TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION

Official Reporters

1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 206

Washington, D.C. 20005-4018

(202) 628-4888

contracts@hrccourtreporters.com

IN THE MATTER OF: )

 )

ASRAC FANS AND BLOWERS )

WORKING GROUP MEETING )

Pages: 216 through 421

Place: Washington, D.C.

Date: May 19, 2015
216

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY & RENEWABLE ENERGY

IN THE MATTER OF: )

 )

ASRAC FANS AND BLOWERS )

WORKING GROUP MEETING )

Room 8E-089

Forrestal Building

1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C.

Tuesday,

May 19, 2015

The parties met, pursuant to the notice, at 

8:15 a.m.

Department of Energy:

STEVE FINE

ASHLEY ARMSTRONG

WADE BOSWELL

PETE COCHRAN

JOHN CYMBALSKI

PARTICIPANTS:

KARIM AMRANE

AHRI

CHRISTOPHER AUTH

Baltimore Aircoil Co.

MARK BUBLITZ

New York Blower Company

LARRY BURDICK

SPX Cooling Technologies

PETER BUSHNELL (Via Webinar)

Carrier
217

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

PARTICIPANTS: (Cont'd)

TOM CATANIA

AMCA

STEVE DIKEMAN

AcoustiFLO

GARY FERNSTROM

California IOUs

MARK FLY

AAON, Inc.

DAN HARTLEIN

Twin City Fan Companies

ARMIN HAUER

ebm-papst Inc.

NICHOLAS HOWE

Carnes Co.

SANAEE IYAMA

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

DIANE JAKOBS

Rheem

SAM JASINSKI

Navigant Consulting

TIM MATHSON

Greenheck

JOANNA MAUER (Via Webinar)

Appliance Standards Awareness Project

MICHAEL MCCABE

Ingersoll Rand Corp.

DONALD MCNEIL

Buffalo Air Handling Co.

TRINITY PERSFUL

Clarage Fan Company

ELAINA PRESENT

Navigant Consulting
218

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

PARTICIPANTS: (Cont'd)

ANIRUDDH ROY

Goodman

WILLIAM SMILEY

Trane

WADE SMITH

AMCA, International

LOUIS STARR

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

PHILIP THOMAS

Berner Inc.

GREG WAGNER

Morrison Products

MEG WALTNER

Natural Resources Defense Council

ROBERT WHITWELL

Carrier

STEPHEN WIGGINS

Newcomb & Boyd

CHRIS WISEMAN

Nidec

MICHAEL WOLF

Greenheck
219

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

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

2 (8:15 a.m.)

3 MR. BOSWELL: Good morning. Welcome to the 

4 fourth meeting of the ASRAC Fan Working Group. My 

5 name is Wade Boswell and I'm from DOE's Office of 

6 Hearings & Appeals and I'm one of the facilitators. 

7 For the record, we'll start off as we normally do just 

8 going around the room, and if everyone could introduce 

9 themselves and identify their organization.

10 MR. BURDICK: Larry Burdick, SPX Cooling 

11 Technologies, representing Cooling Tower Institute.

12 MR. THOMAS: Phil Thomas, Berner 

13 International.

14 MR. DIKEMAN: Steve Dikeman, AcoustiFLO.

15 MS. JAKOBS: Diane Jakobs, Rheem.

16 MR. WAGNER: Greg Wagner, Morrison Products.

17 MR. HOWE: Nick Howe, Carnes Company.

18 MR. HAUER: Armin Hauer, ebm-papst.

19 MR. BUBLITZ: Mark Bublitz, New York Blower 

20 Company.

21 MR. HARTLEIN: Dan Hartlein, TCF.

22 MR. WOLF: Mike Wolf, Greenheck.

23 MR. STARR: Louis Starr, Northwest Energy 

24 Efficiency Alliance.

25 MR. FERNSTROM: Gary Fernstrom representing 
220

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 the California Investor-Owned Utilities, who are the 

2 Pacific Gas & Electric Company, the Southern 

3 California Edison Company, the San Diego Gas & 

4 Electric Company, and the Southern California Gas 

5 Company.

6 MS. WALTNER: Meg Waltner, Natural Resources 

7 Defense Council.

8 MR. GOODMAN: My name is Roy Goodman.

9 MR. WHITWELL: Bob Whitwell, Carrier.

10 MR. FLY: Mark Fly, AAON.

11 MR. SMILEY: Bill Smiley, Trane.

12 MR. JASINSKI: Sam Jasinski, Navigant 

13 Consulting.

14 MR. CYMBALSKY: John Cymbalsky, DOE.

15 MR. FINE: Steve Fine, Office of Hearings & 

16 Appeals.

17 MS. IYAMA: Sanaee Iyama, Lawrence Berkeley 

18 National Lab.

19 MR. WIGGINS: Steve Wiggins, Newcomb & Boyd.

20 MR. SMITH: Wade Smith representing AMCA.

21 MR. MCNEIL: Don McNeil, Buffalo Air 

22 Handling.

23 MR. MATHSON: Tim Mathson, Greenheck Fan.

24 MR. PERSFUL: Trinity Persful, Clarage.

25 MR. WISEMAN: Chris Wiseman, Nidec U.S. 
221

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 Motors.

2 MR. CATANIA: Tom Catania, AMCA.

3 MS. PRESENT: Elaina Present, Navigant 

4 Consulting.

5 MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI.

6 MR. MCCABE: Michael McCabe, supporting 

7 Trane.

8 MR. AUTH: Chris Auth, Baltimore Aircoil.

9 MR. BOSWELL: Great. Thank you. Unless 

10 there are any specific issues people wanted to pick up 

11 from yesterday, my understanding is that we're going 

12 to start with a presentation by Tim Mathson from AMCA, 

13 and I think he's set to go on that.

14 MR. FERNSTROM: So this is Gary for the 

15 California IOUs. Before the presentation I have a 

16 question that goes back to yesterday. We had that big 

17 Trane rooftop unit on the screen and we were talking 

18 about the expense and difficulty of testing the air 

19 handlers. It literally was about the size of a train 

20 car I guess. And I was curious how the manufacturer 

21 specifies the performance of the air handler for 

22 architects and engineers if it isn't tested. And I 

23 was wondering if maybe Wade could speak to how AMCA, 

24 you know, may or may not test fans and blowers of that 

25 size.
222

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. BOSWELL: And again, if people could 

2 identify themselves with their organizations, 

3 especially, you know, often -- I thought we did a 

4 really good job yesterday of staying more 

5 conversational as opposed to, you know, jumping from 

6 one topic to the other based on tent cards, but at 

7 some point people stopped identifying themselves.

8 And for the sake of the transcript that 

9 needs to be made, it would be really helpful if people 

10 remember that. And I'll try to remind people, which I 

11 failed to do yesterday.

12 MR. SMITH: This is Wade Smith with the Air 

13 Movement & Control Association. So AMCA owns and 

14 operates several labs, two, one in Singapore, one in 

15 the United States. And we do, in the U.S., we do over 

16 2,000 tests a year. These are rating tests. So it's 

17 not a research lab, it's a performance testing lab.

18 And the question, I'll sort of break it into 

19 two chunks to provide an answer. If we were testing 

20 the fan, in other words, if the fan assembly were 

21 pulled out of the casing and we were to set it up in 

22 one of our chambers and test it, typically what's done 

23 is that the manufacturer chooses several 

24 representative fan diameters and tests them themselves 

25 in order to rate an infinite number of operating 
223

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 points on many different fan sizes. They don't have 

2 to test each fan size.

3 And then if the fan is being certified 

4 through AMCA, then if those tests are done in an 

5 accredited lab, then there's just a check test that's 

6 done, but if not, then basically the entire rating of 

7 the product line has to be based on AMCA, tests done 

8 in the AMCA lab.

9 So that's how a fan is rated. I should add 

10 that we charge our member companies our cost to do 

11 these tests. Trane is a member of AMCA. And, you 

12 know, a test like that runs around $3,000. Probably 

13 my guess is two or three tests would be necessary to 

14 rate the entire fan product line, okay?

15 We also do tests of air handler fan sections 

16 or air handlers, air handling units essentially, and 

17 we do those tests under contract from AHRI as part of 

18 their certification program. They have a standard 

19 called, I believe it's AHRI 430. Isn't that right?

20 And so, in 430, it's defined what is tested, 

21 so I'll just defer to what AHRI 430 says, but 

22 nominally, it is the fan section of the unit. It 

23 includes some of the components that are inside the 

24 air handler but not all. And we test the air 

25 performance of that box, which is the fan section, and 
224

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 the ratings for air handling units then are published 

2 in accordance with AHRI 430.

3 And some of the losses, including the system 

4 effects associated with the box around the fan, are 

5 implicit in the fan performance tables, and losses 

6 which are not implicit and integrated into that 

7 performance table are considered external to the fan. 

8 In other words, you add the static pressure losses of 

9 those components. Am I doing this right, Bill?

10 MR. SMILEY: Yep.

11 MR. SMITH: So far. Okay.

12 MR. SMILEY: Good job.

13 MR. SMITH: Okay. Rooftop units are a 

14 little bit different because there's no certification 

15 of the air performance of a rooftop unit, so we don't 

16 actually test air performance of rooftop units today. 

17 If one were to test the air performance of a rooftop 

18 unit, you would do something similar to what is done 

19 with air handlers. You'd depopulate the unit of its 

20 optional devices, right, and then you'd test it 

21 without those devices and then the added pressure drop 

22 associated with those devices would be included as 

23 static pressure losses external to the fan rating, not 

24 external to the unit but external to the fan's rating.

25 MR. STARR: So this is Louis. I've got a 
225

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 quick question. Louis Starr with NEEA. So by 

2 depopulate, you mean things like taking out the --

3 MR. SMITH: Filters.

4 MR. STARR: -- cooling coils, the heat --

5 MR. SMITH: Typically not.

6 MR. STARR: Okay.

7 MR. SMITH: But, you know, if they have a 

8 two row cooling coil as the minimum, then normally the 

9 two row coil would be in the unit, and then if they 

10 have a option for a three row coil or a four row coil, 

11 the added pressure loss associated with that would be 

12 tabled.

13 MR. STARR: Okay. So you try to find the 

14 base unit is essentially what you're trying to do.

15 MR. SMITH: Right.

16 MR. STARR: Okay.

17 MR. SMITH: Right. So I think the comment 

18 made yesterday about the difficulty of testing the air 

19 performance of the unit is valid. However, the air 

20 performance of the unit has to be tested in order for 

21 Trane to catalog the air performance of their product, 

22 and they do catalog the air performance of their 

23 product.

24 So the risk to Trane in terms of added 

25 testing cost is the need to -- if the regulation is 
226

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 written such that there is a dotted line box around 

2 the fan, and since Trane, since that fan is not sold 

3 as a standalone fan, if the box is drawn around the 

4 fan, then the fan has to be -- the performance of the 

5 fan has to be determined, and how it's determined is I 

6 think a question that's open to discussion, but one 

7 way is to remove the fan assembly and its structure 

8 and test it in a testing lab. And if we were to do 

9 that testing, you know, it would cost a member company 

10 around $3,000. We charge more for non-member testing, 

11 but for member testing it would be about a $3,000 

12 test.

13 MR. FERNSTROM: So this is Gary. Thank you, 

14 Wade. The energy efficiency performance of the air 

15 handlers constitutes a significant end use use of 

16 energy and it's important to us, so I wanted the 

17 record to be clear about just what the actual cost and 

18 difficulty of determining that parameter is. Thank 

19 you.

20 MR. FLY: Wade, this is Mark Fly with AAON. 

21 What's the capacity of your chamber or your --

22 MR. SMITH: I don't know exactly.

23 You know, Steve?

24 MR. DIKEMAN: This is Steve Dikeman. I 

25 believe it's 55,000 CFM.
227

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. SMITH: Yeah.

2 MR. DIKEMAN: But that's not anything more 

3 than, you know, vague memory.

4 MR. SMITH: It depends on whether the flow 

5 measurement is done on the discharge or the inlet of 

6 the fan.

7 MALE VOICE: Right.

8 MR. SMITH: But I think it's 55 or greater.

9 MR. FLY: I mean, it depends on the pressure 

10 you're testing at obviously.

11 MR. SMITH: Not so much. We can go up to 20 

12 inches of pressure differential.

13 MR. DIKEMAN: That's 55,000 CFMs.

14 MR. SMITH: No, because that's a smaller 

15 chamber. Right. So I would add, though, however, you 

16 know, our members rate and certify the performance of 

17 products that are much larger than we can test and 

18 they do that using the fan laws, testing a smaller 

19 unit and using the results to rate a larger unit. 

20 It's a common practice and well-accepted.

21 MR. FLY: And that's kind of where I was 

22 going, that a lot of this stuff is projected up from 

23 smaller units. And even air handlers a lot of times 

24 are rated kind of by an AEDM type process, whereas we 

25 have a model that fits a smaller unit well, then we'll 
228

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 project it on up to larger units.

2 MR. SMILEY: So this is Bill Smiley, Trane.

3 MR. BOSWELL: Actually, if I could turn to 

4 Larry. He's been waiting to make a comment.

5 MR. BURDICK: Yeah. Wade, thanks. I'd like 

6 a couple more questions on your test. You said it was 

7 $3,000 for a member, one of your members for a test. 

8 What is the up charge for a nonmember?

9 MR. SMITH: This is Wade Smith. I think 

10 it's double.

11 MR. BURDICK: Okay.

12 MR. SMITH: It's not more than double, so --

13 MR. BURDICK: Uh-huh. And then the other 

14 question is how much more capacity do you have, you 

15 know, with your facilities on being able to perform 

16 testing? Can you do three times more tests than you 

17 do now? Can you do nine times more tests than you do 

18 now?

19 MR. SMITH: Right.

20 MR. BURDICK: How much capacity do you have?

21 MR. SMITH: Right. We run one shift, with 

22 an occasional second with a reduced crew. Once in a 

23 while we'll have one or two guys on second shift. And 

24 so the answer is we could double our testing load with 

25 no problem.
229

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 Look, understand, however, that we're in the 

2 business of testing and if, you know, the demand 

3 exceeded our capacity to supply, we'd make capital 

4 investments to increase our capacity. But we're 

5 running at about 50, 60 percent of what we could do at 

6 the present time. We have, you know, three air test 

7 chambers. We can run many tests simultaneously.

8 Dan?

9 MR. HARTLEIN: Sorry. Dan Hartlein, Twin 

10 City. I think additional comment to that too is that 

11 there is a tremendous testing capacity in the 

12 membership of AMCA that is certified lab. I don't 

13 know what that count -- I think I saw a number, 50 

14 labs.

15 MR. SMITH: Yeah. We accredit laboratories 

16 outside of AMCA, and we have 50. Actually, I think 

17 the total number is 53. But we have 50 member company 

18 laboratories which are accredited to do this kind of 

19 testing. We have a lab in Singapore which of course 

20 is accredited. We own it. And we have two 

21 independent, not manufacturer-owned, two independent 

22 testing labs, one in Korea and one in France, that are 

23 accredited also. So all of those, all the independent 

24 testing labs are available to test people's product as 

25 well.
230

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. HARTLEIN: Yeah. Thank you. And I was 

2 going to add, Dan, again that most of us have invested 

3 in our own labs because it's more cost-effective to do 

4 it ourselves as opposed to having AMCA do that, so 

5 that would be why we have our own labs. So the number 

6 that Wade gave you is somehow kind of a retail number 

7 as opposed to an internal cost to a fan manufacturer.

8 MR. SMITH: Right.

9 MR. HARTLEIN: Just to get the numbers 

10 right, I would say that test can probably be run for 

11 under $1,000 if it's done by a fan manufacturer in an 

12 existing lab.

13 MR. SMILEY: This is Bill Smiley, Trane. 

14 Just one comment to what Dan just said. I believe 

15 that the laboratories that my company has were not 

16 built because we can test cheaper than AMCA or 

17 somebody else. It's because we do research and 

18 development and it's hard to do that on a schedule in 

19 an outside lab with all the other pressures on an 

20 outside lab.

21 MR. SMITH: Yeah. Very true.

22 MR. SMILEY: So I don't know that we do it 

23 cheaper. It might cost more.

24 MR. BOSWELL: Okay. Okay. So what I'm 

25 going to ask is if we can put this conversation on 
231

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 hold slightly. My impression is that Tim's 

2 presentation might be useful for the conversation 

3 we're having, so I'd like to move into his 

4 conversation and then we can pick up after that, okay?

5 MR. STARR: Well, this is Louis. You know, 

6 I think this conversation's actually one of the best 

7 ones we've had to date, so I would say we should 

8 continue on it just a little bit more. I think what 

9 Tim's going to produce, I think most of us already 

10 know that on a technical side of things.

11 But one thing, I do have a question I would 

12 like to ask Wade that is pretty important for when 

13 they drew the box around the fan, and that's can they 

14 project -- my understanding is is sometimes you can 

15 just test the fan outside of the air handler and 

16 project the performance such that you don't 

17 necessarily need to actually test the fan inside of 

18 the enclosed -- so you're predicting the performance 

19 of the fan just with the fan separately, so you reduce 

20 your testing burden down even further, but you can 

21 project what the performance of the air handler.

22 And that's typically maybe even how they do 

23 it. They don't actually bring the whole box in there, 

24 but they take the fan and they know how the fan's 

25 going to perform in the box. But if you could talk 
232

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 about that, that would be pretty helpful I think.

2 MR. SMITH: Right. This is Wade Smith. So 

3 the fan laws are a gift from the good Lord himself 

4 that gave us the physics, right, that allows us to 

5 rate larger products from testing smaller products, 

6 but there are limitations. And some of the components 

7 which impact the rating of a fan as applied don't 

8 scale using fan laws, but that doesn't mean they don't 

9 scale. So a manufacturer who rates a product based on 

10 the test of a smaller unit has to figure out 

11 mathematically, affirmed by testing, you know, how 

12 they're going to -- what that relationship is.

13 And such relationships are oftentimes 

14 proprietary and unique to a particular product line, 

15 and, you know, AMCA is not in the business of 

16 affirming, at least we haven't been in the past, 

17 affirming people's rating schemes unless they're, you 

18 know, in the public domain. Now what we do, however, 

19 do is we affirm that their ratings are correct.

20 Even when an accredited lab, like Dan 

21 Hartlein was talking about their lab is, and many 

22 others have accredited labs, when they bring a product 

23 line to market, we still affirm the testing that they 

24 did by testing one of the fans that they tested and 

25 making sure that the results in our lab are identical 
233

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 to the results in their lab so we know that the rating 

2 tests that they did at the time that they did it are, 

3 you know, affirmed by third-party oversight basically.

4 MR. BURDICK: Larry Burdick with SPX. Wade, 

5 it was mentioned here too about certain manufacturers 

6 have certified labs. Could you go through that 

7 process? What's the cost of the certification, and is 

8 there annual licensing, or how does that process work?

9 MR. SMITH: This is Wade Smith. I'm going 

10 to correct your semantics just a little bit. When we 

11 accredit labs, it's called an accredited lab, okay? 

12 So the accreditation process has a cost that, you 

13 know, depends on how many trips we make to the lab, 

14 depends how well the laboratory is prepared for our 

15 visit and whether or not they meet our requirements. 

16 It can be as cheap as, you know, 5- or $6,000, it can 

17 be as expensive as 20- or $30,000, in that range, to 

18 accredit a lab. It depends how many times we go back. 

19 And I should add that there are some labs that we've 

20 been back to on four or five occasions and they aren't 

21 accredited because they just, they don't meet our 

22 standards.

23 Certification, right, is a term internal to 

24 the AMCA family which refers to ratings, and the 

25 certification of ratings is essentially AMCA saying as 
234

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 a third-party oversight that we've affirmed that what 

2 the cust -- what the customer -- what the member 

3 company is publishing for air performance is correct 

4 within certain limits. I mean, it's not precisely 

5 correct, but the imprecision is defined in a standard, 

6 the allowable imprecision. So that's called 

7 certification.

8 And if the member has an accredited lab, the 

9 certification of a new product line involves one test 

10 to affirm the many tests that they did in their lab. 

11 They do, however, submit those test results so that we 

12 can look at them and assure that they're linked to the 

13 tests that we did correctly.

14 If the member company doesn't have an 

15 accredited lab, they're going to rate their product 

16 line based on tests that we do in our lab. And, you 

17 know, how many fans do they choose to test, that's 

18 always an open question and it's a question that the 

19 member company decides. The more tests that they do, 

20 the more fans that they test, the more precise is 

21 their rating.

22 However, the imprecision, when you're 

23 scaling from a smaller fan to a larger fan, the 

24 imprecision is always on the conservative side. So 

25 why would you pick more fans? So that your fan 
235

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 ratings are better, right? If you pick fewer fans to 

2 rate your product line, as you extrapolate to larger 

3 units, the resulting ratings that are certified are 

4 less than the actual fan will produce.

5 I should just put one caveat in here. The 

6 ability to scale these ratings is founded on 

7 dimensional similarity, and in this case, I use the 

8 word similarity as the technical definition, which is 

9 to say that they're dimensionally similar. So that 

10 means that the gap between the fan wheel and the 

11 housing grows proportional to the size of the fan.

12 Fans aren't exactly dimensionally similar, 

13 but they're sufficiently dimensionally similar so that 

14 this rating scheme has been proven in many, many, 

15 many, many check tests. When we rate a product line 

16 or when the member rates a product line, they do it 

17 based on testing a few sizes, but then when we do 

18 check tests, which we do every three years, okay -- so 

19 we pull a fan on certified products every three years 

20 to test in our lab and we never pull the same size we 

21 tested previously. We try to pull an untested side, 

22 size. So, when we pull an untested size, it is in 

23 part an affirmation of the fan laws that were used to 

24 rate that size. Is that okay?

25 MR. WHITWELL: This is Bob from Carrier. 
236

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 Just wanted to add one other thing to the -- you 

2 talked about the costs of the tests being 3- to $6,000 

3 or something like that, which is in many cases much, 

4 many times less cost than the equipment itself would 

5 be. So, you know, let's just not think that we've got 

6 the test expense. There's also the expense of the 

7 equipment under test --

8 MR. SMITH: Right.

9 MR. WHITWELL: -- which can be substantial.

10 MALE VOICE: And shipping.

11 MR. WHITWELL: Shipping. I mean, we could 

12 be talking about approaching $100,000 for some of this 

13 stuff.

14 MR. STARR: You could get your lab -- this 

15 is Louis Starr. Although like if you're a big enough 

16 company you can probably just get your lab certified. 

17 You won't need to ship it anywhere, right?

18 MR. WHITWELL: Although I'm wondering, if 

19 we're talking about lab certification, I don't know if 

20 that's really a requirement, to have a certified lab, 

21 right? I mean, we test, do a lot of testing for other 

22 energy efficiency metrics, right?

23 MR. STARR: Well, what I meant was is that 

24 for AMCA's purposes, they could come and certify your 

25 lab, it sounds like, if you had a sufficient thing. 
237

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 So you would need to -- if -- so obviously I would say 

2 someone the size of Carrier it's probably not going to 

3 be a problem for. I would envision that you would 

4 certify your lab to AMCA standards.

5 Now it would be a question of what ends up

6 getting negotiated as far as, you know, the

7 ultimate --

8 MR. WHITWELL: I mean, we've got to see what 

9 the test procedure's going to be and everything, 

10 right? And again, I haven't heard anything or seen 

11 anything in any of the publications talking about 

12 anything as far as certification of labs as a 

13 requirement, so --

14 MALE VOICE: It's coming next I think, 

15 right?

16 MR. WHITWELL: Thank you. I don't think so. 

17 I mean, I don't know.

18 MR. STARR: Well, I was thinking it would be 

19 a similar -- well, you know, actually DOE would be the 

20 better ones to comment on that.

21 MR. WHITWELL: So I guess, you know, let's 

22 see what we -- because you mentioned that you already 

23 know about it. So some of us have not seen this 

24 material yet, right? So --

25 MR. STARR: Yeah. Well, I meant this is 
238

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 more about systems. It was less about what we're 

2 talking about. But it's more about fans and the 

3 opportunity to save energy, but yeah.

4 MR. AUTH: I just have one comment. Chris 

5 Auth, Baltimore Aircoil. I don't disagree with the

6 geometrically scaling and the rating of fans. This is 

7 just a comment regarding the costs associated with 

8 testing fans.

9 You know, what we deal with is much larger 

10 fans usually and they have special manufacturing 

11 processes that aren't typical to, you know, the fans 

12 that are tested, that AMCA tests, typically sheet 

13 metal or cast type of fans. We're, you know, hand 

14 laid fiberglass or extruded aluminum. And to be able 

15 to build a fan to be in the say 55,000 CFM limit, that 

16 would not be in the product line of our suppliers or 

17 even if we made them ourselves. So we would have to 

18 go to a modeling shop, make a special fan, and the 

19 associated costs to that, I'm not sure, but I would 

20 expect it would exceed probably the test cost.

21 MR. FERNSTROM: So this is Gary. Thanks for 

22 giving us the opportunity to talk this through.

23 MR. BOSWELL: Okay. So I think we're up to 

24 Tim's presentation. And I realize I neglected when I 

25 was asking people to identify themselves for the 
239

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 record, I think we have at least one working group 

2 member that's participating by the web with an open 

3 mic, so if I could ask any working group members 

4 participating via the web to identify themselves by 

5 name and company.

6 MS. MAUER: Hi. This is Joanna Mauer with 

7 the Appliance Standards Awareness Project.

8 MR. BOSWELL: Thank you. Any other?

9 (No response.)

10 MR. BOSWELL: Great. Okay. Thank you.

11 Tim?

12 MR. MATHSON: Okay. Tim Mathson from 

13 Greenheck Fan. As mentioned, I guess a lot of you 

14 have been exposed to this metric that we're proposing, 

15 that AMCA's proposing to use for this ruling, but 

16 there are some that haven't and especially some of the 

17 AHRI folks, and I want to make sure that everybody at 

18 least has a view of that and hopefully you can 

19 understand how we can use this in your products.

20 This slide is not quantitative at all. It's 

21 just what we recognized as the issues that go into 

22 saving energy in air systems and just to get them out 

23 on the table. And why this is important, kind of the 

24 background, we understood going into this that if we 

25 simply look at one of these pieces of the pie, like 
240

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 fan efficiency, we probably won't have the impact that 

2 we want to have, because if we just look at peak 

3 efficiency of a fan curve and we increase that, there 

4 is a great dependence on this fan selection pie. The 

5 size is significant there.

6 Somebody mentioned yesterday that we don't 

7 sell fans to building owners who pay electric bills, 

8 so there's not a lot of motivation in that fan 

9 selection part of the pie. The people who are buying 

10 fans, let's say mechanical contractors, are concerned 

11 with price and cost, those two things, not efficiency. 

12 And so those kind of fight the battle with efficiency.

13 So if we in our effort to increase fan 

14 efficiency add cost to the product, we're likely to 

15 have people selecting smaller fans yet or less 

16 expensive fans yet further away from that peak and 

17 ultimately not saving energy. So that's just the 

18 background of this.

19 MS. JAKOBS: This is Diane Jakobs. Could I 

20 just ask a question about the pie chart?

21 MR. MATHSON: Yes.

22 MS. JAKOBS: You said it wasn't 

23 quantitative. Does that mean system design potential 

24 is not equal to system effect and system leakage 

25 potential?
241

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. MATHSON: We don't have any data to back 

2 this up.

3 MS. JAKOBS: Okay. So you just drew it.

4 MR. MATHSON: We know that they are somewhat 

5 proportional to their impact.

6 MS. JAKOBS: Okay.

7 MR. SMILEY: Bill Smiley, Trane. I have a 

8 follow-up question to that.

9 MR. MATHSON: Yeah.

10 MR. SMILEY: So, if you said there 100 

11 percent equals the potential savings, is that 

12 representative of what you believe each of those pie 

13 sections is worth?

14 MR. MATHSON: Yeah. Yeah.

15 MR. BURDICK: This is Larry Burdick.

16 MR. SMILEY: So, and --

17 MR. BURDICK: I -- go ahead.

18 MR. SMILEY: No, go ahead.

19 MR. BURDICK: This is Larry and I would 

20 disagree with that. You know, one of the points that 

21 I brought up yesterday is that system design's much 

22 more of interest for the heat exchanger, or what the 

23 heat exchanger can contribute to the system dwarfs any 

24 of the other sections or items that you have listed 

25 there. And I think this slide's real dangerous to 
242

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 present to the public, you know, without the caveat 

2 that you've identified there, you know, that it's just 

3 a representation of maybe the possible effects of a 

4 fan system but should not be construed as percentages 

5 or capabilities of each particular section.

6 MR. MATHSON: Okay.

7 MR. SMILEY: Yeah. I would suggest just a 

8 list rather than a pie chart because the implication 

9 of that is that fan efficiency isn't very critical and 

10 system, you know --

11 MR. WHITWELL: I mean, it also says that fan 

12 selection is the biggest opportunity and I think that 

13 while that may be true in some cases, I think in the 

14 case of the HVAC equipment, I don't think that there's 

15 that much that can be done across the board to change 

16 the fans, the fan types used and improve the 

17 efficiency a lot.

18 MR. STARR: So I think what he's referring 

19 to is systems that --

20 MR. BOSWELL: Again, please remember to 

21 identify yourself.

22 MR. STARR: Oh. Louis Starr with NEEA. The 

23 system he's referring to is the air system, so I don't 

24 think he's talking about system in the sense of the 

25 air handler, right? Or the --
243

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. MATHSON: No. Yes. Yes, air system. 

2 Yeah.

3 MR. STARR: So this is the ductwork and 

4 everything. So it's not -- you're thinking of design 

5 as in your air handler and actually what he's talking 

6 about is design of the air systems downstream of a fan 

7 and not so much really a -- he's not thinking -- this 

8 was really not about air handlers. It's more about 

9 fan and fan systems that are not --

10 MS. JAKOBS: So this is Diane Jakobs. So 

11 you're only talking about ducted systems?

12 MR. STARR: That's what -- I think that's 

13 what you're referring to essentially. And, well, and 

14 also, you know --

15 MR. WHITWELL: But --

16 MR. STARR: -- warehouses and things like 

17 that.

18 MR. MATHSON: Well, for that part, yes. 

19 System design? Yeah, that would be ducted systems. 

20 Yes.

21 MR. FERNSTROM: This is Gary. So I think 

22 the point of confusion here is the fan folks are 

23 talking about the air distribution system in 

24 buildings, you know, be it what it is, and the heating 

25 and refrigeration folks are talking about the fan 
244

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 selection and performance within the unit.

2 MR. WHITWELL: Yeah, but I would still say 

3 that I still question fan selection being the largest 

4 element here. So even applied in the building, I'm 

5 not sure that you're going to make much energy savings 

6 by changing the types of fans that are used.

7 MR. FERNSTROM: Well, this is Gary again. 

8 Our perception is that the energy use associated with 

9 ventilation, air movement within the building, is just 

10 about equal to the energy use associated with the 

11 heating and cooling equipment, so the fan selection as 

12 it relates to air distribution within the building is 

13 a very important factor with respect to energy use and 

14 savings.

15 MR. WHITWELL: No question there's a lot of 

16 energy used to move the air around the building. I 

17 think -- let's back up. This chart, we should get rid 

18 of this chart and list the things that --

19 MR. MATHSON: Okay. Let me -- okay. Let me 

20 just --

21 MR. WHITWELL: I agree with the list, but I 

22 question whether changing the fan selection in doing 

23 it is going to --

24 MR. SMITH: Can I, Tim --

25 MR. MATHSON: Why don't you go ahead.
245

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. SMITH: -- just one, for a second? This 

2 is Wade Smith. Okay. So I'm the guy that made the 

3 chart, okay? So this is a perception, the consensus 

4 of AMCA members, about where the gold is to be mined 

5 for energy efficiency in air systems. The fan 

6 selection matters much more than the air dynamic shape 

7 of the fan. So just to not be confused by what we're 

8 saying here is fan efficiency, meaning changing the 

9 aerodynamic shape of the fan, is a small piece of the 

10 puzzle. Drive efficiency is another small piece of 

11 the puzzle not to be overlooked. It's a significant 

12 chunk.

13 Fan selection matters a lot and we can, did 

14 actually, when we presented this, demonstrate exactly 

15 what the difference is by looking at the fan selection 

16 output of any of our members' selection programs which 

17 for a given flow and pressure differential will pump 

18 out five, six, seven fan selections. And the power 

19 consumed by those, to pick a number, five fan 

20 selections varies by a factor of two, which is to say 

21 that the least efficient fan will use twice as much 

22 energy as the most efficient fan.

23 And then we look where does the market 

24 actually select these fans. We created a database 

25 representing 46 percent of the American market to test 
246

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 that question, and they are selected generally very 

2 close to the least efficient of those five selections. 

3 So the potential for savings by altering selections 

4 absolutely overwhelms the potential for saving by 

5 changing the aerodynamic shape of the fan.

6 And if you think about aerodynamics, if 

7 you're a molecule of air running through the fan, if 

8 you go through the fan at half the speed, there's much 

9 less turbulence created, and that's the consequence of 

10 selecting a larger fan. So it's not wrong. It's not 

11 wrong.

12 Now, in the context of an air handling unit 

13 or a rooftop unit, when you put a larger fan inside a 

14 given casing, what you gain in fan efficiency you 

15 might lose in casing losses. But why is the casing 

16 size fixed?

17 So again, fan selection matters a lot, 

18 system design -- this means the air system design, the 

19 size of the components, the pressure drops through the 

20 system -- matters a lot, system effects not just in 

21 and around the fan, but system effects within the duct 

22 system matter a lot.

23 And the point of this chart is not to say 

24 that we shouldn't tackle fan efficiency or drive 

25 efficiency or fan selection. It's to remind ourselves 
247

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 that the goal is not to boost fan efficiency, the goal 

2 is to save energy, and there's a lot of energy to be 

3 saved from all of these one, two, three, four, five, 

4 six areas.

5 System leakage. What percentage of the air 

6 sent into the ductwork doesn't arrive at the diffuser?

7 MR. WOLF: So, guys, this is Mike Wolf. If 

8 I could for just a second. You know, one thing I 

9 think we're all in agreement is this regulation is not 

10 going to regulate the building.

11 So, you know, to kind of get back on topic 

12 here, Ashley sent me a request last night asking if 

13 Tim would, you know, do this presentation this 

14 morning. I volunteered him to do so without 

15 consulting him ahead of time, so kind of putting him 

16 on the spot here.

17 And with that said, you know, the intent, I 

18 think, of what Ashley was looking for, probably due to 

19 some of my feedback to her, was in participating in 

20 the various discussions, you know, the last NODA that 

21 just came out introduced a new, relatively new metric 

22 to some of us, this FEI. AMCA refers to it as FER. 

23 Previously it was referred to as PBER.

24 So anyway, I think what Ashley was hoping to 

25 accomplish this morning and have Tim do is just kind 
248

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 of give an overview of the FER metric that's in the 

2 latest NODA so that we're all at some kind of baseline 

3 foundation of understanding what that metric is.

4 Relative to this chart, we could probably 

5 debate this forever, you know, and not have any hard 

6 data to back it up. You know, it's good discussion, I 

7 think. I don't think it's that far off with regard to 

8 air systems personally, but I guess I would agree, you 

9 know, we probably should just set this pie chart aside 

10 for the moment.

11 And, Tim, if you could maybe --

12 MR. MATHSON: Yeah.

13 MR WOLF: -- just get into the FER, you

14 know --

15 MR. MATHSON: Okay.

16 MR. WOLF: -- technicalities of the rating, 

17 I think, or the metric, that would be good.

18 MR. MATHSON: Okay. And one last comment. 

19 I guess when we started looking at an efficiency 

20 regulation we started talking about fan efficiency 

21 grades, FEGs, which address this one part of the pie, 

22 fan efficiency. They don't address the drive 

23 efficiency. They don't address fan selection. And 

24 what we think we have ended up with is something that 

25 addresses each of these three, however big they may 
249

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 be, addresses each of the three.

2 MR. HARTLEIN: Tim, Dan Hartlein, Twin City. 

3 I also wanted to add that that left half of that chart 

4 is more than a thumb in the wind analysis because we 

5 did look at a lot of membership data in getting to the 

6 assumption of what was happening from a selection 

7 practice in the industry overall in looking at the 

8 potential savings, looking at that large data set that 

9 we were able to compile for a year of shipment.

10 So I think that I would believe that that 

11 left half of that chart is probably pretty good. It's 

12 pretty representative. Better than, and databased 

13 better than perhaps the right half, which was more of 

14 where the, you know, the data just doesn't exist in 

15 the industry. So we did our best, but --

16 MR. MATHSON: And it may not be for certain 

17 products. Dan, you mentioned --

18 MR. HARTLEIN: Right.

19 MR. MATHSON: -- process fans where you're 

20 building fans to the peak efficiency and they're 

21 running at that point.

22 MR. HARTLEIN: We actually have an issue in 

23 the larger fans, and we do fans that, you know, will 

24 go to 15,000 horsepower in some of our division, one 

25 of our divisions. And in the larger fans you have the 
250

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 exact opposite problem. What happens here is that 

2 conservative design, on top of conservative design, on 

3 top of conservative design. Nobody wants a power 

4 plant or boiler system to miss its guarantee points 

5 because they were short fan.

6 What they end up doing is buying way too 

7 much fan to be sure and closing dampers. And we know 

8 that's a lot like driving your car with the foot on 

9 the brake, right? It doesn't help from an energy 

10 perspective.

11 Variable speed and variable frequency drives 

12 cures a lot of those ills, so that's a place where we 

13 can go in that end of the industry for gains. But, 

14 yeah, you're right, on the other end of the business 

15 it's the exact opposite problem from a selection 

16 perspective. So, but that would be in that selection 

17 chart as well. Thank you.

18 MR. WOLF: So, Tim, if I may. Mike Wolf, 

19 Greenheck. Just, I can't resist now because Dan 

20 opened the door. On that other end of the spectrum, 

21 we've done a lot of research in our company as well 

22 with regard to fan selection. And as Tim kind of 

23 alluded to, you know, the metric that he's going to be 

24 sharing with us is really an eloquent way of working 

25 fan selection into the metric because what we found is 
251

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 that in many cases -- in fact, Tim, you presented, I 

2 think you did a forum at an ASHRAE in Dallas, was it, 

3 on this subject?

4 MR. MATHSON: Yeah.

5 MR. WOLF: And you did a scatter diagram of 

6 all the fans that we had sold for a year over the 

7 various ranges of operation, and the number of times 

8 that there was a more efficient fan available for a 

9 given selection was a large percentage of the time.

10 And, you know, I don't know if any of you 

11 are familiar with the ASHRAE forum process, but it's 

12 basically an open mic. I mean, people can come up and 

13 say whatever they want to without any, you know, 

14 substantiation. So Tim does his presentation and this 

15 engineer comes up and he goes, so help me understand 

16 why all these engineers are making such stupid 

17 selections. And I found it kind of amusing because 

18 apparently the guy has never heard of something called 

19 bid day. You know, I think I had to just hold myself 

20 in the chair to not get up and comment.

21 But, you know, the reason it's happening is 

22 the engineer will specify, he'll put a schedule 

23 together, specify his fan and then put it out for bid, 

24 and every contractor, every manufacturer, you know, 

25 they're scrapping to get that job, and largely what 
252

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 happens to get that job is you need to be the low 

2 bidder, and to be the low bidder you select the 

3 smaller fan. And I think Tim will probably have some 

4 slides in here that show the difference in size --

5 MR. MATHSON: Yeah.

6 MR. WOLF: -- how it affects efficiency, you 

7 know, and what we found, if you just would bump the 

8 fan up a size or two, you know, the fan will run very 

9 efficiently, but that fan's going to cost more, so the 

10 guy, you know, at bid day selects as small a fan as he 

11 can.

12 And a lot of times it'll probably be outside 

13 of the engineer's specification, but he worries about 

14 that later, you know, and he'll a lot of times be able 

15 to get that smaller fan approved because, you know, 

16 the time constraints on the schedule of the building. 

17 Well, you know, I've already got, you know, we're 

18 three-fourths done, or, you know, with design drawings 

19 and I can't go back and change it now, so, okay, good 

20 enough. It's such a small element in the overall 

21 construction process that, you know, it ends up we end 

22 up getting very poor selections and very minimally 

23 optimized fan selections on a lot of our projects.

24 So, anyway, sorry, Tim. I'm done now. Go.

25 MR. MATHSON: Okay. Fan efficiency ratios. 
253

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 Now FER in this presentation that AMCA has presented 

2 is not the same as FER in the NODA that just came out. 

3 They switched the terms around a little bit. So just 

4 so everybody understands that. This would be closely 

5 related to the FEI that's mentioned in the NODA. FEI.

6 And in this whole presentation, I'm going to 

7 talk about power in terms of horsepower, shaft power. 

8 Eventually this will get into an overall efficiency 

9 metric, in other words, wire to air, but it's much 

10 easier to talk about in terms of shaft power, so 

11 that's what this is going to show.

12 So it's a ratio of fan efficiency to a 

13 baseline efficiency, and this is a value that is 

14 calculated at every flow and pressure point. The fan 

15 efficiency, everybody knows how that's calculated at a 

16 certain flow and pressure. The baseline efficiency is 

17 also calculated at that same flow and pressure. It's 

18 a function of airflow and pressure. So it varies 

19 along a fan curve, the FER does, the value of FER. 

20 It's independent of the fan type or category. We 

21 talked about fan categories here. There are only two 

22 test, two different I'll say categories, test 

23 configurations, ducted and nonducted.

24 And like, Bill, you said yesterday, we're 

25 talking about the discharge. It doesn't matter 
254

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 whether it's ducted or not on the inlet side. So 

2 whenever we write this we should write it ducted on 

3 the outlet, but when we talk about it it's easier just 

4 to say ducted and nonducted.

5 And if you think about this baseline 

6 efficiency as a minimum allowable efficiency, which it 

7 is going to be most of the time -- there may be 

8 exceptions to that -- then the value of 1.0 means that 

9 you meet the efficiency. Anything greater than 1.0 is 

10 you would exceed the baseline efficiency.

11 Okay. So here's a fan curve, pressure 

12 curve, power curve. We can plot an efficiency curve. 

13 And the whole reason that we're talking about this is 

14 the shape of that efficiency curve and how it goes 

15 anywhere from zero to a peak value, and where you are 

16 on that efficiency curve really determines how much 

17 energy is going to be consumed by the fan.

18 So, but with these same variables, pressure, 

19 airflow, and power, we can calculate the fan 

20 efficiency ratio, and it is a curve, like I said, that 

21 varies along the fan curve. Should rise up to some 

22 peak and drop off some. And what we want to do is 

23 identify the area of that curve that is greater than 

24 1, and that becomes the allowable selection range, 

25 okay? So we want to define a range on this fan curve 
255

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 where manufacturers can actually sell the product or 

2 portray the product, its performance. Yes?

3 MALE VOICE: This based on total efficiency? 

4 Because you don't have zero efficiency at --

5 MR. MATHSON: Both. It's based on total 

6 efficiency for ducted fans and static efficiency for 

7 nonducted fans. So I'm just using it in a generic 

8 sense right now. Oh, okay. That's the next slide.

9 So ducted fans -- and this may be a whole 

10 separate topic to discuss because this is different 

11 from the NODA -- ducted fans can use both the static 

12 and velocity pressure to overcome system losses and 

13 should be selected using total pressure, and total 

14 efficiency then would be the correct measure. Should 

15 be selected using total pressure. Most of the time 

16 that does not happen, but should be.

17 With nonducted fans, any of the velocity 

18 pressure at the fan discharge is dissipated, making it 

19 unusable for further work, so nonducted fans must be 

20 selected using static pressure, and therefore, static 

21 efficiency is the more appropriate measure. Again, 

22 that could be a whole separate discussion.

23 So the baseline efficiency, the bottom of 

24 that ratio, so a baseline or minimum efficiency varies 

25 with airflow and pressure. These are lines of 
256

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 constant efficiency, increasing as you go up in 

2 airflow and up in pressure. So this is one way to 

3 look at it.

4 At reduced or at -- airflow is proportional

5 to fan size essentially, so larger systems are to the 

6 right. And pressure can be thought about as 

7 increasing fan complexity. You know, to develop 

8 higher pressures you need to add things to fans, like 

9 scrolls or straightening vanes or different things. 

10 Those increase the efficiency at higher pressures, but 

11 they decrease the efficiency at lower pressures. So 

12 this pressure component here is really to get rid of 

13 fan categories so that we can use the same metric to 

14 talk about prop panel fans that we do for centrifugal 

15 blowers.

16 Another way to look at this same thing is a 

17 3D plot here, airflow and pressure. And this baseline 

18 efficiency again takes on some shape here. And 

19 anything above this surface would be FER greater than 

20 1, anything below it would be less than 1.

21 MS. JAKOBS: Excuse me. This is Diane 

22 Jakobs from Rheem. And just, it's probably a dumb 

23 question, but where does this relationship come from? 

24 So you're drawing curves. Is it something tested? 

25 Is it fan laws?
257

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. MATHSON: Yeah. This baseline -- so 

2 this baseline is a function of airflow and pressure. 

3 The airflow part of it --

4 MS. JAKOBS: No, I can see it's a function 

5 of it.

6 MR. MATHSON: Yeah.

7 MS. JAKOBS: But where do you get it?

8 Where did --

9 MR. MATHSON: Where did it come from?

10 MALE VOICE: It's a derivation.

11 MR. MATHSON: Well, the airflow relationship 

12 is exactly the same as the original FEG curves, and 

13 that reflects how fan efficiency drops off with 

14 smaller fans.

15 MS. JAKOBS: So did you test 1,000 fans and 

16 this is the result or?

17 MR. MATHSON: Yeah. Essentially, yes. 

18 Yeah. It's based on what's available on the market.

19 MS. JAKOBS: And how it performed on the 

20 AMCA 210 test?

21 MR. MATHSON: Yes. Yeah.

22 MS. JAKOBS: So just a straight duct or a 

23 straight -- the airflow is straight, right?

24 MR. MATHSON: No. Any different type of 

25 fan. There were many fans that we plotted the peak 
258

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 efficiency versus the fan size or the airflow and that 

2 took on that shape.

3 MR. STARR: So this is Louis with NEEA. The 

4 basis is the brake horsepower equation is what it is. 

5 And essentially they've added some scalers by looking 

6 at their fan selection. So they take the brake 

7 horsepower equation and put a scaler in for the flow 

8 and put a scaler in for the static pressure, and then 

9 the ratio of a baseline fan is one to the other. So 

10 it's really just using the brake horsepower with some 

11 scalers added in is the basis of the FER.

12 MR. SMILEY: Bill Smiley, Trane. Just a 

13 quick question, Tim. So you had a significant amount 

14 of data that you used to develop the numerical values 

15 of all this stuff and that significant amount of data 

16 was based on using every fan type you had data on, 

17 which would have been airfoil, BI, BC, radial, axial.

18 MR. MATHSON: Yes.

19 MR. SMILEY: And that's probably about it 

20 for AMCA. So it doesn't really have FC fans in there, 

21 it doesn't really have panel --

22 MR. MATHSON: FC fans, yeah.

23 MR. SMILEY: It does?

24 MR. MATHSON: Yeah.

25 MALE VOICE: Everything.
259

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. SMILEY: So, so, and then the result of 

2 that would be a huge, wide curve of data.

3 MR. MATHSON: Right. Right. Right.

4 MR. SMILEY: And what you did there is you 

5 took this wide curve of data and you said here's the 

6 curve we're going to assign to all fans and make it 

7 the same for everything.

8 MR. MATHSON: That's right. That's right.

9 MR. SMILEY: Is that basically what you did?

10 MR. MATHSON: Yeah.

11 MR. SMILEY: Do you have that scatter chart 

12 that shows here's the range, or do you get into that a 

13 little bit later?

14 MR. MATHSON: No.

15 Go ahead, Wade. I'm having a hard time. 

16 It's not as simple as that.

17 MR. SMITH: Right. So it all started with 

18 FEG. When the committee was working on what the FEG 

19 formula should be, there was a recognition that 

20 smaller fans are less efficient than larger fans, 

21 right? And so the fan committee, the fan engineering 

22 committee did scatter plots of different fan types to 

23 determine what that relationship was and then 

24 reflected it in the family of curves which define the 

25 fan efficiency grade.
260

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 And what you do is you take the fan 

2 efficiency and diameter and you go into that chart and 

3 then you figure out what the FEG is. And the shape of 

4 those banana curves, so to speak, is reflective of 

5 those scatter diagrams. Those scatter diagrams are 

6 all fan types on the same diagram with a curve fit, 

7 okay?

8 MR. SMILEY: So a least squares fit?

9 MR. SMITH: Well, yeah, essentially. So 

10 there's two -- this was FEG and the FEG curves were 

11 much debated for years, yeah, and adopted. So, when 

12 Tim crafted this approach, he used those curves to 

13 deal with flow. And the shape of this curve, if you 

14 were to make a slice through it -- he's got it on the 

15 screen right now -- and just look at baseline 

16 efficiency versus flow, you'd see it's the FEG curve.

17 He did the same thing with pressure, okay,

18 and the idea of creating a diminished requirement for 

19 smaller pressures, that's how the constant is added 

20 into the formula. The idea of creating a reduction in 

21 the required efficiency for fans operating at lower 

22 pressures was an accommodation for the lower 

23 efficiency that's implicit in low pressure operation. 

24 And the types of fans optimized to minimize the power 

25 consumption at low pressures also diminishes the peak 
261

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 efficiency of that fan.

2 So there's a pressure constant of 0.4 in 

3 this equation and there's a flow constant of 250. The 

4 flow constant mimics the FEG curves. The pressure 

5 constant is a recognition and an accommodation to fans 

6 designed specifically for operating at low pressures 

7 to reduce their efficiency requirement. And there's a 

8 tradeoff. As you reduce the efficiency requirement 

9 for fans operating at low pressure, in order to 

10 generate the savings from any particular regulatory 

11 level, you've got to boost the efficiency requirement 

12 at the higher pressures, right? And so the membership 

13 debated at length what accommodation should exist, 

14 okay? And so they did this with the benefit of a lot 

15 of data in front of them.

16 But to say it's a curved fit is not correct. 

17 It's the consequence of a debate which intended to 

18 diminish the efficiency requirement of low pressure 

19 applications vis-à-vis high. The other one is, after 

20 years of debate about FEGs, is simply an extraction of 

21 that relationship. So now we have a three-dimensional 

22 curve, right, that has both of these things at work.

23 MR. AUTH: Chris Auth, Baltimore Aircoil. I 

24 have two comments.

25 One is, it goes back to yesterday with the 
262

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 whole discussion with the embedded fans. So this 

2 whole database as I understand it is an AMCA database. 

3 So I don't have a clear understanding of that 

4 database, how many embedded fans would be represented 

5 in it. I know our products, the percentage is 

6 probably close to zero. I would suspect it's maybe 

7 higher than that for smaller fans, but I would suspect 

8 it's a pretty low number. You know, I'm not doubting, 

9 you know, the fan types we use are similar. I'm just 

10 saying that database doesn't represent a good sample 

11 of embedded fan types that are used today in the 

12 market.

13 And the second point I have is it goes back 

14 to -- you know, it's the thought that sometimes people 

15 would select a less efficient fan to save money, to 

16 lower costs. That's not always the case. There's 

17 some -- you know, engineering, you know, it's not just 

18 about efficiency. There's also like one -- one big 

19 example would be sound. We use fans that are less 

20 efficient that, you know, cost us several times more 

21 than the most efficient fan, but we use it because of 

22 sound for our customers. They have a sound limit that 

23 they have to have. So that's just one point I want to 

24 bring up.

25 MR. MATHSON: Steve.
263

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. DIKEMAN: Steve Dikeman. I'm going to 

2 argue with Tim, but I'm saying it with a smile on my 

3 face. This graph right here illustrates a particular 

4 set of inputs illustrating where FER is greater than 1 

5 or less than 1.

6 MR. MATHSON: That's right.

7 MR. DIKEMAN: Right? And so now, as we look 

8 at different fan categories, classes, the target 

9 efficiency might be different, probably will be 

10 different. So, if you were to go draw another graph 

11 with a different target efficiency, it would move up 

12 and down in the vertical axis where you meet 1.0, 

13 exceed 1.0, or fall below. So this isn't -- it was 

14 compared against our database, but this is just one 

15 individual set of inputs. Your target efficiency in 

16 this graph is a single number, correct?

17 MR. MATHSON: Yes. Yeah.

18 MR. DIKEMAN: And so, if you had a different 

19 target efficiency for a different fan category, that 

20 graph would change.

21 MR. MATHSON: That's correct.

22 MR. DIKEMAN: That's the simplicity and the 

23 subtlety of FER. If this fan category has this target 

24 efficiency and if you took the baseline efficiency off 

25 your graph, now it would apply to the conversation 
264

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 we're having. You've made an individual input to 

2 create this graph. You know what I'm saying?

3 MR. MATHSON: Yes. Yeah.

4 MR. DIKEMAN: So, for a different fan class 

5 with a different target efficiency, it wouldn't go up 

6 to 63 percent baseline. It would be higher or lower. 

7 Target efficiency changes with fan class, category, 

8 whatever the correct moniker is for that.

9 MR. MATHSON: Okay.

10 MR. DIKEMAN: 1.0 and higher is a compliant 

11 product.

12 MR. MATHSON: I want to say something else 

13 to maybe help lighten the -- so that maybe you're not 

14 quite as afraid of this as you are.

15 If you are personally looking at fan 

16 selections, you're probably exceeding this 

17 significantly, okay? If you are a mechanical 

18 contractor, you may not be exceeding this, okay? And 

19 Wade talked about the database. We looked at all the 

20 different fan types that were in the database and if 

21 we put this surface here let's say, we get let's say 

22 20 percent of the fan selections were below this 

23 surface for this fan type and for this fan type and 

24 for this fan type. We tried to match up so that, you 

25 know, the same percentage would be below this curve 
265

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 that would be above, and like I said, it's a small 

2 number and if you're paying any attention to the fan 

3 selection, you're probably well above this surface.

4 MR. JASINSKI: So, Tim, I'm just going to 

5 interrupt for a second. I think this is a good 

6 conversation and it's important to understand what 

7 assumptions and ultimately what data went into the 

8 approach that's being presented, but I think maybe 

9 what we should try to do is get a little bit further 

10 into this approach because I'm worried that even 

11 though they're related that we might be debating FEG, 

12 and that's not what we are here to do. We want to 

13 talk about the merits of the approach later on.

14 I think the message being sent here is that 

15 there is a relationship with efficiency and airflow 

16 and pressure. You can't just set one efficiency 

17 target at all airflows and all pressures because the 

18 way fans work, there are -- you know, it's

19 inherently -- fans are inherently less efficient 

20 across a range of airflows and a range of pressures.

21 So, if everybody is in general agreement 

22 about that, not the quantitative aspect but maybe just 

23 the qualitative aspect, I think that's going to play 

24 into how the metric is structured, and then once we 

25 get to the actual metric being discussed then we can 
266

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 say okay, well, for the mechanisms in the metric, in 

2 the FER or the FEI metric being discussed, let's look 

3 at the data that goes into that and we can tweak those 

4 factors or those aspects of that metric as opposed to 

5 all the stuff leading up to it.

6 So let's get to the end and then work our 

7 way back maybe a little bit. I think that would be a 

8 better way to approach this.

9 MR. MATHSON: Wade, you have something to 

10 add.

11 MR. SMITH: This is Wade Smith. I just want 

12 to respond to the question about embedded fans. No, 

13 there are many embedded fans in the database. And the 

14 other point that you asked about I think also deserves 

15 mention, and that is that we did not focus on nor seek 

16 to include forward-curved fans that were in regulated 

17 unitary equipment because at the time that we pulled 

18 the database together we were of the belief that they 

19 weren't, you know, part of the rulemaking. So there 

20 are a lot of embedded fans missing, right, because we 

21 didn't look at that group, but we did go back to our 

22 membership and affirm that there are lots of fans that 

23 they sell OEM which become embedded that are included 

24 in the database.

25 With respect to cooling tower axial fans, 
267

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 the answer is that we've got lots of axial fans in 

2 here, lots of prop fans, lots of panel fans, but I 

3 don't think too many of them truthfully went into 

4 cooling towers. So I think to the extent that we 

5 acknowledge, I think it's important to acknowledge 

6 that we don't have a lot of cooling tower fans in here 

7 and we don't have a lot of fans that are embedded in 

8 regulated equipment in the database, but we do have 

9 lots of embedded fans.

10 MR. MATHSON: Okay. So the FER can be, as I 

11 said before, the ratio of fan efficiency to baseline 

12 efficiency. It can also be flipped over and talked 

13 about in terms of power because they're the same 

14 variables here. So the same fan efficiency ratio is a 

15 baseline power or in this case it would be a maximum 

16 power, allowable power, divided by fan input power. 

17 That's a little bit easier to work with.

18 So here's the form of the equations. Like 

19 Sam said, this is just to get us going here to 

20 understand them. For fans tested with a ducted 

21 outlet, the total efficiency, the baseline total 

22 efficiency is some target value, and Steve mentioned 

23 this determines the height of that surface curve. 

24 There's an airflow factor and a pressure factor, and 

25 the Q-naught and the P-naught are constants that are 
268

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 in these equations. And then for nonducted the whole 

2 thing is done in static pressure and static 

3 efficiency, same form.

4 So that's the form of the equation. Again, 

5 the values in blue are constants, and these are some 

6 of the constants that we think are real good. The 

7 target efficiencies, again, have yet to be 

8 established, and --

9 MR. DIKEMAN: That's what this meeting is 

10 about.

11 MR. MATHSON: Yup.

12 MS. JAKOBS: So this is Diane Jakobs from 

13 Rheem again. So, just to be clear, 250 and .4 are 

14 constants selected by the AMCA committee members? 

15 Okay.

16 MR. MATHSON: Yes. So this is just a

17 little --

18 MR. WOLF: Tim, this is Mike. I've sort of 

19 waited. It wasn't just AMCA, right? We did this with 

20 the energy advocates. Were they part of that process 

21 as well or no?

22 MR. SMITH: This is Wade. Yeah. I mean, 

23 the big debate was amongst AMCA members to decide what 

24 to recommend, and then we had to explain why and what 

25 the impact was and why the numbers should be higher or 
269

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 shouldn't be lower. So I'm not sure. Did the 

2 consensus comment that we made to the NODA, did it 

3 include these constants? I believe it did.

4 MS. MAUER: This is Joanna. I don't think 

5 it did. I think we said that -- we had open 

6 discussions about it, but not an agreement.

7 MR. SMITH: Open to question, yeah.

8 MR. FERNSTROM: So this is Gary. The 

9 efficiency advocates were part of the discussion where 

10 this concept was presented, and to the extent that it 

11 addresses a little broader system approach toward 

12 application we were in support of it, and it follows 

13 the same line of thinking that the Hydraulics 

14 Institute utilized for pumps based on the European 

15 pump standards work.

16 MR. ROY: Aniruddh Roy, Goodman. I have a 

17 question for either Tim or Wade. If you can just go 

18 back to the previous slide on the constant. Just 

19 following up on Diane's question. So since the sample 

20 size did not include forward-curved impellers, would 

21 the constant change if they were included in the data 

22 set to determine the equation?

23 MR. SMITH: This is Wade. It did include 

24 forward-curved. It did not -- we made no effort to 

25 try and include forward-curved fans that are embedded 
270

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 inside regulated unitary equipment. So your question 

2 then would be if those were included, yeah, would the 

3 numbers change. I really doubt it.

4 MR. MATHSON: I don't think so.

5 MR. SMITH: But, you know, if we ever get 

6 the data, we'd be happy to analyze it.

7 MR. MATHSON: And this graph just shows 

8 where each of those constants affects/impacts the 

9 shape of this. The target efficiency on top again 

10 raises or lowers this whole surface. The curvature on 

11 the sides are impacted by the Q-naught and the P12 naught.

13 So, if this is what the metric looks like, 

14 what would the regulation look like? So we've got a 

15 metric here, FER, and the ways, different ways that we 

16 could use this. The federal regulation could require 

17 fans to be sold greater than 1.0 at both its peak and 

18 at its design point. You know, peak is kind of 

19 obvious there, but at its design point if that 

20 information is give to the manufacturer.

21 ASHRAE 90.1 could require FER greater than 

22 1.0 at the design points. Same concept. 189.1 could 

23 require a greater number, a 10 percent increase in 

24 efficiency over 90.1.

25 And then rebates, if we have utility 
271

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 rebates, we can use this as a basis for those rebates. 

2 So we've established a baseline at 1.0. If you've 

3 got a fan for a particular operation at 1.2, you know 

4 you're going to use 20 percent less power, and then 

5 you go through the calculations on what that rebate 

6 might be for that purpose.

7 So this is how it can be used, you know, in 

8 a regulation sense, but to a person who is selecting a 

9 fan, I think it's much more powerful to see this 

10 value.

11 MS. JAKOBS: So this is Diane Jakobs from 

12 Rheem again. So your design point, it would be 

13 defined as a pressure?

14 MR. MATHSON: Pressure and an airflow.

15 MS. JAKOBS: And an airflow.

16 MR. MATHSON: Yeah.

17 MALE VOICE: It needs efficiency of power 

18 too, doesn't it?

19 MR. MATHSON: Well, the customer would come 

20 to the manufacturer and say I need an airflow and a 

21 pressure. So, yeah, to calculate the FER, you need 

22 power and the efficiencies.

23 MR. WHITWELL: So one of the things that we 

24 have to talk about in that case is how do we define 

25 the pressure and the airflow on a product where that 
272

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 gets determined by the application, right? So our 

2 customers tell us what they -- they determine what the 

3 pressure requirements are for the product, the 

4 external static pressure requirement. They tell us 

5 what the airflow is.

6 MR. DIKEMAN: For every curve.

7 MR. WHITWELL: Right.

8 MR. DIKEMAN: It's the duty of the FER.

9 MR. WHITWELL: But this is in a product 

10 that's already designed and available for sale, and 

11 they can vary it, right?

12 MR. BOSWELL: So, again, please remember to 

13 identify yourself.

14 MR. WHITWELL: Bob Whitwell from Carrier. 

15 Thank you. Sorry.

16 So, I mean, we just need to understand how 

17 this would be applied in a situation like that, right?

18 MR. MATHSON: Yes.

19 MR. SMITH: This is Wade. You just 

20 described every sale of every fan, right? Yeah.

21 MR. SMILEY: Bill Smiley, Trane.

22 MR. MATHSON: Yeah. Go ahead.

23 MR. SMILEY: But with an OEM type product 

24 the customer or user defines the external static 

25 requirement. He doesn't know or probably doesn't even 
273

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 care what the total pressure requirement for the fan 

2 is. He's looking at his system needs to match up to a 

3 unit that outputs pressure to overcome his system 

4 requirement.

5 MR. SMITH: That's true, Bill, of every --

6 MR. SMILEY: So, I mean, that's where we get 

7 into a sticky spot here.

8 MR. SMITH: That's true, Bill, of every fan. 

9 A fan sold standalone, the statement you just made 

10 would apply.

11 MR. SMILEY: Mm-hmm.

12 MR. SMITH: So the question is at the 

13 customer's flow and pressure what is the maximum 

14 horsepower allowed, and that's the question that we 

15 hope to answer in the regulation. So, for the given 

16 flow and given pressure, what is the maximum 

17 horsepower that the DOE will authorize?

18 MR. MATHSON: Let me answer that in a little 

19 different way. If a custom air handler manufacturer 

20 goes to a fan manufacturer and orders a fan at a 

21 certain airflow and pressure, it includes both the 

22 external pressures and the internal losses in the air 

23 handler, right? So the customer is the air handler 

24 manufacturer.

25 In the case of a packaged unit, the customer 
274

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 is specifying external static pressure, and so what 

2 you're saying is, yes, somehow we have to correlate. 

3 They don't know what the internal pressure drop is, so 

4 we have to work on that. So that's in the 

5 administration of this I guess.

6 MR. JASINSKI: Tim, I just want to make sure 

7 if what you're describing is accurate. I mean, what 

8 I'm hearing is that even though the end user of maybe 

9 a rooftop unit who's specifying the external static 

10 pressure and the flow, that the manufacturer of that 

11 RTU can take that and translate it into what does one 

12 of my fans internally need to produce in terms of flow 

13 and pressure, because the RTU manufacturer will know 

14 what those internal losses are and they'll be able to 

15 translate that and give that to the fan manufacturer 

16 who is supplying the fan in general.

17 MR. MATHSON: Well, they don't have to run 

18 that test. They don't have to. They could run the 

19 test of the air handler with the fan in it.

20 MR. JASINSKI: Right.

21 MR. MATHSON: And just measure the external 

22 performance.

23 MR. HAUER: It's Armin Hauer speaking. I 

24 would assume that the fan static pressure cannot be 

25 known inside of the unit because inlet affects and 
275

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 outlet system affects and you cannot distinguish it to 

2 an embedded equipment. So what you really know for 

3 that fan in that application is only the flow. The 

4 static pressure, fan static pressure you cannot know.

5 MR. MATHSON: Okay. These are the right 

6 questions and they get to how would this look in an 

7 OEM product.

8 MR. WHITWELL: So just one more comment. 

9 Bob Whitwell from Carrier. So you talked about having 

10 to understand the end customer's requirements and then 

11 selecting the fan based upon that. So what really 

12 happens is we might have a couple different fans 

13 selected and qualified in the product. So it's not a 

14 situation where a customer tells us they have this 

15 sort of requirement there, out there as far as static 

16 and flow, so we go look and see, okay, where does it 

17 fall on the third number, and say, okay, we go to a 

18 fan manufacturer, we need a new fan to put in this 

19 unit because they're running at a condition where it 

20 drops below the one.

21 So, in that case then, we would have to go 

22 back in and requalify that fan in our equipment. If 

23 it's got gas heat, we've got to put that fan in. 

24 We've got to make sure that the airflows are all still 

25 good and the safeties all work, and this is months of 
276

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 stuff that would have to be done. So it does create 

2 some difficulties that we have to work around and 

3 understand. Either that or we're going to have to say 

4 we can't sell you that unit. We can't sell you that 

5 unit. I don't know if that's what we want to do.

6 MR. SMITH: This is Wade Smith. No, that's 

7 not the situation that we're describing here. The air 

8 performance of a unit under this scheme would have a 

9 compliant range of operation, and I think if you look 

10 at the data and look at the curves and look at the 

11 proposed efficiency levels, I think the outcome of 

12 that analysis is that what you just described would 

13 not happen, all right?

14 So I just think you have to be patient and 

15 get through the analysis and do the comparison with 

16 your own product line to appreciate that, but that's 

17 the analysis that our members went through, and what 

18 we did was we compared different regulatory schemes, 

19 different curve shapes, and different regulatory 

20 levels against the database of actual sales, and then 

21 begged the question how many selections were 

22 noncompliant relative to any level or shape that you 

23 might want to ask about, and how would the customer 

24 cure the noncompliance? How would the rep basically 

25 cure it? And then the follow-on question is, is that 
277

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 an undue burden? And the other follow-on question is, 

2 how much energy do we save?

3 And that analysis has all been done for many 

4 of the products, and the recommendation that we came 

5 up with is a reasonable burden to fan manufacturers 

6 and produces a lot of savings. So it works. Does it 

7 work for your product? You need to analyze it.

8 MR. WHITWELL: Okay. So --

9 MR. SMITH: What you described is something 

10 that doesn't work.

11 MR. WHITWELL: Yes.

12 MR. SMITH: And if it didn't work, it 

13 wouldn't be acceptable.

14 MR. WHITWELL: Yeah. So I was just 

15 responding to the comment that was made that -- my 

16 understanding, maybe I misunderstood what he said, but 

17 it sounds like that could happen. So I'll be patient 

18 now and listen to the rest.

19 MR. MATHSON: Okay. So this metric will 

20 serve not just to regulate fans but also to teach or 

21 to encourage good fan selection. So what we envision

22 is that the FER value will be shown in catalogs where 

23 performance is shown. So, in this case, the green 

24 highlighted area is all greater than FER 1.0, and 

25 whatever we do with that, obviously we would not be 
278

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 able to sell fans down in that white area that's not 

2 highlighted, but it also, you know, tells you how far 

3 you are away from the peak.

4 If you'll notice, the numbers are lower here 

5 as you get up into higher pressures. They're up in 

6 the 1.2s at six inches, but at one inch they're up as 

7 high as greater than 2, and you'll see that a little 

8 bit more with the fan curves why that is. The 

9 efficiency requirement, the baseline efficiency is 

10 lower at lower pressures, so the FER becomes -- well, 

11 I guess they're not over 2. They're about 1.4, 1.5.

12 But in electronic fan selection software, a 

13 customer will put in a design point of operation, in 

14 this case 10,000 CFM at three inches of pressure, and 

15 they will get a list. In this case, this was 

16 centrifugal fans with eight different selections, and 

17 again, like Wade mentioned, the smallest fan is 12 

18 horsepower, the largest fan is six horsepower. The 

19 lowest number is the 33, size 33. So we're showing 

20 the power and the baseline power, so, again, baseline 

21 power would be maximum power allowed. That would 

22 equate to an FER of 1, and then the FER value on the 

23 right-hand side.

24 MR. SMILEY: Tim, Bill Smiley, Trane.

25 MR. MATHSON: Yeah.
279

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. SMILEY: A quick question. The largest 

2 fan, 36, you're saying is an acceptable selection is 

3 implied here, but the peak efficiency, your actual 

4 total efficiency dropped off a little bit.

5 MR. MATHSON: Yeah.

6 MR. SMILEY: That's to the left of the peak 

7 efficiency point?

8 MR. MATHSON: It's to the left of the peak, 

9 yes, so it's right next to the --

10 MR. SMILEY: But it's not in stall.

11 MR. MATHSON: Right next to it.

12 MR. SMILEY: Not in stall yet.

13 MR. MATHSON: Yup, not in stall yet.

14 MR. SMILEY: Okay.

15 MR. MATHSON: Right on the edge.

16 MR. SMILEY: But damn close.

17 MR. MATHSON: Not a good selection.

18 MS. JAKOBS: So this is Diane Jakobs from 

19 Rheem. So, if you had a space-constrained application 

20 and you needed a 20-inch fan size, there's just no 

21 solution?

22 MR. MATHSON: Well, there is, there is. You 

23 need to get a more efficient fan.

24 MR. SMILEY: There's not one --

25 MR. MATHSON: Different model, different 
280

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 model.

2 MR. BURDICK: How do you propose to raise 

3 the efficiency from a .8 FER to over 1? That's 20 

4 percent efficiency.

5 MR. MATHSON: Well, if this wasn't scrolled 

6 centrifugal to start with, I would say go to a more 

7 efficient fan. But this is an efficient fan to start 

8 with. You won't get there, to answer your question.

9 MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly at AAON. One of 

10 the things that I'm a little concerned at, maybe 

11 you're going to get to it, but I have yet to see a

12 system curve plotted on any of these fan curves. You 

13 know, the trend and what we've been driving to in many 

14 of our regulations is to try to go to variable speed 

15 fans. In a multi-zone VAV system, the system curve 

16 does not start at zero-zero. It starts at some 

17 operating pressure that it takes to run the boxes.

18 MR. MATHSON: Right.

19 MR. FLY: So, as you turn the fan speed 

20 down, you go into stall at some point. As you pick 

21 the fan selection at design where it runs 1 percent of 

22 the time or less, at the very peak of the curve, which 

23 this is all driving you up to, then you have less 

24 turndown in that fan.

25 MR. MATHSON: That's right.
281

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. FLY: So I'm really concerned that we're 

2 going to encourage -- I mean, we don't always select 

3 smaller fans because they're cheaper. Sometimes we 

4 select them to have more turndown in a VAV 

5 application.

6 MR. MATHSON: Yeah. Yeah. The way I would 

7 recommend personally addressing that is to have a 

8 lower FER requirement for VAV systems.

9 MR. JASINSKI: Yeah, Tim, I'm just going to 

10 -- so I think a lot of --

11 MR. MATHSON: But we haven't gotten into 

12 that yet.

13 MR. JASINSKI: Right. I think a lot of the 

14 questions we're hearing are going to be good questions 

15 and things that need to be addressed and considered 

16 once we start selecting levels in that we don't --

17 what I'm hearing from the working group is that we 

18 don't want to select levels that may completely 

19 eliminate certain fan types, certain operating points, 

20 and trigger a lot of these costs that, Bob, you 

21 brought up, correct?

22 But I don't think that we can -- to Wade's 

23 point -- I don't think that the working group can 

24 really assess or evaluate those things until we are 

25 talking about an actual proposed level, which we're 
282

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 not doing here right now. Right now we are simply 

2 talking about a metric, not a specific -- you know, 

3 not a baseline total efficiency. You know, for 

4 instance, for this particular product maybe the 

5 correct baseline efficiency is below 59.4 and all of 

6 these would still be viable selections, but that's not 

7 commenting on the appropriateness of the metric 

8 itself.

9 So I think for now, you know, maybe that's 

10 because everybody is on board and in agreement that 

11 this is a good metric and we're ready to start talking 

12 about what appropriate levels should be, I don't know, 

13 but I think for the working group's sake and for the 

14 sake of doing future analysis what we're trying to 

15 accomplish today is establish a baseline understanding 

16 of the metric that was proposed by AMCA, a very 

17 similar metric that was used in the NODA by the 

18 Department of Energy, and get comment on whether or 

19 not we think that's a workable solution, regardless of 

20 where the levels might end up.

21 MR. WHITWELL: Yeah, Bob Whitwell, Carrier. 

22 So good comments. I think, though, that the 

23 questions still -- we need to get the questions out 

24 there, right, and it's part of the discussion to 

25 understand what some of the implications of this 
283

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 metric could be, right?

2 MR. JASINSKI: Absolutely.

3 MR. WHITWELL: So I think we need to ask 

4 them now, understanding that there will be more --

5 we'll have to talk about them some more when we get to 

6 that level.

7 MR. JASINSKI: No, absolutely useful. I'm 

8 not suggesting that we shouldn't have had that 

9 conversation. I'm just saying in addition to those 

10 questions we also do want to get some feedback on the 

11 approach itself, understanding that there are those 

12 concerns and, you know, it's part of understanding 

13 this to understand the impacts. Point well taken.

14 MR. MATHSON: Yeah, I would say if your --

15 that question, that particular question from Mark, 

16 that means you understand what we're talking about 

17 here.

18 MR. SMITH: Mark, there's a lot of debate 

19 inside AMCA members about how to deal with VAV, and 

20 there needs to be an accommodation, so it's a 

21 recognized need that you described, and so, you know, 

22 at some point we should put it on the table and talk 

23 about it.

24 MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly with AAON. I 

25 just bring it up because I have seen hundreds of fans, 
284

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 maybe thousands of fans, running in stall in my career 

2 from people trying to do the right thing and fans in 

3 stall -- I mean, FC fans, you can run in stall all 

4 day. You start running BI fans in stall and things 

5 start flying apart.

6 So I think it's very important that we not 

7 only just look at the design point selection, but, you 

8 know, if you look at the IEER weightings, which is 

9 basically looking at building loads, it's been well 

10 vetted over time, that's telling you that these 

11 systems are running between 50 and 75 percent the vast 

12 majority of hours that they're operating in a VAV 

13 system, so we have to make sure that it works across 

14 that range.

15 MR. WHITWELL: Right, and it's not just the 

16 VAV, but, I mean, in the other working group where 

17 we're looking at commercial unitary air conditioning 

18 efficiency, I mean, the IEER metric is driving us to 

19 fan staging, so varying fan speeds, even without 

20 having it go all the way down to a full VAV type 

21 situation. So we can't put a metric here on a fan 

22 that will not allow us to get to the overall system 

23 efficiency levels, or else we're just going to shut 

24 the whole industry down.

25 MR. FLY: Right.
285

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. MATHSON: Okay. Let's look at some more 

2 pictures. Here's a multi-speed fan curve with a very 

3 efficient fan. There will be a large portion of that 

4 map that is greater than FER 1.0, and this is not 

5 actual data. This is just an artist's rendering here. 

6 This is what it will look like. The more efficient 

7 the fan is the larger percentage of this performance 

8 map will be highlighted or allowable to sell.

9 But what I wanted you to notice about this 

10 is remember the baseline efficiency increases with 

11 increasing airflow and pressure. So, at low airflows 

12 and pressures, in other words, low speeds, you can use 

13 the whole fan curve. The whole curve is green. The 

14 whole curve is allowable. As you get up into higher 

15 pressures and flows, the baseline is increasing and so 

16 the allowable range of operation has shrunk.

17 MR. SMILEY: Tim, Bill Smiley, Trane. I 

18 have a quick question on this. So what this is 

19 telling me is that the base efficiency varies along 

20 the system curve.

21 MR. MATHSON: Yes.

22 MR. SMILEY: Okay. And that's why the FER 

23 varies.

24 MR. MATHSON: Yes.

25 MR. SMILEY: And does not follow a system 
286

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 curve.

2 MR. MATHSON: The fan efficiency would be 

3 constant, but the baseline is changing.

4 MR. SMILEY: Okay.

5 MR. MATHSON: That's right.

6 MR. SMILEY: See, that's why I was confused 

7 yesterday. It would have been a simple response. 

8 Then I read your stuff last night and I go, oh, well, 

9 hell, that's how it is. Thanks.

10 MR. MATHSON: Let's talk about an 

11 inefficient fan. Okay, it may have a range of 

12 operation that is much smaller. Again, this is just 

13 an artist's rendering here. I just changed the 

14 numbers. Today this product might be catalogued 

15 beyond its allowable range, okay? And so a change --

16 a regulation like this may restrict this fan from 

17 being sold at these higher powers or higher pressures 

18 and flows.

19 MS. JAKOBS: This is Diane Jakobs. Another 

20 dumb question. So, when you say it restricts the 

21 sale, so that would mean the manufacturer's literature 

22 would say its application was only within a certain 

23 range?

24 MR. MATHSON: Mm-hmm.

25 MS. JAKOBS: And then there would be no 
287

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 enforcement. People buy stuff and do whatever they 

2 want, right? I mean, I don't --

3 MR. MATHSON: We can't control where exactly 

4 the fan is going to operate in the field. We can 

5 control where it's designed to operate, where it's 

6 sold or intended to operate. So you can talk about 

7 labeling and things, Sam.

8 MR. JASINSKI: Yeah, I'll jump in. I think 

9 naturally where this conversation is going to go are 

10 compliance enforcement labeling questions. Ashley is 

11 on her way and I think she should be in the room for 

12 that discussion. So I think --

13 (Laughter.)

14 MR. JASINSKI: Oh, there she is. Well, I 

15 was going to suggest maybe -- yeah, I was going to 

16 suggest maybe we take a break if everybody is ready to 

17 take a break, and be prepared after maybe a 15-minute 

18 break to comment on whether or not this is the metric 

19 we should be using going forward in the analysis, and 

20 if the answer is no, why not and what should we be 

21 using.

22 MR. HAUER: Can I just tag on a question 

23 about Slide 17, the relatively efficient fan? Right. 

24 Okay. Now let's assume your black curve, the very 

25 far to the right, this is a direct drive fan with, I 
288

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 don't know, four pole motor, right? But now your 

2 customer needs a performance point between the curve 

3 to the right and then the next one down. Right, right 

4 smack in between. How do you accomplish that?

5 MR. JASINSKI: Between here?

6 MR. HAUER: And what type of an FER would 

7 you declare there?

8 MS. JAKOBS: Between 1 and .9?

9 MR. MATHSON: Right where the arrow is?

10 MR. HAUER: Yeah, between -- yeah, exactly 

11 there. How would you arrive there, you know, if you 

12 have a direct drive fan?

13 MR. MATHSON: With a VFD.

14 MR. HAUER: Okay. So where is the --

15 MR. MATHSON: Is that what you're asking? 

16 Is that your question?

17 MR. HAUER: Okay. So where is then the 

18 efficiency impact of the VFD or maybe the belt 

19 reflected? There are some losses associated with 

20 varying the speed to that point.

21 MR. SMILEY: Well, you could pick the next 

22 size smaller down if that was the correct increment.

23 MR. HAUER: Yeah, but there is a likelihood 

24 that you will never exactly measure design points. So 

25 basically I'm leading to the question where do you 
289

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 reflect the losses in the belts and in the variable 

2 speed drive and the motor impact from a variable speed 

3 drive?

4 MR. WOLF: This is Mike Wolf with Greenheck. 

5 So I think we're going to get into somewhere down the 

6 line here, Tim, the discussion of how we get from wire 

7 to air?

8 MR. MATHSON: Yeah.

9 MR. WOLF: Right?

10 MR. MATHSON: Yeah.

11 MR. WOLF: I guess, Sam, I'll just ask him. 

12 How many slides do you have left?

13 MR. MATHSON: Maybe 10; not important ones.

14 MR. WOLF: Do you get into the --

15 (Laughter.)

16 MR. MATHSON: They're all pictures.

17 MR. WOLF: Do you get into the 207?

18 MR. MATHSON: No.

19 MR. WOLF: You don't?

20 MR. JASINSKI: We have some slides that --

21 MR. WOLF: Okay.

22 MR. JASINSKI: -- reflect the wire-to-air 

23 aspects which I think will address your questions.

24 MR. BOSWELL: I was going to say there is a 

25 proposal to take like a 15-minute break. We've been 
290

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 going for almost two hours. So unless there's an 

2 objection why don't we do that.

3 (Whereupon, a short recess was taken.)

4 MR. BOSWELL: Okay. If we could all come 

5 back to our seats. So we're going to pick up with the 

6 balance of Tim's presentation and then continue the 

7 discussion.

8 MR. MATHSON: Okay. So here's -- we talked 

9 about a -- I'm going back up. This is what an 

10 efficient fan might look like in its performance map, 

11 what an inefficient fan might look like in its 

12 performance map. We talked about -- we've talked 

13 about at AMCA what we do when we don't know the actual 

14 design point. So, if a fan is sold through a 

15 distributor or something like that, the regulation may 

16 say that the FER must be greater than 1.0 at the best 

17 efficiency point at the maximum RPM. So, in this 

18 case, this fan does not meet that requirement, but it 

19 would meet that requirement if the max RPM was just 

20 reduced to a certain level. So I kind of think this 

21 could be part of the regulation as well.

22 MR. SMILEY: Tim, Bill Smiley, Trane. Quick 

23 question. When you say "max RPM," you mean max design 

24 capability like the fan, the next fan up?

25 MR. MATHSON: Well --
291

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. SMILEY: No. It says FER must be 1 or 

2 greater at best efficiency point at maximum RPM.

3 MR. MATHSON: Yeah.

4 MR. SMILEY: You mean the fan capability RPM 

5 or what?

6 MR. MATHSON: Well, that would be part of 

7 the regulation. I would say it could be the range 

8 that the fan is able to be advertised at.

9 MR. SMILEY: Okay. So you would say your 

10 max allowed usage RPM.

11 MR. MATHSON: Yes.

12 MR. SMILEY: Not necessarily design limit or 

13 anything like that?

14 MR. MATHSON: Right, right.

15 MR. SMILEY: Okay. Thank you.

16 MR. MATHSON: So, you know, in this little 

17 sort of made up example here, today let's say we 

18 published beyond that speed. If there was a 

19 regulation tomorrow and we could only go up to a lower 

20 speed, that would probably take away some of the motor 

21 horsepowers for that fan, so we might redesign it 

22 smaller, you know, a little bit differently, or we may 

23 take it off the market, you know, and just replace it 

24 with something else.

25 And if this regulation was the only 
292

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 regulation, then we would just change the maximum RPM 

2 to meet that. If there is something else, like let's 

3 say the regulation said for safety fans you can use an 

4 FER of 0.9 or if we wanted to use this fan overseas 

5 somewhere, you know, those are all really fine details 

6 about how it could be administered.

7 But one example here as we end up, this is 

8 just to illustrate what we want to accomplish with 

9 this, with this metric. Here's a square in-line fan 

10 that we sell a lot of that is not very efficient. 

11 It's just a centrifugal fan inside of a box, and it's 

12 ducted inlet, ducted outlet. Sometimes you see them a 

13 lot as a return fan or an exhaust fan. It's 

14 inexpensive, easy to install, easy to maintain. It's 

15 all about the contractor. It's made for the 

16 contractor to install, but it's low efficiency.

17 If we look at the performance map for this 

18 fan, this is a 30-inch wheel in a square in-line fan, 

19 and now because it's ducted I'm showing total pressure 

20 here. This is the range that we catalogue today, and 

21 so it's got a best efficiency point, a maximum total 

22 pressure 53 percent, which is really up high on the 

23 fan curves. It's kind of unique that way. But you 

24 can draw other lines of efficiency. You can see how 

25 it dropped, the total efficiency drops as you go down 
293

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 the fan curve.

2 And we've plotted actual fan selections from 

3 the year 2012 on this map to see where people are 

4 selecting these fans. And so, as you look at this and 

5 where the efficiencies are, I think it becomes obvious 

6 that these customers don't care very much about 

7 efficiency. It's all over the place. There's no 

8 grouping here anywhere near high efficiency. There's 

9 a lot of selections down towards the end.

10 And if, if we were going to have this 

11 regulation of FER greater than 1, that allowable 

12 selection range would be as I have shown here. So 

13 about 40 percent of these fan selections for this 

14 model fell within this, and this is just what we had 

15 proposed as some base efficiency levels, target 

16 efficiency levels. So about 40 percent of the 

17 selections met the requirement.

18 So the purpose of this is, what do you do 

19 with the other 60 percent? Well, if I look at one 

20 size larger, size 36, that covers more of that range, 

21 so that covers 70 percent now of the fan selection. 

22 So 40 percent of them could have been done with the 

23 30, the next 30 percent I guess of selections could be 

24 covered by one size larger, and then about 90 percent 

25 of them could have been covered by the next size 
294

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 larger. So some of the fans had to go one size up, 

2 some of the fans had to go two sizes up. There are 

3 some of the fans that are higher pressure there that 

4 are not covered by any of those bubbles. Those would 

5 have to be covered by a different fan type. This fan 

6 doesn't cover that.

7 But if you look at this. So I looked at one 

8 point out here and said well, what's the customer 

9 going to do; 15,000 CFM at a half-inch of total 

10 pressure. So his option here is to use a larger fan 

11 size, a size 42, but that's pretty big. So here's 

12 that design point, 15,000 CFM at .5 inches. The size 

13 30 was -- here's the details on that: 5.3 brake 

14 horsepower; FER .62, so that was not an acceptable 

15 selection there, the size 30, and some of the other 

16 details, operating cost, budget cost.

17 So, because of that, they can replace that 

18 with a size 42, so 42-inch wheel. Quite a bit larger 

19 in size to get that FER above 1.0. So it moved up to 

20 1.12, and you see the FER is proportional to the 

21 power. The FER went up by almost a factor of 2. The 

22 power was almost cut in half. But it's a heavy fan, 

23 735 pounds. It's more expensive. You could, and I 

24 put on there the housing widths, so the original was 

25 46 inches wide, this was 48 inches wide. So the 
295

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 customer may say, well, that's too large, I can't fit 

2 it into the space that I want.

3 So you can replace that with a mixed flow 

4 fan, a size 27 will do this, with an FER greater than 

5 1. So its horsepower again is 2.77, about half of 

6 what the original selection was. But if you look at 

7 the cost, it's twice the cost of that original 

8 selection, and that's why we didn't sell this fan in 

9 this application.

10 So this is the customer's choice, but what 

11 we're trying to do here is to get the customer to come 

12 back to the fan manufacturer and say, hey, I need a 

13 new square in-line fan with better efficiency, okay? 

14 I can't accept this 58-inch square. I need something 

15 smaller, so redesign this. We want our customers to 

16 say redesign this fan to get a better efficiency or 

17 come out with a new mixed flow fan that's less 

18 expensive that competes with that. And either one 

19 would be a good answer for that situation.

20 So, again, the point of this illustration is 

21 we don't want to -- you know, if we're just -- if the 

22 regulation is just concerned with efficiency and not 

23 the fan selection, we'll design a more efficient 

24 square in-line fan, but they'll still pick the size 

25 30, so we're trying to capture all of that together 
296

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 here.

2 What is this? Oh, this is something else. 

3 Extended products, I won't talk about this.

4 MS. ARMSTRONG: Why don't we move --

5 MR. MATHSON: Yeah, you can talk about that. 

6 Okay. That's all I have.

7 MR. SMITH: This is Wade Smith. While 

8 Sanaee's team get up I thought I would just add a 

9 comment. It was mentioned that when we started 

10 working on this question of how to measure fan 

11 efficiency we started down the path of peak 

12 efficiency, our FEG, which was an accommodation to 

13 smaller fans that have lower peak efficiency, and the 

14 membership of AMCA got quite far down the road with 

15 FEG, wrote standards, recommended FEG nomenclature for 

16 90.1, et cetera.

17 And then we switched, and the reason we 

18 switched is because we had the assignment to calculate 

19 the savings associated with different FEG levels, 

20 pushing assimilation basically or a query into the 

21 database and asking for, hey, what is the savings, 

22 what is the impact, how many fans are going to have to 

23 be redesigned, et cetera.

24 And then a debate ensued about the method of 

25 calculating the savings, and out of that discussion 
297

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 grew a realization that our calculation of savings was 

2 highly speculative and that the savings that we did 

3 calculate was at risk over customer behavior, 

4 responding to a higher priced fan, like what was just 

5 shown, by instead purchasing a smaller size.

6 And so the question of what savings would we 

7 generate from a peak-based efficiency metric became --

8 you know, turned into a big question mark, and the 

9 common expression was that the change in peak 

10 efficiency was not deterministically linked to a 

11 change in energy use. This is a statement which is 

12 more true for some fan categories than others. It 

13 depends on how broadly across the spectrum fans are 

14 selected, and we looked very carefully at scatter 

15 diagrams where fan selections actually occurred, and 

16 another way to look at is this: that if the fan 

17 selection varies from 5 percent to 85 percent and you 

18 raise the peak efficiency by two or three percentage 

19 points, you know, what have you really done?

20 In other words, you've got two things 

21 working to drive energy use. One has tremendous 

22 leverage and the other one has very little leverage. 

23 The one that has tremendous leverage needs attention. 

24 And so that's when we went back to the drawing board 

25 and Tim Mathson and the folks at Greenheck made this 
298

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 recommendation and suggested that there was a 

2 deterministic link between the efficiency rating at 

3 the design point and the actual energy consumed, and 

4 we went on from there.

5 So the suggestion and the proposal that grew 

6 out of that was to have DOE regulate the efficiency of 

7 the fan at its design point, not at peak efficiency, 

8 and that's kind of where we are and why, in terms of 

9 the recommendation that we made, why we ended up 

10 there, just so everybody understands.

11 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, so that's a pretty 

12 good segue into what Sanaee is about to present to 

13 you. Before we start, Peter online wants to comment 

14 about the last example. Before we move on we might as 

15 well. Unmute him.

16 Peter, you should be unmuted.

17 MR. BUSHNELL: Yeah, hi.

18 MS. ARMSTRONG: Hi.

19 MR. BUSHNELL: Thanks. It's Peter Bushnell 

20 at Carrier. Just on the last example, I found that 

21 one interesting because as we look at operating point 

22 15,000 CFM, 0.5 inches of water gauge duty pressure, 

23 if we look at all of the fan classes and types for 

24 that duty point and kind of look at a specific speed25 based approach across all fan types, you'll find that 
299

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 the optimal choice of fan is the axial fan, and I 

2 found it interesting that that didn't come out of the 

3 analysis that was done. So was I wondering if you 

4 could comment on that a little bit, Tim.

5 MR. MATHSON: This is Tim Mathson. Yes, I 

6 would agree that it looks like more of a tubeaxial 

7 application, but why wasn't a tubeaxial on that slide, 

8 I can't answer that question.

9 MR. WAGNER: This is Greg. I would say that 

10 was a selection thing.

11 MR. BUSHNELL: The reason I bring that up is 

12 that --

13 MR. WAGNER: Sorry. This is Greg Wagner.

14 MR. BUSHNELL: The reason I brought that up 

15 was that if you follow simply kind of looking through 

16 catalogs and databases you'll come up with one 

17 solution, but if you use kind of a systematic approach 

18 using specific speed approach, which I think was what 

19 was used in the DOE pump regulation for efficiency, 

20 then there's kind of a more systematic way to find 

21 what's the right type of fan for a given duty point, 

22 and this is the most critical point in choosing a 

23 given fan.

24 And, Ashley, I'm having a lot of feedback, 

25 by the way, so this is very challenging for me to 
300

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 actually speak here.

2 MR. HARTLEIN: So, Peter, this is Dan 

3 Hartlein from Twin City Fan. We would agree. There's 

4 actually theoretically a range where the specific 

5 speed would indicate a typical axial selection, that 

6 as specific speed changes things like hub ratio and 

7 blade solidity change in the design of the product. 

8 There is obviously as well a specific speed where a 

9 centrifugal fan tends to rule the day. And then 

10 there's products where the customers in the market 

11 want to buy something that is different than both 

12 because it's cheap and easy and it works for them in 

13 the field, and I think that that centrifugal fan in 

14 the box is an outcome of that.

15 That is absolutely correct that that's 

16 operating at a specific speed which would typically 

17 and technically be an axial fan, and it's a duty point 

18 that should be there, but the market is buying a 

19 product or demanding a product that is not -- I think 

20 Tim rightfully showed a peak efficiency of that 

21 product line at 53 percent. That is not a product 

22 that's being designed and sold for its energy 

23 efficiency. That's clear, and I think you're 100 

24 percent right that that would be a, from a specific 

25 speed question, that would be a axial fan. You're 
301

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 absolutely right.

2 MR. BUSHNELL: And I think that the example 

3 also brings up another interesting point, is that 

4 there may be for that example other constraints like 

5 stall margin performance or extended range of 

6 pressurized; you know, going down, down to lower flow 

7 rates, and with those kinds of constraints, you know, 

8 it might be that, hey, the mixed flow fan is really 

9 required, but if you're strictly looking at .5 at 

10 15,000 CFM, you know, without those extended 

11 requirements, axial fan is probably the right choice.

12 MR. HARTLEIN: Yeah, I think we agree. I 

13 think you had your hand up.

14 MR. BUSHNELL: So this discussion on design 

15 point, I think those are the kind of factors that come 

16 into play on design point. You know, it's what are 

17 the extended range requirements, stall margin, things 

18 like that.

19 MR. WIGGINS: This is Steve Wiggins from 

20 Newcomb Boyd. I think the other thing we need to 

21 realize too when we start talking about the customer 

22 or the -- and I'm going to step across the line and 

23 say the designer who is specifying the product, 

24 specific speed means nothing to him in his world 

25 currently, okay? And so, when you start looking at 
302

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 how do we get to the point where we're making the fan 

2 selection, I think we have to realize too that if we 

3 go certain directions we're talking about potentially 

4 training an industry to do their business in a 

5 different manner than what they're currently doing, 

6 and that may be a bag of worms we don't want to go 

7 play with too hard.

8 MR. BUSHNELL: Yeah, it's a challenging area 

9 because in a perfect situation you would have tools 

10 and selection processes and a regulation that somehow 

11 is consistent with that specific speed methodology 

12 because that would drive the optimal selection, and I 

13 think the problem is the industry doesn't really have 

14 that completely formalized for fans. We don't have 

15 universal specific speed charts that are used 

16 throughout the industry, so it makes it difficult.

17 MR. HARTLEIN: Yeah. Steve, just one other 

18 comment to that. That world that you describe on 

19 specific speed is a driver for selection actually 

20 happens in the heavy-duty industry, so our Clarage 

21 division will select a fan and design a fan optimized 

22 to the specific speed, the duty point, but that's a 

23 custom fan. We start to see that happen in higher 

24 horsepowers. Some markets will demand that fan at 150 

25 horsepower, so we do get into the 200 horsepower range 
303

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 that we seem to be talking about here. But it's 

2 driven by the fact that you can have a million dollars 

3 of energy consumption a year on a 10,000 horsepower 

4 fan, and in that industry, it does in fact function in 

5 the way that you're describing, but the HVAC industry 

6 clearly does not at this point.

7 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. So I'm going to make 

8 a suggestion at this point that we're going to walk 

9 through our metric. It is more or less the AMCA? 

10 Advocates' metric that they represented in the NODA. 

11 At least we are going to explain it and what this is 

12 translated to look like in kind of the DOE world and 

13 how this would work. We've highlighted some points 

14 for discussion that we would like some feedback. 

15 We're hoping, though, that at least some of the stuff 

16 we can think about voting on this afternoon in terms 

17 of high-level metric and some of the test procedure 

18 type issues. So, Sanaee, why don't you start walking 

19 us through some of the metric slides and we can have 

20 some discussion.

21 MS. IYAMA: So I'm going to go by the first 

22 slides because I think Tim went over this already. 

23 Fan efficiency varies greatly depending on the fan's 

24 operating point. Here it's just illustrating the fan 

25 efficiency distribution amongst different fan 
304

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 selections from the fan data we got from AMCA. And 

2 so, to address this issue, DOE used a metric evaluated 

3 at each operating point as declared by the 

4 manufacturer, so it's an approach similar to the one 

5 presented in AMCA's white paper, and it's based here 

6 on the wire-to-air approach, so that's the difference 

7 with what Tim presented earlier, and it's based on 

8 determining the electrical input power of the fan at a 

9 given operating point, what we called FER in the NODA.

10 So the FER would include the fan shaft input 

11 power, which is the first part of that equation, flow 

12 times pressure divided by fan efficiency. If there's 

13 a transmission, like a belt, that would be also 

14 incorporated in the electrical input power to the fan, 

15 as well as driver losses and control losses if 

16 controls are used.

17 I'm just going to go through the slides, or 

18 do you want to stop?

19 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, yeah, hang on. So 

20 before you go through -- so what do we think about 

21 this?

22 MR. SMILEY: Bill Smiley, Trane. The FER 

23 you're referring to really is a horsepower or watts? 

24 It's not a ratio of any kind. It's a value.

25 MS. IYAMA: It's just electrical input 
305

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 power, so you could express it in watts or horsepower.

2 MR. SMILEY: Well, the term FER is a little 

3 misleading then. I mean, you ought to just call it 

4 watts.

5 MS. ARMSTRONG: So we've teed that up. 

6 Probably unknownst to the fan industry, DOE does have 

7 an FER metric already for residential furnace fans. 

8 So what do you propose it be called?

9 MR. SMILEY: Well, call it watts. That's 

10 what it is.

11 MS. ARMSTRONG: How about fan electrical 

12 power?

13 MR. SMILEY: I don't care.

14 MS. ARMSTRONG: FEP? Can you deal with 

15 that? Great. I mean, it's either that or Ashley. I 

16 don't know.

17 MR. SMILEY: I think I'll vote for Ashley.

18 MR. FINE: While you're at it, you could add 

19 a C to the transmission units.

20 MR. SMILEY: We don't care about spelling.

21 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, we don't. That's 

22 really not --

23 MR. SMILEY: We're engineers.

24 MS. ARMSTRONG: Exactly. That's not 

25 important to engineers. The lawyers will take care of 
306

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 that during the months of review.

2 MALE VOICE: I don't know if I should have 

3 caught that.

4 MALE VOICE: These aren't going to turn

5 into -- these aren't going to be words in any way.

6 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, exactly.

7 MR. HAUER: It's Armin Hauer speaking. I 

8 was terribly confused about the horsepower, that we 

9 called it -- it's electrical power, but we call it 

10 horsepower. And horsepower I think is like mostly in 

11 the United States. It's a mechanical power. Okay. 

12 Can we please --

13 MALE VOICE: It's brake horsepower.

14 MR. HAUER: I've never seen electrical power 

15 expressed in the unit horsepower.

16 MS. IYAMA: So I think in the NODA it 

17 doesn't really come up because we ended up doing the 

18 ratio. So it has no dimension.

19 MR. HAUER: But in the spreadsheet --

20 MALE VOICE: Where do you see horsepower 

21 here?

22 MR. HAUER: In the spreadsheet, it's 

23 calibrated back to horsepower.

24 MALE VOICE: So you're suggesting working in 

25 watts when using electricity?
307

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MS. ARMSTRONG: So would you prefer using 

2 watts always? Okay. No. Well, you guys figure it 

3 out in that corner.

4 MR. HAUER: But when it's electrical power, 

5 it's watts, right?

6 MALE VOICE: Yeah.

7 MS. WALTNER: This is Meg. If we changed 

8 the term to fan input power, would that --

9 MALE VOICE: It's not fan power.

10 MALE VOICE: Let's just change the noun.

11 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. I would suggest 

12 changing the acronym in that case, but --

13 MR. SMILEY: Bill Smiley, Trane. It's not 

14 really fan input power. It's power into the upstream 

15 device that connects to the fan through a drive and a 

16 motor and on and on and on and on. So the fan power 

17 is always in the industry referred to as the actual 

18 brake horsepower or the power that's consumed by the 

19 rotating device.

20 MS. ARMSTRONG: So why is it that you want 

21 to use horsepower?

22 MR. SMILEY: Let's be confused here.

23 MR. HARTLEIN: Because it's -- I think 

24 everybody -- excuse me. Dan Hartlein. I think 

25 everybody that's in here that doesn't have European 
308

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 origins is comfortable with horsepower as that 

2 expression. It's no offense, but that's a metric 

3 issue. We use it there. We all know what it means.

4 MR. BUBLITZ: Well, Mark Bublitz here.

5 MR. HARTLEIN: Technically he's right.

6 MR. BUBLITZ: But when we talk horsepower, 

7 we talk at the shaft --

8 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah.

9 MR. BUBLITZ: -- so that you can size the 

10 motor.

11 MR. HARTLEIN: Not all of us. We don't.

12 MR. FERNSTROM: So this is Gary. I think 

13 the Europeans have this figured out, but we haven't 

14 quite figured it out yet. And generally horsepower 

15 here is deemed to be mechanical, and electrical would 

16 be watts or KW, and that's what I would prefer. And 

17 we're talking about the electrical input power to the 

18 motor controller system that drives the mechanical.

19 MALE VOICE: Yeah.

20 MR. BURDICK: This is Larry with SPX. I 

21 have a comment about each operating point. There are 

22 so many operating points associated with a fan. You 

23 know, is it at the design point for that particular 

24 cooling, you know, for the design cooling duty? You 

25 know, then there are all the stream of points that are 
309

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 associated with when you're running on VFD, you know, 

2 or off-duty situations, different motor loadings, you 

3 know, different heat rates and so on. You know, I 

4 think a broader term or a consistent term might be 

5 peak fan efficiency.

6 MS. ARMSTRONG: It's not peak.

7 MR. BURDICK: No?

8 MS. IYAMA: So here it would be at each 

9 operating point as declared by the manufacturer.

10 MS. ARMSTRONG: So it wouldn't just be peak. 

11 It would be all.

12 MR. BURDICK: So this is an operating point 

13 declared by the manufacturer as to which point it is 

14 I'm talking about.

15 MR. SMITH: It's the point of sale. 

16 Somebody comes to -- this is Wade Smith. When 

17 somebody comes to buy a fan, they say, I need a fan 

18 that will do the following duty. So we're selling the 

19 fan for operation at that duty at a certain efficiency 

20 level. Now where does the customer operate the fan?

21 MS. ARMSTRONG: Kind of. Kind of that.

22 MR. JASINSKI: Wade, I think, I think the 

23 answer is --

24 MR. SMITH: Kind of that? Okay, kind of 

25 that.
310

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. JASINSKI: -- everybody is right.

2 MR. SMITH: Okay.

3 MR. JASINSKI: What we're talking about here 

4 is that it's a -- everybody here is right, but what 

5 we're talking about here is the metric allows for 

6 these things to be calculated at any operating point. 

7 This is not a declaration of which ones we're talking 

8 about. We're just saying we are using a metric that 

9 regardless of who determines it, whether it's the 

10 consumer, the manufacturer, the regulation, that you 

11 can determine compliance with this metric regardless 

12 of what that operating point is. There are no 

13 operating points at which you operate a fan that you 

14 can't calculate the FEP as it's written right now.

15 MR. BURDICK: So the each should be an any? 

16 Any I mean.

17 MR. JASINSKI: Any.

18 MR. BURDICK: Rather than each?

19 MS. ARMSTRONG: Correct.

20 MR. JASINSKI: At any operating point is 

21 probably better.

22 MR. BURDICK: Okay, yeah.

23 MR. JASINSKI: And then we will get into the 

24 discussion about what those operating points are and 

25 how they're determined later. What we're just trying 
311

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 to do is make sure that we have a metric that allows 

2 for FEP to be calculated at any operating point.

3 MALE VOICE: So any specific operating 

4 point?

5 MS. ARMSTRONG: Any is fine.

6 MR. FLY: Yeah. This is Mark Fly. This is 

7 not the point of regulation. This is just something 

8 to get there.

9 MS. ARMSTRONG: This is just a metric.

10 MR. FLY: Just a metric to get there.

11 MS. ARMSTRONG: Do we agree with the 

12 components of the metric?

13 MALE VOICE: Well, let's see.

14 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, I mean, just generally 

15 speaking, this is similar to the approach you guys 

16 have worked on. We'll change the name, FEP.

17 MALE VOICE: To AER?

18 MS. ARMSTRONG: You can come up with a 

19 better name next week or in two weeks or in August. 

20 That's fine. But generally these are the main 

21 components that are included in an overall metric.

22 MR. WHITWELL: So the motor efficiency is 

23 included in the transmission?

24 MALE VOICE: No. Driver losses.

25 MS. ARMSTRONG: Driver.
312

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. WHITWELL: It's in the driver losses? 

2 So that's driver and motor losses I guess. Is that 

3 yes?

4 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. Okay. Moving on. I 

5 think we have a thumbs up.

6 MR. DIKEMAN: Ashley? Ashley, Steve 

7 Dikeman. Before you go, your discussion point on 

8 bearings, they're included in AMCA fan ratings if that 

9 fan has a fan shaft through it. So you've already got 

10 them.

11 MS. ARMSTRONG: But if they don't, they are 

12 not.

13 MR. DIKEMAN: It's a direct drive. You have 

14 no bearing losses.

15 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right, okay.

16 MALE VOICE: It's part of the motor 

17 efficiency.

18 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right.

19 MS. IYAMA: So here fan electrical input 

20 power, so for any operating point it could be 

21 determined based either on measuring the fan shaft 

22 input power and then combining that with default 

23 values to represent the motor, the transmission or 

24 controls, if any. So that's the first option. We 

25 called it the calculation-based method. Or it could 
313

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 be directly measured at the input of the electric 

2 motor controls, if any. So that would be the testing3 based method.

4 MR. SMITH: This is Wade Smith. Would you 

5 then also allow a test that includes the transmission 

6 but not the motor, for example, and use default values 

7 for the motor and controls? In other words, is there 

8 a continuum between those two extremes, or is it just 

9 the two extremes?

10 MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, I think we could. 

11 Do we need to?

12 MALE VOICE: Do it anyway.

13 MR. SMITH: I don't know. I just wanted to 

14 know where your stand was, and then I guess we can ask 

15 our members what they want.

16 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. I think it's more a 

17 question of what do you want.

18 MR. SMITH: Okay.

19 MS. ARMSTRONG: I don't think we have a --

20 MR. SMITH: So you would have no problem if 

21 we step through that as an option.

22 MS. ARMSTRONG: Not necessarily, no.

23 MR. SMITH: Okay, good.

24 MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, such that they 

25 provide equitable ratings.
314

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. SMITH: No, no, I understand.

2 MS. ARMSTRONG: But no.

3 MS. IYAMA: Okay. So then this metric would 

4 be compared to what Tim has presented this morning, 

5 but he presented it in terms of maximum allowable 

6 shaft input power. Here we're talking about maximum 

7 fan electrical input power. So same thing. It would 

8 be based on an equation of efficiency as a function of 

9 flow and pressure, and then we would combine that with 

10 default values for motor, transmission. And here, for 

11 that determination, we wouldn't consider controls.

12 One thing that was in the AMCA white paper 

13 was the issue of how to evaluate fans with controls. 

14 I think AMCA had presented in that white paper the 

15 possible inclusion of sort of a multiplier to the FER 

16 standard here as it's called when evaluating fans with 

17 controls.

18 MR. SMILEY: This is Bill Smiley, Trane. A 

19 comment there. If, for example, you -- oh, I pushed 

20 twice. Sorry. Bill Smiley, Trane. For example, if 

21 you had a motor with a VFD on it, variable speed 

22 control device controlling the speed of the motor, the 

23 motor efficiency changes depending on the output and 

24 the type of controller you're using to control the 

25 motor. So how would you accommodate or account for 
315

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 that inefficiency? Would that be on the motor, and 

2 then it varies at every load point on the motor and 

3 setting point from the controller? Or would you 

4 account for that in the controls? How would you 

5 account for that?

6 MS. IYAMA: For the losses of the VFD?

7 MR. SMILEY: There are two things here, 

8 losses through the VFD and the effect on the motor of 

9 the VFD signal going to the motor that changes the 

10 motor's efficiency relationship with speed and 

11 frequency and the wave form, the type of motor and the 

12 type of VFD, and the list is very long of those 

13 variables.

14 MS. IYAMA: So here we're in that scenario 

15 where we're trying to establish the input power of the 

16 fan, and it has controls. And so the first option is 

17 you could do a wire-to-air test. That's the second 

18 bullet on that slide. Or the first option is you 

19 establish sort of a default model that allows you to 

20 calculate the losses of your motor and VFD, the 

21 combined motor and VFD. AMCA has a draft 207 where 

22 they have one recommendation on how to do that. We're 

23 working also trying to develop a similar or just 

24 evaluating their approach, and I think that's probably 

25 something that we'll have to discuss.
316

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly at AAON. I 

2 realize that, you know, what you're talking about 

3 changes -- is changeable by punching the buttons on 

4 the keypad of the VFD. If you change the switching 

5 frequency, if you change the load profile curve on 

6 that, it changes the motor efficiency. And that's 

7 something that happens in the field all the time.

8 MS. IYAMA: Okay. So before going into sort 

9 of the more detailed stuff, just one slide here about 

10 using an index. So, in the NODA, we kind of followed 

11 what was in the AMCA white paper and took, you know, 

12 the baseline electric -- or the maximum allowable 

13 electrical input power, divided that by the electrical 

14 input power of the actual fan, and called that the 

15 FEI. And that's exactly what Tim has presented this 

16 morning, except that here it's a wire-to-air-based 

17 index.

18 Now there might be issues with using an 

19 index. One of them could be the number of significant 

20 digits. Maybe two significant digits may not be 

21 enough to differentiate between higher variation in 

22 fan efficiency. So, if you're trying to compare fan A 

23 and fan B, you know, they might have the same FEI if 

24 you use two significant digits, but they may not have 

25 the same electrical input power usage. So that's one 
317

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 example of the issues that could come up with using an 

2 index.

3 From a standard level-setting perspective, 

4 if the maximum allowable electrical input power 

5 changes, so let's say you change that target to a new 

6 higher target, then, you know, that index doesn't 

7 really mean anything anymore. You could have fans on 

8 the market that are calculated with a different 

9 baseline because the regulation has been updated.

10 MS. JAKOBS: This is Diane Jakobs from 

11 Rheem. So I don't know if really the issue is 

12 multiple digits. It's more like multiple operating 

13 points. And, you know, are you averaging operating 

14 points, or are you having multiple indexes? The thing 

15 is --

16 MS. IYAMA: So you'd have a separate value 

17 of the index or of the metric for each of the 

18 operating points. So that table that Tim had up on 

19 his slide, that was the same fan, the performance 

20 table of one fan with different ratings at each of the 

21 represented operating points.

22 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. So something that's a 

23 little unique to what -- for those that aren't that 

24 familiar with what the AMCA white paper -- kind of 

25 approach they took. Something that's unique in what 
318

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 they've done and is a little different from most 

2 typical DOE regulations is instead of picking a rating 

3 point, which you guys are all accustomed to, even 

4 though you recognize your equipment operates over a 

5 range of different points and a few operating points 

6 in the field, they're rating at every operating point. 

7 And so they're defining an operating range. I'm 

8 sorry. And that whole range is what ultimately they 

9 are -- I mean, as the approach would get administered, 

10 that range would be certified to the department.

11 So instead of it being a single point for a 

12 fan, they're going to be defining what this range of 

13 conditions would be. Now there will be some bounds 

14 around that range that we'll get into as we talk 

15 through the test procedure and how you come up with 

16 ratings, but I think the scheme is completely 

17 different in something that's -- it's different in 

18 terms of regulatory approach than the department 

19 typically takes. And it's not just a single rating 

20 point. It is a range reflective of the entire 

21 operation range that the manufacturer wants to self22 declare and sell its fans to be used in.

23 I saw some puzzled faces. It's different.

24 MR. SMILEY: It's normal for the industry --

25 this is Bill Smiley, Trane. It's just normal for the 
319

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 industry that we operate in.

2 MS. ARMSTRONG: Correct, which is why we've 

3 kind of embraced that.

4 MR. SMILEY: It's not an issue for us.

5 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right.

6 MR. SMILEY: It's a DOE problem or change.

7 (Laughter.)

8 MS. ARMSTRONG: We implemented it in the 

9 NODA, yeah. So, if you read the second NODA, we 

10 implement it. We ran analysis on that exact 

11 regulatory approach.

12 MALE VOICE: Well, I haven't had four years 

13 to study all this stuff.

14 MS. ARMSTRONG: You're a fan manufacturer.

15 Anyhow, so that's that. I just wanted to --

16 for those that may not be familiar, it's different, 

17 but it's not something DOE is I would say embracing.

18 MS. JAKOBS: So this is Diane Jakobs. That 

19 chart that we just looked at, it kind of looks like an 

20 airflow chart for --

21 MS. ARMSTRONG: Correct.

22 MS. JAKOBS: So we would have an FEI at 

23 every --

24 MS. ARMSTRONG: Point.

25 MS. JAKOBS: -- point.
320

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MS. ARMSTRONG: So your table, your cert 

2 table would look like this.

3 MS. IYAMA: We have pressure also in there.

4 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right.

5 MR. SMILEY: Yeah, statics -- Bill Smiley, 

6 Trane. Statics across the top, CFMs down the sides, 

7 like our normal. It's just instead of just having RPM 

8 and brake horsepower like the industry has always 

9 done, they've added a third column, which says or 

10 whatever the metric is or -- I'm probably getting my 

11 terminology screwed up here. But whatever the 

12 measurement is, the ratio, FER, FEI, XYZ, whatever it 

13 is, there would be an extra column for that. And the 

14 methodology you're proposing or presenting here is 

15 that I think you're suggesting it would need to be one 

16 or above to be allowed legally to be used.

17 MS. ARMSTRONG: We haven't gotten there.

18 MR. SMILEY: Or something like that.

19 MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, that's going to be 

20 for like -- hopefully we get there in June, though.

21 MR. WHITWELL: Bob Whitwell from Carrier. I 

22 think there is an important difference here, and that 

23 is that what we publish today is based on what the 

24 entire unit internal static pressure plus external 

25 static pressure is. So it's an operating map for the 
321

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 application in the building.

2 I think what this is talking about is for 

3 the fan itself. So we don't have that data today. We 

4 don't publish that today. So that's something that's 

5 completely different than what we provide today.

6 MR. SMILEY: Yeah. Bill Smiley, Trane. 

7 That's because the customer doesn't directly care what 

8 the internal pressure losses of the unit are. He only 

9 cares about what the external pressure capability is 

10 for his application, what the cost, what the motor 

11 size, the power, and all that are. So, if you base a 

12 regulation on total fan static pressure or total fan 

13 total pressure, we don't know what that is a lot of 

14 times.

15 MR. SMITH: Well, this is Wade. The fan 

16 that goes into your unit will under a regulated scheme 

17 have a compliant operating range, and your unit, since 

18 you don't catalog the fan performance, you catalog the 

19 unit's air performance, the unit will have a 

20 corresponding compliant operating range. And you do 

21 catalog and you do know what the air performance of 

22 the unit is. You catalog it. So now you just have to 

23 impose upon what you catalog the compliant operating 

24 range of the fan and the corresponding FER.

25 If you have the performance of the fan and 
322

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 you have the performance, the air performance of the 

2 unit, which you clearly do have, then you can 

3 translate from one to the other.

4 MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly at AAON. So just 

5 trying to get my head around this. As we looked at 

6 say a unit performance chart, I would have the same 

7 CFM because the CFM doesn't change. But the static 

8 pressure available external would be less than the 

9 static pressure of the raw fan and the minimum 

10 testable configuration. And so you couldn't directly 

11 look -- the table for the fan and the table for the 

12 unit would not line up on the static pressure side.

13 MR. SMITH: Right.

14 MR. FLY: It would be incorporated, but the 

15 FEI would be of the fan in the minimum testable 

16 configuration.

17 MS. IYAMA: All right. So, in the next few 

18 slides, I'm just going to go into a little bit more 

19 details in the fan efficiency equation that's used to 

20 establish the maximum allowable shaft input power and 

21 then, based on that, the maximum allowable electrical 

22 input power to the fan. So we went over what those 

23 constants mean, so I'm just going to go through this 

24 really quickly.

25 And there were some questions about, you 
323

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 know, how did you get to the value of Q-zero and P2 zero by matching the diameter effect of the FEG 

3 curves, kind of mimicking flow and diameter. This is 

4 just what those functions look like, like if you plot 

5 a function that's P divided by P plus P-zero. And 

6 then just to illustrate how that shape would change if 

7 we increased P-zero a little bit or decreased P-zero a 

8 little bit. So that's on the left graph. And then we 

9 did the same for Q-zero.

10 Also, based on the data that AMCA had 

11 provided to us, we did our own kind of curve fitting 

12 to see how far or how close we'd get to those 215 0.4 

13 values. We ended up pretty close, with a 234 and 0.4, 

14 but looking at how sensitive the curves are to those 

15 values, you know.

16 Also, if we get to presenting the NODA 

17 results at some point, we could show you kind of the 

18 impact of using a slightly higher or slightly lower 

19 value for those constants.

20 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. So I think just the 

21 moral of this slide is that those constants are 

22 representative of the data set we used to come up with 

23 the NODA. We did a similar analysis that AMCA did 

24 just for purposes of a) due diligence, but b) to see 

25 how sensitive changes would be and changes in data 
324

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 sets would be to those constants. And I think what 

2 Sanaee is trying to say is that we didn't find that 

3 the constants were overly sensitive, but I don't think 

4 we're asking you to say these are the right constants 

5 right now because, you know, as we move along in this 

6 process and we add data to the data set and we revise 

7 analyses, those constants may very well change.

8 We just want you to understand that the 

9 constants didn't seem overly sensitive to data sets. 

10 We are committed to updating them as we go through the 

11 process, and we include more data, and the general 

12 form of the equation on the next slide is going to 

13 look something like this. We're there. Right.

14 MS. IYAMA: So another --

15 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, in other words, don't 

16 worry about the numbers quite yet. What we're trying 

17 to talk through at a high level is the form of the 

18 equation and the different components that it is 

19 accounting for to get people onboard with the concepts 

20 before we talk details of the -- when we get into 

21 details of the analysis and how the actual data and 

22 what the results say, that's when we need to worry 

23 about the specifics.

24 So you can keep going.

25 MS. IYAMA: Yeah. So one point where the 
325

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 NODA was different from the AMCA white paper is using 

2 static efficiency -- well, an equation expressing 

3 static efficiency as a function of static pressure and 

4 flow to calculate the maximum allowable BHP for 

5 unducted fans. And here I just have two slides to 

6 kind of illustrate what the difference is if we use 

7 one option or the other. It's just to kind of trigger 

8 a discussion.

9 So for the ducted fans, where AMCA is using 

10 an expression of total efficiency as a function of 

11 flow and total pressure, we end up being able to 

12 calculate the shaft input power based on flow and 

13 total pressure. So that's your input data to the 

14 function, which means that if two fans have the same 

15 total pressure and same flow, they would get the same 

16 sort of baseline maximum allowable shaft input power. 

17 And then if you go on to the proposal or 

18 recommendation that they have for the unducted fans, 

19 where it's a metric based on static pressure, then 

20 you'd have maximum shaft input power expressed as a 

21 function of flow and static pressure, which means that 

22 if two fans have the same static pressure and the same 

23 flow, then they would be given the same sort of 

24 allowance.

25 So what it looks for two theoretical fans, 
326

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 fan A, fan B. Here it's just an example. They have 

2 the same static pressure. So, if we're using option 

3 1, these -- I just used a target of 62. It's just for 

4 purely illustrative purposes, and then a slightly 

5 lower target if we're talking about static efficiency, 

6 so 0.58.

7 And the two other bullet points are sort of 

8 a summary of the comments we got on that issue from 

9 the first NODA, you know, concerns about using total 

10 pressure because that would require defining the 

11 outlet area, and that's not always straightforward for 

12 unducted fans. And then other stakeholders saying 

13 that, you know, when you use static efficiency, you 

14 may be able to slightly change the way you define your 

15 outlet areas also and sort of manipulate that to kind 

16 of show that you have a higher efficiency than the 

17 actual.

18 So, again, these are just to trigger some 

19 discussions. I don't have any further slides on that 

20 issue.

21 MS. ARMSTRONG: You guys have been waiting 

22 to talk static/total, so here would be your chance. 

23 I'm not sure who wants to take the lead here.

24 MR. SMITH: Well, let me just introduce it. 

25 This is Wade Smith from AMCA. Most of the time, not 
327

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 all, but most of the time, when a fan has no duct on 

2 its discharge, the velocity pressure doesn't matter. 

3 The velocity -- the energy that is imparted to the air 

4 to speed it up, so to speak, is lost and of no 

5 consequence. In other words, if you made it go 

6 faster, you wouldn't bring the customer any benefit.

7 So there are real exceptions to this, and 

8 that's why I said most of the time, because you have 

9 jet fans where velocity is the only thing that 

10 matters, induced flow fans, where it matters. There 

11 are other examples where velocity matters. But 

12 generally speaking, fans that have a free discharge to 

13 the atmosphere, velocity pressure is of no consequence 

14 to the application and of no value to the application. 

15 And there's sort of a theoretical argument that says 

16 therefore it doesn't belong in the efficiency equation 

17 as a value add. It is not a value add. It's a waste.

18 But then there's the practical side of 

19 static versus total, and the practical side is that if 

20 you use static efficiency as the metric, then the 

21 manufacturer can extract benefit from a -- what do you 

22 call it, diffuser? What do you call those things? 

23 Ellipse, evas, évasé -- on the outlet --

24 MS. ARMSTRONG: Évasé.

25 MR. SMITH: -- to boost the energy -- to 
328

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 boost the energy efficiency of the application, and it 

2 provides a real benefit.

3 If you base the regulation on total 

4 efficiency, évasé doesn't change the total efficiency, 

5 but it does change the static efficiency, which is of 

6 benefit.

7 So there are lots of arguments, and this is 

8 another debate that lasted for years literally and has 

9 not been -- you know, it isn't over. We still have 

10 members who are on both sides of this question. But 

11 the consensus is to use static efficiency on fans that 

12 don't have ducts on their outlet.

13 I should just add velocity pressure on a 

14 ducted application is of value because between the fan 

15 discharge and the ultimate air discharge to the 

16 occupied space if it's a ducted system or wherever the 

17 duct ends, that velocity pressure is converted to 

18 static, and it is used and exploited, knowingly or 

19 otherwise, to overcome losses in the duct system. In 

20 other words, velocity pressure has real value 

21 delivered to the system because it is recovered in the 

22 form of static pressure.

23 So I'll turn it over to folks who are a lot 

24 more expert and have been participants in the debate. 

25 I've been an observer. So, Tim, do you want to --
329

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. MATHSON: Tim Mathson from Greenheck. 

2 Sanaee, can we put up a couple of the other slides 

3 that were on the desktop there? Yeah.

4 MS. IYAMA: It's called static versus total.

5 MR. MATHSON: Static versus total. So just 

6 to walk through the discussion a little bit, we insist 

7 on using both of these, static for nonducted fans and 

8 total for ducted fans, so that the metric correlates 

9 to the energy consumed, for one reason, and to 

10 encourage the right behavior and obtain the right 

11 results.

12 If you go to the next slide, there is a 

13 couple of misconceptions that I think that I know, you 

14 know, why they occur. One is that fan static pressure 

15 and efficiency is calculated from total pressure and 

16 efficiency. And I know that our standard AMCA 210 and 

17 5801 look like that because of the way they're 

18 written. But if you look deeper into those standards, 

19 the fan static pressure is what is measured during a 

20 test, and then the velocity, the average velocity 

21 pressure, is added on to that to get fan total 

22 pressure. And then at the end, we say in order to get 

23 fan static pressure you subtract it off again.

24 So there's a misconception that total 

25 pressure is actually measured, but it's not. It isn't 
330

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 during that test. In the static -- so the fan static 

2 pressure and the fan static efficiency can just be 

3 calculated directly from the measured values.

4 Secondly, I think people get twisted around 

5 a little bit and think if we're not using total 

6 efficiency we'll be ignoring energy that goes into the 

7 accelerating of the air. And it's just kind of 

8 getting it mixed up a little bit. Actually, the 

9 opposite is true. If we use total efficiency for a 

10 nonducted fan, we're accrediting fans for energy that 

11 doesn't get used, the velocity pressure at the 

12 discharge of the fan. And so the difference -- the 

13 best example I think is just a sidewall prop fan, 

14 small versus large, can develop the same total 

15 pressure, can operate at the same total efficiency. 

16 But the static pressure would not be as high for that 

17 small fan because such a large portion is in velocity 

18 pressure.

19 What's the next one? Oh, arguments. So 

20 we've argued about this within AMCA because there are 

21 some that I'm going to say didn't understand it. But 

22 anyways, we've got a couple of pages about fan 

23 velocity pressure in a nonducted fan as being not 

24 useful energy. And other people -- Wade Smith has 

25 said that if we use total efficiency for fans without 
331

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 outlet ducts, it gives an advantage to smaller fans, 

2 and we don't want to do that. We want to save energy.

3 Mark Steven's words that he -- he talks 

4 about the industry is not willing to pay for that 

5 velocity pressure in fans. And the European 

6 regulation also understand that and uses a dual --

7 well, use static and total pressure, but it's not, 

8 like I say in these notes, it's not a dual metric. 

9 It's just a different measurement applied to two 

10 different fan types.

11 And, you know, I think one of the

12 purposes -- we don't talk about a goal, but a goal 

13 with any metric is to have a correlation with the 

14 energy consumed. In the next slide, and I don't think 

15 this is too controversial, but in the next slide, you 

16 know, we're proposing a metric based on how the fan is 

17 tested. It would be ideal if we knew how the fan was 

18 applied, but we don't. And so we're trying to reflect 

19 that. And this is just looking at those two different 

20 cases, ducted and nonducted, and how well does the 

21 testing correlate with how they're applied.

22 If the fan is tested nonducted and applied 

23 nonducted, obviously the two correlate. Or if it's 

24 tested ducted and applied ducted, there's correlation 

25 there also. The bottom left-hand box, if a fan was 
332

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 tested nonducted, it will never be applied in a ducted 

2 situation. So that's kind of, that's a bold term 

3 there, never. And the reason I say that is because if 

4 we have any means to apply a duct to a fan, we'll test 

5 it that way because we get better results. And so the 

6 only fans that we test nonducted are those that don't 

7 have a flange or a defined outlet where we can put a 

8 duct on.

9 So the bottom left doesn't exist. The top 

10 right are the ones where we don't quite match up. So, 

11 if we test a fan that's ducted and it's applied 

12 nonducted -- and I listed two major ones, double-wide 

13 fans and air handlers that are blow-through, so 

14 they're not on the end of the air handler. Those 

15 would be almost always tested as a ducted outlet 

16 because they might be applied as a ducted outlet, and 

17 yet they're quite often applied nonducted.

18 And then utility fans that you may find on a 

19 roof that's just an exhaust fan that's fairly common 

20 in a -- which would be the responsibility of the 

21 contractor to provide an outlet duct, which oftentimes 

22 they don't.

23 So those are two major ones, and we could 

24 think of a lot of smaller ones, niches. But I guess 

25 that's kind of a point of discussion here is, does 
333

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 that require any more -- any more consideration for 

2 that corner, that quadrant, the top-right quadrant 

3 there.

4 MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly with AAON. When 

5 you say ducted, you're meaning primarily discharge?

6 MR. MATHSON: Only discharge, yes.

7 MR. FLY: Only discharge.

8 MR. MATHSON: It doesn't --

9 MR. FLY: Even though the fan performance 

10 will change if you duct the inlet or don't duct the 

11 inlet.

12 MR. MATHSON: Right. The fan performance 

13 won't change appreciably if you duct the inlet or the 

14 outlet. I'm sorry. If you duct the inlet.

15 MR. WOLF: This is Mike Wolf. Let me maybe 

16 phrase that a different way, Mark. For a ducted -- I 

17 mean, first of all, I think the answer is yes. It's 

18 just for ducted outlet, okay? But for a ducted inlet, 

19 for your ducted inlet, you're going to take that into 

20 account in your external static pressure calculation 

21 for selecting the fan, I think, usually. Am I wrong 

22 there? At least that's been my experience.

23 MR. MATHSON: Well, this is Tim again. As 

24 far as an AMCA fan test goes, whether we put a duct on 

25 the inlet or we put an inlet bell on the fan on the 
334

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 inlet, we get about the same performance, and the bell 

2 just represents a no-loss entry into the duct. Well, 

3 different -- yeah, different fans will behave slightly 

4 differently.

5 MR. HARTLEIN: Yeah. This is Dan Hartlein, 

6 TCF. I was just commenting that the inlet bell quite 

7 often is actually better than the duct, from an inlet 

8 configuration perspective. So there may be more loss 

9 in the duct than there is actually in the inlet valve 

10 as a rule.

11 Is there any -- a question for me would be 

12 is there any controversy to this -- to our -- because 

13 we're almost discussing it like we're trying to sell 

14 something here, and it sounds to me in the room it 

15 feels like everybody agrees that this is good.

16 MS. JAKOBS: Well, this is Diane from --

17 MR. HARTLEIN: No, we're not there yet, 

18 Diane?

19 MS. JAKOBS: -- Rheem.

20 MR. HARTLEIN: Okay.

21 MS. JAKOBS: So are you saying that upper 

22 right-hand box is a loophole so that the --

23 MR. MATHSON: Well, this is Tim. I would 

24 say it's the type of fan where the metric, which would 

25 be based on how the fan is tested, wouldn't reflect 
335

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 necessarily the energy consumed as applied. But in 

2 those two cases that I put there, they're very close. 

3 Those two cases are not a problem. The bigger 

4 problem would be is if we tested a fan or had a metric 

5 in total efficiency and it was applied nonducted. I 

6 mean it was -- I'm sorry. If there was a significant 

7 velocity pressure component, like a propeller fan.

8 MR. HARTLEIN: Diane, if I could. This is 

9 Dan, TCF. I think in my experience that square is 

10 limited where we've actually tested a ducted fan 

11 that's been applied in a nonducted configuration. 

12 There are some pretty unique applications when that 

13 happens. I'm thinking of a device we build that 

14 actually dries the greens for a golf course, for 

15 example, okay? So they use a centrifugal fan to do 

16 that. They put on a nozzle on it. Then they're 

17 trying to blow as much high-velocity air across, so 

18 they're converting a fan to be a velocity machine in 

19 that case. Perhaps it's not a fan in that case. It's 

20 doing something different.

21 What's that? Yeah, we do also fans -- if 

22 anybody in the room is a skier, the fans that you see 

23 in the snow machines, those are also high-velocity 

24 machines which are undoubtedly rated as a ducted fan 

25 because typically that fan would be applied, it's the 
336

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 anomaly that it's applied without a duct.

2 I had another thought as we went there. Oh, 

3 dust suppression in a coal yard, for example, we will 

4 use a very, very similar machine in order to blow mist 

5 into a dusty environment because the mist will tend to 

6 serve as a surfactant and pull the dust out of the air 

7 in the industrial market.

8 So these are all very, very small and unique 

9 and special applications. I would be hard-pressed --

10 maybe somebody else in the room could -- to come up 

11 with a large population of fans that are tested ducted 

12 and then applied unducted. I think they're the more 

13 the exception, not the rule, would be my thinking.

14 MR. SMILEY: Bill Smiley, Trane. I don't 

15 necessarily agree with that because in a lot of

16 applied products, the fan is a housed centrifugal fan, 

17 and it is blasted right into a blow-through situation, 

18 just like he says on the slide.

19 MR. HARTLEIN: Yeah. But in that --

20 MR. SMILEY: So there is no discharge on the 

21 fan.

22 MR. HARTLEIN: In that case, there is a 

23 system resistance as well. But you're right, yeah.

24 MR. SMILEY: But the other point I want to 

25 make is if you look at the definition of total 
337

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 pressure per AMCA, which is the measured static 

2 pressure plus the velocity pressure calculated from a 

3 discharge area, and you said, well, whether it's got a 

4 duct or not, if it's unducted, the static pressure is 

5 the total pressure based on that definition because 

6 the area is infinite.

7 MR. BUSHNELL: Peter Bushnell with Carrier 

8 again. I had a few comments on this. First on the 

9 whole -- this chart here that we're looking at. I 

10 think this is kind of consistent with what we were 

11 talking about yesterday in the EU-327, categories A, 

12 B, C, D. So they sort of have this already set, and I 

13 think it's kind of fine the way they have it.

14 If you don't have an outlet duct, you should 

15 be using static pressure and static efficiency very, 

16 very clear. I don't think -- I mean, this goes way 

17 beyond sort of just sort of this industry thing. This 

18 is like basic turbo machinery. It's like in the 

19 textbooks, you know, very basic stuff.

20 So there's no doubt that if you don't have 

21 an outlet duct you should be talking about the static 

22 efficiency and static pressure. And so why is that 

23 really important? I think Tim was alluding to this 

24 before and some of the other folks that commented. We 

25 really want to have high static efficiency when we're 
338

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 driving flow out to free discharge, and one of the 

2 ways to achieve that is, as Tim mentioned, you can 

3 have a -- just say this is an axial fan. You can have 

4 a bigger axial fan. It will have a higher static 

5 efficiency because you're basically not blowing all 

6 that kinetic energy out through the outlet of the fan. 

7 You know, you're reducing the discharged kinetic 

8 energy loss.

9 The other way to deal with that is to put a 

10 diffuser on the outlet and recover that kinetic energy 

11 and transform it to static pressure. And these are 

12 the kinds of things that DOE should be really 

13 encouraging, is that, you know, we really want to seek 

14 energy efficiency for fans where we have these kinds 

15 of abrupt discharge conditions that are necessary in 

16 many cases, like free discharge in axial fans on a 

17 condensing system. Encouraging means for recovering 

18 that energy, that discharged energy, and minimizing 

19 the exit loss is a big opportunity.

20 And the previous comments about centrifugal 

21 fans embedded in systems and abruptly discharging, 

22 again, there's many cases where we need to do that in 

23 equipment due to flow distribution. We need to blow 

24 through or draw through heat exchangers that are in 

25 close proximity to the fan, and we actually achieve 
339

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 interaction effects that can even be favorable and 

2 help the fan and the system net performance and energy 

3 draw in those cases. But it's still like the static 

4 pressure that matters in those cases, the static 

5 efficiency, and when we achieve high static efficiency 

6 in those embedded systems where you have abrupt 

7 discharge, we're doing the right things when we drive 

8 that static efficiency.

9 So, again, I think it's very clear. If you 

10 look at the European regulation, they've got it 

11 figured out. I think we can learn from that. I 

12 wasn't on earlier. I don't know if you brought that 

13 back up. We talked about it a little bit yesterday. 

14 But I don't think this should be a controversial area. 

15 I think this should be really pretty clear, static 

16 efficiency, static pressure whenever we're discharging 

17 abruptly and losing the energy at the exit.

18 MR. HARTLEIN: So can I -- this is Dan from 

19 Twin City Fan. I agree 100 percent with what you 

20 said. My question back to the DOE, when the NODA came 

21 out, it went mostly or predominantly or all I guess to 

22 total, didn't it? And so our question is these 

23 arguments that have been made here today, it seems to 

24 me we've got pretty good consensus around it, with the 

25 exception of the NODA. So can you guys give us some 
340

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 insight into what your thinking was? You've had some 

2 good technical minds wrapping your heads around this 

3 for a while. Where were you with total as opposed to 

4 the total/static argument?

5 MS. ARMSTRONG: We're ready to vote.

6 MR. HARTLEIN: Ah, okay.

7 MS. ARMSTRONG: How about that?

8 MR. HARTLEIN: Great. Thank you.

9 MR. MATHSON: This is Tim from Greenheck. 

10 Just one more comment. As long as it looks like 

11 there's pretty good consensus here, the one -- well, 

12 Dan mentioned a couple of exceptions, and I'll just 

13 mention another one, jet tunnel fans. In the European 

14 regulation, they will be -- so that's a fan that's 

15 free discharge, but its purpose is to increase the 

16 momentum of the air, and so that's not wasted energy 

17 in that case. So what they are doing is they're 

18 rating that jet tunnel fan in total efficiency for 

19 that purpose. So there may be other exceptions to 

20 that, like laboratory exhaust fans or something, so 

21 just to keep that in mind. As a general rule, we're 

22 talking about differentiating into these two different 

23 ducted and nonducted categories, but there may be a 

24 couple of exceptions.

25 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay..
341

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. BUSHNELL: It's Peter again. I think 

2 even though I was kind of firm about that whole thing 

3 with, you know, the delineation, there are systems 

4 where even though static pressure is really what we're 

5 looking at, static efficiency like for say a 

6 condensing or an air-cooled chiller, we do care about 

7 the discharged kinetic energy because we need to get 

8 the heat away from the system.

9 And so the optimal design point for the fans 

10 in some of those systems may be not exactly right on 

11 peak static efficiency or peak total. It's kind of 

12 something that's a little bit special to really 

13 optimize at the system level. I think there have been 

14 some comments made about whether or not heat rejection 

15 equipment should be potentially exempt from this, and 

16 that's one of the -- that might be a factor, I think, 

17 is that heat rejection equipment, you need to move the 

18 heat away and use that kinetic energy to do that.

19 MR. SMILEY: This is Bill Smiley. To add on 

20 to that comment, a typical nonducted application of an 

21 air conditioning piece of equipment like a fan coil 

22 needs to have a certain velocity leaving the unit so 

23 that you get the throw and distribution of the cool 

24 air or heated air or ventilation air, whichever of 

25 those that you're after.
342

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. BURDICK: This is Larry Burdick. I 

2 would agree with those comments that you want to 

3 remove the heated air maybe in our case away from the 

4 unit to avoid recirculation, avoid upset situations or 

5 severe upset situations in low ambient winds, or those 

6 types of conditions.

7 MS. ARMSTRONG: After the not-so8 controversial discussion, here is where we are. What 

9 you've heard is the presentation of metric. It's been 

10 a broad presentation. We would like to get a vote 

11 before lunch, and this will be the first one. So 

12 generally speaking, this would be the fan efficiency 

13 equation. This is going to show static efficiency for 

14 nonducted fans. It's going to show total pressure at 

15 the operating point for ducted fans, or static 

16 efficiency and total efficiency and then static 

17 pressure and total pressure. So are we ready to vote, 

18 yes or no?

19 MR. SMITH: What are we voting on?

20 MS. ARMSTRONG: That. So the constants have 

21 to be determined and will be determined as we move 

22 along in the analysis. But you're generally voting on 

23 the form of the equation, the components of the 

24 equation, and then the allotment of static versus 

25 total for ducted versus nonducted, or vice versa I 
343

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 guess is the way I just said it.

2 MR. SMILEY: Does it include the electrical 

3 portion, this brake horsepower?

4 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah.

5 MALE VOICE: Use your microphone, please.

6 MR. SMILEY: Sorry. This is Bill Smiley.

7 MR. BUSHNELL: Before you vote on this, you 

8 might want to be really clear on the definition of 

9 static efficiency and total efficiency from a very 

10 basic standpoint. These are the definitions of what 

11 you're using for your metrics I guess, the standard. 

12 But I'm not sure that DOE has a completely clear 

13 indication of what the definition of fan static 

14 efficiency is and total efficiency based on what I've 

15 read.

16 MS. ARMSTRONG: It's on the slide.

17 MR. SMILEY: This is Bill Smiley of Trane. 

18 It's on the slide. It's flow times pressure divided 

19 by horsepower and a conversion factor.

20 MR. BUSHNELL: That's not the definition of 

21 static efficiency --

22 MR. SMILEY: What?.

23 MR. BUSHNELL: -- for a fan.

24 MR. SMILEY: I'm sorry. What is then? Can 

25 you enlighten us?
344

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. BUSHNELL: There's a definition for 

2 static efficiency for a fan is that it's the pressure, 

3 the static pressure, the product of the static 

4 pressure times the flow rate divided by the shaft 

5 input power.

6 MR. SMILEY: That's just what we said. We 

7 said brake horsepower is shaft input power a little 

8 bit ago.

9 MR. BUSHNELL: Okay.

10 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, Bob, I'm going to ask 

11 you, are you in a position to vote, or do you need 

12 lunch to talk with him?

13 MR. WHITWELL: I think I need lunch to talk 

14 with Peter.

15 MS. ARMSTRONG: Because you guys are on the 

16 same -- yep.

17 MS. WALTNER: This is Meg. I just, I have a 

18 question probably for Sanaee. I just wanted to 

19 understand, you know, did DOE have a different 

20 rationale for using total pressure for everything in 

21 the -- no.

22 MS. ARMSTRONG: Not necessarily. We kept 

23 the same just for an equitable standpoint, but there 

24 wasn't a strong opinion one way or the other, yeah.

25 Yeah. So we have one person -- Bob, we have 
345

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 one person that's leaving early and needs -- it would 

2 be a good idea if he could vote before lunch. Can you 

3 resolve it in five minutes or less?

4 MALE VOICE: We can try.

5 MS. ARMSTRONG: Can you go try for five 

6 minutes, please?

7 MR. WHITWELL: Hey. Hey, Peter?

8 MR. BUSHNELL: Yeah.

9 MR. WHITWELL: This is Bob. Can you just 

10 text me quick the phone number that you're at so that 

11 we can give you a call? I'll call you along with a 

12 couple of the other manufacturers, okay?

13 MR. BUSHNELL: Sure. Okay.

14 MR. WHITWELL: Okay, thanks. Yeah. So you 

15 can email it to me. I'll get it out of my phone, 

16 okay?

17 MS. ARMSTRONG: So five minutes, we'll 

18 reconvene to vote on the slide, yeah.

19 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

20 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, Sam, I'm going to ask 

21 you can you provide a 60-second overview of what we're 

22 voting on on this slide.

23 MR. JASINSKI: Sure. So what we're voting 

24 on here is just the general form of the equation to 

25 determine the target efficiency and based on that 
346

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 target efficiency what the maximum allowable brake 

2 horsepower would be at any given operating point. And 

3 we've added in red text the modification that for 

4 ducted fans P would be total pressure and efficiency 

5 would be total efficiency, and for nonducted fans P 

6 would be static pressure and the efficiency would be 

7 static efficiency.

8 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. Can you guys call a 

9 vote?

10 MR. BOSWELL: Okay. So a vote for, I guess 

11 we're doing thumbs up, agreement, can live with; 

12 thumbs down, not in agreement.

13 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, Joanna, you have to tell 

14 us your vote because you're unmuted.

15 MS. MAUER: Do I say that my thumb is up?

16 MR. BOSWELL: Okay. Okay. So I --

17 MS. ARMSTRONG: We'll get that. Vote first.

18 MR. BOSWELL: Okay. So I'm saying counting 

19 thumbs down, I'm seeing one, two, three, four. So we 

20 do not have a consensus. Our definition of consensus 

21 is if we have three negative votes there is no 

22 consensus, so I guess what I would --

23 MS. ARMSTRONG: Four.

24 MR. BOSWELL: Four.

25 MR. FINE: And who are the four negative 
347

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 votes besides that guy?

2 MR. BOSWELL: Okay. I'm sorry, I'm looking 

3 at the wrong one. Somebody left the wrong stack of --

4 okay. So it is four.

5 MR. FINE: We do have a rule, but if you 

6 vote against you have to explain why. So why don't we 

7 start with --

8 MALE VOICE: I'll ask Bill to start.

9 MR. SMILEY: The reason I voted --

10 MALE VOICE: Excuse me. I think you only 

11 have three negative votes.

12 MS. ARMSTRONG: You have AHRI right behind 

13 you. Karim? Karim is the alternate for Laura.

14 MR. BOSWELL: He's the alternate for Laura?

15 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah.

16 MR. FINE: Why don't we start with you, 

17 Bill, and you can say why --

18 MR. SMILEY: This is Bill Smiley, Trane. 

19 There's a couple of issues I have, and I hope I can 

20 resolve them. One is I'd like to see a singular 

21 definition of what efficiency is, as like a line above 

22 that equation, that first equation. What is the 

23 definition of efficiency? And the second thing is --

24 MS. ARMSTRONG: I don't understand that. 

25 What are you asking for? Like what is the metric 
348

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 going to be?

2 MR. SMILEY: I want to see a singular 

3 definition of what static efficiency and total 

4 efficiency are without that middle stuff in there. I 

5 want to see it --

6 MR. JASINSKI: What's the middle stuff 

7 you're talking about?

8 MR. SMILEY: There's an equation there with 

9 a left-hand side of the equal sign, there's a part 

10 that's in between the two equal signs, and then 

11 there's a third part to the right.

12 MR. JASINSKI: You want a definition for 

13 this term here?

14 MR. SMILEY: Yes.

15 MR. JASINSKI: And this is not sufficient? 

16 I'm saying you want it in --

17 MR. SMILEY: I want a singular definition.

18 MS. ARMSTRONG: He wants either the middle 

19 or the right, not both.

20 MR. SMILEY: Yes.

21 MR. JASINSKI: I see.

22 MS. ARMSTRONG: In other words, he's 

23 asserting they're not equivalent.

24 MR. SMILEY: I don't know.

25 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay.
349

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. SMILEY: I don't know if they're 

2 equivalent. I suspect that they may be, but for the 

3 definition, I want a singular definition, not a dual 

4 definition, okay?

5 MS. IYAMA: This is Sanaee. Would you be 

6 comfortable if we deleted this?

7 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, just take that out.

8 MS. IYAMA: And then this?

9 MR. SMILEY: No. I want to see what the 

10 official technical definition of efficiency is. And 

11 if you are saying that the definition of efficiency is 

12 some bogus or some bogey factor target -- excuse me. 

13 I didn't mean to say bogus. Some bogey factor target 

14 efficiency times Q over P divided by the quantities of 

15 Q+Q times P+P, that is not the industry accepted 

16 definition of what efficiency is currently. What I 

17 want to see is what that definition is. It's a simple 

18 equation you put right above that.

19 Now it may in the final, a month or two from 

20 now, end up being exactly what that is, but I cannot 

21 support that form of a definition of efficiency until 

22 I understand how it affects the products of the 

23 company that I represent.

24 I have not had four years to do all this 

25 analysis and study all this data. I appreciate all 
350

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 the work that's been done to get to this point and I 

2 think there's a lot of smart people doing a lot of 

3 highly technical stuff to get here, the data to back 

4 it. But my industry, my company has not had a chance 

5 that I'm aware of to evaluate this, so I cannot in a 

6 true sense vote for this until I understand what the 

7 implication is. There may be a better way. I don't 

8 know. That's why I'm voting no.

9 MR. JASINSKI: Can I ask a clarifying 

10 question? So it sounded like you were trying to 

11 evaluate whether efficiency STD is equivalent to the 

12 industry accepted efficiency definition.

13 I think the answer is no, but not because 

14 it's not equivalent and it should be, but the target, 

15 efficiency target would be equivalent to the industry 

16 defined definition of efficiency, static efficiency or 

17 total efficiency, and the efficiency STD basically is 

18 modified by that second term in that equation to be 

19 de-rated with flow and pressure to account for the 

20 inherent difficulty in achieving higher efficiencies 

21 at lower airflows and lower pressures.

22 Am I right in that, Wade?

23 So all I'm trying to clarify is that for 

24 your exercise the comparison should be between -- the 

25 intent is that efficiency target is equivalent to the 
351

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 industry definitions that you're talking about, not 

2 the efficiency STD.

3 MALE VOICE: Make that clear.

4 MR. JASINSKI: Okay.

5 MR. SMILEY: Bill Smiley, Trane. If you 

6 would make that clear --

7 MS. ARMSTRONG: You can suggest stuff.

8 MR. SMILEY: If you would make that clear, 

9 that would be very good.

10 MR. JASINSKI: Okay.

11 MR. SMILEY: Ashley, you had a comment?

12 MS. ARMSTRONG: I said you can make 

13 suggestions.

14 MR. SMILEY: I just did. That's a 

15 suggestion. I still cannot vote for that form of the 

16 equation that you have up there because I don't 

17 understand how that interacts with the products that 

18 my company manufactures.

19 MS. ARMSTRONG: But that's like saying --

20 MR. SMILEY: I have not had a chance to 

21 evaluate it. I don't know if that's the right form. 

22 It might be there should be a squared function in 

23 there.

24 MS. ARMSTRONG: So can I ask a question 

25 then?
352

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. SMILEY: It might be a log function in 

2 there. I don't know.

3 MS. ARMSTRONG: Are you taking the position 

4 then at the table that you're not going to vote on 

5 anything until you determine if you agree to the 

6 standard level at the very end? Because that's what 

7 you're saying. Until you can agree to how the 

8 standard impacts your company, are you not going to be 

9 voting on anything? Because I think the committee 

10 should know that, because we can't make progress that 

11 way. Is that your position?

12 MR. SMILEY: This is Bill Smiley, Trane. 

13 That is not my position. My position is I need time 

14 to evaluate, understand, and analyze what all this is 

15 going to do to my company so that I can make an 

16 intelligent vote on what I think is right and what we 

17 think is right. You're asking for us to --

18 MS. ARMSTRONG: We're not voting on the 

19 targets, right? We're voting on the form of the 

20 equation.

21 MR. SMILEY: I know, I know we're voting on 

22 the form of the equation. I just told you I don't 

23 know that I would agree that that's the correct and 

24 only form the equation could ever be in. I don't 

25 know. Maybe there's other function that would be 
353

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 better.

2 MR. MATHSON: A comment. This is Tim 

3 Mathson from Greenheck. I can understand there's some 

4 confusion because there's several steps that are 

5 included in one line here, and I think if we just 

6 separated those out step by step it would be more 

7 clear as to what we're voting on.

8 MR. FINE: Well, at this point, just as sort 

9 of a procedural way to end this, I think there should 

10 be some more discussion on the point that Bill's 

11 raising. It would be valuable to talk about it more. 

12 But maybe we could first go and let everybody be 

13 heard who had voted against it. Maybe they'll have 

14 some of the same common concerns, and then we can deal 

15 with the concerns and see if we can't, how do you want 

16 to say it --

17 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. That's okay. Do you 

18 want to? I mean, I think at this point, you know, we 

19 go to lunch. I mean, that's where we are. This is 

20 the most simplistic thing we need to wrap our hands 

21 around in order to start making progress with metric 

22 and then test procedure analysis so you can actually 

23 talk about levels and see how things might impact your 

24 company. You know, this is how we have to move 

25 forward.
354

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 We can try to break down this into 

2 components. Actually, why don't you guys try and 

3 break this down into components as to what you would 

4 like to see and bring it back to the group for 

5 discussion after lunch so we can move forward. I 

6 think that's reasonable.

7 MR. BOSWELL: The other thing that I would 

8 say is, you know, the whole idea with trying to reach 

9 consensus as we go along is to kind of build towards a 

10 final term sheet. Ultimately there's a vote on the 

11 final term sheet so that if other complications come 

12 up that people didn't anticipate, I don't think that a 

13 vote on any particular matter forecloses that. It's 

14 just a way of trying to build towards seeing if we can 

15 reach consensus on a term sheet.

16 MR. FINE: So why don't we take a break for 

17 lunch and come back and --

18 MR. BOSWELL: It is now about 10 after 12. 

19 I presume some people are going to want to talk during 

20 lunch. And we're breaking at 3:00 today as I recall.

21 Okay. So we will return at 1:00.

22 (Whereupon, at 12:09 p.m., the meeting in 

23 the above-entitled matter was recessed, to reconvene 

24 at 1:00 p.m. this same day, Tuesday, May 19, 2015.)

25 //
355

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

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

2 (1:14 p.m.)

3 MR. JASINSKI: Okay. So, to pick up where 

4 we left off, I think we want to resume the post-voting 

5 discussions. We're going to allow all the "no" votes 

6 to provide their explanation for why they're voting 

7 no, give them an opportunity to present any 

8 alternatives if they have them, and if they don't have 

9 an alternative ready to be presented, to explain a 

10 path forward in terms of what they're willing to do to 

11 get to an alternative and on what time frame.

12 So we'll just kind of go through that 

13 methodically, give each of them a chance to make those 

14 statements, and then after that I think what we will 

15 do is just continue to show what the department has 

16 done in terms of metric, test procedure, et cetera, 

17 just so that we can get feedback on those things that 

18 have already been done and inform everyone else of 

19 what those things are.

20 So, Bill, I think we left off with you. You 

21 just handed me a note to try to clarify some of the 

22 changes that you were suggesting. But why don't we 

23 start over now that everybody's food coma is starting 

24 and we'll just, you know, explain why you voted no, 

25 any alternative, and if you don't have an alternative 
356

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 what the path forward to get an alternative would be.

2 MR. SMILEY: Okay. Bill Smiley, Trane. The 

3 addition I asked for to be added to this slide was the 

4 singular definition of what efficiency is, and I gave 

5 you on a piece of paper what that efficiency would be 

6 for both static and total. The difference would just 

7 be the pressure.

8 MR. JASINSKI: Right. I have the static one 

9 here, but the changes would be that the fan efficiency 

10 would be total fan efficiency and the pressure would 

11 be total pressure.

12 Is this big enough for everyone? I can try 

13 to make it a little bit bigger.

14 MR. SMILEY: Now the second comment. In 

15 general, I agree that an equation that compensates for 

16 operating a point on a fan and a fan selection that is 

17 based on performance with some adjustment for flow and 

18 pressure similar to what's shown up there is a good 

19 thing. I appreciate all the work that AMCA and DOE 

20 and you guys have done to develop this metric. The 

21 only problem I have is the form of that equation. I 

22 don't know if that's the optimum form of the equation 

23 based on the products that my company makes. I was 

24 told that somebody from my company participated in 

25 this and I will have to check with them and get a data 
357

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 dump from them.

2 In general, I agree with the concept of 

3 having an equation similar to this. What I don't know 

4 yet, because I have no data to back it or no 

5 knowledge, is should that be exactly the form where 

6 you add a little bit of CFM and you add a little bit 

7 of pressure to come up with the relationship. That's 

8 what I was voting no against. I was understanding 

9 that if I voted yes that would be written in stone and 

10 could never be changed. If that is not true, then 

11 restate what we're voting on, I may change my vote. I 

12 don't know. I don't know the procedures and the 

13 process here, but that's basically my comment.

14 MR. JASINSKI: Okay. We were voting on the 

15 general form, so what I would -- but it's good to know 

16 that you are in general agreement with the concept. 

17 So I think in keeping with the ground rules we would 

18 just ask what is -- so you don't have an alternative 

19 immediately. What can be done to get that 

20 alternative? What can you do to get that alternative 

21 and what's the time frame to do it?

22 MR. SMILEY: I would say by the end of the 

23 week if he's available I can consult the other person 

24 within the company that did a considerable amount of 

25 work on this.
358

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. JASINSKI: Okay.

2 MR. SMILEY: And I would defer until I get 

3 to that point. I make an assumption now that he 

4 considered all products in scope and that his data 

5 dump and opinion is valid, but I would reserve that if 

6 he did not consider all potential products that I may 

7 request a little more time to evaluate that.

8 MR. JASINSKI: Okay.

9 MR. SMILEY: But again, in concept, I'm 

10 agreeing with this type of methodology. I'm not 

11 trying to stall anything. I'm not trying to be a 

12 roadblock. And I know some people's perception is 

13 we've had a long time to think about this and to look 

14 at it and work on it, but to tell you the truth, I 

15 haven't.

16 MR. JASINSKI: Okay. So I think that's a 

17 good example of exactly what we want to hear in terms 

18 of making progress. So for each of the other "no" 

19 votes, I would say if you follow, if you do exactly 

20 what Bill just did, I think that's what will be most 

21 helpful. So I don't know who wants to go next. 

22 Larry, did you want to weigh in?

23 MR. BURDICK: I have a message that they 

24 can't hear on the webinar.

25 MS. ARMSTRONG: We're working on it.
359

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. JASINSKI: Okay.

2 MS. ARMSTRONG: We have to get our audio 

3 folks in here.

4 MR. BURDICK: Okay. So Larry with SPX. One 

5 of the things that I would be interested in is seeing, 

6 you know, what the further development of this is. 

7 You know, there's been two different NODAs published, 

8 have evaluated, you know, the one that's labeled NODA 

9 2, was not, you know, necessarily certain that it was 

10 working properly or what all that consisted of. You 

11 know, we'd like to see, I think I'd like to see a full 

12 explanation of that, you know, as part of this.

13 In general, I'm in agreement with, you know, 

14 this page, but I don't know how it affects, you know, 

15 things downstream.

16 MR. JASINSKI: Okay. So I think we're 

17 planning to get into --

18 MS. ARMSTRONG: I was going to say I think 

19 at our next meeting our plan is to walk through the 

20 NODA analysis and those spreadsheets, so hopefully 

21 that will give you the tools necessary to come to an 

22 opinion on this one.

23 MR. BURDICK: Yeah. And, Ashley, I would 

24 request that we have that available to everyone, you 

25 know, well before the meeting so that we can perform 
360

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 what if's and other scenarios.

2 MS. ARMSTRONG: Tools?

3 MR. BURDICK: Yes.

4 MS. ARMSTRONG: So they're available now and 

5 I've downloaded them out of our docket and I can get 

6 them working. So, if you've downloaded a version 

7 that's not working, let me know after the meeting so 

8 we can fix that.

9 MR. BURDICK: Fair enough.

10 MS. ARMSTRONG: Because they should be able 

11 to be working now, the same ones that have been in the 

12 docket.

13 MR. JASINSKI: Okay. I think that's two out 

14 of the four. Do we have -- go for it.

15 MR. AMRANE: This is Karim with AHRI. I 

16 think I consider the same as Bill. I think with the 

17 addition here, I think we're fine with that.

18 Regarding a vote, I think it would be good 

19 if we decide to vote on this slide that at least this 

20 vote should be contingent upon having the possibility 

21 of modifying this equation. If there's new data that 

22 shows that we can modify the equation in the future or 

23 if you want to give us more time to come back, you 

24 know, at the next meeting with a definite yes or no. 

25 It's up to you how you want to proceed.
361

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. JASINSKI: Okay. Next meeting. We'll 

2 take care of it on the next meeting. There was one 

3 more.

4 MR. ROY: Aniruddh Roy, Goodman. I share 

5 some of the same concerns as Bill and Karim mentioned 

6 and they've been addressed through the conversation, 

7 so no further comments.

8 MR. JASINSKI: Okay. Thank you.

9 So I think at this point we will just 

10 continue with a little bit more information in terms 

11 of the test procedure. I think it's going to come in 

12 the form of just kind of a list of some information 

13 that we're seeking.

14 MS. IYAMA: All right. So we've got two 

15 sets of slides. The first one is sort of an overview 

16 of the default values that were mentioned earlier to 

17 get to the wire-to-air metric. Let's see. Okay. So 

18 let's see if I can open the previous presentation.

19 (Pause.)

20 MS. IYAMA: Okay. So earlier we saw this 

21 concept of adding default values to get to wire-to-air 

22 metric, although we would be testing for shaft input 

23 power, so that's when establishing the consumption of 

24 the fan.

25 And then here, that energy consumption of 
362

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 the fan would be compared to the standard level, so 

2 based on that fan efficiency equation that Sam talked 

3 about, combined with default values. Default values 

4 for the motor, transmissions, and then for the fan, if 

5 it's sold with controls, default values for the 

6 controls. So that's what we're going to go through 

7 here.

8 So for default values for the motor, when 

9 calculating what in the NODA is called FER standard, 

10 which would be the maximum allowable electrical input 

11 power of the fan, we used motor efficiency values that 

12 were at the level of the upcoming standard for medium 

13 electric motors. That's sort of a description of what 

14 the scope of that regulation is, the medium electric 

15 motor's regulation. Basically it's three phase AC 

16 induction motors.

17 Some of the exclusions which are pretty 

18 important when we're looking at fan is that this 

19 regulation doesn't cover totally enclosed air over 

20 motors which are often used to drive fans.

21 MR. SMILEY: Excuse me. This is Bill 

22 Smiley, Trane. What regulation are you talking about 

23 that doesn't cover the TEAO motors?

24 MS. IYAMA: The medium electric motors.

25 MR. SMILEY: Oh, okay. The NEMA code.
363

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MS. IYAMA: The DOE regulation.

2 MR. SMILEY: So is this a new DOE standard 

3 that's coming out?

4 MS. IYAMA: So the final rule has been 

5 published and I think it's going to be starting in 

6 2016 if I'm not mistaken.

7 MR. SMILEY: So a new motor efficiency 

8 standard covering what motors again?

9 MS. IYAMA: These motors.

10 MR. SMILEY: So this is an update to the 

11 prior standard?

12 MS. IYAMA: Yup.

13 MR. SMILEY: So we'll be having new motors 

14 that we'll have to qualify for all our equipment 

15 presumably.

16 MS. IYAMA: If it's motors in the scope of 

17 that regulation which are described on here, which 

18 basically it's AC induction, three phase motors, with 

19 a few exceptions that are listed below. And I think 

20 for fans the most significant one is the TEAO motors.

21 So, you know, the idea is that those default 

22 values are going to be representing sort of the 

23 conservative side of the efficiency of a motor found 

24 today on the market, and so here in the NODA and in 

25 the calculation of the metric these are the values we 
364

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 used.

2 I'm also going to present in the next slide 

3 some default values for TEAO motors. These were not 

4 used in the NODA. It's just to show one way that we 

5 could do this and get feedback from the working group.

6 MR. HAUER: Sanaee, it's Armin Hauer of ebm7 papst. Are you using minimum efficiencies or nominal

8 efficiencies according to the regulation?

9 MS. IYAMA: So I'm going to go through those 

10 values in the next slide. So for motors that are AC 

11 three phase and regulated motors, we would be using 

12 those default values which are here. And again, 

13 that's up for discussion, but what we have in the 

14 first table is the table that comes directly from the 

15 CFR, the medium electric motor regulation where, you 

16 know, they have one nominal efficiency value for each 

17 motor category, which is a combination of enclosure, 

18 pole, and horsepower.

19 Now, if you have a bare shaft fan and you 

20 need to calculate the wire to air, you know, what 

21 enclosure do you choose? That's the first question we 

22 had to find a solution to, and then what pole 

23 configuration do you choose and what horsepower do you 

24 choose?

25 And in the NODA, and again, like if you have 
365

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 feedback on that, we can address each of these sort of 

2 selection criteria for picking a default motor. In 

3 the NODA, we didn't know what the pole would be. We 

4 didn't have speed information. What we had was a lot 

5 of market data on the pole configurations that are 

6 sold on the market and some speed data from one 

7 manufacturer. So we ended up using sort of a market 

8 average across all pole configurations. The exact 

9 weights are in the LCC spreadsheet and I can pull that 

10 out afterwards.

11 Now, in selecting the horsepower for the 

12 default motor, what we used was simply sort of a 

13 sizing factor on the fan BHP which was of 1.2. And 

14 that's pretty much it.

15 And then on the enclosure, since we wanted 

16 to stay on the conservative side, we picked the 

17 minimum nominal efficiency between enclosed and open, 

18 whichever is the lowest.

19 Now let's say you're trying to evaluate a 

20 fan that's sold with a TEAO motor, so you have your 

21 electrical input power for that fan and you're going 

22 to compare this to the maximum allowable electric 

23 input power of a, you know, minimally compliant fan. 

24 So we have that efficiency equation. We can get the 

25 shaft input power. Now we need to get to the drive 
366

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 system. And in order to have a more comparable, a 

2 more fair comparison, instead of using the same 

3 default values, we developed default values specific 

4 to TEAO motors, which are currently not regulated. 

5 And if we look at the data we found on the market, for 

6 motors on the market, which are less efficient than 

7 other regulated three-phase induction motors.

8 So what we did is we looked at, you know, a 

9 list of catalog data from different manufacturers. We 

10 looked at where those values, those nominal efficiency 

11 values compared in comparison with the premium level 

12 or the level of the regulation, and so that's what you 

13 have on the left-hand side of that table. We use the 

14 term NEMA Band to try to see sort of how many NEMA 

15 Bands below NEMA premium are the TEAO motors, and that 

16 sort of varied by pole and horsepower. And based on 

17 that information we developed some TEAO default 

18 values, which are kind of, you know, they're expressed 

19 in terms of a number of NEMA Bands below the current 

20 regulation. And then for the selection of the pole or 

21 for the selection of the horsepower, then that would 

22 be the same process.

23 And so that's just a summary. So, you know, 

24 if you're trying to calculate the metric for just a 

25 fan that's sold without a motor, without controls, 
367

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 there's no motor, so you would use the default values 

2 corresponding to the regulation for medium electric 

3 motors. But that's only if it's a fan only.

4 Now, if it's a fan sold with a motor, or 

5 later we'll see fans sold with a motor and controls, 

6 if it's a regulated motor, you can just use the name 

7 plate nominal efficiency of that regulated motor, and 

8 for the calculation of the maximum allowable 

9 electrical input power you'd use the default values. 

10 So if your motor is better than, is performing above 

11 the current regulation, the metric would show that.

12 MR. SMILEY: I have a question. Bill 

13 Smiley, Trane, of course. So for a motor, you select 

14 the motor based on 1.2 times the fan brake horsepower 

15 to size or select what the appropriate motor 

16 horsepower rating would be. But the fan will operate 

17 on that motor at less than the motor full load. But 

18 the default efficiency value that you are using is 

19 based on the full load motor. So there would never be 

20 a reason to actually test the motor. You would always 

21 take the default.

22 MS. IYAMA: So there is actually another 

23 component to the -- that's sort of how we pick the 

24 default motor and its nominal efficiency and then in 

25 the next slide we'll see how we calculate the part 
368

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 load.

2 MR. SMILEY: Thank you.

3 MS. IYAMA: Now, if a fan is sold with a 

4 motor that's not regulated, you know, you can't use 

5 the name plate efficiency because it's not a regulated 

6 motor. So instead, it's a TEAO motor, you could use 

7 the TEAO default values that we just --

8 (Audio echoing.)

9 MS. IYAMA: Hello? Okay. So that would be,

10 you know, when using the calculated based method to 

11 establish the electrical input power of your fan. If 

12 you're sold with a TEAO motor, you would use the TEAO 

13 default values.

14 And then when you're trying to get to the 

15 maximum allowable electrical input power, you know, 

16 you could use the same default values. There's 

17 different ways depending on what or how we want to do 

18 this. You could also use the same default values. 

19 But then, you know, you'd be sort of, you'd be 

20 negatively impacted if you're selling your fan with a 

21 TEAO motor because you'd be comparing your fan with a 

22 TEAO motor to a fan with a non-TEAO motor. So that's 

23 option one, option two.

24 And then for any other electric motor, you 

25 know, for now we would consider them similar to how 
369

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 bare shaft fans are rated, meaning there's no test 

2 procedure for that motor if it's not possible to get 

3 representative default values for these motors, rate 

4 them as a bare shaft fan. So that's just a summary of 

5 how we selected the horsepower --

6 MR. WHITWELL: So sorry, could you explain 

7 that again, what you do with the other electric 

8 motors?

9 MS. IYAMA: So we didn't do anything. It's 

10 just something that we need to think of. It's easy to 

11 establish default values for regulated motors. It's 

12 fairly easy to establish values for TEAO motors. But 

13 there are other motors like, I don't know, split phase 

14 or PSC motors, ECM motors that are out there that are 

15 driving fans. And so for those, what should we do?

16 MR. HARTLEIN: Sanaee, one of the things I 

17 don't see up there as well -- this is Dan Hartlein, 

18 TCF -- is the possibility, if that's an unregulated 

19 motor, or for any motor for that case, that a tested 

20 value would supersede the default value.

21 MS. IYAMA: Yes. Right.

22 MR. HARTLEIN: So does that go without 

23 saying I guess?

24 MS. IYAMA: Yeah. I think one thing to 

25 highlight is that in that table it says calculation-
370

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 based method, so that's just for that scenario where 

2 we're --

3 MR. HARTLEIN: Ah, okay.

4 MS. ARMSTRONG: Hold on. What do you mean 

5 by tested value?

6 MR. HARTLEIN: Meaning that if I take a --

7 MS. ARMSTRONG: Tested value for the whole 

8 system or just the motor?

9 MR. HARTLEIN: If I take a motor driven fan 

10 and I measure the power in and the fan performance

11 out --

12 MS. ARMSTRONG: I got it. That's fine.

13 MR. HARTLEIN: -- that should substitute.

14 MS. ARMSTRONG: Absolutely. So the 

15 question, though, is do you want that always to trump 

16 or do you want the manufacturers still to have the 

17 option? We can set the regs up either way.

18 MR. HARTLEIN: I'm not sure.

19 MS. ARMSTRONG: Well, think about that. 

20 That's something we'd like feedback on obviously. 

21 What's not here --

22 MR. HARTLEIN: I have a lot of votes for 

23 option, but I'm not sure. Let me think about it.

24 (Laughter.)

25 MS. ARMSTRONG: What's not here is testing a 
371

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 motor. You either test the system or you use the 

2 default values. So that's where we are. And like 

3 Sanaee said, we don't have default values for all 

4 types of motors, so if we end up finalizing as 

5 proposed and you have a different type of motor that's 

6 not in here, you would need to test the system, the 

7 full wire to air, yeah.

8 MR. HARTLEIN: And I'm assuming we could 

9 extend this to include controls like a VFD as well, in 

10 the same discussion basically.

11 MS. IYAMA: So we'll get to that in the next 

12 slides.

13 MR. HARTLEIN: Okay.

14 MR. SMITH: This is Wade. I'm not 

15 challenging what you said at all because I'm not sure 

16 what position we would want to take in any event, but 

17 is there a reason why you wouldn't allow a 

18 manufacturer to characterize a particular motor and 

19 then use it on several different fans with 

20 mathematics? Test a particular motor, characterize 

21 it, and then use the results of that test coupled with 

22 fan tests?

23 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I think from a high level 

24 point of view, in theory, I don't think or I guess in 

25 principle I don't think DOE has an issue with 
372

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 something like that. What we don't have is test 

2 procedures for all different types of motors to make 

3 sure they're tested in an equitable manner since all 

4 the defaults are derived in an equitable manner. So 

5 that's what's missing, and we wouldn't want to be a 

6 manufacturer-specific declaration of a method of test 

7 to get a motor efficiency to then use as default 

8 values. So, like I said, we're not necessarily 

9 opposed to the idea, but the hurdle is the absence of 

10 a test procedure that exists for a lot of other kinds 

11 of motors that are currently not subject to standards.

12 MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly with AAON. 

13 Ashley, and I'm not familiar at all with the motor 

14 test standards, but I'm sure you are, but are they 

15 looking at part load efficiencies in part of that 

16 standard, or is it a full load only test?

17 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right now it's full load.

18 MR. FLY: So your test method is only full 

19 load.

20 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right now.

21 MR. WHITWELL: Ashley, this is Bob from 

22 Carrier. So a follow-up question on this, and maybe 

23 I'm way ahead of where we need to be on this. So, if 

24 we're using regulated motors and we have multiple 

25 regulated motors that can go into a particular 
373

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 product, can we test the smallest or let's say our 

2 base regulated motor knowing that higher horsepower 

3 motors are going to be higher efficiency?

4 MS. ARMSTRONG: I think that's something for 

5 the group to discuss. You know, these fans that are 

6 coming up with the operating type metrics that operate 

7 in a certain range don't, for lack of a better term, 

8 cross-pollinate parts. They would be rating every 

9 point for that specific fan and system in the testable 

10 configuration.

11 So what you guys do for air conditioners and 

12 what DOE allows you to do is this concept of you can 

13 test a base model and then you can switch out 

14 otherwise larger types of motors and not have to test 

15 and rate all of them such that that motor's efficiency 

16 is roughly equivalent to or more efficient than the 

17 base motor is the concept in theory.

18 There's nothing like that in fans right now 

19 at least that we're considering. I guess if we had a 

20 reason to consider it or you had a suggestion or 

21 alternative that you wanted us to consider we could 

22 talk about it.

23 MR. WHITWELL: Yes. So I guess as we go 

24 forward we need to think about those kind of things, 

25 because I'm concerned about the test burden that we'll 
374

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 be under.

2 MS. ARMSTRONG: Why wouldn't you just use 

3 the defaults?

4 MR. WHITWELL: I don't know. I don't know 

5 yet.

6 MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, that's what the 

7 defaults get you, right?

8 MR. WHITWELL: Maybe. Maybe we will want to 

9 use the default. I don't know.

10 MS. ARMSTRONG: To the extent you get a 

11 different default value because your motor has 

12 different properties, but that's what the defaults get 

13 you. They get you around that test burden in all 

14 those different combinations in theory. They give you 

15 default values so it's just a calculation.

16 MR. WHITWELL: So, okay, so we could --

17 yeah, all right, I see. We use the default value for 

18 all the different motor combinations.

19 MS. ARMSTRONG: You could. I mean, unless 

20 you wanted to run the full test, you just use the 

21 default and run calculations. It's kind of like, in 

22 essence, it's partially an AEDM that we're putting in 

23 regs, a standardized one.

24 MR. SMILEY: Bill Smiley, Trane. Along 

25 those same lines, Bob, I think you would have to 
375

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 somehow in your test measure directly the fan power in 

2 order to use the default, because you need the fan 

3 power in order to apply the default of the motor. So 

4 you'd have to do the test and actually measure the fan 

5 power.

6 MS. IYAMA: So I want to go back to this 

7 slide because I think it's relevant to what Bill's 

8 saying. So, in a calculation-based method, which is 

9 when we would use the default values, this is where 

10 you would measure. It's the shaft input power. And 

11 in the wire-to-air test you wouldn't be using -- it's 

12 that bottom row of the table. The test output would 

13 cover the whole thing, so you're not using default 

14 values.

15 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. So, to answer your 

16 question directly, if you use option one, you would 

17 use these defaults for your different combinations, as 

18 long as you got to the same default you would get to 

19 the same default rate.

20 For the bottom one, though, the bottom ones 

21 would show up with different variations to the extent 

22 the motor transmission controls the result and 

23 variances that affect the FEP. But your default would 

24 be a way to streamline. So we've implemented here a 

25 different way to get to the same I think burden 
376

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 reducing type of scheme.

2 MS. IYAMA: Okay. So that was for the 

3 default values. Just a summary and we could also get 

4 feedback on those points that would be useful. So the 

5 sizing of the motor based on the 1.2, we could do it, 

6 you know, with a different multiplier. We could do it 

7 based on constant motor horsepower, especially when 

8 the fan is sold with a motor. For the motor enclosure 

9 we chose the enclosure leading to the lowest nominal 

10 full load efficiency. We could also do it as a sales 

11 weighted average like we're currently doing for poles. 

12 These are things that are up for discussion.

13 And then the next slide here is the equation 

14 that was used to get to part load efficiency. And, 

15 you know, we're also reviewing the draft 207 that AMCA 

16 put out. They also have another way of doing this. 

17 There's also, you know, in Europe other ways of doing 

18 this. This is how they did it in the pumps 

19 rulemaking. So the first equation here is just the 

20 losses of the motor at part load equal the full load 

21 losses times a factor, and that factor is a function 

22 of the load. And where did we get those coefficients? 

23 Well, we got them from analyzing data that was 

24 submitted by NEMA during the pump rulemaking process 

25 and ASRAC process.
377

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. SMILEY: Question. Bill Smiley, Trane. 

2 So that polynomial curve fit was supplied by some 

3 data that you got from NEMA and is that -- that's 

4 assuming that every motor, every size has an off 

5 design efficiency reduction of the same amount?

6 MS. IYAMA: Yeah, and in a very conservative 

7 way. It's a pretty --

8 MR. SMILEY: Do you have the data that NEMA 

9 gave you? Is it a function of horsepower and poles or 

10 what?

11 MS. IYAMA: I think it's probably published 

12 as part of the pumps rulemaking. It's probably in the 

13 docket there. I don't have it with me.

14 MS. ARMSTRONG: How about we'll check and if 

15 it's in there we'll circulate it. We can also get 

16 someone from NEMA Motor Coalition to come in here at 

17 the next meeting and kind of present what they did, 

18 because they were the driving force behind this 

19 estimate in the pumps negotiation.

20 MR. SMILEY: I think this is excellent. My 

21 interest is --

22 MS. ARMSTRONG: Are they the same type of 

23 motors.

24 MS. IYAMA: I can tell you about the 

25 methodology.
378

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. SMILEY: I would like to see what the 

2 data is because I could use that in some unit design 

3 work that I do.

4 (Laughter.)

5 MR. SMILEY: Okay? If it's available. 

6 Thank you.

7 MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly with AAON. As 

8 you went through this and you did the 1.2 times the 

9 fan, as I sell this in a piece of my equipment, if I'm 

10 not 1.2 times the fan horsepower above, do I rate it 

11 at 1.2 or do I rate it at the actual applied? Because 

12 maybe I'm 1.0 because that's what the customer -- I 

13 mean, basically we let the customer select the motor 

14 and the fan, and what I'm going to have to do with all 

15 of this as I'm thinking ahead is I have to be the 

16 application police to make sure that they select 

17 something within that's legal.

18 MS. IYAMA: There's the case when you're not 

19 selling a motor with your fan, and then you need to 

20 know what's your multiplier to select the default 

21 motor and you want everybody else to do the same, so 

22 that would be 1.2. And then the case when you're 

23 selling a motor with your fan. And then, you know, do 

24 you use the actual horsepower of the motor provided 

25 with your fan? Keep in mind that you would be 
379

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 comparing that electrical input power to the 

2 theoretical one, the maximum allowable one, and for 

3 that one the motor would probably be sized, you know, 

4 with the 1.2 factor or whatever factor you agree on.

5 MR. SMILEY: Well, I think what you're 

6 saying -- Bill Smiley, Trane -- is that if you test 

7 with a motor, you don't need to worry about the 1.2 

8 because you're testing with the motor and the motor 

9 sized at .9 or 1.4 or whatever.

10 MS. IYAMA: Right.

11 MR. SMILEY: Because a lot of times it 

12 depends on the load compared to the motor full load, 

13 where 1.2 may not be --

14 MS. IYAMA: Right.

15 MR. SMILEY: But if you don't know any of 

16 that, you use the 1.2 in order to develop into the 

17 default values, right?

18 MS. IYAMA: That's right. Correct.

19 MR. SMILEY: Correct. Thank you.

20 MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly with AAON. What 

21 I want to do is click the box that says this is a good 

22 fan in this unit, right? So do I need to analyze it 

23 with the motor I supply? If I'm supplying a motor, is 

24 that always the case, or has that not yet been 

25 decided?
380

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MS. ARMSTRONG: So what I heard I think at 

2 the beginning of it is you guys want the option to 

3 elect to do -- potentially. We're still deciding, 

4 but, you know, that you guys want the option to do one 

5 way or the other at your discretion. And so we either 

6 standardize it with the 1.2 nominal or you do the full 

7 test. In other words --

8 MR. FLY: Because one way is saying at this 

9 application point this fan alone is valid.

10 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yep.

11 MR. FLY: You know, with all the assumptions 

12 attached. And the other way is saying that at this 

13 particular operation point this assembly with the 

14 controls and everything through a calculation default 

15 method is valid. So I think it could give you two 

16 different answers.

17 MR. DIKEMAN: Ashley, let's go this other 

18 way. Above and below the line.

19 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, I hear what we're 

20 doing. I think we were --

21 MR. DIKEMAN: No, no, no, please. Here's 

22 the motor losses. If they're the same above and below 

23 the line, the default VFD losses are the same above 

24 and below the line, it all comes back to impeller BHP. 

25 That's the difference between the required 
381

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 performance and what you're actually doing. Default 

2 is the same above and below the line. It washes out. 

3 It comes back to impeller BHP.

4 Now, in Dan's case, he brings in a different 

5 case. He tests this motor drive bumper to bumper. 

6 Now he can bring a new performance into the 

7 conversation. But defaults are above and below the 

8 line, they wash. You don't have to be motor -- you 

9 used a six pole motor, but the rulemaking is done on 

10 an average motor. You're not getting penalized for 

11 that either unless you test the six pole motor. Now 

12 you're dragging along some additional inefficiency.

13 MR. HARTLEIN: This is Dan from TCF. I 

14 would also add to that that there are certain areas, 

15 for example, high-performance axial fans where we 

16 probably know more about that air over motors 

17 performance with that flow than NEMA does and we're 

18 better at it than they are, so we can do things with 

19 that fan and design that the standards that NEMA would 

20 provide or the motor manufacturer wouldn't have 

21 because we've actually tested that fan in that 

22 configuration, and so therefore we know actually what 

23 that motor is consuming because of its air over and 

24 the capacity for us to get additional cooling to that 

25 motor and keep them at optimum temperature. So we, in 
382

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 some areas we've actually gone beyond where the motor 

2 guys are in applying their product and ours.

3 MS. IYAMA: Dan, just on that, this equation 

4 was developed based on data provided by NEMA, but the 

5 default TEAO values that I showed, that was not. That 

6 was just us looking at catalog data, TEAO ratings that 

7 are available.

8 MR. HARTLEIN: Yeah. Thank you, and I would 

9 just like to add that I didn't state that we knew more 

10 than the DOE.

11 (Laughter.)

12 MS. IYAMA: All right. So next slide is --

13 MR. SMILEY: Excuse me, Bill Smiley, Trane. 

14 This equation does not apply to TEAO or it applies to 

15 any motor?

16 MS. IYAMA: It would apply to, yeah, all 

17 types. Yeah.

18 MR. SMILEY: Okay.

19 MS. IYAMA: So here I was going to put the 

20 equation we use for the transmission efficiency, but 

21 those slides were actually not really finalized, but 

22 they're in the spreadsheet, so we can go over that a 

23 little later. But the main thing is it's the same 

24 form then, what AMCA uses in its AMCA 203 standard, 

25 and I don't know how familiar you are with that 
383

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 document, but in that document they have three 

2 equations to represent belt efficiency, one with 

3 higher losses, one with medium losses, and one with 

4 low losses, and we use the high losses because we want 

5 to be conservative.

6 Now for fans with motors and controls --

7 MR. WOLF: Sanaee, Mike Wolf here, at the 

8 expense of slowing you down here a little bit. Mike 

9 Wolf with Greenheck. So, with the transmission 

10 losses, you used a worst case even though there's 

11 three different scenarios in AMCA 203, right, I think? 

12 And you said you did it because you wanted to make a 

13 worst-case conservative rating I guess, if you will.

14 Why would we not have used that same 

15 methodology or assumption with all the motor data that 

16 we ran? And the reason I ask that is I'm starting to 

17 think ahead a little bit to what we're going to 

18 publish to the field and how this whole thing is going 

19 to work down the road, you know, kind of relative to 

20 the catalog page Tim showed here earlier where you've 

21 got the products that are in or the selection range in 

22 compliance and then those that are out. And I'm just 

23 starting to get concerned that okay, so we're going to 

24 have different motors that might be in compliance or 

25 out of compliance depending on what motor default 
384

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 coefficient we use for our rating.

2 Steve, you're looking puzzled. I'm not sure 

3 I'm being clear. So I guess to simplify the question, 

4 why don't we just the worst case for the motors too 

5 and keep it simpler?

6 MS. ARMSTRONG: I agree.

7 MS. IYAMA: So here, when we say that we're 

8 using the nominal efficiency values as established by 

9 the regulation, that's pretty conservative.

10 MR. WOLF: Right, but go to your slide where 

11 you have the green. Yeah, okay. So there.

12 MS. IYAMA: So these are going to be the 

13 minimal nominal efficiency values that you're going to 

14 be finding on the market once the new medium electric 

15 motor regulation comes into force.

16 MR. WOLF: Okay. So it's a minimum based on 

17 the horsepower. But then you had another one for the 

18 TEAO I thought that you came up with.

19 MS. IYAMA: TEAOs are even lower because 

20 these are nonregulated motors, and we felt like since 

21 they're so -- they represent a pretty significant 

22 share of the motors that are sold with fans, we should 

23 try to develop default values for those, especially 

24 because they're even lower than the ones on the 

25 market.
385

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. WOLF: Just to make sure I'm 

2 understanding this right. So going forward if we're 

3 going to look at say a given fan, let's say running at 

4 one, roughly one horsepower, it might have two 

5 different ratings, two different, and I think I'm 

6 saying this right, two different FER calculations 

7 depending on whether I'm calculating the FER with a 

8 totally enclosed air over or a standard motor or if

9 I --

10 MR. DIKEMAN: Or a belt drive.

11 MR. WOLF: Say that again, Steve.

12 MR. DIKEMAN: Steve Dikeman. Or a belt 

13 drive.

14 MR. WOLF: Well, but I'm assuming they both 

15 have belts.

16 MR. DIKEMAN: Okay.

17 MR. WOLF: Okay. But that would be a fourth 

18 one. You've got a direct drive without belts, and 

19 then you could have another one where you've got your 

20 own motor that you've done wire to air, so I'm just 

21 trying to think through how many permutations of 

22 ratings are going to be out there.

23 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, as you presented the 

24 question that way, I think you raise a completely 

25 valid issue and that is if a given fan is offered with 
386

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 a number of different motors, which default value do 

2 you choose? And do we really need -- does the 

3 committee think we really need a variety of defaults, 

4 or can we just say this is the default motor? It's 

5 not by type. Do we need to actually characterize it

6 by type, by motor type? Or can we just say this is 

7 the least efficient motor and if you use default 

8 values, that's what you get?

9 MR. WOLF: So Mike Wolf here again. So I'm 

10 thinking about, okay, we're going to establish some 

11 base level here, and ultimately what we're trying to 

12 do is drive the manufacturers and the market to more 

13 efficient, better selections. So, as I go through the 

14 thought process here with looking at how I calculate 

15 an FER, well, one way to get a better FER is to 

16 eliminate belts, right? Because I have a worst-case 

17 scenario, so I think that's obvious. I'm just 

18 wondering if we've got multiple motors, you know, 

19 we're going to drive people to a certain motor, which 

20 that's probably the desired outcome here. I just want 

21 to make sure that what we're doing is driving the 

22 right behavior after this is in place. And having 

23 multiple metrics I don't think is the important thing. 

24 The important thing is having the right things 

25 accounted for so that we can again --
387

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I think a question, 

2 though, is do you guys want the ability to rate 

3 different kinds of motors, perhaps differentiate 

4 between more efficient kinds of motors in a different 

5 way other than tests? Because if we don't provide 

6 default values for different kinds of motors you 

7 preclude yourself from ever differentiating by motor 

8 efficiency if you don't test full wire to air. So 

9 that's really a question for you guys.

10 MS. IYAMA: I can give another example just 

11 to illustrate the sort of issues that you would think 

12 through. Just here, for example, so when you're using 

13 a calculation-based method and you're trying to 

14 establish the electrical input power of your fan, but 

15 you only did a bare shaft test. So, if you were to 

16 use the TEAO default values to represent the motor 

17 that you're selling with your fan or if you were to do 

18 a testing-based method where you would, you know, 

19 establish electrical input power of your fan based on 

20 the TEAO performance, you would be comparing that to 

21 the column that's right on the left here where the 

22 electrical input power of your minimally compliant fan 

23 is calculated with the default values. If that 

24 default value is equal to the regulation, you may be, 

25 you know, in a different position than if that default 
388

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 value is equal to those TEAO values that we just 

2 showed that are lower.

3 MR. MATHSON: A comment. Tim Mathson from 

4 Greenheck. A couple of comments. One is I think what 

5 we're weighing here is simplicity with accuracy 

6 probably. That's kind of what it sounds like. If we 

7 go with single numbers for defaults, that makes it 

8 more simple but maybe not quite as accurate. So that 

9 may be something that we're weighing.

10 Another comment that I would say is the AMCA 

11 203 belt losses or drive efficiencies that you get 

12 from AMCA 203, in AMCA 207, which is still under 

13 development, we're using the middle curve, that 

14 average one. And, you know, nobody has good 

15 information on belt drive performance. I only have 

16 the information, I've tested maybe a dozen 

17 combinations and never gotten as bad as that most 

18 conservative line. So I personally think it's a 

19 conservative standard, but again, that's only on a 

20 dozen drive combinations.

21 And the third thing to keep in mind is that 

22 as we compare belt drive with direct drive, we want to 

23 incentivize the use of direct drives, but we want to 

24 be somewhat realistic because a belt-driven fan 

25 running at 800 RPM still uses a four pole motor, which 
389

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 is much more efficient than an eight pole motor. So 

2 it may be weighted a little bit too much that way if 

3 we use a single number for all the poles. Does that 

4 make sense?

5 MR. PERSFUL: This is Trinity with Clarage. 

6 To address Ashley's question about should you use one 

7 default value regardless of type of motors or 

8 multiple, I would say it depends on what type of 

9 behavior we want to drive. If you use just one, I 

10 think in my mind I call that the least common 

11 denominator, and it's going to drive -- and if it 

12 happens to be the cheaper motor, it's going to drive 

13 people to use the cheap, less efficient option. If 

14 you have multiple ones, it's now going to reward 

15 people for using a more efficient motor. So I would 

16 suggest that you look at it.

17 MR. WOLF: I think we need to think about 

18 this and get back to it.

19 MS. ARMSTRONG: Well, so if we pick a 

20 default motor and it's just one nominal value and that 

21 one nominal value is the same value used across the 

22 board no matter what, you would never be able to claim 

23 the savings you might get from using a more efficient, 

24 different type of motor, thus incentivizing -- you 

25 would lose that differentiation, period, unless you 
390

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 test.

2 So I think to Mike's point, if you want to 

3 incentivize the differentiation and you're going for 

4 labeling differentiation, utility program 

5 differentiation, et cetera, et cetera, what you really 

6 want is default values, conservative default values, 

7 but default values for all the different types of 

8 motors, that we can come up with reasonable default 

9 values that they're tested the same. At least then 

10 you wouldn't necessarily see the difference in 

11 efficiency within a motor category, but you would be 

12 able to see that certain types of motors, perhaps 

13 those that are subject to standards, are more 

14 efficient just generally than other types of motors 

15 that are currently unregulated, like TEAO motors, and 

16 you may be able to make better choices.

17 MR. DIKEMAN: So, Ashley, may I take that 

18 one step further? If the default motor efficiency is 

19 reflective of four pole, just for purposes of 

20 conversation, and you happen to live in a 1200 six 

21 pole motor world, and you went and tested your six 

22 pole motor, you're going to struggle to get back to 

23 the bench line. So, if 1200 can stand by itself and 

24 1800 can stand by itself, I think you'll get more of 

25 what you want.
391

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. HARTLEIN: So I would argue a little bit 

2 to the contrary. Dan from TCF. And I think you have 

3 to look at the behavior of fan manufacturers to 

4 totally understand this, and if there's an advantage 

5 to be gained through a testing program, it's going to 

6 be done. So, if I can save a motor class, if I can 

7 save a motor frame, drop to a lower frame size because 

8 I went through the testing, attached a VFD, did all 

9 that work, I'm going to do it because it gives me an 

10 advantage in the marketplace. I'm going to rate my 

11 product according to that.

12 If I don't need those default values to 

13 incentivize the operation to do that, because we're 

14 going to do it because we're going to take that 

15 advantage. Because if I can stay down a frame size in 

16 motor and my competition can't, I'm going to get the 

17 order and they're not. So I would think it's going to 

18 happen anyway. That's basically the way we're going 

19 to behave.

20 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. So you guys might 

21 want to think about this a little bit. I think we can 

22 do it either way. Obviously DOE, as a policy 

23 position, we want to incentivize more efficient 

24 systems, so we want to give you the tools, whatever 

25 that is necessary.
392

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 One thing to think about when you're talking 

2 about your method, Dan, is that, I mean, you're 

3 talking about testing every variation out there. If 

4 you have a fan that an accessible configuration is 

5 offered with different motors, is offered with -- you 

6 would then be testing --

7 MR. HARTLEIN: Can I ask a question? This 

8 is Dan, to that.

9 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes.

10 MR. HARTLEIN: Not having been through the 

11 gristmill of DOE regulation before, so if I as a 

12 manufacturer take the information and knowledge that I 

13 have on how my products perform across the range with 

14 particular motors and things and I choose to make the 

15 decision to rate that at a certain point, so I apply 

16 those standards to rate that product and to represent 

17 it as being something that I'm sure it is, then I'm 

18 falling well within the reg. I don't have to test, 

19 right? The only thing is you may test and I better be 

20 right. Is that correct?

21 MS. ARMSTRONG: No.

22 MR. HARTLEIN: No, it's not?

23 MS. ARMSTRONG: No.

24 MR. HARTLEIN: Okay. So help me understand.

25 MS. ARMSTRONG: So the way this works is 
393

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 your ratings must be based upon the DOE test procedure, 

2 must, and applicable sampling provisions. So, if we 

3 don't provide you with a method in the test procedure 

4 to either extrapolate to other ratings, nontested 

5 ratings, so calculation-based ratings, you must test 

6 every single model that you're going to rate. And when 

7 you would submit that information to DOE, you would 

8 sign a legal binding statement that says I have 

9 developed these ratings in accordance with the DOE test 

10 procedure and sampling provisions. They're tried, 

11 true, accurate, et cetera, et cetera. So no, you can't 

12 just rate without testing.

13 MR. HARTLEIN: So therefore -- this is Dan 

14 again -- a custom fan has to be tested.

15 MS. ARMSTRONG: So not necessarily.

16 MR. HARTLEIN: Okay. So if the rule allows.

17 MS. ARMSTRONG: We have provisions for 

18 dealing with that stuff, but they need to be provisions 

19 in this rule. So the moral of the story is that if you 

20 want to have what you call untested ratings, whether 

21 that be calculation-based ratings, whatever, we need to 

22 make sure that the regulations allow for that.

23 MR. HARTLEIN: Okay. Gotcha.

24 MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly. Dan, I need to 

25 talk to you about your motor supplier because if you've 
394

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 got a motor supplier that's never going to do a design 

2 change and that you can buy from the same guy every 

3 day, I need to know who that is, because otherwise 

4 you're going to have to retest when that motor supplier 

5 changes their efficiency or you have to -- I can't get 

6 this one this week. I have to go buy somebody else's. 

7 Or you have to test all of them and rate on the 

8 minimum one.

9 MR. HAUER: Ashley, it's Armin Hauer 

10 speaking. I have to jump ahead and ask about labeling 

11 and certification. Is it sufficient that I put on a 

12 label compliant, yes/no? Or do I have to put on 

13 percentage 92.8 percent? That's really a difference 

14 because it's very easy for if you have your process 

15 under control as a motor manufacturer to basically just 

16 stick your head out the window and say yes, my fan is 

17 going to be compliant, I don't have to test because I 

18 have the experience.

19 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. So I think the answer 

20 is I'm going to split the parts.

21 Certification is different than labeling for 

22 DOE. We can definitely talk about what you guys want 

23 your labels to look like, whether it's a yes/no type of 

24 scheme or it's an actual number type scheme. What that 

25 number is, what the metric is, we can talk about those 
395

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 types of things. Certification, you must submit 

2 paperwork to DOE that shows your products are in 

3 compliance or self-certifies that your products are in 

4 compliance before distribution and commerce in the U.S. 

5 That includes importation.

6 So that being said, our certification scheme 

7 for all the places where we have efficiency or 

8 consumption metrics right now, you tell us the number 

9 for every single product that you have and that number 

10 must be based on the DOE test procedure and sampling 

11 plan. Now many of our commercial equipment allows for 

12 estimations based on modeling or calculation-based 

13 methods as a burden reducing measure because we 

14 understand there are custom products. Not everyone has 

15 the ability to test everything, et cetera, et cetera. 

16 So that's all open, but it all has to be provided by in 

17 regulation. So I would assume that at the end of the 

18 day you will have to certify the actual efficiency 

19 values and then the content of the label is up to you.

20 MR. FLY: And this is Mark Fly with AAON. 

21 And so as part of this we're going to have to define 

22 models, which is one of my favorite subjects, and so 

23 you're going to list a model with the DOE --

24 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I think it's a little 

25 easier for this one because we're doing this range 
396

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 concept. But you're right. We do need to talk about 

2 if you have a given fan, and this is what I don't have 

3 a true appreciation of in your industry, but if you 

4 have a given fan, what are all the variations thereof 

5 that get added to that fan, that same I guess -- I 

6 don't know the best way to say this. I mean, some may 

7 be non-efficiency, some may be efficiency related. 

8 That's kind of a conversation we need to have at some 

9 point because we need to translate that into how many 

10 different ratings you will end up having to tell the 

11 department. That's kind of how the regs work.

12 But I think that's one of the reasons you 

13 see this scheme from the department. We were trying to 

14 give you options for not having to test everything. 

15 This is a calculation-based method, which is different 

16 than a full-blown AEDM. I still call this based on 

17 testing because you're still testing the fan component, 

18 but it allows you to calculate the downstreams. So you 

19 guys think about it. That's kind of how in high level 

20 terms our regs work. Yeah, go ahead.

21 MR. SMILEY: Bill Smiley, Trane. If you go 

22 back to your slide where you had the motor poles and 

23 efficiency for the DOE regulated ones, yeah, that 

24 chart, now you look at the TEAO, which is the next 

25 chart, and you have efficiency values as a function of 
397

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 motor speed or number of poles. But if you back up a 

2 slide, you say oh, okay, for all these motors we're 

3 just going to have one number that represents 

4 everything all the way across there. Is there a reason 

5 for that? I mean, we could actually do the same thing 

6 to this that we did to TEAO.

7 MS. IYAMA: They're used for two purposes, 

8 and I think that's where the difference is. If you're 

9 selling or if you have just a fan without a motor, you 

10 don't know what the pole is. You can't, if I give you 

11 this table, you don't know what value to pick, the two 

12 pole, the four pole, six pole, eight poles,

13 MR. SMILEY: But isn't it the same with 

14 TEAO?

15 MS. IYAMA: If a fan's sold with a TEAO 

16 motor, if now you're trying to establish the electrical 

17 input power of a fan sold with a TEAO motor, you know 

18 what the pole of that motor is.

19 MR. SMILEY: Not necessarily. It could be 

20 belt drive.

21 MR. WHITWELL: Or it could be the fan. Bob 

22 Whitwell.

23 MS. IYAMA: But if the motor is provided 

24 with the fan.

25 MR. WHITWELL: Okay. But there are other 
398

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 cases where we buy fans and we might apply them with a 

2 TEAO motor in some case or we apply them with a 

3 regulated motor in other cases.

4 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. So what Sanaee has 

5 set up here originally, it's for discussion purposes. 

6 If you just have a fan, you're actually getting a 

7 better number than you would as if you had a fan and 

8 you know you're ultimately going to end up in a TEAO 

9 setting, but you don't know the specifics of that 

10 motor. Because if you look at the two numbers -- I 

11 mean, you're getting some benefit there that maybe 

12 you're arguing you shouldn't be getting.

13 MR. WHITWELL: Well, no, no. My argument --

14 I'm with --

15 MS. ARMSTRONG: We can go back.

16 MR. WHITWELL: I think I'm with Bill that on 

17 the -- if we go back to the regulated motors --

18 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, except for what she's 

19 saying is if you have a fan, irrespective of motor, 

20 that even if you know the motor it's going into, but 

21 you don't know all the motor's characteristics, you go 

22 to that first table. So you know it's air over, but 

23 that's irrelevant to the way we set this up. So you're 

24 actually arguing for us to set up default values for 

25 I'm a manufacturer --
399

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. WHITWELL: Sorry. Forget the air over 

2 part of it because that's a small piece. I'm more on 

3 the --

4 MS. ARMSTRONG: So just go to one.

5 MS. IYAMA: Okay. So okay. So I guess 

6 here, let's go to this.

7 MS. ARMSTRONG: I have a fan, right?

8 MS. IYAMA: The first row. I have a fan 

9 only, no motor, and I don't know anything about that 

10 motor that's going to be --

11 MS. ARMSTRONG: You don't know any 

12 characteristics of that motor. You may know the 

13 specific category, but that's it.

14 MR. WHITWELL: Right. So then I go to

15 the -- so, okay, so what's the basic default then? I 

16 guess I don't understand then. Is it the regulated 

17 motor default or is it TEAO default? Where do I go?

18 MS. IYAMA: So I'm going to try to explain 

19 how to read that table and then maybe it's going to 

20 clarify.

21 MR. WHITWELL: Thank you. Sorry, I'm slow 

22 about this.

23 MS. ARMSTRONG: It's okay.

24 MS. IYAMA: If it's a fan being sold without 

25 a motor, without transmissions, without anything. It's 
400

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 just the non-driven fan, bare shaft fan. When you're 

2 calculating the electrical input power based on the 

3 calculation-based method, you're going to use default 

4 values for the motor which are the default ones. The 

5 default ones are equal to the minimum efficiency 

6 standard that is in place for medium electric motors.

7 If your fan sold with a motor and that motor 

8 is a regulated motor, you can use the name plate 

9 efficiency of that motor --

10 MR. WHITWELL: Without testing.

11 MS. IYAMA: -- as your default value in the 

12 calculation-based method when calculating --

13 MS. ARMSTRONG: So right now this is all up 

14 for discussion, right? This was our going-in kind of 

15 how this might all work. But obviously let it sink in. 

16 We'll red line this to reflect some of our discussions 

17 maybe not to send out tonight, but give us a day or so.

18 MR. SMILEY: Well, my question originally 

19 was really, didn't have much to do with any of that. 

20 It was why do we have efficiencies as a function of 

21 poles on one type of motor and not as a function of 

22 poles on the other type of motor --

23 MS. IYAMA: I can answer that.

24 MR. SMILEY: -- because if we have to 

25 develop a process to take a default value, it's a table 
401

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 look-up.

2 MS. IYAMA: I'll try to answer that.

3 MR. SMILEY: But you're actually right, 

4 though, if we don't know what the motor poles are, then 

5 we have to have a value to use, and that could also be 

6 the situation for TEAO.

7 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right.

8 MR. SMILEY: So which one of those -- we can 

9 use whichever one we want or --

10 MS. ARMSTRONG: So we're going to clarify 

11 this table first of all because I think that some 

12 clarification of this table would go a long way.

13 MR. SMILEY: That was really -- it's kind

14 of -- I agree with everything you're doing.

15 MS. IYAMA: I should have introduced it in a 

16 better way, and I'll try to clarify, but it's really 

17 two tables in one where you have a situation for when 

18 you're just a fan without a motor and you don't know 

19 anything about the fan, and in that case, how do you 

20 calculate your wire to air while you use those default 

21 values. And you don't need to worry about which pole 

22 to pick. It's just one value by horsepower.

23 MR. SMILEY: Or what type of motor.

24 MS. IYAMA: Or what type of motor. Exactly.

25 And then there's a different situation, 
402

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 different situation for a fan sold with a motor where 

2 you know what the main characteristics of your motor 

3 are, so you can identify if you're in a case where 

4 you're a regulated motor, a TEAO motor or another kind 

5 of motor. And based on which case you're in, you're 

6 going to either use the name plate efficiency of your 

7 motor, the TEAO efficiency of the pole and horsepower 

8 that corresponds to the motor supplied with your fan, 

9 and for other motor we don't know yet what we want to 

10 do.

11 MR. SMILEY: So basically you're saying on a 

12 TEAO motor there's no name plate efficiency, so you 

13 have to define what that is.

14 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes.

15 MR. SMILEY: Is that what you're saying?

16 MS. IYAMA: Yes.

17 MS. ARMSTRONG: They're not regulated.

18 MR. SMILEY: Okay, thank you. That would 

19 have been the answer to my question.

20 MR. WHITWELL: Thank you.

21 MS. IYAMA: Sorry.

22 MR. AUTH: Chris Auth, Baltimore Aircoil. 

23 The TEAO motors we use are name plated by NEMA. I 

24 don't know if they're regulated or not, but there is a 

25 nominal efficiency on the name plate.
403

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MS. ARMSTRONG: It's not required, so some 

2 do it and some aren't. So we can't depend on it being 

3 there. It's not --

4 MALE VOICE: It's not a regulated value.

5 MR. AUTH: But would that name plate value 

6 work in this analysis?

7 MS. ARMSTRONG: No. I mean, you can argue 

8 that it should, but not everyone's doing it the same 

9 way, as we have learned through experience.

10 MR. SMILEY: If that's not regulated, 

11 there's nobody saying that that's the true number.

12 MR. WHITWELL: My understanding for most of 

13 the motors that we purchase, they're basically, they're 

14 actually TEFCs with the fan removed, but these are 

15 larger motors. It's not always the case, but I'm

16 just -- I believe the motor is tested.

17 MS. ARMSTRONG: So TEFC, whatever, those are 

18 regulated, so that's why. Those are in a different --

19 MALE VOICE: (Away from microphone.)

20 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right, but that's why you're 

21 seeing name plates. They're required.

22 MR. WHITWELL: So that rating's not right 

23 because the cooling fan internally --

24 MS. ARMSTRONG: So you want me to call NEMA 

25 tomorrow?
404

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. SMILEY: No. I think what you're doing 

2 is --

3 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay, sufficient.

4 So a couple things. I do want to wrap up 

5 this discussion in about 10 minutes or so. We're about 

6 30 minutes out from our end and I do want to do some 

7 recaps of where we are, where we're going, kind of 

8 homework items, what we've promised around the table 

9 before do actually wrap up.

10 MR. BUBLITZ: Mark Bublitz, New York Blower. 

11 Sanaee, I want to circle back to nominal efficiency 

12 values for motors. If all my components are right at 

13 the margin and I acquire a regulated motor and that 

14 motor performs under the nominal value, but it's still 

15 regulated, I would fail the test because that minimum 

16 nominal is not a minimum value. So I just want to 

17 throw that out there as what's the true floor of that 

18 test.

19 MS. ARMSTRONG: So this came up and I think 

20 I'm going to say your question a different way. But I 

21 see that as, DOE, how would you enforce. So, in other 

22 words, DOE, if you're going to enforce my rating and I 

23 had developed it through the application of the nominal 

24 values, recognizing that those nominal values are 

25 really closer to average values, not the least 
405

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 efficient of the population and I happen to get the 

2 least, DOE, if you tested that and it came out below, 

3 if you did the full wire-to-air test and it came out 

4 below, what would you do? I mean, that's how I 

5 translate what you're asking me.

6 MR. BUBLITZ: That's fine. I'm going to say 

7 it's accurate.

8 MS. ARMSTRONG: I think that's up for 

9 discussion. One of the things that we have discussed 

10 is DOE enforcing the same way you generate your rating. 

11 So, if you do it with nominal values, we would do it 

12 too. We would test your fan and we may get different 

13 fan numbers, but if you applied nominal values, we 

14 would too.

15 Alternatively, we could all do testing 

16 values representing, with the realization that those 

17 nominal values should be conservative and testing 

18 should always result in better or greater. Really, 

19 it's up for discussion.

20 So do you guys want to keep going? How many 

21 more slides do you have?

22 MS. IYAMA: I have two on the controls and 

23 then three on the test procedure.

24 MS. ARMSTRONG: So do you want to talk about 

25 controls at this point or do we want to start wrapping 
406

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 up?

2 MR. DIKEMAN: You're mailing this out, 

3 right?

4 MS. ARMSTRONG: We are going to mail it out.

5 MR. DIKEMAN: We can read it.

6 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's correct. The only 

7 benefit is, do you want Sanaee to at least start 

8 presenting and get a little bit of feedback for the 

9 next 10 minutes or 15 minutes or so. I don't think 

10 it's going to take 30 minutes to wrap up.

11 MR. DIKEMAN: Sure.

12 MS. IYAMA: I'll try to do this in like five 

13 minutes.

14 So we also looked at, and that's not in the 

15 NODA because it wasn't used in there, developing 

16 default values to model motor and controls, so the 

17 whole motor control, motor and VFD part. And it looks 

18 like this, and it's similar to what was done and used 

19 in the pumps rulemaking. So, if you want more details, 

20 you can go into that docket, but it's the same concept 

21 where the losses of the motor plus VFD, which is the LD 

22 here, equals the full load losses of the motor only 

23 times a factor. That factor is a polynomial equation 

24 with different coefficients depending on the size of 

25 the motor. So it's a pretty simplified model.
407

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 Again, I think in the draft 207 there's 

2 another way of doing this. I don't think --

3 MR. DIKEMAN: Steve Dikeman. We've combined 

4 motor and VFD into a single aggregate loss in the most 

5 recent writeup.

6 MS. IYAMA: Yeah, so it's similar. I think 

7 the form of the equation and the way it's calculated, 

8 it's a bit different.

9 MR. SMILEY: Question. This is Bill, Trane.

10 This only applies to full load.

11 MALE VOICE: No.

12 MR. SMILEY: It applies to part load too? 

13 Where's the part load?

14 MS. IYAMA: So the little i that's like in 

15 subscript means the load. So the first thing -- so 

16 here, this component here, and I'm going to increase 

17 the --

18 MR. SMILEY: So it's the motor full load 

19 times --

20 MS. IYAMA: It's the motor VFD --

21 MR. SMILEY: -- a de-rate factor as a 

22 function of what?

23 MS. IYAMA: So that's the load of the motor, 

24 of the VFD, sorry. Of the motor, sorry.

25 MR. SMILEY: Okay.
408

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MS. IYAMA: So, in other words, the part 

2 load losses of your motor plus VFD equal a certain 

3 factor times the full load losses of the motor.

4 MR. SMILEY: So you're saying that all the 

5 data that this is based on is available somewhere as 

6 well?

7 MS. IYAMA: Maybe not the disaggregated 

8 data, but there's more details in that docket that's 

9 referenced on that slide.

10 MR. SMILEY: Okay, thanks.

11 MR. WHITWELL: So, if you can send that to 

12 us and we don't have to go looking for it, that would 

13 be nice.

14 MS. IYAMA: Sure. Yeah. I'll dig up the --

15 and then -- so I think that's all. These are just sort 

16 of summary tables of all the things we've discussed.

17 And then on the test procedure --

18 MR. SMITH: Sanaee, this is Wade Smith. I 

19 apologize. Could you just describe once again the 

20 source of the default values for --

21 MS. IYAMA: Motor and drive?

22 MR. SMITH: Yeah, motor and drive, the 

23 combination.

24 MS. IYAMA: That was based on a combination 

25 of data, some from motors and VFDs that DOE tested at 
409

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 different loads, some that one manufacturer provided.

2 MR. SMITH: And it was commented earlier 

3 that the efficiency performance of the motor and drive 

4 in combination, it depends upon the settings, the setup 

5 and the settings, and that they're easy to change. So 

6 is there some caveat about these default values in 

7 terms of how the drive is set up?

8 MS. IYAMA: Currently, no.

9 MR. SMILEY: Well, that would -- Bill with 

10 Trane. That would go along with that, would be the 

11 type of inverter and the type of motor would play into 

12 that as well, I mean, you know, if you really needed to 

13 dig into the minute details. You're coming up with a 

14 default relationship.

15 MR. SMITH: And the default, you referred to 

16 a docket. Is there a docket where this question is 

17 being dealt with? No?

18 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I think the answer is 

19 kind of. We can refer you to it.

20 MS. IYAMA: I put the docket number.

21 MR. SMITH: It's in the pump rule?

22 MS. ARMSTRONG: Kind of. So I think that, 

23 and I wish some motor guys were here today. So the 

24 motor guys are in the process kind of of coming up with 

25 this motor drive controls type methodology. It was 
410

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 based somewhat on that. It's generally similar to that 

2 whole exercise they are going through.

3 Why don't we do this. We will commit to 

4 circulating the explanation of that so you guys can 

5 look at it, and obviously we welcome your feedback on 

6 it here. It's open. So let's do that. We'll just 

7 pull it off the docket. It's easier that way.

8 MS. IYAMA: Yeah. There's the AMCA 207 way, 

9 there's this way, there's the NEMA way, so we can just 

10 compare them all.

11 MS. ARMSTRONG: The NEMA way is really close 

12 to what we did in pumps. It wasn't done when we had to

13 go out with pumps, but we had the draft.

14 MR. WAGNER: Are we able to get the AMCA 207 

15 draft then?

16 MS. ARMSTRONG: I'm circulating that.

17 MR. HAUER: I think AMCA 207 was part of the 

18 NODA response, was it not?

19 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. So the answer is it's 

20 in the docket.

21 MS. IYAMA: Okay. So quickly, test 

22 procedure, I have three slides really. So we need --

23 why do we need -- we need a test method to either get 

24 to the shaft input power if we're using a calculation25 based method or we need to be able to measure the 
411

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 electrical input power at the arrow number two here on 

2 the slide.

3 One approach that we've been considering is 

4 to use AMCA 210 as the basis for the DOE test 

5 procedure. Question, is there any modifications 

6 necessary to ensure that every time someone does the 

7 test we get the same answer? These are lists, and we 

8 don't need to go through all of them, but these are the 

9 sort of --

10 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. So we are going to 

11 leave you with this as homework for next week because 

12 what we have done is taken a deep dive into AMCA 210 

13 and we had some questions.

14 MS. IYAMA: And some of those are not very 

15 detailed. It's just to get the conversation started 

16 and sort of give you the sort of topics that we're 

17 interested in and get your feedback, and we can get in 

18 more details at the next meeting.

19 MR. SMILEY: This is Bill with Trane. Are 

20 you asking for additional test methodologies that may 

21 already be out there that people use for lots of 

22 different types of products to be brought forward as 

23 well? We haven't settled on AMCA 210.

24 MS. ARMSTRONG: Sure. I mean, I think at 

25 this point you're right, DOE hasn't put a proposal out, 
412

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 so at this point it's open-ended. If there are certain 

2 categories of fans or equipment classes of fans that 

3 you believe should be tested with a different 

4 methodology, we're open to having that discussion. One 

5 thing that will be important is that at the end of the 

6 day ratings are generated in an equitable manner. So 

7 we'll need to understand -- and if they're not, why 

8 they're not generated in an equitable manner, so if 

9 certain equipment classes need to be tested in a 

10 different manner.

11 MR. SMILEY: Well, the reason I bring it up 

12 is there are existing tests that are already being 

13 performed on a lot of the equipment that will probably 

14 be covered by this, and nobody wants to do additional 

15 testing just for the heck of it. That's why I bring 

16 that up.

17 MS. ARMSTRONG: No, but I would say one of 

18 the purposes of this regulation obviously isn't to make 

19 everyone retest the testing they had already done but 

20 make sure testing is done in the same manner. So if 

21 there are some differences or nuances it would be great 

22 to have a discussion around what those are. Okay?

23 So, with that, I think Sanaee is done. So I 

24 do want to go back and do some kind of close-out items. 

25 I'm happy to open the floor to others for closure, but 
413

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 I also have tried to come up with a list over the past 

2 couple of hours of things that at least were in my 

3 mind. You guys can remind me if I missed anything. 

4 And I think it would be a good idea to put some dates 

5 around these. I will say over half of them are for 

6 DOE, so obviously we're going to have our work cut out 

7 for us over the next couple of days.

8 But one thing. First off, AMCA was going to 

9 provide feedback on the compressor cutoff in the 

10 definition. When can you do that?

11 MR. SMITH: Before the next meeting or at 

12 the next meeting.

13 MS. ARMSTRONG: Great. Thank you.

14 MR. SMITH: Meaning that we agree with it or 

15 don't agree with it?

16 MS. ARMSTRONG: So either you agree with it 

17 or if you don't agree with it an alternative solution.

18 MR. SMITH: Okay.

19 MS. ARMSTRONG: Great. Thank you.

20 So next was AHRI's data request. There's 

21 two parts to the data request, so, Karim, I'm looking 

22 to you. When do you at least think you'll be able to 

23 respond to part one, which is just simply a list of 

24 different categories of fans, what type of equipment 

25 they may or may not go into, in this case will go into, 
414

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 and are those fans regulated? So is the energy 

2 consumption of those fans that are in embedded 

3 equipment regulated in another manner, system metric or 

4 otherwise?

5 MR. AMRANE: At the next meeting?

6 MS. ARMSTRONG: Great. Thank you.

7 And so the next one is DOE's going to send 

8 out red lines of all these. We may do this in phases. 

9 So we may do tomorrow's first and then this one will 

10 follow in a day or two. One of the things we've 

11 already done is include the EU comparison of 

12 definitions that was asked for, so you're going to see 

13 that in the red lines that we sent out for you guys to 

14 all mull over, so be on the lookout for that. We'll 

15 commit to sending one out today and one out tomorrow. 

16 It's going to be a fun night.

17 Okay. So one of the things I think for all 

18 of us is to review the definitions for the equipment 

19 classes and the testable configurations. So, when we 

20 send out those red lines, you're going to see the 

21 reflection of what is this testable configuration for a 

22 variety of different things. We'll also include the 

23 examples, so we'll want to get back with feedback on 

24 that if anybody has any or obviously agreement on that 

25 at the next meeting.
415

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 So one of the things that I think the 

2 embedded product manufacturers, including AHRI, were 

3 going to bring to the table, and I'm just asking for a 

4 time frame, was some type of counterproposal or pathway 

5 forward for some of the embedded products in terms of 

6 how they would like the working group to consider them 

7 and consider treatment of them. So my ask of you guys 

8 is, what is your timing on that one?

9 MS. SHEPHERD: Well, I think we were 

10 planning for the next meeting, so I would say within 

11 the next two meetings you're going to have or the next 

12 week of meetings.

13 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. So I think the first 

14 part of June is our next meeting?

15 MS. SHEPHERD: Right.

16 MS. ARMSTRONG: Thank you. If you want to 

17 add, go ahead.

18 MR. JASINSKI: Yeah. It's not an additional 

19 to do, but it's related to both of those. In addition 

20 to revised definitions for testable configuration as 

21 part of that exercise or as part of any proposal from 

22 AHRI, I think it would also be useful to bring up your 

23 own examples of fans that can be used or come up with 

24 your example fans that test the definitions in the way 

25 that you want to test them and as part of justification 
416

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 for tweaks or as additional examples to be discussed at 

2 the working group. I know some people mentioned that 

3 they had fans in mind while we were talking about that 

4 separately. So, if you have fans that you're 

5 particularly interested in knowing how they would be 

6 impacted by the definitions that are being proposed, 

7 those examples would be really helpful.

8 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. So the next one I 

9 have for us is to circulate the pump motor variable 

10 speed info in terms of how we got to that. There is a 

11 memo in the pump docket, so we'll just pull it out and 

12 circulate it so you have that as background.

13 The next thing we'll do is send out a link 

14 to the draft AMCA 207 that's also already in this 

15 docket, but just so ease of use.

16 The last one -- we can do all these things 

17 tonight, but the last one is the feedback on what we 

18 just presented in terms of we went through some sticky 

19 issues today in terms of an approach for a test 

20 procedure. We listed a whole page of questions we have 

21 relating to AMCA 210. We have questions relating to 

22 nominal values versus tested values, nominal values for 

23 specific categories of motors, nominal values versus in 

24 control and drive systems. So we'd really like your 

25 feedback on certain of those, so you'll see some red 
417

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 lines coming out probably tomorrow, so we'd like some 

2 feedback on that. So does everyone around the table 

3 think they can be prepared to discuss that at the next 

4 meeting? Okay, I see nods.

5 And last but not least, we are going to be 

6 prepared at the next meeting to present the NODA 

7 analysis, so we're going to walk through the 

8 spreadsheets. If anyone has an issue with downloading 

9 the spreadsheets, using the spreadsheets, come talk to 

10 us or send us an email. They've been up there. They 

11 should be able to be used, but like I said, if there's 

12 an issue, let us know. We'll walk through them at the 

13 next meeting so we can talk about analysis.

14 If we make some decisions on this stuff that 

15 impacts the analysis, we can then revise after the next 

16 meeting, but we want to be in a position to move 

17 forward with some of the analysis discussions so 

18 everyone will have a good basis for that understanding. 

19 okay?

20 MR. WAGNER: Ashley, I noticed some of the 

21 pull-down boxes and stuff like that weren't functional. 

22 Is that because of the way I downloaded it or --

23 MS. ARMSTRONG: I don't know. It could be 

24 your security settings that are off, like not --

25 MR. BUBLITZ: I have a screen snapshot.
418

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MS. ARMSTRONG: You'll show me. Okay, no 

2 worries. We'll get it fixed if there's an issue.

3 MR. WAGNER: Okay. Like the direct drive, 

4 belt drive, and some of the others, it wouldn't pull 

5 down.

6 MS. ARMSTRONG: We'll look at it. No 

7 problem. If we need to recirculate a new version, we 

8 can. No problem.

9 MR. SMITH: I had the same issue.

10 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. Maybe you just have 

11 to be on a DOE computer, so you all can come visit to 

12 work on these spreadsheets.

13 So that's all I had. Does anybody have 

14 anything else?

15 MR. SMILEY: Yes. Bill, Trane. You said 

16 you were going to give us the information you have on 

17 the drive motor interaction, which was the last thing 

18 you showed on the efficiency de-rate for a variable 

19 speed.

20 Also, previous to that I think I'd asked for 

21 if you had any data on just the motor and the load 

22 point on the motor efficiency reduction, because what 

23 you showed was a nominal curve to apply to everything, 

24 but what I was interested in is if you had the backup 

25 data that might show the function of other variations.
419

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MS. IYAMA: So I would need to check if 

2 we're allowed to share the data. I mean, we have the 

3 data, but I know for sure that the one for the drive in 

4 VFD was confidentially --

5 MR. SMILEY: Yeah, I figured that probably 

6 was.

7 MS. IYAMA: So --

8 MR. SMILEY: I just wanted to compare it to 

9 stuff I have and I use.

10 MS. ARMSTRONG: So anybody want to say 

11 anything else?

12 MR. AUTH: Just one more comment about the 

13 NODA spreadsheet. Chris Auth, Baltimore Aircoil. 

14 Right now it's set up for total efficiency and we did 

15 discussions today with static efficiency. Is there 

16 going to be a revision to that before next meeting or 

17 just use it the way it is?

18 MS. ARMSTRONG: So we have the results for 

19 the next meeting for sure. We can have clean 

20 spreadsheets by the next meeting and we'll see how 

21 early we can have the clean spreadsheets to you guys 

22 before the next meeting. But yeah, we have the results 

23 at least to show you for the next meeting or to 

24 circulate before the next meeting so you can see them. 

25 No problem.
420

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 Anything else?

2 MS. WALTNER: Yeah. This is Meg, just 

3 really quickly. Earlier some of us were asking about 

4 the times of the meetings. I think we confirmed them 

5 last time, but I think it would be helpful to just go 

6 over again the start and end times we agreed to for the 

7 meetings. I don't know if we have that.

8 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. I'll send out the 

9 schedule as part of the email for the next one.

10 You can go off the record now.

11 (Whereupon, at 2:48 p.m., the meeting in the 

12 above-entitled matter was concluded.)

13 //

14 //

15 //

16 //

17 //

18 //

19 //

20 //

21 //

22 //

23 //

24 //

25 //
421

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

DOCKET NO.: N/A

CASE TITLE: ASRAC Fans and Blowers

Working Group Meeting

HEARING DATE: May 19, 2015

LOCATION: Washington, D.C.

I hereby certify that the proceedings and 

evidence are contained fully and accurately on the 

tapes and notes reported by me at the hearing in the 

above case before the U.S. Department of Energy, Office

of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy.

Date: May 19, 2015

 

David W. Jones

Official Reporter

Heritage Reporting Corporation

Suite 206

1220 L Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005-4018