ViAR-15-1999 15:16 WPL-GOUERNMENT RELATIONS

Statement by:

Whirlpool Corporation

In response to a petition by Amana Appliances

Regarding :

An Application for Exception to the Office of Hearings and

Appeals, U.S. Department of Energy

P.02/04

10 CFR Part 430, Energy Conservation Program for Consumer

Products:

Energy Conservation for Standards for Refrigerators, RefrigeratorFreezers, and Freezers

March 15, 1999

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 344
iAR-15-1999 15:16 IJPL-GOUERNMENT RELATIONS P. 03/04

Whirlpool Corporation has comments regarding Amana Appliances Application for Exception (dated

February 18, 1999). The Amana Application petitions the Department of Energy (DOE) for

exception relief from the 7/1/01 Refrigerator Standards due to "potential unavailability of

HFC-245fa. " Amana Appliances also states that "it is still possible that subsequent tests will identify

unacceptable risks associated with the loss of this product or that its commercial availability will be

delayed beyond 2003."

By way of background, Whirlpool Corporation is a leading manufacturer of a full line of major home

appliances and has three refrigerator plants in the U.S. We have been deeply involved in the crafting

of every DOE energy standard since the inception of the National Appliance Energy Conservation

Act of 1987 (NAECA). We were a leading participant in the informal regulatory negotiations that

led to the formulation of the pending new refrigerator energy standards that are the focus of the

Amana petition.

Amana appliances requests exception relief under Section 504 of the Department of Energy

Organization Act that authorizes the DOE to make adjustments of any rule issued under the Energy

Policy and Conservation Act to prevent "special hardship, inequity, or unfair distribution of

burdens " [42 USC Section 7194 (a)]. Amana's petition further states that the issues need to be

discussed in the context of two regulations affecting the appliance industry : 1) the EPA rule phasing

out the production of HCFC-141b , and 2) the DOE rule requiring a 30% reduction in energy

consumption effective 7/1/01 . Amana bases their petition on uncertainty of the availability of

HFC-245fa at a reasonable cost.

HCFC- 141b is a critical, interim blowing agent with excellent insulating qualities and has been used

in the manufacture of most refrigerators produced in the U. S. since the phase-out of CFCs.

However, it will no longer be available after 1 /1/2003. HFC-245fa is a candidate replacement

blowing agent that also produces foam that has excellent insulating qualities that are comparable to

those of HCFC-141b foam. However, testing has indicated that the use of any of the other available

replacements for HCFC-141b results in an "energy penalty" of approximately 10%.

Because of questions relating to the availability and acceptability of HFC-245fa , the DOE stated in

the Final Rule for refrigerators (dated April 28 ,1997) that "some uncertainty still exists about the

ultimate acceptability of HFC-245fa or other comparable blowing agents, as.well as some uncertainty

regarding the timing of commercial production of such product " (62 FR 23108, third column). It is

for these reasons that the DOE offered (in the final rule) to consider granting exception relief under

Section '504 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (62 FR 23108, third column).

Amana is correct in their general argument that if HFC-245fa is not available as a blowing agent, the

standards would result in costs and business risks that are unacceptable . However, this is true for

the entire appliance industry, not just for Amana . Therefore, if an exception is granted , it should be

for all products produced without HCFC-141b, regardless of the manufacturer.

The net effect of the Amana petition, if granted, would be to reduce the stringency of the DOE's

2001 energy efficiency standards by 10% for products that do not use HCFCs. We agree with many

of Amana's statements and will file a similar petition if it becomes clear that HFC-245fa will not be

available when needed. The outcome of negotiations (regarding the availability of HFC-245fa)

should be apparent in the near future.

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 344
MAR-15-1999 15:17 UPL-GOVERNMENT RELATIONS

Page 2 - Whirlpool Corporation comments

P. 04/01

We believe that there is substantial merit to the case for a different standard level for products

produced without HCFCs and wish to emphasize the following:

1) The.original negotiated consensus "98 standard" included a provision for a different standard

for products produced without HCFC.s. This. was based upon agreement in principle that the

"30%" standard level was economically justified for products made with HCFC-14lb, but not

for products made with less efficient blowing agents. However, the DOE dropped this

provision when the standard was finally issued, because at that time it appeared that HFC-245fa

would be available as a replacement:

2) If the 30% standard is maintained for products using HFC-134a or cyclopentane (realistically,

the only other choices available to the industry at this time), manufacturers will effectively be

required to achieve a 37% reduction in energy consumption below the 1993 standards levels.

We believe that this level would definitely NOT meet legal requirements of NAECA for

economic justification."

3) Amana's comments about the value of storage volume have credibility, as do most of their

statements about other options . Compliance situations will differ from manufacturer to

manufacturer , but achieving the 30 % standard with either HFC-134a or c-pentane will be

extremely expensive, result in longer return on investment to consumers, significantly increase

life cycle costs and could negatively impact the net present value of the U.S. appliance industry.

The burden of cumulative regulatory costs will also be exacerbated by failure to grant relief if

HFC-245fa proves not to be available or acceptable as a blowing agent in the near term.

In summary, we strongly support the Amana petition for exception relief from pending new DOE

refrigerator energy standards, provided that relief is granted equally to all manufacturers for

products produced without the use of HCFC-141b. If it becomes apparent that current negotiations

to secure a source for HCFC-245-fa will not be successful, Whirlpool will submit its own petition

for similar relief. The "adjustments" contemplated under Section 5104 of the Department of Energy

Reorganization Act require a spirit of fairness that will "prevent special hardship, inequity and unfair

distribution of burdens." Consequently, such relief (if granted) must apply across the entire U.S.

refrigerator manufacturing industry, not just to Amana.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

For further information please contact:

Robert Johnson

Director, Product Technology Support

Whirlpool Corporation

Highway 41 North

Evansville, IN 47727

PH: 812/426-4610

Mike Thompson

Director, Government Relations

Whirlpool Corporation

2000 M 63

Benton Harbor, MI 49022

PH: 616/923-4647

michael c thompson@email.whirlpool.com

T; KXT ^'MnT EA►[tQ1M ME^?S+FEDERnL ^DOE199^tb(^,^•Fn^ wL ooC

TOTAL P.04

 EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 344