**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**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 14 th 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 3 Attendees KEVIN MESSNER, Vice President Government Relations AHAM 1111 19 th 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**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**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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 6

P R O C E E D I N G S 1 2 (9:15 a.m.) Welcome and Opening Remarks, Introductions and Agenda 3 Review 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. 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 21 st , 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 7 attendees after the meeting. 1 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 8 Corporation. 1 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 9

MS. KOHL: Betsy Kohl, DOE. 1 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 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. Rulemaking and Analytical Methodology Overview 18 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The one thing that’s very important here is that all written comments are due by September 28 th

. That’s September 28 th , 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 31 st , 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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 whatJudy’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.)**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 6

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Let’s proceed then. Market and Technology Assessment 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: 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a deadline of June 30 th , 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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 31 st , 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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 28 th 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 2 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 3 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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,**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 3 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 3 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 3 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 3 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 3 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 3 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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.)**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 3 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 3 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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 standardsize 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,**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 3 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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 supportmaintaining 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 4 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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 saythat 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 4 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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,**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 4 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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 doessupport 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 4 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 4 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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 thinkthat’s a useful point. There are high-efficiency toploaders on the market.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 4 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 4 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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 basedupon 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,**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 4 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 4 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 5 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 5 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 5 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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 clotheswashers, 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 5 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 horizontal access design and then the footnote, thefootnote 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 5 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 5 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 5 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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?**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 5 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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,**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 5 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 first of all, on whether there is a definition ofproduct 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 6 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -- 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 6 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 6 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 6 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 6 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 As 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 6 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 6 6

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. Screening Analysis and Engineering Analysis 23 24 25 MS. REICH: All right. Next is up the Screening Analysis, and it’s at this stage that all the**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 6 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 6 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 6 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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 orestimate 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 7 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 7 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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 thecompact 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 7 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 7 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 7 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 23 as CEE Tier 1, which it is, is current EnergyStar as of July 1 st 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 1 st -- 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 7 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 7 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 7 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 7 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 7 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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,**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 8 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 8 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 8 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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 togetherand 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 8 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 8 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 8 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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 wereconsidered 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 8 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 8 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BROOKMAN: 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 atother 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 8 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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’drecommend 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 9 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 9 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 9 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 9 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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 commentfrom 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 9 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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 areassociated 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 9 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 9 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 9 7

1 2 3 with, regardless of whether there’s a pending rulemaking or not. MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 9 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 9 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 00

1 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 --**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 01

1 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 02

1 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 03

1 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 04

1 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.)**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 05

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.

Markups for Equipment Price Determination; Energy Use 12 Determination; and Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 13 Analysis 14 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 willtalk about analyses that are downstream from the LifeCycle Cost Analysis.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 06

1 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, wehave 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 07

1 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 08

1 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 09

1 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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 whichwe’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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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,**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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 abenefit, 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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?**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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 clotheswashers 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?**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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. 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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: 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 36

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.

Shipments Analysis, National Impact Analysis, and LCC 7 Subgroup Analysis 8 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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 15 th 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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 efficiencydistribution 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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. 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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 onthe 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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 28 th , -- MR. MESSNER: 28 th , 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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 theplace 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 60

1 to Judy to talk about the Manufacturer Impact Analysis. Manufacturer Impact Analysis 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: 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 66

1 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 68

1 Utility Impact Analysis, Employment Impact Analysis, 2 Environmental Assessment, and Regulatory Impact 3 Analysis 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. 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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,**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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?**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 72

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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 togenerate electricity and both at the site where gas**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 83

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. Other Issues and Comments; Closing Remarks 8 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**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 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?**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 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 MR. OSANN: I believe it’s the 2 nd 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.)**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301)**  **565-0064** 1 86 **REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE** 1 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.



### Wenfy Greene 19 20 21 22 Official Reporter

Dated: December 9, 2009