EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

1

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

FRAMEWORK DOCUMENT PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY 

CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20585 

9:00 a.m. 

Monday, September 21, 2009 

 DOUG BROOKMAN, Facilitator 

U.S. Department of Energy Attendees

 MARK FRIEDRICH 

 STEVE WITKOWSKI 

 BETSY KOHL 

 FRANCINE PINTO, ESQ. 

 ERIC STAS, ESQ. 

 LUCAS M. ADIN 

Attendees

 PETER HOEKSTRA, Associate Director 

 TIMOTHY SUTHERLAND 

 TROY WATSON 

 JUDITH REICH 

 Navigant Consulting, Inc. 

 1801 K Street, NW, Suite 500 

 Washington, D.C. 20006 

 TIMOTHY BALLO, Esq., Associate Attorney 

 EarthJustice 

 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 702 

 Washington, D.C. 20036 

 KELLEY KLINE 

 GE Consumer and Industrial 

 Appliance Park, AP2-225 

 Louisville, Kentucky 40225 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

2

Attendees

 JENNIFER THORNE AMANN, Director 

 Buildings Program 

 EDWARD R. OSANN, Senior Associate 

 JACOB W. TALBOT, Research Associate 

 ACEEE 

 529 14th Street, NW, Suite 600 

 Washington, D.C. 20045 

 NATASCHA S. CASTRO, M.Sc., PE, Engineer 

 U.S. Department of Commerce 

 National Institute of Standards and 

 Technology 

 Building and Fire Research Laboratory 

 100 Bureau Drive 

 Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8631 

 

 DAVE I. ELLINGSON 

 Director of Primary Development 

 Electrolux 

 

 PAIGE DETRICK 

 Engineering Test Lab Manager 

 Laundry Products 

 BSH Home Appliances Corporation 

 100 Bosch Boulevard 

 New Bern, North Carolina 28562 

 LUKE HARMS 

 Senior Government Relations Specialist 

 Whirlpool Corporation 

 701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 750 

 Washington, D.C. 20004 

 EDWIN A. HORNQUIST, Program Manager 

 Design and Engineering Services 

 Southern California Edison 

 6024 N. Irwindale Avenue, Suite B 

 Irwindale, California 91702 

 DAVID LIS, Program Associate 

 Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships 

 5 Militia Drive 

 Lexington, Kentucky 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

3

Attendees

 KEVIN MESSNER, Vice President 

 Government Relations 

 AHAM 

 1111 19th Street, NW, Suite 402 

 Washington, D.C. 20036 

 STEVE POLINSKI, Regulatory Affairs 

 Product Development Group 

 Miele 

 9 Independence Way 

 Princeton, New Jersey 08540 

 PHILIP J. MANTHEI, Senior Staff Engineer 

 Agency/Codes Approval 

 Alliance Laundry Systems 

 Shepard Street, P.O. Box 990 

 Ripon, Wisconsin 54971-0990 

 GREGORY ROSENQUIST 

 Energy Analysis Department 

 Environmental Energy Technologies Division 

 Ernest Orlando Lawrence Livermore National 

 Laboratory 

 One Cyclotron Road, MS: 90-4000 

 Bldg. 90, Room 4131A 

 University of California 

 Berkeley, California 94720 

 MIKE McGARRAGHAN 

 Energy Solutions 

 1610 Harrison Street 

 Oakland, California 94612 

 CAMILLA DUNHAM WHITEHEAD 

 Water and Energy Technology Team 

 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

 218 Pine Street 

 South Portland, Maine 04106 

 JON DEVINE 

 NRDC 

 1501 North Potomac Street 

 Arlington, Virginia 22205 

 GEORGE HAWRANKO 

 Electrolux North America, Inc. 

 10631 Bayshire Trail 

 Kirtland, Ohio 44094 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

4

Attendees

 LAUREN STARCK 

 Underwriters Laboratories 

 1850 M Street, NW, Suite 1000 

 Washington, D.C. 

 ISAAC TURIEL, Consultant 

 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

 30 Northgate Avenue 

 Berkeley, California 94708 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

5

A G E N D A 

ITEM: PAGE: 

Welcome 6 

 

Opening Remarks, Introductions and 

Agenda Review 6 

 Doug Brookman 

Rulemaking and Analytical Methodology 

Overview 11 

 Gregory Rosenquist 

Market and Technology Assessment 16 

 Judith Reich 

Screening Analysis and Engineering Analysis 66 

 Judith Reich 

Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis 97 

 Judith Reich 

Afternoon Session

Markups for Equipment Price Determination; 

Energy Use Determination; and Life-Cycle 

Cost and Payback Period Analysis 105 

 Isaac Turiel 

Shipments Analysis, National Impact Analysis, 

And LCC Subgroup Analysis 136 

 Gregory Rosenquist 

 Camilla Dunham Whitehead 

Manufacturer Impact Analysis 160 

 Judith Reich 

Utility Impact Analysis, Employment Impact 

Analysis, Environmental Assessment, and 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 168 

 Gregory Rosenquist 

Other Issues and Comments, Closing Remarks 183 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

6

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

2 (9:15 a.m.) 

3 Welcome and Opening Remarks, Introductions and Agenda 

4 Review

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Good morning, 

everybody. Welcome. 

 My name is Doug Brookman from Public 

Solutions. 

 We’re so glad to see you. This is the U.S. 

Department of Energy’s Framework Document Public 

Meeting on Energy Conservation Standards for 

Residential Clothes Washers. 

 Today is September 21st, 2009. Glad you made 

it here on time. We have a full day for you, we think. 

 I’m going to start off by giving everyone a 

chance to introduce themselves. I think all the 

microphones around the table are turned off, so you may 

turn them on now. I think it’s okay, we can just leave 

them on as the day progresses, especially those of you 

that intend to say a lot. Just leave that microphone 

on. 

 We’ll do introductions. Please say your name 

and organizational affiliation. For those of you in 

the back, not all of this will be captured on the 

record, but the department will provide a list of 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

7

1 attendees after the meeting. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 We’ll start here. 

 MR. ELLINGSON: I’m Dave Ellingson with 

Electrolux Home Products. 

 MR. HAWRANKO: George Hawranko with 

Electrolux Home Products. 

 MR. MESSNER: Kevin Messner with AHAM. 

 MR. MANTHEI: Phil Manthei from Alliance 

Laundry Systems. 

 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann. I’m a consultant on 

energy and water resources. My firm is Potomac 

Resources, and I’m here on behalf of the Appliance 

Standards Awareness Project. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

 MS. DETRICK: Paige Detrick, BSH Home 

Appliances. 

 MR. McGARRAGHAN: Mike McGarraghan from 

Energy Solutions, here on behalf of Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company. 

 MR. HORNQUIST: Edwin Hornquist, Southern 

California Edison. 

 MS. KLINE: Kelley Kline, General Electric. 

 MS. CASTRO: Natascha Castro, National 

Institute of Standards and Technology. 

 MR. HARMS: Luke Harms, Whirlpool 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

8

1 Corporation. 

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. STAS: Eric Stas, DOE, General Counsel’s 

Office. 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: Steve Witkowski, Department 

of Energy. 

 MS. REICH: Judith Reich from Navigant 

Consulting. 

 MR. HOEKSTRA: Peter Hoekstra, Navigant 

Consulting. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Greg Rosenquist, Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory. 

 MS. WHITEHEAD: Camilla Dunham Whitehead, 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 

 MR. TURIEL: Isaac Turiel, also with Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory. 

 MR. WATSON: Troy Watson, Navigant 

Consulting. 

 MR. SUTHERLAND: Timothy Sutherland, Navigant 

Consulting. 

 MR. TALBOT: Jacob Talbot, American Council 

for an Energy Efficient Economy. 

 MS. STARCK: Lauren Starck, Underwriters 

Laboratory. 

 MR. LIS: David Lis, Northeast Energy 

Efficiency Partnerships. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

9

1 MS. KOHL: Betsy Kohl, DOE. 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Thanks to all of 

you again for being here on time so we can get a good 

early start on the day. 

 All of you received, I hope, a packet as you 

were registering at the front of the Forrestal 

Building. If you look to Page 2 of it, the Agenda for 

today’s meeting is attached. I’m going to run through 

this briefly. 

 You can see, following this overview, we’re 

going to have a description of Rulemaking and 

Analytical Methodology from Steve Witkowski or other 

support personnel. Following that, Marketing and 

Technology Assessment. We’ll take a break mid morning 

when the time is right. Following that, we’ll have a 

description of the Screening Analysis and Engineering 

Analysis, and then immediately following that 

Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis. 

 Around about noon or so, we’ll break for 

lunch, and as we get there, for those of you that are 

unfamiliar with the Forrestal Building, we’ll provide 

directions and make sure no one gets lost. 

 Following lunch, we will have a description 

of the Markups for Equipment Price Determination; 

Energy Use Determination; and Life-Cycle Cost and 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

10

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Payback Period Analysis, Shipments Analysis, National 

Impact Analysis, and LCC Subgroup Analysis. 

 We’ll take a break mid afternoon, and then 

following the break, Manufacturer Impact Analysis, and 

following that, Utility Impact Analysis, Employment 

Impact Analysis, Environmental Assessment, and 

Regulatory Impact Analysis. There is an opportunity 

for, at the end of the day, for any person to raise any 

additional issues that you might wish to raise. 

 Also, following -- I don’t know whether we 

want to do it today or not. Typically, after the 

overview we provide an opportunity for people to make 

brief summary remarks here at the outset. So I think 

we’ll provide that opportunity this morning, even 

though it’s not listed in the Agenda. 

 So that’s the Agenda for today’s meeting. 

Questions, comments regarding the Agenda, and in 

particular, anything that anybody wishes to cover that 

you don’t think will fit in what’s listed here? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Just wanted to check. For 

your consideration, I’d ask, please, as a matter of 

courtesy, in the conduct of the meeting today, please 

speak one at a time. Please say your name for the 

record each time you speak. I’m going to be queuing 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

11

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

people by name as best I can. I also wish to encourage 

follow-on comments. Every time you speak, if you’d 

simply say your name. You don’t need to say your 

organizational affiliation. We’ll get it on the 

record. 

 If you could please keep the focus here, turn 

your cell phones on silent mode. If you need to have a 

sidebar conversation with people for very long, please 

take it out of the room. These microphones, they now 

work well. In the past, they did not, but we can hear 

a lot of what’s going on if the microphone’s on. So 

please keep your comments brief. 

 And if you would, in your commenting, please 

be concise and share the air time with your colleagues 

here. So that’s, I think, all that I intend to cover, 

and then we’ll have introductory remarks, Rulemaking 

and Analytical Methodology Overview. 

18 Rulemaking and Analytical Methodology Overview

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: Good morning. My name is 

Steve Witkowski with the Department of Energy, and I 

apologize but due to a non-contagious condition, so you 

won’t catch it, I don’t have much of a voice this 

morning. So Greg Rosenquist from LBNL is going to go 

through quickly the Rulemaking and Analytical 

Methodology and again thank you for attending. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

12

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Okay. Welcome, everyone. 

So we’re here for this Public Meeting for the Framework 

Document on Residential Clothes Washers. 

 The purpose is to present all the analytical 

methodologies that the department will use to conduct 

its analysis of potentially new standards for clothes 

washers. 

 This is a forum for public discussions, so we 

definitely encourage your input as we go through these 

methodologies. Also, after the comment period -- I 

mean after the meeting, we definitely encourage, DOE 

definitely encourages stakeholders to submit their 

written comments and any additional data that the 

department requests. 

 Throughout the Framework Document, if you’ve 

reviewed it and this presentation, there are a bunch of 

comment boxes. So there will be a pause in the 

presentation that will explicitly ask for all of you to 

participate and provide any information you think is 

relevant. 

 As I said before, the department does want 

feedback on the Framework Document in this public 

meeting and encourages you to submit any written 

comments. Here’s all the relevant contact information 

here. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

13

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 The one thing that’s very important here is 

that all written comments are due by September 28th. 

That’s September 28th, 2009. 

 This is just some background information on 

the Standards Program, that the Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act was the Act that established the 

standards for residential clothes washers. 

 I’m going to quickly go through this. This 

is a list of all the previous rulemakings that have 

taken place for residential clothes washers. The last 

one was conducted in January 2001. That set the 

current standards for clothes washers. 

 We’ve had some legislation after that that’s 

requiring us to conduct this rulemaking. The Energy 

Independence and Security Act requires DOE to complete 

a rulemaking by December 31st, 2011, and so this 

Framework Document works out for the first steps in 

that process to complete that rulemaking. 

 Another important point here is that DOE’s 

also directed to do standby mode and off-mode power 

consumption as part of this rulemaking. 

 This shows a flow diagram of the process that 

DOE is going to go under for conducting the rulemaking. 

We’re in the Framework Document stages, you can see, 

and then it’s followed by a pre-NOPR and then after 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

14

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

that is a NOPR, a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and 

then finally the Final rule. 

 In parallel to that will be revisions to the 

test procedure for clothes washers, so there will also 

be a test procedure rulemaking, and so in that test 

procedure NOPR is primarily going to be dealing with 

standby and off-mode power energy consumption but also 

possibly addressing things that deal with the actual 

MEF and water factor of the clothes washer. 

 And with that, I’ll hand it off to Judy, 

Judith Reich from Navigant Consulting, is going to be 

discussing the Test Procedure work. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Let me ask you to pause just 

for a moment. It’s frequently the case that the 

department wants to hear brief summary remarks here at 

the outset. Any issues that people wish to raise 

before we launch into the detailed content description. 

 So if anybody wishes to raise an issue now 

briefly, now would be the time to do it. Okay. Yes, 

Ed. 

 MR. OSANN: Just to -- 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Please say your name for the 

record. 

 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann. Just to clarify the 

process here. This is the framework discussion for 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

15

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

test procedures as well as for standards, is that 

correct? 

 MS. REICH: No. This is primarily for 

standards rulemaking, but what we’d like to encourage 

is and solicit comments on is input that would be 

applicable for a test procedure rulemaking. 

 MR. OSANN: Okay. I’m not sure I understand 

the distinction there, but thank you. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Eric. 

 MR. STAS: Eric Stas, DOE. I think what 

Judy’s trying to say is that this is not shortcircuiting the normal test procedure rulemaking 

process. It’s just in addition to sort of the normal 

public meetings for test procedures will still be held. 

 MR. OSANN: Will there be a public meeting 

prior to the release of a NOPR? 

 MS. REICH: I think in a test procedure 

rulemaking, the NOPR is the first stage. There’s no 

framework stage. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks, Ed. Also, 

Eric, thank you. 

 Any additional questions or comments here at 

the outset before we get into the more detailed 

content? 

 (No response.) 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

16

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

2 Market and Technology Assessment

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MS. REICH: All right. This is Judith Reich 

from Navigant Consulting, and before I begin, I think I 

also need to mention that in keeping with the general 

theme of today, I may also have a little bit of trouble 

speaking. Some of my wisdom teeth and I parted company 

a couple days ago, so I’ll try to speak as clearly as 

possible but please feel free, if at any point you need 

me to repeat something, by all means go ahead and ask. 

 The test procedure was initiated by final 

rule in 2004 and was amended in 2001 to include changes 

for the test cloth for incorporating remaining moisture 

content as a measure into MEF and to discuss testing 

with the extractor to obtain correlation coefficients 

for the test cloth. 

 It was amended again in 2003 and that’s the 

current version. Really, those amendments were 

designed to better characterize the test cloth that’s 

used in the procedure. 

 EISA 2007, the Energy Independence and 

Security Act, now requires that standby and off-mode 

energy use be considered for standards rulemakings that 

have a final rule past 2010 and it also requires test 

procedures for certain products to be amended to 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

17

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

include measurement, if feasible, of standby and offmode energy consumption. 

 So EISA defines these particular modes as an 

active mode for a residential clothes washer. This is 

interpreted to be functions, such as the washing, the 

rinsing, the spinning to remove the moisture, and it 

also then provides definitions for standby mode and 

off-mode. 

 Standby mode has very specific 

characteristics, that it is connected to main power and 

offers the specific functions listed below, to activate 

or deactivate other functions, having a display, a 

sensor, and then off-mode is that the unit is still 

connected to power but is providing some function other 

than standby or off-mode. 

 In addition, EISA requires that DOE take into 

consideration the most current version of IEC-62301 

which is the international test procedure for measuring 

standby power, and we are aware, DOE is aware that this 

particular standard is under revision. 

 There has been a draft version released. It 

is now out for vote among various stakeholders and in 

that process and so DOE is continuing to consider 

exactly what definitions it’s going to use for the 

clothes washer test procedure and so EISA had specified 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

18

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

a deadline of June 30th, 2009, to complete those 

amendments, but based upon the determination that there 

is this ongoing rulemaking for IEC-62301, it’s 

continuing that process to get the best available 

definitions for the modes into the test procedure. 

 At this point DOE requests input from 

interested parties on the merits of revising its test 

procedures for clothes washers, residential clothes 

washers and seeks input, including supporting data, 

regarding how these procedures can be improved, and I 

just want to add that that would include the topics of 

standby power as well as an active mode, anything 

relating to MEF or water factor. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So comments related to the 

test procedure? Yes, Ed. 

 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann for ASAP. Several 

comments on the test procedure. 

 The materials indicate that the expectation 

that the IEC-62301 is to be available in 2010, last I 

checked the IEC website they were looking for that 

standard to be available in 2011. I’m not sure how 

long DOE can keep kicking this can down the road 

waiting for the IEC before having to make some 

decisions about our own test procedure. 

 A word of caution. Based on the initial 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

19

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

drafts, the IEC definitions and their explanations that 

elaborate on the definitions don’t necessarily line up 

with our statutory definitions of these modes. So it’s 

not entirely clear that we will want to embrace word 

for word the IEC definitions. 

 The Secretary still needs to exercise some 

independent judgment about that. 

 A few other points. To take account of 

factors in the marketplace today, the test procedure 

for water factor should be checked to ensure that it 

accounts for steam cycle consumption for some products 

that are on the market today that offer a steam cycle 

feature. 

 Additionally, water factor and MEF should be 

looked at to ensure that they account for any 

manufacturer-recommended cycles for purposes of 

deodorizing or sanitizing the unit. 

 In response to consumer questions about mold 

and odor in some units, some manufacturers are now 

recommending a periodic cycle, perhaps using bleach or 

perhaps not, in addition to -- that is simply to clean 

or purge the unit. 

 So if there is a manufacturer-recommended 

cleaning cycle that’s every 12 or every 20 loads or 

whatever it is, this should be considered in the test 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

20

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

procedure and that energy and water consumption 

accounted for and those manufacturers that find 

alternative ways of dealing with that issue that don’t 

involve an additional cycle inserted into the normal 

laundry process would benefit accordingly. 

 The MEF test procedure needs to account for 

an onboard water heater. It may do that now, I’m not 

sure, but it’s simply a point I’d like to make for the 

record. 

 And I think it would also be helpful for DOE 

to develop -- to ensure that the department has an 

understanding of the difference between the advertised 

laundry capacity and the reported capacity, the 

capacity that’s reported, say to EnergyStar, the 

California Energy Commission, and to the public 

databases, for these units. 

 The advertised capacity seems to be typically 

somewhat larger and what’s that about, what’s that 

based on should be part of the public record, and I 

think I’ll stop there. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed, I wanted to return to your 

first comment about the time table because I was 

unclear what your point was. 

 Do you intend for the department -- would you 

advocate that the department proceed with the test 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

21

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

procedure and not harmonize with the IEC? 

 MR. OSANN: Well, I think the law requires 

the Secretary to take into account the IEC. The IEC 

has a published standard now. They happen to be in the 

process of doing a revision, but their process is their 

process. Their process could take one more year, two 

more years, three more years. It’s not under the 

control of the U.S. Government. 

 But the Secretary has a statutory 

responsibility to publish a final rule by a particular 

date and also has a responsibility to publish a test 

procedure by a particular date which has already 

passed. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Then 

additional comments related to the test procedure? 

Yes, Kevin. 

 MR. MESSNER: Kevin Messner with AHAM. 

There’s a few changes we think should happen to the 

test procedure. 

 We’ve submitted them to DOE to look at energy 

test cloth tolerances, to provide additional detail on 

determining the RMC, and removing some obsolete 

sections that are in there, some technical clean-up 

suggestions, and we also provided some details on 

extending Table 5.1 to look at capacities up to six 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

22

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

cubic feet. 

 We think that these modifications should 

happen before the effective date of the standard 

rulemaking, and we would also like to have some 

guidance and support from DOE on annual test cloth 

correlation work and the test cloth has a lot of 

variability to the test cloth lots and we’ve developed 

a proposal which would look at a test cloth auditing 

program, so to speak, and we’d like DOE to review that 

proposal and hopefully support it. 

 Those are the only comments I have at this 

time. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: And you say you submitted all 

this information to the department? 

 MR. MESSNER: Correct. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. Additional 

comments on these test procedure issues? Yes, Phil. 

 MR. MANTHEI: Phil Manthei, Alliance Laundry 

Systems. 

 We have submitted comments in the past 

regarding Whirlpool’s Petition for Waiver for the Test 

Procedure for measuring the capacity, and we understand 

the department issued a letter, an e-mail to Whirlpool 

here last year in 2008 and confirming there was no need 

for the petition. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

23

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 We’d like to see that made public to confirm 

that definition of how that measurement is made. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Additional 

comments on the test procedure issues? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Then we’re going to 

proceed then. All of you have found by now that the 

slides that are being projected up here on the screen, 

you have in your packet, so they’re right in front of 

you. 

 MS. REICH: All right. Let’s talk a little 

bit about the Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking 

process itself. 

 EPCA directs DOE to take into consideration 

seven specific factors when considering standards, not 

just for residential clothes washers, for all products 

and these include the impacts, economic impacts on both 

consumers and manufacturers and that is addressed in 

the rulemaking process via the Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

and the Manufacturer Impact Analysis. 

 It also requires DOE to consider lifetime 

operating cost savings and that also is part of the LCC 

Analysis. 

 The national impacts are quantified in the 

National Impact Analysis which defines what the total 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

24

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

projected energy savings are and the impacts to 

consumers in terms of utility and performance are 

addressed via the Engineering Analysis and Screening 

Analysis. 

 DOE also must consider how potential 

standards might impact manufacturers by means of any 

lessening of competition due to those standards and 

also DOE must consider the need for national energy 

conservation through the National Impact Analysis. 

 The Secretary also maintains the ability to 

consider other factors as relevant and these in 

particular, one I want to point out, would be the 

Environmental Assessment. 

 This gives a timeline for the clothes washer 

rulemaking. We’re here at the Framework Document stage 

towards the latter part of 2010, DOE expects to publish 

the pre-NOPR in -- I’m sorry -- in the latter part of 

2009. DOE is planning to publish a pre-NOPR around the 

middle of 2010 and the NOPR about a year later in 2011. 

 The targeted or regulatory final rule date is 

December 31st, 2011, and according to EISA, the 

standards would then become effective four years later, 

in 2015. 

 At the bottom it highlights that DOE really 

wants to consider interested parties’ inputs into this 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

25

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

process and provides periodic points along the way for 

public meetings to collect that information. 

 So today is the Framework Document meeting 

obviously. The Framework Document itself was published 

in the Federal Register on August 28th and the purpose 

of the Framework Document is to present for the first 

time what the rulemaking process is expected to be and 

to get input as early as possible on any particular 

proposed approaches that DOE has or on any issue 

actually and just want to point out for those of you 

who may not have seen the Framework Document yet, it is 

available online at the DOE website. 

 So we are heading into the pre-NOPR stage. 

This flow chart provides a listing of the various 

analyses that are conducted and gives you an idea of 

how they are staged and relate to one another. 

 I won’t go through this eye chart in detail. 

I’ll leave it to you to go through the specifics of it, 

but you can see that these all -- the various stages 

and the various analyses are interconnected. They have 

outputs that are feeding into one another. 

 We’re going to talk today specifically 

starting at the Market and Technology Assessment stage 

as the starting point, but you’ll see as we go through 

it what the outputs are and how they are used for the 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

26

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

next step in the process. 

 So we’re going to go through those in detail, 

discuss any specific issues on the analyses that have 

been identified so far, and, of course, looking for 

feedback on anything else that you might want to 

comment on in terms of the methodologies or the 

assumptions or proposed approaches that DOE has, and 

then to describe what the next steps are going to be. 

 The NOPR stage refines many of the pre-NOPR 

analyses and adds some additional analyses on to it and 

is the first time that proposed standards are put 

forth. 

 This is the comparable flow chart for what 

happens at the NOPR and, in fact, the subsequent final 

rule, the final rule stage, of course, being a revision 

to the NOPR analyses, based on any additional inputs 

and where the actual standards are put forth. 

 So new analyses that happen at the NOPR stage 

beyond the pre-NOPR are notably the Environmental 

Assessment where the emissions impacts are quantified 

and the Regulatory Impact Analysis. 

 Well, I think we know what the purpose of the 

NOPR public meeting is, again to gather feedback in 

particular on the proposed standards that DOE puts 

forth in the NOPR and to identify if there are any 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

27

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

remaining issues that haven’t come up at that point. 

 The NOPR Analyses are tailored or revised as 

appropriate in the final rule and the standards are put 

forth with an effective date again of 2015. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So let’s just pause here. 

This is a lot of detailed information. I think most of 

you are familiar with this process and most of these 

analyses. 

 Questions or comments about the department’s 

proposed approach? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. All set. Okay. 

 MS. REICH: All right. Well, the bulk of the 

presentation from here on is to step through each of 

the analyses and describe them and, you know, where 

there are proposed approaches, we’ll outline those, and 

the beginning point again is the Market and Technology 

Assessment. 

 This really lays the groundwork for the 

overall rulemaking. Its purpose is twofold. First, it 

is to overall characterize, give a snapshot of the 

current state of the market and the industry for the 

given product, in this case the residential clothes 

washer industry, but it’s also to identify all of the 

technologies or as many as DOE is able to identify that 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

28

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

it means to improve efficiency of the product over a 

baseline unit. 

 The method that DOE uses is to identify, look 

at the industry landscape, identify all of the 

manufacturers, including key players, market shares of 

them, and to use various data sources to define what 

the shipments of those products are and historical 

trends in the market. 

 DOE then uses a wide variety of means to 

identify these technology options and they can include 

literature review, research of papers that are 

published, manufacturers’ product literature, speaking 

to as many manufacturers and industry experts as 

possible to identify those technologies and those sort 

of approaches. 

 And then, finally, in the Market and 

Technology Assessment, DOE also identifies where there 

are regulatory and non-regulatory programs that are 

affecting energy efficiency or aiming to improve 

efficiency. 

 On the regulatory side, these would include 

federal, state, and, as appropriate, even international 

standards and non-regulatory programs would be things 

like EnergyStar, the Consortium for Energy Efficiency, 

Tiers. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

29

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 This is a little piece of the much more 

complex pre-NOPR flow chart intending to show how the 

Market and Technology Assessment feeds into the 

immediate successors. A key output from it is the 

definition of product classes and these are groupings 

of products that would have fundamentally similar 

energy efficiency characteristics or utility 

characteristics and for each of these product classes, 

DOE considers energy conservation standards 

individually. 

 The other output is this large set of 

technologies that are available to improve efficiency. 

Those feed into the Screening Analysis whereupon they 

get narrowed down according to some very specific 

criteria to those that can be considered in the 

Engineering Analysis as means to improve efficiency. 

 DOE would like to solicit information that 

contributes to the Market Assessment for residential 

clothes washers. Some topics might be current product 

features and efficiencies, trends in those features and 

efficiencies and historical product shipments and 

prices. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So comments on those issues 

that Judy just raised and others? Yes, Kevin. 

 MR. MESSNER: Kevin Messner with AHAM. AHAM 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

30

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

could provide DOE with shipment data and that type of 

thing as the process goes forward. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Any additional 

comments on the issues that are raised in this comment 

box? Edwin. 

 MR. HORNQUIST: Yes, Edwin Hornquist, 

Southern California Edison. A couple of things. I 

guess this is probably the right time to bring it up. 

 You’re very interested in seeing -- and I 

guess this is not necessarily energy but is really to 

begin to harmonize with the grid, smart grid 

initiatives that are going on, is to begin to evaluate 

the value of the demand in terms of beginning to 

characterize the savings associated with peak demand 

reductions, and in line with that, we encourage the 

department to evaluate demand responsive-type 

technologies or features in products that enable or 

make smart grid initiatives a reality. 

 Along the same lines, and this is more 

related to water efficiency, is for the department to 

begin to assess the embedded energy of water as it 

looks at energy reductions or water savings, I should 

say. 

 That’s it. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, please, 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

31

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Kelley. 

 MS. KLINE: Kelley Kline from GE. I would 

just like to add to that comment. 

 GE would also support DOE considering the 

ability of clothes washers to respond to signals from 

the grid in terms of being smart grid-enabled. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Kevin. 

 MR. MESSNER: The grid, smart grid and how 

appliances are an essential component of the grid, in 

fact the smart grid probably cannot function without 

appliances as a part of that is an important, very 

important consideration. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Yes. 

 MR. McGARRAGHAN: Mike McGarraghan, PG&E. 

PG&E is pretty interested in capturing the developments 

and trends that have changed over time and I have one 

question for the department. 

 In the last rulemaking it conducted, a pretty 

thorough consumer analysis was published that had 

consumer preferences. We think it would be valuable to 

have a follow-up to that analysis that is conducted in 

a similar way to show some of the changes over time and 

we’re wondering if DOE has any plans to conduct 

anything similar this time around. 

 MS. REICH: I have to apologize. I got a 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

32

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

little sidetracked because apparently your voice isn’t 

getting picked up on the microphone. 

 MR. McGARRAGHAN: You know what? I thought 

it was on and it wasn’t. 

 MS. REICH: Okay. Do you mind repeating 

that? 

 MR. McGARRAGHAN: Not at all. Sorry. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: I heard you. Go ahead. 

 MR. McGARRAGHAN: Okay. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Please repeat. 

 MR. McGARRAGHAN: There was an analysis done 

by DOE in the last rulemaking that they called the 

ConJoint Analysis and it was published in Appendix J 

of, I believe, the Technical Support Document that 

looked very thoroughly in a lot of different areas of 

the country into consumer preferences and inasmuch as 

it would be helpful in assessing the market conditions, 

especially as they’ve changed over time, we would 

support or encourage DOE to conduct a similar analysis 

in this rulemaking, and the question was if that has 

been considered. 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: We’ll certainly look into 

that and -- 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Stephen, you’re not on, I 

don’t think. Stephen Witkowski. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

33

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: We’ll certainly look into 

that and consider your comments. That’s all I can say 

about it at this time. I appreciate the comment. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

 MS. REICH: Well, I would also like to add 

that it would be very helpful if there’s any data that 

can be submitted on that topic, that would be very 

useful. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Judy. Ed. 

 MR. OSANN: Yeah. I wanted to respond to the 

point that AHAM made about supplying product shipments. 

 The Framework Document appendix had some 

specific matrices that it was seeking to have filled 

out, and I’m just wondering how granular AHAM’s 

shipment data is likely to be. 

 Are we likely to see clear distinctions 

between top-loaders and front-loaders? Are we likely 

to see distinctions by capacity, things of that nature? 

 I’ve got a follow-up point with regard to the 

-- 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Is AHAM in a position 

to comment on that, Kevin? 

 MR. MESSNER: No. We’re going to be putting 

together shipment data and we’ll be submitting it to 

DOE. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

34

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Not in a position to 

comment now. 

 Ed, you were going to follow on. 

 MR. OSANN: Yeah. Actually, this is for the 

Engineering. I’ll bring this up for the Engineering 

Analysis. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

 MR. OSANN: But I did want to say the product 

class issue is really quite, potentially quite critical 

to the direction and outcome of this rulemaking. 

 I’d note that in the Framework Document, DOE 

states that it’s willing to reconsider the 

determination that top-loading and front-loading are 

features within the meaning of the law. 

 I wonder if DOE could elaborate on that at 

all. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Stephen Witkowski. 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: No, not beyond what we say in 

the document at this point, that that issue will 

certainly be considered as we move through the 

rulemaking process. 

 MR. OSANN: Well, a follow-up question is 

whether or not top-loading and front-loading -- whether 

the mode of access is deemed by consumers to be a 

separate feature or not, deemed by the Secretary under 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

35

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

the law to be a separate feature, there is sort of a 

corollary question and that is would the availability 

be affected by eliminating separate classes. So there 

may be -- one could reach the conclusion, it’s not the 

conclusion that we’ve reached, but one could reach the 

conclusion that they are features, but that the range 

of standards that are adopted will not necessarily 

eliminate those features from the marketplace. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: To be clear, what have you 

arrived at? What are you advocating the department do? 

 MR. OSANN: Our recommendation would be to 

not distinguish, not separate residential washers into 

separate product classes based upon mode of access. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: Well, that is certainly an 

issue that we’re aware of and that we’re considering, 

but I can’t comment on the future of the process at 

this point. Again, we’re willing to accept all points 

of view and that’s the purpose of the Framework 

Document. But I’m not going to, you know, predict the 

future here. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Stephen. Okay. 

Additional comments surrounding the product classes and 

people raised other issues that seemed meaningful here. 

Any additional thoughts on this subject matter before 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

36

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

we move on? Yes, please. 

 MR. McGARRAGHAN: Mike McGarraghan on behalf 

of PG&E. I just wanted to echo some of Ed’s comments, 

that the product class distinction is what we see as 

one of the big issues in this rulemaking and we’ll do 

our best to supply any data we can throughout this 

process. 

 We have worked a lot on a preemption in 

California and to the extent that that has generated 

any leads in data, we’ll be sharing that. 

 One question I had was there’s some tables in 

the appendix of the Framework Document that 

specifically request data and some of them stop in 

2007, some of them target 2005 and 2006. We would 

encourage DOE to seek the most recent data available if 

it continues to reach out for data in the ANOPR or the 

NOPR process, unless there’s a reason to stop the data 

request at 2007. 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: We appreciate the comment and 

we certainly will do our best to include the most 

recent data and we encourage participants to provide 

any data that’s available. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks, Stephen. Okay. 

Additional thoughts on this subject before we move on? 

 (No response.) 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

37

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

 MS. REICH: As a starting point, it’s 

imperative to define what exactly is a covered product 

and EPCA provides a definition of a clothes washer. 

It’s a consumer product that cleans clothes using a 

solution, a water solution of soap and/or detergent and 

mechanical agitation or other movement. 

 The EPCA definition also classifies clothes 

washers as either automatic, semi-automatic or other. 

 To go into that in a little more depth, the 

automatic clothes washer basically is a clothes washer 

that we know today that performs all of its functions 

using these pre-selected cycle selections that the 

consumer inputs, specifically without the need for the 

user to regulate the input water temperature by means 

of external supply lines, and that’s the 

differentiation between an automatic clothes washer and 

a semi-automatic clothes washer. 

 The semi-automatic would in fact require 

somebody to adjust the water temperature themselves, 

and other is anything that’s not one of those two. 

 Well, this is getting back to the product 

class issue, that DOE considers separate standards for 

each product class that’s determined for the given 

product and, in general, for any product DOE typically 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

38

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

defines product classes on the basis of the type of 

energy, whether it’s electricity or gas that’s used, 

capacity of the equipment according to whatever metric 

is relevant, and other performance-related features, 

such as those that provide utility to consumer or 

others that the Secretary deems appropriate, and I 

think it’s this latter criteria that we’re talking 

about specifically for clothes washers. 

 The five product classes that are being 

initially proposed at the framework stage by DOE are 

based upon what was defined in the previous rulemakings 

and also which forms the basis for the existing 

residential clothes washer federal standards. 

 The primary differentiator between them is 

the method of access, whether it’s top-loading or 

front-loading, and it’s further for top-loaders, it’s 

further disaggregated into a compact class which means 

the capacity of less than 1.6 cubic feet, a standard 

size which is 1.6 cubic feet or greater, and a semiautomatic top-loader class. 

 Additionally, DOE is proposing at this point 

to include front-loaders as a separate product class 

and a sud-saving class that is entirely separate. It’s 

a unit that would reuse wash water -- rinse water, and 

at this point, based upon a survey of available units, 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

39

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DOE is not aware of any top-loading semi-automatic or 

sud-savings units on the market and for that reason and 

for the reason that they may not provide any additional 

utility that would mean that they would be inherently 

less energy efficient, that there would not be 

potentially a need to retain those product classes for 

the purposes of the standards. 

 DOE is very willing and very interested in 

obtaining input on that product class definition. So 

the first item, the first request for comment is any 

input on the classes and the criteria that were used to 

create those product classes and if there are any other 

factors, other than those that were used to define 

those classes, that should be the basis for developing 

product classes. 

 MR. MANTHEI: Phil Manthei, Alliance Laundry 

Systems. Alliance Laundry Systems would support 

maintaining the two top-loading classes and the frontloading class. 

 We could live without obviously the sudssaving and the semi-automatic top-loading classes since 

there are none. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, please, 

Paige. 

 MS. DETRICK: Paige Detrick, BSH. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

40

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. BROOKMAN: I think you need to get 

closer, Paige. Thank you. 

 MS. DETRICK: Paige Detrick, BSH. BSH would 

propose a compact front-loading class for similar 

reasons like in the top-loader where there are 

distinctive differences. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: You want to say a little bit, 

just add a little more content. 

 MS. DETRICK: I don’t have a lot of technical 

content to bring at the moment, but we see a class 

equal to or less than two cubic feet in the clothes 

washer compact size. They are distinctly different in 

their size, their consumption figures, and their 

typical installation is more apartments in large 

cities. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Yes, 

please, Luke. 

 MR. HARMS: This is Luke Harms with 

Whirlpool. I would also echo Phil’s comments and say 

that we would support the elimination of the semiautomatic and sud-saving clothes washers classes. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

 MS. REICH: Can you repeat that into the 

microphone? 

 MR. HARMS: Luke Harms with Whirlpool. We 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

41

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

would also support the elimination of the sud-saving -- 

 MR. BROOKMAN: I don’t think it’s turned on, 

Luke. 

 MR. HARMS: Oh, I think it is. Okay. Sorry. 

One more time. Luke Harms with Whirlpool. 

 We would also support the elimination of the 

sud-saving and semi-automatic product classes. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, let me say I think the 

department would really enjoy hearing from other 

manufacturers about your preferences at this point. So 

if you’ve got anything to add, now would be a good time 

to do it. 

 Yes, Kelley. 

 MS. KLINE: Kelley Kline from GE. GE 

supports the department’s product classes, agrees with 

the elimination of the one that was just noted, but 

thinks it is critical to maintain the two distinct 

product classes, horizontal and vertical access, due to 

the different consumer utilities involved and also the 

impact, you know, the cost implications for consumers. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Yes, 

please. 

 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo with EarthJustice. 

We’ll be submitting more detailed written comments. 

 Just briefly on the issue of Item 3-4, 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

42

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

whether or not something is a feature within the 

meaning of 42 U.S. Code 62904 is not the end of the 

matter. The actual text of the provision provides that 

the feature needs to be not substantially the same as 

other features. 

 This isn’t going to be very coherent, but our 

position is that, not conceding that top-loading or 

front-loading are distinct features, even if they are, 

however, they are substantially the same. The clothes 

get loaded into the washer by one means or another and 

so there is no reason why the department should be 

prevented from adopting a single product class that 

encompasses both top- and front-loading washers. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: And that’s what you’re 

advocating? 

 MR. BALLO: Yes. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. Yes, 

please, Kevin. 

 MR. MESSNER: I should state AHAM does 

support the elimination of the top-loading semiautomatic and the suds-saving products, and would also 

like to have DOE clarify what the difference is between 

3.2 and 3.4 on what you’re trying to get after in those 

two. 

 MS. REICH: I think for Item 3.4, it’s 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

43

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

specifically the -- it’s a subset maybe of 3.2. It’s 

the differentiator being the method, the means by which 

you’re loading the clothes into the washer, if that in 

fact presents a unique utility that would be protected 

under EPCA. It’s really just calling it out more 

specifically. 

 MR. MANTHEI: Yes, Phil Manthei from 

Alliance. I guess I’m questioning again why DOE is 

revisiting this issue when you’ve ruled on this 

basically in the past with the California petition 

denial. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks, Phil. Stephen. 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: I can’t give the legal reason 

on the California petition. I have to defer to GC, but 

again this is a new rulemaking. We are considering, 

you know, products change and time, circumstances 

change, and DOE is more than willing to look at any and 

all comments, data, and information supporting a 

position. 

 MR. MESSNER: Thank you. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, Mike. 

 MR. McGARRAGHAN: Mike McGarraghan, PG&E. 

PG&E supports the elimination of the distinction in 

product class between top- and front-loaders and just 

to answer the question there, I think our view is that 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

44

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

consumer attitudes have changed a lot in the last five 

to 10 years. That’s what we’d like to see DOE try to 

capture. So we’re glad that you’re reconsidering that 

product class distinction. 

 If you take a look at the EnergyStar, CEE 

lists or even the CEC list that documents all washers, 

the portion of the lists that are front-loaders is 

growing very quickly. Whereas the list was maybe 10 

percent front-loaders 10 years ago, now it’s almost up 

to 50 percent. 

 So to the extent that consumers previously 

may have held some favor to top-loaders, we think that 

overtime that’s been declining. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, Luke. 

 MR. HARMS: I just want to comment on the 

front-loaders. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Are you turned on? 

 MR. HARMS: I think it’s on. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

 MR. HARMS: Front-load versus top-load issue. 

We have research that shows that one-third of consumers 

who have purchased front-load clothes washers have 

switched back to high-efficiency top-loads. So I think 

that’s pretty convincing evidence that consumers still 

have a demand for top-load washers and that two 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

45

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

separate product classes for those categories should be 

maintained. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. So that data would 

be very useful for the department to have. 

 MR. MANTHEI: This is Phil Manthei, Alliance 

Laundry Systems. 

 Recently, we’ve received a letter from a 

consumer that would support what Luke has said. 

Obviously not as many probably letters as they have 

because we’re such a small market share player. 

 I also would like to comment on PG&E’s 

comment there. Just having numbers of models on a list 

does not indicate what the market share shipments are 

of those models. I think front-loaders are still only 

about 35 percent market share compared to top-loaders. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Ed Osann. 

 MR. OSANN: Yeah. I was going to make that 

point, only without the only, that front-loaders are 

now around 35 percent market share and have been 

continuing to grow. 

 With regard to the point that Whirlpool made 

about some consumers purchasing a front-loader and then 

switching back to a high-efficiency top-loader, I think 

that’s a useful point. There are high-efficiency toploaders on the market. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

46

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 A review of the current EnergyStar-qualified 

models would indicate that there are over 30, there may 

be more, but there are at least in the low 30s number 

of models that are EnergyStar top-loader today that are 

top-loaders that meet today’s EnergyStar criteria. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Please. 

 MS. AMANN: Jennifer Amann, ACEEE. I would 

just like to applaud the department’s willingness to 

revisit this issue and all the rulemakings to stay open 

to changes in the market and changes in the way 

consumer attitudes change and the way the products are 

being developed and new technologies are coming out. 

 We also would like to advocate that the 

department abolish the distinction between front- and 

top-loading. As Ed just stated, there are products 

available from both configurations and we see in the 

end the products are performing the similar/same 

function. 

 So thank you. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. Ed, please. 

 MR. OSANN: One or two additional points on 

the product class issue. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: We’re not getting you, Ed. 

We’re not picking you up. Thank you. 

 MR. OSANN: Okay. One or two additional 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

47

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

points on the product class issue. 

 It’s not clear to us why it’s necessary to 

maintain the distinction of mode of access for the 

smaller capacity product class, 1.6 or less. If DOE is 

going to be making a distinction among products based 

upon capacity, there are both front-loaders and toploaders in the small capacity market and capacity 

clearly is, as it is in many product classes, a product 

feature, a characteristic that is valued by consumers, 

and so we don’t object to the presence of a separate 

class for smaller capacity washers but question whether 

it needs to be keyed to the top-loading format. 

 The other question I would raise is has the 

department ever taken a position on whether a 

combination unit, a washer that also provides a dryer 

function, is a washer within the meaning of this 

standard? 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: Do you have the history of 

the combination? 

 MS. REICH: Well, DOE is considering 

combination units for dryers. I don’t know offhand 

whether they have been considered specifically for the 

washer portion of it. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Witkowski. 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: I’m not sure of the history, 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

48

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

but again since this is a framework stage, we’re more 

than willing to look at any recommendations that you 

have and if you could give us specifics or data that 

would even help more. 

 MR. OSANN: Well, it might help if the DOE 

data request was drawn to elicit market information 

about combination units, as well. 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: We’ll take that into 

consideration. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks, Ed and Stephen, 

both. Thank you. 

 Other -- so three specific requests for 

comment. I think we’ve addressed the three of them. 

Is there any additional comment before we move on? 

Stephen Witkowski. 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: Again, I would like to 

emphasize that DOE is aware that there are a number of 

issues concerning the product classes here and we 

strongly encourage the interested parties to submit 

preferably not only your point of view but data to 

substantiate it. Anecdotal data doesn’t play that much 

of a role, but if you have solid analytical data, we 

would certainly consider it. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Final comments before 

we move on. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

49

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

 MS. REICH: The second piece of the Market 

and Technology Assessment is, of course, the 

development of the list of technology options that are 

available for manufacturers to incorporate to improve 

energy efficiency or potentially water use, as well. 

 I just want to point out there was a little 

bit of a difference between the correct list and the 

version I think that you have in your printout for Item 

Number 1. It’s adaptive control systems rather than 

adaptive fill control because it’s not strictly limited 

to fill control itself. It would encompass all types 

of algorithms that could detect properties of the 

clothing load and adjust parameters, like cycle time or 

including fill levels, water temperatures, spin speeds, 

and the like. So it really is a broader set of 

possibilities than just fill control. 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: May I? 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Stephen. 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: We have found several small 

points that have changed from your presentation and we 

will get the revised edition up on our website just as 

quickly as possible, so in case you don’t catch them in 

the presentation. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

50

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. BROOKMAN: The materials that are on the 

screen, they’re the most current version? 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: They’re not -- they’re the 

most current version. There are just a few minor 

changes, but I just want to emphasize that they will 

also be available on our website. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: Questions? 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Such as illustrated. Please 

go right ahead, Ed. 

 MR. OSANN: Will DOE -- this is Ed Osann. 

Will DOE be doing that with an errata sheet or will it 

just be a new document with six changes that we’ll have 

to find in the middle of it? 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: Well, it’ll be a new 

document, but we’re more than happy to put an errata 

sheet on, if you think that’s necessary. 

 MR. OSANN: Yeah. Thank you. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Thanks for that 

suggestion. Judy. 

 MS. REICH: Okay. There are two pages of 

these technology options. So many of these you’re well 

familiar with, either, you know, through technologies 

that are widespread in the market or through previous 

rulemakings. So please feel free to ask questions on 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

51

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

any of them, but what I’m going to do is to point out a 

few of them that are new for this rulemaking that maybe 

are ones that haven’t been seen before. 

 These will include the hot water circulation 

loop that is a concept in which a heat exchanger would 

be provided to do some inlet water preheating, perhaps 

on the basis of something like a wastewater heat 

recovery. 

 Improved front-loading washer drum design. 

That encompasses various features that are designed to 

promote better agitation and prevent tangling of the 

clothing load by means of certain features, like 

surface textures or paddle designs. 

 On the second page, of course, the improved 

water extraction to reduce the moisture content at the 

end of the cycle since, of course, the modified energy 

factor now takes that into account, what the drying 

energy will be. 

 Plastic particle cleaning. This is a 

technology that has been developed by a small company 

that is looking, expects to commercialize this in the 

U.K. It is a technique in which absorbent polymer 

granules are used with a very small amount of water 

instead of a large amount of water and detergent with 

the idea that those help remove the soil in the load. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

52

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 And I think spray rinse and steam washing, 

while everybody is probably very familiar with these, 

these are likely to be new technologies that have been 

added since the last rulemaking. 

 Oh, I also wanted to point out the low 

standby power design. This is included in this list 

specifically because, for the first time for clothes 

washers, DOE is required to consider standby and offmode power, in addition to the energy use during the 

active mode. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So you see the comment boxes 

listed there. Any technologies listed above that DOE 

should not consider because of their impacts on safe 

performance or consumer utility of the product? If so, 

why? And are there other technologies that DOE should 

consider as technology options? Kevin. 

 MR. MESSNER: I can go through a few of 

these. Let’s see. Adaptive fill control, wait to see 

what the new definition is on that. Added insulation, 

probably have a minimal effect/impact on MEF. Let’s 

see. Skipping down, bubble action, like to get further 

clarification on this technology so we can comment. 

 A number of these that I’m skipping are 

widely used. AHAM would like further clarification on 

the electrolytic disassociation technology. The 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

53

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

horizontal access design and then the footnote, the 

footnote suggests that the use of top-load and frontload may be confusing in the future, and the product 

described in the footnote is a horizontal access 

product, so that’s a little confusing right now on how 

that’s labeled in the footnote. 

 We’d like to have further clarification on 

the improved front-loading washer drum design which you 

mentioned in your opening comments. The improved water 

extraction that you talked about, the industry’s pretty 

much nearing the maximum centrifugal force levels. 

We’d like to have further clarification on the 

increased motor efficiency. 

 The low standby power design, if you look at 

standby and the amount of energy that it’s using, our 

estimate is it’s probably about three percent of the 

total average energy of the product. So it’s a 

relatively small impact on decreasing the energy 

conservation. 

 The ozonated laundry, we’re aware of this 

technology for stand-alone units which are very 

expensive, but it’s unclear how the technology could be 

implemented into more price-conscious residential 

markets. 

 We’d like to have further clarification on 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

54

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

the reduced thermal mass. The ultrasonic washing, 

that’s not a proven technology, and the plastic 

particle cleaning, I’m sorry, I skipped that, at this 

point it looks like this approach may reduce water use 

but wash performance is an issue. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So I heard you request 

clarification on many of those, perhaps most of those. 

Does AHAM have a position? Are you recommending -- 

what are you recommending the department do with these 

specific technology options? 

 MR. MESSNER: Well, some of the ones that are 

widely used and we’ll provide more detail in our 

written comments on exactly -- more detail in some of 

these areas, but we need to get some clarification on 

some of these others so we can formulate a more 

comprehensive response. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. But where would that 

clarification happen? Stephen Witkowski. 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: Again, these are initial 

technology options and they’re sort of a basket of what 

we see as available out there. 

 Clarification would -- you would have to 

submit to us what your questions are on specific 

technologies and if you have issues with any of these 

or feel that they’re not appropriate, then let us know. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

55

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. MESSNER: Okay. 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: Remember that this is a 

Framework Document. This is the beginning of the 

rulemaking process. We’re trying to look at as many 

technology options as possible and if you have -- if 

you believe that there are reasons why some of these 

are not appropriate, then let us know. 

 MR. MESSNER: Okay. So I just ask for 

clarification. Should I ask for it in a different 

forum or a different method? 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: Well, I think in your written 

questions, if you’re more specific -- I mean, in other 

words, -- 

 MR. MESSNER: Well, in order to formulate -- 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: -- clarification is a very 

general statement. 

 MR. MESSNER: Well, it’s a very general list. 

There are just three words to describe technology. So 

it’s hard to comment unless we just try to guess on 

what you’re after. 

 MS. REICH: Would it be appropriate at this 

point for me to provide a brief summary of what the 

description of each would be -- 

 MR. MESSNER: Yes. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

56

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MS. REICH: -- and then that might help you? 

 Okay. I’ll try and remember what was it that you had. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: I’ve got it. 

 MS. REICH: Okay. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: He asked about automatic fill 

control first and then bubble action. 

 MS. REICH: Was it automatic fill control or 

what’s listed on your page as adaptive fill control? 

 MR. BROOKMAN: He said automatic, I think. 

 MR. MESSNER: I was commenting on your 

adaptive fill control, that you were going to revise 

that on the website, so we were going to wait to see. 

 MS. REICH: It’s a broader range of 

technologies. 

 MR. MESSNER: Right. Because if you’re just 

looking at the fill control, then that’s -- if there’s 

other things we can look at, then we can move forward 

to that. 

 MS. REICH: Okay. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Systems is the way you 

recharacterized it. 

 MS. REICH: Adaptive control systems. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Right. Okay. I think the 

next one I heard was bubble action? 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

57

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. MESSNER: Yes. 

 MS. REICH: Okay. In this approach, bubbles 

are generated in the water and that can be done by 

various means, either injecting air. It can be 

generated ultrasonically or through electrolysis, and 

the intent is, I think, twofold. 

 One would be to use the bubbles to increase 

the mechanical action of removing soil and the other is 

that it is suspected that the bubbles actually help and 

increase the effectiveness of the detergent, so that 

less hot water would be required to activate the 

detergent. 

 MR. MESSNER: Okay. Good. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. The next one I have is 

electrolytic disassociation of water, Number 7. 

 MS. REICH: Yes, for that, the idea is to use 

electrolysis to produce bleaching agents that again 

help improve the effectiveness of the detergent and 

allow lower water temperatures to be used. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. Okay. I think this is 

useful to clarify what the department means at this 

stage, what they understand. 

 MR. HARMS: This is Luke Harms with 

Whirlpool. I think another one we had was reduced 

thermal mass. If you could better describe that? 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

58

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MS. REICH: Okay. The idea there is to use a 

plastic tub instead of the stainless steel one, so that 

the thermal mass is reduced and so there’s less energy 

from your hot water that’s being used to heat something 

that doesn’t go into the clothing load. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: As Kevin was going through the 

issues that he requested clarification on, I made a 

note in my copy. There were about six or eight of 

these. 

 So I want to give everyone a chance here. 

Kevin, I’m going to return to the list and I’m going to 

acknowledge Jennifer right now and then we’ll return to 

the list. Go ahead. 

 MS. AMANN: Jennifer Amann, ACEEE. Just to 

help everyone, I wanted to point out that Page 15 of 

the Framework Document lists the sources for each of 

these technologies. So those are resources that you 

can look to for further information on where DOE got 

this list in the fist place. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you very much. Thank 

you. That’s helpful. 

 Judy, the next item that I thought he 

mentioned was horizontal access design. 

 MS. REICH: Okay. Well, clearly, the 

definition of this as a technology option will depend, 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

59

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

first of all, on whether there is a definition of 

product classes separately for top-loaders and frontloaders. 

 Speaking only for top-loaders, the idea would 

be there had been units on the market that have access 

to the door in the cabinet from the top but in fact 

have a horizontal access, horizontally access of 

rotation for the wash basket with an additional door 

inside to allow the user to access it. So it provides 

that method of loading from the top but allows for the 

reduced water usage of the horizontal access machine. 

 MR. MESSNER: Okay. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Kevin, go ahead. 

 MR. MESSNER: Yes, Kevin. So that it’s a 

horizontal access design but it’s a front-loader and so 

-- 

 MS. REICH: It’s a top-loader. 

 MR. MESSNER: I’m sorry. Top-loader. Thank 

you. Top-loader, but you’re just -- then what exactly 

are you after and whether that -- you’re after that 

design, a top-loader with a horizontal access is -- has 

performance issues? Is that basically what you’re 

after? It’s not necessarily whether it’s a horizontal 

access or top-loader or -- 

 MS. REICH: Well, again, this kind of depends 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

60

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

-- it clearly depends on whether they’re separate 

product classes. If there’s a single product class, 

then certainly going to a horizontal access unit is a 

significant improvement in efficiency potentially. So 

with the single product class that could be considered 

a design option for all units. 

 If we’re only talking about -- if we have 

separate product classes, this would apply only to a 

top-loader design in which you incorporate the 

horizontal access of rotation. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. The next 

item I circled, I think, Kevin, you mentioned this, hot 

water circulation loop. 

 MS. REICH: Okay. That was the approach in 

which the heat exchanger is provided for the inlet 

water preheating. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. And then improved 

water, Number 13, improved water extraction from low or 

remaining moisture content. 

 MR. MESSNER: Yeah. I just have a comment on 

that. 

 MS. REICH: Okay. I do want to add to that, 

that it is included in here the possibility of having 

more or larger holes for water drainage, in addition to 

just higher spin speeds. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

61

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. MESSNER: Okay. And then Number 12, I 

skipped that, improved front-loading washer drum 

design. 

 MS. REICH: For that, the provision of 

various surface textures or paddle designs to help 

agitate the load. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: And you noted by my record 14, 

15, 16, 17, and 18. 

 MR. MESSNER: This is Kevin. 15, I don’t 

need any clarification on. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So 14 is increased 

motor efficiency. 

 MS. REICH: Right. This is to look at the 

trade-offs between the particular type of technology 

used for the drive motor that typically comes at a 

trade-off. You can obtain higher efficiency but 

usually at higher cost and maybe larger size and 

weight. 

 MR. MESSNER: Oh, okay. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Ozonated laundering, ozonated 

laundering. 

 MS. REICH: Right. This is a technology that 

is found primarily in commercial and institutional use 

to inject ozone into the water that again, you know, 

reduces the amount of hot water that’s necessary. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

62

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 I think I recall your comment about the 

concerns over the cost-effectiveness of that approach 

and at this stage, we’re only looking from a 

technological feasibility standpoint. Those cost 

considerations occur later on. 

 MR. MESSNER: Okay. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Plastic particle cleaning, 

Number 17. 

 MR. MESSNER: That’s Kevin. No comments, 

just I had a comment but no need for clarification. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. And then the next, the 

final one, 18, reduced thermal mass. 

 MS. REICH: Right. And that was the approach 

to have a plastic tub instead of a stainless steel one. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. And then the final one 

that I have that he questioned about was 23, ultrasonic 

washing. 

 MR. MESSNER: This is Kevin. No need for 

clarification. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

 MR. MESSNER: Just a comment. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So then -- 

 MR. MESSNER: Thank you. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: -- this is a lengthy list of 

technology options. Additional questions or comments 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

63

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

on what’s listed here? Yes, Ed, please. 

 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: You’re not on. Yes. 

 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann for ASAP. A couple 

questions, a couple points. 

 One is silver ion injection is a technology 

that’s on the market in the residential space today. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: I think I need a new washing 

machine. 

 MR. OSANN: It is said to improve -- to 

deodorize in cold water, improve performance of cold 

water washing. 

 I have a question about the low standby power 

design. Is that meant to be a catchall for standby and 

off-mode? 

 MS. REICH: Yes. Yes, that would fall under 

the same category. 

 MR. OSANN: Okay. I have a washer that uses 

3.7 watts in off-mode with no functionality, just 

plugged in. 

 The other is on ozonation, it seems as though 

DOE has been quick to, having mentioned it, to 

eliminate it. On Page 17 of the TSD, it’s listed as a 

-- it seems to be listed as a likely candidate for 

eliminating these technologies from further analysis. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

64

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 As I understand it, ozonated machines in the 

residential space are in the market today in Japan and 

would encourage DOE to stay open, keep this open at 

this stage of the rulemaking. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Additional 

comments on technology options, what the department 

should consider or not consider? Yes, please. 

 MR. HORNQUIST: Yes, Edwin Hornquist, SoCal 

Edison. I’d just like to reiterate the point that I 

made earlier regarding demand responsive features. 

 To the extent that the department is open to 

new -- to evaluating new capabilities and new features 

in washers, we encourage that be captured as part of 

the technologies listed here, and along the same lines, 

again we’d like to encourage the department to value, 

in the development of the standard, the energy 

associated with water conveyance and the embedded 

energy of water. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Edwin, in your comments, if 

you could be specific, I think the department would 

appreciate that. 

 MR. HORNQUIST: Absolutely. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. Okay. Yes, please. 

Use that mike. Say your name for the record. 

 MR. POLINSKI: Steve Polinski from Miele 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

65

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Appliance. I just had a question. 

 Will the Department of Energy, in 

consideration for the mentioned technology options, 

plan to direct an evaluation on their ability to 

provide adequate wash results for the consumer? 

 MS. REICH: At this point, DOE is required to 

consider energy and water use. There’s no regulatory 

requirement to consider wash performance. 

 MR. POLINSKI: Will there be any change in 

position based on all of the regulations becoming more 

stringent? 

 MS. REICH: I can’t comment on that. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Stephen Witkowski. 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: I think it’s too early at 

this point to comment, but again we’re certainly open 

to your suggestions and input. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: If your comments reflect the 

utility you see, then that’s sort of a change. Yes, 

okay. 

 Other comments, perhaps final comments on 

this list of technologies? Anybody else? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: This is important at this 

stage for the department. Okay. 

 I’m going to suggest pretty quickly, whenever 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

66

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

you think is appropriate, that we take a break. 

 MS. REICH: Sure. This is fine. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: This is a good time? Yeah. 

Let’s take a break. It’s now by the watch, it’s now 

10:40. It’s going to take -- if you go quickly, it’s 

going to take you 15 minutes to make it to the 

cafeteria and make it back. So do not delay, but 

listen carefully for those of you that are new 

especially. You need to wear this badge in the 

building. 

 (Recess.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So we’re now, I think, 

on Slide 43 and we’re going to resume with the 

presentation followed by eliciting your comments. So 

let’s proceed with Judy. 

 Let me make another announcement. Before we 

go to lunch, as we depart for lunch, if you’d make sure 

that all of you give one of your business cards to 

Brenda, the department will then make a Xerox copy of 

all those cards and they’ll be made available in the 

afternoon so everybody’s get a set of who’s here today. 

 Okay. So now we’re proceeding with Judy. 

23 Screening Analysis and Engineering Analysis

24 

25 

 MS. REICH: All right. Next is up the 

Screening Analysis, and it’s at this stage that all the 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

67

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

technology options that were identified on the basis of 

their ability to improve energy efficiency are examined 

further to narrow them down to only those that are 

going to be considered in the Engineering Analysis and 

they must meet these additional four criteria. 

 These criteria are laid out in the Code of 

Federal Regulations and Number 1, it must be 

technologically feasible. Of course, it must produce 

measurable energy savings. 

 The second criterion is that it has to be 

practicable, that it has to show practicability to 

manufacture, install, and service on the necessary 

scale at the time that the standards become effective. 

 The third criterion is whether there are 

impacts to consumers in terms of product utility or 

availability of certain features and, finally, 

naturally, there can’t be any negative impacts in terms 

of health or safety. 

 We don’t have any requests for comment here 

but maybe I’ll pause in order to take any comments. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s pause and, Kevin, a 

question. 

 MR. MESSNER: Yeah. Sorry. I did back at 

the Technology Section, -- 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

68

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. MESSNER: -- I wanted to, before we go 

too far, just mention real quickly that we’d suggest 

adding turbidity sensors to your Table 3.1. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Good. That’s the kind 

of comment the department wants to hear. Turbidity 

sensors. 

 MR. MESSNER: Yeah. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

 MR. MESSNER: Sorry about that. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Not at all. Okay. So now we 

just paused, having reviewed the Screening Analysis 

criteria. 

 Comments on that before we move on? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

 MS. REICH: All right. Both of the outputs 

from the Market and Technology Assessment and the 

Screening Analysis, and those are namely the product 

class definitions and now what are called design 

options, are fed into the Engineering Analysis and this 

is the first real quantitative analysis that’s 

performed and it has a very basic goal, which is to 

define how improvements in energy efficiency, what the 

impact to manufacturers in terms of costs to produce 

the higher-efficiency product will be. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

69

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 You’ll hear reference to cost-efficiency 

curves. On the left it shows this relationship. 

Usually it has a positive slope like that, and this 

curve then is fed into the analyses that calculate or 

estimate the impacts on consumers in terms of the LifeCycle Cost, LCC, Analysis and the Payback Period 

Analysis, the impacts on manufacturers via the MIA and 

what the national impacts are. 

 The methodology is shown here. The first 

step is to define what exactly is your starting point 

for that cost-efficiency curve and that’s namely to 

define baseline models. These are typically models 

that just meet existing energy efficiency, energy 

conservation standards, if any are in place, or that 

may have just the most basic fundamental 

characteristics in terms of energy use and are often 

entry-level products. 

 The next step that DOE uses is a reverse 

engineering process in which representative units are 

disassembled and examined in order to determine exactly 

what technologies and design approaches a manufacturer 

might take to improve efficiency. 

 Also, as part of this a so-called green-field 

model is developed to estimate what sort of costs might 

be incurred by the industry to start from scratch 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

70

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

producing a higher-efficiency unit. 

 DOE supplements this with data that’s 

collected from various sources, primarily from 

manufacturers. This should say clothes washers instead 

of clothes dryers and room air conditioners, and an 

important part of the process here is for DOE to obtain 

more qualitative information from manufacturers and 

although we can take that as written submissions, DOE 

finds it very useful to have actual interviews because, 

you know, issues can be discussed and key topics can 

come up that can really help identify what, from the 

manufacturers’ standpoint, are the important features 

for the rulemaking. 

 So combining the information that comes out 

of the reverse engineering data collection process, a 

set of these cost-efficiency curves are developed that 

again are looking specifically at the manufacturing 

costs for the higher-efficiency unit. 

 This slide basically shows the process 

graphically, starting with the baseline unit. The 

cost-efficiency curves are presented as incremental 

costs, so baseline unit would have zero incremental 

costs and that’s the starting point. The reverse 

engineering analysis comes up with a strawman curve 

that is then refined, supplemented by this additional 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

71

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

data that’s drawn from the data collection process and 

from the interviews. 

 Let me at this point present what the 

proposed baseline characteristics are for each of the 

five proposed product classes. These are expressed in 

terms of the metrics of Modified Energy Factor, MEF, 

which is capacity per kilowatt hour energy use, and 

water factor in gallons of water per capacity in cubic 

feet. 

 Let me start with the top-loading standard 

size. This baseline MEF and water factor were derived 

from the standards that are going to be implemented in 

2011 per EISA, so it’s a 1.26 MEF and a 9.5 water 

factor. 

 The top-loading compact MEF comes from 

existing federal standards and there is no requirement, 

either now or upcoming, for water factor for the 

compact class. So what was done was to scale the toploading standard water factor by the same ratio as MEF 

between those two classes but inversely, recognizing 

that usually higher MEF translates to a lower water 

factor. So that results in an 18.4 water factor for 

top-loading compact. 

 For front-loading, these are actually the MEF 

and water factor associated with the EnergyStar level 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

72

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

and this was selected based on DOE’s survey of products 

on the market, that there currently are none known to 

DOE that don’t meet this level. This is considered the 

starting point for front-loaders. 

 DOE, since it couldn’t identify any toploading semi-automatic and sud-saving units, no 

baseline model has yet been proposed for these in the 

absence of any information. 

 DOE would certainly seek input whether the -- 

these baseline efficiency levels are appropriate for 

characterizing the performance of baseline units, 

further would request any information on baseline 

efficiency levels for top-loading semi-automatic and 

sud-saving clothes washers, and then would, in order to 

help guide the Engineering Analysis, request 

information on what technologies might be associated 

with baseline models in each product class and some 

examples are given here, including the type of drive 

motor, typical input wattage of that motor, type of 

fill control system, et. cetera. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Kevin. 

 MR. MESSNER: Kevin Messner with AHAM. We 

agree with the baseline for the three that you have 

listed and have already stated earlier we agree with 

eliminating the other two. So we support that or agree 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

73

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

with that. 

 Any specific technological characteristics, 

we would probably speak directly with the 

manufacturers. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

 MR. MANTHEI: Phil Manthei, Alliance Laundry 

Systems. We would support the top-loading standard on 

capacity and on the water factor and modified energy 

levels that you have proposed and the front-loading, as 

well. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Did you comment on top-loading 

compact? 

 MR. MANTHEI: No. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: You did not. Okay. 

 MR. MANTHEI: The standard. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. I just wanted to 

make sure. 

 MR. MANTHEI: We do not make compacts. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Ed. 

 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann for ASAP. An 

observation and then a couple points. 

 It’s a matter of nomenclature. Not only here 

but on Page 23 of the Framework Document itself, you 

refer to 1.72 and 8 as EnergyStar and that could be 

characterized as former EnergyStar. What is shown on 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

74

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Page 23 as CEE Tier 1, which it is, is current 

EnergyStar as of July 1st of this year, and then what’s 

shown as CEE Tier 2, which it is, as 2 and 6, is 

forthcoming EnergyStar as of January 1, 2011. 

 With regard to the Engineering Analysis, I 

just want to say we support -- 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed, pardon me for 

interrupting. So you’re just simply wanting to make 

that -- 

 MR. OSANN: It’s a matter of nomenclature, 

yes. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. 

 MR. OSANN: The 1.72 and 8 has been 

supplanted by a new specification as of July 1st -- 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

 MR. OSANN: -- by EnergyStar and that’s a 

specification, by the way, that’s applicable to both 

top-loaders and front-loaders. 

 We support DOE’s efforts to supplement the 

information they gathered from manufacturer interviews 

with your own Engineering Analysis, your own tear-down, 

and would encourage you to, you know, budget the time 

and money to do that in this case. 

 In developing these baseline -- the 

characteristics of the baseline models, I think it’ll 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

75

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

be important in this case to ensure that it’s not only 

the energy and water performance that is at the 

baseline but also that you’re able to pare away 

extraneous features and amenities that are marketed and 

packaged with high-performance machines today. It’ll 

be important to -- in doing this Engineering Analysis, 

once you’ve established the characteristics of the 

baseline model and then you look at a high-efficiency 

model, you’re going to want to also be sure that it’s 

an apples and apples comparison and you’re comparing a 

machine that is what you might say comparably equipped 

and that it’s not -- you’re not pricing in additional 

features and amenities that are not essential to the 

energy and water performance characteristics of the 

unit. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Stephen 

Witkowski. 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: I appreciate those comments 

and in that respect, we would certainly appreciate any 

inputs on what anyone considers to be extraneous 

factors or comparably-equipped. Certainly your 

experiences would help us to confirm that, you know, 

we’re looking at the right features here. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. Additional 

comments on -- the specific request was surrounding 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

76

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

these levels and other technology-related issues. So 

any additional comments on these listed 5.1, 5.2 and 

5.3? Ed. 

 MR. OSANN: Will there be just one higherefficiency performance level characterized at this 

stage or will you be doing more than one? You have the 

baseline and then what are you going to compare it 

with? 

 MS. REICH: Yes, I’m going to be presenting 

efficiency levels for each of the product classes that 

DOE’s proposing to generate cost-efficiency curves for 

and in most cases there’s more than one efficiency 

level. 

 MR. OSANN: In terms of the detailed 

Engineering Analysis that you’re going to be doing and 

possible reverse engineering, are you going to be doing 

that at more than one performance point above the 

baseline? 

 MS. REICH: The intent is to conduct the 

Engineering Analysis at each of those efficiency 

levels. 

 MR. OSANN: At each one? 

 MS. REICH: Yes. 

 MR. OSANN: Okay. 

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

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

77

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MS. REICH: In general, DOE can take one of 

two different approaches in defining -- in performing 

the Engineering Analysis. It can take a design option 

approach in which DOE examines specific technologies 

and what their incremental cost is and then determine a 

pathway that manufacturers will likely take to add in 

these technologies successively and by adding up these 

incremental costs can generate the cost-efficiency 

curve from that. 

 The alternative approach, which DOE is 

proposing for clothes washers, is an efficiency level 

approach which is useful in cases where there is a 

sufficient range of efficiencies of products on the 

market from a baseline unit all the way to the maximum 

available unit, that at different levels, products can 

be selected at each one of those levels and examined to 

see what approaches are taken and derive the 

incremental costs from those. 

 You know, they’re somewhat related processes. 

Both wind up at the same endpoint but have a little bit 

different approach at the beginning. 

 I think one of the things that’s important to 

note is that, first of all, DOE is required to look not 

only at the baseline but at all the way up to what is 

called the maximum technologically-feasible level or 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

78

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

max tech level. 

 Also important to note that, and I think this 

may address a comment that was just received, is that, 

in addition to this reverse engineering disassembly 

process, that very often DOE conducts a limited amount 

of testing itself that helps establish what the 

relationship is between the technologies and design 

approaches and the measured efficiency. So again, 

incremental cost data is solicited and helps to 

generate those cost-efficiency curves. 

 The reverse engineering methodology starts 

with an appropriate selection of units in the test 

sample and there are a number of factors that are 

considered in choosing these units. 

 First of all, again, it’s imperative to 

select units that are at each efficiency level, where 

possible. A baseline unit, what is hopefully the max 

tech unit but in many cases turns out to be what’s 

really the max available unit in case a technology 

hasn’t penetrated the marketplace yet, and it’s also 

often desirable to have a range of platforms, possibly 

from different manufacturers, to understand if 

different approaches can be taken, what the different 

possibilities are. 

 Each one of these units is subjected to a 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

79

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

physical tear down and a bill of materials is generated 

that captures all of the information that can be 

derived by looking at the pieces. One is what the raw 

materials are that go into it and what sort of 

fabrication processes are used in order to help turn 

them into the finished component, and then also looking 

at what purchased parts are there and help identify 

what the cost of those units might be, and then, 

finally, by examining the pieces as they come apart, 

it’s possible to identify what the assembly process is 

like and to estimate the costs for those. 

 So a very complex large manufacturing cost 

model is developed that overall for each individual 

unit defines what the cost to the manufacturer is 

estimated to be. 

 On the data collection side, the information 

that DOE requests from industry would consist of two 

parts and the first part is the per unit production 

cost and this is the full production cost that would 

include the materials, the manufacturing processes, the 

labor costs, including overhead and depreciation. 

 And then also DOE requests input on what onetime conversion costs would be and these would be 

introducing a new higher-efficiency product, what sort 

of sales and marketing effort would be required, R&D, 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

80

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

if there’s a new production line required, what sort of 

tooling and equipment goes along with it, and that sum 

total is the industry’s data submission for the 

manufacturing costs. 

 That is provided to DOE typically on a 

shipment-weighted basis that is industry aggregated so 

that no proprietary information gets disclosed, but 

along with that, that implies that sufficient data can 

be collected at each point to provide that information. 

 DOE’s very sensitive to not disclosing 

proprietary data and so if there are fewer than three 

manufacturers that produce products at a specific 

efficiency level, then data does not get provided to 

DOE and DOE certainly would not disclose anything if it 

did receive it. 

 Additionally, DOE requests information about 

the depreciation method that manufacturers use for 

expense and conversion capital. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So you can see the comment 

boxes listed there. Feedback on the use of the 

efficiency level approach generally and also Item 5.5, 

Selection of Appropriate Product Classes for Reverse 

Engineering Analysis, and any product classes for which 

it is appropriate to extend these results politically. 

 Kevin. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

81

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. MESSNER: Kevin Messner with AHAM. We 

support the DOE’s use of the efficiency level approach 

that you’re using. 

 Some suggested products for reverse 

engineering, traditional top-loader with an agitator 

and a high-efficiency top-load product with agitator, a 

high-efficiency top-load with an impeller, standard 

front-load and a compact traditional top-load. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Ed. 

 MR. OSANN: I’m sorry. Could you repeat what 

the three standard top-loads were? 

 MR. MESSNER: The traditional top-load with 

an agitator, the high-efficiency top-load with an 

agitator, and then the high-efficiency top-load with 

the impeller. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann. I’ve got a question. 

The efficiency level approach is one path that DOE can 

take in a rulemaking process. What’s the other path? 

If you don’t do this, what do you do? 

 MS. REICH: The other path was the design 

option approach and there, rather than selecting units 

at each efficiency level that are on the market and 

examining them to see what’s in them, the approach 

would be to determine the technologies that are 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

82

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

available and how much each one of them can improve 

efficiency and then start adding them together along a 

likely path that a manufacturer could take to improve 

efficiency and to calculate the incremental costs by 

layering these design options on top of one another. 

 MR. OSANN: And what argues for taking one 

path versus the other and why have you opted to 

recommend that DOE do the efficiency level approach in 

this case? 

 MS. REICH: Well, typically, the efficiency 

level approach is used where products are available on 

the market at a wide range of efficiencies, so there 

are sufficient units to select that sample from. 

 Very often, the design option approach is 

used where the efficiencies are all clustered together 

and it’s very difficult to separate out a highefficiency unit from a baseline unit and at each 

incremental efficiency level along the way to select 

representative units. 

 So in this case, because clothes washers do 

have this broad range and that there are at each of the 

selected levels, there are, you know, a fair number of 

representative units, that a good representative sample 

can be selected. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments? Ed. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

83

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann. On your Slide 53, on 

the industry costs submittal, with regard to conversion 

costs, we strongly recommend that DOE find an effective 

way early in the process to address the effects on 

conversion costs of the manufacturer tax incentives, 

the production credits that are available under current 

law for the production of high-efficiency machines. 

 MS. REICH: I would like to comment that that 

is a topic that is addressed in the Manufacturer Impact 

Analysis which also occurs at the -- begins to occur in 

the pre-NOPR stage. 

 MR. OSANN: So at this point, are you -- what 

are the costs that you’re -- I mean, are costs really 

costs if they’ve been offset? You’re asking for the 

costs and then you’ll consider the offset later or 

what’s your thinking about how this fits together? 

 MS. REICH: That all gets rolled into the -- 

it’s part of the Manufacturer Impact Analysis. It’s a 

model called the Government Regulatory Impact Model, 

GRIM, that is -- quantifies the impacts on 

manufacturers and that’s one of the items that’s 

considered. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Tim. 

 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo with EarthJustice. 

Just to follow-up on this. It would seem kind of 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

84

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

inconsistent to consider it for purposes of the 

Manufacturer Impact Analysis and not to also consider 

that the tax credits may have an impact on the price of 

the product. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Additional 

comments? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

 MS. REICH: I want to quickly note that the 

expectation is that the Engineering Analysis is going 

to be conducted and actually all subsequent analyses 

based on that, namely the Life-Cycle Cost and Payback 

Period Analysis, are conducted on each product class 

for which efficiency levels are defined. So that will 

be in this case the three, the top-loading compact, 

top-loading standard, and front-loading product 

classes. 

 DOE is required by regulation to consider the 

maximum technologically-feasible or max tech efficiency 

level in the analysis and it’s important to note that 

in some cases, this max tech is not available on the 

market and DOE may choose to conduct the analysis on 

the highest-efficiency product that is available, 

calling that max available, and then seek input on 

whether this is appropriate to use the max available as 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

85

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

the place-holder for max tech. 

 So beginning with top-loading standard units, 

the baseline, of course, was the upcoming standard, 

2011 standard of 1.26 MEF and 9.5 water factor. From 

there, I’ll skip to Efficiency Level 2, EnergyStar 

level, which, as Ed pointed out, was the EnergyStar 

level in effect at the time that these efficiency 

levels were defined which was 1.72 and 8.0, and then 

from there, there were two CEE Tiers that were 

considered for which top-loading -- there were toploading units that met the criteria; namely, a 1.8 MEF 

and 7.5 water factor was Efficiency Level 3, a 2.0 MEF 

and 6 water factor, which was derived from CEE Tier 2, 

and the max available unit based upon a survey of 

publicly-available data, often from the -- you’re going 

to see this in other product classes, as well, mostly 

derived from the California Energy Commission’s Product 

Database, but in some cases other sources, for the 

standard size units was determined to be an MEF of 2.26 

and a water factor of 4.48. 

 Where there are particularly large jumps 

between these levels, DOE considers a gap fill and the 

gap fill is determined as something somewhat, you know, 

roughly halfway in between the adjacent levels but is 

also based upon what kind of efficiencies are 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

86

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

represented in these database sources, so that there 

are units at the proposed gap fill level, and in this 

case there’s a gap fill at 1.40 and 9.5. 

 For top-loading compact units, there are 

obviously quite a few fewer units on the market and so 

DOE is proposing only two efficiency levels, one above 

the baseline. This is a max available unit with an MEF 

of .78 and a water factor of 13.9. 

 And finally, for front-loaders, as discussed, 

because of the availability -- the characteristics of 

the available units on the market, the baseline was 

selected as 1.72 and 8, and the three CEE Tiers in 

effect at the time were used as the next three 

efficiency levels. 

 The max available unit has an MEF of 2.89 and 

3.36 and because that’s a fairly significant jump from 

the CEE Tier 3 level, a gap fill was defined at 2.40 

MEF and 4.20 water factor. We seek comment on these 

proposed efficiency levels. These will be the levels 

that would -- the incremental cost data would be 

requested for and also seeks input on the suitability 

of using the max available units as the maximum 

technologically-feasible efficiency levels, and, if 

not, what the basis would be for why those levels 

should be selected. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

87

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Mike. 

 MR. McGARRAGHAN: So one comment on the use 

of the CEC list. We’ve looked through it some and it 

does appear to be fairly comprehensive, but on a 

cursory check, we have found a whole bunch of units 

that are on either the CEC list or the EnergyStar list 

that don’t appear in the CEC list. 

 So you said sometimes you’ll be looking at 

other sources. I would ask DOE to consistently doublecheck other sources to make sure we’re getting the most 

up-to-date information. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

 MR. McGARRAGHAN: Thanks. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: I just want to clarify. 

What’s listed here in the tables is CEE, not CEC, 

right? 

 MS. REICH: The data source is the CEC 

database. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. I just wanted to 

clarify that for the record, yes. Okay. 

 Yes, Ed. 

 MR. OSANN: With regard to Slide 56 on the 

levels for top-loaders, again, we simply reiterate that 

we’re not supportive of the product class distinction 

based upon the mode of access, but for purposes of 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

88

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

commenting on this presentation, one point that we 

would make is that there ought to be as much parallel 

consideration in the development of these efficiency 

levels as possible at this stage of the analysis. 

 For instance, you take CEE Tier 1 and 2 and 

then have some max available without having a CEE Tier 

3. There are machines that are being marketed today 

that, top-loaders, meet CEE Tier 3. We’d recommend 

going ahead and having a CEE Tier 3 so that you’re 

comparable with the front-loader analysis, as well, and 

you don’t want to burn your analytical bridges behind 

you at this stage of the analysis. 

 This may get repositioned back into a single 

product class or a set of product classes that is 

divided in a different way than simply mode of access. 

 So at this stage, to the extent that the 

rungs on your ladder can be the same rather than having 

small differences, it would seem to be useful. So we’d 

recommend that CEE Tier 3 level be added to the toploader -- 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Standard size. 

 MR. OSANN: -- efficiency, standard size toploader efficiency level table for analysis and you 

develop the max available beyond that. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

89

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. OSANN: Recognizing that there may not be 

a whole lot of headroom between CEE Tier 3 and whatever 

you come up with with the max available. Nevertheless, 

having them both appear in the -- as comparable 

performance levels would be useful. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: The department’s also 

requested comment on whether max available in this 

case, how that corresponds to or relates to max tech. 

Comment on that? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: No comments on that. Okay. 

Kevin. 

 MR. MESSNER: Answered most of my questions. 

The Level 4 for the front-loading, is there any more 

clarity you can give to how you came up with that gap 

fill? 

 MS. REICH: It was the same general process, 

trying to define a level that was reasonably fit 

between the two adjacent ones and was based on products 

that were in the database. 

 MR. MESSNER: Okay. Thank you. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed. 

 MR. OSANN: Yeah. With regard to that gap 

fill, I think we’d recommend that the water factor 

associated with the 2.4 MEF be the 4.0. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

90

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Mike. 

 MR. McGARRAGHAN: Mike McGarraghan with PG&E. 

I just had a question for DOE. 

 Why have you decided to just stick with the 

maximum available rather than trying to determine max 

tech? 

 MS. REICH: Well, again, we’re using max 

available as a proxy because we don’t have information 

at this point about what higher or different true max 

tech efficiency would be and that would be an input 

that would be -- that DOE would be looking for to see 

if in fact something else would be warranted, besides a 

product that is commercially available. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Edwin. 

 MR. HORNQUIST: Yeah. Edwin Hornquist. I 

was just wondering if the efficiency level approach is 

what would limit the -- how you develop that max tech. 

 MS. REICH: No, I don’t think it would limit 

it. It certainly provides a consistent basis for each 

one of these, but if we have information that would 

allow DOE to determine a different max tech, then DOE 

would certainly consider it, certainly not limiting the 

definition of that efficiency level to products on the 

market, using that only as a starting point. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Luke. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

91

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. HARMS: Luke Harms with Whirlpool. I 

would say for standard top-loaders, we believe the max 

available is at or near the max tech. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. So that’s 

the kind of comment that the department would like to 

receive in writing. 

 MR. OSANN: But you are transcribing -- 

 MR. BROOKMAN: We will, yes. 

 MR. OSANN: -- this meeting? This is part of 

the record? 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, the comments are 

substantiated, that sort of thing. Yeah. 

 I should have said that at the outset. Let 

me say it now. A complete transcript of this meeting 

will be made available and it will be posted on the DOE 

website. I apologize for not saying that earlier. 

 So additional comments on these levels, MEF 

and water factor, and also what the department has 

suggested here at the outset as the number of levels, 

the number of product classes? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, Mike. 

 MR. McGARRAGHAN: One further question. 

Because there are two metrics for measuring efficiency, 

I’m curious how the DOE will decide or how they 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

92

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

prioritize them when you’re ranking the most efficient. 

 Do you start with MEF, see how high you can 

get that, and then find a corresponding water factor, 

or do you weight them both equally to define what’s 

your most efficient model? 

 MS. REICH: Well, that’s an important point 

you make and I’m glad you brought it up because the 

highest MEF and lowest water factor often don’t occur 

in the same model. So there is some judgment call 

required on how to weight the two of them and I can’t 

say that there is a specific approach that MEF always 

takes precedent and then comes water factor, but there 

is a recognition that there’s a trade-off and that 

finding an appropriate balance between the two is the 

aim of defining that max tech level. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. We’re going 

to move on. 

 MS. REICH: A couple more items to discuss 

before we leave the Engineering Analysis. 

 The first relates to proprietary designs. 

DOE attempts to evaluate all design options that are 

commercially available or are present in a working 

prototype. That in fact is a statutory requirement 

that DOE can’t consider technologies that haven’t been 

introduced in the market or in a working prototype, but 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

93

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

that this range of technologies can include proprietary 

designs. 

 DOE only considers those if there are more 

than one approach to achieve the same efficiency 

improvement, the same -- or a different means to get to 

a given efficiency level. 

 DOE is not going to consider a proprietary 

technology if that’s the only means to get there, and 

as a corollary to this, when discussing technological 

approaches at the various efficiency levels, no 

confidential information is released. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So you can see the comment 

box. Are there proprietary designs or technologies for 

residential clothes washers of which DOE should be 

aware in this rulemaking? Kevin. 

 MR. MESSNER: Kevin Messner with AHAM. AHAM 

is not aware of any, but individual manufacturers might 

be contacted. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Any additional comments 

on proprietary design? Ed. 

 MR. OSANN: So if I understood the comment 

from AHAM, the innovations in agitation in highefficiency top-loaders are not -- this isn’t a 

proprietary issue at this point? 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed. Pardon me. Kevin. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

94

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. MESSNER: We’re not aware of any, and if 

there’s any issues like that, the individual 

manufacturers probably will address proprietary issues. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you, again. 

Okay. Outside regulatory changes. 

 MS. REICH: All right. Additional 

information that’s collected during the Engineering 

Analysis that begins to feed into the Manufacturer 

Impact Analysis, and this is developed mainly through 

interviews, is what are the effects on manufacturers of 

other regulatory -- the outside regulatory environment 

that they’re facing, in addition to the standards 

rulemaking for this given product? 

 And this comes into play because many 

residential clothes washer manufacturers are companies 

that produce other products and are facing regulations 

that don’t necessarily relate specifically to clothes 

washers, residential clothes washers, but represent a 

cumulative burden on the manufacturer. 

 And some examples here are just listed. For 

example, the phase-out of refrigerants that are 

associated with impacts to the ozone layer, this phaseout being mandated by the EPA, standards that are 

likely to come into effect for residential clothes 

dryers and room air conditioners in a rulemaking that 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

95

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

DOE is currently conducting since, of course, many 

clothes washer manufacturers are producing dryers, as 

well, and because many manufacturers are producing 

products for international markets and also because 

this is becoming -- starting to become -- considered 

for the U.S., the Reduction of Hazardous Substances, 

ROHS, that’s a potential burden, as well. 

 Are there additional outside regulatory 

issues that DOE should consider in the clothes washer 

rulemaking? 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Kevin. 

 MR. MESSNER: Yes, Kevin Messner with AHAM. 

Yeah. There’s a couple. The International Association 

of Plumbing Manufacturing Officials, they’ve released a 

draft version of a supplement that addresses clothes 

washers and suggest that local municipalities should 

adopt a water factor of 5 or less. That’ll introduce a 

substantial regulatory burden if they’re substantially 

lower than the 2011 EnergyStar levels. 

 Also, CEE Tiers continue to be raised in 

response to DOE standards and local municipalities may 

require CEE Tier ratings and CEE Tiers may push the 

technology beyond practical performance or price 

points, and CEE Tiers are some percentage of DOE 

standards and do not necessarily have strong data to 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

96

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

support those levels. 

 Also, I want to just remind DOE that AHAM 

members manufacture a lot of other major appliances and 

there’s a lot of parallel rulemakings going on. 

Clothes dryers, refrigerator-freezers, room air 

conditioners, commercial clothes washers, and this 

results in a substantial cumulative regulatory burden 

to the industry and it’s made even more demanding by 

the current economic conditions, and this rulemaking 

should explicitly consider cumulative regulatory impact 

and the economic justification analysis. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Ed. 

 MR. OSANN: Yeah. This slide is captioned 

outside regulatory changes and the CEE Program on its 

face is not a regulatory program. The IAPMO 

specifications referred to we’ll have to look into, but 

I believe that is a voluntary or kind of a stretch code 

that local communities can consider, but in both cases, 

the preemption provisions of NAECA remain unchanged and 

if local communities misapply, you might say, some of 

these voluntary criteria in an attempt to write them in 

as local standards in a manner that’s not consistent 

with federal law, which it isn’t consistent with 

federal law, that’s sort of a hazard that the industry 

faces and needs to deal with and DOE needs to deal 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

97

1 

2 

3 

with, regardless of whether there’s a pending 

rulemaking or not. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

4 Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MS. REICH: Okay. The final piece that I’m 

going to speak about at this point is the Preliminary 

Manufacturer Impact Analysis or Preliminary MIA. 

 DOE is required to conduct an analysis to 

quantify the effects on manufacturers of proposed 

standards and this is done in order to determine in 

part whether a proposed standard is economically 

justified. 

 Of those seven criteria from EPCA that are 

used to evaluate a standard that was presented much 

earlier, two of them are addressed by the MIA and those 

are what the economic impacts on manufacturers are and 

if there’s any lessening of competition in the industry 

as a result of those proposed standards, what that 

would be. 

 DOE attempts to collect as much information 

as possible at the preliminary stage, presuming, of 

course, that manufacturers can supply that and that 

data includes the anticipated capital expenditures 

required to convert production to the higher-efficiency 

levels and also what direct employment impacts might be 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

98

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

if production needed to change as a result of those 

standards. 

 Overall, this shows what the Manufacturing 

Impact Analysis consists of and at the pre-NOPR stage 

what’s done is what is shown here as Phase 1; that is, 

generating an industry profile that’s more detailed and 

focuses more on some financial characteristics of the 

industry than what was done at the Market and Tech 

Assessment, and also to begin to interview 

manufacturers to identify many of these issues that 

they, from their viewpoint, that they are facing. 

 I’ll talk about this a little bit more when 

we get to the NOPR portion of the presentation, but 

there are two additional phases in which this detailed 

model, the GRIM, is developed and then further 

interviews are conducted to help refine that and gain 

more information and there’s also the Manufacturers 

Subgroup Analysis that’s performed at that stage. 

 The reason why DOE begins to conduct the MIA 

at the pre-NOPR stage is that this is the first point 

to open up the discussion with manufacturers on what 

they view the impacts of potential standards to be. 

 It also allows DOE to verify the information 

that’s collected in the Market and Tech Analysis and to 

verify the preliminary results of the Engineering 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

99

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Analysis in terms of what the manufacturing costs would 

be. 

 The two pieces, the industry profile, the 

purpose is to evaluate both what’s currently going on 

and historically what’s happened with the industry 

structure and market characteristics in terms of again 

market share, industry markups, that sort of thing, and 

it produces an overall picture of the industry that’s 

aggregated that identifies what the key characteristics 

are. 

 Some items that are identified here would 

include if there are particular subgroups of 

manufacturers that should be considered more closely in 

the MIA, whether there are technologies that are 

available to all manufacturers, whether there’s some 

proprietary technologies that would change the 

competitive landscape, and also potential regulatory 

scenarios, and I think this is where, as an example, 

would be the producer tax credits, if there are any, 

would be considered here. 

 The interviews are conducted officially as 

part of the Engineering Analysis but there are some 

beyond just the technical questions. DOE delves into 

topics that cover more of the viewpoint of the 

manufacturer in terms of how shipments are projected to 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

100

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

take place both with and without any potential 

standards, what conversion costs they might face at 

different efficiency levels, what sort of product mix 

they might see, again in the absence or presence of any 

proposed standards, if they need to or if they saw 

shifting production among different types of platforms. 

 DOE is interested in viewing how the 

competitive landscape could change in terms of how 

market share could shift or whether it would result in 

acquisitions and industry consolidation and, finally, 

again delving into more deeply what the manufacturer 

saw as a cumulative regulatory burden that they were 

facing. 

 That actually is the end of the Preliminary 

MIA, so again, although there’s not a request for 

comment, I think we’d be happy to solicit any comments 

on this analysis that anybody may have. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: I think many of you are 

familiar generally with this approach. So comments on 

what has just been presented? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: No? Everybody’s okay? Okay. 

 I sense we are going to lunch here fairly shortly. 

I’m getting that feeling. Let me look. How much 

content is there in the next content block? Not -- 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

101

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

let’s go a couple more pages before we pause. Okay? 

 Greg, are you next up? Yes, Ed. 

 MR. OSANN: Actually, I do have a question. 

This is Ed Osann. I do have a question on this 

Preliminary MIA. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 

 MR. OSANN: This is probably not unique to 

this rulemaking, but my question is how, from a 

methodological standpoint, is DOE and the consulting 

team intending to deal with the effects of the economic 

downturn and the potential recovery on shipment 

forecasts? 

 MS. REICH: Correct me if I’m wrong in terms 

of the Shipment Analysis, DOE is required to look at 

historical trends in the analysis but certainly 

considers information that is provided to it from 

manufacturers on what they saw as upcoming situations 

that they would face, including the downturn which now 

probably there is some data available associated with 

that, but in terms of what they view as approaches that 

they might take or impacts to them that they might face 

in the future as a result of any upturn would be 

considered as part of that interview process. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed, would you make any 

suggestions, requests for how the department handles 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

102

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

downturns, how it address this issue? 

 MR. OSANN: I don’t have a specific 

recommendation to make today, but there has been a 

discernible dip in shipments and I haven’t surveyed all 

the manufacturers, so I’m not sure what kind of 

visibility they see in terms of future shipments, but I 

was just wondering if DOE had a specific analytical 

approach since this is kind of an economy-wide 

phenomenon. 

 You have, you know, a dozen or 15 rulemakings 

in the queue, and is there some sort of consistent 

approach that you’re considering, you know, how to deal 

with this because simply extrapolating from past sales, 

you know, may not necessarily be the way to go or maybe 

it is, you know. How are you going to handle this? 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Greg. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Hi. Greg Rosenquist from 

LBNL. We’ll get into this later, you know, in the 

Shipments and National Impact Analysis, but, you know, 

clothes washer sales are dependent upon sales to 

replace units and primarily new construction and so we 

rely heavily on the Annual Energy Outlook that’s 

produced by the National Energy Modeling System and 

there they have forecasts of housing starts, for 

example, and so to the extent that the AEO reflects a 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

103

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

downturn in the economy, then that will be captured in 

the analysis, at least for shipments or sales going to 

new construction. 

 For replacements, this is where we’d probably 

want some input. I mean, we incorporate lifetime 

functions, survival functions, and those typically 

aren’t a function of economic criteria, like, for 

example, household income. 

 To the extent that we can get input on that 

from stakeholders as to how that may change, we can 

incorporate how an economic downturn would affect the 

replacement market. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you, Greg. Thank 

you. Let’s proceed. Let’s do another -- yeah. 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: I think this is a good time 

to break. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: You think this is a good time 

to break for lunch. 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: We’re changing speakers and 

we’re changing subjects. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, okay. Let’s then pause 

for lunch. It’s now noon. It typically takes an hour 

to eat here if you stay on campus, if you don’t leave 

the building, and if you leave the building, you need 

to clear back through Security. It’s another incentive 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

104

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

to not go far. 

 (Whereupon, at 12 o’clock p.m., the meeting 

was recessed for lunch, to reconvene this same day at 1 

o’clock p.m.) 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

105

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N 

 1:06 p.m. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So let’s take our 

seats, let’s begin. 

 So we’re proceeding, we’re leading off from 

where we left -- we’re starting from where we left off 

which I think is Slide 70 -- 69, 69, and we have a new 

presenter. 

 Isaac, introduce yourself, please. 

 MR. TURIEL: Yes, I will. 

12 Markups for Equipment Price Determination; Energy Use 

13 Determination; and Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

14 Analysis

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. TURIEL: First of all, good afternoon to 

everybody, and my name’s Isaac Turiel, a consultant 

with Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory from where I retired 

a number of years ago. 

 So we’re going to start with the Life-Cycle 

Cost Analysis. We’re going to be talking about this 

afternoon all of the analyses that are downstream from 

the Engineering Analysis and after I speak, we’ll have 

Camilla Dunham Whitehead and Greg Rosenquist who will 

talk about analyses that are downstream from the LifeCycle Cost Analysis. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

106

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 So this first flow diagram gives you an idea 

of all the different inputs that are -- I’m sorry, I 

went away from the microphone. 

 This shows all the different inputs to the 

Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses, and the 

ones in yellow are the primary inputs. In green are 

intermediary inputs and in blue are the Payback Period 

and Life-Cycle Cost Analysis boxes. 

 So if you understand everything here, that’s 

it. We don’t have to go beyond this slide. No. What 

we’re going to do here is say a little bit about each 

and then we’re going to go into detail about every one 

of those boxes. 

 So on the left-hand side, upper corner, we 

have the input from the Engineering Analysis, costefficiency information, which, of course, is a very 

primary input to the LCC Analysis, and then we develop 

markups which will give us the equipment price, and 

then after that we’re going to talk about the energy 

and water use inputs and energy and water prices which 

go into the annual energy and water expense, and if you 

add in repair and maintenance, you get annual operating 

expense in green and if you add in lifetime discount 

rate, energy and water price trends, that will give you 

the lifetime operating expenses. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

107

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 Okay. The total installed costs comes from 

equipment price, plus installation, and if you add 

those two together, total installed costs, annual 

operating expense, that will give you the lifetime 

operating expense, and from that information you can 

calculate the payback period and life-cycle cost. 

Okay. So that’s where we’re going. 

 So the first one I’m going to talk about is 

the markups used to get prices and that feeds into the 

Life-Cycle Cost as you see there. So we’re going to 

use those markups to convert the manufacture costs into 

prices because you need prices in the LCC Analysis and 

we understand from looking at the AHAM Fact Book that 

more than 90 percent of the consumer products are going 

from the manufacturers directly to retailers, like 

Sears, Home Depot, et. cetera, and so we need to know 

that when we’re developing markups, what the 

distribution channel looks like. 

 So we’re going to have two different markups. 

One is the markup from manufacturer to the retailer and 

then retailer to the consumer and the product of those 

two will give the total markup, and the manufacturer 

markups will come from reports that are sent to the 

Securities and Exchange Commission, its 10-K reports 

from private companies that are manufacturers of 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

108

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

appliance equipment, and then the retailer markups will 

come from analyzing data from the U.S. Census Business 

Expenditure Survey. 

 And in addition to getting markups this way, 

we’re going to validate those markups by also looking 

at data that we’re going to get from a private firm 

that tracks sales and efficiencies of appliance 

products. So we’ll have that as a way to check against 

what we come up with through the markup method, and 

while we’re doing that last step, we’ll also get the 

opportunity to look at the variation in the retail 

prices. 

 Okay. So the request for comments that’s in 

this box here is that DOE welcomes comments on its 

proposed approach for developing the estimates of 

future retail prices and here we’re talking about the 

markup approach and the validation of that. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: And I guess particularly if 

there’s anything here that you think is missing or that 

the Department of Energy should not consider using, now 

would be the time to comment on that. Yes, Ed. 

 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann for ASAP. How will 

overseas manufacturers be engaged in this process? 

 MR. TURIEL: Well, these markups are probably 

not going not -- I can say it wrong, but my 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

109

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

understanding is that we’re not going to be getting 

data from the manufacturers directly. 

 First of all, the markups are obtained 

through these financial records, that’s Number 1, and 

then the validation is will be through a private firm 

that collects data which it’s not from the 

manufacturers directly. 

 MR. OSANN: Are the -- just a follow-up. Are 

the overseas manufacturers engaged in the manufacture 

interview process that we talked about this morning? 

 MR. TURIEL: Well, that I’d have to leave 

that answer to Judy, that part. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Judy. 

 MS. REICH: Judith Reich from Navigant 

consulting. They’re certainly invited to be part of 

the process and we’d certainly solicit their inputs 

and, you know, it’s up to them to choose whether they 

want to participate. 

 MR. TURIEL: Now I’m going to turn to one of 

the other inputs which is the energy and water use 

determination which also goes into the Life-Cycle Cost 

Analysis, as you saw in the first draft. 

 So we’ve already seen that you need those 

inputs on energy and water use to determine life-cycle 

costs and the method that’s going to be used is to 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

110

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

develop household samples from the Residential Energy 

Consumption Survey for the product classes that will be 

analyzed, whatever they turn out to be, and we’re going 

to use the RECS data along with the Engineering 

Analysis data to develop the annual energy and water 

use per household and I’ll go into that in a little 

more detail now. 

 So what we’re going to do is we combine data. 

On the bottom here you see MEF and water factor data 

from the Engineering Analysis with data that we’re 

going to get from RECS, okay, per household which 

includes the annual usage, how many cycles per year, 

the products being used, also information on what the 

fuel types are for the water heater, dryer, and by 

combining this, we’re going to calculate per household 

what’s the annual energy and water use by efficiency 

level. So that’s going to be the approach. 

 We’ll get a distribution of values which 

we’ll talk about soon when we talk about how the LifeCycle Cost Analysis proceeds, not just one point but 

it’s a whole distribution of values because there are 

thousands of households in RECS. 

 So I just mentioned usage a moment ago. This 

next slide shows some information we’ve collected about 

usage. On the left-hand side, you see cycles per year 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

111

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

for clothes washer usage and the right-hand side is tub 

capacity, and the green line is data on the capacity 

obtained from AHAM which you see is steadily going up, 

well, more or less steadily, and the red rectangles are 

data we obtained from Procter and Gamble and the blue 

circles are data we obtained by analyzing RECS 

information for different years and you can see the 

trend on usage has definitely been going down, whereas 

the trend on capacity has been going up. 

 So one of our questions is, we’re interested 

in getting any feedback anyone may have, is the larger 

washer capacity a cause of lower usage? In other 

words, are people just stuffing more clothes into 

larger capacity washers and therefore having to do 

fewer cycles per year? That’s one hypothesis. 

 Another question related to that is does the 

test procedure capture the field energy and water use 

impact of this larger washer capacity? We know that 

test procedure allows for larger amounts of clothes to 

be in as you have a larger capacity washer, and the 

question is how does that relate to actually the water 

fill that’s occurring when you have these larger 

capacity washers properly taken into account in the 

test procedure? 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So you see the comment boxes, 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

112

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

6.1 and 6.2. Comments on those two? 

 MR. TURIEL: Yes? 

 MR. HORNQUIST: Edwin Hornquist, SoCal 

Edison. I was just wondering. You mentioned -- I have 

two comments. 

 One is about your comment about a hypothesis. 

Is there any -- will there be any attempt to 

characterize how people use washers in determining an 

answer to that question that you just brought up about 

the characterization of the use? Does the increased 

size of capacity, does that necessarily mean that 

people are washing less loads at full capacity or does 

it mean that they’re using the full capacity more times 

with lower loads? You know, we don’t know. 

 You know, you may buy a washer for the 

purpose -- a large capacity washer for the purpose of 

washing a large comforter, let’s say, but it may not 

necessarily mean that -- and you may not do that very 

often. So when you do your regular loads, you might be 

doing small loads. 

 So I’m just throwing that out there for you 

to think and maybe figure out sources of information 

where you can find end use data, perhaps surveys or 

something like that. 

 The second comment is in regards to just 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

113

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

again reiterate my earlier point about water, embedded 

energy in the water. Is there any intent by the DOE to 

look at embedded energy in the water as another source 

for a potential savings, energy savings 

characterization that you’re going to be doing as part 

of the analysis? 

 MR. TURIEL: Like I say, I’m not sure about 

DOE. I’ll have to ask Steve to answer that. But there 

are some studies that you’re probably aware of in 

California right now sponsored by the Public Utility 

Commission to look at embedded energy in water. So 

those are ongoing at the present time. 

 MR. HORNQUIST: Edwin Hornquist. I’m just 

wondering if there’s an attempt to -- if those studies 

are available to you, will you be using them? 

 MR. TURIEL: Well, that I have to get the 

answer from DOE. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Stephen. 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: I’m not aware of any efforts 

right now on embedded energy in water but we’re 

certainly open to consider any information presented. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Can you hear that? 

Yes? Greg, please. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: I think for me, Home 

Appliance 1 Rulemaking, DOE maintained there that only 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

114

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

the direct energy and water consumption of a product 

should be considered when doing an economic evaluation 

of higher-efficiency standards. So they cited a 

provision in the law that requires them to do it that 

way. That was for the analysis of higher standards for 

commercial clothes washers. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. Thank you. 

Mike. 

 MR. McGARRAGHAN: I was just going to point 

out that that commercial clothes washers rule is now 

being reconsidered, so maybe that’s something that DOE 

is looking at at the moment. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Well, so in your 

comments, in your written comments, if you wanted the 

department to address such a thing, you should be 

direct about that. 

 Kevin. 

 MR. MESSNER: Kevin Messner with AHAM. On 

the RECS, AHAM recognizes that there’s no alternative 

to RECS data. So we support the use of that when doing 

your estimating your annual energy. 

 On the rebound effect -- 

 MR. TURIEL: We skipped that. 

 MR. MESSNER: Yeah. On the rebound effect, 

AHAM’s not aware of any that you’re calling a rebound 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

115

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

effect for residential clothes washers. Typically, 

space for this product’s pretty limited and larger 

capacity products, particularly those using less water, 

will actually reduce the number of loads washed and 

therefore dried, and this trend has been captured by 

the modifications and estimated number of annual cycles 

per year and kind of goes to what your previous graph 

was pointing to. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Are you relying on data that 

AHAM has or are you speculating? 

 MR. MESSNER: We’re relying on information 

that we have. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

 MR. OSANN: I’m sorry. This is Ed Osann. I 

didn’t catch the first part of the AHAM comment on 

annual use, annual cycles used. Did you make a comment 

on that? 

 MR. MESSNER: At the end of my comments, I 

mentioned that the estimated number of annual cycles 

being reduced. 

 MR. OSANN: That it should be reduced? 

 MR. MESSNER: The modification -- the annual 

number of cycles modification has been reduced. 

 MR. OSANN: Currently it’s 392, is it not? 

 MR. TURIEL: 384, I thought. It’s something 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

116

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

like that. I saw 384. 392? 

 MR. OSANN: And presumably that hasn’t been 

based on RECS, given this RECS trendline that’s been in 

progress here for a good number of years. 

 MR. TURIEL: Well, it’s a pretty -- maybe 

someone from AHAM may know. I’m not quite sure where 

actually that number came from. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Phil, go ahead. 

 MR. MANTHEI: I’ve been around a long time 

regarding this. It was based on the Procter and Gamble 

studies during the last rulemaking and the test 

procedure rulemaking in the 1994 through 1997 time 

period. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Phil. Thank you. 

 MR. TURIEL: Well, if we look here at the 

graph, these numbers are Procter and Gamble’s, 406, 

380, so that’s kind of consistent with the larger 

number that’s in the test procedure right now. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So you can see the comment 

boxes, the request from the department to obtain 

comment. Is there anything else that people would add? 

 I don’t think we’ve addressed yet whether the 

test procedure will accurately capture water use. 

 MR. TURIEL: You’re right. We haven’t. The 

test procedure’s kind of complicated. I’m sure the 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

117

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

manufacturers are pretty aware of how it works. It 

involves doing weighted averages of different kind of 

fills, max fill and min fill, sometimes there’s an 

average fill if you have a load sensor, and then the 

weighting is given in the test procedure. So it’s not 

intuitively obvious as to whether you’re going to 

capture the fact that we have larger capacity washers 

which are going to require more water, whether that’s 

reflected, at least it’s not abundantly clear to me as 

to whether it’s going to be captured in the present 

test procedure. 

 So we’re throwing that out that we’d like 

information back, any comments that anybody may have 

about that. That’s why it’s in the box. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: I don’t think -- no additional 

comments on that. Okay. 

 MR. TURIEL: Then I’ll move on. Now I’m 

going to say a little bit about the Life-Cycle Cost 

Analysis itself. 

 Okay. So the purpose is to assess the net 

life-cycle cost impacts of differing efficiency levels 

on the consumer and as we said before, the life-cycle 

cost is a sum of the price, consumer price plus the 

operating costs, and they’re discounted to a particular 

base year, the operating costs, and the economic 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

118

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

evaluation is coming from a consumer perspective and we 

implement this analysis in Excel spreadsheet and it’s 

also expressed as a life-cycle cost difference between 

a baseline and a standard level and the payback period 

is also calculated in this same analysis. 

 Okay. So a statistical analysis is done 

where you have many different repetitions of doing a 

life-cycle cost calculation which will be done for the 

year 2015 which would be the year that the standard 

takes effect, January 2015. 

 So we characterize the variability and the 

uncertainty that’s associated with the different inputs 

using probability distributions and, for example, with 

the RECS Household Sample, they’re going to be used to 

characterize variability in both the energy and water 

use, and we had talked about that previously because we 

have records of thousands of different households which 

have different usages, different fuel prices. So each 

one is going to be a separate record from which you 

sample and we do this Monte Carlo analysis. 

 Then there’s also the probability 

distributions for other inputs which have uncertainty 

to them, like discount rates and lifetimes, so that’s 

the other part of the distributions that will develop, 

and there will be one life-cycle cost, one payback 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

119

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

period for each product class, and finally here, I’m 

mentioning that we need to develop base case efficiency 

distributions and that’s to avoid over-estimating the 

benefits from increasing product efficiencies. I’m 

going to say a little more about that in just a moment. 

 First, I’m going to give an example of what 

this output looks like for some people who maybe 

haven’t seen what the output looks like. It comes from 

an analysis that was done for dishwashers. 

 So we’ll see here in the upper corner, lefthand corner where it says 10,000 trials, that means 

you’ve done 10,000 life-cycle cost calculations 

comparing an efficiency standard to a base case number, 

and in this table here in the blue, that’s the 

particular standard level we’re looking at, Number 3, 

that’s what’s being plotted here in this graph. It’s 

three relative to the baseline. 

 What you see is everything to the right 

that’s in blue here is a benefit, a life-cycle cost 

benefit, everything to the left of the zero is not a 

benefit. You have life-cycle costs increasing rather 

than decreasing, and here this number, mean of $17, 

that means that there’s an average life-cycle cost 

savings of $17 and that also appears in that table. 

 The other number to look at is the number of 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

120

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

households percentage having a benefit or no impact. 

This is some of this 10.6 percent and 56.8 percent. So 

it’s about 67-68 percent of the households either have 

nothing changes life-cycle cost-wise or they have a 

benefit, and, conversely, 32 percent are having a lifecycle cost increase occur. So that’s how you would 

read that table, that graph. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Questions about any of that? 

Good explanation. 

 MR. TURIEL: So I mentioned we have to 

develop a base case efficiency distribution to avoid 

over-counting benefits and the reason for that is not 

all the products being sold are being sold at the 

baseline. Obviously some of them are more efficient 

and we talked about that this morning, about what, 30 

percent or so are EnergyStar appliances. 

 So if we were to compare an efficiency 

standard to the baseline and all those 10,000 trial 

runs, we’d be overestimating the benefits. So, 

therefore, we’d need to develop a base case efficiency 

distribution and we’re asking the manufacturers to 

supply data to fill in this table that’s being shown 

here. 

 So, for example, top-loading standard in the 

first box there where it says 1.26 MEF and 9.5 water 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

121

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

factor, we’re looking for -- by the way, it’s 2005-

2006. The most recent year we would have data for is 

what we’re looking for. So don’t worry about the 5 or 

6. If you have 2007 data, that’s what we’d like to see 

in there. If you have multiple years, that’s even 

better. 

 So in the first box there to the right of the 

1.26, 9.5, we’re looking for MEFs that are between 1.26 

and 1.39, okay, to go what percentage of the market 

share would be in that range of MEFs and if you go to 

the 1.72, for example, you’re looking at between 1.72 

and 1.79, just look at the next higher number in the 

box below it. 

 We’re looking for that data for the -- well, 

whatever product classes we end up -- right now, it 

shows those three product classes. 

 Okay. So going to the exact request for 

comment here, we’re looking for input on the planned 

approach which is the statistical Monte Carlo approach 

for Life-Cycle Cost Analysis and also information on 

characterizing the current mix of the efficiencies 

which was shown in that table, the previous table. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Kevin. 

 MR. MESSNER: Kevin Messner with AHAM. We 

support the approach in the Monte Carlo simulation and 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

122

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

will look to supply you aggregated data in those areas. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Ed. 

 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann, ASAP. I think this was 

mentioned earlier during the Engineering Analysis, but 

this notion of 2005-2006, 2007, if you’ve got it. 

These distinctions are pretty important and we 

recommend that DOE should be looking for 2008 data as 

the first request and part of this is to be able to 

capture the effect not only on market share but also on 

costs of the production tax credits where there were 

producer credits for high-efficiency machines in 2006 

and 7, I believe, for the first time and then an 

extension at higher levels and higher dollar credits 

for 2008, 9 and 10. 

 So there is a difference between 2005 and 

2006 and there’s also a difference between 2007 and 

2008 in terms of the incentives that the manufacturers 

are facing in the marketplace and so 2008 data would be 

very important to this analysis. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Additional 

comments on these two requests from the department? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: No additional comments. Okay. 

 MR. TURIEL: Okay. You’ve seen this flow 

diagram. So we’ve talked about most of what’s on the 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

123

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

left-hand side there already, all those yellow boxes on 

the left, and now we’re going to go to the energy and 

water prices, the bottom one, which is combined with 

the energy and water use to give you the annual energy 

and water expenses. That’s where we are. 

 So I’m going to go through the different fuel 

types starting with electricity first just to say where 

we’re getting this -- planning to get the information 

from. 

 Okay. So we’re obviously going to use sales 

prices to convert the energy use into energy costs and 

we’re going to develop electricity prices from the 

DOE/EIA Form 861 data and we plan to develop data for 

nine different Census regions and four of the largest 

states in the U.S., separated, disaggregated in that 

way, and to project what the prices might look like in 

the future, we plan to look at the Annual Energy 

Outlook published by EIA and that will have three 

different price scenarios, a reference case, and a high 

and low scenario. 

 DOE may also evaluate other price projections 

that could be provided by stakeholders as 

sensitivities. So that’s for electricity. 

 The next slide shows the approach for natural 

gas and oil prices and again they’re being used to 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

124

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

convert energy use into energy costs. Of course, in 

some cases we will have gas water heaters, oil water 

heaters, so we need to do those conversions, and we 

know that from the RECS Household Survey, we know what 

the fuel types are. 

 So those are coming from the Natural Gas 

Monthly Petroleum Navigator and again we’ll be using 

the Annual Energy Outlook to do projections for those 

13 disaggregated areas of the country. 

 And again we’ll be evaluating other price 

projections that may be provided by the stakeholders as 

sensitivities. So it’s the same type of approach for 

those fuels. 

 And finally for water prices, which are going 

to be used to convert the water use into water costs, 

we’ll be using American Waterworks Association data and 

data from consulting firm Raftelis Financial 

Consulting, and to look at the projection of future 

water prices, we’re planning to look at the historical 

Bureau of Labor’s Consumer Price Index for water and 

sewerage and historical Raftelis data for projections 

of future average water prices. There’s a slight 

glitch there in that second bullet which I thought was 

corrected but it’s okay. 

 The historical RFC data should come after the 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

125

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

sewerage, okay, and then once again if there are other 

projections that are provided, they may also be looked 

at as sensitivities. 

 MR. OSANN: This is Ed Osann. I’m sorry. I 

didn’t follow the correction you were making in the 

slide. 

 MR. TURIEL: Oh, it’s just a grammatical 

thing. The historical RFC data should have been over 

here. This phrase “historical RFC data” should be over 

here before the “for projections.” Both of those are 

being used for projections and somehow it got put in 

the wrong spot. We tried to correct it but somehow 

it’s still there. So it’s just a grammatical error 

really. 

 MS. PINTO: Do you want to review that 

sentence? 

 MR. TURIEL: Sure. I’ll re-read it again. 

DOE will use historical Bureau of Labor’s Consumer 

Price Index for water and sewerage and historical RFC 

data for projections of future average water prices. 

 MR. OSANN: I gotcha. 

 MR. TURIEL: Yeah. So just got stuck, that 

phrase, in the wrong spot. 

 MR. OSANN: Is that Bureau of Labor 

Statistics or is that something else? 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

126

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. TURIEL: The Consumer Price Index. 

That’s something that I’ll ask Camilla to answer. 

 MS. WHITEHEAD: Yes. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: I didn’t hear the response. 

 MS. WHITEHEAD: Yes. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Thank you. 

 MR. TURIEL: And last in terms of converting 

things into dollars, wastewater prices are used to 

convert wastewater creation to wastewater costs and 

that data will be coming again from AWWA and Raftelis 

and for the projections of future average wastewater 

prices, we’re using again Consumer Price Index for 

water and sewerage and historical RFC data. 

 Finally on the bottom, DOE is seeking input 

from interested parties on this planned approach for 

estimating the current and forecasted energy water and 

wastewater prices. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So there is both their sources 

and how they intend to go about doing it. Comments on 

those? Ed. 

 MR. OSANN: Yeah. Ed Osann. In the 

Technical Support Document on Page 31, there’s an 

explanation of the development of the regional values 

and in the third paragraph, it refers to “average per 

unit volume residential prices will proceed in three 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

127

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

steps.” 

 I have a question about the second step. I 

think I get they calculate the per unit volume price 

for each utility, but I’m wondering about this 

“calculate a state level average by weighing each 

utility in a given state by the number of residential 

customers it serves.” 

 What are you doing there? 

 MR. TURIEL: I don’t have that in front of me 

right now, but -- 

 MR. BROOKMAN: I do. 

 MR. TURIEL: Yeah. That might help. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Number 2, calculate the state 

level. 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: And just a correction. The 

document that’s being referred to is actually the 

Framework Document, Page 31. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

 MR. TURIEL: So this is talking about water 

and wastewater prices specifically, not about the other 

fuels. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Greg, you want to add in here? 

Greg, go ahead. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yeah. I can answer that. 

The data is provided by water utility and so within a 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

128

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

given state, you know, they also provide the data for 

the number of customers that are being served. So to 

get to a weighted average for each state, which is 

multiplying that price by the number of customers that 

that utility serves, so that’s Step 2. 

 MR. OSANN: So if you have data for utilities 

that together serve a million and a half people and 

there are three million people in the state, what 

happens? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yeah. We’re just weighting 

-- we’re using the weight that the utility is serving, 

the number of customers it’s serving. So if it’s only 

serving one and a half million, that’s what we’re using 

as our weight, not the total number of people in the 

state. 

 So if a state has, let’s say, 10 utilities 

but we only have data on five of them, we’re only using 

those five utilities as a basis for the water price for 

that state. 

 MR. OSANN: So you’re using those five 

utilities -- 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Right. 

 MR. OSANN: -- weighted by the number of 

customers? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Exactly. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

129

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. OSANN: And then calling that the state? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yes. 

 MR. OSANN: Okay. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Because that’s the data that 

we have. We don’t have any other data. 

 MR. OSANN: Okay. Thank you. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. And, of course, if 

there are other data sources that anybody had that the 

department doesn’t know about, they’d like to have it. 

So any thoughts on that? Anything else that is 

available that they haven’t put their fingers on yet? 

 MR. OSANN: I believe that California 

publishes an Annual Wastewater Price Survey that is 

encompassing nearly all wastewater service providers. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

 MR. OSANN: And it’s available online. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Good. So other 

comments on these pricing -- energy source pricing and 

the approach taken? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

 MR. TURIEL: All right. So I’m going to now 

go through the next few inputs. There’s a few more 

left that we haven’t discussed yet and one of them is 

the maintenance, repair, installation costs and at the 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

130

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

present time, DOE doesn’t have information indicating 

that routine repair and maintenance costs are different 

for more- and less-efficient clothes washers. 

 Installation costs may change if the moreefficient products are significantly larger or heavier. 

So we’re seeking input on whether it’s correct to 

assume that changes in maintenance, repair and 

installation will be negligible for more-efficient 

clothes washers. If it’s incorrect, DOE would like 

reasons why this is so and specific ways to correct 

that assumption. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. 

 MR. POLINSKI: Steve Polinski from Miele. 

High-efficiency apartment-size front-loading clothes 

washers can be stacked with the dryer on top or builtin under a counter, perhaps with an integrated panel to 

match kitchen cabinetry, will have an inherent higher 

cost of installation and because of the need to remove 

them from those complicated installations can be 

associated with higher repair costs. 

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

 MR. MESSNER: Yeah, yeah. Overall, the 

higher-efficiency configurations do have higher costs 

of maintenance and repair. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Attributable to what? 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

131

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. MESSNER: Don’t have specifics right now. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, okay. 

 MR. MESSNER: We can look to see what there 

is on that. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

 MR. MANTHEI: Phil Manthei, Alliance Laundry 

Systems. Similar to what we did in the commercial 

clothes washer rulemaking, we can provide data on this, 

as well. There is data that DOE has from that. 

Obviously the commercial clothes washers that are 

front-loading versus top-loading have the same kind of 

differences. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: It’s proportionate, -- 

 MR. MANTHEI: Yeah. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: -- you’re saying? 

 MR. MANTHEI: Yes. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. 

 MR. MANTHEI: And it’s due to the fact that, 

you know, you’ve got to have electronic controls for 

the variable speed motors, you know, and that’s a 

higher cost. The weights all have a big weights 

hanging on the tub. Products do weigh more so, you 

know, we can handle out-of-balance loads in a 

horizontal spin mode. So there are costs and different 

weights. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

132

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Ed. 

 MR. OSANN: Will the department be doing any 

independent engineering analysis of repair costs or is 

this simply a matter of collecting information from 

manufacturers or other sources in the trade? 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Judy. 

 MS. REICH: Judith Reich from Navigant 

Consulting. The Engineering Analysis does not 

incorporate repair costs. That is done strictly as 

part of the Life-Cycle Cost Analysis. 

 MR. OSANN: Well, let me just make an 

observation here about this notion of higher repair 

costs for higher-efficiency configurations. 

 Many of these products are currently marketed 

as high-end products with high first costs and the 

standard consumer advice is to repair your appliance if 

you can do so for less than half of the purchase price. 

 So if you have somebody that’s paid $1,200 

for a clothes washer, they may well be willing to spend 

more to repair it than someone who’s paid $425 for a 

clothes washer. 

 So I think DOE needs to be sort of discerning 

in reviewing these claims of higher repair costs for 

higher-efficiency machines and review the underlying 

assumptions behind the numbers that you look at. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

133

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

 MR. TURIEL: Okay. I think we have two more 

inputs left. One of them is product lifetime and in 

past analyses, we’ve used lifetime of about 14 years 

for clothes washers and so one thing we’re doing is 

investigating whether we could use the RECS data to get 

another estimate of the washer lifetime. It turns out 

RECS does ask how old the clothes washers are in 

people’s households. So we don’t have a definite 

answer on that, but we’re going to look into that as 

another possible source to get a lifetime estimate. 

 So we’re seeking input, DOE is seeking input 

on appropriate lifetimes for the clothes washer 

analysis in this rulemaking. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Kevin. 

 MR. MESSNER: Kevin Messner with AHAM. AHAM 

data shows the average useful life of top-loads is 

about 14 years but front-load configuration’s average 

useful life about 11 years. So your proposal of 14.1 

would overstate on a horizontal axis. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

 MR. TURIEL: Would you be providing that in a 

statement, written statement to us? 

 MR. MESSNER: In our written comments, we’ll 

try to delve into it more. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

134

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments on product 

lifetime? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

 MR. TURIEL: Okay. This is the last input of 

those many inputs to the LCC Analysis, discount rates, 

and they’re used to convert annual operating expenses 

to present values. So you have to have a discount rate 

to do that because these are occurring over the 

lifetime of the product, many, many years after it’s 

purchased, and the plan is to use a similar approach as 

was used for other residential product rulemakings and 

the discount rates will be derived from estimates of 

the finance costs to purchase residential products and, 

as you can see here, it’s based on two different 

approaches, two possible ways of purchasing product. 

 One is financing cost of debt incurred to 

purchase product, let’s say on a credit card or home 

equity loan, for example, which would have two very 

different interest rates associated with them, and then 

there’s also the opportunity costs where you’re losing 

interest, let’s say, because you’ve sold stuff or you 

took money out of your savings account and that yields 

a different interest rate. 

 The Federal Reserve Board Survey of Consumer 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

135

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Finances is a source of the equity and debt data that 

gives you the discount rates that we’ll be using and 

again these will be selected during the Monte Carlo 

analysis to get a distribution of discount rates that 

households will be facing when they purchase a washer. 

 And finally, DOE’s seeking input from 

stakeholders on the planned approach for estimating 

discount rates for this analysis. 

 And I think that’s the last one, I believe. 

Yeah. That is the last one. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So additional comments on 

discount rate? 

 (No response.) 

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

Greg, are you up next? 

 MR. OSANN: A question, Doug. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. Ed. 

 MR. OSANN: On discount rates. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, on discount rates, yes. 

 MR. OSANN: I think formerly DOE did a 

weighted average of the opportunities available to 

consumers, savings, paying out of savings, credit 

cards, and that sort of thing. 

 The description of the current approach is 

not entirely clear. Are you continuing with the 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

136

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

approach to the discount rate as you’ve done it in the 

past or does this analysis present a change? 

 MR. TURIEL: No. It should be the same. 

 MR. OSANN: Should be the same. Okay. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

 MR. OSANN: Thank you. 

7 Shipments Analysis, National Impact Analysis, and LCC 

8 Subgroup Analysis

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MS. WHITEHEAD: Returning here to the flow 

diagram and the pre-NOPR analysis, and I’m going to be 

covering the Shipments Analysis and the National Impact 

Analysis. 

 The Shipments Analysis develops forecasts of 

appliance shipments and those forecasts become inputs 

that are fed into the National Impact Analysis. 

 The purpose of the Shipments Analysis is to 

estimate the impacts to appliance shipments caused by 

potential new efficiency standards. The method relies 

on the development of a shipments model which is based 

on a variety of data sources, including historical 

shipments data. 

 The shipments model considers only the 

products covered by this rulemaking, that is 

residential clothes washers. The shipments model 

provides two main functions. The first is to forecast 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

137

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

the shipments during each year the standard is in 

effect. The second is to account for the total 

inventory or stock of appliances that are in service in 

the nation for any given year. 

 Furthermore, the model keeps track of the age 

of the stock so that the vintage-dependent appliance 

energy use and operating costs can be accurately 

assigned. 

 Vintage-dependent means the distribution of 

equipment age that are present in any given year. 

 The first step in the Shipments Analysis will 

be to forecast appliance shipments under the base case, 

that is, the case when no new standards are adopted. 

Under the base case, shipments will be forecasted for 

two primary markets: shipments of sales to new 

construction and units shipped as replacements for 

failed equipment. 

 Shipments to the new construction market will 

be estimated by multiplying forecasts of new housing by 

historical rates of product ownership, otherwise called 

product saturation rates. 

 DOE will get forecasts of new housing starts 

from the Energy Information Administration’s Annual 

Energy Outlook. The AEO is published annually by EIA 

and the most recent available version will be used for 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

138

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

the pre-NOPR analyses. 

 Both RECS and AHAM Fact Book provide 

historical product saturation rates. 

 Shipment forecasts will be calibrated to the 

historical shipments data by first determining the 

discrepancy between the historical forecasts, otherwise 

called backcasts, and the shipments data. 

 DOE plans to attribute any discrepancy in 

sales between the backcasts and the shipments data to 

early replacements. 

 Shipments for the replacement market will be 

estimated by applying product retirement functions to 

existing product stock in the overall housing stock. 

Retirement functions will be based on the product 

lifetime estimates developed from the Life-Cycle Cost 

and the Payback Period Analysis and from the historical 

shipments data. Other sources for historical shipments 

are Appliance Magazine and AHAM Fact Book. 

 Requests will also be made to interested 

parties for historical shipments. 

 Here’s the request. DOE asks interested 

parties to provide data on representative saturation 

rates for residential clothes washers and this is the 

form that we’re using. Again, we’re wanting the most 

recent data and as far back as people can give. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

139

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 As you see in this slide, we show historical 

clothes washer shipments data requests by the product 

class. You see the three current main product classes, 

top-loading, front-loading, and suds-saving, and then 

within the top-loading class, we’re considering 

compact, standard, and semi-automatic. 

 Although DOE has historical shipments data 

from the AHAM Fact Book and Appliance Magazine by 

product category, DOE does not have shipments by each 

product class and therefore requests that data. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So there is that, those 

two requests, 9.1 and 9.2. Kevin. 

 MR. MESSNER: Kevin Messner with AHAM. Yeah. 

AHAM will be able to provide saturation rates for 

residential clothes washers and also historical 

shipment information for top- and front-loaders for -- 

there’s a couple products in there that we already 

commented -- 

 MS. WHITEHEAD: Yes. 

 MR. MESSNER: -- previously -- 

 MS. WHITEHEAD: Yes. 

 MR. MESSNER: -- that we think should go 

away. 

 MS. WHITEHEAD: Yeah, yes. Absolutely. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Additional 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

140

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

comments on this approach and these sources of data? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

 MS. WHITEHEAD: After developing our base 

case shipments forecasts, we would then need to develop 

standards case shipments forecasts. In other words, 

the shipments forecasted after new standard is adopted. 

 The standards case shipments forecasts are 

developed using the same data as the base case 

shipments forecasts but with one important difference. 

We plan to account for the purchase price increases and 

the operating costs savings due to standards to 

estimate any changes in the base case forecasts. 

 Now generally it’s difficult to find data 

that demonstrates how appliance shipments are impacted 

by purchase price and operating costs. So if we’re not 

able to obtain any data, we may forecast standard case 

shipments with some areas that assume certain drops in 

annual shipments for particular standard levels. 

 Finally, we’ll try to incorporate any impacts 

from any future market pull programs, such as 

EnergyStar levels or tax credits, on forecasted 

standards case shipments. 

 Because of the issue of how the standards 

will impact future shipments is important, we will be 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

141

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

seeking input from manufacturers during the preliminary 

period of Manufacturer Impact Analysis on how these 

manufacturers think standards will impact future 

appliance sales. Of course, we welcome input from any 

other interested parties on this issue, as well. 

 We’re also interested in any information on 

existing market pull programs and how these programs 

may change in the future to promote the sales of more 

efficient appliances. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Kevin. 

 MR. MESSNER: Kevin Messner with AHAM. On 

the market pull program side of the equation, AHAM’s 

very supportive of the Energy Efficient Appliance 

Rebate Program. It’s right now in the states and the 

state energy offices will implement and we’re hoping 

that states will implement this quickly and will 

include clothes washers and there are a lot of existing 

rebate programs that are out there, as well, right now 

that should be leveraged in this area. 

 A final note. We think that EnergyStar does 

serve a vital function to promote higher energy 

efficiency products and which also leads to making more 

stringent standards less necessary. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Other 

comments on market programs? Other input from 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

142

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

manufacturers on the potential impact of new energy 

conservation standards on shipments? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: I’m not sure you introduced 

yourself at the outset. 

 MS. WHITEHEAD: Oh, I’m sorry. My name is 

Camilla Dunham Whitehead and I work at Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Camilla. Okay. So 

no additional comments on Shipments, we’re going to 

proceed. 

 MS. WHITEHEAD: Okay. Well, back to this 

flow diagram and the National Shipments -- I’m sorry -- 

we just finished the Shipments Analysis. We’ll proceed 

to the National Impact Analysis as the final step in 

the pre-NOPR. 

 The National Impact Analysis takes inputs 

from the LCC and Payback Period Analysis and the 

Shipments Analysis to develop national energy and water 

savings and national economic impacts from proposed 

standards. 

 The purpose of the National Impact Analysis 

is to estimate the energy and water savings and 

economic impacts that may result from the standard. 

National energy and water savings and economic impacts 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

143

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

are calculated on an annual basis before being summed 

into a cumulative value. 

 The NIA uses a model that incorporates 

forecasts of product shipments and then tracks the 

inventory of equipment that is in service for any given 

year. 

 Each year, as new appliances are shipped and 

old appliances are retired, the analysis adds and 

subtracts appliances to the existing stock, thus the 

model estimates the historical, current, and projected 

stock of residential clothes washers. 

 The NIA also employs the per unit total 

installed cost and the per unit annual energy and water 

consumption developed in the LCC Analysis and 

aggregates these costs and energy and water use values 

based on the vintage of the stock. 

 The energy savings are defined in terms of 

quads saved, that is, quadrillion or 10 to the 15th

BTUs saved. While energy use in the LCC Analysis is 

determined at the site, that is, at the household or 

building level where the product is being used, the 

National Impact Analysis calculates the energy use at 

the source, that is, before the power plant. 

 To calculate the source consumption, we 

account for the transmission and distribution of the 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

144

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

energy as well as the efficiency of the power plant. 

Water savings are expressed in million gallons and 

consider only site savings. 

 Economic impact is defined in terms of the 

national net present value or NPV calculated in 

dollars. Because the standard is in effect over 

several years, we discount the value of future savings 

in order to estimate the present value of the national 

economic impact using a discount rate. 

 Now let’s look at how the national energy and 

water savings associated with the standard are 

determined. To demonstrate the calculation process, 

I’ll use this flow chart. 

 Based on the historical shipments, the 

shipments model generates shipments forecasts for a 

base case and a standard case. The base case is the 

case without new appliance standards while the 

standards case is the case assuming no equipment 

standards have taken effect, and the base case, the 

energy and water use is calculated annually over the 

time period extending from 2015, the assumed effective 

date of the new standard, through 2045. 

 The annual energy and water use for any given 

year is calculated from the vintage of the equipment 

stock for that year. As discussed earlier, the 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

145

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

equipment stock is a function of the base case 

shipments forecast. 

 For a standards case, energy and water is 

also calculated annually for the same time period, 2015 

through 2045. For both the base case and standards 

case, the annual energy and water consumption for the 

forecasted time period are summed to yield cumulative 

energy and water consumption. 

 The difference between the base case and 

standards case cumulative energy and water consumption 

is the cumulative energy and water savings. 

 At this point in the calculation process, 

energy savings are still in site savings, that is, 

energy savings that do not account for the 

transmission, distribution, and generation required to 

provide the energy. 

 Water savings remain in site savings, 

reflecting consumer rather than utility savings. So 

the cumulative site energy savings are then 

disaggregated into annual values and are multiplied by 

annual site-to-source conversion factors. 

 The resulting annual source energy and site 

water savings are summed to yield the national energy 

and water savings. 

 We simplified the look of the slide by 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

146

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

putting the conversion in the summing step. The siteto-source conversion step actually occurs in the 

calculation of the base and standard cases of annual 

energy and water consumption. 

 Now we’ll look at the national economic 

impacts or the net present value. To demonstrate the 

calculation process, I’ll use a flow chart again. 

 As with the calculation of national energy 

savings, base case and standard case shipments are 

forecasted from the time the standards take effect 

through 30 years. Economic inputs consist of costs for 

electricity, water, wastewater, repair and maintenance, 

and total equipment. 

 For both the base case and the standards 

case, cumulative energy, cumulative water, repair and 

maintenance, and total equipment costs are determined 

for the time period extending from 2015, the assumed 

effective date of the standard, through 2045. 

 The cumulative costs are composed of annual 

costs determined for each year during this time period. 

After the base case and standards case, costs are 

determined. The annual energy and water costs and 

annual repair and maintenance costs are summed together 

into total operating costs and the annual equipment 

costs are summed together into total equipment costs. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

147

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 The difference between the base case and 

standard case cumulative operating costs yields the 

cumulative operating cost savings, while the difference 

between the cumulative total equipment costs yields the 

cumulative total equipment costs increase. 

 The difference between the operating cost 

savings and the equipment cost increase is what we call 

the net present value. If the operating cost savings 

are greater than the equipment cost increase, there is 

a net benefit to the nation from the new standard. If 

the equipment cost increase is greater, there’s a net 

burden to the nation from the new standard. 

 This next slide covers the need for 

historical shipment-weighted efficiency data. Key 

inputs to the National Impact Analysis are dependent on 

shipment-weighted efficiency data. 

 For example, per unit annual energy 

consumption data from the LCC Analysis, which are 

necessary for determining the national energy savings, 

are dependent on the product’s shipment-weighted 

efficient, as are equipment retail prices and per unit 

annual operating costs which are also from the LCC 

Analysis and are necessary for determining the NPV, 

the net present value. 

 The historical trends in shipment-weighted 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

148

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

efficiency will be used to project future equipment 

efficiencies for the base case. AHAM’s Fact Book 

provides historical shipment-weighted efficiency data 

for all clothes washers. DOE would like this data 

broken down by product class because DOE plans to 

conduct the NIA by product class. 

 The market share efficiency data will be used 

to help estimate how standards will impact base case 

shipment-weighted efficiencies. We’ve already 

described this market share efficiency data back in the 

LCC and Payback Period Analysis. We refer to this data 

as base case efficiency distributions. 

 This data will show the distribution of 

appliance efficiencies being sold. Therefore, under 

the new standard, one possibility would be for all 

shipments currently below the standard to roll to that 

standard level. The resulting new efficiency 

distribution would be used to calculate a new shipmentweighted efficiency. 

 We have used roll-up scenarios in past 

rulemakings to forecast standards impacts. We are 

certainly open to using other types of scenarios to 

estimate the impacts from standards. 

 This slide shows the historical shipmentweighted efficiency data we are hoping to receive, the 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

149

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

template, not that we’re requesting efficiency data for 

each product class. 

 The first item on this slide just repeats our 

request for historical shipment-weighted efficiency 

data and market share efficiency data, otherwise called 

base case efficiency distributions, and then Item 2 on 

this slide asks for any input on our plan for 

developing spreadsheet models to estimate national 

impacts. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So both requests for data and 

the general approach. Kevin. 

 MR. MESSNER: Kevin Messner with AHAM. On 

the data request, we can provide information for the 

last few years by product class, but we’ll probably be 

unable to share any data on compact top-loaders, given 

the small number of manufacturers. 

 MS. WHITEHEAD: Okay. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, Edwin. 

 MR. HORNQUIST: Edwin Hornquist. I was just 

wondering what the -- you indicated here in the 

national energy and water savings flow diagram that 

there’s a site-to-source energy conversion. Is that 

just to the energy component? 

 MS. WHITEHEAD: Yes, it’s just in the energy 

component, not in the water component. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

150

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. HORNQUIST: Okay. Thank you. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, okay. Ed. 

 MR. OSANN: A couple questions about the NIA. 

The period of analysis is 30 years. Is that an 

artifact of the product life of this particular product 

or is there something larger that directs you to use a 

30-year period? 

 MS. WHITEHEAD: Greg. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: This is Greg Rosenquist 

again. Yeah. It’s an analysis period which DOE has 

chosen over the last several rulemakings to use a 30-

year time period. 

 MR. OSANN: The last several rulemakings for 

various products? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Right. Exactly. So it’s 

been consistent amongst a group of products. I believe 

it’s done for the purposes of being able to compare 

failure across all products, the potential energy 

savings that you can get from standards. 

 MR. OSANN: Okay. Thank you. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Francine Pinto. 

 MS. PINTO: Francine Pinto. It’s been more 

than just the last few rulemakings. I mean, it’s been 

a practice of DOE for many, many years, and I can’t 

quantify. I don’t know if it’s 30 years. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

151

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. OSANN: Thank you. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Several. 

 MS. PINTO: It’s a lot. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. 

 MR. MANTHEI: This is Phil Manthei from 

Alliance Laundry Systems. Probably the 1996 rulemaking 

process improvement rule. 

 MS. PINTO: Could be. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks, Phil. Ed, keep 

going, yes. 

 MR. OSANN: I understood you to say that the 

savings are to the consumer. 

 MS. WHITEHEAD: For water. 

 MR. OSANN: For water. 

 MS. WHITEHEAD: Right. I’m sorry. The 

conversion factor. I’m still sort of stuck on that. 

Sorry. I’m interrupting you. 

 MR. OSANN: My recollection is that for both 

energy and water -- for neither energy and water are 

you looking at the -- trying to capture the price 

effects of -- upon utility services or the effect upon 

utility service prices resulting from the standards 

case. 

 In other words, to the extent that demand for 

energy or water and wastewater service is tempered by 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

152

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

the presence of a standard and the improved efficiency 

performance of the installed stock of appliances over 

time, you’re not looking at any effect that might have 

on utility prices. 

 MS. WHITEHEAD: So, in other words, if demand 

goes down, utility prices may go up? Is that what 

you’re suggesting? 

 MR. OSANN: No. The opposite. That if 

demand is tempered, there will be less upward pressure 

on prices for both -- for any of the utility services, 

electric, gas, water, sewer, and particularly on this 

product, keep in mind that the proportion of 

residential water consumption represented by the 

clothes washer is much larger than the proportion of 

residential energy consumption. 

 I think it’s between 20 and 25 percent of 

typical residential indoor use. So it’s a very large 

fraction of residential water consumption. Residential 

consumption is a large fraction of total water 

consumption. Residential water consumption is larger, 

relatively speaking, than residential energy 

consumption, certainly comparing electricity, compared 

with electricity. 

 So there could well be a price response, 

particularly over such a long period of analysis, over 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

153

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

30 years, due to the deferral of infrastructure 

investments by utilities, among other things, as well 

as the accumulation of lower operating costs, operating 

cost savings. 

 So we would recommend that DOE consider ways 

of capturing the prospect of lower prices to consumers 

as part of the consumer savings and not just the 

initial bill effects. 

 We’ve made this recommendation in the past 

with regard to energy consumption in certain product 

rulemakings and we would repeat that with regard to 

energy consumption here and redouble the recommendation 

with regard to water and wastewater. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So, Ed, if you or your 

colleagues had specific approaches for how that might 

be addressed, then I think that would be a starting 

point for the department. 

 MR. OSANN: I guess I would have a question. 

Is there anything that the DOE or the consulting team 

would view as a particular conceptual or analytical 

hurdle to cross to be able to capture those savings? 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Greg Rosenquist. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: What’s been done in very 

recent past rulemakings is to use, for energy, to use 

NEMS and to determine potentially or possibly what 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

154

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

effect the standard itself has on energy prices to all 

consumers, and, for example, that was included in the 

furnace and boiler standards rulemaking. It’s been 

included in the recent AHAM or home appliance standards 

rulemaking. 

 For something like home appliances where the 

standards themselves aren’t saving a tremendous amount 

of energy, at least for the products we’ve been 

analyzing, the effect is very, very small. For 

something like furnace and boilers, where the primary 

energy being used is gas, it can be potentially 

significant. 

 Now, another issue here is whether or not 

that benefit is a true benefit, that is, it isn’t 

simply a transfer from utilities to consumers. So 

that’s a question that NEMS isn’t able to answer. What 

it is able to estimate, though, is the possible impact 

to prices to consumers and so that’s one analytical 

method we have used recently. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Additional comments on 

this request? Yes, Edwin. 

 MR. HORNQUIST: Just a clarifying question. 

Back to the purpose of this analysis, which is to 

quantify. It’s a similar question, I hope. 

 Wastewater savings, where are those being 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

155

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

captured again? 

 MS. WHITEHEAD: Those are captured in the LCC 

Analysis and then summed in the National Impact 

Analysis. 

 MR. HORNQUIST: In the savings analysis? 

 MS. WHITEHEAD: That’s correct. 

 MR. HORNQUIST: Okay. So are we talking 

about the costs, the switch costs to the consumer -- 

 MS. WHITEHEAD: That’s correct. 

 MR. HORNQUIST: -- onsite? 

 MS. WHITEHEAD: Onsite. That’s right. 

 MR. HORNQUIST: So you’re not attempting to 

characterize the cost of treatment, water treatment? 

 MS. WHITEHEAD: No, this doesn’t go beyond 

the household or the building where the washing machine 

is located. 

 MR. OSANN: But it is the cost of treatment 

to the consumer, utility costs, utility bill? 

 MS. WHITEHEAD: Utility bill, yeah. 

 MR. OSANN: Okay. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: We’re going to keep pressing 

on here. 

 MS. WHITEHEAD: Okay. Well, this concludes 

the pre-NOPR and so we’re going to go on now to the 

NOPR Analyses and Greg and Judith will talk. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

156

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Just to emphasize that the 

pre-NOPR analyses are now concluded. Now we’re going 

to talk about the analyses that are conducted for the 

NOPR and the final rule and these analyses have been 

after the preliminary analyses or the pre-NOPR analyses 

are published. 

 And this reorients you to again the steps in 

the appliance standards rule process and for the NOPR, 

these chevrons indicate what analysis are done. I 

mean, most importantly, after the preliminary analyses 

are published, there is the comment period and that 

will -- some of those comments typically cause DOE to 

revise its pre-NOPR analyses, so revise its Engineering 

Analyses, National Impacts. 

 And then after those are revised, then all of 

these other analyses are conducted, the Life-Cycle Cost 

Subgroup, Manufacturer Impact, Utility Impact, 

Employment Impact, Environmental Assessment, and 

Regulatory Impact. 

 The first step I’m going to be talking about 

here is the Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup, and the purpose 

of this analysis is to determine whether particular 

subgroups of the population are disproportionally 

impacted by the standards relative to the general 

population that uses these products, and the method 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

157

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

that is used is to use the same method that’s used for 

the LCC Analysis but use a smaller sample of households 

that we potentially want to look at. 

 In the past, DOE has looked at low-income 

households and senior households to see whether or not 

those particular groups are impacted any differently 

than the general population. 

 So this is the first request for comment as 

to whether or not DOE should focus on any particular 

subgroups for this analysis. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: I was distracted there for a 

moment. Did you say what subgroups you considered 

previously? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yeah. Low-income and 

seniors. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. Any 

additional thoughts on subgroups? Kevin. 

 MR. MESSNER: Yes, I have some thoughts on 

the subgroups and also I just wanted to -- on the preNOPR, I should have commented on the record. I want 

these to be attributed to the pre-NOPR part, although 

it may not necessarily matter. 

 But there was a number of -- talk about AHAM 

providing data in a number of areas, and I just want to 

be clear. We’ll look to provide that, but there’s a 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

158

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

number of areas and under the timeline of this 

rulemaking where the final written responses are due in 

a few days, not sure what kind of data we’ll be able to 

pull together. So I just wanted to be clear when I 

said we’ll look to provide that data, that we’ll try to 

do the best we can in certain areas, but don’t know 

what we necessarily can pull together in those short 

time frames. I just wanted to do that at the end as an 

overall because of the number of issues. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: In the event you can’t get it 

all together by September 28th, -- 

 MR. MESSNER: 28th, yeah. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: -- will you continue to plug 

away at it and -- 

 MR. MESSNER: We’re always open when working 

with DOE and this is a good collaborative process. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. Thank you. 

 MR. MANTHEI: This is Phil Manthei from 

Alliance Laundry Systems. I think we’ve in the past 

had at least like three months to kind of get that kind 

of data together. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks for that. Did 

you want to talk about subgroups? 

 MR. MESSNER: Yes. I think you just 

mentioned it, too, and I was a little distracted, too. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

159

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 But the subgroups of low-income and perhaps 

elderly folks with back problems, did you say that you 

are considering or you have looked at that in the past? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yeah. 

 MR. MESSNER: Yeah. Okay. And that makes 

sense. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, okay. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yeah. Just to elaborate on 

that, RECS allows us to get down to that level, to 

specify, you know, which household income and which 

households where the main household members is a 

senior. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed. 

 MR. OSANN: Yeah. With regard to subgroups, 

one group might be those that are looking for an ADAcompliant machine and another subgroup that DOE should 

consider is consumers who pay utility bills but do not 

select the machine, do not pay for the machine. 

 For this particular rulemaking, probably the 

place to look for those would be renters of singlefamily homes or maybe duplexes where they’re likely to 

have an in-unit washing machine that they have not had 

any choice in paying for but are paying utility bills. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Okay. Now I’ll hand it over 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

160

1 to Judy to talk about the Manufacturer Impact Analysis. 

2 Manufacturer Impact Analysis

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MS. REICH: Judith Reich again from Navigant 

Consulting. 

 In the NOPR stage, the Manufacturer Impact 

Analysis expands upon and refines the Preliminary MIA 

that was performed as part of the pre-NOPR and its 

purpose is, first, to quantify what the impacts might 

be of potential proposed standards on various 

manufacturers and as part of that, not only is it 

looking at the industry as a whole but it’s also 

identifying and estimating those impacts on subgroups 

of manufacturers that may be impacted 

disproportionately or differently than the rest of the 

industry and those subgroups can include small 

businesses as defined by the Small Business 

Association. 

 They can also be manufacturers whose market 

focus or cost structure is significantly different, 

such that they again would be impacted differently. 

 And then, finally, the MIA once again 

examines what the effects of the cumulative regulatory 

burden is on the industry. 

 The technique that the DOE uses to perform 

the MIA is the Government Regulatory Impact Model with 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

161

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

the rather unfortunate acronym of GRIM, and in this, 

DOE analyzes the discounted annual cash flows. I 

believe it’s for the period when the standards are 

first announced through a few years after they become 

effective and they also evaluate the industry net 

present value. 

 The second piece is that DOE conducts more 

extensive and further interviews with the manufacturers 

in order to receive some feedback on the results of the 

GRIM to help develop this subgroup analysis and to 

identify other key issues, more qualitative issues that 

manufacturers may be concerned with. 

 Having completed Phase 1 in the pre-NOPR, the 

NOPR stage consists of Phases 2 and 3. In Phase 2, DOE 

develops its initial cut, the strawman GRIM, and 

creates an interview guide that is then subsequently 

used in Phase 3. 

 These interviews are conducted as well as the 

industry subgroup analysis and, further, DOE looks at 

additional impacts to the industry that would include 

the direct employment impacts of potential standards, 

any changes to the competitive landscape and again the 

cumulative burden. 

 The GRIM, the first version of the GRIM, the 

strawman, is used as the launching point basis of 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

162

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

discussion for these interviews and it attempts to 

capture a number of inputs that help refine the picture 

of the industry and these can include what the 

manufacturer prices are for products and shipments 

forecasts, manufacturing cost estimates, and it also 

uses various sources to develop financial information, 

including revenues, various costs, cost of goods sold, 

selling costs, G&A, taxes, et. cetera. 

 The interview guide is more extensive than 

what was used in the Preliminary MIA because not only 

is it looking for feedback on some of the initial 

analyses that have been completed, the Engineering 

Analysis and the Shipments Model, but it’s also trying 

to get at some -- drill down into some more detailed 

issues, such as these employment impacts, any issues 

relating to important export of the products, the 

issues of industry consolidation, et. cetera, and also, 

in particular, what impact will be associated with the 

effective date of the standards. 

 The Phase 3 tasks are the manufacturer 

interviews, confidential interviews, discussing all 

range of potential impacts resulting from various 

standards that could be proposed, including whether at 

a particular proposed standard level, whether that 

might result in obsolescence of some of the existing 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

163

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

products that would strand assets, require new tooling, 

development of new production lines, new capital 

investments, et. cetera. 

 These interviews help develop the industry 

subgroup analysis, looking at various issues that 

affect the competitive impacts for the smaller or 

specifically-identified disproportionately-impacted 

manufacturers, looks in more detail again at the 

cumulative regulatory burden, and attempts to identify 

impacts, the direct employment impacts, and I guess on 

the manufacturer subgroups, also. 

 This is really a duplicate of the slide that 

we had for the Preliminary MIA, again noting that there 

are regulatory issues outside of the clothes washer 

rulemaking that would impact manufacturers concurrently 

with these proposed or potential standards. 

 A specific topic DOE seeks comment on is 

appropriate manufacturer subgroups, if any, that it 

should consider in its manufacturer subgroup analysis, 

and again if there are regulations or pending 

regulations that will contribute to a cumulative burden 

on manufacturers. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Kevin. 

 MR. MESSNER: Kevin Messner with AHAM. On 

the appropriate manufacturer subgroups, smaller niche 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

164

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

manufacturers should be considered. These 

manufacturers often have less access to the newer 

technologies and in this economic climate have fewer 

resources available for research and development of 

products. That’s one subgroup. 

 On the cumulative regulatory burdens, I just 

commented earlier back in 5.8, the International 

Association of Plumbing Manufacturers and Officials 

have recently announced a draft version that deals with 

clothes washers and it will introduce a substantial 

impact burden on clothes washers manufacturers because 

they’re substantially lower than the 2011 EnergyStar 

levels. 

 The CEE Tiers continue to be raised, as 

mentioned before, and they can push technology beyond 

the practicable performance and price points and some 

of the percentages of a DOE standard and they don’t 

necessarily always have strong data that support these 

tier levels. 

 And the multiple and numerous ongoing 

rulemakings that are going on right now at DOE include 

clothes dryers, refrigerators-freezers, room air 

conditioners, commercial clothes washers. It’s a 

substantial regulatory burden and the economic climate 

that we’re in has made it even more onerous and so this 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

165

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

rulemaking again, as we stated before and need to 

emphasize very strongly, that this has to look at the 

cumulative regulatory impact and the economic 

justification. 

 You’ve mentioned some others, as well, that I 

haven’t listed here with RoHS, I don’t know how you 

pronounce it, the Hazardous Substance issues, the DHCFC 

issues and other things that you’ve looked at. It’s 

substantial regulatory burdens that are accumulating on 

the manufacturers. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

 MR. MANTHEI: Phil Manthei, Alliance Laundry 

Systems. I would assume DOE would be looking at us as 

a small manufacturer and a subgroup manufacturer. 

Obviously, we’re a highly-leveraged small company. We 

don’t have the resources that the three major 

manufacturers do. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, please, 

Steve. 

 MR. POLINSKI: Steve Polinski from Miele. 

Also currently part of the regulatory burden in clothes 

care is there is UL activity in UL-2157 revisiting an 

entrapment issue that may cause redesign of door lock 

mechanisms to prevent child entrapment. 

 A similar effort is underway for dishwashers 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

166

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

to prevent child entrapment and in clothes dryers, UL2158 was just revised with an effective date of March 

2012, I believe, for fire containment which will also 

cause a major redesign for clothes dryer manufacturers. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Yes, 

please, Paige. 

 MS. DETRICK: Paige Detrick, BSH. Also 

keeping with the theme of UL, they have -- there is a 

standard implement, I believe it’s 2012-2013, for 

functional safety which will affect all the control 

systems. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Functional safety. 

Okay. Then proceeding on -- further comments on this 

subject? Yes, Edwin. 

 MR. HORNQUIST: Question. This is Edwin 

Hornquist, SoCal Edison. I’m just curious about the 

manufacturer impact. 

 Again, this is possibly just out of ignorance 

of how this is conducted, but is there an attempt to 

capture any positive impacts, as well? 

 MS. REICH: Oh, certainly. All range of 

impacts are quantified, both positive and negative. 

 MR. HORNQUIST: Could you outline some of 

those that have been identified so far? 

 MS. REICH: Well, at this point I couldn’t 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

167

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

say what the impacts would be, but it’s certainly not 

restricted to only negative impacts. Whichever way the 

analysis shows would certainly include all impacts. 

 MR. HORNQUIST: Okay. Thank you. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Mike. 

 MR. McGARRAGHAN: Mike McGarraghan, PG&E. 

Just wanted to clarify one other thing. 

 It’s my understanding that DOE is comparing 

this standards case impacts to the base case impacts, 

so that events and other regulatory burdens that are 

going on independent of this rulemaking would not be 

considered, such as the recession or other rulemakings 

that may affect some manufacturers who may make those 

other products. 

 So my understanding would be that those types 

of things are happening, irrespective of this 

rulemaking and therefore wouldn’t factor into the 

analysis here. 

 MS. REICH: You’re correct, that it is 

attempting to quantify the impacts in the GRIM of just 

the standards case versus base case. 

 MR. McGARRAGHAN: Thank you. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay, okay. Then 

we’re going to keep moving on here. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

168

1 

2 Utility Impact Analysis, Employment Impact Analysis, 

3 Environmental Assessment, and Regulatory Impact 

4 Analysis

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Okay. We’re in the home 

stretch here. So I’m going to be talking about the 

last four analyses really quickly, starting with the 

Utility Impact. 

 Its purpose is to assess the impact of 

standards on energy suppliers, both electricity, gas 

and oil, in the case of clothes washers. The method 

that DOE has used and proposes to use for this 

rulemaking is to use a variant of NEMS, called NEMS-BT 

and it’s called NEMS-BT because we’re modifying it to 

analyze the effect of an appliance standard. 

 The outputs of the analysis are forecasts of 

electricity and gas sales, price, avoided capacity 

resulting from standard, and again we’re looking at how 

the standard affects each of those things relative to 

the base case. 

 What DOE does is it takes the energy savings 

calculated from the National Impact Analysis and uses 

that as an input into NEMS-BT to make these or 

calculate or determine these impacts on gas sales and 

price and avoided capacity. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

169

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 So the request here is for any comment on 

this approach to use NEMS-BT to do this analysis and 

whether or not there are any other approaches that the 

stakeholders may think are more appropriate than using 

NEMS. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. 

 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, EarthJustice. Just to 

clarify, first of all, the Utility Impact Analysis will 

not consider impacts on water utilities, just electric 

or gas utilities? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: That’s the current plan. 

Yes, that’s the current plan. 

 The same issue came up from one of the recent 

rulemakings that also used water in particular 

commercial clothes washers and the reason there is 

because it didn’t have a nationally comprehensive tool, 

like NEMS, to do the analysis. So this time around 

we’ll be doing the same thing. We’ll be scouring the 

landscape to figure out whether or not there is an 

analytical tool that will allow us to make that 

assessment on those impacts on water utilities. 

 MR. BALLO: And just to follow-on, is that 

wrapped up in the rationale for why you don’t do a 

site-to-source conversion for water use, water savings? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: No, no. Basically, I mean, 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

170

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

maybe Camilla can comment on this, but I did not think 

the conversion factor to go from site-to-source was 

large, but again interested parties can certainly 

comment on that and we can certainly incorporate that 

into the analysis, if it’s warranted. 

 MR. BALLO: Thank you. 

 MS. PINTO: Francine Pinto. I think the 

site-to-source is a statutory. The statute 

specifically talks about site energy. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Camilla, do you want to add 

on here? 

 MS. WHITEHEAD: Yeah. In terms of the siteto-source on the water utility, water and wastewater 

utility, it’s a question of data more than anything 

else and the availability and -- 

 MR. BROOKMAN: The unavailability of data? 

 MS. WHITEHEAD: The unavailability of data. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. Thank you. Ed. 

 MR. OSANN: And then with regard to the 

Utility Impact Analysis, it’s the lack of not data but 

an analytical tool, is that correct? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: That’s correct. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Edwin. 

 MR. HORNQUIST: Edwin Hornquist. I was just 

also wondering if this modeling system, does the 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

171

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

assumption underlay an assumption that you have a 

construct, a utility construct which does not look at 

unbundling of the way the utilities make money, which 

is essentially the -- in California we have the supply 

unbundled from the savings equation. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Unfortunately, I can’t 

comment on that. I don’t know that specific issue and 

how it’s captured within NEMS. So I’ll have to get 

back to you on that one. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Other Utility Impact 

Analysis comments? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Employment Impact 

Analysis. 

 MR. OSANN: Question. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please, Ed. 

 MR. OSANN: If I’m interpreting Slide 121 

correctly, you can use NEMS-BT to identify the impacts 

on sales price and avoided capacity. 

 Having identified that, you still don’t -- 

you’re not -- you don’t capture that -- recapture that 

within the savings estimates. This is just kind of out 

there as a utility impact and it’s denominated in 

megawatts of capacity avoided or something and that’s 

what it is? 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

172

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: That’s correct. As I said 

before about using NEMS to estimate price effects to 

the consumer population, the general consumer 

population, again we have done it in the past for some 

recent rulemakings. 

 MR. OSANN: What about the National Economic 

Analysis? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yeah. That has not been 

done. It’s been kept separate. We’ve run NEMS to show 

the effect of a standard on price forecasts and 

quantify it but don’t reintroduce that effect back into 

the LCC or National Impact Analysis. 

 MR. OSANN: Is there any particular 

analytical problem with doing that? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: There’s not an analytical 

problem. It’s a question, though, of whether that 

effect, as I said before, is a true benefit and as 

opposed to just a transfer from the utilities to the 

consumers. If it’s a transfer, then it’s not an 

economic benefit at all. It’s just transferring one 

pile of money the utilities are obtaining to consumers 

and so the economy doesn’t benefit at all from that 

sort of transfer. 

 So that’s the economic question. We can 

quantify the impact but whether or not it’s a true 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

173

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

benefit is another question. 

 MR. OSANN: Avoided capacity would be -- 

there’d be a question about whether that would be an 

economic benefit or benefit that could be quantified 

economically? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: The economic impact I’m 

talking about is in the energy price. So you have an 

impact, as you said, in avoided capacity and you have 

an impact on the energy prices due to the standard and 

-- 

 MR. OSANN: And the effect that the avoided 

capacity due to the standard might have on the price, 

you’re not sure is -- 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Is a true benefit -- 

 MR. OSANN: -- a true benefit? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: -- to the nation. 

 MR. OSANN: Is there a literature on this 

that discusses this? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Oh, yeah. There’s 

literature on this topic. In the case of natural gas, 

it’s a question of whether or not that drop in price 

actually results in a drop in the cost of supply; that 

is, does it really affect the ability of gas utilities 

to extract gas out of the ground? If it does, then 

that becomes a benefit because they no longer have to 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

174

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

dedicate resources, but if that price reduction’s only 

affecting their sales at the margin, then it’s no 

benefit at all to the nation. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Maybe you could continue this 

conversation offline, if you wish. Let’s proceed. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Next is the Employment 

Impact Analysis and the purpose of this is to assess 

the overall impact on the national employment from 

standards. 

 Employment impacts are analyzed as both 

direct and indirect impacts. The direct impacts are 

determined in the Manufacturer Impact Analysis. The 

indirect impacts are determined in this portion of the 

analysis, the portion we call employment impact. 

 The effect comes from the fact that consumers 

are experiencing increased costs for this appliance but 

they also at the same time are getting operating cost 

savings. So those operating cost savings result in 

them having a higher purchase power and stimulating, 

for example, the retail sector. 

 The fact that they’re saving energy also 

impacts the utility sector in reduced sales and reduced 

revenues and impacts to that sector. So the attempt of 

this analysis is to capture all those ripple effects 

caused by the standard on consumer and customer 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

175

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

spending on energy and on the equipment. 

 The method that the DOE uses is to use this 

model called ImSET which is sort of an acronym for 

Impact of Sector Energy Technologies. DOE has been 

using this model for quite some time. A prior version 

was called ImBUILD. 

 So here, DOE’s requesting comment on using 

this approach of using ImSET to calculate the indirect 

impacts to the employment from the standards and again 

looking for any other approaches that any interested 

parties may have on how to conduct this analysis. 

 MR. OSANN: Question. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed. 

 MR. OSANN: Are these all U.S. domestic 

employment impacts? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yes. Yes, they are. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Other questions or 

comments regarding the Employment Impact Analysis? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Next, we have the 

Environmental Assessment, and its purpose is to 

estimate the effect of standards on airborne emissions, 

both from the power plant when it’s being used to 

generate electricity and both at the site where gasEERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

176

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

fired and oil-fired appliances are being used. 

 For the purposes of estimating the impacts at 

the power plant, we used NEMS-BT, the same tool that’s 

being used or proposed to be used for the Utility 

Impact Analysis, and it calculates the impact on the 

emissions listed here, first starting with carbon 

dioxide. Again, NEMS has that ability to estimate the 

impact of carbon emissions from power plants. 

 In recent rulemakings, DOE has also begun to 

monetize the value of those carbon emissions. 

 For sulfur dioxide, the Clean Air Act 

amendments have capped SO2 emissions since 1990. 

What’s not listed here is that there’s been a recent 

rule called the Clean Air Interstate Rule and that also 

has an impact on essentially the SO2 caps, so that also 

has an effect on SO2. 

 Historically, DOE, because of these caps, has 

stated that the appliance standards would have no 

effect on SO2 emissions. In light of the fact that the 

CAIR rule is now in effect, there seems to be a bit of 

a question about that. So DOE will be looking into 

that issue. 

 Finally, any economic value of reduced SO2 or 

SO2 impacts is in the form of the trading price of SO2. 

In the past, the effect or the impact on the trading 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

177

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

price has been minuscule, but DOE will be again looking 

into that as to whether or not that allowance price is 

large enough to be measurable by effect of a clothes 

washer standard. 

 Next are the nitrogen oxides and again the 

Clean Air Interstate rule for the first time 

permanently caps NOx emissions in 28 states, Eastern 

states and D.C. NEMS will be used to calculate the 

impact of the standards on NOx emissions in those 

states not covered by CAIR and in those capped states, 

what DOE will do is use NEMS to estimate again the 

impact or the potential impact to the allowance price, 

and again if it’s significant enough, DOE will try to 

reflect that impact to the allowance price in the 

analysis. 

 And finally, there’s mercury. In the past, 

DOE did issue -- not DOE but EPA issued a Clean Air 

mercury rule that has been invalidated by the courts. 

So as of right now, there is no regulation affecting 

mercury emissions, although EPA is looking into it very 

seriously and actually will soon, probably soon be 

undertaking to deal with mercury. Whatever happens 

with mercury, DOE will try to reflect that in the 

analysis. 

 And last but not least, again what isn’t 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

178

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

listed here is that for gas-fired water heating and 

gas-fired drying and oil-fired fuel that’s used in 

clothes washers, this analysis will capture the effect 

that it has on those emissions coming from those fossil 

fuel-fired appliances by using emission factors. 

 So it’s a long list of items here for 

comment. The first is any comment from stakeholders on 

how it should monetize the carbon savings that come 

about from standards. 

 Second is how DOE should treat NOx emissions 

to be consistent with the recently-revalidated Clean 

Air Interstate rule. 

 The third one has to do with mercury and what 

DOE should potentially do now that the Clean Air 

mercury rule has been invalidated, given the fact that 

EPA is also looking into this and realize that EPA’s 

actions may supersede what the stakeholders recommend 

on what to do on the mercury. 

 The fourth item has to do with the fact of 

NEMS itself. Should you use a different tool than 

NEMS? Do people feel like NEMS is appropriate to 

estimate emissions from power plants? 

 And the fifth area is whether or not there’s 

any other environmental factors that DOE should 

consider in its Environmental Impact Analysis. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

179

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed. 

 MR. OSANN: Do you have a straw proposal with 

regard to carbon valuation that you’re putting out on 

the table today? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: All I can say is in recent 

rules DOE has put a price on it and it’s probably best 

for you to refer to those recent final rules to see 

what DOE has used. 

 There’s nothing being proposed differently 

here today. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Kevin. 

 MR. MESSNER: A few -- couple comments. I’ll 

just go down the list. On carbon, if DOE chooses to 

estimate the monetary value associated with carbon 

dioxide and the emissions reductions, it should take an 

intellectually-robust view and look at all the carbon 

impacts, not just one-sided. So you should look at the 

carbon impacts that could arise from transportation of 

appliances related to the energy savings to the 

manufacturing, having to change manufacturing process, 

could be more carbon-intensive. 

 So if you’re going to look at carbon, look at 

carbon and the environmental benefits on both sides 

because there’s indirect and direct carbon emissions 

that you need to look at. 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

180

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 On the nitrogen oxide and mercury, neither 

the appliance manufacturers nor consumers have any 

control of the source of their electricity and these 

types of regulations on the nitrogen oxide and the 

mercury should be left to the regulation on power 

plants that produce the electrical energy. 

 On other environmental factors, one thing 

that you might want to consider are there are 

additional regulatory and environmental requirements 

for laundry detergents and detergents are part of the 

whole clothes washer overall system and that was -- the 

system was recognized in the test procedure, too. 

 And I think that’s it. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Any comments on the NEMS-BT 

being used as a tool? 

 MR. MESSNER: No comments on that at this 

time, no. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Tim. 

 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, EarthJustice. Just a 

comment on 15-5, Other Environmental Factors. 

 All of the analysis discussed in the 

Environmental Assessments slide goes to the energy 

savings. There’s no discussion of the environmental 

impact of the water savings and it would be good to see 

some sort of analysis or some metric for quantifying 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

181

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

what that benefit is in some way. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Ed, you wanted 

back in here. 

 MR. OSANN: Yeah. I had a question. If the 

assessment shows a reduction in either the NOx or the 

sulfur allowance price, is the reduction in the price 

considered a benefit or a disbenefit? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Well, a reduction in price 

would be a benefit. 

 MR. OSANN: Okay. 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Past analyses have shown, 

you know, essentially effectively no impact on the SO2 

allowance price from the standard. 

 MR. OSANN: Well, just to follow up again 

with Mr. Ballo’s point on 15-5, you know, once again, 

there’s no symmetry here with regard to the assessment 

of the effects of water savings. 

 I believe that in the California waiver, in 

DOE’s response to the California waiver petition, that 

California successfully made its case that there was a 

distinctive and significant environmental issue with 

regard to water supply in California. However, DOE 

found reasons to reject the waiver request on other 

grounds, other statutory grounds that they cited. 

 But there may be information in the record on 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

182

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

the waiver petition that would give you a starting 

point for consideration of the environmental impacts of 

water savings. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Additional comments on 

Environmental Assessment, all these different features? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: No additional comments. You 

want to do the final slide? 

 MR. ROSENQUIST: Yes. Finally get to the 

end, Regulatory Impact Analysis. 

 Here, the purpose is to analyze nonregulatory alternatives to standards. For example, 

like rebates, voluntary efficiency programs like 

EnergyStar, tax credits, procurement programs offered 

by state or federal governments. 

 The method typically used is to modify the 

National Impact Analysis model that we used for 

standards and modify key inputs in there to determine 

what the impact is from these non-regulatory 

alternatives. 

 What we also do is we conduct some 

comprehensive research to see what effect these 

different non-regulatory programs have had on equipment 

efficiency. 

 There have been some recent tax credits that 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

183

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

have been coming to law, cited by various folks 

throughout the day, that data is now starting to come 

in as to what their potential impact is, so we’ll be 

looking at that very closely. 

 There’s no comment box for this, but again 

open it up to everyone to see if they have any comments 

about the Regulatory Impact Analysis. 

8 Other Issues and Comments; Closing Remarks

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. BROOKMAN: And I’d expand it beyond that. 

It’s typical for the department to provide an 

opportunity for people to make brief summary remarks, 

closing remarks, that sort of thing, as we move toward 

the close of this meeting. 

 Any additional issues that people wish to 

raise? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: On behalf of DOE, I would 

like to thank you for attending. I emphasize that on 

the last page of the document is the information on how 

to send us your additional comments, data, or 

information. Please avail yourself of this 

opportunity. 

 Also, you’re always welcome to contact me 

personally if there are other questions that come up 

and we’ll try to get an answer to you, and I thank you 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

184

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

very much for attending today. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: And there’s an Evaluation 

Form. Ed, let me finish and then I’ll return to you. 

An Evaluation Form in the back of your packet. Please 

take 30 seconds to fill it out. 

 Ed. 

 MR. OSANN: Yeah. Before the meeting 

concludes, I wanted to see if DOE would be willing to 

make what I would call a humanitarian gesture and 

consider a short extension of the deadline for 

submitting comments on the Framework Document. 

 We have, of course, a strong interest in 

seeing DOE complete standards on a timely basis and 

adhere to the deadlines that DOE has entered into with 

the courts and its statutory responsibilities, as well, 

and we recognize that this process is starting late and 

that DOE is interested in making up time. 

 But I’d like to request the fact that we only 

have one week from today. Tomorrow is a travel day for 

some people. There’s simply a very limited time to get 

comments together on a document of this nature and that 

I’d like to request that all parties have four 

additional days so that the comment deadline would be a 

week from Friday rather than a week from today. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: What would that date be? 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

185

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

 MR. OSANN: I believe it’s the 2nd of 

October. 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: That’s not a call that I can 

make at this point. We have to go with the deadline as 

stated, but I will certainly look into it. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: In the event you find that you 

can provide some slip room, you’ll send out an e-mail 

to everyone? 

 MR. WITKOWSKI: Yes, we’ll send it out to the 

entire group. 

 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. Okay. Any additional 

comments, closing remarks? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. BROOKMAN: So then speaking on my behalf, 

I thank all of you for what was a very constructive 

meeting. We covered a tremendous amount of ground. 

More ground can be covered obviously. That’s what lies 

ahead. 

 Please do comply with the department’s 

request and get your comments in as soon as possible, 

and Brenda is distributing the list of the attendees. 

Please fill out the Evaluation Form and to all of you 

safe travels. 

 (Whereupon, at 3:05 p.m., the meeting was 

concluded.) 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

 (301) 565-0064

186

1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

 This is to certify that the attached proceedings 

before: 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

In the Matter of: 

 FRAMEWORK DOCUMENT PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY 

CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL CLOTHES WASHERS 

 Were held as herein appears and that this is the 

original transcript thereof for the file of the 

Department, Commission, Board, Administrative Law Judge 

or the Agency. 

 Further, I am neither counsel for or related to any 

party to the above proceedings. 

 

19 Wenfy Greene 20 

21 

22 

 Official Reporter 

Dated: December 9, 2009 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0019 COMMENT 07