UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

**PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS**  **FOR WINE CHILLERS AND MISCELLANEOUS REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS** 

U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave., SW Washington, D.C. 20585 Room SE-089 Review Center

Thursday February 22, 2012

**Facilitator:** Doug Brookman Public Solutions Baltimore, MDExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 2 **Participants Identified:**

Charlie Hon True Manufacturing

Joanna Mauer Appliance Standards Awareness Project Jen Cleary Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers

Jon Wiener Earthjustice Steve Leybourn Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers Amanda Stephens EPA
Bill Brown GE Appliances and Lighting

**Participants identified through Webinar:** Patrick Murphy Director of testing and training Refrigeration Service Engineers Society Elizabeth Joyce California Investor Owned Utilities

Steve Church Whirlpool

**Participants from DOE:**

Michael Kido

Lucas Adin John CymbalskyExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 3

**Participants from Consultants:**

Detlef Westphalen Navigant Consulting

Kenneth Nsofor Navigant Consulting.

Jeff Greenblatt Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Erin Claybaugh Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Greg Rosenquist Lawrence Berkeley National Lab

**Presenters:**
Lucas Adin Detlef Westphalen
Michael Kido

Jeff Greenblatt

Kenneth NsoforExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 4

**AGENDA**

**ITEM PAGE**  Welcome, Doug Brookman 5

Introductions 5 Agenda Review, Doug Brookman 6 Introductory Remarks 9 Regulatory History overview, Mr. Adin 10 Scope of coverage, Mr. Westphalen 15 Rulemaking overview, Mr. Westphalen 61 Test Procedures, Mr. Westphalen 65
Market Assessment, Mr. Nsofor 70 Technology Assessment, Mr. Nsofor 78 Engineering Analysis, Mr. Nsofor 82 Markup Analysis, Energy Use Analysis, Life Cycle Costs and Payback Period Analysis, Mr. Greenblatt 87 Shipments Analysis, Mr. Greenblatt 104 National Impact Analysis, Mr. Greenblatt 109 Market Impact Analysis, Mr. Nsofor 111
Plans for NOPR Phase, Mr. Greenblatt 113 Closing Remarks 115Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 5

P R O C E E D I N G S 1 MR. BROOKMAN: Good morning everyone and 2 welcome. This is the U.S. Department of Energy’s 3 public meeting on Energy Conservation Standards for 4 Wine Chillers and Miscellaneous Refrigeration 5 Products. 6 Today is February 22, 2012 here in the 7 Forrestal Building in Washington, D.C. Glad you could 8 join us. Thanks for being here for an early start on 9 the day. My name is Doug Brookman from Public 10 Solutions in Baltimore. It’s our tradition to start 11 off with introductions around the room. I’ll start 12 over here, please. Say your name and organizational 13 affiliation. Most of you are used to turning on 14 these microphones. Please do so. 15 **Introductions** 16 MR. HON: Charlie Hon, True Manufacturing. 17 MR. GREENBLATT: Jeff Greenblatt, Lawrence 18 Berkeley National Lab. 19 MS. CLAYBAUGH: Erin Claybaugh from Lawrence 20 Berkeley National Lab. 21 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer, Appliance 22 Standards Awareness Project. 23 MR. BROWN: Bill Brown, GE Appliances and 24 Lighting. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 6

MS. CLEARY: Jen Cleary, Association of Home 1 Appliance Manufacturers. 2 MR. LEYBOURN: Steve Leybourn, Association 3 of Home Appliance Manufacturers. 4 MR. NSOFOR: Kenneth Nsofor, Navigant 5 Consulting. 6 MR. KIDO: Michael Kido, DOE. 7 MR. ADIN: Lucas Adin, DOE. 8 MR. WESTPHALEN: Detlef Westphalen, Navigant 9 Consulting. 10 MS. STEPHENS: Amanda Stephens, EPA. 11 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. So, glad you 12 could join us. Once again, thanks for being here. 13 Many of you, perhaps most of you are familiar with 14 these proceedings. I’m going to do a brief agenda 15 review. 16 **Agenda Review** 17 You received a packet of information when 18 you came in the door that included the agenda and the 19 PowerPoint slides that would be the basis for both 20 presentation and discussion as we go on today. 21 Immediately following this agenda review, there’s an 22 opportunity for anybody that wishes to do so to make 23 opening remarks, brief, summary statements about 24 issues that matter to you, particularly those that you 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 7

wish to have discussed fully during the course of the 1 day 2 Immediately following that, we will have a 3 regulatory history overview by Lucas. We will move 4 from there to a description of scope. And we’ll take 5 a mid-morning break, round about 10:30 or so. 6 Immediately following the break, a rulemaking overview 7 and framework and test procedure description. Of 8 course all of these content areas provide an 9 opportunity for discussion and comment. Following 10 that, market technology assessment, screening and 11 engineering analysis. 12 We’ll take lunch midday, round about 12:15 13 or so. Following lunch, markups, energy use, life14 cycle cost and payback period analyses; followed by 15 shipments and national impact analyses, manufacturing 16 impact analysis, NOPR analyses. And then we are 17 guessing that we’ll be finished some time after two 18 o’clock, 2:30 or so this afternoon. There’s yet 19 another opportunity for anybody to raise additional 20 issues, additional comments that they’d like to make 21 at the close. 22 So that’s the agenda as written. Any 23 questions and comments? You’ll also note there are 24 many individuals who have joined us via the web. How 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 8

many do we have via the web? Fifteen. Okay, welcome 1 to those joining by the web. The Department of Energy 2 is trying hard to make these meetings accessible and 3 productive, both, and so what we’re going to try to do 4 today is – GoToMeeting is the software vehicle, right? 5 Most of you who have joined us via the web, we’ll try 6 to provide – we’re going to try it – an opportunity 7 for you to raise questions and comments during the 8 course of the meeting. Our webmaster, Emily, is going 9 to be cueing individuals to ask questions and those of 10 you that are joining us via the web, please keep your 11 phones on mute so we don’t get feedback here in the 12 system, because otherwise, it will kind of blast us 13 out here in the meeting room itself. Okay. So we’ll 14 try to make that happen. 15 I will ask for your consideration. As you 16 can see, I’ve written up here what I think is not much 17 more than common sense and courtesy. Please speak one 18 at a time. Please say your name for the record each 19 time you speak. I will be cuing individuals by name 20 as best I can. I also wish to encourage follow on 21 comments. The back and forth is sometimes very useful 22 for the Department. There will be a complete 23 transcript of this meeting. We’ll describe where you 24 can find the transcript a little later on. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 9

If you can keep the focus here. Please turn 1 your cell phones on silent mode. Limit sidebar 2 conversations. You’ve already figured out how to turn 3 the microphones on and off with a little LED button, 4 and if you could be concise. Share the air time. 5 So, as we had said, now is an opportunity 6 for anybody that wishes to make brief summary 7 statements here, raise issues here at the outset. 8 Yes, please. 9 **Introductory Remarks** 10 MS. CLEARY: Jen Cleary from AHAM. In its 11 regulation of wine chillers, DOE should adopt or 12 harmonize with the existing Canadian and California 13 standards and test procedures for wine chillers. 14 There is no need to start from scratch by going 15 through an extensive analysis when appropriate 16 standards and test procedures are already in place. 17 In particular, we would make this comment with regard 18 to items 1-18, 3-2, 3-3, 5-1, 5-3, and 5-4. 19 In addition, DOE should reevaluate its 20 priorities and not focus on products with little 21 opportunity for energy savings when there are more 22 pressing matters before the Department. For example, 23 the battery charger rulemaking, the dishwasher 24 rulemaking, clothes washer rulemaking test procedure 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 0

correlation issues, just to name a few. In some 1 cases, in this rulemaking, DOE is going too far by 2 attempting to regulate products that have very low 3 volumes and/or use small amounts of energy annually. 4 We would make this comment particularly with regards 5 to items 1-11, 1-13, and 1-14. 6 MR. BROOKMAN: And again, you’re speaking on 7 behalf of AHAM? 8

MS. CLEARY: Yes. 9 MR. BROOKMAN: And would you – the first 10 list, I know some individuals were writing furiously 11 as you – the first list, read the list again. 12 MS. CLEARY: Sure. 1-18, 3-2, 3-3, 5-1, 5- 13 3, and 5-4. And we’ll comment on that throughout the 14

rest – 15 MR. BROOKMAN: Very good. That’s a start. 16 Okay. Good. Thank you. Other comments here at the 17 outset? Nothing additional. Okay. So then let’s go 18 to then the presentation slides. And we’re going to 19 hear from Lucas. 20 **Regulatory History Overview** 21 MR. ADIN: Good morning, everyone. My name 22 is Lucas Adin. For those of you who don’t know me, 23 I’m the product manager for residential refrigeration 24 products in DOE’s Appliance Standards Program. And 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 1

I’m the general point of contact for these products, 1 so whether you have questions today or after today, 2 I’m the person that you can ask. My email address is 3 on this first slide, but then it’s also on the very 4 last slide and my phone number as well, so if you have 5 questions after today, feel free to contact me. 6 Sorry, a minor technical difficulty here. 7 Okay. We’re in business, sorry about that. 8 So just a few brief items. Actually we’ve 9 gone through most of this already. The meeting 10 agenda, Doug essentially went through those items 11 already. We’ve done some brief introductions, yes, we 12 did go around the table already, so you’re the 13 facilitator, Doug, I didn’t know if there were any 14 particular items you wanted to mention at this point. 15 Okay. I think we’re good. 16 Ground rules, we’ve already gone over 17 essentially all those items, so – 18 MR. BROOKMAN: We’ve done that. 19 MR. ADIN: We’ve done that. Okay. The 20 purpose of today’s meeting, this is the framework 21 meeting for residential wine chillers and 22 miscellaneous refrigeration products. So the purpose 23 of today’s meeting is essentially to present the 24 analytical process that DOE would go through in the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 2

course of evaluating potential energy conservation 1 standards for these products, determining what 2 products, specifically to cover and setting test 3 procedures for them. 4 I should point out that DOE is not actually 5 proposing anything today. What we are doing is laying 6 out our process and a basic overview of DOE’s 7 understanding of these products as of today, our 8 understanding of the market, of the technical features 9 of these products and presenting a number of items 10 that we wish to collect more information about. So 11 it’s both about how much do we know and how much we 12 wish to know more about. 13 So along those lines we also are looking for 14 comments. There some specific items that we’ll be 15 asking for comment on and we also encourage 16 participants in today’s meeting to ask questions or 17 make comments about any items you think we might be on 18 the wrong track about or that you think we might be 19 able to lend some more insight on. 20 So with regards to comments, you’ll see 21 throughout the presentation today and throughout the 22 framework document itself, there are a number of items 23 on which DOE specifically requests comment, and those 24 are indicated by these comment boxes, and they are 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 3

identified by a number, so that helps us keep track of 1 what you’re commenting on. So when you submit your 2 comments, please make sure to refer to them by the 3 number that’s indicated in the document. I think 4 that’s about all there is to say on that. 5 So with that, I will go on to a very brief 6 overview of the regulatory history. The authority 7 that the DOE has to set energy conservation standards 8 for residential and some commercial equipment was 9 established by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 10 of 1975, which put into place the energy conservation 11 program for appliances and commercial equipment. DOE 12 didn’t actually put into effect standards for 13 residential refrigerators at that time, although DOE 14 did establish test procedures shortly after. 15 The first energy efficiency standards for 16 residential refrigerators actually came into effect at 17 the federal level with the National Appliance Energy 18 Conservation Act of 1987, and those standards went 19 into effect in 1990, and then that Act also required 20 DOE to conduct rulemaking to determine if more 21 stringent standards were justified, which DOE did, and 22 those standards went into effect in 1993, and then a 23 subsequent rulemaking with a final rule published in 24 1997 put in the standards that went into effect in 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 4

2001. Those are the standards that are currently in 1 effect for residential refrigeration products. And 2 finally, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 3 2007 required DOE to conduct another rulemaking to 4 determine standards that would go into effect in 2014. 5 That rule was just published this past September. As 6 you can see at the bottom of the slide and those 7 standards, the compliance date for those is September 8 15, 2014. 9 Now the standards that are currently in 10 effect do not address wine chillers and smaller 11 refrigeration products. DOE, through a rulemaking, a 12 final rule published in 2001, modified the definition 13 of a refrigerator and refrigerator-freezer to 14 essentially cut off the coverage of these products at 15 39 degrees, so products that operate warmer than that 16 are not covered under the present standards. So this 17 rulemaking would address products that fall into that 18 category, and so DOE would have to write standards 19 specific to those types of products, and that’s what 20 this rulemaking will address. 21 So with that we get into some more specific 22 issues related to the scope of coverage, and I will 23 turn this presentation over to Detlef Westphalen from 24 Navigant Consulting who will discuss scope of 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 5

coverage. 1 **Scope of Coverage** 2 MR. WESTPHALEN: Thanks, Lucas. So EPCA 3 provides some scope-related criteria in its 4 description of refrigeration products that are 5 covered, specifically excluding those designed solely 6 for use in recreational vehicles and other mobile 7 equipment and this particular section, 6292(A)(1), 8 addresses refrigerators and it has some scope-related 9 criteria such as they can be operated on alternating 10 current electricity and the coverage scope excludes 11 types designed to be used without doors, and also any 12 type which does not include a compressor and condenser 13 as an integral part of the cabinet assembly. 14 Now, through its initial stages, thinking 15 about consideration of wine chiller rulemaking, DOE 16 essentially went through the thought process of, okay, 17 what kind of authority does DOE have and concluded 18 that it has the authority to modify the current 19 refrigerator definition which is in 10CFR430.2, to 20 include wine chillers and similar products. This 21 authority, however, does not cover products that don’t 22 use the compressor and condenser as an integral part 23 of the cabinet assembly as required by the EPCA 24 provision. Specifically, some of the products that 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 6

were identified in some of the preliminary 1 investigation were thermoelectric wine chillers, and 2 also absorption wine chillers. 3 DOE does have the authority to extend 4 coverage to new products, and simply establishing 5 coverage over new products requires that these 6 products have a minimal annual per household energy 7 use of 100 kilowatt hours. 8 To further set an energy efficiency standard 9 for a newly covered product, there are two key 10 criteria: 11

 The first is higher annual kilowatt hour usage 12 bar, at 150 kilowatt hours; 13

 National annual energy use of 4.2 billion 14 kilowatt hours. 15 So if the national energy use does not 16 exceed the 4.2 billion, DOE would be authorized to 17 establish coverage but not efficiency standards 18 potentially, for these other types of products, the 19 thermaoelectric and the absorption type of wine 20 chillers. And coverage alone, without setting a 21 national standard would obviously preempt the state 22 standards, for instance, the California standard for 23 wine chillers, which does cover the thermoelectric and 24 other types of products. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 7

Also regarding the thermoelectric and 1 absorption, you may be aware that DOE published 2 proposed coverage determination on November 8 th , 3 essentially starting to set the stage and start the 4 discussion on this particular topic. 5 I referred to California standards. There 6 are existing state and foreign standards, particularly 7 California and Canada. The regulations for these 8 entities address two product classes, automatic 9 defrost wine chillers and manual defrost wine 10 chillers, and the California standards don’t make a 11 distinction with regard to the technology used, for 12 instance, thermoelectric, vapor compression, et 13

cetera. 14 This last statement here was true when the 15 initial investigation was conducted, that DOE was not 16 able to identify any thermoelectric wine chillers in 17 the CEC database, leading us to believe that either 18 these units did not meet the standards or that 19 manufacturers aren’t aware that they’re covered. 20 However, more recently, a few thermoelectric products 21 have been identified on the CEC list. 22 So now we get into scope. I’m going to be 23 presenting on scope of coverage. I’ll also be, after 24 the break, talking about the rulemaking overview and 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 8

also test procedures, but why don’t we move forward 1 with the scope discussion. 2 As mentioned, EPCA has some requirements for 3 what criteria need to be met for DOE to establish 4 coverage, and so DOE considered these options listed 5 here which fit into the framework of the authority. 6 The first option being to establish coverage and 7 standards for vapor compression wine chillers through 8 the existing authority for residential refrigeration 9 products by changing some of the definitions in 430.2. 10 Then, obviously, some sub-options within this option 11 to be either to pursue coverage of the alternative 12 technology products or not to. The other option DOE 13 considered was to lump all the wine chillers into one 14 new category and try to establish new coverage for 15 those products. At this point DOE is tentatively 16 considering option 1A, and I mentioned the proposed 17 coverage determination for the alternative technology 18 products previously. 19 So at this point we have our first request 20 for comment, and it addresses two key issues here, 21 number one, would there be any other options that DOE 22 has? Obviously, one would be not to pursue any kind 23 of coverage at all, but are there any other positive 24 coverage options that DOE has and what are the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 9

comments or feedback with regard to the option 1A? 1 MR. BROOKMAN: Please introduce yourself. 2 MR. WIENER: Jon Wiener with Earth justice. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Did you turn the microphone 4 on? Yes, thank you. Jon. 5 MR. WIENER: We had some concerns about 6 DOE’s conclusion or perhaps tentative conclusion that 7 it did not have authority to include vapor compression 8 wine chillers in a new category, if it was going to 9 extend coverage to thermoelectric wine chillers, that 10 it could not include vapor compression wine chillers 11 in that product category. Is that still DOE’s – am I 12 accurately conveying that decision? 13 MR. WESTPHALEN: Maybe I didn’t make things 14 clear. DOE does have the authority to establish new 15 product categories, and they could establish a new 16 product category that includes thermoelectric and 17 absorption wine chillers. 18 MR. WIENER: And vapor compression wine 19 chillers? I believe the framework document said that 20 vapor compression wine chillers could not be included 21 in a new product category because they’re already 22 covered products under EPCA. 23 MR. WESTPHALEN: DOE felt that because the 24 EPCA authority for residential refrigeration products, 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 2 0

refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, 1 already can be extended to cover vapor compression 2 wine chillers, that it wouldn’t be appropriate to pull 3 those out of that authority and put them into 4 authority for a new product. 5 MR. WIENER: Well, we – we disagree with 6 that assessment. We think that the Department does 7 have authority to do that because the framework 8 document said those products are already covered, 9 whether or not DOE has authority to extend coverage to 10 them by changing the regulatory definition of 11 refrigerator, the definition of refrigerator currently 12 does not cover those products. They’re not 13 refrigerators as far as either the regulation or the 14 statute is concerned, because the regulation construes 15 the statutory term refrigerator, therefore they’re not 16 covered right now, and I think the Department could go 17 either way with it, and our perspective is that if it 18 helps the Department make the determination that 19 national energy consumption for all wine chillers 20 meets the 4.2 billion threshold, then we’d prefer that 21 DOE consider including vapor compression wine chillers 22 along with other types of wine chillers in a new 23 product category. 24 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay. That was essentially 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 2 1

option 2, that DOE entertain the possibility of 1 lumping them all together because if you used 2 thermoelectric and absorption, maybe you only get to 3 three billion kilowatt hours, and then if you add the 4 vapor compression, maybe you get to 4.2. I guess 5 that’s the point of your comment. 6 MR. WIENER: Yes, and we – I just want to be 7 clear that we think the Department has the legal 8 authority to do that. 9 MR. BROOKMAN: So, Jon, you are relatively 10 new to these proceedings – 11

MR. WIENER: Yes. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: So the Department would 13 really like to see that in great detail in writing, of 14

course. 15 MR. WIENER: We’re happy to provide that. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, thank you. Charlie. 17 MR. HON: I have a simple question. You 18 keep making reference to alternating current systems. 19 The danger of that statement can be very serious, 20 because thermoelectrics inherently, by their nature, 21 are DC current items. They have to put in a sensor or 22 transformer to convert AC to DC, but you could 23 potentially exclude products by hooking a battery 24 system through them and charging a battery and then 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 2 2

running the battery into that, which is common in sump 1 pumps and items like that, and thereby exclude 2 products from the coverage. 3 MR. KIDO: Just a real quick follow up 4 question to that – 5 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael Kido. 6 MR. KIDO: -- does that mean that those 7 products are operating off of something like a lead 8 acid battery, or are they being – are they plugged 9 into AC mains? 10 MR. HON: They can operate off a battery, 11 which is common in the transport cooler systems, which 12 run off the car battery. But you could be charging a 13 battery and then feeding the battery as your power 14 source, and making a DC system which then would be 15 excluded from the standard. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Lucas. 17 MR. ADIN: Just as a point of clarification. 18 This is actually an issue we’re going to get to a 19 little bit later in the presentation. But DOE does 20 have the authority to potentially include those 21 products if it so chooses, it’s just a matter of 22 redefining its regulatory coverage, but that’s 23 something we’ll discuss a little bit later. Thanks. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Joanna. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 2 3

MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. So in any 1 potential determination of coverage, either with 2 option 1A, just focusing – either option 1A or option 3 2, we’d encourage DOE, in addition to the 4 thermoelectric and absorption products, to also 5 consider additional products such as thermoelectric 6 compact refrigerators and refrigerators that use vapor 7 compression refrigeration system, but where the 8 compressor and condenser are not integral to the 9 cabinet, so just to consider to those products in 10 addition to the thermoelectric and absorption wine 11 chillers. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. So you see the 13 comment box, and so additional comments on the 14 coverage options? Anything else? 15 MR. WESTPHALEN: We have some additional 16 requests here, more requests for data and information, 17 perhaps more appropriately for written comments. 18 First of all, DOE requests shipment information from 19 stakeholders for wine chillers and related 20 refrigeration products with segregation of the data, 21 if possible, to help us understand what types of 22 products are involved. Also DOE requests energy use 23 data for wine chillers and related refrigeration 24 products, and this less to the vapor compression 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 2 4

products for which the CEC and Canadian databases have 1 good information, but it applies more to the other 2 products, other technologies, such as thermoelectric 3 and absorption. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: We’re just going to leave 5 these comment boxes there for a moment so you can read 6 through it. No comments at this time. Okay. 7 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay. We have one slide 8 here which provides a series of definitions. I’m not 9 going to go through and explain each – this is just 10 sort of to set the groundwork of the discussion for 11 this presentation. But if anybody has any questions 12 about what we have here, certainly feel free to ask. 13 Definition for wine chiller. DOE is 14 considering adopting the following definition for wine 15 chiller. Very similar to the definition for 16 refrigerator – electric refrigerator. “A cabinet 17 designed for the refrigerated storage of beverages, 18 non-perishable foods, and/or any other items. Not 19 designed to be capable of achieving storage 20 temperatures below 39, and having associated 21 refrigeration requiring single phase AC electric 22 energy input.” 23 Then also, the definition for refrigerator 24 would be modified to include both electric 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 2 5

refrigerator and electric wine chiller. We also have 1 a point here that DOE considered whether wine chillers 2 is the appropriate term for these products, you know, 3 since there may be other products such as beverage 4 coolers and such products, and the term wine chiller 5 may be a little bit misleading, focusing people to 6 think just about wine chillers, i.e., products for the 7 storage of wine. 8 MR. BROOKMAN: So I didn’t think you were 9 quite finished. You were close on this slide. 10 MR. WESTPHALEN: I think I was finished with 11 this slide, the third bullet just addresses whether 12 wine chiller is the appropriate term for these 13 products. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, I thought I saw a few 15 grimaces around the room. Yes. Is it Bill? 16 MR. BROWN: Yes, this is Bill Brown, GE 17 Appliances and Lighting. If you’re going to include 18 all products that are above 39 degrees, wine chiller 19 is not the proper term to use any more. Now you’ve 20 got wine chillers, you’ve got what they call in the 21 industry, the beverage centers, so it’s basically 22 you’ve got two sets of products, those that can 23 achieve 39 degrees and below, and those that cannot. 24 So if you had a term that more accurately said that, 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 2 6

if I’m thinking wine chiller, I’m still thinking the 1 Canadian definition, design and marketed exclusively 2 for the storage of wine, and obviously this is not the 3 type of product you’re going after here. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: And so you would recommend 5 another term which would be? 6 MR. BROWN: Another term, I don’t know – 7 warmer than 39 degree refrigerators. You’ve got less 8 than or equal to 39, and greater than 39. 9 MR. BROOKMAN: My short term memory is still 10 working and you said beverage centers a few moments 11

ago – 12 MR. BROWN: That’s what we call them in the 13 industry, a beverage center, so basically what you see 14 in the industry today, you see like a glass door 15 appliance that looks like a refrigerator. It just 16 can’t get below 39. 17 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Other comments on this 18 definition stuff here? So we also want to encourage 19 wide participation, we have a question or a comment 20 from Patrick Murphy, the director of testing and 21 training at the Refrigeration Service Engineers 22 Society. Patrick, you’re on the line. 23 MR. MURPHY: Is that better? 24 MR. BROOKMAN: That’s okay. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 2 7

MR. MURPHY: The SNAP program just approved 1 new refrigerants... 2

MR. WESTPHALEN: Yes. 3 MR. MURPHY: Can you hear me? 4 MR. BROOKMAN: We can hear you, yes. 5 MR. MURPHY: The SNAP program just approved 6 new refrigerants - propane, isobutene, blends - and 7 I’m wondering if that’s something considered in these 8 standards – they’re all more efficient. 9 MR. WESTPHALEN: Yes, that might be true, 10 that’s a topic for the engineering or the technology 11 assessment in identifying the potential technologies 12 that could improve efficiency. Most of those new 13 refrigerants would be used in products that have vapor 14 compression refrigeration systems, so whether they use 15 HFC, 134A, or isobutane or what have you, they would 16 still be considered vapor compression products. 17 MR. BROOKMAN: But in any event we’ll be 18 picking that up later? 19 MR. WESTPHALEN: We’ll be picking that up 20 later, yes. 21 MR. BROOKMAN: We’ll save it for later. 22 MR. MURPHY: Thank you. 23 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Patrick. Okay. 24 Any other comments in this definition segment because 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 2 8

we’re about to move on? Okay. 1 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay. Now also related to 2 definitions, DOE is considering modifying the 3 definition of compact products to specifically include 4 compact wine chillers, because most of these products 5 are within the compact range, and DOE is considering 6 this in order to make clear that they’re not separate, 7 standard size and compact size wine chillers or 8 whatever term will be used to cover the warmer than 39 9 products. 10 So now we have requests for comments about 11 all of these definitional items. I think we already 12 talked about the request for comment on the suggested 13 definition for wine chiller, however, we’re also 14 requesting comment on the modified definitions for 15 refrigerator and compact products. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: Questions and comments here. 17 Bill. Pardon me, Jon. 18 MR. WIENER: Jon Wiener from Earthjustice. 19 Our concern, again, is that the definition be written 20 broadly enough so that it doesn’t exclude too many 21 products, including some of the products that Joanna 22 mentioned earlier. Several electric refrigerator23 freezers that maybe do get down below 39 degrees, but 24 are excluded from the statutory definition of 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 2 9

refrigerator-freezer, or other types of refrigerators 1 that might be excluded either by the statute, or might 2 not be covered under the current regulatory 3 definition. Obviously, that’ll depend on how many 4 products you decide to group together in the final 5 analysis. 6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Additional 7 comments on these two comment boxes, 1-4, 1-5, 8 modified definitions? Also product category-related 9

comments. 10 MR. WESTPHALEN: The request 1-5 addresses 11 the issue that we already alluded to regarding a new 12 term that might include wine chillers and the beverage 13 centers. You know, one part of this request for 14 comment is whether anybody has any specific terms that 15 they think would be good for that, and certainly we 16 welcome any suggestions. 17 MR. BROOKMAN: Nothing’s emerged on the 18 industry side, then? Amanda. Pardon me, Jen. 19 MS. CLEARY: Jen from AHAM. We may have 20 some suggestions on the definition but we’re still 21 working on the specifics, so we’ll provide them in our 22 written comments. 23 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. Then 24 nothing additional? 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 3 0

MR. WESTPHALEN: Now we move on from the 1 wine chillers to hybrid products. As some of you are 2 aware, during the refrigerator rulemakings, DOE became 3 aware of products that include wine storage with fresh 4 food compartments, or fruit compartments, or freezer 5 compartments, and initially there was some confusion 6 about coverage of these products. About a year ago, 7 DOE published a guidance document clarifying its 8 position. In that document, DOE acknowledged that 9 there’s still some outstanding issues in regard to 10 that understanding of hybrid products, and that it’s 11 considering a rulemaking to address them, and so 12 potentially, this would be that rulemaking. 13 So, this slide lays out a potential 14 framework for addressing the hybrid products. 15 Potentially, DOE would establish a certain threshold 16 size for a wine storage compartment within a 17 conventional refrigeration product, you know, at which 18 point the particular product would no longer be a 19 refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer, or freezer, and 20 would instead be a hybrid product or whatever term 21 would be used to define these. Then there would be 22 definitions established for these hybrid products. 23 And then test procedures would be developed 24 for those products that remain within the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 3 1

refrigerator, refrigerator-freezer and freezer 1 categories, to clarify what one does when testing such 2 products with the wine storage compartment. Test 3 procedures and standard would then potentially be 4 developed also for the hybrid products. 5 So first, DOE requests general comments on 6 this draft framework for addressing products that 7 include the wine storage compartments with fresh food 8 or freezer compartments. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Comments? Jen. 10 MS. CLEARY: Jen from AHAM. Yeah, I think 11 we’ve commented on this before on the guidance but, 12 you know, our opinion is that the approach that DOE’s 13 guidance took and in the final rule is inequitable 14 with regard to hybrid products, as it’s arbitrary to 15 treat, that freezers and wine chillers are not 16 covered, but refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers 17 with wine chillers are covered. And even DOE has 18 recognized this disparity of treating these products 19 that way, and the result is that the guidance and the 20 final rule unfairly incorporated the products into 21 regulation without an appropriate rulemaking to 22 address them. This is further demonstrated by the 23 fact that these issues are now being addressed, when 24 we’ve already got these products essentially covered 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 3 2

but there are no test procedures, no definitions, et 1 cetera, so we’re very concerned about that situation. 2 And our concern that DOE is now attempting to fill the 3 holes that it left in its previous rulemaking with 4 this one, you know, all wine chillers, including the 5 hybrid products, should be addressed during this 6 rulemaking, including the coverage of those products. 7 And I think our question for the General Counsel’s 8 office is, you know, how was this evaluated, just in 9 terms of the APA, for example, the fact that these are 10 covered in the previous rulemaking and now really, the 11 technical details that need to exist and be dealt with 12 are only being handled now. 13 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael Kido. 14 MR. KIDO: Michael Kido. I’m not going to 15 comment in any detail on that, but I think it’s fair 16 to say that DOE does recognize that there are some 17 limitations to the approach that was laid out in the 18 February 2011 guidance, and I think that, as you 19 observed, this effort, assuming that we do go to 20 rulemaking on it, would be an attempt to try to more 21 comprehensively address those types of products. So, 22 as a practical matter, with respect to the definitions 23 that are already in place, the way that those 24 definitions are set out in the regulations, I think we 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 3 3

explained in the guidance as well as the final rule 1 notice, what our rationale was for the difference in 2 treatment. So we’re already on the record as to our 3 position on that matter. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Jen. 5 MS. CLEARY: Thank you. That’s all. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Joanna. 7 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. I think we would 8 encourage the Department to set standards that are 9 similar in stringency across some of these product 10 types, taking into account that the measured energy 11 use of the hybrid product will be different than the 12 measured energy use of a refrigerator without a wine 13 storage compartment, and it looks like this draft 14 framework allows the Department to do that, to account 15 for the specific characteristics of some of these 16 products. 17 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Additional comments? 18 MR. WESTPHALEN: So additional requests for 19 comments and information. DOE seeks information 20 regarding the types and configurations of the products 21 that might need to be considered under this framework 22 described for hybrid products, including examples 23 showing product details and information on annual 24 shipments associated with such products. We should 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 3 4

say that DOE has published a document listing the 1 results of some of its research into which hybrid 2 products are on sale in the U.S. market, and that’s 3 actually in the docket for the refrigerator test 4 procedure rulemaking, and that’s something that maybe 5 we should make available to people so that, you know, 6 as they respond to this question in written comments, 7 they don’t duplicate the list, but rather add to it. 8 MR. BROOKMAN: It isn’t available now? 9 MR. WESTPHALEN: It is available now. It is 10 in the refrigerator test procedure rulemaking docket– 11 I just don’t have the link to it handy here at the 12 moment. Maybe we could try to find that and provide 13 it after lunch or something. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: And did you address 1-9? 15 MR. WESTPHALEN: I didn’t get to all of 16 these here. 1-8 addresses whether there should be a 17 threshold size or percentage of total volume, which 18 then pushes a product into the hybrid category, and 19 what should that be? How should it be set up? And 20 then DOE seeks comment on what kinds of test procedure 21 revisions would be required to address these products, 22 whether they remain within the current definitions or 23 get pushed into the future hybrid categories. 24 MR. BROOKMAN: We’ve already had some 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 3 5

discussion on different types of – different 1 configurations and types that would be included in the 2 hybrid category. Additional comments on these three 3 boxes? Jon. 4 MR. WIENER: Thanks. Jon Weiner, 5 Earthjustice. Is DOE considering hybrid products as a 6 sub-category of refrigerators? Am I understanding 7 that, or would this be a sub-category of whatever new 8 product category, or whatever we would call the new 9 product category? 10 MR. WESTPHALEN: The products with, if you 11 will, small wine storage compartments that remain 12 under the definitions for refrigerator or 13 refrigerator-freezer, obviously would still be covered 14 under the existing authority and regulations. The 15 products that then push into a hybrid category, you 16 know, it would be up to DOE to decide whether, okay, 17 should those be lumped in with a new product category 18 including all wine chillers, or – because of the 19 typical characteristics of the products that DOE has 20 identified that fit this hybrid definition, they 21 should be coverable under the EPCA authority, so that 22 DOE could set up definitions within 430.2 to extend 23 coverage to them. But it’s not clear at this point 24 what will be done. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 3 6

MR. WIENER: You mean because they normally 1 have compressors? 2 MR. WESTPHALEN: They have compression 3 systems, they have doors that close, they run on AC 4 electricity, yeah. 5 MR. WIENER: Well, I’ll make sure to put 6 this in written comments, but just to repeat myself, 7 we do believe that DOE has the authority to put that 8 subcategory into – or count those products towards the 9 national energy consumption for a new product category 10 as well. 11 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay. 12 MR. WIENER: They don’t have to be 13 refrigerators or refrigerator-freezers. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. So several 15 comment boxes here. Additional comments on threshold 16 size or percentage of total volume? Types of hybrid 17 product categories? And also test procedure 18 revisions. Nothing additional. 19 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay. Item 1-10 20 specifically addresses whether this action here should 21 incorporate these hybrid products into our rulemaking. 22 Really, a very specific question, and then Item 1-19, 23 specifically asks for comment on the compartments 24 themselves, you know, whether they be wine storage 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 3 7

compartments, maybe they should have a different term. 1 The Australian/New Zealand test procedure, for 2 instance, calls these something like cellar 3 compartments. What the request for comment there asks 4 for information regarding definition and 5 characteristics of these warmer temperature 6 compartments. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: No strong feelings about this 8 yet. Okay. Joanna. 9 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer, just I think it 10 makes sense to include hybrid products as part of this 11 rulemaking. I don’t know much about this market, but 12 I would guess that these products may become more 13 common in the future, so it makes sense to adjust them 14 and develop appropriate test procedures and standards 15 for these products. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments? 17 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay. So here we sort of 18 extend the scope of view to think about other types of 19 residential refrigeration products that haven’t been 20 discussed already and have not yet been covered. The 21 framework document gets into some details on these, 22 for example, residential ice makers, and so-called 23 near-freezers. And so DOE requests comment on whether 24 any other residential refrigeration products that 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 3 8

should be considered as part of a potential rulemaking 1 as we move forward here. 2 MR. BROOKMAN: You see the comment box – 3 yes, Jon. 4 MR. WIENER: John Wiener again. Just want 5 to repeat something Joanna mentioned earlier. The one 6 product that I noticed that wasn’t mentioned in the 7 framework document was a product that AHAM and 8 Earthjustice submitted comments on in response to the 9 proposed determination, and those are refrigerators 10 that have compressors and condensers and fit all the 11 definitions of the regulatory and statutory – all the 12 provisions of the statutory and regulatory definitions 13 except the compressor is located on top of the unit 14 instead of as a part of the cabinet, and it’s 15 removable. I don’t know if there’s a neat way of 16 writing a definition of whatever new product category, 17 whatever we’re going to call it, that incorporates 18 both wine chillers and those products, but it’s 19 something that we would like the Department to pay 20 attention to, because we think it’s a loophole in the 21 current regulatory scheme. 22 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks. 23 MR. BROWN: Bill Brown with GE. I would 24 have a question of why would that product would not be 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 3 9

covered today. I don’t see anything in the standards 1 thing that it has to be permanently attached to the 2 refrigerator, be part of the cabinet. I do know that 3 in the ISO documents for international refrigeration, 4 that in order for it to be covered in Europe it has to 5 be built in a factory. It can’t be pieced together in 6 someone’s home. Do not see that for the U.S. 7 MR. KIDO: Michael Kido, DOE. My 8 understanding of – 9 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael, get close to the 10 microphone, please. 11 MR. KIDO: My understanding of Jon’s 12 comment, though, refers to a product where the 13 compressor is not integral to the cabinet, is that 14 right? 15 MR. WIENER: Yeah. 16 MR. KIDO: Right. So if that’s the case, 17 under the statutory definition that we’re currently 18 dealing with, with that particular product, there’s 19 some question as to whether that would actually be 20 within our scope of coverage right now. That’s 21 something we can add later on as part of that coverage 22 rulemaking that we’ve got going on, but right now that 23 doesn’t seem to be something that’s within the scope 24 of coverage that EPCA sets out for us. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 4 0

MR. BROOKMAN: Bill. 1 MR. BROWN: You said two things there. You 2 said you weren’t sure, and then you said it was not 3 covered. So which is it? Is it you’re definitely 100 4 percent sure this is not a covered product, or you’re 5 still determining whether it’s a covered product? 6 MR. KIDO: Michael Kido. My understanding 7 is, if this particular product has a compressor that’s 8 not integral to the cabinet assembly, which is one of 9 the key components of the scope of coverage that’s 10 laid out in statute, we don’t have coverage under that 11 provision. With respect to our ability to extend 12 coverage as a part of the separate coverage 13 determination that we’ve got going on, we could get 14 coverage that way. 15 I guess to put it in another way, our 16 authority does not extend coverage to products in 17 which the compressor and condenser are not an integral 18 part of the cabinet assembly. And the question to be 19 answered is what does it mean to be an integral part 20 of the cabinet assembly. And that issue has not been 21 definitively decided. 22 MR. BROOKMAN: So that would be commentary 23 that would be useful for the Department. Charlie. 24 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. This is something 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 4 1

that’s been in the commercial end of the business for 1 a long time. Basically, it is designed so that the 2 unit can be serviced without pulling the entire box 3 out, just bring in a different compressor deck, drop 4 it on, a couple snap-on connectors and you’re done. 5 And it’s starting to trickle toward the residential 6 market, it looks like, but it’s never been considered 7 as separate units in the commercial end of the 8 business. But there have been a few people that have 9 tried to make a common footprint which would allow a 10 much larger compressor to be dropped in place, thereby 11 modifying the unit, the internal volume ratio, which 12 could be a problem in the regulatory state, which 13 would be field modification. But there are also 14 companies who are proposing that decks be sold 15 separately to boxes, and then paired in the field. 16 And then you end up with a regulatory nightmare. 17 MR. KIDO: Michael Kido, DOE. Just to 18 follow up then. So are you saying then that these 19 particular products would have the compressor part of 20 what you would ordinarily consider to be part of the, 21 I guess, the cabinet? 22 MR. BROOKMAN: Or the enclosure? 23 MR. KIDO: Or the enclosure of the whole 24 product? Because I guess that’s sort of – that 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 4 2

presents sort of, I guess, a different question 1 because we’re not exactly – I don’t know, I don’t 2 think we’ve come up with a final determination as to 3 what the cabinet actually composes – is composed of. 4 Because if it’s part of the enclosure, I suppose it 5 could be an argument that could be part of the cabinet 6 itself. 7 MR. ADIN: Lucas Adin, DOE. Related to that 8 is another question. Could the compressor, and I 9 suppose the condenser as well, as a component, be 10 located separately from the box? I mean that would 11 effectively make it a remote condensing type of 12 product, but is it required that units of this type 13 actually have that compressor-condenser component 14 physically attached to the box or could it actually be 15 located remotely? 16 MR. HON: It could technically – 17 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie. 18 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. It could technically 19 be remote. There are very high end installations 20 where customer refrigeration is done where people do 21 not wish to hear the noise going on in the compressor 22 activity, in which case it’s a very expensive 23 installation, and very, very, very rare to see such a 24 beast ever built. Because effectively you’re 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 4 3

building a pure custom unit. 1 MR. BROOKMAN: It’s a custom piece. 2 MR. HON: Yes. The other part of the beast 3 is, in the commercial end, it is quite common to sell 4 a unit where you snap on a deck which includes 5 compressor, evaporator and condenser, and fan. So you 6 just literally unplug it from the junction box, two or 7 three screws, lift it off. The box maintains as is, 8 put a different compressor deck in place, and it’s 9 ready to go. There are customers who ask for boxes 10 alone, and would like to have a common deck crossing 11 multiple product lines which they can then screw on as 12 they feel the need. That could allow for major 13 differences in compressor horsepower. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Is that a common application? 15 That plug-on to the top of the box? 16 MR. HON: It is becoming more common every 17 day. Five years ago, it was non-existent. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: We’ll let Michael Kido follow 19

up. 20 MR. KIDO: Just a real quick question. Now 21 you said those types of applications are becoming more 22 and more common. Are they more common in the 23 commercial context, or are they becoming more common 24 in the residential complex? 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 4 4

MR. HON: At this time I’ve not seen them in 1 the residential, but the technology is well known. 2 MR. BROOKMAN: Bill, you want to – 3 MR. BROWN: No, no question. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. That was 5 good. That was useful. Joanna. 6 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. So you mentioned 7 thermoelectric compact refrigerators before, and I 8 know DOE has raised a concern with wine chillers, but 9 if there are only standards on vapor compression 10 products and not thermoelectric products then there 11 could potentially be a market shift from the vapor 12 compression to thermoelectric products and it seems 13 like there could be a similar concern in the compact 14 refrigerator market. So we’d encourage DOE to include 15 thermoelectric compact refrigerators in any 16 determination of coverage. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Jen. 18 MS. CLEARY: We would reiterate our comment 19 from the opening statement that DOE should be 20 refocusing its priorities, you know, not addressing 21 products that have little opportunity for energy 22 savings when there are more pressing matters before 23 the Department. 24 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 4 5

comments on 1-13? Okay. 1 MR. WESTPHALEN: We have additional requests 2 for information on the same theme, you know, for 3 shipment data or energy use data for these other types 4 of equipment, and I don’t know if we need to dwell on 5 these requests for comment, just know that DOE 6 requests comment on – or requests information, rather, 7 and data if it is available to allow the Department to 8 properly assess the potential for energy savings and 9 make an informed decision regarding pursuit of 10 coverage of these other product categories. 11 MR. BROOKMAN: Does the Department know, has 12 AHAM collected this data, for example? 13 MR. WESTPHALEN: DOE does not know whether 14 AHAM collects any of this data for any of these niche 15 products. It’s possible that manufacturers have some 16 understanding of the size of the market and could 17 provide that information. Any such information, 18 obviously, is better than none. 19 MR. BROOKMAN: So, I’m not going to linger 20 on these very long, unless we get some interest here. 21 Michael? Michael Kido. 22 MR. KIDO: I’ll just throw that question out 23 there, does anyone know of any sources that we could 24 use to get that kind of information? 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 4 6

MR. BROOKMAN: No knowledge of it at this 1 time. Okay. 2 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Joanna, please. 4 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. Can I just ask a 5 quick question about the near-freezers? I think DOE 6 outlined a couple of potential options for addressing 7 these products. Was one of the options to amend the 8 definition for freezer without changing the test 9 procedure? 10 MR. WESTPHALEN: Because the definition for 11 freezer in 430.2, DOE presumably had the option to 12 change those definitions to extend coverage to these 13 so-called near freezer products. Then, as you point 14 out, then the issue becomes well, is the current test 15 procedure for freezers appropriate for these products, 16 and DOE may then have to consider test procedure 17 modifications to address them, and also, you know, 18 develop guidelines for how the existing energy 19 standards might apply to them. 20 MS. MAUER: Okay. Thank you. 21 MR. BROOKMAN: Bill. 22 MR. BROWN: This is Bill from GE. AHAM does 23 have comments on how you can use the existing test 24 procedure for a near-freezer, and we will be providing 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 4 7

those in our comments, and one possibility would be 1 use the current test procedure and instead of 2 interpolating to zero degrees, you extrapolate to zero 3 degrees. So you’d still be comparing the products 4 that are called freezers using the same test procedure 5 without any change in the definition of the test 6 procedure at zero degrees, you could still use the 7 same equations, you still got a straight line between 8 two points, you just extrapolate to zero instead of 9 interpolating. 10 MR. BROOKMAN: And so your thinking is, or 11 AHAM’s thinking is that that will be sufficient? 12

MR. BROWN: Yes. 13 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Joanna. 14 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. Is that a 15 specific utility of these kinds of products? Are they 16 currently on the market? 17 MR. BROWN: I would say that GE does not 18 have any of these products. We were not aware of 19 these products existing, certainly see how someone 20 could design a product that does not get to zero 21 degrees. 22 MR. BROOKMAN: I notice that Jen just 23 stepped out of the room for a moment, so maybe there 24 is some additional comment to be made there? Not at 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 4 8

this moment. Any more comments on this segment? 1 Okay. Charlie. 2 MR. HON: One question. Near-freezer is a 3 pretty broad statement. One product that does exist 4 in the market is that people like really cold beer, 5 below the standard refrigerator category, but 6 certainly not to the freezer category, but definitely 7 would be below any standard which would be allowable 8 for a refrigerator. Is that going to fall into the 9 near-freezer? 10 MR. WESTPHALEN: We don’t know for sure. 11 One might consider that near-freezers would have 12 temperatures up to 20, and maybe above 20 would be 13 like a high performance refrigerator or something. 14 But obviously, at this point, our understanding and 15 how many of these products is actually shipped is 16 somewhat limited and we don’t really know if it makes 17 sense to pursue all of this. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie Hon. 19 MR. HON: The term freezer, I assume, is 20 read generally accepted as freezing water, below 32 21 degrees, and alcoholic beverages have a much lower 22 freeze point than that. So that’s why I’m confused. 23 MR. BROOKMAN: You don’t have these 24 definitions established at this point? 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 4 9

MR. WESTPHALEN: No. I mean, near-freezer 1 was discussed in the framework document without any 2 specific guidance for what the temperature level is, 3 and the topic was raised in the framework in response 4 to comments received from one of the stakeholders 5 during the refrigerator test procedure rulemaking last 6 year or the year before, indicating that, you know, 7 the zero Fahrenheit bar would potentially cause some 8 of these products to be non-covered. And so the 9 stakeholder felt that we shouldn’t let them get away 10 with it just because they can’t meet zero Fahrenheit. 11 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie. 12 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. This has been 13 addressed recently in final rulemaking from the DOE 14 covering commercial refrigeration. Basically the rule 15 of thumb was there’s several products involved, wine 16 chillers were some of those products, basically, that 17 did not get to the 38 plus or minus two standard, and 18 ice vending or ice storage machinery, which was in the 19 mid-twenties was also considered. But basically the 20 rule of thumb at that point was DOE said turn the unit 21 as cold as it can go and report as a variance on the 22 standard, but document what you did. 23 MR. BROOKMAN: What are these units designed 24 to do? Do you know? 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 5 0

MR. HON: Depends on the units. Wine 1 chillers, depending on what type of wine you’re trying 2 to hold, could be 45 degrees, 55 degrees, 58 degrees. 3 Ice storage is generally done between 22 and 30 4 degrees Fahrenheit for commercial purchased ice, bags 5 of ice. Beer units in the commercial end, there are 6 beer units which run at 27, 28 degrees Fahrenheit, 7 because bars want to sell really cold beer. But if 8 they go put their light beers in there, they quite 9 often break the bottles. So there’s a problem with 10 them. 11 MR. BROOKMAN: I think maybe we should maybe 12 at lunch do some taste-testing here. 13 MR. BROWN: In the refrigerator-freezer 14 definition, when you look at what is a compartment, 15 what is a fresh food compartment, what is a freezer 16 compartment, for fresh food, it’s anything above eight 17 degrees Fahrenheit. So that’s not – again, just for 18 your own refrigerators between 32 and 39, but if you 19 look at just individual compartments, anything above 20 eight degrees is considered fresh food, so when you 21 calculate the volume of that compartment it goes into 22 the fresh food bin, anything below eight is a freezer. 23 For example, the bottom freezers that have the ice on 24 the door in the fresh food compartment, that is in the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 5 1

20 degree range when you’re storing ice, and that’s 1 considered to be a fresh food compartment. So just 2 one more thing to consider when you’re looking at what 3 is a near-freezer. You’ve already got definitions of 4 what is a fresh food for a compartment, possibly you 5 can use that or build on that to come up with what a 6 near-freezer would be in this definition. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: Where is that definition? 8 MR. HON: You can see that in the AHAM HRF9 1, which 10 CFR 430 points to as far as how to 10 calculate the volumes. 11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Lucas Adin 12 has a question from someone on line. 13 MR. ADIN: This was actually just a comment. 14 This was from Steve Church at Whirlpool in regard to 15 Item 1-14, residential ice makers. His comment was, 16 “The intent of Congress with EPCA was not to restrict 17 these products. A very small number of these products 18 are sold each year, and regulating these products will 19 have almost no impact on reducing energy consumption.” 20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks. Additional 21 comments relative to these two comment boxes? Bill, 22 go ahead. 23 MR. BROWN: One other example from 1-14, 24 residential ice makers, California does regulate ice 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 5 2

makers that make above 50 pounds per day, so those do 1 exist – regulations do exist for that type of product, 2 but below 50 pounds a day, there is no regulation. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Yes. 4 MR. ADIN: Sorry, this is Lucas Adin, DOE. 5 Just a quick question on that. Is that specific to 6 residential ice makers or is it commercial or do they 7 distinguish? 8 MR. BROWN: I’m not sure. We don’t have 9 that product. 10 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie? 11 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. I don’t deal in that 12 product, but I happen to know the regulations because 13 there are some questions brought up in some other 14 meetings. The regulations do not specify application. 15 They specify less than 50 pounds of ice generated per 16 24 hour period, or they specify a regulated product, 17 which is 50 pounds to 2500 pounds of ice generated 18 within a 24 hour period. After that it’s considered 19 an industrialized factory, and no longer regulated 20 under the same standard. 21 MR. BROOKMAN: So it’s only volume. 22 MR. HON: How much you can produce in a day. 23 MR. WESTPHALEN: The ceiling on that 24 capacity range has been lifted to 4000 pounds per day 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 5 3

as part of the commercial ice maker rulemaking 1 recently. 2 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. So I guess we’re 3 moving on now. 4 MR. WESTPHALEN: One – I think this is the 5 last topic under scope, has to do with the 6 residential/commercial split and this is a question 7 that has come up recently in rulemakings in regard to 8 when is a product a commercial product versus a 9 consumer product. And I’m not going to try to quote 10 the EPCA guidelines on that, but DOE is aware of 11 several attributes that could distinguish commercial 12 types of wine chillers from residential types, but 13 would like additional information to allow it to 14 definitively conclude if that is the appropriate 15 decision that wine chillers with uniquely commercial 16 features exist. 17 So we have requests for comments on this 18 theme, DOE seeks comment on what design and 19 performance characteristics distinguish the wine 20 chillers used in commercial applications, whether any 21 of these wine chillers are manufactured on the same 22 product lines as residential wine chillers and 23 whether, to any extent, commercial wine chillers are 24 distributed in commerce for personal consumer use. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 5 4

Obviously, DOE seeks details regarding the magnitude 1 of those sales. 2 And then, a related, catch-all item, 1-16, 3 DOE seeks comment on whether the commercial and 4 residential wine chillers should be addressed with the 5 same test procedures and energy standards within the 6 same rulemaking. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie. 8 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. Several comments 9 here. Number one, wine chillers, large commercial 10 wine chillers, do trickle into the residential market. 11 Commercial manufacturers like our company try and 12 avoid that at all cost, even though we have no control 13 over the dealers selling the product into the 14 residential market. But due to the way they’re 15 designed, they’re a disaster in a home because 16 commercial application wine chillers are done on the 17 same commercial refrigeration systems as commercial 18 refrigerators which are, shall we say, noisy at best. 19 If you put them in your home, you probably not want 20 them in your home very long, because they make a lot 21 of noise and it’s quite often objectionable in a 22 kitchen environment, when people are sitting around 23 talking and the thing turns on, it makes a lot of 24 racket over the conversation. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 5 5

It does happen. It is very – it’s not 1 common and manufacturers try and avoid it for two 2 reasons, number one is we don’t want to get caught in 3 a legal issue, crossing the bounds and not having 4 registered, or our product registered for one market 5 and not the other with the DOE. Secondly, is our 6 field concerns as far as warranty come and customer 7 dissatisfaction are so great that we discourage any 8 sales of our commercial products in the home market. 9 Secondly, at this time, you’ve got to be 10 very cognizant that if they go the same standards, 11 these are different applications. If you take a 12 product which is designed for a commercial 13 application, you’re assuming that the waiter or 14 waitress or whomever is handling out the wine is in 15 that cabinet on a very consistent basis. If you’re in 16 a restaurant, there’s going to be bottle after bottle, 17 after bottle being opened, and that wine cabinet is 18 being opened almost continuously. And under 19 commercial design, we design to capture air recovery 20 within the first three to five minutes in a commercial 21 unit. You don’t want that kind of air movement in a 22 residential unit because you’ll dry out your corks and 23 ruin your wine. 24 Commercials are designed to move wine in and 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 5 6

move wine out. And they consume a lot more power 1 because that quick recovery and constant air movement, 2 which means you have fans in there moving it all the 3 time. That’s so the wine is presentable to the 4 customer on a regular basis during a heavy rush of an 5 all-evening restaurant. And the residentials, that is 6 not the case. Quite often a wine bottle will sit in 7 it for several weeks or months. 8 MR. BROOKMAN: What happens in the unit– 9 when the restaurant’s not open? Is there a different 10 cycle or something? 11 MR. HON: Oh, it just goes to a totally 12 different cycle, by demand, but your recovery times 13 are totally different. You’d use one-third the 14 horsepower in the compressor in the residential than 15 you would in the commercial. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: Good. That was helpful. Do 17 you have additional comments related to these two 18 comment boxes, Charlie? 19 MR. HON: Definitely – this is Charlie Hon 20 again – definitely the commercial penetrating into the 21 home market is very, very low. There’s no coverage 22 discussions whatsoever that I’ve seen and people who 23 are buying what is known as wine cellars for their 24 house, which is a walk-in cabinet, quite often remote 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 5 7

refrigeration systems. And I don’t see that being 1 covered or discussed anyplace in this document. 2 MR. BROOKMAN: Any comments on whether 3 commercial and residential wine chillers – whether 4 commercial and residential wine chillers should be 5 covered under the same test procedures and energy 6 standards? Bill. 7 MR. BROWN: My comment would be based on his 8 comments that they’re two different appliances, and 9 should not be lumped into the same product category. 10 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Charlie. 11 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. The commercial 12 standard is ASHRAE 72 which has eight hours of door 13 openings, every ten minutes you open each door. Under 14 normal residential design, your product is gone by 15 that period. You just cannot maintain your 16 temperatures in a residential unit opening it every 17 ten minutes. The test is much more severe for 18 commercial because it is what happens in the real 19 world. And as such, locking them into the same 20 process, I do not believe is a logical thing to do. 21 MR. BROOKMAN: That detailed comment is very 22 useful, thank you. Lucas. 23 MR. ADIN: Lucas Adin, DOE. I’m just going 24 to read one more question that came in through the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 5 8

webinar. This is from Elizabeth Joyce of the 1 California Investor Owned Utilities. And Elizabeth 2 says, “It’s our understanding that DOE is already 3 considering coverage for commercial wine chillers 4 under the ongoing commercial refrigeration rulemaking. 5 Can DOE clarify its scope of coverage here?” 6 I don’t know that we can offer any specifics 7 today. I think that’s something, at least in regard 8 to this rulemaking, that we’re still trying to figure 9 out. We need more information about it. So 10 unfortunately I can’t offer a specific answer. 11 MR. WESTPHALEN: Just a clarification 12 question for Charlie. My understanding is that there 13 are no separate test procedures for wine chillers, 14 commercial wine chillers as compared with commercial 15 refrigerators, that it's basically the same test 16 procedure except obviously you can’t reach the same 17 integrated average temperature. 18 MR. HON: That is part of the recent final 19 ruling that came out within the last month and a half 20 concerning non-standard products in the commercial 21 refrigeration business, where you cannot get it cold 22 enough to run the standard test. They do not 23 differentiate whether they’re wine chillers, because 24 there’s much broader categories in the commercial end. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 5 9

Wine chillers, or this type of thing, chocolates and 1 flowers are all covered under the same standard, 2 because any of those three products, if you get them 3 to 38 degrees Fahrenheit, you’re destroying the 4 product, and as such they’re all designed to be much 5 warmer than that, and the units are designed to cover 6 that category. And that’s why, in the commercial end, 7 it doesn’t say wine chillers. It has avoided that 8 because they don’t want to start categorizing and 9 saying, well, this is a wine chillers, or you’re 10 applying it for chocolates, or you’re applying it for 11 flowers. It is a non-standard refrigerator, because 12 there are more and more product categories appearing 13 all the time to cover, so they didn’t want to specify 14 coverage of wine. But chocolates and flowers are the 15 most counted. 16 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay. 17 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional questions or 18 comments? Okay. 19 MR. WESTPHALEN: I thought the last one was 20 the last one, but maybe this one is, under scope. We 21 talked briefly earlier about products that can operate 22 on both AC and DC electric power. DOE is aware that 23 there are such products. Many of these products are 24 clearly marketed for mobile applications, such as 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 6 0

recreational vehicles, and for that reason they would 1 not be subject to coverage under the EPCA authority. 2 However, DOE is considering the possibility 3 that there may be significant numbers of these 4 products that are used in stationary applications, so 5 DOE seeks information regarding products that can 6 operate on either AC or DC are distributed to any 7 significant extent to applications where they are used 8 in stationary status. What types of products are 9 there? What annual shipments are there? 10 And DOE also generally seeks comment on 11 whether it should consider extending coverage to such 12 products. 13 MR. BROOKMAN: See the comment boxes. No 14 comment. Okay. Well, it’s just about 10:30, let’s 15 take a coffee break. We’ve made good progress here, 16 really appreciate the quality and breadth of the 17 comment. It’s 10:30. Some of you are fairly new to 18 the Forestall Building, you must wear this badge if 19 you’re going to walk around inside the Forestall 20 Building. There are rest rooms on both ends of the 21 hall here. We’re on Floor 8, and all the other floors 22 – they’re stacked up and down. There’s a coffee shop 23 on the ground floor. Take the elevator bank down, and 24 hang a left and just 20 yards up the hallway, there’s 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 6 1

a coffee shop. If you’re going to get coffee, do it 1 quickly. Sometimes they’re stacked up during the 2 coffee break. 3 We will resume at 10:45 here in this room, 4 and this room will be supervised. You can leave your 5 stuff. So thanks for a good start on the day, we’ll 6
resume at 10:45. 7 (Whereupon, at 10:30 a.m., the meeting was 8 recessed for a 15 minute period.) 9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So we are, I think, on 10 slide 29 now. Yes? And back to Detlef Westphalen. 11 Rulemaking Overview 12 MR. WESTPHALEN: Thanks, Doug. So I’m going 13 to be going over a set of slides here that talk about 14 the rulemaking overview and framework and this general 15 group of slides is in many of the rulemaking 16 presentations so most of you will have seen these 17 before and hopefully we can go through them quickly, 18 but certainly anybody that has questions, whether in 19 the room or on the webinar, certainly ask us. We want 20 to make sure you understand what’s going to be 21 happening. 22 First of all, EPCA lays out seven factors 23 that need to be considered when considering energy 24 conservation standards. These are well discussed in 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 6 2

the statute and the DOE analyses that are conducted, 1 sort of line up to answer questions associated with 2 each of those factors. And I’m not going to get into 3 the detail here. Essentially, the analyses are done to 4 address this EPCA requirement. 5 Generally, there are four key steps in an 6 energy conservation standard rulemaking process. We’re 7 here in the framework stage. The framework document 8 was published recently. We then generally move into 9 preliminary analysis, you know, in which we start to do 10 some of the analyses, understand the technology, do 11 initial estimates of life-cycle costs and national 12 impacts. Then we present that information and have a 13 public meeting similar to what we have here. 14 Then having that information, we move into 15 the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking stage where some of 16 the analyses are adjusted based on stakeholder comment. 17 Additional analyses are conducted that are required to 18 feed into setting of standards. Candidate standard 19 levels are chosen and specific levels are then proposed 20 as the standards for the products. Then there’s 21 another opportunity for stakeholders to comment on 22 those proposed standard levels. And after that, based 23 on all the information and comments collected, DOE 24 moves to a final rule stage. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 6 3

This slides shows the anticipated timelines 1 for the parallel rulemakings, the test procedure 2 rulemaking that would address what are the test 3 procedures that would be put into the regulations for 4 these products, and also the energy conservation 5 standard. And it shows that – obviously this is a 6 draft – but the intent would be the test procedure 7 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking would be published prior 8 to the energy conservation standard preliminary 9 analysis, and likewise, that the test procedure final 10 rule would be published prior to the energy 11 conservation standard Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 12 This would potentially lead to a final rule 13 in the middle of 2014, with compliance date in the 14 middle of 2017 for these products. 15 Now, recently DOE has considered the 16 potential to accelerate some of these rulemakings in 17 order to more quickly get to regulations, if that makes 18 sense. Some of the options for that would be 19 stakeholder negotiation which would then be considered 20 in the DOE analyses that could save seven to 21 months, 21 depending on how early in the process an agreement is 22
reached. 23 DOE could alternatively consider bypassing 24 publication of preliminary analysis and move directly 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 6 4

to a NOPR phase and that might save six to eight 1
months. 2 So here we have a request for comment on 3 whether DOE should consider acceleration of the 4 timeline and publish a possible final rule. Which of 5 these options might be feasible or recommended and what 6 are the potential implications? 7
MR. BROOKMAN: Jen. 8 MS. CLEARY: Jen Cleary. I think we would 9 oppose option two which would bypass the preliminary 10 analysis. We think that’s really an important 11 opportunity for stakeholders to give feedback early in 12 the process and impact the rulemaking, so we would not 13 go for that option. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Would you comment on option 15

one? 16 MS. CLEARY: I think that’s something we’re 17 certainly open to discussing. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. So DOE is 19 being quite flexible in offering some additional 20 options here. Additional comments on these options? 21

Joanna. 22 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. I guess all I’d 23 say at this point is in terms of option one, at least 24 from the efficiency advocate perspective, it’s very 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 6 5

helpful to us to have DOE preliminary analysis to be 1 able to enter into negotiations. 2 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. 3 MR. WESTPHALEN: That covers the overview on 4 framework, now we move into preliminary analysis in 5 test procedures. 6 Preliminary Analysis in Test Procedures 7 I’ll be presenting on some of the issues 8 associated with test procedure. The past test 9 procedures, the Code of Federal Regulations prescribes 10 DOE test procedures for residential refrigeration 11 products, but these test procedures currently do not 12 include test procedures for testing wine chillers, 13 such as standardized temperatures that are consistent 14 with the use of these products. 15 AHAM, CEC and Canada have test procedures 16 for wine chillers, and the test procedures – these 17 test procedures are very similar to the existing test 18 procedures that DOE and AHAM have for refrigerators, 19 except for different standardized compartment 20 temperature and also a usage factor which we’ll talk 21 about in a moment. 22 Some refrigeration products have a 23 correction factor associated with them that is 24 intended to address different levels of usage 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 6 6

associated, for instance, with door opening. The test 1 procedure in use, the AHAM test procedure in use in 2 California and Canada has a 0.85 usage factor, which 3 is applied to the measured energy use, which 4 essentially reduces the result by about 15 percent, or 5 exactly 15 percent. 6 DOE requests comments on whether a 7 correction factor is appropriate for calculating wine 8 chillers energy use, whether .85 is the appropriate 9 value, and whether this is the appropriate value or if 10 another value is appropriate, whether there is any 11 data that suggests – that supports the particular 12 number. 13 MR. BROOKMAN: So 15 percent commenting on? 14 Bill. 15 MR. BROWN: This is Bill from GE. Those 16 correction factors do exist today for the upright 17 freezers and for the chest freezers, the chest freezer 18 being .7, and an upright freezer being a .85. I only 19 conclude, take a look at the expected door openings 20 for this product and you’d say they’re about the same 21 as you’d expect for an upright freezer product, not a 22 chest freezer. The AHAM test procedure was simply 23 mimicking the California, the NRCan test procedure 24 when we added it to the HRF-1, just use the existing 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 6 7

.85 correction factor. 1 One other item that wasn’t included is that 2 - the existing NRCan test procedure does have a 3 provision if you have a manual light switch, you click 4 on, click off the light, that you test it with it on, 5 you test with it off, and you take the average. That 6 doesn’t exist in the California test procedure. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: Do you have – would you state 8 a preference for those two different methods? 9 MR. BROWN: I would say the implication is 10 from Canada, that if you – they would say probably 11 half the customers would turn that on and leave it on 12 forever, and the other half would not. Many of the 13 products that are out there today have a light that if 14 you turn it on, it will turn itself off, and the 15 existing test procedures say that you test that with 16 it off. If it’s manually initiated and automatically 17 terminated, it’s at its lowest energy consuming 18 position. So I would, if I were going to say which - 19 California or the NRCan - probably the NRCan is more 20 representative, and might push manufacturers to look 21 at a different type of system. 22 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Yes, 23

Joanna. 24 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. I believe DOE has 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 6 8

been conducting some field metering on residential 1 refrigerators. Has that included any metering of wine 2 chillers? 3 MR. WESTPHALEN: What I’m aware of is 4 metering of wine chillers, but not refrigerators, and 5 maybe Jeff can speak a little bit more to that. 6 MR. GREENBLATT: This is Jeff Greenblatt 7 from Lawrence Berkeley Lab. During the refrigerator8 freezer rulemaking process, we did meter some 9 refrigerators and freezers, as well as gathering data 10 that other entities had metered previously. There’s 11 no current metering going on in refrigerators or 12 freezers. We have preliminarily metered a small 13 handful of wine chillers, focusing on thermoelectric 14 units in order to get some preliminary estimates of 15

energy use. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael Kido. 17 MR. KIDO: My understanding is that those – 18 those are informal measurements that were taken at 19 this point, and I don’t think – 20 MR. GREENBLATT: That’s correct. 21 MR. KIDO: Right. 22 MR. BROOKMAN: Informal. Okay. Thank you. 23 Additional comments? 24 MR. WESTPHALEN: We have a slide addressing 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 6 9

standby and off mode and request for comment. EPCA 1 requires DOE to consider standby mode and off mode 2 energy consumption when amending test procedures and 3 DOE expects that any test procedure for wine chillers 4 would be a variant of the existing test procedures for 5 refrigerators. This test currently measures all the 6 energy use, essentially when the compressor is on as 7 well as when the compressor is off, so the feeling is 8 that standby and off mode would already be captured in 9 those measurements, and so DOE concludes that 10 establishing separate provisions for standby and off 11 mode for wine chiller testing is not necessary. But 12 DOE requests comments on whether anything hasn’t been 13 considered in coming to this conclusion. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Jen. 15 MS. CLEARY: AHAM agrees that standby would 16 be captured in the existing test procedures and that’s 17 what we think DOE should adopt, so we agree. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Additional 19 comments? Okay. 20 MR. WESTPHALEN: This is just a list of the 21 test procedure key issues. They really have all been 22 addressed already, you know, some of them in the scope 23 discussion, and some of them in the discussion we just 24 had. But DOE seeks comment regarding whether there 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 7 0

are any other key issues associated with the 1 development of test procedures for wine chillers that 2 should be considered that we haven’t yet discussed. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Other key issue comments? 4 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay. And at this point I 5 welcome my colleague Ken Nsofor who’s going to be 6 talking about market technology assessment and the 7 screening and engineering analyses. 8 **Market Technology Assessment** 9 MR. NSOFOR: Thanks, Detlef. Kenneth 10 Nsofor, Navigant Consulting. The next few slides will 11 talk about some of the analysis DOE plans to conduct 12 in the preliminary stage. First, there’s the market 13 and technology assessment. The purpose of the market 14 assessment is to understand and characterize the 15 market of wine chillers, understand the manufacturers. 16 In this analysis DOE plans to identify manufacturers’ 17 wine chillers, understand the niche players and the 18 large manufacturers of wine chillers in the industry, 19 estimate the shipments and trends in the market, 20 identify the federal regulations and initiatives out 21 there today in an attempt to improve the efficiency of 22 wine chillers, and also identify various technologies 23 that could improve efficiency of wine chillers. 24 Right now we open up comments to 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 7 1

stakeholders and everybody out here. Just give us a 1 little feedback and help with the market analysis. 2 Typical information we may need, like shipment, and if 3 anybody could open up comments. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Bill. 5 MR. BROWN: Does DOE or Navigant intend to 6 visit individual manufacturers like you did in the 7 refrigerator rulemaking in order to get this type of 8 data, or would you expect it to be submitted and 9 become public information? 10 MR. NSOFOR: The answer to that question is 11 yes. During the preliminary manufacturing impact 12 analysis, Navigant and DOE plans to visit 13 manufacturers and there’s a plan to have an NDA in 14 place as well, so we can handle confidential 15 information. 16 MR. WESTPHALEN: This is Detlef Westphalen. 17 I’d like to add to that oftentimes in these 18 rulemakings there’s an information gathering exercise 19 that one of the trade organizations might endeavor to 20 conduct. The question would be whether AHAM and 21 AHAM’s members would be interested in working to 22 assemble some data that would be relevant to the 23 rulemaking, you know, in particular, shipment data, 24 efficiency level data of existing products, and things 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 7 2

like that. In some rulemakings this has worked very 1 well, in other rulemakings the trade organization is 2 not very receptive to that kind of an effort. But 3 obviously, that’s one of the things we’re talking 4 about here that potentially would be very important to 5 make sure that DOE understands the market. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Jen. 7 MS. CLEARY: We’re certainly willing to look 8 into what data we might be able to collect. It may 9 depend on how we currently collect data on wine 10 chillers, like what the break downs are, things like 11 that. So we’ll just have to evaluate our current data 12 collection and what we might be able to do in support 13 of this rulemaking. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: A question came up a little 15 earlier this morning: do you collect some data now, 16

Jen? 17 MS. CLEARY: Yeah, I think we do collect 18 some. I really have to look, though, to see exactly 19 what we collect. I think it may be fairly limited. 20 MR. BROOKMAN: Detlef, I myself remain 21 unclear and sometimes the timetable changes for these 22 different rulemakings. Typically in the manufacturer 23 interviews happen a little further downstream. You’re 24 suggesting they could happen quickly. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 7 3

MR. NSOFOR: They will happen during the 1 preliminary phase. We do have two stages of 2 interviews. One is conducted in the preliminary 3 stage, like the stage after this public meeting, and 4 after the NOPR phase as well. 5 MR. BROOKMAN: So you’re thinking about 6 getting to these interviews pretty quickly? 7 MR. NSOFOR: Detlef will – 8 MR. BROOKMAN: Detlef. 9 MR. WESTPHALEN: Yeah, this is Detlef. Yes, 10 as Ken said, generally interviews are conducted prior 11 to the preliminary documents being published, and then 12 prior to the NOPR documents being published, and some 13 of the material covered in each of those series of 14 interviews is different because, you know, some of the 15 focus initially is very much on the technical side, 16 and the manufacturer impact side of those interviews 17 is at the preliminary stage. But DOE would certainly 18 be very much interested in engaging the manufacturers 19 in those kinds of discussions. Depending on all the 20 stakeholder feedback and some of the decisions that 21 DOE makes, you know, it’s not clear whether we will be 22 reaching out to the manufacturers right after this 23 meeting to try to schedule interviews, or whether that 24 might be pushed down the road a little bit so that we 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 7 4

can understand exactly what scope DOE is going to be 1 addressing. But certainly prior to finalizing the 2 preliminary analyses we will be interested in having 3 those initial meetings. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Jen. 5 MS. CLEARY: Can you give us an idea – I 6 understand that the request for data in this framework 7 document you may be expecting them March 14 th when 8 comments are due, but if we do have data, what we 9 would be able to give at that time would be very 10 limited, so is there another date by which it would be 11 helpful for you to have any other data we may have? 12 MR. WESTPHALEN: This is Detlef. I think 13 the best way to approach this is to have some kind of 14 a dialogue where we work out, okay, what kind of shall 15 we say, information forms could be generated that the 16 manufacturers might provide information for; or 17 whether you have information available that you’ve 18 already collected. I don’t think this has to be 19 within the context of the comment period. Data 20 submissions are certainly welcome at any time. 21 MR. BROOKMAN: So you’ll be in touch. 22 MR. WESTPHALEN: Yes, we’ll be in touch. 23 MR. BROOKMAN: Is the bottom line. 24 MS. CLEARY: Thank you. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 7 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Put the initiative on 1 somebody there. 2 MR. WESTPHALEN: Thank you. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, thank you, Detlef. 4 MR. GREENBLATT: And this is Jeff 5 Greenblatt. I just also want to reiterate, we’ll be 6 mentioning this a little bit later this afternoon with 7 regards to other kinds of data, but in particular 8 since shipments are mentioned here, you know, that 9 kind of information would be useful over the next few 10 months, since we have until the end of the year to 11 publish a preliminary analysis. But that data needs 12 to be in place a few months before so that we can put 13 that into all of our calculations. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Great. Final comments 15 on this? 16 MR. NSOFOR: All right. The next slides are 17 about product classes. DOE has identified potential 18 product classes for this rulemaking. One is 19 residential wine chillers with manual defrost and the 20 second is residential wine chillers with automatic 21 defrost. 22 Listed below are the criteria that DOE goes 23 by in selecting product classes. To pull examples: 24 the type of energy used, the capacity, and other 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 7 6

performance-related features that might warrant a 1 separate product class. 2 The slide requests comments in regards to 3 the two product classes DOE has identified so far. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Jen. 5 MS. CLEARY: AHAM thinks that DOE should 6 adopt the Canadian and Californian approach with 7 regard to both of these items. 8 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Additional comments, 9 and particularly if there are additional thoughts on 10 these product classes? Nothing additional. Okay. 11 MR. NSOFOR: Now we have more comments on 12 the next slides, pretty much, the next comments are 13 whether wine chillers have automatic defrost for the 14 class, and whether they have manual defrost as well. 15 item 3-5. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: Comments on these? Okay. 17 MR. BROWN: This is Bill from GE. One of 18 the questions I see: do any wine chillers utilize 19 manual defrost? And just looking at the California 20 Energy Commission’s database, there were five out of 21
200 or so. 22 MR. BROOKMAN: What is manual defrost? 23 MR. BROWN: Manual defrost is manual, you 24 have to actually – the customer has to actually 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 7 7

perform an action to remove the defrost – to remove 1 the frost. You turn it off and you let it melt, don’t 2 recommend scraping it off, but some people do that as 3 well. So yes, you have to take an action to make it – 4 and get rid of the water. Automatic basically it 5 defrosts by itself and evaporates the water by itself. 6 And looking at the NRCan database, there were, you 7 know, five or so of those products that were manual 8 defrost as well, so they do exist. It’s just not a 9 lot, it’s in the one percent of the market. I’m just 10 saying, from the number SKUs, I don’t know the number 11 of the sales that go with those SKUs. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Is there a trend line there? 13

Jen? 14 MS. CLEARY: I don’t – again, am not aware. 15 Can’t answer that question. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Detlef. 17 MR. WESTPHALEN: This is Detlef Westphalen. 18 I guess, you know, we looked at the databases, and we 19 questioned the existence of the manual defrost 20 products because some of those products listed in the 21 databases aren’t for sale any more. Others are 22 actually now advertised on their websites as having 23 automatic defrost, so we were only able to find one 24 product where we couldn’t definitively say it’s not 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 7 8

manual defrost, but we couldn’t say definitively that 1 it is either. 2 The request for comment also addressed the 3 question of whether active heating is required to 4 achieve defrost in any of these products that are 5 termed automatic defrost, since compressor off cycle 6 defrost is an option for automatic defrost. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: Comments on active heating? 8 Bill? 9 MR. BROWN: This is Bill again. To say it’s 10 required or not, I can’t really say, but most of the 11 products that I’ve seen out there, it’s off cycle 12 defrost. Especially the temperatures you’re running 13 and the low run times that you’ve got, you’re just not 14 going to build up – you’ve got so much off time 15 between the compressor, that you really do not need an 16 active heater. 17 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 18 **Technology Assessment** 19 MR. NSOFOR: During the technology 20 assessment, DOE tries to understand how the products 21 consume energy, and also come up with technology 22 options that could help improve efficiency of wine 23 chillers. Listed in the slides are the technology 24 options going forward, that DOE plans to investigate 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 7 9

further. I’ll give you a little time to look it over. 1 And a lot of these technology options came about from 2 the refrigeration rulemaking that was published 3 already. 4 The next slide opens up comment about the 5 technology options listed in the previous slide. 6 MR. BROOKMAN: And indeed, if there are any 7 additional technologies that may or should be 8 investigated. Or comments on these, for that matter. 9 Charlie. 10 MR. HON: On your list I do not see anything 11 about lighting. 12 MR. NSOFOR: Okay. We don’t have that in 13 here but we’ll definitely look into it. 14 MR. HON: Because LED lighting is making 15 major impacts in some other areas and would definitely 16 make an impact on the total refrigeration 17 requirements. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: They’re in little units now? 19 MR. HON: Yep. 20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Wow. 21 MR. BROWN: This is Bill from GE again. If 22 you adopt the NRCan definition, that’s a yes, lighting 23 should be considered because on and off. With the 24 current DOE test procedure, the testing is done with 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 8 0

no door openings. So lights wouldn’t come on, it 1 wouldn’t matter what light you put in the product. 2 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie. 3 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. But what about if 4 there’s a switch. 5 MR. BROWN: That’s what I’m saying, if you 6 adopt the NRCan definition, then NRCan does say test 7 it on and off, take the average. 8 MR. BROOKMAN: So that’s helpful. Any 9 additional things that should be added to this list or 10 comments about what would not be appropriate to be 11 included in this list? Okay. 12 **Screening Analysis** 13 MR. NSOFOR: The next thing I’ll talk about 14 is the screening analysis. The purpose of the 15 screening analysis is to screen out technologies that 16 DOE does not consider in its engineering analysis. So 17 looking at the technology options, we’ll look – we had 18 on the previous slide. DOE goes by four different 19 criteria in screening out technologies. One of them 20 is technology feasibility. This pretty much means 21 that the technology has to exist in a commercial 22 application, and in prototype. If that technology 23 doesn’t exist today, DOE will not consider it further. 24 It has to be practical to manufacture, 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 8 1

install and service. Whatever technology DOE tries to 1 implement to improve efficiency has to be available on 2 a large scale at the time the standard is set. 3 And the last two criteria are pretty simple, 4 self-explanatory. Any technology must not impact the 5 health or the safety of the people using it. 6 This slide would – 7 MR. BROOKMAN: Hold on. Please, Jon. 8 MR. BROWN: One question is does DOE 9 consider technologies that are patented? You know, 10 one manufacturer can use this technology but no one 11 else can. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Detlef? 13 MR. WESTPHALEN: This is Detlef Westphalen. 14 In answer to that comment, DOE can consider efficiency 15 levels that are attained by such technologies if 16 alternative technologies would be available to other 17 manufacturers to achieve those levels. 18 MR. NSOFOR: In other words, if that 19 technology provides benefits to one specific 20 manufacturer, DOE would not consider the technology 21 further. 22 MR. BROWN: I would just like to see that 23 spelled out then, because I haven’t seen that in any 24 of the DOE documents before. There have been 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 8 2

technologies out there that have been one manufacturer 1 can use it and no one else can, and that is looked at 2 as it’s available to the whole market place, and it’s 3

not. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. So you see the 5 four factors that the Department considers. 6 Additional comments on those? Nothing additional. 7 Okay. 8 Engineering Analysis 9 MR. NSOFOR: The next slide will talk about 10 the engineering analysis. The goal of the engineering 11 analysis is to create a cost relationship, cost12 efficiency relationship in implementing more energy – 13 efficient technologies for wine chillers. DOE plans to 14 use a combination of different approaches, mainly a 15 design option approach, efficiency level approach, and 16 reverse engineering approach. 17 And I’m not going to read every one out right 18 now. Just ask for comment. We request feedback on 19 other options 20 MR. BROOKMAN: So you can see the comment box 21 there. All set? Okay. So additional comments related 22 to the engineering analysis methodology? Okay. 23 MR. NSOFOR: Like I said before, one of the 24 approaches DOE plans to use in the establishment of the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 8 3

cost-efficiency relationship is reverse engineering. 1 Listed below are the products that DOE plans to reverse 2 engineer, tear apart to understand how the technologies 3 help improve efficiency. And it’s a combination of the 4 two different product classes, automatic and manual 5 defrost. And we’d like to get feedback from 6 stakeholders about our selection choice. That’s the 7 next slide for comments. 8 This slide talks about setting up a baseline 9 going forward. DOE plans to use the Californian and 10 Canadian baseline – standards as baseline, and if you 11 look there, we have a formula, I believe the manual 12 defrost is approximately - maximum energy is about 281, 13 and the automatic defrost is about 370-something. DOE 14 plans to use these as the baseline and understanding 15 how implementing different technology options, how the 16 cost and efficiency differs between the baseline and 17 more efficient standard. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: So go back to the preceding 19 slide. 20

MR. NSOFOR: Sure. 21 MR. BROOKMAN: So if you would take a peek 22 at what the Department is considering for its tear down 23 analysis. Comments? Are these representative? Let’s 24 proceed to the next. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 8 4

MR. NSOFOR: The next is just the comment 1 down at the bottom. Seeking if these and the 2 California and Canadian as baseline is appropriate. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: So you can see the comment box 4 there at the bottom of the page, 5-1. Input from 5 stakeholders and whether the equations for maximum 6 annual energy consumption based on the California and 7 Canadian regulations are appropriate to represent the 8 performance at baseline of wine chillers. No comments 9 on Canadian or California regulations and that 10 baseline? Okay. 11 MR. NSOFOR: The next slide is the 12 incremental efficiency levels DOE plans to establish in 13 this rulemaking. And for automatic defrost, DOE plans 14 to establish efficiency levels up to 40 percent from 15 the baseline; and for the manual defrost, about 25 16 percent. 17 We’d also like to get comments on these 18
numbers. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Joanna. 20 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. So DOE is required 21 to look at the maximum technologically feasible levels, 22 and this doesn’t seem to be a product category where we 23 necessarily assume that the most efficient products 24 that are commercially available truly represent a max 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 8 5

tech level. 1 MR. NSOFOR: That’s correct. Although we 2 have products out there that use less energy than the 3 maximum established standard, by the time DOE factors 4 in other different design options, we might have a 5 different max tech out there that could actually be 6 lower than the best efficient unit out in the 7 marketplace. 8 MS. MAUER: Okay. And we’d encourage DOE 9 definitely to look at what the real max tech is as I 10 think they did in the residential refrigerator 11 rulemaking, where I believe there were – the max tech 12 levels were beyond the best products available in the 13
market. 14 MR. NSOFOR: I think going forward we will 15 have – potentially might have a different max tech than 16 the best product out there. 17 MS. MAUER: Okay. 18 MR. NSOFOR: This slide is talking about 19 industry data collection. Pretty much request 20 participation from stakeholders in collecting data. We 21 talked about this previously, when we started. And we 22 would like to get comments about products out there 23 from stakeholders, and appreciate their participation, 24 in giving us feedback as well. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 8 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Comments on industry data 1 collection? 2 MR. NSOFOR: And this answers the question to 3 the GE comment about proprietary designs. And like I 4 said before, DOE evaluates all design options that are 5 commercially available, including proprietary design, 6 but if a design gives one manufacturer an advantage, 7 DOE will not consider that design option. And also we 8 maintain confidentiality with manufacturers as well. 9
MR. BROOKMAN: See the comment boxes. 10 There’s more there, for example, cost data, how the 11 Department might acquire that. Nothing additional. 12 MR. NSOFOR: This slide talks about outside 13 regulatory change. In conducting an engineering 14 analysis, DOE looks at all the regulations out there to 15 understand how the combination of different regulations 16 impact manufacturers. It could be -- a lot of 17 regulations could create a burden for manufacturers, so 18 DOE considers this in this analysis. And the last is 19 just the comments out there to understand different 20 regulations out there that DOE might want to get 21 information from manufacturers that could potentially 22 impact manufacturers of wine chillers. 23 MR. BROOKMAN: Any other pending regulatory 24 action that might impact this rulemaking? 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 8 7

MR. NSOFOR: And Jeff will do the next 1 slides. 2 MR. BROOKMAN: Next, we’re going to hear from 3 Jeff Greenblatt. Markups, Energy Use, life-cycle 4 costs, payback period analyses. 5 Markups, Energy Use, Life-cycle costs, 6 Payback period analyses 7 MR. GREENBLATT: Thank you everyone. Can you 8 hear me okay? So, I’m going to talk to you about the 9 modeling after the engineering work has been done, in 10 order to get ultimately to estimates of life-cycle 11 cost and national impacts. The first step is to 12 determine the markup, which is a factor that converts 13 the cost of goods sold, which is reported from the 14 engineering analysis to a final consumer price. 15 There are usually two types of markups that are 16 considered and that was considered for the 17 refrigerator-freezer rulemaking. A baseline markup, 18 and an incremental markup, and the factors for these 19 can be different, and often are. 20 The baseline markup essentially includes all 21 of the additional costs that are incurred in going 22 from the manufactured product to the final retail 23 price, that is consistent with a product that meets 24 just the minimum efficiency level. That is, without 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 8 8

an increase in efficiency. So this includes all of 1 the costs of the distributor, distributors’ 2 overheads, profits, but not including sales tax which 3 is applied separately. 4 By comparison, the incremental markup refers 5 to those markups that are incurred only in 6 association with selling a more efficient product, 7 and so it generally tends to be much smaller. 8 Certain costs, such as direct labor costs, rental 9 occupancy, et cetera, do not vary with the efficiency 10 level, so would not be included in that incremental 11 markup, but certain costs, such as marketing of a 12 more efficient product, would. 13 We gather whatever public information we’re 14 able in order to calculate the baseline and 15 incremental markups, but obviously additional 16 information from manufacturers or others would be 17 helpful. So we ask for stakeholders to provide that 18 information if it’s available. 19 MR. BROOKMAN: I guess this is more – 20 principally at this point a notation about future 21 activity. 22 MR. GREENBLATT: Yes, whether this is an 23 appropriate approach going forward. 24 MR. BROOKMAN: No comment here. Okay. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 8 9

MR. GREENBLATT: Okay. And then the next 1 step is determining energy use of the products in 2 actual use. So it’s important to determine the 3 actual energy use of these products in the 4 residential setting in order to assess the energy 5 savings potential of more efficient products. And 6 this provides the basis for our estimates in the 7 life-cycle cost analysis. 8 So for residential refrigerators, 9 refrigerator-freezers, and freezers, we were able – 10 DOE was able to rely on information provided in the 11 residential energy consumption survey, or RECS. 12 However, RECS does not have information on wine 13 chillers, so even knowing the distribution of these 14 products in homes is not very well known, let alone 15 knowing what the energy consumption of these products 16

are. 17 So the approach that we’re taking is to look 18 at the limited sales data that’s available and 19 combine that with estimates from California’s maximum 20 energy use standards in order to estimate a range of 21 energy use for vapor compression wine chillers. The 22 problem with this approach are two limitations: that 23 one, we’re only able to estimate the maximum energy 24 use for each model as opposed to its actual use in 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 9 0

the field, and it’s also unknown whether the test 1 procedure provides a reasonable estimate of the 2 actual energy use of these products. 3 So because of this lack of information, DOE 4 is seeking in situ field measurements as one possible 5 way to get more accurate information about the energy 6 use of wine chillers and other miscellaneous products 7 in the field. 8 So some question boxes here. DOE seeks 9 comment on its approach in estimating the annual 10 energy consumption based on the combination of sales 11 data and the existing energy conservation standards 12 from California. We’re looking for additional data 13 sources for establishing energy consumption and we’d 14 also like comment on the viability of using in situ 15 field measurements. Do you have any comments? 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Jen. 17 MS. CLEARY: AHAM has some serious concerns 18 about the in situ field measurements. They’re really 19 not going to be that accurate, we don’t think, 20 especially – mainly because it’s hard to compare them 21 to like a test procedure energy usage. So we’ll 22 provide a lot more detail in our written comments, 23 but we have some serious concerns about that 24 approach. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 9 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 1 MS. CLEARY: Also – actually I have a 2 question. I don’t think you mentioned the rebound 3 effect here, or even to talk about – better. 4 MR. GREENBLATT: Yes, I believe we’ll mention 5 that in a couple of slides. 6 MS. CLEARY: Okay. So I’ll just ask the 7 question then, it’s about that. 8 MR. GREENBLATT: Okay. Let’s wait until I 9 present the material. 10
MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. Joanna. 11 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. Could you just 12 explain a little bit more about what you mean by 13 using in situ field measurements, or what that would 14 involve? 15 MR. GREENBLATT: Sure. In situ field 16 measurements basically means metering devices that 17 are being used in a residential setting. So it would 18 be attaching a meter to a number of wine chillers or 19 other products, and taking measurements for a period 20
of weeks or months. 21 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Jon. 22 MR. WIENER: Can you say a little bit more 23 about why the Department thinks California’s maximum 24 energy use standards might be valid? My concerns are 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 9 2

that they’re maximum, one, they’re older, two, and 1 that they include thermoelectric products as well. 2 MR. GREENBLATT: It’s easier all – 3 MR. WIENER: As it’s written. I don’t know 4 if they’re actually – it’s unclear to what extent 5 they’re actually covering thermoelectric products. 6 MR. GREENBLATT: Right. To DOE’s knowledge – 7 well, DOE does not know whether it includes 8 thermoelectric products. I think that the feeling is 9 that it probably doesn’t, but we’re not actually 10 sure. And DOE is – we agree with these concerns 11 exactly, that it is – it represents a maximum, so DOE 12 doesn’t actually know what the energy use of these 13 products are in actual use. 14 MR. WIENER: It would seem it would be a 15 useful way of double-checking DOE’s own – if you 16 reach the – pick a number, you arrive at a number and 17 then you can check it against the maximum and make 18 sure it’s not less stringent than what California has 19 said. It would be useful in that way. I can’t see 20 that it would be useful as a data point in another 21 way, because it’s going to skew your data, 22 presumably. 23 MR. GREENBLATT: Then again, it may actually 24 be accurate, but without having other complementary 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 9 3

information, it’s hard to say. But it’s not going to 1 be a low estimate of energy use because it’s a 2 maximum. 3 MR. WIENER: I would agree with that. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Detlef. 5 MR. WESTPHALEN: This is Detlef Westphalen. 6 Regarding the discussion about the California energy 7 standards, they don’t really distinguish 8 technologies, so that thermoelectric products sold in 9 California are subject to those requirements and as 10 mentioned previously, a few such thermoelectric 11 products have been found on the database, and I don’t 12 know if it was NRCan’s database or California’s 13 database. I believe Lucas was involved with that. 14 MR. ADIN: If I remember correctly it was 15 California. 16 MR. WESTPHALEN: California, so one would 17 assume that thermoelectric products that are legal to 18 be sold in California, and are actually being sold, 19 are subject to that maximum as well. 20 MR. ADIN: I would hope so. 21 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Jen. 22 MS. CLEARY: Has DOE asked CEC if they cover 23 thermoelectric products? 24 MR. WESTPHALEN: This is Detlef. We did ask 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 9 4

that question and they said, yes, they’re covered. 1 MS. CLEARY: Thank you. 2 MR. BROWN: The only question I would have is 3 has anyone investigated how CEC arrived at their 4 equations that they use today? Did they go through 5 the same diligence that DOE did, or just exactly what 6 did they do? I know those equations have been around 7 for a while. 8 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, thanks Jon. 9 MR. WESTPHALEN: This is Detlef. In response 10 to that, it’s very difficult to find out how 11 California developed those standards. It’s very 12 difficult to find any information as to even when 13 those standards first took effect, so we have not 14 been able to find that information, and certainly 15 we’ll do more research to look into it. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: So I made an error, that was 17 Detlef, and prior to that, it was Bill. Okay. Thank 18 you. So these are good comments. Additional 19 comments related to these comment boxes? Okay. 20 MR. GREENBLATT: Okay. I’ll move on then. 21 So one possibility that DOE is considering is whether 22 the annual energy use could be characterized with a 23 sensitivity analysis, so basically getting around the 24 problem of having only a single maximum energy use 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 9 5

number, instead it could be done with a high and low 1 estimate of energy use, based on minimum and maximum 2 efficiency that is seen, perhaps, in the CEC 3 database, or other data, in order to bracket the 4 life-cycle cost and national energy impact results to 5 help determine economic feasibility of setting the 6 various efficiency levels. 7 And the comment that AHAM had mentioned, DOE 8 seeks comment on the rebound effect associated with 9 more efficient wine chillers. Basically, we’re 10 questioning if a wine chiller is made to be more 11 efficient, does the consumer actually end up using it 12 more in terms of, on a normalized basis, more 13 intensively than a less efficient wine chiller or 14 would a consumer purchase a larger product, all other 15 things being equal, and thereby use more energy with 16 a more efficient product. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Jen. 18
MS. CLEARY: And so the framework document 19 states that DOE has determined that the rebound 20 effect doesn’t apply to home appliances. So I was 21 just kind of wondering why is this being addressed if 22 it doesn’t apply? Why waste the time looking at it? 23

MR. BROOKMAN: Lucas? 24 MR. ADIN: Yeah, this is Lucas Adin from DOE. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 9 6

I mean that’s a general presumption, but we’re 1 certainly interested in any information suggesting 2 that that presumption is incorrect, or that there’s 3 some reason we should be considering that particular 4 aspect in our analysis. So it isn’t to say that 5 we’re going into this with a firm conviction that 6 it’s not a factor, but at least that’s the 7 presumption as of right now. 8
MS. CLEARY: Thanks. 9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Jon. 10 MR. WIENER: Jon Wiener, Earthjustice. The 11 question about the sensitivity analysis. Does the 12 Department have experience with using sensitivity 13 analyses to – for these standards? My concern is how 14 OMB might react and what they might require you to – 15 they might pick the low estimate and just treat that 16 as the actual estimate. Has that come up before? 17 MR. GREENBLATT: This is Jeff. I don’t have 18 direct experience with that, but Lucas are you 19 familiar with other proceedings where we’ve had a 20 sensitivity analysis? Or Michael? 21
MR. ADIN: I’m not sure I could comment 22 specifically on that. 23 MR. BROOKMAN: So you can see the comment 24 boxes up there and we’ve at least taken a shot at 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 9 7

both of those. Additional comments? 1 MR. GREENBLATT: Okay. So the next item to 2 cover is calculation of life-cycle cost and payback 3 period analysis, standard part of the DOE procedure. 4 So the life-cycle cost analysis consists of two main 5 elements, estimate of the first cost, basically the 6 consumer price paid plus any installation costs, and 7 then the operating costs over the life of the 8 product, which includes both the cost of supplying 9 the energy, as well as maintenance costs. And these 10 operating costs are discounted to a particular year 11 in order to arrive at the total life-cycle cost. And 12 life-cycle cost is calculated as a difference between 13 the cost of a baseline efficiency unit and a more 14 efficient unit, so looking at whether that total 15 number is greater or smaller. 16 This is done from the consumer’s perspective, 17 and one thing to point out is this is done as a 18 statistical analysis where a number of the variables 19 – variable inputs vary, and are sampled using a Monte 20 Carlo statistical approach, so essentially different 21 households will have different features in terms of 22 the amount of energy that the product uses, its size, 23 the lifetime of the product and other characteristics 24 of the household, the temperature, since this is a 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 9 8

product that’s driven partly by interior room 1 temperatures. 2 And then the payback period is a simple 3 calculation that equals the first cost divided by the 4 operating cost over a single year. 5 Now that’s done for the preliminary analysis. 6 For the later stage of analysis, there’s also a 7 subgroup analysis that’s performed, so certain 8 consumer groups may be especially vulnerable or have 9 other different characteristics that set it apart 10 from the main sort of general population, and so DOE 11 routinely looks at potential consumer subgroups and 12 does an analysis only on that group to see whether 13 the life-cycle cost impacts are significantly 14 different than might cause it to consider this 15 information in setting the final standard levels. 16 For instance, the different regional 17 electricity prices is often a significant factor in 18 making the life-cycle cost not the same from one part 19 of the country to another. 20 DOE requests input into any consumer 21 subgroups that might be appropriate when considering 22 standards for these products. 23 MR. BROOKMAN: I think it’s an interesting 24 question. No subgroups come to mind. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 9 9

MR. GREENBLATT: I’ll just say for the record 1 that we generally look at low income and seniors as 2 routine subgroups, but sometimes others, depending on 3 the particular product at hand. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie. 5 MR. HON: It may sound somewhat tacky, but I 6 think you’re going to discover that when you look at 7 your subgroups, it’s a different group of subgroups 8 than normal standard, because this is not a required 9 product for the market. You’re dealing with a 10 different nature product, usually more affluence 11 involved in it. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: As they get more senior do 13 they drink more wine, for example? Do they need 14 special consideration? 15 MR. HON: Sorry. From a – Charlie Hon – from 16 a construction viewpoint, you have to be very cognizant 17 of that because a lot of wine coolers are built as 18 under-counter models, and with senior citizens, they 19 don’t work, because they have problems getting up and 20 down. So they’re more interested in above counter-type 21 configurations. 22 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments on 23 subgroup analysis? 24 MR. GREENBLATT: Okay. Thank you for that 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 00

comment. I’m not – this next chart shows all of the 1 different elements in the flow chart of calculating the 2 final life-cycle costs. I’m not going to go through 3 all of these, but if anybody has comments or questions 4 about these particular elements, if you can read it, 5 either on your handout or on the chart, I’ll be happy 6 to answer any questions. 7 Now one thing in particular that we wanted to 8 ask for comment on has to do with installation, 9 maintenance and repair costs, and particularly whether 10 these costs change with more efficient products. It’s 11 DOE’s assumption that the cost of installation, if any, 12 would probably be identical between a baseline unit and 13 a more efficient unit, and that this would probably 14 also be the case for repair and maintenance of 15 products. But we don’t know for sure, so any 16 information that stakeholders have to shed light on 17 this would be useful. Also, just estimates, even of 18 the baseline efficiency installation, maintenance or 19 repair costs would be helpful for our analysis. 20 I’ll just read this last bullet here, unless 21 the efficiency increase is considered result in 22 significantly larger or heavier products, DOE expects 23 that more efficient products will not incur increased 24 installation costs. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 01

So there’s several comments here. I won’t 1 read them all, but basically I summarized these 2 requests for comments on the previous slide – 3 MR. BROOKMAN: And also maintenance, correct? 4 MR. GREENBLATT: Yes – installation, repair 5 and maintenance costs. 6 MR. BROOKMAN: So, Jen. 7 MS. CLEARY: Jen Cleary. AHAM agrees that 8 the installation costs probably won’t vary depending on 9 the efficiency of the product. 10 MR. BROOKMAN: In some previous rulemakings I 11 seem to recall that some commenters suggested that more 12 efficient products with a different configuration that 13 led to higher efficiency may need more maintenance or 14 repair. Jen? 15
MS. CLEARY: We don’t have comments on that 16 at this time. Just installation. 17 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Just thought I’d try 18 it. So no additional comments on this? 19 MR. GREENBLATT: Oh, actually I think there 20 is one here. 21 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Charlie. 22 MR. HON: There’s going to be some 23 correlation there. A lot of your high efficiency fans 24 are more prone – have a shorter life cycle. There will 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 02

also be, I think you will find a difference in life1 cycle costs because there’s a definite difference in 2 these products. They’re what I would consider a throw3 away product after five years. If you’re paying $3-500 4 dollars for a unit, you don’t get it fixed. If you’re 5 paying $2500 for a unit, you get it fixed. So you have 6 a definite discussion between repair cost and 7 additional purchase price. 8 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. What’s the 9 life span between those low-end products and high-end 10 products? 11 MR. HON: Charlie Hon again. That’s highly 12 debatable because there’s a lot of very reliable low 13 end products that don’t have all the features. They 14 just do a very good job at keeping it near target 15 temperature, but they don’t have all the bells and 16 whistles added on, and the more bells and whistles you 17 put on, the more problematic you become. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 19 MR. GREENBLATT: I will – actually there are 20 a couple of these items that did not pertain to 21 installation and maintenance, so I just wanted to read 22 them, but before I do, I also want to ask the question, 23 in another slide or two we’re going to ask about 24 estimates of the lifetime of these products, so we 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 03

would be open to any information that stakeholders 1 have, but also the question occurs to me, is it 2 possible that the lifetime might actually change with 3 the efficiency of the product? 4 The questions I wanted to read, just to make 5 sure that people see it. DOE seeks comments on the 6 general approach of using probability distribution and 7 Monte Carlo simulation to conduct the life-cycle cost 8 and payback period analyses. Also requesting data from 9 stakeholders to characterize the current mix of wine 10 chiller efficiencies and the approach for estimating 11 current and forecasted energy prices, which I’ll state 12 for the record generally uses forecasts from EIA. 13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 14 MR. GREENBLATT: Okay. I’ll move on. Oh, 15 here’s the lifetime question. Right. So DOE currently 16 does not have good estimates, or really any estimates 17 of the lifetime of wine chillers and related 18 miscellaneous refrigeration equipment. What DOE does 19 have are well constrained estimates of the lifetime of 20 refrigerator – standard-size refrigerator-freezers and 21 freezers, which are approximately 17 and 22 years on 22 average, respectively. For compact refrigerators and 23 freezers, DOE has developed certainly less precise 24 estimates which give mean lifetimes of about five and a 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 04

half and seven and a half years. We would welcome any 1 information to help us estimate the lifetime of these 2 other products. 3 Shipments Analysis 4 Okay. I’m moving on to shipments analysis 5 then. After the life-cycle cost analysis is complete, 6 DOE then makes estimates of the current and future 7 shipments of products in order to estimate national 8 impacts of potential efficiency standards. Currently 9 DOE is aware of two data sources, AHAM and NPD Group, 10 which provides some shipments data, current shipments 11 data. Projections based on fits of these data can be 12 developed and in particular, the estimate of standards 13 on future shipments will be calculated, essentially 14 that if there’s an increase in the price of the 15 product, we have an elasticity that allows us to 16 estimate the decreased sales of that product as a 17 result. This is based on some broad analyses of home 18 appliances generally, not specifically wine chillers. 19 DOE seeks comments or seeks information about 20 historical shipments as well as projected future 21 shipments from stakeholders, and in particular if 22 information which we’ve asked for already, but I’ll 23 just repeat since it’s here, what the breakdown is 24 based on the type of cooling technology, vapor 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 05

compression versus thermoelectric or absorption, and if 1 DOE is unable to get additional sources of data other 2 than AHAM and NPD Group, it would seek comment on which 3 data source is more representative. This is not listed 4 here on this slide, but it is in the framework 5 document. There are large disparities in volume 6 between the AHAM and NPD Group, with the NPD Group 7 showing significantly higher sales. However, even 8 there there are some uncertainties because NPD Group 9 does not represent all sales in the U.S., but only a 10 portion, and that market share that’s captured is a 11 little bit – it’s not very precisely known. I think 12 it’s between about 30 and 50 percent of the market. 13 MR. BROOKMAN: What is the NPD Group? 14 MR. GREENBLATT: NPD Group is a private 15 market research firm that essentially collects sales 16 data from end use retailers and compiles it and then 17 sells it to interested parties such as DOE. 18
MR. BROOKMAN: So comments related to 19 historical shipments and any other data? Nothing at 20 this time. 21 MR. GREENBLATT: Some other questions here. 22 DOE seeks input on the type of potential scenarios it 23 should use to forecast base case shipments. I had 24 hinted about it in the previous slide. Should we 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 06

assume essentially a straight line fit to historical 1 shipments or something else? We’d also seek, as part 2 of its preliminary manufacturer impact analysis, the 3 impact of new standards on wine chiller shipments. 4 This is related to the elasticity effect that I had 5 mentioned previously, as well as any other market pull 6 programs that currently exist to promote the adoption 7 of more efficient wine chillers. 8 Okay. No other comments, I’ll move on. 9 MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s wait. I’m hoping to get 10 a comment on this one. There ought to be, right? What 11 would you expect – is this going to be a historical 12 straight line? Is it going to correlate with housing 13 starts? With rehab activity? Come on, we can get – 14 MR. GREENBLATT: With sales of wine? 15 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie. 16 MR. HON: We’ve seen in our sales that the 17 rehab activity has a major impact into it, as people 18 redesign kitchens, they want new features in them, more 19 under-counter appliances, compacters - trash 20 compacters, drawered refrigeration units, wine 21 cabinets, a lot of different things going in under 22 counter, enlarging the kitchen space altogether. New 23 housing starts, houses that put all these features in 24 are traditionally somewhat not economically the same 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 07

parallel as the rest of the market, so – 1 MR. BROOKMAN: So if you can segment the 2 housing starts to a high end – 3 MR. HON: High end products would be 4 important, but there are a lot of – there’s a secondary 5 – there’s two different sectors of the market. You 6 have a lot of commodity product bought at the big box 7 stores, which is a self-contained, put it in the back 8 of your SUV and drive it home, or a less expensive 9 product that would not be related to that at all. So 10 there’s going to be – I think it’s certainly not 11 linear. It’s certainly going to be increasing in the 12
near future. 13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. You want to 14 – Lucas Adin. 15 MR. ADIN: I’m just going to read a comment 16 that we had sent in from the California Energy 17 Commission. This regards thermowine chillers, so this 18 is actually going back a little bit, but this is 19 actually pretty important to mention. They say that 20 “The topic of thermoelectric wine chillers is an 21 interesting one. Some manufacturers of these units 22 have claimed they cannot reach 55 degree temperature 23 necessary to perform the California efficiency test for 24 wine chillers. Operating at a higher, 58 to 60 degree 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 08

temperature, energy use have yet to evaluate these 1 claims but we are not sure whether to amend our 2 regulations to accept a product that does not actually 3 reach a suitable temperature for storing wine.” 4 And we discussed this a little bit. I mean, one 5 thing to consider, the energy test is performed at a 90 6 degree ambient, so I mean, theoretically that could 7 affect any product’s ability to get down to – to get 8 down to that test temperature, that standardized test 9 temperature, depending on how good the insulation is, 10 so it could be a matter of considering another type of 11
test as well. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. You 13 can see the comment boxes up there. I appreciate the 14 comment that we did receive. Any additional thoughts, 15 and also it mentions market pull programs, whether they 16 exist presently. Nothing additional. Okay. 17 MR. GREENBLATT: Well, I was going to 18 cover the national impact analysis, well all of this, 19 actually, after lunch, but it’s up to you, Doug. 20
MR. BROOKMAN: Let me see. How much – 21 it doesn’t seem like we have a lot left, does it? 22

MR. GREENBLATT: No. 23 MR. BROOKMAN: So I’d suggest we just 24 press on and finish. Yes? Yes. Okay. That’s what 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 09

we’re going to do. 1 National Impact Analysis 2 MR. GREENBLATT: Okay. So the purpose of the 3 national impact analysis is to estimate the national 4 energy savings and national net present value of 5 consumer savings for higher efficiency level standards. 6 DOE intends to take into account the rebound effect 7 associated with more efficient wine chillers, if there 8 was a reduction in shipments from a more efficient but 9 more expensive unit that I had mentioned a few minutes 10 ago. I also forgot to mention that – it was on the 11 slide – that the LCC as well as this national impact 12 analysis are all done on Excel spreadsheets so that 13 stakeholders have full access to the data analysis if 14 they want to run their own scenarios or otherwise look 15 into the details of the calculations. 16 So, mentioned a few times this question of 17 the efficiency distribution of wine chiller and related 18 products. What’s especially useful for the national 19 impact analysis is not so much the breakdown at each 20 efficiency level, but just the shipment weighted 21 average efficiency which is what is needed in order to 22 calculate the national impacts going forward. 23 Historically, we’ve been able to – or DOE has been able 24 to get these shipment weighted average efficiencies 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 10

from manufacturers, such as AHAM. We hope that we will 1 be able to get similar information for wine chillers, 2 but it’s not apparent that this information is readily 3 available. 4 And also the national net present value 5 calculations are always calculated per OMB guidance at 6 three and seven percent discount rates, which is 7 different from the discount rate used in the LCC 8 analysis, where it’s – it depends on each particular 9 household. It’s part of the Monte Carlo analysis and 10 is an average of just over five percent. 11 So DOE seeks the historical shipment weighted 12 average efficiency data for wine chillers as well as 13 market shares, showing the percentage shipped at each 14 efficiency level. And DOE seeks comments on its plan 15 to use the established approach of Excel spreadsheets 16 for modeling national impact and national energy 17 savings. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: So the second question should 19 be no surprise to anyone, that’s established method. 20 What about historical shipment data? Do we have that 21

now? Jen. 22 MS. CLEARY: We’ll check into it. 23 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 24 MR. GREENBLATT: Okay. Ken, I think you have 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 11

a few minutes of slides here. 1
MR. BROOKMAN: Next we’ll hear from Ken 2
Nsofor. 3 Manufacturer Impact Analysis 4 MR. NSOFOR: All right, the next slide, I’ll 5 talk about the manufacturer impact analysis. The goal 6 for the MIA is to understand the impact of standards to 7 manufacturers. During this phase of the analysis, DOE 8 plans to conduct interviews with manufacturers to 9 understand how the standards will affect direct 10 employment, capital assets, and also industry 11 competitiveness. DOE also plans to understand industry 12 cash flow using the GRIM, the GRIM stands for the 13 Government Regulatory Impact Model, and based on the 14 analysis DOE conducts in this phase, going forward, we 15 will revisit with manufacturers and conduct the follow16 up interview at the NOPR stage. 17 As we discussed in the market and technology 18 assessment, DOE plans to segment out -- understand the 19 manufacturers subgroup, small manufacturers, the niche 20 players, and large manufacturers each exhibit a 21 different cost structure that differs within the 22 industry. And DOE will try to understand how 23 implementation of new standards affects each 24
manufacturer. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 12

Right now we’ll open up for comment and 1 request comments from and feedback from stakeholders, 2 in other words, to try to understand the different 3 subgroups of manufacturers of the wine chill industry. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: So are there subgroups that 5 you would call out at this time? Nothing at this time. 6 MR. NSOFOR: Again, as we discussed in the 7 market and technology assessment, DOE tries to 8 understand different regulations out there that might 9 become a burden to manufacturers as we go ahead and 10 implement standards for chillers. Typical regulations 11 that could affect this rulemaking are regulations for 12 refrigeration standards, the phase out of HCFC blowing 13 agents that happened in 2003. Regulations limiting 14 emissions of greenhouse gases, and also reduction of 15 hazardous substances. And right now we ask 16 stakeholders if there are other regulations out there 17 that could potentially impact manufacturers. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: No additional regulatory 19 burdens that come to mind at this time? 20 MR. NSOFOR: Okay. Jeff, you want to talk 21 about this. 22 MR. GREENBLATT: Yeah, it’s like a slide 23
left. 24 MR. NSOFOR: It goes back to Jeff. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 13

Plans for NOPR Phase 1 MR. GREENBLATT: All right. I don’t have to 2 rush this, but I don’t think there’s much to say here. 3 This is Jeff again. So the last part of the 4 presentation concerns the plans for the NOPR phase of 5 the analysis. So after the publication of the 6 preliminary analysis, DOE receives stakeholder comments 7 and then goes back to revise its analysis and then in 8 addition, perform some extra analysis steps which are 9 outlined here. So those extra steps are the life-cycle 10 cost subgroup analysis that I mentioned earlier, the 11 full manufacturer impact analysis, and then some other 12 analyses related to, which are called the downstream 13 analyses related to the national impact. So DOE 14 calculates the impact on the utility sector in terms of 15 changes in power plant operations and construction, as 16 well as the impact on employment throughout the 17 country, impacts on air quality and other environmental 18 concerns, but primarily it’s air quality – CO2, NOX, 19 SOX, and so on as a result of reduced energy use. And 20 finally, the regulatory impact analysis, which is an 21 analysis of alternatives to standards and what the 22 difference in energy savings would be in those cases. 23 Now this is standard procedure for all 24 rulemakings, but as always DOE seeks input on its plans 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 14

to follow this approach, and in particular the 1 continued use of the NEMS model to come up with utility 2 impacts and other impacts. That’s one of the comment 3 boxes here, and on DOE’s plans to assess national 4 employment impacts, both direct and indirect, if there 5 are other tools that might be at its disposal to do a 6 better job of this. DOE has been using the same jobs 7 model for a number of years, and also comments on DOE’s 8 continued use of the NEMS model for environmental 9 impact assessment of its products. 10 MR. BROOKMAN: So many of you are familiar 11 with these methodologies. Comments, anything about 12 wine coolers and related products that would cause the 13 Department to do something different? I don’t see 14 anything there. 15

16 Closing Remarks 17 MR. GREENBLATT: I think from Lucas? 18 MR. BROOKMAN: As we promised at the outset, 19 an opportunity for anybody that wishes to raise 20 additional issues, something you don’t think has been 21 covered sufficiently at this stage, so let’s do that 22 now. I guess there’s nothing additional. Then, from 23 my part, I would just thank all of you. I thought we 24 had a very productive conversation, very efficient this 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 15

morning. And turn it back to Lucas Adin for closing 1
remarks. 2 MR. ADIN: Just a few additional 3 administrative things to cover here. The comment 4 period at this particular stage of the rulemaking is 5 open until March 14, 2012, so if you have additional 6 written commentary you’d like to provide, please 7 provide it by that date. There is an email address on 8 this slide, which is where you can send it, or you can 9 mail it in. There’s an address there as well. For 10 that purpose, please reference the rulemaking by the 11 docket number that’s listed there, and/or the 12 regulatory identification or RIN number. 13 And that’s about it as far as administrative 14 things. I’d also like to extend DOE’s thanks for your 15 participation today. It’s very important to the 16 rulemaking process and we really appreciate any 17 information you’re able to provide and any additional 18

comments. 19 MR. BROOKMAN: We should also acknowledge and 20 thank those that have joined us via the web. 21

MR. ADIN: Yes. 22 MR. BROOKMAN: Something the Department 23 wishes to make available to anybody and so glad you 24 could join us. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 16

MR. ADIN: Yeah, I hope that’s been useful. 1 If you have comments about how well that particular 2 functionality is working, or any suggested 3 improvements, we certainly welcome those too. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Safe travels everyone. 5 (Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the meeting in the 6 above captioned matter was adjourned.) 7
8

9

10

11

12

13 14

15

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the attached proceedings
before:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
In the Matter of:

**PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS**  **FOR WINE CHILLERS AND MISCELLANEOUS REFRIGERATION PRODUCTS**  Were held as herein appe ars and that this is the original transcript ther eof for the file of theExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 17

Department, Commissio n, Board, Adminis trative Law Judge or the Agency. Further, I am neith er counsel for or related to any party to the abo ve proceedings.



### Debra Derr Official Reporter Dated: February 27, 2012