## Deposition Services, Inc. 12321 Middlebrook Road, Suite 210 Germantown, MD 20874 Tel: (301) 881-3344 Fax: (301) 881-3338 info@DepositionServices.com www.DepositionService s.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY OFFICE OF BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X : ASRAC FANS AND BLOWERS : WORKING GROUP MEETING : : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X

A meeting in the above-entitled matter was held on Wednesday, June 3, 2015, commencing at 9:06 a.m., a t 950 L'Enfant Plaza, Seventh Floor, Room 7140, Washingto n, D.C. 20585-0121.2

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 P R O C E E D I N G S MS. ARMSTRONG: So, we'd like to welcome you guys again today. Are we ready on the Webinar and the transcript? COURT REPORTER: Yes. MS. ARMSTRONG: We're good? Okay. So we're in a small room today as you might have noticed. We're going to make new friends and share new ideas. It's going t o be good for all of us and fun. And there's no Internet too , so we can all really focus on fans and DOE regulations an d how they might work together. We're going to go around the room real quick just for the transcript and everyone say their name and their affiliation. We'll start with this back corner. But I will say there's not microphones abo ve you like there is in the other room, so speak loud, ple ase, just so she can hear you for the record. There are some mini microphones around, but it would be most helpful if you could do that. MR. STEVENS: Sure. I'm Mark Stevens. I'm with the Air Movement and Control Association. MS. ARMSTRONG: Great. Thanks. MR. TEAKELL: Kevin Teakell with AAON. MR. BOTELER: Robert Boteler, Nidec Motor. MR. MAGILL: John Magill with Howden. MR. MORRISON: Frank Morrison with Baltimore3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Aircoil Company, alternate member for the cooling technology. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you. MS. ARMSTRONG: You're welcome. MR. ERNST: Skip Ernst, Daikin Applied. MR. WHITWELL: Bob Whitwell, Carrier. MR. DYGERT: Ryan Dygert, Carrier.MS. PETRILLO: Laura Petrillo-Groh, AirConditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute. MR. FLY: Mark Fly, AAON. MR. WINNINGHAM: Dave Winningham, Allied Air. MR. DELANEY: Dan Delaney, Regal-Beloit representing NEMA. MR. LIN: Paul Lin with Regal-Beloit representing NEMA. MS. DAVIDSON-HOOD: Caroline Davidson-Hood, AHRI. MR. JOHNSON: David Johnson, Berner International

. MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer, Appliance Standards Awareness Project. MR. DIKEMAN: Steve Dikeman, AcoustiFLO. MR. FERNSTROM: Gary Fernstrom representing the California Investor-Owned Utilities, which would be Pacific Gas and Electric, Southern California Edison, San D iego Gas and Electric and the Southern California Gas Compan y. MR. SMILEY: Bill Smiley representing Trane.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. SMITH: Wade Smith with the Air Movement and Control Association. MR. BURDICK: Larry Burdick, SPX Technologies representing Cooling Technology Institute. MR. HAUER: Armin -- UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No. Go. Sorry. MR. HAUER: Sorry. Armin Hauer of ebm-pabst in Connecticut. MR. DADDIS: Duane Daddis, Carrier. MR. BUBLITZ: Mark Bublitz, The New York Blower Company. MR. HOWE: Nick Howe, Carnes Company. MR. PERSFUL: Trinity Persful, Twin City Fan Companies. MR. WOLF: Mike Wolf, Greenheck. MR. ROY: Aniruddh Roy, Goodman. MR. MCCABE: Michael McCabe, consultant to Trane. MS. ARMSTRONG: Ashley Armstrong, DOE. MS. IYAMA: Sanaee Iyama, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. MR. COCHRAN: Pete Cochran, DOE. MR. JASINSKI: Sam Jasinski, Navigant consultant. MR. WIGGINS: Steve Wiggins, Newcomb and Boyd. MS. SHEPHERD: Amy Shepherd, Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute.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. CATANIA: Tom Catania, alternate for the Air Movement and Control Association. MR. MATHSON: Tim Mathson, Greenheck Fan. MR. FINE: Steve Fine from the Office of Hearings and Appeals. MR. BOSWELL: Wade Boswell from DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals. MS. PONTILLO: Pam Pontillo, Department of Energy , Office of Conflict Prevention and Resolution. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay. And I understand that there are two members of the Working Group online w ith open mics, if they could introduce themselves? MS. JAKOBS: Diane Jakobs from Rheem. UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: And is Greg, is Greg Wagner still online? IT SPECIALIST: He is, but he needs to enter his audio again. UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: Okay. Any other Working Group members online at this point? So, once again , welcome to the fifth meeting of the ASRAC Fan Working Group

. Ashley, were there other housekeeping matters, or d id you want to go into the status of homework and the upda tes there? MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, so I guess this would be a good time just to talk about the agenda really quic k, to6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 touch base on a few things. I, I do want to go thr ough the list of homework items that we had sent out like ri ght after, couple days after the previous meeting, and see where we are on each of those. I know we had a handful o f requests to speak. I tried to catch them all last night before I, when I was writing this agenda, but I mig ht have missed some. If, if anybody else would like to spe ak, you're welcome to do so. If you have a presentatio n or a file that you would like to share, either it's with regards to detailed responses to homework, or specific item s that the committee's been grappling with, Alex is happy to load that if you have a, you know, little disk, any, loa d that so that everyone can see it. I didn't print out the i ndividual presentations though. Does that sound generally good for the morning part of the discussion? Additional issues? Yes, n o, feedback? Silence? Okay. Silence is happiness, s o. That's how we do things in this committee. So, one of the things I wanted to bring up also. After the break, I think we plan to, or at least after lunch, plan to do two things. One is, DOE is going to give our presentation of the NODA in terms of how the analyses were conducte d, what types of data sources were used, let each of us kin d of walk you through what we've already published with regar ds to the analysis for fans and blowers to date. One of the things7

1 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 I also wanted to do, and it's kind of, we touc hed on this a little bit last meeting, but it's kind of a new, new subject to this group. It's discuss representation s and, and kind of how you make representations, what does it mean to come up with a representative value or a rated v alue for your fan or blower, you know, how does that work ty pically with DOE regs, what are some options on the table h ere and then what does that mean in terms of certification and ultimately enforcement of those rated values. And that's just more of to give you a sense of what we do to d ate, generally speaking for all products. I think it mi ght be helpful to inform you about that aspect of our regu lations as we move forward. So that's more of a, I'm doing that ad hoc. I didn't actually come up with a presentation in the middle of the night last night. But hopefully we c an have that dialogue towards the end of the day. Were there any other items that people see that are missing that they'd like to bring up to actuall y discuss or try to come to a resolution? I mean, we're goin g to walk through some of the homework items. Some of them m ay be more detailed than others but. Yeah? MR. SMITH: There's been a lot of work done on definitions. MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. MR. BUBLITZ: Okay. Can we identify ourselves on8

1 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 record as we speak? MS. ARMSTRONG: That's fine. MR. SMITH: This is Wade Smith. MR. BUBLITZ: Thank you. Mark Bublitz is saying it to Wade Smith. MR. SMTIH: This is Wade Smith. MR. BUBLITZ: Wade. MR. SMITH: The AMCA Fan Committee has done some additional work on definitions and we submitted, ac tually during the last meeting, work that had been done pr eviously between the advocates and, and the AMCA members. A nd you know, some of those definitions I think we could cl ose the door on with the consensus of the group. I don't t hink there's much controversy in other words. And some of them are still a work in progress, but we'll continue to beaver away at it. And I guess the question is, how actua lly you and or the Working Group wants to see this as, as i t develops? Do you want it, in other words, do you w ant to see the debate as it unfolds or do you just want to see the end result? I don't, I, I don't, we don't really c are. We'll be happy to share whatever the group wants he re. MS. ARMSTRONG: So that's really up to the Workin g Group. I think at some point it would be helpful f or someone from AMCA, or whomever at that point, to pr esent the definitions to the Working Group to get the Working Group's9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 feedback before you present. I mean, obviously. MR. SMITH: Well, we'd, we'd be happy to do that now, I mean -- MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. So, perhaps we can put tha t as an agenda item. If you have a file that you wan t to work off of, if it's not the file you've, you've already sent out, if you have a -- MR. SMITH: Right. MS. ARMSTRONG: -- a more revised one, yo u can just get it to me on a flash drive? MR. SMITH: Sure. MS. ARMSTRONG: We can get it to Alex. But I think the committee would benefit from hearing wher e you are now, kind of some of the ones. That could help sha pe the, some of the discussions moving along. So, yeah, le t's, that would be great. MR. SMITH: Okay. MS. ARMSTRONG: Anybody else? MR. HAUER: I have a question. MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. MR. HAUER: Armin Hauer of ebm-pabst. I was wondering, is the Department obligated to, to any international commonization of standards? Obviousl y, all the trans, the trans-Pacific trade deals going on a nd the Atlantic trade deal, do we have to commonize (phone tic sp.)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 any of that standards or can we reinvent the wheel here? MS. ARMSTRONG: That's a loaded question so early in the morning. Have is probably a, a bit strong o f a word there, but I would say the Department's intent is t o obviously work on harmonization where it makes sens e. We have separate statutory obligations and in some cas es there are statutes written very differently, so we have f ound cases where we have tried to harmonize as much as p ossible for other products, but it's not an identical one-t o-one. Because, but yes, I mean, we should be working towa rds with that in mind, but we don't have to isn't the right word, I would say. We have to meet our statutory obligatio ns. So if there's a conflict there. Fair enough? MR. HAUER: That's fair enough. MS. ARMSTRONG: So that can definitely be part of the discussion. Does anybody else want to bring an ything up at the outset? MR. FERNSTROM: So this is Gary. When we did the introductions, Meg from NRDC was on mute, but she's on the Webinar now. MS. ARMSTRONG: Great. Meg, welcome. And can yo u unmute her, because she's an actual voting member t oo? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah, I did it. MS. ARMSTRONG: Great. Anybody else? All right. We're going to go through the list of homework item s. And11

1 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'm just going to go through them one by one. I do n't have them on the board, but so one of the things I said we'd do is schedule meeting times, location. Everybody has those now and we've updated our website. We should all h ave where the meeting is, what, all the various times it star ts and ends and all the various places that we could be me eting. Everyone have those that need that information? We 're good? Okay. Check. Amber will provide feedback on the c ompressor cutoff definition on a fan. I think you provided s omething about her and I wonder if you want to just give a h igh level explanation of what you provided in case anybody ha s any other feedback they'd like to. UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: The question was whether or not 25, is it kilograms per joule or joules per kil ogram? UNIDENTIFIED MALE 2: Oh, joules per kilogram. UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: Or joules per kilogram. Is it appropriate to cutoff distinguishing between fan s and compressors? And the answer is that we agree that, that, that's the right answer. It, it appears in both Eu ropean and American standards and it's widely accepted and it makes perfect sense, so, it's easy to agree. MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. Does anybody else have any feedback on that item? We're in general agreement on that one? Okay. Great. So that saying, I said we'd se nd out redline to the presentation. Everyone got the12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 presentations, they were submitted, they were sent out a couple days after the last Working Group meeting, s o hopefully they helped you in advance. Next is the Working Group will review the definitions of each equipment cost to ensure they a re mutually exclusive and then the associated testable configurations. So we got a variety of feedback on that one. I don't know if we want to, do you want me to load those slides and go through them again or, Wade, do you want to use this as your opportunity to present the defi nitions to your group? I know I may need some facts and fe edback as well. So, I don't know if you want to, how you wan t to handle that with the group. MR. SMITH: I accept it. I would answer questions, but I'm not prepared to. MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. Sounds good. So do you guys want to start and just dive in the definitions now? No, you don't. Okay. You want to do opening presentations first? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I, I, I'd rather get, get you , the, the slide and, and put the slide up and go thr ough it. MS. ARMSTRONG: All right. So let's kind of do i t after lunch or after break when -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay. MS. ARMSTRONG: -- we can do that. Okay. Sounds13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 good. Next is AHRI will provide some type of propo sal to the Working Group regarding the scope that attempts to address the concerns voiced within the working grou p regarding delineation and how, how it expands use a nd data and energy use. So I think, Laura, you have the presentation loaded, or do you want to -- MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Our presentation's loaded. I think we had, the order of our presentations makes a little bit more sense. I basically got it on, on the, on the board right now. MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. Great. MS. PETRILLO-GROH: And you know, we started sending out data surveys for each of the different equipment types. We're getting a lot of feedback, but the an swers were very varied, so it's going to take a little wh ile to finish that analysis. It is (indiscernible). MS. ARMSTRONG: So when do you think you' ll be able to have that? MS. PETRILLO-GROH: For the next meeting. MS. ARMSTRONG: So that's the June, mid-J une meeting? End of June meeting? MS. PETRILLO-GROH: At least some -- MS. ARMSTRONG: Twenty something? MS. PETRILLO-GROH: -- at some of we'll be able t o have for that.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 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. So the other thing we did, before we jump into the presentations, was we had a sked about specific items for feedback regarding the tes t procedure. We had listed a bunch of test procedure items with regards to AMCA 210. Have you guys had a chan ce to look at some of those questions? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. MS. ARMSTRONG: Do you want us to tee it up for you when you're prepared? Why don't we let them do their presentations -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I didn't have a presentation. MS. ARMSTRONG: -- and then we'll tee up the definitions and then we'll tee up the test procedur e questions and we'll march through all, each of thos e. Does that sound okay? MR. SMILEY: Yeah, it's Bill Smiley, Trane. In, in the presentation I have like, I have -- MS. ARMSTRONG: Some -- MR. SMILEY: -- reviewed several classes of embedded products and also reviewed test methodolog ies for those. MS. ARMSTRONG: Great. MR. SMILEY: So -- MS. ARMSTRONG: So with that, would you l ike to take the floor?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 MR. SMILEY: Well, I thought we were going to do -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Skip, do you want to go first ? MR. ERNST: Yeah, okay. MS. ARMSTRONG: Oh, Skip, I'm sorry. MR. ERNST: Thank you. Just go up to the front? MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, absolutely. So the re should be a keyboard over there. MR. ERNST: Is there a dancing bit? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No. MS. ARMSTRONG: Are you going to have to open that? Well, let's get yours then. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you want to explain that? MS. ARMSTRONG: So he is the (indiscernib le)? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, no, no, no. MS. ARMSTRONG: None of those. The first -- MR. ERNST: Preso. MS. ARMSTRONG: Oh, up front. Weren't tho se cleaned up? UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: No. That one was like -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE 2: The first one was -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: (Indiscernible). MR. ERNST: That, that, that'll work. MS. ARMSTRONG: All right.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 MR. ERNST: Well, Skip Ernst with Daikin Applied. Thank you for taking this time to discuss some issu es and opportunities. The, my presentation and some of th e other AHRI presentations will have a common theme. And t hat is, there's lots of end uses for fans. And, and some o f these are going to need some special consideration. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Ernst, could you speak up a little bit? MR. ERNST: Okay. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay. Thank you. MR. ERNST: Return fans and exhaust fans are very important to building owners and designers. They b asically allow proper building pressurization control, as we ll as and if you do not do proper building pressure control a nd ventilation control, you'll waste a lot of energy, among other problems. Return, also, return fans and exha ust fans, just by their application and their nature, are goi ng to be less efficient than the supply fan in a given unit. So we'd ask, you know, again, that regulations would consid er these issues. As I go through the presentation, these ar e some of the acronyms that you'll see. Some of you, again, they're at the bottom of the screen, maybe you've seen them before. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. MR. FERNSTROM: So this is Gary for the Californi a IOUs. I presume we can ask questions as you go thr ough?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 MR. ERNST: Please. MR. FERNSTROM: And, and my question would be why fundamentally are return and exhaust fans less effi cient? MR. ERNST: Yeah, I'll show you that. That'll be towards the end of the presentation. MR. FERNSTROM: Okay. MR. ERNST: I'll first go through why -- MR. FERNSTROM: Thank you. MR. ERNST: -- building pressure controls are important and why return fans and exhaust fans are important for that. The, first of all, building pressure typ ical values that you would want to see are very slightly positive. Again, numbers that are pretty hard to m easure with normal instrumentation, 0.5s, 0.1 positive pre ssure is what you typically would want to see with building pressure. Listed some of the problems you have here if you do not properly maintain building pressure control. The d oors are going to be difficult to open and close. You'll e nd up with poor ventilation control, which is either goin g to be one of two things. You're either going to have too much ventilation and waste energy or too little and your indoor air quality is going to suffer. And again, you'll have poor perimeter comfort control and you can, with negativ e pressure especially, have problems with condensatio n inside the walls of the building if you're pulling in mois t18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 summertime air. Now rooftops, especially multi-story rooftops, very often require powered return fans and exhaust fans in order to achieve proper building pressure control. The, and what I'm going to go through now on these next few slides is to show you why. But again, and I'm going to give you an example where we're talking about a multi-story app lication with a ducted return typical of two, three, four st ories with variable volume. The, the issue becomes most clear when you look at that application and I think you'l l, as we look at the numbers and the science, you'll see it applies to other applications too, to either a greater or a lesser extent. But this one's a pretty common one that re ally illustrates the issues. If you take a look at that rooftop unit and the application, let's say your desired sp ace pressure control is at a tenth of an inch and on th is ducted return you have an inch of air pressure drop. Agai n, the fan has to generate an inch of, of pressure to forc e the air through that return ductwork. So, if again, if you 're having it, this is a, the basic parameters that we' re going to be looking at in this example. Now if you start with a tenth of an inch of pressure drop here and a one in ch pressure drop loss, then you're going to end up wit h a negative pressure of about nine-tenths in the back end of the, of that rooftop unit in the economizer section , the19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 return air section, whatever you want to call it. Now taking a closer look at that section again, this is, you would typically have your exhaust air dampers, your return air dampers, your outdoor air dampers a nd, again, in this section right here you have, again, ninetenths of an inch of negative pressure. Otherwise, the air isn't going to flow. The, the air isn't going to f low back from the space to the, to the return part of the un it with that sort of return duct pressure drop that I showe d you. So this is, again, this is important. Hopefully we 're all together at this point, because this is, you've got to understand this to go, as we go through the rest of the presentation. Now, the first problem that you're going to have on a supply fan only system, with a negative pressu re here, atmospheric pressure here, you can't exhaust air. Right? Negative pressure here. This is zero pressure or atmospheric pressure. There's no exhaust from this supply fan only system from the back, from the rooftop exh aust section. That's a problem. That's the first probl em and a big one. And again, this is, now when that happens , when you, if you end up with no exhaust from the unit, t hen the supply fan starts, it starts pulling air through tw o paths. The planned air path is back through the return air portion of the unit. But it's also pulling in outdoor air for20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ventilation. And that ventilation air can't exhaus t here. What it does is it builds up pressure in the space so that the air goes out through the walls of the building and then back through the outdoor air. Those are the two ai r paths that you will start generating on that supply fan o nly system. And again, whenever you have two parallel air flow paths, you get equal pressure drops through each pa th, it's just the air will, you know, adjust itself until yo u get equal air pressure drops. So, now what happens on a tight building when all the doors are closed? What's going to happen? You 've got this outdoor air, air damper open, the fan is going to be trying to draw in some outdoor air, but that outdoo r air has to go someplace. The only way is to build up a big positive pressure in the space so that it goes out through t he walls and that's why you often will walk into a building and open the door and you'll feel a blast of air in the face , because the door was shut and it built up this positive pre ssure. I bet everybody has experienced that. And again, tha t's typical of a supply fan only system where, again, y ou're having trouble exhausting air through the intended exhaust path. Instead, you're exhausting through the build ing. Now when the doors open, then you have this wide open p ath of outdoor air into the building and then out through that door and you get all sorts of ventilation air. Way more than was21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 intended. So you get, that's where you start wasti ng energy. Now when the doors shut, it's a tight buil ding. You get very little ventilation control and there y ou get your problems with insufficient ventilation and poo r indoor air quality. At the end of the day, you've had no control is really what you have. It just depends on what h appened is when, you know, people go in and out of the buil ding you go from excess positive pressure to all sorts of, y ou know, excess outdoor air when the, when the doors open. Now, the, the typical pressure drop through the return air damper, again, if we're nine-tenths of a n inch in this portion of the unit with a little bit of air p ressure drop through the open return air dampers, you're ab out one inch negative in the, that outdoor air intake secti on. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's a problem. MR. ERNST: Now this is where you end up with a second problem. You have this big negative pressur e trying to pull air in through this outdoor air damper. As we said, whenever that, those door open, you get an, all sor ts of air coming in because you have this big suction pressur e at this point. The, so again, at, this is, you're going to end up with very poor ventilation control is the second pr oblem. And I'll show you a little bit about dampers. You can even quantify this to some extent. I can't reach to all portions of the screen. But this is, your dampers, as damp, this is22

1 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 your dampers open and close. This is zero perce nt open. This is 100 percent open and then that, this would be zero percent air flow and 100 percent air flow. And thi s would be typical damper operation. And this is where you have very little pressure, suction pressure across the d amper in a closed position. And this is where you have trem endous pressure across that damper. What happens in this scenario, you open the damper just a very slight amount and y ou get all sorts of air, because you've got all that sucti on pressure on the damper when it's closed. Now, that 's the poorer control situation. The good control situation is you have very littl e suction pressure on the damper when it's closed. Y ou open the damper, you get a little bit of air. You open it more and you get a little more and you can have very goo d control in this situation. So then, yes? MR. STARR: What kind of damper is that? Is it opposed blade or parallel of what you're showing th ere the operation of those? MR. ERNST: There's, I don't know if I remember for sure which one this is. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Remember, identify yourself. MR. STARR: Oh, Louis Starr of NEEA. I'm sorry. MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly from AAON and that looks like an opposed blade damper. I mean, if you look,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 the opposed blade damper will have a more linear ef fect than a, than a parallel blade (indiscernible). MR. ERNST: Okay. MR. SMILEY: This is Bill Smiley with Trane. It really doesn't matter to the point you're trying to make. MR. ERNST: Yeah. MR. SMILEY: What type of damper it is. MR. ERNST: Yeah. MR. SMILEY: Opposed blade damper you get more linear. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Let's go. MR. ERNST: Right. Then again the, with, you als o get better control if you have a low suction pressu re on that damper when it's closed. Again, with either t ype pressure that's going to be the situation. It's so me kind of code. So, we've identified two problems that a supply fan only system has. And in each case you end up w ith poor building pressure control. You get excess outdoor air which wastes energy or insufficient outdoor air energy, insufficient outdoor air you get, you know, poor ve ntilation control and, and you have trouble controlling the ventilation period with the dampers. So this is th e supply fan only system. This would be the, adding a return fan to that, t o that unit. Now you set up the return fan, you draw this,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 the suction, you drawn the negative pressure right here at the inlet of the unit and the, the supply fan would be sized for that one inch air pressure drop in the return s o you'd have essentially your slight positive pressure here in the exhaust section of the unit. And basically, you've solved that problem of no exhaust. You cannot exhaust fro m this negative pressure. This with some relief dampers w orks very well. The return fan, adding it in that way and si zing it for the return pressure drop makes that problem, th at problem number one go away. I can feel you're nodding yes. Is any disagreement or questions? Yes? MR. WIGGINS: Yeah, I have a major disagreement with what you've shown because you're assuming that you don't know how to design a system properly, you don 't know how to set the controls up to make it work. You ca n design a supply only system and select your duct design pr operly, select your dampers properly, install your controls properly and make a supply only system work with a variable exhaust. Can it work the way you've shown it? Well, the sad statement is, the vast majority of them that are in stalled today work exactly like you showed because they're not set up properly. They're not designed properly. But y ou can take a supply only system and make it work. I set them up all day, every day and make them work. So, what yo ur25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 example is, is right. That's how we typically see them in buildings today, but I can design the system with o nly a supply fan and set it up and make it work, because the Navy in 1978, '74 through '78, did a research project on over 1,500 buildings that were designed with return fans and supply fans to determine why they were having so ma ny problems with fan tracking and what, and how it's controlled. And they determined that, I'm sorry, m y name is Steve Wiggins. I forgot to say that when I started talking. They determined that in 99 percent of those cases, with proper design, they could have completely eliminate d the return fan. In some of the cases, they felt like t hey needed a relief fan, but not a return fan. And so, with proper design, I can do everything you're talking a bout without having a return fan. I may be limited on s pace and configuration to be able to size the return ductwor k properly and be forced to make a return, return fan selection and make it work. But let's get it on th e record that I can design supply only fans, set it up, make it work and it'll work well. MR. ERNST: What are the key aspects when you, yo u say proper design? MR. WIGGINS: Sizing of return ductwork is the ke y element of it. The size of the dampers, the type o f the dampers you talked about, the controllability is a key26

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 element. Where am I going to monitor my building p ressure and how I'm going to control the dampers has a key part of it? But I can set relief up and do all of that and make it work. We do it every day, all day long. MR. ERNST: Now, if, if you have, if you do end u p with a one inch return pressure drop, what, how wou ld you handle a system like that? MR. WIGGINS: I would say the designer should hav e done something different if he could have. MR. ERNST: Okay. MR. WIGGINS: But they shouldn't have a one inch drop. MR. ERNST: And I would agree if you, as you reduce the return pressure, these issues do go away

. MR. WIGGINS: Exactly. Exactly. MR. ERNST: I agree with that, but I, again, most , on multi-story buildings with ducted returns, this is what our customers typically ask from us on that return fan. MR. WIGGINS: Well, it, it, it and, and I never said, but all I want to get on the record is -- MR. ERNST: Uh-huh. MR. WIGGINS: -- with proper design, and I don't even have to have a return fan in a lot of applicat ions. I personally feel like the vast majority. When I do need a return fan, even sizing the ductwork can minimize t he impact27

1 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 talk and other control strategies can help them get what you're talking about. MR. ERNST: Yeah, you, if you can, you can over, if you get the ductworks large enough, get the pres sure drops down. That's the general approach. MR. WIGGINS: If I stood for design and all of those things and I tied my hands, your example's pe rfect. MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. MR. ERNST: Yes? MR. SMITH: This is Wade Smith with AMCA. The system you're describing can also be handled either with a modulating exhaust in the unit or with exhaust remo ved from the unit. MR. ERNST: I'll show you an exhaust fan, what I will view as an exhaust fan example in a second. I s that okay? And then come back to that? MR. SMITH: Yeah. I'm just, I'm just saying the return fan modulating exhaust or exhaust from the b uilding that is not part of the unit are all options. MR. ERNST: Uh-huh. Agreed. Yeah. MR. FLY: Mark Fly with AAON. One of the things I think we ought to point out for those of us that do n't live, live with fans and rooftop units every day, is that given this poorly designed system, if the building's seal ed up and the doors aren't opened, that supply fan is carryin g the28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 whole load that the supply and the return fan would be carrying. MR. ERNST: Right. MR. Fly: So that, you know, that one inch of, of negative pressure in a supply only system ends up o n the supply fan. So, there's really no, we can talk abo ut efficiency, but there's no less air horsepower bein g used by having a supply fan or not having a supply, or havi ng a return fan or not having a return fan. Because you 're going to carry that load somewhere. MR. WIGGINS: If you've got bad design, poor design on that, I wholeheartedly concur. As I said , I agree with the examples. Steve Wiggins again. I agree w ith the example as long as I'm assuming I've got a poor des ign on my return and I have to use that brake horsepower. If I can design that brake horsepower out, by simply changin g my ductwork design, then I don't need to expend that e nergy at all. That's actually the best action. MR. STARR: So this is Louis Starr of NEEA. So I just came off of the commercial air handler rulemak ing where AHRI provided shipments and they looked at it. And I can tell you what we were using in the static were 7 an d a half, 15 and 30 tons, which covers, you know, a certain s ize range of air handlers. We were using one inch static pre ssure for the whole system. That's supply and return. That' s the29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 external static pressure, so. Kind of going into w hat Steve Wiggins said, and also if you look at where the, th at the kind of units, there's a surprising, a lot of const ant air volume units, so they're actually pretty simple sys tems. What, what you're showing here is, is a more comple x system, but what it, it doesn't really capture much of the population is what I would say. And that's right o ff, it shouldn't, I was surprised too. I would think ther e would be lot more kind of VAVs, stuff with VAV boxes and distributed air systems, but a lot of it is just ki nd of your plain, simple retail-type stuff with a, you kn ow, a 20 ton unit on a large box retail store and, you know, you've got to drop, drop a supply only unit and the return 's kind of right there, so. MR. ERNST: That is where the biggest portion of the rooftop market exists in quantity of units. Bu t there are quite a few large units with, one, two, three, four, five story buildings with ducted returns. And that 's where

-- MR. STARR: Right. MR. ERNST: -- this issue -- MR. STARR: Well -- MR. ERNST: -- comes into play. MR. STARR: And that's what I'm saying. What, if you back and you, those are public record. When yo u'll see30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 exactly how many of them are and it's surprisingly, it's not that many units, but I mean, I think it's an import ant issue and it's worth talking about, but in, in the scope of how much energy and how much is related to these units, we should definitely take a look at that and I think i t would be worthwhile to understand the, the effect of what you're describing to us. MR. WHITWELL: Bob Whitwell from Carrier. I'm also with a, in the same group that Louis is and I just want to color Louis's remarks a little bit, because it's true that if you look at the rooftop from 6 ton up to 63 ton, the majority of those units are still constant air volu me. But that, that's mostly in the, in the less than 20 ton range, which is where the majority of the products are. I f you look at the, the very large, which is the 20 ton an d above, it's a much larger percentage that are VAV -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What's the -- MR. WHITWELL: -- which are going to be more complex like this. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wasn't it 24 percent? MR. WHITWELL: It was 24 percent of -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is that a lot? MR. WHITWELL: -- that includes a large volume in the 20 to 30 ton. If you look at the 30 ton and ab ove, the, the numbers are more like 75 percent. Okay? Now y ou won't31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 see that in the data, but, but that's, that is the case. And what Skip is describing here is not only equipm ent up to 63 ton, but this is equipment that is above 63 tons has these same, has these issues as well. So, we're ta lking about -- MR. STARR: Yeah, okay. MR. WHITWELL: -- Louis, we're talking about the complete rooftop product range, which goes beyond w hat we've talked about in the, in the (indiscernible) Workgro up Meeting. MR. STARR: So this is Louis. Do you have any idea of how big that second segment of the market i s or does it, or I should say, do you know relevant, I mean, these are the type of things that would help in sort of a -- UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Limited might be the right word. MR. FLY: Part of what they're, they asked, this is Mark Fly of AAON. This is part of what they ask is and that we're working on and, and AHRI is trying to fi nd out what percentage of the population has return and wh ich percentage of the population has exhaust and I don' t know that, that's been collected. MR. WHITWELL: No, that was not -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah. MR. WHITWELL: -- part of that --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 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No. MR. WHITWELL: -- because those are not part of the test procedure. MR. STARR: I'm just talking about the sales volume. Not -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right. And that's what we're working on. MR. STARR: I mean, not whether it has a return fan or not, but the 63 is a larger, you probably di dn't collect that information. Correct? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We had no reason to collect - - MR. STARR: Right. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: --that list. It's not a part of that rulemaking group. MR. STARR: But when you subtract it out of the, no, you couldn't actually just subtract that from t he total sales. MR. ERNST: We don't have the -- MR. WHITWELL: AHRI does not collect that data normally. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No, that's, that's part of what we're collecting of this, for this effort. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay. MR. ERNST: Now, again, let's look at -- MR. WHITWELL: And, and, I'm sorry, this is Bob.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 Just one more thing. And, and, you know, I want to also make it clear that the design issues that you're ta lking about are, are the building and the ductwork design issues. It's not related to the equipment. The equipment t hat we're talking about here, the rooftops, air handlers and that, they are designed to make up for those building and ductwork design issues. If the building and ductwork was do ne right, we wouldn't need these return air fans. But since they're not, I mean, what Skip is describing here is the, t he industry's response or how we help our customers in order to overcome those problems. MR. ERNST: And -- MR. WIGGINS: Yeah. This is Steve Wiggins. I would agree with that exact statement. MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly of AAON. And I, you know, I want to throw in, which I keep doing, but y ou've got to remember that a huge part of all our markets in the packaged equipment business is replacement. And so these are design faults that may have happened decades ag o that we really can't overcome. It's nothing that you're go ing to fix. MR. WIGGINS: This is Steve Wiggins again. We're actively, we're in the business of going out and fi xing that. MR. ERNST: Yeah.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. WIGGINS: So we, we actually were doing. MR. ERNST: But it takes a lot of work and a lot of money. MR. WIGGINS: Yeah. We actually are doing that o n many cases, you know, something that really where o ur big energy consumption's at. MR. ERNST: Yeah. MR. WIGGINS: So we really should focus on it. MR. ERNST: So, looking at how, going to get to problem number two with how return fans fix this. But again, look, you can compare the pressures of the s upply fan only system and adding a return fan. And again, yo u can see there is a big difference in the negative pressure at the outdoor air inlet of the unit. And you have the lo w suction with the return fan and you have the high suction p ressure with the supply fan only. So, again, when you add that return fan, you get the desired pressures that you want on your upper a ir damper and, again, you can greatly improve your ventilatio n control. And again, in the examples that I've been showing you. Now, if you add an exhaust fan to the unit, thing s work a little differently. The, you can, again, ad d an exhaust fan, draw the negative pressure at the inle t of the unit and the fan provides the exhaust pressure that you35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 need. So that the exhaust fan takes care of that n o exhaust problem. Takes care of this no exhaust problem. J ust like the return fan did. However, the, you still have t his big negative pressure at the outdoor air intake, so you still have that same potential problem, you can't control your ventilation air as well with a, an exhaust fan on t his type of application as you can with a return fan. The, now the exhaust fans can be applied to save energy compared to a return fan. They, they don't maybe do as well on t he ventilation control on that high ducted pressure re turn, but the more, the supply fan, as someone already mentio ned, the supply fan is doing more of the duty. The exhaust fan is only sized to handle your maximum exhaust air flow. The VAV systems may only need 60 to 80 percent of design air flow during economizer operation. And i f so, the exhaust fan motor and fan and motor can be downsize d. You can save some first costs there and especially when you're working with airfoil supply fans, you can, the more efficient the supply fan will do more of the work. It actually handles that much of that return duct pres sure and I'll show you later on why the supply fan is typica lly a little bit more efficient than the exhaust fan. So, with all that, I, this was the thought that I wanted to leave you with. The, I mean, we focused on a rooftop with a ducted return with a fairly good siz ed36

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 pressure drop. The issues apply, it's just a matte r of how big is that return pressure drop. That tells you t he magnitude of the problem. The problem's very big o n the application I showed you and I can assure you on 40 , 50 and large ton rooftops, this is your typical example. Almost every one of our orders comes in with a return fan or exhaust fan and they're all sized for about an inch of pressure. That is your typical value on the orders we receive. The, the, when you add the return fans an d the exhaust fans, you can properly control building pre ssure and you're going to need that as you get pressure drops larger than this. But, and return fans and exhaust fans, they perform differently. The, you size them differentl y. They perform differently. It, the building designer has to choose, they, this is, these are valuable tools for the designer and they're in the best position to decide . Do you need one of these fans and which one? Agree? Litt le bit? Okay. The, now if you look at a, if you put a supply fan and a return fan in a box, the, you put the same fan, both your supply fan and your return fan in th at same air handler, in that same rooftop, in that same box , here's what's going to happen. You're typically going to see a peak efficiency line somewhere like this. Your sup ply fan is going to have about two or three times more stat ic pressure than the return exhaust fan, so it relativ ely is37

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 going to be much closer to the peak efficiency line and, and much, and more efficient. The, again, AHRI is coll ecting data on this and we'll see what all the manufacture rs submit. But what we submitted to AHRI would show t hat what we typically see is the exhaust fan, return fan is about one-half or two-thirds the efficiency of the supply fan on our typical applications. MR. STARR: So I, I have a question. This is Louis with NEEA. So in the case of the return fan, you're saying it's, I'm, I'm trying to understand is the r eturn fan you're saying is less efficient? Why? Is it becau se you're selecting it to be less efficient or what's, I was trying to -- MR. ERNST: Right. MR. STARR: -- pick up what the point of the -- MR. ERNST: If you put the same fan, if, if your exhaust fan and your supply fan are the same size a nd you put them in a, in a given air handler and they're e ach, let's say, they each fill up all the space and you put in your biggest fan, the supply fan is typically going to be a little bit to the right of peak efficiency so that it's stable. You get this as efficient as possible and this fan, because it's at less static pressure in the same CF M, is at a much less, much farther from peak efficiency. It 's a much more efficient selection.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 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So why do you do it? MR. STARR: Yeah, I was thinking why would you put the same -- MR. ERNST: I'll, I'll show you in a second, a little bit more why that happens. Okay? MR. FERNSTROM: So, so this is Gary for the California IOUs. I understand the point you're mak ing relative to the way we conventionally measure effic iency and peak efficiency. However, the, the return fan oper ating at a lower static pressure or a head, wouldn't it, wou ldn't it have a higher system efficiency, in that facing a l ower head it would move more air for less energy consumed? MR. ERNST: It might consume less energy, but it' s going to be less efficient. Just by the, on the, t he way fan selection works and efficiency lines work. MR. FERNSTROM: Well, well, you see I don't care whether it's less efficient or not in that classic way of thinking. What I care about is how much air it mov es as a function of the energy it uses. So, yes, it's less efficient, but from a system perspective, it's more efficient because you're getting more air for less energy. MR. ERNST: No, I, I wouldn't agree with how you said that. The, there, let me go a couple more sli des and build on why this is how the selections often fall and then we can come back.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 MR. FERNSTROM: Okay. Thank you. MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly with AAON. Can you define efficiency as watts per CFM? Gary's right. MR. SMILEY: Yeah. MR. ERNST: That’s true, but, but again -- MR. SMILEY: Yeah, for the most part. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah. MR. FLY: But it's -- MR. ERNST: -- again, it depends on the application. MR. SMILEY: Depends on the application. MR. ERNST: But in general you're right. MR. SMILEY: Well, that's your opinion. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That was Bill Smiley talking. MR. SMILEY: Sorry. MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Gary, the metric as we discussed it, would that reflect the way you're int erpreting efficiency or the conventional one. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Speak up, please. MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Sorry. Laura Petrillo-Groh, AHRI. I was wondering if the metric as we define i t here would measure energy in the way that you're describ ing it versus the way that the metric describes? MR. FERNSTROM: So Laura, it admittedly I'm thinking about efficiency a little different way th an our40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 conventional metrics -- MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Right. MR. FERNSTROM: -- think about it. So there's, there's no question that in terms of the convention al metrics the point that's being made is correct. MS. PETRILLO-GROH: And with the metric we're discussing for fans also? MR. FERNSTSROM: Yes. MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Okay. MR. ERNST: Yes? MR. SMITH: Yeah, this is, this is Wade Smith. Listen, you fast forward when we were developing th e metric that's being proposed. There's a pressure constant and a flow constant that go to the formula and the pressu re constant is there to, as a gift. Because low press ure applications where fans are, by their very nature, less efficient. A fan operating at 0.4 inches of static would require half the efficiency by virtue of the 0.4 in cluded in the equation. So, the need to accommodate fans tha t are operating at low pressure has been, has been accomm odated basically in the proposed metric. MR. FERNSTROM: So this is Gary. Laura, does that, does that answer your question? It sounds li ke it's a little different answer than the one that I gave yo u. MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Yeah, let's, could we return41

1 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 this when we, once he finishes, because I'd like to talk through it a little bit more? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sure. MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Thank you. MR. ERNST: And we, just in our discussions we've kind of hit on some of these issues. But again, th e supply fan is closer to the, this, you know, these are con stant efficiency lines. A supply fan is operating on thi s in, in a much more efficient mode of operation than the re turn fan. Again, because it has a lot more static, it maybe d raws more energy. But it is, this is a more efficient point of operation. And if you were going to try to bring t hese fans to peak efficiency, you've got a lot farther to go with a return fan, exhaust fan because of that lower stati c pressure and the fact that they both are going to h andle about the same CFM, roughly speaking. Now this is why the return fan is not sized near peak efficiency. The, this would be your typical, it's one way of designing an air handler or a rooftop, the a ir handler portion of a rooftop. The, looking at a pl enum fan, again, this would be looking at an elevation use wi th return air coming back in this direction to a plenum retur n fan and your plenum supply fan being down at the discharge end of the unit. Your filters and coils are typically siz ed for about 500 feet per minute. The, that's because you don't42

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 want to blow water off the cooling coil and it's, a gain, where, at least where your, some, a lot of your fil ters are, depending on the type of filter you're choosing, it is a fairly common arrangement to see this arrangement w ith about a 500 foot per minute velocity. Now your outdoor a ir dampers, return air dampers, exhaust air dampers al l work pretty well at 1000 feet per minute. At double the velocity and what happens is the designers are able to downs ize this portion of the unit. You kind of put the return ai r fan, your return air fan needs to go into this return se ction and you can set up and design and, a unit like this in this configuration. But again, there's more room for th e supply fan than there is for the return fan. And as we sa w in the last example, this fan actually has to be bigger to have the same efficiency than the supply fan. So this is ho w your, this would be the typical designs as you see them t oday. There's other arrangements that you typically will see. This part of the return, the return economizer sect ion, outdoor air section, has been sized smaller and the return fan has been squeezed into it and this has been goi ng on for 20 or 30 years, 40, 40 years. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So this of course, would be a sort of the driving factor really to make, in other words, you're, you're pumping up your base velocity so tha t the exhaust air and, what the other one? The return ai r, you're43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 pulling up? MR. ERNST: Exhaust air, return air, outdoor air. This would be your typical double mixing box. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay. So you're, you're moving that velocity up because you can, whereas if you blew it, if you ran that air across the coil, you'd have water going down the ductwork and that would be a problem . So, you have a performance problem. MR. ERNST: Right. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As opposed to the other, you just have, your burn up more energy, but you move t he air. The pressure drop is directly proportional to veloc ity. Right? So the faster you run the air, the more pre ssure drop you have and -- MR. ERNST: Uh-huh. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- that's how you size your fans. You're trying to keep the box in certain siz e footprints, so it's forcing everything into a small er box, except where there's design consideration such as w ater carryover over the supply coils. That's kind of wh at's driving that more or less then. Summation, correct summation? MR. ERNST: Yes, I agree. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay. MR. ERNST: Now this is what you'd have to do to44

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 put in a return fan of equal efficiency. It's goin g to not have to be bigger than the supply fan, because it's applied at, at a lower static pressure for the same CFM. A nd you can see, the unit is going to have to grow tremendo usly, and you completely redesign to put in a return fan in t he same, it's going to be analogous for an exhaust fan too. The, the units as they exist today will have to be completel y redesigned. They will not work on replacement appl ications, especially on indoor applications where you're espe cially space constrained, but you also have flatbed sized limitations and so on. Yes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Have you evaluated the formul a that was proposed to see whether or not you have to increase the size of your return fans? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You shouldn't have to do that. MR. ERNST: Well, this would be to get equal efficiency to the supply fan, so I, that's, I, so I don't know the answer to your question. I haven't fully evaluated our units on that basis. MR. FLY: Yeah. This is Mark Fly of AAON. I don't think we can because we really, this is not d ata that, that we have typically collected. And I know for m y company, we're, it's, it's painful that we're going back and basically looking at every order to extract this da ta,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 because this is not something that we collect, on w hat size supply fan and steady pressure was, was selected wi th, with the supply and the return. So, I think the push-ba ck you're seeing is yes, I know that you guys have, have a, h as, have attempted to accommodate it. I don't think we know at this point whether it's sufficient or not. And that's - - UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That's the -- Mr. FLY: -- that's the truth. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think the data will tell us

. MR. Fly: Well -- UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: -- and so I think that's on e of the reasons from the outset we asked for data an d we appreciate that you guys are working on that. But I think just fundamentally we would disagree with that firs t statement on there. Because that's exactly what we did and tried to do. MR. ERNST: Uh-huh. MR. FLY: Well -- UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But in the premise -- MR. FLY: -- what you, what you did was -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well -- MR. FLY: -- well, I, I think this was, it's a different deal. UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: -- by their training. I think the analysis has been today is really more fa n46

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 standalone and not embedded fans and products. Bec ause the cost increase of the product if you put a bigger fa n in, I don't think is included in your analysis. I don't know for a fact, but I suspect that. And that's what we're trying to work towards. UNIDENTIFIED MALE 2: Well, as, as opposed to me, and until you do what Wade does, you don't know whe ther the unit's being larger. I suspect you are probably ri ght if I had to guess. MR. ERNST: All right. UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: What he's talking about is absolutely correct. If you want a fan that is abso lute efficiency number -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE 2: Right. But the regulation -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: -- is equal. UNIDENTIFIED MALE 2: -- we're talking about -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: What Wade's talking about is -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE 2: -- does not have that. UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: -- is the proposed methodology -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE 2: Right. UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: -- of measuring. The metri c to measure torques.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 UNIDENTIFIED MALE 2: Right. Right. UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: -- we haven't done that analysis. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Right. UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: We don't know. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So what -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE 2: Yeah, but you don't necessarily, I mean, you're right -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE 3: All he's saying here is to get the same efficiency, you've got to go bigger be cause you're the high flow low pressure. MR. SMITH: This is, this is Wade Smith. It's a strawman and it's not correct. The metric that is proposed would not require you to increase the fans. It wou ld be just as efficient with a supply fan. So it's a fal se premise. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Correct. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Right. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And you need to evaluate it based on what is proposed. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Right. MR. SMITH: Maybe -- MR. ERNST: Well, we wanted to make sure that you understood -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Wait. Wait. One person spea k48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 at a time. MR. SMITH: -- maybe is what I'm saying. MR. ERNST: --that this needs to be done. This i s a situation we need to avoid and, and perhaps has b een -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And have done. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I, I think that's what we tried to do. I think that's we're trying to tell y ou. We tried to already take that step -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So -- UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: -- so, and our analysis to Bill's point about what is our analysis and what is the cost, we didn't run into any cases where the fan in side was, had to change because we believe that the metric pr operly accounts for that, because it derates based on the pressures. That's what we were trying to explain t o you guys at the last meeting. So, you have to take it a step further and talk about what you're seeing, what you think potentially might happen and then overweigh. The a pproach we're trying to take to actually avoid this from re ally happening. That's where the disconnect is. And we actually tried to do this. Tried to avoid this happening. MR. WHITWELL: Right. So actually I think, you know, the manufacturers are working -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Please identify yourself. MR. WHITWELL: Bob Whitwell, Carrier.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 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thanks. MR. WHITWELL: So, the industry is working to, to understand whether this is an issue or not. What S kip is explaining is what, what happens in the design, so now we've got to, we've got to dig. We've got to do some, so me analysis to understand what these fans are actually doing, because it's not, it's not data that we normally wo uld collect. So there's some work we have to do and th en we'll determine whether the, the constants that are inclu ded in the formula are adequate or not. So we've got work to do. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Right. MR. WHITWEll: And I don't know, I mean, you may did, maybe did some analysis, but I'm not sure that you had the data that we don't have in order to do the corr ect analysis. So that's got to be determined. MR. STARR: So this is Louis from NEEA. Just, hopefully this will be helpful. So it sounds like the manufacturers are taking some particular air handle rs or sampling of air handlers and the flow and pressure and sticking it into the proposed metric to see if that changes the size of the fan. Is that kind of what's happen ing or not? UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: Not yet. UNIDENTIFIED MALE 2: Not, but that's the intent. Right?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 UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: That's the intent. UNIDENTIFIED MALE 2: Oh sure. Yes. MR. ERNST: That's really the gist of my presentation. Last couple slides, pretty much say what you all have just well. Here we go. Okay. This is ju st the summary slide. And again, it was saying please con sider these, these fans. They need some allowance so tha t they are not forced to be too big. MR. STARR: Sorry. This is Louis Starr again. S o I was waiting until you go to the end. So, why are the supply fans and your, your return fans the same siz e? Is that because when you exhaust a building it has, it 's, it seems like the different flow of pressure? MR. ERNST: I think they typically today, exhaust fan return fans are a smaller diameter. MR. STARR: Right. I'm saying though, but why ar e you making the assumption it's the same size fan? I'm, I'm trying, I would think, okay, when you go into econo mizer mode, you have to exhaust all the air in the buildi ng. Right? But you're at a lower static than you would . The supply fan you would have a higher static pressure. You've got ductwork and evidence downstream of it. On the return, you just have to blow the air out the damper and th e return ductwork. So I was trying to figure out, I was thi nking that's why, I understand that they would be the sam e flow,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 but it seems like it would be a different static pr essure. MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly with AAON. Let me, le t me address it a little different way. From a desig n standpoint, not looking at regulations with what's happened in the past, for example, your, your supply fan mig ht be a 20 horsepower motor. Your return fan, with this re duced size smaller than the supply fan, is a one horsepow er motor. So, I mean, it was an economic and energy issue, it , you know, it didn't make, it was one-twentieth of the e nergy consumed by the fan system. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right. MR. FLY: And yes we were selecting at a lower horsepower, but it was so much less, or your watts per CFM that the, the consideration was from an economic st andpoint, it didn't pay to put, you know, a, a 30 inch supply fan and a 60 inch return fan. Because that's the kind of t hings we were talking about to get, and -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To get equal efficiency, it could happen. MR. FLY: Or something that was just going to save, you know, 20 percent of one horsepower as opp osed to putting your money into saving, you know, 20 percen t of 20 horsepower. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So if the metric in theory captures this change in size, that would take care a little52

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 bit, but, but then you're saying it wouldn't be the economy, it doesn't make sense to chase after one watt -- MR. FLY: Right. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- a unit when you've got 500 that you can save -- MR. ERNST: That you can chase somewhere else. So, the question is, when you get the return fans t hen what's economically justified on the return fan, be sides on efficiency. And it may be a different answer than the supply fan. MR. STARR: So, I guess if you do your analysis and there's, there is no change in your fans, then you won't have to really go any further. Right? MR. FLY: Right. MR. STARR: Okay. And so, if, if you do find tha t there is a difference, then that would be like, the n we can get into discussion is -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: Well, how big do they -- MR. STARR: -- does this work well -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: -- have to grow? UNIDENTIFIED MALE 2: Yeah, or are the constants differing? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah. Exactly. UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: But as, as you, as you increase the size of that return fan, you increase the53

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 length and the width of the units and at some point -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE 2: Yeah. UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: -- you may get something that you can't -- MR. ERNST: On some of our larger units, we probably couldn't get it on a truck. UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: Yeah. I mean, essentially what this slide show is about is, is as you go smal ler in powers or replacement blades or fan wheels, essenti ally your efficiency inherently decreases. And in theory tha t's what AMCA has developed their metric around, which is no w the basis of the thing was, and to account for that. A nd the question is, is have they done a good enough job wi th the equipment that they're (indiscernible). UNIDENTIFIED MALE 2: So in general for the same flow and lower static, you have to spin a larger fa n at a lower speed? That's, that's where you get your eff iciency at. MR. ERNST: Thank you very much. That, any other question or comments? That's everything I had. MS. ARMSTRONG: Thank you. No questions about it. UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: Go ahead and load that. UNIDENTIFIED MALE 2: Easy act to follow. MR. SMILEY: Yeah. You guys are a tough crowd. UNIDENTIFIED MALE 3: We're safe. We're waiting54

1 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 you. MR. SMILEY: You're warming up for me. I have on e more file. It's in that same directory. So probab ly bring up the air handler one. If I get this all figured out. UNIDENTIFIED MALE 4: Air handler open? MR. SMILEY: Yeah. Now, basically I just wanted to spend a few minutes going over a fairly large pr oduct grouping in the industry for HVAC applications call ed an air handler. Typically, an air handler is a big box wi th a fan. And typically a water coil unit. So there is no di rect refrigeration system inside the unit itself. It co uld be a rooftop. It could sit on a rooftop or it could sit , most of them are actually inside a building. So when you f it them inside a building, you have to have an equipment ro om or some space to put it in that ends up being not rent able or useable space for the occupants of the building. It can be a fixed geometry design with very limited variability or it can be structured like bu ilding blocks to create a custom one of-a-kind unit for an y particular application. And most air handlers toda y have a catalog. Most of the catalog air handlers, but the y're set up that you can configure them in a variety of ways depending on the application and the need. It coul d be horizontal, vertical. They have different types of fans that are used in them. Typically housed centrifuga l fans,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 single-width, double-width, BI, BC, airfoil, FC, un -housed fans like plenum fans. Typically BI, BC, airfoil t ype fans. Or you can have multiple fans. In this particular picture right here shows what we would call a fan array or a fan wall where there are multiple un-housed centrifugal fans. But you could have multiple housed fans as well. You can use vane axi al fans. You could use any type of fan. Typically, the fan draws or blows the air through the coil and distributes it t hrough the building. So the fan has to have pressure capa bilities to push the air through the whole building, return it to the, to, to the unit and provide all those function s. MR. FERNSTROM: This, this is Gary. MR. SMILEY: Yes. MR. FERNSTROM: I have a question on your previou s slide? MR. SMILEY: Yes. MR. FERNSTROM: In the multiple fan picture -- MR. SMILEY: Yes. MR. FERNSTROM: -- where is the fan blade? Is it on the end of the motor shaft? MR. SMILEY: Yeah. MR. FERNSTROM: It's -- MR. SMILEY: It's direct, direct drive mounted right on the other end of the motor.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. FERNSTROM: Okay. So -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It, it's spinning. MR. FERNSTORM: -- so I'd, yeah, so I'd make the observation, that's a real big motor with a real sm all fan blade. MR. SMILEY: Could be. Depends on the speed, you know, variable speed a lot of times they're inverte r-driven and, and the design speed is higher than synchronou s on the motor, so, yeah. MR. FERNSTROM: I'm just looking at the physical size of the motor. MR. SMILEY: Yeah. MR. FERNSTROM: Not its horsepower rating necessarily. MR. SMILEY: Right. And I think this is the whee l here -- MR. FERNSTROM: Yes. MR. SMILEY: -- being powered. MR. FERNSTROM: Thank you. MR. STARR: This is Louis with NEEA. Maybe you could explain why someone would use, use a fan wall instead of, of, what Gary's getting at is he's thinking the fans are probably inefficient because you have a whole bunch of little small fans rather than one bigger fan. But in fan wall applications, there's, there's application rea sons why57

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 they do that. MR. SMILEY: Yeah. MR. FERNSTROM: Well, well, this is Gary. I'm thinking it's inefficient because you've got a grea t big motor and a teeny tiny fan. MR. STARR: My understand of why you have a fan wall -- MR. SMILEY: I did not design this, so I can't answer, I cannot answer the specific numbers. MR. STARR: Well, that's his, that's his competitor's view. MR. SMILEY: Yeah. MR. STARR: I think the reason they have a fan wall is because they want redundancy, like for clea n rooms and -- MR. SMILEY: Right. MR. STARR: -- some other things. MR. SMILEY: There's a -- MR. STARR: -- and, and if one fan fails, you have -- MR. SMILEY: -- there are a lot of reasons. MR. STARR: -- it's easy to replace it. MR. SMILEY: Yeah. You can cycle fans on and off for modulation if you want. MR. STARR: It's never usually for efficiency so58

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 much or, I mean, you can state that the air flow ri ghts that may be off. MR. SMILEY: You, you, there, there are a lot of reasons. You can save space in the longitudinal di rection of the unit, because you have a whole bunch of litt le bitty fans this way rather than one big fan this way. Yo u can cycle fans on and off, which gives you the A, B or modulating capabilities. You have, like you said, redundancy. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you. MR. SMILEY: There, there are lot of marketing reasons for doing this. Okay? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And, and application reasons as well. MR. SMILEY: Right. Well, yeah. Yeah, application reasons. Okay. Definition of an air h andler. AHRI is an industry organization that is supported by a large number of air conditioning manufacturers. Th ey're an international organization. They're well-known and , and respected around the world for the technical aspect s, much similar or similar AMCA is on fans and ASHRAE is on overall systems. For AHRI, we have a large number of air conditioning equipment already defined and regulate d per AHRI standards for testing and performance reportin g and certification. We have and definitions of these eq uipment59

1 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 well. Definition of an air handler is basically a factory-made encased assembly consisting of a suppl y fan in parallel, which may also include other necessary eq uipment to perform one or more of the functions of circulat ing, cleaning, heating, cooling, humidifying, dehumidify ing and mixing of air. It shall not contain a source of me chanical cooling. So, it's, it's a box with a fan and a coi l in it and other types of things in it, filters, et cetera , that provides the air that supplies an occupied space wi th comfort and with the opt for ventilation to provide healthy air. Fan types typically used, we saw some pictures of the fan types typically used, but just to review th em real quick. A double-width or double-inlet housed centr ifugal fans. It could be either forward-curved, BC, BI, ba ckward inclined, airfoil. Single-width centrifugal fans. The same type. Just a single-width instead of a double-widt h, which would just be half of a double-width. And the sing le-width, single-inlet un-housed centrifugal fan, plenum fans

. Typically BC, BI or airfoil. Not as prevalent, but sometimes used, housed axia l fans, vane axial or tube axial. Housed centrifugal fans of the mixed flow, flow type, usually single-width. A nd there may be some others, but probably not as popular in the overall population of air handlers.60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Typical applications that I mentioned earlier, yo u can have, have them mounted on a roof and they can bring in outside air, return air and supply the building. O r, you can mount them indoors, which the majority of air h andlers are actually installed indoors. Where, again, they get the return air and some outside air, maybe from a conne ction to the outside or a fresh air type unit that pre-condi tions the outside air. And then provides air and comfort to the occupied space. It can be a VAV system. It can be a constant volume system. There are a variety of way s you can apply these and each type of application can have a lot of different variables or components in the unit. You could have just a single unit or you could have two that are connected together. Here you might have an air han dler or some type of unit pre-conditioning the outdoor air or the ventilation fresh air coming in and supplied to the indoor air handler. So, as opposed to the return air exha ust fan, a return fan exhaust fan sample, this could be two separate units. A typical application, you could have either a draw thru where the fan draws the air through the c oil and the filters or you could have a blow thru where the fan blows the air through the coil. Or you could have vertical. You could have just about any configuration where t he fan's on top, fan's on the bottom. Because you create th is unit61

1 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 basically building blocks of the different com ponents you can arrange in a lot of different ways. And th e way it, it's arranged is a function of the application and what the customer orders or wants. We don't dictate that it has to a specific design. It could have energy recovery. It could have a ERV wheel or return air heat exchanger applied in i t. It could have ventilation. It could have both. It co uld have exhaust. It could have return and it could have al l of those, or it could have none of them. But it's alw ays going to have a supply air fan and a, and a coil. And th ey'll be in a box. And that's the way it's supplied. It can get a lot more complicated. Here's one with a heat recovery wheel. Another one down here with exhaust and return fans. So you can see, you can s tart out simple and you can make it as complicated, complex as you want. The one thing they all have in common is a fan. The fan is in a box and the box is the minimum conf iguration when trying to assess the fan performance. And tha t's the way the AHRI standards are, are written, is you tak e the bare basic configuration, which is a fan in a box a nd that's how you test it. That's how you rate it. Because the box can make the fan work differently than the fan work s all by itself. It can change the way the fan performs.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 The industry generally, sort of, kind of knows what the ideal pressure drop of all the components they offer for sale are. Because in, in configuring one of these units, you need to know what the component pressure drops are and the application external pressure requireme nts are in order to size the fan, the motor and the RPM so you match what the customer needs. Standalone fan by an AMCA 210 type test versus same fan in a typical air handler cabinet. They do not perform the same. There are two, possibly two thin gs going on. One is, you have the pressure drop of the, of the box and then you have a change, potential change in the fan's capability by the way the fan or the box influences the way the air goes into the fan. If you have a one mile wide box, and a little bitty fan sticking in it, there's prob ably not going to be any interaction between the box and the fan. But you can't sell a one mile wide box. And a more practical size and application assessed, a more opt imized efficiency, you would have a box of some size with a little bit smaller fan inside. That, that variation chang es. But it does change the way the fan works. So, you can' t tell me what that fan's going to do in a box by giving me t he fanonly performance. Unless you tell me what the box is, what the box is doing and I understand that interaction. Is there a question?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 MR. STARR: Yes. This is Louis from NEEA. So I don't, I don't spend all day looking at fan curves. But the red and blue one -- MR. SMILEY: You're good. MR. STARR: I can imagine that. MR. SMILEY: That's good. MR. STARR: It doesn't look all that different an d I, I'm sort of wondering, I was thinking, is the bl ue one the one that was actually tested and you predicted the red one or did you actually do a test on both of those? Was there a, a fan test? MR. SMILEY: This, this relationship was develope d based on testing a fan only by itself in the AMCA 2 10 and testing that same fan in a box with a coil and with out a coil per AMCA or AHRI 430. MR. STARR: Do you have a mathematical relationship between those two or not? I mean, is it -- MR. SMILEY: It will -- MR. STARR: -- I can look at it if I multiply it by .9 when you look, you're about right. MR. SMILEY: Yeah, but that's going to be a function of the geometric variation between the box and the fan. The fan type -- MR. STARR: Yes, but -- MR. SMILEY: -- the fan type, where it's64

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 positioned in the box, how close the sidewalls are, how close the coil is, whether it's blow thru or draw t hru, whether it's ducted or not. But yes. MR. STARR: And it's substantially different with all, all of those items? MR. SMILEY: And also configuration of the coil. It could be a deeper coil versus -- MR. STARR: Right. Right. MR. SMILEY: -- versus a mere over coil. MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly with AAON. I, you know, I think that there, there is kind of a few si des to this. The people that build lots of boxes that hav e the same cross-sectional area and the standardized fan head, did a lot of testing and test, test this stuff and, and do that. But there's another whole section that market custo m air handlers, people where the cabinet changes on one i nch increments on width and height. And then you have to come up with a rather sophisticated ADM computer model o f, of the best guess you can of, of what it's going to do. MR. SMILEY: And, and we'll stand manufacturing - - MR. FLY: And you do that with a lot of testing. MR. SMILEY: Yeah. What most air handler unit manufacturers, the bigger ones, have that long term proprietary database that they use. The AHRI 430 a llows some of that modeling where you don't have to test every65

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 cabinet of every fan. You can predict, much like A MCA allows with using fan laws. You can use fan laws a nd cabinet effects that a lot of manufacturers develop their own proprietary relationship. There's, there's not a, an industry-defined relationship that I'm aware of. MR. FLY: As, so if you knew, so I, I would guess most of the time the manufacturers end up knowing t he red line up there. Right? They've -- MR. SMILEY: Yeah. MR. FLY: -- in order to do their equipment -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, what are catalog -- MR. FLY: -- catalog goes out the door, they have to -- MR. SMILEY: For, for catalog, the standard equipment in general, most large manufacturers do k now that. Yes. MR. FLY: So in theory, these red, red lines -- MR. SMILEY: I, I can only speak for one company. I can speculate what the other companies do. MR. FLY: In theory you can take that red line an d stick it into the, the metric and just, I mean, I k now it's a couple steps down, but that's what would sort of be the next step to do. MR. SMILEY: If, yeah. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Just from, this is just for66

1 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 central stationary? MR. SMILEY: Right. Yeah. Yeah. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But they don't have all the

-- MR. SMILEY: That, that, that would be -- MS. ARMSTRONG: Side comments won't make it on the record. Just so you know. MS. PETRILLO-GROH: I, this is Laura Petrillo-Gro h from AHRI, and I was mentioning that this is just f or central station air handling units and Louis said t hat relationship (indiscernible) all the types of equip ment are. MR. STARR: Well, I just meant if, if you could accurately predict it for each kind of equipment an d it's really, you're getting that information on particul ar equipment and then you're, you're applying it into the fan metric -- MS. PETRILLO-GROH: And -- MR. FLY: This, this is Mark Fly with AAON. I think the answer to your question is no, there is n ot a defined standardized method for applying a fan in a box. And there'll be, I mean, some people do CMD computa tions with aerodynamics, there's all kinds of approaches that, that all of us manufacturers in the group, you know , have done. Some of it's experience. Some of it's, you know, I've sold 10,000 units and measured 5,000 of them a nd I know67

1 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 those 5,000 did. So, it's not, it's, it's all very proprietary and no two people does it, do it the sa me. But, regardless, we have to know the red line to sell a product. MR. SMILEY: Wade, hi. MR. SMITH: So this is Wade Smith. Just a couple of comments. One comment is that all fans perform differently than their rating curve when they're fi nally applied in the field. Whether they're in an air ha ndling unit or not in an air handling unit, because they a re subjected to system effects and pressure losses in and around the fan. And so, the difference I would say is that somebody who makes an air handling unit takes on th e obligation, at least this is the way it has been in the marketplace, takes on the obligation to describe th e air performance of their box. MR. SMILEY: Uh-huh. MR. SMITH: Whereas when the customer buys a bare fan, the consulting engineer or the system designer takes on the obligation to describe the performance of the f an in the system. So he has to account for the system effect s, whereas in this case they're incorporated into the rating of a box. Right? MR. SMILEY: Right. That's correct. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And that also changes, but then just like that bare fan, when you apply the ai r handler68

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in the field, there's also a system effect, the bui lding on the air handler. MR. SMILEY: Well, you know, no. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, not -- MR. SMILEY: You know, as well as I do AMCA has four application manuals that address these issues very well. MR. SMITH: All right. So this is Wade Smith. So I would say that the system effects associated in a nd around the fan are incorporated into the air handler ratin g. MR. SMILEY: Uh-huh. MR. SMITH: But they are not incorporated into th e fan rating, units purchased standing alone and so t hat's, that's one principal difference. You know, the, th e question on the table is, what air handling unit manufacturers want to, how they want to draw the te stable configuration. MR. SMILEY: Well, and that's what I'm leading up to. MR. SMTIH: I know you are. MR. SMILEY: Okay. MR. SMITH: But if you, if you, if you want to wrap the circle around the fan, right? Then the ca sing effects are external to the rating of the product a nd the certification of the fan performance. And the impo rtant69

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 point that I want to make is that, that's no differ ent than the rating of the fan which goes into the field. S o it is an option. It may not be the option you choose. I t's totally up to you. It is an option and it does wor k. If you instead choose to draw the circle around the bo x, then those casing effects are incorporated into the cert ification that you have made to the Department of Energy. MR. SMILEY: Uh-huh. MR. SMITH: So in one case the air handling unit manufacturer who purchases a certified fan may not have to certify. In the other case, if you draw the circle around the box, they clearly do have to certify, regardles s of whether or not they buy a certified fan. Again, it 's your decision. Whatever you guys want. But you know, t he challenge here going forward is to really understan d what your advocacy is. MR. SMILEY: I know. I, I think that's exactly what we know, Wade. And you know, I, I agree with you. Exactly what we know is what you just said. MR. SMITH: Yeah, you can have it either way is m y point. MR. SMILEY: Uh-huh. MR. SMTIH: Okay. MR. SMILEY: And we have a recommendation. MR. STEVENS: Well, I don't know if that's, this70

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is Mark, Mark Stevens for AMCA. And there's actual ly two effects that are going on. You, you mentioned it - - MR. SMILEY: Yes. MR. STEVENS: -- in the narrative in the bottom. But I think the two, the two effects are kind of mu ddled together in the top. And that's the system effect and then this pressure drop into the, whatever purposes are attached. MR. SMILEY: Right. MR. STEVENS: So I think if you took out the pressure drop or actually added the pressure drop t o the coil or the pressure drop to the filter or what hav e you, and is added back into that system effect -- MR. SMILEY: Uh-huh. MR. STEVENS: -- those, that the system effect defined it a lot smaller than what you're depicting it. MR. SMILEY: Oh yeah. MR. STEVENS: You know, you would have the red curve, if you took the coil out or subtracted the c oil airside pressure drop out, you would have the red curv e. MR. SMILEY: Uh-huh. You're absolutely right. MR. STEVENS: But you, you, you alluded to the fact that there were system effects. What I'm sayi ng is, is that this exaggerates that point. But as, I don't, I don't think that, that delta you're showing is all system effect. Most of it's pressure drop.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 MR. SMILEY: No. MR. STEVENS: Which would explain red and blue. MR. SMILEY: No. There's the fan only. Here's the fan only, Mark. Here's the fan in a box. Here 's the fan in a box and a coil. MR. STEVENS: Uh-huh. MR. SMILEY: I'm sorry if I misled you. This is the box effect on the fan's performance capability. This is the coil pressure drop on the fan in a box. This f rom here to here is the combined of those two. MR. STEVENS: Yeah, it's all -- MR. SMILEY: If I said, okay, I want to test this without a coil, I would get the red curve. Now in there, in the outside chance that having a coil in there affe cts the way the fan performs a little bit more than just th e box, the test methodology that I'm going to describe, yo u test the, the box with a fan and a coil in its standard configuration. Then you mathematically remove the coil from that measured performance to get the fan in a box performance. The reason we do that is because we h ave multiple rows of coil we could use. We have infini te variation in fin series we could use. We have diff erent tube diameters in the coil we could use. So every order could have a different pressure drop coil applied. But we can't test every, every one of those configurations . So we72

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 make an assumption. And we've been doing this for 50 years. MR. STEVENS: Understand that. MR. SMILEY: Yeah. MR. STEVENS: It, it, at AMCA we, we've done some research projects for ASHRAE on system effects. An d part of the last group was exactly, exactly this. MR. SMILEY: Now, and you know, depending on what your box design is, this could be a bigger differen ce or a lesser difference. It, it could, the red curve cou ld lie right on top of the blue curve. I've seen that. I 've also seen it be a lot worse than that. So, you know, it , it, it depends because the geometric relationship. And if you have a unit where you're inducing pre-swirl, you can hav e a huge difference, where your spin and the, the air spins before it goes into the fan. MR. DYGERT: This is Ryan Dygert with Carrier. One thing that's not showing here too is the downst ream resistance behind the fan. So if you put a coil or a heat pack downstream of the fan, we often see fairly lar ge gains in the fan performance, usually a positive effect. And that's something that you would not get from a, a s tandalone versus in situ tests. MR. SMILEY: Well, this, this is an example. MR. DYGERT: Yeah, I agree. MR. SMILEY: Based on real test data, but there's73

1 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 data on there. MR. DYGERT: No. Yeah, I'm just adding -- MR. SMILEY: Yeah. MR. DYGERT: -- another example -- MR. SMILEY: Yeah. MR. DYGERT: --that goes to the point as well. MR. SMILEY: Well, yeah. If you go back to, wher e is it, these different types of configurations, eac h one of those, the same size box, same size fan, each one o f those configurations will give you a different red curve. MR. DYGERT: Agreed. MR. SMILEY: They'd all have the same blue curve, but they'd all have a different red curve. Good. MR. DYGERT: So I have, I, this is information correct on your, your slide with the three color li nes. So, between the red, so the one on the left, the red an d green, so the system is affect, the system is affected you 're talking about is, so it's, it's not necessarily a b ad system effect, in other words, when you wrap air in the wr ong direction. It could be that or it could just be th e fact that you have pressure drops. So it's not, the ter minology system effect doesn't necessarily refer to fan syst em effect, or is it, I'm just trying to understand the terminology to make sure. The difference between t he red is not necessarily a fan system effect. It's just a s ystem74

1 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 of having maybe a pressure drop in there and potentially could have a fan system effect -- MR. SMILEY: Yeah. You can't -- MR. DYGERT: -- if you had to move the air in a direction that's not so great. MR. SMILEY: -- the key which I always look for t o determine if it's having a true effect on the way t he fan's actually performing, or it's just acting as a press ure drop, is looking at the horsepower change. If you check the same CFM and if you change the fan's horsepower, brake horsepower, horsepower, you change the way the fan is operating. The aerodynamic operation of the fan ha s changed. MR. DYGERT: Okay. MR. SMILEY: If there were, if those two horsepower curves were the same, and that's what th ese are, these are, this is an FC fan by the way. These are horsepower curves, constant speed. If the horsepow er curves change, you change the way the fan's operating. It 's not just a pressure drop. MR. DYGERT: Okay. So in this case there is a system effect? It's your horsepower is 1 and now 1 .2? MR. SMILEY: Well, it went down, because part of this difference here is not only a cabinet pressure drop, but a reduction in the fan's pressure rise probably , because75

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 there is a reduction in the fan brake horsepower fo r this particular example. MR. DYGERT: It, it could make sense in a, if you were talking about backward curve, but forward curv e's a little bit different animal, because it's got that rising pressure drop. The, the rising power -- MR. SMILEY: It doesn't matter. It's the same CFM. If you change the way that fan's performing b y changing the way the air goes into that fan, pre-sw irl is a good example. You could swirl with the fan, power will go down, pressure will go down. If you swirl against the rotation, power go up, pressure may go up a little bit. It doesn't matter what kind of fan it is. MR. DYGERT: Yeah, but we're not talking swirl here. Right? We're talking a coil and a pressure -- MR. SMILEY: It could be anything. It could be the air all comes in the back of the fan. It doesn 't come in this way. It comes in this way. It comes in th is way. MR. STARR: You know, I was, this is Louis with NEEA, I was just thinking, you could -- MR. SMILEY: I, I can show you real data if you want to see real data if you don't believe me. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Well, you, well -- MR. SMILEY: It's an example. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Please identify yourselves.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 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Laura Petrillo-Groh, AHRI. S o where, where you have the horsepower curves, is tha t where the blue, is that for the fan -- MR. SMILEY: Yeah. MS. PETRILLO-GROH: -- only? And then the -- MR. SMILEY: Red is -- MS. PETRILLO-GROH: -- fan in a box and the coil. MR. SMILEY: Right. MS. PETRILLO-GROH: No filter? Nothing else? MR. SMILEY: Well, and it turns out that with the fan in a box with a coil, it's the red horsepower c urve as well. MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Okay. MR. SMILEY: So the inclusion of the coil did not change the horsepower consumption of the fan. The coil acted like a pure pressure drop. MR. STARR: This is Louis. I, so this is not, yo u know, I'm, I'm just trying to understand. MR. SMILEY: I, I hope we're not going way off track. MR. STARR: No, no. I just, I, I'm trying, so ar e we, so it seems like you had a pressure drop in the re and you apparently would need more horsepower to overco me that pressure drop. But you're saying not necessarily? MR. SMILEY: Uh-huh.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 MR. STARR: Because you're saying it's just a pur e pressure drop, you wouldn't -- MR. SMILEY: Well -- MR. STARR: -- see a change between your red and blue lines. MR. SMILEY: -- if this is the designed pressure and here's where it is with the coil, or here's whe re it is in the box, I have to speed that fan up to recover that pressure decrease that the fan is now seeing. Or I use a bigger fan. Have to, have to increase the test spe ed of the fan somehow to get the pressure back up to where I need it. So the fan in a box with the coil at 6,000 CFM woul d operate right there. But if I need it at that much pressur e, or that much pressure, I would have to speed the fan u p which will take the horsepower curve up as well. So, you see it in the efficiency curves. This is the fan only eff iciency curve and this is static efficiency. This would be the fan in a box efficiency curve. So the efficiency went down. The effect of the box on the fan caused the fan's e fficiency to go down. So we may or may not know what the rea l applied pressure drop is of the components. What the real fan performance, or what the real fan performance is in side the unit. The industry has developed over many years o f test and rating methodology for commercial cataloged air handlers. Performance in that box. The test metho dology78

1 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 data analysis presents presentation are defined in the AHRI standard 430. Methodology is well accepted in the industry. It's used by most of the major manufactu rers. AHRI can speak to, to that. Throughout the commerc ial air handling industry, product specifications, applicat ions, building codes and customer bases. So when we get specification and an order for an air handling unit , it usually defines, so it has to meet AHRI 430 perform ance certification industry standard. You take, here ar e the, the standard test configurations. Now before every body jumps all over me, I understand that we don't reall y have a fan wall for a mobile fan test methodology defined yet for 430. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That's right. But this is what -- MR. SMILEY: So don't jump on me because I show i t up here, because it's just my thought of what it mi ght be -- UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah. Well, (indiscernible ) major fan, multiple fans and air handlers is a, a s ituation, but we're not incorporating the standard right now. MR. SMILEY: Well, it's not, you could have multiple housed fans and you would connect the disc harges into a common duct to do testing, so that's already covered. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. MR. SMILEY: This is, would be indicative of79

1 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's called a fan wall or -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Fan arrays. MR. SMILEY: -- fan array. Yeah. I guess fan array is probably the more industry -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Correct. MR. SMILEY: -- term. Fan wall is a trademark or something. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right. MR. SMILEY: Anyway, basically you set up a fan i n a box with a coil. You attach it to a wind tunnel or a test facility, which is usually AMCA 210 certified. Tha t's the type of facility you would really want to use or mo st people do use because it's certified by a well-known -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Accredited. MR. SMILEY: -- organization. Accredited. Excus e me. Accredited. And that's well-accepted as well. I don't know if there's, I don't think there's an AHRI test facility accreditation. I think it goes by AMCA and ASHRAE. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah, AHRI only has a test facility on standards percent. MR. SMILEY: Yeah. So you basically connect the, the box and coil and the fan to that test facility and run an air flow test. You measure the power in the mot or, bring horsepower into the fan and you develop the perform ance map. Blow thru, draw thru, vertical, doesn't matter. It 's a bare80

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 configuration for the testable configuration for an air handler fan. Test methodology defined in AHRI 430. So, what we have is a test method that's technically-ba sed, well-defined and proven. It's been around a long t ime. We have a way to determine fan in a box performance experimentally. Manufacturers have developed over the years methodology to predict things that they don't test. What we don't have is an efficiency metric that would be ap plicable to fan in a box. So we don't have a metric right n ow as far as I know, as far as I'm concerned. I don't know w hat value we need to shoot for. We recommend using the air h andler performance determination based on the AHRI standar d 430 as the test methodology and the testable configuration definition for air handlers. The performance-based and efficiency ratio methodology, similar but may be di fferent from that developed and presented by the current in dustry through AMCA. It seems to be a reasonable approach for air handlers. Maybe a low pressure, a medium pressure and a high pressure application point for basing the effi ciency ratio might be a better one to use for air handlers . I don't know. We need to look at the data and do the analysis. The required efficiency levels are yet t o be determined and will need to be adjusted to accommod ate the fan in a box configuration, since that's how the pr oduct is tested and applied. We're interested in the energy , the81

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 unit consumes in its application, not some number i n an ideal situation. We are collecting the data to hel p assess what levels we think that metric should be based on what they are and what the values in the data tells us t hey are now. If we don't have cabinet fan testing, we may want to consider some way of taking a fan standalone result s, like a certified fan and applying some sort of a cabinet d e-rate to it, similar to what we're, what we were working on for motors and drives and controls. I think we want to leave that open as a, as an item to think about and discu ss. So, I don't know if you want to go through any of this or not, but, you know, I've, I've got, okay VA V systems, sound, specific speed, why you might use o ne fan versus another. It may not be the most efficient f an in the world, but for the application it is. That type of stuff. Size, relationships and so on. Paul? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Maybe the specific speed woul d maybe be good though or that discussion. But it's understanding why it might make sense to use a forw ard curve fan instead of an air flow. Is that what you would cover in that slide? It -- MR. SMILEY: Yeah, a little bit. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- it might be worthwhile, bu t it should still -- UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Go ahead.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 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Go ahead. MR. SMILEY: Okay. I know in terminal machinery, specific speed in the old days was used a lot from a design standpoint. And we never really used it that much in the fan industry. Although I have, and I know a lot of you guys have as well. In trying to understand why you woul d design or select or pick a fan of one type versus another, and it's a function of diameter, operating conditions, et ce tera. Specific speed is a dimensional relationship that i s a function of CFM, pressure and RPM. And this repres entation is using cubic feet per minute, inches of water and RPM. Now coupled with that's another dimensional relatio nship called specific diameter, which is a function of pr essure in inches of water, CFM and cubic feet per minute and the diameter in inches in, in the particular relationsh ip that I show for the value of the numbers. And what you se e on this plot is a variety of fan types and low specific spe ed is basically low flow, high pressure or low RPM. High specific speed is high CFM, low pressure or, I, a high RPM. And any combination of those metrics. So, the different fa n classes or types, like a FC fan, the red curve. Airfoil fa n, the blue curve, double-width. The single-width airfoil fan, the green curve. A plenum fan or plug fan, which would be an un-housed centrifugal, usually single-width fan, BI , airfoil. A prop fan, a high efficiency prop fan an d a, kind83

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of a standard efficiency prop fan. Or a panel, pan el axial fan. So they all have different peak efficiency capabilities. And these are static efficiency, not total efficiency. They all have different characteristic shapes. They're all located in a different location as that , that particular fan type on a specific speed curve. Spe cific diameters is the same way. Panel axial fan is the highest specific speed. The very first specific diameter, which means for the same CFM static pressure, you need a big one of those suckers. And double-width FC fan is a red curve, which means for the same CFM, static pressure, you' d use a small. So when you look at this, you go, okay, I'v e got to design CFM static pressure of some value. I can lo ok at any speed I want, any diameter I want and you can use t his type of relationship to zero in on, based on the design criteria, how much space you have, what type efficiency you'r e trying to get to, where are you on that efficiency curve? You can see what the relationship is for speed and diameter to hit that same CFM static pressure with different fan ty pes. So you might take a small FC fan and run it at a low s peed or a big BI fan, running it at a higher speed or a huge prop running at a very high speed. MR. STARR: So this is Louis with NEEA. So in theory, you can't just say you were designing an ai r handler, handler from scratch. You had to make som e design84

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 decisions, you would first go to the first, the fir st chart there and look at your flow and pressure. Right? That your design requirements -- MR. SMILEY: If you, you were going to use this t o do a very crude rough first shot at what types of f an should I consider. MR. STARR: Correct. MR. SMILEY: This could be one way of doing it. Yes. MR. STARR: So that would, you know, depending on where you ended that specific curve, you'd look at all of the different colored curves there and make the cho ice of the fan. And then you go down to the next one, hel p you decide the fan or that fan, but in reality you're, you have space limitations that might affect all the decisio ns you made -- MR. SMILEY: Right. MR. STARR: -- that are -- MR. SMILEY: So then you might start at the size and then go up to the fan type. MR. STARR: You could work backwards. MR. SMILEY: I mean, you, you could do it either way or you could iterate on it. MR. STARR: I mean, in general isn't there, so I imagine space has a lot of, or a pretty controlling factor.85

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The document goes the way I described it. Right? MR. SMILEY: Well, this is just one, one initial way, very crude, kind of a one dimensional rough es timate of what fan type should I consider. Then you need to start looking at the specific application, the fan map, h ow it will operate around that operating point, what type app? If you're going to do VAV, do you have to worry about stall, surge, you know, have you got enough range to cover the range you want for the product? You know, on and o n and on. This, you know, it's. Wade? MR. SMITH: Yeah, so there was in the first, the very first note out, there was a lot of talk about using a specific speed and it was used in the pump rule as well. And the membership of AMCA looked at using specific speed. The thing that is attractive is that it invites pro duct substitution. So if somebody is making the wrong d ecision, and they're mis-applying a fan where a different ty pe of fan would be a better choice, a metric that, that incor porates specific speed drives those product substitution id eas. And so, we had some of our members, relatively late in the process, arguing for a metric that incorporated spe cific speed. MR. SMILEY: That's not what I'm doing. MR. SMITH: I know. I, I just want, I just want to, I want to give this a little history because I think86

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it's important for folks to understand. And at the end of the day, the membership came back around to, to adv ocate, to decide upon, to build a consensus around a scheme i n which the requirement, the DOE requirement, develops a ma ximum horsepower for a given flow and pressure. And coal esced, the membership coalesced around a single number for ducted fans, a different number and a different basis for un, nonducted fans. Fans that didn't have ducts on the ou tlet. And the, one of the attributes of that approach tha t our membership liked is that within the ducted fan cate gory, it encourages sub, product substitution. And one of o ur observations, as we looked at the actual selections that were made in 2012, is there were a lot of bad selec tions. Meaning they picked the wrong fan. And when we tri ed to evaluate the impact of correcting those selections, many, in many, many individual cases, and this is not a gene ral statement that, that should be applied as an averag e, but in many cases we found a more efficient, lower priced, lower horsepower fan, because they had picked the wrong f an type. Right? And so this idea of choosing of, of invitin g, right? A regulation that says, look, you've got this flow, you've got this pressure, this is the maximum horsepower. Figure it out. Invites product substitution and does for the regulatory environ what a specific speed would do a nd I think it's actually what the consultants were tryin g to get87

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 at with this specific speed-based metric. So, as you pointed out, very few people in the industry deal with specific speed. It's done with quite a bit actually on the industrial side, with custom fa ns and it's dealt with by fan designers like yourself work ing inside a major company, you know, responsible for f an engineering. But it's, it's not part of the vernac ular that exists within the industry in the field and taking the benefits of specific speed and masking it in this o ther approach that's more easily understood and more app roachable is basically what we did, what we ended up with. W e, we, we spent a lot of time on the subject and ended, well, we ended up for reasons I described. MR. SMILEY: The, the main reason I, I put this i n was to, to try to help non-fan design experts under stand why you have different types of fans, why you might pic k one versus the other. The other thing about this, this plot is, if you took all the data that's out there, you don' t get a single curve, you get a, you get a half inch wide b and. You know, these are or this is not the absolute every f an -- MR. SMITH: Right. MR. SMILEY: -- that's, that type's out there falls on that curve. There's a band around that. That's just kind of a, an average accepted static efficien cy, not total. You know, Armin I'm sure has one that's bas ed on88

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 total efficiency that, that historically we've neve r really worked at total from an application or design stand point. Well, from a design standpoint I do all the time, b ut anyway. So, I, I hope this helped a little bit. Y ou know, it doesn't answer all the questions. It, it points to different designs of fans work differently. You pi ck one versus another for a lot of reasons. MR. SMITH: One, one last question. In general, when a quick air handlers are getting designed, I m ean, is it ending up that they're sort of trying to use the , I realize they're not actually using the service, but you end up using the best fan for the application? In othe r words, you look at your flow and pressure and do you end u p choosing either the red, blue, or black fan that ma kes sense for that application or does it start down at the b ottom with like, we've got this small box, where do we go ? MR. SMILEY: It, it becomes an optimization process. Speaking from my experience and not for o ther manufacturers, and I don't want to tell you proprie tary design information, but the products that the compa ny that I work for, Trane, produces, we would have, we size t he air handlers based on coil square footage. And that im plies a certain capacity of heating and cooling. And based on that, there's a design CFM, 500 feet per minute, 550, 450 , whatever you want, and that's usually an optimizati on of89

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 heat transfer, air-side pressure drop, cost and als o there's a limit as to how high a velocity you can go so you don't blow water off the coil, you know, which nobody wan ts rain in, in their building. Because of the air or moist ure condensing on the coil, which is part of the heat t ransfer process. We know that, that capacity can be applie d to an occupied space. It could have a very wide range of static pressure requirements. This building needs four in ches of static because of the way the, the, or the consulta nt designed the ductwork. This building might need si x. This building might need two. Well, in order to allow a n optimum selection based on whatever criteria the customer h as, we may have four or five different fan selections, fan types for that one box. We may have an FC fan. We may, you know, we, we probably have an FC fan. We probably have a doublewidth airfoil fan. We might have two or three diff erent diameters of each one of those. We could have a si nglewidth airfoil plenum fan and we have a fan array. So we might have, you know, six or seven different fan op tions for that one cabinet size. Cabinet size based on how b ig the box is to contain that square footage base area of the coil. And there's an optimum aspect ratio of the coil des ign from a cost heat transfer optimization. So, it, it's ki nd, to answer your question, it's oh yeah, yeah, sir, but well, no, not really, but yeah, sort of. You know? But it, the neat90

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 thing about the custom air handler, the, the air ha ndlers is there's a lot of flexibility. You know, from a manufacturing standpoint, you try to minimize the manufacturing cost and you've got money made and sp ace and everything to build this equipment. But you want t o give the customer the biggest amount of flexibility so y ou don't have to do a modification switch to the equipment, which would cost him more money. Or you might have to, i t might restrict how he designs his equipment room or his d uctwork. So, you know, over a hundred years you try to, you know, and all the manufacturers do that. They try to accommo date what the customer will pay you for. And if the customer comes to us and says I'm only going to pay for the, for the highest efficiency product in the world, we've got it and w e can give it to you. But you know, there's a lot of dec isions that go on in the customer's mind. Same way with a standalone fan, you know? I want 90 percent effici ent fan. Well, we've got it. Here's, here it is. If you wa nt to pay for it, here's how big it is. Now it's, so. Anyway, there's a variety of available fan types, including variable frequency drives and other metho ds of variable air volume, control of the fan performance either by a standalone fan or a fan in a box, any, any typ e of fan. So you can, you can best fit not only the air flow and pressure requirements, but also acoustics which are91

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 important, efficiency and discharge requirements in an efficient and cost-effective package, so. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There's also a lot of motor types too. Right? MR. SMILEY: And only we have, you know, what motor do you want? Okay, we-- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: ECM one. MR. SMILEY: Yeah. We, we have, you know, premium, we've got high efficiency, we have VAV mot ors, we have ECM motors. We can give you the, the variable speed controller on the unit. All the controls are in it . It's a package drop-in. You hook the water up and the pow er. Yeah. So, built that's -- MR. BUBLITZ: Mark Bublitz, New York Blower. For our edification, can you describe what comes out of a 430 test to get, if you wanted to do a single curve, fo r the system effects, wouldn't you need to map a whole ra nge -- MR. SMILEY: What you get is similar to what you get from 210. You get a map. MR. BUBLITZ: For, for one speed or? MR. SMILEY: No. MR. BUBLITZ: You did a whole series of? MR. SMILEY: No. If, if, if you had, if people still printed the catalog, you'd have a fan map wit h variable speed or various constant speed curves, co nstant92

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 horsepower curves and lines of constant efficiency, sort of. You know, I mean, you know, usually you don't take speed and diameter until effect of changes to efficiency. We ll, speed, I mean. But the same sort of rules at, at 2 10. MR. HAUER: I feel, I think it, it's Armin Hauer speaking. I think 430 doesn't have the wire to air aspect with that. MR. SMILEY: No, it's fan brake horsepower. So you use a calibrated motor or you use a torque mete r. MR. HAUER: Why is it's not accelerated? MR. SMILEY: Pardon? MR. HAUER: Why is it not accelerated? Because there is some savings potential -- MR. SMILEY: Accelerated? MR. HAUER: The development of the AHRI 430 to have the wire to air metric. MR. SMILEY: Because what motor, that air handler has four motor options. Okay? So, if you want to take the wire to air power, you have to specifically define what motor that is. Well, we've got other motors we'll sell you with that unit. We'll sell you an ECM motor. We'l l sell you a premium motor. We'll sell you a high efficie ncy motor. We'll sell you an inverter-duty motor. Wha t motor do you want? We'll sell you a motor that's twice a s big as what you need.93

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. HAUER: But the customer, the electric utility, they are interested in the power consumpti on. They are not interested in horsepower. MR. SMILEY: Right. MR. HAUER: So, how, how do you do the modeling i n the, for your building, and aren't you modeling if you don't have the wire to air metric? MR. SMILEY: The, when we design the units, we don't do building modeling for that. So if you, if you know the motor you want, I can apply that motor efficien cy to the fan brake horsepower. Or, you have a default motor drive control value that you'd use. You know, I mean, it , you can't test every configuration of every fan and eve ry motor that you could put together for this type of equipm ent any more than you could do that for a standalone fan. Now you guys sell a fan and a motor combined. You can do t hat. So if you had five different motors, you could sell wi th that fan, it would be a little bit tougher. It would re quire more testing, more some, some calculation method. Where's Ashley? So, I got one just like that for fan coils if you're, if anybody's interested. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No. MR. SMILEY: And I've got another one for testabl e configurations. And then I've got another one for -- MS. ARMSTRONG: How about a break?94

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SMILEY: -- this fan versus that fan. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. MS. ARMSTRONG: Thanks. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right. Yes. Break. It' s almost not needed. MR. SMILEY: You need that stuff? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No. MS. ARMSTRONG: Thank you. Put your next one down. UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: Let's take like a 15 minute break. (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) MS. ARMSTRONG: Anyway. But yeah. Okay. We're going to start back up here. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right, people. Back to your seats, please. MS. ARMSTRONG: So I do want to make one announcement before we move on to our third present ation. And I meant to do it this morning, so it was an ove rsight on my part and I apologize. So, we do have a new memb er of the Working Group, because we had somebody drop off. D ebra Miller dropped off. She was one of the ASRAC reps. So we now we still have two people from ASRAC on the comm ittee, but she dropped off because she couldn't, couldn’t commit to attend for the rest of the meetings and follow, a l ot of95

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 schedule, conflicts, et cetera. So, we had a 26th person that had previous applied that wasn't able to join the Working Group previously, so we have added them as a formal voting member. There sitting behind you from Regal Beloit, Paul, he's representing NEMA as a motor guy. So go od vision. We welcome you. You will, you noticed my e-mail last night had him on it. So now if we work off my latest group e-mail, it has his additional e-mail address as part of the group. So, welcome. MR. LIN: Thank you. Thank you. MS. ARMSTRONG: And with that, passing it to Laura. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If he wants to (indiscernible) on that. MS. PETRILLO-GROH: It ends with LPG. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you going to get a copy o f this presentation, Laura? MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Yeah, I'll send this all out. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's in the record. Right? MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Kind of hard to see the screen. Did you pull it off my computer? Can you make the file names bigger? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, ma'am. MS. PETRILLO-GROH: No, that's not it. Oh, does, that could be it.96

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are we also getting the other presentations? MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. So -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: Because last there were som e presentations on this computer. UNIDENTIFIED MALE 2: Yeah, I talked to Tim and I -- MS. ARMSTRONG: Oh, Tim's. I have Tim's. I can, yeah, we'll send them all out. MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Did you, did you pull two off that, the key drive? MS. ARMSTRONG: They also have to go in t he docket, so. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Could I just get that? MS. ARMSTRONG: Sure. Yes. Thank you. MS. PETRILLO-GROH: It ends with LPG. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No pictures of the family vacation. MS. PETRILLO-GROH: I haven't even started yet. UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: That's not an illness. The last two days, that was enough. UNIDENTIFIED MALE 2: Is this it? MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Yeah, there we go. Hi. So, I'm Laura Petrillo-Groh from AHRI and we've put tog ether just a short presentation to sort of go over some o f the97

1 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 that's impacted by this regulatory, this rulemaking and sort of talk through some of the iss ues that we see, both legal and non-legal. And you know, as much as we can discuss the resolutions. We've also include d that in this presentation. You can go to the next. Thanks . So one, we've got two buckets of equipment really that we've been focusing on. One are fans and EPCA covered eq uipment. And we have that listed on our screen. And then we 've got fans and non-covered equipment. So to start off wi th some, you know, covered equipment, we've got the packaged unitary equipment category and we look, we looked at the di fferent, you know, common names for this type of equipment. We've got several different classes of equipment even wit hin the packaged unitary class, including packaged terminal units, mini-splits, multi-splits, VRF. We've got water so urce heat pumps, single package vertical units and then your traditional packaged ACs, heat pumps and rooftops a nd split systems. On a, you know, as we've heard in earlier presentations, all of those fans definitely have a supply fan. And depending on the manufacturer, the type o f product it's in, it could be any of these type of fans. So any of the centrifugal housed or un-housed, axial housed, mixed flow or crossflow. So some of them are more common than others, but we have, you know, there are cases wher e we're seeing in some of the data collection that we're do ing and98

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 feedback from the manufacturers, that these are all fans that could be represented in each of these unit typ es. We also have some fans on the condenser, condenser and evaporator and those are typically axial panel fans . And then if you're using a return fan or an exhaust fan in the unit, it could be one of the types of units, the fa ns listed on the screen. And to go along with what Bill was discussing, depending on the type of unit that you're using, yo u could be using a completely different type of fan and you would be using an, something that looked similar but was bei ng used for another application. And from our testing, we know about these units, the CFM, the unit input power and the external stat ic pressure. And we know it using, you know, the diff erent, the appropriate test of the unit. So, right here w e have one, two, three, four, five, you know, at least six different types of tests that you would be testing each of these different types of equipment to. So there's one specific to the packaged terminal units. There's o ne specific to the VRF units and so on and so forth. But from these testing of equipment, using the appropriate equipment test, we don't know a lot of things about the, about the fan. We don't know the fan to tal static pressure, the fan or motor input power, cabi net99

1 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, fan-only applied efficiency, end-use static pressure and CFM. And Skip really went over the cabinet, Sk ip went over the cabinet effect really well, but what we're talking about is the overall influence of surrounding compo nents, structure and casing, which causes changes to air f low and pressure drop and influences how the fan can, the f an performance is and where it's going to operate. So, we've also got another covered type of product. Commercial refrigeration equipment. And that would be in bucket, walk-in coolers or freezers, refrigerator display cases, reach-ins, et cetera. So we've got the supply fans which could be similar to what we discovered, packaged unitary equipment. One of sev eral different types of fans and, but the heat rejection is typically the axial panel fan. And for the test of the equipment, by and large, we know the fan or motor input power, the unit, and the unit external static pressure. But what we don't know a re the fan CFM, fan total static pressure, cabinet effect, fan-only applied efficiency. We've got several different types of heating equipment we've kind of grouped together just for t his first slide. They include warm air furnaces, unit heater s, boilers and water heaters. And they have different types of fans than we've seen previously including the power burner100

1 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 the inducer draft fan. And some of these may or may not be included in the scope, depending on where we dra w the line. Can you hear me? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. People are having a har d time on the phone hearing. MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Okay. I'll speak up. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You have a microphone right there. It should be. MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Can we ask them? Or ask -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You, you just need to speak louder. MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Okay. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Or use the microphone. MS. PETRILLO-GROH: All right. Is that better? So we also have axial panel fans and centrifugal ho used or un-housed fans in this type of equipment. For the boilers and water heaters specifically, we know the unit po wer consumption by testing the unit and we don't know a nything else related to the fans. So for air handling equipment, which is not a covered product, we've grouped a bunch of different types of equipment into this, into this category, including room fan coils, unit ventilators, fan-powered terminal, term inal units, constant volume or variable air volume, fan- assisted101

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 chill beams and then we've also got what you would typically think of air handling units. It's central station air handling units, custom air handlers make up air han dling units, outdoor air handlers, and dedicated outdoor air systems. And the blower coil and low pressure air handlers as well. And the supply fan, we also see that same variation of different types of supply fans in, tha t can be embedded in this type of equipment. And for the re turn fans, again, centrifugal housed, un-housed and axia l housed. Exhaust fans, we also have the addition of the axia l panel fan that you could see and these type of air handli ng applications. For the air handling equipment, we typically know its CFM, the fan or motor input power in some equip ment, but not in all the type, types of equipment I listed pr eviously, unit input power and external static pressure. We know this by testing the unit or fan or fan cabinet. So, as Bill described for the 430 test, while you could add a l ot of other features that make the air handler specific t o that application, in the 430 test, we're looking at only the fan in the box with the coil. But we, and, and that ca n be predicted to some other configurations, but we, you know, typically do that using some variation of fan laws. We don't know the fan total static pressure,102

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 cabinet effect, fan-only applied efficiency, fan or motor input power in some types of equipment, end-use CFM and static pressure. And Bill really covered very well the variability of custom air handling units makes it d ifficult to define and test. So the port, the world of cent ral station air handling units and what can be tested a nd what can be certified through the air, the air, the AHRI program is much smaller than the world of air handling unit s that is currently out there. While the custom air, air han dling unit manufacturers are very small businesses, they' re regionally located. Now, to the chillers and condensers and heat reject, and heat rejection products, these are also not covered products. They're typically called air coo led chillers, air cooled condensers, evaporative conden sers, and we also have hybrid or adiabatic condensers. And t heir fans are typically limited to heat rejection and in the condenser fan they can use axial panel or centrifugal housed and unhoused fans for the, for that type of equipment. And we know, what we know is the unit input power and the external static pressure. We know it by te sting the unit and predicting that, that test to different, t o other sizes and configurations. And we don't know the fa n CFM, fan or motor input power, fan total static pressure , cabinet effect or fan-only applied efficiency.103

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 For cooling towers, the common, this is not, also not a covered product. We have packaged cooling to wers, packaged evaporative condensers and field-erected m echanical draft cooling towers. We've got CTI representing o n that later today. So, the typical fan types, again as, as, as is written on every side, these fans can be single or they could be multiple fans. But we have the heat rejec tion fans will be axial or centrifugal. So for the cooling towers we know the motor outpu t power, the unit external static pressure sometimes, fan CFM, fan total static pressure, fan or motor input power and motor efficiency. We know this by testing the unit and predicting the, that testing to other configuration s and also through modeling. And we don't -- MR. HAUER: Laura? MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Yes? MR. HAUER: It's Armin Hauer speaking. So you do know the fans CFM on such a large cooling tower? MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Yes. MR. BURDICK: There is, there is a predicted valu e or there is a, a modeled value for it. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Please identify yourself, Mr. Burdick. MR. BURDICK: Larry Burdick, SPX. There's a, there is a model, there is a number for the fan CFM that we104

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 use in our prediction model. MR. HAUER: Only in prediction. Okay. That's ho w you know by your prediction. MR. BURDICK: Right. MR. HAUER: Okay. Thank you. MS. PETRILLO-GROH: And we don't know the fan-onl y applied efficiency for the cooling towers. For the energy recovery ventilators, commonly known as ERVs, they have, they use their fans for h eat recovery. And they can be axial panels, centrifuga l housed or un-housed, axial housed or mixed flow fans. They know the fan CFM, fan or motor input power, energy recovery effectiveness and unit external sta tic pressure. They know this by testing the unit and p redicting the test data to other unit sizes and configuration s. And they don't know the fan total static pressure, cabi net effect and the fan-only applied efficiency. Amy's going to step in here. MS. SHEPHERD: I'm going to join Laura at the podium, but for the record, no one in my life has e ver told me I need to speak louder. So you listen to her. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But you also need to identify yourself. MS. SHEPHERD: And that was Amy Shepherd from AHRI.105

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you. MS. SHEPHERD: Okay. So basically for covered products, we think that the approach that DOE artic ulated in the framework document is the right one. And again , this is for covered product. And that is that those fans t hat are a component and regulated commercial products or cove red products under EPCA would not be within the scope o f this. And this is for both sort of practical, real world, the issues that have been described and also for legal reasons. So sort of talking about this in, in the real word practical application for these plan fans as they are applied in these systems, the system energy for these covered produc ts is subject to a DOE efficiency standard or DOE has the authority to develop one. And that covers the ener gy use of that system. And EPCA is about energy savings. So that is within that. To the extent that metric or that tes t method does not adequately cover something that DOE feels it needs to cover, DOE has the authority to remedy that thro ugh the notice and process common in rulemaking. And as we discussed earlier today, the components affect the performance of other components in the system. So, you know, we think that as these fans are applied and t hat's, you know, the universe that we're talking about her e, it's not going to be the same result. It also avoids di fficult issues about double counting of energy savings in s eparate106

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 rulemakings for one system. Now we know yesterday there's a different negotiated rulemaking going on that's been referenc ed. And dealing with the same function or the same issue in two separate rulemakings with two separate test methods , with two separate economic analyses and technical justif ications, is very complicated. And we think a lot of these p ractical reasons are why EPCA legally is set up that it's se t up. So, what this does, it would allow DOE to look at t he entire system when it's doing this and recognize the energ y use within that system, rather than having to coordinat e multiple rulemakings to get at the use of that one system. It also avoids multiple testing of the covered equipment. So, there is a testing burden. Any tes t procedure that DOE develops under EPCA can't have a n undue testing burden. So that's something else that's ad dressed by the exemption of a product that uses applied in covered equipment. Because there's a test procedure and a test that's run on that system to develop an energy metr ic. And something that underlies the entire statute is this idea that what matter is the energy savings and there's a metric that's developed for that, and a standard that's de veloped to that. And then it's up to the manufacturers to look at the technology that's feasible, their customers, th eir market, their expertise, you know, their, their107

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 marketability to compete and develop the optimal de sign for that system at the cost that is the lowest. So, al l of that is baked into the statutory framework and that's im portant and it's something that you lose when you go in and start to regulate these components of the covered product. And that's why EPCA avoids that, which we'll talk about on the next slide. And then the last point is that because you're talking about a system and the system's energy use, regulating the components are not going to promote energy savings because of the bullet we just discussed whe re manufacturers have to adjust all the other elements to get those energy savings while minimizing costs. So al l of that is factored into, I mean, the basic premise of EPCA . And those are very practical reasons that led us to the regulatory structure as it is. So, I know you all want to move on to the real legal side, so let's do it. All right. So we believe that EPCA allows one standard for covered products and DOE also articulated this view in 2009 in the Federal Register when it was talking about, it was commercial equipment, commercial warm, warm air fur naces, I believe. But it talked about the fact that the DOE is authorized to establish a performance standard or a single design standard. And therefore, a standard that ha d both or108

1 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 had multiple design requirements was beyond th e scope of DOE's legal authority. We agree with this state ment and we think that's why the framework approach was corr ect, because it's, it's in accordance with this. And I think, you know, as I mentioned, when you look at EPCA and you look at the fact that it's designed to set these energy savings, it's designed, the idea behind is that you give manufacturers the goal of this energy savings and y ou say, let the market work it out at the lowest cost to re ach that. And the need to have the technology and the design flexibility to do that. And that's why there is th is one standard. Now, covered equipment is also, when you look, I' m not going to bore you with, I could have lots of sl ides too, just like Bill. But there's different sections of EPCA and they talk about things like energy standards, energ y use, energy metrics, covered products and they're all si ngular. Sorry, I know that's boring. That's what lawyers d o. But it talks about one of the following types of equipm ent and it talks about a performance standard, which is why DOE concluded in the rulemaking before that, that's wha t we're talking about. And so everything is singular and w hen they do, when EPCA does address components, there's a ve ry specific language in the statute that addresses com ponent regulation. And again, there's several places in t here that109

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 does that. But there isn't a general presumption t hat DOE can regulate all the different components of a cove red product or these specific sections that talked abou t the regulation of components wouldn't be necessary. Bu t where that has occurred, for example, on the residential side with the fan furnace efficiency those, you know, those w ere statutory changes that happened in order to enable that. So that's why we think if there's an energy efficiency standard for this covered equipment, you can't have additional design requirements on top of that. And we also think, there's another thing that runs through the commercial section for specific types of equipment for, you know, commercial package AC and heating, PTACs, hea t pumps, warm air furnaces which is that DOE needs to follow ASHRAE 90.1 and that, when that is amended on those covere d products, DOE evaluates that amendment and determin es whether or not they're going to adopt it or whether they're going to go beyond it. And when they do that, they have to meet a specific statutory burden of showing clear a nd convincing evidence that they should do that. That 's different than the standard they have on the reside ntial side. So, that's something that's also built into the statute that DOE doesn't have the authority to just exceed ASHRAE without going through that process and makin g that showing.110

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So, those are reasons why we think for covered equipment DOE has to meet its statutory obligations and that's where, that's where we think DOE can do that

. Any questions or thoughts? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're on day 6 of meetings an d we're still talking about whether we should be doin g this? I need to make my flights for the next set, so I me an, it -- MS. ARMSTRONG: The Working Group can hav e that discussion about whether to continue. MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Well, I think we need to hear from DOE if DOE has a different opinion than what i t has stated on this issue. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Or, or do we need a vote from the working group to exclude covered products? MS. PETRILLO-GROH: I mean, so this is our position and we're basing it both on our reading of the statute and what DOE has said. MR. COCHRAN: Yeah, this is Pete Cochran from DOE , General Counsel's Office. We have a different read ing of the statute in this. MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Than the one that was in the Federal Register? MR. COCHRAN: The Federal Register I don't think is a reading of the statute. I think that was a po sition. Are you talking about the 2009 or --111

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Yes. MR. COCHRAN: -- or the 2013 framework document? MS. PETRILLO-GROH: I'm talking about 2009. MR. COCHRAN: Okay. MS. ARMSTRONG: 2009 stated that it had, and just to clarify for Pete, because what it actually did, it, it talked about how DOE considered a standard for a single -- MR. COCHRAN: Yeah. MS. ARMSTRONG: -- covered product. Just to make that distinction, because it is important. MR. COCHRAN: What I think that, I think we're making a distinction. You're saying that this woul d be two standards for one product, where DOE's position is we had the authority to regulate fans and blowers based on the statute. We also have the authority to regulate th e regulated products based on those provisions. We'r e not looking at that as we're taking two standards under one product. MS. PETRILLO-GROH: But it's a component. MR. COCHRAN: We're taking separate -- UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's a covered product. MR. COCHARN: And I think all that is, if you want, maybe when we get into that, maybe if you get into more of the testable configuration where you're def ining it.112

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And that's stuff that the Working Group has to work through. But from an authority and statutory position, DOE's position is, we have authority to regulate fans and blowers. We have authority to regulate the other products. This Wor king Group is going to work through all the details and I think at this time, I guess, our opinion, if you guys -- MS. PETRILLO-GROH: But there -- MR. COCHRAN: -- come back with a more detailed position -- MS. PETRILLO-GROH: -- you know, there's, there i s specific language and within, in the statute of the commercial provision that talks about regulating co vered product components if they're components of residen tial equipment. MS. ARMSTRONG: So I -- MS. PETRILLO-GROH: There's nothing that talks about regulation -- MR. COCHRAN: Uh-huh. MS. PETRILLO-GROH: -- components of commercial equipment. So, we're really asking DOE for its sta tutory opinion. Like on what basis, based on the language that's in the statute is DOE concluding this? MS. ARMSTRONG: So, I think Pete articulat ed DOE's authority position. We believe we have the authori ty to cover fans and blowers. DOE did not set up a Worki ng Group113

1 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 discuss its authority. We set up a Working Grou p to negotiate definitions, task procedures and standard s and scope of those potential regulations for fans and b lowers. So I, I think that's where were are at this. I mea n, the authority is something that the Department has arti culated and it will articulate it further as it moves throu gh the process. You join the Working Group to negotiate aspects of those potential regulations in good faith. But fundamentally arriving and questioning DOE's author ity was not within the purview of this Working Group and re ally is not why you were nominated to be on it. MS. PETRILLO-GROH: I fundamentally disagree. DO E can't take an action in a rulemaking that exceeds t he scope of its authority. And I think that, that, that is our position and I think even putting that position asi de, we think that the fact that these products are covered equipment and that they have a standard or DOE can develop a standard is the right approach. As we say in the p revious light, it avoids a lot of the complexity, that you capture the total energy use of that system and we think th at in terms of enforcement that, you know, we can come up with something that, that works in terms of allowing DOE to identify abuses of any exception for things that ar e components of cover, covered product. And we, we d on't have that fully fleshed out yet, because we're thinking about it114

1 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 we also need to get a little bit more informati on I think about the distribution chain here. But I thi nk we have, we think that there are some lessons that can be learned from what happened on the residential side with regional standards for air conditioning. Because w e had a bit of a similar issue there where manufacturers ar e, were allowed to produce basically two products. Some ar e compliant in one installation and some are not. Th at's different because that specific statutory provision has language that addresses things further down the sup ply chain and this doesn't. But one of the key facts for tha t was labeling and we think labeling can work here and we just need to think about the best way for DOE to identif y that, which we're still doing. And we recognize that and we're, you know, we're looking at the options there. So, that's one thing that, that we're looking at to recognize this. But -- uh-huh. MR. FERNSTROM: This is Gary for the California Investor-Owned Utilities. It seems to me there are two issues here. One is the debate between you all and DOE about whether or not DOE has the regulatory authori ty to address this. DOE says it does. You say it doesn' t. Now I don't think that's something the Working Group can address. My opinion is that we have to presume that DOE is c orrect and the Working Group then will go from there with respect115

1 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 its development of a recommendation as to whethe r unitary equipment should be covered or not, with respect to the fans, of course. I think we need to look at the da ta that is being collected in order to establish that recom mendation and at least speaking for the California utilities and perhaps the environmental advocacy group within thi s Working Group, we're not convinced at this point that the f ans utilized in unitary equipment should be exempted ye t. So, I would propose that we go ahead, gather the data, lo ok at it, understand the energy savings and then the environm ental representatives in this Working Group can make a de cision as to whether it wants to agree to exempt this equipme nt or not. MS. SHEPHERD: Well, and I think as Laura mentioned, you know, we are gathering that data, bu t I think that what we wanted to flag it, I, I do not believe that this issue is clear, however, I mean, you don't nec essarily have to get to that point if we can agree and we re ach a consensus that this exemption is, would work in ter ms of energy savings. MR. FERNSTROM: So, so speaking for the Californi a IOUs, we are not prepared to agree to that at this point until we see the data and I believe that the other environmental advocate representatives in this Work ing Group have a similar view.116

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. SHEPHERD: Right. And I'm not suggesting that, that we're looking for your agreement on this today, obviously. I mean, we recognize that there's addit ional, that there's additional information that can be inf ormative on this issue. MR. FERNSTROM: Well, we keep coming back to this point over and over and over again. And both sides have made their positions quite clear. So, why don't we proceed with the process of looking at the data and then we can make a decision? MR. WINNINGHAM: This is David Winningham with, with Allied Air. Gary, I appreciate your, your pos ition on this, but the prior two days we have been negotiati ng in a similar forum on commercial packaged equipment grou p, equipment, which at the present time is taking into account fan energy use in ventilation mode outside of the c urrent test procedure and in an applied manner well beyond the current test procedure. So, we need to, from a manufacturer's perspective, we need to account for that performance in one place. And if we are going to b e held to that in multiple situations, then I think that is v ery problematic for the manufacturers. MR. FERNSTROM: This is Gary. I understand that. MS. PETRILLO-GROH: And I think that there's another, there's another issue too that if, for, fo r Dave's117

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 point, if you have that being accounted in two plac es, your fan has two standards. It has a fan standard and i t has the standard that's being applied as it's, as it's appl ied to the covered product. And you can't have two standa rds for one covered product. So, I, I think that, that, I mean, that's exactly why this interpretation of EPCA that , that, you know, I, meaning is clear from the statute and the fact that there are specific provisions that talk about component regulation. And even a component has to be a cover ed product before it can be regulated as a component. MR. FERNSTROM: So this is Gary. You said we can't have two standards for a covered product. Do we not have standards for electric motors? MS. SHEPHERD: There's an entire statutory provision for that. MS. PETRILLO-GROH: That's Caroline Davidson-Hood

. MS. SHEPHERD: Yeah, AMCA was amended so that tha t could happen. And that's different than fans. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, yes. MR. FERNSTROM: But it is a situation. MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. So, I, I'm just go ing to reiterate. This is, the, the Working Group should not be discussing, it is not within the purview of the Wor king Group to discuss DOE's authority and interpretation s of the statute. That being said, you're well within your right to118

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 submit comments outside this process whatever. Tha t was not what ASRAC charged this Working Group to do. That' s not in the scope of the, the ground rules that we negotiat ed at the beginning. That was not in the scope that ASRAC as ked you to do. So that being said, I'm going to bring back the discussion to kind of scope of, we're talking about standards. We're not talking about authority. Tha t's off the table. We're talking about standards and what' s potentially in and out and whether we should report . And, and at this point it goes to Gary's comment that he just stated that he would like to see data before he is in a position as a Working Group voting member to vote. I don't know how other people around the table feel, but th at's really where we are. I mean, for someone to vote o n scope, they, they're asking for more information to better inform them, to better inform their vote. Talking, you kn ow, the authority is just off here. MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Ashley, I fundamentally disagree with that. You can't consider options tha t, that you can't consider options that DOE doesn't have th e authority to do. And I, and I don't want to, I don 't want to belabor this point. I think we can move on and get, and move to the data and talk about other things, but recognizing that in the, in other ASHRAE negotiated rulemakings, they are discussions about what DOE ha s the119

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 authority to do and what not. And sometimes, you k now, when we did it last summer, the attorney for DOE would h ave to go upstairs and confer and come back and said that's n ot going to be on the table because we don't have the author ity to do that. So, I, I think that is an issue. It's a fun damental issue for us. But again, as I said, I think that w e can have other discussions about options and this still I think can be a very viable option regardless of whether w e address that issue directly. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What I'm basically hearing is , you know, from there is this issue that's being rai sed about authority. I think DOE is being fairly clear that the issue could relate to scope and that, that's what this gr oup was chartered to look at was scope. And that although, you know, authority might be an issue for people as the y evaluate scope and it's not really a direct issue f or the Working Group itself. MS. PETRILLO-GROH: It, it is a direct issue for the Working Group in the sense that we can't reach consensus on something we think is outside DOE's legal author ity. MS. ARMSTRONG: The Working Group is not a llowed -- MS. PETRILLO-GROH: I'm not going to speak for al l the manufacturers. That's just AHRI. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah, I -- MS. ARMSTRONG: -- to work on this, on, t he120

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Working Group, it is not in the ground rules for th e Working Group to discuss DOE's authority as it relates or, or vote on a position about it. So, to the extent somebody wants to discuss the applicability of potential standards or how certain types of equipment should be tested, that's well within the purview. But it was definitely in ASRAC 's charter, nor was it in the ground rules. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah, AS, ASRAC committee was chartered under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act and t he, the other statute. That Negotiated Rulemaking Act and the, you know, and FACA, yeah, and they can't sit around and , we can't negotiate the law. The law, the statute's th e statute. MS. PETRILLO-GROH: But isn't it important for everyone here to know that there are limitations on DOE's authority when you're moving forward and you're mak ing decisions on what this regulation is going to look like? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But they're, that's -- MS. PETRILLO-GROH: I mean, it's important for you -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- that's for a different board. MS. PETRILLO-GROH: It's not, I mean -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I can't argue with you

now.121

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: -- these people need to make a decision about, you know, what this rule's going to look like and if it's going to have legal problems, at t he end of the day that's an important factor to consider. MS. SHEPHERD: But I, I, I think that the key decision here is that for, it is extremely difficul t for us to agree to something that we feel is beyond DOE's legal authority. MS. ARMSTRONG: So but -- MS. SHEPHERD: And -- MS. ARMSTRONG: -- I go back to Trinity i s, I think, point about, should we proceed with the work ing group. I mean, that's essentially what he was aski ng and that's something that's within this Working Group t o decide. Should be keep continuing to meet if you're, I mean , what I'm hearing and, and I hope this isn't the case, be cause I think the last meeting we were making pretty good p rogress and I thought this morning we were making good prog ress, until we got here. Was the fact that we were talki ng about, you know, the details and those types of things or what potential regulations might look like and, and how that things might be tested and the details that are wit hin the scope of the Working Group. But it really comes to the heart of, you know, if you're telling us there's a subset of this Working Group that believes that they can't pr oceed122

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 without articulating or voting on opinions of DOE's authority -- MS. PETRILLO-GROH: That's not what -- MS. ARMSTRONG: -- and I think we're at t he point of, of try, having a discussion about do we proceed or not? And that's really, you know, this Working Group can ask ASRAC to suspend. MS. PETRILLO-GROH: That, Ashley, that is not wha t we're asking. What we're trying to do is explain o ur position. And this is our position on the issue of covered products and exemption for covered products. We ar e not asking for a vote on whether DOE has legal authorit y. We understand that is DOE's determine to make, determi nation to make. What we are saying, we're trying to explain our position on this particular issue and we think that practically, as we talked about in the previous sli de, this can be a working resolution that works very well an d maintains the flexibility and avoids this issue. S o, that's, that's what we're talking about. And we do think that we can move over be, forward because this is a n option. And we want to further explore this option and put it forth in front of the Working Group for consideration wit h further information. And there's a, and this is just for c overed products that we're talking about. We're not talki ng about non-covered products, which is what we talked about this123

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 morning. MR. FERNSTROM: This, this is Gary. A recommendation for process. Maybe we ought to vote on this recommendation now and set it aside. So that is, i s the willing, the Working Group willing to take off the table fan coverage for those fans that go into unitary equipm ent? MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. MR. FERNSTROM: If we vote on that now, we'll hav e a resolution. We can, we can go ahead either devel oping more information and retaining this possibility on the table or we can just take it off the table. But it, it w ill mitigate the need for continued discussion of this. And I suggest if the group is willing to take a vote on t hat, we need to have a little caucus ahead of time. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's over lunch? MS. ARMSTRONG: I'm fine with taking a vo te. Others? MR. FERNSTROM: Yeah, get a, get a very clear written resolution put together -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How long a caucus do you want Gary? MR. FERNSTROM: I think it'll take the -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Want to do the caucus? MR. FERNSTROM: -- environmental crew maybe two o r three minutes. To all be on the same page with thi s.124

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: So what would be the out, so if, what are the alternative outcomes? So if, if w e had this vote and it came out one way, what would be pa th forward and on the other way what would be the path forward? UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: What's the resolution? Let's -- MR. FERNSTROM: Gary. The vote, the -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: -- just be very -- MR. FERNSTROM: -- vote would be can we take fans that go into unitary equipment off the table now -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE 1: Regulated. UNIDENTIFIED MALE 2: Current, currently regulate d products. MR. FERNSTROM: Will you forget currently regulated? Or, or we don't. MS. ARMSTRONG: They're not all regulated on that slide. MS. PETRILLO-GROH: They're covered products. That's what listed. That was pulled from the DOE w ebsite. MS. ARMSTRONG: They are not all regulate d. MS. PETRILLO-GROH: They're, are they covered products though? MS. ARMSTRONG: The way you have them, ge nerally speaking is that -- MS. PETRILLO-GROH: This was, I pulled that off o f125

1 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, you know, the part of the EER website that say s commercial? MS. ARMSTRONG: Fine. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What other sites were used? MS. PETRILLO-GROH: That's so, that's where it came from. Right there. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What other (indiscernible) -- MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Sorry. MR. FERNSTROM: It doesn't matter to me whether, this is Gary again, whether we address covered prod ucts or regulated products. I think the outcome of the vot e's going to be the same either way. MR. CATANIA: Gary can I offer a suggestion befor e you caucus here. Tom Catania. Couple of thoughts. You know, to me the more significant vote is, is whethe r or not AHRI's position is that if these products are inclu ded, that they cannot vote in favor of, of any proposed regul ation. Because to me, that's much more important. You kno w, it would be a very quick vote. My sense is of whether these products should be excluded and it would fail. But so, then the question becomes, does, does the process go for ward in bad faith if you're going to take the position that any agreement that includes covered products you will v ote no on? MS. PETRILLO-GROH: No, I think that the, the key ,126

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I think the key concern are the practical issues th at we outlined. So I think there are -- MR. CATANIA: No, no, no. We didn't hear practical issues -- MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Yeah, it was the slide before the -- MR. CATANIA: -- we had -- MS. PETRILLO-GROH: -- the legal one. MR. CATANIA: Yeah, it, it was but the dispositiv e issue are your fundamental legal position -- MS. PETRILLO-GROH: No but we think -- MR. CATANIA: -- that they can't be covered. MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Okay. But we think the, what , what we think the benefits of this approach are, ar e those things that are listed there. So I think there are other, there are other paths and I honestly think that we would have to go back and decide whether or not at this p oint on that particular issue that's something that, that w e could say right now. But I think that there are other, i n terms of the definitions, and, and things like that, ther e are other things that can get us to the same results or that we may be able to be comfort, comfortable with. MR. FERNSTROM: So this is Gary again. Tom, I think AHRI is saying, listen to our recommendation and make a determination on it. And I'm just calling for th e127

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 determination now. MR. CATANIA: Well, the, the determination is jus t on the point of whether the products should be excl uded and it fails, we're back, we're back in exactly the sam e place. MR. FERNSTROM: We are, but I think it will preclude AHRI coming back again and saying over and over again, listen to our proposal. MR. CATANIA: Well -- MR. FERNSTROM: Which is what has been happening for the past two or three meetings and gets to Trin ity's point about where we go from here. Now where AHRI goes in the future, that's up to them. But at least it wil l resolve this issue now. MR. WHITWELL: So this, this is Bob Whitwell from Carrier and I think I'm speaking, I hope I'm speaki ng for the rest of the AHRI members when I say, really wha t we're looking for is exemption of the condenser fan and t he supply air fan on covered products, because those are incl uded in the efficiency metric and they already have for, fo r this, this equipment. It's included in the, in the EER o r the IEER metrics that exist today, or the EER that exis ts today and the IEER metric that we're negotiating currentl y in the other rulemaking process. And in fact, if you look at the energy savings that, we, we, we have each, the manu facturers and the energy advocates presented positions yester day.128

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 We're, we're narrowing in on a, on an agreement, I believe, in that other rulemaking and there's a significant amount of energy savings with this, with the proposed vote po sitions. A good portion of that energy savings is due to the fan energy. And it's, it's the fan energy during the c ooling operation, within the heating operation and during the ventilation op, operation. It's (indiscernible). UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay. And all the implied static. MR. WHITWELL: And, and that applied static is al l in there. So, what we're looking for is exemption of the supply air fan and the condenser fan in those cover ed products because it's built into the energy metric that we're already, that we're certifying and will conti nue to certify to DOE. MR. CATANIA: So, can I ask a clarifying question in response to that? Tom Catania again. So of the total horsepower that we were looking at in the original kind of broad conversations, there was about a 50, 50 split between a gross look at fans and covered products and not. You know, it was a few million on each side. The exemp tion as you just more narrowly describe it, how much of tha t horsepower are we talking about? MR. WHITWELL: I, I don't know the answer to that

. But I do --129

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. CATANIA: (Indiscernible). MR. WHITWELL: -- I, I -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I do. MR. CATANIA: Well, if it's covered. MR. WHITWELL: But -- MR. CATANIA: It's counted. I'll answer the question. The connected load, right? Just back of the envelope calculation, of AHRI regulated products is above one horsepower or one horsepower and above is about two million horsepower. And below one horsepower is ab out two and half million horsepower. Put that in perspecti ve, the fan products, if you will, that are represented by the database that we produced, which includes some embe dded fans, is about 3.6 million horsepower. So basicall y you've got four and a half million horsepower in regulated equipment and you've got three and a half million h orsepower in unregulated equipment. So it's not a small amou nt of connected load. MR. WHITWELL: So let me add one other aspect of this, this is what's going on, on the commercial ai r conditioning side. MS. ARMSTRONG: Hold on one second. With what you just said though, I don't think that equates to wha t Bob's saying either. Right? I mean, he's talking about -- MR. CATANIA: That's the, that's the, that's the130

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 fan power at the wire. That's the connected load i n BHP -- MS. ARMSTRONG: But not all AHRI parts to me. If I am understanding you. And perhaps I'm not. You' re asking, if you're just talking about that other rul e, you're asking small, large, very large condenser fan, othe r size fan for air cooled only and only for those? MR. CATANIA: Supply air fans. MR. WHITWELL: Well, certainly for those I think the other -- MR. CATANIA: My, it was my -- MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, that is very diff erent than -- MR. CATANIA: Are you asking him or are you askin g me? MS. ARMSTRONG: From behind you. MR. CATANIA: Okay. MS. ARMSTRONG: That's very different tha n what's on this slide. I mean, what you're arguing with th e other rule is limited solely to, greater than 65,000 all the way up to bare wires, so 70 some tons, 70 tons-ish. Ai r cooled only, split and packaged. MR. WHITWELL: Yeah. That is the, that's today. MS. ARMSTRONG: That's what the other rul e -- MR. WHITWELL: That's, that's the other rule. MS. ARMSTRONG: -- I mean, if you're usin g that as131

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 your argument, that is what the other rule is. And if that's your ask, I think that's a very different as k of the people around the table that -- MR. WHITWELL: Okay. Well, let's start -- MS. ARMSTRONG: -- would split everything on the slide by way. MR. WHITWELL: -- let's, let's, let's start with that part. Okay? Let's start with that part. Bec ause that's what's going on today. Now what's going to happen in the future, I expect that we're going to see the ot her products move to the same type of metric. Right? I would expect that, that's the direction that -- MS. ARMSTRONG: So, do you want some time to think about what you're asking the group to potentially c onsider voting on? MR. WHITWELL: I, I guess I would like to make sure that I'm in line -- MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Well, we'd like to caucus. MR. WHITWELL: -- with the rest of the AHRI members. But -- MR. CATANIA: And can I, can I -- MR. WHITWELL: -- but I -- MR. CATANIA: -- just some other things about that? MR. WHITWELL: -- sorry, I just, I'm sorry. I, I132

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 just wanted to make -- MS. ARMSTRONG: I, I think your argument for that is very different than this one. MR. WHITWELL: -- I just wanted to make one other comment about what's going on in the other rulemaki ng. So, so part of maximizing or improving the energy effic iency with the IEER metric, driving the products that hav e staged indoor, inner, staged indoor fans. That's, that's coming out complete, and as the IEER metric increases, it' s also in the, it's in ASHRAE 90.1. It's in California Title 24, as requirements to have staged fans in order to comply with those standards. So as you move to the lower fan s peeds and part load, the efficiency of the fan is much less i mportant. Right? Because the, the energy used goes with the, the cube of the, of the speed. Right? So, you can argue th at the IEER, increasing the IEER is doing more for saving energy than a, an incremental improvement in the energy ef ficiency of the fan itself. So it's just another thing to c onsider. MS. ARMSTRONG: But that argument is limi ted too. Greater than 65, small, large, very large, air cool ed, split and packaged. That's a very different ask. MR. WHITWELL: Okay. That's great. Okay. We're going to talk about that. MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. MR. CATANIA: Okay. So I guess, this is Tom133

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Catania again, I guess if I was going into your off ice, one of the things I would be thinking about is that at the highest level, the DOE's authority to regulate safe energy here and the desire on the part of the people who r egulate power generators around the country, is very broad. And you've experienced as an industry watching the sala mi get sliced multiple times and the minute it's made the statutes, to cover things where opportunities for savings hav e been missed and then identified subsequently and oh, we' re going to either have to change the test procedure or the authority or something like that. That's what's going to hap pen again if there are millions of, you know, horsepower that in the real world are increasingly detected as not being s afe. So, it's do you want to do it in a comprehensive proces s that, that considers in the proceeding you just described in this proceeding an optimization of this, or do you want to fight trench, legalistic trench warfare and have, you kno w, difficulty predicting your capital investments and research and that spending as the salami keeps getting slice d as people go back. Whether it's the advocates or the Department directly and says okay. If it'll requir e us to tweak our legislative authority a bit or our interp retations and our rules a bit, but this is a big pile of demo nstrated energy savings opportunities sitting there that's n ot being taken advantage of. And that's the way I would thi nk of it134

1 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 I was trying to do capital spending plans and in vestments looking out decades where these things get fixed la ter and you guys have had it happen multiple times. Mike. MR. WOLF: This is Mike Wolf, Greenheck. So I just have one question here before we break for a c aucus here. First of all, I, I guess my interpretation o f what I have heard, is that what Amy -- MS. ARMSTRONG: Uh-huh. MR. WOLF: -- said, and what Bob said, they sound like different things to me -- MS. ARMSTRONG: They are. MR. WOLF: -- so I think it would be good to get that -- MR. PETRILLO-GROH: Yeah, and I -- MR. WOLF: -- cleared up. I'm not looking for a response. I just want to get this off my chest tod ay. MR. PETRILLO-GROH: Yeah, go ahead. MR. WOLF: And then the second thing is for every action there's a reaction. So let's assume for a m oment that I'm just going through my head here, that we t ake some of the stuff off the table. What will happen then? I'm, I'm guessing the process will go on. We'll have AM CA, you know, I know my, my initial comments to the NODA. I, I suggested the ASRAC process because I'd probably ge t more, excuse me, more people involved and we'd end up wit h a135

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 better rule. Now, to Trinity's point, it's getting a little frustrating coming up to Washington every couple of weeks and feeling like we're spinning our wheels. And my guess is that if we take some of these things off the table and said, all right, you know what, they, they don't apply. We're going to go back to what we were doing before and, you know, time will march on and the, AMCA group or the advoc ate group will just continue on with what we've developed and that's what will get probably adopted if it's legally okay to do that. And again, I'm kind of thinking ahead in the house market, I think, again, it would be better that we include all the fans, you know, the manufacturers that, tha t are applying fans, rather than just this kind of relati vely narrow view of, of AMCA and, and advocates. So, yo u know, you, I don't know if that's a question or a stateme nt. I guess I'll ask if the question could actually, if t he ASRAC were disbanded -- MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. MR. WOLF: -- what, what would be the future stag e of this process? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Statutory. MR. WOLF: Can you answer that or not? MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. So, I can, I mean, I'm not going to do it from a statutory authority side, but just how this will work, more as a process kind of thing. S o if this136

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 group votes, we would have to vote to disband. We would ask ASRAC to disband us, because ASRAC is the one that chartered us. So we would have to do that. ASRAC would then disband the committee. They would tell DOE it was disbande d and why and DOE could march on with its own rule. I mean, at that point in time it becomes its normal rulemaking proc ess. We would go through our proposal development process a nd then put a proposal and notice and comment. I mean, we' ve already stated a couple of them that we intended to do so for fans. So, it would just go through our normal rulemaking process that doesn't afford as many of t he back and forth opportunities with all of us in the room to deal with some of the stickier issues that we have been talking about. So, but that's what would happen if we disb and. MS. SHEPHERD: And this is Amy -- MS. ARMSTRONG: And at that point what, i n terms of what's, you know, it's informed by the comments we receive. It would be informed by the discussions w e've had to date, but ultimately DOE would be deciding and p utting out a proposal for comment. MS. SHEPHERD: And this is Amy from AHRI. I mean , our intention in presenting this was to just give y ou the, the, explore this as an option and tell you why we thought it was a good option. That it, it wasn't our inten tion to bring this to vote today. That's what I said to Ga ry. When137

1 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 know there's more information coming. But what I think we just want to do is continue to explore this as a n option. Our intention here was just to give you an explanat ion of what we think the basis for the option would be. A nd that's it. I mean, I, I think there's definitely a benefi t to moving forward and just continuing to consider this as an avenue for these types of products, or some variati on on this as we have discussed. MR. FERNSTROM: Well, well, this is Gary. Amy, o f course, this would remain an option as we move forw ard as is consideration of the work that's going on with the Unitary Working Group. So, you know, what outcome we ultim ately come to is dependent on a couple of things. Gettin g more information about this market and seeing how it may or may not be treated and other ongoing working groups. MS. MAUER: This is Joanna. Bob, I just wanted t o push back a little bit on what you said. I, I thin k I heard you say that fan energy is already captured in IEER . And I agree that condenser fan energy is captured. Suppl y fan energy is captured to some extent. I haven't been involved in the discussion on unitary equipment, but my unde rstanding is that there have been discussions in that working group about how IEER really is not adequately capturing f an energy and there are different ways that, that can be addr essed. IEER could be revised to better capture fan energy. But I138

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 just wanted to -- MR. WHITWELL: Yeah. So -- MS. MAUER: -- point that out. MR. WHITWELL: -- okay, so let me expand on that. So, the condenser fan is 100 percent covered. When the compressor is on, the condenser fan is on and it's -- MS. MAUER: I think that's what I said. MR. WHITWELL: -- captured 100 percent. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. MR. WHITWELL: The supply air fan is captured whe n it's running in cooling operation. When the unit i s running the heating operation, it's actually helping to hea t so it's, it reduces the heating, the heating requireme nt for the heat pump or for the electric heater or for the gas heat, because it, it's, the inefficiency is adding heat to the air. Okay? And that's a small part of that to tal operation. The, the ventilation energy is not capt ured in the metric, although it is being captured in the an alysis and the savings that are being included in the anal ysis for that rulemaking. Furthermore, there was an, an ask or some discussion and the industry members need to go back and think about this. To consider a revision or tweaki ng of the IEER metric to include ventilation. So that's some thing that we can consider as part of the ongoing negotia tions. MS. MAUER: I think that's one component in my139

1 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. The other significant component is that IEER test is using unrealistically low external static. MR. WHITWELL: The IEER test has external statics that are representative of statics that can be appl ied in applications. I mean, the, the range of applicatio ns is so broad. Right? MS. MAUER: Right. I understand -- MR. WHITWELL: And -- MS. MAUER: -- but I don't know that it's -- MR. WHITWELL: -- and, and in -- MS. MAUER: -- representative. MR. WHITWELL: -- the energy analysis that's bein g done, statics higher than the test statics are bein g used. So, the analysis is looking at something that's hig her than what the test standard is, is based upon. So -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Because? MR. STARR: Yeah, this is Louis. I mean, that's kind of a lot of where I have the heartburn. They' re using .3 static inches for it, so think of all the ductwo rk systems and the tab guidance beat that. How many o f them actually hook up and only have .3 inches of static pressure loss in the pressure return. And that's what they'r e using. It's owner analysis, they, the consultants went bac k and used what they considered a more realistic number - - MR. WHITWELL: .75 and 1.25.140

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. STARR: Yeah. Depending on the size of the equipment. And so that bumped the savings quite a bit. But the test procedure itself still is very low -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Uh-huh. MR. STARR: -- static pressure and so that's why when we're talking about the IEER being more repres entative, using a higher static pressure and it would be one. And then the other things that Bob mentioned. MR. WHITWELL: Yeah. So I mean, the test procedure is a test procedure to compare different products. Right? The, the energy analysis that's being done -- UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Prepared by a condenser company. MR. WHITWELL: -- is, is looking at what, you know, a higher static pressure. So, you know, we'r e getting, we're getting a comparison that's helping us to determine, you know, it's giving direction on deter mining what the final level is going to be that's based on higher static -- MS. MAUER: This is Joanna. Yeah, I understand that the analysis is attempting to reflect actual f ield energy consumption, as it should. I think the, the concern is that if the test metric is not appropriately ref lecting field energy consumption, then it's not adequately kind of incentivizing fan energy improvements.141

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. WINNINGHAM: And, and, this is Dave with Allied. Joanna, I completely understand what you'r e stating there and that has been asked too. But we are acco unting for that energy as it's applied, kind of per our di scussion, beyond what the test procedure, and we are making o ur decisions based upon that, that energy, that energy . What we are, what gives us heartburn is we have, we have done that and that has significantly changed the fan pow er in that discussion. I mean, it, it has, it's probably -- MR. STARR: So, Dave, the, the concern is not so much about the most recent. What's in the future, if you have a metric that's not really gearing it toward, I mean, to make it a more concrete example, let's take like a dryer or a washer where you, you, the, the test product w as all handkerchiefs. Now how many of us, you know, go th ere. So it's, in other words, if you're applying the test p rocedure around something that's not realistic, it, it desig ns them to, design their equipment around them, and that's what really the concern is, not so much is the, the snap shot of how much the savings are. But moving forward, are we on the right trajectory to get where we're trying to save energy in the field? MR. WINNINGHAM: Understand, and I understand wha t the test procedure is and how we're, how we're doin g that analysis and I think the debate here is, okay, if w e're142

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 going to account for that energy there, then we can 't account for it here. MS. MAUER: So this is Joanna. I don't, I don't think the analysis is accounting for the analysis i s sufficient, because in order, what we care about is real low energy savings, not, not -- MR. WINNINGHAM: That's what the analysis is attempting to end -- MS. MAUER: And I, but I think that -- MR. WINNINGHAM: Go ahead. MS. MAUER: -- the problem is that you can have two products at the same IEER that may have signifi cantly different real world energy consumption due to, to fan energy, and I think that's a problem now, so. MR. STARR: That's the part that we're trying, would like to get it fixed at some. The question i s, is how do you fix that. MS. ARMSTRONG: So can I ask you a question? I mean, this is just a question. MR. STARR: No. MS. ARMSTRONG: If the ask then for, for potentially, I mean as part of your, as for a lot o f people here but, Bob had the, I know the Bob again, becaus e you're the new spokesman. Uh -- MS. SHEPHERD: You fired me, I know.143

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. ARMSTRONG: No, no, I didn't fire you. I'm just not talking authority. So I, so, if, if your ask is to the group for us to potentially consider taking off the table at this point, small, large, very large, grea ter than 65,000, um, air cooled split package, air condition ers and heat pumps because of all the aforementioned reason s, um, are you willing to also commit to a metric and test procedure provision as part of that ask. MR. WHITWELL: So again, I think this is the part of what we've already -- MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, just wondering. MR. WHITWELL: This is what we've already been asked in the other working group to consider. So, I mean this was yesterday. So we need some time to think about this, and, and develop a response. But I think, Jo anna, to, to answer your concern, I mean if we were to includ e in the, say as Harvey put it yesterday, to link the IEER te st procedure to include ventilation, the fan and the f an powered during ventilation, I mean I think that goe s a long way to eliminating the concern that, that you guys would have as far as the IEER test procedure. Right? MR. STARR: Well, I think the static pressure, uh , for me is probably, you saw the analysis that jumpe d a factor in amount of energy he test -- MR. WINNINGHAM: I, I think that's part of the144

1 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. MS. ARMSTRONG: So, so can I make a suggestion? MR. STARR: Yes. MS. ARMSTRONG: At this point, it sounds like people need to caucus. You need to think about wha t your ask of it is. We need to think about what we may b e willing to give or whatever with our respective each little groups. And clearly you've heard the discussion with regard s to data, the test procedure changes, metric changes, d ifferent things, what is your actual scope? This is very br oad. And I could argue against your fans for a lot of these with regards to test procedures and regs right now. So I think you need to really figure out what your ask is of t his group. And with that, who wants to eat. MR. BOTELER: I have one comment. Can I make one comment and here? MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. MR. BOTELER: As a, as a -- MR. STARR: Please identify yourself. MR. BOTELER: Oh, I'm Rob Boteler, I'm the Chairman of the Electrical Motor and Section Energy Management. Yeah, thank you. MR. STARR: Thanks. MR. BOTELER: We've been regulated for about 20 years now, so we have a little bit of experience he re.145

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. ARMSTRONG: And they keep coming back for

more. MR. BOTELER: We keep coming for more, and it's all because of you and now you bring the kid back. Oh my gosh. MS. ARMSTRONG: I didn't bring the kid back. MR. BOTELER: Oh, okay. MS. ARMSTRONG: Who's to clarify that one. MR. BOTELER: I would just, I'm not going to be part of the caucus, but I, I would just mention tha t, it was mentioned that motors were regulated as a component . And if it goes into a piece of equipment, it can also be r egulated. And that's, that's probably not by accident. One o f the issues that you're going to face under regulation i s a fan manufacturer' enforcement. And Ashley and I go bac k and forth on a regular basis for enforcement and issues we have with enforcement. And if you think that the market is not going to challenge you at every corner and try to t ake advantage of lower cost and get around the regulati ons, you are sadly mistaken. I have examples. We have a sm all motor rule. I got a call the other day from one of my sa les people. One of his manufacturers is redesigning an entire product line, moving millions of dollars' worth of motors to another product that's not covered so he can avoid the regulation.146

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So I think when you look at something like this, and I understand the issues, you know. If it's cov ered, it's, and you're double counting it, that is defini tely an issue. But if you're a fan manufacturer and you're creating a situation where you regulate not at the point of manufacture, but at the point of application, you'v e created a situation where the market is going to take advan tage of it. So that's, my worse, my worse of what, what oc curs in the market. MR. WHITWELL: I, I know we're holding up lunch, but I, I don't, I'm not sure I quite understand tha t, because how does it, you're saying it creates a pro blem, creates a problem for who? MR. BOTELER: As a, as a manufacturer of the regulated equipment, whatever that component is, if it can go in two different directions, it has a different regulation depending upon the application, then the market will see that and, and take advantage of it, and tr y and purchase that product that's not regulated. MR. WHITWELL: But you're talking about a, let's say, a, fan blade. MR. BOTELER: Right. If there's a fan blade that could go two different directions, you will find at some point that there's a, it would never happen here, b ut the manufacturer from Southeast Asia somewhere would su ddenly go147

1 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 one of your competitors and find that they're bu ilding air handlers with some piece of product that, we fi nd motors that have no nameplates. MR. WHITWELL: So you're talking about a, an end use product that someone would go to China and buy, say like an air handler. They would buy an air handler -- MR. BOTELER: No. I'm talking about your competing air handler manufacturer here in the U.S. is buying those components from somewhere that are not , not compliant. MR. WHITWELL: But, but, so I think that problem exists here anyway, because as I've sat in on the l ast few meetings, I understand that I will be the fan manuf acturer, because I'm taking that fan and I'm putting in the housing. So -- MS. ARMSTRONG: I don't think we've determined that per se -- MR. WHITWELL: That's right. MR. BOTELER: But that's the discussion. MR. WHITWELL: That was the question on the table

. MS. SHEPHERD: Okay, I think you may have made your point -- MR. BOTELER: Okay. MS. SHEPHERD: That, that any solution has to be a solution --148

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. BOTELER: I just wanted the fan manufacturers to understand that. MS. SHEPHERD: Yeah, I think everyone has a point that a solution has to cover all the problems. MR. WHITWELL: Well I think, if I think about the motor correlation, I mean we have to rearm. I'm no t sure that we can go buy a motor from somewhere else and use it in our equipment if it's not, if it doesn't meet the D OE regulatory requirements, because I believe any moto r that comes into the, into the U.S. has to be, has to mee t that requirement, right. MS. ARMSTRONG: Oh, I'll, I'll give you -- MR. WHITWELL: And that, that's his point. MS. ARMSTRONG: So I'll give you an example, right. Do you remember a couple of years ago when I was like this, like crawling around the room -- MR. BOTELER: Yeah, baby number two. MS. ARMSTRONG: -- because I was about to have a baby and we were talking about what, you know, we g ot to the point where it was, well what kind of motors are yo u guys using in your HVAC equipment. And there was this b ig discussion. And all of a sudden some people are ju st slapping this thing on them, calling them air over motors, because they happen to blow air. And those all of a sudden don't have to meet DOE standards. And they don't h ave a149

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 nameplate, because they're not subject to standards right

now. So you have a situation where, what I think Bob's trying to explain to you is that people, no one in this room, but there are people out there in places that go to extreme lengths to find the little avenues to get t heir products in here. And while we do have an enforcem ent team, we do have a very good enforcement team that is, is very active and, and engaging them, you know, there are legit problems. And what he's trying to tell you is, be careful of the loopholes and unintended consequences. MR. WHITWELL: Yes, yes, okay. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah. MR. BOTELER: Last week, last week, last week it was 50 hertz motors. The deal with regulations, th e dealer had 60 hertz last, last week. MS. ARMSTRONG: Last week, that just came in my email today. MR. WHITWELL: We had, we had 50, 60 hertz. MR. BOTELER: No. Well, 50, 60 is covered. Okay , we know that. We were smart enough to figure that one out. But we said, well we won't cover 50 hertz, so we ha ve a manufacturer from India importing equipment and all the motors are 50 hertz, labeled 50 hertz and they have no anomaly efficiency, don't meet anything. And they said,150

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 well we didn't have to comply because it's a 50 her tz motor. Of course, we're going to run it on 60 hertz. MS. ARMSTRONG: So this goes along with the self declarations also idea. Right, these all go hand i n hand. So, all, all we're trying to say is, think through your ask. The Committee is willing to listen, but think throu gh your ask, what it exactly it is you're asking. What are all the different aspects that are potentially unintended consequences that they have had to deal with for a really long time and are banging down my door to fix all t he time. MR. BOTELER: Yeah, yeah, further to that, you know, our first regulation was we, our, our methodo logy was, have the narrowest equipment class you could possib ly have, you know. We, we sell between 40 and 50 million co nnected horsepower a year. Let's try and narrow it down an d regulate the least amount. Well, that opened up th e door that we've regulated general purpose product, but w e didn't regulate definite special purpose product. So, wow , here's a door where I can call it something else and avoid the regulation coming up a year from yesterday. And in June of 2016 essentially covers all those. We, we learned our lesson as we say now, almost, almost. MR. DELANEY: They're others still out there. MR. BOTELER: Yeah, yeah. They're others still out there.151

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LEONARD: Dan Leonard, working on that. MR. BOTELER: Wade, Wade, we're working on this commerce presentation. MS. ARMSTRONG: Anyway so, and, and with that, I think what we're just saying, as you go eat lunch, do we have a variety of options down in L'Enfant Plaza, t hink about all the different aspects of your ask. And t hen we come back in an hour, perhaps you can then articula te what your ask really might be. MR. FLY: I, I think there's one subtle thing tha t we ought to point out though. A motor hut does not believe your regulated point of operation. And in the fans , what we're proposing is regulating point of operation. So if somebody buys a 145 motor and runs it at 10 horsepo wer, that doesn't necessarily change whether that's a covered motor or not a covered motor. So I think that's one, one th ing that we need to consider as we look at these metrics is that they can build a fan that can be rated, that would be a legal fan at one point, and I can apply it a different way, a nd it's all of sudden not legal. And for those of us that are in the equipment business of applying fans, that is a little frightening. MR. WHITWELL: Yeah, and I, I worry about it. That's, that's right. I worry about the regulatory burden here, because we're already certifying to DOE our c ooling152

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 performance. We're certifying our heating performa nce separately. Now we're looking at we're being faced with certifying the performance of all the fans that we have, which could be five fans in one piece of equipment, different fans. And we're going to -- MR. FLY: With five different motors -- MR. WHITWELL: With different motors. We're goin g to have to certify all that to the, to the DOE. I mean, I'm, I'm just, I don't know that we can manage all that. MR. FERNSTROM: Okay, let's go for lunch. OFF THE RECORD. ON THE RECORD. MS. ARMSTRONG: We're going to go on the record now. You ready, all right. So welcome back. I gu ess I will give it, the floor over to Bob, since he's the other person standing across the room from me, kind of li ke -- MR. WHITWELL: Yeah. You're looking at me like you want me to say something, so I will. MS. ARMSTRONG: So I, I think this is, you know, continuing discussion of where we were with regards to the, ask of what you want the Committee to consider, and having that. And then we'll move on to the, the rest of t he presentations for the, this afternoon usually, but let's, let's hear from you guys. MR. WHITWELL: Okay, so yes, Bob Whitwell,153

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Carrier. So AHRI members spoke over lunch and we'r e not ready at this point for a specific ask. But what w e, first off, let me say, we do want to work the process and we want to get to some kind of consensus, okay. So Ashley, do you want to get to a consensus. MS. ARMSTRONG: Actually, I want to get there too , Bob. MR. WHITWELL: We, we would like to come back and we want, we're hoping that we can get agreement on a concept. Okay, and the concept is that if the fan energy is included in, in an energy metric on a product that' s already regulated by DOE, that that fan can be exempted. O kay, so what we, what we need to do. We, we want to have s ome more time and what we'll do is we'll go through that lis t of products that you saw up there and we'll identify w here those products, what our ask is as far as what woul d be exempted. For example, I spoke earlier about the negotiations that's, that's going on. And parallel to this on the, uh, commercial unitary small, large and ver y large equipment for those that, you know, that covers equ ipment from six tons, up to 63 tons, or actually up to 760 ,000 BTU problems, so a lot of roof tops and split air coole r equipment. And on those products, the condenser fa n, we are moving from an energy metric EER, which is a full l oad metric to a part load metric IEER. The part load m etric154

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 takes into consideration the energy at different lo ad points, 175 to 50 and 25. And as the fan stages th e compressors and the fan stage down for those part l oad points, you get the credit for less energy used at the, at the part load conditions. And those equipment, on that equipment the condenser fan is on when the compress or is on. It's off when the compressor is off. It's 100 perc ent covered in the energy metric. The fan energy, the, the supplier of fan energy i s in the metric today when the unit isn't cooling, wh ich is about half of the time. Then it spends some time i n heating, and then it spends some time in, in, uh, ventilation. The ask, as I mentioned before, yeste rday during the discussion of levels that we're at in th at, in that, uh, rulemaking is for us to look at tweaking the IEER metric, so that it would include the energy, the fa n energy during ventilation. And we agreed that we would ta ke a look at that. The, the discussion in that rulemaking was that, that test procedure would be worked over the next, I don't know, maybe it takes a year or two years, and would be adopted for the next round of rulemaking, which is going to be sometime in the future. Not, not the levels tha t we're talking about right now, but it'll be some time in the future. But we, we, the ask is, has been for us to commit155

1 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 changing the AHRI procedure. And I think that's going to happen, but as I said, was just yesterday and we've got to consult with the rest of the, uh, AHRI members befo re we can 100 percent commit to doing that. So for that equipment, I think it would be reasonable then to say that we would exempt the con denser fan and the supplier fan, understanding that the ex haust fan or the return air fan or other fans that are in the equipment that aren't part of the test procedure, w ould be, would not necessarily be exempted, like this. Ther e would be have to be a separate case made if those are goi ng to be exempted. So what we'll do is, over the next, befo re the next meeting or about the, or say by the next meeti ng, you will come back with that list of products that are covered by DOE and say specifically what we're asking to be exempted. Yes? MR. SMITH: I have two questions. The first is - - MR. FERNSTROM: State your name. MR. SMITH: I'm sorry, this is Wade Smith. Do yo u have a proposal for some physical description of a condenser fan that would be exempt, rather than, uh, an exemp tion that ties to the application, the use in a particular pi ece of equipment? Or is it some physical description that you can use to ask for an exemption of all panel fans that are of this, that meet this description, whatever it might be?156

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. WHITWELL: We, we can come up, I'm sure we ca n come up with that. I mean, I -- MR. SMITH: I think that's, I think that's important. MR. WHITWELL: Yeah, I, I would say that, I can't say there are all panel fans, but I, you know, they , they definitely, the majority would be panel fans, zero static. MR. SMITH: And then, and then, uh, I, I would just say that, uh, in our deliberations, uh, when w e, uh, settle on a pro forma consensus, right, uh, one hor sepower and I'll cover one horsepower or another. MR. WHITWELL: So is that, I mean that's one of the things that I am little frustrated with is, wha t is the scope? So -- MR. SMITH: Let me finish. If the scope were one horsepower, and I guess the question is, would, wou ld the condenser fans in these units represent 760,000 BTU s be exempt or not? And if not, if we tweak that horsep ower unit, would that solve the problem? MR. WHITWELL: It might take care of the condense r fans. Uh, most of them would be under one horsepow er. MR. SMITH: So, so that's all. Maybe in the future we'll all do it, you know. So that, that's, that's the seat of the cockpit. I think you need to come back and make a suggestion in terms of how those are, if the y want to157

1 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 exempt then they have to be defined tied into th e problem. On the supply fans, can you share with us, is there full consideration for the cooling mode in th e economizer operation? MR. WHITWELL: The, unfortunately -- UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No. MR. WHITWELL: I mean we've been talking about economizer mode and these, this equipment is not pa rt of the test procedure, so we are not getting credit for th e energy that is saved during the economizer mode. MR. SMITH: And consumed. MR. WHITWELL: And consumed. But the, what I've talked about, as far as the ventilation energy, tha t's economizer mode or just pure ventilation so that wo uld be our position, and -- MR. SMITH: So the operating hours -- MR. WINNINGHAM: The operating hours are in there

. The consumption is there. The credit is not. MR. WHITWELL: Yeah. MR. SMITH: I got you there, yeah. MR. WHITWELL: Yeah, so. MR. SMITH: Okay, well I, I think that's importan t because, uh -- MS. ARMSTRONG: I don't know whether I agree or158

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 not. MR. SMITH: The fan operating hours when the compressor is running, the fan operating hours when the heater is running, uh, are clearly covered by the I EER. MR. WINNINGHAM: Well, okay, so let me, let me correct this. MS. ARMSTRONG: So there's a difference. You're talking about the analysis versus IEER. MR. WHITWELL: No, no, no, no. MS. ARMSTRONG: Well they're, they're different things. MR. WHITWELL: So on a heat pump, the fan operation is included in cooling and heating. If i t's electric heat or if it's gas heat, the fan energy i n heating is not included in the metric. Therefore, I said e arlier, that in heating it's, it's not zero, but it's, it's , it's a, maybe negligible because the inefficiency is going into heat, so even though it's only at COP1, it's going into the air stream, so it is not wasted, okay. MR. SMITH: Right, so what I'm getting at, is if the compressor, if you're in cooling mode and the t hermostat satisfies the compressor in the locked, it'll be on in five minutes, but it's off right now. Is that fan only in operation part of the -- MR. WHITWELL: That'd be part of the ventilation.159

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. SMITH: Okay, that'd be part of ventilation. So the operating hours that are here are tied into the fan, include that at the end of the operation. MR. WHITWELL: That's right. MR. ERNST: Potentially all operating modes. MS. MAUER: Not today in the metric. MR. SMITH: It's not in the whole load metric today. UNIDENTIFIED FALE: Well that, that, that's in th e ask, that's in the ask of it. MR. WHITWELL: And it's not, it's not totally in the IEER metric today, but we have been asked to lo ok at including that in there. So what that would mean i s it's the change in the test procedure. It's going to be a different metric, right. It's, we can't call it IE ER, because -- MR. SMITH: And not in this rule? MR. WHITWELL: Not in this rule. MR. SMITH: At some future date? MR. WHITWELL: It would be for the next generation. MR. SMITH: Like six years from now? MR. WHITWELL: Yeah. MR. CATANIA: I have a question. MS. ARMSTRONG: Who is that.160

1 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. CATANIA: Yeah -- MR. WHITWELL: Yeah, well, who knows when it is, right. I mean it could be sooner than, I mean, I m ean. I mean the other issue we have that we're struggling with, is we got a, a refrigerant change coming on down the r oad. We don't know when, right. It depends on when the, th e safety standards and the building codes are modified to al low the low GWP slightly flammable refrigerant. MR. CATANIA: Very slight. MR. CATANIA: Tom Catania. You know, one thing I think we all need to collectively think about as yo u're going through these decisions about both the timing of the rule and the aggressiveness of it and so forth, is that it's so tempting to focus on the stick element of regula tion and ignore the potential current opportunities. And if some combination of changing of the test procedures, uh, updating them as well as new standards are done well, you kn ow, Gary's clients and their sisters around the country are already spending billions of dollars incenting more rapid adoption of these more energy efficient products. And, you know, if regulation want to indeed survive, and eve n the dozens, the projections that I've seen from people who want to know these things, does, those numbers that are already large today double in the next two years. The exte nt to which some of these advocates here, people like Gar y's161

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 clients, see real world real energy savings as a re sult of the work that's done here, the potential for carrot and incentives for these products getting into the mark et more quickly is going to be profound. I mean, and I saw it happen in the appliance industry and it was huge. So you guys are not unfa miliar with these things, but this is, you know, this is a different way to think about how we want to push fo rth the pace of this and the substantive real world observa ble efficiency benefits as we make these changes. So I just, you know, that's been animating a lot of the fan in dustry's conversations around this. MR. WHITWELL: So we understand the carrot, and then we have, there are incentives for higher than basis efficiency levels and, and most manufacturers, and many manufacturers have multiple tiers. We have three t iers of product. We have good, better, best. The industry overall has been moving, I mean ASHRAE, we, we're involved in the ASHRAE 90.1 proce ss and that is continuing to push for higher energy effici ency in buildings, which includes HVAC equipment. If you l ook at, and we just presented some of the statics to the gr oup the other day, one of the things that the industry has done on its own, we initiated this IEER metric started in 2 010. Too, and, and for the IEER metric, in order to162

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 move up in a higher IEER metric, as I mentioned bef ore, one of the important things is to reduce the fan energy during part load, specifically in part load when you can c ut back on the fan speed. You don't need to deliver as muc h for staging compressors, when staging the fan energy. And if you look at the data that, uh, and I, I, I'll, I may have this wrong, but it's the right, in the right range, is in 2011, which is one year after we , after the ASHRAE, the IEER metric was adopted by ASHRAE 9 0.1, something like six percent of our equipment from ov er 65,000 BTUs per hour to 760,000 BTUs per hour had fans tha t were not just a single speed. So those would run consta nt, full speed year around, right. So it was six percent at , at variable or staged fans, or variable they're buying

. 2014, that number was up to 20 percent, so a significant move that industry has moved to differe nt technology, reducing fan energy, saving a lot of en ergy for, for consumers, so we understand the carrot part. U h, and as an industry, we are working there, continuing to wo rk outside of the regulatory, that the federal regulat ory arena to improve the efficiency of our equipment, and pro vide for, for our customers, so. Yes? MR. SMITH: Right, so, at this point I just want to interject a little pitch for the metric that was developed in the MCO which the science of maximum h orsepower163

1 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 any and every operating point, which on the surf ace seems like an undue burden. But it has a few very import ant and attractive attributes, especially during manufactur e that bear pointing out here. The first is that, the great frustration of fan manufacturers who care about efficiency is that the y can make a fan that has a 90 percent efficient potentia l and see it applied in the field of 30 or 35 percent. And t hat, you know, this isn't like going from 90 to 72. This is , it's been going from 90 to 30. And the, the step back f rom 30, viewed from 30,000 feet, is that the actual fan eff iciency varies dramatically, depending upon how the fan is applied and how it's liked. And so, so dramatic is this ver y ability, that it has the unwelcomed consequence of being able to overwhelm other things they might do to imp rove fan efficiency. Sell a little larger fan. Sell a more efficient fan. Did it cost a little more? Our, our expectat ion is the market will respond by compensating and, and se lecting a less efficient, less expensive fan. So the savings that we could produce by taking that approach, by tying the performance to valuation or regulation to particula r test bumps, the savings was very uncertain and the fear was that it would be nonexistent. So that if we went into t he utility rebate business, so to speak and promise th e utility164

1 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 gain, I'm not sure that we would deliver. So we went instead to something which is much mor e deterministic, uh, and is, on the surface, much mor e fair. It says, you know, at every operating condition you 're efficiency is defined by this formula and the maxim um points card you'll find that this formula and that creates for you are compliant in the local operation. And if that envelope of operation is adhered to in the field, then the s avings from this rulemaking get a nice step up. And the u se of that metric becomes really, really powerful when yo u sell your rebate programs, because the only utility reba tes in anticipation of a boosted efficiency it's going to happen, okay. So the doubt and the statistical evaluation of what are the savings 100, you know, I'm going to lo se some, I'm going to win some, no. In this case, you're go ing to win exactly what you expect. So those are all the benefits from an efficiency standpoint, savings standpoint. For the manufacturers to produce that savings, in many case s they need to make zero investment, because they already make the products that are more efficient. And because they already made the products that are more efficient, it's not necessary to develop new, more efficient products. The problem that this metric and this approach resolves is it resolves the problem that people are n't165

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 buying the more efficient products. It's not that they're not available or that, we have to sit down with pen cil and paper and develop them. It is that people aren't b uying them. And so, by using an approach that encourages people to buy the already better more efficient products t hat are on the market, it reduces the financial and, and hu man resource burden on fan manufacturers to produce the savings that are implicit in the rule. And if we had to produce that same amount of savings, by instead taking products off the market, absolutely, positively this fan is coming off the m arket. And it'll have to be replaced by one that is reason able. Then to produce the same savings that impact our, o ur member companies would be far, far greater. And so, there is a real benefit to the manufacturers in this, in, in t his approach. There is also a challenge in that it's a bit more difficult to evaluate, right. And so, you know, th ose, those of you who, uh, sell products with embedded f ans, just, just need to go through the evaluation. But if you do that and you compare the savings and the investment s that you have to make in order to comply with a reasonab le efficiency level as proposed, and then back up and say, no, I'm going to use a different metric and a different approach that'll actually cause the least efficient products to come166

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 off the market, by God. And that's the only way to generate savings. And then that begs the question, how much savings did I generate and how much did I have to invest to get it. You're going to find that this approach is really attractive. It's attractive if your motive is to s ave energy. It's attractive if your motive is to sell more efficient products that you've already manufactured

. And honestly, the jury's still out. You all haven't decided exactly what you want, or where you want to go with this. But this is my pitch with the approa ch that we took, and I should say also that this isn't wher e we started. You know we started with the single point or a multi-point metric, that was defined test scores. And we took that way down path. We had a consensus. We h ad a handshake. We even had bargaining authority approv ed by the AMCA Board of Directors to go into these discussion s. And when we created the database and tested that approach and compared it to the approach that we ar e now advocating, we very quickly shifted, in part becaus e, especially in some products, the de-linkage between the savings that we could calculate and the metric itse lf was so great that it was, it was a real credibility proble m, even for our own. So the membership just took a long pa use and deep breath and went a completely different directi on. And the more, the more our membership became167

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 familiar with it, uh, and there were some adjustmen ts. There were adjustments to the pressure, to the pres sure constant to accommodate the exhaust fans we talked about this morning on which, you know, our members make a n awful lot of exhaust fans that aren't necessarily inside package units. They're sitting on the roof. But there's a n awful lot of low pressure fans and we had to make an accommodation, because they are entirely inefficien t as you pointed out. And you can't drive it to the peak, b ecause you come up with a huge, huge diameter, which is to tally impractical. So we made the accommodation and -- MR. WHITWELL: Okay, so, so that was a very, very nice advertisement as you put it -- MR. SMITH: That's what, that would -- MR. WHITWELL: But, I mean, you talked about a lo t of things that we haven’t gotten to yet. You talke d about levels. You talked about certification. You talke d about enforcement and, and we've got a long ways to go, I think, in this discussion before we really understand what the, what that full picture is going to look like. But we're willing to take that road and see how it goes. But we're not there yet. MR. SMITH: Yeah, and I wouldn't expect you to. MR. STARR: This is Louis of NEEA. I'm just mentioning I was talking to one of the fan manufact urers at168

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 lunch that also gets air handling equipment. MR. WHITWELL: But by the way, based on my understanding, we are all fan manufacturers. MR. STARR: Oh, yeah, yeah. Oh I mean, more thought as a traditional, just, uh, a fan manufactu rer, but they, they make some of the air conditioning produc ts too. They did this on their product line, because obviou sly here in the market, they were concerned about what they found is that they didn't have a problem with their, uh, air handling products, which you might find that there's a probl em with the, it may be, it may be something you want to do, rather than, I mean I understand the double regulations an d why, I mean, I would keep that up and explain why they don 't like that. Oh, I understand that very much, but it may be a good option. MR. WHITWELL: Yeah. MR. STARR: I think that's what, so it's just getting that. MR. WHITWELL: I don't expect that we're going to have a lot. I mean I don't know. I, I don't know, but I expect as you would suggest, that most of our fans are going to be okay. I mean there, there was an example we saw last time of this, this bare forward-curved centrifugal in this box and how that was a bad fan selection and there was, you know, there were ways to, by changing the fan selec tion,169

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that could be greatly improved. I don't think on the HVAC, you know, if you look at the age of our members, I don't think that's representative of what we have. So I don't think t hat we are going to have fans. I assume, based on what I' m hearing from the AMCA people here, that we're not going to have fans that are going to be regulated out of the market at least for now. MR. SMITH: Straight talking, right? MR. WHITWELL: No, what? MR. SMITH: Great. MR. WHITWELL: I don't know what's going to happe n down the road, but still there is a lot of burden t hat's going to be put on the, on the equipment, the fan manufacturers who are equipment manufacturers, to t est, to, that test things that we don't normally test, becau se it doesn't add any value to our customers as far as wh at they, information they need to apply to the equipment. A nd then certify to DOE on an annual basis, right. So, yeah

. MR. BOTELER: It's unknown. MR. WHITWELL: Yeah, it's, there's just a lot of uncertainty about that. And, and if it was somethi ng, and, and if, I mean, if I compare it to the motor. MR. SMITH: Let's compare it to the motor. MR. BOTELER: Yeah.170

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. WHITWELL: So the motor rule, unfortunately, the burden for you guys, because the burden is real ly on you guys, right? MR. BOTELER: That's right. MR. WHITWELL: We buy the motor and it is, it's - - MS. ARMSTRONG: Not exactly. MR. BOTELER: The magic is in the motor. MR. SMITH: Well then that's, and that's, and that's an option for you. MR. WHITWELL: And, and that, if we can figure ou t a way to do that, I think that's something that we would be very interested in. MR. BOTELER: Wade, this is Rob Boteler again. Electric Motors, again, I'm sorry. We were talking a little bit, well I was talking about this young lady, I fo rgot your name, but you haven't gotten to the point to defini ng basic models and what your test -- MS. ARMSTRONG: You didn't bring that up last time, did you? MR. BOTELER: I did. Do you want me to (indiscernible). MR. WHITWELL: Well actually that was discussed. MR. BOTELER: Oh, sorry. MR. WHITWELL: That was discussed some at the las t

--171

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. ARMSTRONG: You love it. Other industries that are subject to (indiscernible) have not embrac ed it with the same love that you do. MR. BOTELER: Let me tell you why we love the basic models. MS. ARMSTRONG: We're getting there. MR. BOTELER: We love basic models because we as motor manufacturers make thousands of models, but w e actually identify the minimum product on, on each, on each frame size and, and, and, uh, speed and enclosure. And that's what we report to DOE, okay. So we report 1 13 basic models, okay. And then from that, we make electric al changes and as long as those electrical changes imp rove efficiency, we do it. We put efficiency on the nam eplate, but we don't have to report it back to DOE, because we've already given them the, the minimum. We make mecha nical changes. We do that. We have different equipment classes, which I don' t think you guys have discussed yet. We have things like fire pump motors that we hold separate from some of the other parts, and we treat it a little bit differently. A nd I think there's options like that, that as you get in to the ASHRAE, you can, you can maybe address some of thes e issues by putting them in a different equipment class and classifying, and we don't call them basic models, w hatever172

1 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 want to call them. MR. WHITWELL: Yeah. No, I mean -- MR. BOTELER: And treating them differently. MR. WHITWELL: As, as equipment manager, we like basic models too, because I mean actually how many different models do we have? Do you remember? MR. BOTELER: Many. MS. ARMSTRONG: Oh, carrier alone? MR. WHITWELL: Yeah. MS. ARMSTRONG: If my memory serves correctly, on e trillion. MR. WHITWELL: Six, six trillion, six trillion. MS. ARMSTRONG: Thirty trillion? MR. WHITWELL: So we have six trillion possible models, right, but you look at all the options that we have. So we love basic models, because we can certify a s mall fraction of that to DOE. So we, we like it. MS. ARMSTRONG: One more time. MR. WHITWELL: For the record? MR. BOTELER: I want to, at this time I -- MR. WHITWELL: So, so, but, uh, sorry. No go ahead. I lost my train of thought. MR. BOTELER: Well I was just going to comment on Tom's, Tom's comments about, you know, some of the incentives out there. The utilities right now have $9173

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 billion in their war chest that fund high performan ce products. We have an initiative through ACEEE, fan manufacturers, pump manufacturers and compressor manufacturers are all working on identifying the pr oduct and how to label that product, so that the utilities ca n use that in those incentive programs. Pump manufacturers, as a matter of fact, are on the Hill today. They come to Washington en masse t o go to the Hill and talk about these issues with, with the ir, with their Congressman. Paul and I are going to be on t he Hill on Friday. We have legislation (indiscernible) tha t incentivizes extended product, and a fan and, uh, m otor and control is categorized as an extended product, so w e have that. The last thing we're working on is 111(D) which i s the regulation that will allow the states to take c redit for energy efficiency savings through the use of indust rial and commercial, uh, incentives and products, in which t his kind of an extended product would fit into. MR. FERNSTROM: So this is Gary. I, I'd like to make a comment following up on Rob's and Tom's and Wade's. And that is, if the efficiency savings attribute is n't in the metric, we can't take credit for it. We can't get incentives for it. And I think, uh, Wade and AMCA have come up with a very clever approach to a metric that rec ognizes174

1 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 system-related savings through the appliance re gulations that we have not previously been able to recognize. And from an incentive's point of view, we will all be s o much better off if that metric moves forward. MS. MAUER: Bob, this is Joanna. If I can just ask a clarifying question about what you said. If I understand, commercial unitary manufacturers may in some cases be buying a fan that would be considered to a lready be in a testable configuration. In other cases, it ma y not be, uh, in a testable configuration until it's actually integrated into the equipment. Are you asking for an exemption in both cases? MR. WHITWELL: Uh, okay, so that's a question I haven't really thought about, but I would say yes. MS. MAUER: Okay. MS. PETRILLO-GROH: If it's covered in the -- MR. WHITWELL: If it's covered in the metric. MR. SMILEY: Well, it's Bill's Smiley of Trane. MS. ARMSTRONG: Well, so -- MR. SMILEY: If, if the fan energy consumption is covered in the entire unit in a, in a heat consumpt ion, it's already counted. It doesn't matter -- MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay, well -- MR. SMILEY: -- where the fan came from or what i t is.175

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. ARMSTRONG: Do you want to do it, or do you want me to do it. We're going to get to the point where, you know, we dive away to clearly distinguish it to , to get, and the reason why I've asked about specific design characteristics. I mean, I, I think I said this to a number of you individually, but the way DOE looks at this is, if I am on, standing on a dock, hopefully looking at a w onderful beach, but I happen to also see in my view, you kno w, a cargo ship load of fans, how do I know whether they 're going into your equipment or not. MR. WHITWELL: So -- MS. ARMSTRONG: And how do I know if that energy used is accounted for by my test procedure. I mean , maybe I would know, but realistically, I'm not looking at t hem. And, and so I think this gets to my point from day one, which is how do you distinguish and I'm not sure th at's something that, that's actually been answered yet. MR. WHITWELL: So, so let me, I, I may be totally confused about this whole thing, but and, and, mayb e this is not the way it's going to turn out, but the last me eting when I was here, I was told the fan that you see in the dock is not a fan. It's not a fan until it's connected, it's on a shaft with bearings, motor and in a, in a housing , right. So that fan it may or may not comply, but you don't know, there's no way of knowing until somebody takes that and they176

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 connect it to a motor and put it in a housing and, and, and test it. So that fan may be good when it's put in one application and may not be in another, but unless I totally am off base with what was being said the other day, I don't think you, that's not a regulated component. MS. ARMSTRONG: Oh, I think it depends and this gets to our testable. MR. WHITWELL: So, so please, help me understand, because if I misunderstand this -- MR. SMITH: The fan that she's, the fan that she sees in the dock is a testable fan. MR. WHITWELL: So what is that fan then? MR. SMITH: It's a fan. MR. WHITWELL: Okay, well -- MR. FLY: Does it need a motor to be a fan? MR. SMITH: It's not a wheel. No, it doesn't hav e to have motor. It has to have a structure. It has to have a wheel. It has to have bearings. It has to have, it's a fan. Not a fan wheel. MR. FLY: But if she sees -- MR. SMITH: It is not a fan component. It's a fan. MR. FLY: But if she sees an impeller, this is Mark Fly with AAON. If she sees an impeller on the dock,177

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that is not a fan? UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: No, it's not a fan. MR. WHITWELL: So it's not a fan that she sees on the dock. UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: Still no fan. MR. SMITH: Never was a fan. It was an impeller. MR. FLY: So it's not a fan until I put a motor, until I put it on the shaft. MR. WHITWELL: So Wade -- MS. ARMSTRONG: So this where, this is where that has the whole configuration. See, we're getting to why we did this. Right? MR. WHITWELL: But, but if it's a testable configuration, sorry -- MS. ARMSTRONG: This is why that, on the dock. MR. WHITWELL: If it's a testable configuration o n the dock, then it needs to comply, right. MS. ARMSTRONG: Regardless of whether, whether, what happens downstream. MR. WHITWELL: Right. MR. FLY: Right. MS. ARMSTRONG: You agree with that? MR. FLY: I do. MS. ARMSTRONG: Because that's different than wha t you just asked the part for.178

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. FLY: Uh-huh. MR. WHITWELL: Okay, so I. Yeah, okay, so maybe that was a leading question. Okay, so, so I would, let me rephrase my answer. MS. ARMSTRONG: See how this works? MR. WHITWELL: I would still ask for the exempt, even if we buy a fan and it would meet the requirem ent. I would say, I don't have to certify that to DOE beca use if, if it's, if it's exempted in that application. Oka y, that's what I would say. MS. MAUER: So that maybe the person they're -- MS. ARMSTRONG: Because -- MS. MAUER: -- that's a different buying issue from has already been manufactured. MR. WHITWELL: Yeah, right, right, right. And I could use that and I don't have to recertify it, ri ght.. MR. ERNST: Well let me, let me suggest something

. There's, there's two analogies I think. One is, in unitary. This is Skip Ernst. There have been unitary equipm ent, some unitary equipment's exempt from 13 SEER for certain reasons and they've gotten exemptions from the DOE. Well i f a fan is going to be exempt, it needs to go through the s ame process and it might be that it's because it's bein g used in an already regulated product. MS. ARMSTRONG: Can I talk to you about that list179

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of equipment you think is exempted from 13 SEER? MR. ERNST: I don't make it, but you can try it o n the Website. You see, it's exempt. MS. MAUER: This is Joanna. I mean I think the difference is, I don't know what you're referring t o, but whatever it is, you can look at it and say this is exempt. I think in the case of these fans, Ashley is saying , she'd look at it and it would -- MS. ARMSTRONG: It may have been. MS. MAUER: It may be exempt, maybe it wouldn't. MR. WHITWELL: Yeah, yeah. MS. MAUER: But depending on where it's going, I think that's what the problem is. MR. WHITWELL: Yeah, so did you understand my clarification of what I was, I mean, if, if it's a testable configuration on this fan, we would, you know, it s hould already be certified, right. So we would put it in , but if it's exempt in that application, then I would say w e don't need to recertify it, right. It's already certifie d. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Prove it. MS. MAUER: That's helpful to understand. MS. ARMSTRONG: Well, so -- MR. WHITWELL: Yeah, that's, that's what I was talking about. MR. SMITH: Suppose it's a, goes into a product180

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 which is not certified? MR. WHITWELL: Well then it, then it gets certified when it goes into the product. MR. SMITH: Why? MR. JOHNSON: It does not need to? MR. SMITH: No. MR. WHITWELL: It's not exempt and it's not -- MR. SMITH: But it's already certified. MR. WHITWELL: Well, if it's already -- MR. SMITH: When she, when she draws a circle around the fan -- MS. ARMSTRONG: This is what they understand. MR. SMITH: Your fan is approved. It has the (indiscernible). MR. WHITWELL: You know, wait, I mean, you're asking questions that I think I need to get answere d, but I don't know the answers to those questions. MS. ARMSTRONG: Well, one of the -- MR. WHITWELL: It's already figured in this -- MR. SMITH: So this is Wade. I just want you to understand that there is more than one answer. And one answer that I think would work is an answer that sa ys, I make a box. I buy a fan. The people I buy the fan from certified it to DOE. I receive the fan. I make no certification to DOE. That's an option.181

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MS. ARMSTRONG: That is what you're, okay -- MR. WHITWELL: Yeah, but I don't want to buy, I don't want to buy a testable -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One person at a time. MS. ARMSTRONG: Just to be clear, as we are askin g DOE to consider that it is not necessarily how our regs work today. MR. SMITH: I, I, I, I understand, I understand that that's -- MR. WHITWELL: Can I ask a clarifying question? So in that case, Wade, would that always be a testa ble configuration? MR. SMITH: Whoever makes -- MR. WHITWELL: Or, or could it be just a blade? MR. SMITH: No, no. MR. WHITWELL: Yes, so -- MR. SMITH: Whoever, whoever assembles the fan, the first point at which it's in a testable configu ration, that entity would have the responsibility to certif y it to the DOE. MR. WHITWELL: Yes, so that's a choice manufacturers could make. They could make the choi ce to do that. MR. SMITH: They could either do it or not do it. MR. WHITWELL: But, in a lot of cases that's not182

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 going to be the most economical approach. MR. SMITH: Well, okay. MR. WHITWELL: So -- MR. SMITH: But, but that's an option. MR. WHITWELL: And so, I, I mean it's, it's alway s an option. I mean, we can buy a complete unit from somebody and resell it. That's an option too, right, so. MR. WINNINGHAM: What I think the point is, this is Dave with Allied, that many of these are going i nto parts that are already regulated. And we all had a discu ssion about, you know, incentives. There are already inc entives out there for the products that we make. There are ones for SER, EER, you know, IEER. And, and to make a case that just because I have good fan efficiency, means I'm going to save all this energy when you have multi-variables. We have a refrigeration system in your moving air, you can pu sh that power from one place to another. Just because I ha ve good fan efficiency doesn't mean I have a good system ef ficiency. MS. ARMSTRONG: I think we acknowledge that on da y one to a certain extent, although they don't necess arily go one in one. There are other aspects that affect th e system efficiency. Having a more efficient fan whether th at be a different category of fan doesn't necessarily hurt though, either. I think what we're asking of you is, you'r e asking the Committee to consider not analyzing or studying183

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 standards for a subset of the market. So we're rea lly asking, what would that look like? MR. WINNINGHAM: That's why we're -- MS. ARMSTRONG: And, and, and so in terms of definitions, how would you tell? How would you dis tinguish it? What is the scope we're talking about in terms of receiving numbers, shipment numbers? I mean, back it up with data and what that regulation would look like and present it to us to understand. I mean, is it ever ything? Is it a subset of everything? Is it, those that ar e just embedded when they come in or if they're manufactur ed domestically? If you're otherwise bringing in, fan , testable fan configurations and then inviting them on equipment, that's a different issue. You know, all these things have to, are details that impact the magnitu de of your ask. MR. WINNINGHAM: Okay. Okay. MS. ARMSTRONG: Where are, where are we? Are we going to talk about motors? MR. BURDICK: Well, we're going to have a CTI presentation. MS. ARMSTRONG: Sure, you can go next. UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: The CTI? MR. BURDICK: And so, this paper, first of all, I just appreciate the opportunity to be able to make comments184

1 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 certainly CTI Group is interested in participat ing in, you know, in this discussion, interested in finding , you know an equitable solution and that type of thing. But here in this presentation, want to identify many of the issues that we have for our industry, to be able to adopt it. And, you know, recognizing too that there are probably, there are definitely better ways to identify energy savings, rather than just with a pure efficiency number, or a fan e fficiency application point efficiency type situation. And s o, there's a calling to -- UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: That should be up there. MR. BURDICK: Yeah, I think I see it. And so, I have a colleague here on the line too, Paul Lin. A nd I don't know if you'll be able to open the mic for hi m for that type of thing in case he wants to interject so mething here that I miss or don't state properly. So this graph was presented in the CTI Position Paper that's posted on the DOE Website. It's been there maybe since the first of January or so. And what i t's showing is the amount of energy that is attributed to cooling tower fans shows kind of lower left there, one percent is what we're seeing, well, you know, based on this published data for energy consumption on building H VAC use. And something that I'd like to clarify too right off the front, I don't have as many nice pictures a s some of185

1 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 other folks do. I can add those on later and you can look at the SBXCooling.com, Baltimore Aircoil Websi te, the Gapco Website, you know, and start to see, you know , some of the configurations, you know, that are possible wit h these. There's really quite a wide variety that's possible there. But anyway, so this part or the part that's signifi cant about this is that, this is not, we're not dealing with air that is circulating through the building. We're de aling with air that is solely, its sole purpose is drawin g from the ambient and rejecting heat to the ambient. It doesn't circulate through the building. Type of a situation. So, I wanted to make sure I clarif ied that. So again, one percent figure is, uh, what we thin k is substantial about that. Then here, talks some m ore about some of the takeaways from the previous slide. Out door heat rejection equipment, six to seven percent of the to tal, fan energy. Outdoor heat rejection equipment includes ecocondensers, evaporative condensers, open and closed cooling towers. It's very important here that a very small unit efficiency or unit improvement can be obtained with increments in fan efficiency. The input power affects very small product energy than talking about this last few meetings here, uh, product energy efficiency is much more affected by the heat exchanger size of the design. And the pressure dro p through186

1 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 unit. Yes? MR. PERSFUL: Trinity Persful here. When you say efficiency, are you talking about a, like BTU effic iency or

-- MR. BURDICK: Exactly. I think the next slide gets into that where it's, uh, uh, in actually 90.1 , for example, uh, opening, open, uh, cooling towers have a figure for, uh, gallons of water cool per horsepower appli ed. Uh, and so, the GPM figure there is gallons of water co oled, GPM, uh, cooled. MR. PERSFUL: Okay. MR. BURDICK: Uh, and so basically, it turns into a situation of, uh, kilowatts of heat rejected, BTU s of heat rejected, relative to the kilowatts' consent. And, uh, like I said there before, uh, the fan efficiency is, uh, uh, far from, uh, one of the leaders in being able to impro ve overall system efficiency. We're actually having e nergy, uh, savings, uh, possible. And so, this talks about, uh, heat rejection equipment, the metric, uh, BTUs per hour, the horse power, uh, minimum efficiencies are mandated in, uh, 90.1 and IECC, uh, you know, uh, maybe, uh, some folks think that' s not, uh, uh, necessarily enforced everywhere, but it is something that's, uh, completely adopted by our industry. Uh , we, uh, publicize it, uh, in everyone's, uh, selection soft ware.187

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 It's, uh, identified, uh, as a parameter of interes t. And, uh, folks can make a, make a buy decision, you know , uh, based on that. Uh, I've also mentioned at other ti mes too, where you can maybe achieve 20, 30 percent energy s avings, uh, by sizing, by proper sizing that the heat excha nger, uh, for, uh, you know, a four or five percent, uh, incr emental, uh, product cost. Got a question from Louis? MR. STARR: So, on the, uh, I'm not that familiar with that. These particular things you're talking about here. MR. BURDICK: Okay. MR. STARR: Does, so the first one, the, the metric that measure the heat injection supplies tha t energy input, so if you had for let's say a really efficie nt motor, that's going to show up there. MR. BURDICK: No, well it, it'll be in the system

. Yeah, this, this, uh, this metric is about the whol e system. MR. STARR: Does it drive people, for instance, t o use an ECM motor or a, uh, cooling tower? Does it drive people to use a VFD? MR. BURDICK: Uh. MR. STARR: Some measure of, of regulating your motor based upon outside air conditioners rearrange d in there. MR. BURDICK: In probably more like the last 10188

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 years, that I've been involved with the industry, j ust about every type of one of these units that I've seen is been, uh, connected to a VFD, because they recognized, uh, th ey don't need the capability of the cooling tower full speed year around. And they can always capitalize on VFD by, uh, saving energy. MR. STARR: So one thing for you to consider, if they can find a fan, that's being all of those thin gs, a, a, uh, propeller, the motor, the drive -- MR. BURDICK: Yeah. MR. STARR: We had a metric around that, if, what you would sell more of. Your BFD and better motors , so I mean, in other words -- MR. BURDICK: Still you can, you know, even on motors, uh, you know, you can have a NEMA premium a nd, uh, uh, you know, uh, the next better grade or next low er grade. Uh, that's not going to mean dollars per year, you know, that somebody's going to take advantage of this, be cause it doesn't run at that main type horsepower, very, a v ery high percentage of the year. MR. STARR: But it -- MR. BURDICK: Pretty low service factor, a duty factor on, on -- MR. STARR: VFD mighty woes. MR. BURDICK: Yeah, some --189

1 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. STARR: Some guys were, what's the word, interested in it because of this, is what I would s uggest,

so. MR. BURDICK: Okay. MR. STARR: It's more, like it's more of your products. If you think about it, you have a custom er who's interested in paying the absolute lowest dollar for everything he can. He won't make the best decision s about whether he should have bought that VFD, or whether he should buy the more efficient fan, and you know, so it's g et a little tricky with regulation, but I would just enc ourage you to -- MR. BURDICK: Yeah. MR. STARR: There could be an upside is what I'm what I'm getting at. MR. BOTELER: Your box is due. MR. BURDICK: I, it -- MR. LIN: This is Paul Lin. Do you hear me? MR. BURDICK: Yes, go ahead, thanks. MR. LIN: I thank you. I would just add that, uh , in addition to influencing the cooling tower busine ss toward compliance, uh, the, uh, by customers, uh, with the , uh, minimum efficiency per cooling towers, 90.1 also in fluences adoption of VAV on cooling tower systems. What Lar ry said, just a few minutes ago about the very high percenta ge of use190

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of VFD's, uh, for cooling towers on HVACs, uh, it, it's really because of, of 90.1 and IETT, and the strong trend, uh, if not complete trend by the, our tech engineer s that do these buildings and leaving contractors to use 90.1 as a standard of care for system design. MR. MCNEILL: This is Donald McNeill. You might think about that whole industrial market. It doesn 't have to comply with 90.1. It's about how it might affec t the sales. MR. STARR: Right. MR. LIN: On that side, the industrial market is different from HVAC, because the, the applications tend to have multiple fans and it's very difficult to justi fy VFD when you have 10 steps of fan control with, with mu ltiple cells. You know, industrial cooling towers are muc h bigger than HVAC in general. And things are accomplished by using two-speed fans in step-wide control with multiple c ells. So, uh, VFD is not cost effective. MR. BURDICK: Now, and -- MR. FERNSTROM: And so, so this is Gary for the California IOUs. There's a lot of industrial refri geration that falls into the agriculture and food processing markets, which isn't, is a large industrial scale that you m entioned. And in those markets Beta Culture, for example, the re's a really good opportunity for VFDs, because we're bac k down191

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 into the commercial refrigeration size equipment ag ain. And they don't -- MR. LIN: I'd agree with that. MR. HALL: Solomon Hall speaking. I have a question about the definition of horsepower in this case. If you cut out the horsepower, does it mean you all must use as a general purpose motor that is regulated and th at you use 100 percent, or are you using a service factor and maybe auto motors or a special duty motors? MR. BURDICK: In this case, horsepower, you know, could be translated into kilowatts power or that ty pe of thing instead. Horsepower is just a term that's us ed here, but, uh, it's the, it's the, uh, connected horsepow er of the motor, because it's nameplate. MR. MORRISON: Frank Morrison, Baltimore Aircoil Company. By definition, it's the nameplate, motor nameplate in that equipment. MR. HAUER: What was the horsepower output (indiscernible). MR. MORRISON: Nameplate. MR. BURDICK: Nameplate. MR. SMILEY: The motor, motor, this Bill Smiley, the motor output at design point of motor, that's t he nameplate. MR. HAUER: But what prevents people from using192

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 service factor? You can use, if it looked in NEMA, MG-1, in many motors you can use the 1.5. So you can declar e MR. BURDICK: Again, VFD, VFD usually takes care of that, but it's connected to a VFD. In fact, the y're always programmed to not allow, uh, uh, consumed ki lowatts to go above the nameplates, you know. They're limi ted on an (indiscernible) volt to, uh, uh, prohibit that. Uh , it is necessary sometimes, uh, actually we still install 115 service factor motors for situations when you're in very cold climates and you run it year round. But typic ally you're able to modulate that with additional number of cells or maybe sometimes you have, uh, half speed or so o n. MR. HAUER: So that's just, just a good practice, but it's not standardized. Does it meet that stand ard? MR. STARR: I mean, this is Louis, and I was just thinking what would I mean, I'm sure you guys don't sell it out though, but keeps someone else from doing that. I mean best practices are good, but people could sell less horsepower and get the job as opposed to, you know, selling, you know, get with the program. MR. BURDICK: Well, it, it, it, it's evaluated on every job. You know, on the industrial jobs even. It's often evaluated, you know. What does the client, y ou know, uh, uh, what does the EPC value most? Does he valu e most what was possible cost that he can turn over to the utility,193

1 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 know, three months from now. Or does he value, you know, uh, what it's going to mean to the owner, uh, in the long term. MR. MORRISON: The first one. MR. BURDICK: Yeah. MR. HAUER: That leads me to the question. Is it then always, uh, the general purpose motor that's r egulated by NEMA or, uh, other motors used in the cooling to wer? MR. BURDICK: It's, it's, uh, it's, it's a NEMA compliant motor. It's always a NEMA compliant moto r. Could be premium, could be whichever, whatever grades are available and that are legal. MS. ARMSTRONG: Is it always DOE regulated? They're not, right? MR. BOTELER: They will be June 1st of next year. MR. DELANEY: But they could be a, it could be, could be advanced technologies too. MR. BURDICK: Right, yeah. MS. ARMSTRONG: We have, we have a combination of motors that -- MR. DELANEY: Variable speed. MS. ARMSTRONG: -- maybe will be regulated by DOE in the next year. We'll, standards all accounted, or more advanced technology motors, variable speed, (indisc ernible), et cetera, et cetera, are not regulated by DOE righ t now.194

1 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. BOTELER: Or above 500 horsepower. MS. ARMSTRONG: Right, or about 500 horsepower, which are not regulated at all. Does that help? MR. HAUER: So basically it proves that the metri c is not really solid with regard to horsepower. MR. BURDICK: All right, so moving on to the bottom part of the, the page here. Uh, example of product performance included in, uh, including the 90.1 ope rating point is covered and published by CTI certification , uh, through open and close cooling towers, evaporative condensers and, uh, programs in, in progress. Or a ctually, I guess the evaporative condenser programs in progr ess, open and closed cooling towers are already in place. An d it's verifiable, uh, via public, uh, CTI Website as to w hich models, uh, are, uh, certified. And then, uh, issues with fan efficiency focus. Uh, I think we've talked about this. A lot of the same comments that you've heard before with embedded fan s is what's important is what the system does to, is wha t, uh, the entire, uh, system responds to, uh, with the fa n application. And one of the issues with our indust ry is there's relatively low volume of sales. You know w e're not making 100,000 fans a year or putting out huge numb ers of products here. The implications of certification for every fan,195

1 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 has a big number of fans that we make for ours elves. You don't go to Grainger and buy these. They have to be resilient to the ambient effects when you have a 36 foot diameter fan. And it's on your product. You kind of have to take ownership of the structural reliability of that thing spinning around at 120 miles an hour on the t ip, that it's not going to fall off, hurt somebody, kill peo ple, cause other extraneous damage. There are lots of implications about, you know, being able to withstand tornadoes passing by, storm s passing by, other things that, you know are important for t he people that are buying them and using them that they have to meet these criteria. So they are quite unique. Not som ething you can buy just anywhere. Wide variety of models and fan types on the market, there are other situations whe re there are low noise requirements. Those take a special t ype of air flow that have kind of a different efficiency p rofile than what a maximum efficiency capability type can be. You know, where it's wide forward swept blades. You en d up with big tip clearances. You end up with, with other inefficiencies in the system in order to be able to run it really slow. The talk about the application there a bit with the large tip clearance safety being able to withst and the sphere of duty that it's in. This might be a geoth ermal196

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 power plant where the circulating water is highly c orrosive, needs to be a high degree of stainless steel, high degree of, uh, corrosion resistant materials. Fiberglass parts, uh, you know, since some of these, uh, big fan blad es on a 32-foot, uh, fan that we make. It's got about a, u h, 14- foot long blade, that's a hollow fiberglass structu re, specifically designed for, for this application so that, uh, water impingement drops, you know, don't bother it . It's able to withstand the sunlight, the U.V., the storm s and so

on. So, you know, quite specialized equipment, very expensive to release new product into the market or change a characteristic about it. MR. LIN: Larry -- MR. BURDICK: Yeah. MR. LIN: There's a slide that was skipped. MR. BURDICK: Sorry, this one? MR. LIN: Yes. MR. BURDICK: Oh, okay. Sorry about that. Imposed changes to fan efficiency would, and redesi gned with, uh, smaller heat exchangers to manage cost an d, uh, higher actual energy usage. So there's a discussio n about that, uh, probably in that table, uh, there toward the back. Uh, there is some too. Uh, the, the, uh, again, th is leads to the system approach. It's not always best just to have197

1 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 biggest fan in and, uh, uh, sometimes, uh, uh, you need to do, uh, you know, a complete system evaluation w here, uh, sometimes the smaller fan is better, but, you know, as opposed to maybe some of the traditional thought th at the larger fan is always better and the larger fan is a lways more efficient. Uh, it depends on how the air is e ntering the, the, uh, fan opening and whether or not you're able to fill out the blade tips, uh, or get, uh, optimum ai r flow, uh, through the unit. Uh, so heat rejection equipment amounts to only five, five to 10 percent of the total, uh, energy i n a typical system, you know, relative to the chiller o r the pump in an HVAC system. The, uh, fan requirement o r the fan energy requirement for the, uh, cooling equipment, uh, fraction, you know, low fraction of, uh, what that, uh, power consumption can be. And then actual energy consumption is well below, uh, design on annual bas is. Again, here, we're talking about it's not always a 80 (indiscernible) of outdoors where the atmospheric h eat exchanger equipment is designed to be able to take, is capable of doing that. You know, you don't want to leave a, a hospital, uh, in a bad situation, uh, on a hot da y, uh, because your cooling tower isn't big enough. It ha s to be big enough from day one, so that it can always hit the peak days, always meets the cooling demand for peak days . But,198

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 uh, at other times, well they're able to capitalize on turning off other cells or going with a VFD arrange ment. And, uh, so that's the, uh, bottom point there. It talks about the VFD. Okay, then, Paul this is something that you put together for, uh, the, uh, uh, consideration of a, uh, a met or different scenarios with a highly efficient smal ler diameter fan relative to base size, uh, and so on. I don't know if you want to talk about any of that. And th en the other thing that I prefaced that with, is that, uh, this group wasn't involved with, you know, the original, uh, uh, AMCA, uh, brainstorm or, uh, the other, you know, t he other committee work that was done on this. Uh, we tend to use total efficiency in our industry, uh, for an evalua tion. I would like to keep in mind that the exit velocity o ut the fan is important to us, so that we don't recirculat e the heat that we rejected from the heat exchanger. Uh, but, uh, I think, uh, others here, Wade's mentioned, uh, uh, concern about this, uh, uh, when you look at it from the st atic efficiency point or the static efficiency prospecti ve. Paul, anything else there? MR. LIN: Uh, not from me. Frank Morrison might have some comments. MR. MORRISON: Yeah, I just encourage folks to go look at the, example on the, that's posted on the D OE199

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Website. But basically, it shows where an unintend ed consequence of actually meeting the, uh, higher eff iciency with the fan actually lowers the performance of the cooling tower. It requires more fan energy to do it, but w e comply with that, you know. Comply with one requirement t hat actually hurts you in another. So it, it gets very complicated, because these cooling towers range fro m about as big as the podium that Larry's standing at all t he way up to four or five times the size of this room, 36 -- MR. BURDICK: That could be the plain area of thi s building. MR. MORRISON: Yeah, you know, and, and you have a 36-foot diameter fan, so it's a real challenge for an industry our size to handle it. So we're not as, a s, uh, complicated as, as a carrier with six trillion when I think we only have a few billion possible combinations of , you know, accessories, low sound fans, unit size, and t ubercle axial. MR. BOTELER: You need a basic model. MR. BURDICK: Yeah, yeah. MR. MORRISON: But it is a challenge, especially for an industry of our size. So that's why, you kn ow, this is, we want to make the sure the group is informed of, you know, the challenges that we, we face and, uh, take that into consideration.200

1 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. BURDICK: All right, Wade has his hand up. MR. LIN: The other, the other point that's, that's significant here is that, the discussions th at have, have taken place, uh, in the, uh, working group mee ting here pretty much been around commercial and, and what we call light industrial type applications. Uh, the way th e rule is actually written and the way this definition is set up, it would also apply to the fans that we use on, uh, po wer plant size cooling towers, which could be a thousand foot long and have 30 plus fan cell on each at over 200 horsepowe r. There aren't very many of those around the country, but t he thing that's important to keep in mind, is that each and every one of those field direct cooling towers is custom desi gned. They're not standardized products. So there is no way to pretest what would be in the tower, uh, for, for fi eld directive service. They're custom designed for lik e a big building. It gets designed for each individual app lication. Um, and the fan gets specifically applied to the cu stomerspecified demo performance duty. There's an optimization process that we go throug h to, to match up the right size heat exchanger and f an, uh, to give the customer the most economic combination of, and those customers do evaluate fan power for the most part. Um, so, um, with all that in mind, I think it's rea lly important that we're very, very careful with how th e scope201

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is written and the definition, uh, because this cou ld accidentally include a lot of products, um, not jus t cooling towers, but also air cool condensers, air cool spee d condensers, um, for power plants which use big fans . Uh, uh, air cool heat exchangers that are used in, uh i ndustrial processes, these are thin tube heat exchangers that do everything from condense propane to, um, you know, all sorts of applications in refineries and petrochemical pla nts and all that Those products all too, also would fall under this, um, in this bucket. And they are, they, agai n, are, um, custom designed for each and every application. MR. BURDICK: Okay, so Wade has his hand up. MR. SMITH: Uh, I have a couple of comments and a question. The first comment is that the efficiency column on this chart speaks to fan total efficiency and, u h, unintended consequence of driving fan total efficie ncy up, in this case, is an increase in fan housed. And I, I, I point this out only because this demonstrates why, um, this type of fan we rejected the use of total efficiency . If this chart were redone in the column where static efficiency, you would find that the static efficien cy rating of each of these fans would follow the horsepower, so that's the first thing is, if you use static efficiency, t he statement that you use a more efficient fan that co nsume202

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 more horsepower is no longer true. Um, the second thing is to say that, um, AMCA members who make fans, um, make fans for, uh, all applications industrial and commercial, and many of those applications are custom. And, you know, part of th e debate inside AMCA was, where do we want to cut this off? And our answer, which we proposed, is to cut it off at 200 horsepower. And I presume that that would eliminat e, if that went into effect that would eliminate a lot of cooling, large, very large cooling fans that were, were desc ribed. Um, so those are the two comments. The question that I have is whether or not the metric that was p roposed would have any impact on your business. Do, do, do you test any of your fans against that metric to determine w hether any were noncompliant? MR. BURDICK: I've evaluated some of, uh, uh, them, uh, the axial fans. I, I, I'm thinking that the axial fans are fairly okay with, if I'm using a 58 number , I don't know what number we're using, it hasn't been public ized, you know, what the targets are or what all of the crite ria is. No, sir, I, I, I can't state that. MR. SMITH: But at a 58, you didn't have a problem? MR. BURDICK: Uh, there are some points with blowers, uh, that don't meet that. Uh, you know, a nd, and203

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 actually, uh, EU327 has different figures for forwa rd-curve versus axial. Uh -- MR. SMITH: And so, and so, and so -- MR. BURDICK: Oh, and I'm not aware of that. I don't know what those numbers are. MR. SMITH: Well, there's two numbers proposed. One for ducted and one for non-ducted. MR. BURDICK: And blowers and axial are different ? MR. SMITH: Uh, well, uh, yeah, if they don't hav e a duct. MR. SMILEY: No, it's just ducted. MR. BURDICK: It's just ducted and non-ducted. MR. SMITH: Ducted and non-ducted, but if all the propeller fans -- MR. BURDICK: Okay, um, on some of the -- MR. SMITH: If all the propeller fans, all propeller fans -- MR. BURDICK: Well -- MR. SMITH: -- are non-ducted and have a different metric based on static efficiency, then housed cent rifugal fans which have a different requirement and metric based on total efficiency. MR. WHITWELL: Unless they're unducted. MR. SMITH: No. MR. SMITH: No, no. All housed centrifugal fans,204

1 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 proposal is, to treat them as though they were ducted. MR. WHITWELL: I, I thought, though, sorry Bob Whitwell from Carrier. Sorry for interrupting the discussion, but I thought at the last meeting there was a discussion about different classes for forward, for ward curved centrifugal, or centrifugal fans, whether th ey're ducted or non-ducted. That was a, that was a recen t proposal and I thought it was, there were definitio ns, were

-- MR. SMITH: Well now the problem, well we can tal k about definitions, but the problem is that when you make a fan, you don't know whether it is, could be ducted or not. MR. WHITWELL: Okay, but when I make a fan I know whether it's ducted or non-ducted, right, based on the discussion. MS. ARMSTRONG: But whether, but I think we're trying to move to this testable configuration idea. It might be -- MR. WHITWELL: Yeah, so I'm sorry for, I'm sorry for, uh, hurting the discussion. MR. SMITH: Well, uh -- MR. WHITWELL: But I just to -- MS. ARMSTRONG: How does it work and vary on a high level, before you get into details before Wade does. MR. SMITH: Yeah, the proposal, the proposal is205

1 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 all housed centrifugal fans are -- MS. ARMSTRONG: Go where you go. MR. SMITH: -- based on a standalone version, I mean total efficiency. MR. SMILEY: And that's, Bill Smiley of Trane, an d when we say, oh, okay for standalone fans, that's o kay. MR. SMITH: Okay. MR. SMILEY: But for our applications, centrifuga l fans can be, housed centrifugal fans can be applied nonduct. MR. WHITWELL: And in most cases, for this, I'll say, most cases are. MR. SMITH: Now, I would just encourage to evaluate the proposal and then propose changes if y ou don't like the results. MR. SMILEY: We are and that's what we're talking about. MS. ARMSTRONG: No, I, I think it's just like any other rating is what you're saying, Bob. I mean wh at we are proposing as first, for a given equipment cost, we are going to, or a given category of fans, we are going to te ll you how it should be tested and rated. MR. WHITWELL: Okay. MS. ARMSTRONG: And that wouldn't include, um, yo u know, necessarily a look. At least what we discuss ed to206

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 date, wouldn't include a declaration by the manufac turer about whether it's intended for it to be installed with a duct or not. We would normalize that across as par t of the test procedure. That makes sense? MR. WHITWELL: Well, I guess, I'm, I'm, I'm not sure it does, Ashley, but I guess one of the issues that I, that keeps coming up is that there's some discussio n about, that it sounds like things are already determined. MR. SMITH: No, it's just there's a proposal. MR. WHITWELL: And, and then, again, things are still moving, so I, I just get real confused about what's, what's been agreed to and what isn't. MR. SMITH: Okay, so this is, this is a coolant i n presentation now, and I suggested. MR. WHITWELL: Yeah, I, I know, I'm sorry for diverting you. MR. SMITH: And I, and I suggested that you. The question -- MR. LIN: Excuse me, Wade -- MR. SMITH: No, no, no -- MR. LIN: This is Paul Lin, for -- MR. SMITH: I asked -- MR. LIN: There's just one more key point about the, uh, cooling tower presentation. We apologize that we didn't put any pictures of what they look like in t his207

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 presentation, but, um, but one thing to keep in min d is that, uh, the product in the housing, uh, and with this product the, there is never a fan in a testable con dition in its life, uh, from the manufacturer of the impeller to the installation of the impeller in the unit, uh, to th e sell to the customer, it is never in what you would call a testable condition. MR. DIKEMAN: The whole time? MR. LIN: So that, that's something that's going to have to be dealt with here. It's not a panel fa n. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's right. MR. MORRISON: This is Frank Morrison with Baltimore Aircoil. Just to understand the cooling technology is to, also represent air cooled and wat er cooled equipment, and pneumatic equipment. So, you know, what, a lot of our comments, they get complicated when you' re dealing with, uh, evaporative equipment, because yo u have to deal with the water aspects of it, but a lot of our comments also apply to the air cool side of it when I mentio n air cool steam condensers and, and things like that. MR. SMITH: So, so my question to you was, whethe r or not you evaluated the metrics in our proposal? And do, do you, um -- MR. BURDICK: I think there're some blowers that are, that are going to be an issue.208

1 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. SMITH: I would give you encouragement to do that and to base it on what's proposed, which is di fferent for centrifugal fans than it is for axials, that's all. MR. BURDICK: Okay. MS. ARMSTRONG: Um, so, in addition to that, I would say, you know, if I go back through your slid es and, um, I just want to say thank you, because I think s ome of the information that we were seeking help in form o ur decision, like shipment. It's like usage number is actually in your presentation has been on the record. You s ubmitted that before, um, to help us come up with, you know, potentially the, what we've been asking for, a vari ety. One thing I think I was going to ask of you is that, um, of the fans that we're talking about, um, in heat rejection equipment at least the subset of fans we' re talking about are subject to your presentation, um, how would you differentiate them, similar thing here, u m, from other fans on the markets? That's the last piece, because what you, when you ask for an extension and you pro vide the qualifying data in terms of, you know, at least I w ould think that would be helpful for the advocacy commun ity to determine impact on, if we were to, then it comes d own to differentiation. How can we tell your fans apart f rom the broader population of fans? And that's a piece I t hink that it's still outstanding in my mind and that might be because209

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of my lack of expertise in the fan industry as a wh ole, but I think we would welcome that discussion. MR. BURDICK: Right, and, and, and maybe that's a bit about labeling. Uh, maybe, maybe that's, uh, o ne of the methods is that -- MS. ARMSTRONG: That's a hard sell for DOE. I'll just tell you that right now. MR. BURDICK: Okay. MS. ARMSTRONG: We're looking for discrete design characteristics, you know. What types of fans, wha t are the discrete design characteristics? If I walked into your facility as compared to Sam's facility, and his are not for those applications, but yours are, how do I tell th e difference? Are they identical or not. Um, you kn ow, labeling is a good tool to help. It is not a neces sarily a differential, a third-party differential factor. U m, that's not to say DOE is not open to a label, but I think what we try to do when we draw lines between things, especi ally if we draw line between things that are subject to sta ndards and those that are not, it is design characteristic s. It is not a self-declaration. It is not the presence or not presence of the label. Um, we are really look, see king design information for you to see, anyone for that matter, to be able to draw a line between that for which ma y be subject to standards and that for which may not be. Um, so210

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 think about that. MR. BURDICK: Okay. MS. ARMSTRONG: I do acknowledge that you did giv e us a lot of helpful information as well. Thank you

. MR. BURDICK: Right. MR. FLY: Ashley, just, just a question and I won't try to distract us too much, but you said you don't want to do labeling, oh, well, let's -- MS. ARMSTRONG: Exclusively, let's put it that way, right, and how that we don't, um, and it's not that we won't consider that. And if you guys come back wit h your proposal, I see where this is going, so I'll just g o ahead, address that right out the gate. MR. FLY: Well, well I don't want you to. Let, let me finish, then maybe you'd get it. So you're standing on the beach looking at the whales and you see fans come up on the dock, right. Um, how do you know what that fan is? Are you just looking at it's physical characteristi cs? MS. ARMSTRONG: Well, it's really easy. All fans are in, right. MR. FLY: I mean is there -- MS. ARMSTRONG: You're asking me to divide that, s o I have a lot easier position from DOE's side of thi ngs, that everything's in. MR. FLY: But does it have to have a model number211

1 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 it? Does it has to have some kind of label that says what it is? MS. ARMSTRONG: It depends, right? MR. FLY: Are you going to go up with your ruler and say, uh, I see this is coming from so and so an d it looks like it's about this wide and -- MS. ARMSTRONG: Generally speaking, we like definitions to be very clear and unambiguous so it' s very easy to tell which models fall into our scope of st andards, right. For commercial equipment, we do have the au thority to issue or consider labeling rules where for (indiscernible), the only one we have so far is for motors. They really like it. Um, we have declined to do it for other places, um, for a variety of reasons. It, it is a tool. It is a tool that help for compliance and enforcement, but like the motor's guy would tell yo u, that's not how we differentiate if something is subject to standards or not. The presence or absence of a label is not part of the definition that says I'm in. I'm not in. It i s the characteristics of, um, the motor itself. MR. PERSFUL: This is Trinity from Twin City Fan. Maybe another way to ask it is, how do we, how do w e keep my, my buddy, Nick here, how do you, when we compet e in the marketplace, what's keeping him from saying, oh, no , this is212

1 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 cooling tower fan? I'm outside. Like or what's keeping me from labeling every one of my fans that I make a cooling tower fan? And so however that's defined, if you c ould say, you know, cooling tower fans have this special characteristic, whatever it is. MR. BURDICK: Yeah, we rely a lot on, on labeling in, in CTI, uh, actually. There are, uh, stickers, certification stickers, uh, that we place on the pr oducts, you know, to advise, you know, whoever might be wal king by or that type of thing, that it has a sticker. But it's also posted on public Website and if that model number i s not on the public Website, uh, it's fallacy or, or, uh, it 's inaccurate, uh. Frank Morrison, Baltimore Aircoil. I think to your point, you know, one of the things the cooling towers is to do, is deal with basically 100 percent humidi ty air along with some droplets of, of this drip that fell off the fill pack or, uh, it's a back condenser or closed c ircuit, off the coil, that the fan has to deal with. And L arry talked about the blades have to be protected from e rosion and things like that. So, so I think there's thing s that we could work on to, to make those definitions, uh, cl ear to everybody and run it by the group. MR. BURDICK: Okay. MR. FLY: Uh, I'll tell you where I was going,213

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was, you know, their cooling towers, my package equ ipment all have a label on them, because they bear the saf ety label, because if we're required to put some kind o f label that have a model number and certain safety informa tion, because under the rules of, of, uh, UL ETL listings -- MR. BURDICK: Uh-huh. MR. FLY: -- you have to do that. I buy a lot of fans and some of them come in. If, if they don't, if they're not an assembled product, I guess I'm askin g, do those all have a label on them? The stuff, I gener ally buy fan components and none of them have a label on it. MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. MR. FLY: So I don't know how you recognize, I mean, I may be buying a 21, 20-blade fan, and a 21- blade, and are you able to count the blades and figure out which model it was and whether that one's actually listed or not. They'll take a drawing I think, you know. I don't know how we avoid labeling on something. MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. And, and I'm not saying that we necessarily avoid labeling. The labeling m ay be a good tool for a variety of, of topics, not only for compliance-related, but something that, what Tom me ntioned, for utility and rebate-type purpose for market differentiation purposes. MR. FLY: Right.214

1 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. ARMSTRONG: And perhaps that carrot that he was speaking of, that's another tool in that toolbo x. I mean, labeling we will leave the plan on the table to talk about within this group. I'm just saying, it's als o not the end all, be all. That's not how we, um, I would, t hat's not typically how we write regs to differentiate, um, s tandards applicability. That's, uh, in -- MR. SMILEY: (Indiscernible). MS. ARMSTRONG: So I mean, that's just my ask -- MR. SMILEY: Yeah. MS. ARMSTRONG: -- if, if you don't go back and think about that, um, I you, you know, you gave us some helpful information. MR. SMILEY: Understood. MS. ARMSTRONG: Potentially inform our decisions and I think that's an ask of, of you. MR. SMILEY: This is Bill Smiley of Trane. I hav e a question, ma'am. In other regulated things, what ever they may be, how do you distinguish both? MS. ARMSTRONG: Mostly by characteristics. MR. SMILEY: Well, uh, give me an example. I don't understand, because they, it, it's blue or gr een. MR. SMITH: About an air over motor? MS. ARMSTRONG: That is like the worst example. MR. JASINSKI: It doesn't have a fan.215

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It doesn't have a fan cover. MR. JASINSKI: Or furnace. MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. MR. JASINSKI: If, if it's a fan in a furnace tha t has a condenser in it, you can identify a secondary heat exchanger, so you know that one is subject to the s tandard for the condenser, not, you know, the, the, uh, non

weatherized condenser on a stand rule, standard -- MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean -- MR. JASINSKI: - as opposed to if there is no secondary heat exchanger, you know that the fan and that non-condensing furnace is subject to the non-conden sing furnace fan standard. MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, I mean for clothes washers, it is something as simple as, um -- MR. SMILEY: Where the door is or what? MS. ARMSTRONG: Where the door is, is it differentiating feature for, for discriminating a s tandard, but for discriminating applicability with our model s and its size, so certain top loading up to a certain cubic size is in, so that's when it gets back to the point of, um , that Wade was making earlier, you know, one of, one of t he pillars, I guess, of the, and for discussion to dat e for the Committee to then think about, the working group to think about, is the one to two, four hundred horsepower. And216

1 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's pretty easy to figure out. One to two hundr ed horsepower. I mean, it could be a little more, it could be a little less. Whatever we decide to go with it, t hat's up for discussion. But that's a discrete characterist ic that doesn't require a label, that, you know, that's one -- MR. SMILEY: Well, only if there's a motor incentive. I mean that's a, that's a counter-exampl e. We'll get to that. MS. ARMSTRONG: But you see what I'm saying, I mean that's where we're, we're going for a discrete characterization, so that you can do it the same as Sam, as myself. Um, if somebody else wants to come look at it that they can figure it out. And, and it, a label can b e an important tool in that, in helping that, um. MR. SMILEY: I'm just having a hard time trying t o picture what it could be. MS. ARMSTRONG: Exactly why we're here. MR. SMILEY: And I think, well the first thing that comes to mind, of course, is a label, because everything you buy has labels on it that define som ething about it. MR. LIN: This is Paul Lin of NEMA. So we've, we've had a lot of discussion the past few days and actually passed, uh, passed meetings and so forth, and a lot about exemptions. We haven't even allowed the process to work217

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 out, even to talk about what is included in this, i n this general work, working group. So we're asking for e xemptions to things that we don't even know what's included. So let's let the process work out and then if you need an ex emption within that, that, that definition, let's put it in there. So if it's a 200 horsepower limit to, to the fan, t hen let's put that in there. We just haven't, I mean, we're, we're sitting here arguing about things that we don't eve n have the time to find a definition for. We're just wast ing time. Let's let the process work it out. MS. ARMSTRONG: With that, do you want, do you want to switch the stage? MR. LIN: Let's do it. MS. ARMSTRONG: Sure. MS. ARMSTRONG: Um, so we're going to move off of scope discussions. I think there's a variety of pe ople in the group that have some homework. We'll send out a new homework sheet, um, at the end of tomorrow. Um, wi th that being said, we're going to a little bit about motor s. One of the things we talked about at the last meeting, um, had to deal with nominal efficiencies and full load eff iciencies and nominal values. And if I don't test everything in the wired air configuration, um, how will I then get my full system efficiency based on nominal buckets. And if I do it that way for rating purposes and DOE were to test w ire to218

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 air and they get a different value, kind of what ha ppen, so I don't think Dan's going to address the what happe ns part, but he's going to shed some light on the, uh, motor kind of nominal of system approach and, and maybe help all of us better understand where the motor regs are based on and then if it, how that may translate to this nominal calcu lation approach that I think would be really helpful to yo u guys, so that you don't have to test every configuration. So Alex, can you switch us up. It's the presentation that -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah, that starts with NEMA. MR. DELANEY: So I'm Dan Delaney, Regal. I'm representing NEMA. I'm one of the Section Committe e Chairmen, okay. So we put together a list of topics here. Uh, these are topics apparently we missed, um, an oppor tunity, you ask me, were some good discussions on motors. I think a lot of good questions. So I think, I think we got most of the slides in. If not, just feel free to interrupt with questions again. I'm sure Rob will, as he likes to say, pontificate at time to time, and add some more, uh, key words and I'm, I'm sure I'll miss. But anyway, the three topics that we thought, one of them is the concept of a metric that combines th is motor and control together. Um, so we'll go into that. That's an219

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 involving standard. Some of you may be aware of th at going on in IEC. NEMA membership is active, very active in that development, but it addresses a long time issue. W e'll talk about what we did, um, supplying data to the pump, uh, ASRAC Committee, and maybe how we can do something simila r like that too for, for the fan side here, fan blower. And then lastly, a key topic we're going to talk about a lot, air over. The key topic has a lot of these points of data. Clearly, it is direct drive fan or air over products, so we'll talk a little bit about that. So the first thing we come up to here, uh, this is, um, uh, an image that we've been using for some time in, um, the IEC. We'll we put boundaries around differ ent things. Uh, this term, extended product, came abou t, if you go back, um, right to the very beginning when motor s got regulated, uh, we were no different than anybody el se at the table. Hey, you really should be looking at the dr iven system. They're the ones that really are more, uh, efficient, right. Keep pushing down that way. Wel l we finally got our wish and here we all are, right. So, um, so what we now are finally talking about is this driven equipment here on the far right hand , uh, side of that slide. But we've been regulated as a motor since '92. It was the first EPCA legislation. Rea lly '99 is when it fully came into compliance. We've been through220

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 multiple revisions, noting June 1st, 2016 will be i n our, our latest one. Well essentially, really cleans th e slate, as, as Rob pointed out earlier, have a lot of issue s with compliance. Massive amounts of issues with enforce ment, so our goal in that last regulation is to simplify as much as possible. Basically, you got a very short list of excluded, if it's not on the list, it's in. It's very simple . Uh, but leading up to that point was very complex. Um, so when we did a look back, what we're trying to do here wi th this extended product approach was to develop a system. It could be variable speed, which more likely it typically i s. But it combines a, a CDM, a complete drive module in th is motor. So together they make up this power drive system. This is a terminology that was developed, um, by the European s. Um, some of you might be familiar with EN 50598. That standard is a satellite standard. The Europea n standard was developed for the pump regulation 547. And what that was done, is, is to develop a, a system w here the motor and the drive, uh, can be put together. I wo n't go into details here on the bullets, but could be put together, uh, to give a nice little package. So there's defa ult losses that can be determined, as well as it can be tested if you're greater than those and you want to take t he benefit of the higher PDS system. So maybe you hav e a less221

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 efficient pump or fan, you can take the, the benefi ts of the higher PDS system. So we'll go into detail on a fe w slides on that. But it also, it's, it's a robust enough system that allows, that's, let's say, just a straight acr oss the line start type product. So at the bottom, you see motor system, you know, uh, drawn around the PDS. It can also evaluate a straight across the line system against a PDS too, which is a nice option, because sometimes a st raight across the line, uh, fixed speed system is adequate enough. But it takes into account the losses of that other system as well too. So obviously, on the far right where we've been today, um, you know, with fans, there's a lot of me trics going on. We don't mess with them, because this is what's nice about our system. We give you a nice little p ackage that you can pick up, you can use for any, any metr ic you come up with, uh, whether it's an index, whether it 's a straight, uh, input/output method. Whether it's po wer, static, total, um, it, it allows it to be independe nt, giving you guys the data that's necessary. So I talked a little bit about the history, um, talked about the second bullet. Third bullet, now what's nice about this system, it's a defined set of test points. So we do an out put/input222

1 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 method. You don't have to do that, but obviou sly many manufacturers, if we have, let's say advanced techn ologies, improved efficiencies of what you buy off the shelf it makes sense that we or the controller or maybe even US manufacturer would want to do that testing to prove greater efficiency. It allows those same base set test poi nts. Um, and then next, you guys probably aren't going to re ally so much care about the specific test points. You're g oing to care about your performance point. So it has a defined interpolation, extrapolation equation. One that everyone uses to get to points you're most interested in, right, to do your own evaluatio n. And then -- MR. BOTELER: Technology neutral. MR. DELANEY: Um, that is technology neutral. So this obviously can be variable speed induction. Ce rtainly, it can be PMAC motors, uh, ECM, switch reluctant, synchronous. Anything we can dream up in the futur e, um, it'll be in there, because it just evaluates perfor mance at the set points, and then can be obviously interpola ted or extrapolated to the key points you want. And then lastly, it does have what's a big benefi t in ADM method. The Europeans were very much agains t, uh, the concept of a math model for many years. It jus t, their concept of it was, uh, just test it if there's a qu estion.223

1 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 know, we validate that it meets the levels and you just test it. Well they got, I started to understand th is basic model concept when you have proof of product line, you're not going to test that, right. You use a math mode l to validate, like everyone in the room. If you're six trillion and our, I, I guess an infinite number, because the re is, somebody's always coming out with another product, you slap on a motor a vibration sensor, a chaff seal, so, um , infinite numbers. So in the motor industry, creati on of models happens obviously, hundreds even a day can o ccur. Um, so let's talk a little bit about a couple littl e details of these. So the test points, um, on the left here, you see the EN standard. I didn't mention this before, but the EN standard obviously is based in 50 hertz, who suppor t pump regulation, euro pump, picked it up. They used it for the MEI metric, uh, that's regulated. Now they're in th eir second phase of their, um, of their index level now . But they have eight points. And they had, uh, um, a cr ane manufacturer, a guy who made, made cranes and he wa nted three zero speed points, right, so, because he does constant torque type of applications. We don't. We're not looking to use that in, in the U.S., or I should say with t he IEC version. So obviously, we've harmonized that to in clude 60 hertz efficiency levels reference tables. But we'v e also224

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 taken away those zero points, um, and given a rando m sampling. Um, we have a gentleman. His name is Mark Dopplebuyer [sp]. He works a university in Germany , uh, but he used to be with, uh, a motor manufacturer and he did an extensive, uh, statistical evaluation between 20 po ints and all the way down to at least five points and found literally no difference in the end value interpolation/extrap olation. So, um, a lot of, a lot of information and work was put into validating these five points are good, are accurate and can be extrapolated, interpolated, uh, with good accura cy. Um, as I mentioned before, obviously, both methods, um, allow for you then to take that with a defined equation, that would be provided in a, let's say, a set Excel spreadsheet, a locked out Excel spreadsheet. Anybody can take the number, put your values in, pop out th ose performance points that you care about, uh, for the reference losses. And then obviously manufacturer can provide, let's say, if you wanted to test a higher PDS rather than the references losses that are given in a standard, that can also be done there as well too. MR. HAUER: Hello, Dan. MR. DELANEY: Yeah, sure. MR. HAUER: I'm Armin Hauer. MR. DELANEY: Yeah.225

1 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. HAUER: What's in the graph there, the X-axis and Y-axis. That is the torque or the? MR. DELANEY: The speed torque. Yes, speed torque, yeah. MR. HAUER: Not constant power or anything? MR. DELANEY: That's correct, yeah. Yeah, so it' s just, it's just points, points of operation on a sp eed torque, correct, yeah. What I wanted to mention be fore, this isn't the first time this has been developed b ack in, um, I guess somewhere around 2007, uh, '06. At CSA , we developed a standard that had 20 points. And the c oncept there is, let's not do interpolation/extrapolation. Let's just do 20 points or the closest, using next closes t, um, and basically, if you look on the left, 20 points a cross the grid, right. For every low point, you had five poi nts across. Well you had four points across, five diff erent, uh, points. Um, so the concept here is let's reduce the burde n of number of tests and just use interpolation/extra polation since they use a mathematical version. So basicall y, you get the same result, whether you test 20, 30 points or you test these five. MR. HAUER: I'm bringing that up because I've got to a seven we have that's based on constant power, so there'll be a X-axis or a Y-axis for the power into the226

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 torque. MR. DELANEY: Okay. Yeah, this has, this has bee n torque speed from beginning. This is, um, I'm tryi ng to remember if this is in the 61800-9-2. So that's th e, that's the new name of the standard. I don't think I ment ioned that. I do here, right here. Um, but, yeah, it's always represented in a torque speed relationship like thi s, but obviously depending on, obviously what you see on t he right is more of a, let's say, variable torque relationsh ip. Obviously, that's a points of concern for a pump an d a fan. And on the left there, on this, on the zero axis of , of, uh, speed it's a constant torque application. MR. FERNSTROM: And this is Gary. For those of u s that aren't familiar with it, what do you mean when you say torque speed? MR. DELANEY: Yeah. MR. FERNSTROM: Those are two different things. MR. DELANEY: Yeah, yeah. So, so when we, as motor guys, we talk in relationship. I should prob ably just brought a, a typical, but I'll just use my hand her e to, to demonstrate. When we talk about the characteristic of a motor, right, from its locked rotor, it's up here high on its zero speed, up here. So it's in locked, or when it firs t starts or gets in locked or a situation that's very high, it227

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 usually dips. And there's a breakdown point. That 's where you guys really care about, making sure your fan po int is within that knee of the curve that we typically tal k about, so that we're always operating within the performan ce torque of the characteristic and it drops off. So when we talk about the characteristic of a motor, we're talking about how the envelope, uh, wo rks. If your operating point's outside of that, you can't r un it. MR. FERNSTROM: So, just let me. MR. DELANEY: Yeah. MR. FERNSTROM: You're talking about a graph wher e on one axis, its torque, and the other is speed. Uh-huh, uh-huh, right. MR. DELANEY: Correct, yeah. The Y-axis torque, sorry, yeah, X-axis speed. MR. SMILEY: Here's what, here's what it fits in a motor curve looks like. MR. FERNSTROM: Yeah, I, okay, I understand now. Thank you. MR. DELANEY: There you go. Thank you. MS. MAUER: Dan, this is Joanna. I just try and understand kind of where you're going with this. D o you have concerns with the NODA approach in terms of -- MR. DELANEY: Yeah. MS. MAUER: Are you looking for --228

1 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. DELANEY: That's a good question, yeah. MS. MAUER: -- default values or -- MR. DELANEY: So, so what, on the motor, I'm sorry, on the pump side it was concern that, look, they're going to go ahead and, they recreated this for us n ow, so whether it was, um, with PNNL, essentially used thi s EN50598 as the, as the version. You see AMCA and others tr y to recreate this. It's done. What we're trying to te ll you, it's done. We'd like you just sit there and adopt this. MS. MAUER: And you say it's done, um, do you fault -- MR. DELANEY: Here we go. We got a couple of mor e stuff, yeah, a couple of more slides, you'll see, s ee what I'm talking about here, okay. So yeah, the, the wh ole point of this is to introduce this power drive system, th is motor and control. They don't really want, um, the fan g roups or anyone else to start redeveloping something that's already done for you, define losses. Now we understand the issues of, of efficiency and try to use that. So what are we talking about in really reducing kilowatt. MR. SMILEY: Dan, this Bill Smiley of Trane. This, this assumes a specific type of inverter or s peed control variable frequency drive and a specific typ e of motor combination, correct? MR. DELANEY: No, not really.229

1 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. SMILEY: Or is this based on kind of an average of everybody in the world's inverter and ev erybody in the world's motor and you get a real wide banner of data. MR. DELANEY: Yeah, let's just look at that. Let's just, yeah, exactly right. So that's what, t hat's what these two tables are. So the top table here, um, is, is just taking the, we've already defined that, rig ht. We already have international efficiency levels. No r eason to survey that. It's already defined for us. We're r egulating that in the United States and Europe and others. S o we already know the defined motor losses. You can pic k any motor up today, IEC 36 hertz equal a NEMA, premium 12, 12 tables on and on, right. So we can, those are set for us, right. So that' s not terribly difficult. Uh, down here though, driv es never have. So drives did go together and did collect da ta and did define a minimum loss, reference loss for the d rives. MR. SMILEY: Okay. MR. DELANEY: Yes, so that was really a, a big development on that side. MR. PERSFUL: Trinity Persful, Twin City Fan, whe n you say, or when you talk efficiency, are you, you' re talking minimum efficiencies or nominal efficiencie s? MR. DELANEY: Good, good question. We're not talking about efficiencies anymore. We're talking about230

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 basically index levels and losses. So we're no lon ger talking about efficiencies in this metric, because what we're trying to do with variable speed systems, we' re trying to reduce kilowatts, right. That's the whole goal of this program, is to stop talking efficiency, right, and start talking reduced kilowatts. So in all this is loss, so it's kilowatts of loss, okay. Let's back up for a secon d. MR. PERSFUL: So is that, okay, and maybe another way to ask the question. MR. DELANEY: Yeah. MR. PERSFUL: Trinity Persful, Twin City Fan. MR. DELANEY: Uh-huh. MR. PERSFUL: The actual loss or nominal loss. MR. DELANEY: So we'll, we'll get to that. We'll get to that, okay. So, so basically -- MR. DIKEMAN: Are you talking to Ashley. MR. DELANEY: You guys are trying to, uh, to, uh, gang up here, aren't you. We're going to get, we'r e going to, we're going to, let's, let's hold off on nomina l, because I got that in the air, air over and some of the other slides. Because it's, it's important. I do want you to understand that. It is, it is a little more com plicated to somebody who obviously, where you don't read nom inal or you do it the first time you assume that that's one number. There's test method of banding. There's a lot of t hings231

1 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 go into it, rather than just a point, right. So we'll, we'll get into that when we get through this, and t hen we'll come back to that. MS. ARMSTRONG: Let me make a point. MR. DELANEY: It is a testable configuration for Ashley. MS. ARMSTRONG: That you get a point. MR. DIKEMAN: It is a point. MR. DELANEY: We'll, we'll come back to it. The calculation method, this is one way to look at this . So I found my motor manufacturer. If I'm a drive manufa cturer, I don't make a motor. I don't make a drive. You're a fan guy. I can pick up the set defined loss tables and I can put together a system, a PDS. That's definable los s. If that's acceptable to you with your high efficiency fan, you're set and ready to go. You already got your d efined loss tables. Now if you need more. Let's say you're pushing the limit of that fan. You want to keep that fan m arket, you may want to go to manufacturer and decide can I get a more efficient PDS, right. So that's an option. S o this system allows you to say I can use my default losse s for motor control. I don't have to talk to a motor guy . I just got to know that those products are those default r eflective losses of that product, or I can go to a drive manu facturer232

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 or motor manufacturer and have them provide those p oints and get a more efficient PDS that's necessary. MS. MAUER: Points that are certified to DOE? MR. DELANEY: Points that are defined for a test standard that obviously would need to be accepted. Just like Sara Widder did in, in the pump rulemaking, th ey did their own definition. She has the exact same simil ar points that we have in, within this method. This is, thin k about what was done in the pump -- MS. ARMSTRONG: Direct measure is not necessarily

. It depends on what type of motor are we're talking about, because not all of them are -- MS. MAUER: Right. MR. DELANEY: Well let's just back up for a second. Nothing is regulated in this market, becau se this is an unregulated market. This is variable speed m otor control product, right. So this is unregulated per iod. MS. MAUER: So we don't need a DOE test procedure in order to test. MR. DELANEY: And we're saying when we have it, w e want you to adopt it. That's what, that's our prop osal here, is saying, well this is an international meth od that's being stamped by international. This is just a sma ll, this is like 30 manufacturers of motors and drives here. Um, the, some of the largest would probably provide the list. I233

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 think we've provided the draft to where it's at now . John? MR. BOTELER: Let your mind, let your mind wonder to NEMA premium PDS. MR. DELANEY: It allows, let's say, regional acceptance of this, and let's say regional marketin g of that program like that too, right, because there's base levels. It's defined standard. Now, we want to incentivize the premium. People over these defined minimum losses, right. So it gives the metric for this PDS for the first t ime. MR. BOTELER: So if Gary had a NEMA premium PDS, what would he do on it? MR. DELANEY: Don't answer that, Gary. MR. FERNSTROM: I'd probably punt on 4th down. MR. DELANEY: So, well as, as we go back and we look at these defined losses -- yeah, oh, sorry, Bo b. MR. FLY: What does PDS stand for? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Power drive system. MR. FLY: Okay, thank you. MR. DELANEY: Yeah, yeah, so back, just, just, I, I know I throw these terms back at you again, insid e the red, red circle, the motor plus that control, okay. MR. FLY: Got it. MR. DELANEY: Okay. MR. FLY: Thank you. MR. FERNSTROM: So, so this is Gary. What's the234

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 association of electrical and mechanical imaging eq uipment manufacturers? MR. DELANEY: That's our NEMA. They're selling their imaging greatest. MR. FERNSTROM: Imaging? MR. DELANEY: Yeah, yeah, yeah. MR. BOTELER: Yeah, that's us too. MR. DELANEY: Yeah. MR. BOTELER: You're in medical, you didn't know that, huh? MR. FERNSTROM: No. MR. DELANEY: Yeah, sometimes we found that out two weeks ago. We said the same thing. Hey, how d id they get up there? We should have a motor up there. Ju mped ahead a little bit. Um, again, the biggest, probably newest thing that's in the standard is this defined control loss es, okay. Very set parameters, so if when they're doing testi ng, then let's have greater. Have less losses than this mot or, than I have a defined set of setup parameters and test parameters. It's essentially a glorified input/out put, because there's no better way to do that at this po int, when you do a system. But essentially, um, that's what is being used as the reference losses mean, the minimum. Yo u can count on your drive being more efficient than that, that235

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 product when your manufacturer says, yep, you're go od. Um, and that is, that is what you would use as your min imum losses. MR. SMILEY: Dan, I have a, Bill Smiley of Trane. I have a quick question. Is, is that the drive ine fficiency or the losses of the drive, plus the effect that dr ive has on the motor efficiency? MR. DELANEY: So they are separate. MR. SMILEY: Combined or are they separate? MR. DELANEY: They're separate. They are separat e entities. MR. SMILEY: Because if you have a, if you have a

-- MR. DELANEY: You would only see that when you do the PDS five point test. Then you would see the calibration. We're saying that the losses together it is, is really an individual item that can be paired tog ether, yeah, yeah. There's no way to do this, we'll say, definable, um, uh, loss that has all the, let's say accessory items and everything in it. So it had to be, do it individually as it reference losses. MR. HAUER: Armin Hauer speaking. Do you go abov e 60 hertz, 60 hertz speed on that induction motor? MR. DELANEY: I'm sorry. Does it go above? No i t does not. So that was one of the contentions that, so we,236

1 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 debated this. We wanted to include a, let's say , a constant horsepower, but unfortunately, we just ran , ran out of time, because we wanted this in 2016. We wanted a lot of things, right, but in order to get the standard out there to try to help influence all this system regulation, w e really thought, okay, that's, we're going to immediately s tart adding things like constant horsepower above, you k now, base, um, frequency. We were going to add, uh, an attached Excel spreadsheet that you'll be able to run your e quations, defines. So you don't do your own Excel spreadshee t with your own equation in it, using it. You'll have one that'll attach to the standard, and you'll be able to use t hat as a referee method. Wade. MR. SMITH: Well I, I thought I was tracking you until Bill asked that question. MR. DELANEY: Sure. MR. SMITH: I thought that this, I thought that you really, it was impractical for rate the perform ance of, um, variable speed drive, unless you couple it with a motor. And so that's what I thought this was. MR. DELANEY: So -- MR. SMITH: But if you separate it from the motor , don't you get a different performance level, depend ing (a) on which motor you attach it to, and (b) on how it' s configured?237

1 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. DELANEY: So the concept here -- MR. SMILEY: (Indiscernible)the harder it is. MR. DELANEY: So, let me, let me tell you what ou r concept here is, is defining the worst case setup t hat you have for losses, so the whole concept is the worst case position that that motor and drive would produce. Now is it perfect in every case, no. MR. SMITH: So, so if I were to test them all, th e worst one is the one that's represented. MR. DELANEY: No, no. The idea is, is a worst case setup on a drive and a worst case setup on a m otor the least inefficient. Not, not how you repair this wo rst case, because, you know, many manufacturers, many and if you setup something wrong, it's going to give you a completel y erroneous result, yeah. MR. SMITH: Okay, forget about those setups. MR. DELANEY: Yeah. MR. SMITH: Don't different motors have different performance when coupled with a VFD? MR. DELANEY: Yes. It, it, it definitely is the case. Now as one of the things that is a side proj ect of this, is actually to develop a separate motor IEC s tandard that'll address the details. MR. SMITH: A standard what? MR. DELANEY: Uh, so this is, lives inside of the238

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 61800 series, the, the drive standards. 61800 is t he drive. 60034 series is the motors. MR. SMITH: Tell me what you said before so I can understand that. MR. DELANEY: 61800, that's the drive standards. MR. SMITH: And before that. MR. SMILEY: Before you start giving us the standards. MR. SMITH: Yeah, I'm not interested in that. MR. DELANEY: No, come back, come back to your question here. MR. SMITH: My question is, aren't different motors, don't they behave differently, -- MR. DELANEY: Yeah. MR. SMITH: - when coupled with a VFD? MR. DELANEY: Yeah, so -- MR. SMITH: How did you account for that? MR. DELANEY: Yeah, so the only way you can do this, you can do this logically from a base set of losses is a definable set of losses. So no one really knows what that is specifically. That's why there's efficiency lev el. So every manufacturer is still going to have to define that says, I have a losses that meet that table. You're going to still use that definable losses, if it still valida te with them. Does your motor meet these losses at that I2 , I3239

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 table. MR. SMITH: The manufacturer of the motor is goin g to tell us how their motors perform to the VFD? MR. DELANEY: Yep. MR. SMITH: And VFD manufacturers are going to tell us how their VFD performs with the motors. MR. DELANEY: And that's done by our calculation, our, our, basically what we're saying, is we have a n approved AEDM just like the Department of Energy do es for this. The approved calculation method allows them to. Yes, those tests involved to calibrate it, but -- MR. SMITH: So if I, if I, if I, if I take those two numbers. MR. DELANEY: Yep. MR. SMITH: And it happens to be the particular combination that I'm shipping out today. I can cal culate from those two numbers the efficiency of the PDS. MR. DELANEY: Yeah. MR. SMITH: The full, the full motor drive system

. I can add that to the inefficiency or efficiency of the fan and get a wire to air. MR. DELANEY: Very good, yeah. MR. SMITH: And, and, and you believe that if I test them, the wire to air, that I'll get the same result. MR. FLY: Or better.240

1 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. DELANEY: You should be better, that the whol e concept of this is the worst case losses, right. T hat you can count on, that if you test the PDS with the com bination that you purchased, it should be there or better. MR. SMITH: And why should it be more better? MR. DELANEY: And the whole concept is the drives has the worst case losses and the manufacturers cal culation method here is guaranteeing they have minimally tha t those losses are maximum those losses, I should say it th at way, yeah. That's the whole, that's the whole pretense of this. And it's, as, as you see from the standard, it started very thin. It's a very thick standard. It 's a, it's a tough read at this point. It really needs a simplification. It's, it reads more as equation to equation. That's why the second revision is really going to take it down to a, let's say, a layman's working do cument that can be used almost as an Excel spreadsheet so you can run through the equation. But this first one is ve ry technical. MR. PERSFUL: Trinity Persful, Twin City Fan. The, what's the order of magnitude from say this is the worst case to, uh, something that we may test? Is it, are we talking, is it five percent, eight percent, ten percent? What's that? Just not pulling anything.241

1 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. DELANEY: Yeah, um, I can't even talk in thos e terms because of the loss. I'd have to back work, you know, so I'd really have to give specific examples. We'v e done some test data. Um, man, I, it's tough without hav ing, because you have a, you have a set of 20 points, ri ght. And have a bunch test data, a bunch of drive data. We' re comparing those. I don't know if we have a lot of, you know, uh, best cases. There isn't quite a few pres entations that are out there, been done some, but -- MR. PERSFUL: It's, it's, the reason I ask, if, I F we're to consider using this, I would want to know what that is, -- MR. DELANEY: Yeah. MR. PERSFUL: -- because if I'm also interested i n testing and, and doing something better or more agg ressive, I would like to know is the effort worth it at the end of the day. MR. DELANEY: So, so what the problem that's most interestingly about this standard, um, which is, yo u know, it has the typical IC format. You got to the base. It has the tolerance limit there. The tolerance is, uh, p retty, pretty wide in this. It's going to be, it's going to be at 10 percent. It's at 15 percent I think below, um, 90 kilowatt. I think the 90 is where they picked the point for this one and above. Uh, it's 10 percent above 90 k ilowatts,242

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 uh, 15 percent below. It follows the same method t hat the, uh, the motor side does. So it's a pretty, that's your, that's your gap that you're going to play with. Th at's your tolerance. And you can count it being in that tole rance, right. You're not going to count on the high end o f that tolerance. You're going to count it in the middle or down at the bottom of that tolerance. For a manufacturer to hold it, we're going to hav e to have a nominal minimally in the middle of that t o guarantee that tail never leaves the bottom end of that tolerance. So it's probably at least, uh, seven an d a half to 10 percent tolerance probably within those numbe rs. MR. CATANIA: So just to follow-up on that -- Tom Catania. So you said that the test is designed, um , to, to model the worst case, the worst result. MR. DELANEY: So the test, the test is the worst case if the actual. The, the, uh, calculation meth od is the worst case, yes. MR. CATANIA: So how does the calculation method, how is it affected by the manufacturing, or did it manufacture tolerance? MR. DELANEY: I would say it this way. Um, just like any AEDM method, it, and again, this is an IC test method, so there is, today, you know, in the beginn ing there is no third-party approval. It's, it's a manufactu rer.243

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 It's, it's how Europe operate, right. It's, it's y our, it's your, it's your name on the mark, right. MR. CATANIA: Sound certification, no markets around. MR. DELANEY: Exactly. That's our standard. Wha t we're saying here when we put this inside the DOE a nd other things, that's the robustness. It gets added. It gets added as a result of the regulation, whatever it sa id on top of that. MR. CATANIA: I'm just wondering if there's a, if the manufacturing tolerance applied at the bottom e nd of the range has a multiplier effect when you add, when yo u add equipment in. MR. DELANEY: It's a good question. I'll say this. It's a little early for me to really give so me good, good definitions, because what I have is, I have te st data, uh, that I can speak to specific points. I can't t alk about populations yet. It's still too early for me reall y to give you, say, hey, this is what. We're just still fini shing the standard still. It's just actually, uh, it goes ou t for a vote, because it just got translation. Actually it just went out for a vote I think last week. Um, and tha t's two months, and then, um, September we'll come back wit h comments. And we hope to have, we can hopefully no t have any major technical time that we have to revise the244

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 standard. If so, it'll go for at least by December of this year. MR. SMITH: Is this in the public domain where we can go find it? MR. DELANEY: We can certainly, um, ask the convener, it's our NEMA, um, 1MGTC, uh, Chair. So I can certainly ask if we can post this and have it acces sible to the, the whole ASRAC. I know we provided it to the Department of Energy, so we just have to ask to mak e sure we could provide that to the whole ASRAC as well. MR. SMILEY: Uh, Bill Smiley of Trane. It would be interesting to see sort of a statistical distrib ution of what the true values are to show where you're locat ing the minimum. MR. DELANEY: Yeah, yeah. MR. SMILEY: So, so we, you know, I mean, you may be quite a ways from being able to get to that poin t. MR. DELANEY: We have some, we have some charts that were done in development. I know, I remember it, yeah. MR. SMILEY: But you could, you know, if we're going to pick something to use to represent a motor or a motor variable speed drive, I don't want to always pick the lowest possible that could never be any lower than that, because I might have to make up for that low value by adjusting my fan efficiency.245

1 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. DELANEY: So, so the whole key is that you guys can count on that as a minimum, right. You ne ed to use the minimums, right. For, for the defined referenc es you got to use the minimums, right? You might if you r eally want to say, well I think that's better and you're confident you have the ability to test, you'll have the data, you can extrapolate to the key points that, let's say, are the, you know, we have to negotiate with those test configur able points are. But those are the kind of points you w ould interpolate and extrapolate at those points that ar e key to you. MR. SMILEY: Well the other problem that I might run into is locate and I've done inverters whose so le purpose is to reduce tremendously the amount of ene rgy I'm using blowing air around, because I can take the di versity of the system and the requirements of the occupied space when blowing lot less air. But I'm going to start out at a disadvantage, because the components I use to be ab le to do that and use less and less and less energy starts o ut at a lower efficiency. MR. DELANEY: Yeah. MR. SMILEY: So, and, and maybe it's probably not really the right place to be talking about it, but I just want to bring it up, is we might need a little reli ef when talking about VAV create a variable speed system, b ecause I246

1 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 have add a low efficiency fan -- MR. DELANEY: Yeah. MR. SMILEY: -- with just a motor and not a VFD. MR. DELANEY: Right. MR. SMILEY: And, you know, that meet the (indiscernible). MR. DELANEY: And you still might, and you still might be able to do it. MR. SMILEY: Yeah. MR. SMITH: The, the idea is to give an allowance

-- MR. SMILEY: Yeah. MR. SMITH: -- when these things are added, so that you aren't penalized. MR. SMILEY: Right. MR. SMITH: As he just described. MR. SMILEY: Right, right. MR. DELANEY: The question is what, what, what that allowance should be. MS. ARMSTRONG: Wait a minute, wait a minute. Explain that? MR. DELANEY: You, you -- MR. SMITH: It's from your charts. MS. ARMSTRONG: No, explain that. MR. SMITH: Okay, you got a fan shaft and the fan247

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 meets the requirement. The fan meets the requireme nt with default values from wire to air meets the requireme nt. MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. MR. SMITH: Because the default values are in the numerator and the denominator, the fan meets the requirement. The calculated wire to air meets the requirement, right. MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. MR. SMITH: Right, okay. So the point is that in that default values that get you wire to air -- MR. DELANEY: Yeah. MR. SMITH: if you have a speed control, it's in there, in the numerator and the denominator. It's not material. MR. DIKEMAN: It was --. MR. SMILEY: Or you're saying, you're saying the

-

- MR. SMITH: No, it's, it's the efficiency requirement is diminished by the default loss. MR. SMILEY: You're adjust, you're adjusting the target to compensate for the additional inefficienc y of the components. MR. SMITH: Exactly, exactly. MR. SMILEY: Because you don't want it discourage the AD.248

1 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. SMITH: Right, exactly. MR. DELANEY: Well, I'd say this. I'd say this. I'd say this. When you look at your metric, that's what you want to have your metric take account for. You wan t duty cycling in there, right. You want to have that abi lity, if it's variable speed you want to be able to count th at. You'll have the losses. You can use them now, righ t. That decision how you want her to use in your metric. MR. SMITH: Well, that's something we want to tal k about. MR. DELANEY: Yeah, back in the back, yeah. You have a question back there? MR. MATHSON: Tim Mathson, Greenheck Fan. I want to ask a question about 360 hertz, so and you don't have that covered. MR. DELANEY: Yeah. MR. MATHSON: I'm assuming everything under 60 is like, you got a 10 horse motor, 20 horse drive, 45 hertz and only three break horsepower, you can tell what the efficiency is. MR. DELANEY: Yeah, correct. MR. MATHSON: And everything under 60 is losses. MR. DELANEY: Zero, yeah, the losses is of each o f those operating points -- MR. MATHSON: Below that constant torque curve,249

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 everything below that can occur. MR. SMILEY: What about 160 or 120 hertz? MR. DELANEY: So, no, no. So nothing above base, nothing above base, but it'll be added. It'll be, it'll just have to go back. You have to create it, becau se it doesn't exist in the marketplace today. There's no efficiency level for that. MR. PERSFUL: Trinity Persful, Twin City Fan. Would an EC motor be considered a PDS? MR. DELANEY: So that's, that's one of those areas. Yes, so yes is the, is the quick answer. I t wasn't designed around that, meaning we did not go to ECM, uh, type of manufacturers and get their losses, right, to de termine those. So that is one area that the ECM market, um , and it, it varies all over the place. As it goes smaller, it's gets, as it goes really small, it gets really difficult for some of them to get to those. They may have to always do the test. It'll differentiate themselves because their control may wag behind reference losses. So they may have to test as a result. So as a control gets really small, the inefficiencies reasonably pretty small, and that lo sses are there. I just don't want to say across the board, yes. Many of them will say yes. Be above and beyond. B ecause let's say, let's say, if I give you a generic numbe r, such250

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 about 95 percent efficient. That's pretty conserva tive for most drives. So that's kind of the drive. Now whe n you take that and divide the losses by the different po ints, it's about 95 percent efficient, give or take. MR. SMILEY: Bill Smiley of Trane. If I used an ECM motor on a product, I'd have to test the motor in there because we're aren't going to have a usable default number to use. MR. DELANEY: But you won't have to do it. You g o to your EC manufacturer and say give it to me. MR. SMILEY: It's got to be done. MS. MAUER: That's in the DOE test procedure, right? And the tested according to the DOE test pr ocedure? MR. DELANEY: Well, of, of course, that's, that’s why we're proposing this in there, but, but even if it's, well something's going to have to be in there for v ariable speed, right. I mean, if we're going to have, we'r e not doing this at just fixed frequency right. We're sa ying variable speed is part of that. That's what we've been discussing. There has to be a test method. There has to be something that accounts for multiple points that wi ll end. MR. SMILEY: Well, Bill Smiley of Trane again. If, it got to be some encouragement to use ECM moto rs too, because they're typically more efficient than typic al (indiscernible) motors.251

1 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. DELANEY: Especially at the below one horsepower, yeah. MR. SMILEY: So if we don't have some mechanism that, uh, shows the benefit of that, you know. It could be you'll have a problem with it. MR. DELANEY: Keep moving along here, um, following the model as the, the motor side, so obvi ously our European, um, I shouldn't say European, IEC counter parts, uh, developed IU. IU levels based upon the NEMA le vels, uh, creating their own 50 hertz versions off a smooth c urve. They used their 60 hertz versions for a step curve for pull counts. So there're identical to 60 hertz, um, but they've now created an IUL for inverters, what they call co nverters, what we call inverters or VFDs, right, on the left- hand side. And then translating that into a power drive system, you'll notice there's, there's a reference undernea th on the equation, right. So greater than one would be the greater than, than, um, than the base reference losses, so that's what you'd be after if you did a PDS test the great er than one factor on that. So those are defined. This will, will be released. That is pretty new to the standard you c an see. It only does I-2 right now, so many drives just wou ld normally just probably fall into I-2. There is I-1 drives. I don't want to say there isn't, but I'd say they'r e much252

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 more specialty drives. MR. PERSFUL: Two quick questions: One, I'm thinking about. This is Trinity, Twin City Fan. T hinking about the ECM motor piece, so not picking on Armin, but this technology where he has the, uh, the motor drive an d fan are, are one unit, or -- MR. DELANEY: All integral, yeah. MR. PERSFUL: -- are all integral. Would that, uh, would that be considered, you know, his, uh, wh ere you draw the box. MR. DELANEY: Yeah. MR. PERSFUL: Would that be considered a, a PDS, or in your mind would, um, could him or one of his competitors use this? You know, let's say if this is, uh, he gets a better result than what he normally would . And I don't know if hat would be the case or not. Could, would he, in your mind, would, would he -- MR. DELANEY: So he would have the same decision any manufacturer of a supply control motor think se parately or an ECM motor with a fan, or any other situation. He would still have to decide, is my base motor and dr ive together, greater than those reference losses. Do I want to take advantage of that? Do I want to test that and give that to another guy who says, hey, my efficiency's great. My losses are less than, than the other ones. So i f he253

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 wants to compare himself to a PDS, because it, you know, he can certainly use the full metric too. He could sa y wire. You know, he could either one on that, depending on which metric you're going to go to, right. Every, every corner of the world has a little different metric on this, so he could do either one or both. But yeah, yeah, it, take, t ake any configuration. Obviously, it can be more difficult to couple up, but you have to be at a, obviously, a lo w source dynamometer typically. MR. LIN: So, this Paul Lin with, with NEMA, so o n the pump rulemaking from the working group, they al low for the default calculations. And then you also allow to test it. Do you believe that your, your, your system is going to beat that calculated method as well. So there's tw o paths to that. MS. MAUER: This is Joanna. I believe the proposal if you're selling a pump with an ECM motor was that you have to do a wire to water test, because of def ault. MR. LIN: Because there's no default because of that, so you always get a test option to, to, so th at you can show that there's differences in your efficienc ies. MR. SMILEY: This is Bill Smiley of Trane. Let m e ask, uh, think it was some question. I'm not tryin g to be a troublemaker. But if you, uh, add a fan assembly w ith a motor and drive and you test it, and it was a, it w as254

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 basically the motor and drive that was used to deve lop the standard default metric. MR. DELANEY: Okay. MR. SMILEY: And your testing showed that it worked better than the default metric, are you goin g to be held to use the default metric, because the next to p, the next, uh, one of exactly those same things you don' t test, but the motor efficiency's a little lower or the dr ive efficiency's a little lower. And that's what gets tested. Are you going to get hooked for that, or what? MS. ARMSTRONG: Let's table that discussion for the next agenda item -- MR. SMILEY: Okay. MS. ARMSTRONG: -- which is how do we come up wit h ratings and kind of -- MR. DELANEY: Yeah. MS. ARMSTRONG: I was thinking about discussing i t at more about high level. MR. SMILEY: Okay. MS. ARMSTRONG: But obviously, that, because I want you guys to understand what we were, will requ ire of you and what the different components of that are. And then opposite of that, kind of what it looks like on the back end when we do starting doing some market surveillance type things. And so let's have that discussion there, b ecause it255

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 might inform the options you want to consider for h ow you test, how you come up with ratings, you know, the n ominal approach versus a tested approach. The, what I wou ld call manufacturing production line variations that a bun ch of, you know, so let's table that for a second and let him get through this and then we're going to talk about it in a broader sense. MR. DELANEY: So, what's nominal about this, obviously, it follows the same kind of method that' s already out there in the marketplace today, and allows the ability to now, you know, let's say incentivize greater tha n, let's say your, you know, let's say your default losses, which are basically represented by IE-2 and IES-2 levels. So most drives and most motors today that you can buy on the market, European or U.S. regulatory, are going to meet that level or greater. So you're going to fee l pretty confident, if you're buying, excluding the products that we're going to talk about next, air over, right, yo u're going to expect obviously that those efficiencies b e greater. So to back it up, this is where we'll talk about some of the NEMA nominal stuff, but as a part of so me of this discussion. So, as part of the pump ASRAC we supported them with, some part load loss data. And pump's a little different the way they run their set points. I thi nk it was256

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 75 to 100 and 115 to 125, I can't remember. So we supported them with what is part load loss data. They had so me very old data, so we gave them some more recent data to update them. Basically, they were using pre-EPCA type dat a, pre- '92. We gave them, let's say, 2013-type data repre senting what motors today are. And that was two and four p ole. That's really what they care about. Just at fixed speed, though. So this isn't variable speed type of infor mation that's out here. So we talk about how we come up with test data. We have a very specific test method. IEEE 112, met hod B. That's a segregated loss method, very different tha n the input/output method. Its accuracies obviously are very repeatable, even between laboratories, whether it's , you know, competitors or third-party labs. That's our methods used by the Department of Energy. Then 25 years ma ture, continues to keep going through revisions and impro vements, through the years, the newest one will be out here in a few months. But NEMA provides the metric. The metric being NEMA nominal, okay. NEMA nominal is a definition t hat says, the large population of motors, what is that? Well , it's kind of defined by that manufacturer. You build fi ve of those a year, 10 a year, thousands, it depends, rig ht. So the large population is really determined by what t he257

1 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 determines as a large population, but that population has to be within the nominal or what kin d of, what's, if you will, like an average. Now, that doesn’t mean, though, that they're all within there. There's a band, okay. And just like any, you know, average or statistical, you have standard dev iations, right. Well, NEMA has a 20 percent of losses, okay . So there's, each band in NEMA, if you go to our table, is 10 percent of losses. So that that nominal 10 percent of losses is one band, two bands being 20 percent. Th at's NEMA a minimum guaranteed. So you pick up a motor, you test that motor, ever y one of those motors, if you ever found a motor that 's below that, then you have a motor that's does not meet re gs. It would be in violation. I would challenge you to fi nd one in the marketplace today. Maybe not with a reputable manufacturer, but I would say, that would be very d ifficult. I would say that would be very difficult, because i f you find one like that, don't get me wrong, they can ex ist, right. Statistical anomalies can exist, but with - - MR. BUBLITZ: Time-out. This is Mark Bublitz wit h New York Blower. MR. DELANEY: Sure. MR. BUBLITZ: What statistical process method are you using to guarantee that the lower limit of that258

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 manufacturing deviation is within that second band. MR. DELANEY: So, a lot of that is obviously the manufacturer's experience. MR. BUBLITZ: You'll find that with every single -- MR. DELANEY: Oh, no, absolutely not, of course, not. I mean, we're talking about thousands and tho usands of motors a month. And, you know, to test a motor it' s almost a day, you know, it's at least a day usually, to thermocouple and by the time you test it, yeah. MR. BUBLITZ: So that's my question. How do you guarantee that distribution of product that's produ ced in some statistical distribution is guaranteed to be a bove a threshold. MR. DELANEY: Well, our DOE did that for us. The y defined what a ADM method is. MR. BUBLITZ: No, you didn't answer the question. How did you do it? MR. DELANEY: But if we want to go back to what each manufacturer does. MR. BUBLITZ: I want to (indiscernible). You jus t said -- MR. DELANEY: Yeah. MR. BUBLITZ: -- I can't find a motor in the market that is below that second band. Prove it.259

1 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. DELANEY: You, you mean the NEMA nominal, or minimum guarantee? MR. BUBLITZ: I don't know what you just asked. MR. DELANEY: Okay. MR. BUBLITZ: But you, didn't you just say that there's two bands of error, there's a minimum effic iency or whatever loss is. And I cannot find a motor in the market -- MR. DELANEY: Yeah. MR. BUBLITZ: -- that's below that. MR. DELANEY: Yeah. MR. BUBLITZ: How do you prove that? MR. DELANEY: Well, but the, how do I prove it? You just go test it. I mean, I guess, you'd have t o find it. But how do I prove it? It'd be a matter of, s o every manufacturer have to have its tolerances. MR. BUBLITZ: Why is this hard to -- MR. WOLF: Maybe you better rephrase. MR. DELANEY: Okay. Maybe -- I'm not there to -- MR. WOLF: How are you so confident in that statement? MR. DELANEY: So every manufacturer, it has typical, a calculation, but not every manufacturer. There are some that choose just to do tests, right. So I don't want to speak for every manufacturer, but most of u s have a260

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 calculation method. And you have to have a buffer of this calculation. Not only does that calculation have t o guarantee that you're always within the legal requi rement, right. But it also has to guarantee that you're wi thin 10 percent of what you estimate. So it has to guarant ee two things, okay, when you go through that. Now, I'm not sure where you're testing motors -- MR. BUBLITZ: We're not, we're not even on the same planet, I mean. MR. DELANEY: Okay. MR. WOLF: Let me -- MR. DELANEY: Go ahead. MR. WOLF: Mike Wolf, Greenheck. So, I think maybe what Mark is driving at is, how do you, how d oes that tie back to manufacturing tolerances and your testi ng tolerances to come up some statistical significance in your confidence, you know, 98 percent confidence level, 99 percent, whatever. MR. DELANEY: So every manufacturer has a different method to ensure, but in the end that cal culation by which is proprietary to every manufacturer, that what's responsible for them. Just like ever math model th at's DOEapproved in the system, they come and actually eval uate your program with a number of tests and actual evaluatio n. MR. WOLF: So, Mike Wolf, again, just because261

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mark's probably still going. So it's really up to the manufacturer to set their own tolerance levels. MR. DELANEY: oh, absolutely. MR. WOLF: And you're -- MS. ARMSTRONG: Can I cut in? MR. WOLF: Sure, go ahead. MS. ARMSTRONG: For a second. So the way that (indiscernible) talk about. But, the way this work s is that DOE dictates the types of representations motor manufacturers and, to that extent, other manufactur ers must meet. And the DOE system, I would argue, I might a lso take issue with that statement, but that being said, the way this in theory works is, DOE has confidence limits and s ets up a way that you are supposed to making representation of your model's efficiency. One, so for example, let's jus t say your motor -- MR. PERSFUL: They can't hear you right now. MS. ARMSTRONG: Seriously, okay. I'm just going to make numbers for a second. Say, I'm Ashley, and I said I tested out at 10. And if I run typically DOE requi res a multi-unit sample to be tested to come up with a ra ting. And say because of the rating statistics, the confi dence limits which will be influenced by the production v ariations that you feel are appropriate for your industry, sa y I make you de-rate to an eight, where consumers would favo r higher262

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 values. So I won't let you rate above an eight. It is then your responsibility to make sure that the things coming off your line are that or better. So we make manufacturers, when they certify ratings, conservatively rate. We do it the opposite on enfo rcement. Enforcement, we put the burden on us. We make sure that we test a multi-unit sample, except there are some provisions that'll allow us to test the single unit sample for custom equipment. But we make sure we are abso lutely certain that your product is non-compliant with sta ndards. So when you're asking him, I mean this may not answ er specifically your question, but we basically make y ou derate. And then from that, the production variances , which are within your purview, it's up to you to make sur e your units, your population, we understand every unit ma y not, but that population coming off that line, that numb er represented by that model complies with the number actually that you generated. MR. BUBLITZ: A hundred percent of the time. That's interesting for a mass-produced manufacturin g -- MS. ARMSTRONG: So I understand some nuances, which is why I wanted to start the discussion of ho w we do things and then let's talk about how it may apply t o fans, because I get that there may be nuances. And to an swer your question, we get, no, the answer is no. We underst and that263

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 every single unit doesn't always hit the rating, bu t if we pull a unit. I know this is going to, this is comi ng -- MR. BUBLITZ: It's got to hit the rating. MS. ARMSTRONG: Well if we put, it doesn't always

. Let's be honest. Every unit that I test doesn't al ways come up with the same number that's on the rating. In f act, it's probably, most of the units I test, of the hundreds I tested last year, most of them, they fall above, they fall below. It really depends on how, the manufacturer's strate gic decision on how they rate. Some people rate very conservatively. Other's do not. They push the lim its. We allow, within a certain range, we allow that to be the discretion of the manufacturer. That being said, i f we pull a unit, and I'm not speaking necessarily for our en forcement team, but the way this in theory works is, we pull a unit and we have test data from a single unit test that gives us reason to believe that either your rating may not b e quite what it's, you know, chalked up to be. We'd probab ly say, hey, we tested your product. Look at our test data , check yours. Because you're required to maintain records and you're required to maintain your testing or your calculations or your AEDM or whatever the, the basi s for your rating, you're required to maintain that and y ou better have those records if DOE asks.264

1 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. SMITH: So on the motors, there is the minimu m and the nominal? MS. ARMSTRONG: Oh, here we go. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just think of it as banding. MR. DELANEY: As banding. You have a minimum and you have a nominal. MR. SMITH: Can I ask you a question? MR. DELANEY: The motor's going to (indiscernible). Yes. MR. SMITH: Thank you. So there's a minimum and a nominal. And the minimum you've already explained what that is and how that's enforced and, so that's what we c an count on basically, right. Do you define what the manufa cturer can say or represent as nominal? MS. ARMSTRONG: No. MR. DELANEY: No, short answer, no. You provide levels for them. That's it, yeah. MS. ARMSTRONG: Motors, motors is not necessarily a good example of this. MR. DELANEY: Well, we're talking about motors, though, right, so. MS. ARMSTRONG: No, I mean, he's asking with respect to fans. MR. DELANEY: Generically. MS. ARMSTRONG: Right?265

1 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. DELANEY: Okay. MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean so really there's not goin g to be a minimum and a nominal for fans. You're goi ng to end up with a rating. MR. DELANEY: Yeah. MS. ARMSTRONG: And that rating has to be, has to be developed pursuant to our procedures. You're no t going to have this idea of minimum and nominal. Motors a re the only product where we have this kind of hand we've been dealt with by statute, which is a little different than the rest of the world. The other 60-plus products, we define how you make ratings. And those ratings govern representation, and it's going to be a single point number. And we're going to discuss how we get there and wha t that means. But once we say this is how you find your r atings, we're going to say, this is the upper end. And, I guess you can call it a range. You can always conservatively rate back down from that, if you wanted to. MR. SMITH: Upper it. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: With losses. MR. DELANEY: Upper end of losses, lower end of efficiency, is that what you mean? MS. ARMSTRONG: So I was talking efficiency, but that's fine. You can't overrate, in other words. You can't say, you can't claim a higher efficiency than what we're266

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 allowing you to claim. MR. SMITH: And my, and my point is that that number, that one number for any given point -- MS. ARMSTRONG: That number, yes. MR. SMITH: -- is, I mean, we have to meet it. You pull a product, it's got to meet it. And the f act, the fact that that is, okay -- MR. DELANEY: Yeah, because your ratio, because these are ratios. It's built all into the ratio. MR. SMITH: Okay, so now, before we talk about manufacturing tolerances, because I think what you said is, manufacturing tolerances are on us, is that right? MR. DELANEY: Think about this way, think about this way. MR. SMITH: I'm asking Ashley. Manufacturing tolerances are -- MS. ARMSTRONG: So we have what we call certification statistics built in that are supposed to account for the variations you would typically see in fan manufacturing. So if you come back and tell me you surveyed your AMCA members, blah, blah, blah, and typically they experience a five percent range, blah, blah, blah, we'll throw on there a 97 and a half or something like th at confidence level. MR. SMITH: Is that right, okay.267

1 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. ARMSTRONG: And we'll make you rate with that in mind. And it's, what it's going to do is push y our ratings down. But that, what it's going to protect you against is if I spot check your product. MR. SMITH: Okay, so now -- MS. ARMSTRONG: That's how it works. MR. SMITH: -- the following question is this. How do you deal with measurement uncertainty? So i n the, in the, in the lab, in the lab, right, we're measuring flow, pressure and power. MS. ARMSTRONG: Correct. MR. SMITH: Right. So the power meter that's specified in 210 is plus or minus one percent. The flow and the pressure uncertainty is also graphically displa yed inside at the 210. And it is the standard against which we accredit laboratories. They have to be able to mea sure that close. The point is it's not zero, and so how are those measurement uncertainties dealt with? MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay, so I would say the certification tolerance should take into account manufacturing variability and test tolerances when testing with, by a manufacturer with his technicians in his lab. That's what the stats should take care of, stuff wi thin your control. So whatever the cumulative effects of tha t, we should talk about it.268

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Fast-forward, because this is always what everybody cares about. Fast-forward to the other s ide, regulations are in. DOE pulls a product, or we tel l you you have to ship a product to X-lab, a third-party lab typically. And you're not allowed to be there, and you're not allowed to run the test. We're having someone else run the test. I'm talking to you and those behind you. MR. SMITH: No, no, I know. MR. WHITWELL: Been there, done that. MS. ARMSTRONG: So fast-forward. We have an additional tolerance on the enforcement side that acknowledges that when you take a unit and you test it at a different lab, when you test it with different peop le, you may introduce another level of variability, test to test. MR. SMITH: Test tolerance. MS. ARMSTRONG: And essentially, if you fail that test, it's built that way to protect you. If we're going to define something that ends up being non-compliant a nd there are associated penalties, et cetera, with that, we want to make sure we're right. So on the enforcement side, the tolerances work against DOE and in your favor, or s ome may say to make sure that we've accounted for things th at are, one could argue, beyond your control. Does that an swer? MR. MATHSON: Uh-huh.269

1 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. ARMSTRONG: So that was my ratings presentation. We can just -- MR. SMILEY: I'd like to do it again, I don't understand. MS. ARMSTRONG: We can do it again. How about that? MR. DELANEY: With slides. MS. ARMSTRONG: Why don't you finish the motor stuff. MR. DELANEY: Okay, one more. MS. ARMSTRONG: But, ultimately, when we come, I mean, the reason why the minimum or the conservativ e approach is important is, you are going to be held responsible for that fan system rating. And so, on ce you add the pieces together, motor, drives, et cetera, whether you use the nominal approach or the wire to air app roach, the responsibility is on the fan manufacturer. MR. SMITH: And the representation that's in question here is the efficiency? MS. ARMSTRONG: So we can have that discussion too. I know you guys are also concerned because yo u want to be able to make other representations, things that you normally do. MR. SMITH: Flow and pressure -- MS. ARMSTRONG: Exactly.270

1 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. SMITH: -- and speed. MS. ARMSTRONG: So -- MR. SMITH: And power. MS. ARMSTRONG: Correct. Right. Typically, the way we do this is to say your energy efficiency representations are made by blah. That being said, or in accordance with whatever we spell out in the regs, right. There are certain instances where there are certain pieces of information that impact our standards, or that i mpact our product. So, for example, for those in the room, c ooling capacity. Sometimes we've gone as far as to say, y ou know, representations of those need to be made in accorda nce with, you know, but typically it's the efficiency. So we would have those, I mean, that's part of what this is all about. Let's get around a table a nd figure it out. But part of that, driving that discussion is going to be what are your actual production variations on an aggregate. I know that's something that no manufac turer is going to disclose, especially not to disclose to DO E. On an aggregate basis, are we talking 99 percentile, like we are about certain lighting products, are we talking 90t h percentile for confidence limits. And that should encompass test variability when testing with your own technic ians in your own lab. MR. CATANIA: So before we leave this topic and a t271

1 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 risk -- MS. ARMSTRONG: Did I explain it -- MR. CATANIA: Tom Catania. MS. ARMSTRONG: -- close enough? MR. CATANIA: At the risk of freaking people out, those principles, when applying to a standard, rela tively straightforward, maybe not so easy to achieve, but relatively straightforward. But when they're tied to a voluntary market transformation program with financ ial incentives or other benefits, and commercial settin gs may be a little different than consumer settings, there is additional complexity and additional discretion, co rrect, on the part of whoever the Government is overseeing th e program, whether it's something like Energy Star or utility rebate programs and so forth, so. It, and it's not without precedent that more discretion has been exercised i n remedies and so forth and how you respond to violat ions, where you're claiming performance above the standar d, but the basis for calculating it is the standard. MS. ARMSTRONG: Right, I mean clearly, I think what you can tell by, so I'm not here in an enforce ment capacity as a lawyer to speak about the Department' s discretion and, you know, all that kind of stuff wh en it goes into enforcement cases. But that being said, I think what you would see if you look back at what cases t he272

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Department has brought or has settled, they surroun d standards. I mean, we're worrying about people com plying with standards. That's not to say that if we test your product and we get something that's 20 percent off its rating, we won't knock on your door and say, hey, w hat's going on, let's have a conversation. But you're al so not, it's unlikely that, we would probably say, look at our test data and reexamine yours, something's not quite rig ht. But if you're 30 percent more efficient than the standa rd, we're also not going to send you a test note and say, cou gh over units in five days. There are different processes for handling that. MR. CATANIA: Thank you. MR. FERNSTROM: So, Tom, this is Gary. If I understood your point correctly, it was that if you 're doing better than the DOE standard and maybe utilities ar e responding to that with incentives, there might be a little more discretion involved in finding you guilty of n ot doing what you say you're doing. MR. CATANIA: Correct. MR. FERNSTROM: And I've got tell you that our public utilities commission, anyway, has been drivi ng us to use more and more creditable information. When we started doing rebates, we just based them on manufacturers' specifications. And we found out maybe in some cas es that273

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 wasn't adequate. So, now we're being asked more an d more to cite a report to a Government agency, the Californi a Energy Commission, DOE. And I'm sure that the PUC would h ave the expectation that if it's reported, it is going to b e just as accurate as anything else that's reported, without any additional discretion. MR. SMITH: Yeah, I think, this is Wade Smith. I think the, this is a sobering discussion for our me mbers, because so many of the products that are going to b e covered by this regulation are so seldom manufactured. In other words, we got some members sitting here in a room w ho actually never make a product that they've ever mad e before. Every unit is peculiar. And they use AEDMs to rate these units, but the subject of manufacturing tolerances is interesting because it's one thing to maintain a ti ght manufacturing tolerance on a production line of sim ilar products, dimensionally similar products. It's qui te another thing to maintain that dimensional similari ty with a unit that, you know, with a rating basis, the ratin g test unit. And so I think each manufacturer is going to come to this subject with a different answer. MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. MR. SMITH: And I think what I heard you say is, if I'm a manufacturer and I'm making a stamp them o ut product and I do statistical analysis of my product ion and I274

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 know what the performance is on a statistically sig nificant distributive basis, I got the bell-curve. And I th ink I can be within two percent, just pick a number, you know , I'm taking, I'm taking two percent and that's it. And the next guy says, I'm going to be lucky to get 15, they're going to have to take 15. And you're not going to tell them whether they have to take 15 or two. You're just going to tell them if I pull a unit and test it, it's got to be right. Am I correct in that? MS. ARMSTRONG: So the answer is mostly. I'm going to bound that range. I'm going to tell you w hat the lowest number you can rate at, which is going to be the standard. And I'm going to tell you what the highe st number. Within that range, it's on you. But when I pick a unit -- MR. SMITH: Well okay, here's the issue. MS. ARMSTRONG: I, I get everyone -- MR. SMITH: With the proposed rule, we're not talking about a single point of test. MS. ARMSTRONG: Uh-huh. MR. SMITH: We're talking about a complete range. So the description that you're making applies to an infinite number of operating points for any particular fan, right? MS. ARMSTRONG: I understand. MR. SMITH: So it's a sobering challenge to275

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 contemplate all this at one point, or three test po ints. But it's a much more challenging subject when you s ay, no, it's the range. MS. ARMSTRONG: So I'm not saying range is the same way you're saying range, I don't think. MR. SMITH: (Indiscernible). MS. ARMSTRONG: Take a single point in your range

. MR. SMITH: Yeah. MS. ARMSTRONG: Um -- MR. CATANIA: There's a range in that. MS. ARMSTRONG: There's a range in that single point value. If you were to make more than one of them. I get that some of these are custom built you'll neve r make but one of them, we have other regs to deal with th at. We can talk about those. But let's say you decide to make a hundred and we can all, I think, agree that not a h undred are going to test out identical, right. MR. SMITH: Sure. MS. ARMSTRONG: That's the range I'm talking about. So what should that one point be represente d as? MR. SMITH: Right. So what I'm going to suggest to you is that the deviation from the norm in certa in parts of the performance map are going to be much tighter than the deviation from the norm in other parts of the perfo rmance map.276

1 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. ARMSTRONG: Okay. MR. SMITH: And the measurement tolerance varies across the performance range and is documented in t he 210, never mind the fan's performance. MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. MR. SMITH: So this becomes a subject that has an extra dimension of complexity because of the way we propose to have the regulation. MS. ARMSTRONG: Fair enough. And so I think it would be, you know, it is, let's see, what time is it? It's 4:30 now. We're wrapping up at 5:00 today. I thin k it would be good if you finish, Dan finishes his thing (indiscernible). No more talking about ranges and, and stuff with motors. MR. DELANEY: I'd talk about it all night. MS. ARMSTRONG: Perhaps give me some time to come up with an example of what this would look like and just kind of walk you through. If we were to do things the way we do normal business today, and overlay the potent ial regulatory approach as it is set out in the second NODA, how would, what would ratings look like? MR. DELANEY: Uh-huh. MS. ARMSTRONG: How would those ratings for each of those points be developed? And what information from you will we need. That way you can understand kind of how this277

1 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 work. But when you make a certified rating t o the Department, I mean, we understand every test point isn't going to come out identical. But, let's just say that, you know, we've done it in a manner that we think the consumer, or the comm ercial customer in this case, should get that or better pe rformance for the most part. Otherwise, there's something of f with your methodology or rating. MR. SMITH: Dan, Bill Smiley, Trane, I have one real quick -- MS. ARMSTRONG: So that's generally the high level. MR. SMILEY: -- question. MR. DELANEY: Sure. MR. SMILEY: And it surely has to do with what you're talking about. MR. DELANEY: Sure. MR. SMITH: Yes, sir. MR. SMILEY: If you go back, well -- MR. DELANEY: Which one? MR. SMILEY: -- back to that chart that had all the yellow on it -- MR. DELANEY: Yeah. MR. SMILEY: -- which was your -- MR. DELANEY: Yeah, yeah, the motor, yeah.278

1 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. SMILEY: Your motor efficiency at various loa d points. And two things, one is, that's two pole an d four pole, but we used a lot of six and eight pole as we ll. MR. DELANEY: Yeah, and that's what I've noted here. MR. SMILEY: And do you have that information? MR. DELANEY: Yeah, yeah, absolutely. So what I was thinking before we even go do that. Let's real ly talk about what we really want. Do you really want fixe d speed. What's really needed there. So before we go crazy, go getting it, we're ready need to talk about what's b eneficial and got to get the metric. Got to do a lot of othe r decisions. Absolutely, we can go back maybe and de al with this. MR. SMILEY: No, this is very good when you don't have a variable speed drive. MR. DELANEY: Yup, correct. MR. SMILEY: This is extremely good information and necessary. The question I have is, is this old motor data that's run like in 30 seconds on a whole speed work

curve -- MR. DELANEY: No, sir, this is stabilized. MR. SMILEY: -- or is this? Stabilized at some operating temperature that's -- MR. DELANEY: Full load.279

1 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. BOTELER: -- per DOE test methods. MR. DELANEY: Yes, per DOE test method. MR. SMILEY: I don't know what that is. MR. BOTELER: IEEE 112 method. MR. DELANEY: All you need to know is that's what we're regulated at. Right, that's the regulated me thod. That's what, that's what this all this data is prov ided at. Okay, last topic I had. This is the one, the only one I thought would be controversial. MR. PERSFUL: This is Trinity, Twin City Fan. I just want to make sure I understand that last point you just said. So this, this table is at a 100 percent load

. MR. DELANEY: No, no. MR. DELANEY: Yeah. So we go from a hundred to 2 5 percent at fixed speed, at fixed speed, because tha t's what was desired by the pump guys MR. PERSFUL: Well, I mean at, at -- MR. DELANEY: At 60 hertz or whatever your base frequency is, yeah. MR. PERSFUL: And so, so let's, I'm just trying t o think this in my head, so let's say if we're at 40 hertz. MR. DELANEY: And change, and the efficiency woul d less than comparing it to this, yes. MR. PERSFUL: Correct -- MR. DELANEY: Yeah.280

1 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. PERSFUL: But is that going to be annotated? I mean, do we have a chart that goes, you know, 40, 41, 42? MR. DELANEY: Right, so that's where the PDS discussion when you want that information, that's w here that, that's where the reference loss is. That's w here the equation. That's where I can test it. I can, then you can extrapolate it yourself. We can do it for you, rig ht, so. MR. PERSFUL: So we use the equations, so in case s where we just sell a bare fan, without the motor an d drive, but it gets, let's say it gets tested with a, at le ast going to get tested with a motor. MR. DELANEY: Yeah. MR. PERSFUL: Is it, is it the, the, the thought of the working group that it, it's going to be test ed using

-- MR. DELANEY: So, I don't want to jump to that conclusion, because that is -- MR. PERSFUL: Will this equal value. MR. DELANEY: -- that is certainly some of the discussion that needs to be still had here, but it, it certainly can be, right. It can be like the motor, like the pump guys decided. They just did equalized points; so they have a base, which was, like I said my memory, 75, 100, 125, just equally loaded at 33 percent each. Right, it' s due to

--281

1 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. PERSFUL: Because I'm, I'm thinking if I sell a fan at 40 hertz and so the DOE is going to survey that, that product to me at that point, you know, then do they reference a, a calculated method. MR. DELANEY: We would have to have a table that would back that up; so whether that we provide that , whether we use that IC, right, we'd, one would have to be g iven this, because you always have to have a reference, right? You have to have a minimum that says you can't go b elow that for the motor. So how that would look, I, I don't want to jump to conclusions how it would look. Certainly, we could, we could come up with something, but we need to dec ide a lot of other things about how the metric and, you know, and then we certainly can put together some data to support that for you. MR. SMILEY: Real quick, Ashley, Bill Smiley, Trane. Can you guys provide a link to the DOE moto r test standard that defines the temperature and the proce ss that you go through for that? I'd appreciate it, rather than try to find it myself. MS. ARMSTRONG: Uh-huh. MR. DELANEY: I'm surprised they didn't put it on there. Okay. So, the last topic which, early on in this, you know, when I first came into this I assumed we had a lot of282

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 continuous motors. Right, then I heard earlier on from AMCA and Wade most of, most of the motors are one horsep ower and below. It's mainly air over direct drive motors, i f you will, right? So this is a product that has been on our radar for many years. It's out of the regulations. It's not going to be covered June 1st, 2016 either, okay? A lot of difficulties in doing this, if it was easy it would have been done long ago, okay? I'm sure many of you are familiar why it's difficult. And I'll just walk through a c ouple of items just for discussion. By no means are we givi ng up on this. This is an item that we're working on for ou r next regulation, which is small motors. And certainly, probably we'll have to work on it to support this regulation as well too. That's our hopes. So just, just some of the reasoning, you know, an d going to nameplate rating alone, that doesn't mean that much in the air motors. I'm sure a lot of you are shaki ng your heads yes; you understand that. It doesn't mean mu ch. It's a current type thing. We give a sample. It's test ed. I want to see that current within X amount, whatever your percentage is you want to see, they got, I got the right motor. Horsepowers don't mean nothing. What they do mean is at cold, we test them. They're assigned from th e NEMA, break down torque. That's how we get the horsepowe r. It283

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 means nothing. It's almost like a frame assignment to you, half with a half, a three quarter with a three quar ter, right. It's almost like a substitution number. It 's not really. It doesn't mean much. You don't care so m uch about. You care, does it move my fan within the op erating parameter I need, okay? And that's why much of the air over market is sample. And this isn't totally closed air. This is more, it includes that product. But I would say it's mor e of the open air over type product direct drive. Certainly centrifugal but it could be any prop fan or other. Certainly a lot of rooftop use, that's why there's belted or direct drive. Obviously most people understand it doesn't have a fan on the back. It will overheat without that fan

. Obviously the driven fan that's providing the cooli ng, some of the belted product works that way as well too. There is such a thing as, you know, they're kind of, they're created in the marketplace, so we can get continuous air ov er. Sometimes that's mean belted. You'll see a fan dut y sometimes. It used to mean things in the past. It really doesn’t mean anything anymore. It's legacy terms t hat kind of got carried over, but fan duty is to mean draft- induced or sometimes. It used to mean, used to mean belted in the past too. But the end result is, obviously at the air of284

1 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 product it's not that. It's not going to stay within that and get a good efficiency point, right? It’s very difficult to do that on a dime. Where does this all originate. You all understoo d this many, many years back. So they just do a cold point. Literally, it's the shortest time you can get that motor on the die now, get the current to stabilize. Done, y ou're done with the rating. Wherever you want assign? W hatever that torque does, that's the assignment of horsepow er. It doesn't really mean anything. It doesn't mean anyt hing to us. It doesn't really mean much to you, motor samp led. You want to make sure that current is repeatable, but w hen you put it in your fan, it's not within whatever your percentage. Usually 10 percent is the UL rule. An d that's probably, probably similar to what you guys use to ensure I got the right motor or my motor's operating as it s hould be. Test method, obviously there is none. No industr y test method. The CSA C747, as a result of small mo tor rule, NEMA manufacturer revised that standard dramaticall y. Just improved, you know, many of the, we talk about powe r, you know, quality. There's really no good term for thi s. It's accuracy requirement says, what's your policy suppl y end has to be. It’s what your torque requirement is. It's your accuracy haul, your measuring equipment. That's a lot of money. Motor manufacturers invest massive amounts of money285

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 in our, in our motor test labs. And if you had do wire to air, you'd have to do very similar major upgrades. And I think some of you mentioned before, pump guy certai nly saw it at the end of the rule and we're very concerned with that. You know, that's a major investment for you to have to measure both amp watts at the levels necessary t o get the accuracies. But, yeah, many, many issues and many, many costs , but even if they did, okay, so what is mainly the i ssue here. What we can't decide how you do the air over test. So if we're going to do it just air over motor, do a CFM at a static pressure. None of us like to do that, eve n though most of us can do it. It's not something we really want to do, is doing a bunch of blower testing or air chamb er testing. Air velocity at a specific point, you kno w, we can put an manometer at a certain point on the motor an d define it within a certain position. Then that let’s the manufacturers do all kinds of crazy things on the f an and air, and that's probably not very good. Another way to do it, you can do temperature stabilization. You can just say every motor has to stabilize at this point. That's not great, because then it makes the horsepower throw off as well too. A lot of air over motors are very cool, 45 C range. You would, you would penalize it by running that high, some a little hig her than286

1 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. Not many though. Many, many air over motors run very cool. And then as far as classification at the bottom, air over motors, they're, they're probably the leas t efficient in the motor marketplace. There is no re gulation on them today. Down and dirty as we've heard most of this marketplace is, right? Some PSCs are very efficien t product, but cap start induction run product is def initely on the lower end of efficiencies. There’s even sha ded pole and some, not much, on the very, very low end. I s aw the 120 watts hovering around there, but mainly below 1 20 watts. The technologies obviously in the less than one horsepower. Many are single-phased and many are, a s I mentioned, shaded pole. There's, there's still a significant number of split phase, PSCs certainly a nd the cap start induction run, which obviously are, are l ess efficient than the regulation for small motor today . And none of those motors could ever reach the small mot or rule levels without growing a frame maybe even two frame sizes. It makes it uncompetitive, so it would essentially push many of those technologies, if we use that as a baseline . Or as we said here, maybe we just define a whole new effi ciency level as a result of this committee that makes sens e, that drives what's necessary, or maybe, if you'd like, m aybe we have to develop our own set of efficiency levels ba sed on287

1 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 it's a certain type of single-phased techno logy. Obviously, I didn't include the ECM. That is a higher efficiency product that obviously can meet m any of the products, but complicated because you, you can' t really use the test methods. It's not for an ECM motor to define the losses. You can do it. Don't get me wrong, bu t it's not intended for that use. So that completes my stuff. Any questions about it? MS. ARMSTRONG: No, just one comment. MR. DELANEY: Yeah. MS. ARMSTRONG: So Paul, welcome. Last meeting, DOE presented nominal values for TEAO motor. If yo u could look at them -- MR. DELANEY: Yeah, I -- MS. ARMSTRONG: -- and give us some feedback on them. You know, we have, I don't think I as a comm ittee we've decided or made any decisions or expressed an y level of comfort with these nominal values or even a nomi nal approach yet, but I think having some feedback, or we at least attempted to do it. We assigned some more of the catalog information we were able to collect. I thi nk, you know, having your spin on what that might look like would be helpful. MR. LIN: Okay. Now, now that last, I noticed288

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 when I tried to go back and pull some of the other information. I was able to find the last, but it d id get out on the, the -- MR. DELANEY: It didn't. MS. ARMSTRONG: It may not be on the docket. I'm not really sure what parts of that I’ve been sendin g out. I sent it out, but it hadn't made it to the docket, b ut I'll send it again. MR. DELANEY: Okay, I don't think. MS. ARMSTRONG: No problem. But it’s in the slid e document -- MR. DELANEY: Yeah, absolutely. MS. ARMSTRONG: -- you nominal values based on regulatory and then obviously nominal value. We at tempted to do nominal values for these. We did not go furt her for a more, I would guess, the beginning part of your, wh at your beginning part of you representation will take care of, but, and that would be helpful. MR. HAUER: I have a question back on the PDS. It's Armin Hauer speaking. MR. DELANEY: Yeah. MR. HAUER: Are there any electrical procedures included load side or line side on variable speed d rive? MR. DELANEY: It goes back to the PDS concept. MR. HAUER: Yeah.289

1 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. DELANEY: The input/output is you're measurin g input of a control, output of the, of the motor. MR. HAUER: All right. But would you not be able to fetch your, basically artificially increase wher e efficiencies if you neglected to use load side filt ers? MR. DELANEY: Yes, so, let's go back to that, yep

. So that is accounted for in the test, in the test, obviously not reference, right. So obviously losses of the, I took that one slide out. It actually showed all the mea surement points. It just got, I didn't want to get into too many things, but you see what that dotted line is. That 's actually where we'll be polling voltage watts from as well to during the test. I know this isn't the represen tation of that, but it's measuring both in front and behind. It's isolating the CDM when you do the test. You have t o know it includes any auxiliaries or filters upstream or dow nstream in the CDM. So the CDM is the one that's penalized for it, because obviously they're the ones necessary probab ly to have the filtering, you know. So it's incorporated into the CDM test. MR. HAUER: But okay some manufacturer will be here for AHRI 1210 certification. Now, one manufac turer so far has certified their products. And AHRI 1210 al so judges about specs on the motor, and it also judges about how long290

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it's induced in the, into the line. And so you cou ld basically boost your efficiency in the PDS if you l eft you left out the filters, so how would this change? MR. DELANEY: Good question. So there is a base line test point set of carrier frequencies, a base setup that has to be repeated each time on the test. So it says regardless of what you want to use it and this is t he same test. So if I go from one place to the next, this is the test setup that has to be done on the drive each ti me. So that's, that's the only way to make it fair, is to make a setup that each person has to repeat. So that's ho w it deals with that, okay. MR. BUBLITZ: I have a question. Mark Bublitz, New York Blower. So there's DOE standard losses th at were published, you know, published. And then there's t his approach, right. Is this working group supposed to pick which one and what's that, what's the action? MR. DELANEY: But we don't, we don't have a proposal, so I, I, just to make that clear. I don' t have any proposal for air over. MS. ARMSTRONG: No, no, but you have for the other, the rest of them. MR. BUBLITZ: No, I'm talking about the whole product. MR. DELANEY: I don't know.291

1 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. ARMSTRONG: We do. MR. DELANEY: Do, for, you mean for this, for the PDS, yeah, yeah. MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. So, yeah, and we would hav e to have that discussion about where we want to go. Do we want to do something like, and I'm not sure they ar e that different, but I think there are some, some differe nces in terms of for the nominal approach, do we would want to use something setup like this. I'm not sure Dan's proc ess will actually be done in order for us just to point to b y the time they may need it in the test procedure hearing . So we may have some timing issues there. But do you want it to move to an approach like this or do we want to do o ur own thing similar to what we did in pumps? And pumps u sed aspect of this, so they're not completely off and t hey're not different. They're pretty similar, but they're not exact. MR. SMITH: Is this to set the default values? MS. ARMSTRONG: It's to set the default values. It's not the nominal values. And maybe you don't c are, as long as you have that ability. MR. SMITH: No, I don't care. MS. ARMSTRONG: You care as long as you have that ability and care as long as they're setup in a way that, I think, A, provides you meaning results, but B, they also292

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 protects you if DOE were to test, do actual testing that the rating is still, is equitable as being a nominal me thod and tested method. Anyway, you can hold that it, the a nswer, simple answer to your question is yes, that it’s op en to discussion and building on whatever else you want t o do. MR. DELANEY: It's a little complicated by the fact that if we said a majority of it is air over a nd you don't have an efficiency level, then you make big a ssumption to I3 or NEMA premium, and that's a big assumption that changed the motors you get today would dramatically change for you. MS. ARMSTRONG: That's why that table is pretty important. MR. DELANEY: It is, it's very important, yeah. That's very important. If we use that reference lo ss. MS. ARMSTRONG: You could also say for certain types of motors, do they always have to get tested. And that's the other options. It's also, it's within y our purview to have that kind of discussion here, depen ding on what you may want. So that's why some of the quest ions we had teed up from the last set of, and I know you gu ys both had some of them, but some of the questions we had teed up with regards to the last set - how do you test some of the answers to your questions and then nominal approach versus, um, wire to air approach. That’s why some of those are293

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 important. It gets to the heart of which way we wa nt to go. MR. SMITH: So let me ask you a question. Say I've got a fan that has maximum speed and sort of a worst case scenario, it, it carries 75 horse motor, but i n its performance map it has, demands that drop all the w ay down to one, to one horse, right? MS. ARMSTRONG: What do you do? Yeah. MR. SMITH: So now I'm making that product and I' m selling it as a bare shaft band and I choose to, fo r those that ask, and they certainly will, I choose to use the default value to determine the wire to air efficien cy of assembly. It has my fan and I don't know whose mot or, so it's not my, not my problems. MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. MR. SMITH: Customer buys that stuff, packages it

. He wants to know what the wire to air is. I give h im the answer, life goes on. Is the default values used i n that computation to a one horse motor since this fan can be applied with a one horse motor, and it's catalogued with a one horse motor? So, so I, I mean -- MS. ARMSTRONG: Go ahead. MR. SMITH: Or is this, uh, is this a matter that we'd have to debate and decide upon, or it, okay. MS. ARMSTRONG: This was one of our items of294

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 feedback, that we had to decide. MR. DELANEY: So a key is that duty cycle. What do you want in that metric, right. MR. SMITH: No, you're, you're not on the same wave length here because -- MS. ARMSTRONG: Motor -- MR. SMITH: We're proposing that, that -- MS. ARMSTRONG: It's motor -- right. I mean that's really what you're asking. MR. DELANEY: No, that's independent -- MS. ARMSTRONG: It's just sizing. MR. SMITH: I'm sorry? MS. ARMSTRONG: It's sizing and we kind of -- MS. IYAMA: So I think what you're asking is what size motor do I pick when I'm calculating my rating

. MR. SMITH: As a default value. MS. IYAMA: As the default value. And I think -- MR. SMITH: And I'm going to say that the only time this matters is, is when I want to represent a particular motor and drive combination that carries the default. MS. IYAMA: Right, so I think here is the different, different situation. MR. SMITH: Because the default value in my calculation shows up in both the numerator and the295

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 denominator -- MS. IYAMA: Right. MR. SMITH: It doesn't actually matter MS. IYAMA: Right, so the -- . MR. SMITH: The time that it matters, right, is when I certify a particular motor and drive with ef ficiency I'm going to claim is above the default, right. MS. ARMSTRONG: So I, the answer is yes, but I actually will go as far as I think it does matter, because I'm not sure we're going to end up at an index. An d even if we did end up at an index, I'm not sure that index is a moving index, in which case they would always cance l out, depending on how we go with this. So I think we sh ould assume it does matter -- MR. SMITH: Well, it matters -- MS. ARMSTRONG: -- because I think that's the better way to go. That it could matter. MR. SMITH: It could matter even in the default calculation? MS. ARMSTRONG: Correct. Because I'm not sure we're going to end up with an index. I mean, I kno w you guys want an index for purposes of making represent ation, but the standard's not an index. MR. SMITH: Whether or not, whether, whether or not it's an index, Ashley, if I'm a manufacturer an d I'm296

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 making a product and selling it with bare shaft, I do not want to be tested or held responsible for the perfo rmance of the things that I didn't make or sell. MS. ARMSTRONG: Right, so I understand. You don' t want to be held responsible for, I'll just say it, an underperforming motor, got it. MR. SMITH: Well I don't sell motors. MS. ARMSTRONG: Got it, that being said, that's why these issues are important. That's why the nom inal values and the way they are constructed are importa nt. That's why some of the questions we had teed up pre viously and the way we're trying to construct the nominal v alues are conservatives because of this issue specifically. MR. SMITH: But when are we going to talk about the pros, cons and difficulties and challenges asso ciated with the ratio FDIs? MS. ARMSTRONG: So I guess this is a good time to talk about what may come tomorrow because it's almo st 5:00 and what topics does the working group really want to talk about tomorrow in this room again. So, you know, b e prepared, mentally and otherwise. MR. SMITH: And we’re here at 8:00 in the morning

. MS. ARMSTRONG: We are. MR. BOTELER: It's 8:00 to 3:00. MS. ARMSTRONG: You can go off record now. We're297

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 good. Thank you. (Whereupon, the meeting was concluded.)298 % Digitally signed by Robin Conover ELECTRONIC CERTIFICATE

DEPOSITION SERVICES, INC., hereby certifies that the attached pages represent an accurate transcript of the electronic sound recording of the proceedings befor e the United States Department of Energy in the matter of :

ASRAC FANS AND BLOWERS WORKING GROUP MEETING

By:

Robin Conover, Transcriber