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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
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 

 

 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

5

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

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

6

1 been really muddled this morning, in my opinion. 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

7

1 of Energy. 

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. 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
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. 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

9

1 Stakeholder Opening Statements 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

10

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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. 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

11

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

12

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

13

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

14

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 various 

configurations 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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

15

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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, 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

16

1 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

17

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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. 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

18

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

19

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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. 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

20

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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? 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

21

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

22

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

23

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

24

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

25

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

26

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

27

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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. 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

28

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

29

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 that 

we 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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

30

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

31

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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. 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

32

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 products 

the 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. 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

33

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. LITTLE: Derrick Little, General 

Electric. Just one clarification on the point that 

Earthjustice just made. The discussion yesterday was 

class 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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

34

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

35

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

still be above or below. It's just something that 

maybe needs to be reported on the product. The 

European 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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

36

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

37

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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. 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

38

1 

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. 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

39

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

40

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

41

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

42

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

43

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

44

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

45

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 it 

something 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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

46

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

47

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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. 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

48

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

MR. 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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

49

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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, 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

50

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

51

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

52

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

53

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

54

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

55

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

56

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

57

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

58

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

59

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

60

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

61

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

62

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

63

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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. 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

64

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

65

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

66

1 of what is on the display. 

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. 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

67

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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? 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

68

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

69

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

70

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

71

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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? 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

72

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

73

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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. 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

74

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

75

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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. 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

76

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

77

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

78

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

79

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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.) 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

80

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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. 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

81

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

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.) 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

82

1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

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. 

 

17 Wendy Greene 18 

19 

20 

 Official Reporter 

Dated: November 19, 2008 

EERE-2008-BT-TP-0011 COMMENT 07