June 30 , 201 4

M r

. John Cymbalsky U.S. Department of Energy Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE

- 2J 1000 Independence Avenue SW Washington, DC 20585

Re: Energy Conservation for Program : Energy Conse rvation Standards for Automatic

Commercial Ice Makers [Docket Number EERE

–

2010

– BT

– STD

– 0037 ]

Dear Mr

. Cymbalsky :

T he Air

- Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) continu es to be

concern ed with the regulatory approach and process followed in the rule making for energy conservation standards for automatic commercial ice makers (ACIM)

. As we expressed at the public meeting on April 14, 2014

, in our May 16, 2014, c omments on the NOPR, and more recently at the June 19 th meeting, there are issues in the analys es and the current direction of this rulemaking that could place a significant burden on both industry and end

- users of commercial ice makers

. We reiterate our request that DOE publicly rele ase the FREEZE model so that parties may have a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on DOE’s analysis. Additionally, we seek specific clarification as to why DOE has determined that parties cannot access the model other than through

limited acces s under non

- disclosure agreements

. I f copyright concerns exist , we seek an explanation as to why release of the model under a Fair Use analysis is not appropriate . Furthermore, given the issues raised and results of the very limited access

to the model at the June 19, 2014, meeting, w e believe that stakeholders should be given an opportunity to review and comment on any changes that DOE is planning to make to its analyses before the rulemaking is finalized. We feel strongly that such

review i s critical to ensure that the final rule results in energy conservation standard s that are economically justified and technologi cally feasible.

During the June 19 th meeting, the shortcomings of the FREEZE energy model became very apparent. Not only was t he model unable to run the data for one unit, but even

when the model was able to run for the second unit, its outputs were materially inaccurate. Further, the results when swapping an upgraded compressor did not support the DOE’s findings published in the NOPR. The model simulation conducted at the meeting predicted that the unit with the upgraded compressor would produce more ice and would consume more energy. AHRI submitted actual test data for this unit showing modest efficiency savings from upgrading the compressor . This isAHRI Letter to DOE

– ACIM ECS NOPR

Docket No. EERE

– 2010

– BT

– STD

– 0037

June 30 , 2014 Page | 2

contradictory to the significant energy savings DOE claimed would be possible in the

NOPR

. DOE’s analysis also failed to take into account operational changes, such as different batch times or energy use.

The DOE acknowledged such shortcomings in the analysis during the meeting

, and requested additional data be supplied to improve the model ’s accuracy

. However, DOE

has not publicly provided the information necessary for affected parties to have adequate notice and ability to commen t on the results of the public meeting. DOE has

failed to publicly stat e a timeframe for collecting th e data it has requested . The public statement issued after the meeting did not indicate to whom the data should be sent. Additionally, DOE announced that it would begin the process by sending computer

model outputs to manufacturers who had previously submitted data and to obtain additional information about unit operation to validate the model’s accuracy. Has this happened? If interested parties have data that they would like included in the docket, what is the process for submitting it ? Will they receive results of the outputs, or will that information be communicated only to DOE?

Without the clarity of a defined comment period, or the knowledge of the next steps in the process, we feel that DOE is not following its own P rocess R ule and the notice and

comment requirements for federal agency rulemaking

. Given the results of the limited

runs of the model at the June 19 th meeting, we also believe that t here are serious concerns about the quality and reproducibility of the information that is not in accordance with the applicable Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility and Integrity o f Information Disseminated to the Publi c by the Department of Energy (the Guidelines)

. Under th e Guidelines, DOE must identify and disclose to regulated parties the possible sources of error in the model and how it has been or will be modified. Additionally, without public release of the model, DOE cannot demonstrate sufficient transparency about the data and metho d s such that an independent reanalysis can be undertaken by a qualified member of the public. If DOE had compelling interests that prohibit public access to the model, DOE must identify those interests and describe and document the rigorous checks it has undertaken to ensure reproducibility.

We recently bec a me aware that some manufacturers have individually contacted DOE

and been instructed to submit specific data directly to DOE’s consultant by July 3 rd

. We have serious concerns with this request. First, there has been no official announcement by DOE. Second, the time frame provided to submit this data is completely

unreasonable

. Not only is this data not readily available, but manufacturers may have to acquire components for testing which will take some time. We urge DOE to show more transparency in this rulemaking process and to reopen the comment period for a reasonable period . The comment period should extend to August 3, 2014 or later

.

Additionally, in at least one recent rulemaking, DOE has failed to comply with the requirement of 42 U.S.C. § 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii), that the Department of Justice (DOJ) competitive impact analysis be published in the Federal Register

. In the ACIM NOPR, on page 14858

, DOE notes this requirement and s tates that it will address the AttorneyAHRI Letter to DOE

– ACIM ECS NOPR

Docket No. EERE

– 2010

– BT

– STD

– 0037

June 30 , 2014 Page | 3

General’s determination in the final rule. This is not enough. AHRI urges DOE publish

the DOJ ’s determination and analysis immediately, as 60 days has el apsed from the date of the NOPR publication.

DOE’s current process is not compliant with the objective of using transparent and robust analytical methods producing results that can be explained and reproduced, as required by DOE’s Process Rule and the Gui delines

. AHRI sincerely hopes that DOE

will take corrective actions to improve its analyses and provide adequate information for meaningful participation in the rulemaking process by affected parties. We stand ready

to work with DOE to ensure that the final rule results in energy conservation standards

that are techn ologically feasible and economically justified.

Sincerely,

Karim Amrane

Vice President, Regulatory & Research

Tel: 703

- 600

- 0307

Email: kamrane@ahrinet.org

Cc: Kathleen Hogan, DOE Dan Cohen, DOE