BEFORE THE
UNITED STATES
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D. C.
Appliance Labeling Rule Amendments, ) R511994 )
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking RIN 3084-AB03
COMMENTS OF THE AMERICAN GAS ASSOCIATION
The American Gas Association (AGA), founded in 1918, represents 200 local energy utility companies that deliver natural gas to more than 64 million homes, businesses and industries throughout the United States. AGA's members’ account for more than 92 percent of all natural gas delivered by the nation's natural gas utilities. Natural gas meets almost one-fourth of the United States' energy needs. AGA collects, analyzes, and disseminates information and data on the natural gas industry, promotes the safe and efficient delivery and use of energy, and serves as a national voice for the gas utility industry. AGA’s member companies are affected by the decisions consumers make when they purchase appliances. The Federal Trade Commission’s (“the Commission”) Appliance Labeling Rule influences those consumer choices. AGA respectfully submits these comments in response to the Federal Trade Commission (the ‘Commission’) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; Request for Comment (NOPR) as published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2007.
Specific Comments In reply to the Commissions’ response AGA’s proposal for full fuel cycle energy consumption and emissions information for EnergyGuide labels,1 AGA fundamentally disagrees with the Commissions inference that it must provide labels using descriptors used in U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) test procedures. While it is true that the label information must be based on the DOE test procedures, there is no restriction upon the Commission using energy consumption calculations derived from the test procedures, such as Energy Factor (EF) for water heaters, to developing full fuel cycle combustion and emissions estimates for subsequent use on the EnergyGuide labels. In fact, this is currently done by DOE in developing appliance efficiency rulemaking priorities and estimates of energy and emissions savings under the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Energy Star program. AGA’s comments on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking discusses in some detail potential approaches for the Commission to use.2
1 2
Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 29, February 13, 2007, p. 6856.
“Comments of the American Gas Association, Energy Labeling Project No. R11994,” January 10, 2006.
As the Commission points out in the NOPR, the Commission “may require a different measure of energy consumption if DOE determines that the cost disclosure is not technologically feasible, or the Commission determines the cost disclosure is not likely to assist consumers in making purchasing decisions or is not economically feasible.”3 Comments from stakeholders clearly reveal lack of consensus over whether the cost disclosure provides useful information to assist consumers. At the same time, the Commission has not exercised its obligation under its authority to investigate other measures of energy consumption. The Commission goes further to state that “the Commission received no comments in support of adopting efficiency ratings beyond those currently in use.”4 AGA believes it has proposed such an approach, albeit the mechanics of translating site energy descriptors into full fuel cycle consumption and emissions can be easily developed using available federal government data sources and calculation methods. In the Commission’s efforts to developing information useful to consumers and in meeting the requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Section 137, it is perplexing why the Commission would not actively pursue approaches that explore full fuel cycle efficiency and emissions, particularly carbon dioxide emissions. Awareness of global climate change and the role of carbon dioxide have now entered common knowledge of consumers. If the Commission felt compelled to study the influence of climate change on consumer attitudes and potential behavior, it would undoubtedly receive a clearer signal for redesign of the EnergyGuide labels than it has in its previous consumer research. If the Commission disagrees with this statement or its use as a working hypothesis, AGA would like to hear the Commission’s reasoning. At a time when public policy has begun to grapple with potential restriction of carbon dioxide emissions and possible unintended consequences of regulation, the Commission has an opportunity to address this societal need by providing consumers with better information so that they can make informed, socially-responsible purchase decisions. Without efforts of the Commission in this area, both industry and government efforts to control carbon dioxide emissions will need to be intensified. Respectfully submitted, THE AMERICAN GAS ASSOCIATION April 16, 2007
By: __________________________________ James A. Ranfone Managing Director Codes, Standards & Technical Support AMERICAN GAS ASSOCIATION
3 4
Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 29, February 13, 2007, p. 6837 and 42 U.S.C. 6294. Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 29, February 13, 2007, p. 6855.
For further information on these comments, please contact: Ted A. Williams, Director, Codes, Standards & Technical Support AMERICAN GAS ASSOCIATION 400 North Capitol Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 202-824-7313