NON-CONFIDENTIAL COPY I

A tik

I&k

THE OFFICE OF HEARINGS & APPEALS

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

IN THE MATTER OF:

THE PETITION FILED BY AMANA APPLIANCES FOR EXCEPTION RELIEF

TO THE FINAL RULE ON ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR

REFRIGERATORS , REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS AND FREEZERS

SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS

CASE NO. VEE-0054

August 12, 1999

GE Appliances, a potentially aggrieved party within the meaning of the

Office of Hearings and Appeals ("OHA") regulations, hereby files these

supplemental comments to its March 15, 1999, response.

1. Introduction and Summary

On July 12, 1999, Amana Appliances ("Amana") filed a Supplement

("Supplement") to its initial Application ("Application") for exception to the

Department of Energy's ("DOE") Final Rule on Energy Conservation Program for

Consumer Products: Energy Conservation Standards for Refrigerators,

Refrigerator-Freezers and Freezers, 10 C.F.R. Part 430 (Final Rule). This

Supplement, which expands and clarifies its Application, seeks relief from the

requirements of the Final Rule promulgated on April 23, 1997. That rule

mandates that refrigerator products manufactured on or after July 1, 2001, use

approximately 30% less energy than such products manufactured under today's

energy conservation standard.

The, specific relief requested by Amana is that covered products

manufactured by it on or after July 1, 2001, not be required to comply with the

Final Rule but be given "10% relief" until January 1, 2010. Thus, rather than

manufacture refrigerators that use 30% less energy than today's models,

Amana's would be permitted to manufacture refrigerators that use 10% more

energy than comparable competitive models that comply with the more stringent

standard. Moreover, Amana seeks to maintain this cost-avoidance advantage for

a period of eight and one-half years.

/L/

I

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 346

NON-CONFIDENTIAL COP~':::t= 

;U ;he[ 

THE OFFICE ~F HEARINGS & APPEALS gt;., ~ / '-I 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY I tf---

iJd!; 

IN THE MATTER OF: 

THE PETITION FILED BY AMANA APPLIANCES FOR EXCEPTION RELIEF 

TO THE FINAL RULE ON ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR 

REFRIGERATORS, REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS AND FREEZERS 

SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS 

CASE NO. VEE-OOS4 

August 12, 1999 

GE Appliances, a potentially aggrieved party within the meaning of the 

Office of Hearings and Appeals ("aHA") regulations, hereby files these 

supplemental comments to its March 15, 1999, response. 

I. Introduction and Summary 

On July 12, 1999, Amana Appliances ("Amana") filed a Supplement 

("Supplement") to its initial Application ("Application") for exception to the 

Department of Energy's ("DOE") Final Rule on Energy ConseNation Program for 

Consumer Products: Energy ConseNation Standards for Refrigerators, 

Refrigerator-Freezers and Freezers, 10 C.F.R. Part 430 (Final Rule). This 

Supplement, which expands and clarifies its Application, seeks relief from the 

requirements of the Final Rule promulgated on April 23, 1997. That rule 

mandates that refrigerator products manufactured on or after July 1, 2001, use 

approximately 30% less energy than such products manufactured under today's 

energy conservation standard. 

The, specific relief requested by Amana is that covered products 

manufactl:Jred by it on or after July 1, 2001, not be required to comply with the 

Final Rule but be given "10% relief" until January 1, 2010. Thus, rather than 

manufacture refrigerators that use 30% less energy than today's models, 

Amana's would be permitted to manufacture refrigerators that use 10% more 

energy than comparable competitive models that comply with the more stringent 

standard. Moreover, Amana seeks to maintain this cost-avoidance advantage for 

a period of eight and one-half years. 

• 1 • 
In its Supplement, Amana expands its claim for relief based on the

unavailability of HFC-245fa by disclosing its decision to use cyclopentane-blown

foam instead, thereby locking in what it claims to be a 10% energy penalty.

According to the Supplement, "no design option exists that will enable Amana to

reliably and cost-effectively meet the stringent Refrigerator Efficiency Standards

that go into effect on July 1, 2001, with Amana using cyclopentane as its foam

blowing agent.'" (See Supplement, p.3.) Their argument continues:

"These circumstances-the unavailability of a comparable replacement for

141b, and the substantially increased costs of compliance with the revised

standards-are precisely the events that were envisioned by DOE as

grounds for an exception."

But even a cursory reading of the Final Rule will show that there are five

conditions, not just two, that Amana must establish in order to be granted

exception relief. It must establish that:

• HFC-245fa is not available -- which means that it cannot be manufactured

because of toxicity or other concerns, or cannot be supplied by AlliedSignal in

sufficient quantities to meet manufacturers' needs;

• "comparable products" are not available;

• unavailability of HFC-245fa or comparable products will continue until

imposition of the HCFC-141 b ban in 2003;

• alternative approaches that must be used because of the "unavailability" of

HFC-245fa or comparable products impose "substantial increases" in

expected manufacturer compliance costs;2 and

1 Amana concedes, however, that the unavailability of HFC-245fa will not prevent it from

manufacturing products that will meet the 2001 energy requirements. It argues that it is nevertheless

entitled to relief because available foams are less efficient, thereby requiring thicker application, which

results in less internal volume . One might view the Application as presenting this issue to OHA: Does the

loss of refrigerator internal storage volume constitute a "special hardship , inequity or unfair distribution of

burdens" that justifies an adjustment of the Final Rule pursuant to Section 504 of the Department of Energy

Organization Act? [2 U.S.C. § 7194(a)]. We think it does not.

2 The precise language is "the unavailability of HFC-245fa or comparable products prior to the

imposition of the ban on the further production of HCFC- 141b would substantially increase the expected

manufacturer costs associated with complying with this revised standard ." 62 Fed .Reg. 23109 (1997).

2

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 346

In its Supplement, Amana expands its claim for relief based on the 

unavailability of HFC-245fa by disclosing its decision to use cyclopentane-blown 

foam instead, thereby locking in what it claims to be a 10% energy penalty. 

According to the Supplement, "no design option exists that will enable Amana to 

reliably and cost-effectively meet the stringent Refrigerator Efficiency Standards 

that go into effect on July 1, 2001, with Amana using cyclopentane as its foam 

blowing agent. 1" (See Supplement, p.3.) Their argument continues: 

"These circumstances-the unavailability of a comparable replacement for 

141 b, and the substantially increased costs of compliance with the revised 

standards-are precisely the events that were envisioned by DOE as 

grounds for an exception." 

But even a cursory reading of the Final Rule will show that there are five 

conditions, not just two, that Amana must establish in order to be granted 

exception relief. It must establish that: 

• HFC-245fa is not available -- which means that it cannot be manufactured 

because of toxicity or other concerns, or cannot be supplied by AlliedSignal in 

sufficient quantities to meet manufacturers' needs; 

• "comparable products" are not available; 

• unavailability of HFC-245fa or comparable products will continue until 

imposition of the HCFC-141 b ban in 2003; 

• alternative approaches that must be used because of the "unavailability" of 

HFC-245fa or comparable products impose "substantial increases" in 

expected manufacturer compliance costs;2 and 

Amana concedes. however, that the unavailability of HFC-245 fa will not prevent it from 

manufacturing products that will meet the 2001 energy requirements. It argues that it is nevertheless 

entitled to relief because available foams are less efficient. thereby requiring thicker application. which 

results in less internal volume. One might view the Application as presenting this issue to OHA: Does the 

loss of refrigerator internal storage volume constitute a "special hardship. inequity or unfair distribution of 

burdens" that justifies an adjustment of the Final Rule pursuant to Section 504 of the Department of Energy 

Organization Act? [2 U.S.C. § 7194(a)]. We think it does not. 

2 The precise language is "the unavailability of HFC-245fa or comparable products prior to the 

imposition of the ban on the further production of HCFC-141 b would substantially increase the expected 

manufacturer costs associated with complying with this revised standard." 62 Fed.Reg. 23109 (1997). 

2 

.. -
® it will suffer "special hardship, inequity, or unfair distribution of burdens" if

relief is not granted. 3 -

As will be shown below, Amana has not met its burden and is not entitled to

relief.

11. Amana Has Not Shown that HFC-245fa is not Available Within

the Meaning of the "Trap Door" Provision.

A. The trap door was developed in response to two manufacturer

concerns that existed at the time the Final Rule was issued.

Amana is correct in its statement that consensus was achieved on the

provisions of the Final Rule when manufacturers accepted the so-called "trap

door" provision for exception relief through the OHA petition process.

Two concerns dominated the discussion on how this provision could be

activated: Whether HFC-245fa would pass toxicity testing and receive all

necessary regulatory approvals; and whether AlliedSignal would manufacture

sufficient quantities for all manufacturers who wanted to use it.4

Toxicity concerns have been allayed with the successful completion of

product testing. HFC-245fa has been submitted for a generally regarded as safe

(GRAS) determination and there are no other regulatory obstacles to the

manufacture of the product.5

The issue of adequate availability for all manufacturers has also been

resolved. Amana's April 15, 1997, letter to then-DOE Senior Policy Advisor Kyle

Simpson is an example of the prevalent concern in the industry at the time that

the Final Rule was being developed. Amana was concerned that in the event of

a "shortage" of HFC-245fa, DOE "must assure fair and equitable allocation of

supply so the smaller firms, such as Amana, do not get squeezed out."s

There is no shortage of HFC-245fa and there is no basis for fear that

Amana , or any other manufacturer, will be squeezed out because of inadequate

supply. AlliedSignal has offered to supply the needs of any and all interested

3 The standard for OHA's decision in this matter is set forth in Section 504 of the DOE

Organization Act, 42 U.S.C. §7194(a).

In the preamble to the Final Rule, DOE acknowledged these concerns and concluded that based on

then-current information , its expectation was that "HFC-245fa will receive the necessary regulatory

approvals, and that AlliedSignal will make it available in sufficient quantities for all manufacturers to use

prior to 2003. 62 FedReg. 23108 (1997).

Allied has also applied to EPA for approval of HFC-245fa as a Significant New Alternative

Product (SNAP) to CFCs. When approved manufacturers will be able to use the chemical as a blowing

agent for refrigerator insulation foam.

6

Included as Exhibit 6 to Amana's July 12, 1999, filing.

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 346

• it will suffer "special hardship,. inequity, or unfair distribution of burdens" if 

relief is not granted. 3 -

As will be shown below, Amana has not met its burden and is not entitled to 

relief. 

II. Amana Has Not Shown that HFC-245fa is not Available Within 

the Meaning of the "Trap Door" Provision. 

A. The trap door was developed in response to two manufacturer 

concerns that existed at the time the Final Rule was issued. 

Amana is correct in its statement that consensus was achieved on the 

provisions of the Final Rule when manufacturers accepted the so-called ''trap 

door" provision for exception relief through the OHA petition process. 

Two concerns dominated the discussion on how this provision could be 

activated: Whether HFC-245fa would pass toxicity testing and receive all 

necessary regulatory approvals; and whether AlliedSignal would manufacture 

sufficient quantities for all manufacturers who wanted to use it.4 

Toxicity concerns have been allayed with the successful completion of 

product testing. HFC-245fa has been submitted for a generally regarded as safe 

(GRAS) determination and there are no' other regulatory obstacles to the 

manufacture of the product.s 

The issue of adequate availability for all manufacturers has also been 

resolved. Amana's April 15, 1997, letter to then-DOE S~nior Policy Advisor Kyle 

Simpson is an example of the prevalent concern in the industry at the time that 

the Final Rule was being developed. Amana was concerned that in the event of 

a "shortage" of HFC-245fa, DOE "must assure fair and equitable allocation of 

supply so the smallerfirms, such as Amana, do not get squeezed OUt.,,6 

There is no shortage of HFC-245fa and there is no basis for fear that 

Amana, or any other manufacturer, will be squeezed out because of inadequate 

supply. A/liedSigna/ has offered to supply the needs of any and all interested 

3 The standard for OHA's decision in this matter is set forth in Section S04 of the DOE 

Organization Act, 42 U.s.C. §7194(a). 

4 In the preamble to the Final Rule, DOE acknowledged these concerns and concluded that based on 

then-current information, its expectation was that "HFC-24Sfa will receive the necessary regulatory 

approvals, and that A1IiedSignal will make it available in sufficient quantities for all manufacturers to use 

rriono 2003.62 Fed.Reg. 23108 (1997). 

Allied has also applied to EPA for approval ofHFC-24Sfa as a Significant New Alternative 

Product (SNAP) to CFCs. When approved manufacturers will be able to use the chemical as a blowing 

agent for refrigerator insulation foam. 

6 Included as Exhibit 6 to Amana's July 12, 1999, filing. 

3 

..... 
manufacturers. Amana is the only manufacturer that has petitioned for exception

relief. OHA can draw only two possible conclusions from this fact: All or some

other manufacturers have made plans to use substances other than the Allied

chemical; or all or some other manufacturers have entered into individual

purchase agreements with Allied. In either event, having sufficient HFC-245fa

quantities is no longer an industry concern.

Since HFC-245fa toxicity testing has been successfully completed and is

being offered for sale to interested manufacturers, it must be deemed "available."

For these reasons alone, OHA must deny the requested relief.

B. AlliedSignal has demonstrated a continuing commitment to

HFC-245fa production.

The appliance industry, acting through the Association of Home Appliance

Manufacturers ("AHAM"), and AlliedSignal have failed to agree on terms of an

industry joint purchase agreement. The inability of the parties to reach an

industry-wide agreement, however, does not mean that HFC-245fa will not be

available on a timely basis to any manufacturers who want to use it.7

In a letter dated April 29, 1999, to AHAM, Allied advised the industry that if

the industry chose not to pursue its proposal for an all-industry agreement , Allied

"will ...turn it's [sic] attention to individual negotiations ...[I]t is AlliedSignal's belief

that there is sufficient demand, at an appropriate price point, with certain

appliance manufacturers to proceed under a smaller plant scale scenario. As

such , AlliedSignal remains confident that commercial HFC-245fa will become a

reality." (Emphasis supplied.) (See Exhibit 1, attached.)

In addition to Amana, several manufacturers, including GE Appliances,

have held discussions with Allied on purchase terms. Given Allied's commitment

to future production of HFC-245fa there is no basis on which OHA could

conclude that it is not and will not continue to be available.

C. Relief cannot be granted simply because Amana is not willing

to purchase HFC-245fa on the terms and conditions offered by

the manufacturer.

One need not have been privy to the negotiations between Amana and

Allied to know that any failure by Amana to obtain its HFC-245fa requirements is

entirely by its choice.

7 Among the issues OHA must resolve before exception relief could be granted is whether the

failure of the parties to reach an industry purchase agreement resulted from deliberate conduct of one or

more industry parties to achieve impasse . In this regard, OHA must give particular scrutiny to Amana's

conduct to be certain that it had clean hands when it filed its petition or whether it had the trap door as its

objective when it started the negotiations.

4

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 346

manufacturers. Amana is the onLy manufacturer that has petitioned for exception 

relief. OHA can draw only two possible conclusions from this fact: All or some 

other manufacturers have made plans to use substances other than the Allied 

chemical; or all or some other manufacturers have entered into individual 

purchase agreements with Allied. In either event, having sufficient HFC-245fa 

quantities is no longer an industry concern. 

Since HFC-245fa toxicity testing has been successfully completed and is 

being offered for sale to interested manufacturers, it must be deemed "available." 

For these reasons alone, OHA must deny the requested relief. 

B. AlliedSignal has demonstrated a continuing commitment to 

HFC-245fa production. 

The appliance industry, acting through the Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers ("A HAM") , and AlliedSignal have failed to agree on terms of an 

industry joint purchase agreement. The inability of the parties to reach an 

industry-wide agreement, however, does not mean that HFC-245fa will not be 

available on a timely basis to any manufacturers who want to use it? 

In a letter dated April 29, 1999, to AHAM, Allied advised the industry that if 

the industry chose not to pursue its proposal for an all-industry agreement, Allied 

"wilL.tum it's [sic1 attention to individual negotiations ... [11t is AlliedSignal's belief 

that there is sufficient demand, at an appropriate price point, with certain 

appliance manufacturers to proceed under a smaller plant scale scenario. As 

such, AlliedSignal remains confident that commercial HFC-245fa will become a 

reality." (Emphasis supplied.) (See Exhibit 1, attached.) 

In addition to Amana, several manufacturers, including GE Appliances, 

have held discussions with Allied on purchase terms. Given Allied's commitment 

to future production of HFC-245fa there is no basis on which OHA could 

conclude that it is not and will not continue to be available. 

C. Relief cannot be granted simply because Amana is not willing 

to purchase HFC-245fa on the terms and conditions offered by 

the manufacturer. 

One need not have been privy to the negotiations between Amana and 

Allied to know that any failure by Amana to obtain its HFC-245fa requirements is 

entirely by its choice. 

7 Among the issues OHA must resolve before exception relief could be granted is whether the 

failure of the parties to reach an industry purchase agreement resulted from deliberate conduct of one or 

more industry parties to achieve impasse. In this regard, OHA must give particular scrutiny to Amana's 

conduct to be certain that it had clean hands when it filed its petition or whether it had the trap door as its 

objective when it started the negotiations. 

4 

" -
Amana's tale of self-inflicted woe is detailed on pages 4 and 5 of the

Supplement. Amana clearly acknowledges that

• Amana began its own negotiations with Allied after all-industry

discussions terminated.

• Allied offered to supply 100% of Amana's blowing agent requirements

for a period of at least six years

• Amana "rejected" as "unreasonable" the terms offered by Allied,

including a take-or-pay requirement and undisclosed pricing.

• The Amana-Allied talks are at a "standstill" and "Amana does not

believe that commercial availability of HFC-245fa could have been

guaranteed by July 1, 2002, as Allied has represented." (Emphasis

supplied.)

Stated most plainly, Amana has rejected a bona fide offer for the supply of

HFC-245fa because it doesn't want to pay a fair market price. Alternatively, it

has convinced itself that, despite supplier assurances, the chemical cannot be

delivered on time. These concerns are a normal part of doing business. They

are not unique to the appliances industry or the development of HFC-245fa.

They do not entitle Amana to the extraordinary relief established under the Final

Rule to deal with limited unique uncertainties-toxicity and quantity of HFC-245fa

or unavailability of comparable products. These concerns have been resolved.

But Amana still wants the Federal government to use the trap door against

Allied to deprive it of the market value of its investment. It wants the government

to turn it into a sword to use for competitive advantage against other industry

members and grant permission to trigger potential adverse environmental impact

in the form of .5 lost quads of energy and many tons of added pollution.8

The parties never intended that one manufacturer's unwillingness to

accept market realities could trigger this result. Amana has put itself into this

predicament. It should not be allowed to throw a well-settled regulation back into

bitter contention simply because it wants better purchase terms from a supplier.

s One-half quad is the additional energy that would be consumed nationally if the 2001 Refrigerator

Standards were relaxed by 10% through 2009 for all new refrigerator products, a result that Amana invites.

(See Exhibit 2, James Cosgrove affidavit.)

5

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 346

Amana's tale of self-inflicted woe is detailed on pages 4 and 5 of the 

Supplement. Amana clearly acknowledges that 

• Amana began its own negotiations with Allied after all-industry 

discussions terminated. 

• Allied offered to supply 100% of Amana's blowing agent requirements 

for a period of at least six years 

• Amana "rejected" as "unreasonable" the terms offered by Allied, 

including a take-or-pay requirement and undisclosed pricing. 

• The Amana-Allied talks are at a "standstill" and "Amana does not 

believe that commercial availability of HFC-245fa could have been 

guaranteed by July 1, 2002, as Allied has represented." (Emphasis 

supplied.) 

Stated most plainly, Amana has rejected a bona fide offer for the supply of 

HFC-245fa because it doesn't want to pay a fair market price. Altematively, it 

has convinced itself that, despite supplier assurances, the chemical cannot be 

delivered on time. These concems are a normal part of doing business. They 

are not unique to the appliances industry or the development of HFC-245fa. 

They do not entitle Amana to the extraordinary relief established under the Final 

Rule to deal with limited unique uncertainties-toxicity and quantity of HFC-245fa 

or unavailability of comparable products. These concems have been resolved. 

But Amana still wants the Federal govemment to use the trap door against 

Allied to deprive it of the market value of its investment. It wants the govemment 

to tum it into a sword to use for competitive advantage against other industry 

members and grant permisSion to trigger potential adverse environmental impact 

in the form of .5 lost quads of energy and many tons of added pollution.8 

The parties never intended that one manufacturer's unwillingness to 

accept market realities could trigger this result. Amana has put itself into this 

predicament. It should not be allowed to throw a well-settled regulation back into 

bitter contention simply because it wants better purchase terms from a supplier. 

8 One-half quad is the additional energy that would be consumed nationally if the 200 1 Refrigerator 

Standards were relaxed by 10% through 2009 for all new refrigerator products. a result that Amana invites. 

(See Exhibit 2. lames Cosgrove affidavit.) 

5 
111. Amana Has-Not Shown that "Comparable Products"

Are Not Available

A. "Comparable products" as used in the trap door provision

must take into consideration the energy efficiency potential of

three relevant "systems "-components, cabinet structure and

foam composition and thickness.

Amana's decision to use cyclopentane is cited as the reason that it

requires relief. According to Amana, cyclopentane carries a 10% energy penalty,

which Amana has not been able to recapture by any design that is "reliable and

cost-effective." (See p. 7 of the Supplement.)

Thus, Amana, which has already balked at the price of HFC-245fa, the

chemical it had planned to use, now seeks relief for choosing an even more

expensive second choice, cyclopentane. This is the engineering equivalent,

borrowing the Abraham Lincoln story, of shooting one's parents and pleading for

mercy as an orphan.

After cataloging all the foams that are less efficient than HFC-245fa,

including CP, Amana asserts that there is "no other economically or technically

feasible method of recapturing the 10% loss resulting from use of cyclopentane."

Amana contends that more efficient components have "already been

incorporated into Amana's plans to meet the standards, or have not been proven

to be reliable or cost-effective.

But refrigerators are not meant to be built of foam alone.

Amana has failed adequately to quantify its claims related to reliability and

cost. Which new components are not reliable? What is the meaning of costeffective, a phrase that is not employed in the 2001 Refrigerator Standards? In

sum, how can OHA and other potentially affected parties assess the relative cost

and efficiency of the approaches that Amana has considered and rejected in

concluding that its only recourse is the anti-competitive special treatment of the

exception process?

The facts are not as bleak as Amana would have OHA believe.

Since the last rulemaking, componentry efficiency has increased by more

than 20%. Integrated gasket design alone can contribute dramatically to

achieving the 30% energy improvement required by the new standards. A

myriad combination of components can achieve all the efficiency improvements

required to be in compliance with the revised standard. GE Appliances is at a

6

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 346

III. Amana Has-Not Shown that "Comparable Products" 

Are Not Available 

A. "Comparable products" as used in the trap door provision 

must take into consideration the energy efficiency potential of 

three relevant "systems"-components, cabinet structure and 

foam composition and thickness. 

Amana's decision to use cyclopentane is cited as the reason that it 

requires relief. According to Amana, cyc/opentane carries a 10% energy penalty, 

which Amana has not been able to recapture by any design that is "reliable and 

cost-effective." (See p. 7 of the Supplement.) 

Thus, Amana, which has already balked at the price of HFC-245fa, the 

chemical it had planned to use, now seeks relief for choosing an even more 

expensive second choice, cyclopentane. This is the engineering equivalent, 

borrowing the Abraham Lincoln story, of shooting one's parents and pleading for 

mercy as an orphan. 

After cataloging all the foams that are less efficient than HFC-245fa, 

including CP, Amana asserts that there is "no other economically or technically 

feasible method of recapturing the 10% loss resulting from use of cyclopentane." 

Amana contends that more efficient components have "already been 

incorporated into Amana's plans to meet the standards, or have not been proven 

to be reliable or cost-effective. 

But refrigerators are not meant to be built of foam alone. 

Amana has failed adequately to quantify its claims related to reliability and 

cost. Which new components are not reliable? What is the meaning of costeffective, a phrase that is not employed in the 2001 Refrigerator Standards? In 

sum, how can OHA and other potentially affected parties assess the relative cost 

and efficiency of the approaches that Amana has considered and rejected in 

concluding that its only recourse is the anti-competitive special treatment of the 

exception process? 

The facts are not as bleak as Amana would have OHA believe. 

Since the last rulemaking, componentry efficiency has increased by more 

than 20%. Integrated gasket design alone can contribute dramatically to 

achieving the ;30% energy improvement required by the new standards. A 

myriad combination of components can achieve a/l the efficiency improvements 

required to be in compliance with the revised standard. GE Appliances is at a 

6 

.... 
loss to understand Amana's no-can-do attitude. (See Exhibit 3, Rick DeVos

affidavit, attached.)

Cabinet redesign also offers significant potential to recover the losses

attributable to use of less efficient foam. This is particularly true for Amana's

products, which have not seen a cabinet redesign in more than 20 years.

Competitive analyses conducted by GE engineers show that by redesigning its

cabinet, Amana can recover interior volume lost to increased insulation

thickness. Redesign of its door from 2 in. to the more common 3.5 in. found in

the rest of the industry would also provide the opportunity to increase insulation

with no impact on internal volume.

B. Advances in increasing foam efficiency continue.

Amana wants OHA to accept as fact a fiction that progress in foam

improvement has stopped and will not advance between now and the January 1,

2003, phase-out of HCFC-141 b. In fact, we know from historical experience that

chemical manufacturing and appliance manufacturing process technologies will

improve efficiencies over time.

Process improvements have increased the efficiency yields of HCFC-141 b

and HFC-1 34a. Despite the more moderated tone of DuPont's latest comments

(see Exhibit 3, Attachment A to the Amana Supplement), it remains true, as

stated, that "foaming technology... has progressed over the past few years."

Already, as stated in the Abstract of the paper attached to the Kessler

Affidavit (Exhibit 3) as Attachment B, tests performed by the AHAM

Industry/Government CFC Appliance Replacement Consortium show as little as

a 6% energy loss in using cyclopentane. (See Exhibit 4, Gary Mellinger affidavit,

attached.)

IV. Amana Has Failed to Demonstrate the Continuing

Unavailability Until 2003 of HFC-245fa or

A Comparable Product

A. OHA must reiect Amana 's attempt to rewrite the Refrigerator

Standards.

Amana is trying to rehash old arguments by marrying the HCFC141 b phase-out and the effective date of the new standards. As we earlier

pointed out in our March, 1999, comments, DOE rejected this position,

9 It would be an abuse of the exception process if in granting the petition , OHA allows Amana to

preserve, for stated reasons of inability to achieve greater efficiency, a feature Amana touts for marketing

advantage-thinner doors. The trap door provision must be used only for its intended limited purposes:

Relief from toxicity and quantity, not to preserve marketing features that do not have statutorily recognized

consumer utility.

7

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 346

loss to understand Amana's nO-G~n-do attitude. (See Exhibit 3, Rick DeVos 

affidavit, attached.) 

Cabinet redesign also offers significant potential to recover the losses 

attributable to use of less efficient foam. This is particularly true for Amana's 

products, which have not seen a cabinet redesign in more than 20 years. 

Competitive analyses conducted by GE engineers show that by redesigning its 

cabinet, Amana can recover interior volume lost to increased insulation 

thickness. Redesign of its door from 2 in. to the more common 3.5 in. found in 

the rest of the industry would also rrovide the opportunity to increase insulation 

with no impact on internal volume. 

B. Advances in increasing foam efficiency continue. 

Amana wants OHA to accept as fact a fiction that progress in foam 

improvement has stopped and will not advance between now and the January 1, 

2003, phase-out of HCFC-141 b. In fact, we know from historical experience that 

chemical manufacturing and appliance manufacturing process technologies will 

improve efficiencies over time. . 

Process improvements have increased the efficiency yields of HCFC-141 b 

and HFC-134a. Despite the more moderated tone of DuPont's latest comments 

(see Exhibit 3, Attachment A to the Amana Supplement), it remains true, as 

stated, that "foaming technology ... has progre'ssed over the past few years." 

Already, as stated in the Abstract of the paper attached to the Kessler 

Affidavit (Exhibit 3) as Attachment 8, tests performed by the AHAM 

Industry/Government CFC Appliance Replacement Consortium show as little as 

a 6% energy loss in using cyclopentane. (See Exhibit 4, Gary Mellinger affidavit, 

attached.) 

IV. Amana Has Failed to Demonstrate the Continuing 

Unavailability Until 2003 of HFC-245fa or 

A Comparable Product 

A. OHA must reject Amana's attempt to rewrite the Refrigerator. 

Standards. 

Amana is trying to rehash old arguments by marrying the HCFC141 b phase-out and the effective date of the new standards. As we earlier 

pointed out in our March, 1999, comments, DOE rejected this position, 

It would be an abuse of the ex.ception process if in granting the petition, OHA allows Amana to 

preserve, for stated reasons of inability to achieve greater efficiency, a feature Amana touts for marketing 

advantage-thinner doors. The trap door provision must be used only for its intended limited purposes: 

Relief from tox.icity and quantity, not to preserve marketing features that do not have statutorily recognized 

consumer utility. 

7 
knowing full well the risks involved to the industry. DOE intended that

industry assume those risks. But it provided fourteen additional months

beyond the statutory minimum of three years to develop compliance plans.

As in the story of the Little Red Hen, it would be unconscionable if

manufacturers who took prudent business actions and planned ahead to

comply with a promulgated standard were now penalized by the

government handing out free grain to a manufacturer that ate its seed

corn.

B. The industry parties, including Amana, agreed to separate

2001 energy compliance from the 2003 HCFC-141 b phase-out

schedule.

The Final Rule is clear on this point if nothing else: The industry

parties understood and accepted the possible unavailability of HFC-245fa

in time for compliance with the 2001 standard when they reached

consensus on the terms of the Final Rule. The fact that HFC-245fa will

not likely be available for 2001, therefore, is not exceptional and Amana

may not cite it as grounds for its exception petition.

Amana's petition, filed some three and one-half years before the

HCFC-141 b phase-out date, is at least premature. But, as we have seen,

Amana can make arrangements today for its HFC-245fa needs in the

future. Its request is, therefore, doubly defeated. Amana can implement a

single design effort to comply with energy and Clean Air Act requirements

by using HFC-245fa or cyclopentane. Or it can continue to use HCFC141 b and make a further investment to do something else closer to 2003.

Either way, Amana and the rest of industry get what was bargained

for and there are no grounds for exception relief.

V. Amana Has Not Proved that Alternative Compliance

Approaches Caused by the Claimed Unavailability of HFC -245fa or a

Comparable Product Would "Substantially Increase

Expected Manufacturer Costs."

A. Compliance with the new standards was not expected to be

cost-free.

Amana argues that every compliance solution is too costly. It's not

clear why it expected the new standards to be cost-free . The Final Rule

provides no basis for such a belief. In fact, the opposite is true.

"The Department recognizes that there will be considerable

costs associated with the product redesign necessary to meet

8

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 346

knowing full well the risks jrwolved to the industry. DOE intended that 

industry assume those risks. But it provided fourteen additional months 

beyond the statutory minimum of three years to develop compliance plans. 

As in the story of the Little Red Hen, it would be unconscionable if 

manufacturers who took prudent business actions and planned ahead to 

comply with a promulgated standard were now penalized by the 

government handing out free grain to a manufacturer that ate its seed 

com. 

B. The industry parties, including Amana, agreed to separate 

2001 energy compliance from the 2003 HCFC-141b phase-out 

schedule. 

The Final Rule is clear on this point if nothing else: The industry 

parties understood and accepted the possible unavailability of HFC-245fa 

in time for compliance with the 2001 standard when they reached 

consensus on the terms of the Final Rule. The fact that HFC-245fa will 

not likely be available for 2001, therefore, is not exceptional and Amana 

may not cite it as grounds for its exception petition. 

Amana's petition, filed some three and one-half years before the 

HCFC-141b phase-out date, is at least premature. But, as we have seen, 

Amana can make arrangements today for its HFC-245fa needs in the 

future. Its request is, therefore, doubly defeated. Amana can implement a 

single design effort to comply with energy and Clean Air Act requirements 

by using HFC-245fa or cyclopentane. Or it can continue to use HCFC141 b and make a further investment to do something else closer to 2003. 

Either way, Amana and the rest of industry get what was bargained 

for and there are no grounds for exception relief. 

V. Amana Has Not Proved that Alternative Compliance 

Approaches Caused by the Claimed Unavailability of HFC-24Sfa or a 

Comparable Product Would "Substantially Increase 

Expected Manufacturer Costs." 

A. Compliance with the new standards was not expected to be 

cost-free. 

Amana argues that every compliance solution is too costly. It's not 

clear why it expected the new standards to be cost-free. The Final Rule 

provides no basis for such a belief. In fact, the opposite is true. 

"The Department recognizes that there will be considerable 

costs associated with the product redesign necessary to meet 

8 

" -
the new efficiency standards, as well as some additional costs

associated with the conversion to a new insulation blowing

agent, even assuming that agent is HFC-245fa or another

chemical with comparable characteristics."10 (Emphasis

supplied.)

I0

These were some of the reasons that the Department decided to

give manufacturers an additional fourteen months before the standards

became effective but Amana does not appear to have factored this into

evaluation of relative costs.

The above language and the extra time provided should have sent

a clear message to the industry: Even though it will be costly, compliance

is required. Every other manufacturer seems to have heard the message

except Amana. Last-minute refusals to heed the clear warnings should

not be rewarded.

B. Amana has not proven that it will experience substantial

increase in "expected manufacturer costs" of compliance.

Which costs did every other manufacturer anticipate that caught

Amana unprepared? Certainly not the knowledge that HFC-245fa was

covered by a patent and therefore might command a premium price. Or

that cyclopentane is highly combustible and required factory retrofitting

before use. Or that HFC-134a and cyclopentane were less efficient

substitutes for HCFC-141 b and their use would require cabinet redesign,

including possible the loss of some internal volume. Or that upgraded

components would be more costly than less-efficient ones.

Amana argues that "as one of the smaller U.S. manufacturers, [it]

will be significantly impacted by the unavailability of HFC-245fa and the

costs associated with conversion to an alternative blowing agent."

But Amana is also a closely held company whose financial strength

is not subject to public scrutiny and whose cost structure, including

compensation of its key decision-makers, and profitability is shielded from

public examination. Publicly traded companies and the environment

should not have to pay for unfettered private gain. Until its financial

records can be made public, Amana's claims of inability to pay cannot be

considered.

62 Fed Reg. 23108 (1997).

9

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 346

10 

the new efficien¢"y standards, as well as some additional costs 

associated with the conversion to a new insulation blowing 

agent, even assuming that agent is HFC-24Sfa or another 

chemical with comparable characteristics.fllO (Emphasis 

supplied.) 

These were some of the reasons that the Department decided to 

give manufacturers an additional fourteen months before the standards 

became effective but Amana does not appear to have factored this into 

evaluation of relative costs. 

The above language and the extra time provided should have sent 

a clear message to the industry: Even though it will be costly, compliance 

is required. Every other manufacturer seems to have heard the message 

except Amana. Last-minute refusals to heed the clear wamings should 

not be rewarded. 

B. Amana has not proven that it will experience substantial 

increase in "expected manufacturer costs" of compliance. 

Which costs did every other manufacturer anticipate that caught 

Amana unprepared? Certainly not the knowledge that HFC-24Sfa was 

covered by a patent and therefore might command a premium price. Or 

that cyclopentane is highly combustible and required factory retrofitting 

before use. Or that HFC-134a and cyclopentane were less efficient 

substitutes for HCFC-141b and their use would require cabinet redesign, 

including possible the loss of some intemal volume. Or that upgraded 

components would be more costly than less-efficient ones. 

Amana argues that "as one of the smaller U.S. manufacturers, [it] 

will be significantly impacted by the unavailability of HFC-24Sfa and the 

costs associated with conversion to an altemative blowing agent." 

But Amana is also a closely held company whose financial strength 

is not subject to public scrutiny and whose cost structure, including 

compensation of its key decision-makers, and profitability is shielded from 

public examination. Publicly traded companies and the environment 

should not have to pay for unfettered private gain. Until its financial 

records can be made public, Amana's claims of inability to pay cannot be 

considered. 

62 Fed. Reg. 23108 (1997). 

9 
C. Comparable products and alternative approaches are available

that need not "substantially increase " expected manufacturer

compliance costs.

In order for a manufacturer to avail itself of the trap door provision

of the Final Rule, it must be faced with compliance costs that are

substantially increased and unexpected."

As discussed above, all of the costs about which Amana complains

were clearly foreseeable . Also, as discussed above, DOE advised the

parties that they would be expected to expend "considerable" costs for

product redesign and "additional" costs for foam conversion. At most

Amana has proven that what it feared might happen as regards HFC245fa pricing has in fact occurred12. But it has clearly fallen short of

proving surprise of the magnitude required by the Final Rule.

Nor has Amana proven that other available solutions (or

"comparable products") fall outside acceptable, i.e., expected costs

parameters.

HFC-134a, recently approved by EPA, is a viable alternative to

HCFC-141 b. Admittedly, it is less efficient, probably by approximately

10%, but its relative low cost in comparison to HFC-245fa, means that

more costly but more efficient components could be used. The same is

true of cyclopentane, although this choice carries with it the higher-but

not unexpected-costs of factory retrofitting discussed above.

Additional compliance time could be gained by stockpiling HCFC141 b for use beyond 2003. Industry's experience stockpiling CFCs after

their 1993 ban provides a useful model. It is not necessary, as Amana

contends, to store stockpiled material in tankers and other containers. By

agreeing with chemical manufacturers" that they keep the purchased stock

at their premises storage cost can be contained and the parade of

environmental horrors cited by Amana avoided completely. 13

Each of these solutions has benefits and drawbacks. But they all

achieve compliance with the 2001 standards. And they do so without

" "...and the unavailability of HFC-245fa or comparable products prior to the imposition of the ban

on further production of HCFC-14lb would substantially increase the expected manufacturer costs

associated with complying with this revised standard ." 62 Fed Reg. 23109 (1997). (Emphasis supplied.)

12 It should be pointed out that use of HFC-245fa, found in the Final Rule to be a "drop-in" substitute

for HCFC-141b, would not entail significant investment, i.e., manufacturer cost. It might, however, entail

considerable product cost that NAECA envisions would be passed on to consumers. Thus, Amana's

arguments about the high cost of HFC-245fa must be rejected as a basis for relief because they are not

relevant under the Act or the Final Rule's trap door provision , which are keyed to manufacturer costs.

13 GE Appliances has successfully used this arrangement and would be glad to share best practices

with Amana.

10

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 346

C. Comparable products and alternative approaches are available 

that need not "substantially increase" expected manufacturer 

compliance costs. 

In order for a manufacturer to avail itself of the trap door provision 

of the Final Rule, it must be faced with compliance costs that are 

substantially increased and unexpected.11 

As discussed above, all of the costs about which Amana complains 

were clearly foreseeable. Also, as discussed above, DOE advised the 

parties that they would be expectec;i to expend "considerable" costs for 

product redesign and "additional" costs for foam conversion. At most 

Amana has proven that what it feared might happen as regards HFC24Sfa pricing has in fact occurred12• But it has clearly fallen short of 

proving surprise of the magnitude required by the Final Rule. 

Nor has Amana proven that other available solutions (or 

"comparable products") fall outside acceptable, i.e., expected costs 

parameters. 

HFC-134a, recently approved by EPA, is a viable altemative to 

HCFC-141b. Admittedly, it is less efficient, probably by approximately 

10%, but its relative low cost in comparison to HFC-24Sfa, means that 

more costly but more efficient components could be used. The same is 

true of cyclopentane, although this choice carries with it the higher-but 

not unexpected-costs of factory retrofitting discussed above. 

Additional compliance time could be gained by stockpiling HCFC141 b for use beyond 2003. Industry's experience stockpiling CFCs after 

their 1993 ban provides a useful model. It is not necessary, as Amana 

contends, to store stockpiled material in tankers and other containers. By 

agreeing with chemical manufacturers that they keep the purchased stock 

at their premises storage cost can be contained and the parade of 

environmental horrors cited by Amana avoided completely.13 

Each of these solutions has benefits and drawbacks. But they all 

achieve compliance with the 2001 standards. And they do so without 

II " ... and the unavailability of HFC-245fa or comparable products prior to the imposition of the ban 

on further production of HCFC-141 b would substantially increase the expected manufacturer costs 

associated with complying with this revised standard." 62 Fed. Reg. 23109 (1997). (Emphasis supplied.) 

12 It should be pointed out that use of HFC-245fa. found in the Final Rule to be a "drop-in" substitute 

for HCFC-141b, would not entail significant investment, i.e., manufacturer cost. It might, however, entail 

considerable product cost that NAECA envisions would be passed on to consumers. Thus, Amana's 

arguments about the high cost of HFC-245fa must be rejected as a basis for relief because they are not 

relevant under the Act or the Final Rule's trap door provision, which are keyed to manufacturer costs. 

13 GE Appliances has successfully used this arrangement and would be glad to share best practices 

with Amana. 

10 

' ... 
unexpected and substantial increases in manufacturer costs. In fact, there

is surprising comparability in the cost of all these solutions. (See Exhibit

2, James Cosgrove affidavit, attached.)

VI. Amana Has Not Met Its Burden of Demonstrating "Special

Hardship, Inequity or Unfair Distribution of Burdens."

A. Costs increases that affect all manufacturers do not impose

undue hardship entitling a single manufacturer to exception

relief.

Section 504 of the Department of Energy Organization Act

authorizes DOE to make adjustments of any rule if necessary to prevent

special hardship, inequity or unfair distribution of burdens. As discussed

above, since DOE expected manufacturers to bear "considerable costs" in

complying with the 2001 standards, the fact that Amana and others are

experiencing significant compliance-related costs-investments and

other-is not remediable by OHA.

Moreover, as specifically related to Amana's complaints about

HFC-245fa pricing, It would be bad public policy to allow manufacturers,

by refusing to pay a market-based price for the preferred substitute, to

escape the compliance costs that were clearly contemplated during the

regulatory process.

All of the manufactures are impacted by the costs cited by Amana

as too high. Where, then, does Amana suffer a "special" disadvantage?

Although it argues that some costs affect it differentially and more

adversely because of its size, that is a fact of Amana's being in the

appliances industry. The revised refrigerator standard did not cause

Amana's relatively small market share. Its size, therefore, should not be

the basis for special relief under the rule. To do so would literally open

every NAECA rulemaking-not just those that specifically reference

section 504-to revision by Amana and similarly situated companies.

B. Manufacturers are not entitled to exception relief because they

implement compliance strategies that result in differential

manufacturer costs.

Amana made a business decision to use cyclopentane foam. One

of the consequences of this decision is that it must make sizable

investments to retrofit existing factories. A prudent manufacturer would

take the opportunity to make offsetting productivity improvements but

Amana apparently decided not to.

11

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 346

unexpected and substantial increases in manufacturer costs. In fact, there 

is surprising comparability in the cost of all these solutions. (See Exhibit 

2, James Cosgrove affidavit, attached.) 

VI. Amana Has Not Met Its Burden of Demonstrating "Special 

Hardship, Inequity or Unfair Distribution of Burdens." 

A. Costs increases that affect all manufacturers do not impose 

undue hardship entitling a single manufacturer to exception 

relief. 

Section S04 of the Department of Energy Organization Act 

authorizes DOE to make adjustments of any rule if necessary to prevent 

special hardship, inequity or unfair distribution of burdens. As discussed 

above, since DOE expected manufacturers to bear "considerable costs" in 

complying with the 2001 standards, the fact that Amana and others are 

experiencing significant compliance-related costs-investments and 

other-is not remediable by OHA. 

Moreover, as specifically related to Amana's complaints about 

HFC-24Sfa pricing, It would be bad public policy to allow manufacturers, 

by refusing to pay a market-based price for the preferred substitute, to 

escape the compliance costs that were clearly contemplated during the 

regulatory process. 

All of the manufactures are impacted by the costs cited by Amana 

as too high. Where, then, does Amana suffer a "special" disadvantage? 

Although it argues that some costs affect it differentially and more 

adversely because of its size, that is a fact of Amana's being in the 

appliances industry. The revised refrigerator standard did not cause 

Amana's relatively small market share. Its size, therefore, should not be 

the basis for special relief under the rule. To do so would literally open 

every NAECA rulemaking-not just those that specifically reference 

section S04-to revision by Amana and similarly situated companies. 

B. Manufacturers are not entitled to exception relief because they 

implement compliance strategies that result in differential 

manufacturer costs. 

Amana made a business. decision to use cyclopentane foam. One 

of the consequences of this decision is that it must make sizable 

investments to retrofit existing factories. A prudent manufacturer would 

take the opportunity to make offsetting productivity improvements but 

Amana apparently decided not to. 

11 

' ... 

' ... 
It could have decided to convert to HFC-245fa, or HFC-134a or to

stockpile HCFC-141 b. These choices would have involved much less

manufacturer costs (or investment) but would have resulted in higher

product costs that would be paid by consumers. Neither the Act nor the

Final Rule provides that OHA shall reward or punish a manufacturer for

the choice it makes.

Decisions have long since been made to take one road or the

other. Arbitrarily picking winners and losers based on who is last to the

starting gate is neither good law nor public policy. Amana, for its own

business reasons, made a choice--cyciopentane-that may not be the

least costly option. But it should now live with its choice just as all other

manufacturers must do.

C. Amana's claim that it suffers an undue distribution of burdens

because of its competitors' production facilities in Mexico and

Canada must be rejected.

Like most of Amana's argument, its reference to the ability of some

of its competitors to import HCFC-141 b foam product from Mexico and

Canada beyond January 2001, is a red herring. As OHA noted in its

request to Amana for more information, any such claim is pure

speculation. In any event, as OHA further observed, EPA will likely act to

prohibit such conduct.

But GE Appliances will, for the record, end once and for all any

speculation regarding its intentions on Mexico and Canada imports:

• Any U.S. production transferred to Mexico or Canada for reexport to the U.S. will comply with the U.S. EPA HCFC-141 b

phase-out schedule.

• Moreover, GE is working with its Mexican partners to convert

their production facilities imported from HCFC-1 41 b foam for

any GE product imported into the U.S.

By providing this clarification, GE Appliances does not intend to

credit Amana's argument that foreign-located facilities are relevant to this

proceeding. GE's foam strategy was determined well over a year ago.

Amana's attempt to expand the scope of OHA's inquiry from HFC-245fa

toxicity and quantity issues, is without basis in the Final Rule. We did,

however, want to remove this diversionary argument and refocus attention

on Amana's lack of preparedness, not others' foresight.

12

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 346

It could have decided to convert to HFC-245fa, or HFC-134a or to 

stockpile HCFC-141 b. These choices would have involved much less 

manufacturer costs (or investment) but would have resulted in higher 

product costs that would be paid by consumers. Neither the Act nor the 

Final Rule provides that aHA shall reward or punish a manufacturer for 

the choice it makes. 

Decisions have long since been made to take one road or the 

other. Arbitrarily picking winners and losers based on who is last to the 

starting gate is neither good law nor public policy. Amana, for its own 

business reasons, made a choice-cydopentane-that may not be the 

least costly option. But it should now live with its choice just as all other 

manufacturers must do. 

c. Amana's claim that it suffers an undue distribution of burdens 

because of its competitors' production facilities in Mexico and 

Canada must be rejected. 

Like most of Amana's argument, its reference to the ability of some 

of its competitors to import HCFC-141 b foam product from Mexico and 

Canada beyond January 2001, is a red herring. As aHA noted in its 

request to Amana for more information, any such claim is pure 

speculation. In any event, as aHA further observed, EPA will likely act to 

prohibit such conduct. 

But GE Appliances will, for the record, end once and for all any 

speculation regarding its intentions on Mexico and Canada imports: 

• Any U.S. production transferred to Mexico or Canada for reexport to the U.S. will comply with the U.S. EPA HCFC-141b 

phase-out schedule. 

• Moreover, GE is working with its Mexican partners to convert 

their production facilities imported from HCFC-141 b foam for 

any GE product imported into the U.S. 

By providing this clarification, GE Appliances does not intend to 

credit Amana's argument that foreign-located facilities are relevant to this 

proceeding. GE's foam strategy was determined well over a year ago. 

Amana's attempt to expand the scope of OHA's inquiry from HFC-245fa 

toxicity and quantity issues, is without basis in the Final Rule. We did, 

however, want to remove this diversionary argument and refocus attention 

on Amana's lack of preparedness, not others' foreSight. 

12 
VII. Granting Amana 's Exception Petition Will Cause

Irreparable Competitive Injury to Manufacturers That Have Begun to

Implement Compliance Plans.

14

Is

A. OHA must consider the competitive impact of exception relief.

Unlike Amana, GE Appliances and the other manufacturers have

actually made plans to comply with the revised refrigerator standards.

Designs have been finalized, equipment purchased, factory construction

and renovation begun and merchandising programs are under

development. With the same information that was available to Amana,

other companies began their compliance efforts.

Amana's mid-stream effort to change the compliance rules will have

a significant and anti-competitive impact. Most significantly to GE

Appliances, foam choices have been made and internal refrigerator

volumes have been determined.

OHA should be under no illusions about what is at the root of

Amana's poormouthing: This is an attempt to gain an internal volume

advantage over competitors. As it noted in its initial Application,14 Amana

has calculated that each cubic foot of lost internal volume means $50 less

at retail.

If Amana is correct that use of less-efficient alternative blowing

agents will require thicker insulation and, therefore, less internal storage

volume, all manufacturers will be affected-not just Amana. OHA should

not unlevel that playing field and give a competitive advantage to Amana.

(See Exhibit 5, Ken Holland affidavit, attached.)

Every compliance dollar that Amana saves, if not pocketed by its

owners, can be spent on sales-enhancing features. No segment of the

appliances industry is as competitive as refrigerators. These products are

most often the drivers for other appliance purchases. Giving Amana the

ability to feature up its models and sell them at similar or even lower prices

will cause significant dislocation in the industry.

DOE is under an obligation, as it acknowledged in the preamble to

the Final Rule, to give "due consideration" to the effects of the relief

sought by Amana on "competition in the affected markets.i15 While

Amana has magnanimously advised OHA that it does not oppose giving

exception relief to all manufacturers, that could not cure the competitive

damage that would be caused by granting relief to Amana. It would come

too late. GE Appliances cannot send back the equipment it has ordered

See p. 5 of Amana's February 18, 1999 Application for Exception.

62 FedReg.23109 (1997).

13

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 346

14 

IS 

VII. Granting Amana's Exception Petition Will Cause 

Irreparable Competitive Injury to Manufacturers That Have Begun to 

Implement Compliance Plans. 

A. OHA must consider the competitive impact of exception relief. 

Unlike Amana, GE Appliances and the other manufacturers have 

actually made plans to comply with the revised refrigerator standards. 

Designs have been finalized, equipment purchased, factory construction 

and renovation begun and merchandising programs are under 

development. With the same information that was available to Amana, 

other companies began their compliance efforts. 

Amana's mid-stream effort to change the compliance rules will have 

a significant and anti-competitive impact. Most significantly to GE 

Appliances, foam choices have been made and intemal refrigerator 

volumes have been determined. 

OHA should be under no illusions about what is at the root of 

Amana's poormouthing: This is an attempt to gain an internal volume 

advantage over competitors. As it noted in its initial Application,14 Amana 

has calculated that each cubic foot of lost internal volume means $50 less 

at retail. 

If Amana is correct that use of less-efficient alternative blowing 

agents will require thicker insulation and, therefore, less intemal storage 

volume, all manufacturers will be affected-not just Amana. OHA should 

not unlevel that playing field and give a competitive advantage to Amana. 

(See Exhibit 5, Ken Holland affidavit, attached.) 

Every compliance dollar that Amana saves, if not pocketed by its 

owners, can be sp~nt on sales-enhancing features. No segment of the 

appliances industry is as competitive as refrigerators. These products are 

most often the drivers for other appliance purchases. Giving Amana the 

ability to feature up its models and sell them at similar or even lower prices 

will cause significant dislocation in the industry. 

DOE is under an obligation, as it acknowledged in the preamble to 

the Final Rule, to give "due consideration" to the effects of the relief 

sought by Amana on "competition in the affected markets."15 While 

Amana has magnanimously advised OHA that it does not oppose giving 

exception relief to all manufacturers, that could not cure the competitive 

damage that would be caused by granting relief to Amana. It would come 

too late. GE Appliances cannot send back the equipment it has ordered 

See p. 5 of Amana's February 18, 1999 Application for Exception. 

62 Fed.Reg.23109(1997). 

13 

- -- ... 
or undo the investments it.has made. Nor can the environmental

consequences of relaxing the standards be overcome. (See Exhibit 2,

Cosgrove affidavit.)

None of this was contemplated in the parties' consensus

agreement that resulted in the Final Rule. The only concerns that the trap

door provision was intended to address was the potential unavailability of

HFC-245fa because of toxicity or insufficient production quantities or the

unavailability of comparable products. Since these concerns have been

resolved, the trap door has permanently closed.

Vlll. Conclusion

As we have seen above, none of the conditions contemplated in the

Final Rule has affected Amana. AlliedSignal is collecting data to support a

favorable HFC-245fa GRAS determination. Amana has been offered its

HFC-245fa production requirements for a period of at least six years, so

quantity is not a problem. In any event, replacement products in

combinations of improved efficiency components, cabinet redesign and

other foam choices, even if less efficient than HFC-245fa, can achieve

compliance with the revised standards.

GE Appliances will achieve compliance on schedule with products

that will meet the needs of the overwhelming number of consumers.

Other manufacturers are prepared to do the same. It's time for

Amana to join the industry as a full partner and society as a responsible

corporate citizen ready to live up to obligations it knowingly undertook.

The industry, the Department and all the stakeholders have spent enough

time on the 2001 refrigerator rule. Almost half of the industry opposes the

petition16. It's time to move on. Amana should withdraw its petition. But if

it does not, OHA must deny it. GE Appliances hopes that OHA will do so.

In all events, given the importance of this matter GE must preserve its

right to pursue all options for appeal, should that be necessary..

For all the above reasons, GE Appliances respectfully requests that

OHA deny the relief sought by Amana's Application.

16 Maytag has also filed comments opposing Amana's petition . See March 1999, comments filed by

Maytag Corporation. GE's and Maytag 's refrigerator manufactured share is 48 %. Appliance

Manufacturer, April 1999.

14

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 346

or undo the investments ithas made. Nor can the environmental 

consequences of relaxing the standards be overcome. (See Exhibit 2, 

Cosgrove affidavit.) 

None of this was contemplated in the parties' consensus 

agreement that resulted in the Final Rule. The only concerns that the trap 

door provision was intended to address was the potential unavailability of 

HFC-245fa because of toxicity or insufficient production quantities or the 

unavailability of comparable products. Since these concerns have been 

resolved, the trap door has permanently closed. 

VIII. Conclusion 

As we have seen above, none of the conditions contemplated in the 

Final Rule has affected Amana. AJliedSignal is collecting data to support a 

favorable HFC-245fa GRAS determination. Amana has been offered its 

HFC-245fa production requirements for a period of at least six years, so 

quantity is not a problem. In any event, replacement products in 

combinations of improved efficiency components, cabinet redesign and 

other foam choices, even if less efficient than HFC-245fa, can achieve 

compliance with the revised standards. 

GE Appliances will achieve compliance on schedule with products 

that will meet the needs of the overwhelming number of consumers. 

Other manufacturers are prepared to do the same. It's time for 

Amana to join the industry as a full partner and society as a responsible 

corporate citizen ready to live up to obligations it knowingly undertook. 

The industry, the Department and all the stakeholders have spent enough 

time on the 2001 refrigerator rule. Almost half of the industry opposes the 

. petition 16. It's time to move on. Amana should withdraw its petition. But if 

it does not, aHA must deny it. GE Appliances hopes that aHA will do so. 

In all events, given the importance of this matter GE must preserve its 

right to pursue all options for appeal, should that be necessary .. 

For all the above reasons, GE Appliances respectfully requests that 

OHA deny the relief sought by Amana's Application. 

16 Maytag has also filed comments opposing Amana's petition. See March 1999, comments filed by 

May tag Corporation. GE's and May tag's refrigerator manufactured share is 48%. Appliance 

Manufacturer, April 1999. 

14 
Please contact the undersigned if you require additional information. By

my signature below I certify that I have complied with the requirements of the

OHA regulation, 10 C.F.R. § 1003.23(d).

cc: Alan F. Kessler, Amana Appliances

15

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 346

Please contact the under~igned if you require additional information. By 

my signature below I certify that ~ have complied with the requirements of the 

OHA regulation, 10 C.F.R. § 1003.23(d). 

~~'"'-l submitted 

cc: Alan F. Kessler, Amana Appliances 

15 

'. -
P.U. Bas 1053

MMTili,Qwn, NJ U7962- 1 05 3

Marlin E. Dekk.ers

Vice Prrsidcnt & Gener2l Muurr

Fluorine Produc

April 29. 1999

Mr. Charles A. Samuels

Government Relations Counsel

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers

701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Suite 900

Washington, D.C. 20004

Via Fax: (202) 434-7400

Re: HFC-245fa

Dear Mr. Samuels:

It has been approximately one month since our last AlliedSigna lAppliance Industry

meeting was held here at our site in Morristown, New Jersey. Since that time

AlliedSignal has focused it's efforts on various issues related to HFC-245fa. I would like

to take this opportunity to update the appliance industry on those efforts. Please

disseminate this correspondence to each appliance manufacturer for their individual

review.

PREMANUFACTURE NOTICE gTPD

Prior to the commercial manufacture and sale of a new chemical substance, the United

States Environmental Protection Agency's (US EPA) Office of Pollution Prevention and

Toxic Substances requires that a PMN be submitted and approved for the chemical

substance in question. With respect to HFC-2 tSfa, AffiedSignal submitted a PMN to the'

US EPA on March 26, 1999.

Recieved Time ADr-30 • 4:58PM

EXHIBIT 1

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 346

lluijn E. Delclr..ers 

Vice Prc::si<lcnC a: Gt:nen.l M~r 

fluoriDe Pt~ 

Mr. Charles A. Samuels 

Government Relations Counsel 

p.U. &11: 1053 

Morn",rown., NJ 07%2·1053 

April 29. 1999 

.. 

A&~ciatiotl of Home Appliant.::e Manufacturers 

701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Suite 900 

Washington. D.C. 20004 

Vis. Fax: (202) 434-7400 

Re: HFC';14Sfa 

Dear Mr. Samuels: 

It has been approximately one month since our last All iedS ignalJ Appliance Industry 

meeting was held here at our site in Morristown, New 1ersey. Since that time 

AlliedSignal has focu..c;ed it's efforts on various issues related to HFC-245fa. I would like 

to take this opportunity to update the appliance industry on those efforts. Please 

disseminate this correspondence to each appliance manufacturer for their individual 

review. 

PREMANUFACTliRE NOTICE (PMN) 

Prior to the commercial manufacture and sale of a new chemical substance. the United 

StAtes EnvironmenfAl Protection Agency·s (US EPA) Officc of Pollution Prevention and 

Toxi~ Substances requires that a PMN be submitted and approved for the clu:mical . . 

substance in question. With respect to HFC-24.Sfa. Alli.edSignai £ubmitted III PMN to the' 

US EPA on March 26, 1999. . 

. - - . .' 

. - ....... , ...... , .. .;. - ., . 

- .. 
-2-

SIG;rTF1CAN7 INEW ALTERI ATIVES POLICY (SNAP) PROGRAM

Under section 612 of the Clean Air Act, the US EPA established the SNAP program. The

SNAP program, which makes decisions on a particular substitute in a particular end use

within a larger sector, is administered by the US EPA's Office of Air and Radiation. On

March 26, 1999 AlliedSignal petitioned the US EPA to approve HFC-245fa as, among

other thing3, an acceptable substitute for HCFC-14]b in appliancc rigid polyurethane

foam.

GENERALLY REGARDED AS SAFE (GRAS) PETITION

During our meeting of last month is was asked of AlliedSigral when the HFC-245fa

toxicological data would be published in, a peer review journal. This step, of course, is

needed for completion of the GRAS petition process. I have learned from Dr. George

Rusch, AlliedSignal's toxicologist working on HFC-245fa, that a manuscript was

completed by him and submitted to the journal "Toxicological Sciences" on December 21,

1998. Dr. Rusch has informed me that the journal has accepted the manuscript for

publication, however, they have asked for some minor edits. This editing process should

be complete within the next month, at which point the final draft will be resubmitted to the

journal for publication. I am told, however, that once the final draft is complete it can be

cited as reference in the GRAS process even before publication because the journal has

already accepted the manuscript.

SEME-COMNfLF-RCZAL EFC-245fa

As you know, AlliedSignal currently has HFC-245fa pilot plant manufacturing capacity at

our Buffalo Research Laboratory (BRL). The BRL pilot plant was not designed,

however, to be an economical source of supply for customers; it's main function is as a

tool to develop viable manufacturing processes . As such, AlliedSignal is working

diligently to establish a semi-commercial program that would yield the ability to

manufacture up to one million pounds of HFC-245fa annually and sell that product in the

512.00/pound to $ 15.00/pound range prior to our commercial plant coming on line.

While not yet finalized , we have made significant progress in this area and hope to

introduce this option to our global customers in the next three to six months. While not

initiated specifically for the North American appliance industry , this semi-commercial

program would certainly offer appliance manufacturers a lower priced and larger source

for sample/trial material.

Recievel Time Apr-30- 4:58PM

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 346

·2· 

SIGi'lUlCA~, NEW AL TER"lA TfVES POLICY (SNAP) PROGRA..'\.l 

Under section 612 of the Clean Air Act, rut: US EPA establ~d the SNAP program. The 

SNAP program, which makes decisions on a particular substirute in a particular end use 

within a larger sc:::tor, is administererl by the US EPA's Offic.t: of Air and Radiation. On 

March 26, 1999 AllierlSignal petitioned tlle US EPA to approve HFC-245fa as, among 

other thing3, aD accept!!.ble sub:stitute for HCFC-14Jb in applia.m:.c rigid pclyurt:thanc: 

foam. 

GE~""ERULY REGARDED AS SAFE (GRAS) PETITION 

DurJlg our meeting of last month is was asked of A11iedSignal when the HFC-245fa 

toxicological data would be published in a peer review jo~. This step, of course, is 

needed for completion of the GRAS petition process. I have learned from Dr. George 

Rusch, AJJiedSignal's toxicologist working on HFC-245fa. tha[ a manuscripc was 

completed by him and submitted to the journal "Toxicological Sciences" on December 21. 

1998. Dr. Rusch has informed me that the journal has accep~ the manuscript for 

publication, however. they have asked for some minor edits. This editing process should 

be complete with..iD the next month, at which point the .fio.al draft will be resubmitted to the 

journal for publication. I am told, however. that once the final draft is complete it can be 

cited as reference in the GRAS process even before publication because the journal has 

already accepted the manuscript. 

SEJdI·COMMERCIAL HFC-14Sfa 

As you know I All.iedSignal currently has HFC-24Sfa pilot plant manufacturing capacity at 

our Buffalo Research Laboratory (BRL). The BRL pilot plant was not designed. 

however, to be an economical source of supply for customers; it's main function is as a 

tool to develop viable manufacturing processes. As such. AlliedSignal is working .. 

diligently to establish a semi-commercial program that would yield the ability to 

manufacture up to one million pounds of HFC·245fa annually and sell that product in the 

$12.00/pound to $15.00/pound range prior to our commercial plant coming on liDe. 

While not yet finalized. we have made significant progress in this area and hope to 

introduce this option to our global customers in the next three to six. months. While not 

Uritiatx:d sp~itically for me North American appliance industry. this semi-cotrunercial . 

program would certainly offer appliance manufactnrers a lower priced and larger source 

for sample/trial material. 

- .. , -
-3-

AlliedSLgnaIBAYER MEETING AND FLNAL fiFC-245fa PROPOSAL

You will recall that, at the end of last month's meeting, it was suggested that AlliedSignal

attempt to restructure the AlliedSignallBayer patent license agreement. This-suggestion

was made by the appliance industry in hopes of closing the gap between AlliedSignal's

final proposal a.nd the industry's final proposal. We have been unsuccessful in this

attempt. As such, AiliedSignal is not in a position to pass along a lower priced proposal

to the appliance industry.

Our final proposal is summarized below , You will see that we have reconsidered our

position on a price commitment for additional volume above the " take or pay " volume.

Additionally, we have comidcred all of the additional points raised in the industry's letter

of March 15, 1999 . Our final offer should now be considered as follows:

Term

• A six year contract term.

Volume

• An industry aggregate 15.0 million pound annual "take or pay" commitment.

Price

• $3.25/pound selling price for the "take or pay" volume.

• The selling price of $3.251pound is a base price. This base price to be adjusted,

up or down, on a semi-annual basis tied to labor , utilities, and raw materials.

The base year for this semi-annual adjustment will be 1999.

• AlliedSignal will provide each participating appliance manufacturer, at the

appliance manufacturers option, up to an additional 15 % more HFC-2 45 fa

above their "take or pay" volume on an an.nual basis at $3.25/pound (adjusted

as per above).

• The "pay- portion of the "take or pay" will be the fixed cost portion of both the

HCC-244fa plant and the HFC-245fa plant plus an appropriate return.

• Prices in this proposal do not include delivery freight.

Recievei.Tiae ADr.30• 4:58PM

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 346

-JAllie<ISignaJ/BA YER :MEETING: A..~ FL'iAL lIFC·24Sfa PROPOSAL 

You will recall thAt, at the end of last month's meeting, it was suggested tlut AliicdSign.al 

attempt to restrucrurc the AlliedSign.alJBayer patent license agreement. This_suggestion 

was made by the appliance industr"j in hopes of closing the gap ber,veen AllicrlS ignal' 3 

final propo:sal and the: i.ndu:st:ry'~ tin.al proposal. We have been unsuccessful in this 

attempt. As such. AlliedSignal is Dot in a position to pass aJong a lower priced proposal 

to the applia.nce industry. 

OUr final proposal is summarized below. You will see that we have reconsidered our 

position on a price commianent for additional volwne above the "take or pay" volume. 

Additionally. we ha.ve coruidcred all of the additional points ni&ed in the industry's l.et~ 

of 1ot!arch 15. 1999. Our fUJ.al offer should DOW be considered as follows: 

Term 

• A six. year contract term. 

Volume 

Price 

• An industry a~crregate 15.0 million pound annual "~ke or pay" c.ommitment. 

.. $3.25/pound selling price for the Mrake or pay" volume. 

• The selling price of S3.25/paund is a base price. This base price to be adjusted. 

up or down, on a semi-annual basis tied to labor. UtilitiC3. and raw materials. 

The base year for this semi-annual adjustment will be 1999. 

• AlliedSignal will provide each participating appliance manufacturer, at Ule . 

appliancc manufactuTcr"s option, up to an additional lS % more HFC·24Sra· 

above their .. tab: or pay" volume on an annual basis at S3.25/pound (adjuSted 

as pet' above). 

• The "pay" portion of me .. take or pay" will be the fUed cost portion of both the 

HCC-240fa plant and the HFC-24Sfa plant plus an appropriate return. 

• Prices in this proposal do not include delivery freight. 

R~cleved. Tiae ADr.30. 4:58PM 

--

'. -
-4-

Other Items

• A most favored nations provision will be provided. This provision will be

designed to extend a significant advantage to those appliance tnanufacnirers who

sign up for volume under this proposal versus those appliance manufacturers

who do not sign up for this proposal and may choose to purchase HFC-245fa

from AlliedSignal at a latter date.

• If a workable mechanism can be developed and incorporated into contract form,

AlliedSignal will allow each participating appliance manufacturer to transfer all,

or a portion, of its "take or pay" commitment to another participating appliance

manufacturer.

• AllicdSignal will allow each participating appliances manufacturer to terminate

an appropriate portion of its "take or pay" commitment should United States,

Foreign. or International regulation directly prohibit the use of HFC-245fa as a

blowing agent.

Any agreement between the appliance industry and AlliedSignal is subject to

AlliedSignal's senior management review. As such, the above proposal should not be

considered a formal offer at this time.

If the appliance industry derides to pursue this proposal, please advise either Brian

Strauss, Guy Broadbent, or myself prior to the end of business on Friday, May 7th so that

contracts may be drawn up in a timely manner. If the appliance industry chooses not to

pursue this proposal AlliedSignal will cease this industry wide negotiation effort and turn

it's attention to individual negotiations. I should tell you that if this industry wide process

ends in no agreement on HFC-245fa it is AlliedSignal's belief that there is sufficient

demand, at an appropriate price point, with certain appliance manufacturers to proceed

under a smaller plant scale scenario . As such, AlliedSignal remains confident that

commercial HFC-245fa will become a reality.

Again, please distribute this communication to each appliance manufacturer for

their individual review. If any questions should arise regarding this matter. please feel

free to contact Brian Strauss (973-455-3187), Guy Broadbent (973-455-2665), or me (973

455-2124) at any time. Thank you.

Very truly yours,

Recieved Time ADr.30. 4:58PM T

OTAL. P-05

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 346

-4-

Other Items 

• A most favored nations provision will be provideC. This provision will be 

desig:nai to extend a sl1!nificant advantage to those applia.nce manufactl.lIcrs who 

sign up for volume under this proposal versus those appliance mAnufacturers 

whu do not sign up for this proposal aod may choose to purchltsc: HFC-24Sfa 

from AUiedSiena1 aC a latter date. 

• If a workable mechanism can be developed and ir..corporat.ed iDeo contract form, 

AlliedSignaI will allow ~ch participating appl~ manufacturer to transfer all, 

or a portion. of its "'take or pay" CDmmitm.ent to another participating applimce 

manufacturer. 

• AlliedSignal will allow each participating appI.ian.ce maoufacturer to terminate 

an appropriate portion of its ytake or pay" commitmeot ~hould Unjted Sutes, 

ForetiD. or International regulation directly prohibit the use of HFC-245fa as a 

blowing agent. 

Any aa,reeme.nt between the appliance industry and AlliedSiinal is subject to 

AlliedSignal's senior management review. As such, the above proposal should not be 

consIdered a formal offer at rhis time. 

If the appliance industry de::i.des to pursue this proposal, please advise either Brian 

Sn-auss. Guy Broadbent. or myself prior to the end of busjness on Friday. May 7th so that 

contracts may be draWD up in a timely manner. If the appliance industry chooses Dot to 

pursue this proposal AlliedSignal will cease this industry wlde negotiation effort and turn 

It"s arumcton to individual negotiations. I should tell you that if this industry wide process 

ends in DO aareement o.n HFC~24Sfa it is AUiedSignal's belief that there is sufficient 

demand, at an appropriate price point, with ceruin app1.Wlce manufacturers to proceed 

under a ~t1c::r plant scale scenario. As such. AIliedSignal rema.i.ns confident that 

commercial HFC-245fa will become a reality. 

Again. please distribute this communication to each appliance manufacturer for 

their individual review. If any questions should arise regarcUng this matter. please feel 

free to contact Brian Scrauss (973-455-3187), Guy Broadbent (973·455·2665), or me (973 

455-2124) at any time. Thank you. 

v cry truly yours. 

df!~ 

Reci!¥!d Time Apr.30. 4:58PM TOTR. P.e5 

- -
Affidavit of James Cosgrove:

James Cosgrove, first being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am employed as General Manager, Refrigeration Technology for GE

Appliances, General Electric Company. My office is located at Appliance Park,

Louisville, Kentucky, which is the headquarters operation of GE Appliances and

the technology center for the appliances business. I am responsible for directing

the technology and engineering effort of the appliances business and have held

this position since May 1998. As relevant to this matter, I am responsible for

overall planning and implementing of the Company's new refrigerator design

program, including the effort to design products that comply with the 2001

Department of Energy (DOE) efficiency standards.

2. I file this affidavit in opposition to the Exception Petition filed by Amana

Appliances that seeks relief of 10% from the 2001 refrigerator energy-efficiency

standards through 2009. GE Appliances is committed to achieving compliance

with the new standard and has begun a full design effort to manufacture

compliant models well in time for the effective date of the standard. Based on my

knowledge of the options available to achieve the required improvements,

including the advances made in energy-efficient components, cabinet redesign

options and available foam blowing agents, it is inconceivable that Amana cannot

cost-effectively design and manufacture refrigerators that meet regulatory

requirements.

3. I have read the affidavit of Alan Kessler, Amana's Vice-President for

Engineering & Quality. I agree with Mr. Kessler that blowing agent choice is the

most important building block of a compliance program. As noted by Mr. Kessler

there is a wide range of blowing agent choices. Once the blowing agent has

been selected, its energy performance will determine the performance

requirements of compressors, motors and other components, what changes to

cabinet design might promote compliance, and what foam thickness is

necessary.

4. I disagree, however, with Mr. Kessler's conclusion that Amana's choice of

cyclopentane puts them so far behind in the effort to attain a 30% efficiency

improvement that they require 10% relief. Without understating the difficulty of

the challenge and the need for a strong engineering staff, an appliance company

of Amana's size should have the resources to implement a technically and

economically feasible compliance program.

5. The fact that some solutions identified by Amana may require thicker

insulation and a consequent loss of internal storage volume , should not be a

basis for exception relief: Any volume loss would affect equally all manufacturers

that have not chosen HFC-245fa; and can be avoided altogether if high-efficiency

components are added. While such components are costly, this approach

EXHIBIT 2

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 346

- Affidavit of James Cosgrove: 

James Cosgrove, first being duly sworn, deposes and says: 

1. I am employed as General Manager, Refrigeration Technology for GE 

Appliances, General Electric Company. My office is located at Appliance Park, 

Louisville, Kentucky, which is the headquarters operation of GE Appliances and 

the technology center for the appliances business. I am responsible for directing 

the technology and engineering effort of the appliances business and have held 

this position since May 1998. As relevant to this matter, I am responsible for 

overall planning and implementing of the Company's new refrigerator design 

program, including the effort to design products that comply with the 2001 

Department of Energy (DOE) efficiency standards. 

2. I file this affidavit in opposition to the Exception Petition filed by Amana 

Appliances that seeks relief of 10% from the 2001 refrigerator energy-efficiency 

standards through 2009. GE Appliances is committed to achieving compliance 

with the new standard and has begun a full design effort to manufacture 

compliant models well in time for the effective date of the standard. Based on my 

knowledge of the options available to achieve the required improvements, 

including the advances made in energy-efficient components, cabinet redesign 

options and available foam blowing agents, it is inconceivable that Amana cannot 

cost-effectively design and manufacture refrigerators that meet regulatory 

requirements. 

3. I have read the affidavit of Alan Kessler, Amana's Vice-President for 

Engineering & Quality. I agree with Mr. Kessler that blowing agent choice is the 

most important building block of a compliance program. As noted by Mr. Kessler 

there is a wide range of blowing agent choices. Once the blowing agent has 

b~en selected, its energy performance will determine the performance 

requirements of compressors, motors and other components, what changes to 

cabinet design might promote compliance, and what foam thickness is 

necessary. 

4. I disagree, however, with Mr. Kessler'S conclusion that Amana's choice of 

cyclopentane puts them so far behind in the effort to attain a 30% efficiency 

improvement that they require 10% relief. Without understating the difficulty of 

the challenge and the need for a strong engineering staff, an appliance company 

of Amana's size should have the resources to implement a technically and 

economically feasible compliance program. 

5. The fact that some solutions identified by Amana may require thicker 

insulation and a consequent loss of intemal storage volume, should not be a 

basis for exception relief: Any volume loss would affect equally all manufacturers . 

that have not chosen HFC-245fa; and can be avoided altogether if high-efficiency 

components are added. While such components are costly, this approach 

EXHIBIT 2 
requires less manufacturer cost, or investment, than needed to use

cyclopentane. ,

6. In an effort to evaluate the cost impact of the various alternatives available

to Amana, DOE should seek from Amana data from which total unit cost can be

calculated. This information would enable DOE to assess the relative impact on

Amana of the various compliance options available to determine if the cost of

cyclopentane is as prohibitive as claimed. Given the competitive impact of

granting exception relief to Amana, DOE should consider retaining AD Little or

another consultant to do an independent analysis of their claims.

7. GE Appliances is well into its redesign effort. The choice of blowing agent

was finalized more than a one year ago. Although the final locations of some

production have not been decided (see paragraph 11, infra) designs, including

cabinet dimensions and components, have also been finalized. Factories have

been designed. Equipment has been specified and purchase orders have been

issued. To date, GE Appliances has committed f the more than

required to implement the new refrigerator program. We have gone

•^ far down the road to benefit from exception relief that Amana suggests

should be extended to the entire industry. In fact, extending relief to our other

competitors would only exacerbate the competitive injury that would result from

granting relief to Amana.

8. Other manufacturers have also begun their energy compliance programs.

According to published reports, Frigidaire is investing up to $100 million at its

Anderson SC plant and $80 million in a new facility in Greenville Ml. Both

projects will receive significant incentives from state governments. (See

Attachment A, 1 & 2.) Whirlpool has indicated that it already manufactures

refrigerators that exceed today's standards by 30%. Clearly it has no need for

relief. (See Attachment A 3.)

9. The potential adverse environmental consequences of granting exception

relief are additional reasons why such relief should be denied. If such relief is

granted to Amana and extended to all the industry, approximately .8 quads of

electricity-savings will be lost. According to recent reports, reductions in

appliance energy use have accounted, in part, for the continued reductions in

U.S. C02 emissions even though economic activity has increased. (See

Attachment B.) Any move to relax standards , especially those that have already

been "banked ," will cause unnecessary pressure on growth and could escalate

political conflict over global warming issues.

10. Mr. Kessler refers to GE Appliances' minority ownership in a joint venture

in Mexico , and the fact that HCFC•141 b-containing products can continue to be

lawfully imported into the U.S., as an additional reason Amana should be granted

exception relief, In fact, GE Appliances' Mexican interests are not relevant to this

proceeding. First, although the Company announced to its Louisville , KY. unions

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 346

requires less manufacturer cost. or investment. than needed to use 

cyclopentane. 

6. In an effort to evaluate the cost impact of the various alternatives available 

to Amana, DOE should seek from Amana data from which total unit cost can be 

calculated. This information would enable DOE to assess the relative impact on 

Amana of the various compliance options available to determine if the cost of 

cyclopentane is as prohibitive as claimed. Given the competitive impact of 

granting exception relief to Amana, DOE should consider retaining AD Little or 

another cons~ltant to do an independent analysis of their claims. 

7. GE Appliances is well into its redesign effort. The choice of blowing agent 

was finalized more than a one year ago. Although the final locations of some 

production have not been decided (see paragraph 11, infra) designs, including 

cabinet dimensions and components, have also been finalized. Factories have 

been designed. Equipment has been specified and orders have been 

issued. To date, GE Appliances has committed f the more than 

~equired to implement the new refri r program. We have gone 

too far down the road to benefit from exception relief that Amana suggests 

should be extended to the entire industry. In fact. extending relief to our other 

competitors would only exacerbate the competitive injury that would result from 

granting relief to Amana. 

8. Other manufacturers have also begun their energy compliance programs. 

According to published reports, Frigidaire is investing up to $100 million at its 

Anderson SC plant and $80 million in a new facility in Greenville MI. Both 

projects will receive significant incentives from state govemments. (See 

Attachment At 1 & 2.) Whirlpool has indicated that it already manufactures 

refrigerators that exceed today's standards by 30%. Clearly it has no need for 

relief. (See Attachment A 3.) 

9. The potential adverse environmental consequences of granting exception 

relief are additional reasons why such relief should be denied. If such relief is 

granted to Amana and extended to all the industry. approximately .5 quads of 

electricity-savings will be lost. According to recent reports. reductions in 

appliance energy use have accounted, in part, for the continued reductions in 

U.S. C02 emissions even though economic activity has increased. (See 

Attachment B.) Any move to relax standards, especially those that have already 

been "banked,· will cause unnecessary pressure on growth and could escalate 

political conflict over global warming issues. 

10. Mr. Kessler refers to GE Appliances' minority ownership in a joint venture 

in Mexico, and the fact that HCFC-141b-containing products can continue to be 

lawfully imported into the U.S., as an additional reason Amana should be granted 

exception relief. In fact, GE Appliances' Mexican interests are not relevant to this 

proceeding. First, althC?ugh the Company announced to its Louisville, KY. unions 

----------- ----
a possible move of Louisville-manufactured units to Mexico, no decision has

been made, nor can one be made, until negotiations are conducted. It is too

early to know whether those negotiations will result in a retention of all or some

manufacturing in Louisville. Second, Louisville is one of three GE refrigerator

production operations. The Company has announced an investment plan for the

Decatur AL plant, which will manufacture small top-mounted freezer 2001

models. No announcements have been made regarding the Bloomington IN

plant, but any decision would also be subject to company-union negotiations.

Finally, all new refrigerators are being designed for compliance with the HCFC141 b phase-out schedule. Thus, if any U.S. production is transferred to Mexico

for re-export, that product will meet EPA standards as if manufactured in the U.S.

11. GE is working with its Mexican partners to convert joint venture Mexican

refrigerator production intended for U.S. export from HCFC-141 b. Thus, any

increased Mexican imports, if provided to GE, will be in full compliance with U.S.

environmental standards as if manufactured in the U.S.

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY )

COUNTY OF JEFFERSON )

AMES COSGROVE

Subscribed, sworn to and acknowledged before me by JAMES

COSGROVE on this the ---- day of 1999.

Notary Public - State-at-Large

My commission expires:

3 -1 -1) 1-)03 O-/

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 346

a possible move of Louisville-manufactured units to Mexico, no decision has 

been made, nor can one be made, until negotiations are conducted. It is too 

early to know whether those negotiations will result in a retention of all or some 

manufacturing in Louisville. Second, Louisville is one of three GE refrigerator 

production operations. The Company has announced an investment plan for the 

Decatur AL plant, which will manufacture small top-mounted freezer 2001 

models. No announcements have been made regarding the Bloomington IN 

plant, but any decision would also be subject to company-union negotiations. 

Finally, all new refrigerators are being designed for compliance with the HCFC141 b phase-out schedule. Thus, if any U.S. production is transferred to Mexico 

for re-export, that product will meet EPA standards as if manufactured in the U.S. 

11. GE is working with its Mexican partners to convert joint venture Mexican 

refrigerator production intended for U.S. export from HCFC-141 b. Thus, any 

increased Mexican imports, if provided to GE, will be in full compliance with U.S. 

environmental standards as if manufacture~. ~~ the u.~ __ 

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY ) 

) 

COUNTY OF JEFFERSON ) 

Subscribed, sworn to and acknowledged before me by JAMES 

COSGROVE on this the /0 #-day of ¥ . 1999. 

~~~~ .. , 

No ary Public - State-at-Large 

My commission expires: 3 - / ~ ~ 0.3 

" -
'rlr:r,da•/, au;uc,

_ M1

Fligid2ira adding flea o7 refriQar tors, jobs 21

plant

Ey ?lacml Sr`/C

Indecent err- :Jail

'

to im:-, a ne'.'v lint'

C in;e r en: to .._ -.: der^en giant.

brand re'.r' - ant.' a::..^..a__. Torn Thom csor,

told a ota: _ iJ reccie a: a s: hedule o announce rent

i nside th e p l ant F da

He told th aroun of Kcal and scat.'. dianItar,es.

including Gov. David Seasley, that the company

will make an initial investment of 545 million and

create 3S jobs. Frigidaire could add as many as 100

jobs in the next five years, although no expansion

of the outside wails is planned.

`Mil C`andier 1nce:ercenr4fad

South Carolina Gov. Cavid Eeasiev, left, T crn

Thompson, plant manager at Frigidaire's Anderson

plant, middle, and Anderson County Ccunc;i

Chairman William Floyd share a laugh.

Under a shroud of secrecy, Electric City trolleys carded local dignitaries from the Anderson County

yirort to the corn any Friday so they wouldn't know ahead of'time where they were going.

In Septembier, Fr,_idaire. under the anonymous name "Company X." got a tax incentive package

from the Anderson County Council. The county offered it the standard 6 percent fee-in-lieu of

taxes, lowering its property tax rate from 10.5 percent. The company also will get a 32,500 state tax

credit per job.

Anderson County Development Partnership director Holly Matheson said Frgidaire officials

wanted to wait to make the announcement until details were finalized and a special ceremony at the

plant could be organized.

Part of the announcement included Mr. Thompson using a pair of scissors to cut off one-third of a

symbolic electric bill. He said the new refrigerators will save customers about 200 kilowatt-hours

per year. Part of the company's investment comes from a federal mandate that manufacturers cut the

energy use of appliances by about 30 percent in July 2001.

Company officials said the new refrigerators, which Frigidaire is calling the "next generation" of

advanced refrigerators, will go beyond the minimum energy standards.

Officials wouldn 't reveal other details on the new refrigerators for competitive reasons, but said the)

http://www.andersonsc.com/archive/newspacre.asp?id=30747 8/9/99

ATTACHMENT Al

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 346

1- _ •• -' \' . . ,.., .--

I· . . - - .. , •.• ," • J 

FrigjoaJre 8od]n!J jjne of rBj]Lgerators]jobs at 

plant 

21 N.Jcmi Sr.,!cer 

I r. cepe r: c e m-M;] i I 

F:--:J:c:'!!~:: E.::.:c p~.~~:..::.::.3 ~·i~n:; to r:-::.::..:= J. nc'.v lirie 

1:[ r::~':-:'::-:;-:':'~'':;-3 :>:;:,.: :.:i"::~ J.~r~ 5 ~(:() ::--::il:·.:r. ·'.VGr:!t 

tole! :.lC()L:[ ~O ;c8~ic! j: :.l ~chc~ulcd anr:.Ollnc~:::c;-:t 

insicc t~i~ pi~~.[ F:-:c.:.:::. 

,,\: : ': : t - , .~ 

.... _ .. ' __ . ' .... ·.1 t· ... 

-,~.- --. -- .-' . . .. : . -'. -.. ~ 

....... , --- -t- ...;::, -- --. -... . - :;;;-,- - . -'. -' .;. 

... . '.... 

'IJiil C~ancler ir.ce:::encenr·Mail 

He tele tl':c ~:-vq or" icC:ll :lrlC Si:Jt~ cigni[:rries. 

inducing Gov. D:lvic be:lsky. th:l[ [he company 

'.vi11 make :lr: ir.iti:J.I ir:ves,ment of 5..;.5 million ::md 

C'~.1[= 35 jeb. Fr:g:c:l::-e could :lCG :lS m:my :lS 100 

jobs in the next fi'le ye:lrs, although no expansion 

of the Jutsice w:J.lls is p!:lnned. 

SCL.:th Carolir.a GO'/. Ca'/ic Beas;ey, left, Ten 

Thcr.ipscn, piar.t mar.age at F;;gicaira's ,l.;-:cerscn 

plant, micc!e, and ,l..-:cerscn CCL.;nt'j CCL.:r.c:i 

Chairman VlJiiliar.i F:cyc! share a laugh. 

Cncer:l shrouc of secrecy, Electric City trolleys c:ll7it!d loc:11 dignit.1ries from the Anderson County 

Air-oort to the cor::::;;.lnV Frid.1v so thev \vouldn't k.'10W :lhe:ld of'time vv'here thev vv'ere going. '" ...." ~ .. -- In Septe:Tlbe:-, Frig:d::l::-e. under the :lnony::neus n.1l7le "Company X." got :l t.1.'<. ince:1tive p:lcbge 

from t!1e :~ .. nce:-son County CounciL Tht! cOL!my offered it tht! standard 6 percent fee-in-lie:.l of 

t.::l.x.es, lowe:-ing its property t4L'<. rate from 10.5 percent. The company also will get a 52,500 state t4L'<. 

credit per job. 

Anderson County Development Partnership director Holly Matheson said Frigidaire officials 

wanted to wait to make the announcement until details were finalized and a special ceremony at the 

plant could be organized. 

Part of the announcement included iYIr. Thompson using a pair of scissors to cut off one-third of a 

symbolic electric bill. He said the new refriger:ltors will save customers about 200 kilowatt-hours 

per year. Part of the company's investment comes from a federal mandate that manufacturers cut the 

energy use of appliances by about 30 percent in July 2001. 

Company officials said the new refrigerators, which Frigidaire is calling the "next generation" of 

advanced refrigerators, will go beyond the minimum energy standards. 

Offici:lls wouldn't reveal other details on the new refrigerators for competitive reasons, but said the) 

http://www.andersonsc.com!archive/newspage.asp?id=30747 8/9/99 

ATTACHMENT Al 
Ivir. Thompson said later that Anderson County suppliers also should benefit from the investment,

but it was to early to say how.

"These are good corporate citizens - they always pay their tax bill early every year," said Bill

Dillard, superintendent of Iva-based Anderson School District 3.

Frigidaire's investment could add hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax revenues to the school

district. The company already pays about $398,000 per year in taxes to the local schools.

Frigidaire Home Products, based in Augusta, Ga., has one other refrigerator manufacturing plant in

Greenville, Mich. Company spokesman Tony Evans said Frigidaire wasn't ready to disclose any

changes in the Michigan plant.

Frigidaire, which competes worldwide with General Electric and Whirlpool, is owned by AB

Electrolux in Stockholm, Sweden. The company makes everything from lawn mowers to Eureka

vacuum cleaners.

Frigidaire Home Products

• based in Augusta, Ga.

• owned by AB Electrolux in Stockholm, Sweden

• has about 15,000 employees in 10 states and Canada

• makes refrigerators, Poulan chain saws, Weed Eater trimmers, Tappan and White-Westinghouse

home appliances, including dishwashers, stoves and air conditioners

In Anderson:

• at 101 Masters Blvd., near BASF Corp., south of Anderson

• employs about 1,200 people

• makes about 4,400 refrigerators per day

• opened about 10 years ago

Home 11 Archive 11 Back

Anderson lndependent--Mall A Scripps Howard Newspaper

_httr Jfwww.andersonsc.comlarchivelnewspage.asp?id=30747 8/9/99

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 346

- Nu. Thompson said later that Anderson County suppliers also should benefit from the investment, 

but it was to early to say how. -

"These are good corporate citizens - they always pay their tax bill early every year," said Bill 

Dillard, superintendent of Iva-based Anderson School District 3. 

Frigidaire's investment could add hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax revenues to the school 

district. The company already pays about $398,000 per year in taxes to the local schools. 

Frigidaire Home Products, based in Augusta, Ga., has one other refrigerator manufacturing plant in 

Greenville, N1ich. Company spokesman Tony Evans said Frigidaire wasn't ready to disclose any 

changes in the N1ichigan plant. 

Frigidaire, which competes worldwide with General Electric and Whirlpool, is owned by AB 

Electrolux in Stockholm, Sweden. The company makes everything from lawn mowers to Eureka 

vacuum cleaners. 

Frigidaire Home Products 

• based in Augusta, Ga. 

• owned by AB Electrolux in Stockholm, Sweden 

• has about 15,000 employees in 10 states and Canada 

• makes refrigerators, Poulan chain saws, Weed Eater trimmers, Tappan and White-Westinghouse 

home appliances, including dishwashers, stoves and air conditioners 

In Anderson: 

• at 101 Masters Blvd., near BASF Corp., south of Anderson 

• employs about 1,200 people 

• makes about 4:,400 refrigerators per day 

• opened about 10 years ago 

Home II Archive" Back 

And.mion IndfIPflnd8llt-MsII A Scripps Haw ard Newspaper 

http-J!www.andersonsc.com/archive/newspage..asp?id=30747 - . . 8/9/99 

- - --

.' 
c

czOq

w

n dair^: to invest $8

Greenville : .,

1 1

Newfleet of products to

be manufactured heir

By ROSEMARY HORVATH

Daily News staff writer.

GRBE ILLlg -- Prigidaire

Home Products announced

Thuraday . il will begin another

century here Investing more than

$80 million over three years in the

plant.

. PHPwill develop and manufacture an altogether new fleet of

products to meet federal energy ! capadty lop-freezer refrigerators

standards by 2001. Energy will bet are produced here. The balance of

reduced by 30 percent or more products'*. is . produced . In

than 200kWH per .year. Rip's: Anderson,' S.C.i. where . a .similar

parent company is AD Electrolux I Investment was made... .

of Sweden. -Offtctils-representing, manage.

The product and factory,I went, employee unions, state and

redesign includes - new produc- local governments got a preview

t The Daily News

million`in

of the Next Generation project at

company headquarters Thursday.

Mike Kern, a Greenville native, is

New Generation project leader.

Topper described the investment as essentially creating a

brand-new factory operation

within the existing facility. He

projected annual output would be

remain at the current one million,

. And: by streamlining and

adding advanced equipment, the

operation will continue to operate

with its current work force of

2,000. But unlike previous fluctuations, employment levels will

Terpaln stable, he said.

- Thursday's announcement culminated months of negotiations

and assessments. Slate and local

governments offered a package of

financial incentives and job training funds. Included is a proposed

50 percent reduction in personal

property tax abatements from the

City of Greenville and training

grants from the Michigan Jobs

Commission.

Greenville City Manager

George Bosanic said the process

for granting tax abatement will

begin at the next City Council

meeting. Final approval is made

by the State Tax Commission.

State Rep. Larry DeVuryst, 93rd

District-Alma, told the group

some people had the feeling of

walking on thin ice knowing the

company was considering pulling

nut of the state.

Topper said several locations

were considered, such as merging

with the Anderson plant, moving

to another state yr country. .

January 22, 1999

Hon -lines, fabrication areas and

more streamlined and efficient

manufacturing processes, said

fill Topper, vice president .and

general manager, Greenville factory..

"Me transition is the largest

project undertaken in (he 100-

year-plus history of the factory,"

Topper said.

Ninety percent of the research

and'-design for Frigidaire's two

refrisetator Iactpries is based in

Greenville. Side-by-side and large

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 346

:Fr.g idai r~::~o i'nv~st_ $80':~m_i 1,1_i o~ ~ ~ ~ . .-

C1> 

-< 

C1> 

>- • c: 

-

.: , 

.. 8 • 

\. ~ . F.', 

. , ..... > " ~~~<." 

,',', " 

...... --..--:- ,-. ....:..--~----:---:-:- :, 

Greenvllle:; 

• Neru fl~et Of products to 

be mnnufachlred lte,-e 

By ROSEMARV HORVATH 

D!lly News stiff writer. 

Uon 'Ui1es, fabrication areas and 

more streamllned and efficient 

manufacturing processes, said 

Bill Topper, vice president ,and 

generN manager, GreenviUe fac:-

tory .. " , , 

'GRImNVILttt _ Frigidaire "The transition is the largest' 

Home Products announced project undertaken In the 100-

n.ur,day.iI wIU begin another year-pt~ history of t1te (actory," 

cenlUry here lnvelting more than Topper itaJd. . 

$80 mlllJon over tluft years in the Nln'ely percent of the rese:Uch 

plant. ando·~esign for Frigidaire's hvo 

o FHPwlU develop and manufac- refrig~rator Jad()ries is based in 

lure an altogether new fleet of Gree!,ville. Side·by-:slde and Jarge 

products 10 meet federal energy', capadty lop-freezer refrigerators 

.tanduds by 2001. 'Energy wlU be Ire produced hf!t'e. Jh,e balance of 

reduced by 30 percent or more produces-,. is. producei:l ,.In 

ahln 200kWH per .year. 1tHP'.~ Anderso~·S,C,t:,\'lhere.1 .s~lar 

parent company Is ~O Blectro[ux' investment was n\a~~. , , ' . 

of Sweden. 0 • I 'Offldbls'~presentlng,manageThe product lind factop'I mept, elhployee UNOM, 'laloe and 

redesign includes . flew produc- local goye,mmenh gol 4 previe\y . - a : 

The Dally News 

... , 

of the Next Generation project at ing funds. lncluded b It proposed 

company headquarters Thursday, 50 percent reductJon in personal 

Mike Kern, a Greenville native" is property tax abatements from the 

New Generalfo~ project leader. City of Greenville and training 

Topper described the Invest- grants from the MichJgan Jobs 

ment as essentlaJly creating a Commissl,on. 

brand-new fllclory operation Greenville. elly Manager, 

within the existing fllcHily, He George BOlanic saJd the process 

projected annual output would be . lor granting lax abatement will 

remain at the current one mUlion. begin Ilt the next City Cnuncil 

, And: by ~lreamllning and meeting. Final approval ~s made 

adding advanced equipment, the by the State Tax CommisslOn. 

operation will continue 10 operate State Rep. Lany DeVuyst, 93rd 

with Us rurrent work force \l{ District-AIm., tord the group 

2,000. Out unlike .pre~ous fluctu- some people had the feeling of 

.tlo~. ePlployment levels will walking on thin ire knOWing the. 

TelJlaln JIAb)e~ he said. " _ company was considering pulling 

, Thursday's annpunrement cul- out of the state. " 

mln.ted months of negotiatioN Topper &ald' leveral (~tioni 

and assessments. Slate and local were considered, such as merging 

governments offered a package of with the Anderson planf, moving 

llnandal incentiv~8 and job train- to another state pr country. ' 

. January 22~ 1099 
Whirlpool WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION HONORED FOR

Ncws ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Whirlpool's leadership in env ronmen i tal Relations

stewardship and as a producer of energy efficiency

Carver products has recently been acknowledged with a

opportunities prestigious award from the Alliance to Save Energy

(ASE).

Site Llap The Alliance to Save Energy is a non-profit

coalition of prominent business, government,

environmental and consumer leaders who promote

the efficient and clean use of energy worldwide to

benefit the environment, the economy and national

security.

This ASE award is one of three prestigious 'Star of Energy Efficiency' awards and

recognizes Whirlpool for outstanding contribution achieving and promoting costeffective energy efficiency. More specifically, this award recognizes Whirlpool's

support in both environmental public policy and providing environmentally

responsible products for consumers.

"Environmentally, Whirlpool has been at the forefront of the appliance industry,'

said David Nemtzow, president of the Alliance to Save Energy. 'hey have helped

raise the bar for environmental regulations and public policy and have been

innovative in their development of products that conserve resources, namely the

SERP refrigerator and the Resource Saver washing machine.'

The Alliance has also recently commented in their' Associates Bulletin' that

`Whirlpool's focus on quality and saving energy has made it an industry leader and

outstanding corporate citizen.'

Senator Jeff Bingaman recently wrote that 'Whirlpool's energy-efficient products

and your work educating the public and policy makers about energy efficiency

highlights your commitment to energy efficiency and helps ensure that we preserve

our environment, create jobs, and save money for consumers.'

In addition to the above Alliance award, Whirlpool has won a series of energy

efficiency and environmental awards in the recent past and has demonstrated its

commitment to preserving our precious finite natural resources. The following are

examples of those awards and that commitment.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)

recently named Whirlpool its 'Appliance

Partner of the Year.' This honor is

bestowed for Whirlpool's support of

Energy Star, a DOE program that has

developed standards for energy

consumption, through educational

efforts and new product introductions.

'Whirlpool prides itself on leading

energy-efficiency standards in our

industry,' said Mike Thieneman,

executive vice president of Whirlpool

North American Region. 'It's very

gratifying for our efforts in product

development and environmental

.ittpJlwww.,x,hirlpmlcorp.com/whr/lestenergy.htmI ATTACHMENT A3 8/9/99

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 346 -

IM--PORTANT 

COMPANY STUFF 

Whirl~Qol 

~h:ws 

WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION HONORED FOR 

ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

lnve~tQr 

R.lilUons 

Cilner 

OpportunmttS 

Whirlpool's leadership in environmental 

stewardship and as a producer of energy efficiency 

products has recently been acknowledged with a 

prestigious award from the Alliance to Save Energy 

(ASE). 

Site lila!) The Alliance to Save Energy is a non-profit 

coalition of prominent business, government, 

environmental and consumer leaders who promote 

the efficient and clean use of energy worldwide to 

benefit the environment, the economy and national 

security. 

This ASE award is one of three prestigious "Star of Energy Efficiency· awards and 

recognizes Whirlpool for outstanding contribution achieving and promoting costeffective energy efficiency. More specifically, this award recognizes Whirlpool's 

support in both environmental public policy and providing environmentally 

responsible products for consumers. 

"Environmentally, Whirlpool has been at the forefront of the appliance industry,' 

said David Nemtzow, president of the Alliance to Save Energy. "They have helped 

raise the bar for environmental regulations and public policy and have been -

innovative in their development of products that conserve resources, namely the 

SERP refrigerator and the Resource Saver washing machine.· 

The Alliance has also recently commented in their "Associates Bulletin" that 

"Whirlpool's focus on quality and saving energy has made it an industry leader and 

outstanding corporate citizen." 

Senator Jeff Bingaman recently wrote that Whirlpool's energy-efficient products 

and your work educating the public and policy makers about energy efficiency 

highlights your commitment to energy efficiency and helps ensure that we preserve 

our environment, create jobs, and save money for consumers.· 

In addition to the above Alliance award, Whirlpool has won a series of energy 

efficiency and environmental awards in the recent past and has demonstrated its 

commitment to preserving our precious finite natural resources. The fol/owing are 

examples of those awards and that commitment. 

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 

recently named Whirlpool its • Appliance 

Partner of the Year: This honor is 

bestowed for Whirlpool's support of 

Energy Star, a DOE program that has 

developed standards for energy 

consumption, through educational 

efforts and new product introductions. 

'Whirlpool prides itself on leading 

energy-efficiency standards in our 

industry,· said Mike Thieneman, 

executive vice president of Whirlpool -

North American Region. -Irs very --

gratifying for our efforts in product 

de~~lopment and environmental 

. http://w.ww.whirlpoolcorp.com!whrlicslenergy.html ATTAC~ENT A3 

-.... -- ... -- -

-

8/9/99 
award's."

c-.

SERP Refrigerator - In 1993, Whirlpool

won the top prize in the $30 million 'Super

Efficient Refrigerator Project' (SERP)

contest sponsored by a coalition of U.S.

public and private utility companies to

develop a super-efficient refrigerator.

Whirlpool's SERP refrigerator had the best

energy efficiency levels of any refrigerator

of its kind in the market. In 1995, Whirlpool

introduced a second generation of SERP

units with energy efficiency exceeding DOE

standards by up to 30 percent.

- Resource SaverTM Wash

System -- In 1998, Whirlpool

announced the introduction of the

Resource Saver Wash System, a

high-efficiency, top-loading

washing machine with a spray

rinse system and water

temperature sensor that reduces

energy consumption by up to 56

percent and water usage by up to

47 percent, compared to

Whirlpool's deep fill and rinse

washers. This is the industry's first

and only top-loading washer to

receive the Energy Star

designation and Good

Housekeeping's Best Buys for

1998.

erica, Europe, China and India.

production in North America, South

iripool has ceased CFC-refrigerator

scientists have determined that CFC

emissions can damage the ozone layer,

rom escaping into the atmosphere. Since

engineers developed a groundbreaking

CFC reclamation process used in the repair

of older refrigerators, thus preventing CFCs

CFC Reclamation Process - Whirlpool

t are more than 95 percent recyclable.

the development of a washer and dryer

Europe. a new product-design tool called

Eco-Design has been implemented to assist

Recyclable Washer and Dryer - In

htwJ/www.whirlpoolcorp.com/whrricslenergy.html 8/9/99

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 346

--" 

.. ~. 

•• Resource SaverTM Wash 

System -- In 1998, Whirlpool 

announced the introduction of the 

Resource S?ver Wash System, a 

high-efficiency, top-loading 

washing machine with a spray 

rinse system and water 

temperature sensor that reduces 

energy consumption by up to 56 

percent and water usage by up to 

47 percent, compared to 

Whirlpool's deep fill and rinse 

washers. This is the industry's first 

and only top-loading washer to 

receive the Energy Star 

designation and Good 

Housekeeping's Best Buys for 

" 1998 . 

•• SERP Refrigerator - In 1993, Whirlpool 

won the top prize in the $30 million 'Super 

Efficient Refrigerator Project' (SERP) 

contest sponsored by a coalition of U.S. 

public and private utility companies to 

develop a super-efficient refrigerator. 

Whirlpool's SERP refrigerator had the best 

energy efficiency levels of any refrigerator 

of its kind in the market. In 1995, Whirlpool 

introduced a second generation of SERP 

units with energy efficiency exceeding DOE 

standards by up to 30 percent 

Reclamation Process - Whirlpool 

n,n_,M:: developed a groundbreaking 

reclamation process used in the repair 

older refrigerators, thus preventing CFCs 

escaping into the atmosphere. Since 

~i'i:lnt;il\\:.tl\\:. have determined that CFC 

"""'lj~(!inr'oC: can damage the ozone layer, 

V\/t'lir1~rnn' has ceased CFC-refrigerator 

JrlJ\~U"UlJn in North America, South 

AmAnt'~ Europe, China and India. 

Recyclable Washer and Dryer - In 

a new product-design tool called 

ECC:HJ,asicln has been implemented to assist 

the development of a washer and dryer 

are more tl'!an 95 percent recyclable. 

http-J/www.whirlpooIcorp:comlwhrlicslenergy.html 

- -"" -.. "" .. 

-

8/9/99 
Recyclable Product Packaging In

Clyde, Ohio, the Whirlpcol manufacturing

- - I .. plant has made great strides in a recyclabie

product packaging program. Since 1992, more than a million pounds of packaging

waste has been eliminated.

Environmental Protection Agency Awards--In October 1998, Whirlpool received

both the 1998 Climate Protection Award and the 1998 Stratospheric Ozone

Protection Award. These awards recognize technical achievements , perscnai

dedication and exceptional leadership in protecting the climate and eliminating

ozone-depleting substances . Whirlpool also received Environmental Achievement

recognition from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for rapid voluntary

reduction of chemical emissions in 1994. Whirlpool has also received

commendations from the EPA on its involvement with the Green Lights prcgram.

" Australian Energy Efficiency Awards--

Whirlpool received the 1997 and the 1998

Galaxy Star Awards for excellence in the

design, manufacture promotion and marketing

of energy efficient appliances. The awards

referenced Whirlpool's "four star" electronic

sensor dryers, high efficiency washers, and

" five star" frost free refrigerators.

With manufacturing facilities in 13 countries,

Whirlpool's product design and manufacturing

teams have worked in tandem with

governments and the scientific community to

develop resource-friendly products, recyclable

packaging and conservation programs.

Traditionally, the company has made great

strides in exceeding environmental standards through innovations, advanced

technology and an investment in continuous environmental improvements.

( HomeLife I Site M I Search 1

[ Acoiiance Comer I Cookin'l Clothesline I Family Life I Company Stuff ]

Copyright © 1997, whirlpool Corporation , All Rights Reserved

Comments to: info#whirfoool.com

http://www.whirlpoolcorp.com/whrricsr'energy.html 8/9/99

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 346 .. ;,.r:: ,,-:{ - '. - _ •. Rec,!cl;lble FroGt..;c: PaCkar;H~~ .- In 

"'"7---:' .-:'~' ::-'.,:,~~~'"Jt--:-:'-~:-:-~.:--~:-, _~ __ \~CjYGe, Ohio, the Wrolr:~col mant..;:<:c::..;r:r~ '. ' _. 7 -"-- .'. -_ -- ;Jlant has made great strides in a r~c,!c!2.cie 

product pac:<aging ~ror;r3.r.1. Sincp. 1392, more than a million pounds of ~ac~<aglng 

was:e has :een eliminated. 

"" E;l'Iironr.;ental Protection Agency Awards--In October 1998. Whirlpool rscsi'/ec 

both the 1998 Climate Protection Award and the 1998 Stratoscheric Ozone 

Protection A'Narc. These awards recognize technical achievements, personai 

decication and exceptional leadership in protecting the climate and eliminating 

ozone-cepleting substances. Whirlpool also received Environmental Achie'Jemer,t 

recognition from the U.S. Environmental Frotection Agency for rapid voluntarJ 

recuc!ion or chemical emissions in 1994. Whirlpool has also received 

commendations from the EPA on its involvement with the Green Lights prcgram. 

""Australian Energy Efficiency Awarcs-- . 

Whirlpocl received the 1997 and the 1998 

Galaxy Star .A.wards for excellence in the 

design. manufacture promotion and marketing 

of energy efficient appliances. The awards 

referenced V'/hirlpool's "four star" electronic 

sensor driers. high efficiency washers. and 

"five star" frost free refrigerators. 

With manufacturing facilities in 13 countries, 

Whirlpool's product design and manufacturing 

teams have worked in tandem with 

govemments and the scientific community to 

develop resource-friendly products, recyclable 

packaging and conservation programs. 

Traditionally, the company has made great 

strides in exceeding environmental standards through innovations, advanced 

technology and an investment in continuo.us environmental improvements. 

[ Aocliance Comer I 

r 

~ 

HomeLite 

I Clothesline 

I ~ 

I 

I 

Family 

~ 

Ute I Comoany SMt 1 

Copyright'C 1997. Whirlpool Corporation, All Rights Reserved 

Comments to: info@whirlpool,com 

ht.r.?:lIwww.whlrlpoolcorp.comlwhr/icsfenergy.html 8/9/99 - .. - .. 
A2 WAI,I, S'I'I1 l?1^;1' .10tillNA1 , 111oNI)AY, AUGUST 2 . 1999

ECONOMY

Iai Cot Emissions Give Experts Hope

Co111])11,111CC t'Vitli I.'Dilution Curbs Seen More Likely

Itr.I1111N.1.I tu.1, A

".• . ••/ I ,I,• l1 \I t ' I111 1'.1 .II,I ^IIN.\r.

Ul^1.II'r4 Ih'siiilr a honoring

roli^sinlts 4'f ratan made cal bolt

Il'ntailo'd ahm'sI Il,tl in the U.S.

I . ;null l;lnl'al rmisSiolls appear Io

y ,I1 0- 1 1 .

has (=''I skill(' expel Is to believe IIIe

t chef k (if I nmplvinc willi itttet IlaIttnlino curbs aino'd at shooting

it mint: nla)• nod hr sit jelling.

more, S'lnlr gm Ill uttielll and pl ilu\Or i I',irr (i,itlc hate ;issllltteot

Eliiu Ill is Iinkrrl In ener gy ('tnlI,al Rental hV tilt, hurl sing of nil,

abut Iiisil (ncls (Ital Irlrasr tar-

'Ir. I III is (he main "t;trrnbnnse

ci ii'n(icls ('('Gent, is oerrhral1+111 t In' (Iaiy'ing molt, of Ihr

c ill IIii' a(Im1SIIIIo'I4'.

I?I-1c, ;I rat 1%firil Ilie U.S. ecml-

;tltmisl .I ; and Ill,' pt ice of gasoI'r'I In Irroltls, C02 elltissinns in

I':It rl1' ntnct'd. I ising onh• 11.017, ,

L Io a 1)epaI(inittl of Faleigy Ivhink hide's a ti,'rrnt chance (hat

-inc a sicnificallf cll;nlge,'' said

u'I Glavin, vice Illesidellt of

It It Incliinle, a Waslingion rneiil think Tank.

;ttin'c Choir Sri's the same phen:l'','nine g(nhally. If hrlircrs

it it I11110nm's. I'inld make Ihr

11vt k ''tic I riptit l'II by lite Ii}•'Io

, r of 1, glnhal oat sting less dil(iTioionning 'Carbon •^4+^_^a

` ,

Even while the U.s:.eculluiny loafed, 1998 614 -01^^Ide 6116s1 14,w

easing compliance wills IhlernaliOnal Iieatles = 1 ?;x i ^' 1f '^ ^^ w^ . ` t x4'

miss 10N 4 INiEN51fY +^{ ' 1 lt !

,

: I ?/n, = ter _ i

(md(Ilolls of tons) .. , ', .(Idn9lsmllll^ns bl llUP t:'^? 1 '.+ F1%O got % ..xf

1,606 199.1 ♦0.4%

Chita 883 213.4 -3.7

IE.U. 603 116.6 -0,9

fluesin 4,10 717.2 -1.3

Japan 327 s E 111.1 -2.5

India f 304 1 ? 178.2

World 6,950 168.3 >.^ -0.5

'fle(ales how nnah carbon dtntide a counhy emhS to the Sue of Its ico"y is miasuied by'. '?t :`

gross doinecli. prod t i l t t ' = ' t, e` ' 'I 'I " 1t } uc , or ecoi om o bu u , I p , , ^^ tti, l

,

cull. The (leafy, which lire U.S. Congress

has yet lu ratify, requires fhe U.S. to cut

C02 emissions, measured against 1990 levels. by 1% slat ling in 20113.

"l(yoto is still going to be a slietch (of

sonm' counll ics," Mr. Flavin said, "but (lie

amrlnml of emissions trading deeded and

the dt,gtee of domestic effort may turn out

to lie significantly less than everyone expcc(rtl."

I(rcaust' many exprt(s assun ► ed economic gltnv(h a1141 (3)2 rnlissions tuove in

lockslep. they had pi editaed the U.S. might

have to impose an economy-wrenching

emissions cut of 307 to 4070 by 2008, when

the treaty's schedule of emissions curbs

begins. One safety valve planned by the

Clinton administration Is emissions trndIng, which would let U.S. companies buy

permits-from other companies or countries that have exceeded the treaty's targets-to emit additional C02. This has proyoked a light with European nations that

want emissions trading to be limited.

But flat or slumping emissions could

defuse some of this tension: "Most of this is

due to market forces," said Itoward Geller,

executive director at American Council for

an Energy-Efficient Economy, a nonprofit

Washington research firm (hat represents

business and academic groups : lie and Mr.

Flavin see the rise of the information sector, which features Industries with light

C02 emission levels, and (lie increasing

use of more energy-efficient machines and

appliances as two major factors that appear to have caused emissions to remain

nearly level in 1998.

Roger S. Bailentine , a While House

lawyer who handles the climate change Issue, says the full statistical picture of what

happened In the energy sector In 1998 is incomplete. "What we've got so far Is a snapshot, but It certainly Is consistent with

what we've been saying , which Is you can

grow the economy and reduce emissions at

the same time."

Mr. Ballentine Is about to depart for

China, a key player in the Kyoto deliberations. China also has produced some recent

statistical surprises. According to Mr.

Flavin, China's economy grew 7% last

year, while Its use of coal fell 5%. Mr. Balletttine attributes the drop In coal use to efforts by Chinese officials to remove subsidies that have favored lavish use of coal,

which has fouled the air of many Chinese

cities.

The Clinton administration will need

China and other developing nations to become involved In the Kyoto Treaty to get

Congress to ratify It. Lawmakers here are

reluctant to put the U.S. at an economic

disadvantage with the emission cuts If

other nations don't follow suit . But data of

energy use from China and Eastern Europe

also indicate emissions levels there are

dropping because industries are leaping

Into the Information economy, too.

So far, the slump in emissions has been

documented by two studies. A preview of a

report by the DOE's Energy Information

Administration on use of fossil fuels in 1998

shows that despite the rapid growth of the

economy, emissions from the U.S. Industrial sector fell 1.296 last year. Separately, a

Worldwatch analysis of 1998 energy data

gathered by BP Amoco PLC shows global

emissions declined 0 . 5% last year, while

the world economy expanded 2.5%.

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 346

1\7. Till'; \\,,\1,1, :-iTIlEli:1' .lOOHN" .. I\tOND" Y. AUGUST 2. l!l99 

ECONOMY 

'\at C02 Elllissiol1S G-ive Experts I-Iope l~Olllpliallce \Vilh Pollulion Curbs Sccn fvlorc Likely 

11,1 ,I""N ,1,1"111," ,\ 

,'f 'f' .. , • I'" "\1 t ~ 111'-'-' .l"I'I1N,\1. 

lIrJI;I'lr~--p"~l'i'f' a htllllllillJ! 

, r"'i<~:illlls pI Iliall iliadI' r:lI hllll 

1I'III:Ii!1f'1l a\lllll~1 Iial ill IIII' 1I.l'. I. :llItI /:!{lI>a! l'IlIissiollS "!,(,(,:lr In 

'l'I,,'d, 

ha<: I,'t( SlIllIr rXI'f'lls III "!'IiI'\"('llir 

I <11 .. ,1.; """l11ph'illl! lI'illI illlNlla-

"".Jillll nil (Is aillll'd al Sll'llIl11illg 

:11 mill,! ilia," 111'1111' Sll ,iollillg, 

11"11', S"IIII' 1:1111'1111111'111 a 1111 1" j111<1, r 1'1 nil'l !i"II<: h:II'r assllIlH',1 

" flll\1 Iii is lillk"" 10 1'1Il'1 P' 1'1111-

I, I';lIli"lIl;ul~' IIII' hllillillg (II oil. 

,111"1 ''''sif [lids Ihal Id,'a,.' rar1·1,', I 'I~ is Ihr lIIaill "I!II'rlllulIlsr 

III' s' il'lIli<:ls Iwlit'I'1' is o\"('lllI'al1":1111'1 h~' II;1l'l'illl! 1Il{lll' "I Ihl' < in II,,' allllllsl'III'J(', 

I 1!t:'~. a yf'ar 11111'111111' II,~, rCIIII-

" allll",I,I':"r allli IIII' 1" ifr ,II gilSfI-

('1'01 I" If'flll lis, r(ll rlllissiollS in 

"",rI,1' 1I101Td. I isilll! IIl1ly 1I,III'7r. 

l: '" a Ilrl';II'"H'11 pI 1'~IIl'lgr II'-

hilll, 'hpll"s :t dl" 1'111 rll:IIIl'l' Illal 

'illc " siCllilirall1 I'lIalll(l'." said 

"',. !'''Irill. rirr (II ('silll'lIl "I 

"h 11I<:1i11i11'. il \\'asllillghlll fm'i' 

II I hi III.; lallk. 

I;!lill's 1!1I'1I1' srI's Iht' SoUtH' piH" 

h;'I'I'I'lIilll! I:lohalll', II IlI'lil'\'I's 

, if if f ""IiI1""~. I "IIhl 111011<1' IIII' 

11"1 i'i""~ I I',! II it .. II ",I' Ihe I{yol" 

, f 1111, /:11111:11 Iralmillg ,,"lOS .lilllThinning Carbon: D~oxl Even while Ihe U.S:,ecOIlulny loared, 1998 ca bll~I·r.lIIJXldlll .. ·mu:.nll' 

easlnu cOllllllian(;~ Willi 11l!8 ' 

, ' . 'I:}:"~ ,t~ISSION, 

CUll, Thr !lcaly, which Ihe U.S. Congress' 

has yrllo lalily, rC11llirrs Ihe U.S, 10 cui 

CO2 rrllis1'ifllls. IIIr1l51111,'1I againsl J990 levels. 11\' 7';'" sIal II II/! ill 2111111. 

, "I{rulo is SliII'g(lilll( hI hI' a 1'llrlcll lor 

SIIIIIP ('11111111 irs," fIIr. Flavin said, "IJIIllhe 

:1111011111 (II ('mis.ions Inulill/!' ncedrll alHl 

IIII' Ih'I:I(,1' fll Ihllllrslie errmllll:lY lurn 0111 

10 hI' sil:llilirallll)' IC$s Ih311 evclyolle exIwrled." 

IIt'nIIlS(' lIIallY rXllf'lls lIsslllllrd c('o11111 II it' I:,owllt :1nll CO)' "III iss Ions nlllvr ill 

lurksl..,., IIII'r hatlill r"idclilhe U,S. might 

have 10 1IIIIIOse an eCOliomy-wrenchlng 

cmissions cut or 3010 to .010 by 2008, when 

Ihe Irealy's schedule or emissions curbs 

hcgins. One sarely valve Ilianned by Ihe 

Cllnlon adrnlnlslrallon is emissions Iradlng, which would let U.S. companies buy 

pCl'llIils -rl'O/II olher cOlllpanles or COIIIItries thai have exceeded the Ilealy's largels-to emil atldilional C02. This hns I,rovokctl a light wllh guropean nations lhat 

want emissions trnding to be Ihnlled. 

IIlIt lint or slnlllJling emissions could 

del use some or Ihls tension: "Most or this Is 

due to market forces," said Ilownrd Geller, . cxecutlve director at American Council ror 

an Energy-Efficient Economy, a nonl'roJil 

Washington research linn that represents 

business and academic groujls; lie and Mr. 

Flnvln see the rise or the InfOrmation sector, which features Induslries with light 

CO2 elllission levels, and the Increasing 

lise 01 more energy-eUident machines and 

appliallces as two major ractol's that nilpear to have caused emissions to remain 

nenrly level In J998. 

Roger S. Ballentine, a· Whlle House 

lawyer who handles the climate change Is· 

sue, says the full statistical plctur~ of what 

happened In the energy sector In 1998 Is In· 

complete. "What we've got so rar Is a snapshot, but It certainly Is consistent wllh 

what we've been saying, which Is you can 

grow the economy and reduce emissions at 

the same Ume." 

Mr. Ballentine Is about to depart ror 

China, a key player In the Kyoto dellbera· 

tlons. China also has produced some recent 

slatlstlcal surprises. According to Mr. 

Flavin. China's economy grew 7,. last 

year, while Its use or coal fell 5,.. Mr. Bal· , lentine altrlbutes the drop In coal use to er· 

rorts by Chinese oUicials to remove subsl· 

dies that have ravored lavish use or coal, 

which has fouled the air or many Chinese 

cities. 

The Clinton administration will need 

China and other developing nallons to becOllie Involved In the Kyoto Treaty to get 

Congress to ratUy It. Lawmakers here are 

reluctant to put Ihe U.S. at an economic 

disadvantage with the emission culs Ir 

olher nations don't rollow suit. But data of 

energy use from China and Eastern Europe 

also Indicate emissions levels there are 

dropping because Industries are leaping 

Inlo lhe Information economy, too. 

So (ar. the slump In emissions has been 

documenled by lwo stUdies. A preview of a 

rCllOrt by the DOE's Energy Information 

Administration on use or lossll ruels In 1998 

shows thai despite the rapid growth of the 

economy. emissions from lhe U.S. Industrial sector fell 1.2% last year. Separately. a 

WOl'ldwalch analysis or 1998 energy data , galhered by UP Amoco PLC shows global 

, emissions declined D.S" last year, while , the world economy expanded 2.5%. 

" ... f : .. : 
Affidavit of Rick DeVos:

Rick DeVos, first being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am employed as an engineer for GE Appliances, General Electric

Company. My office is located at Appliance Park, Louisville, Kentucky, which is

the headquarters operation of GE Appliances and the technology center for the

appliances business. I am responsible for design and specification of refrigerator

product and have held this position since February 1999. As relevant to this

matter, I work on refrigerator cabinet redesign for GE's new refrigerators that will

meet Department of Energy's (DOE) 2001 energy efficiency standards.

2. I have worked on refrigerator design for 6 years, having worked as

manager of refrigeration engineering at Frigidaire. I have further worked in the

refrigeration industry for an additional 6 years as manager of advanced

technology and reliability for International Comfort Products, a major

manufacturer of residential air conditioning equipment.

3. I file this affidavit in opposition to the Exception Petition filed by Amana

Appliances that seeks relief of 10% from the 2001 refrigerator energy-efficiency

standards through 2009. Part of any manufacturer's design effort normally

includes a review of the products of its competitors. I have performed these

analyses on competitor refrigerator products, including Amana's. Based on

those reviews, I have determined that Amana has several cabinet design options

that could improve the energy performance of its refrigerators.

4. Amana's refrigerator doors are 2.0 in. thick. Adding insulation and

increasing the door thickness to 3.5 in. found in the rest of industry would

improve energy performance. The marketing benefits of thin refrigerator doors,

an appearance feature, should not put this design option off limits in the search

for energy improvement. Maytag, Frigidaire and GE already use 3.5 in. doors on

product as small as 24.6 cubic feet.

5. Amana's cabinet design is very old. This gives it opportunities not

available to other manufacturers to add insulation without loss of internal volume.

Amana also places the cold suction line outside the cabinet while competitors

have located it in the foam of the cabinet preventing heat gain. In addition,

gasket area heat leak improvements can have a major impact on refrigerator

efficiency improvement.

6. If Amana has already made plans to include these improvements in its

new designs, then it should have even less difficulty achieving the energy

improvements- required to comply with the new refrigerator standards. When

cabinet redesign is combined with adding improved components that have

become available since the regulations were finalized in 1997, Amana should be

able to achieve the performance levels required by the regulations in 2001 and

EXHIBIT 3

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 346

Affidavit of Rick DeVos: 

Rick DeVos, first being duly swom, deposes and says: 

1. I am employed as an engineer for GE Appliances, General Electric 

Company, My office is located at Appliance Park, Louisville, Kentucky, which -is 

the headquarters operation of GE Appliances and the technology center for the 

appliances business. I am responsible for design and specification of refrigerator 

product and have held this position since February 1999, As relevant to this 

matter, I work on refrigerator cabinet redesign for GE's new refrigerators that will 

meet Department of Energy's (DOE) 2001 energy efficiency standards. 

2. I have worked on refrigerator design for 6 years, having worked as 

manager of refrigeration engineering at Frigidaire. I have further worked in the 

refrigeration industry for an additional 6 years as manager of advanced 

technology and reliability for International Comfort Products, a major 

manufacturer of residential air conditioning equipment. 

3. I file this affidavit in opposition to the Exception Petition filed by Amana 

Appliances that seeks relief of 10% from the 2001 refrigerator energy-efficiency 

standards through 2009. Part of any manufacturer's design effort normally 

includes a review of the products of its competitors. I have performed these 

analyses on competitor refrigerator products, including Amana's. Based on 

those reviews, I have determined that Amana has several cabinet design options 

that could improve the energy performance of its refrigerators. 

4. Amana's refrigerator doors are 2.0 in. thick. Adding insulation and 

increasing the door thickness to 3.5 in. found in the rest of industry would 

improve energy performance. The marketing benefits of thin refrigerator doors, 

an appearance feature, should not put this design option off limits in the search 

for energy improvement. Maytag, Frigidaire and GE already use 3.5 in. doors on 

product as small as 24.6' cubic feet. 

5. Amana's cabinet design is very old. This gives it opportunities not 

available to other manufacturers to add insulation without loss of intemal volume. 

Amana also places the cold suction line outside the cabinet while competitors 

have located it in the foam of the cabinet preventing heat gain. In addition, 

gasket area heat leak improvements can have a major impact on refrigerator 

efficiency improvement. 

6. If Amana has already made plans to include these improvements in its 

new designs, then it should have even less difficulty achieving the energy 

improvements-required to comply with the new refrigerator standards. When 

cabinet redesign is combined with adding improved components that have 

become available since the regulations were finalized in 1997, Amana should be 

able to achieve the performance levels required by the regulations in 2001 and 

EXHIBIT 3 
maintain these levels in 2003. M-El projects that it will improve the efficiency of

its compressors by 11 % between now and 2001. And other components already

available on the market, including evaporators, condensers and electronic

controls, can provide fully 9%of the 30% efficiency improvement required by the

new energy standards.

7. As is apparent from the foregoing, Amana has many places to find the

ways to constituent elements to develop a compliance plan. It does not require

10% relief.

RICK DEVOS

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY )

COUNTY OF JEFFERSON' )

Sub2^sic ibed, sworn and acknowledged before me by RICK DEVOS on

this the I' day of , 1999.

N¢tary Public - State-at-Large

My commission expires:

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 346

maintain these levels in 2003. MEl projects that it will improve the efficiency of 

its compressors by 11 % between now and 2001. And other components already 

available on the market, including evaporators, condensers and electronic 

controls, can provide fully 9%of the 30% efficiency improvement required by the 

new e~ergy standards. 

7. As is apparent from the foregoing, Amana has many places to find the 

ways to constituent elements to develop a compliance plan. It does not require 

10% relief. 

RICK DEVOS 

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY ) 

) 

COUNTY OF JEFFERSON ) 

Subscribed, sworn and acknowledged before me by RICK DEVOS on 

this the ~ day of ---1~~~~ __ , 1999. 

N tary Public - State-at-Large 

My commission expires: '3 - I -d. () 03 
Affidavit of Gary Mellinger:

Gary Mellinger, first being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am employed as Team Leader, Insulation, for GE Appliances, General

Electric Company. My office is located at Appliance Park, Louisville, Kentucky,

which is the headquarters operation of GE Appliances and the technology center

for the appliances business. As relevant to this matter, I am responsible for

evaluating foam blowing agent candidates and improving foam applications

processes for GE's new side-freezer refrigerators that will meet the Department

of Energy's 2001 efficiency standards.

2. 1 have worked on refrigerator insulation issues for approximately 22 years.

I have been the GE Appliances representative to the Insulation Technical

Advisory Committee (ITAC) of the AHAM-industry-govemment Appliance

Research Consortium (ARC) since its creation. I have been the keynote speaker

and moderator of lectures on refrigerator foam insulation at the Society of

Plastics Industries' International Polyurethane Conference.

3. I file this affidavit in opposition to the Exception Petition filed by Amana

Appliances that seeks relief of 10% from the 2001 refrigerator energy-efficiency

standards through 2009.

4. Amana's Petition appears to be predicated on the assumption that blowing

agent and foam efficiencies are static and not subject to improvement over time.

In my experience, as new blowing agents have been developed, chemical

suppliers and appliance manufactures have improved their insulating properties.

Changes in foam formulations and changes in foam application processes have

led to consistent improvements in refrigerator foam energy performance.

5. As Amana readily acknowledges, there are multiple options available to

achieve compliance with the new refrigerator standards. Even though Amana

seeks a blanket 10% relief for using cyclopentane, its own submitted evidence

shows that ARC's test results found that cyclopentane can actually achieve

EXHIBIT 4

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 346

Affidavit of Gary Mellinger: 

Gary Mellinger, first being duly sworn, deposes and says: 

1. I am employed as Team Leader, Insulation, for GE Appliances, General 

Electric Company. My office is located at Appliance Park, Louisville, Kentucky, 

which is the headquarters operation of GE Appliances and the technology center 

for the appliances business. As relevant to this matter, I am responsible for 

evaluating foam blowing agent candidates and improving foam applications 

processes for GE's new side-freezer refrigerators that will meet the Department 

of Energy's 2001 efficiency standards. 

2. I have worked on refrigerator insulation issues for approximately 22 years. 

I have been the GE Appliances representative to the Insulation Technical 

Advisory Committee (ITAC) of the AHAM-industry-govemment Appliance 

Research Consortium (ARC) since its creation. I have been the keynote speaker 

and moderator of lectures on refrigerator foam insulation at the Society of 

Plastics Industries' International Polyurethane Conference. 

3. I file this affidavit in opposition to the Exception Petition filed by Amana 

Appliances that seeks relief of 10% from the 2001 refrigerator energy-efficiency 

standards through 2009. 

4. Amana's Petition appears to be predicated on the assumption that blowing 

agent and foam efficiencies are static and not subject to improvement over time. 

In my experience, as new blowing agents have been developed, chemical 

suppliers and appliance manufactures have improved their insulating properties. 

Changes in foam formulations and changes in foam application processes have 

led to consistent improvements in refrigerator foam energy performance. 

5. As Amana readily acknowledges, there are multiple options available to 

achieve compliance with the new refrigerator standards. Even though Amana 

seeks a blanket 10% relief for using cyclopentane, its own submitted evidence 

shows that ARC's test results found that cyclopentane can actually achieve 

EXHIBIT 4 

- ... 
energy performance that is only 6% worse than HCFC-141 b. (See Attachment B

to Kessler Affidavit.) GE's

G, tRY MEtt NGER e,-^

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY )

COUNTY OF JEFFERSON )

Subscribed, sworn to and acknowledged before me by GARY

MELLINGER on this the day of 1999.

Not,4ry Public - State-at-Large

/

My commission expires : - ^^

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 346

energy periormance that is on 

to Kessler Affidavit.) GE's 

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY ) 

) 

COUNTY OF JEFFERSON ) 

Subscribed, sworn to and acknowledged before me by GARY 

MELLINGER on this the fI~ day of ,1999. 

,'. : .. : "::-, ':: ~.-

ry Public - State-at-Large 

M .. . 3-/-d.J}tJ3 y commiSSion explres: _____ _ .. ," 

'''-... 

0#, " ....... 

7', ", 

• " :' "" 1 ,_ 

.... ", .' 

" .:. ',' . -, ~ 

•.•. 

,', ... " ..... 

.: ... 

' ... 

... ~': ' . 

.' .' 
Affidavit of Kenneth Holland:

Kenneth Holland, first being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am employed as side-by-side Product Manager for GE Appliances,

General Electric Company. My office is located at Appliance Park, Louisville,

Kentucky, which is the headquarters operation of GE Appliances. I am

responsible for developing product plans and specifications for the new GE sidefreezer refrigerators that will be built in compliance with the Department of

Energy's (DOE) 2001 energy efficiency standards.

2. I have reviewed those portions of Arnana's exception petition that discuss

concerns about possible loss of internal refrigerator volume because of a need to

increase insulation thickness to meet the new refrigerator standards.

3. In devising product specifications for GE's new refrigerators, I too, have

reviewed various design options, some of which could lead to smaller internal

storage volume.

Based

on my knowledge of Amana 's current product offerings and how a -ey might be

affected by the new energy standards, I do not believe that the impact of the

standards on volume would be appreciably different for Amana.

4. As Alan Kessler points out in his affidavit filed in support of the Amana

petition, the retail prices of refrigerators is directly affected by internal storage

volume. Thus, larger volume models of similarly featured refrigerators command

a higher price . Internal volume is the single most important product feature on

which manufacturers compete. GE Appliances would be placed at a competitive

disadvantage if Amana, were granted exception relief. Amana would be able to

avoid the cost of engineering solutions to overcome the impact of increased foam

thickness that other manufacturers must solve , either retaining the savings or

passing them along to retailers in the form of lower prices.. This would probably

lead to market share gains by Amana , or, if other manufacturers responded with

price reductions, slimmer margins for Amana's competitors and weaker industry

players. Finally, if Amana took advantage of the exception relief and did not

EXHIBIT 5

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 346

Affidavit of Kenneth Holland: 

.' 

Kenneth Holland, first being duly sworn, deposes and says: 

1. I am employed as side-by-side Product Manager for GE Appliances, 

General Electric Company. My office is located at Appliance Park, Louisville, 

Kentucky, which is the headquarters operation of GE Appliances. I am 

responsible for developing product plans and specifications for the new GE sidefreezer refrigerators that will be built in compliance with the Department of 

Energy's (DOE) 2001 energy efficiency standards. 

2. I have reviewed those portions of A{T1ana's exception petition that discuss 

concerns about possible loss of internal refrigerator volume because of a need to 

increase insulation thickness to meet the new refrigerator standards. 

3. In devising product specifications for GE's new refrigerators, I too, have 

reviewed various design options, some of which could lead to smaller internal 

storage volume. 

Based 

on my knowledge of Amana's current product offerings and how be 

affected by the new energy standards, J do not believe that the impact of the 

standards on volume would be appreciably different for Amana. 

4. As Alan Kessler points out in his affidavit filed in support of the Amana 

petition, the retail prices of refrigerators is directly affected by internal storage 

volume. Thus, larger volume models of similarty featured refrigerators command 

a higher price. Internal volume is the single most important product feature on 

which manufacturers compete. GE Appliances would be placed at a competitive 

disadvantage if Amana were granted exception relief. Amana would be able to 

avoid the cost of engineering solutions to overcome the impact of increased foam 

thickness that other manufacturers must solve, either retaining the savings or 

passing them along to retailers in the form of lower prices .. This would probably 

lead to market share gains by Amana, or, if other manufacturers responded with 

price reductions, slimmer margins for Amana's competitors and weaker industry 

players. Finally', if Amana took advantage of the exception relief and did not 

EXHIBIT 5 
have to reduce internal storage volumes, all other manufacturers would be

disadvantaged in their ability to compete on this most important product feature.

Amana has not justified the request for exception relief and their petition should

be denied.

KENNETH HOLLAND

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY )

COUNTY OF JEFFERSON )

Subscribed, sworn to and acknowledged before me by KENNETH

HOLLAND on this the Ic - day of UU^^_ 1999.

Nottry Public - State-at-Large

My commission expires : 3-" ^ a^^3

EE-RM-93-801 COMMENT 346

have to reduce internal storage volumes, all other manufacturers would be 

disadvantaged in their ability to compete on this most important product feature. 

Amana has not justified the request for exception relief and their petition should 

be denied. 

,. ~/. -!['l /11 /JI} !'J .J-~ j!j I,I/YV L ,i N:rk'~~_ 

KENNETH HOLLAND \ 

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY } 

) 

COUNTY OF JEFFERSON } 

Subscribed, swom to and acknowledged before me by KENNETH 

HOLLAND on this thel '/1 c-

"(/' day of W'-:'~ /) (~ .1999. 

Not ry Public - State-at-Large 

, " .', . My commission expires: "3 - I ,- (JOr) 3 

", ..