UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

**PUBLIC MEETING**

ON

**ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS: TEST PROCEDURES FOR RESIDENTIAL WATER HEATER,**  **DIRECT HEATING EQUIPMENT, AND POOL HEATERS**

U.S. D epartment of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585 Room 8 E

- 089

Fri day September 2 4, 2010

Chair:Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 2 Doug Brookman Public Solutions Baltimore, MD

**Participants Identified:**

Jennifer Cleary Association of Home Applia nce Manufacturers

Harvey Sac h s Council for Energy Efficiency and Economy

Frank Stanonik Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute

Meg Waltner National Resources Defense Council

Tom Stroud Hearth, Patio and Barbecue Association

Hoi Yee Lam Energetics, Incorporated

Ray Long DNR International

David Ryan DNR International

Jacob Talbot American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy

Molly Trombley McCann Pacific Gas and Electric

Phil Gauthier AHRIExecu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 3

**Participants from DOE:**

Eric St as DOE General Counsel’s Office

Mohammed Khan Department of Energy

**Presenter:**

John Talbo t t Consultant with NISTExecu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 4

**I N D E X**

**AGENDA ITEMS** PAGE

**Welcoming Remarks 5**  MR. KHAN

**Introductions 7**  MR. BROOKMAN

**Age nda Review**  **9** MR. BROOKMAN

**Opening Remarks 10**  MR. BROOKMAN

**Rulemaking Steps, Rulemaking History, 12**  **and Discussion of Proposed Amendments** MR. KHAN

**Detailed Discussion of Proposed Amendments 20**  MR. TALBOT T

**Next Steps and Closing 51**  MR. KHANExecu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 5

9: 0 4 a.m. 2 P R O C E E D I N G S 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Welcome, everybody. 3

Good morning. Glad you could join us. This is the 4

U.S. Department of Energy’s Public Meeting on Energy 5

Conservation Program for Consumer Products Test 6

Procedures for Residential Water Heater, Direct 7

Heating Equipment and Pool Heaters

. Today is 8

Friday, September 24 th

We’re going to start this mornin g with 12

welcoming remarks by Mohammed Khan

. 13 . Glad you could join us. My

9

name is Doug Brookman from Public Solutions in 10

Baltimore. 11

**Welcoming Remarks** 14

MR. KHAN: Thanks, Doug. Good morning 15

everybody. This is. First of all I want to say 16

thank you for your participation today, and also to 17

those folks who are participating via the Webinar 18

tha t we’re also doing simultaneously here. 19

Let me mention that this is the 20

Department’s, I guess second effort for a test 21

procedure rulemaking involving products that burn 22Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 6 fossil fuel or combustion products. The first one, 1

as you know or may know, involv ed furnaces, 2

residential furnaces, and boilers. There was a n 3

SNOPR, or a supplementary notice of proposed 4

rulemaking, associated with that one, and as a 5

result it was a bit controversial. 6

Now you’ll hear me throughout today 7

mention and I’ll emphasize ov er and over that your 8

comments and participation is very, very important. 9

As an example, citing the SNOPR issue, the comments 10

that were received from that helped the Department 11

in a big way, to determine the direction that it 12

really needed to go. That pa rticular final rule has 13

not been published yet, but I am of the 14

understanding that it will be published very, very, 15

very shortly. 16

Another thing I’d like to mention is that 17

we’ve been trying to make an effort to make these 18

public meetings less painful, or a little bit 19

shorter. I think in our notice we indicated that 20

we’re scheduled to go until 4 p.m., but our agenda 21

indicates that we’re going to go until 12. So, 22

based on the content, based on the anticipated 23

questions or comments that we should be gettin g 24

today, I think 12 o’clock is probably a very good 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 7 estimate. 1

The other thing I want to mention, too, is 2

that this is

-- this may be the second or third time 3

that the Department has incorporated a Web inar in 4

its public meeting, so the logistics of it are n’t 5

100 percent mastered, I guess. So what we’re going 6

to try to do, and as always we’ll go through the 7

issues and have a discussion back and forth and 8

answer questions as they arise, and at the end of 9

the discussions here, we’ll look at the Web inar and 10

s ee if there are any questions that are pertinent 11

and those folks might want to have answered as well. 12

So with that, I guess we can get started, 13

and again, I appreciate your time and interest 14

today. 15

**Introductions** 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. It’s typical 17

for us to do introduc tions around the room

. Not all 18

of this will be captured on the record, but all of 19

you registered so we know who’s here, and hopefully 20

you -- I’m not sure if we’re collecting business 21

cards today or not. But let’s start with 22

introduct ions, you name and organizational 23

affiliation . And you need to push the button so the 24

little green light come s on the microphone

. 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 8 MS. CLEARY: Jennifer Cleary with the 1

Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. 2

MR. SAC H S: Harvey Sac h s, with the 3

A merican Council for an Energy

- Efficien t Economy. 4

MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik, Air 5

Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute. 6

MS. WALTNER: Meg Waltner, National 7

Resources Defense Council. 8

MR. STROUD: Tom Stroud, Hearth, Patio and 9

Barbecue Association. 10

MR. STAS: Eric Stas, DOE General 11

Counsel’s Office. 12

MR. KHAN: Mohammed Khan , Department of 13

Energy. 14

MR. TALBOTT: John Talbot, Consultant with 15

NIST. 16

MS. LAM: Hoi Yee Lam, Energetics, 17

Incorporated. 18

MR. LONG: Ray Long, DNR Internati onal. 19

MR. RYAN: David Ryan, DNR International. 20

MR. TALBOT: Jacob Talbot, American 21

Council for an Energy

- Efficient Economy. 22

MR. GAUTHIER : Phil Gauthier , Air 23

Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute. 24

25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 9 **Agenda Review** 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank yo u. Once again, 2

thanks to all of you, glad to have you here. I’ m 3

going to do a very brief agenda review , and then 4

we’re going to launch into the content. 5

All of you received a packet as you came 6

in and registered to the Department of Energy today. 7

Th e slides that will be the focal point for 8

presentation and also for discussion, you have 9

those, as well as the Federal Register

Immediately f ollowing that , rulemaking 18

steps, rule making history, and discussion of 19

proposed amendments. And then a detailed discussion 20

of proposed amendments. And when that is done, 21

another opportunity for final comments, and again, 22

summary comments, brief comments, other issues that 23

any individual fee ls he or she needs to raise. And 24

we intend, as Mohammed said, to finish today 25 notice. You 10

can see in the agenda which you also have, that 11

immediately following this agenda review, we’re 12

going to have a rul emaking overview, and then 13

there’s an opportunity for anybody that wishes to do 14

so , to make brief opening remarks , key issues , 15

things that matter to you that you’d like to 16

emphasize here at the outset. 17Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 10 probably no later than noon. We may even make it 1

earlier than that today. 2

So that’s the general plan. Questions or 3

c omments on the agenda? I see none, so please, I’d 4

as k for your consideration. Please speak one at a 5

time. Please say your name for the record . Please 6

-- each time you speak , say your name . You don’t 7

need to say your organization al affiliation again, 8

unless you have the habit of doing so and you can’t 9

st op. Please be concise, share the air time. 10

I’m going to be cueing people, individuals 11

by name as best I can. We also wish to encourage 12

and the Department benefits from follow

- on comments. 13

Sometimes the exchange, the back and forth can be 14

especially us eful. 15

And do you wish to introduce yourself 16

right now? Your name and organizational 17

affiliation. 18

MS. McCann: Molly Trombley McCann, 19

Pacific Gas and Electric. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Molly. So 21

that’s all I have to say here at the outset, I 22

thi nk. We’re going to go then to Mohammed Khan

. 23

**Rulemaking Overview** 24

MR. KHAN: It didn’t work. (Referring to 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 11 the failed slide advance) I told you we had 1

logistic issues to master. (Laughter) Good morning, 2

everyone, and thank you for participating in the 3

D epartment ’s Public Meeting on test procedure s for 4

residential water heaters, direct heating equipment 5

and pool heaters. My name again, is Mohammed Khan , 6

and I’m the Department of Energy’s project manager 7

for this rulemaking activity. I’m be providing an 8

overview of the rulemaking, and John Talbot who is a 9

consultant for the National Institute of Standards 10

and Technology , will present details on the 11

Department’s proposed approaches for the test 12

procedure amendments. 13

The purpose of the meeting. Today’s 14

meeting serves multiple purposes, mainly, and as 15

always, our goal is to have a two

- way discussion. 16

We want to convey the key points and concepts 17

associated with this rulemaking, and hear and listen 18

to your thoughts and potential concerns. 19

First, the De partment wants to present its 20

approaches for amending the applicable test 21

procedures. Second, this is a forum for all 22

interested parties to hear and discuss the issues by 23

both the Department and by others. And because your 24

feedback is very important, I e ncourage everyone to 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 12 fully participate and urge you to submit any 1

relevant data that will help the Department in i t s 2

rulemaking. 3

Lastly, we want to describe the steps in 4

the rulemaking process so that all interested 5

parties are fully familiar and are abl e to 6

contribute. 7

Doug had mentioned that we would provide 8

an opportunity. I don’t think the Department 9

received any formal requests to do so, but at this 10

juncture, I’m just going to allow folks who may not 11

have submitted such a request, but if you want to, 12

feel free. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: No comments at this time? 14

No opening remarks. Then let’s proceed. 15

**Rulemaking Steps, Rulemaking History,** 16

**and Discussion of Proposed Amendments** 17

MR. KHAN: Steps in the procedure of 18

rulemaking. This rulemaking includes a Notice of 19

Proposed Rulemaking or NOPR for short, which was 20

published on August 30, 20 10. T oday we’re holding 21

the public meeting because it’s essential for the 22

Department to provide this opportunity for an 23

exchange of information

. Correspondingly, the 24

pro cess includes a 75

- day written comment period 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 13 which closes on November 15 th

In order for the Department to develop and 2

issue the most inclusive final rule possible, it 3

reviews and fully considers all of the comments it 4

receives. While we do not have an exact date for 5

the publication of the final rule, I c an assure you 6

that it will be published as soon as possible 7

following the comment period 8 . 1

Okay, let me talk briefly about some 9

pertinent regulatory history and what’s driving this 10

effort. The test p rocedure s that are the subject of 11

this rulemaking are codified as 10 CFR Part 430, 12

S ubpart B . The applicable appendices f or water 13

heaters, direct heating equipment, vented direct 14

heating equipment , and pool heaters are A ppendices 15

E, G, O, and P, respectiv ely. 16

The relevant final rule that amended 17

standards for these products was published on April 18

16, 2010, and let me be clear, the April 16 th final 19

rule does not stipulate standards for standby and 20

off mode energy use, and the current test procedure 21

rule making will not change or affect the current 22

standards. The Department is conducting 23

this rulemaking because the Energy Independence and 24

Security Act of 2007, or EISA 2007 for short, 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 14 charges DOE to incorporate protocols for measuring 1

standby and off mod e energy consumption into the 2

test procedures for the covered products. Again, 3

just to be clear, this rulemaking does not impact 4

current standards, but EISA requires that any new 5

standard promulgated after July 1, 2010 must address 6

standby mode and off mo de energy consumption. 7

EISA also requires DOE to integrate 8

standby and off mode energy consumption into the 9

existing regulating metric, unless, 10

1. The Secretary determines that the current 11

test procedures already fully account for and 12

incorporate stand by and off mode energy 13

consumption, or, 14

2. If such an integration is technically 15

infeasible. 16

A final point concerning the EISA 17

requirements is that the International 18

Electr ot echnical Commission sta nd ards, 62301, and 19

62087, must be considered in developin g the 20

protocols for measuring standby mode and off mode 21

energy consumption. DOE has determined that IEC 22

standard 62301, titled “Household electrical 23

appliances, measurement of standby power,” is 24

relevant and proposes to incorporate standards 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 15 62301 by ref erence. 1

However, DOE believes the scope of the IEC 2

standard 62087, titled, “Methods of measurement for 3

the power consumption of audio, video, and related 4

equipment,” is limited and not relevant to this 5

rulemaking. 6

EISA review and needed amendments. The 7

first step in the process was for DOE to review the 8

current test procedures to identify where possible 9

changes were needed to address the EISA 10

requirements. Based on its review, the Department 11

has determined the following: 12

For water heaters, the cur rent test 13

procedures do not require modification. The current 14

test procedure already fully accounts for standby 15

energy consumption, and that measurements for off 16

mode energy consumption is unnecessary since the 17

operation of water heaters do not include of f mode. 18

There are two types of direct heating 19

equipment, vented and unvented. For vented heaters, 20

DOE has determined that standby and off mode fossil 21

fuel energy consumption are already fully accounted 22

for in the current test procedure. However, DOE 23

be lieves that it is necessary to introduce new 24

measurement and calculation provisions for 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 16 electrical standby and off mode energy use. 1

For unvented heaters, DOE believes 2

additional measurement provisions are needed for 3

both fossil fuel standby and also elec trical standby 4

and off mode energy consumption. For unvented 5

heaters, DOE also believes additional calculation 6

provisions are not needed. 7

For pool heaters, DOE believes that both 8

additional measurement and calculation provisions 9

for both fossil fuel and electrical standby and off 10

mode energy consumption are required. 11

I’d like to know if there are any 12

questions at this point. Mr. Sac h s. 13

MR. SAC H S: Harvey Sac h s. Thank you, 14

Mohammed. I just installed a water heater that has 15

an off switch, and as I think about that water 16

heater and others, it occurs to me that a 17

manufacturer of advanced products could readily set 18

it up so the vacation mode locks out the water 19

heating function. It keeps alive whatever clocks 20

and things it has. It shuts down the abi lity to 21

heat water. Is that off mode or standby? It’s a 22

small amount of energy, but it’s not clear to me 23

that for advanced products there might not be an off 24

mode. 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 17 MR. TALBOTT: Well, the position taken

-- 1

MR. BROOKMAN: John Talbot t

. 2

MR. TALBOTT: John Talbot t . The position 3

taken in the proposal is that there already is a 4

full accounting of all energy in the water heater 5

test procedure, and they even have a term called 6

“standby loss” and that was essentially consistent 7

with what EISA wants. We do not know of products 8

that would have additional energy consumption that 9

EISA would ask us to include. But if you have 10

information and products that might have that, that 11

would be interesting in your comments. 12

MR. SAC H S: I believe that

-- Harvey Sac H s 13

-- I believe, John, that all home water heaters on 14

the market today have a vacation mode whose energy 15

consumption would be unlikely to be revealed in the 16

24

- hour cycle. I believe that some of the gas tank 17

appliances similarly have a discrete vacation mode

. 18

I don’t know what it does. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Frank Stanonik. 20

MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik. Two 21

points, the last thing Harvey mentioned, I think, 22

certainly on gas storage water heater, if it had a 23

vacation mode, essentially it’s just reall y turning 24

the thermostat down. I mean, it’s different than 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 18 the

-- you could set the gas control at pilot when, 1

at which point it wouldn’t do any heating, but in 2

the vacation mode it’s just really setting the 3

thermostat very, very low where it probably won ’t 4

ever recycle, not that it can’t, but it probably 5

won’t. 6

But the other point that certainly is 7

different here

-- again, there’s no question standby 8

loss for water heaters of whatever variety is 9

measured, and so something like a heat pump that 10

would hav e a off mode, that consumption is actually 11

less than the standby loss, because basically you’re 12

not allowing the thing to reheat water for no 13

purpose. And at least I’ll venture that 14

philosophically, that’s very different than why 15

we’re sitting here lookin g at standby and off mode 16

consumption of products because the concern was that 17

it was something

-- it was some additional 18

consumption that wasn’t being counted, I guess. But 19

in this particular case, we’re actually talking 20

about

-- well, first of all, it isn’t measured in 21

the test procedures

-- this off mode isn’t measured. 22

But it would be a significantly lower consumption 23

than the standby that is measured, so certainly to 24

us it’s kind of a, well, what are we really gaining 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 19 there, I guess, or what are we really finding out. 1

MR. SAC H S: Thank you, Frank. This is 2

Harvey Sac h s again. I very much appreciate that. 3

The hypothetical that I raised is not going to be a 4

large energy consumption, it’s a couple watts 5

against the 40 or 50 watts of standby radiated heat. 6

The question really comes down to whether 7

manufacturers are going to go to the legal eagles 8

and everyone else to think about whether he’s going 9

to have problems if he wants to do a mode that 10

disables the water heating function, a mode that 11

might ke ep the electronics alive, but would not 12

allow the water heater to heat water. So it’s a 13

theoretical thing, but I think it’s a possible 14

category. I think we’ve beat that horse until it’s 15

quite dead. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Harvey. Molly. 17

MS. TROMBL EY

- McCANN: Molly Trombley

18

McCann. Just to mention that if manufacturers are 19

designing features that cause the units to use even 20

less energy than they otherwise would have, we’d 21

like to see that reflected in the test procedures so 22

that those units can get adequate credit for those 23

additional features, for having that off mode that 24

allows them to save additional energy, even if it’s 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 20 a small amount. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 2

MR. KHAN: Well, thank you for the 3

questions and comments, I’m going to turn th e 4

presentation over to John Talbot at this point. 5

**Detailed Discussion of Proposed Amendments** 6

MR. TALBOTT: 7

What I’d like to do is present some of the 8

details and just by coincidence, you just covered 9

some of the details. We’re going to go product by 10

product, and we’ll go in the order of which these 11

three products are always listed. So water heaters 12

first. I had keyed up here a question, is it 13

appropriate to our current position of everything is 14

okay in the water heater test procedure, but you’re 15

hea ring some discussion that perhaps it’s not. But 16

wonder if it’s appropriate to bring that up as part 17

of the EISA amendment provisions or not. 18

What you’re talking about is something 19

that applies to the overall existing test procedure 20

for water heaters

. And definin g a off mode, all 21

products, if you turn them off, they don’t use 22

energy. Furnaces have the same situation. People 23

don’t heat their houses, there will be less energy 24

consumed. So this would be in that area. 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 21 The current version of the exist ing water 1

heater test procedure s defines a representative use 2

cycle as 24/7, 365 days. And that is 3

representative, at least. But if you want to expand 4

that into others, that’s a whole different test 5

procedure amendment process, rather than adding 6

EISA. 7

And if we could, we could move on to 8

vented heaters, unless Frank has a question. 9

MR. STANONIK: Well not

-- Frank Stanonik. 10

It’s not really a question but a comment. 11

Certainly, I mean we agree with the preliminary 12

conclusion here that you really don’ t need to do any 13

additional standby off mode testing for a water 14

heater when it’s functioning. The intent is it’s 15

supposed to be ready 24/7. And so we’ll certainly 16

talk to some of our members. I understand what 17

Harvey’s saying, but if the water heater h as this 18

feature of somehow allowing somebody to turn it off 19

at the water heater as opposed to

-- you know, it 20

has electric supply. Most codes require you have to 21

have a nearby switch, but that’s not at the product, 22

that’s your system. But if it does ha ve that 23

feature, I guess we’ll talk to our members just to 24

kind of confirm that. 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 22 The point I wanted to make is that when 1

you’re doing a standby loss test on a water heater, 2

when it’s ready to perform or function, you are 3

going to measure that electric co nsumption of 4

whatever electronics, and so again, in a sense we’re 5

-- we’re looking at I’d say the maximum consumption 6

that might be occurring in operational mode, and I 7

think that’s the right thing to do, in that case 8

there is no need for further amending the test 9

procedures for this. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Eric Stas. 11

MR. STAS: Eric Stas, DOE. This would 12

apply to

-- the semantics, and the definitions here 13

get a little tricky, so even those in common terms 14

or marketing, someone might be calling something off 15

m ode, and perhaps it really is a standby mode, and 16

if it’s already captured, then we don’t need to bulk 17

up the test procedures. That’s why it’s important 18

to give us whatever data you can provide, or 19

examples that they can analyze to see if anything 20

more is really necessary. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Harvey Sac h s. 22

MR. SAC H S: Thank you, Eric, and I very 23

appreciate that, but we’re not trying to bulk up. 24

From my perspective, clarity is required in order to 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 23 not discourage innovation. Ambiguity is the enemy 1

of innova tion in these areas. Or one enemy. So 2

that

-- it’s not going to be a large amount of 3

energy, but I’ve tried to think out whether we have 4

some issues. 5

MR. STAS: No, I’m agreeing with you. I’m 6

j ust highlighting how tricky I think this area gets 7

to be , and we want as much input as possible, 8

because we want to get it right the first time. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, tricky in the 10

practical application. 11

MR. SAC H S: Yes. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Questions? More questions 13

on this subject? Comments? So, John, you w ere 14

suggesting a pathway based on what we’ve covered 15

already. Restate that. 16

MR. TALBOTT: Well, some of the issues 17

that are being raised affect the test procedure in 18

general, and not the addition of standby and off 19

mode. And that’s a serious discussion , and if you 20

fe e l that test procedures need to be seriously 21

expanded to accomplish these automatic off modes or 22

other energy conservation designs, that’s you’re 23

welcome to submit those comments, but they don’t 24

exactly relate to the business before us today

. 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 24 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 1

MR. TALBOTT: All right. Vented heaters. 2

Vented heaters, the test procedure is very similar 3

to the furnace test procedure, and the amendments 4

are very nearly the same as what was nearly 5

finalized for the furnaces . W ith some 6

clarification , the EISA concepts and definitions are 7

applicable or workable within the vented heater test 8

procedure . The on cycle and off cycle , that’s the 9

terminology in the vented test procedure , is very 10

similar to what’s described as standby mode or off 11

mode. But we add definitions to clarify that. 12

In the test procedures for this product, 13

fossil fuel energy consumption is accounted for over 14

the full year cycle, and we believe that that , 15

therefore , satisfied the EISA 2007 requirements. 16

This is t he pilot light treatment, and even the 17

summertime usage of the pilot light is accounted for 18

in the vented heater test procedure. So I believe 19

we’re covered there o n the fossil fuel side. 20

However, provisions are needed and are 21

proposed to be added to mea sure the electrical 22

standby mode and off mode wattages, and we’ll 23

utilize the international standard, 62301, with some 24

clarifications, to accomplish those measurements. 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 25 The key clarifications in the proposal for 1

these measurements are that the existing t est 2

procedure specifications for ambient temperature and 3

voltage shall apply in lieu of the international 4

standard provisions. The accuracy and precision 5

provisions in the IEC standard would apply. They 6

seem reasonable, and it would provide some 7

uniformi ty across all the products if we all use the 8

same accuracy and precision specifications. 9

In addition, we have to take those 10

measurements and then integrate them into the test 11

procedure, and for this product, the energy 12

consumption equations would be expa nded to include 13

the standby and off mode electrical energy 14

consumption. 15

And then the final thing that was 16

determined was that the integration into the 17

existing AFUE was determined as not feasible. 18

So let me explain the actual equations 19

that we are mo difying and expanding. In red are the 20

added terms, so the existing test procedure had a 21

calculation for the total annual electrical 22

consumption E sub AE, and it was the product of the 23

burner operating hours times what is now called the 24

active mode electri city. So that’s the existing 25

test procedure. What we’re doing is just adding one 26Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 26 term , and it’s called the energy in standby and off, 1

and the next equation is all new, and this is the 2

actual annualization of those wattage measurements. 3

So you can see he re that it uses existing test 4

procedure numbers and values. It takes the wattage 5

measurement, which is P sub SB (for standby wattage) 6

and P sub OFF ( for off mode wattage ) , and it 7

multiplies it by the test procedure provided hours. 8

Now for the standby mod e, in heating season, which 9

is defined in the test procedure as 4160 hours minus 10

the active mode, which we’re approximating a s the 11

burn er operating in hours, and then for the off 12

mode, the rest of the year is assigned the off mode. 13

So that’s 8760 full yea r accounting, and it’s pretty 14

straightforward, and it uses a lot of the test 15

procedure assignments that are already in, already 16

available. 17

So that’s the vented heater expanded 18

calculations, and for the same reasons as the 19

furnace suggestion of integratin g also into the 20

efficiency metric, AFUE, it was determine d f or 21

vented heaters that is also de minimus and would not 22

have a significant effect on the actual number of 23

the efficiency, so we are tentatively concluding 24

that it is appropriate not to integrate i nto the 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 27 AFUE for vented heaters. And so that’s the vented 1

heater amendments . A ny questions on vented heaters? 2

MR. STROUD: Tom Stroud. The difficulty 3

that HP B A sees here is that some confusion was added 4

in the final rule by including what have been se en 5

as decorative products, the 2150 products, as well 6

as the 2188 products. I think what's being 7

discussed here really fits with the 88 products, 8

which are hearth heaters. With the decorative 9

products, these are typically attended appliances, 10

not automat ed, and I think standby and off mode are 11

very dissimilar with those products. And so if 12

those products are going to continue to be included 13

here, we've got to look at those in a completely 14

different way. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: So the decorative products 16

you're referring to, what are they? 17

MR. STROUD: Z2150 products are typically 18

gas fireplaces that are not used for heating, but 19

used for decorative purposes alone. And their 20

typical use pattern may be two hours a month, or 21

four hours a month, something like th at. 22

MR. KHAN: Mohammed Khan , DOE. Tom, 23

appreciate those comments very, very much, and the 24

Department would appreciate it even more so if the 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 28 numbers you just mentioned could be confirmed by any 1

kind of data that you would have. 2

MR. STROUD: We do hav e it. 3

MR. KHAN: Or be able to

-- okay, great. 4

MR. STROUD: And we’ll get it to you. 5

MR. KHAN: Thank you very much. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks, Tom. Frank. 7

MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik. Just to 8

address the questions on the slide here, we 9

certainly agree that it’s not a good idea or not 10

really practical to integrate these measurements 11

into the AFUE. It becomes a little more difficult 12

for direct heating equipment because you have all 13

these different levels for the different product 14

types. To me, th ere’s some greater sense to just 15

keeping it as a separate measurement. 16

And as far as whether the proposed 17

amendments are sufficient, I’ll say at this point, 18

they appear to be sufficient, subject to more input 19

from our members, but I think they are. 20

The one thing that I think I heard , and we 21

will still provide comments on , is using the, I’ll 22

call it the measurement method of the IEC standard, 23

relative to the accuracy and repeated

-- the need 24

for, I’ll call them sampling measurements as opposed 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 29 to the res t of the test procedure where you just 1

kind of take one measurement and move on to the next 2

one. But that’s a minor point relative to these 3

bigger issues which I think DOE has gotten right. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, Molly. 5

MS. TROMBLEY

- McCANN: Molly Trombley

6

McCann. Just to say that we agree that we believe 7

keeping those standby and off mode uses separate 8

from the AFUE metric is appropriate and is the best 9

way to effectively regulate both energy uses, so 10

we’re very pleased to see that. 11

MR. BR OOKMAN: Thank you, that’s h el pful 12

for the Department to hear affirmations like that. 13

MR. TALBOTT: Okay. Additional comments 14

on this subject? We’ll move on to unvented heaters. 15

This product was the subject of an industry inquiry 16

which asked, if there is, in fact, standby loss or 17

off mode energy consumption, and how best to account 18

for it. The proposal that we

-- we did get comment 19

back that said, yes, there is a possibility of 20

electrical standby loss and fossil fuel standby 21

loss, and that there’s prob ably a need for 22

amendment , but they should be minimal. And so the 23

proposal would add measurement provisions for both 24

the pilot light and electrical consumption because 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 30 they are standby and off mode. Both of these added 1

provisions would allow for exemptio n from 2

measurement if there is a means to disconnect the 3

power source when not in use, and instructions to do 4

so are clearly visible. This exception is 5

consistent with what is already in the test 6

procedure s for manually

- controlled vented heaters, 7

where th is is truly a portable device, user 8

discretion , and it’s appropriate not to account for 9

the energy consumption that might be considered off 10

mode or stand by mode. 11

So, consistent with what’s already in the 12

test procedures. The exemption from measurement and 13

even accounting for possible standby and off mode 14

losses is accepted. 15

And then finally for this product, because 16

it is a special product that is by and large 17

discretionary use, we are not proposing 18

consideration or development of a representative u se 19

cycle for this product class. There was no 20

representative use cycle in the existing test 21

procedure, and the expansion to include standby and 22

off mode was not compelling, or we could not get 23

data from the industry to justify the creation of a 24

representa tive use cycle. 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 31 So the amendments are pretty 1

straightforward, just go in, take a couple 2

measurements , and obtain these values of P

- sub SB 3

electrical and P

- sub OFF, and that’s it. 4

So are there concerns with this decision 5

not to go further and develop a representative use 6

cycle? And are the amendments sufficient? 7

MR. BROOKMAN: Frank Stanonik. 8

MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik. Certainly , 9

we agree with the tenet of the decision that you 10

don’t need to try to define a representative use 11

cycle. And the proposed amendments we think are 12

sufficient. 13

There is just one question that kind of 14

came up as I listened to John and look at the text 15

here, the proposed text, and in the case of unvented 16

heaters it becomes fairly important. It’s mentioned 17

here that if there’s an instruction to turn off the 18

unit on the gas control or whatever, I’m not going 19

to be verbatim because I don’t remember exactly what 20

John said, but what I heard was turn it off when not 21

in use. And I guess I just want to make sure that 22

it wou ld be understood that I would think that

-- 23

well, I will say our preference, industry’s 24

preference would be we’re talking about turning it 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 32 off in the non

- heating season. We really don’t

-- I 1

think we really don’t want to get into a situation 2

where every t ime that consumer, let’s say every day 3

after

-- let’s say they turn on their vent

- free 4

heater for a couple hours, and then every day they 5

turned it off, then they would have to relight the 6

pilot the next day, or whatever. I don’t think we 7

want to get into a situation that would necessarily 8

encourage that kind of a practice. 9

And so if it would be understood, I think, 10

that this instruction would talk about turning it 11

off when you’re not going to be using it in the 12

heating season, whatever that might be, I think with 13

that clarification this makes sense. 14

But my

-- I’d say otherwise, if this was 15

to be understood that it would have to mean that 16

every time you

-- every separate occasion you 17

weren’t using it, the instruction would have to say 18

you turn it of f, then you’re probably going to have 19

a lot of people misreading their pilot energy 20

consumption. 21

MR. TALBOTT: That’s a good point because 22

for this product, the pilot energy is not an energy 23

waste, so during that season we don’t want to get 24

into measurin g pilot lights and then essentially not 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 33

-- for no purpose. 1

MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik. The other 2

point is again, with this product, that pilot has a 3

very significant safety function. The pilot is a 4

critical component of the oxygen depletion sensing 5

system, and so again there’s

-- consumers being 6

consumers, there’s some concern. We really don’t 7

want consumers regularly fiddling around with the 8

pilot, if you will. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Mohammed Khan , and then to 10

Harvey. 11

MR. KHAN: Mohammed Khan , DOE. I just 12

wanted to comment or add to the point about Frank’s 13

concern regarding unplugging the electric units. In 14

the Notice , we report back what the Association of 15

the Home Appliance Manufacturers, AHAM, provided to 16

us in that regard, and number one, they sug gested 17

that the off mode be ignored entirely for portable 18

electric heaters; and number two, I guess to provide 19

us basis for that, they indicated that there was 20

data collected by the Stevenson Group in 2004, 21

reporting that 86 percent of the consumers unplug ged 22

their portable heaters per the safety instructions. 23

So perhaps we can get co mment today from the person 24

representing AHAM on that as to whether or not we 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 34 have any information about when it’s unplugged for 1

the 86 percent. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: And Mohammed, maybe you 3

could just say what page that reference is on? 4

MR. KHAN: Sure, that’s in the Federal 5

Register

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. That’s helpful. 8 N o tice, on Page 52899, first column, at the 6

bottom. 7

MS. CLEARY: This is Jennifer Cleary. I 9

don’t h ave that data today, but I can certainly look 10

into it. I think that we might be talking about a 11

little bit different scenarios here, that the AHAM 12

comments are directed only to the portable electric 13

heaters and those, I think, our data indicates are 14

unplu gged when they’re not in use most of the time, 15

and bear those instructions on the product. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Harvey Sac h s. 17

MR. SAC H S: Harvey Sac h s, and just one 18

point of clarification or emphasis. I’m sure that 19

John meant that with unvented heat ers, the pilot is 20

not wasted energy during the heating season. 21

MR. TALBOTT: Correct. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: John Talbot. 23

MR. TALBOTT: Yes, and of course then 24

you’re left with the off mode possibility of a pilot 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 35 light, which means summer time burning, and w e feel 1

that if there is provisions that says there is an 2

off switch, consistent with what we say for vented 3

heaters, that precludes you from counting and 4

measuring pilot light, because we expect that those 5

units would be turned off. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: A d diti onal comments on 7

these points? I think this specificity is helpful 8

to the Department. This is good. Okay. Then, 9

John. 10

MR. TALBOTT: Okay. The final product. 11

Pool heaters. For pool heaters, the amendments are 12

a little more extensive. The existing pool heater 13

test procedure was only half a page or a page . And 14

with the EISA charge, we felt that there was enough 15

of a change needed that we are essentially replacing 16

the old Appendix P with new Appendix P. So what’s 17

proposed in the proposal is an enti re , complete t est 18

procedure . And for this product, again similar to 19

the other products, the existing test procedure 20

terminology can be straightened out and be 21

consistent with what EISA’s asked for. 22

But there are separate measurement and 23

calculation prov is ions are added to quantify the 24

standby and off mode for both fossil fuel and 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 36 electricity. The proposal adopts a similar approach 1

as outlined in ASHRAE S tandard 146 to measure the 2

standby and off mode energy consumption. However, 3

it’s not incorporated d irectly by a reference there. 4

There’s enough terminology changes that we were 5

required to live with because of EISA, that we 6

essentially just adopt a similar approach and then 7

develop an Appendix P that satisfies a ll of our 8

statutory charges. 9

Again, the measurement of the electrical 10

standby and off mode wattages would utilize the 11

international standard and will make the same 12

clarifications that the existing test procedure 13

specs for ambient temperature and voltage shall 14

apply, instead of the international standards. 15

Now, one of the big changes is that 16

there’s a new energy descriptor. And because it is 17

technically feasible to do so, for this product, we 18

feel that we should integrate the standby and off 19

mode into the thermal efficiency descriptor. And we 20

used the thermal efficiency descriptor to allow for 21

the consistency within our statute that identifies 22

thermal efficiency as the efficiency descriptor for 23

this product. 24

So, describing the new integrated thermal 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 37 efficiency is essentially the same quotien t as was 1

in the existing test procedure. The energy out over 2

the energy in, where the energy out is the same as 3

it always was, it’s the seasonal output of heated 4

water

-- and this test procedure actually measures 5

the heat content of the water that’s produ ced

-- so 6

that’s the same as the existing test procedure. 7

However, the E sub IN, the input energy is the total 8

annual input energy including fossil fuel, 9

electricity, and in active mode, standby mode and 10

off mode. So that’s the expansion. 11

Explaining fu rther, again, the denominator 12

of the ultimate equation of the integrated thermal 13

efficiency is E

- sub

- IN, the input, and it’s the sum 14

of the fossil fuel input and the electrical input. 15

For the fossil fuel input

-- and I show in black the 16

existing test proc edure

-- it had some accounting of 17

the pilot light in the standby mode, which would be 18

the pool operating hours minus the burner operating 19

hours, but it had no mention of off cycle. So we 20

added the term to account for the possible off cycle 21

of the pilot. 22

Again, so the total electricity, we have 23

to add, for the electrical side, we have to add a 24

whole new term. So the original test procedure just 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 38 had the active mode. It didn’t call it active mode

. 1

I t was just the burner operating hours times the 2

electric al active mode electricity. And then we 3

added the standby and off electricity accounting, 4

and here again , we used the test procedure 5

assignments for pool operating hours, that’s the 6

pool heating season, and the burner operating hours, 7

and that difference would define the standby loss 8

for the electricity. And then, again, the off mode 9

is the non

- pool operating hours. 10

And that’s the integration that we feel 11

EISA directs us to do, and so we integrated here 12

into consumption equations , and we integrated in to 13

the efficiency equation. And NIST has done some 14

testing on what’s the effect of the integrated 15

thermal efficiency, and it has found that the 16

integration does result in two, three, four 17

percentage point changes. So we don’t feel that we 18

can make the ar gument that it’s demin i mus. 19

And so for this product , we feel that we 20

should do the total integration that EISA asks for. 21

And so the questions also the line, we’ve actually 22

updated the standard that was the basis of the 23

original thermal efficiency, and we found that there 24

were no substantive differences, but we ask for 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 39 comment on that. And are we sufficient with these 1

amendments? And the determination, in particular, 2

of the need to integrate into the thermal efficiency 3

these standby losses? 4

MR. STAN ONIK: Frank Stanonik. John, one 5

question first that

-- you mentioned that you had 6

done some testing and showed that in fact these 7

other consumptions do change the

-- give you a 8

different value for the integrated thermal 9

efficiency. Would that be the cas e -- I assume that 10

was both off and standby. 11

MR. TALBOTT: Yes. 12

MR. STANONIK: Okay, so if I had this pool 13

heater that had instructions to turn off during the 14

non - pool heating season, I don’t include off, right? 15

MR. TALBOTT: Right. 16

MR. STANONIK: Okay. So in that 17

circumstance is

-- does your testing show that just 18

the standby consumption would be enough to change 19

the thermal efficiency

-- the number? 20

MR. TALBOTT: Since you’re dealing with a 21

smaller total energy, it’s likely that it will. 22

It’s much less

-- how to say this

-- it’s much more 23

magnitude relative to the total consumption than it 24

would be on a furnace or a vented heater. So we 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 40 don’t have a formal report on that early testing, 1

but it does show some movement , and I don’t know if 2

the of f mode was discounted or not. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: With that

-- well, 4

obviously, I would be interested if you have some 5

additional information on that. 6

MR. STANONIK: But I think looking at the 7

questions again presented here, I’ll just say as far 8

as being sufficient, I don’t think we need any more 9

amendments. And I know we have no issues

-- 10

nothing’s been related to us

-- as far as issues 11

updating to the current edition of Z2056. 12

But on the last point of this additional 13

metric, at this point, not neces sarily disagreeing 14

that DOE may have to do this

-- again we need to 15

look at the numbers ourselves to see what kind of 16

energies we’re talking about, but I do have a very 17

fundamental concern about calling it thermal 18

efficiency. Even if you say integrated, o kay. 19

Thermal efficiency, when we talk about water heating 20

products, historically, at least to the cogniz ant 21

people who deal with these products and design them 22

and everything else

-- thermal efficiency is 23

immediately recognized

-- that’s, you know, energ y 24

into the water. And so now again, not arguing that 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 41 we’re going to measure these other things, these 1

consumptions have been going on when no water is 2

being heated, but I would

-- I think our preference 3

would be not to call

-- not to associate that as 4

the rmal efficiency. It

-- I’m going to say it 5

becomes a misnomer. 6

MR. TALBOTT: Well, what else would you 7

call it? 8

MR. STANONIK: Well, I guess that would

-- 9

we’ll have to give that some thought, but I believe 10

DOE would have the latitude, if they’re goin g to 11

create a new descriptor, they could perhaps call it 12

something else, and maybe it’s

-- I don’t know, it 13

wouldn’t be AFUE

-- no, but if there is going to be 14

this added descriptor, and we’ll give it some 15

thought. I would prefer to have it something othe r 16

than thermal efficiency, because in fact, 17

classically, this new thermal descriptor is not 18

thermal efficiency. We’ve inserted consumptions 19

that have nothing

-- have no benefit to the water. 20

Again, not contesting whether that’s right or wrong, 21

but it’s g oing to

-- I’d rather avoid an unnecessary 22

confusion. 23

MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s hear from Eric Stas, 24

General Counsel’s Office. 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 42 MR. KHAN: First it would be me. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Mohammed first. 2

MR. KHAN: Mohammed Khan , DOE. Frank, as 3

a mechanical engine er, I certainly appreciate those 4

concerns about terminology that you just made. And 5

as Doug already asked, whether or not there would be 6

any kind of suggestions that you might be able to 7

provide. But, I want to point out that statutorily , 8

we’re required to integrate with the existing 9

descriptors that are on the books, and if it is, 10

according to EISA, technically feasible to do so, 11

then I don’t think we have really any alternative. 12

I’m going to let Eric Stas add to this. 13

MR. STAS: And EPCA specifically provides 14

that for pool heaters, the efficiency descriptor, 15

the regulatory metric shall be thermal efficiency, 16

so, you know, this is an integrated thermal 17

efficiency, and it keeps us within ou r statutory 18

boundaries. So we support all your efforts to 19

clari fy your members that the duck that’s walking 20

like a duck is indeed a duck. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Thermal efficiency sub 22

something, perhaps. Harvey, go ahead. 23

MR. SAC H S: Harvey Sac h s. I’m really 24

guilty of attempting to practice law, but it seems 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 43 to me tha t the Secretary’s authority extends to some 1

discretion in naming. I think to answer Frank’s 2

concerns, we ought to change the name to something 3

neutral. I recommend giraffe. 4

MR. STANONIK: I was thinking duck. It 5

looks like a duck. 6

MR. STAS: Quite s eriously, I think some 7

of Frank’s concerns might be addressed by referring 8

to it as augmented instead of integrated. 9

Augmented, expanded, there are a variety of other 10

modifiers that do not have quite the same weight as 11

the term integrated. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Good. Thank you. I think 13

he’s not objecting to calling it integrated, I think 14

he’s objecting to using thermal efficiency, right? 15

MR. STANONIK: I think we wouldn’t mind 16

augmented, but it’s when you throw out the whole 17

term thermal efficiency that the re’s more concern. 18

MR. BROOKMAN : Frank, I think the 19

Department’s taking you up on your offer to give 20

this some thought, but Molly, please. 21

MS. TROMBLEY

- McCANN: I was just going to 22

make a facetious suggestion that we always put it in 23

square quotes. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: One benefit, we’ll have a 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 44 complete discussion of this on the record. It never 1

needs to be reinterpreted. 2

MR. TALBOTT: Just to clarify further, 3

there’s been considerable time that has elapsed 4

since these original provisions were put on into the 5

statute, and if you have background

-- I’m playing 6

the lawyer now

-- but if you have background that 7

tells us why the efficiency descriptor was added to 8

the F ederal code, specifically for those four 9

products that identified this terminology. I ha ve a 10

good memory, but I don’t remember. 11

MR. STANONIK: Such as legislative history 12

or something like that, yes. 13

MR. TALBOTT: Yes. 14

MR. STANONIK: I’ve got you. Okay. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: So additional comments on 16

this subject? I think we’ve covered t his one. Yes, 17

Meg. 18

MS. WALTNER: Meg Waltner. I just have a 19

quick question. I know from the original or the 20

existing test procedure, but I’m curious how the 21

burning operating hours and the pool operating hours 22

were derived, where those numbers came fr om, besides 23

the fact that they’re from the existing test 24

procedure. 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 45 MR. TALBOTT: Okay. There was an ASHRA E 1

standard that was in place that assigned pool 2

operating hours , and that’s where it came from. And 3

the actual numbers

-- it’s an actual fixed num ber, 4

it’s not pool operating hours, it’s just 41

- 5

something, and there’s an ASHRA E standard that has a 6

regional effect, it’s standard 146 that describes in 7

different areas , there would be different pool 8

operating hours, so there would be an adjustment if 9

yo u went that far in the equation. So a 10

representative value was picked decades ago, and 11

that’s in the test procedure. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: So final questions and 13

comments on this segment? 14

MR. TALBOTT: That’s it for the technical 15

details. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: An d then there’s a summary 17

slide, isn’t there? 18

MR. TALBOTT: Yes, it’s here. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: And let me also, for those 20

of you who have joined this meeting on

- line, we’re 21

running ahead of schedule. If you have questions 22

that haven’t been addressed during the course of the 23

meeting today, you can send them in now , and we’ll 24

try, as an experiment, to see if we can answer a few 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 46 of them if any are especially unique than have come 1

up so far. 2

So John, you want to set up this slide or 3

do you not need to do it ? 4

MR. TALBOTT: Well, this is your

-- any 5

summary comments and here’s a list of the big issues 6

that apply to all the products. I’ll give you an 7

opportunity to think about any of these and get it 8

on record. 9

**Final Comments** 10

MR. BROOKMAN: I think it’s go od. I think 11

we’ll list them, clarify that it’s use of IEC 62301 12

standard, the proposed energy accounting, how to 13

address standby mode and off mode energy use and 14

energy conservations standards. So those are focal 15

points for additional comment. Frank Sta nonik. 16

MR. STANONIK: I apologize, I’m going to 17

to backtrack a little bit, just because I’m taking 18

advantage of this opportunity. Getting back to this 19

last discussion about the legislation and what it 20

specified relative to the pool heaters, two points. 21

One of them is that when that legislation was 22

written, it also

-- and I think it h as some -- it 23

does have some bearing

-- at that same time it also 24

was one of the rare instances where in fact the 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 47 legislation allowed S tates to, if they so chose, ban 1

standi ng pilots on pool heaters. If you go back to 2

the original N AECA legislation, it did say the 3

requirement was going to be thermal efficiency, but 4

I would say it did recognize that they had a 5

separate consideration for the pilot consumption of 6

a pool heater, and essentially made an exception 7

that would allow a S tate, if it so chose, to ban 8

pilots on pool heaters in the S tate gas fire laws. 9

The other point I wanted to raise is 10

percolating somewhere but

-- at some point I believe 11

there’s going to be regulatio ns for heat pump pool 12

heaters, and when we get to that point, I don’t 13

think the measurement or heat from pool heaters, 14

thermal efficiency. So I guess my point is both, I 15

think we may be able to find some information in the 16

legislative history that will an swer that question, 17

but I think Harvey’s point, things are also changing 18

and so even if it said that back in 19

- whatever it 19

was - 87, I guess we’re going to try to make a strong 20

argument that you can come up with some other words. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Harvey Sac h s. 22

MR. SAC H S: Harvey Sac h s. Completely 23

independent of this process and its work, the 24

Department has floated out a proposal to move 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 48 towards the use of source energy descriptors, in 1

fact beyond that, to full fuel cycle. And we’re 2

looking at our electrical energy in terms of site 3

energy, and I guess I’m sort of asking if the 4

Department is setting this up in a way that would 5

allow easy conversion if the Department’s notice 6

winds up getting traction. 7

MR. BROOKMAN: Mohammed Khan

. 8

MR. KHAN: Mohammed Khan , DOE. With our 9

energy conservation standards rulemakings, the 10

Department is certainly taking an effort or making 11

an effort to look at the two types of energy. I 12

think to best answer your question at this point is 13

that we may have to reeval uate this at that time. 14

I’m not really sure exactly how much of an impact it 15

would have, but it’s something we might have to look 16

at. 17

MR. SAC H S: Harvey Sac h s, as sort of 18

follow

- up. This is really a smaller question that 19

works t owards the much larger q uestion of the 20

differentiation in performance metrics for heat 21

pumps relative to fossil

- fuel equipment. That 22

carries over not just to pool heaters, but to a 23

variety of other equipment, including space heaters. 24

So we have some work cut out for us. I assu me you 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 49 all are starting to plan for that. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes. 2

MR. GAUTHIER: Phil Gauthier with AHRI. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Please use the microphone, 4

and say your name again, Phil. 5

MR. GAUTHIER: Phil Gauthier with AHRI. 6

The traditional e nergy efficiency descriptor for 7

thermal efficiency is E

- sub

- T, even though the new 8

descriptor for integrated thermal efficiency may 9

morph into something else, it’s used in the formulas 10

and in the slide here as TE

- sub

- I. Was that 11

deliberate or an error? 12

MR. BROOKMAN: John. 13

MR. TALBOTT: I believe the old 14

terminology of E

- sub

- T is used in the equations , and 15

it means steady

- state efficiency as previously

-- in 16

the test procedure. And then we, just for editorial 17

choice, we used the TE

- sub

- I format to des cribe the 18

more comprehensive annualized thermal efficiency. 19

So, yes, we probably should have maybe extended it 20

E

- sub

- TEI, might have been a better editorial 21

choice. 22

MR. GAUTHIER: Just something to consider. 23

MR. TALBOTT: Yes. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank y ou. Molly, yes. 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 50 MS. TROMBLEY

- McCANN: Molly Trombley

1

McCann. I just wanted to follow on quickly to 2

Frank’s comment. It is true that S tates do have the 3

authority to ban standing pilots, and I know that 4

because California did it. In California, standin g 5

pilots are illegal. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: So now is an opportunity 7

for anybody that wishes to do so to make closing 8

remarks, raise additional issues that are relevant 9

to this subject and so we’ll hear from anybody else 10

who has closing remarks. 11

I see none. Then do we have any questions 12

coming in from our lines? Okay. Well, that worked 13

perfectly. 14

MR. STANONIK: Did we have any? 15

MS. LAM: Yes, we had 22 [ participants, 16

not questions ]

. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Evaluation form

-- please 18

take the 30 seconds to a m inute it takes to fill it 19

out. Then turn it back to Mohammed Khan for closing 20

remarks. 21

MS. LAM: (Comment off mic) 22

MR. BROOKMAN: Oh, you’re really good. 23

Thank you. I think that’s helpful. Thank you. Who 24

-- from a colleague in San Francisco. Ok ay. So 25Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 51 progress here. Technology that works. 1

**Next Steps and Closing** 2

MR. KHAN: Well, as I said at the onset 3

this morning, that we were making an effort to try 4

to make these meetings more efficient, and looks 5

like we’re concluding in just over an hour , so this 6

might be a record for us. (Laughter) 7

This slide here provides some very 8

important information, and again, as I said at the 9

onset, your comments, your data , and concerns that 10

you need to voice is very important for us to know 11

about and to recei ve. So this is the method whereby 12

you can submit such information and data. We have 13

the postal and courier addresses, as well as the e

14

mail addresses. And also what’s important too is so 15

that it helps us to properly catalog the information 16

as we receive it, to include the docket number and 17

the R I N number for identification purposes. 18

And again, let me remind you that comment 19

period closes on November 15 th

And again, I’d like to say thank you very 21

much for your participation. We got some very good 22

comments , and I’m hoping that we receive some good 23

data with respect to some of those comments. Again, 24

thank you very much. 25 . 20Execu tive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 52 (Whereupon, at 10:12 a .m., the meet ing in 1

the above

- captioned matter was adjourned .) 2