 would like tomake some additional comments about the 12 forecast into the future. The first chart that I 13 have, Producer Price Indices, shows that the washing 14 machinepriceshaveremained fairly flat and, in fact, 15 havecurvedupandactuallystartedcurvingdown again 16 compared to all finished good prices. In fact, at 17 this point they will add by some 32 percent. There 18 are significant margin pressures on manufacturers in 19 producing clothes washers. 20 If you go to the next page, you will see 21 from the analysis done by individual manufacturers, 22 that laundryproductshavenotincreasedasregulatory 23 burdens have been placed upon them. In fact, their 24 pricing has remained fairly flat
. 25

(202) 234-4433 One could make a very strong case that the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, O.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 29 

### 1 cost increases generally are not absorbed by the 2 

### consumer but, in fact, are absorbed by the 3 

### manufacturers. 4 Thenextchart shows thedifferent standard 5 levelsthatwereproposedbythe DepartmentofEnergy. 6 Column 3 is the standard level of the proposed rule 7 giving you a sense that the benefits based on the 8 individual columns really do seem tomaximize what is 9 available to the consumer and to minimize the impact 10 on the affected industries. 11 Therearesignificantenvironmentalbenefits 12 available from a proposed rule. Between 60 and 95 13 million metric tons of future carbon emissions are 14 

### avoided. Put in perspective, this is approximately 15 the same as five coal-fired electric power plants. 16 Those then also relates into significant 17 environmental benefits. We've already spoken about 18 thecarbon, butthere are also significantNOX and S02 

### 19 benefits that can be gained shown from the very last 20 column that are available. 21 That is the extent of my remarks. 22 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Thankyou, Gene. Thanks for 23 getting through a lot of material fairly rapidly. 24 Thenextpersonwho isscheduledtospeakis 25 

### Ben Lieberman, CEI and Consumer Alert.

(202) 234·4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANC1 TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLANC1 AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005·3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 30 1 MR. LIEBERMAN: I 1m going to break with 2 precedent here and come in well under five minutes. 3 I just want to make a very quick pitch for extending 4 the comment periodbeyond the statutoryminimum of 60 5 days. 6 Asyou allwell know, this isnot officially 7 a negotiated rulemakingbut somethingvery similarto 8 the negotiated rulemaking. Certainly for thoseofyou 9 who have done that process, you've had a chance to 10 iron out any differences times prior to the NOPR. 11 Certainly 60 days for you is more than enough. 12 For groups like Consumer Alert, which 13 applied for state holder status but were rejected, 14 that only means that a littlebitmore went on behind 15 closed doors than in the normal rulemaking. 16 It often means that at least parts of the 1 7 proposed rulemaking and the technical support 18 documents were not available until October 5. I'm 19 sure I'm the person in the room that probably learned 20 the most on October 5, that we have only 60 days to 21 file comments. 2 2 Forthose ofyouwho alsowant to comment on 23 the air conditioner rule, we have to split our time 24 between those two pretty challenging NOPRs
. 25

(202) 234-4433 I also suspectthatthereare somepotential NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005·3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 31 1 commentors who have been preoccupied with the 2 elections until the first 30 of those 60 days which 3 hasn't been particularly helpful. 4 Then maybe the Congress might want to look 5 at this and this has not been a very convenient 60 6 days for Congress to pay mu.ch attention to something 7 like this. 8 I really do think it is particularly 9 important to bring in the full range of consumer's 10 perspectives onthe clotheswasherrule. I thinkthis 11 rule really has a treater potential for adverse 12 consumer impacts than any previous appliance 13 rulemaking
. 14 One thing I think we're looking at, and 15 correctme if I'mwrong, butwe'reprobably looking at 16 the largestpercentage increase inthe initialcostof 17 a regulated appliance. 18 We're also lookin9 at a paybackperiodthat 19 was quite frankly not terribly impressive and reasons 20 to believe that at least some, and maybe more than 21 some consumers will be net losers if they buy a 22 washing machine that meets the 2007 standards. 23 I think we're also looking at some 24 questions, and this is debateable, of course, but 25 we're looking at some question about the features and

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 32 1 reliabilityand so forth ofwhatwouldbe available on 2 themarket, particularlyafterthe 2007 standard is in 3 place. 4 In sum, I would just like to advocate 5 something of an addition to the comment period to 6 bring in a whole range of views. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 8 The next person that is scheduled to speak 9 isMel Hall-Crawford, Consumer Federation of America. 10 MS. HALL-CRAWFORD: Good morning. I 11 appreciate the opportunity to speak at this hearing. 12 ConsumerFederation isa nonprofit associationof some 13 270 pro-consumer groups that was founded in 1968 to 14 advance the consumer inter·est through advocacy and 15 education. 16 We handle a wide variety of consumer issues 17 ranging fromelectricityrestructuringtofood safety, 18 child safety, bankruptcy, savings initiatives, to 19 indoor air quality. 20 Among other thingrs, I am responsible for 21 energy efficiency issues at CFA. The CFA foundation 2 2 hasbeenpromoting increasedconsumerawareness ofthe 23 economic environmental and health benefits of buying 24 25 energy efficient products and specifically with the Energy Star.

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 those marked

www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 33 1 I serve on DOE 1s advisory committee on 2 Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards and chair the 3 Consumer Information Subcommittee. I'm also a member 4 of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project. While 5 I'm not an expertby anymeans onthese issues, I'm no 6 stranger to them either. 7 I know the process of getting to where we 8 are today on clothes washers has not been an easy one 9 or a fast one. You probably all know thisbetterthan 10 I do. It started in November of 1994 when advanced 11 notice of proposed rulemaking followed by a 12 supplemental ANOPR in November 1998. 13 I understand that there were intervening 14 workshops and meetings to discuss design options and 15 preliminary engineering analysis in November 1996 and 16 public hearings on December 15, 1998. Then an 17 additional opportunityto discuss the process inJuly 18 of 1999. 19 I would say there have been ample 20 opportunities for concerned parties to be involved. 21 Many consumer organizations belonging to CFA such as 22 Florida Consumer Action Network, Arizona Consumer's 23 Counsel, Citizen's Utility Board of Oregon have 24 commented on the rulemaking urging a new and improved 25 standard for clothes washers so that both energy and

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.,**N.~. ~ASHINGTON,**  D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 34 

### 1 water savings can be realized. 2 

### We arenow attheproposedrule stage ofthe 3 

### comments due early next month. CFA was encouraged 4 with the addition of a consumer overview section to 5 

### the proposed rule. We think there is room for 6 improvement and we plan to submit comments making 7 suggestions. 8 Overall, I would liketo say in considering 9 rulemaking such as these, we are concerned with the 10 impact onthe first costorpurchaseprice, aswell as 11 the impact on the life-cycle cost of the product, 12 i.e., energy costs and, in this case, savings from 13 reduced water consumption and a reasonable payback 14 

### periodgiventhe savings. Basicallythe impactofthe 15 rule on affordability of the product for the average 16 consumer, and especially the low and moderate income 17 population. 18 We are also interested inthe environmental 19 

### implications/benefits of a rulemaking. We believe 20 that such information should be made available in 21 terms so that the average consumer can grasp with 22 ease. 23 I hope this is helpful in highlighting the 24 consumer perspective. I hope! the Department is able 25 

### tomove inanexpediousmannerthatputsa new clothes

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 35 1 washer standard in place that benefits consumers and 2 the environment, and that encourages new and 3 affordable technology. 4 Thank you for your attention and the 5 opportunity to comment. 6 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 7 The next person scheduled to speak is Steve 8 Rosenstock, Edison Electric Institute. 9 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Thank you. I'm Steve 10 Rosenstock with the Edison Electric Institute. 11 For the record, the Edison Electric 12 Instituteisnotopposingtheproposedrule. However, 13 we do have concerns about how this rule may affect 14 other rulemakings in the future whether formal or 15 negotiated. We raise these concerns as a stakeholder 16 that has been active in these proceedings. 17 EEI understands that some of the 18 negotiations for clothes washers were mediated or 19 moderated by the Department of Energy and that other 20 negotiations were done in private without DOE 21 involvement. Our comments concernthose negotiations 22 that were done in the presence of DOE personnel, or 23 thatused DOE facilities andthepotential, aswe call 24 it, "spillover" effect into other rulemakings
. 25

(202) 234-4433 EEI and other interested stakeholders that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.,**N.~. ~ASHINGTON,**  D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 36 1 were actively involved in the official rulemaking 2 since 1997 or earlier were not informed of the time 3 table of the negotiations that were held in the 4 presence of DOE. 5 EEI and other stakeholders were not allowed 6 to participate in the negotiations held in the 7 presence of DOE. EEI and other stakeholders were not 8 even allowed to observe the proceedings. 9 The announcements and press released after 10 the rule was negotiated, there was language about 11 utilities agreeing to the new standards when in 12 reality only one municipal utility and one investor 13 owned utility even had a chance to see the agreement 14 before it was signed. 15 Forthe future, EEI urges the Department of 16 Energytomakethenegotiatedrulemakingprocesswhere 17 held with DOE involvement as open as possible to all 18 interested stakeholders. 19 To excludethose stakeholders that hadbeen 20 active in the official rulemaking process would do 21 severe damage to the work that DOE has done to make 22 the rulemakingprocess a more open and fair activity. 23 Excluding stakeholders is not a way to reach a 24 consensus. 25

(202) 234-4433 Item 2. In terms of the cost effectiveness NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 37 1 of the new standards, EEI has praise and concerns. 2 EEI has stated that we are in favor of standards that 3 were cost effective for the highest number of 4 consumers. We have statedthat at least90 percentof 5 the consumers should have lower life-cycle cost under 6 any new standard and under the DOE analysis. 7 For the standard that goes into effect in 8 2004 with a modified energy factor of 1.04, Table 7 9 and Table 10 of the October 5, 2000, Federal Register 10 Notice show that 89 to 90 percent of the consumers 11 will have lower life-cycle cost. 12 The rebuttable presumption payback is two 13 and a half years shown in Table 9 of the notice. The 14 immediate payback period is 3.5 years. The mean 15 paybackperiod is 4.6 years as shown inTable 8 ofthe 16 Federal RegisterNotice. EEI finds thesevaluestobe 17 acceptable. 18 However, for the standard that goes into 19 effect in 2007 with an MEF of 1.26, Table 7 and Table 20 10 ofthe Federal RegisterNotice showthat only 80 to 21 81percentoftheconsumerswill have lowerlife-cycle 22 cost and only72 percent ofthese seniorcitizenswill 23 have lower life-cycle cost. 24 The rebuttablepaybackperiod, meanpayback 25 period, and

(202) 234-4433 median payback period NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 are all

www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 38 1 significantlylongerunderthe standardthatgoesinto 2 effect in 2007
. 3 As stated in the consumer overview, "Life4 cycle cost analysis estimatesthat thepaybackperiod 5 for thehigh efficiencymachine will be approximately 6 seven years." EEI is not comfortable with these 7 values. 8 EEI believes that the clothes washer 9 standardproposed for 2007 should not set a precedent 10 for other appliance energy efficiency standard 11 rulemakings. Thenumberoflife-cyclecostlosersand 12 the payback periods are too high and should not be 13 used for other products
. 14 Thank you very much for your time. 15 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Steve. 16 Steve Nadel, ACEEE. 17 MR. NADEL: Speaking on behalf of the 18 American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy in 19 support of the proposed standard. We believe the 20 standard does meet all the NAECA tests in terms of 21 saving a significant amount of energy, saving 22 significant money for consumers. 23 It does not in any way compromise consumer 24 utility and does not have significant adverse impacts 25 onmanufacturers sowe recommendthatwe speedilymove

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 39 1 to a finalized standard. 2 However, whilewe do supportthis standard, 3 we believethat DOE hasmade some analysis errorsthat 4 tendtooverstatethe costandunderstatethebenefits 5 of the standards. Acouple ofprevious people talked 6 about long payback periods, for example. 7 In our opinion, that's an artifact of some 8 errors in the analysis. In fact, for our review the 9 payback period, for example, is quite a bit shorter 10 than what DOE says. I can talk about some of those 11 particulars later. 12 Finally, I guess I wanted to say that we 13 encourage DOE to move speedily to a final rule under 14 the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 15 1987. This standard was supposed to take effect in 16 1995, as I recall. 17 We are now going to be nine years behind. 18 It doesn't make sense to delay this process any 19 further. There1s been I don't even know how many 20 opportunities for comment at different workshops, 21 advance notice, readvance notice, etc. 22 I just don't think it's going to add 23 anything except delay. I would note, as everybody 24 knows, there will be a new administration. We don't 25 know which

(202) 234-4433 party. Anytime NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 there's a new

www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 40 1 administration ittakesthemmonths andmonths tohave 2 their appointees and at least a period of indecision
. 3 This is something that's been going on for 4 many years. The point was raised about Congress. As 5 I understand it, and I can't remember which is the 6 rule, once a rule is published, this is a major rule, 7 Congress does have 60 days to review this. So ifthis 8 is published in December or January, there will still 9 be 60 days for Congress to review during the period 10 where Congress is in session. 11 With that I guess I'll wrap up my comments. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Thankyou, Steve. Thankyou. 13 Bill Prindle, Alliance to Save Energy. 14 MR. PRINDLE: Yes.. Bill Prindle, Alliance 15 to Save Energy. I wanted to address several issues, 16 one being the alleged narrowness of the stakeholders 17 involved in the negotiation. Second being the issue 18 of consumer choice. Third being the issue of cost. 19 Fourth being the issue of the extension. 20 Firstof all, theAllianceto SaveEnergy is 21 itself a very broad-based alliance. Our associates 22 include more than 60 organizations which do include a 23 number of utilities, ma.nufacturers, consumer 24 organizations, environmentalqroups, researchexperts, 25 and others. So just within our organization, we have

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND .WE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. .20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 41 1 a huge diversity of views that we need to address. 2 Secondly, thecoalitionthatwas involvedin 3 the negotiation process was a very broad-based 4 coalition involving not just advocacy organizations 5 but also state and local governments, utilities, and 6 others. To assert that this is somehow a backroom 7 deal among a small group with special interest is 8 simply inaccurate. 9 On the issue of consumer choice, I think 10 anyone who examines the way the washer marketplace is 11 movingnowwill saythatconsumer choiceis increasing 12 and not decreasing as a result of this agreement and 13 other forces ongoing in the marketplace
. 14 There are several U.S. and foreign 15 manufacturers that already make machines that exceed 16 the 2007 standard and these are not of just one 17 particular design. There's H-access, V-access, 18 there's new H-access technologies, and so forth. 19 I, myself, just bought a new machine from 20 Sears that exceeds the 2007 standard. It was 21 developed by Whirlpool. It is a vertical-access 22 machine. It has a totally new washing system. That, 23 infact, hasenhancedcleaningperformancethatallows 24 the washing of larger loads of different fabrics that 25 previously had been washed.

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 42 1 This technologry increases product 2 performance, increases utility of the machine, and 3 exceeds the energy savings target and, incidentally, 4 the water savings benefits of the proposed standard. 5 It's simply erroneous to say that somehow 6 consumerchoice isgoingtobe limited. I think it is 7 safe to assert that the kind of performance standard 8 in this rulemaking is actually going to encourage 9 manufacturers to further innovate. This is true in 10 other appliance categories as well. 11 A third issue is cost. I think the data 12 we've seen today from AHAM, as well as data from the 13 U.S. Census Bureau and other appliance categories, 14 refrigerators and airconditioners, for example, show 15 that historical trends are very clear that consumer 16 prices do not significantly rise as a result of 17 regulatory activity; that the market dictates prices 18 and the market for consumer appliances is very 19 competitive. 20 As Steve just said, we're not going to see 21 anywhere near the kind of analyticallybased consumer 22 cost increases that the NOPR states. 23 Finally, on the issue of the extension, we 24 25 are more than five years behind already. We don't need to extend this process. I should also point out

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.IJ. WASHINGTON, O.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 43 

### 1 that the entire DOE standards process was reinvented 2 in 1996/97, in that time period, specifically to 3 

### provide more opportunities for stakeholder input. 4 Thatprocess, I think, isworkingextremely 5 well and does not need to be somehow reinvented or 6 

### reexamined at this point. Congress exercised that 7 power in 1995 and I don't think they are going to go 8 back again. 9 

### There is one member of Congress who has 10 

### proposed an extension in the rulemaking. We don't 11 think that is going to be successful. I would also 12 add thatmember is from the samepartythat is urging 13 a speedy conclusion and no extensions in Florida's 14 

### electoral situation. I'll say no more about that. 15 MR. BROOKMAN: Please say no more about 16 that. Thank you, Bill. 17 Tom Eckman, Northwest Power Planning 18 Council. I forgot a P, I think. 19 MR. ECKMAN: There are lots of P's in that. 20 I would like to start by indicating that the Power 21 Planning Council does support the proposed rule. We 22 are party to the negotiations and grudgingly accept 23 them but we believe this is as far as we can go. 24 I want to indicate that the Power Council 25 

### had a serious deliberation before endorsing these

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS**AN~** TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealr9ross.com

# •

•

• 44 1 standards because they believed they didn't go quite 2 far enough with respect to water savings. We are 3 involved in a significantactivity inthenorthwestto 4 try and save salmon. 5 It cost a lot of money to save salmon and 6 getting water and keeping water in the rivers is an 7 importantaspect ofthat andkeepingcleanwaterthere 8 is more important. 9 I should state for the record that the 10 Council is more than just representatives of the 11 utilities in the northwest. In fact, the Council is 12 an interstate agency representing the four governors 13 of the northwest and the constituencies that they 14 represent, some $4 million households. 15 I thinkwe bring to bear some experience in 16 this because we've got over 100,000 of thesemachines 17 to beat the 2007 level standards in play as we speak 18 and a growing number of consumers are seeing the 19 benefits aswe speakandthey arequite satisfied from 20 all the surveys that we had done with the 2000 level 21 type machines. 22 As Bill indicated earlier, they save a lot 23 ofwater, theycleanclothesbetter, andtheconsumers 24 are exceedingly so much satisfied by them that 85 25 percent of them are telling their friends that they

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 45 

### 1 should buy them by word of mouth as opposed to most 2 consumers who advertise, "Don't tell your friends to 3 

### buy a new washing machine." 4 That's not the way these things get sold. 5 With these new machines the word of mouth is driving 6 themarketplace. Consumer satisfaction isquitehigh 7 unlike we have seen in otherwhite goods sold in this 8 country. 9 I would like to point out that we also 10 believe that the economic benefits to consumers, the 11 life-cycle cost estimates that have been made, are 12 conservative. We thinkthey are actuallybetterthan 13 estimated by the Department. 14 

### I, in particular, would indicate that the 15 ratio of winners to losers here being both 16 conservative is also much different and much higher 17 than was required by the Department in prior 18 

### rulemakings. Prior rulemakings require that the 19 

### average consumer be benefi

### tted. That means that 20 roughly51percentofthepopulouswins and49percent 21 loses. 22 We have a ratioherethat iscloseto 80 and 23 probably exceeds 80 percent of the populous if you 24 take into account the fact thatmore life-cyclecosts 25 

### areprobablyunderestimatedbecauseofhigherconsumer

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 46 

### 1 cost that we believe will be the basis and the 2 

### ignoring of several of the benefits, particularly 3 

### savings that we see by virtue of these new machines. 4 

### In sum, because of all the technical points 5 that were talked about, the Council supports the 6 adoption of the standards. 7 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Tom. 8 TonyGregg,WaterConservationManager, City 9 of Austin, Texas. 10 

### MR. GREGG: Thankyou. On behalfofmany in 11 the water industry including the American Waterworks 12 Association, I want to express support for the 13 

### proposed clothes washer standards. We hope the 14 

### billion of gallons of projected water savings will 15 become a reality as the standards take effect. 16 There aremany regions ofthe countrywhere 17 theprojectedwatersavingsfromtheproposedstandard 18 are necessary to help meet future water supply needs 19 due to population growth. 20 Many utilities and regions simply do not 21 have other options available for additional water 22 supply except through ccmservation initiatives. 23 Unfortunately, there is already a move among a few in 24 Congress todelaythe implementation ofthis proposed 25 

### standard.

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 47 1 This opposition to a standard that has been 2 scientificallyresearched, fullydiscussed, andagreed 3 upon by all stakeholders through an open public 4 process is very difficult to understand. 5 Customer satisfaction for the products 6 already on the market that meet the standard is 7 approximately97percent. I wouldurgetheDepartment 8 of Energy to move forward with the swift and speedy 9 adoption of these rules. 10 Clothes washers use the most water of any 11 household appliance in homes that already have 1.6 12 gallon per flush toilets. On average, a home could 13 reduce its indoorwateruseby 10percentby switching 14 to a water efficient clothes washer. 15 Theaveragemachineonthemarkettodayuses 16 40 to 50 gallons ofwater for each wash. With a water 17 efficient machine, the same load of clothes can be 18 washed with approximately :25 gallons of water, and 19 with better results than the less-efficient model. 2

### o Based on implementation of the proposed standards, 21 water savings will be 0.17 trillion gallons by 2010, 22 2.57 trillion gallons by 2020, and 6.39 trillion 23 gallons by 2030. 24 The standards in the agreement regulate the 25 energyefficiencyofclotheswashersbywhat is called

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, O.C. 20005·3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 48 1 the modified energy factor (MEF). In order to meet 2 theMEF standards inthe**agn~ement,** manufacturerswill 3 have tomarket machines that also save lots of water. 4 Several efficient models already on the 5 market such as the Frigidaire Gallery, the Maytag 6 Neptune, and the Whirlpool Calypso already exceed the 7 proposed standards. 8 While the water industry supports the 9 proposed standards and hope they are adopted quickly, 10 the water industry would have preferred that a water 11 factor standardbe established in addition to the MEF 12 standard in the rule to assure that projected water 13 savings actually occur. However, I understand that 14 the Department of Energy determined that it currently 15 does not have the legal authority to propose a water 16 factor standard. 17 I would request that the Department of 18 Energy seek authority to set a water factor standard 19 for clothes washers, so that a future rule making 20 process can implement a water factor standard that 21 will ensure the water conservation benefits that are 22 so important to many regions of this country. 23 I want to thank the Department of Energy 24 staff and contractors and all of the stakeholders for 25 their dedication in putting forward the proposed

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 49 

### 1 clothes washer standards. 2 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Tony. 3 

### Alan Kessler, Amana. 4 

### MR. KESSLER: Thank you. Amana Appliances 5 manufacture and market clothes washers affected by 6 

### this rulemaking. We are the smallest of the five 7 major full line manufacturers. 8 We also manufacture the most other covered 9 

### products; refrigerators, freezers, room air 10 conditioners, central air conditioners, furnaces, 11 clothes dryers, household ranges, cook tops, ovens, 12 and microwave ovens. 13 Our business is significantly impacted by 14 

### the cumulative burden of a number of these energy 15 efficiencyandenvironmental regulations. As members 16 of AHAM we have participated in and support the 17 standard and the joint comments submitted. 18 

### We strongly believe, however, that the 19 refrigerator/freezer Energy Star affectivity date 20 needstobecorrectedandwe'11havewrittentechnical 21 comments affecting the discount rate, washer sizes, 22 category description, and maintenance cost. 23 I would like to ci:>mplement the Department, 24 the advocates, and the others involved as we achieve 25 

### a substantial increase in clothes washer efficiency

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 50 1 

### standards with the unique two-tier phased 2 

### implementation. The resulting energy savings and 3 

### associated water savings will have significant 4 consumer, economic, andenvironmentalimpactthatwill 5 affect the nation in a positive way. 6 As part of the negotiated agreement, there 7 were initialEnergyStarlevels fortheassociatedtax 8 credit for production of super efficient clothes 9 washers and refrigerator/freezers. 10 Unfortunately, theDepartmenterredintheir 11 

### announcement implementing these revised Energy star 12 levels. These integrated programs and efficiency 13 levels were negotiated in good faith assuming the 14 refrigerator/freezer Energy star levels would be 15 changed effectiveJuly 1, 2001, consistentwithprior 16 announcements that were specifically noted in a 17 November 19th letter to those it impacted. 18 We were totally surprised by a May 22nd 19 letter when the date was accelerated to January 1, 20 2001, fully sixmonths inadvance ofthenew standards 21 affectivity. 22 Significant technical errors regarding the 23 Energy Star efficiency levels were pointed out and 24 subsequently corrected by the Department in a 25 September 12, 2000, letter, but the date was not

C202) 234·4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, O.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 51 1 corrected. 2 I'm here today calling upon the Department 3 

### to correct this egregious error in accelerating the 4 effective date of theEnergy Star level sixmonths in 5 advance of the minimum standards increase. 6 

### As it stands, I believe there will be 7 confusion in the marketplace for consumers and the 8 cumulative burden heaped upon the manufacturers to 9 react to this surprised acceleration of the date is 10 unacceptable. 11 I would also like to compliment the 12 Department and those involved in these standards and 13 

### proceedings. I have probably been involved longer 14 

### than anybody else beginning in the 1970's when we 15 startedwith standardizeduniformtestprocedures and 16 havebeenthrough a number of the efficiency impacts. 17 I think the 1969 process rule improvement 18 had a positive impact on achieving much better 19 standards thathavepositively impactedtheconsumer, 20 the economy, and the environment, while at the same 21 time minimizing the cumulative damage to the 22 manufacturing segment of the U.S. economy which is 23 critical to the long term economic health of the 24 nation. Thank you• 25

(202) 234-4433 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Thankyou, Alan. Mypersonal NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 52 1 thanks to each of the speakers. It took some 2 discipline to summarize your comments and hold it to 3 five minutes so I appreciate that a lot. 4 Are there any other that wish to summarize 5 their comments at this time? David Goldstein. 6 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Thank you. I'm David 7 Goldstein. I've been the Director of NRDC's energy 8 program for over 2Oyears andworking inthis area for 9 almost 30 years. I've generally not been in the 10 habit of agreeing nearly 100 percent with the 11 representatives of industry in supporting a 12 regulation. 13 I think it's significantthat I'mheretodo 14 that, to reiterate NRDC's support for the joint 15 comments andtoagreewithChuckSamuelstodaybecause 16 I think it shows that this is a technically correct 17 answer, that this legally represents what DOE is 18 required to be doing and ought to be doing. 19 Itis a process-wisecorrectanswer interms 20 of taking the interest of all the important 21 stakeholders, efficiency advocates, consumers, 22 manufacturers, utilities, states, and so on into 23 account in a rational way. 24 This proceeding on clothes washers has been 25 going on

(202) 234-4433 essentially since 1991 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005·3701 under three

www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 53 

### 1 presidential administrations. There has been more 2 than adequate time to raise and address all of the 3 

### technical issues, all the issues of manufacture 4 impact, all the consumer issues, and to discuss them 5 in a formal way on the record. 6 

### The negotiation is not any kind of a 7 backroom deal. It was as inclusive as we were aware 8 of in terms of people that were interested in taking 9 

### part of it. I think more important the results are 10 those that could be reasonably foreseen as a 11 consequence of all the formally published materials. 12 In fact, I think that the reason we were 13 able to reach an agreement is that each side satdown 14 

### and said itlooks like it'sgoingtobeheadedmore or 15 less this way. Ifyou domore than tweakthe results 16 a littlebit, it's simply not going tomeet the legal 17 test. 18 

### It's not going to be supported by the 19 record. We believe the existing record supports the 20 negotiated results and the DOE would have arrived at 21 a very similaranswerhadtherenotbeennegotiations. 22 Let me say a little bit about the role of 23 

### consumers. NRDC has over 400,000 members that I'm 24 representing at this workshop. We've worked closely 25 

### with other

C202) 234-4433 

### environmental organizations whose NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 54 

### 1 membership exceeds 8 billion. 2 

### We've also in the process of these 3 

### negotiationsandthroughouttherulemakingworkedwith 4 a number of other public and private sector 5 organizations to make sure that we are representing 6 positions that are not just one environmental 7 organization but are broadly applicable. 8 I would liketomake a coupleofcommentson 9 the analysis. Several other people have said, and I 10 agree, that the benefits of the standard will be 11 larger than what is predicted in the Notice of 12 Proposed Rulemaking. 13 In particular, the consumer will save more 14 

### because of detergent savings. The consumer will 15 benefit from getting their clothes cleaner and from 16 longer fabric wear which is the common response that 17 consumers are now presentingto Energy starmodels at 18 the level of the 2007 standard. 19 These products are being sold by utilities 20 that we'reworkingwithnot primarily ontheirenergy 21 savingsbutbytheirimprovedconsumerperformanceand 22 utility. 23 We're seeing a range of consumer choice in 24 termsoffront-loaders, top-loaders, diagonal-loaders, 25 

### horizontal access, vertical access.

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 

### The range of

www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 55 1 choice for consumers is the result of the proceedings 2 leading to this standard ishigher than itwas before 3 and will continue to get higher. 4 We think manufacturers are being humble in 5 their predictions of what this is going to do. I 6 think through the trade association and given how 7 competitive the industry is, that's what you could 8 expect. 9 In my personal observation of how 10 manufacturers are meeting this, I would estimate that 11 the costs of compliance are going to be about half of 12 what DOE has projected so the price increase to 13 consumerswillbelower. The impactsonmanufacturers 14 will be lower. 15 Companies are making higher profits on 16 current Energy Star models and we are hopeful that 17 this standard will have favorable impacts, not 18 negative impacts, on manufacturers based on the 19 analysis and based on the record. 2O I would 1iketoreiteratesomebody's comment 21 thatthe two-tierstandard is legal undertheNational 22 Appliance Act. There are limits in terms of five 2 3 years for subsequent rulemakings after an initial 2 4 rulemakingbutthereare no 1imits onthe intermediate 25 time between two steps within a single rulemaking and

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 56 1 NAECA says nothing negative about adoptingmulti-tier 2 standards rather than single-tier standards. 3 What DOE is doing is very much consistent 4 with the law. In fact, I think it's required by the 5 law that DOE set standards at the maximum level of 6 efficiency that is technologically feasible and 7 economically justified. 8 I'll make a note on the issue of percent 9 winners. One is othershave said that the percentage 10 is higher than indicated in the analysis. But, two, 11 thepercentage ofwinners and losers is not one ofthe 12 criteria in the law. 13 In fact, the interest of manufacturers and 14 Congress members in setting one uniform national 15 standardattheexpense ofwinners and losers, because 16 obviously states with higher energy costs you can 17 justify a higher standard. States with lower energy 18 costs you can only justify a lower one. 19 Thatwould seemto implythe rightanswer is 20 standards by states but that was explicitly rejected 21 as an alternative with comments by stakeholders and 22 Congress members in the congressional record when it 23 was adopted saying, "No, we are willing to sacrifice 24 that in order to achieve uniform national markets." 25

(202) 234-4433 One small change I would like to propose in NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 57 

### 1 the standardthat does not affect it substantivelyor .2 change our support of the joint comments. This is 3 

### something we've been arguing for years in the 4 proceeding and that is that there shouldbe one class 5 of products inthe standard size range, not twobased 6 on a front-loader or top-loader. 7 The reasons for that isthis; manufacturers 8 are innovating with their product the distinction 9 between front and top-loading has become blurred. 10 What are we going to do ifwe have a 45 degree access 11 point rather than the 15 or so degrees that we are 1.2 already getting now. 13 

### The standards are the same. There's no 14 

### evidence in the record for differences in utility or 15 consumer satisfaction and products of all sorts can 16 meet existing standards so let's avoid confusion in 17 future standards or labeling by collapsing them into 18 one single one. Thank you very much. 19 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, David. 20 Are there other individuals that wish to 21 give brief summary comments at this time? Okay. I 22 see no one. 23 Letme askyou to refer to the agenda again 24 ifyou would, please. I wish to confirm these topics 25 

### and to assure that everybody's comments today are

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 58 1 going to fall within these topics that are listed, or 2 let's create another one. We do have the last one 3 listed as other issues. Read through this with me. 4 Testprocedures, Rulemakingprocess, Energy 5 and economic analyses, Impacts of standards and then, 6 of course, Other issues. I'mhoping that everybody's 7 commentswill fit somewhere inthose subjects. Please 8 say so now if they do not. Okay. Great. 9 It'snowjustabout 10:15. Youwant totake 10 a shortbreak now and then go back and return to test 11 procedures? Let's do that. We'll start back up at 12 10:30. 13 (Whereupon, at 10:10 a.m. off the record 14 until 10:27 a.m.) 15 MR. BROOKMAN: Gerri has provided at each 16 person's seat an updated information sheet which has 17 the corrected DOE website where the most current 18 information is available. It also lists the docket 19 number for the submission of your comments. Please 20 note that. It shouldbe there at each person's seat. 21 second, everybody that has so far given 22 Gerri a business card should have now a Xerox copy of 23 the attendees. A few people have joined us that 24 weren't here at the very beginning so we'll give them 25 a chance to introduce themselves in just a second.

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.U. UASHINGTON, O.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 59 

### 1 I think that's it in terms of the 2 

### housekeeping matters. Any other announcements or 3 

### issues? 4 Did you talk about property passes, Bryan? 5 If you walked into the Forrestal Building 6 witha laptopandyouhaven'tyetgota propertypass, 7 they may not let you out with it. Or a cell phone. 8 

### MS. PAIGE: (Off microphone.) 9 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Gotcha. If they don't have 10 a property pass, they need to get a property pass. 11 Okay. And you can give them a propertypass. Right, 12 Gerri? 13 

### MS. PAIGE: Right. 14 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Let me just anybody 15 who didn't get a chancethis morning to introducehim 16 

### or herself at the outset. Let's give everybody a 17 chance to say their name and organizational 18 affiliation. Who was not here at the outset? 19 

### MR. HORSTMAN: Doug Horstman with Maytag. 20 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 21 MR. JONES: Earl Jones, GE Appliances. 22 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Please use the 23 microphone. 24 25

(202) 234-4433 

### MR. NABINGER: Steve Nabinger from NIST. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, O.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 60 1 MR. DE LASKI: Andrew de Laski from the 2 Appliance Standards Awareness Project
. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Others that 4 didn't get a chance to introduce themselves? 5 Okay. Let's start. The agenda suggest we 6 move directlytotestprocedures. LarryWethje inhis 7 comments gave some very specific things for the 8 Department to consider in terms of test procedures. 9 Other comments on test procedures? 10 Mike Thompson. 11 MR. THOMPSON: Not on test procedures. Can 12 I make one short comment? I know I'm stepping out 13 of

-- 14 MR. BROOKMAN: No, no. Go ahead. 15 MR. THOMPSON: It will be very brief. I 16 know this morning there were some concerns expressed 17 over features andreliabilityand otherissues. I can 18 tell you that we've got products in the marketplace 19 right now that will have been in the marketplace a 20 full sixyearsbythetime 2007 standards roll around. 21 The reliability ofthose productswill have 22 been fully tested. Actually, we were quite a long 23 time in the production of the high efficiency top24 loading models that are currently inthe marketplace
. 25 Reliability, at least from our perspective, will not

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 61 1 be an issue. 2 We'11havemorefeatures. Theproductsthat 3 we are producing right now through 2007 will be the 4 best performing products we've ever made. Some of 5 the issues associatedwithcost, themodelsthatwe 1re 6 manufacturing right now some of them produce a six7 times payback over the life of the product versus the 8 incremental cost. I justwantedtobringa fewpoints 9 about that. 10 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks, Mike. 11 Let me ask, Gene Foley, your machine was 12 queued up to use this projector. 13 Isanybodyelsegoingtousethisprojector? 14 MR. FOLEY: I don't have to use them. 15 MR. BROOKMAN: I'm going to turn it off. 16 Does anybody else want to use it? I'm going to ask 17 somebody else to turn it off. Now it's blinking. I 18 guess it's queuing itself off. 19 Steve Nadel, before we proceed with test 20 procedures. 21 MR. NADEL: This is on test procedures. 22 MR. BROOKMAN: Good. Let's go straight to 23 it. Test procedure comments. 24 25 MR. NADEL: TheAHAM suggestedcomments, the changes lookreasonabletome. Inparticular, I fully

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 62 1 support the first three. In terms of No. 4, I'm 2 supportive of doing that, although I have questions 3 about how long it will take. 4 My suggestion would be if AHAM could 5 actually draft some suggestions since they represent 6 many of the different interests. That may speed the 7 process along. 8 I think this is a relatively minor issue. 9 If DOE can't resolve this quickly, it can finish this 10 early next year while letting the rest of the 11 standards move forward. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 13 MR. WETHJE: This isLarryWethje fromAHAM. 14 I suppose we could do that but the Department offered 15 to do that and agreed to do that so I would prefer 16 that maybe they make the effort themselves. We would 17 be happy to dialogue with them. It is something that 18 really they are going to have to determine how they 19 want to handle it. We can offer some guidance. 20 MR. BROOKMAN: Does the Department want to 21 comment now? 22 MR. BERRINGER: Yes. Bryan Berringer, DOE. 23 I would be willing to work with Larry and AHAM to 24 25 resolve that. We've just been inundated working on the standards so it's been a lower priority. We will

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 63 1 definitely make sure that is documented and 2 incorporated in the final. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Othercomments ontest 4 procedures? 5 Larry, yours seemed quite specific tome. 6 Other comments on testprocedure? I see no 7 additional comments on test procedures. Okay. Then 8 let's move to a discussion of rulemaking process. 9 Many of you had comments related to rulemaking 10 process, therulemakingprocessgenerallyandspecific 11 aspects of itinyour introductoryremarks. Who would 12 like to go first? 13 David Goldstein
. 14 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Yes. First of all, I would 15 like to commend DOE on the process. I agree with 16 several other previous participants that the process 17 has been successful in this particularproceeding due 18 to the effort of DOE staff. 19 I would like to speak in particular in 20 opposition to any extension of the comment period for 21 a number of reasons. First, DOE is almost six years 22 late in promulgating this rule. It should have been 23 five years after the previous rule which promulgated 24 25 early in 1991. The reasons for further delay would have to be extremely strong in the face of that

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 64 1 continuing violation. 2 Secondly, therehavebeen far morehearings 3 than required by law. That's a result of DOE staff 4 decorate in the process rule to be inclusive and 5 provide lots of opportunities for public comment. 6 In terms of the negotiations, I will note 7 that the comment period being offered today and the 8 timing is identical in the framework of this informal 9 negotiation as to what itwould have been without it. 10 That is, DOE staffcomeupwiththeproposed 11 rule on their own without negotiated input. Itwould 12 still be a 60-day comment periodhappening about now. 13 The negotiations really are not a reason that any 14 additional public comment is needed. 15 From a substantive point of view, these 16 issues have all been discussed since 1991. There has 17 been relatively little new information that would 18 affect the decision coming on the table. We are 19 pretty much making arguments on information that's 20 been out there for years. 21 Totheextentthereisnewinformation, that 22 new information enhances and supports the record that 2 3 leadsme toconcludethat DOE must adopt the standards 24 that are before them
. 25

(202) 234-4433 That is, the new information concerns what NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 65 1 great progress manufacturers are making towards 2 meetingthe standardwithproductsthatarepreferable 3 to consumers. They have higher quality, better 4 performance, and even bigger savings than projected 5 and coming out at lower cost. 6 So to the extent there's new information, 7 all it1s doing is reinforcing the accuracy of the 8 technical basis on which the negotiation was made. 9 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 10 Yes, Bill. 11 MR. PRINDLE: BillPrindle, AlliancetoSave 12 Energy. I justwanttopoint outthatthenegotiation 13 process actually increased the ability of all parties 14 to have a preview of the proposed standard. If there 15 had not been an issue on some joint comments on May 16 23rd as there was, no one would have seen the likely 17 NOPR values until October 5th. 18 As itwas, peoplehadall summerto at least 19 take a lookatwhatwasgenerallyunderstoodtobethe 20 most likelyproposedrulevalue. Granted, not allthe 21 analysis was there and so forth but, in my view, the 22 negotiation process has actually increased the time 23 available for people to take a look at this, think 24 about it, make any arguments they wanted to make
. 25

(202) 234-4433 I don1t thinkthere :Ls anywayyoucouldsay NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 66 1 the negotiation process somehow has cramped the 2 ability of anyone to comment. I think the calendar 3 shows it's actually increased. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 5 Ben Lieberman. 6 MR. LIEBERMAN: I would like to point out 7 certainly it's true that this dragged on at a snail's 8 pace throughout much of the 1990s. I don't think the 9 way tomakeup for that isto really rushthrough this 10 critical point after the notice of proposed 11 rulemaking. 12 Particularly I think when there still is a 13 numberof issuesthatvariousconsumergroupsmightbe 14 interested in commenting on regarding the negotiated 15 rulemaking process or whatever. 16 I would point out that the Executive 17 Director for Consumer Alert did apply to become a 18 participant in that process and he was rejected. I 19 couldprovidewhateverdocumentationthereis forthat 20 if necessary. This was something of a closed door 21 process. 22 I do thinkthat itwouldbeuseful forthose 23 who are not members of the club to have a chance to 24 comment. In 60 days I can tell you from first hand 25 experiencethereweremorethan a fewthings thatwere

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 67 1 new in the notice of proposed rulemaking. 2 For example, the somewhat reversal in the 3 position that vertical access will be available in 4 2007. Certainly support documents have a lot of 5 detail, I think. Quite a bit to wade through. 6 Those of us who are also trying to comment 7 on the air conditioning rule which has the same 8 schedule are very much behind the curve. It is a 9 standardthatdoesn'ttakeeffectuntil 2004. I can't 10 imagine, and correct me if I'm wrong, having things 11 being delayed too much ifwe add maybe 60 days or 120 12 days to that period. 13 MR. BROOKMAN: On the same schedule. Soyou 14 suggest how many days? 15 MR. LIEBERMAN: Sixty, 120. I think the 16 bill that was introduced was 120 days. 17 MR. BROOKMAN: Bryan Berringer. 18 MR. BERRINGER: This is Bryan Berringer, 19 DOE. I wouldjust like a clarificationpoint because 2

### o you saidConsumerAlertwasrejected fromtheprocess. 21 I think what you are referring to is the advisory 22 committee group. 23 There was nobody rejected in any of these 24 open forums for comments. There was no rejection in 25 this process at all. I think you're referring to the

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 68 

### 1 advisory committee. Could you comment on that? 2 

### MR. LIEBERMAN: I '11

### havetocheckwithFran 3 

### Smith, the Executive Director. She made several 4 

### communications. There were many times where she 5 

### didn't hear back from you until after the meetings 6 

### were over and so forth. Again, if that's important, 7 

### I'11 

### be able to provide whatever documentation is 8 

### necessary. 9 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Chuck Samuels. 10 MR. SAMUELS: AHAM 

### does not support 11 extension of the comment period. One of the reasons 12 forthat isthe lawrequires a free interveningperiod 13 of time when the final rule is issued and can be 14 effective. For that to occur in 2004, the rule must 15 be finalized. That's an important component of our 16 proposal to DOE that you will take the action 17 necessary to make that possible. 18 There is no aspect of the public rule that 19 was not thoroughly discussed inpublic for many, many 2

### o years in terms of the levels, the effective date, 21 technologies, the cost, etc. There is really nothing 2 2 newhereandwe would askDOE to completethis as soon 23 as possible. 24 25

(202) 234-4433 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Nadel. MR. NADEL: Can I just add a couple of NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005·3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 69 1 additional comments on this question? One, underthe 2 Process ImprovementRule whichmany partiesworked on 3 

### for about a year in 1995, the whole new process was 4 set outthatbasically front-loaded a lotmore ofthe 5 input. 6 It said in the past we've done too much 7 

### leading to a NOPR. We added a lot of steps for 8 consultation and involvement of parties starting in 9 the very beginning and there was a very conscious 10 attempttomove thatup earlierwhere itcanhavemore 11 impact. 12 You have the type of comment period on the 13 final rule asDOE proposedbecausethereweregoingto 14 

### be multiple times todiscuss these issues previous to 15 that. That was a very conscious decision to address 16 some of the desires of Congress and other people to 1 7 havea more openprocesswherepeoplecouldhave input 18 a lot sooner and could see what was going on. 19 There's also talk about having clothes 20 washers today, air conditioners tomorrow. We are a 21 smallnonprofit organizationalso. We aregoingtobe 22 getting our comments in. Additionally, we'11 be 23 getting comments in on transformers. We've in a very 24 early part of the process there. We'll be able to do 25 

### it on time with no problems.

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 70 1 MR. LIEBERMAN: But you do get Government 2 funding. 3 MR. NADEL: We do not get any Government 4 funding for our work on standards. 5 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 6 comments on the process. 7 Michael McCabe. 8 MR. MCCABE: Mike McCabe. I would like to 9 follow up on the exchange that Mr. Liebermanhad with 10 Berringer as to the membership rejection. If you 11 could follow up to find out what transpired because 12 the Department didnotplaya role indecidingwho was 13 or was not going to be participating in the 14 negotiations between industry and other interested 15 parties. 16 However, Bryan did indicate it has its 17 applied standards advisory committee and I was 18 wondering whether or not
-- the contacts CFA had for 19 which department onthe advisory committeewhich is a 20 very different but related issue. 21 MR. LIEBERMAN: I'11 ask the Executive 22 Director. 23 COURT REPORTER: I'm not hearing you. 24 MR. LIEBERMAN: The Executive Director for 25 Consumer Alert is Fran Smith. I'll have her write a

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross-com

# •

•

• 71 1 letter detailing exactly what went on. 2 MR. BROOKMAN: Can you still hear me now? 3 COURT REPORTER: Yeah. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Say it again, Ben, for the 5 record. We want to get it all on the record. 6 MR. LIEBERMAN: Fran Smith is Executive 7 Director of Consumer Alert. I will have her write a 8 letter detailing exactly what communications she had 9 with the agency regardingher attempts tobe involved 10 in the clothes washer standard setting process. 11 I shouldaddressthattoyou, Mr. Berringer? 12 MR. BERRINGER: Yes, please. 13 MR. LIEBERMAN: Okay. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 15 Tony and then to Steve Rosenstock. 16 MR. GREGG: Yes. I just want to add the 17 AmericanWaterworks also opposes any attempttodelay 18 the standardsprocess. I thinkextending the comment 19 period more than 60 days, which tome seems more than 20 adequate time to write comments, would essentiallybe 21 a de facto way of delaying or possibly killing the 22 standards process. 23 The American Waterworks Association has 24 already sent a letter to Congress requesting that 25 there be no delay from the congressional side.

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 72 1 Certainly I would hope the Department of Energywould 2 not extend the comment period which would basically 3 have the same effect. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock. 5 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, Edison 6 Electric Institute. I just want to respond to some 7 earliercomments about the informal negotiations that 8 occurred. 9 From ourperspective, we thought that, yes, 10 some of the informal negotiations were done behind 11 closed doors. They were exclusionary. 12 The fact that there are some utilities that 13 are members of the Alliance to Save Energy, while 14 there are some members of the Alliance to Save Energy 15 that are associate members of Edison Electric 16 Institute, I don't think the Alliance to Save Energy 17 will be particularly happy if EEI said that, well, 18 some of the Alliance to Save Energy members are part 19 ofEEI sowe canrepresenttheAllianceto SaveEnergy 20 in a negotiation. I don't thinkthat's a very fair or 21 accurate thing to do. 22 Yes, a lot of groups represent or are 23 affiliatedwith a lot of other groups but, again, for 24 them to say that they represent those other groups 25 without even giving themthe curtesy of being allowed

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 73 1 to attend a negotiation I don't think is very fair. 2 It's not very open. It's not a way to build 3 consensus. 4 Again, as I said before, hopefully in the 5 future, for example, in the fluorescent lamp ballast 6 rulemaking in the negotiations that were held under 7 DOE auspices, otherstakeholders, althoughwewerenot 8 allowed to comment at the negotiations, at least we 9 were allowed to observe the negotiations. 10 For the clothes washer, informal 11 negotiations held under DOE with DOE auspices, other 12 stakeholders were not even allowed to observe the 13 process. Again, this is for the future. If there 14 isn't going tobe an informal negotiation started and 15 DOE is going to be involved in these informal 16 negotiations, I think for the future to cover all the 17 bases that DOE should try to invite all the 18 stakeholders that have been active in the formal 19 proceedings. 2O Eventhoughoneorthe otherpartiesmaynot 21 appreciateitbut, again, thereareotherstakeholders 22 that might have comments that can help with an 23 informal negotiation process. Thank you. 24 25 MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments on the rulemaking process? Okay. Let' move on.

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. l.IASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 74 1 MR. JONES: Doug, before we close off on 2 that. Sorry for the late mike grabbing here. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Earl Jones. 4 MR. JONES: I do want to say a couple of 5 pointsonthisbecause as somebodywhoparticipatedin 6 this process from the beginning and, indeed, was one 7 of the persons, I think, who helped kick it off, I 8 would like to say from my understanding of this 9 process, I thought this was something which industry 10 and other interested parties were attempting to 11 accomplish for the public good and then havemeetings 12 which they invited DOE to participate. 13 This is not a DOE process or meeting. It 14 was onewhichthesepartiesdeterminedtobegin inthe 15 hopes of providing a forum for discussion of these 16 issues and to give some guidance to the Department 1 7 which has been done through the comments which we 18 jointly submitted. 19 The public process continued during that 20 entire time for many years priorto those negotiating 21 sessions. It continues today in the form of this 22 hearing. 23 It will continue in the form of any public 24 comments or the opportunity to submit public comments 25 as is provided for under the Department's procedures.

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 75 l Any claimthat there's been any kind of exclusion is, 2 I think, a little beside the point, aside from being 3 not accurate. 4 There'snobodywho cannot fullyparticipate 5 in this process who has an interest in doing so and 6 whohasdemonstratedtheinteresthistoricallyandwho 7 has a real stake in it. I think we ought to just 8 focus on that fact. 9 Those peoplewho have a stake who wanted to 10 participate did so and they did so for many years. 11 There may be people who havE: lately, like Saul, had a 12 revelation and have some interest in this process. 13 The fact is that they were not there at the 14 beginning and, therefore, I thinkthattheir comments 15 put in that particular context in judging whether or 16 not theirbelated interest in the process shouldbe a 17 basisfortorpedoingwhathasbeen someverygoodwork 18 doneby someverydedicatedpubliccitizensuptothis 19 point in time. Thanks. 20 MR. BROOKMAN: 0th.er final comments? Let's 21 move on to energy and economic analyses. 22 MR. NADEL: I prepared a couple of 23 overheads. Givenmy lastattempttouse PowerPointat 24 a DOE meeting, I decided overheads would be better
. 25

(202) 234-4433 I wanted to briefly talk about the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005·3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 76 1 incremental cost of the higher efficiency levels, a 2 little bit about detergent savings, and a touch about 3 the manufacturer impact analysis. Focusing on three 4 areas. 5 Just to give the bottom line, I think that 6 most ofthesethings arethingsthat canjustbe noted 7 that there were questions in the record but there is 8 no need to reanalyze. The one area where I think 9 maybe DOE should pay a littlebit of attention before 10 a final rule is to publishing a range of costs of the 11 standard. 12 I thinkthe costs has been estimated at the 13 extreme high end of a range and the press and other 14 people are picking up on that and it's 15 mischaracterizing what the impact of the standards 16 would be. I would recommend DOE look at a range of 17 costs for the final rule. 'I'he other things are more 18 just to note for the record. 19 A couple of points. First, DOE in its 20 analysis used the cost estimates provided by AHAM, I 21 believe, in 1997. As I understand, those costs are 22 prepared at a time when all the manufacturers thought 23 that the only way to meet the proposed 2007 standard 24 was with the horizontal-access machine
. 25

(202) 234-4433 Clearly good old ingenuity and many of us NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 77 1 have prospered. We have two models that are actually 2

-- three models that are vertical-access models that 3 are now available for**salE~** that do meet the 2007 4 standard. I heard another model is going to be 5 introduced a little later this year. 6 MR. THOMPSON: Steve, this isMike. We have 7 four top-loaders in the market right now. 8 MR. NADEL: Okay. And then there's Fisher 9 and Paykel and the forthcoming Maytag. 10 MR. BROOKMAN: That was Mike Thompson. 11 MR. NADEL: Right. So I think those costs 12 that DOE has, one, they tended to be high to begin 13 with for reasons I'll point out. 14 Two, they ignore the fact that there are a 15 lot ofvertical-access designs that can alsomeetthe 16 standard. 17 Three, has Chuck pointed out, they ignore 18 the fact that historically DOE has always over 19 projected the cost of meeting standards relative to 20 actual experience. 21 Some of it may just be engineering 22 improvement. People sharpen their pencils. Some of 23 it has to do with competition between manufacturers 24 and difficultypassing it on. For all these reasons, 25 I think the cost estimates are very high.

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAUD AVE., N.11. llASHINGTON, D.C.. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 78 1 

### Just to give a couple of examples. One, 2 

### this is from the Technica1 Support Document. It 3 

### refers to the reverse engineering analysis. DOE 4 looked at the range of costs there. 5 Even for the horizontal access the reserve 6 engineering found lower costs than what DOE used for 7 its primary analysis. Then for the vertical access 8 the costs were lower still. 9 I would also point out thatthesemodels in 10 the upper half of the distribution tend to have an 11 

### awful lot of features and I would think you would 12 really need to look at the lower end of this 13 

### distribution in terms of what would the incremental 14 

### costs be of a baseline model as opposed to a model 15 

### with lots of features. 16 

### This is in addition before you start 17 factoring inimprovementsaspeoplestartfiguringout 18 better ways to do things by 2007. 19 

### To put this another way, this chart 20 summarizes the DOE estimates of manufacturers and 21 retail cost increases. I'll just focus on retail. 22 DOE uses in this analysis $239. But if you look at 23 the mid point of the v-access curve for reverse 24 engineering, that's cut nearly in half
. 25

(202) 234-4433 

### Our guess is once you eliminate the extra NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 79 1 features in some of those more efficient models and 2 allowfor engineeringimprovementsoverthenext seven 3 years, ourbest guest is the incremental cost will be 4 around $50. 5 I wouldbe happy tobet anybody a bottle of 6 nicewinetobeopened in 2008 onwhat finallyhappens 7 there. I thinkDOE reallyhas over estimatedthe cost 8 quite a bit. 9 Another issue is detergent savings. Tom 10 Eckman may talk about this a littlebit in the future 11 in a minute, but there was a survey of, I think, many 12 of the people who have purchased efficient washers in 13 the northwest and they looked atwhat people actually 14 do. Many of the soap manufacturers do market low15 sudsing detergents for thesehigh efficientmachines. 16 some people use them. There are certainly 17 advantages to them. But some people do not use them. 18 They for a variety of reasons choose to use 19 conventional detergent. What we suggest is that the 20 analysis should look on actual field experience with 21 what people use. In that survey 77 percent of people 22 said they used conventional detergents. 23 You work it all through in terms of the 24 value of the detergent savings, according to this 25 Northwest study, and the number of loads that DOE

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.Y. YASHINGTON, O.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 80 1 used. It's about an additional $23 a year in annual 2 savings. In our opinion, DOE should note this in its 3 final rule without doing a lot of new analysis. 4 Forexample, thisis somethingDOE, I think, 5 inthe fall of 199 put out a document thattalks about 6 changestotheclotheswasherlife-cyclecostanalysis 7 since the July 199 workshop. 8 They did a bunch of scenarios effectively. 9 People actually looked at what are the impacts of 10 detergent savings. I think they used, as I recall, 11 the Northwest results, in fact, that I just referred 12 to. 13 They found that using

-- this is all using 14 theoriginalhighcostestimates. Ignoringthat issue 15 and just on the question of detergent savings, if you 16 don't include the detergent savings, you get about a 17 seven year average payback. If you do include the 18 detergent savings, it gets cut nearly in half. 19 Again, for thedetergentmanufacturers, I'm 20 not arguing that everyone will use the conventional 21 detergents. I understand there are reasons that you 22 thinkthey should. I'mjust sayingthis ishowpeople 23 are acting in the marketplace and that should be 24 accounted for
. 25 Finally, there is the manufacture impact

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, O.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 81 1 analysis. The manufacturers have noted how with the 2 two-tier arrangement that significantly ameliorates 3 the impacts on manufacturers and we think that's 4 great. One of the nice things that came out of that 5 compromised agreement. 6 One of the reasons it helps ameliorate the 7 impacts on manufacturers is that manufacturers have 8 more time to prepare which means that they can better 9 plan, betterscheduletheirinvestments inthe future. 10 They are not going to be making investments in the 11 current plan and then all of a sudden they only have 12 three years to switch around. 13 What DOE does in the analysis is the black 14 line here is the ordinary capital expenditures that 15 manufacturerswouldoccurjusttokeeptheirplants in 16 line with the standard that DOE says. Once the first 17 standardtakeseffect, they saythatthemanufacturers 18 will fail to decrease their ordinary capital 19 expenditures. 20 They will be making other more significant 21 capitalexpenditurestoincorporateinanotherpartof 22 the analysis prepared for 2007. There is a decrease 23 for three years in the capital expenditures. 24 Just one of the reasons we can reduce the 25 impacts on manufacturers. In our opinion, that

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 82 1 reduction shouldactuallystartwiththeeffectiveday 2 of the standard. The manufacturers are already 3 preparing for that. 4 Again, this is not a big issue I don't 5 think. I would advise changing the analysis now but 6 I point it out more for future rulemaking. 7 With that, those are my comments on the 8 engineering and economic analyses. 9 MR. BROOKMAN: Follow-up comments based on 10 Steve's comments or any additional comments at this 11 time? 12 Steve Rosenstock. 13 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, Edison 14 Electric Institute. Just a couple of things in 15 reference to the Federal Register Notice and the 16 Technical Support Document. 17 One thing that we had made comments on 18 before that and, again, we would hope that DOE takes 19 into account, is we are still kind of concerned with 20 some of the water price projections. We are seeing 21 that as a mid point. 22 I don't know if this is in the mean or 23 median in terms of the analysis, but we are seeing 24 3.01 percent real change in water and sewer costs 25 which isbasically ifyouareassuming inflationabout

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 83 1 3 percent peryear, 6 percent per year over 25 years, 2 whichwouldmeanbasicallydoublingofwaterand sewer 3 costs every 12 years. 4 Thatmay happen. I'mnot sure if itwill or 5 will not happen. Again, I'm kind of concerned that 6 the number of data points was also pretty low for the 7 waterprojections. Itwas like, I believe, 30 cities 8 were used and the time frame was like 1986 to 1996. 9 We are a little concerned about the use of that. 10 Also, in terms of the economic analysis, 11 again, DOE was using 379 cycles per year which is 12 about seven loads of laundryperweek. Obviously for 13 those consumers who are using their laundry equipment 14 three or four times perweek, or about 200 cycles per 15 year, the economics are not as good aswhat is showing 16 in the DOE analysis. 17 Again, it might be helpful, especially in 18 the consumer statement, to say this is how many loads 19 of laundry for this seven year payback based on this 20 price projection which, again, DOE can change as it 21 gets closer to 2004 or 2007. 22 Based on these price projections and these 23 number of loads per week, these are some of the 24 paybacks that a typical consumer should realize
. 25 Thank you very much.

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 84 1 MR. BROOKMAN: Additionalcommentsonenergy 2 and economic analyses? 3 Yes. Pleaseusethemicrophoneandsayyour 4 name for the record. 5 MR. LINARD: JackLinard, UnileverHPC. We 6 market a wide range of laundry detergent products. 7 I justwanttocommentondetergent savings. 8 I thought I was going to get off easy here today. As 9 Earl said, I've been involved in these workshops 10 since, I guess, Februaryof 1992, a meeting atNIST on 11 test procedures. 12 Justtoechosomeothercommentspeoplehave 13 said, I want to compliment DOE, Bryan Berringer, and 14 how they have handled this process through all these 15 years. 16 Washing machines do not require detergents 17 to operate. Theydon't needa detergent. You canrun 18 it, fill it up with water, throw clothes in, they 19 still wash. When you put in the detergent, cleaning 20 performance improves. To the best of my knowledge, 21 you're talking about a cleaning performance standard 22 then. 23 Consumerscandosedetergent. Theycandose 24 none at all. They can put in as much as they want. 25 Theactual operationofthemachinedoesnotdependon

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 85 1 detergent. People use detergents to improve the 2 performance
. 3 We do objecttothe

-- I'm tryingtogetthe 4 right language here

-- to the inclusion of potential 5 detergent savings and the life-cycle cost estimate. 6 It is erroneous and arbitrary to state that you can 7 save detergent because that's purely a voluntary 8 consumer thing. 9 They can put in as much as they want now 10 withthecurrentbaselinemachine. Theycanput inas 11 much as they want later on with the high efficiency 12 machine. If you're going to say there's detergent 13 savings now, why not include detergent savings on 14 standard machines we see now in the marketplace. 15 To actually state detergent savings means 16 youareimplyinga cleaningperformancestandardwhich 17 the proposed standard does not actually address. I 18 talked about this, I think, eight years ago. The 19 simplestwayto saveenergy istounplugthehotwater 20 inlet. The energy rating skyrockets. 21 People at that time said consumers are not 22 going tobe satisfiedwith theperformance and that's 23 true. That actually is not something that DOE 24 addresses except in terms of consumer acceptability
. 25

(202) 234-4433 We do believe these machines are highly NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.,**N.~. ~ASHINGTON,**  D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 86 1 I mean, consumers lovethesemachines so I don't argue 2 that, but just to include that in, I think, is purely 3 arbitrary at the moment. 4 I think our studies indicate once again, 5 I'11 say it again, that performance is up to the 6 consumer. What we do is recommend what we think is 7 the best performance for their money with a certain 8 product but detergent savings I don't think shouldbe 9 part of the equation at all. 10 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Mike Thompson. 11 MR. THOMPSON: I guess my reaction is that 12 whenever you do a wash you've got three legs. You've 13 got a mechanical action leg, you have a thermal leg, 14 and you have a chemical leg. All three of them we 15 believe are necessary to optimize performance. 16 I'm not aware that most consumers, or any 1 7 consumers, don'tusedetergentwhentheywashclothes. 18 It's just a given. So to exclude detergent from the 19 equation for washing just seems to me as being a 20 little bit short sighted. 21 I will add that our latest model, a top22 loaderclothes washer does use less detergent because 23 of its concentrated wash action. It does optimize 24 performance through the mechanical part of its 25 cleaning cycle. All three are still necessary.

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 87 1 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Other comments? 2 MR. JONES: Yeah, just one, Doug. Earl 3 Jones, here. If anybody needs any betterevidence of 4 the fact that, indeed, our discussions were quite 5 vigorous and there were points at which we did not 6 always agree and that we got here through the process 7 ofreal argument andharddiscussion. We are goingto 8 showthatbytheextenttowhichwe disagreewithwhat 9 Steve just said. 10 And on both points. I think the point on 11 detergent was very well covered here. Unless the 12 Department wants to get in the business of 13 recommendinga standardorrecommendingthatconsumers 14 riskbeing less than satisfiedwith the results, then 15 I think we need to keep detergent out of this mix. 16 The comment that Steve made about what 17 looking back shows about how manufacturers have been 18 able to control their cost:s better than might have 19 been predicted in the rules is an interesting one. 20 But the fact is that we have to deal with real 21 consumers and what we understand their needs to be 22 todayattemptingtoprojectforwardtotheextentthat 23 we can. 24 Wehavetodeal withreal investorswhohave 25 to be satisfied that the costs of manufacturing are

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 88 1 worth their supporting. We have to be involved with 2 real employeeswhosejobsde:penduponmakingtheright 3 choices. We do the best we can in providing 4 information to DOE onwhich these estimates are made. 5 If we tend to be wrong, we are glad that 6 we're wrong on the high side. The worse thing that 7 can happen to any of us -- any of us -- is that we are 8 wrong on the high side

-- on the low side rather. 9 Then have to deal with the consequences of 10 having made the wrong choices and producing products 11 which don'tperform as consumers want themwhich risk 12 then the health of the manufacturers and, therefore, 13 the jobs of their employees
. 14 I think that the balance is here. We are 15 where we need to be. We think they are still wrong 16 butnot thewaythat Stevedoes. The balancehasbeen 17 struck. I think we just need to move on. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments? 19 MR. GREGG: Yes. I wasjustlookingback in 20 the record here and, you know, the issue of the water 21 price escalation has been raised before but I don't 22 see any additional data that ispresented beyondwhat 23 was presented at the Decemb1:ir workshop in 1998. 24 The average price being used for water and 25 waste water is the $3.00 range and it'sbased on some

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005·3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 89 1 national surveys that have been done. Certainly in 2 many areas 1ike the City o:E Austin that's less than 3 half of what the water and waste water cost is 4 already. 5 I justwantto saythat 3 percent ismore or 6 less the amount DOE is using. We do have a lot of 7 Safe Drinking Water Act rules coming down. They are 8 cost utilities a lot and EPA is certainly looking at 9 waste water regulations and increasing those 10 regulations which will cost utilities additional. 11 Also, thesecostsare allgoingtobepassed 12 on. I thinkthe 3 percent is a reasonable estimateof 13 what the escalation will be
. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Additional comments? 15 Tom Eckman. 16 MR. ECKMAN: I want to follow up on Tony's 17 comment on waste water treatment. The current 18 analysis basically doesn't include the cost of the 19 electricity consumed in waste water treatment. 20 Itisa significantcomponentoftheadvance 21 treatment requirements that we see in secondary and 22 tertiary treatment ofwaste water. We basically have 23 not counted those costs in this analysis and I think 24 it is a conservatism that**rn:.~eds** to be noted
. 25

(202) 234-4433 MR. BROOKMAN: Fin.alcommentsbeforewemove NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 90 1 to discussing impact of standards. Okay. Onto 2 impacts of standards. 3 Steve Rosenstock. 4 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI. 5 Impacts in what area? That's kind of a broad area. 6 When I saw that I wasn't sure exactly any particular 7 area? 8 MR. BROOKMAN: MaybeBryancancommenton if 9 there is anything specific orwe canjust leave itto 10 the commentors. 11 MR. BERRINGER: Bryan Berringer, DOE. I 12 would just say from the standpoint of impacts to 13 consumers, manufacturers. Any ofthoseareaspositive 14 ornegative. I thinkwe 1veprettymuch addressedmost 15 ofthosebut ifpeople feel there1s a strong influence 16 on those areas, then we can address that. 17 MR. BROOKMAN: Comments on the impacts to 18 standards. I see none. No comments on impacts to 19 standards? Okay. 20 Then we are moving on to other issues. 21 Comments on other issues. No one wishes to comment. 22 Okay. Thank you. Tom Eckman. 23 MR. ECKMAN: I will addmy secondto David's 24 concern about leaving a two-class system or multi25 class system in place with the same standard for all

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005·3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 91 1 classes. 2 It seems a bit superfluous for the activity 3 

### we are engaged in here. E:ven both H-access and 

### v4 access machines will be required to meet the same 5 standard and both types of machines do meet the same 6 standards today. That seems a little bit redundant. 7 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 8 comments on other issues. Steve Rosenstock. 9 

### MR. ROSENSTOCK: SteveRosenstock. Yes, in 10 terms of the consumer statement that was put in the 11 Federal Register Notice, just a suggestion that if 12 possible there seems to be a lot of justification in 13 theconsumerstatementthatifpossiblethatyoumight 14 

### wantto, asMel Hall-Crawfordkindofindicated, there 15 are somekey informationthatyoumightwanttoputat 16 the front of the consumer impact or the consumer 17 statement. 18 

### Like she was saying, like a first cost, 19 life-cycle cost, other benefits, energy benefits, 20 environmental benefits, to make it more informative 21 like a table like food nutrition label almost or 22 something like that. Again, some of the highlights 23 that the Consumer Federation or some other groups 24 might just say this is a prime concern for the 25 

### consumers.

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, O.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 92 

### 1 Again, they might want to see things on an 2 individualized basis rather than on a national basis 3 

### in terms of impacts since they are just buying one 4 

### machine or one appliance. Again, that is a 5 recommendation for the future maybe when the final 6 

### rule is published and for other appliances. Thank 7 you. 8 

### MR. BROOKMAN: Ben Lieberman. 9 

### MR. LIEBERMAN: Wel1, just to expand on 10 that, we're talking about, at least according to the 11 initial analysis, washing machines that cost about 12 $200 more and save B 

### or9 centswere load. Sowhether 13 one is a net winner or net loser has much to do with 14 

### how many loads of laundry one does. Consumers 15 certainly know that. 16 It might be very useful in order to have 17 better consumer education to let people know maybe 18 there is some sort of cutoff point where if you are 19 well aboveXnumbers ofcyclesyou'rea winner, but if 20 you are well below you're a loser. Thatjust may be 21 somekindofinformationthatconsumersmightgetsome 22 value from in determining whether high efficiency 23 models are beneficial to them. 24 25 

### I justhave one general question. I teamed withthis standardandwithothers. I have a stackof

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS ANO TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 93 1 pressreleasesfromDOE and**E~nergy** efficiencyadvocacy 2 groups• Almost every time a new standard is 3 announced, there's tremendous estimated energy 4 savings, andnowwiththis alsowater savings aswell. 5 I'm just wondering looking back now that 6 we've had almost a decade ormore of these standards, 7 have we actually seen residential per capita 8 electricityusedeclinebeyondwhatitwouldotherwise 9 have been? Is there really any work on that in terms 10 of looking back at the track record and seeing how 11 these estimates actually play out? 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Does anyone want to comment 13 on that? 14 MR. GOLDSTEIN: David Goldstein. There is 15 some evidence that California, which has pursued the 16 most assertive program of building energy efficiency 17 standardsandapplyingenergyefficiencystandardshas 18 had a decline in electricity use for GDP of about 19 almost 1 percentper year for 30 years while the rest 20 of the United States was about constant. 21 So if you want to compare macro-economic 22 results of one statethat'spursued energy efficiency 23 programs, notjustmandatory ones, utilitybased ones 24 as well, yes, it does show up and it shows up in a 25 fairly large way.

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005·3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 94 1 You canalsolookatthe rate ofelectricity 2 growth and the rate of natural gas growth which has 3 beenbelowprojectionsthatweremadebefore standards 4 were implemented and see that these things are having 5 about the effect that one would predict they would 6 have. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Chuck. 8 MR. SAMUELS: It's very hard to totally 9 distinguish between the effects of standards and 10 nonstandards in the marketplace developments, 11 technology developments, etc. 12 However, if you look at it on a per 13 appliance basis, there's no question. There's a lot 14 of information inthisrecordandAHAM has a fact book 15 which we can get you a copy of or you can look at it 16 on our website. There's been very significant 17 reduction in the energy consumption of average white 18 goods and subsidies standards over the years. 19 One issue always is maybe there is a 20 reduction on these appliances but what about other 21 things that are going on in the home with electrical 22 devices that havebeen invented sincethese standards 23 even began. 24 Definitely, straightforwardly with respect 25 to theseproducts, there'sbeen enormous reduction in

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 95 1 energyuse. Ofcourse, withclotheswashers

-- which, 2 by the way, this is the third standard, not the first 3 one. There was an initial standard in 1990 and 4 another one in 1994

-- there has been a significant 5 reduction in energy and water use. There will be 6 further significant reductions as we have discussed 7 today. 8 MR. BROOKMAN: I saw Steve Nadel first and 9 then Mike Thompson. 10 MR. NADEL: Speakingmorebroadly, I believe 11 the figures that are coming out of the Energy 12 InformationAdministration isthatresidential energy 13 useperhouseholdhasbeenincreasing slightlybut, as 14 Chuck pointed out, people have microwaves and home 15 computers, larger TVs, etc. 16 I have seen not published but unpublished 17 analyses from some utilities where they do what is 18 called conditional demand analysis. They look at 19 electricbillsandanalyzethemstatisticallybasedon 20 what appliances are there and the coefficients that 21 are, for example, related to refrigerators, which is 22 a large one, that has been going down over time. It 23 effectively shows as you look at electric bills that 24 the average use per appliance is going down
. 25

(202) 234-4433 MR. BROOKMAN: So Mike Thompson and then I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.U. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 96 1 would like to return to any other additional issues 2 people wish to talk about. 3 MR. THOMPSON:**~rust** to amplify on Chuck 4 Samuel's comments. AHAM doias publish a fact book and 5 it does show average energy use for clothes washers, 6 dishwashers, refrigerators, and a number of other 7 appliancesdownthroughtheyears, I think, goingback 8 to 1980. They used key numbers back in 1972. 9 Ifyou look at the years that new standards 10 were implemented, you will usually see a sharp dip in 11 kilowatt hours consumed annually in the appliances 12 that are regulated. 13 I will add that it's very difficult to 14 discern total energy being cut as a result of energy 15 standardsbecausethenumbers I 1ve seen intheaverage 16 size of the homes today, the square footage is larger 1 7 than itwas 10, 15, or 2Oyealrs ago. More appliances 18 are being used in the house, more VCRs, etc. 19 One dramatic example is the refrigerator. 20 Going back to the very early days before the oil 21 embargodays, theaveragerefrigeratorwas inthearea 22 ofabout 18cubicfeet inthetop-mountconfiguration. 23 It consumed almost 2,000 kilowatt hours per year. 24 25 Today the average kilowatt hours is somewhere around 650. It's been cut by about two-

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 97 1 thirds in average energy use. There have been 2 dramatic improvement in large measure because of 3 standards. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. State your name 5 for the record. 6 MR. BUSKIRK: I'm Robert M. Buskirk from 7 Lawrence Berkeley Labs. I justwant to deal with the 8 issue of thevariable number of loads werehousehold. 9 We did do loads versus household size in the life10 cycle cost analysis and included the variable load 11 sizes function ofnumberofpeopleinthehousehold in 12 the distribution of life-cycle cost results for the 13 consumers• 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you for that 15 verification. 16 Additionalcommentsrelatedtootherissues? 17 Final comments on other issues? I see no more 18 comments at this time. 19 Before I turn it back to Bryan Berringer, 20 let me from my perspective thank all of you for this 21 meeting today. I thank all of you especially for the 22 spirit of cooperation that you all have brought to 23 these many years of effort and now we are startingto 24 actually yield some very concrete results
. 25

(202) 234-4433 I congratulate you on your ability to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 98 1 participate in this significant dialogue, and 2 particularly to hang in there and continue working 3 when things could have flown apart. Thanks to all of 4 you for that. Best wishes to all of you. 5 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Just to clarify, as of 6 today the comments are due December 4. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: I'm sure Bryan has some 8 closing remarks. Travel safely. 9 MR. BERRINGER: Bryan Berringer again. I 10 justwant to thank everybody for coming today and the 11 good discussion we had. I appreciate everybody that 12 traveled here. We had a couple of action items and 13 obviously the comments we heard today we'11 take 14 consideration as we go forward with the final rule. 15 As we talked about, the comment period does 16 end December 4 at this time. We will take all 17 comments received today into consideration and all 18 writtencommentsthatwe receivebyDecember4. Thank 19 you very much. 20 (Whereupon, at 11:21 a.m. the meeting was 21 adjourned.) 22 23 24 25

(202) 234-4433 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

# •

•

• 99 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the foregoing transcript in the matter of:

Before:

Date:

Place: Public Hearing on Clothes Washer Standards

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy November 15, 2000 Washington, DC
represents the full and complete proceedings of the aforementioned typewriting
. matter, as reported and reduced to