Opinion ID: 1192266
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Unavailability of Top-Loading Washers

Text: The DOE's third and final basis for rejecting the CEC's waiver petition was its finding that opponents of the proposed regulation had demonstrated that the 6.0 WF standard for top-loading washers would likely result in the unavailability of top-loading residential clothes washers in California. 71 Fed.Reg. 78,168. Therefore, the DOE concluded, it was precluded from granting the waiver by § 6297(d)(4), which mandates denial of a waiver if interested persons have established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the State regulation is likely to result in the unavailability in the State of any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the state at the time of the [DOE's] finding. . . . 42 U.S.C. § 6297(d)(4) (emphasis added). The DOE based this conclusion on the ground that commenters had established that there are no top-loading residential clothes washer[s] in the current market that would comply with the 6.0 WF level of the proposed California regulation. 71 Fed.Reg. 78,167. It is uncontested that, at the time that the CEC filed its waiver application, no top-loading washers existed that would meet the 6.0 WF standards; the most efficient top-loading washing machine on the market had a WF of 6.3. The CEC argues, however, that the fact that the market in 2006 has no better top-loader than a 6.3 WF model does not support the DOE's conclusion that the market is unlikely to have 6.0 WF top-loaders in 2010. The efficiency standards of existing residential washing machines are undoubtedly relevant to the capabilities of such machines to comply with a 6.0 WF in the future, and thus we do not subscribe to the CEC's sweeping argument that there was no rational connection between the facts found and the conclusions made. Envtl. Def. Ctr. v. EPA, 344 F.3d 832, 858 n. 36 (9th Cir.2003). But to deny a waiver on this final ground, the DOE was required to find that interested persons have established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the State regulation is likely to result in the unavailability [of top-loading washers]. 42 U.S.C. § 6297(d)(4) (emphasis added). To determine whether the interested parties had satisfied the standard of preponderance of the evidence, it was necessary for the DOE to weigh the commenters' evidence of future availability of top-loaders against that offered by the CEC. The DOE's finding cannot be sustained on the strength of its citation only of the commenters' evidence with reference to present capabilities. Of course, the DOE may use its own expertise to predict that, on the basis of its previous experience and current trends, the relevant industry could not achieve the requisite 5% increase in efficiency over the next three years. No such analysis appears in the DOE's order, however. The CEC provided testimony in the DOE's record in which PG & E stated that it was unlikely that there will be any limitations in features, sizes, capacities, or volumes that would result even after the implementation of the 6.0 water factor [standard]. The DOE now dismisses this testimony as a conclusionary prediction by an insufficiently expert body, but its order did not address this evidence. The DOE's failure to address CEC's evidence of the probable capability of top-loaders in the future constitutes a clear error of judgment, and thus this basis for the DOE's ruling cannot stand. Envtl. Def. Ctr., 344 F.3d at 858 n. 36. [1]