DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

1 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

CONVENING REPORT

ON

THE FEASIBILITY OF A NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING

TO REVISE THE 

CERTIFICATION PROGRAM FOR COMMERCIAL HEATING, 

VENTILATING AIR CONDITIONING AND COMMERCIAL 

REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT

October 2, 2012

Alan W. Strasser, Esq., MA 

Convener

On detail to: 

Office of the General Counsel

U.S. Department of Energy (GC-71) 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585 

From: 

U.S. Department of Transportation 
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

2 

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

There has been some disagreement and confusion surrounding DOE’s current regulations for the 

certification of commercial heating, v entilating, air conditioning, and r efrigeration equipment. 

DOE therefore thought it would be appropriate to review this program. Since it had recently had 

considerable s uccess us ing ne gotiated r ulemaking i n de veloping a nother c omplex r ule,1 it 

decided t o consider its us e f or t he r evision a nd a dministration of t hese r ules. Other af fected 

interests likewise believed that it would be appropriate to use a collaborative approach to address 

them. DOE announced on July 10, 2012, that it was exploring the feasibility of conducting a reg 

neg to revise the certification regulations for these commercial products. 

This report, based on a confidential interview process involving forty (40) parties conducted by a 

neutral co nvener,2 analyzes t he f easibility of r esolving t hese i ssues ut ilizing c onsensus-based 

negotiations between the significantly affected parties.

The parties agreed w ithout e xception t hat t he s cope of t he r ulemaking should be s ignificantly 

broadened be yond t he i nitial pr oposal. R eg ne g i s t he pr eferred pr ocess f or t he und ertaking 

compared to an ordinary rulemaking process since it is a more effective means of addressing the 

complex technical issues involved. M oreover, t he process can h elp r epair what m any s ee as a 

strained relationship between the industry and the Agency. Given these considerations, it is far 

less l ikely t hat a r eg n eg l imited t o t he pr oposed s cope w ould r each a consensus, a lthough i t 

could s till pr ovide he lpful i nformation a nd i deas. It i s i mportant t o not e t hat t he s cope i ssues 

described in relation to a potential reg neg are applicable regardless of whether DOE uses reg 

neg or ordinary notice and comment rulemaking. For purposes of this analysis, if the scope is 

broadened, t he c hances of r eaching a c onsensus us ing a r eg n eg a re greatly e nhanced, for t he 

reasons discussed below. 

After the introduction below, section III is organized by party type, followed by the issues that 

each party found most important and their position on that issue. 

 

1 In the Fall of 2011, the DOE initiated a formal negotiated rulemaking with key parties in hopes of negotiating 

energy conservation standards for three types of distribution transformers. The months-long effort culminated in a 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for all three types, with one of the three being proposed at a level negotiated by the 

committee. For additional background see discussion titled, “Open to Negotiations to Address Energy Efficiency,” 

section II, below.

2 When DOE announced this convening, it assured the parties that the convener would be neutral and independent. 

DOE a lso e xplained t he i mportance of confidentiality a nd e stablished r igorous pr otocols t o ensure, a mong ot her 

things, t hat D OE staff d id not c ommunicate with t he c onvener. D OE ha s firmly a dhered to th ese p rinciples 

throughout the process. For more details on DOE’s public statement on confidentiality and other matters regarding 

negotiated rulemaking, see Appendix C, below. Aris Marantan, Ph.D., provided invaluable technical support during 

the i nterview p rocess a nd was a n i ntegral p art o f t he c onvening t eam. Alan S trasser, ho wever, i s ultimately 

responsible f or th e r ecommendations i n t his r eport. P hilip J . H arter, A lan’s former c olleague a t T he M ediation 

Institute, also provided key process insights that improved this report.
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

3 

II. INTRODUCTION

INDUSTRY PROFILE

The e quipment c overed i n t his r eport i ncludes c ommercial refrigeration e quipment ( CRE), 

commercial h eating, v entilating a nd a ir-conditioning e quipment (HVAC), commercial w ater 

heaters, an d co mmercial b oilers. For or ganizational pur poses, c ommercial w ater he aters a nd 

commercial b oilers ar e grouped t ogether with ot her c ommercial H VAC pr oducts. Commercial 

products, as discussed in this report, are those not manufactured or intended for residential use. 

• CRE covered i n t his r eport c onsists of s elf-contained co mmercial refrigerators, fr eezers, 

and re frigerator-freezers; r emote co ndensing c ommercial r efrigerators, f reezers, an d 

refrigerator-freezers; ice-cream freezers; and self-contained commercial refrigerators with 

transparent doors designed for “pull-down” temperature applications.

• Commercial HVAC covered in this report consist of three subsets:

o Small, la rge, and v ery l arge co mmercial p ackage ai r-conditioning a nd h eating 

equipment, packaged terminal air conditioners (PTACs), packaged terminal heat 

pumps (PTHPs), and single package vertical units. 

o Commercial w ater he aters consisting of co mmercial w ater h eaters, co mmercial 

unfired hot water storage tanks. 

o Commercial bo ilers including commercial hot w ater s upply boilers and 

commercial packaged boilers. 

According to DOE’s 2012 Buildings Energy Databook, the annual primary energy consumption 

for all commercial refrigeration, ventilation, space heating and space cooling (Figure 1) accounts 

for about 8.44 qua drillion Btus of energy, or 46.2% of the total primary energy consumption in 

commercial buildings in the US.
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

4 

Figure 1: Annual US Primary Energy Consumption by End Use, 2010 

Lighting, 20.2%

Space Heating, 

16.0%

Space Cooling, 

14.5%

Ventilation, 

9.1%

Refrigeration, 

6.6%

Water Heating, 

4.3%

Electronics, 4.4%

Computers, 3.6%

Cooking, 1.4%

Other (1), 14.5%

Adjust to SEDS 

(2), 5.4%

Annual US Primary Energy Use of Commercial Buildings by End 

Use, 2010

Total Primary Energy Consumption = 

18.26 Quads

(1) Includes service station equipment, ATMs, telecommunications equipment, medical equipment, pumps, emergency 

electric generators, combined heat and power in commercial buildings, and manufacturing performed in commercial 

buildings. (2) Energy adjustment EIA uses to relieve discrepancies between data sources. Energy attributable to the 

commercial buildings sector, but not directly to specific end-uses.

Source: DOE 

Building Energy 

Databook, March

2012. 
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

5 

Figure 2 shows a n ov erall e stimated br eakdown of C RE e nergy consumption b y equipment 

segment. 

Figure 2: Primary Energy Use of Commercial Refrigeration Equipment

(Source: NCI 2009) 

Figure 3 shows an overall estimated breakdown of commercial cooling and commercial heating 

energy consumption by equipment segment. 

Figure 3: Commercial Primary Energy Use of Cooling and Heating Equipment as of 1995 

(Source: DOE BED March 2012) 

By any measure, this is a major, significant industry. CRE and commercial HVAC fall under the 

North American Industry Classification System’s (NAICS) code 33341 – Ventilation, Heating, 

Supermarket 

Refrigeration, 

56%

Walk-Ins, 12%

Reach-Ins, 9%

Refrigerated 

Vending 

Machines, 8%

Ice Machines, 

7%

Beverage 

Merchandiser

s, 4%

Food Service 

Equipment, 

4%

Primary Energy Use of Commercial Refrigeration 

Equipment

Packaged Air 

Conditioning 

Units, 54%

Room Air 

Conditioning, 

5%

PTAC (2), 3%

Centrifugal 

Chillers, 14%

Reciprocating 

Chillers, 12%

Rotary Screw 

Chillers, 3%

Absorption 

Chillers, 2% Heat Pumps, 

7%

Commercial Primary Energy Use of Cooling Equipment 

as of 1995

Packaged 

Heating Units, 

25%

Boilers, 21%

Individual 

Space 

Heaters, 2%

Furnaces, 20%

Heat Pumps, 

5%

District Heat, 

7%

Unit Heater, 

18%

PTHP & 

WLHP, 2%

Commercial Primary Energy Use of Heating Equipment 

as of 1995
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

6 

Air-Conditioning, a nd C ommercial R efrigeration E quipment M anufacturing. A ccording t o t he 

US C ensus B ureau’s 20 09 S tatistics of U S Businesses3 for N AICS c ode 33341, HVAC and 

commercial refrigeration equipment manufacturing accounts for 1800 manufacturing establishments (a single physical location at which business is conducted and/or services are provided) in 

the US. The annual payroll under this classification, which is all forms of compensation, such as 

salaries and wages for this industry, is valued at $5,613,359,000. The number of paid employees 

for the industry is 133,259, or about 13% of total employees for all machinery manufacturing in 

the U S. T he t otal va lue of s hipments f or t his i ndustry, i ncluding s ales, s hipments, r eceipts, 

revenue, or business done by domestic establishments, excluding foreign subsidiaries, is valued 

at $40,503,880,000.4

Given the high degree of primary energy use, there are significant environmental impacts from 

these s ectors. For example, i n terms of g reenhouse g as e missions, Table 1 shows t he a verage 

emissions resulting from CRE and commercial HVAC primary energy consumption.5

Table 1: Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Million Metric Tons) from CRE and 

HVAC Primary Energy Consumption 

CO2 CH4 NOx

CRE 238.87 6.41 3.72

HVAC 1433.23 38.48 22.33

TOTAL 1672.10 44.89 26.05

Manufacturers h ave for over 50 years be en c ertifying and t esting t heir p roducts either w ithin 

their own facilities o r through various c onsortia. Such t esting w as t raditionally c onducted t o 

ensure quality control with customer specifications. Later, as government regulations increased 

on energy efficiency and food safety, such consortia broadened the scope of their test offerings 

accordingly. Today, an industry trade group administers a certification program whose purpose 

is to “demonstrate t o government a nd building ow ners...that equipment pe rformance claims 

have been independently measured and verified, instilling consumer confidence and enabling fair 

product comparisons.”6

Specifically, the Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) requires its 400 

members ( nearly entirely from t he H VAC i ndustry, a s oppos ed t o C RE), r epresenting over 

800,000 models, to adhere to many rules, including: 

• Annual mandatory tests of at least 20% of each OEM participant’s certified Basic Models or 

Basic Model Group(s)(BMG); 

• Products that are unable to meet the requirements of the applicable rating standard are subject 

to m andatory r e-rates or s hall be m ade obs olete, m eaning t hey m ay no l onger be 

manufactured or sold; and 

 

3 https://www.census.gov/econ/susb/index.html. 4 From U.S. Census Bureau’s 2007 Industry Statistics, http://www.census.gov/econ/industry/hierarchy/i3334.htm.

5 http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/pdf/Appendix%20F_r071023.pdf. 6

AHRI. http://www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ahri/files/Certification/CERT%20PROGS%20ENG%20JAN2012.pdf

(accessed 9/14/12). 
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

7 

• Products th at f all b elow th e min imum s tate o r f ederal e fficiency r equirements s hall b e 

removed f rom t he A HRI D irectory of C ertified P roduct P erformance (Directory) a nd t he 

government Agency shall be notified.7

LEGAL AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND

Overview o f DOE Regulations. DOE h as p romulgated8 several r egulations on e fficiency 

standards and c ertification ac ross t he commercial eq uipment t ypes t hat are t he subject of t his 

report.9 DOE has also issued enforcement regulations aimed at ensuring that manufacturers meet 

the e nergy a nd w ater c onservation s tandards a nd s ave e nergy for A merican c onsumers a nd 

businesses. More s pecifically, D OE through t hese r egulations s eeks to “establish a uni form, 

systematic, and fair approach to certification, compliance, and enforcement that will allow the 

Department t o ef fectively enforce i ts s tandards an d en sure a l evel p laying f ield i n t he 

marketplace w ithout undul y bur dening regulated e ntities.”10 In es sence, D OE’s r egulations 

include three key requirements for manufacturers that must be addressed sequentially: 

• First, m anufacturers m ust t est their pr oducts i n a ccordance w ith t he D OE t est 

procedure(s). 

• Second, m anufacturers must c ompare t heir t est r esults w ith t he applicable energy 

conservation standards to ensure that their products meet those standards. 

• Third, manufacturers will be required (as of December 31, 2012) to certify to DOE, based 

on their testing, that the commercial products they sell comply with the applicable energy 

efficiency requirements. Certification must occur prior to initial distribution in commerce 

and annually thereafter.11 

Testing Requirements. Manufacturers must address two key requirements for testing conducted 

in support of developing the certified ratings, namely: 

• how the products are grouped for testing purposes by a representative “basic model;” and

• how many units are tested (e.g., sample size). 

A basic model (with some product-specific exceptions, as described further below) includes: 

all units of a given type of product (or class thereof) manufactured by one 

manufacturer, h aving t he s ame p rimary energy source, and w hich h ave 

essentially id entical e lectrical, p hysical, and f unctional ( or h ydraulic) 

 

7 AHRI Operations Manual, pgs. 11 - 12, January 2012.

http://www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ahri/files/Certification/2012%20General%20OM.PDF 

(accessed 9/14/12)(providing detailed guidance and requirements to users).

8 Congress pr ovided a uthority t o D OE t o i mprove e nergy e fficiency un der T itle I II of t he E nergy Policy a nd 

Conservation Act of 1975, as amended (EPCA). 42 U.S.C. § 6316 addresses commercial equipment, which includes 

the products subject to this convening.

9 This report focuses on commercial, not residential products, though the certification process is conceptually similar 

for both.

10 75 FR 56796, 56797. 11 10 CFR 429, Subpart B. 
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

8 

characteristics t hat af fect en ergy consumption, e nergy efficiency, water 

consumption, or water efficiency.12 

Essentially i dentical m odels ne ed not be t ested. Instead, D OE pe rmits, f or pur poses of t esting 

pursuant to DOE’s regulations, manufacturers to group their models into “basic models” based 

on ch aracteristics t hat impact en ergy/water ef ficiency. For example, if s everal m odels of 

refrigeration cabinet used in stores to chill food are sold in a variety of colors but are otherwise 

identical, all these colored cabinets would clearly be a basic model. The problem becomes more 

complex given the variety of factory-installed options and accessories available to end users, as 

noted i n F igure 8, be low. D OE ha s s tated t hat m anufacturers m ay group m odels a t t heir 

discretion as long as all models within the basic model have the same certified rating and the 

manufacturer has test data to support the certified rating. T here is not, however, a requirement 

for there to be multiple individual models within a basic model; therefore, a basic model may 

only include a single model. 

A brief history of the DOE rulemakings that further define these concepts and provide context 

for the parties’ views described in section III are set forth below. 

CCE Requirements. DOE first adopted certification, compliance and enforcement regulations for 

commercial equipment in a January 5, 2010 final rule.13 It set forth sampling provisions, testing 

tolerances, i ndependent t esting/verification r equirements, a nd t he i nitial s et of e nforcement 

regulations for most types of commercial equipment. DOE subsequently revised some of those 

provisions i n i ts M arch 7, 2011 Certification, C ompliance, a nd E nforcement final r ule.14 The 

March 2011 CCE final rule contains DOE’s most comprehensive explanation of the concepts of 

basic m odel a nd s ample s izes us ed f or c ertification t esting f or va rious pr oducts. F or i nstance, 

regarding sample size, DOE clarified that DOE regulations require at least two (2) samples to 

support cer tification f or each b asic m odel.

15 It f urther e xplained t hat c ommenters t o t he 

rulemaking agreed t hat i f m odifying a m odel c hanged e nergy or w ater consumption and t ests 

would no longer support the rated value, such a modification would require creating a new basic 

model that must be certified to DOE.16 In addition, DOE created a general definition of basic 

model that was similar to the existing product-specific definitions. 

DOE cl arified i n t he C CE f inal r ule t hat d espite an y s light d ifferences b etween t his g eneral 

definition and the historical, product-specific ones, it was not changing the meaning of a basic 

model a nd w ould “ maintain t he s tatus quo unt il a f uture r ulemaking.” DOE em phasized t hat 

“[t]his c hange i s i ntended t o pr ovide a s ingle, uni form de finition... that p ermits w hat th e 

Department understands to be the current practice—the grouping together of individual models 

with essentially (but not necessarily exactly) identical energy or water efficiency characteristics.” 

It d id n ot f urther a ttempt to c raft c riteria to f urther d efine “ essentially id entical,” n oting th at 

defining pr ecise c hanges t hat w ould trigger c reation of a ne w ba sic m odel ( e.g., s pecific 

percentages of va riance) “ is a c omplicated m atter” given t he di versity of pr oducts of fered b y 

 

12 10 CFR 430.2.

13 75 FR 651. 14 75 FR 12421. 15 10 CFR 429.11(b).

16 76 FR 12422 at 12429.
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

9 

manufacturers.17 The compliance date for certifying these products18 is currently December 31, 

2012.19 

Figure 4: CCE and AEDM Rulemaking Timeline

Voluntary I ndependent Certification P rograms (VICPs). The January 2010 rule r equired t hat 

testing pr ior t o certification f or H VAC a nd water h eating pr oducts be pe rformed at a n 

independent test facility or under the supervision of independent testing personnel. That rule also 

created a f ramework t hat w ould ha ve allowed f or m anufacturer t esting ( without i ndependent 

oversight) i f t he m anufacturer w ere also a p articipant i n a D OE-approved V ICP.20 No V ICPs 

were ever approved by DOE under those regulations, however. O n September 16, 2010, D OE

published a Notice of P roposed R ulemaking on C CE ( CCE N OPR) pr oposing c hanges t o t he 

testing and certification process.

21 The March 2011 C CE final rule, responded to comments on 

the S eptember 2010 pr oposed r ule a nd a dopted t hese pr oposals.22 Consequently, a ll 

manufacturers are subject to the same testing requirements for the purposes of the certification 

requirements that will be effective on December 31, 2012. But some interests are of the view, 

however, that the VICP regulations and their interpretation are both controversial and confusing.

For additional a nalysis of t his c oncern s ee t he di scussions t itled “Differing Interpretations” in 

section III, below. 

Enforcement. DOE, despite having legal authority to do so earlier, only recently began enforcing 

its commercial regulatory requirements.23 Currently, i f a basic model is n ot properly certified, 

DOE may seek civil penalties and/or injunctive action to prohibit distribution in commerce of the 

basic model.24 

 

17 Id.

18 The c urrent c ertification standards f or H VAC a nd C RE can be f ound a t 10 C FR 429. 42 (CRE) a nd 429. 43 

(HVAC). 

19 10 CFR 429.12 (i).

20 10 CFR 431.174-175 (Jan. 1, 2011 ed.); 75 FR 652, 667. 21 75 FR 56796, 56803. 22 CCE Final Rule at 12504 (removing and reserving §§ 431.171 - 431.176). DOE notes that it wants to encourage 

verification testing, but chose not to change the definition of VICPs, and will consider other changes to VICPs in a 

subsequent rulemaking. CCE NOPR at 56803. 

23 74 FR 52, 793, October 14, 2010. 24 10 CFR 429.114, 429.118.
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

10 

AEDM Proposed. Aware that certification, including the related testing requirements, are largely 

viewed b y i ndustry a s b urdensome, D OE h as pe rmitted Alternative E fficiency D etermination 

Methods ( AEDMs) for H VAC commercial e quipment s ince t he J anuary 2010 r ule. DOE 

proposed e arlier t his year t o e xpand t he t ypes of pr oducts a llowed t o use A EDMs t o i nclude 

CREs a nd ot her pr oducts. D OE a lso pr oposed r evisions t o t he e xisting A EDM r equirements. 

AEDMs allow manufacturers to certify using simulations instead of relying solely on laboratory 

tests.25 In its NOP R ( AEDM NOP R) DOE explained that AEDMs are co mputer modeling or 

mathematical to ols th at predict t he pe rformance of non -tested basic m odels. In t he AE DM 

NOPR, DOE requested comment on, among other things: (1) whether preapproval of an AEDM 

by D OE w as n ecessary; ( 2) t he s cope o f co verage for A EDMs; ( 3) how a n A EDM c ould be 

substantiated based on testing tolerances and sample size; and (4) subsequent DOE validation of 

AEDMs through testing. In response, some from industry sought to link issuance of an AEDM 

final rule with the December 31, 2012 c ertification compliance reporting date by asserting that 

the certification deadline should be extended to allow manufacturers an opportunity to employ 

the less burdensome AEDM compliance strategy. The comment deadline has since passed and 

DOE has not published a final rule at this time. This convening analysis, therefore, necessarily 

assumes the absence of an AEDM rule.

Open t o N egotiations t o A ddress E nergy Efficiency. Both D OE a nd i ts stakeholders have 

generally be en ope n t o ut ilizing ne gotiations t o de velop r egulatory proposals for en ergy 

efficiency s tandards. Indeed, D OE in 1999 explored the f easibility of conducting a ne gotiated 

rulemaking on residential clothes washers and air conditions. The exploration did not lead to a 

reg n eg, although no f ormal de cision on i t w as a ctually made. And va rious p arties h ave 

negotiated consensus efficiency standards on several occasions. For example, in 2004, numerous 

industry r epresentatives of t he c ommercial pa ckage a ir conditioning a nd he at pum p industries 

forged a consensus with the State of California and several environmental advocacy groups on 

efficiency s tandards that w as e ventually s ubmitted to DOE on J anuary 10, 2010.26 As not ed 

previously, in 2012, D OE utilized a negotiated rulemaking to develop standards for distribution 

transformers.27 In 2012, h owever, while a coalition of parties proposed a consensus proposal to 

DOE regarding residential furnaces, the standard, which was finalized by DOE through a direct 

final rule, has been challenged in court.28

III. THIS CONVENING

BACKGROUND

This s ection c ontains a s ynthesis ba sed on vi ews e xpressed b y pa rticipants i n t he i nterview 

process.

Based on feedback from industry, DOE announced on July 10, 2012 that it was considering the 

feasibility of c onducting a ne gotiated r ulemaking t o de velop certification regulations for

 

25 77 FR 32038, May 31, 2012. 26 75 FR 14368, 14370, 3/25/10.

27 77 FR 7282, 7292, Feb. 10, 2012.

28 American Public Gas Association v, United States Department of Energy, No. 11-1485 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

11 

commercial HVAC (including commercial water h eaters and commercial boilers) and C RE

products (not including walk-ins). In addition, DOE indicated it was acutely aware that industry 

is concerned with the burdens related to the wide variety of options available to HVAC and CRE 

equipment pur chasers a nd t he hi ghly c ustomized process of m anufacturing s uch pr oducts.

Specifically, D OE s ought assessment through t he c onvening pr ocess on t opics i ncluding: (1) 

how basic models might be grouped for certification; (2) what information should be certified to 

DOE; an d (3) when c ertifications s hould be m ade. They al so cl arified t hat DOE was “not 

considering r e-opening the c oncept of ‘basic m odel’ with r espect to th e r ating a nd te sting 

requirements a nd will a ddress a ny potential changes to th e compliance d ate f or c ommercial 

certifications i n a s eparate p roceeding.”29 DOE also pr ovided a l ink on its website providing 

public information on t he negotiated rulemaking process. This document discussed the process

under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act, provided the legal authorities for its use, and described 

the confidential nature of the convening process (see Appendix C). 

During this c onvening, 40 representatives f rom a wide r ange of commercial H VAC an d C RE 

interests were interviewed. Industry stakeholders included manufacturers of commercial unitary 

air-conditioners a nd he at pum ps, pa ckage t erminal a ir-conditioners, s ingle pa ckaged v ertical 

units, c ommercial w ater h eaters, c ommercial b oilers a nd c ommercial refrigeration e quipment. 

Both small and large business manufacturers in the commercial HVAC and CRE industries were 

interviewed. One major manufacturing t rade as sociation f or t his i ndustry, AHR I, wa s 

interviewed. Other t rade as sociations contacted were t he National Association of C onvenience 

Stores and the Heating, Air-Conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors International. Other types 

of or ganizations c ontacted i ncluded t esting l aboratories; energy ef ficiency and e nvironmental

advocacy groups; and state energy agencies. Users and parties that purchase commercial HVAC 

and CRE equipment were also included in the interview process. Not unexpectedly, some parties 

who were contacted chose not to participate in the interview process (see section IV, below). The 

interviews w ere conducted i n A ugust a nd S eptember of 2012, and m ost w ere conducted b y 

phone.

SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

OVERVIEW

Differing Interpretations. The c onvening t eam notes a t t he out set that t here a ppears t o be 

widespread c onfusion among t he p arties r egarding t he i nterpretation of s everal ke y DOE 

regulatory c oncepts r elevant t o t he HVAC a nd C RE products of i nterest he re. For i nstance,

parties disagree what a b asic model is and what type of grouping strategy would satisfy DOE’s 

requirements fo r given t he va gue not ion of an “essentially i dentical ch aracteristics.”30 In 

addition, as not ed i n t he di scussion i mmediately b elow, th e imp act of C CE f inal r ule on 

voluntary i ndependent ( i.e., t hird-party) certification p rograms (VICPs) is s ubject to 

interpretation and hence uncertainty and confusion. 

 

29 Email from Ashley Armstrong, Department of Energy, titled Announcement from the U.S. Department of Energy 

Regarding Certification of Commercial HVAC and Refrigeration Equipment, July 10, 2012. 30 See discussion on CCE Requirements, above at p. 10.
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

12 

Second, the CCE final rule, discussed in section II, above, addressed many issues, including to 

whom a manufacturer could certify compliance. The issue was the use of VICPs as an alternative 

to certification b y manufacturers directly to DOE. The previous final rule of January 5, 2010 

allowed for the use of VICPs for HVAC and water heating products.31 On September 16, 2010, 

however, DOE published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on CCE (CCE NOPR) proposing to 

“simplify” the requirements so that only one process could be used for HVAC and water heating 

equipment t esting. T herefore, t he s ame p rocedure w ould ha ve t o b e f ollowed r egardless of 

whether t he co mpany was p articipating i n a V ICP or no t. DOE e xplained t hat the s ampling 

procedures currently applicable for non-VICP members must be used for certification testing of 

all types of commercial HVAC and water heater equipment and verification of the AEDM.32 In 

the C CE f inal r ule, t his VICP pr oposal w as a dopted.33 Consequently, t he certification pr ocess 

that will be effective on December 31, 2012 applies the same requirements to all manufacturers 

and us es t he s ame de finition of ba sic m odel. But, a s not ed i n t he substantive i nterview 

summaries be low, t his i ssue ha s a lso f ostered c onfusion r egarding what t he r egulations mean. 

Whether or not it intended to do s o, this change appears to require products to be tested under 

DOE’s requirements and not those established by VICPs. As is discussed in more detail below, 

there are significant differences between the two, so this change while appearing minor in fact 

induced concerns. The basic model definition was not proposed for amendment in the AEDM 

rulemaking, discussed below. 

There are four key differences between the DOE’s enforcement requirements and AHRI 

verification program requirements:

• To make a compliance determination, DOE tests a sample size of between 4 and 21 units 

per basic model, in most cases; for verification purposes, AHRI requires one sample per 

basic model group (BMG). The BMG is conceptually similar to DOE’s basic model, but 

AHRI allows broader grouping in a BMG. 

• The use and application of testing tolerances. 

• While DOE’s enforcement testing is done at its discretion, AHRI requires all its member 

companies to submit to a mandatory post-certification verification test for 20% of each 

BMG each year. As a result, a manufacturer participating in AHRI’s program, compared 

to a non-participating manufacturer, appears to have a far greater likelihood of getting 

tested by AHRI in their verification program versus the DOE’s enforcement testing 

program (see Figure 5, below). 

 

31 10 CFR 431.174, 75 FR 652, 667.

32 75 FR 56796, 56803. 33 CCE Final Rule at 12504 (removing and reserving §§ 431.171 - 431.176). DOE notes that it wants to encourage 

verification testing, but chose not to change the definition of VICPs, and will consider other changes to VICPs in a 

subsequent rulemaking. CCE NOPR at 56803.
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

13 

Figure 5: Comparison of DOE and AHRI Testing Burden

Issue Interaction. While many issues were identified as being linked to certification across the 

CRE and HVAC spectrum, several cross-cutting themes were applicable to both groups. First, all 

manufacturing parties, as well as end users and advocacy groups (discussed in their respective

sections, below), discussed certification in the broadest sense (see Figure 6, below). Second, they

viewed c ertification a s inextricably l inked t o the core i ssues o f A EDMs, sa mple si ze, t esting

tolerances, and ba sic model a nd gr oupings (see F igure 7 , b elow). For i nstance, c ommon 

statements summarized below illustrate these connections: 

• How can you certify without testing? 

• AEDMs would not be needed if the number of basic models could be reduced. 

• Even using more permissive grouping strategies and AEDMs, they could not meet the 

certification deadline. 

• They would be hard pressed to test two samples, but could comply if new AEDMs and 

grouping were available.
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

14 

Figure 6: Many Issues Linked to 

Certification

Figure 7: Core Issues Interrelated with 

Certification

Explaining the issues based on the recent rulemakings, an industry representative stated, “[w]ithout an AEDM in place, manufacturers will have no other option but to test all their basic models. 

This is contradictory to the objective of the AEDM rulemaking, which is to reduce the testing 

burden o n m anufacturers. G iven t he l arge vol ume of d ata n eeded t o p opulate t he certification 

reports, the certification reporting date of December 31, 2012” should be postponed until a minimum of 18 months lead-time after publication of the final rule on AEDM. 

Second, on the bedrock issue of the utility of certification programs, nobody questions whether a 

certification program is needed, but they do differ on the appropriate program contours and the 

roles of DOE and industry in its implementation.

Third, another co re co ncern i s t hat D OE i s treating c ommercial pr oducts like residential 

appliances w hich c an s imply be br ought hom e and “plugged i n” without t he ne ed f or f ield 

adjustments. Commercial m anufacturers believe, how ever, there a re m ajor d ifferences s ince

compared t o r esidential products, commercial units require s pecialized t echnicians t o t est an d 

install th em o n s ite; utilize ex tremely d ifferent test p rocedures; an d include a v ast number of 

factory installed options and accessories.
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

15 

MANUFACTURERS

The s pecific i ssues r aised b y t he C RE an d H VAC r epresentatives i nterviewed are s et fo rth 

below.

CRE

CERTIFICATION

CRE manufacturers strongly supported creating guidelines to group products more effectively to 

reduce testing burden. In fact, nearly all have a grouping strategy already. One party explained 

that while they cannot “physically (e.g., laboratory) test ‘every conceivable combination,’ given 

they have about 15,000 possible combinations in their catalogue,” nonetheless, certification can 

be accomplished. 

Figure 8: Commercial Refrigeration Equipment – Basic Model Example

Predictably, there are a wide variety of grouping strategies to derive a number of basic models 

that need to be reported to DOE based on t he variety and number of models offered. Nearly all 

CRE m anufacturers u sed a “co nservative” ap proach t o cer tification by selecting t he l east 

efficient model in a group to represent the rating for the entire group of products. For example,

grouping could be based on r efrigeration system base models to which one adds more efficient 

features from cat egories such as the following: lighting, door type, frame heaters, and motors. 

Another party explained that products could be grouped by families such as “multi-deck cases

and island freezers.” In addition, thermal load could also be a grouping criterion. But one party 

who a pproved o f t he conservative t esting ap proach noted t hat the m etric u sed b y DOE in its 

standards includes total display area, so it is not clear that total energy consumption would by 

itself be the basis for a grouping strategy. Another reported downside to the conservative rating 

method i s t hat i t r equires a m anufacturer t o verbally ex plain t o a customer w hy actual 
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

16 

performance i s s uperior to its publ ished rating. Consequently, if you m ust c ompete ba sed on 

efficiency, you may have to establish a new basic model. 

Some voiced frustration with the December 2012 certification deadline. For instance one party 

asserted it would “cost” $19M and take 26 years to do 1 year’s worth of certifications." Another 

party s tated they ar e r eady to comply with c ertification f or s elf- contained uni ts, but not f or 

remote e quipment; t hey a dded t hey were s till w aiting f or th e D OE’s C CMS c ertification 

template, and needed another six months to comply. On the other hand, one party stated that they 

were e ntirely p repared t o c omply with t he d eadline now. A ll a greed th at te sting effort w as a 

major driver for certification compliance, though the time estimates for testing ranged from one 

week (minority), while others stated that to conduct tests properly takes four weeks. 

Regarding e fficiency at tributes t hat d o n ot i mpact en ergy efficiency, o ne p arty offered t he 

following list: “shelves, materials of the panels (liners), external components, height off of the 

floor, and color.” This issue is also described in the HVAC discussion, below. 

Regarding those manufacturers complaining that they cannot certify products to DOE because 

they have so many different models, one questioned how are they able to certify now because 

they also have to obtain safety certifications for Underwriters Laboratories (UL) for each of their 

models. 

SAMPLE SIZE

The parties raised sample size as a m ajor issue. On the surface it appeared that the number of 

tests (e.g., at least two) alone was a problem, since only one party acknowledged they do at least 

two tests. Some said they were planning on completing the testing using two samples b y the 

compliance date. But they often explained further that the number could not be discussed as an 

isolated variable. For instance, one party said that while they would be “hard pressed” to conduct 

two tests for every basic model, they would be able to comply if AEDMs and a new certification

grouping approach were available, though it would still be an expensive proposition. It should be 

noted that DOE appears to agree with the benefits of the AEDM proposal. Finally, testing two 

samples for a custom product is a problem, as further explored below. 

CUSTOMIZED PRODUCTS AND TIMING OF CERTIFICATION

Given t he r equirement for ha ving at l east two s amples tested, r egardless of t he s ize of the 

product r un, a ll pa rties t hat m ade c ustomized o r l ow-volume uni ts a greed t hat s ome ki nd of 

exception or s eparate c onsideration w as ne eded f or such units, i ncluding a ccessories. For 

example, one party stated that they have only tested two or three low-volume "wedge" cases. “If 

you are only shipping ~10 units per year, that’s not significant in terms of energy impacts, while 

the t esting expense for t wo samples, which is spread a cross the ten units, is quite expensive.” 

Most p arties, how ever, did not offer clear i deas re garding how t o dr aw a l ine r egarding t he 

criteria or t hresholds for an exemption. One pa rty s uggested D OE c onsider how c ustom 

products a re ha ndled i n ot her c ountries, i ncluding C anada, A ustralia, a nd New Z ealand.34

 

34 For e xample o f i nternational tr eatment o f c ustomization, s ee Energy P erformance St andard f or R efrigerated 

Display Cabinets (merchandisers), Canadian Standards Association, C657-12, August 2012.
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

17 

Another pa rty que stioned whether pr ogress on g roupings a nd A EDMs in a f uture pr oceeding

would address customized product testing. One stated that for AEDMs, maybe not because they 

still need to qualify the AEDM and that involves a lot of work. An appropriate grouping strategy

could help resolve the issue, but they would have to check to see how different the performance 

of a particular unit is compared to the standard and make a decision. 

Regarding timin g of c ertification, one p arty s uggested t hat f or s mall pr oduction m odels, they 

would like to certify those products in the CCMS system at the same time they are creating the 

unit for delivery to a customer. 

AEDMS

All p arties a greed th at h aving an A EDM requirement in p lace will g reatly s implify th e 

certification burden. A ccording t o one pa rty w ho w as t ypical of ot hers i n t he C RE industry, 

“[n]ot having an AEDM to reduce testing burden is a ‘show stopper’ because testing all unique 

models would be impossible.” Manufacturers were, indeed, anxious about when the AEDM rule 

would be finalized, since they were “hoping that by the December 31, 2012 certification deadline 

the A EDM r ule w ould be put i n pl ace. T hey w ould be i n pr etty good shape i f t hey ha d t he 

AEDM a nd gr ouping ( e.g., b asic m odel) i dea i n pl ace.” B ut onl y about one ha lf of CRE 

representatives had developed an AEDM (e.g., addressing changes to lighting, case lengths, Btu

loadings). Some questioned whether AEDMs would fully solve the basic model problem, since 

they will not necessarily cover all products and they a re used only as a “ general guideline, as 

opposed to one for specific units.” Others again noted the interplay between AEDMs and other 

issues. For i nstance, a s one put i t, “ [i]f a b asic m odel i s an ything that i ncreases energy 

consumption, they would want to calculate the energy consumption using an AEDM” due to the 

lower testing burden. Finally, regarding timing of certifying products before they are introduced 

into commerce, AEDMs would work for them even if introducing into commerce is interpreted 

as "before selling the first unit to a customer." 

TESTING 

Many parties stated that DOE must have some accommodation for testing tolerances. Although 

some of t he l arger m anufacturers w ould b e m ore likely to a ccept a m ore s tringent te sting 

tolerance (statistics to lerance) for c ertification b ased on t hem ha ving t he r esources to do t he 

testing, n ot a ll ma nufacturers agreed w ith th is v iew. For t olerances (test p rocedure o perating 

condition range), one party said they try to be stricter in their labs in order to have better results 

than the ASHRAE test method. A couple of parties agreed DOE’s 5% testing tolerance (statistics 

tolerance) is acceptable. A wide array of test variability were reported ranging from: 4-5% on the 

same unit from one test to another; 8-9% difference even within the acceptable temperature and 

humidity r anges i n t he t est pr ocedure; and ~13-15% of e nergy consumption ba sed s olely on 

manufacturing us ing three of th e s ame u nits. One not ed t hat l abs do n ot t est r emote uni ts a s 

easily as self contained units. One party discussed a process for accounting for variability, which 

involves using the worst of three tests as follows: If the “pre-production” energy consumption is 

off b y >10% of the prototype, they discount the prototype’s energy consumption rating. If the 

full production energy consumption is off by >5% of the “pre-production” energy consumption 
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

18 

rating, th ey d o analysis to in vestigate th e is sues. One p arty cl aimed t hey would be fine w ith 

“testing everything” as it would keep poor performers out of market. 

The parties described the methods they use and other observations: 

• They test near the mid-point conditions for temperature and humidity. 

• They test every product they make for National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) Standard 7. 

• They add some cushion factor to address variability. 

• The 8-hour door opening requirement that may not be appropriate for freezers, while a 

16-hour requirement would be better, though this raises data comparability problems. 

• High volume units get more physical testing and they are more confident with a lower 

safety factor. 

Regarding third-party lab testing and t olerances (lab-to-lab v ariability), one party claimed t hat 

compared t o s ubmission of da ta i n t he c ertification pr ocess, t he most pr oblematic pa rt of t he 

entire p rocess i s t he u ncertainty o f t he r epeatability o f third-party te sting. First, if DOE’s

interpretation of the third-party lab test procedure is different than that of manufacturers it could 

be a problem. Second, anything that could cause such labs to interpret the method differently is a 

problem. They have not done comparative testing at different labs. 

VICPS

One p arty w as aware o f only one C RE m anufacturer pa rticipating i n A HRI's certification 

program, t hough t hey w ere not identified. Most CRE parties a re f ine with s ubmitting c ertifications directly to DOE. One party explained that they chose not to be a member of AHRI since 

AHRI requests companies to report sales data, but they do not want that data shared with other 

AHRI members. Instead of paying membership fees, they utilize that money for in-house testing. 

COMMERCIAL HVAC, COMMERCIAL BOILERS, AND COMMERCIAL HOT WATER HEATERS

Nearly all commercial HVAC manufacturers are participants in the AHRI directory of certified 

product performance. AHRI’s membership for advocacy purposes, as opposed to product 

certification, includes the vast majority of US manufacturers of commercial HVAC equipment 

and water heaters, as well as manufacturers of CRE. 

CERTIFICATION

Many as pects t o cer tification w ere r aised b y t he p arties. A k ey challenge p resented w as t hat 

manufacturers may have millions or billions of unique possible combinations of products based 

on various components and options available, but they all acknowledged that the actual number 

of basic models is substantially lower (e.g., 400) since those basic models vary only with respect 

to differences in efficiency. First, regarding basic model, nearly all parties favored some type of 

grouping concept that would lower testing and related certification submittal burden, and most of 

those s upported t he concept u tilized b y AHRI (e.g., BMG). S ome be lieve t hat DOE s hould 

explain why the BMG (e.g., having a unique refrigeration system as a basis for grouping) is not 

feasible as a starting point for negotiations. Some supported using EER or capacity as a means of 

grouping models for the purpose of certification. But one party said they test everything, so they 
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

19 

see no benefit with any grouping strategy. A related issue is the consequence of failing a rating 

and whether it is fair to have a whole group fail if one unit in the group fails. Most agree that the 

concept of on e uni t “ sinking t he w hole s hip” makes s ense, and i s c onsistent w ith A HRI’s 

practice. But not everyone agreed. 

The most common strategy described was to use the most conservative product (least efficient,

without any high efficiency options) in a given group as the basis for rating the entire group (as 

also not ed i n C RE di scussion, a bove). N early all p arties s aid th ey could id entify such u nits 

within the group that would support a conservative strategy. But some noted that the negative 

tradeoff o f s uch a s trategy is th e in ability to te ll c ustomers o r a dvertise th e tr ue e fficiency of 

some of the units in the group, which are higher than their rating. To compete on efficiency you 

would have to submit a different certification for each such unit. One party explained that the 

conservative s trategy could be e mployed i n di fferent w ays. For e xample, i f t he t est r esults 

support a rating of 9.25 EER, they might rate it a 9.0 EER, but a more sophisticated entity could 

rate it as a 9 .2 EER. There is also a unit scaling consideration, since while “1/10th of an EER 

would not matter for a larger capacity unit, for a smaller capacity unit it would matter.” They, 

therefore, suggested consideration of a sliding scale to address capacity. 

HVAC r epresentatives also ex plained w hich f actors di d a nd di d not i mpact e fficiency f or 

certification pur poses. Items m entioned t hat i mpact e nergy us e i nclude m otor t ype, ba se 

refrigeration system, hot-gas bypass, and expansion valves. One stated DOE should not consider 

some options and accessories, such as filters, voltage, phase, damper motors, and coated coils. 

They suggested rating just the basic machines without accessories, which is the current grouping 

practice. But it would be more difficult to determine how to address controls and options, such as 

dehumidifiers, economizers, energy recovery wheels, and recovery ventilators. Other non-energy 

consumption a ttributes mentioned w ere p aint, bird s creens and certain building ma nagement 

controls. B ut one pa rty thought r ating a ne w m odel t hat i s m ore t han, s ay, 0.2 EER different 

compared to another model makes sense. And m anufacturers should not be punished for such 

differences (within 0.2 E ER) c onsidering that in th e f ield th ere a re considerably l arger 

differences i n e fficiency as a r esult o f installation practices ( e.g., r efrigerant piping, a ir f low 

configuration and improper installation) that make the 0.2 EER differences negligible.

Most o f th e A HRI me mbers s tated th ey n eeded mo re time to me et th e December 31, 20 12 

certification de adline, a nd s ome s upported A HRI’s pr oposal t o e xtend i t 18 m onths pa st t he 

AEDM r ulemaking’s effective d ate. M any s aid t hey could m eet t he d eadline u sing A HRI’s 

definition of BMG, but not DOE’s b asic model definition. One asserted that even using m ore 

permissive grouping s trategies a nd A EDMs, it would be difficult to me et th is d eadline. 

Regarding the level of effort required to meet the deadline, one stated that they were working at a 

“furious pa ce” to m eet it. Another stated that it would take them five years and $5 million to 

complete all the testing using DOE’s definition of basic model, and this estimate also requires 

shutting down their manufacturing production. 

There were two other unique comments. First, one party noted that private labelers are importers 

and are legally responsible to ensure proper product certification. But they do not have access to 

CCMS data, though AHRI’s directory is public. Broadening the scope of public access to CCMS 

would help them conduct compliance assurance. 
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

20 

SAMPLE SIZE

About half of those interviewed said they test one sample of a g iven BMG based on t he AHRI 

requirements, w hile ot her pa rties r eported t hat t hey t est t wo or t hree. H owever, t hree of t hese 

parties test two units in a BMG (e.g., smallest and largest cabinet) and interpolate results to the 

units in between, sometimes using simulations to calculate those ratings (e.g., estimating CFMs). 

Another party explained that if they could run only one test they could simply assign a tolerance 

(a cushion) of 5% to their ratings, depending on how close they are to the standard. One noted 

they test all mini-splits and one-to-one units, while another explained they test air conditioners 

and heat pumps separately. Regarding the various possible combinations and options, one stated 

they do some testing on these as well. 

CUSTOMIZED PRODUCTS AND TIMING OF CERTIFICATION

Overall, fewer parties voiced opinions or concerns regarding customization compared to CRE. 

Two manufacturers stated that they did a large amount of business with customized units. One 

party said the amount was “extreme,” while the other said it constituted 50% of their sales. Two 

others said they did no custom work. One party said larger units are made to order and not kept

in stock. In addition, given that custom units can cost $50,000 each, testing two of each would be 

expensive, a nd nor mally t hey cannot b e s old a fterwards. A s a r esult, on e manufacturer tested 

burners mu ltiple times while u sing th e s ame storage tank. A ccording t o a nother, c ustom uni ts 

would be grouped into one of the established groups and share the same rating as those in the 

group. One party raised the challenge that any provision for exceptions could “swallow the rule” 

itself.

Regarding the distribution in commerce requirements, nobody from the HVAC sector objected to 

these r egulations. O ne p arty, ho wever, a cknowledged t here m ay b e a di fference i n how t his 

concept is interpreted that should be explored. Another said they are fine with these requirements

since they conduct their due diligence b y this point. Before they make a sale, another offered, 

they provide test data to AHRI, who does a qualification test before the unit is accepted into the

AHRI c ertification directory. T hen upon a cceptance b y A HRI t hey can sell t he pr oduct. O ne 

party explained t hat t hey first de velopment t est a f amily of p roducts. T he pr e-announced 

prototype i s a dvertised i n l iterature. A s t hey get c loser t o t he a ctual m anufacturing da te, t hey 

send their ratings to AHRI.

AEDMS

Most parties stated they support the AEDM concept, but most do not currently have one ready 

for use. One s tated t hat as a general rule, s maller m anufacturers do not have t hese s imulation 

tools. Regarding applicability, a couple of parties noted that AEDMs were appropriate for nonstandard units and accessories. Yet another stated they were not well suited for PTACs. Another 

asserted that A EDMs w ould not be ne eded i f t he num ber of b asic m odels c ould be r educed. 

Some parties who did not have formal AEDMs stated that they nonetheless use various software 

packages f or s ome c alculations ( e.g., f rom O ak R idge National Labs). A f ew p arties raised 

substantive i ssues w ith AEDMs. F irst, on e s tated t hat pr eapproval b y D OE s hould not b e 
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

21 

required. Second, DOE’s requirement that AEDMs be qualified to within 5% is “too much for 

them to ta ke on.” Another p arty s tated th at A EDMs w ill n ot s olve all th eir c oncerns w ith 

certification s ince it w ould s till ta ke 1 5 years to r un a ll th eir r atings. T his p arty p lanned, 

however, to eventually use AEDMs for all their certifications.

TESTING

According to mo st p arties, te sting a nd c ertification a re lin ked b ased o n testing costs. A 

manufacturer illustrated this point as follows: “[t]esting is what worries them, not providing data 

to AHRI.” It might cost them $20,000 for two tests under the AHRI program – $10,000 per test, 

one e ach f or t he smallest a nd la rgest (e.g., o ut of t en uni ts i n a B MG). B ut a fter D OE 

certification requirements take effect, “it might cost them $200,000 for twenty tests – all ten 

sizes times two tests for each unit.” A small business noted that they already pay a lot for tests, 

so testing two units is problematic. AHRI’s verification testing costs them about $10,000 per test 

and $5,000-$6,000 for t he e quipment. F or t his reason a nd ot hers not ed be low on t olerances, 

testing is deemed a divisive issue.

The second major issue was testing tolerances or variability. Several noted that variability comes 

at all stages: manufacturing (e.g., 2% - 3%), components (e.g., 2% - 3%) and testing labs (e.g., 

up t o 8% ). B ut one a sserted t here w ould b e m ajor c osts from m oving f rom 5 %, t he w idely 

supported verification tolerance standard used by AHRI, to 0% assessment tolerance that DOE’s 

program would use. Another party stated that the best testing tolerance (test procedure operating 

condition r ange) achievable i s 2.5% . S ome w ere c oncerned a bout how s ettings are ad justed 

during t ests, w hich m ay cause t hem t o f ail. A r elated i ssue r aised was how opt ions a nd 

accessories are treated. Right now, these are not accounted for in testing. 

A few other miscellaneous concerns were raised. First, one party sought clarity on indoor and 

outdoor C FM values t o be us ed f or t esting pu rposes (as s pecified i n I & O m anuals), and 

encouraged DOE to allow looking also at the technical literature and not “just what is packaged 

in t he box .” Second, r egarding r epeatability r equirements, D OE n eeds t o p rovide ex plicit 

guidance on r ecourse for manufacturers, such as whether they c an be pr esent for a test and/or 

have a meeting with DOE to discuss the matter.

VICPS

The vast majority of the HVAC sector submits certifications directly to AHRI, though a couple 

of parties submit data both to AHRI and DOE (e.g., large customized product). Most parties who 

submit data directly to AHRI are satisfied with the process. Several expressed some variation on 

the theme that the AHRI program is well established and should be formally recognized by DOE 

as a valid VICP; therefore, “if it’s not broken, why fix it?” While one expressed satisfaction with 

AHRI’s pr ogram, t hey acknowledged t hat t here i s a lways r oom for i mprovement. A nother 

sought consistency between the two programs. Many who objected to submitting certifications to 

DOE did not do so in the abstract; instead, they also opposed DOE requirement of needing two 

test samples, as noted above. One party was concerned they would have to do “double work” to 

certify t o bot h A HRI a nd D OE. W hen t here i s non -compliance di scovered und er t he AHRI 

program, one e xplained, one ne eds t o f ollow t he AHRI guidelines t o c orrect pr oblems. One 

manufacturer explained that these typically occur during the early phase of product development. 
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

22 

END USERS

End users of HVAC and CRE are concerned with certification and testing due to their substantial 

operating costs based on energy consumption. For example, one end user estimated that out of 

total energy use, CRE consumes 55%, while HVAC consumes 18%. For another end user, whose 

annual energy bill was approximately $850 m illion in the US, HVAC consumes 30-40%, while 

CRE consumes 8-15%. 

IMPACTS OF CERTIFICATION

End users of HVAC and CRE products, including distributors, while not directly regulated b y 

DOE, discussed their concerns related to how changes to the requirements could impact them. 

All e nd u sers a greed th at if th e n ew s ampling regulations r equiring at l east two s amples are 

finalized, as opposed to one as AHRI and most manufacturers now employ–the timing of product 

availability would be delayed. One party stated this was a big concern since investments in new 

equipment are costly, and the quicker the new equipment can be deployed, the quicker the end 

users c an r ecoup t heir investment. F or e xample, i f a f acility o r s tore i s be ing ope ned or 

remodeled, and they cannot open on time, new funding streams are delayed until the equipment 

is up a nd running. A lso, end users unanimously agreed that additional testing would result in 

price changes and such costs would be passed along to customers. 

The parties discussed whether efficiency gains were possible through the certification process. 

One asserted the answer was yes, if testing tolerances (test procedure operating condition range) 

were t ightened. Testing t olerances n eed t o b e tightened because components m ay not m eet 

specifications. Another a greed, but f or a di fferent r eason. The p arty stated t hat t here c ould be 

unintended efficiency gains. Some products are more efficient than they say due to conservative 

claims made in literature, and yet they are fine using a conservative number as long as they gain 

the efficiencies reported or it pays back per the analysis. But if they gain more in efficiency that 

is “a plus.” 

CUSTOMIZED PRODUCTS

The parties e xplained t he i mportance of t he c ustomization pr ocess a nd how e nd us ers a nd 

manufacturers w ork t ogether t o e nsure s pecialized pr oducts m eet s pecifications. Customized 

units i nclude l ow-volume pr oducts; how ever, on e of t he e nd us ers described low vo lume as 

being about 100 uni ts, while others would consider numbers as low as single units. Optimizing 

customization was deemed important by most regarding marketing and sales to retail consumers 

(e.g., f ood s tores). Among th e mo st imp ortant f actors in t he buying d ecision, f or cat alogue 

purchases and customized product, is energy efficiency. While it h as been important for many 

years, three parties described efficiency being elevated o ver t he l ast f ive years as i t as an 

effective m eans o f l owering o perating costs given how l ong products l ast. Another s aid

efficiency dovetailed with green initiatives, such as reducing or neutralizing the carbon footprint 

of their facilities. 
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

23 

All end users stated that a proportion of their HVAC and CRE products are customized, though 

the percentage varied. For example, one party explained that 30-35% of total product is custom, 

which is broken down as follows: 10-15% HVAC and 85-90% CRE. But according to this party, 

the r eason f or s eeking i mproved e fficiency i n c ustomization w as l ess t han 5% of t he t otal. 

Another party claimed that their overall percentage of customized product was 35%, which was 

broken down by e venly be tween H VAC (5 0%) and C RE (5 0%). However, t his p arty cl aimed 

that 95% of requested customization is based on maintenance and energy efficiency. A third end 

user c laimed 33% of t heir pr oduct w as c ustomized ba sed on num ber of uni ts, t hough t hey 

indicated t hat ot hers m etrics c ould be f irst c ost and e nergy us e. T his pa rty br oke dow n t heir 

custom units between HVAC 12% and CRE 33% - 50%. Of the HVAC units 85% of customized 

products w ere pu rchased ba sed on f unctionality a nd c osts i ssues; 10% due t o “form a nd fi t” 

requirements within constrained spaces; and 5% due to cosmetic issues. Of their CRE units 30% 

were cu stomized ba sed on f unctionality a nd cost; 60-65% on f orm a nd f it; and 5 -10% on 

cosmetics.

While customization may appear to constitute a small percentage of the overall products being 

utilized in any given facility, many customized products, once performance is verified, can be 

deployed at a large scale across scores of end user locations. For instance, one party offered that 

85% of H VAC and 5% of C RE pr oduct now b eing u tilized in th eir lo cations started o ut as 

customized pr oduct. A nother pa rty m entioned t hat l ess t han 5% of H VAC a nd a bout 10% of 

CRE began as customized product. In any event, it appears that customization is a valuable, even 

critical, service for many end users. And it also is an important means of business development 

for m anufacturers given t hat it of fers t hem a c hance t o m aintain or de velop a w orking 

relationship based on their current/future clients’ product needs. 

All end users stated it was important for them to freely communicate with the manufacturers to 

explore R & D and customization options prior to purchasing a product. Another party stated 

that th ey often f ield t est pr oduct a nd s hare m onitoring da ta w ith m anufacturers. O ften t he 

product is provided for free. Regarding the relationship between manufacturers and end users, 

conversations on customization typically range from three to six months, though the precise time 

depends on t he t echnology. But o ne p arty s tated t hey a re i n “co nstant co ntact” w ith 

manufacturers, a nd t he product de velopment c ycle c an be f rom nine months t o t hree years i n 

length. This end user described its multi-phase testing program, which involves testing both at 

the m anufacturing f acility and i n t he f ield. W hile t he s econd pha se m ight i nvolve 6 -12 t ests, 

during pre-production, many more are tested in the field. The performance specifications of these 

products are typically agreed upon through a contract, and manufacturers typically agree to meet 

the requirements or replace the equipment. 

EFFICIENCY MONITORING

End users discussed the importance of their companies “getting what you paid for” in terms of 

energy ef ficiency. At the outset, one noted that larger companies with multiple locations were 

more concerned about this than independently-owned stores, and such larger entities would “be 

mad” if th ey discovered that u nits d id n ot tr uly me et e fficiency s tandards. Regarding pr oving 

performance specifications have been met, another party explained that they conduct extensive 

on-site sub-metering on product electricity use, including field testing, before they buy a product 
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

24 

in volume. One party stated they are now installing metering to track efficiency, but it is not part 

of the contract with manufacturers.

AEDMS

One pa rty not ed t hat u sing AEDMs make s ense on l ower-volume product, but not f or hi gher 

volume products. 

TESTING TOLERANCES

Testing tolerances (test procedure operating condition range) should be put on the table, since lab 

conditions a re one t hing, but t hen w e m ight ne ed s ystem pe rformance boos ted ba sed on 

operational e nvironments (e.g., a mbient air hotter in kitchen, prep room r equires l ower 

temperature for CRE units, or workers chronically leaving coolers open). This appears to be the 

most challenging issue of all.

ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS35

CERTIFICATION BENEFITS

Environmental efficiency a dvocates cited the important e nvironmental benefits of D OE’s 

program. They applauded DOE's interest in leveling the playing field between competitors and 

discouraging c heating t o e nsure e nergy s avings required b y l aw a re be ing a chieved. If noncompliance is occurring then efficiency is being compromised, though they acknowledged how 

one measures such “leakage” is difficult. They stated that DOE’s program needs to allow DOE 

to ad equately as sess co mpliance, cr eate t ransparency t o allow f or ci tizens t o he lp e nforce its 

requirements, and allow end users to compare products. In their view, efficiency standards for 

some pr oducts ha ve increased d ramatically, b ut f urther i ncreases m ay n ot b e p ractical o r m ay 

come at t he ex pense o f R & D f or next g eneration, higher-efficiency products. H owever, t he 

process of ensuring compliance should be examined further. In addition, they voiced frustration 

that there are no certification requirements in place for these commercial products after all this 

time.

BASIC MODEL

They agreed that it is likely to be easier for DOE to build on existing product-specific definitions 

than t ry t o fit all pr oducts i nto a single D OE c oncept. For e xample, t here c ould be a pr oduct 

“family” with many common elements but different energy outputs. They questioned, however, 

“[i]f t hat o utput ( capacity) s cales i n a w ell-behaved w ay (e.g., l inearly, or w ith e fficiency 

constant with increasing size), should that product “family” be part of the same “basic model?”

 

35 Given t hat nearly a ll p ositions a mong t he a dvocacy c ommunity, c overing b oth e fficiency a nd e nforcement 

concerns, were j ointly he ld, s uch views are discussed j ointly (e.g., they), unless otherwise noted. States were not 

among those participating in the interview process.
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

25 

VICPS

VICPs should play a role in compliance because as one stated, “DOE cannot police the entire 

industry.” They do not favor DOE's certification system over using a VICP. They agreed that 10 

CFR 431.174 pr ovided a vehicle b y w hich pr oduct m anufacturers c ould de velop VICPs that 

would be accepted b y DOE. But 431.174 h as been r emoved, which w ould s eem t o h ave t he 

effect of requiring products to be tested to DOE’s regulations. They asked what the problem is 

that w ould r equire t his ch ange. They also voi ced c oncern that removing t he pr ovision may 

“introduce n ew pr oblems t hat w ill be e xpensive t o s olve, w ithout c ommensurately i mproving 

information reliability or energy savings for consumers.” They noted, however, that they had not 

noticed the removal of 431.174 previously in the CCE rulemaking, but had they been aware of it

“we would h ave r aised this ear lier.” A VICP s hould be a cceptable i f it: ( 1) ensures a l evel 

playing f ield a nd pr events s ales of non -compliant pr oducts; (2) i s accessible t o m anufacturers 

who c hoose not t o j oin a t rade a ssociation; a nd ( 3) a voids a V ICP monopoly. The i ssues 

discussed below are related to the concerns raised above about section 431.174. 

AEDMS

AEDMs are acceptable if they can be verified. If DOE can come up with an AEDM that a whole 

sector of i ndustry c an u se t hat w ould b e h elpful. AEDMs, wi th an appropriate en forcement 

program, need to be on t he table because they appear to be part of the certification compliance 

solution. Providing open source compliance software for manufacturers to use to calibrate with 

their own design models could be quite valuable. In the future, numbers of models are likely to 

rise to address niche options that end users demand. AEDMs will, therefore, become increasingly 

important as proxies to lab testing. This issue was also discussed in the context of the December 

31, 2012 certification deadline, as noted below. 

TIMING

The de adline s hould be on t he t able t o allow for A EDM u se. O ne p arty as ked w hat en ergy 

savings are at risk by product class if manufacturers do not meet the deadline?

SAMPLE SIZE

"We c ompletely a gree with D OE t hat C CE m ust t est e nough pr oducts t o pr ovide a dequate 

assurance that random units sold in the market comply with the law. We are less certain that the 

current D OE regulations a re t he onl y w ay t o pr ovide t he ne cessary assurance. C urrent 

regulations require testing at least two samples from each ‘basic model.’ This is hard to do for 

highly specialized, made-to-order products - and may not be necessary." They said they did not 

care if manufacturers are testing one or five products as long as they are meeting the standard.

TESTING TOLERANCES

There are two reasons to put this issue on the table: (1) to ensure the consumer is getting his/her

money's worth; and (2) if this is an important issue to industry it should be discussed. But they 

also n oted t hat t olerances ar e a co mplex i ssue, i n p art because o f t he v arying t olerances (test 
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

26 

procedure operating condition range) allowed for different instruments in the test set-up process. 

And while it appears that the values chosen were stringent but not onerous when the tests were 

set u p, since t hen, s ome t est e quipment ha s i mproved. A s a r esult, a p arty “with g reat te st 

equipment and a tight manufacturing culture might be able to game the system a bit by using the 

allowed e quipment to lerances to get b arely passing equipment a lmost a ll th e time , w ith even 

lower (but still legal) median acceptable minimum test values."

CUSTOMIZED PRODUCTS

High vol ume pr oduct s hould be t he f ocus of certification, not l ow yield "one-off" c ustomized 

data unless DOE can show there is a certification compliance issue with such products.

TESTING ORGANIZATIONS

Regarding AEDMs, one lab said they were comfortable with the proposal, while the other said 

AEDMs are good only for a certain range, but not outside of that range. One party stated that 

they are not engaged with AEDMs, which is the manufacturer’s responsibility. But the AEDMs

must be validated.

The organizations discussed testing issues and challenges, including sampling. The labs, who are 

paid b y AHR I,36 rely on its instructions a nd m ethods, a long w ith ope rational a nd i nstallation 

manuals. Under the AHRI program, random sampling is conducted by the labs. One lab stated it 

ran tests on 35 di fferent products for AHRI. One party stated that one of the biggest challenges 

of te sting f or ma nufacturers to c ertify to D OE is h elping th em lo cate th e c ertification 

requirements. A nother stated t hat t he fact th at D OE te sters c annot c ommunicate w ith 

manufacturers c reates p roblems. Some m anufacturers, e specially t he bi g one s, a re f ine w ith 

DOE’s certification statistical calculations. One lab has not heard many complaints on tolerance 

(test procedure operating condition range) and sample size regarding the AHRI testing program. 

Regarding ch allenges t o t he t esting p rocess, the labs e xplained t hat a s equipment ge ts m ore 

sophisticated it gets harder to run tests. For example, they pointed to variable speed units (e.g., 

18 SEER or higher, although this is for residential systems) with sophisticated controls, and one 

expected there would be even more complex products in the future. Both parties noted there are 

issues regarding the merits of testing sampling quality versus quantity. But they noted that if you 

had a bad component, testing the same unit twice will give you the same result. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES

Strong Overall Support. With some qualifications and suggestions, all parties thought a reg neg 

was worth trying, and nobody opposed its use. Indeed, many saw DOE’s willingness to explore 

reg neg through the convening as a positive and encouraging sign. Many thought reg neg was 

superior f or t hese m atters c ompared t o t he or dinary notice a nd c omment be cause of t he 

complexity and interrelated nature of the issues. For example, one party stated that the notice and 

comment process was not the best forum for the CCE and AEDM rulemakings, and that is why 

“there have been false starts” on those matters. Another mentioned that industry is accustomed 

 

36 DOE also contracts with labs for its enforcement testing program.
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

27 

to participating in v arious committees to draft p rivate standards, so this negotiation p rocess is 

familiar t o t hem. M oreover, de spite s ome c ompeting i nterests, pe ople c an be qui te c reative i n 

such forums. Others pointed to the process as enhancing communication and understanding of 

the issues between the parties, which would also benefit DOE. It also better addresses trust and 

communication dynamics, particularly between DOE and industry, as discussed in more detail 

below. 

Likelihood of Success Related to Scope. Without exception, all private parties — manufacturers, 

end users, and advocacy groups — agreed that the scope of a reg neg needs to be expanded. Such 

an expansion would, in their view, maximize the chances of reaching a consensus. O ne party 

who also agreed a wider scope was preferable noted, however, that there is a v ery good chance 

of getting a consensus, even if the scope was limited to certifying for compliance. 

The scope expansion recommended by the parties has three levels: 

• First, a party noted the DOE’s initial posture that it w as “not re-opening the concept of 

basic model with respect to the resting and rating requirement” was unrealistic. They did 

not s ee “how you c an t ackle t he i ssue o f certification i f you do not t alk a bout ba sic 

model” (see Figure 6, above). 

• Second, as one party noted, DOE should not draw an artificial line to isolate certification 

from t he de adline, A EDM, s ampling, and t esting i ssues. A s one put i t, you cannot 

separate t he f our issues. “ How c an you c ertify without t esting?” Indeed, a nother pa rty 

noted that i ncluding a ll t hese i ssues us ing a “ holistic a pproach” e nhances t he g roup’s 

ability t o unde rstand t hese i ssues. S ome pa rties noted t hat A EDM ne eds t o be i n t he 

scope, s ince i t the onl y means t o comply with c ertification, a nd bot h A EDM and 

certification are fluid concepts; therefore, it goes a long way to resolving the certification 

issue. Many parties mentioned that testing was an important part of the certification issue, 

while one called it is “the big elephant in the room” (see Figure 7, above).

• Third, the December 31, 2012 de adline is deemed a critical aspect of the scope to most 

parties. In their view, it is essential to extend the deadline so that all the pieces can be 

addressed at once and as a whole.

Once t he pa rties a ssumed, f or a rguments s ake, t hat t he s cope c ould be e xpanded, t hey 

immediately became more optimistic that the process could lead to a successful outcome. As a 

prominent practitioner has observed, it is common for parties with substantive differences to also 

have different opinions on scope compared to the Agency: the view often looks different to those 

in the private sector.

37 One party stated that if “smart people with open minds got together, all 

issues c ould be r esolved.” O thers m aintained t hat w ith m ore i ssues i n pl ay, t here w ere 

opportunities for many key tradeoffs that are crucial to any compromise. 

Only three parties of the 40 i nterviewed were concerned about the chances of success, even if 

properly scoped, claiming they were “not optimistic” reg neg would be successful. Two of these 

parties explained their reasoning. The first asked about the definition of consensus and said it is 

 

37 Philip J. Harter, “Collaboration: The Future of Governance” (Collaboration), Journal of Dispute Resolution, 411, 

footnote 56 (2009)(explaining th at p arties may p rioritize issues d ifferently a nd t hat t he co nvening p rocess h elps 

identify these issues as the foundation for use in the negotiations).
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

28 

impossible t o f ind 100% una nimity, but t hen a greed t hat none theless reg n eg h as “ a s hot” at 

succeeding be cause o f c omplex i ssues t hat c annot be r esolved b y or dinary rulemaking.38 A 

second person explained that if the issues are properly framed it may result in helping all sides 

understand the goals and methods. Moreover, while it may not be successful, “the prospects for 

success are lessened by insisting on the narrowest possible space for discussion." 

Improving R elationships. Many cited a nother i mportant a dvantage t o us ing r eg ne g i s t hat i t 

provides an ef fective m eans of he lping t o m end a n “unacceptably poor” r elationship be tween 

industry and DOE. Several industry parties described this relationship as the worst it has been in 

20 years based on t rust and substantive issues. There is widespread concern that DOE’s recent 

policies and enforcement strategies have ignored industry’s major needs by dismissing the merits 

of i ndustry pr actices t hat ha ve be en effective i n pol icing m anufacturers, w ithout ne cessarily 

making pr ogress t oward a ccomplishing a ny o f DOE’s ow n goals. M oreover, t he r ecent C CE 

deadline i s s een as un reasonable w ithout A EDMs a nd/or a b etter e xplanation f rom D OE 

regarding w hat i s an acc eptable b asic m odel. D espite t hese n egative p erceptions o f t he 

relationship there is a feeling that it is in everyone’s best interest to work together since DOE and 

industry h ave t o “peacefully coexist.” O thers w ent f urther a nd s aid w ith t he r ight s cope and 

success using the process, DOE has the opportunity to “transform” its relationship with industry.

The parties are not suggesting the Agency should cave in to their demands, only to be flexible in 

how i t w orks w ith ot hers t o a chieve i ts goals: Everyone r ecognizes t hat i t i s i n e veryone’s 

interest to develop a mutually acceptable and effective program that will achieve the statutory 

goals.

Setting the Stage and Dynamics. There were opinions regarding what was needed to set the stage 

for negotiations, as well as what one could expect once the parties got to the table. While many 

believe t he s ubstantive r equirements f or cer tification ne ed t o c hange, a pr erequisite f or 

successful n egotiation f or m any was s uspension of t he c ertification d eadline w hile t alks a re 

occurring. T his w as de emed a s howing of good f aith b y D OE a nd ensures t he i ssues a re 

considered collectively. The process needs to provide an opportunity to resolve ambiguities so 

that p arties d o n ot a ttempt to a rrive a t th eir o wn in terpretations o f th e me aning o f c ertain 

requirements. T he r evised s tandard ne eds t o f ocus on a reas of m ajor e nergy s avings a nd not 

minor ar eas (e.g., l ow-volume customization). Still, o ne s tated it w ould take d edication b y all 

parties to achieve positive results. Others predicted that DOE is likely going to be working with a 

united caucus of manufacturers and end users. 

Role of DOE. A common statement was that DOE needed to be quite active in providing both 

technical39 and pol icy guidance a nd feedback dur ing t he ne gotiations f or t his pr ocess t o be a 

success. Indeed, a s P hilip H arter ha s e xplained, t he n eed for t he A gency t o be an active 

participant may appear counterintuitive, but being passive typically “inhibits the committee from 

 

38 It is quite common in convenings for the parties being interviewed to express doubts regarding the likelihood a 

consensus process can be effective. Beyond their own experiences with the Agency and other parties, including the 

substantive issues, this reflects the fact that these are complex, contentious issues. Issues of such character, however, 

are, s ubject t o a successful convening in dicating t he li kelihood o f c onsensus is h igh, well suited to a r eg neg 

approach.

39 Collaboration at 442 ( describing t he i mportance o f government e xpertise i n r eg negs a nd t he r ole of s enior 

officials).
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

29 

reaching agreement.”40 The other common statement was DOE needs to show flexibility and be 

open minded. To be clear, the need for open-mindedness and flexibility does not mean that the 

DOE should modify its substantive goals but rather how it works to achieve them.

Importantly, these concerns go to the potential f or an e ffective rulemaking whether or not the 

rule is negotiated or developed through traditional notice and comment. Their clear implication 

is that a narrowly drawn proposal will like suffer the same limitations as earlier efforts.

INTERESTS TO INCLUDE

Various opinions were expressed regarding what interests need to be at the table. For example, a 

few parties saw the need for DOE and industry to be at the negotiating table, but they questioned 

whether anyone else needed to be. One party voiced concern that environmental advocates would 

have a disproportionate a mount of pow er, a nd t his c ould hur t t he l ikelihood of c onsensus. 

Another questioned the interests of distributors in this matter. Others saw end users as important 

players to include. 

The p arties who t hought t esting s hould be on t he a genda a greed t hat t esting l abs s hould b e 

involved in the negotiations. There were different opinions, however, regarding precisely what 

the l abs’ interest i s, a nd s ome not ed t hey ha ve a f inancial s take i n r unning m ore tests. B ut 

another party noted it would be impossible for them to do the testing for a huge amount of new 

tests that could be required under a DOE basic model definition. Regardless of whether labs are 

considered t rue p arties with a v ested i nterest i n t he outcome, t hey c ould, s ome s uggested, b e 

called upon t o answer questions a nd r esearch certain i ssues. For e xample, i f t he c ommittee 

wanted i deas for addressing t esting t olerances (test procedure ope rating c ondition range), they 

could suggest additional requirements, like tighter controls or better testing instrumentation. But 

they would not be able to indicate how many units would pass or fail based on various levels of 

tolerance. In sum, an appropriate role could be that of technical advisor to the committee.

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

FEASIBILITY OF NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING

With the pr oper s cope of i ssues on t he t able a n egotiated r ulemaking ap pears t o h ave a g ood 

likelihood of achieving consensus on a CRE and HVAC rule based on the factors set forth in the 

Negotiated Rulemaking Act.41 A major reason why consensus is likely is that the parties believe 

reg ne g i s s uperior t o n otice a nd c omment r ulemaking f or t hese i ssues. The A ct s ets out t he 

criteria an agency ne eds to c onsider i n de ciding w hether a pa rticular r ule c ould be de veloped 

using a ne gotiated r ulemaking pr ocess. T hese factors a re w hether: ( 1) there i s a ne ed f or t he 

rule; (2) there are a limited number of identifiable interests significantly affected by the rule; (3) 

a co mmittee can b e created with b alanced representation w ho c an r epresent t he i dentified 

 

40 Collaboration at 431-432 (noting that a passive posture by the Agency prevents parties from understanding their 

best alternative to a n egotiated agreement (BATNA), should negotiations fail, and this prevents parties from being 

able t o judge whether pr oposals be nefit t hem or n ot i n negotiations, t hough they of ten “ keep t alking” t o obt ain 

clarity from the Agency but ultimately, “do not converge.” 

41 5 U.S.C. § 563.
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

30 

interests and can negotiate in good faith; (4) consensus on t he issues appears likely; (5) the reg 

neg will not unduly delay the issuance of the rule; (6) the agency has resources and is willing to 

assist the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee; and (7) the agency, within the constraints of the 

law, will use the committee’s consensus as the basis of the rule for notice-and-comment. These 

seven factors are augmented by other non-statutory factors used by conveners, and are discussed 

directly below. 

Nature of This Dispute. First, at the outset, to properly analyze these seven factors, particularly 

what interests are “significantly affected” the convener must understand the scope and nature of 

the issues. And while, as noted above, it is common for there to be a difference of opinion on the 

scope between an Agency and the parties, the gap between the two here appears quite large (see 

Figure 7). This dispute centers at the outset, not of the divergent opinions of various parties, but 

on the scope of issues that should be on t he table. And layered on top of the scope issues are 

substantive differences in opinion between DOE and its stakeholders. Second, unlike other reg 

negs that are distributive in nature and tend to divide the industry based on how a new standard 

or efficiency “number” impacts their market share, this dispute does not divide its stakeholders 

on the substantive issues to a great degree. Rather, the stakeholders are asking DOE to broadly 

review its entire enforcement program. Third, another important characteristic at play here is the 

great degree of regulatory uncertainty due to the upcoming deadline and the uncertain status of 

the AEDM rule. As noted above, this convening analysis must necessarily assume the absence of 

an AEDM rule. Consequently, there are three potential options should DOE wish to explore this 

matter further. 

A. Conduct Reg Neg with Scope Suggested by DOE 

Only one party thought addressing certification alone would be worthwhile. And while all parties 

interviewed seemed reluctant to dismiss DOE’s scope for a reg neg on its own terms, it was clear 

they seemed confused by DOE’s intentions in extending an offer to collaborate on this issue, but 

doing s o w ith a c onfined s cope. T he pa rties believe, i n s um, t hat they are receiving mixed 

messages. Given th e u pcoming c ertification de adline, t here i s a s ense of f ear a nd u rgency 

regarding what DOE might do left to their own devices. In other words, industry would likely be 

reluctant pa rticipants i n t he di scussions. A nd even i f a c ommittee c ould b e s uccessful i n 

addressing t his s ole i ssue, t his w ould not r esolve t he c ore i ssues of how t o c omply w ith t he 

certification requirements given the uncertainty on what constitutes a basic model, including the 

other i ssues i ndustry d eems i mportant ( e.g., AEDMs, s ample s ize, and t est t olerances). 

Therefore, t here is an extremely hi gh risk that a reg ne g addressing this sole issue would fail. 

Failure might carry a high price, since any trust that was built during the convening stage and 

potential negotiations would be damaged, since the stakeholders might feel their needs to discuss 

a broader array of interrelated program issues are being ignored. Moreover, such parties might be 

reluctant to engage in a collaborative process with DOE in the future. 

In addition to these practical concerns, based on t he reg neg factors, this option also has a high 

risk o f failure s temming from tw o f actors: first, t he s takeholders p erceive no ne ed for t he 

particular r ule a s c urrently d efined b y D OE. S econd, t here i s a n e xtremely l ow l ikelihood of 

success. Indeed, as discussed above, this is true whether or not the rule is developed via reg neg 

or notice and comment. 
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

31 

B. Conduct Reg Neg With Scope Suggested by Stakeholders 

If ac ceptable t o D OE, a reg ne g covering certification ( including t he compliance de adline)

AEDMs, s ample s ize, a nd t est t olerances, has a f ar h igher likelihood of c onsensus f or t he 

following reasons. First, an irony of the scope difference between DOE and the other parties is 

that a ll other parties ar e r emarkably w ell al igned o n n early al l o f t he f our substantive issues. 

Therefore, t he intra-industry divisions th at a re mo st c hallenging based on m arket s hare

distribution are n ot a major factor h ere. Second, al l parties f eel s trongly t hat t he ch ance o f 

consensus is dramatically higher with all issues in play, pa rtly due to the number of technical 

tradeoffs possible. Indeed, reg neg practice supports this belief: the process has been remarkably 

successful a ddressing m ulti-faceted i ssues where t here are a s ignificant n umber o f t echnical 

tradeoffs a nd not m erely driven b y e conomic c onsiderations. In s um, de spite t he num ber of 

additional issues that would need to be addressed, the synergy and technical complexity of the 

issues does not create added obstacles that would hinder a consensus. 

One potential risk in taking on a scope this broad is that the potential complexity could prolong 

the reg neg and therefore delay issuance of the rule. There is uncertainty regarding DOE’s action

(e.g., deadline) that is focusing the attention of the various interests. But uncertainty alone might 

not prevent delay. The parties seem to uniformly want to resolve this issue expeditiously. A firm 

deadline needs to be established for the completion of the consultative/consensus phase of the 

rulemaking. The deadline should be set to enable DOE to meet its schedule by acting on its own 

through regular rulemaking. 

Beyond the risks there are potentially valuable benefits that go be yond the mere possibility of 

resolving c ertain c ore s ubstantive i ssues. N amely, t his pr ocess ha s a chance t o r epair t he 

relationship b etween th e p arties. D espite s ome parties claiming th ey felt th e r elationship w as 

difficult, the same parties admitted the relationship could change. Importantly, as noted above, 

many said that with the right scope and success using the process, DOE has the opportunity to 

“transform” its relationship with industry. 

Another co ncern co nsidered h ere i s w hether any party n eeds t o compromise a f undamental 

value.42 Here, n early all HVAC participants ar e m embers o f A HRI’s p roduct c ertification 

program, a nd a pproximately h alf o f th ose in terviewed p articipate in A HRI’s certification and

verification testing program. Clearly if DOE decided its goal was not to allow VICPs any role in 

the certification program, then AHRI’s business model would be threatened. But, despite their 

differences, there is no indication that DOE seeks to eliminate AHRI. Therefore, a negotiation 

about t he c ontours a nd r espective role of DOE a nd A HRI ( and ot her pot ential V ICPs) is 

appropriate. 

 

42 Collaboration at 427. 
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

32 

C. Do a R eg N eg, But Only i f Prefaced b y a Public Meeting to Educate Participants an d 

Address Scope Concerns 

One party suggested having a scoping session that was not necessarily part of the reg neg and 

might oc cur be fore a f inal de cision t o pr oceed o r not i s m ade. T he s ame pa rty, how ever, di d 

support a r eg ne g. Unless D OE ha s r eservations a bout pr oceeding w ith a r eg ne g, t his opt ion 

does not appear to have any advantage over having a robust, prolonged organizational meeting, 

so we do not recommend this. 

Statutory F actors and Recommendations on P rocess and I nterests. Under t hese c riteria f or 

assessing t he l ikelihood of success, t he C onvening T eam r ecommends t hat D OE in itiate a 

negotiated rulemaking process. Despite some disagreement over the certification deadline, most 

private en tities ag ree t hat more cl arity i s needed r egarding t he de finition of ba sic m odel; 

therefore, a ne w rule i s ove rdue. W hile the n umber o f s ignificantly imp acted e ntities ma y b e 

substantial, t he num ber of interests is l imited a nd ma nageable. Therefore, w e b elieve t hat 

qualified r epresentatives can b e s elected w ho would s peak effectively f or t he d iversity o f 

affected p arties. In addition, a b alanced co mmittee can b e em panelled t hat r epresents t he 

diversity of interests. In light of a history of delays in issuing a rule to date, it is possible that 

using negotiated rulemaking may actually expedite, and not delay, issuance of a rule. No single 

party or i nterest a ppears t o ha ve ove rwhelming i nfluence ov er t he out come of t his pr ocess. 

Consequently, i t i s unl ikely t hat a ny one pa rty w ill be a ble t o a chieve t heir g oals w ithout 

negotiating given t he c omplexity of t he i ssues (e.g., “end r un” t he p rocess b y access t o 

congressional leaders). 

The Agency has expressed its willingness to support a negotiated rulemaking committee, and has 

agreed to employ any resulting consensus as the basis for a notice of proposed rulemaking. The 

Team concludes that, from all indications, the Agency possesses the commitment to enable the 

committee as a whole to produce beneficial results.

While th e T eam b elieves th at n egotiations in th is s etting a re lik ely to be h ighly productive, 

reaching full a greement may p rove difficult. H ence, w e recommend having an organizational 

meeting to establish groundrules and a substantive agenda for future meetings. G iven that we 

believe t hese i ssues c an be r esolved be fore a n egotiation i s c ommenced, w e r ecommend t hat 

DOE proceed with a formal reg neg process described below. 

The i nterests i dentified i n t his c onvening w ere d iscussed a bove. B ased on t his c onvening, w e 

recommend t hat t he f ollowing i nterests s hould b e i ncluded i n t he ne gotiations. M anufacturing 

concerns of all sizes, including small businesses for both CRE and HVAC, including appropriate 

trade o rganization r epresentatives, would r eceive t he f ollowing num ber of s eats on t he 

committee: eight (8); end users three (3); environmental groups three (3) (efficiency advocates 

and those vested in the enforcement and transparency of the requirements). 

Many f actors not ed be low ne ed t o be c onsidered i n a ssembling a ba lanced c ommittee. F or 

instance, there is a broad array of product offerings within the manufacturing caucus, including

the de gree of customization t hey offer e nd us ers. Some in terests also d iffer in th e d egree to 
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

33 

which they rely on i n-house vs. outside testing. In addition, their reliance on e xisting VICPs is 

another di stinguishing f actor. While s tates w ere co ntacted f or t his an alysis, n one ap peared 

willing to p articipate i n t he i nterview p rocess. This unw illingness a ppeared t o be s trongly 

influenced by competing priorities and resource issues. Hence, we also recommend two (2) states

with varying attributes be offered seats on the committee. The testing labs can clearly add value 

and technical a dvice t o t he de liberations, and we r ecommend t hey p articipate as t echnical 

advisors, not committee members. 

Parties seeking to participate in a reg neg may assume that having more seats at the table ensures 

their in terest can p revail o ver the min ority view should i ssues be come d eadlocked. T his vi ew 

misses the point of how consensus operates.43 Given that every party has a veto in a consensusbased pr ocess, w hile t hose m ost s ignificantly i mpacted s hould ha ve br oad r epresentation to

ensure their points of view and needs are accounted for, they need to understand that the nature 

of t heir pa rticipation i s representational. In f act, t hey do not r epresent onl y t hemselves, but a

broader interest (e.g., CRE). And many parties that are not on the committee (e.g., constituents 

and technical advisors) can nonetheless participate through their representatives. Participation of 

each interest has been described as a “wedge,” as depicted in Figure 9, below. 

Figure 9: The “Wedge” of Interests (Prepared by Philip J. Harter, 1990)

 

43 Collaboration at 424 ( discussing h ow r epresentation assures a ll i nterests will b e r aised, which is c ritical to 

ensuring minority views are not ignored).
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

34 

Next Steps

If the Agency decides to move forward with a negotiated rulemaking process, its next official 

step w ould be t o publ ish i n t he Federal R egister a n otice o f in tent to f orm a n egotiating 

committee. The Negotiated Rulemaking Act provides that the Agency must then allow 30 days 

for comments on the proposal and for applications for committee membership. 

Regardless of whether it decides an additional public meeting to scope the issues is warranted, 

the c ommittee s hould conduct a n or ganizational m eeting. At th e o rganizational me eting, 

committee membership would be finalized; organizational ground rules developed to define how 

the c ommittee w ill o perate a nd b e s tructured; the p articipants w ould engage in a “s coping 

session” to develop those issues that need to be considered (and, the flip side: what issues will 

not be on t he table); and the group would identify data that will be needed and consider how it 

will be de veloped. A fter t hose i ssues a re c onsidered, t he c ommittee w ould de cide w hether i t 

would be helpful to use work groups to address some issues; the deliberations and suggestions of 

these w ork gr oups w ould t hen be r eviewed b y t he c ommittee a nd i ntegrated i nto i ts ow n 

decisions. The organizational meeting would also serve to introduce the participants, determine if 

there are others who should be on t he committee, set an agenda for the committee’s work, and 

establish t he pr ocedures t hat w ill g overn s ubsequent m eetings of t he ne gotiated r ulemaking 

committee.
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

35 

APPENDIX A 

THOSE INTERVIEWED DURING CONVENING PROCESS FOR HEATING,

VENTILATING AND AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT

Association NAME

CUACs

Carrier John Mandyck 

Robert Whitwell

Mead Rusert

Karin Namislo

Richard Lord

Mark Rabbin

Johnson Controls (York) Steven Maddox

Jeff Nichol

Mitsubishi Electric Paul Dopple 

Jay Perkins 

Trane Jordan Doria

Jill Hootman

Nordyne Dan Arnold

Goodman Gary Clark

Bard Wes Roan 

Rheem Karen Meyers 

Keith Grahl

Robert Long

PTACs

Friedrich David Lingrey

RetroAire/ECR Dan Adams

SPVUs

Bard Wes Roan
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

36 

Marvair Thompson Matambo 

Paul Mechler

Modine Robert Linstroth

Commercial Furnaces

Rheem (see above)

Carrier (see above)

Trane (see above)

Heal Controller Roxanne Scott

Commercial Boilers

A.O. Smith Charlie Adams

Lochinvar Neil Rolph

Trade Associations 

Air Conditioning, Heating and Karim Amrane 

Refrigeration Institute David Calabrese 

Aniruddh Roy

Frank Stanonik

Bill Tritsis

Jon Lemmond

Heating, Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Talbot Gee

Distributors International John Melchi

Test Labs

Intertek Mike Stem 

Mark Menzer

Byron Horak

Robert Fisher

Underwriters Laboratories Neil Ferrill 

Brian Ferriol

Mike Kojak

Mike Shows
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

37 

Claire Kammer

Shawn Nelson

Advocates

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Harvey Sachs

Economy Harry Misuriello

Johanna Mauer

Appliance Standards Awareness Project Andrew Delaski

Earth Justice Tim Ballo

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance Louis Starr

End Users

Disney Martin Cowley

Food Lion Wayne Rosa 

McDonalds

Whole Foods 

Bob Beecroft

Matt Rollins

Martin Tyler

Kathy Loftus

 

 
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

38 

 

APPENDIX B 

THOSE INTERVIEWED DURING CONVENING PROCESS FOR COMMERCIAL 

REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT

Association NAME

CREs

True Manufacturing Charlie Hon

Traulsen Joe Sanders

Walt Boryca

Zero Zone Carl Roberts

Dave Morrow

Bruce Herlmeier

Manitowoc/Delfield Rick Seiss

Hill Phoenix Larry Howington

Hussmann Ron Shebik

Brad Bene

Structural Concepts Viktor Anderson

Jason Paket

Rob Date

John Murray

Master-Bilt Products Kenny Owen

Southern Store Fixtures

Trade Associations 

Massoud Neshan

Air Conditioning, Heating and Karim Amrane 

Refrigeration Institute David Calabrese 

Aniruddh Roy

Frank Stanonik

Bill Tritsis

Jon Lemmond
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

39 

National Association of Convenience Michael Lawshe

Stores John Eichberger

Lindsay Kutac

Test Labs

Intertek Mike Stem 

Mark Menzer

Byron Horak

Robert Fisher

Underwriters Laboratories

Neil Ferrill 

Brian Ferriol

Mike Kojak

Mike Shows

Claire Kammer

Shawn Nelson

Advocates

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Harvey Sachs

Economy Harry Misuriello

Johanna Mauer

Appliance Standards Awareness Project Andrew Delaski

Earth Justice Tim Ballo

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance Louis Starr

End Users

Disney Martin Cowley

Food Lion

McDonalds 

Wayne Rosa

Bob Beecroft 

Matt Rollins

Martin Tyler

Whole Foods Kathy Loftus
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

40 

APPENDIX C 

US Department of Energy’s Regulatory Negotiation Convening on 

Commercial Certification for Heating, Ventilating, Air-Conditioning, and 

Refrigeration Equipment

Public Information for Convening Interviews

I. What are the substantive issues DOE seeks to address? 

• Strategies for grouping various basic models for purposes of certification; 

• Identification of non-efficiency attributes, which do not impact the measured consumption of the 

equipment as tested by DOE’s test procedure; 

• The information that is certified to the Department; 

• The timing of when the certification should be made relative to distribution in commerce; and 

• Alterations to a basic model that would impact the certification. 

II. What is a negotiated rulemaking and the convening process? 

Negotiated rulemaking (often called “reg neg”) is a consensus process governed by the 

Negotiated Rulemaking Act (NRA)(5 USC §§ 562-570). In a reg neg, a balanced group of stakeholders, 

chartered as a committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), works with the agency to 

negotiate text of a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR). If a consensus emerges from negotiations, all 

committee members, including the agency, would agree to support it. Next, a regular notice-and-comment 

process takes place under the Administrative Procedure Act. While many fewer public comments would 

likely be received than in an ordinary rulemaking, since most interested entities would have participated 

in developing the proposal, the agency nevertheless would be required to address any comments in the 

same manner as with a standard NOPR process. 

 Prior to deciding to move forward with a reg neg, an agency must determine whether the subject 

of the rulemaking is appropriate for a reg neg (NRA§ 563). A convening, conducted by a neutral party, 

the convener, is a feasibility assessment of the likelihood a consensus process can be successful, and it 

identifies and recommends the key parties to invite to join the committee. Specifically, as provided by the 

NRA, the convener identifies parties that will be “significantly affected” by the NOPR and assists the 

agency to determine whether establishing a committee is “feasible and appropriate” (NRA § 563). The 

convener synthesizes the interviews in a convening report without attribution, to ensure the parties’ views 

can remain confidential. The parties interviewed, however, will be listed in an appendix to the report.

 

III. What assurances do I have that the convener is a neutral party that will maintain the confidentiality of 

our communications? 

 Under the NRA and other legal authorities, confidentiality of the information gathered during the 

convening is a key cornerstone to ensure success of the process. The convening is a candid exchange 

between the convener and interested parties, including the agency. The goal of convening is to provide the 

best data upon which the agency can decide whether and how to proceed with a reg neg.

 DOE’s policy on the confidentiality of communications with a neutral convener in a reg neg, 

regardless of whether they are a private contractor or federal employee, is based on the Administrative 

Dispute Resolution Act (ADRA)(5 USC §§ 571-584). Under the ADRA, the convener of a reg neg is 

prohibited from disclosing, and cannot be forced to disclose, communications related to the reg neg, with 

limited exceptions. The ADRA also includes an exception that protects documents held by the convener 

from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Consequently, based on the ADRA, it is DOE’s 
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

41 

policy that the convener’s notes and other communications with the parties will not be disclosed to DOE 

or the public. In addition, as required by the NRA, parties must trust the convener is impartial and 

independent. In fact, the NRA requires DOE to determine that a neutral convener has “no financial or 

other interest that would preclude [him] from serving in an impartial and independent manner” (NRA § 

568). Based on the desire to ensure the confidentiality of communications with the convener and that the 

convener is indeed impartial and independent, DOE has chosen to utilize Alan Strasser as the convener. 

This selection is based on Mr. Strasser’s proven experience in the private sector as a neutral convener on 

several negotiated rulemakings, including an effort in 1999 on residential central air conditioners. Mr. 

Strasser is currently a regulatory attorney at the Department of Transportation working on detail at DOE. 

For his detail, Mr. Strasser primarily supports DOE’s General Counsel’s Office advising on regulatory 

programs, and on a limited basis has advised on enforcement matters. DOE has determined that Mr. 

Strasser has “no financial or other interest that would preclude [him] from serving in an impartial and 

independent manner” (NRA § 568). 

In addition to safeguards outlined above and adopted in DOE’s policy based on the NRA and 

ADRA, DOE has established rigorous communication protocols to ensure Mr. Strasser does not 

communicate with, nor will be contacted by, any DOE employees regarding the content of the discussions 

with stakeholders; instead, he will only be able to disclose information presented in the convening report, 

and only then, in a manner that protects the anonymity of interviewees. Furthermore, DOE has ensured 

that Mr. Strasser is not assigned to work on any matters regarding the residential or commercial air 

conditioning industry or the residential or commercial refrigeration equipment industry, and will not work 

on this rulemaking beyond the convening stage. Finally, DOE has required Mr. Strasser to follow detailed 

protocols regarding documentation developed or received in the course of the convening. First, he will 

destroy all personal notes developed during the convening interviews once the convening report is issued 

to DOE and the public. Second, if federal law requires that Mr. Strasser maintains federal records, they 

will be maintained in a manner that will ensure that they will not be disclosed. Third, if parties provide 

documents to Mr. Strasser during the convening process, he will return them upon request once the 

convening report is issued to DOE and the public. A contractor for the Department of Energy will serve 

as an assistant to Mr. Strasser in the convening process, and is similarly considered a neutral convener; 

therefore, s/he is also governed under all the laws and safeguards as described above. 

Mr. Strasser’s role in the convening process is prescribed by the NRA. He will ask each party 

questions in order to determine the likelihood the parties can converge on the issues. Beyond attempting 

to gauge the feasibility of moving forward, Mr. Strasser’s questions will also be aimed at defining the 

subject and scope of the negotiations. Once the issues are identified, Mr. Strasser will ask participants 

what persons are qualified to “represent the significantly impacted interests” (NRA § 563). Should he 

recommend to DOE that a reg neg is feasible, he will provide a list of recommended parties who would be 

empanelled in a committee. Following the interviews, Mr. Strasser will provide a convening report to 

DOE, all parties that were interviewed, and the public. If DOE wants to move forward with a reg neg, it 

must then publish a Notice of Intent, which includes an opportunity for comment on membership of the 

proposed committee and allows any person to apply to be nominated as a committee member. DOE must 

also file a charter under FACA before it formally establishes a negotiating committee.

 

IV. Who do I contact for more information? 

 For questions about the convening process, contact Mr. Strasser, the convener, at 202- 586-8269. 

For legal questions, contact Daniel Cohen, Assistant General Counsel for Legislation, Regulation and 

Energy Efficiency, at 202-586-9523. 
DOE Convening Report on Certification of Commercial HVAC and CRE Products, October 2, 2012

42 

APPENDIX D 

Example

Efficiency Standard

(e.g., CUACs)

Consumption Standard

(e.g., CREs)

Sample Data 12.35 12.8

13 13

13 13

12.9 13

12.9

Mean 12.8125 12.94

Standard Deviation 0.311916121 0.089442719

Standard Error 0.155958061 0.04

Certification

DOE Standard 13 13

Confidence Interval 0.9 0.9

Cert Divisor 0.95 1.05

t value 1.637744354 1.637744354

LCL 13.21797954 UCL 12.38619978

Generate rating between minimum and maximum values

Determine minimum and maximum rating values

Consumption Standards: xbar or UCL (whichever 

higher) ↔ Standard 

Efficiency Standards: Standard ↔ xbar or LCL 

(whichever lower)

Calculate product specific certification statistics, 429.14-429.54

Commercial: 431 Sample Mean (xbar) Upper Confidence Limit 

(UCL)

Lower Confidence Limit 

(LCL)

Determine which Federal conservation standards apply to the product

Commercial equipment: 431

Test at least two units of a basic model using the DOE test procedure