**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY **PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS: TEST PROCEDURE FOR MICROWAVE OVENS**  U.S. Department of Energy Room 8E-089 1000 Independence Avenue, Southwest Washington, D.C.

Friday, November 14, 2008 9:00 a.m. Participants DOUG BROOKMAN, Facilitator TIM BALLO Earthjustice GARY FERNSTROM Pacific Gas and Electric Company J.B. HOYT Whirlpool Corporation DEBRA BRUNK Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers ED OSANN American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy DERRICK LITTLE General Electric KELLEY KLINE GE Consumer & Industrial GREGORY ROSENQUIST Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory JUDITH REICH Navigant Consulting, Inc. STEPHEN WITKOWSKI Department of Energy**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 Participants CHRISTOPHER KENT U.S. Environmental Protection Agency TONY YE LG Electronics, USA, Inc. CONSTANTINE VON WENTZEL Navigant Consulting, Inc. MICHAEL KIDO Department of Energy JAMES BARRAGLIA Navigant Consulting**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 3 A G E N D A AGENDA ITEM : PAGE : Welcome 5 Stephen Witkowski Introductions 5 Agenda Review 7 Doug Brookman Stakeholder Opening Statements 9 Debra Brunk Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers Introduction, Background and Legal Authority 11 Stephen Witkowski Test Procedure: Covered Products, Effective Date, 13 and Measures of Energy Consumption Judith Reich Test Procedure: Incorporation by Reference of 48 IEC Standard 62301 Judith Reich Test Procedure: Definitions of "Active Mode", 54 "Standby Mode", and "Off Mode" Judith Reich Test Procedure: Specifications for Test Methods 63 and Measurements for Standby and Off Mode Testing Judith Reich Test Procedure: Technical Correction 73 Judith Reich**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 4 A G E N D A AGENDA ITEM : PAGE : Compliance with Other EPCA Requirements 75 Judith Reich Conclusions and Closing Remarks 80 Stephen Witkowski Adjourn**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 5 P R O C E E D I N G S 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 9:15 a.m. MR. BROOKMAN: -- Program for Consumer Products: Test Procedure for Microwave Ovens. Today is Friday, November 14th, here at the Department of Energy. My name is Doug Brookman, Public Solutions, Baltimore. Nice to see you all here. Thanks for being here just about on time so we can start on time. We wanted to provide welcoming remarks by Stephen Witkowski. Welcome Stephen Witkowski MR. WITKOWSKI: Well, again, thank you all for coming to this meeting to discuss and get your input on microwave oven test procedure issues to facilitate moving on. I welcome you all, and that's all for the welcome. Thank you. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. (Laughter.) Introductions MR. BROOKMAN: In keeping with the theme of the morning already established, we do like to provide an opportunity for everybody to introduce him- or herself. We expect that some others will be joining us as they are trying to clear through security, which has**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 6 been really muddled this morning, in my opinion. 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, can I start -- please say your name and organizational affiliation. MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo with Earthjustice. MR. FERNSTROM: Gary Fernstrom, retired from and representing Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and I just love my microwave. (Laughter.) MR. BROOKMAN: Even though it's manufactured

overseas. MR. FERNSTROM: No, it's a General Electric. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. MR. HOYT: J.B. Hoyt, Whirlpool Corporation. MR. BROOKMAN: Debra Brunk, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. MR. OSANN: Ed Osann, Appliance Standards Awareness Project. MR. LITTLE: Derrick Little, General Electric. MS. KLINE: Kelley Kline, General Electric. MR. ROSENQUIST: Greg Rosenquist, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. MS. REICH: Judith Reich, Navigant Consulting. MR. WITKOWSKI: Stephen Witkowski, Department**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 7 of Energy. 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. BATTAGLIA: James Battaglia, Navigant Consulting. MR. KENT: Christopher Kent, EPA, Energy Star Program. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. MR. YE: Tony Ye, LG Electronics. Agenda Review Doug Brookman MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, thank you. Okay. So I'm going to do a very brief agenda review and then we're going to go straight from there into the Stakeholder Opening Comments. So you can see on the agenda that's the flow. It goes from what I'm doing now to an opportunity for each of you to make brief opening statements to summarize the issues that matter to you. Following that, we'll do something of an overview, background on legal authority, from Stephen. Following that, Test Procedure: Covered Products, Effective Date, and Measures of Energy Consumption with Judy. Following that, the Test Procedure: Incorporation by Reference of IEC Standard 62301. We'll take a break mid morning, maybe a short break, to effect our early exit.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 8 Test Procedures following the break. Definition of Active Mode, Standby Mode, and Off Mode. We discussed that a lot yesterday. And following that, Test Procedure: Specifications for Test Methods and Measurements for Standby and Off Mode Testing. We'll break for lunch if we need to. If we're close to finishing, we'll press on through lunch and try and finish before we break for lunch. 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 we do break for lunch, when we return from lunch we'll talk about the Technical Correction to the Test Procedure and then Compliance with other EPCA Requirements. We'll have Conclusions and Closing Remarks and another opportunity for comment for anybody in the room that wishes to do so at the end of the day. So that's the plan for today. Questions, comments about that? Concerns? (No response.) MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. I see none. So then, an opportunity now for any of you that wish to do so to make brief opening remarks about your issues, your concerns about this notice of proposed rulemaking. Yes, Debra.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 9 Stakeholder Opening Statements 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 Statement by Debra Brunk Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers MS. BRUNK: Debra Brunk with AHAM. First of all, I'd like to thank the Department of Energy for again holding a public meeting for us to impress our comments on the NOPR for the microwave oven test procedure. I think the DOE test procedure does provide a good foundation for measuring standby power. I think it incorporates -- EISA 2007, and I think it moves in the right direction in terms of referencing IEC 62301. I think from the industry standpoint one of the things that we are perhaps concerned somewhat about is just the way that the rest of the world is going in terms of standby power. I think we would like to see DOE try to harmonize, to the extent possible, with the rest of the world, and I think particularly looking at where Europe is going. They do seem to have some of -- the best grasp, perhaps, of standby power in terms of definitions and things. Maybe I should say "guidelines and clarifications" as opposed to "definitions." There's been a lot of work done on the IEC 62301 document within the last year. It is now a committee draft two, which means it is nearing final. I think it might be interesting, or maybe it can be**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 0 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 beneficial as we sort of move into this standby arena here in the U.S. to make sure we are as harmonized as possible with the documents in their current state. It may just be a matter of putting some clarifications in place similar to what the European directive published in June has done. AHAM is trying to work with environmental stakeholders still at this point to perhaps come to an agreement to add some clarifications that would be consistent with the European documents and movement and then also to try to see if we can harmonize on an effective date, which would be 2013 for a one-watt standby. I think we're also interested in incorporating off mode, as we discussed a little bit yesterday. And again, I expect these discussions to occur within the next couple of weeks. I think that's it for now. Thank you. MR. BROOKMAN: I was hoping you'd be as specific as to say what kinds of things you think the Department might do that would move towards that harmonization, and I think you did. So, thank you for that. As you know, they're under significant pressure to move quickly. MS. BRUNK: Yes.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 1 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: Yeah. So to have those specified in your written comments I think would be very helpful to the Department. Okay. Other opening remarks or issues here at the outset? (No response.) MR. BROOKMAN: I see no additional comments, so let's move into the content. Introduction, Background, and Legal Authority Stephen Witkowski (PowerPoint presentation.) MR. WITKOWSKI: I'll try to make this very brief, but I'm sure most of you are aware of the purpose of the test procedure NOPR public meeting: to present the Department's proposed test procedure for microwave ovens, seek comment from participants on the proposed test procedures, discuss specific issues or questions related to the proposal, and discuss the next steps in the rulemaking process. Slide 3 is basically where we stand with the test procedure. We're going from the NOPR stage into the final rule stage, and the dates are all given here. There's no need for me to read them. The test procedure overview and issues. These are the primary issues that we see, and of course**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 2 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 welcome your comments throughout the presentation on all of them. Again, the products covered by this test procedure rulemaking, the effective date for the test procedure, measures of energy consumption, incorporating by reference IEC Standard 62301, and so on. Definitions of active, standby mode, and off mode, which we discussed a little bit yesterday. Specifications for the test methods and measurements for microwave oven standby mode and off mode testing. Technical correction for the microwave oven test cooking energy output and compliance with other EPCA requirements. Comments. Those have already taken place. We just moved this slide up front with Doug Brookman's presentation. The regulatory history is here for you to read. I don't think I need to go through it line by line. But this is essentially it. And here's a continuation. And that's all I have, in trying to make this brief. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. So let's pause now. You've gone through several slides rather quickly. Give everybody a chance to scan through, see if there are any questions on this content. We'll just**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 3 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 let this sit for a moment or two while you scan these slides. MR. WITKOWSKI: This is primarily just history. MR. BROOKMAN: I know. We want to provide -- okay. (Pause.) MR. BROOKMAN: So we're going to move on, then, to our presentation on Covered Products, Effective Date, and Measures of Energy Consumption. Judy Reich.

Test Procedure: Covered Products, Effective Date, and Measures of Energy Consumption Judith Reich (PowerPoint presentation.) MS. REICH: Judith Reich from Navigant Consulting. First of all, thanks to everybody, you hearty souls, who stuck around for a second day. Let me start off by talking about which are the products that are being covered by this test procedure. The statutory definition of a microwave oven of course is a cooking appliance that is designed to heat or cook food primarily, of course, by microwave energy. And it is expected in these proposed test procedure amendments that this is going to cover all**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 4 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 that primarily use the microwave energy for cooking but can also have thermal elements that are available for surface browning but are not really designed as the primary cooking method. As we discussed yesterday, this would cover variousconfigurations such as countertop units or over-therange units. What it would not cover would be combination ovens, and these are microwaves that incorporate additional cooking methods that would be included as the primary cooking methods, such as a convection oven or halogen lights. It also is not intended to cover microwave ovens that are integrated into a conventional range. That's really for the reason that it's expected that the controls and potentially displays would be incorporated. At this point DOE does not have information yet on how to evaluate standby power in conventional cooking products, which would include the ranges. It's expected that that's going to be somewhat more complicated than it is for microwave ovens, potentially multiple standby modes. So DOE is not including them in this test procedure rulemaking but will consider them in the future in order to meet the EISA 2007 deadline or March**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 5 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 2011. That would certainly be a topic on which DOE would be happy to receive data and any input and comments on. MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. J.B. MR. HOYT: J.B. Hoyt, Whirlpool. Judy, as I mentioned yesterday, we don't have data on the shelf as an industry because it's just not an area we've studied. So we'd like something much more specific than, "Gee, we'd like some data from you guys." If you could help structure that and give us an idea what it is you're looking for and give us time to gather it, that's really, really critical for us. We're delighted to work with you, but let's work together to make sure we get you the information you need and we get enough time to deliver that to you. MS. REICH: Absolutely. That's an excellent point. We will probably be working to even define the questions that we want to ask you. So we hope that it's an iterative process, but one that we'd like to initiate fairly quickly. MR. BROOKMAN: J.B., if you have specific questions, do you have a mechanism in place? How long might it take you to gather the data? MR. HOYT: Not knowing the questions, it's not -- I'm not sure I can answer your question,**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 6 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 unfortunately. MR. BROOKMAN: Right. MR. HOYT: But I would say a period of several months because we'll have to do testing. These are not things we measure. We'll have to work that testing into our existing schedules in our laboratories, et cetera. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. MR. HOYT: So this isn't a matter of weeks, it is months. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. MS. REICH: Okay. I'd also just want to follow up on that that we want everybody to recognize that DOE compressed the schedule for the microwave oven test procedure amendments because of various factors that I'll address in a moment. But it's not the typical schedule that we would be looking for information in six months. We certainly would be conducting this over a period of several years. MR. BROOKMAN: Derrick. MR. LITTLE: Derrick Little, General Electric. Just a clarification on the second bullet there in terms of where it stated, "Which the primary source of heating energy is electromagnetic microwave energy." So in effect what you're saying is that**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 7 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 anything with a thermal element in it -- because you have microwaves that do microwaving and then you have microwaves that are also grillers or browners. In other words, they have modes where they do not use microwaves at all. MS. REICH: That's right. Those will be considered covered products if the intent is just really as a grilling or browning function. If it's there for truly cooking the food, then the intent is that that would be considered a combination oven. That's not a covered product. MR. LITTLE: So if it's a combination function, then it would be a cooking product as opposed to just a grill? The reason I make that distinction is because, to your point, there are ovens that are designed to both microwave and to cook specific types of food that you couldn't cook in a normal microwave because of the addition of those elements, and then there are ones that do, again to your point, just grilling and just microwave only. But if you have one that has a combination microwave-grill cycle, then that would be a combination unit. MS. REICH: That would be the intent of it, yeah.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 8 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: Thank you. MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Ed. MR. OSANN: Microwave grill? I understood a microwave grill to be a microwave and not a combination

oven. MS. REICH: Well, again, if it's a combined cooking cycle then it would not be considered strictly a microwave oven. MR. BROOKMAN: And it would not be covered? MS. REICH: That's right. MR. BROOKMAN: So say more about what a combined cooking cycle involves. MS. REICH: If, for example, there's a mode that you can program that uses a microwave function for a period of time and then thermal heating for a period of time, back and forth like that, that would be considered a combination cycle. MR. BROOKMAN: And that would not be covered? MS. REICH: That's right. Primarily because the existing test procedure does not measure -- DOE is not aware of an appropriate way to measure a cooking function that integrates both kinds of functions together. MR. BROOKMAN: Gary. MR. FERNSTROM: I thought I understood you to**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 9 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 say that the covered microwave product included products that cooked primarily by use of microwave energy but might have a browning function also included. It would seem to me that if these two functions by virtue of their switch selection or operation were independent then that product would not be covered. MS. REICH: Well, no. I think the intent is that it's primarily a microwave oven with an ancillary function of having this grilling feature. It is not intended to cook the food with this browning function. MR. FERNSTROM: Well, I think GE raises a good question here because I'm still not clear about what kinds of products are covered and which are not. MR. BROOKMAN: One distinction you're making is between primary and ancillary? MS. REICH: Correct. MR. BROOKMAN: And so, how do you make that break point or distinction? MS. REICH: That's a very good question. I think it's basically is there a cooking cycle defined where you could use both functions or is it just one selection for a grilling feature but primarily the functions of the oven would be designed for microwave cooking.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 0 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. Well, that gets -- MR. FERNSTROM: It would seem to me that if we took the stereotypical product that cooks by microwave energy but has a browning function, it would be relatively easy to set up the controls so that you could use the browning function by itself, even though that might -- MR. BROOKMAN: Not be very efficient. MR. FERNSTROM: -- not be the preferred method of operation. By doing that, then the product would not be covered. MR. BROOKMAN: So let's pursue that. So if there was a function that you could hit, one among several, to brown only, would that then cause it to not be covered? MS. REICH: I don't believe so because if there still is a function that would have an integrated cooking feature then it would be considered a combination oven. MR. FERNSTROM: Okay. Thank you. That's the key point that I'd like to be clear on. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. So, restate it, Judy. State it one more time, and then I'm coming to you, J.B. What would cause it to be a combination oven?**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 1 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: A combination oven would be a unit that has a function which integrates microwave cooking with some other type, and it doesn't just have to be thermal cooking, but that that function would be used for the primary means of cooking the food load. MR. BROOKMAN: The microwave portion would be the primary means? MS. REICH: Well, in a combination oven, it would be microwave plus something else that's the primary means of cooking. MR. BROOKMAN: J.B. MR. HOYT: J.B. Hoyt, Whirlpool. I think I'm going to ask the same question that Derrick is going to ask. We manufacture a product, and I believe General Electric does as well, that can work as a microwave only, work as a convection oven only, or in combination. MS. REICH: Yes. MR. HOYT: By your definition, is that a covered product or not? MS. REICH: That would not be a covered product. That would be considered a combination oven. MR. HOYT: Okay. MR. FERNSTROM: Well, that's clearly not okay because there are an awful lot of microwaves in**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 2 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 people's homes that work exactly as these folks from industry have described. MS. REICH: Yes, yes. Those are, again, considered as a separate product. It's possible that the standby characteristics are different for this type of product, and that is not considered covered under this. MR. BROOKMAN: I thought you said your logic earlier was that it would be really hard to measure those other features. MS. REICH: Yes. Well, that's for the efficiency aspect of it, not standby power. MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. MS. REICH: But that's an additional point, yes. MR. BROOKMAN: Go back to what I thought I heard you say previously. MS. REICH: Correct. MR. BROOKMAN: Derrick. MR. LITTLE: Derrick Little, General Electric. This is as much a question as it is a statement because I was looking for it in the NOPR from yesterday's meeting. But I think it would be in continuity with what we said here in that the statement here is just a microwave-only unit, I think. I was**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 3 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 looking for the definition of a microwave covered in it. MS. REICH: I believe that's the product class in the home appliance -- the Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking does also account for with or without thermal elements. MR. LITTLE: I thought it was specifically without thermal elements, but I'm not sure. I know all the data that we've submitted through AHAM and elsewhere that we've measured as we've gone through this have been non-thermal element units. They've been microwave units. MR. BROOKMAN: I thought we were gaining clarity, but now I'm not sure. (Laughter.) MR. BROOKMAN: Can you just state again how you conceptualize what's covered? MS. REICH: Okay. What is covered is a microwave oven that may or may not have additional elements for an ancillary function of surface browning but not for the primary function of cooking. If the unit integrates microwave cooking with some other means of primary cooking, then that would be considered a combination oven and not covered. MR. BROOKMAN: So if the unit has the**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 4 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 capacity to be primary as a cooking method other than microwave, then that would be combination; that would not be covered. MS. REICH: Yes, that's correct. MR. BROOKMAN: Tim. MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, Earthjustice. I just don't see how you get there from that definition in the CFR. Even a combination product would still be a household cooking appliance consisting of a compartment designed to cook or heat food by means of microwave energy. MS. REICH: Yes, but the interpretation is that if there is some other means of cooking that the test procedure does not effectively measure both means of cooking. DOE doesn't have information on a test procedure to measure the energy factor in combination mode and we don't have information on standby power. MR. BROOKMAN: So once again, this is the test procedure here. So your detailed comments on this will be very helpful to the Department. Gary. MR. FERNSTROM: Okay. Let me be very clear from PG&E's perspective for California. That is, we're not here to attempt to try to change your definition because I presume we couldn't do that anyway. But I would like to be very clear that since you have**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 5 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 determined that this product that you just described is not a covered product, California and PG&E have every intention of pursuing a state standard for this because it is not covered and therefore not preempted. MR. BROOKMAN: Interesting. Ed. MR. OSANN: I'm wondering what the practical effect of this distinction is for purposes of today's discussion where this is a test procedure for -- these are modifications to the test procedure for purposes of determining standby energy consumption. I think the discussion of the NOPR made clear that there are substantial problems with the test procedure for measuring cooking efficiency for microwaves and that those are not being attended to in this revision or amendment of the test procedures. That's being deferred to some undetermined point in the future. And that's not a standby issue, it's the lack of repeatable and consistent results, wide variations around the results, issues that were identified in the NOPR. So setting aside the challenge of dealing with cooking efficiency, which could be compounded or made more challenging by then trying to rate the cooking efficiency of combination ovens in their various cooking modes, this proceeding I thought was**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 6 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 primarily about -- was exclusively about modifying the test procedure for microwave ovens as defined in the CFR for standby. Is there some need in the context of the standby test procedure to wall off what you're describing as combination ovens that might fall within the black letter of the microwave oven definition in the CFR. Why do we need to make this distinction in the standby discussion? MS. REICH: Well, again, because it's expected that the standby characteristics are going to be different and that DOE does not have information at this time to evaluate those characteristics. I would also like to add that it's not a complete distinction that we're only talking about standby power and not energy factor or cooking efficiency in this rulemaking because EISA requires that we have to consider the potential for rolling standby power into energy factor. So there does need to be an evaluation of the appropriateness of the cooking efficiency measurement. MR. BROOKMAN: J.B., do you have a comment? MR. HOYT: No. MR. BROOKMAN: Gary Fernstrom. MR. FERNSTROM: Thank you. Do we measure in any case the cooking efficiency of any kind of**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 7 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 residential cooking appliance? I'm not aware of the test procedure or standards that measures or prescribes the efficiency of conventional ovens, broilers, convection ovens, halogen ovens. MS. REICH: Yeah. There is no conventional cooking standard at this point except a prescriptive standard for gas cooking products. MR. FERNSTROM: And I presume the reason is that it's very difficult to measure cooking efficiency or efficacy. It's pretty easy to measure standby power. In fact, the only thing I really care a lot about for microwaves is having some agreement or standard on what the standby power ought to be. It would seem to me that it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that there's probably not a lot of standby power associated with browning or braising elements, be they electric resistance, halogen, convection, whatever. They're either on or off. Or they may be controlled automatically in some way to adjust their heat output, but when they're not running, they're not running. The microwave, on the other hand, has usually a cooking sensor that may be on, and the combination appliance has some sort of clock or electronic control that may need to be on continuously.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 8 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 it seems to me if we could work around the legal requirements and definitions it would be so much to everybody's benefit to get to some agreement on a standby power criteria and set aside temporarily the whole complicated issue of measuring the cooking efficacy for any of these products. MR. BROOKMAN: Do you want to try to address that or do you want to just let that sit in the record? MS. REICH: I will let that sit in the record as that's a legal question that I think needs to be answered by DOE. MR. BROOKMAN: I'm hearing several different issues coming forward here, and I think we're doing our best to try and address them. But let's take other comments. Derrick first. MR. LITTLE: Derrick Little, General Electric. Just a comment that the microwave-only category is by far the largest segment of microwave -- MR. BROOKMAN: Microwave-only, not in combination -- MR. LITTLE: Right. MR. BROOKMAN: Not with ancillary features. MR. LITTLE: Right. Exactly. That's, by and large, the largest segment of it. So there is a -- I don't know if you want to call it a niche, but there's**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 9 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 a different classification when you start doing the combination cooking. Again, that's kind of -- at least what we had interpreted the intent of this was to hit that class, if you will. I think, to J.B.'s comment earlier, we don't really have data on those other models and units. At least GE has not looked at data from those units thatwe make. We have looked at the ones for the microwaveonly. MR. BROOKMAN: Can you address -- I shouldn't do that. We're not consensus-building here. Ed. MR. OSANN: Does DOE have information now indicating that combination ovens cannot be measured under the test procedure that's proposed in the NOPR? MS. REICH: Well, the existing test procedure cannot measure the active mode of such an oven. MR. OSANN: Right. MS. REICH: So by definition, DOE can't evaluate how to incorporate standby potentially into such a unit's efficiency metric. MR. BROOKMAN: So, in the interest of time, I want to make sure everybody's had a chance to say what they want to say on this subject. I think we've covered it fairly thoroughly, as what I'm thinking right now. But I just want to, before we move on, give**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 3 0 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 an additional opportunity. Ed. MR. OSANN: One last question. This raises consideration of the designation of a product class. Where does that enter into DOE's thinking in terms of the sequencing of events here? MS. REICH: Well, at this point I'm not aware of what the next schedule for a test procedure rulemaking other than standby power for microwave ovens would be. I believe in general EISA requires -- I think there's a seven-year cycle for test procedures, but I don't know what DOE's future plans are for this. MR. BROOKMAN: Stephen Witkowski. MR. WITKOWSKI: Stephen Witkowski. I don't have a schedule, and I'm not aware of one, to presently address that in terms of specific time. But we are aware of the issues and we are welcoming comment. There are a number of legal issues here that obviously are going to have to be addressed, but we can't get into them in depth at this meeting or through this test procedure. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Ed. MR. OSANN: To follow up on that point with a query, as I understand it, the law requires that the test procedures for certain enumerated products be reviewed and modified to address standby mode by**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 3 1 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 certain dates. MR. WITKOWSKI: Those are federal requirements in EISA 2007, yes. MR. OSANN: Right. And the DOE has elected to draw forward in time the modification of the test procedures for microwaves. MR. WITKOWSKI: Yes. MR. OSANN: And the remainder of cooking products will be addressed presumably by the statutory date in EISA. MR. WITKOWSKI: That's what DOE will attempt to do. I just don't have a schedule at this time. MR. OSANN: Understood. Is one interpretation of -- one possible path for addressing what we've been discussing here with regard to microwaves that are deemed to be combination ovens to address them in the 2011 rulemaking on the remainder of cooking products? MR. WITKOWSKI: Well, again, that is input. I can't give you an answer. We will take that in as your input. MR. OSANN: Would it be -- is it your view that it would be permissible? MR. WITKOWSKI: I can't give a definition. General counsel would have to make a statement to that.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 3 2 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. So let's take any additional comments on this subject. Tim. MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, Earthjustice. Just to very quickly express a concern. Although the combination oven products may be a very small portion of the market, we heard yesterday from the manufacturers that the higher-end microwaves, which would presumably be the ones that would have some of these browning features, for those high-end productsthe manufacturers do value more, I guess, highintensity displays, maybe with backing fluorescents. And it would seem to be possibly allowing a window for manufacturers to have standby power consumption continue to be excessive on products that are deemed combination ovens. MR. BROOKMAN: Gary Fernstrom. MR. FERNSTROM: Following on Earthjustice's comment, it would seem to me that it's fairly clear now that this combination product is not federally covered. I think it would be PG&E's intent to advocate in California for a simple prescriptive standard covering just the standby energy use of this category of appliance to bring it in line with what's expected of microwave-only products. MR. BROOKMAN: Derrick.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 3 3 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. Just one clarification on the point that Earthjustice just made. The discussion yesterday wasclass of product, not necessarily the -- it was overthe-range units versus countertop microwave units. But even there, the majority of over-the-range units are microwave-only, not these combination modes, for the same reason from a consumer perspective. And then secondly, as to the original question I didn't expect this much discussion because, to Judith's earlier point, when we were doing the ANOPR and submitting the documentation the power factor was an issue of concern of how do you measure that. Obviously, a big part of the NOPR does carry that through. We talked about that. Again, that was why my assumption was a microwave-only unit. When I just saw the second bullet there, it just didn't seem to correlate. So that's why I raised it. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks for raising it. It's good to raise these issues. Okay. So then, I think we're ready to move on from here. Okay. MS. REICH: Well, as everybody knows, this schedule for amending the microwave oven test procedure is being moved up specifically for the purpose of**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 3 4 supporting the energy conservation standards that are being proposed for microwave ovens. That's expected to have a final rule published in March of 2009. So DOE would expect that the microwave oven test procedure final rule would be published before that. 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 Similarly, the effective date of the test procedure amendments, which, strictly speaking, means the compliance date that manufacturers would be required to be using the test procedure to certify their products to DOE, that would be three years after the test procedure is published. Again, since that's the same time frame that is expected for the Energy Conservations Standards rulemaking, the effective date for the test procedure then would predate that for the standards. MR. BROOKMAN: Comments? Yes, Debra. MS. BRUNK: Debra Brunk from AHAM. Just to reiterate that, from a harmonization perspective, we would be interested in proposing 2013 as opposed to a 2012 effective date. I think there's an interesting situation, actually, where the United States is actually leading, I think, the world at this point.There are a lot of countries that are moving into onewatt standby requirements -- maybe "requirements" isn't quite the right word -- or suggestions where they could**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 3 5 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 still be above or below. It's just something that maybe needs to be reported on the product. TheEuropean Union is moving towards manufacturer selfreporting. So I do think that this is actually going to be one of the more stringent requirements in the world, and I think if we can harmonize as much as possible, that would be beneficial to everybody, really, and certainly manufacturers from a resources perspective. But I also think in terms of definitions there's a lot of confusion around this issue, and I think the more that we can be consistent within countries I think the better off we will all be as we move forward with trying to define the standby power for other products. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Other comments on this point? Gary Fernstrom. MR. FERNSTROM: I'd like to support AHAM's comments. I would agree, with the internationalization of many of these markets, harmonization is really a good thing to be doing. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. MS. REICH: All right. So EISA, as we discussed in some detail yesterday, requires that DOE consider integrating standby mode and off mode energy**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 3 6 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 consumption into the existing energy efficiency metric. In fact, DOE doesn't just have to consider it, DOE has to do it unless it's shown either that currently the test procedure already fully measures it and accounts for it or that it's technically infeasible to integrate it into the efficiency metric. In that case, DOE is required to prescribe a separate standby and off mode power test procedure if that also is shown to be technically feasible. So we can note that the existing test procedure already has several measures of energy consumption, none of which include standby and off mode power. But it does have a measure of cooking efficiency, which is essentially ratio of the useful energy going into the food load compared to the input power; and energy factor, which for some products can include other forms of energy consumption but for microwave ovens is just the cooking efficiency. So energy factor and cooking efficiency you'll see we can use interchangeably. It does also provide for a measure of annual energy consumption. But in evaluating this possible integration, we want to point out that even though there are no existing standards for microwave ovens that**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 3 7 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 historically in conducting analyses for potential energy standards DOE has used the energy factor as its metric. So that's the metric which was evaluated. To do that, AHAM has provided test data on 21 units, and DOE supplemented that by evaluating and conducting tests on 32 microwave ovens, all of which, as we noted yesterday, were countertop-type units in the DOE sample. Let me clarify. I don't know what the AHAM sample consisted of. Data from that combined group of tests shows that on average the cooking efficiency ranged from 55 to 62 percent, which by the way is very comparable to what was measured in the previous Energy Conservation Standards rulemaking in 1996. So it can be seen there hasn't really been a whole lot of change in efficiency performance since then. And in the DOE sample, in addition to testing, DOE also tore down the units and examined them for specific design options and features, and there was no correlation that could be found between energy factor or anything obvious such as cavity size or output power. That kind of goes back to the issue of the single product class. It showed that there were no fundamental performance differences that would warrant a different product class.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 3 8 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, also evaluated the stability and accuracy and repeatability of the test for efficiency by looking at the variability in measured energy factor from test to test. The existing procedure calls for measuring a unit at least twice and sometimes three times, depending on what the discrepancy between the two measures are. If it's greater than I think it's one a and a half percent between the first two tests, a third test is conducted. And the results are averaged to obtain the efficiency factor for that unit. But it was shown that among these two or three tests there could be significant variability that could be on the order of several percentage points, which when you compare it to the average value, can be quite significant. It also could be a case where, given the small range between minimum and maximum values of units on the market, if that variation were a couple of percentage points, that could potentially classify a unit in one or another efficiency level. So this next slide shows a little more clearly both of those -- actually, the first point that I was discussing, which is looking at what the data revealed for the efficiency measurements. This happens to be plotted against the output power as rated by the manufacturers.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 3 9 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 two groups of efficiency that were measured. One was the AHAM data set and one was the DOE data set. You can see it's just a cloud. There's no obvious relationship between the efficiency and the output power. There is no function, for example, that could be defined as it is for conventional ovens where efficiency is a -- there's an equation that relates it as a function of cavity size. There's also no indication that there's any means to separate out any group of microwave ovens as a different product class. MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Ed. MR. OSANN: What are the -- can you interpret the legend of this in the upper left corner? MS. REICH: Oh, absolutely. Yes. Sorry. For each group of sampled microwave ovens there were units which had two different types of magnetron drives. One is a conventional, high-power transformer. That's labeled as Standard MOT. And the other uses an inverter drive system. The purpose of the inverter drive is to -- well, first of all, it is a system which can reduce the input power to the magnetron so that it can operate at part load. It's intended to allow the unit to operate efficiently at lower power settings. For example, for defrost. In a conventional system, the magnetron only operates at**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 4 0 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 full power and has to be cycled on and off at an appropriate duty cycle to achieve an average reduced power setting on the unit. So DOE separated those out and identified them uniquely because there was some thought that maybe that drive system would show a fundamentally different efficiency performance, potentially higher efficiency, and it was found in fact that it's kind of right in the middle of this cloud of data and so it would not in fact warrant any differentiation and any separate product class. MR. BROOKMAN: Your independent test confirmed the other data. MS. REICH: Pardon me? MR. BROOKMAN: Nothing. It's okay. MS. REICH: Okay. I also want to clarify that DOE was able to identify in its own sample which units had this inverter drive system and it inferred from the AHAM set because the specific units were not identified. But it inferred from the rated power that these units were in fact ones that had inverter systems. MR. BROOKMAN: Gary Fernstrom. MR. FERNSTROM: I'd just like to make the observation and seek some agreement around my**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 4 1 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 observation, and that would be we're talking about a product here that doesn't have a very high annual energy usage in the whole scheme of things you might find in the home. And we're talking about a range of cooking efficiency between the best and worst units that varies by maybe 5, 6, 7 percent. MR. BROOKMAN: So your implication is? MR. FERNSTROM: The implication to me is that cooking energy efficiency doesn't present a very significant opportunity for regulation. MS. REICH: Well, the intent of this evaluation was not to determine whether efficiency was going to be regulated but it was to evaluate that existing metric to see if a combined -- putting standby power into that metric would be technically feasible. MR. BROOKMAN: Let's keep moving on here. MS. REICH: Okay. MR. FERNSTROM: Okay. So, just a question about that. We were looking to see if it might be feasible to add standby efficiency, which in my mind is significant, to a cooking efficiency metric, which in my way of thinking isn't really significant; is that correct? MS. REICH: Actually, if you look at what DOE considers a baseline microwave oven, every watt of**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 4 2 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 standby power is approximately 6 percent of the cooking annual consumption. So if you're comparing energy consumption on an annual basis, it's not as outsized a difference as you may think. MR. BROOKMAN: I see that you are going to address standby and off mode energy use a few slides further on, so why don't we get there and then we'll see if your question is addressed there. MS. REICH: Okay. MR. FERNSTROM: Thank you. That kind of helps to address some of the concern. MS. REICH: Okay. In further evaluating that measurement of efficiency, this highlights what I had mentioned previously, which is that there is significant variability if you measure the same unit multiple times according to the existing DOE test procedure, which references IEC Test Procedure 705. The data set on the left were the values provided by the units in the AHAM test sample, and you can see that there's a plus or minus one or more efficiency variation among the multiple tests. In that case, three tests were conducted for each. So when DOE conducted its testing, we added some additional specificity where the IEC 705 was more non-specific, took some extra steps to ensure, for**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 4 3 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 example, that the temperature measurement which is required was conducted to look at multiple temperatures in the water sample to ensure a truly average value. Took steps to ensure that there was minimal heat loss from the test vessel in transferring it in and out of the microwave oven. So with this, really, even additional, extra care and specificity that was added, there still -- it did reduce the variability but didn't eliminate it. In some cases again there was a several efficiency point variation. Further to that point, looking at what the test procedure methodology is based on for efficiency, DOE notes that the energy factor is measured with a test load that consists of a kilogram of water in a glass vessel. The water is cooled to 10 degrees below ambient, 10 degrees C, and then is heated in the microwave back up to room temperature. And there are a lot of tolerances in this test procedure that are large when you compare it to the few tens of seconds that this operation takes. There's a couple of degree allowable tolerance on all of the temperatures. When you look at the resolution of the timer on the microwave oven being at most a second and in some cases five or 10 seconds even, that**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 4 4 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 has significant impact on what the time that you measure that heating process to take, from which the energy factor is calculated. So that introduces variability. In addition, manufacturers have told DOE that this is not even a representative measure of real-world usage of a microwave oven. It doesn't represent food and the way food would heat, maybe non-uniformly, or energy patterns within the microwave oven. So it is recognized that there are limitations of the test procedure. To some comments that were made earlier, these limitations are not ones that DOE has information to address at this point because it would take some significant revision and significant work to understand how you would make the load more representative of actual conditions and how to ensure that you can eliminate this variability test to test. MR. BROOKMAN: Gary Fernstrom. MR. FERNSTROM: If I could just make a comment on the reasonableness of the test. The heat transfer in the microwave depends upon the specific resistivity of what you're cooking in it. Pure water has a relatively low specific resistivity where most other things that you would cook might have more salt**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 4 5 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 them and would absorb microwave energy more efficiently. So I would have to agree with industry's comments that while water is easily obtainable it probably results in a lower cooking efficiency measure than would be expected with real food products. MS. REICH: So, having then evaluated the efficiency metric, DOE looked at whether it would be technically feasible as required by EISA to combine this metric with standby and off mode energy consumption. The fundamental issue is, does it make sense to try and put together the efficiency measure, which is looking at something -- an event that happens just for a few seconds, with the essentially continuous steady-state measurement of standby and off mode energy consumption, which is multiple hours long. If you attempt to put those together, DOE determined that what you come up with, this hybrid measure, is neither something that represents what's happening in this very short period of time nor is itsomething that would be representative of this steadystate standby mode. So it is recognized that that is done for other products. For example, a gas clothes dryer includes the pilot energy consumption, or an electric**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 4 6 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 includes the clock power. But there's a big difference in putting those together when you're adding in a small percentage of standby power into this test cycle and it doesn't really impact significantly the overall measure of the cycle performance. Or in some products, such as dishwashers now, it would be measured when you're measuring energy consumption on an annual basis. It's entirely appropriate to say how much of that annual usage is related to the active mode and how much is related to standby power. Then those are equivalent things that you're putting together. But this is not the case for microwave ovens. The metric is this efficiency and so you're putting two very disparate things together that just don't mean anything when you combine them. So I don't want to beat the dead horse, but putting them together is not appropriate because of this issue of two very different and incompatible metrics. There's also the issue of the uncertainty and variability in the energy factor measurement, which means that even if you were able to mathematically put them together, you're adding something that's very well characterized and well defined, which is the standby power measurement, and you're putting that in with a**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 4 7 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 value that is not meaningful. It just is -- then the combined measure becomes not meaningful. DOE believes that under EISA's requirement for determining technical feasibility that meaningfulness is inherent in that definition. Therefore, DOE is proposing a separate metric for standby power. MR. BROOKMAN: So let's get comment on this point and others that preceded it, perhaps. Ed. MR. OSANN: Ed Osann, Appliance Standards Awareness Project. We support DOE's recommendation in the NOPR that the standby mode energy consumption not be combined with the current test procedure. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, Debra. MS. BRUNK: Debra Brunk with AHAM. We also support DOE's analysis on this. I think we also appreciate the work that DOE put into actually going through the process to make that determination for this product and do want to make sure that we continue to look at this on a product-by-product basis. MR. BROOKMAN: You support their analysis, and that means you support their conclusion? Thank you. Gary Fernstrom. MR. FERNSTROM: PG&E, both through ASAP and independently, supports this conclusion.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 4 8 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: Thank you. Okay. Other comments related to this before we keep pressing on here? (No response.) MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Test Procedure: Incorporation by Reference of IEC Standard 62301

Judith Reich (PowerPoint presentation.) MS. REICH: Okay. All right. Our next topic is what methodology should be used to measure standby power. DOE looked at various potential approaches that could be taken. The first consideration is that EISA, when it amended EPCA, said that DOE must consider the most recent versions of two IEC test procedures. One is 62301, which is the standby power for household electrical appliances, and 62087. Now, it turns out that the 62087 covers audio and visual equipment such as VCRs or TV receivers or set-top boxes. It does not have anything to do with microwave ovens, so DOE did not consider that standard. But it did evaluate the IEC 62307 (sic) standard and this was the methodology that was used in the DOE test sample. DOE determined that when you use the appropriate sections from that standard with some**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 4 9 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 additional specifications that I'll talk about a few sections ahead, that it is in fact suitable for measuring microwave oven standby power and that the results are very accurate and repeatable. MR. OSANN: I think you may have misspoke. Was it 62301? MS. REICH: Yes. I'm sorry. Did I say -- sorry. MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks for that clarification. 62301. Thank you, Ed. MS. REICH: Okay. DOE cast a rather broad net in looking at other potential test procedures and noted that there are different methods that are being used currently by certain countries that are recognized as leaders in the international effort to reduce standby power and in particular evaluated the Top Runner Program that's used in Japan. This is a program which targets efficiency -- I'm sorry, standby values based upon what the highest-performing units are for any particular product at the time that this evaluation takes place. DOE also looked at the E-Standby Program in Korea. That's a voluntary labeling program. But both of the methodologies that are used are somewhat different. They differ in some details,**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 5 0 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 but they essentially both measure the microwave oven standby power over a period of an hour. In comparing that methodology with the IEC 62301, DOE believes that the latter is more appropriate for microwave ovens because it can account for what happens -- how the standby power varies as a function of the clock display, which these others do not. DOE did consider the activities that are taking place internationally under the IEA, the International Energy Agency's One-Watt Plan, which basically is targeting this one-watt level for various electronic devices. That particular program advocates harmonization among multiple countries so that they all adopt not only the same standby power levels and definitions of standby power modes but use the same test procedure. DOE notes that that test procedure that is being advocated is the same one that it's considering. I want to point out here -- I think there were some comments made about the update to IEC 62301 that's in progress. It was certainly recognized that there are potential for new -- different methodologies of measuring standby power and potentially different definitions, maybe multiple definitions, of standby modes. It's recognized that there is benefit to these**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 5 1 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 new standards that are being considered. But EISA requires DOE to use the current version of that standard, or at least to consider that current version. DOE is not able to look at this potential update, Version 2, because it has not been finalized and is not expected to be finalized until at least the middle of 2009, which is after this final rule is expected to be published. So, unfortunately, our hands are just tied on that issue. MR. BROOKMAN: Let's proceed with No. 25 before we take comments on this. MS. REICH: Okay. So what is proposed to be included from IEC 62301 are the clauses that are specifically applicable to measurements in microwave ovens. In particular, from Section 4 there are several clauses which specify the harmonic content of the supply voltage, provides for what the ambient temperature conditions should be, which I would like to point out allows for a broader range of temperatures than the DOE test procedure for efficiency currently requires. And it also provides for what the tolerances need to be on the power meter that's measuring standby power. Section 5 clauses relate to the actual methodology for measuring it. There is a note in**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 5 2 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 Standard 62301 that states that if a unit has a shorter duration, higher-power state and then transitions to a lower-power state, as would be the case in a unit that has an automatic power-down mode, that the test measurement wait until it reaches that lower-power state. It also has the methodology for evaluating whether the standby mode measurement is taken if the unit is stable, what the conditions are. It essentially requires a five-minute test period. Or unstable, which would be the case if the clock power varies as a function of time. In that case, the standard requires that the average standby power is measured over a, quote, "representative cycle." MR. BROOKMAN: DOE seeks comment on the adequacy of the IEC Standard 62301 to measure standby mode and off mode power for microwave ovens in general and the suitability of incorporating the specified provisions into DOE regulations, should there be any comments beyond what's been said already. Debra. MS. BRUNK: Debra Brunk from AHAM. We do support inclusion of these two clauses from IEC 62301 into the measurement of standby power. Just one clarification, though. In the current version of IEC 62301, is there a method for measuring off mode power**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 5 3 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 that particular document? MS. REICH: It does not specifically mention off mode power. DOE's amendments -- what DOE is proposing to do is to conduct the exact same test methodology in standby mode, and then if the microwave oven has an off mode it would follow the same procedure for measurements in that off mode. MS. BRUNK: Debra Brunk from AHAM. I think there's just one clarification that I would like to make. That is a difference from the current version of IEC 62301. We are supportive of that, but it is different from how that current version is because that current version does not define for off mode. MR. BROOKMAN: So say again what you're supportive of? MS. BRUNK: I'm supportive of the IEC 62301 clauses, Section 4 and Section 5, DOE using those to measure standby mode. I'm also supportive of DOE -- off mode. But I'm noting that IEC 62301 current version actually -- MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. MS. BRUNK: -- off mode designation. MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks for clarifying that. Thank you. I think that's helpful to the Department. Other comments on this series of slides referencing IEC**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 5 4 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 Standard 62301? Yes, J.B. MR. HOYT: J.B. Hoyt, Whirlpool. I don't want to belabor this point, but I would like for the record to state that I don't believe there's anything in the act, EISA, that precludes expanding or enhancing the definitions provided in the law, the definition of, specifically, standby and off mode. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. Other comments? (No response.) MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. We can double back to this if we need to. I see a few people are reading the statute. MS. REICH: Okay. MR. BROOKMAN: So we'll provide time as needed to address this issue, but in the meantime, press on. Test Procedure: Definitions of "Active Mode", "Standby Mode", and "Off Mode" Judith Reich (PowerPoint presentation.) MS. REICH: All right. That's exactly the lead-in to the next section, which are the definitions of modes that DOE is planning to use, which are the definitions that EISA provided for active mode as well**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 5 5 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 as standby and off mode. In the active mode the microwave oven would be used for providing its main function or functions, which DOE considers to be operations where the magnetron and potentially the additional thermal elements are energized for the purposes of heating or cooking or defrosting the load. Standby mode, alternatively, is when the unit is consuming power not in the active mode but for two specific potential operations. One would be for devices that are used to activate or deactivate other functions, which may mean the active mode, by either a sensor or timer or a remote control, or that are functions that are continuously displaying information or are sensors such as -- in a microwave oven it would be the cooking sensor. Off mode is perhaps a bit more obscure to understand, but it is still a mode in which the unit is consuming power but it is simply consuming power for functions other than those that are provided in the definition of standby mode. I want to go through a couple of examples that hopefully will make that differentiation clearer. For standby mode, DOE understands that a microwave oven that has a display that's on all the**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 5 6 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 time or a cooking sensor that is energized even when the unit is not being used for cooking would be considered in standby mode, as would a microwave oven that automatically powered down, that it turned off certain components when it deemed itself to be inactive after a certain period of time from a user doing something. That unit in its low-power state would be considered to be operating in standby mode and not in off mode. In order to achieve off mode, a microwave oven, for example, would need to have electromechanical controls so that there's no controls consuming power or power supply associated with the controls and would also not have a display. Then if it were using power, for example, in the magnetron power supply or in additional power supplies that that would be considered to be operating in off mode. Where DOE is not even considering the microwave to be in one of these modes would be the case where there is a manual on/off switch that effectively disconnects the unit from line power in the same way that might take place if you pulled the plug out of the wall. So since it's at that point not connected to the main power and is not using any power, this would be considered completely disconnected and not operating in**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 5 7 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 off mode. We certainly recognize that that's not an undesirable state or undesirable feature to provide but just is not something that is considered under this test procedure. MR. BROOKMAN: J.B. MR. HOYT: Then, what mode would that third point be in, Judy? MS. REICH: DOE does not have a definition for that mode. We know that other test standards refer to that as disconnected mode. MR. HOYT: What would be the distinction between Point 2, where the electromechanical control shuts it off -- MR. BROOKMAN: And no display. No draw, right? MR. HOYT: No draw. MS. REICH: Well, no draw for the controls or the display, but there could be power consumed for something else. MR. HOYT: Correct. But you're defining that as off mode. MS. REICH: Yes. MR. HOYT: So, what's the difference between that electromechanical control putting it into off mode**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 5 8 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 versus a manual operation? MS. REICH: Well, in Bullet Point No. 2, there is still power being consumed by the microwave oven and -- MR. HOYT: There may be power being consumed by the microwave oven. There may not be. MS. REICH: Okay. If there's power being consumed, that would be off mode. MR. HOYT: Correct. MS. REICH: If there is no power, it would not be in off mode and would not be measured as such. It would be considered disconnected. MR. BROOKMAN: And further, if there was the potential for power to be consumed, if power may be consumed, then it may be in the off mode as well. MS. REICH: That I'm not entirely sure about because the test procedure does provide for measuring it in its lowest power-consuming state. MR. FERNSTROM: This is Gary from PG&E. Let me ask you a question about what the outcomes might be for Bullet Point No. 2, which is the off mode. We might have some small power demand in the off mode, or I guess it's not possible that we would have zero power demand because if the power demand were zero then it would technically not be in the off mode, it would be**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 5 9 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 this other, non-described mode -- MR. BROOKMAN: Something like a disconnect mode. MR. FERNSTROM: Yes. MS. REICH: Yeah, that's exactly correct. In order to be considered under the standby and off mode standard it needs to be consuming power in some fashion. MR. FERNSTROM: So, to get to Whirlpool's point, if the electromechanical control put it in a condition where it has no power at all, that technically would not be off. It would -- MS. REICH: It would be disconnected. Exactly. MR. BROOKMAN: Ed Osann. MR. OSANN: Yeah. I'm having trouble parsing this. It's not clear to me yet what the import of these distinctions is. But if there were a -- I have a lot of difficulty with the third bullet here, if a device were equipped with a manual on/off switch. MR. BROOKMAN: Ed, pardon me for interrupting. Could I ask a question? Are these definitions -- are these somewhat prescribed by statute or do you have freedom to -- MS. REICH: Well, these are examples that**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 6 0 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 follow the definitions that EISA provides. MR. BROOKMAN: That EISA provides. MS. REICH: Because EISA provides that -- let me go back up to -- MR. BROOKMAN: Back to 29, right? MS. REICH: Yeah. If you look at the definition of off mode, it's a condition in which the energy-using product is connected to the main power source and is not providing any standby or active mode function. If it is essentially disconnected, as it not consuming power, it's not an energy-using product at that point. MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Ed. MR. OSANN: This is Ed Osann. I just think that stretches the interpretation of the language beyond its plain meaning. Connected to a main power source I think can be taken to mean plugged in. The fact that there would be no power draw means that it's not in the off mode seems to me to be standing the statute on its head. I have a lot of trouble concurring with that. I don't concur with that. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So perhaps in your written comments you could offer how the Department would address this because they clearly have done their best to try and be consistent with the language in**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 6 1 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 EISA. Other comments about this definitional stuff -- Slides 29 and 30 is what we're on here and the examples provided? Gary. MR. FERNSTROM: My comment is I never thought I'd see the day when technology would bring me to the point that I don't know when off is off. MR. OSANN: Well, this is Ed Osann. That has been a problem. That is part of the reason why this language was placed in the law, to help assist consumers, clarify things for consumers and manufacturers, and allow and direct DOE to set some standards in this area because over the last 15 years there have been a proliferation of products that were not off when they were turned off in the consumer's perspective. But the idea that a product plugged in but turned off with a switch would not be considered in the off mode is, I think, a non sequitur. MR. BROOKMAN: Constantine. MR. von WENTZEL: Just to give a quick perspective, during our standby power testing of individual components within the microwave oven we noted, for instance, that the power filtration modules that are integral to microwave ovens and under certain**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 6 2 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 circumstances actually consumer power even when the microwave is not doing anything. So that could be an example of an appliance, depending on where you put the power switch. If the power switch is downstream from the power filtration module, you could actually still have power consumption when the device is switched off. Those power modules are used to protect the microwave one way and the house electrical network the other way. So I don't know where the disconnect switch would have to be put based on the appliance safety standards, whether it would be upstream or downstream from that, but that could be one example. MR. BROOKMAN: So there could be a very minor draw. MR. von WENTZEL: Yes. It's a minor draw, but you've got a couple of capacitors, a couple of inductors. There's a very minute amount of energy that's being used there. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. I'm not sure that helps us much. Thank you, though. (Laughter.) MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So, additional comments on this? I guess that we want to -- if anybody else**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 6 3 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 has got any, the Department would welcome your written comments on how they might address this further. Test Procedure: Specifications for Test Methods and Measurements for Standby and Off Mode Testing Judith Reich (PowerPoint presentation.) MS. REICH: All right. Let's talk about the specificity that DOE is proposing to add to the methodology that is being drawn from IEC 62301. It's noted that that particular IEC standard is designed to be quite general so that it has the flexibility to measure standby power for multiple products. So the particular clause from Section 5 that DOE is proposing to incorporate for when the power is not stable, which is that it requires DOE to measure over -- the average standby power over a representative cycle, is not particularly specific for the situation of what that cycle is in a microwave oven. DOE tested a number of microwave ovens that are equipped with a 12-hour clock that results in standby power variations as the time that's displayed on the clock changes. It can be a significant portion of the average standby power. It was noted that it can vary by as much as 25 percent during the 12-hour period.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 6 4 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 As an illustration, this data was collected for a microwave oven that had an LED-based display. This is a four-digit numeric display in which each digit is represented by a seven-segment LED that can be -- in order to display the appropriate time different numbers of elements in each of those digits would be illuminated. As you might expect, it's a fairly linear relationship between the number of elements that are being illuminated and what the measured standby power is for that microwave oven. It shows that in this particular case, over a number of representative times that were displayed, it can vary anywhere between 16 and 18 of these segments being lit and the measured standby power at those different times varied between 1.15 and 1.5 watts. The implication of this variation is that, depending on when you measure in terms of the clock time that's displayed and for how long, you can produce a different average power measurement for that specific microwave oven. That brings up issues of are you accurately measuring standby power and are you potentially having a metric that is comparable to what you measure for other units. MR. BROOKMAN: The 25 percent you reference**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 6 5 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 bullet on 32, is that 25 percent variation in the power draw for the clock display only? MS. REICH: No, this is the total standby power. MR. BROOKMAN: Gary Fernstrom. MR. FERNSTROM: So this brings new meaning to the common utility term "time of use." (Laughter.) MR. FERNSTROM: What we need to do is an analysis to find out whether the peak time is coincident with minimum or maximum segments. (Laughter.) MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments on this interesting bit of data? Yes. MR. OSANN: Ed Osann. I think this was very perceptive of DOE to pick up on this. I would ask whether this is particular to LED display technology or whether the other commonly employed displays have a similar phenomenon of variability across -- MS. REICH: It depends on the display type. I will let Constantine, if he cares to, comment further on that. But it would be for any particular display technology where the power draw is a function of how many segments are illuminated. There are some displays in which illumination is relatively constant regardless**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 6 6 of what is on the display. 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: Constantine. MR. von WENTZEL: Constantine von Wentzel, Navigant Consulting. The LEDs are definitely the display type which will have the most variability. When we made our measurements for VFDs and LCDs, backlit or not, the output was pretty much constant, and that kind of makes sense if you think about it. If you look at a lot of watches and so on and so forth, they use LCDs and the power draw, whether it's showing a lot of elements or a few elements, is very, very, very small. VFDs, the power again is pretty much constant, and that's driven by the power supply that's used to drive them. Whether they're on or off, they pretty much consume the same power, which is one of the things we noted, actually, in our testing. One of the microwave ovens that we had allowed the user to turn off the display and the power consumption of that microwave oven dipped. James, how much was it? It was a tiny amount. It was almost nothing. So whether that VFD -- now, obviously, that VFD was just going into standby mode, but even in standby mode those VFDs basically consume the same amount of energy.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 6 7 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: Thank you, thank you. Yes, Derrick. MR. LITTLE: Derrick Little, General Electric. I'd just like to make a comment at this point. Essentially, that's why it's not a trivial matter from the manufacturers' standpoint to actually do this to meet the one-watt standard and still provide the consumer utility that the consumer is used to in today's products, again, as I noted yesterday, especially when you're talking about a microwave that is mounted above a cooking product because of the temperatures. Each of the displays have different technologies behind them. As Constantine just pointed out, the LEDs, basically, it's like turning light bulbs on in your house. If you turn on 10 of them, you draw 10 times the power as you do if you turn on one. But with VFDs, because it's a different technology, if you turn them off it doesn't matter. But that technology that's used in the VFD does things that the LED technology cannot do and the LCD backlit technology cannot do, again specifically above the cooking products. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Thanks for that clarification. So, other comments on this segment?**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 6 8 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 we're going to keep moving on here. Debra, did you have a comment? MS. BRUNK: Debra Brunk from AHAM. I was going to have a comment on the 12-hour. I think we'll get to that in a little bit. MS. REICH: That's the next slide, so maybe we can just go right to it. MR. FERNSTROM: Maybe what we need to do -- MR. BROOKMAN: Gary Fernstrom. MR. FERNSTROM: -- thank you -- is specify that the standby power measurement be taken at 1:11. MR. WITKOWSKI: Hold that thought. MS. REICH: Well, that's actually the next point, which is that it's not possible to specify any particular starting time for the clock display in the event that the microwave oven has a function which powers it down. If you think about it, if there's an unspecified amount of time that it will be required before it goes into the low-power state and you start the clock and wait that period of time, you don't know what the clock display will be when you start doing your standby power measurement. Alternatively, if you wait for it to go to the low-power state and then attempt to program the clock, that will bring it back up out of its shutdown**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 6 9 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 mode and start the whole thing again. So in order to accommodate this feature, or potential feature, for microwave ovens that go to very low power, DOE is specifying that this representative cycle be called a 12-hour cycle plus or minus 30 seconds, which works for units that have a 12-hour clock. So regardless of what starting point you have after that power-down feature, you will cycle through all potential configurations once on that clock. MR. BROOKMAN: Debra. MS. BRUNK: Debra Brunk from AHAM. I mean, I understand DOE's analysis here. I think there's a couple of comments. One is I think if your unit does power down what you're doing is you're going to be powering down the display. There will no longer be a display there. And so I think that's somewhat of the point. I think you can look at finding test -- that are representative, particularly for an LED-type clock, of that 12-hour average. I think we looked at 10 minutes and there are certain start times that you can use to do that. I think also from a testing perspective, I mean, we're concerned about, I think, the consumer and what they're going to see in standby. But from a**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 7 0 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 testing perspective, there are things that you can do as a manufacturer to program that in to say, okay, I do have something that's going to dip down but I can also start the clock at a certain time to measure this function. So I think there are things that we can look at. I think what I'm trying to get at is, 12 hours is unrealistic from a manufacturing standpoint in terms of resources and that kind of thing. What we want is we want a representative value, not something that is -- we're not trying to do a thesis on this. I think that's really something we'd just like to consider, is representative 10, even an hour, measurement time. But I think 12 hours is really unrealistic when it comes to actually measuring standby power. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. J.B. MR. HOYT: J.B. Hoyt, Whirlpool. Let me try and put a little specific color on what Debra just said from the manufacturers' perspective. The statement of 12 hours plus or minus 30 seconds is fine in an academic-type setting. In the real world where we are testing products, we have very constrained laboratory space and laboratory time. Those are very expensive facilities. To run this kind of test for 12 hours**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 7 1 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 create a huge drain on those facilities and would require substantial investment to expand those facilities. Additionally, in order to assure that our product quality meets these expectations, we need to do testing on the production line. It would be fairly obvious that doing a 12-hour test on a production level is not very practical. So for those reasons, as Debra states, there are 10-minute periods that are completely representative of the 12-hour cycle. Then you can just measure for 10 minutes and do the arithmetic. So for reasons of practicality we would request that the Department consider this option. We'll provide more detail in our written comments. MR. BROOKMAN: That would be very helpful. Thank you. Derrick. MR. LITTLE: Derrick Little, General Electric. Just to basically reiterate what J.B. just said, we also support that for the same reasons, to test -- units for volume. It just makes it difficult if you have 10 models and you've got to do 12 hours on three of each of those 10 models. MR. BROOKMAN: You would also suggest 10 minutes?**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 7 2 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: Yeah, that -- yes. Ten minutes would be sufficient, I think, to be able to establish the baseline and also allow us to manufacture product. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Other comments on this subject? Ed. MR. OSANN: I'd be interested in the manufacturers' response to DOE's concern about the difficulty of trying to measure standby consumption at a particular clock start time that you deem to be representative. First of all, what is that. Can you really get the same number of segments, have the stick figures work out to give you an accurate basis for multiplying up to a full 12 hours. But the start time issue sounds persuasive and the concern about the unit powering up by just the act of programming it. So I think we need to hear more about that. MR. BROOKMAN: J.B. MR. HOYT: Without belaboring the arithmetic, one can count every -- the number of segments of the seven-segment LEDs that are lit each minute of a 12- hour cycle and determine the arithmetic average of that and then find a variety of 10-minute periods that it turns out that are representative. I won't waste everybody's time by doing that this morning, but**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 7 3 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 suffice it -- MR. BROOKMAN: So that, combined with your sampling techniques -- MR. HOYT: The arithmetic is there, yeah. MR. BROOKMAN: Then you can get a fairly full representation that would accomplish essentially the same thing. MR. HOYT: Exactly the same thing. MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. MR. HOYT: Just expeditiously. That's all. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Debra, do you wish to add onto that or is that -- no, you're all set. Okay. Test Procedure: Technical Correction Judith Reich (PowerPoint presentation.) MS. REICH: All right. Well, this last point I hope is less contentious. There is a technical correction that DOE is proposing to make. This is in the measurement of energy factor. The output energy is currently calculated, or is expected to be calculated in units of watt-hours. This is the equation which takes the heating time and the mass of the water in test vessels and their specific heats and turns it into what the output energy is, which is in turn used in the calculation of annual energy consumption.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 7 4 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 But as it turns out, the test procedure currently is performing the conversion from its original units of Btus, British thermal units, to kilowatt-hours instead of watt-hours. So DOE is proposing to correct the scale factor from 3,412 Btu per kilowatt-hour to 3.412 Btu per watt-hour so that the subsequent use of that output energy is correct. MR. BROOKMAN: You characterized this in the first bullet as a technical error. MS. REICH: Yeah. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. No additional comments on that? Okay. MS. BRUNK: Debra Brunk, AHAM. We do support that. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Ed. MR. OSANN: I'm sorry to go back. Just a quick question. On the 12-hour test, was it your intention to require that for units with LED displays or for all units? MS. REICH: Well, for any unit in which the standby power would vary over time by -- I think the IEC requirement is 5 percent. Please don't quote me on that, but it's contained within the IEC 62301 clauses. If it varies by more than that amount, then the test needs to be conducted as an unstable situation where**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 7 5 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 need to test over the representative cycle. MR. OSANN: So it's your expectation that not all units would have to be tested this length of time. MS. REICH: I believe based on our observations that's correct. MR. BROOKMAN: And then, additional comments on the technical correction for microwave oven testing cooking energy output that we were just covering a moment ago? (No response.) Compliance with Other EPCA Requirements Judith Reich (PowerPoint presentation.) MS. REICH: Okay. Well, this is an area perhaps that we're looking for expanded input on what we've just heard, which would be the other requirements of EPCA beyond those amendments from EISA, particularly in Section 323(b). It says that any test procedures that are prescribed or amended need to be reasonably designed to produce results that measure energy efficiency, energy use, et cetera, and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. So there are two pieces of this. One is the representativeness of the measured energy use and the other is the test burden associated with it.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 7 6 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 the next two bullet points address that first issue. Is this in fact a representative measure that's being proposed. And DOE notes that Standard 62301 is very widely used internationally. It is widely accepted and may in fact already be being used by manufacturers that sell both here and in other countries in which they are required to be measuring standby power. And the methodology that's being proposed has been determined by DOE to appropriately represent standby mode power and off mode power if the same procedure is used in whichever mode is present. This methodology with the added specificity that DOE is proposing would produce accurate measurements in either case, whether the standby power is or isn't a function of the clock display. So that's the first point. The second point relating to the test burden. DOE initially made the determination that this proposed procedure would not be unduly burdensome on manufacturers for a couple of reasons, one being that the methods and the equipment that would be required are not substantially different than those that are currently required for measuring the efficiency. It does not require specialized apparatus or facilities. In fact, the ambient**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 7 7 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 conditions for the standby power measurement are less stringent than those that would be required for conducting the efficiency test. Therefore, there would not be significant investments required in new facilities or test equipment. MR. BROOKMAN: So, comments on those points. There is a lot of verbiage here. We'll just give you a moment to take a peek. (Pause.) MS. REICH: All right. MR. BROOKMAN: So, no additional comments on that? (No response.) MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So I think that that is the last substantive slide. Yes, Ed. MR. OSANN: Now that we're at the end of the substantive part of this, can we go back to -- I'd like to go back to Slide 30 and again ask about the practical significance of DOE's determination -- or, interpretation of the definition of off mode. The standard proposed that we discussed yesterday contains a standard -- the proposed standard for standby in which this will be the test procedure. Off mode, under the statute, is sort of arrived at deductively by -- it's a state where the unit is not providing any**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 7 8 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 standby or any active mode. I'm not recalling. The Department is not setting a standard for off mode? MS. REICH: That's correct. It's not proposing one because at this point DOE is not aware of any microwave ovens that even have the capability of operating in off mode. MR. OSANN: Okay. So it's not proposing a standard for off mode. MS. REICH: But is proposing methodology. MR. OSANN: It is proposing a standard for standby. MS. REICH: Yes. MR. OSANN: Does this interpretation of off mode have any practical effect on the operation of the test procedure for measuring standby and compliance with the proposed standby standard? MS. REICH: It does not. The test procedure assumes that it would be an identical process to measure it in either standby mode or off mode. MR. OSANN: Does either today's NOPR or yesterday's require manufacturers to conduct an off mode test and report that to DOE? MS. REICH: No, it does not require reporting off mode at all, and it only requires testing if the**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 7 9 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 unit has the capability of operation in off mode. MR. OSANN: Under your interpretation. It requires the testing if it has the capability, but there's no -- MS. REICH: But there's no -- MR. OSANN: -- reporting requirement and there's no standard. MS. REICH: That's correct. Actually, that's a legal interpretation of whether, if there is no standard and if there is no reporting requirement, whether manufacturers are required to conduct it because certainly right now there is a test procedure for measuring energy factor but there's no standard based on that. MR. BROOKMAN: You should wait for the general counsel to comment on that. MS. REICH: That is a general counsel comment, yes. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. MS. REICH: I stand corrected. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Which we don't expect to happen now. MR. OSANN: Okay. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. (Laughter.)**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 8 0 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've had a lengthy discussion on many of these points, and he'll have some catching up to do, I think. So then, additional questions or comments? We've covered a lot of ground here in a short span of time this morning, and we wanted to provide now an opportunity for anybody to make additional, perhaps, closing or summary remarks or raise any other issues that you'd like to raise at this point. Tim. MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, Earthjustice. The point was made earlier that the Department believes it is not permitted to consider any pending amendments to 62301. I don't have a dog in this fight, but I have no idea whether the amendments will improve or worsen 62301, but I think it's incorrect to say that the Department doesn't have that authority. The statute just says to take into consideration the current version. It doesn't also say that you can't consider any pending or amended versions. So I think the Department does have that discretion. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. And in your written comments if you can provide some support for that, I think that that would help the Department in their determination and their efforts toward harmonization.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 8 1 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 Additional comments, summary comments, other issues that people wish to raise? J.B.? No? MR. HOYT: No, sir. Thank you. MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Debra, no? Okay. So then I see no additional comments, then. From my perspective, I thank all of you again for really, I think, a very effective meeting, excellent communication and discipline on everybody's part. Please take 30 seconds or a minute to fill out the evaluation form which is at the bottom of your packet. I'll turn it back to Stephen Witkowski for closing remarks. Conclusion and Closing Remarks Stephen Witkowski MR. WITKOWSKI: Really, all I have is to thank you and again to mention the process for submitting your written comments, which is on the last slide. The information is all there. If you have any additional questions, you're also free to contact me. We thank you for coming. MR. BROOKMAN: Safe travels, everyone. (Whereupon, at 11:04 a.m., the meeting was concluded.)**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 8 2 **REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE** 1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 This is to certify that the attached proceedings before: **UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY** In the Matter of: **PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS: TEST PROCEDURE FOR MICROWAVE OVENS**  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.



### Wendy Greene 17 18 19

20 Official Reporter Dated: November 19, 2008