EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

1

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

PUBLIC MEETING ON THE ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARD 

FRAMEWORK DOCUMENT FOR COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION 

EQUIPMENT

U.S. Department of Energy 

Room 8E–089 

1000 Independence Avenue, Southwest 

Washington, D.C. 

Tuesday, May 18, 2010 

9:00 a.m. 

Participants

 DOUG BROOKMAN, Facilitator 

 MASOOD ALI 

 Kysor/Warren 

 ERIC ANDERSEN 

 PNNL 

 VIKTOR ANDERSON, P.E. 

 Structural Concepts 

 KARIM AMRANE, Ph.D. 

 AHRI 

 TIMOTHY BALLO 

 Earthjustice 

 JEFF BAUMAN 

 Continental 

 MICHELLE BRITT 

 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

 JOHN DAVIS 

 Traulsen 

 REBECCA DUFF 

 ICF International 

 BURT M. FINKELSTEIN 

 Kason Industries, Inc. 

 CHARLES HON 

 True 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

2

 

Participants

 CONSUELO GUZMAN-LEONG 

 Pacific Northwest 

 DR. DAN MANOLE 

 Ingersoll Rand 

 ARISTOTLE MARANTAN, Ph.D. 

 Navigant Consulting 

 JOANNA MAUER 

 ASAP 

 JOHN McHUGH, PE 

 McHugh Energy Consultants 

 ANDREW NAWROCKI 

 Navigant Consulting 

 MASSOUD NESHAN 

 Southern Store Fixtures, Inc. 

 GRAHAM B. PARKER

 Pacific Northwest 

 MARYLINE RASSI 

 AHRI

 DEVIN RAUSS 

 Southern California Edison 

 CARL ROBERTS 

 Zero Zone, Inc. 

 R. DOUGLAS ROBERTS 

 ThermoCor 

 HARVEY SACHS, Ph.D. 

 ACEEE 

 STEPHEN SCHAEFER 

 HOSHIZAKI America, Inc. 

 CHARLIE STEPHENS 

 Adjuvant Consulting 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

3

Participants

 COLLIN WEBER 

 Navigant Consulting 

 SARAH WIDDER 

 Pacific Northwest 

 DAVID WINIARSKI 

 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

 JOHN CYMBALSKY 

 DOE 

 BETSY KOHL 

 DOE 

 CHARLES LLENZA 

 DOE 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

4

A G E N D A 

AGENDA ITEM: PAGE: 

Welcome, Introductions, Agenda Review and 

Opening Statements 

 Doug Brookman 6 

 

Rulemaking Overview 

 Charles Llenza 17 

Rulemaking Scope 

 Dave Winiarski 25 

Test Procedure Background and Potential Changes 

 Sarah Widder 58 

Market and Technology Assessment 

 Collin Weber 72 

Screening and Engineering Analysis 

 Collin Weber 90 

Afternoon Session

Energy Use Characterization and Markups 

 Dave Winiarski 

Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis, 

Shipments Analysis, and National Impact 

Analysis 

 Dave Winiarski 

Life Cycle Subgroup Analysis and Manufacturer 

Impact Analysis 

 Dave Winiarski 

 Collin Weber 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

5

A G E N D A 

AGENDA ITEM: PAGE: 

Utility Impact Analysis, Employment Analysis, 

Environmental Assessment, and Regulatory Impact 

Analysis 

 Dave Winiarski 

 

Other Issues, Questions & comments/Closing 

Remarks 

 Doug Brookman 

1

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

6

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

2 9:06 a.m. 

3 WELCOME 

4 DOUG BROOKMAN 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Good morning, everybody, and 

6 welcome. Glad you could join us. This is the U.S. 

7 Department of Energy’s Public Meeting on the Energy 

8 Conservation Standard Framework Document for Commercial 

Refrigeration Equipment. Today is Tuesday, March 18th 9

10 (sic). Glad you could join us. My name is Doug 

11 Brookman from Public Solutions in Baltimore. 

12 We are fortunate this morning to have John 

13 Cymbalsky from the Department of Energy to also make 

14 welcoming remarks. 

15 WELCOME 

16 JOHN CYMBALSKY 

17 MR. CYMBALSKY: Thank you, Doug. This 

18 morning before I left the house I was thinking, what do 

19 I know about commercial refrigeration equipment. And 

20 it turns out I have one in my house and I looked at it. 

21 It's a 5.5 cubic foot Summit model that looks something 

22 like that one on the left, but it has a stainless steel 

23 handle. And I'm glad I looked at it because I realized 

24 I'm woefully short of beer. 

25 (Laughter.) 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

7

1 MR. CYMBALSKY: And probably not running very 

2 efficiently being empty the way it is. 

3 But, welcome to the meeting. It looks like 

4 we have a decent schedule today running to 3:30, so I 

5 don't think we're going to be too crunched for time. 

6 And as always, please submit written comments to the 

7 extent that you can. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

9 It is our tradition to do introductions 

10 around the room. I think all of you registered as you 

11 entered the Department of Energy, so the Department 

12 knows who is here and they will produce a photocopy of 

13 everybody's business cards. So, we're going to go 

14 around the room and do introductions. For those of you 

15 who have microphones, the little green LED light needs 

16 to be on for you to be captured by the record. 

17 For those of you who don't have a microphone, 

18 that's okay, we know who is here. 

19 We will start here, your name and 

20 organization affiliation. We'll go around the room. 

21 MR. DAVIS: John Davis with Charleston. 

22 MR. MANOLE: Dan Manole with Hussmann 

23 Ingersoll Rand. 

24 MR. McHUGH: John McHugh with McHugh Energy 

25 representing the California Statewide Codes and 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

8

1 Standards Program. 

2 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo with Earthjustice. 

3 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer with the Appliance 

4 Standards Awareness Project. 

5 MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, Air Conditioning, 

6 Heating and Refrigeration Institute. 

7 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs, American Council 

8 for an Energy Efficient Economy. 

9 MS. KOHL: Betsy Kohl, Department of Energy 

10 General Counsel's office. 

11 MR. CYMBALSKY: John Cymbalsky, DOE Appliance 

12 Standards. 

13 MR. LLENZA: Charles Llenza, DOE Appliance 

14 Standards. 

15 MR. WEBER: Collin Weber, Navigant 

16 Consulting. 

17 MS. WIDDER: Sarah Widder, Pacific Northwest 

18 National Lab. 

19 MR. NAWROCKI: Andrew Nawrocki, Navigant 

20 Consulting. 

21 MR. DOUG ROBERTS: Doug Roberts, Thermocore. 

22 MR. HON: Charlie Hon, True Manufacturing. 

23 MR. CARL ROBERTS: Carl Roberts, ZeroZone. 

24 MR. ANDERSON: Viktor Anderson, Structural 

25 Concepts. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

9

1 MR. RAUSS: Devin Rauss, Southern California 

2 Edison. 

3 MR. FINKELSTEIN: Burl Finkelstein, Kason 

4 Industries. 

5 MR. BAUMAN: Jeff Bauman, Continental 

6 Refrigerator. 

7 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens, Adjuvant 

8 Consulting. 

9 MR. NESHAN: Massoud Neshan. 

10 MR. SCHAEFER: Steven Schaefer, Hoshizaki 

11 America. 

12 MS. DUFF: Rebecca Duff, ICF International on 

13 behalf of Energy Star. 

14 MS. BRITT: Michelle Britt, Pacific 

15 Northwest. 

16 MR. PARKER: Graham Parker, Pacific Northwest 

17 National Laboratory. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Great. Did everybody get a 

19 chance? 

20 (No response.) 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: I'm going to do a very brief 

22 agenda review and then we're going to go from there 

23 straight into an opportunity for opening remarks. 

24 Immediately following this agenda review, as 

25 I said, there is an opportunity for anybody that wishes 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

10

1 to do so, to make brief statements on any issues that 

2 matter to them, short, concise statements, we hope. 

3 Following that, Charles Llenza will provide a 

4 rulemaking overview and then we'll go straight into the 

5 heart of the matter, the rulemaking scope. We will 

6 take a break midmorning around about 10:30 or so. Then 

7 from there an overview on test procedure background and 

8 potential changes following that market and technology 

9 assessment, screening and engineering analysis. I hope 

10 all of you got a copy of this agenda as you walked in 

11 as well the PowerPoint slides. That's what I'm 

12 referring to. 

13 We'll break for lunch midday around about 

14 12:15 or so. 

15 When we return from lunch, energy use 

16 characterization and markups. Following that, life 

17 cycle cost and payback period analysis, shipments 

18 analysis and national impact analysis. 

19 We'll break midafternoon around about 2:15 or 

20 so and then returning, life cycle cost subgroup 

21 analysis and manufacturer impact analysis and then 

22 following on utility impact analysis, employment impact 

23 analysis, environmental impact analysis, environmental 

24 assessment, and regulatory impact analysis. And then 

25 there is an opportunity once again at the end of the 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

11

1 day for any person to raise any additional issues that 

2 they might wish to do and make other statements that 

3 haven't been made already. So that's an opportunity or 

4 yet another opportunity for comment at the end of the 

5 day. 

6 We intend to adjourn today around about 3:30. 

7 The Department is trying hard to make sure 

8 the meetings are run efficiently and not waste 

9 anybody's time. So, appreciate your efforts to help 

10 make that happen. 

11 I'd ask for your consideration, simple ground 

12 rules that have emerged for these meetings, please 

13 speak one at a time. Please say your name for the 

14 record. There will be a complete transcript of this 

15 meeting posted on the EERE website all in the span of 

16 say, seven or no more than ten days, I think. 

17 I'm going to be cueing people as best I can 

18 by name to speak. We also wish to encourage follow-on 

19 comments. Sometimes the back and forth is very useful 

20 to the Department to hear diversity of views. Please 

21 say your name every time you speak. You don't need to 

22 say your organization or affiliation, if you want to or 

23 you're in the habit, that's okay. But, please say your 

24 name and I'll be prompting you as best I can. If you 

25 can keep the focus here, please turn your cell phones 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

12

1 on silent mode. 

2 If you need to have a sidebar conversation 

3 with anybody, make it brief, or take it up out of the 

4 room. And, please, if you can, be concise, share the 

5 air time. There's a lot to be said in the span of this 

6 meeting today. 

7 So that's what I would suggest as what I 

8 think is common courtesy. Comments and questions here 

9 before we get going with brief opening remarks? 

10 (No response.) 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So let's do that. I 

12 know a few individuals have requested that they get a 

13 chance to speak here at the opening segment and one of 

14 them is John McHugh. 

15 MR. McHUGH: Thanks. Good morning. These 

16 are my opening comments in support of -- or on behalf 

17 of the California Statewide Investor Owned Utility and 

18 Standards Program. This program serves a tenth of the 

19 population of the United States, they're the Southern 

20 California Edison, Pacific Gas and Electric, and San 

21 Diego Gas and Electric. Commercial refrigeration is 

22 very important to us in that commercial refrigeration 

23 uses approximately as much electricity as does 

24 commercial air conditioning. And so it's not a niche 

25 market, it's a fairly substantial fraction of our 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

13

1 energy consumption in the state. And during the prior 

2 rulemaking on commercial refrigeration DOE did not look 

3 at a number of efficiency measures due to the fact that 

4 they couldn't be modeled in the ASHRE Standard 72 test 

5 method which is a steady-state test method. And 

6 unfortunately that test method, because of steady-state 

7 doesn't look at things that are affected by transient 

8 conditions. And so there's a number of different 

9 measures that potentially should be evaluated since 

10 they have significant energy savings. So we need to 

11 consider the test methods and our overall 

12 responsibility to try to reduce energy consumption as 

13 much as possible. So this is from Chapter 4 of the 

14 last TSD. 

15 One of those measures is liquid suction heat 

16 exchangers. And for the walk-in proceeding I sent DOE 

17 a copy of the Kline -- Drs. Kline and Rendell from the 

18 University of Wisconsin, the description of evaluating 

19 the efficiency impacts of liquid suction heat 

20 exchangers. And briefly the liquid suction heat 

21 exchanger what it does is it transfers heat from the 

22 fluid leaving the condenser and subcools that fluid by 

23 exchanging heat from -- or cool from the refrigerant 

24 leaving the evaporator. And this is especially 

25 desirable because in addition to the efficiency 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

14

1 benefits of doing this, it also makes sure that we 

2 fully evaporate the gas -- hopefully there's no liquid, 

3 but we make sure that it's fully evaporated before it 

4 enters the compressor and so has a reliability benefit 

5 for the compressors as well. 

6 And if you look at the -- you know, this is 

7 actually something that used to be done a number of 

8 years ago and then when we shifted to R22 refrigerant, 

9 liquid suction heat exchangers sort of fell out of use. 

10 They don't have -- with R22 the benefits are not that 

11 great and also there are issues about the discharge 

12 temperatures increasing. 

13 As DOE has noticed that, you know, the most 

14 common refrigerants for remote condensing are 507A and 

15 404A. Those are the refrigerants that have the most 

16 benefits from liquid suction heat exchangers. And also 

17 134 is the most common for self-contained. So these 

18 are the types of refrigerants that benefit from this 

19 technology. 

20 Currently the walk-in proceeding hasn't 

21 evaluated this technology. Certainly we would want in 

22 setting new standards that this technology be part of 

23 the measures considered. 

24 I just returned from Light Fair which is the 

25 lighting industry commercial meeting where all the new 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

15

1 technologies are unveiled and this year we could have 

2 called it LED fair because almost all the technology 

3 that we saw at Light Fair are LEDs. They are really 

4 expanding dramatically. There's been a number of 

5 different studies that have identified that LED 

6 lighting substantially reduces the energy consumption 

7 in display cases. And also they can be easily 

8 controlled and so considering both LED lighting and 

9 also motion sensing. And there's been a number of 

10 retailers including Wal-Mart, Kroger, Target, just 

11 about every large supermarket chain has been evaluating 

12 this technology. 

13 The last time I came and described -- or 

14 during the last proceeding brought up the issue that 

15 essentially vertical open display cases is like having 

16 a refrigerator and taking the door off of it. And in 

17 terms of an efficiency measure, doors on display cases 

18 have a huge savings. And even if we can't agree on the 

19 issue about medium temperature display cases, when we 

20 look at low temperature display cases, you know, the 

21 energy impacts are just so phenomenal that it would 

22 just be ridiculous to consider having an open low 

23 temperature vertical display case. So our 

24 recommendation is that DOE consider either merging 

25 those categories or at least setting the same energy 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

16

1 targets for open and closed low temperature vertical 

2 display cases. 

3 Finally, we want to make sure that the test 

4 methods and standards are reflected market enforceable 

5 and so as part of this I think it's really important 

6 for DOE to understand how these products are sold. 

7 As has been done in the past we want to make 

8 sure that efficiency is enforceable at the level of the 

9 product catalogue. We would like to see third party 

10 certified rating so that the playing field is level. 

11 And we would be interested in understanding how the -- 

12 not only what the regulations are, but what the intent 

13 is in terms of enforcement and, you know, that we look 

14 at these various technologies, liquid suction heat 

15 exchangers, LED lighting with occupancy sensors and 

16 infiltration controls which includes windows. 

17 Now, the other thing that I think is fairly 

18 clear if you look at this standard right now it just 

19 regulates the display case and in the case that you 

20 have a self-contained condenser also the condenser is 

21 part of that rating. And I think the other thing that 

22 the industry needs is repeatable separate condenser 

23 ratings. And this would be appropriate not only for 

24 display cases in commercial refrigeration but also for 

25 walk-ins. They are often sold separately. They can 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

17

1 serve multiple loads. So having a specific condenser 

2 rating for a particular end-use piece of equipment 

3 attached doesn't make as much sense as just regulating 

4 that piece of equipment having a specific test method 

5 and a way for the market to differentiate itself in 

6 terms of energy efficiency. 

7 So I think that it is appropriate that DOE 

8 look at having a separate refrigerant condenser and 

9 condensing unit standard that's outside of this 

10 particular scope. And that display cases when they're 

11 rated they're rated to accept a variety of different 

12 refrigerant conditions to reflect the use of floating 

13 head controls. Thank you. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

15 Other brief opening remarks here at the 

16 outset? 

17 (No response.) 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: No additional opening 

19 statements before we proceed with the program? 

20 (No response.) 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Then we are going to 

22 keep right on going. Charles Llenza. 

23 RULEMAKING OVERVIEW 

24 (PowerPoint presentation) 

25 MR. LLENZA: Hi, I'm Charles Llenza the 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

18

1 project manager for commercial refrigeration equipment 

2 here at the Department of Energy and I welcome you all 

3 back to the Department to start the rulemaking process 

4 for commercial refrigeration equipment. 

5 What I wanted to emphasize here, is that you 

6 will see in the presentation throughout a request for 

7 comment box. And there are two sets of questions in 

8 terms of questions to the stakeholders. 

9 You will see two types of questions, ones 

10 that were laid out in the framework as the ones that 

11 are numbered throughout and then we have another series 

12 of questions that we have that are lettered as you go 

13 through the presentation. They are laid out in this 

14 comment box here so we would appreciate stakeholder 

15 comments as we go through the presentation for the 

16 public record. And if you would like to file written 

17 comments you can do subsequently after this meeting up 

to June 7th 18 . 

19 Okay. I'm going to talk about the rulemaking 

20 overview. The regulatory history is kind of clear, 

21 we've been through this before. EPCA 1975 established 

22 the Energy Conservation Program and EPACT 2005 amended 

23 EPCA and prescribed standards for self-contained 

equipment with doors effective January 1st 24 , 2010. It 

25 also directed the Department to develop and publish by 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

19

January 1st 1 , 2009, standards for commercial 

2 refrigeration equipment. In addition to that, and 

3 that's why we are here today, it directed the 

4 Department to determine whether to amend the standards 

5 both by DOE and prescribed by EPCA, if the Department 

6 determined there was a “positive determination” to 

publish amended standards by January 1st 7 , 2013 through 

8 a second rulemaking process and that's what brings us 

9 here today. 

10 Let me emphasize this last bullet. The 

11 situation the Department is in, is as we go through 

12 this determination/rulemaking, is that at by the time 

13 we determine that we are to amend the standards, if we 

14 determine that, we are to also to complete a 

15 rulemaking. So that's why the Department at this point 

16 in time has decided to start a rulemaking process in 

17 order to get to that determination, whether it be 

18 negative or positive, we have to actually start the 

19 process of a rulemaking with the analysis to back us up 

20 in terms of the findings for the Department. So it 

21 doesn't give us a lot of time to do a determination and 

22 then flip over and do a rulemaking. So we are in the 

23 position to have to actually start a rulemaking process 

24 at this point in time in order to complete it by 2013. 

25 DOE published a final rule on January 9, 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

20

2009, with an effective date of January 1st 1 , 2012. And 

2 today we initiate this process with this framework 

3 document which addresses the second directive from 

4 EPACT 2005. 

5 Again, the emphasis is that DOE must publish 

a rule amending standards by January 1st 6 , 2013. If it 

7 determines to amend the standards, which, again, puts 

8 us in the position that we have to go through a 

9 rulemaking process to determine that. And the problem 

10 is that once you go through a determination to get 

11 there on the schedule we actually have to go through a 

12 rulemaking process. So that's why we are here today. 

13 With the last bullet here I wanted to 

14 emphasize that we have a little bit of discretion in 

15 terms of the effective date for the second rulemaking 

16 process. And we have -- we usually have a three-year 

17 timeframe in terms of the effective date, but if it's 

18 determined we need more time we can go up to five 

19 years. 

20 Again, the EPCA factors will be used 

21 throughout the rulemaking process to -- the Department 

22 will consider the seven factors for setting energy 

23 conservation standards and you see the list here and 

24 the corresponding DOE analysis for each of the seven 

25 factors. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

21

1 Here is a description of the process that we 

2 will go through. We are at the framework today. We 

3 will have a preliminary analysis, notice of proposed 

4 rulemaking and a final rule. 

5 I encourage your comments to be submitted by 

June 7th 6 , 2010 for the framework document. And the 

7 website is at the bottom of this slide. 

8 I am just going to go through a few of the 

9 chevrons here describing these sequential steps for us 

10 getting to the standard. We're at the framework part 

11 of the process and we will in the next several months 

12 develop a preliminary analysis. And as you can see, 

13 it's quite intricate. There will be several areas that 

14 we'll be working on. Market technology, screening 

15 analysis, engineering analysis, markups, energy use 

16 characterizations, we'll be working on life cycle cost 

17 analysis and payback period analysis, shipment 

18 analysis, and national impacts analysis. And you can 

19 see the flow of how all these different analyses works 

20 in the preliminary analysis phase. 

21 Subsequently we'll get to a phase of the 

22 notice of proposed rulemaking and once the preliminary 

23 analysis is out, we'll have another meeting. We will 

24 collect stakeholder comments and we will revise the 

25 preliminary analysis accordingly. And as you can see 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

22

1 we revise all the different analyses to update them to 

2 the current information provided by the stakeholders 

3 and in terms of the analysis as we go through the 

4 process. And then we will generate a final rule which 

5 revises the NOPR and concludes into a final rule by 

2013; January 1st 6 , 2013. 

7 Here's the timeline that we developed for 

8 this rule, the second rule for commercial refrigeration 

9 equipment. 

10 At this point I would like to just -- if 

11 anybody has any comments that they can provide their 

12 comments here on the scheduling and the overview of the 

13 rulemaking. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Karim. 

15 MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. I guess I 

16 would like to go back to the fact that DOE now has 

17 started a rulemaking on both the self-contained and the 

18 remote condensing display cases. For those of you who 

19 were not involved about five years ago, we, the 

20 industry -- not just the industry, but AHRI and others 

21 went to Congress and enacted legislation to basically 

22 establish some federal minimum standard for the self23 contained product and directed DOE to do rulemaking on 

24 the other products, the remote cases. 

25 Our consensus agreement in 2005 directed DOE 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

23

1 to review the self-contained standard by 2013, but 

2 never intended to apply this effective date to the 

3 remote cases. It was not part of the consensus 

4 agreement that was reached back in 2005. 

5 Now, it's true that Congress, the language 

6 that Congress enacted requires DOE to do rulemaking and 

7 I vaguely remember that the reason why it was written 

8 that way was to make, I think, the language a little 

9 bit cleaner. Otherwise commercial refrigeration 

10 equipment would be handled in two different rulemaking 

11 cycles. But the real intent was not for DOE to start 

12 rulemaking, you know, two years ahead of the effective 

13 date of the previous standard. I believe that's never 

14 happened in the history of the parent state of 

15 rulemaking process. When DOE started the rulemaking to 

16 which the standards aren't effective yet. So, again, 

17 for us I think it makes absolutely no sense for DOE to 

18 do this rulemaking on the remote cases. And hope that 

19 others agree with us that this was never the intent. 

20 Thank you. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Michael McCabe. 

22 MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe, Department of 

23 Energy. Mr. Amrane, if I can follow up on your 

24 comment. I can appreciate your recollection as to what 

25 the parties had negotiated and offered the 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

24

1 recommendation to Congress. But in your reading of the 

2 legislation as it stands, what do you believe the 

3 legislation would require? 

4 MR. AMRANE: Again, I'm not questioning the 

5 language. I think DOE has the right interpretation of 

6 what the language says. Yes, you have to start the 

7 rulemaking. But, again, the language says that DOE 

8 may. And, again, I believe that there is no need for 

9 DOE to establish new standards given the fact that the 

10 standards that were regulated just a year ago are not 

11 yet effective. And now we are talking about revising 

12 standards that are not even in place yet. So as far as 

13 I'm concerned it does not make a lot of sense. And for 

14 those of us who negotiated the language back then, it 

15 was never the intent. 

16 MR. McCABE: Yeah, this is Michael McCabe. I 

17 don't have a copy of the text in front of me, but you 

18 used the term "may" and it does -- does EPCA use the 

19 term "may" in that language? 

20 MR. AMRANE: I don't know. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Betsy? 

22 MS. KOHL: Yeah. This is Betsy Kohl from DOE 

23 GC. It does direct DOE to consider whether to amend 

24 the standards. So the determination is part, of as 

25 Charlie was explaining, the process. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

25

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Karim, do you want to follow 

2 on? 

3 MR. AMRANE: No. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. 

5 Dave Winiarski. 

6 (Pause.) 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Harvey Sachs. 

8 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. While Dave's 

9 getting in place, ACEEE does not have a comment at this 

10 time on the question of the interpretation Mr. Amrane 

11 has raised. We have not prepared a comment on that. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Did you participate in those 

13 negotiations? 

14 MR. SACHS: I did not participate in those 

15 negotiations. Therefore, I'm not familiar with the 

16 context. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

18 MR. SACHS: I should have said that. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Dave Winiarski. 

20 RULEMAKING SCOPE 

21 MR. WINIARSKI: My name is Dave Winiarski I 

22 am a researcher with Pacific Northwest Laboratory and 

23 I'll be presenting scope and some of the other analyses 

24 discussed in this framework presentation. 

25 This slide is a little bit about the history 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

26

1 that's already been discussed. In EPACT 2005 it 

2 prescribes standard for six classes of commercial 

3 refrigeration equipment. Those are shown here along 

4 with the standards. These are for self-contained 

5 products. In 2009 -- let me go back. 

6 Essentially what we have here are 

7 refrigerators and freezers that are self-contained 

8 either with solid or transparent doors. We also have 

9 what is an effective combination product, a 

10 refrigerator/freezer with both capabilities only with 

11 solid doors. And a separate class of what we call 

12 "self-contained refrigerator with transparent doors 

13 that has been designed for a pull-down temperature 

14 application. If you actually look at the numbers, 

15 these are slightly different in terms of the standards 

16 than the refrigerator with transparent doors. 

17 So we start with these six classes. These 

18 will certainly be in the scope of this rulemaking. 

19 Karim, with respect to your comments right here, DOE 

20 also set new standards for the remote condensing 

21 commercial refrigeration equipment, self-contained 

22 equipment without doors. So I want to say the class of 

23 equipment referred to as an ice cream freezer 

24 specifically designed for an ice cream application. 

Those are in effect January 1st 25 , 2012. So we are not 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

27

1 there yet. But DOE intends at this point to include in 

2 the scope of the current proposed rulemaking here both 

3 the products that were established in EPACT 2005 as 

4 well as the equipment classes that were established and 

5 for which standards were set in 2009. 

6 In addition to that DOE is looking at some 

7 other issues that were brought up through legislation. 

8 EISA 2007 which also modified EPCA directed the DOE to 

9 consider the incorporation of standby and off mode 

10 standards where that was needed for classes of 

11 equipment. Tentatively DOE has analyzed that and 

12 commercial refrigeration equipment is typically 

13 designed to operate on a 24-hour basis. And because of 

14 that although the actual compressors and stuff may 

15 cycle during that period, DOE doesn't feel that there 

16 is a clear standby or a clear off mode period for which 

17 it can establish separate standards. And that only the 

18 active mode of energy consumption is applicable. For 

19 that reason it at this time does not currently plan to 

20 establish separate standby and off mode standards for 

21 the equipment. 

22 But we certainly welcome comments from 

23 stakeholders as to whether that's an appropriate 

24 interpretation. If it's not an appropriate 

25 interpretation we will have to consider how we would 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

28

1 modify the test procedure for commercial refrigeration 

2 equipment to separately characterize either a standby 

3 or an off mode period and measure the energy 

4 consumption during that period as well as figure out 

5 how to incorporate that in any future analysis for any 

6 new conservation standard. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: So that is the content that 

8 you can see listed in slide 22, additional comment B. 

9 So let's take comments in response to that request for 

10 comments. 

11 MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe, DOE. Mr. 

12 Winiarski, if you could back up one slide and I would 

13 like to put a question both to Mr. McHugh as a follow 

14 up to your remarks and Mr. Amrane. 

15 Mr. McHugh, when you commented you were 

16 urging the Department to take, as I understand, the 

17 products without doors, the freezer compartment 

18 products and combine them with -- in a single class 

19 with those with doors. I can appreciate the energy 

20 impact on that and you recognize that yourself. 

21 The Energy Policy and Conservation Act as 

22 amended set standards for 18 classes of refrigerators, 

23 refrigerator freezers and freezers recognizing the 

24 design of where the door was placed, whether or not it 

25 had an icemaker or not, and then subsequent amendments 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

29

1 to EPCA established separate categories of products 

2 with -- in this case commercial refrigeration equipment 

3 with and without doors. 

4 EPCA also directs the Department in 

5 considering standards to first go through a process to 

6 determine what the classes of products are. And it 

7 talks about classes as to whether or not it uses 

8 different forms of energy, electricity, natural gas, or 

9 oil, and then whether or not it has different utility 

10 features that affect the performance of the product. 

11 The legislation -- the history of the 

12 legislation clearly recognizes geometry, placement of 

13 doors, and the like in defining a utility and it would 

14 seem that the legislation makes a very good case for 

15 keeping the products in separate classes. You, 

16 yourself, in talking about it talked about the energy 

17 efficiency potential of those units with doors being 

18 much higher than it is without doors. 

19 If in your comments, or if you are prepared 

20 to comment right now, you can offer why you think we 

21 could combine then into a single class given the 

22 requirements that are in the legislation. 

23 MR. BROOKMAN: John McHugh. 

24 MR. McHUGH: Thanks. John McHugh. Yes, I 

25 think that there are two ways of addressing the issue 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

30

1 that's been brought up and it's a question of if you 

2 look at sort of the history of air conditioning, for 

3 instance, we have a couple of system types that 

4 essentially are no longer allowed in our building code. 

5 So, for instance, multi-zone systems that 

6 simultaneously heat and cool the air in the space are 

7 no longer allowed just because the efficiency is so 

8 low. So similarly with low temperature display cases -

9 - vertical display cases the inefficiency of an open, 

10 low temperature display case is so low that it raises 

11 the question about whether or not there should be a 

12 product category that includes open, low temperature 

13 vertical display cases. 

14 As an alternative you could just set the 

15 standard to be identical for open and closed display 

16 cases. And if there is some new technology that allows 

17 someone to make an open display case that has 

18 comparable energy consumption to a closed display case 

19 certainly we wouldn't be opposed. But it's -- you 

20 know, we are too far down the path of recognizing the 

21 impacts of excessive energy consumption. This is a 

22 kind of a fairly blatant method or blatant example of 

23 saying, I have enough money, I can use as much energy 

24 as I want for this. 

25 And if you look at the modern supermarkets, 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

31

1 because of the energy impacts, and also because of the 

2 product quality impacts, there just aren't that many 

3 open, low-temperature vertical display cases anymore. 

4 I don't know if that answered the question. 

5 MR. McCABE: No, I don't think it entirely 

6 did. We, under this program we are bound by the law. 

7 And so if you can take a look at what the legislation 

8 discusses as far as classes of products, and what we 

9 have to consider, I think in your comments I think 

10 you've made a case that with and without doors are 

11 separate classes. And then we would have to consider 

12 them separately and then we would have to set the 

13 standards for each class to the maximum improvement 

14 that is technically feasible and economically justified 

15 for that class. It's theoretically possible to set the 

16 same level for both classes if that level meets the 

17 legislative requirement for, you know, each class 

18 separately. 

19 But, we couldn't do it -- you know, it's 

20 arguable as to whether or not we can do what you are 

21 proposing. And I would encourage you in your written 

22 comments to take a look at the legislation and what we 

23 are allowed to do and how we can accomplish your 

24 objectives. 

25 MR. McHUGH: So related to that -- 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

32

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's just clarify. John 

2 McHugh. 

3 MR. McHUGH: John McHugh. Related to the 

4 comment, you know, clearly the intent of these 

5 efficiency acts are to enhance the efficiency of 

6 products. What capability does DOE have in 

7 recommending that certain classes of equipment be 

8 eliminated due to their extremely high energy 

9 consumption? So I guess that's the question to you 

10 folks, how you see that. 

11 MR. McCABE: This is Mike McCabe, if you have 

12 any comments on how we could consider that within the 

13 scope of the existing law we would appreciate that. 

14 Similarly, addressing the same topic as Mr. Amrane, why 

15 shouldn't we take and collapse the classes? Is there a 

16 separate and distinct utility for without doors? 

17 MR. AMRANE: I think there is and that's why 

18 the language is clear, the legislative language is 

19 clear. It defines those product classes. So I think 

20 DOE is bound by the language that Congress enacted to 

21 recognize those product categories and to establish the 

22 efficiency of the level that technology could justify 

23 and feasible and justified. That's -- so, yeah. 

24 MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe again. What is 

25 the utility of no door? What is the utility of a door? 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

33

1 If in your comments we would appreciate going into that 

2 because that would certainly help us in looking at the 

3 requirements within EPCA in establishing separate 

4 classes. 

5 MR. AMRANE: And we would in our comments. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Thank you. Harvey 

7 Sachs? 

8 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. Mike, I believe 

9 there is at least one loose precedent in the sunsetting 

10 of through the wall air conditioning category which 

11 took effect January 1s of this year. This was an 

12 obsolete category, inherently inefficient of small 

13 manufacturing volume and it was rolled into another 

14 class. Thank you. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Tim Ballo. 

16 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, Earthjustice. Just 

17 quickly on the intent of Congress. I think we heard 

18 already today that the intent of Congress in 2005 was 

19 to codify standards that had been agreed upon through a 

20 negotiated process. I don't think we can infer from 

21 that any intent of Congress regarding the utility of 

22 doors or a lack of doors on a product. 

23 It seems to me that a real value would be 

24 data on sales in the -- in the retail market from 

25 equipment with doors or without doors to see if the 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

34

1 doors actually have an impact on the end user of the 

2 product whether you consider that to be the market, the 

3 retailer, or the person who is going to the market to 

4 purchase goods. I think we will be arguing that 

5 there's no utility for doors on any equipment. But, 

6 you know, the Department certainly does have some 

7 discretion there. But it is certainly reasonable to 

8 read the statute in a way that would define the product 

9 class as refrigeration equipment with or without doors. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Yes, 

11 please. Say your name for the record. 

12 MR. CARL ROBERTS: Carl Roberts. There is 

13 some research regarding the utility of doors or the 

14 difference between open and closed display 

15 merchandisers with glass doors. I would say it extends 

16 to medium temp as well. There's no need to limit it to 

17 low temp. A refrigerator is a refrigerator; a 

18 merchandiser is a merchandiser and there is no evidence 

19 that the presence or absence of doors impacts the 

20 productivity of that equipment. 

21 In fact, recent research has dispelled that 

22 myth and ASHRI Research Project 1402 would be a good 

23 example to show that there isn't any productivity 

24 difference between vertical open cases and vertical 

25 cases with glass doors. And the energy differences are 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

35

1 huge, about two or three times the energy goes into an 

2 open case. 

3 So if our goal is to achieve the maximum 

4 improvement in energy efficiency that is 

5 technologically feasible and economically justified, 

6 why should we encourage the use of open display cases? 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, please. Say 

8 your name for the record. 

9 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. I have three comments 

10 to make. First, the speaker indicated that the 

11 commercial refrigerators are “typically designed”;

12 there is no such thing as "typical" they are designed 

13 to run around the clock, so nobody manufactures a 

14 commercial refrigerator that “typically” would be 

15 running. You know, it has to run around the clock. 

16 Number two comment is in regard to the 

17 comment that was just made about the ASHRAE Research. 

18 The ASHRAE research was done, unfortunately it's not 

19 complete and I want to make sure that people 

20 understand, that research program does not truly 

21 indicate that there is no difference whether there are 

22 doors or no doors as far as the productivity of the 

23 case is concerned. There is no denying there is energy 

24 savings, however, the other conclusions that are made 

25 are inconclusive and are not to be taken as final. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

36

1 Number three, I want to talk about the 

2 standards that actually are in place and are going to 

go into effective January 1st 3 , 2012. There is a major 

4 flaw in this standard, if I may. Commercial 

5 refrigerators that are manufactured that are used in 

6 supermarkets, as is stated in the standard, it is also 

7 stated in the AHRI Standard 1200 and also discussed by 

8 the FDA food code and the ASHRAE Standards. 

9 ASHRAE standard establishes two -- I'm sorry, 

10 FDA and NSF-7 standard establishes two operating 

11 conditions. One is 75 degrees, room temperature, the 

12 other one is 80 degrees room temperature. 

13 Unfortunately, this standard only addresses the 75 

14 degree room temperature ambient condition. That only 

15 applies to supermarket operating conditions and not 

16 convenience stores, restaurants, and the rest. 

17 As the convenience stores are getting more 

18 and more into the food side of the business their 

19 operating conditions are not 75 degree dry temperature, 

20 55 percent humidity, by far they are higher. And the 

21 current standard does not address that and consequently 

22 has a major impact on the performance of the commercial 

23 refrigerators and consequently the applicability of 

24 these cases indoor conditions and something needs to be 

done about it. Otherwise, come January 1st 25 , 2012, 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

37

1 those cases could not be sold to convenience stores and 

2 restaurants. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Other comments in 

4 this stream before we move on? 

5 (No response.) 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. We're going to keep 

7 going then. 

8 MR. WINIARSKI: Okay. And in addition to 

9 establishing -- or in addition to what we think of as 

10 more typical systems in supermarket type applications 

11 where a refrigerant is circulated from a remote 

12 condensing application out to display cases and 

13 commercial refrigeration equipment out in the sales 

14 area, there is a second method of essentially providing 

15 cooling to those display cases which we refer to here 

16 as secondary coolant systems. 

17 A secondary coolant system essentially 

18 instead of distributing a liquid refrigerant out to 

19 those display cases precools a secondary fluid, 

20 typically a brine solution or I think in some cases CO2 

21 solution out through the cases and back. In the 2009 

22 final rule DOE determined that the language that was 

23 called out in EPCA essentially precluded DOE covering 

24 those secondary coolant systems in the scope of that 

25 rulemaking. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

38

1 There were some back and forth stakeholder 

2 comments on it. I believe that those systems 

3 currently, or at the time, represented something like 5 

4 percent or 10 percent of the market. DOE also noted at 

5 the time that the standard that had been adopted as a 

6 test procedure, AHRI 1200-2006 also specifically 

7 excluded secondary coolant systems in the coverage of 

8 that test procedure. 

9 So what I wanted to do here is just 

10 reemphasize that that is in fact DOE's understanding of 

11 the current legislation. And they have no plans at 

12 this point to cover those secondary coolant systems in 

13 the course of this rulemaking. But we certainly 

14 welcome comments on how the very presence of secondary 

15 coolant systems could be considered in the course of 

16 the rulemaking, because obviously we are looking at 

17 regulating one type of a product and not another type 

18 of product that may serve essentially the same general 

19 use. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: So, comments? You see the 

21 issue box regarding the relevance of secondary coolant 

22 applications to this rulemaking. Yes, please. If you 

23 would say your name. 

24 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. There are several 

25 issues here that I think are misleading on that slide. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

39

1 Number one is that AHRI standard 1200 also excludes 

2 several other things that are covered in the rulemaking 

3 quite clearly. If you read over all the exclusions in 

4 1200 there are several of the presently regulated 

5 products which are covered. 

6 MR. WINIARSKI: That is true. 

7 MR. HON: So I think it's rather erroneous 

8 that we have some that basically tell you these are 

9 excluded and now we are taking part of the exclusion 

10 and part of it not. 

11 The second issue is that there are secondary 

12 coolant loops, there's a difficult factor which we are 

13 addressing right now. Secondary coolant loops can be, 

14 in some cases, tested under ASHRAE 72 which is the test 

15 method under 1200 only if there's a complete -- if 

16 there's no changes to a condition or there's complete 

17 changes to a condition. If it starts out as a liquid 

18 and stays a liquid, it can be tested under the test 

19 method. If it starts out as a liquid and turns 

20 completely to a gas, it can be tested under the test 

21 method. With CO2 secondary loops and transcritical 

22 conditions they start out as a slurry and maintain a 

23 slurry, but change ratio of gas and liquid in the 

24 slurry. And as such, at this time there's no 

25 finalization of a test method which would allow that to 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

40

1 be rated. And we are looking at it right now under 

2 this test standard. But at this moment it does not 

3 exist. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: John McHugh. 

5 MR. McHUGH: John McHugh. Related to the 

6 issue of secondary coolant applications, the California 

7 Air Resources Board is working on standards to address 

8 leakage of refrigerant from supermarket refrigeration. 

9 And this is a huge issue in that the global warming 

10 potential of the modern refrigerants are about 2,000 

11 times that of CO2. And current research indicates that 

12 typical leakage rates in supermarkets are on the order 

13 of 18 percent of the full refrigerant charge. And so 

14 the greenhouse gas or global warming impact of 

15 refrigerant leakage in supermarkets is fairly 

16 significant. And I have a question for DOE about 

17 whether or not mitigating greenhouse gas emissions 

18 through refrigerant leakage is within the scope of this 

19 proceeding and potentially issues around testing 

20 equipment for leakage and that sort of thing? 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Betsy Kohl. 

22 MS. KOHL: Betsy Kohl, DOE GC. The standards 

23 are for energy efficiency. I mean, it could 

24 potentially, maybe in the seven factor test, be 

25 something that we consider. But the standards, you 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

41

1 know, the legal benchmark is this maximum improvement 

2 that's technology feasible and economically justified. 

3 MR. McHUGH: John McHugh, a follow up 

4 question. Is it your understanding that federal 

5 preemption would prohibit states from having additional 

6 requirements for commercial refrigeration -- additional 

7 requirements specifically around leakage or 

8 specifically requiring secondary refrigerants or 

9 regulations requiring distributed refrigerant systems 

10 to minimize leakage? Is there anything in the 

11 standards that would prohibit the states exercising 

12 their rights to eliminate greenhouse gas from 

13 supermarkets? 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Betsy Kohl. 

15 MS. KOHL: Thank you. That's something that 

16 we would have to think about. I'm not sure about that 

17 right now. I mean, if it impacts the efficiency you 

18 may run into problems, but that's something we would 

19 have to think about. 

20 MR. McHUGH: Thanks. 

21 MR. LLENZA: This is Charles Llenza, 

22 Department of Energy. Under current statute the thing 

23 that we strive towards is the energy efficiency of the 

24 equipment. Now, in tightening the efficiency standards 

25 for this equipment that may impact the coolant in terms 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

42

1 of if there's leakage, that the equipment can't meet 

2 the standards and you can't meet the efficiency levels. 

3 But my understanding is that we don't cover the remote 

4 condensing units and the actual refrigerant leakage 

5 issues unless they are relevant to the standard. And I 

6 don't think they are. I mean, in the case of a leakage 

7 what happens is that it will end up with more service, 

8 the unit gets charged up more to maintain the level of 

9 performance. That doesn't help that leakage issue 

10 though. 

11 MR. CYMBALSKY: John Cymbalsky, Department of 

12 Energy. I think this is true for any residential 

13 cooling system in general. Right. Your air 

14 conditioner can leak refrigerant as well. And this is 

15 a general maintenance issue of the units, in my 

16 opinion. 

17 MR. McHUGH: John McHugh. My understanding 

18 is that there is not anywhere close to the magnitude of 

19 leakage for residential systems. If that was the case 

20 you would be completely out of refrigerant after five 

21 years, you know, at 18 percent leakage rate. So this 

22 is fairly significant. The California Air Resources 

23 Board has identified this as a significant source of 

24 greenhouse gas emissions. And, you know, potentially 

25 there's something that's inherently different about 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

43

1 commercial refrigeration equipment that has resulted in 

2 these high leakage rates. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: So, John, in your written 

4 comments, if you would address this. 

5 MR. McHUGH: Yes. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Harvey Sachs. 

7 MR. SACHS: John, be careful what you -- this 

8 is Harvey Sachs. Be careful what you wish for. 

9 I do have a slightly different question. If 

10 I move from a self-contained air-cooled system to a 

11 self-contained water-cooled system with a remote tower 

12 for cooling, is this within the scope of the regulation 

13 or are these separate classes? Are we eliminating 

14 these? Where do they stand? 

15 (Simultaneous conversation.) 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Dave Winiarski. 

17 MR. WINIARSKI: Dave Winiarski, I have not 

18 thought about that issue. I don't believe, and Betsy 

19 could maybe correct me here, but I don't believe that 

20 the language that was put into EPACT 2005 specifically 

21 addresses an issue of a self-contained piece of 

22 equipment with a water-cooled condenser. And that 

23 would have to be something we would look into. 

24 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs again. We certainly 

25 see such equipment in icemakers, and would not be 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

44

1 surprised to see the emergence of this kind of 

2 equipment in conjunction with water-cooled heat pump 

3 systems for a variety of applications, a specialized 

4 case in brine perhaps. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Charles Llenza. 

6 MR. LLENZA: Charles Llenza, Department of 

7 Energy. I guess this would be under the secondary 

8 coolant application characterization of the equipment; 

9 right? 

10 MR. SACHS: I think that's a good idea, but, 

11 again the difference between a conventional secondary 

12 coolant system and what I'm describing is that the 

13 compressor is at the -- at the end unit, the commercial 

14 refrigeration device whereas with a typical secondary 

15 coolant system the compressor has a rack outside. 

16 MR. LLENZA: Okay. 

17 MR. SACHS: So it's much more analogous to 

18 self -- it is a self-contained system except for 

19 ejecting to a water loop instead of the ambient air in 

20 the store. 

21 MR. WINIARSKI: David Winiarski real quick. 

22 I believe one of the things to look at would be the 

23 actual text of the legislation to see whether in the 

24 definition of self-contained equipment the condenser is 

25 assumed to be directly connected to the compressor unit 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

45

1 as a single entity. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Tim Ballo. 

3 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, Earthjustice. Just 

4 wanted to encourage the Department to revisit its legal 

5 conclusion from the earlier rulemaking about secondary 

6 coolant equipment. And if there are test procedure 

7 issues, this final rule is not due until 2013, so maybe 

8 those could be worked out in time for the Department to 

9 issue a standard for that equipment. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: And would you be more 

11 specific? What would you encourage them to reconsider? 

12 MR. BALLO: I haven't looked closely at the 

13 Department's legal conclusion from the 2009 rulemaking, 

14 but I'll be looking at that to see if there's anything 

15 that we can do about getting the Department to revisit 

16 that. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. This gentleman 

18 here. Did you have a comment, sir? Yes, you. Your 

19 name again, please? 

20 MR. NESHAN: Massoud Neshan. I want to ask 

21 you a question. This 18 percent leak that is being 

22 stated, is it average 18 percent for the state of 

23 California? 

24 MR. MCHUGH: Yes, I believe that's the case. 

25 These are a couple of studies, I don't know if they 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

46

1 were across the state or is that a national? Eighteen 

2 in the state of California. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. You can keep 

4 going. 

5 MR. NESHAN: Thank you for that information. 

6 But 18 percent, that also includes a lot of old 

7 condensing units, a lot of older stores. The new -- 

8 the way the systems are designed by far, have less leak 

9 rate than the 18 percent that was stated. There's a 

10 lot of work being done to make sure that they're 

11 leaking less refrigerant than the 18 percent, that's 

12 for the record. 

13 Number two, I want to ask a question. It was 

14 stated -- actually it was stated that this open low 

15 temperature case have less efficiency why don't we get 

16 rid of them basically. A question I would like to pose 

17 here is that, you know that the medium temperature 

18 secondary cooling system where you use glycol, they are 

19 less efficient than the DXes. Then why aren't we 

20 talking about eliminating that? It is known that it 

21 uses more energy period. So why are we promoting it? 

22 If the DOE's responsibility is to only look at the 

23 energy efficiency side of the system, then why are we 

24 talking about having a standard even for secondary? 

25 Why not eliminate it altogether? Because you know it 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

47

1 is less efficient. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, sir, please 

3 say your name for the record. 

4 MR. ALI: Sure. Masood Ali. Just to 

5 Massoud's question on that, are a concern about 

6 eliminating this. We are a manufacturer of 

7 refrigeration systems and display cases. We are driven 

8 by the needs of the customer to deliver the equipment 

9 they need. We are not going to say that this is less 

10 efficient, you cannot use it. It is dictated by their 

11 demands. There is no doubt -- there is no doubt that 

12 secondary systems that are open, freezer cases that are 

13 open, display cases consume more energy. But it is the 

14 merchandising needs that is needed to do it. So I 

15 don't think we should be contemplating to eliminate 

16 those things. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Yes, John 

18 McHugh. 

19 MR. McHUGH: John McHugh. It's true that the 

20 brine systems are less efficient, but the CO2 systems 

21 are more efficient. And there's a number of studies 

22 about that. 

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, follow on. Your 

24 name again. 

25 MR. ALI: John, this is Masood. With the 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

48

1 experience we have with the CO2 systems I don't think 

2 it is energy efficient with the recent experience. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes. 

4 MR. CARL ROBERTS: Carl Roberts. It's also a 

5 matter of degree. The differences with a secondary 

6 system are on the order of, you know, a few percent 

7 efficiency. The difference with open versus door is 

8 huge. It's been estimated that if most of the 

9 supermarkets nationwide used doors instead of open 

10 cases it would eliminate the need for several coal11 fired power plants, which I think you have to consider 

12 the degree. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Okay. I think we are 

14 ready to move on then. 

15 MR. WINIARSKI: We titled this slide 

16 "Stakeholder Equipment Issues." Primarily these are 

17 issues that have come up since or right around January 

1

st 18 , 2010 regarding compliance with those standards 

19 that were put in place in EPACT 2005. DOE has received 

20 a number of letters from manufacturers of what we call 

21 self-contained equipment, with a service-over-counter 

22 type application where you've got someone behind the 

23 counter, they're selling a product to someone in the 

24 sales area and both sides typically want to look at 

25 what's inside the case, so these have lots of glass. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

49

1 It's not clear how -- that these are the issues in 

2 terms of the amount of energy lost through that glazed 

3 area was considered in the EPACT 2005 requirements. 

4 That's been a contention of manufacturers and they've 

5 also contended at different points that maybe these 

6 were never meant to be covered. 

7 In addition there's a self-contained under8 counter refrigeration unit. These typically have solid 

9 doors but are small products. So there's a large 

10 surface area for the amount of volume that's 

11 refrigerated. And there have been some concerns from 

12 manufacturers that they cannot meet the EPACT 2005 

13 standards for these products. 

14 Several manufacturers, I guess, went to OHA 

15 and OHA basically reviews requests for exemption and 

16 OHA said that we cannot grant a request for exemption 

17 or exception for these products the standards were set 

18 in the EPACT 2005 and not directly by DOE. 

19 I'm not going to talk a lot about that, 

20 that's a legal issue that has to be taken into account 

21 between DOE and the manufacturers. However, one of the 

22 important things for this upcoming rulemaking is how 

23 should we consider that type of equipment design? Does 

24 that require separate classifications in order to look 

25 at it for other standards, future standards. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

50

1 In addition, another issue that has come up 

2 very recently is EPACT set requirements for equipment 

3 with solid doors and equipment with transparent doors. 

4 It was not very explicit on what requirements apply to 

5 a solid door with a window cut into it. And so the 

6 Department -- what I call a "hybrid door" -- so this is 

7 another sort of classification issue that the 

8 Department is struggling with and we certainly welcome 

9 stakeholder comments on how we should treat both the 

10 issue about the solid and transparent doors and those 

11 particular classes of equipment that need special 

12 consideration for this rulemaking. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. 

14 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. The ASHRAE Committee, 

15 test standard committee is looking at the mixed door 

16 situation. This is tentative, but tentatively our 

17 proposal will be coming out that any time you have more 

18 than 50 percent of the door area as glass it would be 

19 considered as transparent doors throughout the entire 

20 system. Anything less than that would be considered 

21 solid doors because we didn't want people taking the 

22 full glass door and putting a little peephole window 

23 and classifying it as a glass door; because that's not 

24 inherently what we consider a reasonable test. 

25 So the test standard probably will be 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

51

1 modified to take care of that last bullet point. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie, what is your 

3 timetable for ASHRAE? 

4 MR. HON: Our tentative target of conclusion 

5 of discussions is January of next year. That is our 

6 timeline for submittal to ANSI. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: January of 2011? 

8 MR. HON: Yes. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

10 MR. LLENZA: Charles Llenza, Department of 

11 Energy. As part of the process that we are going 

12 through, we will be looking at updating the test 

13 procedure and these are some of the issues that, you 

14 know, that we have with our rulemaking now. I 

15 understand, that we are already been set for the 2012 

16 standards when they become effective. But this 

17 rulemaking also gives us an opportunity to revise the 

18 test procedure to get some of the intricacies that we 

19 are finding that we are not exactly covered by the 

20 current test procedure. 

21 MR. HON: Charlie Hon again. The rulemaking 

22 is open meetings and they are ASHRAE meetings. The 

23 next one will be the last Sunday of June in 

24 Albuquerque, New Mexico. It is an open meeting. So 

25 anyone who wishes to come may. And then the last -- I 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

52

1 think it's the last Sunday of January that will be the 

2 final meeting. But I have to look at that schedule. 

3 One other comment there, extremely small, 

4 under counter or self-contained units, those were 

5 considered originally in California's negotiations 

6 because that's how the initial lines and structures 

7 were established and that's where those correction 

8 factors of two or three kilowatts were allowed is to 

9 allow for the loss of efficiency due to change of 

10 external surface area. So I don't know that that is 

11 that big an issue other than a few manufacturers 

12 claiming that it is. 

13 Service-over-counter is a very touchy subject 

14 as well because there are multiple different designs 

15 that fall under that category. I know that the ones 

16 that are presently under review are what are considered 

17 curved front for delis. That is because there is a 

18 cleaning mechanism set into those products where the 

19 glass itself opens up and makes it very easy to clean 

20 the product which makes it very conducive to NSF design 

21 but leaves huge amounts of air gaps. And that's the 

22 problem with it. 

23 There are old style frame structured designs 

24 with flat panels in them that can meet the standard but 

25 just barely and only certain sizes of those. If you 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

53

1 get very big it doesn't work. So, that's a touchy 

2 subject, but that's a legal issue there. But I do not 

3 understand the comment about the small, self-contained. 

4 Because if you look at the standard, it allows 

5 substantial energy -- a glass-front unit could be using 

6 3.34 kilowatts of power with no internal volume 

7 whatsoever. Just by the correction factors that were 

8 built into the lines. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Harvey Sachs. 

10 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. Just to suggest 

11 and request for the ASHRAE Committee on the hybrid 

12 doors it would seem to be the one rational approach to 

13 consider would be the area weighted minimum compliant 

14 thermal conductivity for the transparent and solid 

15 portions of the door. That would seem to give an 

16 approach which maximizes flexibility for design 

17 options. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie. 

19 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. We've looked at it 

20 extensively and thermal efficiencies are a set of tasks 

21 which may or may not be relevant because the standard 

22 is written to check the entire energy consumption of 

23 the entire product. And we do not, at this time make 

24 any special recognition of any component or special 

25 method of componentry because the standard does allow 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

54

1 for water-cooled condensing. It allows for air-cooled 

2 condensing. We do not wish to specify individual 

3 components. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Karim. 

5 MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. Regarding 

6 the service-over-the-counter issue, there is a 

7 legislative fix. We have some language that we 

8 negotiated with -- and others and this is an amendment 

9 to the Energy Bill and hopefully that language will 

10 establish a product class for service-over-the-counter 

11 with an efficiency standard. So we will be 

12 recommending that there be a separate product class for 

13 service-over-the-counter moving forward. Thanks. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: In the preceding discussion 

15 we've talked a lot about the scope of rulemaking and 

16 now specifically regarding classification issues, are 

17 there final comments on classification issues? Since 

18 we are about to move on towards test procedures. Yes, 

19 please. 

20 MR. DAVIS: Yes, John Davis with Traulsen. I 

21 think Charlie and I probably disagree on one of the 

22 categories and that's the small under counter unit. 

23 And I just would recommend that as we go forward with 

24 this we give that close scrutiny. I think when the 

25 initial standards were adopted there were probably some 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

55

1 assumptions back in 2005. So, just as we go forward, I 

2 just want to make sure you know that there's a balance 

3 to that argument, I guess. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Is there another place to take 

5 that up, or should we describe that now? 

6 MR. LLENZA: Describe it now. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: This is the place. Do you 

8 want to say more about it now? 

9 MR. DAVIS: No, I don't have all the 

10 technical details. I mean, clearly Charlie talks about 

11 there is an offset. I think it's 2.02 or something of 

12 that. I don't have all the technical details, I'm just 

13 saying that our information is telling us -- and 

14 specifically, when they say refrigerators they mean 

15 freezers. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 

17 MR. DAVIS: That's where the issue was. And 

18 we would say that small under counter freezers in the 

19 current standard for the DOE is a technical challenge 

20 when you take in all the factors and the set 

21 requirements, et cetera. So, as we -- if this is the 

22 chance for us to consider that, I'm just saying, we 

23 need to look into different sizes of units and 

24 different standards. 

25 MR. BROOKMAN: I see. And, of course, your 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

56

1 detailed written comments would be much appreciated by 

2 the Department. Charlie, do you want to add in here. 

3 MR. HON: Just a history. This was -- these 

4 lines were not actually developed by the Department of 

5 Energy. These were developed by the California Energy 

6 Commission and then it was part of the negotiations and 

7 they were accepted as national standards rather than 

8 just be California standards. 

9 The history of it goes back far enough that 

10 California did not have a very good database with very 

11 small sized units which may be part of the problem we 

12 faced. But they did have some database when they 

13 established the line. 

14 MR. LLENZA: This is Charles Llenza, 

15 Department of Energy. My understanding is also that in 

16 the California regulations they had some exceptions 

17 which they did not carry forth in the language in 

18 EPACT. And that's the current technical fix that we 

19 were hoping the Hill was working on. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Final comments on these 

21 classification issues? Yes, please. Your name for the 

22 record. 

23 MR. ANDERSON: Viktor Anderson, Structural 

24 Concepts. We have one issue with application 

25 temperatures not regarding any of this. Candy cases 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

57

1 and wine cases run 60 degrees, 55 degrees. To meet the 

2 standard we would have to design that to run at the 38 

3 degree in the average and when doing that they will not 

4 pass the energy for that. It kind of goes hand in hand 

5 with the door, no door type situation. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Is that mostly a no-door 

7 application? 

8 MR. ANDERSON: It's in a doored 

9 configuration. So that this standard for 2012 will 

10 totally eliminate that class. Actually the 2010 

11 standard eliminates that class. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

13 Final comments on these classification 

14 issues? 

15 (No response.) 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: I want to encourage you, John, 

17 we are about to take a break. And to keep the record 

18 as complete and continuous as possible, when we return 

19 from the break if you want to add some additional 

20 thoughts we'll give you an opportunity to do that. 

21 MR. DAVIS: Fine, we'll put it in writing. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Great. Let's do that 

23 then. 

24 So it's now 10:25. By our schedule we were 

25 scheduled to take a break, let's do that. It takes 15 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

58

1 minutes typically on a good day to get back here from a 

2 break. So we will resume at 10:40. 

3 (Brief recess taken at 10:25 a.m.) 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Please take your seats. 

5 We are going to take up test procedure 

6 background and potential changes. Sarah Widder. 

7 TEST PROCEDURE BACKGROUND AND POTENTIAL CHANGES 

8 MS. WIDDER: Okay. Welcome back everyone. 

9 Thank you. Again, as Doug said, I'm Sarah Widder. I'm 

10 from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and I'm 

11 going to talk a little bit about a separate, but 

12 related rulemaking that has already come up today which 

13 is the test procedure. And it's designed to occur 

14 concurrent with the energy conservation standard. 

15 Right here is the schedule. You can see we are in the 

16 framework document stage right now and so we are just 

17 beginning the test procedure analysis. We plan on 

18 publishing the test procedure NOPR concurrent with the 

19 energy conservation standard preliminary analysis. And 

20 those meetings, those public meetings, will occur, 

21 hopefully, at a convenient similar time, either back to 

22 back on the same day or possibly on two separate days. 

23 But just for everyone's convenience since they are so 

24 related. That will be in the spring of 2011; hopefully. 

25 And then the test procedure final rule will 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

59

1 be published prior to the publication of the energy 

2 conservation standard NOPR. 

3 So just what DOE is thinking about doing with 

4 their test procedure, this is a little history. The 

5 previous or current DOE test procedure published in 

6 2006 in a large publication of many test procedures 

7 adapted to ANSI/ARI Standard 1200 2006 as the DOE test 

8 procedure. And that standard, as many of you know, 

9 references ASHRE 72 2005 version as the method of test 

10 in AHAM Standard HRF1 2004 for measuring the 

11 refrigerated compartment volume. 

12 And since then ARI has become AHRI and has 

13 published a new, revised test procedure in 2008. And 

14 after reviewing that standard, there are a few changes 

15 that have basically brought the test procedure in line 

16 with the changes that DOE initially incorporated which 

17 are relatively minor but now the two test procedures 

18 agree fairly well. And it also references the updated 

19 AHAM standard 2008. 

20 DOE, because they are so similar now, is 

21 considering adapting the revised AHRI version. 

22 We are also considering a few other changes 

23 to the test procedure that you've already heard 

24 mentioned, accommodating some specific energy 

25 conservation technologies that previously were not 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

60

1 covered in any existing test procedure. These would be 

2 lighting sensors and controls, infiltration reduction 

3 devices like night curtains, as you can see here, or 

4 any other method that might try and keep the cool air 

5 in the compartment. And then other energy management 

6 controls or part-load testing as John McHugh mentioned. 

7 As we said, the current DOE test procedures 

8 don't quantify these energy conservation features. 

9 They don't treat them at all. And so we are 

10 considering amending the test procedure to accommodate 

11 these technologies. And to address that we are 

12 considering three potential methods. And these 

13 potential methods, I'm going to go through them each a 

14 little bit more in depth in the next few slides. But 

15 just to mention now, these three methods, it could be 

16 that an energy technology device will be treated by 

17 specific method and another energy technology device 

18 would be treated by a different method. And so we 

19 could use all three of these or only one or some of 

20 both. And just think about that, they're not mutually 

21 exclusive at all. 

22 So the first one I'm going to talk about is 

23 analytical methods. This would be similar to the AHRI 

24 test procedure. It would specify a percent time off or 

25 some sort of scaling factor based on industry data by 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

61

1 which a manufacturer would use to calculate the daily 

2 energy consumption. 

3 And this is similar to AHRI’s alternate 

4 component indirect effects. The advantage of this is 

5 it's consistent across all manufacturers and across all 

6 technologies and that it's simple to calculate. So 

7 there's not a large increase in burden. The limitation 

8 is that it's dependent on data which may or may not be 

9 readily available and also does not capture differences 

10 in energy technologies for a similar use. So different 

11 types of lighting sensor that may use different amounts 

12 of energy would receive the same scaling factor. 

13 Another method would be physical testing. 

14 This would be to specify a triggering schedule or some 

15 sort of alternate test conditions. And you've heard 

16 that mentioned. This would be similar to a triggering 

17 schedule, similar to the doors in ASHRE 72. You could 

18 do that for night curtains, for example, specify a 

19 certain number of hours you would pull a night curtain 

20 on a unit down for. Or different test conditions for 

21 wine coolers, for example, or different loading of the 

22 case. 

23 This would potentially require a different 

24 24-hour test. So then the limitation there would be it 

25 would be an increased burden, it may be impractical and 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

62

1 would be expensive. However, it would have the 

2 advantages of being very accurate and very accurately 

3 characterize energy use associated with the device or 

4 the energy conservation, and would represent the 

5 difference in energy technologies. 

6 And then the third would be a combination of 

7 these methods. And so it would have limited additional 

8 testing and then use that data with some sort of 

9 calculation method to result in a daily energy 

10 consumption. And so that would decrease the burden of 

11 testing, but it would still have some limitations in 

12 how you calculate it. It may not treat different 

13 technologies. It may treat them similarly and not 

14 recognize those energy conservation differences and 

15 would also have some additional testing and so there 

16 would be some additional burden there. 

17 Then the last advantage is unlike the 

18 complete physical testing method, it wouldn't introduce 

19 additional complexities to the current tests, so we 

20 already have to open doors, now how do we open doors 

21 and pull down night curtains and trigger lighting and 

22 everything. So with that, that's just a brief overview 

23 of what we've been thinking and we would like to 

24 welcome comments regarding the development of test 

25 procedures for this equipment covered in this 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

63

1 rulemaking. And we are also especially interested in 

2 specific ways we might test these equipment if we 

3 should test any of these equipment. If there's 

4 addition equipment that we are not mentioning here that 

5 may be an issue and also other test procedures that are 

6 currently in industry that might treat these or data 

7 that would help us in the development of test 

8 procedures. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie? 

10 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. We have -- I have one 

11 comment here that's very important. Number one is that 

12 we need to have a baseline number because we have a 

13 minimum energy efficiency standard and some of these 

14 energy efficiency devices may or may not be functional 

15 depending on activities near them. So I think no 

16 matter how you test these, units, you have to test them 

17 with all functions on for the full 24-hour test to 

18 verify that that unit is still capable of competing in 

19 the market itself rather than having some other 

20 doctrine to remember to change the number. So we have 

21 to have a baseline that says it is legally meeting that 

22 standard in the worst case scenario under these 

23 temperature conditions. Then we may be able to apply 

24 some other standard adjustments to them, but 

25 unfortunately with some of the previous DOE history in 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

64

1 the home refrigerator market we know that things change 

2 sometimes with specialty devices, unfortunately, not 

3 always to the positive. 

4 MR. LLENZA: This is Charles Llenza, 

5 Department of Energy. What you are saying is that you 

6 are talking about a 24/7 standard, basically, some 

7 baseline that if the unit is operating 24 hours? 

8 MR. HON: Yeah, basically after a 72-type 

9 test with all functions on for the full 24 hours under 

10 normal condition not allowing for it to shut lights 

11 off, not allowing for it to shut the compressor down 

12 for extended periods of time, so that it meets the 

13 standard test criteria for the base 24 hours so that 

14 there is some benchmark parallel test to verify that 

15 that unit is always capable of meeting the energy 

16 requirements of the code. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie, I don't want to put 

18 you on the spot, but Sarah laid out three approaches to 

19 this test procedure. Would you make a comment on that? 

20 MR. HON: Charlie Hon again. There are -- 

21 those are open discussions, every one of those because 

22 we have never found a perfect answer for those. We've 

23 run tests in our company on different energy management 

24 devices because we technically do not make our own 

25 controllers. We buy them outside and a lot of our 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

65

1 customers buy special controllers of different natures, 

2 some of which are much more efficient than others. 

3 Some of which have many different features than others 

4 depending on the product nature. The most simple unit 

5 is a motion sensor which turns off external marketing 

6 lighting if no customer is near the unit over a period 

7 of time. The only thing it turns off is the lighting. 

8 Then you go to the other extreme which turns 

9 the compressors off for extended periods of time and 

10 you run a risk of crossing food zone safety issues, 

11 those are only being applied, at this moment, on our 

12 units for non-food zone type products. There are 

13 products which we market for non-critical, non14 contamination type products and we can use those at 

15 that level. But we don't choose to ever use them on 

16 anything that would have food zone temperature losses. 

17 There's major safety issues. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, Tim Ballo. 

19 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, Earthjustice. There's 

20 always problems with trying to in a test procedure 

21 account for things that are dependent on the end user 

22 of the product actually employing a particular 

23 technology in the field. And so if the Department 

24 finds that this is a non-workable situation where you 

25 are not able to accurately depict the energy use in the 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

66

1 field in the test procedure, the Department could use a 

2 design requirement in the standards to require night 

3 curtains or require lighting sensors and controls for 

4 this equipment. 

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

6 MR. NESHAN: Massoud Neshan again. One 

7 caution I have, the intent for this what you are 

8 proposing is night -- for example, night curtain, is it 

9 to incorporate that into the standard as an energy10 saving device? 

11 MS. WIDDER: Yes. The goal would be to be 

12 able to treat those technologies as design features in 

13 the conservation standard. 

14 MR. NESHAN: Okay. The caution is then how 

15 do you address the stores that are open 24 hours a day? 

16 I mean, because you cannot enforce this. If the store 

17 is going to be open, if this device or this energy 

18 saving device absolutely would have no meaning. And 

19 you see that not only in supermarkets, but also in 

20 convenience stores that are open around the clock. 

21 MS. WIDDER: We appreciate that comment. DOE 

22 is considering that and is talking to some of the night 

23 curtain manufacturers who have some sales in 24-hour 

24 stores and it could possibly be an optional test. But 

25 we are still considering that. And I can't give a more 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

67

1 definitive answer. 

2 MR. NESHAN: If I may make one comment, the 

3 question is, why are you talking to night curtain 

4 manufacturers? Obviously they have a lot of interest 

5 in making sure that that comes into your standard. You 

6 should be talking to the end users who really would be 

7 impacted by the standard. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you for that. 

9 MS. WIDDER: Thank you. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Please make detailed comments 

11 in your written remarks, okay? 

12 MR. NESHAN: Yes. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Harvey Sachs. 

14 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. And I guess it's 

15 pretty low threshold, but you have succeeded in 

16 confusing me. 

17 (Laughter.) 

18 MR. SACHS: And the first question is whether 

19 we're talking just about the test method, in which case 

20 it might be that some of these features like lighting 

21 sensors become part of the technologies that are 

22 assumed in doing the rating for the equipment. On the 

23 other hand it could be that you are talking about 

24 having these as prescriptive measures such as the 

25 prescriptive requirements within the scope of the 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

68

1 energy standard. 

2 MS. WIDDER: We are not anticipating having 

3 prescriptive requirements of any kind. 

4 MR. SACHS: Okay. Thank you. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Charles Llenza. 

6 MR. LLENZA: This is Charles Llenza. I think 

7 that what we are trying to do in the test procedure is 

8 to provide the means of getting -- of testing these 

9 particular add-ons which in the past we don't have a 

10 means to and to provide credit on the equipment based 

11 on use. 

12 For example, if the lights go off and on with 

13 a control, right now there is nothing in the test 

14 procedure that would allow us to take credit for that 

15 particular application. So part of what we are trying 

16 to do is upgrade the test procedures so that you would 

17 have different options in the test procedures for 

18 testing these kinds of devices. 

19 MR. SACHS: Thank you. This s Harvey Sachs 

20 again. Thank you, Charles and I do owe a debt now to 

21 both Charleses in the room or two of them and I think 

22 you all have made the case very strongly that a single 

23 metric is not adequate to describe this equipment that 

24 at a minimum, and I appreciate seeing Charlie Hon's 

25 head nod, at minimum things that look like part load 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

69

1 and full load are absolutely required. So Charles 

2 Llenza, the charge to you is to try to help our 

3 colleague to my left, Ms. Kohl, understand that we 

4 can't regulate if she insists that we cannot do 

5 multiple metrics. Thank you. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Karim. 

7 MR. AMRANE: Let her respond. 

8 (Laughter.) 

9 MS. KOHL: Did I hear a question there? 

10 (Laughter.) 

11 MS. KOHL: I didn't hear the question. 

12 MR. SACHS: The question is -- this is Harvey 

13 Sachs again. The question is, how DOE proposes to 

14 handle the necessity for at least two metrics to 

15 describe the performance of this equipment with its 

16 stance in some regulatory proceedings but not by any 

17 means all. The Department cannot require multiple 

18 metrics, nor can it require both a prescriptive and a 

19 performance metric. And this is an ongoing issue for 

20 which Mr. Ballo is far more well versed than I, but we 

21 need to make the point that you can't do intelligent 

22 regulation with a pinched interpretation of the 

23 regulation. 

24 MR. BROOKMAN: I think you've now made the 

25 point. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

70

1 MR. SACHS: Thank you. 

2 (Laughter.) 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Karim. 

4 MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. I guess I 

5 have a question about the mechanics here. So DOE is 

6 thinking of adopting AHRI 1200, but in addition to that 

7 have additional test procedures requirements? 

8 MS. WIDDER: Yes, the ideal would be we would 

9 adapt AHRI 1200 2008 version and then have these 

10 potentially additional tests that may or may not be 

11 optional whether the equipment has that feature or not. 

12 It's something we're still exploring. Clearly we are 

13 in the beginning of understanding how this test 

14 procedure would work, but I think that's the current 

15 thinking is that we would adopt the AHRI version and 

16 similar reference to ASHRAE and AHAM standards and then 

17 have additional potentially optional tests on top of 

18 that. 

19 MR. AMRANE: Of course, I mean, AHRI 1200 is 

20 revised continuously and we will be opening up a 

21 standard for major revisions and that might be the time 

22 to talk about those issues. And as we did it before, 

23 we will -- all of you in this room are invited to 

24 participate in the process. And we will make sure that 

25 all of you know about it. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

71

1 MS. WIDDER: Thank you. 

2 (Laughter.) 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Dave Winiarski. 

4 MR. WINIARSKI: Dave Winiarski, Pacific 

5 Northwest Laboratory. You know, one of the things I 

6 want to emphasize for people who are looking at 

7 commenting on this is we've actually had some serious 

8 thinking about this issue. One of the problems here is 

9 while you would like to have a test procedure that will 

10 incentivize some of these technologies, we also want to 

11 make sure that we don't give credit for technologies 

12 that may in fact not be used in the field at the extent 

13 that we give credit for them in the test procedure. 

14 And as we can get comments from stakeholders on that 

15 particular issue with regard to each of these different 

16 technologies that would be great. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Other comments on 

18 this series of test procedure issues? Charlie? 

19 MR. HON: If the Department of Energy wishes 

20 to add certain test procedures to AHAM or AHRI 

21 standards we would encourage you guys as well to submit 

22 written comments-- 

23 (Laughter.) 

24 MR. HON: -- so that we can incorporate those 

25 into the standard as well. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

72

1 MR. BROOKMAN: You would welcome them at your 

2 meetings? 

3 MR. HON: Yes. I have already extended that 

4 invitation. 

5 (Laughter.) 

6 MR. HON: And quite often they come. But I 

7 also extend the invitation to submit information which 

8 may be relevant because we would very much like to have 

9 that same information more standardized in our 

10 standards as well so that even if you are not using it 

11 for federal mandates, and you're not looking under 

12 federal code, you will still see the alternate test 

13 methods. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Appreciate that. 

15 Are we finished with test procedures now? 

16 We're about to move on. Good job. 

17 MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 

18 MR. WEBER: Good morning. Collin Weber, 

19 Navigant Consulting, and I would like to discuss some 

20 of the individual analyses which DOE plans to perform 

21 as part of the preliminary analysis phase of this 

22 rulemaking process and also by discussing the market 

23 technology assessment. 

24 The purpose of the market technology 

25 assessment is simply to characterize the markets of the 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

73

1 commercial refrigeration equipment industry as a whole 

2 and potential technological measures that could be 

3 implemented within such equipment in order to improve 

4 equipment efficiency. 

5 The method that the Department plans to 

6 utilize is first identify and characterize 

7 manufacturers of commercial refrigeration equipment 

8 comprising the entirety of the industry. That's to 

9 make shipments and trends of equipment within the 

10 market, to identify both regulatory and non-regulatory 

11 initiatives intended to improve the efficiency of the 

12 equipment that will be applicable to this rulemaking 

13 and finally to identify particular specific 

14 technologies that could potentially be utilized to 

15 improve equipment efficiency. 

16 This diagram here just shows the relation of 

17 the market and technology assessment to several of the 

18 other analyses and assessments performed as part of 

19 this process. You can see the market and technology 

20 assessment has two outputs. One of them is a set of 

21 equipment classes and the other is a set of technology 

22 options that could potentially be utilized to improve 

23 equipment efficiency. 

24 The technology options are fed through the 

25 screening analysis which I will discuss momentarily. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

74

1 And produce a result of design options to improve 

2 equipment efficiency. This coupled with the equipment 

3 classes determined in the market technology assessments 

4 serve as inputs into the forthcoming engineering 

5 analysis. 

6 At this point DOE would welcome any input or 

7 data, especially, regarding estimates of market shares, 

8 equipment features, and efficiency trends for the 

9 commercial refrigeration equipment covered under the 

10 scope of this rulemaking. DOE also seeks inputs on any 

11 -- gladly seeks and welcomes -- data regarding shipment 

12 estimates of commercial refrigeration equipment and DOE 

13 also welcomes input regarding the manufacturers 

14 comprising this industry of covered equipment as well 

15 as particular distribution channels used for the sales 

16 of this equipment. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Where is Karim when we need 

18 him? 

19 Comments on this comment box? 

20 MR. NESHAN: A comment? 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. 

22 MR. NESHAN: Massoud Neshan again. Is there 

23 any plan to do engineering analysis, all the screening 

24 process you go through, is there any plan to discuss 

25 with end users the impact of these whatever we are 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

75

1 talking about on them and their operation and the costs 

2 on them? 

3 MR. WEBER: The Department would certainly 

4 take that into consideration, the potential to do so. 

5 Aris, would you like to speak to that? 

6 MR. MARANTAN: Aris Marantan, Navigant 

7 Consulting. I can tell you that during the last round 

8 of rulemaking the Department did contact end users of 

9 this equipment and we certainly plan on doing so again 

10 for this round. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Aris. Okay. 

12 MR. WEBER: Any further comments? 

13 (No response.) 

14 MR. WEBER: I would now like to speak to the 

15 subject of equipment classes. DOE, in such rulemakings 

16 as this rulemaking process, divides covered equipment 

17 into specific classes based on inherent performance 

18 related features that would justify different standard 

19 levels between subsets of equipment. This would be, 

20 for example, as discussed earlier, the features 

21 affecting consumer utility. DOE will then establish 

22 separate energy conservation standards for each 

23 equipment class. 

24 In its 2009 final rule DOE established 

25 equipment classes for the equipment that was covered by 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

76

1 that rulemaking. And also included equipment class 

2 designations and essentially nomenclature for the 

3 equipment for which standards were prescribed by EPCA, 

4 but for which DOE was not setting standards as part of 

5 that rulemaking. 

6 DOE also, I should note, could potentially 

7 further subdivide existing classes that are currently 

8 named -- warranted due to discovered inherent 

9 difference within equipment that is currently covered 

10 and subsumed within a single class. 

11 At this time DOE welcomes comments on 

12 equipment classes for commercial refrigeration 

13 equipment as well as regarding approaches to defining 

14 classes in accordance with the statutory requirements. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Comments on DOE's approach to 

16 classes? Yes, John. 

17 MR. DAVIS: John Davis with Traulsen. Maybe 

18 we're getting to nitpicky here, but I did notice a 

19 comment on the pull-down units and their consideration 

20 for solid doors. I don't know if this is the right 

21 time to comment. My understanding is the way it was 

22 originally written is for glass door units to pull down 

23 of bottled sodas and things like that. And I just want 

24 to make sure as this is written as we go forward be 

25 careful because there are blast-chill products that 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

77

1 have solid doors which are made to pull down hot foods 

2 through the danger zone. So someone might call them a 

3 pull-down product and it's a totally different product. 

4 So, we just want to make sure that it's not 

5 inadvertently pulled into the -- 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Is there a definitional nuance 

7 there that you can add? 

8 MR. DAVIS: I would say, yeah, you pull hot 

9 food through the danger zone from 135 and down into 40. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah, Aris? 

11 I had neglected when we returned from the 

12 break to invite any of you that are sitting in the back 

13 to come down and join us at the table, if you wish. 

14 Especially if you are going to be commenting on a 

15 consistent basis. So, please do so. 

16 Aris? 

17 MR. MARANTAN: Yeah, Aris Marantan. I just 

18 do want to point out to address your comment that pull19 down equipment is covered under this rulemaking as you 

20 described. Those are the merchandiser equipment that 

21 we've seen. The blaster is specifically excluded from 

22 coverage. 

23 MR. DAVIS: Okay. Thank you. 

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. 

25 MR. ANDERSON: Viktor Anderson. This is 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

78

1 where my previous statement on candy cases and floral 

2 cases application temperature should be inserted. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks for raising that 

4 again. 

5 Other comments with respect to this class? 

6 This is important these class issues now. So, Harvey, 

7 please. 

8 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. Again, I apologize 

9 for my ignorance, but certainly this is an issue that 

10 came up with walk-in coolers and freezers and if the 

11 Department is able to establish that there are classes 

12 of products that are not designed to operate at 

13 temperatures we associate with refrigeration such as 

14 food safety issues, we are certainly open to the idea 

15 that there is a separate classification for floral and 

16 candy things so they are excluded from this rulemaking 

17 if that's what has to be done. It makes no sense to do 

18 an inappropriate design to be able to test a 60 degree 

19 unit at 35 degrees. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Viktor, do you want to follow 

21 up? Or are you okay? Are you okay? 

22 Charlie? 

23 MR. HON: That category also includes even a 

24 much bigger one which is called wine. There's two 

25 different temperatures for wine service. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

79

1 PARTICIPANT: One red and one white. 

2 (Laughter.) 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's hear from David 

4 Winiarski. 

5 MR. WINIARSKI: David Winiarski. I wanted to 

6 offer a quick suggestion that currently while EPACT 

7 2005 has provided an exemption for blast chillers, 

8 specifically, it did not define what that actually 

9 meant. And so for the manufacturers, if you could 

10 provide DOE with a potential definition, that might be 

11 useful. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks, David. 

13 Massoud. 

14 MR. NESHAN: I would like to restate the 

15 comment I made regarding class one and class two type 

16 refrigerators. Those are designed to work under 75 

17 degree ambient temperature and those are designed to 

18 work in 80 degree room temperature, especially for 

19 self-contained cases. That's critical since the 75-

20 degree room temperature cases would not operate 

21 properly in an 80-degree room condition. And the 

22 energy requirement for both are according to the 

23 standard is the same which is not going to work. 

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

25 Yes, Viktor. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

80

1 MR. ANDERSON: I'd like to -- at the last FMI 

2 we brought a case that had sliding doors on it that did 

3 not meet any equipment class available today. It was 

4 essentially doors on an open case, semi-vertical open 

5 case that has minimal -- it has rear doors -- it still 

6 had rear doors on the back for loading. It may or may 

7 not have rear doors on the back. It is an option much 

8 like a night curtain would be, but without the strict 

9 formulas that would have to be met by self-contained 

10 refrigerators with transparent doors. It had a sliding 

11 glass mechanism for ease of accessibility by the 

12 merchant or the shopper. This type of equipment I can 

13 provide pictures for, but it would be an energy 

14 efficient alternative to an open case if the consumer 

15 so chose. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: That's a class that's not 

17 captured here. 

18 MR. ANDERSON: Correct. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

20 Yes, John. 

21 MR. DAVIS: Yeah, John Davis with Traulsen. 

22 To follow up to that, there's probably also a need for 

23 say custom equipment, customers that come to you with a 

24 specific need, very high ambient conditions, with 

25 special temperatures, special design so that they can 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

81

1 access it and there are time where you're building a 

2 unit and you might only build two ever. But you have 

3 to be aware of these legal requirements. So if there's 

4 any way to -- I don't know how to capture the rest of 

5 the universe in this document, but if you can do that, 

6 that would be -- 

7 (Laughter.) 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Can you describe in your 

9 written comments the other features that would make 

10 them unique? 

11 MR. DAVIS: Usually it has to do -- we can do 

12 that, to answer your question. But usually it has to 

13 do with specific holding temperatures or display 

14 requirements or there's no one set of criteria. You 

15 don't know what the next request is going to be. So we 

16 can attempt to clarify them as examples. But to 

17 capture the world of custom, or at least protect it 

18 because it's going to happen, would be helpful. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

20 John McHugh. 

21 MR. McHUGH: John McHugh. Just briefly, for 

22 the manufacturers we have exemptions for blast-freezers 

23 in California's Title 24 and it's based on the BTU 

24 rating of the coil per square foot of space. You may 

25 want to look at that per square foot or per cubic foot 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

82

1 of space when you provide information to DOE. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Harvey Sachs. 

3 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. A question about 

4 custom units. And, again, pardon my ignorance. But is 

5 this something which could be addressed through perhaps 

6 even exemptions for up to X units so we are dealing 

7 with truly custom units if you are making fewer than 

8 five of this particular kind of thing and it really is 

9 different and those terms would have to be defined that 

10 it's simply exempt because you are clearly dealing with 

11 a knowledgeable customer. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: John. 

13 MR. DAVIS: I guess it's really up to the 

14 Department of Energy where they want to set that 

15 number. But you can have a specific customer who 

16 requests one, but they could then find an application 

17 that works and the customer has a thousand stores. So, 

18 it's still custom, it's still unique, but you might not 

19 -- you design it once for that application and then you 

20 have a customer who wants to buy your product and now 

21 you're at risk. I don't know where you draw the line. 

22 MR. SACHS: Well, John, I think that's an 

23 important observation. Again, trying to achieve 

24 flexibility and energy efficiency with that transition 

25 would it be appropriate to ask the manufacturer to 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

83

1 develop an engineering basis for regulating that unit, 

2 but it moves into essentially a production process. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Charles Llenza. 

4 MR. LLENZA: The Department will take that 

5 into consideration. I think the other issue is, if 

6 we're looking at custom units, potentially the 

7 Department could regulate components of those units, 

8 for example that you have triple-pane glass, you may 

9 have certain compressors, a certain condenser unit 

10 type, refrigeration system that meet certain efficiency 

11 levels, etc. So that if you are putting together these 

12 custom units that do not fall within any of the other 

13 classes, that we are defining in our regulation at 

14 least at the component level they have to meet certain 

15 minimum requirements. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael McCabe. 

17 MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe, DOE. I want to 

18 follow up on Mr. Sach's proposal with regard to custom 

19 units and exempting them. The legislation deals with a 

20 variety of commercial and residential products. The 

21 history of the program dealt with high-volume 

22 residential products, high-volume product residential 

23 products initially, but in the commercial sector a lot 

24 of products have been added that are in many cases one 

25 of a kind because, an example, large electric utility 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

84

1 distribution transformers, large electric motors, some 

2 of the heating and air conditioning products. In light 

3 of the legislation and all that it applies to, is there 

4 any way that within the legislative confines that any 

5 custom unit or one-of-a-kind unit could be exempted 

6 from the standard? 

7 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs, sir, that's the 

8 question I was asking you. 

9 (Laughter.) 

10 MR. McCABE: Today we haven't -- the 

11 legislation talks about the energy conservation 

12 standards apply to the manufacturer of covered products 

13 in the case of the residential products and commercial 

14 and industrial equipment in the case of the products 

15 for which this is -- and it does not provide, as far as 

16 we can tell, any exemption. And if you have some 

17 thoughts as to how it could, under the existing 

18 legislative authority, we appreciate your input. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Massoud? 

20 MR. NESHAN: Well, how could you know exempt 

21 if it is not covered under the standard? If the 

22 standard doesn’t have enough category to cover a piece 

23 of equipment, then what do you do with it? The 

24 question is, do you exempt it or do you create a new 

25 category? And how long it takes to create a new 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

85

1 category? In the meantime those who manufacture it 

2 have to stand by for three or four years until the 

3 standard is developed. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Charles Llenza. 

5 MR. LLENZA: No. I think part of the 

6 experience here was in developing the categories for 

7 the first standard that we issued January 2009. And 

8 what we found is that there are a couple of cases that 

9 are not completely covered. So, now we are regulating 

10 this equipment again with another standard and part of 

11 the task now is to pick up on some of those issues that 

12 we didn't think about. Basically, you know, the 

13 Department tries to anticipate all the different 

14 combinations. What you find out is that you cannot 

15 cover everything. 

16 Therefore, for equipment that does not meet 

17 one of the developed categories, the Department does 

18 not have any authority to regulate that equipment. 

19 But, that's why we redo the rules. We go back and look 

20 and determine if the equipment merits further 

21 regulation and analysis. And in this case what we are 

22 hoping to do is to capture some of the comments that 

23 are being provided here in this meeting where you have 

24 customized equipment, how do you regulate that? 

25 So in terms of anticipating what potential 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

86

1 issues you may come up with. I'm sure that's part of 

2 what we are going to go through here in thinking for 

3 this next standard that the Department is going to come 

4 up with for this equipment. 

5 MR. NESHAN: I will appreciate that and I 

6 will also make the following comment that we -- our 

7 company manufacturers nothing but custom-designed 

8 equipment. On an average basis we introduce over 100 

9 different models every year into the market. I hope 

10 you can keep up with us as we introduce new -- 

11 (Laughter.) 

12 MR. NESHAN: -- because that is really a 

13 serious issue for us. We manufacture, for example, a 

14 display case, a commercial refrigerator that half of it 

15 is hot, half of it is cold. Of the cold, half is 

16 frozen, half of it is medium temperature. How do you -

17 - and we do this on a daily basis. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: SO this then reinforces 

19 Michael McCabe's request, especially for manufacturers, 

20 that you in your written comments tell the Department 

21 how you would wish for them to keep up with you. 

22 MR. NESHAN: Please don't. We just keep on 

23 manufacturing -- 

24 (Laughter.) 

25 MR. BROOKMAN: To use your words, "Keep up 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

87

1 with you." Viktor. 

2 MR. ANDERSON: Yes, I would like to include 

3 the SOC.SC.M. as an equipment class that was left out. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. This has been 

5 productive. We don't want to cut this short. Charlie. 

6 MR. HON: Okay. There's two other majors 

7 that have not been discussed yet. The first is chef 

8 bases which are unusual little creatures, but they're 

9 always under severe condition because they are usually 

10 under a grill, a refrigerator placed directly under a 

11 grill. They have not been discussed previously, but 

12 the energy requirements are very, very bad. But they 

13 serve a very, very useful purpose as far as keeping 

14 meats at a serving temperature and very close to the 

15 grill so that they are not transported constantly 

16 traipsing back and forth. 

17 And the largest category that is not 

18 presently being discussed is food preparation tables 

19 which is a nightmare to try and consider. Because 

20 there's a half which is always open, during all serving 

21 hours which has food components which have to be 

22 maintained at food temperature. Usually used in making 

23 pizza prep tables, sandwich tables, things like that. 

24 And we've had no discussion of those at all from the 

25 Department of Energy. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

88

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. Thank you. Other 

2 comments on this subject? David Winiarski? 

3 MR. WINIARSKI: David Winiarski. I just 

4 wanted to recommend that particularly with regard, I 

5 think, to the Type II NSF equipment, if you could be 

6 very specific in your reasons for why or why not that 

7 should be separated out as a product class from a type 

8 of class that would be very useful to the Department. 

9 MR. LLENZA: This is Charles Llenza, 

10 Department of Energy. Also in your comments to the 

11 Department on these particular types of equipment, it 

12 would be of great benefit if you can give the 

13 Department an idea of what size of market we're talking 

14 about, what kind of shipments are we talking about? 

15 Because in categorizing the equipment and doing the 

16 analysis, part of our function is to try to see how 

17 much energy is being lost by not regulating that type 

18 of equipment. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Harvey Sachs? 

20 MR. SACHS: Mr. Hon, one question for you, is 

21 there any indication that these non-covered products 

22 such as food prep tables have a range of -- a wide 

23 range of efficiencies in the market such that 

24 manufacturers who make better products are hindered in 

25 competing with those who make less good products? 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

89

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie? 

2 MR. HON: I do not know that answer. We have 

3 tested out own units and we know where they fall and 

4 they certainly consume more kilowatt-hours than a 

5 standard unit. But any time you have an open top on 

6 it, we assume that's going to happen. But do we have a 

7 definitive comparison to other people's units? No. 

8 But I have heard comments from our sales force that we 

9 have had people who could not keep the -- they've 

10 replaced other people's equipment with our equipment 

11 because of power consumption issues. 

12 MR. SACHS: So, again, this is Harvey 

13 Sachs. It seems like an implicit request of the 

14 Department is getting a better understanding of this 

15 class of equipment. 

16 MR. HON: It is a very difficult topic 

17 because the service nature of this product you can have 

18 a small interior volume with a very, very large top 

19 area which is open or a very, very small top area which 

20 is open, far exceeding the issues we face with glass 

21 versus solid doors. Probably ten-fold difference 

22 there. And so it's going to be a very difficult thing 

23 to get ahold of because until there is a true test 

24 standard which right now is being evolved in 

25 California, Pacific Gas and Electric and Food Service 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

90

1 Technology Center is working on issues at that level 

2 trying to bring those into California's regulations 

3 which will then at that time bring about a database. 

4 We don't know where we're headed with that. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. We're going to 

6 move on now. 

7 MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 

8 MR. WEBER: Thank you. So one of the other 

9 aspects of the market and technology assessment is the 

10 discussion of technology options that are under 

11 consideration and this sample here just presents the 

12 technology options outlined in the framework as being 

13 applicable to all commercial refrigeration equipment. 

14 And at this time anyone can make comment regarding that 

15 if anyone has any. 

16 (No response.) 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: And, of course, your paper 

18 copy of the PowerPoint slides you can see two screens 

19 there and not just the one projected. 

20 MR. WEBER: Yes, similarly these two tables 

21 also show technology options that are applicable 

22 specifically to equipment without doors and 

23 specifically to self-contained equipment. 

24 PARTICIPANT: Where is this in the TSD 

25 document? MR. WEBER: In the previous rulemaking that 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

91

1 would be in Chapter 3 of the market and technology 

2 assessment. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Tim. 

4 MR. BALLO: Just two quick -- sorry, Tim 

5 Ballo with Justice. Just two quick points on this 

6 slide. The fact that the Department is considering 

7 strip curtains as a design option for without doors 

8 sort of reinforces a point I made earlier about the 

9 lack of utility for a case without doors. If you can 

10 have a strip curtain that sort of creates a barrier for 

11 the people coming into your store, or to access food 

12 that's in the case, it seems unreasonable to say that 

13 you couldn't have a strip curtain, but not a door. 

14 And then just one other point. Technology 

15 options applicable to self-contained equipment only, as 

16 in a similar point I raised earlier, I just want to 

17 encourage the Department to revisit its legal 

18 interpretation that it does not have the authority to 

19 cover the remote condensing equipment as part of the 

20 standards. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Harvey Sachs? 

22 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. On slide 40 we 

23 have reference to higher efficiency compressors. The 

24 higher efficiency compressor in my mind generally means 

25 a modulating compressor or stage compressor whose 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

92

1 benefits show up at part load. In other rulemakings 

2 DOE has screened these out. And I'm specifically 

3 asking that these be considered within the technology 

4 assessment. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you for your comment. 

6 MR. SACHS: And I'll beat you up if they're 

7 not. 

8 (Laughter.) 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Viktor. 

10 MR. ANDERSON: A lot of these technologies up 

11 here -- I have two comments. They lend themselves more 

12 to a rack design than to say a self-contained equipment 

13 class. Putting a variable speed condenser fan motor on 

14 a self-contained case is going to cost a lot. The 

15 customer will not pay for something like that. And the 

16 benefit of that will not be realized for several years 

17 if not a hundred years for the cost. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

19 MR. ANDERSON: My suggestion is to please 

20 look at a cost to benefit ratio for a lot of these 

21 units up here. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Massoud. 

23 MR. NESHAN: Yes, if you go back to slide 

24 number 39, if I recall, when you were working on the 

25 standard when category one, two, three, four, five, 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

93

1 those classes were defined or -- 

2 MR. WEBER: This? 

3 MR. NESHAN: Yes. Some of these were already 

4 included when those minimum energy efficiency standards 

5 were established. 

6 For example, in the door cases, LED lights 

7 were included. Fans were already included. So I'm not 

8 sure why we are looking at this again since it's 

9 already embedded in the original standard. Number one. 

10 Comment number two, as Viktor mentioned, on 

11 the self-contained cases, some of the issues that or 

12 some of the recommendations here, again, they apply to 

13 a more of a remote type of a display case. Since the 

14 inside is store, ambient conditions do not change. 

15 There is no change really in ambient temperature. So 

16 really you cannot do a whole lot with a condenser unit 

17 that is underneath the case. All these variable speeds 

18 or variable condenser fan and all that really applies 

19 to when there is change in ambient conditions and not 

20 for a constant operating conditions. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Sarah. 

22 MS. WIDDER: Sarah Widder, Northwest Pacific 

23 National Lab. If the manufacturers could take some 

24 time to review these and then respond specifically to 

25 each of their utility or lack thereof in different 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

94

1 types of equipment, that would be very helpful in the 

2 Department's analysis. 

3 MR. LLENZA: This is Charles Llenza, the 

4 Department of Energy. Part of the reason why we list 

5 some of these things that we've already considered in 

6 the past, and they are part of this standard, is that 

7 because we are adding to the list, it's actually the 

8 mix and matches of the old and the new that might 

9 provide you higher level standards that you can 

10 achieve. Part of what the Department does is to not 

11 define what technology options you need to use to 

12 achieve those levels. So, the reason you include the 

13 old is because you can combine them with some of the 

14 new features and maybe reach those levels that the 

15 Department might end up instituting in 2013. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Massoud? 

17 MR. NESHAN: Just one follow up. I 

18 appreciate the comments, but I want to make also the 

19 following comment in that earlier it was stated we need 

20 to establish some test procedures to see whether the 

21 energy savings of these -- if you do not know whether 

22 the energy savings impacts or not, why are you 

23 including it in these standards? You need to do the 

24 testing first, get all that before you make your 

25 recommendation. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

95

1 MR. LLENZA: We're doing both at the same 

2 time. I mean, that's why the test procedure runs in 

3 parallel with the standard. And then -- and then what 

4 we are trying to do is update the test procedure so 

5 that you have a methodology that is standard throughout 

6 the industry for testing the energy use of particular 

7 features or components that the system may use. So 

8 that then when we impose a standard and you're trying 

9 to get credit for the different components that you 

10 will be able to measure that. And so it will run 

11 subsequently with the standard. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Charles. 

13 John McHugh. 

14 MR. McHUGH: Yes. I think you had mentioned 

15 earlier motion controls or occupancy controls. I don't 

16 see that on this list so I'm assuming this may just be 

17 an oversight. 

18 In addition, for evaporator fan motor 

19 controllers, hopefully you'll be looking at not just 

20 cycling controls, but also variable speed controls, 

21 especially if you are looking, you know, in conjunction 

22 with ECM motors, the ability to adjust the speed is 

23 markedly less expensive. 

24 And then finally for the liquid suction heat 

25 exchangers, this is something that wouldn't necessarily 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

96

1 just be applicable to self-contained equipment only, 

2 but could be applied to equipment that are attached to 

3 rack systems. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael McCabe? 

5 MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe, DOE. As a quick 

6 follow up to the gentleman's recommendation that we 

7 look at the benefit cost ratio in considering 

8 technologies. In the early '80s DOE issued a final 

9 rule where we had a five-year payback included in our 

10 engineering analysis. Any design option had to have a 

11 five-year payback for us to consider it. In the NRDC 

12 vs. Harrington lawsuit the courts found that we were in 

13 error in having an arbitrary consideration of the five 

14 year payback and that the legislation requires us to 

15 look at design options that are technologically 

16 feasible. And so as Charlie Llenza has said, we have 

17 tried to capture technologies, since the standard is a 

18 performance standard, and you can trade off design 

19 options, and we are trying to capture the technologies 

20 that we are aware of that are in the marketplace, 

21 either as a prototype or in products. In some cases 

22 they may be in a product that is related, but not in 

23 that particular class, but could be applied to that 

24 class. So comments on the technology and whether or 

25 not they are applicable, you know, and should be 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

97

1 considered for different classes would be quite useful 

2 in this part of the -- 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

4 Additional comments? David? 

5 MR. WINIARSKI: Dave Winiarski. One 

6 question. This is in regard to some of the variable 

7 speed compressor, variable speed condenser fan 

8 technologies. We are aware that in general the -- and 

9 for instance in open case application it's a very 

10 steady-state type of application and there may be 

11 relatively little variation in load. When you start 

12 looking both at cases with doors and door openings, 

13 it's not clear that that's true as well as there may be 

14 some ancillary issues when we look potential 

15 technologies that will reduce the refrigerator load 

16 like night curtains and lights over time, we certainly 

17 welcome people to provide input on that. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Harvey Sachs? 

19 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. David, I guess I'm 

20 missing things. I'm missing something again and that's 

21 my problem. But it seems to me that the refrigeration 

22 systems of cases like almost all other refrigeration 

23 systems are almost always oversized because otherwise 

24 since we've heard this morning, they're not meeting 

25 safety requirements. Anything which is oversized looks 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

98

1 to me like it will benefit from having modulating 

2 capabilities on the fans and compressors. For the 

3 Department to arbitrarily exclude those from evaluation 

4 is nuts. I'm sorry, that's not diplomatic. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments on these 

6 technology options? I think that we have described 

7 both the rationale and also the confidential 

8 applications. John. 

9 MR. McHUGH: Just a follow up question for 

10 Mr. McCabe. Is it the case that even though you're not 

11 allowed to look at a five-year simple payback you're 

12 still required to look at a reduction in the life cycle 

13 cost of the equipment as the basis to the standard? 

14 MR. McCABE: This is Michael McCabe. We 

15 cannot have an arbitrary value for determining whether 

16 or not to consider a design option or not. But in our 

17 rulemaking we are certainly required to look at the 

18 lifecycle cost impacts of the efficiency improvement 

19 and we do that as we structure our engineering curves 

20 we often are -- in some cases we are taking a design 

21 option approach where we identify a baseline unit and 

22 we incrementally add technology. So we can look at a 

23 point and say what the impact on the life cycle -- on 

24 life cycle cost a particular technology will have and 

25 add that point on the curve. Because obvious if you 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

99

1 reorder the technologies as you add them to a product, 

2 they're going to have different impacts on the life 

3 cycle costs. If it's the last design option added, 

4 there will be less energy saving possible than if it 

5 were the first design option added. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: We're going to keep moving on 

7 here. 

8 MR. WEBER: Thank you for your comments. 

9 Next I would like to discuss the screening 

10 analysis. 

11 The function of the screening analysis is 

12 simply to screen out technology options that DOE will 

13 not consider further as part of the engineering 

14 analysis for this rulemaking and commercial 

15 refrigeration equipment. And in doing so -- excuse me 

16 -- the Department will evaluate each technology option 

17 based on the following four criteria: The options' 

18 technological feasibility, it's practicability to 

19 manufacture, install, and service any part of this 

20 equipment, potential impacts on equipment utility or 

21 availability to consumers, and finally any potential 

22 adverse or other impacts on health or safety. 

23 At this time the Department welcomes comments 

24 on how the four aforementioned screening criteria might 

25 apply to any additional technology options that an 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

100

1 interested party could recommend to DOE. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Four screening criteria. 

3 Harvey Sachs. 

4 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. With respect to 

5 point one, technological feasibility we've seen 

6 variable band width filters applied by the Department 

7 in different regulatory contexts. We feel pretty 

8 strongly that it would be inappropriate to screen out 

9 any technology option which is commercially available 

10 internationally for the relevant equipment. That this 

11 is a global -- refrigeration is a global industry and 

12 to arbitrarily restrict assessments to those technology 

13 options which are already in use in U.S. equipment of 

14 this class we feel is not providing long-term service 

15 to the country or even to the manufacturers. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments? 

17 (No response.) 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: No additional comments in 

19 these technology options? 

20 MR. WEBER: I believe we have one. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Did I miss somebody? Yes, 

22 please. 

23 MR. CARL ROBERTS: Carl Roberts. I think 

24 it's also important to consider the reliability of 

25 these technologies too. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

101

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

2 MR. WEBER: Ready to move on? 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Charlie's got one more. 

4 Charlie. 

5 MR. HON: I have one question. Why do we 

6 discuss it at all? Because what happens between this 

7 rulemaking cycle and some other rulemaking cycle 

8 somebody comes with a completely new technology that 

9 innovates the industry? Then what? Are we going to 

10 ignore it for several years? 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's hear from the 

12 Department. 

13 MR. LLENZA: The rulemaking takes three 

14 years. And so we are -- up to the NOPR stage, I think, 

15 we are pretty much committed to be flexible in terms of 

16 what we consider. There's a certain period of time 

17 where you have to move forward so you have to freeze 

18 what you have. It doesn't preclude the industry in 

19 itself to use that innovation to further their cause 

20 for their equipment in terms of energy efficiency. And 

21 that's what gives them the advantage over other 

22 producers of equipment that meet the standard, but they 

23 don't have that innovation to get the extra energy 

24 efficiency out of the equipment. That's why we also 

25 have a cycle for reviewing the standards every so often 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

102

1 and that's why we're here today. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Harvey Sachs? 

3 MR. SACHS: Charlie, as an advocate -- Harvey 

4 Sachs -- I would suggest you could parody my position 

5 as wanting to have this process onerous enough to 

6 encourage innovation that slashes the costs and raises 

7 the efficiency. We would hope that the outcome would 

8 be that you find a way that's completely different from 

9 what the Department evaluated that actually delivers 

10 much more efficiency and much more reliability for your 

11 customers. It's a wild hope, but it underlies a lot. 

12 Thank you. 

13 MR. WEBER: I might also add that the 

14 Department's treatment of proprietary technologies will 

15 be mentioned shortly in discussion of the engineering 

16 analysis. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

18 MR. WEBER: Ready to move forward? 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Uh-huh. 

20 MR. WEBER: At this point I will begin 

21 discussing engineering analysis. 

22 A key factor in setting any efficiency 

23 standard is to analyze and produce a relationship 

24 between the increase of costs that traditionally goes 

25 along with producing more efficient equipment. And the 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

103

1 engineering analysis seeks to determine this 

2 relationship between equipment costs and efficiency or 

3 energy consumption. Excuse me. 

4 The graph on the left shows purely 

5 hypothetical relationship between manufacturers' 

6 selling price and equipment efficiency. And this feeds 

7 into some of the downstream rulemaking analysis 

8 including the life cycle costs and payback period 

9 analysis, the manufacturer impact analysis, and the 

10 employment impact analysis. With regards to the 

11 methodology that the Department will employ in its 

12 engineering analysis a number of steps are outlined and 

13 briefly summarized here. 

14 First the Department will choose equipment 

15 classes that represent high shipment volume pieces of 

16 equipment for the engineering analysis. And these will 

17 be classes or subsets within the market which the 

18 Department will analyze specifically and base its 

19 analyses off of. 

20 It will then define characteristics of models 

21 within these chosen representative classes that will 

22 serve as reference points to assess changes due to more 

23 stringent standard levels. These are baseline features 

24 of minimally compliant current equipment. 

25 The Department will then identify more 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

104

1 efficient substitutes in increased efficiency equipment 

2 using the design option approach -- design option 

3 approach methodology which is discussed in further 

4 detail in the framework document itself. 

5 From there the Department will determine 

6 manufacturer production costs for baseline equipment as 

7 well as for the more efficient equipment with further 

8 design options implemented. It will then develop 

9 selling prices -- manufacturers' selling prices based 

10 on these production costs and markups determined within 

11 a separate analysis. 

12 After this candidate standard levels will be 

13 developed which will span the range of equipment 

14 efficiencies from baseline, minimally compliant current 

15 equipment to maximum technologically feasible 

16 equipment. 

17 And finally the Department will scale the 

18 results form these specific analyses to apply to 

19 equipment classes which were not specifically analyzed. 

20 And at this time DOE welcomes comments on its 

21 intended preliminary engineering analysis methodology. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Karim. 

23 MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. I guess I 

24 would look to know from DOE what's the baseline you're 

25 going to be using for all the commercial refrigeration 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

105

1 equipment for which the standard will become effective 

2 in 2012? 

3 MR. WEBER: At this point it would be 

4 equipment which is compliant with the current minimum 

5 standards which are in effect. In the case of EPACT 

6 equipment it would be compliant with EPACT. 

7 MR. AMRANE: And those for which there is no 

8 standard today? The remote -- 

9 MR. WEBER: Aris, maybe you could speak to 

10 that. My understanding is that we would use the 

11 standards set within the first year of rulemaking as 

12 our current baseline even though the effective date has 

13 not come to pass yet. 

14 MR. MARANTAN: Aris Marantan. Yes, I'll 

15 confirm that. Our intent is to use the baseline that 

16 was established in the first round of rulemaking with 

17 the possible adjustment of anything having to do with 

18 the test procedure that's being conducted concurrently. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Harvey Sachs? 

20 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. I want to again 

21 comment on the graphic on the left side of slide 46. 

22 The imputed manufacturers' selling price versus 

23 efficiency level. The Department has relied upon this 

24 framework for decades. We've had decades of 

25 rulemaking. The peer-reviewed literature in this area 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

106

1 is sparse but suggests that if you move from this time 

2 and variance snapshot into the time series of actual 

3 revealed prices as a function of efficiency that the 

4 relationship does not look like this. Although much of 

5 the product covered in this rulemaking is done in very 

6 small production runs, as a general matter, Mr. McCabe, 

7 I believe it's appropriate to start doing some 

8 retrospective analysis of the revealed prices in the 

9 market as efficiency levels mandated have changed. 

10 Thank you. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Harvey. 

12 MR. WEBER: Thank you for your comment. I 

13 would like to clarify that this is a purely 

14 hypothetical graphic for illustrative purposes only. 

15 MR. SACHS: I'm sorry, this is not a purely 

16 hypothetical and this is the underlying hypothesis 

17 under which you work just as the geologists in 1950 

18 worked with a model of the earth that comprised of a 

19 thin crust on a thicker mantle and as a result it was 

20 impossible for them to conceive the continental drift. 

21 Your model precludes consideration in any 

22 sophisticated sense of learning curves. Thank you. 

23 MR. BROOKMAN: John Cymbalsky. 

24 MR. CYMBALSKY: John Cymbalsky, DOE. 

25 Actually, Harvey, I'm not sure which product it is, but 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

107

1 there is a graph that has a declining cost for an 

2 efficiency point that one of our teams showed me. So, 

3 as was mentioned, this is just illustrative and does 

4 not exactly follow every pattern for every product. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael McCabe. 

6 MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe, DOE. This issue 

7 has been raised in many forums already. There's very 

8 limited data as to retrospective data on this. Some of 

9 that shows -- that I have seen shows different response 

10 to regulations. But one of the questions that we've 

11 raised in previous proceedings is the relationship 

12 between the past and whether or not it can be 

13 considered prolonged. And I'll use as a specific 

14 example with a product that is not the subject of 

15 today's proceeding and that's residential clothes 

16 washers that we had made certain assumptions with 

17 regards to the manufacturer design and what the cost of 

18 that more efficient product would be. 

19 In response -- arguably in response to the 

20 standard, manufacturers redesigned the product and the 

21 resulting product was more efficient and less costly 

22 than what we had estimated. So the past certainly was 

23 in -- the experience was different than what we had 

24 forecast. 

25 However, one of the ways that the industry 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

108

1 was able to take out costs was to change the product 

2 approach, they went to a very automated process and 

3 took out a lot of labor. They also changed the product 

4 design so that the product ended up having literally 

5 one half the number of parts to it. And the question 

6 would be, with those changes made, how much is left to 

7 be made where any cost savings could be had? And those 

8 were the sorts of data that we would need that would be 

9 beneficial to this rulemaking is to what we could 

10 expect would be the cost impact. 

11 Because in our cost analysis, you know, we 

12 are making assumptions that there will be some 

13 economies of scale, that the compressors -- the more 

14 efficient compressors or the more efficient lighting, 

15 whatever the different technology options which are not 

16 common in products today would become common and as a 

17 result the costs would be lower than what they are 

18 today, but not as low as what in some cases we have 

19 seen with some previous rulemakings. It is those sorts 

20 of data that we will find very useful in helping 

21 structure this part of the analysis. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Harvey Sachs? 

23 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. Thank you. I know 

24 we have to move on and I welcome this new approach and 

25 wish we had seen more of that in the last time LEDs, 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

109

1 for example, were evaluated. Thank you. 

2 MR. WEBER: Thank you. 

3 I would next like to discuss some other 

4 issues contained within the engineering analysis. One 

5 of these that I alluded to earlier was that of 

6 proprietary designs. In the course of the engineering 

7 analysis, the Department will evaluate all design 

8 options that are commercially available or present in a 

9 working prototype. And I'd like to point out that this 

10 does include proprietary designs and technologies. 

11 However, with the caveat that such proprietary designs 

12 will only be considered if they do not present a unique 

13 path to a given efficiency level. That is, if a 

14 certain level of efficiency can only be attained by 

15 utilizing a design that's proprietary technology to a 

16 specific manufacturer, then the Department will not 

17 consider this as a candidate standard level, for 

18 example. 

19 And, of course, in considering any such 

20 proprietary technologies, the confidentiality of all 

21 manufacturers will be maintained at all times. 

22 At this time DOE seeks any information or 

23 input on proprietary designs that it should be aware of 

24 within this industry. And if such proprietary designs 

25 exist how the Department can acquire example cost data 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

110

1 necessary for evaluating them within the cost 

2 efficiency relationship. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: No comments on proprietary 

4 design. 

5 So perhaps this is something for written 

6 comments. 

7 Okay. Go ahead. 

8 MR. WEBER: Thank you. In the engineering 

9 analysis the Department will also select equipment 

10 models which it feels best represent typical offerings 

11 within each class. And a selection of representative 

12 sizes will then allow for the analyses to model the 

13 majority from a shipments' perspective of the equipment 

14 within the specific classes analyzed. 

15 As part of it's 2009 final rule for 

16 commercial refrigeration equipment, the Department 

17 developed representative equipment sizes and at this 

18 time the Department does intend to use those sizes, 

19 those capacities -- or excuse me, those sizes as 

20 starting values for this rulemaking's engineering 

21 analysis. And DOE welcomes, of course, any comment on 

22 the selection of -- excuse me -- representative 

23 equipment sizes for the equipment under consideration 

24 as part of this rulemaking. 

25 (Pause.) 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

111

1 MR. WEBER: All right. If there are no 

2 comments, I'll proceed. 

3 And one other additional engineering topic is 

4 the subject of normalization metrics. The standards 

5 prescribed by EPCA and as amended by EPACT 2005 use a 

6 metric of refrigerated compartment volume for both 

7 types of equipment in that those that have both 

8 transparent and solid doors. In the 2009 rulemaking, 

9 however, the Department chose to develop standards 

10 based on two different metrics for different classes of 

11 equipment. A total display area metric was used for 

12 open cases and for equipment with transparent doors. 

13 However, refrigerated compartment volume was used for 

14 equipment with solid doors. 

15 In this rulemaking however, DOE could 

16 consider using a consistent normalization metric for 

17 equipment classes which exhibit similar features such 

18 as having solid doors, for example, regardless of what 

19 metric is currently applicable to those types of 

20 equipment. 

21 However, DOE would need to develop a 

22 conversion between an existing volume metric and a 

23 total display area metric in order to translate the 

24 existing EPCA standards in terms of a total display 

25 area metric for equipment with transparent doors. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

112

1 DOE seeks comment regarding mapping between 

2 the volume and total display area metrics as well as 

3 any methodology that would need to be employed to 

4 translate the baseline energy consumption values 

5 between the said two metrics. And DOE also request 

6 feedback regarding any specific equipment classes which 

7 could potentially foresee the need to be subdivided or 

8 equipment categories which could potentially need their 

9 own equipment classes due to inherent features of the 

10 equipment. 

11 Should revised normalization metrics be 

12 utilized as part of the course of this rulemaking? 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Massoud? 

14 MR. NESHAN: Yes, welcome this part of this 

15 procedure in that we currently, for example, 

16 manufacture display case that's extremely deep and 

17 there's no way that we can accommodate -- that we can 

18 incorporate that step into the analysis because we are 

19 only relying on the TDA part of the display case. 

20 Whether the case is 20 inches deep or 60 inches deep, 

21 we are allowed to use the same amount of energy whereas 

22 in reality that is not the case. And something needs 

23 to be done. 

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

25 MR. WEBER: Okay. So your comments on that 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

113

1 and specifically how the Department might address that. 

2 Charlie. 

3 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. There's two different 

4 issues here. First off is that presently it's divided 

5 into basically self-contained equipment versus remote 

6 equipment. The self-contained equipment being internal 

7 volume, the remote systems almost with a few exceptions 

8 being TDA. Do you agree with that statement? 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: I'm seeing a lot of 

10 headshaking, yes. 

11 MR. HON: But that's basically from a 

12 historical viewpoint. That's because the California 

13 Energy Commission had established those criteria and 

14 the test standards were established and all the 

15 databases were built off of that. We are getting into 

16 a new section here where we did not have the database 

17 available for development and then all the remote 

18 systems, the TDA became the instrument of choice by the 

19 manufacturers. And now we are running across the 

20 inherent problem within the system. It's only one 

21 surface, so there's going to be real issues here. 

22 There's going to be real problems because of that. 

23 When do you decide and just say too deep is too deep? 

24 Is 20 inches too deep? Is 40 inches too deep? Is 60 

25 inches too deep? That's something that I don't know 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

114

1 how you're going to get around. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: John McHugh. 

3 MR. McHUGH: John McHugh. Potentially DOE 

4 might want to consider, you know, something that 

5 reflects back to its physical energy consumption and 

6 consider the concept of surface area as one variable 

7 and glazing area or display area as the other variable. 

8 Because that's really what's driving the energy 

9 consumption. And to have a metric like that, then you 

10 wouldn't have all the errors and the need to set 

11 something high so that you can actually fit things that 

12 are on the edge of the category. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Did you all 

14 address the two approaches to the metrics aside from 

15 saying it might be tough? Is there a way to -- can you 

16 say more about how the Department might do this? 

17 MR. CARL ROBERTS: Yes. Using AHAM never 

18 did work very well for the product of display cases. 

19 Using TDA works well. The energy consumption of the 

20 display equipment is governed mainly by TDA and very 

21 little by depth. But if you wanted to use a 

22 combination of TDA and shelf depth that might work 

23 well. 

24 MR. BROOKMAN: And would you also -- just to 

25 follow on, with the points being made in slide 51, are 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

115

1 you suggesting that it's possible for DOE to do this -- 

2 to do the conversion to -- maybe we need to have this 

3 in written comments. 

4 Viktor, go ahead. 

5 MR. ANDERSON: Mine may be in a written 

6 comment as well, but there's a third metric as far as 

7 the height of the case when it concerns open cases and 

8 the efficiency of the air curtain. So there's yet 

9 another metric that with Structural Concepts and others 

10 being custom cases maybe specific to a custom case 

11 manufacturer in that regard. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie? 

13 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. Basically I disagree 

14 with a couple things said here because of the 

15 difference in customer bases, there's a different 

16 viewpoint here. We have many customers who decide 

17 which case they're going to buy whether it be a solid 

18 door or a glass door by the energy efficiency numbers 

19 and comparable internal volume. They say, okay, how 

20 much will it save me if I have a solid door on there in 

21 my kitchen versus how much will I draw an advantage of 

22 the chef coming up and seeing what he wants through the 

23 glass door and pulling it out quickly? And they're 

24 comparing internal volumes only. How much can we put 

25 in the case? 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

116

1 So there is a different viewpoint. In 

2 supermarkets, display area is very, very critical. In 

3 a kitchen that is not always the case. So it is very 

4 difficult because there are different market 

5 techniques, different markets totally within this 

6 rulemaking process which are diametrically opposed by 

7 the way they are put together. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Other comments on 

9 this series of issues? (Off microphone.) 

10 MR. WEBER: I would just like to mention the 

11 Department takes into consideration the effects upon 

12 manufacturers of other regulatory changes outside of 

13 the standards rulemaking process and with regards to 

14 that DOE welcomes comments on any regulatory burdens or 

15 changes that should be considered in the engineering 

16 analysis for this equipment. And also welcome comments 

17 on any other general engineering issues that could 

18 affect the engineering analysis at this point. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Comments, outside regulatory 

20 changes? Karim. 

21 MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane. I guess, not 

22 necessarily outside this regulatory process, but since 

23 we are talking her about a category of product that 

24 will have to be redesigned to meet the 2012 standard 

25 and eventually will have to be redesigned again, you 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

117

1 know, three years later or four years later, is DOE 

2 going to account for the burden on manufacturers that 

3 will have to redesign twice in four years? 

4 MR. WEBER: The Department does intend to 

5 assess manufacturer impacts as part of its analyses 

6 during the rulemaking. 

7 MR. AMRANE: Okay. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Addition comments? 

9 (No response.) 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: It's proposed at this point we 

11 pause for lunch. And I think now is a good time to do 

12 it. It's now five minutes after 12. We are just 

13 running a little bit ahead of schedule which is 

14 remarkable. 

15 (Laughter.) 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: So I'm going to suggest we 

17 pause for lunch. We will return -- we will resume at 

18 five minutes after one. This room will be locked. You 

19 can leave your stuff here. 

20 (Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the meeting was 

21 recessed to be reconvened this same day at 1:05 p.m.) 

22

23

24

25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

118

1

2

3

4

5

6

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

119

1 . A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N 

2 1:09 p.m. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Dave, you’re next. Hope you 

4 enjoyed your lunch. Brenda, do we have any 

5 housekeeping items? 

6 (Answer off mike.) 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: So, we had a very good block 

8 of discussions in the morning, and we’re going to 

9 proceed with the agenda as written, energy use 

10 characterization. 

11 ENERGY USE CHARACTERIZATION AND MARKUPS 

12 MR. WINIARSKI: Hi again. Quickly, you’ll 

13 have a fair amount of time this afternoon. I’ll be 

14 discussing the energy use characterization, life cycle 

15 cost, pay-back period, shipments, through a national 

16 impact analysis. This will take us through the 

17 preliminary analysis stage of the rulemaking. 

18 As background, one of the things I’m going to 

19 do is since we’ve already gone through a rulemaking on 

20 this product, I’m going to put up a lot of the 

21 assumptions, in some cases simplifying assumptions that 

22 went into that first rule, and we’ll be asking for 

23 comment on whether those assumptions should still be 

24 used or are effectively valid, or whether they should 

25 be changed in this upcoming rule. And it may be a 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

120

1 different issue with regards to equipment that is used 

2 in food sales-type applications, supermarket-type 

3 applications versus a food service-type application. 

4 So as you consider comments, we’d appreciate 

5 you think about those issues. 

6 First we’ll talk about the energy use 

7 characterization. The purpose of this part of the 

8 analysis is to try to characterize the energy use of 

9 the equipment that’s being regulated at different 

10 efficiency levels that DOE is considering in the energy 

11 analysis. We also, if necessary, we’ll look at the 

12 peak electrical demand characteristics that might 

13 influence the energy price, and hence impact the LCC 

14 analysis that’s ongoing. 

15 The -- I think this slide talks about using 

16 the demand characteristics for buildings. We’ll talk a

17 little bit more about that in detail, but virtually all 

18 this equipment is effectively used within the confines 

19 of a building structure and in that building there are 

20 other electrical things going on that have to be 

21 considered in the analysis. 

22 As background, for the 2009 final rule, 

23 something like 92 percent of the shipments in that rule 

24 were remote condensing cases, which are primarily used 

25 in a food sales-type application. And the selfEERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

121

1 contained products, those open display, open without 

2 doors, self-contained equipment also is typically 

3 considered if not a majority use, at least a 

4 significant portion are used in a food sales 

5 application. So some of the assumptions that were made 

6 were considering that market specifically. 

7 The actual rulemaking was developed using 

8 energy consumption estimates that came from the 

9 engineering analysis. The engineering analysis 

10 estimates come from what is, in effect, implementation 

11 of the test procedure on those products. And DOE has a 

12 -- there’s a new test procedure at DOE. They actually 

13 had some questions as to whether the test procedure 

14 adequately reflected the energy use in the field. So 

15 we did some whole building simulation analysis, to look 

16 at both how the energy savings going from one level to 

17 another, as measured by the test procedure, compared 

18 with that as determined using a whole building 

19 simulation tool. We looked at that both with regards 

20 to the, what I call the direct loads on the 

21 refrigerated cases, the lighting, the anti-sweat 

22 heaters, things like that, as well as the combined 

23 energy use of that with the remote condensing units 

24 that were not being regulated. 

25 And we also looked at the impacts on the 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

122

1 building heating, ventilation, and air conditioning 

2 equipment in the building. One of the issues is 

3 because most of this was remote cases and much of the 

4 load on the remote cases is rejected through the 

5 condenser outside the building, we determined that the 

6 overall effects on the building HVAC loads was fairly 

7 negligible, and that using the test procedure we got 

8 numbers that compared fairly well with what we came up 

9 with in the building simulation analysis. 

10 That assumption may be less true when we look 

11 at other building types, for instance, restaurants and 

12 we certainly welcome comment as to that. 

13 In addition, during that rule, the test 

14 procedure essentially assumed that the lighting in the 

15 display case operated 24 hours a day. We brought that 

16 up in public forums, whether there was any data and on 

17 lighting operating hours, we did not get a lot of 

18 comment at the framework, so we continued with that 

19 assumption. We did do a sensitivity analysis, which 

20 looked at assuming a 24, a 20 hour, and I think a 16 

21 hour lighting level, and obviously that has an impact 

22 on the savings from the technology, and the details of 

23 that are found in the previous rule technical support 

24 document. 

25 But when we brought it back up during the 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

123

1 ANOPR public meeting, there was large number of 

2 comments that said 24 hours was a reasonable assumption 

3 for the purpose of the rulemaking. 

4 As I said, this new rule now will have a 

5 considerably larger share of self-contained equipment 

6 and that equipment, because all of the electrical 

7 energy basically manifests itself as heat within the 

8 building, that may have a greater impact on building 

9 HVAC loads. Because a lot of the studies that we got 

10 from the previous rulemaking again focused on remote 

11 condensing equipment, to the extent that we can get 

12 better data on the impact of the self-contained 

13 equipment in buildings, that would be very useful for 

14 the Department. 

15 There’s a second issue here which has to do 

16 with the lighting operating hour assumptions again. 

17 During that rulemaking, again, we used a 24 hour 

18 lighting operating assumption. For fluorescent 

19 lighting, we got comments that said, yeah, that’s not a

20 bad number. Historically there have been issues with 

21 restart of fluorescent lights. There have also been 

22 maintenance issues with moisture condensation on 

23 contacts and things like that. DOE did not -- well, 

24 DOE looked at LED lighting from an efficiency 

25 improvement standpoint, but it did not look at it from 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

124

1 a change of the operating hour standpoint. And LED 

2 lighting is at least perceived to not have issues with 

3 regards to restart. It seems to like being in a cold 

4 environment. And it also has other options, for 

5 instance, it can -- you can use automatic shut-off at 

6 night. You can dim the lights and make them useful in 

7 conjunction with occupancy sensors. And to the extent 

8 that stakeholders can provide data that would better 

9 characterize both sort of a baseline lighting 

10 assumption that may be based on the use of fluorescent 

11 technologies and appropriate assumptions for LED 

12 technologies, that would be useful for the Department. 

13 So, number of requests for comment. I kind 

14 of alluded to those, basically. The Department seeks 

15 input on whether it should be looking at the impact on 

16 space conditioning loads within the building, and if 

17 so, what options are there in order to take that into 

18 account? For instance, one option is building 

19 simulation, but perhaps there’s already data available 

20 that might provide a different path to estimate the 

21 impact of that load. 

22 We look for whatever data is available to 

23 characterize operating hour assumptions for lighting. 

24 And in general, other data sources that could be used 

25 to sort of corroborate the actual energy use of 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

125

1 commercial refrigeration equipment in the field. And 

2 in general, we seek just feedback on what’s sort of the

3 best approach for measuring the energy consumption of 

4 this equipment in the field, both in terms of the 

5 different types of cases, and maybe in terms of 

6 different applications for different food service 

7 versus food sales buildings. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: So, several requests for 

9 comment there. Let’s start with 6-1 first, reflections 

10 on how this might affect space conditioning loads. 

11 Yes, please. Your name again. 

12 MR. ALI: I’m Masood Ali.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: You need to get close to that 

14 microphone. 

15 MR. ALI: All right. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Masood, it’s not on. Turn it 

17 on, please. 

18 MR. ALI: Excuse me. I’m Masood Ali. I’m a 

19 little bit confused. They’re saying, going back to 

20 Karim’s point. Are we looking at only the self21 contained equipment in this rulemaking, or are we 

22 considering the remote display cases too? 

23 MR. WINIARSKI: Currently, DOE’s scope 

24 considers both type of equipment. 

25 MR. ALI: Right, then in that context, in 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

126

1 your previous slide you mentioned in your studies you 

2 did not find any impact of commercial refrigerating 

3 equipment CREs performance on the HVAC loads. But take 

4 any open display case, in the supermarket, every open 

5 display case will spill about 25 cubic feet per minute 

6 of air at 45 degrees into those sinks, so that may not 

7 be insignificant. 

8 Now, I’m just going to give you a suggestion. 

9 There is low hanging fruit, I mean, our intent, or the 

10 intent of the Department is to minimize the energy 

11 performance, but the store conditions have a tremendous 

12 impact, and the Friends of Southern California have 

13 done several studies, including DOE, that a percent 

14 reduction in the relative humidity in a supermarket can 

15 reduce two percent of the energy. Some of the grocery 

16 chains are already doing it, instead of 55 percent RH, 

17 if they maintain it at 45 percent, you’re talking about

18 20 percent reduction in the refrigeration energy, while 

19 we were referencing to the technologies for improvement 

20 like going from a standard shaded pole motor to a high 

21 efficiency motor, you’re talking about point two to 

22 point three percent savings in the energy. Whereas 

23 with this kind of low handing fruit that in terms of 

24 the relative humidity, you can get significant energy 

25 savings. Thank you. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

127

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

2 MR. WINIARSKI: If I can follow up on that 

3 just briefly. The Department is aware of some of the 

4 studies that you refer to about humidity within the 

5 building, and your comment is well received. 

6 Unfortunately, the control in the HVAC system in the 

7 building is not within the scope of this effort. 

8 However, what is very important is as we make -- if we 

9 go down the route of something like building modeling, 

10 making appropriate assumptions in the course of that 

11 modeling as to what should be the humidity within a 

12 typical supermarket-type space is very important and 

13 will, obviously, affect the energy use of the 

14 equipment. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Harvey Sachs. 

16 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. David, did I 

17 misunderstand that the principal impact on HVAC was 

18 studied for supermarkets? 

19 MR. WINIARSKI: For the previous rulemaking, 

20 it was, yes. 

21 MR. SACHS: And the plan for this one? 

22 MR. WINIARSKI: The current plan is a little 

23 in flux. We are considering doing a building 

24 simulation of other building types, for instance, 

25 restaurants, which are obviously a key venue for some 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

128

1 of the self-contained equipment. 

2 MR. SACHS: Again, Harvey Sachs. It seems to 

3 me that in terms of impact on HVAC, one of the extreme 

4 cases might be convenience stores, and I don’t have a 

5 sense of the relative energy use in convenience stores 

6 compared with restaurants and supermarkets. But it 

7 certainly seems important to show that they’re not 

8 significant before we toss them out, since apparently 

9 these are predominantly self-contained units that are 

10 discharging their heat into a relatively small space. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, Carl. 

12 MR. ROBERTS: Carl Roberts. The University 

13 of Colorado is currently doing a research project 1467, 

14 and that may be a good source of information. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Of course the data 

16 is making the general -- pardon me, the Department’s 

17 making a general appeal for data in this block here, so 

18 thank you for being responsive to that. Other thoughts 

19 on -- you can see the issue boxes listed here. 

20 Charlie. 

21 MR. HON: The issues are long, okay. Number 

22 one, is that you’re characterizing grocery stores as 

23 the first characterization. That’s fine and dandy, for

24 remote equipment. But non-consequential for the rest 

25 of the world. The discussions of restaurants is a 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

129

1 serious issue, in the world of free-standing equipment, 

2 convenience stores and restaurants are very, very big 

3 players. But also there are a lot of other conditions 

4 which are common, and they’re certainly not easy to 

5 deal with. 

6 There’s a town called Orlando that has a lot 

7 of remote equipment in it, and it’s usually in very, 

8 very adverse conditions because of the 95 percent 

9 relative humidity in the middle of the summer, with 95 

10 degrees Fahrenheit. So it’s a mess. But that’s part 

11 of the formulas we have to deal with because we test a 

12 unit at 75/55 and then place it in Disney World at 

13 95/95 and it is a different beast. It certainly does 

14 consume, but it does not add to a heat load because the 

15 majority of that equipment is outside. Yet, you go 

16 into the walk-in venues and you have slightly different 

17 conditions. 

18 Then you get into convenience stores and 

19 there’s a big change in recent years in convenience 

20 stores. In the 2005-2006 period, most of the equipment 

21 in the convenience stores was self-contained. They 

22 have made a major shift into a walk-in environment with 

23 roll-up trays to the glass doors, which has reduced the 

24 refrigeration load from self-contained by 75 or 80 

25 percent. And most of the recent-built convenience 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

130

1 stores in the major chains have gone that way because 

2 they are more efficient. So you’ve got to -- you’d 

3 better look at recent data, if you’re looking at 

4 convenience stores. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Wonderful. Thank you. Harvey 

6 Sachs. I would invite you, please, look at these 

7 comment boxes, 6.1, 2, 3, and 4, have we talked about 

8 end use characterization fully enough yet, I think -- 

9 to make certain that we get all the comment possible on 

10 these. Yes, Carl. 

11 MR. ROBERTS: Carl Roberts. We’re in the 

12 process of testing all of our products for the current 

13 energy standard, and that’s a huge job in itself. And 

14 it’s tempting, looking at issues like humidity, it’s 

15 tempting to say that we need to test at a different, 

16 say three different humidities or something like that, 

17 but that would make it nearly impossible for us to get 

18 through the testing that we need to be through by 2012. 

19 I think testing at 75/55 is a good place to be. It 

20 allows for fair and repeatable testing, especially if a 

21 third party is involved in that testing. I would urge 

22 us not to multiply the number of tests that we need to 

23 conduct. 

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Additional 

25 comments? We’re about to move on. Harvey Sachs.

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

131

1 MR. SACHS: Carl, this is Harvey Sachs. 

2 Again, a little knowledge is very dangerous. The 

3 concern I have is that some of the remote stuff in 

4 places like Orlando, if it’s DX, it’s not really even 

5 in a 95, 55 or 95, 95, but the rooftop environment can 

6 be substantially more adverse. With 410A, we may get 

7 into some performance questions. 

8 I think the question is whether there needs 

9 to be a rating point under really adverse conditions. 

10 I don’t have an answer, but I’m asking the industry 

11 that. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie? 

13 MR. HON: We’re getting into an area which is 

14 very difficult because there’s cost involvement, major 

15 cost. European standards have multiple standard 

16 conditions. You can rate your product to different 

17 standards, A, B, C, D, E. There’s seven different 

18 classifications, which include tropical swamp 

19 basically, is what it is. No, worse than Orlando, 

20 actually. Testing at 110 degrees Fahrenheit is pretty 

21 nasty stuff, and high humidity. 

22 But the problem here is cost. We presently 

23 are looking at very possibly third party certification 

24 for our Energy Star. We looking at additional cost 

25 every time we do this. And an average test for those 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

132

1 of you who haven’t set one up, by the time you put it 

2 in your test room and you take it out of your test room 

3 on a first time basis, you’ve consumed about a week. 

4 There’s no way around that. By the time you set your 

5 temperatures, try to run a test and you miss your 

6 temperature points, you set it again. Stabilize it 

7 again. You’ve eaten up a week of the lab time. And 

8 for those of us who have several hundreds and hundreds 

9 of products, if we go to multiple condition testing, 

10 we’re looking at amplifying our capacity to test three 

11 or four-fold, and our costs are astronomical. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: What have you done to respond 

13 to the European schema? 

14 MR. HON: We test. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: At this significant additional 

16 cost? 

17 MR. HON: Yes. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

19 MR. HON: Because there’s no option. When 

20 you have a customer demand for condition C, you have to 

21 prove that you meet condition C. Or if you have a 

22 condition E, you really have to prove you meet it. 

23 It’s like any other certification we have to sign off 

24 on, you have to meet the certs. 

25 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Massoud. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

133

1 MR. NESHAN: One comment. If we decide not 

2 to go through additional testing for different ambient 

3 or operating conditions, in this remote or self4 contained, other than 75/55, that will require, of 

5 course, that any equipment that is used in an 

6 environment that is outside of that to be exempted from 

7 any ruling that any standard that you might have. I 

8 mean, that’s it. Either you have a standard, or it has

9 to be exempted. It can’t be somewhere in between.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments on these 

11 boxes. Then also data sources. John. 

12 MR. McHUGH: Kind of following up on 

13 Charlie’s -- John McHugh -- following up on Charlie’s 

14 comments. If we have equipment that is using floating 

15 head pressure control, surely we want to make sure that 

16 the DX and the rest of the equipment are actually going 

17 to be capable of operating under those conditions. You 

18 have problems with testing under multiple entering 

19 evaporator conditions? 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie? 

21 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. We do. Any time you 

22 change the conditions, you learn from experience how to 

23 set your machine to get the integrated average 

24 temperature that meets the final result at the end of 

25 the test, the plus or minus two degrees Fahrenheit. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

134

1 But if you change the conditions, then you’re learning 

2 again, and they traditionally do not respond in the 

3 same way. 

4 There is another source which you may want to 

5 look at. ASHRI has recently released standard 189.1, 

6 which is a building standard, which does a lot of 

7 comparative analysis of different types of 

8 refrigerators in different types of environments. And 

9 the only caveat that’s built into that system is that 

10 if they -- this is designed to be codified-type items 

11 so that it could readily be incorporated into local or 

12 state codes, is that that particular standard 

13 specifically bars the use of open front equipment that 

14 does not contain air curtains. Give you an idea of 

15 where they’re headed with it, because of the constant 

16 consumption of power in that condition. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Massoud. 

18 MR. NESHAN: One comment in response to the 

19 floating head issue. Floating head, as far as the 

20 supermarkets are concerned, has been in use for at 

21 least 25 to 30 years that I’m aware of. So it’s 

22 nothing new or unique, and we’ve been able to handle 

23 the technology available, the rudimentary technology 

24 available that allows you to use a floating head. 

25 However, there are limitations. There are certain 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

135

1 limits that you cannot drop the head pressure below 

2 that, but the technology is there and we have been 

3 coping with that. But that’s only if we have the right

4 condensing unit or compressor rack available to do 

5 that. For self-contained or a small installation, that 

6 would be very difficult to attain. 

7 MR. WINIARSKI: Just to follow up on that for 

8 a second. There’s been a lot of discussion here about 

9 testing. For those of you who remember the ARI-1200 

10 test procedure, assumes essentially a compressor rack 

11 efficiency already built into that. When we actually 

12 did our buildings analysis years ago, we basically took 

13 data for those particular compressors that were in fact 

14 used, to establish the requirements of ARI1200, and we 

15 implemented a floating head pressure type control to 

16 examine the impact of different climates. And so 

17 that’s kind of built in there, and yes, there is an 

18 impact on the energy use, but we examined it across a 

19 number of climates and it seemed to be that, one, that 

20 was not something that we had control over in terms of 

21 the actual requirements of the standard; and two, it 

22 was not hugely significant in terms of the energy 

23 benefits on a national average basis. 

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie, I thought you had 

25 maybe one more comment. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

136

1 MR. HON: No. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

3 MR. WINIARSKI: Next I’ll talk a little about 

4 what’s called the markup analysis. Markups here refer 

5 to the markups in the distribution chain, the chain 

6 going from when the equipment leaves, essentially, the 

7 manufacturer’s dock, to the end user. 

8 DOE, the previous rule established markups 

9 for that chain by looking at that distribution channels 

10 individually for how that equipment moves, and then 

11 identified three different distribution channels. 

12 Those channels are shown here. Essentially some 

13 product goes directly from a manufacturer to a 

14 distributor, from a distributor to a contractor through 

15 the mechanical refrigeration contractor, who then 

16 installs it and may mark the price of the equipment up 

17 before it gets to the final customer. 

18 Two other channels that were noticed, 

19 distribution channel two here, is sales from a 

20 manufacturer to a distributor or wholesaler, and the 

21 consumer then buys directly from that customer. 

22 And the third distribution channel used was a 

23 national account where essentially sales go directly 

24 from the manufacturer to the end customer who pays the 

25 price. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

137

1 DOE established -- I don’t have them up here, 

2 but DOE established percentages of the estimated market 

3 for the equipment covered under that rule, and asked 

4 for comment from stakeholders. That data is available 

5 in the former TSD, but essentially for remote 

6 condensing equipment, the assumption was that 70 

7 percent went through the national account channel, with 

8 the remainder divided equally, fifteen percent going 

9 through the channel one there, and fifteen percent 

10 going through channel two. 

11 For the self-contained equipment, DOE 

12 established that essentially 35 percent through 

13 distribution channel one, distribution channel two, and 

14 about 30 percent went through national accounts. We 

15 certainly welcome people’s input on whether those 

16 numbers hold true and whether that would be appropriate 

17 assumptions for the ongoing analysis. 

18 And again, at each stage we’re going to talk 

19 about, there will be a markup that’s applied at each 

20 stage to give an overall markup for each channel, which 

21 will then be weighted with those shipment percentages 

22 to give you sort of an average markup for the 

23 equipment. 

24 In discussing markups, DOE does two types of 

25 markups, typically, when it does these rulemakings. It 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

138

1 does an analysis of what we call baseline markups, 

2 typically the distribution markups for the current 

3 baseline equipment in the rule. In general, the 

4 markups at each stage reflect the impact of the price 

5 leaving that stage to the cost of goods sold in that 

6 stage, so there’s an overall markup that reflects the 

7 factor relating the consumer price at the end to the 

8 manufacturer’s selling price at the beginning. The 

9 baseline markups basically cover all of the 

10 distributors or contractors expenses in that chain, 

11 plus whatever profit they make. 

12 DOE realizes that as you move up, as you 

13 increase standard levels, the cost of the equipment may 

14 increase, and if the cost of the equipment does 

15 increase, then if you applied a constant markup factor, 

16 there would be more money flowing into the distribution 

17 channels, more -- either in the form of profits, or 

18 just basically more money to cover those expenses. 

19 And so DOE does an analysis to try to develop 

20 what’s called an incremental markup. The incremental 

21 markups relate the incremental change in the consumer 

22 price at the end of the distribution chain, to the 

23 incremental cost at the beginning of the distribution 

24 chain, or incremental sales price of the equipment. 

25 DOE expects that certain costs, examples here 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

139

1 may be things like salaries, payroll, and for some 

2 equipment, rental and occupancy expenses, would not 

3 change for the distributors in that chain, or the 

4 contractors in that chain. But there may be other 

5 expenses that would, in fact, change with the cost of 

6 goods sold. For example there might be, like, 

7 insurance costs, or if the equipment got physically 

8 larger, maybe warehousing costs would change. And so 

9 DOE uses available data to try to develop both baseline 

10 markups that reflect the overall distribution chain, as 

11 well as these incremental markups to establish what 

12 costs would, in fact, increase, in proportion with cost 

13 of goods sold. 

14 So we have a number of items and requests for 

15 comment from the industry. DOE, as I said, requests 

16 information on the fraction of shipments that would go 

17 to each of these distribution channels and whether or 

18 not those in fact are the most correct channels for the 

19 purposes of this rulemaking, and for the different 

20 equipment that’s being regulated.

21 Specifically, we talked about whether the 

22 distribution channels for food sales reflect those for 

23 food service establishments and potentially a 

24 difference between the different type of food sales, 

25 for example, convenience stores versus supermarkets. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

140

1 DOE requests feedback on the general approach 

2 to using incremental distribution channel markups, and 

3 other sources of relevant data from the industry that 

4 could be used to characterize markups in this industry. 

5 Other sources -- in the previous rule, one of the main 

6 sources for distributor’s markup came from the Heating,

7 Air-conditioner, and Refrigeration Distributors 

8 International, or HARDI data, which covers distributors 

9 of the equipment. Obviously, that doesn’t actually 

10 deal with the direct sales from the manufacturer, so we 

11 had to make some assumptions there. I think the actual 

12 assumption there was that the markup to -- from -- for 

13 direct sales would have been something like 50 percent 

14 of that from the -- through the distributor channel. 

15 And we also used census data for the contractors. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s hear from the folks here 

17 in the room. 

18 MR. WINIARSKI: Sure. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Several requests for comment. 

20 Please take a peek. What about the fraction of 

21 shipments? Do you think that was a fair 

22 representation? Charlie. 

23 MR. HON: In today’s market, I do not believe 

24 that’s a statement that’s accurate. In the downturn in

25 recent times, distributor activity has decreased, while 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

141

1 national chains have maintained, so -- because if you 

2 look at the restaurant bills, private individual 

3 restaurants are really not being built right now, so 

4 the distribution is skewed at this time more toward the 

5 direct national accounts. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Would you venture a number? 

7 MR. HON: I would have to say it’s 

8 proprietary information. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: But if -- Karim, do you have? 

10 No? Okay, none of that. Okay. 

11 MR. WINIARSKI: And of course, one of the 

12 issues is whether that would be a trend that would be 

13 expected to continue into the future. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie. 

15 MR. HON: And we have not seen an increase in 

16 construction permits at this time, so restaurant builds 

17 are still a year or more, maybe two years away. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Even better than his comment 

19 is the notion that if construction was to rebound, will 

20 it return to the former distribution network? 

21 MR. HON: I do not believe we will ever 

22 return to that distribution network completely. 

23 Because I do not believe the American populace for the 

24 next several years will attempt to continue to eat out 

25 as much as they used to. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

142

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. Yes. 

2 Massoud. 

3 MR. NESHAN: Not only we are seeing a 

4 reduction in several part of through distributors and 

5 dealers, we are seeing a trend that is not -- which we 

6 really don’t like -- and that is that our customers are 

7 asking us to supply display cases to them using certain 

8 components that are supplied to us and paid by them 

9 directly. So we cannot even mark up those components. 

10 So it’s only labor content that goes into this display

11 case. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Wow. 

13 MR. NESHAN: So really they are squeezing 

14 any way they can, so that needs to be kind of 

15 considered to some extent. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: And so -- okay. That’s a 

17 distinct thread there that I won’t pursue. Charlie, go

18 ahead. 

19 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. And there’s one other 

20 factor that’s happened in the last three to four years,

21 and that is an increase in items which are considered 

22 point of sale, walk-by at the checkout counter, because 

23 the increased proportion used to -- the soft drinks 

24 now, it’s soft drinks, energy drinks, ice cream bars. 

25 There’s an increasing market for point of sale items in

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

143

1 the last five to seven years. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, Carl. 

3 MR. SACHS: I would say for the remote 

4 condensing unit equipment that those numbers agree with 

5 our experience, and they’re moving in the direction of 

6 the national accounts. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

8 MR. McHUGH: Dave, could you describe how 

9 this analysis -- 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: You’re not on.

11 MR. McHUGH: Oh, sorry. John McHugh. Dave, 

12 could you describe how this analysis captures the 

13 commoditification of products that are currently 

14 premium products, and potentially as the standards are 

15 increased, that now these are commodity products that 

16 have more competition at that particular level? 

17 MR. WINIARSKI: This particular analysis 

18 deals with the distribution channel, and to the extent 

19 that what I discussed how -- that we use incremental 

20 markups, the idea being that there will be a base -- 

21 there will be some fraction of the costs that are held 

22 constant effectively through the distribution channel, 

23 and then there will be a certain fraction, depending on 

24 particular activities in that channel that may 

25 increase. I’m not sure if your question is more 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

144

1 related to the distribution channel markups or perhaps 

2 to the manufacturer markups that are done in the 

3 engineering analysis. 

4 MR. McHUGH: John McHugh. I think this has 

5 to do with the manufacturer’s markup and the issue of, 

6 you know, the incremental markups by the manufacturer 

7 of products that are in the competitive market, as 

8 opposed to the premium product line. 

9 MR. WINIARSKI: I may have to get Aris to 

10 comment on that, but I will say that my understanding 

11 is that the markups that are developed within the 

12 manufacturing analysis are typically done based on the 

13 costs to actually build product using the sources of 

14 data that were discussed previously, and the income to 

15 those manufacturers. And I think it therefore is 

16 better reflective of an average markup for the entire 

17 suite of efficiencies that are produced. 

18 MR. McHUGH: Thanks. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, please. Yes, make 

20 sure it’s on. Just tap it. Nope. Try that one, 

21 hopefully that’s on.

22 MR. BAUMAN: Jeff Bauman, Continental 

23 Refrigerator. I guess just a couple points. The 

24 question earlier, I think Charlie raised about the 

25 distribution channel changing, and your question about 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

145

1 whether that -- plans for that would be to continue. I 

2 think we’re seeing the same thing on our side, and I 

3 think part of the reasoning that it’s not likely to 

4 come back ever, the way it is now, is that the value 

5 being added by those distribution channels are seen as 

6 not cost effective. So once companies come and they 

7 see they can save money by skipping that step, they’re 

8 going to be hard pressed to go back to it, unless 

9 there’s real value being added there.

10 Another, I just want to offer too, a number 

11 of manufacturers here remembers the National 

12 Association for Food Equipment Manufacturers, NAFEM, 

13 they do annual surveys and such, and we’ll contact 

14 them, and actually we have a meeting with them next 

15 week, and try to share in the information they do as 

16 far as the size of the industry and some of these other 

17 questions that are being raised. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: The Department’s got lots of 

19 ways to receive that data, if the proprietary -- if 

20 confidentiality is an issue. 

21 MR. WINIARSKI: Yeah, I’d like to, if I can, 

22 follow up a little bit. This is Dave Winiarski again. 

23 As I alluded to earlier, there are a couple of sources 

24 that the Department has relied on for markups to 

25 contractors, markups through the distribution channels. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

146

1 Obviously, as we start to look at bigger fractions of 

2 the market that are national accounts, the agreements 

3 between the end user and the national accounts on how 

4 they’re going to markup is kind of a sensitive area. 

5 So we welcome any suggestions as to what approaches DOE 

6 could use to sort of estimate that in the course of 

7 this rulemaking. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Let’s move on. 

9 LIFE CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSIS 

10 MR. WINIARSKI: So, going through here, the 

11 next stage is the life cycle cost and payback period 

12 analysis. The purpose of this analysis is to assess 

13 the net life cycle cost benefits for higher standard 

14 levels, and it also calculates the payback period for 

15 those higher efficiency standard levels. 

16 To get some quick background, the life cycle 

17 cost, LCC here, is essentially calculated as the 

18 consumer price, or the first cost of the equipment 

19 including installation, plus the operating cost over 

20 the life of the equipment, discounted to a present 

21 value -- or discounted to a present value year. Those 

22 are added together to develop the consumer life cycle 

23 cost, and then DOE expresses the results of this 

24 analysis as life cycle cost savings for each standard 

25 level that’s being considered. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

147

1 The analysis is done, again, from the 

2 perspective of the end customer. It’s implemented in 

3 an Excel spreadsheet which the Department will post 

4 online, both for the preliminary analysis and for the 

5 NOPR. 

6 The rules -- let’s see here -- oh, and as I 

7 said before, we calculate simple payback. Simple 

8 payback is calculated as the incremental first cost of 

9 the equipment divided by the operating cost savings, 

10 typically in the first year for the equipment. We may 

11 amortize things like maintenance expenses to 

12 accommodate that. 

13 This is a much more detailed flow chart that 

14 describes how the analysis is actually carried out. 

15 The yellow boxes shown here are the inputs to the 

16 analysis. Typically, those inputs come from the 

17 engineering, from the markups analysis work, and from 

18 the work involved in the energy use characterization. 

19 The green boxes are intermediate analyses, so we 

20 essentially bring the markups and the engineering cost 

21 curves together to get consumer prices. Those prices 

22 join with the installation cost to get total installed 

23 costs. On the lower half, we take the energy 

24 consumption and, where necessary, the impact of demand 

25 and electricity prices to develop annual energy 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

148

1 expenses for the operation of equipment at each 

2 standard level. To that we add repair costs and 

3 maintenance costs over the life of the equipment, to 

4 develop annual operating expenses and those operating 

5 expenses are discounted over the lifetime of the 

6 equipment, and we take into account electricity price 

7 trends into the future over the life of the equipment, 

8 starting with the implementation date of the rule. 

9 And from those we generate a life cycle cost 

10 as well as our payback period, which get reported in 

11 the TSD and the NOPR and preliminary analyses. 

12 As I said, we have these energy prices, those 

13 are necessary to convert the energy use to energy 

14 costs. For the previous rule and the current intent 

15 for this rule, was to use regional average electricity 

16 prices appropriate to the commercial sector, and more 

17 explicitly, to the particular building types that 

18 utilize this equipment. And for the projections, DOE 

19 relies on the energy information administration’s 

20 annual energy outlook projections, which it will update 

21 to the most recent projections available for each step 

22 of the analysis. 

23 We welcome any input on electricity price 

24 assumptions here. One general comment is that part of 

25 the reason for the assumption for using average 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

149

1 electricity prices instead of marginal prices in the 

2 previous rule, was that for the supermarket type 

3 applications, the load profiles are generally fairly 

4 flat from the electricity standpoint. Again, that may 

5 be less true when we look at other types of building 

6 applications. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie. 

8 MR. STEPHENS: I’m Charlie Stephens. Dave, 

9 do you fold in demand charges into those prices, or do 

10 you just ignore those? 

11 MR. WINIARSKI: The average electricity 

12 prices come from EIA surveys and they have already have 

13 the demand cost folded into them. 

14 MR. STEPHENS: Okay, and you don’t try to do 

15 that by scale or -- and when you say average, you’re 

16 talking about just the average across an entire sector? 

17 MR. WINIARSKI: The way it was actually done 

18 in the previous rule is we took the commercial sector 

19 average electricity prices that are available from EIA 

20 at a regional level. We then scaled those and we 

21 scaled them using data from CBECs that were essentially 

22 based on the ratio of the electricity prices paid on 

23 average for a given sector, like supermarkets, as 

24 reported in CBECs, to the overall commercial sector 

25 average. So we had these multipliers for each building 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

150

1 type we applied to the commercial average energy use. 

2 MR. STEPHENS: Good. Thank you. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Massoud. 

4 MR. NESHAN: Yes, Massoud Neshan. One 

5 question. If you go back to your slide number 64, 

6 where you have the baseline manufacturing price and 

7 also a standard level manufacturing price. Obviously, 

8 you’re looking at the manufacturing cost, but there’s a

9 lot of costs associated to the development, design, 

10 testing, and certification process of these equipment 

11 before we even get to this point. Where do you include 

12 that in your analysis? 

13 MR. WINIARSKI: That is included in the 

14 engineering analysis. 

15 MR. NESHAN: Thank you. 

16 MR. WINIARSKI: Because there is typically a 

17 preference for saving money now rather than in the 

18 future for most commercial industries, we have to use 

19 what’s called a discount rate to discount the energy 

20 savings from future -- over the life of the equipment 

21 back to a present value. DOE derives life cycle costs 

22 discount rates based on what’s called the weighted 

23 average cost of capital, which takes into account the 

24 costs a business has either in terms of having to issue 

25 equity or issue debt to the business as the discount 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

151

1 rate that that business sees on an overall basis. DOE 

2 looks in particular for this rulemaking for the 

3 corporation types that use this particular equipment. 

4 The data source is from a New York college professor, a 

5 Dr. Damodaran who publishes a lot of this type of data 

6 on business finances on line. And DOE has relied on 

7 that for a lot of the commercial rulemaking work. 

8 Again, for the previous rule, we looked at 

9 four types of businesses and tried to assess discount 

10 rates for those four types, primarily I think we had 

11 small grocery stores, large grocery stores, some food 

12 service I think was in that mix as well. But we do 

13 certainly seek comment on whether that’s an appropriate

14 method, using the weighted average cost of capital and 

15 whether or not there are other entities besides grocery 

16 stores and restaurants that should be considered here. 

17 In particular, one of the questions that has 

18 come up in other products is whether there’s enough 

19 government purchases of this type of equipment to 

20 warrant including them as a separate category of end 

21 user. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Dan. 

23 MR. MANOLE: Dan Manole. If you would take 

24 us to the previous slide. 

25 MR. WINIARSKI: Previous to this one? 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

152

1 MR. MANOLE: Have you included in the 

2 engineering analysis also the cost of additional 

3 testing? We talked today about night curtains and 

4 multiple temperature testing, that will add for every, 

5 or for two of a kind products, you may need to make 

6 testing. That will add cost. Have you included that 

7 one? That will be -- 

8 MR. WINIARSKI: I will let Aris Marantan 

9 respond to that. 

10 MR. MARANTAN: Aris Marantan. For the 

11 engineering analysis we do expect to talk to 

12 manufacturers to get their input on how much they 

13 expect to pay for testing, and these are definitely 

14 topics of discussion when we come around after the 

15 framework document, to visit manufacturers. So we can 

16 get into your estimated costs for testing. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments on the 

18 Department’s approach to discount rates? You see the 

19 specific questions, and the way they’ve arrayed their 

20 approach with different store types? Charlie? 

21 MR. HON: There’s an additional factor in our 

22 market which is used equipment, and the very, very low 

23 end purchasers do not buy new equipment. National 

24 Restaurant Association ran a survey that said the 

25 average kitchen refrigerator will be owned seven times 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

153

1 before it’s scrapped. And unfortunately, that’s a real

2 entity within the markets because mom and pop shops 

3 open a restaurant on a shoestring, and do not buy new 

4 equipment, while chains buy new equipment and maintain 

5 it at the same location for many years. So there’s an 

6 entity in here that’s happening, and if we start 

7 driving up the price of high efficiency equipment too 

8 much, as the higher prices go up on new equipment, the 

9 market increases for used equipment. We’ve got to be 

10 very cognizant of that because it’s a very ugly 

11 situation. There are rules and regulations which 

12 sometimes impede that market. California has discussed 

13 possibility of regulating used equipment as well as new 

14 equipment and has gotten into all sorts of legal 

15 battles over it and gave up, I think. 

16 But there’s a real issue there because 

17 inherently the used equipment is also the old 

18 equipment, which is also the most inefficient 

19 equipment, so you have a real issue there. And it’s a 

20 non-traceable -- it’s just everywhere.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Other comments 

22 regarding this approach? 

23 (No response.) 

24 MR. WINIARSKI: So going on here, for the LCC 

25 analysis, DOE also has to account for installation, 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

154

1 maintenance and repair costs. In the approach used in 

2 the 2009 rulemaking for this was that installation 

3 costs for any of the equipment covered were not 

4 expected to change with the increase in equipment 

5 efficiency. The actual baseline installation costs 

6 were developed largely from input from the public 

7 meetings for the final rule, at least. 

8 In addition, DOE develops the maintenance 

9 from repair costs. The source for the maintenance 

10 costs were RS Means Facilities Maintenance Handbook, 

11 and Repair Cost Data Handbook. The assumptions used in 

12 that rulemaking for maintenance costs were that it 

13 could be broken down into what’s called preventative 

14 maintenance, basically, things like cleaning cases and 

15 such like that. And in addition there was a -- because 

16 lighting was known to be replaced on certain regular 

17 intervals, we had a separate category for what we 

18 called lighting maintenance. And I think the 

19 assumptions at the time were that fluorescent lightings 

20 would be replaced on an average, every two years. When 

21 we looked at analyzing LEDs, I think we used a 50,000 

22 hour life time, but we did assume that the, in a 

23 baseline, those LEDs were actually on 24 hours, so 

24 there’s some issues with those assumptions.

25 We welcome feedback, both on the assumption 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

155

1 that the maintenance expenses were essentially constant 

2 for preventative maintenance. Oh, I forgot to mention 

3 that we actually looked at repair costs in terms of the 

4 particular design options that were being incorporated. 

5 For instance, if one of the design options was an ECM 

6 motor, and that ECM motor was expected to last five 

7 years and then have to be replaced, we tried to gather 

8 cost for an ECM motor for a field replacement and 

9 include that in the base assumptions. 

10 So anyway, we certainly would like feedback 

11 on whether the assumptions that the installation cost 

12 changes would be negligible and that preventative 

13 maintenance would be effectively negligible. And if 

14 those are not reasonable assumptions, we welcome input 

15 on what would be better alternatives for DOE use. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Massoud. 

17 MR. NESHAN: Massoud Neshan. I do not have 

18 any number to share with you, but as we make these 

19 cases more efficient, as we add more bells and whistles 

20 to make them more efficient, obviously the maintenance 

21 costs will go up, and also installation costs will go 

22 up, as they have to provide more electronic controls. 

23 There would be additional wiring, probably, possibly 

24 that needs to be tied into a central energy management 

25 system. As they do things of that nature, most of the 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

156

1 -- actually installation costs as well as the service 

2 and maintenance of the equipment. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, please, Paul -- 

4 Carl. 

5 MR. ROBERTS: Carl Roberts. Yes, I agree 

6 with Massoud that the installation costs generally go 

7 up, especially if you’re talking about electronic 

8 controls. The maintenance costs often go up, although 

9 there’s notable exceptions, such as LED, where the 

10 maintenance costs actually go down. But I think as a 

11 general rule it would be safer to assume that the 

12 maintenance and installation costs go up slightly. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Could you say how much, 

14 speculate? And with -- what? 

15 MR. ROBERTS: Probably -- I would guess 

16 something in the range of ten to 20 percent. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Massoud, you’re shaking your 

18 head. 

19 MR. NESHAN: No, no, I agree. I would also, 

20 in addition to that -- 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: That’s what I meant to note 

22 for the record. You agree. 

23 MR. NESHAN: Yes, I agree to that. Also in 

24 addition to that, as the equipment becomes more 

25 complicated, you need to have a higher trained 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

157

1 technician that tends to cost more. The hourly rate 

2 for those technicians goes up, and they’re not 

3 available in every market. You might find them in the 

4 big cities, but the smaller markets, it’s very 

5 difficult and it tends to force manufacturers to send 

6 their own people, which adds a lot of cost to the 

7 maintenance of that piece of equipment. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: In that condition, where you 

9 don’t have sophisticated personnel to maintain it, does

10 the equipment operate if it’s sub-optimized, or -- 

11 MR. NESHAN: No, it does not. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: It just stops operating. 

13 MR. NESHAN: ... that it would be running, but 

14 you really don’t utilize -- basically it does not fine15 tune, you know, or run the way it should be. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. Additional 

17 comments on these? Yes, Karim. 

18 MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane. I guess I have a 

19 question for Dave, because we did make those comments 

20 several times in the past, but every time DOE, I guess, 

21 has not taken those comments into account. What do you 

22 need from us, or what do we need to do at least, to 

23 satisfy yourself, you know, that you’re right or that 

24 you’re wrong? Because I think it’s an issue that comes

25 every time, every rulemaking hearings and every time 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

158

1 DOE does something else. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Every time DOE reflects that 

3 they assume that the costs remain constant? 

4 MR. AMRANE: Yes. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: I see. Just wanted to make 

6 sure we understood your comment. 

7 MR. WINIARSKI: I can respond to that a 

8 little bit. With the previous rulemaking, for instance 

9 with the repair cost data, as we moved into the NOPR 

10 stage, we went through a process where we contacted a 

11 number of different store owners and managers of the 

12 mechanical systems to make some estimates for how much 

13 that cost might increase based on frequency of 

14 replacement of the equipment, and we provided those 

15 estimates back in our TSD for comment at the NOPR 

16 stage. To the extent -- one of the issues here, a lot 

17 of times the data may be available to manufacturers or 

18 to, for instance, FMI storeowner-types, and for DOE 

19 it’s very nebulous as to exactly what types of numbers 

20 we should be applying here. 

21 So, for instance, a number like ten percent 

22 is something we can build into the analysis, and 

23 hopefully we’ll get comments on all sides and we’ll try

24 to come up with a compromise if we don’t have actual 

25 data. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

159

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Final comments on 

2 this series of comment boxes? 

3 (No response.) 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

5 MR. WINIARSKI: We also had to deal with 

6 equipment lifetime here. Equipment lifetime is 

7 actually a fairly difficult thing to get unless you’ve 

8 got a lot of hard data on it. For the previous 

9 rulemaking we contacted a number of different sources 

10 within the industry, as well as looked at studies in 

11 the literature which suggested that there can be a 

12 broad range of, quote, “average lifetimes” for the 

13 equipment, sometimes as low as five years, sometimes as 

14 much as twenty, often depending upon who did the 

15 surveys and what stores the equipment was going into, 

16 et cetera. 

17 We used some relatively simplified 

18 assumptions for the previous rulemaking, one that the 

19 equipment lasted ten years for large grocery store 

20 chains, and multi-line retailers, like for instance a 

21 super Target-type, Walmart-type application. For 

22 smaller stores, we assume that they would hold the 

23 equipment longer, just from not having the capital 

24 available, and that a 15-year life was more 

25 appropriate. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

160

1 And so we seek comments on whether those are 

2 appropriate assumptions for this rulemaking and if 

3 whether any new data has surfaced in the industry that 

4 we should be looking at. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Carl 

6 MR. ROBERTS: Carl Roberts. I think we can 

7 probably all think of examples where the equipment life 

8 was a lot shorter or longer, but I think that those 

9 numbers are good. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Do you spot any trend-line 

11 difference? 

12 MR. ROBERTS: Over time? 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Or projected into the 

14 future with new technology? 

15 MR. ROBERTS: No, I wouldn’t see any trend at 

16 this point. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Charlie. 

18 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. In another 

19 rulemaking that DOE’s conducting right now that will 

20 remain nameless from my perspective anyway, there was 

21 quite an interesting interaction between the 

22 assumptions about the lifetime of the product and 

23 shipments, to the point where once you ran the 

24 assumption for the shipments through the shipments 

25 model, what came out the other side was attested to by 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

161

1 all the industry people sitting around the table as 

2 just preposterous. 

3 And as Charlie pointed out here, Charlie Hon, 

4 about some equipment being owned seven times before it 

5 finally finds its way to the recycling bin, I think 

6 there is quite a range, and I would suggest that if 

7 you’re going to make some hard and fast assumptions 

8 like that, instead of using a distribution of lifetimes 

9 in your analysis, which I would highly recommend, 

10 you’re going to get some pretty strange shipment 

11 results by the time you do that. 

12 So I think some of us are going to be most 

13 happy if your assumption about the lifetime of the 

14 equipment produces a reasonable shipments average that 

15 the industry agrees is pretty close to what’s actually 

16 happening. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: I was wondering if there’s 

18 other data out there. 

19 MR. NESHAN: Massoud Neshan. One thing about 

20 the trend as far as the equipment is used in the 

21 stores. We are seeing that the convenience stores, by 

22 that I mean national chains, and I don’t want to 

23 mention names, but they are getting more and more into 

24 food service type of equipment. They’re offering more 

25 fresh food in their establishment. So we are seeing a 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

162

1 lot of that equipment going to the convenience stores, 

2 and these are not -- these are open-type display cases. 

3 As a result, they tend to remodel their stores more 

4 often, rather than -- if you have a cooler box with 

5 doors, those tend to stay and not much is going to 

6 change there. But these food service type, we see more 

7 and more, going to the convenience stores. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie. 

9 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. There’s going to be 

10 one trend that people don’t want to talk about and 

11 that’s the fact that because we’re becoming more 

12 energy-efficient, the units are more correctly sized. 

13 They don’t have excess capacity. They’re actually 

14 running harder because of that. So I think you’re 

15 going to see a downturn in the life cycle for several 

16 reasons. Number one, is there’s an increase in the 

17 importation of lower-cost products from overseas that 

18 are, shall we say, less quality products; and the fact 

19 that, due to our energy efficiency driving, we’re 

20 making them work a little bit harder proportionately to 

21 where they’ve been before. Expected life expectancy 

22 decline. 

23 MR. BROOKMAN: That makes sense. 

24 MR. WINIARSKI: One quick comment related to 

25 your comment earlier about the used equipment market. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

163

1 We haven’t discussed that here, but obviously, as we 

2 start to look at restaurants, that’s going to be an 

3 issue. I’m assuming for the preliminary analysis that 

4 we are going to consider that the equipment still 

5 lives, essentially the same lifetime, unless you have 

6 other assumptions, that there is effectively, when the 

7 equipment is resold into that market, it’s resold at a 

8 higher value, and so that the initial cost increment is 

9 sort of captured in that whole resale market throughout 

10 the lifetime. If you have any data on any appropriate 

11 way to handle that, that would be helpful. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: I was wondering if the data in 

13 this chart in 68 does reflect -- I guess, Carl, you 

14 said a moment ago that this would be a fair average in 

15 a real distribution. Is this -- yes, that was 

16 essentially what you implied, I thought. 

17 MR. ROBERTS: Yes, though I agree with 

18 Charlie. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Harvey Sachs. 

20 MR. SACHS: Question for Massoud, if I might. 

21 This is Harvey Sachs. As you’re seeing the extension 

22 of supermarket-type equipment into convenience stores, 

23 are these moving to remote condensers as well? 

24 MR. NESHAN: It’s a mix of both self25 contained and remote. It really depends on if it’s a 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

164

1 brand new installation, they tend to go remote, but if 

2 it’s a remodel, it’s a whole lot less expensive and 

3 less time consuming to go with the self-contained. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie? 

5 MR. HON: Another factor involved in that is 

6 rental property. If they own the property, they will 

7 tend to put self-contained in it. If they do not own 

8 the property, because of penalties of poking holes in 

9 walls, they do not wish to do that. A lot of contracts 

10 do not allow them to do that, so rental property, 

11 especially in a larger building, such as a mall or 

12 anything like that almost exclusively goes self13 contained. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. Let’s move 

15 on. 

16 SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS 

17 MR. WINIARSKI: So following up from life 

18 cycle cost, we also do a shipments analysis. We’ve had

19 some discussions about the issues involved in that. 

20 The purpose is to estimate shipments, both at the 

21 baseline level and going out into the future. DOE uses 

22 a 30 year analysis period from the implementation data 

23 of the affected standard, going outward. And one of 

24 the things we want to characterize, not only the base 

25 case shipments, but how those shipments may change over 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

165

1 time. That change may occur because of growth in the 

2 basic building market that’s being served, that has 

3 typically happened. There may also be shifts, either 

4 due to the implementation of new standards which 

5 increase costs for the equipment that may move the 

6 baseline shipments projection to a different projection 

7 for different standard level, and we want to try to 

8 consider that where possible. There may also be trends 

9 within the market, people moving from self-contained to 

10 remote cases, for instance, as has been discussed here. 

11 DOE has used in the past, some general data 

12 sources to establish baseline shipments. Data has come 

13 from AHRI, from the previous rulemaking. We’ve also 

14 looked at data from Appliance Magazine, Fredonia, which 

15 is a private source for that type of data, and the U.S. 

16 Census bureau. Generally the data is at a high level 

17 for the refrigeration industry and doesn’t really get 

18 into particular product classes. And so in the 

19 previous rulemaking we used a fixed disaggregation by 

20 product class that came from the original AHRI 

21 submission. We hope to get similar data like that for 

22 this rulemaking, as well as any new or historical data 

23 on shipments that might be available. 

24 We talked about we do the base case forecast 

25 and then what’s the effect of energy standards, as well

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

166

1 as how it might change between equipment classes. 

2 Typically, what DOE has done in the past for this rule 

3 is we try to develop a shipments model. That model 

4 takes into account, in the previous rulemaking it takes 

5 into account the building -- the use of the equipment 

6 and how that building stock changes over the next 30 

7 years. In the previous -- we established essentially 

8 an estimated saturation rate for how many equipment go 

9 to, like, per square foot of floor area of a given 

10 building type, and then using the necessary -- using 

11 the lifetime of the equipment, we figure how much of 

12 the equipment and the stock has to be replaced over 

13 time, as well as how much equipment has to be shifted 

14 to new construction. Adding those together we develop 

15 a shipment curve going into the future. And then where 

16 possible, we’d like to quantify the sensitivity of that

17 shipment curve to changes that are introduced due to 

18 standards or from other forces in the market. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: So we’re not going to read 

20 these comment boxes. You can read them yourselves. 

21 Please take a peak: historical shipments, 

22 representative saturation rates, and potential impact 

23 of new energy conservation standards on equipment 

24 shipments. Thoughts on those questions? Yes, Carl. 

25 MR. ROBERTS: Carl Roberts. One of the 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

167

1 technologies that will become a key part of meeting the 

2 energy standard is high efficiency glass doors. They 

3 conserve energy by a number of means, but one of them 

4 is cutting it closer on anti-sweat protection. And so 

5 there will be some customers who won’t have had as 

6 satisfactory performance from cases with high 

7 efficiency doors, and in those areas, say -- and a lot 

8 of those are C-store applications or geographic areas 

9 like Houston. They may have a strong incentive to stay 

10 with their old equipment. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Interesting. Okay, 

12 other comments on these? 9.1, 9.2, and 9.3. Okay, 

13 we’re going to keep moving on.

14 NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 

15 MR. WINIARSKI: Okay. So DOE then takes data 

16 from both the shipments which represent the entire U.S. 

17 market, as well as economic data that comes from 

18 lifecycle cost analysis, and develops what it calls a 

19 National Impact Analysis. The goal of the National 

20 Impact Analysis is two-fold. It estimates, first, the 

21 national energy savings that are projected to occur at 

22 different standard levels that DOE may consider, as 

23 well as what’s called the national net present value, 

24 which tries to assess the economic impact on the nation 

25 for the adoption of different standard levels. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

168

1 One of the issues that DOE wants to basically 

2 address here early on is that often in other products, 

3 DOE does what’s called a rebound effect analysis. The 

4 rebound effect is essentially if a product is -- if the 

5 efficiency goes up, then it costs less to operate, and 

6 if it costs less to operate for some products, there is 

7 a belief that those products will also be used more. 

8 An example might be if you have an air conditioner, and 

9 it’s really cheap to operate, I may air condition for 

10 more hours of the year. 

11 DOE stated in the previous rulemaking that it 

12 didn’t believe that such a rebound effect really 

13 existed with this product, because it typically 

14 operates on a constant basis -- I use the word 

15 “typically” again -- it operated on a constant basis 

16 throughout the year and therefore there isn’t a lot of 

17 opportunity to use it more. The rebound effect 

18 analysis does not specifically take into account the 

19 effects of increased shipments that might occur due to 

20 it being cheaper to operate one class of equipment or 

21 the other. 

22 So, anyway, DOE develops what’s called a 

23 National Energy spreadsheet -- National Energy Savings 

24 spreadsheet for the calculation of these, and again, 

25 posts it for review online at the preliminary analysis 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

169

1 and NOPR stages. 

2 The National Energy Savings is done comparing 

3 the base case in each higher efficiency standard level. 

4 DOE calculates that on a year-by-year basis over the 

5 30-year analysis period. 

6 One of the things that’s a little bit 

7 different from the LCC is DOE reports the numbers here 

8 in terms of what’s called primary energy savings, not 

9 energy savings in terms of kilowatt hours at the site, 

10 but rather in terms of primary energy use to feed the 

11 power plants that are providing that electricity. And 

12 DOE uses site to source, or site to primary conversion 

13 factors to establish that difference in -- between the 

14 site and the primary energy. It typically has gone to 

15 EIA’s National Energy Modeling System to try to get 

16 good estimates for what that is for the U.S. on an 

17 average over all. 

18 DOE does the net present value analysis for 

19 savings at the customer level, however, in contrast to 

20 the life cycle cost analyst, for the NPV analysis, DOE 

21 is obligated to use two distinct discount rate 

22 assumptions, one at three, and one at seven percent. 

23 Those requirements come from the Office of Management 

24 and Budget and are the same assumptions for all its 

25 rulemaking activities. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

170

1 MR. BROOKMAN: So you can see the comment box 

2 there. Comments on national impact analysis? 

3 (No response.) 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: So then we are going to press 

5 on. We were thinking that perhaps we’d take a break 

6 now, but we’re going to keep pressing on for now. 

7 Anybody that is discomfited can leave the room and 

8 rejoin us as quickly as possible. Yes, so let’s keep 

9 going. 

10 LIFE CYCLE COST SUBGROUP ANALYSIS 

11 MR. WINIARSKI: So quickly, I’ve described 

12 what DOE does in the preliminary analysis. DOE has a 

13 couple more steps that it goes through that are 

14 essentially looking at first revising its preliminary 

15 analysis based on whatever comments arrive from 

16 stakeholders at the presentation of that analysis, and 

17 it goes into its NOPR analysis. 

18 And in the NOPR, one of the first steps is 

19 DOE does what’s called a lifecycle cost subgroup 

20 analysis. The subgroup analysis is essentially 

21 designed to analyze economic impacts on particular 

22 subgroups of the user population for the equipment. 

23 And in particular, try to identify subgroups who may be 

24 disproportionately impacted by new standards compared 

25 to the overall user base. Subgroups in other rules 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

171

1 include things like small businesses, ethnic, 

2 minorities, low income consumers, and senior citizens. 

3 A lot of that is based on what we call consumer 

4 products. 

5 For commercial products, often DOE is focused 

6 on small businesses and the analysis in the previous 

7 rule looked at potential impacts on small businesses. 

8 These are examined as a subgroup. For this rulemaking, 

9 independent restaurant owners could be another example, 

10 compared to chains, as a subgroup to be analyzed. 

11 One of the interesting things that came out 

12 of the rule is because some of the small businesses 

13 were assumed to hold onto their equipment longer, they 

14 have a longer opportunity to actually get savings from 

15 higher efficiency equipment. That’s sort of an 

16 interesting development of this analysis, and we 

17 certainly welcome comments on how it might do a more -- 

18 I won’t say more accurate, but a subgroup analysis that

19 really looks at who is, in fact, going to be impacted 

20 disproportionately compared to the main user base. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: So reflections on that? 

22 Subgroups that might be affected either 

23 disproportionately or as you would describe them. 

24 Massoud, do you have something? No. Charlie. 

25 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. I think you’re going 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

172

1 to run into a real hornet’s nest. I think you would 

2 need to go to NRA, National Restaurant Association, 

3 because small businesses in the restaurant industry, 

4 traditionally are ethnic in their nature. You will 

5 have Asian-type foods entering the market and leaving 

6 the market, Mexican foods, all the different subgroup 

7 ethnically-based food categories tend to pop up in 

8 small businesses and small restaurants, non-chain. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Would you say that one 

10 subgroup would be disproportionately influenced? 

11 That’s part of what’s embedded here, correct?

12 MR. HON: That’s something I’m not sure of, 

13 but I’m afraid it may be. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Harvey? 

15 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. It seems to me 

16 that, at least anecdotally, there’s a fair subclass of 

17 brokers in used equipment for restaurants and for other 

18 sectors. Might be worthwhile trying to understand 

19 things from their perspective and might offer some 

20 insights that none of the rest of us has. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: I wonder if they have an 

22 association. 

23 MR. SACHS: You could form it, Doug. 

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Not my intention. I was just 

25 curious if there would be data or some such thing. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

173

1 Okay. Yes, John. 

2 MR. DAVIS: John Davis. The only 

3 organization I could think of would be the -- almost 

4 the opposite of the used brokers, and that would be 

5 FEDA, Food Equipment Distributors Association, but they 

6 represent more of the larger chains, but that would be 

7 the closest thing that I could think of that would 

8 possibly represent the distributor channel. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, Charlie. 

10 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. There’s also a couple 

11 of dealers’ associations which deal in new and used

12 equipment, and they may be able to give you some data, 

13 although I’m not sure about that.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: You know the name of them? 

15 MR. HON: I’d have to try and find them.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

17 MR. WINIARSKI: With that I’ll turn this over 

18 to Collin here who will present the manufacturer’s 

19 impact analysis. 

20 LIFE CYCLE SUBGROUP ANALYSIS AND 

21 MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS 

22 MR. WEBER: Thank you. Collin Weber from 

23 Navigant Consulting. Just like to give a brief 

24 introduction to the manufacturer impact analysis, 

25 another NOPR analysis. The function of the 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

174

1 manufacturer impact analysis is to assess the impacts 

2 of proposed or potential standards on manufacturers 

3 within the commercial refrigeration equipment industry. 

4 To identify and quantify, estimate impacts on specific 

5 manufacturer subgroups that may be more severely or 

6 disproportionately impacted than the industry as a 

7 whole, such as for example, smaller manufacturers 

8 independent manufacturers. And to examine the impact 

9 of cumulative regulatory burden on the industry as a 

10 whole. 

11 The method employed will be to analyze 

12 industry cash flow and net present value through the 

13 use of a tool known as the Government Regulatory Impact 

14 Model, or GRIM, and also this will be coupled with 

15 interviews of manufacturers within this industry, which 

16 will be used -- the data from this will be used to 

17 refine the inputs to the GRIM, to develop analysis with 

18 respect to the particular subgroups, and also to 

19 address general qualitative issues based on things that 

20 might be presented during those discussions with 

21 manufacturers in the industry. 

22 The outputs listed here are, industry net 

23 present value impacts, subgroup, individual subgroup 

24 net present value impacts, and also other quantified 

25 impacts. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

175

1 The diagram here shows the three main phases 

2 of the manufacturer impact analysis. The first of 

3 these occurring during the preliminary analysis period 

4 in which DOE seeks to develop an industry profile and 

5 conduct some preliminary MIA interviews. The second of 

6 these occurring prior to the NOPR will be to develop a 

7 straw man or outline GRIM, and also to develop an 

8 interview guide for use later in the process. And then 

9 the final -- third and final phase after the 

10 publication of the NOPR, DOE seeks to interview and to 

11 -- interview manufacturers and to develop an industry12 wide set of subgroup analyses. And then finally, to 

13 assess direct employment and competition and cumulative 

14 regulatory burden impacts. 

15 At this time, DOE seeks comment regarding any 

16 potential subgroups of commercial refrigeration 

17 equipment manufacturers that should be aware of and 

18 consider specifically in such a manufacturer subgroup 

19 analysis. And also seeks comment regarding any 

20 regulations or pending regulations that DOE should 

21 consider in an analysis of cumulative regulatory 

22 burden. 

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Massoud. 

24 MR. NESHAN: Massoud Neshan. One subgroup 

25 that has a major impact on the performance of the 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

176

1 display cases are compressor manufacturers. That would 

2 be one subgroup that you should be contacting. What 

3 are you doing to improve efficiency of those 

4 compressors. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Other subgroups, 

6 and particularly -- yes, Karim. 

7 MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane. Not subgroups, 

8 but talk about the regulatory burden here. Of course 

9 there is this ongoing rumor here on walk-ins, I think 

10 it’s going to impact several manufacturers while making

11 those type of products. But as far as regulation, 

12 there is some legislation, but there is some pending 

13 legislation on climate change that could have an 

14 impact, significant impact on the cost of refrigerant 

15 if it passes, because it will reduce significantly the 

16 amount of HFCs that will be available for the industry 

17 and that will have an impact on the price of HFCs, so I 

18 think that’s something that DOE should look at as well.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Harvey Sachs. 

20 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. Karim raises an 

21 important point, and it cuts several different ways as 

22 one perspective of major manufacturers of allied 

23 equipment is SNAP applications, significant new 

24 application, whatever, significant for the use of 

25 hydrocarbons in self-contained equipment as is European 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

177

1 practice today, which would go in the opposite 

2 direction. At the same time accelerated fade-out of 

3 HFCs, or phase-down of HFCs could have enormous impact. 

4 And we also have energy and climate legislation in the 

5 hopper. And it seems to me that the only way that DOE 

6 can do justice to the several uncertainties is with 

7 some sort of a scenario analysis that tries to look at 

8 the bundled impacts, worst case, best case, and average 

9 case, of all of these uncertain appellate policy 

10 developments. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. A 

12 challenge. That would be a challenge. 

13 MR. WEBER: Other comments on these two 

14 issues before we move on? If not, I’ll turn it back to

15 Dave, then. 

16 UTILITY IMPACT ANALYSIS, EMPLOYMENT ANALYSIS, 

17 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, AND 

18 REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS 

19 MR. WINIARSKI: So at this point I’ll talk a 

20 little about the utility impact analysis that DOE does. 

21 Essentially, the purpose of this is to make an 

22 assessment of the overall impact on the electric 

23 utility industry, in particular, looking at what’s the 

24 impact on number of power plants that might be put in 

25 place, and how that number will change just as a 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

178

1 function just of this rule. 

2 The methodology that DOE looks at here is 

3 they take the EIA’s National Energy Modeling System 

4 which has particular -- this is developed by EIA and 

5 used to prepare their annual energy outlook, which 

6 develops projections of future prices of electricity 

7 and future use of electricity within the nation. What 

8 we do in that analysis is we take that model and we 

9 modify the commercial sector demand curve, which is the 

10 curve which reflects how much demand the commercial 

11 sector is going to have for electricity. We say that 

12 using the results from the national energy analysis, 

13 which includes all the shipments from new equipment and 

14 such, we reduce or decrement that demand curve and then 

15 that decrement in electricity demand is then propagated 

16 through the model to result in impacts on the cost of 

17 electricity and impacts on the number of power plants 

18 that are expected to be put in place. 

19 DOE has relied on that process for a number 

20 of its rulemakings, but we certainly welcome any input 

21 from parties on whether that’s the appropriate 

22 methodology or whether there’s other techniques that 

23 DOE could use to sort of get at this level of power 

24 plant production. 

25 MR. BROOKMAN: Confirmations and/or different 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

179

1 ideas? Charlie. 

2 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. Dave, you 

3 kind of passed over it quickly, but did I hear you say 

4 that NEMS model is going to look on the impact of the 

5 price of electricity overall, or just the number of 

6 power plants that -- 

7 MR. WINIARSKI: DOE primarily looks at, for 

8 this analysis, historically looked at the number of 

9 power plants. The model will, in fact propagate out 

10 for other variables, including price of electricity, 

11 including amount, for instance, of coal that’s 

12 purchased, things like that. But for this analysis, 

13 DOE is certainly focused on the impact of the power 

14 plants. 

15 MR. STEPHENS: Okay. Because we -- in past 

16 rulemakings, I know my client has repeatedly noted 

17 their own modeling which looks at what the price of 

18 electricity would be in the Pacific Northwest, my 

19 clients being 139 electric utilities in the Pacific 

20 Northwest who do this kind of planning all the time, 

21 and they look at what the price would be absent the 

22 conservation that results from all of these things, and 

23 inevitably, the cost of conservation is lower by a lot 

24 than whatever our supply options are, and the effect is 

25 almost always to lower the price of electricity from 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

180

1 what it would otherwise be for everyone, not just the 

2 consumers of refrigeration equipment, but for everyone 

3 in the Pacific Northwest. Basically, it has a 

4 dampening effect on rates. 

5 And so, I’ve never seen that, and my client 

6 continually urges DOE to take a look at that, but so 

7 far that has not explicitly showed up in any of DOE’s 

8 analyses, or the results of those analyses, and we 

9 would appreciate it if one day they did what the 

10 Pacific Northwest does and actually quantify that or 

11 make an attempt to quantify it, to look at what 

12 consumers generally will save through the dampening 

13 effect of electric rates. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie, could you say three 

15 sentences of how that would be applied nationally? 

16 MR. STEPHENS: Well, basically, there’s an 

17 average commercial price of electricity, and the 

18 Pacific Northwest looks at this from a residential, 

19 commercial, industrial and agricultural sector prices. 

20 But the models we use, and I’m sure NEMS can do this, 

21 basically project out demand, apply electricity at a 

22 cost, a levelized cost per kilowatt hours essentially, 

23 and basically the model just says if we build power 

24 plants, this is what the levelized cost of power will 

25 be over this period. And if we reduce our demand, then 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

181

1 you get a different levelized cost by not having built 

2 power plants that cost this much. And each power plant 

3 -- and it’s a menu of power that’s applied. It’s not 

4 just coal plants, it’s not just wind power. It’s 

5 everything. It’s all of the stuff that we can 

6 conceivably build instead. And when you apply the 

7 conservation, you typically get a lower number. And 

8 then you apply that to the various sector, to the rates 

9 in the appropriate weight, if you will, and you get a 

10 lower -- you get millions of dollars saved annually by 

11 every customer. Every customer. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Let’s move 

13 on to employment impact analysis. 

14 MR. WINIARSKI: DOE does what’s called an 

15 employment impact analysis, which is an attempt to 

16 assess what the overall impact on employment in the 

17 nation is as a response to new energy conservation 

18 standards. DOE actually does two employment analyses, 

19 one which looks at direct employment impacts on 

20 manufacturers, and those numerical estimates come out 

21 of the manufacturing impact analysis that Collin 

22 discussed. The other impact, or other analysis, looks 

23 at what we call indirect employment analysis. And 

24 basically, there are changes in employment that are due 

25 to shifting purchases of goods and services within the 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

182

1 national economy as a whole, and response to standards, 

2 as well as potentially higher income is available 

3 because less of the expense -- there are less total 

4 expenditures for energy within the economy. 

5 DOE uses a model called the Impact of Sector 

6 Energy Technologies to do these estimates. That model 

7 is actually used throughout BT for doing this type of 

8 analysis for a number of programs, including the 

9 appliance standard program. 

10 DOE requests any feedback on whether there 

11 are reasons that DOE should or should not continue to 

12 use that model for this analysis. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Comments on employment impact 

14 analysis? 

15 (No response.) 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

17 MR. WINIARSKI: DOE also does what’s called 

18 an environmental assessment in the course of its 

19 rulemaking. The environmental assessment is designed 

20 to consider, and where possible, quantify the impacts 

21 on the environment of new energy standards that might 

22 go in place for the equipment. DOE typically focuses 

23 on emissions in that analysis, emissions at the power 

24 plant. In the case of this equipment, the particular 

25 emissions that DOE looks at in the analysis include 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

183

1 carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, 

2 mercury, and particulate matter. 

3 DOE uses the NEMS model. We actually refer 

4 to it as NEMS-BT, because we have modified the model in 

5 terms of those commercial sector demand curves that I 

6 discussed in the utility analysis. And we use it to 

7 calculate all the emission reductions that are 

8 considered. And then the net benefit of the standard 

9 in the environmental assessment is the difference 

10 between the emissions calculated at each standard level 

11 and the AEO reference case emissions. 

12 DOE also has, in recent rulemakings, taken to 

13 do some monetization of the different types of 

14 emissions that occur. Some of that guidance for how 

15 you monetize it is done at a government-wide level, and 

16 so we take into account interagency agreements on which 

17 emissions to monetize and what, in fact, numbers for 

18 the cost or benefit of per unit emission reduction the 

19 nation will see. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: So let’s take comments on the 

21 environmental assessment and the things that the 

22 Department should consider in this case. 

23 (No comment.) 

24 MR. BROOKMAN: No comments on that. Okay. 

25 Yes, turn your microphone on. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

184

1 MR. ALI: ... but I am for making assumptions, 

2 so I’d like to hear the answer. We talk about CO2 

3 emissions. CO2 can be a secondary coolant. If it is 

4 used as a secondary coolant and we have power failure, 

5 we pretty much vent the CO2 in the atmosphere. How 

6 does that go along with CO2 emission? Is that 

7 calculated? Added in any calculation? How -- probably 

8 a simple answer, but to have it for the records. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Charles. 

10 MR. LLENZA: Charles Llenza, Department of 

11 Energy. I think that currently, in the U.S. market, 

12 that’s not the situation, so we don’t have a scheme. 

13 We have never faced that, I don’t think, unless Dave 

14 has some other -- 

15 MR. WINIARSKI: Yes, I was going to say we 

16 have not considered that, primarily for the reason that 

17 we have not been considering the secondary loop 

18 applications in this rulemaking, so that issue hasn’t 

19 come up. 

20 MR. LLENZA: Yeah, I think that in the future 

21 if this is something that becomes -- because that’s a 

22 coolant methodology that’s fairly new, but it’s 

23 starting to gain some traction in Europe especially for 

24 individual units. My understanding is that it has 

25 larger compressors because the transfer ratio from heat 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

185

1 to cool is a little -- it’s lagging. It’s not as 

2 efficient, so you need bigger compressors. It’s a 

3 little bit of a different system that has to be set up. 

4 So I assume that at some point in the future it will 

5 be coming this way. But right now we just haven’t 

6 really haven’t thought about it, quite honestly.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Charlie. 

8 MR. HON: Recent SNAP rules have allowed it, 

9 that is now legal in the United States, just last fall. 

10 But the problem is it’s not just coming to the United 

11 States, it’s here. Several of my cohorts on the ASHRAE 

12 committees are working on these projects on a daily 

13 basis, so that I know it’s a very active thing because 

14 in certain conditions it is more efficient than a 

15 standard unit. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Harvey Sachs. 

17 MR. SACHS: Certainly -- Harvey Sachs. 

18 Certainly the question of venting CO2 is one that ought 

19 to be looked at. The instinctive reaction is that 

20 unless I get into very, very frequent venting of the 

21 entire refrigerant charge, the venting of the charge, 

22 even in a distributed system, is likely to be small 

23 relative to the CO2 contribution during operations with 

24 today’s generation mix. I could be wrong with that, 

25 which is why I’m glad you brought it up.

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

186

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Charlie. 

2 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. I’ve been 

3 following this since about 1993, so I’ve had a long 

4 time to think about this, but it still does. The thing 

5 is, when you get down to it, all the CO2 we’re putting 

6 in these machines, to the extent there are some now, it 

7 comes from the atmosphere. We’re just sequestering it 

8 a little while, and if it leaks back out, we have to go 

9 get it back out of the atmosphere, and use a little 

10 energy, and then put it back in the machine again. And 

11 given that its GWP is one, versus 1700 or 1900 for some 

12 of the other refrigerants, it’s actually quite a nice 

13 equation. But the net effect, it’s kind of like 

14 biomass in a way, in some cases. It comes from the air 

15 and then if it leaks, it goes back to the air, and we 

16 just keep moving it on. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Other comments on 

18 environmental assessment, because we’re moving to the 

19 regulatory impact analysis. 

20 (No comment.) 

21 MR. WINIARSKI: Finally, as part of its 

22 rulemaking, DOE does what’s called a regulatory impact 

23 analysis, which is not clearly appropriately named 

24 because the purpose of this analysis really has been to 

25 look at non-regulatory alternatives to putting forth 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

187

1 new standards. For instance, DOE recognizes that there 

2 are voluntary programs, particularly in this case with 

3 the self-contained market, which, like Energy Star and 

4 things like that, that advance the state of the art in 

5 terms of what’s used in the market. And these can have

6 benefits that may be considered as alternatives to 

7 actually setting forth new standards. There are 

8 programs whereby DOE may be able to incentivize some of 

9 these other approaches to getting the energy savings. 

10 And so DOE tries to consider the impacts of initiatives 

11 that are out there on the market as well as initiatives 

12 that are suggested that DOE may want to consider as 

13 non-regulatory alternatives, and we certainly welcome 

14 any comment on existing programs or programs that we 

15 could examine as optional alternatives in terms of 

16 their energy-savings benefit to the nation. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Charlie. 

18 MR. HON: One thing which would be very 

19 interesting for you to look at is get a hold of Hydro20 Quebec. Hydro-Quebec did a program recently that was 

21 very, very successful in the self-contained equipment, 

22 whereby they gave substantial rebates, much larger than 

23 you’ve seen in the United States, but with one very 

24 strict condition that the unit that was removed, it had 

25 to be a replacement type design. If you bought a new 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

188

1 unit and replaced an old one, the old one had to be 

2 taken out of the system completely, and taken to full 

3 recycle. That guaranteed that your project was net 

4 positive because you were getting a very old piece -- 

5 usually very old piece of equipment being replaced, and 

6 it wasn’t going into the used market to further hang 

7 around and bother people. That was the key issue, that 

8 they had to have it out of the market completely, and 

9 had to be able to show through a licensed recycler, 

10 that it was handled that way. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: And was this for commercial 

12 refrigeration equipment? 

13 MR. HON: Yes. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

15 MR. HON: Traditionally, our rebate programs 

16 in the United States are $150, $250 dollars per unit. 

17 Hydro-Quebec was at $750. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Wow. 

19 MR. HON: And they were cost-justifying it 

20 within the first two years. 

21 MR. WINIARSKI: A general comment here in 

22 terms of analyzing the impact of that. I think DOE, in 

23 a lot of cases has focused on whether it can achieve 

24 some more levels of energy savings. In a program like 

25 that, there’s also the -- there’s a need to calculate 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

189

1 sort of what the net present value impact is, and in a 

2 case like that, money is coming from somewhere to 

3 purchase that equipment. And so that’s sort of taken 

4 into account in this analysis. 

5 MR. HON: There were two reasons why they did 

6 it. I was involved in it, but the first is, they did 

7 not wish to build. The second is that there were some 

8 huge regulatory activities that affect them, that is 

9 that a lot of states have passed minimum renewable 

10 energy standards. And Hydro-Quebec happens to be 80 

11 percent hydroelectric. They have great wind farms as 

12 well. Between the two of them, they’re 80 to 90 

13 percent renewable energy, and as such, they’re selling 

14 it to the United States at a very, very big markup, and 

15 still showing a great impact on their own economy. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: They’re net exporters. Yes.

17 MR. HON: And it is very ugly when you look 

18 at the dollars and see how much we’re sending north.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Final comment perhaps, 

20 so -- while you’re moving, Harvey go ahead while this 

21 gentleman’s getting to the microphone.

22 MR. SACHS: Charlie, I appreciate that, and 

23 if you follow U.S. legislation, AHRI and ACEEE have 

24 introduced legislation that would have a similar effect 

25 on the old and most obsolete CFC chillers with very 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

190

1 significant incentives. 

2 MR. HON: Nice. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Please. 

4 MR. BAUMAN: Jeff Bauman from Continental. I 

5 guess two comments on -- you mentioned earlier about 

6 incentivized programs and Energy Star specifically. I 

7 think one of the things that overall I believe would 

8 really help the Energy Star program would be to unify 

9 the test standards that are being used by DOE and by 

10 Energy Star. I know that we had meetings with Energy 

11 Star last week and they said there are efforts towards 

12 that, but I would just strongly urge that toward 

13 everybody out there. 

14 The other thing I think we’d like to see too 

15 is when DOE gets the data, that a public database, or 

16 the information be publicly available for people to 

17 look at. Energy Star has a very nice list now that you 

18 can go on and see who’s out there on all the different 

19 product categories, but there’s not really anything as 

20 far as basically, all the information that’s out there 

21 to capture everything, and then the concept would be 

22 that DOE maybe even maintains the databases of all 

23 products, whether they’re Energy Star or not, and then 

24 Energy Star would have a subgroup of that that says, 

25 okay, these are the Energy Star. But everybody would 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

191

1 agree, and hopefully we’re all talking to each other. 

2 Thank you. That’s helpful. That’s good. Final 

3 comments on this segment? 

4 (No comment) 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s move forward to the 

6 final comments slide. 

7 OTHER ISSUES, QUESTIONS, & COMMENTS 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: We, the Department, wanted to 

9 provide, and I promised you at the outset an 

10 opportunity now at the end of the day, to make final 

11 comments, raise additional issues that haven’t been 

12 raised fully to this point, so now is your opportunity 

13 to raise any additional issues, should anybody wish to 

14 have any now. Yes, please say your name. 

15 MR. OWEN: Kenny Owen, Master-Bilt Products. 

16 I apologize for being late for the meeting. Didn’t 

17 get to comment on some of the things this morning, but 

18 I appreciate all the effort that’s going on here and 

19 the opportunity to participate in this rulemaking. 

20 The thing that concerns my company most is 

21 the regulatory burden, which is going to be possibly 

22 put on by additional legislation here, or rulings. 

23 Just as an example, for the 2012 regulations that are 

24 in effect now or will be in effect 2012, my company is 

25 going to have to do 200-plus tests. As Mr. Hon pointed 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

192

1 out, those tests are going to take at least a week in 

2 the lab, and what he didn’t say was that’s a week if it

3 passes the test just like it is. If you have to 

4 redesign, if you have to change motors, change 

5 compressors, do anything extra, you can run into six, 

6 seven, eight weeks a lot of times. We estimate it’s 

7 going to cost over a half million dollars. 

8 Now, we’re a relatively small company. There 

9 are a lot of companies that are smaller than we are. 

10 If we go to third party requirement, third party test, 

11 those costs will more than double for us, we think, 

12 based on past experience. So we’d ask that you please 

13 take that into consideration. We, as manufacturers, 

14 struggle every day to compete with other companies 

15 across the world. A lot of our equipment is being 

16 imported that we have to compete with, and anything we 

17 do to burden our industry with further, what I would 

18 call, non-productive or non-profitable things that we 

19 have to do, makes it harder for us to compete. 

20 The goal here at DOE is to save energy. The 

21 goal at our company is to stay alive and keep Americans 

22 employed. So please keep that in consideration. Look 

23 at the big picture. 

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie. 

25 MR. HON: One difficult factor we’re all 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

193

1 facing in the industry is the continued increasing 

2 testing and increasing cost of testing because of the 

3 demand for the third party certification by certain 

4 groups, that would include Energy Star, which has just 

5 recently put that consideration in, but also for the 

6 Canadians. All Canadian units require third party 

7 certification. So that is a burden which, because the 

8 Energy Star is primarily behind them, it is not -- 

9 Energy Star is not actually putting the burden on us, 

10 but the Canadian government is putting the burden on 

11 us. So it’s not just this nation’s regulatory 

12 activities, but it is also Canada’s and other nations’ 

13 regulatory activities which are putting a huge burden 

14 on us as well. So whatever burden you guys think we’re

15 getting from you, double or triple that effect, because 

16 there are other forces in the world as well. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Carl. 

18 MR. ROBERTS: Carl Roberts. We’re very 

19 grateful for the opportunity to come here and comment. 

20 It’s a very good thing to have input at this point in 

21 the process. For us, as a manufacturer, it’s a -- it’s

22 quite a burden of work to test all these cases, but 

23 reducing our energy consumption is something that we’re

24 on board with. 

25 One item that I think could get lost in the 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

194

1 shuffle, and showed up in the PowerPoint presentation 

2 that wasn’t in the original documentation, was the 

3 issue of secondary coolant applications. And I think 

4 it would be a big mistake to neglect secondary coolant 

5 applications in this rulemaking. It would open a huge 

6 loop-hole that would basically give everyone a free 

7 ticket out of the regulation if they use secondary 

8 coolant. And the method of test is in place for single 

9 phase secondaries, and probably will be in place for 

10 multiple phase, two-phase secondaries, by the time 

11 these rules take effect. Thanks again. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Harvey Sachs. 

13 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. I too wish to 

14 express my appreciation to the Department and to the 

15 industry for its help to me in understanding the world 

16 a little better. But I want to turn back to this 

17 question of certification, certification burdens and 

18 third party certification. What’s resonating in my 

19 mind is a couple threads that I pull out of the recent 

20 comments just now. One of them is increasing 

21 international competition, and the other that’s been 

22 less spoken is that the independent certification 

23 programs are what has discovered skullduggery by some 

24 of the importers. So the question is how best to help 

25 American industry become increasingly competitive in an 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

195

1 increasingly global industry, even for these products? 

2 And the only things I can think about are not to 

3 abandon the third party certification, but to try to 

4 get the simplest certification and rating methods that 

5 satisfy the need. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Follow-on. Please. 

7 MR. OWEN: Kenny Owen. Harvey, I understand 

8 what you’re saying, and you’re correct in that the 

9 third party certification has helped unearth some 

10 things. What we would like to see is a spot-check, if 

11 you will. You know, a certain percentage, maybe a few 

12 models or something, but DOE or the third party has the 

13 opportunity to come in and say, okay, you’ve got these 

14 50 models. I want to test this one, this one, and this 

15 one to make sure that you’re playing by the rules. I’m

16 perfectly okay with having somebody check us, just to 

17 go through 100 percent inspection, you know, third 

18 party is overly burdensome to us. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: I see Karim, and then back to 

20 Charlie. 

21 MR. AMRANE: I just wanted to say we do have 

22 a third party certification program for commercial 

23 refrigeration equipment, and we don’t test everything. 

24 We spot-check. And so I think we can address those 

25 needs, those concerns about the cost of testing. So 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

196

1 Kenny, we do have a program, and please join the 

2 program. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie. 

4 MR. HON: I would like to ask that you also 

5 may consider a secondary process similar to what NSF 

6 runs. NSF runs a process, any product that they list 

7 can be questioned at any given time by a competitive 

8 manufacturer, which is s a cost burden on the 

9 competitive manufacturer, but for the $25,000, if I 

10 find a blatant cheater, it’s worth it.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Got you. 

12 MR. HON: And I don’t have to pay it by the 

13 time it’s all said and done, anyway, if it’s a blatant 

14 cheater. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Viktor, you’re next.

16 MR. ANDERSON: Yes, Viktor Anderson. I want 

17 to kind of expound on what Kenny said. We too have a 

18 couple hundred models to test, and they do -- there are 

19 several of those that don’t meet those formulas where 

20 we have to apply even what was introduced here on the 

21 board. Karim also said that we’re raising -- early on, 

22 we’re raising the bar on a standard that we haven’t 

23 even implemented yet. So in the self-contained arena 

24 of this, or aspect of this, a lot of that equipment is 

25 based on calculation and there’s not a lot of empirical

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

197

1 data. So I would urge the DOE, before we raise the bar 

2 on anything, understand that data or collect that data 

3 from several of us to make sure that calculations are 

4 correct. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. So then -- 

6 yes, Massoud. 

7 MR. NESHAN: One comment. First of all, 

8 thanks for the opportunity to be here and present our 

9 ideas and comments. One thing that we are constantly 

10 faced with, aside from complying with the energy 

11 requirements, is the customer requirements to reduce 

12 the labor content of their side of the business. I 

13 mean, they are coming to us asking for new designs 

14 because they would like to reduce their costs. Energy 

15 cost is not the only cost that they have to consider. 

16 Labor cost is the largest cost component of a 

17 supermarket -- in a supermarket population, because 

18 it’s the labor costs and the benefits and so on. So we

19 are constantly forced to, or pushed in the direction of 

20 making it simple for their operators, regardless of the 

21 equipment cost or the energy consumption, 

22 unfortunately, I have to say. But that’s something 

23 that we need to be aware of that is an activity cost 

24 that they’re looking to reduce, and not necessarily 

25 just the energy. 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

198

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. And so expanding 

2 on that in your written remarks I think would be 

3 helpful to the Department. 

4 So for my part, I thank all of you for these 

5 closing remarks. I think this was a very, very 

6 constructive meeting. I very appreciate the 

7 thoughtfulness and the quality of the comment here 

8 today, and I’ll turn it back to Charles.

9 MR. LLENZA: I want to thank everybody for 

10 attending the meeting today, and your comments have 

11 been duly noted, and we’ve had some very interesting 

12 comments. I think this meeting was well worth it. 

13 There was plenty of items to discuss and there’s 

14 certain areas of improvement that the Department would 

15 appreciate your comments and your continued interaction 

16 with the Department as we go through this rulemaking 

17 process. 

18 Please be reminded the comment period ends 

June 7th 19 , and in the back of your slides you can see 

20 where you can be submitting your comments via email, 

21 postal carrier, and in terms of comments for -- at this 

22 point, you could submit comments not only on the 

23 standard, but on the test procedure as well. 

24 In addition to that, there’s some material on 

25 relevant web pages and points of contacts here on this 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

199

1 slide. I’m available and at the disposal here for 

2 everybody to send me your comments or questions. Here 

3 are the addresses. 

4 Here’s some relevant information, the web 

5 pages et cetera, also my supervisor could be contacted 

6 for this too. So thank you all for coming today. 

7 (Whereupon, at 3:00 p.m., the above captioned 

8 meeting was adjourned.) 

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006
EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064

200

1 This is to certify that the attached proceedings 

2 before:

3 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

4 In the Matter of:

PUBLIC MEETING ON THE ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARD 

FRAMEWORK DOCUMENT FOR COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION 

EQUIPMENT

5

6

7 Were held as herein appears and that this is the 

8 original transcript thereof for the file of the 

9 Department, Commission, Board, Administrative Law Judge 

10 or the Agency.

11 Further, I am neither counsel for or related to any 

12 party to the above proceedings.

13

14 

15 Wenfy Greene 

16 Official Reporter 

17

18 Dated: May 19, 2010 

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006