UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.' 

OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY 

PUBLIC MEETING 

CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT 

PRIORITY WORKSHOP 

ROOM 13-245 

FORRESTAL BUILDING 

1000 INDEPENDENCE AVENUE, S.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 

+++++ 

PANEL : 

BRYAN BERRINGER Facilitator 

ED POLLOCK, DOE 

BEN LIEBERMAN, CEI 

DR. WENDY LEE GRAMM, Mercatus Center, G.M. University 

DEBORAH MILLER, ARI 

STEVE BADEKM ACEEE 

TED WILLIAMS, AGA 

BOB WISBEY, NEMA 

JOSEPH MATTINGLY, GAMA 

CHARLES SAMUELS , AHAM 

MIKE THOMPSON, Whirlpool Corp. 

EARL JONES, GE 

DAVUD GOLDSTEIN, NRDC 

CHARLES STEPHENS, Oregon DOE 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
PANEL: (CONT.) 

WILLIAM PRINDLE, ASE 

THOMAS FARKAS, EEI 

R. MICHAEL MARTIN, California Energy Commission 

FRANCINE PINTO, DOE, OGC 

WAYNE LAUGHLIN, NSE 

MICHAEL RIVEST, Arthur D. Little 

STEVE NADEL, ACEEE 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 w.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
I-N-D-E-X 

PAGE 

Opening Remarks and Introductions ..... 4 

Agenda Review ............... 9 

Introduction 

A. NEP Action Items ........... 10 

Priorities for Existing Program 

A. Criteria for Prioritization 

Potential New Products 

A. Criteria for Selection 

B. Brainstorming 

Next Steps 

A. Follow-up Action Items 

B. Continuing Communication 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE.. N.W. 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
(9:05 a.m.) 

MR. GARMAN: Good morning. My name is 

Dave Garman, I'm the Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Welcome, and thank 

you very much for coming this morning. I'm glad to 

see you here. 

We will begin actually by explaining why 

we're here, and then what I'd like to do is go around 

the table and the room and have people introduce 

themselves. That will take a moment, but I think it's 

worth doing. 

The purpose here this morning is to - - you 

know, we are thinking about updating the status -- 

well, we are updating the status of our priority 

rulemakings and discussing with you, many of our 

stakeholders, the factors that we should use in that 

prioritization, and we're also aiming to discuss the 

criteria and process for expanding the scope of the 

program. 

As many of you know, the President's 

National Energy Policy had as an action item and a 

recommendation that we support the appliance standards 

program for covered products, setting higher standards 

where technologically feasible and economically 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
5 

justified, and expand the scope of the appliance 

standards program, setting standards for additional 

appliances where technologically feasible and 

economically justified. 

Of course, there's a range of products 

that one could discuss if one were expanding the 

scope, and we want to get into some of those issues. 

I'm not going to lead that discussion, but I'm going 

to be here and participate in it this morning with 

you, and there's a variety of criteria, test 

procedures that have to be understood, an 

understanding of the potential savings, where the 

benefit lies, where we should be using our limited 

resource to set appliance standards. The way that 

we'll go about analyzing this information and all of 

this pointed toward an eventual recommendation to the 

Secretary for implementation. 

What I' d like to do now is go ahead and go 

around the room and have each person at the table and 

in the audience briefly introduce themselves and their 

affiliation, please. Let's start with Bryan. 

MR. BERRINGER : Bryan Berringer, 

Department of Energy, and I'll be facilitating the 

meeting today. 

MR. AMME: Karim Amrane, AirNEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
Conditioning & Refrigeration Institute. 

MR. GARMAN: Speak loudly, please. 

MS. MILLER: Deborah Miller, ARI. 

MR. WILLIAMS: Ted Williams, American Gas 

Association. 

MR. WISBEY: Bob Woodsby, representing the 

National Electrical Manufacturers Association. 

MR. MATTINGLY: Joe Mattingly, with Gas 

Appliance Manufacturers Association. 

MR. SAMUELS: Chuck Samuels, Association 

of Home Appliance Manufacturers. 

MR. THOMPSON : Mike Thompson, with 

Whirlpool Corporation. 

MR. JONES: Earl Jones, with GE. 

MR. GOLDSTEIN: David Goldstein, NRDC. 

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens, Oregon 

Department of Energy. 

MR. PRINDLE: Bill Prindle, Alliance to 

Save Energy. 

MR. FARKAS: Tom Farkas, Edison Electric 

Institute. 

MS. PINTO: Francine Pinto, Department of 

Energy, General Counsel's Office. 

MR. LAUGHLIN: Wayne Laughlin, NSE 

(phonetic). 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
7 

MR. POLLOCK: Ed Pollock, Department of 

Energy. 

MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest, Arthur D. 

Little. 

MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel, ACEEE. 

MR. GARMAN: Thank you. At this point, 

what I'd like to do is go ahead and pass off the 

meeting to Bryan. Again, welcome, thank you all for 

coming, and I look forward to the good discussion that 

we're going to have. 

MR. BERRINGER: Good morning, everybody, 

and welcome. I just want to thank you all for coming 

out today. Again, my name is Bryan Berringer, I' 11 be 

facilitating the meeting today. I just want to thank 

David for being here and opening up the meeting today. 

By show of hands, how many people is it your first 

time being at a DOE-sponsored meeting like this. I 

know a lot of the people I've seen before at the 

workshops. 

(Show of hands. ) 

We have a few. Okay. Well, thank you all 

for being here. One of the first things I want to do 

is, we typically have some ground rules and norms, and 

I just want to go through those so everybody is on the 

page here. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
8 

We just ask that everybody speak one at a 

time, that you speak into the mike, and you state your 

name for the record. We are recording this. We have 

a Court Reporter. So, if you are in the audience, 

please come to the two mikes in the back. Again, 

anytime you begin speaking, state your name. 

Listen as an ally. We are here to get 

input from everybody. We want to hear everybody's 

views, and pleased be recognized by the Facilitator. 

I will try to -- I don't know everybody's name, but I 

will try to point you out. I will allow follow-up 

comments, if you have follow-up comments, and we' 11 

move in a queuing situation. 

Respect one another, again. We are all 

professionals here. We are here, again, to listen. 

We are looking for your input, and we want to hear as 

many views as possible in this meeting. 

Avoid side conversations. If you need to 

have a discussion with your colleagues, if you could 

go ahead and step outside in the hallway. 

We ask you turn off cell phones and 

pagers, or if you have your cell phone, if you could 

put it on vibrate so we don't distract the meeting. 

If you could be concise, we want to be 

concise. Keep to the point and try not to be 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
repetitive in your comments. 

Be positive, most of all, and share the 

air time. Again, we've got a short period of time 

today, about three hours, and we want to give 

everybody a chance to talk and have their views heard, 

so if we could just share the air time there. 

Does anybody have any questions about the 

norms or the ground rules? 

(No response.) 

Seeing none, great. Okay. We' 11 go ahead 

and go into the brief agenda review. Everybody should 

have a copy of your agenda in your package. I wrote 

a rough outline of that here. David has already 

talked about the purpose of the meeting. Again, we 

are here to discuss the existing priorities, how the 

criteria we've used. We want to then go into what 

criteria we should apply. There's been a lot of talk 

about potential new products. We want to get your 

input on the process and criteria to be used for those 

new products. We've had in the past a priority 

rulemaking that set some criteria that we have on 

existing products. We just want to make sure that 

that's appropriate for any new products in moving 

forward. 

Again, David also did opening remarks and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
we did introductions. I'm currently doing the agenda 

review. From there on, Ed Pollock is going to present 

for the Department, the presentations today. We're 

going to look at the existing products, how we've used 

the priority setting for those products, what they 

are, and talk about what are some possible of 

potential new products, and discuss and get input from 

you what criteria we should use, what process we 

should use for these new products, and how to handle 

that, how to move forward, and then we'll talk about 

next steps, if we want to have a follow-up meeting, if 

that's necessary, and get into how we proceed from 

there. 

So, with that, I'll turn it over to Ed 

Pollock for his presentation. 

MR. POLLOCK: Good morning. Thank you all 

for being here. We look forward to a good lively 

discussion today. One of the things Bryan didn't 

mention was some of the housekeeping issues. There 

are restrooms at either end of the hall, and one of 

the problems that we're still trying to address is the 

issue of if you brought computers in, you will need a 

property pass to get out. Unfortunately, both of the 

people in our office who can sign those passes are out 

of the office today. So you may have to leave them 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
here and come back next week to get them, but wet 11 

try to get someone here. And you will need to stop 

by. We'll let you know who that is and what you will 

need to stop by and get a property pass so you can get 

your -- 

VOICE: Is that true for cell phones, too? 

MR. POLLOCK: Cell phones have not been 

something that they've been checking, but computers 

are. 

(Simultaneous discussion.) 

MR. POLLOCK: The history of the program, 

many of you have been connected with us long enough to 

know the origins of this. Back in 1972, when the 

first legislated mandated the Department begin and set 

mandatory standards for a selective group of products, 

the Department was a little bit slow in getting those 

standards set, and so Congress came back in 1987 and 

set the first level of standards for products and set 

a schedule for us to go back and revise and update 

those standards usually on a five-year cycle. 

In 1998, they added fluorescent lamp 

ballasts, which was really the first commercial 

product to be covered, because it only applies to the 

fluorescent lamp ballasts in commercial applications, 

not residential product, and then in 1999 with the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
EPACT Act, other heating, cooling, space conditioning, 

distribution transformers, other commercial equipment 

was added. I'm not going to spend a lot more time on 

that, but that sort of gives you a background. 

In 1996, there was a question about the 

methodology that we were using for the development of 

standard entrust procedures, but mostly on the 

standards area, and so we developed a process rule 

which laid out procedure that was a more open 

dialogue, encouraging consensus and encouraging more 

direct involvement of stakeholders in the rulemaking 

process. 

And one of the things that came out of 

that was, of course, the prioritization of the work 

that we do. We realized that we did not have either 

the staff or the resources, the funding resources from 

Congress, to allow us to do all the rules that were on 

the docket, and we began a prioritization process. 

This is a list of the priorities that we 

set last year for the products and, as you know, we 

came up with a very intensive cycle of rulemaking last 

year when we finished up a number of final rules. So, 

this year, we're just beginning the rulemakings. As 

you can see, the ones in the high priority is the ones 

that we have either started or had planned to start 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
13 

earlier. Because of some carryover housekeeping for 

the residential central air and some other items, 

we've only started work on the distribution 

transformers which was done a little bit earlier, and 

then furnaces and boilers -- residential furnaces and 

boilers -- and commercial central air conditioners in 

the 65-240 k Btu are rules that we are already working 

on. 

The plan was for us to complete or go back 

and revise work that we had started on a determination 

to decide whether we should consider mandatory 

standards for small electric motors, those below 1 hp, 

and we also planned to start work on package terminal 

air conditioning and heat pumps. 

Medium priority indicates those that we, 

as we have resources, those we take off the cycle of 

high priority that we would probably develop next. 

And then the low priority indicates ones 

that we've either recently finished, worked on, or 

where the energy savings potential was very small. 

These are the ones that you probably see 

in the reg agenda that's published in the fall. The 

reg agenda is revised and published twice a year. The 

inputs for this coming up, which is usually published 

in the October-November time frame, weye sent over to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
14 

OMB for review just recently. It's not clear whether 

if we were to decide from the discussions here and 

follow-up discussions to change our priorities, 

whether we would be able to make a change here, but we 

can always adjust those and publish them at a later 

date. The type of thing that we want your input on 

today is the question of if we extend the program, do 

we blend this new program with the new products, we 

finish these first, those are some of the things we 

are looking for in the discussion. 

In the process of prioritization, for the 

existing covered products, this is the criteria that 

we looked at in setting those priorities. The most 

important one, because thatr s what we' re all about, is 

the issue of the energy savings potential. Up until 

now, it's been pretty clear there were these products 

that were high, big jump, and then there was sort of 

a gap, and then there were the products that had 

lesser energy savings. 

The other issues were the economics of 

potential benefits both to the nation and the impacts 

on consumers and on manufacturers, the issue of the 

environmentalbenefits, energy security, going back to 

the energy savings potential, the deadlines that were 

statutory requirements that were placed on us, the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TFWNSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neairgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
resources that were available, and to some extent the 

resources that were required in order to do a 

rulemaking. Some of those rules earlier, when we 

started back in 1996, we had already done an extensive 

amount of work, so the expense to proceed with those 

rulemakings. And, also, we had committed to looking 

at the cumulative burden on manufacturers, and so we 

were concerned about other regulatory actions, both 

things that we were doing in DOE as well as EPA 

actions which is the issue of changes in refrigerant 

or cooling agent, or insulation materials. 

And then the other factors at the bottom 

there I'm not going to go through one-by-one, were 

also considered of lesser impact. 

So the discussion today is being 

responsive to the new National Energy Policy, and we 

have begun a study to identify products -- and I'm 

going to show two slides, you have them in your folder 

there -- which is a list of products that we've 

identified that we think perhaps should be considered 

for some sort of action by the Department of Energy. 

And the question -- the reason for putting these up is 

not to indicate that we've already made a decision. 

What we did, we went through a whole variety of lists 

from the ACEEE, from the California Energy Commission 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
list, and other actions that groups were doing, and 

compiled this list. And we've begun to gather data on 

these different products in terms of the energy 

savings potential, the total energy used, some of that 

type of information. We will be putting a report 

together which eventually will lead to a 

recommendation to the Secretary of actions that we 

believe the Department should take. 

The reason for putting this list up today 

is to help stimulate your thinking about the types of 

issues that we should consider both in deciding 

whether these should or should not be considered, or 

some sort of action in considering how we would 

prioritize the work that we're doing. And as we'll 

talk later, the issue here is not necessarily for 

mandatory standards, but there are other issues which 

we might want to consider, other actions that we might 

want to consider, rather than -just going straight to 

a mandatory standard. 

This completes the list of products that 

we're looking at, and you can see it's quite a range, 

a variety of different things, some very small 

products through some of the ones that -- the office 

equipment and things, which are a fairly extensive 

market and are large users of energy. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
To frame the discussion then, and then 

open the floor up to discussing some of these topics, 

the question is how do we proceed from here? Most 

important is what are the criteria that we should be 

using for deciding which of that big list and others 

that we might identify later on should be considered 

for some sort of action? And the other point which we 

want you to keep in mind as we begin this discussion 

is the question of what actions should we be thinking 

about here, besides prioritizing them, what do we do 

with these products that we've identified? Should 

there be a mandatory standard? Should we be looking 

for negotiated agreement of some type, some sort of 

legislative action, is a voluntary program, Energy 

Star, tax credits, there's a whole mix of things on 

the table as far as process that the Government could 

do in order to encourage energy-efficient use of 

different products. 

I'm going to open it up to discussion now 

as far as the first point, what are the criteria that 

we should use? Is the list of criteria that we've 

had, that we've used in the past for the 

prioritization process for new products? Is that a 

good place to start, or are there things on there that 

are not -- I saw a hand over here first. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
MR. FARKAS: Tom Farkas, EEI. A quick 

question, was there any criteria used to generate the 

two lists of potential new products? 

MR. POLLOCK: Not at this point, no. We 

just -- we started off by saying, okay, we looked at 

everybody else's list and we compiled those into one 

single list. We did not attempt to do any 

prioritization with them. 

MR. FARKAS: Maybe more just a "wish list" 

than anything else. 

MR. POLLOCK: It wasn't even a wish list 

as much as just saying these are products which you 

identified of others, maybe some on there that we knew 

about that had fairly high energy use. That does not 

conclude that there's a savings potential, they may 

already be as efficient as you can build them. 

MR. SAMUELS: Chuck Samuels, AHAM. I 

think you're asking now about the criteria rather than 

about specific products, isn't that right? 

MR. POLLOCK: That's exactly right. We 

need to talk about, first, the criteria, and then. 

we'll talk later on about how we apply the process. 

We just define the criteria, then we can get -- at 

this meeting, I don't expect to get any further than 

that. I mean, we'll need to go back and collect 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
19 

information about these criteria to share with 

everyone, to work with you to make sure that 

information is correct. Then we'll have to apply that 

criteria to decide which products -- 

MR. SAMUELS: With respect to the criteria 

that were developed, I think, fairly carefully over 

the last five or six years, I think they were good 

criteria. I think they've been wisely used and, in 

general, I would think that you would want to maintain 

all of them, and probably not make radical shifts in 

them one way or another. I mean, the fact of the 

matter is that you need to apply limited resources to 

areas where it makes the most sense to do regulation 

and where you have statutory authority as well as 

requirements, and I think, in general, the Department 

has done that over the last five or six years. So, I 

don't think that things have to change all that 

dramatically. That doesn' t mean the regulatory 

program is not going to change somewhat, it is 

inevitable that it will, but I think that you've got 

a good balance of criteria, energy, economic, 

practical reality, and I think they still make a lot 

of sense, to all be considered in combination. 

MR. GOLDSTEIN: David Goldstein, NRDC. I 

think, in general, I agree with Chuck, the criteria 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
make pretty much sense, with maybe a little bit of 

elaboration on the first two that you have up there, 

to look at areas where there's perspective growth -- 

you know, something like electronic equipment where 

there's a doubling of the market share every couple of 

years, obviously has a big potential, or where there's 

some feature that might be developed that could be 

very energy-intensive if you do it one way, and much 

less so if you do it another way, and the decisions 

haven't yet been made. So, rather than asking 

industry to change something they are already doing, 

you are kind of guiding them to do it the right way 

the first time. 

But there's one kind of new criterion 

that's sort of related to the bottom one you've got 

there, which is on status of required changes to test 

procedures. A lot of areas where there's an 

opportunity, there aren' t test procedures, or there 

aren't good ones, and we need them. Televisions, 

computer monitors, PCs -- you don't have a test 

procedure. You can' t even have the market work if you 

don't have a test procedure because the consumer 

doesn't know whether a given product is energyintensive or not. I mean, look at computers. We've 

had a lot of misunderstanding over the past year about 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
how much energy computers use because people look at 

the nameplate and say, IfWell, it says 200 watts, so it 

must be using 200 watts times 1,000 hours, or whatever 

it is on a yearIf, and they are getting numbers that 

are five-fold too high. But we don't know what the 

right numbers are for any piece of equipment. 

So, if you have the test procedure, that's 

the first step. And that's a first step to an Energy 

Star program, it's a first step to tax incentives, 

it's a first step to mandatory standards. We don't 

have to decide what it's the first step to, but we do 

need to take that step because nothing else can work 

until it's done. 

MR. SCHLEEDE: Glenn Schleede, citizen 

consumer and taxpayer. To save your time, I've put a 

bunch of comments in a letter addressed to Secretary 

Garman, and he has a copy, and there are about 50 

copies back here if anybody else has insomnia and 

needs something to help tonight. 

What I suggest in here is three or four 

things that ought to be done before you get too far 

down the road looking at new criteria, and that is to 

go back and look at this whole scheme or evaluation, 

first. Second, to do something about the terrible 

quality of the data that's been used by DOE in doing 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
the evaluations. And, third, add some better consumer 

representation, and here I am encouraged to see that 

we finally have a couple of consumer people's cards at 

the table at least in the form of Competitive 

Enterprise Institute and Mercatus Center, who really 

do represent consumers. 

I'd like to add one thing to your 

criteria, and that is suggest that you look at what's 

out there now that is misleading consumers. One 

example I'd use is your dishwasher test procedure. 

DOE has known for over two years that you've grossly 

overstated the use of dishwashers. The practical 

effect for consumers is that those yellow tags hanging 

on every dishwasher in every retail store across the 

country overstates potential energy conservation by 

about double. Yet, DOE has never corrected that, and 

you are busily misleading consumers. So, why not put 

that on the list as something to fix? Thank you. 

MR. LIEBERMAN: Ben Lieberman, Competitive 

Enterprise Institute. I just have one general 

comment. I'd like to step back and see where we are 

with the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act. 

It's now almost a decade and a half old and, as we can 

see from the attachment of existing standards, it's a 

fairly aggressive 15 years in terms of regulations. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
23 

Most of the major household appliances, the major 

energy using household appliances, by now have been 

subject to two, or even three, rounds of successively 

tighter standards. And as you know with the wave of 

new standards that were promulgated in the final weeks 

of the Clinton Administration, we1 11 still see that 

fairly aggressive regulatory pace for years to come. 

And at this point, I think it's worth asking do we 

really need to regulate at this pace for the next 15 

years? 

I think, quite arguably, the things that 

make the most sense to do under the NAECA have already 

been done, and I would caution against blindly just 

picking new products, products that quite wisely DOE 

didn't bother with until fairly recently. We 

certainly don't need to measure our work product just 

by the number of standards promulgated, and I think 

there's a very strong argument at this point for a 

standard setting pace slower than we've seen up until 

now. 

MR. BRUNDAGE: Don Brundage, Southern 

Company. You sort of cover this, but not explicitly, 

in your priorities on potential for energy savings. 

I'd like you to take care that in choosing which 

products you go after, that you look at interactions 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
24 

and substitution effects -- for example, groundcoupled heat pumps. Almost every ground-coupled heat 

pump is more efficient than almost any air source heat 

pump. So, I think it would probably counterproductive 

to try to set an efficiency standard because all 

you're going to do is push people towards less 

efficient products. I'm sure you're going to include 

that, but I wanted to make sure you include it. 

The other comment is -- I think you've 

also got it covered -- on evidence of efficiency gains 

absent new standards. Some of these on this list, 

like traffic signals, will probably go to high 

efficiency anyway, just for low maintenance and other 

factors. Thank you. 

MR. WILLIAMS: Ted Williams, American Gas 

Association. I want to second what Don just said 

about substitution effects. I think that's really 

critical, and the Department, up to this point as the 

products we' re concerned with, hasnf t really done a 

good job on looking at those. 

But, more importantly, on the criteria, 

which we really want to focus on here, I think the 

criteria are good. I think they are set, in part, by 

the process rule, but I notice in looking at the 

priority list, the typical thing the Department 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
doesn't provide information on lots of these criteria. 

Look, for example, at a product that doesn't really 

pertain to our industry, but distribution 

transformers. It says potential economic benefits not 

available, yet it's a high priority. I don't know how 

you can have high priority, but not have any 

information on these criteria. 

So, it's up to the Department to decide, 

in part, based on resources and its requirements under 

the law, what it can or cannot analyze in advance in 

the setting of priorities. I would push for including 

these criteria, but certainly having documented 

numbers that satisfy this criteria. 

MR. MARTIN: Michael Martin, California 

Energy Commission. I would like to emphasize what 

David mentioned, that the test methods are very 

important, much more important than the emphasis that 

DOE has put on them in the past because they are used 

for a great number of purposes other than setting 

minimum performance standards. There's been a 

staggering amount of incentives being for various 

kinds of high efficiency equipment in my State, and I 

think a good test method is absolutely vital, and I'm 

a little worried that we are still waiting for the 

test method for the Energy Policy Act units that -- 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
26 

requirements that we had a rulemaking for a proposed 

rule. 

And I think one of the things on your 

criteria is how close you are to finishing up. 

There's a number of things that need to be finished 

up, and that's why this is very important. 

MR. POLLOCK: I'm going to ask for a 

little clarification on this because I think it's an 

important point. Are you proposing that we apply the 

criteria for test procedures separate from standards, 

or blended with standards, or how do you see that 

working? 

MR. MARTIN: I thought you were going to 

be discussing test methods, but it seems to be taking 

a second place to standards. 

MR. POLLOCK: For clarification, the 

discussion that we'll have later is once we've talked 

about the criteria, and maybe we need to clarify this, 

is that we will need to talk about the actions that we 

will do. Certainly, one action could be to decide 

that mandatory standards are not merited because of 

the high cost or other implications, but that an 

education of the consumer, which would mean proper 

measurement and labeling of the product, would then 

enable the consumer to buy intelligently, and some 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
27 

other action, whether it's Energy Star or 

informational sheets or informational TV -- you know, 

there are a number of things we might do that would 

make sense, sort of what ' s happening with the vampires 

on the standby power right now, where -- 

MR. FOLEY: Could we not use that word? 

MR. POLLOCK: -- all right -- st andby 

power. Even referring to that is not to imply that 

that is something that I'm setting at a high level of 

priority. The point is that there is a public 

awareness about standby power now that didn't exist a 

few months ago. So, there are other things that we 

can do like that where it make sense, but of course it 

means that the product needs to be labeled properly, 

and that means test procedures. 

So, my question, going back to you, 

Michael, was how do you see us prioritizing activities 

that we might do like that, which gets us to a point 

of labeling versus mandatory standards, and I think I 

heard what you're saying. 

MR. MARTIN: I wasn't really getting into 

labeling, I was just getting into test methods, and 

there are some -- David mentioned one -- a television 

test method, the entire industry, the Energy Star 

program didn't use. Water heater test methods, you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
have a scope which is less than your standard, which 

for people who will have to be revising State 

standards, drives them out of their minds because 

their attorneys say it has to say what it means and 

nobody knows what it means. 

Third one that is a concern to me is the 

Energy Policy Act product that I assumed we would have 

had a final rule on by now. Maybe we have, and I 

missed it. 

And there's another one that's rather 

similar to it is you had something about wine chillers 

that had a proposed rule that never came to fruition. 

And things that are so close to finishing, it seems 

like finishing should be a high priority. 

Some of the test methods, as I look across 

to Bob Wisbey here, NEMA has come up with test methods 

on these transformers, for instance. It would be nice 

for you to say this is the official Federal test 

method, but it wouldn't make a hill of beans of 

difference in that particular case. In fact, 

television and choosing these EPACT products does make 

a difference. 

MR. POLLOCK: I didn't put the slide up, 

but Bryan gave you the sheet, those of you who got our 

mail-out on the prioritization for this year know that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
29 

we have been prioritizing test procedures. We have 

right now the dishwashers which are hanging out there 

to be finalized, and that was the issue of what we do 

with the smart machines. We are just in the last 

stages of finishing up the revisions which is just a 

bunch of housekeeping and making the test procedure 

easier to use, which we will be coming back to revisit 

on the issue of how many cycles as well as how do we 

deal with smart machines which use a lot less energy. 

The test procedure right now does not do a good job of 

measuring that energy use, and we are working with 

AHAM to revise and address those issues. 

The other EPACT rules which you referred 

to, Michael, the transformer test procedure, we gave 

a draft of our rule and proposed changes to the rule 

that NEMA has developed, met with them a couple of 

weeks ago, and we're bringing that to conclusion 

shortly. We also are finalizing the activities for 

the commercial heating/cooling and water heating 

products. We are moving forward on that, and will 

fill out this list because we did expect by the end of 

this fiscal year to have finished them. We'll be 

close to that. 

MR. MARTIN: I look forward to seeing 

that. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
MS. MILLER: Deborah Miller, from ARI. I 

want to stress two points, one that was made by Chuck, 

which is that I do think this is a good, comprehensive 

list, and I think that it has worked. I will 

question, though, one of the points which is relevant 

regulatory actions affecting products, and want to 

make clear as well that that should include cumulative 

burden of industries that have several products that 

are being regulated by the Department of Energy. 

On a second point, I wanted to also agree 

with what Ted Williams said about important 

information that you must have before deciding to go 

forward with these products because, in our case, we 

have several niche products as well as some industries 

that are not niche but have a very complex product 

offering. It really needs to be evaluated before you 

move ahead with the standard. 

MR. PRINDLE: Bill Prindle, Alliance to 

Save Energy. I agree that the list of criteria is a 

good list and a lot of the methods have been pretty 

well developed. However, I would suggest that there's 

always room for a little improvement in some of the 

analytical methods used under these criteria, and I 

would offer a couple of comments of that nature. 

In the area of energy savings, we've seen 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISWND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
in the last year or two that the time at which energy 

savings occur can be critical for security of 

electricity systems and so forth. So, going forward 

just encourage the Department to make sure that time 

differentiation is included in the analysis of energy 

savings. I know that in California, they are actually 

developing some methodologies in the codes and 

standards programs to begin to quantify the timedifferentiated value of energy savings. 

That also spills over into the economic 

benefits. I know the Brookview Lab and others have 

done heroic efforts to try and determine what the 

marginal prices of electricity are going to be when 

the standards become effective, and this is always a 

difficult task. 

Going forward again, I think we need to 

continue to look for more data, more accuracy on what 

kinds of pricing practices are going to be evolving in 

the marketplace, and use those as much as possible. 

And, thirdly, a comment was mentioned that 

NAECA has been around for almost 15 years now. One of 

the benefits of that is that we're beginning to get 

some data from the market on what the impact of 

standards are on product prices. Right now, the 

Department is kind of limited to using best estimates 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
based on reverse engineering or industry data. We do 

have some data now as to what the market tells us 

about what some of these products cost as a result of 

the standards action. So, to the extent that data is 

available from Census or other sources, we really 

encourage the Department to take that into account in 

trying to modify whatever limited estimates it's got 

from engineering or from industry sources. Thanks. 

MR. ISAACS: David Isaacs, with Hewlett 

Packard. Someone had mentioned earlier the need to 

consider the growth in the market of the products. I 

think that, in conjunction with that, it's also 

appropriate to consider the dynamic nature of the 

products or technology and the potential impact that 

standards might have on the development of that 

technology and future product innovation. 

MR. THOMPSON : Mike Thompson, with 

Whirlpool Corporation. I can't emphasize enough what 

Deb just mentioned a few minutes ago about cumulative 

burden. I would very much like to see that as 

explicitly written as far as priorities for existing 

programs. 

This industry has just gone through - - and 

particularly Whirlpool -- has just gone through a 

complete revision of every single room air conditioner 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
33 

that we make, at our Laverne Division, as of October 

lst, 2000, some at substantial cost to increase our 

efficiency by about 20 percent. 

Effective July 1 of this year, you are all 

very much aware that the entire industry, including 

all three divisions of Whirlpool's refrigeration 

manufacturing, had to improve the efficiency of every 

refrigerator we make by 22 to 30 percent, at no 

insignificant cost. 

We are looking at clothes washer standards 

effective 2004 and 2007, at no insignificant cost. 

When I look at microwave ovens, I have a hard time 

understanding why they are on the list. They use onequarter the power af a range and, as you all know, the 

DOE determined that no standards were necessary for 

those products and they are not listed here. So, I'm 

having trouble seeing why that's on the list. 

Looking at dehumidifiers andcoffeemakers, 

I will not disagree that they use energy, I will 

disagree that they use significant amounts of energy, 

particularly when you put in the context of the fact 

that you have about 105 percent penetration rate on 

refrigerators, very high penetration rates on clothes 

washers, and the other product categories recently 

regulated. I would love to see those eliminated from 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
34 

the list. And I encourage you to add explicitly 

cumulative burden to your list of criteria. 

MR. POLLOCK: You made reference to some 

points that I will touch on, that is, is there some 

way that we could come up with a threshold of total 

energy use of those products and still take 

prioritization process. We're going to look at what 

the national energy use is for those particular 

products and draw a line there (inaudible) , or does it 

make sense to try to -- now, obviously, we can't deal 

with all these products. This list is a compilation 

and we -- 

MR. THOMPSON: I couldn't agree more. 

MR. BERRINGER: One moment, please. We're 

not picking you up, Ed. You might use the hand-held 

one. 

MR. THOMPSON: I couldn' t agree more, Ed, 

particularly when you're looking at the total 

penetration of some of these other products. 

Certainly, microwaves have a high degree of 

penetration, but not everybodyf s got a cof f eemaker, 

necessarily. Not everybody's got a dehumidifier. 

There are parts of the country that don1 t even know 

what a dehumidifier is because they don't need them. 

And certainly you have to look at total national 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
35 

energy consumption as one of the criteria, without -- 

absolutely, you have to see that as part of your 

criteria. 

But I would also add that you have to look 

at it in the context of what would happen to these 

products if you did regulate it. What kind of 

innovation would you stifle? What kind of future 

consumer features would be eliminated from the 

marketplace. And that's all part of the makeup, but 

it needs to be high on your priority list. 

MR. NADEL: In terms of the current 

priorities, I agree it's generally a pretty good list, 

I think it's a pretty complete list. The one thing I 

think I might add to it for some products is peak 

demand savings, or some products that are used 

disproportionately at peak, and for those products 

standards might be more important than just the energy 

savings alone. It only applies to a limited number of 

products, but it can be an important criteria given 

some of the problems we've had over the past year that 

illustrates it. However, in general, this is a fairly 

long list, and I think it's very difficult to start 

balancing -- you know, trying to analyze every single 

one of these criteria for every single one of the 

products, and do a careful balancing, you're talking 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nea1rgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
a very long analysis procedure. You are going to have 

to -- this is just for an initial screening -- do the 

best you can, but don't expect perfection. 

Also, I think you are going to need to 

have sort of some guidelines or a way to boil it down 

in terms of, you know, sort of an initial 

prioritization, and then you can bring the other 

factors in rather than analyzing everything in 

excruciating detail. 

What we tend to do -- and it might be 

something you'd want to consider doing -- is we look 

at products for likely energy saving from technically 

feasible and cost-effective standards. That captures 

the economics, it captures what is likely to be done - 

- not the range of anywhere from zero to some trophy 

model that is extremely expensive to produce -- 

concentrate on what the likely standard should be, 

factor in what is likely to happen in the market 

anyway, and you can get an approximate energy saving, 

plus or minus 30 percent, I agree. We then tend to do 

a ranking of those. And then we go to the top of the 

list and say is there some factor that would then 

cause this first one to go up or down in criteria -- 

that's where the other criteria come in -- and it 

would be a way to hone in on the key questions without 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
having to do an exhaustive analysis. I mean, as it 

is, DOE often errs, I think, into the range of 

paralysis by analysis, and we want to be careful and 

do the analysis where it's helpful in and of itself, 

and add a year to any type of priority-setting 

process. 

One or two other comments. I think at 

least one person talked about, gee, we've been doing 

this for 15 years, maybe we should slow down. I would 

agree we should slow down if the opportunities for 

significant energy savings from technically feasible 

and cost-effective standards was low, but, in fact, if 

you look at things, we keep discovering new 

opportunities, things -- we didn't realize how much 

energy we use, or we didn't analyze them in a 

particular way. From our analysis, we' re seeing just 

as many opportunities as we did before, off and on 

interest in different products. We are often talking 

similar orders of magnitude of savings of some of the 

original products. So, it's a question of looking 

what the opportunities are and I think in this case 

there are some very significant opportunities. Maybe 

15 years from now, there won't be, time will tell, but 

we've been actually surprised at how big the 

opportunities are. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
Oh, one other thing. You asked about 

should there be some type of criteria for things that 

you don't screen. NAECA does provide one criteria for 

consumer products, it talks about 100 kwh per 

household per year. That's one thing that's actually 

in the law. 

MR. FREDRICHS: Mark Fredrichs. Steve 

actually made my point. I was mainly concerned about 

the different levels of decisionmaking that I think we 

all have to anticipate. There are 44 products on this 

list right now. I suspect that before the day is out, 

some products may be added to that list, and we're 

going to have to figure out a way of narrowing down 

that list to even identify products that we can do 

this kind of analysis for. I'm not sure what that 

number is, maybe ten or 15, and then once we've 

identified the high priority products, we' re going 

through even more detailed analysis before we decide 

exactly what the most appropriate action, whether 

regulatory or not regulatory, is. 

So, I think everyone needs to keep in mind 

that we're whittling down a very long list. 

MR. POLLOCK: Okay. Let's go to the back 

of the room. 

MR. JOHNSON : Doug Johnson, Consumer 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
39 

Electronics Association. I'd like to add two things 

to that list, one, the impact on small business, which 

is often a consideration in other government 

rulemakings. And then, also, broadband, I guess, more 

generally, the impact on other national priorities, 

such as broadband deployment. We're talking about 

equipment, and they connect at the end of telecom, and 

I think that should be a consideration as well. 

MR. POLLOCK: Thank you. We've started to 

move a little bit into process discussion. Are there 

more people who want to talk about and make 

suggestions on the criteria? Charlie? 

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens, Oregon 

Energy Office. I'm not sure what criteria you're 

applying to get things on the list, but one item that 

was added to the list by legislation years ago, and 

appears on none of these lists is televisions. Is 

there some reason why it doesn't appear anywhere? 

MR. POLLOCK: Televisions were one of 

those that was in the original NAECA standards. It 

had a rather strange category, but there is no reason 

why it should not be considered with the mix of things 

that are being done. 

MR. MATHAI: Bill Mathai, Alliance Laundry 

Systems. What about the number of rulemakings we've 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
40 

had, cases of clothes washers, residential consumer 

style. We're on the third standard. Is there a 

maximum number? I mean, are we overharvesting? 

MR. POLLOCK: Others who want to talk 

about criteria? 

MR. WISBEY: Bob Wisbey, with NEMA. The 

one criteria that we don't see here that we believe 

should be included when considering new standards is 

readily commercial availability of the more efficient 

products. We believe the standards, if they are to be 

used in this program, should be used to expedite the 

market transformation to commercially available 

products where that market transformation isn't 

occurring fast enough on a natural basis, and should 

not be used to force the innovation of more efficient 

products that aren't already available. 

MR. POLLOCK: Thank you. You reminded me 

of one thing I started off with saying. This process 

in response to the National Energy Policy, we are 

looking for is to decide what actions the Department 

should or could take to encourage more efficient use, 

including mandatory standards, but where there is a 

good product on the market and the market is moving 

that way, are there other activities that we could do 

to encourage consumers to move in that direction. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
MR. JOHNSON: Doug Johnson, CEA. I think 

with the added focus and emphasis on saving energy, we 

ought to channel those energies into the Energy Star 

program itself. I think there's certainly room for 

improvement within that program, but the program sets 

a great example for us to follow. 

MR. POLLOCK: Thank you. Earl, did I see 

your hand? 

MR. JONES: Oh, about 20 people ago, Ed. 

MR. POLLOCK: Sorry. Did it get covered, 

or do you have something to add? 

MR. JONES: It did get covered. 

MR. GOLDSTEIN: David Goldstein, NRDC. 

For the purpose of Assistant Secretary Garman's review 

of this record -- he hasn't heard me saying this in 

all the previous prioritization proceedings -- I need 

to reiterate that while all this is commendable, we're 

talking about DOE'S prioritizing how it's going to 

fail to comply with the law. NAECA and EPACT have 

mandatory nondiscretionary requirements for 

rulemakings by certain times, and at the policy level 

we really ought to be discussing how DOE can meet all 

of its mandatory rulemaking requirements, and then 

prioritizing the discretionary ones. 

MR. POLLOCK: Thank you, David. Why 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
42 

didn't you wait until he came back? You want to 

repeat it, he's back in the room now. 

(Whereupon, at 10:OO a.m., the meeting was 

suspended, to be resumed at a date and time to be 

determined. ) 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H
CERTIFICATE 

This is to certify that the foregoing transcript in the 

matter of: Priority Workshop 

Before : 

Date: 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

September 11, 2001 

Place: Washington, DC 

represents the full and complete proceedings of the 

a£ orementioned matter, as reported and reduced to 

typewriting. 

EE-PS-01-001 COMMENT 02H