EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

1

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

 PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS 

FOR RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS, DEHUMIDIFIERS, AND COOKING 

PRODUCTS, AND COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS 

Room 8E-089 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20585 

9:00 a.m. 

Thursday, November 13, 2008 

Appearances: 

DOUG BROOKMAN, Facilitator, Public Solutions 

108 Newburg Avenue 

Baltimore, Maryland 21228 

U.S. Department of Energy: 

RONALD LEWIS 

STEPHEN WITKOWSKI 

MICHAEL KIDO 

MARK FRIEDRICHS 

1000 independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20585 

Attendees: 

JENNIFER THOMAS AMANN, Director, Buildings Program 

American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy 

Suite 600 

529 14th Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20045 

TIMOTHY BALLO, ESQ. 

EarthJustice 

Suite 702 

1625 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

DR. DEBRA K. BRUNK 

Vice President, Technical Services 

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) 

Suite 402 

1111 19th Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

2

Attendees: 

LANCE DeLAURA 

Market Strategy/Codes & Standards Manager 

Customer Programs 

Sempra Energy Utilities 

Southern California Gas Company 

555 W. Fifth Street 

Los Angeles, California 90013-1046 

TOM ANDERSON 

Director of Energy Conservation - North America 

Electrolux Major Appliances 

250 Bobby Jones Expressway 

Augusta, GA 30907 

JAMES BATTAGLIA, Consultant 

Navigant Consulting, Inc. 

77 S. Bedford Street, Suite 400 

Burlington, MA 01803-5154 

DAVID COHAN 

Codes and Standards Manager 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance 

Suite 600 

529 SW Third Avenue 

Portland, Oregon 97204 

MARGO FAIER, Economist 

Economic Analysis Group 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Antitrust Division 

601 E Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20530 

GARY FERNSTROM, Senior Project Manager 

Pacific Gas and Electric 

77 Beale Street 

San Francisco, CA 94177 

GREGG A. HAND 

White & Case, LLP 

701 Thirteenth Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

J.B. HOYT 

Director, Regulatory Affairs and 

State Government Relations 

Whirlpool Corporation 

2000 North M-63, MD3005 

Benton Harbor, Michigan 49022 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

3

Attendees: 

JEFFREY KINGMAN, Senior Consultant 

Navigant Consulting 

Suite 500 

1801 K Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

KELLEY A. KLINE, ESQ. 

Counsel - Regulatory Compliance 

GE Consumer and Industrial 

Appliance Park, AP2-225 

Louisville, Kentucky 40225 

PHILIP J. MANTHEI 

Staff Engineer, Agency/Codes Approval 

Appliance Laundry Systems LLC 

Shepard Street, P.O. Box 990 

Ripon, Wisconsin 54971-0990 

LUKE M. HARMS 

Government Relations Specialist 

Whirlpool Corporation 

Suite 750 

701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20004 

CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON 

Senior Manager, Regulatory Compliance 

Product Standards & Environmental Compliance 

LG Electronics 

910 Sylvan Avenue 

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632 

DERRICK LITTLE 

Systems Manager, Global Products Technology 

GE Consumer and Industrial 

Appliance Park AP2-126 

Louisville, Kentucky 40225 

EDWARD R. OSANN, Senior Associate 

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy 

National Press Building 

Suite 600 

529 14th Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20045 

JUDITH REICH, Managing Consulting 

Navigant Consulting, Inc. 

77 S Bedford Street, Suite 400 

Burlington, MA 01803-5154 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

4

Attendees: 

MICHAEL RIVEST, Managing Director 

Navigant Consulting, Inc. 

77 S Bedford Street, Suite 400 

Burlington, MA 01803-5154 

STEVEN J. ROSENSTOCK, P.E. 

Manager, Energy Solutions 

Edison Electric Institute 

701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20004-2696 

DOUGLAS J. ROSSIN, Consultant 

Navigant Consulting, Inc 

1801 K Street, NW, Suite 500 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

TONY (BYUNGWOOK) YE 

Account Manager 

Product Safety and Compliance 

LG Electronics 

1000 Sylvan Avenue 

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632 

GREGORY ROSENQUIST 

Energy Analysis Department 

Environmental Energy Technologies Division 

Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

One Cyclotron Road, MS: 90-4000 

Bldg. 90, Room 4131A 

University of California 

Berkeley, California 94720 

JACOB SKAGGS 

D&R International 

Suite 500 

1300 Spring Street 

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 

MICHELE CANO 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Antitrust Division 

Suite 4000 

450 5th Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20530 

CONSTANTIN von WENTZEL, Associate Director 

Navigant Consulting, Inc. 

77 S Bedford Street, Suite 400 

Burlington, MA 01803-5154 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

5

Attendees: 

JIM RANFONE 

Managing Director, Building Codes and Standards 

American Gas Association 

400 N Capitol Street, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

6

A G E N D A 

ITEM: PAGE: 

Welcome 7 

Opening Remarks, Introductions and 

Agenda Review 7 

 Doug Brookman 

Rulemaking Overview 11 

 Stephen Witkowski 

Comments from Participants 16 

 Doug Brookman 

Engineering Analysis 38 

 Judith Reich 

Energy Use Analysis, Markups for Equipment 

Price Determination, and Life-Cycle Cost 

Analysis 96 

 Gregory Rosenquist 

Shipments Analysis and National Impact 

Analysis 136 

 Gregory Rosenquist 

Afternoon Session

Trial Standard Levels, Consumer Subgroup 

Analysis, and Manufacturer Impact Analysis 144 

 Gregory Rosenquist and Constantin 

 von Wentzel 

Utility Impact Analysis, Employment Impact 

Analysis, Environmental Assessment, 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 176 

 Gregory Rosenquist 

Discussion of Other Issues 199 

 Doug Brookman 

Next Steps and Closing Remarks 205 

 Stephen Witkowski 

Adjourn 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

7

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

2 9:00 a.m. 

3 Welcome

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: Good morning. I want to 

welcome you all to the Department of Energy’s Public 

Meeting on Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or NOPR for 

Energy Conservation Standards for Residential 

Dishwashers, Dehumidifiers, and Cooking Products, and 

Commercial Clothes Washers. 

 You should all have a copy of the agenda and 

the presentation slides. There is one technical note. 

The Technical Support Document for these products will 

be available on our website, I hope by no later than 

Wednesday. If you need it immediately, send me an email and I can get you an electronic copy, but it will 

be up very soon. 

 And again, thank you and welcome. Doug? 

18 Opening Remarks, Introductions and Agenda Review

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. It’s our custom to 

provide an opportunity for each person to introduce him 

or herself, so I’d like to just do that. This will not 

all be captured in the record but we do have a sign-in 

sheet. So if you’d say your name and your 

organizational affiliation, I’ll start with you, Steve. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steven Rosenstock, Edison 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

8

1 Electric Institute. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. BROOKMAN: And I’m not sure how well 

these microphones work. We’ll find out as the day goes 

on. 

 Go ahead, Phil. 

 MR. MANTHEI: Phil Manthei, Appliance Laundry 

Systems. 

 MR. DeLAURA: Lance DeLaura, Southern 

California Gas Company and San Diego Gas and Electric 

Company. 

 MR. ANDERSON: Tom Anderson, Electrolux Major 

Appliances. 

 MR. FERNSTROM: Gary Fernstrom, formerly from 

and representing Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 

 MR. HOYT: J.B. Hoyt, Whirlpool Corporation. 

 DR. BRUNK: Debra Brunk, Association of Home 

Appliance Manufacturers. 

 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann, working with Efficiency 

Advocates together with the Appliance Standards 

Awareness Project. 

 MR. LITTLE: Derrick Little, General Electric 

Company. 

 MS. CANO: Michele Cano, Department of 

Justice. 

 MS. FAIER: Margo Faier, Department of 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

9

1 Justice. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. LEWIS: Ron Lewis, DOE. 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: Steve Witkowski, DOE. 

 MR. von WENTZEL: Constantin von Wentzel, 

Navigant Consulting. 

 MS. REICH: Judith Reich, Navigant 

Consulting. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Gregory Rosenquist, Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory. 

 (Introductions off microphone.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Thanks to all of 

you for being here. It’s given us an opportunity to 

start on time. I’m going to do a very brief agenda 

review and then we will proceed with the meeting. 

 I think all of you, as Steve mentioned, have 

a copy of the agenda. You also have the slides that 

will be the presentation materials today in your packet 

as well as a copy of the Federal Register Notice. 

 So following this agenda review, we’re going 

to go immediately through a Rulemaking Overview. 

Following that overview, there’s an opportunity for 

each of you that wishes to do so to make a brief 

statement here at the outset about your concerns, a 

summary of the issues that are most important for you 

today. 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

10

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 Following that, we’ll go into Engineering 

Analysis. We’ll take a break midmorning, around about 

11 or so. Following the midmorning break, Energy Use 

Analysis, Markups for Equipment Price Determination, 

and Life-Cycle Cost Analysis. Pardon me. We will 

break for lunch and following lunch, we’ll have the 

Shipments Analysis and National Impact Analysis, and 

following that, Trial Standard Levels, Consumer 

Subgroup Analysis, and Manufacturer Impact Analysis, 

Utility Impact Analysis, Employment Impact Analysis, 

Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Analysis. 

It’s a lot of analysis. We’ll take a midafternoon 

break around about 2:45 or so. 

 There’s an opportunity at the end of the day 

to cover any additional issues that you might wish to 

raise or to double back on an issue that you may not 

have covered fully during the course of this 

discussion, and we will close out today around about 

3:45-4-4:30 or so with Next Steps and Closing Remarks. 

So that’s the general plan for today. 

 Questions and comments here at the outset? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: I’d ask for your 

consideration. A few of you are new to these meetings 

today. Yes, a few of you? Most of us have gotten to 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

11

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

use to doing this and we’re getting pretty comfortable 

with it by now. I’d ask simply that you please speak 

one at a time. Please say your name each time you 

speak for the record. Please keep the focus here. If 

you’d turn your cell phones on silent mode and if you 

need to have a sidebar conversation for more than about 

30 seconds with the person next to you, please take it 

out of the room. We’ll understand. It’s okay. 

 I’m going to be queuing people by name as 

best I can to speak. I also wish to encourage followon comments. As I queue you by name, if you’d just say 

your name one more time for the record, that would be 

helpful, and I’m going to ask that you please be 

concise, share the air time, and we’ll be a lot more 

efficient as the day goes on. 

 So questions and comments here at the outset 

before we begin? You didn’t get a chance to introduce 

yourself. 

 MR. BALLO: I’m Tim Ballo with EarthJustice. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Anybody else did 

we miss? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Then let’s proceed. 

24 Rulemaking Overview

25 MR. WITKOWSKI: Okay. Well, what I will be 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

12

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

doing in the next few minutes is giving a brief 

overview of the process, the purpose of the public 

meeting and requests for some comments from the 

participants. 

 The purpose is to invite comment on the 

Proposed Energy Conservation Standards, TSL-1 for 

Conventional Cooking Products, TSL-3B for Microwave 

Ovens, and TSL-3 for Commercial Clothes Washers, and to 

request recommendations for alternatives, to present 

methodologies and characterize results for this 

rulemaking analysis, to discuss specific issues related 

to each analysis, to seek input from interested parties 

on methodologies, assumptions, data sources, and 

results from the analyses, and to describe the next 

steps, and comments from participants. 

 Participants are invited to provide summary 

comments or statements. Participants are invited to 

raise additional issues for discussion today and the 

NOPR Comment Period closes December 16th, 2008, and the 

information for submitting comments is in your 

handouts. 

 The statute authority is the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act, EPCA, as amended, and the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007, referred to as 

EISA, amended, to prescribe standards for dishwashers 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

13

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

and dehumidifiers. Since EISA gives prescriptive 

standards for these products, DOE is not proposing 

standards for them. 

 The proposed Notice addresses the 

requirements of the following under which DOE is 

required to publish a NOPR addressing energy 

conservation standards for the products that we’re 

covering today. I won’t go into the fine print here, 

but DOE’s report to Congress and the consolidated 

consent decree are all available on our website. 

 DOE actions on residential cooking products 

and commercial clothes washers and the test procedures, 

Final Rule for Residential Cooking Products was 

published on October 3rd, 1997, which made several 

revisions to more accurately measure the efficiency. 

 The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or NOPR 

proposing standard -- excuse me -- standby power test 

methods for microwave ovens was published in the 

Federal Register on October 17th, 2008, and the Final 

Rule for Commercial Clothes Washers, which adopted the 

EPACT 2005 Amendments to EPCA requiring that commercial 

clothes washers be rated according to the residential 

clothes washer test procedure published in October 

18th, 2005, and so on. 

 I don’t think I need to read all the rest of 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

14

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

the conservation standards. They’re here and you can 

refer to them in the document and get the details on 

the website. 

 For those of you who are new to these 

proceedings, EPCA directs EPA to consider seven factors 

when setting energy conservation standards and of these 

seven factors, the first one is the economic impact on 

consumers and manufacturers and the related analysis is 

the Life-Cycle Cost Analysis and Manufacturer Impact 

Analysis. 

 Factor 2, lifetime operating cost savings. 

The analysis is the Life-Cycle Cost Analysis. 

 3, total project energy savings, the National 

Impact Analyses. 

 4, impact on utility performance, Screening 

Analysis and an Engineering Analysis. 

 5, the impact of any lessening of competition 

is the Manufacturer’s Impact Analysis. 

 6, need for energy conservation, and that 

analysis is the National Impact Analysis. 

 And then other factors the Secretary 

considers relevant and these include the Environmental 

Assessment, Utility Impact Analysis, and Employment 

Impact Analysis. 

 Now we move to the selection of the proposed 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

15

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

standards and for conventional cooking products, DOE 

considered four Trial Standard Levels, TSLs, in getting 

with the most efficient level, TSL-4, and working down 

to a level where the benefits of potential standards 

outweighed the burdens. 

 DOE tentatively concludes that at TSL-4, the 

benefits of energy saving and emissions reductions 

would be outweighed by the potential multimillion 

dollar negative net economic cost to the nation, the 

economic burden on consumers and the large capital 

conversion cost that could result. 

 DOE also tentatively concludes that at TSL-3 

and TSL-2, the benefits of energy savings and emission 

reductions would still be outweighed by the economic 

burden on consumers and the adverse impacts on 

manufacturers. 

 At TSL-1, only amended energy conservation 

standards consisting of prescriptive requirements to 

eliminate standing pilots for gas cooktops and gas 

standard ovens would be promulgated by DOE. 

 DOE tentatively concludes that TSL-1 saves a 

significant amount of energy and is technologically 

feasible and economically justified. 

 At this point, DOE requests comments on 

whether it should adopt TSL-1 or some other mix of 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

16

1 

2 

3 

efficiency levels for conventional cooking product 

classes. 

 Comments? 

4 Comments from Participants

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So let’s take comments right 

now on that question that you see there at the bottom 

of Slide Number 6. Who’d like to start? Debra? 

 DR. BRUNK: This is Debra Brunk with AHAM. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

 DR. BRUNK: From AHAM’s perspective, we 

certainly appreciate the DOE’s efforts to evaluate the 

different Trial Standard Levels. We recognize the 

issues and concerns with constantly-burning pilot 

lights. 

 However, I think our position here is that 

DOE did not address the potential safety concerns and 

the technologies that were imposed. We recognize that 

there are a lot of alternative technologies out there 

and particularly what we’ll talk a little bit later, I 

think, probably about the battery-powered smart 

ignition-type technologies, but I think our concern is 

that current safety standards, in particular the 

American National Standard for Household Cooking Gas 

Appliances, ANSI B.21.1, does not address alternative 

technologies for igniting gas appliances, and so we 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

17

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

have some concerns about how this proposed standard 

might work in parallel with standards development 

processes that would need to occur and also we don’t 

have any sense from this particular standards group on 

verifiable or viable technology for this particular 

effort. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Will you go into greater 

detail later about the concerns about safety? 

 DR. BRUNK: Yes. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Other 

questions or comments here at the outset, especially on 

the question you see at the bottom of 6? Comment on 

whether it should adopt TSL-1 or some other mix of 

efficiency levels for the conventional cooking product 

classes? 

 Yes, Jim, please. 

 MR. RANFONE: Yeah. Jim Ranfone from the 

American Gas Association. 

 We also would oppose DOE adopting TSL-1 

because not just from the safety issues but we have 

some trouble understanding the analysis in terms of the 

completeness, the energy savings and we can go into 

detail later, but the other issue is when you look at 

the overall picture of how that exception got -- was 

adopted into the legislation, it was because of certain 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

18

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

situations where consumers were not -- didn’t have 

electric outlets in the vicinity of the range. 

 This is a declining market. It’s a 

replacement market. We think you should still maintain 

that product as a product class. When we looked at the 

comments that were in the Federal Register, we saw that 

DOE did realize and recognize that there are, for 

example, religious groups that don’t allow electricity 

or don’t adopt it in their area for whatever reasons, 

religious, and DOE verified that when they did the 

analysis. 

 A couple other issues, one of them being the 

manufacturers’ impact. It looked like there were a 

couple manufacturers that indicated that they would 

harmed by adopting this requirement, yet I didn’t see 

any real follow-up in the Technical Support Document or 

at least the Federal Register on how that impacted the 

manufacturers, the small manufacturers. 

 We have some questions on the DOE assumptions 

on cost, cost of decent systems versus standing pilots, 

which didn’t seem to jive from what we saw in the 

field, and the way you presented it, you’re separating 

it from cooktops, cooktop ovens. When you look at it 

from ranges, there is the difference in price to the 

consumer. 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

19

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 I think you had your manufacturers’ prices 

down to $37 for combined but when you look at it from a 

total product, it’s more than that and I think that’s 

the area you should look at it, the impact on the 

customers, not on the manufacturers’ costs. 

 So some other issues that we’ll bring up 

during the discussions, but overall, this is a product 

that should remain in place. We do question the 

battery-operated applications, that suddenly DOE is 

getting involved in appliances which we don’t think is 

appropriate. If there was product out there, then you 

should analyze it, but I think saying, well, it can be 

developed based on some battery-operated ignition 

systems, we would question that as a valid reason for 

imposing this level. 

 Also, there’s some comments about it being 

applied to instantaneous water heaters, some other 

products. We’re not aware of that. We know there’s 

some battery-operated systems on, for example, outdoor 

grills, but I’ve never seen one on a furnace or an 

instantaneous water heater. So I would suggest you 

take another look at that before you adopt it as a 

requirement. 

 You’ve looked at it from the customer, you 

know, the availability of a product and we don’t think 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

20

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

that’s correct. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks, Jim. Other comments 

about this specific question and then we’ll double back 

to more opening round kind of comments. 

 Steve Rosenstock. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, Edison 

Electric Institute. 

 When I looked at the standards for both, you 

know, gas ovens as well as microwave ovens, it seemed 

like DOE was taking, you know, different approaches for 

microwave ovens with maximum standby power. For gas 

equipment, it was basically a component of the 

appliance. 

 I think, you know, in DOE -- you know, 

Federal Government -- I’m going to go back in terms of 

banning actual products. 

 I do -- I remember back in EPACT 2005 where 

mercury vapor ballasts were banned from manufacturer 

import and then people at some point realized that, you 

know what, it’s one thing to ban it, but then all of a 

sudden those products were used for medical equipment. 

So when EISA -- the ban was going to take place January 

1st, 2008. 

 EISA 2007, which was passed in December 2007, 

basically overturned that ban because of the fact that 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

21

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

it realized that there were certain applications for 

this particular product, not using that much energy but 

just basically there was almost a life safety involved 

with it. It is used in a certain piece of medical 

diagnostic equipment. 

 So, you know, on the one hand, you know, it 

might be, you know, -- it will save energy to ban pilot 

lights, there’s no question about it, but on the other 

hand, it -- a total ban -- does restrict flexibility. 

So DOE might want to consider doing a similar option 

with gas ovens that they did with microwave ovens in 

terms of a maximum energy usage in the standby mode, 

I’ll say, btu per hour, such that there might be some 

flexibility for the manufacturers rather than banning a 

component that’s in there right now. 

 Thank you. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Other 

comments on this specific question? Gary Fernstrom. 

 MR. FERNSTROM: Gary from PG&E. I have a 

question and I’m happy to put this off if this is the 

wrong time to ask it, but I’m wondering if, in DOE’s 

analysis, the electric glow bar that operates in gas 

ovens was considered, if the electric energy use of the 

glow bar was considered. 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: They were considered and I 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

22

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

think that a little further on when we get to the 

actual analysis will be the point that you’ll want to 

bring them up. These are just for -- we’re just asking 

for general input at this time. 

 MR. FERNSTROM: Thank you. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you, Steve. Ken, 

do you have a comment? I thought you were ready to 

comment, Ken. 

 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Pardon me. Ed, I apologize. 

 MR. OSANN: The Appliance Standards Awareness 

Project. 

 We are generally supportive of the 

elimination of the standing pilots. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. So then no 

additional comments on this specific question. Then 

you’re finished with your review and I’m going to 

proceed -- 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: Right, right. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: -- with the opening round. 

This is an opportunity for anybody that wishes to make 

general comments, raise issues of concern to you and 

get those issues on the record here right off at the 

start this morning. 

 So who would like to start? Phil, please. 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

23

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. MANTHEI: Yes. Phil Manthei, Alliance 

Laundry Systems. 

 DOE’s proposed standards for top-loading 

class commercial clothes washers effectively takes 

Alliance’s laundry systems out of the marketplace and 

that hands it to a line from that one, Whirlpool, 

Maytag. 

 There’s only three manufacturers of 

residential clothes washers and only two major 

manufacturers of commercial clothes washers. I want 

to, as we go through this, say we do agree with some 

areas of the ANOPR. Obviously we agree that of the two 

product classes, we agree with DOE’s findings of the 

adequacy of the test procedure. We agree with DOE’s 

recognition of relatively flat future shipments. 

However, obviously because of the Technical documents 

are not online, we have to trust that. I cannot see a 

graph yet. 

 Alliance agrees with DOE’s proposed energy 

standards for front-loading clothes washers. However, 

there is one point we’d make. Front-loading clothes 

washers with electric heater has a slightly lower 

number, 1.96, and basically taking that out. There are 

places in the northern parts of the United States that 

to effectively get the hot water you need to clean your 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

24

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

clothes, you need a heater. 

 DOE must absolutely reconsider the proposed 

standard for top-loading clothes washers because of 

seven things and then I’ll issue what I say is the 

recommended reasonable standard. It is based on faulty 

technical rating and when we get to the Engineering 

portion, we’ll get into that. 

 Based on the GE product that you’ve cited 

from the California Energy Commission, there are some 

issues. It will eliminate ALS as a competitor. There 

is no commercial acceptance of the technology behind 

the proposed standard. One model does not provide, and 

it’s only a recent entry, does not provide commercial 

acceptance in the market. It will result in reduced 

product quality and utility. It will eliminate toploading clothes washers from the market. 

 There is no justification for investment to 

meet the proposed standard for Alliance Laundry. There 

will be a detrimental impact on industry and labor 

force. 

 Alliance Laundry Systems proposes Trial 

Standard Level 1 as appropriate for top-loading class. 

That’s an MEF-1.42 and a water factor of 9.5. Number 

1, it’s technically and economically feasible. The 

water factor is consistent with the 2007 Energy 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

25

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Independence and Security Act for residential clothes 

washer minimum standards. 

 Why should commercial clothes washer users be 

required to use less water than someone in their home? 

That’s discrimination. It’s not right. I’m sure the 

new administration under Obama, who’s supporting the 

middle-class and oppressed, is going to love that. 

 Avoids significant detrimental impact on us, 

the low-volume manufacturer. Avoids potential 

unavailability of top-load class of clothes washers. 

Avoids potential loss of competition. Achieves 

efficiency improvement, although users get lower wash 

water temperatures. 

 I think DOE has rushed to judgment. Alliance 

Laundry Systems is outraged by DOE’s proposed toploading class standard where DOE is the enabler to 

upsetting the market and competition and loss of 

apparent utility of the product and literally hands the 

business, as I said, to Whirlpool and Maytag which 

certainly has got to be seen as a monopoly, especially 

when they have 72 percent of the residential clothes 

washer market and they would end up with about 90 

percent in the commercial clothes washer market. 

 Thank you. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Phil. Other 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

26

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

comments here at the outset? Gary? 

 MR. FERNSTROM: Gary Fernstrom, Pacific Gas 

and Electric. 

 I just would like to make the observation 

that nothing comes for free and in the end, somebody 

pays. So consumers can pay more for energy to do their 

laundry or operators can pay more for the equipment in 

the first place, so that the laundry can be done less 

expensively. 

 So when we talk about discrimination in 

certain classes, we’re really talking about who bears 

the burden of the cost with respect to the initial 

investment and the operating cost and there seems to be 

a tendency with industry to look at only the initial 

investment and to downplay the effect on different 

classes of society with respect to what they pay for 

the operating cost. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Yes, Tim. 

 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo with EarthJustice. A 

comment on the commercial clothes washer portion of 

this rulemaking. 

 DOE, in the NOPR, argued that they don’t have 

the authority to do a single product class for 

commercial clothes washers because of 6295.04, which 

provides that the preponderance of the evidence shows 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

27

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

that the standard would result in the unavailability in 

the United States of certain features in a product, DOE 

can’t adopt that standard. 

 I believe that a preponderance of the 

evidence does not show that a single standard for all 

commercial clothes washers would result in the 

unavailability in the United States of commercial 

clothes washers that can be accessed from the top. 

 There is a residential clothes washer that 

can be accessed from the top which I may have missed 

this, but I believe it’s a horizontal access washer, 

and the existence of that product goes a long way to 

show that basically there is a market for -- if there 

is a market for this feature, accessing the commercial 

clothes washer from the top, and DOE adopts the single 

standard for all commercial clothes washers, the market 

will provide this feature, if there’s any real customer 

utility for it, because it already exists in a very 

similar product. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Debra? 

 DR. BRUNK: Debra Brunk from AHAM. Just a 

few general comments beyond what we mentioned on the 

gas ranges or, I guess, cooktops and ovens. 

 Regarding commercial clothes washers, just to 

reiterate, we are pleased that DOE has defined two 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

28

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

product classes for commercial clothes washers. We 

believe certainly that makes sense and we also 

appreciate DOE’s willingness to utilize the current 

residential clothes washer test procedure. 

 Also, we do appreciate, and I’m sure we’ll 

get into this a little later, but the estimates of 

future shipments for commercial clothes washers are 

much more realistic as published in the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking than in the Advanced Notice which 

we discussed last year. 

 AHAM does support the water and energy 

efficiency standards that DOE does propose for the 

front-loading product class. 

 Second, in regard to microwave ovens, I’ll 

say very little on that right now, but we do believe as 

an industry that the standby requirement by 2012 is a 

bit aggressive and it’s not consistent with the timing 

in the rest of the world. 

 We do recognize that it does not make sense 

to put an active energy use standard on microwave 

ovens, that it does not make sense to roll the standby 

power use into the active energy use. So we see the 

need for this path forward. 

 I think one thing that we would like to make 

sure we put out is that we will be having the microwave 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

29

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

oven procedure discussion tomorrow. We do believe that 

a discussion of Trial Standard Levels in this case are 

very much in parallel and in concert with the test 

procedure definitions and those -- they’re linked. So 

it may be a little bit difficult to discuss today the 

Trial Standard Levels. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. J.B. 

 MR. HOYT: J.B. Hoyt, Whirlpool Corporation. 

At the risk of repeating a little bit of what’s been 

said, we certainly appreciate the department’s 

designation of two classes for commercial clothes 

washers. There are significant differences in both 

consumer and purchaser utility between the classes and 

that’s now been recognized. 

 At the risk of disagreeing with a fellow 

manufacturer, we do feel that the proposed levels are 

viable by 2012 in both top-load and front-load class 

and I realize that’s a position that is -- there’s not 

consistency within the industry. 

 Also as Debra said, the forecast going 

forward is much more realistic and consistent with our 

own views of the industry. 

 In traditional conventional cooking products, 

we are intellectually and from a sales and marketing 

standpoint comfortable with the proposal to eliminate 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

30

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

standing pilot lights in gas products, but there are 

significant safety issues that we feel have been 

overlooked in the analysis. 

 In point of summary, the spark igniters that 

work effectively in the gas grill have a very wide 

margin of safety because those products are used 

outdoors and if there’s a gas leak because the unit 

fails to ignite, that gas is likely to be disbursed. 

Indoors, in the event that the igniter fails or the 

battery dies, there’s a tremendous opportunity for 

either someone to be overcome by the gas or for 

explosion. So we think that’s an issue. 

 As for the standard levels for other 

products, we agree with the standard to remain in 

place. 

 In terms of microwave ovens, while it’s 

arithmetically possible to combine an operating and a 

standby power into one calculation, it’s illogical to 

do so, so we concur with that. 

 We are concerned about the definitions used 

in microwave ovens. We can expand on that later. 

We’re concerned about the timing. Microwave ovens, 

unlike most of our products, really are ubiquitous. 

They are very similar products around the globe. 

There’s an opportunity to leverage technology and 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

31

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

timing and combined, any changes in U.S. policy with 

changes in policy around the world, that would be 

significantly advantageous to us as manufacturers. 

 A couple other comments. This applies to 

both microwave ovens -- applies more to conventional 

cooking than microwaves. In the area of display types, 

the displays that are used in a lot of conventional 

cooking products, VFD displays, are necessary because 

of the high heat applications in there and those do 

consume more energy. So as we look at -- I know 

there’s not been a proposed test procedure yet for 

conventional cooking standby power. I know the 

department wants to gather data on that. 

 We would urge that that data-gathering happen 

or be initiated soon. Unlike other products, the 

dishwasher and clothes washer, we have a lot of 

experience with energy and we have a lot of data 

available that we can provide the department. In 

cooking, we don’t. We’ve not dealt with it. So this 

is going to be plowing new ground for us as 

manufacturers as well as for the department and we 

would ask that you get that request to us promptly and 

allow adequate time for us to develop that data because 

this is going to be starting from scratch. 

 Things like VFDs or alternatives to VFDs, I 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

32

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

should say, in high heat applications will be an issue 

for us. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, please. 

Please say your name for the record. 

 MS. KLINE: Hi. This is Kelley Kline from 

GE. 

 First of all, we’d like to support AHAM’s 

comment that it made regarding the standing -- the 

burning pilot light and would just like to amplify the 

point regarding the consumer utility that they provide 

for customers without line power for economic, 

religious or other reasons. 

 We’d also like to support AHAM’s comments as 

they relate to microwave ovens. 

 In terms of the commercial clothes washer 

standard, we do support DOE’s proposal to have two 

product classes. However, our -- we cannot support and 

do not agree with the proposed standard levels for the 

top-load product class. 

 We share Alliance’s concern about the 

competitive effects in the marketplace for adopting 

those standards and have a fear that the adoption of 

the standards or the proposed levels would essentially 

regulate that product class out of the marketplace. So 

we would like to amplify Alliance’s point on that 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

33

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

position. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: And would you say what 

standard level you’d like to see? 

 MS. KLINE: We agree with what Alliance had 

proposed. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Other 

comments here at the outset? I think it’s very helpful 

for the department not only to hear what you don’t like 

but to hear, as you’ve started to do, what you concur 

with, what you agree with. So thanks to all of you 

that have offered that kind of comment, in addition to 

your critique. I think that’s helpful for the 

department and for the rulemaking. 

 Ed? 

 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann, Appliance Standards 

Awareness Project. 

 I will start out with a compliment for the 

department. We do commend the department for the 

proposal on one-watt standby for microwave ovens and we 

appreciate the willingness to pull forward on the 

development of the test procedure rather than deferring 

to the latest permissible development of that test 

procedure under the law, which would be 2011, so that 

the potential savings for standby power reduction can 

be captured in this round of the rulemaking for cooking 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

34

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

products. 

 We had recommended that course in the 

framework in the NOPR stage and we appreciate that DOE 

has moved in that direction. 

 We do take issue with several aspects of the 

proposal for commercial clothes washers. We believe 

that the division of the product category into two 

product classes was not required under the law. DOE, 

having made the distinction of the two classes, the 

TSLs for the two classes did not track and ignored the 

benchmarks, industry benchmarks, such as occur in the 

proposed Energy Star levels and federal tax incentive 

performance levels that had been pending for -- 

throughout most of this Congress and were widely 

anticipated within the industry. 

 The technology screening appears to be 

somewhat flawed by ignoring combinations that are now 

in commercial production in residential market. It 

almost seems as though DOE wants to have the argument 

both ways with regard to the small manufacturer 

considerations, that when considering the economic 

position of one commercial product manufacturer and in 

the description of the general market relationships, 

the combination of the residential and commercial 

markets is cited by DOE as providing tremendous 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

35

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

advantages in part due to R&D and product innovation 

and product development, the availability of the 

residential market and residential platforms for that 

purpose, but then when evaluating specific 

technologies, the innovations that are already on the 

market in the residential sector are apparently not 

given serious consideration in the commercial product 

rulemaking, and there’s something about that lack of 

symmetry that’s troubling. 

 There seems to be also a lack of 

substantiation, either data or analysis, regarding the 

potential recapture of market share, concern that DOE 

expressed in terms of -- in support of reducing the 

proposed standard for front-loading clothes washers 

from the level that would maximize life-cycle cost 

savings to something less than that due to concern 

about the recapture of market share by less efficient 

top-loading washers. It’s unclear whether there’s 

really any analysis to support that. 

 It seems as though -- I mean step back from 

the details. It seems as though there’s sort of a -- 

some kind of perfect storm at work here. 

 The previous analyses leading up to the NOPR 

clearly indicated that there are tremendous life-cycle 

cost savings presented by high-efficiency clothes 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

36

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

washers and those are available to all sectors of the 

market and yet for what appears to be a lack of a 

relatively small amount of capital, recognizing that 

amount of capital is significant for one of the actors 

in this marketplace, but apparently for lack of a 

relatively small amount of capital, hundreds of 

millions of dollars of consumer savings are going to be 

foregone and there’s got to be a way of squaring the 

circle somewhat before we end this regulatory process. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Other 

comments here at the outset before we go into a more 

detailed presentation on the content listed in the 

agenda? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Then let’s proceed. 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: Okay. We sort of skipped 

some slides, 7 through 10, but they’ve been covered in 

the comments, so we can go into the detailed analysis 

now. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s pause just for a moment. 

Let’s do please look at Slides 7 through 10. 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: These are the actual TSLs for 

the commercial clothes washers. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Right. This is an opportunity 

for any additional comments on those slides. I wasn’t 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

37

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

aware that you were going to skip those. 

 Yes, Ed Osann. 

 MR. OSANN: Yes, Ed Osann. I did have one 

more general comment. 

 Steve had referred to the fact that the 

Technical Support Document would be posted some time 

later this week. I would just like to note that it 

hasn’t been widely available. I appreciate the effort 

of DOE staff to make it available to me, but I do want 

to observe at this point the possibility that we will 

be requesting and welcome others in joining the request 

to extend the deadline for written comments, if the TSD 

is not promptly available this week. 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: It’s available directly from 

me immediately and I, as I said, fully expect it to be 

available online by Wednesday of next week, but as I’ve 

told -- as I mentioned to several of you, if you want 

it now, I will get you an electronic copy and as I have 

for Ed. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Gary Fernstrom. 

 MR. FERNSTROM: Doug, I’m sure everyone is 

aware, but I’d just like to note that so far as PG&E in 

California are concerned, we believe that because of 

the preciousness of water in California and the 

embodied energy in it, that a higher standard for 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

38

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

commercial clothes washers is merited. 

 California petitioned the Department of 

Energy to have an exemption from the federal standard 

for that product. That was subsequently denied and 

California has taken that to court. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you for that 

reminder. 

 So additional comments then as we go through 

Slide 7, 8, 9 and 10 before we move on to more detailed 

presentations? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Let’s proceed then. 

13 Engineering Analysis

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MS. REICH: Good morning, everybody. This is 

Judith Reich from Navigant Consulting. Let’s see. I’m 

going to skip ahead here. 

 As we’re going to go through the 

presentation, we will identify a number of issues that 

were brought up in the NOPR on which DOE is seeking 

comment and these are listed out. I won’t go through 

them right now, but each one of these will be addressed 

and you’ll be provided an opportunity to comment on 

them. 

 So I believe we have -- up to this point. 

I’m going to be leading off the discussion of the 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

39

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

individual analyses that were conducted as part of the 

NOPR phase. This nice graphic shows a flow chart of 

what the analyses are and the order in which they are 

conducted. 

 You’ll notice that some of them are the same 

as were conducted in the ANOPR phase but have been 

updated based on comments and input from stakeholders 

that DOE received as a result of the ANOPR and some of 

these are new and specific just to the NORP. 

 What we’re going to present is primarily 

those issues that were just shown on which DOE is 

looking for input but also key results of analyses that 

are new to this phase. You’ll also be provided an 

opportunity to comment on other issues in any area as 

they arise. 

 If you wish to find out any more information 

on these, I’ll refer you to the NOPR and hopefully the 

TSD when that’s made available. 

 The first stage in the analyses that DOE 

performs is the Engineering Analysis and in the NOPR, 

this was an update of the Engineering Analysis from the 

ANOPR stage, based on again the inputs that were 

received and also there was some additional work that 

was performed as a result of the Energy Independence 

and Security Act, the EISA, which resulted in DOE 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

40

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

adding the analysis for microwave ovens standby power. 

 Now, the requirement of EISA was that the 

microwave oven and other covered products would not 

need to consider standby power, incorporating that into 

the energy conservation metric, if the final rule was 

published after July 2010, but for the purposes of this 

rulemaking, DOE decided to accelerate the analysis for 

microwave ovens and to include it in this because it 

determined that standby power is a significant fraction 

of energy use for microwave ovens and because of 

opportunities among the products that are currently on 

the market to reduce standby power. 

 So it is including microwave oven standby 

power and also is conducting the concurrent test 

procedure rulemaking, so that will be available at the 

same time. 

 The purpose of the Engineering Analysis 

fundamentally is to define what the relationship is 

between incremental improvements in energy efficiency 

over a baseline product and to associate the costs with 

those incremental improvements. 

 All of the product classes from the ANOPR 

were analyzed which includes conventional and microwave 

oven energy factor and commercial clothes washers and 

it also added in microwave oven standby power. 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

41

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 Two different fundamental approaches can be 

taken in determining the cost efficiency relationship 

and they are -- the choice of which to use is a 

function of the fundamental characteristics of the 

product and also what’s available on the market. 

 So for all cooking products, the design 

option approach was taken in which specific 

technologies or strategies that manufacturers may take 

to improve efficiency are evaluated and the costs 

associated with each of them and then are incrementally 

layered to see what would happen or what would be 

required to achieve higher efficiency levels. 

 With general stakeholder agreement from the 

ANOPR, DOE determined that it was a viable approach to 

take the cost-efficiency curves that were generated in 

the 1996 analysis and update them, update the costs, 

recognizing that technologies are not that different 

from what they were at the time. So that the 

efficiency levels would remain the same but that the 

costs would be scaled by the Producer Price Index. 

 For standby power for microwave ovens, again 

a design option approach was taken and in this case, 

DOE determined through some reverse engineering and 

analysis what that relationship would be between 

incremental reductions in standby power and the 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

42

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

manufacturing costs. 

 A different approach was taken for commercial 

clothes washers, based on the fact that there are a 

wide range of efficiencies among units available on the 

market which could be associated with specific 

efficiency levels that were defined, and at the ANOPR 

stage, the industry supplied the cost information at 

two of the efficiency levels above baseline and DOE 

then performed some analysis to extend the cost, create 

the cost-efficiency curve. 

 When we moved to the NOPR phase and the 

determination was made to have two product classes for 

commercial clothes washers, DOE again performed 

analysis and spoke further with manufacturers to be 

able to extend the existing data points for the two 

cost-efficiency curves. 

 MR. OSANN: Question. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Please, Ed. 

 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann. So is the upshot here 

that for the Engineering Analysis for commercial 

clothes washers, you did not take a design option 

approach? 

 MS. REICH: That’s right. 

 MR. OSANN: You did not assemble 

representative types of technologies. Then the 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

43

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

technology screening apparently had no purpose? 

 MS. REICH: Well, the evaluation of 

technologies supplemented that efficiency level 

approach. DOE did perform some limited evaluation of 

specific technologies at different levels, but it was 

primarily the efficiency level approach. 

 MR. OSANN: And did the efficiency level 

approach extend to clothes washers generally or was it 

limited to commercial clothes washers? 

 MS. REICH: Well, commercial clothes washers 

in this rulemaking. 

 Okay. That brings us to the first issue 

which DOE has identified and which we’ve already had a 

number of comments on, which is for the efficiency 

levels were defined for conventional gas cooking 

products, the first efficiency level is associated with 

the elimination of standing pilot ignition systems, and 

it should be noted that there currently is a 

prescriptive standard that preclude standing pilots on 

certain gas cooking products, namely those that are 

already equipped with electrical power cords which in 

effect means gas self-cleaning ovens, but that the TSL1 that is the proposed standard would in fact eliminate 

standing pilots in all gas cooking product classes. 

 When it was reviewing technologies, DOE 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

44

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

identified that there are battery-powered ignition 

systems that are used in other products and which could 

be incorporated into cooking products for households in 

which there’s no line power available in the kitchen 

and these systems are being used in instantaneous gas 

water heaters or outdoor grills and furnaces. 

 When we reviewed ANSI Z21.1, it did appear 

that such systems would -- that these battery-powered 

systems would meet the requirements of -- the safety 

requirements of that standard, but at this point, we 

certainly invite comment on the viability of batterypowered spark ignition modules as an alternative to 

standing pilot ignition systems. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI. I 

think the concept is -- it sounds great, but I think, 

along with other products, I’m just wondering, are 

there any commercially-available products that have 

such a system right now? 

 MS. REICH: Yes, yes. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: There are? 

 MS. REICH: Yes, there are. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Okay. Indoor gas cooktops. 

There are products that -- 

 MS. REICH: Oh, gas cooking products? 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

45

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: The gas cooking products, 

like ranges or gas cooktops. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Indoor, you said? 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Indoor. 

 MS. REICH: Indoor. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Yeah. 

 MS. REICH: Not known at this point. What 

DOE did was look at other products that are indoor 

residential products. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Jim, Jim Ranfone. 

 MR. RANFONE: Jim Ranfone, American Gas 

Association. 

 Can you identify which ignition systems for 

us are a battery-powered system that’s used on a 

furnace or will you? Possibly not now but afterwards, 

because I’m not aware of a battery-powered ignition 

system that’s available on a furnace or an 

instantaneous gas water heater. 

 MS. REICH: Okay. 

 MR. RANFONE: Secondly, it seems that if it’s 

not viable to go with a battery-operated system on a 

range for a number of reasons, cost, safety, people 

replacing batteries or, you know, not having a battery 

and suddenly starting to match light their equipment 

which is something we don’t want them to do or possibly 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

46

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

if they have a -- don’t have a pilot light and then 

they start using extension cords and we don’t really 

want that to happen. 

 So there’s some other safety issues besides 

the reset of the gas. It seems like DOE is saying, 

well, if this doesn’t work, if this isn’t a viable 

solution to eliminating standing pilots, then, well, 

that’s okay, we’re still going to eliminate standing 

pilots. 

 It seems like that’s what you’re saying. 

Here’s your out, that if you’ve got these systems and 

all you have to do is apply it and you’ll still have a 

range or a cooktop or an oven that doesn’t require 

electric supply, but if it turns out that that’s not a 

viable solution, which I think, you know, I would say 

to you, if you don’t have a product on the market, 

there’s a reason for it. If you don’t have a batteryoperated cooking piece of equipment with an ignition on 

a piece of cooking equipment, there’s a reason for it, 

a lot of reasons. It may not be economics. It may be 

safety. I think some of the other comments have said 

that. 

 So I would caution you, you know, before you 

say, well, we can do this with a system that’s not 

available in a current product, that you really take a 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

47

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

look at it hard line because you may wind up with an 

unintended consequence. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Lance. 

 MR. DeLAURA: This is Lance DeLaura with 

Sempra Utilities. 

 I share the concern of AGA relative to the 

safety. I have this vision of our six million 

customers, especially the low-income customers, not 

understanding the issue of replacing a battery and 

doing what Jim just talked about, not only with a match 

but with a lit piece of paper or a lit paper towel and 

having unintended consequence. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So would you be specific? 

What would you recommend the department do with this? 

 MR. DeLAURA: I’d like to see the department 

have a better understanding of what the available 

technology is. I mean, I think the same thing that Jim 

said. We’re hearing that there is a technology for 

water heaters and furnaces for battery operation. I’m 

not aware of that either. I’d like to understand that 

better. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: They should do more -- they 

should dig further and do more, find out what’s out 

there. Would you comment on the viability of batterypowered spark ignition modules? 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

48

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. DeLAURA: I don’t have enough information 

on that, especially as it relates to cooking. I can’t 

say more. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Please say your name. 

 MR. JOHNSON: Chris Johnson, LG Electronics. 

I was just wondering if DOE looked at products 

available in other parts of the world or did you just 

focus on technologies of gas cooking products that are 

sold in the U.S. or energy -- if you did not look at 

other technologies and other products available in 

other parts of the world, why not? 

 MS. REICH: Oh, we did consider technologies 

that were available elsewhere, yes. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Gary, please. 

 MR. FERNSTROM: Gary Fernstrom with PG&E. 

I’d just like to follow Lance DeLaura’s comments and 

agree that we can’t compromise safety. If it’s a 

matter of economy, you know, I think frequently the 

initial cost is weighted too much relative to the 

operating cost. However, I’d like to be confident that 

technology is being considered. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: I think the department would, 

given their tight time frame for all of this, would 

really like as much comment on the viability of it from 

what you know now as possible. So if there is the 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

49

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

possibility for doing that. 

 Constantin, and then I’m coming back to you, 

Debra. 

 MR. von WENTZEL: I just wanted to mention -- 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Say your name for the record. 

 MR. von WENTZEL: Constantin von Wentzel, 

Navigant Consulting. 

 I just wanted to state for the record that we 

noted an instantaneous gas water heater that was 

running on four D cell batteries, so that was a 

complete ignition system that was battery-powered, and 

we also noted commercial availability of a thin-wall 

gas furnace ignition system that’s also based on 

batteries. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Debra. 

 DR. BRUNK: Debra Brunk with AHAM. I think 

I’ll just reiterate a little bit of what I had said in 

my opening comments. 

 I think the industry appreciates where DOE is 

at on this. We appreciate that there is energy to be 

saved by banning constant burning pilots -- however, we 

are concerned that at this point, the technologies out 

there are not viable on safety. 

 DOE has identified the battery-powered spark 

ignition as a potential technology and we recognize 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

50

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

that as a potential technology. However, again there 

are safety concerns and we don’t see that there are 

other viable technologies out there at this time. 

 In terms of the -- specifically for the 

battery-powered spark ignition, we talked about the big 

outdoor grills. There are concerns about moving that 

indoors in terms of gas leakage and also reliability. 

We talked about consumers lighting manually those kind 

of things. We would be very concerned about that. 

 We mentioned the NDU 21.1 which again is very 

specific to gas ranges and cooktops. It does address 

battery-powered spark ignition which might be 

considered a cooktop. However, it does not address for 

unattended lights which could be in the range or in the 

oven, however you want to describe that unit. So that 

is not currently addressed by that standard. 

 I think again this is something that we 

continue to discuss. I think it’s a relatively small 

market at this point. I think that this rulemaking, 

AHAM’s suggestion would be that there would be 

standards that would be effective for both electric and 

gas on conventional cooking products, but I think 

perhaps what, you know, we as an industry would need to 

do is take a look at this gas standard and see how, in 

particular, our battery-powered spark ignition module 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

51

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

could be incorporated for gas cooking products and I 

just -- I feel knowing how standards development works, 

the timeline would not be consistent with this 

rulemaking. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Steve Rosenstock. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI. I 

made these comments during the ANOPR stage. I did see 

where DOE did reverse engineering and a lot of analysis 

of microwave ovens and standby power and looking at 

different models and what the actual standby was and 

different features and the standby mode was, and I had 

suggested that why not look at that for gas equipment 

as well because, you know, maybe there are ranges and 

there are different technologies that currently exist 

where, let’s say, one type of oven has, you know, 200 

btus per hour on standby, another one is at 100 btus 

per hour, and maybe there would be a performance way of 

looking at it for gas products as well as what you’re 

doing with electric products. 

 I guess at this point, there’s no time. We 

never really kind of saw any information about why DOE 

did not look at standby energy use of the gas products, 

but I think there are legitimate concerns about a total 

ban and I don’t know if it’s too late to do it, but 

again you might want to look at some sort of a 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

52

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

performance approach, I’ll say btus per hour approach, 

on standing pilot lights rather than just a complete 

ban for many reasons as suggested here. 

 There might not be as many -- as much energy 

savings but the energy savings still could be rather 

significant. 

 Thank you. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 

comments on this query from the department? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

 MS. REICH: All right. The next half dozen 

or so slides relate to the analysis for the microwave 

ovens for standby power and again this was introduced 

because of both the potential for energy savings and 

the introduction or the signing of EISA in December 

2007, and specifically EISA requires that standby and 

off-mode power be incorporated into the energy 

descriptor for a covered product, unless it is 

technically infeasible, and in that case, it requires a 

separate standby power metric, unless that, too, is 

technically infeasible. 

 So DOE first examined the existing efficiency 

descriptor for microwave ovens to see whether it would 

be feasible to incorporate in standby power. AHAM had 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

53

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

supplied DOE data from 21 microwave ovens and DOE also 

supplemented that test data with its own data from a 

sample of 32 microwave ovens and that combined sample 

showed that there was no correlation between cooking 

efficiency which for microwave ovens is equivalent to 

energy factor and any feature that DOE could identify 

which includes output power or cavity size. 

 DOE also noted that among tests that were 

conducted on an individual unit which -- whose results 

would be averaged to define the efficiency, that there 

was a significant variability from test to test and 

that variability could be as high as several percentage 

points which is significant when you compare it to the 

total range of efficiencies measured in the sample 

which ranged from 55 to 62 percent. 

 DOE further examined what the -- whether it 

would be meaningful to combine this energy factor or 

cooking efficiency with a standby and off-mode energy 

consumption and what is apparent is that an energy 

factor which is measured by a test that only lasts a 

few tenths of seconds, trying to combine that with a 

standby measurement that’s made over many hours is not 

a representative measurement. It is not the efficiency 

of the cooking process and it’s not truly 

representative of the performance of the microwave oven 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

54

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

over the extended period of time that’s associated with 

standby. 

 So while it is mathematically possible to add 

those two together, it’s not a meaningful measurement 

and the -- or a meaningful metric and that is inherent 

in the requirements of EISA, that such meaningfulness. 

 So DOE determined that by trying to put these 

two very disparate measures together, it would produce 

a metric that would not be appropriate and it is 

technically infeasible to do and therefore DOE is 

proposing a separate prescriptive standby power 

requirement. 

 So DOE invites comment on this preliminary 

determination of technical infeasibility of 

incorporating microwave oven cooking efficiency with 

standby mode and off-mode power into a single metric. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Ken? Pardon me. Ed? 

 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann, Appliance Standards 

Awareness Project. 

 We support this initial determination for the 

reasons stated. The analysis does, however, highlight 

problems with the microwave test procedure itself and 

I’m left to wonder what plans DOE might have to sort of 

get to the heart of the problem with the microwave test 

procedure, the wide variation results, that sort of 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

55

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

thing. 

 MS. REICH: Mm-hmm. Well, DOE is aware that 

this is an issue that other organizations and 

manufacturers are looking at. DOE does not plan at 

this time to update the test procedure for measuring 

cooking efficiency but recognizes the limitations of 

it. 

 For example, DOE received comments that the 

load that is specified, a water load, is not 

representative of actual food that would be cooked or 

heated in the microwave oven but that at this time, 

it’s not known how a more representative food load 

could be specified that would produce accurate and 

repeatable results. 

 SO again, DOE is aware of that and is aware 

that this is an issue that is being looked at but is 

not planning to do -- to incorporate any changes to the 

efficiency portion of the test procedure at this point. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Debra. 

 DR. BRUNK: Debra Brunk with the Association 

of Appliance Manufacturers. 

 I would just like to say that I think DOE did 

a very good job in the ANOPR on working through this 

topic and just going through step by step in terms of 

everything that you considered. I think it’s a good 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

56

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

analysis. 

 As far as what Whirlpool said earlier, I 

think we do think it is technically feasible. I think 

we’re talking about semantics here, but it is not 

practical and we do agree with DOE on their analysis 

here. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI. I 

would agree with the AHAM comments, although on a 

bigger picture, I have to say now and again, this is 

because of federal law now. 

 Now, a lot of products are going to have two 

efficiency test procedures and two efficiency standards 

and with DOE’s workload on all the products that have 

to be done by 2012, and again this is again the direct 

result of EISA 2007, not exactly streamlining it, could 

actually double the work that might be needed for DOE 

when you think about it per product, unfortunately, and 

I agree that they are kind of separate issues and could 

need separate standards, but again, unfortunately, 

we’re going down a road where two test procedures, two 

efficiency standards for a single product. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Debra. 

 DR. BRUNK: Debra Brunk from AHAM. I just 

want to follow up on Steve’s point. 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

57

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 We support DOE’s work on this particular 

product. I think EISA 2007 was very clear that, when 

feasible, the standby power would be incorporated into 

the active energy use and I think most products that 

certainly we are familiar with in our association, most 

of those would roll the standby power into the active 

energy use. So I’m hoping that there will be multiple 

procedures that come up here. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 

comments on this question that you see at the bottom of 

Slide 19? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

 MS. REICH: Okay. Well, in addition to 

standby power, EISA requires off-mode power to be 

considered and so, first, it’s instructive to determine 

what exactly off-mode means. 

 Not shown here is active mode and active mode 

for a microwave oven is when a unit is plugged in and 

it has the magnetron or potentially thermal elements 

energized for the purposes of heating or cooking or 

defrosting the load. 

 Standby mode is defined by the EISA 

Amendments to EPCA as the condition in which the 

product is connected to the main power source and it 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

58

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

specifies the functions that would be associated with 

standby mode. 

 Specifically, there would be -- it would be 

in standby mode if there were energy-consuming 

components that were required to activate or deactivate 

other modes and this would be, for example, having a 

remote control or a sensor that would detect a user 

action and perhaps bring it up from a powered down 

state. 

 Standby mode would also cover the situation 

where there are continuous functions consuming power, 

such as a clock display on the microwave oven or a 

sensor-based function which in this case would mean 

primarily a cooking sensor. 

 In contrast, the off-mode would still be a 

situation where the unit was plugged in and consuming 

power but it’s not power that’s associated with any 

standby mode or active mode function and in the case of 

microwave ovens, DOE would assume that a microwave oven 

that has electromechanical controls and no display but 

perhaps drawing power for something like a power supply 

would be considered to be operating in off-mode. 

 However, through research and observations of 

the units that it sampled, DOE did not observe any offmode capability among any units that it could define as 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

59

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

currently available in the United States. It appears 

that there are no longer microwave ovens available with 

electromechanical controls, with no displays. 

 So DOE would invite comments on and perhaps 

any input or data that anybody may have on microwave 

ovens which may consume power in the off-mode. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Debra? 

 DR. BRUNK: I’m Debra Brunk with AHAM. I 

think this gets a little bit into our concern I 

mentioned earlier about definitions and those kind of 

things. 

 But I think it’s very helpful to look at the 

work that the world has done, particularly Europe, in 

defining or trying to clarify off-mode. I think one of 

the things that we feel is important to look at is 

we’re moving into a new realm here for looking at 

standby power, manufacturers looking at how to meet the 

requirements for standby power, and I think looking at 

products that are available now may not be necessarily 

applicable to the future. 

 For example, you mentioned the no 

electromechanical controls but perhaps we have to go 

back and look at that direction in order to meet 

standby requirements. 

 So I think looking at the definitions that 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

60

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

are in the drafts of IUC 6301 and also in the European 

Directive that was published in June of this year could 

be helpful. 

 There are a number of examples there that are 

put forward. One of them might be an LED or some other 

indication even that the unit is simply off-mode. It 

hasn’t completely -- you know, it is still working. 

Again that’s something that is not in use now because 

there’s not a need for it, but as we move into standby 

power, things like that may become more, I won’t say 

necessary but it’s a different type of product and 

there will have to be ways the product can communicate 

to the consumer that it is still working, but I won’t 

use the word “on,” based on the definitions here, but 

it is still plugged in. Let’s put it that way. 

 So again, I think a lot of our comments 

around microwave ovens, we will be looking at Europe 

and what Europe is doing and we feel that they’re offmode definitions and examples are realistic as we move 

forward. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Ron Lewis. 

 MR. LEWIS: I just want to note that many of 

the items, like definitions, are given to us by 

Congress and we don’t have the authority to say we 

prefer somebody else’s definition. That’s not an 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

61

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

option to us. So I just want to point that out, that 

as we’re looking for solutions and trying to find 

solutions, we have certain flexibilities and other 

things we don’t. 

 The same thing with -- there are several good 

suggestions being made this morning where we have time 

limits that are prescribed either by Congress or being 

overseen by a court that don’t allow us a whole lot of 

extra time to go out and analyze new things that 

haven’t been analyzed. 

 So I just wanted to point those out, that as 

we’re trying to find resolution and come up with the 

best that we can do, there are certain constraints and 

it’s not necessarily because we don’t appreciate the 

input or the desire to bring things together but we 

have limited flexibilities. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Debra, follow-on. 

 DR. BRUNK: Yes, we recognize that. I think 

we’re looking at EISA 2007. Those definitions were 

literally taken from the 16301 draft, and I think maybe 

we’re working -- those definition changes as opposed to 

I think there is opportunity to perhaps clarify or 

guidelines that might be helpful to this. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: J.B., follow-on. 

 MR. HOYT: J.B. Hoyt, Whirlpool. Agreed, and 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

62

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

having been involved in the construction of that 

language, Ron, your point is well taken, but again I 

think the work done by IEC since that time takes these 

definitions to a much higher level and an opportunity 

for clarification or extension of these definitions is 

something that the department needs to seriously 

consider. 

 I had a second point which now has suddenly 

escaped me. I apologize. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: That’s okay. We’ll return to 

it. 

 Steve Rosenstock. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI. In 

terms of the odd-mode, kind of following up especially 

on what Debra said, -- 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Hey, Steve. Ron wanted to 

follow up. Let me follow on and I’ll return to you. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Sure. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Ron Lewis. 

 MR. LEWIS: Just in the continuation of the 

constraints and the flexibilities, et. cetera, one of 

the things that EISA 2007 also prescribed was a general 

blanket directive for us to update standards and test 

procedures on a given cycle, time cycle, six years, I 

think, was for standards, seven years for test 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

63

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

procedures, we’re required to update them and no longer 

period of time than that. 

 So looking at right now, as you’re well 

aware, as most of the people have been coming to all 

these meetings are aware, in the last three years, 

we’ve gone like in order of magnitude up in the 

activity level. We’re probably doing 12 times the work 

right now that we were doing three years ago, getting 

stuff out of here. 

 So this ramp-up in trying to catch up with 

all the requirements we have right now has been an 

incredible effort, trying to look down the road at 

where those opportunities are and it may be the next 

cycle to update that you were talking about the 

microwave oven test procedure on looking at the ways to 

improve that. We wholeheartedly want to improve things 

and we want to internationally, where it makes sense, 

try to include the best thought that we can, but it may 

not be right now with all these constraints that we 

have possible to absorb it into this update, but we 

want to move forward and get early input from everybody 

of what is going on and start that dialogue and start 

that sharing of information, look at what we can do as 

we move forward. So it’s not like a dead issue or this 

is a once and forever kind of conclusion. 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

64

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. BROOKMAN: J.B. 

 MR. HOYT: J.B. Hoyt, Whirlpool. Thank you, 

Ron. You actually reminded me of what my second 

comment was, and I recognize the department’s workload. 

It has had a similar impact on us as manufacturers, as 

you might imagine, and I share your opinion. 

 But given that pressure, which we mutually 

face, if we’re not able to, we collectively, the 

department and industry, go as far as we’d like to in 

an analysis, that may preclude us going as far as we’d 

like to in terms of standards or standards levels 

because indeed we still have the responsibility of 

making sure the product is useful by the consumer and 

we really have to make sure that we don’t preclude that 

and if that means we have to delay something until the 

next round, that would be unfortunate but if that’s 

what the time pressures dictate, I think we have to 

recognize that. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Steve Rosenstock. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI. Kind 

of circling back to the off-power mode, I just kind of 

thought that, you know, it’s kind of the law of 

unintended consequences where if a response, for 

example, is, okay, there’s no clock and it’s just crank 

time or, you know, not electronic time, it’s just, you 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

65

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

know, mechanical timer and no clocks, there’s a utility 

issue with the product and especially thinking about, 

you know, senior citizens, might be not as easy for 

them to use a product. 

 You know, it’s going to save energy but there 

will be a utility issue and how you measure that and 

how you quantify that into dollar modes, I’m not sure, 

but again there are sometimes, you know, -- there’s 

thinking out of the box a little bit, thinking about 

the utility as well with some of these. You know, what 

does this lead to as we go down this road, just to 

think about. 

 Thank you. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed Osann. 

 MR. OSANN: Yeah. Ed Osann. Two points. 

One, lest we drift too far here, I’d just observe that 

the language of all of these definitions was reviewed 

by AHAM, agreed to by AHAM, and jointly recommended by 

AHAM and efficiency advocates to the Congress. So we 

have the definitions to work with that were recommended 

by stakeholders. 

 Secondly, this may fall between this slide 

and the next one, but the department’s proposed a 

prescriptive standard for standing pilot lights. Is 

there anything in the law that would prevent a 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

66

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

prescriptive standard for microwaves? I mean, you have 

the authority to propose and adopt a prescriptive 

standard of some sort, do you not? 

 MR. LEWIS: We’d have to check. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Ron Lewis. The 

department would have to check. Okay. 

 J.B. 

 MR. HOYT: J.B. Hoyt, Whirlpool again. Back 

to this off-mode debate, if indeed the standby power 

regulation requires a change in our product, and we’re 

suggesting that that might in terms of either the 

nature of the display or the visibility of the display, 

that would be a fundamental change in the way the 

consumer uses the product. That’s not to say that’s 

good or bad, it’s just different, and indeed one of our 

concerns is that that would cause consumer complaints, 

probably erroneous complaints. If my display dims or 

my display goes away, for example, as a consumer, I’m 

used to seeing that clock on all the time, I’m going to 

call Whirlpool and say, hey, my product has died, and 

it’s going to require consumer education on our part 

and may require unnecessary service calls to which 

there is an expense. Obviously to overcome that, you 

have to do more to educate the consumer. 

 I just want to point out that the marketing 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

67

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

costs we submitted to the department way back in the 

ANOPR phase did not include the cost of such a 

possibility because we did not foresee it at that point 

in time and I believe that’s true for the industry, 

although I would have to confirm that. So this is a 

fundamental change. 

 There will clearly be some additional costs 

to the industry. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Ed Osann. 

 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann. Was an on/off switch 

considered as a design option? 

 MS. REICH: An on/off switch would not be -- 

if it were in the off position, would not be -- fall 

under the definition of off-mode because effectively 

that disconnects the microwave from power. So it’s not 

covered under standby and off-mode definitions. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So that was Judith. 

 MR. OSANN: It was not considered? It was 

considered and rejected or it was not considered? 

 MS. REICH: Well, it’s not considered to be a 

standby power or off-mode design option. 

 MR. OSANN: Okay. I guess I’m puzzled by the 

determination that it would not be considered a design 

option for standby. 

 MS. REICH: Well, because if the switch were 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

68

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

in the off position, there’s no standby power 

consumption and it is an entirely separate situation. 

It’s not in standby mode, it’s not in off-mode, 

according to the EISA definition. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments before we 

move on here? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Judith. 

 MS. REICH: Well, this perhaps follows up on 

some of the comments we just heard about utility of 

different features that contribute to standby power in 

the microwave oven. 

 DOE identified three areas which largely 

contribute to the level of standby power consumption. 

The first is the presence of a cooking sensor and the 

type of cooking sensor. These are typically humidity 

or steam or gas sensors that generally have a heated 

sensing element and so in order to provide this 

resistive heating, they consume on the order of one to 

two watts. 

 Additionally, this element requires usually 

several minutes to warm up which, of course, is in some 

cases, in many cases, longer than the active mode, the 

cooking operation that a user would want to perform. 

 But DOE has identified several types of 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

69

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

cooking sensors that consume no power in standby mode. 

Some of these are currently in use and some of them are 

being developed for use. These include an absolute 

humidity sensor, an electric steam sensor, and there’s 

at least one design which DOE believes that will have 

zero incremental manufacturing cost to implement and 

which is being developed by suppliers specifically for 

microwave oven applications. 

 On the display side, there are several 

technologies which can be utilized and they may be 

selected on the basis of features, such as brightness, 

color, viewing angle, whether it can be seen at night, 

whether it has the ability to display complex 

characters, and so the primary traces are an LED 

display, liquid crystal display which may or may not 

have back lighting which would eliminate the need to 

have ambient lighting to see it, and vacuum fluorescent 

displays which generally have the highest energy 

consumption. 

 And then, finally, in the area which also 

affects standby power, are the choice of power supplies 

and their associated control boards. There are several 

opportunities for reducing standby power among these. 

The first would be to upgrade the materials or design 

to just have a standard power supply, a conventional 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

70

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

one, but with higher grade components so that the 

energy consumption is reduced. 

 The second alternative might be to specify 

components that the power supply supplies power to to 

be smaller or lower power draw so that the power supply 

itself can be made smaller, and the third would be how 

to change from a commercial power supply to a standby 

power supply, where instead of regulating the output 

power by dissipating it through a transistor, that the 

transistor would actually be switched on and off at a 

duty cycle that’s appropriate to maintain steady output 

power. 

 DOE invites comments on these and any input 

and data on what unique utility is provided by each of 

these features and particularly display technologies 

and cooking sensors that do not require standby power. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Debra. 

 DR. BRUNK: Debra Brunk with AHAM. Regarding 

the cooking sensors, I mentioned this in our previous 

comments. We do feel that this is a very important 

piece of microwave ovens in terms of their performance. 

It really is not realistic to have a sensor on a 

product and then have the consumer wait several minutes 

for it to warm up in order for it to do its job. 

 I think the fact that there are cooking 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

71

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

sensors out there that do not require standby power is 

excellent. However, I think that there’s a couple 

concerns that we have as an industry. One is 

reliability and accuracy. We think these are not 

proven yet, and I think we need to start looking at 

particularly at auditing these technologies over the 

range-type units. They have high temperature 

requirements that need to be met. 

 Again, these are very new and untested. So 

in terms of a design option, it is a design option that 

is relatively unknown and untested at this point. 

 I think, also, to your point, I think you 

addressed it slightly and we haven’t been able to get 

any additional information on this, but we do believe 

that there are some intellectual property concerns 

around these particular cooking sensors that do not 

require standby power and they might not be widely 

available to the industry. 

 Regarding displays, I think out of the list 

there, certainly DOE’s proposal to move to a longer 

standby is no longer viable. It just won’t work. From 

a consumer utility standpoint, there is the argument 

for high temperature use again over the range in 

particular and from a consumer functionality 

standpoint, they do provide excellent visibility from 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

72

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

all angles of the room and that’s why they’re used. 

They’re very high end display. 

 And again, I think just looking at other 

technologies, we certainly need to look at reliability 

of LEDs, particularly in over-the-range-type situations 

where temperatures are high and those may not be as 

useful in that type of product. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Steve Rosenstock. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI. Just 

in terms of the cooking sensors, in previous comments, 

I have said that one of their key functions would be to 

reduce cooking time in the active mode, that I know 

with my microwave oven, that they have -- one of the 

features is that it automatically knows when to stop 

your cooking microwave meal, for example, frozen meal, 

and usually in time, you know, it says on the box, 

let’s say, five or 10 minutes, but using the sensor, 

the time is reduced by X amount. It could be five 

percent, 10 percent, and I don’t know if DOE did any 

analysis, but the sensors do provide some energy 

savings in the active mode, and I think that again this 

is probably a utility aspect. 

 I don’t know if DOE did any tests of the 

active mode with cooking sensors and without the 

cooking sensor, for example, based on the manufacturer 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

73

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

recommendations, but if there are energy savings in the 

active mode, I would not want to see this type of 

product, you know, kind of be legislated out of 

existence because there are energy savings and I think 

that, you know, again taking the tunnel version versus 

-- the whole component versus the whole compliance. 

 If it’s saving energy on an annual basis, 

isn’t that what we want to do? 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Great. 

 MS. REICH: Excuse me. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Judith, follow-on, yes. 

 MS. REICH: Okay. Yes, I’d like to respond 

to that. Yeah. Cooking sensors, their benefit in 

active mode is not currently captured by the test 

procedure. DOE does recognize that in the real world, 

that they could produce energy savings and this was a 

utility issue that was considered in the selection of 

the proposed standby power level to be able to maintain 

the presence of the cooking sensor. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Gary. 

 MR. FERNSTROM: I think it’s important we 

keep our eye on the goal here. I love the convenient 

features of my microwave and I’ve become very 

accustomed to the display on all of my kitchen 

appliances. 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

74

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 However, I think most consumers would be 

astonished to know that in some cases, some of their 

home appliances use more energy in the standby mode 

getting ready to serve their intended function than 

they actually use doing it. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Ed Osann. 

 MR. OSANN: Yeah. I want to try again with 

the inquiry I had on the last slide. 

 Would an on/off switch be considered a design 

option, standby power design option, an on/off switch 

for display for the product for the display? 

 MS. REICH: Yes, that would be considered a 

design option, but again that’s brought up 

consideration of consumer utility, whether the presence 

of a continuous display, for example a clock feature, 

-- 

 MR. OSANN: Consumer-activated? 

 MS. REICH: Correct, yes. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Derrick. 

 MR. LITTLE: Derrick Little with GE. I’d 

like clarification on that question. 

 So you’re saying if you turn off the display, 

you by definition are in off-mode or by definition 

would be in standby mode? 

 MS. REICH: Well, if there are other 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

75

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

components consuming power that either fall under the 

definition of standby or off-mode, it would be in one 

of those. 

 For example, some microwave ovens have a 

feature that automatically shuts off the display after 

a certain period of time of a user not doing anything 

and then it detects the next time that the user opens 

the door or uses the controls that would power it back 

up. 

 So yes, shutting just the display off by any 

means but still consuming power for other purposes 

would still be in standby or off-mode. 

 MR. OSANN: And just to follow-up, was that a 

design option considered in this analysis? 

 MS. REICH: The automatic power-down function 

was, yes. 

 MR. OSANN: But a consumer-activated switch 

was not? 

 MS. REICH: It was not one of the standby 

levels that was considered, no. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, Derrick. 

 MR. LITTLE: A couple of comments on this 

particular slide. 

 The sensors. There are, as you mentioned, 

both absolute relative humidity sensors. The 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

76

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

performance of those sensors is somewhat different. 

Essentially, the resolution or the amount of humidity 

change that you’re able to detect varies, depending on 

that particular sensor. So they’re not necessarily -- 

there’s pros and cons with each, I guess, is one thing 

I want to point out. 

 The sensor that uses or consumes that power 

is more readily able to detect smaller changes in 

humidity and therefore you can cook more different 

types of foods and this goes somewhat to consumer 

utility as does the display technology issue that Debra 

mentioned earlier, particularly on over-the-range 

microwave ovens where they have to be subjected to the 

heat from the cooking product below it. The VFDs 

typically have a higher ability to withstand 

temperature that, say, an LCD with backlit. 

 Also in some of the literature, an LCD with 

backlit was looked at as an option to replace VFD. We 

don’t think that’s necessarily a viable option again 

from the consumer utility standpoint because with the 

VFD, you have the ability to see the time at any point 

in time. With the LCD, you can only see it when the 

backlit is on and the backlit cannot be on for the life 

of the product. 

 With respect to the power supplies, we do 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

77

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

agree that the power supply components should be 

upgraded. The cost, I think, was -- which was 

mentioned in the NOPR assessment of what that may 

require to get to that TSL level is a question, of 

course. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Other 

comments on this series of issues, cooking sensors, 

display technologies, and power supplies and control 

board options? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

 MS. REICH: Well, this brings up the next 

issue that we were just discussing which is this 

automatic power-down function, and it’s important to 

note that DOE does need to consider the EISA 

definitions as well as the IEC-62.301 definitions of 

what standby mode is, and it is determined by the 

lowest power-consuming state that the microwave oven is 

in standby mode. 

 DOE is aware that there are units on the 

market that can achieve less than one watt, 

significantly less than one watt standby power levels 

by having this function of turning off power to most 

components during this period of inactivity. 

 DOE’s also aware that many microwave ovens in 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

78

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

other countries where there are aggressive standby 

power targets are already implementing this feature. 

So DOE would like to invite comments on the control 

strategy, such as this, that manufacturers may use to 

implement it and also what sort of design trade-offs 

they may make once they’re able to incorporate features 

that may be higher power-consuming components, such as 

a VFD display, but that during standby mode these would 

be power-down. 

 And also, what the viability and cost of the 

control board circuitry that would be necessary to 

accomplish this power-down function to switch off 

cooking sensors and displays. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI. I 

think one of my main questions would be on the utility 

issue. In these microwave ovens that you’re referring 

to, how long does it take for those components to get 

back up, like, you know, for the cooking sensor, et. 

cetera? I mean, is there a consumer utility issue for 

some of the powering down and then coming back up? 

 Are there any or if not, great, but if there 

are, there can be -- let’s say it takes two minutes for 

the sensor to warm up, you have to wait for the sensor 

to warm up before they put the food in the oven. 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

79

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MS. REICH: Right. Exactly. That’s why DOE 

investigated these fast response cooking sensors that 

could have little to no warm-up times. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: But in those microwave 

ovens, it’s pretty quick to get back to regular 

operation? 

 MS. REICH: Actually, I don’t know. I think 

the assumption is yes. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Okay. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Constantin, you know the 

answer to this question? 

 MR. von WENTZEL: Constantin von Wentzel, 

Navigant Consulting. 

 I just wanted to note that there are already 

for sale in the United States multiple microwave ovens 

with no standby cooking sensors in them. So it’s not a 

new technology. It’s something that already exists and 

it’s something that already has been implemented by, I 

believe, at least two manufacturers. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Debra. 

 DR. BRUNK: Debra Brunk from AHAM. I think 

just a general comment on a lot of these design 

options. I think we again appreciate, you know, DOE 

suggesting a lot of these design options, the research 

that is behind it. 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

80

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 I think we do recognize that there are 

manufacturers, there are areas of the world that are 

already starting to incorporate some of these design 

options. I think from the industry standpoint here, we 

have little or no data right now on some of the design 

trade-offs, some of the reliability on these different 

design options, and I think, you know, as we move 

forward with, you know, whatever the standard is ends 

up being, those will come into play and that really 

becomes more of a manufacturer decision on how we will 

implement these as opposed to something that we would 

want to make sure that we don’t end up on a single 

prescriptive path on how a standby power standard needs 

to be reached. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Other comments on 

this slide? Ed Osann. 

 MR. OSANN: Is the option you’re requesting 

comment on intended to be power-down technology that 

would be reactivated by consumer activity or would it 

be open to sort of a fuzzy logic approach where a 

pattern of activity would be detected and power-down 

and power-up would become automated? 

 MS. REICH: Well, that’s an interesting 

possibility and we would certainly consider all 

potential approaches. You know, it was only 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

81

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

anticipated that it would be consumer-activated, but 

certainly it would be an option that would be 

considered if a fuzzy logic-type controller were 

implemented. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: J.B. 

 MR. HOYT: J.B. Hoyt, Whirlpool. I think 

that’s a creative idea, and I think as manufacturers, 

we want to leave this approach open so that whatever 

the standard is, we have a variety of ways to achieve 

it as we may each want to achieve it in a different 

manner as we think we have a better way of appealing to 

the consumer as opposed to having a prescriptive 

defined only method to achieve it. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 

comments on this point? 

 (No response.) 

 MS. REICH: Okay. This issue involves one of 

the design options that was mentioned which is the 

improvement in power supply technology. It’s generally 

recognized that switching power supplies from a 

performance standpoint are certainly an improvement. 

They have the highest available conversion efficiencies 

which can be up to 75 percent and their standby power 

consumption can be quite low, perhaps .2 or less watts, 

but those advantages come at a cost. 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

82

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 The devices are more complex. They have 

greater number of parts, and as a result, there may be 

reliability issues and there may -- and there’s 

certainly costs associated with it. 

 DOE is not aware of switching power supplies 

that are currently implemented in microwave oven 

applications. So it’s as yet to be determined what the 

long-term reliability of these units are with their 

greater complexity. 

 So DOE would invite comments on whether 

switching-type power supplies are applicable to the 

microwave oven environment and what the efficiency 

impacts would be associated with them. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Gary. 

 MR. FERNSTROM: Just a technical comment. 

Switching power supplies can have efficiency exceeding 

90 percent and then computers are routinely exceeding 

five percent. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Other 

comments on power supply? Yes, J.B. 

 MR. HOYT: J.B. Hoyt with Whirlpool. We are 

aware of switching the power supplies. We do have some 

application of that power supply in non-U.S. product. 

It is new. We are gaining experience, but we would 

suggest we don’t have a lot of experience. We don’t 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

83

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

have the comfort around reliability yet to know whether 

to take that plunge. 

 There are higher costs. They have the risk 

of higher complexity, but the cost thing, there’s going 

to be some added costs, regardless of whether or not 

they pick up in volume, but I think the big question 

really is gaining experience and again our products are 

ones that consumers keep in their homes for 10-15 years 

and it’s just an unknown plunge for us. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

 MS. REICH: Well, that brings us to the 

definition of the standby power levels that were laid 

before us in the Engineering Analysis. 

 Specifically in defining the -- it’s no 

longer a cost-efficiency relationship, it’s a cost of 

standby power curve. The increasing standby levels are 

associated with decreases in the standby power 

consumption. 

 So in determining what a baseline level is, 

DOE considered what would be a typical power 

requirement for a microwave oven that incorporated any 

display technology, a cooking sensor, and what I’ll 

call the conventional power supply and that was 

determined to be a level of four watts. 

 To determine higher efficiency levels, DOE 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

84

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

first considered the Federal Energy Management 

Program’s procurement requirement or recommendation for 

microwave ovens which is the standby power target for 

government purchases. So where possible, a unit with 

no more than two watts of standby power would be 

selected. 

 Let me jump to a standby level of three which 

is the International Energy Agency’s one watt program 

and this is a target that many countries are aiming 

for, and in between the FEMP and IEA levels, DOE 

defined a gap fill of 1.5 watts, and then, finally, 

Standby Level 4 is the Max Tech Level for this 

analysis, determined to be .02 watts, and this was on 

the basis of a unit that’s available in Korea, I 

believe, that does incorporate the automatic power-down 

feature. 

 So DOE invites comments on the selection of 

standby power levels for the Engineering Analysis. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Debra. 

 DR. BRUNK: Debra Brunk with AHAM. We do 

believe that the baseline standby power level is 

appropriate, based on the data collected by AHAM and by 

DOE, and the other standby levels are also appropriate, 

I think recognizing that a lot of the world is moving 

towards one watt. 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

85

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 I think as I had mentioned earlier, though, 

it’s important to keep the definitions and examples in 

mind. We are talking about these prescriptive limits 

and I think from an industry perspective, this Max Tech 

value, EEI’s comment earlier, I think we’d be curious 

to know a little bit more about the unit of 

functionality, you know, for the consumer how long it 

takes to, you know, respond, just those kind of things 

it would be interesting to know, and that may be in the 

TSD. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Steve Rosenstock. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI. 

Again, I was going to -- the quick comment is, you 

know, it looks like the Max Tech is with a power-down, 

but again it’s a matter of does it have as many, I’ll 

say, of the display features and does it include all 

the features as the baseline model? That would be my 

question. 

 MS. REICH: Yes, that does have a cooking 

sensor. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: It does have a cooking 

sensor and the clock and the -- 

 MS. REICH: Yes. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: -- other -- okay. Thank 

you. 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

86

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments on the standby 

power levels? 

 (No response.) 

 MS. REICH: Okay. Well, finally, for 

microwave ovens, we come to the definition of the cost 

relationship with standby power. These are the 

incremental manufacturing costs above the baseline 

technology, and you’ll see that, from this chart, that 

there are multiple pathways that could be taken to 

achieve a given standby power level and the costs are 

in average value based on weighting these different 

approaches that manufacturers can take. 

 So again, at the baseline level, microwave 

oven is assumed to have both the cooking sensor and any 

display technology desired, but to get to Standby Level 

1, which is the two watt level, it would require a zero 

standby power-consuming cooking sensor and for the 

display technologies that are somewhat higher powerconsuming technologies, namely the backlit LCD and the 

vacuum fluorescent display, it would require upgrading 

their power supply, and the incremental cost at that 

level is determined to be 30 cents. 

 You’ll see at each successive level, these 

approaches, these design options are layered on the 

previous one. So at Level 2, the 1.5 watts, it 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

87

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

requires the approaches taken at Level 1, plus if you 

have LED technology, that, too, would require upgrading 

the power supply. 

 For the highest power-consuming display 

technology VFD, it would require switching to sensitive 

core relays. So the average cost at Level 2 was 

determined to be 67 cents. 

 Then moving on to Level 3, DOE determined 

that you would need these upgraded relays or a 

switching power supply for LED. For LCD, backlit LCD, 

would require the upgraded relays and the switching 

power supply, and if you did maintain VFD technology, 

the only way to achieve that one watt level is to go 

with an automatic power-down feature. At Level 3, the 

incremental cost was determined to be a $1.47. 

 Finally, Standby Level 4, which is the most 

stringent, the .02 watts, the only way to achieve that 

for any type of display technology would be to 

implement the automatic power-down feature. The 

average cost for that is $5.13. 

 Welcome comments or input on these costs as 

well as the determination of the different approaches 

that can be taken to achieve the levels and whether 

there is any intellectual property issues on any -- 

associated with any of these design options. 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

88

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Gary. 

 MR. FERNSTROM: I’d just like to make a quick 

observation. Looking at Level 3, that would be moving 

from the baseline of roughly four watts to one watt. 

That would save three watts and for PG&E customers, 

that would have a retail value of about 5.25 per year. 

 So I realize California isn’t the whole 

country, but at least for California customers, Level 4 

would have a payback in terms of reduction in consumer 

cost of about a year. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Debra. 

 DR. BRUNK: Debra Brunk with AHAM. I think 

just a couple of maybe concerns about these costs here. 

 I think we’re concerned from the industry 

standpoint. We’re not quite sure where these costs 

came from, if they’re more component costs or that kind 

of thing. I’m not aware of -- I guess when I talk to a 

lot of our members, they don’t recall actually having 

talked to specifically DOE about these costs. 

 We certainly looked at active power for 

microwave ovens, but with regard to the standby 

analysis, there really didn’t seem to be a lot of 

interaction there, and I think back to Whirlpool’s 

point earlier, I think there’s a one-time cost that 

would need to be rolled up into this and then I think, 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

89

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

also, this lays out again a very specific path for 

having achieved these and we would just want to 

reiterate there are multiple ways to go here. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Additional 

comments on standby power, particularly the cost issues 

here? Yes, Steve. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Again on this slide, are 

these incremental manufacturing costs or retail? 

 MS. REICH: Manufacturing costs. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Manufacturing. Okay. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Would you say how these costs 

were derived, Judy? 

 MS. REICH: Well, correct me if I’m wrong, 

Constantin, but I believe these were derived from 

discussions and information obtained from suppliers as 

well as discussions with manufacturers. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Constantin. 

 MR. von WENTZEL: And we also -- Constantin 

von Wentzel, Navigant Consulting. 

 And we also weighted them by the market share 

to reflect that the VFDs have a certain amount of 

market share. Other display technologies have a 

different market share. So for the different 

technologies, different displays, we weighted them 

accordingly. So some at some point need an upgrade, 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

90

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

some don’t. Therefore, the costs jump particularly at 

Level 4. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So these are on average? 

 MR. von WENTZEL: Correct. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Correct. Okay. Yes, Derrick. 

 MR. LITTLE: Derrick Little, General 

Electric. Just one important thing I wanted to point 

out. Obviously this takes into account both countertop 

microwave ovens as well as over-the-range microwave 

ovens, but if you look at over-the-range microwave 

ovens, they are -- predominantly use the VFD technology 

because of issues we’ve already raised, but effectively 

going to Level 3 on an over-the-range microwave oven 

essentially says from the consumer utility standpoint, 

if you still have a VFD, you cannot have it lock on 

during that period of time. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

 MR. LITTLE: Whereas for a countertop 

microwave oven, it’s, I think as you said, -- these 

changes are a small percentage of the market share 

that’s out there, but if you split those two categories 

and again we’ve lumped them all together, it’s going to 

be a disproportionate effect on the OTRs. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Other comments on 

standby power and costs involved? 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

91

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So now there’s an opportunity 

for any additional comments on the Engineering 

Analysis, the slides we’ve covered up until now this 

morning. Yes, Phil. 

 MR. MANTHEI: Also including commercial 

clothes washers we’ve talked about to this point? 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 

 MR. MANTHEI: Okay. Phil Manthei, Alliance 

Laundry Systems. 

 I alluded to earlier that we had some 

concerns about the products on the marketplace that are 

discussed in the NOPR as the basis for the proposed 

standard. 

 The proposed standard is based on a faulty 

assumption that the existing top-load commercial GE 

Model WNRD-2050G meets the proposed standard. In our 

tests, it does not meet that rating. ALS showed that 

it meets a rating of MEF 1.57, not 1.76, as shown in 

the California Energy Commission database. 

 GE commercial clothes washer -- the reason 

for that is primarily due to the spin speed. The unit 

we have in our possession, whether it’s an anomaly or 

what, it only reaches 640 rpm. It cannot possibly 

achieve the remaining moisture content in the low 40 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

92

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

percent. 

 You can take the California Energy Commission 

database and look at all of the Whirlpool top-load 

clothes washers, all of our top-load clothes washers. 

They’re all in the 50 percent area. Whirlpool has some 

that are down lower because they’re the non-traditional 

that spin at much higher speeds. 

 So we measured 49 percent RMC, not 42.4, as 

stated in the California Energy Commission database. 

This is the unit, a picture of the unit. 

 There’s also another issue that we 

encountered. We opened the unit. It has this energy 

label on it. Our friends at GE, which I don’t want to 

make too big a point on, there may be some good reasons 

for this, but until possibly a few days ago, this is 

the energy label that appeared on their website for 

this model. It’s in the old format. The labeling rule 

requires that the websites be updated with the latest 

information. Of course, the label was changed to this 

format in March. 

 This label shows 283 kilowatt hours per cycle 

of energy -- I’m sorry -- per year. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Is that the new one or the old 

one? 

 MR. MANTHEI: That’s the old one. 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

93

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

 MR. MANTHEI: The CE database has a missing 

entry for power consumption. However, that’s a 

voluntary submission. You don’t have to provide that. 

However, you can calculate it. There’s another column 

called Energy Efficiency, EF. It’s basically the same 

as MEF. It’s got the highest in and out enumerator of 

power consumption between the water and the motor in 

the denominator and does not have the dryer-related 

energy in it. 

 So because they have the value of 4.61 for 

energy efficiency and it’s published and it’s also in 

the California database, the capacity is 3.5, you can 

get to the power consumption. There, it’s stated as 

0.759. 

 Here’s the energy label. New format now. 

Changed from -- switched what the primary descriptor 

is. It now has the secondary descriptors showing 

energy efficiency for the kilowatt hours per year, 472, 

not 283. That’s 1.204 kilowatt hours per cycle. What 

is it? 

 At the very minimum, DOE should test and 

confirm GE’s commercial clothes washer’s actual 

efficiency before using it as a basis for assessing 

technical feasibility for the proposed standards. 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

94

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 So I’ll give one of these to GE and -- 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks very much. Jim’s next 

in the queue. Jim Ranfone. 

 MR. RANFONE: Jim Ranfone, American Gas 

Association. 

 Just want to comment on something that 

Constantin, I’m sorry, I don’t know his last name, 

mentioned, that there were two manufacturers of 

ignition systems, battery-operated ignition systems, 

one of them being Finwall. I don’t know who the other 

one was. You said it was instantaneous. I’ll talk to 

you on that one later. 

 But I did Google Finwall. They do make a 

battery-operated ignition system for the recreational 

vehicle furnaces and water heaters. It’s a 12-volt 

battery-type system. It’s a specialty application for 

RVs and I would find it hard to believe that you could 

apply that type of system, which may cost more than the 

range, to a domestic range for either cooktop or -- so 

I think there may be some information here that that 

particular application would not be comparable. 

 Nobody should leave here thinking, well, 

Finwall’s got an ignition system that you could put on 

a range. It’s 12-volt. It’s one amp. It’s a 

specialty valve system and you have to take a look at 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

95

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

the complexity and the cost of that before you come out 

and say, well, there’s a system out there that could be 

applicable to a domestic gas range. 

 I’ll talk to you about the instantaneous one, 

too. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Gary Fernstrom. 

 MR. FERNSTROM: I have a question for 

Alliance. Did you bring those anomalies that you found 

to the attention of the FTC and the California Energy 

Commission? 

 MR. MANTHEI: No, we did not. 

 MR. FERNSTROM: Why not? 

 MR. MANTHEI: We’ve been very busy. We have 

a lot of things going on getting ready for this. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Additional 

comments on the spectrum of Engineering Analysis issues 

that have been raised this morning? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So I see none. We’re 

scheduled to take a break now. I think now’s a good 

time. It’s 5 minutes after 11. Let’s try and resume 

at 11:20. 

 (Recess.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. We’ve made really good 

progress. We are now moving on to the next segment in 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

96

1 

2 

3 

the agenda, which is Energy Use Analysis, Markups for 

Equipment Price Determination, and Life-Cycle Cost 

Analysis, Greg Rosenquist. 

4 Energy Use Analysis, Markups for Equipment Price

5 Determination, and Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Okay. Welcome back from the 

break, everyone. Again, my name’s Greg Rosenquist, and 

I work at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and 

I’ll be taking you through the Life-Cycle Cost and 

Payback Period Analysis that DOE conducted for this 

rulemaking. 

 The analysis itself was actually composed of 

three parts. The first is the Energy Use 

Characterization and its purpose is to develop energy 

and water consumption savings corresponding to each of 

the standard levels, and when you couple that with 

energy and prices, you get the energy and water cost 

savings to the consumer. 

 The next analysis is the Markups for 

Equipment Price Determination. Its purpose is to first 

figure out how the product is distributed from the 

manufacturer to the consumer and then develop markups 

for each party in that distribution chain and from 

those markups, you take the manufacturing costs from 

the Engineering Analysis and develop the consumer 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

97

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

retail prices for the Life-Cycle Cost and Payback 

Period Analysis. 

 And finally, there’s the Life-Cycle Cost and 

Payback Period Analyses themselves and the purpose of 

this analysis is to determine the LCC savings and the 

payback periods for the various Candidate Standard 

Levels that DOE considered. 

 As I talk about the rest of the analyses, 

I’ll try to highlight those portions that are 

different, that were modified for the NOPR compared to 

what was done for the ANOPR. 

 This slide goes over the approach used to do 

the Energy Use Characterization. I’ll start with 

conventional cooking products. Again, these products 

consist of the gas and electric cooktops, ovens and 

ranges. The annual energy use was determined to be in 

decline since the 1970s. 

 This is the same conclusion that DOE had come 

up with in the ANOPR and it used the same data sources 

as in the ANOPR. It continued to use this 2004 

California Residential Appliance Saturation Survey as 

well as a metered study from the Florida Solar Energy 

Center to establish the annual energy consumption of 

these products. 

 For microwave ovens, again DOE determined the 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

98

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

same thing as what was determined in the ANOPR, that 

the energy use for these products has been relatively 

constant since the 1980s. 

 Again, DOE used the same data source as for 

the ANOPR, and that’s the 2004 California Residential 

Appliance Saturation Survey. 

 One thing that DOE did differently for the 

NOPR was include the energy consumption associated with 

the standby power consumption. 

 For commercial clothes washers, DOE used the 

same approach as in the ANOPR. It took the per cycle 

energy and water consumption and multiplied it by the 

cycles per year to come up with the annual energy and 

water consumption. DOE did an extensive literature 

search for the ANOPR and did not do any more searches 

for the NOPR. It determined the cycles per year for 

two product applications, multifamily and laundromats. 

 The numbers you see here are in cycles per 

day, not cycles per year, and the average value for 

multifamily was 3.4 and the average value for 

laundromats was six. 

 This next slide goes over the analysis of the 

markups to determine equipment prices and again 

starting with conventional cooking products and 

microwave ovens, DOE relied on the same distribution 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

99

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

channel that it had used for the ANOPR. This channel 

was based upon data from AHAM’s Fact Book which said 

that over 93 percent of the sales went to retail 

outlets. 

 These markups then were determined for the 

manufacturer and the retailer in order to come up with 

the consumer equipment price from the manufacturing 

costs developed in the Engineering Analysis. 

 Two types of markups were developed, the same 

thing that was done in the ANOPR, a baseline markup and 

an incremental markup. The baseline markup relates the 

consumer prices to how costs are for manufacturers and 

retailers for a standard and then in the incremental 

case, it relates those prices to the situation after 

the standard has been developed, and the overall 

baseline markup was determined to be 1.95 and the 

overall incremental markup was determined to be 1.55. 

 For commercial clothes washers, DOE used the 

same distribution channels that it had used for the 

ANOPR, so no changes here as well. Again, DOE relied 

on information coming from the Consortium for Energy 

Efficiency, which showed that product was distributed 

from the manufacturer to a distributor and to the 

Laundromat as an endpoint, and then for multifamily 

housing, that intermediary was the route operators. 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

100

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 For purposes of determining the equipment 

prices for this product, DOE continued to rely solely 

on the distribution channel for laundromats, assuming 

again that the equipment prices that would be developed 

for this distribution channel would be indicative of 

the prices that went to route operators and to 

multifamily housing. 

 The overall baseline markup turned out to be 

1.93 and the overall incremental markup turned out to 

be 1.59. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: There’s a lot of content in 

these slides. Feel free to ask clarifying questions if 

you need to. We can stop for them. 

 Tom, yes. 

 MR. ANDERSON: Tom Anderson with Electrolux. 

A quick question back on the conventional cooking 

products and microwaves in terms of the annual energy 

use. 

 You said they declined from 1970 in 

conventional. Is that total energy or the average 

consumer home energy? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: That’s the energy of the 

cooking products. 

 MR. ANDERSON: Total usage of the country? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: I’m talking about, you know, 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

101

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

there are a lot of studies done since the late 1970s 

and they looked at the energy consumption of those 

products in homes and -- 

 MR. BROOKMAN: On a per unit basis? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: -- on a per unit basis, yes. 

 MR. ANDERSON: I’ve got you. Okay. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Thanks, Doug. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Okay. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: This slide goes over the 

approach that was used to conduct the Life-Cycle Cost 

and Payback Period Analysis and again it’s the same 

approach that was used for the ANOPR. No big -- no 

differences were done on the approach for the NOPR than 

for the ANOPR. 

 The life-cycle again equals the consumer 

price, plus the lifetime operating cost savings 

discounted to a present or base year. This economic 

evaluation is done from the perspective of the 

consumer. 

 For transparency purposes, the analysis 

implemented in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet with an 

add-on called Crystal Ball. Crystal Ball gave the 

ability to conduct analyses using a Monte Carlo 

simulation approach where many of the inputs to the 

analysis are characterized with what are called 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

102

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

probability distributions and those probability 

distributions again capture the uncertainty and 

variability of these inputs. 

 Specifically for residential products, DOE 

developed household samples based upon the 2001 

Residential Energy Consumption Survey. Again, this is 

the same approach that was done for the ANOPR. It used 

that sample to come up with the variability in energy 

use and energy pricing. 

 For commercial clothes washers, the theory 

relies solely on characterizing the distribution of 

cycles per year. The results are expressed as LCC 

savings; that is, the difference between the LCC at the 

baseline level and the LCC at the standard level, and 

for the payback period, the calculation is done at a 

standard level relative to the baseline level. 

 This figure just basically summarizes what I 

just discussed in terms of how the LCC is determined. 

 I’ll now be going over all the inputs that 

were used for the LCC and Payback Period Analysis, 

starting with the energy and water prices, and again 

the sources of data and the approaches used to develop 

these inputs for the NOPR are the same approaches and 

data sources that were used for the ANOPR. 

 So starting with the electricity prices, DOE 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

103

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

relied on this data from the Energy Information 

Administration, it’s called Form 861 Data. It provides 

utility level revenues and sales, so we can calculate 

an average electricity price by utility. Because the 

data also provides the number of customers served, we 

can come up with a customer-weighted price based upon 

different regions. For the analysis that was conducted 

here, we developed prices for 13 regions, the nine 

Census divisions and the four large states. 

 For natural gas prices, DOE based the data on 

EIA’s Natural Gas Monthly. This is state-level average 

gas price data and again using population regional gas 

prices were developed based upon these nine Census 

divisions and four large states. 

 For water and wastewater prices, data was 

taken from Raftelis Consultants and the American 

Waterworks Association Water and Wastewater Survey. 

There were many water utilities and wastewater 

utilities sampled but not enough to come up with the 

data for each of these 13 regions, so prices were 

developed for only the four Census regions. 

 Future energy prices were forecast out into 

the future by using forecasts out of the 2008 Annual 

Energy Outlook. Three forecasts were implemented into 

the spreadsheet model, one for the reference case and 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

104

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

two others for the low and high economic growth 

forecasts. 

 Then, finally, for water and wastewater price 

forecasts, DOE used an extrapolation off the historical 

data, a linear extrapolation, to forecast what would 

happen to these water and wastewater prices out into 

the future. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Question? 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please, Steve. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI. In 

terms of water and wastewater prices, how are you 

handling the other five Census regions in terms of 

their water prices? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Okay. So let me clarify 

here. The four Census regions are the Northeast, 

Midwest, South and West, and the Census divisions 

comprise those four Census regions. 

 So we’re capturing the water prices for the 

entire country, just now it’s very specific regional 

levels. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Those four listed Census 

regions encompass the entire country? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yes, and again because of 

the level of the data for water and wastewater prices, 

we weren’t able to get it down to the Census division 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

105

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

level and large state level. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: I gotcha. Okay. 

 MR. OSANN: Question? 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. 

 MR. OSANN: I have two questions. Ed Osann. 

On Page 32, the slide that’s up, for electricity prices 

and natural gas prices, what year are the electricity 

and natural gas? These are Form 861 for what year? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: For 2006. That was the most 

recent available complete dataset when we did the 

analysis. 

 MR. OSANN: And for natural gas monthly? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: 2006. 

 MR. OSANN: And which edition of Raftelis did 

you use? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: The most recent survey, I 

believe it was for 2007. I can doublecheck on that 

during the break. 

 MR. OSANN: Okay. And I had a question. You 

may have mentioned this. On Slide 29, under Commercial 

Clothes Washers, the cycles per year, are those numbers 

given cycles per day and then multiplying? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yeah. That’s correct. 

That’s right. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Gary Fernstrom. 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

106

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. FERNSTROM: So let me see if I understand 

this. Are you using two-year-old data to decide what 

you’re going to do five years in the future? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yes, because that’s the 

latest data available, but you have to remember it’s 

being forecasted out into the future with trends from 

the most recent Annual Energy Outlook. 

 MR. FERNSTROM: Oh, I understand it’s being 

forecasted. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Okay. All right. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Please. Tim. 

 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, EarthJustice. Just a 

point on that Annual Energy Outlook. 

 The AEO does not consider regulatory changes 

that take place in the future. It’s inevitable, given 

the make-up of Congress and the incoming 

administration, that there will be a price on carbon 

that will impact electricity prices, possibly 

significantly, during the time period covered by this 

analysis. 

 EIA has done an analysis by Lieberman Water, 

a likely starting point for any future climate 

legislation and forecasted what the impact on energy 

prices will be. To realistically depict energy prices 

in the future, DOE must consider the impact of carbon 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

107

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

legislation. 

 At minimum, even if it doesn’t do that, there 

are regional cap and trade programs that are in effect 

right now in the case of Reggie in the Northeast and 

the WCI out West that again will impact the price of 

electricity and are not reflected in the energy price 

trends contained in the AEO. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Steve Rosenstock. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Well, again, in terms of 

that, you know, it’s hard to predict. I mean, who 

would have predicted that oil would have shot up a $148 

a barrel and now it’s down to 59? I mean, good luck 

forecasting some of these energy prices. 

 I think they’re doing -- DOE does a good job 

with the data that they have, and in terms of New 

England with Reggie, I believe the clearing price was 

$3.07 per ton of CO2. So again, it can be calculated 

and it might already be incorporated into the rates of 

the commercial and residential customers in New 

England. The money that was -- the clearing price is 

already included in the current rate. 

 So again, if you wanted to adjust it, you 

could adjust it based on the data that they have, you 

know, right now, but DOE does not double count, you 

know. It shouldn’t say, oh, it’s $3, but it’s already 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

108

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

been incorporated in that $3. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Tim. 

 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, EarthJustice. Just a 

follow-on. It was $3.07, I believe, at the first 

auction. However, that cap again declines 

significantly between 2009 and 2018, I believe it 

declines. I don’t remember the exact number but we’ll 

include that in our comments. The allowance price will 

likely increase significantly. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Okay. I’ll move on with the 

next set of inputs to the LCC and Payback Period 

Analysis that I’ll discuss. These are the installation 

and repair and maintenance costs. 

 For conventional cooking products, the 

installation costs used a later version of the RS Means 

Mechanical Cost Databook than was used for the ANOPR. 

The costs turned out to be a $146. 

 The big change for the NOPR was to develop an 

added installation cost differently for gas cooking 

products that don’t require electricity to operate than 

what was developed for the ANOPR. 

 Again in this case, there are some households 

out there that, if they’re required to use a gas 

cooking product that doesn’t use electricity, they 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

109

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

would have to install an electrical outlet. 

 So what DOE did was looked at the National 

Electrical Code to determine what percent of households 

would actually have to install an outlet and based on 

that assessment, DOE determined that households built 

before 1960 would very, very likely need to install an 

outlet to accommodate such a gas cooking product. 

 When you looked at the household samples that 

were being used in the LCC Analysis from Rex, 

approximately 55 percent of those household samples for 

gas cooking products were built in households built 

before 1960. DOE relied on the RS Means Mechanical 

Cost Databook again for determining the installation of 

this outlet which was $235 and this was for a ground 

fault circuit interrupter outlet. 

 When you take into account the rest of the 

households that don’t need an outlet, the 45 percent 

that don’t need an outlet, the weighted average 

installation costs turned out to be a $130 and because 

only gas standard ranges are still being equipped with 

standing pilots, for purposes of the analysis, DOE 

divided that cost in half and allocated equally to gas 

cooktops and to gas standard oven installations. 

 Another deviation from the ANOPR that was 

done for the NOPR was to determine repair and 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

110

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

maintenance costs for gas cooking products. What DOE 

did was contact contractors in six different states to 

determine what these repair/maintenance costs would be 

for different types of gas ignition systems. 

 For standing pilots, DOE determined a onetime repair/maintenance cost of a $126 that occurred in 

the 10th year of the product’s life for maintaining and 

repairing the valves in that system. For glow bar hot 

surface ignition systems, which are used in ovens, DOE 

determined that there would be a $147 cost every fifth 

year of the product’s life to replace the brittle 

igniter that’s used in that system and for electronic 

spark ignition systems, a one-time cost of a $178 was 

determined to occur in the 10th year of the product’s 

life to replace the control module. 

 For microwave ovens, DOE did nothing 

different than what it did for the ANOPR. It continued 

to assume that there are no additional installation 

costs or no maintenance/repair costs for the baseline 

equipment in the more efficient equipment. 

 For commercial clothes washers, DOE updated 

its use of a more recent RS Means Mechanical Means 

Databook for the installation costs which turned out to 

be a $186, and for the NOPR, this is different than 

what they did -- DOE did for the ANOPR, it determined 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

111

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

the repair and maintenance costs for more efficient 

clothes washers, and it based this on a function which 

is equal to half the equipment price divided by the 

product lifetime. 

 DOE has used such algorithms in past product 

rulemakings. 

 Maybe this is a good place to stop to ask if 

there’s any questions about this analysis. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed. 

 MR. OSANN: Two questions. With regard to 

installation costs, cooking product installation costs, 

you’ve got 55 percent of the households sampled pre1960 and you’re assuming 100 percent of that would 

require -- did you look at and consider the possible 

cohort of kitchen renovation over nearly 50 years or 

did you not consider that? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Did not consider 

renovations. If the house was built before 1960, it 

was assumed that it would need an outlet. The 

information in Rex does not indicate whether an 

extensive renovation did occur in that household. So 

DOE went ahead and just assumed that an outlet would 

not be in the proper place to accommodate a gas cooking 

product that required electricity. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock. 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

112

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. OSANN: Just to -- 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Follow-on, Ed. Go ahead. 

 MR. OSANN: Is there any empirical data, 

maybe it’s in the TSD, regarding the repair and 

maintenance costs of commercial clothes washers or is 

this simply an assumption that is carried forward from 

-- where was this carried forward from? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: It was first developed for 

central air conditioner product rulemaking and then 

applied also to a furnace rulemaking and so now it’s 

being brought forward for commercial clothes washers. 

 MR. OSANN: Okay. Is there any empirical 

data relating to clothes washers in particular for 

residential or commercial? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: No empirical data, no, but 

again since it was vetted in those prior rulemakings, 

at least to my recollection, there wasn’t a big problem 

with that, using that algorithm. DOE felt comfortable 

using it for commercial clothes washers. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI. In 

terms of that pre-1960 homes, there might be some data. 

Either the National Association of Homebuilders or I 

think there’s a Remodelers Trade Association as well, 

they might have some information because pre-1960, 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

113

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

that’s at least, you know, two lifetimes of cooking 

equipment, I would say. 

 Just also remembering the saturation of 

ovens, I think it’s like 98 percent that, you know, 

most of them are located in kitchens. So, you know, I 

think that percentage might be just, you know, high 

compared -- just because of renovations and sales, et. 

cetera. 

 Thank you. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Tom. 

 MR. ANDERSON: Tom Anderson, Electrolux. 

Back to the repair and maintenance costs for the 

conventional cooking, I may have missed this, but the 

glow bar hot surface, it says requires replacement 

every fifth year. Is that from the surface records? 

As a manufacturer, we life test those type of products 

and they tend to hold their life. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: It was based upon contacting 

contractors who service this type of equipment. So any 

information you can provide that would determine more 

appropriate, you know, replacement would be useful. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: That’s very helpful. 

 MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. Other 

comments on this slide before we move on? 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

114

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 (No response.) 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: The next set of inputs are 

the discount rates and the product lifetimes, and the 

methodologies and data sources used for the ANOPRs are 

virtually the same that were used by DOE for the NOPR. 

 The discount rates again were developed based 

upon the finance costs of purchasing these appliances 

and the finance cost is based upon the interest rates 

associated with any debt that’s incurred to purchase 

the product as well as the interest rates associated 

with the opportunity costs of any equity that’s pulled 

out to purchase the product. 

 For residential cooking products, the 

discount rate’s a function of whether the product is 

bought in a new home or is a replacement. In a new 

home, the interest rate’s associated with the average 

real mortgage rate which turned out to be 3.2 percent, 

and for replacements, it’s a weighted average of the 

equity and the debt that’s being used by consumers to 

purchase appliances, and again that value turned out to 

be 5.5 percent. These numbers are virtually identical 

to what was used or what was determined for the ANOPR. 

 Again, the primary source of data was the 

Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances. 

Surveys spanning from 1989 to 2004 were used. The 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

115

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

primary purpose of these surveys was to determine the 

percentage of consumers that were using either debt or 

equity to finance the purchase. 

 The surveys were also used to develop some of 

the interest rates associated with some of the equity 

and debt. 

 For commercial clothes washers, a weighted 

average cost of capital of firms that purchase these 

clothes washers was used to determine the discount 

rate. Again that weighted average cost of capital 

addresses the equity or debt financing that’s used to 

purchase these products. 

 For commercial clothes washers, the real 

discount rate was 5.7 percent which is virtually the 

same as that for the ANOPR. 

 MR. HOYT: Quick question. J.B. Hoyt, 

Whirlpool. Are those after tax numbers? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yes, they are. 

 MR. HOYT: Thank you. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: On product lifetimes, the 

same sources were used for the NOPR as were for the 

ANOPR. That’s Appliance Magazine and past DOE 

Technical Support Documents. 

 For conventional cooking products, both gas 

and electric, the average lifetime was 19 years. For 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

116

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

microwave ovens, the average lifetime was nine years 

and for commercial clothes washers, the function of the 

type of product application. For multifamily, it was 

11.3 years, and for laundromats 7.1. You have a 

shorter lifetime for laundromats because the product is 

used more heavily there. 

 One big difference from the ANOPR is that we 

used or DOE used Weibull distributions to characterize 

how the product’s derived over its life. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed. 

 MR. OSANN: Question. Ed Osann. What does 

that mean exactly. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: The Weibull distribution? 

It’s a type of distribution that’s used commonly to 

characterize how equipment basically survives over a 

time period. So it has a shape parameter that you can 

modify based upon the average lifetime you think that 

the distribution has. 

 MR. OSANN: Is there some kind of a decision 

rule for applying these minimum, average, and maximum 

on a curve? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Right, right.. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Phil. 

 MR. MANTHEI: Phil Manthei, Alliance Laundry 

Systems. 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

117

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 Going back to discount rates, obviously the 

ability to obtain capital for commercial clothes 

washers for operators of laundromats is going to be 

very differently now than it was. How do we intend to 

factor that in? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: To try to acquire data to 

inform us on what those interest rates might -- may be 

now. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So comments on how the 

department would address that would be helpful. Okay. 

 Other questions about this page on discount 

rates and product lifetime? There’s a lot of content 

here. 

 (No response.) 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Okay. I’ll move on to the 

last input to the Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analyses. 

 This is the equipment assignment in the base 

case, and again what -- this is a very important input 

to the analysis and what DOE tries to do here is 

determine what percentage of consumers are already 

purchasing more efficient equipment beyond the baseline 

level. 

 The resulting distribution of product 

efficiencies that consumers currently purchase are 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

118

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

characterized as the base case efficiency 

distributions; that is, the case when no new standards 

are being imposed, and again using these base case 

efficiency distributions avoids DOE from overstating 

the benefits that may incur to consumers for particular 

standard level. 

 So what I’m showing here are these various 

distributions for the three types of products. For 

conventional cooking products, there’s past historical 

data provided by AHAM that allow DOE to determine the 

percentage of cooking products that still use standing 

pilot ignition systems. 

 For gas cooktops, seven percent of the market 

uses standing pilot ignition systems. This includes 

not only products that are being used as part of a 

range but also built-in products. 

 The remaining 93 percent use spark ignition 

systems, and gas standard ovens, 18 percent use 

standing pilot ignition systems. Again, this includes 

not only the ovens as part of a range but also built-in 

ovens, and the remaining 82 percent are distributed 

between ignition systems that use hot surface glow bar 

ignition systems or spark ignition systems. The eight 

percent is for spark ignition systems. 

 For the rest of the conventional cooking 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

119

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

products, DOE assumed that 100 percent of the market 

was at the baseline level. 

 For microwave ovens, as I think everyone 

knows, this product is not currently being regulated 

for efficiency, so there are no certified product 

directories out there. So DOE did not try to attempt 

to develop a distribution of product efficiencies based 

upon energy factor, but as Judy had reported earlier 

this morning, there was some testing of units done by 

both AHAM and DOE to determine the standby power 

consumption of microwave ovens and DOE used the 

distribution of power consumption for these units to 

characterize the base case standby power consumption 

for microwave ovens. 

 Forty-six percent of those units had power 

consumption above four watts, 35 percent had power 

consumption between four to two watts, and 19 percent 

had power consumption between one and a half to two 

watts. 

 Then, finally, for commercial clothes 

washers, DOE relied on the available models at each one 

of these efficiency levels from the California Energy 

Commission’s Product Database. 

 For top-loading washers, 97 percent of the 

models available in that database have a modified 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

120

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

energy factor no greater than 1.42 and a water factor 

no greater than 9.5. For front-loading clothes 

washers, you can see that 85 percent of the market has 

a modified energy factor of 2.0 and a water factor of 

5.5. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Quick question. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Please. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI. So 

on the microwave oven table, you’re saying 34.6 is 

between two and four watts? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: That’s correct. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Okay. It’s a little 

confusing. So for the four watts, it’s four watts -- 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: It’s greater than four 

watts. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Four watts or greater? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yes. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Okay. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Jim Ranfone. 

 MR. RANFONE: Yeah. Jim Ranfone, AGA. On 

the gas cooking products, is there a breakout between 

straight cooktops, straight ovens and then ranges 

combined that’s available? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yeah. That’s in the 

Technical Support Document. 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

121

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. RANFONE: Okay. So that’s available? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yes. Another thing I forgot 

to mention about the standing pilot ignition systems, 

although this is the way that DOE characterized the 

current situation, they did forecast over time what 

would happen to the percent of equipment using standing 

pilot ignition systems and they forecast that by the 

year 2030 or 2032, that only five percent of the market 

would still use standing pilot ignition systems. 

That’s both for the cooktop market and the oven market. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Debra. 

 DR. BRUNK: Debra Brunk, AHAM. I just wanted 

to clarify something here. 

 This point says that the market share of 

microwave ovens is based on 52 units that were tested 

by AHAM, is that correct? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: You know, Judy said 53 this 

morning. So it could be a typo. So it’s either 52 or 

53. 

 DR. BRUNK: Well, I guess my question then is 

we looked at 52 microwave ovens, and, I mean, I’m 

questioning this. We don’t have the data in anything 

that we’ve measured in the past, but, I mean, are 52 

microwave ovens really representative in trying to 

determine the market share? That would be the concern 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

122

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

I would have with that assumption. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: You question the methodology 

about that being a fair distribution of the types of 

units available? 

 DR. BRUNK: The types of units available. I 

think taking just a sample. I think it’s a good sample 

size for understanding the standby distribution. I 

think when we tried to refer that in any kind of 

available market share data, that is probably not 

realistic. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: The reason why that was used 

is that was the only data source that was available. 

So actually the next slide actually asks for public 

comment on that very issue. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed Osann. 

 MR. OSANN: Yeah. Similar point with regard 

to clothes washers. Actually, all of these are -- in 

the case of clothes washers, these are models. These 

are not sales. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Right. So those -- just 

because the number of available models are at those 

levels does not necessarily mean the shipments are at 

those levels. 

 MR. OSANN: And so the same would be true for 

the microwave ovens. 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

123

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: That’s correct. 

 MR. OSANN: Fifty-two data points. It’s not 

sales-weighted in any way. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: That’s correct. 

 MR. OSANN: So market share is really a bit 

of a misnomer here. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Right. This data for 

microwaves and clothes washers is a proxy for market 

share. 

 MR. OSANN: It’s sort of a performance 

distribution for a certain group of products that were 

considered. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So let’s move to the questions 

because we’re heading in that direction already. 

 Greg, you want to read these off? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yeah. This issue for which 

DOE seeks comment is -- enunciates the issue that Debra 

had brought up about the distribution, the base case 

efficiency distribution for microwave ovens. It sounds 

like other interested folks also have questions about 

the distributions on commercial clothes washers and 

cooking products. 

 So DOE is looking for any input and data on 

the base case efficiency distributions that were used. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Derrick. 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

124

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. LITTLE: Derrick Little, General 

Electric. Of those 52 units, do we still have record 

of whether those were OTRs and NCO modes, if so, what 

the breakout would be between those? 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Judith, find a microphone. 

 MS. REICH: This is Judith Reich from 

Navigant Consulting. 

 For 32 of the units that DOE tested, we have 

that information. For 21 of the AHAM units, we don’t 

have any identifying characteristics from them. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Derrick, do you have a followon there? 

 MR. LITTLE: Of those 32, do you know 

approximately how many of those OTRs were over-therange microwave ovens? 

 MS. REICH: None of them were over-the-range 

units. They were all countertop. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Tom. 

 MR. ANDERSON: Tom Anderson, Electrolux. So 

would that be assumed that there would be no 

installation costs on microwaves, that they were in 

fact all countertop microwaves? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yes, that’s correct. 

 MR. ANDERSON: Okay. Because there’s a large 

of the industry that is over-the-range which has 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

125

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

significant installation, so that probably should be 

weighted somehow because the over-the-range microwave 

requires accounting for that. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So if you could include that 

in your written comments and try to describe that 

percentage, that would be helpful for the department. 

 MR. ANDERSON: I’ll do that. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Ron Lewis. 

 MR. LEWIS: I think that every public meeting 

that we ever have, we always, starting with the 

framework documents that are the official announcement 

for starting a rulemaking, we always ask for input of 

data that would help us be accurate. As we get later 

into the ballgame, it gets harder and harder to make 

major changes to accommodate things. 

 So as we move forward, getting data to us 

that’s meaningful. We had an incident last year where 

a trade association actually supplied data. We did 

analysis based on that and then they asked us -- they 

criticized us for using their data, said that it was 

not good for that purpose, and we need to have this to 

have a good result and be accurate and be reflecting 

the precision that we want to get early data and get 

things -- if there’s an issue that you see, it’s not 

just raising the concern. It’s good to know if you 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

126

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

have a concern, but the supporting data to help us get 

a confidence level and to know the intensity of the 

impacts becomes extremely important. 

 So we want your inputs, even if it’s saying, 

hey, you didn’t consider this, but that’s not overly 

helpful. It’s only if you’ve got something that helps 

us to get greater understanding. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike Rivest. 

 MR. RIVEST: Sort of, you know, following up 

on that, trying to be more specific. Commenting on the 

installation costs, it would be important for us to 

know if there’s a different installation cost for a 

microwave oven that has more strict standby 

requirements than the existing because if the 

installation costs are the same, then that’s out. 

 In terms of the distribution of product for 

over-the-counter, again it would be helpful for us if 

we had a sense of the market share and if you feel that 

the technologies employed or the weighing of the power 

consumption is different, that would be helpful 

information as well. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI. I 

think in this case, though, you know, in terms of, you 

know, when -- it’s also a matter of timing. I don’t 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

127

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

know if the stakeholders would know that DOE only got 

countertop ovens versus getting both over-the-range as 

well as countertop ovens as part of the analysis. 

 Again, I don’t know if it was in an earlier 

document or not, but if -- you know, as the process 

goes on, you know, let’s say that 20 percent of the 

market are over-the-range microwave ovens, well, again 

for this analysis for installation, when would the 

stakeholders know that DOE only obtained, you know, 

countertop ovens? 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Ron Lewis. 

 MR. LEWIS: We asked -- we made requests 

right from the get-go for any input and data. We got 

data in this case from AHAM on some units. We 

supplemented that. We said, okay, we want to get a 

greater understanding and we -- much as people said, 

that’s -- I think Debra had said 53 is not a huge 

sampling. We got 21 units, I think the data from you. 

We supplemented that with, you know, another times one 

and a half or something in units in that same category. 

That was trying to get a greater understanding of what 

the industry gave us, the input we got from people. 

 Had we gotten that input from people saying, 

hey, this is a huge part of the market, the over-therange, we would have picked that up. Okay. So it’s a 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

128

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

two-way street in that dialogue. We were trying to do 

due diligence by expanding the scope of what we had got 

to verify and to get a greater sampling. So we thought 

we were doing good. Now, you know, we’re getting a new 

understanding but very late in the ballgame and we need 

that information early if people say this is 

significant. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike Rivest. 

 MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest, Navigant 

Consulting. 

 Steve, specifically at the ANOPR Workshop, we 

presented the results of our tests of the 32 microwave 

ovens and we presented the segmentation by volume, a 

number of attributes, but I guess at that point, no one 

pointed out and we didn’t -- you know, we hadn’t picked 

up on the need for segmentation by OTR and on the 

counter. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Additional 

comments on these two questions, estimated market share 

for microwave ovens at different standby power 

consumption levels and different set of market shares 

that could affect the percent of consumers benefiting 

from the standards that limit standby power? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: No additional comments on 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

129

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

those. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: These next three slides I’ll 

be presenting provide the life-cycle cost results. 

 This first slide starts with the conventional 

gas cooking products. The curve on the left is for gas 

cooktops, the curve on the right is for gas standard 

ovens. What we’re plotting here is average LCC savings 

against installed costs and each data point represents 

an efficiency level that DOE analyzed. 

 For gas cooktops, two levels were analyzed. 

Only one provided average LCC savings. That’s the 

replacement of the standing pilot ignition with spark 

ignition. For gas standard ovens, seven Candidate 

Standard Levels were analyzed, two of which were 

replacing the standard pilot ignition device with a 

non-standing pilot version. One of them, the spark 

ignition at Level 1-A, yielded average LCC savings 

while the second, the hot surface glow bar ignition, 

did not and that was primarily due to the fact that 

this glow bar ignition device uses electricity during 

the operation of the burner. So there’s a lot of 

electricity consumption. Certainly there’s electricity 

consumption where in the baseline there isn’t any 

electricity consumption. 

 This slide shows the LCC results for 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

130

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

microwave ovens. Again, average LCC savings are being 

applied against installed costs. DOE analyzed four 

standby power efficiency levels and four energy factor 

efficiency levels. 

 For the standby power levels, all of them 

achieve or realize life-cycle cost savings with each 

incremental efficiency level achieving more energy 

life-cycle cost savings than the previous level. 

 All four energy factor levels provided no LCC 

savings, actually an increase in that cost to the 

consumers. 

 Finally, we come to commercial clothes 

washers. Here again, the average LCC savings are being 

plotted against the installed costs. Again, we have 

two curves, one for top-loading washers, one for frontloading washers. 

 There were three levels analyzed for toploading and four for front-loading, and as you can see 

here, only one of the efficiency levels, Efficiency 

Level 1 for top-loading, did not provide life-cycle 

cost savings. 

 So this is the point where the presentation 

of the Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis is 

complete, and we wanted to see if there’s any more 

additional comments or issues that you want to bring up 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

131

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

regarding the analyses for the Life-Cycle Cost and 

Payback Period. 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: No additional comments? Yes, 

Tim. 

 MR. BALLO: One comment. I didn’t see -- 

maybe I just missed it -- in the NOPR Analysis under 

Rebuttable Presumption Payback Period, how long those 

were for the various products, and again maybe I just 

missed it, but I don’t recall seeing it and the only 

treatment I do recall seeing, I’ve commented on this in 

prior rulemakings, DOE says that although it examined 

the rebuttable presumption criteria, it believes that 

its Life-Cycle Cost Analysis are superior. 

 Again that’s -- the statute requires a little 

more than that. If a product satisfies that through 

your rebuttable presumption payback period and that is 

the presumptive economically-justified standard, then 

DOE must explain why it believes criteria under the 

seven factors in 02DI or 02D1 trump that rebuttable 

presumption finding. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Doug, the rebuttable 

presumption payback periods are presented in the NOPR. 

I don’t know exactly what page, but they are in there. 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

132

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo again. I saw the 

simple payback period. I just didn’t see a rebuttable 

presumption payback period. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Other comments on the 

Payback Period and Life-Cycle Cost Analysis? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: I’m going to suggest we do one 

more content block before we go to lunch which means 

around about -- we’ll go to lunch around about 12:30-

12:40 or so. Okay? So let’s keep going. Greg. 

11 Shipments Analysis and National Impact Analysis

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Okay. Next, I’ll be talking 

about the National Impact Analysis that was conducted 

for the NOPR. 

 The purpose of the National Impact Analysis 

are twofold. The first is to determine the product 

shipments and also then to determine how standards 

impact those product shipments, and second is to 

determine the national energy savings corresponding to 

the various standard levels and also the national 

economic impacts from those standard levels and those 

national impacts are determined with a net present 

value or what we call NPV. 

 With regard to the Shipments Analysis, the 

approach that was used was virtually identical to what 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

133

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

was used in the ANOPR. First, DOE determined what are 

called base case shipments forecasts. These are the 

shipments forecasts when there are no new standards, 

and these shipments forecasts were determined over the 

period of 2012, the assumed effective date of the 

standard, out 30 years to 2042. 

 The shipments model accounts for shipments to 

two primary market segments, new construction and 

replacements. New construction shipments are 

determined by taking housing starts information and 

multiplying it by historical rates of product ownership 

in new housing and replacements are determined by 

taking the product stock and applying the product 

retirement function to it. 

 The shipments model that was used was 

calibrated by DOE against historical shipments data. 

Any discrepancy between the actual historical shipments 

and the forecasted or backcasted shipments data were 

taken into account and for cooking products, that 

discrepancy was attributed to early replacements, and 

for commercial clothes washers, it was attributed to 

non-replacements. 

 This is a particular area for commercial 

clothes washers where the NOPR differs from the ANOPR. 

For the NOPR, DOE did look at data from the American 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

134

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Housing Survey to determine that there has been uptick 

in the amount of in-unit washers being used in 

multifamily. DOE attributes this to the fact that a 

lot of rental properties are converting over to owneroccupied condominiums and townhouses, and so as a 

result, a lot of these common area laundry facilities 

are going by the wayside and so a lot of these 

commercial clothes washers are not being replaced. 

 So the forecasts of these shipments then for 

commercial clothes washers is actually quite flat where 

for the ANOPR, DOE projected an increase in product 

shipments. 

 For the standard case shipments forecasts, 

the exact same data was used to estimate these 

shipments as used for the base case with one important 

exception. DOE accounted for the purchase price 

increases and operating cost savings resulting from 

standards. They also accounted for household income in 

trying to determine how the standard impacts product 

shipments. 

 As it turns out, the purchase price effects 

dominate this and as a result, shipments forecasts 

under the standards case are lower than what you find 

in the base case. 

 One point to make is that that initial price 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

135

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

drop that’s seen from this purchase price change is -- 

gets diminished over time as consumers become less 

sensitive to that purchase price difference. 

 This slide goes over the Shipments Analysis 

results, starting with the cooking products. With 

regard to conventional cooking products, there’s no 

curve being presented here. That’s because DOE assumed 

that the product shipments for the base case were the 

same as for the standards case and that’s because the 

market for these products is completely saturated. 

That means that DOE also assumed that there would be no 

equipment switching from gas cooking products to 

electric cooking products or vice versa. 

 One thing that DOE did examine more closely 

was whether or not consumers that had to buy a gas 

cooking product without standing pilot ignition would 

potentially switch over to an electric cooking product. 

DOE analyzed whether the outlet to accommodate electric 

cooking product would be more costly and what DOE found 

is that it’s five times more costly than the outlet 

that would need to be installed for a gas cooking 

product. 

 Because of this huge price increase on the 

outlet, DOE determined that there would be no equipment 

switching from gas to electric, even under the case 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

136

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

where standing pilots were being banned. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI. For 

the cooking products in this graph here, you kind of 

show a rebound starting in basically this year, 2008, 

and flat for next year. With the housing market 

situation the way it is, doesn’t that maybe get 

adjusted downward a little bit just because, you know, 

housing starts peaked at two million, now they’re less 

than a million? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yeah. I mean, what we used 

for the housing starts are the Annual Energy Outlook 

and those housing starts forecasts do change from year 

to year and so what DOE tries to do is use the most 

recent version, of course, and just like you’re saying, 

if there’s an adjustment to those housing forecasts, 

they will be reflected in the shipments forecast. 

 Just to be clear, the graph on the right is 

for microwave ovens, okay, not for conventional cooking 

products. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Okay. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Okay. And so talking about 

that graph for microwave ovens, this is the base case 

shipments forecast for microwave ovens, as indicated by 

the blue dots. 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

137

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 The standards case shipments forecast is 

presented here for the one watt standby power standard 

level and because the price increment to go to that 

standby power level is relatively small, the shipments 

case forecasts are virtually identical to the base case 

shipments forecasts. 

 For commercial clothes washers, two sets of 

standards were used, one for top-loading washers and 

the other for front-loading washers. You can see the 

scale is different on top-loading than for frontloading, talking about on the order of a 150,000 to 

200,000 for top-loading and only about 40,000 to 50,000 

for front-loading. 

 Again, the examples being used for toploading washers is the 1.6 MEF 8.3 water factor 

standard level and because it has an appreciable 

increase in purchase price, you can see that the 

standards case forecast actually drops relative to the 

base case forecast. 

 For front-loading washers, the example being 

shown here is for the standard level of 2.0 MEF and 5.5 

water factor and again since the price change relative 

to the baseline is relatively small, the standards case 

shipments forecasts are virtually the same as the base 

case forecasts. 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

138

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 This next slide goes over the -- 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed, please. 

 MR. OSANN: On the last graphic, so the -- on 

front loaders, the lines actually overlap, is that the 

point? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yeah. I mean, if you blew 

this up, you would see a very slight decrease in the 

standards case shipments for this particular standard 

level, but since -- because of the scale, I mean, you 

really can’t see it there. 

 MR. OSANN: Right. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: But there’s a very, very 

slight decrease. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s see if there are any 

additional questions on Shipments Analysis before we 

move on. 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Okay. This next slide goes 

over the general approach that was used for the 

National Impact Analysis and again this approach was 

basically the same as what was used for the National 

Impact Analysis for the ANOPR. 

 What DOE does is it calculates national 

energy savings on an annual basis over this time period 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

139

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

of 2012 to 2042 and accumulates that into a total 

national energy savings for any particular standard 

level. 

 For the net present value or NPV, which 

accounts for all the product shipments coming into the 

market between 2012 and 2042, DOE takes into account 

the increases in equipment costs to the nation and the 

decrease in operating costs to the nation to come up 

with that value for all these products that do enter 

the market. 

 The base case forecast does try to 

incorporate what happens to the efficiency of these 

products over time and in the case of the standards 

case forecasts, what DOE utilized was the roll-up 

scenario to estimate how these standards impact product 

efficiencies. 

 Under the roll-up, what happens is that any 

products below a particular standard level roll up to 

that given standard level and all products above that 

standard level are unaffected. 

 To illustrate how the roll-up is being -- is 

used, this example is given here for gas standard 

ovens, if you look under the column called Base Case, 

you can see that distribution is the same distribution 

that was presented earlier for the Life-Cycle Cost 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

140

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Analysis. 

 Again, 18 percent of the market’s at the 

baseline level which consists of standing pilot 

ignition systems, 74 percent is for hot surface glow 

bar ignition, and eight percent is at spark ignition, 

and as you move over to a more stringent Candidate 

Standard Level, you can see how that distribution 

changes. 

 I want to focus here on Candidate Standard 

Level 1-A which corresponds to spark ignition systems, 

and what you can see here is under the roll-up that 18 

percent of the market with standing pilots rolls up 

into Candidate Standard Level 1-A which is the 

electronic spark ignition to comprise a total of 26 

percent under this particular standard level. 

 On the 74 percent of the market at the hot 

surface glow bars is unaffected because that’s another 

form of pilotless ignition and the assumption there is 

that consumers won’t all of a sudden vacate that 

particular product to go to spark ignition. 

 So what happens under this roll-up scenario 

is that it dictates that the product efficiency mix, so 

that, you know, when DOE does its stock accounting 

model to estimate how products are coming into the 

market, it determines that when a unit does fail and 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

141

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

needs to get replaced by a new unit, it gets replaced 

by equipment according to the efficiency mix under each 

of these Candidate Standard Levels. 

 The national average equipment prices and 

total installed costs and repair costs and maintenance 

costs, those are developed first from data coming from 

the Life-Cycle Cost Analysis. That Life-Cycle Cost 

Analysis provides us with per-unit values. Those are, 

in simple terms, multiplied by the stock of those 

products which are determined by the shipments model to 

provide these national values, and then for the cost 

part of the -- the cost inputs are being calculated 

from the National Impact Analysis and future values are 

discounted to the present year using discount rates of 

three and seven percent. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Questions, comments on 

National Impact Analysis? Tim. 

 MR. BALLO: First, just to back up, I 

apologize, after saying all that about the rebuttable 

presumption payback period, I realized it was included 

in the NOPR at 6209.1. However, I’d note that the 

electric standard ovens do satisfy the rebuttable 

presumption test at TSL-3 and therefore presumably that 

can be justified. 

 On the National Impact Analysis, DOE refused 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

142

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

to consider the energy embedded in water because it 

believed that on 6207.4, that energy use is defined 

under EPCA as the energy directly consumed by a 

consumer product. Energy use is what the standard 

regulates. It’s what the test procedure tests for. 

What DOE is considering in this analysis is the energy 

savings, the energy efficiency and there’s no question 

that because of the energy embedded in water, a 

standard that saves water will also save energy. 

 Factor Number 7 under 62950.2(b)(1) and any 

factor that DOE wants to consider basically. So for 

DOE to argue that it doesn’t have the discretion under 

this statute to consider the energy embedded in water 

is just not an accurate representation of what EPCA 

says. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 

comments on this section, Shipments Analysis and 

National Impact Analysis? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: You were finished, correct? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yes, I’m finished with the 

National Impact Analysis. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: That’s fine. Okay. I just 

wanted to make sure. 

 Okay. Then I’m going to suggest we pause for 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

143

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

lunch now. 

 Ed, before we go to lunch, yes. 

 MR. OSANN: Is there a roll-up analysis or a 

roll-up matrix like you’ve done for gas standard ovens 

for all products? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yeah, yeah. That’s in the 

Technical Support Document. So this example was 

specifically to illustrate what happens under a roll-up 

scenario and then for the other products, that’s in the 

Technical Support Document, specifically Chapter 11. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Other questions or comments? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So let’s go to lunch. It’s 

almost 12:30. I guess then let’s resume at 1:30. This 

room will be locked. 

 (Whereupon, at 12:27 p.m., the meeting was 

recessed for lunch, to reconvene this same day at 1:30 

p.m.) 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

144

1 AFTERNOON SESSION

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 (1:30 p.m.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. We have Trial 

Standard Levels, Consumer Subgroup Analysis, and 

Manufacturer Impact, and Greg is going to lead off 

along with Constantin. 

 Yes, before we do. 

 MR. MANTHEI: I just would like to ask a 

question on the Shipments Analysis portion. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Phil, please. 

 MR. MANTHEI: Can DOE confirm that the chart 

on shipments is based on anticipated manufacturers -- 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Can you refer to the chart, 

which one it is? 

 MR. MANTHEI: Page or Slide 45, Top-Loading 

and Front-Loading Clothes Washers. Does that assume 

all the existing manufacturers will be in the 

marketplace? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yes, it does. I mean, 

basically, the shipments standard we used to calibrate 

the model was based upon the submittal we got from AHAM 

and if that data includes all the input from 

manufacturers, then it’s implied then that we’re 

assuming that all the manufacturers are still -- 

 MR. MANTHEI: If a manufacturer exits the 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

145

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

market, it’s not represented? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: That’s not represented 

there. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike Rivest, find a microphone 

right here. 

 MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest. Phil, I think that 

just simply is meant to represent the shipments to the 

U.S. and it surely is dependent of the number of 

manufacturers. It’s consumer demand, if you will. 

 Now, there’s -- it’s not like the shipment of 

domestically-manufactured products. That would be a 

different forecast. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks, Mike. Okay. 

So then Gregory and Constantin. 

15 Trial Standard Levels, Consumer Subgroup Analysis,

16 and Manufacturer Impact Analysis

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Okay. So I guess I’m 

picking it up at the conclusion of the revision of the 

ANOPR Analyses and we’ll begin with talking about the 

selection of Trial Standard Levels. 

 The reason, the purpose for these selection 

of Trial Standard Levels is to create a list of 

standard levels from which DOE can assess the national 

impacts, the manufacturer impacts, the employment 

impacts, and the utility/environmental impacts. 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

146

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 These Trial Standard Levels are developed for 

each of the three major groups of products that were 

analyzed for the NOPR; that is, conventional cooking 

products, microwave ovens and commercial clothes 

washers, and from that list of Trial Standard Levels, a 

proposed standard level is selected. 

 The way that the Trial Standard Levels are 

assembled is by looking at the different Candidate 

Standard Levels in the product classes for each one of 

the products. So, for example, in the case of 

conventional cooking products, there are seven product 

classes. So a Trial Standard Level will draw a 

Candidate Standard Level from each one of those product 

classes to develop again the Trial Standard Level that 

represents those Candidate Standard Levels. 

 These Candidate Standard Levels range across 

a wide range of efficiencies. For example, included in 

these Candidate Standard Levels are the maximum 

technologically-available efficiency level, the level 

with the lowest life-cycle cost, the level with the 

payback below three years. They also could include 

particularly noteworthy technologies. 

 So each Trial Standard Level that’s developed 

incorporates the Candidate Standard Levels that exhibit 

one of these criteria. So, for example, you could have 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

147

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

the Trial Standard Level with the minimum life-cycle 

cost which would again consist of the Candidate 

Standard Levels that had the minimum life-cycle cost 

from each one of the product classes. 

 This slide -- 

 MR. OSANN: Does the TSL have to have -- the 

TSL doesn’t have to have existing products in the 

marketplace in it, right? You can have a gap fill that 

is a construct for this analysis that may not line up 

with any particular products that are in the 

marketplace, can you not? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yeah. There might not be a 

complete correspondence for a gap fill level with a 

product that’s available in the marketplace. That’s 

true. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So that question was from Ed 

Osann. Okay. Thank you. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: So again, I don’t -- I can 

go into some detail about these TSLs for the three 

major product categories, but again I just want to get 

you really a picture of what the TSLs are. 

 For conventional cooking products, there’s 

four TSLs again that represent seven product classes. 

I did want to point out that for Trial Standard Level 

1, it consists of eliminating only standing pilots in 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

148

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

gas cooking products, and under the TSL-1, DOE would 

not have to regulate the energy factor of the cooking 

product. 

 TSL-4 is the Max Tech level. It represents 

the Candidate Standard Level from each product class 

that is the maximum -- has the maximum technological 

feasible level. 

 For microwave ovens, again as we’ve been 

saying through the morning session, there are -- DOE 

analyzed energy factors separately from standby power. 

So DOE developed two sets of Trial Standard Levels 

consisting of four TSLs each. The TSLs have a direct 

correspondence, a 1:1 correspondence with the Candidate 

Standard Levels that were analyzed. 

 So again, there’s four Trial Standard Levels 

for the energy factor and there’s four Trial Standard 

Levels for standby power consumption, and then, 

finally, for commercial clothes washers, there are five 

Trial Standard Levels covering the two product classes, 

top-loading and front-loading. 

 For example, Trial Standard Level 1 consists 

of the first incremental design change for each product 

class and, for example, Trial Standard Level 5 consists 

of the Max Tech levels from each product class. 

 So unless people have specific questions 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

149

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

about the TSLs, I’ll move on. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed. 

 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann, Appliance Standards 

Awareness Project. 

 For commercial clothes washers, this is a 

substantial reconfiguration from the ANOPR, although 

there is -- I think there’s quite a bit of parallel 

with the front-loading, the top-loading is different. 

 Why was -- why were current EnergyStar and 

forthcoming EnergyStar not identified as potential -- 

as TSLs? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: This is for the top-loading 

product class you’re speaking of? 

 MR. OSANN: Yeah. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Well, -- 

 MR. OSANN: The forthcoming EnergyStar is 

TSL-1 for front-loading. The current EnergyStar is not 

in either one. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike Rivest. 

 MR. RIVEST: The selection of the Trial 

Standard -- Mike Rivest, Navigant Consulting. 

 The Trial Standard Levels were constructed 

around existing available products. The EnergyStar 

level of 17280, I believe, is not a product that could 

be reached with conventional top-loading technology, at 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

150

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

least it’s not one that was available on the market. 

 MR. OSANN: Commercial -- limited to 

commercial products? 

 MR. RIVEST: Correct. And the reason there’s 

that, we recognize that there are utility aspects to 

the commercial market which go beyond the requirements 

for the residential market. Those are documented in 

the TSD. So, for example, overloading, constant 

overloading of the baskets to get the most out of those 

four quarters, for example. 

 So we didn’t want to go into technologies 

that may exist within the residential top-loading 

market but haven’t been deployed in the commercial 

market due to utility concerns. 

 MR. OSANN: But the TSD does also talk about 

and the NOPR also talks about the migration of 

technologies from the residential to the commercial 

market, does it not? 

 MR. RIVEST: I believe so. We recognize that 

-- 

 MR. OSANN: That’s why we’re concerned about 

the small volume manufacturer. 

 MR. RIVEST: The -- those are two separate 

arguments. One argument has to do with the commonality 

of manufacturing platforms and the other one has to do 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

151

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

with what features consumers will accept within the 

respective markets. So there might be 80 percent 

commonality of components which a very large 

manufacturer could take advantage of, you know, through 

its purchasing volume and, you know, there’s 20 percent 

which is customized. 

 So the head of the washer, for example, is 

very different but the guts might be very similar, but 

some of the features that are deployed in the 

residential market are not in the commercial market 

currently. So those are two separate things. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Follow-on on these points? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Greg. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: This next slide presents the 

NPV for the Trial Standard Levels for each one of the 

three major product categories. 

 For conventional cooking products, TSLs-1 

through 3 all provided a net benefit to the nation in 

terms of a positive NPV. You can see on the slide the 

range of the dollar savings to the country. 

 TSL-4 actually yielded a burden to the 

country. A large negative NPV was determined for TSL-4 

for conventional cooking products. 

 For microwave ovens, the four TSLs and energy 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

152

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

factor all produced a net burden to the country. For 

TSLs covering standby power, all four provided a net 

benefit to the country, and for commercial clothes 

washers, only TSL-1 provided a burden to the country, a 

small negative NPV, around $100,000, and then, of 

course, TSLs 2 through 5 yielded a net benefit to the 

country. 

 MR. OSANN: Question. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please, Ed. 

 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann. For cooking products, 

were the product classes evaluated independently? 

There’s nothing in the law to prevent you from adopting 

a TSL-2 for one product class and TSL-4 for another, 

correct? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Again, you have to remember 

that the TSLs are comprised of the Candidate Standard 

Levels for each product class. So DOE has to select 

from the TSLs a proposed standard level. So maybe you 

want to -- maybe you meant that, you know, DOE could 

select Candidate Standard Level 2 for one product class 

and Candidate Standard Level 4 from another product 

class to build up a Trial Standard Level. 

 So, I mean, with the different conventional 

cooking products is what you’d see here, that each of 

the TSLs were comprised of either the energy factors or 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

153

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

the elimination of standing pilots that are presented 

on this table. 

 MR. OSANN: So once you call it a TSL, they 

are bound together for purposes of the analysis? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yes. Yes, they are, and 

then DOE performs the Manufacturer Impact Analysis, the 

Utility Impact and the Environmental Impact Analyses, 

the Employment Impact Analyses, on those TSLs and based 

upon that information as well as the information from 

the Engineering and Life-Cycle Cost and National 

Impacts, it determines which one of those TSLs becomes 

the proposed standard level. 

 MR. OSANN: Just to follow-up, isn’t there an 

obligation under NAVA to identify and adopt standards 

that are technically feasible? Doesn’t that apply to 

each product class? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yes, but I’m not -- 

 MR. OSANN: If you’re binding a disparate 

group of seven products, maybe some were buried in TSL 

-- under TSL-3, one of these standards, Trial Standard 

Levels for one of these product classes, this is a 

hypothetical. Is the level for that product -- 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Okay. 

 MR. OSANN: -- maximized under the life-cycle 

cost saving? 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

154

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Okay. Yeah. So, for 

example, for TSL-2, for conventional cooking products, 

that’s comprised of the TSLs from each product class 

that yield a net economic benefit to consumers for -- a 

majority yields a net economic impact, positive net -- 

an economic impact to the majority of consumers that 

are impacted by the standard. 

 So when you go moving from TSL-1 to TSL-2, 

electric coil cooktops and electric standard ovens are 

the only product classes affected by that criterion. 

For Trial Standard Level 2, again what you see are the 

Candidate Standard Levels for each product class which 

meet that specific criterion providing a net economic 

benefit to consumers. 

 MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest. I think the 

process rule actually lays out how DOE goes about 

selecting its TSLs. So the analysis is run on each 

product class separately and then we look at the lifecycle cost results of the product classes and group 

together the efficiency levels that have similar 

results. So all the Max Tech are grouped together. 

 I’m talking generally, not necessarily here, 

all the minimum LCC efficiency levels would be grouped 

together. We’ve grouped in the past all the efficiency 

levels that result in zero NPV. We call that max 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

155

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

energy savings. So the TSLs are consistent in how they 

look at the efficiency levels. So they’re not 

unrelated, if you will, in that sense. So there’s no 

-- there isn’t a risk of having that hidden efficiency 

level which would have been the best that’s buried 

under there. 

 MR. OSANN: No. 

 MR. RIVEST: No. 

 MR. OSANN: This is Ed Osann. Is the 

particular rubric for each of these four TSLs 

identified somewhere? What’s the descriptor for each 

of the four TSLs? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Well, the criterion for TSL1 is simply eliminating standing pilot ignition systems 

from gas cooking products. The criterion for TSL-2 is 

the CSL from each product class that yields net 

economic impacts to a majority of consumers. The 

criterion for TSL-3 is the Candidate Standard Level 

from each product class that yields on average LCC 

savings, the maximum LCC savings, and the criterion for 

TSL-4 is the Max Tech level from each product class. 

 MR. OSANN: Okay. Is that in the NOPR? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yeah. It’s written up in 

the NOPR. It’s also in the TSD. 

 MR. OSANN: Okay. Can you go through that 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

156

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

same description for commercial clothes washers? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Well, for commercial clothes 

washers, it’s a little different, right? For toploading, there’s three Candidate Standard Levels and 

for front-loading, there’s four. So you see we have 

five TSLs which basically cover almost all the 

different permutations you can get from combining the 

efficiency levels from each product class. 

 So for TSL-1, basically the criterion is to 

just move to the first design change which is CSL-1 

from each product class. TSL-2 is the next design 

change for each product class which corresponds to CSL2 for each product class. 

 TSL-3 brings you to the next efficiency level 

for top-loading but keeps front-loading at the same 

efficiency level and the purpose behind that was to 

minimize the retail price difference between the two 

product classes. 

 TSL-4, because we’re already at the Max Tech 

level for top-loading, just stays at that level, and 

then for front-loading increment up to the next 

efficiency level, and then TSL-5 is the Max Tech level 

from each product class. 

 MR. OSANN: Correct me if I’m wrong. This is 

Ed Osann again. I thought earlier this morning, in 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

157

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

response to a question, it was indicated that the 

technology screening for commercial clothes washers did 

not involve a layering of the design changes and that 

wasn’t the basis for identifying the TSL. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yeah. Okay. I’m being a 

little loose with my terminology. What I meant by 

going to the first Candidate Standard Level for each 

product class is that that’s the first efficiency level 

for each product class. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: It doesn’t involve a design 

change? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Well, of course there’s a 

design change, right, but I don’t want to mix it up 

with the terminology that was used for the Engineering 

Analysis. The Engineering Analysis used an efficiency 

level approach to come up with these various Candidate 

Standard Levels. 

 Of course, there again, design changes and 

moving to those efficiency levels. 

 MR. OSANN: So TSL-1 is the first efficiency 

level, not the first design change? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Correct. 

 MR. OSANN: And which TSL is the one that 

maximizes net present value -- excuse me -- life-cycle 

cost savings? 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

158

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Well, it’s TSL-5, the Max 

Tech level. 

 MR. OSANN: Max Tech also -- 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Corresponds to Minimum LifeCycle Cost and Maximum Net Present Value. 

 MR. OSANN: You have Max Tech for TSL-3 for 

top-loaders but Max Tech is TSL-5 for front-loaders? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: That’s correct. 

 MR. OSANN: So what is TSL-3 for frontloaders? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: For front-loaders, it’s a 

machine that has a 2.0 MEF and a water factor of -- 

 MR. OSANN: But what’s the rubric or the 

decision rule for that? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Oh, for that one? Again, it 

was designed -- see, again for top-loading, again 

you’re incrementing up by efficiency level to 

correspond to each TSL. For front-loading, it didn’t 

happen when you went from 2 to 3 and the reason is 

because DOE decided to minimize that retail price 

difference between front-loaders and top-loaders for 

TSL-3. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike Rivest. 

 MR. RIVEST: There’s actually two arguments 

why for TSL-3. There’s minimizing the cost 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

159

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

incremental. There’s also minimizing the manufacturing 

impact to be simultaneously having manufacturers 

redesign their vertical axis to the Max Tech and then 

to have them also redesign their horizontal axis to the 

Max Tech creates this level of investment and keeping 

in mind the very relatively low volume of product 

shipments, those investments are not spread over very 

large volumes, particularly for the low-volume 

manufacturers. 

 So by focusing on improving the vertical axis 

design, thereby squeezing the price differential 

between vertical axis and horizontal axis, you’re 

creating more of a bridge or an incentive for people to 

go towards the vertical or horizontal axis and you’re 

not -- you know, you’re creating a backstop, if you 

will, because that 2.0, I believe the majority of 

horizontal axis models already meet that level. 

 So the idea is you create a backstop on the 

horizontal and you create an inducement for people to 

buy horizontal. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed Osann. 

 MR. OSANN: Yeah. I understand that there 

may be reasons for various -- there are reasons that 

would commend one to use one selection over another one 

but we were told less than five minutes ago that all of 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

160

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

the Max Techs would be in one TSL across disparate -- 

 MR. RIVEST: They are. They’re 5. 

 MR. OSANN: -- product classes and that all 

of the levels that maximize life-cycle cost savings 

would be in the same TSL -- 

 MR. RIVEST: They’re in TSL-5. 

 MR. OSANN: -- across product classes. 

 MR. RIVEST: So both are in TSL-5. It’s one 

and the same thing. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Maybe you could seek further 

clarification at the break. They’ll be happy to walk 

you through it. 

 MR. OSANN: I would rather have the 

clarification on the record. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Again, I was going to say 

that again because TSL-5 represents both Max Tech and 

maximum LCC savings and maximum net present value to 

the nation, all the other Trial Standard Levels in a 

sense, in a sense, are gap fill. 

 The department didn’t want to go out with 

just two Trial Standard Levels or one Trial Standard 

Level for that matter that just consisted of the 

minimum life-cycle cost or maximum life-cycle cost 

savings, and these other concerns that Mike Rivest just 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

161

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

pointed out concerning not creating a market situation 

where you’re inducing people or consumers away from 

front-loading machines was also a consideration when 

these TSLs were developed. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Greg. Ed, do you 

have other questions? 

 MR. OSANN: I do have a question about that 

particular facet of the analysis. Is this the time to 

ask it? 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Sure. Yeah. 

 MR. OSANN: Is there -- there’s language in 

the NOPR indicating that DOE was concerned about this 

recapture of market share by less efficient top-loaders 

if the standard for front-loaders was more rigorous or 

more costly. 

 Is there analysis in TSD or anywhere that 

addresses that elasticity? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: You know, DOE assumed that 

the market share split that you have today between toploaders and front-loaders would be maintained over the 

forecast period and that is described in the Technical 

Support Document and in the NOPR. 

 MR. OSANN: But the incremental cost 

difference between TSL-1 and -- excuse me -- between 

TSL-2 and 3 -- I guess it’s 1 and 3 because 2 and 3 are 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

162

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

the same, is something in the vicinity of $28, and the 

incremental cost difference between 1 and 4 is $60, and 

this is on a total cost of over $1,300, basically. 

 Is there any analysis that says that 

difference of roughly 32 additional dollars for the 

first cost for TSL-4 machines is going to expose the 

market to recapture by less efficient top-loading 

machines which themselves are going to go up by over 

$200? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: No, there isn’t. Again, the 

assumption that DOE made was that the current market 

shares between top-loading and front-loading will be 

maintained over the forecast period for all TSLs. So 

if there’s any information that you have or anyone else 

has about how that relationship may change, based upon 

the increased efficiency of these products, DOE would 

certainly take that into consideration to try to do 

some analysis. 

 MR. RIVEST: Just at a very -- 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike Rivest. 

 MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest. High-level 

thinking in terms of where the market is currently, I 

believe 70 percent of the market is -- 80 percent of 

the market is vertical, 20 percent is horizontal. 

 So from a cost-effectiveness point of view, 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

163

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

certainly achieving an improvement from 126 to 176 with 

a water factor reduction of 95 to 83, you know, that’s 

where the bulk of the savings are coming from, but in 

terms from a design perspective, it’s just as costly to 

design going from a 20 to a 23 MEF as it would be 

probably for the vertical axis. 

 So that incremental savings comes at two 

risks: the manufacturing risk and a consumer rebound 

risk, if you will. 

 MR. OSANN: This is Ed Osann again. You’re 

making an additional point relating to manufacturing 

risk? 

 MR. RIVEST: Manufacturing cost -- 

 MR. OSANN: Manufacturing cost. 

 MR. RIVEST: -- impact, yes. Required 

investments in tooling and research and development. 

 MR. OSANN: But aren’t those going to be 

reflected then in your assessment of -- 

 MR. RIVEST: They are reflected in -- 

 MR. OSANN: -- incremental first costs? 

 MR. RIVEST: They’re reflected in the 

incremental first cost, but they’re not -- and they’re 

also reflected in the manufacturing impact results 

which shows, you know, the more serious impacts if you 

are to cause redesign changes. 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

164

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. OSANN: So the incremental costs that I 

cited which was the $60 increase to -- between TSL-1 

and TSL-4, there’s more to consider than that $60 

increment? 

 MR. RIVEST: You’re only considering the 

consumer side now. I’m saying there’s another side 

which is the manufacturing impact side, which is the 

first-time cost as opposed to the variable cost. So 

that investment, which can be $15 million to come up 

with a new platform, is a one-time requirement in 

capital that a small manufacturer, for example, has to 

go in the capital markets to borrow that money. 

 MR. OSANN: Is the amortization of that 

reflected in your estimates of the -- 

 MR. RIVEST: That’s not -- 

 MR. OSANN: -- of the first costs? 

 MR. RIVEST: Yes, but that’s not the point. 

The point is it’s a first-time cost that has to be 

taken out of the liquidity of the company or borrowed 

from. So you’re looking at it strictly from the 

consumer perspective. You have to look at it from the 

manufacturing perspective. It’s a cash flow issue. 

It’s not a pricing issue, it’s a cash flow issue. 

 MR. OSANN: We’re going to get to the 

Manufacturing Impact Analysis, I guess, -- 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

165

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Right. 

 MR. OSANN: -- some time later? 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, we will. Kelley? 

 MS. KLINE: I guess we’ll get to that later. 

 My question -- Kelley Kline from GE. 

 My question was really I was hoping to get 

some clarification on the manufacturing impacts and 

incremental costs from going to TSL-1 to 3 with the 

top-loading units. So we may be getting there in a 

minute. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So we’re going to -- 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yeah. I just need to cover 

the Consumer Subgroup and then we’ll get right into the 

MIA. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So let’s proceed with 

that and then save your questions for the Manufacturer 

Impact Analysis. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Okay. Let me quickly go 

over the Consumer Subgroup Analysis. 

 Its purpose is to evaluate whether there’s 

any consumer subgroups out there that would be 

disproportionately impacted by a standard more so than 

the general population. 

 For cooking products, DOE looked at two 

subgroups, low-income consumers and senior-only 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

166

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

consumers, and for commercial clothes washers, DOE 

analyzed small businesses as well as multifamily 

consumers that don’t have any access to municipal water 

and sewer. 

 DOE conducted this analysis by using the LCC 

spreadsheet models and then took the inputs and 

modified them to be specific to these particular 

subgroups. 

 As it turned out, the LCC results for all 

these subgroups were basically the same as for the 

general population, and if you don’t have any 

questions, I’ll turn it over to Constantin to talk 

about the Manufacturer Impact Analysis. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Before we move on, questions 

on the Consumer Subgroup Analysis. 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

 MR. von WENTZEL: Okay. So the purpose of 

the MIA is to assess the impacts of standards on 

residential cooking and commercial clothes washer 

manufacturers and specifically, there are a couple of 

entities who would be affected more than others. In 

this rulemaking, the low-volume manufacturer who we’ve 

heard from before, which is an entity that is focused 

on producing commercial clothes washers and commercial 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

167

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

laundry equipment in general, and as such, because of 

this concentration in this market, would be affected 

more than any other competitor by virtue of not being a 

diversified entity. 

 On the cooking side, we identified three 

domestic manufacturers of cooking appliances that use 

standing pilots and two of those entities are small 

businesses and so there’s an additional amount of 

review that goes into assessing the impacts on these 

manufacturers, all of whom derive a significant portion 

of their income from units that have standing pilots in 

them. 

 The method we used to look into these impacts 

is to use the Government Impact Regulatory Model, the 

GRIM, and also conducted a number of interviews with 

manufacturers. Not listed are microwave oven 

manufacturers which we also attempted -- we did our 

best to contact as many of them as we could. 

 AS you can see, the MIA consists of three 

phases and we create an industry profile. We developed 

the GRIM, develop an interview guide, then we conduct a 

whole number of interviews and also conduct site 

visits, and from that create subgroup analyses and then 

get into impacts, such as employment, impacts on 

competition and so on and so forth, before we finalize 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

168

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

them for the NOPR. 

 Let me talk about these three different 

groups separately, starting with the gas cooktops. As 

I mentioned before, there’s three domestic 

manufacturers. Two of them are small businesses. All 

three of these manufacturers already make gas cooking 

appliances that have electronic ignition systems, so 

one could make the argument that the transition costs 

would be relatively low. However, the impact that’s 

not very well known is the loss of differentiation. 

All three manufacturers mentioned that this is an 

important differentiator for them to have standing 

pilot ignition systems. Once those ignition systems go 

away and they have to compete with the rest of the 

market, which represents over 80 percent of current 

shipments, there could be an impact on their market 

share and as a result, there could be an impact on 

their revenues. However, what that impact is or would 

be could not be quantified by any of them. So that’s 

Number 1. 

 Moving on to microwave oven manufacturers, as 

I mentioned, we had difficulty contacting a number of 

them as a result of most of them producing abroad and 

not being U.S.-based anymore. 

 So, in particular, we had difficulty getting 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

169

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

quantitative impacts. There is some uncertainty in 

terms of the design path that manufacturers may take to 

achieve these higher-efficiency levels for power 

supplies and display systems and so on and so forth. 

For most of them, these systems appear to be purchase 

parts and as a result, the impact in terms of a cap-X 

basis may not be that great. However, some of them 

also manufacture their own. In other words, the 

impacts can vary from manufacturer to manufacturer. 

 Another thing we noted is that the market or 

the international market seems to be harmonizing around 

a one watt standard at various different times, but 

whether you look at Australia, Japan, Korea, Europe, 

one watt seems to be a goal that many different 

countries and blocks of countries appear to be heading 

to. 

 Another point that manufacturers brought up 

with us is that the one watt standard could in fact 

shoehorn them into such a small box in terms of how 

much energy budget they have that there could be an 

impact on the differentiation of their products in the 

marketplace. In other words, that more and more 

products will look similar and behave similar and 

therefore there may not be the opportunity to create 

something different and charge accordingly. 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

170

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. BROOKMAN: We have a question. Your 

name, please. 

 MR. JOHNSON: Chris Johnson, LG Electronics. 

I just had a question. If you had trouble getting 

input from manufacturers of microwave ovens, why is the 

range so great of IMPV at TSL-1, 267 million to 

negative 1165 million at TSL-4? Why are the ranges so 

great then if you have a small pool, why are the ranges 

so great? 

 MR. BROOKMAN: You’re referring to Slide 56? 

 MR. JOHNSON: Yes. 

 MR. von WENTZEL: That’s the next slide. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So would you repeat the 

question again, please? 

 MR. JOHNSON: I’m just wondering. You 

mentioned that you had difficulty getting the 

information from the microwave oven manufacturers and 

so I’m just wondering why is the Manufacturer Impact 

Analysis, the ranges of the IMPV so great then? It 

seems like it would be less if you only talked to a 

few. 

 MR. RIVEST: Well, actually, -- this is Mike 

Rivest -- there are two components to the Manufacturer 

Impact. There’s the -- when we looked at the impact on 

standby power and then there was the impact of 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

171

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

incremental improvements in cooking efficiency. 

 As you saw, we did very thorough analysis on 

the standby power requirements and developed our own 

cost-efficiency curves and our own investment numbers. 

 The cooking power depended on the previous 

analysis which had capital investments that had been 

forwarded by industry. This goes back in ’96. What 

you’re seeing really is a wider range that represents a 

greater uncertainty. So as we get better information 

in fact, our range of results gets tighter. 

 So we have to -- we’re faced with modeling 

different scenarios that really, you know, reflect very 

wide costs in shipment and pricing assumptions. So 

really, I think things are in the right direction 

there. 

 MR. JOHNSON: Okay. Thank you. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

 MR. von WENTZEL: Any other questions 

regarding microwave ovens? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Constantin, I wasn’t sure that 

you were finished with the explanation on 54 before 

we’re moving on to the others. Did you complete what 

you wanted to say on 54? 

 MR. von WENTZEL: I think we were on 55, 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

172

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

actually. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Good. Okay. 

 MR. von WENTZEL: Yeah. So coming back to 

the different product classes and specifically now the 

commercial clothes washer, there’s a significant -- all 

manufacturers that we queried mentioned that there was 

a significant uncertainty regarding the consumer 

acceptance of high-efficiency vertical axis clothes 

washers. 

 There have been products in the past that 

achieved very high-efficiency levels that have been 

withdrawn due to consumer complaints and the result of 

a standard that is very high on the vertical axis side 

could actually lead to a transition to a horizontal 

axis market, which is to say that if consumers do not 

accept a high-efficiency vertical axis clothes washer 

and therefore, for lack of a better word, you know, 

refuse to use them, then the net result of a very high 

standard could in fact be the transition of the market 

to horizontal axis which was sort of akin to what would 

have happened under or could have -- was proposed under 

the -- could have been proposed under the previous -- 

in the ANOPR with one product class. 

 So at the very low volumes that these 

manufacturers are operating at, particularly the LVM, 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

173

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

the low volume manufacturer, making very high capital 

investments that are required to develop and test the 

new product platform, it’s simply not justifiable based 

on the financial modeling that we did, particularly if 

one product class -- if you were to transition to all 

horizontal axis. 

 The other manufacturers produce clothes 

washers on the order of 45 times more than the LVM and 

as such have significant advantages in terms of their 

scale, but in general, coming back to the NPV that we 

just looked at over here on Page 56, the impacts on the 

clothes washer industry as a whole are therefore quite 

negative, particularly in light of the production 

volumes that they’re producing at, which brings me to 

the last point, which is that the low volume 

manufacturer has stated repeatedly that it is likely to 

exit the clothes washer business all together if a 

standard were enacted that would lead to either the 

abandoning of the vertical axis clothes washer in the 

commercial field or a transition to horizontal axis in 

general. 

 So that’s one of the reasons that the Trial 

Standard 3 is being put forth in that it minimizes the 

investments that are required to all-encompass one 

product platform as opposed to two because all 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

174

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

manufacturers already make product, horizontal axis 

product that meets that efficiency level. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Kelley. 

 MR. von WENTZEL: That’s it. Any questions? 

 MS. KLINE: Kelley Kline from GE. I guess my 

question then, because I agree with a lot of what you 

just said about the consumer acceptance of the highefficiency, and I guess I’m wondering, given everything 

that you’ve said, how the Max Tech for the top-load 

level is still justified. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike Rivest. 

 MR. RIVEST: Our understanding of the Max 

Tech vertical axis washer currently, as considered here 

in the analysis, it’s a conventional top-loader with 

conventional agitator. It involves more sophisticated 

controls for things such as a adaptive fill, multiple 

spin speeds, multiple temperatures. 

 So really, from a mechanical point of view, 

from the manufacturing platform point of view, it keeps 

in place the existing manufacturing infrastructure. It 

still requires an investment in things, such as 

controls, but it doesn’t require a radical platform 

change as might be required of, you know, a new design 

top-loader which has an impeller instead of an 

agitator, for example. 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

175

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 So whether or not the level chosen is the 

proper level, given what we heard this morning, is a 

question, but the intent was to stay within existing 

top-loader technology and that’s why if it’s left at 

that level would mitigate -- would maximize energy 

savings while mitigating manufacturing impacts. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Kelley. 

 MS. KLINE: Kelley Kline again from GE. I 

guess my suggestion would be with that circumstance, 

and I understand what you just said, it still doesn’t 

get at the question and the point about consumer 

acceptability and the very high-efficiency Max Tech 

levels that we have some real questions about, and I’m 

wondering if DOE should consider some sort of user 

acceptability survey or study to determine the 

acceptability model. 

 MR. RIVEST: I think, you know, the attitude 

we took is that here’s a product which is marketed by a 

large company who probably has extensive market 

research and so it’s not as though we went outside the 

range of existing product, for example. 

 MS. KLINE: I understand that, and I 

understand that. It is, though, a very small fraction 

of the market, though. 

 MR. RIVEST: I understand. If we had gone 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

176

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

further, there are technologies in the residential 

market that achieve much higher energy, but they’re not 

currently deployed in the commercial market. 

 Our understanding why they’re not deployed is 

that they don’t lend themselves currently to the 

commercial market and they might, but they would 

require research and development and the type of 

consumer acceptance studies that you talked about. So 

that’s why the Max Tech is where it is, basically. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So that exchange between Mike 

Rivest and Kelley. Okay. Thanks for those clarifying 

remarks. 

 Other questions based on where we are with 

Slide 56? Did you finish presenting this yet? 

 MR. von WENTZEL: Well, I mean, I guess the 

most important thing to take away from this slide, 

because it’s very, very busy, is that your Appendix has 

actually far more detailed tables that actually break 

out the impacts on industry net present value by 

efficiency level in a much clearer way, I think, than 

this very busy slide does. 

 And now back to Greg, unless there are 

questions. Any questions? 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Are there still questions? 

 MR. MANTHEI: Phil Manthei, Alliance Laundry 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

177

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

Systems. 

 I just would like to underscore the impact on 

users for these proposed Trial Standards. The one 

product that was used in the 1.8768.3, for instance, 

when you select hot water, you know, you get a 107-

degree hot water in the test using the DOE test 

procedure. It’s not hot water. Hot water, under the 

recommendation of Proctor and Gamble, who has a book 

out called “How To Clean,” is a 120 and above is 

considered hot water. 

 When you select warm water, you get 72-degree 

water. That is cold water under what Proctor and 

Gamble calls clean. Anything less than 80 degrees is 

cold water. 

 So talking about impact on the users, you 

can’t expect to get your clothes clean. Every time you 

start reducing hot water, it’s not going to clean. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Greg. 

19 Utility Impact Analysis, Employment Impact Analysis, 

20 Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Analysis

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Okay. I’m going to pick 

things back up with the Utility Impact Analysis. The 

purpose of this analysis is to determine the effect of 

standards to electricity and gas providers due to the 

reduction in energy use and demand caused by the 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

178

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

standards. 

 The method relies on taking the energy 

savings from the National Impact Analysis and feeding 

it into a model called NEMS or National Energy Modeling 

System. This is the Energy Information 

Administration’s model for forecasting energy for the 

United States, and again the version we use is tailored 

to the analysis of appliance standards. 

 The output from the analysis is the change 

that’s caused by these standards and electricity and 

gas sales as well as prices by region. Another output 

is how the mix of electricity generation is affected by 

the standards as well as how the installed generation 

capacity for the U.S. is affected by the standards. 

 For the NOPR, DOE determined that the 

proposed standards for all the various products yields 

something on the order of 400 megawatts in installed 

generation capacity savings by the year 2042. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Steve Rosenstock. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI. Were 

you able to do a determination without a reduction in 

the gas? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: What we did there is just 

forecasted the reduction in gas sales. So nothing 

concerning, for example, the impact on distribution 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

179

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

pipelines. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Gas wells or anything? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yeah. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Secondly, I guess for this 

rulemaking, are you thinking about doing any sort of 

water impacts, water utility impacts? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: No, the department did not 

decide to do that. The primary reason being, which is 

described in the NOPR, is that an analysis tool similar 

to NEMS is not available on the water utility side. 

That’s in simple terms. 

 I mean, DOE did do an assessment of the type 

of work that’s going on in both states and in the 

Federal Government on looking at water and developing 

these tools but those tools aren’t there yet at the 

level that NEMS is. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Other questions? Gary. 

 MR. FERNSTROM: Well, I’d just like to make 

the comment that, again particularly in California, 

water is very important because we’re having a drought 

and there’s a lot of embedded energy in water in 

California, and to leave its effect out of the analysis 

for lack of an analytical tool doesn’t seem to me to be 

a very acceptable way of dealing with it. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: In terms of the embedded 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

180

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

energy to provide water and wastewater services, the 

reason given by DOE in the NOPR is not because of 

analytical tools not being available, it’s because of 

the interpretation of legislation saying that only 

direct energy consumption from the products should be 

considered in the analysis. So the energy associated 

with water delivery and wastewater treatment, for 

example, therefore is not included. 

 MR. FERNSTROM: All right. So there’s 

electric or gas energy going into the appliance, but 

it’s deemed there’s no energy embodied in the water 

that’s going into it. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Well, in terms of the energy 

prices, again it’s implied that those energy prices 

reflect the cost of providing that service. So in the 

sense that again water, you know, is necessary for that 

energy production, that’s included, and as far as the 

water prices and the wastewater prices that are used in 

the analysis, again it’s implied that the energy that’s 

required to deliver that water and treat that 

wastewater is also included in the prices. 

 MR. FERNSTROM: So the cost is incorporated? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yes, but -- so what’s not 

being accounted for is the energy that’s needed to 

deliver that water and again for the reason I just 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

181

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

gave, because it’s not a direct energy consumption of 

the appliance. 

 MR. FERNSTROM: And presumably that’s 

embodied in the price, too, right? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: That’s correct. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike Rivest. 

 MR. RIVEST: Well, I mean, there are 

potentially two issues. Certainly what’s embodied is 

monetized. The question is would one want to quantify 

the water without necessarily putting a monetary value 

added since it’s already embedded in the water prices? 

 So I’m not sure if that’s where you were 

going earlier, that you want the quantities reported, 

but certainly to put a monetary value on it would be 

double counting those dollar values. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Tim. 

 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, EarthJustice. Yeah. 

I can see that it’s double counting. My concern was 

that DOE’s reason for not considering it at all was, in 

my view, was pretty good. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed Osann. 

 MR. OSANN: I don’t think it’s an issue of 

double counting. I think the concern was that in the 

National Impact Analysis, you’re presenting in the 

aggregate energy savings from the proposed rule and 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

182

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

you’re not including in those energy savings the energy 

savings that’s embedded in the saved water. 

 MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest. I could see how 

that would take us down a path where, for example, we 

might want to take into account the embedded energy and 

the material costs of the production of the equipment, 

for example. So the question is one of boundaries. 

Where do we draw the lines, you know, or do we put a 

cradle to grave on everything? 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Gary. 

 MR. FERNSTROM: Well, it seems to me that 

there is certainly a question about where you draw the 

line, but I see a very clear line here because when you 

talk about embedded energy in the product, that is not 

something that is delivered to the product and a 

function of its use. Electricity, gas and water are 

delivered to the product and a function of its use. 

It seems to me, you know, that’s a very clear line. 

 MR. RIVEST: But think about the NPV 

calculation. It has a first cost component and then it 

has energy savings aspects and then we discount it to a 

single value. 

 If we were to do the same with energy, you 

would have to take into account the embedded energy in 

the product as a first-time energy cost and then you 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

183

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

could capture those additional savings. So it’s just a 

matter of being even-handed, I think. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Jennifer. 

 MS. AMANN: Jennifer Amann, ACEEE. I see it 

as being a very different issue because we’re talking 

about the embedded energy in -- that is impacted by the 

standard. The embedded energy in the materials in the 

product aren’t a function of the standard. The 

efficiency standard impacts the electricity use and the 

water use of the equipment and so the embedded energy 

there is a different beast than the embedded energy. 

 So I don’t really see us getting on a 

slippery slope by moving in that direction. 

 MR. RIVEST: I don’t see that line. I see, 

for example, an air conditioner which would require 

more tons of copper and steel and that would create a 

one-time energy cost, for example. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: The actual energy cost of 

producing the iron and the steel. 

 MR. RIVEST: And that would change, that 

would be incrementally larger to the standard. So it’s 

a good debate. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So additional comments 

on this? So I guess I want to encourage Tim to -- 

since you had a legal rationale for why DOE could 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

184

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

include that, if you wanted to submit that in your 

comments, I think that would be helpful. 

 Yes, Ed. 

 MR. OSANN: Just to clarify before we leave 

Slide 58, in the Utility Impact Analysis, are the 

utilities at issue electric and gas distribution 

utilities only or are water and wastewater utilities 

included in the Utility Impact Analysis? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: No, the water and wastewater 

utilities are not included in the analysis. 

 MR. OSANN: Is there a statutory prohibition 

against that? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Well, again, the reason 

given by the department in the NOPR was because the 

analytical tools at the scale of the National Energy 

Modeling System are not yet available. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Gary. 

 MR. FERNSTROM: I’d like to go back to my 

prior comment and say, you know, lack of analytical 

tools doesn’t seem to me like a very good reason for 

not addressing the issue. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Other comments on 

Utility Impact Analysis or questions, for that matter? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

185

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Okay. The next analysis is 

the Employment Impact Analysis, and the purpose of this 

analysis is to determine the impact of standards on 

jobs, employment in the country. 

 What’s done here again is that we’re taking 

the national impacts that are determined in the 

National Impacts Analysis and feeding those into a 

spreadsheet model called MSET. This MSET model, again 

from the changes in costs and savings to the overall 

economy, determines the effect on the overall 

employment in the country. 

 This model was developed by Pacific Northwest 

National Laboratory for DOE. It analyzes a 188 

different sectors in the economy that affect 

transportation, buildings, and industry as well. 

 I wanted to point out that the direct 

employment impacts to manufacturers are not determined 

in this analysis. That instead is determined in the 

Manufacturer Impact Analysis. 

 The result of this analysis is again the 

change in national employment due to these standards 

that we’re analyzing and as it turns out, the proposed 

standards for this rulemaking have a very, very, very 

small positive impact, that is, an increase on national 

employment, but it’s safe to say that that impact is 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

186

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

not -- cannot -- would not be seen in national labor 

statistics. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Just out of curiosity, I 

think I heard earlier that, and forgive me if I’m 

wrong, that predominantly like for microwave ovens, 

they’re all manufactured overseas, is that -- 

 MR. von WENTZEL: Almost all. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Almost all of them. Ninety 

percent plus, something like that. 

 In terms of, I’ll say, a National Impact 

Analysis, wouldn’t that -- you know, does this model 

take that into account, that if the majority of the 

employment -- wouldn’t that mean the majority of the 

impact would be overseas as well? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Well, there’d be a national 

impact because again electricity providers would not be 

providing the same level of electricity and that in 

turn leads to reduced consumer expenditures which then 

in turn stimulates other sectors of the economy which 

could in turn result in a net job increase. So that 

element, as driven by the reduced expenditures on 

energy, would be captured in the analysis. 

 But when you’re talking about the impacts to 

foreign manufacturers, again that explicitly would not 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

187

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

be accounted by this model. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Tim. 

 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo with EarthJustice. 

First, a clarification question. The indirect 

employment impacts modeling that you do, does that 

actually consider reductions in employment within the 

energy sector, say power plants? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yes. Yes, it does. 

 MR. BALLO: So this is an issue that’s come 

up again in several rulemakings where DOE argues that 

positive indirect employment impacts, the department 

doesn’t need to monetize that or put any sort of 

economic value on to it because generally it would be 

offset by declines in other sectors, such as the 

manufacturing industry being regulated or the energy 

sector, but, however, just, you know, to point this 

out, there are, according to the department’s figures, 

239 total domestic production employees in the 

microwave oven industry. That’s 239 people employed in 

the U.S. to make these products. 

 For example, microwave oven standby standards 

will increase employment by 6,500 jobs. That’s 6,300 

roughly more than are employed. So that if every 

single domestic microwave oven employee who’s involved 

in the production has their job outsourced to some 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

188

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

other country loses their job, we’re still at a net 

gain of 6,300 jobs. 

 This factor is completely ignored in the 

economic analysis and it should be considered in any 

rationale analysis of the economic justification for 

the standard. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: That’s true. I mean, the 

dollar value of those jobs are not considered in the 

analysis. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments on Employment 

Impact Analysis? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Okay. Now, I’ll turn to the 

Environmental Assessment. 

 The purpose of this analysis is to determine 

the impact of standards on airborne emissions coming 

from both power plants and from appliances at building 

sites. 

 With regard to carbon dioxide, DOE determined 

the impact of standards using the same model that it 

used for the Utility Impact Analysis and that’s again 

the National Energy Modeling System or NEMS. Standards 

are run through NEMS in order to determine what the 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

189

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

change in carbon emissions are for a standards case 

relative to the reference or base case. 

 When it comes to NOX and mercury, there were 

two rules recently that were vacated by the federal 

courts, the Clean Air Interstate Rule and the Clean Air 

Mercury Rule. Both of those rules would have capped 

emissions coming from power plants for both NOX and 

mercury. 

 Now again, since they’ve been vacated, those 

rules are no longer in effect, but the problem was, is 

that NEMS, the latest version of NEMS that we use, 

still incorporated those rules. Therefore, we couldn’t 

use the model to estimate the impacts to NOX and 

mercury reductions. 

 What was done instead is that we used NEMS to 

derive emission rates, NOX emission rates and mercury 

emission rates for power plants and those emission 

rates were multiplied by the drop in installed 

generation capacity in order to estimate a possible 

range of savings on mercury and NOX coming from power 

plants. 

 Did you want to ask a question, Steve? Okay. 

 NEMS does not have the ability to estimate 

emissions coming from fossil fuel appliances that are 

in a home or at a commercial building. So DOE had to 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

190

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

do a literature search to determine the emission 

factors that are associated with those appliances to 

determine what the savings in carbon and NOX are from 

standards that affected appliances at the site. 

 When it comes to SO2, there have been caps in 

place since 1990 due to the Clean Air Act Amendments. 

So DOE estimated that there would be no impact to SO2 

power plant emissions from standards. 

 DOE did evaluate, though, the effect on 

allowance prices for SO2 and DOE did do NEMS runs to 

determine that there’s virtually no impact to allowance 

prices due to these proposed standards. 

 And, finally, DOE did monetize the value of 

the reductions in carbon and in NOX and in mercury for 

this rule. For CO2, DOE used the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change report by looking at some 

values that were produced in that report for dollars 

per ton of CO2 avoided. 

 For NOX and mercury, DOE did a literature 

search to determine what the health and environmental 

impacts would be in terms of dollars due to avoided NOX 

and mercury emissions. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: A couple of quick comments. 

Those rules were vacated, I know, but there are efforts 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

191

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

to get them reinstated and it looks likely that there 

will be caps probably reinstated by some point in 2009. 

 So my thought would be, again my opinion 

would be that the caps will be reinstated, if not 

lowered, at some point in the near future as well as 

the SOX numbers scaling down as well. 

 In terms of the dollars per ton for CO2, the 

International Panel -- I’m just kind of curious because 

we saw the New England experiment with $3 per ton 

basically in the first round of options. The 

International Panel, what were their numbers? More 

like in the $20 to $30 range per ton? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: The cost was $14 or $15 per 

ton. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Okay. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: DOE decided to use the 

values from that report as opposed to market-based 

values. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Okay. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments on 

Environmental Assessment? Yes, Tim. 

 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo with EarthJustice. 

We’ll be submitting along with NRDC some more detailed 

comments on the monetary value that DOE should be 

using. 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

192

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 Just a general comment that these numbers, 

these monetized values should be incorporated into a 

truly national analysis of the net present value of the 

rulemaking. DOE has what it refers to as a national 

net present value figure, but it really leaves out a 

lot of factors, like the emissions reductions and the 

employment benefits, that kind of skews the analysis 

against stronger efficiency standards. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 

comments on Environmental Assessment? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Now we come to a slide which 

discusses a couple of issues that DOE’s specifically 

seeking public comment on. 

 The first issue pertains to DOE’s policy 

decision to discount environmental benefits. Again, in 

past rulemakings, DOE has decided to discount the 

emissions as a policy case and basically assuming that 

future emissions aren’t worth as much as emissions 

closer to the present. 

 DOE has used three and seven percent discount 

rates to discount these environmental benefits and now 

is looking for comment on whether or not there’s other 

types of discount rates that should be used to discount 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

193

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

those future environmental benefits. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s pause and see what 

responses we get to that one. Yes, Tim. 

 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, EarthJustice. First 

of all, I believe you also include an adjustment factor 

from the IPCC to increase -- I believe you used 2.4 

percent per year, the value of CO2 emissions 

reductions. 

 The discount rate on top of that, I would 

just note that OMB Guidance Circular A4 provides a lot 

of flexibility here. I don’t think it compels the 

department to apply any sort of discount rate. There 

are serious ethical concerns with discounting emissions 

reductions. Essentially, you’re discounting debts in 

the future. You’re discounting emissions. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 

comments on discounted environmental benefits? Yes, 

Steve Rosenstock. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Not on the dollar side 

because typically you discount dollars, not other -- I 

know it’s kind of -- DOE’s not discounting energy and 

environmental impacts, but just the -- just in terms of 

some of these impacts, just because -- especially on 

the electric generation side with -- there are now 

renewable portfolio standards in 29 states and pretty 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

194

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

much mandated statewide goals in four other states 

representing over 75 percent of the population and with 

the clean air rules that are probably going to be 

reinstated in 2009, the -- any emissions back to kwh -- 

well, it’s been going down since 1970 and it will keep 

going down and it’s a matter of the energy savings in 

the future will have less environmental impacts than 

the energy savings now just because of the function of 

how power plants are getting cleaner. 

 So I don’t know about discounting, but I’m 

just saying in terms of just overall accounting, if 

there’s X grams of X emission per kilowatt hour now, 

that value goes down, will be going down over the 

years, that DOE should make sure to account for it in 

its calculations. That’s not going to be static or 

increasing. It’s been going down for 30 years and if 

there are CO2 rules, that will also start getting -- 

you know, CO2 associated with that kilowatt hour. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Additional 

comments on discounted environmental benefits? There’s 

another one on that same page. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yeah. The second issue 

pertains to something that Timothy had just brought up 

which is how DOE treats the monetization of these 

environmental benefits. 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

195

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 DOE has decided to keep these separate from 

the consumer net present value basically because they 

view EPCA and the National Environmental Policy Act as 

not requiring them to combine it with the consumer net 

present value. 

 So DOE, though, is looking for any comment on 

its treatment of the monetized values and how it should 

be basically used in their policy decisions. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: I couldn’t tell whether those 

other bullets are linked. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yeah. All the bullets are 

linked. Actually, I skipped over one bullet. Again, 

another reason cited is that because the market for 

environmental emissions, at least for CO2, is not 

mature and not widespread, again they don’t feel like 

it should -- they should be counting those monetized 

CO2 emission reductions into its NPV calculation. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI. That 

last sentence, “Unlike energy saving, economic value 

and emission reduction is not priced in the 

marketplace,” I think I have to disagree with that 

because of the fact that utilities for the cost of 

complying with Clean Air Act and other legislation, 

whether federal or state, have adjusted the price of 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

196

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

the electricity to account for those costs. 

 So part of the cost of electricity is for 

complying with federal and state Clean Air legislation. 

So it might not be broken out specifically in any 

utility bill and it might be a lower -- it might not be 

a significant value, it might be less than one percent 

of the utility bill, of the cost per kilowatt hour, but 

the cost to comply with -- the value is the cost to 

comply with emission reduction has been put into the 

electric rates and so there is -- you know, the savings 

are just blended in with all the other savings 

associated with the cost of providing the electricity. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Tim. 

 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, EarthJustice. To 

respond to that, it’s true, there is a portion of the 

true value or the true cost, rather, of emissions is 

incorporated into the electric bill. However, the full 

cost of those emissions is not yet incorporated, for 

example, because there is no nationwide cap on carbon 

emissions as we sit here today. 

 Once that does happen, then I would argue 

it’s certain to happen by the time the effective date 

rolls around for these products. There will be -- the 

electricity bills will incorporate arguably the full 

social cost of carbon and that’s why I argued earlier 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

197

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

that DOE should increase the electricity price 

assumption that it uses. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, Ed Osann. 

 MR. OSANN: Question about the second bullet 

on this slide. DOE’s made several additions to its 

monetization of environmental emissions reductions in 

today’s proposed rule. 

 What are those several additions? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: It’s to monetize the 

environmental reductions, these reductions of airborne 

emissions. That wasn’t done until recently. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: The CO2 and NOX and -- 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: CO2 and NOX and mercury. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: -- mercury. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: This is one of the first 

standards rulemakings that has included the monetary 

value of those emission reductions. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI. And 

again, I hate to repeat what I said before, especially 

in terms of SOX. The cost of the SOX compliance is 

embedded into rates and if DOE adds something else on 

it, in a way it is double counting. So, you know, 

again, small amount but again we should try not to 

double count where possible. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Specifically again for SO2, 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

198

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

because of what, Steve, you just said, that these caps 

have been in place since 1990, there is a market for 

SO2 and there’s an allowance price associated with it 

and so what the department did was run NEMS to try to 

see what the impact from the standards was on that 

allowance price and it’s a negligible impact on the 

allowance price from the proposed standards. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. So additional -- 

you see three bullets there that we haven’t addressed 

fully yet. Monetization of Environmental Benefits and, 

Greg, do you feel like you’ve adequately described the 

other two bullets? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yeah. Yes, I think we’ve 

had input on all those. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional questions or 

comments based on these three specific requests for 

comment from the department? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Okay. Now we’re to the last 

analysis that’s conducted for the NOPR and that’s the 

Regulatory Impact Analysis. 

 The purpose of this analysis is to analyze 

alternatives, non-regulatory alternatives to mandatory 

efficiency standards and determine what those national 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

199

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

impacts would be from these non-regulatory 

alternatives. 

 DOE considered the following non-regulatory 

alternatives to standards. The first one was no 

regulatory action whatsoever which is no new standard. 

Consumer rebates. Consumer tax credits. Voluntary 

efficiency targets, specifically EnergyStar. 

Manufacturer tax credits. Early replacement programs. 

Bulk government purchases. 

 The way that DOE analyzed these programs was 

to take the NIA spreadsheet model for each one of the 

products and modify specific assumptions in those 

spreadsheet models to determine what the impacts again 

from these alternatives would be. 

 What DOE tried to do in this case was use 

actual historical, recent historical data to see how 

the market has been affected by these programs, and 

because of recent tax incentive programs that have bee 

instituted by both states and the federal program, 

there was a little bit of data available to try to get 

after what those impacts would be. 

 As it turns out, none of the alternatives 

achieved the same level of national energy savings or 

national economic benefits as the proposed standards 

for any of the products. 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

200

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So comments on the Regulatory 

Impact Analysis? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: No additional comments on 

those? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. That’s all the 

presentation? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: That’s all the presentation. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: I’d invite you to take a peek 

at the back-up slides that are attached to your 

documents here. There’s quite a lot of documentation 

here for you to look at, and as is the case always, the 

department wants to provide another opportunity now for 

anybody that wishes to, to make closing remarks, raise 

additional issues that haven’t been raised so far, 

summarize things you may have said earlier briefly as 

possible. 

 So let’s just do that. Tim. 

20 Discussion of Other Issues

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, EarthJustice. I was 

still getting settled in this morning, so I missed my 

opportunity to respond earlier but I’ll do it now. 

 At the outset of this meeting, there was a 

comment made and made very strongly that the incoming 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

201

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

administration, which has made a focus of its campaign 

helping out the middle class and lower-income folks, is 

facing the opportunity to select a standard that could 

adversely impact the interests of us folks. 

 However, if you look at the numbers for the 

Life-Cycle Cost and Net Present Value, adopting a 

single standard for all commercial clothes washer 

classes represents the largest savings for consumers. 

 From the ANOPR, when DOE’s proposing to keep 

a uniform class for all commercial clothes washers, 

adopting a modified energy factor of 2 and water factor 

of 5.5 would yield economic benefits of roughly 1 to 

2.5 billion more than the standard DOE’s proposing to 

adopt today. Going with an even stronger standard 

would have larger benefits. 

 Similarly, for cooking products, going with 

TSL-3 as opposed to TSL-1, I believe, which you would 

propose to adopt, would provide another 150+ million 

for consumers at a seven percent discount rate and 700 

million at a three percent discount rate. 

 So to the extent the next administration is 

concerned about impacts on middle and low-income 

people, adopting stronger standards is the best thing 

it can do for those people. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional closing 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

202

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

remarks? Gary. 

 MR. FERNSTROM: PG&E would like to agree with 

EarthJustice, to the extent that we strongly believe 

that a single standard for clothes washers is most in 

the public interest. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Steve Rosenstock. 

 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, Edison 

Electric Institute. 

 I just want to again thank DOE for the 

meeting and for all their hard work over the last 

several years. I know the mandates from the last two 

big energy bills are pretty overwhelming and I think 

they’re doing a really good job in terms of meeting all 

the deadlines, either through the legislation or the 

consent decree. 

 There are obviously energy savings, 

significant energy savings from all these products. I 

hope DOE in the final rule will, you know, take 

everything into consideration and I hope that the rule 

will avoid any laws of unintended consequences because 

that way, we know that -- I think you got some good 

feedback here and I just want to make -- I just hope 

that, you know, the competition is not reduced and 

safety is not compromised when setting these efficiency 

standards and I think there are going to be good ways 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

203

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

to do that and save a significant amount of energy. 

 Thank you. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 

comments, closing remarks? Yes, Phil. 

 MR. MANTHEI: I’d like to say we appreciate 

DOE’s -- they’re kind of caught in the middle here in 

their understanding. However, we absolutely want you 

to reconsider the standard for calculating the class of 

product. We’re to the end of the road with what’s 

happening with the top-loader. You can’t keep taking 

away hot water and water. It isn’t going to work 

anymore. 

 Maybe there are some of these non-traditional 

designs that others can afford to bring forth. We 

cannot. Alliance Laundry does not have the capital and 

is unwilling to risk the business to do that. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Ed Osann. 

 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann. Taken together, the 

ANOPR and the NOPR paint a picture of very substantial 

potential energy and water savings from high-efficiency 

clothes washers. The path that DOE has laid out, 

however, in the NOPR just doesn’t get us there and 

there’s got to be a better way through this thicket of 

the DOE process and the current market configuration. 

 We’ve heard from serious issues raised with 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

204

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

the model that -- with the approach that DOE has taken 

in identifying Max Tech and the recommended standard 

level for top-loading clothes washers. There’s at 

least a reasonable likelihood that the standard level 

that DOE has proposed will not hold up for one reason 

or another and the decision criteria is based upon 

efficiency levels that are present only in the 

commercial market today and we’ll see a further 

retrenchment of the potential savings that can result 

from this rule. 

 DOE still has the opportunity to look at 

efficiency levels in current and forthcoming 

EnergyStar. The TSD is erroneous in concluding that 

all of the higher-efficiency residential products that 

are on the market are impeller-type or do not have 

traditional agitators. There are in fact agitator-type 

residential products on the market today in the C&C 

database that produce -- that perform at higher levels 

than the Max Tech model that DOE has described for the 

purposes of this rulemaking. 

 So that really needs a fresh look here, 

particularly as the DOE’s assumptions about the Max 

Tech model that they have chosen are called into 

question. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

205

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

comments? Yes, J.B. 

 MR. HOYT: J.B. Hoyt, Whirlpool. I certainly 

appreciate everybody’s response to the closing 

comments. However, there’s been a lot of focus in 

these comments on technological feasibility. That is 

but one element in this. Again, we need to recognize 

that, as I like to say, the dogs have to like the dog 

food. Consumers have to be able to use the product in 

a way that meets their expectations, in terms of 

cleaning clothes and cooking food, and furthermore, 

consumers expect the product to last and have a 

durability of a significant period of time. 

 So as manufacturers, those of us in the room 

who are manufacturers, have a responsibility of not 

only meeting the technological challenges but the 

consumer-based challenges as well and keeping that 

balance in line is extremely important as we go 

forward. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additions? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: No additional comments? Yes, 

Phil. 

 MR. MANTHEI: Phil Manthei, Alliance Laundry 

Systems. 

 I did bring a packet of about 25 pages of our 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

206

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

comments here. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Great. Okay. So we’ll hand 

those around. Then I think that’s all we had to cover, 

with the exception of Next Steps and Closing Remarks 

and before I turn it back to Stephen Witkowski, my 

thanks to all of you for very direct, I think, good 

exchange today. We covered so much ground effectively, 

efficiently. 

 I would reference for your consideration 

Slide 66 and 67 where the department requests specific 

comment on these issues. I know they would appreciate 

your comments in written form addressing as many of 

these as you’re able to. That would be helpful to them 

and also I’d ask for your consideration, please. 

There’s an evaluation form at the bottom of your 

materials. Please take a few minutes to fill it out 

and I believe that we distributed already a photocopy 

of the attendees, the business cards. If you didn’t 

get one, there ought to be one at the sign-in desk. 

 So I hand it back then to Stephen Witkowski 

for Closing Remarks. 

22 Next Steps and Closing Remarks

23 

24 

25 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: Very briefly, I just want to 

refer you to Slide 69 in terms of submitting your 

comments. 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

207

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 If you have any problems, and hopefully you 

won’t, also feel free to contact me directly. 

 I want to thank you all for coming today and 

for contributing to a very lively and informative 

discussion. 

 As far as the TSD goes, actually I made 40 

copies, I burned 40 copies of it during lunch, and I 

have them available to take with you. We will, of 

course, get them up on to the website shortly, as I 

mentioned earlier, but please, I would ask that you 

only take one copy, though, and if you have any 

problems with them, also don’t hesitate to contact me, 

if for some reason it doesn’t read or whatever. I will 

see that you get a copy immediately, although it should 

be up on the website early next week. 

 With that, I thank you very much for coming. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: I see Ed Osann. 

 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann. Last month, the e-mail 

portal for submitting comments for NEPA rules had some 

problems accepting comments. Has that been resolved? 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: That has been resolved. We 

had an IT problem and you shouldn’t -- that shouldn’t 

happen again. 

 However, if it does, please contact me. I 

guarantee you that your comments will be accepted and 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

208

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

we will do additional tests to make sure that the 

portal’s up and running. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks to all of you. 

Safe travels. 

 (Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m., the meeting was 

concluded.) 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

209

1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

 This is to certify that the attached proceedings 

before: 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

In the Matter of: 

 PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS 

FOR RESIDENTIAL DISHWASHERS, DEHUMIDIFIERS, AND COOKING 

PRODUCTS, AND COMMERCIAL CLOTHES WASHERS 

 Were held as herein appears and that this is the 

original transcript thereof for the file of the 

Department, Commission, Board, Administrative Law Judge 

or the Agency. 

 Further, I am neither counsel for or related to any 

party to the above proceedings. 

 

19 Wendy Greene 20 

21 

22 

 Official Reporter 

Dated: November 19, 2008 

EE-2006-STD-0127 COMMENT 40.5