202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 1

 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

 ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY 

 ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM 

 NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING (NOPR) 

 PUBLIC MEETING 

 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 2010 

 The Public Meeting convened in Room 8E089 in the Forrestal Building, 1000 

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C., 

at 9:00 a.m., Douglas Brookman, Facilitator, 

presiding. 

PRESENT 

DOUGLAS BROOKMAN, Facilitator 

BRUCE ALKIRE, Carpenter Co. 

TIM BALLO, Earthjustice 

GOPAL BANDYOPADHYAY, Ph.D., Pacific Northwest 

 National Laboratory 

GARRY L. BRANNON, TAFCO 

AMY CHIANG, Honeywell 

STEVE COMBS, International Cold Storage 

ELLIS CRAIG, Craig Industries 

STEVE DUNLAP, Dunlap Consulting Services 

TIM DYE, Schott Gemtron 

DARYL ERBS, Manitowoc 

ERIC H. FITZ, Navigant Consulting 

ALBERT FRYDLAND, TAFCO 

CLAIRE GAGNE, Navigant Consulting 

DAVID GRIFE, Arctic Industries, Inc. 

LINDA M. HESS, Dow Chemical Company 

MILEN KIRILOV, Carpenter Co. 

SHAUN LAMPEL, United States Department of 

 Justice 

REBECCA LEGETT, Navigant Consulting 

KURT LEIBEL, Dow Chemical Company 

HARMON S. LEWIS, American Panel 

JIM Y. K. LING, Honeywell 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 2

PRESENT: (continued) 

ARISTOTLE MARANTAN, Ph.D., Navigant Consulting 

JOANNA MAUER, Appliance Standards Awareness 

 Project 

RAY McGOWAN, National Fenestration Rating 

 Council 

JON McHUGH, McHugh Energy Consultants 

KIMBERLY MILLER, Honeywell 

FRED L. MINELLI, Kysor Panel Systems 

BRETT A. MITCHELL, Kason Industries, Inc. 

KENNY OWEN, Master-Bilt 

RONALD E. PARK, Bayer MaterialScience LLC 

GRAHAM B. PARKER, Pacific Northwest National 

 Laboratory 

MICHAEL PERRODIN, Hill Phoenix 

JIM PERRY, Thermal Rite 

WILLIAM J. RAMSEY, Owens Corning Science and 

 Technology, LLC 

LOREN RASMUSSON, Nor-Lake 

DEVIN RAUSS, Southern California Edison 

DOUGLAS E. READ, ASHRAE 

IRA RICHTER, Heatcraft 

HARVEY SACHS, American Council for an Energy 

 Efficient Economy 

MICHAEL J. SIEVERS, BASF Polyurethane Foam 

 Enterprises, LLC 

JEFF VAN SLOUN, Owens Corning Foam Insulation, 

 LLC 

JOHN A. STOCKS, Hill Phoenix 

BILL STOMPF, Bally Refrigerated Boxes, Inc. 

LEE THAMES, Thermo-Kool 

JAKE VANDEVORT, American Chemistry Council 

COLLIN WEBER, Navigant Consulting 

SARAH WIDDER, Pacific Northwest National 

 Laboratory 

MICHAEL VENABLE, Hill Phoenix 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 3

 TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Welcome, Introductions, and Agenda Review, 

 Doug Brookman...........................4 

Rulemaking Overview, Charles Llenza........14 

Brief Opening Remarks from Interested 

 Parties, Doug Brookman................16 

Test Procedures Approach, Rebecca Legett 

 and Claire Gagne.......................45 

Proposed Envelope Test Procedure, 

 Eric Fitz and Claire Gagne..........102 

Proposed Refrigeration System Test Procedure, 

 Gopal Bandyopadhyay and 

 Collin Weber.........................331 

Discussion of Small Business Impacts, 

 Rebecca Legett.......................383 

Other Issues, Questions, Comments, and 

 Closing Remarks......................400 

Adjourn 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 4

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

 2 9:02 A.M. 

 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's start. Please 

 4 take your seats and let's get started. 

 5 Good morning, everybody. Welcome. 

 6 My name is Doug Brookman. I'll be 

 7 facilitating today's meeting. We're fortunate 

 8 this morning to have John Cymbalsky from the 

 9 Department of Energy. He wishes to make 

 10 welcoming remarks. 

 11 MR. CYMBALSKY: Thanks, Doug. Is 

 12 this on? This is my fourth week on the job, 

 13 so I want to say I know it's going to be a 

 14 contentious meeting. Don't throw anything at 

 15 me. Yell and everything, that's great. 

 16 Another thing we request that if 

 17 you have lots of comments, the written 

 18 comments are ones that we would generally like 

 19 over oral statements. Sometimes it's harder 

 20 to read the transcript. So if you have 

 21 something important, please submit it in 

 22 written form and if you do get tired of 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 5

1 yelling at us, it's going to be 70 degrees 

2 today. The cherry blossoms are starting to 

3 come out. Feel free to walk out and enjoy the 

4 day. So with that, have a good meeting. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: It's our tradition 

6 to provide an opportunity for each person to 

7 introduce him or herself, so let's start with 

8 that. I'm going to start on this side of the 

9 room and go around. If you would say your 

10 name and organizational affiliation to make 

11 these microphones work, you need to push the 

12 little button, the little push button, and you 

13 can see a little green LED light on there. 

14 Not everybody will be recorded in 

15 this, however, since everybody did register, 

16 the Department will provide a list of all the 

17 attendees here today. That will be made 

18 available later on this afternoon. So your 

19 name and organizational affiliation and we'll 

20 go. 

21 MR. SIEVERS: Michael Sievers with 

22 BASF Polyurethane Foam Enterprises LLC. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 6

1 MR. MITCHELL: Brett Mitchell with 

2 Kason Industries. 

3 MR. LEWIS: Harmon Lewis with 

4 American Panel Corporation. 

5 MR. CRAIG: Ellis Craig with Craig 

6 Industries, Inc. 

7 MR. GRIFE: David Grife with Arctic 

8 Industries. 

9 MR. KIRILOV: Milen Kirilov with 

10 Carpenter Chemical Company. 

11 MR. VANDEVORT: Jake Vandevort, 

12 Center for the Polyurethanes Industry, 

13 American Chemistry Council. 

14 MR. DUNLAP: Steven Dunlap, HH 

15 Technologies representing specialty doors 

16 manufacturers. 

17 MS. FABIAN: Barb Fabian, Owens 

18 Corning. 

19 MR. LAMPEL: Shaun Lampel, 

20 Department of Justice, Anti-Trust Division. 

21 MR. DYE: Tim Dye, Schott Gemtron, 

22 commercial glass doors. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 7

1 MR. THAMES: Lee Thames with 

2 Thermo-Kool. 

3 MR. RICHTER: Ira Richter, 

4 Heatcraft Worldwide Refrigeration. 

5 MR. McHUGH: Jon McHugh on behalf 

6 of Southern California Edison and the 

7 California Statewide Codes and Standards 

8 Program. 

9 MR. LEIBEL: Kurt Keibel, the Dow 

10 Chemical Company, Formulated Systems Division. 

11 MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, Air12 conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 

13 Institute. 

14 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs, American 

15 Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. 

16 MR. RASMUSSON: Loren Rasmusson 

17 with Nor-Lake, Incorporated. 

18 MR. COMBS: Steve Combs, 

19 International Cold Storage. 

20 MR. PERRY: Jim Perry, Thermal 

21 Rite. 

22 MR. KRUPA: Mike Krupa, BASF 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 8

1 Corporation. 

2 MR. KIDO: Michael Kido, Department 

3 of Energy, Office of the General Counsel. 

4 MR. CYMBALSKY: John Cymbalsky, 

5 DOE, Appliance Standards. 

6 MR. LLENZA: Charles Llenza, 

7 Project Manager, Department of Energy. 

8 MS. LEGETT: Rebecca Legett, 

9 Navigant Consulting. 

10 MR. MARANTAN: Aris Marantan, 

11 Navigant Consulting. 

12 MR. WEBER: Collin Weber, Navigant 

13 Consulting. 

14 MS. GAGNE: Claire Gagne, Navigant 

15 Consulting. 

16 MR. FITZ: Eric Fitz, Navigant 

17 Consulting. 

18 MS. WIDDER: Sarah Widder, Pacific 

19 Northwest National Laboratory. 

20 MS. HESS: Linda Hess, the Dow 

21 Chemical Company. 

22 (Participants from the gallery 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 9

1 identify themselves) 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Did 

3 everybody get a chance? Okay. 

4 So glad you could make it here this 

5 morning. My name is Doug Brookman from Public 

6 Solutions in Baltimore. I'm going to run 

7 through the agenda briefly and then we're 

8 going to proceed with the program. 

9 I think all of you have a copy of 

10 the agenda. You also received, as you 

11 registered, a PowerPoint presentation packet, 

12 as well as the Federal Register notice. A 

13 general comment about the way we have done 

14 this in the past and what has tended to work 

15 well is as you look at this packet with the 

16 PowerPoint slides in it, you will see that 

17 there's a lot of content in it. And the way 

18 it's structured is so that three or four or 

19 some number of slides can be presented as a 

20 block of content. And then there's a request 

21 for comment. And the presenters think it's 

22 generally better for them to get the bulk of 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 10

1 that included as one chunk before we seek all 

2 of your comments. And there's plenty of 

3 opportunity for you to do that. 

4 So if you can observe that 

5 generally as a form, it will make this go 

6 easier today, and I think it will also make 

7 the transcript more understandable as the 

8 Department reviews these materials. 

9 So all of you have a copy of this 

10 agenda. I hope immediately following this 

11 agenda review, we're going to have a 

12 rulemaking overview by Charles Llenza. 

13 Following that, there's an opportunity for 

14 anybody that wishes to do so to make brief 

15 opening remarks, key issues, key concerns that 

16 you'd like to raise here at the outside. 

17 Following that, we're going to have a 

18 presentation followed by your opportunity for 

19 comment on the test procedures approach. 

20 We'll take a break mid-morning and following 

21 that proposed envelope test procedure, the 

22 description of that that's once again embedded 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 11

1 in these slides. 

2 We'll take lunch today around about 

3 12:30 or so. Everybody is on their own for 

4 lunch. We'll give more specific instructions 

5 for that, as we approach -- as we break for 

6 lunch. 

7 Immediately following lunch, 

8 continuing the proposed envelope test 

9 procedure presentation, your opportunity for 

10 comment. We'll take a break mid-afternoon, 

11 3:15 or so, and then you can see the proposed 

12 refrigeration system test procedure and 

13 discussion of small business impacts. 

14 Finally, at the end of the day 

15 today, whether that's at 4:45 or whether it's 

16 at 5:30, there's yet another opportunity for 

17 anybody that wishes to do so to comment. So 

18 if you don't get a chance to say what you came 

19 here to say today, there is that opportunity 

20 at the end of the day. 

21 Is everybody with me? Okay. 

22 I would ask for your consideration 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 12

1 for what I think over the span of these years 

2 we have observed these norms. Please speak 

3 one at a time. Please say your name for the 

4 record. You don't need to say your 

5 organizational affiliation every time, just 

6 your name, so we have a sense of who is 

7 speaking. 

8 I am going to be queuing people as 

9 best as I can by name to speak. I also wish 

10 to encourage follow-on comments. Sometimes 

11 the exchange, the back and forth is very 

12 useful to the Department as they're trying to 

13 sort through these issues. 

14 Please keep the focus here. If you 

15 would, please, turn your cell phones on silent 

16 mode. If you need to have a sidebar 

17 conversation with the person next to you, if 

18 it's going to last more than about ten 

19 seconds, you can take it out of the room. 

20 Microphones work pretty well, but you need to 

21 turn them on. They're better than they used 

22 to be. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 13

1 And then finally, if you could try 

2 your best to be concise. There's a lot to be 

3 said, I'm certain. This is a crowded 

4 proceeding today and we want to make sure we 

5 give everybody a change to say what they came 

6 here to say. 

7 Questions or comments about any of 

8 that? 

9 MR. LEWIS: If we submitted written 

10 statement to Charles Llenza, is that part of 

11 the record or does that have to come up at 

12 this right here? 

13 MR. LLENZA: Yes, it's part of the 

14 record. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: The answer is yes, 

16 it's part of the record. And of course, the 

17 Department encourages, as John indicated at 

18 the outset, your complete and documented 

19 supported written comments, that will be very 

20 helpful to the Department as they figure out 

21 how to proceed. 

22 Okay? So then final questions here 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 14

1 before we launch into the content? I see 

2 none. Let's hear from Charles Llenza. 

3 MR. LLENZA: Well, welcome to the 

4 meeting on walk-in coolers, walk-in freezers. 

5 Today, we're presenting what the Department 

6 has come up in terms of our concept for test 

7 procedures. 

8 As you are probably aware, the 

9 Department of Energy is conducting this 

10 rulemaking as required by law, EISA 2007. We 

11 have several steps here to accomplish. One, 

12 prescribed standards where enacted by 

13 Congress, January 1, 2009, we have a test 

14 procedure we're currently working on and this 

15 is what the meeting is about today. Once this 

16 is published as a final rule there will be 30 

17 daysbefore the test procedure final rule test 

18 procedure becomes effective. 

19 We are also currently working on an 

20 energy conservation standard which is not due 

21 to be published until January 1, 2012. 

22 As you can see, these are the two 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 15

1 processes that we're working on. The one for 

2 the test procedure which is today's meeting, 

3 again,and then we are in the preliminary 

4 analysis in terms of milestones for the 

5 standard. Right now, we can't talk much about 

6 the standard, but we are currently working on 

7 our preliminary analysis for the standard. 

8 As you can see, the major milestonehere has been that we 

9 published a NOPR on January 1, 2010. Please note that the comment 

period 

10 closes on the 31st of March. DOE will review and consider all the 

comments 

11 that are submitted and they will also be put in the 

12 record. 

13

14

15

16 DOE is holding this public meeting 

17 to present DOE's proposed test procedures, to 

18 clarify any questions about DOE's proposed 

19 approach, to seek your comment and 

20 participation in this process, and describe 

21 the next steps for the rulemaking. 

22 And as you can see, today we have a 

23 series of issues that we want to present to 

24 this group. We'll go into background and 

25 approach, Basic Model, proposed test procedure 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 16

1 envelope, refrigeration test procedure, and 

2 the small impacts on business. 

3 DOE welcomes your comments, data 

4 and information concerning this proposed test 

5 procedure for walk-in coolers and freezers. 

6 So we're here really to listen to you, as part 

7 of the industry, for you to tell us what we 

8 need to get right in our test procedure. And 

9 with that, I'll give it back to Doug. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. And you 

11 see an illustration of the comment box that 

12 provides a structured opportunity for your 

13 comment. 

14 So now is an opportunity for 

15 anybody who wants to to make an opening 

16 remark, brief opening remarks, key issues that 

17 matter to you. And perhaps some of you 

18 contacted the Department in advance. Did 

19 they? 

20 MR. LLENZA: Yes. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: I think so. So 

22 we'll just take it here. At the outset, 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 17

1 please, and you are, Claus? 

2 MR. CRAIG: Ellis Craig with Craig 

3 Industries and I'd like to read a statement 

4 into the record. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Is it a lengthy 

6 statement? 

7 MR. CRAIG: It will take about five 

8 minutes. Or do you want me to cover points? 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: If you could cover 

10 the points and then submit your written 

11 statement, that would be helpful, because 

12 we're trying to keep this brief. 

13 MR. CRAIG: Okay, I will. First of 

14 all, we're considered by DOE a small company. 

15 Evidently, it's 750 people or less working for 

16 your company and I don't know if there's too 

17 many in here that are making walk-ins that 

18 have over 750 making it. So most of us are 

19 small businesses, considering that. 

20 We're concerned about the effect, 

21 not only is it going to happen to us, but to 

22 other companies that operate out of their 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 18

1 garage or whatever, that are making walk-ins 

2 now. It will probably put this -- these new 

3 regulations will probably put a lot of small 

4 businesses out of business. And it's a big 

5 concern for us that the cost of this testing 

6 can be up to $1 million by the time you test 

7 all the refrigeration equipment, that you 

8 actually manufactured at this present date and 

9 the fact that it will probably limit the 

10 amount of walk-in refrigeration systems that 

11 are offered because if you test one unit, then 

12 you can't offer another because it costs 

13 another $5,000 to test it. So it's going to 

14 limit that and require a lot of problems. 

15 We're also concerned about walk-in 

16 definition. Technically speaking, in the 

17 definition that the law has right now, a walk18 in is any storage room that is at, above, or 

19 below 32 degrees or in other words any 

20 temperature that has a refrigeration system on 

21 that is 3,000 square foot or smaller. 

22 Well, technically, this room here 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 19

1 could be a walk-in cooler if it had a 

2 refrigeration system on it, no matter what 

3 temperature you hold it at. So the definition 

4 of a walk-in is very vague and very apt to be 

5 interpreted by the -- as a matter of fact, 

6 there are systems out there right now that you 

7 could buy on the market that will make an air 

8 conditioner operate at 32 degrees or cool a 

9 walk-in cooler. Technically, if you put that 

10 air conditioner on a walk-in cooler it now 

11 could not be a walk-in cooler any more. It's 

12 now a cooled room. So the definition leaves 

13 itself wide open. It needs to be defined 

14 something like 45 degrees or below, or 

15 something. It has to have a temperature 

16 element into it or you're just wide open for 

17 misinterpretation. 

18 I also think we need some 

19 definition on mechanical, scientific, and 

20 research. It's left to our interpretation. 

21 Would a mortuary box that holds cadavers, 

22 would that be considered scientific or medical 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 20

1 or what does that have to be under these 

2 regulations or not. We don't have any 

3 clarification in any of the regulations we've 

4 got right now. 

5 In the law, it states that 

6 structural members are not required to meet 

7 the R-32 and the R-25 R values, but if we're 

8 going to this new process of testing that 

9 we've got on the agenda today, this formula 

10 that we come up to will end up have to predict 

11 the R value or the load requirements of that 

12 walk-in structure. And if we have structural 

13 members in it that reduce that R-value, 

14 they'll have to be taking into consideration 

15 and in the law it doesn't say they do. So 

16 there has to be testing on like wood members 

17 that are into it or steel members or hard18 nosed members that are in it and have a 

19 separate R-value test done on those so that 

20 they can figure it into the formula so that 

21 you can come up with an accurate definition of 

22 what that product is going to be. Right now, 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 21

1 there's nothing in there to do that. 

2 A lot of manufacturers put 

3 electrical boxes and conduit inside the panels 

4 which by the new law states that the walls 

5 need to be R-32 or R-25 unless they're 

6 structural. Since electrical and conduit are 

7 not structural, then they'd have to be 

8 surface-mounted and I think that hasn't been 

9 addressed and I think we need a ruling on that 

10 because by the law the way it's stated right 

11 now, it says that they can't be inside the 

12 panel and be compliant. 

13 Remote refrigeration, part of our 

14 business is selling packages that have a 

15 condensing unit, a coil, an expansion valve, 

16 and a box of parts. We don't touch it. We 

17 bring it in, we put it into a package and we 

18 send it out with a walk-in cooler. The 

19 refrigeration guy in the field assembles all 

20 of this, puts it together, puts it on the 

21 walk-in and now we're responsible for testing 

22 each one of those units. So if we change an 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 22

1 expansion valve to another expansion valve, 

2 now we have to have a $5,000 test. If we 

3 change the timer on that system to another 

4 timer because it's a cheaper, less expensive, 

5 more competitive timer, we can't switch it 

6 because it costs $5,000 to change it. 

7 Not only that, we're held 

8 accountable, according to the definition as 

9 the manufacturer now. It used to be the 

10 refrigeration contractor in the field was also 

11 held accountable, but the new definition now 

12 puts the manufacturer, the person who 

13 manufactured the product, which is us, so now 

14 we're going to either eliminate all of that 

15 business so we can't send these parts out to 

16 the end-user. Or now the refrigeration guy in 

17 the field is going to have to take on the name 

18 as a manufacturer. 

19 Another thing is we're required to 

20 do this testing, but a wholesaler is not 

21 required to do this testing. So we send a 

22 walk-in out without refrigeration right now, a 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 23

1 wholesaler can give him these parts and he can 

2 install it on that system and it would 

3 technically be noncompliant, because it's 

4 going on a new walk-in, but there is no 

5 testing done on it. So that defeats the rule. 

6 We recommend that if we're going to 

7 be accountable for that refrigeration and 

8 we're going to pay the testing on it, then all 

9 walk-ins need to be sold with refrigeration 

10 from the manufacturer. That would assure that 

11 when that system goes out into the field, the 

12 whole package is done and tested by us and we 

13 know the performance level of that product. 

14 As it is right now, we're wasting our time if 

15 we're just working on parts of this thing. 

16 The cost of testing is pretty 

17 prohibitive. I talked about that before, but 

18 I want to reassure the fact is that just like 

19 these -- I was just telling you, we had in 

20 your document 50 refrigeration systems. We 

21 probably sell a thousand different variations 

22 of refrigeration systems right now. So taking 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 24

1 what you're going to do, you're going to limit 

2 it down to just a few refrigeration systems. 

3 They're going to cost a lot more money because 

4 once you're locked into them, you're locked 

5 into them for life. There's no competition in 

6 the industry anymore because no one can change 

7 that. Large companies who make their own 

8 system and stuff are going to be a lot more 

9 competitive than small companies who can't 

10 afford the systems that they're putting in. 

11 So a lot of the guys are going to get out of 

12 the refrigeration business or buy them from 

13 large companies that the large companies will 

14 put those and do all the testing and give you 

15 a limited amount of units. 

16 The net effect of this is walk-in 

17 coolers and freezers are going to cost a lot 

18 more money in the industry, to restaurants, 

19 convenient stores. They haven't even got a 

20 clue or they'd be here today to know how much 

21 these product lines are going to go up and 

22 it's all because our extra costs are going to 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 25

1 be passed down and they're going to be limited 

2 on their options. Right now, they're not, but 

3 they're going to be limited on what they can 

4 buy. 

5 Last, if we're going to have 

6 manufacturers, if the manufacturer is us and 

7 an installer in the field is not a 

8 manufacturer, then we either believe that he 

9 becomes a manufacturer in this definition, or 

10 we would be required to sell the installation 

11 or be at least contracting the installation 

12 with a certified contractor in the field to 

13 put this system together so that when it's in 

14 place, we can verify as the manufacturer that 

15 it meets these requirements. Otherwise, if 

16 one guy puts the install in, another guy sells 

17 refrigeration over here and we're selling just 

18 the walk-in box, there's no way that's going 

19 to be controlled. 

20 And that's pretty much it. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Ellis. 

22 So the Department really appreciates -- how 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 26

1 many of you are new to these proceedings? 

2 Quite a number of you. Much more than normal, 

3 I would say. 

4 The Department really appreciates 

5 the specificity of your comments and so if you 

6 have suggested definitions or suggested 

7 recommendations along these lines, in writing 

8 to them, thank you, that would be very 

9 helpful. 

10 MR. CRAIG: Yes, we'll do that. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Who would like to go 

12 next? And I appreciate you summarizing. 

13 Your name, please? 

14 MR. DUNLAP: Steve Dunlap with HH 

15 Technologies. I just wanted to follow up on 

16 the last comments about the definition of 

17 walk-in coolers. I'd like to submit that the 

18 current definition as was stated is unclear 

19 and it could be misconstrued. 

20 I have clients that have cold 

21 storage facilities that are well beyond 3,000 

22 square feet. If this definition is changed -- 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 27

1 I have clients that have air conditioned 

2 warehouses, and walk-in coolers and freezers 

3 within air conditioned facilities, well above 

4 3,000 square feet. Their interpretation of 

5 the definition is that the air conditioning is 

6 acting as a refrigerator. So as you approach 

7 the facility, it's a walk-in cooler. So where 

8 there's a definition, this was done by 

9 Congress, it seems to me I'm not sure what 

10 authority DOE has in regards to defining 

11 further the interpretation of the walk-in 

12 cooler. 

13 However, if they do, I would submit 

14 that the current practice of the current 

15 legislation which specifies R-values for walk16 in coolers defines that without having 

17 performance parameters is backwards 

18 engineering you might say. Without the 

19 performance parameters, we have applications 

20 where our doors are much more efficient than a 

21 heavy sliding door, heavy R-value door. And 

22 what happens with that definition where 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 28

1 Congress is told the industry, regardless of 

2 the application, if it fits within the walk-in 

3 cooler, that the door has to be an R-28, an R4 32. The problem with that is in our 

5 application, eight hours out of the day we 

6 have forklifts that traverse back and forth 

7 and we have some clients that have people that 

8 just don't shut the doors and there's enough 

9 traffic that the R-value has little to no 

10 value. In fact, the biggest load and I've 

11 stated this in the past meeting, the biggest 

12 load on that refrigerator is infiltration. 

13 And the door itself, if you have a tight, 

14 automatic door that closes automatically, that 

15 prevents infiltration, one of the most energy16 efficient ways to maintain the freezer and the 

17 cooler. 

18 So I would submit if we start to 

19 redefine the walk-in cooler and if DOE has the 

20 authority to redefine it, i.e., put instead of 

21 above which is how it's defined now, well, 

22 above could be anything, just like what was 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 29

1 stated. 

2 And in that regards then I feel like the R3 value on doors which by the way is a new 

4 requirement. Even in 2005, California 

5 excluded doors and they also excluded floors 

6 and coolers. So these are new requirements on 

7 the industry. 

8 And without specificity on the 

9 application of the freezer, whether it's a 

10 retail application or a warehouse with a lot 

11 of traffic, conceivably if the DOE defines a 

12 cooler and puts that above temperature limit, 

13 then I've got customers in cold storage where 

14 the specific use of that entire building is 

15 strictly for moving product in and out. 

16 Now we have a requirement on that 

17 door where forklifts are going in and out and 

18 they have freezers. They have different 

19 compartments within cold storage. They may 

20 have a small freezer that's under 3,000 square 

21 feet. So there's a lot. And respectfully, 

22 this legislation is a mess. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 30

1 MR. BROOKMAN: So I hope maybe 

2 you've got some empathy for the position the 

3 Department is in here. 

4 MR. DUNLAP: Absolutely. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: If you could make 

6 your specific definitional suggestions, that 

7 would be very helpful. 

8 Who else? Who would like to go 

9 next? Yes, please. Your name, please? 

10 MR. COMBS: Steve Combs. As we go 

11 forward with this and my comments are going to 

12 be much more brief than the others, as we go 

13 forward with this, the National Sanitation 

14 Foundation has requirements laid out, has 

15 definitions for the envelope and the operating 

16 parameters of walk-in coolers and freezers. 

17 So just to kind of put it out there for 

18 consideration to keep from getting the issues 

19 confused, I think it would be useful to confer 

20 with those standards as we go forward, so that 

21 we don't end up with a bunch of different 

22 standards that we're all trying to get to the 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 31

1 same point and using different pieces of 

2 paper. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. I 

4 appreciate that. You, sir? No. Yes. 

5 MR. THAMES: I'm Lee Thames. I 

6 would like to reiterate what Ellis had 

7 mentioned too about just the fact that a lot 

8 of the walk-in cooler manufacturers here I'm 

9 sure are engineered to order where we don't 

10 really have a standard walk-in. So just that 

11 fact, probably 85 percent of our walk-ins are 

12 engineered to order and very rare are there 

13 repeats unless it's a chain account or 

14 something like that. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

16 Yes, please? 

17 MS. FABIAN: Barb Fabian. I would 

18 just like to state that the test method that 

19 we have proposed here is ASTM C1303 for the 

20 insulations is going to be impossible to 

21 conduct for these products to meet the 

22 requirements of EISA, the 32, 28, and 25, 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 32

1 because of a thickness limitation and other 

2 criteria. So I'll document that more fully in 

3 my comments. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, 

5 please. 

6 MR. LEWIS: Harmon Lewis with 

7 American Panel. I won't do the five minutes 

8 of my statement, just that the testing on the 

9 insulation for the walk-in cold rooms, if that 

10 is done without the metal skins that are on 

11 the panel, it's totally non-real world. We 

12 produced foam-placed walk-in coolers for over 

13 20 years and we've had no long-term R-value 

14 degradation at all. We've not had to replace 

15 refrigeration at the five-year point when 

16 supposedly our R-values are going to drop from 

17 32 down to 6 which would mean your 

18 refrigeration would have to run 37 hours per 

19 day where it had been running 18 hours. So 

20 this proposal just is not real world. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: The Department would 

22 love to see your data. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 33

1 MR. LEWIS: I've already submitted 

2 it. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. That's 

4 very helpful to them. Appreciate that. Okay. 

5 Yes, Jon. Jon, say your name again? 

6 MR. McHUGH: Sure. This is Jon 

7 McHugh on behalf of the California Statewide 

8 Codes and Standards Program. The Codes and 

9 Standards Program is supported by Southern 

10 California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric 

11 Company, and San Diego Gas & Electric, so all 

12 three of the California investor-owned 

13 utilities. 

14 Next slide, please. 

15 So this proceeding is very 

16 important to us as refrigeration, as large a 

17 load as cooling. 

18 Next slide, please. 

19 This proceeding is to help develop 

20 the test methods for the performance-based 

21 standards for EISA. And the purpose of these 

22 performance standards are to achieve the 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 34

1 maximum improvement and energy efficiency of 

2 walk-ins. And the efficiency that is gained 

3 is a function of not just the stringency of 

4 those standards, but how enforceable those 

5 standards are. And so I'm going to be talking 

6 quite a bit today about that issue. 

7 Next slide, please. 

8 So this is a description of the 

9 market structure. This was developed for our 

10 Title 20 appliance standards and it describes 

11 the interconnections of the industry. 

12 Could you click the button please? 

13 And what we see is that of what the 

14 current thinking about a single unitary 

15 standard around a refrigeration system that is 

16 specifically designed for a particular walk-in 

17 is something that actually corresponds to a 

18 small fraction of the overall market. The 

19 market is actually very competitive. You have 

20 a lot of mechanical contractors and 

21 consultants for the various end-users that 

22 purchase components across different 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 35

1 manufacturers. It makes for a very efficient 

2 industry. It forces innovation in the 

3 industry in that various components are 

4 competing against each other for not only 

5 their efficiency, but also their cost. 

6 Next slide, please. 

7 So a desirable outcome of this rule 

8 is something that first off is enforced at the 

9 manufacturer level because there's dozens of 

10 manufacturers where there's thousands of 

11 contractors. So it's not very realistic to 

12 think that we're going to designate each of 

13 these contractors as quote unquote 

14 manufacturers. 

15 It's also very important that the 

16 benefits of the current market which is very 

17 competitive that this does not end up as a 

18 restraint of trade kind of situation where 

19 only vertically integrated businesses are able 

20 to produce product and that the cost of 

21 entering into the market is reasonable. So we 

22 don't want to throw out the competitiveness of 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 36

1 the industry to obtain energy efficiency and I 

2 don't think that's necessary. 

3 And also related to competitiveness 

4 is that we have accurate performance 

5 information. Many of the people in this room 

6 probably know about quote unquote 

7 commercialized ratings which are essentially 

8 inaccurate ratings. What we would like to see 

9 if third-party certified ratings that give the 

10 true performance information about these 

11 products. 

12 Next slide, please. 

13 In terms of supporting a 

14 performance approach to walk-ins, we're 

15 recommending that DOE consider a components 

16 performance method which is essentially that's 

17 enforced at the manufacturer's level, 

18 something that could be enforced at the level 

19 of the catalog and that designers can put 

20 together complying components to sell a 

21 complying walk-in. 

22 We don't want to end up in the 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 37

1 situation that I've got this really 

2 inefficient whatever, coil, box, etcetera, but 

3 I was going to match it with this really 

4 efficient other component and therefore that's 

5 why I'm able to sell something that's 

6 inefficient and have that in my catalog for 

7 walk-ins. 

8 We do believe that a performance 

9 base is important so we want to be technology 

10 neutral so currently the EISA standard talks 

11 about triple-glazed windows. We think it 

12 makes lots of sense in terms of U-factor, 

13 whether it's a low-E coating or different 

14 gases, we don't care how the particular glass 

15 door is able to achieve its efficiency, just 

16 that it's on a performance basis. We think 

17 that competition is actually enhanced if we 

18 have third party certified ratings and that we 

19 maintain the competitive market. 

20 So the standard can impact not only 

21 the new walk-ins, but potentially with a 

22 component performance method it can also 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 38

1 impact the larger market of repaired and 

2 replaced walk-ins. 

3 Next slide, please. 

4 So we should also make use of the 

5 preexisting standards. We don't need to 

6 reinvent the wheel. And so there's -- and in 

7 particular, when we look at the infiltration 

8 issues, I think that it makes a lot of sense 

9 to look at the cheaper blower door tests and 

10 we make use of the ratings that already exist 

11 for different components, such as the National 

12 Fenestration Rating Council rating of 

13 infiltration and U-factor of doors. 

14 Next slide, please. 

15 We looked at this concept of 

16 specific efficiency which is the thermal 

17 capacity of evaporators and condensers divided 

18 by the actual fan power, not the brake 

19 horsepower of the motor, not the name plate of 

20 the motor, but the actual input watts to that 

21 motor as it's pushing air through the given 

22 pressure drop of a particular coil. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 39

1 Next slide, please. 

2 And I congratulate AHRI in 

3 developing standard 1250 that they've 

4 addressed I think some historical errors in 

5 how condensers have been rated, so I commend 

6 them for that. 

7 Next slide, please. 

8 But I think that in the AHRI 1250 

9 standard, I think there needs to be more work 

10 on defrost controls and it captures all the 

11 essential failure modes or at least poorly12 performing modes of defrost controls. 

13 Next slide, please. 

14 And in terms of some of the studies 

15 that we've done for the State of California, 

16 the two single largest measures in terms of 

17 the 80-20 rule in terms of energy savings from 

18 walk-ins has to do with variable speed 

19 evaporator fans and floating head pressure 

20 controls. And so any new standard or any new 

21 test method needs to accurately capture the 

22 benefit of those two measures. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 40

1 Next slide, please. 

2 So finally, we'd like to see that 

3 these test methods reflect the market and are 

4 enforceable in the market, so I'm hoping that 

5 today, there's a lot of information sharing 

6 that helps understand how products are truly 

7 sold and it's not just talking with the 

8 manufacturers, but also the end-users, so the 

9 various end-users are described earlier and 

10 some of the consultants that are assisting 

11 those end-users. 

12 Also, I think it's very important 

13 that DOE describe how the walk-in regulations 

14 are going to be enforced and once you do that 

15 I think that that will impact both the test 

16 methods and also the final wording of the 

17 regulation. 

18 As I mentioned earlier, variable 

19 speed fans and floating head controls are two 

20 critical efficiency measures and we also want 

21 to make sure that this new performance 

22 standard doesn't result in backsliding in the 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 41

1 standards, so thoughts about how to actually 

2 maintain the efficiencies that are currently 

3 gained in EISR are lost in this new 

4 performance standard. 

5 Thank you very much. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments here 

7 at the outset? We're going to get into 

8 considerable detail here in a little bit. 

9 Ira, please turn on the microphone 

10 and say your name for the record. 

11 MR. RICHTER: Ira Richter from 

12 Heatcraft. 

13 I'd just like to echo Lee's 

14 comments about the variability of our product. 

15 To serve our market, it's a very highly16 variable product with lots of features and 

17 lots of options and one of our concerns is how 

18 we're going to test each one of these options. 

19 We may have a condensing unit with 

20 six different options on it. Are we going to 

21 be required to test the unit with each of 

22 these options and all of the permutations? 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 42

1 What do we do about customer-specified 

2 equipment where he tells us exactly how he 

3 builds the product? Are we going to be 

4 required to test that as well? 

5 And then finally, what are we going 

6 to do about experimentation? We do an awful 

7 lot of work with our customers to promote new 

8 technologies such as CO2. Is this regulation 

9 going to still allow us to do that kind of 

10 work? 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, is it 

12 Jake? 

13 MR. VANDEVORT: Jake Vandevort. 

14 I'm representing the Center for the 

15 Polyurethanes Industry today. Thank you for 

16 the opportunity to present these comments. 

17 I'm just going to -- we submitted 

18 full written comments to the Department of 

19 Energy earlier and I'm just going to address 

20 some of our key points today very briefly. 

21 Initially, I just want to say that 

22 we support the use of mean test temperatures 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 43

1 at 20 degrees Fahrenheit for freezers and 55 

2 degrees Fahrenheit for coolers to calculate R3 value. Since the thermal conductivity of foam 

4 will change with temperature and it's not the 

5 same for all foams, the use of these mean test 

6 temperatures is more indicative of actual 

7 usage conditions, so we support that. 

8 Next, I'd also like to address 

9 briefly the definition given of a Basic Model 

10 and we do support the definition of Basic 

11 Model as well as the factors that would 

12 require additional testing of products as a 

13 different Basic Model. However, even though 

14 we support that definition, we feel that there 

15 are some other factors that DOE should 

16 consider including in the list and among those 

17 are the use of a different type of insulating 

18 foam or different types or amounts of blowing 

19 agents in the insulating foam which can result 

20 in different performance characteristics, 

21 including the R-value of the envelope in 

22 energy consumption. So we recommend that the 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 44

1 language be specified to include those 

2 specifically among the list of factors. 

3 Our primary concern as has been 

4 mentioned earlier is with the use of -- 

5 proposed use of ASTM C-1303 to determine long6 term R-value which is inappropriate for foam 

7 in place or bun stock faced with impermeable 

8 materials such as metal skins. The scope of 

9 ASTM C-1303 covers a procedure for predicting 

10 a long-term thermal resistance of unfaced or 

11 permeably faced rigid gas-filled closed-cell 

12 foam insulation by reducing the specimen 

13 thickness to accelerate aging under controlled 

14 laboratory conditions. 

15 And we strongly urge DOE to not use 

16 this test method to measure long-term R-value 

17 and instead propose test methods such as ASTM 

18 C-1363, a modified C-518 or perhaps the use of 

19 a calculation method based on initial K-factor 

20 be considered in the development of a test 

21 method. So thank you. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Other 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 45

1 comments here at the outset, to launch into 

2 considerable detail in the following slides? 

3 Okay, so then let's proceed. 

4 Rebecca, thanks for advancing those slides 

5 earlier. 

6 Then let's move to the materials. 

7 All of you have a copy of this packet. You 

8 will see what's up on the screen is also here 

9 in front of you. 

10 We're going to hear from Rebecca 

11 Legett. 

12 MS. LEGETT: Thank you, Doug. As 

13 he said, I'm Rebecca Legett. I'm going to 

14 discuss background and approach to the test 

15 procedures. 

16 First, an overview. EPCA specifies 

17 -- EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007, specifies 

18 which equipment is covered by the test 

19 procedure. And this is the statutory 

20 definition that you see here. And some of the 

21 previous comments that we just heard suggested 

22 modifications or clarifications to that 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 46

1 definition and we will take those comments 

2 into consideration. 

3 The table just summarizes the 

4 statutory definition and I'm sure you're all 

5 familiar with that, so I'll move on. 

6 During the framework meeting, we 

7 got a lot of feedback on the issue of how to 

8 test walk-in coolers and freezers. 

9 Originally, DOE was considering one single 

10 test procedure for an entire assembled walk11 in. However, we received a great deal of 

12 feedback from interested parties stating that 

13 this was not the right approach. So DOE 

14 reconsidered its approach upon consideration. 

15 Therefore, today, we are proposing 

16 in this test procedure to develop separate 

17 test procedures for the envelope and 

18 refrigeration system. 

19 I'll briefly go through the 

20 justification for our decision, summarizing 

21 feedback that we received during the framework 

22 from interested parties. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 47

1 First, we learned that there are 

2 two components, two general components of a 

3 walk-in cooler or walk-in freezer. And these 

4 are often considered different pieces of 

5 equipment. You have the envelope in which the 

6 refrigerated items are stored. And you also 

7 have the refrigeration system that chills the 

8 space inside the envelope. 

9 Feedback from interested parties 

10 during the standards framework public meeting 

11 and through the framework process indicated 

12 that a single test procedure that covered 

13 these both as assembled was not a viable 

14 approach for DOE to use, for these reasons: 

15 burden; the fact that often these two 

16 components are manufactured by separate 

17 manufacturers; that under a single test, the 

18 assembler or installer could be required to 

19 demonstrate compliance which is not DOE's 

20 typical approach. DOE typically holds the 

21 manufacturer responsible. Furthermore, it 

22 could be difficult to enforce testing 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 48

1 requirements if the walk-in is assembled in 

2 the field. 

3 Here's an outline of the proposed 

4 test procedure as separated into envelope and 

5 refrigeration equipment. Even though DOE is 

6 proposing that these two are tested 

7 separately, DOE attempted to formulate these 

8 test procedures such that the energy use of a 

9 walk-in as a whole would be captured. 

10 And we'll get into the multiple 

11 details of both of these test procedures later 

12 in the presentation. This is a high-level 

13 overview. 

14 As I said, one key justification 

15 for the separate tests was that the two 

16 separate components are often manufactured by 

17 separate parties. So it follows that it makes 

18 -- DOE thought that it made sense to hold the 

19 envelope manufacturer responsible for testing 

20 the envelope and the refrigeration system 

21 manufacturer responsible for testing the 

22 refrigeration system. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 49

1 So the purpose of this provision is 

2 to reflect the structure of the market and 

3 assign the appropriate testing 

4 responsibilities. We realize that you may 

5 have multiple comments on this so we'll ask 

6 for those in the next slide. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: We'll receive 

8 comment on this broad overview to the 

9 Department's general approach. 

10 Yes, Ellis. 

11 MR. CRAIG: Ellis Craig. You 

12 mentioned that the envelope manufacturer would 

13 test the envelope and the refrigeration 

14 manufacturer would test the refrigeration 

15 equipment. That may or may not be a different 

16 party. 

17 MS. LEGETT: Okay. 

18 MR. CRAIG: A lot of manufacturers 

19 of walk-ins manufacture refrigeration 

20 equipment by buying the parts, assembling them 

21 and putting them together. So there's a lot 

22 of crossover there. And I just want to make 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 50

1 sure that it doesn't sound like there's two 

2 unique individuals that do completely 

3 different things. They don't. Sometimes 

4 there's a cross, sometimes we buy it from 

5 somebody else. Sometimes we sell a walk-in 

6 without refrigeration and they buy it from 

7 somebody else. So it's important to know 

8 that. 

9 MS. LEGETT: Thank you for the 

10 clarification. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. 

12 Harmon. 

13 MR. LEWIS: Harmon Lewis. Yes, the 

14 big issue here is that as has been mentioned 

15 before, most of the walk-in cooler and freezer 

16 manufacturers, we're like a custom cabinet 

17 shop. Every order is different. We're not 

18 Sears or Whirlpool or whoever making five or 

19 ten refrigerators or freezer models. We sell 

20 thousands of walk-ins each year and no two are 

21 alike except for a chain account. And those 

22 aren't even all that much alike. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 51

1 So the testing is going to be 

2 crazy. We sell over 200 different condensing 

3 units. Each condensing unit can have as many 

4 as seven different evaporator selections with 

5 it. And this is to provide energy efficient 

6 walk-ins. If we've got to cut that down and 

7 start trying to pick a small number, this 

8 isn't going to be a competitive marketplace. 

9 It's going to be a disaster. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

11 Jon? 

12 MR. McHUGH: Jon McHugh. I'd like 

13 to hear a little bit more information about 

14 how the envelope -- who is the envelope 

15 manufacturer. So as an example, it might be 

16 someone who might have a contractor who buys 

17 the panels from one manufacturer and also 

18 purchases the glass doors from somebody else 

19 and potentially purchases the actual walk-in 

20 door from a third party. 

21 Who is the manufacturer in that 

22 case? 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 52

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Ellis, do you want 

2 to respond to that? 

3 MR. CRAIG: Ellis Craig. The only 

4 comment -- I agree with him 100 percent. I 

5 don't see how this -- the only way this is 

6 going to work is if the manufacturer is 

7 responsible for the whole system. He buys the 

8 doors. He buys the refrigeration. He builds 

9 the walk-in. He supplies it. Then he can 

10 control all of these things. If he does it 

11 just piecemeal, you're not going to have the 

12 effect in the industry that you think you're 

13 going to have because I guarantee you, I'm 

14 selling walk-ins today that refrigeration 

15 systems are being put on, doors are being put 

16 on. They are probably noncompliant and I am 

17 going to responsible for it, but I have no say 

18 so in it. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: And that is a 

20 reflection of the current state of the 

21 industry that you've got multiple players 

22 putting these pieces together in a walk-in 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 53

1 unit. 

2 MR. CRAIG: Absolutely. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

4 MR. DUNLAP: Steve Dunlap, just a 

5 follow up on that comment. You also don't 

6 know the applications or the operations many 

7 times. And again, this comes back to if it's 

8 a retail application, industrial retail 

9 supermarket. So many of the manufacturers 

10 really don't know the application or which 

11 would be the best optimized, which technology 

12 would be the best optimized for energy 

13 efficiency. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

15 Additional comments on this overview? We're 

16 about to get into significant details. 

17 Jon? 

18 MR. McHUGH: I'd just like to hear 

19 if there was some thought put to various 

20 components requiring -- if you look at the 

21 current EISA standard there are essential 

22 prescriptive requirements right now and it's 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 54

1 R-value for the envelope. It's triple glazed 

2 glass doors, etcetera. And so I'd be 

3 interested in hearing about is there any 

4 reason why manufacturers of for instance 

5 insulation panels can't be required to meet a 

6 particular U-factor and the door manufacturer 

7 is required to meet certain infiltration U8 factor requirements? 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Ellis. 

10 MR. CRAIG: The law was written in 

11 a prescriptive way and the way I understand 

12 it, we can't change the law here, so evidently 

13 those things are not negotiable. Yes, we can 

14 meet those things, but as you look at those 

15 regulations, they're technically we could 

16 manufacture a walk-in today with an R-32 wall, 

17 sell it to a customer and a week from now it 

18 has no R-value at all. All the gas is gone. 

19 It falls apart and that's a legal product to 

20 sell in this industry today. 

21 So obviously, the prescriptive law 

22 doesn't have the intent of what the law makers 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 55

1 wanted when they implemented it. They should 

2 have left that to a meeting like this to help 

3 devise standards and prescriptive. An initial 

4 R-value means nothing as far as what may or 

5 may not happen in the field to a product. So 

6 saying today what something is has no effect 

7 on how its ten-year lifecycle is going to be 

8 or the amount of energy it's going to require 

9 over a ten-year period. 

10 So the way the system is today is 

11 really a waste of time, the way it is written. 

12 Now hopefully, we can fix some of those things 

13 here and make it better, but I'd like to see 

14 us get completely away from the prescriptive 

15 nature of the law and deal with it on more of 

16 a performance-based testing system which we 

17 don't have. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Barb? 

19 MS. FABIAN: Yes. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Please turn on the 

21 microphone, Barb. 

22 MS. FABIAN: The way the EISA 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 56

1 standard is written right now it is not for 

2 the R-value of the wall panel. It is just for 

3 the insulation. And depending on how the 

4 panel is constructed if there are wood pieces 

5 or metal membranes in there, you're going to 

6 have a lot of thermal shorts and that's going 

7 to affect the R-value or the U-value of the 

8 whole assembly, not just the R-value of the 

9 insulation. So there's two different things 

10 that we're looking at here, insulation versus 

11 a panel. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon? 

13 MR. McHUGH: Just a clarifying 

14 comment. What I'm suggesting is that we go 

15 from a prescriptive requirement that had 

16 things like R-value. We go to a performance 

17 standard that looks at long-term U-factor for 

18 those opaque components, but also look at 

19 requirements for the various components and 

20 then as long as each of those components are 

21 complying, then the walk-in is complying. It 

22 allows people to compete on their particular 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 57

1 component whether it's doors or it's opaque 

2 sections, whether it's coils, etcetera. And 

3 by putting all the components are complying, 

4 you have a complying walk-in. It brings it up 

5 to the level of the manufacturer. 

6 I'd be interested in hearing from 

7 DOE counsel if there's any reason in the EISA 

8 standard whether that is achievable or not. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael Kido. 

10 MR. KIDO: I guess my first 

11 question is where would be the specific 

12 authority just to set up particular standards 

13 for the individual components? As the statute 

14 is set up right now, we have the authority to 

15 regulate equipment as a whole. So in this 

16 context, Congress has given us the ability to 

17 set up performance standards for the walk-in 

18 coolers and the walk-in freezers. We could 

19 certainly look at the possibility of setting 

20 certain requirements with respect to 

21 individual components, but as I said before, 

22 the way that it's set out it's based on the 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 58

1 specifically-stated equipment, in this case 

2 the walk-in cooler and freezer. 

3 MR. McHUGH: Just a little follow4 on. Currently, what you're looking at 

5 currently is taking the requirements for walk6 ins and breaking in half one for the 

7 refrigeration side, one for the box side. 

8 We're just saying take that out to its logical 

9 extension at the level of what products are 

10 sold for the walk-ins. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Like I said, we'll 

12 certainly look at it. Thank you. 

13 Yes, please. 

14 MR. COMBS: One thing that we 

15 should -- Steve Combs. One thing that we 

16 should consider as we go forward with this is 

17 that in order to create, to prevent creation 

18 of inadvertent loopholes, there needs to be 

19 some type of a qualification as to whether or 

20 not it's a commercial enterprise, a private 

21 enterprise, or a government use or something 

22 of that nature because too often those are 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 59

1 left by the way and as we get into the 

2 legislation and we start reading it, we find 

3 that there are some quote unquote loopholes in 

4 there for people to kind of slip under the 

5 door with. And we don't want to inadvertently 

6 create those as we go forward here. So just a 

7 point to keep in mind. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

9 MS. LEGETT: Doug, can you clarify 

10 when you said whether it's a private 

11 enterprise or a government, whether -- are you 

12 talking about the manufacturer or the end13 user? 

14 MR. COMBS: The end-user. 

15 MS. LEGETT: Thank you. 

16 MR. DUNLAP: Steve Dunlap. Just to 

17 follow up again on your comment. A lot of the 

18 loopholes are out there because of the 

19 operations. This isn't only energy, but it's 

20 the form, function, and fit. And that's why 

21 those are out there. It goes back to the end22 use. And the problem with the legislation is 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 60

1 it blankets it. It covers every aspect. And 

2 it doesn't address all the specialty 

3 customized applications today. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. I think we're 

5 going to move on now. A little more detail. 

6 MS. LEGETT: Okay, thanks, Doug. 

7 In keeping with DOE's proposed 

8 approach of dividing the walk-in into its two 

9 components, the envelope and the 

10 refrigeration, DOE then needed to come up with 

11 definitions for each component to ensure that 

12 all parts of a walk-in fell into one of these 

13 two components, these individual parts that 

14 we've been talking about. 

15 So here is our definition that we 

16 are considering for the envelope. Here in the 

17 -- so, if you can see how the two parts of the 

18 definition. We have examples of each part. 

19 There are the parts that separate 

20 the interior environment from the external 

21 environment such as panels, doors, etcetera. 

22 Second, is all energy-consuming components 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 61

1 that are not part of the refrigeration system. 

2 This includes lighting, etcetera. These 

3 examples are not exhaustive. We realize that 

4 there could be many more examples of these. 

5 So we invite comment on this 

6 definition. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Definition of 

8 envelope. Ellis, you're next. 

9 MR. CRAIG: I just want to bring up 

10 the fact that this doesn't deal with it, but 

11 it needs to include, as I mentioned earlier in 

12 our statement structural members that are 

13 involved with the walk-in. And I don't see 

14 that in anything I've seen in writing from the 

15 DOE yet, but now that we're going to have this 

16 formula that's going to calculate this R17 value, I'm hoping that we're going to know 

18 that a two by four is less R-value than a 

19 insulated panel so you can't calculate it all 

20 on insulated panels. You have to calculate it 

21 on the composite. 

22 MS. LEGETT: Thank you for your 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 62

1 comment. We would appreciate if it looks like 

2 we've missed anything on this, like I said, 

3 it's not exhaustive, but if you just want to 

4 clarify, please feel free to do so. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Please say your name 

6 for the record. 

7 MR. MINELLI: Fred Minelli. I 

8 would just like to address the envelope issue 

9 that the Panel should include glass doors, 

10 electrical, lighting. Typically, our market, 

11 we sell the panel. Very seldom sell the glass 

12 doors. Very seldom sell the lighting. Almost 

13 never sell the refrigeration. So I think 

14 those items should be separate and to Jon's 

15 discussion about component testing, these are 

16 all items manufactured and designed by someone 

17 with U-values and electrical output values so 

18 that they should be separated from the box. 

19 They should be components and component 

20 testing. 

21 And to address Mr. Craig's issues 

22 in panel assembly, if we do component testing 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 63

1 we can test a section of panels, 8 by 8, 10 by 

2 10, 10 by 20, whatever that DOE considers 

3 effective. But you can test the finished 

4 panel with any framing, any reinforcing, any 

5 conduit, any method that you want to have in 

6 that product. And these are all typical 

7 testing methods -- the testing method for the 

8 entire envelope can only be done at the final 

9 end-user’s jobsite. No manufacturer is 

10 capable of setting up an entire unit, 

11 specifically freezers without floors because 

12 you're going to have condensation in freezing 

13 and other serious problems. 

14 So the component approach I think 

15 is by far the best approach for this process 

16 and the envelope should be separated into 

17 components. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Jim? 

19 MR. PERRY: Jim Perry with Thermal 

20 Rite. I was going to say that the comments 

21 about the structural members and the comments 

22 about the complexity of our products and how 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 64

1 we custom engineer products would make it very 

2 prohibitive to test every typical 

3 configuration or configuration that could be 

4 made of that. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Can you suggest some 

6 other way to do this? 

7 MR. PERRY: I would echo Mr. 

8 Minelli's comments that we separate and test 

9 panels as a whole. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Charles 

11 Llenza. 

12 MR. LLENZA: Charles Llenza, 

13 Department of Energy. 

14 I kind of feel the concern here, 

15 but when you assemble this on-site, what's 

16 going to guarantee me that the actual walk-in 

17 freezer is going to perform to some standard, 

18 that we're not going to have -- who is going 

19 to be responsible for putting this together 

20 right? I mean if it's not put together right, 

21 no matter how efficient your components are, 

22 how am I going to guarantee that I'm going to 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 65

1 get the most out of the performance of the 

2 components if the assembly part of it is not -

3 - 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: The actual assembled 

5 unit performs? 

6 MR. LLENZA: Yes, so that this is 

7 kind of like do I have two different levels of 

8 standards so you have to have the component 

9 level that guarantees some minimum standard? 

10 And then I have to have some kind of assembly 

11 standard where once assembled, there has to be 

12 a performance-based level that we have to 

13 reach? I mean it's complicated, but I just 

14 don't -- I would like people to express their 

15 opinions about this. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's hear from the 

17 manufacturers first for a little bit and then 

18 we'll go -- is it Tim? 

19 MR. MINELLI: I agree. It is 

20 extremely complicated. But this is the only 

21 time you're going to have the entire assembly 

22 in position in a functioning role is at the 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 66

1 jobsite. 

2 And some things that were discussed in 

3 warehouse meetings is to have the general 

4 contractor do the certification. DOE is 

5 considering certification by manufacturers, 

6 but I believe the manufacturers do not 

7 typically have the entire assembly. 

8 So a general contractor in the end9 use can certify the walk-in. You have to 

10 create some system by way to get this 

11 certification done so why not the guy that 

12 touches it last, the general contractor. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Please say your name 

14 again? 

15 MR. MINELLI: Fred Minelli. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Tim, you're next. 

17 MR. DYE: Tim Dye with Schott 

18 Gemtron. We are a glass door manufacturer. 

19 So we have most, if not all of these people, 

20 manufacturers, walk-in coolers, freezer 

21 companies as customers. And to require the 

22 panel manufacturers to test all of the glass 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 67

1 doors just in our product line alone, we offer 

2 14 different variations. That's just the 

3 door. 

4 Then there are roughly 16 different 

5 sizes of each variation. So to require a 

6 panel manufacturer to test all of these 

7 components and put that burden on them would 

8 be overbearing to say the least. That's just 

9 my product line. There are other glass door 

10 manufacturers. There's roughly about five of 

11 us here in North America. So -- and I agree 

12 also with the statement on the installation. 

13 If you install panels incorrectly and you 

14 install glass doors incorrectly, if you forget 

15 to torque the door to close, you've lost all 

16 of your value. And today, that relies on the 

17 installer. But as far as I'm aware of, 

18 there's no criteria for all of that 

19 checkpoint. It's a checkoff list. The 

20 glass doors, the refrigeration system in my 

21 opinion, I feel need to be completely separate 

22 than the panel manufacturers. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 68

1 MS. LEGETT: A follow-up question. 

2 So as a door manufacturer then you would 

3 consider yourself responsible for testing? 

4 MR. DYE: Absolutely. 

5 MS. LEGETT: Do you do that now? 

6 MR. DYE: Yes, we do. 

7 MS. LEGETT: Thank you. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: I saw Harvey, and 

9 also John. Harvey Sachs. If you can get 

10 close to that microphone. 

11 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs, ACEEE. 

12 I'd like to just follow up to Mr. Llenza's 

13 question about how we would assure that a 

14 component was assembled, the unit was 

15 assembled properly in the field. And as a 

16 thought experiment, it seems to me that we can 

17 go a long way relatively simply if the panels 

18 are tested appropriately. If there are 

19 prescriptive requirements that make it hard to 

20 put them together wrong, and it's harder to 

21 put them together wrong than correctly, and if 

22 we have an infiltration test whether that's 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 69

1 done by tracer gas or blower door, that 

2 handles much of the problem. Any egregious 

3 thermal bypasses will show up as condensation 

4 on the interior and manufacturers have strong 

5 incentives to avoid that. 

6 So I think there is potentially a 

7 path, although I'm certainly not in a position 

8 to recommend it now. 

9 (Laughter.) 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

11 MR. SACHS: I just don't know 

12 enough. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon McHugh. 

14 MR. McHUGH: Jon McHugh. So in 

15 terms of testing, the U-factor is not the only 

16 thing that could be tested for the panel. So 

17 you could have an assembly and you also test 

18 the infiltration per linear foot of perimeter 

19 of that panel. And then putting -- so that if 

20 you met both the infiltration requirements on 

21 the connection system and the U-factor, long22 term U-factor, then you would capture most of 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 70

1 that. 

2 The other question that again I'd 

3 like to hear from counsel is whether or not 

4 building codes would be federally pre-empted 

5 from requiring blower door tests on site 

6 assembled walk-ins. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael Kido. 

8 MR. KIDO: We'll have to look into 

9 that. Are you talking about -- my 

10 understanding is that most building codes are 

11 actually at the state and local level. I'll 

12 have to look into that. 

13 MR. McHUGH: Thank you. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Ellis, first. 

15 MR. CRAIG: I'm really concerned 

16 about this installation what this is kind of 

17 going to because testing in the field is going 

18 to be very, very problematic. That probably 

19 is going to be very hard to do. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: A blower door 

21 wouldn't work. 

22 MR. CRAIG: We're not going to go -

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 71

1 - I can't see how we could -- we sell 

2 thousands of walk-ins. You're talking about 

3 thousands of tests on each application out 

4 there. That's not going to be a feasible way 

5 of doing things. 

6 Another thing is to say that we 

7 manufacture -- we manufacture panels within 

8 two-thousandths of an inch. I don't know how 

9 it can get any better than that. So what 

10 happens is -- in two-thousandths of an inch, 

11 you can still install that walk-in wrong. And 

12 you can make a mess out there and you can have 

13 condensation and you can have all these things 

14 and they live with it. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: What about the idea 

16 that the manufacturing -- the assembly system 

17 makes it easier to assemble it right than 

18 wrong. 

19 MR. CRAIG: Well, it does. They're 

20 already to that extent, but there's a certain 

21 amount of flexibility in the system that lends 

22 itself to - -I don't know how to explain it. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 72

1 If you install the walk-in right 

2 and the floor is not level, you will see gaps 

3 underneath the floor. If you square it toward 

4 the floor, you'll see gaps in the panel. So I 

5 mean this is kind of what happens. 

6 What bothers me more if you're 

7 going to assure that it's out in the field, 

8 somebody has to take responsibility for that 

9 field installation. As it is right now, 

10 you've kind of got the manufacturer taking the 

11 responsibility for it which is us, but you're 

12 not -- I mean we don't have any way of 

13 controlling that installation in the field. 

14 Now if we were controlling the 

15 installation and we were selling the 

16 installation with our product, then we could 

17 go to the contractors that are doing it, 

18 entering into contractual agreements with them 

19 that if something is wrong and it's not 

20 appropriately installed, they've got to go out 

21 and fix it. 

22 The problem is right now we've got 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 73

1 to go out and fix it. I've got to hire 

2 somebody and that guy says I'm not going out 

3 there anymore. Now we've got to hire somebody 

4 else to go out there and fix it. It is 

5 manufactured right, but installed incorrectly. 

6 And that happens to all of us in this room, 

7 believe me. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Charles has very 

9 clearly stated what the Department's interest 

10 here is which is to assure that as installed 

11 the performance is -- 

12 MR. CRAIG: As it is right now, 

13 that ain't going to happen. 

14 MR. LEWIS: In the real world and 

15 I've been 32 years now in the walk-in cooler 

16 and freezer industry, if the walk-in is 

17 installed wrong, the condensation and coolers 

18 and the ice formation and freezers is very 

19 obvious to what let's call even the most 

20 casual observer and that's going to start 

21 floating up from the end-user to the food 

22 service equipment dealer from which he bought 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 74

1 the walk-in who is going to call us and we 

2 will be involved in the fix of the process 

3 already. So it just happens already that 

4 people know when it's installed wrong. 

5 I look above the clock up there and 

6 see the dropped ceiling doesn't fit. If this 

7 is a walk-in cooler or freezer, there would be 

8 water running down the wall or it would be ice 

9 formation. So there's a very knowing and 

10 easily discernible feature there or factor 

11 when it doesn't get done right. 

12 So typically, those are corrected. 

13 A lot of times we don't hear about them, but 

14 I've been out in the field on many trips to 

15 take care of major accounts where it was 

16 installed wrong, but it is corrected because 

17 otherwise it does not perform correctly. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: The Department is 

19 looking for some assurance that this is going 

20 to happen. 

21 MR. LEWIS: How do you know 

22 somebody is going to use their seatbelt? 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 75

1 MR. BROOKMAN: You next, please. 

2 Your name? 

3 MR. MINELLI: Fred Minelli. This 

4 is a very large issue. The installation is 

5 where the problems occur. If you're going to 

6 have a leaky joint, it's going to be due to 

7 installation. And NSF is going through this 

8 same situation right now trying to find a way 

9 to control that and I think the discussion to 

10 have certification at the end-user site by the 

11 GC will settle everything right there with the 

12 installers present. If they can run the tests 

13 on the box, they can find the leaks before you 

14 get ice in the joints. They can find it and 

15 take care of it then. That's the spot to 

16 control the energy usage. 

17 If I build a test box in my factory 

18 or third-party agency somewhere, it will be 

19 installed perfectly. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Does the GC, does 

21 that person typically do some kind of post22 installation test now? 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 76

1 MR. MINELLI: No. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: It doesn't happen. 

3 MR. MINELLI: No. Neither do the 

4 manufacturers, ours, no testing. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: John Cymbalsky. 

6 MR. CYMBALSKY: John Cymbalsky, 

7 DOE. I think we're getting into the same spot 

8 where we are with building codes in a sense 

9 because a local building code is component 

10 driven, windows, R-values in the ceiling, the 

11 walls, etcetera. 

12 But in a stick-built house, you 

13 know, you're dealing with the quality of your 

14 labor. And I think that's the issue that's 

15 being brought up here. So I don't have a good 

16 feeling about the code enforcement in 

17 buildings and so this is even more narrow I 

18 think. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Any 

20 additional thoughts, please. Your name again, 

21 Fred? 

22 MR. MINELLI: Fred Minelli. It is 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 77

1 a component of construction and the permitting 

2 process. GCs have to go through this process, 

3 not on walk-ins, but they go through this 

4 process on other parts of the building. We're 

5 talking about new construction. The process 

6 already exists. If DOE defines the 

7 certification method which you're attempting 

8 to do now, but only have the manufacturers do 

9 the certification, there's no difference in 

10 having the GC do the certification and it's a 

11 much better application in that this is the 

12 finished product. It has the doors that I 

13 probably didn't build or have anything to do 

14 with that has the glass doors installed. It 

15 has the refrigeration installed. It has the 

16 insulated concrete slab. So it's a fully 

17 functional system. 

18 Here is where you're going to lose 

19 energy if it's not done correctly there. 

20 That's where it should be checked. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: In a little bit, 

22 we're going to move on. An additional comment 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 78

1 here. Please say your name. 

2 MR. FITZ: My name is Eric Fitz. I 

3 just wanted to follow up on some of these 

4 comments. So if the Department of Energy 

5 allowed manufacturers to certify installers, 

6 would the manufacturers think that's a good 

7 idea. Is that a -- 

8 MR. MINELLI: Fred Minelli again. 

9 Installation, too, is not controlled by us. 

10 Many of our customers have their own 

11 installation crews. They're national 

12 corporations. They build all over the 

13 country. We supply panels. They buy glass 

14 doors. They buy lighting. They buy sliding 

15 doors. They buy the refrigeration. They do 

16 their own install. 

17 It's very, very seldom -- Mr. Craig 

18 is talking about someone doing the entire 

19 package. It's very, very seldom that a 

20 manufacturer would do the entire package. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: There's no 

22 certification regimen or requirement or 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 79

1 anything like that for GCs now. 

2 MR. MINELLI: None that I know of. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. I want to get 

4 back into the slides here briefly. Final 

5 comment. 

6 MR. LEWIS: Just a quick -- when we 

7 do installer certification trainings in 

8 American Panel for installers all over the 

9 country because a number of consultants do 

10 write in their specification that it has to be 

11 installed by a factory certified installer or 

12 have a factory representative on site which 

13 would be cost prohibitive. And again, coming 

14 back to one of your first slides and one from 

15 California talks about more cost competitive 

16 situation. And everything we're doing here 

17 that adds cost, the walk-in manufacturer can't 

18 absorb it. None of us drove up here today in 

19 Rolls Royces. 

20 Whatever we have to spend, we've 

21 got to charge. So the end-user is going to 

22 have to pay more. So you're going to pay more 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 80

1 for your stakes. You're going to pay more for 

2 anything you go for. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, is it David? 

4 MR. GRIFE: David from Arctic 

5 Industries. I have to agree with him. I 

6 think we're constantly losing touch with 

7 significant amounts of money and a burden 

8 being put on to this marketplace. The 

9 customization we've talked about, but I can't 

10 stress it enough. There are so many people 

11 who are a part of this puzzle, the consultant 

12 respect, the customer respect. The customers 

13 who don't even tell us what it's for, that we 

14 do not know, where we cannot even influence 

15 energy efficiency because we don't even know 

16 what the application is going to be. 

17 There are so many different areas, 

18 and then we finally have this walk-in that is 

19 installed perfectly, that is built perfectly 

20 and then we have a gentleman who walks in with 

21 a hose and just washes down all the walls and 

22 all the floors and he's in the kitchen, so you 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 81

1 know what he loves in the kitchen. It's 

2 ammonia. He takes ammonia and he rubs it on 

3 all the gaskets. It eats away the gaskets. 

4 These things are what's happening in the 

5 practical world. We need to look beyond that. 

6 We need to remember that we're 

7 energy efficient, but we need to understand 

8 what is happening in this marketplace and it 

9 is incredibly complex. And I wish I had that 

10 answer. I do not. But I think we need to 

11 remember the burden on small businesses that 

12 are trying to help their customers every 

13 single day. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: That's helpful. The 

15 Department is going to have to do something 

16 here. That's the bottom line, right? So your 

17 best thoughts on how this could be done to 

18 satisfy the needs of industry and the needs of 

19 Federal Government to achieve energy 

20 efficiency would be helpful. 

21 Now we're going to return to the 

22 slides. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 82

1 MS. LEGETT: Yes, so that was 

2 envelope and now I'm going to discuss briefly 

3 the definition of refrigeration system. 

4 This is the definition that was 

5 proposed in the published NOPR and you all 

6 have this in front of you so I'm not going to 

7 read it. I'll just move on to the next slide. 

8 Mention that DOE is interested in 

9 comment or feedback regarding this proposed 

10 definition. Additionally, DOE is considering 

11 a couple of minor revisions, clarifications, 

12 to this definition. 

13 First, clarifying the term 

14 integrated single package refrigeration unit 

15 within the definition. Second, instead of the 

16 term central rack system using the term 

17 multiplex condensing system. This is just to 

18 clarify that the term refers to a condensing 

19 system that serves, that may serve multiple 

20 units in a store or a supermarket, walk-ins, 

21 reach-ins. In this case, the condensing 

22 system would not be covered, this multiplex 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 83

1 system because it does not just serve the one 

2 walk-in. So instead, the unit cooler of the 

3 walk-in would be covered. 

4 In our research, after the NOPR was 

5 published, we learned that multiplex 

6 condensing system is a more widely-used term. 

7 So this is the revised definition. We asked 

8 for comments on both the original definition 

9 and DOE's minor modifications. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Leave the definition 

11 up. 

12 MS. LEGETT: Absolutely. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Ellis? 

14 MR. CRAIG: Ellis Craig. I have a 

15 real problem because every time we have a 

16 definition, then you need to define another 

17 word in the definition to understand what 

18 you're talking about. It says it creates a 

19 refrigerated environment. 

20 This room here is a refrigerated 

21 environment technically, so I mean what does 

22 it mean? If you're defining a refrigeration 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 84

1 system, something that keeps a refrigerated 

2 environment, is that a certain temperature 

3 range? Is it -- if it's not, then I don't 

4 understand what a refrigerated environment is 

5 if you don't define it. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Be specific. 

7 MS. LEGETT: What would you say -- 

8 MR. CRAIG: I would say you pick a 

9 temperature that's below 45 degrees or below 

10 40. I'm not picky on it, but you need a 

11 temperature that we can hang our hats on to 

12 say if that's room is going to be 45 or below, 

13 we have two product lines in our manufacturing 

14 plant. We have Enviro-Buildings which we do 

15 clean rooms, quality control rooms, 

16 communications shelters and all these other 

17 kind of items and we defined it in our 

18 company. If it's over -- I think we defined 

19 it if it's over 45 degrees, it's an Enviro20 Building. If it's under 45, it's a walk-in 

21 cooler. 

22 But without -- you know, without 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 85

1 that definition, now you've opened it up that 

2 every room that's refrigerated, that means 

3 this room could be considered refrigerated if 

4 it's 90 degrees outside and it's cooler in 

5 here. That's my problem with it. 

6 MS. LEGETT: Thank you. Briefly, 

7 you suggested 45. Does anyone disagree with 

8 that? 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon, go ahead. 

10 MR. McHUGH: So just in terms of 

11 harmonization with other standards, I believe 

12 that Title 24, California's Building Energy 

13 standards used below 55 degrees as what is 

14 considered not space conditioning. 

15 MS. LEGETT: Thank you. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Fred. 

17 MR. MINELLI: Fred Minelli. NSF 

18 defined -- we're talking about food storage 

19 rooms. NSF defines 41 degrees as the maximum 

20 high temperature for food storage. So we 

21 should tie the codes together and use 41 

22 degrees and below as refrigerated space; 32 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 86

1 degrees and below as freezers. 

2 MS. LEGETT: Thank you. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Ellis. 

4 MR. CRAIG: I have a problem with 

5 55 degrees because wine coolers are held at 55 

6 degrees, so you can say well I'm selling you a 

7 55 degree wine cooler, but they might rate it 

8 at 45, 43, so it's right on that -- I don't 

9 like it to be right close to something at such 

10 a big amount of product being sold out there 

11 to hold at a certain temperature. 

12 I'd rather have it not be 

13 refrigerated. So the 41 is a good idea with 

14 NSF at least. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

16 Yes. 

17 MR. COMBS: Yes, I echo Fred's 

18 remarks as far as NSF goes and what we also 

19 have to keep in mind is that much of this is 

20 going to be based on the intended application. 

21 Because we have no control over what the 

22 customer does with that thermostat when it 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 87

1 gets in the field. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 

3 MR. DUNLAP: Just as a follow-up 

4 all of the definitions on even the square 

5 footage, less than -- over 3,000 square feet. 

6 Again, there's a lot of -- what does that 

7 comprise? Is that just a space out there 

8 where you have a cooler that's less than 3,000 

9 square feet? 

10 I have warehouses that are well 

11 beyond 3,000 square feet that are air 

12 conditioned and they're air conditioned mainly 

13 for the coolers. So I can say that's my first 

14 stage of cooling for the walk-in cooler. And 

15 in fact, that's what is there. The 

16 definition, Webster's definition of 

17 refrigerated is that it's for preservation. 

18 It does not give a temperature. 

19 So again, we're back into defining 

20 just like the gentleman's comments. Once 

21 there's a definition, just like the 

22 legislation where they put in this definition 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 88

1 of a walk-in cooler and the fact that they 

2 arbitrarily put in R-values on components 

3 going back to the end-use that make absolutely 

4 no sense: R-values on doors, R-values on 

5 ceilings, R-values on freezer floors, without 

6 defining performance. 

7 And the other comment before was 

8 that this meeting should have been done before 

9 the legislation. I think we're all beginning 

10 to agree that's the way it should have been 

11 done. These various applications have not 

12 been identified. And going back, if indeed we 

13 start to define and I don't have a problem 

14 with the 41 degrees or 45 degrees, as long as 

15 there's a definition for that above 

16 temperature, but again now you have introduced 

17 a definition now that many of areas, because 

18 of the end-use, the doors don't make much 

19 sense the way they're being -- the freezer and 

20 the coolers are being applied because they're 

21 wide doors. 

22 I wish they had just cut out, just 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 89

1 left this at -- what is it, three foot nine 

2 inches where you had the automatic door 

3 closers. Once you opened it up beyond that, 

4 now the application is high traffic. And now 

5 the whole situation changes and from an energy 

6 efficiency standpoint, again, that's what the 

7 purpose of this is. Our value for the door 

8 means -- means absolutely nothing unless the 

9 door is closed. If the door is not closed, 

10 our value means very little. 

11 When we get into the effectiveness 

12 of air curtains or strip curtains, there's 

13 very little information as far as standards on 

14 those types of devices. I've never seen a 

15 specification on strip curtain for overlap. 

16 We all know that strip curtains are deformed. 

17 Why doesn't an employee shut a door when he 

18 goes in and out of a freezer? Because he has 

19 strip curtains. 

20 MS. LEGETT: He does. Quick 

21 process note. I'm hearing some discussion of 

22 different components and that's great. We 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 90

1 welcome comments, but I want to emphasize that 

2 we will touch on each of these as we go 

3 through the details of the test procedure. 

4 This is really just a high-level 

5 overview. I'd like to emphasize that right 

6 now we're requesting comments on some specific 

7 things. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. I 

9 appreciate that. Ira? 

10 MR. RICHTER: I'd like a 

11 clarification on mixed use condensing units 

12 that could serve walk-ins and display cases at 

13 the same time. 

14 MS. LEGETT: Right. 

15 MR. RICHTER: How would these be 

16 treated? 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Does that fit here 

18 or could we do it later? 

19 MS. LEGETT: This does. It fits 

20 part of the definition. You're talking about 

21 these multiplex systems that were -- 

22 MR. RICHTER: It doesn't have to be 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 91

1 multiplex. 

2 MS. LEGETT: Okay. Can you give 

3 another example of that kind of system? 

4 MR. RICHTER: Well, multiplex is a 

5 good example and it goes to show where it 

6 serves walk-ins and display cases. 

7 MS. LEGETT: Okay. 

8 MR. RICHTER: But we also are 

9 starting to see in convenience stores where 

10 you have a walk-in cooler and maybe two 

11 display cases on the same condensing unit. 

12 MS. LEGETT: So what would the 

13 correct technical term be for that? Are you 

14 suggesting that we use a different term in 

15 this definition? 

16 MR. RICHTER: My real question is 

17 it going to be covered in this or is it going 

18 to be excluded? 

19 MS. LEGETT: As proposed, DOE is 

20 intending to only regulate the parts of the 

21 refrigeration system that serve that 

22 individual walk-in being regulated. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 92

1 MR. RICHTER: Then we should have 

2 an exemption for refrigeration equipment that 

3 serves other loads other than walk-ins. 

4 MS. LEGETT: Thank you. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Harvey Sachs. 

6 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs, ACEEE. I 

7 was certainly not involved in drafting the 

8 legislation, but certainly know some of the 

9 people who were thinking about this and I want 

10 to address one point that Mr. Dunlap has 

11 raised. 

12 The goal of this was to address 

13 walk-ins that are produced in reasonable 

14 numbers, not drive-ins. So that the 3,000 

15 square foot line was an effort, I believe, to 

16 differentiate between the production facility, 

17 warehouse-type facility and the storage type 

18 facility. I could be wrong. But it leads me 

19 to one other thought which is a little 

20 indirect, but we have seen in some cases in 

21 the past where consensus is reached that the 

22 Congress has been open to suggestions on 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 93

1 technical corrections. And I hope that 

2 everyone is in parallel thinking about that 

3 level of suggestions not only to the 

4 Department, but to all the participants that 

5 might help achieve energy efficiency. 

6 One final note while I'm up at the 

7 30,000 foot level is I think there's an 

8 understanding that some changes to increase 

9 energy efficiency will increase purchase price 

10 and the hope that the present value of the 

11 energy savings will be greater than the cost 

12 at purchase. In other words, this will be a 

13 transfer to the manufacturers in the 

14 distribution chain from the energy consumption 

15 side. That would be a general hope and 

16 somewhat of a constraint. 

17 Thank you. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: I'm looking ahead. 

19 There's a lot more to cover here. So final 

20 comments on this definition before we move on. 

21 MS. LEGETT: Thank you. Now I'm 

22 going to turn it over to my colleague, Claire, 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 94

1 who is going to discuss the concept of Basic 

2 Model. 

3 Thank you. 

4 MS. GAGNE: As Rebecca mentioned, 

5 I'll be covering some parts of the Basic Model 

6 which I think will be of interest to many of 

7 you because it is on point with some of the 

8 discussion that we've already heard today. 

9 The following slides will describe 

10 the definition of the Basic Model as proposed 

11 in the NOPR, as well as several examples of 

12 how this would apply to the equipment for 

13 walk-in coolers and freezers. 

14 In essence, the Basic Model is 

15 DOE's response to the customization issue in 

16 the marketplace. The purpose of the Basic 

17 Model is to reduce the testing burden on 

18 manufacturers. And the -- I'd say the main 

19 point of it is that it is a grouping system 

20 for walk-in equipment that essentially allows 

21 certain calculations to be made within a 

22 particular group or family of equipment. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 95

1 I will talk specifically about how 

2 this applies to the envelope. Rebecca will 

3 return to discuss how this might apply to the 

4 refrigeration systems. 

5 In the Basic Model that has been 

6 proposed, the basic idea is that certain 

7 parameters can be calculated or tested and 

8 then used in a calculation. It is a rating 

9 method. I will provide more detail on how 

10 this works in the next slide, but the 

11 essential idea is that manufacturers would be 

12 required to test at least one unit of one 

13 Basic Model to determine the energy 

14 consumption and then scale certain pieces 

15 within that Basic Model. Or if in some cases 

16 the adjustment is simply a calculation such as 

17 square footage of the envelope where nothing 

18 else changes, then there is an additional 

19 approach that I can describe that will take 

20 this idea of rating and apply it to many 

21 different potential model types that the 

22 manufacture may make. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 96

1 This slide describes the rationale, 

2 underlying rationale for the Basic Model which 

3 is the Daily Energy Consumption Coefficient. 

4 It is a scaling factor that would allow for 

5 the calculation of energy consumption in some 

6 components. 

7 The DECC parameters that are listed 

8 here are not exhaustive. However, I will run 

9 through a quick example before moving on to 

10 more in-depth examples. 

11 In the case of a glass display 

12 door, if you had a walk-in with say five of 

13 the same display doors and then you had a 

14 different walk-in made that used 10 or 15, it 

15 would simply allow you take the calculation or 

16 the test and the outcome of the test and scale 

17 those results for a larger size model with the 

18 identical doors. 

19 The basic idea is that it's a 

20 linear expression and that's why it can be 

21 scaled in this way. 

22 Before we get into some examples of 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 97

1 how this would apply, I'd also like to turn 

2 our focus to the issue of the alternative 

3 efficiency determination methods or AEDMS. 

4 This was something that DOE proposed in the 

5 Standards Frameworks Document and it's 

6 essentially also a calculation methodology. 

7 However, the AEDMs would have allowed 

8 manufacturers to use their own software and 

9 the DECC as proposed is something developed by 

10 DOE in order to be more uniform. 

11 The feedback that was received by 

12 DOE that was Standards Framework Public 

13 Meeting was significant in that it objected to 

14 this idea of using the AEDMs because they 

15 would be developed by individual manufacturers 

16 as opposed to something that was something 

17 uniform. 

18 This was seen as something that 

19 could be expensive and time-consuming. It may 

20 also have been unfair and it would have 

21 potentially provided inconsistent information. 

22 As a result, DOE elected to go down 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 98

1 the route of developing its own calculation 

2 methodology that as proposed would apply to 

3 all manufacturers. 

4 So with that I'll turn to some 

5 examples as to how this might play out. 

6 Again, this is not an exhaustive list, but it 

7 is meant to give an indication of how the 

8 DECCs and therefore the Basic Model could be 

9 used in practice by manufacturers. 

10 First, I'll discuss the temperature 

11 application. At the basic sense, the 

12 difference between a cooler or a freezer can 

13 be viewed as a fundamental difference, at 

14 least from an energy consumption perspective, 

15 of how a walk-in cooler or freezer uses 

16 energy. So in this example, if the 

17 manufacturer were to make an identical 

18 envelope structure with the same doors and the 

19 same gasketing, etcetera, but the temperature 

20 that the walk-in was going to operating in is 

21 different, they would constitute different 

22 Basic Models. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 99

1 In the case of electrical load, 

2 this is something that can be calculated no 

3 matter what. So if the same cooler or freezer 

4 had different types of lighting or different 

5 anti-sweat heaters or one had an anti-sweat 

6 heater and the other different, this is 

7 something that would simply be a calculation. 

8 In this example, the boxes look 

9 identical. However, we've indicated that one 

10 is made from a certain type of foam and the 

11 other is made from another type of foam. This 

12 is a trigger parameter for a Basic Model. It 

13 doesn't matter what the operating temperature 

14 is or what the components are. Essentially, 

15 if it's a different foam type, it's 

16 automatically a different Basic Model. 

17 In this example, the appearance of 

18 the walk-in coolers is very different, 

19 although they look to be made out of the same 

20 materials and in fact, in this example, they 

21 are. 

22 They also are operating at the same 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 100

1 temperature and use the same assembly system. 

2 And so in this case, DOE would propose for the 

3 Basic Model that these could simply be rated 

4 differently, but that a test would only need 

5 to be done on one of them and then those 

6 results would be scaled. 

7 The way that the results would be 

8 scaled is somewhat of a simple calculation. 

9 The main point that I'd like to bring your 

10 attention to is this very last line. The DECC 

11 is just a calculation. It's a calculation of 

12 the energy load divided by the exterior 

13 surface area. The energy load, of course, is 

14 the issue at stake here from a testing 

15 perspective. But once tested, it can be 

16 applied through the DECC model. 

17 So to take this last bullet here of 

18 12.815 watt hours per day per square foot, in 

19 this example because the materials and 

20 temperature and assembly system and all 

21 trigger parameters are identical to the 

22 previous walk-in, simply the DECC would be 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 101

1 applied with the exterior surface area of this 

2 new walk-in model. And then the energy load 

3 would be calculated from there, so a new test 

4 would not be required. 

5 So with that, I'd like to open up 

6 the discussion to this basic mode for the 

7 envelope as well as the embedded idea of the 

8 daily energy consumption coefficient. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, David? 

10 MR. GRIFE: So, when I quote a 

11 customer, I am going to have to calculate in 

12 his quote this new energy load. And if it 

13 doesn't meet the standard, I will tell him he 

14 can't buy it. Then he will call me up and 

15 say, "Excuse me? This is what I asked for. 

16 This is what I want. I will just go to 

17 another manufacturer." 

18 So I am not really sure what you 

19 mean by that. You know, is that where you 

20 want it, some load basis on a quote of what 

21 they can buy? 

22 MS. GAGNE: The issue of the load 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 102

1 is something we will get into in more detail 

2 later, but it factors into the way that we 

3 look at the test procedure. The issue here is 

4 whether the basic model, as a grouping system 

5 in order to sensibly reduce the testing 

6 burden, is a good idea. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Ellis? 

8 MR. CRAIG: Ellis Craig. Yes, I 

9 have no problem with the testing model idea, 

10 that basic model. I like it because it does 

11 save costs without just trying to test 20 

12 different types of walk-ins or whatever. 

13 One thing I have a little problem 

14 is it seems like you are leaving it up to us 

15 what model we want to test. I don't see any 

16 definitions in here about what size walk-in or 

17 anything. So in other words, if you assume 

18 that the infiltration losses are larger on the 

19 joints, therefore you would test walk-ins with 

20 big panels because they would have less joints 

21 per square foot on the panels. So you could, 

22 I know that if I were doing it, I would say 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 103

1 well let's see, how am I going to make this 

2 the best? Well, I will design a walk-in that 

3 is going to perform the best with my 

4 construction and I will get that basic number 

5 and apply it. 

6 Another manufacturer may say well I 

7 think this will work and, therefore, he tested 

8 according to his most optimal performing unit. 

9 I think the DOE needs to come out and say an 

10 eight by ten or whatever. There has got to be 

11 a basic test that we are all testing the same 

12 size walk-in unit or we are all going to get 

13 different results. Not because they are 

14 different in construction. It is just that 

15 there are going to be different results 

16 because of different size walk-ins. 

17 We need to have a basic -- a model 

18 that says this basic model will be an eight by 

19 ten with one door, or one expansion or one 

20 pressure relief on it, or not a pressure 

21 relief on it. We have to have something so we 

22 are testing the same thing. Otherwise, this 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 104

1 won't work. 

2 MS. GAGNE: I understand your 

3 comment. Just to clarify one thing, the 

4 energy load would be a unit that could be 

5 scaled. 

6 MR. CRAIG: No, I understand that. 

7 MS. GAGNE: Okay. 

8 MR. CRAIG: But the one unit we 

9 test needs to be the same in all 

10 manufacturers. That is what I am saying. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's hear over 

12 here. 

13 MR. FITZ: This is Eric Fitz. 

14 Ellis, I just want to follow-up. Do you have 

15 a specific recommendation for a size? You 

16 threw out some numbers but is there something 

17 specific that you think is a good idea? 

18 MR. CRAIG: Probably the number one 

19 walk-in sold as a standard unit for a cooler 

20 is an eight by ten and a standard on a freezer 

21 would be a six by eight. Now, does that mean 

22 all of us are going to have that same 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 105

1 standard? If somebody does only mainly 

2 grocery stores, that wouldn't work. But in 

3 the food service industry, those are the two 

4 number one sizes that are sold. 

5 So if you want to pick something 

6 that would be more applicable to the industry, 

7 in most walk-ins that are sold, it would be a 

8 six by eight freezer and an eight by ten walk9 in cooler, seven foot six tall, something like 

10 that. And I think your guys here would 

11 probably agree with me. 

12 MR. FITZ: Does anybody else have a 

13 recommendation for a particular size that is 

14 tested? 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: This gentleman is in 

16 the queue. Do you want to speak on this or do 

17 you want to wait a minute? 

18 MR. ERBS: I will wait a minute. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Fred, you are next. 

20 MR. MINELLI: Fred Minelli. I 

21 think this is another one of the concerns that 

22 leads us to component testing. Because as Mr. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 106

1 Craig says, what is typical in food service is 

2 not typical in supermarkets, is not typical in 

3 big box clubs. There is no typical box or 

4 model group. 

5 The component test the DOE 

6 specifies this high by this length, something 

7 or two, maybe one to cover the eight foot tall 

8 walls and one for the 16 and 18 foot tall 

9 walls that we build. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Ellis, I have to 

11 think that the Department constructed it this 

12 way to reduce the burden on the manufacturers 

13 so that whatever unit that you had that was a 

14 basic unit that you were going to do a lot, 

15 that that would be the thing that you could 

16 then test and scale. 

17 MR. CRAIG: But again, like I am 

18 telling you, if I am going to make a test 

19 unit, I guarantee you I will make a test unit 

20 that is going to give me the most favorable 

21 results, whether I build that all the time or 

22 not because that is the one that I am going to 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 107

1 be accountable for. Do you understand what I 

2 mean? 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: I do. 

4 MR. CRAIG: The basic nature of a 

5 business, unless you specify it, I am going to 

6 get with my engineers and we are going to 

7 figure out the best way to make this test unit 

8 so we get the highest, the lowest energy use 

9 out of that unit I can, if you don't specify. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Charles Llenza. 

11 MR. LLENZA: Yes, I kind of agree 

12 with what he is saying. If we baseline the 

13 unit that everybody has to test, then the 

14 scalability up or down from that unit is more 

15 uniform for everybody. So it sort of levels 

16 the playing field, as opposed to what Mr. 

17 Ellis is saying when somebody can pick a size. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: So there are two 

19 sides of this. You are next. 

20 MR. ERBS: Daryl Erbs and I am just 

21 going to throw a few more logs on that fire. 

22 I think the physics of walk-in 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 108

1 modes, the way I understand them would say 

2 that it is not a simple scaling exercise. 

3 That because people could change the number of 

4 doors that they have on a walk-in, they could 

5 add view ports, they could do other things, 

6 that it is an over-simplification to think 

7 that you can take the base model energy use 

8 and multiply it by a surface area and get an 

9 accurate representation of a different size 

10 walk-in. 

11 So I think that really pushes the 

12 argument back to look at it at a basic 

13 component level. Because if you are just 

14 looking at conduction loads through a panel, 

15 that does scale. 

16 If you are looking at infiltration 

17 effects of doors, then there is at least 

18 mathematical equations that could be used to 

19 deal with how those change. Infiltration is 

20 also a function of the relative size of the 

21 door opening to the box volume, not 

22 necessarily surface area. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 109

1 So I think it is a noble attempt 

2 but I don't think it is really going to 

3 capture reality. We are not going to do a 

4 good job of representing what really happens 

5 and maybe we are better off going to a more 

6 simplistic approach where we just try to make 

7 sure that the individual components address 

8 some level of performance. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

10 Let me go to this gentleman here. 

11 MR. PERRY: Jim. Jim Perry. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Jim. 

13 MR. PERRY: I have a couple 

14 questions about these slides the young lady 

15 showed. 

16 On the first slide, if we are bound 

17 by EISA to have certain R-value requirements, 

18 how we achieve those R-value requirements, I 

19 don't understand why that would make that 

20 different basic model. 

21 And then on the second slide, if we 

22 -- I think we need to get some scientific data 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 110

1 or talk to the engineers about is it truly a 

2 linear relationship between the size of the 

3 walk-ins that allows you to make a scaling. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: I don't know whether 

5 Claire or Aris here -- 

6 MS. GAGNE: I would like to seek 

7 clarification on your first point about R8 value. 

9 MR. PERRY: Okay. Yes. If we are 

10 bound to a certain R-value by the law, then 

11 why does the method of achieving that R-value 

12 constitute it being a different model? 

13 MS. GAGNE: Aris, perhaps you have 

14 some thoughts on that? 

15 MR. MARANTAN: Sure. Let me just 

16 make sure I understand your question. You are 

17 talking about the different of insulation for 

18 the same basic cooler, for example. If you 

19 have two coolers that look pretty identical, 

20 except for the change in insulation type, why 

21 would it matter? 

22 MR. PERRY: Yes. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 111

1 MR. MARANTAN: Well we don't know 

2 the -- so long as they both comply with the 

3 prescriptive requirements in the EISA 

4 legislation, you know, they pass that test. 

5 But then to comply with the performance 

6 standard in the energy conservation standards 

7 rulemaking that DOE is going to be developing, 

8 we need to know how much they exceed the 

9 performance standard. And so they may have 

10 different ratings, even though they both 

11 comply with the EISA regulation, they may have 

12 one, one maybe even better than the other. 

13 So we would like to quantify that 

14 and that is what the test here tries to do. 

15 MR. PERRY: That would also come 

16 out as part of the value that you assigned to 

17 that particular configuration. 

18 MR. MARANTAN: Yes. 

19 MR. PERRY: Not necessarily making 

20 it a different basic model. It is a basic 

21 model with a better performance rating. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: If it is different 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 112

1 insulation, it would be a different basic 

2 model, yes. That is what they said. That was 

3 how they were specifying -- that would be a 

4 trigger, as they specified in the slide. 

5 Correct? 

6 Follow on, Barb. 

7 MS. FABIAN: Yes, Barb Fabian. The 

8 only reason, as the last gentleman said was 

9 that it would be a different model is in 

10 application. If you are meeting the initial 

11 basic R-value for that insulation, then only 

12 over time will you know if one is doing better 

13 or worse. And at this point in time, as I 

14 understand it, we are not going to consider 

15 anything related to moisture infiltration, 

16 which is the biggest key of deterioration of 

17 the R-value. So you just eliminated the two 

18 differences there. 

19 MR. MARANTAN: Well, I would like 

20 to just mention that as Rebecca indicated, 

21 there is two different tests, I guess, needed 

22 for a difference in insulation. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 113

1 And one other thing I would like to 

2 point out is that in the performance standard 

3 the DOE is considering, is developing 

4 currently, manufacturers of let's say one type 

5 of insulation, if it performs better than 

6 another type of insulation, well then they 

7 have that ability to improve the overall 

8 performance, just focusing in on insulation, 

9 if they choose to, or they have the ability to 

10 improve other components, if they want to 

11 choose a different type of insulation. 

12 And so we want to capture all of 

13 that and this is part of that calculation to 

14 determine overall performance for the standard 

15 itself. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: I had several people 

17 in the queue. I am going to let this 

18 gentleman go first and then to Harmon and then 

19 Ellis. Your name, please? 

20 MR. McGOWAN: Sure. I am Ray 

21 McGowan. I am from the National Fenestration 

22 Rating Council and I have heard several 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 114

1 comments today that make me think that this 

2 situation is similar to what windows had 

3 faced. I mean, you can make a window in many 

4 different combinations and we wanted to 

5 provide a simulation and a testing method and 

6 only test a small subset of the windows to 

7 prove performance. 

8 So one of my thoughts is, is there 

9 a way to simulate the performance of a walk-in 

10 cooler, based on a variety of inputs and then 

11 you could test a subset of them or a base 

12 model, which is exactly what windows does. Is 

13 that something that has been considered or 

14 exists? I mean, I know there is building 

15 simulation software, certainly, that could 

16 almost do what a walk-in cooler does. It 

17 could almost simulate it, I am guessing. But 

18 I just am curious if the industry has ever 

19 considered that or DOE considered that. 

20 Because you are talking about equation where 

21 you scale the size of a cooler away from a 

22 baseline. That is kind of like a window. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 115

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Aris first. 

2 MR. MARANTAN: Yes, we explored 

3 that option during the framework public 

4 meeting and we asked that very question. It 

5 was related to the idea of the AEDMs, the 

6 alternative energy or efficiency determination 

7 method. And you know, just like the slide 

8 indicated, there were problems using that 

9 approach. We didn't hear from stakeholders or 

10 interested parties that there was one 

11 consistent way that everyone was using. Some 

12 manufacturers indicated that they have their 

13 own proprietary software that they were 

14 willing to offer up but not everybody was 

15 using a consistent one. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Are you on this same 

17 point? 

18 MR. ERBS: Yes. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Follow on. 

20 MR. ERBS: I just wanted to mention 

21 that -- 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Say your name again, 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 116

1 please. 

2 MR. ERBS: Daryl Erbs. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

4 MR. ERBS: There is some research 

5 that is being funded by ARDI, which is an arm 

6 of AHRI, that is trying to look at that issue, 

7 to look into more detailed modeling methods, 

8 not necessarily to define that as the way for 

9 manufacturers but to help validate some of 

10 these more simplified approaches. 

11 You know, unfortunately, that 

12 research is just starting and so it is going 

13 to be a matter of probably six, eight months 

14 before we have any results. I just wanted to 

15 make sure people were aware that we are trying 

16 to learn more about how to properly do that. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Daryl. 

18 Harmon and then Ellis. 

19 MR. LEWIS: When you sell walk-in 

20 coolers, if you sell refrigeration with those, 

21 you have to know the heat load of the walk-in 

22 and that is a computational item using ASHRAE 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 117

1 standards and perhaps Heatcraft or other 

2 manufacturers of refrigeration have programs 

3 that they have done or the individual walk-in 

4 manufacturers. But you have got your 

5 transmission heat load through the wall, your 

6 air infiltration, your product load, if it is 

7 not a holding application, and then your 

8 miscellaneous loads, your lighting and your 

9 fans. These are all unknown numbers. The 

10 biggest unknown is the air infiltration but 

11 ASHRAE has standards for that and you tend to 

12 adopt one. 

13 We have done this for over 25 years 

14 with a computer program on every walk-in we 

15 sell. We know the heat load and we tell the 

16 customer because if they don't buy the 

17 refrigeration from us, they have got to know 

18 how to size that. So these are known 

19 computations and I have not done, you know, 

20 looked at the different numbers for the 

21 different sizes. So they may not be scalable 

22 linearly, but these are mathematical numbers 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 118

1 that work. And if you sell somebody the wrong 

2 refrigeration, you are replacing it. And we 

3 don't do that. We don't have that problem. 

4 So there is science that already 

5 exists on this that determine the heat load on 

6 the walk-in and how much time the 

7 refrigeration is going to run. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: So apparently the 

9 Department didn't hear this in the first 

10 meeting. Ellis, go ahead. 

11 MR. CRAIG: Okay. Ellis Craig. 

12 Just first of all, Harmon is correct in the 

13 fact that there is, we use it all the time, we 

14 wrote our own software off of other software 

15 and ASHRAE and everybody kind of develops one, 

16 one way or the other. 

17 The problem is that that software 

18 doesn't actually take in the unique 

19 manufacturing uniqueness of each manufacturer. 

20 In other words, I am sure if you use the 

21 Heatcraft sizing program and I use the 

22 Heatcraft sizing program, we are going to plug 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 119

1 in figures on that and come up with the same 

2 answer but our products are not the same. And 

3 in performance, which means actual performance 

4 out there, they won't perform exactly the 

5 same. So, the new program is to get more 

6 defined in the actual construction of the 

7 product, so that it gives a more accurate 

8 number than the existing programs that are out 

9 there right now. 

10 And as far as I am concerned about 

11 this basic unit, the only time that really 

12 becomes applicable really is on the 

13 infiltration test. So we will build an eight 

14 by ten. We do the infiltration test, 

15 everybody does the same thing. 

16 The R-value of the insulation is a 

17 separate test and that is just multiplied 

18 times the square footage. And if you add in 

19 loads such as wood and not high R-value items 

20 that are in the structure, it is pretty simple 

21 to calculate what that box theoretically is 

22 going to have a heat load at. And that is 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 120

1 what this attempt was. The only thing I said 

2 was if you are going to do this infiltration 

3 test, let's do it on the same size walk-in. 

4 That's all I am asking. And as far as the 

5 basic model, I don't care what size you pick 

6 as a basic model, other than that test. That 

7 test is what is really going to set it. 

8 MR. MARANTAN: Just one more 

9 follow-on to Daryl's comment earlier. You 

10 stated your position about, you know, using 

11 the concept of performance metrics for 

12 individual components. And I think that stems 

13 from Jon's earlier proposal. 

14 I would like to hear if there are 

15 any component manufacturers in the room who 

16 are also in agreement with that proposal or 

17 otherwise, I know that there are some 

18 manufacturers of components of the envelope 

19 side, maybe even the refrigeration side, if 

20 that seems to be a preferred method. 

21 MR. DUNLAP: Steve Dunlap. Again, 

22 representing HH Technologies, there are 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 121

1 standards for infiltration testing on doors. 

2 They have been submitted to the DOE in the 

3 past. Unfortunately, I can't recollect the 

4 exact standard. But we will provide you with 

5 that information. And I support the component 

6 testing, as opposed to the envelope, just 

7 because of the all the reasons that we talked 

8 about. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. 

10 MR. RASMUSSON: Loren Rasmusson. I 

11 agree with what Daryl was saying earlier about 

12 the component testing. For example on the two 

13 walk-ins that you showed up there with the 

14 smaller unit and then you go to the larger 

15 one, many customers may want a door on the far 

16 back end so they can enter from another point. 

17 And in some cases, that other door may have a 

18 ramp on it, which would change your 

19 infiltration on that particular door, compared 

20 to the one that you have shown there. And 

21 another door might be a floorless, not 

22 necessarily in this walk-in. So each door 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 122

1 would have a different infiltration rate. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: I think all of you 

3 have made the point well about the complexity 

4 of this. So then the question would be for 

5 the department how they should address it. 

6 And your best thinking on that will help them. 

7 Because the complexity is what you are going 

8 to have to live with. And the Department, 

9 barring some act by Congress, is going to have 

10 to do something about this. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Charles Llenza. 

12 MR. LLENZA: Charles Llenza, 

13 Department of Energy. 

14 So what we are hearing is that we 

15 proposed an envelope testing method and of 

16 course the refrigeration is separate, which is 

17 more component oriented. 

18 So the question now becomes we like 

19 to hear sort of a round robin from everybody 

20 here, are you telling the Department that you 

21 are favoring more component testing at this 

22 point and that we should abandon the envelope 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 123

1 testing methodology in terms of trying to set 

2 the testing procedures for this. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Ellis, first. 

4 MR. CRAIG: I have no problem with 

5 the basic model test. Obviously, we are 

6 adding components. It is really a hybrid we 

7 are talking about here because when you add 

8 glass doors, this basic model is just now 

9 multiplied up. You have added the load of the 

10 glass doors on. And obviously if you add 

11 another door to that big long walk-in, you 

12 would have to add that into the load. So that 

13 is kind of a component edition. 

14 But once you get the basic model 

15 without all these options, with one door, one 

16 walk-in, with or without any pressure relief, 

17 that is a basic model. So that testing I have 

18 no problem with. And that makes sense to test 

19 one model. 

20 Then if you have a door with a 

21 ramp, that is a different load that comes in. 

22 And then if you have glass doors, that is a 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 124

1 different load that comes in. If you have an 

2 expansion valve, that is a different load. So 

3 that is kind of a hybrid test. This process 

4 is really a hybrid process. It is not just, 

5 this unit, whether you put glass doors on or 

6 not, it is the same number. It is not that. 

7 The way I understand it, you have to add all 

8 these extra loads in. Right? So if you are, 

9 we are doing both right now, according to this 

10 basic model test that you are doing. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Brett did you want 

12 in? Use the microphone. 

13 MR. MITCHELL: Brett Mitchell with 

14 Kason. The basic model test makes a lot of 

15 sense to keep the testing cost down. But it 

16 needs to have provisions at the component 

17 level because for just future innovation. 

18 If someone was to develop some new 

19 widget, to put a panel together or a new 

20 gasket, you wouldn't want have the burden of a 

21 manufacturer having to retest the basic model 

22 again because the intent of the change was to 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 125

1 improve energy efficiency. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: So if you had that 

3 configuration, then the manufacturer could 

4 pick and choose, based on his or her needs. 

5 Right? 

6 MR. MITCHELL: Right. As long as 

7 the component manufacturer, that new component 

8 is certified to exceed the performance of the 

9 old component. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's hear from 

11 Fred. 

12 MR. MINELLI: Fred Minelli. I just 

13 want to reiterate that I back the component 

14 testing because of the variables in our 

15 industry, in the product, in the glass doors, 

16 in the sliding doors, roll-up doors, 

17 horizontal slide doors. There are so many 

18 variables that testing a box is not a 

19 solution. The solution is component testing. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, let's hear from 

21 this gentleman, please. 

22 MR. McGOWAN: Well this Ray McGowan 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 126

1 again from National Fenestration Rating 

2 Council. 

3 All the comments I am hearing, it 

4 is so similar to a building. I serve on the 

5 ASHRAE 90.1 Envelope subcommittee. And one of 

6 my thoughts is, could you do both? 

7 Component testing, I think you 

8 might find that onerous. I don't know but I 

9 know your opinion is that you prefer 

10 component. But performance testing might be 

11 simpler and allow more freedom of design as 

12 well. And I don't know, maybe a compromise 

13 could be both. 

14 I know in ASHRAE 90.1 you have 

15 both. You can submit your components in your 

16 building per prescriptive methods and then you 

17 can also do building simulation, which allows 

18 greater freedom of design on the building. 

19 And a walk-in cooler is almost like a little 

20 building from what I am hearing. 

21 So it is just a thought. If there 

22 could be two paths. I mean in 90.1 there are 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 127

1 two paths for a building. Could there be two 

2 paths for a walk-in cooler? Just a thought. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Tim? 

4 MR. DYE: Tim Dye. As a major 

5 component provider, the glass doors, we are 

6 kind of going back and forth with the word 

7 door very generically. There is glass doors 

8 and then there is entry doors and then there 

9 is glass entry doors. And then there are all 

10 kinds of other things, drive-in doors. We 

11 don't want to go there. 

12 But where he has been specifically 

13 talking about doors are the drive-through 

14 doors or the major traffic doors, where we 

15 manufacture, 98 percent of what we do is we 

16 manufacture display doors. And where a walk17 in panel manufacturer can go in and do their 

18 testing, and I am not going to even try to 

19 pretend to go there because they know their 

20 business much better than I do, but as a 

21 component supplier in a glass door business, 

22 in their testing, if they have a net opening 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 128

1 where we go in and put frames and doors and 

2 shelving and things like that in, if they 

3 calculate in, there is going to be a 

4 filtration of air because of the frame going 

5 into the walk-in if it is not sealed properly. 

6 That needs to be done. 

7 But as far as the independent 

8 component testing, as far as glass doors are 

9 concerned, I believe that that needs to be 

10 burdened back to the glass door manufacturer 

11 because we know glass doors. They know walk12 in coolers and panels. And the refrigeration 

13 people know commercial refrigeration. That is 

14 what we do and we have been doing for a very 

15 long time. 

16 When you start putting all of these 

17 things together, you are not talking about 

18 thousands of products, you are talking about 

19 millions, all the different configurations. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: We will let Ellis 

21 follow on, then I am coming to you. Yes, 

22 Rebecca? 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 129

1 MS. LEGETT: How would you provide 

2 that rating? Would it be a label? Would you 

3 just communicate it to the walk-in 

4 manufacturer? Would it be in your catalogue? 

5 How would that work? 

6 MR. DYE: Well, yes. All of the 

7 above. And the reason being is that it is not 

8 just a simple glass door. You know, these 

9 people in there that manufacture panels will 

10 not, you know, our industry says well a panel 

11 is a panel is a panel. Well it is not. Well 

12 a glass door is in the same situation. 

13 You have two-pane low-E gas filled 

14 doors. You have three-pane, non-low-E. Then 

15 you have two-pane heated. Then you have 

16 three-pane heated. And then you have a one17 inch glass pack and a one and a quarter inch 

18 glass pack. There is all different types of 

19 configurations here. And then you have a 

20 customer that, you know, a Wal-Mart comes to 

21 you and says I want this. And guess what? 

22 Most of the time you do it, as long as it is 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 130

1 within the ethical part of business. Okay? 

2 But what I am getting at is those 

3 energy labels or those energy ratings are 

4 already there. We know what the U-values are 

5 of the glass. There is calculations that we 

6 use every day to test these. 

7 Now you start talking about how a 

8 door seals to the frame. What is the 

9 tolerance of the gasket ceiling to the seal 

10 plate? They can't, you know, there is no way 

11 that they can understand how to do that 

12 because they don't do it every day. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Eric, go ahead. 

14 MR. FITZ: This is Eric Fitz. Are 

15 you suggesting that the Department of Energy, 

16 if possible, redefine or interpret the 

17 manufacturer to put the burden on the 

18 component manufacturer, such as yourself, for 

19 testing? 

20 MR. DYE: No one ever wants burden 

21 put on them. Okay? But by saying that, I 

22 don't want the success of my product being 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 131

1 determined by a panel manufacturer. Okay? We 

2 have to govern ourselves from an energy 

3 standpoint. We take energy extremely serious. 

4 Very seriously. And all of our new products, 

5 if it is not energy-driven, we don't even look 

6 at it, period. 

7 So yes, that burden should be back 

8 on the component supplier. There may be other 

9 component suppliers in here that totally 

10 disagree but glass doors are extremely 

11 complex. That is why there are only five of 

12 us that do it. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Do you do some form 

14 of certification or whatever now? 

15 MR. DYE: Yes. I mean, we have to 

16 meet the California code. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's hear from this 

18 gentleman here. 

19 MR. STOMPF: Bill Stompf, Bally 

20 Refrigerated Boxes. 

21 I agree with my competitors here 

22 that the basic model testing certainly is not 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 132

1 applicable to our industry. We manufacture a 

2 multitude of models, probably tens of 

3 thousands of various models. And we like to 

4 say that we are a panel producer. When you 

5 put the panel components with the door 

6 components with the system components, you 

7 have various degrees of walk-in coolers and 

8 freezers. They are not catalogue items. They 

9 are not models. They are components of panels 

10 that should be tested on a panel integrity. 

11 And we all make different variations on the 

12 insulation and that is how the component 

13 testing, I feel, should be conducted. 

14 The infiltration is a good test. 

15 However, then we are again relying in the 

16 ability of the installer. Our industry today, 

17 it has become a very cost-competitive market 

18 out there and we sell through a dealer who 

19 sells to an end user. So we are at the tail20 end of the process and really don't control 

21 the installation procedures. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. So if the 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 133

1 burden is on the component manufacturer to 

2 meet a certain level of performance, then how 

3 does the Department of Energy receive some 

4 assurance that when all these pieces are put 

5 together it is going to actually perform as a 

6 system as a whole? 

7 Ellis. 

8 MR. CRAIG: Presently, we have been 

9 doing this for years. We go to these guys and 

10 we say, hey we are going to put some doors on 

11 here and we are going to size this 

12 refrigeration system. What is the load? They 

13 tell us the load. We put it in the system and 

14 it tells us how much refrigeration system to 

15 put on it. 

16 It is not something new. This is 

17 being done all the time. All of these are 

18 loads we have to take into consideration. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: When you are asking 

20 about that additional door and their load, are 

21 they telling you about the infiltration rate 

22 or anything like that? 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 134

1 MR. CRAIG: They are telling us the 

2 BTU load of that door, which includes what 

3 would be their infiltration load, which would 

4 be radiation of heat through the glass, 

5 whether it is triple pane, what kind of gas it 

6 has got in it. They have done that testing. 

7 I sure don't want to, as a manufacturer of 

8 walk-ins, go out here and start testing glass 

9 doors. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Are you saying the 

11 Department shouldn't have to worry about this? 

12 MR. CRAIG: I am saying that they 

13 are already giving us a number. Now if you 

14 want to go and -- 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: No, we want to be 

16 clear. Because the Department, if you think 

17 that is the case, they want to hear that. 

18 MR. GRIFE: Well you can talk about 

19 the application. I mean, I know when we size, 

20 we size on two openings per hour. Are you 

21 sure they are opening two times an hour? 

22 Maybe they are opening four. This is what we 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 135

1 size them based upon what is common knowledge 

2 of the industry and what its market says. 

3 And the customer, through that 

4 consultive nature of selling, which we try to 

5 do, will tell us no, I need a greater load. I 

6 have had a customer call me and say my 

7 refrigeration is not getting cold. We end up 

8 discussing and find out he is putting hot soup 

9 in the walk-in. Well if you are putting hot 

10 soup in 50 gallon buckets, you have a problem 

11 there. 

12 So we work on the basis of what we 

13 know, based upon what they tell us, and then 

14 we work to help make it efficient for them, 

15 based upon what their needs are. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Jim? 

17 MR. PERRY: Yes, Jim Perry. It has 

18 been suggested that there is thousands, 

19 millions of configurations. I would say there 

20 is an infinite number of configurations and 

21 situations that occur in our industry. 

22 I would say that the gentleman that 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 136

1 proposed a hybrid test where we have an 

2 envelope test of a base model that everybody 

3 is required to make this exact same 

4 configuration have control of the installation 

5 of that to come up with a relative number for 

6 the envelope that you could compare one 

7 manufacturer of panels to the next 

8 manufacturer of panels and then let the 

9 component manufacturers do the testing of 

10 their components. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, let's hear 

12 from Jon. 

13 MR. McHUGH: So this actually goes 

14 back to a comment I thought Aris had mentioned 

15 earlier which is that you would have someone 

16 who has a panel that is providing too much U17 factor and therefore then you could use other 

18 components. 

19 I think that in terms of DOE being 

20 assured that they actual have adequate 

21 performance, if you set these performance 

22 standards so that for instance someone's 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 137

1 panel, they all have to meet at least some 

2 minimum level of efficiency. So low U-factor 

3 and the same thing for all the manufacturers 

4 of windows. 

5 And of course, they are going to be 

6 competing and having products that exceed the 

7 federal standards, because I am not assuming 

8 that we are going to pick the absolute highest 

9 performing of any of these components, so that 

10 it takes care of the issues of the millions of 

11 permutations of these components. 

12 As long as each of those components 

13 are exceeding that minimum performance 

14 standard, then it is a relatively straight15 forward process of compliance. These things 

16 in our catalogue are allowed to be used in 

17 walk-ins. These other things aren't because 

18 they don't perform as well. 

19 So anyway, I think that is what 

20 other people are talking about when they say a 

21 hybrid performance model. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: And so you assume 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 138

1 that at the point of assembly that the 

2 purchaser of the walk-in has an incentive to 

3 get that done right and the general contractor 

4 that puts it together also is incented to get 

5 it done right. And so the Department then has 

6 some assurance with those components that you 

7 know will be performing. 

8 MR. McHUGH: I will give you an 

9 example that occurs right now in the building 

10 trade. So for instance, in compliance with 

11 the National Electrical Code, an electrician 

12 pretty much has to put in UL certified 

13 equipment. And so the similar kinds of things 

14 can apply for walk-ins that all these things 

15 are DOE certified as being minimally 

16 compliant, all those things, you put them all 

17 together, you have got a complying walk-in. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: For the walk-in 

19 application. Tim and then back to Ellis. 

20 MR. DYE: Tim Dye. Just a quick 

21 statement. 

22 You asked a very specific question. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 139

1 What assurances do the Department of Energy 

2 have to where these things will be installed 

3 properly. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 

5 MR. DYE: The manufacturer, the 

6 only way that a manufacturer can give the 

7 assurances for that is if they do the 

8 installation themselves. 

9 Now I am not talking about the 

10 panel guy or the door guy or the shelving guy 

11 or whoever it is. Okay? But you can have the 

12 best parts of every, you know, take the best 

13 panel, take the best glass door, take the best 

14 walk-in entry door, or whatever you want to 

15 do, and if it is not installed properly, it is 

16 not energy efficient. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Right. Ellis. 

18 MR. CRAIG: I wanted to say the 

19 exact same thing he is. If you are relying on 

20 the contractor or the end user to be vested in 

21 making sure it meets these requirements, that 

22 will never happen. You have obviously come 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 140

1 out and said that they are now not 

2 manufacturers. So they aren't even 

3 accountable to the law. We are. They aren't. 

4 They are not going to care. They are going to 

5 buy the cheapest door they can get out here at 

6 the lowest R-value they can. They are going 

7 to buy the cheapest refrigeration system they 

8 can and they are going to get the cheapest 

9 walk-in they can and they are going to put, 

10 not all of them, believe me there are good 

11 people out there, too. But a lot of them will 

12 do that. 

13 I don't want to sound like 

14 everybody here. But in this industry, you are 

15 going to have that group that is not going to 

16 care a think about anything we are doing here 

17 today. And if you are relying on them to make 

18 sure that your performance is being met, you 

19 are just -- yes. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Well that is on the 

21 putting the pieces together part. But if all 

22 the component parts meet some level of 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 141

1 performance, as Jon suggested and others, then 

2 you have got a better shot at meeting the 

3 Department's goal of energy efficiency. 

4 MR. CRAIG: Except if the one part 

5 is coming from me and another part is coming 

6 from somebody else and another part is coming 

7 from somebody else, the guy who is buying that 

8 right now has no vested interest in it. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: He is just looking 

10 for the lowest -- 

11 MR. CRAIG: Yes. He has no vested 

12 interest to make sure of those things that I 

13 would have to make sure. 

14 Listen, if I buy doors down here, I 

15 am going to buy doors that meet these 

16 requirements for my walk-in because I am held 

17 accountable. I have got to go out and replace 

18 that walk-in if it is wrong. The guy who is 

19 buying this isn't going to have to replace 

20 anything. He is just going to get it and put 

21 it in and if something is wrong, they are 

22 going to say well you need to talk to that 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 142

1 manufacturer. They shouldn't be selling you 

2 that. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. So I want to 

4 make sure if anybody has got anything novel to 

5 say, something we haven't heard, now is the 

6 time to say it. 

7 MR. FITZ: So I think this might 

8 address it. I have got a general question for 

9 a sort of hypothetical situation. 

10 So if for example every supplier 

11 for the walk-in manufacturers, if those 

12 suppliers, these component manufacturers had 

13 some kind of third-party voluntary program 

14 that they participated in that actually rated 

15 their components, would manufacturers consider 

16 this a viable option to then take that rating 

17 from this third-party organization, take that 

18 value and use it for a calculation for the 

19 entire system to then rate the walk-in itself? 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: I guess Ellis, you 

21 are first. 

22 MR. CRAIG: Yes, we would love it. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 143

1 However, you just added a lot of cost. The 

2 product just keeps adding costs and adding 

3 costs and adding costs. Because now he is 

4 going to charge me more because he has to have 

5 all this outside certified testing now and he 

6 is going to mark his product up and sell it to 

7 me. And I am going to mark it up. And it 

8 goes through about three people. You just 

9 added a lot of cost to the product. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: And some of the 

11 other appliance manufacturers, they test the 

12 model and they scale, they do something so 

13 that they diminish their testing burden. 

14 MR. CRAIG: Right. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: So there ought to be 

16 some way to manage it so that there is some 

17 benefit, in addition to the energy savings. 

18 MR. CRAIG: I agree. The only 

19 thing said is you do some of your testing 

20 inside. Right? 

21 MR. DYE: We do 100 percent of our 

22 testing. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 144

1 MR. CRAIG: Okay. You said third2 party, which is different than inside. You 

3 know, now you are talking he has to go out and 

4 spend thousands of dollars in testing. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: If he is doing it on 

6 his own, then you have got some confidence in 

7 your own internal testing. Right? 

8 MR. DYE: Absolutely. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, Tim. Thank 

10 you. 

11 MR. DYE: And keep in mind, there 

12 is third-party. It is what is known as UL, 

13 NSF, EnergyStar. But there are products that 

14 we have to manufacture that is going to 

15 perform in a high humidity situations that 

16 will never be EnergyStar. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

18 MR. DYE: Never. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon you -- Well, let 

20 me hear from one more manufacturer and then I 

21 am coming back to you, Jon. Please, Steve. 

22 MR. COMBS: Okay, Steve Combs. The 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 145

1 third-party certification, that is something 

2 that happens to just about every manufacturer 

3 now has some sort or some form of third-party 

4 certification, UL, NSF, PFS or any of those. 

5 Our company manufactures two 

6 product lines, one of them being a factory7 assembled, what we call a one-piece walk-in. 

8 So the distinction that I am interested in 

9 hearing there or if there is going to be a 

10 distinction is will the level of compliance be 

11 based on how much of that certification can be 

12 done before that product goes into the field, 

13 versus how much certification will have to be 

14 done onsite when that product is assembled. 

15 Now I have a vested interest in 

16 both because we do both product lines. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Got you. Okay, I 

18 understand. Jon? 

19 MR. McHUGH: So something to think 

20 about in terms of enforcement is that if you 

21 have a standard that places minimum 

22 requirements on the components, that is a 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 146

1 standard that is enforced at the level of the 

2 manufacturer's catalogue. 

3 In terms of people buying stuff, 

4 let's say a refrigeration product that 

5 actually doesn't have the DOE W or something 

6 in the catalogue and they use some non7 complying component, the reasonable place to 

8 enforce that is actually probably at the level 

9 of 90.1. DOE is actively involved in 90.1 in 

10 the IECC. 

11 Those building codes just like the 

12 UL requirement for the electrician, that 

13 actually gets enforced in terms of the 

14 building codes. But in terms of your 

15 appliance standard, setting the standard here 

16 in terms of those component efficiencies, that 

17 is the legal standard for what is sold. 

18 And then in terms of what happens 

19 in the field, I think, is enforced at the 

20 building level. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Eric, do you 

22 have an additional question or comment? 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 147

1 MR. FITZ: I think it has 

2 sufficiently been covered. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: All set? 

4 MR. FITZ: I think we can probably 

5 move on. Yes. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Anything novel? 

7 Because we are about to move on. 

8 MR. RICHTER: Yes, I agree with the 

9 earlier comment. I don't think it is 

10 mandatory to have third-party testing. A lot 

11 of us have our own test labs and we can 

12 provide sufficient data. 

13 What I would like to suggest is 

14 that the DOE provide a uniform calculation 

15 method, a consistent method that can take all 

16 of these components and provide the energy 

17 cost to the end user so that he can mix and 

18 match. Say, I want to have a really good door 

19 but not as good an R-value because it might be 

20 cheaper. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Got you. 

22 MR. FITZ: Okay. And I think that 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 148

1 needs to come from the government and it needs 

2 to be consistent so that none of us can 

3 manipulate it to our favor. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Got you. We have 

5 heard from others at the table surrounding the 

6 potential for gaming and finding ways to 

7 diminish that. 

8 Your name please? 

9 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. I just 

10 had a question about the market. And in terms 

11 of market shares, if anyone has a sense for 

12 what portion of the market is the case where 

13 contractors are ordering components from 

14 different manufacturers, as opposed to the 

15 case where all the components of an envelope 

16 are shipped by one manufacturer. If anyone 

17 has a sense for that. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: There are many 

19 different segments in this market. Yes? 

20 Ellis, can you speculate on that? 

21 MR. CRAIG: Ellis Craig. In a 

22 community store business, it is not unusual to 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 149

1 sell the walk-in and they buy the glass doors 

2 direct by a contractor -- buy the glass doors 

3 direct, and then the refrigeration from 

4 another person. 

5 So percentage wise, you can see in 

6 some markets 60 to 70 percent of it -- no 40 

7 percent of it, probably higher than that, 

8 probably 50 percent of it, we don't supply all 

9 the parts. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl? 

11 MR. ERBS: Yes, Daryl Erbs. I 

12 guess I would agree. From our, I guess, 

13 experience, it depends on both the end-use 

14 segments. So retail has a very different 

15 model from food service. 

16 And then within food service, it 

17 becomes customer dependent. Some customers 

18 will do, they call it buy-outs but they will 

19 basically say I just want the shell. I just 

20 want the panels from you. Other customers 

21 want an entire finished kit that gets 

22 installed. But I would say that it is 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 150

1 probably more than half the time, you know, 

2 from our perspective that it is just part of 

3 the box that we supply. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: I want to return to 

5 Claire. Close out this segment. 

6 MS. GAGNE: Thank you everyone for 

7 your comments. We appreciate the rich 

8 discussion of this issue. It is clearly an 

9 important item of concern and consideration 

10 for the Department of Energy. 

11 I would like to reiterate that the 

12 comment period is open for an additional seven 

13 days following this meeting. So please, if 

14 you feel that your comments have not been 

15 sufficiently covered in the oral portion of 

16 today, that you are welcome to submit written 

17 comments that the Department will take under 

18 consideration, as it does with everything else 

19 that has been covered today and has been 

20 submitted prior to today. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's take a break 

22 right now. Before anybody moves, especially 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 151

1 those of you who are not familiar with the 

2 building, there are restrooms on both ends of 

3 this hall and they stack all the way up and 

4 down, if you need to find another one. 

5 You have got to wear your badge 

6 inside the building. If you don't someone 

7 will escort you around. 

8 There is a coffee shop on the 

9 ground floor just about straight on down. So 

10 take the elevator down. But you have got to 

11 go quickly. We are going to break for 15 

12 minutes and probably we won't break for lunch 

13 until say 12:30 or so. So if you need a 

14 banana, get yourself some sustenance. 

15 We will resume, it is now 11:23, we 

16 will resume at 11:40 right here in this room. 

17 Thanks for a good start on the day. 

18 We made good progress this morning. 11:40 we 

19 will resume. 

20 (Whereupon, the foregoing proceeding went off 

21 the record at 11:24 a.m. and went 

22 back on the record at 11:40 a.m.) 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 152

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, let's resume. 

2 Please take your seats. Okay, let's start 

3 back up. 

4 We are going to resume where we 

5 left off with the slides, which I believe is 

6 35 and Rebecca is back at the podium. 

7 MS. LEGETT: Yes. Following my 

8 colleague Claire's discussion -- 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Oh, I need to make 

10 an announcement. 

11 MS. LEGETT: Okay. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: The Department likes 

13 to collect business cards so that it can make 

14 a copy of them and distribute the attendee 

15 list to everybody that is participating here 

16 today. 

17 Apparently two or three individuals 

18 did not have a business card and did not hand 

19 them off when you registered. If you can see 

20 Brenda if you didn't have one, so she can at 

21 least get your contact information and if you 

22 would do that either now or as we go to lunch 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 153

1 so that information will be complete. 

2 Okay, now Rebecca. 

3 MS. LEGETT: Thanks Doug. I am now 

4 going to discuss the basic model concept as it 

5 applies to refrigeration systems. And we have 

6 realized that there are some of the same 

7 issues with refrigeration systems as there are 

8 with envelopes. So I am going to briefly 

9 discuss our proposed approach and then ask for 

10 comment. So bear with me for the next few 

11 slides. 

12 We are considering applying the 

13 basic model concept to refrigeration systems 

14 as well. They may be customizable. There may 

15 be different design characteristics within a 

16 set of refrigeration systems that could change 

17 the energy consumption either by a lot or by a 

18 very little or not at all. 

19 So the purpose of using a basic 

20 model would be to reduce the testing burden on 

21 manufacturers, similar to envelope, allow them 

22 to group similar models of refrigeration 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 154

1 systems into a basic model. 

2 There is one key difference between 

3 the approach for refrigeration and the 

4 approach for envelope. In this context, we 

5 are not accounting for a calculation 

6 methodology as there was for envelope. 

7 So in this context, basic model 

8 means that for all the units that a 

9 manufacturer determined fell into one basic 

10 model, the manufacturer would test at least 

11 one unit in the basic model, get a rating for 

12 energy consumption, and then apply that rating 

13 to other units in the basic model. 

14 And as I said, we will seek comment 

15 on this proposal in just a few minutes. 

16 There was one approach that we 

17 described in the NOPR that we are considering. 

18 We are also considering another approach and 

19 here are the options that we are considering. 

20 And I want to note, these options are options 

21 for DOE. It is not that we are going to have 

22 these three option and manufacturers get to 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 155

1 pick one. I want to clarify that for the 

2 final rule, we would have one of these or a 

3 different one, if we have one based on the 

4 discussion and then that would be the one that 

5 would be uniform across manufacturers. 

6 DOE is really trying to strike a 

7 balance between not imposing an undue burden 

8 on manfacturers and also ensuring an accurate 

9 rating. The first option you see here is the 

10 basic model approach proposed in the NOPR. 

11 Units in one basic model may differ slightly 

12 in energy consumption but not significantly. 

13 One complication is that it may be difficult 

14 to determine what constitutes a significant 

15 difference. 

16 So you have a refrigeration system 

17 and you have the same refrigeration system but 

18 it has a different valve. Does that cause a 

19 significant difference in energy consumption? 

20 That is what we are trying to find out. 

21 To address this ambiguity, there is 

22 a second option that DOE may take. And that 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 156

1 is to group several models into a basic model. 

2 Units in the basic model must not differ in 

3 energy consumption but they could have 

4 cosmetic changes that do not affect energy 

5 consumption. 

6 The final option is the default 

7 option. In the absence of a provision for 

8 basic model for refrigeration, manufacturers 

9 would have to test one of every model of 

10 refrigeration system. And then the next three 

11 slides are details on these three options but 

12 I am going to go through them very quickly, 

13 reiterating what I said before about those 

14 three options. 

15 This is option one and here is the 

16 original definition in the published NOPR. 

17 Here is option two, a revised definition where 

18 refrigeration systems in a basic model could 

19 not have any design changes that affect energy 

20 consumption. And here is option three, which 

21 is the absence of a basic model provision. 

22 And here are our comments. We 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 157

1 realize that given the previous discussion on 

2 envelopes that some of you may think that the 

3 same approach that we took for envelope, 

4 considering the individual components could be 

5 applied to refrigeration system basic model 

6 and we will take comments on that as well. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Harmon? 

8 MR. LEWIS: Within the walk-in 

9 industry, a lot of us, or most of us do sell 

10 refrigeration. We sell it with like 74 

11 percent of the cold rooms that we sell. With 

12 those, we are going to buy a condensing unit 

13 that is rated at a certain capacity of BTUs, 

14 it has a certain energy draw per hour of 

15 operation. We make that in with the 

16 evaporator coil, mounted inside the walk-in 

17 that is rated at a certain rating. It has a 

18 certain draw. And you know what the energy 

19 consumption will be on that and you have to 

20 size it an 18 hour a day run time and freezers 

21 with electric defrosters. We do it at 16 

22 hours in coolers because of the air defrost. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 158

1 So the science is sitting there for 

2 what that will draw. But we sell over 200 

3 condensing units, each one with seven 

4 different evaporators that can go with it. So 

5 you can't test every one of these and be in 

6 business. 

7 But again, I think you go back to 

8 the component tree. Copeland and Tecumseh, 

9 Bohn, Heatcraft, and Russell, all the other 

10 major manufacturers rate their own systems. 

11 And we have been doing that for the 30 years 

12 that I have been around. And people have got 

13 to be reputable or they don't stay in 

14 business. So, the math is already there to 

15 tell us what it is on ever system. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl. 

17 MR. ERBS: Daryl Erbs. And just 

18 to, I guess, continue on that point. My 

19 interpretation of basic model on refrigeration 

20 is a unit cooler can be considered a basic 

21 model. It is not the combination of the unit 

22 cooler and the condensing unit, that each one 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 159

1 of them could be considered a basic model. 

2 And so it is not necessary to test all of the 

3 mix-matched combinations between unit coolers 

4 and condensing units but in fact just within 

5 those basic models for those individual parts 

6 to the system, which I think help simplify. 

7 And then the other comment is the 

8 definition which says any change that would 

9 have any effect on performance, I would say it 

10 is impractical. In fact, you know, we can 

11 build two identical refrigeration units using 

12 exactly the same components and they won't 

13 have exactly the same performance because 

14 there are tolerances in the individual parts 

15 that go into them. DOE recognizes this 

16 already in other performance standards. And 

17 that there is a tolerance allowed to the 

18 manufacturer. 

19 MS. LEGETT: Can you specify what 

20 the tolerance is? 

21 MR. ERBS: It is typically five 

22 percent. And so that allows for those 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 160

1 manufacturing tolerance variations that would 

2 affect the performance of any basic model, 

3 even if the components don't change. If a 

4 manufacturer were to put different options 

5 into a basic model that are small enough that 

6 they don't drive the performance outside of 

7 that normal statistical distribution of 

8 performance, then we don't feel that we should 

9 have to test it just because it has got a 

10 filter dryer in or it has a different type of 

11 service valve or some other component that 

12 materially doesn't affect performance. 

13 MS. LEGETT: Thank you. Would 

14 anyone else like to either back up or disagree 

15 with the five percent tolerance or propose a 

16 different one? 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Ellis? 

18 MR. CRAIG: Well, I like his idea 

19 that you know, I am sure it won't cover 100 

20 percent and I am sure that it won't be exact. 

21 But the more exact we get on this, the more 

22 money gets involved. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 161

1 If we do what Harmon said, we don't 

2 have to do testing because the testing is all 

3 done. They don't, Russell, Bohn don't have to 

4 go in and do all their testing because their 

5 testing is done. So we can take those things, 

6 we can run it through a little formula 

7 calculator that says we are designing this 

8 system. We pulled this coil, we pulled this 

9 evaporator, we put this expansion valve with 

10 it. Right? It is not going to be as exact as 

11 if we put the unit altogether and spend $5,000 

12 testing it but it will be a lot better than us 

13 putting 70 percent of the small businesses out 

14 of business here, at least out of the 

15 refrigeration business that we are going to do 

16 if we start testing every model or even test 

17 basic models at $5,000 a whack. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

19 Ira? 

20 MR. RICHTER: Yes, I will comment 

21 on the five percent. That is pretty typical. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Microphone. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 162

1 MR. RICHTER: I'm sorry. I think 

2 the five percent is pretty typical in America. 

3 I think Europe is a little higher. I think it 

4 is eight percent in Europe. 

5 From our standpoint, I like the 

6 idea of the basic model. The idea that every 

7 time we add a filter or a dryer, we have to 

8 retest is just unrealistic. And even if we 

9 did, the ratings would be so complicated 

10 because you would have so many permutations 

11 that the end user couldn't understand it. 

12 I think what would be beneficial 

13 would be perhaps like a two-tier system where 

14 the DOE would define what a basic model is so 

15 that we are not comparing apples to oranges. 

16 An example would be a condensing unit, 

17 something like a suction filter will have a 

18 very minimal effect on capacity. But I think 

19 it is important that everybody has that in 

20 their basic unit, so the end user can have a 

21 valid comparison. 

22 And then on top of that, you give 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 163

1 us the ability to promote those things that 

2 are unique to our company that help energy. 

3 So if we want to have the basic unit and then 

4 a premium unit, we can have a rating for both. 

5 MS. LEGETT: Thank you. So I am 

6 hearing a refrigeration system, a basic model 

7 should have certain components that are common 

8 to all manufacturers who are doing this test? 

9 MR. RICHTER: Well, I think to make 

10 a valid comparison from an end user, yes, you 

11 need to have some sort of consistency. 

12 MS. LEGETT: Okay and perhaps maybe 

13 not list all those out right now. But if you 

14 could provide either a list or some diagram or 

15 some indication of what you believe those 

16 common components should be, that would be 

17 very helpful. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: And you would expect 

19 that there would be those common elements 

20 typically and that would be the basis upon 

21 which there would be the testing. 

22 Yes, Charles Llenza. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 164

1 MR. LLENZA: This is Charles 

2 Llenza, Department of Energy. 

3 In terms of the field testing, we 

4 are talking basically is there more than just 

5 an infiltration test? Is that pretty much it? 

6 MR. CRAIG: You're talking -- you 

7 are going back. Right? 

8 MR. LLENZA: Yes, I am going back. 

9 It is assembled. Say you are doing -- 

10 MR. CRAIG: The only one test that 

11 we have in here that we have to do is we have 

12 the infiltration test. 

13 MR. LLENZA: Right. 

14 MR. CRAIG: Other than that, it is 

15 the R-value of the insulation right now. 

16 MR. LLENZA: So but what I am just 

17 saying, if we went to this component level 

18 certification site and we go and say okay, 

19 what we really think is if this is assembled 

20 correctly, you could come up with an 

21 infiltration test that then basically 

22 certifies it. It is assembled, based on what 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 165

1 infiltration numbers you get or whatever. 

2 Would that be sufficient to maybe certify it 

3 on the field that it is put together right? 

4 Is that basically the basic issue? 

5 I mean, if you have all these 

6 efficient components, is the infiltration test 

7 sort of critical at that point? 

8 MR. CRAIG: Well, on a 

9 refrigeration system, it is not involved with 

10 infiltration. It is a completely different 

11 closed system. I mean, it is closed. It is 

12 not going to have any of that load on it. 

13 What its load is going to be is its efficiency 

14 of taking the heat and taking it out of the 

15 walk-in. 

16 And what we are saying is, that 

17 coil comes on and says it will operate at this 

18 BTU. The condensing comes on and says it will 

19 operate at this BTU, meaning how much BTU and 

20 at what efficiency. And operating at that, I 

21 think the design in Heatcraft may be able to 

22 help me on that. But I think they are talking 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 166

1 about they run it at about 90 percent 

2 efficiency or something like that. Isn't that 

3 what you guys are coming up with? 

4 MR. LLENZA: I'm sorry? 

5 MR. CRAIG: Ninety percent 

6 efficiency. If you are running a compressor -

7 - In other words, if you run at 100 percent, 

8 you can get 100 percent of the BUT per watt. 

9 Nothing is running at 100 percent but they 

10 know how much percentage off that is. 

11 So pretty much if you have a BTU 

12 rating out there, they can give you a pretty 

13 close estimate at how much power it is using 

14 because they know the efficiency it runs at. 

15 We could use those numbers and tell you pretty 

16 close how much BTU we are going to get per 

17 watt out of that refrigeration system that we 

18 put together, which simplifies all this 

19 testing thing. It has already been tested 

20 once. We are going to turn around, put it all 

21 together and test it again. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Harvey Sachs. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 167

1 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. Thank 

2 you. I want to comment on two areas on the 

3 refrigeration side now. The first would be to 

4 thank AHRI for the hard work in developing the 

5 1250, which is a tremendous start toward 

6 addressing some of these issues. But at the 

7 same time, it is a start in that it addresses 

8 load, rather than energy. We do not yet have 

9 part load parameters and we would expect much 

10 of this equipment to be operating under part 

11 load most of its duty cycle, particularly for 

12 units that are not doing a whole lot of pull 

13 down. 

14 The second point I want to make is 

15 quite independent from that is we would be 

16 supportive of the base model approach but we 

17 think the base model has to be defined and 

18 because I am not a specialist in the area, I 

19 have got to use the metaphors that work for 

20 me. 

21 Base model ought to include those 

22 components which have a reasonable probability 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 168

1 that it will be fitted and could impact the 

2 energy used by, for example, increasing 

3 suction pressure. These would be things like 

4 filter dryers that impose a pressure drop, 

5 service valve changes using the most 

6 restrictive service valves, in terms of they 

7 are cutting the flow as we build that basic 

8 model, so the manufacturers have some 

9 incentive -- Well, I'm not sure that is the 

10 right way. 

11 We need to do it so there is an 

12 incentive to include the proper equipment and 

13 to drive toward greater efficiency. And I am 

14 not sure how to balance that but Karim will 

15 instruct me. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Karim. 

17 MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. I 

18 think DOE has already definitions for basic 

19 model groups for other products. Residential 

20 central air, for example, is a product for 

21 which there is a different issue. And it is a 

22 broad definition which has been fine. It has 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 169

1 worked very well. So I am not sure. I think 

2 the original definition that you had is 

3 probably appropriate for basic model groups. 

4 It is broad enough and we don't want to be 

5 specific as to what should be in the basic 

6 model groups, as far as design requirements. 

7 So I would urge DOE not to go too 

8 much to details in defining its basic model 

9 groups. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Daryl. 

11 MR. ERBS: Yes, I just wanted to 

12 comment. Harry or Harvey indicated that 1250 

13 doesn't consider part load. In fact it does. 

14 It will deal with compressor unloading. It 

15 will deal with fan speed changes. It will 

16 deal with everything that I think is currently 

17 identified as potential technology done at a 

18 basic level. 

19 So I think we have covered pretty 

20 thoroughly the question of part load and how 

21 that affects efficiency. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Jon. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 170

1 MR. McHUGH: I would actually like 

2 to congratulate AHRI on 1250. And what is 

3 interesting is, you know, I have heard a 

4 couple of times that we have these fantastic 

5 models and great ratings. You know, it is 

6 just a little bit of math and we really 

7 understand things well. 

8 Prior to the development of 1250, 

9 we actually had a fairly large error 

10 associated with the rating of compressors and 

11 condensers with the assumption of a 65 return 

12 gas temperature. And as a manufacturer, you 

13 probably realize that that is pretty far off 

14 from the return gas temperature. That can 

15 lead to capacity overestimates of 30 percent. 

16 So you know, the current state of 

17 the art is not state of the art. We are 

18 getting there. So you know, in general, 

19 because there is life safety, you know, at 

20 risk, the system are oversized, which is 

21 appropriate. You know, to make sure that we 

22 don't damage product and risk health. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 171

1 If you look at the issue of the 16 

2 hour runtime when you actually monitor many of 

3 these systems, the run time is actually around 

4 40 percent. So, you know, which is reasonable 

5 that it would oversized. And of course the 

6 issues about part load are important. And I 

7 commend the committee for trying to address 

8 the issues with part load. 

9 I am concerned about the concept of 

10 having a rating that is not verified, that is 

11 not third-party. I think it creates a great 

12 incentive for innovation, that we have real 

13 numbers that are verified. There are what we 

14 call commercialized ratings now. And actually 

15 kind of luckily because of the errors 

16 associated with the 65 degree return gas 

17 temperature, the coil ratings are likely also 

18 commercialized and probably close, you know, 

19 that there are some offsetting errors. 

20 So it wouldn't be a good idea to 

21 fix one side and not the other. And I think 

22 the third party ratings are very important. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 172

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Ellis. 

2 MR. CRAIG: I don't agree. I mean, 

3 I agree with you 100 percent. And that new 

4 test program, and I was on the committee 

5 partially, you know, but the concern that I 

6 have is I think we ought to take the results 

7 of what you found out and apply it to improve 

8 the exist system that we are doing without 

9 amplifying all the cost and testing that is 

10 going to add to our product line. 

11 What it is going to do, it is going 

12 to put anybody that is a small manufacturer 

13 out of business on the refrigeration side of 

14 it. You will then have to order his 

15 refrigeration from somebody else who is large 

16 enough to pay this added expense. 

17 I would like to see it so that we 

18 could take your improvements or your things 

19 you found out and apply them to our existing 

20 systems and make it simple to come up with 

21 fairly close recommendations or fairly close 

22 accurate, within plus or minus five percent or 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 173

1 whatever it is, that represents real life. 

2 Obviously, the walk-in has to 

3 represent real life when we do these 

4 calculations over here. We should do the same 

5 thing with refrigeration. But the test that 

6 we have developed is costly for us to send it 

7 out as a third-party to do. It is basically 

8 when you consider all of the variables that 

9 our customers are asking for and now we are 

10 going to have to tell them no we can't do that 

11 because I can't afford to swing $5,000 to test 

12 that product. Whereas, with this basic system 

13 improved on the things you found out, we can 

14 calculate it. I am saying yes, we can do that 

15 but here is how much it is going to cost. If 

16 we do that it won't meet EISA or we can push 

17 toward that. 

18 And as I understand it, the more 

19 efficient the refrigeration system is, the 

20 less efficient the walk-in has to be to meet 

21 the standards that you are going to require 

22 somewhere down the line. It does. It may 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 174

1 take the maximum but today you have said that 

2 you are probably not going to pick the maximum 

3 standards all the way around. You are going 

4 to pick a standard. You are going to pick a 

5 standard that has some flexibility. 

6 Obviously, I may want to go to a 

7 better walk-in R-value and you can balance the 

8 system out and you can pick and choose how to 

9 provide the best acceptable walk-in to that 

10 customer for the dollar he is going to be 

11 spending. Because he doesn't, honestly I am 

12 going to be honest with you, unless you are a 

13 chain, he doesn't care about these things. He 

14 just cares how much he is paying. That is 

15 what he is worried about. How much does it 

16 cost me to buy this walk-in? 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Charles Llenza. 

18 MR. LLENZA: Charles Llenza, 

19 Department of Energy. Just a preview on the 

20 standards and how we set those. 

21 What we will come out is with a 

22 max, what we call a max tech standard, which 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 175

1 is all the bells and whistles, no matter what 

2 the cost is. Then we start looking on ways to 

3 scale it down until we find a point where it 

4 is technologically feasible and economically 

5 justified. So basically, we don't pick the 

6 max tech but we usually scale it down to, and 

7 we will stop at a point where we weigh in the 

8 factors of the small businesses and the cost 

9 of the industry, etcetera, etcetera. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: As you are 

11 considering different product classes. 

12 MR. LLENZA: Right, as we break it 

13 down into different classes. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. You are next. 

15 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. Just two 

16 quick questions about the refrigeration 

17 systems. 

18 The first, is it generally true 

19 that refrigeration systems are sold as a 

20 complete system or is it often the case that 

21 contractors are purchasing, for example, the 

22 condenser and evaporator units separately? 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 176

1 And in that latter, case, who would be the 

2 responsible party for testing and 

3 certification? 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Ellis. 

5 MR. CRAIG: That is a great point 

6 because that is a question I have. 

7 Right now, we sell packages, I 

8 guess you could say, that include a condensing 

9 unit, a compressor, an expansion valve, a 

10 timer, whatever, and we send that out. My 

11 understanding is that business is going to 

12 stop immediately, unless we put that all 

13 together and test it under the regs you have 

14 got right here right now and verify that it is 

15 going to perform to a certain thing and then 

16 we can sell it. 

17 The problem is -- 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: You have to ship it 

19 as a complete unit. 

20 MR. CRAIG: Well, we would ship it 

21 in boxes. We wouldn't have to assemble it, 

22 from what I understand but we would have to 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 177

1 ship it in a way that if they assemble it 

2 under the correct procedure by a licensed 

3 refrigeration person, that it would perform 

4 the way when I assembled it in my plant, that 

5 is kind of like the walk-in. You know, we are 

6 saying the walk-in performs this way. The guy 

7 in the field has to put it together and it has 

8 to perform the same way. 

9 But refrigeration guys out in the 

10 field will not buy the product from me if I 

11 add that extra cost on. They will just go 

12 down to the wholesaler and buy the system in 

13 parts, put it together themselves and sell it. 

14 And no one is going to buy refrigeration from 

15 us because if they can go down, refrigeration 

16 contractors especially will go down and buy it 

17 from a wholesaler. And the wholesaler is not 

18 required to test this unit assembled. He is 

19 selling parts. 

20 So, it puts us at a tremendous 

21 economic disadvantage here that we have 

22 regulations affecting us that our competitors 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 178

1 technically don't. And your end result is 

2 going to be you are going to have product out 

3 in a field that doesn't meet EISA 

4 requirements. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon. 

6 MR. McHUGH: So I think the 

7 proposed, well one of the things I have been 

8 proposing here is that you wouldn't actually 

9 have to put each of those pieces together, 

10 that you get each of those pieces to be tested 

11 so each individual component complies. Then 

12 you wouldn't have the added expense of every 

13 permutation of condenser coil and compressor. 

14 You would test those separately and each part 

15 of those passed and then the overall system 

16 would pass. 

17 Does that satisfy your concern 

18 about cost? 

19 MR. CRAIG: That satisfies my 

20 concern about us not having to test every 

21 system. That is wonderful. That is the way I 

22 would like to see it go. And I am sure most 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 179

1 manufacturers and your walk-in guys would 

2 agree with that. 

3 The problem I have is the only way 

4 that would work is if the wholesalers are 

5 brought into this so that when they sell their 

6 systems, they have to have the same 

7 information and requirements as I do. 

8 Otherwise, this system is not going to work. 

9 It is happening right now. We are 

10 selling walk-ins that they are going down to 

11 the wholesaler and buying non-EISA compliant 

12 fan motors on equipment and they are bringing 

13 them in and putting them in all day long 

14 because they are $300 cheaper. 

15 MR. McHUGH: Right. So ideally, 

16 where the situation would be is that the 

17 distributor would be selling. You know, they 

18 would have their catalogue and it would say 

19 EISA compliant or whatever. You know, walk-in 

20 compliant compressors. And then at that 

21 point, the contractor, by purchasing something 

22 that is not labeled as EISA compliant is 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 180

1 breaking the law. 

2 MR. CRAIG: Except that under the 

3 definition we have as a manufacturer right 

4 now, he is not included. So he has no 

5 requirements. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Charles Llenza. 

7 MR. LLENZA: Yes, my understand is 

8 if, and maybe just even correct me here, is 

9 that if I am selling a component like a motor 

10 for a new walk-in cooler as of January 1, 2010 

11 here, they are not supposed to be selling 

12 anything other than what is prescribed. 

13 MR. CRAIG: That is true. But in 

14 reality you are worrying about is this really 

15 going to happen out here in the field. It is 

16 not happening out in the field. 

17 MR. LLENZA: Well if we find out, I 

18 mean, what we will end up doing is we will 

19 investigate and we will send somebody. 

20 I mean we have a very active 

21 enforcement group here now and they are just 

22 waiting to hear from -- 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 181

1 MR. CRAIG: Who do they want to 

2 hear from? 

3 MR. LLENZA: Because the prescribed 

4 requirements are part of what now has become 

5 mandated. So -- 

6 MR. LEWIS: The wholesaler 

7 distribution chain is so diverse and spread 

8 that they won't get caught? 

9 MR. CRAIG: You do realize that the 

10 wholesaler is going to say ‘‘he didn't tell me 

11 this was going on a new walk-in.’’ The 

12 refrigeration guy is going to say ‘‘I didn't 

13 know it had to go on a new walk-in.’’ Or he is 

14 going to say I told him it was going on a new 

15 walk-in. And no one is going to know that 

16 unless we report him because the end user is 

17 not going to report him because he wants to 

18 buy a $300 cheaper refrigeration system. 

19 So I know it sounds good on paper 

20 but in reality, this will never work. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve. 

22 MR. COMBS: One of the things, one 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 182

1 of the issues that is inherent to this overall 

2 issue is the fact that geographic differences 

3 from one side of the country to the other. If 

4 within this standard, if the standard is set, 

5 not only does this standard have to include 

6 the definition of a basic model system, but it 

7 also needs to include a standard set of 

8 parameters against which these basic models 

9 will be tested. 

10 So, if we say they have got to be 

11 tested like most condensing unit manufacturers 

12 95 degrees ambient and whatever the suction 

13 temperature is, whether it be a cooler or a 

14 freezer, what is to say that these components, 

15 individually, will all be certified, meet the 

16 requirements. But yet when I send one out to 

17 southern Texas or southern California, and it 

18 is at 120 degree ambient, now I have gone into 

19 an application where this system may or may 

20 not be compliant anymore as far as the overall 

21 energy consumption at the end of the day on 

22 this entire assembled unit. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 183

1 MR. GRIFE: There is also how many 

2 times you send it out there where you don't 

3 know where it is going. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, David. Thank 

5 you. Keep going. 

6 MR. GRIFE: I said to a dealer in 

7 New York, many of us who quote dealers at the 

8 very beginning do not even know who the end 

9 user is. The dealer wants to make sure you do 

10 not know, for whatever reason. We have been 

11 fighting hard on our back end under warranty 

12 saying we need to know the end user because if 

13 an issue comes up, we don't know who the end 

14 user is. So when they call and they say open 

15 the door and let me know the serial number and 

16 I will see if I sold it to somebody that was 

17 my dealer. So somebody could buy in New York 

18 and it ends up in Texas; buys it in Texas, 

19 ends up in Alaska. Especially now because 

20 dealers are selling all over and now we even 

21 talked about the internet, what is happening 

22 with that. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 184

1 So it is just making it harder and 

2 harder and more cumbersome. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve. 

4 MR. COMBS: So again, this just 

5 reiterates the nonlinearity of this basic 

6 model concept. 

7 I mean there is nothing wrong with 

8 the basic model testing concept but the 

9 application of it and the provisions for 

10 scaling it need to be in there. They need to 

11 be specific and they need to be practical. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: And if they are 

13 specific, is it possible, given the 

14 variability? 

15 MR. COMBS: That is the burning 

16 question. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Karim. 

18 MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. I 

19 guess this issue of temperature location is 

20 true for any other product regulated by DOE. 

21 I mean, what you do, you test it at standard 

22 rating condition. That is all you can do. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 185

1 I mean it is true for anything 

2 else. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thanks Karim. 

4 Okay. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Harmon? 

6 MR. LEWIS: Real quick on there. 

7 ASHRAE also has numbers where you can factor 

8 down performance of the condensing unit based 

9 on the ambient and it will have a great 

10 effect. 

11 Again, hopefully this modeling is 

12 that the condensing unit manufacturer like a 

13 Copeland or Tecumseh, or if it is Heatcraft, 

14 Bohn, or Russell, that is making the whole 

15 condensing unit, they need to be the certifier 

16 of their capacities, not International Cold 

17 Storage or American Panel and Arctic and Craig 

18 and everybody else. Because they are going to 

19 sell it to all of us. It is all going to work 

20 the same way because it has its same capacity. 

21 The same way with all the evaporator coils. 

22 That manufacturer needs to do the testing and 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 186

1 certification because when he sells it to us, 

2 it is going to work the same in every walk-in 

3 at its capacity. 

4 MS. LEGETT: Doug, I want to follow 

5 up with that and -- sorry. Rebecca. 

6 I want to follow up with that and 

7 ask if there are component manufacturers in 

8 the room, either the manufacturers themselves 

9 or representatives of those manufacturers who 

10 would like to comment on that and either 

11 support or not. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Karim? 

13 MR. AMRANE: Support what? 

14 MS. LEGETT: Support what Harmon 

15 just said, that the component manufacturers 

16 should be responsible for this testing and 

17 rating and not the manufacturers of the walk18 ins. 

19 MR. AMRANE: I agree. I think it 

20 makes sense for the manufacturers to be in 

21 control. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks Karim. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 187

1 MS. LEGETT: Thank you. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Aris. 

3 MR. MARANTAN: Just to clarify on 

4 that exact point, I think what I am hearing is 

5 that the manufacturers of components of 

6 refrigerations would be responsible for rating 

7 their equipment. Is that what you are 

8 agreeing to? The components themselves, 

9 piece-wise, meaning the unit coolers, the 

10 condensing units separately. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: I wouldn't 

12 characterize this as agreement yet but we are 

13 getting comment. Karim, is that what you 

14 meant? 

15 MR. AMRANE: Again, I mean if you 

16 look at the standard 1250, we are rating a 

17 combination of indoor and outdoor units. So 

18 again, to the extent that we have extended it, 

19 we will rate the combination. And we could do 

20 it like we were doing it for residential 

21 central air, where you have the OEMs that make 

22 both and they are responsible for the combined 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 188

1 rating and you have the third-parties that 

2 make just the indoor unit and they rate with a 

3 condensing unit and they are responsible for 

4 that rating as well. 

5 So again, it depends on who is 

6 selling what. But it should be the 

7 responsibility of, I think the combined. I 

8 think the combined rating, that is what DOE is 

9 interested in, is the condensing unit coupled 

10 with the indoor coil that has to be somehow 

11 regulated. 

12 MR. MARANTAN: Is there any plans 

13 to have some kind of directory similar to 

14 residential central air conditioning? 

15 MR. AMRANE: We are in the process 

16 here. Again, we started with the standard. 

17 Again, it is going to depend on the 

18 manufacturers and what they want to do in the 

19 future. But that is a possibility. I am not 

20 saying that is going to happen. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl. 

22 MR. ERBS: Yes, Daryl Erbs. Just, 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 189

1 I mean I think we are getting a little bit 

2 ahead in that we are now starting to talk 

3 about the performance standard and the 

4 enforcement regulations. What we have created 

5 so far is a way to test that allows the 

6 individual unit cooler and condensing unit to 

7 be tested individually and the performance of 

8 any match of those two parts to be calculated 

9 fairly easily. 

10 And then it is a question of how do 

11 you need to get to the point of before someone 

12 sells a unit cooler with a condensing unit, 

13 some way of knowing whether it conforms to 

14 some minimum efficiency level. And I think 

15 that goes into the performance rulemaking, 

16 which if I heard earlier today has to be done 

17 by 2012. 

18 We have a way of testing that will 

19 support any combination of directories or who 

20 is responsible. I don't know that that needs 

21 to be defined to agree on how we test. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Harvey Sachs. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 190

1 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. Like 

2 Daryl, I am a little concerned that we may get 

3 ahead of ourselves. In particular, I am not 

4 hearing a consensus on the term component 

5 because I am hearing that as meaning 

6 condensing unit and unit cooler from some of 

7 the AHRI members. I am hearing Mr. McHugh 

8 refer to this as the level of an expansion 

9 valve and a compressor. 

10 And I am not trying to say one is 

11 right and one is wrong but I think when we get 

12 into thinking about a performance measure at 

13 the end of the day, it is pretty important to 

14 understand what we mean by component because 

15 that will determine what we mean by 

16 performance measure for the refrigeration 

17 side. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Ellis. 

19 MR. CRAIG: My concern, and we are 

20 hearing, and I am a little confused and maybe 

21 other people are too, but I came into this 

22 meeting with the assumption that under these 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 191

1 new regulations we put a whole system together 

2 and we tested it. It had to meet a certain 

3 standard somewhere down the road that is going 

4 to be established. 

5 We are expressing the fact that we 

6 don't, as walk-in manufacturers, don't want to 

7 go out and build a whole bunch of units and 

8 test them because it is quite expensive. You 

9 are talking about $250,000 for us when we, at 

10 least I would like to do is like you said, be 

11 able to have the suppliers of products to us 

12 tell us their performance characteristics, 

13 have a module that I put those characteristics 

14 in and it tells me the performance of the 

15 system. Now I don't have an expense. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: You would like to do 

17 a calculation. 

18 MR. CRAIG: Yes, I calculate that 

19 thing. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 

21 MR. CRAIG: And now I can have, I 

22 can run ten different coils. I can run all 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 192

1 these different options without having to -- 

2 You know, my customers now out there can say 

3 oh, I would like to have this. Okay, I need a 

4 low profile coil or a low velocity coil 

5 because it is going to a floral application. 

6 Now I have to spend another $5,000 to make a 

7 system, under the way this is proposing. 

8 I would rather just go over, get it 

9 from Heatcraft, plug it into my formula, it 

10 pops out and says this is the efficiency level 

11 and is that acceptable or not. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

13 Clarification? 

14 MR. CRAIG: I am hearing two 

15 different things but I don't like this system. 

16 I like that system. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, so I think we 

18 have heard that comment now several times. 

19 That is good. 

20 Harvey do you want to follow on? 

21 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey Sachs 

22 again. Just a clarification, Ellis. I am 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 193

1 still not quite sure. Am I hearing you say 

2 you would like to have Heatcraft or Emerson or 

3 the other refrigeration suppliers tell you 

4 that this is a specification for a system that 

5 complies with the refrigeration requirements 

6 of EISA? 

7 MR. CRAIG: No. 

8 MR. SACHS: No. Okay, that is not. 

9 So they would take the responsibility for a 

10 low velocity coil versus a high velocity coil 

11 and things like that. That is not what you 

12 want. 

13 MR. CRAIG: What I am saying is, 

14 the way I understood your question was you 

15 were saying do I want Heatcraft to take 

16 responsibility for the whole system. 

17 MR. SACHS: No, sir. That is not 

18 what I said. 

19 MR. CRAIG: Okay, I misunderstood 

20 you. 

21 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. What I 

22 am asking is it seems to me that the DOE's 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 194

1 proposal on the table is to ask Craig 

2 Industries to be responsible for the 

3 performance of the envelope walk-in -- 

4 MR. CRAIG: Right. 

5 MR. SACHS: -- and to ask Heatcraft 

6 to be responsible for the performance of the 

7 refrigeration system. You tell them what you 

8 want in terms of the parameters and it is 

9 their responsibility. 

10 MR. CRAIG: The problem with that 

11 right now, we may buy a condensing unit from 

12 Heatcraft and we might buy a coil from 

13 Russell. Okay? We don't have to buy all of 

14 our product from the same manufacturer. 

15 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. Now in 

16 the analogous case that Karim has pointed out 

17 of the residential air conditioner, that coil 

18 manufacturer, Russell in this case, would have 

19 the responsibility of certifying that when 

20 combined with Heatcraft's condensing unit, it 

21 does comply. 

22 MR. CRAIG: That is not what we are 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 195

1 asking. We are asking them to give us the 

2 performance parameters of that coil. 

3 Heatcraft gives us the performance 

4 characteristics of the condensing unit. And 

5 we with a module that we plug these numbers 

6 into, come up with the efficiency rating of 

7 that combination. 

8 We take the responsibility that it 

9 either meets or doesn't, according to the 

10 information that they are giving us. That is 

11 what I am saying. 

12 MR. SACHS: I think I understand 

13 now. So you are basically -- again Harvey 

14 Sachs -- asking to become responsibility as 

15 the integrators and that includes a basic 

16 refrigeration engineering responsibility. 

17 MR. CRAIG: Well, assuming that 

18 this module that we plug all this into is 

19 approved by the DOE, which we would all have 

20 to use the same one again, like we do on the 

21 walk-ins, that it says if the performance of 

22 the coil is this, the performance of the 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 196

1 compressor is this, the performance of the 

2 expansion valve and the different things we 

3 add on of the basic unit, of the basic options 

4 we are going to put here a list of options, it 

5 will perform according to this, then we would 

6 take on that responsibility. But they 

7 wouldn't say well I can't be responsible for 

8 my condensing unit working with Russell's coil 

9 because they won't do that. 

10 MR. SACHS: Again Harvey Sachs. I 

11 appreciate this and I think it is getting 

12 toward one of our concerns at ACEEE. 

13 Let's assume that all this happens 

14 but now Warren at Emerson has this new super 

15 duper new cycloceramic injector that replaces 

16 a whole bunch of other stuff and gives higher 

17 efficiency. How does he document that if we 

18 have a component-based specification and he is 

19 not using those components? 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Well the thing is, 

21 as I understand, this is not a lock down, we 

22 reached this efficiency on your standards that 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 197

1 you are coming out with and they will change 

2 as we go and new technologies come out and 

3 efficiency levels go up, I am sure you will be 

4 modifying those. 

5 So if a new technology came along 

6 that increases 20 percent, all the DOE has to 

7 do is modify their part of it, requiring -- 

8 Go ahead. 

9 MR. LLENZA: Well, this is Charles 

10 Llenza, Department of Energy. 

11 We actually provide you paths to 

12 get to that level. And usually we provide 

13 examples but we do not predetermine what 

14 particular pieces or components you have to 

15 use to get to that level. 

16 So if something new comes on the 

17 market which helps you save energy and you can 

18 then mix it with other components, it is the 

19 total effect of the mixture of the components 

20 that we are concerned about, not necessarily 

21 the technology. So we don't really have to do 

22 anything as long as you are not reaching the 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 198

1 ceiling that we set. 

2 MR. CRAIG: Ellis Craig. I think 

3 what you are worried about is what is the 

4 incentive for us to add this new item if it 

5 costs $10 more, if the items we are presently 

6 using meet your requirements over here. 

7 And the only thing I can say to 

8 that is if it is very costly, nothing is going 

9 to happen in our industry to make it more 

10 efficient, unless it comes from outside, 

11 either by an end user, which usually unless 

12 you are a chain account, end users are not 

13 going to be worrying about their energy bills. 

14 Otherwise, this would be a moot point here or 

15 might be really pushing it and it isn't. 

16 So it will have to come from 

17 without to have a pressure on what is capable 

18 of being done in the industry. But we will 

19 definitely, using this item, if we can save 

20 money over there, we may be able to do 

21 something different over here that we couldn't 

22 do before. So it opens that up but it will 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 199

1 still use the same energy footprint. 

2 So there is no incentive in it to 

3 improve it. But even if we use the test that 

4 you have, there is no incentive for us to go 

5 beyond what this requirement is over here. 

6 Even if they come out with new items and your 

7 test works great, there is no incentive to do 

8 it. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's hear from 

10 Daryl. 

11 MR. ERBS: Yes, I just wanted to 

12 try to clarify once again that you know, what 

13 is in the proposed rulemaking is to adopt an 

14 AHRI standard. That standard doesn't define 

15 who is accountable for representing the 

16 performance of a mix-matched system. 

17 It could be that a refrigeration 

18 equipment manufacturer such as Heatcraft would 

19 want to do that but it is not necessarily that 

20 they are the only people that can do that. 

21 But there are tests that are defined for the 

22 unit cooler that provide data that is 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 200

1 sufficient when combined with anyone's 

2 condensing unit, which as long as it is tested 

3 appropriately, it has the data that the two of 

4 them could be matched together and what is 

5 important is that the individual manufacturers 

6 of each of those halves of the system have 

7 accurate representation of their equipment 

8 performance. 

9 And if they do it accurately and 

10 there is some accountability at that level, 

11 then when you put them together whether it be 

12 Ellis industries or Heatcraft that is going to 

13 rate the matched system, you will get an 

14 answer that represents how that system will 

15 perform. And that allows the flexibility that 

16 I think this industry needs to allow different 

17 companies to offer combinations that may come 

18 from a combination of suppliers. 

19 So I really think we have a way to 

20 handle it. And then it is just a question of 

21 how do you enforce it. That is always one of 

22 the big questions. But again, I think that is 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 201

1 beyond the scope of today's meeting. So I 

2 think we have it covered. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon first and then 

4 to Steve. 

5 MR. McHUGH: So just a 

6 clarification. My understanding is is that 

7 AHRI 1250 only allows mix-match for fixed 

8 output condensing units. So, you would 

9 actually have to test the entire system if you 

10 changed any of the components of any systems 

11 that are variable speed, two speed, et cetera. 

12 So that kind of goes back to Ellis' comments 

13 about the cost. 

14 So even though I appreciate the 

15 rigor that is involved in this complete 

16 approach, I think it is desirable from an 

17 enforcement point of view to look at setting 

18 standards for these major components. 

19 And in addition that there is 

20 probably so that you can apply these across 

21 multiple system configurations, that there 

22 also be particular requirements around for 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 202

1 instance if I do insert something like a 

2 headmaster valve, then all of a sudden I am 

3 not getting the floating head benefits. 

4 So, there are probably some 

5 specific prescriptive requirements in addition 

6 to the ability to combine these components and 

7 to maintain the competitive market. Thanks. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. And so AHRI 

9 does that in 1250. 

10 MR. McHUGH: Does not. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Doesn't. Okay. 

12 MR. McHUGH: Does not. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Steve. 

14 MR. DUNLAP: Go ahead Daryl, you go 

15 first. 

16 MR. ERBS: So I guess two things. 

17 One is if you took a condensing unit that 

18 didn't have a headmaster and you put a 

19 headmaster in, not the manufacturer, but 

20 someone out in the field, I would view that as 

21 being something that the manufacturer of that 

22 condensing unit would view as inappropriate, 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 203

1 voids the warranty. 

2 So you can't stop people from doing 

3 that but that is really to me to be an unusual 

4 circumstance. 

5 If the manufacturer makes two 

6 condensing units, one with the headmaster and 

7 one without, those are different basic models 

8 and they would have to be tested because that 

9 does affect the performance. 

10 The comment on we can't deal with 

11 mix matching a variable speed condensing unit 

12 to anyone's unit cooler is absolutely correct. 

13 I would expect that there will be future 

14 revisions to the AHRI standard as is required. 

15 Today, I don't think there is anyone who would 

16 be comfortable, besides the fact that there 

17 really aren't any variable speed condensing 

18 units on the market, but just ignoring that, 

19 you know, there is a lot more complexity in 

20 matching up a variable speed unit to someone 

21 else's unit cooler. 

22 And if there is enough demand for 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 204

1 that, I am sure that can be accommodated but 

2 today -- 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: I don't think we 

4 need to go any further into the weeds. Steve, 

5 go ahead. 

6 MR. DUNLAP: Well, he just took all 

7 my -- 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: He has prompted you 

9 to go there? Go ahead. 

10 MR. DUNLAP: Yes that is exactly 

11 what I was going to say is that when you start 

12 to mix match, a designer, he doesn't know what 

13 the pressure drops are on the end or side. 

14 And there is requirements. 

15 You may have a capacity number -- 

16 and this is for DOE. If you have never 

17 designed a refrigeration system, what you have 

18 got to understand is when you take X 

19 manufacturer and you have got a compressor 

20 manufacturer, you have to look at that indoor 

21 side. And now you have got a different 

22 velocity. It goes back into the variable 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 205

1 speed drives, the different flow rates. And 

2 you just don't have that kind of information. 

3 And most of the box manufacturers, I would 

4 suspect that they would not take a variable 

5 speed compressor and use someone else's indoor 

6 coil. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Got you. Okay. So 

8 a final comment or two. I am going to ask 

9 Rebecca if she has anything -- Harmon and then 

10 Rebecca if she has got anything final. You go 

11 ahead. 

12 MR. LEWIS: Yes, just one quick 

13 thing. As I understand thermodynamics and the 

14 compressor guys and the evaporator guys, we 

15 have got two curves. And now that we have got 

16 computers, computer does it all but the old 

17 days, you did your curve, you did your curve 

18 and that is where it balanced out. 

19 It is the same science, even when 

20 the computer picks it. So if you put the 

21 wrong evaporator coil with a condenser unit 

22 that has got too much or too little capacity, 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 206

1 it doesn't work right. 

2 So the real world proves this stuff 

3 out. So the stuff isn't going to be out there 

4 that won't work because if it doesn't work, it 

5 has got to be replaced. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Rebecca anything 

7 further? Any questions? 

8 MS. LEGETT: Thank you all for your 

9 comments and please feel free to submit more 

10 in writing, if you would like. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: So we are not as far 

12 along as we perhaps should be but we will make 

13 it up after lunch. I am going to suggest that 

14 we break for lunch. It is now 12:30. 

15 A bunch of us all together will go 

16 to the big cafeteria, which means you take the 

17 elevators. Wear your badge inside the 

18 building. You might need an ID to get back 

19 in. This room will be locked, so you can 

20 leave your stuff. 

21 Go down to the ground floor and 

22 walk maybe 100 yards, 75 yards at least to the 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 207

1 other side of the auditorium and then go up 

2 the escalators. We can all go together so no 

3 one will get lost. 

4 We will resume, it takes just about 

5 an hour to go there and eat and come back. So 

6 we will literally resume at 1:30 in this room. 

7 Questions and comments before we 

8 break? Yes. 

9 MR. VANDEVORT: If we wanted to 

10 drop off written comments, where should we 

11 place those? 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Hand them to Charles 

13 Llenza. 

14 For those of you who haven't signed 

15 in or given your contact information to Brenda 

16 Edwards who is seated out front, please do so. 

17 We need to have a record of who is here. 

18 We have made good progress today. 

19 We will make more progress after lunch. We 

20 will resume at 1:30. 

21 (Whereupon, at 12:32 a lunch recess 

22 was taken.) 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 208

1 AFTERNOON SESSION 

2 (1:34 p.m.) 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Let me just say we 

4 covered a lot of ground this morning, and I 

5 think it was a very productive conversation. 

6 I appreciate everybody being so forthcoming 

7 and direct in their comments. 

8 As we go into the afternoon, I 

9 think there may be an opportunity for us to 

10 retread that same ground. Let's not do that. 

11 Let's make sure that we go with new 

12 information. What we have done this morning 

13 is on the record, and also the department will 

14 enjoy seeing your detailed written remarks. 

15 So let's then go to Claire. 

16 MS. GAGNE: Welcome back, everyone. 

17 Just a procedural note. I will be 

18 introducing this topic and then handing it 

19 over to my colleague Eric. So don't be 

20 surprised when we change hands with this. 

21 I'm going to start talking about 

22 the proposed test procedure for the envelope 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 209

1 side of the equipment under consideration 

2 today for walk-in coolers and freezers. 

3 Just a very basic slide is an 

4 introduction. It seeks to sort of talk about 

5 the components that may go into the energy 

6 load calculations when we talk about energy 

7 load for the walk-in coolers or freezers. 

8 Most of you are familiar with this equipment. 

9 So I don't need to get into detail, but just 

10 to give you a sense of how the differences may 

11 play out even between these two pieces of 

12 equipment, clearly, they are both walk-in 

13 coolers or freezers, but they may have very 

14 different components at the individual level. 

15 So the test procedure at its 

16 30,000-foot perspective seeks to establish 

17 energy load, and it's the fundamental value 

18 that would go into a performance standard for 

19 envelopes from the DOE perspective. 

20 So how could this be determined? 

21 Well, DOE at present looks at it as a 

22 combination of conduction load, infiltration 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 210

1 load, and then something that we'll talk about 

2 as electricity. When we say that we really 

3 mean to say both the electrical load as well 

4 as the electrical heat load. So just a 

5 distinction. 

6 Each of these three can be broken 

7 down at the component level, which we've done 

8 here, at least provided some indication of how 

9 some of the components may fit in. Clearly 

10 there are the components that fit in as well. 

11 This is just representative but not 

12 exhaustive. 

13 And from a testing perspective, 

14 there are specific tests that are associated 

15 with certain pieces of the equipment or 

16 certain components. However, there are also 

17 calculations that may be embedded into either 

18 these tests or into other pieces of the energy 

19 load. From this level we're just presenting 

20 it as performance tests that are part of the 

21 test procedure, but that's to imply that there 

22 are also calculations. This can be seen with 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 211

1 the electrical devices that are over here on 

2 the right or, I guess, your left -- your 

3 right. 

4 Not all of these components that 

5 will factor into the energy load necessarily 

6 have performance tests, and this is just an 

7 example of that. 

8 So with that I'm going to provide 

9 an example of how one of these components 

10 might contribute to the overall energy load of 

11 the walk-in. It is not necessarily a 

12 straightforward process. That is to say it is 

13 not necessarily a one-to-one ratio of one 

14 component contributes to precisely one type of 

15 load. 

16 In the example of a glass door, 

17 clearly there is an infiltration load 

18 associated with the glass door. There may 

19 also be a heater wire attached to the glass 

20 door. So there is both a conduction load in 

21 the glass door, in addition to the 

22 infiltration, as well as if there's a heater 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 212

1 wire attached to the glass door an electrical 

2 load and an electrical heat load. 

3 So it's not a straightforward issue 

4 that we're dealing with here. I would expect 

5 it's not new information for most of you, but 

6 just as a way to start off the discussion, we 

7 wanted to present this so that we're clear 

8 about the level of complexity that we are 

9 talking about when we discuss the test 

10 procedure and the tests that are proposed by 

11 DOE as part of this test procedure. 

12 So with that, I'd like to kick off 

13 the first discussion item. It has to do with 

14 the normalization factor that DOE proposes to 

15 be used. In the framework public meeting, we 

16 got feedback and also understand that there 

17 are several options for normalizing the energy 

18 use that may include footprint, surface area, 

19 and volume. And DOE has proposed in the NOPR 

20 that the normalization factor be surface area 

21 corrected by a ratio of glass to non-glass. 

22 This is the calculation as proposed 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 213

1 in the NOPR, and with that I'll open it up to 

2 comment. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. Say 

4 your name. 

5 MR. McGOWAN: I'm Ray McGowan from 

6 the National Fenestration Rating Council. 

7 I'd like to make a comment. You 

8 keep speaking of conduction on the glass. 

9 With windows about half of the loss is 

10 radiated, you know. So there's significant 

11 loss, and I don't know if you're capturing 

12 that or not, but if these walk-in coolers have 

13 significant glass surface, you'll have to 

14 account for that. 

15 Are there plans to account for that 

16 in the calculations at all? 

17 MR. FITZ: This is Eric Fitz. 

18 We'll actually address that 

19 specifically later on in the slides. 

20 MR. McGOWAN: Okay. Thank you. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Eric. 

22 That's good. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 214

1 So then from the manufacturer's 

2 perspective, perhaps there's a place to start. 

3 Comments on this normalization factor equation 

4 or maybe beyond the equation? 

5 MS. GAGNE: The approach in 

6 general. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Harmon, yes. 

8 MR. LEWIS: Right. Harmon Lewis. 

9 Have you run these numbers to see 

10 what the effect is? In other words, we've 

11 got, you know, factors up there. If you've 

12 got 100 square feet of glass and 400 square 

13 feet of non-glass, what are you trying to 

14 achieve? 

15 MS. GAGNE: Eric, perhaps you can 

16 speak to that. 

17 MR. FITZ: So that exercise is 

18 really part of the standards development, that 

19 standards rulemaking process, and of course, 

20 the Department of Energy will run through that 

21 and understand what those values will be for 

22 specific product classes, but that's part of 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 215

1 the separate rulemaking process. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: You haven't done it 

3 yet. 

4 MR. FITZ: Exactly. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Ellis. 

6 MR. CRAIG: I have a simple thing. 

7 I have a question. This normalization factor, 

8 I think what you were saying is what are you 

9 doing. What are you trying to accomplish 

10 here? 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Eric. 

12 MR. FITZ: This is Eric Fitz. 

13 It really stems from the framework 

14 meeting where there was a lot of discussion 

15 about using some type of metric to normalize 

16 the energy consumption just to make it easier 

17 for other calculations related to the standard 

18 itself. 

19 MR. CRAIG: Yeah, but how does that 

20 relate to non-glass and glass? 

21 MR. FITZ: So since glass -- 

22 there's a heat load associated with glass 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 216

1 compared to the heat load associated with an 

2 insulated wall is significantly different. I 

3 think the Department of Energy will get into 

4 this in detail in the standards process, but 

5 there might be a good reason to make a 

6 distinction and sort of correct for the amount 

7 of glass on a walk-in. 

8 For example, if a walk-in was made 

9 entirely of glass -- and I think you'll 

10 recognize that, you know, nobody does that 

11 today -- but just to account for the 

12 possibility, you know, a loophole in the test 

13 procedure that would allow a manufacturer to 

14 do something such as that to avoid complying 

15 with the test procedure as intended by the 

16 Department of Energy. 

17 MR. CRAIG: Okay. So this 

18 normalization effect -- this is Ellis Craig -- 

19 normalization factor will limit the ability of 

20 a walk-in manufacturer to put too much glass 

21 compared to the insulated panel? 

22 MR. FITZ: No. It's just a way to 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 217

1 reflect the amount of glass that's actually 

2 there. It's sort of a clarifying metric. 

3 MS. GAGNE: I would agree with 

4 Eric. It's an attempt to use surface area and 

5 better reflect the composition of that surface 

6 area. 

7 MR. CRAIG: Well, technically at 

8 the present time we calculate a walk-in and we 

9 figure the square footage of the walk-in that 

10 has insulated panel and the square footage of 

11 a walk-in that has glass. Is this any 

12 different than what we're doing? 

13 MR. FITZ: I think this is a long 

14 discussion, and I think if you have specific 

15 comments on how it should be done, then -- 

16 MR. CRAIG: I won't hold you up. 

17 Never mind. 

18 MR. FITZ: -- we'll welcome those. 

19 Thank you. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Looking at the glass 

21 door manufacturers, does this make sense to 

22 you? 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 218

1 MR. DYE: As long -- Tim Dye -- as 

2 long as this is an attempt just to understand 

3 how much panel there is and how much glass 

4 there is, I would agree with that. If it goes 

5 beyond that, I think there is some major 

6 concerns. 

7 And just so we understand, glass is 

8 not glass. There are heated -- okay. 

9 MS. GAGNE: Perhaps just a follow10 up question. Can you elaborate on what you 

11 mean by "goes beyond"? That's a fairly vague 

12 term. 

13 MR. DYE: There again, you know, he 

14 made a comment that no one makes a walk-in out 

15 of all glass. That is true. However, if you 

16 go to a Sam's Club, they take a walk-in cooler 

17 or freezer and all three sides are loaded with 

18 glass, and then you have a huge drive-in door, 

19 not a walk-in door, but the panels are -- 

20 someone will have to help me here. What are 

21 they, 16, 18 feet? 

22 PARTICIPANT: Sixteen or 18 feet. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 219

1 MR. DYE: Sixteen, 18 feet. 

2 PARTICIPANT: Twenty. 

3 MR. DYE: So every thought process, 

4 you know, we need to be careful how we limit 

5 things because we have some very innovative 

6 customers. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Got you. Okay. 

8 Thank you. 

9 So additional? Jon, please. 

10 MR. McHUGH: So this all becomes 

11 moot, I expect, if you actually went to a 

12 component performance approach; is that 

13 correct? This is only if you're still trying 

14 to hit this overall kilowatt hours per cubic 

15 meter or something like that; is that correct? 

16 MS. GAGNE: I'd rather not 

17 speculate. 

18 (Laughter.) 

19 MR. McHUGH: Okay. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: No, I think we've 

21 revealed it's a complicated question here, 

22 right? 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 220

1 MR. McHUGH: Could you describe 

2 what Q tot EER means? 

3 MS. GAGNE: So the heat load -- oh. 

4 MR. FITZ: This is Eric Fitz. 

5 I think to go into it into detail 

6 you should review the test procedure itself, 

7 but it's essentially a total sum of the heat 

8 load associated with the -- in this case the 

9 non-glass components. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

11 Additional comments on this stream? 

12 Because I'm going to move us along here. 

13 Okay. Yes, Harmon. 

14 MR. LEWIS: Just one real quick 

15 one. At least at our company when we're 

16 measuring heat loads we're talking kilowatt 

17 hours per day or BTUs. Excuse me. BTUs per 

18 hour. Eric, how are we going to transfer that 

19 to kilowatts? That's based on your 

20 refrigeration. 

21 Just the heat loads, when we 

22 calculate them, they're always in the BTUs. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 221

1 How are you going to the kilowatts? Just 

2 based on the efficiency of the refrigeration 

3 system? 

4 MR. FITZ: This is Eric Fitz. 

5 We'll actually get to that 

6 specifically in later slides, but that's a 

7 good question. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead. 

9 MR. McGOWAN: This is Ray McGowan 

10 from NFRC again. 

11 This equation would discount better 

12 glass, correct? If you did better glass in 

13 the walk-in cooler, it would sort of take it 

14 out, wouldn't count it correctly. Is that 

15 true? 

16 MS. GAGNE: There is an additional 

17 provision for accounting for the type of glass 

18 that's used, the U factor specifically, not 

19 within this equation. But later we'll get to 

20 it later on. 

21 MR. McGOWAN: Okay. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Hold onto the 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 222

1 question, and speaking of later on -- yes. 

2 Aris. 

3 MR. MARANTAN: Aris Marantan. 

4 Maybe I can attempt to explain the 

5 normalization metric concept. Basically if we 

6 look at other refrigeration equipment, we use 

7 the idea of normalization. Maybe I'll refer 

8 to a display case, for example. The standard 

9 that DOE established for display cases 

10 recently is in terms of kilowatt hour 

11 consumption maximum per day per unit volume or 

12 display area, and we're trying to do something 

13 similar here. 

14 So if you have a larger size walk15 in or you have a smaller size walk-in, you 

16 will normalize that specific kilowatt hour 

17 consumption limit based on your size. So here 

18 what we're trying to do is, you know, in the 

19 energy conservation standards proceeding, DOE 

20 will establish a limit of energy consumption, 

21 but the idea with this normalization metric is 

22 that that standard is just scaled to your 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 223

1 size, and since we're going down the road of 

2 picking a surface area metric, instead of 

3 volume, instead of square footage, the surface 

4 area obviously has different components, the 

5 glass and the non-glass. So we're just trying 

6 to account for that. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Tim. 

8 MR. DYE: Just real quick. Tim 

9 Dye. 

10 I think that's a very good 

11 statement. When you do that consideration 

12 though, when you go from cases to walk-in 

13 coolers, please understand it's two totally 

14 separate functions because cases are made to 

15 display immediate product. Walk-in coolers 

16 display immediate and cool down. So there's 

17 some specific things you needed to look at 

18 there. 

19 MS. GAGNE: We understand that 

20 comment. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Thank 

22 you. That's helpful. Keep going. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 224

1 MS. GAGNE: I'm going to turn this 

2 over to Eric. 

3 MR. FITZ: Okay. So before we get 

4 into the details of the envelope test 

5 procedure, I just wanted to take a moment to 

6 point out once again that this process is for 

7 the test procedures associated with the energy 

8 conservation standards. None of this is 

9 immediately associated with EISA or EPCA 

10 compliance. That's a separate issue, and 

11 we're really focusing on test procedures 

12 associated with this standards process. So I 

13 hope that will help clarify some of the 

14 questions that might come up. 

15 So starting off, we're going to 

16 discuss the conduction, the components and 

17 calculations associated with the conduction 

18 load on the envelope itself. 

19 And as you're all aware and as 

20 specified in EISA, the typical way to measure 

21 the resistance to heat flow in any material is 

22 the use of R value. So as the R value goes 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 225

1 up, the resistance to heat flow goes up. So 

2 effectively, a product with a higher R value 

3 is more efficient, and you're all familiar 

4 with this concept. 

5 And this sort of gets back to 

6 earlier comments. The calculation method is 

7 very simple. If you have the R value and you 

8 have a known surface area, a known thickness 

9 of the material that's at a certain R value, 

10 you also have a known temperature difference 

11 across that specific material or panel, for 

12 example, and you can very easily calculate the 

13 heat load associated with it. 

14 So this is just illustrating that 

15 you can immediately find the BTUs per hour for 

16 a walk-in panel, for example. 

17 During the framework meeting last 

18 year, there were a number of interested 

19 parties that commented that while R value is 

20 the standard way for quantifying the 

21 performance of a material related to heat 

22 conduction, that there are a number of 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 226

1 mechanisms that might exist that over time 

2 cause the R value of these materials to drop. 

3 And two of them that were discussed 

4 at the framework meeting were diffusion of 

5 gases -- this is both air and blowing agents 

6 associated with foam in particular -- and also 

7 the possibility of moisture infiltration into 

8 the insulating materials that could also 

9 reduce the R value. 

10 So first we're going to talk about 

11 this issue of diffusion. This is more to 

12 build a general understanding of the concept 

13 of diffusion, how we recognize that this is an 

14 issue that many interested parties have 

15 differing opinions on. So I'm going to just 

16 sort of get through the conceptual idea of it, 

17 but then we'll have an opportunity to comment 

18 on it itself. 

19 So starting off with the walk-in 

20 panel, as you dig down you can see that the 

21 foam itself actually contains individual 

22 cells, and generally in the walk-in cooler 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 227

1 market manufacturers use foam that contains 

2 closed cells that are intended to trap a 

3 blowing agent. And this blowing agent has a 

4 very high resistance to heat flow, and this is 

5 where the material itself gets a lot of its 

6 performance. 

7 So digging further down all the way 

8 into an individual closed cell of foam 

9 material, there are two mechanisms that occur 

10 over time that may cause a drop in R value. 

11 So the first mechanism is actually air from 

12 outside of the material diffusing into the 

13 cells. This reduces the concentration of 

14 blowing agent in the cell itself, which 

15 reduces the R value, and then a secondary 

16 mechanism which happens at a later time, the 

17 blowing agent itself begins to diffuse outward 

18 into the open environment. 

19 So both of these mechanisms reduce 

20 the concentration of blowing agent and, 

21 therefore, reduced the R value. 

22 So again, just illustrating 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 228

1 immediately after manufacture, as designed the 

2 closed cells have a certain concentration of 

3 blowing agent within them. At some time later 

4 air begins to propagate into the cells 

5 reducing the concentration, and then the final 

6 mechanism is the blowing agent itself 

7 diffusing out. 

8 MR. LEWIS: Harmon Lewis with 

9 American Panel. 

10 I'm asking, where does this blowing 

11 agent go? If these panels are camlocked 

12 together, it's not going out into the whole 

13 environment. It's a trapped system. It's a 

14 closed system. There's nowhere for it to go. 

15 MR. FITZ: So I think that's a 

16 great comment. There's another couple of 

17 slides where we deal with that specific issue, 

18 and I think we'll probably talk about that at 

19 length, but so just hold that until then. 

20 So based on this concept and 

21 direction from stakeholder input at the 

22 framework meeting, DOE reviewed a number of 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 229

1 available test procedures that are used to 

2 account for this aging, this diffusion of air 

3 and blowing agents that may reduce the R value 

4 of foam. 

5 In its research, DOE proposed the 

6 use of ASTM C1303-08. That was what was 

7 published in the NOPR, and just a very high 

8 level overview of how this works, and again, 

9 there are details in the NOPR itself. The 

10 idea is you slice a full thickness sample. 

11 You allow time to pass so by slicing it it 

12 accelerates the process at which this 

13 diffusion can occur, and then at some later 

14 point you then measure the R value. 

15 So really this is a test procedure 

16 that is conditioning the foam before you 

17 measure the R value. And the key benefit is 

18 that instead of predicting or using R value 

19 right after manufacture, it actually is 

20 representative of the 15-year life. 

21 It's also widely recognized in the 

22 building industry that this is an issue of 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 230

1 aging of materials. In addition, Canada has 

2 used a similar thin slicing method since 2001 

3 for all of its foam insulating products. 

4 And with that I will take comment 

5 on C1303. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Harmon. 

7 MR. LEWIS: Just a quick one. 

8 Harmon Lewis. 

9 I think that's like taking the 

10 bumper off your cars before you do the impact 

11 test on the bumper. 

12 (Laughter.) 

13 MR. LEWIS: That urethane, okay -- 

14 not to be facetious, but the urethane that's 

15 encapsulated between the metal skins of the 

16 panel and camlocked together within NSF 

17 approved gaskets, and these panels are all UL 

18 tested also; it's trapped in there. You're 

19 not getting this long-term degradation that's 

20 postulated here. 

21 That would be R value total 

22 collapse, if you want to call it, or total 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 231

1 deterioration. All of us that are building 

2 these walk-in panels have thousands and 

3 thousands of walk-ins out there that are over 

4 five years old where this is supposedly all, 

5 you know, going down to R value of six, and 

6 we're not seeing this from our customers. 

7 If that were true, like I said 

8 earlier this morning, our refrigeration should 

9 be running 37 hours a day to keep up, and last 

10 time I looked there weren't that many hours in 

11 the day. So you know, we're trying to fix 

12 something that isn't broken. 

13 I know we need to measure it, but 

14 you can't postulate that slicing something 

15 that thin to accelerate the testing. That 

16 isn't what happens out in the real world. And 

17 we can give you addresses of walk-ins that 

18 have been out there for 15 years, and maybe we 

19 need to go test that foam. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Ellis. 

21 MR. CRAIG: Ellis Craig. 

22 The thing that I know that outside 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 232

1 of us, the building industry recognizes this 

2 happens even with foil-faced insulations that 

3 are put together and caulked and laid over 

4 with vinyl, and the roofing industry and 

5 several other industries have already worked 

6 with that, but as far as experience that we've 

7 seen, just not necessarily with our walk-ins, 

8 but with walk-ins that we've taken down and 

9 put new walk-ins up -- and most of you guys in 

10 here make walk-ins. You know this is the 

11 truth -- when you take them down, they're full 

12 of water. 

13 Now, if we had that -- 

14 (Simultaneous conversation from the 

15 floor.) 

16 MR. CRAIG: Well, we've taken down 

17 several walk-ins. We even have documented 

18 testing that we've submitted in here where the 

19 walk-ins not of our manufacture were taken 

20 down, and there's ice and water in them. And 

21 that doesn't mean every manufacturer is 

22 manufacturing the same product, is going to 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 233

1 react the same way, but to say that they're 

2 impermeable doesn't, as far as what we've seen 

3 in the field, what we've seen in the field and 

4 what we've seen in the testing that has been 

5 done by people who provide insulations to us, 

6 it seems like there is a permeability involved 

7 with them that has to be taken into 

8 consideration. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Is that after a 15-

10 year life, for example? 

11 MR. CRAIG: A 15-year life is 

12 probably -- there are walk-ins out there that 

13 are 15 years old, and there's walk-ins out 

14 there that get changed out after three or four 

15 years just because they change their facility, 

16 they expand or whatever. But a 15-year life 

17 cycle on a walk-in is not an unusual thing 

18 because we have a ten-year warranty. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Right. 

20 MR. MINELLI: Fred Minelli. 

21 I think the insinuation that walk22 ins that are a few years old or ten years old, 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 234

1 that you take them apart and they're full of 

2 water and ice is purely unsupported. I don't 

3 know where that information comes from. 

4 Those panels were probably damaged 

5 where the joints have been separated and metal 

6 skin has pulled loose. Plenty of things that 

7 can happen in the field that would allow 

8 moisture and ice in the joints, but the 

9 typical insulated installed walk-in will not 

10 produce that situation. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Do you agree with 

12 Harmon's comment? 

13 MR. MINELLI: Absolutely. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

15 MR. MINELLI: I would also like to 

16 add that the Canadian standards you reference, 

17 and there was another body, PMR or somebody 

18 that allowed 1303. Those tests are done on 

19 unencapsulated foam. They're done on spray 

20 foam, bunstock foam, not insulated panels for 

21 walk-in coolers that are poured inside of 

22 metal facers. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 235

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Eric. 

2 MR. FITZ: I think that's a great 

3 comment. Just from a process standpoint, on 

4 the water issues, we're going to talk about 

5 those in later slides, and there will be a 

6 specific period to talk about that, but right 

7 now we really want to focus on this issue of 

8 do you have recommendations for other test 

9 procedures related to this issue that might be 

10 helpful or there is a specific problem with 

11 1303 in, you know, predicting R value. 

12 And in addition to this water 

13 issue, there's a whole other piece where we 

14 will have specific discussion about whether or 

15 not the metal skins can actually prevent this 

16 diffusion to occur at all. 

17 So right now it's really about this 

18 test procedure as proposed by the Department 

19 of Energy rather than the issue of skins and 

20 water. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: I'll let him finish, 

22 Jim, and then I'll come back to you. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 236

1 Fred. 

2 MR. MINELLI: Fred Minelli. 

3 Yes, we do believe that 1303 is not 

4 an applicable test for this type of product. 

5 It may be applicable for a different product, 

6 but not this one. If you shred the foam, you 

7 have no R value. You have no cell structure 

8 holding blowing agent. So we do not believe 

9 it is correct at all, and I would like to hear 

10 from the urethane manufacturers. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Is there anything 

12 else you'd recommend in this case? 

13 MR. MINELLI: I think the C518 is 

14 completely applicable. We've been discussing 

15 this for more than a year, and I think an 

16 applicable standard would be to go out in the 

17 field and find a 15 year old panel and cut it 

18 and do the C518 and see what the R value is. 

19 Because this is purely conjecture. There is 

20 no proof in the statement that a C1303 will 

21 give you an accurate aged R value. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Jim. Thanks for 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 237

1 being patient. 

2 MR. PERRY: Jim Perry. 

3 Just a couple of things. We would 

4 also like to urge the DOE to not think that 

5 thin slice testing is the best option for 

6 conditioning foams. We would agree using the 

7 C518 test on aged panels of known age would be 

8 a more real world and accurate test method. 

9 And also we've taken apart several 

10 walk-ins in our history, and they're not full 

11 of water. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

13 MR. FITZ: Can I respond to that 

14 specific comment? 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead. Yes. 

16 MR. FITZ: So do you have a 

17 recommendation for how long the Department of 

18 Energy should age a panel before using 518? 

19 MR. PERRY: I think to get an 

20 accurate representation of how they behave in 

21 the field you might want to do it at two 

22 years, four, years, six years, eight years and 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 238

1 see how that degradation goes. 

2 We have several people from the 

3 urethane industry here that could probably 

4 speak more learnedly about that for us. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Well, let's -- 

6 can we go there, Barbara? And then I'll 

7 return to you. It is -- I didn't get your 

8 name. 

9 MR. KIRILOV: Milen Kirilov from 

10 Carpenter. 

11 I actually agree with Harmon and 

12 Jim and also the panel manufacturers here that 

13 our internal data also show that there is no 

14 significant degradation in the R values of 

15 enclosed panels. 

16 And just to propose an idea for how 

17 long we can age these panels, if you look at 

18 the aging theory, it's pretty well understood 

19 most of the aging occurs within the first six 

20 to 12 months of manufacture. So maybe a year 

21 is probably a good period to test panels with 

22 C518. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 239

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

2 Barb. 

3 MS. FABIAN: Yes, Barb Fabian. 

4 A couple of comments. The first 

5 one is on one of your slides, Eric, where you 

6 said that the diffusion of the gases occurs 

7 within two to three years, that's incorrect. 

8 The primary stage of aging where the air is 

9 coming in occurs early on, but the diffusion 

10 of the blowing agent within the cells occurs 

11 over 70 years. I mean, it's a very long 

12 asymptotic relationship there. 

13 So the blowing agent stays in 

14 there, but the air infiltration dilutes it and 

15 causes the loss of R value early on. 

16 I agree that 1303 isn't the correct 

17 methodology to use for this. One, it's very 

18 burdensome to conduct. I have two papers out 

19 on this. I am the co-chairman of ASTM C1303, 

20 have done a lot of work on this. There's only 

21 two laboratories, one in the U.S. and one in 

22 Canada, who can conduct this. It can only be 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 240

1 done on 12 inch by 12 inch specimens, and when 

2 you're getting thicknesses greater than four 

3 inch, you must go to a heat flow meter that's 

4 at least 24 by 24. You cannot thin slice a 

5 specimen that big to get the thickness 

6 tolerance required. 

7 Another aspect of that is -- 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Before you move on, 

9 what would you recommend the department do? 

10 MS. FABIAN: I think we're going to 

11 have to look at full thickness aging at some 

12 point in time, use C518 for the heat flow 

13 meters and then we have to agree on where we 

14 feel that that point in time would be. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Charles Llenza. 

16 MR. LLENZA: Yes. Can you get a 

17 hold of your paper so we can take a look at 

18 that? 

19 MS. FABIAN: Yes. I've already 

20 submitted them at the last stakeholders 

21 meeting. 

22 MR. LLENZA: Okay, great. Thank 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 241

1 you. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks for that. 

3 Thanks. 

4 And by the way, you weren't 

5 finished. Keep going. 

6 MS. FABIAN: Yes. The new test 

7 temperatures looking at 55 degree mean 

8 temperature and 20 degree mean temperatures, 

9 we've never looked at thin slicing other than 

10 a few research instances at Oak Ridge National 

11 Lab where we've looked at those temperatures. 

12 So the industry really doesn't know how the 

13 materials are going to perform at those 

14 temperatures. 

15 What else did I say in here? 

16 It's very expensive to do. 

17 A couple of the restrictions. One, 

18 it's only applicable to materials that have 

19 the intent to retain the blowing agent. So if 

20 you utilize an EPS material which does not 

21 retain the blowing agent, this conditioning 

22 procedure is not applicable for that. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 242

1 And it's also not applicable 

2 currently for materials that have permeably 

3 faced products. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

5 MS. LEGETT: A quick question. You 

6 mentioned you would need to think about or 

7 come up with a good time period. Can you 

8 please do that and recommend that at least 

9 before the end of the comment period? 

10 Thank you. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Let me see. 

12 Mike. 

13 MR. KRUPA: Yeah, Mike Krupa from 

14 BSF Corporation. 

15 I want to explain a little bit on 

16 the blowing agent and why it works and why it 

17 takes so long to diffuse through the cells. 

18 The blowing agents are such large molecules 

19 that it takes a lot of pressure for that 

20 molecule to actually diffuse through, and 

21 after it does, then it's replaced by nitrogen 

22 and oxygen from the air. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 243

1 And we found that these diffusion 

2 rates are extremely slow, and they can take 

3 years to go through. 

4 I also agree with the gentleman 

5 from Carpenter that most of the diffusion can 

6 take effect in the first year, and after that 

7 it's very, very slow. It plateaus out for a 

8 very long time. 

9 Our industry standard is 518. 

10 We've been using that for, you know, 30 years 

11 or more, and we would like to see panels from 

12 the field that have been in service, tested 

13 against a standard or a known condition and 

14 try to use that rather than a thin slicing 

15 method where you're trying to prematurely 

16 break the cells in order to test K factor. 

17 MR. FITZ: I guess I can respond to 

18 both of your comments and also what Barb had 

19 stated. 

20 So when we said on the previous 

21 slide that it was two to three years, that 

22 really should have been clarified with the 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 244

1 term "majority of the aging." So we agree and 

2 DOE understands that the aging actually occurs 

3 over, you know, asymptotically over, you know, 

4 100 years, but the vast majority, say, maybe a 

5 range of 70 to 90 percent occurs in the first 

6 two to three years. 

7 And then the comment about, you 

8 know, how long you should wait before you use 

9 518, so if you were to assemble a panel and 

10 let it sit somewhere for, say, ten or 15 

11 years, I guess I'll respond to that with a 

12 question. In terms of burden on the 

13 manufacturer, if they want to use a different 

14 type of foam, some kind of new technology 

15 comes out, that would mean that the 

16 manufacturer before they can switch to that 

17 would have to wait 15 years before there's new 

18 data available. 

19 And I just wanted to point that 

20 out, and I would like to hear some discussion 

21 on that idea. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Kurt. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 245

1 MR. LEIBEL: Kurt Leibel, Dow 

2 Chemical Company. 

3 I think to answer your question, I 

4 think what this is is establishing a baseline 

5 for polyurethane foam mainly in testing may be 

6 a year to two years to three years, and once 

7 that's established, the data will be there as 

8 it is probably in papers right now that even 

9 if you come out with new foam that you won't 

10 have to go through this again. 

11 So it is more establishing, you 

12 know, the credibility of the data there. 

13 MR. FITZ: Can you point to 

14 specific papers that have data on -- 

15 MR. LEIBEL: Yes. I'd refer back 

16 to the comments that the industry submitted 

17 through the CPI. That has some papers, and I 

18 think to the individual companies we'll be 

19 submitting separate comments also. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: CPI is? 

21 MR. LEIBEL: American Chemistry 

22 Council, the Center for Polyurethanes 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 246

1 Industry. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. 

3 thank you. 

4 I'm eager for us to keep moving if 

5 it's possible. So are we ready to go now? 

6 Additional comments before we move on? 

7 MR. CRAIG: I just want to make one 

8 comment. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: One quick one, yeah. 

10 MR. CRAIG: This is Ellis Craig. 

11 I don't want everybody to think in 

12 this room that there's only one type of 

13 insulation that we're talking about. The two 

14 prevalent ones right now are probably extruded 

15 polystyrene and foamed-in-place polyurethane. 

16 There are other insulations out there that 

17 this test wouldn't work on, too, but I just 

18 didn't want it to sound like that was the only 

19 product out there. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Right. Okay. What 

21 we're discussing applies to both of those. 

22 MR. CRAIG: Yeah. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 247

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

2 MR. FITZ: And also, that reminds 

3 me to comment. Barb Fabian had mentioned 

4 about EPS foam. DOE recognizes that 1303 does 

5 not apply to foams that don't use some type of 

6 blowing agent. So EPS, for example, which 

7 only uses air or CO. 

 2

8 Great. So now we're going to move 

9 on to the water absorption issue. Just to 

10 summarize, as was stated in the published 

11 NOPR, at this point DOE is proposing not to 

12 account for this issue. This is mainly due to 

13 limited industry accepted methodology and test 

14 procedures that the Department of Energy could 

15 point to to actually account for both the 

16 water absorption and then its impact on R 

17 value. 

18 And in addition, the body of 

19 research that is out there, which is 

20 significant, has been focused primarily on the 

21 building industry. And it is important to 

22 note that in the case of walk-in coolers and 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 248

1 freezers, unlike buildings, the inside 

2 temperature of the walk-in is always lower 

3 than the external temperature. So there is 

4 always an inward pressure that is driving 

5 moisture into the envelope itself. So that 

6 makes for some unique issues. 

7 So we'd like to take comment on 

8 this particular topic. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Ellis. 

10 MR. CRAIG: Like I said on record, 

11 again, that we believe that moisture is an 

12 element involved with this from what we've 

13 seen in the field and in the testing we've 

14 done and products we've taken apart, and I 

15 think by not putting any kind of testing in 

16 there, it will probably give us faulty results 

17 as far as what we come up with and say that 

18 product is doing in the field. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: How faulty? 

20 MR. CRAIG: Well, from what we've 

21 seen is -- and Barb can probably testify to 

22 this a little bit better than I -- she did the 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 249

1 testing and I'd like to transfer the question 

2 to her, but we did a case study where we went 

3 out and took unknowns; we just had a customer 

4 that we were replacing all of the boxes that 

5 were out there with newer boxes, and we were 

6 going to each site and taking the panels 

7 apart, cutting them into square, sending them 

8 off for testing; put them in plastic, weighing 

9 them when they got there, drying them out and 

10 weighing them again. 

11 She has that information and she 

12 can tell you better specifics on it than I 

13 can. 

14 MS. FABIAN: Barb Fabian. 

15 All of the data was shared at the 

16 last stakeholder meeting. I provided the case 

17 studies that we generated from that. 

18 We know moisture decreases the R 

19 value, and there are several calculations that 

20 were generated by the U.S. Army Corps of 

21 Engineers for various insulation types that 

22 can show you how much the R value decreases 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 250

1 with X percentage of moisture. So that's 

2 available out there. 

3 Another approach may be to look at 

4 materials that have lower water vapor 

5 permeance rates as per ASTM E96, and you look 

6 at those. You know, that is a way to approach 

7 using a lower water vapor permeance rate 

8 material. 

9 (Participant speaking from unmiked 

10 location.) 

11 MS. FABIAN: Well, you've got other 

12 things going on, too. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: That's established 

14 in the record. 

15 MS. FABIAN: Excuse me. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: The department has 

17 it. 

18 MS. FABIAN: Yes. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: That will be good. 

20 That's what they need. 

21 I'm just looking. The summary of 

22 the water issue, you can see what the 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 251

1 department's approach is here. Any thoughts, 

2 additional comments on their approach? 

3 Yes, please, Mike. 

4 MR. KRUPA: I may be 

5 oversimplifying this a little bit, but I look 

6 at walk-in coolers very much as I look at 

7 refrigeration, you know, refrigerators that 

8 you might have in your house. 

9 Currently we use polyurethane foams 

10 in refrigeration because of the great energy 

11 performance that we get out of it, and I don't 

12 believe that there has been any issues with 

13 water inside of the foams in a normal 

14 refrigerator. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

16 I'll take a final comment on this. 

17 We need to keep moving or we won't get through 

18 it. Okay, yes, please. 

19 MR. THAMES: I was just concerned 

20 about where you might have found this walk-in. 

21 Like was it under real un-normal 

22 circumstances, possibly like in the path of 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 252

1 Hurricane Katrina, you know? 

2 (Laughter.) 

3 MR. THAMES: So. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Lee. 

5 Maybe you could have that conversation off 

6 line. Okay? 

7 MR. FITZ: But I think to that 

8 point, the Department of Energy, it would be 

9 great if you could submit specific data, you 

10 know, supporting either that water is a major 

11 issue and particularly on the impact of R 

12 value or not. So please do so. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's keep going. 

14 Harmon. 

15 MR. LEWIS: Real quickly, not to 

16 regress, but if we take apart ten or 20 walk17 ins, each one of the major manufacturers are 

18 selling a couple thousand every year. I've 

19 got 40,000 walk-ins out there, and water may 

20 attack them, but I'm not getting complaints, 

21 and I'm getting repeat customers. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: -- skin or something 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 253

1 like that. 

2 MR. LEWIS: The impervious skin. 

3 So, you know, real world, a few of something 

4 fail, but that doesn't mean that, you know, my 

5 40,000 and your 40,000 and your 40,000 have 

6 gone bad. So it's statistical. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve and then to 

8 Harvey. 

9 MR. COMBS: Yeah, just real 

10 quickly, I mean, what you're talking about 

11 here is installation issues, sealing issues, 

12 putting the panels together because how else 

13 can -- water can't penetrate the metal. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Harvey, 

15 you're next. 

16 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. 

17 Just expressing the hope that with 

18 the new emphasis on standards at DOE it will 

19 be possible to do a simple thermal decay test 

20 over 24 hours or even 12 hours in a bunch of 

21 walk-ins around the country. This would get 

22 us to the sense of whether we've had 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 254

1 substantial thermal decay on products that 

2 have been in use for a number of years across 

3 different manufacturers. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

5 One more. Ellis. 

6 MR. CRAIG: One thing that I think 

7 sounds funny. One minute we're talking about 

8 infiltration losses inside a walk-in, like air 

9 can get in and get out of these walk-ins that 

10 are locked together and so sealed tight that 

11 air can't get out of the panels. It doesn't 

12 make sense that we're worrying about 

13 infiltration losses that's coming from the 

14 inside of the walk-in to the outside or from 

15 the outside inside the walk-in, and then say 

16 that the panels are all sealed up so that 

17 there's no way air can get into them or get 

18 out of them. 

19 That doesn't make sense. Then we 

20 can do away the infiltration loss because if 

21 there's no sealing -- if they're sealed 100 

22 percent, then we don't have to worry about 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 255

1 either one of these issues. 

2 Do you see what I'm getting at? 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: I guess I do. 

4 PARTICIPANT: I think there's a 

5 conceptual failure there. 

6 MR. MINELLI: Insulated panels that 

7 you build walk-in coolers and freezers out of 

8 them are covered with impermeable facers. The 

9 doors have wiper gaskets, what's know as in 

10 the industry, the wiper gaskets are flexible 

11 and allow air pressure from the negative 

12 pressure inside or positive pressure through 

13 the cycle; let the air in and out. 

14 This is also on freezers. You have 

15 to have a pressure relief port because the 

16 pressure, negative and positive, is so great 

17 that in some instances without a pressure 

18 relief port you couldn't open the door. 

19 So there's systems designed to 

20 allow air in and out, and it's not through the 

21 panel. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Barb, and then 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 256

1 Harvey. 

2 MS. FABIAN: Just real quickly, 

3 there had been some studies done in the past 

4 by Dr. Glicksman at MIT where he looked at 

5 metal scans on insulation, and he did a dye 

6 study where he looked at the diffusion of the 

7 blowing agent, and it can even under metal 

8 skins. It does migrate to the surface, and it 

9 can permeate out even underneath an air 

10 impermeable surface. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Harvey. 

12 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. 

13 It seems to me that I could well 

14 have an assembly of completely gas impermeable 

15 panels which aren't tied down real well. Now, 

16 there is the possibility of installation 

17 errors leading to substantial infiltration 

18 that's totally independent from the integrity 

19 of the camlocked panels themselves. 

20 So these diffusion issues are to me 

21 at least conceptually independent from 

22 infiltration across the envelope. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 257

1 MR. BROOKMAN: I'm a little 

2 concerned that we're covering this in such 

3 depth we won't get to everything. Okay? So 

4 please submit your written comments and let's 

5 keep moving on. 

6 MR. FITZ: So we've already been 

7 talking about the specific issue of whether or 

8 not impermeable skins are actually impermeable 

9 or whether they are permeable skins. So we'll 

10 just -- this is a summary of the comments that 

11 were made in the framework meeting. There are 

12 a number of people as we've just discussed now 

13 that suggest that the metal skins or 

14 particularly the panels themselves are 

15 impermeable, and then there's also been people 

16 that have pointed out that they are not 

17 impermeable due to, for example, like at the 

18 panel joints there is not a continuous wrap of 

19 metal material. So that at the joints 

20 themselves there may be just foam or some 

21 other material. 

22 In addition, in the field as 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 258

1 somebody has pointed out, there are issues 

2 where an end user may puncture the walls and 

3 specifically breach the metal skin. 

4 So if there are any additional 

5 comments on this issue, please. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: You see the comment 

7 box there. DOE invites the submission of test 

8 results regarding the impact of impermeable 

9 skins on long-term R values, specifically peer 

10 reviewed published data pertaining to efficacy 

11 of skins in preventing and delaying R value 

12 decline. 

13 Any additional comments on that? 

14 (No response.) 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

16 MR. FITZ: All right. So in 

17 continuing the discussion of conduction 

18 related heat load, the floor is another area 

19 that a substantial amount of conduction, 

20 particularly in floorless coolers. So DOE is 

21 proposing a correction to the equations that 

22 were published in the NOPR on how to calculate 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 259

1 the heat transfer through floorless coolers. 

2 This was in response both to DOE's 

3 own research and, in addition, since the NOPR 

4 was published, a number of people have 

5 commented on this through formal written 

6 comment that was submitted to the Federal 

7 Register. 

8 So through subsequent simulations 

9 DOE has developed these two equations that 

10 we're going to correct the original equation, 

11 which I'll show you on the next slide. So 

12 specifically for walk-ins that have a 

13 footprint of less than 750 square feet, this 

14 first equation will be used, and for walk-ins 

15 that are greater than 750 square feet, this 

16 second equation will be used. 

17 Specifically, the first equation 

18 shown here is what was originally published in 

19 the NOPR, and DOE is proposing this correction 

20 specifically for the calculation with 

21 floorless coolers, to use this Q correction 

22 factor. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 260

1 And we'll take comment on this, on 

2 this issue. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Well, are you able 

4 to track this equation? Do we need to -- 

5 (Laughter.) 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Seriously. Does it 

7 need to be explained a little bit? 

8 Harmon. 

9 MR. LEWIS: Have you computed it? 

10 Are those two equations equal at 750 square 

11 feet? Is it totally disjointed? 

12 MR. FITZ: So that's why it's a 

13 less than or equal to. So there's a 

14 continuous -- 

15 MR. LEWIS: Right, but is each one 

16 at 750 an equal value? 

17 MR. FITZ: Yes. 

18 MR. LEWIS: Okay. 

19 MR. FITZ: Yes. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: That sounds good. 

21 Additional thoughts and comments on these 

22 equations? 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 261

1 I think the Department just laid 

2 out rather well what they're trying to do 

3 here. Did they succeed is the question. 

4 Yes, Jim. 

5 MR. PERRY: Jim Perry. 

6 Just for our records, what are 

7 there? What thermodynamic principle are these 

8 calculations based upon? 

9 MR. FITZ: So these equations were 

10 developed from doing finite element modeling, 

11 which is a very detailed type of computer 

12 simulation that captures all of the heat 

13 transfer through the floor. In this case a 

14 concrete floor was what the Department of 

15 Energy had proposed in the NOPR. That was 

16 what was used for the baseline calculations. 

17 So because the unique nature of not 

18 having an insulated floor, without getting 

19 into too much detail on the physics, it 

20 essentially because it's attached to the 

21 earth, there's a much different nonlinear heat 

22 flow characteristic that wasn't initially 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 262

1 captured in the published NOPR equations, and 

2 this correction deals with that sort of 

3 nonlinearity and complexity. 

4 As you can see, the first equation 

5 here is an exponential to correct for that. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Final comments on 

7 these equations? 

8 (No response.) 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

10 MR. FITZ: So in addition, as 

11 published in the NOPR, it has been made clear 

12 both through stakeholder comments and through 

13 manufacturer submitted information that in 

14 many cases a walk-in manufacturer, even if 

15 it's a freezer, they do not provide the floor. 

16 It is not shipped to the customer, and instead 

17 a third party may install an insulated 

18 separately from the walk-in manufacturer. 

19 So in this particular case for the 

20 purposes of calculating the heat transfer for 

21 a freezer, DOE is proposing the use of R-28, 

22 which reflects the EISA minimum R value for 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 263

1 calculating the overall envelope heat 

2 transfer. 

3 And if there are any comments on 

4 this. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: The department also 

6 appreciates affirmation if you think they're 

7 gotten it right. 

8 Harmon. 

9 MR. LEWIS: Yeah, you got it right. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, and other 

11 thoughts? 

12 (Laughter.) 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Other thoughts or 

14 contrary thoughts, Daryl. 

15 MR. ERBS: Yeah, Daryl Erbs. 

16 I want to make sure I understand. 

17 Are you allowing specification of the R value 

18 for a freezer floor if, in fact, it's being 

19 included with the box? 

20 MR. FITZ: If it is included? 

21 MR. ERBS: Yeah. 

22 MR. FITZ: Actually it's the next 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 264

1 slides. 

2 MR. ERBS: Oh, okay. 

3 MR. FITZ: There’s a -- yes. So 

4 you got credit for using a much better floor. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: So then final 

6 comments on Slide 66, the one you have up 

7 there now before we move on? 

8 There's little tiny -- on the 

9 bottom left-hand corner there are about maybe 

10 four points. Yours were the only ones colored 

11 that way, Harvey. 

12 (Laughter.) 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Keep going. 

14 MR. FITZ: So, to the separate 

15 points, we just talked about floorless 

16 coolers. We talked about specifically the 

17 case when a manufacturer is shipping a freezer 

18 but a third party has provided the floor. It 

19 was in this final case where regardless if 

20 it's a cooler or freezer, that the walk-in 

21 manufacturer ships a floor with the walk-in, 

22 and in this specific case, DOE had proposed 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 265

1 the use of a single assumption about the floor 

2 that's beneath the insulated floor that's 

3 provided by the walk-in cooler. DOE had 

4 proposed the value of 55 degrees and at this 

5 point is proposing a correction of 60 degrees 

6 for freezers and 65 degrees for coolers. This 

7 correction came out of a similar simulation 

8 that was done in the case of floorless 

9 coolers, and we believe that this will make 

10 the overall calculations more accurate, but 

11 still using the original equation that was 

12 described in the NOPR. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: This is a revision. 

14 Comments on this? Ellis. 

15 MR. CRAIG: Ellis Craig. 

16 It's still at 55. What's the R 

17 value supposed to be rated at 55, at this new 

18 temperature then? 

19 MR. FITZ: So again, this is -- 

20 MR. CRAIG: The same R value, but 

21 you're raising the temperature? 

22 MR. FITZ: Let me go to the slide. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 266

1 This is related to the assumption about the 

2 temperature T1 in this very simple calculation 

3 of heat transfer. So it's underneath the 

4 insulated floor, the actual surface of the 

5 subfloor, the concrete, it's an assumption 

6 about that temperature. 

7 MR. CRAIG: So you're saying that 

8 the floor is warmer than the -- never mind. 

9 That's all right. It's no big deal. Go on. 

10 MR. GRIFE: No, I'm sorry. David 

11 Grife. 

12 If you could expand that, because 

13 you're saying the outside wall has an ambient 

14 of 90 while the floor has -- 

15 MR. FITZ: Right, but in this case, 

16 exactly, the floor -- 

17 MR. GRIFE: Therefore, that leads 

18 to what is the R value then of the floor. It 

19 sounds like it's going to have a lower R value 

20 than a wall panel. That's what you're saying. 

21 MR. FITZ: So there are two 

22 separate issues. One is at what temperature 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 267

1 do you test the R value of foam using ASTM 

2 518, and the separate thing is then what 

3 temperature do you use for calculating the 

4 heat transfer across any material of a given R 

5 value. 

6 So in the case of calculating the 

7 heat transfer, DOE is making assumptions about 

8 the T1 in this particular equation and the T2 

9 in the case of the floor is the internal 

10 temperature of the walk-in. So 35 degrees, 

11 for example, for a cooler or minus ten degrees 

12 for a freezer. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Barb. 

14 MS. FABIAN: Yeah, Eric. So are 

15 you suggesting that then you'd have three 

16 different mean test temperatures, the 55, 25, 

17 and then 60? Or I'm confused. 

18 MR. FITZ: Sorry. So, again, this 

19 is not related to the test procedure for 

20 measuring the R value. This is simply the 

21 assumption that is required to make the 

22 calculation of how much heat flows through a 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 268

1 material. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Ask your questions 

3 now. Jon? Oh, sorry. This gentleman. Say 

4 your name, please. 

5 MR. OWEN: Kenny Owen with Master6 Bilt. 

7 The equation appears that it might 

8 be good for a walk-in where the concrete floor 

9 is like on a second floor building, where you 

10 have ambient temperature underneath. Our 

11 experience is most boxes are going to be put 

12 on top of concrete which is right on top of 

13 the ground. Ground temperature is usually in 

14 the, you know, high 50 degree temperatures. 

15 So if the cooler is 35 degrees, 40 

16 degrees, the ground is 55. How can you use a 

17 60 or 65 degree temperature? It seems to be 

18 okay for some instances, but coolers sitting 

19 on the ground, I think you would have a lot 

20 lower temperature. 

21 MR. FITZ: So, again, just to 

22 remind you this is specifically for the case 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 269

1 as long as the walk-in cooler has an insulated 

2 floor and then to your point about there's a 

3 lot of variability exactly where a walk-in 

4 cooler is installed. It would be impossible 

5 for the Department of Energy to account for 

6 all of the different sites. So, instead of 

7 doing that, the Department is just specifying 

8 specific assumptions and this will be uniform 

9 across all the manufacturers to rate their 

10 products. 

11 So the Department agrees that it 

12 doesn't exactly reflect the true, installed 

13 walk-in. It's just a uniform measure that 

14 makes it fair for comparison of products. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Fred. 

16 MR. MINELLI: Fred Minelli. I 

17 agree with the uniform -- with it being more 

18 uniform. But, as Kenny stated, most of us in 

19 the business use 55 or 60 degrees as the 

20 ground ambient. So it should be more 

21 consistent with a realistic number of 55 

22 degrees. I mean I don't understand the 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 270

1 process of moving it up to 60 or 65. Is it to 

2 build an insurance in calculating the loads or 

3 what's the purpose of it not being what it 

4 really is? 

5 MR. FITZ: I think that's a great 

6 comment and the Department will take that into 

7 consideration. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks Fred. Okay. 

9 Yes, Jon. Thank you, Jon. 

10 MR. McHUGH: So I'm again trying to 

11 think back to where this ultimately goes. And 

12 it goes back to an earlier comment about wall 

13 insulation. Is it the intent of the 

14 Department to replace the current prescriptive 

15 requirements with these performance 

16 requirements or these are in addition to the 

17 existing prescriptive requirements that are in 

18 EISA? 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Charles Llenza. 

20 MR. LLENZA: This is in addition to 

21 what's in EISA. This would be components to a 

22 performance requirement for the envelope, for 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 271

1 example. And you need to know what the 

2 insulation value is of the floor in order -- 

3 If you're doing the whole concept of the 

4 envelope, then that's put into some equation 

5 to come up with a generalized performance 

6 standard for the envelope. 

7 MR. McHUGH: So this can't be used 

8 to reduce the insulation level of the floor. 

9 Is that correct? 

10 MR. LLENZA: No. 

11 MR. FITZ: The EISA, the standards 

12 cannot supersede -- and correct me. They 

13 cannot supersede EISA. That's a requirement 

14 by law and a secondary as this rulemaking is 

15 about. It's the Department of Energy dealing 

16 with these new standards. 

17 MR. McHUGH: Okay. Thanks. That's 

18 a good clarification. Thank you. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon, thank you. 

20 Yes. Claire. 

21 MS. GAGNE: This is Claire. And to 

22 add to that, it's really just an issue here of 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 272

1 trying to create a level playing field with 

2 the calculation that's used. So the feedback 

3 that we're really looking for is are those 

4 numbers correct and, if not, then what is? 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, and we've heard 

6 already. Is there any reason the Department 

7 couldn't go to 55 rather than -- Yes. 

8 MR. FITZ: It's a somewhat 

9 complicated issue and, as I said, the 

10 Department will take into consideration and -- 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So then final 

12 comments on this comment box before we move 

13 on. We're going. 

14 MR. FITZ: So we've had a lot of 

15 discussion already about glass doors. So 

16 we're now going to get into that in detail. 

17 As we've discussed, the performance 

18 of a glass door is really more complex than 

19 simply the glass itself. There's actually a 

20 number of subsystems that are included. You 

21 have multiple panes. You could have low 

22 emissivity coatings. You may or may not use 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 273

1 some type of inert gas fill. There are a 

2 number of parameters that go into actually 

3 calculating the heat transfer associated with 

4 a glass door. 

5 So, to deal with this specific 

6 issue, DOE has proposed as described in the 

7 NOPR that for the purposes of calculating the 

8 heat transfer related to glass doors if the 

9 component manufacturer of the glass door 

10 participates in some type of third party 

11 rating system such as NFRC, then the walk-in 

12 manufacturing can simply use that label, that 

13 performance metric or the U-factor, and use 

14 that for their calculations of the heat 

15 transfer associated with the glass. 

16 If not, DOE is proposing the use of 

17 a calculation method. This is a publicly 

18 available, free software called Window 5.2. 

19 This was developed over a number of years by 

20 Lawrence Berkeley National Labs. It's well 

21 respected. It's used by the National 

22 Fenestration Rating Council, NFRC, and we 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 274

1 think it provides a way for accurately 

2 measuring the performance of glass doors while 

3 reducing the burden on manufacturers because 

4 it's a calculation method. 

5 One thing that's very important to 

6 point out that because it's a piece of 

7 software that manufacturers would be using 

8 it's critical that in the process they fully 

9 document the exact inputs that are used so 

10 that the Department of Energy, other 

11 interested parties, etc., can later ensure 

12 that the same calculations, that the same 

13 performance, is actually represented by the 

14 manufacturer. And we'd like to take comment 

15 on this issue. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Tim. 

17 MR. DYE: This is Tim Dye. Again, 

18 this speaks back to the walk-in cooler 

19 manufacturer being held responsible for these 

20 numbers and, although we have very capable 

21 people in this room, the complexity of glass 

22 doors to fill in a Window 5.2 the variations 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 275

1 are so different just from my company versus 

2 my competitors because we don't do things the 

3 same way. One person may use a low-E of an 80 

4 or one uses a 60 and there's no way that these 

5 manufacturers would have that information 

6 readily available. 

7 I'll go back to speak that this 

8 should be the burden of the glass door 

9 manufacturer on that component. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

11 Please. 

12 MR. McGOWAN: This is Ray McGowan 

13 from the NFRC. And this is an interesting 

14 situation. At NFRC we rate doors for 

15 buildings and we could perhaps rate these 

16 glass doors for walk-in refrigerators. We'd 

17 have to see drawings and understand what 

18 typical sizes that you would make for these 

19 different coolers. 

20 The way the NFRC system works is 

21 we've been talking a lot today about you don't 

22 want to rate every single window. Well, NFRC 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 276

1 knows that as well. And so what we do is you 

2 simulate everything, but you only rate a 

3 standard size. 

4 So perhaps this industry could do 

5 the same thing. You could either adopt the 

6 size that we have which is about 35 X 80 or 

7 you could propose a new size to NFRC to rate 

8 and then we could put it into our documents. 

9 And you guys could rate the performance of the 

10 windows. 

11 So I would encourage the industry 

12 to make contact with me and I would be glad to 

13 talk with someone later. And perhaps we could 

14 take a look at some drawings or consider the 

15 sizes of the doors that you make and see if it 

16 will fit into the NFRC system. Because as is 

17 the only thing you can rate with the Window 

18 5.2 software is the door sizes that are loaded 

19 in there right now which is just 35 X 80 and 

20 there's also a double which would be 70 X 80. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: NFRC doesn't rate 

22 these now. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 277

1 MR. McGOWAN: Well, we're not 

2 certain -- It depends on the standard size 

3 they select. If they happen to select the 

4 standard size we have, perhaps we could. But 

5 if they select a standard size that we don't 

6 have, then we can't rate it. The software 

7 will not do it really. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Ellis. 

9 MR. CRAIG: I like the idea that 

10 the glass door guys calculate this out and 

11 give it to us which is not hard for them to 

12 do. You know they'll have the whole listing. 

13 Then that's one manufacturer doing it instead 

14 of all of us trying to do it. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, right. 

16 Tim. 

17 MR. DYE: Tim Dye. And again this 

18 5.2, he's exactly right. The size that he 

19 mentions is less than one percent of my total 

20 sales. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 

22 MR. DYE: A typical door size for 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 278

1 you pick what industry you want for the 

2 convenience stores, 30 X 75. For the 

3 supermarkets, it's 30 X 63. Now you start 

4 talking about nonheated, heated, low temp. I 

5 mean it's -- 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Steve. 

7 MR. DUNLAP: Steve Dunlap again. 

8 Thanks, Tim. I appreciate that. I think 

9 everybody just heard his comment. Walk-in 

10 cooler doors, single entry, less than three 

11 feet or 3.5 feet. Mr. Kido is going to look 

12 at the definition of a walk-in cooler. If 

13 we're changing the definition, then walk-in 

14 and I think Harvey mentioned this, too, these 

15 applications are drive-in. They're heavy 

16 traffic. We're going to look at walk-in, what 

17 is a walk-in cooler, and the definition 

18 changes different than what was Congress's 

19 intent, legal definition. 

20 Then we look at 3'9" or whatever 

21 the magic number is and anything that's wider 

22 than that doesn't have an R-value requirement. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 279

1 It's plain and simple. Because I've already 

2 submitted that information to Mr. Llenza. And 

3 we show that the R-value depending on 

4 openings. As we all know, R-value is zero 

5 when the door is open. And one of the largest 

6 loads on the walk-in cooler or freezer is 

7 infiltration especially from an energy 

8 perspective, not just the design of the 

9 equipment, but the energy perspective. 

10 So now once you get that door and 

11 he doesn't even have a model for our door. So 

12 I think it's a unique application. It's 

13 outside the intent that Congress had. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

15 Rob, follow on. 

16 MR. McGOWAN: Yes. I just wanted 

17 to add that if you're using the Windows 5.2 

18 software that's a full product rating. Frame 

19 and glass effects are included. Okay. So the 

20 output is you have to be careful with it. In 

21 the industry, we're aware particularly at the 

22 commercial level that they're just using the 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 280

1 glass portion and reporting center of glass at 

2 times. And that's going to overstate U3 factor. 

4 So if you don't use a standard size 

5 door in the NFRC system and generate the 

6 output with that and you take sort of a short 

7 step and just use the IG that's going to be 

8 misleading. So I just caution you guys if you 

9 want to pursue the energy rating of a door you 

10 should work with us and we should get a 

11 standard size in there. 

12 So you get a full rating with the 

13 frame effects, let's call it. I assume you're 

14 using metal aluminum doors, something like 

15 that, perhaps vinyl. And we can account for 

16 that accurately or else it's not going to be -

17 - The competition will be unfair and that's 

18 why NFRC exists to make sure you can compete 

19 fairly. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Pardon me. David. 

21 MR. GRIFE: Yes. To Mr. Kido, I'd 

22 like you to look into that. I'd love to hear 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 281

1 the ruling on that or the interpretation or 

2 how it is. It's an important comment. 

3 MR. KIDO: I anticipate that we'll 

4 address that either through the preanalysis 

5 document. If not there, then definitely in 

6 the notice of proposed rulemaking that affects 

7 the standards. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's let this 

9 gentleman follow on. 

10 MR. PARK: Hi. Ron Park. You'll 

11 find I think with the NFRC you run into the 

12 same issue as you have when we talked with the 

13 contractors field installing walk-in coolers 

14 in that the test that they do many of those 

15 doors have windows that are installed by 

16 construction companies, door companies that 

17 are not the actual manufacturers. 

18 I think in this instance for this 

19 industry you're in a better position to have 

20 the manufacturers because all the windows from 

21 what I understand are factory installed. So I 

22 think it takes out that variability. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 282

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

2 Harvey. 

3 MR. SACHS: Thank you. Harvey 

4 Sachs. With all due respect to my friend, Mr. 

5 Dunlap, I did not recommend that anything with 

6 a door wider than three foot, nine inches be 

7 exempted from this proceeding. 

8 (Laughter.) 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: You just want to 

10 clarify that for the record. 

11 MR. SACHS: I did try to suggest 

12 that a drive-in facility is different from a 

13 walk-in cooler. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks for 

15 that clarification. 

16 Ellis. 

17 MR. CRAIG: And that's what I was 

18 going to ask. All we have to do is build 

19 bigger doors and we don't have to worry about 

20 all this. 

21 (Laughter.) 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Not on my watch. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 283

1 The door people are great with that proposal. 

2 They're fine with that. 

3 Please go ahead. 

4 MR. McGOWAN: Just a little 

5 addition. We do have a garage door rating, 

6 too, that's 118 inches X 80 inches. So we 

7 could accommodate something like that. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. But they'd 

9 need to make -- If they didn't make that door, 

10 they'd need to custom make it so that it could 

11 fit for the parameters and your software. 

12 MR. McGOWAN: Well, the way the 

13 NFRC system works is again we have the 

14 simulation program can do a variety of options 

15 on a product and you have to build a standard 

16 size and model the standard size. Okay. And 

17 the rating goes on the standard size. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Right. 

19 MR. McGOWAN: You can go forward 

20 with different sizes, but you still get the 

21 same rating. It's not an actual rating. It's 

22 a rating based on a standard size. So there's 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 284

1 a difference. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Final comments. Tim 

3 and then Steve. 

4 MR. DYE: Okay. I understand his 

5 comment, but the size that he's stating is not 

6 a standard size for this industry. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. I'm with you. 

8 Steve, yes. 

9 MR. DUNLAP: Yes. Just to respond 

10 to the other two comments about the doors. 

11 The people that I represent today the 

12 implication of the legislation is to install 

13 R-28 doors. These technologies, they're fast 

14 acting doors. They're lightweight curtains or 

15 doors or panels and they don't meet the R-28. 

16 And it's just a challenge. And the problem is 

17 that now we have to go in, add doors that 

18 offer very little value, economic value or 

19 justification, especially when the doors are 

20 hardly used. So from a small business, small 

21 manufacturing perspective, it's a challenge. 

22 It's a burden. And there's no value added. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 285

1 In fact, if we go with the manual 

2 doors simply because we can meet the R-28 

3 values, then you have a door that uses more 

4 energy. Because in operation and in practice, 

5 we can talk about the engineering and 

6 conduction and infiltration losses, but it's 

7 people that use those doors. And the more 

8 they go, the less they show. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

10 MR. DUNLAP: And that's the 

11 reality. I'm not trying to -- I'm being very 

12 respectful. But it is a burden on a small 

13 manufacturer to change their technology. 

14 There's no opportunity for emerging 

15 technologies that resolve some of the issues 

16 in the field in these applications. That's my 

17 comment. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

19 Okay. Then we're moving on. 

20 MR. FITZ: So like the issue of a 

21 manufacturer shipping a walk-in without a 

22 floor there are also cases where a 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 286

1 manufacturer may ship a walk-in without the 

2 glass doors installed. So DOE proposed in the 

3 NOPR to use a methodology that simply 

4 specifies the EPCA limits, the EISA limits, 

5 for the case of when a manufacturer does not 

6 ship the glass doors with the walk-in cooler 

7 or freezer. 

8 DOE used the Window 5.2 program to 

9 estimate the U-factor associated with the EPCA 

10 described doors. And you can see the values 

11 here: 0.43 for coolers and 0.3 for freezers. 

12 And then in the case where a 

13 manufacturer does ship the glass doors with 

14 the walk-in, DOE is proposing that the 

15 manufacturer either use, for example, if there 

16 is an NFRC rating then they can simply specify 

17 that label or use the value from that label. 

18 Or they will use the Window 5.2 program to 

19 calculate the performance metric. 

20 We will take comment on this issue. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Ellis. 

22 MR. CRAIG: Ellis Craig. Are you 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 287

1 saying that if we don't ship the doors then 

2 we're going to use the highest number? 

3 MR. FITZ: So technically, yes, for 

4 U-factor is the highest number. 

5 MR. CRAIG: So the results are the 

6 guy calls me and wants to buy a walk-in. If 

7 he buys the doors from me and I can give him a 

8 lower number, it will be more efficient for me 

9 to sell -- He will have a higher efficiency 

10 walk-in than he will if he orders one without 

11 it and gets one on his own. Because what 

12 we're really telling him and we're designing 

13 our refrigeration and everything around is 

14 that higher R-value which may or may not be 

15 true. 

16 MR. FITZ: So I think in terms of 

17 your advice to a specific end user, that's 

18 separate from how you would comply with the 

19 test procedure. 

20 MR. CRAIG: But I might comply if I 

21 sell him the glass door but not comply if I 

22 don't. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 288

1 MR. FITZ: You would be as proposed 

2 if you are shipping the walk-in without the 

3 glass doors. 

4 MR. CRAIG: That would mean I would 

5 be compliant. Could possibly not be 

6 compliant. But if I sold him the glass doors 

7 since that number's lower then I could be 

8 compliant. 

9 MR. CRAIG: I think we're kind of 

10 mixing -- So the idea is that having this sort 

11 of differentiation between the walk-in shipped 

12 with doors and without it gives manufacturers 

13 who have control over what doors are being 

14 shipped. They get credit for that energy 

15 savings. And if they don't there's no 

16 mechanism or possibly might not be a mechanism 

17 for compliance. 

18 MR. CRAIG: But that doesn't seem -

19 - It seems like we shouldn't be accountable 

20 for them not buying the door from us and what 

21 you're doing you're putting a burden on us to 

22 try to sell every door we can because if we 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 289

1 don't it could hurt us in the long run. 

2 MR. FITZ: Do you have a suggestion 

3 of what the Department of Energy could use in 

4 place? 

5 MR. CRAIG: Yes. Make it so that 

6 if they're going to put glass doors in they 

7 have to buy them from the walk-in 

8 manufacturer. 

9 (Laughter.) 

10 It solves it right there. No 

11 questions asked. Right? 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Harmon, do you wish 

13 to comment? 

14 MR. LEWIS: Well, just real world, 

15 if we can ask that customer whose glass doors 

16 are you putting in and that customer has a 

17 rating, it would seem to make sense. We could 

18 use that rating material with a known glass 

19 door manufacturer. Because if they buy it 

20 from us, we know the value. If they buy it 

21 directly, it's the same company. The results 

22 of the formulas ought to be the same amount. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 290

1 MR. BROOKMAN: We're going back to 

2 the component approach, right? 

3 MR. DYE: Yes. Tim Dye again. The 

4 reality of this is that if a walk-in cooler 

5 company does not ship the doors or buy the 

6 doors and resell, they know whose doors are 

7 going in because they have to cut the neck of 

8 their opening. Right, guys? Okay. You may 

9 not know what style of door, whether it's 

10 heated or unheated. But they know whose door 

11 whether it be mine or my competitors. 

12 Hopefully mine, everybody. 

13 But what I'm getting at is they 

14 know because not all of the door companies 

15 have the same what we call ‘‘net cooler 

16 opening’’ for the doors. Mine may be an inch 

17 different than my largest competitor. Or 

18 another guy may be a little shorter. So they 

19 have that information. 

20 But to sit here and say that 

21 they're going to be penalized and have to use 

22 the -- what was it the lowest number? Or the 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 291

1 highest number? That's -- 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: What would you 

3 recommend the Department do in this case? I 

4 don't want to put words in your mouth. What 

5 would you recommend the Department do in this 

6 case? 

7 MR. DYE: What we're all here to do 

8 is to have an energy efficient product for our 

9 customers, right, and to save energy. But we 

10 all have to understand that it's not just 

11 these two numbers. Okay. That's what we have 

12 to understand here. 

13 So we're penalizing by using the 

14 least R-factor or U-factor when in fact we 

15 have a product that we're introducing here 

16 very shortly. You can do ten doors with less 

17 than six 60 watt lightbulbs. 

18 MR. FITZ: So the issue of lighting 

19 and infiltration and we're going to talk about 

20 that in just a little bit. 

21 MR. DYE: Yes. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's hear from 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 292

1 Aris. 

2 Go ahead. 

3 MR. MARANTAN: Aris Marantan. Let 

4 me see if I can try and clarify that, the 

5 point about the highest or the lowest. I 

6 think the slide we're looking at here, slide 

7 72, is simply telling us that when a 

8 manufacturer ships a walk-in and the door is 

9 unknown we just want to allow you to calculate 

10 the performance of the walk-in by assuming a 

11 value for the doors itself. And that is the -

12 - What you see here, the two numbers are 

13 simply the U-factors of the EISA compliant 

14 doors specified in EISA. It's a default 

15 value. 

16 So if you want to use -- If you 

17 know the value of a better door, you can use 

18 that if you're going to include the door. But 

19 this is only for the case where you're not 

20 including the door itself. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

22 MR. MARANTAN: So it's not the best 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 293

1 door. It's just the EISA minimally compliant 

2 door, U-value equivalent. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Ira. 

4 MR. RICHTER: Would it be an easier 

5 solution just to change the wording from 

6 "without" to "unknown"? And that seems like 

7 that would solve the problem. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks for 

9 that specific -- 

10 MR. DYE: And one other comment. 

11 MR. FITZ: We'll consider that. 

12 MR. DYE: The panel manufacturers 

13 also I would assume -- You're asking the 

14 question because you're trying to base the 

15 refrigeration load. You're asking if it's a 

16 heated door or nonheated door or a freezer 

17 door. Right? So in reality you know who the 

18 door company is and you know kind of the type 

19 of the door, whether it's two-pane heated or 

20 it's two-pane nonheated or two pane heated, 

21 two-pane nonheated, three pane heated. Right? 

22 So it's not like it's just something way out 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 294

1 there that they don't know. And I like his 

2 comment to where "without" to "unknown." 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Please. 

4 MR. McGOWAN: This is Ray again. I 

5 just wanted to ask again if there's someone I 

6 could discuss the rating of the doors with. 

7 Is there an industry association here that 

8 perhaps I could talk to or a manufacturer that 

9 might be interested in just exploring the 

10 potential for a rating on a door? I'd be glad 

11 to exchange cards or something like that. So 

12 anybody? Because I have to get going pretty 

13 soon. Sorry. And I know we're going to end 

14 this conversation soon. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. There's one 

16 right there. Thank you. 

17 MR. McGOWAN: Thank you. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Jon. 

19 MR. McHUGH: So one thing I'd 

20 actually like to hear from the manufacturers 

21 of glass doors is do they have a 

22 recommendation relative to NFRC rating or 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 295

1 another rating. Is there a particular rating 

2 that they support for the rating of their 

3 doors? I don't think that question's been 

4 asked. It's just been the description of 

5 we're thinking about the NFRC. But I didn't 

6 hear "No, we'd actually prefer to rate 

7 according to some other ASTM method." I think 

8 that would be useful. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

10 MR. DYE: Tim Dye. The ratings of 

11 doors are highly subjective to the performance 

12 that they have to withhold. For example, I 

13 can sell a two-pane nonheated gas-filled door 

14 at a 75 degree room, 35 degree cooler and we 

15 have one that's completely energy free that 

16 will protect you up to 74 percent relative 

17 humidity. Okay. Huge. It's huge. 

18 However, that door works very good 

19 in Milwaukee or in Minnesota. But you go put 

20 it in New Orleans and the store owner that 

21 keeps his door open. His entry door to the 

22 store, he keeps it open. And he doesn't turn 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 296

1 his air conditioning on and you're going to 

2 have water all over the floor. All right. So 

3 therefore that condition we have to sell -- We 

4 would sell an energy-free door if we know 

5 those conditions 

6 Stating back to what we all said 

7 earlier, we don't know where these things are 

8 going a lot of times. Okay. I can sell one to 

9 any panel manufacturer in here, ship it to 

10 their location and it could end up in any 120 

11 volt country. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

13 MR. DYE: So the ratings that we 

14 have would have to be based on models. It's 

15 not just here's a rating for a door. Because 

16 if you take my door and you take my other 

17 competitors' doors, the same model that we 

18 compare to each other is going to have two 

19 different ratings. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: David, go ahead. 

21 MR. GRIFE: Just in addition. Just 

22 please don't assume that we always know 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 297

1 either. We're dealing with the dealer. 

2 Especially if you're doing a large range for a 

3 convenient store, you may not be doing 

4 refrigeration because they're doing a rack 

5 system. So now you have the walk-in. You 

6 don't know the door. And you may not even 

7 know the refrigeration. 

8 MR. DYE: But I would -- To digress 

9 just a little bit, I would love to see some 

10 type of rating like that because it quite 

11 honestly would give me a competitive edge. 

12 Okay. But the situation that we have is a 

13 glass door is not a glass door is not a glass 

14 door. There are different environments that 

15 we have to play in. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: And I noticed you 

17 handed your card to the gentleman from NFRC. 

18 Okay. 

19 So, Jon, go ahead. 

20 MR. McHUGH: And I just wanted to 

21 clarify that this rating is not just the U22 factor and infiltration of the door, but 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 298

1 potentially it's condensation resistance or 

2 some kind of metric like that for these humid 

3 climates or related to coatings and things 

4 like that around condensation. 

5 MR. DYE: Condensation is probably 

6 the biggest concern when it comes to glass 

7 doors in the retail environment. 

8 MR. McGOWAN: This is Ray McGowan 

9 from NFRC. Yes, in the window industry, they 

10 recognize the same thing with the various 

11 conditions, various climates. So therefore we 

12 standardize on a large set of assumptions for 

13 conditions, you know, indoor/outdoor 

14 temperature, wind speed, humidity, a variety 

15 of things. So you know perhaps we could work 

16 with the industry as well here. 

17 And additionally I heard 

18 condensation. The Window 5.2 software has a 

19 condensation resistance rating that it outputs 

20 as well. So perhaps I could help the industry 

21 if you choose to pursue some sort of rating. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 299

1 MR. FITZ: Just to clarify. Tim, 

2 when you were referring to energy-free doors, 

3 you were talking about doors without anti4 sweat, heater wire. 

5 MR. DYE: When I speak of energy6 free door, the door component itself, the 

7 glass and/or door rail have no electricity to 

8 it whatsoever. 

9 MR. FITZ: Okay. Thank you. 

10 MR. DYE: And soon to be a frame 

11 with no energy. So it's huge. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: So let's move on to 

13 the next slides. 

14 MR. FITZ: We've talked already 

15 about infiltration. We'll dig into this in 

16 detail. Specifically, steady-state 

17 infiltration, this is infiltration that is not 

18 related to the opening of doors which we've 

19 also discussed. Specifically, this is air 

20 that might go into or out of the walk-in 

21 through panels, through the panel-to-panel 

22 interface, through the bi-directional pressure 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 300

1 relief valves that we've also discussed 

2 earlier and possibly through the door 

3 threshold itself. 

4 In the NOPR, DOE has proposed the 

5 use of a gas tracer method to calculate this 

6 steady state infiltration. Now I'm just going 

7 to do a very quick overview of how this test 

8 works. First, you inject a tracer gas into 

9 the walk-in itself. You then measure that gas 

10 concentration. You let time pass. And then 

11 you remeasure the concentration. Based on 

12 this change in concentration, you can directly 

13 calculate the air infiltration. 

14 So DOE would like to take comment 

15 on the use of the gas tracer method for 

16 measuring steady state infiltration. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Ellis. 

18 MR. CRAIG: This would be on our 

19 basic unit then if we do this one test on the 

20 basic unit and then we come up with this 

21 number. Correct? 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Charles Llenza. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 301

1 Go ahead. 

2 MR. FITZ: Conceptually, yes. This 

3 is only applied to basic models. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

5 MR. FITZ: Under the definition of 

6 Basic Model, yes. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks Eric. 

8 Comment on this approach? Yes, 

9 Harvey. 

10 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. First of 

11 all, the tracer gas approach can be done as a 

12 rather inexpensive test. The real question in 

13 my own mind is whether that's to be done for 

14 the unit as some manufacturers assemble it 

15 before shipment or whether this is to be done 

16 as an installed product/installed assembly 

17 test. 

18 MR. FITZ: As Ellis had alluded to, 

19 this would be used for the basic model. The 

20 idea is that the manufacturer possibly at its 

21 own site, if it desired to do the test on its 

22 own site, using some kind of third party that 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 302

1 would come into their facility would test a 

2 basic unit and get a value for the steady 

3 state infiltration. That's what was proposed 

4 in the NOPR. 

5 MR. SACHS: So the Department is -- 

6 Again Harvey Sachs. The Department assumes 

7 that any field erected testing would be done 

8 under the authority of the local jurisdiction 

9 and not be a concern for -- Otherwise it would 

10 be a concern for assemblies governed by this 

11 rulemaking. 

12 MR. KIDO: Can you repeat the 

13 question? I didn't get the last part. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Harvey, 

15 please. I didn't either. 

16 MR. SACHS: Okay. Harvey Sachs 

17 again. My point is that I'm all in favor of 

18 factory tests. On the other hand, I think 

19 this morning's discussion established that 

20 there are major sources of variability of 

21 infiltration that relate to site assembly, as 

22 for an example, the field joint between the 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 303

1 panels and the floor. And doing a tracer gas 

2 decay on the basic model will not address the 

3 creativity of the assemblers in the field in 

4 developing auxiliary infiltration paths. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Claire, do you want 

6 to try that? 

7 MS. GAGNE: This is Claire. I'd 

8 just like to clarify that we're also 

9 interested in understanding how people react 

10 to this proposal in the context of what was 

11 discussed earlier today, the potential of an 

12 in-field assembly model for evaluating how 

13 these perform. 

14 MR. SACHS: If I might be permitted 

15 one other comment. With the exception of the 

16 question of the door itself, it's not clear to 

17 me that the Department has a strong reason to 

18 favor the tracer gas decay over a blower door 

19 test and it might well be that either would be 

20 acceptable at least for some classes of 

21 equipment. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. This 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 304

1 gentleman first and then to Fred and back to 

2 Ellis. Please say your name. 

3 MR. OWEN: Kenny Owen, Master-Bilt. 

4 I would propose that this method -- I don't 

5 disagree with the tracer gas method as a way 

6 to measure infiltration. But in reality the 

7 infiltration with the door shut, with the 

8 panel sealed properly, is negligible and we 

9 shouldn't even be arguing about it because 

10 it's such a smaller thing compared to the 

11 infiltration of even one door opening. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

13 Fred. 

14 MR. MINELLI: Fred Minelli. I want 

15 to agree with what Harvey said. The real 

16 issue is energy savings and what happens in 

17 the field after the installers are finished 

18 with it. I agree with what Kenny said that 

19 this infiltration issue is pretty minute. 

20 And I also want to reiterate that 

21 we talked about component testing this morning 

22 and we do sound attenuation testing. We do 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 305

1 water infiltration testing. Your infiltration 

2 is no different than that. And that test 

3 exists. It's something we could do easily. 

4 It does not involve a huge cost of setting up 

5 complete units with refrigeration, with glass 

6 doors, with lighting. 

7 It's a much simpler process to get 

8 us where we need to be if we're not able to 

9 get the installer in the field or the GC to do 

10 the certification on a product. What we're 

11 trying to do from a manufacturer's perspective 

12 isn't going to give us that true energy 

13 savings as a result of the installation in the 

14 field. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Ellis. 

16 MR. CRAIG: I noticed the fact that 

17 third party testing, if you do it in the 

18 field, is each installation out there going to 

19 get a third party individual to come in and 

20 test the walk-in. I mean there's some 

21 practicalities of this. I don't see how it 

22 would be practical in any way to do a test 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 306

1 after it's up unless somebody said, "Hey, this 

2 thing doesn't work." Then you might get into 

3 testing. 

4 But to do it on every unit, that 

5 would be very burdensome. In your document, 

6 it said it would be $1,000 to $5,000 to -- 

7 That's what it says in the document. And that 

8 would be pretty burdensome, especially if it's 

9 third party. It would be more than $1,000 if 

10 it's a third party coming in. Just traveling 

11 alone is going to be $1,000. 

12 MR. LLENZA: Charles Llenza, the 

13 Department of Energy. I guess the only value 

14 of a third party test would be if we have 

15 component level standards. Right. And we go 

16 with that. But then we want to have an 

17 assurance of certain level of performance in 

18 the field as assembled and we considered that 

19 the infiltration factor would be one of maybe 

20 two, three factors we would want to test to 

21 make sure that the infiltration is either 

22 minimum or none. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 307

1 And that would be a way of checking 

2 that the envelope is tightly put together and 

3 maybe that's sufficient to warrant to 

4 certifying that particular. But that would be 

5 a consideration. It's not finalized. So I'm 

6 saying that. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Harmon. 

8 MR. LEWIS: Maybe you keep in 

9 perspective that the average walk-in, say, 

10 single coup or sales -- with refrigeration, an 

11 8 X 10 maybe $8,000, $9,000 just grabbing it 

12 off the head. You can't spend $1,000 or $2,000 

13 or $5,000 measuring that little bit of air 

14 infiltration for that poor restaurant owner 

15 that the National Restaurant Association says 

16 -- it's a mom and pop type restaurant -- 70 

17 percent of them fail in the first year based 

18 on money. And you can't add that burden on 

19 them or no restaurants can survive after that 

20 first year. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

22 MR. LEWIS: You have to keep that 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 308

1 in perspective. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Right. 

3 MR. MITCHELL: I would have to 

4 agree with what Kenny Owen stated earlier that 

5 the air infiltration would be probably a 

6 minimal contributor to the energy loss if you 

7 throw out the door opening. And so slide 74 

8 makes a statement that exchange accounts for a 

9 large proportion of the energy use and that 

10 wouldn't be true unless you're talking about 

11 door opening. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Everybody. 

13 MR. FITZ: That was a good segue. 

14 We're now going to talk about door opening 

15 infiltration. Conceptually, air passes into 

16 and out of an open door. The cold denser air 

17 escapes on the bottom half of the opening. And 

18 the warm, less dense air exchanges through the 

19 top half. It mixes inside the walk-in and 

20 then this increases the load on the 

21 refrigeration system. 

22 We've talked it about this morning. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 309

1 There are a number of parameters that impact 

2 the actual amount of air that is exchanged. 

3 That includes the size of the door, the 

4 specific air properties, you know, humidity, 

5 temperature, how frequently the doors are 

6 opened, how long they're opened for, etc. 

7 So in order to account for the 

8 variation that's in the marketplace as people 

9 have commented, DOE is proposing the use of 

10 ASHRAE described calculation methodology for 

11 accounting for door opening infiltration. So 

12 we'd like to take comment on the use of a 

13 calculated method for accounting for 

14 infiltration. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Steve. 

16 MR. DUNLAP: I agree with the DOE 

17 on the calculated method because of all the 

18 variability in the field. I think that's the 

19 best was to go with the door openings, 

20 duration, with the typical parameters and 

21 we've got some comments on parameters of door 

22 opening events and devices. I don't know if 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 310

1 we're yet on the testing effectiveness values. 

2 MR. FITZ: We're talking about 

3 that, yes, the next slides. 

4 MR. DUNLAP: That that would also -

5 - That was suggested by the DOE for testing, 

6 testing of strip curtains, air curtains. My 

7 suggestion is that anything that performs 

8 consistently over time like an air curtain 

9 that would be a great thing to test. 

10 A strip curtain is kind of low tech 

11 stuff. It doesn't perform consistently over 

12 time and I would propose that the DOE consider 

13 that as just a calculation or provide a 

14 degradation calculation over time as opposed 

15 to a test on a strip curtain. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

17 Please. 

18 MR. OWEN: Kenny Owen, Master-Bilt. 

19 I agree. We've used this method using the 

20 ASHRAE numbers for infiltration for years in 

21 our load calculation programs. I think it's a 

22 great thing to do. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 311

1 My question is how are you going to 

2 account for the fact that a door opening in 

3 Minneapolis in the wintertime with five 

4 percent humidity versus a door opening in New 

5 Orleans in July which is 85 percent humidity. 

6 You've got a huge amount of difference in BTU 

7 load going in that time. So something in our 

8 calculation has to address that I think. 

9 MR. FITZ: That's a great question. 

10 There are details about just like the 

11 assumption for the temperature of the 

12 floorless coolers. There are numerous 

13 assumptions that the Department of Energy has 

14 proposed in a NOPR, for example, the specific 

15 temperature which you can use for calculating 

16 the door infiltration, specific humidity. 

17 Also there are assumptions about the door 

18 opening duration and the door opening 

19 frequency and it's broken out by three 

20 different door types, the passage doors, 

21 display glass doors and then these large 

22 freight doors that we've also been talking 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 312

1 about. 

2 MR. OWEN: Kenny Owen again. When 

3 I build a box for New Orleans, I'm going to 

4 put a bigger refrigeration system on there 

5 because I know that load is going to be 

6 bigger. When I run through the standard 

7 calculations with standard assumptions, it's 

8 going to appear that that box has too much 

9 refrigeration and I'm going to be penalized. 

10 How are we going to normalize that 

11 data and allow -- I might put a two-horse 

12 compressor on for Minneapolis, but I might put 

13 a 3.5 or so for New Orleans for the same exact 

14 box. And that would be appropriate for those 

15 applications. 

16 I'm trying to use the same 

17 calculation to hit the same equation. If 

18 everything is normalized, I feel like I'm 

19 going to have a lot of trouble with that New 

20 Orleans trying to meet the energy numbers that 

21 we agreed to. 

22 MR. FITZ: So the Department of 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 313

1 Energy for this test procedure is not 

2 suggesting that the rating that is associated 

3 with an envelope be used specifically for 

4 helping an end user decide what size 

5 refrigeration equipment they need. You're 

6 welcome to do that, but it's really for 

7 capturing the performance of the envelope 

8 itself. 

9 But if you're helping a customer 

10 with specific regional variation in size of 

11 refrigeration equipment, that's separate from 

12 this issue. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Tim. 

14 MR. DYE: Tim Dye. I guess mine's 

15 more of a question than a statement. But in 

16 the ASHRAE defined equations, okay, if my 

17 memory serves me correct, there's only one 

18 definition of counting door openings. Is that 

19 correct? 

20 MR. FITZ: That's right. 

21 MR. DYE: And I believe the 

22 equation was based more for case business, 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 314

1 supermarket, frozen food cases, than it would 

2 be for this application. And I'm just 

3 wondering. That's one statement. Now I guess 

4 maybe a question. 

5 But the second item would be is 

6 there needs to be a distinguishment between a 

7 glass display door and a service door because 

8 the service door obviously is not going to be 

9 opened as much as what a display door will. 

10 MR. FITZ: That's right. And in 

11 the proposed method by the Department of 

12 Energy there are distinct assumptions for -- 

13 MR. DYE: Okay. I just wanted to 

14 be clear. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

16 MS. LEGETT: Yes. And I'd like to 

17 add -- Sorry. Rebecca. If you have 

18 suggestions as to what assumptions we should 

19 use instead of the ones in ASHRAE please 

20 submit those. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. 

22 MR. FITZ: Finally, talking about 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 315

1 infiltration reduction devices. These include 

2 strip curtains which we've already talked 

3 about, air curtains and also these automated 

4 curtain doors that we've discussed at some 

5 length this morning as well. These are 

6 devices that reduce the air infiltration when 

7 the door is open. 

8 So to measure the performance of 

9 these devices if a manufacturer wants to 

10 receive credit for shipping them with the 

11 walk-in cooler or freezer, DOE is proposing 

12 the use of the same gas tracer method. And 

13 just to very quickly summarize how it works, 

14 you install your infiltration reduction 

15 device. As an example we're using strip 

16 curtains. You perform the gas tracer test to 

17 get a measurement for how much air exchange 

18 occurs when the device is in place and then 

19 you repeat the same test with the device 

20 deactivated or removed. And then you can 

21 calculate an effectiveness of this particular 

22 device. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 316

1 It's also important to note that in 

2 the NOPR there was a typo and it was missing 

3 this one minus term on the equation. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: David. 

5 MR. GRIFE: David Grife. I'm just 

6 trying to get a handle on all this. Every 

7 single day I have people that quote any number 

8 of jobs. As most walk-in manufacturers know, 

9 we wished we got paid on quotes because we'd 

10 make a fortune as opposed to what actually 

11 comes through the door. 

12 Am I having to write new software 

13 that every time I quote it's calculating 

14 everything from doors to air curtains to 

15 floors to panels to put together some type of 

16 number that now hits this DOE number? 

17 I'm trying to understand in the 

18 real world how this is going to end up at the 

19 end for me and my business day in and day out 

20 when this happens to be an arena where other 

21 products get quoted at the point of sale. 

22 They pull out a catalog and they quote here. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 317

1 They have to call us and we have to quote. 

2 And I know we try to get 24 hours and I'm sure 

3 most do 24 or 48. And they're demanding even 

4 faster and faster. 

5 And now I'm questioning what else 

6 do I have to do when I send out a quote. Am I 

7 getting new DOE numbers? How do you see this? 

8 MR. FITZ: I think that's a great 

9 comment. If you have specific issues with 

10 burden that's placed on you or any other 

11 manufacturers you should submit that as a 

12 formal comment. 

13 MR. LLENZA: Just a quick comment. 

14 I know that at time here this looks like we're 

15 going to be overburdening the industry with 

16 all sorts of data points, etc. I think the 

17 purpose at this point is we have to get as 

18 much information on all these points as 

19 possible and that the Department ends up 

20 adopting everything is most unlikely. We'll 

21 have to make some tradeoffs based on the 

22 comments. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 318

1 So your comments are well taken and 

2 this is basically the function of these 

3 meetings is to get the feedback from the 

4 people out in the field and the people out in 

5 the industry as to does this make any sense 

6 and using these to give credits in terms 

7 coming up with some kind of performance 

8 standard for the entire system. 

9 If it's not practical because of 

10 some of the issues of how this would be 

11 implemented, then these are the things we want 

12 to hear here at the meeting. So don't be 

13 frustrated yet. We're not there yet. 

14 (Laughter.) 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's hear from 

16 another manufacturer. Ellis. 

17 MR. CRAIG: My question is I keep 

18 hearing the manufacturer will get credited. 

19 And credited sounds like we have this bank 

20 account somewhere that there's money going in 

21 and then we get to take it back out. That's 

22 not what you're saying, is it? I mean you're 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 319

1 kind of saying something like -- 

2 MR. FITZ: I'm sorry. Yes. You're 

3 right. I'm really just saying that the 

4 manufacturer has some way of reflecting their 

5 better, their more improved, products versus 

6 another, someone in the marketplace. 

7 MR. CRAIG: Okay. That's what I 

8 wanted to understand. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon. 

10 MR. McHUGH: So speaking of 

11 credited and money, I'm very supportive of 

12 this and it does actually give the opportunity 

13 for utility programs to provide incentives for 

14 manufacturers that have products that are 

15 better performing than what DOE will 

16 ultimately provide as guidance on the minimum 

17 efficiency. Then there's opportunities with 

18 ratings to give incentives based on enhanced 

19 efficiency. 

20 And related to this test and I 

21 think Mr. Dunlap should be interested in that 

22 what I think also needs to happen is there's a 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 320

1 description about infiltration. But also the 

2 timing of these doors, there needs to be some 

3 description of the benefit of fast-acting 

4 doors for reducing infiltration and 

5 potentially that's actually a new market 

6 opportunity for you in terms of that you 

7 actually have a DOE recognized rating for the 

8 benefits of those doors. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

10 Steve. 

11 MR. DUNLAP: Thank you. Steve 

12 Dunlap again. 

13 They have parameters that if given 

14 the right parameters will show the value of a 

15 fast-acting door versus a manual door and we 

16 have comments that we've prepared for you. 

17 Presently the parameters are, in our opinion 

18 and respectful to you, just dead wrong. So 

19 we're going to come back with some parameters. 

20 And just to give you an indication 

21 in our application, a manual door could be 

22 open for six hours. A fast-acting door an 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 321

1 hour and a half for the same application. 

2 MR. FITZ: Okay. Moving on to all 

3 the electrical devices that are associated 

4 with the envelope. Because all electric 

5 devices already have specific codes and 

6 requirements that specify that they have a 

7 power requirement labeled on these components, 

8 DOE is proposing the use of the nameplate 

9 rating on everything from heater wires to 

10 lights. These are just examples. You can 

11 imagine the various electrical components that 

12 may be in a walk-in. To use that nameplate 

13 rating to then calculate the electricity 

14 consumption associated with them. 

15 But it's important to note that 

16 while the nameplate is just an instantaneous 

17 power consumption, you obviously have to take 

18 into account how long this device is turned on 

19 throughout the day or throughout the year. So 

20 in order to account for that DOE is proposing 

21 the use of a number of assumptions based on 

22 whether or not these devices are controlled by 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 322

1 some mechanism that's shipped with the walk2 in. 

3 For lights, for example, currently 

4 as published in the NOPR, DOE is proposing the 

5 use of this factor called percent time off. 

6 So this is the idea of 25 percent of the day 

7 if a light is not controlled by an auto shut8 off system of some type, then it's assumed 

9 that the light will actually be on for 75 

10 percent of the day. Or the inverse of that is 

11 that it's actually just turned off 25 percent 

12 of the day. And then you can see the 

13 assumption associated with the lighting that 

14 is connected to some type of control system. 

15 So there are a series of 

16 assumptions for the major components, lights, 

17 anti-sweat heaters, possibly motors that are 

18 associated with an air curtain, for example. 

19 But then there's a blanket assumption in order 

20 to capture all of the possible electrical 

21 devices. If it doesn't fit within one of 

22 these major components, DOE is proposing the 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 323

1 use of a percent time-off of zero. And if 

2 these other devices are shown to be connected 

3 and controlled in some way, then DOE is 

4 proposing the use of 25 percent value. 

5 We'd like to take comment on these 

6 assumptions. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Ellis. 

8 MR. CRAIG: We have an anti-sweat 

9 heater that really doesn't work unless it's 

10 necessary meaning that the wire itself is self 

11 regulating. Under that situation, would that 

12 be considered -- it doesn't really cover it 

13 under here -- a relative humidity which it 

14 doesn't test relative humidity. It really 

15 tests whether it's getting cold or not. Or if 

16 it's getting cold, then it turns on. If it 

17 isn't getting cold, it doesn't turn on. 

18 MR. FITZ: Dew point. 

19 MR. CRAIG: One foot could get warm 

20 and the rest of it could stay cold. So it's 

21 the most efficient use of a heater wire you 

22 could do, but it's not able to be valued in 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 324

1 this formula. 

2 So, under this formula, you're 

3 going to have to eliminate that. We'd have to 

4 go to a different heater wire which would be 

5 more energy because they're by the foot. In 

6 other words, when they're on -- And you've got 

7 them down here as 100 percent almost unless 

8 they're on a timer. So then you'd be burning 

9 it whether you need it or not. 

10 We'd have to go to that kind of 

11 heater wire which is where we were to a heater 

12 wire now that doesn't do that. We need to have 

13 that so we can use that heater wire. 

14 MR. FITZ: So I'm a little bit 

15 confused about it. Can you -- 

16 MR. LLENZA: Let me just clarify. 

17 It's a good suggestion. I don't think we 

18 thought about it. 

19 MR. CRAIG: Okay. 

20 MR. LLENZA: So I would just say 

21 submit your comments. Give us an estimate of 

22 -- 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 325

1 MR. CRAIG: I've already done that. 

2 MR. LLENZA: Yes. So that's what 

3 we need. And that will be an amendment to 

4 these assumptions. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

6 MR. FITZ: Any other comments? 

7 Tim. 

8 MR. DYE: Just a point of 

9 clarification. When you're saying "lights," 

10 it's a generic term. Is this overhead or 

11 display lights or both? 

12 MR. FITZ: All lights. 

13 MR. DYE: All lights. Okay. With 

14 the advent -- In just the last three or four 

15 years with the advent of LED lighting, you 

16 know without any motion sensors, we're able to 

17 pull out 90 percent of the energy costs now 

18 and it's cost prohibitive to put motion 

19 sensors because the motion sensor takes 12 

20 years to pay for itself because you're taking 

21 out so much energy. Will that be addressed in 

22 any way or --? 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 326

1 MR. FITZ: Yes. As I described, 

2 the nameplate rating of the LED bulbs. An LED 

3 light or a strip light, for example, on the -- 

4 of a glass door, you know better what the 

5 specific wattage is. Anyways, you use that 

6 value to then calculate the energy 

7 consumption. 

8 MR. DYE: Okay. 

9 MR. FITZ: So that's how you 

10 differentiate between a fluorescent or an LED. 

11 MR. DYE: Thank you. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: David, do you have a 

13 comment? 

14 MR. GRIFE: No, not really. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

16 MR. FITZ: So then the final piece 

17 because of these electrical devices that are 

18 sited inside the walk-in and since they are 

19 consuming electricity and actually generating 

20 heat, as a couple of examples, lighting and 

21 also the anti-sweat heater on glass doors, a 

22 major portion of this heat or really 100 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 327

1 percent of it stays within the walk-in and 

2 actually adds to the load that's put on the 

3 refrigeration equipment. 

4 In order to account for this extra 

5 heat load, the Department is proposing the use 

6 of a conversion factor or some way to take 

7 this heat load and represent it in the form of 

8 electricity consumption. This is normally 

9 dealt with, this factor known as the Energy 

10 Efficiency Ratio, and the Department is 

11 proposing the use of EER of 12.4 for coolers 

12 and 6.3 for freezers and this is coming 

13 directly from AHRI 1250 that is associated 

14 with the refrigeration equipment. 

15 Basically, this makes for an easier 

16 metric for rating a given piece of equipment. 

17 And we would like to take comment on the use 

18 of these conversion factors. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Ira. 

20 MR. RICHTER: Yes. Can you relate 

21 that to indoor or outdoor perhaps condensing 

22 temperatures what we're looking at there? 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 328

1 MR. FITZ: Like a number of other 

2 assumptions that the DOE has made, we 

3 recognize that in the field whether it's an 

4 outdoor unit or sited indoors, whether it's in 

5 Louisiana or in Alaska, there's lots of 

6 variation. Instead of trying to capture all 

7 the possible variation for the purposes of 

8 rating the envelope, we're just using one 

9 assumption for freezers and one assumption for 

10 coolers again to create a level playing field 

11 for rating the products. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Any 

13 additional comments on nominal energy 

14 efficiency ratio? 

15 Yes. Jon. 

16 MR. McHUGH: Could you explain how 

17 this rates to the use of AHRI 1250 since it's 

18 also accounting for the energy consumption of 

19 lights and those kinds of things? 

20 MR. FITZ: For the purposes of 

21 rating the envelope itself and the components 

22 that -- 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 329

1 MR. McHUGH: They're calculating 

2 EER that includes not just the compressor 

3 energy but also the fan energy. 

4 MS. LEGETT: This is Rebecca. I 

5 think we're talking about different things 

6 here. When formulating some of the numbers 

7 for the 1250 I understand that a number of 

8 assumptions about the envelope were used given 

9 that a manufacturer for refrigeration may not 

10 know all the envelope parameters. 

11 This is exactly the same situation 

12 from the other end. This is the manufacturer 

13 of an envelope who doesn't necessarily know 

14 what refrigeration system will go on the 

15 envelope. So to create a level playing field 

16 for everyone, we're using these values. 

17 That's all this is. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you that 

19 explanation. 

20 Additional comments on this comment 

21 box? 

22 (No verbal response.) 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 330

1 MR. FITZ: All right. Just again, 

2 this is a summary of all of the issues we just 

3 discussed related to the envelope. Now I'm 

4 going to pass it off to the refrigeration 

5 equipment discussion. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: I think we should 

7 take a break right now and let's see if we can 

8 do this in two minutes. I'm not even sure 

9 that the coffee shop is open at 3:30 p.m. I 

10 think so. A ten minute break. There are 

11 water fountains at both ends of the hall. 

12 Everybody can use the restroom. 

13 And then we're doing pretty good in 

14 terms of the coverage here. 

15 PARTICIPANT: (Off the microphone 

16 remark.) 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: No, we'll be done. 

18 Yes, I think another -- Oh, less than an hour 

19 we'll be done. So we'll resume in ten minutes 

20 which would be 3:40 p.m. about. Okay. And 

21 we'll push this towards completion. Off the 

22 record. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 331

1 (Whereupon, a short recess was 

2 taken.) 

3 (Whereupon, the proceedings in the 

4 foregoing matter went off the record at 3:33 

5 p.m. and went back on the record at 3:41 p.m.) 

6 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: We are on 

7 the home stretch here, folks. Let's resume. 

8 We're moving into proposed test 

9 procedure refrigeration system. Hopefully, 

10 all of you have had a chance to get revived. 

11 Let's take our seats. Let's begin 

12 as we -- 

13 PARTICIPANT: No. 

14 PARTICIPANT: They're getting 

15 rebellious. 

16 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: We're doing 

17 well here, with the exception of one or two 

18 among us. 

19 Okay. And, I apologize, we are 

20 going to hear from Gopal. Okay. Here we go. 

21 We're starting. 

22 MR. BANDYOPADHYAY: Okay. This is 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 332

1 Gopal Bandyopadhyay from Pacific Northwest 

2 National Lab, and we are going to discuss just 

3 now the proposed test procedure for the 

4 refrigeration system. 

5 So here, in fact, we will not go 

6 into too much of details, primarily because it 

7 has been developed by AHRI. And the other 

8 reason is that it has been there with you for 

9 a long time, so I guess there would be -- they 

10 have been studied in detail. 

11 So what we will do just now is we 

12 will briefly, very briefly, describe the test 

13 methods, the test conditions, and explain the 

14 calculations which are involved, and, of 

15 course, we will actually also show finally how 

16 to -- what to do with it. 

17 So this is the test procedure which 

18 DOE is proposing to adopt. This is AHRI 1250, 

19 which has been developed over I think about 

20 the course of six months in last year, and the 

21 AHRI actually has made this available in their 

22 website I think since September 2009, so which 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 333

1 is about a good six months ago. So it is 

2 really presumed that this will be -- really 

3 have been -- this will have been studied 

4 actually in some more detail. 

5 So this is, again, test procedure 

6 which has been covered in this NOPR, and the 

7 important thing here is that this test 

8 procedure actually kind of measures the 

9 efficiency of the refrigeration system for the 

10 walk-in by defining a factor, efficiency 

11 factor, or annual walk-in energy factor, which 

12 is called -- which is -- actually we are 

13 calling it AWEF. And this AWEF also helps us 

14 compute the annual energy consumption for any 

15 walk-in system. 

16 So in this we just familiarized 

17 ourselves with the basic subsystems of air 

18 refrigeration system. And what we have inside 

19 the box, inside the envelope, we have got fans 

20 and the coil. And this is also known as the 

21 unit cooler. 

22 And outside the box we have got the 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 334

1 condensing unit, comprising of the compressor, 

2 and the condenser and -- the condenser fan. 

3 And there is an expansion valve which 

4 regulates the flow of the refrigerant in the 

5 loop. 

6 So the -- I get to introduce this 

7 here, because there are -- there are separate 

8 provisions in AHRI 1250, which applies to the 

9 various subsystems. 

10 And also, one more thing, I think I 

11 should let you know that the important and the 

12 key members who are actually instrumental in 

13 developing AHRI 1250, they are also present in 

14 this room. So I think -- I mean, it will be 

15 much easier for them even to address some 

16 questions or concerns that you might have. 

17 So refrigeration systems for the 

18 walk-in -- walk-in coolers and freezers 

19 primarily comes in two different set of 

20 configurations. To the left we have the 

21 dedicated systems, and we have the multiplex 

22 systems to our right. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 335

1 In the dedicated systems, the 

2 important thing is that the compressor and the 

3 condenser are meant for serving the unit 

4 cooler and meeting the refrigeration load of 

5 only one single box. So there is a one-to-one 

6 correspondence between the two. 

7 And to the right we have got the 

8 multiplex system, where multiple compressors 

9 they actually stay in some kind of 

10 configuration in a rack, and there is a 

11 condenser which is outside. There may be bank 

12 of condensers which are outside. And they 

13 serve the -- the one box or maybe more boxes 

14 or display units also sometimes. 

15 So what do you want to really -- 

16 there is a distinction between these two. I 

17 mean, as you can -- as you move on, we will 

18 see that there are some issues here. And so 

19 here again the dedicated systems, we are 

20 actually -- we are splitting into two 

21 different types. 

22 One is we have got a packaged 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 336

1 system where the unit cooler and the 

2 condensing unit, they are attached to the 

3 structure of the envelope itself, and the 

4 other thing is a split system where the unit 

5 cooler is of course inside the box, and the 

6 condensing unit actually is often outside. It 

7 is exposed to the ambient outside. 

8 So about the multiplex system, the 

9 important thing here is that in this test 

10 procedure this is not covered. So this test 

11 procedure doesn't address the issue of testing 

12 multiple systems, multiplex systems. 

13 So in this test procedure, AHRI 

14 1250, there are three types of systems which 

15 have actually been covered. One is the 

16 matched system, where actually the unit cooler 

17 paired with the condensing unit are tested 

18 together as a complete system. 

19 So, and it also provides the 

20 testing for the unit cooler and the condensing 

21 unit separately, which are called it a mix22 match system. I mean, there may be different 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 337

1 manufacturers or there may be the same 

2 manufacturer who are manufacturing both the 

3 unit cooler and the condensing unit, but there 

4 are separate tests which are done on these two 

5 subassemblies. 

6 And, finally, we have the third 

7 items, the configurations which are covered 

8 here, which are really pertains to -- which 

9 pertains to the unit cooler paired with a 

10 multiplex system. 

11 So this actually -- the mix-match 

12 system in particular is of great interest to 

13 people who have got a very wide variety of 

14 refrigeration systems, because this really 

15 allows you to reduce the number of tests. So 

16 there is a pathway for reducing the number of 

17 tests that you carry out by using this mix18 match methodology of AHRI 1250. 

19 I mean, to give you an example, 

20 suppose you have got three, let's say, unit 

21 coolers, which you pair with five different 

22 condensing units. What you can do actually 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 338

1 instead of testing, let's say, five into three 

2 -- 15 combinations -- you can really cut it 

3 down to only eight tests, five plus three, and 

4 then do the calculation to realize the 

5 results, the AWEF, when actually you pair a 

6 given unit cooler with a different condensing 

7 unit. 

8 So this is a clear path forward to 

9 reduce the number of tests which is there in 

10 AHRI, and this is an excellent feature, which 

11 is actually -- it has been there also in 

12 central air conditioning for quite some time. 

13 So the type of tests we have got I 

14 will just describe -- I mean, what kind of 

15 tests we are doing here. So first we take up 

16 the matched system. Matched system primarily 

17 in the AHRI 1250, we have the steady-state 

18 test, which really measures the on-cycle power 

19 consumption and the net refrigeration 

20 capacity. 

21 How it is done, okay, I will just 

22 give you the outline on this, which is really 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 339

1 that you put the unit cooler in an 

2 environmental chamber where you keep the 

3 ambient conditions completely controlled. And 

4 the same way the condensing unit is also kept 

5 in an environmental chamber where the 

6 conditions are actually kept under control. 

7 Then, in fact, you allow the system 

8 to run and reach a steady-state for about half 

9 an hour, and after that you measure some -- 

10 two parameters primarily, the refrigerant flow 

11 and also you figure out what is enthalpy 

12 difference across the coil. 

13 So this gives you the gross 

14 refrigeration capacity. From there, you have 

15 to subtract the heat which is released by the 

16 evaporator fan, so that you get the net 

17 refrigeration capacity. So what you see here 

18 in the second box here, that has been really 

19 coming from there. 

20 Then, we have the on-cycle power 

21 consumption, which means that you have to add 

22 up the power consumed by the condenser fan, 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 340

1 the compressor motor, and also the evaporator 

2 fan, which adds up in total for the 

3 refrigeration system, and you have the total 

4 on-cycle power consumption. 

5 So this is the kind of -- the most 

6 key part of the test is really here. Then, we 

7 have got the off-cycle evaporator fan power 

8 test, which actually when the compressor goes 

9 off there is no load in the system, and that 

10 is the time you have to measure the power for 

11 the fan. 

12 So this test -- the off-cycle 

13 evaporator fan power test has got the 

14 advantage, because if there is -- there are 

15 good controls, which is really cycling the fan 

16 or running the fan at a reduced speed, these 

17 tests actually get credit for that situation. 

18 So these are the -- these two 

19 tests, first two tests, are essential. They 

20 are kind of the core tests, which are done for 

21 the -- both the cooler and the freezer, but 

22 the freezers there are two more tests -- the 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 341

1 defrost tests, which are done for the -- let's 

2 say just to measure the defrost cycle, energy 

3 input, how much electricity -- I mean, 

4 kilowatt hour has gone into the test to -- 

5 over the entire defrost cycle, and you also 

6 find out what is the duration of the defrost 

7 cycle. 

8 Then, there is optional defrost 

9 test, again only for freezers, which measures 

10 the time interval between the defrosts. 

11 So then we move to the mix-and12 match system. As we explained, the mix-match 

13 systems, the unit coolers and the condensing 

14 units, they are tested separately. They are 

15 not in the combined system. 

16 So there, again, unit cooler -- we 

17 have these -- the same way we have the 

18 capacity test, we have off-cycle power test, 

19 and the net refrigeration capacity is measured 

20 again in the same way like we -- like I 

21 explained earlier. And we have also the -- it 

22 is common, nothing different. The only 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 342

1 difference is that now we are measuring the 

2 refrigeration capacity at two different 

3 suction temperatures. 

4 Now, the reason that we are doing 

5 this is because we need the cross-plot, which 

6 really allows us to match this unit cooler 

7 with any given -- any other condensing unit. 

8 So this idea has come really from -- again, 

9 from air conditioning experience. 

10 Then, of course, from unit cooler 

11 tests we must also do the condensing unit 

12 test. That is the same way we do the on-cycle 

13 test, and then on-cycle power consumption. 

14 And here the difference is that because the -- 

15 we don't know what fan is -- will be actually 

16 -- evaporator fan will go into the unit 

17 cooler, so here we are measuring the gross 

18 refrigeration capacity, but not the net 

19 refrigeration capacity. So this is the 

20 important difference. 

21 Then, the last of those three 

22 configurations, we have got the unit cooler 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 343

1 paired with the multiplex system, and there 

2 again we go through the same series of tests 

3 -- the capacity tests, the off-cycle fan power 

4 consumption test, then of course the energy 

5 inputs for the defrost cycles, and also the 

6 defrost -- the optional defrost test, where 

7 actually you measure the time interval between 

8 defrost. 

9 So now we talk about just the 

10 conditions. Actually, these are very brief. 

11 After all, there is -- AHRI 1250 is a fairly 

12 long document, and it has got plenty of 

13 equations to keep you busy for weeks. 

14 (Laughter.) 

15 So -- anyway, so the conditions 

16 here I am just summarizing. Primarily, the 

17 conditions which are varied are the 

18 temperature inside the box, the temperature 

19 inside the box, which really means the 

20 entering air temperature in the box. So for 

21 coolers this is maintained at 35 degrees 

22 Fahrenheit, and for the freezers it is 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 344

1 maintained at minus 10. 

2 And the second parameter we vary is 

3 the condenser location -- indoors, outdoors. 

4 Indoors you get the condenser at 90 degrees 

5 Fahrenheit. For outdoor you vary at 35 

6 degrees, which is kind of cold weather 

7 conditions, maybe -- maybe Minneapolis in May. 

8 (Laughter.) 

9 And the 59-degree Fahrenheit, and 

10 of course 95 is not good enough for some parts 

11 of Texas. 

12 Okay. So then the compressor types 

13 also -- if it is a single capacity, fixed 

14 capacity system, we do the testing only at one 

15 condition. That is a single capacity. The 

16 two capacity you must do at both capacities. 

17 And of course, in variable capacity 

18 compressors you have to do this test actually 

19 at minimum and maximum and also an 

20 intermediate. 

21 So this gives you the idea about 

22 the number of tests which are required for a 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 345

1 given situation. Like when you have, let's 

2 say, a variable capacity compressor, and you 

3 are trying to test that variable capacity 

4 compressor with a specific unit cooler, you 

5 have to really run this capacity test for nine 

6 different configurations, because there are 

7 three temperatures involved -- 35, 59, 95 -- 

8 for the outside ambient. And the capacity 

9 levels for the compressor are also three -- 

10 the minimum, maximum, and the intermediate. 

11 So three into three is nine. So 

12 that is actually quite involved. But for 

13 single capacity systems, it is really only 

14 those three tests at three temperatures. That 

15 is all you've got to do. 

16 Okay. So now I think we come to 

17 the crux of the -- this presentation. 

18 Actually, DOE examined AHRI 1250, and it 

19 believes that these methods are well suited 

20 for testing walk-in coolers and freezer 

21 refrigeration systems. 

22 The reasons are this is really 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 346

1 based on the earlier experiences of AHRI 420, 

2 520, and also ASHRAE 23, which have been there 

3 for quite some time. So I think it is built 

4 on experience. 

5 And the second thing is that, of 

6 course, that the conditions which are there, 

7 the test conditions which are there are very 

8 much applicable for the operating conditions 

9 and the configurations of the walk-in coolers 

10 and freezers. This is number 2. This is 

11 number 3, that it is really industry 

12 association standard. And, of course, it 

13 really gives us the flexibility to give credit 

14 for the energy-saving technologies. 

15 So we come to the main issue here, 

16 that whether this is an appropriate test 

17 procedure for refrigeration systems used in 

18 walk-ins. And DOE invites comment -- comments 

19 on this issue. 

20 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Comments on 

21 the appropriateness of this test procedure? 

22 Yes, Harvey Sachs. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 347

1 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. As I 

2 said this morning, I think AHRI 1250 is quite 

3 an accomplishment, and my compliments to all 

4 the chefs. Nonetheless, I am left with a 

5 number of second-order questions, which we may 

6 not be able to address this round. They may 

7 have to come later. 

8 But you point out, Gopal, in your 

9 fourth bullet that it gives credit for energy 

10 savings technology, such as variable speed 

11 evaporator fans. What is not clear to me is 

12 an implementation issue that I offer as a 

13 specific example, and it may be wrong, is how 

14 I am going to handle the question of 

15 certifying that I am actually activating 

16 variable speed evaporator fan operation with 

17 variable speed condensing unit in the mix-and18 match scenario. 

19 The energy -- the general point is 

20 that the controls become increasingly 

21 important with advanced equipment, and it is 

22 not clear to me how the value of really good 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 348

1 controls will be propagated across all of 

2 these configuration classes. 

3 MR. BANDYOPADHYAY: Okay. What I 

4 know and what I can foresee is that the 

5 control aspects for the evaporator fans is 

6 definitely taken into account when you do this 

7 off-cycle power test. But about the condenser 

8 fan, how really it will impact I am not too 

9 sure, but I will ask maybe Daryl, and others 

10 can -- who are from AHRI, they can address 

11 this. 

12 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Daryl, thank 

13 you. 

14 MR. ERBS: Daryl Erbs. I mean, 

15 Harvey raises I think a legitimate issue that 

16 I'm not sure we have the answer to. I mean, 

17 if it's how you make sure that the control is 

18 either supplied together with, let's say, the 

19 unit cooler, if it's a variable speed 

20 evaporator fan, you know, do you allow a third 

21 party control? I mean, it's not uncommon for 

22 people to take refrigeration systems that may 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 349

1 come from two manufacturers of the 

2 refrigeration system and then purchase a third 

3 party control and install that into the entire 

4 system. 

5 I'm not sure I have an answer for 

6 how we -- how we incorporate that type of 

7 integration when we are asking the 

8 manufacturer of the unit cooler to, you know, 

9 test his system and rate it. 

10 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Rebecca. 

11 MS. LEGETT: Yes. This is Rebecca. 

12 I mean, we have that issue regardless. I 

13 mean, that is really an enforcement issue as 

14 to whether manufacturers are actually 

15 providing what they say they are providing. I 

16 mean, that's -- I see that as a separate 

17 issue, and maybe Charlie can speak to that. 

18 MR. LLENZA: Yes. This is Charlie 

19 Llenza, Department of Energy. I think that -- 

20 we had a little bit of an off-bar discussion 

21 about the enforcement and compliance issues, 

22 that this rule -- that the general rule for 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 350

1 the walk-in cooler/freezer is going to 

2 generate. 

3 The test procedure part of this 

4 does not necessarily clarify the enforcement 

5 issues and necessarily who -- how the 

6 compliance issues will be addressed. 

7 We are in the middle of doing a 

8 standards rule, and I think that as we go -- 

9 in the next month or so we are going to have a 

10 pre-analysis meeting. This will probably be 

11 something to be continued at that meeting, and 

12 then continue through the process with the 

13 standard, because this will be something that 

14 will have to be resolved as we go through the 

15 process of coming up with a standard. 

16 The biggest concern here at this -- 

17 for the test procedure is getting the metrics 

18 down for what everybody needs to test to, 

19 regardless of who is going to enforce it or 

20 who is responsible. 

21 So while it is important that we 

22 understand this for the future that is coming 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 351

1 very soon to us for the standard, it is not 

2 something, I don't think, we are going to 

3 resolve at this meeting. 

4 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Let's hear 

5 from this gentleman back here. Yes. Your 

6 name, please, for the record. 

7 MR. BEATON: Warren Beaton, 

8 Emerson. I think the air conditioning rating 

9 standard takes this problem into account by 

10 rating only the combination of the high and 

11 the low side together as one unit, whereas if 

12 it's a single-speed system it -- they have 

13 separate ratings for the -- you can have a 

14 rating for the condensing unit only, and then 

15 combine it with the evaporator. 

16 So that means that you specify the 

17 controls and the high side and a low side 

18 together as one system to rate with a variable 

19 capacity compressor and variable speed fans. 

20 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

21 Harvey Sachs. 

22 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. Thank 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 352

1 you, Warren. And this is perhaps more 

2 addressed to Daryl. Am I to infer, then, that 

3 I do not have a compliance path for mix-match 

4 with a variable speed compressor and a 

5 variable speed fan, or at least I don't have a 

6 way to assure that the controls are 

7 implemented, so that we will get the benefits? 

8 MR. ERBS: Daryl. I think we can 

9 accommodate the case of a unit cooler, which 

10 has a variable speed fan, which may be able to 

11 do what it needs to do, irrespective of what 

12 condensing unit it is attached to. 

13 So I think one of the more common 

14 scenarios that we have discussed is if the 

15 compressor is off, perhaps the evaporator fan 

16 could run at a lower speed and save energy 

17 during the compressor-off time, because you 

18 need to mix the air up in the box, but maybe 

19 it doesn't have to be at the full speed. 

20 So I think that can be the -- when 

21 we start talking about variable speeds, 

22 condensing units, and unit coolers that go 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 353

1 with them, you know, to my earlier comments, I 

2 think that is something we have to tread a 

3 little bit cautiously, that we don't cover 

4 something with a standard that we don't need 

5 -- we don't completely understand how to do. 

6 And I don't think there is an 

7 immediate need in the marketplace, but, you 

8 know, we will be continuing to look at the 

9 standard and try to address those issues. 

10 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: You can see 

11 the question here in the comment box. 

12 Additional comments? Yes, Jon. 

13 MR. McHUGH: So first off, I think 

14 it is critical before DOE sets upon a final 

15 rule for the test method that they understand 

16 how it would be enforced, as you may find that 

17 you paint yourself into a corner by setting up 

18 rules for things that are unenforceable. 

19 I talked earlier about the 

20 desirability of having component standards. 

21 And even though I -- you know, I worked with 

22 the AHRI team, and I think they have done a 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 354

1 lot of really good work here and made some 

2 great improvements, I am still a little 

3 concerned that, as I mentioned earlier, you 

4 know, having a tradeoff approach allows 

5 someone to say, "Well, my particular 

6 condensing unit, it may be marginal, but, hey, 

7 it actually passes if you use this really 

8 good, you know, indoor unit. And vice versa, 

9 I've got this marginal indoor unit, but, hey, 

10 it passes if I use a really good condensing 

11 unit." 

12 And so it creates, I think, some 

13 confusion in the market in terms of saying, 

14 "Does this piece of equipment provide the 

15 desired efficiency?" Now I have, you know -- 

16 potentially, I am going to combine these two 

17 marginal units that I purchased from two 

18 different manufacturers, both of them saying, 

19 "Well, you know, when I put them together with 

20 this other thing, it did work." 

21 So to me that is a really critical 

22 enforcement issue for this test method. Now, 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 355

1 potentially this method, all the hard work 

2 that went into it, can be used to define what 

3 is the minimum efficiency of the indoor unit, 

4 you know, potentially fixing -- fixing the 

5 condensing efficiency, you know, essentially 

6 like that is done with the rack type system 

7 test. So something to think about. 

8 The other thing is is that -- 

9 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Pause there, 

10 Jon. 

11 MR. McHUGH: Okay. 

12 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Daryl wants 

13 to respond. 

14 MR. ERBS: Yes. I just -- I guess 

15 to say that it is somehow not achieving the 

16 same end objective, because you use a lower 

17 efficiency half to the system, I don't think 

18 it matters in the end how -- you know, the 

19 objective will be to try and achieve some 

20 minimum efficiency for the system however -- 

21 and we want to give people as much flexibility 

22 to spur innovation, to come up with the lowest 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 356

1 net cost way of getting there, and so I don't 

2 think there is anything wrong with that. 

3 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Charles 

4 Llenza. 

5 MR. LLENZA: I think the issue 

6 becomes -- is performance-based. So if we set 

7 -- if we set standards for the components, 

8 that's one thing. But then, because our 

9 mandate is performance-based, we -- part of 

10 the flexibility that we are supposed to be 

11 providing here is multiple paths to achieve 

12 the performance level, and sometimes the 

13 tradeoff will be a mix and match of equipment 

14 that is not at the highest level of efficiency 

15 if it was taken individually. 

16 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Karim. 

17 MR. AMRANE: Right. And I would 

18 like to stress this point exactly. This is a 

19 performance standard. And we are doing the 

20 same thing, for example, for residential 

21 equipment today. You have condensing unit, 

22 you are matching a coil with a condensing unit 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 357

1 -- system. Sorry, you are matching the coil 

2 with the condensing unit, and it is exactly -- 

3 we don't want to get into now trying to 

4 regulate every piece of the refrigeration 

5 system -- the condensers, the evaporators. 

6 That is not something that industry will be 

7 supportive of. 

8 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Charles. 

9 MR. LLENZA: Charles Llenza. In 

10 case, for example, the prescribed standards 

11 that Congress sent us, they had motors that 

12 were at a higher efficiency than the normal 

13 motors, and they were prescribed. So that 

14 would be a case where it is mandated, and we 

15 -- at that point, that is the minimum for us 

16 to accept. 

17 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: So, Jon, 

18 back to you. 

19 MR. McHUGH: Yes. So, again, the 

20 -- what I heard earlier is that the -- that 

21 there are prescribed requirements in this 

22 standard. I think it is important to think 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 358

1 about how these -- how these components are 

2 going to be sold, so the standard has to 

3 reflect the market -- how the market actually 

4 works in terms of people obtaining components 

5 from different people. 

6 The standard can be performance. 

7 It can be a component performance standard. 

8 It doesn't tell you exactly what FIN spacing 

9 and all of these sorts of things, so there is 

10 all sorts of flexibility for the manufacturers 

11 to exceed the standard. And remember that 

12 this is supposed to be a minimum efficiency 

13 standard, so that whatever standard that we 

14 ultimately end up with, these are going -- 

15 this is just going to be the minimum, and 

16 there will still be opportunities to exceed 

17 that minimum. 

18 And so by having a rating for the 

19 various components you actually help 

20 incentivize innovation by improving the 

21 efficiency of each of those components. So I 

22 think there is some issues associated with 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 359

1 providing flexibility for improving each of 

2 those components. 

3 Now, the other thing related to 

4 this standard has to do with the issue of 

5 defrost. And I will send some written 

6 comments about that, but I don't believe that 

7 the defrost test, as it is currently written, 

8 provides the desired protections against all 

9 of the methods of poor performance with 

10 defrost controls, or at least doesn't give 

11 appropriate -- it gives credit for high12 performing systems, but it doesn't actually 

13 identify low-performing systems, because you 

14 only get the credit under the optional test. 

15 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. I am 

16 going to pass out these evaluation forms now 

17 as we are starting to lose a few people, and 

18 we are nearing the end of the content that we 

19 are covering. Please pay attention, but 

20 before you leave fill out the evaluation 

21 forms. The Department tries very hard to make 

22 sure these meetings go as best they can. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 360

1 So you can see the comment box. 

2 Rebecca? 

3 MS. LEGETT: Yes. Thank you for 

4 that comment. And I know you made very 

5 specific comments in your opening statements. 

6 We appreciate specific ways in which DOE 

7 should or can improve upon this test 

8 procedure, if they do. So thank you. 

9 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

10 Thank you. Kenny. 

11 MR. OWEN: This is Kenny Owen, 

12 Master-Bilt. We believe that AHRI 1250 is an 

13 appropriate standard. We think it is a great 

14 thing. I will go back to some comments that 

15 were made earlier, in that it can be a very 

16 burdensome thing to a small company if we say 

17 that every piece of equipment has to be tested 

18 in all of these different ways. 

19 So we recommended in our written 

20 comments that something like a representative 

21 sample, a few pieces, five percent, whatever 

22 is appropriate, be tested third party, and the 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 361

1 rest of the equipment be tested by the 

2 manufacturer or even through calculations, you 

3 know, and confirmed third party like that. 

4 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

5 Karim. 

6 MR. AMRANE: Yes. I would like to 

7 add -- this is Karim Amrane, AHRI. We wrote 

8 the standard because of the rulemaking 

9 process. There was a deadline. We were 

10 expecting DOE to come up with a final rule by 

11 December, so we wrote the standard in, what, 

12 three months? Four months? Very quick. I 

13 mean, those guys did tremendous work, meeting 

14 almost every week. 

15 Several of you were on the phone 

16 following this work, so it was an open 

17 process. We tried to invite anybody who 

18 wanted to be -- to participate in the 

19 standard. 

20 Now, standards are live documents. 

21 They are going to be -- the standard is going 

22 to be updated in the future, and we intend to 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 362

1 fix anything that needs to be fixed. So I am 

2 -- again, we invite anybody to participate in 

3 the process when there will be a -- when the 

4 standard would be up for revision. 

5 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: I don't know 

6 what you -- thank you, Karim. 

7 Okay. So then let's -- final 

8 comments on this point, because we are going 

9 to move on. Yes. 

10 MR. BANDYOPADHYAY: Okay. So I 

11 think Collin Weber is going to explain to you 

12 the calculation methodology. 

13 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes. 

14 MR. BANDYOPADHYAY: And also there 

15 are some -- a couple of issues on this. So I 

16 think I am -- Collin will now come here. 

17 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes. Steve. 

18 MR. COMBS: Steve Combs. Before we 

19 move on, there is one editorial rewording 

20 suggestion in here for this -- where you have 

21 the summary of tests for the match system, the 

22 mix-match. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 363

1 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Can you 

2 please give us the slide number? 

3 MR. COMBS: Yes, it's slides 97, 

4 98, and 99. 

5 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. 

6 MR. COMBS: Where they talk about 

7 mandatory defrost tests, and it is qualified 

8 as freezer only. Suggest a rewording on that. 

9 I am not quite sure what the rewording should 

10 be, but to accommodate medium temperature or 

11 cooler systems that have other than off-cycle 

12 air defrost systems on them. 

13 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Did you get 

14 that? 

15 MS. LEGETT: Thank you. And if you 

16 -- and if you can think of an appropriate 

17 rewording, or an appropriate methodology 

18 before the end of the comment period, please 

19 submit that in writing. 

20 MR. COMBS: I will. Thanks. 

21 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: You've got 

22 the content there, right? Because I think 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 364

1 that that's helpful. 

2 Harvey, before we move on. 

3 MR. SACHS: Mr. Chairman, I would 

4 like to ask unanimous consent for the adoption 

5 as deemed having been passed for slides 104 

6 through 106 dealing with the -- 107 dealing 

7 with the energy use factor. Thank you. 

8 (Laughter.) 

9 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you, 

10 Harvey. Okay. I'm having flashbacks here. 

11 Okay. Let's proceed. Collin. 

12 MR. WEBER: Thank you. Collin 

13 Weber. I am now going to discuss some 

14 calculations for the refrigeration system that 

15 are specific to the DOE test procedure. 

16 After the test procedure -- after 

17 the data are gathered within 1250, the AWEF is 

18 then calculated as the output of the AHRI 1250 

19 test procedure. It is calculated as a measure 

20 of the efficiency of the system. It is a 

21 ratio. And the general form is shown up here 

22 in the box. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 365

1 It is the net heat removed from the 

2 walk-in, not including heat generated by 

3 refrigeration system components inside the 

4 envelope, such as fans running inside the 

5 envelope. And that is divided by the total 

6 energy consumption of the refrigeration 

7 system. 

8 Then, the refrigeration system is 

9 analytically paired with a theoretical 

10 envelope. The purpose of this is to provide a 

11 level playing field for the test, some parity 

12 when comparing systems or when rating all 

13 systems. The 1250 test procedure calculates 

14 the energy the refrigeration system would use 

15 to project the heat load associated with this 

16 theoretical envelope. 

17 The test procedure calculates the 

18 AWEF under assumed ambient conditions, and 

19 there are some assumptions here. In the left20 most box there is data regarding these ambient 

21 conditions. For indoor units, the ambient 

22 temperature is assumed to be at 90 degrees 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 366

1 Fahrenheit. This is specified in AHRI 1250. 

2 And for outdoor units the ambient 

3 temperature varies according to an assumed 

4 temperature profile in which temperatures are 

5 divided into bins, and a certain number of 

6 hours within each temperature bin are listed. 

7 This is also contained in 1250. 

8 These ambient conditions affect the 

9 conduction load on the theoretical envelope, 

10 which contributes to the total heat load, 

11 which is then removed from the walk-in by the 

12 refrigeration system. And they also affect 

13 the energy consumption, therefore, of the 

14 condensing unit. Again, these assumed ambient 

15 conditions are taken to be consistent across 

16 all walk-in cooler/freezer refrigeration 

17 systems. 

18 In DOE's test procedure, DOE 

19 adapted the AHRI test procedure to fulfill the 

20 statutory requirements laid out in EPCA for 

21 DOE. 

22 Now, as I stated before, 1250 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 367

1 calculates AWEF of a refrigeration system, 

2 which is a measure of efficiency. The general 

3 form is show again here. The DOE test 

4 procedure, however, is mandated by EPCA to 

5 measure energy use. Therefore, in order to -- 

6 we essentially backed out annual energy use by 

7 swapping some of the terms. 

8 So essentially in this case now we 

9 have annual energy use equals the net heat 

10 removed divided by the AWEF. We are using the 

11 output of 1250 and an intermediate variable 

12 from 1250 to determine the value that we are 

13 mandated by EPCA -- that DOE is mandated by 

14 EPCA to determine in this test procedure. 

15 And this sort of flow diagram here 

16 just shows what is used. At the top we have 

17 four quantities that are either determined by 

18 or used in the evaluation of 1250P -- or, 

19 excuse me, 1250. And, for example, the net 

20 refrigeration capacity, coupled with the 

21 temperature profile data for outdoor units, is 

22 able to determine -- allows us to determine 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 368

1 the heat load at each ambient temperature. 

2 And then, this, coupled with the 

3 hourly temperature profile data in the case of 

4 an outdoor unit, allows for the total heat 

5 load that must be removed annually by the 

6 refrigeration system to be determined. And 

7 then, this, coupled with the AWEF, allows for 

8 the result of the total annual energy use to 

9 be output. 

10 And here specifically we can see 

11 the following equations that are set forth in 

12 the NOPR, where we just have that same ratio 

13 of net -- excuse me, of net heat removed over 

14 AWEF. And we can just see the differences for 

15 coolers and freezers and also for indoor, 

16 where it is just a single term, versus 

17 outdoor, where it is summed over the 

18 temperature bins, which vary across the 

19 temperature profile set forth in 1250. 

20 At this time, DOE would welcome 

21 comments regarding this calculation 

22 methodology. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 369

1 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Let's leave 

2 it on the equations slide. 

3 MR. WEBER: Sure. 

4 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: If they wish 

5 to refer to that. Questions/comments on these 

6 equations, this methodology? Yes. 

7 MR. LEWIS: Collin, on the -- any 

8 of those four formulas, do you actually plug 

9 in the AWEF value? 

10 MR. WEBER: Yes, that's correct. 

11 MR. LEWIS: Also, the -- when we 

12 size our refrigeration, we have to figure it 

13 on the worst ASHRAE temp for that particular 

14 city, which may be 105, 100, 110 even, and it 

15 isn't that all year, or even all month, but it 

16 is that enough of the time that that is what 

17 they show. And you can't be marginal. You 

18 can't have your cooler at 45 degrees for the 

19 month of July, etcetera. 

20 So there is going to be some real21 world penalty here that your refrigeration, 

22 you know, may be -- it could work 10 months a 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 370

1 year and be a horse and a half. It may have 

2 to be a two or two and a quarter in the 

3 summer. 

4 MR. WEBER: Again, this test is 

5 just to essentially provide a level playing 

6 field, a measure of parity across testing of 

7 different systems, not so much as to measure 

8 the real-world performance of a specific unit 

9 in a specific location. 

10 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Well, thank 

11 you, Harmon. Thank you. 

12 Additional questions/comments on 

13 the equations and the methodology? Please. 

14 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. Just a 

15 quick clarification. So the NOPR proposes a 

16 calculation of annual energy use for the 

17 refrigeration system, and a separate 

18 calculation of annual energy use for the 

19 envelope, and the two aren't combined. Is 

20 that correct? 

21 MS. LEGETT: The test procedure -- 

22 yes to the first, no to the second. The test 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 371

1 procedure provides a calculation of energy use 

2 of the envelope and a calculation of the 

3 energy use of the refrigeration system. 

4 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, 

5 thank you. Steve. 

6 MR. DUNLAP: Steve Dunlap. The 

7 calculation for the envelope, I know we are on 

8 the refrigeration side, but there is -- the 

9 AWEF is actually derived from the overall 

10 energy from the envelope, correct? 

11 MR. WEBER: No. It's using a 

12 typical theoretical envelope that is laid out 

13 in the text of 1250. 

14 MR. DUNLAP: Okay. So I wanted to 

15 be clear on that. So the refrigeration system 

16 is not combined at all with the envelope as 

17 far as the calculation and rating, correct? 

18 MS. LEGETT: Correct. 

19 MR. DUNLAP: Okay. 

20 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

21 Charles Llenza. 

22 MR. LLENZA: Just to clarify, back 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 372

1 at the framework when we were talking about 

2 methodology, we found it difficult to combine 

3 the cooling and the envelope, because we had 

4 no real metric to achieve. So we decided to 

5 come up with separate metrics to make it a 

6 little easier for the industry. 

7 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. Any 

8 additional comments on this equation, these 

9 equations, plural? 

10 (No response.) 

11 Okay. 

12 MR. WEBER: Thank you. Finally, I 

13 would like to discuss briefly some issues of 

14 reporting requirements. DOE anticipates that 

15 manufacturers using this test procedure would 

16 measure and report both the AWEF and the 

17 annual energy consumption. 

18 Now, it should be pointed out that 

19 DOE does not specify certification and 

20 reporting requirements in this test procedure. 

21 This is simply just that -- a test procedure, 

22 a tool for measuring system performance. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 373

1 However, DOE will develop future 

2 certification requirements in another 

3 rulemaking that is yet to come. And DOE 

4 expects, therefore, that this test procedure 

5 will be used to measure compliance with a 

6 future energy conservation standard. 

7 However, either AWEF or energy 

8 consumption, annual energy consumption, could 

9 prove to be more useful in developing such an 

10 energy conservation standard. Therefore, at 

11 this time, DOE anticipates that manufacturers 

12 could, therefore, measure and report both AWEF 

13 and annual energy consumption. And DOE would 

14 like to request comments on this approach. 

15 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Rebecca. 

16 MS. LEGETT: Just real quickly. 

17 Over the course of this conversation, people 

18 have suggested other things that could be 

19 reported, other component-wise parameters. So 

20 we will take those comments into 

21 consideration. But if anyone has any new 

22 ideas or agrees with that, please let me know. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 374

1 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Daryl. 

2 MR. ERBS: Yes. Daryl. I guess 

3 from my perspective I think AWEF is perhaps a 

4 more useful metric in that the load profile 

5 that is used to come up with AWEF is somewhat 

6 arbitrary. I mean, it is based on I think, 

7 you know, general industry practices, but it 

8 won't necessarily represent what any end user 

9 would experience in terms of their energy 

10 consumption, because of all the variability we 

11 have discussed all day long. 

12 So my only concern would be we 

13 don't want someone to feel that this is an 

14 accurate representation of how much energy 

15 will be consumed. They will read their power 

16 meter, and they will be going back to 

17 manufacturers complaining that -- I don't know 

18 how often that happens on refrigerators, but, 

19 you know, and I know on the FTC tags there are 

20 some disclaimers. But I think we would have 

21 that kind of an issue. 

22 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 375

1 you. Harvey Sachs. 

2 MR. WEBER: Thank you for that 

3 comment. 

4 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes, please. 

5 Harvey Sachs. 

6 MR. SACHS: Daryl, I think the -- 

7 this is Harvey Sachs. Daryl, I think the 

8 question arises, is AWEF going to be a useful 

9 number in the hypothetical case of big utility 

10 incentives, for example, for differentiating 

11 products for applications in a particular 

12 climate zone or under specific loads, is it 

13 going to be a useful engineering tool? 

14 MR. ERBS: Yes. I think just like 

15 -- and I know there has been some debate over 

16 SEER and HSPF, and that is not the only metric 

17 that utilities and other people care about. 

18 But if you do know what your walk-in load is, 

19 so if you had some basis for your walk-in 

20 load, and we -- as I mentioned earlier, there 

21 is some research going on to do some 

22 sensitivity analysis around how accurate AWEF 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 376

1 is for different load profiles, so we will 

2 understand that better in the future. 

3 But if you understood your load, 

4 then I think it would give you a reasonable 

5 way to come up with an estimate of what your 

6 true energy consumption would be, and for 

7 relative comparisons between higher and lower 

8 systems, right, so we want to promote an 

9 EnergyStar level or other higher energy 

10 efficient levels. It's -- I think it is a 

11 perfectly valid way to make those kind of 

12 comparisons. 

13 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

14 Okay. Final comments on this? Because we are 

15 moving on. Jon. 

16 MR. McHUGH: So back to reporting, 

17 what I think would be desirable is if the 

18 AWEF, for all fixed output systems, that mix19 match was required for all of those systems, 

20 basically so that anybody who has a new indoor 

21 unit can apply their particular product to 

22 anybody else's outdoor unit. So I think that 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 377

1 would be beneficial. 

2 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank 

3 you. Final comments? 

4 (No response.) 

5 Okay. We are going to move next to 

6 -- thank you, Collin. Move next to impacts on 

7 small businesses. 

8 MS. LEGETT: Thank you. I see that 

9 we have about half an hour left, so I am going 

10 to try to get through these last two content 

11 slides in as little time as possible, give you 

12 all a chance -- as much chance to speak. 

13 There are going to be two issues 

14 here. The first one is that DOE is required 

15 by law in their proceeding to consider 

16 impacts on small business manufacturers. 

17 When DOE did their research on 

18 small businesses in the walk-ins industry, 

19 they used the NAICS code for the commercial 

20 and industrial refrigeration manufacturing 

21 industry of any business that is less than 750 

22 employees is a small business. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 378

1 We realize that not all of you may 

2 agree with this. So we are aware that this 

3 may not cover all manufacturers of walk-in 

4 equipment. For instance, some envelope 

5 manufacturers may not feel that they fall in 

6 this category. 

7 So DOE is essentially in this slide 

8 requesting comment on the number of small 

9 businesses that would be affected by this 

10 proposed rule, how it is determined that they 

11 are small businesses, and also how DOE could 

12 figure out how many small businesses in the 

13 industry there actually are. 

14 Please comment. 

15 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes, Harmon. 

16 MR. LEWIS: Rebecca, I think here 

17 you go on the inverse. I would like to know 

18 who you found that was bigger than 750 and you 

19 work inversely from there. I mean, in all 

20 seriousness, I am not aware of any one of us 

21 that are 750, unless perhaps maybe -- well, 

22 put all of Manitowoc together on things that 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 379

1 aren't even to do with walk-in coolers and 

2 freezers. But I think we are all small 

3 business. 

4 MS. LEGETT: Thank you. 

5 MR. LEWIS: A hundred percent. 

6 MR. LLENZA: Just a clarification. 

7 Charlie Llenza here from the Department. It 

8 is also including if you have a parent 

9 company. So if you are a subsidiary of a 

10 larger firm, then it includes everybody in 

11 that firm. So I don't -- I don't happen to 

12 know everybody's particular industry here, but 

13 -- 

14 MR. LEWIS: Right. But you have 

15 got a list, I would presume, of the people 

16 that you have found to be those 37, and the 

17 ones that are bigger? Is that something that 

18 could be e-mailed to us tomorrow? 

19 MS. LEGETT: I am not sure if I am 

20 at liberty to do that. We would appreciate -- 

21 we would actually appreciate your feedback as 

22 to how many there are. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 380

1 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Claire has a 

2 comment. 

3 MS. LEGETT: Claire. 

4 MS. GAGNE: This is Claire. Well, 

5 with regard to that issue, I don't think we 

6 are at liberty to share any of that 

7 information at this point, although in the 

8 future it will be publicly available. 

9 But I also wanted to add some 

10 additional information to what Charlie said. 

11 It is true that this is what the SBA 

12 definition is, and that -- under that 

13 definition the case of a walk-in manufacturer, 

14 where the walk-in manufacturer may be owned by 

15 a parent company, and, therefore, would be 

16 considered something not as a small business, 

17 we would actually be interested in a couple of 

18 different things. 

19 One would be an NAICS code that 

20 would be more granular and provide more 

21 information about the specific subsidiary 

22 companies and/or any additional information 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 381

1 that those companies, and also other walk-in 

2 companies, would be able to provide about the 

3 number of employees that they have, any 

4 insights into what we could actually use as 

5 the small business definition. 

6 And, in addition to that, we are 

7 planning to get some information from -- 

8 potentially from the SBA itself, but any 

9 information that you have or are willing to 

10 share, or an opinion that you have even, about 

11 what this definition should be or could be 

12 would be very useful to us. 

13 MS. LEGETT: Thank you. 

14 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: David. 

15 MR. GRIFE: Besides, you know, the 

16 definition of small business, you know, we 

17 talked a few times about stakeholders. As a 

18 small business, I also use other small 

19 businesses where I purchase and are vendors of 

20 mine that will be affected by this. 

21 My dealers I sell to, many of them 

22 are small businesses, and they sell to other 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 382

1 small businesses. This is not an area where 

2 there is a lot of large businesses' 

3 manufacturers selling to small businesses. 

4 Most of these people -- there are a lot of 

5 small businesses. I just want to make sure we 

6 look at that entire impact. 

7 MS. LEGETT: Yes. A quick 

8 clarification. Right now we are only talking 

9 about small business manufacturers. Small 

10 business end users would be covered in the 

11 standards proceeding, impacts on that -- 

12 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: How about 

13 vendors? 

14 MS. LEGETT: As well. We are only 

15 talking about manufacturers here. 

16 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: And so that 

17 would be manufacturers of motors, 

18 manufacturers of condensers, everything. 

19 MS. LEGETT: Right. Everyone we 

20 have talked about today. 

21 MR. GRIFE: Could it be gaskets? 

22 Do you mean gaskets? 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 383

1 MS. LEGETT: Everyone we have 

2 talked about today, if you have information. 

3 MR. GRIFE: Okay. 

4 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes, Steve. 

5 MR. DUNLAP: One question. What 

6 will you do with the information once you have 

7 your database? Will you reach out to these 

8 companies and indicate that there is, you 

9 know, potential -- that there is a potential 

10 impact on their business? Is that the intent 

11 from the DOE? 

12 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Aris. 

13 MR. MARANTAN: There is two things. 

14 Aris Marantan. The small business impacts in 

15 this proceeding for the test procedure are 

16 simply to identify the small businesses and 

17 the impacts of these test procedures for the 

18 SBA, for the Small Business Administration. 

19 They will comment on the rule to 

20 make sure that there are no differential 

21 impacts between small manufacturers and large 

22 manufacturers. So what they are guarding 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 384

1 against is anything that may affect a small 

2 business differently than a large business. 

3 So if they see that, if the analysis shows 

4 that, then they will step into this proceeding 

5 and weigh in on the process. 

6 The second thing is that the small 

7 business impacts analysis is also conducted in 

8 the standards rulemaking. And this is 

9 directly applicable to a lot of the comments 

10 we have heard today -- you know, who is going 

11 to go out of business, are small businesses 

12 going to go out of business. 

13 It is actually more important 

14 there, because the standard that is set, they 

15 will -- SBA will determine whether or not the 

16 standards that are proposed in that proceeding 

17 will also impact small businesses in a 

18 differential way as well. And they will step 

19 in if they see that that is the case. 

20 MR. DUNLAP: So as a small 

21 manufacturer, if we feel that the legislation 

22 has an impact on our business, that it can 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 385

1 basically shut it down, then a small business 

2 should contact the Small Business 

3 Administration? Is that the best approach? 

4 MR. MARANTAN: Yes. There is two 

5 things here. The SBA will provide their 

6 comments to our proceedings for the test 

7 procedure and for the energy conservation 

8 standard, because it is a rulemaking process. 

9 MR. DUNLAP: Right. 

10 MR. MARANTAN: Now, what you are 

11 talking about specifically is the EISA 

12 standards I believe. 

13 MR. DUNLAP: Yes. 

14 MR. MARANTAN: So DOE wouldn't be 

15 involved with that. And to answer your 

16 question, I think, yes, you would have to go 

17 straight to SBA, or even directly to Congress. 

18 MR. DUNLAP: A small business? 

19 (Laughter.) 

20 One lobbyist is all -- is more 

21 money than we make. 

22 (Laughter.) 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 386

1 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank 

2 you. 

3 MS. LEGETT: So what I'm -- sorry, 

4 go ahead. 

5 MR. LEWIS: Just one last question. 

6 If you can't name names, if you identified 37 

7 small businesses that are in the walk-ins, how 

8 many have you identified that are in the 

9 business that you don't classify as small 

10 business? 

11 And would that be included in the 

12 report? In other words, I'm thinking it is 

13 less than 10 percent. So what you are going 

14 to do is going to impact 90 percent of the 

15 companies. Is that something you typically 

16 put in the report, or you just name the number 

17 of small -- 

18 MS. LEGETT: We just name the 

19 number -- or we have the number of small 

20 businesses in the report. 

21 MR. MARANTAN: Yes. Aris Marantan. 

22 The energy conservation standard proceeding, 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 387

1 as Charlie mentioned earlier today, is in the 

2 pre-analysis phase. DOE is preparing that 

3 document now, and I think it will be published 

4 within the next few months. In fact, they 

5 will have another public meeting such as this 

6 within the next few months. Those documents 

7 will show exactly what we found in our 

8 analysis. 

9 MR. LEWIS: Right. But it would 

10 name the number of small businesses impacted 

11 and the number that are not impacted. 

12 MS. LEGETT: Yes. 

13 MR. MARANTAN: I believe, yes, 

14 these documents will -- 

15 MS. LEGETT: Yes. 

16 MR. MARANTAN: -- identify them. 

17 MR. LLENZA: Charles Llenza, 

18 Department of Energy. And continue to clarify 

19 that through the NOPR stage. So we continue 

20 to review that. It then goes to the 

21 Department of Justice, and also it ends up 

22 going to the Small Business Administration for 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 388

1 review. So -- 

2 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Let me just 

3 call your attention to the slide. There are 

4 three databases, three data sources listed 

5 there. Are there any additional ones that the 

6 Department can consult? 

7 MS. LEGETT: Also, I want to ask, 

8 if you're a small business and you consider 

9 yourself a small business for a certain 

10 reason, can you please let us know why. 

11 MR. GRIFE: There is also an 

12 organization called NAFEM. 

13 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: David? 

14 MR. GRIFE: Yes, I'm sorry. NAFEM 

15 -- David Grife -- National Association of Food 

16 Equipment Manufacturers. That is probably a 

17 good database to look at. 

18 MS. LEGETT: Great. Does NAFEM 

19 identify which of the businesses are small 

20 businesses? 

21 MR. GRIFE: I don't know. 

22 MS. LEGETT: Okay. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 389

1 MR. GRIFE: But they at least will 

2 identify all of the walk-in businesses that 

3 are part of that, and they are the people you 

4 probably want to speak to. 

5 MS. LEGETT: Okay. Thanks. 

6 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Tim. 

7 MR. DYE: Tim Dye. I remember a 

8 report that NAFEM sent out maybe a couple of 

9 years ago that they said that over 90 percent 

10 of their association membership was under a 

11 $12 million business. 

12 MS. LEGETT: Twelve million 

13 dollars? 

14 MR. DYE: In sales. 

15 MS. LEGETT: And did they -- 

16 MR. DYE: So I can assure you that 

17 wouldn't support -- 

18 MS. LEGETT: Okay. 

19 MR. DYE: -- 750 people. 

20 (Laughter.) 

21 MS. LEGETT: Did they say that that 

22 was their cutoff, or was that arbitrary? 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 390

1 MR. DYE: No. This was their 

2 member association, and it is the National 

3 Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers. 

4 So these are only people who manufacture 

5 equipment. And over 90 percent, I believe, 

6 their sales were under $12 million. 

7 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay, great. 

8 Thank you. 

9 MS. LEGETT: Okay. Thank you. 

10 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Steve. 

11 MR. COMBS: Yes, Steve Combs. Just 

12 on the resources, the central contractor 

13 registry with the government for those 

14 manufacturers that are registered to do 

15 business with the government has all of those 

16 listings in there, and who is small business, 

17 and so on. 

18 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: CCR. 

19 MR. COMBS: CCR, yes. 

20 MS. LEGETT: Great. Thank you. 

21 That's helpful. 

22 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 391

1 MS. LEGETT: Next slide, last 

2 content slide. DOE identified potential 

3 impacts and burden-reducing measures for small 

4 manufacturers of walk-in equipment. The 

5 impacts that DOE identified primarily were 

6 associated with the cost of testing and the 

7 length of time it takes to perform the test. 

8 And DOE introduced several measures 

9 that may reduce these burdens that we have 

10 covered extensively I think in the rest of 

11 today's meeting -- low-cost testing options, 

12 for instance, CO2 as the tracer gas in the 

13 tracer gas method, instead of a more expensive 

14 gas, also the basic model concept, allowing 

15 manufacturers to perform fewer tests. 

16 These burdens and measures apply to 

17 all manufacturers, but they may have a greater 

18 impact on small businesses, and we would like 

19 to hear about those differential impacts now. 

20 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: We've 

21 already heard some comment on this already 

22 today. Additional comments on the 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 392

1 differential impacts on small business as 

2 opposed to a large business? 

3 MR. GRIFE: I said one thing to 

4 Charles, that there could be opportunities 

5 here that software could be developed and 

6 assisted by the Department of Energy through 

7 their great funding sources to assist us in 

8 calculating many of these points. 

9 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Okay. 

10 MR. GRIFE: Also could keep it on 

11 more of a level playing field. 

12 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: It may be 

13 something everybody could participate in. 

14 MR. GRIFE: Correct. 

15 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: And share. 

16 Okay. 

17 Okay. Additional comments on this 

18 final content box, impacts on small 

19 manufacturers? If you think of anything 

20 additional, the Department would really like 

21 to see that in writing. 

22 MS. LEGETT: Yes. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 393

1 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: And this 

2 would -- that would also be useful as they go 

3 forward thinking about the standard-setting 

4 process. 

5 MS. LEGETT: Exactly. 

6 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes. 

7 Rebecca, is that it? I think that's it. 

8 MS. LEGETT: That's it. 

9 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: So thanks, 

10 Rebecca. 

11 Yes, Charles. 

12 MR. LLENZA: Just one final 

13 comment. Charles Llenza, Department of 

14 Energy. The comment period ends on the 31st 

15 of this month, so send your comments in. 

16 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: We do want 

17 to provide -- Karim, I will be right with you 

18 -- an opportunity for anybody, as it reflects 

19 in the agenda, to make final remarks at this 

20 point. Any additional issues to be raised? 

21 Karim? 

22 MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. I 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 394

1 guess I would like to follow up on the comment 

2 period. You are giving us like one week from 

3 today to file our comments. And given the 

4 amount of information that was shared today, I 

5 think I would like to request an extension, at 

6 least a week extension. 

7 I know it's difficult for DOE, but 

8 I guess, I mean, there are so many -- so much 

9 information was shared today that I think for 

10 everybody's interest here we need more time to 

11 respond to all of the questions that were 

12 asked. 

13 MR. LLENZA: Well, Karim, we will 

14 take it under advisement. We have had the 

15 comment period open for so long now, an 

16 additional month almost because of the snow -- 

17 snow timeframe. 

18 But let me say this. If we are not 

19 able to extend it, because the problem with 

20 the paperwork to do that is -- it's really a 

21 pain, but we have the pre-analysis comment 

22 period that will be coming up, too, and that 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 395

1 does not preclude anybody from sending 

2 comments in about the test procedure in 

3 relation to the standard. 

4 So since this is all tied in, it 

5 would -- you know, it would be in the best 

6 interest of all parties to read the comments 

7 and try to make the best use of the comment 

8 period timeframes. 

9 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes, that's 

10 helpful. Harvey. 

11 MR. SACHS: Charles, thank you very 

12 much for that. But can we sort of wink and 

13 agree that if comments come in on time they 

14 might be edited in the week following? 

15 (Laughter.) 

16 MR. McHUGH: I don't think you can 

17 make a public statement saying, "Yes, I can 

18 wink and agree." 

19 MR. LLENZA: I have talked to our 

20 legal counsel. 

21 (Laughter.) 

22 And we could -- if there are 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 396

1 comments coming, if you send us a quick e-mail 

2 or a letter or something that notifies that a 

3 comment is coming, we will put a placeholder 

4 in the docket for you guys. How about that? 

5 MR. SACHS: Thank you very much. 

6 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

7 Jon. 

8 MR. McHUGH: I would like to know 

9 the approximate schedule of the remainder of 

10 the proceeding, and in particular, you know, 

11 the NOPR and the various other aspects of 

12 this. 

13 MR. LLENZA: Well, the pre-analysis 

14 is in the process of being published within 

15 the next several weeks, if not sooner. And at 

16 this point, the test procedure final rule, 

17 since we originally missed a deadline which 

18 was January 1st, which has probably now worked 

19 to everybody's advantage here, including the 

20 Department's, there is not an urgency to put 

21 it out, except we are looking to try to get 

22 this wrapped up by August. That's what we're 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 397

1 thinking. I'm thinking here out loud. 

2 And in terms of the schedule for -- 

3 the remaining schedule for the standard, we 

4 have the pre-analysis coming out soon. We are 

5 looking at the NOPR probably close to the end 

6 of the year or early next year, and the final 

7 rule of course by the end of 2011. 

8 So we have plenty of time here, 

9 but, I mean, time is not to waste. As you can 

10 see, we've -- it has taken us a bit to get 

11 through to where we're at, so -- and we have a 

12 lot to do, too. 

13 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Steve. 

14 MR. DUNLAP: Charles, I noticed 

15 that we talked a little bit about classes. 

16 There was comments from the DOE that some of 

17 the classes of freezers and walk-in coolers, 

18 that there could be some expansion. Will that 

19 occur in that timeframe, 2011? 

20 MR. LLENZA: I think part of the 

21 issue could be discussed at the pre-analysis, 

22 because it is -- since that is a period where 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 398

1 we are starting to put out our -- what we are 

2 finding on the actual walk-in cooler/walk-in 

3 freezers. That would be a good time for -- to 

4 do that. And it's premature right now, until 

5 you see what we have, and then I think at that 

6 point you can make full comments on that. So 

7 -- 

8 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Yes, Jim. 

9 MR. PERRY: Jim Perry. Charles, 

10 will we be notified that the pre-analysis is 

11 published? 

12 MR. LLENZA: Oh, yes. What we do, 

13 the Department -- what the Department does is 

14 that we provide a courtesy e-mail telling you 

15 to go to the website. And shortly after that 

16 notification we -- as soon as we can -- it 

17 takes us a day or so -- once it is issued, 

18 once it is signed out of the Department, to 

19 put up not necessarily the published document, 

20 but the signed document up. 

21 And then when -- and we send it to 

22 the Federal Register. When the Federal 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 399

1 Register releases it in a publication, then we 

2 put -- then we replace the signed document 

3 with the Federal Register publication, and 

4 that is your official notification. But 

5 usually we don't wait. 

6 And the other thing that -- for 

7 this particular meeting, we will have more 

8 than a month, a month and a half, buffer 

9 between the release and the meeting. So there 

10 will be ample time for notification to all 

11 parties. 

12 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: As reflected 

13 in the agenda, anybody that wishes to make 

14 final remarks, raise any additional issues 

15 before we close for the day? Yes, one more 

16 thing. We are not quite there yet. 

17 MR. LLENZA: Here's your contacts. 

18 I just wanted to put that up there. 

19 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Contact 

20 information. 

21 And, of course, the complete 

22 transcript of this meeting will be available. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 400

1 It will be posted on the EERE website in about 

2 a week or so. So you can dig through many 

3 pages of content there. 

4 Final comments before we close for 

5 the day? And so for my part I would just say 

6 thanks to all of you. This I think was a very 

7 informative meeting, and I really appreciate 

8 the spirit of disclosure and sharing and the 

9 good humor and intelligence of the group. I 

10 will turn it back to Charles for closing 

11 remarks. 

12 MR. LLENZA: The Department is very 

13 grateful for you guys attending, and I think I 

14 have heard a lot of good comments here. The 

15 team will make the best effort here to try to 

16 incorporate most of your comments, and to 

17 continue this process on getting the final 

18 rule for the test procedure out by the fall. 

19 FACILITATOR BROOKMAN: Please fill 

20 out the evaluation form. The Department tries 

21 hard to make these meetings productive. 

22 Safe travels. 

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 401

1 (Whereupon, at 4:49 p.m., the 

2 proceedings in the foregoing matter 

3 were concluded.) 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 402

A

abandon 122:22

ability 57:16 113:7

113:9 132:16

163:1 202:6

216:19

able 35:19 37:5,15

165:21 191:11

198:20 260:3

305:8 323:22

325:16 347:6

352:10 367:22

381:2 394:19

absence 156:7,21

absolute 137:8

absolutely 30:4

53:2 68:4 83:12

88:3 89:8 144:8

203:12 234:13

absorb 79:18

absorption 247:9

247:16

accelerate 44:13

231:15

accelerates 229:12

accept 357:16

acceptable 174:9

192:11 303:20

accepted 247:13

accommodate

283:7 352:9

363:10

accommodated

204:1

accomplish 14:11

215:9

accomplishment

347:3

account 31:13

50:21 198:12

213:14,15 216:11

223:6 229:2

247:12,15 269:5

280:15 309:7

311:2 318:20

321:18,20 327:4

348:6 351:9

accountability

200:10

accountable 22:8

22:11 23:7 107:1

140:3 141:17

199:15 288:19

accounting 154:5

221:17 309:11,13

328:18

accounts 74:15

308:8

accurate 20:21

36:4 108:9 119:7

155:8 172:22

200:7 236:21

237:8,20 265:10

374:14 375:22

accurately 39:21

200:9 274:1

280:16

ACEEE 68:11 92:6

196:12

achievable 57:8

achieve 33:22

37:15 81:19 93:5

109:18 214:14

355:19 356:11

372:4

achieving 110:11

355:15

act 122:9

acting 27:6 284:14

activating 347:15

active 180:20

actively 146:9

actual 38:18,20

43:6 51:19 64:16

65:4 119:3,6

136:20 266:4

281:17 283:21

309:2 398:2

adapted 366:19

add 108:5 119:18

123:7,10,12 124:7

162:7 172:10

177:11 196:3

198:4 234:16

271:22 279:17

284:17 307:18

314:17 339:21

361:7 380:9

added 123:9 143:1

143:9 172:16

178:12 284:22

adding 123:6 143:2

143:2,3

addition 143:17

201:19 202:5

211:21 230:1

235:12 247:18

257:22 259:3

262:10 270:16,20

283:5 296:21

381:6

additional 43:12

53:15 76:20 77:22

95:18 133:20

146:22 150:12

219:9 220:11

221:16 246:6

251:2 258:4,13

260:21 328:13

329:20 353:12

370:12 372:8

380:10,22 388:5

391:22 392:17,20

393:20 394:16

399:14

additionally 82:10

298:17

address 42:19 43:8

60:2 62:8,21

92:10,12 109:7

122:5 142:8

155:21 171:7

213:18 281:4

303:2 311:8

334:15 336:11

347:6 348:10

353:9

addressed 21:9

39:4 325:21 350:6

352:2

addresses 167:7

231:17

addressing 167:6

adds 79:17 327:2

340:2

adequate 136:20

Adjourn 3:14

adjustment 95:16

Administration

383:18 385:3

387:22

adopt 117:12

199:13 276:5

332:18

adopting 317:20

adoption 364:4

advance 16:18

advanced 347:21

advancing 45:4

advantage 340:14

396:19

advent 325:14,15

advice 287:17

advisement 394:14

AEDMs 97:3,7,14

115:5

affect 56:7 156:4

156:19 160:2,12

203:9 366:8,12

384:1

affiliation 5:10,19

12:5

affirmation 263:6

afford 24:10

173:11

afternoon 5:18

208:1,8

again,and 15:3

age 237:7,18

238:17

aged 236:21 237:7

agency 75:18

agenda 3:2 9:7,10

10:10,11 20:9

393:19 399:13

agent 227:3,3,14,17

227:20 228:3,6,11

236:8 239:10,13

241:19,21 242:16

247:6 256:7

agents 43:19 226:5

229:3 242:18

aging 44:13 229:2

230:1 238:18,19

239:8 240:11

244:1,2

ago 333:1 389:9

agree 52:4 65:19

67:11 80:5 88:10

105:11 107:11

121:11 131:21

143:18 147:8

149:12 172:2,3

179:2 186:19

189:21 217:3

218:4 234:11

237:6 238:11

239:16 240:13

243:4 244:1

269:17 304:15,18

308:4 309:16

310:19 378:2

395:13,18

agreed 312:21

agreeing 187:8

agreement 120:16

187:12

agreements 72:18

agrees 269:11

373:22

ahead 85:9 93:18

118:10 130:13

189:2 190:3 197:8

202:14 204:5,9

205:11 221:8

237:15 278:6

283:3 292:2

296:20 297:19

301:1 386:4

AHRI 39:2,8 116:6

167:4 168:17

170:2 184:18

190:7 199:14

201:7 202:8

203:14 327:13

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 403

328:17 332:7,18

332:21 334:8,13

336:13 337:18

338:10,17 343:11

345:18 346:1

347:2 348:10

353:22 360:12

361:7 364:18

366:1,19 393:22

ain't 73:13

air 7:11 19:7,10

27:1,3,5 38:21

87:11,12 89:12

117:6,10 128:4

157:22 168:20

187:21 188:14

194:17 226:5

227:11 228:4

229:2 239:8,14

242:22 247:7

254:8,11,17

255:11,13,20

256:9 296:1

299:19 300:13

307:13 308:5,15

308:16,18 309:2,4

310:6,8 315:3,6

315:17 316:14

322:18 333:17

338:12 342:9

343:20 351:8

352:18 363:12

Alaska 183:19

328:5

ALBERT 1:17

alike 50:21,22

ALKIRE 1:11

allow 42:9 96:4,15

126:11 153:21

200:16 216:13

229:11 234:7

255:11,20 292:9

312:11 339:7

348:20

allowed 78:5 97:7

137:16 159:17

234:18

allowing 263:17

391:14

allows 56:22 94:20

110:3 126:17

159:22 189:5

200:15 201:7

337:15 342:6

354:4 367:22

368:4,7

alluded 301:18

alternative 97:2

115:6

altogether 161:11

aluminum 280:14

ambient 182:12,18

185:9 266:13

268:10 269:20

336:7 339:3 345:8

365:18,20,21

366:2,8,14 368:1

ambiguity 155:21

amended 45:17

amendment 325:3

America 67:11

162:2

American 1:22

2:12,17 6:4,13

7:14 32:7 79:8

185:17 228:9

245:21

ammonia 81:2,2

amount 18:10

24:15 55:8 71:21

86:10 216:6 217:1

258:19 289:22

309:2 311:6 394:4

amounts 43:18

80:7

ample 399:10

amplifying 172:9

Amrane 7:11,11

168:17,17 184:18

184:18 186:13,19

187:15 188:15

356:17 361:6,7

393:22,22

AMY 1:14

analogous 194:16

analysis 15:4,7

375:22 384:3,7

387:8

analytically 365:9

and/or 299:7

380:22

announcement

152:10

annual 333:11,14

367:6,9 368:8

370:16,18 372:17

373:8,13

annually 368:5

answer 13:15 81:10

119:2 200:14

245:3 348:16

349:5 385:15

anti 299:3

anticipate 281:3

anticipates 372:14

373:11

anti-sweat 99:5,5

322:17 323:8

326:21

Anti-Trust 6:20

anybody 10:14

11:17 16:15

105:12 142:4

150:22 172:12

294:12 361:17

362:2 376:20,22

393:18 395:1

399:13

anymore 24:6 73:3

182:20

anyone's 200:1

203:12

anyway 137:19

343:15

Anyways 326:5

apart 54:19 234:1

237:9 248:14

249:7 252:16

apologize 331:19

apparently 118:8

152:17

appear 312:8

appearance 99:17

appears 268:7

apples 162:15

appliance 2:2 8:5

34:10 143:11

146:15

applicable 105:6

119:12 132:1

236:4,5,14,16

241:18,22 242:1

346:8 384:9

application 28:2,5

29:9,10 53:8,10

71:3 77:11 80:16

86:20 89:4 98:11

112:10 117:7

134:19 138:19

182:19 184:9

192:5 279:12

314:2 320:21

321:1

applications 27:19

53:6 60:3 88:11

278:15 285:16

312:15 375:11

applied 88:20

100:16 101:1

157:5 301:3

applies 95:2 153:5

246:21 334:8

apply 94:12 95:3

95:20 97:1 98:2

103:5 138:14

154:12 172:7,19

201:20 247:5

376:21 391:16

applying 153:12

appreciate 26:12

31:4 33:4 62:1

90:9 150:7 196:11

201:14 208:6

278:8 360:6

379:20,21 400:7

appreciates 25:22

26:4 263:6

approach 3:6 10:19

11:5 15:19,25

27:6 36:14 45:14

46:13,14 47:14,20

49:9 60:8 63:14

63:15 95:19 109:6

115:9 153:9 154:3

154:4,16,18

155:10 157:3

167:16 201:16

214:5 219:12

250:3,6 251:1,2

290:2 301:8,11

354:4 373:14

385:3

approaches 116:10

appropriate 49:3

169:3 170:21

312:14 346:16

359:11 360:13,22

363:16,17

appropriately

68:18 72:20 200:3

appropriateness

346:21

approved 195:19

230:17

approximate 396:9

apt 19:4

arbitrarily 88:2

arbitrary 374:6

389:22

Arctic 1:18 6:7

80:4 185:17

ARDI 116:5

area 100:13 101:1

108:8,22 167:18

212:18,20 217:4,6

222:12 223:2,4

225:8 258:18

382:1

areas 80:17 88:17

167:2

arena 316:20

arguing 304:9

argument 108:12

Aris 8:10 110:5,13

115:1 136:14

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 404

187:2 222:2,3

292:1,3 383:12,14

386:21

arises 375:8

ARISTOTLE 2:2

arm 116:5

Army 249:20

art 170:17,17

ASHRAE 2:11

116:22 117:11

118:15 126:5,14

185:7 309:10

310:20 313:16

314:19 346:2

369:13

asked 83:7 101:15

115:4 138:22

289:11 295:4

394:12

asking 120:4

133:19 173:9

193:22 195:1,1,14

228:10 293:13,15

349:7

aspect 60:1 240:7

aspects 348:5

396:11

assemble 64:15

71:17 176:21

177:1 244:9

301:14

assembled 46:10

47:13 48:1 65:4

65:11 68:14,15

70:6 145:7,14

164:9,19,22 177:4

177:18 182:22

306:18

assembler 47:18

assemblers 303:3

assembles 21:19

assemblies 302:10

assembling 49:20

assembly 56:8

62:22 65:2,10,21

66:7 69:17 71:16

100:1,20 138:1

256:14 301:16

302:21 303:12

assign 49:3

assigned 111:16

assist 392:7

assisted 392:6

assisting 40:10

associated 170:10

171:16 210:14

211:18 215:22

216:1 220:8 224:7

224:9,12,17

225:13 226:6

273:3,15 286:9

313:2 321:3,14

322:13,18 327:13

358:22 365:15

391:6

association 294:7

307:15 346:12

388:15 389:10

390:2,3

assume 102:17

137:22 196:13

280:13 293:13

296:22

assumed 322:8

365:18,22 366:3

366:14

assumes 302:6

assuming 137:7

195:17 292:10

assumption 170:11

190:22 265:1

266:1,5 267:21

311:11 322:13,19

328:9,9

assumptions 267:7

269:8 298:12

311:13,17 312:7

314:12,18 321:21

322:16 323:6

325:4 328:2 329:8

365:19

assurance 74:19

133:4 138:6

306:17

assurances 139:1,7

assure 23:10 68:13

72:7 73:10 352:6

389:16

assured 136:20

ASTM 31:19 44:5

44:9,17 229:6

239:19 250:5

267:1 295:7

asymptotic 239:12

asymptotically

244:3

attached 211:19

212:1 261:20

336:2 352:12

attack 252:20

attempt 109:1

120:1 217:4 218:2

222:4

attempted 48:7

attempting 77:7

attendee 152:14

attendees 5:17

attending 400:13

attention 100:10

359:19 388:3

attenuation 304:22

auditorium 207:1

August 396:22

authority 27:10

28:20 57:12,14

302:8

auto 322:7

automated 315:3

automatic 28:14

89:2

automatically

28:14 99:16

auxiliary 303:4

available 5:18

229:1 244:18

250:2 273:18

275:6 332:21

380:8 399:22

Avenue 1:8

average 307:9

avoid 69:5 216:14

aware 14:8 67:17

116:15 224:19

279:21 378:2,20

Awareness 2:2

AWEF 333:13,13

338:5 364:17

365:18 367:1,10

368:7,14 369:9

371:9 372:16

373:7,12 374:3,5

375:8,22 376:18

awful 42:6

a.m 1:8 4:2 151:21

151:22

B

B 2:7

back 12:11 16:9

28:6 53:7 59:21

79:4,14 87:19

88:3,12 108:12

121:16 125:13

127:6 128:10

131:7 136:14

138:19 144:21

151:22 152:3,6

158:7 160:14

164:7,8 183:11

201:12 204:22

206:18 207:5

208:16 225:5

235:22 245:15

270:11,12 274:18

275:7 290:1 296:6

304:1 318:21

320:19 331:5

351:5 357:18

360:14 371:22

374:16 376:16

400:10

backed 367:6

background 15:24

45:14

backsliding 40:22

backwards 27:17

bad 253:6

badge 151:5 206:17

balance 155:7

168:14 174:7

balanced 205:18

BALLO 1:12

Bally 2:16 131:19

Baltimore 9:6

banana 151:14

Bandyopadhyay

1:12 3:9 331:22

332:1 348:3

362:10,14

bank 318:19

335:11

Barb 6:17 31:17

55:18,21 112:6,7

239:2,3 243:18

247:3 248:21

249:14 255:22

267:13

Barbara 238:6

barring 122:9

base 37:9 108:7

114:11 136:2

167:16,17,21

293:14

based 44:19 57:22

86:20 114:10

125:4 135:1,13,15

145:11 155:3

164:22 185:8

220:19 221:2

222:17 228:20

261:8 283:22

296:14 300:11

307:17 313:22

317:21 319:18

321:21 346:1

374:6

baseline 107:12

114:22 245:4

261:16

BASF 2:13 5:22

7:22

basic 15:25 43:9,10

43:13 94:1,5,10

94:14,16 95:5,6

95:13,15 96:2,19

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 405

98:8,11,22 99:12

99:16 100:3 101:6

102:4,10 103:4,11

103:17,18 106:14

107:4 108:12

109:20 110:18

111:20,20 112:1

112:11 119:11

120:5,6 123:5,8

123:14,17 124:10

124:14,21 131:22

153:4,13,19 154:1

154:7,9,11,13

155:10,11 156:1,2

156:8,18,21 157:5

158:19,20 159:1,5

160:2,5 161:17

162:6,14,20 163:3

163:6 165:4 168:7

168:18 169:3,5,8

169:18 173:12

182:6,8 184:5,8

195:15 196:3,3

203:7 209:3

300:19,20 301:3,6

301:19 302:2

303:2 333:17

391:14

basically 149:19

164:4,21 165:4

173:7 175:5

195:13 222:5

318:2 327:15

376:20 385:1

basis 37:16 101:20

135:12 163:20

375:19

Bayer 2:7

bear 153:10

Beaton 351:7,7

beginning 88:9

183:8

begins 227:17

228:4

behalf 7:5 33:7

behave 237:20

believe 25:8 37:8

66:6 73:7 85:11

92:15 128:9

140:10 152:5

163:15 236:3,8

248:11 251:12

265:9 313:21

359:6 360:12

385:12 387:13

390:5

believes 345:19

bells 175:1

beneath 265:2

beneficial 162:12

377:1

benefit 39:22

143:17 229:17

320:3

benefits 35:16

202:3 320:8 352:7

Berkeley 273:20

best 12:9 13:2

53:11,12 63:15

81:17 103:2,3

107:7 122:6

139:12,12,13,13

174:9 237:5

292:22 309:19

359:22 385:3

395:5,7 400:15

better 9:22 12:21

55:13 71:9 77:11

109:5 111:12,21

112:12 113:5

127:20 141:2

161:12 174:7

217:5 221:11,12

248:22 249:12

264:4 281:19

292:17 319:5,15

326:4 376:2

beyond 26:21 81:5

87:11 89:3 199:5

201:1 214:4 218:5

218:11

big 18:4 50:14

86:10 102:20

106:3 123:11

200:22 206:16

240:5 266:9 375:9

bigger 282:19

312:4,6 378:18

379:17

biggest 28:10,11

112:16 117:10

298:6 350:16

Bill 2:16 131:19

bills 198:13

Bilt 268:6

bin 366:6

bins 366:5 368:18

bit 34:6 41:8 51:13

65:17 77:21 170:6

189:1 242:15

248:22 251:5

260:7 291:20

297:9 307:13

324:14 349:20

353:3 397:10,15

bi-directional

299:22

blanket 322:19

blankets 60:1

block 9:20

blossoms 5:2

blower 38:9 69:1

70:5,20 303:18

blowing 43:18

226:5 227:3,3,14

227:17,20 228:3,6

228:10 229:3

236:8 239:10,13

241:19,21 242:16

242:18 247:6

256:7

body 234:17

247:18

Bohn 158:9 161:3

185:14

bothers 72:6

bottom 81:16 264:9

308:17

bought 73:22

bound 109:16

110:10

box 16:11 19:21

21:16 25:18 37:2

58:7 62:18 75:13

75:17 106:3,3

108:21 119:21

125:18 150:3

205:3 258:7

263:19 272:12

312:3,8,14 329:21

333:19,22 335:5

335:13 336:5

339:18 343:18,19

343:20 352:18

353:11 360:1

364:22 365:20

392:18

boxes 2:16 21:3

99:8 131:20

176:21 249:4,5

268:11 335:13

brake 38:18

BRANNON 1:13

breach 258:3

break 10:20 11:5

11:10 150:21

151:11,12 175:12

206:14 207:8

243:16 330:7,10

breaking 58:6

180:1

Brenda 152:20

207:15

Brett 2:6 6:1

124:11,13

brief 3:4 10:14

16:16 17:12 30:12

343:10

briefly 9:7 42:20

43:9 46:19 79:4

82:2 85:6 153:8

332:12,12 372:13

bring 21:17 61:9

100:9

bringing 179:12

brings 57:4

broad 49:8 168:22

169:4

broken 210:6

231:12 311:19

Brookman 1:8,11

3:2,5 4:3,6 5:5

9:2,5 13:15 16:10

16:21 17:5,9

25:21 26:11 30:1

30:5 31:3,15 32:4

32:21 33:3 41:6

42:11 44:22 49:7

50:11 51:10 52:1

52:19 53:3,14

54:9 55:18,20

56:12 57:9 58:11

59:8 60:4 61:7

62:5 63:18 64:5

64:10 65:4,16

66:13,16 68:8

69:10,13 70:7,14

70:20 71:15 73:8

74:18 75:1,20

76:2,5,19 77:21

78:21 79:3 80:3

81:14 83:10,13

84:6 85:9,16 86:3

86:15 87:2 90:8

90:17 92:5 93:18

101:9 102:7

104:11 105:15,19

106:10 107:3,10

107:18 109:9,12

110:4 111:22

113:16 115:1,16

115:19,22 116:3

116:17 118:8

121:9 122:2,11

123:3 124:11

125:2,10,20 127:3

128:20 130:13

131:13,17 132:22

133:19 134:10,15

135:16 136:11

137:22 138:18

139:4,17 140:20

141:9 142:3,20

143:10,15 144:5,9

144:17,19 145:17

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 406

146:21 147:3,6,21

148:4,18 149:10

150:4,21 152:1,9

152:12 157:7

158:16 160:17

161:18,22 163:18

166:22 168:16

169:10,22 172:1

174:17 175:10,14

176:4,18 178:5

180:6 181:21

183:4 184:3,12,17

185:3,5 186:12,22

187:2,11 188:21

189:22 190:18

191:16,20 192:12

192:17 196:20

199:9 201:3 202:8

202:11,13 204:3,8

205:7 206:6,11

207:12 208:3

213:3,21 214:7

215:2,5,11 217:20

219:7,20 220:10

221:8,22 223:7,21

230:6 231:20

233:9,19 234:11

234:14 235:1,21

236:11,22 237:12

237:15 238:5

239:1 240:8,15

241:2 242:4,11

244:22 245:20

246:2,9,20 247:1

248:9,19 250:13

250:16,19 251:15

252:4,13,22 253:7

253:14 254:4

255:3,22 256:11

257:1 258:6,15

260:3,6,20 262:6

262:9 263:5,10,13

264:5,13 265:13

267:13 268:2

269:15 270:8,19

271:19 272:5,11

274:16 275:10

276:21 277:8,15

277:21 278:6

279:14 280:20

281:8 282:1,9,14

282:22 283:8,18

284:2,7 285:9,18

286:21 289:12

290:1 291:2,22

292:21 293:3,8

294:3,15,18 295:9

296:12,20 297:16

298:22 299:12

300:17,22 301:4,7

302:14 303:5,22

304:12 305:15

307:7,21 308:2,12

309:15 310:16

313:13 314:15,21

316:4 318:15

319:9 320:9 323:7

325:5 326:12,15

327:19 328:12

329:18 330:6,17

331:6,16 346:20

348:12 349:10

351:4,20 353:10

355:9,12 356:3,16

357:8,17 359:15

360:9 361:4 362:5

362:13,17 363:1,5

363:13,21 364:9

369:1,4 370:10

371:4,20 372:7

373:15 374:1,22

375:4 376:13

377:2 378:15

380:1 381:14

382:12,16 383:4

383:12 386:1

388:2,13 389:6

390:7,10,18,22

391:20 392:9,12

392:15 393:1,6,9

393:16 395:9

396:6 397:13

398:8 399:12,19

400:19

brought 76:15

179:5

BRUCE 1:11

BSF 242:14

BTU 134:2 165:18

165:19,19 166:11

166:16 311:6

BTUs 157:13

220:17,17,22

225:15

buckets 135:10

buffer 399:8

build 75:17 77:13

78:12 106:9,21

119:13 159:11

168:7 191:7

226:12 255:7

270:2 282:18

283:15 312:3

building 1:7 29:14

70:4,10 76:8,9

77:4 84:20 85:12

114:14 126:4,16

126:17,18,20

127:1 138:9

146:11,14,20

151:2,6 206:18

229:22 231:1

232:1 247:21

268:9

buildings 76:17

248:1 275:15

builds 42:3 52:8

built 80:19 346:3

bulbs 326:2

bulk 9:22

bullet 100:17 347:9

bumper 230:10,11

bun 44:7

bunch 30:21 191:7

196:16 206:15

253:20

bunstock 234:20

burden 47:15 67:7

80:7 81:11 94:17

102:6 106:12

124:20 130:17,20

131:7 133:1

143:13 153:20

155:7 244:12

274:3 275:8

284:22 285:12

288:21 307:18

317:10

burdened 128:10

burdens 391:9,16

burdensome

239:18 306:5,8

360:16

burden-reducing

391:3

burning 184:15

324:8

business 3:11 11:13

16:2 18:4 21:14

22:15 24:12 107:5

127:20,21 130:1

148:22 152:13,18

158:6,14 161:14

161:15 172:13

176:11 269:19

284:20 313:22

316:19 377:16,21

377:22 379:3

380:16 381:5,16

381:18 382:9,10

383:10,14,18

384:2,2,7,11,12

384:22 385:1,2,18

386:9,10 387:22

388:8,9 389:11

390:15,16 392:1,2

businesses 17:19

18:4 35:19 81:11

161:13 175:8

377:7,18 378:9,11

378:12 381:19,22

382:1,2,3,5

383:16 384:11,17

386:7,20 387:10

388:19,20 389:2

391:18

busy 343:13

button 5:12,12

34:12

buy 19:7 24:12

25:4 50:4,6 78:13

78:14,14,15

101:14,21 117:16

140:5,7 141:14,15

149:1,2 157:12

174:16 177:10,12

177:14,16 181:18

183:17 194:11,12

194:13 287:6

289:7,19,20 290:5

buying 49:20 141:7

141:19 146:3

179:11 288:20

buys 51:16 52:7,8

183:18 287:7

buy-outs 149:18

bypasses 69:3

C

C 4:1

cabinet 50:16

cadavers 19:21

cafeteria 206:16

calculate 43:2

61:16,19,20

101:11 119:21

128:3 173:14

191:18 217:8

220:22 225:12

258:22 277:10

286:19 292:9

300:5,13 315:21

321:13 326:6

calculated 95:7

99:2 101:3 189:8

309:13,17 364:18

364:19

calculates 365:13

365:17 367:1

calculating 262:20

263:1 267:3,6

270:2 273:3,7

311:15 316:13

329:1 392:8

calculation 44:19

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 407

95:8,16 96:5,15

97:6 98:1 99:7

100:8,11,11

113:13 142:18

147:14 154:5

191:17 212:22

225:6 259:20

266:2 267:22

272:2 273:17

274:4 309:10

310:13,14,21

311:8 312:17

338:4 362:12

368:21 370:16,18

371:1,2,7,17

calculations 94:21

130:5 173:4 209:6

210:17,22 213:16

215:17 224:17

249:19 261:8,16

265:10 273:14

274:12 312:7

332:14 361:2

364:14

calculator 161:7

California 2:11 7:6

7:7 29:4 33:7,10

33:12 39:15 79:15

131:16 182:17

California's 85:12

call 73:19 74:1

101:14 135:6

145:7 149:18

171:14 174:22

183:14 230:22

280:13 290:15

317:1 388:3

called 273:18 322:5

333:12 336:21

388:12

calling 333:13

calls 287:6

camlocked 228:11

230:16 256:19

Canada 230:1

239:22

Canadian 234:16

capable 63:10

198:17 274:20

capacities 185:16

344:16

capacity 38:17

157:13 162:18

170:15 185:20

186:3 204:15

205:22 338:20

339:14,17 341:18

341:19 342:2,18

342:19 343:3

344:13,14,15,16

344:17 345:2,3,5

345:8,13 351:19

367:20

capture 39:21

69:22 109:3

113:12 322:20

328:6

captured 48:9

262:1

captures 39:10

261:12

capturing 213:11

313:7

card 152:18 297:17

cards 152:13

294:11

care 37:14 74:15

75:15 120:5

137:10 140:4,16

174:13 375:17

careful 219:4

279:20

cares 174:14

Carpenter 1:11,19

6:10 238:10 243:5

carry 337:17

cars 230:10

case 51:22 58:1

82:21 96:11 99:1

100:2 134:17

148:12,15 175:20

176:1 194:16,18

220:8 222:8

236:12 247:22

249:2,16 261:13

262:19 264:17,19

264:22 265:8

266:15 267:6,9

268:22 286:5,12

291:3,6 292:19

313:22 352:9

357:10,14 367:8

368:3 375:9

380:13 384:19

cases 90:12 91:6,11

92:20 95:15

121:17 222:9

223:12,14 262:14

285:22 314:1

casual 73:20

catalog 36:19 37:6

316:22

catalogue 129:4

132:8 137:16

146:2,6 179:18

category 378:6

caught 181:8

caulked 232:3

cause 155:18 226:2

227:10

causes 239:15

caution 280:8

cautiously 353:3

CCR 390:18,19

ceiling 74:6 76:10

130:9 198:1

ceilings 88:5

cell 12:15 227:8,14

236:7

cells 226:22 227:2

227:13 228:2,4

239:10 242:17

243:16

center 6:12 42:14

245:22 280:1

central 82:16

168:20 187:21

188:14 338:12

390:12

certain 13:3 54:7

57:20 71:20 84:2

86:11 94:21 95:6

95:14 99:10

109:17 110:10

133:2 157:13,14

157:17,18 163:7

176:15 191:2

210:15,16 225:9

228:2 277:2

306:17 366:5

388:9

certainly 57:19

58:12 69:7 92:7,8

114:15 131:22

certification 66:4,5

66:11 75:10 77:7

77:9,10 78:22

79:7 131:14 145:1

145:4,11,13

164:18 176:3

186:1 305:10

372:19 373:2

certified 25:12 36:9

37:18 79:11 125:8

138:12,15 143:5

182:15

certifier 185:15

certifies 164:22

certify 66:9 78:5

165:2

certifying 194:19

307:4 347:15

cetera 201:11

chain 31:13 50:21

93:14 174:13

181:7 198:12

Chairman 364:3

challenge 284:16

284:21

chamber 339:2,5

chance 9:3 11:18

331:10 377:12,12

change 13:5 21:22

22:3,6 24:6 43:4

54:12 108:3,19

110:20 121:18

124:22 153:16

159:8 160:3 197:1

208:20 233:15

285:13 293:5

300:12

changed 26:22

201:10 233:14

changes 89:5 93:8

95:18 156:4,19

168:5 169:15

278:18

changing 278:13

characteristic

261:22

characteristics

43:20 153:15

191:12,13 195:4

characterize

187:12

charge 79:21 143:4

Charles 3:3 8:6

10:12 13:10 14:2

64:10,12 73:8

107:10 122:11,12

163:22 164:1

174:17,18 180:6

197:9 207:12

240:15 270:19

300:22 306:12

356:3 357:8,9

371:21 387:17

392:4 393:11,13

395:11 397:14

398:9 400:10

Charlie 349:17,18

379:7 380:10

387:1

cheaper 22:4 38:9

147:20 179:14

181:18

cheapest 140:5,7,8

checked 77:20

checking 307:1

checkoff 67:19

checkpoint 67:19

chefs 347:4

Chemical 1:19,21

6:10 7:10 8:21

245:2

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 408

Chemistry 2:17

6:13 245:21

cherry 5:2

CHIANG 1:14

chills 47:7

choose 113:9,11

125:4 174:8

298:21

chunk 10:1

circumstance

203:4

circumstances

251:22

city 369:14

Claire 1:18 3:6,8

8:14 93:22 110:5

150:5 208:15

271:20,21 303:5,7

380:1,3,4

Claire's 152:8

clarification 20:3

50:10 90:11 110:7

192:13,22 201:6

271:18 282:15

325:9 370:15

379:6 382:8

clarifications 45:22

82:11

clarified 243:22

clarify 15:18 59:9

62:4 82:18 104:3

155:1 187:3

199:12 224:13

282:10 292:4

297:21 299:1

303:8 324:16

350:4 371:22

387:18

clarifying 56:13

82:13 217:2

classes 175:11,13

214:22 303:20

348:2 397:15,17

classify 386:9

Claus 17:1

clean 84:15

clear 134:16 212:7

262:11 303:16

314:14 338:8

347:11,22 371:15

clearly 73:9 150:8

209:12 210:9

211:17

click 34:12

clients 26:20 27:1

28:7

climate 375:12

climates 298:3,11

clock 74:5

close 67:15 68:10

86:9 150:5 166:13

166:16 171:18

172:21,21 397:5

399:15 400:4

closed 89:9,9

165:11,11 227:2,8

228:2,14

closed-cell 44:11

closers 89:3

closes 15:10 28:14

closing 3:13 400:10

Club 218:16

clubs 106:3

clue 24:20

coating 37:13

coatings 272:22

298:3

code 76:9,16

131:16 138:11

377:19 380:19

codes 7:7 33:8,8

70:4,10 76:8

85:21 146:11,14

321:5

coefficient 96:3

101:8

coffee 151:8 330:9

coil 21:15 37:2

38:22 157:16

161:8 165:17

171:17 178:13

188:10 192:4,4

193:10,10 194:12

194:17 195:2,22

196:8 205:6,21

333:20 339:12

356:22 357:1

coils 57:2 185:21

191:22

cold 1:14 7:19

26:20 29:13,19

32:9 135:7 157:11

185:16 308:16

323:15,16,17,20

344:6

collapse 230:22

colleague 93:22

152:8 208:19

collect 152:13

Collin 2:17 3:10

8:12 362:11,16

364:11,12 369:7

377:6

colored 264:10

combination

158:21 187:17,19

189:19 195:7

200:18 209:22

351:10

combinations

114:4 159:3

200:17 338:2

combine 202:6

351:15 354:16

372:2

combined 187:22

188:7,8 194:20

200:1 341:15

370:19 371:16

Combs 1:14 7:18

7:18 30:10,10

58:14,15 59:14

86:17 144:22,22

181:22 184:4,15

253:9 362:18,18

363:3,6,20 390:11

390:11,19

come 5:3 13:11

14:6 20:10,21

60:10 103:9

111:15 119:1

136:5 139:22

148:1 164:20

172:20 174:21

195:6 197:2

198:16 199:6

200:17 207:5

224:14 235:22

242:7 245:9

248:17 271:5

300:20 302:1

305:19 320:19

342:8 345:16

346:15 347:7

349:1 355:22

361:10 362:16

372:5 373:3 374:5

376:5 395:13

comes 53:7 123:21

124:1 129:20

165:17,18 183:13

197:16 198:10

234:3 244:15

298:6 316:11

334:19

comfortable

203:16

coming 79:13

128:21 141:5,5,6

144:21 166:3

197:1 239:9

254:13 306:10

318:7 327:12

339:19 350:15,22

394:22 396:1,3

397:4

commend 39:5

171:7

comment 9:13,21

10:19 11:10,17

15:9,19 16:11,13

49:8 52:4 53:5

56:14 59:17 61:5

62:1 77:22 79:5

82:9 88:7 104:3

120:9 136:14

146:22 147:9

150:12 153:10

154:14 159:7

161:20 167:2

169:12 186:10

187:13 192:18

203:10 205:8

213:2,7 218:14

223:20 226:17

228:16 230:4

234:12 235:3

237:14 242:9

244:7 246:8 247:3

248:7 251:16

258:6 259:6 260:1

270:6,12 272:12

274:14 278:9

281:2 284:5

285:17 286:20

289:13 293:10

294:2 300:14

301:8 303:15

309:12 317:9,12

317:13 323:5

326:13 327:17

329:20 346:18

353:11 360:1,4

363:18 375:3

378:8,14 380:2

383:19 391:21

393:13,14 394:1

394:15,21 395:7

396:3

commented 225:19

259:5 309:9

comments 3:12

4:17,18 10:2

12:10 13:7,19

15:10 16:3 26:5

26:16 30:11 32:3

41:6,14 42:16,18

45:1,21 46:1 49:5

53:15 63:20,21

64:8 78:4 83:8

87:20 90:1,6

93:20 114:1 126:3

150:7,14,17

156:22 157:6

201:12 206:9

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 409

207:7,10 208:7

214:3 217:15

220:11 225:6

239:4 243:18

245:16,19 246:6

251:2 257:4,10

258:5,13 260:21

262:6,12 263:3

264:6 265:14

272:12 284:2,10

309:21 317:22

318:1 320:16

324:21 325:6

328:13 329:20

346:18,20 353:1

353:12 359:6

360:5,14,20 362:8

368:21 372:8

373:14,20 376:14

377:3 384:9 385:6

391:22 392:17

393:15 394:3

395:2,6,13 396:1

397:16 398:6

400:4,14,16

commercial 6:22

58:20 128:13

279:22 377:19

commercialized

36:7 171:14,18

committee 171:7

172:4

common 135:1

163:7,16,19

341:22 352:13

communicate

129:3

communications

84:16

community 148:22

companies 17:22

24:7,9,13,13

66:21 200:17

245:18 281:16,16

290:14 380:22

381:1,2 383:8

386:15

company 1:19,21

6:10 7:10 8:21

17:14,16 33:11

84:18 145:5 163:2

220:15 245:2

275:1 289:21

290:5 293:18

360:16 379:9

380:15

compare 136:6

296:18

compared 121:19

216:1,21 304:10

comparing 162:15

365:12

comparison 162:21

163:10 269:14

comparisons 376:7

376:12

compartments

29:19

compete 56:22

280:18

competing 35:4

137:6

competition 24:5

37:17 280:17

competitive 22:5

24:9 34:19 35:17

37:19 51:8 79:15

202:7 297:11

competitiveness

35:22 36:3

competitor 290:17

competitors 131:21

177:22 275:2

290:11 296:17

complaining

374:17

complaints 252:20

complete 13:18

153:1 175:20

176:19 201:15

305:5 336:18

399:21

completely 50:2

55:14 67:21

165:10 236:14

256:14 295:15

339:3 353:5

completion 330:21

complex 81:9

131:11 272:18

complexity 63:22

122:3,7 203:19

212:8 262:3

274:21

compliance 47:19

137:15 138:10

145:10 224:10

288:17 349:21

350:6 352:3 373:5

compliant 21:12

138:16 179:11,19

179:20,22 182:20

288:5,6,8 292:13

293:1

complicated 65:13

65:20 162:9

219:21 272:9

complication

155:13

complies 178:11

193:5

compliments 347:3

comply 111:2,5,11

194:21 287:18,20

287:21

complying 36:20

36:21 56:21,21

57:3,4 138:17

146:7 216:14

component 37:4,22

57:1 60:11 62:15

62:19,22 63:14

65:8 68:14 76:9

77:1 105:22 106:5

108:13 120:15

121:5,12 122:17

122:21 123:13

124:16 125:7,7,9

125:13,19 126:7

126:10 127:5,21

128:8 130:18

131:8,9 132:12

133:1 136:9

140:22 142:12

146:7,16 158:8

160:11 164:17

178:11 180:9

186:7,15 190:4,14

210:7 211:14

219:12 273:9

275:9 290:2 299:6

304:21 306:15

353:20 358:7

components 34:22

35:3 36:15,20

38:11 47:2,2,16

48:16 53:20 56:18

56:19,20 57:3,13

57:21 60:9,13,22

62:19 63:17 64:21

65:2 67:7 88:2

89:22 96:6 99:14

109:7 113:10

120:12,18 123:6

126:15 132:5,6,6

132:9 136:10,18

137:9,11,12 138:6

142:15 145:22

147:16 148:13,15

157:4 159:12

160:3 163:7,16

165:6 167:22

182:14 187:5,8

196:19 197:14,18

197:19 201:10,18

202:6 209:5,14

210:9,10,16 211:4

211:9 220:9 223:4

224:16 270:21

321:7,11 322:16

322:22 328:21

356:7 358:1,4,19

358:21 359:2

365:3

component-based

196:18

component-wise

373:19

composite 61:21

composition 217:5

compressor 166:6

169:14 176:9

178:13 190:9

196:1 204:19

205:5,14 312:12

329:2 334:1 335:2

340:1,8 344:12

345:2,4,9 351:19

352:4,15

compressors

170:10 179:20

335:8 344:18

compressor-off

352:17

comprise 87:7

comprising 334:1

compromise

126:12

computational

116:22

computations

117:19

compute 333:14

computed 260:9

computer 117:14

205:16,20 261:11

computers 205:16

conceivably 29:11

concentration

227:13,20 228:2,5

300:10,11,12

concept 14:6 38:15

94:1 120:11 153:4

153:13 171:9

184:6,8 222:5

225:4 226:12

228:20 271:3

391:14

conceptual 226:16

255:5

conceptually

256:21 301:2

308:15

concern 18:5 44:3

64:14 150:9 172:5

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 410

178:17,20 190:19

298:6 302:9,10

350:16 374:12

concerned 17:20

18:15 70:15

119:10 128:9

171:9 190:2

197:20 251:19

257:2 354:3

concerning 16:4

concerns 10:15

41:17 105:21

196:12 218:6

334:16

concise 13:2

concluded 401:3

concrete 77:16

261:14 266:5

268:8,12

condensation 63:12

69:3 71:13 73:17

298:1,4,5,18,19

condenser 175:22

178:13 205:21

334:2,2 335:3,11

339:22 344:3,4

348:7

condensers 38:17

39:5 170:11

335:12 357:5

382:18

condensing 21:15

41:19 51:2,3

82:17,18,21 83:6

90:11 91:11

157:12 158:3,22

159:4 162:16

165:18 176:8

182:11 185:8,12

185:15 187:10

188:3,9 189:6,12

190:6 194:11,20

195:4 196:8 200:2

201:8 202:17,22

203:6,11,17

327:21 334:1

336:2,6,17,20

337:3,22 338:6

339:4 341:13

342:7,11 347:17

351:14 352:12,22

354:6,10 355:5

356:21,22 357:2

366:14

condition 184:22

243:13 296:3

344:15

conditioned 27:1,3

87:12,12

conditioner 19:8

19:10 194:17

conditioning 7:12

27:5 85:14 188:14

229:16 237:6

241:21 296:1

338:12 342:9

351:8

conditions 43:7

44:14 296:5

298:11,13 332:13

339:3,6 343:10,15

343:17 344:7

346:6,7,8 365:18

365:21 366:8,15

conduct 31:21

239:18,22

conducted 132:13

384:7

conducting 14:9

conduction 108:14

209:22 211:20

213:8 224:16,17

225:22 258:17,19

285:6 366:9

conductivity 43:3

conduit 21:3,6 63:5

confer 30:19

confidence 144:6

configuration 64:3

64:3 111:17 125:3

136:4 335:10

348:2

configurations

128:19 129:19

135:19,20 201:21

334:20 337:7

342:22 345:6

346:9

confirmed 361:3

conforms 189:13

confused 30:19

190:20 267:17

324:15

confusion 354:13

congratulate 39:2

170:2

Congress 14:13

27:9 28:1 57:16

92:22 122:9

279:13 357:11

385:17

Congress's 278:18

conjecture 236:19

connected 322:14

323:2

connection 69:21

consensus 92:21

190:4

consent 364:4

conservation 1:3

14:20 111:6

222:19 224:8

373:6,10 385:7

386:22

consider 15:10

36:15 43:16 58:16

68:3 112:14

142:15 169:13

173:8 276:14

293:11 310:12

377:15 388:8

considerable 41:8

45:2

consideration

11:22 20:14 30:18

46:2,14 133:18

150:9,18 209:1

223:11 233:8

270:7 272:10

307:5 373:21

considered 17:14

19:22 44:20 47:4

85:3,14 114:13,19

114:19 158:20

159:1 306:18

323:12 380:16

considering 17:19

46:9 60:16 66:5

82:10 113:3

153:12 154:17,18

154:19 157:4

175:11

considers 63:2

consistency 163:11

consistent 115:11

115:15 147:15

148:2 269:21

366:15

consistently 310:8

310:11

constantly 80:6

constitute 98:21

110:12

constitutes 155:14

constraint 93:16

constructed 56:4

106:11

construction 77:1,5

103:4,14 119:6

281:16

consult 388:6

consultant 80:11

consultants 2:4

34:21 40:10 79:9

Consulting 1:15,17

1:18,21 2:2,17 8:9

8:11,13,15,17

consultive 135:4

consumed 339:22

374:15

consuming 326:19

consumption 43:22

93:14 95:14 96:3

96:5 98:14 101:8

153:17 154:12

155:12,19 156:3,5

156:20 157:19

182:21 215:16

222:11,17,20

321:14,17 326:7

327:8 328:18

333:14 338:19

339:21 340:4

342:13 343:4

365:6 366:13

372:17 373:8,8,13

374:10 376:6

contact 152:21

207:15 276:12

385:2 399:19

contacted 16:18

contacts 399:17

contained 366:7

contains 226:21

227:1

content 9:17,20

14:1 359:18

363:22 377:10

391:2 392:18

400:3

contentious 4:14

CONTENTS 3:1

context 57:16

154:4,7 303:10

continue 158:18

350:12 387:18,19

400:17

continued 2:1

350:11

continuing 11:8

258:17 353:8

continuous 257:18

260:14

contracting 25:11

contractor 22:10

25:12 51:16 66:4

66:8,12 138:3

139:20 149:2

179:21 390:12

contractors 34:20

35:11,13 72:17

148:13 175:21

177:16 281:13

contractual 72:18

contrary 263:14

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 411

contribute 211:10

contributes 211:14

366:10

contributor 308:6

control 52:10 75:9

75:16 84:15 86:21

132:20 136:4

186:21 288:13

322:14 339:6

348:5,17,21 349:3

controlled 25:19

44:13 78:9 321:22

322:7 323:3 339:3

controlling 72:13

72:14

controls 39:10,12

39:20 40:19

340:15 347:20

348:1 351:17

352:6 359:10

convened 1:7

convenience 91:9

278:2

convenient 24:19

297:3

conversation 12:17

208:5 232:14

252:5 294:14

373:17

conversion 327:6

327:18

cool 19:8 223:16

cooled 19:12

cooler 19:1,9,10,11

21:18 27:7,12

28:3,17,19 29:12

31:8 47:3 50:15

58:2 73:15 74:7

83:2 84:21 85:4

86:7 87:8,14 88:1

91:10 98:12,15

99:3 104:19 105:9

110:18 114:10,16

114:21 126:19

127:2 158:20,22

180:10 182:13

189:6,12 190:6

199:22 203:12,21

218:16 221:13

226:22 264:20

265:3 267:11

268:15 269:1,4

274:18 278:10,12

278:17 279:6

282:13 286:6

290:4,15 295:14

315:11 333:21

335:4 336:1,5,16

336:20 337:3,9

338:6 339:1

340:21 341:16

342:6,10,17,22

345:4 348:19

349:8 352:9

363:11 369:18

coolers 14:4 16:5

24:17 26:17 27:2

27:16 29:6 30:16

32:12 43:2 46:8

57:18 66:20 73:17

86:5 87:13 88:20

94:13 99:18

110:19 116:20

128:12 132:7

157:22 159:3

187:9 209:2,7,13

213:12 223:13,15

234:21 247:22

251:6 255:7

258:20 259:1,21

264:16 265:6,9

268:18 275:19

281:13 286:11

311:12 327:11

328:10 334:18

337:21 341:13

343:21 345:20

346:9 352:22

368:15 379:1

397:17

cooler/freezer

350:1 366:16

cooler/walk-in

398:2

cooling 33:17 87:14

372:3

Copeland 158:8

185:13

copy 9:9 10:9 45:7

152:14

core 340:20

corner 264:9

353:17

Corning 2:9,14

6:18

Corporation 6:4

8:1 242:14

corporations 78:12

Corps 249:20

correct 91:13 112:5

118:12 177:2

180:8 203:12

216:6 219:13,15

221:12 236:9

239:16 259:10

262:5 271:9,12

272:4 300:21

313:17,19 369:10

370:20 371:10,17

371:18 392:14

corrected 74:12,16

212:21

correction 258:21

259:19,21 262:2

265:5,7

corrections 93:1

correctly 68:21

74:17 77:19

164:20 221:14

correspondence

335:6

corresponds 34:17

cosmetic 156:4

cost 18:5 23:16

24:3,17 35:5,20

79:13,15,17 93:11

124:15 143:1,9

147:17 172:9

173:15 174:16

175:2,8 177:11

178:18 201:13

305:4 325:18

356:1 391:6

costly 173:6 198:8

costs 18:12 22:6

24:22 102:11

143:2,3,3 198:5

325:17

cost-competitive

132:17

Council 2:4,12,17

6:13 7:15 38:12

113:22 126:2

213:6 245:22

273:22

counsel 8:3 57:7

70:3 395:20

count 221:14

counting 313:18

country 78:13 79:9

182:3 253:21

296:11

coup 307:10

couple 82:11

109:13 170:4

228:16 237:3

239:4 241:17

252:18 326:20

362:15 380:17

389:8

coupled 188:9

367:20 368:2,7

course 13:16

100:13 122:16

137:5 171:5

214:19 332:15,20

336:5 342:10

343:4 344:10,17

346:6,12 373:17

397:7 399:21

courtesy 398:14

cover 17:8,9 93:19

106:7 160:19

323:12 353:3

378:3

coverage 330:14

covered 45:18

47:12 82:22 83:3

91:17 147:2

150:15,19 169:19

201:2 208:4 255:8

333:6 336:10,15

337:7 382:10

391:10

covering 94:5

257:2 359:19

covers 44:9 60:1

co-chairman

239:19

CO2 42:8 391:12

CPI 245:17,20

Craig 1:15,15 6:5,5

6:5 17:2,2,2,7,13

26:10 49:11,11,18

52:3,3 53:2 54:10

61:9 70:15,22

71:19 73:12 78:17

83:14,14 84:8

86:4 102:8,8

104:6,8,18 106:1

106:17 107:4

118:11,11 123:4

133:8 134:1,12

139:18 141:4,11

142:22 143:14,18

144:1 148:21,21

160:18 164:6,10

164:14 165:8

166:5 172:2 176:5

176:20 178:19

180:2,13 181:1,9

185:17 190:19

191:18,21 192:14

193:7,13,19 194:1

194:4,10,22

195:17 198:2,2

215:6,19 216:17

216:18 217:7,16

231:21,21 232:16

233:11 246:7,10

246:10,22 248:10

248:20 254:6

265:15,15,20

266:7 277:9

282:17 286:22,22

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 412

287:5,20 288:4,9

288:18 289:5

300:18 305:16

318:17 319:7

323:8,19 324:19

325:1

Craig's 62:21

crazy 51:2

create 58:17 59:6

66:10 272:1

328:10 329:15

created 189:4

creates 83:18

171:11 354:12

creation 58:17

creativity 303:3

credibility 245:12

credit 264:4 288:14

315:10 340:17

346:13 347:9

359:11,14

credited 318:18,19

319:11

credits 318:6

crews 78:11

criteria 32:2 67:18

critical 40:20 165:7

274:8 353:14

354:21

cross 50:4

crossover 49:22

cross-plot 342:5

crowded 13:3

crux 345:17

cubic 219:14

cumbersome 184:2

curious 114:18

current 26:18

27:14,14 34:14

35:16 52:20 53:21

170:16 270:14

currently 14:14,19

15:6 37:10 41:2

58:4,5 113:4

169:16 242:2

251:9 322:3 359:7

curtain 89:15

310:8,10,15 315:4

322:18

curtains 89:12,12

89:16,19 284:14

310:6,6 315:2,3

315:16 316:14

curve 205:17,17

curves 205:15

custom 50:16 64:1

283:10

customer 54:17

80:12 86:22

101:11 117:16

129:20 135:3,6

149:17 174:10

249:3 262:16

289:15,16 313:9

customers 29:13

42:7 66:21 78:10

80:12 81:12

121:15 149:17,20

173:9 192:2 219:6

231:6 252:21

291:9

customer-specified

42:1

customizable

153:14

customization 80:9

94:15

customized 60:3

cut 51:6 88:22

236:17 290:7

338:2

cutoff 389:22

cutting 168:7 249:7

cycle 167:11

233:17 255:13

341:2,5,7

cycles 343:5

cycling 340:15

cycloceramic

196:15

Cymbalsky 4:8,11

8:4,4 76:5,6,6

C-1303 44:5,9

C-1363 44:18

C-518 44:18

C1303 31:19 230:5

236:20 239:19

C1303-08 229:6

C518 236:13,18

237:7 238:22

240:12

D

D 4:1

daily 96:3 101:8

damage 170:22

damaged 234:4

Daryl 1:16 107:20

116:2,17 121:11

149:10,11 158:16

158:17 169:10

188:21,22 190:2

199:10 202:14

263:14,15 348:9

348:12,14 352:2,8

355:12 374:1,2

375:6,7

Daryl's 120:9

data 16:3 32:22

109:22 147:12

199:22 200:3

238:13 244:18

245:7,12,14

249:15 252:9

258:10 312:11

317:16 364:17

365:20 367:21

368:3 388:4

database 383:7

388:17

databases 388:4

date 18:8

David 1:18 6:7 80:3

80:4 101:9 183:4

266:10 280:20

296:20 316:4,5

326:12 381:14

388:13,15

day 5:4 11:14,20

28:5 32:19 81:13

100:18 130:6,12

151:17 157:20

179:13 182:21

190:13 220:17

222:11 231:9,11

316:7,19,19

321:19 322:6,10

322:12 374:11

398:17 399:15

400:5

days 150:13 205:17

daysbefore 14:17

deactivated 315:20

dead 320:18

deadline 361:9

396:17

deal 46:11 55:15

61:10 108:19

169:14,15,16

203:10 228:17

266:9 273:5

dealer 73:22

132:18 183:6,9,17

297:1

dealers 183:7,20

381:21

dealing 76:13

212:4 271:15

297:1 364:6,6

deals 262:2

dealt 327:9

debate 375:15

decay 253:19 254:1

303:2,18

DECC 96:7 97:9

100:10,16,22

DECCs 98:8

December 361:11

decide 313:4

decided 372:4

decision 46:20

decline 258:12

decreases 249:18

249:22

dedicated 334:21

335:1,19

deemed 364:5

default 156:6

292:14

defeats 23:5

define 83:16 84:5

88:13 116:8

162:14 199:14

355:2

defined 19:13

28:21 84:17,18

85:18 119:6

167:17 189:21

199:21 313:16

defines 27:16 29:11

77:6 85:19

defining 27:10

83:22 87:19 88:6

169:8 333:10

definitely 198:19

281:5 348:6

definition 18:16,17

19:3,12,19 20:21

22:8,11 25:9

26:16,18,22 27:5

27:8,22 43:9,10

43:14 45:20 46:1

46:4 60:15,18

61:6,7 82:3,4,10

82:12,15 83:7,8

83:10,16,17 85:1

87:16,16,21,22

88:15,17 90:20

91:15 93:20 94:10

156:16,17 159:8

168:22 169:2

180:3 182:6

278:12,13,17,19

301:5 313:18

380:12,13 381:5

381:11,16

definitional 30:6

definitions 26:6

30:15 60:11 87:4

102:16 168:18

deformed 89:16

defrost 39:10,12

157:22 341:1,2,5

341:6,8 343:5,6,6

343:8 359:5,7,10

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 413

363:7,12

defrosters 157:21

defrosts 341:10

degradation 32:14

230:19 238:1,14

310:14

degree 86:7 171:16

182:18 241:7,8

268:14,17 295:14

295:14

degrees 5:1 18:19

19:8,14 43:1,2

84:9,19 85:4,13

85:19,22 86:1,5,6

88:14,14 132:7

182:12 265:4,5,6

267:10,11 268:15

268:16 269:19,22

343:21 344:4,6

365:22 369:18

delaying 258:11

demand 203:22

demanding 317:3

demonstrate 47:19

dense 308:18

denser 308:16

department 1:1,20

4:9 5:16 6:20 8:2

8:7 10:8 12:12

13:17,20 14:5,9

16:18 25:22 26:4

30:3 32:21 42:18

64:13 74:18 78:4

81:15 93:4 106:11

118:9 122:5,8,13

122:20 130:15

133:3 134:11,16

138:5 139:1

150:10,17 152:12

164:2 174:19

197:10 208:13

214:20 216:3,16

235:18 237:17

240:9 247:14

250:16 252:8

261:1,14 263:5

269:5,7,11 270:6

270:14 271:15

272:6,10 274:10

289:3 291:3,5

302:5,6 303:17

306:13 311:13

312:22 314:11

317:19 327:5,10

349:19 359:21

379:7 387:18,21

388:6 392:6,20

393:13 398:13,13

398:18 400:12,20

department's 49:9

73:9 141:3 251:1

396:20

depend 188:17

dependent 149:17

depending 56:3

279:3

depends 149:13

188:5 277:2

depth 257:3

derived 371:9

describe 15:20

40:13 94:9 95:19

220:1 332:12

338:14

described 40:9

154:17 265:12

273:6 286:10

309:10 326:1

describes 34:10

96:1

description 10:22

34:8 295:4 320:1

320:3

design 103:2

126:11,18 153:15

156:19 165:21

169:6 279:8

designate 35:12

designed 34:16

62:16 204:17

228:1 255:19

designer 204:12

designers 36:19

designing 161:7

287:12

desirability 353:20

desirable 35:7

201:16 376:17

desired 301:21

354:15 359:8

detail 41:8 45:2

60:5 95:9 102:1

209:9 216:4 220:5

261:19 272:16

299:16 332:10

333:4

detailed 116:7

208:14 261:11

details 48:11 53:16

90:3 156:11 169:8

224:4 229:9

311:10 332:6

deterioration

112:16 231:1

determination 97:3

115:6

determine 44:5

95:13 113:14

118:5 155:14

190:15 367:12,14

367:22,22 384:15

determined 131:1

154:9 209:20

367:17 368:6

378:10

develop 33:19

46:16 124:18

373:1

developed 34:9

97:9,15 173:6

259:9 261:10

273:19 332:7,19

392:5

developing 39:3

98:1 111:7 113:3

167:4 303:4

334:13 373:9

development 44:20

170:8 214:18

develops 118:15

device 315:15,18

315:19,22 321:18

devices 89:14 211:1

309:22 315:1,6,9

321:3,5,22 322:21

323:2 326:17

DEVIN 2:11

devise 55:3

Dew 323:18

diagram 163:14

367:15

Diego 33:11

differ 155:11 156:2

difference 77:9

98:12,13 112:22

154:2 155:15,19

225:10 284:1

311:6 339:12

342:1,14,20

differences 112:18

182:2 209:10

368:14

different 23:21

29:18 30:21 31:1

34:22 37:13 38:11

41:20 43:13,17,18

43:20 47:4 49:15

50:3,17 51:2,4

56:9 65:7 67:2,4

80:17 89:22 91:14

95:21 96:14 98:21

98:21 99:4,4,6,15

99:16,18 102:12

103:13,14,15,16

108:9 109:20

110:12,17 111:10

111:20,22 112:1,9

112:21 113:11

114:4 117:20,21

122:1 123:21

124:1,2 128:19

129:18 132:11

144:2 148:14,19

149:14 153:15

155:3,18 158:4

160:4,10,16

165:10 168:21

175:11,13 191:22

192:1,15 196:2

198:21 200:16

203:7 204:21

205:1 209:14

216:2 217:12

223:4 236:5

244:13 254:3

261:21 267:16

269:6 275:1,19

278:18 282:12

283:20 290:17

296:19 297:14

305:2 311:20

324:4 329:5

334:19 335:21

336:22 337:21

338:6 341:22

342:2 345:6

354:18 358:5

360:18 370:7

376:1 380:18

differential 383:20

384:18 391:19

392:1

differentiate 92:16

326:10

differentiating

375:10

differentiation

288:11

differently 100:4

384:2

differing 226:15

difficult 47:22

155:13 372:2

394:7

diffuse 227:17

242:17,20

diffusing 227:12

228:7

diffusion 226:4,11

226:13 229:2,13

235:16 239:6,9

243:1,5 256:6,20

dig 226:20 299:15

400:2

digging 227:7

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 414

digress 297:8

dilutes 239:14

diminish 143:13

148:7

direct 149:2,3

208:7

direction 228:21

directly 289:21

300:12 327:13

384:9 385:17

directories 189:19

directory 188:13

disadvantage

177:21

disagree 85:7

131:10 160:14

304:5

disaster 51:9

discernible 74:10

disclaimers 374:20

disclosure 400:8

discount 221:11

discuss 45:14 82:2

94:1 95:3 98:10

153:4,9 212:9

224:16 294:6

332:2 364:13

372:13

discussed 66:2

226:3 257:12

272:17 299:19

300:1 303:11

315:4 330:3

352:14 374:11

397:21

discussing 135:8

236:14 246:21

discussion 3:11

11:13 62:15 75:9

89:21 94:8 101:6

150:8 152:8 155:4

157:1 212:6,13

215:14 217:14

235:14 244:20

258:17 272:15

302:19 330:5

349:20

disjointed 260:11

display 90:12 91:6

91:11 96:11,13

127:16 222:8,9,12

223:15,16 311:21

314:7,9 325:11

335:14

distinct 314:12

distinction 145:8

145:10 210:5

216:6 335:16

distinguishment

314:6

distribute 152:14

distribution 93:14

160:7 181:7

distributor 179:17

diverse 181:7

divided 38:17

100:12 365:5

366:5 367:10

dividing 60:8

Division 6:20 7:10

docket 396:4

document 23:20

32:2 97:5 196:17

274:9 281:5 306:5

306:7 343:12

387:3 398:19,20

399:2

documented 13:18

232:17

documents 276:8

361:20 387:6,14

DOE 8:5 15:10,16

16:3 17:14 27:10

28:19 29:11 36:15

40:13 43:15 44:15

46:9,13 47:14,20

48:5,7,18 57:7

60:10 61:15 63:2

66:4 76:7 77:6

82:8,10 91:19

97:4,10,12,22

100:2 103:9 106:5

111:7 113:3

114:19 121:2

136:19 138:15

146:5,9 147:14

154:21 155:6,22

159:15 162:14

168:18 169:7

184:20 188:8

195:19 197:6

204:16 209:19,21

212:11,14,19

222:9,19 228:22

229:5 237:4 244:2

247:4,11 253:18

258:7,20 259:9,19

262:21 264:22

265:3 267:7 273:6

273:16 286:2,8,14

300:4,14 309:9,16

310:5,12 315:11

316:16 317:7

319:15 320:7

321:8,20 322:4,22

323:3 328:2

332:18 345:18

346:18 353:14

360:6 361:10

364:15 366:18,21

367:3,13 368:20

372:14,19 373:1,3

373:11,13 377:14

377:17 378:7,11

383:11 385:14

387:2 391:2,5,8

394:7 397:16

DOE's 15:17,18

47:19 60:7 83:9

94:15 193:22

259:2 366:18

doing 71:5 72:17

78:18 79:16

102:22 112:12

124:9,10 128:14

133:9 140:16

144:5 158:11

163:8 164:9

167:12 172:8

180:18 187:20

203:2 215:9

217:12 248:18

261:10 269:7

271:3 277:13

288:21 297:2,3,4

303:1 330:13

331:16 338:15

342:4 350:7

356:19

dollar 174:10

dollars 144:4

389:13

door 27:21,21 28:3

28:13,14 29:17

37:15 38:9 51:20

54:6 59:5 66:18

67:3,9,15 68:2

69:1 70:5,20 89:2

89:7,9,9,17 96:12

103:19 108:21

121:15,17,19,21

121:22 123:11,15

123:20 127:7,21

128:10 129:8,12

130:8 132:5

133:20 134:2

139:10,13,14

140:5 147:18

183:15 211:16,18

211:20,21 212:1

217:21 218:18,19

255:18 272:18

273:4,9 275:8

276:18 277:10,22

279:5,10,11 280:5

280:9 281:16

282:6 283:1,5,9

285:3 287:21

288:20,22 289:19

290:9,10,14 292:8

292:17,18,20

293:1,2,16,16,17

293:18,19 294:10

295:13,18,21,21

296:4,15,16 297:6

297:13,13,14,22

299:6,6,7 300:2

303:16,18 304:7

304:11 308:7,11

308:14,16 309:3

309:11,19,21

311:2,4,16,17,18

311:20 313:18

314:7,7,8,9 315:7

316:11 320:15,15

320:21,22 326:4

doors 6:15,22

27:20 28:8 29:3,5

38:13 51:18 52:8

52:15 54:2 57:1

60:21 62:9,12

67:1,14,20 77:12

77:14 78:14,15

88:4,18,21 96:13

96:18 98:18 108:4

108:17 121:1

123:8,10,22 124:5

125:15,16,16,17

127:5,7,8,9,10,13

127:14,14,16

128:1,8,11 129:14

131:10 133:10

134:9 141:14,15

149:1,2 255:9

272:15 273:8

274:2,22 275:14

275:16 276:15

278:10 280:14

281:15 282:19

284:10,13,14,15

284:17,19 285:2,7

286:2,6,10,13

287:1,7 288:3,6

288:12,13 289:6

289:15 290:5,6,6

290:16 291:16

292:11,14 294:6

294:21 295:3,11

296:17 298:7

299:2,3,18 305:6

309:5 311:20,21

311:22 315:4

316:14 320:2,4,8

326:21

double 276:20

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 415

Doug 3:2,5 4:6,11

9:5 16:9 45:12

59:9 60:6 153:3

186:4

Douglas 1:8,11

2:11

Dow 1:19,21 7:9

8:20 245:1

dozens 35:9

Dr 256:4

drafting 92:7

draw 157:14,18

158:2

drawings 275:17

276:14

drive 160:6 168:13

driven 76:10

drives 205:1

drive-in 127:10

218:18 278:15

282:12

drive-ins 92:14

drive-through

127:13

driving 248:4

drop 32:16 38:22

168:4 207:10

226:2 227:10

dropped 74:6

drops 204:13

drove 79:18

dryer 160:10 162:7

dryers 168:4

drying 249:9

due 14:20 75:6

247:12 257:17

282:4

Dunlap 1:15,15

6:14,14 26:14,14

30:4 53:4,4 59:16

59:16 87:3 92:10

120:21,21 202:14

204:6,10 278:7,7

282:5 284:9

285:10 309:16

310:4 319:21

320:11,12 371:6,6

371:14,19 383:5

384:20 385:9,13

385:18 397:14

duper 196:15

duration 309:20

311:18 341:6

duty 167:11

dye 1:16 6:21,21

66:17,17 68:4,6

127:4,4 129:6

130:20 131:15

138:20,20 139:5

143:21 144:8,11

144:18 218:1,1,13

219:1,3 223:8,9

256:5 274:17,17

277:17,17,22

284:4 290:3,3

291:7,21 293:10

293:12 295:10,10

296:13 297:8

298:5 299:5,10

313:14,14,21

314:13 325:8,13

326:8,11 389:7,7

389:14,16,19

390:1

D.C 1:8

E

E 2:7,11 4:1,1

eager 246:4

earlier 40:9,18

42:19 44:4 45:5

61:11 120:9,13

121:11 136:15

147:9 189:16

225:6 231:8

270:12 296:7

300:2 303:11

308:4 341:21

346:1 353:1,19

354:3 357:20

360:15 375:20

387:1

early 239:9,15

397:6

earth 261:21

Earthjustice 1:12

easier 10:6 71:17

215:16 293:4

327:15 334:15

372:6

easily 74:10 189:9

225:12 305:3

eat 207:5

eats 81:3

echo 41:13 64:7

86:17

economic 177:21

284:18

economically 175:4

Economy 2:13 7:15

edge 297:11

Edison 2:11 7:6

33:10

edited 395:14

edition 123:13

editorial 362:19

Edwards 207:16

EER 220:2 327:11

329:2

EERE 400:1

effect 17:20 24:16

52:12 55:6 159:9

162:18 185:10

197:19 214:10

216:18 243:6

effective 14:18 63:3

effectively 225:2

effectiveness 89:11

310:1 315:21

effects 108:17

279:19 280:13

efficacy 258:10

efficiencies 41:2

146:16

efficiency 1:2 34:1

34:2 35:5 36:1

37:15 38:16 40:20

53:13 80:15 81:20

89:6 93:5,9 97:3

115:6 125:1 137:2

141:3 165:13,20

166:2,6,14 168:13

169:21 189:14

192:10 195:6

196:17,22 197:3

221:2 287:9

319:17,19 327:10

328:14 333:9,10

354:15 355:3,5,17

355:20 356:14

357:12 358:12,21

364:20 367:2

efficient 2:13 27:20

28:16 35:1 37:4

51:5 64:21 81:7

135:14 139:16

165:6 173:19,20

198:10 225:3

287:8 291:8

323:21 376:10

effort 92:15 400:15

egregious 69:2

eight 28:5 103:10

103:18 104:20,21

105:8,8 106:7

116:13 119:13

162:4 237:22

338:3

EISA 14:10 31:22

33:21 37:10 45:17

53:21 55:22 57:7

109:17 111:3,11

173:16 178:3

179:19,22 193:6

224:9,20 262:22

270:18,21 271:11

271:13 286:4

292:13,14 293:1

385:11

EISR 41:3

either 22:14 25:8

152:22 153:17

160:14 163:14

186:8,10 195:9

198:11 210:17

252:10 255:1

276:5 281:4

286:15 297:1

302:15 303:19

306:21 348:18

367:17 373:7

elaborate 218:10

elected 97:22

electric 33:10,11

157:21 321:4

electrical 21:3,6

62:10,17 99:1

138:11 210:3,4

211:1 212:1,2

321:3,11 322:20

326:17

electrician 138:11

146:12

electricity 210:2

299:7 321:13

326:19 327:8

341:3

element 19:16

248:12 261:10

elements 163:19

elevator 151:10

elevators 206:17

eliminate 22:14

324:3

eliminated 112:17

Ellis 1:15 6:5 17:2

25:21 31:6 49:10

49:11 52:1,3 54:9

61:8 70:14 83:13

83:14 86:3 102:7

102:8 104:14

106:10 107:17

113:19 116:18

118:10,11 123:3

128:20 133:7

138:19 139:17

142:20 148:20,21

160:17 172:1

176:4 190:18

192:22 198:2

200:12 201:12

215:5 216:18

231:20,21 246:10

248:9 254:5

265:14,15 277:8

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 416

282:16 286:21,22

300:17 301:18

304:2 305:15

318:16 323:7

else's 203:21 205:5

376:22

embedded 10:22

101:7 210:17

emerging 285:14

Emerson 193:2

196:14 351:8

emissivity 272:22

empathy 30:2

emphasis 253:18

emphasize 90:1,5

employee 89:17

employees 377:22

381:3

enacted 14:12

encapsulated

230:15

enclosed 238:15

encourage 12:10

276:11

encourages 13:17

ends 151:2 183:18

183:19 317:19

330:11 387:21

393:14

end-use 88:3,18

149:13

end-user 22:16

59:14 73:21 75:10

79:21

end-users 34:21

40:8,9,11

end-user’s 63:9

energy 1:1,2,2,3

2:4,12 4:9 8:3,7

14:9,20 28:15

34:1 36:1 39:17

42:19 43:22 48:8

51:5 53:12 55:8

59:19 64:13 75:16

77:19 78:4 80:15

81:7,19 85:12

89:5 93:5,9,11,14

95:13 96:3,5

98:14,16 100:12

100:13 101:2,8,12

104:4 107:8 108:7

111:6 115:6

122:13 125:1

130:3,3,15 131:2

131:3 133:3 139:1

139:16 141:3

143:17 147:16

150:10 153:17

154:12 155:12,19

156:3,4,19 157:14

157:18 163:2

164:2 167:8 168:2

174:19 182:21

197:10,17 198:13

199:1 209:5,6,17

210:18 211:5,10

212:17 214:20

215:16 216:3,16

222:19,20 224:7

235:19 237:18

247:14 251:10

252:8 261:15

269:5 271:15

274:10 279:7,9

280:9 285:4

288:14 289:3

291:8,9 295:15

299:5,11 304:16

305:12 306:13

308:6,9 311:13

312:20 313:1

314:12 324:5

325:17,21 326:6

327:9 328:13,18

329:3,3 333:11,14

341:2 343:4 347:9

347:19 349:19

352:16 364:7

365:6,14 366:13

367:5,6,9 368:8

370:16,18 371:1,3

371:10 372:17

373:6,7,8,10,13

374:9,14 376:6,9

385:7 386:22

387:18 392:6

393:14

EnergyStar 144:13

144:16 376:9

energy-consuming

60:22

energy-driven

131:5

Energy-Efficient

7:15

energy-free 296:4

299:2

energy-saving

346:14

enforce 47:22

146:8 200:21

350:19

enforceable 34:4

40:4

enforced 35:8

36:17,18 40:14

146:1,13,19

353:16

enforcement 76:16

145:20 180:21

189:4 201:17

349:13,21 350:4

354:22

engineer 64:1

engineered 31:9,12

engineering 27:18

195:16 285:5

375:13

engineers 107:6

110:1 249:21

enhanced 37:17

319:18

enjoy 5:3 208:14

ensure 60:11

274:11

ensuring 155:8

enter 121:16

entering 35:21

72:18 343:20

enterprise 58:20,21

59:11

Enterprises 2:14

5:22

enthalpy 339:11

entire 29:14 46:10

63:8,10 65:21

66:7 78:18,20

142:19 149:21

182:22 201:9

318:8 341:5 349:3

382:6

entirely 216:9

entry 127:8,9

139:14 278:10

295:21

envelope 3:7 10:21

11:8 16:1 30:15

43:21 46:17 47:5

47:8 48:4,19,20

49:12,13 51:14,14

54:1 60:9,16 61:8

62:8 63:8,16 82:2

95:2,17 98:18

101:7 120:18

121:6 122:15,22

126:5 136:2,6

148:15 153:21

154:4,6 157:3

194:3 208:22

224:4,18 248:5

256:22 263:1

270:22 271:4,6

307:2 313:3,7

321:4 328:8,21

329:8,10,13,15

330:3 333:19

336:3 365:4,5,10

365:16 366:9

370:19 371:2,7,10

371:12,16 372:3

378:4

envelopes 153:8

157:2 209:19

Enviro 84:19

environment 60:20

60:21 83:19,21

84:2,4 227:18

228:13 298:7

environmental

339:2,5

environments

297:14

Enviro-Buildings

84:14

EPCA 45:16,17

224:9 286:4,9

366:20 367:4,13

367:14

EPS 241:20 247:4,6

equal 260:10,13,16

equals 367:9

equation 114:20

214:3,4 221:11,19

259:10,14,16,17

260:4 262:4

265:11 267:8

268:7 271:4

312:17 313:22

316:3 372:8

equations 108:18

258:21 259:9

260:10,22 261:9

262:1,7 313:16

343:13 368:11

369:2,6 370:13

372:9

equipment 18:7

42:2 45:18 47:5

48:5 49:15,20

57:15 58:1 73:22

92:2 94:12,20,22

138:13 167:10

168:12 179:12

187:7 199:18

200:7 209:1,8,12

210:15 222:6

279:9 303:21

313:5,11 327:3,14

327:16 330:5

347:21 354:14

356:13,21 360:17

361:1 378:4

388:16 390:3,5

391:4

equivalent 293:2

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 417

Erbs 1:16 105:18

107:20,20 115:18

115:20 116:2,2,4

149:11,11 158:17

158:17 159:21

169:11 188:22,22

199:11 202:16

263:15,15,21

264:2 348:14,14

352:8 355:14

374:2 375:14

erected 302:7

Eric 1:17 3:8 8:16

78:2 104:13

130:13,14 146:21

208:19 213:17,21

214:15 215:11,12

217:4 220:4,18

221:4 224:2 235:1

239:5 267:14

301:7

error 170:9

errors 39:4 171:15

171:19 256:17

escalators 207:2

escapes 308:17

escort 151:7

especially 150:22

177:16 183:19

279:7 284:19

297:2 306:8

essence 94:14

essential 39:11

53:21 95:11

340:19

essentially 36:7,16

94:20 97:6 99:14

220:7 261:20

355:5 367:6,8

370:5 378:7

establish 209:16

222:20

established 191:4

222:9 245:7

250:13 302:19

establishing 245:4

245:11

estimate 166:13

286:9 324:21

376:5

et 201:11

etcetera 37:2 54:2

57:2 60:21 61:2

76:11 98:19 175:9

175:9 369:19

ethical 130:1

Europe 162:3,4

evaluating 303:12

evaluation 359:16

359:20 367:18

400:20

evaporator 39:19

51:4 157:16 161:9

175:22 185:21

205:14,21 339:16

340:1,7,13 342:16

347:11,16 348:5

348:20 351:15

352:15

evaporators 38:17

158:4 357:5

events 309:22

everybody 4:5 5:14

5:15 9:3 11:3,21

13:5 107:13,15

115:14 118:15

119:15 122:19

136:2 140:14

152:15 162:19

185:18 208:6

246:11 278:9

290:12 308:12

330:12 350:18

379:10 392:13

everybody's 379:12

394:10 396:19

evidently 17:15

54:12

exact 121:4 136:3

139:19 160:20,21

161:10 187:4

274:9 312:13

exactly 42:2 114:12

119:4 159:12,13

204:10 215:4

266:16 269:3,12

277:18 329:11

356:18 357:2

358:8 387:7 393:5

examined 345:18

example 51:15 91:3

91:5 96:9 98:16

99:8,17,20 100:19

110:18 121:12

138:9 142:10

162:16 168:2,20

175:21 211:7,9,16

216:8 222:8

225:12,16 233:10

247:6 257:17

267:11 271:1

286:15 295:12

302:22 311:14

315:15 322:3,18

326:3 337:19

347:13 356:20

357:10 367:19

375:10

examples 60:18

61:3,4 94:11

96:10,22 98:5

197:13 321:10

326:20

exceed 111:8 125:8

137:6 358:11,16

exceeding 137:13

excellent 338:10

exception 303:15

331:17

exchange 12:11

294:11 308:8

315:17

exchanged 309:2

exchanges 308:18

excluded 29:5,5

91:18

excuse 101:15

220:17 250:15

367:19 368:13

exempted 282:7

exemption 92:2

exercise 108:2

214:17

exhaustive 61:3

62:3 96:8 98:6

210:12

exist 38:10 172:8

226:1

existing 119:8

172:19 270:17

exists 77:6 114:14

118:5 280:18

305:3

expand 233:16

266:12

expansion 21:15

22:1,1 103:19

124:2 161:9 176:9

190:8 196:2 334:3

397:18

expect 163:18

167:9 203:13

212:4 219:11

expecting 361:10

expects 373:4

expense 172:16

178:12 191:15

expensive 22:4

97:19 191:8

241:16 391:13

experience 149:13

232:6 268:11

342:9 346:4 374:9

experiences 346:1

experiment 68:16

experimentation

42:6

explain 71:22

222:4 242:15

328:16 332:13

362:11

explained 260:7

341:12,21

explanation 329:19

explored 115:2

exploring 294:9

exponential 262:5

exposed 336:7

express 65:14

expressing 191:5

253:17

expression 96:20

extend 394:19

extended 187:18

extension 58:9

394:5,6

extensively 391:10

extent 71:20

187:18

exterior 100:12

101:1

external 60:20

248:3

extra 24:22 124:8

177:11 327:4

extremely 65:20

131:3,10 243:2

extruded 246:14

e-mail 396:1

398:14

e-mailed 379:18

E96 250:5

F

Fabian 6:17,17

31:17,17 55:19,22

112:7,7 239:3,3

240:10,19 241:6

247:3 249:14,14

250:11,15,18

256:2 267:14

faced 44:7,11 114:3

242:3

facers 234:22 255:8

facetious 230:14

facilitating 4:7

Facilitator 1:8,11

331:6,16 346:20

348:12 349:10

351:4,20 353:10

355:9,12 356:3,16

357:8,17 359:15

360:9 361:4 362:5

362:13,17 363:1,5

363:13,21 364:9

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 418

369:1,4 370:10

371:4,20 372:7

373:15 374:1,22

375:4 376:13

377:2 378:15

380:1 381:14

382:12,16 383:4

383:12 386:1

388:2,13 389:6

390:7,10,18,22

391:20 392:9,12

392:15 393:1,6,9

393:16 395:9

396:6 397:13

398:8 399:12,19

400:19

facilities 26:21 27:3

facility 27:7 92:16

92:17,18 233:15

282:12 302:1

fact 18:9 19:5

23:18 28:10 31:7

31:11 47:15 61:10

87:15 88:1 99:20

118:13 159:4,10

169:13 182:2

191:5 203:16

263:18 285:1

291:14 305:16

311:2 332:5 339:7

387:4

factor 54:8 74:10

96:4 136:17 185:7

211:5 212:14,20

214:3 215:7

216:19 221:18

243:16 259:22

280:3 297:22

306:19 322:5

327:6,9 333:10,11

333:11 364:7

factors 43:11,15

44:2 102:2 175:8

214:11 306:20

327:18

factory 75:17 79:11

79:12 145:6

281:21 302:18

Fahrenheit 43:1,2

343:22 344:5,9

366:1

fail 253:4 307:17

failure 39:11 255:5

fair 269:14

fairly 170:9 172:21

172:21 189:9

218:11 280:19

343:11

fall 378:5 400:18

falls 54:19

familiar 46:5 151:1

209:8 225:3

familiarized

333:16

family 94:22

fan 38:18 169:15

179:12 329:3

334:2 339:16,22

340:2,7,11,13,15

340:16 342:15,16

343:3 347:16

348:8,20 352:5,10

352:15

fans 39:19 40:19

117:9 333:19

347:11 348:5

351:19 365:4

fantastic 170:4

far 55:4 63:15

67:17 86:18 89:13

119:10 120:4

121:15 128:7,8

169:6 170:13

182:20 189:5

206:11 232:6

233:2 248:17

371:17

fast 284:13

faster 317:4,4

fast-acting 320:3

320:15,22

faulty 248:16,19

favor 148:3 302:17

303:18

favorable 106:20

favoring 122:21

feasible 71:4 175:4

feature 74:10

338:10

features 41:16

federal 9:12 81:19

137:7 259:6

398:22,22 399:3

federally 70:4

feedback 46:7,12

46:21 47:9 82:9

97:11 212:16

272:2 318:3

379:21

feel 5:3 29:2 43:14

62:4 64:14 67:21

132:13 150:14

160:8 206:9

240:14 312:18

374:13 378:5

384:21

feeling 76:16

feet 26:22 27:4

29:21 87:5,9,11

214:12,13 218:21

218:22 219:1

259:13,15 260:11

278:11,11

fell 60:12 154:9

Fenestration 2:3

38:12 113:21

126:1 213:6

273:22

fewer 391:15

field 21:19 22:10

22:17 23:11 25:7

25:12 48:2 55:5

68:15 70:17 72:7

72:9,13 74:14

87:1 107:16

145:12 146:19

164:3 165:3 177:7

177:10 178:3

180:15,16 202:20

233:3,3 234:7

236:17 237:21

243:12 248:13,18

257:22 272:1

281:13 285:16

302:7,22 303:3

304:17 305:9,14

305:18 306:18

309:18 318:4

328:3,10 329:15

365:11 370:6

392:11

fighting 183:11

figure 13:20 20:20

107:7 217:9

339:11 369:12

378:12

figures 119:1

file 394:3

fill 273:1 274:22

359:20 400:19

filled 129:13

filter 160:10 162:7

162:17 168:4

filtration 128:4

FIN 358:8

final 13:22 14:16

14:17 40:16 63:8

79:4 93:6,19

155:2 156:6 205:8

205:10 228:5

251:16 262:6

264:5,19 272:11

284:2 326:16

353:14 361:10

362:7 376:14

377:3 392:18

393:12,19 396:16

397:6 399:14

400:4,17

finalized 307:5

finally 11:14 13:1

40:2 42:5 80:18

314:22 332:15

337:6 372:12

find 59:2 75:8,13

75:14 126:8 135:8

151:4 155:20

175:3 180:17

225:15 236:17

281:11 341:6

353:16

finding 148:6 398:2

fine 168:22 283:2

finish 235:21

finished 63:3 77:12

149:21 241:5

304:17

finite 261:10

fire 107:21

firm 379:10,11

first 17:13 35:8

45:16 47:1 57:10

65:17 70:14 79:14

82:13 87:13 98:10

109:16 110:7

113:18 115:1

118:9,12 123:3

142:21 155:9

167:3 175:18

201:3 202:15

212:13 226:10

227:11 238:19

239:4 243:6 244:5

259:14,17 262:4

300:8 301:10

304:1 307:17,20

338:15 340:19

353:13 370:22

377:14

fit 59:20 74:6 90:17

210:9,10 276:16

283:11 322:21

fits 28:2 90:19

fitted 168:1

Fitz 1:17 3:8 8:16

8:16 78:2,2

104:13,13 105:12

130:14,14 142:7

147:1,4,22 213:17

213:17 214:17

215:4,12,12,21

216:22 217:13,18

220:4,4 221:4,4

224:3 228:15

235:2 237:13,16

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 419

243:17 245:13

247:2 252:7 257:6

258:16 260:12,17

260:19 261:9

262:10 263:20,22

264:3,14 265:19

265:22 266:15,21

267:18 268:21

270:5 271:11

272:8,14 285:20

287:3,16 288:1

289:2 291:18

293:11 299:1,9,14

301:2,5,18 308:13

310:2 311:9

312:22 313:20

314:10,22 317:8

319:2 321:2

323:18 324:14

325:6,12 326:1,9

326:16 328:1,20

330:1

five 17:7 32:7 50:18

67:10 96:12

131:11 159:21

160:15 161:21

162:2 172:22

231:4 311:3

337:21 338:1,3

360:21

five-year 32:15

fix 55:12 72:21

73:1,4 74:2

171:21 231:11

362:1

fixed 201:7 344:13

362:1 376:18

fixing 355:4,4

flashbacks 364:10

flexibility 71:21

174:5 200:15

346:13 355:21

356:10 358:10

359:1

flexible 255:10

floating 39:19

40:19 73:21 202:3

floor 72:2,3,4 151:9

206:21 232:15

258:18 261:13,14

261:18 262:15

263:18 264:4,18

264:21 265:1,2

266:4,8,14,16,18

267:9 268:8,9

269:2 271:2,8

285:22 296:2

303:1

floorless 121:21

258:20 259:1,21

264:15 265:8

311:12

floors 29:5 63:11

80:22 88:5 316:15

floral 192:5

flow 168:7 205:1

224:21 225:1

227:4 240:3,12

261:22 334:4

339:10 367:15

flows 267:22

fluorescent 326:10

foam 2:13,14 5:22

43:3,18,19 44:6

44:12 99:10,11,15

226:6,21 227:1,8

229:4,16 230:3

231:19 234:19,20

234:20 236:6

244:14 245:5,9

247:4 257:20

267:1

foamed-in-place

246:15

foams 43:5 237:6

247:5 251:9,13

foam-placed 32:12

focus 12:14 97:2

235:7

focused 247:20

focusing 113:8

224:11

foil-faced 232:2

folks 331:7

follow 26:15 53:5

58:3 59:17 68:12

78:3 112:6 115:19

128:21 186:4,6

192:20 218:9

279:15 281:9

394:1

followed 10:18

following 10:10,13

10:17,20 11:7

45:2 94:9 150:13

152:7 361:16

368:11 395:14

follows 48:17

follow-on 12:10

120:9

follow-up 68:1 87:3

104:14

food 73:21 85:18

85:20 105:3 106:1

149:15,16 314:1

388:15 390:3

foot 18:21 69:18

89:1 92:15 93:7

100:18 102:21

105:9 106:7,8

282:6 323:19

324:5

footage 87:5 95:17

119:18 217:9,10

223:3

footprint 199:1

212:18 259:13

forces 35:2

foregoing 151:20

331:4 401:2

foresee 348:4

forget 67:14

forklifts 28:6 29:17

form 4:22 10:5

59:20 131:13

145:3 327:7

364:21 367:3

400:20

formal 259:5

317:12

formation 73:18

74:9

forms 359:16,21

formula 20:9,20

61:16 161:6 192:9

324:1,2

formulas 289:22

369:8

formulate 48:7

Formulated 7:10

formulating 329:6

Forrestal 1:7

forth 12:11 28:6

127:6 368:11,19

forthcoming 208:6

fortunate 4:7

fortune 316:10

forward 30:11,13

30:20 58:16 59:6

137:15 283:19

338:8 393:3

found 172:7,19

173:13 243:1

251:20 372:2

378:18 379:16

387:7

Foundation 30:14

fountains 330:11

four 9:18 61:18

134:22 233:14

237:22 240:2

264:10 325:14

361:12 367:17

369:8

fourth 4:12 347:9

fraction 34:18

frame 128:4 130:8

279:18 280:13

299:10

frames 128:1

framework 46:6,21

47:10,11 97:12

115:3 212:15

215:13 225:17

226:4 228:22

257:11 372:1

Frameworks 97:5

framing 63:4

Fred 2:5 62:7 66:15

75:3 76:21,22

78:8 85:16,17

105:19,20 125:11

125:12 233:20

236:1,2 269:15,16

270:8 304:1,13,14

Fred's 86:17

free 5:3 62:4 206:9

273:18 295:15

299:6

freedom 126:11,18

freezer 28:16 29:9

29:20 47:3 50:15

50:19 58:2 64:17

66:20 73:16 74:7

88:5,19 89:18

98:12,15 99:3

104:20 105:8

182:14 218:17

262:15,21 263:18

264:17,20 267:12

279:6 286:7

293:16 315:11

340:21 345:20

363:8

freezers 14:4 16:5

24:17 27:2 29:18

30:16 43:1 46:8

57:18 63:11 73:18

86:1 94:13 132:8

157:20 209:2,7,13

248:1 255:7,14

265:6 286:11

327:12 328:9

334:18 340:22

341:9 343:22

346:10 368:15

379:2 397:17

398:3

freezing 63:12

freight 311:22

frequency 311:19

frequently 309:5

friend 282:4

front 45:9 82:6

207:16

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 420

frozen 314:1

frustrated 318:13

FRYDLAND 1:17

FTC 374:19

fulfill 366:19

full 42:18 229:10

232:11 234:1

237:10 240:11

279:18 280:12

352:19 398:6

fully 32:2 77:16

274:8

function 34:3 59:20

108:20 318:2

functional 77:17

functioning 65:22

functions 223:14

fundamental 98:13

209:17

funded 116:5

funding 392:7

funny 254:7

further 27:11

204:4 206:7 227:7

Furthermore 47:21

future 124:17

188:19 203:13

350:22 361:22

373:1,6 376:2

380:8

G

G 4:1

Gagne 1:18 3:6,8

8:14,14 94:4

101:22 104:2,7

110:6,13 150:6

208:16 214:5,15

217:3 218:9

219:16 220:3

221:16 223:19

224:1 271:21

303:7 380:4

gained 34:2 41:3

gallery 8:22

gallon 135:10

gaming 148:6

gaps 72:2,4

garage 18:1 283:5

GARRY 1:13

gas 33:10,11 54:18

69:1 129:13 134:5

170:12,14 171:16

256:14 273:1

300:5,8,9,15

301:11 303:1,18

304:5 315:12,16

391:12,13,14

gases 37:14 226:5

239:6

gasket 124:20

130:9

gasketing 98:19

gaskets 81:3,3

230:17 255:9,10

382:21,22

gas-filled 44:11

295:13

gathered 364:17

GC 75:11,20 77:10

305:9

GCs 77:2 79:1

Gemtron 1:16 6:21

66:18

general 8:3 9:13

47:2 49:9 66:3,8

66:12 93:15 138:3

142:8 170:18

214:6 226:12

347:19 349:22

364:21 367:2

374:7

generalized 271:5

generally 4:18 9:22

10:5 175:18

226:22

generate 280:5

350:2

generated 249:17

249:20 365:2

generating 326:19

generic 325:10

generically 127:7

gentleman 80:20

105:15 109:10

112:8 113:18

125:21 131:18

135:22 243:4

268:3 281:9

297:17 304:1

351:5

gentleman's 87:20

geographic 182:2

getting 30:18 76:7

130:2 135:7

170:18 187:13

189:1 196:11

202:3 230:19

240:2 252:20,21

255:2 261:18

290:13 317:7

323:15,16,17

331:14 350:17

356:1 400:17

give 11:4 13:5 16:9

23:1 24:14 36:9

87:18 91:2 98:7

106:20 138:8

139:6 162:22

166:12 195:1

209:10 231:17

236:21 248:16

277:11 287:7

297:11 305:12

318:6 319:12,18

320:20 324:21

337:19 338:22

346:13 355:21

359:10 363:2

376:4 377:11

given 38:21 43:9

57:16 157:1

184:13 207:15

267:4 320:13

327:16 329:8

338:6 342:7 345:1

394:3

gives 119:7 195:3

196:16 288:12

339:13 344:21

346:13 347:9

359:11

giving 134:13

195:10 394:2

glad 9:4 276:12

294:10

glass 6:22 37:14

51:18 54:2 62:9

62:11 66:18,22

67:9,14,20 77:14

78:13 96:11 123:8

123:10,22 124:5

125:15 127:5,7,9

127:21 128:8,10

128:11 129:8,12

129:17,18 130:5

131:10 134:4,8

139:13 149:1,2

211:16,18,19,21

212:1,21 213:8,13

214:12 215:20,21

215:22 216:7,9,20

217:1,11,20 218:3

218:7,8,15,18

221:12,12,17

223:5 272:15,18

272:19 273:4,8,9

273:15 274:2,21

275:8,16 277:10

279:19 280:1,1

286:2,6,13 287:21

288:3,6 289:6,15

289:18 294:21

297:13,13,13

298:6 299:7 305:5

311:21 314:7

326:4,21

glazed 54:1

Glicksman 256:4

go 5:9,20 10:5

15:24 24:21 26:11

30:8,10,12,20

46:19 56:14,16

58:16 59:6 65:18

68:17 70:22 72:17

72:20 73:1,4 77:2

77:3 80:2 85:9

90:2 97:22 101:16

109:10 113:18

118:10 121:14

127:11,17,19

128:1 130:13

133:9 134:8,14

141:17 144:3

151:11 152:22

156:12 158:4,7

159:15 161:4

164:18 169:7

174:6 177:11,15

177:16 178:22

181:13 191:7

192:8 197:2,3,8

199:4 202:14,14

204:4,5,9,9

205:10 206:15,21

207:1,2,5 208:8

208:11,15 209:5

209:18 218:16

220:5 221:8

223:12 228:11,14

231:19 236:16

237:15 238:6

240:3 243:3

245:10 246:5

265:22 266:9

272:7 273:2 275:7

278:6 283:3,19

284:17 285:1,8

292:2 295:19

296:20 297:19

299:20 301:1

306:15 309:19

324:4,10 329:14

331:20 332:5

342:16 343:2

350:8,14 352:22

359:22 360:14

378:17 384:11,12

385:16 386:4

393:2 398:15

goal 92:12 141:3

goes 23:11 59:21

86:18 89:18 91:5

136:13 143:8

145:12 189:15

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 421

201:12 204:22

218:4,11 224:22

225:1 238:1

270:11,12 283:17

340:8 387:20

going 4:13 5:1,8

9:6,8 10:11,17

12:8,18 17:21

18:13 20:8,22

22:14,17 23:4,6,8

24:1,1,3,8,11,17

24:21,22 25:1,3,5

25:18 29:17 30:11

31:20 32:16 34:5

35:12 37:3 40:14

41:7,18,20 42:3,5

42:9,17,19 45:10

45:13 51:1,8,9

52:6,11,13,17

55:7,8 56:5,6 60:5

61:15,16,17 63:12

63:20 64:16,17,18

64:18,22,22 65:21

70:17,17,19,22

71:4 72:7 73:2,13

73:20 74:1,19,22

75:5,6,7 77:18,22

79:21,22 80:1,16

81:15,21 82:2,6

84:12 86:20 88:3

88:12 91:17,17

93:22 94:1 98:20

101:11 103:1,3,12

103:15 104:22

106:14,18,20,22

107:5,6,21 109:2

109:3,5 111:7

112:14 113:17

116:12 118:7,22

119:22 120:2,7

122:7,9 127:6,18

128:3,4 133:5,10

133:11 137:5,8

140:4,4,6,8,9,15

140:15 141:15,19

141:20,22 143:4,6

143:7 144:14

145:9 151:11

152:4 153:4,8

154:21 156:12

157:12 161:10,15

164:7,8 165:12,13

166:16,20 172:10

172:11,11 173:10

173:15,21 174:2,3

174:4,10,12

176:11,15 177:14

178:2,2 179:8,10

180:15 181:10,11

181:12,14,14,15

181:17 183:3,5

185:18,19 186:2

188:17,20 191:3

192:5 196:4 198:8

198:13 200:12

204:11 205:8

206:3,13 208:21

211:8 220:12,18

221:1 223:1,22

224:1,15 226:10

226:15 228:12

231:5 232:22

235:4 240:10

241:5,13 247:8

249:6 250:12

252:13 259:10

264:13 266:19

268:11 272:13,16

278:11,16 280:2,7

280:16 282:18

287:2 289:6 290:1

290:7,21 291:19

292:18 294:12,13

296:1,8,18 300:6

305:12,18 306:11

308:14 311:1,7

312:3,5,8,9,10,19

314:8 316:18

317:15 318:20

320:19 324:3

330:4 331:20

332:2 347:14

350:1,9,19 351:2

354:16 358:2,14

358:15 359:16

361:21,21 362:8

362:11 364:13

369:20 374:16

375:8,13,21 377:5

377:9,13 384:10

384:12 386:13,14

387:22

good 4:5 5:4 76:15

78:6 86:13 91:5

102:6 104:17

109:4 132:14

140:10 147:18,19

151:17,18 171:20

181:19 192:19

207:18 213:22

216:5 221:7

223:10 238:21

242:7 250:19

260:20 268:8

271:18 295:18

308:13 324:17

330:13 333:1

340:15 344:10

347:22 354:1,8,10

388:17 398:3

400:9,14

Gopal 1:12 3:9

331:20 332:1

347:8

gotten 263:7

govern 131:2

governed 302:10

government 58:21

59:11 81:19 148:1

390:13,15

grabbing 307:11

GRAHAM 2:7

granular 380:20

grateful 400:13

great 4:15 46:11

89:22 170:5

171:11 176:5

185:9 199:7

228:16 235:2

240:22 247:8

251:10 252:9

255:16 270:5

283:1 310:9,22

311:9 317:8

337:12 354:2

360:13 388:18

390:7,20 392:7

greater 93:11

126:18 135:5

168:13 240:2

259:15 391:17

green 5:13

Grife 1:18 6:7,7

80:4 101:10

134:18 183:1,6

266:10,11,17

280:21 296:21

316:5,5 326:14

381:15 382:21

383:3 388:11,14

388:15,21 389:1

392:3,10,14

grocery 105:2

gross 339:13

342:17

ground 151:9

206:21 208:4,10

268:13,13,16,19

269:20

group 15:24 94:22

106:4 140:15

153:22 156:1

180:21 400:9

grouping 94:19

102:4

groups 168:19

169:3,6,9

guarantee 52:13

64:16,22 106:19

guarantees 65:9

guarding 383:22

guess 57:10 112:21

129:21 142:20

149:12,12 158:18

176:8 184:19

202:16 211:2

243:17 244:11

255:3 306:13

313:14 314:3

332:9 355:14

374:2 394:1,8

guessing 114:17

guidance 319:16

guy 21:19 22:16

25:16,16 66:11

73:2 139:10,10,10

141:7,18 177:6

181:12 287:6

290:18

guys 24:11 105:10

133:9 166:3 177:9

179:1 205:14,14

232:9 276:9

277:10 280:8

290:8 361:13

396:4 400:13

H

H 1:17

half 58:6 150:1

213:9 308:17,19

321:1 339:8

355:17 370:1

377:9 399:8

hall 151:3 330:11

halves 200:6

hand 152:18

207:12 302:18

handed 297:17

handing 208:18

handle 200:20

316:6 347:14

handles 69:2

hands 208:20

hang 84:11

happen 17:21 55:5

73:13 74:20 76:2

139:22 180:15

188:20 198:9

234:7 277:3

319:22 379:11

happening 81:4,8

179:9 180:16

183:21

happens 27:22

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 422

71:10 72:5 73:6

74:3 109:4 145:2

146:18 196:13

227:16 231:16

232:2 304:16

316:20 374:18

hard 20:17 68:19

70:19 167:4

183:11 277:11

355:1 359:21

400:21

harder 4:19 68:20

184:1,2

Harmon 1:22 6:3

32:6 50:12,13

113:18 116:18

118:12 157:7

161:1 185:5

186:14 205:9

214:7,8 220:13

228:8 230:6,8

238:11 252:14

260:8 263:8

289:12 307:7

370:11 378:15

harmonization

85:11

Harmon's 234:12

Harry 169:12

Harvey 2:12 7:14

68:8,9,11 92:5,6

166:22 167:1

169:12 189:22

190:1 192:20,21

193:21 194:15

195:13 196:10

253:8,14,16 256:1

256:11,12 264:11

278:14 282:2,3

301:9,10 302:6,14

302:16 304:15

346:22 347:1

348:15 351:21,22

364:2,10 375:1,5

375:7 395:10

hats 84:11

head 39:19 40:19

202:3 307:12

headmaster 202:2

202:18,19 203:6

health 170:22

hear 14:2 45:10

51:13 53:18 65:16

70:3 74:13 104:11

115:9 118:9

120:14 122:19

125:10,20 131:17

134:17 136:11

144:20 180:22

181:2 199:9 236:9

244:20 280:22

291:22 294:20

295:6 318:12,15

331:20 351:4

391:19

heard 45:21 94:8

113:22 142:5

148:5 170:3

189:16 192:18

272:5 278:9

298:17 357:20

384:10 391:21

400:14

hearing 54:3 57:6

89:21 122:14

126:3,20 145:9

163:6 187:4 190:4

190:5,7,20 192:14

193:1 318:18

heat 116:21 117:5

117:15 118:5

119:22 134:4

165:14 210:4

212:2 215:22

216:1 220:3,7,16

220:21 224:21

225:1,13,21 227:4

240:3,12 258:18

259:1 261:12,21

262:20 263:1

266:3 267:4,7,22

273:3,8,14 326:20

326:22 327:5,7

339:15 365:1,2,15

366:10 367:9

368:1,4,13

Heatcraft 2:12 7:4

41:12 117:1

118:21,22 158:9

165:21 185:13

192:9 193:2,15

194:5,12 195:3

199:18 200:12

Heatcraft's 194:20

heated 129:15,16

218:8 278:4

290:10 293:16,19

293:20,21

heater 99:6 211:19

211:22 299:4

321:9 323:9,21

324:4,11,11,13

326:21

heaters 99:5

322:17

Heating 7:12

heavy 27:21,21

278:15

held 22:7,11 86:5

141:16 274:19

help 33:19 55:2

81:12 93:5 116:9

122:6 135:14

159:6 163:2

165:22 218:20

224:13 298:20

358:19

helpful 13:20 17:11

26:9 30:7 33:4

81:14,20 163:17

223:22 235:10

364:1 390:21

395:10

helping 313:4,9

helps 40:6 197:17

333:13

Hess 1:19 8:20,20

hey 133:10 306:1

354:6,9

HH 6:14 26:14

120:22

Hi 281:10

high 85:20 89:4

106:6 119:19

144:15 193:10

227:4 229:7

268:14 351:10,17

359:11

higher 149:7 162:3

196:16 225:2

287:9,14 357:12

376:7,9

highest 107:8 137:8

287:2,4 291:1

292:5 356:14

highly 41:15

295:11

high-level 48:12

90:4

Hill 2:8,15,19

hire 73:1,3

historical 39:4

history 237:10

hit 219:14 312:17

hits 316:16

hold 19:3 48:18

86:11 217:16

221:22 228:19

240:17

holding 15:16

117:7 236:8

holds 19:21 47:20

home 331:7

honest 174:12

honestly 174:11

297:11

Honeywell 1:14,22

2:5

hope 10:10 30:1

93:1,10,15 224:13

253:17

hopefully 55:12

185:11 290:12

331:9

hoping 40:4 61:17

horizontal 125:17

horse 370:1

horsepower 38:19

hose 80:21

hot 135:8,9

hour 134:20,21

157:14,20 171:2

207:5 220:18

222:10,16 225:15

321:1 330:18

339:9 341:4 377:9

hourly 368:3

hours 28:5 32:18

32:19 100:18

157:22 219:14

220:17 231:9,10

253:20,20 317:2

320:22 366:6

house 76:12 251:8

HSPF 375:16

huge 218:18 295:17

295:17 299:11

305:4 311:6

humid 298:2

humidity 144:15

295:17 298:14

309:4 311:4,5,16

323:13,14

humor 400:9

hundred 379:5

Hurricane 252:1

hurt 289:1

hybrid 123:6 124:3

124:4 136:1

137:21

hypothetical 142:9

375:9

I

ice 73:18 74:8

75:14 232:20

234:2,8

ID 206:18

idea 71:15 78:7

86:13 95:6,11,20

96:19 97:14 101:7

102:6,9 104:17

115:5 160:18

162:6,6 171:20

222:7,21 226:16

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 423

229:10 238:16

244:21 277:9

288:10 301:20

322:6 342:8

344:21

ideally 179:15

ideas 373:22

identical 96:18

98:17 99:9 100:21

110:19 159:11

identified 88:12

169:17 386:6,8

391:2,5

identify 9:1 359:13

383:16 387:16

388:19 389:2

IECC 146:10

IG 280:7

ignoring 203:18

illustrating 225:14

227:22

illustration 16:11

imagine 321:11

immediate 223:15

223:16 353:7

immediately 10:10

11:7 176:12 224:9

225:15 228:1

impact 37:20 38:1

40:15 168:1

230:10 247:16

252:11 258:8

309:1 348:8 382:6

383:10 384:17,22

386:14 391:18

impacted 387:10

387:11

impacts 3:11 11:13

16:2 377:6,16

382:11 383:14,17

383:21 384:7

391:3,5,19 392:1

392:18

impermeable 44:7

233:2 255:8

256:10,14 257:8,8

257:15,17 258:8

impervious 253:2

implementation

347:12

implemented 55:1

318:11 352:7

implication 284:12

imply 210:21

important 4:21

33:16 35:15 37:9

40:12 50:7 150:9

162:19 171:6,22

190:13 200:5

247:21 274:5

281:2 316:1

321:15 333:7

334:11 335:2

336:9 342:20

347:21 350:21

357:22 384:13

impose 168:4

imposing 155:7

impossible 31:20

269:4

impractical 159:10

improve 113:7,10

125:1 172:7 199:3

360:7

improved 173:13

319:5

improvement 34:1

improvements

172:18 354:2

improving 358:20

359:1

inaccurate 36:8

inadvertent 58:18

inadvertently 59:5

inappropriate 44:6

202:22

incented 138:4

incentive 138:2

168:9,12 171:12

198:4 199:2,4,7

incentives 69:5

319:13,18 375:10

incentivize 358:20

inch 71:8,10 129:17

129:17 240:1,1,3

290:16

inches 89:2 282:6

283:6,6

include 44:1 61:11

62:9 167:21

168:12 176:8

182:5,7 212:18

292:18 315:1

included 10:1

180:4 263:19,20

272:20 279:19

386:11

includes 61:2 134:2

195:15 309:3

329:2 379:10

including 43:16,21

292:20 365:2

379:8 396:19

inconsistent 97:21

incorporate 349:6

400:16

Incorporated 7:17

incorrect 239:7

incorrectly 67:13

67:14 73:5

increase 93:8,9

increases 197:6

308:20

increasing 168:2

increasingly

347:20

incredibly 81:9

Independence 1:8

independent 128:7

167:15 256:18,21

indicate 383:8

indicated 13:17

47:11 99:9 112:20

115:8,12 169:12

indication 98:7

163:15 210:8

320:20

indicative 43:6

indirect 92:20

individual 57:13,21

60:13 91:22 97:15

109:7 117:3

120:12 157:4

159:5,14 178:11

189:6 200:5

209:14 226:21

227:8 245:18

305:19

individually 182:15

189:7 356:15

individuals 50:2

152:17

indoor 187:17

188:2,10 204:20

205:5 327:21

354:8,9 355:3

365:21 368:15

376:20

indoors 328:4

344:3,4

indoor/outdoor

298:13

industrial 53:8

377:20

industries 1:15,18

2:6 6:2,6,8 17:3

80:5 194:2 200:12

232:5

industry 6:12 16:7

24:6,18 28:1 29:7

34:11 35:2,3 36:1

42:15 52:12,21

54:20 73:16 81:18

105:3,6 114:18

125:15 129:10

132:1,16 135:2,21

140:14 157:9

175:9 198:9,18

200:16 229:22

232:1,4 238:3

241:12 243:9

245:16 246:1

247:13,21 255:10

276:4,11 278:1

279:21 281:19

284:6 294:7 298:9

298:16,20 317:15

318:5 346:11

357:6 372:6 374:7

377:18,21 378:13

379:12

inefficient 37:2,6

inert 273:1

inexpensive 301:12

infer 352:2

infiltration 28:12

28:15 38:7,13

54:7 68:22 69:18

69:20 102:18

108:16,19 112:15

117:6,10 119:13

119:14 120:2

121:1,19 122:1

132:14 133:21

134:3 164:5,12,21

165:1,6,10 209:22

211:17,22 226:7

239:14 254:8,13

254:20 256:17,22

279:7 285:6

291:19 297:22

299:15,17,17

300:6,13,16 302:3

302:21 303:4

304:6,7,11,19

305:1,1 306:19,21

307:14 308:5,15

309:11,14 310:20

311:16 315:1,6,14

320:1,4

infinite 135:20

influence 80:14

information 16:4

36:5,10 40:5

51:13 89:13 97:21

121:5 152:21

153:1 179:7

195:10 205:2

207:15 208:12

212:5 234:3

249:11 262:13

275:5 279:2

290:19 317:18

380:7,10,21,22

381:7,9 383:2,6

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 424

394:4,9 399:20

informative 400:7

inherent 182:1

initial 44:19 55:3

112:10

initially 42:21

261:22

inject 300:8

injector 196:15

innovation 35:2

124:17 171:12

355:22 358:20

innovative 219:5

input 38:20 228:21

341:3

inputs 114:10

274:9 343:5

ins 58:6 186:18

233:22 252:17

insert 202:1

inside 21:3,11 47:8

143:20 144:2

151:6 157:16

206:17 234:21

248:1 251:13

254:8,14,15

255:12 308:19

326:18 333:18,19

336:5 343:18,19

365:3,4

insights 381:4

insinuation 233:21

install 23:2 25:16

67:13,14 71:11

72:1 78:16 262:17

284:12 315:14

349:3

installation 25:10

25:11 67:12 70:16

72:9,13,15,16

75:4,7,22 78:9,11

132:21 136:4

139:8 253:11

256:16 305:13,18

installed 72:20

73:5,10,17 74:4

74:16 75:19 77:14

77:15 79:11 80:19

139:2,15 149:22

234:9 269:4,12

281:15,21 286:2

301:16

installer 25:7 47:18

67:17 79:7,11

132:16 305:9

installers 75:12

78:5 79:8 304:17

installing 281:13

instance 54:4

136:22 138:10

202:1 281:18

378:4 391:12

instances 241:10

255:17 268:18

instantaneous

321:16

Institute 7:13

instruct 168:15

instructions 11:4

instrumental

334:12

insulated 61:19,20

77:16 216:2,21

217:10 234:9,20

255:6 261:18

262:17 265:2

266:4 269:1

insulating 43:17,19

226:8 230:3

insulation 2:14

32:9 44:12 54:5

56:3,9,10 110:17

110:20 112:1,11

112:22 113:5,6,8

113:11 119:16

132:12 164:15

246:13 249:21

256:5 270:13

271:2,8

insulations 31:20

232:2 233:5

246:16

insurance 270:2

integrated 35:19

82:14

integration 349:7

integrators 195:15

integrity 132:10

256:18

intelligence 400:9

intend 361:22

intended 86:20

216:15 227:2

intending 91:20

intent 54:22 124:22

241:19 270:13

278:19 279:13

383:10

interconnections

34:11

interest 73:9 94:6

141:8,12 145:15

337:12 394:10

395:6

interested 3:4

46:12,22 47:9

54:3 57:6 82:8

115:10 145:8

188:9 225:18

226:14 274:11

294:9 303:9

319:21 380:17

interesting 170:3

275:13

interface 299:22

interior 60:20 69:4

intermediate

344:20 345:10

367:11

internal 144:7

238:13 267:9

International 1:14

7:19 185:16

internet 183:21

interpret 130:16

interpretation

19:20 27:4,11

158:19 281:1

interpreted 19:5

interval 341:10

343:7

introduce 5:7

334:6

introduced 88:16

391:8

introducing 208:18

291:15

introduction 209:4

Introductions 3:2

inverse 322:10

378:17

inversely 378:19

investigate 180:19

investor-owned

33:12

invite 61:5 361:17

362:2

invites 258:7

346:18

involve 305:4

involved 61:13

74:2 92:7 146:9

160:22 165:9

201:15 233:6

248:12 332:14

345:7,12 385:15

inward 248:4

in-depth 96:10

in-field 303:12

Ira 2:12 7:3 41:9

41:11 90:9 161:19

293:3 327:19

irrespective 352:11

issue 34:6 46:7

50:14 62:8 75:4

76:14 94:15 97:2

100:14 101:22

102:3 116:6 150:8

165:4 168:21

171:1 182:2

183:13 184:19

212:3 224:10

226:11,14 228:17

229:22 235:7,9,13

235:19 247:9,12

250:22 252:11

257:7 258:5 260:2

271:22 272:9

273:6 274:15

281:12 285:20

286:20 291:18

304:16,19 313:12

336:11 346:15,19

347:12 348:15

349:12,13,17

354:22 356:5

359:4 374:21

380:5 397:21

issued 398:17

issues 3:12 10:15

12:13 15:23 16:16

30:18 38:8 62:21

137:10 153:7

167:6 171:6,8

182:1 235:4 248:6

251:12 253:11,11

255:1 256:20

258:1 266:22

285:15 317:9

318:10 330:2

335:18 349:21

350:5,6 353:9

358:22 362:15

372:13 377:13

393:20 399:14

item 116:22 150:9

198:4,19 212:13

314:5

items 47:6 62:14,16

84:17 119:19

132:8 198:5 199:6

337:7

i.e 28:20

J

J 2:9,13

Jake 2:17 6:11

42:12,13

January 14:13,21

15:9 180:10

396:18

JEFF 2:14

Jim 1:22 2:9 7:20

63:18,19 109:11

109:11,12 135:16

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 425

135:17 235:22

236:22 237:2

238:12 261:4,5

398:8,9

Joanna 2:2 148:9

175:15 370:14

job 4:12 109:4

jobs 316:8

jobsite 63:9 66:1

John 2:15 4:8 8:4

13:17 68:9 76:5,6

joint 75:6 302:22

joints 75:14 102:19

102:20 234:5,8

257:18,19

Jon 2:4 7:5 33:5,5,6

51:11,12 53:17

56:12 69:13,14

85:9 136:12 141:1

144:19,21 145:18

169:22 178:5

201:3 219:9 268:3

270:9,9 271:19

294:18 297:19

319:9 328:15

353:12 355:10

357:17 376:15

396:7

Jon's 62:14 120:13

July 311:5 369:19

jurisdiction 302:8

Justice 1:20 6:20

387:21

justification 46:20

48:14 284:19

justified 175:5

K

K 1:22 243:16

Karim 7:11 168:14

168:16,17 184:17

184:18 185:3

186:12,22 187:13

194:16 356:16

361:5,7 362:6

393:17,21,22

394:13

Kason 2:6 6:2

124:14

Katrina 252:1

keep 12:14 17:12

30:18 59:7 86:19

124:15 144:11

183:5 213:8

223:22 231:9

241:5 246:4

251:17 252:13

257:5 264:13

307:8,22 318:17

339:2 343:13

392:10

keeping 60:7

keeps 84:1 143:2

295:21,22

Keibel 7:9

Kenny 2:6 268:5

269:18 304:3,18

308:4 310:18

312:2 360:10,11

kept 339:4,6

key 10:15,15 16:16

42:20 48:14

112:16 154:2

229:17 334:12

340:6

kick 212:12

Kido 8:2,2 57:9,10

70:7,8 278:11

280:21 281:3

302:12

kilowatt 219:14

220:16 222:10,16

341:4

kilowatts 220:19

221:1

KIMBERLY 2:5

kind 30:17 35:18

42:9 59:4 64:14

65:7,10 70:16

72:5,10 75:21

84:17 91:3 107:11

114:22 118:15

123:13 124:3

127:6 134:5

142:13 171:15

177:5 188:13

201:12 205:2

244:14 248:15

288:9 293:18

298:2 301:22

310:10 318:7

319:1 324:10

333:8 335:9

338:14 340:5,20

344:6 374:21

376:11

kinds 127:10

138:13 328:19

Kirilov 1:19 6:9,9

238:9,9

kit 149:21

kitchen 80:22 81:1

know 4:13 17:16

23:13 24:20 36:6

50:7 53:6,10

61:17 69:11 71:8

71:22 74:4,21

76:13 79:2 80:14

80:15 81:1 84:22

89:16 92:8 101:19

102:22 110:4

111:1,4,8 112:12

114:14 115:7

116:11,21 117:15

117:17,19 120:10

120:17 126:8,9,12

126:14 127:19

128:11,11,13

129:8,10,20 130:4

130:10 134:19

135:13 138:7

139:12 144:3

150:1 157:18

159:10 160:19

166:10,14 170:3,5

170:16,18,19,21

171:4,18 172:5

177:5 179:17,19

181:13,15,19

183:3,8,10,12,13

183:15 189:20

192:2 199:12

203:19 204:12

213:10,11 214:11

216:10,12 218:13

219:4 222:18

231:5,11,13,22

232:10 234:3

235:11 241:12

243:10 244:3,3,8

245:12 249:18

250:6 251:7 252:1

252:10 253:3,4

255:9 268:14

271:1 277:12

279:4 289:20

290:6,9,10,14

292:17 293:17,18

294:1,13 296:4,7

296:22 297:6,7

298:13,15 309:4

309:22 312:5

316:8 317:2,14

325:16 326:4

329:10,13 334:11

342:15 348:4,20

349:8 353:1,8,21

354:4,8,15,19

355:4,5,18 360:4

361:3 362:5

369:22 371:7

373:22 374:7,17

374:19,19 375:15

375:18 378:17

379:12 381:15,16

383:9 384:10

388:10,21 394:7

395:5 396:8,10

knowing 74:9

189:13

knowledge 135:1

known 117:18

144:12 225:8,8,10

237:7 243:13

289:18 327:9

333:20

knows 276:1

Krupa 7:22,22

242:13,13 251:4

Kurt 1:21 7:9

244:22 245:1

Kysor 2:5

K-factor 44:19

L

L 1:13 2:5

Lab 241:11 332:2

label 129:2 273:12

286:17,17

labeled 179:22

321:7

labels 130:3

labor 76:14

laboratories

239:21

laboratory 1:13 2:8

2:18 8:19 44:14

labs 147:11 273:20

lady 109:14

laid 30:14 232:3

261:1 366:20

371:12

Lampel 1:20 6:19

6:19

language 44:1

large 24:7,13,13

33:16 75:4 170:9

172:15 242:18

297:2 298:12

308:9 311:21

382:2 383:21

384:2 392:2

larger 38:1 96:17

102:18 121:14

222:14 379:10

largest 39:16 279:5

290:17

Laughter 69:9

219:18 230:12

252:2 260:5

263:12 264:12

282:8,21 289:9

318:14 343:14

344:8 364:8

385:19,22 389:20

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 426

395:15,21

launch 14:1 45:1

law 14:10 18:17

20:5,15 21:4,10

54:10,12,21,22

55:15 110:10

140:3 180:1

271:14 377:15

Lawrence 273:20

lead 170:15

leading 256:17

leads 92:18 105:22

266:17

leaks 75:13

leaky 75:6

learn 116:16

learned 47:1 83:5

learnedly 238:4

leave 83:10 206:20

359:20 369:1

leaves 19:12

leaving 102:14

LED 5:13 325:15

326:2,2,10

Lee 2:16 7:1 31:5

252:4

Lee's 41:13

left 19:20 55:2 59:1

89:1 152:5 211:2

334:20 347:4

365:19 377:9

left-hand 264:9

legal 54:19 146:17

278:19 395:20

Legett 1:21 3:6,11

8:8,8 45:11,12,13

49:17 50:9 59:9

59:15 60:6 61:22

68:1,5,7 82:1

83:12 84:7 85:6

85:15 86:2 89:20

90:14,19 91:2,7

91:12,19 92:4

93:21 129:1 152:7

152:11 153:3

159:19 160:13

163:5,12 186:4,14

187:1 206:8 242:5

314:16 329:4

349:11 360:3

363:15 370:21

371:18 373:16

377:8 379:4,19

380:3 381:13

382:7,14,19 383:1

386:3,18 387:12

387:15 388:7,18

388:22 389:5,12

389:15,18,21

390:9,20 391:1

392:22 393:5,8

legislation 27:15

29:22 59:2,22

87:22 88:9 92:8

111:4 284:12

384:21

legitimate 348:15

Leibel 1:21 7:9

245:1,1,15,21

lends 71:21

length 106:6

228:19 315:5

391:7

lengthy 17:5

letter 396:2

let's 4:3,4 5:7 14:2

45:3,6 65:16

73:19 103:1

104:11 113:4

120:3 125:10,20

131:17 136:11

146:4 150:21

152:1,2 196:13

199:9 208:10,11

208:15 238:5

252:13 257:4

280:13 281:8

291:22 299:12

318:15 330:7

331:7,11,11

337:20 338:1

341:1 345:1

348:18 351:4

362:7 364:11

369:1

level 23:13 35:9

36:17,18 57:5

58:9 65:9,12

70:11 72:2 93:3,7

108:13 109:8

124:17 133:2

137:2 140:22

145:10 146:1,8,20

164:17 169:18

189:14 190:8

192:10 197:12,15

200:10 209:14

210:7,19 212:8

229:8 271:8 272:1

279:22 306:15,17

328:10 329:15

356:12,14 365:11

370:5 376:9

392:11

levels 65:7 107:15

197:3 345:9

376:10

Lewis 1:22 6:3,3

13:9 32:6,6 33:1

50:13,13 73:14

74:21 79:6 116:19

157:8 181:6 185:6

205:12 214:8,8

220:14 228:8,8

230:7,8,13 252:15

253:2 260:9,15,18

263:9 289:14

307:8,22 369:7,11

378:16 379:5,14

386:5 387:9

liberty 379:20

380:6

licensed 177:2

life 24:5 170:19

173:1,3 229:20

233:10,11,16

lifecycle 55:7

light 5:13 322:7,9

326:3,3

lightbulbs 291:17

lighting 61:2 62:10

62:12 78:14 99:4

117:8 291:18

305:6 322:13

325:15 326:20

lights 321:10 322:3

322:16 325:9,11

325:12,13 328:19

lightweight 284:14

likes 152:12

limit 18:9,14 24:1

29:12 216:19

219:4 222:17,20

limitation 32:1

limited 24:15 25:1

25:3 247:13

limits 286:4,4

Linda 1:19 8:20

line 67:1,9 81:16

92:15 100:10

172:10 173:22

252:6

linear 69:18 96:20

110:2

linearly 117:22

lines 24:21 26:7

84:13 145:6,16

LING 1:22

list 5:16 43:16 44:2

67:19 98:6 152:15

163:13,14 196:4

379:15

listed 96:7 366:6

388:4

listen 16:6 141:14

listing 277:12

listings 390:16

literally 207:6

little 5:12,12,13

28:9 41:8 51:13

58:3 60:5 65:17

77:21 89:10,13

92:19 102:13

126:19 153:18

161:6 162:3 170:6

189:1 190:2,20

205:22 242:15

248:22 251:5

257:1 260:7 264:8

283:4 284:18

290:18 291:20

297:9 307:13

324:14 349:20

353:3 354:2 372:6

377:11 397:15

live 71:14 122:8

361:20

LLC 2:7,10,14,15

5:22

Llenza 3:3 8:6,6

10:12 13:10,13

14:2,3 16:20

64:11,12,12 65:6

107:10,11 122:11

122:12,12 163:22

164:1,2,8,13,16

166:4 174:17,18

174:18 175:12

180:6,7,17 181:3

197:9,10 207:13

240:15,16,22

270:19,20 271:10

279:2 300:22

306:12,12 317:13

324:16,20 325:2

349:18,19 356:4,5

357:9,9 371:21,22

379:6,7 387:17,17

393:12,13 394:13

395:19 396:13

397:20 398:12

399:17 400:12

Llenza's 68:12

load 20:11 28:10,12

33:17 99:1 100:12

100:13 101:2,12

101:20,22 104:4

116:21 117:5,6,15

118:5 119:22

123:9,12,21 124:1

124:2 133:12,13

133:20 134:2,3

135:5 165:12,13

167:8,9,11 169:13

169:20 171:6,8

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 427

209:6,7,17,22

210:1,3,4,19

211:5,10,15,17,20

212:2,2 215:22

216:1 220:3,8

224:18 225:13

258:18 293:15

308:20 310:21

311:7 312:5 327:2

327:5,7 335:4

340:9 365:15

366:9,10 368:1,5

374:4 375:18,20

376:1,3

loaded 218:17

276:18

loads 92:3 108:14

117:8 119:19

124:8 133:18

220:16,21 270:2

279:6 375:12

lobbyist 385:20

local 70:11 76:9

302:8

location 184:19

250:10 296:10

344:3 370:9

lock 196:21

locked 24:4,4

206:19 254:10

logical 58:8

logs 107:21

long 44:5 56:20

68:17 69:21 88:14

111:2 123:11

125:6 128:15

129:22 137:12

179:13 197:22

200:2 217:13

218:1,2 237:17

238:17 239:11

242:17 243:8

244:8 269:1 289:1

309:6 321:18

332:9 343:12

374:11 394:15

long-term 32:13

44:10,16 56:17

230:19 258:9

look 9:15 38:7,9

53:20 54:14 56:18

57:19 58:12 70:8

70:12 74:5 81:5

99:8,19 102:3

108:12 110:19

116:6,7 131:5

171:1 187:16

201:17 204:20

222:6 223:17

238:17 240:11,17

250:3,5 251:5,6

276:14 278:11,16

278:20 280:22

353:8 382:6

388:17

looked 38:15

117:20 231:10

241:9,11 256:4,6

looking 56:10 58:4

74:19 93:18

108:14,16 141:9

175:2 217:20

241:7 250:21

272:3 292:6

327:22 396:21

397:5

looks 56:17 62:1

209:21 317:14

loop 334:5

loophole 216:12

loopholes 58:18

59:3,18

loose 234:6

Loren 2:10 7:16

121:10

lose 77:18 359:17

losing 80:6

loss 213:9,11

239:15 254:20

308:6

losses 102:18 254:8

254:13 285:6

lost 41:3 67:15

207:3

lot 9:17 13:2 18:3

18:14 21:2 24:3,8

24:11,17 29:10,21

31:7 34:20 38:8

40:5 42:7 46:7

49:18,21 56:6

59:17 74:13 87:6

93:19 106:14

124:14 140:11

143:1,9 147:10

153:17 157:9

161:12 167:12

203:19 208:4

215:14 227:5

239:20 242:19

268:19 269:3

272:14 275:21

296:8 312:19

354:1 382:2,4

384:9 397:12

400:14

lots 4:17 37:12

41:16,17 328:5

loud 397:1

Louisiana 328:5

love 32:22 142:22

280:22 297:9

loves 81:1

low 137:2 192:4,4

193:10 272:21

278:4 310:10

351:11,17

lower 248:2 250:4

250:7 266:19

268:20 287:8

288:7 352:16

355:16 376:7

lowest 107:8 140:6

141:10 290:22

292:5 355:22

low-cost 391:11

low-E 37:13 129:13

275:3

low-performing

359:13

luckily 171:15

lunch 11:2,4,6,7

151:12 152:22

206:13,14 207:19

207:21

M

M 1:19

magic 278:21

main 94:18 100:9

346:15

maintain 28:16

37:19 41:2 202:7

maintained 343:21

344:1

major 15:8 74:15

127:4,14 158:10

201:18 218:5

252:10,17 302:20

322:16,22 326:22

majority 244:1,4

makers 54:22

making 17:17,18

18:1 50:18 111:19

139:21 184:1

185:14 267:7

manage 143:16

Manager 8:7

mandate 356:9

mandated 181:5

357:14 367:4,13

367:13

mandatory 147:10

363:7

manfacturers

155:8

manipulate 148:3

Manitowoc 1:16

378:22

manual 285:1

320:15,21

manufacture 49:19

54:16 71:7,7

95:22 127:15,16

129:9 132:1

144:14 228:1

229:19 232:19

238:20 390:4

manufactured 18:8

22:13 47:16 48:16

62:16 73:5

manufacturer 22:9

22:12,18 23:10

25:6,8,9,14 35:9

47:21 48:19,21

49:12,14 51:15,17

51:21 52:6 54:6

57:5 59:12 63:9

66:18 67:6 68:2

72:10 78:20 79:17

98:17 101:17

103:6 118:19

124:21 125:3,7

127:17 128:10

129:4 130:17,18

131:1 133:1 134:7

136:7,8 139:5,6

142:1 144:20

145:2 148:16

154:9,10 159:18

160:4 170:12

172:12 180:3

185:12,22 194:14

194:18 199:18

202:19,21 203:5

204:19,20 216:13

216:20 232:21

244:13,16 262:13

262:14,18 264:17

264:21 273:9

274:14,19 275:9

277:13 285:13,21

286:1,5,13,15

289:8,19 292:8

294:8 296:9

301:20 315:9

318:16,18 319:4

329:9,12 337:2

349:8 361:2

380:13,14 384:21

manufacturers

6:16 21:2 25:6

31:8 35:1,10,14

40:8 47:17 49:18

50:16 53:9 54:4

65:17 66:5,6,20

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 428

66:22 67:10,22

69:4 76:4 77:8

78:5,6 93:13

94:18 95:11 97:8

97:15 98:3,9

104:10 106:12

113:4 115:12

116:9 117:2,4

120:15,18 136:9

137:3 140:2

142:11,12,15

143:11 148:14

153:21 154:22

155:5 156:8

158:10 163:8

168:8 179:1

182:11 186:7,8,9

186:15,17,20

187:5 188:18

191:6 200:5 205:3

217:21 227:1

236:10 238:12

252:17 254:3

269:9 274:3,7

275:5 281:17,20

288:12 293:12

294:20 301:14

316:8 317:11

319:14 337:1

349:1,14 354:18

358:10 372:15

373:11 374:17

377:16 378:3,5

382:3,9,15,17,18

383:21,22 388:16

390:3,14 391:4,15

391:17 392:19

manufacturer's

36:17 146:2 214:1

305:11

manufactures

145:5

manufacturing

71:16 84:13

118:19 160:1

232:22 273:12

284:21 337:2

377:20

Marantan 2:2 8:10

8:10 110:15 111:1

111:18 112:19

115:2 120:8 187:3

188:12 222:3,3

292:3,3,22 383:13

383:14 385:4,10

385:14 386:21,21

387:13,16

March 1:6 15:10

marginal 354:6,9

354:17 369:17

mark 143:6,7

market 19:7 34:9

34:18,19 35:16,21

37:19 38:1 40:3,4

41:15 49:2 62:10

132:17 135:2

148:10,11,12,19

197:17 202:7

203:18 227:1

320:5 354:13

358:3,3

marketplace 51:8

80:8 81:8 94:16

309:8 319:6 353:7

markets 149:6

Master 268:5

Master-Bilt 2:6

304:3 310:18

360:12

match 37:3 147:18

189:8 204:12

336:22 337:18

341:12 342:6

347:18 356:13

362:21 376:19

matched 200:4,13

336:16 338:16,16

matching 203:11

203:20 356:22

357:1

material 224:21

225:9,11,21 227:5

227:9,12 241:20

250:8 257:19,21

267:4 268:1

289:18

materially 160:12

materials 10:8 44:8

45:6 99:20 100:19

226:2,8 230:1

241:13,18 242:2

250:4

MaterialScience

2:7

math 158:14 170:6

mathematical

108:18 117:22

matter 16:17 19:2

19:5 64:21 99:3

99:13 110:21

116:13 175:1

331:4 401:2

matters 355:18

Mauer 2:2 148:9,9

175:15,15 370:14

370:14

max 174:22,22

175:6

maximum 34:1

85:19 174:1,2

222:11 344:19

345:10

McGOWAN 2:3

113:20,21 125:22

125:22 213:5,5,20

221:9,9,21 275:12

275:12 277:1

279:16 283:4,12

283:19 294:4,17

298:8,8

McHUGH 2:4,4

7:5,5 33:6,7 51:12

51:12 53:18 56:13

58:3 69:13,14,14

70:13 85:10

136:13 138:8

145:19 170:1

178:6 179:15

190:7 201:5

202:10,12 219:10

219:19 220:1

270:10 271:7,17

294:19 297:20

319:10 328:16

329:1 353:13

355:11 357:19

376:16 395:16

396:8

mean 32:17 42:22

43:5 64:20 65:13

72:5,12 83:21,22

101:19 104:21

107:2 114:3,14

126:22 131:15

134:19 165:5,11

172:2 180:18,20

184:7,21 185:1

187:15 189:1

190:14,15 210:3

218:11 232:21

239:11 241:7,8

244:15 253:4,10

267:16 269:22

278:5 288:4

305:20 318:22

334:14 335:17

336:22 337:19

338:14 341:3

348:14,16,21

349:12,13,16

361:13 374:6

378:19 382:22

394:8 397:9

meaning 165:19

187:9 190:5

323:10

means 55:4 85:2

89:8,8,10 119:3

154:8 206:16

220:2 339:21

343:19 351:16

meant 98:7 187:14

335:3

measure 44:16

190:12,16 224:20

229:14,17 231:13

269:13 300:9

304:6 315:8 339:9

340:10 341:2

343:7 364:19

367:2,5 370:6,7

372:16 373:5,12

measured 341:19

measurement

315:17

measures 39:16,22

40:20 333:8

338:18 341:9

391:3,8,16

measuring 220:16

267:20 274:2

300:16 307:13

342:1,17 372:22

mechanical 19:19

34:20

mechanism 227:11

227:16 228:6

288:16,16 322:1

mechanisms 226:1

227:9,19

medical 19:22

medium 363:10

meet 20:6 31:21

54:5,7,14 101:13

131:16 133:2

137:1 140:22

141:15 173:16,20

178:3 182:15

191:2 198:6

284:15 285:2

312:20

meeting 1:5,7 4:7

4:14 5:4 14:4,15

15:2,16 28:11

46:6 47:10 55:2

88:8 97:13 112:10

115:4 118:10

141:2 150:13

190:22 201:1

212:15 215:14

225:17 226:4

228:22 240:21

249:16 257:11

318:12 335:4

350:10,11 351:3

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 429

361:13 387:5

391:11 399:7,9,22

400:7

meetings 66:3

318:3 359:22

400:21

meets 25:15 139:21

195:9

member 390:2

members 20:6,13

20:16,17,18 61:12

63:21 190:7

334:12

membership

389:10

membranes 56:5

memory 313:17

mention 82:8

112:20 115:20

mentioned 31:7

40:18 44:4 49:12

50:14 61:11 94:4

136:14 242:6

247:3 278:14

354:3 375:20

387:1

mentions 277:19

mess 29:22 71:12

met 69:20 140:18

metal 32:10 44:8

56:5 230:15 234:5

234:22 235:15

253:13 256:5,7

257:13,19 258:3

280:14

metaphors 167:19

meter 219:15 240:3

374:16

meters 240:13

method 31:18

36:16 37:22 39:21

44:16,19,21 63:5

63:7 77:7 95:9

110:11 114:5

115:7 120:20

122:15 147:15,15

225:6 230:2 237:8

243:15 273:17

274:4 295:7 300:5

300:15 304:4,5

309:13,17 310:19

314:11 315:12

353:15 354:22

355:1 391:13

methodology 97:6

98:2 123:1 154:6

239:17 247:13

286:3 309:10

337:18 362:12

363:17 368:22

369:6 370:13

372:2

methods 33:20

40:3,16 44:17

63:7 97:3 116:7

126:16 332:13

345:19 359:9

metric 215:15

217:2 222:5,21

223:2 273:13

286:19 298:2

327:16 372:4

374:4 375:16

metrics 120:11

350:17 372:5

Michael 2:8,13,19

5:21 8:2 57:9

70:7

microphone 41:9

55:21 68:10

124:12 161:22

330:15

microphones 5:11

12:20

middle 350:7

mid-afternoon

11:10

mid-morning

10:20

migrate 256:8

Mike 7:22 242:12

242:13 251:3

Milen 1:19 6:9

238:9

milestonehere 15:8

milestones 15:4

MILLER 2:5

million 18:6 389:11

389:12 390:6

millions 128:19

135:19 137:10

Milwaukee 295:19

mind 59:7 86:19

144:11 217:17

266:8 301:13

mine 290:11,12,16

381:20

Minelli 2:5 62:7,7

65:19 66:15,15

75:3,3 76:1,3,22

76:22 78:8,8 79:2

85:17,17 105:20

105:20 125:12,12

233:20,20 234:13

234:15 236:2,2,13

255:6 269:16,16

304:14,14

Minelli's 64:8

mine's 313:14

minimal 162:18

308:6

minimally 138:15

293:1

minimum 65:9

137:2,13 145:21

189:14 262:22

306:22 319:16

344:19 345:10

355:3,20 357:15

358:12,15,17

Minneapolis 311:3

312:12 344:7

Minnesota 295:19

minor 82:11 83:9

minus 172:22

267:11 316:3

344:1

minute 105:17,18

254:7 304:19

330:10

minutes 17:8 32:7

151:12 154:15

330:8,19

miscellaneous

117:8

misconstrued

26:19

misinterpretation

19:17

misleading 280:8

missed 62:2 396:17

missing 316:2

misunderstood

193:19

MIT 256:4

Mitchell 2:6 6:1,1

124:13,13 125:6

308:3

mix 147:17 197:18

203:11 204:12

336:21 337:17

352:18 356:13

376:18

mixed 90:11

mixes 308:19

mixing 288:10

mixture 197:19

mix-and 341:11

347:17

mix-match 201:7

337:11 341:12

352:3 362:22

mix-matched 159:3

199:16

mode 12:16 101:6

model 15:25 43:9

43:11,13 94:2,5

94:10,14,17 95:5

95:13,15,21 96:2

96:17 98:8 99:12

99:16 100:3,16

101:2 102:4,9,10

102:15 103:17,18

106:4 108:7

109:20 110:12

111:20,21 112:2,9

114:12 120:5,6

123:5,8,14,17,19

124:10,14,21

131:22 136:2

137:21 143:12

149:15 153:4,13

153:20 154:1,7,10

154:11,13 155:10

155:11 156:1,2,8

156:9,18,21 157:5

158:19,21 159:1

160:2,5 161:16

162:6,14 163:6

167:16,17,21

168:8,19 169:3,6

169:8 182:6 184:6

184:8 279:11

283:16 296:17

301:6,19 303:2,12

391:14

modeling 116:7

185:11 261:10

models 50:19 98:22

132:2,3,9 153:22

156:1 159:5

161:17 170:5

182:8 203:7

296:14 301:3

modes 39:11,12

108:1

modifications

45:22 83:9

modified 44:18

modify 197:7

modifying 197:4

module 191:13

195:5,18

moisture 112:15

226:7 234:8 248:5

248:11 249:18

250:1

molecule 242:20

molecules 242:18

mom 307:16

moment 224:5

money 24:3,18 80:7

160:22 198:20

307:18 318:20

319:11 385:21

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 430

monitor 171:2

month 350:9

369:15,19 393:15

394:16 399:8,8

months 116:13

238:20 332:20

333:1 361:12,12

369:22 387:4,6

moot 198:14

219:11

morning 4:5,8 9:5

151:18 208:4,12

231:8 304:21

308:22 315:5

347:2

morning's 302:19

mortuary 19:21

motion 325:16,18

325:19

motor 38:19,20,21

180:9 340:1

motors 179:12

322:17 357:11,13

382:17

mounted 157:16

mouth 291:4

move 45:6 46:5

60:5 77:22 82:7

93:20 147:5,7

220:12 240:8

246:6 247:8 264:7

272:12 299:12

335:17 341:11

362:9,19 364:2

377:5,6

moves 150:22

moving 29:15 96:9

246:4 251:17

257:5 270:1

285:19 321:2

331:8 376:15

multiple 48:10 49:5

52:21 82:19

201:21 272:21

335:8 336:12

356:11

multiplex 82:17,22

83:5 90:21 91:1,4

334:21 335:8

336:8,12 337:10

343:1

multiplied 119:17

123:9

multiply 108:8

multitude 132:2

N

N 4:1

NAFEM 388:12,14

388:18 389:8

NAICS 377:19

380:19

name 4:6 5:10,19

9:5 12:3,6,9 22:17

26:13 30:9 33:5

38:19 41:10 62:5

66:13 75:2 76:20

78:1,2 113:19

115:22 148:8

213:4 238:8 268:4

304:2 351:6 386:6

386:16,18 387:10

nameplate 321:8

321:12,16 326:2

names 386:6

narrow 76:17

national 1:13 2:3,7

2:18 8:19 30:13

38:11 78:11

113:21 126:1

138:11 213:6

241:10 273:20,21

307:15 332:2

388:15 390:2

nature 55:15 58:22

107:4 135:4

261:17

Navigant 1:17,18

1:21 2:2,17 8:9,11

8:12,14,16

nearing 359:18

necessarily 108:22

111:19 116:8

121:22 197:20

199:19 211:5,11

211:13 232:7

329:13 350:4,5

374:8 398:19

necessary 36:2

159:2 323:10

neck 290:7

need 5:11 12:4,16

12:20 16:8 19:18

21:5,9 23:9 38:5

67:21 81:5,6,7,10

83:16 84:10 100:4

103:17 109:22

111:8 135:5

141:22 151:4,13

152:9 163:11

168:11 183:12

184:10,10,11

185:15 189:11

192:3 204:4

206:18 207:17

209:9 219:4

231:13,19 242:6

250:20 251:17

260:4,7 271:1

283:9,10 305:8

313:5 324:9,12

325:3 342:5

352:18 353:4,7

394:10

needed 60:10

112:21 223:17

needs 19:13 39:9

39:21 58:18 61:11

81:18,18 103:9

104:9 124:16

125:4 128:6,9

135:15 148:1,1

182:7 185:22

189:20 200:16

314:6 319:22

320:2 350:18

352:11 362:1

negative 255:11,16

negligible 304:8

negotiable 54:13

Neither 76:3

net 24:16 127:22

290:15 338:19

339:16 341:19

342:18 356:1

365:1 367:9,19

368:13,13

neutral 37:10

never 62:13 89:14

139:22 144:16,18

181:20 204:16

217:17 241:9

266:8

new 18:2 20:8 21:4

22:11 23:4 26:1

29:3,6 37:21

39:20,20 40:21

41:3 42:7 77:5

101:2,3,12 119:5

124:18,19 125:7

131:4 133:16

172:3 180:10

181:11,13,14

183:7,17 191:1

196:14,15 197:2,5

197:16 198:4

199:6 208:11

212:5 232:9 241:6

244:14,17 245:9

253:18 265:17

271:16 276:7

295:20 311:4

312:3,13,19

316:12 317:7

320:5 373:21

376:20

newer 249:5

NFRC 221:10

273:11,22 275:13

275:14,20,22

276:7,16,21 280:5

280:18 281:11

283:13 286:16

294:22 295:5

297:17 298:9

nine 89:1 282:6

345:5,11

Ninety 166:5

nitrogen 242:21

noble 109:1

nominal 328:13

non 146:6

noncompliant 23:3

52:16

nonheated 278:4

293:16,20,21

295:13

nonlinear 261:21

nonlinearity 184:5

262:3

non-EISA 179:11

non-glass 212:21

214:13 215:20

220:9 223:5

non-low-E 129:14

non-real 32:11

NOPR 1:4 15:9

82:5 83:4 94:11

154:17 155:10

156:16 212:19

213:1 229:7,9

247:11 258:22

259:3,19 261:15

262:1,11 265:12

273:7 286:3 300:4

302:4 311:14

316:2 322:4 333:6

368:12 370:15

387:19 396:11

397:5

normal 26:2 160:7

251:13 357:12

normalization

212:14,20 214:3

215:7 216:18,19

222:5,7,21

normalize 215:15

222:16 312:10

normalized 312:18

normalizing

212:17

normally 327:8

norms 12:2

North 67:11

Northwest 1:12 2:7

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 431

2:18 8:19 332:1

Nor-Lake 2:10

7:17

nosed 20:18

note 15:9 89:21

93:6 154:20

208:17 247:22

316:1 321:15

notice 1:4 9:12

281:6

noticed 297:16

305:16 397:14

notification 398:16

399:4,10

notified 398:10

notifies 396:2

novel 142:4 147:6

NSF 75:7 85:17,19

86:14,18 144:13

145:4 230:16

number 9:19 26:2

51:7 79:9 103:4

104:18 105:4

108:3 119:8 124:6

134:13 135:20

136:5 183:15

204:15 225:18,22

228:22 254:2

257:12 259:4

269:21 272:20

273:2,19 278:21

287:2,4,8 290:22

291:1 300:21

309:1 316:7,16,16

321:21 328:1

329:7 337:15,16

338:9 344:22

346:10,11 347:5

363:2 366:5 375:9

378:8 381:3

386:16,19,19

387:10,11

numbers 92:14

104:16 117:9,20

117:22 165:1

166:15 171:13

185:7 195:5 214:9

272:4 274:20

291:11 292:12

310:20 312:20

317:7 329:6

number's 288:7

numerous 311:12

O

O 4:1

Oak 241:10

objected 97:13

objective 355:16,19

observe 10:4

observed 12:2

observer 73:20

obtain 36:1

obtaining 358:4

obvious 73:19

obviously 54:21

123:5,10 139:22

173:2 174:6 223:4

314:8 321:17

occur 75:5 135:21

227:9 229:13

235:16 397:19

occurs 138:9

238:19 239:6,9,10

244:2,5 315:18

OEMs 187:21

offer 18:12 67:1

115:14 200:17

284:18 347:12

offered 18:11

Office 8:3

official 399:4

offsetting 171:19

off-bar 349:20

off-cycle 340:7,12

341:18 343:3

348:7 363:11

oh 152:9 192:3

220:3 264:2 268:3

330:18 398:12

okay 9:3 11:21

13:22 17:13 31:15

33:4 45:3 49:17

51:10 53:3 59:8

60:4,6 64:10

76:19 79:3 86:15

91:2,7 104:7

109:9 110:9

118:11 130:1,21

131:1 136:11

139:11 144:1,9,17

144:22 145:17

146:21 147:22

152:1,2,11 153:2

161:18 163:12

164:18 175:14

185:3,4 192:3,12

193:8,19 194:13

202:8,11,13 205:7

213:20 215:5

216:17 218:8

219:7,19 220:13

221:21 223:7

224:3 230:13

234:14 237:12

239:1 240:22

242:4 246:2,20

247:1 251:15,18

252:6 254:4

256:11 257:3

258:15 260:18

262:9 263:10

264:2 268:18

270:8 271:17

272:11 275:10

279:19 282:14

283:8,16 284:4

285:9,19 290:8

291:11 292:21

293:8 294:3,18

295:9,17 296:8,12

297:12,18 298:22

299:9 301:4,7

302:16 303:22

307:21 308:12

313:16 314:13,15

314:21 319:7

321:2 324:19

325:13 326:8,15

328:12 330:20

331:19,20,22

338:21 344:12

345:16 348:3

355:11 359:15

362:7,10 363:5

364:10,11 371:4

371:14,19 372:7

372:11 374:22

376:14 377:2,5

383:3 386:1

388:22 389:5,18

390:7,9,22 392:9

392:16,17

old 125:9 205:16

231:4 233:13,22

233:22 236:17

once 10:22 14:15

24:4 40:14 65:11

87:20 89:3 100:15

123:14 166:20

199:12 224:6

245:6 279:10

383:6 398:17,18

onerous 126:8

ones 4:18 246:14

264:10 314:19

379:17 388:5

one-piece 145:7

one-to-one 211:13

335:5

onsite 145:14

on-cycle 338:18

339:20 340:4

342:12,13

on-site 64:15

opaque 56:18 57:1

open 19:13,16

92:22 101:5

150:12 183:14

213:1 227:18

255:18 279:5

295:21,22 308:16

315:7 320:22

330:9 361:16

394:15

opened 85:1 89:3

309:6,6 314:9

opening 3:4 10:15

16:15,16 108:21

127:22 134:21,22

290:8,16 299:18

304:11 308:7,11

308:14,17 309:11

309:22 311:2,4,18

311:18 360:5

openings 134:20

279:4 309:19

313:18

opens 198:22

operate 17:22 19:8

165:17,19

operating 30:15

98:20 99:13,22

165:20 167:10

346:8

operation 157:15

285:4 347:16

operations 53:6

59:19

opinion 67:21

126:9 320:17

381:10

opinions 65:15

226:15

opportunities

319:17 358:16

392:4

opportunity 5:6

10:3,13,18 11:9

11:16,19 16:12,14

42:16 208:9

226:17 285:14

319:12 320:6

393:18

opposed 97:16

107:16 121:6

148:14 310:14

316:10 392:2

optimal 103:8

optimized 53:11,12

option 115:3

142:16 154:22

155:9,22 156:6,7

156:15,17,20

237:5

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 432

optional 341:8

343:6 359:14

options 25:2 41:17

41:18,20,22

123:15 154:19,20

154:20 156:11,14

160:4 192:1 196:3

196:4 212:17

283:14 391:11

oral 4:19 150:15

oranges 162:15

order 31:9,12

50:17 58:17 97:10

102:5 172:14

243:16 271:2

309:7 321:20

322:19 327:4

367:5

ordering 148:13

orders 287:10

organization

142:17 388:12

organizational

5:10,19 12:5

oriented 122:17

original 83:8

156:16 169:2

259:10 265:11

originally 46:9

259:18 396:17

Orleans 295:20

311:5 312:3,13,20

ought 143:15

167:21 172:6

289:22

outcome 35:7

96:16

outdoor 187:17

327:21 328:4

344:5 366:2

367:21 368:4,17

376:22

outdoors 344:3

outline 48:3 338:22

output 62:17 201:8

279:20 280:6

364:18 367:11

368:9 376:18

outputs 298:19

outset 13:18 16:22

41:7 45:1

outside 10:16 85:4

143:5 160:6

198:10 227:12

231:22 254:14,15

266:13 279:13

333:22 335:11,12

336:6,7 345:8

outward 227:17

overall 34:18 113:7

113:14 178:15

182:1,20 211:10

219:14 263:1

265:10 371:9

overbearing 67:8

overburdening

317:15

overestimates

170:15

overhead 325:10

overlap 89:15

oversimplifying

251:5

oversized 170:20

171:5

overstate 280:2

overview 3:3 10:12

45:16 48:13 49:8

53:15 90:5 229:8

300:7

over-simplification

108:6

Owen 2:6 268:5,5

304:3,3 308:4

310:18,18 312:2,2

360:11,11

Owens 2:9,14 6:17

owned 380:14

owner 295:20

307:14

oxygen 242:22

P

P 4:1

Pacific 1:12 2:7,18

8:18 33:10 332:1

pack 129:17,18

package 21:17

23:12 78:19,20

82:14

packaged 335:22

packages 21:14

176:7

packet 9:11,15 45:7

pages 400:3

paid 316:9

pain 394:21

paint 353:17

pair 337:21 338:5

paired 336:17

337:9 343:1 365:9

pane 134:5 293:20

293:21

panel 1:22 2:5 6:4

21:12 32:7,11

56:2,4,11 61:19

62:9,11,22 63:4

66:22 67:6,22

69:16,19 72:4

79:8 108:14

124:19 127:17

129:10,11,11

131:1 132:4,5,10

136:16 137:1

139:10,13 185:17

216:21 217:10

218:3 225:11,16

226:20 228:9

230:16 236:17

237:18 238:12

244:9 255:21

257:18 266:20

293:12 296:9

304:8

panels 21:3 51:17

54:5 60:21 61:20

63:1 64:9 67:13

68:17 71:7 78:13

102:20,21 128:12

129:9 132:9 136:7

136:8 149:20

218:19 228:11

230:17 231:2

234:4,20 237:7

238:15,17,21

243:11 249:6

253:12 254:11,16

255:6 256:15,19

257:14 284:15

299:21 303:1

316:15

panel-to-panel

299:21

panes 272:21

paper 31:2 181:19

240:17

papers 239:18

245:8,14,17

paperwork 394:20

parallel 93:2

parameter 99:12

344:2

parameters 27:17

27:19 30:16 95:7

96:7 100:21 167:9

182:8 194:8 195:2

273:2 283:11

309:1,20,21

320:13,14,17,19

329:10 339:10

373:19

Pardon 280:20

parent 379:8

380:15

parity 365:11

370:6

Park 2:7 281:10,10

PARKER 2:7

part 13:10,13,16

16:6 21:13 60:18

61:1 65:2 80:11

90:20 111:16

113:13 130:1

140:21 141:4,5,6

150:2 167:9,10

169:13,20 171:6,8

178:14 181:4

197:7 210:20

212:11 214:18,22

302:13 340:6

350:3 356:9 389:3

397:20 400:5

partially 172:5

Participant 218:22

219:2 250:9 255:4

330:15 331:13,14

participants 8:22

93:4

participate 361:18

362:2 392:13

participated

142:14

participates 273:10

participating

152:15

participation 15:20

particular 34:16

37:14 38:7,22

54:6 56:22 57:12

94:22 105:13

111:17 121:19

190:3 197:14

201:22 226:6

248:8 262:19

267:8 295:1 307:4

315:21 337:12

354:5 369:13

375:11 376:21

379:12 396:10

399:7

particularly 167:11

252:11 257:14

258:20 279:21

parties 3:5 46:12

46:22 47:9 48:17

115:10 225:19

226:14 274:11

395:6 399:11

parts 21:16 22:15

23:1,15 49:20

60:12,13,17,19

77:4 91:20 94:5

139:12 140:22

149:9 159:5,14

177:13,19 189:8

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 433

344:10

party 37:18 49:16

51:20 144:2

171:22 176:2

262:17 264:18

273:10 301:22

305:17,19 306:9

306:10,14 348:21

349:3 360:22

361:3

pass 111:4 178:16

229:11 300:10

330:4 359:16

passage 311:20

passed 25:1 178:15

364:5

passes 308:15

354:7,10

path 69:7 251:22

338:8 352:3

paths 126:22 127:1

127:2 197:11

303:4 356:11

pathway 337:16

patient 237:1

Pause 355:9

pay 23:8 79:22,22

80:1 172:16

325:20 359:19

paying 174:14

peer 258:9

penalized 290:21

312:9

penalizing 291:13

penalty 369:21

penetrate 253:13

people 12:8 17:15

28:7 36:5 56:22

59:4 65:14 66:19

74:4 80:10 92:9

108:3 113:16

116:15 128:13

129:9 137:20

140:11 143:8

146:3 158:12

190:21 199:20

203:2 233:5 238:2

257:12,15 259:4

274:21 283:1

284:11 285:7

303:9 309:8 316:7

318:4,4 337:13

348:22 355:21

358:4,5 359:17

373:17 375:17

379:15 382:4

389:3,19 390:4

percent 31:11 52:4

127:15 143:21

149:6,7,8 157:11

159:22 160:15,20

161:13,21 162:2,4

166:1,5,7,8,9

170:15 171:4

172:3,22 197:6

244:5 254:22

277:19 295:16

307:17 311:4,5

322:5,6,10,11

323:1,4 324:7

325:17 327:1

360:21 379:5

386:13,14 389:9

390:5

percentage 149:5

166:10 250:1

perfectly 75:19

80:19,19 376:11

perform 64:17

74:17 103:3 119:4

133:5 137:18

144:15 176:15

177:3,8 196:5

200:15 241:13

303:13 310:11

315:16 391:7,15

performance 23:13

27:17,19 33:22

36:4,10,14,16

37:8,16,22 40:21

41:4 43:20 56:16

57:17 65:1 73:11

88:6 109:8 111:5

111:9,21 113:2,8

113:14 114:7,9

119:3,3 120:11

125:8 126:10

133:2 136:21,21

137:13,21 140:18

141:1 159:9,13,16

160:2,6,8,12

185:8 189:3,7,15

190:12,16 191:12

191:14 194:3,6

195:2,3,21,22

196:1 199:16

200:8 203:9

209:18 210:20

211:6 219:12

225:21 227:6

251:11 270:15,22

271:5 272:17

273:13 274:2,13

276:9 286:19

292:10 295:11

306:17 313:7

315:8 318:7

356:12,19 358:6,7

359:9 370:8

372:22

performance-bas...

33:20 55:16 65:12

356:6,9

performing 39:12

103:8 137:9 138:7

319:15 359:12

performs 65:5

113:5 177:6 310:7

perimeter 69:18

period 15:9 55:9

131:6 150:12

235:6 238:21

242:7,9 363:18

393:14 394:2,15

394:22 395:8

397:22

permeability 233:6

permeable 257:9

permeably 44:11

242:2

permeance 250:5,7

permeate 256:9

permitted 303:14

permitting 77:1

permutation

178:13

permutations

41:22 137:11

162:10

PERRODIN 2:8

Perry 2:9 7:20,20

63:19,19 64:7

109:11,11,13

110:9,22 111:15

111:19 135:17,17

237:2,2,19 261:5

261:5 398:9,9

person 5:6 12:17

22:12 75:21 149:4

177:3 275:3

perspective 98:14

100:15 150:2

209:16,19 210:13

214:2 279:8,9

284:21 305:11

307:9 308:1 374:3

pertaining 258:10

pertains 337:8,9

PFS 145:4

phase 387:2

Phoenix 2:8,15,19

phone 361:15

phones 12:15

physics 107:22

261:19

Ph.D 1:12 2:2

pick 51:7 84:8

105:5 107:17

120:5 125:4 137:8

155:1 174:2,4,4,8

175:5 278:1

picking 223:2

picks 205:20

picky 84:10

piece 235:13 274:6

326:16 327:16

354:14 357:4

360:17

piecemeal 52:11

pieces 31:1 47:4

52:22 56:4 95:14

133:4 140:21

178:9,10 197:14

209:11 210:15,18

360:21

piece-wise 187:9

place 25:14 44:7

146:7 207:11

214:2 289:4

315:18

placed 317:10

placeholder 396:3

places 145:21

plain 279:1

planning 381:7

plans 188:12

213:15

plant 84:14 177:4

plastic 249:8

plate 38:19 130:10

plateaus 243:7

play 98:5 209:11

297:15

players 52:21

playing 107:16

272:1 328:10

329:15 365:11

370:5 392:11

please 4:3,21 12:2

12:3,14,15 15:9

17:1 26:13 30:9,9

31:16 32:5 33:14

33:18 34:7,12

35:6 36:12 38:3

38:14 39:1,7,13

40:1 41:9 50:11

55:20 58:13 62:4

62:5 66:13 75:1

76:20 78:1 113:19

116:1 121:9

125:21 144:21

148:8 150:13

152:2 206:9

207:16 213:3

219:9 223:13

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 434

242:8 251:3,18

252:12 257:4

258:5 268:4

275:11 283:3

294:3 296:22

302:15 304:2

310:17 314:19

351:6 359:19

363:2,18 370:13

373:22 375:4

378:14 388:10

400:19

plenty 10:2 234:6

343:12 397:8

plug 118:22 192:9

195:5,18 369:8

plural 372:9

plus 172:22 338:3

PMR 234:17

podium 152:6

point 31:1 32:15

59:7 92:10 94:7

94:19 100:9 110:7

112:13 113:2

115:17 121:16

122:3,22 138:1

158:18 165:7

167:14 175:3,7

176:5 179:21

187:4 189:11

198:14 201:17

224:6 229:14

240:12,14 244:19

245:13 247:11,15

252:8 265:5 269:2

274:6 292:5

302:17 316:21

317:17 323:18

325:8 347:8,19

356:18 357:15

362:8 380:7

393:20 396:16

398:6

pointed 194:16

257:16 258:1

372:18

points 17:8,10

42:20 264:10,15

317:16,18 392:8

polystyrene 246:15

polyurethane 2:13

5:22 245:5 246:15

251:9

Polyurethanes 6:12

42:15 245:22

poor 307:14 359:9

poorly 39:11

pop 307:16

pops 192:10

port 255:15,18

portion 148:12

150:15 280:1

326:22

ports 108:5

position 30:2 65:22

69:7 120:10

281:19

positive 255:12,16

possibility 57:19

188:19 216:12

226:7 256:16

possible 130:16

184:13 246:5

253:19 317:19

322:20 328:7

377:11

possibly 251:22

288:5,16 300:2

301:20 322:17

post 75:21

posted 400:1

postulate 231:14

postulated 230:20

potential 95:21

148:6 169:17

294:10 303:11

383:9,9 391:2

potentially 37:21

51:19 69:6 97:21

298:1 320:5

354:16 355:1,4

381:8

poured 234:21

power 38:18

166:13 321:7,17

338:18 339:20,22

340:4,7,10,13

341:18 342:13

343:3 348:7

374:15

PowerPoint 9:11

9:16

practical 81:5

184:11 305:22

318:9

practicalities

305:21

practice 27:14 98:9

285:4

practices 374:7

preanalysis 281:4

precisely 211:14

preclude 395:1

predetermine

197:13

predict 20:10

predicting 44:9

229:18 235:11

preexisting 38:5

prefer 126:9 295:6

preferred 120:20

preliminary 15:3,7

premature 398:4

prematurely

243:15

premium 163:4

prepared 320:16

preparing 387:2

prescribed 14:12

180:12 181:3

357:10,13,21

prescriptive 53:22

54:11,21 55:3,14

56:15 68:19 111:3

126:16 202:5

270:14,17

present 1:10 2:1

15:17,23 18:8

42:16 75:12 93:10

209:21 212:7

217:8 334:13

presentation 9:11

10:18 11:9 48:12

345:17

presented 9:19

presenters 9:21

presenting 14:5

210:19

presently 133:8

198:5 320:17

preservation 87:17

presiding 1:9

pressure 38:22

39:19 103:20,20

123:16 168:3,4

198:17 204:13

242:19 248:4

255:11,12,12,15

255:16,17 299:22

presume 379:15

presumed 333:2

pretend 127:19

pretty 12:20 23:16

25:20 110:19

119:20 138:12

161:21 162:2

164:5 166:11,12

166:15 169:19

170:13 190:13

238:18 294:12

304:19 306:8

330:13

prevalent 246:14

prevent 58:17

235:15

preventing 258:11

prevents 28:15

preview 174:19

previous 45:21

100:22 157:1

243:20

pre-analysis

350:10 387:2

394:21 396:13

397:4,21 398:10

pre-empted 70:4

price 93:9

primarily 247:20

332:6 334:19

338:16 339:10

343:16 391:5

primary 44:3 239:8

principle 261:7

prior 150:20 170:8

private 58:20 59:10

probability 167:22

probably 14:8 18:2

18:3,9 23:21

31:11 36:6 52:16

70:18 77:13

104:18 105:11

116:13 132:2

146:8 147:4 149:7

149:8 150:1

151:12 169:3

170:13 171:18

174:2 201:20

202:4 228:18

233:12 234:4

238:3,21 245:8

246:14 248:16,21

298:5 308:5

350:10 388:16

389:4 396:18

397:5

problem 28:4

59:22 69:2 72:22

83:15 85:5 86:4

88:13 102:9,13

118:3,17 123:4,18

135:10 176:17

179:3 194:10

235:10 284:16

293:7 351:9

394:19

problematic 70:18

problems 18:14

63:13 75:5 115:8

procedural 208:17

procedure 3:7,9

10:21 11:9,12

14:14,17,18 15:2

15:25 16:1,5,8

44:9 45:19 46:10

46:16 47:12 48:4

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 435

90:3 102:3 177:2

208:22 209:15

210:21 212:10,11

216:13,15 220:6

224:5 229:15

235:18 241:22

267:19 287:19

313:1 331:9 332:3

332:17 333:5,8

336:10,11,13

346:17,21 350:3

350:17 360:8

364:15,16,19

365:13,17 366:18

366:19 367:4,14

370:21 371:1

372:15,20,21

373:4 383:15

385:7 395:2

396:16 400:18

procedures 3:6

10:19 14:7 15:17

45:15 46:17 48:8

48:11 123:2

132:21 224:7,11

229:1 235:9

247:14 383:17

proceed 9:8 13:21

45:3 364:11

proceeding 13:4

33:15,19 151:20

222:19 282:7

377:15 382:11

383:15 384:4,16

386:22 396:10

proceedings 26:1

331:3 385:6 401:2

process 15:20 20:8

47:11 63:15 74:2

77:2,2,4,5 89:21

124:3,4 132:20

137:15 188:15

211:12 214:19

215:1 216:4 219:3

224:6,12 229:12

235:3 270:1 274:8

305:7 350:12,15

361:9,17 362:3

384:5 385:8 393:4

396:14 400:17

processes 15:1

produce 35:20

234:10

produced 32:12

92:13

producer 132:4

product 20:22

22:13 23:13 24:21

29:15 35:20 41:14

41:16 42:3 54:19

55:5 63:6 67:1,9

72:16 77:12 84:13

86:10 117:6 119:7

125:15 130:22

143:2,6,9 145:6

145:12,14,16

146:4 168:20

170:22 172:10

173:12 175:11

177:10 178:2

184:20 194:14

214:22 223:15

225:2 232:22

236:4,5 246:19

248:18 279:18

283:15 291:8,15

305:10 376:21

production 92:16

productive 208:5

400:21

products 31:21

36:11 40:6 43:12

58:9 63:22 64:1

119:2 128:18

131:4 137:6

144:13 168:19

191:11 230:3

242:3 248:14

254:1 269:10,14

316:21 319:5,14

328:11 375:11

product/installed

301:16

profile 192:4 366:4

367:21 368:3,19

374:4

profiles 376:1

program 1:3 7:8

9:8 33:8,9 117:14

118:21,22 119:5

142:13 172:4

283:14 286:8,18

programs 117:2

119:8 310:21

319:13

progress 151:18

207:18,19

prohibitive 23:17

64:2 79:13 325:18

project 2:3 8:7

365:15

promote 42:7

163:1 376:8

prompted 204:8

proof 236:20

propagate 228:4

propagated 348:1

proper 168:12

properly 68:15

116:16 128:5

139:3,15 304:8

properties 309:4

proportion 308:9

proposal 32:20

120:13,16 154:15

194:1 283:1

303:10

propose 44:17

100:2 160:15

238:16 276:7

304:4 310:12

proposed 1:4 3:7,9

10:21 11:8,11

15:17,18,25 16:4

31:19 44:5 48:3

60:7 82:5,9 91:19

94:10 95:6 97:4,9

98:2 122:15 136:1

153:9 155:10

178:7 199:13

208:22 212:10,19

212:22 229:5

235:18 261:15

264:22 265:4

273:6 281:6 286:2

288:1 300:4 302:3

311:14 314:11

331:8 332:3

378:10 384:16

proposes 212:14

370:15

proposing 46:15

48:6 178:8 192:7

247:11 258:21

259:19 262:21

265:5 273:16

286:14 309:9

315:11 321:8,20

322:4,22 323:4

327:5,11 332:18

proprietary 115:13

protect 295:16

protections 359:8

prove 114:7 373:9

proves 206:2

provide 5:6,16 51:5

95:9 114:5 121:4

129:1 147:12,14

147:16 163:14

174:9 197:11,12

199:22 211:8

233:5 262:15

310:13 319:13,16

354:14 365:10

370:5 380:20

381:2 385:5

393:17 398:14

provided 97:21

210:8 249:16

264:18 265:3

provider 127:5

provides 16:12

274:1 336:19

359:8 371:1

providing 136:16

349:15,15 356:11

359:1

provision 49:1

156:7,21 221:17

provisions 124:16

184:9 334:8

public 1:5,7 9:5

15:16 47:10 97:12

115:3 212:15

387:5 395:17

publication 399:1,3

publicly 273:17

380:8

published 14:16,21

15:9 82:5 83:5

156:16 229:7

247:10 258:10,22

259:4,18 262:1,11

322:4 387:3

396:14 398:11,19

pull 167:12 316:22

325:17

pulled 161:8,8

234:6

puncture 258:2

purchase 34:22

93:9,12 349:2

381:19

purchased 354:17

purchaser 138:2

purchases 51:18,19

purchasing 175:21

179:21

purely 234:2

236:19

purpose 33:21 49:1

89:7 94:16 153:19

270:3 317:17

365:10

purposes 262:20

273:7 328:7,20

pursue 280:9

298:21

push 5:11,12

173:16 330:21

pushes 108:11

pushing 38:21

198:15

put 15:11 18:2,3

19:9 21:2,17

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 436

24:14 25:13 28:20

30:17 36:19 52:15

52:15 53:19 64:20

67:7 68:20,21

80:8 87:22 88:2

124:5,19 128:1

130:17,21 132:5

133:4,10,13,15

138:12,16 140:9

141:20 160:4

161:9,11 165:3

166:18,20 172:12

176:12 177:7,13

178:9 191:1,13

196:4 200:11

202:18 205:20

216:20 232:3,9

249:8 268:11

271:4 276:8 289:6

291:4 295:19

307:2 312:4,11,12

316:15 325:18

327:2 339:1

354:19 378:22

386:16 396:3,20

398:1,19 399:2,18

puts 21:20,20 22:12

25:16 29:12 138:4

177:20

putting 24:10

49:21 52:22 57:3

64:19 69:19

128:16 135:8,9

140:21 161:13

179:13 248:15

253:12 288:21

289:16

puzzle 80:11

p.m 208:2 330:9,20

331:5,5 401:1

Q

qualification 58:19

qualified 363:7

quality 76:13 84:15

quantify 111:13

quantifying 225:20

quantities 367:17

quarter 129:17

370:2

question 57:11

68:1,13 70:2

91:16 110:16

115:4 122:4,18

138:22 142:8

146:22 148:10

169:20 176:6

184:16 189:10

193:14 200:20

215:7 218:10

219:21 221:7

222:1 242:5

244:12 245:3

249:1 261:3

293:14 301:12

302:13 303:16

311:1,9 313:15

314:4 318:17

347:14 353:11

375:8 383:5

385:16 386:5

questioning 317:5

questions 3:12 13:7

13:22 15:18

109:14 175:16

200:22 206:7

207:7 224:14

268:2 289:11

334:16 347:5

394:11

questions/comme...

369:5 370:12

question's 295:3

queue 105:16

113:17

queuing 12:8

quick 79:6 89:20

96:9 138:20

175:16 185:6

205:12 220:14

223:8 230:7 242:5

246:9 300:7

317:13 361:12

370:15 382:7

396:1

quickly 151:11

156:12 252:15

253:10 256:2

315:13 373:16

quite 26:2 34:6

167:15 191:8

193:1 297:10

338:12 345:12

346:3 347:2 363:9

399:16

quote 35:13 36:6

59:3 101:10,12,20

183:7 316:7,13,22

317:1,6

quoted 316:21

quotes 316:9

R

R 4:1 20:7,11 28:3

29:2 43:2 61:16

110:7 224:22,22

225:2,7,9,19

226:2,9 227:10,15

227:21 229:3,14

229:17,18 230:21

231:5 235:11

236:7,18,21

238:14 239:15

247:16 249:18,22

252:11 258:9,11

262:22 263:17

265:16,20 266:18

266:19 267:1,4,20

rack 82:16 297:4

335:10 355:6

radiated 213:10

radiation 134:4

rail 299:7

raise 10:16 399:14

raised 92:11

393:20

raises 348:15

raising 265:21

ramp 121:18

123:21

RAMSEY 2:9

range 84:3 244:5

297:2

rare 31:12

Rasmusson 2:10

7:16,16 121:10,10

rate 86:7 122:1

133:21 142:19

158:10 187:19

188:2 200:13

250:7 269:9

275:14,15,22

276:2,7,9,17,21

277:6 295:6 349:9

351:18

rated 39:5 100:3

142:14 157:13,17

265:17

rates 205:1 243:2

250:5 328:17

rating 2:3 38:12,12

95:8,20 111:21

113:22 126:1

129:2 142:16

154:11,12 155:9

157:17 163:4

166:12 170:10

171:10 184:22

186:17 187:6,16

188:1,4,8 195:6

213:6 273:11,22

279:18 280:9,12

283:5,17,21,21,22

286:16 289:17,18

294:6,10,22 295:1

295:1,2 296:15

297:10,21 298:19

298:21 313:2

320:7 321:9,13

326:2 327:16

328:8,11,21 351:8

351:10,14 358:18

365:12 371:17

ratings 36:7,8,9

37:18 38:10

111:10 130:3

162:9 170:5

171:14,17,22

295:10 296:13,19

319:18 351:13

ratio 211:13 212:21

327:10 328:14

364:21 368:12

rationale 96:1,2

RAUSS 2:11

Ray 2:3 113:20

125:22 213:5

221:9 275:12

294:4 298:8

reach 65:13 339:8

383:7

reached 92:21

196:22

reaching 197:22

reach-ins 82:21

react 233:1 303:9

read 2:11 4:20 17:3

82:7 374:15 395:6

readily 275:6

reading 59:2

ready 246:5

real 32:20 73:14

83:15 91:16

171:12 173:1,3

185:6 206:2

220:14 223:8

231:16 237:8

251:21 252:15

253:3,9 256:2,15

289:14 301:12

304:15 316:18

369:20 372:4

373:16

realistic 35:11

269:21

reality 109:3

180:14 181:20

285:11 290:4

293:17 304:6

realize 49:4 61:3

157:1 170:13

181:9 338:4 378:1

realized 153:6

really 16:6 25:22

26:4 31:10 37:1,3

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 437

53:10 55:11 70:15

90:4 101:18

108:11 109:2,4

119:11,12 120:7

123:6 124:4

132:20 147:18

155:6 164:19

170:6 180:14

197:21 198:15

200:19 203:3,17

210:2 214:18

215:13 224:11

229:15 235:7,17

241:12 243:22

270:4 271:22

272:3,18 277:7

287:12 313:6

319:3 323:9,12,14

326:14,22 333:2,2

335:15 337:8,14

338:2,18,22

339:18 340:6,15

342:6,8 343:19

345:5,13,22

346:11,13 347:22

348:8 349:13

354:1,7,10,21

392:20 394:20

400:7

real-world 370:8

reason 54:4 57:7

112:8 129:7

183:10 216:5

272:6 303:17

332:8 342:4

388:10

reasonable 35:21

92:13 146:7

167:22 171:4

376:4

reasons 47:14

121:7 345:22

reassure 23:18

Rebecca 1:21 3:6

3:11 8:8 45:4,10

45:13 94:4 95:2

112:20 128:22

152:6 153:2 186:5

205:9,10 206:6

314:17 329:4

349:10,11 360:2

373:15 378:16

393:7,10

rebellious 331:15

receive 49:7 133:3

315:10

received 9:10 46:11

46:21 97:11

recess 207:21 331:1

recognize 216:10

226:13 298:10

328:3

recognized 229:21

320:7

recognizes 159:15

232:1 247:4

recollect 121:3

recommend 23:6

43:22 69:8 236:12

240:9 242:8 282:5

291:3,5

recommendation

104:15 105:13

237:17 294:22

recommendations

26:7 172:21 235:8

recommended

360:19

recommending

36:15

reconsidered 46:14

record 12:4 13:11

13:14,16 15:12

17:4 41:10 62:6

151:21,22 207:17

208:13 248:10

250:14 282:10

330:22 331:4,5

351:6

recorded 5:14

records 261:6

redefine 28:19,20

130:16

reduce 20:13 94:17

102:5 106:12

153:20 226:9

227:19 229:3

271:8 315:6

337:15 338:9

391:9

reduced 227:21

340:16

reduces 227:13,15

reducing 44:12

228:5 274:3 320:4

337:16

reduction 315:1,14

refer 190:8 222:7

245:15 369:5

reference 234:16

referring 299:2

refers 82:18

reflect 40:3 49:2

217:1,5 269:12

358:3

reflected 399:12

reflecting 319:4

reflection 52:20

reflects 262:22

393:18

refrigerant 334:4

339:10

refrigerated 2:16

47:6 83:19,20

84:1,4 85:2,3,22

86:13 87:17

131:20

refrigeration 3:9

7:4,12 11:12 16:1

18:7,10,20 19:2

21:13,19 22:10,16

22:22 23:7,9,20

23:22 24:2,12

25:17 32:15,18

33:16 34:15 46:18

47:7 48:5,20,22

49:13,14,19 50:6

52:8,14 58:7

60:10 61:1 62:13

67:20 77:15 78:15

82:3,14 83:22

91:21 92:2 95:4

116:20 117:2,17

118:2,7 120:19

122:16 128:12,13

133:12,14 135:7

140:7 146:4 149:3

153:5,7,13,16,22

154:3 155:16,17

156:8,10,18 157:5

157:10 158:19

159:11 161:15

163:6 165:9

166:17 167:3

172:13,15 173:5

173:19 175:16,19

177:3,9,14,15

181:12,18 190:16

193:3,5 194:7

195:16 199:17

204:17 220:20

221:2 222:6 231:8

251:7,10 287:13

293:15 297:4,7

305:5 307:10

308:21 312:4,9

313:5,11 327:3,14

329:9,14 330:4

331:9 332:4 333:9

333:18 334:17

335:4 337:14

338:19 339:14,17

340:3 341:19

342:2,18,19

345:21 346:17

348:22 349:2

357:4 364:14

365:3,6,8,14

366:12,16 367:1

367:20 368:6

369:12,21 370:17

371:3,8,15 377:20

refrigerations

187:6

refrigerator 27:6

28:12 251:14

refrigerators 50:19

251:7 275:16

374:18

regard 380:5

regarding 82:9

258:8 365:20

368:21

regardless 28:1

264:19 349:12

350:19

regards 27:10 29:2

regimen 78:22

regional 313:10

register 5:15 9:12

259:7 398:22

399:1,3

registered 9:11

152:19 390:14

registry 390:13

regress 252:16

regs 176:13

regulate 57:15

91:20 357:4

regulated 91:22

184:20 188:11

regulates 334:4

regulating 323:11

regulation 40:17

42:8 111:11

regulations 18:3

20:2,3 40:13

54:15 177:22

189:4 191:1

reinforcing 63:4

reinvent 38:6

reiterate 31:6

125:13 150:11

304:20

reiterates 184:5

reiterating 156:13

relate 215:20

302:21 327:20

related 36:3 112:15

115:5 215:17

225:21 235:9

258:18 266:1

267:19 273:8

298:3 299:18

319:20 330:3

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 438

359:3

relation 395:3

relationship 110:2

239:12

relative 108:20

136:5 294:22

295:16 323:13,14

376:7

relatively 68:17

137:14

release 399:9

released 339:15

releases 399:1

relief 103:20,21

123:16 255:15,18

300:1

relies 67:16

relying 132:15

139:19 140:17

remainder 396:9

remaining 397:3

remark 16:16

330:16

remarks 3:4,13

4:10 10:15 16:16

86:18 208:14

393:19 399:14

400:11

remeasure 300:11

remember 81:6,11

358:11 389:7

remind 268:22

reminds 247:2

Remote 21:13

removed 315:20

365:1 366:11

367:10 368:5,13

RENEWABLE 1:2

repaired 38:1

repeat 252:21

302:12 315:19

repeats 31:13

replace 32:14

141:17,19 270:14

399:2

replaced 38:2

206:5 242:21

replaces 196:15

replacing 118:2

249:4

report 181:16,17

372:16 373:12

386:12,16,20

389:8

reported 373:19

reporting 280:1

372:14,20 376:16

represent 173:3

284:11 327:7

374:8

representation

108:9 200:7

237:20 374:14

representative

79:12 210:11

229:20 360:20

representatives

186:9

represented 274:13

representing 6:15

42:14 109:4

120:22 199:15

represents 173:1

200:14

reputable 158:13

request 4:16 9:20

373:14 394:5

requesting 90:6

378:8

require 18:14

43:12 55:8 66:21

67:5 173:21

required 14:10

20:6 22:19,21

25:10 41:21 42:4

47:18 54:5,7

95:12 101:4 136:3

177:18 203:14

240:6 267:21

344:22 376:19

377:14

requirement 29:4

29:16 56:15 78:22

146:12 199:5

270:22 271:13

278:22 321:7

requirements

20:11 25:15 29:6

30:14 31:22 48:1

53:22 54:8 56:19

57:20 58:5 68:19

69:20 109:17,18

111:3 139:21

141:16 145:22

169:6 178:4 179:7

180:5 181:4

182:16 193:5

198:6 201:22

202:5 204:14

270:15,16,17

321:6 357:21

366:20 372:14,20

373:2

requiring 53:20

70:5 197:7

research 19:20

83:4 116:4,12

229:5 241:10

247:19 259:3

375:21 377:17

resell 290:6

residential 168:19

187:20 188:14

194:17 356:20

resistance 44:10

224:21 225:1

227:4 298:1,19

resolve 285:15

351:3

resolved 350:14

resources 390:12

respect 57:20 80:12

80:12 282:4

respected 273:21

respectful 285:12

320:18

respectfully 29:21

respond 52:2

237:13 243:17

244:11 284:9

355:13 394:11

response 94:15

258:14 259:2

262:8 329:22

372:10 377:4

responsibilities

49:4

responsibility 72:8

72:11 188:7 193:9

193:16 194:9,19

195:8,14,16 196:6

responsible 21:21

47:21 48:19,21

52:7,17 64:19

68:3 176:2 186:16

187:6,22 188:3

189:20 194:2,6

196:7 274:19

350:20

rest 323:20 361:1

391:10

restaurant 307:14

307:15,16

restaurants 24:18

307:19

restraint 35:18

restrictions 241:17

restrictive 168:6

restroom 330:12

restrooms 151:2

result 40:22 43:19

97:22 178:1

305:13 368:8

results 96:17 100:6

100:7 103:13,15

106:21 116:14

172:6 248:16

258:8 287:5

289:21 338:5

resume 151:15,16

151:19 152:1,4

207:4,6,20 330:19

331:7

retail 29:10 53:8,8

149:14 298:7

retain 241:19,21

retest 124:21 162:8

retread 208:10

return 81:21 95:3

150:4 170:11,14

171:16 238:7

revealed 219:21

review 3:2 10:11

15:10 220:6

387:20 388:1

reviewed 228:22

258:10

reviews 10:8

revised 83:7 156:17

revision 265:13

362:4

revisions 82:11

203:14

revived 331:10

rewording 362:19

363:8,9,17

rich 150:7

Richter 2:12 7:3,3

41:11,11 90:10,15

90:22 91:4,8,16

92:1 147:8 161:20

162:1 163:9 293:4

327:20

Ridge 241:10

right 13:12 15:5

16:8 18:17 19:6

20:4,22 21:10

22:22 23:14,22

25:2 46:13 53:22

56:1 57:14 64:20

64:20 71:17 72:1

72:9,22 73:5,12

74:11 75:8,11

81:16 86:8,9 90:5

90:14 119:9 124:8

124:9 125:5,6

138:3,5,9 139:17

141:8 143:14,20

144:7 150:22

151:16 161:10

163:13 164:7,13

164:15 165:3

168:10 175:12

176:7,14,14 179:9

179:15 180:3

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 439

190:11 194:4,11

206:1 211:2,3

214:8 219:22

229:19 233:19

235:6,17 245:8

246:14,20 258:16

260:15 263:7,9

266:9,15 268:12

276:19 277:15,18

283:18 289:10,11

290:2,8 291:9

293:17,21 294:16

296:2 306:15

308:2 313:20

314:10 319:3

320:14 330:1,7

334:22 335:7

356:17 363:22

376:8 379:14

382:8,19 385:9

387:9 393:17

398:4

rigid 44:11

rigor 201:15

risk 170:20,22

Rite 2:9 7:21 63:20

road 191:3 223:1

Rob 279:15

robin 122:19

role 65:22

Rolls 79:19

roll-up 125:16

Ron 281:10

RONALD 2:7

roofing 232:4

room 1:7 5:9 12:19

18:18,22 19:12

36:5 73:6 83:20

84:12 85:2,3

120:15 151:16

186:8 206:19

207:6 246:12

274:21 295:14

334:14

rooms 32:9 84:15

84:15 85:19

157:11

roughly 67:4,10

round 122:19

347:6

route 98:1

Royces 79:19

rubs 81:2

rule 14:16,17 23:5

35:7 39:17 155:2

349:22,22 350:8

353:15 361:10

378:10 383:19

396:16 397:7

400:18

rulemaking 1:4 3:3

10:12 14:10 15:21

111:7 189:15

199:13 214:19

215:1 271:14

281:6 302:11

361:8 373:3 384:8

385:8

rules 353:18

ruling 21:9 281:1

run 9:6 32:18 75:12

96:8 118:7 157:20

161:6 166:1,7

171:3 191:22,22

214:9,20 281:11

289:1 312:6 339:8

345:5 352:16

running 32:19 74:8

166:6,9 231:9

340:16 365:4

runs 166:14

runtime 171:2

Russell 158:9 161:3

185:14 194:13,18

Russell's 196:8

R-factor 291:14

R-value 20:13,19

27:21 28:9 32:13

43:21 44:6,16

54:1,18 55:4 56:2

56:7,8,16 61:18

109:17,18 110:10

110:11 112:11,17

119:16,19 140:6

147:19 164:15

174:7 278:22

279:3,4 287:14

R-values 27:15

32:16 76:10 88:2

88:4,4,5

R-25 20:7 21:5

R-28 28:3 262:21

284:13,15 285:2

R-32 20:7 21:5

54:16

S

S 1:22 4:1

Sachs 2:12 7:14,14

68:9,11,11 69:11

92:5,6,6 166:22

167:1,1 189:22

190:1,1 192:21,21

193:8,17,21,21

194:5,15,15

195:12,14 196:10

196:10 253:16,16

256:12,12 282:3,4

282:11 301:10,10

302:5,6,16,16

303:14 346:22

347:1,1 351:21,22

351:22 364:3

375:1,5,6,7

395:11 396:5

Safe 400:22

safety 170:19

sale 316:21

sales 277:20 307:10

389:14 390:6

sample 229:10

360:21

Sam's 218:16

San 33:11

Sanitation 30:13

Sarah 2:18 8:18

satisfies 178:19

satisfy 81:18

178:17

save 102:11 197:17

198:19 291:9

352:16

savings 39:17

93:11 143:17

288:15 304:16

305:13 347:10

saw 68:8

saying 55:6 58:8

104:10 107:12,17

121:11 130:21

134:10,12 164:17

165:16 173:14

177:6 183:12

188:20 193:13,15

195:11 215:8

266:7,13,20 287:1

307:6 318:22

319:1,3 325:9

354:13,18 395:17

says 21:11 73:2

83:18 103:18

106:1 129:10,21

135:2 159:8 161:7

165:17,18 192:10

195:21 306:7

307:15

SBA 380:11 381:8

383:18 384:15

385:5,17

scalability 107:14

scalable 117:21

scale 95:14 96:16

106:16 108:15

114:21 143:12

175:3,6

scaled 96:21 100:6

100:8 104:5

222:22

scaling 96:4 108:2

110:3 184:10

scans 256:5

scenario 347:18

scenarios 352:14

schedule 396:9

397:2,3

Schott 1:16 6:21

66:17

science 2:9 118:4

158:1 205:19

scientific 19:19,22

109:22

scope 44:8 201:1

screen 45:8

seal 130:9

sealed 128:5

254:10,16,21

304:8

sealing 253:11

254:21

seals 130:8

Sears 50:18

seatbelt 74:22

seated 207:16

seats 4:4 152:2

331:11

second 60:22 82:15

109:21 155:22

167:14 259:16

268:9 314:5

339:18 344:2

346:5 370:22

384:6

secondary 227:15

271:14

seconds 12:19

second-order 347:5

section 63:1

sections 57:2

see 5:13 9:16 11:11

14:1,22 15:8,22

16:11 32:22 34:13

36:8 40:2 45:8,20

52:5 55:13 60:17

61:13 71:1 72:2,4

74:6 91:9 102:15

103:1 149:5

152:19 155:9

172:17 178:22

183:16 214:9

226:20 236:18

238:1 242:11

243:11 250:22

255:2 258:6 262:4

275:17 276:15

286:10 292:4,12

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 440

297:9 305:21

317:7 322:12

330:7 335:18

339:17 349:16

353:10 360:1

368:10,14 377:8

384:3,19 392:21

397:10 398:5

seeing 208:14

231:6

seek 10:1 15:19

110:6 154:14

seeks 209:4,16

seen 61:14 89:14

92:20 97:18

210:22 232:7

233:2,3,4 248:13

248:21

SEER 375:16

segment 150:5

segments 148:19

149:14

segue 308:13

seldom 62:11,12

78:17,19

select 277:3,3,5

selections 51:4

self 323:10

sell 23:21 25:10

36:20 37:5 50:5

50:19 51:2 54:17

54:20 62:11,11,12

62:13 71:1 116:19

116:20 117:15

118:1 132:18

143:6 149:1 157:9

157:10,11 158:2

176:7,16 177:13

179:5 185:19

287:9,21 288:22

295:13 296:3,4,8

381:21,22

selling 21:14 25:17

52:14 72:15 86:6

135:4 142:1

177:19 179:10,17

180:9,11 183:20

188:6 252:18

382:3

sells 25:16 132:19

186:1 189:12

send 21:18 22:15

22:21 173:6

176:10 180:19

182:16 183:2

317:6 359:5

393:15 396:1

398:21

sending 249:7

395:1

sense 12:6 37:12

38:8 48:18 76:8

88:4,19 98:11

123:18 124:15

148:11,17 186:20

209:10 217:21

253:22 254:12,19

289:17 318:5

sensibly 102:5

sensitivity 375:22

sensor 325:19

sensors 325:16,19

sent 357:11 389:8

separate 20:19

46:16 47:16 48:15

48:16,17 60:19

62:14 64:8 67:21

119:17 122:16

215:1 223:14

224:10 245:19

264:14 266:22

267:2 287:18

313:11 334:7

337:4 349:16

351:13 370:17

372:5

separated 48:4

62:18 63:16 234:5

separately 48:7

175:22 178:14

187:10 262:18

336:21 341:14

September 332:22

serial 183:15

series 15:23 322:15

343:2

serious 63:13 131:3

seriously 131:4

260:6

seriousness 378:20

serve 41:15 82:19

83:1 90:12 91:21

126:4 335:13

serves 82:19 91:6

92:3 313:17

service 73:22 105:3

106:1 149:15,16

160:11 168:5,6

243:12 314:7,8

Services 1:15

serving 335:3

SESSION 208:1

set 57:12,14,17,22

120:7 123:1

136:21 147:3

153:16 174:20

182:4,7 198:1

298:12 334:19

356:6,7 368:11,19

384:14

sets 353:14

setting 57:19 63:10

146:15 201:17

305:4 353:17

settle 75:11

seven 51:4 105:9

150:12 158:3

share 380:6 381:10

392:15

shared 249:15

394:4,9

shares 148:11

sharing 40:5 400:8

Shaun 1:20 6:19

shell 149:19

shelters 84:16

shelving 128:2

139:10

ship 176:18,20

177:1 286:1,6,13

287:1 290:5 296:9

shipment 301:15

shipped 148:16

262:16 288:11,14

322:1

shipping 264:17

285:21 288:2

315:10

ships 264:21 292:8

shop 50:17 151:8

330:9

short 280:6 331:1

shorter 290:18

shortly 291:16

398:15

shorts 56:6

shot 141:2

show 69:3 91:5

238:13 249:22

259:11 279:3

285:8 320:14

332:15 367:3

369:17 387:7

showed 109:15

121:13

shown 121:20

259:18 323:2

364:21

shows 367:16 384:3

shred 236:6

shut 28:8 89:17

304:7 322:7 385:1

side 5:8 58:7,7

93:15 120:19,19

167:3 171:21

172:13 182:3

190:17 204:13,21

207:1 209:1

351:11,17,17

371:8

sidebar 12:16

sides 107:19 218:17

Sievers 2:13 5:21

5:21

signed 207:14

398:18,20 399:2

significant 53:16

80:7 97:13 155:14

155:19 213:10,13

238:14 247:20

significantly

155:12 216:2

silent 12:15

similar 114:2 126:4

138:13 153:21,22

188:13 222:13

230:2 265:7

simple 100:8 108:2

119:20 129:8

172:20 215:6

225:7 253:19

266:2 279:1

simpler 126:11

305:7

simplified 116:10

simplifies 166:18

simplify 159:6

simplistic 109:6

simply 68:17 95:16

96:15 99:7 100:3

100:22 267:20

272:19 273:12

285:2 286:3,16

292:7,13 372:21

383:16

simulate 114:9,17

276:2

simulation 114:5

114:15 126:17

261:12 265:7

283:14

simulations 259:8

Simultaneous

232:14

single 34:14 39:16

46:9 47:12,17

81:13 82:14 265:1

275:22 278:10

307:10 316:7

335:5 344:13,15

345:13 368:16

single-speed

351:12

sir 31:4 193:17

sit 244:10 290:20

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 441

site 70:5 75:10

79:12 164:18

249:6 301:21,22

302:21

sited 326:18 328:4

sites 269:6

sitting 158:1

268:18

situation 35:18

37:1 75:8 79:16

89:5 114:2 129:12

142:9 179:16

234:10 275:14

297:12 323:11

329:11 340:17

345:1

situations 135:21

144:15

six 41:20 104:21

105:8,9 116:13

231:5 237:22

238:19 291:17

320:22 332:20

333:1

Sixteen 218:22

219:1

size 96:17 102:16

103:12,16 104:15

105:13 107:17

108:9,20 110:2

114:21 117:18

120:3,5 133:11

134:19,20 135:1

157:20 222:14,15

222:17 223:1

276:3,6,7 277:2,4

277:5,18,22 280:4

280:11 283:16,16

283:17,22 284:5,6

309:3 313:4,10

369:12

sizes 67:5 105:4

117:21 275:18

276:15,18 283:20

sizing 118:21,22

skin 234:6 252:22

253:2 258:3

skins 32:10 44:8

230:15 235:15,19

256:8 257:8,9,13

258:9,11

slab 77:16

slice 229:10 237:5

240:4

slicing 229:11

230:2 231:14

241:9 243:14

slide 33:14,18 34:7

35:6 36:12 38:3

38:14 39:1,7,13

40:1 49:6 82:7

95:10 96:1 109:16

109:21 112:4

115:7 125:17

209:3 243:21

259:11 264:6

265:22 292:6,6

308:7 363:2 369:2

378:7 388:3 391:1

391:2

slides 9:16,19 11:1

45:2,4 79:4,14

81:22 94:9 109:14

152:5 153:11

156:11 213:19

221:6 228:17

235:5 239:5 264:1

299:13 310:3

363:3 364:5

377:11

sliding 27:21 78:14

125:16

slightly 155:11

slip 59:4

SLOUN 2:14

slow 243:2,7

small 3:11 11:13

16:2 17:14,19

18:3 24:9 29:20

34:18 51:7 81:11

114:6 160:5

161:13 172:12

175:8 284:20,20

285:12 360:16

377:7,16,18,22

378:8,11,12 379:2

380:16 381:5,16

381:18,18,22

382:1,3,5,9,9

383:14,16,18,21

384:1,6,11,17,20

385:1,2,18 386:7

386:9,17,19

387:10,22 388:8,9

388:19 390:16

391:3,18 392:1,18

smaller 18:21

121:14 222:15

304:10

snow 394:16,17

software 97:8

114:15 115:13

118:14,14,17

273:18 274:7

276:18 277:6

279:18 283:11

298:18 316:12

392:5

sold 23:9 40:7

58:10 86:10

104:19 105:4,7

146:17 175:19

183:16 288:6

358:2

solution 125:19,19

293:5

Solutions 9:6

solve 293:7

solves 289:10

somebody 50:5,7

51:18 72:8 73:2,3

74:22 105:1

107:17 118:1

141:6,7 172:15

180:19 183:16,17

234:17 258:1

306:1

someone's 136:22

somewhat 93:16

100:8 272:8 374:5

soon 294:13,14

299:10 351:1

397:4 398:16

sooner 396:15

sorry 162:1 166:4

186:5 266:10

267:18 268:3

294:13 314:17

319:2 357:1 386:3

388:14

sort 12:13 107:15

122:19 142:9

145:3 163:11

165:7 209:4 216:6

217:2 221:13

225:5 226:16

262:2 280:6

288:10 298:21

367:15 395:12

sorts 317:16 358:9

358:10

sound 50:1 140:13

246:18 304:22

sounds 181:19

254:7 260:20

266:19 318:19

soup 135:8,10

sources 302:20

388:4 392:7

southern 2:11 7:6

33:9 182:17,17

space 47:8 85:14,22

87:7

spacing 358:8

span 12:1

speak 12:2,9

105:16 214:16

238:4 275:7 299:5

349:17 377:12

389:4

speaking 12:7

18:16 213:8 222:1

250:9 319:10

speaks 274:18

specialist 167:18

specialty 6:15 60:2

specific 11:4 29:14

30:6 38:16 57:11

84:6 90:6 104:15

104:17 138:22

169:5 184:11,13

202:5 210:14

214:22 217:14

222:16 223:17

225:11 228:17

235:6,10,14

237:14 245:14

252:9 257:7

264:22 269:8

273:5 287:17

293:9 309:4

311:14,16 313:10

317:9 321:5 326:5

345:4 347:13

360:5,6 364:15

370:8,9 375:12

380:21

specifically 34:16

44:2 63:11 95:1

127:12 213:19

221:6,18 258:3,9

259:12,17,20

264:16 268:22

299:16,19 313:3

368:10 385:11

specifically-stated

58:1

specification 79:10

89:15 193:4

196:18 263:17

specificity 26:5

29:8

specifics 249:12

specified 44:1

112:4 224:20

292:14 366:1

specifies 27:15

45:16,17 106:6

286:4

specify 107:5,9

159:19 286:16

321:6 351:16

372:19

specifying 112:3

269:7

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 442

specimen 44:12

240:5

specimens 240:1

speculate 148:20

219:17

speed 39:18 40:19

169:15 201:11,11

203:11,17,20

205:1,5 298:14

340:16 347:10,16

347:17 348:19

351:19 352:4,5,10

352:16,19

speeds 352:21

spend 79:20 144:4

161:11 192:6

307:12

spending 174:11

spirit 400:8

split 336:4

splitting 335:20

spot 75:15 76:7

spray 234:19

spread 181:7

spur 355:22

square 18:21 26:22

27:4 29:20 72:3

87:4,5,9,11 92:15

95:17 100:18

102:21 119:18

214:12,12 217:9

217:10 223:3

249:7 259:13,15

260:10

stack 151:3

stage 87:14 239:8

387:19

stake 100:14

stakeholder 228:21

249:16 262:12

stakeholders 115:9

240:20 381:17

stakes 80:1

standard 14:20

15:5,6,7 31:10

34:15 37:10,20

39:3,9,20 40:22

41:4 53:21 56:1

56:17 57:8 64:17

65:9,11 101:13

104:19,20 105:1

111:6,9 113:2,14

121:4 137:14

145:21 146:1,15

146:15,17 174:4,5

174:22 182:4,4,5

182:7 184:21

187:16 188:16

189:3 191:3

199:14,14 203:14

209:18 215:17

222:8,22 225:20

236:16 243:9,13

271:6 276:3 277:2

277:4,5 280:4,11

283:15,16,17,22

284:6 312:6,7

318:8 346:12

350:13,15 351:1,9

353:4,9 356:19

357:22 358:2,6,7

358:11,13,13

359:4 360:13

361:8,11,19,21

362:4 373:6,10

384:14 385:8

386:22 395:3

397:3

standardize 298:12

standards 2:2 7:7

8:5 14:12 30:20

30:22 33:8,9,21

33:22 34:4,5,10

38:5 41:1 47:10

55:3 57:12,17

65:8 85:11,13

89:13 97:5,12

111:6 117:1,11

121:1 136:22

137:7 159:16

173:21 174:3,20

196:22 201:18

214:18,19 216:4

222:19 224:8,12

234:16 253:18

271:11,16 281:7

306:15 350:8

353:20 356:7

357:10 361:20

382:11 384:8,16

385:12

standard-setting

393:3

standpoint 89:6

131:3 162:5 235:3

start 4:3 5:7,8

28:18 51:7 59:2

73:20 88:13

128:16 130:7

134:8 151:17

152:2 161:16

167:5,7 175:2

204:11 208:21

212:6 214:2 278:3

352:21

started 4:4 188:16

starting 5:2 91:9

116:12 189:2

224:15 226:19

331:21 359:17

398:1

state 31:18 39:15

52:20 70:11

170:16,17 300:6

300:16 302:3

stated 21:10 26:18

28:11 29:1 73:9

120:10 243:19

247:10 269:18

308:4 366:22

statement 13:10

17:3,6,11 32:8

61:12 67:12

138:21 223:11

236:20 308:8

313:15 314:3

395:17

statements 4:19

360:5

states 1:1,20 20:5

21:4

Statewide 7:7 33:7

stating 46:12 284:5

296:6

statistical 160:7

253:6

statute 57:13

statutory 45:19

46:4 366:20

stay 158:13 323:20

335:9

stays 239:13 327:1

steady 300:6,16

302:2

steady-state 299:16

338:17 339:8

steel 20:17

stems 120:12

215:13

step 280:7 384:4,18

steps 14:11 15:21

Steve 1:14,15 7:18

26:14 30:10 53:4

58:15 59:16

120:21 144:21,22

181:21 184:3

201:4 202:13

204:4 253:7 278:6

278:7 284:3,8

309:15 320:10,11

362:17,18 371:5,6

383:4 390:10,11

397:13

Steven 6:14

stick-built 76:12

stock 44:7

STOCKS 2:15

Stompf 2:16

131:19,19

stop 175:7 176:12

203:2

storage 1:14 7:19

18:18 26:21 29:13

29:19 85:18,20

92:17 185:17

store 82:20 148:22

295:20,22 297:3

stored 47:6

stores 24:19 91:9

105:2 278:2

straight 137:14

151:9 385:17

straightforward

211:12 212:3

stream 220:11

stress 80:10 356:18

stretch 331:7

strictly 29:15

strike 155:6

stringency 34:3

strip 89:12,15,16

89:19 310:6,10,15

315:2,15 326:3

strong 69:4 303:17

strongly 44:15

structural 20:6,12

21:6,7 61:12

63:21

structure 20:12

34:9 49:2 98:18

119:20 236:7

336:3

structured 9:18

16:12

studied 332:10

333:3

studies 39:14

249:17 256:3

study 249:2 256:6

stuff 24:8 146:3

196:16 206:2,3,20

310:11

style 290:9

subassemblies

337:5

subcommittee

126:5

subfloor 266:5

subjective 295:11

submission 258:7

submit 4:21 17:10

26:17 27:13 28:18

126:15 150:16

206:9 252:9 257:4

314:20 317:11

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 443

324:21 363:19

submitted 13:9

15:11 33:1 42:17

121:2 150:20

232:18 240:20

245:16 259:6

262:13 279:2

submitting 245:19

subsequent 259:8

subset 114:6,11

subsidiary 379:9

380:21

substantial 254:1

256:17 258:19

subsystems 272:20

333:17 334:9

subtract 339:15

succeed 261:3

success 130:22

suction 162:17

168:3 182:12

342:3

sudden 202:2

sufficient 147:12

165:2 200:1 307:3

sufficiently 147:2

150:15

suggest 64:5

147:13 206:13

257:13 282:11

363:8

suggested 26:6,6

45:21 85:7 135:18

141:1 310:5

373:18

suggesting 56:14

91:14 130:15

267:15 313:2

suggestion 289:2

310:7 324:17

362:20

suggestions 30:6

92:22 93:3 314:18

suited 345:19

sum 220:7

summarize 247:10

315:13

summarizes 46:3

summarizing 26:12

46:20 343:16

summary 250:21

257:10 330:2

362:21

summed 368:17

summer 370:3

super 196:14

supermarket 53:9

82:20 314:1

supermarkets

106:2 278:3

supersede 271:12

271:13

supplied 348:18

supplier 127:21

131:8 142:10

suppliers 131:9

142:12 191:11

193:3 200:18

supplies 52:9

supply 78:13 149:8

150:3

support 42:22 43:7

43:10,14 121:5

186:11,13,14

189:19 295:2

389:17

supported 13:19

33:9

supporting 36:13

252:10

supportive 167:16

319:11 357:7

suppose 337:20

supposed 180:11

265:17 356:10

358:12

supposedly 32:16

231:4

sure 13:4 27:9 31:9

33:6 40:21 46:4

50:1 101:18 109:7

110:15,16 113:20

116:15 118:20

134:7,21 139:21

140:18 141:12,13

142:4 160:19,20

168:9,14 169:1

170:21 178:22

183:9 193:1 197:3

204:1 208:11

263:16 280:18

306:21 317:2

330:8 348:9,16,17

349:5 359:22

363:9 369:3

379:19 382:5

383:20

surface 100:13

101:1 108:8,22

212:18,20 213:13

217:4,5 223:2,3

225:8 256:8,10

266:4

surface-mounted

21:8

surprised 208:20

surrounding 148:5

survive 307:19

suspect 205:4

sustenance 151:14

swapping 367:7

sweat 299:4

swing 173:11

switch 22:5 244:16

system 3:9 11:12

18:20 19:2 22:3

23:2,11 24:8

25:13 34:15 46:18

47:7 48:20,22

52:7 55:10,16

61:1 66:10 67:20

69:21 71:16,21

77:17 82:3,16,17

82:19,22 83:1,6

84:1 91:3,21

94:19 100:1,20

102:4 132:6 133:6

133:12,13,14

140:7 142:19

155:16,17 156:10

157:5 158:15

159:6 161:8

162:13 163:6

165:9,11 166:17

170:20 172:8

173:12,19 174:8

175:20 177:12

178:15,21 179:8

181:18 182:6,19

191:1,15 192:7,15

192:16 193:4,16

194:7 199:16

200:6,13,14 201:9

201:21 204:17

221:3 228:13,14

273:11 275:20

276:16 280:5

283:13 297:5

308:21 312:4

318:8 322:8,14

329:14 331:9

332:4 333:9,15,18

335:8 336:1,4,8

336:16,18,22

337:10,12 338:16

338:16 339:7

340:3,9 341:12,15

343:1 344:14

349:2,4,9 351:12

351:18 355:6,17

355:20 357:1,5

362:21 364:14,20

365:3,7,8,14

366:12 367:1

368:6 370:17

371:3,15 372:22

systems 2:5 7:10

18:10 19:6 23:20

23:22 24:2,10

52:15 90:21 95:4

153:5,7,13,16

154:1 156:18

158:10 171:3

172:20 175:17,19

179:6 201:10

255:19 334:17,21

334:22 335:1,19

336:12,12,14

337:14 341:13

345:13,21 346:17

348:22 359:12,13

363:11,12 365:12

365:13 366:17

370:7 376:8,18,19

S.W 1:8

T

table 3:1 46:3

148:5 194:1

TAFCO 1:13,17

tags 374:19

tail 132:19

take 4:4 10:20 11:2

11:10 12:19 16:22

17:7 22:17 46:1

58:8 72:8 74:15

75:15 95:19 96:15

100:17 108:7

118:18 131:3

133:18 139:12,13

139:13 142:16,17

147:15 150:17,21

151:10 152:2

155:22 157:6

161:5 172:6,18

174:1 193:9,15

195:8 196:6

204:18 205:4

206:16 218:16

221:13 224:5

230:4 232:11

234:1 240:17

243:2,6 248:7

251:16 252:16

260:1 270:6

272:10 274:14

276:14 280:6

286:20 296:16,16

300:14 309:12

318:21 321:17

323:5 327:6,17

330:7 331:11

338:15 348:22

373:20 394:14

taken 207:22 232:8

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 444

232:16,19 233:7

237:9 248:14

318:1 331:2 348:6

356:15 366:15

397:10

takes 81:2 137:10

207:4 242:17,19

281:22 325:19

351:9 391:7

398:17

talk 15:5 95:1

110:1 134:18

141:22 189:2

209:4,6 210:1

226:10 228:18

235:4,6 276:13

285:5 291:19

294:8 308:14

343:9 363:6

talked 23:17 80:9

121:7 183:21

264:15,16 281:12

299:14 304:21

308:22 315:2

353:19 381:17

382:20 383:2

395:19 397:15

talking 34:5 40:7

59:12 60:14 70:9

71:2 77:5 78:18

83:18 85:18 90:20

110:17 114:20

123:7 127:13

128:17,18 130:7

137:20 139:9

144:3 164:4,6

165:22 191:9

208:21 212:9

220:16 246:13

253:10 254:7

257:7 275:21

278:4 299:3

308:10 310:2

311:22 314:22

329:5 352:21

372:1 382:8,15

385:11

talks 37:10 79:15

tall 105:9 106:7,8

team 353:22

400:15

tech 174:22 175:6

310:10

technical 91:13

93:1

technically 18:16

18:22 19:9 23:3

54:15 83:21 178:1

217:7 287:3

technologically

175:4

technologies 6:15

26:15 42:8 120:22

197:2 284:13

285:15 346:14

technology 2:10

37:9 53:11 169:17

197:5,21 244:14

285:13 347:10

Tecumseh 158:8

185:13

tell 16:7 80:13

101:13 117:15

133:13 135:5,13

158:15 166:15

173:10 181:10

191:12 193:3

194:7 249:12

358:8

telling 23:19

106:18 122:20

133:21 134:1

287:12 292:7

398:14

tells 42:2 133:14

191:14

temp 278:4 369:13

temperature 18:20

19:3,15 29:12

43:4 84:2,9,11

85:20 86:11 87:18

88:16 98:10,19

99:13 100:1,20

170:12,14 171:17

182:13 184:19

225:10 241:8

248:2,3 265:18,21

266:2,6,22 267:3

267:10 268:10,13

268:17,20 298:14

309:5 311:11,15

343:18,18,20

363:10 365:22

366:3,4,6 367:21

368:1,3,18,19

temperatures

42:22 43:6 241:7

241:8,11,14

267:16 268:14

327:22 342:3

345:7,14 366:4

ten 12:18 50:19

103:10,19 104:20

105:8 119:14

191:22 233:22

244:10 252:16

267:11 291:16

330:10,19

tend 117:11

tended 9:14

tens 132:2

ten-year 55:7,9

233:18

term 44:6 69:22

82:13,16,16,18

83:6 91:13,14

190:4 218:12

244:1 316:3

325:10 368:16

terms 14:6 15:4

36:13 37:12 39:14

39:16,17 69:15

85:10 123:1

136:19 145:20

146:3,13,14,16,18

148:10 164:3

168:6 194:8

222:10 244:12

287:16 318:6

320:6 330:14

354:13 358:4

367:7 374:9 397:2

test 3:6,7,9 10:19

10:21 11:8,12

14:6,13,17,17

15:2,17,25 16:1,4

16:8 18:6,11,13

20:19 22:2 31:18

33:20 39:21 40:3

40:15 41:18,21

42:4,22 43:5

44:16,17,20 45:14

45:18 46:8,10,16

46:17 47:12,17

48:4,8,11 49:13

49:14 63:1,3 64:2

64:8 66:22 67:6

68:22 69:17 75:17

75:22 90:3 95:12

96:16,16 100:4

101:3 102:3,11,15

102:19 103:11

104:9 106:5,16,18

106:19 107:7,13

111:4,14 114:6,11

119:13,14,17

120:3,6,7 123:5

123:18 124:3,10

124:14 130:6

132:14 136:1,2

143:11 147:11

154:10 156:9

158:5 159:2 160:9

161:16 163:8

164:5,10,12,21

165:6 166:21

172:4 173:5,11

176:13 177:18

178:14,20 184:21

189:5,21 191:8

199:3,7 201:9

208:22 209:15

210:21 212:9,11

216:12,15 220:6

224:4,7,11 229:1

229:15 230:11

231:19 235:8,18

236:4 237:7,8

238:21 241:6

243:16 246:17

247:13 253:19

258:7 267:1,16,19

281:14 287:19

300:7,19 301:12

301:17,21 302:1

303:19 305:2,20

305:22 306:14,20

310:9,15 313:1

315:16,19 319:20

323:14 331:8

332:3,12,13,17

333:5,7 336:9,10

336:13 338:18

340:6,8,12,13

341:4,9,18,18

342:12,13 343:4,6

344:18 345:3,5

346:7,16,21 348:7

349:9 350:3,17,18

353:15 354:22

355:7 359:7,14

360:7 364:15,16

364:19 365:11,13

365:17 366:18,19

367:3,14 370:4,21

370:22 372:15,20

372:21 373:4

383:15,17 385:6

391:7 395:2

396:16 400:18

tested 23:12 48:6

68:18 69:16 95:7

100:15 103:7

105:14 132:10

166:19 178:10

182:9,11 189:7

191:2 200:2 203:8

230:18 243:12

336:17 341:14

360:17,22 361:1

testify 248:21

testing 18:5 20:8,16

21:21 22:20,21

23:5,8,16 24:14

32:8 43:12 47:22

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 445

48:19,21 49:3

51:1 55:16 62:15

62:20,22 63:7,7

68:3 69:15 70:17

76:4 94:17 100:14

102:5,9 103:11,22

105:22 114:5

121:1,6,12 122:15

122:21 123:1,2,17

124:15 125:14,18

125:19 126:7,10

127:18,22 128:8

130:19 131:22

132:13 134:6,8

136:9 143:5,13,19

143:22 144:4,7

147:10 153:20

161:2,2,4,5,12,16

163:21 164:3

166:19 172:9

176:2 184:8

185:22 186:16

189:18 210:13

231:15 232:18

233:4 237:5 245:5

248:13,15 249:1,8

302:7 304:21,22

305:1,17 306:3

310:1,5,6 336:11

336:20 338:1

344:14 345:20

370:6 391:6,11

tests 38:9 48:15

70:5 71:3 75:12

112:21 199:21

210:14,18,20

211:6 212:10

234:18 302:18

323:15 337:4,15

337:17 338:3,9,13

338:15 340:17,19

340:19,20,22

341:1 342:11

343:2,3 344:22

345:14 362:21

363:7 391:15

Texas 182:17

183:18,18 344:11

text 371:13

Thames 2:16 7:1,1

31:5,5 251:19

252:3

thank 9:2 16:10

25:21 26:8 31:3

31:15 32:4 33:3

41:5 42:11,15

44:21,22 45:12

50:9 51:10 53:14

55:18 58:12 59:8

59:15 61:22 63:18

68:7 69:10 70:13

85:6,15 86:2,15

90:8 92:4 93:17

93:21 94:3 109:9

116:3,17 127:3

144:9 150:6

160:13 161:18

163:5 167:1,4

169:10,22 172:1

183:4 187:1 206:8

213:20,21 217:19

219:8 220:10

223:21,21 237:12

239:1 240:22

242:4,10 246:2,3

251:15 252:4

253:14 254:4

270:9 271:18,19

275:10 279:14

282:1,3 285:18

294:16,17 299:9

301:4 304:12

307:21 310:16

314:21 320:9,11

325:5 326:11

329:18 348:12

351:20,22 360:3,8

360:9,10 361:4

362:6 363:15

364:7,9,12 370:10

370:11 371:5,20

372:12 374:22

375:2 376:13

377:2,6,8 379:4

381:13 386:1

390:8,9,20 395:11

396:5,6

thanks 4:11 45:4

60:6 151:17 153:3

185:3 186:22

202:7 236:22

241:2,3 270:8

271:17 278:8

282:14 293:8

301:7 363:20

389:5 393:9 400:6

theoretical 365:9

365:16 366:9

371:12

theoretically

119:21

theory 238:18

There’s 264:3

thermal 2:9 7:20

38:16 43:3 44:10

56:6 63:19 69:3

253:19 254:1

thermodynamic

261:7

thermodynamics

205:13

thermostat 86:22

Thermo-Kool 2:16

7:2

they'd 21:7 24:20

283:8,10

thickness 32:1

44:13 225:8

229:10 240:5,11

thicknesses 240:2

thin 230:2 231:15

237:5 240:4 241:9

243:14

thing 4:16 22:19

23:15 58:14,15

69:16 71:6 102:13

103:22 104:3

106:15 113:1

119:15 120:1

137:3 139:19

143:19 166:19

173:5 176:15

191:19 196:20

198:7 205:13

215:6 231:22

233:17 254:6

267:2 274:5 276:5

276:17 294:19

298:10 304:10

306:2 310:9,22

333:7 334:10

335:2 336:4,9

346:5 354:20

355:8 356:8,20

359:3 360:14,16

384:6 392:3 399:6

399:16

things 50:3 52:10

54:13,14 55:12

56:9,16 66:2 71:5

71:13 81:4 90:7

108:5 127:10

128:2,17 137:15

137:17 138:13,14

138:16 139:2

141:12 161:5

163:1 168:3 170:7

172:18 173:13

174:13 178:7

181:22 192:15

193:11 196:2

202:16 219:5

223:17 234:6

237:3 250:12

275:2 296:7 298:3

298:15 318:11

328:19 329:5

353:18 358:9

373:18 378:22

380:18 383:13

385:5

think 9:9,21 10:6

12:1 16:21 19:18

21:8,9 30:19

35:12 36:2 37:11

37:16 38:8 39:4,8

39:9 40:12,15

52:12 60:4 62:13

63:14 69:6 75:9

76:7,14,18 78:6

80:6 81:10 84:18

88:9 93:7 94:6

103:7,9 104:17

105:10,21 106:11

107:22 108:6,11

109:1,2,22 114:1

120:12 122:2

126:7 134:16

136:19 137:19

140:16 142:7

145:19 146:19

147:1,4,9,22

157:2 158:7 159:6

162:1,3,3,12,18

163:9 164:19

165:21,22 167:17

168:18 169:1,16

169:19 171:11,21

172:6 178:6

186:19 187:4

188:7,8 189:1,14

190:11 192:17

195:12 196:11

198:2 200:16,19

200:22 201:2,16

203:15 204:3

208:5,9 215:8

216:3,9 217:13,14

218:5 219:20

220:5 223:10

228:15,18 230:9

233:21 235:2

236:13,15 237:4

237:19 240:10

242:6 245:3,4,18

246:11 248:15

252:7 254:6 255:4

261:1 263:6

268:19 270:5,11

274:1 278:8,14

279:12 281:11,18

281:22 287:16

288:9 292:6 295:3

295:7 302:18

309:18 310:21

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 446

311:8 317:8,16

319:21,22 324:17

329:5 330:6,10,18

332:19,22 334:10

334:14 345:16

346:3 347:2

348:15 349:19

350:8 351:2,8

352:8,13,20 353:2

353:6,13,22

354:12 355:7,17

356:2,5 357:22,22

358:22 360:13

362:11,16 363:16

363:22 374:3,6,20

375:6,7,14 376:4

376:10,17,22

378:16 379:2

380:5 385:16

387:3 391:10

392:19 393:7

394:5,9 395:16

397:20 398:5

400:6,13

thinking 34:14

92:9 93:2 122:6

190:12 295:5

386:12 393:3

397:1,1

third 37:18 51:20

144:1 171:22

262:17 264:18

273:10 301:22

305:17,19 306:9

306:10,14 337:6

348:20 349:2

360:22 361:3

third-parties 188:1

third-party 36:9

75:18 142:13,17

144:12 145:1,3

147:10 171:11

173:7

thoroughly 169:20

thought 48:18

53:19 68:16 92:19

126:21 127:2

136:14 219:3

324:18

thoughts 41:1

76:20 81:17

110:14 114:8

126:6 251:1

260:21 263:11,13

263:14

thousand 23:21

252:18

thousands 35:10

50:20 71:2,3

128:18 132:3

135:18 144:4

231:2,3

three 9:18 33:12

89:1 143:8 152:17

154:22 156:10,11

156:14,20 210:6

218:17 233:14

239:7 243:21

244:6 245:6

267:15 278:10

282:6 293:21

306:20 311:19

325:14 336:14

337:20 338:1,3

342:21 345:7,9,11

345:11,14,14

361:12 388:4,4

three-pane 129:14

129:16

threshold 300:3

threw 104:16

throw 4:14 35:22

107:21 308:7

tie 85:21

tied 256:15 395:4

tight 28:13 254:10

tightly 307:2

Tim 1:12,16 6:21

65:18 66:16,17

127:3,4 138:19,20

144:9 218:1 223:7

223:8 274:16,17

277:16,17 278:8

284:2 290:3

295:10 299:1

313:13,14 325:7

389:6,7

time 12:3,5 18:6

23:14 55:11 65:21

83:15 90:13

106:21 112:12,13

118:6,13 119:11

128:15 129:22

133:17 142:6

150:1 157:20

162:7 167:7 171:3

217:8 226:1

227:10,16 228:3

229:11 231:10

240:12,14 242:7

243:8 300:10

310:8,12,14 311:7

316:13 317:14

322:5 332:9

338:12 340:10

341:10 343:7

346:3 352:17

368:20 369:16

373:11 377:11

391:7 394:10

395:13 397:8,9

398:3 399:10

timeframe 394:17

397:19

timeframes 395:8

timer 22:3,4,5

176:10 324:8

times 53:7 74:13

119:18 134:21

170:4 183:2

192:18 280:2

296:8 381:17

time-consuming

97:19

time-off 323:1

timing 320:2

tiny 264:8

tired 4:22

Title 34:10 85:12

today 5:2,17 10:6

11:2,15,19 13:4

14:5,15 15:22

20:9 24:20 34:6

40:5 42:15,20

46:15 52:14 54:16

54:20 55:6,10

60:3 67:16 79:18

94:8 114:1 132:16

140:17 150:16,19

150:20 152:16

174:1 189:16

203:15 204:2

207:18 209:2

216:11 275:21

284:11 303:11

356:21 382:20

383:2 384:10

387:1 391:22

394:3,4,9

today's 4:7 15:2

201:1 391:11

told 28:1 181:14

tolerance 130:9

159:17,20 160:1

160:15 240:6

tolerances 159:14

tomorrow 379:18

tool 372:22 375:13

top 162:22 268:12

268:12 308:19

367:16

topic 208:18 248:8

torque 67:15

tot 220:2

total 197:19 220:7

230:21,22 277:19

340:2,3 365:5

366:10 368:4,8

totally 32:11 131:9

223:13 256:18

260:11

touch 21:16 80:6

90:2

touches 66:12

tracer 69:1 300:5,8

300:15 301:11

303:1,18 304:5

315:12,16 391:12

391:13

track 260:4

trade 35:18 138:10

tradeoff 354:4

356:13

tradeoffs 317:21

tradition 5:5

traffic 28:9 29:11

89:4 127:14

278:16

trainings 79:7

transcript 4:20

10:7 399:22

transfer 93:13

220:18 249:1

259:1 261:13

262:20 263:2

266:3 267:4,7

273:3,8,15

transmission 117:5

trap 227:2

trapped 228:13

230:18

traveling 306:10

travels 400:22

traverse 28:6

tread 353:2

treated 90:16

tree 158:8

tremendous 167:5

177:20 361:13

tried 361:17

tries 111:14 359:21

400:20

trigger 99:12

100:21 112:4

triple 54:1 134:5

triple-glazed 37:11

trips 74:14

trouble 312:19

true 36:10 175:18

180:13 184:20

185:1 218:15

221:15 231:7

269:12 287:15

305:12 308:10

376:6 380:11

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 447

truly 40:6 110:1

truth 232:11

try 13:1 109:6

127:18 135:4

199:12 243:14

282:11 288:22

292:4 303:6 317:2

353:9 355:19

377:10 395:7

396:21 400:15

trying 12:12 17:12

30:22 51:7 75:8

81:12 102:11

116:6,15 123:1

155:6,20 171:7

190:10 214:13

215:9 219:13

222:12,18 223:5

231:11 243:15

261:2 270:10

272:1 277:14

285:11 293:14

305:11 312:16,20

316:6,17 328:6

345:3 357:3

turn 12:15,21 41:9

55:20 93:22 97:1

98:4 166:20 224:1

295:22 323:17

400:10

turned 321:18

322:11

turns 323:16

Twelve 389:12

Twenty 219:2

two 14:22 39:16,22

40:19 47:2,2,15

48:6,15 50:1,20

56:9 60:8,13,17

61:18 65:7 84:13

91:10 105:3 106:7

107:18 110:19

112:17,21 121:12

126:22 127:1,1

134:20,21 145:5

152:17 156:17

159:11 167:2

175:15 189:8

192:14 200:3

201:11 202:16

203:5 205:8,15

209:11 223:13

226:3 227:9

237:21 239:7,18

239:21 243:21

244:6 245:6

246:13 259:9

260:10 266:21

284:10 291:11

292:12 293:20

296:18 306:20

330:8 331:17

334:19 335:6,16

335:20 337:4

339:10 340:18,19

340:22 342:2

344:16 349:1

354:16,17 370:2,2

370:19 377:10,13

383:13 385:4

two-horse 312:11

two-pane 129:13

129:15 293:19,20

293:21 295:13

two-thousandths

71:8,10

two-tier 162:13

type 43:17 58:19

92:17 99:10,11,15

110:20 113:4,6,11

160:10 211:14

215:15 221:17

236:4 244:14

246:12 247:5

261:11 273:1,10

293:18 297:10

307:16 316:15

322:8,14 338:13

349:6 355:6

types 43:18 89:14

95:21 99:4 102:12

129:18 249:21

311:20 335:21

336:14 344:12

typical 47:20 63:6

64:2 106:1,2,2,3

161:21 162:2

224:20 234:9

275:18 277:22

309:20 371:12

typically 47:20

62:10 66:7 74:12

75:21 159:21

163:20 386:15

typo 316:2

T1 266:2 267:8

T2 267:8

U

U 54:7 136:16

221:18 280:2

297:21

UL 138:12 144:12

145:4 146:12

230:17

ultimately 270:11

319:16 358:14

unanimous 364:4

unclear 26:18

uncommon 348:21

underlying 96:2

underneath 72:3

256:9 266:3

268:10

understand 40:6

54:11 81:7 83:17

84:4 104:2,6

107:1 108:1

109:19 110:16

112:14 124:7

130:11 145:18

162:11 170:7

173:18 176:22

180:7 190:14

195:12 196:21

204:18 205:13

212:16 214:21

218:2,7 223:13,19

263:16 269:22

275:17 281:21

284:4 291:10,12

316:17 319:8

329:7 350:22

353:5,15 376:2

understandable

10:7

understanding

70:10 93:8 176:11

201:6 226:12

303:9

understands 244:2

understood 193:14

238:18 376:3

undue 155:7

unencapsulated

234:19

unenforceable

353:18

unfaced 44:10

unfair 97:20

280:17

unfortunately

116:11 121:3

unheated 290:10

uniform 97:10,17

107:15 147:14

155:5 269:8,13,17

269:18

unique 50:2 118:18

163:2 248:6

261:17 279:12

uniqueness 118:19

unit 18:11 21:15

41:19,21 51:3

53:1 63:10 65:5

68:14 82:14 83:2

91:11 95:12 103:8

103:12 104:4,8,19

106:13,14,19,19

107:7,9,13,14

119:11 121:14

124:5 154:11

157:12 158:20,21

158:22 159:3

161:11 162:16,20

163:3,4 176:9,19

177:18 182:11,22

185:8,12,15 187:9

188:2,3,9 189:6,6

189:12,12 190:6,6

194:11,20 195:4

196:3,8 199:22

200:2 202:17,22

203:11,12,20,21

205:21 222:11

300:19,20 301:14

302:2 306:4 328:4

333:21 334:1

335:3 336:1,2,4,6

336:16,17,20,21

337:3,3,9,20

338:6,7 339:1,4

341:13,16 342:6,7

342:10,11,16,22

345:4 347:17

348:19 349:8

351:11,14 352:9

352:12,22 354:6,8

354:9,11 355:3

356:21,22 357:2

366:14 368:4

370:8 376:21,22

unitary 34:14

United 1:1,20

units 21:22 24:15

51:3 82:20 90:11

154:8,13 155:11

156:2 158:3 159:4

159:11 167:12

175:22 187:10,17

191:7 201:8 203:6

203:18 305:5

335:14 337:22

341:14 352:22

354:17 365:21

366:2 367:21

unknown 117:9,10

292:9 293:6 294:2

unknowns 249:3

unloading 169:14

unmiked 250:9

unquote 35:13 36:6

59:3

unrealistic 162:8

unsupported 234:2

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 448

unusual 148:22

203:3 233:17

un-normal 251:21

updated 361:22

urethane 230:13,14

236:10 238:3

urge 44:15 169:7

237:4

urgency 396:20

usage 43:7 75:16

use 29:14 38:4,10

42:22 43:5,17

44:4,5,15,18

47:14 48:8 58:21

59:22 66:9 74:22

85:21 90:11 91:14

97:8 100:1 107:8

108:7 118:13,20

118:21 124:12

130:6 136:17

142:18 146:6

166:15 167:19

195:20 197:15

199:1,3 205:5

212:18 217:4

222:6 224:22

227:1 229:6

239:17 240:12

243:14 244:8,13

247:5 251:9 254:2

259:21 262:21

265:1 267:3

268:16 269:19

272:22 273:12,13

273:16 275:3

280:4,7 285:7

286:3,15,17,18

287:2 289:3,18

290:21 292:16,17

300:5,15 308:9

309:9,12 311:15

312:16 314:19

315:12 321:8,12

321:21 322:5

323:1,4,21 324:13

326:5 327:5,11,17

328:17 330:12

354:7,10 355:16

364:7 365:14

367:5,6,9 368:8

370:16,18 371:1,3

381:4,18 395:7

useful 12:12 30:19

295:8 373:9 374:4

375:8,13 381:12

393:2

user 59:13 132:19

139:20 147:17

162:11,20 163:10

181:16 183:9,12

183:14 198:11

258:2 287:17

313:4 374:8

users 198:12

382:10

uses 98:15 247:7

275:4 285:3

usually 175:6

197:12 198:11

268:13 399:5

utilities 33:13

375:17

utility 319:13 375:9

utilize 241:20

U-factor 37:12

38:13 54:6 56:17

69:15,21,22 137:2

273:13 286:9

287:4 291:14

U-factors 292:13

U-value 56:7 293:2

U-values 62:17

130:4

U.S 239:21 249:20

V

vague 19:4 218:11

valid 162:21

163:10 376:11

validate 116:9

value 20:11 28:10

29:3 43:3 61:17

67:16 89:7,10

93:10 110:8

111:16 142:18

209:17 224:22,22

225:2,7,9,19

226:2,9 227:10,15

227:21 229:3,14

229:17,18 230:21

231:5 235:11

236:7,18,21

239:15 247:17

249:19,22 252:12

258:11 260:16

262:22 263:17

265:4,17,20

266:18,19 267:1,5

267:20 271:2

284:18,18,22

286:17 289:20

292:11,15,17

302:2 306:13

320:14 323:4

326:6 347:22

367:12 369:9

valued 323:22

values 20:7 62:17

214:21 238:14

258:9 285:3

286:10 310:1

329:16

valve 21:15 22:1,1

124:2 155:18

160:11 161:9

168:5 176:9 190:9

196:2 202:2 334:3

valves 168:6 300:1

VAN 2:14

Vandevort 2:17

6:11,11 42:13,13

207:9

vapor 250:4,7

variability 41:14

184:14 269:3

281:22 302:20

309:18 374:10

variable 39:18

40:18 41:16

201:11 203:11,17

203:20 204:22

205:4 344:17

345:2,3 347:10,16

347:17 348:19

351:18,19 352:4,5

352:10,21 367:11

variables 125:14

125:18 173:8

variation 67:5

309:8 313:10

328:6,7

variations 23:21

67:2 132:11 160:1

274:22

varied 343:17

varies 366:3

variety 114:10

283:14 298:14

337:13

various 34:21 35:3

40:9 53:19 56:19

88:11 132:3,7

249:21 298:10,11

321:11 334:9

358:19 396:11

vary 344:2,5

368:18

vast 244:4

velocity 192:4

193:10,10 204:22

VENABLE 2:19

vendors 381:19

382:13

verbal 329:22

verified 171:10,13

verify 25:14 176:14

versa 354:8

versus 56:10

145:13 193:10

275:1 311:4 319:5

320:15 368:16

vertically 35:19

vested 139:20

141:8,11 145:15

viable 47:13 142:16

vice 354:8

view 108:5 201:17

202:20,22

viewed 98:13

vinyl 232:4 280:15

voids 203:1

volt 296:11

volume 108:21

212:19 222:11

223:3

voluntary 142:13

W

W 146:5

wait 105:17,18

244:8,17 399:5

waiting 180:22

walk 5:3 18:17

27:15 46:10 58:5

105:8 127:16

128:11 186:17

206:22 222:14

233:21 252:16

322:1

walks 80:20

walk-in 14:4,4 16:5

18:10,15 19:1,4,9

19:10,11 20:12

21:18,21 22:22

23:4 24:16 25:18

26:17 27:2,7,11

28:2,19 30:16

31:8,10 32:9,12

34:16 36:21 40:13

46:8 47:3,3 48:1,9

50:5,15 51:19

52:9,22 54:16

56:21 57:4,17,18

58:2 60:8,12

61:13 64:16 66:9

66:20 71:11 72:1

73:15,16 74:1,7

79:17 80:18 83:2

83:3 84:20 87:14

88:1 91:10,22

94:13,20 96:12,14

98:15,20 99:18

100:22 101:2

102:16 103:2,12

104:19 107:22

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 449

108:4,10 114:9,16

116:19,21 117:3

117:14 118:6

120:3 121:22

123:11,16 126:19

127:2 128:5 129:3

132:7 135:9 138:2

138:17,18 139:14

140:9 141:16,18

142:11,19 145:7

149:1 157:8,16

165:15 173:2,20

174:7,9,16 177:5

177:6 179:1,19

180:10 181:11,13

181:15 186:2

191:6 194:3 209:2

209:7,12 211:11

213:12 216:7,8,20

217:8,9,11 218:14

218:16,19 221:13

222:15 223:12,15

225:16 226:19,22

231:2 233:17

234:9,21 247:22

248:2 251:6,20

254:8,14,15 255:7

262:14,18 264:20

264:21 265:3

267:10 268:8

269:1,3,13 273:11

274:18 275:16

278:9,12,13,16,17

279:6 281:13

282:13 285:21

286:1,6,14 287:6

287:10 288:2,11

289:7 290:4 292:8

292:10 297:5

299:20 300:9

305:20 307:9

308:19 315:11

316:8 321:12

326:18 327:1

333:10,11,15

334:18,18 345:20

346:9 350:1 365:2

366:11,16 375:18

375:19 378:3

379:1 380:13,14

381:1 389:2 391:4

397:17 398:2

walk-ins 17:17

18:1 23:9 31:11

34:2 36:14 37:7

37:21 38:2 39:18

49:19 50:20 51:6

52:14 58:10 70:6

71:2 77:3 82:20

90:12 91:6 92:3

92:13 102:12,19

103:16 105:7

110:3 121:13

134:8 137:17

138:14 179:10

195:21 231:3,17

232:7,8,9,10,17

232:19 233:12,13

237:10 252:19

253:21 254:9

259:12,14 346:18

377:18 386:7

wall 54:16 56:2

74:8 117:5 216:2

266:13,20 270:12

walls 21:4 76:11

80:21 106:8,9

258:2

Wal-Mart 129:20

want 4:13 13:4

15:23 17:8 23:18

35:22 36:22 37:9

40:20 42:21 49:22

52:1 59:5 61:9

62:3 63:5 79:3

90:1 92:9 101:16

101:20 102:15

104:14 105:5,16

105:17 113:10,12

121:15 124:11,20

125:13 127:11

129:21 130:22

134:7,14,15,17

139:14 140:13

142:3 147:18

149:19,20,21

150:4 154:20

155:1 163:3 167:2

167:14 169:4

174:6 181:1 186:4

186:6 188:18

191:6 192:20

193:12,15 194:8

199:19 230:22

235:7 237:21

242:15 244:13

246:7,11,18

263:16 275:22

278:1 280:9 282:9

291:4 292:9,16

303:5 304:14,20

306:16,20 318:11

335:15 355:21

357:3 374:13

376:8 382:5 388:7

389:4 393:16

wanted 26:15 55:1

78:3 114:4 115:20

116:14 139:18

169:11 199:11

207:9 212:7 224:5

244:19 279:16

294:5 297:20

314:13 319:8

361:18 371:14

380:9 399:18

wants 16:15 130:20

181:17 183:9

287:6 315:9

355:12

warehouse 29:10

66:3

warehouses 27:2

87:10

warehouse-type

92:17

warm 308:18

323:19

warmer 266:8

warrant 307:3

warranty 183:11

203:1 233:18

Warren 196:14

351:7 352:1

washes 80:21

Washington 1:8

wasn't 261:22

waste 55:11 397:9

wasting 23:14

watch 282:22

water 74:8 232:12

232:20 234:2

235:4,12,20

237:11 247:9,16

250:4,7,22 251:13

252:10,19 253:13

296:2 305:1

330:11

watt 100:18 166:8

166:17 291:17

wattage 326:5

watts 38:20

way 9:13,17 21:10

25:18 29:3 52:5

54:11,11 55:10,11

55:22 57:22 59:1

64:6 66:10 68:17

71:4 72:12 75:8

88:10,19 96:21

100:7 102:2

106:12 107:7

108:1 114:9

115:11 116:8

118:16 124:7

130:10 139:6

143:16 151:3

168:10 174:3

177:1,4,6,8

178:21 179:3

185:20,21 189:5

189:13,18 192:7

193:14 200:19

212:6 216:22

224:20 225:20

227:7 233:1 241:4

250:6 254:17

264:11 274:1

275:3,4,20 283:12

293:22 304:5

305:22 307:1

319:4 323:3

325:22 327:6

339:4 341:17,20

342:12 352:6

356:1 376:5,11

384:18

ways 28:16 148:6

175:2 360:6,18

wear 151:5 206:17

weather 344:6

Weber 2:17 3:10

8:12,12 362:11

364:12,13 369:3

369:10 370:4

371:11 372:12

375:2

website 332:22

398:15 400:1

Webster's 87:16

WEDNESDAY 1:6

weeds 204:4

week 4:12 54:17

361:14 394:2,6

395:14 400:2

weeks 343:13

396:15

weigh 175:7 384:5

weighing 249:8,10

welcome 3:2 4:5

14:3 90:1 150:16

208:16 217:18

313:6 368:20

welcomes 16:3

welcoming 4:10

went 151:20,21

164:17 219:11

249:2 331:4,5

355:2

weren't 231:10

241:4

we'll 5:19 10:20

11:2,4,10 15:24

16:22 26:10 48:10

49:5,7 58:11

65:18 70:8 210:1

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 450

213:18 217:18

221:5,19 226:17

228:18 245:18

257:9 260:1 281:3

293:11 299:15

317:20 330:17,19

330:19,21

we're 4:7 9:7 10:11

10:17 14:5,14

15:1 16:6 17:12

17:14,20 18:15

20:7 21:21 22:7

22:14,19 23:6,8

23:14,15 25:5,17

30:22 35:12 36:14

41:7,18 45:10

50:16,17 53:15

56:10 58:8 60:4

61:15,17 64:18

70:22 76:7 77:4

77:22 79:16 80:6

81:6,21 85:18

87:19 88:9 90:6

210:19 212:4,7

217:12 220:15,16

222:12,18 223:1,5

224:11,15 226:10

231:6,11 235:4

240:10 246:13,21

247:8 254:7,12

257:2 259:10

272:3,13,16 277:1

278:13,16 279:21

285:19 287:2,12

287:12 288:9

290:1 291:7,13,15

291:19 292:6

294:13 295:5

297:1 303:8 305:8

305:10 308:14

310:1,2 315:15

317:14 318:13

320:19 325:16

327:22 328:8

329:5,16 330:13

331:8,16,21

396:22 397:11

we've 20:3,9 32:13

32:14 39:15 51:6

60:14 62:2 72:22

73:3 79:20 80:9

94:8 99:9 210:7

214:10 219:20

232:6,8,16,18

233:2,3,4 236:14

237:9 241:9,11

243:10 248:12,13

248:14,20 253:22

257:6,12 272:5,14

272:17 275:21

299:14,18 300:1

308:22 309:21

310:19 311:22

315:2,4 320:16

391:20 397:10

whack 161:17

whatsoever 299:8

wheel 38:6

Whirlpool 50:18

whistles 175:1

wholesaler 22:20

23:1 177:12,17,17

179:11 181:6,10

wholesalers 179:4

Widder 2:18 8:18

8:18

wide 19:13,16

88:21 337:13

widely 229:21

widely-used 83:6

wider 278:21 282:6

widget 124:19

WILLIAM 2:9

willing 115:14

381:9

wind 298:14

window 114:3,22

273:18 274:22

275:22 276:17

286:8,18 298:9,18

windows 37:11

76:10 114:2,6,12

137:4 213:9

276:10 279:17

281:15,20

wine 86:5,7

wink 395:12,18

wintertime 311:3

wiper 255:9,10

wire 211:19 212:1

299:4 323:10,21

324:4,11,12,13

wires 321:9

wise 149:5

wish 12:9 81:9

88:22 289:12

369:4

wished 316:9

wishes 4:9 10:14

11:17 399:13

withhold 295:12

wonderful 178:21

wondering 314:3

wood 20:16 56:4

119:19

word 83:17 127:6

wording 40:16

293:5

words 18:19 93:12

102:17 118:20

166:7 214:10

291:4 324:6

386:12

work 5:11 9:14

12:20 39:9 42:7

42:10 52:6 70:21

103:7 104:1 105:2

118:1 129:5

135:12,14 167:4

167:19 179:4,8

181:20 185:19

186:2 206:1,4,4

239:20 246:17

280:10 298:15

306:2 323:9 354:1

354:20 355:1

361:13,16 369:22

378:19

worked 169:1

232:5 353:21

396:18

working 14:14,19

15:1,6 17:15

23:15 196:8

works 95:10 199:7

229:8 242:16

275:20 283:13

295:18 300:8

315:13 358:4

world 32:11,20

73:14 81:5 206:2

231:16 237:8

253:3 289:14

316:18 369:21

Worldwide 7:4

worried 174:15

198:3

worry 134:11

254:22 282:19

worrying 180:14

198:13 254:12

worse 112:13

worst 369:13

wouldn't 70:21

105:2 124:20

171:20 176:21

178:8,12 187:11

196:7 221:14

246:17 308:10

385:14 389:17

wrap 257:18

wrapped 396:22

write 79:10 316:12

writing 26:7 61:14

206:10 363:19

392:21

written 4:17,22

13:9,19 17:10

42:18 54:10 55:11

56:1 150:16

207:10 208:14

257:4 259:5 359:5

359:7 360:19

wrong 68:20,21

71:11,18 72:19

73:17 74:4,16

92:18 118:1

141:18,21 184:7

190:11 205:21

320:18 347:13

356:2

wrote 118:14 361:7

361:11

X

X 204:18 250:1

276:6,19,20 278:2

278:3 283:6

307:11

Y

Y 1:22

yards 206:22,22

yeah 215:19 242:13

246:9,22 253:9

263:9,15,21

267:14

year 50:20 225:18

233:10 236:15,17

238:20 243:6

245:6 252:18

307:17,20 321:19

332:20 369:15

370:1 397:6,6

years 12:1 32:13

73:15 117:13

133:9 158:11

231:4,18 233:13

233:15,22,22

237:22,22,22,22

239:7,11 243:3,10

243:21 244:4,6,11

244:17 245:6,6

254:2 273:19

310:20 325:15,20

389:9

Yell 4:15

yelling 5:1

York 183:7,17

young 109:14

Z

zero 279:4 323:1

zone 375:12

$

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 451

$1 18:6

$1,000 306:6,9,11

307:12

$10 198:5

$12 389:11 390:6

$2,000 307:12

$250,000 191:9

$300 179:14 181:18

$5,000 18:13 22:2,6

161:11,17 173:11

192:6 306:6

307:13

$8,000 307:11

$9,000 307:11

0

0.3 286:11

0.43 286:11

089 1:7

1

1 4:1 14:13,21 15:9

180:10

1st 396:18

1:30 207:6,20

1:34 208:2

10 4:10 63:1,2,2

96:14 307:11

344:1 369:22

386:13

100 52:4 143:21

160:19 166:7,8,9

172:3 206:22

214:12 244:4

254:21 324:7

326:22 369:14

1000 1:7

102 3:8

104 364:5

105 369:14

106 364:6

107 364:6

11 4:11

11:23 151:15

11:24 151:21

11:40 151:16,18,22

110 369:14

118 283:6

12 4:12 238:20

240:1,1 253:20

325:19

12.4 327:11

12.815 100:18

12:30 11:3 151:13

206:14

12:32 207:21

120 182:18 296:10

1250 39:3,8 167:5

169:12 170:2,8

187:16 201:7

202:9 327:13

328:17 329:7

332:18 334:8,13

336:14 337:18

338:17 343:11

345:18 347:2

360:12 364:17,18

365:13 366:1,7,22

367:11,12,19

368:19 371:13

1250P 367:18

13 4:13

1303 234:18 235:11

236:3 239:16

247:4

14 3:3 4:14 67:2

15 4:15 96:14

151:11 231:18

233:9,13 236:17

244:10,17 338:2

15-year 229:20

233:11,16

16 3:5 4:16 67:4

106:8 157:21

171:1 218:21

17 4:17

18 4:18 32:19 106:8

157:20 218:21,22

219:1

19 4:19

2

2 4:2 247:7 346:10

20 4:20 32:13 34:10

43:1 63:2 102:11

197:6 241:8

252:16

200 51:2 158:2

2001 230:2

2005 29:4

2007 14:10 45:17

2009 14:13 332:22

2010 1:6 15:9

180:10

2011 397:7,19

2012 14:21 189:17

21 4:21

22 4:22

23 346:2

24 1:6 85:12 240:4

240:4 253:20

317:2,3

25 31:22 117:13

267:16 322:6,11

323:4

28 31:22

3

3 4:3 346:11

3'9 278:20

3,000 18:21 26:21

27:4 29:20 87:5,8

87:11 92:14

3.5 278:11 312:13

3:15 11:11

3:30 330:9

3:33 331:4

3:40 330:20

3:41 331:5

30 14:16 158:11

170:15 243:10

278:2,3

30,000 93:7

30,000-foot 209:16

31st 15:10 393:14

32 18:19 19:8 28:4

31:22 32:17 73:15

85:22

331 3:10

35 152:6 267:10

268:15 276:6,19

295:14 343:21

344:5 345:7

37 32:18 231:9

379:16 386:6

383 3:11

4

4 3:2 4:4

4:45 11:15

4:49 401:1

40 84:10 149:6

171:4 268:15

40,000 252:19

253:5,5,5

400 3:13 214:12

41 85:19,21 86:13

88:14

420 346:1

43 86:8

45 3:6 19:14 84:9

84:12,19,20 85:7

86:8 88:14 369:18

48 317:3

5

5 4:5

5.2 273:18 274:22

276:18 277:18

279:17 286:8,18

298:18

5:30 11:16

50 23:20 135:10

149:8 268:14

518 237:18 243:9

244:9 267:2

520 346:2

55 43:1 85:13 86:5

86:5,7 241:7

265:4,16,17

267:16 268:16

269:19,21 272:7

59 345:7

59-degree 344:9

6

6 4:6 32:17

6.3 327:12

60 149:6 265:5

267:17 268:17

269:19 270:1

275:4 291:17

63 278:3

65 170:11 171:16

265:6 268:17

270:1

66 264:6

7

7 4:7

70 5:1 149:6 161:13

239:11 244:5

276:20 307:16

72 292:7

74 157:10 295:16

308:7

75 206:22 278:2

295:14 322:9

750 17:15,18

259:13,15 260:10

260:16 377:21

378:18,21 389:19

8

8 4:8 63:1,1 307:11

8E 1:7

80 275:3 276:6,19

276:20 283:6

80-20 39:17

85 31:11 311:5

9

9 4:9

9:00 1:8

9:02 4:2

90 85:4 166:1 244:5

266:14 325:17

344:4 365:22

386:14 389:9

390:5

90.1 126:5,14,22

146:9,9

95 182:12 344:10

345:7

97 363:3

98 127:15 363:4

99 363:4

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010
(202) 234-4433 w!vw. nealrgross.com

452

CERTI FI CATE

This is to cert.ify that the foregoing transcript

in the matter of: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:

Wal-k-in Coofers and Freezers

Before: DougLas Brookman

Date: March 24, 201-0

PLace: Washington, DC

ranra<anj-c fha

a forement i oned

Irrharrri I i hd

f r r ' l I : n d . ^ m n l a l - a n r a n a a r l i r r d c , . \ f f l a a

m:ffar aq rannrfcd and reduced to

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHTNGTON, D.C. 20005-3701

Benj amln Crane

EERE-2008-FT-TP-0014 DOC ID 1.2.010