From : Llenza, Charles [mailto: Charles. Llenza@ee.doe.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 4:34 PM

To: Pinto, Francine

Cc: Edwards, Brenda; Poston, Mona

Subject: Faxed response of DO) for CRE NOPR on competitive impacts, 10/24/08

(docket # EE-2006-STD-0126, RIN# 1904-AB59)

Please find attached the Faxed response pdf of DOJ for CRE NOPR on

competitive impacts dated 10/24/08 for the record.

Regards,

Charles Llenza

Project Manager/Engineer

US Department of Energy

(202)586-2192(work)

(202)287-1590(fax)

Charles.L1enza^ee. doe.Rov

From : Pinto, Francine

Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 10:59 AM

To: Llenza, Charles

Subject: We received the faxed response of DOJ for CRE on competitive impacts. They have no

problem. Will get to you. Original has not yet arrived here. Francine

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FACSIMILE OR ELECTRONIC MESSAGE IS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED

FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMES ABOVE. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED

RECIPIENT, OR AN EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THIS FACSIMILE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED

RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY

PROHIBITED. IF THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS NON-PUBLIC PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT ANY CONSUMER OR CUSTOMER

OF THE SENDER OR INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE FURTHER PROHIBITED UNDER PENALTY OF LAW FROM USING OR

DISCLOSING THE INFORMATION TO ANY THIRD PARTY BY PROVISIONS OF THE FEDERAL GRAMM-LEACH-BAILEY ACT. IF

YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS FACSIMILE OR ELECTRONIC MESSAGE IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY

TELEPHONE AND RETURN OR DESTROY THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO ASSURE THAT IT IS NOT READ, COPIED, OR

DISTRIBUTED BY OTHERS.

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 37
OCT-24 -2008 13:31 DOJ-ATR 202 353 8856 P.01

3hpartment of Jwtke

Antitrust Division

Transportation , Energy and Agriculture

Section

450 5`" Street, N.W., Suite 4100-North

Washington, DC 20530

Fax Number: 202/616-2441 OR.

202/307-2784

Voice Number: (t ^ O3 -105W

The information contained in this facsimile is government privileged and confidential information intended only for the

use of the addressee (s) listed on this coversheet . If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient(s), you are

hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of the telecopy is strictly prohibited. If you have received

this facsimile in error , please immediately notify the sender at the telephone number listed on this coversheet and the

original facsimile must be returned via the United States Postal Service to the address above. Thank you.

FAX COVER SHEET

Date : Qcobx crag

To: Warren ref ma..f

Of. L S . be.p r4me - a^ &W

Fax Number : c / 58/ -- 1411 !.v

From : kcitec i 1 [a(r -rcr ZGt.rld- -r1

Pages Sent (including this sheet):)

Remarks:

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 37
OCT-24-2006 13:31 DOJ-ATR 282 353 8856 P.02

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

Main Justice Building

950 Pennsylvania Avenuc, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530-000I

(202) 514-2401 / (202).6) 6-2645 (Fax)

E-mail: antitrust®usdoj.gov

Web site: hnp://w-w w.usdol. gov/atr

October 24, 2008

FACSIMrLE TRANSMITTAL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL

Warren Belmar, Esq.

Deputy General Counsel for Energy Policy

U.S. Department of Energy

Washington, D.C. 20585

Dear Deputy General Counsel Belmar:

I am responding to your August 12, 2008 letter seeking the views of the Attorney General

about the potential impact on competition of the proposed energy efficiency standards for

commercial refrigeration equipment . The Energy Policy and Conservation Act ("SPCA")

authorizes the Department of Energy ("DOE") to establish energy conservation standards for a

number of appliances where DOE determines that those standards would be technologically

feasible, economically justified , and result in significant energy savings.

Your request was submitted pursuant to Section 325(o )(2)(B)(i) of the Energy Policy and

Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6291 , 6295 ("EPCA"), which states that, before the Secretary of

Energy may prescribe a new or amended energy conservation standard, the Sccretary shall ask the

Attorney General to make a determination of "the impact of any lessening of competition ... that

is likely to result from the imposition of the standard ." The Attorney General's responsibility for

responding to requests from other departments about the effect of a program on competition has

been delegated to the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division in 28 CFR § 0. 40(g)_

In conducting its analysis the Antitrust Division examines whether a standard may lessen

competition, for example, by placing certain manufacturers of a product at an unjustified

competitive disadvantage compared to other manufacturers, or by inducing avoidable

inefficiencies in production or distribution of particular products . In addition to harming

consumers directly through higher prices, these effects could undercut the ultimate goals of the

legislation.

Along with your request, you sent us the draft final rule and a number of other documents

relating to commercial refrigeration equipment, including a hearing transcript and the names of

parties interviewed by DOE's consultant.

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 37
OCT-24-2008 13:32 DOJ-ATR 202 353 8856 P.03

We have concluded that the proposed standards would not adversely affect competition.

In reaching this conclusion, we note that the proposed standards were developed taking into

account comments by commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturers, the American Society

of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, the American Council for an Energy

Efficient Economy and electric utilities. We note further that all key components are available

for purchase by any manufacturer ; therefore no manufacturer has a technological advantage in

meeting the proposed standards. Finally, DOE found no significant differences between the

concerns of large and small manufacturers, and we found no evidence that certain manufacturers

would be placed at a competitive disadvantage compared to other manufacturers.

In conclusion, the Antitrust Division does not believe the proposed final rule would

adversely affect competition.

Yours sincerely,

Page 2

Deborah A. Garza

Acting Assistant Attorney General

TOTAL P.03

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 37
L

 EE-2006-STD-0126 COMMENT 37