1

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY

+ + + + +

ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

PUBLIC MEETING ON PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2005

PRIORITIZATION

+ + + + +

Wednesday,

June 9, 2004

+ + + + +

The meeting was held in Conference Room

1E-245 in the Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., at 9:00 a.m., DOUGLAS

R. BROOKMAN, Facilitator, presiding.

PRESENT:

DOUGLAS R. BROOKMAN

KARIM AMRANE

BRYAN BERRINGER

DONALD BRUNDAGE

DAVID CALABRESE

JIM CRAWFORD

DAVE DELAQUILA

ANDREW DELASKI

KATHERINE DELVES

TOM DePRIEST

TOM ECKMAN

ED GRAY

KIT KENNEDY

MICHAEL McCABE

(202) 234-4433

Facilitator

Air Conditioning and

Refrigeration Institute

Department of Energy

Southern Company Services

Association of Home Appliance

Manufacturers

Trane

Gas Appliance Manufacturers

Association

Appliance Standards Awareness

Project

Natural Resources of Canada

Department of Energy

Northwest Power and

Conservation Council

National Electrical

Manufacturers Association

Natural Resources Defense

Council

Department of Energy

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

u.s. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY 

+ + + + + 

ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS 

AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT 

PUBLIC MEETING ON PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2005 

PRIORITIZATION 

+ + + + + 

Wednesday, 

June 9, 2004 

+ + + + + 

1 

The meeting was held in Conference Room 

1E-245 in the Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C., at 9:00 a.m., DOUGLAS 

R. BROOKMAN, Facilitator, presiding. 

PRESENT: 

DOUGLAS R. BROOKMAN 

KARIM AMRANE 

BRYAN BERRINGER 

DONALD BRUNDAGE 

DAVID CALABRESE 

JIM CRAWFORD 

DAVE DELAQUILA 

ANDREW DELASKI 

KATHERINE DELVES 

TOM DePRIEST 

TOM ECKMAN 

ED GRAY 

KIT KENNEDY 

MICHAEL McCABE 

Facilitator 

Air Conditioning and 

Refrigeration Institute 

Department of Energy 

Southern Company Services 

Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers 

Trane 

Gas Appliance Manufacturers 

Association 

Appliance Standards Awareness 

Project 

Natural Resources of Canada 

Department of Energy 

Northwest Power and 

Conservation Council 

National Electrical 

Manufacturers Association 

Natural Resources Defense 

Council 

Department of Energy 

NEAL R. GROSS 

(202) 234-4433 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N,W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
2

PRESENT (Continued):

DEBORAH MILLER

HARRY MISURIELLO

STEVE NADEL

FRANCINE PINTO

STEVE ROSENSTOCK

HARVEY SACHS

DAVID STEINER

CHARLIE STEPHENS

BARBARA TWIGG

LARRY WETHJE

TED WILLIAMS

(202) 234-4433

Air Conditioning and

Refrigeration Institute

Alliance to Save Energy

American Council for an Energy

Efficient Economy

Department of Energy

Edison Electric Institute

American Council for an Energy

Efficient Economy

Maytag

Oregon Office of Energy

Department of Energy

Association of Home Appliance

Manufacturers

American Gas Association

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

PRESENT (Continued) 

DEBORAH MILLER 

HARRY MISURIELLO 

STEVE NADEL 

FRANCINE PINTO 

STEVE ROSENSTOCK 

HARVEY SACHS 

DAVID STEINER 

CHARLIE STEPHENS 

BARBARA TWIGG 

LARRY WETHJE 

TED WILLIAMS 

2 

Air Conditioning and 

Refrigeration Institute 

Alliance to Save Energy 

American Council for an Energy 

Efficient Economy 

Department of Energy 

Edison Electric Institute 

American Council for an Energy 

Efficient Economy 

May tag 

Oregon Office of Energy 

Department of Energy 

Association of Home Appliance 

Manufacturers 

American Gas Association 

NEAL R. GROSS 

(202) 234-4433 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
3

I-N-D-E-X

AGENDA ITEM PAGE

Welcoming Remarks 4

Agenda Review and Introductions 6

Overview of Priority-Setting Process and 13

Presentation of Draft Priorities

Discussion of Issues 26

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

I-N-D-E-X 

AGENDA ITEM 

Welcoming Remarks 

Agenda Review and Introductions 

Overview of Priority-Setting Process and 

Presentation of Draft Priorities 

Discussion of Issues 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 

3 

4 

6 

13 

26 

www.nealrgross.com 
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

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

(9:09 a.m.)

MR. McCABE: Good morning. I am Michael

McCabe. I am the program manager for the building

technologies program. And I would like to welcome

everybody to the appliance standards priority-setting

meeting.

As an aside, things are going to be rather

hectic here in D.C. for the next few days with

President Reagan, the events surrounding President

Reagan' s funeral. There may be a number of people who

want to leave to go witness that. We do have for the

benefit of those a map up here.

Activities are going to start around 5:00

o'clock this afternoon. For anybody who wants to go,

we strongly recommend taking the Metro and going to

the Archives subway station, which is at 7th and

Constitution Avenue.

It will be a parade. The procession will

go from 16th and Constitution Avenue to the Capitol

Building. And at somewhere between 6:00 and 7:00,

6:00 and 7:00 o'clock this afternoon, the procession

will be passing there.

We would encourage people to look to stand

on the north side of Constitution Avenue with a view

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

4 

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

2 (9:09 a.m.) 

3 MR. McCABE: Good morning. I am Michael 

4 McCabe. I am the program manager for the building 

5 technologies program. And I would like to welcome 

6 everybody to the appliance standards priority-setting 

7 meeting. 

8 As an aside, things are going to be rather 

9 hectic here in D. C. for the next few days with 

10 President Reagan, the events surrounding President 

11 Reagan's funeral. There may be a number of people who 

12 want to leave to go witness that. We do have for the 

13 benefit of those a map up here. 

14 Activities are going to start around 5:00 

15 o'clock this afternoon. For anybody who wants to go, 

16 we strongly recommend taking the Metro and going to 

17 the Archives subway station, which is at 7th and 

18 Constitution Avenue. 

19 It will be a parade. The procession will 

20 go from 16th and Constitution Avenue to the Capitol 

21 Building. And at somewhere between 6: 00 and 7: 00, 

22 6:00 and 7:00 o'clock this afternoon, the procession 

23 will be passing there. 

24 We would encourage people to look to stand 

25 on the north side of Constitution Avenue with a view 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

5

of the southern sky because as the procession passes

that point, there will be 22 F-15's that will be

flying over. And it will be a rather awesome sight.

The last one based on the practice run last night is

just going to be run from the Capitol straight up into

the sky. And we will lose sight of it.

So it will be a caisson being pulled by

six identical horses with military honor guard. It

should be quite an impressive parade. Then there will

be at 7:00 o'clock a private viewing by members of

Congress in the Capitol. And then after that, it will

be open to the public.

They are putting barricades up for the

public viewing stand in the queue. They go from the

Capitol building to 7th Street, which is about

three-quarters of a mile. So they are expecting quite

a crowd.

Traffic in the town, that is going to be

very difficult to get around. So if you are going to

go out to the northern suburbs, it would be best to

leave as early as possible because of the traffic.

Andrews Air Force Base in Prince George's

County, the process is going to come through town to

the Pentagon, then come back into town. So the roads

around the mall and to the Pentagon are all going 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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

5 

1 of the southern sky because as the procession passes 

2 that point, there will be 22 F-15' s that will be 

3 flying over. And it will be a rather awesome sight. 

4 The last one based on the practice run last night is 

5 just going to be run from the Capitol straight up into 

6 the sky. And we will lose sight of it. 

7 So it will be a caisson being pulled by 

8 six identical horses with military honor guard. It 

9 should be quite an impressive parade. Then there will 

10 be at 7:00 o'clock a private viewing by members of 

11 Congress in the Capitol. And then after that, it will 

12 be open to the public. 

13 They are putting barricades up for the 

14 public viewing stand in the queue. They go from the 

15 Capitol building to 7th Street, which is about 

16 three-quarters of a mile. So they are expecting quite 

17 a crowd. 

18 Traffic in the town, that is going to be 

19 very difficult to get around. So if you are going to 

20 go out to the northern suburbs, it would be best to 

21 leave as early as possible because of the traffic. 

22 Andrews Air Force Base in Prince George's 

23 County, the process is going to come through town to 

24 the Pentagon, then come back into town. So the roads 

25 around the mall and to the Pentagon are all going to 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

6

be blocked off. And it is going to be very difficult

to get around them.

So we will try to get this

priority-setting meeting done as quickly as possible,

hear everybody's input. We are interested in hearing

your thoughts, your comments, your suggestions. And

hopefully we will end this in time so that everybody

will have the time to go wherever they want to and do

whatever they wish. We will have this map around so

that at the break if anybody wants to take a look at

it, they may.

Again, I would like to extend a welcome to

everybody and encourage and appreciate your full

participation. Thank you.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Good morning,

everybody. My name is Doug Brookman. I will be

facilitating today's meeting. I am from Baltimore.

Does everybody have a copy of the agenda?

It is in your packet. You can see the purpose of the

meeting there listed at the top of the page.

How many of you have participated in

similar meetings to this in the past? Please raise

your hands.

(202) 234-4433

(Whereupon, there was a show of hands.)

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: So better than half

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

6 

1 be blocked off. And it is going to be very difficult 

2 to get around them. 

3 So we will try to get this 

4 priority-setting meeting done as quickly as possible, 

5 hear everybody's input. We are interested in hearing 

6 your thoughts, your comments, your suggestions. And 

7 hopefully we will end this in time so that everybody 

8 will have the time to go wherever they want to and do 

9 whatever they wish. We will have this map around so 

10 that at the break if anybody wants to take a look at 

11 it, they may. 

12 Again, I would like to extend a welcome to 

13 everybody and encourage and appreciate your full 

14 participation. Thank you. 

15 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Good morning, 

16 everybody. My name is Doug Brookman. I will be 

17 facilitating today's meeting. I am from Baltimore. 

18 Does everybody have a copy of the agenda? 

19 It is in your packet. You can see the purpose of the 

20 meeting there listed at the top of the page. 

21 How many of you have participated in 

22 similar meetings to this in the past? Please raise 

23 your hands. 

24 (Whereupon, there was a show of hands.) 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: So better than half 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

7

of you, I would say. And how many of you specifically

participated in this priority-setting workshop in

previous years , the same group?

(Whereupon , there was a show of hands.)

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: And how many of you

are just here because you want to attend the Reagan

ceremonies ? Just kidding. Okay.

I want to just point to the general plan

for the day . We are doing the agenda review. I will

follow this agenda review by asking each person to

introduce him or herself and say your organizational

affiliation.

We will be then reviewing a bunch of

slides that will provide an overview of the

priority-setting process and the presentation of draft

priorities.

We will begin the discussion period right

about 10:00. Until 10:30, you can see the three

different subsets that we anticipate discussing at

that point. Right about 10:30 we will take a break.

We will continue with the discussion following the

break around about 10:45 to around about 1:00.

We are not certain how long this meeting

will take today. The Federal Register notice

suggested we could go from 9:00 to 4:00. In the past,

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

7 

1 of your I would say. And how many of you specifically 

2 participated in this priority-setting workshop in 

3 previous years r the same group? 

4 (Whereupon r there was a show of hands.) 

5 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: And how many of you 

6 are just here because you want to attend the Reagan 

7 ceremonies? Just kidding. Okay. 

8 I want to just point to the general plan 

9 for the day. We are doing the agenda review. I will 

10 follow this agenda review by asking each person to 

11 introduce him or herself and say your organizational 

12 affiliation. 

13 We will be then reviewing a bunch of 

14 slides that will provide an overview of the 

15 priority-setting process and the presentation of draft 

16 priorities. 

17 We will begin the discussion period right 

18 about 10: 00. Until 10: 30 r you can see the three 

19 different subsets that we anticipate discussing at 

20 that point. Right about 10:30 we will take a break. 

21 We will continue with the discussion following the 

22 break around about 10:45 to around about 1:00. 

23 We are not certain how long this meeting 

24 will take today. The Federal Register notice 

25 suggested we could go from 9: 00 to 4: 00. In the pastr 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

8

our experience has been that we have done this in less

time. And so we are thinking that probably we will

get done today sometime mid-day.

You can see it lists in the agenda

discussion of issues from 10:45 to 1:00, other issues,

and next steps. And then it says, 1:00 p.m. lunch, if

needed. So we intend to largely press on with the

work at hand, go until 1:00, see where we stand. If

we need to take lunch at that point, we will do so and

then reconvene after lunch and continue with the work

if that is necessary. That is the general plan.

Questions and comments at this point about

the agenda?

(No response.)

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: I would like to ask

your consideration. In the previous workshops and

today, I would ask your consideration in helping to

adhere to these norms. I am going to ask that you

speak one at a time.

Please say your name for the record. As

you can see, there are microphones everywhere. I am

going to ask anybody that is not seated at the table

immediately that wishes to make a comment to please

come to that microphone there and speak.

Please listen as an ally. The quality of

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

8 

1 our experience has been that we have done this in less 

2 time. And so we are thinking that probably we will 

3 get done today sometime mid-day. 

4 You can see it lists in the agenda 

5 discussion of issues from 10: 45 to 1: 00, other issues, 

6 and next steps. And then it says, 1:00 p.m. lunch, if 

7 needed. So we intend to largely press on with the 

8 work at hand, go until 1:00, see where we stand. If 

9 we need to take lunch at that point, we will do so and 

10 then reconvene after lunch and continue with the work 

11 if that is necessary. That is the general plan. 

12 Questions and comments at this point about 

13 the agenda? 

14 (No response.) 

15 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: I would like to ask 

16 your consideration. In the previous workshops and 

17 today, I would ask your consideration in helping to 

18 adhere to these norms. I am going to ask that you 

19 speak one at a time. 

20 Please say your name for the record. As 

21 you can see, there are microphones everywhere. I am 

22 going to ask anybody that is not seated at the table 

23 immediately that wishes to make a comment to please 

24 come to that microphone there and speak. 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

Please listen as an ally. The quality of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

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

the discussion hinges entirely on the quality of the

listening. I'm going to ask that you keep the focus

here.

Please turn off your cell phones. If you

need to take a cell phone call, I will understand that

you have to take it out of the room. If you need to

have a side bar conversation that is more than about

20 seconds, I will also understand if you take that

out of the room.

I am going to be cuing people to speak.

That means I will be literally recognizing people and

individuals by name and pointing to them as well for

those of you I don't know. I also want to encourage

follow-on comments. We want to keep this as

interactive as possible and still have some amount of

form in the discussion.

Finally, there are a few housekeeping

items. For those of you who haven't been here before,

there are restrooms at both ends of the hall. Please

make sure you wear your badge or identification

materials as you leave this room. They will stop you

if you don't wear something. As we get to the coffee

break, I will describe the other amenities.

Anything else we need to cover at this

point at the outset? Michael?

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

9 

1 the discussion hinges entirely on the quality of the 

2 listening. I'm going to ask that you keep the focus 

3 here. 

4 Please turn off your cell phones. If you 

5 need to take a cell phone call, I will understand that 

6 you have to take it out of the room. If you need to 

7 have a side bar conversation that is more than about 

8 20 seconds, I will also understand if you take that 

9 out of the room. 

10 I am going to be cuing people to speak. 

11 That means I will be literally recognizing people and 

12 individuals by name and pointing to them as well for 

13 those of you I don't know. I also want to encourage 

14 follow-on comments. We want to keep this as 

15 interactive as possible and still have some amount of 

16 form in the discussion. 

17 Finally, there are a few housekeeping 

18 items. For those of you who haven't been here before, 

19 there are restrooms at both ends of the hall. Please 

20 make sure you wear your badge or identification 

21 materials as you leave this room. They will stop you 

22 if you don't wear something. As we get to the coffee 

23 break, I will describe the other amenities. 

24 Anything else we need to cover at this 

25 point at the outset? Michael? 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10

MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe. Question,

Doug, as far as we may have people on the phone. If

they want to chime in, how will they do that?

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Let's ask if there

is anybody there now. Is anybody on the phone?

(No response.)

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Not yet. Typically

when people join us on the phone, they will say

something to get our attention. And then typically if

you hit -- is it the "start" button or is it the pound

button that will make a beep? Pound. Both. So both

of them work. We will ask them to hit the pound

button to cue us that they wish to make a comment.

Yes, please?

PARTICIPANT: One question. Will the

attendee list for this workshop be circulated?

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Right now?

PARTICIPANT: Yes.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Today or --

PARTICIPANT: Subsequently.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Today.

PARTICIPANT: Thank you.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Presently we will

just start by having everyone introduce him or

herself. Please start by saying your name and

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

10 

1 MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe. Question, 

2 Doug, as far as we may have people on the phone. If 

3 they want to chime in, how will they do that? 

4 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Let's ask if there 

5 is anybody there now. Is anybody on the phone? 

6 (No response.) 

7 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Not yet. Typically 

8 when people join us on the phone, they will say 

9 something to get our attention. And then typically if 

10 you hit -- is it the "start" button or is it the pound 

11 button that will make a beep? Pound. Both. So both 

12 of them work. We will ask them to hit the pound 

13 button to cue us that they wish to make a comment. 

14 Yes, please? 

15 PARTICIPANT: One question. Will the 

16 attendee list for this workshop be circulated? 

17 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Right now? 

18 PARTICIPANT: Yes. 

19 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Today or --

20 PARTICIPANT: Subsequently. 

21 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Today. 

22 PARTICIPANT: Thank you. 

23 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Presently we will 

24 just start by having everyone introduce him or 

25 herself. 

(202) 234-4433 

Please start by saying your name and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
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

organizational affiliation.

This may not all be on the record, all of

these introductions. However, the rest of the meeting

will be on the record. I want to start with you,

Katherine.

MS. DELVES: Katherine Delves from Natural

Resources of Canada.

MR. WETHJE: Larry Wethje with the

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers.

MR. GRAY: Ed Gray with the National

Electrical Manufacturers Association.

MR. DELAQUILA: Dave Delaquila, Gas

Appliance Manufacturers Association.

MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane with the Air

Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute.

MS. MILLER: Deborah Miller, ARI.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, Edison

Electric Institute.

MR. WILLIAMS: Ted Williams, American Gas

Association.

MR. ECKMAN: Tom Eckman, Northwest Power

and Conservation Council.

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens, Oregon

Department of Energy.

(202) 234-4433

MS. KENNEDY: Kit Kennedy, NRDC.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

11 

1 organizational affiliation. 

2 This may not all be on the record, all of 

3 these introductions. However, the rest of the meeting 

4 will be on the record. I want to start with you, 

5 Katherine. 

6 MS. DELVES: Katherine Delves from Natural 

7 Resources of Canada. 

8 MR. WETHJE: Larry Wethje with the 

9 Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. 

10 MR. GRAY: Ed Gray with the National 

11 Electrical Manufacturers Association. 

12 MR. DELAQUILA: Dave Delaquila, Gas 

13 Appliance Manufacturers Association. 

14 MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane with the Air 

15 Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute. 

16 MS. MILLER: Deborah Miller, ARI. 

17 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, Edison 

18 Electric Institute. 

19 MR. WILLIAMS: Ted Williams, American Gas 

20 Association. 

21 MR. ECKMAN: Tom Eckman, Northwest Power 

22 and Conservation Council. 

23 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens, Oregon 

24 Department of Energy. 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

MS. KENNEDY: Kit Kennedy, NRDC. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12

MR. MISURIELLO: Harry Misuriello,

Alliance to Save Energy.

MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs, American Council

for an Energy Efficient Economy.

MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel, ACEEE.

MR. DELASKI: Andrew Delaski, Appliance

Standards Awareness Project.

MR. BRUNDAGE: Don Brundage, Southern

Company.

Energy.

MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe, Department of

MR. BERRINGER: Bryan Berringer,

Department of Energy.

MS. TWIGG: Barbara Twigg, Department of

Energy.

MS. PINTO: Francine Pinto, Office of

General Counsel.

MR. DePRIEST: And Tom DePriest, Office of

General Counsel, Department of Energy.

MR. CALABRESE: David Calabrese,

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers.

MR. JOHNSON: Sam Johnson, Department of

Energy.

MR. HOOVER: Fred Hoover, National

Association of Safe Energy Officials.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

12 

1 MR. MISURIELLO: Harry Misuriello, 

2 Alliance to Save Energy. 

3 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs, American Council 

4 for an Energy Efficient Economy. 

5 MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel, ACEEE. 

6 MR. DELASKI: Andrew Delaski, Appliance 

7 Standards Awareness Project. 

8 MR . BRUNDAGE: Don Brundage, Southern 

9 Company. 

10 MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe, Department of 

11 Energy. 

12 MR. BERRINGER: Bryan Berringer, 

13 Department of Energy. 

14 MS. TWIGG: Barbara Twigg, Department of 

15 Energy. 

16 MS. PINTO: Francine Pinto, Office of 

17 General Counsel. 

18 MR. DePRIEST: And Tom DePriest, Office of 

19 General Counsel, Department of Energy. 

20 MR. CALABRESE: David Calabrese, 

21 Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. 

22 MR. JOHNSON: Sam Johnson, Department of 

23 Energy. 

24 MR. HOOVER: Fred Hoover, National 

25 Association of Safe Energy Officials. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
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

MR. HOLT: John Holt, NRECA.

MR. McMAHON: Jim McMahon, Lawrence

Berkeley National Lab.

(Whereupon, further introductions were

made.)

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. Did we

miss anybody? Did I forget to say anything that I

should have said? Lots of things, huh? We'll get to

that at the break.

So let's, then, start. Barbara Twigg is

going to start us off with an overview presentation.

And then we will proceed from there to more specific

questions and comments.

I would ask as Barbara is presenting, if

you have got a clarifying question, please feel free

to ask it on the presentation itself. However, we

want to confine the bulk of the comments to the

section following the presentation. Okay?

MS. TWIGG: Good morning, everyone. I am

going to give you a brief overview presentation on

presenting our draft priorities and telling you a

little bit of the process that we took leading up to

determine them.

The most important purpose of today's

meeting is clearly to listen to your views. We are

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

13 

1 MR. HOLT: John Holt, NRECA. 

2 MR. McMAHON: Jim McMahon, Lawrence 

3 Berkeley National Lab. 

4 (Whereupon, further introductions were 

5 made.) 

6 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. Did we 

7 miss anybody? Did I forget to say anything that I 

8 should have said? Lots of things, huh? We'll get to 

9 that at the break. 

10 So let's, then, start. Barbara Twigg is 

11 going to start us off with an overview presentation. 

12 And then we will proceed from there to more specific 

13 questions and comments. 

14 I would ask as Barbara is presenting, if 

15 you have got a clarifying question, please feel free 

16 to ask it on the presentation itself. However, we 

17 want to confine the bulk of the comments to the 

18 section following the presentation. Okay? 

19 MS. TWIGG: Good morning, everyone. I am 

20 going to give you a brief overview presentation on 

21 presenting our draft priorities and telling you a 

22 little bit of the process that we took leading up to 

23 determine them. 

24 

25 

The most important purpose of today's 

meeting is clearly to listen to your views. We are 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14

very appreciative that you have come to Washington.

We certainly always try to provide interesting

historic events for this priority-setting meeting.

You remember back when many of you were here on

September 11th, 2001. And this time, of course, we

have the major funeral.

If you have time to stay through this

evening or tomorrow, it is an interesting opportunity

to go down to the Capitol and view the President's

casket in the Rotunda. I can't imagine how long a

line there might be, but it certainly is a unique

opportunity.

This shows you the priority schedule that

we are following this year. On April 30th, we put all

of the supporting materials on the Web after we

published our Federal Register notice and sent out an

e-mail to all of the stakeholders on the list that we

had notifying everyone that we had put the materials

on the Web. So if you did not receive that, please be

sure that you sign in at our desk. And we'll add you

to our list for next year when we brief our process.

I will call your attention to the July 9th

deadline after this meeting. You will have another

month to submit written comments to the Department of

Energy.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

14 

1 very appreciative that you have come to Washington. 

2 We certainly always try to provide interesting 

3 historic events for this priority-setting meeting. 

4 You remember back when many of you were here on 

5 September 11th, 2001. And this time, of course, we 

6 have the major funeral. 

7 If you have time to stay through this 

8 evening or tomorrow, it is an interesting opportunity 

9 to go down to the Capitol and view the President's 

10 casket in the Rotunda. I can't imagine how long a 

11 line there might be, but it certainly is a unique 

12 opportunity. 

13 This shows you the priority schedule that 

14 we are following this year. On April 30th, we put all 

15 of the supporting materials on the Web after we 

16 published our Federal Register notice and sent out an 

17 e-mail to all of the stakeholders on the list that we 

18 had notifying everyone that we had put the materials 

19 on the Web. So if you did not receive that, please be 

20 sure that you sign in at our desk. And we'll add you 

21 to our list for next year when we brief our process. 

22 I will call your attention to the July 9th 

23 deadline after this meeting. You will have another 

24 month to submit written comments to the Department of 

25 Energy. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15

This just gives a snapshot of the

legislative history, the draft compliance standards

program. It started as early as 1975. And we added

industrial and commercial products in 1992 with EPCA.

I know a lot of you here have been

involved for a long time with this program. I don't

if per chance there is anyone here who has been

involved from the very beginning. I know that there

is at least one person in our office who has been here

since the very beginning. And we are very

appreciative of his institutional memory.

In addition to our legislation, there have

been a couple of other key policy events that have

shaped our program. Many of you in this room I'm sure

have helped work on the process improvement rule back

in '96. It's hard to believe it has been eight years

since that already. That was designed to establish

guidelines to make our process more open to

stakeholders. Having meetings like this is certainly

part of the suggestions that came out of that process.

In 2001, we also had the President issue

the national energy policy development guideline.

That recommended that we look for additional products

that we could cover, in addition to the ones that were

specified in our authorizing legislation.

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

15 

1 This just gives a snapshot of the 

2 legislative history, the draft compliance standards 

3 program. It started as early as 1975. And we added 

4 industrial and commercial products in 1992 with EPCA. 

5 I know a lot of you here have been 

6 involved for a long time with this program. I don't 

7 if per chance there is anyone here who has been 

8 involved from the very beginning. I know that there 

9 is at least one person in our office who has been here 

10 since the very beginning. And we are very 

11 appreciative of his institutional memory. 

12 In addition to our legislation, there have 

13 been a couple of other key policy events that have 

14 shaped our program. Many of you in this room I'm sure 

15 have helped work on the process improvement rule back 

16 in '96. It's hard to believe it has been eight years 

17 since that already. That was designed to establish 

18 guidelines to make our process more open to 

19 stakeholders. Having meetings like this is certainly 

20 part of the suggestions that came out of that process. 

21 In 2001, we also had the President issue 

22 the national energy policy development guideline. 

23 That recommended that we look for additional products 

24 that we could cover, in addition to the ones that were 

25 specified in our authorizing legislation. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
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

The process improvement rule set out all

of these factors that we should consider in

priority-setting. First and foremost at the top of

the list is potential energy savings. That is what

has received the most analysis in our process. In

addition, we have potential economic benefits,

environmental, and security benefits, and the

applicable deadlines for rulemakings, incremental DOE

resources required to complete the rulemaking process.

That means budget, staffing restraints.

Other regulations actions affecting

products. We're aware of cumulative burden on any one

particular industry. Stakeholder recommendations.

That's where shoppers keep part of that process.

Evidence of energy efficiency gains in the market

absent new or revised standards, status of required

changes to the test procedures. And it also gives us

the opportunity to consider other relevant factors.

A couple of those might e fuel neutrality, peak

electricity demand, and impact on small business.

I'm going to tell you just a little bit

about what we have done in the process so far. There

have been three pre-steps: preparation, analysis, and

the results and documentation.

We started shortly after we completed 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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

16 

1 The process improvement rule set out all 

2 of these factors that we should consider in 

3 priority-setting. First and foremost at the top of 

4 the list is potential energy savings. That is what 

5 has received the most analysis in our process. In 

6 addition, we have potential economic benefits, 

7 environmental, and security benefits, and the 

8 applicable deadlines for rulemakings, incremental DOE 

9 resources required to complete the rulemaking process. 

10 That means budget, staffing restraints. 

11 Other regulations actions affecting 

12 products. We're aware of cumulative burden on anyone 

13 particular industry. Stakeholder recommendations. 

14 That's where shoppers keep part of that process. 

15 Evidence of energy efficiency gains in the market 

16 absent new or revised standards, status of required 

17 changes to the test procedures. And it also gives us 

18 the opportunity to consider other relevant factors. 

19 A couple of those might be fuel neutrality, peak 

20 electricity demand, and impact on small business. 

21 I'm going to tell you just a little bit 

22 about what we have done in the process so far. There 

23 have been three pre-steps: preparation, analysis, and 

24 the results and documentation. 

25 We started shortly after we completed the 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

17

2004 priority report last October. The first thing we

needed to do was identify what products needed to be

evaluated and then which of those products were in

need of analytical updating.

We had not done a new TSD when we did last

year's priority-setting. So we wanted to take a more

comprehensive approach this year. So we completed a

completely new TSD with detailed analysis on 18

products. And we had three appendices that we saw on

the Web.

We used these principles for estimating

the energy savings. We used the best available

information with existing studies wherever possible.

That might mean government studies, be they federal,

state, or local studies by trade associations, studies

by the energy efficiency advocates.

We tried to simply the market dynamics

assuming no change in the number of units in use. We

assume that replacements occur at a constant rate over

the average lifetime of product.

You might notice that this is a less

rigorous analytical process than what is used in the

rulemaking. We are looking for just ballpark

estimates here and not going into the level of detail

and rigor that we would use in a rulemaking. For

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

17 

1 2004 priority report last October. The first thing we 

2 needed to do was identify what products needed to be 

3 evaluated and then which of those products were in 

4 need of analytical updating. 

5 We had not done a new TSD when we did last 

6 year's priority-setting. So we wanted to take a more 

7 comprehensive approach this year. So we completed a 

8 completely new TSD with detailed analysis on 18 

9 products. And we had three appendices that we saw on 

10 the Web. 

11 We used these principles for estimating 

12 the energy savings. We used the best available 

13 information with existing studies wherever possible. 

14 That might mean government studies, be they federal, 

15 state, or local studies by trade associations, studies 

16 by the energy efficiency advocates. 

17 We tried to simply the market dynamics 

18 assuming no change in the number of units in use. We 

19 assume that replacements occur at a constant rate over 

20 the average lifetime of product. 

21 You might notice that this is a less 

22 rigorous analytical process than what is used in the 

23 rulemaking. We are looking for just ballpark 

24 estimates here and not going into the level of detail 

25 and rigor that we would use in a rulemaking. For 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18

instance, if we were doing something like this in the

formal standards rulemaking, the shipment for pass

would be different for each individual year. But here

we keep it simplified and held constant.

The last item shows the time frame that we

have used for energy savings for the new analyses that

we performed this year saying that in 2010 and in

2035. You will see in some of the data sheets that

were not revised that they have slightly different

energy savings time frames.

We evaluated four categories of products:

first and foremost, the existing covered products that

the legislation directs us to cover; second of all,

products in the coverage process. I will tell you

more about that in a minute. Those are new products

that we are considering for standards rulemaking.

Then there are products in potential federal

legislation should that ever be passed. And then we

have the appendix C products that are not covered

products. These are things that we looked at a couple

of years ago, in addition to the program, but, for

various reasons, inadequate potential energy savings,

we elected not to add them to our program.

I mentioned the coverage process. This

gives you a snapshot of the complex coverage process.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

18 

1 instance t if we were doing something like this in the 

2 formal standards rulemaking t the shipment for pass 

3 would be different for each individual year. But here 

4 we keep it simplified and held constant. 

5 The last item shows the time frame that we 

6 have used for energy savings for the new analyses that 

7 we performed this year saying that in 2010 and in 

8 2035. You will see in some of the data sheets that 

9 were not revised that they have slightly different 

10 energy savings time frames. 

11 We evaluated four categories of products: 

12 first and foremost t the existing covered products that 

13 the legislation directs us to cover; second of alIt 

14 products in the coverage process. I will tell you 

15 more about that in a minute. Those are new products 

16 that we are considering for standards rulemaking. 

17 Then there are products in potential federal 

18 legislation should that ever be passed. And then we 

19 have the appendix C products that are not covered 

20 products. These are things that we looked at a couple 

21 of years ago t in addition to the programt butt for 

22 various reasons t inadequate potential energy savingst 

23 we elected not to add them to our program. 

24 I mentioned the coverage process. This 

25 gives you a snapshot of the complex coverage process. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19

This is a rulemaking process that enables the

department to add new products beyond those specified

in our authorizing legislation for the appliance

standards program.

Following this route, we actually start

from scratch with the definitions. And since coverage

depends on products meeting thresholds of energy use

based on households, the department also has to define

literally what a household is. We are working on a

notice right now for that.

And we also would need if we are going to

do commercial products a comparable analog for those

commercial products. It takes a lot longer than

having legislation simply name a product and say, you

know, "Do standards and test procedures for this."

The next slide shows these are the

products that are currently in our coverage process.

We have looked at a lot of products through the

national energy policy group suggestions. And these

were the ones that we selected to start covering:

beverage merchandisers and beverage vending machines;

ceiling fans; the commercial reach-in refrigerators,

freezers, and refrigerator-freezers; the ER/BR-shaped

reflector lamps; and torchieres.

Should an energy bill ever ultimately 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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

19 

1 This is a rulemaking process that enables the 

2 department to add new products beyond those specified 

3 in our authorizing legislation for the appliance 

4 standards program. 

5 Following this route, we actually start 

6 from scratch with the definitions. And since coverage 

7 depends on products meeting thresholds of energy use 

8 based on households, the department also has to define 

9 literally what a household is. We are working on a 

10 notice right now for that. 

11 And we also would need if we are going to 

12 do commercial products a comparable analog for those 

13 commercial products. It takes a lot longer than 

14 having legislation simply name a product and say, you 

15 know, "Do standards and test procedures for this." 

16 The next slide shows these are the 

17 products that are currently in our coverage process. 

18 We have looked at a lot of products through the 

19 national energy policy group suggestions. And these 

20 were the ones that we selected to start covering: 

21 beverage merchandisers and beverage vending machines; 

22 ceiling fans; the commercial reach-in refrigerators, 

23 freezers, and refrigerator-freezers; the ER/BR-shaped 

24 reflector lamps; and torchieres. 

25 Should an energy bill ever ultimately be 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20

passed, they had mentioned covering these nine

products. The first four are already in our coverage

process. So we started work on those. The next five

are not in our coverage process. So we would only be

working on those if an energy bill would finally be

passed and direct us to do so.

If an energy bill would be passed, we

could stop all of the preliminary work on the coverage

process on those top four products and just start to

do a conventional standards rulemaking.

Before we get to the presentation again of

our draft priorities, I wanted to just review what the

department considers as our interpretations of the

definitions for the three priority levels: high,

medium, low. For high, it means we are actively

carrying out analysis for the intended purpose of

issuing rules of determinations. Medium means we are

conducting activities in support of a potential

rulemaking. We may be gathering information. Low we

are taking no action whatsoever in this fiscal year.

Often that is because we have recently completed a

rulemaking on that particular product.

Now we will start again with showing the

priorities that many of you have already looked at in

detail. The way we have arranged them, on the left we

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

20 

1 passed, they had mentioned covering these nine 

2 products. The first four are already in our coverage 

3 process. So we started work on those. The next five 

4 are not in our coverage process. So we would only be 

5 working on those if an energy bill would finally be 

6 passed and direct us to do so. 

7 If an energy bill would be passed, we 

8 could stop all of the preliminary work on the coverage 

9 process on those top four products and just start to 

10 do a conventional standards rulemaking. 

11 Before we get to the presentation again of 

12 our draft priori ties, I wanted to just review what the 

13 department considers as our interpretations of the 

14 definitions for the three priority levels: high, 

15 medium, low. For high, it means we are actively 

16 carrying out analysis for the intended purpose of 

17 issuing rules of determinations. Medium means we are 

18 conducting activities in support of a potential 

19 rulemaking. We may be gathering information. Low we 

20 are taking no action whatsoever in this fiscal year. 

21 Often that is because we have recently completed a 

22 rulemaking on that particular product. 

23 Now we will start again with showing the 

24 priorities that many of you have already looked at in 

25 detail. The way we have arranged them, on the left we 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21

show the priorities of the products from last year, on

the right the proposed priorities for this year.

First, you will note the department is

proposing we are maintaining high priority for all of

these important products on the left. The first

change you see is the low priority for the central air

conditioner and heat pump single duct priority

philosophy.

I am going to read my sentence exactly on

this because it is somewhat complicated. Those of you

who have followed the court decision are intimately

familiar with it, but if not, it's kind of tricky the

way the rulemakings are interacting at this point.

They have been reduced to low priority for

standards because those products were covered in the

January 22nd, 2001 final rule, which was recently

reinstated by the court decision which overturned the

2002 final rule. The U.S. Court of Appeals decision

in January of this year reestablished the 13 standard,

which includes the single duct priority philosophy

products. So since they are already included in a

rulemaking on the books, they can return again to low

priority.

Thirdly, note that the single package

vertical units were not prioritized at all in 2004,

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

21 

1 show the priori ties of the products from last year, on 

2 the right the proposed priorities for this year. 

3 First, you will note the department is 

4 proposing we are maintaining high priority for all of 

5 these important products on the left. The first 

6 change you see is the low priority for the central air 

7 conditioner and heat pump single duct priority 

8 philosophy. 

9 I am going to read my sentence exactly on 

10 this because it is somewhat complicated. Those of you 

11 who have followed the court decision are intimately 

12 familiar with it, but if not, it's kind of tricky the 

13 way the rulemakings are interacting at this point. 

14 They have been reduced to low priori ty for 

15 standards because those products were covered in the 

16 January 22nd, 2001 final rule, which was recently 

17 reinstated by the court decision which overturned the 

18 2002 final rule. The U.S. Court of Appeals decision 

19 in January of this year reestablished the 13 standard, 

20 which includes the single duct priority philosophy 

21 products. So since they are already included in a 

22 rulemaking on the books, they can return again to low 

23 priority. 

24 Thirdly, note that the single package 

25 vertical units were not prioritized at all in 2004, 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

22

but now they have been set to high priority. DOE has

been working on the definitions of industry. There

were some issues that needed resolving there.

And since we have gone to resolving them,

those products can also be considered as part of the

ASHRAE products rulemaking.

Finally, note that the department proposed

a high priority be maintained for the five products in

the ASHRAE products rulemaking. No standards

rulemaking analysis has been conducted, published, or

completed to date. It is possible that the eventual

outcome could be to adopt the ASHRAE 90.1 1999

efficiency levels or possibly even more stringent

levels.

Next slide. No change on this slide. We

have two products in the determination process by

which we are looking to determine whether or not the

Department of Energy should go forward with the

rulemaking. The five bottom products are the ones in

the coverage process that we maintain high priority

for.

Next slide. My favorite product since I

worked on the test procedure last year. This is

maintaining at medium priority. We did publish a new

test procedure in the fall of last year, and we 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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

22 

1 but now they have been set to high priority. DOE has 

2 been working on the definitions of industry. There 

3 were some issues that needed resolving there. 

4 And since we have gone to resolving them/ 

5 those products can also be considered as part of the 

6 ASHRAE products rulemaking. 

7 Finally / note that the department proposed 

8 a high priority be maintained for the five products in 

9 the ASHRAE products rulemaking. No standards 

10 rulemaking analysis has been conducted/ published/ or 

11 completed to date. It is possible that the eventual 

12 outcome could be to adopt the ASHRAE 90.1 1999 

13 efficiency levels or possibly even more stringent 

14 levels. 

15 Next slide. No change on this slide. We 

16 have two products in the determination process by 

17 which we are looking to determine whether or not the 

18 Department of Energy should go forward with the 

19 rulemaking. The five bottom products are the ones in 

20 the coverage process that we maintain high priority 

21 for. 

22 Next slide. My favorite product since I 

23 worked on the test procedure last year. This is 

24 maintaining at medium priority. We did publish a new 

25 test procedure in the fall of last year/ and we are 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23

waiting for the manufacturer to test that new test

procedure and see what that data looks like. So they

are a medium priority.

Moving on to test procedures, you see we

maintain high priority for all of the primary test

procedures there. One change, clothes washers. We

again published a test procedure last fall, which I

worked on, too. We resolved some spin feed and test

cloth issues. So that can go back to low priority, at

least for the time being.

The five products in the coverage process

were not listed at all in last year's priority. So we

decided since the products were a high priority for

standards, we would also make the test procedures high

priority. This is something we are particularly

interested in having your input on because in the

coverage process and how long it is going to take and

where we are in it, we are wondering if perhaps these

test procedures should be medium, rather than high.

So we would appreciate your thoughts regarding that

issue.

Here is another set of products we are

especially interested in your views, these medium

priority test procedures. For both of these, the

department considered a change to low priority this

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

23 

1 waiting for the manufacturer to test that new test 

2 procedure and see what that data looks like. So they 

3 are a medium priority. 

4 Moving on to test procedures I you see we 

5 maintain high priority for all of the primary test 

6 procedures there. One change I clothes washers. We 

7 again published a test procedure last fall l which I 

8 worked on l too. We resolved some spin feed and test 

9 cloth issues. So that can go back to low priority I at 

10 least for the time being. 

11 The five products in the coverage process 

12 were not listed at all in last yearls priority. So we 

13 decided since the products were a high priority for 

14 standards I we would also make the test procedures high 

15 priority. This is something we are particularly 

16 interested in having your input on because in the 

17 coverage process and how long it is going to take and 

18 where we are in it l we are wondering if perhaps these 

19 test procedures should be mediuml rather than high. 

20 So we would appreciate your thoughts regarding that 

21 issue. 

22 Here is another set of products we are 

23 especially interested in your views I these medium 

24 priori ty test procedures. For both of these I the 

25 department considered a change to low priority this 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24

year because the changes that are being considered for

these test procedures could potentially affect the

standard levels for those products.

And, as most of you know, if you change a

test procedure and that changes the energy consumption

figures for products and possibly affects the

compliance with the standard, we would then need to

change the standard itself. So we are considering

perhaps changing those to low.

During the past year, we have already had

some other issues raised by stakeholders. I am going

to run through those with you. First of all is the

commercial, the residential style commercial clothes

washers. We received requests to consider covering

these under the standards for the residential clothes

washers because those machines were very similar to

the residential machines. We studied this extensively

and ended up concluding that the department did not

have the authority to cover those machines under our

existing legislation.

The same situation held for the large

unitary air conditioners. We concluded that we did

not have authority to cover those.

The next one is late breaking news. Just

last week the Secretary of Energy received a petition

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

24 

1 year because the changes that are being considered for 

2 these test procedures could potentially affect the 

3 standard levels for those products. 

4 And, as most of you know, if you change a 

5 test procedure and that changes the energy consumption 

6 figures for products and possibly affects the 

7 compliance with the standard, we would then need to 

8 change the standard itself. So we are considering 

9 perhaps changing those to low. 

10 During the past year, we have already had 

11 some other issues raised by stakeholders. I am going 

12 to run through those with you. First of all is the 

13 commercial, the residential style commercial clothes 

14 washers. We received requests to consider covering 

15 these under the standards for the residential clothes 

16 washers because those machines were very similar to 

17 the residential machines. We studied this extensively 

18 and ended up concluding that the department did not 

19 have the authority to cover those machines under our 

20 existing legislation. 

21 The same situation held for the large 

22 unitary air conditioners. We concluded that we did 

23 not have authority to cover those. 

24 The next one is late breaking news. Just 

25 last week the Secretary of Energy received a petition 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
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

requesting that the department look at the

refrigerator rulemaking. This is something that we

had ranked as low priority because we had a new

standard that took effect in 2001. So it was not time

again to look at refrigerators, but the petition will

certainly cause us to reevaluate the priority of that

product. And we are very interested in having your

views on that.

We printed our copies of the whole

petition that was submitted to the Secretary. And

those are in your packet to review during this meeting

or afterwards if you wish to submit written comments.

The last one is expediting the rulemaking

for commercial refrigeration equipment. Two of those

products we already have in our coverage process.

The next slide shows the whole set of

products, but the ones on which we are taking no

action we didn't feel it was appropriate to cover at

this time.

Next slide. Again, for your record, this

shows all of the materials on the Web site, where they

are, our three appendices. I should add that appendix

B also includes the data sheets on the two

determinations, but we didn't put that in the title

because it would have been an even longer title for

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

25 

1 requesting that the department look at the 

2 refrigerator rulemaking. This is something that we 

3 had ranked as low priority because we had a new 

4 standard that took effect in 2001. So it was not time 

5 again to look at refrigerators, but the petition will 

6 certainly cause us to reevaluate the priority of that 

7 product. And we are very interested in having your 

8 views on that. 

9 We printed our copies of the whole 

10 petition that was submitted to the Secretary. And 

11 those are in your packet to review during this meeting 

12 or afterwards if you wish to submit written comments. 

13 The last one is expediting the rulemaking 

14 for commercial refrigeration equipment. Two of those 

15 products we already have in our coverage process. 

16 The next slide shows the whole set of 

17 products, but the ones on which we are taking no 

18 action we didn't feel it was appropriate to cover at 

19 this time. 

20 Next slide. Again, for your record, this 

21 shows all of the materials on the Web site, where they 

22 are, our three appendices. I should add that appendix 

23 B also includes the data sheets on the two 

24 determinations, but we didn't put that in the title 

25 because it would have been an even longer title for 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
26

1 that appendix B.

2 I did hear that at least one person had

3 trouble downloading the materials from the Web. So we

4 made up a couple of a few CDs that I have here that

5 you could take materials with you if per chance you

6 think your computers would balk at downloading these

7 fairly lengthy documents.

8 Next. Again, our comment period concludes

9 on the 9th. We love electronic comments if you can

10 include your electronic signature in that. If you

11 can't, we request that you authenticate your comments

12 by sending in signed hard copies through the mail.

13 So that gives you an overview for

14 discussion. And I turn it back over to Doug to hear

15 your thoughts. Thank you.

16 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes, Andrew?

17 MR. DELASKI: Is now an appropriate time

18 to ask any clarifying questions on what has been

19 presented?

20 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes. I would like

21 to take clarifying questions first and then go rather

22 systematically into the slides kind of, especially

23 product by product, and discuss them. Okay. So

24 pl ease, now, f or --

25 MR. DELASKI: I have a couple of them.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

26 

1 that appendix B. 

2 I did hear that at least one person had 

3 trouble downloading the materials from the Web. So we 

4 made up a couple of a few CDs that I have here that 

5 you could take materials with you if per chance you 

6 think your computers would balk at downloading these 

7 fairly lengthy documents. 

8 Next. Again, our comment period concludes 

9 on the 9th. We love electronic comments if you can 

10 include your electronic signature in that. If you 

11 can't, we request that you authenticate your comments 

12 by sending in signed hard copies through the mail. 

13 So that gives you an overview for 

14 discussion. And I turn it back over to Doug to hear 

15 your thoughts. Thank you. 

16 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes, Andrew? 

17 MR. DELASKI: Is now an appropriate time 

18 to ask any clarifying questions on what has been 

19 presented? 

20 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes. I would like 

21 to take clarifying questions first and then go rather 

22 systematically into the slides kind of, especially 

23 product by product, and discuss them. Okay. So 

24 please, now, for --

25 MR. DELASKI: I have a couple of them. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: And everybody

please say your name for the record, please.

MR. DELASKI: Andrew Delaski, Appliance

Standards Awareness Project.

Two questions on the presentation, overall

questions that are clarifying in nature. One is, can

the department spend a little bit more time describing

what you mean by high priority, medium priority, and

low priority?

You have asked us for input on whether the

test procedures should be medium priority or high

priority and other standards should be medium priority

versus high priority. I'm a bit unclear what it means

to be a high priority for the department and what it

means to be a medium priority at the department.

MR. BERRINGER: Bryan Berringer,

Department of Energy.

The way we have really applied the

standard was its original purpose. Again, the ones

that we are actively doing analysis on are high

priorities. Again, medium priorities, one of the

things is that we do background information. They

would be like the next ones in the cue.

So, I mean, we are actively doing analysis

on all of our high priority rulemakings. So I am not

NEAP 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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

27 

1 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: And everybody 

2 please say your name for the record t please. 

3 MR. DELASKI: Andrew Delaski t Appliance 

4 standards Awareness Project. 

5 Two questions on the presentationt overall 

6 questions that are clarifying in nature. One iS t can 

7 the department spend a little bit more time describing 

8 what you mean by high prioritYt medium prioritYt and 

9 low priority? 

10 You have asked us for input on whether the 

11 test procedures should be medium priority or high 

12 priority and other standards should be medium priority 

13 versus high priority. Itm a bit unclear what it means 

14 to be a high priority for the department and what it 

15 means to be a medium priority at the department. 

16 MR. BERRINGER: Bryan Berringert 

17 Department of Energy. 

18 The way we have really applied the 

19 standard was its original purpose. Again t the ones 

20 that we are actively doing analysis on are high 

21 priorities. Again t medium priori ties t one of the 

22 things is that we do background information. They 

23 would be like the next ones in the cue. 

24 So t I meant we are actively doing analysis 

25 on all of our high priority rulemakings. So I am not 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

sure if you have specific questions on priority. Low

priority, again, we said we're not doing anything at

all. Either we have done a recent rulemaking or we

have not. It's just not -- there's no work done

because of resources that are available.

Do you have specific --

MR. DELASKI: On the ASHRAE products that

you are proposing as high priorities, I believe

Barbara said that you have done no analysis on those.

MR. BERRINGER: We have done some

analysis. On those, we're looking at again on ASHRAE

whether we should pursue a higher standard or if we

should just adopt ASHRAE. Those are two options.

So we have done some background analysis.

We have not done the extent of the analysis that we

are doing with the three major rulemakings: the

transformers, furnaces and boilers, and commercial air

conditioning. So we are doing impact analysis on them

but not to the extent of manufacturing impact and all

of that other analysis.

MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel.

Just to clarify, I know you did some

analysis back in 2000-2001. I thought Barbara say you

hadn't done any analysis in the past year. Are you

saying that was a misunderstanding?

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

28 

1 sure if you have specific questions on priority. Low 

2 priority, again, we said we're not doing anything at 

3 all. Either we have done a recent rulemaking or we 

4 have not. It's just not there's no work done 

5 because of resources that are available. 

6 Do you have specific --

7 MR. DELASKI: On the ASHRAE products that 

8 you are proposing as high priorities, I believe 

9 Barbara said that you have done no analysis on those. 

10 MR. BERRINGER: We have done some 

11 analysis. On those, we're looking at again on ASHRAE 

12 whether we should pursue a higher standard or if we 

13 should just adopt ASHRAE. Those are two options. 

14 So we have done some background analysis. 

15 We have not done the extent of the analysis that we 

16 are doing with the three maj or rulemakings: the 

17 transformers, furnaces and boilers, and commercial air 

18 conditioning. So we are doing impact analysis on them 

19 but not to the extent of manufacturing impact and all 

20 of that other analysis. 

21 MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel. 

22 Just to clarify, I know you did some 

23 analysis back in 2000-2001. I thought Barbara say you 

24 hadn't done any analysis in the past year. Are you 

25 saying that was a misunderstanding? 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
29

1 MR. BERRINGER : Well , I think she said --

2 MS. TWIGG: We haven't completed or

3 published any, no.

4 MR. NADEL: Okay.

5 MR. BERRINGER : We have not made any. It

6 has all been internal work that has been done. We

7 have been working, actually , with ASHRAE on some of

8 what Barbara said are the definitions on some of those

9 products and the efficiency levels that were

10 addressed.

11 There was some change as far as

12 descriptors . So we are still looking at those issues

13 when we talk about change in thermal efficiency.

14 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN : Let me just

15 inquire . Are you going to be able to hear the

16 discussion ? You can't hear it. Maybe , at a minimum,

17 Brenda, we can get the A/V people to turn up the

18 volume a l i tt l e bi t.

19 We are trying to consider other options

20 about whether this room is going to be viable for the

21 remainder of this workshop or not. So we are checking

22 into another room, one, but it would have to be

23 rewired for sound to pick up all of the comments and

24 everything , which is not something that gets done from

25 the staff in 20 minutes . So if we can hang in 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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

29 

1 MR. BERRINGER: Well, I think she said 

2 MS. TWIGG: We haven't completed or 

3 published any, no. 

4 MR. NADEL: Okay. 

5 MR. BERRINGER: We have not made any. It 

6 has all been internal work that has been done. We 

7 have been working, actually, with ASHRAE on some of 

8 what Barbara said are the definitions on some of those 

9 products and the efficiency levels that were 

10 addressed. 

11 There was some change as far as 

12 descriptors. So we are still looking at those issues 

13 when we talk about change in thermal efficiency. 

14 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Let me just 

15 inquire. Are you going to be able to hear the 

16 discussion? You can't hear it. Maybe, at a minimum, 

17 Brenda, we can get the A/V people to turn up the 

18 volume a little bit. 

19 We are trying to consider other options 

20 about whether this room is going to be viable for the 

21 remainder of this workshop or not. So we are checking 

22 into another room, one, but it would have to be 

23 rewired for sound to pick up all of the comments and 

24 everything, which is not something that gets done from 

25 the staff in 20 minutes. So if we can hang in here, 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
30

1

2

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

it would be a lot more convenient.

Also, I think we have sent an emissary or

two to see if we can get them to dampen down the noise

a little bit. And, if necessary, I will go back there

with my baseball bat. In the meantime, I would like

to ask you to speak really loud if you can.

Steve Rosenstock?

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Quick clarifying

question. Is that okay?

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes, please.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Bryan, you talked about

the three products for F.Y. 2004 that seem to be

getting the most analysis: the furnaces, boilers; the

transformers; and I wasn't sure what the third one

was.

conditioner.

MS. TWIGG: Commercial.

MR. BERRINGER: Commercial air

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Commercial? Just for

everybody's notice, is there a timetable for F.Y. 2004

for any products in terms of ANOPRs or any other

things down the pipe that we should be aware of to

help us with the 2005 thoughts?

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Could you hear

Steve since he spoke into the microphone? Could you

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

30 

1 it would be a lot more convenient. 

2 Also, I think we have sent an emissary or 

3 two to see if we can get them to dampen down the noise 

4 a little bit. And, if necessary, I will go back there 

5 with my baseball bat. In the meantime, I would like 

6 to ask you to speak really loud if you can. 

7 Steve Rosenstock? 

8 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Quick clarifying 

9 question. Is that okay? 

10 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes, please. 

11 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Bryan, you talked about 

12 the three products for F. Y. 2004 that seem to be 

13 getting the most analysis: the furnaces, boilers; the 

14 transformers; and I wasn't sure what the third one 

15 was. 

16 MS. TWIGG: Commercial. 

17 MR. BERRINGER: Commercial air 

18 conditioner. 

19 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Commercial? Just for 

20 everybody's notice, is there a timetable for F. Y. 2004 

21 for any products in terms of ANOPRs or any other 

22 things down the pipe that we should be aware of to 

23 help us with the 2005 thoughts? 

24 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Could you hear 

25 Steve since he spoke into the microphone? Could you 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
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

hear him? Yes? Thank you.

Okay. Bryan?

MR. BERRINGER: Bryan Berringer,

Department of Energy.

We're hoping that those three rulemakings

that were just discussed, the transformers, furnaces

and boilers, and commercial air conditioning, will be

coming out soon.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI.

Do you mean the ANOPRs?

MR. BERRINGER: The ANOPRs, correct.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Thank you very much.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes?

MR. DELASKI: A follow-up on my earlier

question about --

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Give your name for

the record.

MR. DELASKI: Andrew Delaski, Appliance

Standards Awareness Project.

When you described what it means to be a

high priority for the office of Energy Efficiency in

the analysis that you do, does that then apply to the

department as a whole? Is there an understanding

within other parts of the department that have to move

these rules what it means to be a high priority 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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

31 

1 hear him? Yes? Thank you. 

2 Okay. Bryan? 

3 MR. BERRINGER: Bryan Berringerl 

4 Department of Energy. 

5 We/re hoping that those three rulemakings 

6 that were just discussed l the transformers I furnaces 

7 and boilersl and commercial air conditioning l will be 

8 coming out soon. 

9 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock l EEl. 

10 Do you mean the ANOPRs? 

11 MR. BERRINGER: The ANOPRs l correct. 

12 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Thank you very much. 

13 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes? 

14 MR. DELASKI: A follow-up on my earlier 

15 question about --

16 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Give your name for 

17 the record. 

18 MR. DELASKI: Andrew Delaski l Appliance 

19 Standards Awareness Project. 

20 When you described what it means to be a 

21 high priority for the Office of Energy Efficiency in 

22 the analysis that you dOl does that then apply to the 

23 department as a whole? I s there an understanding 

24 within other parts of the department that have to move 

25 these rules what it means to be a high priority and 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

how that impacts moving the standard ahead? Is it a

high priority for you, energy efficiency, or is it a

high priority for the Department of Energy?

MR. McCABE: This is Michael McCabe,

Department of Energy.

These are high priorities for the

department.

MR. DELASKI: Thank you.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Additional

clarifying questions that would relate to Barbara's

slide presentation at this point? Yes, please? Your

name for the record.

MR. STEINER: David Steiner with Maytag

Corporation.

I am wondering if, Barbara, someone could

respond to the issue on residential clothes washers,

commercial clothes washers, on page 19. You indicate

that the department has determined that it does not

have the authority to cover these products under

existing legislation. Is there some type of public

notification that explained that so that it was

available to all?

MS. TWIGG: There has not been anything

publicly conveyed. We understand that David Garman

had made some personal calls to the parties who were

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

32 

1 how that impacts moving the standard ahead? Is it a 

2 high priority for your energy efficiencYr or is it a 

3 high priority for the Department of Energy? 

4 MR. McCABE: This is Michael McCabe r 

5 Department of Energy. 

6 These are high priorities for the 

7 department. 

8 MR. DELASKI: Thank you. 

9 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Additional 

10 clarifying questions that would relate to Barbarars 

11 slide presentation at this point? Yes r please? Your 

12 name for the record. 

13 MR. STEINER: David Steiner with May tag 

14 Corporation. 

15 I am wondering ifr Barbara r someone could 

16 respond to the issue on residential clothes washers r 

17 commercial clothes washers r on page 19. You indicate 

18 that the department has determined that it does not 

19 have the authority to cover these products under 

20 existing legislation. Is there some type of public 

21 notification that explained that so that it was 

22 available to all? 

23 MS. TWIGG: There has not been anything 

24 publicly conveyed. We understand that David Garman 

25 had made some personal calls to the parties who were 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

33

most interested in this issue, but we have not put

anything in writing at this point.

MR. McCABE: This is Michael McCabe.

Let me add to that. As far as a notice

that is generally published, there has not been one.

There have been a number of letters that have been

sent in response to inquiries on this which have gone

out stating that. And those we will be happy to make

available.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes, please?

MR. DELAQUILA: Dave Delaquila with GAMA.

I just noticed in the April 27th table

that was published earlier, I guess, around April

27th, I guess, in the table, it shows residential

furnaces and boilers being moved to low priority. But

in the table that you presented, it shows that it is

maintained a high priority. So I am just curious why,

what the change was since April.

MR. NADEL: I believe he is referring to

the fact that last November they were high priority.

It went down to low priority in this interim federal

agenda. There was no public process. And I believe

DOE published the notice in the Federal Register to

change that.

25 11 I'll let Mike or Bryan address that.

(202) 234-4433

NEAP R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

33 

1 most interested in this issue, but we have not put 

2 anything in writing at this point. 

3 MR. McCABE: This is Michael McCabe. 

4 Let me add to that. As far as a notice 

5 that is generally published, there has not been one. 

6 There have been a number of letters that have been 

7 sent in response to inquiries on this which have gone 

8 out stating that. And those we will be happy to make 

9 available. 

10 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes, please? 

11 MR. DELAQUILA: Dave Delaquila with GAMA. 

12 I just noticed in the April 27th table 

13 that was published earlier, I guess, around April 

14 27th, I guess, in the table, it shows residential 

15 furnaces and boilers being moved to low priority. But 

16 in the table that you presented, it shows that it is 

17 maintained a high priority. So I am just curious why, 

18 what the change was since April. 

19 MR. NADEL: I believe he is referring to 

20 the fact that last November they were high priority. 

21 It went down to low priority in this interim federal 

22 agenda. There was no public process. And I believe 

23 DOE published the notice in the Federal Register to 

24 change that. 

25 I'll let Mike or Bryan address that. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: That was Steve

Nadel speaking. Go ahead.

MR. BERRINGER: Yes. Bryan Berringer,

DOE.

Steve is correct. We did at one point

change the residential furnaces and boilers to low on

the regulatory agenda. And then we did do a

correction notice. So we are maintaining the furnaces

and boilers at high priority.

MR. McCABE: This is Michael McCabe.

Just to add to that, in the process

improvement rule, we had described the procedures that

we would be following. And we laid out that we would

be establishing the priorities in the priority setting

and with regard to standards that high priorities

would initiate a rulemaking, that a rulemaking could

result in a final rule that would amend the standards.

But it could be terminated at some point in between.

It is changing the priority from high to

low, as had been done in the regulatory agenda,

inconsistent with the priority-setting rules. And

that was the reason why on April 27th we changed it

back to high priority.

(202) 234-4433

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Please?

MR. DELAQUILA: Dave Delaquila, GAMA.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

34 

1 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: That was Steve 

2 Nadel speaking. Go ahead. 

3 MR. BERRINGER: Yes. Bryan Berringer, 

4 DOE. 

5 Steve is correct. We did at one point 

6 change the residential furnaces and boilers to low on 

7 the regulatory agenda. And then we did do a 

8 correction notice. So we are maintaining the furnaces 

9 and boilers at high priority. 

10 MR. McCABE: This is Michael McCabe. 

11 Just to add to that, in the process 

12 improvement rule, we had described the procedures that 

13 we would be following. And we laid out that we would 

14 be establishing the priorities in the priority setting 

15 and with regard to standards that high priorities 

16 would initiate a rulemaking, that a rulemaking could 

17 result in a final rule that would amend the standards. 

18 But it could be terminated at some point in between. 

19 It is changing the priority from high to 

20 low, as had been done in the regulatory agenda, 

21 inconsistent with the priority-setting rules. And 

22 that was the reason why on April 27th we changed it 

23 back to high priority. 

24 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Please? 

MR. DELAQUILA: Dave Delaquila, GAMA. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N,W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

Maybe I am confused on what the priorities

are in the table for April 27, but it says, "Summary

of Draft Fiscal Year 2005 Priorities."

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: What page are you

referring to, please?

MR. DELAQUILA: The April 27, 2004 --

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Which is in your

packets, folks.

MR. DELAQUILA: I am just trying to get

clarification. I guess this is test procedure. It

does show that residential furnaces and boilers are

low priority products. Is that --

MR. McCABE: This is Michael McCabe.

The high priority, if you look under

"Standards" in that same table, you will see

residential furnaces and boilers.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Other clarifying

questions at this point?

(No response.)

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: I was thinking that

it might be easiest if we just start with the products

that are listed on page -- well, we can start as early

as page, say, 11 or 12, but the more comprehensive

listing is on page 14. We will start with that as our

point of departure. If there are any additional

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

35 

1 Maybe I am confused on what the priorities 

2 are in the table for April 27, but it says, "Summary 

3 of Draft Fiscal Year 2005 Priorities." 

4 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: What page are you 

5 referring to, please? 

6 MR. DELAQUILA: The April 27, 2004 --

7 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Which is in your 

8 packets, folks. 

9 MR. DELAQUILA: I am just trying to get 

10 clarification. I guess this is test procedure. It 

11 does show that residential furnaces and boilers are 

12 low priority products. Is that --

13 MR. McCABE: This is Michael McCabe. 

14 The high priority, if you look under 

15 "Standards" in that same table, you will see 

16 residential furnaces and boilers. 

17 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Other clarifying 

18 questions at this point? 

19 (No response.) 

20 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: I was thinking that 

21 it might be easiest if we just start with the products 

22 that are listed on page -- well, we can start as early 

23 as page, say, 11 or 12, but the more comprehensive 

24 listing is on page 14. We will start with that as our 

25 point of departure. If there are any additional 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2-

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

things you would like to cover prior to those pages,

we will go there first.

I see Michael McCabe.

MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe.

Doug, the one issue that is cross-cutting

that folks may want to touch on first, as we laid out

in the agenda, is the factors in the priority-setting.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. That is

on page 6.

These factors, these are in the process

improvement rule. Comments on these? Steve Nadel?

MR. NADEL: Before we go back, I have one

cross-cutting question that I believe will affect

that. I also have one other cross-cutting issue that

I would suggest we get to after that. Would now be

appropriate to ask my cross-cutting question?

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes.

MR. NADEL: One of the issues when it

comes to product coverage is when does preemption of

state standards begin? I have heard lots of

interpretations of the law.

The law, frankly, is not very clear. I've

heard interpretations anywhere from the first step of

coverage is to effectively preempt. Then we begin a

rulemaking. So preemption would begin at 6 to 12

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

36 

1 things you would like to cover prior to those pages, 

2 we will go there first. 

3 I see Michael McCabe. 

4 MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe. 

5 Doug, the one issue that is cross-cutting 

6 that folks may want to touch on first, as we laid out 

7 in the agenda, is the factors in the priority-setting. 

8 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. That is 

9 on page 6. 

10 These factors, these are in the process 

11 improvement rule. Comments on these? Steve Nadel? 

12 MR. NADEL: Before we go back, I have one 

13 cross-cutting question that I believe will affect 

14 that. I also have one other cross-cutting issue that 

15 I would suggest we get to after that. would now be 

16 appropriate to ask my cross-cutting question? 

17 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes. 

18 MR. NADEL: One of the issues when it 

19 comes to product coverage is when does preemption of 

20 state standards begin? I have heard lots of 

21 interpretations of the law. 

22 The law, frankly, is not very clear. I've 

23 heard interpretations anywhere from the first step of 

24 coverage is to effectively preempt. Then we begin a 

25 rulemaking. 

(202) 234-4433 

So preemption would begin at 6 to 12 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
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

years before a federal standard takes effect.

I have heard other interpretations saying,

No. Preemption doesn't begin until a federal

standard takes effect." Then there are a whole bunch

of in-between interpretations.

I would appreciate it if general counsel

can give their interpretation because I think this

will very much affect feedback that you get on what

the priority is for coverage because that is going to

be a key consideration in weighing people's reactions

as well as weighing energy savings over the next

decade.

MR. DePRIEST: Tom DePriest, Office of

General Counsel.

It is our reading of the statute that

preemption occurs with the time a product becomes a

covered product.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Steve?

MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel again.

Does the product need to become a covered

product for a rulemaking to begin?

MR. DePRIEST: Yes. We don't have

rulemakings on products that we don't have authority

to regulate, to set standards for, test procedures.

Therefore, it must become a covered product before we

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

37 

1 years before a federal standard takes effect. 

2 I have heard other interpretations saying, 

3 "No. Preemption doesn't begin until a federal 

4 standard takes effect." Then there are a whole bunch 

5 of in-between interpretations. 

6 I would appreciate it if general counsel 

7 can give their interpretation because I think this 

8 will very much affect feedback that you get on what 

9 the priority is for coverage because that is going to 

10 be a key consideration in weighing people's reactions 

11 as well as weighing energy savings over the next 

12 decade. 

13 MR. DePRIEST: Tom DePriest, Office of 

14 General Counsel. 

15 It is our reading of the statute that 

16 preemption occurs with the time a product becomes a 

17 covered product. 

18 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Steve? 

19 MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel again. 

20 Does the product need to become a covered 

21 product for a rulemaking to begin? 

22 MR. DePRIEST: Yes. We don't have 

23 rulemakings on products that we don't have authority 

24 to regulate, to set standards for, test procedures. 

25 Therefore, it must become a covered product before we 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38

could begin a standard or a test procedure rulemaking.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Andrew?

MR. DELASKI: Andrew Delaski, Appliance

Standards Awareness Project.

What is the general counsel's opinion on

how a determination notice on products that are

subject to determination notices affects preemption,

state preemption?

These are the two products. Help me out,

Steve. You've got it.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: The two products under

determination right now -- this is Steve Rosenstock,

EEI -- are HID lamps and small electric motors. I

guess that's a clarification.

MR. DePRIEST: I am sorry. Could you

repeat the question because I didn't understand what

you were talking about?

MR. DELASKI: There are two products for

which the department is doing work leading up to a

determination notice: small electric motors and HID

lamps.

What is the department's opinion on where

state preemption stands or how it might be affected by

those determination notices?

MR. McCABE: This is Michael McCabe.

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

38 

1 could begin a standard or a test procedure rulemaking. 

2 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Andrew? 

3 MR. DELASKI: Andrew Delaski, Appliance 

4 Standards Awareness Project. 

5 What is the general counsel's opinion on 

6 how a determination notice on products that are 

7 subject to determination notices affects preemption, 

8 state preemption? 

9 These are the two products. Help me out, 

10 Steve. You've got it. 

11 MR. ROSENSTOCK: The two products under 

12 determination right now -- this is Steve Rosenstock, 

13 EEl -- are HID lamps and small electric motors. I 

14 guess that's a clarification. 

15 MR. DePRIEST: I am sorry. Could you 

16 repeat the question because I didn't understand what 

17 you were talking about? 

18 MR. DELASKI: There are two products for 

19 which the department is doing work leading up to a 

20 determination notice: small electric motors and HID 

21 lamps. 

22 What is the department's opinion on where 

23 state preemption stands or how it might be affected by 

24 those determination notices? 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

MR. McCABE: This is Michael McCabe. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

Just to jump in to add some information,

the reason why you singled those two products out, as

opposed to the five that are specifically mentioned in

the legislation? And the question is whether or not

the legislation may treat them differently than

products which we would be adding to the program. Is

that correct?

The two products for the determinations

we're working on are specifically identified in the

legislation. So it is my understanding that you are

asking about those because it's whether or not their

preemption would be different than for any products

which we would be adding to the program that are not

explicitly mentioned in the legislation, correct?

MR. McCABE : Right. Thank you.

MR. DePRIEST: This is Tom DePriest,

General Counsel, again.

The statute already covers, declares as

covered product, HID and small motors. So those are

through the action of the statute preempted from the

state action because they have been covered products

ever since those provisions of the statute were

enacted.

(202) 234-4433

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Steve Nadel?

MR. NADEL: Could you please point out,

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON , D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

39 

1 Just to jump in to add some information, 

2 the reason why you singled those two products out, as 

3 opposed to the five that are specifically mentioned in 

4 the legislation? And the question is whether or not 

5 the legislation may treat them differently than 

6 products which we would be adding to the program. Is 

7 that correct? 

8 The two products for the determinations 

9 we're working on are specifically identified in the 

10 legislation. So it is my understanding that you are 

11 asking about those because it's whether or not their 

12 preemption would be different than for any products 

13 which we would be adding to the program that are not 

14 explicitly mentioned in the legislation, correct? 

15 MR. McCABE: Right. Thank you. 

16 MR. DePRIEST: This is Tom DePriest, 

17 General Counsel, again. 

18 The statute already covers, declares as 

19 covered product, HID and small motors. So those are 

20 through the action of the statute preempted from the 

21 state action because they have been covered products 

22 ever since those provisions of the statute were 

23 enacted. 

24 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Steve Nadel? 

MR. NADEL: Could you please point out, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40

maybe at a break or something? I would be curious the

specific section of the legislation. I didn't see it

when there is a list of covered products that it is

listed there.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: We will look for

it.

Company.

MS. TWIGG: We will look for it.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes. Don?

MR. BRUNDAGE: Don Brundage, Southern

I've got a related question on preemption.

There have been products in the past the department

has decided it was in the best interest to set a

standard on for a variety of reasons. One that comes

to mind is heat pump water heaters.

If you decide to not issue a standard on

a product but you haven't issued a standard, does that

mean that the states are preempted from issuing or are

they free to issue their own standards for such

products?

MR. GRAY: This is Ed Gray from the

National Electrical Manufacturers Association.

I am awaiting the answers to all of these,

too, very carefully because we made a number of

comments on these issues and we are in a lawsuit in

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

40 

1 maybe at a break or something? I would be curious the 

2 specific section of the legislation. I didn't see it 

3 when there is a list of covered products that it is 

4 listed there. 

5 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: We will look for 

6 it. 

7 MS. TWIGG: We will look for it. 

8 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes. Don? 

9 MR. BRUNDAGE: Don Brundage, Southern 

10 Company. 

11 I've got a related question on preemption. 

12 There have been products in the past the department 

13 has decided it was in the best interest to set a 

14 standard on for a variety of reasons. One that comes 

15 to mind is heat pump water heaters. 

16 If you decide to not issue a standard on 

17 a product but you haven't issued a standard, does that 

18 mean that the states are preempted from issuing or are 

19 they free to issue their own standards for such 

20 products? 

21 MR. GRAY: This is Ed Gray from the 

22 National Electrical Manufacturers Association. 

23 I am awaiting the answers to all of these, 

24 too, very carefully because we made a number of 

25 comments on these issues and we are in a lawsuit in 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
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

California.

The injunction issued last June in there

basically took the same position as we have discussed

here, covered products, covered equipment. And it

talked about the question of gaps, which I think is

what we are talking about here.

The State of California took the position

that if the government does enact and it creates a

regulatory gap that they are free to fill with

decisions on their own and the judge in that

proceeding -- and this is in the appeals process now.

The judge in that proceeding made it very clear that

in his opinion, there aren't any gaps. Once Congress

has acted, once the Energy Department has acted, these

products are federally granted.

MR. DePRIEST: If I can respond to Steve's

question, the statutory citation is 42 USC section

6317. The title is "Energy Conservation Standards for

High Intensity Discharge Lamps, Distribution

Transformers, and Small Electric Motors."

So those are covered products under the

statute.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: I wasn't that was

your question, Don.

MR. BRUNDAGE: What is the status if the

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 4-433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

41 

1 California. 

2 The injunction issued last June in there 

3 basically took the same position as we have discussed 

4 here, covered products, covered equipment. And it 

5 talked about the question of gaps, which I think is 

6 what we are talking about here. 

7 The State of California took the position 

8 that if the government does enact and it creates a 

9 regulatory gap that they are free to fill with 

10 decisions on their own and the judge in that 

11 proceeding and this is in the appeals process now. 

12 The judge in that proceeding made it very clear that 

13 in his opinion, there aren't any gaps. Once Congress 

14 has acted, once the Energy Department has acted, these 

15 products are federally granted. 

16 MR. DePRIEST: If I can respond to Steve's 

17 question, the statutory citation is 42 USC section 

18 6317. The title is "Energy Conservation Standards for 

19 High Intensity Discharge Lamps, Distribution 

20 Transformers, and Small Electric Motors." 

21 So those are covered products under the 

22 statute. 

23 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: I wasn't that was 

24 your question, Don. 

25 

(202) 23r.-4433 

MR. BRUNDAGE: What is the status if the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

department decides implicitly to not issue a standard

on a product? Does that leave the states free to set

their own standards or is there a mechanism the

department needs to go through to state that our

decision is a no standard, it's not that we are just

failing to act?

MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel, ACEEE.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Go ahead.

MR. NADEL: I am looking at 6317, and I

don't see it use the term. Yes, it mentioned those

products, but I don't see it used the word "covered"

products. Are you saying that that is assumed or

implied or am I missing something?

MR. DePRIEST: There are provisions of the

statute. And we are not going to go into this at

length. There are provisions of the statute that

provide cross-references to part B. Those

cross-references include all sorts of administrative

provisions and so forth and so on.

Those products in that section that I

referenced to you are covered products.

MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel again.

I guess I would state for the record from

lawyers we consulted with, this is a questionable view

and could be challenged. So I want to reserve the

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

42 

1 department decides implicitly to not issue a standard 

2 on a product? Does that leave the states free to set 

3 their own standards or is there a mechanism the 

4 department needs to go through to state that our 

5 decision is a no standardl it/s not that we are just 

6 failing to act? 

7 MR. NADEL: Steve Nadell ACEEE. 

8 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Go ahead. 

9 MR. NADEL: I am looking at 6317 1 and I 

10 don/t see it use the term. Yes l it mentioned those 

11 products I but I don't see it used the word "covered" 

12 products. Are you saying that that is assumed or 

13 implied or am I missing something? 

14 MR. DePRIEST: There are provisions of the 

15 statute. And we are not going to go into this at 

16 length. There are provisions of the statute that 

17 provide cross-references to part B. Those 

18 cross-references include all sorts of administrative 

19 provisions and so forth and so on. 

20 Those products in that section that I 

21 referenced to you are covered products. 

22 MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel again. 

23 I guess I would state for the record from 

24 lawyers we consulted with l this is a questionable view 

25 and could be challenged. So I want to reserve the 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25 II from NRDC.

(202) 234-4433

43

right to question this as well as the previous

statement about you have to make something covered

before you can do any work.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you.

MR. NADEL: It falls in the legal gray

area.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Let's note that and

turn to Don. Don, I'm not sure we still have gone to

you yet.

MR. BRUNDAGE: Don Brundage again.

I don't know. And I'll get back to you

with an acceptable answer, but I was just curious on

that topic.

again.

MR. GRAY: This is Ed Gray from NEMA

I suggest you check again the California.

What is it, the Eastern District Federal Court for the

State of California? This specific question was

addressed, including the one Don raised as to if the

Department of Energy intentionally decided not to

regulate something, what was the status of that

product? And that court held that it was a covered

product.

MS. KENNEDY: Yes. This is Kit Kennedy

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

43 

1 right to question this as well as the previous 

2 statement about you have to make something covered 

3 before you can do any work. 

4 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

5 MR. NADEL: It falls in the legal gray 

6 area. 

7 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Let's note that and 

8 turn to Don. Don, I'm not sure we still have gone to 

9 you yet. 

10 MR. BRUNDAGE: Don Brundage again. 

11 I don't know. And I'll get back to you 

12 with an acceptable answer, but I was just curious on 

13 that topic. 

14 MR. GRAY: This is Ed Gray from NEMA 

15 again. 

16 I suggest you check again the California. 

17 What is it, the Eastern District Federal Court for the 

18 State of California? This specific question was 

19 addressed, including the one Don raised as to if the 

20 Department of Energy intentionally decided not to 

21 regulate something, what was the status of that 

22 product? And that court held that it was a covered 

23 product. 

24 

25 from NRDC. 

(202) 234-4433 

MS. KENNEDY: Yes. This is Kit Kennedy 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44

If I may, we don't need to get into this,

but I'm not sure --

MS. PINTO: Let's not get into it.

MS. KENNEDY: -- you are characterizing

that decision correctly because that case is more

about testing standards than about standards itself.

I just wanted to add --

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Kit, not yet. Just

a moment , please.

Seeing as how the question has been

directed to the department, does the department wish

to respond at this time or is it something you wish to

MS. PINTO: I don't think we have an

answer to Don's question.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: You don't have an

answer at this time for Don. Okay.

Kit, please?

MS. KENNEDY: And I wanted to ask the

Office of General Counsel if you could provide in

writing at some point your analysis on the point of

preemption for products that become covered products.

It is an important point for us as we look

at the priority list because although many of us

prefer national standards that are set at the right

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

44 

1 If I may, we don't need to get into this, 

2 but I'm not sure 

3 MS. PINTO: Let's not get into it. 

4 MS. KENNEDY: -- you are characterizing 

5 that decision correctly because that case is more 

6 about testing standards than about standards itself. 

7 I just wanted to add --

8 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Kit, not yet. Just 

9 a moment, please. 

10 Seeing as how the question has been 

11 directed to the department, does the department wish 

12 to respond at this time or is it something you wish to 

13 

14 MS. PINTO: I don't think we have an 

15 answer to Don's question. 

16 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: You don't have an 

17 answer at this time for Don. Okay. 

18 Kit, please? 

19 MS . KENNEDY: And I wanted to ask the 

20 Office of General Counsel if you could provide in 

21 writing at some point your analysis on the point of 

22 preemption for products that become covered products. 

23 It is an important point for us as we look 

24 at the priority list because although many of us 

25 prefer national standards that are set at the right 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45

level, if we feel that making a product a covered

product during the duration of the rulemaking, which

may take years and years, is going to preempt affected

state standards, that changes the picture for us and

changes our answer on what the priority is.

So it would be helpful to have your

analysis so that we can review it and see where we

come out.

MR. DePRIEST: This is Tom DePriest,

Office of General Counsel.

There is no present plan to have a written

statement of that analysis. We don't think it's

appropriate to have a legal debate in this forum or,

really, in any forum.

If you disagree, you know, that is your

right. You can send a legal memo, write a letter to

the Secretary. If you want to settle it through

litigation, you know, we will deal with it when that

happens.

But there is no written legal memorandum.

And I can tell you, frankly, you know, that if we

decided today that we were going to have one, you

know, you might get it in 18-24 months.

It's just the way the office works.

Getting a formal written statement like that involves

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

45 

1 level, if we feel that making a product a covered 

2 product during the duration of the rulemaking, which 

3 may take years and years, is going to preempt affected 

4 state standards, that changes the picture for us and 

5 changes our answer on what the priority is. 

6 So it would be helpful to have your 

7 analysis so that we can review it and see where we 

8 come out. 

9 MR. DePRIEST: This is Tom DePriest, 

10 Office of General Counsel. 

11 There is no present plan to have a written 

12 statement of that analysis. We don't think it's 

13 appropriate to have a legal debate in this forum or, 

14 really, in any forum. 

15 If you disagree, you know, that is your 

16 right. You can send a legal memo, write a letter to 

17 the Secretary. If you want to settle it through 

18 litigation, you know, we will deal with it when that 

19 happens. 

20 But there is no written legal memorandum. 

21 And I can tell you, frankly, you know, that if we 

22 decided today that we were going to have one, you 

23 know, you might get it in 18-24 months. 

24 It's just the way the office works. 

25 Getting a formal written statement like that involves 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

getting a lot of people to sign off on it. And so

there isn't one.

MS. KENNEDY: Okay. I guess I also do

have kind of a cross-cutting comment about the

priority-setting.

FACILITATOR EROOKMAN: That's what we're

stacking up now, folks. So gather your cross-cutting

issues. We're going to do all of them right now.

MS. KENNEDY: I just want to go back to

the point of the question Andrew raised about what it

means to be a priority. The concern that NRDC has we

have stated in the past is that while it is okay to

talk about priorities and how we are going to focus

our efforts and that may make sense on some level, it

is not okay to miss statutory deadlines repeatedly.

And we are concerned that the Department of Energy has

done that for a number of products, 18 by our count,

including the products which the Department of Energy

calls high priority products.

Of course, we're still waiting for the

ANOPRs on the furnaces and the transformers. That is

a serious concern. It is a concern not only because

of the statutory deadlines that are in the law that we

care about but because I think in this room, there is

a large consensus that national appliance standards

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

46 

1 getting a lot of people to sign off on it. And so 

2 there isn/t one. 

3 MS. KENNEDY: Okay. I guess I also do 

4 have kind of a cross-cutting comment about the 

5 priority-setting. 

6 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: 

7 stacking up now 1 folks. So gather your cross-cutting 

8 issues. We/re going to do all of them right now. 

9 MS. KENNEDY: I just want to go back to 

10 the point of the question Andrew raised about what it 

11 means to be a priority. The concern that NRDC has we 

12 have stated in the past is that while it is okay to 

13 talk about priorities and how we are going to focus 

14 our efforts and that may make sense on some level l it 

15 is not okay to miss statutory deadlines repeatedly. 

16 And we are concerned that the Department of Energy has 

17 done that for a number of products I 18 by our count I 

18 including the products which the Department of Energy 

19 calls high priority products. 

20 Of course I we I re still waiting for the 

21 ANOPRs on the furnaces and the transformers. That is 

22 a serious concern. It is a concern not only because 

23 of the statutory deadlines that are in the law that we 

24 care about but because I think in this room l there is 

25 a large consensus that national appliance standards 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47

are a good thing from an energy perspective, an

environmental perspective, a consumer perspective.

And by having so many delays, we lose the

benefits of those standards. And we also then get

into debates, which we might not otherwise get into,

about state standards versus national standards.

So we will address this in our comments,

but we would like the Department of Energy in the

priority-setting process to: a) identify the

statutory deadlines which apply to each product, take

those deadlines, many of which are passed into

accounting, setting priorities, and clarify that high

priority products are not the only ones on which

rulemaking actions will be taken because I guess in

our perspective, having a priority doesn't mean that

you don't work on other standards and that you don't

work to meet other statutory deadlines.

We are sensitive to the Department of

Energy's budgetary constraints, but they don't affect

your legal responsibilities in our view. And we would

really like to know what the schedule is going to be,

both on the high priority products and the medium and

low priority products, how the Department of Energy

intends to kind of get back into compliance with the

variety of deadlines in the statute.

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

47 

1 are a good thing from an energy perspecti ve, an 

2 environmental perspective, a consumer perspective. 

3 And by having so many delays, we lose the 

4 benefits of those standards. And we also then get 

5 into debates, which we might not otherwise get into, 

6 about state standards versus national standards. 

7 So we will address this in our comments, 

8 but we would 1 ike the Department of Energy in the 

9 priority-setting process to: a) identify the 

10 statutory deadlines which apply to each product, take 

11 those deadlines, many of which are passed into 

12 accounting, setting priorities, and clarify that high 

13 priority products are not the only ones on which 

14 rulemaking actions will be taken because I guess in 

15 our perspective, having a priority doesn't mean that 

16 you don't work on other standards and that you don't 

17 work to meet other statutory deadlines. 

18 We are sensitive to the Department of 

19 Energy's budgetary constraints, but they don't affect 

20 your legal responsibilities in our view. And we would 

21 really like to know what the schedule is going to be, 

22 both on the high priority products and the medium and 

23 low priority products, how the Department of Energy 

24 intends to kind of get back into compliance with the 

25 variety of deadlines in the statute. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe with the

Department of Energy.

I can appreciate the comments and the

frustration. The staff throughout the department

shares that. We use this process and the regulatory

agenda to provide the schedule as it exists.

We are behind schedule. We have missed

legislative deadlines for many of the products. Those

we will never be able to catch up to. We are actively

working to get the high priority standards, ANOPRs.

As Bryan had indicated, he hopes that it

will be soon. I would describe that as being very

soon. We are in the process of contacting a variety

of organizations and individuals to update the mailing

lists so we can send those out. We are in the final

stages of those ANOPRs.

The commercial equipment test procedures,

which are a high priority, are also very close to

being published as final rules. With that, we will be

updating the regulatory agenda to indicate what the

schedules are.

We try to stick to those, but given how

complex the rulemakings are for the levels of review

and the attention that is given by various levels

within the organization, both staff, mid management,

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

48 

1 MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe with the 

2 Department of Energy. 

3 I can appreciate the comments and the 

4 frustration. The staff throughout the department 

5 shares that. We use this process and the regulatory 

6 agenda to provide the schedule as it exists. 

7 We are behind schedule. We have missed 

8 legislative deadlines for many of the products. Those 

9 we will never be able to catch up to. We are actively 

10 working to get the high priority standards, ANOPRs. 

11 As Bryan had indicated, he hopes that it 

12 will be soon. I would describe that as being very 

13 soon. We are in the process of contacting a variety 

14 of organizations and individuals to update the mailing 

15 lists so we can send those out. We are in the final 

16 stages of those ANOPRs. 

17 The commercial equipment test procedures, 

18 which are a high priority, are also very close to 

19 being published as final rules. With that, we will be 

20 updating the regulatory agenda to indicate what the 

21 schedules are. 

22 We try to stick to those, but given how 

23 complex the rulemakings are for the levels of review 

24 and the attention that is given by various levels 

25 within the organization, both staff, mid management, 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

senior management, that we have had many delays, which

are unacceptable. And I can appreciate yours and

other organizations' frustrations.

And the frustrations come from many

different reasons, from those who are in the community

who are promoting, pushing for, such as your

community, looking, arguing the energy savings loss

that accommodates, goes along with those delays. I

can appreciate that.

Looking at the manufacturing community, it

affects them as well because they are making plans for

product, product investment in engineering and capital

equipment. And so it has negative effects on them as

far as the delays.

We're not proud of them. My staff is

working to try to overcome that and to meet the

schedules. And my apologies. We are going to

continue to focus our efforts and try to meet these

schedules. Schedules that we published are ones at

the time that we publish and that we believe are

reasonable and can be achieved.

MS. KENNEDY: I appreciate that answer.

There will be a forward-looking schedule set out at

the time the ANOPR comes out about when there will be

a proposed rule and when there will be a final rule.

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

49 

1 senior management, that we have had many delays, which 

2 are unacceptable. And I can appreciate yours and 

3 other organizations' frustrations. 

4 And the frustrations come from many 

5 different reasons, from those who are in the community 

6 who are promoting, pushing for, such as your 

7 community, looking, arguing the energy savings loss 

8 that accommodates, goes along with those delays. I 

9 can appreciate that. 

10 Looking at the manufacturing community, it 

11 affects them as well because they are making plans for 

12 product, product investment in engineering and capital 

13 equipment. And so it has negative effects on them as 

14 far as the delays. 

15 We're not proud of them. My staff is 

16 working to try to overcome that and to meet the 

17 schedules. And my apologies. We are going to 

18 continue to focus our efforts and try to meet these 

19 schedules. Schedules that we published are ones at 

20 the time that we publish and that we believe are 

21 reasonable and can be achieved. 

22 MS. KENNEDY: I appreciate that answer. 

23 There will be a forward-looking schedule set out at 

24 the time the ANOPR comes out about when there will be 

25 a proposed rule and when there will be a final rule. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
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

Is that a fair concept?

MR. McCABE: In the next publication of

the regulatory agenda, it will be updated to reflect

the current thinking at that point in time. And I

fully hope that the advanced notice of proposed

rulemakings for the three products and the final rules

for the four test procedures, commercial test

procedures, will have been published by then and in

enough time that the regulatory agenda could be

updated.

It is entirely possible that if the

publication of the ANOPR final rule is close to the

time that the regulatory agenda is published, that

that may not capture that and we will have to find

some way to make the public aware of what those

schedules are.

MS. KENNEDY: Okay. And I do want to

clarify. I think I have made this clear that by

participating in the priority-setting process, we are

not buying into the concept that it is okay to miss

other deadlines or to extend the period by which other

deadlines are not met.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Those last two

comments were from Kit, NRDC.

Any other cross-cutting issues people wish

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

50 

1 Is that a fair concept? 

2 MR. McCABE: In the next publication of 

3 the regulatory agenda, it will be updated to reflect 

4 the current thinking at that point in time. And I 

5 fully hope that the advanced notice of proposed 

6 rulemakings for the three products and the final rules 

7 for the four test procedures, commercial test 

8 procedures, will have been published by then and in 

9 enough time that the regulatory agenda could be 

10 updated. 

11 It is entirely possible that if the 

12 publication of the ANOPR final rule is close to the 

13 time that the regulatory agenda is published, that 

14 that may not capture that and we will have to find 

15 some way to make the public aware of what those 

16 schedules are. 

17 MS. KENNEDY: Okay. And I do want to 

18 clarify. I think I have made this clear that by 

19 participating in the priority-setting process, we are 

20 not buying into the concept that it is okay to miss 

21 other deadl ines or to extend the period by which other 

22 deadlines are not met. 

23 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Those last two 

24 comments were from Kit, NRDC. 

25 Any other cross-cutting issues people wish 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
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

to raise at this point?

MR. CALABRESE: This is David Calabrese

with AHAM. I have a comment and a --

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: I am going to ask

that everybody speak into that microphone right square

into your face, please.

MR. CALABRESE: David Calabrese with AHAM.

I have a comment, somewhat of a

cross-cutting comment, also a question for legal

counsel more specifically on one of the issues.

On the preemption issue, we have been

discussing some of the legalities when preemption

begins and when coverage begins. We have a more

fundamental concern about the department extending and

being somewhat reluctant to use its preemption

authority in instances where it is clearly authorized

and clearly needed.

We will be discussing this more

particularly, I imagine, when we get to the product

coverage for commercial clothes washers, which was

mentioned, clearly a strong case for federal and DOE

intervention in this area and also one that is coming,

residential clothes washers, one again where DOE has

no reason not to extend or to keep its federal

preemption of that product.

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

51 

1 to raise at this point? 

2 MR. CALABRESE: This is David Calabrese 

3 with AHAM. I have a comment and a 

4 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: I am going to ask 

5 that everybody speak into that microphone right square 

6 into your face, please. 

7 MR. CALABRESE: David Calabrese wi th AHAM. 

8 I have a comment, somewhat of a 

9 cross-cutting comment, also a question for legal 

10 counsel more specifically on one of the issues. 

11 On the preemption issue, we have been 

12 discussing some of the legalities when preemption 

13 begins and when coverage begins. We have a more 

14 fundamental concern about the department extending and 

15 being somewhat reluctant to use its preemption 

16 authority in instances where it is clearly authorized 

17 and clearly needed. 

18 We will be discussing this more 

19 particularly, I imagine, when we get to the product 

20 coverage for commercial clothes washers, which was 

21 mentioned, clearly a strong case for federal and DOE 

22 intervention in this area and also one that is coming, 

23 residential clothes washers, one again where DOE has 

24 no reason not to extend or to keep its federal 

25 preemption of that product. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52

So, again, we think that there is a more

fundamental generic issue that needs to be addressed

that needs to be strengthened and that the department

needs to enhance and maintain the federal preemption

that is required by law.

A more specific question -- this may go

back to the previous part of our discussion going back

to what is in priority-setting. It is in regards to

-- and we may want to discuss it when we get to this

-- the petition that was mentioned for refrigerators.

I guess my question for legal counsel and

for Mike perhaps is its status within this

priority-setting process. I understand we will be

talking about this today, but this, of course, is a

legal formal petition.

As far as written responses, as far as how

is the department is going to proceed on that, does

this priority-setting meeting suffice to be the

hearing, the so-called due process requirement under

law for that petition or will there be a separate

process whereby stakeholders and interested parties

will be afforded the opportunity to respond and

provide?

(202) 234-4433

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Francine Pinto?

MS. PINTO: Francine Pinto.

NEAP R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

52 

1 So, again, we think that there is a more 

2 fundamental generic issue that needs to be addressed 

3 that needs to be strengthened and that the department 

4 needs to enhance and maintain the federal preemption 

5 that is required by law. 

6 A more specific question -- this may go 

7 back to the previous part of our discussion going back 

8 to what is in priority-setting. It is in regards to 

9 and we may want to discuss it when we get to this 

10 the petition that was mentioned for refrigerators. 

11 I guess my question for legal counsel and 

12 for Mike perhaps is its status within this 

13 priority-setting process. I understand we will be 

14 talking about this today, but this, of course, is a 

15 legal formal petition. 

16 As far as written responses, as far as how 

17 is the department is going to proceed on that, does 

18 this priority-setting meeting suffice to be the 

19 hearing, the so-called due process requirement under 

20 law for that petition or will there be a separate 

21 process whereby stakeholders and interested parties 

22 will be afforded the opportunity to respond and 

23 provide? 

24 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Francine Pinto? 

MS. PINTO: Francine Pinto. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

My recollection of the statute is there is

no provision for a hearing. We do have to responds to

your petition.

MR. CALABRESE: It's not my petition.

(Laughter.)

MS. PINTO: No petitions.

MR. CALABRESE: Well, we are proposing a

petition.

MS. PINTO: Petition for refrigerators.

We do have to respond to it, but there is not a

provision for a hearing.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: I think we will be

discussing this in a little more detail as we go

along.

MS. PINTO: There is criteria set in the

statute that the department has to consider, and we

have to respond to that.

MR. CALABRESE: Yes, under your specific

specifications. David Calabrese with AHAM. Under

basic constitutional law or other provisions, there is

a requirement for due process for a petition or

something in which there is going to be a new rule or

a notice, et cetera, that I am curious as to how that

will be addressed in regards to a petition that could

lead to a formal rulemaking.

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

53 

1 My recollection of the statute is there is 

2 no provision for a hearing. We do have to responds to 

3 your petition. 

4 MR. CALABRESE: It's not my petition. 

5 (Laughter. ) 

6 MS. PINTO: No petitions. 

7 MR. CALABRESE: Well, we are proposing a 

8 petition. 

9 MS. PINTO: Petition for refrigerators. 

lOWe do have to respond to it, but there is not a 

11 provision for a hearing. 

12 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: I think we will be 

13 discussing this in a little more detail as we go 

14 along. 

15 MS. PINTO: There is criteria set in the 

16 statute that the department has to consider, and we 

17 have to respond to that. 

18 MR. CALABRESE: Yes, under your specific 

19 specifications. David Calabrese with AHAM. Under 

20 basic constitutional law or other provisions, there is 

21 a requirement for due process for a petition or 

22 something in which there is going to be a new rule or 

23 a notice, et cetera, that I am curious as to how that 

24 will be addressed in regards to a petition that could 

25 lead to a formal rulemaking. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
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

Counsel.

MR. DePRIEST: Tom DePriest, General

We obviously wouldn't undertake a

standards rulemaking without complying with the

process rule, the Administrative Procedures Act,

notice and comment, et cetera. We don't just get a

petition, "Oh, my God. That's a great idea. The

standard is now doubled." No, it doesn't work that

way.

MS. PINTO: This is Francine Pinto.

Petition, our acting on the petition, is

different than the rulemaking process. We do all of

the usual stuff for the rulemaking process.

MR. CALABRESE: Thank you.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: This gentleman.

Your name?

MR. MISURIELLO: Harry Misuriello,

Alliance to Save Energy.

Just to follow up on some of the

cross-cutting comments regarding the regulatory agenda

and the schedule for the standards, we recommend that

in the future, to better prepare the public for the

priority-setting process, to include the following

information on the priority-setting data sheets that

come out.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

54 

1 MR. DePRIEST: Tom DePriest t General 

2 Counsel. 

3 We obviously wouldntt undertake a 

4 standards rulemaking without complying with the 

5 process rule t the Administrative Procedures Act t 

6 notice and comment t et cetera. We dontt just get a 

7 petitiont "Oh t my God. Thatts a great idea. The 

8 standard is now doubled." NOt it doesntt work that 

9 way. 

10 MS. PINTO: This is Francine Pinto. 

11 Petition t our acting on the petitiont is 

12 different than the rulemaking process. We do all of 

13 the usual stuff for the rulemaking process. 

14 MR. CALABRESE: Thank you. 

15 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: This gentleman. 

16 Your name? 

17 MR. MISURIELLO: Harry Misuriello t 

18 Alliance to Save Energy. 

19 Just to follow up on some of the 

20 cross-cutting comments regarding the regulatory agenda 

21 and the schedule for the standardst we recommend that 

22 in the future t to better prepare the public for the 

23 priority-setting process t to include the following 

24 information on the priority-setting data sheets that 

25 come out. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
55

1 It should include the legislative

2 enactment date; the congressionally mandated due date;

3 and dates, anticipated dates, for the ANOPR, the NOPR,

4 and the final rule.

5 We feel that including this information on

6 the data sheets provides more intelligent feedback to

7 the department about the priorities in the first

8 place.

9 It is very difficult to go back over the

10 76 agenda items in this rulemaking, in this priority

11 setting, and bring this information out. I think it

12 was readily available to the department and they

13 should include that in the future.

14 Thank you.

15 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you.

16 Any cross-cutting issues? Actually, I saw

17 your hand first.

18 MR. DELASKI: Yes, please. Just to follow

19 up on Kit's earlier point and Michael's response, I

20 share the frustration with the lack of progress

21 towards getting the ANOPR published. I am glad to

22 hear they are comi ng out very soon.

23 If they were to come out tomorrow, it

24 would have taken about three years from the time they

25 became high priority for the department. Under the

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

55 

1 It should include the legislative 

2 enactment date i the congressionally mandated due date i 

3 and dates, anticipated dates, for the ANOPR, the NOPR, 

4 and the final rule. 

5 We feel that including this information on 

6 the data sheets provides more intelligent feedback to 

7 the department about the priorities in the first 

8 place. 

9 It is very difficult to go back over the 

10 76 agenda items in this rulemaking, in this priority 

11 setting, and bring this information out. I think it 

12 was readily available to the department and they 

13 should include that in the future. 

14 Thank you. 

15 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

16 Any cross-cutting issues? Actually, I saw 

17 your hand first. 

18 MR. DELASKI: Yes, please. Just to follow 

19 up on Kit's earlier point and Michael's response, I 

20 share the frustration with the lack of progress 

21 towards getting the ANOPR published. I am glad to 

22 hear they are coming out very soon. 

23 If they were to come out tomorrow, it 

24 would have taken about three years from the time they 

25 became high priority for the department. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 

Under the 

www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

department's procedures, publishing in the Code of

Federal Regulations and developing the process rule,

it is supposed to take about 18 months.

After the process rule was published in

'96, the department issued several rules subsequently

and was able to stick to the schedule, which under the

procedures is envisioned to take about three years.

So I appreciate the hard work that the

staff is doing to catch up on that schedule and the

consultants who support you. And I wish you all due

speed in being able to make up that lost time.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Steve Nadel?

MR. NADEL: Okay. I had two things I

wanted to say in terms of cross-cutting issues. One

that seems appropriate now is we have a very large

group of products that are high priority. These range

from things that are receiving extensive attention at

the Secretary's office, that are under very active

review.

We keep talking about the three major

rulemakings. There are other things that some people

probably haven't even heard of before, some of these

new vertical air conditioner products.

There are some things. The ASHRAE

products have been high priorities for a number of

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

56 

1 department's procedures, publishing in the Code of 

2 Federal Regulations and developing the process rule, 

3 it is supposed to take about 18 months. 

4 After the process rule was published in 

5 '96, the department issued several rules subsequently 

6 and was able to stick to the schedule, which under the 

7 procedures is envisioned to take about three years. 

8 So I appreciate the hard work that the 

9 staff is doing to catch up on that schedule and the 

10 consultants who support you. And I wish you all due 

11 speed in being able to make up that lost time. 

12 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Steve Nadel? 

13 MR. NADEL: Okay. I had two things I 

14 wanted to say in terms of cross-cutting issues. One 

15 that seems appropriate now is we have a very large 

16 group of products that are high priority. These range 

17 from things that are receiving extensive attention at 

18 the Secretary's office, that are under very active 

19 review. 

20 We keep talking about the three maj or 

21 rulemakings. There are other things that some people 

22 probably haven't even heard of before, some of these 

23 new vertical air conditioner products. 

24 There are some things. The ASHRAE 

25 products have been high priorities for a number of 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

57

years. And little, if any, visible work has taken

place.

We have a medium priority category, which

is, by and large, not very used. I am wondering

whether it is appropriate to revise the categories a

bit to make clearer to everybody, both outside and

inside the department, about what is going to get

done.

My thinking is we maybe need a very high

priority category, which appears to be the three rules

that are getting extensive attention at the

Secretary's office. There would then be a high

priority category, which is moving actively in the

current year. Then there would be a medium priority

category that might be more of the things, yeah, we

are trying to do, but as time allows and we can't

promise.

We have all of these lumped together in

high, and it is very difficult for us or, as Mike

said, gee, these are priorities for the whole

department. I imagine it is difficult for the rest of

the department to say, "Okay. You have these 18

things," whatever the number is. "Which are your real

priorities?"

25 11 So I was wondering if the department had

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

57 

1 years. And little, if any, visible work has taken 

2 place. 

3 We have a medium priority category, which 

4 is, by and large, not very used. I am wondering 

5 whether it is appropriate to revise the categories a 

6 bit to make clearer to everybody, both outside and 

7 inside the department, about what is going to get 

8 done. 

9 My thinking is we maybe need a very high 

10 priority category, which appears to be the three rules 

11 that are getting extensive attention at the 

12 Secretary's office. There would then be a high 

13 priority category, which is moving actively in the 

14 current year. Then there would be a medium priority 

15 category that might be more of the things, yeah, we 

16 are trying to do, but as time allows and we can't 

17 promise. 

18 We have all of these lumped together in 

19 high, and it is very difficult for us or, as Mike 

20 said, gee, these are priorities for the whole 

21 department. I imagine it is difficult for the rest of 

22 the department to say, "Okay. You have these 18 

23 things," whatever the number is. "Which are your real 

24 priorities?" 

25 So I was wondering if the department had 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

thought about this and will consider this. I would be

interested in other comments as well where this would

be useful across all of the products to help everybody

focus on, "Yes, this is really happening," "This may

be happening," "Well, we hope this happens."

MR. McCABE: This is Michael McCabe.

We would encourage and entertain comments

from others on that point. The staff, their

activities range and differ depending upon the product

that is being addressed, the three products that are

the ANOPRs.

We certainly have staff, both within

energy efficiency and renewable energy, general

counsel, and policy, who are actively working on that.

For some of the other products, it is the energy

efficiency and renewable energy staff that is working

very closely with representatives of industry as well

as the organizations such as ASHRAE to resolve some of

the issues in order to be able to go into a rulemaking

phase, the published documents.

So there is very active work that is

happening throughout the department at one level or

another on all of them, but it differs by the type of

where the product is in the rulemaking process,

whether or not an ANOPR is about to be published or a

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

58 

1 thought about this and will consider this. I would be 

2 interested in other comments as well where this would 

3 be useful across all of the products to help everybody 

4 focus on, "Yes, this is really happening," "This may 

5 be happening," "Well, we hope this happens." 

6 MR. McCABE: This is Michael McCabe. 

7 We would encourage and entertain comments 

8 from others on that point. The staff, their 

9 activities range and differ depending upon the product 

10 that is being addressed, the three products that are 

11 the ANOPRs. 

12 We certainly have staff, both within 

13 energy efficiency and renewable energy, general 

14 counsel, and policy, who are actively working on that. 

15 For some of the other products, it is the energy 

16 efficiency and renewable energy staff that is working 

17 very closely with representatives of industry as well 

18 as the organizations such as ASHRAE to resolve some of 

19 the issues in order to be able to go into a rulemaking 

20 phase, the published documents. 

21 So there is very active work that is 

22 happening throughout the department at one level or 

23 another on all of them, but it differs by the type of 

24 where the product is in the rulemaking process, 

25 whether or not an ANOPR is about to be published or a 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

59

final rule or just resolve issues that exist within an

ASHRAE standard.

A comment in your comments I would

appreciate as to whether or not you think that

splitting the high priorities into different cohorts,

very high, medium high, low high, whether or not that

may affect and delay and cause some delays on the low

high end that would otherwise not occur.

MR. CRAWFORD: Jim Crawford, Trane

Company.

At the risk of agreeing with Steve, --

(Laughter.)

MR. CRAWFORD : -- I am very sympathetic to

the point that Steve is making because if the

priorities don't really tell us what is the priority

in the sense of some concept of the evolving

timetable, then they don't serve the constituencies

outside the department at all well, no matter which

side of the table you are on.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you.

Are there other comments that are related

to cross-cutting-related issues? These are process

comments so far. Are there other cross-cutting issues

that people wish to raise? Please?

We have only had one area of agreement so

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

59 

1 final rule or just resolve issues that exist within an 

2 ASHRAE standard. 

3 A comment in your comments I would 

4 appreciate as to whether or not you think that 

5 splitting the high priorities into different cohorts, 

6 very high, medium high, low high, whether or not that 

7 may affect and delay and cause some delays on the low 

8 high end that would otherwise not occur. 

9 MR. CRAWFORD: Jim Crawford, Trane 

10 Company. 

11 At the risk of agreeing with Steve, --

12 (Laughter.) 

13 MR. CRAWFORD: - - I am very sympathetic to 

14 the point that Steve is making because if the 

15 priorities don't really tell us what is the priority 

16 in the sense of some concept of the evolving 

17 timetable, then they don't serve the constituencies 

18 outside the department at all well, no matter which 

19 side of the table you are on. 

20 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

21 Are there other comments that are related 

22 to cross-cutting-related issues? These are process 

23 comments so far. Are there other cross-cutting issues 

24 that people wish to raise? Please? 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

We have only had one area of agreement so 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
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

far.

MR. MULLIN: Jim Mullin, Lennox. I will

compose the second thing.

I wanted to make sure something doesn't

get lost in this conversation. It is good to talk

about priorities, but I think it is mostly in the

focus of rulemakings. There is a real issue that if

the test procedures are not up to date, the

rulemakings may be meaningless.

So I think, however it is done, the real

time focus needs to be on getting the test procedures

done so that we have good rulemakings at the end.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you.

Other cross-cutting issues at this point?

MR. GRAY: This is Ed Gray from NEMA.

I don't know that this is cross-cutting or

not, but I think there was on page 12 of the

presentation a product inadvertently left off not in

the coverage product, process at the bottom.

I think the latest edition of the energy

bill had the compact fluorescent lamps in there as a

product to be considered as a possibly covered product

for the future.

(202) 234-4433

MR. NADEL: This is Steve Nadel.

Yes. H.R. 6 as passed by the House and

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

60 

1 far. 

2 MR. MULLIN: Jim Mullin, Lennox. I will 

3 compose the second thing. 

4 I wanted to make sure something doesn't 

5 get lost in this conversation. It is good to talk 

6 about priorities, but I think it is mostly in the 

7 focus of rulemakings. There is a real issue that if 

8 the test procedures are not up to date, the 

9 rulemakings may be meaningless. 

10 So I think, however it is done, the real 

11 time focus needs to be on getting the test procedures 

12 done so that we have good rulemakings at the end. 

13 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

14 Other cross-cutting issues at this point? 

15 MR. GRAY: This is Ed Gray from NEMA. 

16 I don't know that this is cross-cutting or 

1 7 not, but I think there was on page 12 of the 

18 presentation a product inadvertently left off not in 

19 the coverage product, process at the bottom. 

20 I think the latest edition of the energy 

21 bill had the compact fluorescent lamps in there as a 

22 product to be considered as a possibly covered product 

23 for the future. 

24 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

MR. NADEL: This is Steve Nadel. 

Yes. H.R. 6 as passed by the House and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

61

the freer version as passed by the Senate both include

specific standards for CFL lamps.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes, Steve Nadel?

MR. NADEL : Since we seem to have finished

the other issues, I wanted to get to Mike's question

about as a cross-cutting issue, are there any factors,

comments on page 6?

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you for

referring to the page.

MR. NADEL: In light of the earlier

conversation, I believe that a key part of considering

potential energy savings is factoring in potential

lost energy savings if state standards are and the

department's opinion would be preempted for, I will

say, a minimum of six years and a maximum of probably

at least twice that. So that should be considered in

setting energy, estimating energy savings for coverage

and I think will affect, very much affect, our opinion

about the relative priority of these products.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you.

Yes, Don?

MR. BRUNDAGE: Don Brundage, Southern

Company.

This is a clarifying question asked to Mr.

Nadel. Isn't it somewhat speculative on what state

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

61 

1 the freer version as passed by the Senate both include 

2 specific standards for CFL lamps. 

3 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes, Steve Nadel? 

4 MR. NADEL: Since we seem to have finished 

5 the other issues, I wanted to get to Mike's question 

6 abou t as a cros s - cu t t ing issue, are there any factors, 

7 comments on page 6? 

8 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you for 

9 referring to the page. 

10 MR. NADEL: In light of the earlier 

11 conversation, I believe that a key part of considering 

12 potential energy savings is factoring in potential 

13 lost energy savings if state standards are and the 

14 department's opinion would be preempted for, I will 

15 say, a minimum of six years and a maximum of probably 

16 at least twice that. So that should be considered in 

17 setting energy, estimating energy savings for coverage 

18 and I think will affect, very much affect, our opinion 

19 about the relative priority of these products. 

20 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

21 Yes, Don? 

22 MR. BRUNDAGE: Don Brundage, Southern 

23 Company. 

24 This is a clarifying question asked to Mr. 

25 Nadel. 

(202) 234-4433 

Isn't it somewhat speculative on what state 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

62

standards would be or which states would adopt them?

Wouldn't that be difficult for the department to

estimate the lost energy savings?

MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel responding.

I agree for products that there has been

no standard state activity, it would be very

difficult. However, for many of these products, there

are actually state standards already enacted being

enforced today and so forth. So for those products,

it is much easier to know what the states have

actually enacted.

What those are saving also makes some

impact because as you have more state standards, often

manufacturers say it's easier just to meet this in

other states as well. Because we know the standards

from which states, it is much easier to estimate those

things.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: I think we are

starting to bridge towards the limits of this

workshop. So if you have some comments, let's make

them brief.

Steve, do you want to weigh in here,

please?

(202) 234-4433

MR. ROSENSTOCK : Steve Rosenstock, EEI.

Yes. Just for the record, out of like 15

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

62 

1 standards would be or which states would adopt them? 

2 Wouldn't that be difficult for the department to 

3 estimate the lost energy savings? 

4 MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel responding. 

5 I agree for products that there has been 

6 no standard state activity, it would be very 

7 difficul t. However, for many of these products, there 

8 are actually state standards already enacted being 

9 enforced today and so forth. So for those products, 

10 it is much easier to know what the states have 

11 actually enacted. 

12 What those are saving also makes some 

13 impact because as you have more state standards, often 

14 manufacturers say it's easier just to meet this in 

15 other states as well. Because we know the standards 

16 from which states, it is much easier to estimate those 

17 things. 

18 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: I think we are 

19 starting to bridge towards the limits of this 

20 workshop. 

21 them brief. 

22 

23 please? 

24 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

So if you have some comments, let's make 

Steve, do you want to weigh in here, 

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEl. 

Yes. Just for the record, out of like 15 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
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

or 16 states that were considering their own

standards, only 3 have done so to date: Maryland,

Connecticut, and California. And of those states, as

far as I know, centers are in effect in the State of

California. It started last year.

Thank you.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you.

Additional cross-cutting issues that can

easily be raised before we go toward the product list

and also these factors that are considered on page 6?

(No response.)

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: No? Not at this

point? We are in kind of a logical break point. It

is 10:25. I am going to suggest we take a break right

now. Before you go anywhere, please make certain you

give a business card to Brenda so she can compile the

attendee list and check to make sure so that we know

you are here.

The small cafeteria which is one floor

below us is being renovated, which is what that noise

was all about you were hearing. There is a coffee

kiosk at the bottom of the escalators, which is going

back toward the lobby. Straight down the escalator,

you will see a kiosk there for coffee. The main

cafeteria is also open, which is a little bit of a

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

63 

1 or 16 states that were considering their own 

2 standards/ only 3 have done so to date: Maryland/ 

3 Connecticut/ and California. And of those states/ as 

4 far as I know/ centers are in effect in the State of 

5 California. It started last year. 

6 Thank you. 

7 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

8 Additional cross-cutting issues that can 

9 easily be raised before we go toward the product list 

10 and also these factors that are considered on page 6? 

11 (No respons.e.) 

12 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: No? Not at this 

13 point? We are in kind of a logical break point. It 

14 is 10:25. I am going to suggest we take a break right 

15 now. Before you go anywhere/ please make certain you 

16 give a business card to Brenda so she can compile the 

17 attendee list and check to make sure so that we know 

18 you are here. 

19 The small cafeteria which is one floor 

20 below us is being renovated/ which is what that noise 

21 was all about you were hearing. There is a coffee 

22 kiosk at the bottom of the escalators/ which is going 

23 back toward the lobby. Straight down the escalator/ 

24 you will see a kiosk there for coffee. The main 

25 cafeteria is also open/ which is a little bit of a 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

64

hike seeing as how we are going to start back at

10:40.

At 10:40, we will return to action here.

Thanks for a good start on the day. We will resume at

10:40.

(Whereupon, the foregoing matter went off

the record at 10:23 a.m. and went back on

the record at 10:41 a.m.)

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Here is where I

think we are. We have had a discussion on a variety

of cross-cutting issues. We have had a good

presentation on the department's perspective and their

overview.

I wanted to see if we could move or any

final cross-cutting issues before we start considering

the actual product categories, the high, medium, and

low priority level categories as we centered our

discussion on those issues.

Other final cross-cutting issues before we

commence with considering the high priority items and

the other priority items?

(No response.)

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. I see none.

Then shall we just start with that? Who wants to

comment? You can see on page 14 of your handout the

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

64 

1 hike seeing as how we are going to start back at 

2 10:40. 

3 At 10:40, we will return to action here. 

4 Thanks for a good start on the day. We will resume at 

5 10:40. 

6 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter went off 

7 the record at 10:23 a.m. and went back on 

8 the record at 10:41 a.m.) 

9 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Here is where I 

10 think we are. We have had a discussion on a variety 

11 of cross-cutting issues. We have had a good 

12 presentation on the department's perspective and their 

13 overview. 

14 I wanted to see if we could move or any 

15 final cross-cutting issues before we start considering 

16 the actual product categories, the high, medium, and 

17 low priority level categories as we centered our 

18 discussion on those issues. 

19 Other final cross-cutting issues before we 

20 commence with considering the high priority items and 

21 the other priority items? 

22 (No response.) 

23 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. I see none. 

24 Then shall we just start with that? Who wants to 

25 comment? You can see on page 14 of your handout the 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

65

final F.Y. '04 versus proposed F.Y. '05 priorities.

The bulk of that first page , that bulk of

products, is listed as high priority. Suggestions on

changes to the high priority list, comments on what's

there? Charlie Stephens?

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens, Oregon

Department of Energy.

I am sympathetic to a comment that was

made just before we broke there that the test

procedures are fairly important before one launches

off into rulemakings or just completes them. Is there

some chance we could look at test procedures first so

that then our comments on the standards might be

better informed?

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Does the department

have a perspective on this?

MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe.

The process improvement rule we have

committed to completing the test procedures

rulemakings before we complete the standards

rulemaking. Memory does fail me at times, but I think

we have committed to completing the rulemaking before

we publish the proposed rule. We have to complete the

test procedure rulemaking before we publish the

proposed rule on standards.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

65 

1 final F.Y. '04 versus proposed F.Y. '05 priorities. 

2 The bulk of that first page, that bulk of 

3 products, is listed as high priority. Suggestions on 

4 changes to the high priority list, comments on what's 

5 there? Charlie Stephens? 

6 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens, Oregon 

7 Department of Energy. 

8 I am sympathetic to a comment that was 

9 made just before we broke there that the test 

10 procedures are fairly important before one launches 

11 off into rulemakings or just completes them. Is there 

12 some chance we could look at test procedures first so 

13 that then our comments on the standards might be 

14 better informed? 

15 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Does the department 

16 have a perspective on this? 

17 MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe. 

18 The process improvement rule we have 

19 committed to completing the test procedures 

20 rulemakings before we complete the standards 

21 rulemaking. Memory does fail me at times, but I think 

22 we have committed to completing the rulemaking before 

23 we publish the proposed rule. We have to complete the 

24 test procedure rulemaking before we publish the 

25 proposed rule on standards. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

66

However, looking at these products, those

products on page 14, we have one of which we are

working on a test procedure at present. And that is

the distribution transformer.

The distribution transformer supplemental

notice of proposed rulemaking has completed the final

reviews within the department. It is going to be sent

to the Federal Register concurrent with the advanced

notice of proposed rulemaking for transformers. And

the reason for that is so that we can schedule the

public meeting and comment period for the two for the

convenience of those who are going to be involved with

the rulemaking so as to have public meetings scheduled

back to back for those two so as not to double the

travel burden on folks.

That one test procedure rulemaking, it is

ready to go out and be published. As I mentioned, the

standards, ANOPRs we expect to publish very soon.

The others, I don't believe there are any

test procedure issues that won't be addressed when we

publish the final rules for the commercial test

procedures, but you can't expect that to be very soon.

MR. MULLIN: Jim Mullin, Lennox.

Michael, the test procedure changes for

residential cooling equipment affect essentially this

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

66 

1 However, looking at these products, those 

2 products on page 14, we have one of which we are 

3 working on a test procedure at present. And that is 

4 the distribution transformer. 

5 The distribution transformer supplemental 

6 notice of proposed rulemaking has completed the final 

7 reviews within the department. It is going to be sent 

8 to the Federal Register concurrent with the advanced 

9 notice of proposed rulemaking for transformers. And 

10 the reason for that is so that we can schedule the 

11 public meeting and comment period for the two for the 

12 convenience of those who are going to be involved with 

13 the rulemaking so as to have public meetings scheduled 

14 back to back for those two so as not to double the 

15 travel burden on folks. 

16 That one test procedure rulemaking, it is 

17 ready to go out and be published. As I mentioned, the 

18 standards, ANOPRs we expect to publish very soon. 

19 The others, I don't believe there are any 

20 test procedure issues that won't be addressed when we 

21 publish the final rules for the commercial test 

22 procedures, but you can't expect that to be very soon. 

23 MR. MULLIN: Jim Mullin, Lennox. 

24 Michael, the test procedure changes for 

25 residential cooling equipment affect essentially this 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

67

three-phase 165,000 Btu per hour. And I believe there

are two sets of changes in the mill somewhere. Maybe

Karim or Mike remembers. It would really be nice to

get those set before we go too far in this thing.

And also, as a reminder, the small high

velocity was a test procedure change.

MR. STEPHENS: Charles Stephens again.

My question had to do with another earlier

comment about very high priority versus high priority

and trying to focus our comments on which things we

think really need to be done sooner than other things,

even though they are all high. So I am trying to

understand where we are in all of these things so I

can make some comments down the road.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Michael McCabe?

MR. McCABE: This is Michael McCabe.

The three advanced notices of proposed

rulemaking for standards, I would expect that those --

all of the staff work has been completed. Most of the

reviews have been completed. So they should be

published. The ANOPR should be published very soon.

The final rules on test procedures for

commercial products are in a similar situation, very

close to being published. And the distribution

transformer supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

67 

1 three-phase 165,000 Btu per hour. And I believe there 

2 are two sets of changes in the mill somewhere. Maybe 

3 Karim or Mike remembers. It would really be nice to 

4 get those set before we go too far in this thing. 

5 And also, as a reminder, the small high 

6 velocity was a test procedure change. 

7 MR. STEPHENS: Charles Stephens again. 

8 My question had to do with another earlier 

9 comment about very high priority versus high priority 

10 and trying to focus our comments on which things we 

11 think really need to be done sooner than other things, 

12 even though they are all high. So I am trying to 

13 understand where we are in all of these things so I 

14 can make some comments down the road. 

15 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Michael McCabe? 

16 MR. McCABE: This is Michael McCabe. 

17 The three advanced notices of proposed 

18 rulemaking for standards, I would expect that those --

19 all of the staff work has been completed. Most of the 

20 reviews have been completed. So they should be 

21 published. The ANOPR should be published very soon. 

22 The final rules on test procedures for 

23 commercial products are in a similar situation, very 

24 close to being published. And the distribution 

25 transformer supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
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

upon test procedures is ready to go to the Federal

Register. The one thing that is holding that up is

the ANOPR standards.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock?

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI.

Just a clarification on the test

procedures. Those are at the NOPR stage or the ANOPR

stage, to clarify?

MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe.

The distribution transformer is a

supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking. We had

published a proposed rule a couple of years ago. We

posted comments in a number of areas, that we have

been working with industry to resolve those.

The four commercial test procedures are

the final rules.

MS. PINTO: Michael, this is Francine

Pinto.

One of those commercial test procedures

will be a direct final rule, which will mean that

there will be 30 days' comment period available. And

then it will become effective in 60 days if we don't

get significant adverse comments.

MR. McCABE: Which ones?

MS. PINTO: Let me think. I think it was

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

68 

1 upon test procedures is ready to go to the Federal 

2 Register. The one thing that is holding that up is 

3 the ANOPR standards. 

4 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock? 

5 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEl. 

6 Just a clarification on the test 

7 procedures. Those are at the NOPR stage or the ANOPR 

8 stage, to clarify? 

9 MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe. 

10 The distribution transformer is a 

11 supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking. We had 

12 published a proposed rule a couple of years ago. We 

13 posted comments in a number of areas, that we have 

14 been working with industry to resolve those. 

15 The four commercial test procedures are 

16 the final rules. 

17 MS. PINTO: Michael, this is Francine 

18 Pinto. 

19 One of those commercial test procedures 

20 will be a direct final rule, which will mean that 

21 there will be 30 days' comment period available. And 

22 then it will become effective in 60 days if we don't 

23 get significant adverse comments. 

24 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

MR. McCABE: Which ones? 

MS. PINTO: Let me think. I think it was 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
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

air conditioners commercial, air conditioners.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: And you can confirm

that if you find otherwise, correct?

MS. PINTO: Correct.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you.

Steve Nadel?

MR. NADEL: Yes. I think this is useful

to clarify where some of these products are now and

what is likely to take place in 2005 assuming the

priorities that DOE is proposing.

You have mentioned many of the products.

I was curious if you could update us on the ASHRAE

products and on commercial AC&D pumps, the three-phase

less than five tons.

MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe.

The ASHRAE products and the commercial air

conditioner, I have one individual on the staff who is

working them as a package. There are some analyses

which have been recently completed on those all except

for the commercial three-phase.

There are issues that had been identified

in the last 12 months or so that needed to be resolved

with respect to the ASHRAE standard for ASHRAE 90.1

and some of the referenced test procedures had some

inconsistencies overlap, for example, with product

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

69 

1 air conditioners commercial, air conditioners. 

2 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: And you can confirm 

3 that if you find otherwise, correct? 

4 MS. PINTO: Correct. 

5 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

6 Steve Nadel? 

7 MR. NADEL: Yes. I think this is useful 

8 to clarify where some of these products are now and 

9 what is likely to take place in 2005 assuming the 

10 priorities that DOE is proposing. 

11 You have mentioned many of the products. 

12 I was curious if you could update us on the ASHRAE 

13 products and on commercial AC&D pumps, the three-phase 

14 less than five tons. 

15 MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe. 

16 The ASHRAE products and the commercial air 

17 condi tioner, I have one individual on the staff who is 

18 working them as a package. There are some analyses 

19 which have been recently completed on those all except 

20 for the commercial three-phase. 

21 There are issues that had been identified 

22 in the last 12 months or so that needed to be resolved 

23 with respect to the ASHRAE standard for ASHRAE 90.1 

24 and some of the referenced test procedures had some 

25 inconsistencies overlap, for example, with product 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

70

definition. Those needed to be resolved before we

could proceed with the rulemaking phase.

As I understand it, a final resolution has

been completed by ARI. And they are working with the

ASHRAE subcommittees and that that will be an issue

that will be discussed at length at this coming ASHRAE

summer meeting.

I believe that there will be a ballot

proposed and that we anticipate that those issues will

be resolved as far as the ASHRAE process and coverage

certainly by the end of this year, by the winter

meeting January 2005.

MR. NADEL: Okay. Steve Nadel again.

So for those products, you would

anticipate to begin the rulemaking phase in calendar

year 2005. I assume that starts with an ANOPR.

MR. McCABE: For these products, the

commercial products -- I'm going to look to counsel to

confirm, but I do not believe the commercial products

require an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, nor

does the process rule apply to commercial products.

But we have and we will continue to try to

apply the principles of the process rule to all of the

products, all of the rulemakings, which we have work

underway. So while a final decision has not been made

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

70 

1 definition. Those needed to be resolved before we 

2 could proceed with the rulemaking phase. 

3 As I understand it, a final resolution has 

4 been completed by ARl. And they are working with the 

5 ASHRAE subcommittees and that that will be an issue 

6 that will be discussed at length at this coming ASHRAE 

7 summer meeting. 

8 I believe that there will be a ballot 

9 proposed and that we anticipate that those issues will 

10 be resolved as far as the ASHRAE process and coverage 

11 certainly by the end of this year, by the winter 

12 meeting January 2005. 

13 MR. NADEL: Okay. Steve Nadel again. 

14 So for those products, you would 

15 anticipate to begin the rulemaking phase in calendar 

16 year 2005. I assume that starts with an ANOPR. 

17 MR. McCABE: For these products, the 

18 commercial products - - I'm going to look to counsel to 

19 confirm, but I do not believe the commercial products 

20 require an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking, nor 

21 does the process rule apply to commercial products. 

22 But we have and we will continue to try to 

23 apply the principles of the process rule to all of the 

24 products, all of the rulemakings, which we have work 

25 underway. So while a final decision has not been made 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

71

with respect to these commercial products, I would

anticipate an ANOPR.

As I mentioned, we do have analysis work

that is underway. And this work will continue; the

analysis work, that is, in support of the next step of

the process, which, again, I anticipate that will be

an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking.

MR. NADEL: Okay. And then for the air

conditioners less than five tons, I know ASHRAE passed

a CR-12 standard. I don't know. Maybe ARI does this.

Is ASHRAE planning on taking up an amendment to that?

What is the status on that?

MR. McCABE: This is Michael McCabe.

Our trigger has been already set by ASHRAE

about CR-12. We are proceeding in response to that.

If ASHRAE decides to adopt a different level, such as

the 13, we will certainly have to take that into

consideration. But that is a separate process at this

point in time.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Karim?

MR. AMRANE: This is Karim Amrane with

ARI.

There is nothing yet being triggered at

ASHRAE to raise the level to 13. It is an issue that

is being discussed within industry right now. I think

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

71 

1 wi th respect to these commercial products, I would 

2 anticipate an ANOPR. 

3 As I mentioned, we do have analysis work 

4 that is underway. And this work will continue; the 

5 analysis work, that is, in support of the next step of 

6 the process, which, again, I anticipate that will be 

7 an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking. 

8 MR. NADEL: Okay. And then for the air 

9 condi tioners less than five tons, I know ASHRAE passed 

10 a CR-12 standard. I don't know. Maybe ARI does this. 

11 Is ASHRAE planning on taking up an amendment to that? 

12 What is the status on that? 

13 MR. McCABE: This is Michael McCabe. 

14 Our trigger has been already set by ASHRAE 

15 about CR-12. We are proceeding in response to that. 

16 If ASHRAE decides to adopt a different level, such as 

17 the 13, we will certainly have to take that into 

18 consideration. But that is a separate process at this 

19 point in time. 

20 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Karim? 

21 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim Amrane with 

22 ARI. 

23 There is nothing yet being triggered at 

24 ASHRAE to raise the level to 13. It is an issue that 

25 is being discussed within industry right now. I think 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

72

there is a consensus to increase to 13. There is no

discussion about the effective date that should be in

effect. And we are discussing that.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Karim, are you

working with ASHRAE on this issue?

MR. AMRANE: We are right now discussing

with our members. And the next step would be to look

to ASHRAE.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you.

Please? I saw this gentleman here. Did

you wish to comment?

MR. GRAY: Yes. This is Ed Gray from

NEMA.

I would just like to say I think the

process that is proposed or underway on distribution

transformers, with having some overlap between the

test procedure and the standard is appropriate.

We sort of have on distribution

transformers what we would characterize in NEMA as the

reverse situation of section 323, which Barbara talked

about, which is we have a test procedure which might

impact standards, as opposed to an existing standard

where a new test procedure might impose the standard

or the DOE test procedure that is certain statistical

assumptions which lead the average product being

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

72 

1 there is a consensus to increase to 13. There is no 

2 discussion about the effective date that should be in 

3 effect. And we are discussing that. 

4 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Karim, are you 

5 working with ASHRAE on this issue? 

6 MR. AMRANE: We are right now discussing 

7 with our members. And the next step would be to look 

8 to ASHRAE. 

9 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

10 Please? I saw this gentleman here. Did 

11 you wish to comment? 

12 MR. GRAY: Yes. This is Ed Gray from 

13 NEMA. 

14 I would just like to say I think the 

15 process that is proposed or underway on distribution 

16 transformers, with having some overlap between the 

17 test procedure and the standard is appropriate. 

18 We sort of have on distribution 

19 transformers what we would characterize in NEMA as the 

20 reverse situation of section 323, which Barbara talked 

21 about, which is we have a test procedure which might 

22 impact standards, as opposed to an existing standard 

23 where a new test procedure might impose the standard 

24 or the DOE test procedure that is certain statistical 

25 assumptions which lead the average product being 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
73

1 supplied with a standard efficiency that would be

2 above the standard, whatever it turns out to be later.

3 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you.

4 MR. BERRINGER : Just to follow up on that

5 - Bryan Berringer. It's part of the process of proof,

6 and we also said that we would have a rule, test

7 procedure, final rule completed before we initiated or

8 published the notice, so that is our intent.

9 MR. DELAQUILA: Dave Delaquila with GAMA.

10 With respect to the residential furnace and boiler

11 standard proposal for high priority in fiscal year

12 2005, we'd like to see that lowered to low priority.

13 We don't see any real energy savings with the

14 incremental improvement that the standard is

15 considering right now, so I'm sure we'll be submitting

16 some written comments on this, as well, but we'd like

17 to see that put down to low priority.

18 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: So now I think

19 we're commencing --

20 MR. BERRINGER: May I follow-up? Bryan

21 Berringer. We are in the process - again, we have the

22 technical support documents. We feel they'll be

23 released shortly along with the ANOPR, so I mean,

24 again as Michael discussed earlier , we can then assess

25 that better as far as what the analysis is, and there

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

73 

1 supplied with a standard efficiency that would be 

2 above the standard, whatever it turns out to be later. 

3 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

4 MR. BERRINGER: Just to follow up on that 

5 - Bryan Berringer. It's part of the process of proof, 

6 and we also said that we would have a rule, test 

7 procedure, final rule completed before we initiated or 

8 published the notice, so that is our intent. 

9 MR. DELAQUILA: Dave Delaquila with GAMA. 

10 with respect to the residential furnace and boiler 

11 standard proposal for high priority in fiscal year 

12 2005, we'd like to see that lowered to low priority. 

13 We don't see any real energy savings with the 

14 incremental improvement that the standard is 

15 considering right now, so I'm sure we'll be submitting 

16 some written comments on this, as well, but we'd like 

17 to see that put down to low priority. 

18 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: So now I think 

19 we're commencing --

20 MR. BERRINGER: May I follow-up? Bryan 

21 Berringer. We are in the process - again, we have the 

22 technical support documents. We feel they'll be 

23 released shortly along with the ANOPR, so I mean, 

24 again as Michael discussed earlier, we can then assess 

25 that better as far as what the analysis is, and there 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
74

1 will be a comment period and a public workshop for

2 that, so there will be definitely some analysis for

3 more di scuss i on.

4 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Now I'm going to

5 ask people to refer to page 14, which is the list.

6 We've got a better plan. I was going to suggest that

7 we talk about these high priority products, what is

8 listed there, what individuals in the room would

9 suggest we change, and go in that direction for now.

1 0 Pl ease, John.

11 MR. MANDIKE: John Mandike with Carrier

12 Corporation. I just wanted to offer our feedback on

13 the high priority list, and they're lumped into five

14 categories, some of which are on the list that we

15 think are appropriate, some we think are not on the

16 list that should be on the list.

17 The first two related to actually going

18 back to what we refer to as some cleanup for the

19 central air conditioning rule, and that is related to

20 ductless split air conditioners. And I know there

21 will be other forums for us to discuss this, but we

22 just wanted to state for the record that we think

23 Douglas air conditioners should be covered

24 expeditiously under the 13 SEER Rule effective in

25 2006.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

74 

1 will be a comment period and a public workshop for 

2 that, so there will be definitely some analysis for 

3 more discussion. 

4 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Now I'm going to 

5 ask people to refer to page 14, which is the list. 

6 We've got a better plan. I was going to suggest that 

7 we talk about these high priority products, what is 

8 listed there, what individuals in the room would 

9 suggest we change, and go in that direction for now. 

10 Please, John. 

11 MR. MANDIKE: John Mandike with Carrier 

12 Corporation. I just wanted to offer our feedback on 

13 the high priority list, and they're lumped into five 

14 categories, some of which are on the list that we 

15 think are appropriate, some we think are not on the 

16 list that should be on the list. 

17 The first two related to actually going 

18 back to what we refer to as some cleanup for the 

19 central air conditioning rule, and that is related to 

20 ductless split air conditioners. And I know there 

21 will be other forums for us to discuss this, but we 

22 just wanted to state for the record that we think 

23 Douglas air conditioners should be covered 

24 expeditiously under the 13 SEER Rule effective in 

25 2006. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
75

1 We think they were incorrectly categorized

2 as space constrained in the original rule making, and

3 there is nothing space constrained about the product.

4 And we're concerned that a non-harmonized standard

5 could create product switching due to an economic

6 benefit that would be afforded to these units if they

7 weren't covered under 13 SEER.

8 Secondly, related to the central air

9 conditioning rule, is an issue that's neither a

10 standard nor a test procedure, but nonetheless, we

11 take this opportunity to raise it as one that should

12 be a high priority for the Department, and that has to

13 do with mixed coil ratings.

14 We believe the parameters of the current

15 various rating programs may be overstating

16 efficiencies today so, therefore, we urge DOE to

17 require that all manufacturers recertify all rating

18 programs prior to 2006 for the 13 SEER Rule, and

19 longer term require, or perhaps look at requiring a

20 single DOE generated mandatory mixed coil ratings

21 program.

22 The third issue is related to furnaces,

23 and two comments related to that. If the Department

24 proceeds with a rule making on furnaces, we just

25 caution again, as we've stated in the past, that non-

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

75 

1 We think they were incorrectly categorized 

2 as space constrained in the original rule making, and 

3 there is nothing space constrained about the product. 

4 And we're concerned that a non-harmonized standard 

5 could create product switching due to an economic 

6 benefit that would be afforded to these units if they 

7 weren't covered under 13 SEER. 

8 Secondly, related to the central air 

9 condi tioning rule, is an issue that's neither a 

10 standard nor a test procedure, but nonetheless, we 

11 take this opportunity to raise it as one that should 

12 be a high priority for the Department, and that has to 

13 do with mixed coil ratings. 

14 We believe the parameters of the current 

15 various rating programs may be overstating 

16 efficiencies today so, therefore, we urge DOE to 

17 require that all manufacturers recertify all rating 

18 programs prior to 2006 for the 13 SEER Rule, and 

19 longer term require, or perhaps look at requiring a 

20 single DOE generated mandatory mixed coil ratings 

21 program. 

22 The third issue is related to furnaces, 

23 and two comments related to that. If the Department 

24 proceeds with a rule making on furnaces, we just 

25 caution again, as we've stated in the past, that non-

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

76

condensing minimums above 80 percent can present

significant safety and product erosion issues, so

again we question whether there is enough energy to be

saved by doing a rule making. But beyond that, our

main concern today with the furnace rule making is

that if the Department does proceed with a furnace

rule making, we urge that whatever standard is

applied, be also applied to the combination system,

which is rated as a low priority today. We urge that

that be considered in tandem as a high priority with

furnaces. Again, we're concerned about product

switching in the marketplace, and benefits that may be

afforded to some and not others due to standards

making.

And issue, fourthly, commercial

refrigeration. We urge the Department to cover both

remote and reach-in products expeditiously as high

priorities. We believe, certainly, that DOE has the

authority to regulate both product classes, and would

urge you to do so quickly to avoid a patchwork of

state-by-state standards, and to capture valuable

energy savings for the nation.

Finally, under 20 plus ton package unit,

large package commercial air conditioners, we urge

this be a high priority for the Department 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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

76 

1 condensing minimums above 80 percent can present 

2 significant safety and product erosion issues, so 

3 again we question whether there is enough energy to be 

4 saved by doing a rule making. But beyond that, our 

5 main concern today with the furnace rule making is 

6 that if the Department does proceed with a furnace 

7 rule making, we urge that whatever standard is 

8 applied, be also applied to the combination system, 

9 which is rated as a low priority today. We urge that 

10 that be considered in tandem as a high priority with 

11 furnaces. Again, we're concerned about product 

12 switching in the marketplace, and benefits that may be 

13 afforded to some and not others due to standards 

14 making. 

15 And issue, fourthly, commercial 

16 refrigeration. We urge the Department to cover both 

17 remote and reach-in products expeditiously as high 

18 priorities. We believe, certainly, that DOE has the 

19 authority to regulate both product classes, and would 

20 urge you to do so quickly to avoid a patchwork of 

21 state-by-state standards, and to capture valuable 

22 energy savings for the nation. 

23 Finally, under 20 plus ton package unit, 

24 large package commercial air conditioners, we urge 

25 this be a high priority for the Department of Energy. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

77

We disagree with the Department's conclusion that you

do not have the legislative authority to regulate

these products, and we believe you do under Sections

6311(g), and 6312(b), gives the Department the

authority to regulate these products as national

standards. And we urge you to do that as a high

priority, again to avoid a patchwork of state

standards and to capture valuable energy savings for

the nation. Thank you very much.

MR. NADEL: Yes. I believe you're looking

for comments at this point on page 14, and then we'll

do them page by page. Is that how you'd like to

proceed?

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: I thought that

would be a sensible way to proceed.

MR. NADEL: Okay. To give a few comments

on page 14, in light of my previous comment, I would

recommend that three of these be declared very high

priority, the commercial AC between 65 and 240 BTUs

per hour, particularly for those products we have a

change-out of refrigerant happening 2010. And the

sooner the manufacturers know what the standard will

be, the more time they have to prepare to change our

refrigerant and meet efficiency standards, so that one

should definitely be a very high priority.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

77 

1 We disagree with the Department's conclusion that you 

2 do not have the legislative authority to regulate 

3 these products I and we believe you do under Sections 

4 6311(g), and 6312(b), gives the Department the 

5 authority to regulate these products as national 

6 standards. And we urge you to do that as a high 

7 priority, again to avoid a patchwork of state 

8 standards and to capture valuable energy savings for 

9 the nation. Thank you very much. 

10 MR. NADEL: Yes. I believe you're looking 

11 for comments at this point on page 14, and then we'll 

12 do them page by page. Is that how you f d like to 

13 proceed? 

14 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: I thought that 

15 would be a sensible way to proceed. 

16 MR. NADEL: Okay. To give a few comments 

17 on page 14, in light of my previous comment, I would 

18 recommend that three of these be declared very high 

19 priority, the commercial AC between 65 and 240 BTUs 

20 per hour, particularly for those products we have a 

21 change-out of refrigerant happening 2010. And the 

22 sooner the manufacturers know what the standard will 

23 be, the more time they have to prepare to change our 

24 refrigerant and meet efficiency standards, so that one 

25 should definitely be a very high priority. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

78

Likewise, distribution transformers and

residential furnaces and boilers should be very high

priorities. These are the upcoming rule makings,

according to the DOE analysis, our own analysis, there

is very high potential for savings. We disagree with

GAMA. They're looking, I believe, at only one of the

three main mechanisms by which energy would be saved,

go from 78 to 80 or 81 percent. The biggest

opportunities are to go to condensing in cold climates

and to look at the furnace fan, and all these issues

will need to be considered in a full rule making, as

opposed to stopping it short. Likewise, transformers.

The federal legislation deals with certain products,

but there are other products that have significant

potential for savings.

The other comment I'd say is the Ashray

products appear to be effectively medium priority in

the way that they are being processed, and we'd

recommend just calling them medium priority. Let's

call a spade a spade, rather than going to the

solution that more work is being done. We think DOE

should proceed with these as they have time and

resources because they are not as high priority as

some of the other products.

Particularly, I was glad to hear -- it

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

78 

1 Likewise, distribution transformers and 

2 residential furnaces and boilers should be very high 

3 priorities. These are the upcoming rule makings, 

4 according to the DOE analysis, our own analysis, there 

5 is very high potential for savings. We disagree with 

6 GAMA. They're looking, I believe, at only one of the 

7 three main mechanisms by which energy would be saved, 

8 go from 78 to 80 or 81 percent. The biggest 

9 opportunities are to go to condensing in cold climates 

10 and to look at the furnace fan, and all these issues 

11 will need to be considered in a full rule making, as 

12 opposed to stopping it short. Likewise, transformers. 

13 The federal legislation deals with certain products, 

14 but there are other products that have significant 

15 potential for savings. 

16 The other comment I'd say is the Ashray 

17 products appear to be effectively medium priority in 

18 the way that they are being processed, and we'd 

19 recommend just calling them medium priority. Let's 

20 call a spade a spade, rather than going to the 

21 solution that more work is being done. We think DOE 

22 should proceed with these as they have time and 

23 resources because they are not as high priority as 

24 some of the other products. 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

Particularly, I was glad to hear -- it 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

79

sounds like there might be a way that Ashray would

revise its standard, which would allow DOE to revise

its standards for the less than 5 ton products, which

would save everybody a lot of time and trouble.

MR. AMRANE: I'm Karim Amrane with ARI.

I'd like to go on the record supporting DOE's

priorities for commercial central AC between 65 and

40,000 BTUs. Central AC is three phased at 65,000

BTUs, to package general equipment, and to single

package electrical air conditioning and heat pump. I

think that DOE has set it right, and they should be

moving forward.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Other comments?

I'll just cluster at this point. So let me ask again,

other comments that people wish to make regarding

these high priority products first listed on page 14.

Okay. So I guess we're shifting over then to the next

page, 15.

MR. NADEL: I guess I 'll kick it off with

a couple of suggestions. I think it's okay to

maintain the small electric motor determination as a

high priority. I believe that's mostly completed, and

I believe there is a consensus largely on how to

proceed. For the other products, though, I would

recommend downgrading these to low priority. All of

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

79 

1 sounds like there might be a way that Ashray would 

2 revise its standard, which would allow DOE to revise 

3 its standards for the less than 5 ton products, which 

4 would save everybody a lot of time and trouble. 

5 MR. AMRANE: I'm Karim Amrane with ARI. 

6 I'd like to go on the record supporting DOE's 

7 priorities for commercial central AC between 65 and 

8 40,000 BTUs. Central AC is three phased at 65,000 

9 BTUs, to package general equipment, and to single 

10 package electrical air conditioning and heat pump. I 

11 think that DOE has set it right, and they should be 

12 moving forward. 

13 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Other comments? 

14 I'll just cluster at this point. So let me ask again, 

15 other comments that people wish to make regarding 

16 these high priority products first listed on page 14. 

17 Okay. So I guess we're shifting over then to the next 

18 page, 15. 

19 MR. NADEL: I guess I'll kick it off with 

20 a couple of suggestions. I think it's okay to 

21 maintain the small electric motor determination as a 

22 high priority. I believe that f s mostly completed, and 

23 I believe there is a consensus largely on how to 

24 proceed. For the other products, though, I would 

25 recommend downgrading these to low priority. All of 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
80

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

these are products that states either have standards,

are actively working on standards. And if DOE has

limited resources, they should concentrate on those

products where they can save energy rather than get in

the way of states that are already working on these

products.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: So everything but

small electric motors.

MR. NADEL: Correct.

MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe, for

clarification. Would that include the high intensity

discharge lamps?

MR. NADEL: Yes, that would. California

has a proposal that they just had a workshop on a

couple of weeks ago about that product.

MR. GRAY: Yes, but I think -- this is Ed

Gray from NEMA again. I don't know that we're all

speaking from the same page and what's going on there.

I guess NEMA's perspective, and we have the first two

products on this list, HID lamps and small electric

motors. Our perspective is exactly the same as the

counsel of DOE indicated earlier, that these are

federally pre-empted products, and consequently, we

should do whatever we need to do at the federal level

to determine whether or not these products will have

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

80 

1 these are products that states either have standards, 

2 are actively working on standards. And if DOE has 

3 limited resources, they should concentrate on those 

4 products where they can save energy rather than get in 

5 the way of states that are already working on these 

6 products. 

7 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: So everything but 

8 small electric motors. 

9 MR. NADEL: Correct. 

10 MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe, for 

11 clarification. Would that include the high intensity 

12 discharge lamps? 

13 MR. NADEL: Yes, that would. California 

14 has a proposal that they just had a workshop on a 

15 couple of weeks ago about that product. 

16 MR. GRAY: Yes, but I think this is Ed 

17 Gray from NEMA again. I don't know that we're all 

18 speaking from the same page and what's going on there. 

19 I guess NEMA's perspective, and we have the first two 

20 products on this list, HID lamps and small electric 

21 motors. Our perspective is exactly the same as the 

22 counsel of DOE indicated earlier, that these are 

23 federally pre-empted products, and consequently, we 

24 should do whatever we need to do at the federal level 

25 to determine whether or not these products will have 

(202) 234·4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
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

standards.

NEMA's position on both of these product

areas is we don't need product standards. But

certainly through the DOE process we can at the end of

the day decide whether NEMA's position prevails or

another one does. Certainly we'll have some sort of

track record where a determination is made, so we see

these as staying in the federal process, and not

having a proliferation of state standards which make

it hard for manufacturers to manufacture products that

are going to be sold nationwide.

MR. AMRANE: We disagree with Steve. We

believe that there should be a federal standard for

beverage merchandisers, as well as commercial beverage

vending machines. We don't really like the lack of

state standards that's going on right now. And we all

feel that more energy will be saved by the minimum

federal standard, so we really strongly urge DOE to

maintain those products on high priority.

And we would like also to add to the

commercial regime, refrigerators and freezers. We'd

also like to add supermarket remote display cases as

high priority too.

MR. MISURIELLO: Thank you. Harry

Misuriello with the Alliance to Save Energy. We would

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

81 

1 standards. 

2 NEMA's position on both of these product 

3 areas is we don't need product standards. But 

4 certainly through the DOE process we can at the end of 

5 the day decide whether NEMA's position prevails or 

6 another one does. Certainly we'll have some sort of 

7 track record where a determination is made, so we see 

8 these as staying in the federal process, and not 

9 having a proliferation of state standards which make 

10 it hard for manufacturers to manufacture products that 

11 are going to be sold nationwide. 

12 MR. AMRANE: We disagree with Steve. We 

13 believe that there should be a federal standard for 

14 beverage merchandisers, as well as commercial beverage 

15 vending machines. We don't really like the lack of 

16 state standards that's going on right now. And we all 

17 feel that more energy will be saved by the minimum 

18 federal standard, so we really strongly urge DOE to 

19 maintain those products on high priority. 

20 And we would like also to add to the 

21 commercial regime, refrigerators and freezers. We'd 

22 also like to add supermarket remote display cases as 

23 high priority too. 

24 MR. MISURIELLO: Thank you. Harry 

25 Misuriello with the Alliance to Save Energy. We would 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

82

like to agree with ACEEE about DOE not pre-empting the

state products. And as part of the investigation into

this, DOE should look at the variants of requirements

across the state standards. These are generally taken

out of a model piece of legislation. There is very

little variation in the requirements from state-tostate. They should be very similar, and that should

not be a factor that encourages DOE to preclude these

products. You're going to miss 10 years worth of

energy savings if these products are precluded at this

time. Thank you.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: I saw Deborah

Miller, and then Steve Rosenstock.

MS. MILLER: Yes. I'd hate to get into a

debate right now about state standards versus federal

standards, but I want to make sure that DOE

understands that ARI and our members are against state

standards. And the model legislation that was

referred to was put together in some cases from

programs that were voluntary, not standards, voluntary

specifications that have not had due diligence and

appropriate analysis. So again, ARI does not support

state standards, and believes that if there's enough

energy saved from a product, it should become a

federal standard where the most energy savings could

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

82 

1 like to agree with ACEEE about DOE not pre-empting the 

2 state products. And as part of the investigation into 

3 this, DOE should look at the variants of requirements 

4 across the state standards. These are generally taken 

5 out of a model piece of legislation. There is very 

6 little variation in the requirements from state-to7 state. They should be very similar, and that should 

8 not be a factor that encourages DOE to preclude these 

9 products. You're going to miss 10 years worth of 

10 energy savings if these products are precluded at this 

11 time. Thank you. 

12 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: I saw Deborah 

13 Miller, and then Steve Rosenstock. 

14 MS. MILLER: Yes. I'd hate to get into a 

15 debate right now about state standards versus federal 

16 standards, but I want to make sure that DOE 

17 understands that ARI and our members are against state 

18 standards. And the model legislation that was 

19 referred to was put together in some cases from 

20 programs that were voluntary, not standards, voluntary 

21 specifications that have not had due diligence and 

22 appropriate analysis. So again, ARI does not support 

23 state standards, and believes that if there's enough 

24 energy saved from a product, it should become a 

25 federal standard where the most energy savings could 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
83

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

occur. Thank you.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Steve, why don't

you follow-up.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, Edison

Electric Institute. For the record, the state

standards in California and Maryland, and Connecticut,

there are different products in each state that are

covered by the different states. There's also

different time tables. Some of the California

standards went into effect in 2003. For Maryland, I

believe the standards take in 2005, and for

Connecticut I believe the start year is 2007.

MS. MILLER: No, 8 and 9.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Oh, 2008 and 9, I'm

sorry. I'm sorry. There's significant differences

right there in terms of what's going on with the

states.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: John, why don't you

follow on, and then we'll go to --

SPEAKER: Setting kind of -- really kind

of getting back to again just a time line for the

determinations, I'm just kind of curious about if the

Department knows what kind of time line they think the

- I'll say the determination report - will be

estimated finished time.

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

83 

1 occur. Thank you. 

2 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Steve, why don't 

3 you follow-up. 

4 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, Edison 

5 Electric Institute. For the record, the state 

6 standards in California and Maryland, and Connecticut, 

7 there are different products in each state that are 

8 covered by the different states. There's also 

9 different time tables. Some of the California 

10 standards went into effect in 2003. For Maryland, I 

11 believe the standards take in 2005, and for 

12 Connecticut I believe the start year is 2007. 

13 MS. MILLER: No, 8 and 9. 

14 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Oh, 2008 and 9 , I'm 

15 sorry. I'm sorry. There's significant differences 

16 right there in terms of what's going on with the 

17 states. 

18 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: John, why don't you 

19 follow on, and then we'll go to --

20 SPEAKER: Setting kind of -- really kind 

21 of getting back to again just a time line for the 

22 determinations, I'm just kind of curious about if the 

23 Department knows what kind of time line they think the 

24 I'll say the determination report 

25 estimated finished time. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 

will be 

www.nealrgross.com 
84

1 MR. MANDIKE: John Mandike with Carrier --

2 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Let's let the

3 Department respond, John.

4 MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe. The analysis

5 respect to the time line for the two

6 determinations, the analyses in support of both

7 determinations have been completed, and are being

8 reviewed by the Office of Building Technology and the

9 staff at present to prepare a recommendation for

10 senior management. We do not have a schedule for when

11 this will be released, or the determination, the next

12 step.

13 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you.

14 MR. MANDIKE: John Mandike with Carrier.

15 I guess we're just in an interesting role here, with

16 industry crying for faster federal standards so the

17 nation can save more energy. But be that as it may,

18 I guess the one response I have is to urge the

19 Department to consider that although this a "model

20 bill", I think it's been already pointed out that

21 there's less things that are model about it than

22 others. But the one thing that is for certain is,

23 even if all these "model standards" were enacted at

24 once today, you can be certain in the future as they

25 go to be changed, they will not all be done on 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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

84 

1 MR. MANDIKE: John Mandike with Carrier 

2 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Let's let the 

3 Department respond, John. 

4 MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe. The analysis 

5 respect to the time line for the two 

6 determinations, the analyses in support of both 

7 determinations have been completed, and are being 

8 reviewed by the Office of Building Technology and the 

9 staff at present to prepare a recommendation for 

10 senior management. We do not have a schedule for when 

11 this will be released, or the determination, the next 

12 step. 

13 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

14 MR. MANDIKE: John Mandike with Carrier. 

15 I guess we're just in an interesting role here, with 

16 industry crying for faster federal standards so the 

17 nation can save more energy. But be that as it may, 

18 I guess the one response I have is to urge the 

19 Department to consider that although this a "model 

20 bill", I think it's been already pointed out that 

21 there's less things that are model about it than 

22 others. But the one thing that is for certain is, 

23 even if all these "model standards" were enacted at 

24 once today, you can be certain in the future as they 

25 go to be changed, they will not all be done on the 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

85

same day. And we can almost guarantee that this will

result in patchwork of state standards that will not

be beneficial to the nation.

MR. DELASKI: I want to urge the

Department to move all the products that are listed

here for coverage to a low priority, and to cease work

on them. I appreciate what you're doing to prepare

for possible passage of legislation that would give

you authority, and also set pre-emption rules that

would allow state standards to go forward. However,

given the general counsel's current interpretation

that coverage would pre-empt existing state standards,

it would be a huge step backward for energy efficiency

if the Department were to cover these products, both

for the individual states that would be pre-empted, as

well as for the nation as a whole.

As Steve pointed out, three states have

already enacted standards for some or all of these

products. Numerous other states are in the process of

considering such standards. It's my opinion that

within a very few short years, that we will have de

facto national standards for these products, provided

the Department does not cover them, because enough

states will have acted. And for the Department to

cover these products, as Harry pointed out, we're

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

85 

1 same day. And we can almost guarantee that this will 

2 result in patchwork of state standards that will not 

3 be beneficial to the nation. 

4 MR. DELASKI: I want to urge the 

5 Department to move all the products that are listed 

6 here for coverage to a low priority, and to cease work 

7 on them. I appreciate what you're doing to prepare 

8 for possible passage of legislation that would give 

9 you authority, and also set pre-emption rules that 

10 would allow state standards to go forward. However, 

11 given the general counsel's current interpretation 

12 that coverage would pre-empt existing state standards, 

13 it would be a huge step backward for energy efficiency 

14 if the Department were to cover these products, both 

15 for the individual states that would be pre-empted, as 

16 well as for the nation as a whole. 

17 As Steve pointed out, three states have 

18 already enacted standards for some or all of these 

19 products. Numerous other states are in the process of 

20 considering such standards. It's my opinion that 

21 within a very few short years, that we will have de 

22 facto national standards for these products, provided 

23 the Department does not cover them, because enough 

24 states will have acted. And for the Department to 

25 cover these products, as Harry pointed out, we're 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
86

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

looking at least 10 years of lost time.

Under the process, it takes the Department

two years for a test method, three years to develop

the standard, and a three-year lead time, so a minimum

of eight years. You've already got your current

priorities. When you start covering these products,

you're talking about pre-empting existing state energy

efficiency standards and replacing them with zero

action at the federal level. And that is a step

backwards for energy efficiency, and I hope that you

will take the recommendation to move these to a low

priority.

MR. McCABE: This is Michael McCabe. As

a point of clarification, does your recommendation

include small electric motors, as I understood?

ACEEE's recommendation was to maintain it at a high

priority, and all the others at low.

MR. DELASKI: Yes, I concur with that.

MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel. Just to clarify

here, we ultimately advocate national standards.

We're not saying we should always have a patchwork of

state standards. But we believe that the DOE process

is so slow and cumbersome, DOE has much higher

priorities elsewhere, particularly with this latest

general counsel opinion, it's just going to, in our

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

86 

1 looking at least 10 years of lost time. 

2 Under the process, it takes the Department 

3 two years for a test method, three years to develop 

4 the standard, and a three-year lead time, so a minimum 

5 of eight years. You've already got your current 

6 priorities. When you start covering these products, 

7 you're talking about pre-empting existing state energy 

8 efficiency standards and replacing them with zero 

9 action at the federal level. And that is a step 

10 backwards for energy efficiency, and I hope that you 

11 will take the recommendation to move these to a low 

12 priority. 

13 MR. McCABE: This is Michael McCabe. As 

14 a point of clarification, does your recommendation 

15 include small electric motors, as I understood? 

16 ACEEE's recommendation was to maintain it at a high 

17 priority, and all the others at low. 

18 MR. DELASKI: Yes, I concur with that. 

19 MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel. Just to clarify 

20 here, we ultimately advocate national standards. 

21 We're not saying we should always have a patchwork of 

22 state standards. But we believe that the DOE process 

23 is so slow and cumbersome, DOE has much higher 

24 priorities elsewhere, particularly with this latest 

25 general counsel opinion, it's just going to, in our 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
87

1 opinion, mess things up and distract them from much

2 higher priorities.

3 There are other mechanisms to establish

4 national standards. We in industry have negotiated

5 consensus standards on eight products now, six of

6 which are included in the Federal Energy Bill, two of

7 which are ready to be added to the bill as soon as

8 Congress picks it up. We are having discussions with

9 manufacturers on a number of other products, and are

10 cautiously optimistic we can reach agreement. So we

11 believe that the better route is to yes, let the

12 states proceed, but let these discussions proceed.

13 And we think that that will allow Congress to enact

14 these standards, and DOE should use its resources

15 where they're most needed on those rule makings that

16 will result in very large energy savings, where DOE is

17 already regulating products and it's time to upgrade

18 them.

19 MR. STEINER: David Steiner with Maytag

20 Corporation, which also includes our manufacturer of

21 vending machines, Victory Arco. I would like to say

22 that I support the DOE's prioritization at high for

23 beverage vending machines, as much as I support state

24 standards and states' rights. However, in this

25 category especially where we have a very small number

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

87 

1 opinionl mess things up and distract them from much 

2 higher priorities. 

3 There are other mechanisms to establish 

4 national standards. We in industry have negotiated 

5 consensus standards on eight products now I six of 

6 which are included in the Federal Energy Billl two of 

7 which are ready to be added to the bill as soon as 

8 Congress picks it up. We are having discussions with 

9 manufacturers on a number of other products I and are 

10 cautiously optimistic we can reach agreement. So we 

11 believe that the better route is to yesl let the 

12 states proceed l but let these discussions proceed. 

13 And we think that that will allow Congress to enact 

14 these standards I and DOE should use its resources 

15 where they/re most needed on those rule makings that 

16 will result in very large energy savings I where DOE is 

17 already regulating products and it/s time to upgrade 

18 them. 

19 MR. STEINER: David Steiner with May tag 

20 Corporation l which also includes our manufacturer of 

21 vending machines I Victory Arco. I would like to say 

22 that I support the DOE/s prioritization at high for 

23 beverage vending machines l as much as I support state 

24 standards and statesl rights. However, in this 

25 category especially where we have a very small number 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

88

of manufacturers who are making a very small number of

products, it makes so much more sense to have national

standards that can apply across the country to the

point Mr. Nadel just brought up. Despite the fact

that we have state standards set today, and in fact if

it is so important that we have these, then we should

be working with the DOE to help streamline their

process to speed along whatever we need to do meet the

statutory requirements mentioned earlier by the NRDC

representative, rather than trying to push the state

standards, which are only going to Balkanize the

marketplace here in the United States, cause

compliance costs to increase substantially, and

possibly drive out many of the manufacturers in

producing these products in the United States.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Additional comments

on the products that are listed on 15, and maybe we

can also go to 16.

MR. CALABRESE: Well, are we now on to

page 16?

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes.

MR. CALABRESE: Well, David Calabrese at

AHAM. I do have some comments on the medium priority

products, if we're again now moved onto that.

(202) 234-4433

Dishwashers, we support moving that from

NEAP R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

88 

1 of manufacturers who are making a very small number of 

2 products, it makes so much more sense to have national 

3 standards that can apply across the country to the 

4 point Mr. Nadel just brought up. Despite the fact 

5 that we have state standards set today, and in fact if 

6 it is so important that we have these, then we should 

7 be working with the DOE to help streamline their 

8 process to speed along whatever we need to do meet the 

9 statutory requirements mentioned earlier by the NRDC 

10 representative, rather than trying to push the state 

11 standards, which are only going to Balkanize the 

12 marketplace here in the United States, cause 

13 compliance costs to increase substantially, and 

14 possibly drive out many of the manufacturers in 

15 producing these products in the United States. 

16 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Additional comments 

17 on the products that are listed on 15, and maybe we 

18 can also go to 16. 

19 MR. CALABRESE: Well, are we now on to 

20 page 16? 

21 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes. 

22 MR. CALABRESE: Well, David Calabrese at 

23 AHAM. I do have some comments on the medium priority 

24 products, if we're again now moved onto that. 

25 Dishwashers, we support moving that from 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

89

a medium priority to a low priority, and there are a

number of reasons for that. First of all, as pointed

out by Barbara in her introduction, there is a new

test method in effect. As she has stated, there needs

to be time for that to play out to see the type of

data that will be generated by that, so from the

Department's own mouth, there needs to be time for all

this to play out.

On the other hand, and in addition and as

Larry Wethje, my colleague, will describe, there would

not be significant energy savings as a result of a

rule making. Current voluntary programs, market pull

programs as we like to call them, are working, working

very effectively. They need more time to operate, and

really an issue that was addressed in the DOE document

provided for the meeting is that altering consumer's

practices, for instance, pre-rinsing of dishes, et

cetera, would actually save more energy than another

rule making on these products, so I might ask Larry

Wethje to comment further on some of those points.

MR. WETHJE: Larry Wethje with AHAM. The

revised test procedure did carry along with it a

significant reduction in the number of annual usage

cycles associated with a typical household for

dishwashers, which we feel like would be justification

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

89 

1 a medium priority to a low priority, and there are a 

2 number of reasons for that. First of all, as pointed 

3 out by Barbara in her introduction, there is a new 

4 test method in effect. As she has stated, there needs 

5 to be time for that to play out to see the type of 

6 data that will be generated by that, so from the 

7 Department's own mouth, there needs to be time for all 

8 this to play out. 

9 On the other hand, and in addition and as 

10 Larry Wethje, my colleague, will describe, there would 

11 not be significant energy savings as a result of a 

12 rule making. Current voluntary programs, market pull 

13 programs as we like to call them, are working, working 

14 very effectively. They need more time to operate, and 

15 really an issue that was addressed in the DOE document 

16 provided for the meeting is that altering consumer's 

17 practices, for instance, pre-rinsing of dishes, et 

18 cetera, would actually save more energy than another 

19 rule making on these products, so I might ask Larry 

20 wethje to comment further on some of those points. 

21 MR. WETHJE: Larry Wethje with AHAM. The 

22 revised test procedure did carry along with it a 

23 significant reduction in the number of annual usage 

24 cycles associated with a typical household for 

25 dishwashers, which we feel like would be justification 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

90

to move it from medium, where it had been residing, to

a low priority, just because that provides less annual

energy savings to be achieved as a result of the

reduced annual cycles.

The Department's analysis only indicates

about a half a quad of energy could be saved over a

25-year time period by moving to the Energy Star

level, and we feel like those market initiatives are

working satisfactorily. The Energy Star market

transformation initiatives, there's other voluntary

water savings initiatives that are being discussed,

and we feel like these things are satisfactory and

sufficient to achieve energy savings with dishwashers.

There's no cost benefit analysis that's

been provided with the data sheets here on dishwashers

to justify keeping this medium priority. And then

additionally I would just add that the white goods

industry has undergone some significant capital

investment requirements as a result of previous rule

makings, recent rule makings on refrigerator freezers

in 2001, clothes washers which is just going into

effect now in 2004, additionally in 2007, so the issue

of cumulative regulatory burden will certainly be an

issue in this case, as well.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. Please,

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

90 

1 to move it from medium, where it had been residing, to 

2 a low priority, just because that provides less annual 

3 energy savings to be achieved as a resul t of the 

4 reduced annual cycles. 

5 The Department's analysis only indicates 

6 about a half a quad of energy could be saved over a 

7 25-year time period by moving to the Energy Star 

8 level, and we feel like those market initiatives are 

9 working satisfactorily. The Energy Star market 

10 transformation initiatives, there's other voluntary 

11 water savings initiatives that are being discussed, 

12 and we feel like these things are satisfactory and 

13 sufficient to achieve energy savings with dishwashers. 

14 There's no cost benefit analysis that's 

15 been provided with the data sheets here on dishwashers 

16 to justify keeping this medium priority. And then 

17 additionally I would just add that the white goods 

18 industry has undergone some significant capital 

19 investment requirements as a result of previous rule 

20 makings, recent rule makings on refrigerator freezers 

21 in 2001, clothes washers which is just going into 

22 effect now in 2004, additionally in 2007, so the issue 

23 of cumulative regulatory burden will certainly be an 

24 issue in this case, as well. 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. Please, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
91

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Kit.

MS. KENNEDY: I'm sorry. My brain is

moving a little bit slowly. I want to go back to the

last topic for a moment, because I have a comment on

the pre-emption issues that were raised with the high

priority products.

It seems to me, this an area where there

is quite a bit of consensus that if we could have

swift good national standards, and if the pre-emption

issue could be resolved in a different way that what

Office of General Counsel suggested this morning, then

we'd have a different position on whether it should be

high priority or low priority.

In other words, I think for many of these

products, and correct me if I'm wrong, Steve, there's

consensus on what the standards should be. And we

would not -- if the pre-emption issue could be

resolved in such a way that there was a mutual

understanding that pre-emption would not occur until

the regulation became effective, then I think we' d all

be in the same place. So I guess I would encourage

the industry folks who are interested in this issue,

who are interested in having national standards rather

than state standards and the Department of Energy to

talk with us more on the issue of how you interpret

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

91 

1 Kit. 

2 MS. KENNEDY: I'm sorry. My brain is 

3 moving a little bit slowly. I want to go back to the 

4 last topic for a moment, because I have a comment on 

5 the pre-emption issues that were raised with the high 

6 priority products. 

7 It seems to me, this an area where there 

8 is quite a bit of consensus that if we could have 

9 swift good national standards, and if the pre-emption 

10 issue could be resolved in a different way that what 

11 Office of General Counsel suggested this morning, then 

12 we'd have a different position on whether it should be 

13 high priority or low priority. 

14 In other words, I think for many of these 

15 products, and correct me if I'm wrong, Steve, there's 

16 consensus on what the standards should be. And we 

17 would not if the pre-emption issue could be 

18 resolved in such a way that there was a mutual 

19 understanding that pre-emption would not occur until 

20 the regulation became effective, then I think we'd all 

21 be in the same place. So I guess I would encourage 

22 the industry folks who are interested in this issue, 

23 who are interested in having national standards rather 

24 than state standards and the Department of Energy to 

25 talk with us more on the issue of how you interpret 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
92

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

the pre-emption provision. And I understand that the

Department of Energy has reached a kind of a

preliminary interpretation, at least.

I think at least one legal problem with it

from our perspective is that that interpretation would

allow the Department of Energy to call a product a

covered product, and then do nothing for years and

years, and decades and decades, and yet state

regulation would be pre-empted, which is plainly not

what Congress meant. So if we want to kind of move

forward on standards for these products where there's

no technical disagreement, but simply a disagreement

about when pre-emption applies, that's something that

perhaps the lawyers in the group could work together

on and come up with an interpretation which sort of

met everybody's needs. So I guess that's an open

invitation.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. I

didn't mean to close off additional discussion on 15

as we also consider 16 now.

MR. McCABE: This is Michael McCabe. I

would like to ask a follow-up question to Larry

Wethje. You had -- your last point was there was "no

cost benefit analysis" done by DOE on dishwashers,

which is correct. We did not do it in that present

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

92 

1 the pre-emption provision. And I understand that the 

2 Department of Energy has reached a kind of a 

3 preliminary interpretation, at least. 

4 I think at least one legal problem with it 

5 from our perspective is that that interpretation would 

6 allow the Department of Energy to call a product a 

7 covered product, and then do nothing for years and 

8 years, and decades and decades, and yet state 

9 regulation would be pre-empted, which is plainly not 

10 what Congress meant. So if we want to kind of move 

11 forward on standards for these products where there's 

12 no technical disagreement, but simply a disagreement 

13 about when pre-emption applies, that's something that 

14 perhaps the lawyers in the group could work together 

15 on and come up with an interpretation which sort of 

16 met everybody's needs. So I guess that's an open 

17 invitation. 

18 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. I 

19 didn't mean to close off additional discussion on 15 

20 as we also consider 16 now. 

21 MR. McCABE: This is Michael McCabe. I 

22 would like to ask a follow-up question to Larry 

23 Wethje. You had -- your last point was there was "no 

24 cost benefit analysis" done by DOE on dishwashers, 

25 which is correct. We did not do it in that present 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

93

value analysis. Is the analysis that we have for

other products where we show them at present value,

where we take an estimate of what the total cost would

be, and subtract that from the total value of the

energy savings. Is that the level of detail that

you'd like to see?

MR. WETHJE: Well, that's typically one of

the -- Larry Wethje with AHAM - one of the parameters

you use to assess, so that's what I was referring to.

Yes.

MR. McCABE: Okay. This is Michael

McCabe. I just wanted to see if there was any

additional analysis that you're asking for, or if that

which we had done, the sort which we had was

sufficient.

MR. WETHJE: Yes. No, that's what I was

referring to.

MR. McCABE: Thank you.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. Steve

Nadel.

MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel, ACEEE. I guess

to comment on dishwashers, we would support keeping

these at the medium priority, using the new criteria

we recommend, where medium priority are things that

DOE does actively work on as time and resources allow.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

93 

1 value analysis. Is the analysis that we have for 

2 other products where we show them at present value, 

3 where we take an estimate of what the total cost would 

4 be, and subtract that from the total value of the 

5 energy savings. Is that the level of detail that 

6 you'd like to see? 

7 MR. WETHJE: Well, that's typically one of 

8 the Larry Wethje with AHAM - one of the parameters 

9 you use to assess, so that's what I was referring to. 

10 Yes. 

11 MR. McCABE: Okay. This is Michael 

12 McCabe. I just wanted to see if there was any 

13 additional analysis that you're asking for, or if that 

14 which we had done, the sort which we had was 

15 sufficient. 

16 MR. WETHJE: Yes. No, that's what I was 

17 referring to. 

18 MR. McCABE: Thank you. 

19 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. Steve 

20 Nadel. 

21 MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel, ACEEE. I guess 

22 to comment on dishwashers, we would support keeping 

23 these at the medium priority, using the new criteria 

24 we recommend, where medium priority are things that 

25 DOE does actively work on as time and resources allow. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
94

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

It's not just kind of a non-deck circle.

These products -- it is from what we see

in all our analyses, that it is highly cost effective

to go to at least the Energy Star level. There are

I'll call it medium levels of savings. It should be

relatively straightforward. We can figure out exactly

what the best effective date is. You know, it would

be after the 2007 clothes washer standard, for

example. So we think it's appropriate to continue to

work on these products. My understanding is there is

an excellent change, Steve, we will be revising the

Energy Star level so market share has gotten to be

quite high, and the standards can then come in, and we

can mandate that, and Energy Star will promote on a

voluntary basis higher efficiency levels. So we would

support actively working on it as time and resources

allow, and that means, in our view, a medium priority.

Although, in DOE's current classification where

anything they work on is a high priority, I guess that

would mean calling it a high priority.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. Additional

comments on this? Okay. I guess then we're moving on

to page 17. That's a class of high priority products

test procedures.

(202) 234-4433

MR. DELAQUILA: This is Dave Delaquila.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

94 

1 It's not just kind of a non-deck circle. 

2 These products -- it is from what we see 

3 in all our analyses, that it is highly cost effective 

4 to go to at least the Energy Star level. There are 

5 I'll call it medium levels of savings. It should be 

6 relatively straightforward. We can figure out exactly 

7 what the best effective date is. You know, it would 

8 be after the 2007 clothes washer standard, for 

9 example. So we think it's appropriate to continue to 

10 work on these products. My understanding is there is 

11 an excellent change, Steve, we will be revising the 

12 Energy Star level so market share has gotten to be 

13 quite high, and the standards can then come in, and we 

14 can mandate that, and Energy Star will promote on a 

15 voluntary basis higher efficiency levels. So we would 

16 support actively working on it as time and resources 

17 allow, and that means, in our view, a medium priority. 

18 Although, in DOE's current classification where 

19 anything they work on is a high priority, I guess that 

20 would mean calling it a high priority. 

21 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. Additional 

22 comments on this? Okay. I guess then we're moving on 

23 to page 17. That's a class of high priority products 

24 test procedures. 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

MR. DELAQUILA: This is Dave Delaquila. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

95

With respect to the commercial water heaters and the

commercial furnaces priority, we support maintaining

a high priority, and hope that in the case of

commercial furnaces, that the rule is published soon.

MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane with ARI. With

respect to the commercial air conditioners and

residential central AC, and residential central for

small velocity we also support DOE high priority.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Steve Nadel.

MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel. I guess we

generally support -- we do support completion of the

various commercial test procedures. That are well,

well overdue, and need to be published very soon.

They actually underscore the EPACT standards that took

effect a number of years ago, so it's created

difficulties for industry to have a standard without

a test procedure.

I have two comments on these. One, you

mentioned the five products in the coverage process,

making those a high priority. Our recommendation

would be if you're not even covering them -- you know,

we'd like DOE to work on the test procedure, but as I

understand legal counsel, DOE can't work on the test

procedure until they're made covered products, and

that's an unacceptable price to pay, so if that's

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

95 

1 With respect to the commercial water heaters and the 

2 commercial furnaces priority, we support maintaining 

3 a high priority, and hope that in the case of 

4 commercial furnaces, that the rule is published soon. 

5 MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane with ARI. With 

6 respect to the commercial air conditioners and 

7 residential central AC, and residential central for 

8 small velocity we also support DOE high priority. 

9 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Steve Nadel. 

10 MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel. I guess we 

11 generally support -- we do support completion of the 

12 various commercial test procedures. That are well, 

13 well overdue, and need to be published very soon. 

14 They actually underscore the EPACT standards that took 

15 effect a number of years ago, so it's created 

16 difficulties for industry to have a standard without 

17 a test procedure. 

18 I have two comments on these. One, you 

19 mentioned the five products in the coverage process, 

20 making those a high priority. Our recommendation 

21 would be if you're not even covering them - - you know, 

22 we'd like DOE to work on the test procedure, but as I 

23 understand legal counsel, DOE can't work on the test 

24 procedure until they're made covered products, and 

25 that's an unacceptable price to pay, so if that's 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

96

DOE's interpretation, unfortunately these should be a

low priority.

The other comment we have is with

residential air conditioners. My understanding is now

a rule making to deal with a couple of relatively

small issues, and we're fine for that to proceed.

Those issues can be resolved, although some of them

may be a little controversial.

More broadly, though, we think DOE should

begin a rule making soon to re-look at -- take a fresh

look at the residential air conditioner test

procedure. The current procedure will be used for the

2006 standard, that's clear, but there's a lot of

problems with the current test procedure in terms of

how it relates to field performance. John Mandike was

talking about how it deals with third-party coils.

There are many, many problems with this, where I think

it's often being abused and not giving consumers the

information that they need. And we'd recommend that

DOE start a proceeding to consider a new test

procedure that would take effect probably as of a new

standard, just like DOE many years ago developed the

clothes washer J-1 procedure that didn't take effect

until a new standard took effect. I think the J-1 did

significantly improve that test procedure, allowed to

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

96 

1 DOEts interpretationt unfortunately these should be a 

2 low priority. 

3 The other comment we have is with 

4 residential air conditioners. My understanding is now 

5 a rule making to deal with a couple of relatively 

6 small issuest and wetre fine for that to proceed. 

7 Those issues can be resolved t although some of them 

8 may be a little controversial. 

9 More broadlYt thought we think DOE should 

10 begin a rule making soon to re-Iook at -- take a fresh 

11 look at the residential air conditioner test 

12 procedure. The current procedure will be used for the 

13 2006 standard t that t s cleart but there t s a lot of 

14 problems with the current test procedure in terms of 

15 how it relates to field performance. John Mandike was 

16 talking about how it deals with third-party coils. 

17 There are many t many problems with this t where I think 

18 itts often being abused and not giving consumers the 

19 information that they need. And wetd recommend that 

20 DOE start a proceeding to consider a new test 

21 procedure that would take effect probably as of a new 

22 standardt just like DOE many years ago developed the 

23 clothes washer J-l procedure that didntt take effect 

24 until a new standard took effect. I think the J -1 did 

25 significantly improve that test procedure t allowed to 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

97

consider issues that weren't in the old test

procedure. We think it' s time for a fresh look at the

air conditioner test procedure. And we'd recommend

probably kicking that off with some more informal

workshops before you start getting anywhere near to

formal numbers or whatever.

I know I've talked with a number of people

in industry, and I think there's been some

acknowledgement that the current test procedure has

problems, and a fresh look could be worthwhile;

although, obviously no commitments yet about any

particular direction.

MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane with ARI. I

don't fully believe that -- I don't fully agree with

Steve when he says there are many, many issues with

test procedures, but I do agree with him that there is

a need to revisit the test procedure.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: So on page 17

still, test procedure comments. These are the high

priority products as listed, as proposed by the

Department. Larry Wethje.

MR. WETHJE: Larry Wethje with AHAM.

Mike, by maybe a note when the -- we had asked for

some additional follow-up work to be done on the test

cloth for clothes washers, and I notice you're moving

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

97 

1 consider issues that weren't in the old test 

2 procedure. We think it's time for a fresh look at the 

3 air conditioner test procedure. And we'd recommend 

4 probably kicking that off with some more informal 

5 workshops before you start getting anywhere near to 

6 formal numbers or whatever. 

7 I know I've talked with a number of people 

8 in industry, and I think there's been some 

9 acknowledgement that the current test procedure has 

10 problems, and a fresh look could be worthwhilei 

11 although, obviously no commitments yet about any 

12 particular direction. 

13 MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane with ARI. I 

14 don't fully believe that -- I don't fully agree with 

15 steve when he says there are many, many issues with 

16 test procedures, but I do agree with him that there is 

17 a need to revisit the test procedure. 

18 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: So on page 17 

19 still, test procedure comments. These are the high 

20 priority products as listed, as proposed by the 

21 Department. Larry Wethje. 

22 MR. WETHJE: Larry Wethj e with AHAM. 

23 Mike, by maybe a note when the -- we had asked for 

24 some additional follow-up work to be done on the test 

25 cloth for clothes washers, and I notice you're moving 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

98

that from high to low. And I'm just wondering is

there any ongoing activity to take a look at an

alternative test cloth that., s given us so much problem

in the past?

MR. BERRINGER: Yes, there is. And I

talked to Dick Topping, and maybe at the break or

something we can talk to him a little bit more, but

that's proceeding. They're looking at some new

material they just got in. And they're looking at

testing, and then they want to look at reliability.

The reason this is low is basically we consider we

completed the amendments to the test procedure, so

that's low. But we are still doing ongoing work on

the test cloth.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Other comments or

questions on this grouping, high priority products as

proposed by the Department? Well, then let's look at

page 18 then. Medium priority products test

procedures.

MR. BERRINGER: This is Bryan Berringer,

DOE. I just wanted to sort of give an update on what

the progress has been on the compact refrigerators.

There has been two NIST Reports that were done, one in

September 2000-2001, recommending improvements, so

we'll make those available on our website for that.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

98 

1 that from high to low. And I'm just wondering is 

2 there any ongoing activity to take a look at an 

3 al ternati ve test cloth that,' s given us so much problem 

4 in the past? 

5 MR. BERRINGER: Yes, there is. And I 

6 talked to Dick Topping, and maybe at the break or 

7 something we can talk to him a little bit more, but 

8 that's proceeding. They're looking at some new 

9 material they just got in. And they're looking at 

10 testing, and then they want to look at reliability. 

11 The reason this is low is basically we consider we 

12 completed the amendments to the test procedure, so 

13 that's low. But we are still doing ongoing work on 

14 the test cloth. 

15 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Other comments or 

16 questions on this grouping, high priority products as 

17 proposed by the Department? Well, then let's look at 

18 page 18 then. Medium priority products test 

19 procedures. 

20 MR. BERRINGER: This is Bryan Berringer, 

21 DOE. I just wanted to sort of give an update on what 

22 the progress has been on the compact refrigerators. 

23 There has been two NIST Reports that were done, one in 

24 September 2000-2001, recommending improvements, so 

25 we'll make those available on our website for that. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

99

So we just think though, again as Barbara talked about

this, if we did make -- implemented changes to these,

it would also affect the standard, so that's our main

concern with these two. So the question is, should

these be something to maintain at medium, or moved to

low. It will have potential impact on standards.

For the AC, the ductless, there was a

kilometer test was considered. That change would

again likely change the measured effect of the

ductless air conditioner, so it would impact

standards. So those are the main concerns about these

two test procedures.

MR. WETHJE: Larry Wethje with AHAM.

Bryan, I guess I'm a little surprised to hear you say

that the possible changes to the compacts would affect

the standard, because we've taken the initiative AHAM

has to make some revisions to our AHAM standard, which

is referenced by DOE for the performance testing of

refrigerator freezers, specifically for compacts. And

David Nasser from NIST has participated in those, and

agreed with the changes that we've made. And to my

knowledge, that doesn't affect the performance or the

outcome with respect to its achieving any minimum

efficiency standard level. So do you know

specifically what you're referring to that NIST might

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

99 

1 So we just think though, again as Barbara talked about 

2 this, if we did make -- implemented changes to these, 

3 it would also affect the standard, so that's our main 

4 concern with these two. So the question is, should 

5 these be something to maintain at medium, or moved to 

6 low. It will have potential impact on standards. 

7 For the AC, the ductless, there was a 

8 kilometer test was considered. That change would 

9 again likely change the measured effect of the 

10 ductless air conditioner, so it would impact 

11 standards. So those are the main concerns about these 

12 two test procedures. 

13 MR. WETHJE: Larry Wethje with AHAM. 

14 Bryan, I guess I'm a little surprised to hear you say 

15 that the possible changes to the compacts would affect 

16 the standard, because we've taken the initiative AHAM 

17 has to make some revisions to our AHAM standard, which 

18 is referenced by DOE for the performance testing of 

19 refrigerator freezers, specifically for compacts. And 

20 David Nasser from NIST has participated in those, and 

21 agreed with the changes that we've made. And to my 

22 knowledge, that doesn't affect the performance or the 

23 outcome with respect to its achieving any minimum 

24 efficiency standard level. So do you know 

25 specifically what you're referring to that NIST might 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

be recommending that would affect that?

MR. BERRINGER: No. I'm not sure exactly

what the -- I'll have to do some further investigating

into that and get back to you.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Do you want to

follow-up, Larry?

MR. WETHJE: No.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. Other

comments on 18, page 18, medium priority products test

procedures. Please.

MR. LEWIS: Dave Lewis of Lenox. WE're

just a little bit unsure of an item here. It looks as

though you're saying that there is the intent of

having a test procedure change on a ductless product;

and yet, it would seem like that would go in line with

Karim's earlier comment about reviewing the test

procedures, and Steve's earlier comment as far as

reviewing the test procedures on air conditioning

equipment in general. In particular, the reason why

these need to be coordinated is that they both compete

in the same marketplace. And basically, are going out

to the same area. It seems like splitting them up and

doing them separately would only cause more disruption

in the marketplace, rather than helping.

And I guess the other thing, and I

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

100 

1 be recommending that would affect that? 

2 MR. BERRINGER: No. I'm not sure exactly 

3 what the - - I'll have to do some further investigating 

4 into that and get back to you. 

5 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Do you want to 

6 follow-up, Larry? 

7 MR. WETHJE: No. 

8 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. Other 

9 comments on 18, page 18, medium priority products test 

10 procedures. Please. 

11 MR. LEWIS: Dave Lewis of Lenox. WE're 

12 just a little bit unsure of an item here. It looks as 

13 though you're saying that there is the intent of 

14 having a test procedure change on a ductless product; 

15 and yet, it would seem like that would go in line with 

16 Karim's earlier comment about reviewing the test 

17 procedures, and Steve's earlier comment as far as 

18 reviewing the test procedures on air conditioning 

19 equipment in general. In particular, the reason why 

20 these need to be coordinated is that they both compete 

21 in the same marketplace. And basically, are going out 

22 to the same area. It seems like splitting them up and 

23 doing them separately would only cause more disruption 

24 in the marketplace, rather than helping. 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

And I guess the other thing, and I 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

101

recognize I missed my page 17, so I'm going to throw

it in anyway. We do want to underscore the fact that

we do need to have the test procedure on the small

duct high velocity done as quickly as possible,

because that really does resolve the issue on the true

space constraint aspect of that equipment. So I guess

our opinion is the small duct high velocity solution

is something that can come quite quickly with the

proper adjustment to the test procedure, and with

eliminating further delay.

I guess the earlier comment that John

Mandike made from Carrier would be consistent with our

opinion, that the ductless product which currently, in

our opinion, should be covered at the 13 SEER level,

there really isn't any need or couldn't be any

adjustment to that test procedure, since that's going

into play. The test procedure that's seen on page 18

would be, in my assumption, part of that next cycle

that we would be looking at for consistency in the

product lines and within the marketplace.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Steve Nadel.

MR. NADEL: Yes, Steve Nadel. I just

wanted to support Dave in terms of the small diameter

high velocity. I know we've been talking to industry,

and I think there's a consensus on how to proceed on

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

101 

1 recognize I missed my page 17, so I'm going to throw 

2 it in anyway. We do want to underscore the fact that 

3 we do need to have the test procedure on the small 

4 duct high velocity done as quickly as possible, 

5 because that really does resolve the issue on the true 

6 space constraint aspect of that equipment. So I guess 

7 our opinion is the small duct high velocity solution 

8 is something that can come quite quickly with the 

9 proper adj ustment to the test procedure, and with 

10 eliminating further delay. 

11 I guess the earlier comment that John 

12 Mandike made from Carrier would be consistent with our 

13 opinion, that the ductless product which currently, in 

14 our opinion, should be covered at the 13 SEER level, 

15 there really isn't any need or couldn't be any 

16 adjustment to that test procedure, since that's going 

17 into play. The test procedure that's seen on page 18 

18 would be, in my assumption, part of that next cycle 

19 that we would be looking at for consistency in the 

20 product lines and within the marketplace. 

21 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Steve Nadel. 

22 MR. NADEL: Yes, Steve Nadel. I just 

23 wanted to support Dave in terms of the small diameter 

24 high veloci ty. I know we've been talking to industry, 

25 and I think there's a consensus on how to proceed on 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

102

that test procedure. That's going to be a critical

issue for them resolving the standard for those

products. There is a difference. They do have higher

static pressure, and that needs to be reflected in

both the test procedure and the standard. We have a

problem with an inappropriate test procedure;

therefore, how do you apply a standard to that.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. Now I'm

looking for summary comments on both 17 and 18 before

we proceed. Please.

MR. DELAQUILA: Yes. This is Dave

Delaquila again. I was waiting to see where

commercial - I'm sorry - combination appliances

appeared, but it wasn't on the list so I'm going to

make the comment now. And I refer to, I guess this is

a data sheet that was released. A number of them were

released with the earlier publications, but one of the

things on there says "recommendations by interested

parties", and it mentions a larger manufacturer and

energy advocate groups.

One of the things we wanted to encourage

DOE to do is contact associations like GAMA, because

when we see that, we think you are out soliciting

comments on these priorities from others and we would

like to be contacted to give our feedback, as well, as

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

102 

1 that test procedure. That's going to be a critical 

2 issue for them resolving the standard for those 

3 products. There is a difference. They do have higher 

4 static pressure, and that needs to be reflected in 

5 both the test procedure and the standard. We have a 

6 problem with an inappropriate test procedure; 

7 therefore, how do you apply a standard to that. 

8 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. Now I'm 

9 looking for summary comments on both 17 and 18 before 

10 we proceed. please. 

11 MR. DELAQUILA: Yes. This is Dave 

12 Delaquila again. I was waiting to see where 

13 commercial I'm sorry combination appliances 

14 appeared, but it wasn't on the list so I'm going to 

15 make the comment now. And I refer to, I guess this is 

16 a data sheet that was released. A number of them were 

17 released with the earlier publications, but one of the 

18 things on there says "recommendations by interested 

19 parties", and it mentions a larger manufacturer and 

20 energy advocate groups. 

21 One of the things we wanted to encourage 

22 DOE to do is contact associations like GAMA, because 

23 when we see that, we think you are out soliciting 

24 comments on these priorities from others and we would 

25 like to be contacted to give our feedback, as well, as 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
103

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

a point of the process.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Some additional

comments or final comments on page 17 and 18. So then

we're moving on. These would be considered new

products to consider for things that are not on the

list. Issues and products that people want to add at

this point for consideration. I think both of these

are referenced on 19. I think perhaps there are

others, as well.

MR. CALABRESE: This is David Calabrese.

There are two issues here that we want to talk about,

and I'll start with maybe the somewhat easier one

first. And that's the first issue on the list here,

that is regulating commercial clothes washers. And I

have a comment, and again a question. The first

comment is that these are products that - commercial

clothes washers that is - that are really identical to

residential style and residential products, that DOE

would clearly have as we see it, the authority to preempt state activity. And we were disheartened and

somewhat dismayed by the comments made, and was

mentioned were made somewhat informally as to the

Department feels they don't have the authority to

regulate. So I guess I would like to ask Mike or

whomever to really explain the rationale behind this

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

103 

1 a point of the process. 

2 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Some additional 

3 comments or final comments on page 17 and 18. So then 

4 we're moving on. These would be considered new 

5 products to consider for things that are not on the 

6 list. Issues and products that people want to add at 

7 this point for consideration. I think both of these 

8 are referenced on 19. I think perhaps there are 

9 others, as well. 

10 MR. CALABRESE: This is David Calabrese. 

11 There are two issues here that we want to talk about, 

12 and I'll start with maybe the somewhat easier one 

13 first. And that's the first issue on the list here, 

14 that is regulating commercial clothes washers. And I 

15 have a comment, and again a question. The first 

16 comment is that these are products that - commercial 

17 clothes washers that is - that are really identical to 

18 residential style and residential products, that DOE 

19 would clearly have as we see it, the authority to pre20 empt state activity. And we were disheartened and 

21 somewhat dismayed by the comments made, and was 

22 mentioned were made somewhat informally as to the 

23 Department feels they don't have the authority to 

24 regulate. So I guess I would like to ask Mike or 

25 whomever to really explain the rationale behind this 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
104

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

decision.

MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe, and I will

also rely on General Counsel staff, as well. This

issue has been reviewed roughly the last 12 months

within the Department. The residential style

commercial clothes washers look a lot like the

residential products. However, they are not identical

to the residential products, so in their initial

review we looked to see whether or not they would meet

the definition of basic model, fall within the

definition of basic model for residential products.

Since they are different, many, if not

most of these products have a different energy factor

if you were to test them to the residential test

procedures, or different modified energy factors than

the residential counterpart. They could not be

considered the same basic model for our regulations

and definitions.

Also, initiatives considered is that we

look at the legislation. The residential portion of

EPCA gives us the authority to add products that are

not covered. The commercial part of the legislation

does not give us that authority. It explicitly lists

what products are covered, and the commercial --

residential style commercial washers are not one of

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

104 

1 decision. 

2 MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe, and I will 

3 also rely on General Counsel staff, as well. This 

4 issue has been reviewed roughly the last 12 months 

5 within the Department. The residential style 

6 commercial clothes washers look a lot like the 

7 residential products. However, they are not identical 

8 to the residential products, so in their initial 

9 review we looked to see whether or not they would meet 

10 the definition of basic model, fall within the 

11 definition of basic model for residential products. 

12 Since they are different, many, if not 

13 most of these products have a different energy factor 

14 if you were to test them to the residential test 

15 procedures, or different modified energy factors than 

16 the residential counterpart. They could not be 

17 considered the same basic model for our regulations 

18 and definitions. 

19 Also, initiatives considered is that we 

20 look at the legislation. The residential portion of 

21 EPCA gives us the authority to add products that are 

22 not covered. The commercial part of the legislation 

23 does not give us that authority. It explicitly lists 

24 what products are covered, and the commercial 

25 residential style commercial washers are not one of 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

105

the products that are identified under the commercial

products section. So we concluded that they are

commercial products, and since they were not

identified in the legislation as having the authority,

we could not extend the program to include these

products.

MR. CALABRESE: I don't think I have a

problem with that. I understand your rationale. It

does get to a fundamental point that I had that you

mentioned in the beginning, is the -- what we see as

somewhat reluctance of the Department to extend their

pre-emption authority. And we could differ, and

reasonable individuals could differ on what is

commercial and what is not. And we have discussed

this in legal memorandum and otherwise on these

products. And calling them commercial we think is a

misnomer, and the fact that they are commercial going

into residential units, and going into apartment

complexes. So that in itself is not inherently a

commercial product. But again, I guess pointing our

concern overall is the reluctance of the Department

not to extend federal pre-emption on such products as

these and others, that I again I mentioned that are

clearly, as we believe, under its purview.

(202) 234-4433

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Francine Pinto.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

105 

1 the products that are identified under the commercial 

2 products section. So we concluded that they are 

3 commercial products, and since they were not 

4 identified in the legislation as having the authority, 

5 we could not extend the program to include these 

6 products. 

7 MR. CALABRESE: I don't think I have a 

8 problem with that. I understand your rationale. It 

9 does get to a fundamental point that I had that you 

10 mentioned in the beginning, is the -- what we see as 

11 somewhat reluctance of the Department to extend their 

12 pre-emption authority. And we could differ, and 

13 reasonable individuals could differ on what is 

14 commercial and what is not. And we have discussed 

15 this in legal memorandum and otherwise on these 

16 products. And calling them commercial we think is a 

17 misnomer, and the fact that they are commercial going 

18 into residential units, and going into apartment 

19 complexes. So that in itself is not inherently a 

20 commercial product. But again, I guess pointing our 

21 concern overall is the reluctance of the Department 

22 not to extend federal pre-emption on such products as 

23 these and others, that I again I mentioned that are 

24 clearly, as we believe, under its purview. 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Francine Pinto. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

106

MS. PINTO: Yes.. This is Francine Pinto.

I just want to add something, to say that we did give

great attention to all the material that you sent to

us. I want to assure you that we looked at it very

carefully, and we determined that it does not fit the

commercial style residential. It does not fit within

the definition of consumer products, the statutory

definition.

MR. STEINER: David Steiner with Maytag.

Just to get into -- add some comments to what David

Calabrese has already mentioned on this issue of the

residential style clothes washers for common laundry

areas and so forth. It's interesting that you have

thrown these underneath the commercial part of the

legislation given that these are, as David has pointed

out, used in residential settings. They are used by

individuals, consumers. Therefore, they have every

attribute of the residential style clothes washers.

In fact, we are making these clothes washers on the

same lines as the residential clothes washers that are

complying with the standards that are set by DOE.

In addition to that, they are complying

with the test procedure that is used to identify

Energy Star qualifications. And I should have made

that comment earlier about the beverage vending

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

106 

1 MS. PINTO: Yes. This is Francine Pinto. 

2 I just want to add something, to say that we did give 

3 great attention to all the material that you sent to 

4 us. I want to assure you that we looked at it very 

5 carefully, and we determined that it does not fit the 

6 commercial style residential. It does not fit within 

7 the definition of consumer products, the statutory 

8 definition. 

9 MR. STEINER: David Steiner with May tag. 

10 Just to get into -- add some comments to what David 

11 Calabrese has already mentioned on this issue of the 

12 residential style clothes washers for common laundry 

13 areas and so forth. It's interesting that you have 

14 thrown these underneath the commercial part of the 

15 legislation given that these are, as David has pointed 

16 out, used in residential settings. They are used by 

17 individuals, consumers. Therefore, they have every 

18 attribute of the residential style clothes washers. 

19 In fact, we are making these clothes washers on the 

20 same lines as the residential clothes washers that are 

21 complying with the standards that are set by DOE. 

22 In addition to that, they are complying 

23 with the test procedure that is used to identify 

24 Energy Star qualifications. And I should have made 

25 that comment earlier about the beverage vending 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

107

machines. Again, using an Energy Star level, which

also makes sense for the DOE to set that standard, as

well. But again to talk about this product, we're

talking about only 2 percent of the marketplace. And

these are units that, again, individuals are using,

and we have a number of them qualifying for Energy

Star levels using the DOE's test procedure. I think

it makes every sense, even under the consumer

definition that you mentioned. I think there's even

room for argument there, as well.

MR. CANTANA: Tom Cantana from Whirlpool.

Mike, should we then infer from the analysis that you

applied to the commercial, that a state attempt to

regulate residential clothes washers would be preempted? As you know, there is one such state

regulation matriculating its way through the process

now.

MR. McCABE: This is Michael McCabe. I

believe you're referring to California with adding a

water factor to their program?

MR. CANTANA: That could be, yes.

MR. McCABE: I understand that California

legislation requires the commission to submit a

petition to DOE. We have not seen that petition yet.

The issue as to whether or not the standards, our

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

107 

1 machines. Again, using an Energy Star level, which 

2 also makes sense for the DOE to set that standard, as 

3 well. But again to talk about this product, we're 

4 talking about only 2 percent of the marketplace. And 

5 these are units that, again, individuals are using, 

6 and we have a number of them qualifying for Energy 

7 Star levels using the DOE's test procedure. I think 

8 it makes every sense, even under the consumer 

9 definition that you mentioned. I think there's even 

10 room for argument there, as well. 

11 MR. CANTANA: Tom Cant ana from Whirlpool. 

12 Mike, should we then infer from the analysis that you 

13 applied to the commercial, that a state attempt to 

14 regulate residential clothes washers would be pre15 empted? As you know, there is one such state 

16 regulation matriculating its way through the process 

17 now. 

18 MR. McCABE: This is Michael McCabe. I 

19 believe you're referring to California with adding a 

20 water factor to their program? 

21 MR. CANTANA: That could be, yes. 

22 MR. McCABE: I understand that California 

23 legislation requires the commission to submit a 

24 petition to DOE. We have not seen that petition yet. 

25 The issue as to whether or not the standards, our 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

108

efficiency standards pre-empt other regulations by

states, such as water consumption has not been

something, to my knowledge, that we have an opinion

on, or addressed in any form at all.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Steve Nadel.

MR. NADEL: Yes. On this last question,

it's my understanding that California is actually

preparing a petition for exemption from pre-emption.

There may be other legal arguments, as well. I

haven't gotten into the details, but there will be

further opportunities to decide on this. It's not --

I think there will be something from California to

DOE that everybody else can comment on.

More broadly in this case, I think DOE

General Counsel has made the correct decision. The

key words here are the legislation doesn't refer to

residential products, it refers to consumer products.

There is a difference between products that are

consumer products versus products that might be used

in a residential setting.

One other thing I would note, the way the

law -- consumers products are those that are purchased

by consumers. Also, a lot of these products are used

in laundromats which are clearly not a residential

setting.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

108 

1 efficiency standards pre-empt other regulations by 

2 states, such as water consumption has not been 

3 something, to my knowledge, that we have an opinion 

4 on, or addressed in any form at all. 

5 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Steve Nadel. 

6 MR. NADEL: Yes. On this last question, 

7 it's my understanding that California is actually 

8 preparing a petition for exemption from pre-emption. 

9 There may be other legal arguments, as well. I 

10 haven't gotten into the details, but there will be 

11 further opportunities to decide on this. It's not 

12 I think there will be something from California to 

13 DOE that everybody else can comment on. 

14 More broadly in this case, I think DOE 

15 General Counsel has made the correct decision. The 

16 key words here are the legislation doesn't refer to 

17 residential products, it refers to consumer products. 

18 There is a difference between products that are 

19 consumer products versus products that might be used 

20 in a residential setting. 

21 One other thing I would note, the way the 

22 law - - consumers products are those that are purchased 

23 by consumers. Also, a lot of these products are used 

24 in laundromats which are clearly not a residential 

25 setting. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
109

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

The other thing I'd note is for a number

of products, the lines between residential and

commercial are not entirely clear, that one gradates

into another. It's not a black and white line. Just

to give one example that we were talking about

earlier, commercial air conditioners that are less

than 5 tons. Those are basically the same products as

residential, except they have a three phase compressor

in them. But the same lines, and the manufacturers

have always said we want the same standards for those

products because they are the same lines.

Sometimes you have to draw a line

somewhere between residential and commercial, and

consumer and commercial, and some products fall on one

side, some fall on the other.

MR. AMRANE: This is Karim Amrane with

ARI. With respect to a lot of interior air

conditioners that are at or above 3 tons are listed on

the record as following the federal standard. We

disagree with DOE's determination that it doesn't have

to authority on this product, and we would like DOE to

reconsider. We would like to understand the rationale

behind this determination because we haven't seen

anything in writing on that.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock.

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

109 

1 The other thing I'd note is for a number 

2 of products, the lines between residential and 

3 commercial are not entirely clear, that one gradates 

4 into another. It's not a black and white line. Just 

5 to give one example that we were talking about 

6 earlier, commercial air conditioners that are less 

7 than 5 tons. Those are basically the same products as 

8 residential, except they have a three phase compressor 

9 in them. But the same lines, and the manufacturers 

10 have always said we want the same standards for those 

11 products because they are the same lines. 

12 Sometimes you have to draw a line 

13 somewhere between residential and commercial, and 

14 consumer and commercial, and some products fallon one 

15 side, some fallon the other. 

16 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim Amrane with 

17 ARI. With respect to a lot of interior air 

18 conditioners that are at or above 3 tons are listed on 

19 the record as following the federal standard. We 

20 disagree with DOE's determination that it doesn't have 

21 to authority on this product, and we would like DOE to 

22 reconsider. We would like to understand the rationale 

23 behind this determination because we haven't seen 

24 anything in writing on that. 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

110

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock. I just

want to get back to this California water rule. In a

way, legalistically if they're doing a petition, if

they're talking about water, is that really covered

under DOE pre-emption? You know, is it a water versus

an energy standard? If DOE has an energy standard

that is "not a water standard", then do they have the

authority to talk about it, versus if it isn't, then

in a way this gives more states a way to basically go

around the federal pre-emption. And then might the

other products work the same way? There's a federal

standard set with standards going into effect, not

only once but twice, 2004 and 2007. But this type of

possible loophole even further weakens national

standards, even though people might be supporting the

California rule were in support of those federal

standards, so just kind of interesting possible side

effect to what could happen.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Other comments,

please.

MR. CALABRESE: I'll just follow-up

quickly on that issue.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: The water issue?

MR. CALABRESE: On the water issue, that

DOE does have -- this is David Calabrese. DOE does

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

110 

1 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock. I just 

2 want to get back to this California water rule. In a 

3 way, legalistically if they're doing a petition, if 

4 they're talking about water, is that really covered 

5 under DOE pre-emption? You know, is it a water versus 

6 an energy standard? If DOE has an energy standard 

7 that is "not a water standard", then do they have the 

8 authority to talk about it, versus if it isn't, then 

9 in a way this gives more states a way to basically go 

10 around the federal pre-emption. And then might the 

11 other products work the same way? There's a federal 

12 standard set with standards going into effect, not 

13 only once but twice, 2004 and 2007. But this type of 

14 possible loophole even further weakens national 

15 standards, even though people might be supporting the 

16 California rule were in support of those federal 

17 standards, so just kind of interesting possible side 

18 effect to what could happen. 

19 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Other comments f 

20 please. 

21 MR. CALABRESE: I'll just follow-up 

22 quickly on that issue. 

23 

24 

25 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: The water issue? 

MR. CALABRESE: On the water issue, that 

DOE does have -- this is David Calabrese. DOE does 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

111

have the authority to cover that, in particular, and

water in general because of the pre-emption authority

is wide and deep, that it covers issues as that which

are inextricably combined, linked with energy. So

water and energy are one and the same thing, so that

is our position.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Other comments

other than the water issue?

MR. GRAY: Yes. This is Ed Gray from

NEMA. As I previously indicated, compact fluorescent

lamps were something in the proposed legislation.

Also, we have proposed to DOE that whether or not

there's a Federal Energy Bill that we would like

standards on compact fluorescent lamps. We're not

doing this for any pre-emption reason. We think there

needs to be standards to make sure the products out

there are quality products. And these would be based

upon Energy Star. And to my knowledge, we have gotten

no written feedback, although there's been maybe some

informal feedback to the effect that DOE doesn't feel

that they have authority to regulate those.

I'd like to point out that CFLs are

already regulated. The labeling is regulated. The

test procedure is regulated. The only thing that

isn't is the efficiency standard, so we would like to

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

111 

1 have the authority to cover that, in particular, and 

2 water in general because of the pre-emption authority 

3 is wide and deep, that it covers issues as that which 

4 are inextricably combined, linked with energy. So 

5 water and energy are one and the same thing, so that 

6 is our position. 

7 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Other comments 

8 other than the water issue? 

9 MR. GRAY: Yes. This is Ed Gray from 

10 NEMA. As I previously indicated, compact fluorescent 

11 lamps were something in the proposed legislation. 

12 Also, we have proposed to DOE that whether or not 

13 there's a Federal Energy Bill that we would like 

14 standards on compact fluorescent lamps. We're not 

15 doing this for any pre-emption reason. We think there 

16 needs to be standards to make sure the products out 

17 there are quality products. And these would be based 

18 upon Energy Star. And to my knowledge, we have gotten 

19 no written feedback, although there's been maybe some 

20 informal feedback to the effect that DOE doesn't feel 

21 that they have authority to regulate those. 

22 I'd like to point out that CFLs are 

23 already regulated. The labeling is regulated. The 

24 test procedure is regulated. The only thing that 

25 isn't is the efficiency standard, so we would like to 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

112

see some kind of formal opinion by DOE that they do

have the authority to cover those products from an

energy efficiency standpoint.

MR. McCABE: This is Michael McCabe, as a

follow-up, if NEMA could take a look at some broader

issues associated with that, CFLs typically have the

Edison A socket. There are some pin-type designs.

There is not currently a standard for pin-type -- pin

designs and industry standards, but I understand there

is one that is being worked on.

If you look at the program and the

legislative history, we have what is referred to as

product classes. And a product class is a subset of

a product type differentiated by different energy

sources, so a gas and oil furnace are two different

product classes, for example. Side-by-side and top

mount refrigerator freezers are two different classes.

And those are different utility features, and we take

a look at the utility of a product in order to further

subdivide it.

Look at lighting. Could an argument be

made that incandescent lamps with A sockets and CFLs

with A socket should all be in the same class? And if

so, where and how should a standard be set, if the

Department were to pursue standard setting.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

112 

1 see some kind of formal opinion by DOE that they do 

2 have the authority to cover those products from an 

3 energy efficiency standpoint. 

4 MR. McCABE: This is Michael McCabe, as a 

5 follow-up, if NEMA could take a look at some broader 

6 issues associated with that, CFLs typically have the 

7 Edison A socket. There are some pin-type designs. 

8 There is not currently a standard for pin-type -- pin 

9 designs and industry standards, but I understand there 

10 is one that is being worked on. 

11 If you look at the program and the 

12 legislative history, we have what is referred to as 

13 product classes. And a product class is a subset of 

14 a product type differentiated by different energy 

15 sources, so a gas and oil furnace are two different 

16 product classes, for example. Side-by-side and top 

17 mount refrigerator freezers are two different classes. 

18 And those are different utility features, and we take 

19 a look at the utility of a product in order to further 

20 subdivide it. 

21 Look at lighting. Could an argument be 

22 made that incandescent lamps with A sockets and CFLs 

23 with A socket should all be in the same class? And if 

24 so, where and how should a standard be set, if the 

25 Department were to pursue standard setting. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

113

MR. GRAY: Obviously, that requires a lot

of in-depth thought, and we'll get back to you on

that. I would like to say that some of the

applications that were listed, the exemptions as I

recall it for certain applications, we chose to

propose for CFLs, were the ones for incandescent

general service lamps. In other words, we were saying

that CFLs would be a replacement for a general service

A line Edison socket lamp.

On the subject of pin-base, we did get

into that to some extent in the Energy Star standards

for ceiling fans and the current major energy saver

there currently is the fact that CFLs are in the

package or in the product. And we encouraged for that

Energy Star guideline that they be pin-based so people

couldn't unscrew the CFLs and put a regular A-line

lamp in there. But we'll get back to you on this

question of classes of products.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Other comments on

the issues that are listed on page 19, and other

issues that were recently raised? Bryan Berringer.

MR. BERRINGER: Bryan Berringer. Just to

follow-up on Karim's question about the units larger

than 20 tons. I'm looking at 42 USC 63-11, when you

look at the definitions for large commercial packaged

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

113 

1 MR. GRAY: Obviously, that requires a lot 

2 of in-depth thought, and we'll get back to you on 

3 that. I would like to say that some of the 

4 applications that were listed, the exemptions as I 

5 recall it for certain applications, we chose to 

6 propose for CFLs, were the ones for incandescent 

7 general service lamps. In other words, we were saying 

8 that CFLs would be a replacement for a general service 

9 A line Edison socket lamp. 

10 On the subject of pin-base, we did get 

11 into that to some extent in the Energy Star standards 

12 for ceiling fans and the current major energy saver 

13 there currently is the fact that CFLs are in the 

14 package or in the product. And we encouraged for that 

15 Energy Star guideline that they be pin-based so people 

16 couldn't unscrew the CFLs and put a regular A-line 

17 lamp in there. But we'll get back to you on this 

18 question of classes of products. 

19 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Other comments on 

20 the issues that are listed on page 19, and other 

21 issues that were recently raised? Bryan Berringer. 

22 MR. BERRINGER: Bryan Berringer. Just to 

23 follow-up on Karim's question about the units larger 

24 than 20 tons. I'm looking at 42 USC 63-11, when you 

25 look at the definitions for large commercial packaged 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
114

1 air conditioners, the upper limit is 240, so there's

2 nothing in the legislation that indicates that we

3 could do anything above 240. So that's where that

4 decision is based.

5 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes, please.

6 MR. MANDIKE: John Mandike with Carrier

7 Corporation. I guess my retort to that statement is

8 if you look at Section 6312 (b) , it indicates that "The

9 Department has the authority to regulate industrial

10 equipment, which means any article of equipment to any

11 significant extent is distributed in commerce for

12 industrial or commercial use." Clearly, large package

13 air conditioners over 20 tons meets that definition.

14 Then under Section 6312(b), it says,

15 " Inclusion of industrial equipment as covere d

16 equipment, the Secretary may be rule include a type of

17 industrial equipment as covered equipment if he

18 determines that to do so is necessary to carry out the

19 purposes of this part." So the argument that Carrier

20 Corporation makes, and I believe ARI, is that large

21 package air conditioners above 20 tons are industrial

22 equipment; therefore, by EPCA, the Department of

23 Energy has the authority to regulate them, and should

24 do so expeditiously.

25 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: I think 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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

114 

1 air conditioners, the upper limit is 240, so there's 

2 nothing in the legislation that indicates that we 

3 could do anything above 240. So that's where that 

4 decision is based. 

5 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes, please. 

6 MR. MANDIKE: John Mandike with Carrier 

7 Corporation. I guess my retort to that statement is 

8 if you look at Section 6312 (b), it indicates that "The 

9 Department has the authority to regulate industrial 

10 equipment, which means any article of equipment to any 

11 significant extent is distributed in commerce for 

12 industrial or commercial use." Clearly, large package 

13 air conditioners over 20 tons meets that definition. 

14 Then under Section 6312 (b), it says, 

15 "Inclusion of industrial equipment as covered 

16 equipment, the Secretary may be rule include a type of 

17 industrial equipment as covered equipment if he 

18 determines that to do so is necessary to carry out the 

19 purposes of this part." So the argument that Carrier 

20 Corporation makes, and I believe ARI, is that large 

21 package air conditioners above 20 tons are industrial 

22 equipment i therefore, by EPCA, the Department of 

23 Energy has the authority to regulate them, and should 

24 do so expeditiously. 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 

I think the 

www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

115

Department would welcome those comments in writing.

Steve Nadel.

MR. NADEL: This is Steve Nadel. I would

point out also, I agree with DOE's interpretation that

in the legislation they do define covered equipment,

and then Paragraph B of that does enumerate very

specific equipment that can and can't be covered, so

it's not the broad common dictionary definition of

industrial equipment which might be anything that's

used in industry. This is a more restrictive

definition that's used in this portion of the law.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: There are other

issues raised on page 19. Do people want to take them

up now?

MR. CALABRESE: David Calabrese with AHAM.

WE would like to address the petition for residential

refrigerators that has been presented here, and was

submitted, I believe, last week. And we'd like to

talk about that, and officially and formally register

our opposition to the petition. And I'll explain in

more detail here, as well as in more formal comments

to the Department in the manner as appropriate why

this petition and a rule making of these products are

inappropriate at this time.

First of all, getting to the issue of its

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

115 

1 Department would welcome those comments in writing. 

2 Steve Nadel. 

3 MR. NADEL: This is Steve Nadel. I would 

4 point out also l I agree with DOE I s interpretation that 

5 in the legislation they do define covered equipment I 

6 and then Paragraph B of that does enumerate very 

7 specific equipment that can and can/t be covered l so 

8 it/s not the broad common dictionary definition of 

9 industrial equipment which might be anything that/s 

10 used in industry. This is a more restrictive 

11 definition that/s used in this portion of the law. 

12 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: There are other 

13 issues raised on page 19. Do people want to take them 

14 up now? 

15 MR. CALABRESE: David Calabrese with AHAM. 

16 WE would like to address the petition for residential 

17 refrigerators that has been presented here l and was 

18 submitted l I believe l last week. And weld like to 

19 talk about that l and officially and formally register 

20 our opposition to the petition. And 1/11 explain in 

21 more detail here l as well as in more formal comments 

22 to the Department in the manner as appropriate why 

23 this petition and a rule making of these products are 

24 inappropriate at this time. 

25 First of all l getting to the issue of its 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
116

1 inappropriateness at this time, this is a product

2 category where there have been a number of rule

3 makings, at least three in a relatively short period

4 of time. And to ask for additional rule making on

5 these products, we see as unrealistic and very

6 inappropriate.

7 Already on the priority list for 105,

8 there are a number of other high priority products

9 that as we on the back of an envelope would tally them

10 up, I guess there are about 14 quads of energy savings

11 so adding on refrigerators at this time really, again,

12 is not an appropriate use of the Department's

13 resources, which were, again, pointed out in some of

14 the factors that should be taken into account when the

15 Department establishes those priorities for particular

16 years.

17 We also believe, and another critical

18 issue is that there are voluntary initiatives in place

19 right now on refrigerators. And these have not been

20 really given a chance, the Energy Star program, for

21 instance, to take effect. In fact, this year new

22 levels were set for refrigerators that have yet to

23 really pl ay out .

24 In fact, there is a proposal in Congress

25 right now which our friends, Steve Nadel and 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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

116 

1 inappropriateness at this time I this is a product 

2 category where there have been a number of rule 

3 makings I at least three in a relatively short period 

4 of time. And to ask for additional rule making on 

5 these products I we see as unrealistic and very 

6 inappropriate. 

7 Already on the priority list for \ 05 1 

8 there are a number of other high priority products 

9 that as we on the back of an envelope would tally them 

10 UPI I guess there are about 14 quads of energy savings 

11 so adding on refrigerators at this time reallYI againl 

12 is not an appropriate use of the Department/s 

13 resources~ which were I againl pointed out in some of 

14 the factors that should be taken into account when the 

15 Department establishes those priorities for particular 

16 years. 

17 We also believe l and another critical 

18 issue is that there are voluntary initiatives in place 

19 right now on refrigerators. And these have not been 

20 really given a chancel the Energy Star program I for 

21 instance l to take effect. In fact I this year new 

22 levels were set for refrigerators that have yet to 

23 really play out. 

24 In facti there is a proposal in Congress 

25 right now which our friends l Steve Nadel and the 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

117

advocates support for a tax credit for super energy

efficient refrigerators. We fully hope that that will

be enacted into law. When it is, if it is enacted

into law, we will see very, very significant energy

savings result from that.

And there are other ideas too on the

voluntary initiatives that should be considered. Our

friends in Canada are considering an early retirement

program type of initiative, replacing old as they call

them beer fridges with more efficient products. That,

of course, could be something that should be examined

prior to engaging in a new rule making.

And our third point is the issue required

under law and regulation that it be considered, is the

cumulative regulatory impact. As I said, again we've

had a number of rule makings already on these

products, and our manufacturers don't just make

refrigerators, they make clothes washers. And there's

been rule makings in clothes washers, and so what

we're talking about is a significant cumulative burden

on our manufacturers that they are still at this time

trying to recoup costs, R&D and the like from the

previous refrigerator rule making. So that, of

course, needs to be taken into account by the

Department, as Barbara had mentioned earlier, in

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

117 

1 advocates support for a tax credit for super energy 

2 efficient refrigerators. We fully hope that that will 

3 be enacted into law. When it is, if it is enacted 

4 into law, we will see very, very significant energy 

5 savings result from that. 

6 And there are other ideas too on the 

7 voluntary initiatives that should be considered. Our 

8 friends in Canada are considering an early retirement 

9 program type of initiative, replacing old as they call 

10 them beer fridges with more efficient products. That, 

11 of course, could be something that should be examined 

12 prior to engaging in a new rule making. 

13 And our third point is the issue required 

14 under law and regulation that it be considered, is the 

15 cumulative regulatory impact. As I said, again we've 

16 had a number of rule makings already on these 

17 products, and our manufacturers don't just make 

18 refrigerators, they make clothes washers. And there's 

19 been rule makings in clothes washers, and so what 

20 we're talking about is a significant cumulative burden 

21 on our manufacturers that they are still at this time 

22 trying to recoup costs, R&D and the like from the 

23 previous refrigerator rule making. So that, of 

24 course, needs to be taken into account by the 

25 Department, as Barbara had mentioned earlier, in 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
118

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

setting those priorities.

And then more specifically to the petition

itself, we see some very serious lapses or

inaccuracies in the analysis. And the first of which

is one that a statement made on the first page of the

document, that looking at the current Energy Star

list, that there are roughly 700 units that meet some

of these new standards, these super efficient

standards, or super efficient levels.

From our analysis of the list, and talking

to our members, surveying our members, we see that

number 687 as being probably closer to 50 or 150,

really basic models that really are reflective of

those levels. And when I say that, what I mean is on

the Energy Star list, there are numerous -- well, 687

line items. Those don't represent distinct basic

models. What those represent are derivations off of

a basic model, so you could have a white model, and

then you might have stainless steel, all of them

having different model numbers, yet being the basic --

coming off of a derivation of a basic unit. So when

you take that into account, and looking at the data

presented, and the position they presented, we see

very few products -- a fraction of what they say in

the petition, or what the petition states are being

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

118 

1 setting those priorities. 

2 And then more specifically to the petition 

3 itself, we see some very serious lapses or 

4 inaccuracies in the analysis. And the first of which 

5 is one that a statement made on the first page of the 

6 document, that looking at the current Energy Star 

7 list, that there are roughly 700 units that meet some 

8 of these new standards, these super efficient 

9 standards, or super efficient levels. 

10 From our analysis of the list, and talking 

11 to our members, surveying our members, we see that 

12 number 687 as being probably closer to 50 or 150, 

13 really basic models that really are reflective of 

14 those levels. And when I say that, what I mean is on 

15 the Energy Star list, there are numerous -- well, 687 

16 line items. Those don't represent distinct basic 

17 models. What those represent are derivations off of 

18 a basic model, so you could have a white model, and 

19 then you might have stainless steel, all of them 

20 having different model numbers, yet being the basic --

21 coming off of a derivation of a basic unit. So when 

22 you take that into account, and looking at the data 

23 presented, and the position they presented, we see 

24 very few products -- a fraction of what they say in 

25 the petition, or what the petition states are being 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

119

energy efficient, is down to a very small fraction.

And, in fact, in the petition itself, the 15 percent

efficiency level is pointed to as being a threshold,

and it is, because when you move above 15 percent

efficiency, the products that are above that level,

and included in the CEE document which is CEE lists

which are referenced, are either compact refrigerators

or specialty units. So we're not talking about your

standard run-of-the-mill refrigerators. You're

talking about specific compact models, as well as

specialty units.

So that is an important fact that needs to

be pointed out, a deficiency in the petition that,

again, we will be providing more in the way of

analysis of that. I might ask Larry Wethje to comment

a little bit more on the analysis that was done within

the petition.

MR. WETHJE: Larry Wethje with AHAM. We

think that the economic analysis that was provided

with the petition is significantly flawed, extremely

over-simplified, and just grossly overstated with

respect to the next present value cost benefit

analysis that was provided. There's assumptions made,

numbers taken from census bureau shipments that just

appear to have anomalies associated with them. A

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

119 

1 energy efficient, is down to a very small fraction. 

2 And, in fact, in the petition itself, the 15 percent 

3 efficiency level is pointed to as being a threshold, 

4 and it is, because when you move above 15 percent 

5 efficiency, the products that are above that level, 

6 and included in the CEE document which is CEE lists 

7 which are referenced, are either compact refrigerators 

8 or specialty units. So we're not talking about your 

9 standard run-of-the-mill refrigerators. You're 

10 talking about specific compact models, as well as 

11 specialty units. 

12 So that is an important fact that needs to 

13 be pointed out, a deficiency in the petition that, 

14 again, we will be providing more in the way of 

15 analysis of that. I might ask Larry Wethj e to comment 

16 a little bit more on the analysis that was done within 

17 the petition. 

18 MR. WETHJE: Larry Wethje with AHAM. We 

19 think that the economic analysis that was provided 

20 with the petition is significantly flawed, extremely 

21 over-simplified, and just grossly overstated with 

22 respect to the next present value cost benefit 

23 analysis that was provided. There's assumptions made, 

24 numbers taken from census bureau shipments that just 

25 appear to have anomalies associated with them. A 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

120

quantity of refrigerator shipments decreasing from

1997 until 2002, just isn't in line with industry

shipment data that we have in-house at the Trade

Association. The value of those shipments declining

in the last five years just isn't in line, as well.

And so the economic benefits that are stated in that

analysis are significantly flawed.

A couple of other points I would want to

maybe just add to what David had said on the

cumulative regulatory burden. Not only looking at the

burden from rule makings on other products for the

white goods industry, but just the refrigerator

manufacturers alone having undertaken already three

rule makings. There's no other product that has had

that kind of impact imposed upon them, and so the

cumulative effect just on that one particular product

line alone is enough to dissuade DOE, I think, from

adding this to go through another rule making process.

You've identified the fact that they are

in the midst of transition on the foam blowing agent

that's used in the insulation for refrigerator

freezers. That has added significant cost to the

product, and will continue to require the need to

recoup the capital investment that's gone along with

that, associated with 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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

120 

1 quantity of refrigerator shipments decreasing from 

2 1997 until 2002, just isn't in line with industry 

3 shipment data that we have in-house at the Trade 

4 Association. The value of those shipments declining 

5 in the last five years just isn't in line, as well. 

6 And so the economic benefits that are stated in that 

7 analysis are significantly flawed. 

8 A couple of other points I would want to 

9 maybe just add to what David had said on the 

10 cumulative regulatory burden. Not only looking at the 

11 burden from rule makings on other products for the 

12 white goods industry, but just the refrigerator 

13 manufacturers alone having undertaken already three 

14 rule makings. There's no other product that has had 

15 that kind of impact imposed upon them, and so the 

16 cumulative effect just on that one particular product 

17 line alone is enough to dissuade DOE, I think, from 

18 adding this to go through another rule making process. 

19 You've identified the fact that they are 

20 in the midst of transition on the foam blowing agent 

21 that's used in the insulation for refrigerator 

22 freezers. That has added significant cost to the 

23 product, and will continue to require the need to 

24 recoup the capital investment that's gone along with 

25 that, associated with that. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

121

The refrigerators now typically use less

than 75 watt lightbulb, and there's only so far you

can go in these products. And we just think that the

number of high priority products you've identified

already are more worthy of consideration, and should

be kept ahead of additional rule making on

refrigerators.

MR. CALABRESE: This is David Calabrese.

Just to round this discussion up. As already

mentioned, the cumulative regulatory impact is severe

and very significant with these products. And we are

reaching within our industry and many industries here

in the U.S. in regards to the jobs issue, of keeping

jobs, keeping good jobs here in the U.S. And it is

really through this type of regulatory burden and

efforts like this that manufacturers trying to keep up

with these regulatory burdens, trying to meet these

standards, and faced with issues like that have, in

some cases, find alternative places for these jobs.

And that is something we certainly do not want to do.

We want to keep good jobs here in the U. S . , but as

this ball keeps rolling, and efforts like this keep

moving forward, it creates an atmosphere and

environment that it becomes extremely difficult, and

sometimes impossible for our manufacturers to do 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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

121 

1 The refrigerators now typically use less 

2 than 75 watt lightbulb, and there's only so far you 

3 can go in these products. And we just think that the 

4 number of high priority products you've identified 

5 already are more worthy of consideration, and should 

6 be kept ahead of additional rule making on 

7 refrigerators. 

8 MR. CALABRESE: This is David Calabrese. 

9 Just to round this discussion up. As already 

10 mentioned, the cumulative regulatory impact is severe 

11 and very significant with these products. And we are 

12 reaching within our industry and many industries here 

13 in the u.S. in regards to the jobs issue, of keeping 

14 jobs, keeping good jobs here in the u.S. And it is 

15 really through this type of regulatory burden and 

16 efforts like this that manufacturers trying to keep up 

17 with these regulatory burdens, trying to meet these 

18 standards, and faced with issues like that have, in 

19 some cases, find alternative places for these jobs. 

20 And that is something we certainly do not want to do. 

21 We want to keep good jobs here in the U.S., but as 

22 this ball keeps rolling, and efforts like this keep 

23 moving forward, it creates an atmosphere and 

24 environment that it becomes extremely difficult, and 

25 sometimes impossible for our manufacturers to do that. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

122

So that's another issue for the Department to consider

in raising this product to a high priority. So again

in conclusion, we oppose the petition rule making, and

importantly, we oppose any elevation of this from the

low priority where it is now, to anything above low,

of course to high, and not to medium.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: So let's hear from

other persons that have comments on this issue at this

time. Go ahead, Steve.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: This is Steve Rosenstock.

Just as a quick aside, if this petition is successful,

it will probably delay other products. And kind of

interesting coming from a group that's complaining

about delay in rule makings for other products.

MR. STEINER: Kind of stole my thunder,

but this is David Steiner. Good job, Steve. I will

just add a couple of things just to reiterate, there

would be more benefit if we were to work on a program

with the DOE through Energy Star and other programs,

that would work on retirement and actually disposal of

old refrigerators that are currently, as David has put

it, in garages and basements, then we would get from

increasing standards on the new refrigerators. So I

would encourage that the DOE, in conjunction with the

groups who have put this petition together, and the

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

122 

1 So that's another issue for the Department to consider 

2 in raising this product to a high priority. So again 

3 in conclusion, we oppose the petition rule making, and 

4 importantly, we oppose any elevation of this from the 

5 low priority where it is now, to anything above low, 

6 of course to high, and not to medium. 

7 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: So let's hear from 

8 other persons that have comments on this issue at this 

9 time. Go ahead, Steve. 

10 MR. ROSENSTOCK: This is Steve Rosenstock. 

11 Just as a quick aside, if this petition is successful, 

12 it will probably delay other products. And kind of 

13 interesting coming from a group that's complaining 

14 about delay in rule makings for other products. 

15 MR. STEINER: Kind of stole my thunder, 

16 but this is David Steiner. Good job, Steve. I will 

17 just add a couple of things just to reiterate, there 

18 would be more benefit if we were to work on a program 

19 with the DOE through Energy Star and other programs, 

20 that would work on retirement and actually disposal of 

21 old refrigerators that are currently, as David has put 

22 it, in garages and basements, then we would get from 

23 increasing standards on the new refrigerators. So I 

24 would encourage that the DOE, in conjunction with the 

25 groups who have put this petition together, and the 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

123

manufacturers work together in developing such a

program.

Also, I'd like to share with you, just to

reiterate the example of the jobs issue. For those of

you who don't know, we are closing Maytag facility in

Gaylesberg, Illinois, which at one time was featured

as a great example of what happens when you get new

regulations put in place. And that the investment

that Maytag put in to Gaylesberg to keep it

functioning as a refrigeration facility - well, folks,

we can't afford it any more. And we're moving a lot

of those jobs out of the country. Some of those are

going to Iowa, that's not out of the country. In

addition to out-sourcing some of those jobs from

plants that we do not actually own ourselves.

We are following the industry trend,

folks. We are the last ones to do this, and to

encourage this type of additional rule making would

further exacerbate this problem.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you.

MR. CANTANA: Tom Cantana from Whirlpool.

I guess I would add sort of a larger way to think

about this issue. Because of the problems that have

been raised many times here today about the

cumbersomeness of the rule making process, whatever

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

123 

1 manufacturers work together in developing such a 

2 program. 

3 Also, I'd like to share with you, just to 

4 reiterate the example of the jobs issue. For those of 

5 you who don't know, we are closing May tag facility in 

6 Gaylesberg, Illinois, which at one time was featured 

7 as a great example of what happens when you get new 

8 regulations put in place. And that the investment 

9 that May tag put in to Gaylesberg to keep it 

10 functioning as a refrigeration facility - well, folks, 

11 we can't afford it any more. And we're moving a lot 

12 of those jobs out of the country. Some of those are 

13 going to Iowa, that's not out of the country. In 

14 addition to out-sourcing some of those jobs from 

15 plants that we do not actually own ourselves. 

16 We are following the industry trend, 

17 folks. We are the last ones to do this, and to 

18 encourage this type of additional rule making would 

19 further exacerbate this problem. 

20 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

21 MR. CANTANA: Tom Cant ana from Whirlpool. 

22 I guess I would add sort of a larger way to think 

23 about this issue. Because of the problems that have 

24 been raised many times here today about the 

25 cumbersomeness of the rule making process, whatever 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005·3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

124

the reasons for that, there have been a number of

occasions where this industry, the appliance industry

has voluntarily agreed to accelerate that process, and

have met with advocates and reached agreements, and

those examples continue. The most recent one is

dehumidifiers.

This petition, frankly, surprised me, and

sort of falls into the category of no good deed goes

unpunished. And I think those advocating cooperation

between the advocacy community and the private sector

to cut through the red tape that inevitably comes with

the rule making process, should think twice about this

kind of an effort, because I think others who have not

moved at all in a cooperative way in these areas will

look at examples like our industry and say why should

we partner? Why should we act voluntarily? Because

it will just mean folks will come back to you yearin/year-out. And it might not be a totally

unreasonable conclusion to draw, and so this may not

be a question for the Department, but it may be a

question for the petitioners to ask themselves.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Other comments

related to the petition. Steve Nadel.

MR. NADEL: Okay. Steve Nadel, ACEEE. I

was trying to take notes. I will try to be reasonably

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

124 

1 the reasons for that, there have been a number of 

2 occasions where this industry, the appliance industry 

3 has voluntarily agreed to accelerate that process, and 

4 have met with advocates and reached agreements, and 

5 those examples continue. The most recent one is 

6 dehumidifiers. 

7 This petition, frankly, surprised me, and 

8 sort of falls into the category of no good deed goes 

9 unpunished. And I think those advocating cooperation 

10 between the advocacy community and the private sector 

11 to cut through the red tape that inevitably comes with 

12 the rule making process, should think twice about this 

13 kind of an effort, because I think others who have not 

14 moved at all in a cooperative way in these areas will 

15 look at examples like our industry and say why should 

16 we partner? Why should we act voluntarily? Because 

17 it will just mean folks will come back to you year18 in/year-out. And it might not be a totally 

19 unreasonable conclusion to draw, and so this may not 

20 be a question for the Department, but it may be a 

21 question for the petitioners to ask themselves. 

22 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Other comments 

23 related to the petition. Steve Nadel. 

24 MR. NADEL: Okay. Steve Nadel, ACEEE. I 

25 was trying to take notes. I will try to be reasonably 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

125

brief here, and just respond to a few of the comments.

Obviously, we supported the petition. We're one of

the signatories. We worked on the petition. We

believe that the federal statute puts out clear legal

criteria for an additional rule making, and DOE's own

analysis, which we extensively quoted, establish all

those criteria.

Larry Wethje talked to some census data.

That was additional data that goes beyond the basic

criteria. We're just saying there's reason to

question some of DOE's cost estimates. There's

another paper, I think it was Lauren Greening, et al,

an economist that's published, also indicating that

DOE does tend to overstate the estimated cost on

previous refrigerator standard rule makings. I won't

say every single number the census has is right, but

I'm just saying that was one example. There are other

examples of how the prices are wrong.

But even if you ignore that and just use

DOE' s prices, the case is made to at least open a rule

making. A lot of the issues people are raising, you

know, issues on jobs, cumulative burden, that would

all be considered as part of a rule making. We're not

saying that if the petition is granted, all that gets

turned to the side. It's just saying okay, we are

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

125 

1 brief here, and just respond to a few of the comments. 

2 Obviously, we supported the petition. We're one of 

3 the signatories. We worked on the petition. We 

4 believe that the federal statute puts out clear legal 

5 criteria for an additional rule making, and DOE's own 

6 analysis, which we extensively quoted, establish all 

7 those criteria. 

8 Larry Wethje talked to some census data. 

9 That was additional data that goes beyond the basic 

10 criteria. We're just saying there's reason to 

11 question some of DOE's cost estimates. There's 

12 another paper, I think it was Lauren Greening, et aI, 

13 an economist that's published, also indicating that 

14 DOE does tend to overstate the estimated cost on 

15 previous refrigerator standard rule makings. I won't 

16 say every single number the census has is right, but 

17 I'm just saying that was one example. There are other 

18 examples of how the prices are wrong. 

19 But even if you ignore that and just use 

20 DOE's prices, the case is made to at least open a rule 

21 making. A lot of the issues people are raising, you 

22 know, issues on jobs, cumulative burden, that would 

23 all be considered as part of a rule making. We're not 

24 saying that if the petition is granted, all that gets 

25 turned to the side. It's just saying okay, we are 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

126

beginning a process where all those things would be

considered. And as I think Mike McCabe pointed, there

would be a full rule making due process, and all the

different criteria, all the different analyses.

The reason we picked this product is, as

the Department said, while there are many criteria,

the primary criteria is energy savings. And as we

looked at from our own analyses, as well as with DOE,

by far the largest energy savings of products that DOE

could regulate, that they could add to the program

would be refrigerators.

The only other three products that come,

are in a similar ballpark are the three products we've

recommended be very high priorities. Everything else,

these other 14 or whatever that have been priorities

are lower energy savings. So we said if the focus is

on energy savings, let's focus on those big products.

The three that are now underway, that will

soon get ANOPRs, this is the fourth one that's the

really big one. Everything else is smaller. That's

why we have keyed in on that.

A couple of little things. Larry said to

you we've already gone through three rule makings

already. I think you meant to say three rules

already. The first rule was set by Congress. There

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

126 

1 beginning a process where all those things would be 

2 considered. And as I think Mike McCabe pointedl there 

3 would be a full rule making due processl and all the 

4 different criteria I all the different analyses. 

5 The reason we picked this product iS I as 

6 the Department said l while there are many criteria I 

7 the primary criteria is energy savings. And as we 

8 looked at from our own analysesl as well as with DOE I 

9 by far the largest energy savings of products that DOE 

10 could regulate l that they could add to the program 

11 would be refrigerators. 

12 The only other three products that cornel 

13 are in a similar ballpark are the three products we I ve 

14 recommended be very high priorities. Everything else l 

15 these other 14 or whatever that have been priorities 

16 are lower energy savings. So we said if the focus is 

17 on energy savings I let I s focus on those big products. 

18 The three that are now underway I that will 

19 soon get ANOPRs l this is the fourth one that/s the 

20 really big one. Everything else is smaller. That/s 

21 why we have keyed in on that. 

22 A couple of little things. Larry said to 

23 you we/ve already gone through three rule makings 

24 already. I think you meant to say three rules 

25 already. The first rule was set by Congress. There 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

127

were two subsequent rule makings, not three rule

makings. Minor correction.

We recognize that manufacturers did have

to make significant investments. We very much

appreciated the fact that manufacturers did work with

us on negotiating that standard. It took a little

while to ultimately get into a place, but we did work

it through. What we're proposing if DOE were to grant

this petition tomorrow the earliest, in our opinion,

that a standard could take effect is 2011. Given

DOE's track record, it's likely to be later, so there

will be 10 years between standards.

The statute generally calls for five years

between standards, so by 2011 they should have

recovered any costs associated with 2001 standard.

It's also four or more years after the 2007 clothes

washer standard. We've had this one on our radar

screen for a while. We've held off on it because we

were mindful of the cumulative burden. We were also

mindful of the fact that these other rule makings, the

three that we consider the very high priorities are

important, and we effectively want this new

refrigerator one to come in after those.I mean, DOE is

about to come out with ANOPRs. Under the process

improvement rule -- for the three current ones, under

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

127 

1 were two subsequent rule makings, not three rule 

2 makings. Minor correction. 

3 We recognize that manufacturers did have 

4 to make significant investments. We very much 

5 appreciated the fact that manufacturers did work with 

6 us on negotiating that standard. It took a little 

7 while to ultimately get into a place, but we did work 

8 it through. What we're proposing if DOE were to grant 

9 this petition tomorrow the earliest, in our opinion, 

10 that a standard could take effect is 2011. Given 

11 DOE's track record, it's likely to be later, so there 

12 will be 10 years between standards. 

13 The statute generally calls for five years 

14 between standards, so by 2011 they should have 

15 recovered any costs associated with 2001 standard. 

16 It's also four or more years after the 2007 clothes 

17 washer standard. We've had this one on our radar 

18 screen for a while. We've held off on it because we 

19 were mindful of the cumulative burden. We were also 

20 mindful of the fact that these other rule makings, the 

21 three that we consider the very high priorities are 

22 important, and we effectively want this new 

23 refrigerator one to come in after those. I mean, DOE is 

24 about to come out wi th ANOPRs. Under the process 

25 improvement rule -- for the three current ones, under 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

128

the process improvement rule it should be, I think

it's 12 months or so, if I'm recalling correctly from

-- no, it's 18 months from ANOPR to final rule. It's

also 18 months from when it's made a high priority to

an ANOPR, so you can have a final rule on those other

ones in the period leading up to the ANOPR on

refrigerators, so we don't think that this

refrigerator petition needs to slow down at all the

three that we consider to be the very high priorities.

This would be next.

Yes, it would probably affect some of

these other items that are not only high priority,

that DOE hasn't really been working on, but the

savings aren't nearly as great.

Dave Steiner from Maytag talked about

accelerated programs for early retirement. We have

been supportive particularly of programs to encourage

people to get rid of second refrigerators, you know,

what did someone call them, the beer coolers. We work

with the utilities on programs. We're happy to work

with the industrial on additional programs, so it

doesn't have to be either/or. There may be

opportunities to work on both of these.

Tom Cantana talked about working with

industry, and we certainly have worked with industry.

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

128 

1 the process improvement rule it should be, I think 

2 it's 12 months or so, if I'm recalling correctly from 

3 -- no, it's 18 months from ANOPR to final rule. It's 

4 also 18 months from when it's made a high priority to 

5 an ANOPR, so you can have a final rule on those other 

6 ones in the period leading up to the ANOPR on 

7 refrigerators, so we don't think that this 

8 refrigerator petition needs to slow down at all the 

9 three that we consider to be the very high priorities. 

10 This would be next. 

11 Yes, it would probably affect some of 

12 these other items that are not only high priority, 

13 that DOE hasn't really been working on, but the 

14 savings aren't nearly as great. 

15 Dave Steiner from May tag talked about 

16 accelerated programs for early retirement. We have 

17 been supportive particularly of programs to encourage 

18 people to get rid of second refrigerators, you know, 

19 what did someone call them, the beer coolers. We work 

20 with the utilities on programs. We're happy to work 

21 wi th the industrial on additional programs, so it 

22 doesn't have to be either/or. There may be 

23 opportunities to work on both of these. 

24 Tom Cantana talked about working wi th 

25 industry, and we certainly have worked with industry. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

129

We appreciated working with industry. We often work

together, not always. We actually did approach AHAM

before we submitted the petition to ask if they wanted

to work on this, and we got a polite no thank you,

which is why we decided ramp up the pressure, but we

did first try that. Ad hopefully, there will be

opportunities.

Our read is the legislative criteria are

pretty clear on whether this petition should be

granted. We think that clearly they show it should

be. That just begins the process, and we hope to work

with industry on a way to set up a new standard in a

way that saves energy but doesn't have large burdens

on industry.

I guess the final thing I wanted to

mention is the whole jobs question. Yes, there has

been a trend for industry to move overseas. I just

saw in this month's Appliance Magazine yet another

manufacturer, not Dave's company but another one is

building another new factory in Mexico. This is

happening now at a time that the standards haven't

been changing. I mean, there are large competitive

pressures on industry, irrespective of standards.

You have increased pressure from Asia.

You have the power retailers who are driving an

NEAP 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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

129 

1 We appreciated working with industry. We often work 

2 together, not always. We actually did approach AHAM 

3 before we submitted the petition to ask if they wanted 

4 to work on this, and we got a polite no thank you, 

5 which is why we decided ramp up the pressure, but we 

6 did first try that. Ad hopefully, there will be 

7 opportunities. 

8 Our read is the legislative criteria are 

9 pretty clear on whether this petition should be 

10 granted. We think that clearly they show it should 

11 be. That just begins the process, and we hope to work 

12 with industry on a way to set up a new standard in a 

13 way that saves energy but doesn't have large burdens 

14 on industry. 

15 I guess the final thing I wanted to 

16 mention is the whole jobs question. Yes, there has 

17 been a trend for industry to move overseas. I just 

18 saw in this month's Appliance Magazine yet another 

19 manufacturer, not Dave's company but another one is 

20 building another new factory in Mexico. This is 

21 happening now at a time that the standards haven't 

22 been changing. I mean, there are large competitive 

23 pressures on industry, irrespective of standards. 

24 You have increased pressure from Asia. 

25 You have the power retailers who are driving an 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

130

exceedingly hard bargain with these manufacturers, and

driving down the price. That's going to happen

regardless of what we do with standards. Standards is

somewhat of a side show to that. Yes, there's major

burdens associated with these larger international

pressures, but that's irrespective of standards. And

we'd be happy to work with the industry to figure out

ways to minimize the impacts of a new standard on

those problems, but it really is a larger issue than

just standards.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Additional comments

on the petition.

MR. CALABRESE: I guess I would maybe just

respond and rebut some of those comments. I don't

want this to -- Dave Calabrese again, AHAM. I don't

want this to become a back and forth, but there's a

number of issues that Steve brought up that do need to

be addressed.

First of all, I think it's somewhat

misleading and disingenuous to say this is just a rule

making. Just a rule making is inaccurate. This is a

process whereby effort on the Department's behalf has

to be put forward, and on these products significant

effort. And again as I said before, the factors to

establish priorities, one of those is incremental

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

130 

1 exceedingly hard bargain wi th these manufacturers, and 

2 driving down the price. That's going to happen 

3 regardless of what we do with standards. Standards is 

4 somewhat of a side show to that. Yes, there's major 

5 burdens associated with these larger international 

6 pressures, but that's irrespective of standards. And 

7 we'd be happy to work with the industry to figure out 

8 ways to minimize the impacts of a new standard on 

9 those problems, but it really is a larger issue than 

10 just standards. 

11 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Additional comments 

12 on the petition. 

13 MR. CALABRESE: I guess I would maybe just 

14 respond and rebut some of those comments. I don't 

15 want this to -- Dave Calabrese again, AHAM. I don't 

16 want this to become a back and forth, but there's a 

17 number of issues that Steve brought up that do need to 

18 be addressed. 

19 First of all, I think it's somewhat 

20 misleading and disingenuous to say this is just a rule 

21 making. Just a rule making is inaccurate. This is a 

22 process whereby effort on the Department's behalf has 

23 to be put forward, and on these products significant 

24 effort. And again as I said before, the factors to 

25 establish priorities, one of those is incremental 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

131

resources by DOE to complete a rule making process.

So clearly there, that factor would be implicated by

this.

Second of all, from a company standpoint,

to just say well we'll engage in a rule making means

that the companies have to then make plans based upon

presumptions of how that rule making may end up. And

again, this jobs issue which Steve insinuates is

larger than just standards, which we vehemently

disagree, would come into play very much so.

If, in fact, this rule making or this

petition is just a stalking horse for more

negotiations and asking for other voluntary

initiatives, we would be very disturbed if that was,

in fact, the point. It was somewhat implicated there

that other efforts could come off of this, because in

fact, we are always interested and welcome

opportunities to talk about voluntary initiatives. So

if this again is just a means to generate a

discussion, it's an inappropriate way both time-wise

for the Department, and for us.

Again, on the jobs issue, we cannot

emphasize enough, and I would think that our friends

in the advocacy community should be careful when

advocating proposals like this that could have a

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

131 

1 resources by DOE to complete a rule making process. 

2 So clearly there, that factor would be implicated by 

3 this. 

4 Second of all, from a company standpoint, 

5 to just say well we'll engage in a rule making means 

6 that the companies have to then make plans based upon 

7 presumptions of how that rule making may end up. And 

8 again, this jobs issue which Steve insinuates is 

9 larger than just standards, which we vehemently 

10 disagree, would come into play very much so. 

11 If, in fact, this rule making or this 

12 petition is just a stalking horse for more 

13 negotiations and asking for other voluntary 

14 initiatives, we would be very disturbed if that was, 

15 in fact, the point. It was somewhat implicated there 

16 that other efforts could come off of this, because in 

17 fact, we are always interested and welcome 

18 opportunities to talk about voluntary initiatives. So 

19 if this again is just a means to generate a 

20 discussion, it's an inappropriate way both time-wise 

21 for the Department, and for us. 

22 Again, on the jobs issue, we cannot 

23 emphasize enough, and I would think that our friends 

24 in the advocacy community should be careful when 

25 advocating proposals like this that could have a 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

132

dramatic effect on jobs because from our standpoint,

we don't want to be pushing more jobs off-shore. But

from their standpoint, to have their efforts seen as

causing that could have a detrimental effect on

everyone, so we really want and urge the Department

and others to see this for what it is. It is a

regulatory burden that has the implication to

dramatically affect our industry and, in fact, those

efforts by the advocacy community.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Let's hear any

additional perspectives on the petition. Perhaps we

don't need to recommend about this argument. It's

already been gone over. Harvey, just state your name

for the record.

MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs, ACEEE. David,

I'm old enough to remember AHAM's bragging on

productivity improvements in refrigerator

manufacturing about the time of the transition from

fiberglass to foam insulation, roughly 20 years ago,

so I really am very much concerned about the jobs

issue myself.

One question I would like to ask is the

number of direct manufacturing jobs in the

refrigerator industry in this country and I'm

concerned about each one of these, but I think that we

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

132 

1 dramatic effect on jobs because from our standpoint, 

2 we don't want to be pushing more jobs off-shore. But 

3 from their standpoint, to have their efforts seen as 

4 causing that could have a detrimental effect on 

5 everyone, so we really want and urge the Department 

6 and others to see this for what it is. It is a 

7 regulatory burden that has the implication to 

8 dramatically affect our industry and, in fact, those 

9 efforts by the advocacy community. 

10 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Let's hear any 

11 additional perspectives on the petition. Perhaps we 

12 don't need to recommend about this argument. It's 

13 already been gone over. Harvey, just state your name 

14 for the record. 

15 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs, ACEEE. David, 

16 I'm old enough to remember AHAM's bragging on 

17 productivity improvements in refrigerator 

18 manufacturing about the time of the transition from 

19 fiberglass to foam insulation, roughly 20 years ago, 

20 so I really am very much concerned about the jobs 

21 issue myself. 

22 One question I would like to ask is the 

23 number of direct manufacturing jobs in the 

24 refrigerator industry in this country and I'm 

25 concerned about each one of these, but I think that we 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

133

ought to have a sense in this room whether we're

talking 10,000 jobs, 100,000 jobs, or a million jobs.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: I want to make sure

we stay pretty close to the focal point of this

workshop here. Maybe that's a conversation you can

have off-line.

MR. SACHS: The point has been introduced

for the record that this is about jobs in a major way.

I'm merely asking for a factual basis to be added to

that conversation.

MR. CALABRESE: This is David Calabrese,

and I'll keep this brief. Of course, I don't have

those exact job figures, but if the implication is

that if it's a small number, that these individuals

who might lose their job is inconsequential to the

overall picture, then I think that's a very unpleasant

thing to say.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Let's see if there

are any additional comments.

MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe. The

legislation does provide for petitions of this sort.

This is the first one that we have received. We have

not established the procedures, the process for

responding to it. We're in a learning mode at present.

But given that the petition was submitted so close 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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

133 

1 ought to have a sense in this room whether weI re 

2 talking 10 1 000 jobsl 100 / 000 jobsl or a million jobs. 

3 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: I want to make sure 

4 we stay pretty close to the focal point of this 

5 workshop here. Maybe that/s a conversation you can 

6 have off-line. 

7 MR. SACHS: The point has been introduced 

8 for the record that this is about jobs in a major way. 

9 11m merely asking for a factual basis to be added to 

10 that conversation. 

11 MR. CALABRESE: This is David Calabrese l 

12 and 1/11 keep this brief. Of course I I don/t have 

13 those exact job figures l but if the implication is 

14 that if it/s a small number I that these individuals 

15 who might lose their job is inconsequential to the 

16 overall picture l then I think that l s a very unpleasant 

17 thing to say. 

18 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Let/s see if there 

19 are any additional comments. 

20 MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe. The 

21 legislation does provide for petitions of this sort. 

22 This is the first one that we have received. We have 

23 not established the procedures I the process for 

24 responding to it. wet re in a learning mode at present. 

25 But given that the petition was submitted so close to 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

134

today's meeting, we felt that it was the right thing

to do to make sure that all who were interested in

these proceedings have a copy of it, and are aware of

it, and are able to provide us with comments regarding

the petition, the issue as to whether or not a product

- in this case refrigerators - should be added to the

priority list, and at what priority it should be.

The comments that have been received this

morning as to the cumulative regulatory burden, the

energy savings are particularly valuable, and I would

encourage one and all who have an interest in this

product to expound upon those comments in their

written comments. We will be, over the next month,

determining what is the procedures which we will

follow to handle this petition. We do not have any

in-hand to establish at the present.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Kit.

MS. KENNEDY: Kit Kennedy from NRGC. In

terms of the process and the petition, and the

distinction between commenting on petition and

commenting on what the standard should be through the

rule making process, the provision we're talking about

is 6295 (n) . And 6295 (n) (2) says, "The Secretary shall

grant the petition if he finds that it contains

evidence, which assuming no other evidence were

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

134 

1 today's meeting, we felt that it was the right thing 

2 to do to make sure that all who were interested in 

3 these proceedings have a copy of it, and are aware of 

4 it, and are able to provide us with comments regarding 

5 the petition, the issue as to whether or not a product 

6 in this case refrigerators - should be added to the 

7 priority list, and at what priority it should be. 

8 The comments that have been received this 

9 morning as to the cumulative regulatory burden, the 

10 energy savings are particularly valuable, and I would 

11 encourage one and all who have an interest in this 

12 product to expound upon those comments in their 

13 written comments. We will be, over the next month, 

14 determining what is the procedures which we will 

15 follow to handle this petition. We do not have any 

16 in-hand to establish at the present. 

17 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Kit. 

18 MS. KENNEDY: Kit Kennedy from NRGC. In 

19 terms of the process and the petition, and the 

20 distinction between commenting on petition and 

21 commenting on what the standard should be through the 

22 rule making process, the provision we're talking about 

23 is 6295 (n). And 6295 (n) (2) says, "The Secretary shall 

24 grant the petition if he finds that it contains 

25 evidence, which assuming no other evidence were 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

135

considered provides an adequate basis for amending the

standard." So it is -- the Secretary has very little

discretion to deny a petition which makes a facial

showing that there's a basis for amending the

standards. The statute doesn't call for considering

responses to petitions, and I simply want to point

that out.

Rosenstock.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. Steve

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock at EI.

It wasn't shown on the slide show, but as I recall

from the website, in terms of low priority products in

terms of standards, and I think as well as test

procedures, that refrigerators and refrigerator

freezers are -- in this proposal are considered low

priority, since they are a covered product. Is that

correct, just for everyone's notice, that they are in

there already as a low priority product for both

standards and test procedures? Is that correct?

That's what I recall from the website.

MR. BERRINGER: Bryan Berringer. Yes, you

are correct, Steve. They're low priority.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: And as a follow-up, I

would suggest they stay as low priorities. Thank you.

(202) 234-4433

MR. CALABRESE: Dave Calabrese, one last

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

135 

1 considered provides an adequate basis for amending the 

2 standard." So it is -- the Secretary has very little 

3 discretion to deny a petition which makes a facial 

4 showing that there's a basis for amending the 

5 standards. The statute doesn't call for considering 

6 responses to petitions, and I simply want to point 

7 that out. 

8 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. Steve 

9 Rosenstock. 

10 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock at EI. 

11 It wasn't shown on the slide show, but as I recall 

12 from the website, in terms of low priority products in 

13 terms of standards, and I think as well as test 

14 procedures, that refrigerators and refrigerator 

15 freezers are in this proposal are considered low 

16 priority, since they are a covered product. Is that 

17 correct, just for everyone's notice, that they are in 

18 there already as a low priority product for both 

19 standards and test procedures? Is that correct? 

20 That's what I recall from the website. 

21 MR. BERRINGER: Bryan Berringer. Yes, you 

22 are correct, Steve. They're low priority. 

23 MR. ROSENSTOCK: And as a follow-up, I 

24 would suggest they stay as low priori ties. Thank you. 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

MR. CALABRESE: Dave Calabrese, one last 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

136

comment and I will not talk again. The reference was

to the statute and to the standard by which DOE would

or could grant the petition. The comment was made

that there is no discretion given to the Secretary to

in fact limit discretion to deny. We would see it

exactly the opposite, that as was read, the Secretary

shall grant the petition considering evidence assuming

no other evidence were considered.

Well, of course, we have presented here

ample evidence and more is forthcoming, so I see the

Secretary having ample discretion. And, in fact, from

this reading of the statute, it would seem to provide

that as long as other evidence is provided, and it is

sufficient and is substantial, that the decision would

be to our position in opposition of the petition.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: David, I'm sure

that you and all the parties involved in this, the

Secretary would welcome your written comments about

his discretion.

MR. CANTANA: Tom Cantana from Whirlpool.

I guess the only thing I would add to that is I think

that initial submission of petitions that are

advocated to be sort of triggering an automatic

process have to meet a minimal standard of

credibility, as well. And the Secretary is clearly

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

136 

1 comment and I will not talk again. The reference was 

2 to the statute and to the standard by which DOE would 

3 or could grant the petition. The comment was made 

4 that there is no discretion given to the Secretary to 

5 in fact limit discretion to deny. We would see it 

6 exactly the opposite, that as was read, the Secretary 

7 shall grant the petition considering evidence assuming 

8 no other evidence were considered. 

9 Well, of course, we have presented here 

10 ample evidence and more is forthcoming, so I see the 

11 Secretary having ample discretion. And, in fact, from 

12 this reading of the statute, it would seem to provide 

13 that as long as other evidence is provided, and it is 

14 sufficient and is substantial, that the decision would 

15 be to our position in opposition of the petition. 

16 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: David, I'm sure 

17 that you and all the parties involved in this, the 

18 Secretary would welcome your written comments about 

19 his discretion. 

20 MR. CANTANA: Tom Cant ana from Whirlpool. 

21 I guess the only thing I would add to that is I think 

22 that initial submission of petitions that are 

23 advocated to be sort of triggering an automatic 

24 

25 

process have to meet a minimal standard of 

credibility, as well. And the Secretary is clearly 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

137

going to have to evaluate that. And I raise that

issue because I want to comment a bit on this whole

question of dialogue between the advocacy community

and industry, because it is always helpful that when

we debate a public policy issue, we at least agree on

the facts. And it's my understanding of the process

thus far, and I think David participated. I didn't

participate in some of these direct discussions, that

initial discussions were over factual questions about

how much energy might be saved if we looked at

refrigerators. And the DOE's initial assessment that

put it at a low priority saw a savings in the order of

one quad or so. And then there was an initial

discussion that maybe the advocacy community's view

was that the real savings would be morel like three

quads. And then there was more discussion about

whether that was sufficient to justify raising it on

the priority level. And then by the time the petition

is filed a relatively short number of days later, the

number begins to get to five quads.

Now maybe the best thing we can do to save

energy in this country is figure out a process where

we can capture how many quads of energy can be

instantly identified as saved. But somebody is

actually going to have build these products, so I

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

137 

1 going to have to evaluate that. And I rai se that 

2 issue because I want to comment a bit on this whole 

3 question of dialogue between the advocacy community 

4 and industry, because it is always helpful that when 

5 we debate a public policy issue, we at least agree on 

6 the facts. And it's my understanding of the process 

7 thus far, and I think David participated. I didn't 

8 participate in some of these direct discussions, that 

9 initial discussions were over factual questions about 

10 how much energy might be saved if we looked at 

11 refrigerators. And the DOE's initial assessment that 

12 put it at a low priority saw a savings in the order of 

13 one quad or so. And then there was an initial 

14 discussion that maybe the advocacy community's view 

15 was that the real savings would be morel like three 

16 quads. And then there was more discussion about 

17 whether that was sufficient to justify raising it on 

18 the priority level. And then by the time the petition 

19 is filed a relatively short number of days later, the 

20 number begins to get to five quads. 

21 Now maybe the best thing we can do to save 

22 energy in this country is figure out a process where 

23 we can capture how many quads of energy can be 

24 instantly identified as saved. But somebody is 

25 actually going to have build these products, so I 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

138

would submit that it's very important that these

numbers be looked at very carefully, and that we all

reach some consensus on the facts. Because for us to

move from a Department initial assessment of one quad

to a few weeks later, a clear showing that there are

five quads of opportunity suggests to me that there's

more work to be done before this thing moves up higher

on the priority list.

MR. BERRINGER: Thank you. Other

comments, and perhaps final comments on the petition

as we are moving on towards other issues. Steve

Nadel.

MR. NADEL: Keep it brief, I just want to

respond to one or two things. One, I wanted to make

it clear this is not a stalking horse. We believe

that there are very significant energy savings from

updating the standard. I said we are openly

discussing other things, because we're always looking

for multiple ways to save energy, particularly things

that are win-win. We're not looking at either/or. If

the industry doesn't want to discuss other things,

fine.

We have a petition. We're open to working

on this and on other things, but it's not like it's

bait and switch or anything like that. That's not at

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

138 

1 would submit that it's very important that these 

2 numbers be looked at very carefully, and that we all 

3 reach some consensus on the facts. Because for us to 

4 move from a Department initial assessment of one quad 

5 to a few weeks later, a clear showing that there are 

6 five quads of opportunity suggests to me that there's 

7 more work to be done before this thing moves up higher 

8 on the priority list. 

9 MR. BERRINGER: Thank you. Other 

10 comments, and perhaps final comments on the petition 

11 as we are moving on towards other issues. Steve 

12 Nadel. 

13 MR. NADEL: Keep it brief, I just want to 

14 respond to one or two things. One, I wanted to make 

15 it clear this is not a stalking horse. We believe 

16 that there are very significant energy savings from 

17 updating the standard. I said we are openly 

18 discussing other things, because we're always looking 

19 for multiple ways to save energy, particularly things 

20 that are win-win. We're not looking at either/or. If 

21 the industry doesn't want to discuss other things, 

22 fine. 

23 We have a petition. We're open to working 

24 on this and on other things, but it's not like it's 

25 bait and switch or anything like that. That's not at 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
139

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

all going on.

In terms of the numbers, when we met with

we presented the numbers that DOE had, as well

as some of our own. DOE subsequently came out with

some new numbers . I haven't looked in detail at the

DOE numbers how they revised their numbers, but that

could be clarified.

One final point, Dave made a point about

well, 687 models; there is only 50 to 100 basic

models. Yes, there's a lot of boiling down. I don't

think basic models -- those numbers -- Energy Star

keeps track of different colors, but yes, there often

are small little differences. That also affects the

total number of models that are available also, so

instead of thousands of models, I would imagine we're

only talking hundreds of basic models available, so

you need to keep whether you're looking at total

models or basic models, you need to be clear that one

is much smaller than the other. But if you're looking

just at basic models, you need to look at what is the

total universe of basic models. There's an awful lot

of those skews as stocking units go away.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: So let's then refer

to page 19, and talk about any other thing anyone

wishes to raise other than the petition. I think we've

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

139 

1 all going on. 

2 In terms of the numbers, when we met with 

3 AHAM, we presented the numbers that DOE had, as well 

4 as some of our own. DOE subsequently came out with 

5 some new numbers. I haven't looked in detail at the 

6 DOE numbers how they revised their numbers, but that 

7 could be clarified. 

8 One final point, Dave made a point about 

9 well, 687 models; there is only 50 to 100 basic 

10 models. Yes, there's a lot of boiling down. I don't 

11 think basic models -- those numbers -- Energy Star 

12 keeps track of different colors, but yes, there often 

13 are small little differences. That also affects the 

14 total number of models that are available also, so 

15 instead of thousands of models, I would imagine we're 

16 only talking hundreds of basic models available, so 

17 you need to keep whether you' re looking at total 

18 models or basic models, you need to be clear that one 

19 is much smaller than the other. But if you' re looking 

20 just at basic models, you need to look at what is the 

21 total universe of basic models. There's an awful lot 

22 of those skews as stocking units go away. 

23 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: So let' s then refer 

24 to page 19, and talk about any other thing anyone 

25 wishes to raise other than the petition. I think wetve 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

140

covered these. The question is whether we've covered

them adequately from your perspective before we move

to page 20. Nothing additional, then we're moving to

page 20. We've also -- many of you independently have

already addressed a lot of the issues that are here on

page 20. Those issues in the coverage and for which

the Department suggests no action. Yes, please.

MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane. I just would

like to reiterate all comments, Peter's comments about

the supermarket display cases. We would like them to

put into -- lumped in with the other for

refrigerators.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Other comments on

these. They're listed as in coverage and no action.

I think we're nearing the end of the segment. I want

to open it at this point to other issues that other

people would like to raise if they think it's relevant

to this particular meeting.

MR. GRAY: This is Ed Gray from NEMA. I

think one thing that didn't come up and needs to be I

think reflected in all the cost benefit calculations

that are done, are the sea changes and the cost of

materials that we're seeing. A lot of the materials

that go into electrical products cost a whole lot more

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

140 

1 covered these. The question is whether we've covered 

2 them adequately from your perspective before we move 

3 to page 20. Nothing additional, then we're moving to 

4 page 20. We've also -- many of you independently have 

5 already addressed a lot of the issues that are here on 

6 page 20. Those issues in the coverage and for which 

7 the Department suggests no action. Yes, please. 

8 MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane. I just would 

9 like to reiterate all comments, Peter's comments about 

10 the supermarket display cases. We would like them to 

11 put into lumped in with the other for 

12 refrigerators. 

13 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

14 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Other comments on 

15 these. They're listed as in coverage and no action. 

16 I think we're nearing the end of the segment. I want 

17 to open it at this point to other issues that other 

18 people would like to raise if they think it's relevant 

19 to this particular meeting. 

20 MR. GRAY: This is Ed Gray from NEMA. I 

21 think one thing that didn't corne up and needs to be I 

22 think reflected in all the cost benefit calculations 

23 that are done, are the sea changes and the cost of 

24 materials that we're seeing. A lot of the materials 

25 that go into electrical products cost a whole lot more 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

141

than they did a couple of years ago. And I'd just

like to make sure that those new costs are reflected

in the calculations.

I think someone indicated well, they just

see this as a typical cyclical factor that occurs in

raw materials, and I would beg to differ with that. I

think we have emerging significant demand on these

materials, whether they're steels, copper, aluminum or

whatever, for example, in China; that not being the

only one, but certainly an important one. So I think

we'll need to get better numbers for the cost of

magnetic steels, and lining materials and things like

that for a number of electrical products.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Please, Harvey.

MR. SACHS : I certainly take this as being

very important. I agree with NEMA on it. And, in

fact, would go beyond that and say that we sometimes

look at these materials as being embodied energy. And

while we're revising the costs of the materials, we

need to make sure that the ratio of energy utilized

cost to materials cost is also looked at, if we are

updating our energy cost forecast with the same rigor

that we're looking at our materials costs.

(202) 234-4433

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Charlie Stephens.

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens, Oregon

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

141 

1 than they did a couple of years ago. And I'd just 

2 like to make sure that those new costs are reflected 

3 in the calculations. 

4 I think someone indicated well, they just 

5 see this as a typical cyclical factor that occurs in 

6 raw materials, and I would beg to differ with that. I 

7 think we have emerging significant demand on these 

8 materials, whether they're steels, copper, aluminum or 

9 whatever, for example, in China; that not being the 

10 only one, but certainly an important one. So I think 

11 we'll need to get better numbers for the cost of 

12 magnetic steels, and lining materials and things like 

13 that for a number of electrical products. 

14 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Please, Harvey. 

15 MR. SACHS: I certainly take this as being 

16 very important. I agree with NEMA on it. And, in 

17 fact, would go beyond that and say that we sometimes 

18 look at these materials as being embodied energy. And 

19 while we're revising the costs of the materials, we 

20 need to make sure that the ratio of energy utilized 

21 cost to materials cost is also looked at, if we are 

22 updating our energy cost forecast with the same rigor 

23 that we're looking at our materials costs. 

24 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Charlie Stephens. 

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens, Oregon 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

142

Department of Energy. I'd just like to second that as

I look back at some of the energy prices and forecasts

that are embedded in some of the analyses that we've

been waiting for so long to see. I could only

politely call them fiction at this point, and they

really do need to be updated.

MR. MULLIN: Jim Mullin, Lenox. I want to

talk about Appendix A and it's actually number 17,

which is the furnace fan efficiency. I was a little

surprised to find out the numbers were being quoted

from the Wisconsin field survey and extrapolated to

the rest of the U.S. to claim the amount of energy

used by furnace fans. In 1,000 or 1,100 kilowatt

hours per year, a typical fan would have to run

probably two to three thousand hours, which I believe

is about 1,000 to 2,000 hours above what DOE's test

procedure predicts. So I'm sure there's a significant

overstatement in those numbers of the potential energy

savings and we'll certainly comment on that later.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you.

Charlie.

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. I would

second that. I think I can find those same levels of

overstatements in a number of manufacturer brochures.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Harvey Sachs.

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

142 

1 Department of Energy. I'd just like to second that as 

2 I look back at some of the energy prices and forecasts 

3 that are embedded in some of the analyses that we've 

4 been waiting for so long to see. I could only 

5 politely call them fiction at this point, and they 

6 really do need to be updated. 

7 MR. MULLIN: Jim Mullin, Lenox. I want to 

8 talk about Appendix A and it's actually number 17, 

9 which is the furnace fan efficiency. I was a little 

10 surprised to find out the numbers were being quoted 

11 from the Wisconsin field survey and extrapolated to 

12 the rest of the U.S. to claim the amount of energy 

13 used by furnace fans. In 1,000 or 1,100 kilowatt 

14 hours per year, a typical fan would have to run 

15 probably two to three thousand hours, which I believe 

16 is about 1,000 to 2,000 hours above what DOE's test 

17 procedure predicts. So I'm sure there I s a significant 

18 overstatement in those numbers of the potential energy 

19 savings and we'll certainly comment on that later. 

20 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

21 Charlie. 

22 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. I would 

23 second that. I think I can find those same levels of 

24 overstatements in a number of manufacturer brochures. 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Harvey Sachs. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

143

MR. SACHS: Jim, thanks for bringing that

up. I'd just like to say that I believe from the

struggles I've had to understand that particular issue

and the work we've done with some spreadsheets, that

part of this is based on the difference between the

external static pressures found in the field, and

those which are assumed in the analysis, directly in

the air conditioner analysis, and indirectly perhaps

trekking back into the AFUE. So I think as part of

the lookbacks and look-sees that the rule making

procedures that have been proposed, that we certainly

would be hopeful that this would lead to some

consideration of how all these issues interplay.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: And I'm certain the

Department would welcome any additional and very

specific comments of this sort.

MR. SACHS: The point I'm trying to make

is that in the field at the higher static pressures

the field installed equipment seems to see, we are not

surprised to see higher electricity use for the fans,

particularly since that particular study emphasized

ECMs which respond by pumping volt.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: I think those

topics would be helpful in writing, Harvey.

MR. NADEL: The one thing I'd note on this

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

143 

1 MR. SACHS: Jim, thanks for bringing that 

2 up. I'd just like to say that I believe from the 

3 struggles I've had to understand that particular issue 

4 and the work we've done with some spreadsheets, that 

5 part of this is based on the difference between the 

6 external static pressures found in the field, and 

7 those which are assumed in the analysis, directly in 

8 the air conditioner analysis, and indirectly perhaps 

9 trekking back into the AFUE. So I think as part of 

10 the lookbacks and look-sees that the rule making 

11 procedures that have been proposed, that we certainly 

12 would be hopeful that this would lead to some 

13 consideration of how all these issues interplay. 

14 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: And I'm certain the 

15 Department would welcome any additional and very 

16 specific comments of this sort. 

17 MR. SACHS: The point I'm trying to make 

18 is that in the field at the higher static pressures 

19 the field installed equipment seems to see, we are not 

20 surprised to see higher electricity use for the fans, 

21 particularly since that particular study emphasized 

22 ECMs which respond by pumping volt. 

23 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: I think those 

24 topics would be helpful in writing, Harvey. 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

MR. NADEL: The one thing I'd note on this 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

144

is that was constant as the cold was the normal

climate, so Wisconsin probably will have higher

operating hours than other locations, and that

probably needs to be factored in.

I guess with that, I have one other

question since we seem to be wrapping up. Where do

you recommend we go for lunch?

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: I'll address that

at the end. We're not there yet. Other issues? I

want to make certain we have a chance to cover what

needs to be covered in this meeting right now, so any

additional issues . Not talking about the petition.

MR. CALABRESE: That' right. I'm not

talking about the petition. I think another wrap-up

issue, and I think the discussion here has been very

good. And before my time, I understand there used to

be an advisory committee that DOE had of industry,

stakeholders and the like. And I guess my parting

comment here would be is that that type of advisory

committee - in my previous life I worked on

international trade issues, and there were a number of

these committees in the government, and they were very

helpful getting groups together and dialoguing and the

rest.

(202) 234-4433

I guess my recommendation, my last

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

144 

1 is that was constant as the cold was the normal 

2 climate, so Wisconsin probably will have higher 

3 operating hours than other locations, and that 

4 probably needs to be factored in. 

5 I guess with that, I have one other 

6 question since we seem to be wrapping up. Where do 

7 you recommend we go for lunch? 

8 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: I'll address that 

9 at the end. We're not there yet. Other issues? I 

10 want to make certain we have a chance to cover what 

11 needs to be covered in this meeting right now, so any 

12 additional issues. Not talking about the petition. 

13 MR. CALABRESE: That' right. I'm not 

14 talking about the petition. I think another wrap-up 

15 issue, and I think the discussion here has been very 

16 good. And before my time, I understand there used to 

17 be an advisory committee that DOE had of industry, 

18 stakeholders and the like. And I guess my parting 

19 comment here would be is that that type of advisory 

20 committee in my previous life I worked on 

21 international trade issues, and there were a number of 

22 these committees in the government, and they were very 

23 helpful getting groups together and dialoguing and the 

24 rest. 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

I guess my recommendation, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 

my last 

www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

145

recommendation would be that the Department consider

within the law as it can be done to reinstitute that

advisory committee.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. Final

comments. I think we're just about to describe a few

next steps, barring anything else that anybody has to

say. This was in the slide that Barbara described

already. The next slide. The comment period

concludes July 9th. Please submit your electronic

comments. You can see the email address there, and

written comments to the Department of Energy as

located in your packet. And any specific questions

could be directed to Barbara Twigg. And are there

other next steps we would list at this point. We've

already described that at some point in the future we

would expect the Secretary to comment on the petition.

And that beyond that, Michael or Bryan.

MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe. There have

been a number of issues raised today that are very

different than the sorts of issues raised in the

previous prior setting agendas. And when we had

developed the process improvement rule, we had

envisioned the next step as being publishing the

priorities and the rule making schedules and the

regulatory agenda.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

145 

1 recommendation would be that the Department consider 

2 within the law as it can be done to reinstitute that 

3 advisory committee. 

4 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. Final 

5 comments. I think we're just about to describe a few 

6 next steps, barring anything else that anybody has to 

7 say. This was in the slide that Barbara described 

8 already. The next slide. The comment period 

9 concludes July 9th • Please submit your electronic 

10 comments. You can see the email address there, and 

11 written comments to the Department of Energy as 

12 located in your packet. And any specific questions 

13 could be directed to Barbara Twigg. And are there 

14 other next steps we would list at this point. We've 

15 already described that at some point in the future we 

16 would expect the Secretary to comment on the petition. 

17 And that beyond that, Michael or Bryan. 

18 MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe. There have 

19 been a number of issues raised today that are very 

20 different than the sorts of issues raised in the 

21 previous prior setting agendas. And when we had 

22 developed the process improvement rule, we had 

23 envisioned the next step as being publishing the 

24 priorities and the rule making schedules and the 

25 regulatory agenda. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

146

There are issues here that likely may not

be answered in the regulatory agenda, and we will be

looking at those, and looking at ways to respond.

Some issues I think we've already responded. I'm not

certain if there will be any further, for example, the

commercial clothes washers, or the large central air

conditioners. We will make available the letters that

have gone out on the commercial clothes washer, but

beyond that, I'm not certain that there's anything

else that we'll do responding to the petition for

refrigerators. We will be processing that. Exactly

how it's going to be processed, I don't have an

answer, so there are a number of things that I wish I

had answers to exactly how they'll be addressed, but

I anticipate that some of them will be addressed

outside of the publication of the regulatory agenda.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes.

MR. WETHJE: Larry Wethje. Just to

confirm then, Michael, I assume we have at least until

July 9th to submit comments on the petition before the

Secretary will take any action on it. Can you confirm

that?

MR. McCABE: No, I cannot.

MR. WETHJE: So there's a possibility that

he might act upon it before we have a chance to submit

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-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

146 

1 There are issues here that likely may not 

2 be answered in the regulatory agenda, and we will be 

3 looking at those, and looking at ways to respond. 

4 Some issues I think we've already responded. I'm not 

5 certain if there will be any further, for example, the 

6 commercial clothes washers, or the large central air 

7 conditioners. We will make available the letters that 

8 have gone out on the commercial clothes washer, but 

9 beyond that, I'm not certain that there's anything 

10 else that we'll do responding to the petition for 

11 refrigerators. We will be processing that. Exactly 

12 how it's going to be processed, I don't have an 

13 answer, so there are a number of things that I wish I 

14 had answers to exactly how they'll be addressed, but 

15 I anticipate that some of them will be addressed 

16 outside of the publication of the regulatory agenda. 

17 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes. 

18 MR. WETHJE: Larry Wethje. Just to 

19 confirm then, Michael, I assume we have at least until 

20 July 9th to submit comments on the petition before the 

21 Secretary will take any action on it. Can you confirm 

22 that? 

23 MR. McCABE: No, I cannot. 

24 MR. WETHJE: So there's a possibility that 

25 he might act upon it before we have a chance to submit 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
147

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

comments?

MR. McCABE: This petition that -- we have

the requirement in the legislation to respond to the

petition. It is -- the Department will have to

determine what is the right way, what the legislation

expects us to respond. And there are -- with an

engineering background, and I answered the question,

the specific question such as that there's always that

possibility. As to how real that possibility is, I

don't know.

MR. CALABRESE: I guess knowing as they

tell me that there is an interest in our behalf to

comment substantively on this, we will. And if we're

given the time frame, of course provide that. And

we'll provide it, so our concern is missing some

deadline that the Secretary makes the decision and we

weren't able to -- weren't aware that it was moving

forward.

MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe. There are at

least two separate issues on the refrigerator

petition. One is the response to it, and the second

is the priority, and so certainly in commenting on the

priority and where it will be in the priority if it is

accepted is a question which I would encourage

comments on. The responding to it and accepting it,

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

147 

1 comments? 

2 MR. McCABE: This petition that -- we have 

3 the requirement in the legislation to respond to the 

4 petition. It is the Department will have to 

5 determine what is the right way, what the legislation 

6 expects us to respond. And there are with an 

7 engineering background, and I answered the question, 

8 the specific question such as that there's always that 

9 possibility. As to how real that possibility is, I 

10 don't know. 

11 MR. CALABRESE: I guess knowing as they 

12 tell me that there is an interest in our behalf to 

13 comment substantively on this, we will. And if we're 

14 given the time frame, of course provide that. And 

15 we'll provide it, so our concern is missing some 

16 deadline that the Secretary makes the decision and we 

17 weren't able to -- weren't aware that it was moving 

18 forward. 

19 MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe. There are at 

20 least two separate issues on the refrigerator 

21 petition. One is the response to it, and the second 

22 is the priority, and so certainly in commenting on the 

23 priority and where it will be in the priority if it is 

24 accepted is a question which I would encourage 

25 comments on. The responding to it and accepting it, 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

148

I view that as a separate question, and that may -- I

don't know what the schedule is for that. I would

offer that that may happen before the 9th. I think

it's quite unlikely, but there is always that

possibility.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: So just for all the

stakeholders here, in terms of the petition, if we're

going to comment on what the priority level is, we can

send them in with our July 9th comments, or the

comments that are due by July 9th. But if we want to

respond to the petition itself, or have other comments

just on the petition, not necessarily the -- well,

with issues beyond the prioritization, that a

stakeholder should write the Secretary of Energy

directly at the earliest possible time, since there's

no real time line for considering the issue. It

didn't sound like there's any sort of process

outlined.

MR. DePRIEST: I think we mentioned --

this is Tom DePriest, General Counsel, again. I think

we mentioned earlier on that the statute really makes

no provision for public input to the Secretary's

decision to accept or deny the petition. There would

be public input, of course, in the event that the

petition is accepted, and then we proceed to review a

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

148 

1 I view that as a separate question, and that may -- I 

2 don't know what the schedule is for that. I would 

3 offer that that may happen before the 9 th • I think 

4 it's quite unlikely, but there is always that 

5 possibility. 

6 MR. ROSENSTOCK: So just for all the 

7 stakeholders here, in terms of the petition, if we're 

8 going to comment on what the priority level is, we can 

9 send them in with our July 9 th comments, or the 

10 comments that are due by July 9th • But if we want to 

11 respond to the petition itself, or have other comments 

12 just on the petition, not necessarily the -- well, 

13 with issues beyond the prioritization, that a 

14 stakeholder should write the Secretary of Energy 

15 directly at the earliest possible time, since there's 

16 no real time line for considering the issue. It 

17 didn't sound like there's any sort of process 

18 outlined. 

19 MR. DePRIEST: I think we mentioned --

20 this is Tom DePriest, General Counsel, again. I think 

21 we mentioned earlier on that the statute really makes 

22 no provision for public input to the Secretary's 

23 decision to accept or deny the petition. There would 

24 be public input, of course, in the event that the 

25 petition is accepted, and then we proceed to review a 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

149

number in terms of whether to set higher standards.

So Michael is correct also when he mentioned earlier

that this is the first one we've ever gotten. We have

all read the statute, and we will proceed based on the

statute.

The deadline for commenting on the

priority is the same for the petition as it would be

for any of the prior settings we've discussed here

today. As far as the Secretary's action on accepting

or denying the petition, if you have something that

you want to say, then I think the sooner you say it,

the happier you'll be.

We have no idea, and I don' t think this is

going to be a decision in terms of accepting or

denying the petition. I personally, and I'm only

speaking for myself only here, I don't see that as

being a particularly protracted drawn out affair. I

think we can make a decision, that the program can

make a decision with legal advice on whether to accept

or deny the petition. It's not going to take months

and months to make that decision.

MR. CALABRESE: Dave Calabrese.

Clarification - the statute does provide for other

evidence to be presented. That's what I was reading

in the --

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

149 

1 number in terms of whether to set higher standards. 

2 So Michael is correct also when he mentioned earlier 

3 that this is the first one we've ever gotten. We have 

4 all read the statute, and we will proceed based on the 

5 statute. 

6 The deadline for commenting on the 

7 priority is the same for the petition as it would be 

8 for any of the prior settings we've discussed here 

9 today. As far as the Secretary's action on accepting 

10 or denying the petition, if you have something that 

11 you want to say, then I think the sooner you say it, 

12 the happier you'll be. 

13 We have no idea, and I don't think this is 

14 going to be a decision in terms of accepting or 

15 denying the petition. I personally, and I'm only 

16 speaking for myself only here, I don't see that as 

17 being a particularly protracted drawn out affair. I 

18 think we can make a decision, that the program can 

19 make a decision with legal advice on whether to accept 

20 or deny the petition. It's not going to take months 

21 and months to make that decision. 

22 MR. CALABRESE: Dave Calabrese. 

23 Clarification - the statute does provide for other 

24 evidence to be presented. That's what I was reading 

25 in the --

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

150

MR. DePRIEST: I think we respectfully

disagree on that, David.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: So the two of you

can take that off-line. Yes, Jim.

MR. CRAWFORD: Jim Crawford. The subject

of what is covered seems to have come up several times

today, and I expect to leave this room not knowing the

answer, and that concerns me, certainly at least for

the products that we manufacture that concerns me.

And I would think that that should be the number one

priority of this whole process, is to resolve any

questions as to what products are covered, and by what

laws they come under coverage, because if we don't

have that, then we're off kind of in never-never land

on everything. And I don't see this as some

negotiated thing. I think this is a matter of

reasoned interpretation of law by counsel.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Other final

comments? So from my perspective, I'll just thank you

all for what I thought was a very constructive

meeting, and particularly thank all of you for what

was well done, good conduct. And so I'll turn it back

to the Department of Energy to see if any of them wish

to make closing remarks. Thanks. Travel safe. Thank

you. If that answered -- Deborah.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

150 

1 MR. DePRIEST: I think we respectfully 

2 disagree on that, David. 

3 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: So the two of you 

4 can take that off-line. Yes, Jim. 

5 MR. CRAWFORD: Jim Crawford. The subject 

6 of what is covered seems to have come up several times 

7 today, and I expect to leave this room not knowing the 

8 answer, and that concerns me, certainly at least for 

9 the products that we manufacture that concerns me. 

10 And I would think that that should be the number one 

11 priority of this whole process, is to resolve any 

12 questions as to what products are covered, and by what 

13 laws they come under coverage, because if we don't 

14 have that, then we're off kind of in never-never land 

15 on everything. And I don't see this as some 

16 negotiated thing. I think this is a matter of 

17 reasoned interpretation of law by counsel. 

18 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Other final 

19 comments? So from my perspective, I'll just thank you 

20 all for what I thought was a very constructive 

21 meeting, and particularly thank all of you for what 

22 was well done, good conduct. And so I'll turn it back 

23 to the Department of Energy to see if any of them wish 

24 to make closing remarks. Thanks. Travel safe. Thank 

25 you. If that answered -- Deborah. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
151

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

out --

stand.

MS. MILLER: No, we know where to go.

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: The hotdog stand

MS. MILLER: The cafeteria or the hotdog

FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: The DOE cafeteria

is open, as I understand it, the main cafeteria if you

want to go there. Safe travel to everyone.

(Whereupon, the proceedings in the aboveentitled matter went off the record at 12:43 p.m.)

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

151 

1 MS. MILLER: No, we know where to go. 

2 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: The hotdog stand 

3 out --

4 MS. MILLER: The cafeteria or the hotdog 

5 stand. 

6 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: The DOE cafeteria 

7 is open, as I understand it, the main cafeteria if you 

8 want to go there. Safe travel to everyone. 

9 (Whereupon, the proceedings in the above10 entitled matter went off the record at 12:43 p.m.) 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
152

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the foregoing transcript in the

matter of: Public Meeting on

Proposed FY 2005 Prioritization

Before: Dept. of Energy

Date: June 9, 2004

Place: Washington, DC

represents the full and complete proceedings of the

aforementioned matter, as reported and reduced to

typewriting.

 EE-PS-04-001 COMMENT 01.13

152 

CERTIFICATE 

This is to certify that the foregoing transcript in the 

matter of: Public Meeting on 

Proposed FY 2005 Prioritization 

Before: Dept. of Energy 

Date: June 9, 2004 

Place: Washington, DC 

represents the full and complete proceedings of the 

aforementioned matter, as reported and reduced to 

typewriting.