### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 1 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

APPLIANCE STANDARDS AND RULEMAKING FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING

Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue SW Forrestal Building Washington, D.C. 20585 Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:00 a.m.

R eported by: Natalia Thomas, Capital Reporting Company

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 2 1 A P P E A R A N C E S 2 F ACILITATOR 3 N eil Eisner, Navigant Consulting 4 5 P ARTICIPANTS 6 K arim Amrane, Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 7 R efrigeration Institute (AHRI) 8 V iktor Anderson, CRM 9 T imothy Ballo, Earthjustice 10 L aura Barhydt, U.S. Department of Energy 11 J eff Bauman, National Comfort Products 12 R odney Beever, United CoolAir Corporation 13 A lex Boesenberg, National Electric Manufacturers 14 A ssociation 15 B rice Bowley, GE Appliances 16 D an Bramblett, Estes Services 17 B rian Buynacek, Emerson 18 N ia Crowder, SF Environment Commission 19 M ary Dane, Traulsen 20 L aura Degitz, Navigant 21 J im del Toro, Carrier Corporation 22 P aul Doppel, Mitsubishi Electric

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 3 1 A P P E A R A N C E S 2 M ark Fly, AAON Heating & Cooling Products 3 J eremiah Freeman, New West Tech 4 L uke Hall-Jordan, EPA 5 G eoffrey Halley, SJI Consultants 6 P antelis Hatzikaziakis, Lennox International 7 B ruce Helft, California Energy Commission 8 B ruce Hierlmeier, Zero Zone, Inc 9 C harles Hon, True 10 J ill Hootman, Trane 11 L arry Howington, Commercial Refrigeration 12 M arshall Hunt, Pacific Gas & Electric Company 13 D iane Jakobs, Rheem Heating and Cooling 14 T om Johnson, Daikin McQuay 15 A thar Khan, United CoolAir Corporation 16 J eff Kleiss, Lochinvar 17 M ichael Kojak, UL LLC 18 D ominic Kolandayan, Daikin AC 19 S tephen Kowalski, Ingersoll Rand-Trane North America 20 B ill Larson, Norlake, Inc 21 I yabo Lawal, An 22 P aul Lin, Regal-Beloit Corporation

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 4 1 A P P E A R A N C E S 2 B ijou Lulla, Source Energy 3 S teven Ly, SoCalGas 4 J ohn Mandyck, UTC Climate, Controls & Security 5 A ris Marantan, Navigant 6 J ohn McLaughlin, McQuay International 7 D avid Mecadon, National Comfort Products 8 M ark Menzer, Intertek 9 K aren Meyers, Rheem Manufacturing Company 10 P eter Molvie, Cleaver-Brooks Product Development 11 W ahid Mohamed, Saudi Diyar Consultants 12 J ohn Morris, Continental Refrigerator 13 V ince Mucciola, National Comfort Products 14 F rank Myers, PVI 15 J eff Newel, Hill Phoenix Systems Division 16 K ent Peterson, P2S Engineering 17 J ay Perkins, MEUS 18 M ark Rabbia, Carrier Corporation 19 D avid Ransom, McDermott Will & Emery 20 D oug Reed, ASHRAE 21 W es Roan, Bard Manufacturing Company 22 C arl Roberts, Zero Zone, Inc

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 5 1 A P P E A R A N C E S 2 J ohn Sabelli, Consulting Engineer 3 H arvey Sachs, ACEEE 4 J ason Sands, The Delfield Company 5 T ony Scardomp, MC Law School 6 S tephen Schaefer, Hoshizaki America 7 R onald Shebik, Hussmann Corporation 8 J udd Smith, OnSpeX 9 F rank Stanonik, Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 10 R efrigeration Institute (AHRI) 11 L ouis Starr, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance 12 ( NEEA) 13 P hillip Stephens, HTP Advanced Heating and Water 14 S ystems 15 P eter Strait, California Energy Commission 16 M vuala Suami, NRCAN 17 J ohn Sutphen Cleaver-Brooks Product Development 18 R usty Tharp, Goodman Air Conditioning and Heating 19 E ric Truskoski, Bradford White Corporation 20 T om Walsh, Daikin McQuay 21 K evin Washington, Illinois Tool Works 22 C ollin Weber, Navigant

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 6 1 A P P E A R A N C E S 2 A ndrew Welch, Johnson Controls 3 R obert Whitwell, Carrier 4 K evin Washington, Illinois Tool Works 5 M ichael Woodford, AHRI 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 7 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 MR. EISNER: Okay. Can everybody please take 3 t heir seats? We are going to get started in a couple 4 o f minutes, so get your thoughts together. 5 Why don't we start off with the ground rules, 6 m ake sure everybody is comfortable with what came out 7 i n the final version, or maybe I should say the final 8 d raft, unless everybody is happy with it. There were a 9 f ew places in there where there was a little confusion 10 a s to what had actually been agreed to. 11 So focus particularly on the areas under 12 t hree, I think it was, Decision-Making. There were a 13 f ew places where words were taken out that seemed 14 i nappropriate, like the "working group" in some places 15 w as refined as the "negotiating working group," other 16 p laces it's just the "working group." So I talked to 17 L aura about that, and DOE agreed there was no reason to 18 l eave it in there and it could be confusing. 19 But other than that, just concentrate on 20 t hose sections with the substance and let me know if 21 y ou've got any problems. Why don't you take a minute 22 o r two to make sure you've looked at it.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 8 1 (Pause.) 2 D oes anybody have any questions about what's in there? 3 (No response.) 4 O kay. Everybody ready to say okay? Anybody have any 5 o bjections? 6 (No response.) 7 O kay. Seeing no objections, we now have ground rules 8 t o operate under. So that takes us to the second 9 d ocument that was circulated I think yesterday, the 10 s cope of the working group negotiations, the list of 11 i ssues, and DOE I think is going to start off by going 12 t hrough a PowerPoint and talking a little bit about 13 t his issue. Everybody should have a copy of the 14 P owerPoint. 15 MS. BARHYDT: Actually, before we start the 16 P owerPoint, are there any questions about the list of 17 w hat is actually on the scope list? 18 MR. EISNER: Yes. Would you identify 19 y ourself when you come to the mic? 20 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss with Lochinvar. I'm 21 t he alternate for Neil Rolph. Curious about where this 22 w as generated from. I don't recall all of these bullet

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 9 1 p oints coming out in the meeting. There is a number of 2 t hese items -- the certification testing and things of 3 t hat sort -- that strike me as being some sort of 4 v erification. But there is a significant -- I'm very 5 c urious about what some of the intended items are, 6 p articularly starting with the third bullet down 7 t owards the bottom. 8 MS. BARHYDT: No. This is the list from -- 9 i t has been reordered and reorganized, but it is the 10 l ist from the last meeting. Certification testing is 11 t he testing required to distribute prior to 12 d istribution and commerce. DOE calls it certification 13 t esting. 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: So the tolerance that you 15 w ould use to test your product. 16 MR. KLEISS: Okay. And following up to that, 17 i f we can amend things, I believe that a discussion on 18 t he voluntary industry programs should probably be a 19 p rime point for discussion. 20 MS. BARHYDT: In what context? 21 MR. KLEISS: Recognition of them. 22 MS. BARHYDT: So I don't think that DOE sees

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 10 1 t hose within the scope of this rulemaking. We have 2 s aid on several occasions that we want to do a 3 r ulemaking on that issue, but I don't think that we see 4 t hat as within the scope of this negotiated rule. 5 Okay. So down at the very bottom, the 6 v oluntary industry programs, and some sort of 7 r ecognition. 8 MR. KLEISS: Correct. 9 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. 10 MR. EISNER: Other questions? Other 11 c oncerns? Yes. Robert? 12 MR. WHITWELL: Bob Whitwell from Carrier. 13 O ne of the items that was on the list from the last 14 m eeting up on the screen was inclusion of a discussion 15 o f the treatment of items that improve the energy 16 e fficiency of the building but can impact the 17 e fficiency of the equipment at the -- in the current 18 s tandard rating condition, such as economizers, ERVs, 19 e t cetera. I didn't see it on this list now. 20 MS. BARHYDT: So to the extent that it has to 21 d o with the test procedure, that's an issue for a test 22 p rocedure rulemaking, not for the certification? To

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 11 1 t he extent that it deals with what variations on a 2 m odel have to be certified, that would be in the model 3 g roupings basic model discussion. 4 MR. WHITWELL: Okay. So that is part of the 5 b asic model discussion. Okay. 6 MR. EISNER: Other questions/concerns? And 7 t his is not a binding document, as I see it; it's just 8 s omething that is going to -- we are going to tailor 9 o ur discussions around, go through this list in order. 10 I f there are any discussions, other issues come up that 11 n eed to be resolved, we can add them to the list if 12 t here is agreement. 13 Everybody is happy then? No objections to 14 s tarting with this list? Start off with AEDM? 15 MS. BARHYDT: So we had talked about starting 16 o ff today and tomorrow working on alternative 17 e fficiency determination methods. As you all know, we 18 h ave issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The 19 s lides go over what that proposal was. It also 20 i ncludes some of the comments that we received in 21 r esponse to that Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 22 One caveat is that that rulemaking covered a

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 12 1 b roader range of equipment than this negotiated 2 r ulemaking covers, and so only the products that are 3 p art of this negotiated rulemaking will be discussed. 4 W e won't be covering residential air conditioning 5 p roducts, motors, any of that. That material will 6 r emain within the AEDM rulemaking. 7 Did everyone have a chance to look through 8 t he PowerPoint? I'm not sure whether it is worth going 9 s lide by slide, if everyone has already looked at it. 10 B ut it certainly does highlight some of the issues and 11 m aybe would provide a framework for discussion. It is 12 r eally kind of up to everyone around the table as to 13 h ow you want to go about doing it. We just thought 14 t his might help provide a framework for discussions, 15 b ut we are not trying to dictate how we approach this. 16 MR. DOPPEL: Laura, Paul Doppel with 17 M itsubishi Electric. I just want to make sure that it 18 i s clear that VRF products are included within the 19 c ommercial HVAC definition. 20 MS. BARHYDT: Yes. 21 MR. DOPPEL: Okay. All right. Thanks. 22 MR. SACHS: Laura, this is Harvey Sachs,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 13 1 A CEEE. I appreciated this document. It was very 2 h elpful to me. But at the same time, I am a little bit 3 c oncerned that I understand the AEDM discussion has to 4 d eal with these products. Everything else is outside 5 t he scope. But what we decide here can often be 6 i lluminated. 7 The discussion can often be illuminated by 8 e xamples from outside, and I think a lot of people at 9 t his table have concern that the precedent set through 10 o ur discussions here will be considered in discussions 11 f or other products. So if somebody mentions 12 r esidential air conditioning, or some other non13 i ncluded product, I hope we don't just slap her fingers 14 i mmediately. 15 MS. BARHYDT: We'll docket the transcript 16 f rom this and the AEDM rulemaking. And so anything 17 t hat is said here, we will consider. But I don't want 18 u s to get off track going onto extensive discussions 19 a bout other products. We have more than enough on our 20 p late as it is. 21 MR. SACHS: I am likely to agree, if you 22 p romise never to use "docket" as a verb.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 14 1 MR. EISNER: Did I hear an agreement? 2 Okay. Any other issues on that? Do you want 3 t o go through it briefly? I mean, you said you don't 4 w ant to stop on every slide. Do you want to do an 5 o verall briefing, general briefing? 6 MS. BARHYDT: I think Ashley was going to 7 a ddress sort of the product list real quick. 8 MR. EISNER: Okay. 9 MS. BARHYDT: Just to make sure everybody is 10 o n the same page. 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: So this is Ashley from DOE. 12 W e didn't add a slide at the outset. In retrospect, I 13 p robably should have. But in terms of like -- I guess 14 o n Slide 7 where it talks about applicable products -- 15 a nd I'm jumping just a bit, we'll go back -- just to 16 c larify, for DOE, commercial air conditioning equipment 17 i s a very large category. 18 This would include things like three-phase 19 l ess than 65,000, small, large, very large, unitary, 20 b oth split and package, VRFs of all types, PTACs, 21 M PTHPs, SPVUs, in terms of DOE's -- and then water22 c ooled, evaporatively cooled water source. So

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 15 1 e verything that falls into that 431.96/97 range. Just 2 t o clarify. 3 Now we can go back. DOE's lingo is a little 4 d ifferent than typical. 5 MR. SACHS: What about chillers? 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: Just a little different. Not 7 c hillers, no. Chillers aren't covered. 8 MS. HOOTMAN: Split systems? 9 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. Commercial, split and 10 p ackage. 11 MS. HOOTMAN: Split systems up to 240. 12 MS. ARMSTRONG: All the way up to 760, are on 13 t he table at least, unless you guys want to narrow the 14 a pplicability. Does that help? 15 So do you guys want me to walk through this? 16 O r do you want to just go right to -- Neil can go 17 t hrough the slides in terms of what we tried to do is 18 u se the comments and come up with some issues for 19 d iscussion, and some of them are questions, some of 20 t hem are options for different people to talk around. 21 I don't know exactly how you want to tee this up, but 22 I 'm happy to walk through it or, if you'd just like to

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 16 1 g o to that -- skip to each set of slides, those are the 2 i ssues, and, obviously, more options are welcome. 3 MR. EISNER: Any thoughts? 4 MR. THARP: This is Rusty Tharp with Goodman. 5 I will suggest that the six areas that DOE has outlined 6 a re good areas to talk to, and we would just have a 7 g eneral discussion about each section. 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 9 MR. EISNER: Which is the first one that we 10 w ant to start with? 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: Preapproval is fine. So I'm 12 j ust going to go through these real quick, then. So 13 t he first section to talk about is preapproval, whether 14 D OE should preapprove any type of simulation before it 15 i s allowed for use. In the proposed rule, we propose 16 n o preapproval process. 17 On Slide 4, you can see we have a variety of 18 c omments, some in favor, some against. And, really, I 19 t hink Slide 5 is where we set up some of the issues for 20 d iscussion in terms of advantages and disadvantages to 21 p reapproval. 22 From the Department's perspective, you know,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 17 1 a preapproval process, even if we were to add one, 2 w ould not exempt any manufacturer from potential 3 a ssessment or enforcement testing. So there is no real 4 g uarantee from that. Even if we did preapprove, what 5 i t would do is make you guys wait until we get through 6 a ll of that paperwork before you could actually use an 7 A EDM. 8 So there is a variety of questions on this 9 p age. You know, I don't know how you want to tee them 10 u p for discussion here, just to see what people think 11 a nd the different ideas that come about. 12 MR. EISNER: We can go through and brief on 13 e ach one of the issues and talk about the options, or 14 w e can - - especially if you think they are intertwined 15 s ignificantly. That may be the best way to go. 16 O therwise, it seems that the logical way to do this is 17 t o get a little background on each of the issues and 18 t hen start to discuss it. 19 It would be always good if we could start 20 w ith a simple, easy one to resolve, too. But let's 21 s tart with preapproval, whether it is or is not in that 22 c ategory. You see the options; you see some of the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 18 1 i ssues. Questions? Comments? What does everybody 2 t hink of using the word "docket" as a verb? 3 MR. SACHS: It's okay if you're talking about 4 b ringing the -- 5 MR. EISNER: Very good, very good. 6 MS. BARHYDT: Do people think that DOE should 7 p reapprove AEDMs? 8 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp with Goodman. I will 9 s ay that the process today for AEDMs is no preapproval, 10 a nd we are fine with continuing not having it 11 p reapproved. 12 MR. EISNER: Anybody want to speak in favor 13 o f having preapprovals? Anybody think it's valuable or 14 i mportant? Yes. 15 MR. HON: Charlie Hon, True Manufacturing. I 16 d o not necessarily say it's necessary, but the problem 17 c omes in the -- no preapprovals will also lead to 18 p otential cheaters, somebody who will tweak it, because 19 w e have yet to come up with any kind of validity 20 t esting in this preapproval process. And without some 21 v alidation in your system, and a limit of maybe only 22 t esting the biggest and the smallest unit and come up

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 19 1 w ith some system between those two, it is almost 2 i mpossible to come up with any validity whatsoever. 3 MS. BARHYDT: So would you suggest an 4 a lternative of -- or would you say that if there was 5 m ore checks on the back end, you would be more 6 c omfortable with not having preapproval? Or it sounds 7 l ike you think those are intertwined? 8 MR. HON: Charlie Hon again. I do believe 9 t hat they are intertwined because if, by chance, we end 10 u p with some people that are being reviewed because of 11 d ata that doesn't agree, and they have used this 12 p rocess to come up with the numbers and they are 25 13 p ercent off of what was tested, then we ask a question 14 b ecause it -- further on in the documents we discuss 15 m ultiple items that have failed to meet the standard. 16 W e don't know what that means. 17 Is it the first time you end up with a big 18 d ifference tested that you get reviewed and your 19 p rocess is reviewed? Or is it the second time? Or is 20 i t the third time? When it says "multiple," it can 21 m ean a lot, and that is a dangerous precedent to just 22 l eave it open- ended, because then we will have one

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 20 1 p erson, one company which has a broad spectrum of 2 p roducts with only a few pieces tested, very vulnerable 3 t o quick review because they didn't do as much testing 4 a s they probably should have done. But when does that 5 t rigger? That's my concern. 6 MS. BARHYDT: So if what I'm understanding 7 y ou to say is correct, you want to make sure that the 8 A EDMs that people use are generating good numbers. And 9 I think there may be a variety of ways to get there. 10 O ne is to have DOE check the models in advance. That's 11 t he preapproval. 12 One of those is to require more testing in 13 t he first place, but DOE not review all of those 14 d ocuments up front, but that we could request those 15 d ocuments and review them at a later date. And then 16 t he third would be to have some kind of after-the-fact 17 t esting. 18 And I think all three of those are on the 19 t able for discussion today, and so it is -- I think it 20 i s going to be some tradeoffs in terms of, do you want 21 D OE to review the documents up front before anyone can 22 u se an AEDM? Do you want us to be reviewing documents

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 21 1 d uring the course of ordinary business as your 2 m anufacturing products? Or do you want to focus on 3 b ack end? And it is really a question for you as to 4 h ow you want that balance. 5 MS. DANE: Mary Dane, Traulsen. We agree 6 t hat there should be no preapproval, that this should 7 b e talked about under enforcement and validation. 8 T here is a lot of paperwork to be done, and it takes 9 t oo long to get things reported back to us. And it 10 k ind of stops the market while we are waiting for 11 a pproval. I mean, you see how long it took us to get 12 s lides and things like that. God forbid we have to 13 w ait, you know, for the AEDM to come through. So we 14 w ould appreciate leaving that in, enforcement 15 v alidation, please. 16 MR. EISNER: If I could, I got a handwritten 17 c omment from Ron -- hope I pronounce his last name 18 c orrectly -- Shebik. He says, "No preapproval 19 n ecessary. Validation is responsibility for each 20 m anufacturer, but preapproval not necessary." 21 There seems to be a general feeling that 22 t here shouldn't be any preapproval, that it's not

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 22 1 n ecessary. Is that simple statement satisfactory, or 2 w ould you want DOE to add some clause to explain what 3 t hat means, or how it would be applied, or anything 4 l ike that? "Preapproval is not necessary, and this 5 m eans," for example. Are you happy with that simple 6 s tatement? 7 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs, ACEEE. 8 C onceptually, we could be satisfied without preapproval 9 i f there is good verification and enforcement. But the 10 o ther reason I raised my hand was to throw out for 11 c onsideration one other option to the three that Laura 12 m entioned. 13 And we are focused on testing against sample 14 e quipment, but another alternative would be for DOE or 15 o ther groups to build standard models for equipment 16 t hat could be used as benchmarks for the proprietary 17 m odels of those manufacturers who choose to design 18 t heir own proprietary models. 19 I 50 years ago interned at what was then the 20 B ureau of Standards, and is now NIST. And the culture 21 o f how you do these things to get the assurance at the 22 f ront end, how a manufacturer can be sure at the front

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 23 1 e nd that his AEDM will satisfy DOE, can be resolved in 2 a number of different ways. And the use of standard 3 m odels as benchmarks I think certainly ought to be on 4 t he table if anyone else is interested in it. 5 MS. BARHYDT: When you say "benchmark," what 6 d o you mean? 7 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. What I mean by 8 t hat is a standard model and building simulation -- we 9 m ight think of a number of examples -- against which an 10 a lternative model can be calibrated. And if it is -- 11 i f, in a series of trials covering different 12 c apacities, different sufficiency levels, whatever, the 13 m anufacturer's model is in close conformance to the 14 i ndustry or DOE model, then it is considered to be an 15 a ppropriate vehicle for AEDM verification. 16 MS. ARMSTRONG: This is Ashley from DOE. I'm 17 a ctually going to turn the question around to the 18 m anufacturers in the room that may have some type of 19 s imulation they use now. I mean, could your simulation 20 t hat simulates the performance of your unique designs 21 t oday actually be compared to a standard model in any 22 t ype of way, with any type of tolerance to provide a

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 24 1 v alidity check? 2 I think that's what Harvey is getting at, 3 m ore or less. And I don't think the Department can 4 a nswer that. I think we need you guys' help. 5 MR. SACHS: Thank you for translation. 6 MR. WHITWELL: This is Bob Whitwell from 7 C arrier. I get a little concerned about comparing a 8 m odel to another model. 9 MR. SACHS: Me, too. 10 MR. WHITWELL: And, you know, one of the 11 t hings that is in here that is discussed is testing, 12 v alidating the model -- the AEDM through testing, which 13 I think is a better method, because then you have some 14 a ctual data and you are comparing the AEDM to actual 15 d ata, as opposed to comparing two models where you've 16 g ot -- inherently there is inaccuracies in the model, 17 r ight? 18 And so how do you know, number one, that 19 t he base model that is being used to compare it to is 20 a ccurate? The second point is that different 21 m anufacturers with different products can have 22 d ifferent technologies across the manufacturer, but

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 25 1 a lso within their product range. And so I think it 2 b ecomes very complicated if you try to develop a model 3 o r a series of models that would be benchmarks that 4 w ould cover all of the various products that will have 5 t o be covered by the 6 A EDM. 7 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey again. 8 MR. EISNER: Ron has a comment. He is on the 9 w eb and he wants to join us with a comment he wants to 10 m ake. 11 MR. SHEBIK. Hi. Good morning. Can you hear 12 m e? 13 MR. EISNER: Yes. 14 MR. SHEBIK: I just wanted to comment. 15 A gain, as a representative of a manufacturer, to create 16 a good AEDM you are going to have to understand your 17 p roduct, and you are going to have to know how your 18 p roduct runs. You really can't create a good AEDM 19 w ithout any kind of testing, whether it be on a 20 c omponent level or on a whole -- your whole product in 21 g eneral. 22 So I come up kind of late because I think

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 26 1 s ome of these things have already just been discussed 2 r ecently, but you are not going to miss out on anything 3 o n an AEDM by -- you will have testing in order to 4 c reate it, and I think as you go -- as you progress in 5 t ime you can verify your AEDM with a series of tests 6 b ased on your product line. I just wanted to throw 7 t hat comment out there. 8 Now, tolerance and stuff, I think that is 9 g oing to come later in our discussion. Someone threw 10 o ut tolerances. But that is going to come later, I 11 b elieve. 12 MR. EISNER: Yes. 13 MR. MYERS: Yes. This is Frank Myers, PVI 14 I ndustries. The lead-in question here was whether or 15 n ot we support preapproval of an AEDM. And from a 16 c ustom equipment engineer-to-order/design-to-order 17 m anufacturer who builds very complex and expensive 18 e quipment, sells it, engineers it, builds it, and then 19 t he customer expects delivery of that, having the delay 20 p rocess in would be unworkable. 21 MR. EISNER: Let me ask again: is there 22 c onsensus that we should go ahead with the simple

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 27 1 s tatement that preapproval is not necessary, not 2 r equired? Or do we want to talk about some more 3 s ubstance? Anybody object to that simple approach? 4 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel with Mitsubishi. I 5 a gree with proceeding without preapproval, and 6 e ssentially that's what manufacturers are doing today 7 w ith certification programs at AHRI. So that would be 8 I think considered to be consistent with current 9 i ndustry practice. 10 MR. EISNER: Yes. 11 MR. STARR: Louis Starr, Northwest Energy 12 E fficiency Alliance. I wonder if it might be possible, 13 m aybe not requiring a preapproval process, but at least 14 s ome kind of documentation or at least kind of 15 a nticipating what -- your AEDM and how it can be 16 o rganized. 17 So less of really -- it is more an intent of 18 w hat your AEDM is going to be, what this might help 19 w ith, as kind of identifying, making sure that someone 20 i s coming up with a legitimate way of how they are 21 g oing to develop an AEDM. I'm wondering if that can 22 m aybe be an alternate way of doing something.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 28 1 MR. EISNER: Ashley? 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: So what I think you are 3 a sking - - and I'm going to try to translate -- is so 4 i n the next couple of sections, we set out what we call 5

- - the Department uses nomenclature of what we call 6 s ubstantiation requirements, and that is what types of 7 u nits have to be tested, how many units have to be 8 t ested, how close the test values have to be to the 9 s imulation values, to basically set up the AEDM. 10 Those records would need to be -- as they 11 e xist today and as the proposal was written, those 12 r ecords would need to be retained and provided if the 13 D epartment were to request them. But that package, in 14 a nd of itself, and all of the records, wouldn't need to 15 b e sent in prior. 16 So I think what you are asking we will get 17 t o, but it is kind of separate from whether the 18 D epartment should receive all of that information at 19 t he outset. 20 MR. EISNER: Okay. Again, we can -- we say 21 i n the ground rules we can go back to these issues if 22 i t's necessary, especially with Ashley's caveat. What

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 29 1 I would suggest we do, so there is a clear 2 u nderstanding of what we've done, is have somebody from 3 D OE, as we go through each of these issues, write up a 4 s imple one-sentence statement, if possible, of what we 5 a greed to and then we will have that as a working 6 d ocument in front of us. 7 But on this particular first issue, 8 p reapproval, we have agreement, so let's go on to the 9 n ext issue. 10 MR. SACHS: Neil? 11 MR. EISNER: Yes. 12 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey. And just one 13 l ast note on my lead balloon proposal. Didn't fly. 14 T he Department does have a history of supporting the 15 d evelopment of some pretty elegant models that I 16 b elieve have been widely used as the basis in industry, 17 o r for particularly to Keith Rice heat pump and air 18 c onditioner model, which has been around and 19 c ontinually improved for a couple of decades, developed 20 a t Oak Ridge. 21 This ends my rant. 22 MR. EISNER: Okay. Ashley, do you want to do

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 30 1 t he next issue? 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: Sure. Jeremiah, can you go 3 t o Slide 7 for me? 4 So I think this is generally the scope of 5 w hat we are talking about today in terms of what types 6 o f equipment are on the table in terms of negotiation. 7 A s I mentioned earlier, commercial air conditioning 8 e quipment is a very broad category and subsumes quite a 9 n umber. 10 We got a variety of comments that are kind of 11 s ummarized on Slide 8 in terms of who should be allowed 12 t o use AEDMs in response to the NOPR proposal and 13 w hether there are other methods or, basically in my 14 m ind, more direct methods that should be used instead 15 o f an open- ended AEDM process for certain products. 16 So on Slide 9 we teed up the discussion of, 17 n umber one, whether we should explicitly -- you know, 18 f or you guys to consider whether we should explicitly 19 j ust allow linear interpolation for commercial package 20 b oilers and commercial water heaters instead of a 21 w idely used AEDM. And then whether the AEDM should be 22 a pplicable to commercial air conditioning equipment,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 31 1 f urnaces, and then refrigeration equipment. 2 And then there is a question about, is there 3 a ny certain types of equipment for which an AEDM should 4 n ot be applied? So that is the discussion to tee it up 5 f or you guys. 6 MR. EISNER: Comments? Questions? 7 MR. SUTPHEN: This is John Sutphen, Cleaver8 B rooks. Can you just define the commercial package 9 b oiler and the scope of what sizes are included? 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: Everything. Hold on one 11 s econd. This is Ashley, and I'm just reading from the 12 r egs. But "commercial package boiler" means a type of 13 p ackage, low pressure boiler, that is industrial 14 e quipment with a capacity of 300,000 BTU per hour or 15 m ore, which to any significant extent is distributed in 16 c ommerce for heating or space conditioning applications 17 i n buildings or for service water heating in buildings 18 b ut does not meet the definition of hot water supply 19 b oiler. Does that help? 20 MR. SUTPHEN: What is your definition of "low 21 p ressure"? 22 MS. ARMSTRONG: So we have a package --

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 32 1 " package low pressure boiler" means a package boiler 2 t hat is a steam boiler designed to operate at or below 3 a steam pressure of 15 psig or a hot water boiler 4 d esigned to operate at or below a water pressure of 160 5 p sig and a temperature of 250 degrees F, or a boiler 6 t hat is designed to be capable of supplying either 7 s team or hot water and is designed to operate under the 8 c onditions at one and two above. 9 MR. SUTPHEN: Thank you. 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: Uh-huh. 11 MR. EISNER: Thoughts? 12 MS. ARMSTRONG: Jeff? 13 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. We are 14 e ncouraged by seeing the proposal to formally recognize 15 l inear interpolation for commercial water heaters and 16 c ommercial boilers. I would like to hear reasons why 17 A EDM would be excluded as an option as well for 18 c ommercial water heaters and water boilers. We would 19 l ike to see that as an available option in addition to 20 l inear interpolation. 21 MS. BARHYDT: Everything is on the table. We 22 a re just throwing out ideas.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 33 1 MR. EISNER: I mean, I think it's appropriate 2 t o ask why you think it should be. 3 MR. KLEISS: You're asking -- Jeff Kleiss. 4 MR. EISNER: What would be your justification 5 f or extending it? 6 MR. KLEISS: Well, there are clearly two 7 d ifferent processes. One is based on testing. You 8 t est two endpoints for linear interpolation. The AEDM 9 i s more of a theoretical mathematical model that has a 10 f ew points tested for validation. 11 But either of those two have applicability, 12 d epending on whether units are put together in discrete 13 p roduct families or if you have a more diverse -- fewer 14 p roducts built similar to I think what Frank Myers was 15 r eferring to, his type of products. One-off products 16 w ould probably be more suitable for an AEDM where you 17 a re less likely to be able to generate samples of -- 18 y ou know, on either endpoint. 19 But where it is -- you have smaller units 20 t hat are more likely to be built in larger quantities, 21 i t is probably more practical to test two endpoint 22 p roducts within a product family to validate linear

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 34 1 i nterpolation. 2 MR. EISNER: Was there a reason you didn't 3 i nclude it in your original list? Was there some 4 r eservation you -- 5 MS. BARHYDT: I believe the original proposal 6 j ust said AEDM, and we received a lot of questions 7 a bout, well, why isn't linear interpolation permitted? 8 A nd so our thought was, okay, what we are hearing is 9 t hat people are interested in having the option of 10 l inear interpolation. 11 So it wasn't so much a -- we were trying to 12 p ut you in this bucket or that bucket. We were trying 13 t o be responsive to some of the comments we received. 14 B ut is there a reason to not call it an alternative 15 e fficiency determination method? Is there a reason why 16 l inear interpolation is not just another way of 17 c alculating -- of determining an efficiency other than 18 t esting? 19 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss. A significant part 20 o f that will come up I believe when we get into 21 s ubstantiation and validation, because linear 22 i nterpolation is -- there are tests that are done,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 35 1 t ypically on the two endpoints of the spectrum, for a 2 p roduct family. If we call it an AEDM, then we have to 3 h ave additional tests to substantiate the tests of the 4 l inear interpolation. And if a product family is 5 d iscontinued or the program changes, then it changes 6 t he validation based on the way the Federal Register is 7 c urrently written. 8 You're shaking your head no, but what I read 9 i n print is quite different. 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: Go ahead. 11 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik with AHRI. I 12 a pologize for being late. I made the mistake of riding 13 M etro. In any case, I totally agree with Laura. We 14 s hould get over this little semantic thing. 15 Linear interpolation is most certainly -- it 16 m ay be a unique form of an AEDM, but it is an 17 a lternative efficiency determination method. And, 18 J eff, I think getting caught up in what the 19 r equirements are going to be to have an acceptable 20 A EDM, whether it's linear interpolation or otherwise, 21 i s something that will be resolved down the road. 22 But it is basically -- it is -- it is an

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 36 1 a lternative method, and it is one that in this case has 2 a lot of history and has -- and certainly in the case 3 o f boilers has a -- let's say a fundamental principle 4 t hat gets applied, which is basically, you know, if I 5 h ave this much energy, I need roughly this amount of 6 h eat exchange to get this much efficiency. It is 7 f airly straightforward. 8 Now, things change and there is things 9 e volving, but the underlying principle of the linear 10 i nterpolation is that my input and my heat exchange 11 s urface area basically have roughly a linear 12 r elationship in terms of what my efficiency comes out 13 t o be. 14 And so I would -- if anything, as we develop 15 t his, you know, maybe at some point we recognize linear 16 i nterpolation as a -- I don't know what to call it -- a 17 s pecific type of an AEDM, but I think we are getting 18 m essed up by suggesting they are two different things. 19 T hey're not. 20 MS. BARHYDT: So what I would suggest, Jeff, 21 i s not to get hung up with what you saw in the proposal 22 i n terms of how much has to be tested of this or that.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 37 1 W e are going to be discussing all of that. And so if 2 y ou can think of it not in terms of what our original 3 p roposal was, but what you would like to see in terms 4 o f requirements for testing when we get to that part of 5 t he discussion, and whether or not that can all be 6 c ombined into one concept, or even if it is an 7 a lternative efficiency determination method, but 8 p erhaps there is a subset of different rules for linear 9 i nterpolation or just try and think more broadly about 10 h ow it would make sense to do it as opposed to, well, 11 t his is what DOE proposed before. 12 MR. EISNER: Harvey? 13 MR. SACHS: There are a lot of people in the 14 r oom more knowledgeable about the area I'd like to 15 b ring up than I am, and maybe they can reassure me. 16 B ut for some years I have been following from a 17 d istance the discussions about the ASHRAE 155 rating 18 m ethod proposed for commercial boilers, which among 19 o ther things, as I understand it, would change the 20 i nlet temperature enough that we would start to see 21 s trong effects of boilers that are able to do 22 c ondensing.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 38 1 Frank, for one, has been much more involved 2 i n this than I am. And the question is, both for 3 c ondensing water heaters using the inlet water to 4 c ondense, and for package boilers, am I getting into 5 s ome second order effects as I get into lower rejection 6

- - condensation temperatures for the flue gases? And 7 a re we confining ourselves to linear interpolation, or 8 i s this going to enter at all if we see some change in 9 t he test methods as condensing appliances become more 10 i mportant? 11 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. I 12 t hink that's the underlying premise that everyone seems 13 t o be hitting on is that we are interested to know 14 D OE's opinion on if we can use empirical statistically15 b ased AEDMs, linear interpolation, possibly a quadratic 16 o f some form, possibly something similar to the standby 17 l oss requirements for storage tank water heaters where 18 i t is a function of multiple variables. Is that on the 19 b oard? 20 MS. BARHYDT: So I think that when we talk 21 a bout how accurate your AEDM is, if you can generate 22 t he model that will do it.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 39 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: This is Ashley. I think you 2 j ust explained our position pretty well. We don't care 3 w hat method you use, in and of itself, it is up to you 4 g uys. You guys are the experts of your products. You 5 k now, that is what the idea behind an AEDM is. It is a 6 s imulation tool. Of what type, whether it's linear, 7 w hether it's quadratic, whether it's something else, 8 w hether it's, you know, first law based, whatever, that 9 i s up to you. We don't have -- we didn't propose any 10 o f those requirements for a reason. 11 So, you know, that was the Department's 12 p osition I think going in. Now, to the extent you want 13 t o narrow the field to just linear, that is up to you 14 g uys. But our opinion was that it is best left to 15 t hose who design the products. 16 MR. STEPHENS: Thank you. 17 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey again. Ashley, I 18 t hink the term "linear interpolation" has been red flag 19 i n front of the bulls. We have hit on the linear side, 20 b ut the interpolation side also has an issue if we are 21 a llowing the upper limit testing to be something within 22 2 5 percent of the largest unit, because then we are

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 40 1 d oing extrapolation to get to the big ones. 2 So I think if we could find another term, 3 y ou'd find several of us getting calmer. 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: Do you have a suggestion for 5 a term? 6 MR. SACHS: In a case of uncertainty, I try 7 t o find a neutral term like "grape," which would mean 8 a ny method you want to use that you can verify. 9 MS. ARMSTRONG: That is -- I mean, we use 10 A EDM for that term, but yes, that's fine. 11 MR. EISNER: Let me read a comment from Ron 12 a gain. He says, "A combination of linear interpolation 13 a nd mathematical analysis can be combined to create an 14 A EDM. Interpretation of the Federal Register can be 15 c larified as we move forward." 16 And that's what I was starting to gather from 17 h ere is maybe we are talking about some rule text 18 l anguage that we can agree to that it would be one 19 s entence or three sentences, and maybe we want to see 20 s ome guidance language that would go into the preamble 21 t hat would expand on that. So if anybody wants to 22 c omment on that. We've got somebody at the microphone.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 41 1 MR. FLY: Well, this is a little different 2 s ubject. I would like to hear -- this is Mark Fly with 3 A aon -- a little better definition of what commercial 4 a ir conditioning equipment, particularly the less than 5 f ive- ton area, because I think you have stated that it 6 i s -- three-phase equipment is considered commercial, 7 b ut is single phase, package rooftop, is that a 8 c ommercial piece of equipment? It's typically used on 9 a commercial building, but it is -- you know, there are 10 c hillers that are put on big residences, too, so what 11 i s the Department's definition? 12 MR. EISNER: Everybody is testing Ashley's 13 k nowledge of the CFR. 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. I am the CFR today. 15 S ingle phase, less than 65, is residential. I mean, I 16 c an look up the specific definition, but single phase, 17 l ess than 65, is residential. Three phase, less than 18 6 5, is commercial, under our regs, air-cooled. 19 I understand they may get put in different 20 p laces in different situations, but under our regs 21 t hat's how our regulatory approach is. 22 MR. EISNER: Frank?

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 42 1 MR. STANONIK: Ashley, one caveat, because I 2 j ust was schooled on this in the last couple of weeks. 3 W hen you are looking at residential products, the 4 h ierarchy is consumer product, covered product, and 5 t hen unique products. 6 The legislation defines "consumer product" as 7 a product that is offered for sale for use by 8 i ndividuals. And this came up in pool heaters, by the 9 w ay. That's where it all of a sudden hit me in the 10 f ace, if you will. 11 So if you had -- and unless there is 12 s omething different written about air conditioners, if 13 y ou had a single phase, less than 65,000 BTU air 14 c onditioner, that you were not selling for use by 15 i ndividuals, not to the consumer market, it is not a 16 c overed -- well, we are going to have a debate here. 17 W e can do it offline, too. 18 MS. ARMSTRONG: I think we need to move this 19 d iscussion offline, but that is incorrect. 20 MR. STANONIK: Okay. All right. 21 MR. COHEN: Who schooled you, Frank? 22 MR. STANONIK: Okay. That's fine.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 43 1 MR. SACHS: It was some engineering school in 2 C leveland. 3 MR. STANONIK: Yeah. That's right. 4 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman from 5 N ational. I just want to get I guess a couple of 6 c larifications. My interpretation of like an ARM would 7 b e something in my -- if you had it preapproved, it 8 w ould be something you could go buy a package off of a 9 s helf somewhere and say, "This is the software that has 10 b een preapproved by DOE that I am going to go plug in 11 m y -- for an ARM." Well, that's my interpretation of 12 a n ARM. 13 So my interpretation, you know, whatever you 14 u se as an AEDM, you have to validate that. As a 15 m anufacturer, you have to validate that it is accurate 16 f or your product, no matter where you got it, if you 17 b ought it from somebody, if you made your own, if you 18 d id a linear interpolation. And that's what I guess 19 I 'm trying to -- to me, the only difference is -- would 20 t here be any difference -- if somebody used a linear 21 i nterpolation, would the substantiation requirements be 22 d ifferent? So it is an AEDM.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 44 1 MS. BARHYDT: You would have to test some of 2 y our products. 3 MR. BAUMAN: Right. 4 MS. BARHYDT: But as to what the ultimate 5 t esting requirements might be, that's one or two -- 6 MR. BAUMAN: Farther down. 7 MS. BARHYDT: -- segments down through the 8 s lide package. 9 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik with AHRI. And 10 o ne other comment in response to this question that was 11 c alled in, I think in trying to describe generically an 12 A EDM, I mean, there has to be -- there has to be some 13 I 'll say mathematical underpinning to the AEDM, because 14 b asically you are looking at models, and you are 15 a pplying the -- if you will, to whatever extent you 16 h ave, data from some models to other models, but there 17 h as got to be some relationship that has been 18 e stablished as to why you are confident that the model 19 y ou didn't test has this rating. 20 And underneath all of that there has to be 21 s ome basic -- not basic, but some math. Whether it's a 22 l inear relationship, a quadratic relationship, or

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 45 1 w hatever, but there has got to be some connection 2 b etween how you -- when you are designing a product and 3 h ow you get Efficiency X for the one -- this one, and 4 h ow -- why you are comfortable saying, "Well, I know 5 f rom my experience in my technology, if you will, that, 6 o kay, if this one has an efficiency of X, this one has 7 a n efficiency of X plus .2 or something." 8 I mean, it's appropriate, but I think in 9 g eneral there has to be -- you know, whether -- well, 10 i t's obviously data, but there is also going to be some 11 e stablishment of the basic fundamental relationship 12 b etween the ones you measure and the ones you are 13 a lternatively rating. 14 MR. EISNER: Other thoughts? Jill? 15 MS. HOOTMAN: Jill Hootman, Trane. A couple 16 m ore clarifications on covered equipment. You said 17 w ater source heat pumps. Geothermal? Ground source? 18 Y es? 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: I have to go back. 20 MS. HOOTMAN: That's the one I always forget. 21 I s it just geothermal, or is it geothermal and ground 22 s ource?

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 46 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: It's both. 2 MS. HOOTMAN: Okay. And then, split systems, 3 y ou said systems up to 760,000, but what if it's a 4 c ondensed unit only? Test standard would be AHRI 365. 5 I sn't that up to 240? 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. So split systems up to 7 2 40, A/Cs up to 760. 8 MS. HOOTMAN: A/C when it's an actual matched 9 s ystem which -- 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. 11 MS. HOOTMAN: -- aren't sold. Okay. 12 MS. ARMSTRONG: Are you suggesting a new 13 c overed product? 14 MS. HOOTMAN: No. 15 My point is that -- 16 MS. ARMSTRONG: Just making sure I got that. 17 MS. HOOTMAN: -- typically, from 240 to 760, 18 t hey are matched in the field. 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. 20 MS. HOOTMAN: They are not matched from the 21 c ompany. 22 MS. ARMSTRONG: Gotcha. So just to wrap this

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 47 1 u p, I mean, it seems like generally there is support. 2 I 'll let Neil take that part over. But I do want to 3 r ead our definition, because it seems to hinge around 4 o ur current definition as it stands in the CFR of an 5 A EDM. And I apologize for not putting this on the 6 s lide, but it means "A method of calculating the 7 e fficiency of a commercial HVAC and water heater 8 p roduct that would then be extended to refrigeration." 9 In terms of the descriptor, use NRX 10 b asically, paraphrasing the last part. Is there any 11 i ssues with that definition, such that it is extended 12 t o the, you know, true product, all of the products 13 t hat it needs to be applicable to? Or is that simple 14 e nough to cover it? 15 MR. EISNER: Do you need to see that on the 16 s creen? Are you comfortable with what Ashley just 17 r ead? 18 MS. ARMSTRONG: It's in 431.2. All right. 19 MR. EISNER: Is everybody comfortable 20 w ith this definition? Would people like to see and 21 a gree to some language, for example, a paragraph or so 22 t hat would go in a preamble explaining some of the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 48 1 t hings you were talking about, about how you establish 2 t he reliability of the 3 A EDM? 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: We are going to get to that 5 n ext. 6 MS. BARHYDT: I think we are going to get 7 i nto that in more detail. 8 MR. EISNER: Is everybody comfortable, then? 9 A nybody object to the language that Ashley just read? 10 Y ou'll get to see it typed up later as part of a 11 s ummary of what we have agreed to. 12 Okay. Let's go to the next issue. 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. Just to introduce this 14 t opic -- this is Ashley from DOE again. What DOE terms 15 a "substantiation" in real terms just means, how many 16 u nits do I need to test? What type of units do I need 17 t o test? And how close do my tested values need to be 18 t o my simulated values? Those are really the three 19 q uestions at hand that we tried to answer with what we 20 c all "substantiation requirements." 21 So if you look on Slide 11, this was our 22 o riginal proposal in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 49 1 A nd in response to this, I think we had hours' worth of 2 c onversation at the public meeting, as well as a number 3 o f different comments that came in in terms of how many 4 u nits should be tested, what types of units from 5 d ifferent product classes, from different models, one6 o ffs, all types of different things. 7 I am not going to go through the details of 8 t he comments here. We put them as background just to 9 t ee them up. 10 But on Slide 17, we have tried to tee up some 11 o f the issues for discussion. And this really gets to, 12 y ou know, what is the minimum level of number of tests, 13 t ypes of tests, types of products to be tested, and the 14 t olerance that needs to be -- how close the test data 15 n eeds to be to the simulation. So put everyone 16 b asically on a level playing field across the board, 17 a nd so that is really for you guys to discuss. 18 It didn't seem from the comments that there 19 w as a single opinion shared by a same person, at least 20 f rom my review of them. Everyone kind of does 21 d ifferent things right now. So maybe the first issue 22 t o talk about would be, how many of -- what is the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 50 1 m inimum tests that even need to be done to substantiate 2 a n AEDM before it can be used? 3 MR. EISNER: Before we get to the first -- 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: Oh, sure. 5 MR. EISNER: -- comment, Ron has a question. 6 I s substantiation and validation the same? 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: No. 8 MR. EISNER: Did you hear that, Ron? 9 MR. SHEBIK: Yes, I did. Thank you, Ashley. 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: One is before it can be used, 11 s o it is manufacturer-driven, right? So the 12 m anufacturer would substantiate their AEDM. They would 13 d o their own testing, they would, you know, determine 14 w hat types of units. If we had specific criteria, they 15 w ould determine which units they wanted to test. They 16 w ould come up with their model. They would compare 17 t heir model. This is all done by them in-house before 18 t hey then apply. 19 I look at validation, or maybe a better word 20 o ther than validation is verification, as on the back 21 e nd. Once an AEDM is widely used, then you can pull 22 p roducts from market or products from distributors, or

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 51 1 w hatever, test them, and say, "Okay. You know, they 2 a lready are rated. How close is that?" You are 3 v erifying at that point. 4 MR. SACHS: I'm sorry, but is -- 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: I don't think it's the 6 w ording so much as, what do they need to do before it 7 c an be used? 8 MR. SACHS: The wording definitely threw me 9 o ff, because I am taking this as validation, which I 10 w ould expect to do as the owner of the model, to be -- 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's fine. Maybe that's a 12 b etter word. 13 MR. WHITWELL: Verification, as you described 14 i t, though, is that enforcement? 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: It can be. It can be 16 e nforcement by the Department. It can be verification 17 t hat you do post in your lab. It can be verification 18 y ou do through a third party program. It would be 19 a nything after an AEDM has already been applied. 20 So feel free to change this wording. 21 E verything is on the table, I mean, if you don't throw 22 i t out. This is just what we use now and it was a part

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 52 1 o f the proposal. But if validation is better, or 2 w hatever, anything is fine. Just a word. 3 MR. SACHS: Thank you. 4 MR. EISNER: Yes. 5 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. I 6 t hink we are getting into the realm where we need to 7 h ave the discussion on what constitutes a basic model, 8 a basic model group, because this is where these become 9 i mportant. 10 MS. BARHYDT: So I was hoping we could put 11 o ff the basic model discussion to the next time. Is it 12 p ossible to have this discussion in the context of for 13 y ou to run a model and make a representation about 14 s omething you want to make a representation about? 15 W hatever that thing is, can we have the discussion in 16 t erms of how much do you have to test to come up with 17 y our representations? 18 Irrespective of what ultimately gets turned 19 i n to the Department for certification, just if you 20 w ant to make a representation and you are going to get 21 t hat representation from your model, how much do you 22 h ave to test to come up with that number?

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 53 1 MR. EISNER: Guys? 2 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel with Mitsubishi. 3 Y ou know, it might have an impact, because I think at 4 t his point we are not close on model number definition. 5 S o that could impact I think maybe the number of units 6 t hat have to be tested. If we can get maybe, you know, 7 t he -- what is the other term, the product class? 8 M aybe if we can at least get product class clarified, 9 b ecause then that really has the impact because you 10 h ave to at least test one from each product class. 11 MS. BARHYDT: Do you have to test one from 12 e ach product class? 13 MR. DOPPEL: That is kind of what I 14 u nderstood from -- 15 MS. BARHYDT: Well, that was DOE's proposal. 16 T hat is not -- 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: Why don't we just start the 18 d iscussion, what do you do now? 19 MR. EISNER: Somebody doing something right 20 n ow? 21 MS. HOOTMAN: I'll start. Jill Hootman from 22 T rane.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 54 1 MR. DOPPEL: Can we claim the Fifth? No. 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: We are trying to inform where 3 w e should go here. 4 MS. HOOTMAN: Jill Hootman from Trane. So, 5 y eah, definition of "class" and what we all might call 6 a family. In our minds, what a family is, and each one 7 o f these manufacturers probably does have a different 8 d efinition of what they consider a family, but they 9 h ave developed a set of products that has an outward 10 b ound, has boundaries. 11 I would say that we test one to two of those 12 a gainst a simulation program in development. So, in my 13 i dea, a product family could be -- and I'm going to 14 g ive an example, a three- to 10-ton package heat pump. 15 I have probably tested the smallest and the largest, 16 b ecause those are my outliers, and then simulated the 17 r est of the ratings for the simulation model. 18 Now, my definition and somebody else's 19 d efinition of a product family is going to be 20 d ifferent. 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: So how do we start to 22 s tandardize those for a given just subset or baseline

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 55 1 o f "This is the minimum that needs to be tested"? And 2 t hen, beyond that, you guys are welcome to test more or 3

- - 4 MS. HOOTMAN: And then I would say, to add on 5 t o that, your word of "validation," there is considered 6 v alidation every single time units are pulled for AHRI 7 t esting or whatever, other reasons. There is 8 v alidation coming back against those models. 9 MS. ARMSTRONG: So are there common 10 c omponents that are the same of a given product family? 11 I realize this will change between product types, but 12 i n the case - - is the condensing unit always the same? 13 I s the compressor unit always the same? I mean, is the 14 h eat exchanger area the same? I mean, what are we 15 t alking about that really gets to, how do you do it 16 n ow? And it may be that everyone does it differently, 17 o r every product is different, or every -- both. But 18 t hat's what we're trying to understand, so help us 19 l earn. 20 MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly with AAON. For 21 A HRI testing, a basic model group, for let's say 22 u nitary large, unitary small, is a compressor/condenser

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 56 1 c ombination indicates a model. I think that is 2 c orrect, isn't it, Frank? So the compressor/condenser 3 a rea and then everything else is kind of appendages on 4 t hat theme, so that defines a basic model. 5 In an AHRI testing, validation testing, they 6 c an pull any listed model, which there may be several 7 u nder each basic model, at random to do the validation 8 t est. So you could have a four-row coil and a six-row 9 c oil. It would be -- an evaporator coil, and that 10 w ould still be in the same basic model, but it would be 11

- - and they could pull a four or a six for their 12 t esting. 13 MR. RIVEST: This is Mike Rivest. In reading 14 t he comments, and in trying to find the common themes, 15 i t seemed to me that the basic model grouping was sort 16 o f a parallel to what is needed to do an AEDM. The 17 r eason I bring that up is because we are talking about 18 w hat is the minimum number of tests, and that really 19 w ould depend on the scope of your AEDM. 20 You could call something an AEDM that 21 e ncompasses everything, if it's just one spreadsheet 22 w ith multiple tabs or it could be an AEDM that you

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 57 1 t ailor to a product family. 2 So if saying, like DOE says, five tests is 3 s ufficient to validate an AEDM, that can be a very big 4 b urden if you have defined your AEDM as applicable to 5 o ne family and you have 100 families, or it may be not 6 m uch of a burden at all if you define your AEDM as 7 e ncompassing all of your products. 8 I think the way these slides were prepared an 9 A EDM was envisioned as something that would be over all 10 o f your product families. So the burden was quite 11 s mall. You know, we talk about going across -- in this 12 c ase, it's not product classes; substantiation classes 13 i s the way it's defined. 14 So, and the discussion of the basic model 15 g roup and the compressor with the heat exchanger, that 16 r eally goes to the basic model. You know, your 17 s imulation is going to model some physical system and 18 p ut a number on it. And that is really what this 19 c onversation is about. 20 Your conversation has more to do with, well, 21 d o I need to come up with a rating for all of my SKUs, 22 o r only for the -- sort of the core model. And with

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 58 1 t he other ones, with all of the accessories, do I have 2 t o model all of those and rate them all differently, or 3 c an I just have one rating? 4 So there are two conversations here, and this 5 c onversation is more about what is an AEDM, how broadly 6 d oes it apply, and how many tests do we need to 7 s ubstantiate it? Is that helpful? 8 MR. SACHS: Well, Mike -- go ahead. 9 MS. HOOTMAN: Thanks, Harvey. Jill Hootman 10 a t Trane. I would agree that it was looking at it, 11 e specially if you are a manufacturer like myself, that 12 h as multiple products everywhere, it probably is 13 l ooking more broad-reaching. But what if I'm a 14 m anufacturer that only makes, in my example, three15 t hrough 10-ton heat pumps. I now have to do five 16 t ests, you know, to substantiate my AEDM? That could 17 b e literally all of my products in that three- through 18 1 0-ton. 19 MR. RIVEST: And I do believe there is -- you 20 k now, that is something that the Department is seeking 21 c omment on. You know, if there is -- 22 MS. HOOTMAN: Right.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 59 1 MR. RIVEST: -- a manufacturer with a 2 l imited, you know, product offering, should it be 3 r educed? 4 MS. HOOTMAN: Yes. 5 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey. I guess I've 6 b een part of hearings across a whole lot of products 7 f or the last decade, as Frank and you have, Ashley. My 8 s ense is that it -- across product classes, no, across 9 p roduct types, these four terms may be used quite 10 d ifferently in CRE, at DOE, in commercial unitary. 11 And we are going to continue to flail unless 12 w e either have category commercial boiler -- let's call 13 t hat category -- category-specific definitions of these 14 t erms, or all of industry is going to have to change 15 i ts vernacular, because any two people at this table 16 m ay mean something very different anywhere on the 17 s pectrum from basic model to basic model group to 18 p roduct class to product family. 19 And that, to me, has been part of the hurt. 20 A nd I don't -- I'm not sure that DOE would want to 21 i mpose its definition across all of these industry 22 p roducts that are tested so differently, have such

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 60 1 d ifferent market structures. 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: So just one clarification. I 3 t hink from the Department's perspective the name you 4 u se to call something and whether it needs to be what 5 w e are going to call covered product-specific, so by 6 r efrigeration or HVAC, fine. You know, to the extent 7 w e can come up with -- that's what this is for. 8 To the extent we can come up with a wording 9 d efinition that everyone agrees on, whether it's 10 s pecific to CRE, specific to boilers, specific to water 11 h eaters, fine. I don't think the Department has an 12 o pinion there. 13 Product class has a meaning under our regs, 14 s o that one is a little unique to DOE, and it has a 15 g eneralized meaning, even though it is applied product 16 s pecifically. In our regs, when we set standards, it 17 i s statutory, so that is something that it has, you 18 k now, requirements. But to the extent we come up with 19 p roduct family or Ashley model, or whatever, it is 20 f ine. We don't care what we call it; we just want it 21 t o work. 22 MR. SACHS: I'd take the next step and ask if

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 61 1 i t would be appropriate to ask each of the manufacturer 2 g roups here to give us, if not now then at the next 3 m eeting, their definitions of how they and their 4 i ndustry use basic model, basic model group, and 5 p roduct family. 6 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. Could I 7 s uggest, to move this forward, that we start with the 8 c urrent DOE definition of "basic model," discuss that, 9 s ee if we can agree to that as a definition, and use 10 t hat as a foundation to build from. 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: Sure. Although, so before we 12 d o that, is everybody in agreement that they want to 13 t ransition this discussion from AEDMs to the basic 14 m odel issue? Because that is, on the list of issues, a 15 d ifferent issue. 16 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. It is 17 m y belief that you are trying to build the second story 18 o f the house without laying the foundation. Basic 19 m odel, basic model group, those are foundation issues. 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: It's up to you guys. 21 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel with Mitsubishi. 22 Y ou know, possibly, I mean, we are getting close to

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 62 1 l unch, just as a thought, we could break into like 2 c ommon type of products and have a working lunch to 3 c ome up with a definition. Just -- 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's a great idea. 5 MR. DOPPEL: -- as a thought for -- basic 6 m odel for our various industries, and then come back 7 w ith that. 8 MR. EISNER: Break up now and -- 9 MR. DOPPEL: I'm not saying now, but over 10 l unch. 11 MR. EISNER: Oh. To discuss it over lunch? 12 MR. DOPPEL: Yeah. Come up with a definition 13 o ver lunch of what the basic model is. 14 MR. EISNER: Comments/thoughts/objections? 15 F rank? 16 MR. STANONIK: Question, Paul. Are you 17 t alking about a general definition of "basic model" or 18 a basic model air conditioner or a basic model boiler? 19 MR. DOPPEL: Right. For each of the -- 20 MR. STANONIK: Five categories. 21 MR. DOPPEL: -- boiler, water heater, HVAC. 22 MR. STANONIK: Yeah. I think I would agree

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 63 1 w ith -- that makes a lot of sense, because I think once 2 w e see what each of you that knows your product has in 3 m ind, we in fact may see where the similarities are, or 4 w here they need to be distinguished. 5 MR. RIVEST: This is Mike Rivest. Before 6 e veryone sort of defines it differently, because I know 7 t hat's what is going to happen, I think it's important 8 t o keep in mind what the purpose of the basic model is. 9 A nd it may have nothing to do with, you know, the 10 c ommon usage of basic model for your own purposes. 11 But DOE needs to have a product model number 12 a nd a rating next to it. And my experience has more to 13 d o with white goods, so I'll speak to that, and then 14 y ou'll have to figure out how that works for your own 15 i ndustries. But a clothes washer manufacturer 16 b asically has the same platform, that it has all sorts 17 o f additional features, if you will, that don't really 18 i mpact the rating. Okay? 19 So I'm not saying that's what -- the basic 20 m odel that you need to use, but that's how they do it. 21 A nd they have a catalog number that is this long, and 22 t hen there are a whole bunch of numbers after that that

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 64 1 d escribe what those features are, but that are not 2 r elevant to the rating. So DOE just needs a way to 3 t rack that particular model number to the unit of 4 c ertification. 5 So the unit of certification is the one that 6 y ou can test and rate. So if you pull something off 7 t he shelf, there is a model number, and you want to 8 r eference it back to a database. You would find what 9 t hat -- you know, those first digits are, and that's 10 w hat the rating should be. 11 So ultimately there is a need to have a 12 s pecific rating for basic models, as defined now. 13 W here there has been I think some controversy is 14 w hether or not inside the box things have to be the 15 s ame. Right? 16 I know for a fact that ballast manufacturers 17 h ave multiple bills of materials. And for them a basic 18 m odel is interoperability, and you substitute one for 19 t he other. But they can -- inside the box they can be 20 v ery different, depending on the price of materials. 21 T ransformers is the same way. It's an interoperability 22 i ssue. Take one, put the other one, does it work. But

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 65 1 t hey can be made out of different steels, completely 2 d ifferent designs. 3 Again, it's driven by the cost of materials 4 o n any given day when they build it. So when I read 5 c omments, sometimes people use the word "basic model" 6 a s a way of saying, well we only -- there are a lot of 7 a ccessories, and in this industry it sounds like 8 s ometimes those accessories can impact the rating. 9 And should they be certified individually 10 b ased on their own test results and their own modeling, 11 o r should they be certified based on what you might 12 c all the bare bones model. And so when you pull a 13 m odel out of distribution, you would -- you know, you 14 m ight test that unit, and you may not get the same 15 r ating as the certified model, the basic model, because 16 t hose accessories were added. 17 So I think this becomes a discussion about, 18 w hen you test, which accessories should you be looking 19 a t? Does that -- 20 MR. EISNER: Karen? 21 MR. RIVEST: And it's different for white 22 g oods, because they are -- it's different for white

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 66 1 g oods. 2 MS. MEYERS: On that we agree, yes. 3 MR. RIVEST: But a basic model, it has got to 4 b e something that you can trace to a -- when you pull a 5 p roduct and you test it, and you look in the 6 c ertification database, you can say, "Okay. This is 7 w hat we are measuring it against." 8 Whereas, I have seen in comments, definitions 9 o f basic model, that say that you -- basic models can 10 h ave different ratings. Well, maybe as you apply it, 11 t hey can. But as far as DOE is concerned, it has to 12 h ave the same rating. It doesn't have to have the same 13 p hysical construction, but it has to have the same 14 r ating. And I think interoperability is kind of 15 e mbedded in that. All right? 16 So you can't have a basic -- in DOE's mind, 17 h aving a two-ton unit and a 10-ton unit, that can't be 18 t he same basic model. They can be certified using the 19 s ame AEDM. They could be part of the same basic model 20 g roup. And I don't even think we need the term "basic 21 m odel group" anymore. We just need an AEDM that can 22 c ome up with a rating for a particular product, and

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 67 1 t hen we have to decide what a basic unit is, so that we 2 d on't have to test everything. 3 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman from 4 N ational. I just want to get clarification also on -- a 5 m anufacturer, the way I'm reading it, has -- and, 6 a gain, our discussion about basic models kind of came 7 o ut of how many tests we have to do to substantiate or 8 v erify, or whatever you want to call it, pre-verify an 9 A EDM. 10 Whether you have 100 or 1,000 basic models, 11 t hat doesn't affect how many tests you have to do to 12 s ubstantiate your AEDM. That just -- it goes to how 13 y ou apply your AEDM when you are using it. So my 14 o pinion is we ought to stay on AEDMs. I think the 15 i ssue of basic models needs to be discussed as we move 16 a long, but that doesn't affect how you are going to 17 s ubstantiate an AEDM if that was the issue on the table 18 w hen we were first talking. 19 MR. EISNER: I have a comment from Ron. I 20 d on't know if he might change his mind as a result of 21 e arlier discussions, but he says, "We will not be able 22 t o successfully move forward until everyone agrees to

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 68 1 t he BMG definition." Other thoughts? 2 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. I would 3 l ike if DOE would please read what the current 4 d efinition of a basic model is, and if we can get an 5 a ssessment from the manufacturers at the table whether 6 o r not that is reasonable and useful, and then maybe we 7 c an move forward. 8 MR. THARP: This is Rusty with Goodman. 10 9 C FR 431 actually has a different definition of "basic 10 m odel" for the various products; correct? 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: It's the same, though. It's 12 t he same. 13 MS. BARHYDT: It's more or less the same. 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. Are you ready? "Basic 15 m odel means all units of a given type of covered 16 p roduct, or class thereof, manufactured by one 17 m anufacturer, having the same primary energy source, 18 a nd which have essentially identical electrical, 19 p hysical, and functional or hydraulic characteristics 20 t hat affect energy consumption, energy efficiency, 21 w ater consumption, or water efficiency." That one 22 h appened to be the commercial package boiler one, but

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 69 1 t hey're identical for the products we're speaking of 2 h ere. 3 MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest again. As I read 4 t hat, as I hear that, I don't think so much about what 5 i s inside the box as what is coming out of the box, the 6 i nteroperability, so the same electrical, mechanical. 7 T hat means that you can take out one and put the other 8 i n, and it will provide, if it's a ballast, the same 9 v oltage, the same amps. 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. I mean, the Department 11 h as clarified that, and the only thing we have said is 12 i t has the same rating. So, in other words, you can 13 c hange out things as you may like, but at the end of 14 t he day it comes out with the same efficiency. 15 MR. RIVEST: Right. Well, it has to have the 16 s ame -- 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: It says "essentially," so 18 t here is some -- 19 MR. RIVEST: Essentially the same electrical, 20 m echanical. 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: Essentially. 22 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel with Mitsubishi.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 70 1 T hat becomes problematic for split systems because what 2

- - you know, you've got the common condenser, but then 3 y ou end up matching that condenser with various air 4 h andlers or things of that nature. And then you can 5 e nd up with different efficiency levels. 6 And also, within our product types, you have 7 d ifferent voltages, which essentially you get the same 8 r atings; you are just operating at a different voltage. 9 A nd so that would -- this would kind of imply that each 10 v oltage would be a different model, and then each 11 e fficiency level would be a different model. 12 MR. RIVEST: Not if it doesn't affect the 13 r ating. 14 MR. EISNER: Can you go to the mic? 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: So can I ask you a question, 16 t wo questions. One is you said, "This is the issue." 17 W hat exactly is the issue? Is it that you want to rate 18 t hem at the same level? Is it that you need a single 19 s imulation to rate them all, you don't want to test 20 t hem all? What is the issue? 21 MR. DOPPEL: The issue becomes a condenser 22 s hould be the base model. That should form the base

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 71 1 m odel, because that is the primary -- 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: For what, though? For 3 t esting? 4 MR. DOPPEL: For testing. For every -- and 5 f or model number and for a model, and then whatever it 6 i s connected with, and then I think that in some way 7 a pplies to the package units, too, because there is -- 8 l ike it's a basic unit, and then everything that you 9 c onnect that with comes off of that. So that, then, 10 s hould be the base model. 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. So -- 12 MR. EISNER: Why should that be the base 13 m odel for testing, if I understand you to say each one 14 w ould give you a different result? 15 MR. DOPPEL: Because you can simulative off 16 o f that. 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: So is it your opinion that 18 e ach base model should be tested to substantiate an 19 A EDM? 20 MR. DOPPEL: No. It's just coming up with 21 t he definition of what a base model was. 22 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I think we're mixing

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 72 1 t erms, right? So there's two things -- and we can take 2 t he terms off the table -- what you test and then what 3 y ou actually put a number on, how you rate, right? 4 So the question of basic model for DOE's 5 p urposes is -- we have used them both ways, but it is - 6

- we have said they have to have the same rating. We 7 d on't say every basic model has to be tested; we say a 8 s ubset of them. So it's a matter of -- 9 MS. HOOTMAN: Say they have some rating that 10

- - the same rating -- sorry, this is Jill Hootman from 11 T rane. You say that they have to have the same rating, 12 b ut you also say that they have to have the essential 13 i dentical power. So here is the problem. You can have 14

- - I have a model number that has 47 digits; 19 of 15 t hose digits have something to do with energy. 16 Nineteen of those digits I can literally have 17 a different system kW; therefore, a slight difference 18 i n SEER when I change motor vendors. And I have five 19 a pproved motor vendors. 20 So, yeah, you're right. I mean, I do shop 21 m otor vendors. At any one time I could have different 22 m otors in there. It is de minimis, I would say, in my

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 73 1 d efinition. It's very de minimis. We are out into the 2 d ecimal points, but it is a different system kW. 3 So if you were to pull it, and you were to 4 t est it, it would be a different system kW. We would 5 l ikely rate that in a grouping at the lowest common 6 d enominator, but, still, it is a different system kW. 7 MR. RIVEST: You know, in transformers, for 8 e xample, some transformers have multiple voltages. 9 T hey can operate at -- you know, at -- they are called 10 T APs, and we basically tell them to rate that -- the 11 o ne that gives you the least deficient rating. 12 MS. HOOTMAN: Right. And that's what I'm 13 s aying is I -- 14 MR. RIVEST: And that can be the same basic 15 m odel. 16 MS. HOOTMAN: -- likely would, but in 17 a ctuality it is not the same identical. It is not 18 e ssentially identical. 19 MR. RIVEST: Okay. 20 MS. HOOTMAN: So the definition -- 21 MS. BARHYDT: So we can tweak the words 22 MR. RIVEST: Right.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 74 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: What are the words that we 2 w ant to -- 3 MS. HOOTMAN: Well, that's where, I mean, I 4 s ort of agree with Paul, if we can come to a common 5 d escription amongst our product or the manufacturer 6 g roups, or however you want to -- 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: Is your common description 8 f or what has to be rated or what has to be tested? 9 B ecause they are very different things. 10 MR. RIVEST: I think we are talking rating 11 h ere, because testing -- you just have to test five and 12 g et -- 13 MS. HOOTMAN: Right. And we would also have 14 t o have verification. And if that verification comes 15 i n significantly different -- 16 MR. RIVEST: That verification would be 17 a gainst the -- 18 MS. HOOTMAN: -- and one is significant 19 v ersus -- 20 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. Aren't 21 w e really asking what the allowable tolerance is for 22 t he AEDM?

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 75 1 MS. HOOTMAN: Part of it is the tolerance. 2 MR. STEPHENS: Because if it's inside the 3 a llowable tolerance, then it would be acceptable, 4 r ight? 5 MS. HOOTMAN: Part of it is that. I agree. 6 MS. BARHYDT: So some of this seems to me, 7 a gain, while I personally don't really understand why 8 t he definition of "basic model" is important to AEDM, 9 a nd how much you have to test, because how you 10 u ltimately end up making those determinations of these 11

- - if I switch out these five different motors, and 12 i t's de minimis difference, is that going to change the 13 w ay you do your model? 14 MS. HOOTMAN: No. It's not going to change 15 t he way we do our model. In fact, we wouldn't have 16 t ested all of those five, and may not necessarily know 17 w e are -- 18 MS. BARHYDT: So the question for 19 s ubstantiation -- 20 MS. HOOTMAN: -- knowing that there is a 21 v ariation. 22 MS. BARHYDT: -- is how much do you have to

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 76 1 t est to be able to run your model? It's not -- we 2 d on't have to say, "Test five basic models to have an 3 A EDM." We don't have to say, "Have three different 4 p roduct classes to have an AEDM." 5 We can say -- for the purposes of discussion, 6 w hat we're saying is, "You tell us what you need to 7 t est to be able to do your AEDM." If it's individual 8 m odels, if it's basic models, if it's basic model 9 g roups, if it's product classes, if it's, oh, I can 10 h ave an AEDM that will predict CRE, HVAC, and 11 c ommercial package boilers." 12 We're saying, "You tell us what you need to 13 t est to be able to come up with a good model." And 14 w ithout the terminology, without the ideas of, well, I 15 g rouped this way, and I grouped that way, what do you 16 n eed to test? How many tests do you need to have, and 17 h ow broad do you need to be testing to come up with a 18 g ood model? 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: And I think from the 20 D epartment's perspective, it is not that we have an 21 o pinion on a minimum threshold. It's that a lot of the 22 c omments seem to reveal that there should be some type

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 77 1 o f minimal level playing field. In other words, these 2 s hould be the minimum requirements that are required 3 a cross the board. 4 And then, from there you guys are the 5 e xperts. You guys come up with your models. You guys 6 p ull -- you weight your tolerance versus your 7 m anufacturing practices from there. But there did seem 8 t o be some of the comments that say, "DOE should have a 9 m inimum threshold at least for those people wanting to 10 u se an AEDM to get into the market." What is that 11 m inimum threshold? What should it be? What does it 12 l ook like? 13 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. In 14 t erms of if testing is required for a basic model, DOE 15 h as stated that there need to be a minimum -- 16 MS. BARHYDT: Real quick. For clarification, 17 s o we are talking the -- what do I have to test? I do 18 n ot have an AEDM? Or what do I have to test so I can 19 u se an AEDM? Because those are different. 20 MR. KLEISS: Apart from an AEDM, if I have a 21 b asic model, DOE has stated that you have to test -- 22 r un at least two tests, so that you can have

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 78 1 s tatistical evaluation to validate that basic model. 2 Now, if we are using that basic model to 3 s ubstantiate or validate an AEDM, therefore, you have 4 t o have at least two tests of that basic model. 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's now how the regs are 6 p roposed. 7 MR. KLEISS: Okay. 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's not how the existing 9 A EDMs are written, or regs are written, or what was 10 p roposed. It was a single test for what we're calling 11 s ubstantiations less validation. 12 MR. KLEISS: Okay. So then only if we are 13 g oing to define a product or a product family as a 14 b asic model, then we would have to have two tests to 15 v alidate that -- 16 MS. ARMSTRONG: If you are going to use the 17 r oute of testing, period, to come up with a rating, 18 c ertification testing requires two. If you are going 19 t o use simulation methods to come up with your rating, 20 t hen you follow the simulation route. There are two 21 s eparate routes leading you ultimately to a rating. 22 Y ou can pick which one you use. That's the premise

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 79 1 b ehind our regs. That's not to say that -- but that's 2 t he idea. 3 Manufacturers, at the outset, this is 4 e verything I make. I can choose the testing, purely 5 t esting route, in which Mike would be happy, or I can 6 c hoose, you know, a combination, mostly simulation with 7 s ome first behind testing, and then some subsequent 8 t esting just to make sure. 9 And the question is, which route do you 10 c hoose is totally up to you. Our regs provide an 11 a venue for both right now, and that's what we're 12 d iscussing today. 13 MR. KOJAK: This is Mike Kojak with UL. I 14 h ad a question. Why should you set a minimum of 15 t esting to set for an AEDM when it should be up to the 16 m anufacturer because they want to be able to pass. If 17 t hey are being verified by the DOE, they want to make 18 s ure that their AEDM is accurate. 19 So if they want to just do one test, and it's 20 n ot that accurate, well, when they get verified, then 21 t hey are going to be caught that it is not that 22 a ccurate, and they will have to do the testing and

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 80 1 e verything anyway. 2 MS. BARHYDT: So something that we received a 3 l ot of comments on to the original proposal was that a 4 l ot of manufacturers felt like if there wasn't some 5 m inimum amount testing up front, it would be too easy 6 f or manufacturers to pick numbers, stick it out there, 7 a nd gamble on whether or not they were caught, and that 8 t here needed to be some minimum amount of testing up 9 f ront to make sure that there was at least some 10 d isincentive for people to just make up numbers. 11 And so how much -- how to weigh that concern 12 a gainst the burden of testing is an open question. But 13 t hat was the concern that was expressed by a lot of 14 d ifferent people in the comments. 15 MR. KOJAK: It's Mike Kojak again. So, but 16 w ouldn't you think the manufacturers would want to have 17 a s accurate AEDM as possible by doing plenty of 18 t esting? So, you know, if the DOE so happens to -- 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: I would say, ask them. 20 MR. KOJAK: -- to pick your product for a 21 t hird party lab to verify that it's actually going to 22 b e hitting the numbers that you came up with with your

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 81 1 A EDM? 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: I would say, ask you guys in 3 t he room. I mean, we got comments that said there 4 s hould be some minimum amount. There should be some 5 m inimum amount. Are you comfortable with not having a 6 m inimum testing requirement and letting anyone, no 7 m atter if they are new into the market or anything 8 e lse, using an AEDM at will, with no minimum 9 r equirements on it? 10 MS. DANE: This is Mary Dane at Traulsen. I 11 h ave to go along with what Mike is saying. It is in 12 t he best interest of a manufacturer to make sure that 13 t heir AEDM is very strong. And so, therefore, you 14 k now, I don't -- I think that's why some people are 15 a sking about the models is because, you know, depending 16 o n the breadth of your model family, you would have to 17 t est -- you could test one, you could test more. 18 It should be up to the manufacturer to decide 19 h ow we substantiate our own mathematical equation, 20 b ecause when we get to verification the costs of these 21 t ests, the time it takes to run, just the effort that 22 w e put into it, is not going to mean -- I mean, we are

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 82 1 n ot going to try to fudge the numbers and then get to 2 v erification and find out we have products that don't 3 q ualify. 4 So I think that the -- I understand what your 5 c omments say, but I wonder if there was a disconnect 6 o ver whether they were talking about substantiation or 7 v alidation or enforcement, because they are all three 8 d ifferent things. And I would say at the 9 s ubstantiation level it is the manufacturer's 10 r esponsibility to make sure that whatever mathematical 11 e quation they choose is strong enough to pass 12 c ertification testing. 13 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp with Goodman. I'd 14 l ike to throw in that, you know, one of the things I 15 t hink we all may not understand is that there is -- in 16 t esting, there is uncertainty, uncertainty just from 17 t he measurement aspect. And I think that it is -- 18 t here is enough uncertainty that we would not want to 19 s ay that a manufacturer could go in -- any manufacturer 20 c ould go in with one set of test data to base their 21 A EDM on. 22 And I think probably something I should have

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 83 1 j ust said earlier, it would be good I think if we made 2 a differentiation between those manufacturers that are 3 p art of a voluntary industry certification program and 4 t hose that are not, because those that are a part of 5 t he VICP will have their products validated later, you 6 k now, on a continual basis. But those that are not 7 p art of a VICP, or those that can go for months or 8 y ears putting product in the field that are not 9 c ompliant, would not be caught. 10 So I would just suggest that maybe even to 11 t he point of, you know, we already moved off the topic 12 o f preapproval, but maybe we would say that preapproval 13 i s not necessary if you are a VICP. But if you're not 14 p art of a VICP, then you do need preapproval for -- 15 MR. EISNER: Is that the nub of the issue, 16 t hat there will be -- it will be too difficult for DOE 17 t o enforce or ensure compliance if there is not a 18 m inimum level of testing required? 19 MR. THARP: If they are not part -- if their 20 m anufacturer is not part of VICP, I would say yes. 21 MR. EISNER: But if you're part of one of 22 t hese special groups, I assume you are meeting the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 84 1 m inimum level that DOE was suggesting. 2 MR. THARP: Correct. Yes, that is true. 3 MR. EISNER: So you're afraid others won't 4 m eet that, if not required to, and it will be difficult 5 f or DOE to pick up all of the violators. 6 MR. THARP: Correct. So I would say that, 7 y ou know, if one of my competitors that are in the room 8 w ho are part of AHRI, if they want to test one and do 9 t heir AEDM, I'm personally fine with that because I 10 k now that they will be audited, and that I also have a 11 m ethod through AHRI of challenging their ratings, and 12 a lso -- but if somebody is not part of AHRI 13 c ertification programs, then it is much more difficult 14 f or me to challenge those ratings. It takes a little 15 b it longer to do that. 16 MR. EISNER: And does DOE have a perspective 17 o n the minimum number, in terms of whether you can 18 e nforce compliance satisfactorily if a manufacturer 19 d etermines how many tests it is going to do? Or do you 20 f eel there has got to be some minimum level of testing 21 d one? 22 MS. BARHYDT: Enforcement would be based on

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 85 1 t esting after the fact. It wouldn't be based on the 2 t est -- well, I guess it could be based on the test up 3 f ront, if it turned out that they hadn't done the 4 t esting, if we have minimum requirements, but -- 5 MR. EISNER: If you have minimum 6 r equirements, as I understand it, they are going to 7 h ave to meet that before you do any compliance checks. 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: We can check with -- 9 MS. BARHYDT: We can check. 10 MR. EISNER: You can check what? I'm sorry. 11 MS. BARHYDT: We can do compliance testing 12 r egardless of whether they are using an AEDM or not. 13 MR. EISNER: What I think I'm hearing around 14 t he table is a concern that you can't do enough 15 c ompliance checking to get the bad guys in all 16 s ituations who wouldn't do enough testing. And are you 17 d isagreeing with that, that you would have the 18 r esources to get all of the bad guys out of the 19 m arketplace? I mean, it's easier -- as I understand 20 i t, it's easier to go and check a record and see, did 21 y ou do the two tests that were required, than it is to 22 g o out and do the tests and find out they failed.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 86 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I think for the most part 2

- - I mean, there are some caveats, but for the most 3 p art our enforcement regs would require us to test 4 a nyway. So we would -- regardless of whether they 5 t ested up front, you know, put aside the fact that they 6 d idn't do anything, but if they did test, they had test 7 d ata that showed they were compliant or they had 8 s ubstantiated their AEDM and met the minimum 9 r equirements. 10 In order for us to show noncompliance, we 11 w ould have to test anyway. Period. 12 MR. EISNER: You would have to test anyway to 13 d o it, but would there be a violation for failure to do 14 t he required tests up front? 15 MS. BARHYDT: If there was a substantiation 16 r equirement, yes. 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: But it's not noncompliance. 18 MS. BARHYDT: But it's a different kind of a 19 v iolation. 20 MR. EISNER: Any other reactions? Charlie? 21 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. Is there any -- 22 b ecause we as an industry test our competitors all of

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 87 1 t he time. It is an ongoing event. Everybody in this 2 r oom tests some of their competitive units. What 3 h appens when we discover that our competitors we know 4 a re cheating? 5 Do we turn them into you and then you proceed 6 w ith -- do you have an action process to do that? And, 7 i f so, you will probably never get to your own 8 v alidation testing, because we have so many people 9 r unning around doing other things. They could easily 10 b e pointed out to you. 11 MR. CYMBALSKY: We haven't gotten that email 12 y et. 13 MS. BARHYDT: We do have a process for 14 e nforcement testing. 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, I think it's fair to 16 s ay to date we have plenty of bandwidth to do both. 17 MS. BARHYDT: Right. 18 MR. EISNER: Before we go on, Ron has a 19 q uestion online. Or a comment, rather. Ron? 20 MR. SHEBIK: I'm sorry, Neil. Did you say 21 R on? 22 MR. EISNER: Yes. Ron Shebik?

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 88 1 MR. SHEBIK: Yeah. Actually, I'm kind of -- 2 I had a comment kind of going along with what Charlie 3 j ust commented on. There is too much at stake for 4 m anufacturers to just throw out numbers. And as 5 C harlie just mentioned, we would be nato think that we 6 a re not watching what our competitors are doing. 7 So we kind of have a pretty good idea of what 8 o ur competitor case is, looking -- again, commercial 9 r efrigeration, we have a pretty good idea of how our 10 c ompetitors' cases operate. So kind of going back on 11 s ome earlier discussion, I think the need to focus so 12 h ard on basic model groups, maybe that is not actually 13 a reality, because the AEDM that we develop is going to 14 b e developed to make sure it includes all of our 15 p roducts, regardless of how you define a basic model 16 g roup. 17 MR. EISNER: Any comments? Frank? 18 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik with AHRI. I 19 t hink this conversation started with the question of 20 w hether there should be some minimum criteria for an 21 A EDM. And I think if you are going to accept, which I 22 t otally agree with, that there is no preapproval

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 89 1 r equirements, I think there needs to be a minimum. 2 You know, it is all true. Every 3 m anufacturer, you know, certainly knows what they need 4 t o do for their own products. Okay? But the fact is 5 t hat the test procedures have their nuances, okay? The 6 t est procedure -- you have to learn how to do the test 7 p rocedures. Everybody's product may have their own 8 l ittle unique little -- what they hope is little 9 a dvantages or whatever. 10 And I think that, yeah, everybody, you know, 11 w ants to do everything that is right, but competition 12 i s a double-edged sword, and certainly is a wonderful 13 t hing, you know. But in any case, I think it is useful 14 t o -- in the circumstances where there is no 15 p reapproval requirements, they have some minimum 16 d efinition of what would be, let's say, an acceptable 17 A EDM. 18 Even in our own programs, if we have somebody 19 e ntering in the AHRI program who is totally new to 20 t his, okay, so we have no knowledge that they, let's 21 s ay, have experience in running DOE test procedures, or 22 t hey are totally new to the program, we apply some

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 90 1 d ifferent criteria to that new manufacturer entering 2 t he program, because, you know, there just isn't that 3 h istory. 4 Now, you know, I think everybody sits there 5 a nd thinks, well, we're talking about, you know, 6 e verybody who has been in the business. Well, let's 7 j ust say that, you know, I wanted to set up Frank's Air 8 C onditioning Company because I was insane I guess to 9 g et into that business and didn't know anything about 10 a ir conditioning, but I'm going to be out there, you 11 k now, competing with everybody else. 12 And, quite frankly, I would -- you know, if - 13

- well, certainly in my case, if you asked all of the 14 m anufacturers, well, would you let Frank determine what 15 h is AEDM is going to be? They'd better say no, because 16 I would probably -- you know, without the knowledge and 17 t he experience, and the fact I'm trying to get into the 18 m arket, I'm probably going to undershoot what would 19 r eally be needed. I mean, to me that's just, you know, 20 a practical consideration. 21 MR. EISNER: I'm having trouble getting 22 t hrough this gap here where DOE seems to believe it has

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 91 1 e nough of a compliance program to ensure that whatever 2 n umber of tests have to be done will have been done or 3 t he product will fail and they will be able to go after 4 t he company. 5 And I'm hearing from apparently the 6 m anufacturers that they are not satisfied that this 7 w ill get the bad guys. Is it because they won't get 8 t hem quick enough, or they won't get them in the end, 9 a nd why? What is the concern? 10 Harvey, do you want to speak on behalf of the 11 m anufacturers? 12 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey. I want to speak 13 o n behalf of broader community, and we have a case 14 s tudy within the last five years of a product class 15 t hat is not in itself regulated, but a component of mix 16 a nd match air conditioning systems where it appears 17 t hat one manufacturer really did use simulations to 18 c onsistently defy the laws of physics and got away from 19 i t -- got away with it for a number of years for a 20 v ariety of reasons, including some reluctance of AHRI 21 t o intervene and get tough for whatever reasons. 22 And I think that is the gorilla in the room

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 92 1 n ow that -- how do we make it just difficult enough for 2 s omeone who is determined to cut corners to get away 3 w ith it for years? And I think everyone in the room 4 p robably remembers that case, and I may not have all of 5 t he particulars right, but there were an awful lot of 6 r ebates given for products that were way deficient in 7 t erms of their field measured performance and back 8 c alculating to their test performance as well. 9 MR. EISNER: Others? 10 MR. SACHS: Let me just say I don't know what 11 t he answer is, but I think that is the pervasive fear, 12 n ot only in industry but in other groups. Marshall 13 w ould probably verify that the utilities are not real 14 c omfortable with giving rebates for defective 15 e quipment, and things like that. 16 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers. 17 MR. HALLEY: Geoff Halley with American 18 B oiler Manufacturers Association. I have been sort of 19 s truggling all morning with the fact that I am 20 r epresenting a group of manufacturers who have very 21 d ifferent capabilities in terms of engineering and 22 t esting, and so on and so forth.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 93 1 And, in fact, a lot of them have got a lot of 2 h istorical data based on certain rules that have 3 p revailed in the boiler industry for a long time. And 4 i n many cases they can meet the DOE published minimum 5 e fficiency standards with what they have. Does the 6 h istorical data play any part in this situation or not? 7 MS. BARHYDT: So the proposal of the 8 D epartment was that the testing had to be done in 9 a ccordance with the DOE test procedure. But there is 10 n othing that says it has to -- the testing has to start 11 a t some point after the date in which the final rule is 12 p ublished. 13 So if someone had test data that was done in 14 a ccordance with the DOE test procedure prior to the 15 d ate of the rule, there is no reason why that couldn't 16 b e used. 17 MR. HALLEY: Right. The next thing is that 18 s ome of the people who are making larger units don't 19 h ave the capability of testing them in-house, and I 20 d on't think there is a facility such as UL or people 21 l ike that who can verify their efficiency claims until 22 t hey put them in the field. At that point, the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 94 1 o perating parameters could be entirely different to the 2 s tandards that DOE have set forth there, for example, 3 B TS 2000. 4 MS. BARHYDT: So the issue there is that 5 t here is no realistic way to actually test the full 6 s pectrum of products being offered. 7 MR. HALLEY: Right. And so you can't test 8 t he extreme ends of a spectrum of sizes. You've got to 9 t est some smaller sizes to verify the AEDM. 10 MS. BARHYDT: So DOE's original proposal was 11 t o require testing I believe within 25 percent of the 12 t op range. 13 MR. HALLEY: Yeah. 14 MS. BARHYDT: But, again, we are asking you, 15 w hat do you need to be able to test to be able to come 16 u p with a valid simulation? 17 MR. HALLEY: Well, I think, you know, some 18 m anufacturers, for example, who get into the 19 i nstitutional marketplace may have boilers that have 20 g ot a 30 million BTU input. And their lab facilities 21 m ay only be able to accommodate, I don't know, nine or 22 1 0 million BTU input. I don't know whether anybody

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 95 1 e lse wants to comment on that, but -- 2 MR. SUTPHEN: This is John Sutphen at 3 C leaver- Brooks. We make hot water boilers, 2,000 4 h orsepower, which is very difficult to test in-house 5 w ithout spending a little over a million dollars in 6 e quipment. And to be able to test the lowest and the 7 h ighest range on certain boiler models of those 8 c apacities is just -- it doesn't make sense using the 9 B TS 2000 parameters. 10 We have done for the last 60 years -- used 11 t he ASME PTC-4 efficiency calculation method, and 12 t hrough other testing we have verified that it is a 13 v ery accurate method of determining efficiency on fire 14 t o boilers. We propose that it is included as an 15 a lternate efficiency test in lieu of the BTS 2000 or 16 a nything else that is proposed. It's just -- 17 MS. BARHYDT: So I think that was one of the 18 t est procedure issues that was raised in the first 19 m eeting that we said would be a test procedure issue 20 f or a rulemaking outside of the scope of this 21 r ulemaking. 22 MR. SUTPHEN: Okay.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 96 1 MR. EISNER: We've got somebody at the 2 m icrophone, but, first, I've got three questions here, 3 t wo from Pantelis. Does DOE understand the process 4 A HRI is using to validate the published data? His 5 s econd question is, what would it take for DOE to 6 a ccept the existing AHRI process of validation for 7 V CIP? 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: VICP. 9 MS. BARHYDT: So I think that's a secondary 10 q uestion. I mean, to the extent we still have the 11 i ssue of, what do you do for people -- I mean, to the 12 e xtent we get to the portion of the negotiation to talk 13 a bout verification programs, what they look like, what 14 d o we accept, should the requirements be different, we 15 s till have the issue of, what are the requirements for 16 t hose people that are not members? 17 And so what -- I mean, to Frank's point, you 18 s aid maybe there should be some or maybe you could 19 e xplain, what do you require in your program of new 20 e ntrants? And what are some ideas here? What should 21 b e that minimum level for either people that aren't 22 g etting regularly verified or for people that are new

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 97 1 e ntrants to a verification program, or whatever it is? 2 That's really what we're talking about here. 3 A nd then, to the extent we want to differentiate later 4 b etween those and not, I mean, you still have this 5 m inimum threshold that needs to be met always. So that 6 i s where we are. 7 Ideas? 8 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI 9 I ndustries. 10 MR. EISNER: I've got one more question for 11 s omebody who has been holding online. Bruce Helft has 12 a comment. Bruce? Are you still there, Bruce? 13 (No response.) 14 O kay. Go ahead. Did you want to -- we may have lost 15 h im. 16 MR. MYERS: From the outside here, it has 17 r eally been interesting seeing the -- this is Frank 18 M yers, PVI Industries -- seeing the round and round of 19 t his. We are going from how many tests are needed for 20 a n AEDM to how do we catch the bad players to what test 21 p rogram and how large a unit in a lab can be. 22 I would really like to attempt to have the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 98 1 g roup stay on task as close as possible. And to that 2 e nd, I agree with a much earlier statement by Frank 3 S tanonik -- and this is coming from a manufacturer who 4 w orks very closely with AHRI. I participate on the 5 r ule-writing process as a non-voting member on how the 6 p rograms work, the certification programs work, but 7 m ake build-to-order type equipment that doesn't really 8 f it that program very well. 9 So I am kind of on both sides of that issue, 10 b ut I agree with Frank that there does need to be some 11 v alidation testing. I think that should be part of the 12 r equirement. I think that information should be turned 13 i nto the Department, so that they know that it has been 14 d one, but that you don't have to wait to sell the 15 p roduct for that review to take place. 16 Now, whether that is one unit or five units 17 w ith two of them being in the most -- the highest 18 v olume, and three being the manufacturer's choice of 19 w hat best validates their AEDM, I do think there should 20 b e some, and I think that information should be turned 21 i n. 22 With reference to a much earlier statement

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 99 1 t hat I tried to comment on, I don't think this program 2 c an be the technique by which we catch all of the bad 3 p layers. AHRI has a mechanism internally that can take 4 c are of its own bad players. It also has the process 5 w here you can take somebody that doesn't participate in 6 t he program and check theirs. 7 Likewise, I think it is very potent for 8 m anufacturers to be able to provide information to DOE, 9 s o that they can take action. And I think if we have a 10 w ell-defined program, AEDM program, that has a certain 11 n umber of tests required and a part of that makes clear 12 t o the manufacturers that must turn that validation 13 i nformation into the Department, they are going to know 14 t hat they are at risk. 15 And if they are bad players, the industry 16 w ill catch them because we watch each other like a 17 h awk, and we will either turn it into AHRI or to DOE or 18 t ake those steps that will get those bad players out of 19 t he market. I don't think we can do that on the front 20 e nd beyond making sure that they meet the minimum 21 r equirements that this group establishes for the AEDM. 22 MR. EISNER: Other comments/suggestions? I

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 100 1 a gree, we do seem to be on a variety of different 2 p laces, and we don't seem to have much consensus on any 3 o ne of these positions so far. There was some talk 4 a bout having manufacturers at least get together during 5 l unch to talk about whether they can come up with an 6 a pproach. Anybody want to talk about that? 7 MS. HOOTMAN: I was just going to answer your 8 e arlier question. Minimum is two tests for 9 q ualification. 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: No matter the scope of the 11 A EDM? 12 MS. HOOTMAN: No. When you were asking about 13 h ow many for qualification into AHRI programs, minimum 14 i s two tests. Some programs are more than that, but 15 t he general OM is minimum two tests for qualification 16 t o even get into a program. 17 MR. STANONIK: Are you asking about the 18 d ifference? 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, yeah. So just help me 20 u nderstand that. By "programs," do you mean like into 21 t he small unitary? Is that a program? 22 MR. STANONIK: Yes.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 101 1 MS. HOOTMAN: Uh-huh. 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: And then large would 3 s eparate. So it's basically by the test procedure? 4 MS. HOOTMAN: 360 would be separate. 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. I mean, so that's -- 6 y eah, that's pretty much like ours. 7 MS. HOOTMAN: That is just the minimum. Each 8 o ne of those programs might have something different. 9 F or instance, VRF has something different, which 10 a ctually goes more than that. I would say that is the 11 m inimum. 12 MR. RIVEST: Why don't we start with that. 13 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. I think 14 I have been one of the main drivers as far as the whole 15 b asic model's foundational argument, and I'm willing to 16 s et that aside and move forward. I'm recognizing that 17 h ow we use the basic model and how we substantiate our 18 p roducts is test-based. What you are talking about is 19 A EDM-based. 20 And I believe that there is some 21 m isunderstanding as far as what is -- how we believe 22 t hat AEDM applies to that or the potential test burden

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 102 1 t hat it applies. I am willing to set that aside so we 2 c an move forward and talk about substantiation and 3 v alidation, and then hopefully uncover those problems 4 t here. 5 So I can -- I will quiet down about basic 6 m odel, so we can move forward. 7 MS. BARHYDT: So do you have a suggestion for 8 s ubstantiation? 9 MS. ARMSTRONG: Hey, Jeremiah, could you put 10 u p Slide 18? 11 So, yeah, to get to your point -- and this 12 d oesn't match up identically to what you're talking 13 a bout exactly, but one of the options we just floated, 14 w e are calling substantiation classes, but basically, 15 y ou know, you would test something from each of these 16 c ategories. And this is just to start the discussions 17 w ith an idea. 18 And maybe this level of disaggregated classes 19 i sn't necessary -- maybe more is necessary; I don't 20 k now -- but to start the conversation with an idea. 21 MS. HOOTMAN: So as you have them grouped 22 t here -- this is Jill from Trane -- the air-cooled

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 103 1 s plit systems and the air-cooled package obviously are 2 u nder one AHRI program, split by tonnages of course, 3 6 5,000 BTUs and less, and 65,000 BTUs and above. 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: All of them? All the way out 5 t o -- 6 MS. HOOTMAN: So the AHRI program for 210/240 7 w ould be a minimum of two for air-cooled split systems 8 a nd packages. 9 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 10 MS. HOOTMAN: Likewise, for above 65,000 and 11 a bove, it's a minimum of two. 12 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 13 MS. HOOTMAN: So it wouldn't be two splits 14 a nd two packages I guess is what we are trying to say. 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: But it would be four for that 16 c ategory. Is that accurate? 17 MS. HOOTMAN: No, it would actually only be 18 t wo. 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: But even though you have 20 s mall -- even though you have less than 55 -- 21 MS. HOOTMAN: Oh, okay. Yeah, you're right. 22 M inimum of four across all of that. You're right.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 104 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: And that would carry you all 2 t he way up to 72 tons, 70 tons, whatever. 3 MS. HOOTMAN: Right, right. 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 5 MS. HOOTMAN: Right, right. You know, we 6 r eally don't have water-cooled split systems right now 7 i n a certification, nor water-cooled packages, nor 8 e vaporatives. One of those things we still have to get 9 d one. 10 Single package, vertical unit, those would be 11 a minimum, too, and package thermal air conditioning 12 w ould be a minimum, too. 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: And then, VRFs aren't on 14 t here, but they would be the same, a minimum of two? 15 MS. HOOTMAN: And I didn't see water source 16 h eat pumps up there. Or are you just saying that those 17 a re in the water-cooled split systems? 18 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. They are not separated 19 o ut. Okay. So they would be a minimum of two separate 20 f rom -- 21 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel with Mitsubishi. So 22 w ith the air-cooled package, then that would include

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 105 1 g as packs, A/C, and heat pumps, all in one. So the 2 w ater- cooled split system could include VRF, and the 3 a ir-cooled split system could include VRF. 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: But does AHRI have separate 5 c ertification programs for VRFs? 6 MR. DOPPEL: Yes. 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. And it would be the 8 s ame, two. 9 MS. HOOTMAN: Minimum of two. 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: Minimum of two. 11 MS. HOOTMAN: There is actually rules in some 12 o f these cases where we've got more than that, but -- 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: And is that allowed to be 14 d one in a manufacturer's lab, or does that have to be 15 d one in a third party lab? 16 MR. DOPPEL: Third party. 17 MS. HOOTMAN: Third party lab. 18 MR. DOPPEL: Third party. 19 MR. STANONIK: When they are entering the 20 p rogram. 21 MS. HOOTMAN: When they are -- yeah, the 22 q ualification process, yeah.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 106 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: So are those good minimum 2 q ualification requirements that we should consider for 3 a ny entrant, as a minimum threshold? Why or why not? 4 MR. STEPHENS: When you say "minimum," do you 5 m ean testing in a third party lab? 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: No, no, no. I just mean 7 g enerally what you just laid out for what is required 8 t o enter an AHRI -- 9 MR. STEPHENS: For the AEDM. 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. 11 MS. HOOTMAN: Sorry. Jill from Trane. If 12 s omebody wasn't already in a VICP, yes, I think that 13 t hat would be a good minimum requirement. But if we're 14 a lready there, I don't feel like we need to step up 15 m ore testing. 16 MS. BARHYDT: If you're already there, do you 17 a lready have those tests? 18 MS. HOOTMAN: In some cases, we've been there 19 f or 50 years, so probably. I'm a little doubtful if 20 t hat paper is still around, but anyway. 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: But in theory, you would also 22 h ave verification tests from a percentage of units from

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 107 1 t he past couple of years that could also supplement. 2 MS. HOOTMAN: So that's HVAC. Does anyone 3 w ant to explain how it works for CRE? 4 MR. HATCHER: Charlie Hatcher, manufacturing. 5 A quick one for you, because you have eight models 6 l isted there. There are air crawl (ph) versions and 7 r emote versions of each of these. There are 8 r efrigerators, and there are freezers of each of these. 9 S o, therefore, we're sending you up into the 20s. But 10 s ome of these categories are so broad-spectrum that 11 t hey really are not the same products within product 12 c ategories. 13 We will sell a four-cubic-foot countertop 14 r efrigerator. We will also sell a 74-cubic-foot roll15 i n refrigerator, all which that falls into the closed16 d oor category; certainly not within realm of each 17 o ther. We will see display cases with a single glass 18 d oor, with glass door and glass on each side, with two 19 g lass doors, one opposing the other, and glass on each 20 s ide, all of which are totally different products. 21 In third-party verified testing, Energy Star 22 c overs a lot of these products. We have 68 -- no, 78

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 108 1 p roducts which have been third-party verified 2 c ompletely, and most of them would fall into separate 3 c ategories, and variations from that that take it 107 4 e ven more. So the categories get quite large. 5 MS. BARHYDT: So based on that test data, can 6 y ou model it? And what pieces do you need to include 7 i n order to be able to come up with that model? 8 MR. HATCHER: In some cases, we could model 9 t hat. In a lot of cases, we've developed models to 10 p redict, but we still have variation within the test as 11 w ell, because that's where we get into these 12 d iscussions, which we started. With all these 13 d ifferent possibilities we have, we probably end up 14 w ith 80 or 90 base models. There's maybe 180 base 15 m odels, depending on how we split them out. 16 And then we have validation testing within 17 t hose units, and then we also have done -- we've done a 18 l ot more validation testing than that, but it is -- it 19

- - the numbers just keep amplifying, because if you 20 t ake our basic SKUs, you can come up with 18,000 21 p ossibilities. And if we use the word "identical" in 22 t hat 18,000, we have a real problem.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 109 1 Yeah. But it is -- it is in the regs, so 2 t hat's where our problems come in. 3 FEMALE SPEAKER: (Inaudible). 4 MR. HATCHER: Right. Yes. So that's where 5 w e get into these questions of, you know, when you're 6 b uilding a boiler, they just get progressively larger. 7 W hen you get into decorative and marketing tools, they 8 g o in multiple directions. That's where it becomes 9 v ery, very difficult to break out when you get a base 10 m odel. We can develop, and we have developed, a fairly 11 s ophisticated system to understand what goes on in our 12 e quipment, because we make a lot of it, yet we have -- 13 w e don't know the definition of how accurate is 14 a cceptable. 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's next. 16 MR. HATCHER: That's the problem that we're 17 n ow getting into, because we have a lot of test data, 18 a nd we know where we're headed with our ideas of what 19 w e consider validation of a model, but we also have the 20 s pectrum of tolerance within that validation, because 21 w e have done tests on a single unit. 22 They take a unit and put it in the test room

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 110 1 a nd change one condition in the test which is within 2 t he specification of the test range, and change 8 to 12 3 p ercent inside that range, with one variable condition 4 c hange, all within the standard. 5 If we get to 12 percent variation in that 6 u nit, even within the same piece of equipment, we have 7 a problem, because we can change 4 variables and make 8 i t change 15 percent, well within the same spectrum and 9 l egal test. 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: So -- this is Ashley. So, 11 C harlie, a question from you -- for you. I think you 12 s aid you had between 80 and 90, roughly, base models. 13 MR. HATCHER: That's being -- that's being -- 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. On the conservative, 15 l et's just say it's 80 or 90 for -- 16 MR. HATCHER: Yes. 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- discussion purposes. Are 18 y ou proposing that someone, at a minimum, would need to 19 t est that amount of models to have a valid AEDM, and if 20 n ot, what -- 21 MR. HATCHER: Well -- 22 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- would a fraction of that

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 111 1 l ook like? 2 MR. HATCHER: The question is, do you have to 3 d evelop an AEDM for each base model, because there are 4 d ifferences in the way they react. 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: Wouldn't that be dependent 6 u pon you? 7 MR. EISNER: Yes. 8 MR. HATCHER: In some, it would. 9 MR. EISNER: If you were -- if you were DOE, 10 w hat would you feel was necessary? 11 MR. HATCHER: That's the problem, is that I 12 b elieve we need to not necessarily build a number, but 13 b uild a statistical validity model. That is the 14 s tandard clear practice in statistics, is you build 15 y our base model. You verify your base model. You 16 v erify how far off your statistical normality is, if -- 17 b y a test, and if it's too far off, then you have to 18 b ring your -- you have to modify your model. 19 MR. EISNER: So for the 80 or 90, how many 20 b ase models would you have? One or -- 21 MR. HATCHER: Oh, we would have 80 or 90 base 22 m odels.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 112 1 MR. EISNER: But I thought you said no to the 2 q uestion of would you have to test all 80 or 90. 3 MR. HATCHER: Well, I think that we would 4 h ave to test at least some sample of every one of these 5 b ase models, and we've already done that, because a lot 6 o f these products were regulated in 2007 and have yet 7 t o be reported. So we've had the data sitting in the 8 q ueue for a long time. We have a lot of information. 9 A nd that's one of the problems we've had with the DOE 10 i s the fact that there's never been any real submittal 11 b ecause of delays and other issues that are going on. 12 MR. EISNER: So how would you write the rule 13 t o cover your segment of the industry? What would you 14 s ay? 15 MR. HATCHER: I would say that you would have 16 t o be at least 90 percent confidence level of your 17 m odel, of your modeling, within a 12 to 15 percent 18 v ariance as far as the unit -- because the units 19 t hemselves, I can take the same model, the same -- 20 r ight off the line and end up with 5 or 6 percent 21 v ariation all the time. That is inherent in the 22 c omponents, as much as 10 percent variation from one to

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 113 1 t he other. 2 So we have to come up with a discussion here, 3 s tatistical validity versus capability of the system. 4 A nd statistically, we keep looking at 15 percent 5 v ariance as normal, and I don't know how the government 6 d eals with that. 7 MR. EISNER: Government? 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: Well, can I ask a question 9 f irst? This is -- this is going to Frank. Frank, do 10 y ou guys have an up-and-running program for commercial 11 r efrigeration equipment? 12 MR. STANONIK: Running? Yeah. 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: And what is your minimum 14 t hreshold and categories for which you guys run it, and 15 w hat is your tolerance? 16 MR. STANONIK: This is Frank Stanonik with 17 A HRI. I'd have to check back at the office. I don't 18 h ave that -- 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: Does anyone that's -- 20 MR. STANONIK: -- that knowledge. 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: Does anyone know that's 22 e ither on the phone or

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 114 1 MR. EISNER: Ron, are you on the phone? This 2 i s something -- 3 MR. SHEBIK: Yeah. Yes. This is Ron Shebik, 4 H ussmann. Yes, I'm on the phone, but I do not have the 5 a nswer for that. 6 MR. EISNER: Is this something we can 7 MS. HOOTMAN: (Inaudible). 8 MR. EISNER: Is this something we can get 9 o ver lunchtime, or is it harder to get than that? 10 MR. STANONIK: I can get it at lunchtime. 11 Y eah, Frank Stanonik, AHRI. I can get it at lunchtime. 12 MR. EISNER: You want to wait until we have 13 t hat information before we go on to the rest of what 14 C harlie was talking about? 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: No, I mean, I think at some 16 p oint, we're at -- I mean, we are at the point where if 17 I did my math correctly, Jill, you know, you're between 18 t esting 14 and 16 at a minimum if you make products 19 t hat span the whole range for HVAC. 20 MS. BARHYDT: But if you only make a small 21 s ubset of that, it would be as low as two. 22 MS. HOOTMAN: Yes.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 115 1 MR. MUCCIOLA: This is Vince Mucciola. I 2 w anted to back on commercial, if I could, for one 3 s econd. You talked about SPVUs, but earlier I heard 4 y ou say that under 65,000 single phase, that would be 5 r esidential. Could you clear that up, Ashley? Or is 6 S PVUs a separate class all on its own and doesn't 7 q ualify under residential? I just wanted to clear 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: So the answer is yes, SPVUs 9 a re a separate product class all on their own. They 10 c an be single-phase and three-phase. However, they do 11 h ave to meet the definition of SPVU, and they cannot 12 m eet the definition of central air conditioner and heat 13 p ump. So the short answer is yes, but there are some 14 s ubtleties there, so we should probably further flesh 15 t hat out offline. 16 MR. EISNER: We're getting close to offline 17 t ime. Anybody else have any comments? Maybe we should 18 t hink about taking a break for lunch. 19 MS. DANE: Mary Dane, Traulsen. Just as a 20 p oint of clarification for my own -- have we -- we 21 d ecided substantiation and verification are two 22 d ifferent things? Because I'd prefer not to use them

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 116 1 i nterchangeably, because substantiation, I feel, is a 2 m anufacturer's responsibility. Verification is what we 3 t urn over to you. 4 MS. BARHYDT: So substantiation, I think, the 5 w ay we're using it, is testing required prior to using 6 t he AEDM for commercial purposes. 7 MS. DANE: Okay. 8 MS. BARHYDT: And verification is anything 9 a fter that. 10 MS. DANE: Right. So given that, based on 11 p art of what Charlie said, and it runs true in 12 c ommercial refrigeration, especially with different 13 k inds of refrigerators and display cases, I would say 14 t hat we would want to just control that ourselves 15 w ithout having that dictated to us, and then what is 16 v erified would be something different. 17 MS. BARHYDT: With no minimum? 18 MS. DANE: No minimum. It would be -- 19 MS. BARHYDT: Zero? 20 MS. DANE: -- up to the -- that -- well, it's 21 u p to the manufacturer to decide how many models to 22 t est to strengthen and validate his own AEDM. I mean,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 117 1 w e've got to start somewhere, so -- because, I mean, if 2 I have to do 80 miles, it takes a week to run a test. 3 We're a small -- you know, we're a smaller 4 c ompany, and, you know, maybe some of these are higher 5 s ellers, lower sellers, low -- valid -- you know, low 6 q uantity of numbers. We don't want to build everything 7 w e have an inventory -- or a SKU for to run a test on, 8 s o as far as limiting myself to the word 9 " substantiation," that should be up to a manufacturer, 10 a nd then we'll discuss verification testing, because 11 w e're part of an Energy Star program where we do 12 t esting already for that for our other -- our other 13 m odels. So, yeah, substantiation, zero. 14 MR. SACHS: Oh, I'm referring direct -- this 15 i s Harvey Sachs -- referring directly back to Charlie's 16 u rging us to take a statistical validity approach, and 17 t hen the AHRI dogma of two units, unless you're a new 18 g uy, and -- 19 MS. HOOTMAN: Two units when you are a new -- 20 MR. SACHS: It's who -- yeah, it's when you 21 a re a new guy. Excuse me. And just sort of the 22 h istorical question -- Frank may be the only one old

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 118 1 e nough to know -- was that -- was that based on some 2 s ort of statistical analysis, or was that just an 3 a rbitrary threshold that was chosen? 4 MR. STANONIK: What, the two number? Frank 5 S tanonik, AHRI. 6 MR. SACHS: Two. 7 MR. STANONIK: Yeah, I don't know. It goes 8 f urther back than me, so it must be like going back to 9 w ho knows when, but I think it was just better than 10 o ne. I think it was -- 11 MR. SACHS: Well, it's just -- 12 MR. STANONIK: -- that was about it. I mean 13 MR. SACHS: There's just sort of an irony 14 h ere that in the standard-setting processes, there's an 15 e normous amount of very detailed analysis and Monte 16 C arlo simulations and all this sort of stuff. When it 17 c omes to this ADM -- AEDM process, we're sort of voting 18 o n hunches. Just an observation. I don't know any 19 o ther way to do it right now. 20 MR. STANONIK: Just -- Laura, just -- Frank 21 S tanonik, AHRI. I have to react to Harvey's comment. 22 I mean, that's kind of true, but I think we all should

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 119 1 n ot lose sight of the fact -- certainly in the case of 2 t he manufacturers that I know, they're all painfully 3 a ware that, okay, yeah, there's all this AEDM stuff and 4 e verything, but there's a pretty big stick at the end 5 o f the line there and so that if, in fact, they don't 6 h ave their proper ratings and they can't validate that 7 s tuff, you know, there -- there's a very significant 8 p otential penalty that I don't think they ignore. 9 MS. MEYERS: And then this is Karen with 10 R heem, and just to follow on to what Frank said, 11 t here's an annual requirement that you test a third of 12 y our basic models every years. So in addition to once 13 y ou get validated, a third of your basic models are 14 g etting tested every year. 15 MS. HOOTMAN: Depends on the program. 16 MS. MEYERS: That's true. 17 MS. HOOTMAN: Twenty to thirty. 18 MS. MEYERS: Twenty -- 19 MS. HOOTMAN: Say 20 to 30. 20 MS. MEYERS: Twenty to thirty. 21 MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah. 22 MS. MEYERS: Twenty to thirty.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 120 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: And that's condenser -- for 2 y our industry, condenser/compressor combinations, 3 r ight? 4 MS. HOOTMAN: And the packaged units. 5 MS. MEYERS: Okay. Water heaters, boilers. 6 MS. BARHYDT: And that's in-house? 7 MR. THARP: No. 8 MS. MEYERS: No. 9 MS. BARHYDT: Third party? 10 MS. MEYERS: That's third party. 11 MS. BARHYDT: Okay. 12 MS. MEYERS: That's done at a third party, so 13 14 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp with Goodman. I'll 15 t hrow in that if -- again, it probably should be a 16 f unction of whether you're part of a VICP or not. 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. So I'm going to take 18 t his back one more time, just to see if we can at least 19 g et something -- an agreement. Take verification aside 20 a nd whether you're part of a program aside, because we 21 w ill deal with that. That is on the table, and how to 22 d eal with that is on the table.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 121 1 But say you're not. Our minimum set of 2 r equirements are for those that aren't. They need to 3 a pply across the board. Is there a majority, or do we 4 h ave some type of consensus where there should be 5 m inimum requirements? 6 MS. MEYERS: This is Karen with Rheem, and 7 I 'm going to say yes, and I'm going to say those 8 m inimums should be higher if you are not a member of a 9 V ICP, where you've got constant checking going on and 10 v alidation of those. So what Jill gave you was a 11 m inimum of two, and I think that's great if you're, you 12 k now, getting into a VICP program. But if you're not, 13 I think your requirements should be that -- higher. 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: Can you suggest something? 15 MS. MEYERS: Well, first let's go -- let's go 16 t o the first-level part. 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: Do we have consensus that, 18 y es or no, that there should be a minimum set of 19 r equirements? 20 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. I 21 w ould have -- I would agree with minimum requirements, 22 y es. I would be concerned with having smaller,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 122 1 i nnovative companies with significantly higher 2 r equirements for initial product releases, because 3 t ypically, by the time an industry is mature, most of 4 t he players are members of the AHRI and do participate, 5 b ut the smaller manufacturers that possibly only have a 6 f ew SKUs, those are typically the ones that don't 7 p articipate in AHRI. 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 9 MR. EISNER: Does anybody disagree with 10 h aving minimum requirements? Because earlier there was 11 s ome disagreement. So nobody -- 12 MS. DANE: Because the minimum is zero. And 13 I knew at the start, so -- 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: That would be disagreeing. 15 MS. DANE: Oh, okay, then I disagree. 16 MR. EISNER: You disagree with 17 MS. DANE: Well, if zero is not -- if zero is 18 c onsidered minimum -- 19 COURT REPORTER: Can you turn on the mic, 20 p lease? 21 MS. DANE: Mary Dane. Oh, I'm sorry. Mary 22 D ane, Traulsen. As long as zero's considered a

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 123 1 m inimum, then I would be in agreement. 2 MR. EISNER: Say that again just one -- 3 MS. DANE: If zero is the minimum, then I 4 g uess I don't disagree. 5 MR. EISNER: So you disagree if people think 6 t hat "minimum" means something other than zero? I 7 t hink you're talking about something other than zero. 8 S o you - - one person disagrees. Anybody else 9 d isagree? 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: So can I ask a question, just 11 a follow-on? 12 MR. EISNER: Can we first see if anybody else 13 d isagrees? Okay. Right now, we just have one person 14 w ho disagrees, so we do have consensus -- 15 MR. BAUMAN: Can I -- can I ask a 16 MR. EISNER: Oh, wait. We've got somebody on 17 t he phone who's apparently disagreeing. 18 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman from 19 N ational Refrigeration. I just want to confirm that 20 t he number we're talking about is minimums for 21 s ubstantiating an 22 A EDM?

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 124 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. Uh-huh. 2 MR. BAUMAN: All right. 3 MR. EISNER: Disagree with Karen, minimum 4 r equirement. I'm not sure -- Ron, can you explain what 5 y ou're saying? 6 MR. SHEBIK: Yes. Ron Shebik, Hussmann. I 7 j ust -- going back to Karen's comment, I disagree with 8 K aren's comment as far as the number that must be 9 t ested based on whether or not you're part of a VICP. 10 I don't think whether or not you're in a VICP should 11 c ome into play on this. There's other factors that are 12 g oing to hold you in check. So whether or not you're 13 i n a VICP, I would disagree that that has any kind of 14 f actor on how many tests you need to supply. 15 MR. EISNER: So you agree that there should 16 b e minimum requirements, so we just have one -- 17 MR. SHEBIK: I agree that the minimum -- but 18 t hat minimum should be the same for everyone in that 19 p roduct category. 20 MR. EISNER: Okay. Right now, I think we're 21 t rying to figure out whether everybody -- whether 22 t here's consensus that there should be minimum

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 125 1 r equirements, and then we can get back into what the 2 m inimums are. Let me just -- we have two other things 3 f rom Bruce Helft. 4 One, to clarify this discussion, is the 5 v erification of a basic unit by the DOE a, quote, "test 6 m ethod verification" or -- I'm not sure what this word 7 i s -- or using the manufacturer's developed AEDM? 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: It's a -- it's a test. 9 MR. EISNER: Bruce, did you hear that? 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: It's a spot-check test. 11 MR. EISNER: Okay. Bruce had another 12 q uestion. "Where may we look to understand more about 13 t he verification testing for performance that is 14 c onducted by DOE; that is, how much of the budget is 15 a llocated for these verification testing programs? 16 U nder what unit is this conducted (legal, or is this 17 c ontracted outside)? Where is the enforcement testing 18 p rogram statistic described for public reference?" 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: I think we can get back to 20 h im offline, just to get back on topic. I'm happy to - 21

- I mean, they're in our regs, so we're happy to -- 22 t hat's kind of -- I just have a follow-on question to

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 126 1 M ary. Would your answer be different if it's a company 2 t hat participates in no verification, no AHRI, no 3 E nergy Star, nothing? There is no verification they do 4 w hatsoever. It is left solely on their own. 5 MS. DANE: I would think you would catch them 6

- - Mary Dane, Traulsen. I would think you would catch 7 t hem in the -- in the enforcement and the verification. 8 M aybe my answer would be different -- could you tell 9 m e, under substantiation, who's going to police that 10 I 've -- under substantiation that I've run 80 times 2 11 t ests? 12 MS. BARHYDT: I am. 13 MS. DANE: You're going to come and live in 14 F ort Worth with me? I do have a spare bedroom. 15 MS. BARHYDT: No, but, realistically, I mean, 16 I 'm going -- I would love to go to Fort Worth. 17 The reality is that we request test data on a 18 r egular basis. 19 MS. DANE: So you're actually going to -- 20 MS. BARHYDT: And so we would request 21 i nformation saying, you know, "We're doing a spot 22 c heck, and we'd like to see the test data underlying

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 127 1 y our AEDM," and you'd better have it. 2 MS. DANE: Oh, okay. Well, I don't think 3 t hat you should have to become a member of a voluntary 4 p rogram just to get special points, because it's not 5 t he DOE's job to recruit for Frank. My apologies, but 6 i t's not up to you to, you know, bolster his 7 m embership. We should have a set of -- you know, if 8 y ou're going to set a set of rules, they should apply 9 t o everybody, but 10 MR. EISNER: But I think, again, we're 11 t alking right now about should there be a minimum 12 r equirement that they can then verify and take action 13 a gain for failure to meet. 14 MR. EISNER: Other than zero. 15 MS. DANE: Other than zero. 16 MS. BARHYDT: I mean, realistically -- 17 MR. EISNER: That's different from whether or 18 n ot -- 19 MS. BARHYDT: -- how is somebody going to 20 h ave a model -- 21 MS. DANE: Well -- 22 MS. BARHYDT: -- if they have no tests? I

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 128 1 m ean, there must be some -- 2 MS. DANE: Well, no, we would -- we would -- 3 MS. BARHYDT: -- relationship between -- 4 MS. DANE: Yeah, I understand the argument 5 y ou're getting to. I guess I would have to say that if 6 y ou -- if your AEDM is strong enough -- and it's going 7 t o go back to the how we define basic models, but, you 8 k now, okay, I can move off of zero, but, you know, my 9 p oint is, is it's -- then we have to -- we have to hold 10 t he line for tolerances, and we have to hold the line 11 f or the basic model group. 12 But I still think it should be up to the 13 m anufacturer to decide the breadth of his testing 14 p rogram, and then when it gets to verification, you 15 k now, then -- and enforcement, then if we were bad, we 16 w ould have to, you know, take our whoopings there. 17 MR. EISNER: We have consensus on minimum 18 r equirements, so I think that's -- 19 FEMALE SPEAKER: (Inaudible). 20 MR. EISNER: That's -- yeah. That was going 21 t o be the next issue. Anybody disagree that we should 22 g o to lunch now? Good.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 129 1 How long do you need, based on last week? 2 Y ou need an hour, 45 minutes? We're going until six 3 o 'clock today, so we'll take a break in mid-afternoon. 4 E verybody okay with 45 minutes? Okay. 5 MR. SACHS: I have a quick question before we 6 b reak. There was some discussion about some subgroups. 7 I s there an assignment, or did we decide not to do 8 t hat? 9 MR. EISNER: Well, I think if there are 10 e nough people who want to meet and talk about the 11 i ssue, they can do that, but there seemed to be 12 d isagreement about whether that was the appropriate 13 t hing to do at this stage. This is the perfect time to 14 g o talk to your counterparts -- 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. I was going to say 16 t hat the next thing we're going to talk about is how 17 m any and of what type have to be tested, so to the 18 e xtent that people want to talk about that during lunch 19 i n the same - - you know, in the same product 20 c ategories, I think that would definitely be helpful. 21 MR. EISNER: Okay. See everybody back here 22 a t about --

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 130 1 MS. BARHYDT: Neil, give them a little more 2 t han 45. The lines are going to be worse on Tuesday. 3 MR. EISNER: Okay. We will start right on 4 t he button -- 5 MR. EISNER: You can take until 1:30. 6 (Whereupon, the meeting was recessed from 7 12:35 p.m. until 1:36 p.m.) 8 MR. EISNER: If I could call this august body 9 t o order. We reached agreement on minimum standards, 10 t hat we should have them. Now we have to start working 11 o n those standards, I think. Did you want to say 12 a nything to start off the discussion of those 13 s tandards? Would you like to start in a particular 14 p lace? 15 MS. BARHYDT: So did folks at lunch talk 16 a bout what you thought those numbers might ought to be? 17 I know for the commercial HVAC, we've had a suggestion 18 o f a minimum of two, but we also had a suggestion that 19 t hat number might ought to vary, depending on whether 20 o r not the manufacturers participated in a VICP. 21 We've also heard from commercial 22 r efrigeration that there is a very wide range of

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 131 1 p roducts, and so there's both the issue of whether the 2 r egulation should specify a minimum number to be 3 t ested, but also whether or not the regulation should 4 s pecify a breadth of what should be tested. 5 DOE really does want to allow manufacturers 6 t o apply their expertise to their products. We're not 7 l ooking for -- there's no magic number in our minds. 8 W e want to hear from you as to what you think would be 9 r easonable for a manufacturer to have underlying their 10 s imulation method. 11 It is a -- it would be a regulatory 12 r equirement, but I think that all of you have in the 13 b ack of your mind that, "Well, yeah, but anyone who has 14 a valid simulation is going to have to have something 15 b ehind it." And that's really what we want to get at 16 i s not, in this particular case, it needs to be this 17 s et of parameters or in that set of parameters, but 18 t here's some general underlying principles of anyone 19 w ho has a valid simulation method is going to have to 20 h ave something behind that. 21 And it's -- that's what we're really trying 22 t o get at here, is what is it that you need to know as

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 132 1 a manufacturer to come up with a method that is going 2 t o be able to make consistent predictions of 3 e fficiency? 4 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel with Mitsubishi. 5 N ot specifically rated -- related to this, but a point 6 t hat I think was, I know, on the list to cover later, 7 b ut if someone is doing a verification that two -- 8 l et's say it's two minimum tests, and they turn in the 9 t est data to DOE, does that information, then, become 10 a ccessible under 11 F OIA? 12 MS. BARHYDT: Test data that is provided to 13 t he Department by the manufacturer is subject to -- 14 i t's Exemption 4, confidential business information. 15 T hey're -- it's a legal standard, and the way the 16 a nalysis works is you can't say the whole document is 17 c onfidential. You would have to identify which pieces 18 o f information were confidential. 19 DOE would not be proactively publishing this 20 i nformation. We would have to receive a specific 21 r equest to which the document was responsive, and then 22 w e actually contact the manufacturer who provided us

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 133 1 w ith the information and say, "Here's your document 2 t hat you provided to us. What are your views on what 3 i n this document is confidential business information?" 4 S o the manufacturer has that opportunity to provide 5 t heir specific views before anything goes out. 6 MR. DOPPEL: Thank you. 7 MS. BARHYDT: And that's all in the DOE 8 r egulations. 9 MR. HON: From a customer viewpoint, how much 10 i nformation is going to be available? Because say you 11 h ave commercial refrigerators. You have a model 12 n umber, you have internal volume, which is critical for 13 t he calculation, you have total energy consumption. 14 Is that the type of information that would be 15 p ublic knowledge on a normal base -- not the database - 16

- not the test data behind that information, but the 17 f inal few characteristics of what the product is? 18 B ecause under the present scenario, the request to fill 19 o ut the data form is -- I'm assuming that is entirely 20 p ublic knowledge. 21 MS. BARHYDT: Right now, brand is considered 22 p ublic, but OEM is not necessarily. And for various

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 134 1 p roducts, the regs actually spell out what is 2 c onsidered public and what would be subject to 3 a dditional review. And I don't recall offhand. 4 So for CRE, the information that we collect, 5 i t would be public except for the OEM. And on the 6 c ertification tab of the templates, there is a place 7 f or a submitter name, phone number, email address. If 8 t hat information reveals the OEM, that information is 9 a lso subject to additional review. And that is a case10 b y-case basis. It's not always withheld or always 11 r eleased. It's a case-by-case basis. 12 MR. HON: Charlie Hon again. That -- but 13 t hat would still -- the brand name would appear -- not 14 n ecessarily who built it, but the brand name and the -- 15 a ll the information that is being submitted in the 16 s tandard data form. 17 MS. BARHYDT: Uh-huh. Right. 18 MR. HATCHER: Good. That's fine. Thank you. 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I'm going to go back. I 20 p ut up a different slide, which doesn't have these -- 21 i t doesn't have the different -- what I'm -- what we're 22 c alling substantiation classes, validation classes,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 135 1 w hatever we want to call them. But these are really 2 t he issues at hand. I think we -- before lunch, we 3 r eached consensus on, yes, there should be a minimum 4 n umber of units tested, whatever term we want to use. 5 M oving forward beyond that, what should this minimum -- 6 w hat does this minimum sample look like? 7 And, you know, we could take as the first 8 s tep, for the commercial A/C manufacturers in the room, 9 s hould it be the two minimum and the corresponding 10 c lasses that get to -- get you to 16 total if you 11 m anufacturer in all of them, that the AHRI program 12 r equires? We could see if that's a good place to 13 s tart. I'm sorry? 14 MS. HOOTMAN: So within those programs -- so 15 J ill Hootman at Trane. So within those programs, they 16 a ren't necessarily specific which ones would be of the 17 t wo? 18 MS. ARMSTRONG: Nope. And that's -- this is 19 k ind of a slide that lays out an option, right, that we 20 w ould test at least -- the requirement would be you 21 t est at least one unit of a specified minimum number. 22 I f we took the AHRI requirements for HVAC, as I

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 136 1 u nderstood them to be, it would be -- there would be a 2

- - 16 total would be the minimum if you manufactured 3 a cross the entire span of programs. 4 The choice of basic models would be a the 5 m anufacturer's discretion, or we could -- another 6 o ption would be, you know, are there certain 7 c haracteristics that -- you know, is it a minimum 8 c apacity, is it a high sales volume, or do you want to 9 l eave it wide open? Those are options on the table for 10 d iscussion, but to move it forward, that is one 11 p roposal. 12 MR. EISNER: Would you like to focus on this 13 a lternative? Anybody disagree? Anybody see it too far 14 o ff? Yes? 15 MR. MYERS: Two comments. That first line, 16 i f we were to do that, wouldn't that be thousands of 17 m odels that would have to be tested if it was at least 18 o ne of a specified minimum number of basic models as 19 o pposed to the 18 that you were mentioning? Basic 20 m odel is anything that doesn't have a change that 21 s ignificantly changes the efficiency. 22 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I think it -- no, because

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 137 1 i t would be test at least one unit of -- we'd specify 2 w hat that minimum number is. So, in other words, this 3 i sn't the language you would use. This is just general 4 l anguage. Right? 5 But if we'd say -- if, for example, in Jill's 6 s uggestion earlier, we'd say test at least one unit of 7 t he following categories: air-cooled, small; air-cooled 8

- - in ours, it's large and very large. Water-cooled, 9 e vaporatively cooled, SPVUs, PTACs, VRFs. 10 MR. MYERS: Gotcha. I was going by that, but 11 I understand what you're saying, and that would be -- 12 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. I can write an 13 a lternative proposal on that if 14 MR. MYERS: Yeah. And the other point that - 15

- 16 MS. ARMSTRONG: Go ahead. 17 MR. MYERS: The other point that I wanted to 18 m ake is that this is one choice, that it's at least a 19 c ertain number for each category, or however you were 20 d efining that. 21 I had mentioned earlier a recommendation of a 22 t otal of five tests be conducted to validate the -- or

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 138 1 I shouldn't say validate -- to substantiate a 2 p articular AEDM, two would be to select the two 3 h ighest-volume models that you use, and three would be 4 t o, at the manufacturer's discretion, looking for 5 i nflection points where there might be some question 6 a bout the validity of the AEDM so that you're actually 7 u sing it to validate the 8 A EDM. 9 If we went with a specific number, not 10 n ecessarily in air conditioning, but if we used that -- 11 i f we drew the same kind of chart for water heating or 12 b oilers, there's so much similarity between different 13 p roduct types, that if you tested those different 14 p roduct types, you know, it's a big one of these with 15 t he same parameters and a small one of these with the 16 s ame parameters, you wouldn't really be seeing much 17 d ifference in the data, and that's why I think it's 18 i mportant to leave that side of it to the manufacturer. 19 MR. WHITWELL: Bob Whitwell, Carrier. Could 20 y ou -- Ashley, could you just clarify the 16 that you 21 s poke about? Maybe if we go to Slide 18. 22 MS. ARMSTRONG: I'm doing this based on my

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 139 1 u nderstanding, so for those involved in the AHRI 2 p rogram, correct -- 3 MR. WHITWELL: And the reason for -- one of 4 t he reasons I'm asking the question is in the NOPR, 5 t here was a proposal, which was five -- minimum of 6 f ive, but it included testing at least one model of 7 e very product class. And if you look at the templates 8 f or submitting the commercial HVAC website that's on 9 t he DOE website, there's like 58 different product 10 c lasses. 11 And, for example, for the air-cooled split 12 s ystem and air-cooled package, there's a total of, I 13 t hink it's maybe 21 product classes that would be 14 c overed by those -- 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. 16 MR. WHITWELL: -- in the template. So I want 17 t o understand, are we talking about those each being a 18 p roduct class, or are we talking about multiple product 19 c lasses included in each one of those items? 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: The latter. 21 MR. WHITWELL: Okay. 22 MS. ARMSTRONG: So this is Ashley from DOE.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 140 1 W e specifically used yet another term, only because 2 p roduct classes have a distinct meaning with different 3 s tandards in our regs, and you are -- for commercial 4 A /Cs, depending on whether you're air-cooled or you're 5 s mall or you're large or you have electric resistance 6 o r not, you get to a different number. 7 So you're right, there are 50 some reflected 8 i n our -- so this is just an option for consideration, 9 b ut if I understand it, the way the AHRI program is 10 r un, you have basically air-cooled systems, split and 11 p ackaged in one. Less than 65 would require 2, greater 12 t han 65 would require 2, for a total of 4 for air13 c ooled. 14 Then you have water-cooled, which there is no 15 p rogram for, but that would require two. You have 16 e vaporatively cooled, which there is no program for, 17 b ut that would require two. You have SPVUs, for which 18 t he requirement would be two. You have PTACs, for 19 w hich the requirement would be two. And then you have 20 V RFs, which the requirement would be two. And then you 21 h ave water source heat pumps, for which the requirement 22 w ould be two. Two, four, six, eight, ten, twelve, plus

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 141 1 f our is sixteen. 2 MR. WHITWELL: So if we were -- 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: I got that right. 4 MR. MUCCIOLA: I think SPVUs, Ashley, I think 5 i s (inaudible). 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's for verification, or 7 i s that for -- to get into the program? 8 MR. MUCCIOLA: I think we have to -- 9 COURT REPORTER: Could you use the mic, 10 p lease? Can't hear you. 11 MR. MUCCIOLA: I'm Vince with National 12 C omfort Products. I'd like to check to make sure. I 13 t hought that SPVUs was only one. 14 MR. STANONIK: Well, Frank Stanonik with 15 A HRI. Jill's checking it, but I'm pretty sure, if 16 y ou're a totally new entrant -- 17 MR. MUCCIOLA: New? 18 MR. STANONIK: Not a new model. You're a 19 t otally new manufacturer entering -- it's two. 20 MR. MUCCIOLA: Two? Okay. 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, I mean, this is one 22 e xample. It doesn't have to be that way. And I'm happy

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 142 1 t o write up a slide real quick that shows this, if it'd 2 b e easier for the purposes of discussion, but that's 3 o ne example. 4 MR. WHITWELL: Okay. This is Bob with 5 C arrier again. Just to follow up, then, so, for 6 e xample, if somebody had air-cooled split, air-cooled 7 p ackage, and water-cooled packaged -- 8 MS. BARHYDT: Six. 9 MR. WHITWELL: That would be six? 10 MS. BARHYDT: If they had small and large, 11 l ess than 65 and greater than 65. 12 MS. ARMSTRONG: Which one is working this? 13 MR. WHITWELL: Right. Yeah, which most 14 e verybody -- 15 MS. BARHYDT: Yeah, which makes you say like 16

- - 17 MR. WHITWELL: You have one or -- an air18 c ooled split system 19 MS. BARHYDT: Uh-huh. 20 MR. THARP: This is Rusty Tharp with Goodman. 21 I would suggest that, for the purpose of AEDM 22 s ubstantiation, that the technologies used in split

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 143 1 s ystems and single-packaged product are essentially 2 i dentical, and those would not -- for the purpose of 3 s ubstantiation of an AEDM, those would not need to be 4 s eparate classes. 5 MS. BARHYDT: So I think -- 6 MR. WHITWELL: Carrier -- 7 MS. BARHYDT: -- what -- oh, sorry. 8 MR. WHITWELL: Carrier would agree with that. 9 MS. BARHYDT: Yeah. So I think what Ashley 10 j ust described did group the split system and packaged, 11 a nd it just broke it out by air, water, and 12 e vaporatively cooled. 13 MS. HOOTMAN: Right. This is Jill from 14 T rane. I mean, what I was trying to describe was AHRI 15 2 10/240, which, as we know, is splits and packages 16 t ogether. Two. AHRI 2 -- you know, 340/360, 2. Now, 17 3 40/360 really doesn't cover water-cooled, even though, 18 y ou know -- 19 MR. DOPPEL: 210/240 also -- 20 MS. HOOTMAN: And the water-cooled would have 21 t o -- because there's not a certification program for 22 i t.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 144 1 MR. DOPPEL: Yeah. Paul Doppel with 2 M itsubishi Electric. The way VRF is set up right now, 3 i t would be a minimum of four. 4 MR. WHITWELL: For air-cooled and water5 c ooled? It would cover both air-cooled and water6 c ooled? 7 MR. DOPPEL: It would be -- again, it's based 8 o n the modular, so it would be four air-cooled. 9 MR. KLEISS: Ashley, as long as you're 10 u pdating that, would you mind putting up boilers and 11 w ater heaters and that? 12 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, that'll be next. I was 13 g oing to do one product at a time. 14 MR. KLEISS: Thank you. 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: Can you come up with an idea 16 f or me, though? 17 MR. RIVEST: How about if you make that font 18 b lack? 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: Sure. 20 MR. FLY: While -- this is Mark Fly with 21 A AON. While Ashley's typing, does DOE have a test 22 p rocedure for evaporative-cooled equipment, because I'm

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 145 1

- - 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: In the regs, we do. 3 MR. FLY: -- not aware of any independent 4 l abs, anyway, that are capable of especially going up 5 t o 63 tons on that. 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: I'm not spelling things 7 r ight. Water-cooled, two, four, six, eight. SPVUs, two 8 u nits. External air conditioners and heat pumps, two 9 u nits. Water source, two units. VRFs, four units. So 10 f irst -- two, four, six, eight, ten, twelve, thirteen, 11 f ourteen, eighteen, since Paul recommended four for 12 V RFs. 13 MR. WHITWELL: The air-cooled, split, and 14 p ackaged includes air conditioners and heat pumps. 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: Correct. 16 MR. WHITWELL: Correct. 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: But I just put "all" for 18 s horthand. 19 MR. WHITWELL: Yeah. Okay. 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: But I can clarify that in the 21

- - so this is what we're looking at for HVAC. 22 T houghts?

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 146 1 MR. KLEISS: For commercial water heaters, 2 t wo units. 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: All types, regardless of fuel 4 s ource? 5 MALE SPEAKER: Ashley, for us old guys, can 6 y ou blow it all up? 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: Sure. Is that good? 8 MALE SPEAKER: Thank you, ma'am. 9 MR. EISNER: Does that cover what everybody 10 w ants? 11 One product. 12 MR. KLEISS: Yes. All types of commercial 13 w ater heaters. 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: We'll go there next. Hold on 15 o ne second. 16 MR. KLEISS: Okay. 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: Do we have agreement? 18 MR. EISNER: No objections on this? 19 MALE SPEAKER: Is this the minimum for 20 a nyone? 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: Minimum for anyone, and 22 t here's nothing associated, as written right here,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 147 1 a bout lab requirements, so whether it's an owned lab or 2 a third- party lab. Do you want there to be? 3 MS. DANE: Mary Dane from Traulsen. If we're 4 o nly talking substantiation, can't we self-test? 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: Absolutely. Yeah, I'm just 6 a sking. 7 MS. DANE: Then I would vote for self8 t esting. 9 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 10 MR. EISNER: All right. Is there agreement 11 o n the list? 12 MALE SPEAKER: As far as the quantity of 13 u nits, yes. 14 MR. EISNER: Okay. No disagreement. 15 MR. DOPPEL: Ashley, Paul Doppel with 16 M itsubishi. If, for the VRF, if you could make that 4 17 a 2/2. 18 MS. ARMSTRONG: Two air, two water -- 19 MR. DOPPEL: Yeah. 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- is what you want? 21 MR. DOPPEL: It's actually more AHRI -- 22 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 148 1 MR. DOPPEL: Yeah. 2 MR. SACHS: Okay. That's -- that was my 3 q uestion. 4 MR. DOPPEL: It's actually -- again, for 5 A HRI, it's actually four for -- it's four for air and 6 f our for water, but 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: Is that what you want? 8 MR. FLY: Mark Fly with AAON. Does all of 9 t his go to 63 tons on every category? 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: No. 11 MR. FLY: The top two -- 12 MS. ARMSTRONG: Oh, the top -- 13 MR. FLY: The top two, it does. 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: Just the top two. 15 MR. FLY: The rest of them, no. Water. 16 MS. ARMSTRONG: Oh, PTACs 17 MR. FLY: Water source, and -- but it does 18 i nclude heat pumps up to 63 tons. 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: I have to have the regs to 20 k now the exact -- 21 MR. FLY: Because that's not the AHRI 22 p rogram. That's the only reason I'm asking.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 149 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: Do you want to come answer? 2 MS. BARHYDT: I've got it in front of me. I 3 c an sit here and read off the numbers, but I can't 4 c onfirm. 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: Water source heat pumps is 6 l ess than 135. 7 MR. FLY: Okay. 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: Water-cooled and 9 e vaporatively cooled air conditioners does go all the 10 w ay up to 760. And I guess what's missing from the list 11 t hat we didn't discuss, to the extent it applies to 12 a nyone here, is computer room air conditioners. Should 13 t hey be added? 14 MR. EISNER: When you say should they be 15 a dded, would they -- would they be covered someplace 16 e lse if they weren't added to this list? 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: So we have adopted 18 r egulations for them. I don't believe they're required 19 f or compliance quite yet, so that's probably why 20 t hey're not in the discussion, but they will be. 21 T hey're coming, so while we're doing this 22 MR. STARR: I'm wondering, is that an ASHRAE-

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 150 1 c overed product? 2 MR. EISNER: Say your name. 3 MR. STARR: Oh, Louis Starr with NEEA. 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. 5 MR. STARR: Okay. Well, I don't know how it 6 w orks in the context, but, yeah, it would be definitely 7 h elpful to have some kind of rating or be part of the 8 r ating systems. 9 MS. ARMSTRONG: Is it two; do you know? 10 MALE SPEAKER: Good place to start. 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 12 MS. HOOTMAN: Hang on. I mean, go ahead. 13 I 'll 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: Do you want four for VRFs for 15 e ach, just to match? 16 MR. STARR: Well, this is a different -- I 17 m ean, this is a different type of situation, and it 18 w ould be -- what we're talking about here is tests that 19 w ould be shown to DOE in order to get into a program, 20 s o that's kind of a different 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: It would be tests that a 22 m anufacturer has to run, keep their data on hand, and

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 151 1 i t would have to meet a certain set of requirements to 2 u se an AEDM, and we may ask for that test data at some 3 p oint. But we voted for a no preapproval process so you 4 w ouldn't submit it before you used your AEDM. 5 So the question is for AHRI, are you okay 6 w ith an AHRI -- you know, to the extent someone wants 7 t o use an AHRI program, they need four and four, but 8 s omeone who doesn't needing two and two. 9 MR. STARR: Well, we may have -- after this, 10 w e may go back and change what we have at AHRI because 11 o f the -- I mean, we'd have to change all the 12 c ertification programs based on an AEDM. 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 14 MR. STARR: It wound seem 15 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey. And I guess, 16 A shley, I think our focus must be on what is required 17 t o validate the AEDM, rather than what AHRI currently 18 a sks for. 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: Correct. That's what this 20 i s, right? Well, he's using validation for -- 21 MR. SACHS: Yeah. 22 MS. ARMSTRONG: He's not using it as

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 152 1 v erification. 2 MS. DANE: But we agreed -- I asked before we 3 w ent to lunch -- this is Mary from Traulsen, and I 4 a sked before we went to lunch if substantiation -- that 5 s ubstantiation and verification meant verification. 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: Correct. That's correct. 7 MR. STANONIK: Yeah. And Frank Stanonik, 8 A HRI. Verification, there's no miscommunication about. 9 W hat was confused was substantiation and validation. 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. 11 MR. STANONIK: You validate that your AEDM is 12 c orrect. Verification, I think we all consider that 13 d own the road, when you're out there producing models, 14 a s many as you -- or units, as many as you would like 15 t o produce, at some point, somebody picks one up and 16 c hecks your rating, that's verification. 17 MR. RIVEST: Ashley, it's Mike Rivest. I 18 j ust want to confirm that beyond the number of units 19 p er class, there aren't any additional requirements as 20 t o, you know, whether those two units need to be at the 21 r anges of something like that. Okay. Jill's nodding 22 h er head "no," so

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 153 1 MS. HOOTMAN: I would not be in -- Jill 2 H ootman, Trane. I would not be in favor of any 3 r estrictions on what those models are. 4 MR. RIVEST: Okay. Are there any within the 5 A HRI program? 6 MS. HOOTMAN: No. 7 MR. RIVEST: Okay. 8 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik, AHRI. But, 9 a gain, I mean, this is what we do for the program, but 10 i t -- you know, but programs aren't validating AEDMs. 11 A nd -- but so if we're looking -- look -- I would say 12 i f we're looking at a potential that let's say if I'm 13 s killed enough -- or not skilled enough -- if I have 14 e nough information and I have enough technical basis to 15 b e able to create, let's say, an AEDM for all of my 16 m odels, you know, all my models that were given 17 s ubstantiation class, I guess as I'm thinking out loud 18 h ere, I mean, are we comfortable saying, well, you can 19

- - you can pick -- you can pick any two from that huge 20

- - from that huge population, as -- I'm going to call 21 t hem your validation points. 22 I mean, again, I'm just thinking out loud,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 154 1 a nd, I mean, it seems to me that somewhere in here, 2 y ou'd like -- the product that's -- well, again, maybe 3 i n the commercial side, it doesn't make sense to say 4 t his, but the product that you produce most often -- 5 n o? Okay. 6 MS. HOOTMAN: I'm just saying -- this is Jill 7 f rom Trane -- no, I disagree. The high-selling volume 8 c ombination or tested model inside of those is not 9 n ecessarily what you would do for engineering in 10 v alidating the simulation. It's going to be more what 11 w e call outliers. It might be what you are putting -- 12 y ou know, the largest cabinet size. It might be the -- 13 w here you're restricting airflow. 14 But those are going to be the parameters that 15 y ou're going to look at in an engineering, you know, 16 m eans to look at validating a simulation, and it 17 d oesn't always mean it's the high-selling combination. 18 S o I think those are kind of arbitrary things that 19 r eally don't have any relationship to what you're doing 20 t o validate a simulation. 21 MR. RIVEST: Ashley, Mike Rivest again. If 22 y ou can come back to the previous slide

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 155 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, sorry. 2 MR. RIVEST: I think in this presentation, 3 t he word "unit" refers to units of the same model. You 4 p robably mean two models here. 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes, I do. That's correct. 6 T hat's a good change. Thank you. So it's one unit per 7 m odel. In other words, it can't be the same model. 8 MR. RIVEST: Right. 9 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. So 10 j ust for clarification, that means you could not test 11 t he exact same product twice? 12 MS. ARMSTRONG: Correct. 13 MR. STEPHENS: Thank you. 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: Two separate tests, two 15 s eparate tests -- two separate models. 16 MR. EISNER: Go ahead. 17 MR. STARR: This is Louis Starr. Just also 18 o n the computer room air conditioning -- conditioners, 19 t here's -- I don't know exactly, but there's a similar 20 k ind of split-out that is with the commercial packaged 21 a ir -- equipment. It's a similar type thing. I don't 22 k now exactly what those classes are, but it's -- there

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 156 1 e ssentially a lot of times are just commercial air 2 c onditioning but have certain things in them that make 3 t hem a little more resistant to failure. 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: So 5 MR. STARR: So you basically may need more 6 t han what you've identified there in your computer room 7 a ir conditioner for models. 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. So this is Ashley from 9 D OE. So if I look at 4 -- Table 7 in the regs, it's 10 4 31.97, and these are the standards we adopted in 11 r esponse to ASHRAE 90.1's last adoption, so ASHRAE 90.1 12 2 010. Computer room air conditioners are broken out by 13 a ir-cooled, water-cooled, and then glycol-cooled, and 14 t hey're also differentiated between whether they have a 15 f luid economizer or not, and then they're also 16 d ifferentiated by cooling capacity. 17 So I don't know if we want to split it out 18 l ike we did similarly to the other ones or if we want 19 t o leave it, or at least at a minimum have the air20 c ooled, water- cooled, and glycol-cooled be two each? 21 I don't know if anyone has an opinion there? But 22 t hat's just through our regs.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 157 1 MR. STARR: I think the efficiencies change 2 f or quite a bit between small and big models. I mean, 3 e ssentially, if it exists there in commercial air 4 e quipment, it's a very similar product, so I would -- 5 y ou know, to the extent that it's the same reasoning in 6 t hose, I would think a similar kind of split-out 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: So 8 MR. KOLANDAYAN: Dominic Kolandayan with 9 D aikin. My comment as whether we should just limit this 10 t o just models, or should we allow components -- let 11 t he manufacturer -- you know, where you have the last 12 b ullet saying, "Particular model selection at 13 d iscretion of manufacturer," can we expand that to say 14 " components," but, you know, components, meaning 15 p robably, you know, at least to comprise of components 16 f or two models? You know, we'll keep the models the -- 17 t he quantity of models the same, but why not do the 18 A EDM based on components? Thank you. 19 MR. EISNER: Any comments on components? 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: I don't know what it means. 21 MR. KOLANDAYAN: It says "model discretion," 22 s o I want to make sure that we expand model to include

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 158 1 c omponents. Right. It is at the discretion of the 2 m anufacturer, but that doesn't clarify components could 3 b e used. No. Right. No. 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: So should the model 5 r equirements be that each model has to have a different 6 r ating? 7 MS. BARHYDT: Maybe engines around heat 8 e xchange? 9 MS. ARMSTRONG: I don't know where we're 10 g oing -- 11 MR. EISNER: Because what are we talking 12 a bout here on models? We're defining models as having 13 a different rating. 14 MR. THARP: Rating being efficiency level or 15 c apacity? 16 MS. ARMSTRONG: I don't know. I'm just 17 t rying to -- I don't know what clarification to put 18 h ere to reflect his comment of components well. 19 MR. STANONIK: But in terms of an AEDM, if 20 w e're not talking about models that have different 21 r atings, let's all go home. I mean, that's the whole 22 p oint, right, that you can extrapolate ratings to --

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 159 1 t hat have -- for models that have different ratings. 2 MS. HOOTMAN: I think this is back to -- a 3 l ittle bit back to what you describe as your basic 4 m odel. In data engines, in engineering data engines, we 5 m ight literally have data engines that are around coil 6

- - you know, heat exchangers, around compressors, et 7 c etera, and we tend to -- we could switch out one of 8 t hose, and we can tend to correlate that and make up a 9 n ew model, literally, right there. 10 So, you know, when we're looking at 11 v alidation of those engineering records, they might be 12 v arious different databases that are actually being 13 l ooked at. We would have to have some rules or 14 v alidation rules that would then say, "Well, these 15 m odels look at this kind of engineering database to do 16 t hat simulation." 17 So if -- a basic model, back to this 18 d efinition of basic model, I realize, it would have to 19 b e what we all know to be a unit. Okay? It can't be 20 c omponents. But you could be validating against various 21 d ifferent simulation models. There's a compressor 22 m odel, there's a heat exchanger model, there's a fan

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 160 1 m odel. You can be validating components against all of 2 t hose kind of things to build up -- 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. We're talking about a 4 s ystem here, not just -- not a component. So your 5 s ystem would have to be modeled a minimum of two -- you 6 a ctually clarify that. Two systems have to be tested. 7 MS. HOOTMAN: That's fair, systems. 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: The component cannot be 9 t ested, and you can't just correlate the component part 10 o f it? 11 MR. THARP: Agreed. This is Rusty with 12 G oodman, and we also somewhere ought to define that a 13 s ystem consists of a compressor, condensing coil, 14 e vaporating coil, expansion device, and air-moving 15 s ystems -- air- moving devices. 16 MS. HOOTMAN: And that's why I want a basic 17 m odel defined. 18 MR. THARP: Yeah. 19 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel with Mitsubishi. 20 V RF has a definition for a system as tested 21 c ombination. 22 MS. MEYERS: So this is Karen with Rheem. I

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 161 1 j ust have a question. Let's say you're trying to 2 v alidate, slash, substantiate your AEDM, and you do two 3 d ifferent models, and you really don't -- it doesn't 4 c ome out quite like you thought, so you do three 5 m odels. Is that okay? 6 And then it kind of -- you know, then you get 7 y our confidence level that you need. You didn't get 8 y our confidence level that you needed when you did it 9 w ith two, but you got it with three. 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: We don't have what a 11 c onfidence level is yet. We'll get there. But you can 12 a lways do more. 13 MS. MEYERS: You've got two models up here, 14 b ut, you know, so -- 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: You can always do more 16 t esting, if you want to do 3 or if you want to do 300. 17 T he minimum you have to do is two. 18 MS. MEYERS: So that -- 19 MR. RIVEST: Right. So there are no 20 s tatistics applied to the very simple 5 percent per 21 m odel and 5 percent average? There is no confidence 22 i nterval to that. So adding models is not going to

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 162 1 h elp you if one model fails the 5 percent, if that's 2 t he rule, whereas if you're talking about certification 3 t esting, that's where it helps to have -- 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: It would help, right. So it 5 d epends on what we decide, ultimately, for what is a 6 v alid rating in terms of tolerance. But if you use the 7 A HRI concept of 5 percent against a single test of 8 w hat's popped out of your AEDM, you know, it is what it 9 i s for that given model. There's no averaging, there's 10 n o statistics. 11 MR. RIVEST: Got it. 12 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 13 MR. FLY: Just going back to the computer 14 r oom, and I don't really have a dog in this fight, 15 b ecause I don't make computer-room units, although I 16 w on't say that my unit hasn't been misapplied to a 17 c omputer room from time to time, do you really want to 18 r elate glycol separate from water-cooled, because 19 y ou're on a real slippery slope there of what 20 p ercentage of glycol, what kind of glycol, is it 21 g lycol, or is it brine, one of the other generic 22 f luids?

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 163 1 That -- most of the water-cooled equipment is 2 r ated as water, and then we use engineering models, 3 b asically, to adjust for other fluids, which is fairly 4 w ell-known and defined. 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: I have no opinion on this 6 w hatsoever, other than we have different standards for 7 t hem, for -- we specifically -- yeah, there's different 8 t ests and different levels. We specifically separate 9 o ut glycol-cooled. So this is -- but no opinion. 10 MR. STARR: This is Louis Starr with NEEA. 11 W hatever the breakout, it makes sense that -- part of 12 t he deal is that down the road, these things will be 13 u sed for incentive programs as well, so part of -- you 14 k now, this is why it's good that it reflects those -- 15 w hatever is in the register in front of those equipment 16 t ables. So whatever AEDMs you have, it's kind of 17 i mportant for that reason. 18 MR. KOLANDAYAN: I'd like to clarify on the 19 c omponents that I commented on. We would -- the 20 c omment is manufacturer can still test two units, but 21 t hen all the statistical calculations are based on 22 c omponents, and then the ratings developed from

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 164 1 c omponents is adjusted to the tested systems, and then 2 t he final rating is derived after they've been 3 c ompared. 4 So basically, you develop your AEDM using 5 c omponents. So basically, why not leave it to the 6 d iscretion of the manufacturer to decide how he wants 7 t o come up with his rating? Ultimately, that rating 8 m ust pass. 9 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I think what we're saying 10 i s -- that -- this is -- that is definitely allowed by 11 t his construct, but what we're saying is you at least 12 h ave to test two systems in a lab per the DOE test 13 p rocedure or come up with a system rating and -- and 14 t hen compare that system rating to the system rating 15 o utput by your AEDM, and if that system rating output 16 b y your AEDM is built upon component, you know, models 17 w ithin itself, that's up to you completely. 18 MR. KOLANDAYAN: Oh, okay. Yeah. 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: But at the end of the day, 20 w e're comparing system rating to tested system rating. 21 MR. KOLANDAYAN: Okay. 22 MR. WHITWELL: System performance.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 165 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: Sure. Better word. 2 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers with PVI. 3 A gain, I don't have a dog in the race here with air 4 c onditioning equipment, but referencing the computer 5 r oom air conditioners, doing air-cooled and water6 c ooled, again, for validation of the AEDM, not for a 7 p articular standard, those are the two basic types of 8 e quipment. Extending or using a different fluid from 9 w ater, I don't think would make a difference in your 10 v alidation of your 11 A EDM. 12 So it would seem to me in this case you would 13 b e looking at similar to VRFs, where you'd have two 14 a ir- cooled and two water-cooled and scratch glycol. 15 Y ou may have to do a dozen glycol tests to validate 16 y our AEDM, but in terms of after the fact, determining 17 i s that AEDM selecting accurate numbers, then I think 18 j ust air-cooled and water-cooled would do it. 19 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. I 20 t hink Frank's alluding to something that we touched 21 u pon briefly before lunch. If we have an AEDM that 22 c overs multiple product classes and we have an

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 166 1 e quation, basically, to relate it between different 2 m ediums, we can have one AEDM to cover all this. 3 At that point, would we need four to cover 4 t wo -- four test points to cover two product classes, 5 o r just two to cover one AEDM? 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: So this is Ashley. Based on 7 w hat's on this slide, if you had -- if they didn't fall 8 i nto whatever -- we're -- I'm calling them categories, 9 f or lack of a better term. If they didn't fall into 10 t wo separate categories, then the answer is two. If 11 t hey fall into two discrete categories which have two 12 i ndividual requirements of two each, then the answer 13 w ould be four. So it depends. 14 MR. KOJAK: This is Mike Kojak with UL. I 15 j ust wanted to ask a question. If I was a new 16 m anufacturer and I wanted to do the AEDM route, I would 17 o nly have to test two models, and then I can have an 18 A EDM to rate everything? 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: In that -- 20 MR. KOJAK: Okay. 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: In a single category. 22 MR. STEPHENS: If you wanted to accept that

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 167 1 r isk. 2 MS. HOOTMAN: Yes. There you go. 3 MR. KOJAK: Then why set the minimum like 4 t hat? Because, you know, it's human nature, if there's 5 a minimum set, I'm going to think that that minimum was 6 s et because that's okay, that I'll get enough data 7 w here I will have an accurate AEDM. Won't someone 8 t hat's new be like, "Oh, the minimum's two. That 9 s hould be enough testing. I'm going to do two because 10 t he DOE says two," and then rate everything according 11 t o this AEDM, but it might not be accurate? 12 MR. STANONIK: If -- Frank Stanonik, AHRI. 13 A ll right. But if you're a new -- if you're a new 14 m anufacturer, where does the rest of your information 15 c ome from to write the AEDM? I mean, this is -- I 16 m ean, you know, we kind of talk in these theoretical 17 t hings. It's like, "Oh, well, you know, I've got two 18 p oints, and I just do Y=MX+B kind of thing," you know. 19 It's not -- you know, there's a lot more 20 b ehind that. And so if you're a new manufacturer, 21 w here do you -- you're going to have to get that 22 i nformation somewhere, sort of the technical knowledge,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 168 1 t he engineering, the design to be able, in fact, to 2 c reate an AEDM that will -- I don't want to say will be 3 c orrect. I mean, so, you know, we say minimum two. I 4 j ust can't see -- you know, to me, if you really were 5 n ew into the business, you're going to be doing a lot 6 o f testing. 7 MS. HOOTMAN: Jill Hootman at Trane. But 8 i sn't that up to the manufacturer to decide what risk 9 t hey need to do? That's their risk assessment and how 10 m uch they feel they need to do in order to prove out a 11 n ew program, a new AEDM. And, you know, if they do 12 o nly go to the minimum and they aren't accurate and 13 t hey get tested, I believe there are civil penalties 14 b ehind this. So how much do you want to assess 15 MR. EISNER: We have agreement on the list? 16 MR. SACHS: I -- this is Harvey, and I do 17 h ave one other concern. Earlier on this morning, we 18 w ere talking about the smallest capacity and within 25 19 p ercent of the largest, and Kojak and others have 20 r eally been bringing up things, and Jill, that relate 21 t o guidance to manufacturers rather than requirements. 22 But I'm a little concerned that we don't seem

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 169 1 t o have here anything about the diversity of the 2 p roducts that are tested, the difference from each 3 o ther, and I wonder if that would be an appropriate -- 4 r ather than it being entirely manufacturers' risk. 5 I can imagine, to take it out of this, that I 6 c ould test -- but into residential air conditioning, I 7 c ould do a single compressor CYR 13 (ph), a single8 s tate compressor, CYR 13 5 (ph), and then attempt to 9 u se that AEDM across a wide spectrum of compressor 10 t ypes, efficiencies, and everything else. So I'm not 11 y et comfortable with that and hope somebody can make me 12 c omfortable. 13 MR. EISNER: Are you talking about putting 14 s omething in the preamble as guidance on how to use 15 t his list? 16 MR. SACHS: I'm not sure if it belongs in -- 17 t hat's a good point, Neil, and I'm just not sure how it 18

- - whether it belongs in guidance or we really ought to 19 h ave a requirement that I'm calling diversity, but 20 t here may be a better term for it, the differences of 21 t he products tested, if we're requiring two within that 22 p roduct class. You know, I don't have a good answer,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 170 1 b ut I think it's something that we need to return to. 2 MR. EISNER: I mean, you wouldn't right now 3 w ant to vote for this unless you saw something on here 4 t hat DOE draws attention to the diversity of this list, 5 a nd in making a judgment call, that should be 6 c onsidered type of thing? 7 MR. SACHS: I'm actually putting the issue 8 o ut for consideration by those who are involved with 9 t his on a daily basis, and that includes DOE. I find 10 m yself concerned that I could calibrate -- I'm sorry, 11 s ubstantiate my AEDM with a training set that comprised 12 t wo almost identical models and then use it on a much 13 m ore diverse suite. And Frank is shaking his head as 14 t hough he understands what I'm trying to say. So maybe 15 F rank could translate. 16 MR. BAUMAN: If I could -- can I -- this is 17 J eff Bauman from National. Ashley, does this -- the 18 i nformation on Page 19 that we had -- and that was 19 r egards to testing one basic of five models, the 25 20 p ercent and all that -- does this -- that still goes 21 a long with this? This would replace that? 22 MS. ARMSTRONG: This is it.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 171 1 MR. BAUMAN: Okay. 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: That all goes away. 3 MR. EISNER: So there should the "ing" be 4 d eleted there? 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes, sorry. Thank you. 6 MR. EISNER: What we're -- I think what we're 7 t alking about is there should be -- there -- should 8 t here be an asterisk here that would end up in the 9 r ule, in some way describing how this list should be 10 u sed? Harvey seems to be saying can somebody else give 11 u s the words to put up here to say, "Beware, using this 12 l ist, to not do the following with it." 13 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman from 14 N ational again. I guess I'd say -- again, I don't have 15 a -- my dog's not in this part of the show, but he's in 16 a different part, but I think the things that are -- 17 w ere listed on Page 19 with the minimum of five units, 18 w e can discuss each of those points and the 25 percent. 19 I think we ought to consider those, perhaps, 20 o ne by one, because that may address the things that 21 H arvey's talking about, concerns for minimum -- again, 22 i f you had -- okay, one category, you only had to test

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 172 1 t wo, but overall you had to test five, so that one guy 2 t hat only -- that Mike was concerned about that only 3 h ad to test two for all of his stuff, well, maybe he 4 s hould test at least five. I don't know the answer. 5 I 'm just saying that may be a way to address some of 6 t he concerns I'm hearing. 7 MR. EISNER: Well, again, an alternative 8 w ould be to agree to this list, subject to coming back 9 a nd changing it if we have to after we go through the 10 o ther criteria. The other criteria may take care of 11 H arvey's concern. Yes? 12 MR. HUNT: Marshall Hunt, Pacific Gas and 13 E lectric Company. The elephant we have in this game is 14 t hat it was millions of dollars, even hundreds of 15 m illions of dollars, in the utilities going to higher16 e fficiency equipment. 17 And so the key thing that I think Harvey was 18 t rying to say is because your baseline, let's say, 19 r ooftop package unit just barely meets the standard. 20 I f your super-duper package unit -- can you really 21 c laim the AEDP (sic) covers that and all the 22 t echnologies?

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 173 1 Because it's amazing. We're going to have, 2 w hat, microchannel heat exchangers. We're going to 3 h ave various kinds of optimizing controls that are 4 c oming up. So I just ask the manufacturers to think 5 a bout this, because we have to justify spending 6 r atepayers' money on these rebates. 7 MS. HOOTMAN: This is Jill Hootman from 8 T rane. Aren't we saying that this is the minimum? The 9 m anufacturer can still decide to do more and would 10 p robably do more with that diversity. But I don't like 11 u sing terms like "high-selling volume combination," 12 b ecause that may have nothing to do with the 13 e ngineering of that product and will not likely hit the 14 d iversity issue, or even the 25 percent of the largest, 15 t hat doesn't always hit the diversity issue either, so 16 MR. SACHS: (Inaudible). 17 MS. HOOTMAN: I will say that -- I can say 18 f or our company, yeah, we're going to have more than 19 t hose two models, but that would be the minimum. 20 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey again. Jill, I 21 a ppreciate that, but I do want to come back to 22 M arshall's point that we've been -- and express it

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 174 1 s lightly different. We've been expressing this in 2 t erms of compliance assurance, and some innovation and 3 a n awful lot of sales is also being driven by what I 4 m ight call a vertical assurance that if we have an EER 5 o f 10, that the EER 12 product is really that much 6 b etter, and we're depending on the AEDMs for that. 7 So it -- Marshall can't go back and knock on 8 a lot of doors and ask for the rebates back, but his 9 s hareholders can get dinged for something that wasn't 10 h is fault. He used the best information available in 11 t he AHRI directory or the CEC directory. So I think 12 i t's something which is on a lot of our minds, and I 13 d on't -- again, I don't have an answer. 14 MR. STARR: There's another aspect of that 15 t oo. Companies that spend a lot of money on research 16 a nd development are generally producing high-efficiency 17 e quipment. You may be competing with someone that's 18 u sing an AEDM that's two that's maybe overstating their 19 s avings. 20 Meanwhile, you're spending lots of your money 21 i n R&D on a product that really does get the efficiency 22 r ating. Meanwhile, someone else is taking some --

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 175 1 m eeting these minimum standards, and at the same time 2 c oming in at a price point less than your product and 3 n ot really as efficient as your product. 4 The utilities have to base it upon not -- you 5 k now, it's not just like, "Huh, we like Trane 6 e quipment; therefore, we'll use it." It's based upon 7 w hatever the rating comes out of, you know, these 8 v oluntary standards. 9 So there's some interest, then, from the 10 m anufacturers' side to be concerned about how efficient 11 y our -- the -- how the actual numbers really relate to 12 t he true efficiency of the equipment. And I'd be 13 t hinking about that too from the equipment side as 14 w ell. 15 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik with AHRI. 16 W hen Harvey was making his point -- and I just don't 17 q uite have the words, but it seems to me that -- well, 18 a t least in my opinion, there's almost an underlying 19 f undamental principle that the models that are included 20 t hat are covered by a single AEDM, the models that are 21 c overed by a single AEDM, have, at some basic 22 f undamental point, some commonality.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 176 1 And I don't know how to describe it, but they 2 h ave some commonality, I'll say, of design or critical 3 f unctional component or something of that nature, 4 b ecause, you know, going to the -- we were talking at 5 l unch. I can't -- I can't envision using something -- 6 i t looks a little simple to understand, at least for 7 m e. 8 I can't envision writing an AEDM that would 9 c over a commercial multi-tube -- multi-flue tube 10 s torage water heater and a fin tube hot water boiler. 11 T hey're just too different designed to -- maybe 12 s omebody could, but I can't see how you would have an 13 A EDM that would -- that would cover that whole range. 14 And so I think there is -- you know, we'd say 15 m inimum of two, and we talk about an AEDM, but I think, 16 y ou know, when you start to get, again, into some of 17 t he details, there is this -- also this common thread 18 t hat connects all of the models that are wrapped up in 19 t hat one AEDM. There's something you can say, "Oh, 20 y eah, when you get to this critical aspect of their 21 p erformance, they all have this same characteristic." 22 MR. EISNER: Rodney Beever asks a question:

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 177 1 " What happens if, the following year, the highest2 s elling volume changes? Would the manufacturer have to 3 g o back and retest?" 4 FEMALE SPEAKER: It's definitely not 5 v erification. 6 MR. EISNER: Any thought about it? 7 MS. BARHYDT: So that is -- that comment 8 a ppears to be a reflection of DOE's original proposal, 9 a nd the current discussion is leaning away from that 10 t ype of a requirement, so I think that it ends up not 11 b eing an issue. 12 MR. EISNER: Can we go back to the chart? 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes, sir. 14 MR. EISNER: We agree -- put an asterisk up 15 h ere to add a caveat, if necessary. Subsequent 16 c onversations will determinate that. We can go on now 17 a nd start to see whether we can take care of that with 18 s ome of the other criteria. Anybody disagree? 19 MR. MYERS: Would you repeat the first part 20 o f that again? 21 MR. EISNER: We're going to put an asterisk 22 u p here that'll say "Caveat: Add language if

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 178 1 n ecessary," along the concerns that you raised, Harvey. 2 T hat's a reminder we're agreeing to this, with that 3 c aveat up there that we might have to add some more 4 l anguage. And then we'll see if, when we get to these 5 o ther criteria, we resolve the problem that's been 6 r aised. 7 Any disagreement? 8 MR. THARP: This is Rusty with Goodman. I 9 w ould agree with that and would also suggest that there 10 w ould be some language adding in about the uncertainty 11 o f test results. 12 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's the next topic. 13 T hat's the next set of like five slides. 14 MR. EISNER: Well, I think it still is 15 a pplicable, because if -- 16 MS. ARMSTRONG: Absolutely. We'll get there. 17 I promise. 18 MR. DOPPEL: Ashley, I thought you were 19 t hrowing him out. 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: No, no. Nope. 21 MR. MYERS: Ashley, would we consider -- this 22 i s Frank Myers, PVI Industries.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 179 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: I'm out of room. I'm out of 2 r oom on this slide. 3 MR. MYERS: Would we consider -- are there 4 m anufacturers that produce -- I'm looking at your last 5 t wo entries, VRFs and computer room air conditioners. 6 M ight there be manufacturers that only make air-cooled 7 o r that only make water-cooled that -- would we want to 8 s eparate those into two categories, since they don't 9 c hange the quantities? You're adding all that you make 10 u p, so 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: I think that's what this 12 m eans. Two for air -- I just don't show them on 13 s eparate bullets. Sorry, I'm running out of room. 14 MR. EISNER: Two for each. Two for this -- 15 MS. HOOTMAN: I'm a manufacturer that does 16 t wo VRF air (ph). I do two models. 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: So if you make air and water, 18 i t's four; if you only make air, it's two; and if you 19 o nly make water, it's two. Is that what -- that's what 20 y ou meant, right? 21 MR. MYERS: That's what I was -- 22 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 180 1 MR. MYERS: Yeah. 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: So that's how I read this. I 3 j ust ran out of -- 4 MR. MYERS: So you're just leaving it as a 5 s ingle bullet for convenience, but it actually would be 6 t wo bullets -- 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. 8 MR. MYERS: -- if you will? 9 MS. ARMSTRONG: Correct. 10 MR. STANONIK: All of it is as applicable. 11 MR. EISNER: Okay. Next issue? 12 MS. ARMSTRONG: Water heaters. So to start 13 t he conversation, these are our, for lack of a better 14 t erm, product classes. We have different standards for 15 f uel type, storage versus instantaneous versus hot 16 w ater supply boilers, and then just unfired water 17 t anks. 18 MR. MYERS: So this is Frank Myers. One 19 o bservation right off the bat; that is that, at least 20 i n the AHRI program, hot water supply boilers are in 21 t he same program as water heaters. 22 MS. ARMSTRONG: Correct.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 181 1 MR. MYERS: They're -- seem to be the same 2 t hing. So certainly from a validation point of view, 3 y ou shouldn't have to do a hot water supply boiler 4 s eparately from an -- from a water heater. 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: So do you propose grouping 6 s torage, instantaneous, and hot water and just 7 d ifferentiating by fuel type, or just grouping hot 8 w ater supply boilers with storage? 9 MR. MYERS: Hot water supply boilers 10 g enerally are more instantaneous than storage, but from 11 a -- from a design point of view, from a validation 12 p oint of view, I think probably putting it together 13 w ith instantaneous would be the closest. 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 15 MR. STANONIK: And, Ashley, this is Frank 16 S tanonik with AHRI. Because of how -- well, because of 17 t he historical industry definitions, I think you 18 a ctually might be better off categorizing them as 19 s torage water heaters and tube-type water heaters. 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: Can I just put that in 21 p arentheses next to instantaneous and hot water? 22 MR. MYERS: Frank, I think you're probably

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 182 1 b etter leaving it like it is, because there are 2 i nstantaneous storage-type water heaters. 3 MR. STANONIK: Yeah. That's what I'm saying, 4 t hose would end up being storage. A 40-gallon, 250,000 5 B TU fired water heater is, by historical definition, 6 i nstantaneous, but it's a storage product. 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: But in our regs, it's 8 i nstantaneous. 9 MR. STANONIK: Yes. Right. Yeah, you're 10 r ight. Yes. 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, I mean, if we were 12 c ompare -- I don't know. We can definitely add new 13 t erms, but that's more definitions we need to then add. 14 MR. STANONIK: All right. Okay. 15 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. This 16 b rings up a very good point. From gas-fired storage 17 h ot water heaters, we have a product family that 18 q ualifies -- the single product family qualifies in the 19 t wo different categories. So it's a similar design. 20 T he same test procedure is done for determining 21 e fficiency, but it crosses the line of two different 22 c ategories.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 183 1 I would like to see it so that we could run 2 t wo models that would qualify both the size that rates 3 a s an instantaneous water heater and the storage water 4 h eater. Same test methodology applies to both of those. 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's up to you guys. Do 6 y ou guys think we should combine storage, 7 i nstantaneous, and hot water supply boilers into two 8 m odels for that total category? 9 MR. KLEISS: As long as the test methodology 10 i s the same, I would suggest that we should be able to 11 h ave two models to substantiate 12 MS. ARMSTRONG: Frank, what does the program 13 d o? Do you differentiate, or do you just say two? 14 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik, AHRI. As far 15 a s what I don't get -- I didn't get the question here. 16 MS. ARMSTRONG: Do you -- so for a new 17 e ntrant into your water heater program, do you 18 d ifferentiate between your certification program for 19 l ike storage type versus other types, or it's all just 20 w ater heater certification program? 21 MR. STANONIK: It's all just water heater 22 c ertification program. So if you had -- if you had a -

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 184 1

- again, a totally new manufacturer, and they were 2 o ffering commercial storage water heaters and 3 c ommercial instantaneous water heaters, whatever, we 4 w ould just pick two of one of -- one of that flavor to 5 t est. 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: Regardless of gas and oil as 7 w ell, and electric? 8 MR. STANONIK: I'm not sure on the fuel 9 t hing, but probably yeah. I'd have to double-check 10 t hat. 11 MR. KLEISS: Yeah, gas and oil would be 12 s ubstantially different. I would not propose combining 13 t hose two into the same set of tests. 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: So this is what you would 15 p ropose? 16 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik, AHRI. Again, 17 I mean, you have -- you have commercial water heaters 18 t hat are essentially a tank with lots of flue tubes 19 i nside them and the burners underneath. Most of those 20 m odels are called storage. Some of those models can be 21 c alled instantaneous by the historical industry 22 d efinitions.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 185 1 You have other commercial water heaters where 2 b asically you're running the water through a tube, and 3 t he flames are going over the tubes. Those are always 4 i nstantaneous. 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 6 MR. STANONIK: And in terms of -- thinking in 7 t erms of an AEDM, I -- you know, I -- I don't -- I 8 c an't see how I could write an AEDM for design when 9 I 've basically got tubes full of water, and I'm running 10 t he heat of flames over those, how I can write an AEDM 11 f or that product that would also cover this tank that 12 l ooks like this with lots of flue tubes in the middle. 13 And so that's what I was trying to 14 d istinguish. And while -- before I lose the thought, 15 y ou probably need a separate substantiation category 16 f or commercial heat pump water heaters, although 17 t hey're not covered yet, right? 18 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers with PVI. 19 F rank Stanonik, I believe the essential difference that 20 y ou're talking about is the storage volume greater than 21 1 0 gallons. That's the point at which you have to 22 b egin using standby loss test, which is traditionally

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 186 1 f or storage. It's not really instantaneous or non2 i nstantaneous. It's less -- equal to or less than 10 3 g allons or greater than 10 gallons, or I guess it's up 4 t o 10 gallons and then 10 gallons or greater. Yeah, 5 g reater than 10. 6 Because you could have a full line of product 7 t hat was instantaneous by the current definition; 8 s tarts out with more input for the same amount of 9 s torage, but then you put a bigger and bigger burner in 10 i t. So it's very easy to model within the same product 11 t ype, but you're crossing that border between 12 i nstantaneous and storage. Those should all be in one 13 g roup for validation purposes, and then the ones less 14 t han 10 gallons in the other group. 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: Did I get it right? 16 MR. MYERS: Yes. 17 MR. KLEISS: I disagree. Sorry, Jeff Kleiss. 18 W e -- I'm dealing with a unit that does have greater 19 t han 10 gallons but still qualifies as an instantaneous 20 w ater heater. The definition is 4,000 -- greater than 21 4 ,000 BTUs per hour input per gallon of storage. 22 Now, the standby loss only comes into play

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 187 1 w hen you're above the 10-gallon mark, but the test 2 p rocedure for thermal efficiency does not change with 3 t he -- whether you're classified as instantaneous or 4 n ot. 5 I understand what you're saying as far as the 6 d ifferent types of design as far as fire tube, a water 7 t ube or circulating, non-circulating, things of that 8 s ort. But I want to avoid adding additional test 9 b urden for a product that has -- that does have a 10 s imilar type of design, but still crosses that boundary 11 o f storage to instantaneous. 12 MS. ARMSTRONG: But this isn't tests you're 13 r equired to do for each model, so it's not a particular 14 m odel. This is the minimum amount of tests you are 15 s upposed to do before you use simulations going 16 f orward. So just because you have one model that 17 c rosses over doesn't mean you're going to have to test 18 t hat model twice. 19 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. This 20 g ets back to the question that I had previously about 21 a n AEDM that spans -- what are we calling these, 22 c ategories?

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 188 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: Uh-huh. 2 MR. STEPHENS: Whether it's -- the number of 3 m inimum tests required is additive or minimum. 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: It's additive. 5 MR. STEPHENS: So -- 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: All right? So if you have -- 7 MR. STEPHENS: -- to -- 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: If you have -- say you have - 9

- you make ten models. They span three categories. 10 Y ou need six tests. And then you can rate the other 11 f our with your simulation. 12 MR. STEPHENS: Okay. To Jeff's point, if he 13 h as one product in that category that crosses that 14 b oundary for BTUs per gallon, then he will, by default, 15 h ave to have two additional tests. And there's no 16 p hysical construction other than maybe a couple more 17 w indings in the heat exchanger to reach a higher BTU. 18 MS. ARMSTRONG: That is an option. Well, if 19 h e falls into a different category, though, he has to 20 p ick up that category. So if his product offering by 21 d efault spans another category, then he has to pick up 22 t he requirements for that category.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 189 1 MR. STEPHENS: Right. And in order -- in -- 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: But he doesn't have to test 3 t hat particular unit. 4 MR. KOJAK: There's no other -- there's no 5 o ther models in that other category whatsoever? 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: There are, for him. 7 MR. EISNER: Could we use "or" language? 8 MR. STEPHENS: But that's -- 9 MR. EISNER: Can we use either/or language -- 10 MS. MEYERS: You just -- yeah, you just 11 w ouldn't use -- 12 MR. EISNER: -- to take care of test problem? 13 MS. MEYERS: That model wouldn't be part of 14 t he AEDM. 15 MR. KLEISS: In which case we would still 16 h ave to run additional tests to substantiate that 17 p roduct, which is what we're trying to avoid. If we 18 r un tests that are appropriate for that family of 19 p roducts, for that type of design, then 20 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. 21 A shley, I agreed with what you put up, but in now 22 r eading it again, what I was actually meaning is gas-

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 190 1 f ired water heaters greater than 10 gallons and gas2 f ired water heaters less than -- less than or equal to 3 1 0 gallons. And I forget exactly which side of the 4 e qual -- I think it's greater -- the first one would be 5 g reater than or equal to 10 gallons, and then gas-fired 6 w ater heaters less than 10 gallons. And there's no 7 " and instantaneous." It's just lumping all water 8 h eaters into those two categories. 9 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik, AHRI. Again, 10 f or the -- for the purposes of this, which is trying to 11 d etermine what you -- your minimums for an AEDM, I 12 r eally think it's -- really should be categorized, at 13 l east in the -- in the gas and oil versions, by is it 14 t ank type or tube type? 15 And that's all we need, because, again, going 16 t o my idea that there's some common -- some thread of 17 c ommonality in all the models that get bunched into the 18 A EDM, I just can't see -- and that may be the limits of 19 m y imagination, but I can't see how I could write an 20 A EDM that's going to cover tube-type water heaters, 21 w hatever they look like, and tank-type water heaters at 22 t he same time.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 191 1 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. We make 2 a tube-type water heater that is integrally mounted on 3 t op of a storage tank. 4 So that is the unit that has, depending on 5 t he input versus the volume of storage, is classified 6 a s either a storage water heater or as an instantaneous 7 w ater heater. It would be categorized as a storage 8 w ater heater, in general, because it has that water 9 s torage volume, but it crosses those two classification 10 b oundaries. 11 But as far as testing, there's no reason why 12 t hat testing should not be -- why the same AEDM should 13 n ot be able -- be allowed to apply to that product, 14 e ven though it crosses from the boundaries of product 15 c lassification. 16 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stevens, HTP. My 17 r ecommendation in that case would be to pick one and 18 s tick with it. Would the DOE have any opinion on 19 g uidance for a product in that situation? Because, 20 g enerically speaking, we're in the same situation with 21 c ombined appliances with storage tanks, and that's 22 g oing to -- that's one of the things that I want to --

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 192 1 o ne of the categories I want to propose. 2 MR. EISNER: Could we have language such as, 3 " If you have combined appliances, you may," and tell 4 t hem what they can do? 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, first of all, I think it 6 d epends on how they map to the standards that are 7 r equired. I mean, I think that's fundamentally -- if 8 y ou have to run a standby loss test in addition to a 9 t hermal efficiency test because you've crossed the 10 b oundary, it's a different -- I mean, it's a different 11 t est. It's another metric. 12 MR. KLEISS: The thermal efficiency test that 13 i s conducted on this -- 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: It gives you -- I understand 15 w here we're going here. 16 MR. KLEISS: -- is the same test. 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: It gives you -- but you get - 18

- you have to report different numbers. You are now 19 s ubject to a thermal efficiency standard and a standby 20 l oss standard. 21 MR. KLEISS: There is an additional number 22 t hat is reported, which is the standby loss test. And

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 193 1 i n the case of an instantaneous -- the instantaneous 2 w ater heater that has greater than 10 gallons of 3 s torage and the storage water heater that has greater 4 t han 10 gallons of storage, we have to report standby 5 l oss on both of those, and we have to report thermal 6 e fficiency done according to the exact same test on 7 b oth of those. 8 So my complaint is that I would be forced to 9 r un an additional two tests on one model because it 10 f alls into a different product class, even though it's 11 g ot consistent -- 12 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik, AHRI. First 13 o f all, there's no -- absolutely don't have to run two 14 t ests, but the product you describe, in my 15 c ategorization of tube-type products and tank-type 16 p roducts, that is a tube-type product. You're running 17 w ater through tubes, and heat is being applied to the 18 w ater in the tubes. That's where the heating's 19 o ccurring. That's -- that is the -- where the critical 20 f unction of water heating occurs. 21 In a tank-type product, the water's in the 22 t ank, and the heat is traveling through tubes within

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 194 1 t he tank to heat the water. Those are two very 2 f undamental different concepts, and, to me, two very 3 f undamental ways to define AEDMs that would fit one way 4 t o heat water and another way to heat water. And then 5 y ou don't have to worry about what the water heater 6 l ooks like from the outside. 7 MR. STARR: This is Louis Starr with 8 N orthwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. Kind of to go 9 w ith Frank, if the technology is substantially 10 d ifferent, I mean, what he's saying is that the 11 c omputer model to model a hot water tank, which you 12 h eat the water from the bottom of the tank, as opposed 13 t o water that you flow through a tube and boil it that 14 w ay, it seems like it's going to have two different 15 c omputer models; therefore, you need to have two 16 s eparate category -- or two test -- two models for 17 t hose things. 18 It doesn't seem -- I mean, I understand 19 r educing testing burden, but if the technology is 20 e ssentially different, then it seems like there needs 21 t o be separate tests for them. 22 MR. KLEISS: Jeff with Lochinvar. I totally

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 195 1 a gree with what you're saying; however, the way that 2 t he product classes are set out by DOE, we would not be 3 a llowed to apply the same AEDM, or else we would have 4 t o run separate tests for the instantaneous versus the 5 s torage water heater. 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's what we're talking 7 a bout right now, right? 8 MR. KLEISS: Yes. 9 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, I mean, it's not -- this 10 i s different than product classes, because our product 11 c lasses are much different than this. There's no two 12 t ests. I mean, to the extent you manufacture a 13 p roduct, your entire product offering, everything 14 L ochinvar makes, spans three of these categories, you 15 n eed six tests total, period. 16 MR. RIVEST: Ashley -- 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: And then you can use your 18 A EDM. 19 MR. RIVEST: I'm not sure -- what are -- are 20 y ou saying that if you have a product that spans two 21 c ategories, you would like to use the test result for - 22

- in two categories? I don't see why you couldn't do

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 196 1 t hat. I mean, the requirements are additive in term -- 2 t hey're not necessarily additive if -- I think if the 3 p roduct is the -- applies to both categories. I mean, 4 y ou can just decide that right now, that the 5 MR. KLEISS: I -- Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. I 6 t hink part of this is also that there's, I think, a 7 m isconception -- 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: Uh-huh. 9 MR. KLEISS: -- at how advanced our AEDMs 10 a re, because, again, this is going back to sort of the 11 i nterpolation, where we would be applying an AEDM to a 12 s ingle product family and substantiating that with two 13 t ests, and then we would have another product family 14 a nd substantiate that with two tests, and 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: Why? Why are we talking -- 16 y ou don't need two per product family. 17 MR. KLEISS: Because we are dealing with 18 d ifferent types of products; fire tube, water tube, 19 c irculating. And we develop our -- again, our AEDMs 20 a re not as advanced and developed, because we don't 21 d eal with quite the breadth of product that maybe some 22 o f the air handling air conditioning systems are. So

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 197 1 w e have a much simpler estimation, and we base it on 2 t est data for that product family. 3 So because we are doing that type of testing 4 a nd validation for estimating efficiency just within 5 o ne product family, because of the trying to shoehorn 6 w hat we've been using as linear interpolation into the 7 A EDM label, we're being forced to do additional testing 8

- - 9 MS. ARMSTRONG: I don't think so. I don't 10 t hink it -- I actually think you're doing more testing 11 t han this requires. 12 MR. KLEISS: We are doing more testing. 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I don't think you would 14 n eed anything additional. And if your -- if your 15 m odels are subject to the AHRI verification program 16 a nnually, I think you would already have the testing. 17 MR. KLEISS: The issue is that we do not have 18 o ne AEDM that applies to all of our instantaneous water 19 h eaters. We do not have one AEDM that applies to all 20 o f our hot water supply boilers. We do it based -- we 21 d o our ratings based on design, on product family. And 22 b y -- because some of those product families cross

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 198 1 p roduct -- DOE product categories or product 2 c lassifications, that splits apart those families and 3 d oes require additional test burden. 4 MR. RIVEST: (Inaudible). 5 MR. KLEISS: Correct. We do -- because we do 6 n ot have a universal AEDM. 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: So in that case, I say you 8 c an use them -- I mean, this is specific to -- 9 MR. RIVEST: (Inaudible). 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: No. He wants to use -- if he 11 h as a single test point that spans two product -- 12 MR. RIVEST: That's not what he's saying. 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes, he is. 14 MR. RIVEST: You're saying you don't have two 15 t est points that fit in those categories, the lower and 16 t he upper. 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: He doesn't have two unique 18 o nes. 19 MR. RIVEST: No. No, that's not what he's 20 s aying. If he did, that wouldn't be a problem. 21 MR. EISNER: Who's right, who's wrong? 22 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss. I don't know.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 199 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: If I told him he could use 2 t hat exact same test, which is a single-unit test, and 3 i t count twice -- 4 MR. RIVEST: Yes. 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- then it works? 6 MR. RIVEST: Yes. That's 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: Because he's defining an AEDM 8 a s a specific AEDM for a product family. 9 MR. RIVEST: That's what I thought I 10 u nderstood. 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: And he may have -- 12 MR. RIVEST: But is that what it is? 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: He may have ten AEDMs. So 14 h e's looking at this as, "I need 4 for each AEDM, and 15 t hat's 40 models," if you had 10 individual product 16 f amily AEDMs. 17 MR. RIVEST: And that's true. I mean, if you 18

- - if a manufacturer, for whatever reasons, had ten 19 d istinct AEDMs, each one of those has to be validated. 20 I mean, that's, you know -- 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's the difference here. 22 MR. RIVEST: And that's -- I mean, I work for

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 200 1 m anufacturers, but that's their choice. I mean, gee. 2 MR. STEPHENS: Philip Stephens -- 3 MR. EISNER: If you're saying yes, are you 4 a ccepting the conclusion? 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: And in that case, I do think 6 t hat you can use the single test point to count twice. 7 MR. KLEISS: That really does get it. We're 8 d ealing with basically six different AEDMs that we 9 h ave, one AEDM for each product family. What we're 10 t rying to avoid is being forced to now have a seventh 11 A EDM because one of those families crosses a boundary, 12 a nd then an eighth because another one crosses a 13 b oundary of product class. 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: You can use the same test 15 d ata. 16 MR. KLEISS: That's what you're saying. That 17 i s not what -- 18 MS. ARMSTRONG: We can write that. 19 MR. KLEISS: Okay. Good. That's what -- 20 t hat's what I want. And I'm glad that we have 21 u nderstanding now. That's what I was -- 22 MR. EISNER: Let's put it up, and let's see

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 201 1 i f everybody agrees. 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: Let me think about that for a 3 m inute, how to write this. 4 MR. EISNER: We can have the record read back 5 t o you. 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: I see the -- 7 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI 8 I ndustries. While she's typing that up, let me clarify 9 s omething with Jeff. As it's currently up on the 10 s creen right up at the top, gas-fired water heaters 11 g reater than 10 gallons, all AEDMs that if you have -- 12 i f your AEDM is going to cover all of that product, you 13 n eed two models. 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: Correct. 15 MR. MYERS: If you have one AEDM that covers 16

- - and you can group those AEDMs together in terms of 17 h ow they work, if they cover gas-fired water heaters 18 g reater than 10 gallons, then that would be two models. 19 So it would seem that if you just put your 20 A EDMs together so that they were -- you characterized 21 t hem as a single entity, you would, for all gas-fired 22 w ater heaters, no matter instantaneous, storage-type,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 202 1 a ll of the traditional characterizations, you'd have 2 f our test models. That seems pretty reasonable. If, 3 a s a manufacturer, you need to do more work than that 4 t o validate the sub-AEDMs within this main AEDM, do 5 w hatever you think you need. But at the end of the 6 d ay, if this is what we want with -- 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: You want that? 8 MR. MYERS: No, I was saying two there and 9 t wo in the next one equals a total of four. And that 10 s eems reasonable in terms of the groupings. It doesn't 11 g et at exactly what Frank Stanonik was talking about, 12 b ecause you could have a tube-type water heater that 13 h as more than 10 gallons, but they're not very common. 14 T his is -- this is -- the vast majority of tube-type 15 w ater heaters would be those less than 10 gallons, and 16 t he vast majority of the storage-type water heaters 17 w ould be those with greater than 10 gallons of water. 18 So it largely gets at what Frank was talking 19 a bout, and I think it is a very simple way to do it, 20 a nd all of these characterizations are a part of the 21 p roduct categories, so it's easy to see what test 22 p rocedure goes to it.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 203 1 So what you have up there, other than the 2 f act that I would change those to say gas-fired water 3 h eaters and hot water supply boilers greater than, and 4 t he same thing in the second line, as opposed to a 5 s eparate entity. Right. And then one of those, of 6 c ourse, is -- has an equal -- greater than or equal, I 7 b elieve. 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. Yeah, I don't know 9 w hat it is, but 10 MR. MYERS: Whichever one it is. 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 12 MR. EISNER: Do we need both, or do we just 13 n eed the last change and delete the last bullet on the 14 p age? 15 MR. MYERS: I'm sorry. What was that? 16 MR. EISNER: Well, the question is this was 17 p ut in to take care of the problem, and it sounds like 18 n ow you might be fixing the problem here, or do you 19 n eed both? 20 MR. MYERS: I think -- this is Frank Myers 21 a gain. From my perspective, the bottom bullet is still 22 v alid. If you have separate AEDMs, then you need to do

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 204 1 w hatever is up in the upper section to -- that's 2 r equired to validate it. 3 If you put different components of an AEDM, 4 w hich may have previously been called separate AEDMs, 5 i f you put those into a single AEDM, then that single 6 A EDM would have to comply with what's up at the top. 7 So I think that's a valid statement down 8 t here, but each AEDM does need to be substantiated. 9 B ut if you put those into a single thing that you 10 c haracterize as an AEDM, then you still validate that 11 w ith the numbers above. 12 I didn't get to it, but I would propose the 13 s ame groupings when we're talking about oil. 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, I made them the same, I 15 t hink. 16 MR. KLEISS: What you have on the screen 17 s atisfies me. Thank you. 18 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. The 19 l ast sentence, if there is a manufacturer who has 20 s eparate AEDMs for, say, a fire-tube product and a 21 w ater-tube product and the fire-tube -- the water-tube 22 p roduct spans residential boilers and commercial

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 205 1 b oilers, then what you're saying there is we can use 2 t he same test data for residential and commercial? 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: This only applies to 4 c ommercial. 5 MR. STEPHENS: I'm sorry? 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: This only applies to 7 c ommercial, period. I don't know if the last bullet's 8 t he best way to say this, but it's a starting point for 9 s omething, for the idea. 10 MR. STARR: I just had a couple questions. 11 S o I guess heat pump water heaters are not part of 12 t his, and then the other thing is the small electrical 13 i nstantaneous water heater, like underneath faucets and 14 t hings, is that in the same category as electric water 15 h eater at the 40-gallon, or does it need its own 16 s eparate category? 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: So commercial heat pump water 18 h eaters are separated out. Residential ones are off 19 t he table. And I don't exactly know what you mean by 20 " under the faucet," but if it's a 2 to 20-gallon -- 21 MR. STARR: Yeah. 22 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- then it's a residential

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 206 1 u nit that is just not -- so that wouldn't be on the 2 t able either. We're talking about like those hybrid 3 u nits. 4 MR. HUNT: Hi, this is Marshall Hunt with 5 P G&E. You do have boosters on dishwashers for 6 r estaurants that are huge loads, a lot of kW thrown in 7 t here to boost it to the right temperature. Are those 8 c overed? Electric resistance, booster heaters -- 9 MS. ARMSTRONG: I know. So right now -- it's 10 c omplicated is the best answer. So right now, DOE is 11 i n a rule -- a separate rule to take a look at coverage 12 a s it relates to water heaters from the December energy 13 b ill. Right now, under 12 kW electric instantaneous 14 a re residential in nature, even though we realize some 15 a re marketed as whole-house, all the way up to like 25, 16 w hich I think is about what you're talking about 17 b oosters, more or less. 18 So I would say that that's not to be dealt 19 w ith here, but is being dealt with somewhere -- 20 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey, and -- 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- by the Department. 22 MR. SACHS: -- Marshall, I think we can moot

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 207 1 t his one on the basis that it's really hard to make an 2 i nefficient 25 kW resistance heater. It's got to go 3 s omewhere. 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: So are we happy with water 5 h eaters? 6 MALE SPEAKER: It's a starting point. Louis? 7 MR. STARR: Just one last -- on the heat pump 8 w ater heaters, I know they have two different tiers, a 9 n orthern tier -- 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: Uh-huh. 11 MR. STARR: -- and a southern tier. Does 12 t hat need to be split out? Because they -- the 13 p erformance changes, depending upon that. 14 MALE SPEAKER: (Inaudible). 15 MR. STARR: Oh, that's true. 16 MS. ARMSTRONG: But there's not for 17 c ommercial. 18 MR. STARR: Not commercial. Never mind. 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: They're mostly just add-on 20 h eat pump water heaters. 21 MR. EISNER: Okay. Any other thoughts? 22 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar, once

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 208 1 a gain. Sorry. Unfired hot water storage tanks, what 2 a re we testing? 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: R value. R value. 4 MR. KLEISS: Based on what? 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: The footnote in the table, 6 f ootnote in the definition somewhere. Hold on. I'll 7 f ind it. 8 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers at PVI. 9 T hat's a whole new concept for the industry. What the 10 i ndustry has done for the last -- well, since there was 11 a requirement for the amount, has been to get a copy of 12 t he test report from the vendor that provides the 13 i nsulation. We keep that on file to verify that we meet 14 t he insulation requirement in the standard. The 15 i ndustry has never conducted independent tests for the 16 i nsulation that wraps a unit, so 17 MS. BARHYDT: So are you suggesting that this 18 i s a product that should not have an AEDM provision? 19 MR. MYERS: I agree that it should not have 20 a n AEDM provision. It should not have a test 21 r equirement beyond that that the insulation provider 22 c onducts.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 209 1 MS. BARHYDT: So the only part of that that 2 w ould be within the scope of this rulemaking would be 3 t he AEDM part of it? The standard is there, and I 4 d on't know what we have or have not said in -- with 5 r espect to testing in the past, but I know, generally 6 s peaking, we are perfectly fine with people relying on 7 r epresentations from suppliers, so 8 MR. MYERS: Probably the safest thing to do, 9 s ince we're not talking about the test requirements, is 10 t o leave it in, and our AEDM would use whatever method 11 w e determine as technically feasible to make that 12 j udgment; that way, we're not stuck with having to 13 a ctually physically conduct tests on insulation that we 14 g et from an insulation vendor because we're water 15 h eater or boiler manufacturers. 16 MS. BARHYDT: I agree with that. We should 17 l eave it in. 18 MS. ARMSTRONG: Next up. 19 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: Oh, sorry. 21 MR. STEPHENS: One other question to make 22 H arvey's day. Combined appliances, we haven't

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 210 1 a ddressed them anywhere. Do we want to? Can we? 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: Combined commercial 3 a ppliances? 4 MR. STEPHENS: Yes. For hot water and 5 d omestic heat. 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: Can we think about that as we 7 m ove through? Do you have a suggestion? I mean, right 8 n ow we have specific covered categories. So you know, 9 t o the extent it's a combined appliance that also meets 10 t he definition of a water heater, it has to be 11 c ompliant with the water heater regs. To the extent it 12 m eets the definition of boiler, it has to be compliant 13 w ith the boiler regs. One appliance has covers, too. 14 N ot separated out right now. But these allow you to 15 u se an AEDM for a separate function. 16 MR. STEPHENS: So by the last point, if a 17 m anufacturer uses multiple AEDMs, the same single unit 18 t est may be applied to substantiate separate AEDMs. So 19 f or a combined appliance, we could use the same test 20 r eport for both AEDMs, whether it be for commercial 21 w ater heating or space heating. 22 MS. ARMSTRONG: If --

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 211 1 MS. BARHYDT: So would that be the same test 2 p rocedure? 3 MR. STEPHENS: No, no. 4 MS. BARHYDT: Then how would you use the same 5 t est report for both? 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: They just run the tests at 7 t he same time. 8 MR. STEPHENS: Or we could use something 9 s imilar to the fan curves. We could develop a 10 c orrelation; if it's this on an AFUE test or a thermal 11 e fficiency test for the boiler, then it will be this 12 f or the thermal efficiency for the water heater side. 13 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik with AHRI. I 14 m ean, up to this point, all the DOE discussions of 15 c ombination have been in the context of either the 16 r esidential boiler standards or the residential furnace 17 a nd boiler efficiency test procedures. On this 18 p articular issue, if we're going to drag this into this 19 d iscussion of commercial certification, I think we've 20 g otten way ahead of the, of the horse or the cart way 21 a head of the horse because I've never heard discussion 22 a bout test procedures for commercial combination

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 212 1 e quipment. 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: I think that's what I was 3 t rying to say, right? 4 MS. BARHYDT: Yeah. I -- 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right now we just have water 6 h eaters -- 7 MS. BARHYDT: Yeah. 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- and we have boilers and to 9 t he -- we don't have a separate covered combined 10 a ppliance category. 11 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey Sachs from SA. 12 T hank you. 13 MR. EISNER: Marshall. 14 MR. HUNT: Hi. Marshall Hunt, PGD. One last 15 t hing on the heat pumps, I think as we move towards 16 z ero net energy in California, we're going to be seeing 17 h ot water heat pumps commercial with ground source or 18 w ater source. What is the status of those kinds of 19 a ppliances? Do we have a test standard even? I don't 20 k now as a ground source hot water heater dedicated. 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: DOE doesn't have a regulatory 22 t est procedure for heat pump water heaters, period.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 213 1 MR. HUNT: Okay. 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: Commercial. 3 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel with Mitsubishi 4 E lectric. The only standard I know of that tries to 5 d eal with multiple types of components combined is 6 A SHRAE. It's a draft ASHRAE Standard 206 which is out 7 f or public comment at this time. 8 MALE SPEAKER: Isn't that Wayne Reedy's Air 9 S olutions? 10 MALE SPEAKER: Also -- 11 MR. DOPPEL: It includes -- 12 MALE SPEAKER: -- been modified to cover 13 w ater. 14 MALE SPEAKER: Okay. 15 MR. DOPPEL: You could put almost any kind of 16 c ombination in that. 17 MALE SPEAKER: Right. 18 MR. DOPPEL: Okay. 19 MR. EISNER: Any disagreement with this list? 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: I should go back to the right 21 l ist. 22 MR. EISNER: Huh?

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 214 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: I have the wrong list up. 2 S orry. 3 MR. EISNER: No disagreement, no objections? 4 (No audible response.) 5 MR. EISNER: All right. Let's go to the next 6 o ne. 7 MS. BARHYDT: Four each? 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: Shall we just keep in line? 9 MR. EISNER: Comments? Questions? 10 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. The 11 c ommercial packaged -- or packaged boilers, once you 12 c ross the 2.5 million BTU per hour threshold, the test 13 p rocedures change. 14 MR. MYERS: What threshold? 15 MR. KLEISS: 2.5 million. Based on this, are 16 w e being allowed to, if we have a unit that is smaller 17 t han that, test to both procedures, and if a unit is 18 l arger than that, test to both procedures, and then use 19

- - develop an AEDM based on those tests? 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: No. 21 MR. KLEISS: Then I don't like it. 22 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik, AHRI. If you

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 215 1 d idn't have the different metric applied to the 2.5 2 m illion BTU per hour in less models then, in fact, at 3 l east my information is that in fact you could in fact 4 d evelop an AEDM that would cover both steam and hot 5 w ater boilers if you didn't have an efficient -- 6 d ifferent metric. But you do. So you can't, you can't 7 d evelop an AEDM on steam boilers from 3 million to 10 8 m illion and apply it to hot water boilers at 2 million 9 t o 500,000. It's a different metric. 10 MR. KLEISS: Where you have a substantially 11 d ifferent design, steam to water, I agree. When we're 12 t alking about water boilers, and we have a group of 13 p roducts that are, you know, 1 million, 2 million BTUs 14 p er hour, and then you have the same type of design 15 t hat goes up to a 5 million, 10 million BTU per hour 16 u nit, is there a justifiable reason why we couldn't 17 t est both for thermal or a small one for thermal and 18 c ombustion, and test a large one for thermal and 19 c ombustion, and use the thermal to create a thermal 20 A EDM and the combustion to create a combustion AEDM? 21 E ven though they're in the different product classes 22 i t's the same design. That way you only set up two

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 216 1 u nits. You don't have to produce these very low2 v olume, potentially custom units and reduce the test 3 b urden in that way where you're applying the 4 a ppropriate test procedures to create an AEDM on two 5 m odels. 6 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik with AHRI. So 7 t here -- okay. I think I heard what you said. So 8 t hey're basically the same design. The fact that the - 9

- at some point of input they have a different 10 d escriptor is a -- that's an accident of test 11 e fficiency or whatever and not necessarily design. So 12 I guess if you were willing to run the unnecessary 13 t hermal efficiency test on a -- sake of a discussion 14 h ere, a 5 million BTU unit and the unnecessary 15 c ombustion efficiency test on a 500,000 unit, it 16 c ertainly is foreseeable you could develop the 17 i nformation that would validate the AEDM, yes. 18 MR. KLEISS: For the very large sizes, 19 t ypically the actual conduct of a thermal efficiency 20 t est, the conduct of a combustion efficiency test is 21 v ery minor compared to the expense of constructing, 22 i nstalling and setting up for a test, a unit. So

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 217 1 r unning dual tests on appliances is common practice. 2 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. I 3 w ould very much disagree with how Ashley has split 4 t hose into above and below 2.5 million. As has been 5 s tated, you frequently have the exact same design 6 p roduct which has the same heat transfer 7 c haracteristics. All that is changing is the metric, 8 a nd that's easily extendable in an AEDM. So it would 9 s eem to me having all the sizes lumped together would 10 b e appropriate. 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: We had that originally. 12 MR. MYERS: When you're wanting to validate 13 t he AEDM, the key here is looking at the product type, 14 n ot what the metric is. 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: Happiness? 16 MR. KLEISS: I'm sorry if I didn't 17 c ommunicate that clearly enough for -- 18 MS. ARMSTRONG: I started this one. This is 19 h ow I started, right? And we agree that natural and 20 m echanical drafts should all be lumped together as 21 w ell. 22 MR. SUTPHEN: This is John Sutphen, Cleaver-

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 218 1 B rooks. Historically and currently, we use actual test 2 d ata from steam tests and use that to create an AEDM 3 f or hot water. Grant you that the design is the same 4 f rom the steam, the hot water vessel. 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: This would not allow you to 6 d o that. 7 MR. SUTPHEN: Then I disagree with what you 8 h ave up there. 9 MS. ARMSTRONG: At least you would have to -- 10 f or this one, you would have to test for hot water 11 b efore you could do it. And then you could do it 12 f reely after that. 13 MR. SUTPHEN: I still disagree. It's just 14 n ot financially feasible for most boiler companies that 15 b uild hot water boilers in the range that we do to buy 16 t he capital equipment involved with testing the actual 17 h ot water boiler. 18 MR. KLEISS: And specific, you're dealing 19 w ith such a high output you need to be able to exhaust 20 t he steam to atmosphere rather than cool and 21 r ecirculate water, hot water. Is that correct? 22 MR. SUTPHEN: Correct. It would apply for

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 219 1 b oth the low-pressure steam; we can't even do that. We 2 u sually run the test at 100 psi, do a stack-over-steam 3 m ethod, and based on independent test data we proved 4 t hat the formulas that we use are very reliable, and we 5 c an extrapolate that down to the low-pressure steam and 6 t he hot water for same design. 7 MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest. I think there's a 8 p recedent here for collapsing the product classes where 9 t he engineering is the same. So rather than having a 10 p roduct from one category qualify another category, you 11 s hould just collapse the categories and do two of water 12 o r steam. In this case, it would be two steam. 13 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. What 14 a re you proposing then when you say collapse? 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: Well, what he wants -- what 16 h e needs is this. 17 MR. MYERS: Oh. I'm not sure that that would 18 w ork because you do have steam-only units that don't 19 c ollapse into water heaters or hot-water boilers. What 20 w ould be a better solution, if we can do it this way, 21 w ould to say for commercial steam package boilers, 22 w hether they're oil fired or gas fired, that you can

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 220 1 u se the same data to represent compliance with hot 2 w ater; I'm not sure what the right words would be; that 3 y ou test it on steam and those numbers. If you're 4 w illing to accept those numbers which are almost always 5 l ower than the, than the correlating water boiler, then 6 i f you're willing to accept those steam number 7 e fficiencies as water efficiencies, you don't have to, 8 y ou don't have to do additional tests. It's what AHRI 9 d oes. That's what the industry has done for over 40 10 y ears. 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I can do it as a sentence, 12 o r I mean really this covers the same thing. 13 MR. KLEISS: But isn't that still an AEDM? 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. 15 MR. MYERS: How many miles do you have to -- 16 MR. SUTPHEN: This is John Sutphen, Cleaver17 B rooks. The whole hot water part of it would be an 18 A EDM. There would be no -- 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right -- 20 MR. SUTPHEN: -- actual testing. 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: He needs this in order to do 22 w hat he wants to do because he would only test the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 221 1 s team side. His four models would be all steam. 2 MR. KLEISS: And I think what Frank is 3 r eferring to is just the methodology of determining 4 t hat AEDM, but it still is an AEDM that's based on the 5 s team testing. 6 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI. What 7 I 'm saying is if someone has only units that are both 8 s team and water, they shouldn't have to test -- that 9 a re gas, they shouldn't have to test four models to 10 v erify their AEDM. They should only have to test two 11 m odels to verify their AEDM. 12 MS. ARMSTRONG: I think this does it -- 13 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. I 14 t hink if we took the last sentence off the previous 15 s lide that we developed and added it to this one -- 16 MS. ARMSTRONG: It's a single AEDM. 17 MR. STEPHENS: If a manufacturer uses 18 m ultiple AEDMs. 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: It's a single AEDM. 20 MR. STEPHENS: Well, if -- right now, 21 a pparently John has multiple AEDMs, one for steam, one 22 f or hot water.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 222 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: No, it's the same. 2 MR. SUTPHEN: No -- 3 MR. STEPHENS: The same. Well -- 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: They just use the one tub. 5 MR. STEPHENS: If we took the last sentence 6 h ere, and it approved that you could use the same test 7 f or two AEDMs, it would achieve his goal. 8 MR. EISNER: It already says that. 9 MS. ARMSTRONG: I don't think so. I mean -- 10 MR. EISNER: It already says it. 11 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik with AHRI. 12 A shley, in this case it might be easier to simply say 13 h ot -- well, that's going to be a little crude -- hot 14 w ater only commercial package boilers, steam only, and 15 t hen you'd have a third line that would be steam/hot 16 w ater -- 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: Oh. That's a good idea. 18 MR. STANONIK: -- meaning those models that 19 c an be -- that come in both -- 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: Got you. 21 MALE SPEAKER: And/or. 22 MR. STANONIK: No, not and/or. If you --

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 223 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: I got you. 2 MR. STANONIK: -- had a series of models, if 3 y ou had a series of models that are only hot water 4 m odels and an AEDM, you'd have to test two. If you had 5 a series of models that were only steam models, and you 6 h ad an AEDM for those, you'd have to have test two. 7 B ut if you're like most people in the business where 8 m any of your models can be ordered either steam or hot 9 w ater, and you write an AEDM for that group of models, 10 y ou still only need two. 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: And they can be steam or hot 12 w ater at your discretion. 13 MR. STANONIK: Right. 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. There you go. 15 MR. STANONIK: Well, I put hot water/steam. 16 Y ou know, when you order it's only going to do -- 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, yeah, yeah. 18 MR. STANONIK: -- one or the other. It's not 19 g oing to do both for you. At least not by design. 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: I just meant that -- 21 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey with a 22 h ypothetical. What happens if DOE and industry move to

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 224 1 a test where we have a low-temperature return instead 2 o f the existing artificial system, so we're starting to 3 t est units as though they were condensing? Is this 4 g oing to change particularly the question of hot water 5 s team package boilers? 6 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. I 7 u nderstand what you're saying. It would probably -- 8 t he AEDM that would apply to the condensing boilers 9 w ould probably not be the same AEDM that would be 10 a pplying to these steam/hot water boilers. 11 MR. SACHS: Does that mean that we should 12 r eserve for an AEDM for possible future use or just not 13 b other with it? 14 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. I think 15 t hat what we're looking at is a much broader view of 16 A EDMs and validation of -- or number of tests needed to 17 s ubstantiate an AEDM and that you're talking about 18 s omething that's a -- I don't think we need to create a 19 r egulation or a rule based on -- 20 MALE SPEAKER: (Inaudible.) 21 MR. KLEISS: Yeah. Or demanding that 22 m anufacturers set up separate AEDMs. Rather, allow

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 225 1 t hem the opportunity to do that when that test 2 m ethodology materializes. 3 MR. STANONIK: Yeah. Frank Stanonik 4 f rom AHRI. Harry, I think that what we're talking about 5 i s hopefully we can get an AEDM that is useful. And I 6 t hink what you're talking about is a change in 7 c ircumstance which may cause people to develop some new 8 A EDMs because they'll have a new metric. But I don't 9 t hink the AEDM concept we've come up with here should 10 i n any way hamper or conflict with whatever procedure 11 m ight come out of 155. 12 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey. Thank you. 13 MR. EISNER: Do we have any disagreement with 14 t his? 15 (No audible response.) 16 MR. EISNER: Okay. Perfect timing, Ashley. 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: I'm coming. 18 MR. EISNER: We got agreement on this list. 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: Furnaces is next. 20 MS. BARHYDT: Actually, one question on I 21 t hink it was this one. I made a mental note to come 22 b ack, and I forgot about it. Is this the one where we

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 226 1 t alked about there being different metrics applicable 2 b ased on size? So we might add a note that it's testing 3 o f two models, but it's testing for all applicable 4 m etrics. It's not just somehow doing a test for one 5 m etric. 6 MR. KLEISS: That should probably be true for 7 a ll the slides. 8 MS. BARHYDT: So just a general principle? 9 MR. EISNER: So we want to see that on the 10 c harts? 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: I don't think that would be a 12 v alid test if they don't have the right metrics there. 13 I don't think you need it to be. 14 MS. BARHYDT: If you don't mind putting it up 15 t here, I'm worried about forgetting to put language in 16 a t a later date. 17 MR. HUNT: This is Marshall Hunt from PG&E. 18 I s gas understood to be both propane and pipeline 19 n atural gas? 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. 21 MR. HUNT: Okay. 22 MR. STANONIK: What company are you with,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 227 1 P acific Gas and Electric? 2 MALE SPEAKER: Is gas defined in the regs? 3 MR. HUNT: Propane does not exist. 4 MR. EISNER: Do we want to add something that 5

- - do we want to add something that gas includes 6 p ropane? 7 MR. CYMBALSKY: Gas is gas. 8 MR. EISNER: I'm just -- 9 MR. BAUMAN: It's a transportation -- 10 MR. EISNER: Okay. Gas-fired furnaces, oil11 f ired furnaces. 12 Seeing no hands, I assume everybody approves 13 t his chart? 14 MR. STANONIK: Yeah, those are easy. 15 MR. EISNER: Quiet. 16 MS. ARMSTRONG: All right. Back to the hard 17 o ne which I didn't fill out. 18 SPEAKER: This would be a good time for a 19 b reak, don't you think? 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. 21 MR. EISNER: Is this the last of the list? 22 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. This is --

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 228 1 MR. EISNER: Oh, this is the harder -- 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- what I would guess is the 3 m ost difficult. 4 MR. EISNER: Oh. Keep them going. 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: I thought water heaters was 6 g oing to go easy, but ... 7 MR. EISNER: All right. Why don't we take a 8 t en-minute break? 9 MS. ARMSTRONG: So while we have a break, 10 m aybe people can think of ideas for this one. 11 MR. EISNER: Make it look simple to start 12 o ff. 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: Well -- I agree. 14 (Off the record at 3:26 p.m.) 15 (On the record at 3:44 p.m.) 16 MR. EISNER: All right. Is everybody ready 17 t o get started? We have Ron Shebik who wants to make a 18 c omment before we get going with the next list. 19 Ron? 20 MALE SPEAKER: (Inaudible.) 21 MR. EISNER: Oh, you don't know? Let me know 22 w hen he comes back. Okay.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 229 1 All right. We've lost him for a few minutes. 2 W e're on our next list, ice cream freezers, which I'm 3 a ssured will be quite simple and easy to get through. 4 MALE SPEAKER: Just ice cream freezers -- 5 MR. EISNER: Maybe we should ... 6 (Crosstalk) 7 MR. EISNER: You ready? 8 We got agreement on ice cream freezers. 9 MS. ARMSTRONG: Great. Who's bringing one? 10 MR. EISNER: Okay. Do you want to do any 11 i ntroduction on this list, any comments? 12 MS. ARMSTRONG: Well, sure. I can do some 13 i ntroduction on this list. 14 So right now we have regulations for all 15 t ypes of commercial refrigeration equipment, self16 c ontained, remote condensing, their orientation, 17 w hether they're open or closed, whether they're 18 t ransparent, their rating temperatures in terms of 19 r efrigerators versus freezers versus ice cream 20 f reezers. So it's a question of, you know, we have a 21 w ide variety of product classes, and similar to 22 c ommercial air conditioning we condensed a lot of into

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 230 1 d iscrete categories. 2 So the first question is what are discrete 3 c ategories that need to be separated out just as 4 m inimum testing requirements? 5 MR. HON: There's no way you can apply the 6 d ifferent temperatures to the same set of calculations 7 b ecause the units are not built to handle multiple 8 t emperatures, so whatever temperature you test at, that 9 i s a separate model. 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: And we have three rating 11 t emperatures, right? 12 MR. HON: Yes. 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: So that covers refrigerators, 14 f reezers and ice cream freezers. 15 MR. HON: Yes. 16 MS. ARMSTRONG: So do I have it here? Is 17 t his enough, or do I need to go to -- I mean this 18 c overs self- contained remote and then the three 19 t emperatures, and that's it. 20 MR. HON: It is physically impossible to rate 21 a n open-air vertical refrigerator with a glass door 22 v ertical refrigerator. They do not compare in any way.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 231 1 B asically, if you take all your categories which are 2 p resently in the standard, almost every one of those is 3 a separate group. 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: So you're of the opinion that 5 e ach separate category in our regulations, and I'll 6 c ount them in a minute; there's like -- 7 MALE SPEAKER: Thirty-eight. 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- thirty some -- 38? You 9 t hink you need at a minimum 38 models to substantiate 10 a n AEDM? 11 MR. HON: They're not related to each other. 12 T here's no way around it. 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: So the proposal on the table 14 i s 38. 15 MR. BAUMAN: I'm going to say less than 38. 16 I do think, as Charlie said, there's comparisons. But 17 w hen you're creating an AEDM, you're going to -- you 18 m ay have a formula for calculating your door and the 19 t ype of door you had, the type of -- so I think there 20 a re some commonalities again where you, you know, we 21 m ight talk about, again, what variety you have to have 22 w ithin there. But I think you could use the same AEDM

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 232 1 t o calculate a glass door cabinet and a solid door 2 c abinet. Be two separate sets of calculations because 3 y our door insulation is different, your condensing is 4 d ifferent, your heating system may be different. 5 I agree on refrigerators and freezers 6 p ossibly, but I think even freezers and low-temp 7 f reezers, again, you may be different size unit. You 8 m ay be different type of defrost. But if you can 9 v alidate against one of those classes, again, you have 10 t o -- when you actually run the AEDM they're different 11 m odels that you have to do within it. But I think for 12 v alidation you could, you could put ice cream freezers 13 a nd freezers together, and you could put glass door and 14 s olid door together. But again, they'd have to be -- 15 t hey're different basic models. So when you do the 16 c alculations you have to run them separately. 17 MR. EISNER: Before we go too far, I want to 18 g ive Ron a chance because I think it pertained to what 19 w e were talking about before the break. 20 Ron, are you on the line now? 21 MR. SHEBIK: I'm on. I apologize. I had to 22 r edial back in, so I missed some of the conversation.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 233 1 I just wanted to point out that I -- as far as the 2 n umber -- the testing required for substantiation with 3 t he use of an AEDM, I think we need to be conscious on 4 a CRE that, again, to minimize the amount of testing 5 w e're pushing to do, there's enough push from our 6 c ustomers; customers are very knowledgeable and aware 7 o f energy efficiencies. So we have enough push from 8 o ur customers as well as checks and balances amongst 9 o ur competition to keep us in check. So I'm just 10 t rying, you know, looking at what the other groups 11 d iscuss in your various tables, looks like you got 12 q uite a large number of tests are being required and 13 I 'm just -- I'm of the opinion that for CRE that's not 14 n ecessarily the case. 15 Again, I apologize, I missed -- Charlie was 16 j ust starting to speak when I had to redial, so I 17 m issed everything that Charlie said. 18 MS. ARMSTRONG: The highlight was -- 19 MR. SHEBIK: I do have -- 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- that you should test 38 at 21 a minimum was the highlight. 22 MR. SHEBIK: Okay. I do have one question

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 234 1 f or Ashley, I believe, and that is, and just to make 2 s ure -- and again, I'm not sure the -- 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: Was it something in the 4 m iddle? 5 MR. SHEBIK: -- but Ashley, if you have a 6 c ase you're testing on our basic -- to represent a 7 b asic model group, and in that case you can vary your 8 c omponents in the case as far as standard efficiency 9 a nd high efficiency components, would that be 10 c onsidered two different cases or two different tests? 11 O r would you be able to substantiate the more efficient 12 m odel via the AEDM without doing additional testing? 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: The way this is written, as 14 l ong as you -- well, so first of all, we're trying to 15 d ecide what's that minimum number of tests. But 16 a ssuming you had that minimum number of tests done, you 17 c ould just use your AEDM. 18 MR. SHEBIK: Okay. Very good. And by that, 19 y ou could -- the information that you gain as far as 20 y our efficiency numbers, that could be made public, 21 t hat could be published information without additional 22 t esting?

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 235 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: Correct. That's what we're 2 g oing for here, allowing for rating based solely on 3 s imulations once the minimum amount of testing has been 4 d one. 5 MR. SHEBIK: Very good. Thank you. I just 6 w anted to verify that. Thank you. 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I've kind of come up with 8 m aybe a middle solution, consolidating at least the 9 o rientation. This does still separate out self10 c ontained versus remote, open versus closed and then 11 r efrigerators versus freezers but not vertical versus 12 h orizontal versus -- is this a reasonable start? Can 13 w e further consolidate? 14 MS. BARHYDT: Another possibility could be to 15 h ave the self-contained to self-contained refrigerator 16 t o freezer to remote to remote refrigerator to remote 17 f reezer to -- but then have as a separate line item 18 t hat the tests for the AEDM have to have at least one 19 o pen and one solid and one glass door, if those are in 20 y our product offerings, so that instead of having the 21 d uplication of two open and two closed, you could kind 22 o f hit multiple points using a single test.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 236 1 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. Basically, we 2 h ave -- I think we have several things going on here. 3 N umber one is that the self-contained units have been 4 r egulated and supposedly enforceable regulations since 5 2 007 or 2008. And those of us who have been in the 6 i ndustry that long and have actually done our homework 7 a lready have test data for all this, or we wouldn't be 8 s elling product or shouldn't be selling product. So I 9 d on't know what the big deal about it is. Two models 10 i s not statistically valid. It should be at least 11 t hree. But we should have already had all this testing 12 d one four years ago. So why are we fighting over how 13 m any units we have when we should have already had 14 h undreds more than this done? 15 MS. DANE: Mary Dane, Traulsen. I'm sure 16 t his is going to be no surprise, but I disagree with 17 C harlie. 18 MR. HON: About what? 19 MS. DANE: Well, just the -- well, I agree 20 t hat we have, we have a lot of, a lot of fractions 21 w ithin the types. We're in agreement on that. The 22 p oint is is that we're still at substantiation, and I

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 237 1 k now that -- I want to see how to say this right. We 2 h ave a lot of historical data, and I believe we can use 3 t hat for our strengthening our models. But I have a 4 p roblem with requiring us at the substantiation level 5 t o do 3, 4, 36, 16. I mean, that way -- I mean that's 6 v ery burdensome. It would tie up the labs. We'd never 7 b e able to develop a new product. You know, it is just 8 t oo much testing to do at that level. 9 MS. BARHYDT: If you have a new product 10 o ffering, and you already have an AEDM, it wouldn't 11 r equire additional testing unless it was in a new 12 p roduct area that you didn't already have 13 s ubstantiation for. 14 MR. STARR: This is Louis Starr with NEEA. 15 Y ou know, to the way we've done the last products to 16 d ate, that we've just covered earlier today, is that we 17 s ort of split it out based upon where a likely AEDM is 18 t here. So unfortunately, there may be a lot of classes 19 h ere. But it seems like that -- seems like the logical 20 t hing. And even just what you have here, I mean 21 t here's low-, medium-, and high-temperature 22 r efrigeration systems which work -- all three of those

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 238 1 w ork at different head pressures. And then there's 2 o ther factors that come in there where you have closed 3 a nd open doors. And so all those things are different 4 m odels, kind of like the same discussion of the hot 5 w ater tanks, and so, you know, they -- the one AEDM is 6 p robably not going to describe those, at least between 7 m edium-, low- and high- temperature refrigerations. 8 And then I don't know about the models, the 9 d oors and the not doors. Maybe there is -- I think he 10 w as alluding to that; there is ways to account for that 11 t hat maybe could be counted in through an AEDM. But 12 w hen you're doing mathematical models describing 13 s ystems that are different levels or different 14 o peration and refrigeration pressures and things, it 15 d oesn't seem like a good idea. So I'd say at least 16 s plitting it up to those three, and then to the extent 17 t hat you can add more of the other items that can 18 r eally be accounted for, but at least medium-, low- and 19 h igh-temperature refrigeration systems basic minimum 20 f or those. 21 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. A couple other things 22 t hat you also have to consider is that we may be

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 239 1 d ifferent in this industry because we have two other 2 s ide groups that are involved in the same -- in 3 d iscussions because right now we have Energy Star 4 c overage of about half of the category that is up 5 t here, and we also have Canadian standards which are 6 c overed by about two-thirds of what's up on that wall. 7 A ll those require third-party verification testing, not 8 j ust modeling, but third-party verification testing. 9 S o we're forced into a corner of testing a lot of stuff 10 b esides what a basic two units would be. 11 And what happens then is that those of us who 12 a re going to be exporting to Canada, those of us who 13 a re willing to go to the extra mile to get the Energy 14 S tar listings to help out our customers and to help out 15 t he utilities are going to be penalized by somebody who 16 g ets away with two models. And their validity won't be 17 t here. And we already have the law on the books which 18 s hould have already been tested. So what's the big 19 f ight if we can't have categories because if you're 20 a lready making it, you've already tested more than two 21 m odels. I don't understand this. 22 MR. BAUMAN: I guess the reason I'm going

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 240 1 b ack -- this is Jeff Bauman from National -- a little 2 b it, Charlie, is if we're talking about how you 3 v alidate an AEDM, what do you need to validate, you 4 k now, what do you need to validate the AEDM? That's 5 w hat I go back to a little bit. I think some of the 6 t hings we took about previously about volumes and 7 t hings like that might be applicable for our products 8 m ore so than others. I think some of those are more 9 i mportant for us to consider than necessarily again 10 f reezers at low temp, freezers that are -- and 11 d epending how we work through that even versus two or 12 t hree per test as long as you have the biggest or the 13 s mallest. I think we go to, you know, for our -- for 14 c ommercial refrigeration I think we got to go back and 15 l ook at those items again to see because those, I 16 t hink, have validity in this product area. 17 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. Just a 18 p oint of clarification from the Department. We don't 19 h ave to do new testing. We can use historical test 20 d ata for these, right? So -- 21 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. That's why I'm saying 22 t his. We in the industry should have already had

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 241 1 e nough data that we wouldn't care two hoots about what 2 l evel they put on there. If we put in ten in some of 3 t hese categories it wouldn't be -- bother us because we 4 h ave it if we've done our homework already which should 5 h ave been done four years ago. 6 But there are so many different nuances in 7 o ur industry that are vastly different. I can have an 8 o pen- style, coffin-type ice cream freezer that runs 9 f our times as efficiently as a vertical open-air 10 c ooler, you know, freezer, delivering the same product, 11 c onsuming four times the energy. They need to know 12 t hat. And that's just the physics of the beast. 13 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. I 14 t hink the important corollary for this is as the 15 e fficiency changes -- the minimum efficiencies are 16 a bout to change, and the method of test may be changing 17

- - this will be massive for all of us in the coming 18 y ear and a half, two years. So at that point, yeah, it 19 b ecomes a major issue, especially for the smaller 20 m anufacturers. 21 MR. SACHS: I'm listening avidly and sort of 22 h earing three very different perspectives from three

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 242 1 m anufacturers, and I guess the question I have is 2 w hat's the theoretical likelihood that if the CRE 3 m anufacturers were locked in a room without food that 4 t hey'd come out with a consensus? Because if they 5 a ren't likely to, having the rest of us in the room 6 i sn't likely to help. 7 MR. BAUMAN: You want us to go home? 8 MR. SACHS: It's a serious question because 9 I 'm hearing two pretty big differences in perspective 10 a mong you all. 11 MR. EISNER: And are the differences simply 12 e xplained by small and large or other factors? 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: I think it goes two ways, 14 r ight? I mean, so Charlie's point, he has a lot of test 15 d ata so to the extent he's okay with large 16 r equirements. But to the point Phillip made, if we 17 c hange the test procedure completely, and all of your 18 t ests become invalid, and all of a sudden you -- if I 19 t ell you, you know, Charlie, we're back to the 72 tests 20 f or resubstantiating your AEDM. And oh, by the way, 21 y ou have to do it in a couple years. Is that still 22 o kay?

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 243 1 MR. HON: Two tests for each of those 2 c ategories, yes, it is okay. The reason for it is is 3 t hat I cannot validate anything without those -- 4 m inimum of what the -- it was broken out for a reason. 5 T he reason the DOE has separate categories is because 6 t he units are that different. 7 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman. I'll agree 8 w ith you, Charlie, but I think the difference there is 9 m ore on the, on the energy efficiency level that they 10 s hould be expected to have. You're right, your glass 11 d oor unit and a solid door unit, you're not going to 12 e xpect the same efficient. You wouldn't expect the 13 s ame minimum efficiency level. I think that's really 14 w here, you know, they had to break it out to as many as 15 t hey did. 16 Now, if you're trying to develop a model for 17 t hose two, and you have variations with that, you could 18 b uild a model that's still valid to calculate what 19 t hose two are. You'll get again, you know, it doesn't 20 m ean you can use the -- you can run that AEDM on the 21 s olid door and use the same number for the glass door. 22 I t mean, you know, I think that's where the difference

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 244 1 i s and why my understanding is as why DOE had so many 2 c ategories is because it had to do with the efficiency 3 l evels they had to require. 4 I just wanted to add that. 5 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. I agree with you to 6 s ome level but not completely because just because it's 7 a self-contained refrigerator, there are so many 8 d ifferent variations of that because I can give you six 9 o r seven different categories that could easily be made 10 a s a self- contained refrigerator. How do you model by 11 t esting two of those and figure out a model for the 12 o ther five? 13 MR. BAUMAN: And that's I think a little bit 14 w here I was going back and talking about some of the 15 o ther considerations with volumes and things like that. 16 A nd again, I'm trying to look at that we've got just -- 17 w e've got a ton of test data, too, Charlie, and then 18 w e've got -- we've been waiting and asking DOE for the 19 l ast three, four years how do -- where do we send this 20 s tuff? Where do we send this stuff? So I'm on board 21 w ith you on that. 22 And what I'm trying to look at it, though, is

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 245 1 i f we're looking at how do you validate an AEDM is -- 2 t hat's the question I'm trying to -- or get the best 3 a nswer I can help with is how -- what's the right way 4 t o validate an AEDM and break down the categories? And 5 t hat's where I think volume of the cabinet and things, 6 t here's so much differences in there that those are 7 t hings we have to consider that others don't. 8 MR. EISNER: If the standards are increased 9 t hat you have to meet, what are the chances you'll 10 s till have 38 different types of pieces of equipment, 11 b ecause will all of them be able to meet a much higher 12 s tandard? 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: It would be a separate -- 14 w ell, it would be evaluated as part of the rule, but in 15 t heory, if we maintain products costs using the same 16 r ationale previously, be 38 different standards. 17 MR. EISNER: What I'm getting at is would you 18 b e able to make, for example, an open cabinet holding 19 i ce cream if you're increasing efficiency standards or 20 y ou'll have to -- will you be basically killing off 21 t hat kind of equipment? 22 MS. ARMSTRONG: No.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 246 1 MR. EISNER: So you just make it a much lower 2 s tandard? 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: We'd have to maintain 4 u tility. 5 MR. EISNER: And for the concern over the 6 c ost of conducting all the tests, would more time help 7 m eet that requirement if you didn't have to do it in a 8 t wo- year period, if you had four years, if you had six 9 y ears? 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: Regs from the statute. The 11 l ead times are in the statute. I just made up a number 12 b ut -- 13 MR. EISNER: What are the lead times? They 14 m ay not be aware. 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: So it depends. It depends on 16 A , if -- it's five years for standards for commercial 17 r efrigeration equipment. But it depends on, you know, 18 f or test procedure changes, if they don't drastically 19 i mpact the measures of consumption then it's much less. 20 S o it just depends on the scenario. 21 MR. EISNER: What about you said that smaller 22 c an get additional time? Is that not in this area?

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 247 1 MS. BARHYDT: So there is a small business 2 p rovision, but it's limited to businesses that I 3 b elieve make -- actually think it's gross revenue, but 4 I can check it if anyone has any questions -- 8 million 5 o r less. So it's -- 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: Really small. 7 MS. BARHYDT: -- very, very, very small. 8 MR. EISNER: Before we go on, Ron is online, 9 h a a comment. 10 Ron? 11 MR. SHEBIK: Yeah. Hi. Thank you. Ron 12 S hebik, Hussmann. 13 Charlie, I think it's important for the rest 14 o f the members of the group that they understand your 15 c omments pretty much are just concerning self-contained 16 c ases, not remote cases. I just wanted to clarify 17 t hat. Remote cases are quite a different animal. 18 T hey're essentially building blocks. An 8-foot case is 19 t wice a 4-foot case. A 12-foot case is three times a 20 4 -foot case. The need to have testing for each one of 21 t hose is not just necessary. Mathematical modeling is 22 p erfectly -- should be perfectly acceptable. I just

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 248 1 w anted to make sure the rest of the group realizes that 2 s elf-contained and remote should be handled differently 3 w hen it comes to that. 4 I understand the requirements for self5 c ontained have been there for a while now and that, you 6 k now, and testing was required. I'm not disagreeing 7 w ith that. But just keep in mind, remotes are -- 8 r emotes should be handled differently. 9 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. I have no 10 p roblem with what Ron just said because they are not 11 i nvolved in the Energy Star, the Canadian standards and 12 o ther things going on. And as such, it may be able to 13 p are down our number in half -- well, not quite half 14 b ut near half if you're using remotes versus self15 c ontaineds as a separate category. 16 MS. ARMSTRONG: All right. So can I ask 17 g enerally, just do we have consensus over the fact that 18 s elf-contained should be separate than remotes? Does 19 a nyone disagree there? 20 (No audible response.) 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: Do we have consensus that 22 r efrigerators, freezers and ice cream freezers need to

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 249 1 b e separate? 2 MR. BAUMAN: I would disagree with that. 3 T his is Jeff from National. I think, again, if you're 4 m odeling your temperature, your temperatures you're 5 r unning and possibly your components you're running a 6 f reezer and an ice cream freezer at are different but 7 t he way you -- if your model is prepared properly, and 8 i t can compensate for that, they could be -- they can 9 b e put together. 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: So you don't think ice cream 11 f reezers need to be broken out? 12 MR. BAUMAN: I don't think ice cream freezers 13 n eed to be separate from freezers. 14 MR. MYERS: This is Frank Myers, PVI 15 I ndustries. I just wanted to remind those that are 16 t alking about this that this is to verify the AEDM, not 17 t o create the AEDM. Obviously, you have to do a 18 t remendous amount of modeling in order to create your 19 A EDM. But the question it at the point -- at right now 20 i s how many tests need to be run to validate the AEDM? 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. Okay. So we're down 22 t o refrigerators and freezers, self-contained and

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 250 1 r emote. 2 Now to go to the next one, do we think open 3 v ersus closed needs to be differentiated? We can 4 e ither add them as categories here, or we can say that 5 o f the eight models above, one needs to be open, and 6 o ne needs to be closed. Two different ways to do it. 7 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey, and I'm certainly 8 n o expert here, but first of all, we have another 9 c ategory coming in of night closed. And I don't know 10 q uite how the cycle plays with that. And secondly, it 11 s eems to me that there's a pretty fundamental 12 d ifference in that modeling the air flow with an open 13 c abinet, particularly a semi-sloping or vertical, is a 14 w hole different animal from modeling the airflow inside 15 a closed container, whether it's glass front or solid. 16 So I can understand that I would need a more 17 s ophisticated model to parameterize that airflow in the 18 c onvective losses for an open front than I would need 19 t o do either of the closed fronts. 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: So you're advocating 21 d ifferentiating between open and closed? 22 MR. SACHS: I'm not so much advocating as

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 251 1 a sking whether it is necessary, for example, if a 2 m anufacturer chose not to make open fronts, to have the 3 c apacity, and I'm really trying to draw out from the 4 m anufacturers whether my mental model of the airflow 5 a round an open one is at all realistic. 6 MR. HON: Charlie Hon, True Manufacturing. 7 A irflow on a vertical or a semi-vertical is critical. 8 I f you have an air conditioning duct or a heating duct 9 f lowing directly into the unit, all bets are off. If 10 y ou have a coffin type which is basically near 11 h orizontal, you don't really disturb the air nearly so 12 m uch no matter what you do to it. 13 MR. SACHS: Now I've always looked at an open 14 f reezer as just being a large room air conditioner. 15 MR. HON: They become a dehumidifier 16 s ometimes as well. 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: So -- 18 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman from 19 N ational again. I agree that open and closed should 20 d efinitely be separate, and then I'm not sure about 21 v ertical open versus semi-vertical versus horizontal 22 o pen, whether we need three separate there. Maybe we

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 252 1 d o on those. 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: So one way to do -- so 3 t here's a couple ways, right? We can say of -- so 4 r ight now, if we do two models in each category we're 5 u p to 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 total. We can say of 6 t hose 16, they need to be comprised of at least, you 7 k now, a vertical model, a semi-vertical model, a 8 h orizontal model, so you're not adding tests, but 9 y ou're making sure that all those categories are 10 s panning the range of your offering. That's one option. 11 We can take the two models down to one and 12 a dd more categories, another option. 13 MR. EISNER: And Ron Shebik says, "I am for 14 m inimizing the number of tests for substantiation so I 15 c an okay keeping VOC and VCI together." 16 MS. ARMSTRONG: Vertical open-closed and 17 v ertical -- 18 MR. EISNER: VCT or VCI? 19 MALE SPEAKER: It's ice cream. 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: Ice cream. 21 MR. EISNER: Oh, ice cream. 22 MS. ARMSTRONG: Vertical ice cream together

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 253 1 o r transparent, something. Vertical open -- 2 MR. EISNER: Ron, your Is look like Ts. 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: Ron, you want to just say 4 y our acronym? 5 MR. SHEBIK: Yeah. Thanks for un-muting me. 6 I 'm at a disadvantage here. 7 No. I'm just trying to say -- I used the 8 w rong terminology, I guess. But the verdict -- again, 9 i f we're looking at just substantiation, that's all 10 w e're looking at, substantiation, substantiating your 11 A EDM, I -- again, I'm focusing just on the remote side 12 o f this -- I don't see the reason to increase the 13 n umber of tests which is going to increase the burden 14 o n the manufacturer and reduce the amount of time you 15 h ave for innovation. Again, that's for substantiation. 16 T he manufacturer is able, whether it be a Hussmann, a 17 H illphoenix, True Manufacturing, whatever, is able to 18 t est as many as they want to where they feel 19 c omfortable with the accuracy of their AEDM. But I 20 t hink the requirement should be such that we don't need 21 t o overdo it and overburden the manufacturer. 22 I mean, we can break it down into every

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 254 1 s ingle equipment classification but then, I mean, 2 y ou're really going to increase your number of tests by 3 a large amount. 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: So what we tried to do is 5 b ased on the discussion here, tried to consolidate at 6 l east some of the equipment classes so that I'm down to 7 1 6 total tests, and then at the bottom the models must 8 b e -- those 16 models must span, depending on your 9 p roduct offering, transparent, solid, vertical, semi10 v ertical, horizontal, service over the counter, as 11 a pplicable. Is 16 reasonable? 12 MR. HON: Charlie Hon, True Manufacturing. 13 S ixteen doesn't even cover all the categories that we 14 h ave a standard for. 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: And we're hearing from others 16 t hat maybe covering all the categories independently 17 m ay not be necessary. So -- 18 MR. HON: Well, the question is much more 19 i mportant than all this. We can discuss all this 20 b ecause the question being is validity. And if we're 21 v erifying this process, there is a question of how do 22 w e verify this process if we don't do certain amount of

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 255 1 t esting? And with all these possibilities which all 2 g ive you different results within a test process, how 3 a re you going to verify a model? 4 I go back to my statistics in college, and 5 t his category should have 100 numbers in it, not 16. 6 B ut I can understand that you can manipulate around if 7 y ou're doing a good modeling job and you're calculating 8 a lot of different factors into your models, which may 9 b e six or seven separate factors, you can get it down 10 t o 16 or so. And I could live with that category up 11 t here. But if you start paring it down from there, 12 w e're going to be putting ourselves in a situation 13 w here nobody's model will be worth a hoot and every -- 14 a s soon as we want to get back at somebody, we send a 15 u nit out for independent testing, then send the test 16 r esults saying they're -- they don't know what they're 17 d oing. And I can guarantee it will happen. 18 MR. SHEBIK: Charlie, isn't it the -- 19 MR. HON: Because -- 20 MR. SHEBIK: Charlie, isn't it the 21 r esponsibility of that manufacturer to make sure their 22 A EDM is substantial, I mean to make sure that their

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 256 1 A EDM holds up? I mean if you put together an AEDM that 2 i s baseless, that has no, that has no teeth in it -- to 3 i t, it's only going to hurt the manufacturer that put 4 i t out there in the first place. 5 MR. HON: It is a risk that a lot of 6 c ompanies are willing to take. 7 MR. STARR: This is Louis with NEEA. The 8 o ther aspect of it, if you're going to reduce the 9 a mount of testing, the other end that you may be 10 o pening up is your air band. So if you have crappy 11 t ests, you just open it up plus or minus 50 percent, 12 a nd every AEDM will pass. And so while you're reducing 13 t he number of models you're testing, you're also 14 g etting your accuracy down so you have a rating that's, 15 y ou know, ten plus or minus five. 16 And then, you know, for incentive programs, 17 f or the accuracy of, you know, and then even the better 18 m anufacturers may have it really dialed in, and they'll 19 s tart working inside of they know that, you know, 20 b ecause the air band is so wide that they can actually 21 o verstate their savings. And so to me, by reducing the 22 n umber of tests, you're just creating -- it solves the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 257 1 p roblem right here on this slide. But then the slides 2 f ive slides down it will have another problem. 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: Sure. 4 MR. STARR: So I think I would try to keep it 5

- - if there is legitimate things that can be removed 6 f rom -- that can be modeled of those 36 models if 7 t here's really -- doesn't require 36 AEDMs, then that's 8 f ine. But I think just choosing a compromise is 9 s omewhere between zero and 36, and we end up with 18, 10 i t's probably not a good way to go. 11 MS. DANE: Mary Dane, Traulsen. I'd like to 12 s ee half of that number. 13 MALE SPEAKER: What is the question? 14 MS. DANE: That while we're at 16 now, I 15 s till say that's too many because, again, you're going 16 t o, you're going to -- we're talking about 17 s ubstantiating your AEDM. We're going to use 18 m athematical modeling. We don't need to test every 19 s ingle, every single type that we make because that 20 d efeats the purpose of having an AEDM. So I'm still at 21 i t being very burdensome to small manufacturers, and I 22 w ould like to see no more than eight, if we're going to

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 258 1 d o that. 2 And one other thing, wasn't remote supposed 3 t o be outside of the scope of this in the original 4 n oper (ph)? Wasn't it or was it something I -- maybe 5 h ave two different Federal Registers mixed up that I 6 t hought remotes was taken out of this one. 7 Okay. Thank you. 8 MS. BARHYDT: So given that this is dealing 9 w ith substantiation, so you have whatever test data you 10 m ay have to be helping develop your model. Maybe you 11 h ave all kinds of different information about the -- 12 (Interruption by computerized voice) 13 MS. BARHYDT: About the thermal properties of 14 t he glass versus the solid door? Maybe you have all 15 k inds of little pieces of component information you're 16 t aking into account. Would one of each of those be 17 e nough to be the check to substantiate your AEDM? 18 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman from 19 N ational again. I want to defend Charlie and say yeah, 20 w e should have at least this many. But the reason I 21 w ould say that at this point is that if you can come up 22 w ith an AEDM that calculates an open and a closed,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 259 1 t hat's a pretty darn good -- I can't imagine an AEDM 2 t hat would do both. In reality, you're talking about 3 t wo separate AEDMs anyway. So I don't think, you know, 4 y ou're going to end up with two, one for open that 5 w ould have eight and one for closed that would have 6 e ight. You'd end up with that anyway. So I don't 7 t hink we're really -- I don't think the number's as bad 8 a s we see it here. And I don't know if Ron has more 9 b ecause he builds more of those cases than we do in the 10 o pen. 11 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon -- 12 MR. SHEBIK: You can -- this again is Ron 13 S hebik, Hussmann. You can look at -- I mean we have an 14 u nderstanding of what the refrigeration load is on a 15 p er linear foot for each one of our cases. We know the 16 l oad of each of our components, electrical components 17 t hat goes into our case as well as the effect that that 18 h as on the refrigeration load. Based on all that we, 19 y ou know, we -- and again, we got a lot of years of 20 r esearch and a lot of data on these numbers. So we 21 k now we can fall back on these numbers, and they're 22 p retty accurate. We're pretty comfortable with these

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 260 1 n umbers. 2 So again, I'm throwing it out there. Can go 3 b ack and, you know, require substantiated tests for, 4 y ou know -- or I'm sorry, an additional test for 5 s ubstantiation for the AEDM. That was my basis for not 6 d oing 36 different tests. 7 I mean, as far as whether it be a closed case 8 o r an open case, you know, again, we're basing on years 9 o f, years of data that we have built up on how our case 10 p erforms, whether, you know, the refrigeration load as 11 w ell as all the components that go into the case. I'm 12 p retty confident that our competitors are doing 13 l ikewise. 14 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. Do I believe 15 y ou can build a model, glass doors and solid doors, a 16 m odel that will cover them both? Yes, I do. It would 17 b e tricky, but you'd have to build some database, but 18 y ou can do it because the environment in which they're 19 o perating with the doors opened or closed is the same. 20 Y ou just have to calculate the difference in 21 e fficiencies of the doors, which one's more -- a better 22 i nsulator.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 261 1 Do I believe you can build a model that takes 2 i n open cases and closed cases? No, I do not. 3 MR. EISNER: Is there a way to look at open 4 a nd closed cases for existing models and see what 5 r esults you get from the, from the tests you run now 6 a nd use that for some new standard in the future, or 7 a re they not related enough to do that? So if you had 8 a new standard come out in the future, could you use 9 t he data from the old equipment and extrapolate it to 10 f orm conclusions about what the, what the -- what you 11 w ould achieve with the new equipment? 12 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. Yes. Even if we were 13 t o change the test standard, you could take the -- you 14 c ould do some extrapolations on some of these to come 15 u p with some information from it. Yes. 16 MR. EISNER: Any other thoughts? 17 MR. BAUMAN: I don't know if that's a point 18 w e ought to make. I was just -- to your point there, 19 N eil, I just asked Laura about whether is that 20 s omething DOE would accept is -- 21 MS. BARHYDT: So if there was a standard 22 c hange, one of the things that was in the original

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 262 1 p roposal was that all of the test data to substantiate 2 t he AEDM would actually have to meet the new standard. 3 Y ou couldn't use test data that didn't meet the 4 s tandard to substantiate your new AEDM. But that's 5 a nother one of the aspects we haven't -- 6 MR. EISNER: I'm not talking about -- you may 7 b e misunderstanding. I'm not talking about comparing 8 o ne without a door under the old standard to one 9 w ithout a door under the new standard but rather the 10 r elationship between the one with a door and the one 11 w ithout a door. You're now building two new ones, one 12 w ith a door and one without a door -- 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: No, that relationship -- 14 MR. EISNER: Can you use the one with the 15 d oor as comparison to the old one and figure out what 16 t he one would be without the door? 17 MS. BARHYDT: Yes. 18 MR. EISNER: You might have fewer tests that 19 y ou'd have to do. 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: I don't know if that's the 21 c ase. 22 MR. EISNER: Well, that's Charlie's --

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 263 1 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. Because in the 2 f uture, you're going to be -- all of us are going to be 3 d oing fewer and fewer tests as we get better at 4 d eveloping this and using this process. We all 5 u nderstand that that's why we want this process. But 6 t he baseline information required to build the valid 7 s ystem can be overlooked if we just come up with, okay, 8 l et's just do two models for all of the refrigerators 9 a nd two models for all the freezers and two models for 10 a ll the ice cream freezers and say that's good enough 11 b ecause there are people who will not be able to 12 s tatistically validate their systems but are small 13 e nough manufacturers that they just glide under the 14 e dge for a long, long time. And when they do get 15 c aught, they could put them out of business. And I 16 k now that the DOE doesn't like that sound because then 17 w e end up with big legal battles. Correct? 18 MS. ARMSTRONG: So to the slide. Do we have 19 s uggestions for modifications, or is this something we 20 c an live with? Is this something we can't live with? 21 W hat can I type? 22 SUE'S SECTION HERE

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 264 1 MR. EISNER: Right now, there's 16. 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: I've typed a lot, a lot of 3 i deas. 4 MR. EISNER: It could be 38; it could be 16. 5 I heard some people say before they want it down to 6 e ight. People that want it down to eight still want it 7 t o come down to eight? 8 MR. STARR: Question. If this change wasn't 9 c oming off in the new rulemaking, I think it would 10 c hange all this argument; correct? I mean, if there 11 w asn't a pending change here in a year or two, because 12 w e're talking about the burden of testing -- 13 MR. EISNER: Well, there was an argument made 14 o r a statement made earlier that lots of tests would be 15 r equired and Laura's response was, "No, you could rely 16 o n your old data." So I think, unless there's still a 17 c oncern about that, we're now just on new testing and 18 n ew requirements requiring new testing. 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. But there's on caveat 20 t hat if the test procedure changes in a manner that 21 w ould substantially change their ratings, then they 22 w ould need to come up with test data to re-substantiate

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 265 1 t heir AEDM based on these criteria. 2 MR. EISNER: Right. 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, for example, their 4 r atings would no longer be valid. 5 MR. EISNER: The ratings for old equipment? 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: It just -- 7 MR. EISNER: Would a new standard require you 8 g et rid of all your old equipment, or it would only 9 a pply to newly manufactured equipment? 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, I'm going to change the 11 w ording a little bit. A new test procedure, which 12 c ompletely changed the measures of consumption, which 13 m ade units that you wanted to still manufacture those 14 e xisting ratings invalid, would need to be retested and 15 r e-rated. 16 MR. EISNER: All right. And my question was 17 a little different. If you wrote a new standard that 18 t hey had to meet, not a new testing requirement, would 19 i t only apply to newly manufactured equipment? 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. But the re-ratings are 21 g oing to be based on the test procedure. 22 MR. EISNER: So, you're going to do both at

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 266 1 t he same time? 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: Sometimes. Some -- we've 3 a lready done the CRE test procedure and the standard's 4 s till in flux right now. So, sometimes we do one well 5 i n advance. 6 MR. EISNER: So, people who might have to do 7 1 6 new tests, under what's on the board, might have to 8 d o 32 new tests, possible scenario, because -- 9 MS. ARMSTRONG: They wouldn't have to do them 10 t wice. It would -- the minimum would still be 16, 11 p eriod. 12 MR. EISNER: I'm confused, because if I'm 13 m anufacturing equipment now that has to meet a new 14 t esting requirement, that may come out before the new 15 s tandard comes out, why would I not have to do two sets 16 o f tests? 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: Because just because a new 18 s tandard comes out does not trigger you to retest. If 19 t hat rating is still valid, because the test procedure 20 e ither didn't change of you've already revised the 21 r ating to reflect the new test procedure, just because 22 a new standard level comes out, does not trigger a

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 267 1 r erate or re-test or -- 2 MR. EISNER: Existing equipment? 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: Of newly, period. 4 MR. EISNER: When does it -- why'd you write 5 a new standard if it doesn't apply? That's what I'm -- 6 I 'm having a little trouble understanding -- 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: That talks about what you can 8 m anufacture, not about what you can test. You can't 9 s ell it. 10 MR. EISNER: That's what I'm talking about. 11 N ewly manufactured equipment would have to meet the new 12 s tandard? Am I missing something? 13 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. Let me -- I 14 t hink I can -- okay. Basically, right now we have 15 r atings out there, they may increase the efficiency 16 r equirements, without changing the test standard. If 17 t hat's the case, you already know the number anyway. 18 T he same test standard would still apply, so you don't 19 h ave to do anything except look down your table and 20 s aid, "Okay, this one doesn't meet it, I'm going to 21 h ave to redesign." 22 MR. EISNER: Just sell a new piece of

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 268 1 e quipment? 2 MR. HON: Well, a new piece of equipment 3 y ou're going to have to do something, either in a 4 v alidation process, AEDM or a test, one or the other, 5 t o prove that it meets the standard, as long as the 6 s tandard hasn't changed. 7 But if by chance they decide that they're not 8 h appy with the way the test standard works, and it is 9 n ot representative of the market, they can -- they have 10 t he right to change the method of test. And the method 11 o f test, by being changed, may totally throw all your 12 n umbers out of kilter, one to the other, relative to -- 13 o ne unit to another. At that point then we talk into 14 n ew modeling. 15 Does that -- do you understand what I'm 16 s aying there? 17 MR. STARR: I have a question. How much 18 t esting -- so since 2007, there's had to be some amount 19 o f testing that's occurred. In these 36 categories, 20 h ow many models have been set up in order to produce 21 t hat? What I was getting at is that it seems like it's 22 r eally this question of what is going to happen with

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 269 1 t he future test procedure. If that was out of the way 2 t hen all the -- because the future test procedure could 3 c reate a lot of test burden, and that's kind of why 4 t his is getting pared down now, and so it's kind of 5 d oing a lot of "what ifs." And so my thought is, let's 6 a ddress the "what if," if that test standard changes 7 s ubstantially, such as it creates a problem, and then 8 d eal with that, rather than paring down what material's 9 a lready been collected. 10 I mean, maybe you can answer that, of those 11 3 6 categories, how many models have been tested in 12 t hose 36 categories? Would it be two per category or 13 w here are we at? 14 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. In our systems, we 15 d on't have a single category that we haven't tested 16 m ore than five, because we had -- we have a burden 17 w hich should have already been tacked and reporting is 18 t he only thing that hasn't happened on models that are 19 r equirement to meet a standard. 20 And at that time, our present rules are every 21 m odel is tested twice. Is this correct? Every base 22 m odel is twice tested, each of the same one. So --

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 270 1 MR. STARR: Well, it almost sounds like we're 2 t alking about a test burden that doesn't exist, is what 3 I 'm getting at -- 4 MR. HON: In the present -- 5 MR. STARR: -- because it's already there. 6 MR. HON: In the present scenario, there 7 s hould be no major test burden, because it should have 8 a lready been done by 2008 in the self-contained and by 9 2 010 in the remotes. 10 MR. STARR: So, that kind of brings up why do 11 w e need to pare down the number of testing, if this 12 i nformation already exists? 13 MR. HON: But the question comes up -- and it 14 i s valid, if by chance they change the test criteria, 15 t hen we start from scratch. 16 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman from 17 N ational. I guess in trying to get to kind of the next 18 s tep here, in good negotiation nobody should be happy 19 w ith everything, right? If we started out with 38 and 20 s omewhere between zero and 38 and we've talked about 21 1 6, I don't know that anybody's completely happy with 22 1 6, but is -- I mean, I personally think that's a

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 271 1 r easonable number. I mean, it doesn't meet everything. 2 B ut I also try to look at also -- again, I have a bunch 3 o f test data that I can -- you know, no problem, we can 4 p roduce the information, but also trying to be fair to 5 s omebody -- you know, do we want to keep anybody out, 6 i f they were going to come into this industry or a 7 m anufacturer was going to come in, a good manufacturer 8 w as going to come into this industry, what would he 9 h ave to do to validate his information? 10 Again, I'm trying to focus on what do we do 11 t o validate an AEDM that we can be reliable for. And I 12 t hink the things that we've talked about here in 13 b reaking up the categories, those are major differences 14 a nd I don't think we have a bad proposal up there, I 15 g uess. 16 MR. HON: If you want to negotiate, I would 17 s ay let's look at one other thing. The differences 18 b etween an ice cream freezer and a regular freezer, the 19 c onstruction is almost identical all the time. And if 20 y ou want to pare down, the ice cream freezer market is 21 v ery, very minimal compared to the other markets. 22 MS. BARHYDT: I think we've already collapsed

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 272 1 i ce cream freezer and freezer. 2 MR. HON: So, you can pare down a few things 3 b ut -- 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: Can we live with that paring? 5 MR. EISNER: Harvey, I think you had a 6 c omment and then we can take a vote. 7 MR. SACHS: This Harvey. And Laura scared 8 m e, which happens occasionally, when she said that in 9 t he event of a new standard models that did not meet 10 t he new standard, that is pieces of equipment that did 11 n ot meet the new standard, could no longer be used to 12 v alidate the AEDM. 13 MS. BARHYDT: What I said was that was in 14 D OE's original proposal. 15 MR. SACHS: Okay, right. Thank you for the 16 c larification. 17 What concerns me is there must be a reason 18 f or that, because it's implying that there's some 19 n onlinearity in those old models between the old 20 s tandard and the new standard. And by symmetry, that 21 w ould seem to imply that these AEDM's might not be good 22 f or stuff that's a bunch better than the minimum

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 273 1 s tandard and that starts to scare Marshall and Louis 2 a nd I'm not sure we want to go there. 3 MS. BARHYDT: I think we're going to maybe 4 h it on that issue a little later. Can we table it 5 u ntil we get to -- 6 MR. SACHS: If you promise it'll be tomorrow 7 i nstead of today. 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: I promise we will not get 9 t olerances to get to that issue. I'm 100 percent 10 c ertain about it. 11 MR. STARR: The point I was making that the 12 t olerances and the amount of testing are directly 13 r elated. I mean, it's like you pass by the gas station 14 a nd -- 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. Tolerance is next. 16 MR. STARR: -- you run out of gas and say, 17 " Hey, we'll go back, we ran out of gas." And I'm like, 18 " No, because they are paired together." 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, these are just -- so, 20 t his is our working position. Is this a good working 21 p osition to have before we move to tolerances? 22 MR. EISNER: How many people object to 16?

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 274 1 MR. STARR: How many people who have skin in 2 t his came, the CRE game? 3 MR. EISNER: Well, that's not the way the 4 v oting is set up. 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, what would you change, 6 t hough? What would you change? 7 MR. STARR: I would say we should have the 8 s ame testing we have and keep focused on it, there's 9 g oing to be increased burden testing down the road. My 10 s uggestion is that we should keep with the testing that 11 w e have for the 36 models and that if we're going to 12 h ave increased model or a test burden down the road, 13 w orry about that aspect of it. 14 I mean, you know, maybe it doesn't need to be 15 3 6, but to me, it looks like we just went half way 16 b etween zero and 36. And we're hearing now maybe two 17 m odels, that's not really -- I mean, two models may 18 h ave worked in stuff less complicated, but really, two 19 m odels probably isn't sufficient enough. 20 So, it seems like the manufacturers have this 21 i nformation of the 36 ones and what the concern is, is 22 t hat all of a sudden here in three years they're going

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 275 1 t o be having to test a whole bunch more models. And 2 t hat's a reasonable concern. So my thought is, let's 3 a ddress that future testing concern model. You know, 4 a nd I don't know if we can address that in the DOE 5 s tandards or not. But if there's an increased, huge 6 t esting burden, then we can give them additional time, 7 d o something else. 8 But part of the problem doing it this way is 9 t hat -- I think it has a question of really affecting 10 t he validity of the efficiency rating you give to the 11 e quipment and that's my main concern. 12 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, just to be clear, though, 13 t he amended test procedure is on the books already. 14 C ompliance isn't required yet, but we have an amended 15 t est procedure which will have certain aspects of 16 l ighting that are different, night curtains are 17 d ifferent, at different -- a revised age or I 18 p rocedure. And the reason that compliance is required 19 d own the road is because DOE did make a determination 20 t hat it will impact the measures of consumption. 21 The reality is, it does take us a while to 22 g et through the rulemaking process. To say that, you

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 276 1 k now, future testing or what should be used to 2 s ubstantiate an AEDM should be kicked, because they 3 h ave valid -- they have testing now, not sure that's 4 t he best way to do things. Only because it's going to 5 t ake us a while to get through that process again. And 6 w e're going to be the same situation we are today. 7 MS. BARHYDT: The idea is to come up with the 8 f ramework that is going to work for a long time -- 9 MS. ARMSTRONG: Going forward, period. 10 MS. BARHYDT: -- that shouldn't have to be 11 r evisited every single time that we do a new test 12 p rocedure. We want to come up with a framework that 13 w orks, that manufacturers understand and can rely on, 14 w ithout having to revisit this every single time we do 15 a test procedure. 16 MR. STEPHENS: Stephens, HTP. Two points I'd 17 l ike to make. The first one is, statistically 18 s peaking, these are the minimums; right? When we're 19 t alking about the confidence level and the accuracy of 20 t he data, the manufacturer's taking on the risk 21 a ssociated. If we want 80 percent confidence level, we 22 h ave to test so many units. If we want 95 percent

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 277 1 c onfidence, we'll do that and we'll take care of that. 2 S o, it's related, but it's not a direct relationship in 3 t his case, because what the DOE's laying out is just 4 t he minimums. 5 And the second point I'd like to make is when 6 w e're comparing the smaller manufacturers to the larger 7 m anufacturers, in my case, I know I have a direct 8 c ompetitor whose lab staff is large -- just the lab 9 s taff that works in the lab, is larger than my entire 10 e ngineering department. So, I sympathize with the 11 s maller manufacturers. It's a valid concern. 12 MR. HUNT: Of course I'm Marshall Hunt, 13 P acific Gas and Electric. I'm really interested in the 14 E nergy Star products. And so, Charles, could you 15 e xplain more how I'd feel comfortable with -- let's say 16 t his goes, and this is a minimum for the AEDM, how 17 w ould the Energy Star testing be different? 18 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. Energy Star requires 19 t hird-party validated testing, irrelevant of any 20 s tatisticals. It is 100 percent tested unit. If that 21 m odel is tested, you cannot apply it to any other 22 m odel, unless it is basically the same model. You do

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 278 1 n ot have any of this discussion at all in Energy Star, 2 b ecause the same with Canada, it requires testing. 3 T hat makes it a lot clearer for you, I'm sure. 4 MR. HUNT: Thank you. Yes. 5 FEMALE SPEAKER: That's not true. 6 MR. STARR: I'm just hearing it's not true 7 o ver here. I would like some elaboration on it. 8 MR. HON: In what way? 9 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, a couple things for 10 E nergy Star. One is Energy Star does require third11 p arty testing, or at least manufacture witness testing. 12 I t's not on an every model basis, it's a single model 13 t hat has to go through that, not multiple models. And 14 i t can be applied across the product family as they 15 d efine it more broadly. 16 What else was -- it's more or less the DOE 17 t est procedure right now. It will be identical in the 18 f uture. So, it's not every model. 19 MR. HON: Mike, would you care to step in on 20 t hat? As a third-party certifier, how do you certify 21 d ifferent models. 22 MS. ARMSTRONG: And the scope is much, much,

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 279 1 m uch narrower than the DOE regulatory program, for CRE. 2 Do you certify every single individual model 3 o r can you group -- or can you test a single one 4 t hrough a third-party and use that an extend the 5 r atings all through? I mean, I can read from the 6 d irective. Now, how it's applied may be a different -- 7 b ut I can read you the language from the directive that 8 s ays that specifically. 9 MR. KOJAK: This is Mike Kojak with UL. I'm 10 n ot sure how to answer that question. We have a 11 s eparate department that deals Energy Star testing. I 12 d eal mostly with the lab and actually getting it done. 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's good, Mike. 14 MR. KOJAK: So, I would have to find out 15 a bout that from our CO department and get back to you. 16 MS. ARMSTRONG: Great. 17 MR. EISNER: Let me ask you -- 18 MS. ARMSTRONG: I think regardless of it, I 19 m ean -- 20 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman from 21 N ational. Our experience has been more to Charlie's 22 t oo, I think. In discussions we had with EPA and when

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 280 1 w e went through this is the way they defined a basic 2 m odel, the only difference you can have from one model 3 t o another is an esthetic difference, it has nothing -- 4 a nd again, getting to your fabulous wording about 5 i dentical versus similarly identical or whatever the 6 w ording was, that that's been interpreted that if it's 7 n ot exactly the same size, even doors and things like 8 t hat, it's got to be a completely separate test. 9 MR. EISNER: Let me ask the question -- 10 MR. BAUMAN: So if you know more, I'll get 11 w ith you after. 12 MS. ARMSTRONG: I'm getting into a DOE versus 13 E PA thing here. 14 MR. EISNER: Let me ask the question we asked 15 e arlier, but a little -- slightly different this time. 16 H ow many people think the number should be above 16? 17 ( 1 person) How many people think the number should be 18 b elow 16? (3 persons) So, is that three? 19 MR. STARR: I have a thought here. You know, 20 I don't necessarily -- the model 16, you know, I don't 21 w ork in refrigerators all day long, so my only thought 22 i s, is that generally essentially to me this is an

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 281 1 e ngineering decision about what makes sense. And so, 2 i f there's some logical -- I mean, the other part about 3 i t, this is the DOE standard for the next three cycles 4 o r whatever or however many others. So, to me, I 5 g uess, if these 16 models really make sense, in terms 6 o f what it is, then that's fine. 7 But if it's just something that was made, a 8 d ecision this afternoon, but it's going to go through 9 t hree more cycles, I would kind of want a little bit 10 m ore -- similar to what an ASHRAE committee or 11 s omething where there's be some reasoning behind, you 12 k now, "This is why, you know, we should test these 13 m odels, but we don't need to test the open refrigerator 14 c ases. And the coffin style are fine, but you couldn't 15 ( inaudible) between those two." 16 So, to me it's just really -- is there 17 e ngineering vetting behind this, or is this just a 18 c onsensus process in terms of I could have had 20 19 p eople in here and we'd come up with the same thing, 20 t hat knew nothing about refrigeration. 21 MR. EISNER: Regardless of consensus, DOE's 22 g oing to have to come up with a justification that

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 282 1 w ould support it in any court challenge. So, I think 2 t hey're aware of that and believe they can justify it 3 o r they wouldn't -- I assume wouldn't have put it 4 f orward. 5 The problem right now is we don't have enough 6 v otes for anything, 16 or lower. Apparently it has to 7 b e some place above 16 to get consensus. 8 MR. STARR: Well, does DOE feel very 9 c omfortable with all or feel the reasoning behind 10 t hese, you feel pretty solid in the engineering and why 11 t hey're there? 12 (No audible response.) 13 MR. STARR: Okay. 14 MR. EISNER: All right. Now we have three 15 n egative votes. Are you saying we shouldn't be 16. 16 MS. HOOTMAN: Well, you shouldn't really 17 c ount me. I don't really have a dog in this race, but 18 I -- 19 MR. SHEBIK: This is Ron Shebik with 20 H ussmann. 21 MR. EISNER: Hold on. We got -- 22 MR. SHEBIK: You're saying there's three

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 283 1 n egative votes on the quantity of 16, that there should 2 b e more? Or three negative votes on 16 because there 3 s hould be less? 4 MR. EISNER: I asked -- there were three 5 p eople where oppose 16 or lower. 6 MR. SHEBIK: I'm sorry, I -- 7 MR. EISNER: We can take another vote. 8 T here's an indication we should take another vote to 9 s ee how it is. 10 But before I do that, are any other people 11 w ho are going to vote no, do they have an idea for 12 s omething else or are they limited to 38 -- excuse me, 13 a re they limited to being low 36? I've been putting 14 t his in the wrong way. 15 Three people who want it to be below 16. Do 16 y ou have alternative that would be acceptable to the 17 o ther people in the room, because otherwise we don't 18 h ave any recommendation to put forward on this 19 p articular issue. 20 MR. STARR: You know, based upon Department 21 o f Energy being comfortable with 16, then I -- my 22 c oncern was is that it was a decision that was not

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 284 1 r eally based upon solid reasoning, but they're 2 i ndicating that it is. And so, if that's the case I'm 3 c omfortable with 16. 4 MR. EISNER: Let me take a vote. How many 5 p eople oppose the recommendation that is up on the 6 b oard right now? Nobody opposes? 7 So, we go with 16 tests based on DOE's being 8 a ble to justify the standard. Okay. We got agreement? 9 GROUP: Yeah. 10 MR. CYMBALSKY: You all get ice cream. 11 MR. EISNER: I think that would be 12 a ppropriate. 13 MR. CYMBALSKY: It's on you. 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: Do we need a break before 15 t olerances -- 16 MR. CYMBALSKY: No. Let's go. 17 MR. EISNER: No, they just said -- 18 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- or are you ready to go? 19 I completely second that vote. But 20 u nfortunately -- 21 MR. CYMBALSKY: You're going to want pickles 22 w ith the ice cream.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 285 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: Stop it. My maternity leave 2 i s just getting longer and longer by the minute. 3 MR. EISNER: Okay, next? 4 MALE SPEAKER: Be nice, John. 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: True, that is true. 6 MALE SPEAKER: Be nicer. 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. I'm going to skip 8 r ight to the slide that -- 9 MR. EISNER: 33? 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: 33. Tolerances. So, this 11 r eally gets to what is a valid rating. I take a unit, 12 I test it, you test it; you have your AEDM, it 13 s imulates it. 14 MS. BARHYDT: 27 in our packets, because you 15 i nserted -- 16 MS. ARMSTRONG: Oh yeah, sorry. What is a 17 v alid rating? DOE currently has an individual 18 t olerance as well as an average tolerance. We propose 19 t he same contract but different numbers in the 20 p roposal. We could maintain this idea of an individual 21 t olerance and an average tolerance. We could say -- 22 MS. BARHYDT: It's 28. Sorry.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 286 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- and individual tolerance 2 i s all that's needed. We can go to one-sided versus 3 t wo- sided. There's a lot of issues on the table. 4 So -- and then obviously, it's what should 5 t he number be. It seemed like a lot of the comments 6 w ere for a one-sided tolerance only. In other words, 7 y ou can rate conservatively, no problem there. All the 8 w ay down to the standard. I see a lot of nods. Do we 9 g enerally agree there? 10 MR. EISNER: Does anybody oppose it? 11 MR. WHITWELL: Well, I just want to 12 u nderstand that. This is Bob Whitwell from Carrier. 13 T he AEDM result, the testing versus the AEDM result, 14 t hat doesn't necessarily tie to the rating, right? I 15 m ean, you can always rate less than what the AEDM comes 16 o ut. So, I don't understand how the one-sided versus 17 t wo-sided relates to the rating. 18 MS. ARMSTRONG: No, you can't. The way we 19 w rote it. 20 So, the way it works is, the rating is what's 21 c oming out of your AEDM. The valid rating is what's 22 i ntolerant. So, the way the proposal was written

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 287 1 c onstrains you to plus or minus say three percent or 2 p lus or minus five percent. So no, you couldn't rate 3 a ll the way down to the standard level if that three 4 p ercent was above -- was beyond that tolerance. 5 What we're saying is maybe that's not the 6 r ight way to go. Take away the -- just make it one7 s ided, you can't over rate. 8 MS. BARHYDT: I think the distinction you're 9 m aking is that -- does the number coming out of the 10 s imulation have to be plus or minus a certain 11 p ercentage, just to show that the model is predicting 12 t he test result within a certain tolerance as opposed 13 t o what you're allowed to rate for representations and 14 c ertification? Is that -- 15 MR. WHITWELL: Right. My understanding of 16 t hese -- 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: But for the proposal they're 18 o ne and the same thing. 19 MR. WHITWELL: My understanding was these 20 t olerances are to make sure that your AEDM is 21 p redicting correctly; right? So, you're comparing the 22 t est data with the AEDM. And it can be either above or

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 288 1 b elow. The AEDM can either be above or below the 2 a ctual test data. Right? Correct? 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's correct. 4 MR. WHITWELL: And then -- 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: I think we're saying why do 6 w e care if it's below, if it's still within the 7 s tandard range? 8 MR. WHITWELL: Well, if it's -- I mean, if 9 i t's only a one-sided tolerance, then that's going to 10 d rive manufacturers to skew their AEDM so that it 11 a lways comes out one way. Right? Isn't it? 12 MS. ARMSTRONG: I don't think so. I don't 13 t hink so. 14 MR. WHITWELL: As opposed to -- well, I guess 15 I 'm just confused about why it would be a one-sided. 16 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, can you explain that 17 b ecause as I understand it, the AHI program uses a five 18 p ercent one-sided tolerance. 19 MS. HOOTMAN: Right. We aren't validating 20 ( inaudible). 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: You're validating a rating, 22 w hich is coming out of simulations. It's the same

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 289 1 t hing you're doing here. 2 MR. THARP: There's a difference. 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: Why? 4 MR. THARP: Well, again, you have rating 5 v ersus simulated value -- simulated or tested value and 6 i f you have -- say example, we have a ten ton unit, 7 1 10ER, your AEDM says 11.05, your other sample is going 8 t o be heat pump at also 11, your AEDM says 12.05 but 9 y ou've rated it 11 and your test is actually 11, then 10 t hat's telling me that your AEDM isn't really accurate. 11 A nd I think that's what you're saying; correct? 12 MR. WHITWELL: Yeah, I mean, you could have - 13

- if you're testing one sample -- if your AEDM says 14 1 1.05, you test your one sample, it might be 11.05 or 15 . 06 or it might be 11.04. Right? So, that's a plus or 16 m inus tolerance there. And if it's a one-sided 17 t olerance, you're only allowing the one side, which I 18 d on't understand how that makes sense. 19 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. From 20 t he standpoint of what we're trying to do here, as long 21 a s the published ratings that come out are either 22 a ccurate or conservative, should it matter? And I

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 290 1 w ould suggest, no. 2 MR. WHITWELL: Right. But that's a different 3

- - to me, that's a different question than whether you 4 h ave a plus/minus tolerance on comparing the AEDM to 5 t he test -- to one single test. 6 MR. STARR: The problem that I potentially 7 s ee with it is that if you're not accurate in those two 8 p oints, what makes you think you're accurate in other 9 p laces in the ranges? So, maybe in the two test points 10 y ou go conservative on those, but the midrange is maybe 11 f ine or a little less. So, in other words, if it 12 d oesn't accurately model the actual performance line 13 a cross a number of tonnages or whatever, then it seems 14 l ike that, you know, you might just move up. 15 You have basically a bad AEDM, but you kind 16 o f model it very slockily and it passes, in order to 17 g et it, but maybe another range that you're not 18 t esting, it's not -- you know, you're getting a more 19 i nefficient piece of equipment. And that's what my 20 c oncern would be. 21 I mean, just in engineering, in general, you 22 w ant your model and your actual performance to model

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 291 1 c losely. So, why all of a sudden -- I mean, outside of 2 t he world of engineering I know it makes sense, but 3 i nside the world of engineering, you want your model 4 a nd reality to match up as much as possible. And when 5 i t doesn't, it brings into real question what the 6 v alidity of your thing is. 7 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik, AHRI. First 8 o f all, which tolerance are we talking about? Could 9 y ou be clear on that. 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, I think that's -- it 11 s eems to be where the discussion is going is saying 12 t here should be, I'm going to say, two different 13 m ethodologies. So one should be the tolerance for, I 14 t est a unit of a model and I'm comparing it to my AEDM 15 r esults and it needs to be within plus or minus x 16 p ercent. So, that's one. Whatever the x is, is to be 17 d etermined. 18 And then there's another one that says, "How 19 c an I rate my products?" And maybe that is whatever is 20 c oming out of the AEDM, as long as it's valid, meets 21 i ts tolerance, all the way down to the standard level. 22 MR. FLY: Mark Fly with AAON. The thing --

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 292 1 m y thing I'm concerned about -- 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: Did I get it right? 3 MR. FLY: -- is that you can't have that 4 t olerance less than the uncertainty of the testing 5 p rocedure, because if you're looking at your model 6 v ersus your test procedure, and your test is plus or 7 m inus ten percent, then your tolerance has to be plus 8 o r minus ten percent. Because you could be anywhere in 9 t here on any given day. 10 MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest here. Let me 11 e xplain a little bit where this one-sided thing comes 12 i n. And that's actually straight out of the comments. 13 A nd it's also consistent with, I think the -- well, 14 p otentially how the AHRI verification program is run. 15 S o, right now a unit that is below five percent, fails 16 t he verification test. Is that correct? 17 So, if the AEDM has a variance of plus or 18 m inus ten percent on the mean, for example, you know, 19 t he -- your actual computations, plus or minus ten 20 p ercent, that means 20 percent, now you can add, after 21 t he AEDM, a re- centering which will give you minus -- 22 y ou know, the plus minus is confusing, depending on if

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 293 1 i t's an efficiency rating or losses. But essentially 2 r e-centers so that on one side you've got five percent 3 a nd on the other side you have 15. 4 And what I read in the comments is, we don't 5 w ant to be punished for being conservative. So, really 6 w hat matters is that we never rate lower than five 7 p ercent of the test. 8 So, it doesn't matter, really, what your 9 a bility to predict is, so long as you know what that 10 u ncertainty is and you account for it in your rating. 11 N ow, that accounting for can be by being very 12 c onservative in the AEDM itself, or you may try to have 13 a ll that conservativeness be an adder to what comes out 14 o f your AEDM. 15 You know, as far as I'm concerned, the two 16 t ogether is what's the AEDM. Right? 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. 18 MR. RIVEST: So, and that's the difference. 19 S o, really a one-sided requirement is much less 20 s tringent than a two-sided requirement. 21 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. 22 MR. EISNER: Before we move on, we have a

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 294 1 c omment from Bruce Hierlmeier. "DOE wrote regs for CRE 2 e quipment, based on calculations and not product 3 t esting. What tolerance did they use for their 4 c alculations?" 5 Nobody from DOE? 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's beyond anything we 7 h ave here. 8 MR. HON: Could you read that again, please? 9 MR. EISNER: "DOE wrote regs for CRE 10 e quipment based on calculations and not product 11 t esting. What tolerance did they use for their 12 c alculations?" 13 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. I disagree 14 w ith his statement. The numbers that DOE used were 15 f rom databases which were test databases, the 16 C alifornia database and Energy Star databases were all 17 i ncluded. Weren't they, Matt? 18 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's correct. 19 MR. HON: So, I disagree with his statement. 20 T here were other units that were not -- that had not 21 b een reported to California or a few other places, that 22 w ould have been missed in the database, but the base

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 295 1 i nformation came from statistics of tested units. 2 I wish to defend DOE on that, because they 3 d id that. 4 MR. EISNER: Harvey? 5 MR. SACHS: I speak in favor of the one-sided 6 t est at each stage, for reasons of public policy. The 7 o ne-sided test puts the responsibility for encouraging 8 t he test labs to be good, encouraging the models to be 9 g ood and everything else that helps to control costs 10 w hile delivering a complying product, where it belongs, 11 o n industry. 12 The two-sided test, on the other hand, 13 i ncreases the testing burden, makes things harder all 14 a round and I'm not sure I see a benefit except at the 15 m argin increasing confidence that the models are good 16 m odels. Well, I'm not sure I care if the model is a 17 g ood model, as long as it never gives me the answer 18 t hat something qualifies that shouldn't be. It's not 19 m y business. End of rant. 20 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. In the 21 r esidential boiler program we are allowed to rate 22 t hrough AHRI, less than the linear interpellation.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 296 1 R ight? So, we do our tests, we can always rate lower 2 t han what the test value is. 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's what the second -- 4 MR. STEPHENS: Right? 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: You would be allowed to rate 6 b etween the standard level and to whatever the AEDM 7 v alid rating would be. 8 MR. STEPHENS: And when we publish our 9 r ating, for that is a ceiling, so the one-sided is 95 10 p ercent of our rating is the minimum. Right? 11 MR. EISNER: Does anybody disagree with the 12 p roposal that we go with just the one-sided rating? 13 MR. WHITWELL: Yeah, so I'm confused. You've 14 c onfused me again. I'm sorry. You've confused me 15 a gain with what you've written up there, saying, "A 16 v alid rating is equal to individual tolerance," because 17 i n the original rule and in the NOPR, the individual 18 t olerance between the test data an the AEDM model 19 r esult had nothing -- was not tied to a rating. So, now 20 y ou're tying this to a rating, so I'm not quite sure 21 w hat you're trying to say here. 22 MS. MEYERS: Yeah, I had the same question.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 297 1 MS. BARHYDT: So, it could be my terminology, 2 r ight? But we could call this -- 3 MR. WHITWELL: Because I thought that -- 4 MS. BARHYDT: -- an AEDM result. 5 MR. WHITWELL: -- the tolerances that we're 6 t alking about is when you run your let's say however 7 m any tests and the NOPR was five, when you run your 8 f ive tests, first you do your -- you run your AEDM or 9 y ou run the test, whichever comes first. 10 And for each of those individual tests, when 11 y ou compare the result from the AEDM, it has to be 12 w ithin five percent. Is that the -- plus or minus five 13 p ercent. Is that the tolerance that we're talking about 14 n ow? 15 MS. BARHYDT: That is -- 16 MR. WHITWELL: Or is this something new? 17 MS. BARHYDT: That is correct. That's what 18 w e're talking about now. 19 So, but we're talking about making it one20 s ided, right? So, you're -- 21 MR. WHITWELL: So, making it one-sided means 22 t hat your -- if you have your test data, your AEDM

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 298 1 w ould always have to predict higher than the actual 2 t est? 3 MS. BARHYDT: No. 4 MR. WHITWELL: It would always predict lower. 5 S o, your test results must always be higher than the 6 A EDM. 7 MS. BARHYDT: No. 8 MR. RIVEST: No. Let me -- Mike Rivest. 9 O ne- sided means that you can be off by a considerable 10 a mount, in other words, your test result can be more 11 t han five percent off on the side of conservativeness. 12 B ut on the side of under rating, you can only have five 13 p ercent. 14 So, if the standard is -- 15 MR. WHITWELL: Okay, so again, we're tying it 16 t o a rating. So, it's a different concept than what 17 w as in the NOPR? 18 MS. BARHYDT: Right. Typing validation and 19 r ating. 20 MS. MEYERS: Yeah, so this is different than 21

- - 22 MS. ARMSTRONG: It's not -- I mean, we use

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 299 1 t hem as -- so, you may see them as two different 2 t hings, but we're using them as the same thing. 3 So, I guess the question becomes -- 4 MR. RIVEST: The AEDM isn't to rate. 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. The AEDM is your 6 m echanism to come up with a valid rating. Now, to the 7 e xtent beyond that you decide to further rate 8 c onservatively, our regs currently allow that and the 9 p roposal was to future allow that. 10 But the AEDM is coming up with a number, that 11 n umber is a valid rating. So, the question becomes, 12 w hat is valid? And what Mike's trying to say, from a 13 l ot of the comments and from the AHRI program or 14 w hatever, one proposal on the table would be a five 15 p ercent one-sided. You cannot over rate more than five 16 p ercent. 17 MR. RIVEST: Under. Under rate. 18 MS. MEYERS: Well, can you under rate? 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: Well, I say -- I call it over 20 r ate, but you can go down to the standard. You can 21 c onservatively rate by more than -- 22 MS. MEYERS: Can you under rate more than

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 300 1 f ive percent? 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: If that five -- if the 3 s tandard level is more than five percent, yes. 4 MS. MEYERS: The standard level is more than 5 f ive. 6 (Crosstalk.) 7 MS. MEYERS: So, let's just say, 8 h ypothetically. 9 MS. ARMSTRONG: Pick numbers. 10 MR. RIVEST: Lets' say the -- 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: Let's pick numbers. 12 MS. MEYERS: All right, let's say I developed 13 a line of Energy Star rooftop units, gas packs, which 14 i s what EER -- 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: I'm just going to make up -- 16 MS. MEYERS: --12 EER. 17 MR. RIVEST: Pretend it's ten. Pretend it's 18 t en. 19 MS. MEYERS: Yeah, okay, I think -- 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: Ten makes easier math. 21 MS. MEYERS: -- I think it's 12. 22 MR. RIVEST: Make it ten.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 301 1 MS. MEYERS: So, if I wanted to then just 2 r eclassify those products under a different model 3 n umber and rate them at 11 EER, just for marketing 4 p urposes, so that I didn't have to -- could I do that, 5 b ecause I would be under rating more than five percent. 6 MR. RIVEST: Yes. 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: Because the consumer's going 8 t o get that or better. That is the whole idea. What 9 y ou couldn't do is remarket them at 13. 10 MS. MEYERS: So, you're one-sided -- 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: Is to the -- 12 MS. MEYERS: -- is to the -- 13 MR. RIVEST: To the benefit of the -- no, no, 14 I 'm sorry. 15 MS. MEYERS: But okay, so -- 16 MS. ARMSTRONG: So here I did a little scale. 17 R ight? Say ten's the standard, 14 would be more 18 e fficient, ten would be less efficient and your rating 19 c ame out -- your AEDM spit out a 12. 20 MS. MEYERS: Right. 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: What you couldn't do is then 22 c all it a 14.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 302 1 MS. MEYERS: Okay. Yeah. 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: You could go anywhere between 3 1 2 and 10. 4 MR. RIVEST: What do you mean? 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: That would be okay, because 6 y our -- 7 MR. RIVEST: That's 20 percent. 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- you could still -- if it's 9 o ne-sided. Now, if you tested it and it came out at 10 1 1, you have an issue. 11 MR. RIVEST: Ashley, put ten in the middle. 12 O kay? 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes, sir. 14 MR. RIVEST: Put ten in the middle. That's 15 t he -- so pretend that's the standard. Okay? If 16 y ou're AD, you can test at 9.5 and pass. That's five 17 p ercent, right? But couldn't you put 9.5 instead of 9? 18 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes, but that doesn't give a 19 g ood -- 20 MR. RIVEST: Okay, so that -- so if the AEDM 21 p redicted a 10 -- now, when I say AEDM it just means 22 y our computation. It can be the computer plus an adder

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 303 1 o r it could just be a conservative computer. If we 2 t est it at 9.5 you pass. If we test it at 11 you pass. 3 T hat's the one-sided. It only comes into play on the 4 n egative. 5 MR. WHITWELL: Okay. I understand this, but 6 I -- so this is -- the 9.5 is the DOE test or is it's a 7

- - 8 MR. RIVEST: It's the test you run. 9 MR. WHITWELL: Yes, it's our test. Right. 10 MR. RIVEST: Your test. 11 MS. ARMSTRONG: Or a DOE test. I mean, it 12 c ould be either/or. It could be a verification. 13 MR. RIVEST: Or any -- or -- 14 MR. STANONIK: It's the test of a production 15 s ample. A production sample. 16 MS. ARMSTRONG: A test, a valid rating is 17 w ithin five percent. 18 MR. STEPHENS: But this is discussing 19 p roduction, this is enforcement type testing, not 20 d evelopment testing. And that's -- 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: It's both -- 22 MR. STEPHENS: -- I think the word -- there's

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 304 1 a difference. 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- the way this is. Well, it 3 c ould be both. Why would there be -- 4 MR. RIVEST: It's the test you use to certify 5 y our AEDM. 6 MS. MEYERS: It needs to be both. It needs - 7

- they need to be identical. 8 MS. HOOTMAN: Development testing? You can 9 h ave development testing that's all over the map. 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: Whatever test they do you 11 w ant to use -- whatever you want to call it -- 12 MS. BARHYDT: For your substantiation. 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- to what your 14 s ubstantiation, the 12 or whatever. 15 MS. HOOTMAN: Okay. 16 MS. ARMSTRONG: Whatever that is. Not -- and 17 i t could also be DOE initiated tested, or industry 18 t esting. 19 MR. RIVEST: A two-sided five percent would 20 b e 9.5, 10 and 10.5. 21 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. 22 MR. RIVEST: So, you see, in that case, you

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 305 1 k now, you're tighter, you're working under tighter, 2 v ery -- total variability in your model. 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: And you cut off something 4 t hat tests out at a 10 and rated at a 10.5. 5 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel, Mitsubishi. So, if 6 y ou're developing your AEDM and you're going to do your 7 f ive tens, you're essentially doing those tests to see 8 w hat the results are. So, there's not really a plus or 9 m inus five percent yet. 10 MALE SPEAKER: Correct. 11 MR. DOPPEL: And what you're trying to do is 12 s ee what your line is. But the results of those five 13 t ests all have to be whatever you decide all have to be 14 o bviously above the federal minimum and above -- well, 15 t hey have to be above the federal minimum. 16 MS. ARMSTRONG: At five percent. 17 MR. DOPPEL: No, no, no, no, no. You're not 18 g oing to let us rate anything -- wait a minute, you're 19 c onfusing the thing. 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: You can't certify -- 21 MR. DOPPEL: There's no way we can put a 22 r ating less than the federal minimum.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 306 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: That is correct. But if your 2 A EDM comes out five percent, right, and you decide 3 t hen, based on that, to switch out a compressor or 4 s omething, do something in your manufacturing process, 5 t hat's up to you to get it back up. 6 MR. DOPPEL: Right. But I wasn't saying that 7 w e were -- what I was saying, that we would have to 8 r ate above the federal minimum. I wasn't saying 9 a nything about the test results. 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. The standard level is 11 t he lowest. 12 MS. BARHYDT: Right. It's your test result. 13 MS. HOOTMAN: This is Jill from Trane. 14 Y ou're right, pure development test results are going 15 t o be all over the map. They could very well be below 16 f ederal minimums. You're going to turn around and say, 17 " Probably I'm not going to use that unit. I'm going to 18 c hange some component about it to make that unit more - 19

- you know, to fall within it." 20 But you are going to actually have test 21 r ecords within yourselves that would probably show all 22 o ver the map.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 307 1 MR. DOPPEL: Okay. But if you -- if your 2 A EDM showed that it was a 10.5 is what it should be 3 r ated at, and you tested out at 9.8 and then that's a 4 f ailure. 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. 6 MR. DOPPEL: And it's below federal minimum 7 a nd you're in trouble. 8 MR. SACHS: Yes. Trouble. You're in 9 t rouble. 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: Especially if you send us in 11 t hat information. 12 MR. DOPPEL: Okay. We wouldn't do that. 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: Just saying. 14 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp with Goodman. If 10 15 i s the conservation standard and I do -- I'm testing 16 t wo samples to validate my AEDM. For both samples, my 17 A EDM says 10.0 One sample tests at 10.0 the other 18 s ample tests at 14.0 then I'm personally not okay with 19 t hat because that's telling me that my AEDM is not very 20 a ccurate. And that's my concern over the one-sided 21 t olerance and developing or creating your AEDM. 22 MS. HOOTMAN: Validating.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 308 1 MR. THARP: Validating that it functions 2 p roperly. 3 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey, and Rusty, let me 4 s ee if I can flip that around. I understand that 5 c oncern. You know, am I going to get billed for the 6 e xtra good compressors that Emerson sent me, or 7 w hatever. I understand that. 8 But you might choose not to use that generic 9 o f the AEDM but to refine your AEDM you may decide that 10 t his was a product imperfection. We're only talking 11 a bout -- and Jill talked about these as development 12 t ests. We're only talking about the ones you're 13 t elling DOE are being used to validate, my term -- 14 MR. THARP: Right. 15 MR. SACHS: -- I don't like substantiate, to 16 v alidate the AEDM. 17 MR. THARP: Correct. 18 MR. SACHS: And those then, as the outcome of 19 t his product, we're saying DOE should look at one20 s ided, conservatively. You certainly should look at it 21 i nternally, two-sided, for your own quality control 22 s tandards. But I don't have any visibility into your

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 309 1 f actor. 2 MR. KLEISS: Jeff Kleiss, Lochinvar. I'll 3 a mplify that a little bit from the standpoint of the 4 s mall manufacturer that has a very low budget, that it 5 m ay be necessary for them to have a very 6 u nsophisticated AEDM, not very well developed, and to 7 p rotect themselves, to then be very conservative in 8 w hat they consider. 9 A more developed engineering department, of 10 c ourse we would want to squeeze every bit of efficiency 11 o ut of that and have as tight of an AEDM as possible. 12 B ut to protect the small manufacturers I think we need 13 t o have one-sided. 14 MR. EISNER: Okay. Any disagreement with 15 t hat? 16 (No audible response.) 17 MR. EISNER: All right. 18 MS. BARHYDT: So, that's one-sided. What 19 p ercentage? 20 MALE SPEAKER: Thirty. 21 MS. HOOTMAN: Five percent's up there. 22 MR. THARP: This is Rusty Tharp again. Now

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 310 1 t his, I think, goes back to the uncertainty of the 2 t ests. And based on a lot of work that the Unitary 3 L arge and Unitary Small Equipment sections of AHRI have 4 b een doing, as relative to the uncertainty of the 5 t esting itself, I think that the test values probably 6 h ave certainties in the range of eight to ten percent, 7 p robably somewhere high single digit to low double 8 d igit range, as far as the uncertainty. 9 So, I think for the individual test samples, 10 t hat something in that range would be acceptable. 11 MR. RIVEST: That's why we're one-sided; 12 r ight? If your uncertainty is actually 20 percent, then 13 y ou re- center in your AEDM so that 15 is on one side 14 a nd five is on the other. Your AHRI verification 15 p rogram is at five percent. So, there is a logic there 16 t o that one-sided five percent. Effectively that's 17 w hat you're running is a one-sided five percent. 18 So, this eight percent variability may very 19 w ell be there, but it's captured in this re-centering 20 p rocess. 21 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. Energy Star is 22 r unning five percent as well on equipment. You have a

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 311 1 f ive percent variance allowed. And if you're running 2 t he risk, you just -- you rate yourself slightly. 3 A gain, there's no penalty for being better than what 4 t he standard says. So, you could set this number at 5 o ne percent or zero percent, it's irrelevant, we just 6 h ave to know where to set it so that we know where to 7 p ut our uncertainty characteristics. 8 MR. STANONIK: Frank Stanonik, AHRI. I think 9 t his is -- we get to a point where this isn't one size 10 f its all, and I kind of understood what Mike was 11 s aying, but I just can't dismiss the tolerance -- the 12 i naccuracy of every -- each test procedure is unique. 13 I mean, you test air conditioners differently than you 14 t est commercial refrigeration equipment, different than 15 y ou test water heaters. And they have their own 16 i naccuracies. 17 And, yeah, there's some -- you know, you kind 18 o f have to just, in a sense, live with that or accept 19 i t. But at the same time, that's to me a little 20 d ifficult to say we'll just deal with it and we're 21 g oing to apply the same tolerance to the test of any 22 p articular piece of equipment and it's going to be the

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 312 1 s ame number. I just don't -- to me, that has to be a 2 l ittle more thought out. 3 And as Rusty was saying, you know, if there's 4 a larger inaccuracy, when you're testing certain types 5 o f commercial HVAC equipment, or not larger, just a 6 d ifferent one, then, like, when I'm testing a boiler 7 f or combustion efficiency or whatever, that needs to be 8 f actored in. 9 But I think we need a little more work here 10 t han just say, "Oh, it's going to be five percent 11 a cross the board." I don't think that works, 12 e specially in the commercial products, and we haven't 13 e ven started talking about -- I mean, first of all, you 14 k now, we've got to get rid of the idea these are off 15 t he shelf stuff. I mean, yeah, you all have products 16 t hat you can sell readily, but everybody, in some form 17 o r another, has stuff that, "Hey, if you want one, I'll 18 m ake you one." And some companies, that's their only 19 b usiness. And now you're starting getting into that. 20 A nd again, I think I'm just really not at all 21 c omfortable with the idea that there's a one size 22 t olerance fits all.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 313 1 MR. RIVEST: Frank, this is Mike Rivest. 2 T his is really more a question. In the world of 3 t ransformers, they talk about losses as opposed to 4 e fficiency. And apply a five percent to a ten EER 5 d oesn't swing you that much. Apply five percent to an 6 E F of .9-something on a water heater sounds almost 7 r idiculous. 8 So, five percent of the rating, you know, 9 t hat's our understanding of what AHRI does. Am I -- do 10 t hey do that for water heaters as well? How does that 11 w ork? 12 MR. STANONIK: Yeah, but not all the programs 13 e xactly -- not all of them have five -- 14 MR. RIVEST: Well, I think the first effort 15 h ere is to understand what you guys do. 16 MR. STANONIK: Well, yeah, we do apply it to 17 t he rating. So, it's an x percent to the rating. And 18 I think especially when you get into the commercial 19 s ide of stuff we have a little more variation. 20 MR. RIVEST: But it's always to the rating? 21 MR. STANONIK: Right. 22 MR. RIVEST: But you see how five to going

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 314 1 f rom ten to 9.5 to 10.5 isn't huge. But when you're 2 t alking about -- what's an electric water heater rated 3 a t? 4 MR. SACHS: It's .9 and goes down to a .5, 5 e ssentially. 6 MR. RIVEST: Point nine, right. 7 MR. STANONIK: Excuse me, Mike, but that's -- 8 I mean, you picked a good example, fortunately a.) 9 b ecause it was talking about residential. But the 10 o ther point is, in fact when we had somebody in this do 11 a n error analysis, and we started talking about .95 12 e lectric resistance water heaters, we found out that we 13 w ere getting pretty close to -- the error of the test 14 i tself was about a plus or minus -- I don't remember 15 e xactly, I think it was plus or minus 04 or something, 16 o r something in that area. And so, this was some time 17 b ack and so we actually tried to look at some things to 18 p erhaps make the test more accurate. 19 But that's kind of my point is that, at some 20 p oint -- well, again the test procedures do have their 21 o wn inaccuracies and we -- admittedly, I think as an 22 i ndustry, completely we all haven't really -- whether

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 315 1 i t's time, money or the desire, we've never really took 2 a hard look at how accurate are any of these DOE tests. 3 MR. FLY: Mark Fly with AAON. I agree with 4 y ou, Frank, it's not really -- it's not a one size fits 5 a ll. And as the complexity of the test, the number of 6 p arameters that go together to make a rating, the 7 h igher it's going to be. And I know one of the things 8 t hat's under consideration by DOE, in a separate 9 r ulemaking is - - or process anyway, I don't know that 10 i t's a rulemaking yet. Is, IER, where we're doing four 11 t ests for -- rather than one test, and even at AHRI 12 w e've got a higher tolerance on IER ratings than we do 13 o n ER ratings because we can't do four tests and get 14 t he same kind of accuracy that we can get with one. 15 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp with Goodman. And 16 t hat's ten percent AHRI has a ten percent tolerance on 17 I ER. 18 MR. SACHS: Let's go back to why we're here, 19 t his is Harvey, and continue with that hypothetical 20 e xample. It's like a ceramic pot that has an 21 e fficiency standard of ten. That, by law, is the 22 m inimum for something to be sold in commerce. The

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 316 1 a dvantage of using the one-sided tolerance band is it 2 n ow gives an incentive to industry, at every level, 3 f rom the testing labs, to the testing methods, to the 4 r ating methods, to drive for things which have narrower 5 i nherent tolerances so that we can get more -- it 6 d rives us toward quality manufacturing processes. 7 So that my own preference would be to say 8 t hat we should have compliance with the law, a zero 9 t olerance, and you guys have the responsibility of 10 d esigning and testing to meet that. And the better 11 m anufacturer will figure out how to do that and how to 12 w ork with his testing lab to get those error bands 13 d own, to get more consistent products. Twenty years 14 a go we started calling those Toyotas. 15 Now, I realize there are problems that are 16 d ifferent here. But I do think the responsibility 17 b elongs with the manufacturer to meet the law. 18 MR. STEPHENS: Phillip Stephens, HTP. 19 T here's a case with commercial water heaters, the 20 s tand-by loss test is notoriously inaccurate. 21 MR. SACHS: Then let's fix it. 22 MR. STEPHENS: It's very difficult to fix.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 317 1 W e routinely have swings of 20, 25 percent. And that's 2 f rom testing at one manufacturer's location, to sending 3 i t to the third-party lab to test. And it's very 4 d ifficult to manage. 5 So, what every manufacturer does is write 6 v ery conservatively. 7 MR. SACHS: And that's -- this is Harvey 8 a gain. Phillip, I appreciate that. And the responses 9 a re to rate conservatively or to work with DOE and 10 o thers on a substitute for that out of loss test that 11 w ill give us the information we need, with the lower 12 t est burden and better results. I don't regard that 13 p articular test method as having been handed down to 14 M oses. 15 MR. STEPHENS: But the interesting and the 16 v ery detailed point we really need the Department to 17 r ecognize is the fact that this is the uncertainty from 18 l ab to lab. So, when you're doing your random audits, 19 l abs don't use the same environmental conditions as 20 o ther labs do. Right? The boiler test method has 21 t otally a wide range of variables that we use. And not 22 a ll manufacturers use the same settings and not all

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 318 1 t est labs use the same settings. 2 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, a couple things. One is, 3 c an somebody -- does anyone know, off hand, what the 4 d ifferent tolerances are by product, for the AHRI 5 p rogram? 6 MR. KLEISS: Can we speak to each of our own 7

- - 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, yeah. I mean, you can 9 a ll speak freely. And then secondly, why should they 10 b e different for DOE? 11 MR. SACHS: Because of the law. 12 MS. ARMSTRONG: Well, if five percent is okay 13 t here, and that's what they're calling a valid rating, 14 a nd that's done at a third-party lab, with supposedly 15 m anufacturer variation, using a DOE test procedure, why 16 s hould it be different for DOE? 17 MR. STEPHENS: I think the question revolves 18 a round the Department using the same test lab, because 19 a lot of manufacturers have used -- they know their lab 20 a nd they know the third-party lab. So, if a different 21 l ab comes into play, there's a totally different 22 u ncertainty that comes into play.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 319 1 MR. THARP: This is Rusty with Goodman. I'll 2 s ay that I think we're mixing tolerances here, because 3 o nly one thing -- I just realized we need to remember 4 t hat the tolerances we're discussing are the tolerances 5 f or developing your AEDM and that's different than the 6 t olerances for -- 7 MALE SPEAKER: Test lab certification. 8 MR. THARP: -- or for enforcement testing 9 d own the road. 10 MS. BARHYDT: That is different from 11 e nforcement testing. 12 MR. THARP: So, that's two different things. 13 A nd actually for thinking about -- for an AEDM, all the 14 t esting I'm going to do to validate my AEDM is going to 15 b e done in my lab and so I'm fine -- I think with that 16 I 'm fine with the one-sided five percent. 17 MS. ARMSTRONG: And if I do a test that -- 18 t here's no standard compliance issue, but if I do a 19 t est and it's more than five percent off, and I come 20 k nocking on your door and say, "Hey Rusty, I have this 21 t hird- party, you know, test lab result --" 22 MALE SPEAKER: (Inaudible).

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 320 1 MS. ARMSTRONG: Well, no, no, no. I mean, it 2 s till gets to what is a valid rating. 3 MR. THARP: Right. 4 MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, regardless -- 5 MR. THARP: And it goes back to -- 6 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- of whether you want AHRI 7 t o tell us when there's been an invalid reading or if 8 y ou want us to determine when there's a valid reading, 9 w ant you guys to determine whether there's a valid 10 r eading, it all gets to what is a valid reading. 11 MS. HOOTMAN: And this what -- and when 12 y ou're talking about rating, you're talking about 13 e nforcement of that rating? 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, I would take enforcement 15 o ff the table. Right? That's not on the discussion 16 r ight now. This is just about -- 17 MS. HOOTMAN: Okay, so -- 18 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- what, coming out of your 19 A EDM is valid. Is it -- should there be a different 20 n umber, whether it's your testing in your lab, or 21 t esting done in someone else's lab, whether it's a 22 t hird-party program, whether it's a DOE program, a spot

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 321 1 c heck, whether it's an Energy Star spot check, should 2 t here be a different number or is the five percent one3 s ided okay for that. Enforcement off the table; we'll 4 d eal with that later. 5 MS. HOOTMAN: Okay, so this is Jill at Trane. 6 T o answer one of your questions about, you know, AHRI 7 a nd the five percent, I realize that this is in your 8 e nforcement part, but with AHRI program, we have the 9 r ight to witness test every single one of those. We 10 h ave a right to be there, we have a right to see 11 w hether they have actually performed the test 12 c orrectly, done measurement calibrations correctly, 13 d one all of that correctly. And note it. 14 And we also have the right to have defective 15 c laims. So, you know, when we see a test that has 16 h appened and we know for sure that it was due to a 17 m anufacturing defect, and we prove it to a 18 m anufacturing defect, we have defective claims. So, 19 b oth of those processes are not in enforcement, nor do 20 I see them necessarily being supported in even the 21 v alidation. 22 MR. WHITWELL: But validation is within our

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 322 1 l abs, but we don't have -- 2 MS. HOOTMAN: And you're right, it is within 3 o ur labs. 4 MR. WHITWELL: We don't have all those issues 5 a nd concerns. 6 MS. HOOTMAN: Validation is always within our 7 l abs and not with AHRI. 8 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, is that five percent of 9 o ne- sided, across the board, regardless of product, 10 f or your lab validation of your AEDM; okay? 11 MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp, Goodman says yes. 12 MR. EISNER: Eric Truskowski had a comment in 13 s upport of Frank's comments earlier for water heaters. 14 " Inaccuracies in the test procedures results in five to 15 s even percent error." 16 MR. STANONIK: So, actually -- again, so 17 y ou're specifically -- your question is, the test that 18 a manufacturer runs in their own facility that is part 19 o f it, I'll call it the AEDM development, and let's say 20 t he final step that confirms they've got the right 21 A EDM, that would be a five percent tolerance? 22 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's what I asked.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 323 1 MR. STANONIK: And it's not enforcement 2 t esting? 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: Correct. 4 MR. KLEISS: Jeff for Lochinvar. For fired 5 w ater heaters and all boilers, the tolerance is five 6 p ercent and we would support that. 7 MR. DOPPEL: Paul Doppel with Mitsubishi. 8 S o, just to make sure we're talking one-sided five 9 p ercent? That's fine. 10 MR. EISNER: Anybody disagree? 11 MS. BARHYDT: Well, I think we've heard from 12 H VAC and water heaters, what about the refrigeration 13 e quipment? I haven't heard from any of you. 14 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. Basically five 15 p ercent is not really doable. We have proven that in 16 o ur labs, because we have taken a single unit, no 17 c hanges in the unit whatsoever, changing the lab 18 c onditions within the test and found greater than a 19 f ive percent variation. 20 But, does a five percent, one-sided bother me 21 a t all? No. Because if we validate our process to 22 p lus or minus eight percent, which is a 16 percent

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 324 1 t otal swing, I know that I cannot be off that five 2 p ercent at the top end. So, I might have to move mine 3 u p three percent to cover it, but that's all I have to 4 d o. My rating may have to be adjusted three percent as 5 a cushion to allow for that. 6 And as long as that's acceptable to the DOE, 7 y ou can say zero tolerance and we can just have to move 8 o ur numbers around. It doesn't bother me a bit. Just 9 t ell us what we have to do. 10 MR. BAUMAN: Yeah, it's Jeff Bauman from 11 N ational. As Mike said, too, and as Charlie's saying, 12 w e can offset the -- you know, our plus and minus 13 t olerance. And, you know, again we're just talking 14 a bout validation of the AEDM, so I mean, what we're all 15 g oing to be watching as manufacturers is are the 16 n umbers you're going to be providing to DOE going to be 17 a ble to be validated by DOE. 18 So, in some ways this really doesn't matter, 19 b ecause unless you want to take that chance in not 20 m eeting what the tolerance is going to ultimately be on 21 v alidation, you know, later testing after you've 22 s ubmitted it.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 325 1 So, I'm fine with the one-sided five percent. 2 MS. DANE: Mary from Trauslen. 3 MR. SHEBIK: Ron Shebik from Hussmann. 4 MS. DANE: At this level -- 5 MR. SHEBIK: I agree with Charlie. 6 MS. DANE: Go ahead, Ron. 7 MR. SHEBIK: Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, I agree as 8 w ell. Two-sided with five percent, might be -- I might 9 l ook at it a little bit differently, but for one-sided, 10 I see no problem. 11 MS. DANE: And Traulsen agrees at this step. 12 MR. EISNER: No one else disagrees? Okay, 13 f ive percent. 14 MR. SACHS: I want zero. One-sided. I will 15 n ot prohibit consensus on that. 16 MS. ARMSTRONG: Where are we? 17 MR. EISNER: At ratings validation? 18 MR. THARP: Well, that's the individual test, 19 t hough; right? 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: Correct. You need an average 21 o r an individual cover. I mean, your testing is 22 ( inaudible).

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 326 1 MR. THARP: In your test, though, there's no 2 r estriction on average; correct? 3 MS. ARMSTRONG: Are you asking for one? 4 MR. THARP: No. 5 MS. ARMSTRONG: Does the committee -- 6 MR. THARP: You're saying -- well -- 7 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- want a restriction on 8 a verage, in addition to individual? 9 MR. SACHS: Putting a restriction on average 10 w ould just tell manufacturers they've got to be careful 11 i n selecting and do more and more until the average 12 d rops to the point below five percent that you 13 s pecified. 14 MS. ARMSTRONG: Correct. 15 MR. SACHS: It's just -- 16 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, it's seemingly -- 17 MR. HON: And you're assuming that we have 18 c ontrol of the vendors. 19 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- no average. 20 MR. HON: Which is impossible. Work harder 21 a t it. 22 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, I'm going to ask you

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 327 1 g uys, now that we've come to, here's the valid AEDM, 2 h ere's what we test and how many we test, and here's 3 h ow my test data has to compare to the -- what's spit 4 o ut of the AEDM, we kind of move into the realm of, 5 " Okay, what did DOE test." Is that something we want 6 t o start at 5:35 p.m.? 7 MULTIPLE SPEAKERS: No. 8 MR. EISNER: Hold on. Is there another small 9 i ssue we could discuss or is that the last -- that's 10 t he last one, isn't it? 11 MS. BARHYDT: Well, there's a lot of aspects 12 o f it. 13 MS. ARMSTRONG: There's a lot of different 14 a spects of it, so that's why I say just pick it up 15 f irst thing tomorrow morning. 16 MR. EISNER: No, but I'm saying is there 17 a nything after that? I think that's the last issue. 18 MS. ARMSTRONG: They're all together. 19 MR. EISNER: They're all together. 20 MS. ARMSTRONG: It all becomes then what does 21 D OE -- what does DOE determine is valid and then what 22 h appens if DOE determines something is invalid.

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 328 1 MR. EISNER: All right. 2 MR. STANONIK: Excuse me, this is Frank of 3 A HRI, explain that a minute. When you say "DOE tests," 4 a re we talking about DOE testing to -- however it 5 h appened, the question is raised, manufacturer's X AEDM 6 s eems a little squirrely. So, are we talking about DOE 7 d oing tests to validate the AEDM or are we just talking 8 a bout DOE doing a test to check a rating of a 9 p articular model? 10 MS. ARMSTRONG: The latter. 11 MR. STANONIK: Oh, okay. 12 MS. ARMSTRONG: Which could invalidate a 13 r esult coming from an AEDM. 14 MR. STANONIK: Yeah. 15 MS. ARMSTRONG: But DOE wouldn't validate an 16 A EDM, the way we have this set up, that's totally up to 17 t he manufacturer. What we would do would 18 i nvalidate your rating. 19 How we do that is for 8:00 a.m. tomorrow. 20 (Whereupon, at 5:35 p.m., the Appliance 21 Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory 22 Committee Meeting was concluded.)

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 329 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

### Capital Reporting Company Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER 2 I, NATALIA THOMAS, the Court Reporter before 3 whom the foregoing proceeding was taken, do hereby 4 certify that the proceeding was recorded by me; that 5 the proceeding was thereafter reduced to typewriting 6 under my direction; that said transcript is a true and 7 accurate record of the proceeding; that I am neither 8 related to nor employed by any of the parties to this 9 proceeding; and, further, that I have no financial 10 interest in this proceeding. 11 12 13 14 

### 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 N ATALIA T HOMA S Digital Court Reporter



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 33 0

### Capital Reporting Company Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013

1 CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPTION 2 I, MARY YOUNG, hereby certify that I am not 3 the Court Reporter who reported the following 4 proceeding and that I have typed the transcript of this 5 proceeding using the Court Reporter's notes and 6 recordings. The foregoing/attached transcript is a 7 true, correct and complete transcription of said 8 proceeding. 9 10

## 11\~ JJDate 

## , 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 

### /3 MARY YO U G Transcriptionist



### (866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 331

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 1

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 0 04 314:15 06 289:15 1 1 215:13 280:17 1,000 67:10 1:30 130:5 1:36 130:7 10 68:8 94:22 112:22 174:5 185:21 186:2,3,4,5,14,1 9 190:1,3,5,6 193:2,4 199:15 201:11,18 202:13,15,17 215:7,15 252:5 302:3,21 304:20 305:4 307:14 10.0 307:17 10.5 304:20 305:4 307:2 314:1 10:00 1:11 100 57:5 67:10 219:2 255:5 273:9 277:20 1000 1:7 107 108:3 10-gallon 187:1 10-ton 54:14 58:15,18 66:17 11 48:21 289:8,9 301:3 302:10 303:2 11.04 289:15 11.05 289:7,14 110ER 289:7 12 110:2,5 112:17

174:5 206:13 252:5 300:16,21 301:19 302:3 304:14 12.05 289:8 12:35 130:7 12-foot 247:19 13 169:7,8 301:9 135 149:6 14 1:10 114:18 252:5 301:17,22 14.0 307:18 15 32:3 110:8 112:17 113:4 293:3 310:13 155 37:17 225:11 16 114:18 135:10 136:2 138:20 237:5 252:5,6 254:7,8,11 255:5,10 257:14 264:1,4 266:7,10 270:21,22 273:22 280:16,18,20 281:5 282:6,7,15 283:1,2,5,15,21 284:3,7 323:22 160 32:4 17 49:10 18 102:10 136:19 138:21 257:9 18,000 108:20,22 180 108:14 19 72:14 170:18 171:17 2 2 45:7 126:10

140:11,12 143:16 205:20 215:8,13 252:5 2,000 95:3 2.5 214:12,15 215:1 217:4 2/2 147:17 20 119:19 281:18 292:20 302:7 310:12 317:1 2000 94:3 95:9,15 2007 112:6 236:5 268:18 2008 236:5 270:8 2010 156:12 270:9 2013 1:10 20585 1:9 206 213:6 20-gallon 205:20 20s 107:9 21 139:13 210/240 103:6 143:15,19 240 15:11 46:5,7,17 25 19:12 39:22 94:11 168:18 170:19 171:18 173:14 206:15 207:2 317:1 250 32:5 250,000 182:4 27 285:14 28 285:22 3 3 161:16 215:7

237:5 280:18 3:26 228:14 3:44 228:15 30 94:20 119:19 300 161:16 300,000 31:14 32 266:8 33 285:9,10 340/360 143:16,17 36 237:5 257:6,7,9 260:6 268:19 269:11,12 274:11,15,16,21 283:13 360 101:4 365 46:4 38 231:8,9,14,15 233:20 245:10,16 264:4 270:19,20 283:12 4 4 16:17 110:7 132:14 140:12 147:16 156:9 199:14 237:5 252:5 4,000 186:20,21 40 199:15 220:9 40-gallon 182:4 205:15 431 68:9 431.2 47:18 431.96/97 15:1 431.97 156:10

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 2

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 45 129:2,4 130:2 47 72:14 4-foot 247:19,20 5 5 16:19 112:20 161:20,21 162:1,7 169:8 215:15 216:14 314:4 5:35 327:6 328:20 50 22:19 106:19 140:7 256:11 500,000 215:9 216:15 55 103:20 58 139:9 6 6 112:20 252:5 60 95:10 63 145:5 148:9,18 65 41:15,17,18 140:11,12 142:11 65,000 14:19 42:13 103:3,10 115:4 68 107:22 7 7 14:14 30:3 156:9 70 104:2 72 104:2 242:19 74-cubic-foot 107:14 760 15:12 46:7,17 149:10 760,000 46:3

78 107:22 8 8 30:11 110:2 247:4 252:5 8:00 328:19 80 108:14 110:12,15 111:19,21 112:2 117:2 126:10 276:21 8-foot 247:18 9 9 30:16 302:17 314:4 9.5 302:16,17 303:2,6 304:20 314:1 9.8 307:3 90 108:14 110:12,15 111:19,21 112:2,16 90.1 156:11 90.1's 156:11 95 276:22 296:9 314:11 9-something 313:6 A a.m 1:11 328:19 A/C 46:8 105:1 135:8 A/Cs 46:7 140:4 Aaon 3:2 41:3 55:20 144:21 148:8 291:22 315:3

ability 293:9 able 33:17 37:21 67:21 76:1,7,13 79:16 91:3 94:15,21 95:6 99:8 108:7 132:2 153:15 168:1 183:10 191:13 218:19 234:11 237:7 245:11,18 248:12 253:16,17 263:11 284:8 324:17 absolutely 147:5 178:16 193:13 AC 3:18 accept 88:21 96:6,14 166:22 220:4,6 261:20 311:18 acceptable 35:19 75:3 89:16 109:14 247:22 283:16 310:10 324:6 accepting 200:4 accessible 132:10 accessories 58:1 65:7,8,16,18 accident 216:10 accommodate 94:21 accordance 93:9,14 according 167:10 193:6 account 238:10 258:16 293:10

accounted 238:18 accounting 293:11 accuracy 253:19 256:14,17 276:19 315:14 accurate 24:20 38:21 43:15 79:18,20,22 80:17 95:13 103:16 109:13 165:17 167:7,11 168:12 259:22 289:10,22 290:7,8 307:20 314:18 315:2 330:7 accurately 290:12 ACEEE 5:3 13:1 22:7 achieve 222:7 261:11 acronym 253:4 across 24:22 49:16 57:11 59:6,8,21 77:3 103:22 121:3 136:3 169:9 278:14 290:13 312:11 322:9 action 87:6 99:9 127:12 actual 24:14 46:8 175:11 216:19 218:1,16 220:20 288:2 290:12,22 292:19 298:1 actuality 73:17 actually 7:10 8:15,17 17:6

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 3

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 23:17,21 68:9 72:3 80:21 88:1,12 94:5 101:10 103:17 105:11 126:19 132:22 134:1 138:6 147:21 148:4,5 159:12 160:6 170:7 180:5 181:18 189:22 197:10 209:13 225:20 232:10 236:6 247:3 256:20 262:2 279:12 289:9 292:12 306:20 310:12 314:17 319:13 321:11 322:16 AD 302:16 add 11:11 14:12 17:1 22:2 55:4 177:15,22 178:3 182:12,13 226:2 227:4,5 238:17 244:4 250:4 252:12 292:20 added 65:16 149:13,15,16 221:15 adder 293:13 302:22 adding 161:22 178:10 179:9 187:8 252:8 addition 32:19 119:12 192:8 326:8 additional 35:3 63:17 134:3,9 152:19 187:8 188:15 189:16 192:21 193:9 197:7,14 198:3 220:8 234:12,21 237:11 246:22 260:4 275:6 additive 188:3,4 196:1,2 add-on 207:19 address 14:7 134:7 171:20 172:5 269:6 275:3,4 addressed 210:1 adjust 163:3 adjusted 164:1 324:4 ADM 118:17 admittedly 314:21 adopted 149:17 156:10 adoption 156:11 advance 20:10 266:5 advanced 5:13 196:9,20 advantage 316:1 advantages 16:20 89:9 Advisory 1:4 328:21 advocating 250:20,22 AEDM 11:14 12:6 13:3,16 17:7 20:22 21:13 23:1,15 24:12,14 25:6,16,18 26:3,5,15 27:15,18,21 28:9 30:15,21 31:3 32:17 33:8,16 34:6 35:2,16,20 36:17 38:21 39:5 40:10,14 43:14,22 44:12,13 47:5 48:3 50:2,12,21 51:19 56:16,19,20,22 57:3,4,6,9 58:5,16 66:19,21 67:9,12,13,17 71:19 74:22 75:8 76:3,4,7,10 77:10,18,19,20 78:3 79:15,18 80:17 81:1,8,13 82:21 84:9 85:12 86:8 88:13,21 89:17 90:15 94:9 97:20 98:19 99:10,21 100:11 101:22 106:9 110:19 111:3 116:6,22 118:17 119:3 123:22 125:7 127:1 128:6 138:2,6,8 142:21 143:3 151:2,4,12,17 152:11 153:15 157:18 158:19 161:2 162:8 164:4,15,16 165:6,11,16,17,2 1 166:2,5,16,18 167:7,11,15 168:2,11 169:9 170:11 174:18 175:20,21 176:8,13,15,19 185:7,8,10 187:21 189:14 190:11,18,20 191:12 195:3,18 196:11

197:7,18,19 198:6 199:7,8,14 200:9,11 201:12,15 202:4 204:3,5,6,8,10 208:18,20 209:3,10 210:15 214:19 215:4,7,20 216:4,17 217:8,13 218:2 220:13,18 221:4,10,11,16,1 9 223:4,6,9 224:8,9,12,17 225:5,9 231:10,17,22 232:10 233:3 234:12,17 235:18 237:10,17 238:5,11 240:3,4 242:20 243:20 245:1,4 249:16,17,19,20 253:11,19 255:22 256:1,12 257:17,20 258:17,22 259:1 260:5 262:2,4 265:1 268:4 271:11 272:12 276:2 277:16 285:12 286:13,15,21 287:20,22 288:1,10 289:7,8,10,13 290:4,15 291:14,20 292:17,21 293:12,14,16 296:6,18 297:4,8,11,22

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 4

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 298:6 299:4,5,10 301:19 302:20,21 304:5 305:6 306:2 307:2,16,17,19,2 1 308:9,16 309:6,11 310:13 319:5,13,14 320:19 322:10,19,21 324:14 327:1,4 328:5,7,13,16 AEDM-based 101:19 AEDMs 18:7,9 20:8 30:12 38:15 61:13 67:14 78:9 153:10 163:16 174:6 194:3 196:9,19 199:13,16,19 200:8 201:11,16,20 203:22 204:4,20 210:17,18,20 221:18,21 222:7 224:16,22 225:8 257:7 259:3 AEDM's 272:21 AEDP 172:21 affect 67:11,16 68:20 70:12 affecting 275:9 afraid 84:3 afternoon 281:8 after-the-fact 20:16 AFUE 211:10 against 16:18 22:13 23:9 54:12 55:8 66:7 74:17 80:12 159:20 160:1 162:7 232:9 age 275:17 ago 22:19 236:12 241:5 316:14 agreed 7:10,17 29:5 48:11 152:2 160:11 189:21 agreeing 178:2 agreement

11:12 14:1 29:8 61:12 120:19 123:1 130:9 146:17 147:10 168:15 225:18 229:8 236:21 284:8 ahead 26:22 35:10 58:8 97:14 137:16 150:12 155:16 211:20,21 325:6 AHI 288:17 AHRI 2:7 5:10 6:5 27:7 35:11 44:9 46:4 55:6,21 56:5 84:8,11,12 88:18 89:19 91:20 96:4,6 98:4 99:3,17 100:13 103:2,6 105:4 106:8 113:17 114:11 117:17 118:5,21 122:4,7 126:2 135:11,22 139:1 140:9 141:15 143:14,16 147:21 148:5,21 151:5,6,7,10,17 152:8 153:5,8 162:7 167:12 174:11 175:15 180:20 181:16 183:14 184:16 190:9 193:12 197:15 211:13 214:22 216:6 220:8 222:11 225:4 291:7 292:14 295:22 299:13 310:3,14 311:8 313:9 315:11,16 318:4 320:6 321:6,8 322:7 328:3 air 5:18 12:4 13:12 14:16 29:17 30:7,22 41:4 42:12,13 62:18 70:3 90:7,10 91:16 104:11 107:6 115:12 138:10 140:12 142:17 143:11 145:8,14 147:18 148:5 149:9,12 155:18,21 156:1,7,12,19 157:3 160:15 165:3,5,14 169:6 179:5,12,16,17,1 8 196:22 213:8 229:22 250:12 251:8,11,14 256:10,20 311:13 Air-Conditioning 2:6 5:9 air-cooled 41:18 102:22 103:1,7 104:22 105:3 137:7 139:11,12 140:4,10 142:6 144:4,5,8 145:13 156:13 165:5,18 179:6

airflow 154:13 250:14,17 251:4,7 air-moving 160:14 Alex 2:13 Alliance 5:11 27:12 194:8 allocated 125:15 allow 30:19 131:5 157:10 210:14 218:5 224:22 299:8,9 324:5 allowable 74:21 75:3 allowed 16:15 30:11 105:13 164:10 191:13 195:3 214:16 287:13 295:21 296:5 311:1 allowing 39:21 235:2 289:17 alluding 165:20 238:10 already 12:9 26:1 51:2,19 83:11 106:12,14,16,17 112:5 117:12 197:16 222:8,10 236:7,11,13 237:10,12 239:17,18,20 240:22 241:4 266:3,20 267:17 269:9,17 270:5,8,12 271:22 275:13 alternate 8:21 27:22 95:15

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 5

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 alternative 11:16 19:4 22:14 23:10 34:14 35:17 36:1 37:7 136:13 137:13 172:7 283:16 alternatively 45:13 am 13:2,21 37:15 38:2,4 41:14 43:10 49:7 51:9 92:19 98:9 102:1 126:12 252:13 267:12 308:5 313:9 330:7 331:2 amazing 173:1 amend 9:17 amended 275:13,14 America 3:19 5:6 American 92:17 among 37:18 242:10 amongst 74:5 233:8 amount 36:5 80:5,8 81:4,5 110:19 118:15 186:8 187:14 208:11 233:4 235:3 249:18 253:14 254:3,22 256:9 268:18 273:12 298:10 amplify 309:3 amplifying 108:19 amps 69:9 Amrane 2:6 analysis 40:13 118:2,15 132:16 314:11 and/or 222:21,22 Anderson 2:8 Andrew 6:2 animal 247:17 250:14 annual 119:11 annually 197:16 answer 24:4 48:19 92:11 100:7 114:5 115:8,13 126:1,8 149:1 166:10,12 169:22 172:4 174:13 206:10 245:3 269:10 279:10 295:17 321:6 anticipating 27:15 anybody 8:2,4 18:12,13 27:3 40:21 48:9 94:22 100:6 115:17 122:9 123:8,12 128:21 136:13 177:18 271:5 286:10 296:11 323:10 anybody's 270:21 anymore 66:21 anyone 20:21 23:4 81:6 107:2 113:19,21 131:13,18 146:20,21 149:12 156:21 247:4 248:19 318:3 anything 13:16

22:3 26:2 36:14 51:19 52:2 81:7 86:6 90:9 95:16 116:8 130:12 133:5 136:20 169:1 197:14 243:3 267:19 282:6 294:6 305:18 306:9 327:17 anyway 80:1 86:4,11,12 106:20 145:4 259:3,6 267:17 315:9 anywhere 59:16 210:1 292:8 302:2 apart 77:20 198:2 apologies 127:5 apologize 35:12 47:5 232:21 233:15 apparently 91:5 123:17 221:21 282:6 appear 134:13 appears 91:16 177:8 appendages 56:3 appliance 1:3 210:9,13,19 212:10 328:20 appliances 2:15 38:9 191:21 192:3 209:22 210:3 212:19 217:1 applicability 15:14 33:11

applicable 14:14 30:22 47:13 57:4 178:15 180:10 226:1,3 240:7 254:11 applications 31:16 applied 22:3 31:4 36:4 51:19 60:15 161:20 193:17 210:18 215:1 278:14 279:6 applies 71:7 101:22 102:1 149:11 183:4 196:3 197:18,19 205:3,6 apply 50:18 58:6 66:10 67:13 89:22 121:3 127:8 131:6 191:13 195:3 215:8 218:22 224:8 230:5 265:9,19 267:5,18 277:21 311:21 313:4,5,16 applying 44:15 196:11 216:3 224:10 appreciate 21:14 173:21 317:8 appreciated 13:1 approach 12:15 27:3 41:21 100:6 117:16 appropriate 23:15 33:1 45:8 61:1 129:12 169:3 189:18 216:4

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 6

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 217:10 284:12 approval 21:11 approved 72:19 222:6 approves 227:12 arbitrary 118:3 154:18 area 36:11 37:14 41:5 55:14 56:3 237:12 240:16 246:22 314:16 areas 7:11 16:5,6 aren't 15:7 46:11 74:20 96:21 104:13 121:2 135:16 152:19 153:10 168:12 173:8 242:5 288:19 argument 101:15 128:4 264:10,13 Aris 4:5 ARM 43:6,11,12 ARMSTRONG 9:14 14:11 15:6,9,12 16:8,11 23:16 28:2 30:2 31:10,22 32:10,12 35:10 39:1 40:4,9 41:14 42:18 45:19 46:1,6,10,12,16, 19,22 47:18 48:4,13 50:4,7,10 51:5,11,15 53:17 54:2,21 55:9 60:2 61:11,20 62:4 68:11,14 69:10,17,21 70:15 71:2,11,17,22 74:1,7 76:19 78:5,8,16 80:19 81:2 85:8 86:1,17 87:15 96:8 100:10,19 101:2,5 102:9 103:4,9,12,15,19 104:1,4,13,18 105:4,7,10,13 106:1,6,10,21 109:15 110:10,14,17,22 111:5 113:8,13,19,21 114:15 115:8 120:1,17 121:14,17 122:8,14 123:10 124:1 125:8,10,19 129:15 134:19 135:18 136:22 137:12,16 138:22 139:15,20,22 141:3,6,21 142:12 144:12,15,19 145:2,6,15,17,20 146:3,7,14,17,21 147:5,9,18,20,22 148:7,10,12,14,1 6,19 149:1,5,8,17 150:4,9,11,14,21 151:13,19,22 152:6,10 155:1,5,12,14 156:4,8 157:7,20 158:4,9,16 160:3,8 161:10,15 162:4,12 163:5 164:9,19 165:1 166:6,19,21 170:22 171:2,5 177:13 178:12,16,20 179:1,11,17,22 180:2,7,9,12,22 181:5,14,20 182:7,11 183:5,12,16 184:6,14 185:5 186:15 187:12 188:1,4,6,8,18 189:2,6 192:5,14,17 195:6,9,17 196:8,15 197:9,13 198:7,10,13,17 199:1,5,7,11,13, 21 200:5,14,18 201:2,6,14 202:7 203:8,11 204:14 205:3,6,17,22 206:9,21 207:4,10,16,19 208:3,5 209:18,20 210:2,6,22 211:6 212:2,5,8,21 213:2,20 214:1,8,20 217:11,15,18 218:5,9 219:15 220:11,14,19,21 221:12,16,19 222:1,4,9,17,20 223:1,11,14,17,2 0 225:17,19 226:11,20 227:16,20,22 228:2,5,9,13 229:9,12 230:10,13,16 231:4,8,13

233:18,20 234:3,13 235:1,7 242:13 245:13,22 246:3,10,15 247:6 248:16,21 249:10,21 250:20 251:17 252:2,16,20,22 253:3 254:4,15 257:3 262:13,20 263:18 264:2,19 265:3,6,10,20 266:2,9,17 267:3,7 272:4 273:8,15,19 274:5 275:12 276:9 278:9,22 279:13,16,18 280:12 284:14,18 285:1,5,7,10,16 286:1,18 287:17 288:3,5,12,16,21 289:3 291:10 292:2 293:17 294:6,18 296:3,5 298:22 299:5,19 300:2,9,11,15,20 301:7,11,16,21 302:2,5,8,13,18 303:11,16,21 304:2,10,13,16,2 1 305:3,16,20 306:1,10 307:5,10,13 318:2,8,12 319:17 320:1,4,6,14,18 322:8,22 323:3 325:16,20 326:3,5,7,14,16, 19,22 327:13,18,20

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 7

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 328:10,12,15 artificial 224:2 Ashley 14:6,11 23:16 28:1 29:22 31:11 39:1,17 42:1 47:16 48:9,14 50:9 59:7 60:19 110:10 115:5 138:20 139:22 141:4 143:9 144:9 146:5 147:15 151:16 152:17 154:21 156:8 166:6 170:17 178:18,21 181:15 189:21 195:16 217:3 222:12 225:16 234:1,5 302:11 Ashley's 28:22 41:12 144:21 ASHRAE 4:20 37:17 149:22 156:11 213:6 281:10 aside 86:5 101:16 102:1 120:19,20 ASME 95:11 aspect 82:17 174:14 176:20 256:8 274:13 aspects 262:5 275:15 327:11,14 assess 168:14 assessment 17:3 68:5 168:9 assignment 129:7 associated 146:22 276:21 Association 2:14 92:18 assume 83:22 227:12 282:3 assuming 133:19 234:16 326:17 assurance 22:21 174:2,4 assured 229:3 asterisk 171:8 177:14,21 Athar 3:15 atmosphere 218:20 attempt 97:22 169:8 attention 170:4 audible 214:4 225:15 248:20 282:12 309:16 audited 84:10 audits 317:18 august 130:8 available 32:19 133:10 174:10 avenue 1:7 79:11 average 161:21 285:18,21 325:20 326:2,8,9,11,19 averaging 162:9 avidly 241:21 avoid 187:8 189:17 200:10 aware 119:3 145:3 233:6 246:14 282:2 away 91:18,19 92:2 171:2 177:9 239:16 287:6 awful 92:5 174:3 B background 17:17 49:8 bad 85:15,18 91:7 97:20 99:2,4,15,18 128:15 259:7 271:14 290:15 balance 21:4 balances 233:8 ballast 64:16 69:8 Ballo 2:9 balloon 29:13 band 256:10,20 316:1 bands 316:12 bandwidth 87:16 Bard 4:21 bare 65:12 barely 172:19 Barhydt 2:10 8:15 9:8,20,22 10:9,20 11:15 12:20 13:15 14:6,9 18:6 19:3 20:6 23:5 32:21 34:5 36:20 38:20 44:1,4,7 48:6 52:10 53:11,15 68:13 73:21 75:6,18,22 77:16 80:2 84:22 85:9,11 86:15,18

87:13,17 93:7 94:4,10,14 95:17 96:9 102:7 106:16 108:5 114:20 116:4,8,17,19 120:6,9,11 126:12,15,20 127:16,19,22 128:3 130:1,15 132:12 133:7,21 134:17 142:8,10,15,19 143:5,7,9 149:2 158:7 177:7 208:17 209:1,16 211:1,4 212:4,7 214:7 225:20 226:8,14 235:14 237:9 247:1,7 258:8,13 261:21 262:17 271:22 272:13 273:3 276:7,10 285:14,22 287:8 297:1,4,15,17 298:3,7,18 304:12 306:12 309:18 319:10 323:11 327:11 base 24:19 70:22 71:10,12,18,21 82:20 108:14 109:9 110:12 111:3,15,20,21 112:5 133:15 175:4 197:1 269:21 294:22 based 26:6 33:7 35:6 38:15 39:8 65:10,11 84:22 85:1,2 93:2 108:5 116:10

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 8

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 118:1 124:9 129:1 138:22 144:7 151:12 157:18 163:21 166:6 175:6 197:20,21 208:4 214:15,19 219:3 221:4 224:19 226:2 235:2 237:17 254:5 259:18 265:1,21 283:20 284:1,7 294:2,10 306:3 310:2 baseless 256:2 baseline 54:22 172:18 263:6 basic 11:3,5 44:21 45:11 52:7,8,11 55:21 56:4,7,10,15 57:14,16 59:17 61:4,8,13,18,19 62:5,13,17,18 63:8,10,19 64:12,17 65:5,15 66:3,9,16,18,19, 20 67:1,6,10,15 68:4,9,14 71:8 72:4,7 73:14 75:8 76:2,8 77:14,21 78:1,2,4,14 88:12,15 101:15,17 102:5 108:20 119:12,13 125:5 128:7,11 136:4,18,19 159:3,17,18 160:16 165:7 170:19 175:21 232:15 234:6,7 238:19 239:10 280:1

basically 28:9 30:13 35:22 36:4,11 44:14 47:10 49:16 63:16 73:10 101:3 102:14 140:10 156:5 163:3 164:4,5 166:1 185:2,9 200:8 216:8 231:1 236:1 245:20 251:10 267:14 277:22 290:15 323:14 basing 260:8 basis 29:16 83:6 126:18 134:10,11 153:14 170:9 207:1 260:5 278:12 bat 180:19 battles 263:17 Bauman 2:11 43:4 44:3,6 67:3 123:15,18 124:2 170:16,17 171:1,13 227:9 231:15 239:22 240:1 242:7 243:7 244:13 249:2,12 251:18 258:18 261:17 270:16 279:20 280:10 324:10 beast 241:12 become 38:9 52:8 127:3 132:9 242:18 251:15 becomes 25:2 65:17 70:1,21 109:8 241:19

299:3,11 327:20 bedroom 126:14 Beever 2:12 176:22 begin 185:22 behalf 91:10,13 behind 39:5 79:1,7 131:15,20 133:16 167:20 168:14 281:11,17 282:9 belief 61:17 believe 9:17 19:8 26:11 29:16 34:5,20 58:19 90:22 94:11 101:20,21 111:12 149:18 168:13 185:19 203:7 234:1 237:2 247:3 260:14 261:1 282:2 belongs 169:16,18 295:10 316:17 benchmark

23:5 benchmarks 22:16 23:3 25:3 benefit 295:14 301:13 besides 239:10 best 17:15 39:14 81:12 98:19 174:10 205:8 206:10 245:2 276:4 bets 251:9 better 24:13 41:3 50:19 51:12 52:1 90:15 118:9 127:1 165:1 166:9 169:20 174:6 180:13 181:18 182:1 219:20 256:17 260:21 263:3 272:22 301:8 311:3 316:10 317:12 Beware 171:11 beyond 55:2 99:20 135:5 152:18 208:21 287:4 294:6 299:7 bigger 186:9 biggest 18:22 240:12 Bijou 4:2 bill 3:20 206:13 billed 308:5 bills 64:17 binding 11:7 bit 8:12 13:2 14:15 84:15 157:2 159:3 240:2,5 244:13 265:11 281:9 292:11 309:3,10 324:8 325:9 black 144:18 blocks 247:18 blow 146:6 BMG 68:1 board 38:19 49:16 77:3 121:3 244:20 266:7 284:6 312:11

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 9

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 322:9 Bob 10:12 24:6 138:19 142:4 286:12 body 130:8 Boesenberg 2:13 boil 194:13 boiler 31:9,12,13,19 32:1,2,3,5 59:12 62:18,21 68:22 92:18 93:3 95:7 109:6 176:10 181:3 209:15 210:12,13 211:11,16,17 218:14,17 220:5 295:21 312:6 317:20 boilers 30:20 32:16,18 36:3 37:18,21 38:4 60:10 76:11 94:19 95:3,14 120:5 138:12 144:10 180:16,20 181:8,9 183:7 197:20 203:3 204:22 205:1 212:8 214:11 215:5,7,8,12 218:15 219:19,21 222:14 224:5,8,10 323:5 bolster 127:6 bones 65:12 books 239:17 275:13 boost 206:7 booster 206:8 boosters 206:5,17 border 186:11 bother 224:13 241:3 323:20 324:8 bottom 9:7 10:5 194:12 203:21 254:7 bought 43:17 bound 54:10 boundaries 54:10 191:10,14 boundary 187:10 188:14 192:10 200:11,13 Bowley 2:15 box 64:14,19 69:5 Bradford 5:19 Bramblett 2:16 brand 133:21 134:13,14 breadth 81:16 128:13 131:4 196:21 break 62:1,8 109:9 115:18 129:3,6 227:19 228:8,9 232:19 243:14 245:4 253:22 284:14 breaking 271:13 breakout 163:11 Brian 2:17 Brice 2:15 brief 17:12 briefing 14:5 briefly 14:3 165:21 brine 162:21 bring 37:15 56:17 111:18 bringing 18:4 168:20 229:9 brings 182:16 270:10 291:5 broad 20:1 30:8 76:17 broader 12:1 91:13 224:15 broadly 37:9 58:5 278:15 broad-reaching 58:13 broad-spectrum 107:10 broke 143:11 broken 156:12 243:4 249:11 Brooks 31:8 95:3 218:1 220:17 Bruce 3:7,8 97:11,12 125:3,9,11 294:1 BTS 94:3 95:9,15 BTU 31:14 42:13 94:20,22 182:5 188:17 214:12 215:2,15 216:14 BTUs 103:3 186:21 188:14 215:13 bucket 34:12 budget 125:14 309:4 build 22:15

61:10,17 65:4 111:12,13,14 117:6 160:2 218:15 243:18 260:15,17 261:1 263:6 building 1:8 10:16 23:8 41:9 109:6 247:18 262:11 buildings 31:17 builds 26:17,18 259:9 build-to-order 98:7 built 33:14,20 134:14 164:16 230:7 260:9 bullet 8:22 9:6 157:12 180:5 203:13,21 bullets 179:13 180:6 bullet's 205:7 bulls 39:19 bunch 63:22 271:2 272:22 275:1 bunched 190:17 burden 57:4,6,10 80:12 101:22 187:9 194:19 198:3 216:3 253:13 264:12 269:3,16 270:2,7 274:9,12 275:6 295:13 317:12 burdensome 237:6 257:21 Bureau 22:20

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 10

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 burner 186:9 burners 184:19 business 21:1 90:6,9 132:14 133:3 168:5 223:7 247:1 263:15 295:19 312:19 businesses 247:2 button 130:4 buy 43:8 218:15 Buynacek 2:17 by-case 134:10 C cabinet 154:12 232:1,2 245:5,18 250:13 calculate 232:1 243:18 260:20 calculates 258:22 calculating 34:17 47:6 92:8 231:18 255:7 calculation 95:11 133:13 calculations 163:21 230:6 232:2,16 294:2,4,10,12 calibrate 170:10 calibrated 23:10 calibrations 321:12 California 3:7 5:15 212:16 294:16,21 calmer 40:3 Canada 239:12 278:2 Canadian 239:5 248:11 capabilities 92:21 capability 93:19 113:3 capable 32:6 145:4 capacities 23:12 95:8 capacity 31:14 136:8 156:16 158:15 168:18 251:3 capital 1:16 218:16 captured 310:19 care 39:2 60:20 99:4 172:10 177:17 189:12 203:17 241:1 277:1 278:19 288:6 295:16 careful 326:10 Carl 4:22 Carlo 118:16 Carrier 2:21 4:18 6:3 10:12 24:7 138:19 142:5 143:6,8 286:12 carry 104:1 cart 211:20 case 35:13 36:1,2 40:6 55:12 57:12 88:8 89:13 90:13 91:13 92:4 119:1 131:16 134:9 165:12 189:15 191:17 193:1 198:7 200:5

219:12 222:12 233:14 234:6,7,8 247:18,19,20 259:17 260:7,8,9,11 262:21 267:17 277:3,7 284:2 304:22 316:19 case-by-case 134:11 cases 88:10 93:4 105:12 106:18 107:17 108:8,9 116:13 234:10 247:16,17 259:9,15 261:2,4 281:14 catalog 63:21 catch 97:20 99:2,16 126:5,6 categories 62:20 102:16 107:10,12 108:3,4 113:14 129:20 137:7 166:8,10,11 179:8 182:19,22 187:22 188:9 190:8 192:1 195:14,21,22 196:3 198:1,15 202:21 210:8 219:11 230:1,3 231:1 239:19 241:3 243:2,5 244:2,9 245:4 250:4 252:9,12 254:13,16 268:19 269:11,12 271:13 categorization 193:15

categorized 190:12 191:7 categorizing 181:18 category 14:17 17:22 30:8 59:12,13 103:16 107:16 124:19 137:19 148:9 166:21 171:22 183:8 185:15 188:13,19,20,21, 22 189:5 194:16 205:14,16 212:10 219:10 231:5 239:4 248:15 250:9 252:4 255:5,10 269:12,15 category-specific 59:13 caught 35:18 79:21 80:7 83:9 263:15 cause 225:7 caveat 11:22 28:22 42:1 177:15,22 178:3 264:19 caveats 86:2 CEC 174:11 ceiling 296:9 center 310:13 centering 292:21 central 115:12 ceramic 315:20 certain 30:15 31:3 93:2 95:7 99:10 136:6 137:19

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 11

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 151:1 156:2 254:22 273:10 275:15 287:10,12 312:4 certainly 12:10 23:3 35:15 36:2 89:3,12 90:13 107:16 119:1 181:2 216:16 250:7 308:20 certainties 310:6 CERTIFICATE 330:1 331:1 certification 9:2,10,12 10:22 27:7 52:19 64:4,5 66:6 78:18 82:12 83:3 84:13 98:6 104:7 105:5 134:6 143:21 151:12 162:2 183:18,20,22 211:19 287:14 319:7 certified 11:2 65:9,11,15 66:18 certifier 278:20 certify 278:20 279:2 304:4 305:20 330:4 331:2 cetera 10:19 159:7 CFR 41:13,14 47:4 68:9 challenge 84:14 282:1 challenging 84:11 chance 12:7 19:9 232:18 268:7 270:14 324:19

chances 245:9 change 36:8 37:19 38:8 51:20 55:11 59:14 67:20 69:13 72:18 75:12,14 110:1,2,4,7,8 136:20 151:10,11 155:6 157:1 179:9 187:2 203:2,13 214:13 224:4 225:6 241:16 242:17 261:13,22 264:8,10,11,21 265:10 266:20 268:10 270:14 274:5,6 306:18 changed 265:12 268:6,11 changes 35:5 136:21 177:2 207:13 241:15 246:18 264:20 269:6 323:17 changing 172:9 217:7 241:16 267:16 323:17 characteristic 176:21 characteristics 68:19 133:17 136:7 217:7 311:7 characterizations 202:1,20 characterize 204:10 characterized 201:20 Charles 3:9 277:14 Charlie 18:15 19:8 86:20,21 88:2,5 107:4 110:11 114:14 116:11 134:12 231:16 233:15,17 236:1,17 238:21 240:2,21 242:19 243:8 244:5,17 247:13 248:9 251:6 254:12 255:18,20 258:19 259:11 260:14 261:12 263:1 267:13 269:14 277:18 294:13 310:21 323:14 325:5 Charlie's 117:15 242:14 262:22 279:21 324:11 chart 138:11 177:12 227:13 charts 226:10 cheaters 18:18 cheating 87:4 check 20:10 24:1 85:8,9,10,20 99:6 113:17 124:12 126:22 141:12 233:9 247:4 258:17 321:1 328:8 checking 85:15 121:9 141:15 checks 19:5 85:7 152:16 233:8 chillers 15:5,7 41:10

choice 98:18 136:4 137:18 200:1 choose 22:17 79:4,6,10 82:11 308:8 choosing 257:8 chose 251:2 chosen 118:3 circulated 8:9 circulating 187:7 196:19 circumstance 225:7 circumstances 89:14 civil 168:13 claim 54:1 172:21 claims 93:21 321:15,18 clarification 60:2 67:4 77:16 115:20 155:10 158:17 240:18 272:16 clarifications 43:6 45:16 clarified 40:15 53:8 69:11 clarify 14:16 15:2 125:4 138:20 145:20 158:2 160:6 163:18 201:8 247:16 class 53:7,8,10,12 54:5 59:18 60:13 68:16 91:14 115:6,9 139:7,18 152:19 153:17

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 12

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 169:22 193:10 200:13 classes 49:5 57:12 59:8 76:4,9 102:14,18 134:22 135:10 139:10,13,19 140:2 143:4 155:22 165:22 166:4 180:14 195:2,10,11 215:21 219:8 229:21 232:9 237:18 254:6 classification 191:9,15 254:1 classifications 198:2 classified 187:3 191:5 clause 22:2 clear 12:18 29:1 99:11 111:14 115:5,7 275:12 291:9 clearer 278:3 clearly 33:6 217:17 Cleaver 31:7 95:3 217:22 220:16 Cleaver-Brooks 4:10 5:17 Cleveland 43:2 Climate 4:4 close 23:13 28:8 48:17 49:14 51:2 53:4 61:22 98:1 115:16 314:13 closed 107:15 229:17 235:10,21 238:2 250:3,6,9,15,19, 21 251:19 258:22 259:5 260:7,19 261:2,4 closely 98:4 291:1 closest 181:13 clothes 63:15 CO 279:15 coffin 251:10 281:14 coffin-type 241:8 COHEN 42:21 coil 56:8,9 159:5 160:13,14 collapse 219:11,14,19 collapsed 271:22 collapsing 219:8 collect 134:4 collected 269:9 college 255:4 Collin 5:22 combination 40:12 56:1 79:6 154:8,17 160:21 173:11 211:15,22 213:16 combinations 120:2 combine 183:6 combined 37:6 40:13 191:21 192:3 209:22 210:2,9,19 212:9 213:5 combining 184:12

combustion 215:18,19,20 216:15,20 312:7 comes 18:17 36:12 69:14 71:9 74:14 118:17 175:7 186:22 228:22 248:3 266:15,18,22 270:13 286:15 288:11 292:11 293:13 297:9 303:3 306:2 318:21,22 Comfort 2:11 4:7,13 141:12 comfortable 7:6 19:6 45:4 47:16,19 48:8 81:5 92:14 153:18 169:11,12 253:19 259:22 277:15 282:9 283:21 284:3 312:21 coming 9:1 27:20 55:8 69:5 71:20 98:3 149:21 172:8 173:4 175:2 225:17 241:17 250:9 264:9 286:21 287:9 288:22 291:20 299:10 320:18 328:13 comment 21:17 25:8,9,14 26:7 40:11,22 44:10 50:5 58:21 67:19 87:19 88:2 95:1 97:12 99:1 118:21 124:7,8 157:9 158:18 163:20 177:7 213:7 228:18 247:9 272:6 294:1 322:12 commented 88:3 163:19 comments 11:20 15:18 16:18 18:1 30:10 31:6 34:13 49:3,8,18 56:14 65:5 66:8 76:22 77:8 80:3,14 81:3 82:5 88:17 115:17 136:15 157:19 214:9 229:11 247:15 286:5 292:12 293:4 299:13 322:13 comments/ suggestions 99:22 Comments/ thoughts/ objections 62:14 commerce 9:12 31:16 315:22 commercial 3:11 12:19 14:16 15:9 30:7,19,20,22 31:8,12 32:15,16,18 37:18 41:3,6,8,9,18 47:7 59:10,12 68:22 76:11 88:8 113:10 115:2 116:6,12 130:17,21 133:11 135:8 139:8 140:3

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 13

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 146:1,12 154:3 155:20 156:1 157:3 176:9 184:2,3,17 185:1,16 204:22 205:2,4,7,17 207:17,18 210:2,20 211:19,22 212:17 213:2 214:11 219:21 222:14 229:15,22 240:14 246:16 311:14 312:5,12 313:18 316:19 Commission 2:18 3:7 5:15 committee 1:4 281:10 326:5 328:22 common 55:9 56:14 62:2 63:10 70:2 73:5 74:4,7 176:17 190:16 202:13 217:1 commonalities 231:20 commonality 175:22 176:2 190:17 communicate 217:17 community 91:13 companies 122:1 174:15 218:14 256:6 312:18 company 1:16 3:12 4:9,21 5:4 20:1 46:21 90:8 91:4 117:4 126:1 172:13 173:18 226:22

compare 24:19 50:16 164:14 182:12 230:22 297:11 327:3 compared 23:21 164:3 216:21 271:21 comparing 24:7,14,15 164:20 262:7 277:6 287:21 290:4 291:14 comparison 262:15 comparisons 231:16 compensate 249:8 competing 90:11 174:17 competition 89:11 233:9 competitive 87:2 competitor 88:8 277:8 competitors 84:7 86:22 87:3 88:6,10 260:12 complaint 193:8 complete 331:7 completely 65:1 108:2 164:17 242:17 244:6 265:12 270:21 280:8 284:19 314:22 complex 26:17 complexity 315:5 compliance 83:17 84:18 85:7,11,15 91:1 149:19 174:2 220:1 275:14,18 316:8 319:18 compliant 83:9 86:7 210:11,12 complicated 25:2 206:10 274:18 comply 204:6 complying 295:10 component 25:20 91:15 160:4,8,9 164:16 176:3 258:15 306:18 components 55:10 112:22 157:10,14,15,18, 19 158:1,2,18 159:20 160:1 163:19,22 164:1,5 204:3 213:5 234:8,9 249:5 259:16 260:11 compressor 55:13 57:15 159:21 160:13 169:7,8,9 306:3 compressor/ condenser 55:22 56:2 compressors 159:6 308:6 comprise 157:15 comprised 170:11 252:6 compromise 257:8 computation 302:22 computations

292:19 computer 149:12 155:18 156:6,12 162:13,17 165:4 179:5 194:11,15 302:22 303:1 computerized 258:12 computer-room 162:15 concentrate 7:19 concept 37:6 162:7 208:9 225:9 298:16 concepts 194:2 Conceptually 22:8 concern 13:9 20:5 80:11,13 85:14 91:9 168:17 172:11 246:5 264:17 274:21 275:2,3,11 277:11 283:22 290:20 307:20 308:5 concerned 13:3 24:7 66:11 121:22 168:22 170:10 172:2 175:10 292:1 293:15 concerning 247:15 concerns 10:11 171:21 172:6 178:1 272:17 322:5 concluded 328:22 conclusion 200:4 conclusions

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 14

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 261:10 condensation 38:6 condense 38:4 condensed 46:4 229:22 condenser 70:2,3,21 120:1 condenser/ compressor 120:2 condensing 37:22 38:3,9 55:12 160:13 224:3,8 229:16 232:3 condition 10:18 110:1,3 conditioner 29:18 42:14 62:18 115:12 156:7 251:14 conditioners 42:12 145:8,14 149:9,12 155:18 156:12 165:5 179:5 311:13 conditioning 5:18 12:4 13:12 14:16 30:7,22 31:16 41:4 90:8,10 91:16 104:11 138:10 155:18 156:2 165:4 169:6 196:22 229:22 251:8 conditions 32:8 317:19 323:18 conduct 209:13 216:19,20 conducted 125:14,16 137:22 192:13 208:15 conducting 246:6 conducts 208:22 confidence 112:16 161:7,8,11,21 276:19,21 277:1 295:15 confident 44:18 260:12 confidential 132:14,17,18 133:3 confining 38:7 confirm 123:19 149:4 152:18 confirms 322:20 conflict 225:10 conformance 23:13 confused 152:9 266:12 288:15 296:13,14 confusing 7:18 292:22 305:19 confusion 7:9 connect 71:9 connected 71:6 connection 45:1 connects 176:18 conscious 233:3 consensus 26:22 100:2 121:4,17 123:14 124:22 128:17 135:3 242:4 248:17,21 281:18,21 282:7 325:15 conservation 307:15 conservative 110:14 289:22 290:10 293:5,12 303:1 309:7 conservatively 286:7 299:8,21 308:20 317:6,9 conservativeness 293:13 298:11 consider 13:17 30:18 54:8 106:2 109:19 152:12 171:19 178:21 179:3 238:22 240:9 245:7 309:8 considerable 298:9 consideration 22:11 90:20 140:8 170:8 315:8 considerations 244:15 considered 13:10 23:14 27:8 41:6 55:5 122:18,22 133:21 134:2 170:6 234:10 consistent 27:8 132:2 193:11 292:13 316:13 consistently 91:18 consists 160:13 consolidate 235:13 254:5 consolidating 235:8 constant 121:9

constitutes 52:7 constrains 287:1 construct 164:11 constructing 216:21 construction 66:13 188:16 271:19 Consultants 3:5 4:11 Consulting 2:3 5:2 consumer 42:4,6,15 consumer's 301:7 consuming 241:11 consumption 68:20,21 133:13 246:19 265:12 275:20 contact 132:22 contained 229:16 230:18 235:10 244:10 248:5 containeds 248:15 container 250:15 context 9:20 52:12 150:6 211:15 Continental 4:12 continual 83:6 continually 29:19 continue 59:11 315:19 continuing 18:10 contract 285:19 contracted 125:17 control 116:14

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 15

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 295:9 308:21 326:18 controls 4:4 6:2 173:3 controversy 64:13 convective 250:18 convenience 180:5 conversation 49:2 57:19,20 58:5 88:19 102:20 180:13 232:22 conversations 58:4 177:16 cool 218:20 CoolAir 2:12 3:15 cooled 14:22 105:2 137:9 140:13,16 142:18 143:12 144:5,6 149:9 156:20 165:6,14 cooler 241:10 cooling 3:2,13 156:16 copy 8:13 208:11 core 57:22 corner 239:9 corners 92:2 corollary 241:14 Corporation 2:12,21 3:15,22 4:18 5:7,19 correct 10:8 20:7 56:2 68:10 84:2,6 139:2 145:15,16 151:19 152:6,12 155:5,12 168:3 180:9,22 198:5 201:14 218:21,22 235:1 263:17 264:10 269:21 288:2,3 289:11 292:16 294:18 297:17 305:10 306:1 308:17 323:3 325:20 326:2,14 331:7 correctly 21:18 114:17 287:21 321:12,13 correlate 159:8 160:9 correlating 220:5 correlation 211:10 corresponding 135:9 cost 65:3 246:6 costs 81:20 245:15 295:9 count 199:3 200:6 231:6 282:17 counted 238:11 counter 254:10 counterparts 129:14 countertop 107:13 couple 7:3 28:4 29:19 42:2 43:5 45:15 107:1 188:16 205:10 238:21 242:21 252:3 278:9 318:2 course 21:1 103:2 203:6 277:12 309:10 court 122:19 141:9

282:1 330:1,2,15 331:3,5 cover 25:4 47:14 112:13 132:6 143:17 144:5 146:9 166:2,3,4,5 176:9,13 185:11 190:20 201:12,17 213:12 215:4 254:13 260:16 324:3 325:21 coverage 206:11 239:4 covered 11:22 15:7 25:5 42:4,16 45:16 46:13 60:5 68:15 139:14 149:15 150:1 175:20,21 185:17 206:8 210:8 212:9 237:16 239:6 covering 12:4 23:11 254:16 covers 12:2 107:22 165:22 172:21 201:15 210:13 220:12 230:13,18 crappy 256:10 crawl 107:6 CRE 59:10 60:10 76:10 107:3 134:4 233:4,13 242:2 266:3 274:2 279:1 294:1,9 cream 229:2,4,8,19 230:14 232:12

241:8 245:19 248:22 249:6,10,12 252:19,20,21,22 263:10 271:18,20 272:1 284:10,22 create 25:15,18 26:4 40:13 153:15 168:2 215:19,20 216:4 218:2 224:18 249:17,18 269:3 creates 269:7 creating 231:17 256:22 307:21 criteria 50:14 88:20 90:1 172:10 177:18 178:5 265:1 270:14 critical 133:12 176:2,20 193:19 251:7 CRM 2:8 cross 197:22 214:12 crossed 192:9 crosses 182:21 187:10,17 188:13 191:9,14 200:11,12 crossing 186:11 Crosstalk

229:6 300:6 Crowder 2:18 crude 222:13 culture 22:20

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 16

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 curious 8:21 9:5 current 10:17 27:8 47:4 61:8 68:3 177:9 186:7 currently 35:7 151:17 201:9 218:1 285:17 299:8 curtains 275:16 curves 211:9 cushion 324:5 custom 26:16 216:2 customer 26:19 133:9 customers 233:6,8 239:14 cut 92:2 305:3 cycle 250:10 cycles 281:3,9 CYMBALSKY 87:11 227:7 284:10,13,16,21 CYR 169:7,8 D D.C 1:9 Daikin 3:14,18 5:20 157:9 daily 170:9 Dan 2:16 Dane 2:19 21:5 81:10 115:19 116:7,10,18,20 122:12,15,17,21, 22 123:3 126:5,6,13,19 127:2,15,21 128:2,4 147:3,7 152:2 236:15,19 257:11,14 325:2,4,6,11 dangerous 19:21 darn 259:1 data 19:11 24:14,15 44:16 45:10 49:14 82:20 86:7 93:2,6,13 96:4 108:5 109:17 112:7 126:17,22 132:9,12 133:16,19 134:16 138:17 150:22 151:2 159:4,5 167:6 197:2 200:15 205:2 218:2 219:3 220:1 236:7 237:2 240:20 241:1 242:15 244:17 258:9 259:20 260:9 261:9 262:1,3 264:16,22 271:3 276:20 287:22 288:2 296:18 297:22 327:3 database 64:8 66:6 133:15 159:15 260:17 294:16,22 databases 159:12 294:15,16 date 20:15 87:16 93:11,15 226:16 237:16 331:10 David 4:7,19 day 65:4 69:14 164:19 202:6 209:22 280:21 292:9 de 72:22 73:1 75:12 deal 13:4 120:21,22 163:12 196:21 213:5 236:9 269:8 279:12 311:20 321:4 dealing 186:18 196:17 200:8 218:18 258:8 deals 11:1 113:6 279:11 dealt 206:18,19 debate 42:16 decade 59:7 decades 29:19 December

206:12 decide 13:5 67:1 81:18 116:21 128:13 129:7 162:5 164:6 168:8 173:9 196:4 234:15 268:7 299:7 305:13 306:2 308:9 decided 115:21 decimal 73:2 decision 281:1,8 283:22 Decision-Making 7:12 decorative 109:7 dedicated 212:20 default 188:14,21

defeats 257:20 defect 321:17,18 defective 92:14 321:14,18 defend 258:19 295:2 deficient 73:11 92:6 define 31:8 57:6 78:13 88:15 128:7 160:12 194:3 278:15 defined 57:4,13 64:12 160:17 163:4 227:2 280:1 defines 42:6 56:4 63:6 defining 137:20 158:12 199:7 definitely 51:8 129:20 150:6 164:10 177:4 182:12 251:20 definition 12:19 31:18,20 41:3,11,16 47:3,4,11,20 53:4 54:5,8,18,19 59:21 60:9 61:8,9 62:3,12,17 68:1,4,9 71:21 73:1,20 75:8 89:16 109:13 115:11,12 159:18 160:20 182:5 186:7,20

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 17

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 208:6 210:10,12 definitions 59:13 61:3 66:8 181:17 182:13 184:22 defrost 232:8 defy 91:18 Degitz 2:20 degrees 32:5 dehumidifier 251:15 del 2:21 delay 26:19 delays 112:11 delete 203:13 deleted 171:4 Delfield 5:4 delivering 241:10 295:10 delivery 26:19 demanding 224:21 denominator 73:6 department 1:1,6 2:10 24:3 28:5,13,18 29:14 51:16 52:19 58:20 60:11 69:10 93:8 98:13 99:13 132:13 206:21 240:18 277:10 279:11,15 283:20 309:9 317:16 318:18 Department's 16:22 39:11 41:11 60:3 76:20 depend 56:19 dependent 111:5 depending 33:12 64:20 81:15 108:15 130:19 140:4 174:6 191:4 207:13 240:11 254:8 292:22 depends 119:15 162:5 166:13 192:6 246:15,17,20 derived 164:2 describe 44:11 64:1 143:14 159:3 176:1 193:14 238:6 described 51:13 125:18 143:10 describing 171:9 238:12 description 74:5,7 descriptor 47:9 216:10 design 22:17 39:15 168:1 176:2 181:11 182:19 185:8 187:6,10 189:19 197:21 215:11,14,22 216:8,11 217:5 218:3 219:6 223:19 designed 32:2,4,6,7 176:11 designing 45:2 316:10 designs 23:20 65:2 desire 315:1 detail 48:7 detailed 118:15 317:16 details 49:7 176:17 determinate 177:16 determination 11:17 34:15 35:17 37:7 275:19 determinations 75:10 determine 50:13,15 90:14 190:11 209:11 320:8,9 327:21 determined 92:2 291:17 determines 84:19 327:22 determining 34:17 95:13 165:16 182:20 221:3 develop 25:2 27:21 36:14 88:13 109:10 111:3 164:4 196:19 211:9 214:19 215:4,7 216:16 225:7 237:7 243:16 258:10 developed 29:19 54:9 88:14 108:9 109:10 125:7 163:22 196:20 221:15 300:12 309:6,9 developing 263:4 305:6 307:21 319:5 development 4:10 5:17 29:15 54:12 174:16 303:20 304:8,9 306:14 308:11 322:19 device 160:14 devices 160:15 dialed 256:18 Diane 3:13 dictate 12:15 dictated 116:15 difference 19:18 43:19,20 72:17 75:12 100:18 138:17 165:9 169:2 185:19 199:21 243:8,22 250:12 260:20 280:2,3 289:2 293:18 304:1 differences 111:4 169:20 242:9,11 245:6 271:13,17 different 15:4,6,20 17:11 23:2,11,12 24:20,21,22 33:7 35:9 36:18 37:8 41:1,19,20 42:12 43:22 49:3,5,6,21 54:7,20 55:17 59:16 60:1 61:15 64:20 65:1,2,21,22 66:10 68:9 70:5,7,8,10,11 71:14 72:17,21 73:2,4,6 74:9,15 75:11 76:3 77:19 80:14 82:8 86:18 90:1 92:21 94:1 96:14 100:1

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 18

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 101:8,9 107:20 108:13 115:22 116:12,16 126:1,8 127:17 134:20,21 138:12,13 139:9 140:2,6 150:16,17,20 158:5,13,20 159:1,12,21 161:3 163:6,7,8 165:8 166:1 171:16 174:1 176:11 180:14 182:19,21 184:12 187:6 188:19 192:10,18 193:10 194:2,10,14,20 195:10,11 196:18 200:8 204:3 207:8 215:1,6,9,11,21 216:9 226:1 230:6 232:3,4,7,8,10,1 5 234:10 238:1,3,13 239:1 241:6,7,22 243:6 244:8,9 245:10,16 247:17 249:6 250:6,14 255:2,8 258:5,11 260:6 265:17 275:16,17 277:17 278:21 279:6 280:15 285:19 290:2,3 291:12 298:16,20 299:1 301:2 311:14 312:6 316:16 318:4,10,16,20,2 1 319:5,10,12 320:19 321:2 327:13 differentiate 97:3 183:13,18 differentiated 156:14,16 250:3 differentiating 181:7 250:21 differentiation 83:2 differently 55:16 58:2 59:10,22 63:6 248:2,8 311:13 325:9 difficult 83:16 84:4,13 92:1 95:4 109:9 228:3 311:20 316:22 317:4 digit 310:7,8 Digital 330:15 digits 64:9 72:14,15,16 dinged 174:9 direct 30:14 117:14 277:2,7 direction 330:6 directions 109:8 directive 279:6,7 directly 117:15 251:9 273:12 directory 174:11 disadvantage 253:6 disadvantages 16:20 disaggregated 102:18 disagree 122:9,15,16 123:4,5,9 124:3,7,13 128:21 136:13 154:7 177:18 186:17 217:3 218:7,13 236:16 248:19 249:2 294:13,19 296:11 323:10 disagreeing 85:17 122:14 123:17 248:6 disagreement 122:11 129:12 147:14 178:7 213:19 214:3 225:13 309:14 disagrees 123:8,13,14 325:12 disconnect 82:5 discontinued 35:5 discover 87:3 discrete 33:12 166:11 230:1,2 discretion 136:5 138:4 157:13,21 158:1 164:6 223:12 discuss 17:18 19:14 49:17 61:8 62:11 117:10 149:11 171:18 233:11 254:19 327:9 discussed 12:3 24:11 26:1 67:15 discussing 37:1 79:12 303:18 319:4 discussion 9:17,19 10:14 11:3,5 12:11 13:3,7 15:19 16:7,20 17:10 20:19 26:9 30:16 31:4 37:5 42:19 49:11 52:7,11,12,15 53:18 57:14 61:13 65:17 67:6 76:5 88:11 110:17 113:2 125:4 129:6 130:12 136:10 142:2 149:20 177:9 211:19,21 216:13 238:4 254:5 278:1 291:11 320:15 discussions 11:9,10 12:14 13:10,18 37:17 67:21 102:16 108:12 211:14 239:3 279:22 dishwashers 206:5 disincentive 80:10 dismiss 311:11 display 107:17 116:13 distance 37:17 distinct 140:2 199:19 distinction 287:8 distinguish 185:14 distinguished 63:4 distribute 9:11

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 19

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 distributed 31:15 distribution 9:12 65:13 distributors 50:22 disturb 251:11 diverse 33:13 170:13 diversity 169:1,19 170:4 173:10,14,15 Division 4:15 Diyar 4:11 doable 323:15 docket 13:15,22 18:2 document 8:9 11:7 13:1 29:6 132:16,21 133:1,3 documentation 27:14 documents 19:14 20:14,15,21,22 DOE 7:17 8:11 9:12,22 14:11,16 16:5,14 18:6 20:10,13,21 22:2,14 23:1,14,16 29:3 37:11 43:10 48:14 57:2 59:10,20 60:14 61:8 63:11 64:2 66:11 68:3 77:8,14,21 79:17 80:18 83:16 84:1,5,16 89:21 90:22 93:4,9,14 94:2 96:3,5 99:8,17 111:9 112:9 125:5,14 131:5 132:9,19 133:7 139:9,22 144:21 150:19 156:9 164:12 167:10 170:4,9 191:18 195:2 198:1 206:10 211:14 212:21 223:22 243:5 244:1,18 261:20 263:16 275:4,19 278:16 279:1 280:12 281:3 282:8 285:17 294:1,5,9,14 295:2 303:6,11 304:17 308:13,19 315:2,8 317:9 318:10,15,16 320:22 324:6,16,17 327:5,21,22 328:3,4,6,8,15 DOE's 14:21 15:3 38:14 53:15 66:16 72:4 94:10 127:5 177:8 272:14 277:3 281:21 284:7 dog 162:14 165:3 282:17 dogma 117:17 dog's 171:15 dollars 95:5 172:14,15 domestic 210:5 Dominic 3:18 157:8 done 20:4 21:8 29:2 34:22 50:1,17 84:21 85:3 91:2 93:8,13 95:10 98:14 104:9 105:14,15 108:17 109:21 112:5 120:12 182:20 193:6 208:10 220:9 234:16 235:4 236:6,12,14 237:15 241:4,5 266:3 270:8 279:12 318:14 319:15 320:21 321:12,13 door 107:16,18 230:21 231:18,19 232:1,3,13,14 235:19 243:11,21 258:14 262:8,9,10,11,12 ,15,16 319:20 doors 107:19 174:8 238:3,9 260:15,19,21 280:7 Doppel 2:22 12:16,21 27:4 53:2,13 54:1 61:21 62:5,9,12,19,21 69:22 70:21 71:4,15,20 104:21 105:6,16,18 132:4 133:6 143:19 144:1,7 147:15,19,21 148:1,4 160:19 178:18 213:3,11,15,18 305:5,11,17,21 306:6 307:1,6,12 323:7 double 310:7 double-check 184:9 double-edged 89:12 doubtful 106:19 Doug 4:20 dozen 165:15 draft 7:8 213:6 drafts 217:20 drag 211:18 drastically 246:18 draw 251:3 draws 170:4 drew 138:11 drive 288:10 316:4 driven 65:3 174:3 drivers 101:14 drives 316:6 drops 326:12 dual 217:1 duct 251:8 due 321:16 duplication 235:21 during 21:1 100:4 129:18 E earlier 30:7 67:21 83:1 88:11 98:2,22 100:8 115:3 122:10

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 20

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 137:6,21 168:17 237:16 264:14 280:15 322:13 Earthjustice 2:9 easier 85:19,20 142:2 222:12 300:20 easily 87:9 217:8 244:9 easy 17:20 80:5 186:10 202:21 227:14 228:6 229:3 economizer 156:15 economizers 10:18 edge 263:14 EER 174:4,5 300:14,16 301:3 313:4 EF 313:6 effect 259:17 Effectively 310:16 effects 37:21 38:5 efficiencies 157:1 169:10 220:7 233:7 241:15 260:21 efficiency 5:11 10:16,17 11:17 27:12 34:15,17 35:17 36:6,12 37:7 45:3,6,7 47:7 68:20,21 69:14 70:5,11 93:5,21 95:11,13,15 132:3 136:21 158:14 172:16 174:21 175:12 182:21 187:2 192:9,12,19 193:6 194:8 197:4 211:11,12,17 216:11,13,15,19, 20 234:8,9,20 241:15 243:9,13 244:2 245:19 267:15 275:10 293:1 309:10 312:7 313:4 315:21 efficient 175:3,10 215:5 234:11 243:12 301:18 efficiently 241:9 effort 81:21 313:14 eight 107:5 140:22 145:7,10 250:5 257:22 259:5,6 264:6,7 310:6,18 323:22 eighteen 145:11 eighth 200:12 Eisner 2:3 7:2 8:18 10:10 11:6 14:1,8 16:3,9 17:12 18:5,12 21:16 25:8,13 26:12,21 27:10 28:1,20 29:11,22 31:6 32:11 33:1,4 34:2 37:12 40:11 41:12,22 45:14 47:15,19 48:8 50:3,5,8 52:4 53:1,19 62:8,11,14 65:20 67:19 70:14 71:12 83:15,21 84:3,16 85:5,10,13 86:12,20 87:18,22 88:17 90:21 92:9 96:1 97:10 99:22 111:7,9,19 112:1,12 113:7 114:1,6,8,12 115:16 122:9,16 123:2,5,12,16 124:3,15,20 125:9,11 127:10,14,17 128:17,20 129:9,21 130:3,5,8 136:12 146:9,18 147:10,14 149:14 150:2 155:16 157:19 158:11 168:15 169:13 170:2 171:3,6 172:7 176:22 177:6,12,14,21 178:14 179:14 180:11 189:7,9,12 192:2 198:21 200:3,22 201:4 203:12,16 207:21 212:13 213:19,22 214:3,5,9 222:8,10 225:13,16,18 226:9 227:4,8,10,15,21 228:1,4,7,11,16, 21 229:5,7,10 232:17 242:11 245:8,17 246:1,5,13,21 247:8 252:13,18,21

253:2 261:3,16 262:6,14,18,22 264:1,4,13 265:2,5,7,16,22 266:6,12 267:2,4,10,22 272:5 273:22 274:3 279:17 280:9,14 281:21 282:14,21 283:4,7 284:4,11,17 285:3,9 286:10 293:22 294:9 295:4 296:11 309:14,17 322:12 323:10 325:12,17 327:8,16,19 328:1 either 32:6 33:11,18 59:12 96:21 99:17 113:22 173:15 191:6 206:2 211:15 223:8 250:4,19 266:20 268:3 287:22 288:1 289:21 either/or 189:9 303:12 elaboration 278:7 electric 2:13,22 3:12 12:17 140:5 144:2 172:13 184:7 205:14 206:8,13 213:4 227:1 277:13 314:2,12 electrical 68:18 69:6,19 205:12 259:16

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 21

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 elegant 29:15 elephant 172:13 else 13:4 23:4 39:7 56:3 81:8 90:11 95:1,16 115:17 123:8,12 149:16 169:10 171:10 174:22 195:3 275:7 278:16 283:12 295:9 325:12 else's 54:18 320:21 email 87:11 134:7 embedded 66:15 Emerson 2:17 308:6 Emery 4:19 empirical 38:14 employed 330:8 encompasses 56:21 encompassing 57:7 encouraged 32:14 encouraging 295:7,8 endpoint 33:18,21 endpoints 33:8 35:1 energy 1:1,6 2:10 3:7 4:2 5:11,15 10:15 27:11 36:5 68:17,20 72:15 107:21 117:11 126:3 133:13 194:8 206:12 212:16 233:7 239:3,13 241:11 243:9 248:11 277:14,17,18 278:1,10 279:11 283:21 294:16 300:13 310:21 321:1 enforce 83:17 84:18 enforceable 236:4 enforcement 17:3 21:7,14 22:9 51:14,16 82:7 84:22 86:3 87:14 125:17 126:7 128:15 303:19 319:8,11 320:13,14 321:3,8,19 323:1 Engineer 5:2 engineering 4:16 43:1 92:21 154:9,15 159:4,11,15 163:2 168:1 173:13 219:9 277:10 281:1,17 282:10 290:21 291:2,3 309:9 engineers 26:18 engineer-to-order/ design-to-order 26:16 engines 158:7 159:4,5 enormous 118:15 ensure 83:17 91:1 enter 38:8 106:8 entering 89:19 90:1 105:19 141:19 entire 136:3 195:13 277:9 entirely 94:1 133:19 169:4 entity 201:21 203:5 entrant 106:3 141:16 183:17 entrants 96:20 97:1 entries 179:5 environment 2:18 260:18 environmental 317:19 envision 176:5,8 envisioned 57:9 EPA 3:4 279:22 280:13 equal 186:2 190:2,4,5 203:6 296:16 equals 202:9 equation 81:19 82:11 166:1 equipment 10:17 12:1 14:16 22:14,15 26:16,18 30:6,8,22 31:1,3,14 41:4,6,8 45:16 92:15 95:6 98:7 109:12 110:6 113:11 144:22 155:21 157:4 163:1,15 165:4,8 172:16 174:17 175:6,12,13 212:1 218:16 229:15 245:10,21

246:17 254:1,6 261:9,11 265:5,8,9,19 266:13 267:2,11 268:1,2 272:10 275:11 290:19 294:2,10 310:3,22 311:14,22 312:5 323:13 ER 315:13 Eric 5:19 322:12 error 314:11,13 316:12 322:15 ERVs 10:18 especially 17:14 28:22 58:11 116:12 145:4 241:19 307:10 312:12 313:18 essential 72:12 185:19 essentially 27:6 68:18 69:17,19,21 70:7 73:18 143:1 156:1 157:3 184:18 194:20 247:18 280:22 293:1 305:7 314:5 establish 48:1 established 44:18 establishes 99:21 establishment 45:11 Estes 2:16 esthetic 280:3

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 22

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 estimating 197:4 estimation 197:1 et 10:19 159:6 evaluated 245:14 evaluation 78:1 evaporating 160:14evaporativecooled 144:22 evaporatively 14:22 137:9 140:16 143:12 149:9 evaporatives 104:8 evaporator 56:9 event 87:1 272:9 everybody 7:2,6,8 8:4,13 11:13 14:9 18:1 41:12 47:19 48:8 61:12 87:1 89:10 90:4,6,11 124:21 127:9 129:4,21 142:14 146:9 201:1 227:12 228:16 312:16 Everybody's 89:7 everyone 12:7,9,12 38:12 49:15,20 55:16 60:9 63:6 67:22 92:3 124:18 everything 13:4 15:1 31:10 32:21 51:21 56:3,21 67:2 71:8 79:4 80:1 89:11 117:6 119:4 166:18 167:10 169:10 195:13 233:17 270:19 271:1 295:9 everywhere 58:12 evolving 36:9 exact 148:20 155:11 193:6 199:2 217:5 exactly 15:21 70:17 102:13 155:19,22 190:3 202:11 205:19 280:7 313:13 314:15 example 22:5 47:21 54:14 58:14 73:8 94:2,18 137:5 139:11 141:22 142:3,6 245:18 251:1 265:3 289:6 292:18 314:8 315:20 examples 13:8 23:9 except 134:5 267:19 295:14 exchange 36:6,10 158:8 exchanger 55:14 57:15 159:22 188:17 exchangers 159:6 173:2 excluded 32:17 excuse 117:21 283:12 314:7 328:2 exempt 17:2 Exemption 132:14

exhaust 218:19 exist 28:11 227:3 270:2 existing 78:8 96:6 224:2 261:4 265:14 267:2 exists 157:3 270:12 expand 40:21 157:13,22 expansion 160:14 expect 51:10 243:12 expected 243:10 expects 26:19 expense 216:21 expensive 26:17 experience 45:5 63:12 89:21 90:17 279:21 expert 250:8 expertise 131:6 experts 39:4 77:5 explain 22:2 96:19 107:3 124:4 277:15 288:16 292:11 328:3 explained 39:2 242:12 explaining 47:22 explicitly 30:17,18 exporting 239:12 express 173:22 expressed 80:13 expressing 174:1 extend 279:4

extendable 217:8 extended 47:8,11 extending 33:5 165:8 extensive 13:18 extent 10:20 11:1 31:15 39:12 44:15 60:6,8,18 96:10,12 97:3 129:18 149:11 151:6 157:5 195:12 210:9,11 238:16 242:15 299:7 External 145:8 extra 239:13 308:6 extrapolate 158:22 219:5 261:9 extrapolation 40:1 extrapolations 261:14 extreme 94:8 F fabul ous 280:4 face 42:10 FACILITATOR 2:2 facilities 94:20 facility 93:20 322:18 fact 63:3 64:16 75:15 85:1 86:5 89:4 90:17 92:19 93:1 112:10 119:1,5 165:16 168:1 203:2 215:2,3 216:8

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 23

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 248:17 314:10 317:17 factor 124:14 309:1 factored 312:8 factors 124:11 238:2 242:12 255:8,9 fail 91:3 failed 19:15 85:22 fails 162:1 292:15 failure 86:13 127:13 156:3 307:4 fair 87:15 160:7 271:4 fairly 36:7 109:10 163:3 fall 108:2 166:7,9,11 259:21 306:19 falls 15:1 107:15 188:19 193:10 families 33:13 57:5,10 197:22 198:2 200:11 family 33:22 35:2,4 54:6,8,13,19 55:10 57:1,5 59:18 60:19 61:5 78:13 81:16 182:17,18 189:18 196:12,13,16 197:2,5,21 199:8,16 200:9 278:14 fan 159:22 211:9 Farther 44:6 faucet 205:20 faucets 205:13 fault 174:10 favor 16:18 18:12 153:2 295:5 fear 92:11 feasible 209:11 218:14 features 63:17 64:1 federal 1:4 35:6 40:14 258:5 305:14,15,22 306:8,16 307:6 328:21 feel 51:20 84:20 106:14 111:10 116:1 168:10 253:18 277:15 282:8,9,10 feeling 21:21 felt 80:4 FEMALE 109:3 128:19 177:4 278:5 fewer 33:13 262:18 263:3 field 39:13 46:18 49:16 77:1 83:8 92:7 93:22 Fifth 54:1 fight 162:14 239:19 fighting 236:12 figure 63:14 124:21 244:11 262:15 316:11 file 208:13

fill 133:18 227:17 fin 176:10 final 7:7 93:11 133:17 164:2 322:20 financial 330:9 financially 218:14 fine 16:11 18:10 40:10 42:22 51:11 52:2 60:6,11,20 84:9 134:18 209:6 257:8 281:6,14 290:11 319:15,16 323:9 325:1 fingers 13:13 fire 95:13 187:6 196:18 fired 182:5 190:1,2 219:22 227:11 323:4 fire-tube 204:20,21 first 16:9,13 19:17 20:13 29:7 39:8 49:21 50:3 64:9 67:18 79:7 95:18 96:2 113:9 121:15 123:12 135:7 136:15 145:10 177:19 190:4 192:5 193:12 230:2 234:14 250:8 256:4 276:17 291:7 297:8,9 312:13 313:14 327:15 first-level 121:16

fit 98:8 194:3 198:15 fits 311:10 312:22 315:4 five 41:5 57:2 58:15 62:20 72:18 74:11 75:11,16 76:2 91:14 98:16 137:22 139:5,6 170:19 171:17 172:1,4 178:13 244:12 246:16 256:15 257:2 269:16 287:2 288:17 292:15 293:2,6 297:7,8,12 298:11,12 299:14,15 300:1,2,3,5 301:5 302:16 303:17 304:19 305:7,9,12,16 306:2 309:21 310:14,15,16,17, 22 311:1 312:10 313:4,5,8,13,22 318:12 319:16,19 321:2,7 322:8,14,21 323:5,8,14,19,20 324:1 325:1,8,13 326:12 fix 316:21,22 fixing 203:18 flag 39:18 flail 59:11 flames 185:3,10

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 24

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 flavor 184:4 flesh 115:14 flip 308:4 floated 102:13 flow 194:13 250:12 flowing 251:9 flue 38:6 184:18 185:12 fluid 156:15 165:8 fluids 162:22 163:3 flux 266:4 fly 3:2 29:13 41:1,2 55:20 144:20 145:3 148:8,11,13,15,1 7,21 149:7 162:13 291:22 292:3 315:3 focus 7:11 21:2 88:11 136:12 151:16 271:10 focused 22:13 274:8 focusing 253:11 FOIA 132:11 folks 130:15 follow-on 123:11 125:22 font 144:17 food 242:3 foot 259:15 footnote 208:5,6 forbid 21:12 forced 193:8 197:7 200:10 239:9 foregoing 330:3

foregoing/ attached 331:6 foreseeable 216:16 forget 45:20 190:3 forgetting 226:15 forgot 225:22 form 35:16 38:16 70:22 133:19 134:16 261:10 312:16 formally 32:14 formula 231:18 formulas 219:4 Forrestal 1:8 Fort 126:14,16 forth 92:22 94:2 fortunately 314:8 forward 40:15 61:7 67:22 68:7 101:16 102:2,6 135:5 136:10 187:16 276:9 282:4 283:18 foundation 61:10,18,19 foundational 101:15 four-cubic-foot 107:13 four-row 56:8 fourteen 145:11 fraction 110:22 fractions 236:20 framework 12:11,14 276:8,12 Frank 4:14 5:9 26:13 33:14 35:11 38:1 41:22 42:21 44:9 56:2 59:7 62:15 88:17,18 90:14 92:16 97:8,17 98:2,10 113:9,16 114:11 117:22 118:4,20 119:10 127:5 141:14 152:7 153:8 165:2 167:12 170:13,15 175:15 178:22 180:18 181:15,22 183:12,14 184:16 185:18,19 189:20 190:9 193:12 194:9 201:7 202:11,18 203:20 208:8 211:13 214:22 216:6 217:2 219:13 221:2,6 222:11 225:3 249:14 291:7 311:8 313:1 315:4 328:2 frankly 90:12 Frank's 90:7 96:17 165:20 322:13 free 51:20 freely 218:12 318:9 Freeman 3:3 freezer 235:16,17 241:8,10 249:6 251:14 271:18,20 272:1

freezers 107:8 229:2,4,8,19,20 230:14 232:5,6,7,12,13 235:11 240:10 248:22 249:11,12,13,22 263:9,10 frequently 217:5 front 20:14,21 22:22 29:6 39:19 80:5,9 85:3 86:5,14 99:19 149:2 163:15 250:15,18 fronts 250:19 251:2 fudge 82:1 fuel 146:3 180:15 181:7 184:8 full 94:5 185:9 186:6 function 38:18 120:16 193:20 210:15 functional 68:19 176:3 functions 308:1 fundamental 36:3 45:11 175:19,22 194:2,3 250:11 fundamentally 192:7 furnace 211:16 furnaces 31:1 225:19 227:10,11 future 224:12

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 25

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 261:6,8 263:2 269:1,2 275:3 276:1 278:18 299:9 G gain 234:19 gallon 186:21 188:14 gallons 185:21 186:3,4,14,19 190:1,3,5,6 193:2,4 201:11,18 202:13,15,17 gamble 80:7 game 172:13 274:2 gap 90:22 gas 3:12 105:1 172:12 184:6,11 189:22 190:1,13 219:22 221:9 226:18,19 227:1,2,5,7 273:13,16,17 277:13 300:13 gases 38:6 gas-fired 182:16 190:5 201:10,17,21 203:2 227:10 gather 40:16 GE 2:15 gee 200:1 general 14:5 16:7 21:21 25:21 45:9 62:17 100:15 131:18 137:3 191:8 226:8 290:21 generalized 60:15

generally 30:4 47:1 106:7 174:16 181:10 209:5 248:17 280:22 286:9 generate 33:17 38:21 generated 8:22 generating 20:8 generic 162:21 308:8 generically 44:11 191:20 Geoff 92:17 Geoffrey 3:5 geothermal 45:17,21 gets 36:4 49:11 52:18 55:15 128:14 187:20 202:18 239:16 285:11 320:2,10 getting 24:2 35:18 36:17 38:4 40:3 52:6 61:22 90:21 96:22 109:17 115:16 119:14 121:12 128:5 245:17 256:14 268:21 269:4 270:3 279:12 280:4,12 285:2 290:18 312:19 314:13 given 54:22 55:10 65:4 68:15 92:6 116:10 153:16 162:9 258:8 292:9 gives 73:11 192:14,17 295:17 316:2 giving 92:14 glad 200:20 glass 107:17,18,19 230:21 232:1,13 235:19 243:10,21 250:15 258:14 260:15 glide 263:13 glycol 162:18,20,21 165:14,15 glycol-cooled 156:13,20 163:9 goal 222:7 God 21:12 Goodman 5:18 16:4 18:8 68:8 82:13 120:14 142:20 160:12 178:8 307:14 315:15 319:1 322:11 goods 63:13 65:22 66:1 gorilla 91:22 Gotcha 46:22 137:10 gotten 87:11 211:20 government 113:5,7 Grant 218:3 grape 40:7 great 62:4 121:11 229:9 279:16

greater 140:11 142:11 185:20 186:3,4,5,18,20 190:1,4,5 193:2,3 201:11,18 202:17 203:3,6 323:18 gross 247:3 ground 7:5 8:7 28:21 45:17,21 212:17,20 group 7:14,15,16 8:10 52:8 55:21 57:15 59:17 61:4,19 66:20,21 88:16 92:20 98:1 99:21 128:11 143:10 186:13,14 201:16 215:12 223:9 231:3 234:7 247:14 248:1 279:3 284:9 grouped 76:15 102:21 grouping 56:15 73:5 181:5,7 groupings 11:3 202:10 204:13 groups 22:15 61:2 74:6 76:9 83:22 88:12 92:12 233:10 239:2 guarantee 17:4 255:17 guess 14:13 43:5,18 59:5 85:2 90:8 103:14

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 26

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 123:4 128:5 149:10 151:15 153:17 171:14 186:3 205:11 216:12 228:2 239:22 242:1 253:8 270:17 271:15 281:5 288:14 299:3 guidance 40:20 168:21 169:14,18 191:19 guy 117:18,21 172:1 guys 15:13,15 17:5 24:4 30:18 31:5 39:4,14 49:17 53:1 55:2 61:20 77:4,5 81:2 85:15,18 91:7 113:10,14 146:5 183:5,6 313:15 316:9 320:9 327:1 H ha 247:9 half 239:4 241:18 248:13,14 257:12 274:15 Halley 3:5 92:17 93:17 94:7,13,17 Hall-Jordan 3:4 hamper 225:10 hand 22:10 48:19 135:2 150:22 295:12 318:3 handed 317:13 handle 230:7 handled 248:2,8 handlers 70:4 handling 196:22 hands 227:12 handwritten 21:16 Hang 150:12 happen 63:7 255:17 268:22 happened 68:22 269:18 321:16 328:5 happens 80:18 87:3 177:1 223:22 239:11 272:8 327:22 Happiness 217:15 happy 7:8 11:13 15:22 22:5 79:5 125:20,21 141:22 207:4 268:8 270:18,21 hard 88:12 207:1 227:16 315:2 harder 114:9 228:1 295:13 326:20 Harry 225:4 Harvey 5:3 12:22 22:7 23:7 24:2 25:7 29:12 37:12 39:17 58:9 59:5 91:10,12 117:15 151:15 168:16 171:10 172:17 173:20 175:16 178:1 206:20 212:11 223:21 225:12 250:7 272:5,7 295:4 308:3 315:19 317:7

Harvey's 118:21 171:21 172:11 209:22 Hatcher 107:4 108:8 109:4,16 110:13,16,21 111:2,8,11,21 112:3,15 134:18 Hatzikaziakis 3:6 haven't 87:11 209:22 262:5 269:15 312:12 314:22 323:13 having 18:10,13 19:6 26:19 34:9 66:17 68:17 81:5 90:21 100:4 116:15 121:22 122:10 158:12 209:12 217:9 219:9 235:20 242:5 257:20 267:6 275:1 276:14 317:13 hawk 99:17 head 35:8 152:22 170:13 238:1 headed 109:18 hear 14:1 25:11 32:16 41:2 50:8 69:4 125:9 131:8 141:10 heard 115:3 130:21 211:21 216:7 264:5 323:11,13 hearing 34:8 85:13 91:5 172:6 241:22 242:9 254:15 274:16 278:6

hearings 59:6 heat 29:17 36:6,10 45:17 54:14 55:14 57:15 58:15 104:16 105:1 115:12 140:21 145:8,14 148:18 149:5 158:7 159:6,22 173:2 185:10,16 188:17 193:17,22 194:1,4,12 205:11,17 207:7,20 210:5 212:15,17,22 217:6 289:8 heater 47:7 62:21 176:10 181:4 182:5 183:3,4,17,20,21 186:20 191:2,6,7,8 193:2,3 194:5 195:5 202:12 205:13,15 207:2 209:15 210:10,11 211:12 212:20 313:6 314:2 heaters 30:20 32:15,18 38:3,17 42:8 60:11 120:5 144:11 146:1,13 180:12,21 181:19 182:2,17 184:2,3,17 185:1,16 190:1,2,6,8,20,2 1 197:19 201:10,17,22 202:15,16 203:3

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 27

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 205:11,18 206:8,12 207:5,8,20 212:6,22 219:19 228:5 311:15 313:10 314:12 316:19 322:13 323:5,12 heating 2:6 3:2,13 5:9,13,18 31:16,17 138:11 193:20 210:21 232:4 251:8 heating's 193:18 Helft 3:7 97:11 125:3 help 12:14 15:14 24:4 27:18 31:19 55:18 100:19 162:1,4 239:14 242:6 245:3 246:6 helpful 13:2 58:7 129:20 150:7 helping 258:10 helps 162:3 295:9 hereby 330:3 331:2 here's 133:1 327:1,2 he's 151:20,22 171:15 194:10 198:12,19 199:7,14 242:15 Hey 102:9 273:17 312:17 319:20 Hi 25:11 206:4 212:14 247:11 hierarchy 42:4 Hierlmeier 3:8 294:1 high 136:8 218:19 234:9 238:7 310:7 high-efficiency 174:16 higher 117:4 121:8,13 122:1 172:15 188:17 245:11 298:1,5 315:7,12 highest 95:7 98:17 177:1 highest-volume 138:3 highlight 12:10 233:18,21 high-selling 154:7,17 173:11 high-temperature 237:21 238:19 Hill 4:15 Hillphoenix 253:17 hinge 47:3 historical 93:2,6 117:22 181:17 182:5 184:21 237:2 240:19 Historically 218:1 history 29:14 36:2 90:3 hit 39:19 42:9 173:13,15 235:22 273:4 hitting 38:13 80:22 hold 31:10 124:12 128:9,10 146:14 208:6 282:21

327:8 holding 97:11 245:18 holds 256:1 home 158:21 242:7 homework

236:6 241:4 Hon 3:9 18:15 19:8 86:21 133:9 134:12 230:5,12,15,20 231:11 236:1,18 238:21 240:21 243:1 244:5 248:9 251:6,15 254:12,18 255:19 256:5 259:11 260:14 261:12 263:1 267:13 268:2 269:14 270:4,6,13 271:16 272:2 277:18 278:8,19 294:8,13,19 310:21 323:14 326:17,20 hoot 255:13 Hootman 3:10 15:8,11 45:15,20 46:2,8,11,14,17, 20 53:21 54:4 55:4 58:9,22 59:4 72:9,10 73:12,16,20 74:3,13,18 75:1,5,14,20 100:7,12 101:1,4,7 102:21 103:6,10,13,17,2 1 104:3,5,15

105:9,11,17,21 106:11,18 107:2 114:7,22 117:19 119:15,17,19,21 120:4 135:14,15 143:13,20 150:12 153:1,2,6 154:6 159:2 160:7,16 167:2 168:7 173:7,17 179:15 282:16 288:19 304:8,15 306:13 307:22 309:21 320:11,17 321:5 322:2,6 hoots 241:1 hope 13:13 21:17 89:8 169:11 hopefully 102:3 225:5 hoping 52:10 horizontal 235:12 251:11,21 252:8 254:10 horse 211:20,21 horsepower 95:4 Hoshizaki 5:6 hot 31:18 32:3,7 95:3 176:10 180:15,20 181:3,6,7,9,21 182:17 183:7 194:11 197:20 203:3 208:1 210:4 212:17,20 215:4,8 218:3,4,10,15,17 ,21 219:6 220:1,17 221:22 222:13

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 28

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 223:3,8,11,15 224:4 238:4 hot-water 219:19 hour 31:14 129:2 186:21 214:12 215:2,14,15 hours 49:1 house 61:18 Howington 3:11 HTP 5:13 38:11 52:5 74:20 121:20 155:9 165:19 187:19 191:16 204:18 209:19 221:13 240:17 241:13 276:16 293:21 295:20 316:18 huge 153:19,20 206:6 275:5 314:1 Huh 175:5 213:22 human 167:4 hunches 118:18 hundreds 172:14 236:14 hung 36:21 Hunt 3:12 172:12 206:4 212:14 213:1 226:17,21 227:3 277:12 278:4 hurt 59:19 256:3 Hussmann 5:7 114:4 124:6 247:12 253:16 259:13 282:20 325:3 HVAC 12:19 47:7 60:6 62:21 76:10 107:2 114:19 130:17 135:22 139:8 145:21 312:5 323:12 hybrid 206:2 hydraulic 68:19 hypothetical 223:22 315:19 hypothetically 300:8 I ice 229:2,4,8,19 230:14 232:12 241:8 245:19 248:22 249:6,10,12 252:19,20,21,22 263:10 271:18,20 272:1 284:10,22 I'd 37:14 60:22 82:13 113:17 115:22 141:12 163:18 171:14 175:12 184:9 238:15 257:11 276:16 277:5,15 idea 39:5 54:13 62:4 79:2 88:7,9 102:17,20 144:15 190:16 205:9 222:17 238:15 276:7 283:11 285:20 301:8 312:14,21 ideas 17:11 32:22 76:14 96:20 97:7 109:18 228:10 264:3 identical 68:18 69:1 72:13 73:17,18 108:21 143:2 170:12 271:19 278:17 280:5 304:7 identically 102:12 identified 156:6 identify 8:18 132:17 identifying 27:19 IER 315:10,12,17 ifs 269:5 ignore 119:8 I'll 44:13 47:2 53:21 63:13 120:14 150:13 167:6 176:2 208:6 231:5 243:7 280:10 309:2 312:17 319:1 322:19 Illinois 5:21 6:4 illuminated 13:6,7 I'm 8:20 9:4 12:8 14:15 15:22 16:11 20:6 23:16 27:21 28:3 31:11 43:19 51:4 54:13 58:13 59:20 62:9 63:19 67:5 73:12 84:9 85:10,13 87:20 88:1 90:10,17,18,21 91:5 101:15,16 106:19 114:4 117:14 120:17 121:7 122:21 124:4 125:6,20 126:16 133:19 134:19,21 135:13 138:22 139:4

141:11,15,22 144:22 145:6 147:5 148:22 149:22 153:12,17,20,22 154:6 158:16 166:8 167:5,9 168:22 169:10,16,17,19 170:7,10,14 172:5,6 179:1,4,13,15 182:3 184:8 185:9 186:18 195:19 200:20 203:15 205:5 217:16 219:17 220:2 221:7 225:17 226:15 227:8 229:2 231:15 232:21 233:9,13 234:2 236:15 239:22 240:21 241:21 242:9 244:16,20,22 245:2,17 248:6 250:7,22 251:3,20 253:6,7,11 254:6 257:20 260:2,4,11 262:6,7 265:10 266:12 267:5,6,10,20 268:15 270:3 271:10 273:2,9,17 277:12,13 278:3,6 279:9 280:12 283:6 284:2 285:7 288:15 291:12,14 292:1

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 29

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 293:15 295:14,16 296:13,14,20 300:15 301:14 306:17 307:15,18 312:6,20 319:14,15,16 325:1,7 326:22 327:16 imagination 190:19 imagine 169:5 259:1 immediately 13:14 impact 10:16 53:3,5,9 63:18 65:8 246:19 275:20 imperfection 308:10 imply 70:9 272:21 implying 272:18 important 18:14 38:10 52:9 63:7 75:8 138:18 163:17 240:9 241:14 247:13 254:19 impose 59:21 impossible 19:2 230:20 326:20 improve 10:15 improved 29:19 inaccuracies 24:16 311:16 314:21 322:14 inaccuracy 311:12 312:4 inaccurate 316:20

inappropriate 7:14 inaudible 109:3 114:7 128:19 141:5 173:16 198:4,9 207:14 224:20 228:20 281:15 288:20 319:22 325:22 Inc 3:8,20 4:22 incentive 163:13 256:16 316:2 include 14:18 34:3 104:22 105:2,3 108:6 148:18 157:22 included 12:18 13:13 31:9 95:14 139:6,19 175:19 294:17 includes 11:20 88:14 145:14 170:9 213:11 227:5 including 91:20 inclusion 10:14 incorrect 42:19 increase 253:12,13 254:2 267:15 increased 245:8 274:9,12 275:5 increases 295:13 increasing 245:19 295:15 Independence 1:7 independent 145:3 208:15 219:3 255:15 independently 254:16 indicates 56:1 indicating 284:2 indication 283:8 individual 76:7 166:12 199:15 279:2 285:17,20 286:1 296:16,17 297:10 310:9 325:18,21 326:8 individually 65:9 individuals 42:8,15 industrial 31:13 industries 26:14 62:6 63:15 97:9,18 178:22 201:8 249:15 industry 9:18 10:6 23:14 27:9 29:16 59:14,21 61:4 65:7 83:3 86:22 92:12 93:3 99:15 112:13 120:2 122:3 181:17 184:21 208:9,10,15 220:9 223:22 236:6 239:1 240:22 241:7 271:6,8 295:11 304:17 314:22 316:2 inefficient 207:2 290:19 inflection 138:5 inform 54:2 information 28:18 98:12,20 99:8,13 112:8 114:13 126:21 132:9,14,18,20 133:1,3,10,14,16 134:4,8,15 153:14 167:14,22 170:18 174:10 215:3 216:17 234:19,21 258:11,15 261:15 263:6 270:12 271:4,9 274:21 295:1 307:11 317:11 ing 171:3 Ingersoll 3:19 inherent 112:21 316:5 inherently 24:16 in-house 50:17 93:19 95:4 120:6 initial 122:2 initiated 304:17 inlet 37:20 38:3 innovation 174:2 253:15 innovative 122:1 input 36:10 94:20,22 186:8,21 191:5 216:9 insane 90:8 inserted 285:15 inside 64:14,19 69:5 75:2 110:3 154:8 184:19 250:14 256:19 291:3

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 30

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 installing 216:22 instance 101:9 instantaneous 180:15 181:6,10,13,21 182:2,6,8 183:3,7 184:3,21 185:4 186:1,2,7,12,19 187:3,11 190:7 191:6 193:1 195:4 197:18 201:22 205:13 206:13 instead 30:14,20 224:1 235:20 273:7 302:17 Institute 2:7 5:10 institutional 94:19 insulation 208:13,14,16,21 209:13,14 232:3 insulator 260:22 integrally 191:2 intended 9:5 intent 27:17 interchangeably 116:1 interest 81:12 175:9 330:10 interested 23:4 34:9 38:13 277:13 interesting 97:17 317:15 internal 133:12 internally 99:3 308:21 International 3:6 4:6 interned 22:19 interoperability 64:18,21 66:14 69:6 interpellation 295:22 interpolation 30:19 32:15,20 33:8 34:1,7,10,16,22 35:4,15,20 36:10,16 37:9 38:7,15 39:18,20 40:12 43:18,21 196:11 197:6 interpretation 40:14 43:6,11,13 interpreted 280:6 Interruption 258:12 Intertek 4:8 intertwined 17:14 19:7,9 interval 161:22 intervene 91:21 intolerant 286:22 introduce 48:13 introduction 229:11,13 invalid 242:18 265:14 320:7 327:22 invalidate 328:12,18 inventory 117:7 involved 38:1 139:1 170:8 218:16 239:2

248:11 irony 118:13 irrelevant 277:19 311:5 Irrespective 52:18 isn't 34:7 46:5 56:2 90:2 102:19 137:3 168:8 187:12 213:8 220:13 242:6 255:18,20 274:19 275:14 288:11 289:10 299:4 311:9 314:1 327:10 issue 8:13 10:3,21 29:7,9 30:1 39:20 48:12 49:21 61:14,15 64:22 67:15,17 70:16,17,20,21 83:15 94:4 95:19 96:11,15 98:9 128:21 129:11 131:1 170:7 173:14,15 177:11 180:11 197:17 211:18 241:19 273:4,9 283:19 302:10 319:18 327:9,17 issued 11:18 issues 8:11 11:10 12:10 14:2 15:18 16:2,19 17:13,17 18:1 28:21 29:3 47:11 49:11 61:14,19 95:18 112:11 135:2 286:3 322:4 it'd 142:1 item 235:17

items 9:2,5 10:13,15 19:15 139:19 238:17 240:15 it'll 273:6 it's 7:16 11:7 18:3,13,16 21:22 28:22 33:1 35:20 39:6,7,8 41:8 44:21 45:8,10 46:1,3,8 47:18 51:5 56:21 57:12,13 60:9 61:20 63:7 64:21 65:3,21,22 68:11,13 69:8 71:8,20 72:8 73:1 75:2,12,14 76:1,7,8,9,21 79:19 80:15,21 85:19,20 86:17,18 87:15 95:16 101:3 103:11 110:15 111:17 116:20 117:20 118:11 125:8,10 126:1 127:4,6 128:6,9 131:21 132:8,14,15 134:10,11 137:8,18 138:14,17 139:13 141:19 144:7 147:1,21 148:4,5 152:17 154:10,17 155:6,21,22 156:9 157:4,5 163:14,16 167:4,17,19 170:1 173:1 174:12 175:5,6

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 31

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 177:4 179:18,19 182:6,7,19 183:19,21 186:1,2,3,10 187:13 188:2,4 190:4,7,12 192:10,11 193:10 194:14 195:9 201:9 202:21 205:8,20,22 206:9 207:1,2,6 210:9 211:10 213:6 215:9,22 218:13 220:8 221:16,19 222:1 223:16,18 226:2,3,4 227:9 229:20 242:8 244:6 246:16,19 247:2,3,5,13 250:15 252:19 256:3 257:10 268:21 269:4 270:5 272:18 273:13 276:4 277:2,11 278:6,12,16,18 279:6 280:6,8 281:7,8,16 284:13 285:22 286:4 288:6,8,9,22 289:16 290:18 291:20 292:13 293:1 295:18 298:16,22 300:17,21 302:8 303:6,8,9,14,21 304:4 306:12 307:6 310:19 311:5,22 312:10 313:17,20 314:4 315:1,4,7,10,20 316:22 317:3 319:19 320:20,21,22 321:1 323:1 324:10 326:15,16 I've 59:5 96:2 97:10 126:10 149:2 167:17 185:9 211:21 235:7 251:13 264:2 283:13 Iyabo 3:21 J Jakobs 3:13 Jason 5:4 Jay 4:17 Jeff 2:11 3:16 4:15 8:20 32:12,13 33:3 34:19 35:18 36:20 43:4 61:6,16 67:3 68:2 77:13 101:13 123:18 170:17 171:13 182:15 186:17 191:1 194:22 196:5 198:22 201:9 207:22 214:10 224:6,14 240:1 243:7 249:3 251:18 258:18 270:16 279:20 289:19 309:2 323:4 324:10 Jeff's 188:12 Jeremiah 3:3 30:2 102:9 Jill 3:10 45:14,15 53:21 54:4 58:9 72:10 102:22 106:11 114:17 121:10 135:15 143:13 153:1 154:6 168:7,20 173:7,20 306:13 308:11 321:5 Jill's 137:5 141:15 152:21 Jim 2:21 job 127:5 255:7 John 4:4,6,12 5:2,17 31:7 95:2 217:22 220:16 221:21 285:4 Johnson 3:14 6:2 join 25:9 Judd 5:8 judgment 170:5 209:12 jumping 14:15 justifiable 215:16 justification 33:4 281:22 justify 173:5 282:2 284:8 K Karen 4:9 65:20 119:9 121:6 124:3 160:22 Karen's 124:7,8 Karim 2:6 Keith 29:17 Kent 4:16 Kevin 5:21 6:4 key 172:17 217:13 Khan 3:15 kicked 276:2 killing 245:20 kilter 268:12 kinds 116:13 173:3 212:18 258:11,15 Kleiss 3:16 8:20 9:16,21 10:8 32:13 33:3,6 34:19 61:6,16 68:2 77:13,20 78:7,12 101:13 144:9,14 146:1,12,16 182:15 183:9 184:11 186:17 189:15 191:1 192:12,16,21 194:22 195:8 196:5,9,17 197:12,17 198:5,22 200:7,16,19 204:16 207:22 208:4 214:10,15,21 215:10 216:18 217:16 218:18 220:13 221:2 224:6,14,21 226:6 289:19 309:2 318:6 323:4 knew 122:13 281:20 knock 174:7 knocking 319:20 knowledge 41:13 89:20 90:16 113:20 133:15,20 167:22

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 32

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 knowledgeable 37:14 233:6 Kojak 3:17 79:13 80:15,20 166:14,20 167:3 168:19 189:4 279:9,14 Kolandayan 3:18 157:8,21 163:18 164:18,21 Kowalski 3:19 kW 72:17 73:2,4,6 206:6,13 207:2 L lab 51:17 80:21 94:20 97:21 105:14,15,17 106:5 147:1,2 164:12 277:8,9 279:12 316:12 317:3,18 318:14,18,19,20, 21 319:7,15,21 320:20,21 322:10 323:17 label 197:7 labs 145:4 237:6 295:8 316:3 317:19,20 318:1 322:1,3,7 323:16 lack 166:9 180:13 laid 106:7 language 40:18,20 47:21 48:9 137:3,4 177:22 178:4,10 189:7,9 192:2 226:15 279:7 large 14:17,19 55:22 97:21 101:2 108:4 137:8 140:5 142:10 215:18 216:18 233:12 242:12,15 251:14 254:3 277:8 310:3 largely 202:18 larger 33:20 93:18 109:6 214:18 277:6,9 312:4,5 largest 39:22 54:15 154:12 168:19 173:14 Larry 3:11 Larson 3:20 last 9:10 10:13 21:17 29:13 42:2 47:10 59:7 91:14 95:10 129:1 156:11 157:11 179:4 203:13 204:19 205:7 207:7 208:10 210:16 212:14 221:14 222:5 227:21 237:15 244:19 327:9,10,17 late 25:22 35:12 later 20:15 26:9,10 48:10 83:5 97:3 132:6 226:16 273:4 321:4 324:21 latter 139:20 328:10 Laura 2:10,20 7:17 12:16,22 22:11 35:13 118:20 261:19 272:7

Laura's 264:15 law 5:5 39:8 239:17 315:21 316:8,17 318:11 Lawal 3:21 laws 91:18 laying 61:18 277:3 lays 135:19 lead 18:17 29:13 246:11,13 lead-in 26:14 leading 78:21 leaning 177:9 learn 55:19 89:6 least 15:13 27:13,14 49:19 53:8,10 73:11 77:9,22 78:4 80:9 100:4 112:4,16 120:18 135:20,21 136:17 137:1,6,18 139:6 156:19 157:15 164:11 172:4 175:18 176:6 180:19 190:13 215:3 218:9 223:19 235:8,18 236:10 238:6,15,18 252:6 254:6 258:20 278:11 leave 7:18 19:22 136:9 138:18 156:19 164:5 209:10,17 285:1 leaving 21:14 180:4 182:1

legal 110:9 125:16 132:15 263:17 legislation 42:6 legitimate 27:20 257:5 Lennox 3:6 less 14:19 24:3 27:17 33:17 41:4,15,17 42:13 68:13 78:11 103:3,20 140:11 142:11 149:6 175:2 186:2,13 190:2,6 202:15 206:17 215:2 231:15 246:19 247:5 274:18 278:16 283:3 286:15 290:11 292:4 293:19 295:22 301:18 305:22 let's 17:20 29:8 36:3 55:21 59:12 89:16,20 90:6 110:15 121:15 132:8 153:12,15 158:21 172:18 200:22 263:8 269:5 271:17 275:2 277:15 297:6 300:7,12 316:21 322:19 Lets 300:10 Let's 48:12 161:1 200:22 214:5 284:16 300:11 315:18 letting 81:6 level 25:20

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 33

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 49:12,16 70:11,18 77:1 82:9 83:18 84:1,20 96:21 102:18 112:16 158:14 161:7,8,11 237:4,8 241:2 243:9,13 244:6 266:22 276:19,21 287:3 291:21 296:6 300:3,4 306:10 316:2 325:4 levels 23:12 70:5 163:8 238:13 244:3 lieu 95:15 lighting 275:16 likelihood 242:2 likely 13:21 33:17,20 73:5,16 173:13 237:17 242:5,6 likewise 99:7 103:10 260:13 limit 18:21 39:21 157:9 limited 59:2 247:2 283:12,13 limiting 117:8 limits 190:18 Lin 3:22 line 26:6 112:20 119:5 128:10 136:15 182:21 186:6 203:4 214:8 222:15 232:20 235:17 290:12 300:13 305:12

linear 30:19 32:15,20 33:8,22 34:7,10,16,21 35:4,15,20 36:9,11,15 37:8 38:7,15 39:6,13,18,19 40:12 43:18,20 44:22 197:6 259:15 295:22 lines 130:2 lingo 15:3 list 8:10,16,17 9:8,10 10:13,19 11:9,11,14 14:7 34:3 61:14 132:6 147:11 149:10,16 168:15 169:15 170:4 171:9,12 172:8 213:19,21 214:1 225:18 227:21 228:18 229:2,11,13 listed 56:6 107:6 171:17 listening 241:21 listings 239:14 literally 58:17 72:16 159:5,9 little 7:9 8:12 13:2 15:3,6 17:17 24:7 35:14 41:1,3 60:14 84:14 89:8 95:5 106:19 130:1 156:3 159:3 168:22 176:6 222:13 240:1,5 244:13 258:15 265:11,17 267:6 273:4 280:15 281:9 290:11 292:11 301:16 309:3 311:19 312:2,9 313:19 325:9 328:6 live 126:13 255:10 263:20 272:4 311:18 LLC 3:17 load 259:14,16,18 260:10 loads 206:6 location 317:2 Lochinvar 3:16 8:20 32:13 61:6,16 68:2 77:13 101:13 182:15 191:1 194:22 195:14 196:5 207:22 214:10 224:6,14 289:19 309:2 323:4 locked 242:3 logic 310:15 logical 17:16 237:19 281:2 long 21:9,11 63:21 93:3 112:8 122:22 129:1 144:9 183:9 234:14 236:6 240:12 263:14 268:5 276:8 280:21 289:20 291:20 293:9 295:17 324:6 longer 84:15 265:4 272:11 285:2 lose 119:1 185:14

loss 38:17 185:22 186:22 192:8,20,22 193:5 316:20 317:10 losses 250:18 293:1 313:3 lost 97:14 229:1 lot 13:8 19:21 21:8 34:6 36:2 37:13 59:6 63:1 65:6 76:21 80:3,4,13 92:5 93:1 107:22 108:9,18 109:12,17 112:5,8 156:1 167:19 168:5 174:3,8,12,15 206:6 229:22 236:20 237:2,18 239:9 242:14 255:8 256:5 259:19,20 264:2 269:3,5 278:3 286:3,5,8 299:13 310:2 318:19 327:11,13 lots 174:20 184:18 185:12 264:14 loud 153:17,22 Louis 5:11 27:11 150:3 155:17 163:10 194:7 207:6 237:14 256:7 273:1 love 126:16 low 31:13,20 32:1 114:21 117:5 216:1 237:21 238:7,18 240:10 283:13 309:4

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 34

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 310:7 lower 38:5 117:5 198:15 220:5 246:1 282:6 283:5 293:6 296:1 298:4 317:11 lowest 73:5 95:6 306:11 low-pressure 219:1,5 low-temp 232:6 low-temperature 224:1 Luke 3:4 Lulla 4:2 lumped 217:9,20 lumping 190:7 lunch 62:1,2,10,11,13 100:5 115:18 128:22 129:18 130:15 135:2 152:3,4 165:21 176:5 lunchtime 114:9,10,11 Ly 4:3 M ma'am 146:8 magic 131:7 main 101:14 202:4 275:11 maintain 245:15 246:3 285:20 major 241:19 270:7 271:13 majority 121:3 202:14,16 MALE 146:5,8,19 147:12 150:10 207:6,14 213:8,10,12,14,1 7 222:21 224:20 227:2 228:20 229:4 231:7 252:19 257:13 285:4,6 305:10 309:20 319:7,22 manage 317:4 Mandyck 4:4 manipulate 255:6 manner 264:20 manufacture 195:12 265:13 267:8 278:11 manufactured 68:16 136:2 265:9,19 267:11 manufacturer 17:2 21:20 22:22 24:22 25:15 26:17 43:15 50:12 58:11,14 59:1 61:1 63:15 67:5 68:17 74:5 79:16 81:12,18 82:19 83:20 84:18 89:3 90:1 91:17 98:3 116:21 117:9 128:13 131:9 132:1,13,22 133:4 135:11 138:18 141:19 150:22 157:11,13 158:2 163:20 164:6 166:16 167:14,20 168:8 173:9 177:2 179:15 184:1 199:18 202:3 204:19 210:17 221:17 251:2 253:14,16,21 255:21 256:3 271:7 309:4 316:11,17 317:5 318:15 322:18 328:17manufacturerdriven 50:11 manufacturers 22:17 23:18 24:21 27:6 54:7 64:16 68:5 80:4,6,16 83:2 88:4 90:14 91:6,11 92:20 94:18 99:8,12 100:4 119:2 122:5 130:20 131:5 135:8 168:21 169:4 173:4 175:10 179:4,6 200:1 209:15 224:22 241:20 242:1,3 251:4 256:18 257:21 263:13 274:20 276:13 277:6,7,11 288:10 309:12 317:22 318:19 324:15 326:10 manufacturer's 23:13 82:9 98:18 105:14 116:2 125:7 136:5 138:4 276:20 317:2 328:5 Manufacturers

2:13 79:3 92:18 manufacturing 4:9,21 18:15 21:2 77:7 107:4 251:6 253:17 254:12 266:13 306:4 316:6 321:17,18 map 192:6 304:9 306:15,22 Marantan 4:5 margin 295:15 mark 3:2 4:8,18 41:2 55:20 144:20 148:8 187:1 291:22 315:3 market 21:10 42:15 50:22 60:1 77:10 81:7 90:18 99:19 268:9 271:20 marketed 206:15 marketing 109:7 301:3 marketplace 85:19 94:19 markets 271:21 Marshall 3:12 92:12 172:12 174:7 206:4,22 212:13,14 226:17 273:1 277:12 Marshall's 173:22 Mary 2:19 21:5 81:10 115:19 122:21 126:1,6 147:3 152:3

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 35

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 236:15 257:11 325:2 331:2,10 massive 241:17 match 91:16 102:12 150:15 291:4 matched 46:8,18,20 matching 70:3 material 12:5 materializes 225:2 materials 64:17,20 65:3 material's 269:8 maternity

285:1 math 44:21 114:17 300:20 mathematical 33:9 40:13 44:13 81:19 82:10 238:12 247:21 257:18 Matt 294:17 matter 43:16 72:8 81:7 100:10 201:22 251:12 289:22 293:8 324:18 matters 293:6 mature 122:3 may 1:10 17:15 20:9 23:18 35:16 41:19 55:16 56:6 57:5 59:9,16 63:3,9 65:14 69:13 75:16 82:15 89:7 92:4 94:19,21 97:14 117:22 125:12 151:2,9,10 156:5 165:15 169:20 171:20 172:5,10 173:12 174:17 190:18 192:3 199:11,13 204:4 210:18 225:7 231:18 232:4,7,8 237:18 238:22 241:16 246:14 248:12 254:17 255:8 256:9,18 258:10 262:6 266:14 267:15 268:11 274:17 279:6 293:12 299:1 308:9 309:5 310:18 324:4 maybe 7:7 12:11 18:21 27:13,22 36:15 37:15 40:17,19 49:21 50:19 51:11 53:5,6,8 66:10 68:6 83:10,12 88:12 96:18 102:18,19 108:14 115:17 117:4 126:8 138:21 139:13 154:2 158:7 170:14 172:3 174:18 176:11 188:16 196:21 228:10 229:5 235:8 238:9,11 251:22 254:16 258:4,10,14 269:10 273:3 274:14,16 287:5 290:9,10,17 291:19 MC 5:5 McDermott 4:19 McLaughlin 4:6 McQuay 3:14 4:6 5:20 mean 14:3 19:21 21:11 23:6,7,19 33:1 40:7,9 41:15 44:12 45:8 47:1 51:21 55:13,14 59:16 61:22 69:10 72:20 74:3 81:3,22 85:19 86:2 87:15 90:19 96:10,11,17 97:4 100:20 101:5 106:5,6 114:15,16 116:22 117:1 118:12,22 125:21 126:15 127:16 128:1 141:21 143:14 150:12,17 151:11 153:9,18,22 154:1,17 155:4 157:2 158:21 167:15,16 168:3 170:2 182:11 184:17 187:17 192:7,10 194:10,18 195:9,12 196:1,3 198:8 199:17,20,22 200:1 205:19 210:7 211:14 220:12 222:9 224:11 230:17 237:5,20 242:14 243:20,22 253:22 254:1 255:22 256:1 259:13 260:7

264:10 269:10 270:22 271:1 273:13 274:14,17 279:5,19 281:2 286:15 288:8 289:12 290:21 291:1 292:18 298:22 302:4 303:11 311:13 312:13,15 314:8 318:8 320:1,4 324:14 325:21 meaning 60:13,15 140:2 157:14 189:22 222:18 means 19:16 22:3,5 31:12 32:1 47:6 48:15 68:15 69:7 123:6 154:16 155:10 157:20 179:12 292:20 297:21 298:9 302:21 meant 152:5 179:20 223:20 Meanwhile 174:20,22 measure 45:12 measured 92:7 measurement 82:17 321:12 measures 246:19 265:12 275:20 measuring 66:7 Mecadon 4:7 mechanical 69:6,20 217:20 mechanism 99:3

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 36

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 299:6 medium 237:21 238:7,18 mediums 166:2 meet 19:15 31:18 84:4 85:7 93:4 99:20 115:11,12 127:13 129:10 151:1 208:13 245:9,11 246:7 262:2,3 265:18 266:13 267:11,20 269:19 271:1 272:9,11 316:10,17 meeting 1:4 9:1,10 10:14 49:2 61:3 83:22 95:19 130:6 175:1 324:20 328:22 meets 172:19 210:9,12 268:5 291:20 member 98:5 121:8 127:3 members 96:16 122:4 247:14 membership 127:7 mental 225:21 251:4 mentioned 22:12 30:7 88:5 137:21 mentioning 136:19 mentions 13:11 Menzer 4:8 messed 36:18 met 86:8 97:5 method 24:13 34:15 35:17 36:1 37:7,18 39:3 40:8 47:6 84:11 95:11,13 125:6 131:10,19 132:1 209:10 219:3 241:16 268:10 317:13,20 methodologies 291:13 methodology 183:4,9 221:3 225:2 methods 11:17 30:13,14 38:9 78:19 316:3,4 metric 192:11 215:1,6,9 217:7,14 225:8 226:5 metrics 226:1,4,12 Metro 35:13 MEUS 4:17 Meyers 4:9 66:2 119:9,16,18,20,2 2 120:5,8,10,12 121:6,15 160:22 161:13,18 189:10,13 296:22 298:20 299:18,22 300:4,7,12,16,19 ,21 301:1,10,12,15,2 0 302:1 304:6 mic 8:19 70:14 122:19 141:9 Michael 3:17 6:5 microchannel 173:2 microphone 40:22

96:2 mid-afternoon 129:3 middle 185:12 234:4 235:8 302:11,14 midrange 290:10 Mike 56:13 58:8 63:5 69:3 79:5,13 80:15 81:11 152:17 154:21 166:14 172:2 219:7 278:19 279:9,13 292:10 298:8 311:10 313:1 314:7 324:11 Mike's 299:12 mile 239:13 miles 117:2 220:15 million 94:20,22 95:5 214:12,15 215:2,7,8,13,15 216:14 217:4 247:4 millions 172:14,15 mind 30:14 63:3,8 66:16 67:20 131:13 144:10 207:18 226:14 248:7 minds 54:6 131:7 174:12 mine 324:2 minimal 77:1 271:21 minimis 72:22 73:1 75:12 minimize 233:4

minimizing 252:14 minimum 49:12 50:1 55:1 56:18 76:21 77:2,9,11,15 79:14 80:5,8 81:4,5,6,8 83:18 84:1,17,20 85:4,5 86:8 88:20 89:1,15 93:4 96:21 97:5 99:20 100:8,13,15 101:7,11 103:7,11,22 104:11,12,14,19 105:9,10 106:1,3,4,13 110:18 113:13 114:18 116:17,18 121:1,5,11,18,21 122:10,12,18 123:1,3,6 124:3,16,17,18,2 2 127:11 128:17 130:9,18 131:2 132:8 135:3,5,6,9,21 136:2,7,18 137:2 139:5 144:3 146:19,21 156:19 160:5 161:17 167:3,5 168:3,12 171:17,21 173:8,19 175:1 176:15 187:14 188:3 230:4 231:9 233:21 234:15,16 235:3 238:19 241:15 243:4,13 266:10

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 37

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 272:22 277:16 296:10 305:14,15,22 306:8 307:6 315:22 minimums 121:8 123:20 125:2 190:11 276:18 277:4 306:16 minimum's 167:8 minor 216:21 minus 256:11,15 287:1,2,10 289:16 291:15 292:7,8,18,19,21 ,22 297:12 305:9 314:14,15 323:22 324:12 minute 7:21 201:3 231:6 285:2 305:18 328:3 minutes 7:4 129:2,4 229:1 misapplied 162:16 miscommunicatio n 152:8 misconception 196:7 miss 26:2 missed 232:22 233:15,17 294:22 missing 149:10 267:12 mistake 35:12 misunderstanding 101:21 262:7 Mitsubishi 2:22 12:17 27:4 53:2 61:21 69:22 104:21 132:4 144:2 147:16 160:19 213:3 305:5 323:7 mix 91:15 mixed 258:5 mixing 71:22 319:2 model 11:2,3,5 23:8,10,13,14,21 24:8,12,16,19 25:2 29:18 33:9 38:22 44:18 50:16,17 51:10 52:7,8,11,13,21 53:4 54:17 55:21 56:1,4,6,7,10,15 57:14,16,17,22 58:2 59:17 60:19 61:4,8,14,19 62:6,13,17,18 63:8,10,11,20 64:3,7,18 65:5,12,13,15 66:3,9,18,19,21 68:4,10,15 70:10,11,22 71:1,5,10,13,18, 21 72:4,7,14 73:15 75:8,13,15 76:1,8,13,18 77:14,21 78:1,2,4,14 81:16 88:12,15 101:17 102:6 108:6,7,8 109:10,19 111:3,13,15,18 112:17,19 127:20 128:11 133:11 136:20 139:6 141:18 154:8 155:3,7 157:12,21,22 158:4,5 159:4,9,17,18,22 160:1,17 161:21 162:1,9 186:10 187:13,14,16,18 189:13 193:9 194:11 230:9 234:7,12 243:16,18 244:10,11 249:7 250:17 251:4 252:7,8 255:3,13 258:10 260:15,16 261:1 269:21,22 274:12 275:3 277:21,22 278:12,18 279:2 280:2,20 287:11 290:12,16,22 291:3,14 292:5 295:16,17 296:18 301:2 305:2 328:9 modeled 160:5 257:6 modeling 65:10 112:17 239:8 247:21 249:4,18 250:12,14 255:7 257:18 268:14 models 20:10 22:15,17,18 23:3 24:15 25:3 29:15 44:14,16 49:5 55:8 64:12 66:9 67:6,10,15 76:2,8 77:5 81:15 95:7 107:5 108:9,14,15 110:12,19 111:20,22 112:5 116:21 117:13

119:12,13 128:7 136:4,17,18 138:3 152:13 153:3,16 155:4,15 156:7 157:2,10,16,17 158:12,20 159:1,15,21 161:3,5,13,22 163:2 164:16 166:17 170:12,19 173:19 175:19,20 176:18 179:16 183:2,8,11 184:20 188:9 189:5 190:17 194:15,16 197:15 199:15 201:13,18 202:2 215:2 216:5 221:1,9,11 222:18 223:2,3,4,5,8,9 226:3 231:9 232:11,15 236:9 237:3 238:4,8,12 239:16,21 250:5 252:4,11 254:7,8 255:8 256:13 257:6 261:4 263:8,9 268:20 269:11,18 272:9,19 274:11,17,19 275:1 278:13,21 281:5,13 295:8,15,16 model's 101:15 modifications 263:19

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 38

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 modified 213:12 modify 111:18 modular 144:8 Mohamed 4:11 Molvie 4:10 money 173:6 174:15,20 315:1 Monte 118:15 months 83:7 moot 206:22 morning 25:11 92:19 168:17 327:15 Morris 4:12 Moses 317:14 mostly 79:6 207:19 279:12 motor 72:18,19,21 motors 12:5 72:22 75:11 mounted 191:2 move 40:15 42:18 61:7 67:15,22 68:7 101:16 102:2,6 128:8 136:10 210:7 212:15 223:22 273:21 290:14 293:22 324:2,7 327:4 moved 83:11 moving 135:5 160:15 MPTHPs 14:21 Mucciola 4:13 115:1 141:4,8,11,17,20 multi-flue 176:9

multiple 19:15,20 38:18 56:22 58:12 64:17 73:8 109:8 139:18 165:22 210:17 213:5 221:18,21 230:7 235:22 278:13 327:7 multi-tube 176:9 Mvuala 5:16 Myers 4:14 26:13 33:14 92:16 97:8,16,18 136:15 137:10,14,17 165:2 177:19 178:21,22 179:3,21 180:1,4,8,18 181:1,9,22 185:18 186:16 189:20 201:7,15 202:8 203:10,15,20 208:8,19 209:8 214:14 217:2,12 219:13,17 220:15 221:6 249:14 myself 58:11 117:8 170:10 N narrow 15:13 39:13 narrower 279:1 316:4 Natalia 1:15 330:2,14 National 2:11,13 4:7,13 43:5 67:4 123:19 141:11 170:17 171:14 240:1 249:3 251:19 258:19 270:17 279:21 324:11 nato 88:5 natural 217:19 226:19 nature 70:4 167:4 176:3 206:14 Navigant 2:3,20 4:5 5:22 nearly 251:11 necessarily 18:16 75:16 111:12 133:22 134:14 135:16 138:10 154:9 196:2 216:11 233:14 240:9 280:20 286:14 321:20 necessary 18:16 21:19,20 22:1,4 27:1 28:22 83:13 102:19 111:10 177:15 178:1 247:21 251:1 254:17 309:5 NEEA 5:12 150:3 163:10 237:14 256:7 negative 282:15 283:1,2 303:4 negotiate 271:16 negotiated 10:4 12:1,3 negotiating 7:15 negotiation 30:6 96:12 270:18 negotiations 8:10

Neil 2:3 8:21 15:16 29:10 47:2 87:20 130:1 169:17 261:19 neither 330:7 net 212:16 neutral 40:7 Newel 4:15 newly 265:9,19 267:3,11 Nia 2:18 nice 285:4 nicer 285:6 night 250:9 275:16 nine 94:21 314:6 Nineteen 72:16 NIST 22:20 nobody 122:11 270:18 284:6 294:5 nobody's 255:13 nodding 152:21 nods 286:8 nomenclature 28:5 non 13:12 186:1 non-circulating 187:7 noncompliance 86:10,17 nonlinearity 272:19 non-voting 98:5 Nope 135:18 178:20

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 39

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 noper 258:4 NOPR 30:12 139:4 296:17 297:7 298:17 nor 104:7 321:19 330:8 Norlake 3:20 normal 113:5 133:15 normality 111:16 North 3:19 northern 207:9 Northwest 5:11 27:11 194:8 note 29:13 225:21 226:2 321:13 notes 331:5 nothing 63:9 93:10 126:3 146:22 173:12 280:3 281:20 296:19 Notice 11:18,21 48:22 notoriously 316:20 NRCAN 5:16 NRX 47:9 nuances 89:5 241:6 nub 83:15 number's 259:7 O Oak 29:20 object 27:3 48:9 273:22 objections 8:5,7 11:13 146:18 214:3 observation 118:18 180:19 obviously 16:2 45:10 103:1 249:17 286:4 305:14 occasionally 272:8 occasions 10:2 occurred 268:19 occurring 193:19 occurs 193:20 o'clock 129:3 OEM 133:22 134:5,8 offered 42:7 94:6 offering 59:2 184:2 188:20 195:13 237:10 252:10 254:9 offerings 235:20 offhand 134:3 office 113:17 offline 42:17,19 115:15,16 125:20 offs 49:6 offset 324:12 oh 50:4 62:11 76:9 103:21 111:21 117:14 122:15,21 123:16 127:2 143:7 148:12,16 150:3 164:18 167:8,17 176:19 207:15 209:20 219:17 222:17 228:1,4,21 242:20 252:21 285:16 312:10 325:7 328:11 oil 184:6,11 190:13 204:13 219:22 227:10 old 117:22 146:5 261:9 262:8,15 264:16 265:5,8 272:19 OM 100:15 One-off 33:15 ones 40:1 45:12 58:1 122:6 135:16 156:18 186:13 198:18 205:18 262:11 274:21 308:12 one's 260:21 one-sentence 29:4 one-sided 286:2,6,16 288:9,15,18 289:16 292:11 293:19 295:5,7 296:9,12 297:21 299:15 301:10 302:9 303:3 307:20 309:13,18 310:11,16,17 316:1 319:16 323:8,20 325:1,9,14 ongoing 87:1 online 87:19 97:11 247:8 OnSpeX 5:8 onto 13:18

open 19:22 30:15 80:12 136:9 229:17 235:10,19,21 238:3 241:8 245:18 250:2,5,12,18,21 251:2,5,13,19,21 ,22 253:1 256:11 258:22 259:4,10 260:8 261:2,3 281:13 open-air 230:21 241:9 open-closed 252:16 opened 260:19 opening 256:10 operate 8:8 32:2,4,7 73:9 88:10 operating 70:8 94:1 260:19 operation 238:14 opinion 38:14 39:14 49:19 60:12 67:14 71:17 76:21 156:21 163:5,9 175:18 191:18 231:4 233:13 opportunity 133:4 225:1 oppose 283:5 284:5 286:10 opposed 24:15 37:10 136:19 194:12 203:4 287:12 288:14

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 40

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 313:3 opposes 284:6 opposing 107:19 optimizing 173:3 option 22:11 32:17,19 34:9 135:19 136:6 140:8 188:18 252:10,12 options 15:20 16:2 17:13,22 102:13 136:9 order 11:9 26:3 38:5 86:10 108:7 130:9 150:19 168:10 189:1 220:21 223:16 249:18 268:20 290:16 ordered 223:8 ordinary 21:1 organized 27:16 orientation 229:16 235:9 original 34:3,5 37:2 48:22 80:3 94:10 177:8 258:3 261:22 272:14 296:17 originally 217:11 others 84:3 92:9 168:19 240:8 245:7 254:15 281:4 317:10 otherwise 17:16 35:20 283:17 ought 23:3 67:14 130:16,19 160:12 169:18 171:19 261:18

ours 101:6 137:8 ourselves 38:7 116:14 255:12 outcome 308:18 outliers 54:16 154:11 outlined 16:5 output 164:15 218:19 outset 14:12 28:19 79:3 outside 13:4,8 95:20 97:16 125:17 194:6 258:3 291:1 outward 54:9 overall 14:5 172:1 overburden 253:21 overdo 253:21 overlooked 263:7 overstate 256:21 overstating 174:18 owned 147:1 owner 51:10 P p.m 130:7 228:14,15 327:6 328:20 P2S 4:16 Pacific 3:12 172:12 227:1 277:13 package 14:20 15:10 28:13 30:19

31:8,12,13,22 32:1 38:4 41:7 43:8 44:8 54:14 68:22 71:7 76:11 103:1 104:10,11,22 139:12 142:7 172:19,20 219:21 222:14 224:5 packaged 120:4 140:11 142:7 143:10 145:14 155:20 214:11 packages 103:8,14 104:7 143:15 packets 285:14 packs 105:1 300:13 page 14:10 17:9 170:18 171:17 203:14 painfully 119:2 paired 273:18 Pantelis 3:6 96:3 paper 106:20 paperwork 17:6 21:8 paragraph 47:21 parallel 56:16 parameterize 250:17 parameters 94:1 95:9 131:17 138:15,16 154:14 315:6 paraphrasing 47:10 pare 248:13

270:11 271:20 272:2 pared 269:4 parentheses 181:21 paring 255:11 269:8 272:4 PARTICIPANTS 2:5 participate 98:4 99:5 122:4,7 participated 130:20 participates 126:2 particular 29:7 64:3 66:22 130:13 131:16 138:2 157:12 165:7 187:13 189:3 211:18 283:19 311:22 317:13 328:9 particularly 7:11 9:6 29:17 41:4 224:4 250:13 particulars 92:5 parties 330:8 party 51:18 80:21 105:15,16,17,18 106:5 120:9,10,12 147:2 278:11 319:21 pass 79:16 82:11 164:8 256:12 273:13 302:16 303:2 passes 290:16

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 41

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 past 107:1 209:5 Paul 2:22 3:22 12:16 27:4 53:2 61:21 62:16 69:22 74:4 104:21 132:4 144:1 145:11 147:15 160:19 213:3 305:5 323:7 Pause 8:1 penalized 239:15 penalties 168:13 penalty 119:8 311:3 pending 264:11 people 13:8 15:20 17:10 18:6 19:10 20:8 34:9 37:13 47:20 59:15 65:5 77:9 80:10,14 81:14 87:8 93:18,20 96:11,16,21,22 123:5 129:10,18 209:6 223:7 225:7 228:10 263:11 264:5,6 266:6 273:22 274:1 280:16,17 281:19 283:5,10,15,17 284:5 per 31:14 152:19 155:6 161:20 164:12 186:21 188:14 196:16 214:12 215:2,14,15 240:12 259:15 269:12 percent 19:13 39:22 94:11 110:3,5,8 112:16,17,20,22 113:4 161:20,21 162:1,7 168:19 170:20 171:18 173:14 256:11 273:9 276:21,22 277:20 287:1,2,4 288:18 291:16 292:7,8,15,18,20 293:2,7 296:10 297:12,13 298:11,13 299:15,16 300:1,3 301:5 302:7,17 303:17 304:19 305:9,16 306:2 310:6,12,15,16,1 7,18,22 311:1,5 312:10 313:4,5,8,17 315:16 317:1 318:12 319:16,19 321:2,7 322:8,15,21 323:6,9,15,19,20 ,22 324:2,3,4 325:1,8,13 326:12 percentage 106:22 162:20 287:11 309:19 percent's 309:21 perfect 129:13 225:16 perfectly 209:6 247:22 performance 23:20 92:7,8 125:13 164:22 176:21 207:13

290:12,22 performed 321:11 performs 260:10 perhaps 37:8 171:19 314:18 period 78:17 86:11 195:15 205:7 212:22 246:8 266:11 267:3 276:9 Perkins 4:17 permitted 34:7 person 20:1 49:19 123:8,13 280:17 personally 75:7 84:9 270:22 307:18 persons 280:18 perspective 16:22 60:3 76:20 84:16 203:21 242:9 perspectives 241:22 pertained 232:18 pervasive 92:11 Peter 4:10 5:15 Peterson 4:16 PG&E 206:5 226:17 PGD 212:14 ph 107:6 169:7,8 179:16 258:4 phase 41:7,15,16,17 42:13 115:4 Philip 200:2 Phillip 5:13 38:11 52:5 74:20 121:20 155:9 165:19 187:19 191:16 204:18 209:19 221:13 240:17 241:13 242:16 293:21 295:20 316:18 317:8 Phoenix 4:15 phone 113:22 114:1,4 123:17 134:7 physical 57:17 66:13 68:19 188:16 physically 209:13 230:20 physics 91:18 241:12 pick 78:22 80:6,20 84:5 153:19 184:4 188:20,21 191:17 300:9,11 327:14 picked 314:8 pickles 284:21 picks 152:15 piece 41:8 110:6 267:22 268:2 290:19 311:22 pieces 20:2 108:6 132:17 245:10 258:15 272:10 pipeline 226:18 places 7:9,13,14,16 41:20 100:2 290:9 294:21

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 42

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 plate 13:20 platform 63:16 play 93:6 124:11 186:22 303:3 318:21,22 players 97:20 99:3,4,15,18 122:4 playing 49:16 77:1 plays 250:10 please 7:2 21:15 68:3 122:20 141:10 294:8 plenty 80:17 87:16 plug 43:10 plus 45:7 140:22 256:11,15 287:1,2,10 289:15 291:15 292:6,7,17,19,22 297:12 302:22 305:8 314:14,15 323:22 324:12 plus/minus 290:4 point 9:19 24:20 36:15 46:15 51:3 53:4 83:11 93:11,22 96:17 102:11 114:16 115:20 128:9 132:5 137:14,17 151:3 152:15 158:22 166:3 169:17 173:22 175:2,16,22 181:2,11,12 182:16 185:21 188:12 198:11 200:6 205:8 207:6 210:16 211:14 216:9 233:1 236:22 240:18 241:18 242:14,16 249:19 258:21 261:17,18 268:13 273:11 277:5 311:9 314:6,10,19,20 317:16 326:12 pointed 87:10 points 9:1 33:10 73:2 127:4 138:5 153:21 166:4 167:18 171:18 198:15 235:22 276:16 290:8,9 police 126:9 policy 295:6 pool 42:8 popped 162:8 population 153:20 portion 96:12 position 39:2,12 273:20,21 positions 100:3 possibilities 108:13,21 255:1 possibility 235:14 possible 27:12 29:4 52:12 80:17 98:1 224:12 266:8 291:4 309:11 possibly 38:15,16 61:22 122:5 232:6 249:5 post 51:17 pot 315:20 potent 99:7 potential 17:2 18:18 101:22 119:8 153:12 potentially 216:2 290:6 292:14 power 72:13 PowerPoint 8:12,14,16 12:8 practical 33:21 90:20 practice 27:9 111:14 217:1 practices 77:7 preamble 40:20 47:22 169:14 preapproval 16:11,13,16,21 17:1,21 18:9,20 19:6 20:11 21:6,18,20,22 22:4,8 26:15 27:1,5,13 29:8 83:12,14 88:22 89:15 151:3 preapprovals 18:13,17 preapprove 16:14 17:4 18:7 preapproved 18:11 43:7,10 precedent 13:9 19:21 219:8 predict 76:10 108:10 293:9 298:1,4 predicted 302:21 predicting 287:11,21 predictions 132:2

prefer 115:22 preference 316:7 premise 38:12 78:22 prepared 57:8 249:7 present 133:18 269:20 270:4,6 presentation 155:2 presently 231:2 pressure 31:13,21 32:1,3,4 pressures 238:1,14 pretend 300:17 302:15 pretty 29:15 39:2 88:7,9 101:6 119:4 141:15 202:2 242:9 247:15 250:11 259:1,22 260:12 282:10 314:13 prevailed 93:3 pre-verify 67:8 previous 154:22 221:14 previously 187:20 204:4 240:6 245:16 price 64:20 175:2 primary 68:17 71:1 prime 9:19 principle 36:3,9 175:19 226:8 principles 131:18

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 43

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 print 35:9 prior 9:11 28:15 93:14 116:5 proactively 132:19 probably 9:18 14:13 20:4 33:16,21 54:7,15 58:12 82:22 87:7 90:16,18 92:4,13 106:19 108:13 115:14 120:15 149:19 155:4 157:15 173:10 181:12,22 184:9 185:15 209:8 224:7,9 226:6 238:6 257:10 274:19 306:17,21 310:5,7 problem 18:16 72:13 108:22 109:16 110:7 111:11 178:5 189:12 198:20 203:17,18 237:4 248:10 257:1,2 269:7 271:3 275:8 282:5 286:7 290:6 325:10 problematic 70:1 problems 7:21 102:3 109:2 112:9 316:15 procedure 10:21,22 89:6 93:9,14 95:18,19 101:3 144:22 164:13 182:20 187:2 202:22 211:2 212:22 225:10 242:17 246:18 264:20 265:11,21 266:3,19,21 269:1,2 275:13,15,18 276:12,15 278:17 292:5,6 311:12 318:15 procedures 89:5,7,21 211:17,22 214:13,17,18 216:4 314:20 322:14 proceed 87:5 proceeding 27:5 330:3,4,5,7,9,10 331:4,5,8 process 16:16 17:1 18:9,20 19:12,19 26:20 27:13 30:15 87:6,13 96:3,6 98:5 99:4 105:22 118:17 151:3 254:21,22 255:2 263:4,5 268:4 275:22 276:5 281:18 306:4 310:20 315:9 323:21 processes 33:7 118:14 316:6 321:19 produce 152:15 154:4 179:4 216:1 268:20 271:4 producing 152:13 174:16 product 4:10 5:17 9:15 13:13 14:7 25:1,17,18,20

26:6 33:13,22 35:2,4 42:4,6,7 43:16 45:2 46:13 47:8,12 49:5 53:7,8,10,12 54:13,19 55:10,11,17 57:1,10,12 59:2,8,9,18 60:13,15,19 61:5 63:2,11 66:5,22 68:16 70:6 74:5 76:4,9 78:13 80:20 83:8 89:7 91:3,14 98:15 107:11 115:9 122:2 124:19 129:19 133:17 138:13,14 139:7,9,13,18 140:2 143:1 144:13 146:11 150:1 154:2,4 155:11 157:4 165:22 166:4 169:22 173:13 174:5,21 175:2,3 180:14 182:6,17,18 185:11 186:6,10 187:9 188:13,20 189:17 191:13,14,19 193:10,14,16,21 195:2,10,13,20 196:3,12,13,16,2 1 197:2,5,21,22 198:1,11 199:8,15 200:9,13 201:12 202:21 204:20,21,22 208:18 215:21 217:6,13 219:8,10 229:21

235:20 236:8 237:7,9,12 240:16 241:10 254:9 278:14 294:2,10 295:10 308:10,19 318:4 322:9 production 303:14,15,19 products 2:11 3:2 4:7,13 12:2,5,18 13:4,11,19 14:14 20:2 21:2 24:21 25:4 30:15 33:14,15,22 39:4,15 42:3,5 44:2 47:12 49:13 50:22 54:9 57:7 58:12,17 59:6,22 62:2 68:10 69:1 82:2 83:5 88:15 89:4 92:6 94:6 101:18 107:11,20,22 108:1 112:6 114:18 131:1,6 134:1 141:12 169:2,21 189:19 193:15,16 196:18 215:13 237:15 240:7 245:15 277:14 291:19 301:2 312:12,15 316:13 product-specific 60:5 program 35:5 51:18 54:12 83:3 89:19,22 90:2 91:1 96:19 97:1,21 98:8

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 44

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 99:1,6,10 100:16,21 103:2,6 105:20 113:10 117:11 119:15 120:20 121:12 125:18 127:4 128:14 135:11 139:2 140:9,15,16 141:7 143:21 148:22 150:19 151:7 153:5,9 168:11 180:20,21 183:12,17,18,20, 22 197:15 279:1 288:17 292:14 295:21 299:13 310:15 318:5 320:22 321:8 programs 9:18 10:6 27:7 84:13 89:18 96:13 98:6 100:13,14,20 101:8 105:5 125:15 135:14,15 136:3 151:12 153:10 163:13 256:16 313:12 progress 26:4 progressively 109:6 prohibit 325:15 promise 13:22 178:17 273:6,8 pronounce 21:17 propane 226:18 227:3,6 proper 119:6 properly 249:7 308:2 properties 258:13 proposal 11:19 28:11 29:13 30:12 32:14 34:5 36:21 37:3 48:22 52:1 53:15 80:3 93:7 94:10 136:11 137:13 139:5 177:8 231:13 262:1 271:14 272:14 285:20 286:22 287:17 296:12 299:9,14 propose 16:15 39:9 95:14 181:5 184:12,15 192:1 204:12 285:18 proposed 11:18,21 16:15 37:11,18 48:22 78:6,10 95:16 proposing 110:18 219:14 proprietary 22:16,18 protect 309:7,12 prove 168:10 268:5 321:17 proved 219:3 proven 323:15 provide 12:11,14 23:22 69:8 79:10 99:8 133:4 provided 28:12 132:12,22 133:2 provider 208:21 provides 208:12 providing 324:16 provision 208:18,20 247:2 psi 219:2 psig 32:3,5 PTACs 14:20 137:9 140:18 148:16 PTC-4 95:11 public 49:2 125:18 133:15,20,22 134:2,5 213:7 234:20 295:6 publish 296:8 published 93:4,12 96:4 234:21 289:21 publishing 132:19 pull 50:21 56:6,11 64:6 65:12 66:4 73:3 77:6 pulled 55:6 pump 29:17 54:14 115:13 185:16 205:11,17 207:7,20 212:22 289:8 pumps 45:17 58:15 104:16 105:1 140:21 145:8,14 148:18 149:5 212:15,17 punished 293:5 pure 306:14 purely 79:4 purpose 63:8 142:21 143:2 257:20 purposes 63:10 72:5 76:5 110:17 116:6 142:2 186:13 190:10 301:4 push 233:5,7 pushing 233:5 puts 295:7 putting 47:5 83:8 144:10 154:11 169:13 170:7 181:12 226:14 255:12 283:13 326:9 PVI 4:14 26:13 97:8,18 165:2 178:22 185:18 189:20 201:7 208:8 217:2 219:13 221:6 249:14 Q quadratic 38:15 39:7 44:22 qualification 100:9,13,15 105:22 106:2 qualifies 182:18 186:19 295:18 qualify 82:3 115:7 183:2 219:10 quality 308:21 316:6 quantities 33:20 179:9 quantity 117:6 147:12 157:17 283:1 question 19:13

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 45

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 21:3 23:17 26:14 31:2 38:2 44:10 50:5 62:16 70:15 72:4 75:18 79:9,14 80:12 87:19 88:19 96:5,10 97:10 100:8 110:11 111:2 112:2 113:8 117:22 123:10 125:12,22 129:5 138:5 139:4 148:3 151:5 161:1 166:15 176:22 183:15 187:20 203:16 209:21 224:4 225:20 229:20 230:2 233:22 242:1,8 245:2 249:19 254:18,20,21 257:13 264:8 265:16 268:17,22 270:13 275:9 279:10 280:9,14 290:3 291:5 296:22 299:3,11 313:2 318:17 322:17 328:5 questions 8:2,16 10:10 15:19 17:8 18:1 31:6 34:6 48:19 70:16 96:2 109:5 205:10 214:9 247:4 321:6 questions/ concerns 11:6 queue 112:8 quick 14:7 16:12 20:3 77:16 91:8 107:5 129:5 142:1 quiet 102:5 227:15 quite 30:8 35:9 57:10 59:9 90:12 108:4 149:19 157:2 161:4 175:17 196:21 229:3 233:12 247:17 248:13 250:10 296:20 quote 125:5 R R&D 174:21 Rabbia 4:18 race 165:3 282:17 raised 22:10 95:18 178:1,6 328:5 ran 180:3 273:17 random 56:7 317:18 Rand-Trane 3:19 range 12:1 15:1 25:1 94:12 95:7 110:2,3 114:19 130:22 176:13 218:15 252:10 288:7 290:17 310:6,8,10 317:21 ranges 152:21 290:9 Ransom 4:19 rant 29:21 295:19 rate 58:2 64:6 70:17,19 72:3 73:5,10 166:18 167:10 188:10

230:20 286:7,15 287:2,7,13 291:19 293:6 295:21 296:1,5 299:4,7,15,17,18 ,20,21,22 301:3 305:18 306:8 311:2 317:9 rated 51:2 74:8 132:5 163:2 289:9 305:4 307:3 314:2 ratepayers 173:6 rates 183:2 rather 87:19 151:17 168:21 169:4 218:20 219:9 224:22 262:9 269:8 315:11 rating 10:18 37:17 44:19 45:13 57:21 58:3 63:12,18 64:2,10,12 65:8,15 66:12,14,22 69:12 70:13 72:6,9,10,11 73:11 74:10 78:17,19,21 150:7,8 152:16 158:6,13,14 162:6 164:2,7,13,14,15 ,20 174:22 175:7 229:18 230:10 235:2 256:14 266:19,21 275:10 285:11,17 286:14,17,20,21 288:21 289:4

293:1,10 296:7,9,10,12,16 ,19,20 298:12,16,19 299:6,11 301:5,18 303:16 305:22 313:8,17,20 315:6 316:4 318:13 320:2,12,13 324:4 328:8,18 ratings 54:17 66:10 70:8 84:11,14 119:6 158:21,22 159:1 163:22 197:21 264:21 265:4,5,14 267:15 279:5 289:21 315:12,13 325:17 rationale 245:16 re 292:21 310:13 reach 188:17 reached 130:9 135:3 react 111:4 118:21 reactions 86:20 readily 312:16 reading 31:11 56:13 67:5 189:22 320:7,8,10 ready 8:4 68:14 228:16 229:7 284:18 real 14:7 16:12 17:3 48:15 77:16

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 46

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 92:13 108:22 112:10 142:1 162:19 291:5 realistic 94:5 251:5 realistically 126:15 127:16 reality 88:13 126:17 259:2 275:21 291:4 realize 55:11 159:18 206:14 316:15 321:7 realized 319:3 realizes 248:1 really 12:12 16:18 21:3 25:18 27:17 48:18 49:11,17 53:9 55:15 56:18 57:16,18 63:17 74:21 75:7 90:19 91:17 97:2,17,22 98:7 104:6 107:11 131:5,15,21 135:1 138:16 143:17 154:19 161:3 162:14,17 168:4,20 169:18 172:20 174:5,21 175:3,11 186:1 190:12 200:7 207:1 220:12 238:18 243:13 247:6 251:3,11 254:2 256:18 257:7 259:7 268:22 274:17,18 275:9 277:13 281:5,16 282:16,17 284:1 285:11 289:10 293:5,8,19 305:8 312:20 313:2 314:22 315:1,4 317:16 323:15 324:18 realm 52:6 107:16 327:4 reason 7:17 22:10 34:2,14,15 39:10 56:17 93:15 139:3 148:22 163:17 191:11 215:16 239:22 243:2,4,5 253:12 258:20 272:17 275:18 reasonable 68:6 131:9 202:2,10 235:12 254:11 271:1 275:2 reasoning 157:5 281:11 282:9 284:1 reasons 32:16 55:7 91:20,21 139:4 199:18 295:6 reassure 37:15 rebates 92:6,14 173:6 174:8 recall 8:22 134:3 receive 28:18 132:20 received 11:20 34:6,13 80:2 re-centering 310:19 re-centers 293:2 recently 26:2 recessed 130:6 recirculate 218:21 reclassify 301:2 recognition 9:21 10:7 recognize 32:14 36:15 317:17 recognizing 101:16 recommendation 137:21 191:17 283:18 284:5 recommended 145:11 record 85:20 201:4 228:14,15 330:7 recorded 330:4 recordings 331:6 records 28:10,12,14 159:11 306:21 recruit 127:5 red 39:18 redesign 267:21 redial 232:22 233:16 reduce 216:2 253:14 256:8 reduced 59:3 330:5 reducing 194:19 256:12,21 Reed 4:20 Reedy's 213:8 reference 64:8 98:22 125:18 referencing 165:4 referring 33:15 117:14,15 221:3 refers 155:3 refine 308:9 refined 7:15 reflect 158:18 266:21 reflected 140:7 reflection 177:8 reflects 163:14 refrigeration 2:7 3:11 5:10 31:1 47:8 60:6 88:9 113:11 116:12 123:19 130:22 229:15 237:22 238:14,19 240:14 246:17 259:14,18 260:10 281:20 311:14 323:12 refrigerations 238:7 refrigerator 4:12 107:14,15 230:21,22 235:15,16 244:7,10 281:13 refrigerators 107:8 116:13 133:11 229:19 230:13 232:5 235:11 248:22 249:22 263:8 280:21 Regal-Beloit 3:22 regard 317:12 regardless 85:12 86:4 88:15 146:3 184:6 279:18

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 47

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 281:21 320:4 322:9 regards 170:19 register 35:6 40:14 163:15 Registers 258:5 regs 31:12 41:18,20 60:13,16 78:5,9 79:1,10 86:3 109:1 125:21 134:1 140:3 145:2 148:19 156:9,22 182:7 210:11,13 227:2 246:10 294:1,9 299:8 regular 126:18 271:18 regularly 96:22 regulated 91:15 112:6 236:4 regulation 131:2,3 224:19 regulations 133:8 149:18 229:14 231:5 236:4 regulatory 41:21 131:11 212:21 279:1 rejection 38:5 relate 162:18 166:1 168:20 175:11 related 132:5 231:11 261:7 273:13 277:2 330:8 relates 206:12 286:17 relationship 36:12 44:17,22 45:11 128:3 154:19 262:10,13 277:2 relative 268:12 310:4 released 134:11 releases 122:2 relevant 64:2 reliability 48:2 reliable 219:4 271:11 reluctance 91:20 rely 264:15 276:13 relying 209:6 remain 12:6 remarket 301:9 remember 314:14 319:3 remembers 92:4 remind 249:15 reminder 178:2 remote 107:7 229:16 230:18 235:10,16 247:16,17 248:2 250:1 253:11 258:2 remotes 248:7,8,14,18 258:6 270:9 removed 257:5 reordered 9:9 reorganized 9:9 repeat 177:19 replace 170:21 report 192:18 193:4,5 208:12 210:20 211:5 reported 1:15 21:9 112:7 192:22 294:21 331:3 Reporter 122:19 141:9 330:1,2,15 331:3 Reporter's 331:5 reporting 1:16 269:17 represent 220:1 234:6 representation 52:13,14,20,21 representations 52:17 209:7 287:13 representative 25:15 268:9 representing 92:20 request 20:14 28:13 126:17,20 132:21 133:18 require 20:12 86:3 94:11 96:19 140:11,12,15,17 198:3 237:11 239:7 244:3 257:7 260:3 265:7 278:10 required 9:11 27:2 77:2,14 83:18 84:4 85:21 86:14 99:11 106:7 116:5 149:18 151:16 187:13 188:3 192:7

204:2 233:2,12 248:6 263:6 264:15 275:14,18 requirement 81:6 86:16 98:12 106:13 119:11 124:4 127:12 131:12 135:20 140:18,19,20,21 169:19 177:10 208:11,14,21 246:7 253:20 265:18 266:14 269:19 293:19,20 requirements 28:6 35:19 37:4 38:17 39:10 43:21 44:5 48:20 60:18 77:2 81:9 85:4,6 86:9 89:1,15 96:14,15 99:21 106:2 121:2,5,13,19,21 122:2,10 124:16 125:1 128:18 135:22 147:1 151:1 152:19 158:5 166:12 168:21 188:22 196:1 209:9 230:4 242:16 248:4 264:18 267:16 requires 78:18 135:12 197:11 277:18 278:2 requiring 27:13 169:21 237:4 264:18 rerate 267:1

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 48

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 re-rated 265:15 re-ratings 265:20 research 174:15 259:20 reservation 34:4 reserve 224:12 residences 41:10 residential 12:4 13:12 41:15,17 42:3 115:5,7 169:6 204:22 205:2,18,22 206:14 211:16 295:21 314:9 resistance 140:5 206:8 207:2 314:12 resistant 156:3 resolve 17:20 178:5 resolved 11:11 23:1 35:21 resources 85:18 respect 209:5 response 8:3,6 11:21 30:12 44:10 49:1 97:13 156:11 214:4 225:15 248:20 264:15 282:12 309:16 responses 317:8 responsibility 21:19 82:10 116:2 255:21 295:7 316:9,16 responsive 34:13 132:21 rest 54:17 114:13 148:15 167:14 242:5 247:13 248:1 restaurants 206:6 restricting 154:13 restriction 326:2,7,9 restrictions 153:3 re-substantiate 264:22 resubstantiating 242:20 result 67:20 71:14 195:21 286:13 287:12 296:19 297:4,11 298:10 306:12 319:21 328:13 results 65:10 178:11 255:2,16 261:5 291:15 298:5 305:8,12 306:9,14 317:12 322:14 retained 28:12 retest 177:3 266:18 re-test 267:1 retested 265:14 retrospect 14:12 return 170:1 224:1 reveal 76:22 reveals 134:8 revenue 247:3 review 20:3,13,15,21 49:20 98:15 134:3,9 reviewed 19:10,18,19 reviewing 20:22 revised 266:20 275:17 revisit 276:14 revisited 276:11 revolves 318:17 Rheem 3:13 4:9 119:10 121:6 160:22 Rice 29:17 rid 265:8 312:14 Ridge 29:20 ridiculous 313:7 riding 35:12 risk 99:14 167:1 168:8,9 169:4 256:5 276:20 311:2 Rivest 56:13 58:19 59:1 63:5 65:21 66:3 69:3,15,19 70:12 73:7,14,19,22 74:10,16 101:12 144:17 152:17 153:4,7 154:21 155:2,8 161:19 162:11 195:16,19 198:4,9,12,14,19 199:4,6,9,12,17, 22 219:7 292:10 293:18 298:8 299:4,17 300:10,17,22 301:6,13 302:4,7,11,14,20 303:8,10,13 304:4,19,22

310:11 313:1,14,20,22 314:6 road 35:21 152:13 163:12 274:9,12 275:19 319:9 Roan 4:21 Robert 6:3 10:11 Roberts 4:22 Rodney 2:12 176:22 roll 107:14 Rolph 8:21 Ron 21:17 25:8 40:11 50:5,8 67:19 87:18,19,21,22 114:1,3 124:4,6 228:17,19 232:18,20 247:8,10,11 248:10 252:13 253:2,3 259:8,12 282:19 325:3,6 Ronald 5:7 rooftop 41:7 172:19 300:13 room 23:18 37:14 81:3 84:7 87:2 91:22 92:3 109:22 135:8 149:12 155:18 156:6,12 162:14,17 165:5 179:1,2,5,13 242:3,5 251:14 283:17 roughly 36:5,11 110:12

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 49

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 round 97:18 route 78:17,20 79:5,9 166:16 routes 78:21 routinely 317:1 rule 10:4 16:15 40:17 93:11,15 112:12 162:2 171:9 206:11 224:19 245:14 296:17 rulemaking 1:3 10:1,3,22 11:18,21,22 12:2,3,6 13:16 48:22 95:20,21 209:2 264:9 275:22 315:9,10 328:21 rules 7:5 8:7 28:21 37:8 93:2 105:11 127:8 159:13,14 269:20 rule-writing 98:5 run 52:13 76:1 77:22 81:21 113:14 117:2,7 126:10 140:10 150:22 183:1 189:16,18 192:8 193:9,13 195:4 211:6 216:12 219:2 232:10,16 243:20 249:20 261:5 273:16 292:14 297:6,7,8,9 303:8 running 87:9 89:21 113:12 179:13 185:2,9 193:16 217:1 249:5 310:17,22 311:1 runs 25:18 116:11 241:8 322:18 Rusty 5:18 16:4 18:8 68:8 82:13 120:14 142:20 160:11 178:8 307:14 308:3 309:22 312:3 315:15 319:1,20 322:11 S SA 212:11 Sabelli 5:2 Sachs 5:3 12:22 13:21 15:5 18:3 22:7 23:7 24:5,9 25:7 29:10,12 37:13 39:17 40:6 43:1 51:4,8 52:3 58:8 59:5 60:22 91:12 92:10 117:14,15,20 118:6,11,13 129:5 148:2 151:15,21 168:16 169:16 170:7 173:16,20 206:20,22 212:11 223:21 224:11 225:12 241:21 242:8 250:7,22 251:13 272:7,15 273:6 295:5 307:8 308:3,15,18 314:4 315:18 316:21 317:7 318:11 325:14 326:9,15 safest 209:8

sake 216:13 sale 42:7 sales 136:8 174:3 sample 22:13 112:4 135:6 289:7,13,14 303:15 307:17,18 samples 33:17 307:16 310:9 Sands 5:4 satisfactorily 84:18 satisfactory 22:1 satisfied 22:8 91:6 satisfies 204:17 satisfy 23:1 Saudi 4:11 savings 174:19 256:21 saw 36:21 170:3 scale 301:16 Scardomp 5:5 scare 273:1 scared 272:7 scenario 133:18 246:20 266:8 270:6 Schaefer 5:6 school 5:5 43:1 schooled 42:2,21 scope 8:10,17 10:1,4 13:5 30:4 31:9 56:19 95:20 100:10 209:2 258:3 278:22

scratch 165:14 270:15 screen 10:14 47:16 201:10 204:16 seats 7:3 second 8:8 19:19 24:20 31:11 38:5 61:17 96:5 115:3 146:15 203:4 277:5 284:19 296:3 secondary 96:9 secondly 250:10 318:9 section 16:7,13 204:1 263:22 sections 7:20 28:4 310:3 Security 4:4 seeing 8:7 32:14 97:17,18 138:16 212:16 227:12 seeking 58:20 seem 49:18 76:22 77:7 100:1,2 151:14 165:12 168:22 181:1 194:18 201:19 217:9 238:15 272:21 seemed 7:13 56:15 129:11 286:5 seemingly 326:16 seems 17:16 21:21 38:12 47:1,3 75:6 90:22 154:1 171:10 175:17 194:14,20

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 50

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 202:2,10 237:19 250:11 268:21 274:20 290:13 291:11 328:6 seen 66:8 SEER 72:18 sees 9:22 segment 112:13 segments 44:7 select 138:2 selecting 165:17 326:11 selection 157:12 self 147:7 229:15 230:18 235:9 244:10 248:4,14 self-contained 235:15 236:3 244:7 247:15 248:2,18 249:22 270:8 self-test 147:4 sell 98:14 107:13,14 267:9,22 312:16 sellers 117:5 selling 42:14 177:2 236:8 sells 26:18 semantic 35:14 semi 254:9 semi-sloping 250:13 semi-vertical 251:7,21 252:7 send 244:19,20 255:14,15 307:10

sending 107:9 317:2 sense 37:10 59:8 63:1 95:8 154:3 163:11 281:1,5 289:18 291:2 311:18 sent 28:15 308:6 sentence 40:19 204:19 220:11 221:14 222:5 sentences 40:19 separate 28:17 78:21 101:3,4 104:19 105:4 108:2 115:6,9 143:4 155:14,15 162:18 163:8 166:10 179:8,13 185:15 194:16,21 195:4 203:5,22 204:4,20 205:16 206:11 210:15,18 212:9 224:22 230:9 231:3,5 232:2 235:9,17 243:5 245:13 248:15,18 249:1,13 251:20,22 255:9 259:3 279:11 280:8 315:8 separated 104:18 205:18 210:14 230:3 separately 181:4 232:16 series 23:11 25:3 26:5 223:2,3,5 serious 242:8 service 31:17 254:10 Services 2:16 sets 232:2 266:15 setting 216:22 settings 317:22 318:1 seven 244:9 255:9 322:15 seventh 200:10 several 10:2 40:3 56:6 236:2 SF 2:18 shaking 35:8 170:13 shared 49:19 shareholders 174:9 Shebik 5:7 21:18 25:11,14 50:9 87:20,22 88:1 114:3 124:6,17 228:17 232:21 233:19,22 234:5,18 235:5 247:11,12 252:13 253:5 255:18,20 259:12,13 282:19,22 283:6 325:3,5,7 shelf 43:9 64:7 312:15 she's 201:8 shoehorn 197:5 shop 72:20 short 115:13

shorthand 145:18 showed 86:7 307:2 shown 150:19 shows 142:1 sic 172:21 sided 286:3 287:7 297:20 298:9 308:20 321:3 322:9 sides 98:9 sight 119:1 significant 9:4 31:15 34:19 74:18 119:7 significantly 17:15 74:15 122:1 136:21 similar 33:14 38:16 155:19,21 157:4,6 165:13 182:19 187:10 211:9 229:21 281:10 similarities 63:3 similarity 138:12 similarly 156:18 280:5 simple 17:20 22:1,5 26:22 27:3 29:4 47:13 161:20 176:6 202:19 228:11 229:3 simpler 197:1 simply 222:12 242:11 simulated 48:18

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 51

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 54:16 289:5 simulates 23:20 285:13 simulation 16:14 23:8,19 28:9 39:6 49:15 54:12,17 57:17 70:19 78:19,20 79:6 94:16 131:10,14,19 154:10,16,20 159:16,21 188:11 287:10 simulations 91:17 118:16 187:15 235:3 288:22 simulative 71:15 single 41:7,15,16 42:13 49:19 55:6 70:18 78:10 104:10 107:17 109:21 115:4 162:7 166:21 169:7 175:20,21 180:5 182:18 196:12 198:11 200:6 201:21 204:5,9 210:17 221:16,19 235:22 254:1 257:19 269:15 276:11,14 278:12 279:2,3 290:5 310:7 321:9 323:16 single-packaged 143:1 single-phase 115:10 single-unit 199:2 sir 177:13 302:13 sit 149:3 sits 90:4 sitting 112:7 situation 93:6 150:17 191:19,20 255:12 276:6 situations 41:20 85:16 six 16:5 56:11 129:2 140:22 142:8,9 145:7,10 188:10 195:15 200:8 244:8 246:8 255:9 six-row 56:8 sixteen 141:1 254:13 size 154:12 183:2 226:2 232:7 280:7 311:9 312:21 315:4 sizes 31:9 94:8,9 216:18 217:9 SJI 3:5 skew 288:10 skilled 153:13 skin 274:1 skip 16:1 285:7 SKU 117:7 SKUs 57:21 108:20 122:6 slap 13:13 slash 161:2 slide 12:9 14:4,12,14 16:17,19 30:3,11,16 44:8 47:6 48:21 49:10 102:10 134:20 135:19 138:21 142:1 154:22 166:7 179:2 221:15 257:1 263:18 285:8 slides 11:19 15:17 16:1 21:12 57:8 178:13 226:7 257:1,2 slight 72:17 slightly 174:1 280:15 311:2 slippery 162:19 slockily 290:16 slope 162:19 small 14:19 55:22 57:11 100:21 103:20 114:20 117:3 137:7 138:15 140:5 142:10 157:2 205:12 215:17 242:12 247:1,6,7 257:21 263:12 309:4,12 310:3 327:8 smaller 33:19 94:9 117:3 121:22 122:5 214:16 241:19 246:21 277:6,11 smallest 18:22 54:15 168:18 240:13 Smith 5:8 SoCalGas 4:3 software 43:9 sold 46:11 315:22 solely 126:4 235:2

solid 232:1,14 235:19 243:11,21 250:15 254:9 258:14 260:15 282:10 284:1 solution 219:20 235:8 Solutions 213:9 solves 256:22 somebody 13:11 18:18 29:2 40:22 43:17,20 53:19 54:18 84:12 89:18 96:1 97:11 99:5 106:12 123:16 127:19 142:6 152:15 169:11 171:10 176:12 239:15 255:14 271:5 314:10 318:3 somehow 226:4 someone 26:9 27:19 92:2 93:13 110:18 132:7 151:6,8 167:7 174:17,22 221:7 320:21 someplace 149:15 somewhere 43:9 117:1 154:1 160:12 167:22 206:19 207:3 208:6 257:9 270:20 310:7 sophisticated 109:11 250:17 sorry 51:4 72:10 85:10 87:20

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 52

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 106:11 122:21 135:13 143:7 155:1 170:10 171:5 179:13 186:17 203:15 205:5 208:1 209:20 214:2 217:16 260:4 283:6 285:16,22 296:14 301:14 325:7 sort 9:3 10:6 14:7 56:15 57:22 63:6 74:4 92:18 117:21 118:2,13,16,17 167:22 187:8 196:10 237:17 241:21 sorts 63:16 sound 263:16 sounds 19:6 65:7 203:17 270:1 313:6 source 4:2 14:22 45:17,22 68:17 104:15 140:21 145:9 146:4 148:17 149:5 212:17,18,20 southern 207:11 space 31:16 210:21 span 114:19 136:3 188:9 254:8 spanning 252:10 spans 187:21 188:21 195:14,20 198:11 204:22 spare 126:14

speak 18:12 63:13 91:10,12 233:16 295:5 318:6,9 SPEAKER

109:3 128:19 146:5,8,19 147:12 150:10 177:4 207:6,14 213:8,10,12,14,1 7 222:21 224:20 227:2,18 228:20 229:4 231:7 252:19 257:13 278:5 285:4,6 305:10 309:20 319:7,22 SPEAKERS 327:7 speaking 69:1 191:20 209:6 276:18 special 83:22 127:4 specific 36:17 41:16 50:14 60:10 64:12 132:20 133:5 135:16 138:9 198:8 199:8 210:8 218:18 specifically 60:16 132:5 140:1 163:7,8 279:8 322:17 specification 110:2 specified 135:21 136:18 326:13 specify 131:2,4 137:1 spectrum 20:1 35:1 59:17 94:6,8 109:20 110:8 169:9 spell 134:1 spelling 145:6 spend 174:15 spending 95:5 173:5 174:20 spit 301:19 327:3 split 14:20 15:8,9,11 46:2,6 70:1 103:1,2,7 104:6,17 105:2,3 108:15 139:11 140:10 142:6,18,22 143:10 145:13 156:17 207:12 217:3 237:17 split-out 155:20 157:6 splits 103:13 143:15 198:2 splitting 238:16 spoke 138:21 spot 126:21 320:22 321:1 spot-check

125:10 spreadsheet 56:21 SPVU 115:11 SPVUs 14:21 115:3,6,8 137:9 140:17 141:4,13 145:7 squeeze 309:10 squirrely 328:6 stack-over-steam 219:2 staff 277:8,9 stage 129:13 295:6 stake 88:3 standard 10:18 19:15 22:15 23:2,8,21 46:4 110:4 111:14 132:15 134:16 165:7 172:19 192:19,20 208:14 209:3 212:19 213:4,6 231:2 234:8 245:12 246:2 254:14 261:6,8,13,21 262:2,4,8,9 265:7,17 266:15,18,22 267:5,12,16,18 268:5,6,8 269:6,19 272:9,10,11,20 273:1 281:3 284:8 286:8 287:3 288:7 291:21 296:6 298:14 299:20 300:3,4 301:17 302:15 306:10 307:15 311:4 315:21 319:18 standardize 54:22 standards 60:16 93:5 94:2 130:9,11,13 140:3 156:10 163:6 175:1,8 180:14 192:6 211:16 239:5 245:8,16,19 246:16 248:11 275:5 308:22

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 53

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 standard's 266:3 Standards 1:3 22:20 328:21 standard-setting 118:14 standby 38:16 185:22 186:22 192:8,19,22 193:4 stand-by 316:20 standpoint 289:20 309:3 stands 47:4 Stanonik 5:9 35:11 42:1,20,22 43:3 44:9 62:16,20,22 88:18 98:3 100:17,22 105:19 113:12,16,20 114:10,11 118:4,5,7,12,20, 21 141:14,18 152:7,11 153:8 158:19 167:12 175:15 180:10 181:15,16 182:3,9,14 183:14,21 184:8,16 185:6,19 190:9 193:12 202:11 211:13 214:22 216:6 222:11,18,22 223:2,13,15,18 225:3 226:22 227:14 291:7 303:14 311:8 313:12,16,21 314:7 322:16 323:1 328:2,11,14 Star 107:21 117:11 126:3 239:3,14 248:11 277:14,17,18 278:1,10 279:11 294:16 300:13 310:21 321:1 Starr 5:11 27:11 149:22 150:3,5,16 151:9,14 155:17 156:5 157:1 163:10 174:14 194:7 205:10,21 207:7,11,15,18 237:14 256:7 257:4 264:8 268:17 270:1,5,10 273:11,16 274:1,7 278:6 280:19 282:8,13 283:20 290:6 start 7:5 8:11,15 11:14 16:10 17:18,19,21 37:20 53:17,21 54:21 61:7 93:10 101:12 102:16,20 117:1 122:13 130:3,10,12,13 135:13 150:10 176:16 177:17 180:12 228:11 235:12 255:11 256:19 270:15 327:6 started 7:3 88:19 108:12 217:18,19 228:17 270:19 312:13 314:11 316:14 starting 9:6 11:14,15 40:16 205:8 207:6 224:2 233:16 312:19 starts 186:8 273:1 state 169:8 stated 41:5 77:15,21 217:5 statement

22:1,6 27:1 29:4 98:2,22 204:7 264:14 294:14,19 station 273:13 statistic 125:18 statistical 78:1 111:13,16 113:3 117:16 118:2 163:21 statistically 38:14 113:4 236:10 263:12 276:17 statisticals 277:20 statistics 111:14 161:20 162:10 255:4 295:1 status 212:18 statute 246:10,11 statutory 60:17 stay 67:14 98:1 steam 32:2,3,7 215:4,7,11 218:2,4,20 219:1,5,12,21 220:3,6 221:1,5,8,21

222:14 223:5,8,11 224:5 steam/hot 222:15 224:10 steam-only 219:18 steels 65:1 step 60:22 106:14 135:8 270:18 278:19 322:20 325:11 Stephen 3:19 5:6 Stephens 5:13 38:11 39:16 52:5 74:20 75:2 106:4,9 121:20 155:9,13 165:19 166:22 187:19 188:2,5,7,12 189:1,8 191:16 200:2 204:18 205:5 209:19,21 210:4,16 211:3,8 221:13,17,20 222:3,5 240:17 241:13 276:16 293:21 295:20 296:4,8 303:18,22 316:18,22 317:15 318:17 steps 99:18 Steven 4:3 Stevens 191:16 stick 80:6 119:4 191:18 stop 14:4 285:1 stops 21:10 storage 38:17 176:10 180:15

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 54

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 181:6,8,10,19 182:4,6,16 183:3,6,19 184:2,20 185:20 186:1,9,12,21 187:11 191:3,5,6,7,9,21 193:3,4 195:5 208:1 storage-type 182:2 201:22 202:16 story 61:17 straight 292:12 straightforward 36:7 Strait 5:15 strengthen 116:22 strengthening 237:3 strike 9:3 stringent 293:20 strong 37:21 81:13 82:11 128:6 structures 60:1 struggling 92:19 stuck 209:12 stuff 26:8 118:16 119:3,7 172:3 239:9 244:20 272:22 274:18 312:15,17 313:19 style 241:8 281:14 Suami 5:16 sub-AEDMs 202:4 subgroups 129:6 subject 41:2 132:13 134:2,9 172:8 192:19 197:15 submit 151:4 submittal 112:10 submitted 134:15 324:22 submitter 134:7 submitting 139:8 subsequent 79:7 177:15 subset 37:8 54:22 72:8 114:21 substance 7:20 27:3 substantial 255:22 substantially 184:12 194:9 215:10 264:21 269:7 substantiate 35:3 50:1,12 58:7,16 67:7,12,17 71:18 78:3 81:19 101:17 138:1 161:2 170:11 183:11 189:16 196:14 210:18 224:17 231:9 234:11 258:17 262:1,4 276:2 308:15 substantiated 86:8 204:8 260:3 substantiating 123:21 196:12 253:10 257:17 substantiation 28:6 34:21 43:21 48:15,20 50:6 57:12 75:19 82:6,9 86:15 102:2,8,14 115:21 116:1,4 117:9,13 126:9,10 134:22 142:22 143:3 147:4 152:4,5,9 153:17 185:15 233:2 236:22 237:4,13 252:14 253:9,10,15 258:9 260:5 304:12,14 substantiations 78:11 substitute 64:18 317:10 subsumes 30:8 subtleties 115:14 successfully 67:22 sudden 42:9 242:18 274:22 291:1 SUE'S 263:22 sufficiency 23:12 sufficient 57:3 274:19 suggest 16:5 19:3 29:1 36:20 61:7 83:10 121:14 142:21 178:9 183:10 290:1 suggesting 36:18 46:12 84:1 208:17 suggestion 40:4 102:7 130:17,18 137:6 210:7 274:10 suggestions 263:19

suitable 33:16 suite 170:13 summarized 30:11 summary 48:11 super-duper 172:20 supplement

107:1 suppliers 209:7 supply 31:18 124:14 180:16,20 181:3,8,9 183:7 197:20 203:3 supplying 32:6 support 26:15 47:1 282:1 322:13 323:6 supported 321:20 supporting 29:14 supposed 187:15 258:2 supposedly 236:4 318:14 sure 7:6,22 12:8,17 14:9 20:7 22:22 27:19 30:2 46:16 50:4 59:20 61:11 79:8,18 80:9 81:12 82:10 88:14 99:20 124:4 125:6 141:12,15 144:19 146:7 157:22 165:1 169:16,17 184:8 195:19 219:17 220:2 229:12

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 55

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 234:2 236:15 248:1 251:20 252:9 255:21,22 257:3 273:2 276:3 278:3 279:10 287:20 295:14,16 296:20 321:16 323:8 surface 36:11 surprise 236:16 Sutphen 5:17 31:7,20 32:9 95:2,22 217:22 218:7,13,22 220:16,20 222:2 SW 1:7 swing 313:5 324:1 swings 317:1 switch 75:11 159:7 306:3 sword 89:12 symmetry 272:20 sympathize 277:10 system 18:21 19:1 46:9 57:17 72:17 73:2,4,6 105:2,3 109:11 113:3 139:12 142:18 143:10 160:4,5,13,20 164:13,14,15,20, 22 224:2 232:4 263:7 systems 4:15 5:14 15:8,11 46:2,3,6 70:1 91:16 103:1,7 104:6,17 140:10 143:1 150:8 160:6,7,15 164:1,12 196:22 237:22 238:13,19 263:12 269:14 T tab 134:6 table 12:12 13:9 15:13 20:19 23:4 30:6 32:21 51:21 59:15 67:17 68:5 72:2 85:14 120:21,22 136:9 156:9 205:19 206:2 208:5 231:13 267:19 273:4 286:3 299:14 320:15 321:3 tables 163:16 233:11 tabs 56:22 tacked 269:17 tailor 11:8 57:1 taking 51:9 115:18 174:22 258:16 276:20 talk 15:20 16:6,13 17:13 27:2 38:20 49:22 57:11 96:12 100:3,5,6 102:2 129:10,14,16,18 130:15 167:16 176:15 231:21 268:13 313:3 talked 7:16 11:15 21:7 115:3 226:1 270:20 271:12 308:11 talking 8:12 18:3 30:5 40:17 48:1 55:15 56:17 62:17 67:18 74:10 77:17 82:6 90:5 97:2 101:18 102:12 114:14 123:7,20 127:11 139:17,18 147:4 150:18 158:11,20 160:3 162:2 168:18 169:13 171:7,21 176:4 185:20 195:6 196:15 202:11,18 204:13 206:2,16 209:9 215:12 224:17 225:4,6 232:19 240:2 244:14 249:16 257:16 259:2 262:6,7 264:12 267:10 270:2 276:19 291:8 297:6,13,18,19 308:10,12 312:13 314:2,9,11 320:12 323:8 324:13 328:4,6,7 talks 14:14 267:7 tank 38:17 184:18 185:11 190:14 191:3 193:22 194:1,11,12 tanks 180:17 191:21 208:1 238:5 tank-type 190:21 193:15,21 TAPs 73:10 task 98:1 Tech 3:3

technical 153:14 167:22 technically 209:11 technique 99:2 technologies 24:22 142:22 172:22 technology 45:5 194:9,19 tee 15:21 17:9 31:4 49:9,10 teed 30:16 teeth 256:2 temp 240:10 temperature 32:5 37:20 206:7 230:8 238:7 249:4 temperatures 38:6 229:18 230:6,8,11,19 249:4 template 139:16 templates 134:6 139:7 ten 140:22 145:10 188:9 199:13,18 241:2 256:15 289:6 292:7,8,18,19 300:17,18,20,22 301:18 302:11,14 310:6 313:4 314:1 315:16,21 tend 159:7,8 ten-minute 228:8 tens 305:7

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 56

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 ten's 301:17 term 39:18 40:2,5,7,10 53:7 66:20 135:4 140:1 166:9 169:20 180:14 196:1 308:13 terminology 76:14 253:8 297:1 terms 14:13,21 15:17 16:20 20:20 30:5,6,11 36:12,22 37:2,3 47:9 48:14,15 49:3 52:16 59:9,14 72:1,2 77:14 84:17 92:7,21 158:19 162:6 165:16 173:11 174:2 182:13 185:6,7 201:16 202:10 229:18 281:5,18 test 9:15 10:21 28:8 33:8,21 38:9 44:1,19 46:4 48:16,17 49:14 50:15 51:1 52:16,22 53:10,11 54:11 55:2 56:8 64:6 65:10,14,18 66:5 67:2 70:19 72:2 73:4 74:11 75:9 76:1,2,7,13,16 77:17,18,21 78:10 79:19 81:17 82:20 84:8 85:2 86:3,6,11,12,22 89:5,6,21 92:8 93:9,13,14 94:5,7,9,15 95:4,6,15,18,19 97:20 101:3,22 102:15 108:5,10 109:17,22 110:1,2,9,19 111:17 112:2,4 116:22 117:2,7 119:11 125:5,8,10 126:17,22 132:9,12 133:16 135:20,21 137:1,6 144:21 151:2 155:10 162:7 163:20 164:12 166:4,17 169:6 171:22 172:1,3,4 178:11 182:20 183:4,9 184:5 185:22 187:1,8,17 189:2,12 192:8,9,11,12,16 ,22 193:6 194:16 195:21 197:2 198:3,11,15 199:2 200:6,14 202:2,21 205:2 208:12,20 209:9 210:18,19 211:1,5,10,11,17 ,22 212:19,22 214:12,17,18 215:17,18 216:2,4,10,13,15 ,20,22 218:1,10 219:2,3 220:3,22 221:8,9,10 222:6 223:4,6 224:1,3 225:1 226:4,12 230:8 233:20 235:22 236:7 240:12,19 241:16 242:14,17 244:17 246:18 253:18 255:2,15 257:18 258:9 260:4 261:13 262:1,3 264:20,22 265:11,21 266:3,19,21 267:8,16,18 268:4,8,10,11 269:1,2,3,6 270:2,7,14 271:3 274:12 275:1,13,15 276:11,15,22 278:17 279:3 280:8 281:12,13 285:12 287:12,22 288:2 289:9,14 290:5,9 291:14 292:6,16 293:7 294:15 295:6,7,8,12 296:2,18 297:9,22 298:2,5,10 302:16 303:2,6,8,9,10,1 1,14,16 304:4,10 306:9,12,14,20 310:5,9 311:12,13,14,15, 21 314:13,18,20 315:5,11 316:20 317:3,10,12,13,2 0 318:1,15,18 319:7,17,19,21 321:9,11,15 322:14,17 323:18 325:18 326:1 327:2,3,5 328:8 test-based 101:18 tested 19:13,18 20:2 28:7,8 33:10 36:22 48:17 49:4,13 53:6 54:15 55:1 59:22 71:18 72:7 74:8 75:16 86:5 119:14 124:9 129:17 131:3,4 135:4 136:17 138:13 154:8 160:6,9,20 164:1,20 168:13 169:2,21 239:18,20 269:11,15,21,22 277:20,21 289:5 295:1 302:9 304:17 307:3 testing 9:2,10,11,13 17:3 18:20,22 20:3,12,17 22:13 24:11,12 25:19 26:3 33:7 34:18 37:4 39:21 41:12 44:5 50:13 55:7,21 56:5,12 71:3,4,13 74:11 76:17 77:14 78:17,18 79:4,5,7,8,15,22 80:5,8,12,18 81:6 82:12,16 83:18 84:20 85:1,4,11,16 87:8,14 92:22 93:8,10,19 94:11 95:12 98:11 106:5,15 107:21 108:16,18 114:18 116:5 117:10,12 125:13,15,17 128:13 139:6

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 57

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 147:8 161:16 162:3 167:9 168:6 170:19 191:11,12 194:19 197:3,7,10,12,16 208:2 209:5 218:16 220:20 221:5 226:2,3 230:4 233:2,4 234:6,12,22 235:3 236:11 237:8,11 239:7,8,9 240:19 244:11 247:20 248:6 255:1,15 256:9,13 264:12,17,18 265:18 266:14 268:18,19 270:11 273:12 274:8,9,10 275:3,6 276:1,3 277:17,19 278:2,11 279:11 286:13 289:13 290:18 292:4 294:3,11 295:13 303:19,20 304:8,9,18 307:15 310:5 312:4,6 316:3,10,12 317:2 319:8,11,14 320:20,21 323:2 324:21 325:21 328:4 tests 26:5 34:22 35:3 49:12,13 50:1 56:18 57:2 58:6,16 67:7,11 76:16 77:22 78:4,14 81:21 84:19 85:21,22 86:14 87:2 91:2 97:19 99:11 100:8,14,15 106:17,22 109:21 124:14 126:11 127:22 132:8 137:22 150:18,21 155:14,15 163:8 165:15 184:13 187:12,14 188:3,10,15 189:16,18 193:9,14 194:21 195:4,12,15 196:13,14 208:15 209:13 211:6 214:19 217:1 218:2 220:8 224:16 233:12 234:10,15,16 235:18 242:18,19 243:1 246:6 249:20 252:8,14 253:13 254:2,7 256:11,22 260:3,6 261:5 262:18 263:3 264:14 266:7,8,16 284:7 296:1 297:7,8,10 305:4,7,13 307:17,18 308:12 310:2 315:2,11,13 328:3,7 text 40:17 Thank 24:5 32:9 39:16 50:9 52:3 133:6 134:18 144:14 146:8 155:6,13 157:18 171:5 204:17 212:12 225:12 235:5,6 247:11 258:7 272:15 278:4 Thanks 12:21 58:9 253:5 Tharp 5:18 16:4 18:8 68:8 82:13 83:19 84:2,6 120:7,14 142:20 158:14 160:11,18 178:8 289:2,4 307:14 308:1,14,17 309:22 315:15 319:1,8,12 320:3,5 322:11 325:18 326:1,4,6 that'll 144:12 177:22 that's 10:21 20:5,10 24:2 27:6 38:12 40:10,16 41:21 42:9,22 43:3,11,18 44:5 45:20 51:11 55:18 60:7 62:4 63:7,19,20 64:9 73:12 74:3 78:5,8,22 79:1,11 81:14 90:19 96:9 97:2 101:5,6 107:2 108:11 109:2,4,8,15,16 110:13 111:11 112:9 113:19,21 118:22 119:16 120:1,6,10,12 121:11 125:22 127:17

128:18,20 131:15,21 133:7 134:18 135:12,18 138:17 139:8 141:6 142:2 148:2,21,22 149:19 150:20 151:19 152:6,16 154:2 155:5,6 156:22 158:21 160:7,16 162:1,3 164:17 167:6,8 168:9 169:17 174:17,18 178:2,5,12,13 179:11,19,21 180:2 182:3,13 183:5 185:13,21 189:8 190:15,20 191:21,22 192:7 193:18,19 195:6 198:12,19 199:6,9,15,17,20 ,21,22 200:1,16,19,20,2 1 204:1,7 206:18 207:15 208:9 212:2 216:10 217:8 220:9 221:4 222:13,17 224:18 230:19 233:13 235:1 237:5 240:4,21 241:12 243:13,18,22 244:13 245:2,5 252:10 253:9,15 256:14 257:7,15 259:1 261:17 262:4,20,22 263:5,10 267:5,10,17 268:19 269:3

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 58

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 270:22 272:22 274:3,17 275:2,11 276:3 278:5 279:13 280:6 281:6 284:2 286:2 287:5 288:3,9 289:10,11,15 290:2,3,19 291:10,16 292:12 293:18 294:6,18 296:3 297:17 302:7,14,15,16 303:3,20 304:9 306:5 307:3,19,20 309:18 310:11,16 311:19 312:18 313:9 314:7,19 315:8,16 317:1,7 318:13,14 319:5,12 320:15 322:22 323:9 324:3,6 325:18 327:9,14,17 328:16 theirs 99:6 theme 56:4 themes 56:14 themselves 112:19 309:7 theoretical 33:9 167:16 242:2 theory 106:21 245:15 thereafter 330:5 therefore 72:17 78:3 81:13 107:9 175:6 194:15 thereof 68:16 there's 72:1 108:14 112:10 118:13,14 119:3,4,7,11 124:11,22 131:1,7,18 138:12 139:9,12 143:21 146:22 152:8 155:19 159:21,22 162:9 163:7 167:4,19 174:14 175:9,18 176:19 188:15 189:4 190:6,16 191:11 193:13 195:11 196:6 207:16 219:7 230:5 231:6,12,16 233:5 237:21 238:1 245:6 250:11 252:3 257:7 264:1,16,19 268:18 272:18 274:8 275:5 281:2,11 282:22 283:8 286:3 289:2 291:18 303:22 305:8,21 311:3,17 312:3,21 316:19 318:21 319:18 320:7,8,9 326:1 327:11,13 thermal 104:11 187:2 192:9,12,19 193:5 211:10,12 215:17,18,19 216:13,19 258:13 they'd 90:15 232:14 242:4 they'll 225:8 256:18 they're 36:19 69:1 119:2 125:21 132:15 149:18,20,21 156:14,15 176:11 181:1 185:17 196:2 202:13 207:19 215:21 216:8 219:22 229:17 231:11 232:10,15 247:18 255:16 259:21 260:18 268:7 274:22 282:2,11 284:1 287:17 318:13 327:18,19 they've 164:2 322:20 326:10 third 9:6 19:20 20:16 51:18 80:21 105:15,16,17,18 106:5 119:11,13 120:9,10,12 147:2 222:15 278:10 319:21 third-party 107:21 108:1 239:7,8 277:19 278:20 279:4 317:3 318:14,20 320:22 thirteen 145:10 thirty 119:17,20,22 231:8 309:20 Thirty-eight 231:7 Thomas 1:15 330:2,14 thoughts 7:4 16:3 32:11 45:14 68:1 145:22 207:21 261:16 thousands 136:16 thread 176:17 190:16 three-phase 14:18 41:6 115:10 threshold 76:21 77:9,11 97:5 106:3 113:14 118:3 214:12,14 threw 26:9 51:8 throw 22:10 26:6 51:21 82:14 88:4 120:15 268:11 throwing 32:22 178:19 260:2 thrown 206:6 tie 237:6 286:14 tied 296:19 tier 207:9,11 tiers 207:8 tight 309:11 tighter 305:1 Timothy 2:9 today 11:16 18:9 20:19 23:21 27:6 28:11 30:5 41:14 79:12 129:3 237:16 273:7 276:6 tolerance 9:14 23:22 26:8 49:14 74:21 75:1,3

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 59

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 77:6 109:20 113:15 162:6 273:15 285:18,21 286:1,6 287:4,12 288:9,18 289:16,17 290:4 291:8,13,21 292:4,7 294:3,11 296:16,18 297:13 307:21 311:11,21 312:22 315:12,16 316:1,9 322:21 323:5 324:7,13,20 tolerances 26:10 128:10 273:9,12,21 284:15 285:10 287:20 297:5 316:5 318:4 319:2,4,6 Tom 3:14 5:20 tomorrow 11:16 273:6 327:15 328:19 ton 41:5 244:17 289:6 tonnages 103:2 290:13 tons 104:2 145:5 148:9,18 Tony 5:5 tool 5:21 6:4 39:6 tools 109:7 top 94:12 148:11,12,13,14 191:3 201:10 204:6 324:2 topic 48:14 83:11 125:20 178:12 Toro 2:21 total 133:13 135:10 136:2 137:22 139:12 140:12 183:8 195:15 202:9 252:5 254:7 305:2 324:1 totally 35:13 79:10 88:22 89:19,22 107:20 141:16,19 184:1 194:22 268:11 317:21 318:21 328:16 touched 165:20 tough 91:21 toward 316:6 towards 9:7 212:15 Toyotas 316:14 trace 66:4 track 13:18 64:3 tradeoffs 20:20 traditional 202:1 traditionally 185:22 training 170:11 Trane 3:10 45:15 53:22 54:4 58:10 72:11 102:22 106:11 135:15 143:14 153:2 154:7 168:7 173:8 175:5 306:13 321:5 transcript 13:15 330:6 331:4,6 transcription 331:1,7 Transcriptionist 331:11 transfer 217:6 transformers 64:21 73:7,8 313:3 transition 61:13 translate 28:3 170:15 translation 24:5 transparent 229:18 253:1 254:9 transportation 227:9 Traulsen 2:19 21:5 81:10 115:19 122:22 126:6 147:3 152:3 236:15 257:11 325:11 Trauslen 325:2 traveling 193:22 treatment 10:15 tremendous 249:18 trials 23:11 tricky 260:17 tried 15:17 48:19 49:10 99:1 254:4,5 314:17 tries 213:4 trigger 20:5 266:18,22 trouble 90:21 267:6 307:7,8,9

true 3:9 18:15 47:12 84:2 89:2 116:11 118:22 119:16 175:12 199:17 207:15 226:6 251:6 253:17 254:12 278:5,6 285:5 330:6 331:7 Truskoski 5:19 Truskowski 322:12 try 25:2 28:3 37:9 40:6 82:1 257:4 271:2 293:12 trying 12:15 34:11,12 43:19 44:11 54:2 55:18 56:14 61:17 90:17 103:14 124:21 131:21 143:14 158:17 161:1 170:14 172:18 185:13 189:17 190:10 197:5 200:10 212:3 233:10 234:14 243:16 244:16,22 245:2 251:3 253:7 270:17 271:4,10 289:20 296:21 299:12 305:11 Ts 253:2 tub 222:4 tube 176:9,10 185:2 187:6,7 190:14 194:13 196:18 tubes 184:18 185:3,9,12

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 60

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 193:17,18,22 tube-type 181:19 190:20 191:2 193:15,16 202:12,14 Tuesday 1:10 130:2 turn 23:17 87:5 99:12,17 116:3 122:19 132:8 306:16 turned 52:18 85:3 98:12,20 tweak 18:18 73:21 twelve 140:22 145:10 Twenty 119:17,18,20,22 316:13 twice 155:11 187:18 199:3 200:6 247:19 266:10 269:21,22 two-sided 286:17 293:20 295:12 304:19 308:21 325:8 two-thirds 239:6 two-ton 66:17 tying 296:20 298:15 type 16:14 23:18,22 31:12 33:15 36:17 39:6 48:16 62:2 68:15 76:22 98:7 121:4 129:17 133:14 150:17 155:21 170:6 177:10 180:15 181:7 183:19 186:11 187:10 189:19 190:14 197:3 215:14 217:13 231:19 232:8 251:10 257:19 263:21 303:19 typed 48:10 264:2 331:4 types 14:20 28:6 30:5 31:3 49:4,6,13 50:14 55:11 59:9 70:6 138:13,14 146:3,12 165:7 169:10 183:19 187:6 196:18 213:5 229:15 236:21 245:10 312:4 typewriting 330:5 typical 15:4 typically 35:1 41:8 46:17 122:3,6 216:19 typing 144:21 201:8 298:18 U U.S 2:10 Uh-huh 32:10 101:1 124:1 134:17 142:19 188:1 196:8 207:10 UL 3:17 79:13 93:20 166:14 279:9 ultimate 44:4 ultimately 52:18 64:11 75:10 78:21 162:5 164:7 324:20 uncertainty 40:6 82:16,18 178:10 292:4 293:10 310:1,4,8,12 311:7 317:17 318:22 uncover 102:3 underlying 36:9 38:12 126:22 131:9,18 175:18 underneath 44:20 184:19 205:13 underpinning 44:13 undershoot 90:18 understand 13:3 25:16 37:19 41:19 55:18 71:13 75:7 82:4,15 85:6,19 96:3 100:20 109:11 125:12 128:4 137:11 139:17 140:9 176:6 187:5 192:14 194:18 224:7 239:21 247:14 248:4 250:16 255:6 263:5 268:15 276:13 286:12,16 288:17 289:18 303:5 308:4,7 313:15 understanding 20:6 29:2 139:1 200:21 244:1 259:14 267:6 287:15,19 313:9

understands 170:14 understood 53:14 136:1 199:10 226:18 311:10 unfired 180:16 208:1 unfortunately 237:18 284:20 unique 23:20 35:16 42:5 60:14 89:8 198:17 311:12 unit 18:22 39:22 46:4 55:12,13 64:3,5 65:14 66:17 67:1 71:8 97:21 98:16 104:10 109:21,22 110:6 112:18 125:5,16 135:21 137:1,6 155:3,6 159:19 162:16 172:19,20 186:18 189:3 191:4 206:1 208:16 210:17 214:16,17 215:16 216:14,15,22 232:7 243:11 251:9 255:15 268:13 277:20 285:11 289:6 291:14 292:15 306:17,18 323:16,17 unitary 14:19 55:22 59:10 100:21 310:2,3

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 61

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 United 2:12 3:15 units 28:7 33:12,19 48:16 49:4 50:14,15 53:5 55:6 68:15 71:7 87:2 93:18 98:16 106:22 108:17 112:18 117:17,19 120:4 135:4 145:8,9 146:2 147:13 152:14,18,20 155:3 162:15 163:20 171:17 206:3 216:1,2 219:18 221:7 224:3 230:7 236:3,13 239:10 243:6 265:13 276:22 294:20 295:1 300:13 universal 198:6 unless 7:8 15:13 42:11 59:11 117:17 170:3 237:11 264:16 277:22 324:19 un-muting 253:5 unnecessary 216:12,14 unsophisticated 309:6 unworkable 26:20 up-and-running 113:10 updating 144:10 upon 111:6 164:16 165:21 175:4,6 207:13 237:17 283:20 284:1 upper 39:21 198:16 204:1 urging 117:16 usage 63:10 useful 68:6 89:13 225:5 usually 219:2 UTC 4:4 utilities 92:13 172:15 175:4 239:15 utility 246:4 V valid 94:16 110:19 117:5 131:14,19 162:6 203:22 204:7 226:12 236:10 243:18 263:6 265:4 266:19 270:14 276:3 277:11 285:11,17 286:21 291:20 296:7,16 299:6,11,12 303:16 318:13 320:2,8,9,10,19 327:1,21 validate 33:22 43:14,15 57:3 78:1,3,15 96:4 116:22 119:6 137:22 138:1,7 151:17 152:11 154:20 161:2 165:15 202:4 204:2,10 216:17 217:12 232:9 240:3,4 243:3 245:1,4 249:20 263:12 271:9,11 272:12 307:16 308:13,16 319:14 323:21 328:7,15 validated 83:5 119:13 199:19 277:19 324:17 validates 98:19 validating 24:12 153:10 154:10,16 159:20 160:1 288:19,21 307:22 308:1 validation 18:21 21:7,15,19 33:10 34:21 35:6 50:6,19,20 51:9 52:1 55:5,6,8 56:5,7 78:11 82:7 87:8 96:6 98:11 99:12 102:3 108:16,18 109:19,20 121:10 134:22 151:20 152:9 153:21 159:11,14 165:6,10 181:2,11 186:13 197:4 224:16 232:12 268:4 298:18 321:21,22 322:6,10 324:14,21 325:17 validity 18:19 19:2 24:1 111:13 113:3 117:16 138:6 239:16 240:16 254:20 275:10 291:6 valuable 18:13

value 208:3 289:5 296:2 values 28:8,9 48:17,18 310:5 variability 305:2 310:18 variable 110:3 variables 38:18 110:7 317:21 variance 112:18 113:5 292:17 311:1 variation 75:21 108:10 110:5 112:21,22 313:19 318:15 323:19 variations 11:1 108:3 243:17 244:8 variety 16:17 17:8 20:9 30:10 91:20 100:1 229:21 231:21 various 25:4 62:6 68:10 70:3 133:22 159:12,20 173:3 233:11 vary 130:19 234:7 vast 202:14,16 vastly 241:7 VCI 252:15,18 VCIP 96:7 VCT 252:18 vehicle 23:15 vendor 208:12

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 62

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 209:14 vendors 72:18,19,21 326:18 verb 13:22 18:2 verdict 253:8 verification 9:4 22:9 23:15 50:20 51:13,16,17 74:14,16 81:20 82:2 96:13 97:1 106:22 115:21 116:2,8 117:10 120:19 125:5,6,13,15 126:2,3,7 128:14 132:7 141:6 152:1,5,8,12,16 177:5 197:15 239:7,8 292:14,16 303:12 310:14 verified 79:17,20 95:12 96:22 107:21 108:1 116:16 verify 26:5 40:8 67:8 80:21 92:13 93:21 94:9 111:15,16 127:12 208:13 221:10,11 235:6 249:16 254:22 255:3 verifying 51:3 254:21 vernacular 59:15 version 7:7 versions 107:6,7 190:13 versus 74:19 77:6 113:3 180:15 183:19 191:5 195:4 229:19 235:10,11,12 240:11 248:14 250:3 251:21 258:14 280:5,12 286:2,13,16 289:5 292:6 vertical 104:10 174:4 230:21,22 235:11 241:9 250:13 251:7,21 252:7,16,17,22 253:1 254:9,10 vessel 218:4 vetting 281:17 via 234:12 VICP 83:5,7,13,14,20 96:8 106:12 120:16 121:9,12 124:9,10,13 130:20 view 181:2,11,12 224:15 viewpoint 133:9 views 133:2,5 Viktor 2:8 Vince 4:13 115:1 141:11 violation 86:13,19 violators 84:5 visibility 308:22 VOC 252:15 voice 258:12 voltage 69:9 70:8,10 voltages 70:7 73:8

volume 98:18 133:12 136:8 154:7 173:11 177:2 185:20 191:5,9 216:2 245:5 volumes 240:6 244:15 voluntary 9:18 10:6 83:3 127:3 175:8 vote 147:7 170:3 272:6 283:7,8,11 284:4,19 voted 151:3 votes 282:6,15 283:1,2 voting 118:17 274:4 VRF 12:18 101:9 105:2,3 144:2 147:16 160:20 179:16 VRFs 14:20 104:13 105:5 137:9 140:20 145:9,12 150:14 165:13 179:5 vulnerable 20:2 W Wahid 4:11 wait 17:5 21:13 98:14 114:12 123:16 305:18 waiting 21:10 244:18 walk 15:15,22 wall 239:6

Walsh 5:20 washer 63:15 Washington 1:9 5:21 6:4 wasn't 34:11 80:4 106:12 174:9 258:2,4 264:8,11 306:6,8 watch 99:16 watching 88:6 324:15 water 5:13 14:21,22 30:20 31:17,18 32:3,4,7,15,18 38:3,17 45:17 47:7 60:10 62:21 68:21 95:3 104:15 105:2 120:5 138:11 140:21 143:11 144:4,5,11 145:9 146:1,13 147:18 148:6,15,17 149:5 156:20 163:2 165:5,9 176:10 179:17,19 180:12,16,20,21 181:3,4,6,8,9,19, 21 182:2,5,17 183:3,7,17,20,21 184:2,3,17 185:1,2,9,16 186:20 187:6 190:1,2,6,7,20,2 1 191:2,6,7,8 193:2,3,17,18,20 194:1,4,5,11,12, 13 195:5 196:18 197:18,20

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 63

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 201:10,17,22 202:12,15,16,17 203:2,3 205:11,13,14,17 206:12 207:4,8,20 208:1 209:14 210:4,10,11,21 211:12 212:5,17,18,20,2 2 213:13 215:5,8,11,12 218:3,4,10,15,17 ,21 219:6,11,19 220:2,5,7,17 221:8,22 222:14,16 223:3,9,12 224:4,10 228:5 238:5 311:15 313:6,10 314:2,12 316:19 322:13 323:5,12 water/steam 223:15 water-cooled 104:6,7,17 137:8 140:14 142:7 143:17,20 145:7 149:8 156:13 162:18 163:1 165:14,18 179:7 water's 193:21 water-tube 204:21 Wayne 213:8 ways 20:9 23:2 72:5 194:3 238:10 242:13 250:6 252:3 324:18 web 25:9 Weber 5:22 website 139:8,9 we'd 126:22 137:1,5,6 151:11 176:14 237:6 246:3 281:19 week 117:2 129:1 weeks 42:2 weigh 80:11 weight 77:6 Welch 6:2 welcome 16:2 55:2 we'll 13:15 14:15 117:10 129:3 146:14 157:16 161:11 175:6 178:4,16 273:17 277:1 311:20 321:3 well-defined 99:10 well-known 163:4 we're 55:18 69:1 71:22 76:6,12 78:10 79:11 90:5 97:2 106:13 107:9 109:16,18 114:16 115:16 116:5 117:3,11 118:17 123:20 124:20 125:21 126:21 127:10 129:2,16 131:6,21 134:21 145:21 147:3 149:21 150:18 153:11,12 158:9,12,20 159:10 160:3 164:9,11,20 166:8 169:21 171:6 173:1,2,18 174:6 177:21 178:2 189:17 191:20 192:15 195:6 197:7 200:7,9 204:13 206:2 209:9,12,14 211:18 212:16 215:11 224:2,15 225:4 229:2 233:5 234:14 235:1 236:21,22 239:9 240:2 242:19 245:1 249:21 252:4 253:9,10 254:15,20 255:12 257:14,16,17,22 259:7,22 260:8 264:12,17 270:1 273:3 274:11,16 276:6,18 277:6 287:5 288:5 289:20 297:5,13,18,19 298:15 299:2 308:10,12,19 310:11 311:20 315:10,18 319:2,4 323:8 324:13,14 Wes 4:21 West 3:3 we've 29:2 40:22 96:1 105:12 106:18 108:9,17 112:5,7,9 117:1 123:16 130:17,21 173:22 174:1 197:6 211:19 225:9 229:1 237:15,16 241:4 244:16,17,18 266:2 270:20

271:12,22 312:14 315:1,12 323:11 327:1 whatever 23:12 39:8 43:13 44:15 45:1 51:1 52:2,15 55:7 60:19 67:8 71:5 82:10 89:9 91:1,21 97:1 104:2 135:1,4 163:11,15,16 166:8 175:7 184:3 190:21 199:18 202:5 204:1 209:10 216:11 225:10 230:8 253:17 258:9 280:5 281:4 290:13 291:16,19 296:6 299:14 304:10,11,14,16 305:13 308:7 312:7 whatsoever 19:2 126:4 163:6 189:5 323:17 whereas 66:8 162:2 Whereupon 130:6 328:20 whether 12:8 16:13 17:21 25:19 26:14 28:17 30:13,17,18,21 33:12 35:20 37:5 39:6,7,8 44:21 45:9 60:4,9 64:14 67:10 68:5 80:7 82:6 84:17

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 64

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 85:12 86:4 88:20 94:22 98:16 100:5 120:16,20 124:9,10,12,21 127:17 129:12 130:19 131:1,3 140:4 147:1 152:20 156:14 157:9 169:18 177:17 187:3 188:2 210:20 219:22 229:17 250:15 251:1,4,22 253:16 260:7,10 261:19 290:3 314:22 320:6,9,20,21,22 321:1,11 whichever 203:10 297:9 white 5:19 63:13 65:21,22 Whitwell 6:3 10:12 11:4 24:6,10 51:13 138:19 139:3,16,21 141:2 142:4,9,13,17 143:6,8 144:4 145:13,16,19 164:22 286:11,12 287:15,19 288:4,8,14 289:12 290:2 296:13 297:3,5,16,21 298:4,15 303:5,9 321:22 322:4 whole 25:20 59:6 63:22 101:14 114:19 132:16 158:21 176:13 208:9 220:17 250:14 275:1 301:8 whole-house 206:15 whom 330:3 whoopings 128:16 who's 123:17 126:9 198:21 229:9 whose 277:8 why'd 267:4 wide 130:22 136:9 169:9 229:21 256:20 317:21 widely 29:16 30:21 50:21 willing 101:15 102:1 216:12 220:4,6 239:13 256:6 windings 188:17 wish 295:2 withheld 134:10 witness 278:11 321:9 wonder 27:12 82:5 169:3 wonderful 89:12 wondering 27:21 149:22 Woodford 6:5 wording 51:6,8,20 60:8 265:11 280:4,6 work 60:21 64:22 98:6 199:22 201:17 202:3 219:18 237:22 238:1 240:11 276:8 280:21 310:2 312:9 313:11 316:12 317:9 326:20 worked 274:18 working 7:14,15,16 8:10 11:16 29:5 62:2 130:10 142:12 256:19 273:20 305:1 works 5:21 6:4 63:14 98:4 107:3 132:16 150:6 199:5 268:8 276:13 277:9 286:20 312:11 world 291:2,3 313:2 worried 226:15 worry 194:5 274:13 worse 130:2 worth 12:8 49:1 126:14,16 255:13 wound 151:14 wrap 46:22 wrapped 176:18 wraps 208:16 write 29:3 112:12 137:12 142:1 167:15 185:8,10 190:19 200:18 201:3 223:9 267:4 317:5 writing 176:8

written 28:11 35:7 42:12 78:9 146:22 234:13 286:22 296:15 wrong 198:21 214:1 253:8 283:14 wrote 265:17 286:19 294:1,9 Y Y=MX+B 167:18 yesterday 8:9 yet 18:19 87:12 109:12 112:6 140:1 149:19 161:11 169:11 185:17 275:14 305:9 315:10 you'll 48:10 63:14 243:19 245:9,20 YOUNG 331:2,10 yourself 8:19 311:2 yourselves 306:21 you've 7:21,22 24:15 70:2 94:8 121:9 156:6 161:13 192:9 239:20 266:20 289:9 293:2 296:13,14,15 324:21 Z zero 3:8 4:22 116:19 117:13 122:12,17 123:3,6,7

### Capita l Reporting Company

Appliance Standards Federal Advisory Committee Meeting 05-14-2013 Page 65

(866) 448 - DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com © 2013 127:14,15 128:8 212:16 257:9 270:20 274:16 311:5 316:8 324:7 325:14 zero's 122:22 Zone 3:8 4:22