202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 1

 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

 + + + + + 

 PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION 

 STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL 

 REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT 

 + + + + + 

 THURSDAY 

 OCTOBER 3, 2013 

 + + + + + 

 The Public Meeting commenced in 

Room 8E-089 of the US Department of Energy, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC, 

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

presiding. 

PRESENT 

DOUG BROOKMAN, Public Solutions, Inc., 

 Facilitator 

TIM ANDERSON, Hussmann 

VIKTOR ANDERSON, Structural Concepts 

ASHLEY ARMSTRONG, DOE 

TIM BALLO, Earthjustice 

JEFF BAUMAN, NRAC 

CHRIS BOLDUC, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab 

DONALD BRUNDAGE, Southern Company 

STEVEN A. COUSINS, Coca-Cola 

KATIE COUGHLIN, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab 

JOHN CYMBALSKY, DOE 

MARY DANE, Traulsen 

BRUCE HIERLMEIER, Zero Zone, Inc. 

CHARLES HON, True 

JOHN HURST, Lennox 

CHRISTOPHER LAU, Navigant 

PAUL LIN, Regal 

ROBERT LINNEY, Royal Vendors 

CHARLES LLENZA, DOE 

ARIS MARANTAN, Navigant 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 2

MIKE MAU, Royal Vendors 

JOANNA MAUER, Appliance Standards Awareness 

 Project 

ANNE McCARTHY, Navigant 

CHARLES McCRUDDEN, ACCA 

JON McHUGH, California Investor-Owned 

 Utilities 

FRANK MOORE, NAFEM 

MIKE RIVEST, Navigant 

ANIRUDDH ROY, AHRI 

HARVEY SACHS, ACEEE 

RON SHEBIK, Hussmann 

LOUIS STARR, NEEA 

CHRIS THOMPSON, Heatcraft 

JENNIFER TIEDEMAN, DOE 

COLLIN WEBER, Navigant 

ROBERT WILKINS, Danfoss 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 3

 A G E N D A 

WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS, OPENING 

REMARKS 

 .................................... 4 

 Doug Brookman/John Cymbalsky 

OVERVIEW, SCOPE, TEST PROCEDURE 

 ........... 21 

 Charles Llenza 

MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AND 

SCREENING ANALYSIS 30 

 Collin Weber 

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS 51 

 Collin Weber 

MARKUPS ANALYSIS: ENERGY USE ANALYSIS 165 

 Katie Coughlin 

LIFE-CYCLE COSTS AND PAYBACK PERIOD 

ANALYSIS 172 

 Katie Coughlin 

SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS AND NATIONAL IMPACT 

ANALYSIS 212 

 Katie Coughlin 

MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS 267 

 Christopher Lau 

NOPR ANALYSIS 282 

 Katie Coughlin 

CLOSING REMARKS 352 

 Charles Llenza 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 4

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

2 (9:04 a.m.) 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Good morning, 

4 everyone, and welcome. This is the U.S. 

5 Department of Energy's Public Meeting on 

6 Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial 

7 Refrigeration Equipment. 

 rd

8 Today is Thursday, October 3 , 

9 2013 here in the Forrestal Building in 

10 Washington, D.C. So good to see you here this 

11 morning bright and early. 

12 We have a full day ahead of us, I 

13 think. We're going to start off this morning 

14 with welcoming remarks from John Cymbalsky. 

15 MR. CYMBALSKY: Thank you, Doug. 

16 Welcome, everybody, to the public meeting for 

17 Commercial Refrigeration Equipment, Proposal 

18 for New and Amended Energy Conservation 

19 Standards. 

20 I've heard from several of you 

21 already, so I have a feeling we're in for a 

22 nice, lively meeting, which actually I enjoy. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 5

1 Some of these, sometimes, aren't as fun as 

2 this one portends to be. So, with that, let's 

3 get started and have a productive day. Thank 

4 you. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. We always 

6 start with introductions, as many of you know, 

7 around the room. And I'm going to start to my 

8 immediate left as we get used to turning these 

9 microphones on and off. 

10 Please say your name and 

11 organizational affiliation. 

12 MR. ANDERSON: Tim Anderson, 

13 Hussman Corporation. 

14 MR. SHEBIK: Ron Shebik, Hussman 

15 Corporation. 

16 MR. HON: Charlie Hon, True 

17 Manufacturing. 

18 MR. COUSINS: Steve Cousins, the 

19 Coca-Cola Company. 

20 MS. DANE: Mary Dane, Traulsen 

21 Refrigeration. 

22 MR. ANDERSON: Victor Anderson, 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 6

1 Structural Concepts Corporation. 

2 MR. BAUMAN: Jeff Bauman, national 

3 Refrigeration Air Conditioning. 

4 MR. LINNEY: Bob Linney, Royal 

5 Vendors. 

6 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs, American 

7 Counsel for Energy Efficient Economy. 

8 MR. THOMPSON: Chris Thompson, 

9 Heatcraft Refrigeration. 

10 MR. WILKINS: Robert Wilkins, 

11 Danfoss. 

12 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer, Appliance 

13 Standards Awareness Project. 

14 MR. HIERLMEIER: Bruce Hierlmeier, 

15 Zero Zone. 

16 MR. McHUGH: Jon McHugh 

17 representing the California Investor-Owned 

18 Utilities. 

19 MR. ROY: Aniruddh Roy, Air 

20 Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration 

21 Institute. 

22 MS. TIEDEMAN: Jennifer Tiedeman, 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 7

1 DOE, Office of General Counsel. 

2 MR. LLENZA: Charles Llenza, 

3 Department of Energy, Project Manager. 

4 MR. CYMBALSKY: John Cymbalsky, 

5 DOE. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Please, let's start 

7 over here. Please stand and speak clearly. 

8 MR. WEBER: Collin Weber, Navigant. 

9 MR. LAU: Christopher Lau, 

10 Navigant. 

11 MS. COUGHLIN: Katie Coughlin, 

12 Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. 

13 MR. BOLDUC: Chris Bolduc, Lawrence 

14 Berkeley National Lab. 

15 MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest, Navigant. 

16 MS. EDWARDS: Brenda Edwards, DOE. 

17 MR. HURST: John Hurst, Lennox. 

18 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, 

19 Earthjustice. 

20 MR. STARR: Louis Starr, Northwest 

21 Energy Efficiency Alliance. 

22 MR. MOORE: Frank Moore, NAFEM. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 8

1 MR. MAU: Mike Mau, Royal Vendors. 

2 MR. McCRUDDEN: Charlie McCrudden, 

3 ACCA. 

4 MR. BRUNDAGE: Don Brundage, 

5 Southern Company. 

6 MR. LIN: Paul Lin, Regal. 

7 MS. ARMSTRONG: Ashley Armstrong, 

8 DOE. 

9 MR. MARANTAN: Aris Marantan, 

10 Navigant. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. And for 

12 those of you that are joining us via the web, 

13 welcome to you, as well. Let me ask you if you 

14 would please make sure your telephones are on 

15 mute at this time because we're getting 

16 feedback. 

17 All of you received a packet of 

18 information as you came into the room today. 

19 We were very pleased to present it to you. 

20 Immediately following this agenda review and 

21 the introductions which we've already done, 

22 there's an opportunity for anybody that wishes 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 9

1 to make brief opening remarks here at the 

2 outset, a summary statement, not a lengthy 

3 written comment. We can always have those 

4 submitted and put into the record in their 

5 complete form, but we're hoping that these can 

6 be summary statements briefly. 

7 Following that Overview, Scope and 

8 Test Procedure, and moving straight on from 

9 there to Market and Technology Assessment and 

10 Screening Analysis, Engineering Analysis. 

11 We'll take a break midmorning around about 

12 10:30-10:45 or so. Following that, Markup 

13 Analysis, Energy Use Analysis, Life-Cycle 

14 Costs and Payback Period Analysis. And then 

15 moving on from there, Shipments Analysis and 

16 National Impact Analysis. We'll take lunch 

17 round about noon or so. Returning from lunch, 

18 Manufacturer Impact Analysis, NOPR Analyses, 

19 we'll break mid-afternoon round about 2:00 or 

20 2:15. Then, finally, after the break, the 

21 description of the Proposed Standard, and 

22 Closing Remarks. In the afternoon when we've 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 10

1 gone through all of this material, you'll have 

2 another opportunity for anybody that wants to 

3 raise issues that haven't been covered 

4 sufficiently. Okay? 

5 So make notes, make sure -- I'm 

6 very hopeful that the structure provided by 

7 all these PowerPoint slides is going to 

8 provide you the spot and place to really make 

9 your comments effectively. That's good for 

10 you, it's good for the Department of Energy, 

11 as well. 

12 I'd ask for your consideration. 

13 Please if you would speak one at a time, say 

14 your name for the record each time you speak. 

15 Since you've all registered you don't need to 

16 say your organizational affiliation unless 

17 that's stuck in your brain. You can just say 

18 your name. 

19 Please keep the focus here. Turn 

20 your cell phones on silent mode, limit sidebar 

21 conversations. I'm going to be cuing 

22 individuals by name as best I can. I also wish 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 11

1 to encourage follow-on comment. Sometimes 

2 that's very helpful for the Department to get 

3 the back and forth among different points of 

4 view. 

5 And webinar participants, welcome 

6 to you. The Department of Energy is trying 

7 very hard to make these meetings accessible 

8 via the web. If you can keep your telephones 

9 on mute, and if you'd raise your hand using 

10 the software that you've got on line there to 

11 speak, then it has been working that we've 

12 been able to hear individuals via the web here 

13 in the room, or you can send an email to our 

14 webmaster and she'll cue me, and I will cue 

15 you to speak. And that's how we intend to do 

16 this. 

17 Let me see. I think that is all 

18 the preliminary stuff. Do you want to do --

19 Slide 3. I think I've covered that, yes. 

20 Once again, listening via the web, 

21 we welcome webinar participants. We want to 

22 provide an opportunity for you to participate 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 12

1 in this meeting as best we can, so raise your 

2 hand or send an email to our webmaster and 

3 we'll get you in this conversation. 

4 Do you want to do a few 

5 preliminary slides before we do summary 

6 remarks here at the outset? 

7 MR. LLENZA: No, I think we'll just 

8 follow the -- 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

10 MR. LLENZA: -- issue boxes. This 

11 is an important part of our presentation, and 

12 also part of the NOPR. There are issues boxes 

13 that we have questions specifically addressing 

14 our Proposed Standards and Analysis. We'd 

15 greatly appreciate comments to these from all 

16 parties. And just a reminder, a quick reminder 

17 that the deadline for submitting comments is 

18 November 12, 2013. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: I neglected to 

20 introduce myself. I'm Doug Brookman from 

21 Public Solutions in Baltimore. 

22 So, as we said at the outset now 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 13

1 is an opportunity for summary remarks, an 

2 opportunity to feature things that you would 

3 like to bring to the fore right here at the 

4 outset. Who would like to start? Joanna Mauer. 

5 MS. MAUER: I'm Joanna Mauer with 

6 the Appliance Standards Awareness Project. 

7 We're pleased that this proposed rule has 

8 finally been issued after a long delay. We 

9 believe that DOE has proposed strong cost10 effective efficiency levels that would deliver 

11 large energy savings for the nation, and 

12 energy bill savings for purchasers of 

13 commercial refrigeration equipment. 

14 DOE estimates that customers would 

15 save hundreds of dollars in life-cycle cost 

16 savings and over 30 years of sales the 

17 standards would save one quad of energy and 

18 would net businesses $1.6-4.1 billion in 

19 savings. 

20 We thank DOE for the opportunity 

21 to participate in today's public meeting and 

22 we look forward to the discussion today. Thank 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 14

1 you. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes. 

3 MR. McHUGH: I have a couple of 

4 slides. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon, you do? 

6 MR. McHUGH: Yes. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Do you have 

8 them? 

9 MR. McHUGH: I think they're on 

10 there. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Say your name, Jon. 

12 MR. McHUGH: Jon McHugh with McHugh 

13 Energy supporting the California Investor14 Owned Utilities. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's prop this up a 

16 little bit here. 

17 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs, ACEEE. 

18 Will these slides be added to the website? 

19 MR. McHUGH: It's open to DOE, but 

20 I will provide them, yes. 

21 MR. SACHS: Thank you. 

22 MR. McHUGH: Good morning. The 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 15

1 basis of all of why the government actually 

2 regulates energy consumption of equipment has 

3 to do with effects on global environment. And 

4 I ask the question - can we change the global 

5 environment? Certainly, we can in terms of 

6 light outside. Most of you are probably 

7 familiar with the hockey stick, which is the 

8 fact that carbon dioxide levels have been 

9 rising dramatically over the last 50 years or 

10 100 years, and I think a common belief is that 

11 that's human caused. 

12 And we've actually been down this 

13 path before in this industry where we had an 

14 issue associated with the chlorofluorocarbons 

15 and the increase or the decrease in the ozone 

16 layer. And we had a problem that was 

17 recognized, and we've actually turned the 

18 corner on this; that the reductions in ozone 

19 have decreased because of proactive actions by 

20 the refrigeration industry and government. 

21 Now, I don't know if many of you 

22 have seen this before. This is a supply curve 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 16

1 for carbon abatement. On the Y axis here is 

2 the net present value of doing things that 

3 reduce carbon emissions. And what you see is 

4 over on the left side of the graph are 

5 primarily energy efficient measures. And on 

6 the right side of the graph which actually 

7 increase costs are essentially things like 

8 carbon sequestration and that sort of thing. 

9 So, I look at the items that are 

10 on the left side of the graph just being 

11 things that actually increase wealth for our 

12 society because they actually reduce the net 

13 present value. The savings are actually 

14 greater than their costs, and yet the things 

15 that are on the right side are things that 

16 actually impose a cost on society. And from a 

17 policy basis sort of the no regrets move is to 

18 actually do those things that generate wealth 

19 for our society. 

20 Looking at the results from the 

21 NOPR, you know, it appears that if we look at 

22 the group of equipment that are -- that have 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 17

1 not been regulated since the 2005 EPACT, the 

2 simple payback is, in general, less than three 

3 years. We look at the savings from the other 

4 things that were more recently regulated - in 

5 general the simple paybacks are around four 

6 years. 

7 If you look at this in terms of an 

8 internal rate of return for businesses like 

9 supermarkets and that sort of thing, typically 

10 they're in business for at least 10 years. And 

11 for all of those products that you'd more 

12 typically see in supermarkets like the things 

13 that have been regulated recently, since 2009, 

14 you see that the internal rates of return are 

15 around 18 percent which isn't bad. And if you 

16 look at restaurants which might have a shorter 

17 life of their business, sometimes they go out 

18 of business, those are the types of things, 

19 the reach-in refrigeration and those sorts of 

20 things, and those typically have simple 

21 paybacks of three years or less. So, they had 

22 rates of return that are 20 percent, so 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 18

1 they're more likely to be in business if they 

2 actually make these kinds of investments. 

3 So, is the NOPR a wealth generator 

4 for the country, and also for your customers? 

5 I plotted from NASDAQ the last 10 years of 

6 stock prices. Walmart has been fairly 

7 constant, Safeway is similar, as well. 

8 McDonald's has actually done pretty good. I 

9 wish I knew that. And here's Cracker Barrel, 

10 so I'm trying to show the different types of 

11 customers that you might have, and then 

12 compare that to a four and a half year simple 

13 payback. It actually looks pretty attractive 

14 and doesn't have the volatility of the stock 

15 market, so these are actually relatively good 

16 investments. 

17 And, you know, the question that I 

18 think will be raised is: are the measures that 

19 are in the proposed test standard level 

20 unusual, burdensome, costly, or unfeasible? 

21 And these are many of the same kinds of 

22 measures that the California IOUs have been 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 19

1 providing incentives around, and have a fairly 

2 broad use in the market. 

3 Anti-sweat heater controls, you 

4 know, there's huge savings from this. Again, 

5 Southern California Edison has done quite a 

6 bit of study on this. Often, these are 

7 installed separately from the display case, 

8 and I understand because of the fixed relative 

9 humidity that's involved in the test method we 

10 really can't capture the savings from an anti11 sweat heater control. 

12 We would like a finding from DOE 

13 that would indicate that these are actually 

14 not covered, and as a result ASHRAE 90.1 and 

15 the various building standards can regulate 

16 this as part of the energy efficiency 

17 standard. 

18 So, in conclusion, we'd like to 

19 see that the standards are enforceable and as 

20 part of that – you know, even though if you 

21 have a good hammer everything looks like a 

22 nail – the fact of the matter is, is that 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 20

1 certain things are actually better regulated 

2 through buildings standards than through 

3 appliance efficiency standards. 

4 We'd also like to see that the 

5 database of equipment is actually populated so 

6 that, people can make comparisons between the 

7 efficiency of different products, that the 

8 database is readily accessible so that folks 

9 like the utilities can actually sort and look 

10 at a percentile analysis and make some 

11 determinations about what products that they 

12 provide incentives for, and also for green 

13 standards. 

14 And then there's a series of 

15 questions that, hopefully today, will be 

16 answered as we go through the proceeding. 

17 Thank you. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

19 Then additional comments, summary remarks here 

20 at the outset? Nothing additional at this 

21 time. I'm going to keep this moving along 

22 today, folks. Okay? So, stay with me. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 21

1 So, then we're going to go then to 

2 the presentation slides and we're going to 

3 hear from John Cymbalsky. 

4 (Off the record comments.) 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Charles, are 

6 you going to do this first series of slides? 

7 Charles Llenza. 

8 MR. LLENZA: Okay. I am going to go 

9 over the Overview, Scope and Test Procedures. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. We're going to 

11 take a 10 minute break. 

12 (Whereupon, the proceedings went 

13 off the record at 9:23 a.m., and went back on 

14 the record at 9:36 a.m.) 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: So, then, we are 

16 going to proceed where we left off with 

17 Charles Llenza. And all of you have this 

18 information in this packet of PowerPoint 

19 slides. 

20 MR. LLENZA: Yes. I just want to 

21 go back to how to submit comments. I think we 

22 skipped over this too fast. It's important 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 22

1 that we submit the comments at least with a 

2 written number and a docket number so that we 

3 know where this comment is going, in 

4 particular. And here's a "how to submit 

5 comment" slide. We'll go over this again at 

6 the end of the presentation. 

7 Okay. So I am going to focus on 

8 an overview and a scope and give you an 

9 outline of the test procedures for the 

10 commercial refrigeration equipment. So the 

11 background for the current standards, EPACT 

12 2005 amended EPCA to prescribe standards for 

13 self-contained commercial refrigeration, 

14 freezers -- 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: For those of you 

16 who are joining us for the first time for 

17 these meetings, this is very atypical. We did 

18 not experience this kind of technical glitch 

19 in the past. So hang with us. 

20 (Pause.) 

21 MR. LLENZA: We're getting there. 

22 Sorry. It takes a few minutes to upload. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 23

1 (Pause.) 

2 MR. LLENZA: Okay. Sorry for the 

3 interruption. Here we go again. So I was 

4 saying that EPACT 2005 amended EPCA to 

5 prescribe standards for self-contained 

6 commercial refrigeration, freezers, and 

7 refrigerator freezers with doors. 

8 EPACT 2005 also directed DOE to 

9 set standards by January 1st, 2009. We had a 

10 final rule January 9, 2009. And the 

11 compliance date was set for January 1st, 2012. 

12 The American Energy Manufacturing 

13 Technical Corrections Act amended EPCA also in 

14 December 2012 to prescribe standards for one 

15 class of commercial refrigeration equipment: 

16 the service over-the-counter, self-contained, 

17 medium-temperature equipment. And that was 

18 published in PL 112-210 December 18, 2012. 

19 We codified that On September 30, 2013. 

20 EPACT 2005 also directed DOE to 

21 determine whether to amend these standards 

22 from 2009. And the original date was set for 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 24

1 January 1st, 2013, which we obviously have not 

2 made. 

3 Okay. We use the EPCA seven 

4 factors in terms of considering seven factors 

5 when setting energy conservation standards. 

6 These are the DOE drivers for the analysis in 

7 the TSD. And, as you can see, the EPCA 

8 factors are 1 through 7. And, as you can see, 

9 this is a corresponding analysis that DOE 

10 performs in order to satisfy those 

11 requirements. 

12 We have here the commercial 

13 refrigeration equipment rulemaking schedule. 

14 And obviously that schedule has been extended. 

15 But we have a projected final rule of 

16 February 2014 with a projected compliance date 

17 timeline of February 2017. 

18 Let me talk about the test 

19 procedures briefly. On December 8, 2006, we 

20 established a test procedure for commercial 

21 refrigeration equipment. And these had ARI 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 25

1 standard 1200-2006. Also, that references 

2 ASHRAE standard 72-2005 as the test method. 

3 DOE adopted AHAM standard HRF-1-

4 2004 for measuring refrigerated compartment 

5 volume on December 8, 2006. 

6 This is the test procedure that is 

7 currently used by the manufacturers to 

8 demonstrate compliance and to make 

9 representations on the energy of the 

10 equipment. Okay. 

11 On February 21st, 2012, DOE issued 

12 a test procedure final rule for commercial 

13 refrigeration equipment, amending the 

14 procedure as established in 2006. You see the 

15 FR for reference here. 

16 This final rule made a number of 

17 amendments and updates, including updating the 

18 references to industry test procedures for 

19 their current versions, incorporating methods 

20 to evaluate the energy impacts resulting from 

21 the use of night curtains and lighting 

22 occupancy sensors, allowing testing of certain 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 26

1 commercial refrigeration equipment at the 

2 lowest temperature at which it is able to 

3 operate. 

4 These provisions were used in 

5 conjunction with any amended standards issued 

6 throughout the current rulemaking. 

7 We have been busy. So just 

8 recently, September 30th, the Department 

9 issued a test procedure NOPR for commercial 

10 refrigeration equipment. Due to the shutdown, 

11 we haven't been able to email blast everybody, 

12 but it's currently loaded on our website. And 

13 I've provided the link so that people can go 

14 to the link of the web page for further review 

15 and comment. 

16 We will conduct separate meetings 

17 for this test procedure. And in this test 

18 procedure NOPR, DOE proposes to revise and 

19 reorganize the test procedure for commercial 

20 refrigeration equipment and to clarify certain 

21 terms, procedures, and compliance dates; also 

22 address inquiries regarding the scope, 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 27

1 definition, configuration of components and 

2 features during the testing, application of 

3 test procedure provisions, and the compliance 

4 dates for the TP provisions. 

5 So what we tried to do is improve 

6 because we had a series of feedback from the 

7 stakeholders and the manufacturers on our test 

8 procedure. And this test procedure 

9 modification, this notice of proposed 

10 rulemaking tries to address all these issues 

11 and make this a better test procedure. 

12 And, as you can see, we also have 

13 included some of the issues that a negotiated 

14 rulemaking process has brought up, including 

15 certification for commercial heating, 

16 ventilation, air conditioning, refrigeration, 

17 and water heating equipment. 

18 So that ends my part of the 

19 presentation here. Any questions at this 

20 point? 

21 (No response.) 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 28

1 MR. LLENZA: Okay. We're going to 

2 now proceed to the market and technology 

3 screening. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie, do you 

5 have a question? 

6 MR. HON: Yes. I have several. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Please use the 

8 microphone. Say your name for the record. 

9 MR. HON: Charlie Hon, True 

10 Manufacturing. 

11 I did look at your statements here 

12 and your proposed timeline. And there has 

13 been a recent set of negotiated settlement 

14 meetings, which are almost contradictory to 

15 this timeline because the due dates for 

16 implementation and reporting of a lot of this 

17 equipment are actually after the final rules 

18 here. And they are going to be in direct 

19 conflict to one another. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Jon Cymbalsky? 

21 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, as Charlie 

22 mentioned, we have been in a negotiated 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 29

1 rulemaking regarding the certification of 

2 commercial equipment, of which CRE is part. 

3 Okay. That's a separate rulemaking. And that 

4 deals with the certification of equipment 

5 that, in fact, already has standards on the 

6 books. 

7 Certification currently is not 

8 required. The compliance date, as you see 

9 here, is past 2017. My recollection of 

10 everything we talked about in the negotiations 

11 of your certification requirements were well 

12 ahead of that date for the current suite of 

13 equipment. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie? 

15 MR. HON: Different timelines 

16 exist but definitely between one year and 18 

17 months after a final rule is completed. And 

18 that would be probably mid next year, 

19 hopefully the end of this year, but the way 

20 things are going in government, that would be 

21 at least the end of 2014 before those reports 

22 are going to be expected in. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 30

1 MR. CYMBALSKY: Right. So a 

2 situation could exist where there are new 

3 standards and you still don't certify. Is 

4 that what you are pointing out? 

5 MR. HON: Yes. 

6 MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, Charlie. 

8 Thank you for that. Okay. 

9 Additional comments here on the 

10 test procedure material that has just been 

11 presented? And let me remind those of you 

12 online you can raise your hand if you wish to 

13 speak. 

14 (No response.) 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Then we're 

16 going to proceed. Collin Weber will be 

17 presenting. 

18 MR. WEBER: Good morning, 

19 everyone. I'm Collin Weber from Navigant. At 

20 this point, I would like to just start talking 

21 about the rulemaking analyses, start off with 

22 market and tech and screening in this section. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 31

1 So here is the tree just showing 

2 the interrelations between the various 

3 rulemaking analyses conducted. We're going to 

4 start talking about market and tech, then move 

5 into engineering, which feeds the downstream 

6 analyses. And we'll talk about those 

7 sequentially. 

8 So, to hop right in talking about 

9 the market assessment, we'll first talk about 

10 equipment classes and commercial refrigeration 

11 equipment. There are really two groups here 

12 that we are looking at in this rulemaking. 

13 There is the 2009 final rule equipment, which 

14 DOE covered, obviously, in that proceeding. 

15 DOE covered 38 classes and issued standards 

16 for them at that time- January 9 of 2009. 

17 DOE developed a nomenclature for 

18 naming commercial refrigeration equipment - 

19 for categorizing it. That nomenclature 

20 allowed for 48 named equipment classes. It 

21 broke the equipment down by three naming 

22 structure features, if you will. First is 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 32

1 what are called equipment families, which is 

2 basically the geometry of the equipment; the 

3 function of the equipment. 

4 Second is the rating temperature: 

5 medium, which is anything that operates above 

6 32 Fahrenheit; low, which operates between 32 

7 and -5 Fahrenheit, and ice cream temperature 

8 equipment, which is below -5 Fahrenheit. 

9 Then, finally, DOE organizes 

10 equipment based on the configuration of the 

11 condensing unit. It's either remote 

12 condensing: running off a rack or a dedicated 

13 remote condenser; or a self-contained unit, 

14 where the condensing unit is integral to the 

15 machine. 

16 So that is the DOE 2009 rule 

17 equipment and nomenclature developed for that. 

18 The second group of equipment that is being 

19 looked at in today's proceeding is the EPACT 

20 2005 equipment. 

21 As Charlie mentioned, EPACT 2005 

22 set standards directly into code for five 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 33

1 specific groups of equipment. Those are self2 contained equipment with doors. They said, 

3 for example, self-contained refrigerators with 

4 transparent doors; self-contained freezers 

5 with transparent doors and so forth. 

6 DOE in this rulemaking has simply 

7 recategorized that equipment using its 

8 existing nomenclature so that we can talk 

9 about all of the equipment in a consistent 

10 manner. So, using DOE's equipment class 

11 nomenclature from the '09 rulemaking plus the 

12 addition of a pull-down equipment family, 

13 which is to preserve a distinction in the 

14 equipment that was created by EPACT 2005, the 

15 EPACT 2005 equipment was classified as 11 

16 additional named equipment classes in today's 

17 proceeding. 

18 So, for this rulemaking, if you 

19 add it up, DOE is looking at 49 covered 

20 classes. A full listing is shown in chapter 

21 3, "Market and Tech Assessment," of the NOPR 

22 technical support document. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 34

1 So, just to get everyone on the 

2 same page, I'll run through to just finish up 

3 talking about equipment classes here. These 

4 are the equipment families that DOE looks at. 

5 Vertical open, for example, these are your 

6 usual open display cases, multi-deck, 

7 vertical, dairy, deli, produce; semivertical 

8 open:angled cases, like you would see in a 

9 deli, for example. Horizontal open is coffin10 type with no lid; vertical closed transparent, 

11 glass door, reach-in-type; horizontal closed 

12 transparent, sliding-top freezers, sliding-top 

13 refrigerators; vertical closed solid, solid 

14 door reach-ins like you might see in a 

15 commercial kitchen. Horizontal closed solid, 

16 for example, most chest refrigerators, chest 

17 freezers; service over counter, which are deli 

18 cases generally with a curved-glass front; and 

19 then pull-down equipment, which comprises 

20 bottle coolers, so generally a glass-front 

21 piece of equipment that is a medium 

22 temperature and designed to rapidly chill non-
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 35

1 perishable beverages down to purchasing 

2 temperature. 

3 So I mentioned operating 

4 temperature ranges for covered equipment. 

5 These are the rating temperatures, which is 

6 slightly nuanced. These are the temperatures 

7 that DOE will actually test equipment at. So 

8 these are the target temperatures for the test 

9 procedure, if you will. 

10 Thirty-eight is what medium 

11 temperature equipment is tested at. Low12 temperature freezers are tested at zero. Ice 

13 cream equipment is tested at -15 Fahrenheit; 

14 and then the operating code, remote condensing 

15 or self-contained equipment. 

16 So that is what we are going to 

17 speak about for the market assessment. Just a 

18 quick overview of the equipment classes. And 

19 then I'll move on to talking about the 

20 technology assessment here. 

21 So the purpose of the tech 

22 assessment is to develop a preliminary list of 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 36

1 technology options that could potentially be 

2 used to improve the efficiency of the covered 

3 equipment. 

4 In this analysis, DOE casts a very 

5 broad net. It looks into every available 

6 source, every available technology. 

7 The list is then examined in 

8 greater detail in a screening analysis and the 

9 engineering analysis. And at those points, 

10 technology not deemed appropriate for a 

11 variety of reasons are removed. 

12 So the method used in the 

13 technology assessment is to identify 

14 technology options from sources, including 

15 literature review; academic; manufacturer 

16 literature; other entities; manufacturer 

17 literature, brochures, specification sheets; 

18 and always, obviously, comments and input from 

19 stakeholders, venues such as this. 

20 All the technology options are 

21 described in chapter 3 of the TSD, and we'll 

22 quickly reproduce them here. These are broken 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 37

1 out by the equipment types to which they might 

2 apply. Keep in mind again this is the first 

3 cut. This is just what DOE found. So 

4 consider for a variety of equipment classes as 

5 applicable, things like high-efficiency 

6 lighting; high-efficiency expansion valves; 

7 evaporator fan motor upgrades; evaporator fan 

8 controllers; fan blade improvements; improved 

9 coils; coil upgrades, specifically low10 pressure differential evaporators, where fin 

11 spacing design is such that it inhibits 

12 pressure drop across the evaporator; case 

13 insulation increases or improvements; defrost 

14 mechanisms, such as hot gas, for example; 

15 defrost cycle controls, such as sensors or 

16 learning-type controls; vacuum-insulated 

17 panels; and occupancy sensors for lighting. 

18 There are also some options that 

19 only potentially apply to specific types of 

20 equipment; for example, equipment having doors 

21 and in some cases specifically glass doors, 

22 talk about improved transparent doors, adding 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 38

1 another pane of glass, adding coatings, adding 

2 more effective gas fill; anti-fog films for 

3 transparent doors; and potentially anti-sweat 

4 heater controls. 

5 For equipment without doors, DOE 

6 looked at potentially improved air curtain 

7 designs and also night curtains, which are 

8 accommodated by the 2012 test procedure update 

9 that Charlie talked about. 

10 For self-contained equipment, DOE 

11 looked at higher-efficiency compressors, 

12 improvements to the condenser coil, variable13 speed condenser fan motors, liquid suction 

14 heat exchangers, higher-efficiency condenser 

15 fan motors, and potential improved condenser 

16 fan blade designs. 

17 So once the initial set of 

18 technologies is pulled from the literature and 

19 other sources, DOE then runs it by screening 

20 factors to cast aside some technologies which 

21 may not be applicable for a determined set of 

22 reasons that DOE always considers for the 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 39

1 purpose: to determine which technology options 

2 will be considered downstream. 

3 Technology options are screened 

4 out or removed if they fail one of these four 

5 screening criteria: if they are not 

6 technologically feasible in today's 

7 environment; if they are not practicable to 

8 manufacture, install, and/or service; if they 

9 have adverse impacts on the utility to the 

10 consumer or availability to customers; or if 

11 they would have adverse impacts on health or 

12 safety, such as in this particular case 

13 potential reduction in the food safety 

14 viability of the refrigerator. 

15 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Question? 

17 MR. WEBER: Yes? 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Harvey Sachs? 

19 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs, ACEEE. I 

20 may have missed it in the technical support 

21 document, but I think I caught that you did 

22 not consider, even to screen in initially, 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 40

1 hydrocarbon refrigerants, particularly 

2 propane. It is my understanding that these 

3 are in use internationally. And if that is 

4 the case, this would seem to be another 

5 instance in which the Department has only 

6 looked at things in use in this country. 

7 Along the same time frame as we 

8 have had this proceeding, we have seen a SNAP 

9 proceeding at EPA that has allowed use of up 

10 to 150 grams of hydrocarbon refrigerant, which 

11 is quite enough for an awful lot of self12 contained equipment. We have seen 

13 manufacturer statements that this actually 

14 improves efficiency considerably. And I am 

15 just very concerned that this seems to have 

16 been screened out. 

17 If it's quite acceptable from 

18 health and safety aspects in other developed 

19 countries, it would seem to me that it at 

20 least warrants consideration here. 

21 Thank you. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 41

1 MR. WEBER: Thank you, Harvey. 

2 That's definitely been a point of discussion. 

3 And we are going to potentially solicit 

4 comment on refrigerants a little bit later. 

5 MR. SACHS: You will get it, sir. 

6 MR. WEBER: Thank you. 

7 So mentioning the screening 

8 analysis, DOE also removed from consideration 

9 at this point technologies that don't affect 

10 measured or calculated energy consumption as 

11 measured under the test procedure. 

12 So, for example, Jon McHugh 

13 mentioned in his presentation, a discussion of 

14 anti-sweat heater controllers, which operating 

15 at constant conditions generally aren't 

16 reflected. And that is an example right 

17 there. 

18 Full methodology & full results 

19 are discussed in chapter 4 of the TSD. So, 

20 for example, as I mentioned, technologies that 

21 were found do not affect calculated energy 

22 consumption under the test procedure are 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 42

1 higher-efficiency expansion valves, condenser 

2 fan controllers, anti-sweat heater 

3 controllers, and liquid-suction heat 

4 exchangers. 

5 DOE also screened out any improved 

6 air curtain design because DOE could not find 

7 on the market a commercially viable improved 

8 air curtain design. There were just a few 

9 laboratory studies and that sort of thing, but 

10 that was screened out at this point. 

11 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs, ACEEE. 

12 With respect to the air curtains, did you 

13 survey the international market? 

14 MR. WEBER: Not specifically, but 

15 we -- 

16 MR. SACHS: Thank you. 

17 MR. WEBER: -- surveyed the 

18 academic literature. Thank you. 

19 So, having discussed market and 

20 tech and screening, we would now like to move 

21 on to engineering, which is really the core of 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 43

1 the analysis, where the performance and cost 

2 numbers are developed. 

3 Here you can see again the 

4 engineering analysis’ relation to the other 

5 analyses conducted. 

6 So at the highest level, the 

7 engineering analysis, this methodology really 

8 consists of these five steps. First, DOE 

9 chose primary equipment classes, which are 

10 equipment classes that we are specifically 

11 going to focus in on during the engineering 

12 analysis. Since DOE had named 49 covered 

13 classes, that is quite a bit to look at. DOE 

14 chose to focus its analysis on those which 

15 comprised the bulk of shipments and, thus, the 

16 bulk of energy consumption in order to 

17 streamline the analysis. 

18 The second step was to define for 

19 the purposes of analysis characteristics for 

20 each primary equipment class: representative 

21 models which would serve as the analysis 

22 point, the reference point that DOE was going 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 44

1 to simulate and look at in order to assess 

2 baseline and improved energy consumption and 

3 cost levels. 

4 The third step was to identify and 

5 characterize design options, taking in what 

6 had been found in the technology assessment 

7 past the screening analysis, then feeding that 

8 in to identify design options which could be 

9 implemented in order to increase the 

10 efficiency of the equipment. 

11 The fourth step is to then 

12 actually model the equipment performance at 

13 each level of design option implementation, 

14 starting with the baseline, lowest efficiency, 

15 then stacking on design options to build 

16 hierarchically more efficient units, producing 

17 efficiency levels from the baseline, all the 

18 way up to maximum technologically feasible for 

19 each class. 

20 I think Bruce has a question. 

21 MR. HIERLMEIER: Bruce Hierlmeier, 

22 Zero Zone. In that analysis, it looked like 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 45

1 you didn't use some of the technologies that 

2 we're required to use by the current 

3 rulemaking. You went all the way back to sort 

4 of previous versions, things with T8 lights, 

5 those types of things that are no longer sold 

6 in door cases anymore. They're all LEDs. 

7 Why did you not start in the 

8 middle? Why did you go all the way back to 

9 the beginning? 

10 MR. WEBER: Sure. So there are 

11 two points of clarification here. The first 

12 is that DOE does not have prescriptive 

13 standards for commercial refrigeration 

14 equipment. I mean, a manufacturer is allowed 

15 to use whatever mix of technologies and 

16 creative designs they can come up with in 

17 order to meet the efficiency level described. 

18 That's just to make everyone clear. 

19 Now, to actually speak to your 

20 question, the reason was at the time of the 

21 analysis, there was no one universal way in 

22 which manufacturers have been doing what I 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 46

1 just described. Not everyone was getting to 

2 the 2009 standard levels for the EPACT 2005 

3 standard levels in the exact same way. 

4 So what we did was took it back to 

5 a very simple baseline and then added on 

6 technologies in increasingly or decreasingly 

7 attractive paybacks to then build up and 

8 through the existing standard levels and then 

9 on to higher efficiency levels. The 

10 Department felt that that was sort of a fair 

11 and unbiased way to look at things, rather 

12 than assuming one technology mix at a given 

13 time. That also allowed the analysis to 

14 reflect the current price data for those 

15 technology options. Thank you. 

16 So after modeling the equipment 

17 performance, the final step was that to tie 

18 that performance to cost levels, generate 

19 Manufacturer Production Costs for the 

20 representative units modeled at each level of 

21 efficiency baseline, all the way up to max22 tech and then apply markups to derive for 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 47

1 manufacturer financial information as well as 

2 outbound shipping costs to the first point in 

3 the distribution chain, which is just, as a 

4 matter of practice included to develop 

5 Manufacturer Selling Prices. 

6 So we'll now go into depth on each 

7 step of the engineering analysis. The first 

8 step we mentioned was to select primary 

9 equipment classes. DOE selected these to be 

10 the subject of the detailed modeling in the 

11 engineering analysis. Out of the 49 covered 

12 equipment classes, 25 were selected as primary 

13 classes for analysis. These classes cover a 

14 great majority, off the top of my head 

15 probably 90-plus percent, of CRE units 

16 produced on a shipment volume basis. 

17 The remaining 24 classes are not 

18 analyzed directly through modeling in the 

19 engineering analysis but had proposed 

20 standards created through an additional 

21 extension analysis, which will be discussed in 

22 just a few minutes. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 48

1 In this rulemakings analysis, we 

2 were consistent with what was done in the 2009 

3 methodology in terms of picking primary 

4 classes. And, in fact, all the classes that 

5 were considered to be primary in that 

6 rulemaking were retained and analyzed directly 

7 again in this rulemaking. 

8 The addition of more classes to be 

9 looked at was due to the fact that the EPACT 

10 2005 equipment was brought into scope during 

11 this proceeding. That is generally high12 shipment volume equipment. And, therefore, 

13 DOE looked at all those classes explicitly. 

14 So issue box here: seeking 

15 comment regarding the designation of primary 

16 and secondary equipment classes. A full list 

17 of those classes is available in the TSD. 

18 The Department will be happy to 

19 hear comments at this time, if there are any. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Primary and 

21 secondary equipment classes. Jon? Please use 

22 the microphone. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 49

1 MR. McHUGH: Jon McHugh. Could 

2 you identify what chapter or where the 25 

3 classes are listed? 

4 MR. WEBER: The engineering 

5 analysis includes them. And it also includes 

6 the detailed results for each class. So that 

7 is chapter 5. Sorry. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: No additional 

9 comments here? 

10 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman 

11 from National Refrigeration. One of the 

12 things that I haven't got any detail on but I 

13 think as far as when you look at commercial 

14 refrigeration equipment, there's within a 

15 category, understand that for take a simple 

16 self-contained closed-door model. As far as 

17 the applications, there are upright units, 

18 there are under-the-counter units that are 

19 used very differently and have very different 

20 characteristics as far as how they are 

21 constructed, which basically gets into kind of 

22 a subcategory of the overall equipment but 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 50

1 that those types of equipment can have very 

2 different performance, very different 

3 characteristics. 

4 Is that being considered by the 

5 Department as far as the application and the 

6 type of product for particular applications? 

7 MR. WEBER: So the Department 

8 definitely realizes that there is a lot of 

9 variability. The Department tried to take 

10 that into account and balance accounting for 

11 equipment function with keeping the number of 

12 product classes reasonable. 

13 The Department certainly welcomes 

14 any comments on breakpoints or specific 

15 divisions of equipment that you might feel 

16 require a little more examination or thought. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments 

18 on the primary and secondary equipment 

19 classes? 

20 (No response.) 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 51

1 MR. WEBER: All right. Thanks, 

2 Doug. 

3 So next we would like to talk 

4 about the representative units which form the 

5 basis of the analysis. So for each primary 

6 equipment class analyzed, DOE defined a 

7 representative unit to serve as its analysis 

8 point for modeling. This is sort of a 

9 theoretical construct. It's a prototypical 

10 unit defined by a set of features for 

11 analytical purposes. It doesn't correspond to 

12 a specific manufacturer's model. It's sort of 

13 an average or aggregate of what the Department 

14 feels to be representative out on the market 

15 of a high-shipment volume, high-usage piece of 

16 equipment within a class. 

17 The representative unit is 

18 composed within the engineering model as a 

19 collection and a quantification of physical 

20 and design characteristics needed in order to 

21 develop an analytical model of the unit. I'll 

22 add a little reality to that on the next 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 52

1 slide, where we show what we're actually 

2 talking about. 

3 This includes physical, thermal, 

4 and electrical properties as well as the 

5 presence or absence of certain features on the 

6 unit that is being modeled. All of this data 

7 was pulled from product literature, catalogues 

8 ,spec sheets and cut sheets, manufacturer 

9 interviews, reverse engineering, tear-downs 

10 that were conducted by DOE and its 

11 collaborators, and other sources. 

12 The full characteristics of the 

13 representative units chosen for analysis are 

14 included in 5A of the TSD. And the Department 

15 would definitely invite comment on those 

16 features and characteristics. 

17 So here is an example for one 

18 class of what we're talking about here. So 

19 we're looking at vertical open remote 

20 condenser medium temperature case - a typical 

21 dairy case, packaged meat case, produce case. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 53

1 So for analysis, in order to build 

2 a working analytical model of that equipment 

3 class at a representative analysis point, this 

4 lists the features that feed into the model 

5 that are specific to this class. There are 

6 also other general assumptions and general 

7 constants and that sort of thing to feed into 

8 the model. But for this class, this is what 

9 builds up the model of that particular unit, 

10 so the length of the case, the volume of the 

11 case, total display area, doors: obviously 

12 absent, wall area for calculating conduction 

13 through walls, a standard baseline insulation 

14 thickness, the interior surface area for doing 

15 calculations on radiation and that sort of 

16 thing, air curtain angle, infiltrated air mass 

17 flow for calculating the heat load into the 

18 case due to infiltration of warm air, and then 

19 a number of design features of this particular 

20 unit: lighting features, evaporator fan 

21 numbers and wattages, a discussion of the 

22 defrost mechanism. In this case on a medium-
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 54

1 temperature, remote condensing case, you just 

2 have off-cycle defrost –so nothing active and 

3 other features. 

4 This set of characteristics is 

5 built up for each of the primary classes 

6 analyzed and served as the basis for modeling 

7 each of those classes. 

8 So there's not an explicit request 

9 for comment here, but I think this would be a 

10 good point to take comments. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Robert first and 

12 then to Bruce. 

13 MR. WILKINS: Robert Wilkins, 

14 Danfoss. A little bit of a process question. 

15 I don't have a difference here of opinion, 

16 but you commented on the wide variability. 

17 And there were other comments here from 

18 National Refrigerants on the wide variability 

19 of commercial refrigeration products as 

20 compared to other types of products that DOE 

21 regulates. And here we're defining 

22 representative units, which makes sense, but 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 55

1 this wide variation has some distribution2 maybe a normal distribution or whatever – of 

3 performance and energy use. And we pick a 

4 representative unit, but how do you use that 

5 representative unit to determine standards or 

6 requirements for those other models that may 

7 be out on either tail of that distribution or 

8 will you come back to that later? 

9 MR. WEBER: So, generally 

10 speaking, there is always an issue of 

11 classifying and there is always variation in 

12 the market. Generally speaking, the 

13 Department tried to construct units that were 

14 most representative and, thus, were able to 

15 capture the greatest majority possible of that 

16 equipment. 

17 With respect to size variations, 

18 that is built into the standard level 

19 equations, which will be discussed in a bit, 

20 and will certainly be open for comment. But 

21 that is obviously a topic which is wide open 

22 for comment where the Department would love to 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 56

1 see input. So thank you. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Bruce? 

3 MR. HIERLMEIER: Could you share 

4 which units you tested your model against? 

5 Did you pull some from industry and then run 

6 some validation testing to prove your model's 

7 effective and correct? 

8 MR. WEBER: There were a few spot 

9 checks that were done. And also I would 

10 mention -- I haven't gotten to it yet in the 

11 slides -- that this model was an update to the 

12 same model that was used in the 2009 

13 rulemaking. So compliance with those 

14 standards sort of serves as a proof of 

15 concept: the fact that people are currently 

16 complying with standards that were, in fact, 

17 generated using this model. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: We have Joe Sanders 

19 from online ask a question: Are these 

20 representative units analytical, available for 

21 review? 

22 MR. WEBER: Yes. I would say to 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 57

1 Joe absolutely, this is. For each of these 

2 equipment classes that was looked at, we have 

3 this full set of specifications in appendix 5A 

4 of the TSD. We invite everyone to look at 

5 what DOE was using as its assumptions for the 

6 geometry construction and feature sets of 

7 these equipment classes modeled. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Harvey Sachs? 

9 MR. SACHS: Collin, this is Harvey 

10 Sachs. I'm just a little curious. You 

11 stated, if I heard correctly, that the model 

12 was validated by the compliance in 2012, of 

13 products that responded to that model. But I 

14 understood earlier that we don't have 

15 certification yet. 

16 MR. WEBER: Compliance and 

17 certification are not one and the same. 

18 MR. SACHS: I understand that, but 

19 I just fail to understand what level of 

20 intensity of product testing has been done to 

21 ensure compliance. That's an issue we have 

22 wrestled with all over summer. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 58

1 MR. BROOKMAN: John Cymbalsky? 

2 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, as Collin 

3 stated, the fact that there is no requirement 

4 for certification does not mean that they are 

5 not required to meet the standards. And so we 

6 do test for that to make sure they meet the 

7 standards. We also test in the rulemaking. 

8 And the first thing we do when we 

9 get a unit to test is test it to see if it 

10 meets the standard. And if it passes, then we 

11 go play with it. We tear it down and build 

12 the model from there. 

13 MR. SACHS: Thank you, John. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Additional 

15 questions and comments at this stage? 

16 (No response.) 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

18 MR. WEBER: All right. Thanks, 

19 Doug. 

20 So the third thing that we look at 

21 in the engineering analysis is the list of 

22 design options, feeding in from the technology 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 59

1 assessment and then through the screening 

2 analysis. So technologies coming out of the 

3 M&TA and passing screening were considered as 

4 the basis for design options in the 

5 engineering analysis. 

6 Now, some technologies that passed 

7 the screening analysis - that passed the four 

8 screening factors that DOE explicitly has to 

9 look at – were still found to be inapplicable 

10 to the engineering analysis and were not 

11 considered based on technical grounds. Those 

12 are discussed in full in the TSD. 

13 One example, just to throw one 

14 out, is, for example, using evaporator fan 

15 motor controllers, where the Department heard 

16 feedback that shutting off or controlling or 

17 slowing down evaporator fans could potentially 

18 lead to hot spot issues and food safety 

19 issues. So the Department for that technical 

20 reason did not consider it. 

21 Data was developed to characterize 

22 the performance of each design option that was 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 60

1 looked at in the engineering analysis that is 

2 specific to each of the technologies. 

3 Examples include the operational efficiencies 

4 of different motor types, how efficient a 

5 permanent magnet motor was assumed to be 

6 compared to a PSC motor or a shaded-pool 

7 motor; and the thermal properties of different 

8 styles of glass doors. Those are just two 

9 examples, full detail for each design option 

10 considered. And the features and the 

11 performance metrics and performance attributes 

12 are included in chapter 5 of the TSD. 

13 These data were all developed 

14 based on input from product literatures, 

15 interviews with manufacturers of commercial 

16 refrigeration equipment, and discussions with 

17 component supplies in some cases, and other 

18 publicly and privately available sources. 

19 Any questions or comments on 

20 design option selection? Full details are 

21 available in chapter 5 of the TSD and are 

22 definitely a welcome subject for written 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 61

1 comment. 

2 (No response.) 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: No questions or 

4 comments here. 

5 MR. WEBER: Okay. All right. 

6 Thank you. 

7 I guess I should have shown this 

8 before asking for comment. Engineering design 

9 options consider the model: higher efficiency 

10 lighting and occupancy sensors for all types 

11 of equipment that has lighting. It's split 

12 here for equipment that has horizontal 

13 fixtures. Those are multi-deck display cases, 

14 your vertical open, semivertical open, and 

15 service over-the-counter deli cases, and for 

16 equipment which has vertical features, which 

17 usually is a mullion-type fixture with two 

18 types of lighting, either T8 or LEDs. Those 

19 are your vertical closed, transparent, and 

20 pull-down equipment classes; improved 

21 evaporator coil design, higher-efficiency 

22 evaporator fan motors, improved case 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 62

1 insulation and vacuum-insulated panels. Those 

2 are just considered as one set of design 

3 options but with different levels; improved 

4 doors for vertical closed cases at low and ice 

5 cream temperatures; improved doors for 

6 vertical cases operating at medium 

7 temperature; improved doors, sliding doors, 

8 for horizontal cases operating at low and ice 

9 cream temperature; improved sliding horizontal 

10 doors at medium temperature; improved sliding 

11 back doors for deli cases at medium 

12 temperature; improved condenser coil designs, 

13 applicable, obviously, only to self-contained 

14 equipment; higher-efficiency condenser fan 

15 motors, also obviously only applicable to 

16 self-contained equipment; as well as higher17 efficiency compressors; and then night 

18 curtains applied to equipment without doors. 

19 So if that sparks any further comment, I would 

20 be glad to hear it. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Bruce? 

22 MR. HIERLMEIER: Bruce Hierlmeier. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 63

1 Did you compare these technologies to the 

2 technologies at the previous rulemaking? In 

3 other words, at the previous rulemaking, we 

4 had improved doors. So do you have now doors 

5 that you think are more improved than the 

6 previous set of improved doors? 

7 We haven't seen, you know, in our 

8 manufacturing a lot of technology 

9 improvements. Electronically commutated 

10 motors are the same electronically commutated 

11 motors they were in 2009. High-performance 

12 argon-filled doors are the same argon-filled 

13 doors we had in 2009. So we haven't seen any 

14 technology shifts of any great difference. In 

15 2009, we could have added a half-inch of 

16 insulation. We're no adding a vacuum panel 

17 for a half-inch. 

18 So did DOE make any comparison to 

19 determine what is different from those 

20 rulemakings? What technologies are now 

21 better, more efficient? 

22 MR. WEBER: Absolutely. DOE 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 64

1 reviewed every single one of these 

2 technologies and didn't take anything for 

3 granted from the 2009 rulemaking. So, for 

4 example, you were talking about ECM still 

5 being the same. And, in fact, the Department 

6 found that to be the case. It used an 

7 efficiency of 66 percent in 2009, and it 

8 retained an efficiency based on talking to CRE 

9 manufacturers speaking with component 

10 suppliers and other sources. They retained 

11 that efficiency of input power shaft work of 

12 66 percent for this rulemaking. So that's one 

13 example right there. 

14 DOE reviewed every design option. 

15 And you'll see in the outcome that for the 

16 equipment that was covered in 2009, the 

17 improvement in the standard level that DOE 

18 found feasible is fairly small in many 

19 instances, reflecting exactly what you're 

20 talking about. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead. Keep 

22 going, Bruce. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 65

1 MR. HIERLMEIER: I mean, one of 

2 the things we looked at is that -- again, 

3 we're not a door company. We don't make 

4 doors. 

5 MR. WEBER: Yes. 

6 MR. HIERLMEIER: All of our 

7 equipment uses doors. The coolers, medium 

8 temperature coolers, have a reduction of 64 

9 percent in the energy level. And we kind of 

10 scratch our head and think, "Gee, that's not 

11 going to be attainable." So there we're 

12 looking at, you know, what technology has the 

13 DOE turned over that we're not aware of, that 

14 our competitors aren't aware of, that our 

15 customers aren't aware of that, all of a 

16 sudden, our equipment will be 64 percent more 

17 efficient? 

18 MR. WEBER: Are you speaking to 

19 self-contained equipment? 

20 MR. HIERLMEIER: Remote equipment. 

21 MR. WEBER: For mode equipment? 

22 So this is vertical closed transparent, medium 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 66

1 temperature? 

2 MR. HIERLMEIER: When you do the 

3 math, you shove on a TDA for an old formula, 

4 not shoving a TDA to the new formula, there's 

5 a 64 percent reduction in energy. 

6 MR. WEBER: I would have to double 

7 check that, but independent of that, what I 

8 would advise for you to do is check each of 

9 the assumptions on design option performance. 

10 So, obviously, with a vertical closed 

11 transparent equipment type, the doors are 

12 going to be a huge factor in how much energy, 

13 how much heat load is incidental upon the body 

14 of the case. 

15 So the door modeling if you want 

16 to speak to that directly was done using the 

17 LBNL Window 5 software and in conjunction with 

18 interviews of door manufacturers in 

19 conjunction with the walk-in cooler and 

20 freezer rule. So that modeling was done in 

21 isolation where doors were modeled explicitly 

22 and levels of door performance based on 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 67

1 certain construction attributes, which are all 

2 listed in the TSD, were found to be feasible 

3 for that modeling. 

4 So what I would invite is just for 

5 you to look through each of the design 

6 options, the physical attributes that are 

7 assigned to them; for example, U factor front 

8 doors, and then make comments to those 

9 effects. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie? 

11 MR. HON: Charlie Hon, True 

12 Manufacturing. You mentioned improved 

13 evaporator coils and also condenser coils in 

14 this list. Unfortunately, we have run a lot 

15 of tests which indicate that, yes, we can get 

16 higher-efficiency coils that work very well in 

17 the test lab, but when you put them in the 

18 field with the grease and the oils involved in 

19 the commercial kitchen, due to their 

20 structure, they clog up quite quickly and 

21 cause an actual negative impact onto the 

22 energy consumption. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 68

1 MR. WEBER: That's an excellent 

2 comment. And those are the sorts of factors, 

3 the specifics of those factors: where the 

4 breakpoint is, where the breakpoint on fin 

5 spacing or coil size or that sort of thing. 

6 Those are the exact sorts of things that the 

7 Department needs to hear. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: John? 

9 MR. McHUGH: So this may be 

10 repeating what you said earlier but just to, 

11 you know, some of the questions that Bruce has 

12 brought up. After putting together the 

13 designed model, did you guys actually build up 

14 some of these advanced – or not necessarily 

15 advanced but basically applying all of the 

16 technologies that you are proposing – and 

17 actually put them through the test method and 

18 see that, at least for some of these 

19 representative products, that indeed when you 

20 run it through the lab and you run the test 

21 procedure, that you actually get the numbers? 

22 MR. WEBER: So the DOE is not in 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 69

1 the prototype construction business, but the 

2 model that was used was validated in the 

3 manner that was described previously. So we 

4 would feel that any extension of that to 

5 higher efficiency levels would be duly 

6 representative provided that those inputs for 

7 each of the efficiency levels were valid, 

8 which is what we're seeking comment on. 

9 MR. McHUGH: Okay. Thank you. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Bruce? 

11 MR. HIERLMEIER: At the previous 

12 rulemaking, DOE made available their 

13 spreadsheet that had all of the energy values 

14 and those items punched in so we could 

15 actually see how you developed when we get to 

16 the graphs, the numbers in there. Will that 

17 spreadsheet be available for us to review and 

18 study? 

19 MR. WEBER: It was not made 

20 available at this stage of the rulemaking. 

21 That's something that DOE could certainly take 

22 under advisement. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 70

1 MR. HIERLMEIER: In other words, 

2 you can't validate your numbers. You put a 

3 number in there for adding the LED lights with 

4 motion sensors. You save three, four percent. 

5 We think LEDs only drive three percent of the 

6 total energy use of the case. So turning them 

7 off for six hours isn't going to gain the 

8 value you indicate. So we need to get into 

9 the background of that number, then. How did 

10 you develop that value? So we do need to see 

11 your spreadsheets or we can't comment. 

12 MR. WEBER: Okay. That could be 

13 taken under advisement, although I would still 

14 suggest you look at the specific design option 

15 inputs; for example, where we list standard 

16 wattages of LED fixtures or standard times-off 

17 of motion sensors or that sort of thing. But 

18 we certainly take your comment under 

19 advisement. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Joe Sanders, who is 

21 joining us online, has a couple of questions. 

22 The first is, what is a higher-efficiency 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 71

1 compressor? And then what technology has 

2 improved compressor operation since the 2009-

3 2011 analysis? 

4 MR. WEBER: Okay. So for higher5 efficiency compressors, because of the nuances 

6 of the various compressor manufacturers, the 

7 DOE didn't get into the level of detail of 

8 looking at specific technological improvements 

9 or functions within the compressor. The 

10 Department, instead, asked industry based on 

11 past trends with the improvement of compressor 

12 performance what is seen as feasible going 

13 forward into the next iteration. And so this 

14 is a continuation of what was done in the 

15 previous rulemaking. A general market-vetted, 

16 industry-vetted assumption of a ten percent 

17 improvement in compressor EER being feasible 

18 across the board at a five percent cost 

19 premium was used based on the input that we 

20 got from the industry. 

21 Regarding the second question, 

22 what are seen as the improvements – that sort 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 72

1 of feeds into the same response. DOE didn't 

2 do tear-downs of specific compressors or 

3 really get into the componentry of 

4 compressors. We, instead, looked at market 

5 trends and compressor performance levels, as 

6 indicated by the publicly available compressor 

7 performance maps issued by the compressor 

8 manufacturers. All of those manufacturers 

9 make or the majority that I am aware of make 

10 their compressor maps available. 

11 Yes, Victor? 

 MR. BROOKMAN: 

12 Victor? 

13 MR. V. ANDERSON: Victor Anderson. 

14 So I am a manufacturer of quite a few of 

15 these classes. And we use a lot of these 

16 technologies already in our designs, primarily 

17 the bigger hitters, including an energy18 efficient compressor. I am supposed to wait 

19 for technology to improve to see if I can sell 

20 product in 2017 based on just a rough trend? 

21 Is that what I am supposed to dobecause 

22 nothing else is improving. Hopefully 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 73

1 compressors will improve, but if there are no 

2 guarantees, how can I take that back. 

3 MR. WEBER: Well, the assumption 

4 for compressors of an improvement trend was 

5 based on discussions with the manufacturing 

6 community and the validation of the 

7 manufacturing community, who the Department 

8 feels to be the real experts on this. So if 

9 you feel that that trend won't continue, if 

10 you feel that is not a valid assumption, we 

11 invite that comment. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

13 MR. WEBER: And, to speak to your 

14 first point, it is taken into consideration 

15 that what we're talking about here isn't for 

16 today. It is for, as you mentioned, 2017. So 

17 that plays into it also. 

18 Yes, Steve? 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve? 

20 MR. COUSINS: Steve Cousins, Coca21 Cola. So you say it plays into consideration 

22 that we are looking at 2017, but it is also my 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 74

1 understanding that the numbers that are 

2 proposed are based on what is available with 

3 current technology, not technology that 

4 doesn't exist as yet. And that is what 

5 factors into the decisions or the 

6 recommendations. 

7 I look at, for example, the 

8 various TSLs that are here and for the class 

9 of equipment that my company purchases. It 

10 looks like TSL level 4 is what applies to the 

11 vertical self-contained medium-temperature 

12 cabinets and the pull-down cabinets. And the 

13 thresholds that are recommended are based on 

14 technology that currently exists is a charge 

15 of what you are doing here is my 

16 understanding. 

17 Given that, I don't believe these 

18 levels are technologically feasible. I think 

19 it is impossible using current technology to 

20 achieve the thresholds that are listed here in 

21 the recommendation. And in our laboratories, 

22 we take all current available technology, and 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 75

1 we attempt to make the most efficient cabinets 

2 that we can so we can turn over to our 

3 manufacturers the standards that they can 

4 follow. 

5 I don't believe that these numbers 

6 are technologically feasible. And I am 

7 speaking very specifically here. I am talking 

8 about the covered class for pull-down cabinets 

9 that are self-contained, medium-temperature. 

10 MR. WEBER: Sure. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Victor? 

12 MR. V. ANDERSON: Victor Anderson. 

13 We have roughly over 400 different models. 

14 So in order for us to meet 2017 levels, we 

15 almost have to start engineering, 

16 reengineering, redesigning, retesting 

17 everything three years ago to meet that. And 

18 if that compressor isn't available today, that 

19 is a major issue we have no way to design, no 

20 way to know. And that speaks not only to 

21 compressors but all of the technology 

22 improvements that you have listed. I don't 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 76

1 even know of a reasonably costed variable 

2 speed drive for a condenser motor for a self3 contained unit. So those are issues that we 

4 have. 

5 MR. WEBER: Well, with respect to 

6 your engineering design costs, those are 

7 definitely things that we look at in the 

8 manufacturer impact analysis. So that's 

9 definitely an area where we would like that 

10 feedback and especially quantitated feedback. 

11 And then with respect to the 

12 technological feasibility of certain design 

13 options and the parameters defining them, 

14 absolutely. I mean, all comments on those 

15 parameters, performance levels, cost levels, 

16 which we'll get into in a minute, are welcomed 

17 at this stage, of course. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Chris? 

19 MR. THOMPSON: Chris Thompson 

20 here. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes? 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 77

1 MR. THOMPSON: A question. You 

2 mentioned earlier that when you did the 

3 simulation analysis, by utilizing all of these 

4 technologies, either in lump total or in 

5 various subcategories, -- 

6 MR. WEBER: Yes. 

7 MR. THOMPSON: -- that you came 

8 out with a recommendation that it is feasible, 

9 these levels that have been proposed. 

10 MR. WEBER: Yes. 

11 MR. THOMPSON: When you did that 

12 analysis, you focused, obviously, on the 

13 rating point, as described earlier. Did you 

14 look at any off conditions? 

15 MR. WEBER: So DOE only tests and 

16 certifies and verifies and assesses units at 

17 the DOE test procedure conditions. Therefore, 

18 the applicable metric is measured daily energy 

19 consumption at those conditions. So that's, 

20 therefore, also what was modeled. 

21 MR. THOMPSON: All right. And, 

22 just a follow-on comment, I understand what 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 78

1 you said. And I think one concern I have got 

2 is, you know, one of the elements is that 

3 there is improved evaporator coil design. 

4 That is a very generic term. 

5 MR. WEBER: Absolutely. 

6 MR. THOMPSON: And we can make 

7 evaporator coils that do wonderful things and 

8 then freeze like a big, thick block of ice in 

9 seconds, and that ultimately doesn't serve the 

10 purpose of the product. 

11 So I think my question revolves 

12 around, are any of these elements or factors, 

13 not only on coil design but any of these 

14 technologies, being considered or is it simply 

15 at a singular point, how good can I be? 

16 MR. WEBER: Well, the actual 

17 modeling is conducted at a simulation of the 

18 DOE test procedure conditions. So that is 

19 where the actual numbers came from because, 

20 when people build these and they go and 

21 certify and they test them, that is what the 

22 apples to apples will be. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 79

1 Now, that said, if there are 

2 issues that are issues of reliability, 

3 feasibility or utility: where something, even 

4 though they might perform well at the DOE test 

5 condition, could introduce those issues, then 

6 if you can specifically and quantifiably 

7 identify those, that would be something of 

8 value. 

9 So, like I said earlier, if you 

10 get your fin pitch up to ten per inch or 

11 something and that works great in the lab or 

12 right off the assembly line but it's going to 

13 clog in a week out on the floor in real use, 

14 then that is something that DOE would take 

15 under advisement. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: This gentleman. 

17 Get to the microphone, please. Say your name. 

18 MR. MOORE: Frank Moore, 

19 representing NAAFEM, North American 

20 Association of Food Equipment Manufacturers. 

21 This may be redundant, and I'm sorry. I'm the 

22 nontechnical guy here in the back. But does 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 80

1 the Department list anywhere in the technical 

2 documents the technology that is assumed to 

3 exist in 2017 per category of equipment you 

4 all are creating for each of the elements that 

5 go into that equipment? Is that available or 

6 is it incumbent upon commenters to identify 

7 that technology for you? 

8 MR. WEBER: So in order to pass 

9 the tech assessment, the screening, and get 

10 considered in the engineering analysis, it has 

11 to be assumed or otherwise agreed upon as 

12 feasible and as existing, specifically 

13 screening criteria practical to manufacture, 

14 install, and service at the time when the rule 

15 goes into effect. So it is assumed that 

16 everything looked at here will, in fact, 

17 exist. 

18 MR. MOORE: Are you listing that 

19 technology -- 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Please get to the 

21 microphone. 

22 MR. MOORE: -- existed then? 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 81

1 MR. WEBER: Yes. Every technology 

2 considered is listed. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Aris, do you wish 

4 to comment here, Aris Marantan? 

5 MR. MARANTAN: Aris Marantan, 

6 Navigant. I just want to reiterate I think 

7 what you are asking is, are the technologies 

8 that we have recommended listed for each 

9 equipment class. And the answer is yes, they 

10 are listed in the technical support document. 

11 And I believe a really detailed listing of 

12 tables is in appendix 5A of the TSD. 

13 MR. WEBER: It is actually just in 

14 chapter 5 this time around. We will get to 

15 cost-efficiency curves in a minute, but the 

16 cost-efficiency curves show each technology, 

17 each design option for each class that is 

18 considered. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: In a little bit 

20 here, we are going to take a break. And I 

21 made sure that we have the full technical 

22 support document here, all several hundred 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 82

1 pages of it. So anybody at the break can look 

2 at this and compare notes with the analysts. 

3 I saw Bruce first and then to Jon. 

4 MR. HIERLMEIER: Bruce Hierlmeier. 

5 Just one concern is, you asked for detailed 

6 information. Then all of our competitors get 

7 to read our detailed information. You know, 

8 so if we talk about, "Well, we tried a six-fin 

9 pitch coil, and it failed miserably" or "Our 

10 cost to change foam fixtures eventually is a 

11 million dollars. And it will take 12 months 

12 of down times," well, there's a number of 

13 people in this room that would love to know 

14 that information in a competitive marketplace. 

15 MR. WEBER: There are ways that we 

16 can deal with that. I'll let DOE GC, and 

17 Navigant GC, or MIA teams speak to that, but 

18 there are ways that that can -- 

19 MR. HIERLMEIER: Because I think 

20 in the standard currently, it said if any 

21 comment is submitted, you have to consider 

22 them public knowledge. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 83

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 

2 MR. WEBER: There is a caveat on 

3 that, which Chris or DOE GC can -- 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: John Cymbalsky? 

5 MR. CYMBALSKY: We can sign an NDA 

6 with Navigant and provide information that 

7 will not be seen by the government. We can 

8 use it in the rulemaking. We can roll it up 

9 so that it will be masked with the rest of the 

10 industry data. And we won't know the 

11 particular company who submitted it. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon? 

13 MR. McHUGH: So this question goes 

14 back to Victor. You described something about 

15 variable-speed drives being used for 

16 something. I'm not aware that variable-speed 

17 drives are required in the standard. So could 

18 you clarify what you had meant earlier? 

19 MR. V. ANDERSON: I thought that 

20 was one of the options that were listed. I 

21 thought I heard that. 

22 MR. WEBER: Just to be clear, 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 84

1 variable-speed evaporator fan motors were 

2 thrown out -- 

3 MR. V. ANDERSON: Right. 

4 MR. WEBER: -- because of the 

5 potential food safety issue. Variable-speed 

6 condenser fan motors were thrown out because 

7 of the fact that they won't have any impact on 

8 measured energy consumption of the test 

9 procedure because they're under steady-state 

10 conditions cycling. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve, we're coming 

12 back to you. 

13 MR. COUSINS: Yes. Steve Cousins, 

14 Coca-Cola. All right. I am very polarized in 

15 what I am looking at here. My company, in the 

16 United States at least, purchases tens of 

17 thousands of commercial refrigerators for 

18 additional placement, every year. We have 

19 close to a million of these things placed in 

20 the United States. And we have purchased 

21 hundreds of thousands globally and for 

22 placement every year. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 85

1 My statement here is -- and I am 

2 very polarized in what I am saying because I 

3 am specifically looking at vertical self4 contained medium-temperature cabinets either 

5 for maintenance temperature or for pull-down 

6 applications -- I notice that TSL level 4 is 

7 what is being recommended. 

8 –We have determined in our 

9 engineering laboratories, you can use the best 

10 of what is available in all of these 

11 technologies. And you will not be able to 

12 build a cabinet that will hit these numbers, 

13 considering what it is that we are trying to 

14 do with our product. 

15 What we try to do is, a lot of our 

16 applications are pull-down applications. We 

17 are taking beverage from room temperature to 

18 some service temperature within a day. We 

19 want to maintain the correct temperatures for 

20 health reasons because we do inventory 

21 perishable products. And we find that if you 

22 don't merchandise a product, you won't sell 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 86

1 the product. So there have to be some lights 

2 there so that our commercial accounts can make 

3 money by selling our beverages. 

4 Now, if you take the standards 

5 that are in place, the mandatory standards, 

6 for health and with regard to merchandising on 

7 pull-down units, if you want to achieve all of 

8 the things that are necessary to do business, 

9 it is impossible to hit these numbers given 

10 what technology is available today. 

11 I don't know what might exist 

12 three years from now, but given the best of 

13 what is available today, you cannot achieve 

14 these numbers in TSL level 4. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: John Cymbalsky? 

16 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, Steve, thanks 

17 for that comment. I'm assuming you're 

18 sourcing different components of the cabinet 

19 and then putting them together into whatever 

20 it is you are developing. Did you go to your 

21 vendors and ask them to design things that 

22 could be better or did you say, "Just give me 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 87

1 the best you've got"? 

2 MR. COUSINS: We design cabinets 

3 ourselves - our engineering staff - and we 

4 turn the specifications over to our vendors, 

5 the appliance manufacturers, around the world. 

6 We are constantly looking at what 

7 technology is most available, the best 

8 technology that is available. And we are also 

9 at the same time asking our vendors to produce 

10 equipment that will meet certain standards for 

11 us. So we like to believe that we stay on the 

12 cutting edge of technology because we're 

13 constantly looking to put cabinets out that 

14 achieve the best energy efficiency. And the 

15 reason for that is because not only do we 

16 purchase these cabinets, we actually pay the 

17 cost of energy indirectly for many of our 

18 commercial accounts. 

19 We negotiate. Our customers know 

20 how much it takes to operate the equipment. 

21 So they don't want to pay the energy cost. 

22 They want for us to pay the energy cost. And 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 88

1 we'll do that, but it's negotiated indirectly 

2 through the cost of our product and other 

3 issues. 

4 But, for those reasons, we want to 

5 achieve the lowest energy possible with what 

6 we're trying to do to conduct business. 

7 We ask our vendors, our cabinet 

8 makers, to continue to strive to reduce 

9 energy. And we at the same time are looking 

10 at doing that as well. 

11 MR. CYMBALSKY: Right. 

12 MR. COUSINS: And we do it with 

13 not just the technology that is available 

14 today but even technology that doesn't exist 

15 today because we are looking to change over 

16 the refrigerants. We're looking to get out of 

17 HFCs and to go to R744 and R290 and 600A 

18 because we are looking for our cabinets not 

19 just to be energy-efficient but to be totally 

20 environmentally benign. So we do that, and we 

21 charge our appliance manufacturers to do the 

22 same. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 89

1 MR. WEBER: Doug, I have a 

2 suggestion. Perhaps before we take further 

3 comment. I think it might help facilitate 

4 good comments if maybe we could get to the 

5 portions where we talk about the model, -- 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

7 MR. WEBER: -- analytical model 

8 and what feeds into it. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: I have a couple of 

10 additional quick comments here. Tim and then 

11 Charlie? But I like your thought process. Go 

12 ahead, Tim. 

13 MR. T. ANDERSON: Tim Anderson, 

14 Hussmann. Are any of the technology options 

15 for the given equipment classes evaluated or 

16 screened out based on potential adverse 

17 effects on the end users? In particular, the 

18 class that Bruce Hierlmeier was speaking of 

19 earlier, the VTC RCM, the high-efficiency door 

20 option assumes a triple pane glass door with a 

21 low-e coating and inert gas fill. You know, 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 90

1 the effect that that would have on the end 

2 users is not insignificant. 

3 And I think what the Department 

4 may be missing is that if you force 

5 manufacturers to use design options like that, 

6 which alone I don't think that the level is 

7 even attainable by using those doors, but that 

8 is just an aside, what you will do is you will 

9 drive the end users to continue to use open 

10 equipment, which uses 75 percent more energy 

11 than the closed equipment will. I mean, in a 

12 lot of applications, those two equipment 

13 classes are in direct competition with each 

14 other. 

15 And so I would like to hear a 

16 comment on, you know, are the technology 

17 options evaluated for adverse effects on the 

18 end users? 

19 MR. WEBER: So, I mean, per 

20 screening, we evaluate them for these effects, 

21 which include end user effects. But when 

22 you're talking about product switching, that 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 91

1 would be a high-level policy that I'm not 

2 going to speak to specifically, but what I 

3 will say is that standards are developed for 

4 each class in isolation at the level which is 

5 most practical or found to be most 

6 technologically feasible and economically 

7 justified for that class. So there should not 

8 theoretically be a class which is under9 regulated compared to another. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie? 

11 MR. HON: Charlie Hon, True 

12 Manufacturing. John, you had asked about back 

13 and forth, Coca-Cola and some of their 

14 suppliers. Coca-Cola is in constant contact 

15 with us. We are in constant contact with 

16 Coca-Cola. Any possible way to reduce energy 

17 costs, Coca-Cola is interested in it. So 

18 anything we have run across, they know about 

19 it. And they are very concerned about that 

20 basic idea. 

21 So I think that anything we would 

22 find, they would know. And then anything they 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 92

1 would find, we would know. 

2 MR. CYMBALSKY: Thank you. 

3 I guess my question was that if 

4 you gave your vendors or your designers these 

5 equations that are presented in the proposal, 

6 is what Steve said, that they are unattainable 

7 with just what he can get his hands on today, 

8 or are they -- I mean, he used the term "best 

9 available," which means something a little 

10 different than what is attainable by some R&D 

11 or some extra investment by the compressor 

12 manufacturer. 

13 So Collin's comment was that the 

14 compressor manufacturer said that for a five 

15 percent adder, you can get ten percent more 

16 efficiency from where they are today. So they 

17 could theoretically through that comment go 

18 further than what may be -- and I don't know 

19 if what I described is what Steve described. 

20 I think we were talking a little past each 

21 other in the beginning. But the question is: 

22 is the equation undoable or is it just based 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 93

1 on what is off the shelf today undoable? That 

2 is what I was kind of getting at. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie? 

4 MR. HON: Charlie Hon, True 

5 Manufacturing. The equations as placed today 

6 on a pull-down-type refrigerator, we have run 

7 some numbers on things that we see. And if we 

8 had everything maximized, there may be one or 

9 two boxes that we could build. 

10 Because there are inherently sweet 

11 spots; if you have a compressor that covers a 

12 range of sizes of a cabinet, that compressor 

13 will be maximized at some point in that range. 

14 It will be less efficient, covering the 

15 outliers of that range. 

16 If we would hit the sweet spot, 

17 the sweetest of sweet spots, we might be able 

18 to make one, but it would not be a pull-down 

19 cabinet. It would be a temperature-holding 

20 cabinet. That is the best that we have seen. 

21 A pull-down cabinet, we do not 

22 find anything. With all of the technologies, 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 94

1 and we get prototypes of compressors all of 

2 the time to test, we have not seen a 

3 compressor that will give us pull-down 

4 capabilities and meet this standard. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Robert first and 

6 then to Bob. 

7 MR. WILKINS: Robert Wilkins, 

8 Danfoss. We make compressors, not in this, 

9 but I have been in the compressor industry for 

10 40 years. The thing that I find surprising is 

11 the assumption that you can get a ten percent 

12 efficiency improvement for five percent in 

13 cost. If that is possible, why hasn't that 

14 already happened? That sounds like a no15 brainer to me. 

16 So I would urge you when something 

17 sounds too good to be true, to please check it 

18 and when you find those sorts of 

19 possibilities, help these manufacturers find 

20 them because if it's too good to be true, it 

21 might be too good to be true. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Is it Jeff? 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 95

1 MR. BAUMAN: Yes. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Jeff? 

3 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman 

4 from National. John, I just want to clarify 

5 that at standard level 4, when we're talking 

6 about compressors, they are based on not just 

7 currently available products but on what 

8 interviews with compressor manufacturers have 

9 said is feasible at a five percent increase. 

10 I mean, I think going back to that, assuming 

11 that that is a correct statement -- I am sure 

12 John will correct me if that is incorrect -- 

13 to meet standards by 2017, manufacturers can't 

14 wait around, as you have heard here, obviously 

15 can't wait around for the compressors to 

16 become available, then change them and do all 

17 the testing and everything in our products. 

18 I mean, I have heard a couple of 

19 hundred units we have -- I know other 

20 manufacturers here have literally thousands of 

21 units and thousands of models that have to 

22 meet the requirements. I mean, it seems 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 96

1 impractical that to develop standards, even 

2 five years down the road, based on components 

3 that are not currently available. So I want 

4 to put that comment. 

5 Just a couple of quick things I 

6 wanted to comment on also. As Steve 

7 mentioned, with beverage products and things, 

8 I think the the test standards that are out 

9 there for energy continue to give us concerns. 

10 I would be interested in whether DOE can 

11 comment on whether the modeling for cabinet 

12 performance, temperature performance, 

13 temperature holding is or was considered at 

14 other temperatures, for instance, in NSF for 

15 food service equipment -- obviously safety and 

16 food safety is a concern. Whether those were 

17 modeled, obviously you have differences in 

18 performance and things like that with 

19 different fan motors and such that can affect 

20 and evaporator designs that can affect the 

21 performance of a product at 100 degrees versus 

22 a 75-degree temperature for energy. I mean, 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 97

1 we are very concerned that products are being 

2 pushed and developed more for holding at a 

3 specific energy level at a specific 

4 temperature and conditions versus looking at 

5 both sides of that. And to us the performance 

6 at 100-degree in a hot kitchen is more 

7 significant. So I would be interested also in 

8 any comment from DOE on that. 

9 MR. WEBER: So DOE only conducted 

10 modeling at the conditions at which the units 

11 would be rated to give results that are one to 

12 one. Now, that doesn't inherently imply lack 

13 of performance at other conditions or absence 

14 of performance at other conditions. It just 

15 implies that we are modeling what we will be 

16 testing so we have our results. And then five 

17 years from now or six years from now, we will 

18 have results and be able to line them up. 

19 Now, as I mentioned previously on 

20 some topics, such as coil and that sort of 

21 thing, if there are issues where improving 

22 energy efficiency at the DOE test condition 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 98

1 would preclude performance and create an issue 

2 of practicability to manufacturer's level of 

3 service, adverse impacts on a utility or 

4 availability, or adverse impacts on health and 

5 safety at operational conditions, aside from 

6 DOE test procedure, then that is something 

7 that the Department would obviously want to 

8 hear and take under advisement. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Robert? Sorry. 

10 John? 

11 MR. CYMBALSKY: So an example of 

12 that would be the comment about the triple 

13 glazed doors. So I am assuming it's the 

14 weight that is the issue you are bringing up. 

15 MR. WEBER: He just said product 

16 switching. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Tim? 

18 MR. T. ANDERSON: Tim Anderson. 

19 It's the display of the product. These are 

20 merchandisers. They're not storage cabinets. 

21 MR. CYMBALSKY: So you can't see 

22 through three panes? Is that the idea? 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 99

1 MR. T. ANDERSON: No, no. 

2 MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay. 

3 MR. T. ANDERSON: Particularly 

4 with a low-e coating. Low-e coatings 

5 inherently have a tint to them. It looks like 

6 a tinted glass on your car. And the 

7 manufacturers that it's their job to sell the 

8 food will definitely opt for having an open 

9 case versus a case with tinted doors where 

10 consumers cannot see the product behind it. 

11 

12 MR. WEBER: My understanding is 

13 that triple pane low-e is currently in use in 

14 freezer cases. Is that the case? 

15 MR. T. ANDERSON: Tim Anderson. I 

16 believe it's used in places in freezer cases. 

17 In medium-temperature cases, it is used 

18 almost nowhere. 

19 MR. WEBER: Okay. But the 

20 technology has been proven in the field. And 

21 customers still continue to buy out of those 

22 freezer cases. Correct? 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 100

1 MR. BROOKMAN: I am going to let 

2 Steve follow on, Robert. Then I'm coming back 

3 to you. Okay. 

4 MR. COUSINS: Yes. Steve Cousins, 

5 Coca-Cola. A continuing concern with these 

6 indexes that are expressed in TSL level 4, the 

7 MDEC threshold for maintenance temperature 

8 units, the VCT SEM is more aggressive than it 

9 is for pull-down units. 

10 So I guess what I am saying here 

11 is you would expect that a pull-down unit is 

12 going to use more energy, but the energy 

13 threshold that is expressed in TSL level 4 is 

14 such that it is backward from what it ought to 

15 be. It is counter to what technology allows 

16 you to be able to do. 

17 So I am just expressing concerns 

18 about what the proposals are because it seems 

19 as if it may have been done on a chalkboard 

20 and may have been done with a computer, but 

21 you can't really do these things, what you can 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 101

1 get either in the shelf, off the shelf, or in 

2 a laboratory. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Bruce? 

4 MR. HIERLMEIER: Bruce from Zero 

5 Zone. To follow up with the doors on medium6 temperature cases, the industry is gradually 

7 making that change to use doors in those 

8 applications, saving a lot of energy for the 

9 country. 

10 But there are a number of grocers 

11 that are still working with their 

12 merchandisers, trying to decide if a door is a 

13 barrier to a customer. So when we add more of 

14 a barrier, that will drive that decision away 

15 from doors. They will say, "Well, why should 

16 we put a door on?" Now they have to open a 

17 door, and they can't see the product as 

18 effectively as they could with an open case. 

19 The net result will be customers 

20 will stay with an open case. The U.S. as a 

21 whole will use more energy because people will 

22 not switch to a new product that doesn't have 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 102

1 the utility of the existing product they have. 

2 So now it is bad timing. 

3 Freezers, the energy numbers have 

4 changed over the years. They are so huge with 

5 open cases. There are very few, maybe one or 

6 two, major customers that might be an open 

7 freezer for cakes or something, but that 

8 technology has so moved into doors you don't 

9 have that issue. 

10 Coolers are still in that, "Do we 

11 want a door? Do we want an open case?" So to 

12 make a change now and push them more into open 

13 cases would be counterproductive. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Jason Sands 

15 has a comment online. Jason, unmute your 

16 phone. We ought to be able to hear you. 

17 Speak clearly. We just started to hear you. 

18 Speak up. Oh, a comment, then. I apologize. 

19 I misunderstood. A comment, then. We can't 

20 hear you. Maybe you can send it to our 

21 webmaster, and we'll read it into the record 

22 here. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 103

1 Jeff? 

2 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman. 

3 I guess another question, too -- I don't know 

4 how far off target we're here as far as the 

5 discussions, but if we're talking about some 

6 specific features with end user consideration, 

7 I think in a lot of the products, DOE has 

8 proposed a half-inch increase in insulation of 

9 walls and have done analysis on potential 

10 impact for foaming fixtures and such for 

11 manufacturers. 

12 Was it considered what that impact 

13 has again on end users, where an inch larger 

14 cabinet or an inch less space inside and 

15 smaller shelves may not seem on a piece of 

16 equipment to be significant but I would be 

17 interested whether end users were contacted 

18 for input on that. And I know when we develop 

19 products to fit into footprints, an inch is a 

20 very big deal in a kitchen layout, 

21 particularly when there's multiple pieces of 

22 equipment involved. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 104

1 MR. WEBER: So the DOE as part of 

2 its process does not usually reach out 

3 explicitly to end users, although everyone is 

4 invited to these public forums. 

5 If there are industry standards or 

6 specific hard constraints that are common or 

7 prevalent within the end user community, those 

8 quantitative inputs would be useful to the 

9 Department. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: You're next. 

11 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo with 

12 EarthJustice. I had a question for the 

13 manufacturers. If the standard moves in the 

14 direction of being modeled on a low-e coating 

15 door, would you respond to that by increasing 

16 the amount of lighting inside the case to 

17 counteract the tinting? I don't know how the 

18 trade-off works there for energy consumption, 

19 but -- 

20 MR. T. ANDERSON: I would respond 

21 to that by saying that the proposed standard 

22 level is so low, that is not an option. There 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 105

1 isn't any energy there to add to lighting. 

2 If there were no energy standard 

3 and there was a prescriptive law that said you 

4 have to use low-e doors, then yes, we might 

5 look at adding extra lighting to try to get 

6 enough luminance off the product. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Tim. 

8 Bruce? 

9 MR. HIERLMEIER: Bruce Hierlmeier. 

10 I had a question. When you talk about half11 inch insulation, in 2009, that was part of the 

12 analysis but ultimately got rejected or pushed 

13 out because of these dimensional issues, the 

14 low value of savings for the cost to 

15 manufacturers. How has it changed? DOE 

16 didn't seem to have that point of reference 

17 now where it did, you know, four years ago. I 

18 personally don't see much has changed about 

19 that yet other than we have a new opinion. 

20 MR. WEBER: Well, it wasn't a 

21 matter of opinion. It was a matter of 

22 analysis. So we put specific inputs into the 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 106

1 analysis with respect to our value of heat 

2 transfer issues within the case, cost of 

3 foaming fixtures, engineering design costs, 

4 and then the actual foam costs and that sort 

5 of thing. 

6 And, just like all the other 

7 design options, the Department ran the numbers 

8 and then did the downstream economics. And 

9 things ended up where they may. 

10 So I would say the way to broach 

11 that is if you feel that there is something 

12 specifically inaccurate about the performance 

13 levels or the costs attributed to foaming, 

14 that that would be the place to approach that 

15 because this analysis wasn't, simply an 

16 extension of the previous analysis in terms of 

17 what has changed. It was conducted in 

18 isolation on its own merits. 

19 MR. HIERLMEIER: I mean, my 

20 approach would be going back and looking at 

21 2009 to see whether anything has changed that 

22 makes sense. It is sort of like a double 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 107

1 check on the values you have developed or if, 

2 all of a sudden, you say, "Gee, this case is 

3 now going to be 64 percent more efficient than 

4 it was in 2009," do I actually have any inputs 

5 or design changes that can back it up? If you 

6 don't, then it's time to go back and evaluate 

7 the formulas and the suppositions that were 

8 made because you have a new reference point. 

9 You compare those, make sure they're 

10 consistent. It's just good engineering 

11 practice to do that. 

12 MR. WEBER: And what the 

13 Department is asking is we are laying out all 

14 of those inputs for you. 

15 I do think it would be helpful to 

16 get to the model so we can discuss those 

17 inputs. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 

19 MR. CYMBALSKY: Before we go 

20 there, can we put slide 11 back on, please? 

21 Charlie went through this pretty quick, and I 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 108

1 think we have been asked the same question in 

2 I think eight different ways now. 

3 So EPCA factor number 4, "Impact 

4 on utility or performance." So this is where 

5 we are asking for comment. If what you see in 

6 our analysis you think has impact on utility 

7 or performance, which is what Jeff has been 

8 mentioning and I think what you have been 

9 mentioning about the triple glazed doors, this 

10 is where you add your comment and say, "This 

11 design option will have negative impact on 

12 customer utility because of" blah blah blah 

13 blah blah. 

14 And so it is a factor that is laid 

15 out in the statute that we must consider when 

16 we set these amended standards. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

18 Let's do proceed. How many of you 

19 need a break at this point? Are we good for 

20 another ten minutes? Let's go ten more 

21 minutes. Go ahead. 

22 MR. WEBER: All right. Thanks, 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 109

1 Doug. 

2 So, finishing up design options, 

3 next we would like to move into a discussion 

4 of the performance modeling, which I think 

5 will give a structure and guidance to some of 

6 these areas for discussion that we want to 

7 dive into. 

8 So the representative unit data 

9 and design option data, as previously 

10 discussed, were then fed as major inputs into 

11 DOE's performance model. Performance model is 

12 an Excel-based simulator, calculates equipment 

13 performance under the DOE test procedure, 

14 kilowatt hours per day under fixed conditions 

15 for baseline and improved equipment 

16 configurations. We'll get into further detail 

17 in just a minute. 

18 Each primary class is modeled at 

19 the baseline as well as increasingly high 

20 levels of equipment performance corresponding 

21 to implementation of each applicable design 

22 option. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 110

1 The output is then a set of 

2 performance results consisting of modeled 

3 energy consumption under DOE test procedure 

4 conditions at each efficiency level up to the 

5 max-tech level. Details of performance 

6 analysis are included on the next slides. 

7 So here we have an overview of the 

8 performance model. The model itself was 

9 developed for the 2009 rulemaking, and it was 

10 updated for this rulemaking, expanded to cover 

11 the new equipment classes looked at this time 

12 around, expanded to have the inputs, 

13 assumptions, and other factors updated. 

14 So the model is really broken into 

15 two pieces. There is the case heat load 

16 model, which looks at heat load under DOE test 

17 procedure conditions. It accounts for the 

18 thermal loads incident upon the case, 

19 conduction through doors and walls, radiation 

20 through openings, heat and moisture addition 

21 due to warm air infiltration. And then it 

22 calculates heat introduced into the case by 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 111

1 the electrical operation of internal 

2 components inside the refrigerator volume, 

3 including fans, lighting, defrost, and anti4 sweat. 

5 The second part of the performance 

6 model is the refrigeration system model. 

7 Compressor power input, obviously the biggest 

8 energy user in this type of equipment, for 

9 self-contained at least, is calculated using 

10 compressor performance data. Modeling of heat 

11 exchanger effectiveness is used to estimate 

12 the compressor operating conditions here, 

13 evaporating/condensing conditions. 

14 Energy use of auxiliary 

15 components, such as the lighting, fans, and 

16 anti-sweat heaters, are based on component 

17 power input and run time. System energy 

18 consumption is calculated as the sum of the 

19 refrigeration system, compressor and fans, and 

20 auxiliary component energy consumption, anti21 sweat, defrost, lighting, et cetera. 

22 So, to go into more detail, the 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 112

1 heat load calculations are based on the 

2 geometry and the design parameters of the unit 

3 that is being modeled as well as the 

4 conditions of the DOE test procedure. So here 

5 on the slide, you see the modeling is being 

6 done inside this control volume context 

7 outlined in blue of the DOE test procedure 

8 conditions, ASHRAE conditions, 75 Fahrenheit, 

9 55 percent relative humidity, in an 8-hour 

10 door-opening period. 

11 So here we see the various heat 

12 load components. We see, for example, the 

13 light bulb-emitting tower into the case as key 

14 parameters that go into that at a lighting 

15 wattage per fixture, the number of fixtures 

16 and the run time; anti-sweat: heat emitted 

17 into the case. It was assumed for DOE's 

18 calculations that 70 percent of the anti-sweat 

19 power would end up back inside the case, the 

20 other 30 would go the other direction, into 

21 the ambient environment. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 113

1 Radiation through glass. Key 

2 parameters driving this include the case 

3 temperature and the ambient temperatures, the 

4 door U-factor, the glass U-factor, and then 

5 the area of the glass door. Fan power being 

6 rejected into the cases heat, it is assumed, 

7 obviously, that all your fan power would be 

8 either as friction due to operation of the 

9 motor or the kinetic energy of the fan blade 

10 spinning would end up as heat eventually. Key 

11 parameters: fan input power, input power, 

12 number of fans, and then run time. 

13 Conduction through the walls and 

14 the glass, obviously self-explanatory, key 

15 parameters including the insulation R-value, 

16 the wall area, insulation thickness, the glass 

17 area and U-factor of any glass doors or other 

18 pieces of glass, and the temperature 

19 differential between the DOE test procedure 

20 condition, 75 Fahrenheit, and the operating 

21 condition, rating condition. 

22 And then, finally, warm air 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 114

1 infiltration for door openings, key parameters 

2 being the temperature differential between the 

3 inside of the case and the infiltrated air 

4 mass. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: We have a question 

6 here. 

7 MR. MAU: Mike Mau, Royal Vendors. 

8 This heat load model, have you done modeling 

9 and then verified it through tests? 

10 MR. WEBER: So we haven't isolated 

11 and verified specific elements in terms of, 

12 you know, let's isolate just the case 

13 conduction load through walls or that sort of 

14 thing. So the heat load model is just half of 

15 the engineering simulation. And, as we 

16 previously mentioned, we have validated 

17 results of the whole simulation model with 

18 testing. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: I would like to 

20 have him -- how many more slides do you have? 

21 Two? 

22 MR. WEBER: Just a couple, yes. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 115

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's let him 

2 finish because I would like to get the whole 

3 ensemble here. 

4 MR. WEBER: Okay. So case 

5 geometries, wall area, insulation thickness, 

6 that sort of thing, and design parameters, 

7 number of fans, fan shaft work, 6-watt, 9-

8 watt, 12-watt, were based on manufacturer 

9 literature and verified at interviews, as were 

10 the thermal performance of the case and the 

11 component. 

12 So the second half of the 

13 performance model is modeling the 

14 refrigeration system and other electrical 

15 components. 

16 Compressor energy consumption for 

17 self-contained units is based on performance 

18 maps obtained from compressor suppliers, which 

19 they, in turn, base on testing. 

20 Compressor maps provide the 

21 compressor performance, capacity and power 

22 input, based on specific operating conditions, 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 116

1 the suction and discharge conditions. 

2 Within the engineering model, 

3 these conditions, suction and discharge, 

4 evaporating and condensing conditions, are 

5 calculated as a function of the design air 

6 temperatures and also as the design of the 

7 heat exchangers. So the heat exchanger design 

8 when it's improved serves to lower the 

9 condensing temperature or raise the 

10 evaporating temperature. And that is how the 

11 model, which then feeds back into the 

12 compressor map accounts for that. 

13 Heat exchanger design parameters 

14 were developed through first-principles 

15 modeling of coils by an outside subject matter 

16 expert. 

17 One thing that is not directly on 

18 here is for remote condensing cases, the heat 

19 load is translated into a compressor energy 

20 consumption using the standard table of 

21 mapping that is included in AHRI 1200. So 

22 those standard for all remote cases. And that 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 117

1 is also the mapping that is used when one 

2 conducts a test for those cases. 

3 The fan and auxiliary component 

4 energy consumption are then calculated and 

5 added to the compressor electricity 

6 consumption. 

7 Evaporator fans are always assumed 

8 to be on. Condenser fans are assumed to cycle 

9 with the compressor. Fan power estimates come 

10 from fan motor manufacturer literature and 

11 some interviews. 

12 Lighting is modeled with the run 

13 time specified in the DOE test procedure. So 

14 without control, the lighting is always on. 

15 Occupancy sensors give a 2.8-hour credit for 

16 the DOE test procedure. Scheduled controls 

17 give an additional eight-hour credit for the 

18 DOE test procedure. And lighting power 

19 consumption is based on product literature and 

20 validated against manufacturer interviews. 

21 Anti-sweat heater power was 

22 estimated from literature and interviews with 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 118

1 CRE manufacturers and glass door 

2 manufacturers. The run time is assumed to be 

3 100 percent, per manufacturer interviews. 

4 And so I think this would be a 

5 good time to take comment on this. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Great. I 

7 saw Steve first. 

8 MR. COUSINS: Yes. Steve Cousins. 

9 –In responding to Mike's question, you said 

10 you validated the entire simulation. And I 

11 didn't quite understand what that meant. Are 

12 you saying that you verified these theoretical 

13 results with physical testing of an actual 

14 unit? 

15 MR. WEBER: Not for theoretical 

16 things that haven't been constructed yet, but 

17 we have tested units that are on the market 

18 and compared them to the results that the 

19 model produces for similarly configured 

20 simulations. 

21 MR. COUSINS: So you're saying you 

22 tested models that are on the market and you 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 119

1 actually achieved the results that are being 

2 proposed? 

3 MR. WEBER: No. We tested units 

4 that are on the market. And our simulation 

5 produced similar results to those models when 

6 you tweaked the simulation to simulate those 

7 models. So say you pulled something off the 

8 shelf, it's got ECMs on the evaporator side 

9 but you're still shaded on the condenser side, 

10 your compressor EER is this or that, and your 

11 insulation thickness is an inch and a half. 

12 Test it, for example. And then we look at the 

13 point in this model for a unit that has all of 

14 those same features. We have done some 

15 comparisons like that and shown that they 

16 roughly line up. 

17 MR. CYMBALSKY: To put this a 

18 different way, -- 

19 MR. WEBER: Spot check. 

20 MR. CYMBALSKY: -- we built a 

21 computer simulation model that can predict the 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 120

1 results of a test. And we validated it, 

2 validated the model, based on testing. 

3 So if you're asking a different 

4 question; that is, did we build a model that 

5 meets the standard and test it with this 

6 simulation, the answer is no. 

7 MR. COUSINS: And was there any 

8 compressor modeling done for R744 with gas 

9 cooler design as well? 

10 MR. WEBER: DOE did not explicitly 

11 look at CO2 in this analysis. 

12 MR. COUSINS: Why not? 

13 MR. WEBER: Well, if you want to 

14 get into the next slide, DOE just modeled 

15 equipment using R404 and R134a because it was 

16 the most common at the time. DOE performed 

17 the analysis based on a policy of remaining 

18 refrigerant-neutral and focusing on the 

19 currently available technologies, which I 

20 realize CO2 -- 

21 MR. COUSINS: You weren't 

22 refrigerant-neutral if you didn't consider 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 121

1 hydrocarbons or CO2. You are showing a bias 

2 towards HFCs. 

3 MR. SACHS: Thank you, Mr. 

4 Cousins. This is Harvey. 

5 MR. WEBER: Well, I can let DOE 

6 speak to that. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Finish this slide. 

8 Then we'll take some additional comments. 

9 MR. WEBER: Non-HFC units are 

10 currently very small. DOE realized they were 

11 a growing aspect of the market. We welcome 

12 comments. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: I saw Jeff first 

14 and then Charlie. 

15 MR. BAUMAN: Two comments/ 

16 questions, I guess. One is, can DOE make 

17 their model available to manufacturers that we 

18 could actually use it to model a piece of 

19 equipment and see whether we're getting 

20 similar results that you're getting? I think 

21 that would overall potentially make us all 

22 feel a lot better than the model is valid. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 122

1 One of the areas that I have 

2 particular concern about is the infiltration 

3 load model, particularly in closed-door units. 

4 Door openings can affect, and the air 

5 exchange during a door opening affects the 

6 system significantly as far as energy 

7 consumption and run times. And we validated 

8 that in our testing modeling. 

9 From the information in the TSD, 

10 I'll say it appears that that was not, I'll 

11 say, looked at very much in depth, probably 

12 because there is not a lot of information I 

13 think available on that, at least as far as we 

14 found. And the TSD again seems to correlate 

15 that, but it was kind of an area that was, I 

16 won't say brushed over, but it wasn't a lot of 

17 ability there to do in-depth analysis on it. 

18 MR. WEBER: So the way that the 

19 model accounts for infiltration is it looks at 

20 an infiltrated air mass rate at a pounds-per21 hour basis. So this is pounds per hour of 

22 75/55 ambient air that is infiltrated in the 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 123

1 case on an average basis normalized over the 

2 24-hour period. 

3 MR. BAUMAN: Understood and agree. 

4 And I appreciate that clarification, Collin. 

5 The area that I'm not sure that DOE or how 

6 well your ability is to model is when you open 

7 a door for six seconds or whatever the time 

8 is, how much air exchange. Is it half the air 

9 that was in the cabinet? Is it all the air? 

10 Is it 100 percent? 

11 Obviously there are models and the 

12 numbers when you committed in your air 

13 differences that that is going to put on the 

14 load, but the more significant is how do you 

15 model. Depending on where the fans are 

16 depending on the air flow in that particular 

17 configuration, the cabinet, the amount of air 

18 that is exchanged during a door opening can 

19 vary significantly. And that has a definite 

20 impact on the performance. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie? 

22 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. You are 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 124

1 analyzing with R404 and R134a. Both of those 

2 are being reviewed at this time by the SNAP 

3 groups for possible removal from commercial 

4 refrigeration. 

5 MR. CYMBALSKY: So can you guys 

6 provide your test data that you have on the 

7 alternate refrigerants to the Department? 

8 MR. COUSINS: I would be glad to 

9 do that. 

10 MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay. Thank you. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Steve. 

12 Harvey Sachs? 

13 MR. SACHS: A couple of notes. 

14 One of them, I think that Jeff Bauman has -- 

15 this is Harvey Sachs -- slid close to another 

16 reason for releasing the model. That is, some 

17 manufacturers may find parts of it of interest 

18 for their own AEDM work, which we spent the 

19 summer on. 

20 And I am generally in favor of 

21 having open source models that people can use 

22 for verification and for all sorts of other 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 125

1 things. And I would encourage the Department 

2 to think that way. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie, a follow4 on? 

5 MR. HON: I think several people 

6 in this room may need to know what an AEDM is 

7 if Harvey would explain it. 

8 MR. SACHS: Thank you. 

9 An alternative energy 

10 determination model, which was the subject of 

11 the so-called ASRAC working group's efforts 

12 this summer to move towards certification and 

13 verification and to advance the potential use 

14 of simulations. 

15 I have another comment, but I 

16 certainly ought to let Mr. Cymbalsky respond. 

17 MR. CYMBALSKY: No. I thought my 

18 recollection was the Department wasn't going 

19 to be in the business of building the AEDMs, 

20 but it's a different issue than letting the 

21 software go, right? We don't want to turn 

22 this into, "Oh, DOE built all the AEDMs 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 126

1 first." We went through that conversation in 

2 the negotiations. I am not sure that is what 

3 you were getting at. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's close out 

5 this segment. I'll return to you in just a 

6 second, Harvey. Charles? Robert? 

7 MR. WILKINS: Robert Wilkins, 

8 Danfoss. Just to add a little emphasis on 

9 this refrigerant, I think this is really a 

10 critical issue. These technologies are here 

11 and available today. It's not like the 

12 compressor issue, where you are kind of 

13 playing on the calm of what might be possible 

14 to achieve. They're approved by EPA. And 

15 they are widely available around the world. 

16 So I would urge you to seriously 

17 consider propane, isobutene and carbon dioxide 

18 as commercially viable refrigerants. And 

19 manufacturers that are in this room are 

20 beginning to utilize them today. 

21 MR. CYMBALSKY: Are all those 

22 certified by, say, UL or whatever the safety 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 127

1 -- I'm just asking a question. I don't 

2 actually know. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Victor, can you 

4 comment? Steve? 

5 MR. V. ANDERSON: Yes. We can 

6 definitely look at propane for some of our 

7 product but not all of our product. The 150-

8 gram limit really restricts when you get into 

9 the higher Btu loads of a unit. 

10 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey. And 

11 this was precisely my point, that by screening 

12 out the alternative refrigerants, which are 

13 already being used elsewhere, we have 

14 seriously impacted all of the downstream 

15 analysis of efficiency potential. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

17 Charlie? 

18 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. As 

19 chairman of the working group for UL, yes, we 

20 do have it available in certain categories. 

21 We do not have crossover approvals. 

22 Commercial refrigeration is allowing 150 grams 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 128

1 of propane or unlimited amounts of CO2 as an 

2 alternate refrigerant. They do not at this 

3 time allow isobutene or any other possibles. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve, please? 

5 MR. COUSINS: Okay. These 

6 technologies, as you say, aren't really 

7 available. We have over a million cabinets 

8 out there that are not HFCs, that are either 

9 hydrocarbon or are 744. 

10 Currently about 28 percent of the 

11 cabinets we purchase, not just globally but in 

12 the United States as well, are 744. Our goal 

13 is to be at 100 percent within 3 years. If it 

14 wasn't available, then we wouldn't be able to 

15 do it. It is available, and we're doing it. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

17 Yes, Bruce? 

18 MR. HIERLMEIER: I had a different 

19 question. It's not tied into the stream. It 

20 actually gets back to the analysis and perhaps 

21 another reason we need to see the model. For 

22 the medium-temperature door cases, you 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 129

1 indicate your test standards are going to 

2 remove the energy from the doors. They'll go 

3 to zero energy door. You don't address what 

4 about the frames or in the freezer, we have 

5 door heat and we have frame heat. 

6 And we go in and look at table 

7 5A.2.2. You show zero anti-sweat energy for 

8 the rest of the case. So we can't do any 

9 analysis. We can't comment on it because it 

10 seems to be, okay. You said the case is not 

11 going to have any anti-sweat heat on the 

12 opening. 

13 We don't know of a freezer that 

14 has that capability in the marketplace. So we 

15 don't know if that's an error that you forgot 

16 about that amount of heat. You didn't put it 

17 in. It's technology we're supposed to be able 

18 to do and we don't know about it. We're not 

19 on top of it as a company. 

20 But there are assumptions we're 

21 just not going to be able to sort out here. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 130

1 MR. WEBER: I'm sorry. I'm going 

2 to want to look at that table. I understand 

3 with freezers, we still had 80 watts per door. 

4 I don't want to hold us up, though, but that 

5 is my understanding. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Let me take a poll. 

7 Do you all want to take a break or do you 

8 just want to press on until lunch at noon? 

9 Early lunch? Okay. Let's just keep going for 

10 another little bit here. 

11 MR. WEBER: So here in table 

12 5.6.10, we're looking at vertical closed 

13 transparent equipment at low temperatures, 

14 which is what I would call freezer. And even 

15 the high-performance option, we're seeing 80 

16 watts per door. So I am not sure what you are 

17 alluding to. 

18 MR. HIERLMEIER: I was looking at 

19 table 5A.2.2. 

20 MR. WEBER: 5A.2.2 for which 

21 equipment class? 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 131

1 MR. HIERLMEIER: VCT RCL. I don't 

2 see any anti-sweat heat for the doors or 

3 frames. 

4 MR. WEBER: I see. So when we say 

5 "non-door anti-sweat power, we're referring to 

6 completely off the door and the frame." The 

7 numbers that we have for doors include the 

8 frame as well. 

9 MR. HIERLMEIER: And that's 

10 carried in a different table, then. 

11 MR. WEBER: That's in the design 

12 option for doors. Yes. So the 80 watts on 

13 the door includes anything on the glass and 

14 the frame. 

15 A non-door anti-sweat would be on, 

16 for example, like a service case or something 

17 like that, where you have other areas that 

18 might need anti-condensate. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Victor, additional 

20 comment here? No? Additional comments? I 

21 think this last series of comments has been 

22 very helpful and all of this will be put in 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 132

1 great detail in writing, of course. Right? 

2 So thanks for those. Before we move on, 

3 anything else to be said in this segment? 

4 Victor, get the microphone. Thank you. 

5 MR. V. ANDERSON: Victor Anderson. 

6 We build a lot of our own condensing units. 

7 So I'm speaking to the increased efficiency of 

8 a condenser coil for self-contained units. A 

9 lot, not all, but a lot of our competition 

10 buys off-the-shelf condensing units. 

11 When I look at what we have done 

12 with our product -- and now I am going to 

13 refer to the SOC, self-contained medium-temp 

14 class -- we think we've got the most efficient 

15 compressors. We've got the most efficient 

16 evaporators and condenser coils and LED 

17 lighting, ECM fan motors, even removed the 

18 front fan energy. I don't know if that was 

19 taken into consideration and looked at 

20 insulated glass, didn't look at the vacuum21 formed insulated panels. That didn't seem to 

22 be very cost-effective. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 133

1 With all of that, we were still 30 

2 to 40 percent above the levels that were set 

3 for 2017. So my concern is not for us but for 

4 the industry as a whole. If they're not 

5 designing their own condensing units -- again, 

6 it's related to the column of the 

7 manufacturers that do. Are they going to put 

8 in energy-efficient fan motors and bigger 

9 coils? It's going to be an engineering feat 

10 and a major hurdle for all of us to get to 

11 those levels. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

13 Steve? 

14 MR. COUSINS: No. I am just 

15 agreeing with what has been said. I agree 

16 wholeheartedly. We're looking at once again 

17 TSL level 4's, a reduction of about 62 percent 

18 in these proposals from ENERGY STAR today. So 

19 if we could have achieved this with what is 

20 available commercially, then the Coca-Cola 

21 Company would already be putting these units 

22 out there. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 134

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

2 Okay. We're going to move on, 

3 then. 

4 MR. WEBER: I think we already 

5 covered positions in the audience on 

6 refrigerants. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 

8 MR. WEBER: If there is any 

9 additional comment? 

10 (No response.) 

11 MR. WEBER: All right. So the 

12 last step of the engineering analysis was cost 

13 modeling, creating costs to approximate cost 

14 of manufacture, first step down the 

15 distribution chain for the equipment at each 

16 efficiency level modeled. 

17 DOE developed costs for the model 

18 equipment in several phases. The first was 

19 developing costs of the core case, which is 

20 just the refrigerated cabinet itself: the 

21 sheet metal, the base insulation, wiring, that 

22 sort of thing, non-energy-consuming 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 135

1 components, which are just structural and 

2 don't really vary a lot with energy efficiency 

3 level. These were developed based on tear4 downs of units currently on the market. 

5 Costs for the energy-consuming 

6 components and the design options were then 

7 developed through research of industry 

8 literature, supplier price quotes, and 

9 manufacturer interviews, as well as a little 

10 bit of tear-down analysis. 

11 Estimates of manufacturer markup, 

12 which is to get from Manufacturer Production 

13 Costs to Manufacturer Selling Price, were 

14 developed with data from the manufacturer 

15 interview process and manufacturer financial 

16 documents. 

17 Design option costs were applied 

18 to the core case costs at each modeled 

19 efficiency level to yield Manufacturer 

20 Production Cost for each efficiency level. 

21 Markups and outbound freight were then added 

22 to yield the Manufacturer Selling Prices. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 136

1 And the final output when you 

2 reconcile the performance -- yes, sir? 

3 MR. THOMPSON: This is Chris 

4 Thompson. Just to maybe kind of get a comment 

5 out as you walk through this portion, if you 

6 go through -- I don't know if you are planning 

7 to speak to it or not, but if you could touch 

8 on the area where you talked about there are 

9 structural components and then there is energy 

10 issue components. I mean, there is a wall 

11 between there. 

12 Speak to insulation and when you 

13 considered insulation. Did you consider any 

14 of the structural impact of insulation versus 

15 just the thermal impact of insulation to the 

16 whole product? 

17 MR. WEBER: You are referring to 

18 the structural integrity or the costs involved 

19 in -- 

20 MR. THOMPSON: I am talking about 

21 the per-product cost -- 

22 MR. WEBER: Okay. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 137

1 MR. THOMPSON: -- of the 

2 functionality that insulation serving dual 

3 purpose, both thermal and structural, rather 

4 than just looking at it as a thermal component 

5 versus completely independent of a structural 

6 component. 

7 MR. WEBER: Well, so we only 

8 looked at insulation increases, which just -- 

9 MR. THOMPSON: When you looked at 

10 insulation increases, one of the things was 

11 vacuum insulation panels. 

12 MR. WEBER: Yes. 

13 MR. THOMPSON: And yes, it may 

14 increase thermal -- 

15 MR. WEBER: Yes. 

16 MR. THOMPSON: -- capability -- 

17 MR. WEBER: Absolutely. 

18 MR. THOMPSON: -- and be good for 

19 thermal, but it doesn't necessarily translate 

20 to a good and structural -- and that's an 

21 aspect that has to be looked at when -- 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 138

1 MR. WEBER: No. Absolutely. I 

2 thought you were talking about just the 

3 traditional foam-in-place. If you're talking 

4 about VIPs, comments would definitely be 

5 welcome on their feasibility and their 

6 impacts. And that would include cost impacts 

7 of redesign to accommodate them from a 

8 structural perspective, that sort of thing. 

9 MR. THOMPSON: All right. 

10 MR. WEBER: We rolled that in with 

11 the best available data, but we would always 

12 welcome more data. 

13 MR. THOMPSON: And the best 

14 available data you used was thermal data or -- 

15 MR. WEBER: The best available 

16 data was confidential manufacturer interview 

17 data, discussing with manufacturers their 

18 costs to implement these new design options in 

19 terms of both the manufacturing, the material 

20 costs and also design costs and capital 

21 expenditures. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 139

1 MR. THOMPSON: And I understand 

2 that the manufacturing and the issues related 

3 to the manufacturer are confidential, but can 

4 you comment on the class of equipment that 

5 that was discussed around? 

6 MR. WEBER: All of them. All of 

7 this was open for comment at both previous 

8 states of the rulemaking, where we conducted 

9 confidential interviews. 

10 MR. THOMPSON: Okay. Thank you. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: John? 

12 MR. McHUGH: Yes. It's not really 

13 related to cost, but just over this last 

14 series of comments, we heard a number of 

15 comments from different manufacturers saying 

16 that they have assembled what they consider to 

17 be best in class products. And so it sounds 

18 to me that there may be some additional data 

19 points, you know. 

20 So right now, you know, when you 

21 have a model, you know, when you extrapolate, 

22 it's always more difficult to make sure that 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 140

1 you're hitting your target. And so I don't 

2 know if there's -- I would like to ask the 

3 question, is there anything that prevents this 

4 model being exercised with those best-in-class 

5 products from the various manufacturers that 

6 have described that, hey, yeah, we've been 

7 doing this stuff. We've been trying to hit 

8 these targets. And it sounds like that these 

9 particular products are well beyond sort of, 

10 you know, just minimally complying with the 

11 preexisting standards. 

12 And potentially that's -- there is 

13 an opportunity to make use of their test 

14 experience in your model to actually validate 

15 if the model is applicable as we go further 

16 out in terms of adding all of the efficiency 

17 options together. 

18 MR. WEBER: DOE has never declined 

19 additional data. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Let's keep 

21 -- 

22 MR. WEBER: Sure. So the output 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 141

1 in the engineering analysis, basically the 

2 last half of chapter 5, is the cost-efficiency 

3 curve. This is the point where for each 

4 equipment class studied at each design option 

5 level or efficiency level studied, DOE 

6 reconciles the performance level coming out of 

7 the model with the cost level that was 

8 determined. The design options are ordered 

9 and implemented in terms of decreasing 

10 payback, increasing payback period. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Victor? 

12 MR. V. ANDERSON: The efficiency 

13 gains that you got out of this model, were 

14 those reflected in the new standards? 

15 MR. WEBER: Excuse me? 

16 MR. V. ANDERSON: The efficiency 

17 gains. So from the very first time, very 

18 first option you added to the last on the SOC 

19 class was that whole range was a 40 percent 

20 reduction in energy. Is that what was 

21 reflected in the standard -- 

22 MR. WEBER: So the engineering 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 142

1 analysis produces these cost-efficiency 

2 curves. 

3 MR. V. ANDERSON: Correct. 

4 MR. WEBER: Those are fed into the 

5 downstream analysis and become efficiency 

6 levels. And then those correspond to trial 

7 standard levels, one of which was proposed. 

8 So yes, the data you see coming out of the 

9 engineering analysis, the data that is the 

10 second half of that TSC chapter 5 is the basis 

11 -- 

12 MR. V. ANDERSON: Okay. 

13 MR. WEBER: -- for the proposal -- 

14 MR. V. ANDERSON: On the SOC -- 

15 MR. WEBER: -- on all classes. 

16 MR. V. ANDERSON: On the SOC, 

17 self-contained, medium-temp, you had a 

18 standard reduction of 40 percent. Yet, the 

19 new level reflects a 47 percent reduction. So 

20 I was curious on what the reasoning was behind 

21 that and how you get that extra seven percent. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 143

1 MR. WEBER: I'm not sure. I'm not 

2 exactly clear on the terminology that you're 

3 using. Maybe we should discuss it offline. 

4 MR. V. ANDERSON: All right. 

5 MR. WEBER: It's not entirely 

6 clear to me. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Harvey Sachs? 

8 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey Sachs. 

9 And slide 41's graph certainly caught my 

10 attention, but I feel, Collin, that it's a 

11 little bit or a lot misleading in terms of 

12 what manufacturers can do. You have chosen 

13 the case for which the manufacturers 

14 represented here have about the least 

15 influence. It's vertical, open, and remote 

16 condensing. 

17 You can throw money at this class 

18 with the few things that these manufacturers 

19 can do, and you're still going to wind up with 

20 this cliff at the highest TSL. And although 

21 it drew my eye, I don't think this is a good 

22 example as a representative product in terms 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 144

1 of the kinds of things that people at this 

2 table can do. 

3 MR. WEBER: That's understood. 

4 That's a good point. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Bruce? 

6 MR. HIERLMEIER: Bruce Hierlmeier. 

7 When we did the last rulemaking, you sat at 

8 the table. You gave us information. You used 

9 information pulled off our data sheets. Later 

10 on we find out about the compliance standards. 

11 And, all of a sudden, we have uncertainty 

12 levels. So you have to knock off two or three 

13 or four percent more from our normal numbers. 

14 They also, if my understanding is 

15 correct, said the test standard had a five 

16 percent variance in it and said, "Well, that 

17 ASHRAE test standard, that five percent 

18 doesn't apply." No product you ever ship can 

19 ever exceed the standard. So it has the 

20 effect of actually moving all of our data or 

21 all of our design points down five, six, seven 

22 percent from nominal. Nominal is what we 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 145

1 report. 

2 So how do you handle uncertainty 

3 in these? I don't see anything in the 

4 analysis saying, you know, "Door heat, yeah, 

5 it should be 80 watts, but, you know, those 

6 heaters aren't exact. Some days they're a 

7 little colder. Some days they're a little 

8 warmer. 

9 Customers can't have cold heaters 

10 because they have water on the floor. They 

11 won't accept it. So you have to design so 

12 your lowest heat is functional, but at the 

13 same time, you could get another set of 

14 heaters that just come out of the process at a 

15 high end. 

16 So what we saw with that is an 

17 effective shift down of all of your analysis 

18 points. So how do you now handle uncertainty? 

19 I mean, do you use just the nominal reading 

20 or do you actually say, "This is the best case 

21 that that" -- because most people publish sort 

22 of better case scenarios. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 146

1 MR. WEBER: So what we are talking 

2 about here is sort of two different things. 

3 So this is the analytical results used to set 

4 the standard level, which is the target. And 

5 then when testing occurs to the standard 

6 level, for certification or other purposes, 

7 then we get into the realm of certification, 

8 compliance, and enforcement, where we get into 

9 sampling plans and we get into tolerances and 

10 that sort of thing. And those by design are 

11 to account for those variations that you speak 

12 of. 

13 MR. HIERLMEIER: But you have not 

14 accounted for them here. So, in effect, you 

15 are shifting the distribution because they are 

16 coming over and saying, "We want this outside 

17 tail to be correct." You have set the middle 

18 at that level. 

19 MR. WEBER: This is the target. 

20 And then that is a separate proceeding of the 

21 variation that's allowed. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 147

1 MR. HIERLMEIER: We found out it 

2 was a separate proceeding. And that's what 

3 I'm saying now is your target needs to be down 

4 far enough so when we get to the separate 

5 proceeding, we're not penalized by five or six 

6 percent. I mean, you're picking in the sense 

7 the best scenario and setting it, setting the 

8 product or energy levels, at what would be the 

9 best product available on the market, not 

10 taking into account there is an average. That 

11 is the average product. Cases don't always 

12 use the same amount of energy. There are test 

13 variables. 

14 So when they clip the ability to 

15 have that variation in your testing, it pushes 

16 the average to a lower energy level. So you 

17 need to start at a higher energy level so when 

18 we get pushed down with compliance, we end up 

19 here. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: John Cymbalsky? 

21 MR. CYMBALSKY: Yes. We are not 

22 going to comment on that now. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 148

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks for 

2 your comment, Bruce. 

3 MR. WILKINS: Is that on the 

4 record, though? 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Is what on the 

6 record? 

7 MR. WILKINS: His comments. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Oh, yes. 

9 MR. WILKINS: It's on the record? 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: There will be a 

11 transcript of this meeting. 

12 Additional comments here before we 

13 move on? 

14 (No response.) 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, Collin. We 

16 are going to go for about five or ten more 

17 minutes. And then we'll break for lunch. 

18 Okay? Collin, keep going. 

19 MR. WEBER: All right. So the 

20 next step is talking about -- it's a little 

21 bit of a jump here. We are talking about 

22 engineering analysis results producing cost-
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 149

1 efficiency curves. Well, now we just want to 

2 talk a little bit about how those were 

3 translated into trial standard levels, one of 

4 which became the proposed standard level. 

5 So, as you saw earlier, the 

6 engineering analysis was conducted at a single 

7 analysis point. Obviously there is a range of 

8 equipment sizes based on the metric of total 

9 display area or volume that's out there in the 

10 universe of products. So in order to 

11 translate that to a linear standard-level 

12 equation, DOE applied the analysis point and 

13 then an offset factor, which is basically a Y 

14 intercept. 

15 Those have been developed for 

16 previous standard levels. And in order to go 

17 from a single analysis point to a standard18 level equation, DOE adopted the existing 

19 offset factors from the 2009 final rule and 

20 from EPACT 2005 and then scaled those offset 

21 factors evenly, proportionately to the 

22 analytical results so that standards were 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 150

1 adjusted evenly for all sizes. That is 

2 certainly something that is open for comment. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie? 

4 MR. HON: Charlie Hon, True 

5 Manufacturing. Unfortunately, the test 

6 procedure for commercial refrigeration 

7 includes eight hours of door openings. That 

8 is a non-controllable bias. 

9 If you take the same unit and 

10 change all kinds of components in it, that 

11 same amount of energy loss from eight hours of 

12 door opens is going to be the same energy loss 

13 out of eight hours of door openings if the 

14 unit is packed the same on the inside because 

15 basically cold air literally falls out of the 

16 unit. 

17 We can affect that slightly by 

18 turning off the internal fans when the doors 

19 are open, but other than that, you open a 

20 door. The standard says 70 degrees plus. The 

21 air falls out. The door closes. And we have 

22 seen numbers which indicate that that can be 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 151

1 between 15 and 25 percent of the total power 

2 consumption into those sections with door 

3 openings. By offsetting proportionally, that 

4 offset is part of that door-opening function. 

5 And if you have adjusted offset, you have not 

6 adjusted for the door openings because of air 

7 constant. 

8 MR. WEBER: So that's a great 

9 point, actually. And it goes back to 

10 something that Jeff talked about, which I 

11 didn't get a chance to respond to earlier, 

12 which is that the door-opening air 

13 infiltration is accounted for or the 

14 Department made an effort to account for it, 

15 including that average hourly infiltrated air 

16 mass. So for door cases where there is 

17 opening, that number should have a prorated or 

18 normalized contribution from the door-opening 

19 period built into it. 

20 So that specifically is an area 

21 where the Department needs input or would 

22 welcome input. And that number, that 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 152

1 infiltrated air mass of the corresponding heat 

2 load, it does not change with design option 

3 level. There is no even better door, better 

4 everything. There is no design option level 

5 that has the Department saying, less air will 

6 get in during door opening. So that's one 

7 thing I wanted to make clear. 

8 Now, this proportionate shift 

9 here, what this is, it's just simply saying at 

10 our analysis point, we were able to find X 

11 percent reduction. So that percent reduction 

12 will be applied across all equipment sizes. 

13 And if there is an alternative 

14 methodology that would be better supported by 

15 data, if there are suggestions, that would be 

16 excellent comment. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments on 

18 offset factors? Jon? 

19 MR. McHUGH: So I just wanted to 

20 make sure about something. I mean, Charlie 

21 just brought up the issue of controlling 

22 evaporator fans during door openings to reduce 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 153

1 infiltration. It is my understanding that 

2 that is not a measure that you evaluate. Is 

3 that correct? 

4 MR. WEBER: We did not evaluate 

5 evaporator fan controls. We had been told 

6 that there could be issues with temperature 

7 maintenance, and that's food safety. 

8 MR. McHUGH: And the doors open? 

9 MR. WEBER: Just in general. 

10 MR. McHUGH: Okay. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Jeff? 

12 MR. BAUMAN: I will speak to that 

13 on two points. One, the issue I think asked 

14 about the fans, that can obviously affect the 

15 coils freezing up I think is the biggest issue 

16 as far as turning the fan back or your fans 

17 off during door openings. It's something that 

18 has to be watched. 

19 One of my concerns, again going 

20 back to the way that DOE, what I'm hearing, 

21 how they modeled it, as an average across 

22 versus looking at the actual impact per door 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 154

1 opening or how many door openings there are in 

2 the test, again, we see a significant factor 

3 there that I'm going to -- and, again, without 

4 looking at what the models are, how they were 

5 modeled, whether that value that was used by 

6 DOE is sufficient to cover what the actual -- 

7 you know, your standardized level, whether 

8 that really is ever flex with what happens 

9 with different products. 

10 MR. WEBER: I mean, that's 

11 certainly, as you mentioned earlier, an area 

12 where it's difficult to find data – what is 

13 the specific contribution of that infiltrated 

14 air. So any creative data, any creative 

15 solutions as to how to better dial that into 

16 the analysis would certainly be welcomed. 

17 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey. For 

18 the next analysis, there certainly are tracer 

19 gas methods that would be applicable to 

20 actually looking at that loss with different 

21 cabinet types during that eight hours of off 

22 cycle and during the door-opening exercises as 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 155

1 well. This is well-established experimental 

2 technology. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Harvey. 

4 MR. WEBER: So the last thing to 

5 discuss is just the treatment of the secondary 

6 classes that weren't directly analyzed. This 

7 is the way that standards were "extended" to 

8 those classes from the primary. 

9 In the 2009 final rule, DOE 

10 developed a method for doing this. The method 

11 was based on matched pair analyses of sets of 

12 classes having a single major design 

13 differentiation, such as an operating 

14 temperature difference. It allowed DOE to 

15 sort of focus in and discern, all else held 

16 constant, the impact of varying the single 

17 characteristic. 

18 So an example would be taking two 

19 pieces of equipment that are very, very 

20 similar in construction size and other 

21 features except, for example, one operating at 

22 a low temperature, one operating at medium 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 156

1 temperature, and then doing that to tease out 

2 what is the energy consumption differential on 

3 margin inherent going to that lower operating 

4 temperature. And this was done for a number 

5 of factors: self-contained versus remote, low 

6 temperature versus medium temperature, that 

7 sort of thing. 

8 So these factors were then used to 

9 be able to take classes which had standards 

10 developed directly and then extend those 

11 through this multiplier approach. It's a sort 

12 of handicapping, if you will. 

13 This methodology is retained in 

14 the rule, in this current rule. DOE believed 

15 that the extension multipliers largely reflect 

16 inherent physical differences that don't scale 

17 with efficiency level. So, therefore, DOE 

18 didn't change these multipliers for this 

19 rulemaking. 

20 And full details are included in 

21 chapter 5. And we welcome comment. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Some comments here 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 157

1 on extension of standards? Charlie? 

2 MR. HON: Question, do you 

3 calculate -- because the majority of these 

4 units are either calculated by display area or 

5 internal volume, there are vast differences in 

6 ratios between internal volumes and external 

7 perimeter walls for infiltration of heat. And 

8 those are not directly proportional. The 

9 bigger, the rounder your square is or your 

10 cube is, the more efficient theoretically you 

11 would be. In reality, you have air movement 

12 issues, which are problematic. So did you 

13 account for the geometries of the case? 

14 MR. WEBER: So because of the 

15 number of classes that DOE directly analyzed, 

16 DOE didn't have to use extension on geometry. 

17 It was just for operating temperature or 

18 remote to self-contained. 

19 So geometries were all direct -- 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Jeff? 

21 MR. BAUMAN: I guess I just want 

22 to get clarification. Using the multipliers 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 158

1 and extensions, you mentioned that it was used 

2 for things such as different operating 

3 temperatures. Does that go across to like 

4 refrigerators to freezers? 

5 MR. WEBER: Yes. 

6 MR. BAUMAN: I definitely would 

7 have concerns on that because there's more 

8 than refrigerant changes. There's a lot of 

9 differences between refrigerators and freezers 

10 -- 

11 MR. WEBER: Sure. So -- 

12 MR. BAUMAN: -- within the 

13 operating temperature. 

14 MR. WEBER: Sure. So the intent 

15 was that this was all based on rating data or 

16 modeling data for the whole unit and so with 

17 the only design factor being analyzed being 

18 that. So, in effect, it serves a proxy where 

19 all of those individual design changes are 

20 rolled into that. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Do you want to be 

22 more specific now, Jeff? That seemed like a 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 159

1 global answer. 

2 MR. BAUMAN: Yes. I mean, if 

3 you're doing your modeling of it, I assume you 

4 used compressor mapping and your compressor is 

5 obviously very different and the refrigerant 

6 very different in the characteristics of the -

7 - 

8 MR. WEBER: The way these factors 

9 were developed is they were based on full 

10 system results. In fact, a lot of times this 

11 was a test for certification data. And so, 

12 thus, all of that is rolled into it. 

13 MR. BAUMAN: Okay. I'll take a 

14 closer look at the information to be able to 

15 make better input. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Harvey Sachs? 

17 MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs, ACEEE. 

18 Collin, I guess the question because I haven't 

19 delved as deeply as I should have is, is the 

20 term "secondary equipment class" defined in 

21 the chapter? Because, particularly after 

22 Jeff's question, just it's not real obvious to 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 160

1 me. 

2 MR. WEBER: It doesn't have a 

3 statutory or a common defined definition, but 

4 it's just those which DOE determined to have 

5 very small shipment volumes and, therefore, 

6 did not warrant direct -- 

7 MR. SACHS: Ah. So it's small 

8 shipment volumes. It's not asserting that a 

9 medium-temperature unit of the same -- 

10 MR. WEBER: No, no. It's just 

11 simply an analytical tool for focusing the 

12 analytical efforts on the highest returns. 

13 MR. SACHS: Thank you. That 

14 helps. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Joe Sanders, who is 

16 joining us online, makes the comment 

17 "Evaporator fans off when doors are open is a 

18 very old technique, 20-plus years." Okay. 

19 All right. 

20 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey again. 

21 And a question, it would seem to me that that 

22 particular technology -- and I'm referring 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 161

1 back to the vertical versus horizontal -- 

2 would have very different relative impacts on 

3 a horizontal case and a design to spill cold 

4 air vertical case. 

5 MR. WEBER: Horizontal case is 

6 usually cold wall without fans in a lot of 

7 instances, not all instances. Maybe Jeff 

8 wants to say something. 

9 MR. BAUMAN: Yes. I'll jump in. 

10 When you talk about work-top units, you go 

11 into any deli. You know, there are open-top 

12 units, but under-counter and work-top units 

13 with solid tops, which are covered under this, 

14 are a significant part of the food service 

15 industry. 

16 MR. WEBER: Okay. But a work-top 

17 unit would not be a horizontal door unit. 

18 This would be a vertical door unit. You just 

19 have a horizontal work-top. 

20 MR. BAUMAN: Okay. Yes. So 

21 you're talking about more -- 

22 MR. WEBER: I'm talking about -- 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 162

1 MR. BAUMAN: -- what we would call 

2 -- again, not to insert confusion, but, to 

3 Harvey's point, you know, it's a vertical 

4 door, a horizontal configuration unit, as I 

5 mentioned earlier. That has different 

6 characteristics on air flow and such that it 

7 affected significantly. And I apologize for 

8 the confusion on the door. You're talking 

9 about doors versus cabinet. 

10 MR. SACHS: Thanks. I keep 

11 learning. 

12 MR. WEBER: And if it is felt that 

13 fans are off when doors are open is something 

14 that should be considered, 8-hour door-opening 

15 period, 10 times 6 seconds, so you could turn 

16 off the fans for 8 minutes in the model. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments 

18 here? 

19 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman 

20 again. I just want to comment, too, Collin, 

21 that to just use a simple model that says I 

22 saved this much wattage on my fan motor or 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 163

1 this much heat load, again, the effect of the 

2 air flow, I'm not sure how you're going to get 

3 to modeling that, but I think it is going to 

4 be more complex than just reducing it by eight 

5 seconds per -- I think a lot of people think 

6 that that is what the effect is going to be, 

7 but, again, the air exchange is going to be 

8 what significantly changes your overall 

9 performance. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. I think have 

11 we covered this one now? Final comments here? 

12 (No response.) 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: So let's pause for 

14 lunch. Thanks for all of you for being 

15 patient. We are behind schedule. We lost 20 

16 or so minutes while we fiddled with the audio. 

17 Maybe we'll need to do that again. 

18 It's now 11:50. It takes just 

19 about an hour to eat lunch on site and not go 

20 anywhere. So that means we are going to 

21 resume at 12:50 here in this room. This room 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 164

1 will be locked. You can leave your stuff. It 

2 will be supervised in here. 

3 You must wear this badge if you're 

4 walking around the Forrestal Building. If you 

5 go to the big cafeteria, which is down on the 

6 ground floor and about 100 yards in that 

7 direction, you will have to pass back through 

8 a security portal. And you might need -- pay 

9 attention here, folks. You might need an ID. 

10 It's conceivable. Sometimes they do. 

11 Sometimes they don't. 

12 So enjoy your lunch. We'll see 

13 you back here at 12:50 to resume. 

14 (Whereupon, a luncheon recess was 

15 taken at 11:51 a.m.) 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 165

1 A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N 

2 (12:56 p.m.) 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's start back 

4 up. I think the morning session was very 

5 productive. And the Department certainly 

6 benefitted from all of that good commentary. 

7 And they will want to see all of that in 

8 writing as well. So please send your very 

9 detailed comments with supporting evidence to 

10 the Department. And then they will be 

11 processing all of that information. 

12 We are going to proceed where we 

13 left off. And that takes us to markup 

14 analysis and Katie Coughlin. 

15 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes. I am Katie -- 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Hey, folks, let's 

17 stop the sidebar conversation. Please take 

18 your seats. 

19 MS. COUGHLIN: My name is Katie 

20 Coughlin from Lawrence-Berkeley Lab. And I 

21 will be going through the next two sessions. 

22 To start with, I will be going over the final 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 166

1 two inputs to the LCC calculation, which are 

2 the energy use and the markups analysis. 

3 So this diagram shows -- the 

4 markups that I am going to discuss now are the 

5 distribution channel markups. Once the 

6 equipment leaves the manufacturer, before it 

7 gets to the final user, it goes through 

8 various distribution channels. 

9 And then the other piece of 

10 analysis is the energy use analysis for 

11 equipment energy use in the field. So for the 

12 energy use analysis, the purpose is to 

13 translate the engineering analysis energy 

14 consumption numbers into field use so that we 

15 can calculate the energy cost savings 

16 associated with improved efficiency. 

17 For this particular rule, the 

18 energy analysis is very simple because the 

19 engineering energy consumption model gives you 

20 these daily average kilowatt hour numbers. 

21 So essentially all that we have to 

22 do at this stage is to multiply those average 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 167

1 numbers by 365 to get the annual energy 

2 consumption at each standard level. 

3 I will just mention that in the 

4 preliminary analysis, the issue of impact of 

5 or interaction, essentially, between the 

6 refrigeration, largely heat output, and 

7 building space conditioning loads was 

8 considered, but the main issue with the 

9 effects is that they don't have a consistent 

10 sign. It can be positive or negative 

11 depending on a lot of different 

12 characteristics. And overall it is not a 

13 significant contributor to energy consumption. 

14 So DOE has concluded as a matter 

15 of policy that they are not going to consider 

16 the effect on space conditioning loads. 

17 MR. WILKINS: Robert Wilkins, 

18 Danfoss. In many cases, I think that's 

19 largely true, but in the supermarket 

20 environment, where we have got all of these 

21 open cases, that is where the dehumidification 

22 is taking place. Dehumidification is much 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 168

1 more expensive to carry out in a refrigerated 

2 case or a freezer than it is in an HVAC system 

3 because of the much lower temperature. And if 

4 it's in the freezer case, then it has to be 

5 taken back out of that with some heat to 

6 defrost it. So the dehumidification cycle, 

7 it's not just the temperature. It's the 

8 dehumidification cycle that is so costly, the 

9 latent load. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Robert, is there 

11 any way you could quantify that? 

12 MR. WILKINS: I don't know how to 

13 quantify it. I'd have to stop and think about 

14 that. The case manufacturers or the 

15 supermarket chains would be the experts in 

16 that area. 

17 MR. STARR: Isn't the latent load 

18 also -- oh, sorry. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Louis, please? Go 

20 ahead. Yes? 

21 MR. STARR: Louis Starr with NEEA. 

22 Isn't the latent load kind of captured in the 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 169

1 infiltration portion or is it -- in other 

2 words, they would be capturing it there, not 

3 necessarily at the -- I think the part they're 

4 talking about is the convection or maybe you 

5 can speak to that. 

6 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes. To clarify, 

7 the issue here was the possible changes issue, 

8 heating and cooling loads, in a building that 

9 would result from the change in the energy use 

10 by the equipment in the building. 

11 MR. BRUNDAGE: Don Brundage. 

12 MS. COUGHLIN: So it's a very 

13 small impact. And DOE is going to ignore it. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Don Brundage? 

15 MR. BRUNDAGE: Don Brundage, 

16 Southern Company. It is not a small impact, 

17 but I think the fact is they are all ready as 

18 a general rule dehumidifying the building 

19 beyond what a normal building would be in 

20 order to prevent moisture buildup in a freezer 

21 case. So the question is not, does it have an 

22 impact on the building but does changing 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 170

1 efficiency have an impact on the building? 

2 And I'm not sure it really does. They are 

3 already dehumidifying substantially with the 

4 current equipment. I am not sure it would 

5 change if you increased the efficiency of the 

6 freezer equipment. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Robert? 

8 MR. WILKINS: I don't know all the 

9 ins and outs here, but it is tied in -- Robert 

10 Wilkins, Danfoss. It is tied into this issue 

11 of open case/closed case. And, as we 

12 discussed earlier this morning, I don't think 

13 you can look at those two as independent of 

14 each other because if we start raising the 

15 cost of these enclosed cases and the trend is 

16 moving that way, it is going to force people 

17 back into these cheap open cases that are much 

18 less energy-efficient. And it is in those 

19 open cases where so much of this latent load 

20 contributes to the load. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 171

1 MR. WILKINS: So it is all 

2 interchanged. And I think it is over 

3 simplistic just to ignore the 

4 interrelationship. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please? Find 

6 a microphone. And your name? 

7 MR. BOLDUC: Chris Bolduc from 

8 Lawrence-Berkeley National Lab. In the 2009 

9 rule, simulations were done using DOE-2 to 

10 look at impacts on HVAC, specifically in 

11 supermarkets. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike. Get the mike 

13 closer to your mouth. I'm sorry. 

14 MR. BOLDUC: Thanks. 

15 MR. WILKINS: So work has been 

16 done. 

17 MR. BOLDUC: Yes, work has been 

18 done. 

19 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes. It was looked 

20 at in the 2009 analysis. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Will you say your 

22 name again, please? 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 172

1 MR. BOLDUC: Chris Bolduc. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

3 MR. WILKINS: Robert Wilkins. So 

4 if that is the case, I would refer back to 

5 that study, rather than just saying we decided 

6 not to look at it. 

7 MS. COUGHLIN: Based on that 

8 study, DOE has concluded that the impacts are 

9 not significant. And, therefore, they will 

10 not be considered in this energy analysis. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks for 

12 clarifying. 

13 MS. COUGHLIN: So, moving on to 

14 the equipment markups, these markups are 

15 applied to the manufacturer price to determine 

16 the final purchase price for the consumer 

17 after considering the different distribution 

18 channels that are possible for this type of 

19 equipment. 

20 So there are sort of two pieces to 

21 the analysis. One is to split the markup 

22 itself into a baseline and an incremental 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 173

1 markup. So the baseline markup represents 

2 overall the distribution channel costs and 

3 profits that are applied to the baseline 

4 equipment, but when there is a price increment 

5 given to a piece of equipment, the 

6 distribution channel does not necessarily mark 

7 that up at the same rate as their baseline 

8 markup. So we define an incremental markup, 

9 which is applied to that price difference 

10 between the more efficient unit and the 

11 baseline unit. 

12 The other issue that arises is 

13 this description of the different distribution 

14 channels that are in the markup. There are 

15 essentially three that are considered here. 

16 One is national accounts, where a large 

17 purchaser deals directly with a large 

18 supplier. Second is going through a 

19 wholesaler. And the third is going through a 

20 contractor, who will purchase and install the 

21 equipment. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 174

1 These distribution channels were 

2 analyzed separately for display cases and 

3 solid-door equipment. 

4 And so the table shows the 

5 relative fraction of unit shift that falls 

6 into the three different distribution channels 

7 for the display cases and solid-door 

8 equipment. And these numbers were revised 

9 relative to the preliminary baseline comments 

10 received by DOE. 

11 And then for the markup analysis, 

12 the baseline and incremental markups are shown 

13 in the second table. And, again, because each 

14 distribution channel has different particular 

15 activities associated with it, these markups 

16 are somewhat different. So the national 

17 accounts channel, the baseline markup is 1.18 

18 and the incremental is 1.05, et cetera, for 

19 the other distribution channels. 

20 So DOE would welcome any 

21 additional input that might help clarify or 

22 refine these estimates, both of the 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 175

1 percentages assigned to each distribution 

2 channel and to the markups. 

3 So that is that. So now we will 

4 move on to the life-cycle cost analysis. So 

5 now essentially we have assembled all of the 

6 inputs to the life-cycle cost analysis. So 

7 now I will describe how the life-cycle cost is 

8 estimated and define the payback period as 

9 well. 

10 So the purpose of the life-cycle 

11 cost analysis is to look at the economics from 

12 the perspective of the purchaser of the 

13 equipment. And the focus here is primarily on 

14 the difference between the life-cycle cost for 

15 the baseline versus the various standard 

16 levels under consideration. 

17 From the life-cycle cost analysis, 

18 you can also define a simplified metric that 

19 is called the payback period, which I will 

20 define in a moment. 

21 So the method that the Department 

22 uses for life-cycle cost, conceptually it's 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 176

1 fairly simple. You have a purchase price and 

2 an operating cost. But in order to capture 

3 all of the variability associated with 

4 different users of the equipment, we model a 

5 number of different parameters that go into 

6 this with distributions. 

7 And so in a spreadsheet model, 

8 which you can download from the website, we 

9 use Monte Carlo simulation to look at the 

10 various interactions between things like 

11 variability in discount rates, variability in 

12 energy prices, potential variability in 

13 lifetimes, that sort of thing. 

14 So, apart from that variability, 

15 the life-cycle cost itself is just the sum, as 

16 I said, of what we call the total installed 

17 cost of the equipment and the operating costs. 

18 So the total installed cost, you start with 

19 the manufacturer price. You mark it up with 

20 the distribution channel markup. And then you 

21 add any installation cost that might occur at 

22 the site of installation. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 177

1 The operating costs are primarily 

2 energies costs and then any kind of regular 

3 maintenance cost. And we consider sort of 

4 recurring significant repairs when they can be 

5 quantified and put into the analysis. 

6 And, again, the focus here is 

7 really on differences between the baseline and 

8 the improved efficiency cases. 

9 The payback period is a relatively 

10 simple calculation where we take the 

11 difference in the total installed cost, divide 

12 it by the difference in operating cost, and 

13 computer how many years it would take to pay 

14 back that increased purchase price. 

15 And, finally, when we do the LCC, 

16 we do the usual kind of economic discounting 

17 of the future stream of savings to arrive At 

18 an NPV associated with a change in the 

19 purchase. 

20 So this is an overview of the way 

21 the inputs interact. So, again, we have the 

22 engineering analysis, which produces the 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 178

1 Manufacturer Selling Price. And then we get 

2 the distributor markup, contractor markup. We 

3 also add the sales taxes. That gives us the 

4 consumer price. Then we have a separate set 

5 of data on installation costs. That gives us 

6 the total installed cost. That's the top line 

7 of inputs. That's the equipment side of the 

8 life-cycle cost. 

9 And then the bottom set of inputs 

10 represents the sort of customer side. We get 

11 the energy consumption numbers. We have 

12 electricity prices. We calculate the annual 

13 energy cost associated with the equipment 

14 repair and maintenance. That gives us an 

15 overall annual operating cost. 

16 Then we take the full lifetime of 

17 the equipment and apply a discount rate to 

18 that stream of cost savings over the lifetime 

19 of the equipment. And we also apply an 

20 electricity price trend, which we take from 

21 the annual energy outlook. And so you get a 

22 lifetime operating cost associated with a 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 179

1 piece of equipment. And those two go into the 

2 life-cycle cost. 

3 So there are a couple of 

4 assumptions that are made for this rule about 

5 repair and maintenance costs. The first is 

6 that the general maintenance costs don't vary 

7 with efficiency level except for particular 

8 design options related to lighting. And those 

9 are calculated explicitly. 

10 The annualized repair cost was 

11 retained from the 2009 rule. So these do vary 

12 by equipment class. And the repair costs here 

13 that do vary by efficiency are apart from the 

14 regular maintenance costs. So we have sort of 

15 standard maintenance and then actual repairs. 

16 The repair costs are assumed to scale with 

17 the price of the equipment. So that implies 

18 that they scale with the efficiency level as 

19 well. 

20 The annual preventative 

21 maintenance costs are taken from RS Means data 

22 and just basically have two numbers for the 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 180

1 self-contained versus remote condensing 

2 equipment. And then the lighting maintenance 

3 costs were essentially developed by 

4 calculating the lifetimes of the various 

5 lighting options and changing out the light 

6 bulbs and any increased labor that may be 

7 associated with those different installation 

8 types. 

9 MR. COUSINS: Just for 

10 clarification? 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve, please? 

12 MR. COUSINS: Steve Cousins. So, 

13 then, with the maintenance cost, there wasn't 

14 any consideration given to a refrigerant cost 

15 or refrigerant handling or refrigerant 

16 disposal involved in it? 

17 MS. COUGHLIN: Again, since the 

18 focus is on the difference between the 

19 baseline and the higher standard level, it is 

20 assumed that those would be the same in both 

21 cases. 

22 MR. COUSINS: One of the reasons 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 181

1 why we are moving to R744 is to get away from 

2 the escalating costs with HFCs. They don't 

3 stay fixed in time forever. But you say that 

4 wasn't considered? 

5 MS. COUGHLIN: I would say the 

6 Department's focus is on the difference in 

7 costs between baseline equipment and improved8 efficiency equipment. 

9 MR. COUSINS: That's what I'm 

10 talking about: baseline equipment, which is 

11 what is in the market today, versus what we 

12 are going to be putting out by 2017. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: You are saying the 

14 refrigerant will be different. 

15 MR. COUSINS: Yes. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Got it. 

17 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes. The different 

18 refrigerants were not considered in the 

19 engineering analysis. 

20 MR. COUSINS: Okay. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Steve. 

22 So other comments here? Yes, 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 182

1 Bruce, please? 

2 MR. HIERLMEIER: Bruce Hierlmeier. 

3 I just had a question. At $35 for self4 contained and $220 for remote condensing, is 

5 that on a per-case basis? Do you know if the 

6 -- 

7 MS. COUGHLIN: Per unit, yes. For 

8 the typical unit, the representative unit 

9 considered in the engineering. 

10 MR. HIERLMEIER: I mean, I would 

11 have thought the -- if someone had asked me, I 

12 would have thought the opposite. You are 

13 doing more work on a self-contained. You have 

14 to come out and clean the condenser, do things 

15 with it. The water pump doesn't work, you 

16 know, water on the floor; whereas, the remote 

17 case kind of runs other than there's work in 

18 the back room, you're going to clean a large 

19 condenser or fix a large leak. But I would 

20 have thought those numbers were flipped. 

21 MR. CYMBALSKY: How many times do 

22 you do it over the life? This is annualized 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 183

1 over the life. So do you do the remote only 

2 once every several years? And the other one 

3 you do every year, couple of months? 

4 MR. HIERLMEIER: Right. 

5 MR. CYMBALSKY: Yes. So that's 

6 what that captures. 

7 MS. COUGHLIN: Right. This is the 

8 lifetime maintenance cost divided by lifetime. 

9 So it's annualized, just not the same as 

10 annual, yes. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Harvey Sachs? No? 

12 Okay. Other comments here? So, Bruce, your 

13 experience in writing to the Department will 

14 be very helpful to them. Harvey? 

15 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey Sachs. 

16 I was a little reluctant because it may seem 

17 that I'm piling on, but the debaters, of whom 

18 I've never been a part, always have said that 

19 if you let a Jesuit establish the premises for 

20 the debate, he has already won. And the early 

21 decision to not look at alternative 

22 refrigerants has huge downstream consequences, 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 184

1 -- 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Right. 

3 MR. SACHS: -- which is what Steve 

4 was referring to. And this is why, 

5 recognizing that this thing had a lot of delay 

6 and that the market has changed, this is why 

7 some of us are concerned that our premise was 

8 that we will exclusively consider HFC 

9 refrigerants. End of rant. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

11 Yes, Jeff? 

12 MR. BAUMAN: I just want to get 

13 clarification confirmation. One of the things 

14 that was mentioned with Bruce before was the 

15 differences in self-contained or remote. And 

16 it was a discussion about cleaning condensers 

17 and things like that. This doesn't. The 

18 chart provided doesn't address any of that. 

19 This is only for lighting. Is that correct? 

20 And so if you looked at -- 

21 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes. The next 

22 slide is only lighting costs. That's correct. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 185

1 MR. BAUMAN: Okay. But if you had 

2 a chart for -- I mean, you say DOE didn't 

3 consider any difference in regular maintenance 

4 at all except for the self-contained or 

5 whatever, none of that changes. If you change 

6 evaporators and potentially you have a smaller 

7 evaporator or a condenser with tighter fins 

8 that you might need to clean more often and 

9 things, those things were not considered at 

10 all in the analysis at this point. Is that 

11 correct? 

12 MS. COUGHLIN: That is correct. 

13 MR. BAUMAN: Okay. 

14 MS. COUGHLIN: So if you want to 

15 submit a comment saying that we should add 

16 additional maintenance costs, we would 

17 definitely appreciate that. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Harvey Sachs? 

19 MR. SACHS: Again, a 

20 clarification. The baseline in each of these 

21 cases is T8 for the lighting? 

22 MS. COUGHLIN: Baseline is T8? Is 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 186

1 that true for all of the equipment classes on 

2 our engineering? 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Maybe they can -- 

4 MR. WEBER: Collin Weber with 

5 Navigant. So for engineering, we started 

6 looking at units based at the lowest level, 

7 which included incorporated T8 lighting. For 

8 LCC purposes, the engineering curve was 

9 truncated at a level of performance equating 

10 to the current standards. That would be the 

11 2012 or EPACT 2009 standards. 

12 And so for LCC purposes, the 

13 lighting could be T8 or LED depending on where 

14 that fell in the cost curve. 

15 MR. SACHS: I think that's 

16 helpful, Collin, and I appreciate it. My 

17 experience is relatively limited with LEDs, 

18 but the trucking industry raced to embrace 

19 them because it was million-mile stuff and 

20 substantially reduce their maintenance costs. 

21 They weren't worried about the power going to 

22 the brake lights. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 187

1 So what should I be reading or how 

2 can I understand increasing lighting 

3 maintenance costs with TSL if we're certainly 

4 at LEDs with the highest TSLs? What am I 

5 missing? 

6 MR. WEBER: As the LCC analysis, 

7 you know, I would defer to my colleagues on 

8 that. But, I mean, in absolute terms, when 

9 LEDs do require a replacement, they still cost 

10 more in absolute terms to replace than a T8 at 

11 this point. 

12 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes. I think -- 

13 MR. SACHS: But the question is -- 

14 okay. So you're saying that -- 

15 MS. COUGHLIN: Okay. To give you 

16 a detailed answer -- 

17 MR. SACHS: -- you're looking at 

18 200,000 operating hours, rather than 50,000 

19 operating hours, because the LEDs should be 

20 50,000-hour life cycles. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 188

1 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes. So the 

2 operating life of the lamp is included in the 

3 lighting costs. 

4 MR. SACHS: Thank you, Katie. 

5 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes. Okay. I 

6 mean, again, you would need to go to the 

7 engineering to map the TSLs to the lighting 

8 technology that is associated with each of the 

9 equipment classes to really understand the 

10 details of this chart, but -- 

11 MR. SACHS: I'm not that grand. 

12 Thank you. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Victor? 

14 MR. V. ANDERSON: Victor Anderson. 

15 Why is there a different cost associated 

16 within the same group being, say, take the SOC 

17 again, remote condensing versus self-contained 

18 condensing? On any level, one is cheaper than 

19 the other to maintain. Yet, they both use the 

20 exact same equipment for lighting, lighting21 specific. 

22 MS. COUGHLIN: Okay. The 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 189

1 efficiency levels that go into the definition 

2 at the TSL may have different assemblages of 

3 design options for these different equipment 

4 classes. So, again, you need to map the 

5 efficiency levels, which tell you what design 

6 options are associated with an efficiency 

7 level to the trial standard level, which is a 

8 collection of efficiency levels. 

9 So, without that piece of 

10 information, we can't say exactly which 

11 lighting technology is associated with each 

12 entry in this table. So that's one 

13 consideration. 

14 The second consideration is the 

15 number of bulbs -- 

16 MR. V. ANDERSON: Yes. 

17 MS. COUGHLIN: -- that are 

18 typically in a case and possible increases in 

19 labor costs associated with changing out the 

20 type of bulb when you change the technology. 

21 So there's not a simple translation between 

22 equipment class and lighting cost. You 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 190

1 actually have to go look at the engineering 

2 and look at the number of bulbs. And then if 

3 you're going from T8 to LED, there may be 

4 labor changes, that sort of thing. 

5 MR. V. ANDERSON: I am just 

6 speaking about remote and self-contained. I 

7 guess I am confused. I'll withdraw the 

8 question. 

9 MS. COUGHLIN: Well, again, the 

10 efficiency levels are slightly different for 

11 remote and self-contained. 

12 MR. V. ANDERSON: On lighting, 

13 it's just lighting. You're looking at just 

14 lighting. 

15 MS. COUGHLIN: Right, but -- 

16 MR. V. ANDERSON: You're not 

17 looking at everything. You're looking at just 

18 -- 

19 MS. COUGHLIN: The efficiency 

20 level -- 

21 MR. V. ANDERSON: -- lighting 

22 maintenance. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 191

1 MS. COUGHLIN: Right, but the 

2 efficiency level does not prescribe a lighting 

3 technology. So you don't necessarily know 

4 what design options have gone into the 

5 definition of each TSL. It really depends on 

6 how all the different possible design options 

7 interact to produce a particular efficiency 

8 improvement. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Mary? 

10 MS. DANE: This is Mary from 

11 Traulsen. Maybe I can re-ask the question a 

12 different way. If this chart looks at 

13 annualized lighting maintenance only, we're 

14 saying that light in a remote cabinet would be 

15 the same as a light in the self-contained 

16 cabinet. 

17 MR. V. ANDERSON: Right. 

18 MS. DANE: It doesn't matter what 

19 you are trying to annualize or that. That 

20 chart says, "Annualized lighting maintenance." 

21 So why would you -- you're saying those 

22 models. And then you skew it by saying that 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 192

1 those models have lots of different things 

2 added and I have to go back to the TLC 

3 document or TSL document and trace it all 

4 back. So how are you doing apples to apples 

5 comparison on those numbers? 

6 MS. COUGHLIN: I am just realizing 

7 there is a slide that we should have put in 

8 already, which talks about how the TSLs are 

9 composed. So in terms of, again, the 

10 particular specification of the case in the 

11 remote versus self-contained may be somewhat 

12 different. Again, I can ask the engineering 

13 team to check that, which may arrive at how 

14 the different number of bulbs or different 

15 placement of bulbs, which may give you a 

16 different number. 

17 But the other issue is that again, 

18 because the goal of the analysis is to produce 

19 essentially a cost associated with a given 

20 increment and efficiency, it is not 

21 necessarily saying that there is a particular 

22 design attached to it. So it's not 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 193

1 necessarily the case that TSL 2 for the remote 

2 and the self-contained have the same design 

3 options associated with them. And if they 

4 don't have the same design options associated 

5 with them, they will not have the same 

6 maintenance costs for lighting. That's the 

7 point I'm trying to make about the cross8 referencing of the tables. 

9 MR. CYMBALSKY: You could have 

10 made efficiency improvements, both in the 

11 unit, right, and not inside the cabinet? And 

12 the other one could have done the lighting 

13 thing where the remote one didn't. So you 

14 would have a different number. 

15 MR. BAUMAN: Yes. I think it 

16 would be helpful if DOE can provide some 

17 additional background on how these were -- the 

18 one area, I had the same confusion as Victor 

19 somewhat on the self-contained and the 

20 remotes. 

21 I also notice it on vertical 

22 closed transparent self-contained load 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 194

1 temperature. The cost of the annual 

2 maintenance actually goes down on those, half 

3 of what it is from the baseline. I'm confused 

4 again. Just more information will help. But, 

5 you know, I am kind of assuming that, you 

6 know, the various TSLs are better lighting or 

7 LED lighting or more LED lighting versus that 

8 you found a way to reduce the energy 

9 consumption and cut the cost of the 

10 maintenance in half. That's pretty 

11 impressive. 

12 MS. COUGHLIN: That would probably 

13 be due to longer lifetimes. 

14 MR. BAUMAN: Okay. I am still 

15 confused, then, why that wouldn't affect other 

16 products, other similar products, and a 

17 similar kind -- most of the items, again, go 

18 up but on the second line, vertical open 

19 remote low-temp again goes down versus 

20 everything else that goes up. So I'll just 

21 defer to if we can get more information about 

22 this. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 195

1 I just have to speak to some of 

2 the things. There's obviously a lot of 

3 information here you are asking manufacturers 

4 to do a lot of commenting on, which we are 

5 going to try, but, boy, there's a lot of stuff 

6 that needs to be reviewed that I don't think 

7 we were necessarily expecting those levels of 

8 I'll say time. I mean, hopefully it's going 

9 to be worth our while to do all of those 

10 things. And I appreciate DOE taking comment 

11 on those, but this is a big investment on 

12 manufacturers, especially small manufacturers, 

13 like us, as far as the effort this is going to 

14 take to go through all of this. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Charles? 

16 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. There are 

17 some issues there with low temp because low 

18 temps traditionally have to have special 

19 bulbs, special conditions, and quite often 

20 fail more commonly because of the cold 

21 conditions. They fail to start if you have 

22 fluorescent lamps. So there is a substantial 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 196

1 increase of cost in lighting in a freezer 

2 compared to a refrigerator. And the LEDs 

3 actually like the cold. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Robert? 

5 MR. WILKINS: Robert Wilkins. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Just a second. A 

7 comment from -- 

8 MR. WILKINS: I think, Katie, I 

9 understand your analysis and you're looking at 

10 the big picture of the whole case and not just 

11 incrementally to individual lights. But as 

12 you go back and discuss with manufacturers, 

13 ask them about how they actually operate their 

14 businesses because a medium-temperature reach15 in case of a certain size and a medium16 temperature remote and self-contained are the 

17 same units. The manufacturers aren't likely 

18 to have a very different sort of procedure or 

19 maybe they are, but I would think in their 

20 operation, they would want to be standardizing 

21 and using one technology across the product 

22 lines, rather than picking and choosing based 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 197

1 on this sort of analysis. I am just urging 

2 you -- 

3 MS. COUGHLIN: Right. 

4 MR. WILKINS: -- to seek comments 

5 from them on that issue and how that decision 

6 is made. 

7 MS. COUGHLIN: Well, again, the 

8 lighting configurations are described in 

9 chapter 5 with the engineering. 

10 MR. WILKINS: Yes. I understand 

11 that. I understand how you have done it. I 

12 am saying consider some other factors; that 

13 is, how the manufacturers design and operate 

14 their products and the scale. You know, 

15 Chevrolet doesn't put different kinds of 

16 lighting on every different unit just because 

17 one gets 26 miles a gallon and one gets 27. 

18 They have considerations of their product line 

19 management and standardizing the SKUs and the 

20 operations and the factor to also consider. 

21 And I think that's why this is getting 

22 questioned a lot. This appears to be 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 198

1 inconsistent. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Collin, did you 

3 have something to add at this point? 

4 MR. WEBER: I was just going to 

5 mention -- this can even be off the record. I 

6 was going to mention, Charlie, that we 

7 considered the difference between low8 temperature and medium-temperature T8s. And 

9 that can also take it into account. 

10 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey. 

11 Again, it's a question in the service life, 

12 you differentiate between large supermarket 

13 chains and mom and pops and without doing 

14 anything other than trying to transfer a 

15 little bit of dangerous knowledge from HVAC, I 

16 would expect that they are similarly 

17 differences and, for that matter, from general 

18 purpose lighting differences in the 

19 maintenance practices by customer, by user. 

20 The large accounts are quite likely to replace 

21 all of the lighting at something like 85 

22 percent of expected life. And I would expect 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 199

1 the smaller accounts to be running into a 

2 failure. And there are enormous differences 

3 in the service costs per hour for the 

4 technician to come out. 

5 So I am concerned if we -- I mean, 

6 I hate to get over and over and over the top 

7 on the analysis, but did you all explore with 

8 some customer groups the differences in 

9 maintenance practices? I'm seeing some 

10 colleagues shaking their heads vigorously. 

11 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes. I mean, DOE 

12 did receive that comment and did look into 

13 those issues. We have not received comments 

14 from any of the users. So if there is a way 

15 to encourage them to comment directly, that 

16 would be of great value. 

17 MR. SACHS: Have you asked them? 

18 MS. COUGHLIN: That's not -- 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: John, do you have a 

20 comment or a question? Not at this time. 

21 Okay. So, then, let's -- 

22 MS. COUGHLIN: Move on? 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 200

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Moving ahead. 

2 MS. COUGHLIN: Okay. So this is 

3 an invitation for comment on the issues we 

4 have just been discussing, so regular 

5 maintenance costs and repair costs. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Anything 

7 additional? 

8 MS. COUGHLIN: But, again, if 

9 there are particular design options that you 

10 can identify that very clearly there will be 

11 additional maintenance associated with them, 

12 then we will be very interested to hear those 

13 comments. 

14 So the additional inputs to the 

15 LCC are installation costs, where, again, 

16 these are retained from the 2009 rule, so 

17 nothing new there. They have just been 

18 escalated to 2012 dollars. And numbers for 

19 self-contained and remote equipment are given 

20 here. 

21 The discount rates, DOE uses 

22 publicly available data to develop industry-
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 201

1 specific discount rates. And those are 

2 actually treated as a distribution within the 

3 LCC. Those represent the rate at which the 

4 future stream of cost savings is discounted in 

5 calculating the life-cycle cost for a given 

6 consumer. 

7 For electricity prices, DOE used 

8 EIA data to develop regionally specific 

9 electricity prices and also looked at the 

10 CBECS surveys to understand the variability of 

11 electricity prices for different sectors; for 

12 example, food sales and service versus large 

13 supermarket. 

14 Finally, since we have a life15 cycle cost over a lifetime, which is typically 

16 10 to 15 years, we use an electricity price 

17 trend, which we take out of the annual energy 

18 outlook published by EIA. And we used the 

19 commercial sector price index to escalate 

20 energy prices over that period. And this 

21 again is regionally specific. 

22 The lifetime here is defined. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 202

1 This is called an economic lifetime. This is 

2 typically the life of a unit in use. The 

3 engineering lifetime, meaning the time until 

4 it breaks, may be longer or shorter. So the 

5 lifetime that DOE uses in the LCC analysis is 

6 15 years for display cases in small businesses 

7 and 10 years for all remaining equipment. 

8 But, again, these are just the median values. 

9 We use a Weibull distribution, which is a 

10 standard distribution for failure rates. So 

11 in the LCC, there will be some units with 

12 shorter and some units with longer lifetimes. 

13 And we would welcome any 

14 additional information on either the 

15 engineering or the economic lifetime of these 

16 units. 

17 So one of the things that we try 

18 to do with the life-cycle cost is really 

19 estimate the impact that the standard will 

20 have on the market. So at any given time, 

21 there are always going to be some people who 

22 are purchasing equipment that is already above 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 203

1 a given baseline. So those purchasers are not 

2 affected by the existence of the standard. 

3 So we use what we call a base case 

4 efficiency distribution to represent the 

5 distribution of equipment or equipment 

6 efficiencies that are purchased in the absence 

7 of the standard. 

8 For this particular product, DOE 

9 doesn't have access to much data about that 

10 market share by efficiency level. So we used 

11 a cost-based model, which is a very standard 

12 approach that is used in econometric modeling, 

13 to try to predict what consumers would buy 

14 given an assumption about their sensitivity to 

15 first cost versus their sensitivity to 

16 operating costs. 

17 So this is a theoretical model, 

18 unfortunately flawed by the lack of data. And 

19 so it represents what people would buy if it 

20 were available. It does not tell you whether 

21 or not things are available. And the 

22 parameters that are used in this model are 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 204

1 taken from the National Energy Modeling 

2 System, which is what is used to generate the 

3 annual energy outlook. So, again, this 

4 represents in a very general way the balance 

5 of purchaser sensitivity to an increase in 

6 operating costs versus an increase in purchase 

7 price. 

8 So what we end up with is a base 

9 case distribution of efficiencies that 

10 stakeholders have commented they do not feel 

11 is really representative of the current 

12 market. And we're aware of that. And, again, 

13 any input that can help us to quantify the 

14 existing market share by efficiency level 

15 would be used to adapt these numbers. 

16 So this table is just an 

17 illustration. So we can pick the top row 

18 since it's easy to read. So this tells you 

19 that the base case, meaning the market that we 

20 anticipate to exist in 2017, when the standard 

21 takes effect, this is the distribution of each 

22 equipment class across the efficiency levels 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 205

1 defined by the engineering. So in the first 

2 row, you can see that there are six technical 

3 efficiency levels and there are purchases made 

4 at all of these levels, even up to the top 

5 level. 

6 So what would happen, for example, 

7 in a hypothetical standard that, say, was set 

8 at EL 4, for all of the people that were 

9 already purchasing EL 4, 5, or 6, they would 

10 be unaffected by the standard. So when you do 

11 their LCC, it's zero because they don't change 

12 their purchase decision. 

13 So, although it's possible that 

14 these numbers are not accurate, they don't 

15 have very much impact on the LCC itself. All 

16 that would happen if you change these base 

17 case distributions is you would take those 

18 consumers that have the LCC of zero who are 

19 already purchasing high-efficiency equipment 

20 and you would distribute them over LCC results 

21 that are not zero that are still cost22 effective. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 206

1 It does, however, have an impact 

2 on the LCC results that are not zero but are 

3 still cost-effective. It does, however, have 

4 an impact on the national impacts analysis, 

5 where we estimate total energy consumption. 

6 So, again, DOE would welcome any 

7 additional information. This is a very key 

8 input, actually, for getting more refined 

9 estimates of the energy savings and other 

10 impacts of the standard. So any understanding 

11 that we can have of the current distribution 

12 of purchases by efficiency would be very 

13 helpful. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: No comments on LCC 

15 inputs? Charles? 

16 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. I think 

17 that, even within the same categories on some 

18 of these charts, there are vast differences in 

19 the way certain items are purchased because we 

20 have differing markets that we service. The 

21 most difficult market to predict is the 

22 individually owned restaurant. Individually 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 207

1 owned restaurant is usually undercapitalized 

2 or willing to buy lowest-priced item in the 

3 market, no matter what, because they are 

4 under-capitalized. They effectively have near 

5 zero information on efficiencies. And, as 

6 prices go up, they keep units in the market, 

7 just continue to resell and resell and resell 

8 over and over and over again and stay in the 

9 market as the price differential between a 

10 used and a new piece of equipment occurs. 

11 It is a very difficult situation. 

12 And, according to National Restaurant 

13 Association numbers, between 80 and 90 percent 

14 of all restaurants are not chain-related. 

15 They open up within a year, close within a 

16 year. And those guys continue to recycle the 

17 old stuff because it's cheaper for a national 

18 purchase. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments 

20 here? Jon? 

21 MR. McHUGH: Yes. I had some 

22 questions about -- 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 208

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Microphone. 

2 MR. McHUGH: Oh, I'm sorry. Jon 

3 McHugh. Some questions about the assumptions 

4 used for costs moving forward. You know, 

5 potentially products that you are looking at 

6 that are premium efficiency products and are 

7 afforded a premium in the market, once they 

8 become the minimum efficiency that you can 

9 purchase tend to be commoditized. And is 

10 there any sort of model that you are looking 

11 at that would account for the commoditization 

12 and reduction in cost over time? That is 

13 something beyond the concept of the cost curve 

14 or learning curve, which is talking about, you 

15 know, more products being in the market and 

16 efficiencies of transactions. So is there 

17 anything in this that does account for 

18 commoditization that would potentially show 

19 that these costs are actually decreasing over 

20 time? 

21 MS. COUGHLIN: That appears in the 

22 national impacts analysis but not in the LCC. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 209

1 MR. McHUGH: Oh, okay. 

2 MS. COUGHLIN: So the LCC is more 

3 of a snapshot. 

4 MR. McHUGH: It's a snapshot. 

5 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes. 

6 MR. McHUGH: So of a particular 

7 purchase. It's not looking at 20 years out or 

8 10 years out. It's saying -- 

9 MS. COUGHLIN: That's right. 

10 MR. McHUGH: -- 2017. Okay. That 

11 will be discussed later on. Thank you. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments 

13 here? 

14 (No response.) 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

16 MS. COUGHLIN: Okay. So what I am 

17 going to do here is really just go over the 

18 column headers. And then the numbers are -- 

19 there is a lot of variability in the numbers 

20 due to the different sizes, essentially, and 

21 initial purchase price of the cases. 

22 So the first column is, of course, 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 210

1 the equipment class, then the next column -- 

2 this is all for TSL 4 analysis, the average 

3 life-cycle cost at TSL 4 for each equipment 

4 class. So that is the average over all the 

5 different energy prices, discount rates, 

6 lifetimes, everything, then the average LCC 

7 savings. So this is relative to the baseline 

8 unit. 

9 Then the next three columns divide 

10 the purchaser population into three 

11 categories. The first is those who have a net 

12 cost. So for the combination of parameters, 

13 which would typically be, say, a short 

14 lifetime and a low energy price, they may have 

15 a net cost associated with TSL 4. They spent 

16 more than they got back. 

17 The second category is the no 

18 impact. These are the group of people who 

19 would have purchased high-efficiency equipment 

20 anyway according to the model who are, 

21 therefore, not affected by the standard. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 211

1 And then this second to last 

2 column is those who have a net benefit. 

3 And, finally, the last column 

4 shows the payback period, which, as I said 

5 before, is the ratio of the change in the 

6 total installed cost to the change in the 

7 operating costs, which if you did not discount 

8 the operating cost would be how many years it 

9 takes to get back your initial up-front 

10 investment. And for the majority of equipment 

11 classes, the paybacks are pretty short, three 

12 to four years. And a very rough rule of thumb 

13 is that if you have a payback that is less 

14 than, significantly less than, the equipment 

15 lifetime, you are going to have a positive LCC 

16 result. 

17 So there is a very, very large 

18 number of tables in the TSD detailing the LCC 

19 results for each of the TSLs as well as the 

20 equipment classes. 

21 Any questions? 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 212

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please? And 

2 say your name as well. 

3 MR. McCRUDDEN: Charlie 

4 McCrudden, Air Conditioning Contractors of 

5 America. It's a really simple question. The 

6 version I have here has several of the rows 

7 shaded in green. Is there a purpose? 

8 MS. COUGHLIN: Oh, yes. The idea 

9 was to focus on some numbers and not get 

10 caught up in all of the numbers, but since it 

11 is not actually showing up on the screen, I 

12 decided not to do that. So it's just to make 

13 it easier, slightly easier, to read the table. 

14 That's all. 

15 MR. McCRUDDEN: Okay. 

16 MS. COUGHLIN: So let's see. Move 

17 on I think. Okay. This is something that has 

18 come up in discussion. And this is where we 

19 are now soliciting comment on end use 

20 attributes other than price. 

21 So if there are features that are 

22 related to the design options that are used in 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 213

1 the more efficient equipment that you think 

2 are going to affect the customers' utility 

3 and, therefore, will affect the decision to 

4 purchase that equipment, then we would very 

5 much like to hear about that because we can 

6 incorporate that into the modeling if we have 

7 a quantitative picture of how these different 

8 effects would take place. 

9 So, for example, you would need to 

10 identify the sector, the commercial sector 

11 that is affected, and the type of equipment 

12 that is affected and some level of, even if 

13 it's just a guess, the sensitivity. Is this 

14 going to be 50 percent of your buyers or 5 

15 percent of your buyers? So that information 

16 would be very useful. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve? 

18 MR. COUSINS: Okay. I'm sorry. I 

19 just thought of this. I know I may be 

20 pounding on the same thing over and over 

21 again. 

22 The members of the United Nations 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 214

1 Consumer Goods Forum -- and I think some of 

2 you in this room are members of that forum -- 

3 is over 400 consumer goods companies. They 

4 have pledged to begin phasing out HFCs and 

5 their operations and the point of purchase 

6 refrigerating operations beginning year after 

7 next, I believe it is. So when 2017 rolls 

8 around, a majority of commercial 

9 refrigeration, at least according to the 

10 commitments of most consumer goods companies 

11 in this country, is to be out of the 

12 refrigerants that we're using now. 

13 Now, getting back to what you are 

14 saying, in what sectors and what percentages, 

15 I guess that information might be hard to pull 

16 together, but I think a lot of these companies 

17 are on their way now and making the 

18 transition. So I know we haven't considered 

19 that, but it might be worth looking into. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

21 Yes, Jon? 

22 MR. McHUGH: Jon McHugh. Has 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 215

1 there been any consideration, kind of from a 

2 high level, of an adjustment factor by 

3 refrigerant type? So you have, you know, 

4 these are the numbers. And then depending on 

5 the particular refrigerant you are using, 

6 there would be some kind of adjustment table? 

7 MS. COUGHLIN: No. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments 

9 here? You can see the comment box. Okay. 

10 MR. CYMBALSKY: This is John from 

11 DOE, however, I did earlier in the meeting ask 

12 Steve Cousins for any test data that is 

13 relevant to this gas issue so that the 

14 Department could consider the different 

15 efficiency levels that would be needed to meet 

16 different greenhouse gas, HFCs, and all of 

17 that. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve? 

19 MR. COUSINS: Yes. That was a 

20 very good request and one that I am certainly 

21 going to follow up on. I guess the one caveat 

22 that I will put out there is that, once again, 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 216

1 I'll say we are myopic in that we just deal 

2 with self-contained vertical transparent door, 

3 medium-temperature applications. So the data 

4 I give will be, you know, kind of narrow to 

5 that equipment sector. 

6 MR. CYMBALSKY: I will also add 

7 that the Department in its Emerging 

8 Technologies Program within the Building 

9 Technologies Office has a couple of projects 

10 active in the working fluids area. And so I 

11 just want to say we're not ignoring this issue 

12 at all, but the fact is when we did this 

13 analysis, we had no units to purchase and test 

14 with the other refrigerants at the time. 

15 So we certainly will take the 

16 data, particularly the test data that shows 

17 the difference in performance based on the 

18 refrigerant used. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie? 

20 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. 

21 Have you put end-of-life calculations into 

22 these completely? 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 217

1 In Europe right now, all units 

2 when they're self-contained equipment when 

3 they're done have a requirement for full 

4 recycling and disposal, of which the 

5 manufacturer has to charge that up front and 

6 then is required to take the unit back and 

7 dispose of it correctly, which is an incurred 

8 cost, which we cannot always anticipate the 

9 future cost values of those things. 

10 And those can be quite 

11 substantial, number one, from removing the 

12 refrigerants in the unit and disposing of them 

13 correctly by very high-temperature destruction 

14 but also by grinding down the insulation foam, 

15 removing the blowing agents from that. And it 

16 is a very, very big concern in the industry, 

17 the end-of-life values and the end-of-life 

18 cost involvement, of equipment. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments 

20 here? Nothing additional? 

21 (No response.) 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 218

1 MS. COUGHLIN: Okay. So now we 

2 are going to move on to the shipments analysis 

3 and then national impacts analysis. So the 

4 shipments analysis is an input to the national 

5 impact analysis. And then the national impact 

6 analysis, as the name suggests, is taking the 

7 high-level view of the effect of the policy 

8 decision on a variety of economic and 

9 environmental metrics. 

10 So for the shipments analysis, 

11 just a background comment, we have a number of 

12 quite sophisticated shipments models that we 

13 can use. And so in any given rulemaking, 

14 we're always data-limited. And the more data 

15 that we get, the more we can put various types 

16 of interaction and other things into the 

17 shipments analysis. 

18 So the purpose of the shipments 

19 analysis is simply to develop a model of the 

20 new units coming into the stock over the 

21 period of time, over the analysis period, 

22 which in this case is 30 years, which is about 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 219

1 2 to 3 lifetimes of the equipment. So we 

2 begin with an estimate of what the stock would 

3 look like in the base case, in the absence of 

4 a standard. And then we look at the influence 

5 of the standard on that stock. And our 

6 primary concern again is the distribution of 

7 equipment by efficiency. 

8 The methodology here is a 

9 relatively simply methodology, again 

10 constrained by the lack of data. So this set 

11 of bullet points is the list of data sources 

12 that the Department had access to for this 

13 analysis. It includes only one year of 

14 shipments data submitted by AHRI, which gives 

15 us a breakdown of the market by equipment 

16 class. And then there are several reports, 

17 which have been submitted, which allow us to 

18 look at the distribution of the shipments in 

19 some cases by market sector, in some cases by 

20 product, again by different sub-product 

21 classes. And these contain some time series 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 220

1 data. So we get a sense of the shipments over 

2 time. 

3 But to do the full-on analysis of 

4 shipments over the period of time that we're 

5 interested in, to include a price elasticity, 

6 which is what a lot of people are interested 

7 in, we need both distribution by efficiency 

8 and time series, which we don't have. 

9 So the issues, for example, that 

10 were raised that talk about product switching, 

11 customers moving from closed to open cases due 

12 to a price increase, that is something that in 

13 a modeling sense is not difficult to put into 

14 the model. And that can be accounted for, but 

15 in order to understand what that price 

16 elasticity ought to be, again, we need a lot 

17 of clearly stated information about equipment, 

18 you know, what would be the equipment classes, 

19 what would be the customer sectors, what would 

20 be the rates of switching, and what is the 

21 level of price sensitivity. But if you can 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 221

1 supply that information, then we can 

2 incorporate that into the models. 

3 So for the current analysis, the 

4 models are essentially driven by floor space 

5 projections that we get from the annual energy 

6 outlook, which gives a prediction of the 

7 build-out of commercial floor space by type of 

8 business. And then we use various sorts of 

9 data to understand, you know, what is the 

10 correlation between a certain quantity of 

11 floor space, say, at a restaurant and the 

12 number of cases that they have in that 

13 restaurant. 

14 Once you have that in a lifetime, 

15 you can build a simple shipments model that 

16 just projects forward the turnover of the 

17 stock. 

18 And then we used the simplest 

19 possible replacement algorithm when you go 

20 from the baseline to the next standard level, 

21 where everyone who was below the standard 

22 level, you just take their stock out and 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 222

1 replace it with the cheapest thing that is 

2 available. And that is called the rollup. So 

3 you essentially take all of the equipment that 

4 is below the standard and shift it into the 

5 lowest bin under the standard. 

6 So once you have this, you can 

7 develop this stock model that tells you the 

8 operating stock and its efficiency. And then 

9 you can from that determine how much it costs 

10 to purchase that stock and what is the energy 

11 consumption of that stock. 

12 So, again, this is a big table. 

13 There are all the equipment classes. And 

14 these are just the forecasts of the shipments. 

15 Now, I'll mention that there is a 

16 normalization that goes on here. So in the 

17 engineering table, the rep units all have 

18 different sizes and display areas, that sort 

19 of thing. 

20 So to convert to a unit that can 

21 be compared across classes, the Department 

22 uses linear feet. So these linear feet are 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 223

1 essentially based on the average size of a 

2 unit and the number of units sold. So 

3 relatively you're getting a sense of the sort 

4 of overall cooling capacity associated with 

5 the equipment classes at different points in 

6 time. 

7 And then the projections going 

8 forward just basically show what is very 

9 strongly correlated with the AEO projections 

10 of commercial floor space and commercial 

11 activity. 

12 MR. CYMBALSKY: This is John from 

13 DOE. So we have been talking a lot about the 

14 product switching and the potential product 

15 switching. I guess a question to the 

16 manufacturers, when the standard came into 

17 effect in the first round of standards, did 

18 anyone see any of this activity at all based 

19 on what happened to the standards or was it 

20 that the standards that came into effect 

21 didn't impact any of this product switching 

22 that we have identified here today as a 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 224

1 potential issue with the proposed standards 

2 that we have here today? 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie? 

4 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. The 

5 previous standards really did not require our 

6 company to make major changes in design, 

7 thereby changing the cost structure. We had 

8 already been through years with California 

9 driving these same numbers. So the 2005 EPACT 

10 rules literally copied the California rules, 

11 which were already in place. So we did not 

12 see that change because it had already been 

13 done. Seventeen states were already involved 

14 in the process. So you have no correlation 

15 because you had three years working under what 

16 was the existing standard for California and 

17 other states. So I don't know how to answer 

18 that question beyond the fact that they really 

19 didn't because it was already there. 

20 MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay. So, then, 

21 how about when California put their -- I mean, 

22 going back to the original change in the 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 225

1 market dynamic, is there any history there 

2 that you can point to that can say, "Look, if 

3 you do this, the product class X, we saw a 

4 market shift based on what happened with the 

5 standard"? I mean, it would be hard for me to 

6 believe that the standard was so equitably set 

7 that there was nothing discernible from it. 

8 MR. HON: The standards were 

9 gradual in their nature, 2001, 2004, 2006, 

10 2007. There was a continual step-down in the 

11 standard. Did any of them make huge impacts 

12 into the numbers as far as sales go? No 

13 because the transitional shifts necessary were 

14 not major cost increasers. They were doable 

15 with minimal total cost change. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve? 

17 MR. COUSINS: Yes. Steve Cousins. 

18 I don't have an answer to your question with 

19 regard to commercial refrigeration in general. 

20 I know with regard to California, their 

21 appliance efficiency regulations did impact 

22 how we did business with them. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 226

1 I think back in I think 2002, when 

2 they first rolled out -- 

3 MR. HON: Well, '1 and '2. 

4 MR. COUSINS: Yes, but it was 

5 2002. Because of thresholds that were 

6 difficult to achieve, we didn't place shelf7 style vending machines in California. We were 

8 placing them in a number of other states, not 

9 in California, I think until 2005 or 2006. 

10 I know it is not really an answer 

11 to your question, but the point I am making is 

12 that the thresholds did impact how we 

13 conducted business. And it wasn't related to 

14 cost. It was really related to technology. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Robert? 

16 MR. WILKINS: Robert Wilkins, 

17 Danfoss. John, I don't have an answer to your 

18 question, but I could suggest two or three 

19 things to consider. And I'm looking forward 

20 in my mind to 2017, at which time there could 

21 be 3, let's say, regulatory changes occurring 

22 fairly simultaneously. These standards, if I 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 227

1 understood your chart correctly, could raise 

2 costs 10 to 20 percent more or less. So 

3 that's one factor. The end-of-life cost if I 

4 dispose of my old equipment and buy new now, 

5 I've got to do something with that old 

6 equipment that is going to cost me money and 

7 then refrigerant change. And I've got to 

8 manage refrigerants and get out of HFCs. And 

9 that can add cost. 

10 How to quantify that I don't know, 

11 but I think the consideration is that many 

12 folks, especially mom and pops and single 

13 restaurants, will say, well, small 

14 supermarkets, "I am going to refurbish my old 

15 equipment and extend the life of it," instead 

16 of upgrading to this new, efficient equipment. 

17 So there's a risk there that there 

18 could be some unintended consequences that 

19 perpetuate an old inefficient equipment by the 

20 confluence of these three trends. 

21 MR. CYMBALSKY: Right. I think 

22 that one is a little -- 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 228

1 MR. WILKINS: And I don't know how 

2 to analyze it, but -- 

3 MR. CYMBALSKY: Well, we do that 

4 in our rulemakings. So I think that one is 

5 easier. I guess I am really trying to zero in 

6 on this switching phenomenon that has been put 

7 out on the table this morning that this will 

8 -- you know, it was asserted that if we put, 

9 for example, these triple-glazed doors, they 

10 will move to the open cases. 

11 And I guess, you know, I 

12 understand the logic there. It makes perfect 

13 sense from "I can't see the food anymore. So 

14 I won't have the door." 

15 I guess I am just trying to get 

16 any empirical data that actually shows that 

17 these examples happened. If we are making the 

18 one product class either more expensive or the 

19 utility change such that they will switch it 

20 to another product class, I am really focused 

21 on that issue, as opposed to just the cost in 

22 general. I understand that. That one I get. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 229

1 But, you know, we brought up today 

2 and we have discussed a lot about the 

3 unintended consequences of moving from closed 

4 to open. And the Department is really 

5 concerned about that. 

6 So I guess we are really asking 

7 for some more empirical data to help us 

8 untangle that problem. 

9 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. 

10 Another thing that went on in the same period 

11 of time you had asked earlier as far as change 

12 of product -- in a majority of the product 

13 that we sell, we had to increase cost in 

14 certain areas, which drove the price up. But 

15 in the same time window, there were rebates 

16 galore. 

17 So, effectively, all of our price 

18 increases were absorbed in utilities in the 

19 West Coast and East Coast with a lot of 

20 rebates and effectively made it very cost21 effective for purchasers to get new units. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 230

1 Those rebate dollars are difficult 

2 to find these days. So they're not going to 

3 be nearly as easy to come up with, which makes 

4 the purchase price of the unit more noticeable 

5 difference. 

6 Now, for us, we didn't have to 

7 make major, major changes that drove costs up 

8 in the previous round of rulemaking. There 

9 were some incremental costs but not drastic, 

10 not near the level of what we're talking here, 

11 15-20 percent increase in costs. And that's a 

12 window that I'm not sure has ever been pushed 

13 in our market until now. And we don't know 

14 the ramifications, what that means, because it 

15 could push a lot of people there. It could 

16 push very few there. 

17 The major players who really know 

18 how energy efficiency works, the Consumer 

19 Goods Forum people, they're going to absorb 

20 the cost. The independents, who are not 

21 nearly so technically savvy, may not choose to 

22 do so. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 231

1 MR. WILKINS: Robert Wilkins 

2 again. And in this sector and in the 

3 supermarket area, there is a lively industry 

4 in rebuilding and refurbishing and upgrading 

5 cases. It is not like we are saying this 

6 would start some new behavior. The 

7 infrastructure part is already there. And 

8 combining a 15 to 20 percent cost increase and 

9 some of these other factors simultaneously 

10 could spur that sector. And, instead of 

11 getting this TSL 4 level, you are perpetuating 

12 the life of something that is far below -- 

13 MS. COUGHLIN: Right. So, as I 

14 have mentioned, that is an effect that we 

15 model in some products when we have the data 

16 that we need to understand that sensitivity. 

17 So, you know, you have got to look at the 

18 relative cost of refurbishment versus the cost 

19 of a new product, possible shorter lifetime 

20 associated with, you know, the refurbished 

21 units or higher maintenance. So, actually, 

22 again, if the data is available, then these 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 232

1 things can be taken into account. And it 

2 certainly will go into the estimate of energy 

3 savings associated with the standard. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Harvey? 

5 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey Sachs, 

6 ACEEE. Katie, going back to slide 69, I think 

7 I have missed something, the slide that is up 

8 there now. 

9 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes. 

10 MR. SACHS: The shipments forecast 

11 was based on one year of AHRI data? 

12 MS. COUGHLIN: No, no, no. The 

13 driver on shipments is commercial floor space. 

14 So you build up a picture of commercial floor 

15 space additions. And then you have the sort 

16 of standing -- so the standing stock at the 

17 first year of the analysis period has an age 

18 distribution. That gets turned over. And 

19 then you get new floor space added to the 

20 population. So those are the two drivers on 

21 the shipment. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 233

1 MR. SACHS: So where do you get 

2 the standing stock? 

3 MS. COUGHLIN: That comes out of 

4 our model; we essentially start our shipments 

5 model back in 1950 or something to get an 

6 estimate of the day's standing stock. And we 

7 use the data that we get to validate that 

8 model. 

9 MR. SACHS: I'm sorry. The data 

10 from whom? Is this census-driven or -- 

11 MS. COUGHLIN: AHRI gave us market 

12 share data by equipment class. Some of the 

13 reports that are cited gave us market share by 

14 business type. And some give us a time 

15 history of shipments that we can look to see 

16 how well that correlates with the time history 

17 of our model-predicted growth. 

18 MR. SACHS: Thank you. That is 

19 helpful. The only precautionary note, it was 

20 beaten into me during the ASRAC working group 

21 last summer that a large fraction of the 

22 commercial refrigeration industry is not AHRI-
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 234

1 certified or affiliated. So I don't know how 

2 that distributes across product classes within 

3 this rulemaking, but there is the potential 

4 for substantial bias. And it should be 

5 checked for. 

6 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes. So in some 

7 cases, we had from other reports kind of more 

8 aggregated product class distributions. And 

9 those are used to try to -- DOE is aware of 

10 the problems with the AHRI data. So we did 

11 try to correct for that. 

12 But, again, as was noted before, 

13 we never turn down more data. So any more 

14 information we can have would be very useful. 

15 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey again. 

16 And just sort of as a follow-up, I am to 

17 gather, then, that the first digit in your 

18 four significant digits is likely to be 

19 correct. 

20 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Tim? 

22 MR. T. ANDERSON: Going back to 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 235

1 John's question, we have not seen a shift in 

2 the mix of equipment classes in the last 

3 several years due to the previous rule, the 

4 2012 rule. We have seen a shift in two of the 

5 equipment classes due to purely market forces 

6 based on -- and we sell primarily to -- 

7 supermarkets are our largest customer. 

8 We have seen a shift from the 

9 VOP.RCM class into the VCT.RCM class, 

10 primarily in dairy/deli lineups, you know. 

11 You know, those are very long lineups that you 

12 see in every supermarket. 

13 So the assumption on the screen 

14 that those two would stay fixed relative to 

15 each other in my mind is flawed. Taking any 

16 rulemaking out of the picture, the percentage 

17 of cases shift in VCT.RCM would increase while 

18 VOP.RCM would probably stay fixed or decrease 

19 over time. That is ignoring the proposed 

20 rulemaking that is on the table. 

21 The proposed rulemaking on the 

22 table could completely change the dynamic 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 236

1 which I have just mentioned. It could 

2 actually reverse that. 

3 MR. CYMBALSKY: So you are going 

4 from open to closed right now? 

5 MR. T. ANDERSON: Right. 

6 MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay. 

7 MR. T. ANDERSON: And I think it 

8 would go the other way based on a couple of 

9 factors: the one we talked about in terms of 

10 the merchandisers being opposed to design 

11 options that they would be forced into using 

12 or the extreme case of equipment not even 

13 being available because the standard level 

14 can't even be met. It's really that 

15 restrictive that if there is no equipment on 

16 the market, they can't buy it. And, 

17 therefore, you know, there won't be any 

18 shipments. 

19 MR. CYMBALSKY: So the market 

20 force you talk about, is that ENERGY STAR or 

21 is that just they want to save energy because 

22 -- 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 237

1 MR. T. ANDERSON: It is purely 

2 just energy savings. 

3 MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay. 

4 MR. T. ANDERSON: The supermarket 

5 industry has always been -- you know, their 

6 margins are so razor thin they have always 

7 been trying to lower their operating costs. 

8 And so Hussmann as a company has always been 

9 driving energy efficiency. Before California 

10 or the DOE or anybody ever came into the 

11 picture, that has been our goal. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

13 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Jeff? Go 

15 ahead. 

16 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey. I 

17 would certainly expect in the Southeast and 

18 other areas blessed with ample humidity that 

19 there is a secondary effect in terms of the 

20 defrost cycles and the indirect energy of 

21 having to control humidity through other low 

22 levels to prevent excessive icing and 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 238

1 condensate within the unit. So it's a 

2 secondary thing that's energy-related, but I'm 

3 very excited to hear that there is a shift 

4 towards closed in your market. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Jeff? 

6 MR. BAUMAN: Just to I guess ask 

7 or recommend that whether DOE has contacted 

8 associations like the National Restaurant 

9 Association, National Supermarket Association, 

10 convenience stores, a lot of association 

11 groups that I think would be more helpful than 

12 a lot of people sitting around this table to 

13 be able -- they might not be considered as 

14 specific stakeholders, but obviously the types 

15 of concerns we're showing would have an effect 

16 on them that I don't think may have been 

17 predicted by them. And I would just encourage 

18 DOE to specifically contact some of those 

19 groups for those numbers. And I believe 

20 ENERGY STAR also should have shipment data 

21 that I would think if you ask nicely, they 

22 would share with you. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 239

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

2 Charlie? 

3 MR. HON: Charlie Hon. I'm 

4 sitting here looking at some of this data that 

5 I have a pretty good feel for. And some of 

6 those numbers I would say are one-third to 

7 one-fourth of what the numbers would actually 

8 be in today's market, not projecting to 2017. 

9 MS. COUGHLIN: So the bottom line 

10 here, this number is off, the total? Again, 

11 this is converted to linear feet. 

12 MR. HON: Yes. That's why I'm 

13 saying it. 

14 MS. COUGHLIN: Okay. So is it the 

15 total that's off or some of the equipment 

16 classes that are -- 

17 MR. HON: Further up in the 

18 equipment classes, -- 

19 MS. COUGHLIN: Okay. 

20 MR. HON: -- some of those numbers 

21 may be only 25 to 30 percent of what is 

22 actually going out today. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 240

1 MS. COUGHLIN: So it is the 

2 distribution across equipment classes that is 

3 inaccurate or is it the total number that is 

4 inaccurate? 

5 MR. COUSINS: Well, to answer that 

6 question, it depends on exactly what it is 

7 we're looking at. Does this table represent 

8 total forecasted shipments or incremental 

9 shipments from one year to the next? 

10 MS. COUGHLIN: Shipments are the 

11 new equipment added to the stock from one year 

12 to the next. That's what we define as 

13 shipments. 

14 MR. COUSINS: Okay. So -- 

15 MR. HON: Does that include 

16 replacements? 

17 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: So is the total 

19 close to being right? 

20 MR. COUSINS: I would say my 

21 company alone purchases more than that number, 

22 probably 15-20 percent more than that number 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 241

1 represents for that class of equipment, -- 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

3 MR. COUSINS: -- just my company. 

4 And I know our competition purchases as much. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: And can you cull 

6 out among these classes which ones are so way 

7 off the mark? 

8 MR. COUSINS: Well, for example, 

9 the vertical self-contained medium 

10 refrigeration. If you take what we purchase 

11 -- 

12 MS. COUGHLIN: Closed transparent 

13 -- 

14 MR. COUSINS: You know, VCT SOC. 

15 Let's see. Where are we? M. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: M. 

17 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes. 

18 MR. COUSINS: I would say in 

19 linear feet, we are probably purchasing 

20 180,000, something like that. 

21 MS. COUGHLIN: Okay. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Katie, is that -- 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 242

1 MR. COUSINS: We're just one 

2 customer. 

3 MR. CYMBALSKY: And that's 

4 domestic, though? You're not -- 

5 MR. COUSINS: Yes, it's just 

6 domestic. I mean, for international, you can 

7 multiply that by eight or ten or so. 

8 MR. WILKINS: This is Robert 

9 Wilkins. What is the primary source of this 

10 data? I know it has been extrapolated to get 

11 to '17. But is that -- 

12 MS. COUGHLIN: This is essentially 

13 what DOE had access to for this analysis. So, 

14 again, there is the -- 

15 MR. WILKINS: Because in this 

16 sector, my hypothesis is, in this sector, 

17 there are one or two major manufacturers that 

18 are not members of AHRI. 

19 MS. COUGHLIN: Right. Well -- 

20 MR. WILKINS: And if you have 

21 calculated that into the -- if you haven't 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 243

1 already, you should calculate that into this 

2 summary. 

3 MS. COUGHLIN: Well, again, the 

4 Department can only work with the data. So 

5 several requests for data have gone out. And 

6 this is the data that we received. So if we 

7 can get more data, we, of course, will refine 

8 the model -- 

9 MR. WILKINS: So I'm just hinting 

10 one place where you might look for that data. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Robert. 

12 MR. WILKINS: That's all. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Okay. 

14 MR. WILKINS: I can be more 

15 specific off the record if you'd like. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, if you can be 

17 more specific? And then -- 

18 MS. COUGHLIN: More specific on 

19 the record. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: -- send in your 

21 comment. Yes. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 244

1 MS. COUGHLIN: On the record is 

2 preferred, definitely. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Do you want 

4 to proceed to the next slide? 

5 MS. COUGHLIN: Okay. So in terms 

6 of the shipments forecasts, essentially, the 

7 first bullet point just speaks to the fact 

8 that the economic lifetime is not the same as 

9 the engineering lifetime. So, essentially, 

10 the shorter lifetime reflects the fact that 

11 the decision to replace the equipment has 

12 something to do with something other than it 

13 breaks. Remodeling is the primary factor. 

14 And in this particular version of 

15 the model, there is no elasticity associated 

16 with the purchase decision. So the assumption 

17 is that if a store decides to remodel and is 

18 purchasing new equipment, they will go ahead 

19 and do that anyway, even if the equipment is 

20 somewhat more expensive. 

21 DOE understands that for smaller 

22 establishments, particularly related to food 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 245

1 service, that there may be other factors 

2 driving these purchase decisions. 

3 And, again, the issue here is not 

4 methodology. We know how to model these 

5 decisions. We just need to have the inputs 

6 that allow us to represent those decisions 

7 more accurately. 

8 And, again, I'll emphasize that 

9 understanding both the equipment classes that 

10 are affected and the customer sectors that are 

11 affected are both important, even if it's 

12 qualitative, rather than quantitative, 

13 information. 

14 So we'll move on to the national 

15 impacts analysis. So the national -- 

16 MR. SACHS: Katie, this is Harvey 

17 again. I guess the take-home that I'm getting 

18 from the last half-hour of discussions is 

19 that, at the margin, we're overanalyzing some 

20 things and underanalyzing the behavior of 

21 market actors. We put something in the 

22 Federal Register and expect people to come to 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 246

1 us with data, instead of going to their 

2 meetings and working with their trade 

3 associations, the customers for commercial 

4 equipment, and finding out how they act with 

5 behavioral studies, instead of engineering 

6 analyses. 

7 You keep telling us that the big 

8 gaps are in the information about what the 

9 customers do, what they plan to do, but that's 

10 not where our emphasis has traditionally been. 

11 And, of course, commercial equipment 

12 rulemakings -- and you're being very helpful 

13 in explaining to us the resulting gaps in the 

14 ability to make wise decisions. 

15 Thank you. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

17 MS. COUGHLIN: Okay. So, moving 

18 on to the national impact analysis, so, again, 

19 model-wise, the heavy lifting is done in the 

20 shipments. And then the national impacts 

21 analysis simply looks at the stock and 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 247

1 associates energy consumption and first cost 

2 numbers with those stock models. 

3 And then, again, the idea is to 

4 take the difference between the base case and 

5 the standards under consideration and look at 

6 the energy savings, cost savings, and various 

7 other metrics. 

8 So the two that I will present 

9 next are the national energy savings, which is 

10 converted to quads, quadrillion Btu. This is 

11 for electricity-using appliances. This is the 

12 energy that goes into the power plant 

13 essentially. And then the other is the net 

14 present value of the balance between the 

15 increased expenditures for the equipment and 

16 the savings and operating costs. 

17 So positive NPV means that the 

18 operating cost savings are larger than the 

19 increased equipment cost expenditures. 

20 So in each of the years of the 

21 analysis period, we calculate the total energy 

22 consumption and the total consumer 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 248

1 expenditures, and we include all the operation 

2 maintenance costs. The rest of it, we add in 

3 the price trends associated with electricity. 

4 In this case, this is where we bring in a 

5 price trend associated with the first cost of 

6 the equipment that represents the effect of 

7 the fact that when the equipment has been on 

8 the market for five, ten years, it may be 

9 cheaper to manufacture than when it's only 

10 been on the market for one year. 

11 And then in this analysis, the 

12 costs are discounted, but the discount rates 

13 are no longer business discount rates 

14 associated with a particular customer sector. 

15 They are these societal discount rates that 

16 are mandated by OMB to be -- we do a three 

17 percent discount rate analysis and a seven 

18 percent discount rate analysis. 

19 MR. WILKINS: One question. 

20 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes? 

21 MR. WILKINS: This is the 

22 question. Is there a little bit of a 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 249

1 disconnect here? Because the national energy 

2 savings, I expect, in your analysis is the 

3 expected value, is the mean -- 

4 MS. COUGHLIN: That's right. 

5 MR. WILKINS: -- of the 

6 distribution. But if the DOE rule has to do 

7 -- back to the question from John, if the DOE 

8 rule has to be that the manufacturers on any 

9 individual unit, it's not the mean, but it's 

10 the mean plus maybe three standard deviations 

11 because I've got to make mine three standard 

12 deviations better in order to ensure that I 

13 don't get caught in the validation process. 

14 So you've got two different 

15 numbers here. One is the expected value and 

16 the other, but the true expected value has to 

17 be -- there's a shift here because the 

18 manufacturers can't produce their product to 

19 the expected value. They have to go add two 

20 or three or four standard deviations on top of 

21 that and energy efficiency. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 250

1 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey. And, 

2 Robert, with -- 

3 MR. WILKINS: Am I off base? 

4 MR. SACHS: I think I understand 

5 your point. It happens that five or six 

6 people in this room spent all summer plus 

7 wrestling -- 

8 MR. WILKINS: Dealing with that. 

9 Okay. 

10 MR. SACHS: -- wrestling with that 

11 grizzly bear. And we've all got scars. 

12 MR. WILKINS: Okay. Maybe I'm 

13 saying there's just more for you to take 

14 credit for than you might be taking credit 

15 for. 

16 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes. No. This is 

17 really sort of to have a well-defined process. 

18 We use the test procedure in understanding 

19 what the predicted efficiency or energy 

20 consumption should be. And then the 

21 certification rulemaking deals with the issues 

22 of sampling and those sorts of things. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 251

1 So yes, there may be some 

2 imprecision in this relative to the real 

3 world. Everybody understands that -- I mean, 

4 predicting the future is always imprecise. So 

5 these are just intended to be a well-defined 

6 analysis metric so that you can have something 

7 to compare it with. 

8 So one of the reasons why we 

9 delayed the discussion of how the TSLs were 

10 put together to this point is that you 

11 actually put together the trial standard 

12 levels based on the output of the national 

13 impacts analysis. And this is a process that 

14 DOE has developed over the years. 

15 So the trial standard levels, as I 

16 mentioned earlier, are a choice of a 

17 particular efficiency level for each equipment 

18 class. And they are grouped into TSLs. And 

19 DOE tries to create definitions of TSLs that 

20 kind of cut across all the differences in 

21 equipment type. So it's easiest to understand 

22 if you start at the top and work down. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 252

1 So in this particular rulemaking, 

2 we've got five TSLs. TSL 5 is the highest. 

3 This is just chosen as the maximum 

4 technologically feasible level in each 

5 equipment class. 

6 Moving to TSL 4, this was chosen 

7 as the efficiency level in each equipment 

8 class that has the maximum energy savings 

9 subject to the constraint that the NPV be 

10 positive. So there's no economic burden. 

11 There may be minimal economic benefit. And 

12 then you take that energy savings. That's TSL 

13 4. 

14 TSL 3 is chosen as the efficiency 

15 level in each class that has the maximum NPV, 

16 which can in some cases line up with maximum 

17 LCC but in this case doesn't. 

18 And TSL 2 and TSL 1 are chosen to 

19 bridge the gap between the top three and the 

20 baseline. And so they are composed of 

21 intermediate levels so that you can see how 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 253

1 the energy savings progress as you go along in 

2 more detail. 

3 So, again, I believe it's appendix 

4 10C. You can actually look at each TSL and 

5 find out which levels were chosen for each 

6 equipment class for each TSL. 

7 This is just an example. To make 

8 that table a little smaller, we cut out a 

9 bunch of TSLs. And we cut out a bunch of 

10 equipment classes just to identify. So what 

11 we have here is the equipment class, just 

12 randomly chosen equipment classes, and then 

13 the TSL 3, 4, and 5. And then we're using the 

14 notation here. Rather than the efficiency 

15 level, we're using the design designation. 

16 So, for example, under TSL 3, the 

17 first equipment class has the analytical 

18 design 7 at TSL 3. At TSL 4, it goes up to 8. 

19 At TSL 5, it goes up to 9. 

20 If you go down to the bottom, 

21 VCS.SC.I, you see that the TSL 3 and 4 are 

22 both AD9. And then at TSL 5, they go to AD10. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 254

1 So the composition is pretty 

2 variable. Some equipment classes don't change 

3 analytical design. As you go to TSL, some do. 

4 And this again is where you get 

5 into the complications with the lighting 

6 maintenance. If the design has different 

7 lighting choices for different equipment 

8 classes, you will get the different lighting 

9 costs. 

10 So this is the energy savings in 

11 quads associated with each equipment class and 

12 each TSL. And this again is summed over the 

13 entire analysis period. So this represents 

14 the 30-year period in which equipment is 

15 shipped. And we actually continue out. So if 

16 equipment is shipped in 2046, its lifetime 

17 energy consumption is included in this 

18 calculation. And, again, this is just the 

19 standardized approach that DOE uses. 

20 So the differences in these 

21 equipment class numbers are dependent both on 

22 the energy savings for the equipment and the 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 255

1 number of shipments in that equipment class. 

2 And there are more detailed tables in the TSD 

3 with the breakdowns by efficiency level as 

4 well as by equipment class. 

5 Okay. Move on? 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 

7 MS. COUGHLIN: So this is the 

8 price trend, possibly not a very useful 

9 graphic. So, in trying to understand the way 

10 that the purchase price evolves over the 

11 analysis period, for the moment, the 

12 Department looks primarily at historical data, 

13 on just how in general certain categories of 

14 equipment prices change over time. And in 

15 many, many cases, you do see there is a slow 

16 but significant trend of price decreases as 

17 manufacturing processes get more efficient. 

18 So we use the PPI data that is 

19 published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

20 There is a PPI series for commercial 

21 refrigeration and related equipment. This 

22 gives a very slow -- this is I think about a 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 256

1 quarter of a percent per year or slightly 

2 less. So it's a relatively slow trend, which 

3 we use in the reference case for the national 

4 impacts analysis that says out in 2045, the 

5 equipment prices will probably be about five 

6 percent lower than they are now. 

7 So, again, the capacity to improve 

8 these models exists. And it's mostly a data9 driven thing. And if anyone would like to 

10 comment, either on the methodology or on the 

11 inputs, DOE would appreciate your feedback. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon? 

13 MR. McHUGH: I've got a comment 

14 first in regards to Robert's comments earlier 

15 about the issue of "Well, you know, I may have 

16 some error in my equipment testing, my 

17 equipment models, or just the distribution of 

18 efficiencies amongst different equipment. 

19 And, moving forward, I would need to make sure 

20 that all of the products complied. And, 

21 therefore, I might actually sort of overshoot 

22 a little bit so that everything complied." 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 257

1 But that would be the case for the 

2 base case as well. And so, as a result, my 

3 expectation is that in conducting the national 

4 energy savings analysis that, that would 

5 essentially come out in the wash, that you 

6 would have to do that in both the base case 

7 situation that all of your products are 

8 complying and then also in this proposed 

9 situation. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Robert? 

11 MR. WILKINS: This is Robert. I 

12 don't know that we are there, though, yet in 

13 these product categories. I would have to 

14 defer to the equipment manufacturers. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Bruce, do you want 

16 to? 

17 MR. HIERLMEIER: Bruce Hierlmeier. 

18 Well, the base cases don't have any need to 

19 qualify to anything right now. The base case 

20 they chose was a non-regulated product. So 

21 the market worked off of spec sheets and use 

22 of the product. This will now have a 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 258

1 different -- because someone is actually 

2 checking and testing it. So that will push 

3 that number down. 

4 MR. WILKINS: So that's going to 

5 have -- 

6 PARTICIPANT: So that's a 

7 compliance issue, right, that the compliance 

8 is going to increase moving forward 

9 potentially? 

10 MR. McHUGH: Which product do you 

11 think is not regulated? I'm sorry. We have 

12 enforcement people in the -- 

13 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes. The base case 

14 here is the 2012 standard. 

15 MR. HIERLMEIER: Okay. The 

16 baseline if you go back to the other one, 

17 though, was not regulated, which when you did 

18 the engineering analysis, you started out with 

19 these T8 cases, right? For your first level, 

20 it is T8 lighting and poor fan motors. 

21 MR. WILKINS: John, it is Robert. 

22 As Harvey has said, this has been a subject 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 259

1 of great amount of detail. As manufacturers 

2 come to realize that they're and only recently 

3 come to realize that they have got a -- not 

4 the average of their product but all of their 

5 products have to fully comply. And so it is 

6 forcing our numbers to ratchet this up in 

7 order to ensure we comply. 

8 But that really wasn't exactly my 

9 point. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Although that was a 

11 good point still. 

12 MR. WILKINS: Maybe that was a 

13 good point. 

14 My point was that I think this 

15 analysis uses two separate numbers because it 

16 bases its national energy savings on the mean 

17 expected value of this regulated -- but the 

18 manufacturers can't target that mean. They 

19 have to target three standard deviations more 

20 efficient than that in order -- 

21 MS. ARMSTRONG: That is not 

22 accurate. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 260

1 MR. WILKINS: No? 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Ashley Armstrong? 

3 Let's hear from Ashley. 

4 MR. WILKINS: Straighten us out, 

5 then. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Ashley. 

7 Ashley Armstrong? 

8 MR. WILKINS: Straighten us out, 

9 Ashley. 

10 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I don't believe 

11 that is accurate. So if you say that -- the 

12 standard level is the given reading for a 

13 basic model. Let's put it that way. And, you 

14 know, Harvey is accurate. We have gone 

15 through a long amount of meetings to come up 

16 with what the appropriate tolerances should be 

17 that manufacturers can apply when coming up 

18 with a rating. That will account for how 

19 their distribution from a unit-to-unit basis, 

20 how wide that distribution is, and how they 

21 determined their rating. That rating is what 

22 you're comparing to the standard level to 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 261

1 determine compliance. 

2 So when you say that the 

3 distribution has to be shifted such that the 

4 distribution starts with the standard level in 

5 every unit they make has to be above the 

6 standard level, that is not true because we 

7 apply tolerance. So that distribution -- 

8 MR. WILKINS: I misunderstood. I 

9 thought the requirement for compliance was 

10 that every unit you checked had to comply. 

11 Okay. 

12 MS. ARMSTRONG: Well, we can take 

13 away the tolerance and go that way, -- 

14 MR. WILKINS: Never mind. 

15 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- although I'm 

16 pretty sure -- 

17 MR. WILKINS: Ashley, we're just 

18 trying to understand -- 

19 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- I'm going to be 

20 a -- 

21 MR. WILKINS: -- this because my 

22 only point here was that I thought that if we 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 262

1 did have to fully comply with 100 percent of 

2 our units to your requirements, if we did, 

3 then you are underestimating the national 

4 benefit because we can't -- our distribution 

5 is not this way. Our distribution is this 

6 way. 

7 MR. CYMBALSKY: You are saying you 

8 are going to over-comply just to be -- 

9 MS. ARMSTRONG: Correct. 

10 MR. CYMBALSKY: -- just to be 

11 conservative. 

12 MS. ARMSTRONG: And some -- 

13 MR. WILKINS: No, no, no. We are 

14 not going to over-comply. 

15 MR. CYMBALSKY: Well, isn't that 

16 what you said by being -- 

17 MS. COUGHLIN: As long as the mean 

18 of the distribution is at the standard level, 

19 this is a correct analysis because for every 

20 units that is over, there will be one that is 

21 under. 

22 MR. WILKINS: I agree with that, 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 263

1 but is the mean of the manufacturer's 

2 distribution at the standard level acceptable 

3 in your compliance program? 

4 MR. SACHS: Robert, this is 

5 Harvey. We can easily get into a very deep 

6 dive, including things like non-Gaussian 

7 distributions, which would be expected. 

8 I think the take-away here, in 

9 addition to the points that Ashley made, is 

10 one other. The groundwork laid by that 

11 working group moves everything to a one-sided 

12 test. There is no penalty for being too good. 

13 And what that means to you as a compressor 

14 manufacturer and to other component 

15 manufacturers is that I would expect you to be 

16 facing pressures to narrow the distribution of 

17 efficiencies of the components you are 

18 supplying to the OEMs. We think that is all 

19 to the good, but for an individual 

20 manufacturer, the construct is that you will 

21 have the choices of tightening up your 

22 tolerance bands on what you turn out or moving 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 264

1 your median up to give you a safety margin 

2 above the standard. 

3 But there even are statistics in 

4 terms of what happens if you or processes 

5 involve multiple tests if you fail the 

6 verification test. 

7 So I think this is one where DOE 

8 managed to involve a large group of people in 

9 almost enough analysis, as opposed to too 

10 much. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: I want to return to 

12 the slides. Keep going, Katie. 

13 MS. COUGHLIN: Okay. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: And at this time, 

15 I'm going to promise you shortly we're going 

16 to take a break. This group deserves to 

17 stretch their legs a little bit. So shortly 

18 we'll do that. 

19 Katie? 

20 MS. COUGHLIN: Okay. So given the 

21 rapid changes in LED lighting technology 

22 prices, we also incorporated a price trend on 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 265

1 LED when that is included as a design option. 

2 We don't need to spend a lot of time I think 

3 on this. 

4 So this is the NPV table 

5 associated with the different standard levels. 

6 And, again, this is the discounted. This is 

7 with the seven percent discount rate. So this 

8 is the balance of consumer costs and benefits. 

9 So a positive number in this table means an 

10 overall benefit to the consumer population. 

11 So this only includes the consumer economics. 

12 For the analysis period, DOE uses 

13 30 years. That's a standard analysis 

14 approach. And then there is also a variant of 

15 analysis that uses a nine-year analysis period 

16 at the request of OMB. And essentially the 

17 Department is open to suggestions about using 

18 other timelines for the analysis. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Aniruddh? 

20 MR. ROY: Aniruddh Roy, AHRI. On 

21 slide 76, you make an observation saying, 

22 "While these trends show large decreases in 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 266

1 LED cost over time, LED lighting comprises an 

2 amount on the order of 5 percent of equipment 

3 MSP, so these changes are not a significant 

4 portion of equipment price." Is that a 

5 relative observation or is there actually a 

6 percentage which constitutes significant or 

7 non-significant cost to the equipment price? 

8 MS. COUGHLIN: I don't know the 

9 precise number. In the cost model, you can 

10 get the percentage of the cost that's 

11 associated -- 

12 MS. ARMSTRONG: It is a 

13 qualitative statement. There is not a number 

14 that, you know, is significant. 

15 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes, correct. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you, 

17 Ashley. 

18 Here you see the comment box. 

19 Additional thoughts, comments on national 

20 impact analysis, both for lighting technology 

21 price trends and net present value? 

22 (No response.) 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 267

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. We're 

2 overdue for a break. Just ten minutes. 

3 Everybody get up and move around. It's now 

4 2:35, which means we're going to resume at 

5 2:45. And we're on the home stretch here, but 

6 this is some very, very important stuff to do 

7 when you return. So come back fresh. 

8 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter 

9 went off the record at 2:34 p.m. and went back 

10 on the record at 2:51 p.m.) 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, please take 

12 your seats. Let's resume. Okay, here we go. 

13 We're going to pick up where we left off. 

14 Manufacturer Impact Analysis will go 

15 efficiently, and we're going to hear from 

16 Christopher Lau. 

17 MR. LAU: Is this on? Okay. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Christopher, 

19 it's yours. 

20 MR. LAU: All right, moving on. 

21 Chris Lau here. I'm with Navigant. I'll be 

22 discussing the Manufacturer Impact Analysis. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 268

1 The main purpose of this analysis 

2 is to assess the impact of amended standards 

3 on manufacturers of commercial refrigeration 

4 equipment as an industry. The second purpose 

5 is to identify and qualify the impacts on 

6 manufacturer subgroups, such as the impacts on 

7 small business manufacturers. The final 

8 portion of the MIA involves discussion of 

9 direct employment, competitive considerations, 

10 potential capacity constraints and other 

11 federal regulations that go into effect around 

12 the compliance of this rulemaking. 

13 The primary tool use is the 

14 Government Regulatory Impact Model. It's a 

15 cash flow model used to represent the industry 

16 as a whole. The major output from the cash 

17 flow model is the industry net present value, 

18 or INPV. The change in INPV is used to 

19 succinctly quantify the impacts of amended 

20 standards on CRE manufacturers. 

21 For the MIA, DOE conducted 

22 extensive interviews of manufacturers of 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 269

1 covered product to validate and redefine the 

2 inputs to the Government Regulatory Impact 

3 Model and to understand qualitative issues. 

4 We typically do this analysis over 

5 three phases. Phase One happens during the 

6 preliminary analysis. We basically create an 

7 industry profile, pull together financial 

8 metrics from public sources such as SEC 

9 filing, US Census data, and research reports. 

10 The bulk of the work occurs during Phase 2 and 

11 3, the NOPR phase, where we are now. Using 

12 public data as well as inputs from the 

13 Engineering Analysis and the Shipments 

14 Analysis we began to outline industry in the 

15 Government Regulatory Impact Model. 

16 Key quantitative inputs and 

17 qualitative issues are validated with industry 

18 in interviews. So, switching from process to 

19 content, this slide details the key issues 

20 that manufacturers cited during our 

21 interviews. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 270

1 We've discussed on this today 

2 already, however, I'll go over them again. 

3 Manufacturers expressed concern about 

4 enforcement, or perhaps another way to put it 

5 is maintaining a level playing field. 

6 Manufacturers are concerned about lax or 

7 inconsistent enforcement, could mean that 

8 manufacturers that make the investments comply 

9 would be at a pricing disadvantage. Relative 

10 to bad actors, DOE intends to, of course, 

11 maintain enforcement to maintain the level 

12 playing field. 

13 Small manufacturers noted that 

14 they could be at a disproportionate -- they 

15 could be at a competitive disadvantage 

16 relative to their larger competitors. We 

17 actually do a fairly detailed analysis of this 

18 in the NOPR notice, and we'll touch on it 

19 later in a few slides. 

20 Finally, manufacturers noted that 

21 they were concerned about potential loss of 

22 product utility, particularly loss of space 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 271

1 and configuration, as well as decreases in 

2 food safety. 

3 I'm going to keep moving off this. 

4 We had a fairly extensive discussion about 

5 this in the Engineering and Screening 

6 Analysis. Try and get to the GRIM. 

7 We model two markup scenarios. At 

8 the upper bound, we model a case where 

9 manufacturers are able to maintain the same 

10 gross margins on a percentage basis as the 

11 product gets more efficient; meaning that DOE 

12 applies the same markup before and after the 

13 standard. This suggests that manufacturers are 

14 able to pass on increased production costs to 

15 their customers. 

16 At the lower bound we do a 

17 preservation operating profit scenario. What 

18 this means is DOE applies a markup at each TSL 

19 that results in the same operating profit in 

20 absolute dollars terms before and after the 

21 standard. Manufacturers’ capital base 

22 increase, they make additional investments; 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 272

1 however, they're not able to increase their 

2 profits from those investments. 

3 So, taking those markups in 

4 account, taking the financial metrics that we 

5 mined from SEC filings, including the MPCs 

6 from Engineering, and the Shipment Forecast 

7 from the Shipments Analysis, as well as 

8 conversion cost estimates, we're able to put 

9 together this INPV of the industry. 

10 I don't know if we've actually 

11 shown all the TSLs and the selected standard 

12 before this slide. I feel like 85 slides, and 

13 it's the first time we see the result, but, in 

14 general, we see is the industry is expected to 

15 lose between 3.95 and 7.97 percent of its 

16 value, or roughly 4 to 8 percent. A key driver 

17 of this is industry conversion costs totaling 

18 $87.5 million. These conversions costs are key 

19 driver of the loss, and they are due to 

20 investments in capital equipment, product 

21 redesign, and industry certifications. That's 

22 for the industry as a whole. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 273

1 We also take a look at what 

2 happens to small businesses as a subgroup. In 

3 general, the definition of small business has 

4 come to us from the SBA, the Small Business 

5 Administration. It's based off of the NAICS 

6 code, so the threshold is 750 employees or 

7 less. We tried to identify these companies by 

8 mining multiple public databases, as well as 

9 through private discussions with various 

10 manufacturers. In total, we identified 32 

11 small manufacturers of CRE equipment. 

12 DOE did identify potential 

13 differential impacts on those small 

14 businesses. A small business would face 

15 disadvantage relative -- disadvantages 

16 relative to their larger competitors in terms 

17 of access to capital and cost of capital. 

18 Redesign investments and industry 

19 certification costs can be fixed. They don't 

20 scale with volume, so the small manufacturers 

21 who have lower sales volumes may have a more 

22 difficult time with cost recovery. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 274

1 Finally, small manufacturers have 

2 lowering purchasing volumes and, therefore, 

3 they may be penalized when it comes to 

4 component parts pricing. 

5 In the NOPR we cut this several 

6 different ways, but roughly what we see is the 

7 impact on small manufacturers is relatively 

8 higher, 10 times. Do we have any comments on 

9 the impact on industry and on small 

10 manufacturers? 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Aniruddh. 

12 MR. ROY: Aniruddh Roy, AHRI. I 

13 have a question on the GRIM, I guess the 

14 inputs that went into the GRIM. One is, did 

15 you account for the -- because it was between 

16 2017 and 2046, I believe, did you account for 

17 any kind of conversion cost with respect to 

18 the refrigerants over a period of time, or 

19 even let's say the subsequent rulemakings that 

20 DOE would do on the commercial equipment? 

21 Because I believe every six years, the energy 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 275

1 conservation standards would be evaluated, so 

2 are those accounted for in the GRIM? 

3 MR. LAU: So, the MIA is unique in 

4 that its analysis period starts earlier before 

5 the standards year because manufacturers have 

6 to invest conversion costs ahead of the 

7 compliance dates. However, we do not take --

8 we have not taken the cost -- into account 

9 the cost of new refrigerants. Also, because 

10 what we look at is the change in INPV, we 

11 don't look at the future rules. We don't know 

12 what the cost of those will be, but in theory 

13 whether you have -- in theory regardless of 

14 what standard you go to, those future changes 

15 will occur, so it kind of balances out. They 

16 bring that out, if that makes sense. I guess 

17 the simple answer is no, we don't take into 

18 account future DOE -- the cost of future DOE 

19 rulemakings. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Robert. 

21 MR. WILKINS: Robert Wilkins, 

22 Danfoss. You said earlier that price 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 276

1 elasticity of demand was not considered, and 

2 I'd suggest it should be considered. I don't 

3 have a figure that I can say it should be this 

4 or that, but when you raise the price of the 

5 product 10, 15, 20 percent and you've got an 

6 option over here of rebuilt equipment that's 

7 refurbished, how can you not assume there's 

8 going to be some shift from new equipment to 

9 this old, inefficient equipment? So, I'd urge 

10 you to take that into consideration through 

11 our Economic Analysis. 

12 MR. LAU: Yes, we take that under 

13 consideration. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Additional 

15 comments here? 

16 MR. LAU: Move on to the next one? 

17 Cumulative Regulatory Burden. Some CRE 

18 manufacturers also produce walk-in equipment 

19 which had a NOPR issued a week after the CRE 

20 NOPR was published. Also, there's ongoing CC 

21 and rulemakings that cover commercial 

22 refrigeration equipment as discussed earlier 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 277

1 today by Jon and Charlie. However, if there 

2 are other key regulations that go into effect 

3 three -- within three years of 2017, which is 

4 anticipated CRE compliance date, DOE would 

5 like to hear about it and will incorporate it 

6 in its CRB discussion. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon. 

8 MR. McHUGH: I've got a question 

9 for the group. So, Robert brought up -- 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Turn the mic on. 

11 MR. McHUGH: I'm sorry, thank you. 

12 So Robert has brought up the issue about 

13 elasticity of sales relative to the whole 

14 market having increased prices due to the 

15 standard. I'm wondering if, you know, AHRI or 

16 one of your industry groups has some 

17 information about elasticity of sales? My 

18 understanding is that in terms of real dollars 

19 the price of refrigeration equipment has 

20 dropped. And is there any kind of study that 

21 identifies the impact on sales relative to the 

22 drop in the real price of products? Because I 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 278

1 don't know how you'd answer the question 

2 unless there's some kind of data that gives 

3 you some kind of coefficient or something that 

4 identifies that relationship. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Robert. 

6 MR. WILKINS: Robert. I'm not an 

7 economist. I don't know how to do it. I think 

8 what's happened, if commercial refrigeration 

9 equipment prices have declined, it's been a 

10 steady decline by market forces of a percent 

11 or two here and there and the other. What 

12 we're talking about is a 10, 15, to 20 percent 

13 stepwise increase. And I think that's totally 

14 different than a slight increase over time 

15 truly hidden in the inflation rate. 

16 Katie said that their models --

17 the economists have other, and don't let me 

18 misquote you, but that the economists have 

19 methods for dealing with these things because 

20 they have examples in other sectors. That 

21 might be one approach to look at. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 279

1 MR. HON: This is difficult. You 

2 make a comment about costs actually going down 

3 in our industry, and in our sector of the 

4 industry that's probably a true statement, but 

5 the total sales are also down in that same 

6 period of time for several reasons. You know, 

7 2009 isn't that long ago, and we were all 

8 driven down in costs, and we went every way 

9 possible to find. We're also seeing a lot of 

10 importation of foreign product which is 

11 effectively lower priced than what we're 

12 dealing with today, so that's an impact driver 

13 on the market, as well. 

14 So, do I believe that the prices 

15 are down from five years ago? Yes, I do. 

16 Percentage wise, dollar -- true dollar value, 

17 but it isn't necessarily going to continue 

18 that way because we're looking at some 

19 substantial potential cost increases in the 

20 very near future. We're looking at if the 

21 phase-outs of HFCs that we use today actually 

22 go through, you are limited in certain market 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 280

1 shares of what you can use, some of which may 

2 be some of the HFOs. Those may have an 

3 incremental cost of five to ten times what 

4 they're paying today for refrigerants. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Robert. 

6 MR. WILKINS: Robert Wilkins. Chris 

7 talked about the cumulative regulatory burden, 

8 and if we're aware of other regulation, et 

9 cetera. And the refrigerant side is clearly 

10 one of where regulation is coming. No, it's 

11 not DOE regulation, but it's regulation of 

12 these same manufacturers, and is consuming the 

13 energies of their product development people. 

14 And that is simultaneous to this. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

16 Your name, please? 

17 MR. McCRUDDEN: Charlie McCrudden, 

18 Air Conditioning Contractors of America. Under 

19 the cumulative regulatory burden, is this rule 

20 going to trigger a review under the Regulatory 

21 Flexibility Act? Does this rise to a major or 

22 a significant rule? 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 281

1 MR. LAU: It does, and the Reg Flex 

2 Act, typically what it requires is for DOE to 

3 make a statement about whether the rulemaking 

4 will substantially impact a significant number 

5 of small businesses. And we have provided that 

6 analysis. 

7 MR. McCRUDDEN: And it's my 

8 understanding that you have to look at 

9 alternative non-regulatory methods to reach 

10 the same goals. 

11 MR. LAU: That is correct. 

12 MR. McCRUDDEN: What are you --

13 have you run that yet, or do we know what 

14 that -- 

15 MR. LAU: It has been done. I'm 

16 actually going to leave it up to discussion in 

17 the RIA Analysis, which is coming in just a 

18 few slides. 

19 MR. CYMBALSKY: There's a slide on 

20 that, Charlie. 

21 MR. McCRUDDEN: Okay. I'm too soon? 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: You're too soon. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 282

1 MR. McCRUDDEN: Okay. 

2 MR. LAU: Ahead of the curve. 

3 MR. McCRUDDEN: Thanks. 

4 MR. LAU: I will hand the 

5 microphone back over to Katie. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, Katie. 

7 MS. COUGHLIN: Okay. So, I'm going 

8 to take you through the last few analyses that 

9 close out the NOPR phase of the rulemaking. 

10 The first is the LCC Subgroup Analysis where 

11 the goal is to identify any particular 

12 subsector of customers who may have adverse 

13 impacts because they have -- you know, we use 

14 distributions for all these different 

15 parameters. If they have unfavorable values in 

16 many of those parameters they may have 

17 negative impacts. So, the method is 

18 essentially the same as the LCC. It's just 

19 that we take a smaller group of consumers and 

20 we adjust the values for energy prices, 

21 discount rates, and markups in a way that's 

22 appropriate for that subgroup. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 283

1 For this rulemaking the primary 

2 concern is small businesses which are -- do 

3 not have access to national accounts so that 

4 they'll have higher distribution channel 

5 markups. They also tend to see higher costs of 

6 capital, but they also see higher electricity 

7 prices, so those are two competing effects and 

8 you don't necessarily get a significant impact 

9 on the LCC. 

10 So, the second sub bullet point 

11 here is somewhat misleading. If you consider 

12 small businesses as a whole, the higher 

13 electricity prices tend to balance out the 

14 higher cost of capital and higher markups and 

15 you don't get a large change in LCC. However, 

16 in the TSD the Department published the worst 

17 case scenario which happened to be associated 

18 with gas station convenience stores which 

19 according to CBECs actually have lower than 

20 average electricity prices. So, for that 

21 particular subgroup there does tend to be a 

22 negative impact in the sense that the LCC 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 284

1 savings go down, but the LCC savings don't 

2 decrease so much that there are no savings. 

3 And that's the worst case that was analyzed. 

4 The next analysis is the Emissions 

5 Analysis. So, this is part of the data that 

6 DOE is required to publish to quantify the 

7 impacts of a standard. There's a number of 

8 pollutants that are required in the analysis. 

9 They are essentially either power sector 

10 pollutants or global warming pollutants, so 

11 the table here presents the cumulative 

12 emissions reductions due to decreased 

13 electricity use over the analysis period as a 

14 function of the standard level. 

15 The first one is CO2, which tends 

16 to scale essentially directly with energy 

17 consumption. The next is NOx, which is a power 

18 sector pollutant, and mercury, as well. And 

19 nitrous oxide is a global warming pollutant 

20 that is associated with the production of 

21 energy, so the Department now uses what's 

22 called the Full Fuel Cycle Energy Metric which 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 285

1 includes in addition to say the coal burned in 

2 a power plant, the diesel and whatever that 

3 was used to produce the coal. So, when you go 

4 upstream of the power plant you have a lot of 

5 activities that involve engines that produce 

6 NOx emissions and those sorts of things, or 

7 nitrous oxide emissions, and additional NOx 

8 emissions, so those are included here. There's 

9 methane emissions which, again, are associated 

10 with natural gas and oil production. And, 

11 finally, sulfur dioxide which is primarily a 

12 power plant emission. 

13 So, there are emissions -- there 

14 are sort of, again, sort of rules for 

15 government agencies about monetizing 

16 emissions. And the one that's most significant 

17 in dollar terms is the carbon, so the federal 

18 government convened an interagency process 

19 several years ago to develop these estimates 

20 of what are called the Social Costs of Carbon, 

21 which you can think of as an avoided cost 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 286

1 associated with damages incurred by carbon 

2 pollution. 

3 So, the ones that have been 

4 modeled explicitly at the moment include 

5 agricultural productivity, health, property 

6 damage from sea level rise, and various 

7 ecosystem changes that reduce ecosystem value. 

8 So, there was a recent update in 2013 where 

9 new values were published for the Social Costs 

10 of Carbon which are listed here. There's a 

11 very large range, there's a long discussion in 

12 the TSD, and then there are references if 

13 you're interested in this in general. This is 

14 an evolving aspect of government policy, in 

15 general, so DOE simply follows the interagency 

16 guidelines that have been laid out, and 

17 includes the Social Cost of Carbon monetized 

18 values in the TSD. But these monetized values 

19 have not been added into the other NPV 

20 benefits numbers. 

21 There is also instruction to 

22 monetize the reductions in NOx emissions, and 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 287

1 this is a little simpler. There's a high, 

2 medium, and low estimate published, and we use 

3 the medium estimate in the tables. So, again, 

4 this is the values associated with the Social 

5 Cost of Carbon by TSL, and then at the 

6 different -- there's two different discount 

7 rates that we're mandated to use, and then the 

8 different SEC values. So it's, again, for 

9 largely information purposes at this point. 

10 These are not added to NPV. And these are CO2 

11 only. These are not CO2-equivalent. So, for 

12 example, the methane and nitrous oxide numbers 

13 are not monetized currently. 

14 This is the present value 

15 associated with NOx reductions. And currently, 

16 again, there's no number associated with 

17 monetization of either mercury or sulfur 

18 dioxide. 

19 And then in addition to the 

20 Emissions Analysis as part of the general 

21 analysis, we produce what we call the Utility 

22 Impact Analysis, which is actually the driver 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 288

1 on the emissions numbers. It's to look at the 

2 way that the reduced demand for electricity 

3 affects the build out of new generation over 

4 the analysis period. So we take the energy 

5 savings that are predicted by the National 

6 Impacts Analysis. We use a version of the 

7 National Energy Modeling System that EIA puts 

8 out which is an actual code that you can run 

9 with certain assumptions about electricity 

10 demand. And we look at the difference between 

11 the base case identified by EIA for the next 

12 30 years for electricity demand, we shave that 

13 electricity demand by the amount given from 

14 the National Impacts Analysis, and we look at 

15 the change in total capacity build-out and 

16 generation in the electricity sector. So, 

17 those are actually the inputs that then allow 

18 us to deduce the emissions reductions. 

19 And in addition to the emissions 

20 reductions, we have reductions in total 

21 installed capacity in megawatts, and the total 

22 electricity generation reduction in gigawatt 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 289

1 hours projected over the analysis period and 

2 by TSL. 

3 Another side analysis that the 

4 Department -- oh, sorry. Yes? 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon. 

6 MR. McHUGH: Jon McHugh. That 

7 analysis for utility impacts, when you look at 

8 that in the context of a national model does 

9 it actually result in actually bending the 

10 curve that there's actually a reduction in 

11 electricity generation, or just that the 

12 electricity generation is not increasing at 

13 the same rate? You know, because there's a 

14 difference of -- 

15 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes. 

16 MR. McHUGH: I've got power plants 

17 I'm not utilizing -- 

18 MS. COUGHLIN: That's right. 

19 MR. McHUGH: -- versus I'm not 

20 building more power plants. 

21 MS. COUGHLIN: Right. So, the base 

22 case for this is the projection that comes out 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 290

1 of AEO, which generally shows an expanding 

2 sector, so it expands less quickly under -- 

3 MR. McHUGH: Right. Okay, thank 

4 you. 

5 MR. ROY: Aniruddh Roy, AHRI. So, 

6 Katie, you're saying that as far as the Social 

7 Cost of Carbon is concerned, the emissions 

8 dollar amounts that you came up with, those 

9 are not being included in the NPV? 

10 MS. COUGHLIN: That's correct. 

11 MR. ROY: Is that correct? 

12 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes. 

13 MR. ROY: Okay. In the Federal 

14 Register Notice, page 55981, in that there's 

15 discussion, and this is under, I believe, the 

16 section, I guess, Discussion of Analytical 

17 Results. Over there, there's a comparison 

18 being made between TSL3 and TSL4, where you do 

19 discuss CO2 and NOx emissions. And at least 

20 from that discussion, my reading suggests that 

21 it seems like, you know, you move slightly 

22 towards the TSL4 realm because of these CO2 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 291

1 and NOx emission numbers. So, at least that 

2 particular page suggests that it was factored 

3 into the decision making, the CO2 and the NOx 

4 emissions, but I may be wrong. That's at least 

5 my reading from that page. 

6 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes. I can't really 

7 comment on policy. Certainly, you know, it's 

8 additional information that can be considered, 

9 but -- 

10 MR. ROY: Okay. But just for the 

11 record, it's not being considered in the NPV, 

12 and the numbers are not being used to 

13 determine the TSL4. Right? Like when you 

14 compare the different TSLs, the -- 

15 MS. COUGHLIN: That's correct. 

16 MR. ROY: -- emissions are not -- 

17 MS. COUGHLIN: So, redefining what 

18 TSL4 is, we take only the NPV associated with 

19 the customer impacts. 

20 MR. ROY: Okay, thank you. 

21 MS. COUGHLIN: That's correct. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 292

1 Okay. So the Employment Analysis 

2 is another side analysis to look at whether 

3 there is a net job creation resulting from the 

4 standard. This is an indirect effect, so the 

5 MIA looks at the direct employment impacts 

6 within the manufacturing sectors that are 

7 affected directly by the standard. And then 

8 the indirect effect that we try to capture 

9 here is sort of if you have a reduction in 

10 expenditures for electricity that provides 

11 extra dollars that can be spent elsewhere in 

12 the economy, and how might those extra dollars 

13 impact overall employment. 

14 The methodology is this ImSET 

15 which is an input/output model that looks at 

16 mostly correlations between dollars spent in 

17 one sector and dollars in another sector. And 

18 the output is overall change in employment 

19 across the entire economy. So, these numbers 

20 are not large, and possibly valid to one 

21 digit, I think maybe, and possibly two. So, 

22 what you see is that most standard levels 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 293

1 you're looking at on the order of 10 to a few 

2 hundred jobs which is -- I would largely say 

3 probably noise. But the impacts are positive. 

4 There's no significant loss of employment due 

5 to the standard unless you look at TSL5 in 

6 2017, where the large increase in cost has an 

7 effect. 

8 So, the Regulatory Impact Analysis 

9 which we referred to before is a relatively 

10 brief look at non-regulatory alternatives to 

11 incentivize improved efficiency in the product 

12 market. And the specific non-regulatory 

13 alternatives that can be modeled are: the easy 

14 one is no new regulatory action, so that's 

15 essentially leave things as they are, which is 

16 our base case. Early replacement would be some 

17 kind of incentive program which tries to get 

18 people to -- give them a rebate or something 

19 to get rid of an old piece of equipment and 

20 buy a more efficient piece of equipment. There 

21 are prescriptive standards, there are tax 

22 credits, manufacturer tax credits, rebates, 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 294

1 and then voluntary targets, sort of market 

2 transformation programs. In some products, 

3 there's also bulk government procurement but 

4 that's not relevant to this particular product 

5 area. 

6 The methodology that is used is to 

7 take the same spreadsheet, the National 

8 Impacts Analysis and Shipments Models and 

9 modify the inputs to mimic the effects of 

10 these other programs. And then the output is 

11 the National Energy Savings and NPV numbers 

12 that you would get in an alternative to a 

13 regulatory program. So, for example, the 

14 penetration rate of new technology would be 

15 altered under different scenarios depending on 

16 how effective tax credits are, or how 

17 effective rebate programs are. 

18 In these cases, the Department did 

19 not have a lot of information on how 

20 alternative programs have been structured in 

21 the past. And, again, that's the primary guide 

22 to predicting how they might operate in the 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 295

1 future. So, in general, the alternatives that 

2 were considered did not really show 

3 significant energy savings compared to the 

4 regulatory program. 

5 So, in this table we have the list 

6 of policy alternatives, no new regulatory 

7 action is the base line, so there's no savings 

8 associated with it. Consumer tax credits can 

9 give you about 0.15 quads, and rebates about 

10 0.2 quads, and the other two alternatives do 

11 not appear to have much impact on the market 

12 to the best of our knowledge. And this is 

13 compared to the roughly one quad that is going 

14 to come out of the proposed standards. Yes? 

15 MR. ROY: Aniruddh Roy, AHRI. In 

16 this analysis, has there been any 

17 consideration of the standards that went into 

18 effect on January 1st, 2012, and the effect 

19 that has taken -- that has had over this 

20 period of time? 

21 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes. 

22 MR. ROY: Okay. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 296

1 MS. COUGHLIN: So, we talked about 

2 those efficiency distributions in the base 

3 case, that includes the effect of these 

4 standards, moving everybody sort of up in the 

5 base line. 

6 MR. ROY: Okay, thank you. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Steve. 

8 MR. COUSINS: I was looking at the 

9 slide, and I guess what I was struggling with 

10 was voluntary energy efficiency targets, and I 

11 see zeros across the board. I guess the world 

12 I live in, I see more and more businesses and 

13 customers raising a flag around 

14 sustainability. I mean, it is a major part of 

15 our business. Everyone is concerned about 

16 energy. My company and all its competition, we 

17 have active programs, and we've got this 

18 program where we -- by 2020 we want to reduce 

19 the carbon in a beverage, a single serving of 

20 beverage by 25 percent, which means that we 

21 can't grow our carbon footprint from where we 

22 are now. Inside my company we see in order to 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 297

1 make that happen, we have to reduce the energy 

2 consumption of our equipment, our cold drink 

3 equipment by 25 percent by 2016. You know, 

4 we're actively involved in energy reduction. 

5 Our competition is, all of our customers are. 

6 Energy Star is written into every contract 

7 that we do. It's not our decision, it's our 

8 customers’ decision. I see at least in the 

9 world I live in a great deal of voluntary 

10 energy efficiency changes. I look at this 

11 slide, I just see zeroes across the board. 

12 MS. COUGHLIN: Right. So, there 

13 have been a lot of programs conducted at state 

14 and utility level, and it's true there's a lot 

15 of discussion, and a lot of thinking about it, 

16 but in terms of quantifiable energy savings, 

17 it's not clear that to date these programs 

18 have produced significant amounts. So, you 

19 know, again, this is always an issue of being 

20 able to quantify things based on existing 

21 data. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 298

1 MR. COUSINS: So, the Energy Star 

2 program doesn't produce any significant 

3 reduction in energy? I mean, that's a 

4 voluntary program. 

5 MS. COUGHLIN: For this product 

6 category, yes, that's the -- 

7 MR. COUSINS: So, Energy Star is 

8 ineffective then. 

9 MS. COUGHLIN: Energy Star is 

10 effective in many product categories, but not 

11 all. 

12 MR. COUSINS: I'm talking about --

13 I'm talking this commercial refrigeration 

14 category. Okay. 

15 MR. SACHS: Katie, this is Harvey, 

16 and I guess there's sort of some cognitive 

17 dissonance here, if I can use the term. I just 

18 learned it. 

19 (Laughter.) 

20 MR. SACHS: I've just been told 

21 that Energy Star has released its Version 3, 

22 and to get back to their 25 percent of models 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 299

1 qualifying they had to siphon it to remove 

2 about half the products that were qualified 

3 under the former level. 

4 Now, this seems to indicate, and I 

5 think I've heard echoes of that from some of 

6 the manufacturers today, that this has really 

7 been affecting what is shipped. And what I'm 

8 hearing from DOE is, I don't want to say well, 

9 this is EPA, it can't count, because I'm sure 

10 that's not the case, I hope. But in this case, 

11 you'd rather use no number than a bad number, 

12 and we've seen an awful lot of cases today 

13 where we've chosen to use, shall we say an 

14 uncertain number, or guess, instead of no 

15 number. 

16 MS. COUGHLIN: It's important to 

17 remember that we're looking here at the 

18 predicted market in 2017, so again, given the 

19 information at the time that the analysis was 

20 done, something like Energy Star impacting 

21 that hypothetical market in 2017 was not seen 

22 to be significant. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 300

1 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey again, 

2 and I can appreciate that we're relying on an 

3 obsolete analysis because of an obsolete 

4 Office of Management and Budget, or 

5 obstructionist Office of Management and Budget 

6 that's working against all of us. But 

7 certainly today we can use the information 

8 from the analysis for the Energy Star Version 

9 3 for CRE as a predicted basis which we might 

10 want to discount on the effect of Version 3 in 

11 2017. That doesn't seem like any more of a 

12 stretch than a lot of the other things we've 

13 done in this analysis. It just doesn't have 

14 four decimals on it. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie, do you wish 

16 to go next? 

17 MR. HON: I have a lot of comments, 

18 be prepared. Number one, Energy Star has a 

19 Version 3.0 which the comment period ended 

20 about two weeks ago. We're still getting 

21 communications back and forth on some of the 

22 topics, but it's still under review. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 301

1 That change took the category - 

2 basically, Energy Star claimed they had 62 

3 percent of the products being sold in the 

4 United States were listed under Energy Star. I 

5 don't know if that's a true number or not, but 

6 that was their number, and they've taken it 

7 down to what they project as 24 percent of the 

8 market, which is their basic creed. You get it 

9 up above 50 percent, you knock it down to the 

10 best 25 percent. You get above 50 percent, you 

11 bring it back to the next 25 percent. And 

12 that's basically how they do it, pure 

13 statistics on the numbers available to them. 

14 So, basically, by the rounding of different 

15 things they got the 24 percent, which is not a 

16 big deal in the market for us, but it is a 

17 very important factor. 

18 Questions about Energy Star in our 

19 company, it is a standard statement about 

20 countless customers who will not even consider 

21 a product that is not Energy Star. The reason 

22 we listed so many products is because there 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 302

1 was a demand for it, whether it be from rebate 

2 dollars, but that's how the thing really got 

3 moving. But now even if there's no rebate 

4 dollars involved, it's still a hot item, so I 

5 don't know how you can give it a zero value. 

6 MS. COUGHLIN: Well, it's not -- 

7 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, Charlie, we've 

8 discussed this privately. So, if our standard 

9 as proposed came into effect in 2017, in 2017 

10 what would Energy Star look like, and what 

11 impact would it have? 

12 MS. COUGHLIN: And I would just say 

13 it has to be a new action on the part of 

14 Energy Star to fit into the -- 

15 MR. HON: Okay. I'm going to give 

16 you some numbers that you may not like to hear 

17 right now. These are just basic numbers, plug 

18 in the calculations. I took four categories, 

19 this is our mainstay of our market. Solid door 

20 self-contained refrigerators, glass doored 

21 self-contained refrigerators, solid door self22 contained freezers, solid door -- actually, 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 303

1 it's glass door self-contained freezers, all 

2 of which we ran the numbers of this proposal 

3 compared to the energy numbers of Energy Star 

4 3.0, which is not in effect yet. We ran a 5-

5 cubic foot, a 10, a 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 

6 basically, the gambit of the market. It just 

7 is the gambit of all the things. We took the 

8 numbers on solid door refrigerators, took all 

9 these numbers, plugged them into the new 

10 formulas for the Energy Department, and the 

11 new proposals for the Energy Star Department. 

12 Your numbers on average are 46 percent below 

13 allowable for Energy Star on solid door 

14 refrigerators. Glass door refrigerators, 43 

15 percent below. Solid door freezers, 49 percent 

16 below. Glass door freezers, 48 percent below 

17 what is proposed by Energy Star as a top of 

18 the line product. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Energy Star 3. 

20 MR. HON: 3, which is not due to 

21 come into effect for another year. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 304

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Several 

2 individuals wish to comment. I saw Don first, 

3 and I'm coming back to you. 

4 MR. BRUNDAGE: Don Brundage, 

5 Southern Company. It's not reasonable to 

6 expect that Energy Star is not going to up 

7 their standards to go along with the 2017 

8 increase, because their standard procedure is 

9 to up the standards in response to this. 

10 I think it is reasonable to assume 

11 there's not a lot of room left to have an 

12 Energy Star program above the legal minimum if 

13 you do TSL4, so it would not be as large a 

14 program as today. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

16 Jeff? 

17 MR. BAUMAN: Yes, I think the 

18 extension of what Charlie was saying also is 

19 that Energy Star would go away unless they 

20 change significantly a few standards the TSL4 

21 went into play, you'd have basic requirements 

22 that were below the Energy Star level, so 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 305

1 Energy Star would not exist if they didn't 

2 change what their standards were. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

4 Yes? 

5 MR. CYMBALSKY: I think I have the 

6 solution here. So, when we did this analysis, 

7 so V3 we didn't know about. Right? V2, the 

8 market there already from the numbers, so I 

9 think what we need to do is rerun this with V3 

10 and compare it to the baseline, and put a 

11 number there. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

13 MR. HON: We are very concerned 

14 because we just give you another set of 

15 numbers, the same basic criteria, what's the 

16 official energy acceptance level today versus 

17 what is the acceptance level under this 

18 proposal. We are looking at in the solid door 

19 refrigerators between 71 and 73 percent 

20 reduction in power. Glass door refrigerators, 

21 67-68 percent reduction in power. Solid door 

22 freezers, 68 percent reduction in power. Glass 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 306

1 door freezers, 71 percent reduction in power. 

2 We're not talking a small incremental -- a 

3 major would be 35 percent. When we're getting 

4 in the 70s and 71 percents, these are beyond 

5 the levels that we can cope with at this time 

6 because we're rethinking the entire thought 

7 pattern. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve, and then back 

9 to Robert. 

10 MR. COUSINS: Okay. I know I'm only 

11 repeating myself. Earlier this morning I 

12 questioned the -- well, I look at what we are 

13 trying to accomplish when we're talking about 

14 what's technologically feasible. TSL4, based 

15 on what we found our company is not technology 

16 feasible. Let me rephrase that. 

17 You can achieve these numbers if 

18 you move away from pull-down applications, if 

19 you move away from trying to maintain health 

20 temperatures. I mean, you can hit these 

21 numbers if you decide you don't care what 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 307

1 temperature the cabinet is. I mean, I don't 

2 see how you can achieve these numbers. 

3 What I see with our customers, 

4 we've gotten to a point with our customers 

5 where there's almost no contract that's 

6 written these days where Energy Star is not in 

7 that contract. Our customers demand it, and we 

8 see Energy Star as being a very effective, 

9 very successful and very effective voluntary 

10 program to move toward greater efficiency. So, 

11 that's one of the reasons why I find it hard 

12 to believe that there was no benefit that came 

13 in the analysis in this area. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Robert. 

15 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes, I'd like to 

16 just clarify. There's a definition issue here, 

17 because as Jon pointed out, yes, your 

18 customers love Energy Star. That's why the 

19 market was already there. So, it doesn't count 

20 as a new regulatory action, and there's no 

21 additional voluntary incentive, so that's why 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 308

1 it's coming out as not having an impact. They 

2 would need to -- 

3 MS. ARMSTRONG: Based on the levels 

4 in Version 2. 

5 MS. COUGHLIN: Right. 

6 MS. ARMSTRONG: It's because the 

7 saturation of the market is already there, so 

8 when we look at the snapshot in 2017, because 

9 your customers already require it, because 

10 they tell you they want you to build to it, 

11 you are already doing it. There's no delta 

12 there. 

13 Now, the answer will be different 

14 when we plug in Version 3.0. It will not be 

15 to the level the proposed standards are will 

16 be my guess, but it will be different because 

17 you're going back down to 24 percent, or 

18 whatever the number is. The saturation is much 

19 lower. 

20 MR. COUSINS: Yes, which is one of 

21 my points. Because there is concern around 

22 energy even with our customers. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 309

1 MS. ARMSTRONG: Sure. 

2 MR. COUSINS: Which has forced us 

3 to -- not just -- it's put us in the position 

4 where we strive to achieve purchasing 

5 equipment that's the most energy efficient as 

6 we can possibly get. 

7 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. So, a 

8 question back to you would be, you are a 

9 purchaser of this equipment. You spec out what 

10 you want. If you had certain levels that you 

11 spec'd out on a voluntary basis, we could run 

12 an analysis on that, too. 

13 MR. COUSINS: Well, that's what I 

14 was just -- we have goals that we have 

15 publicly stated -- 

16 MS. ARMSTRONG: Well, we would have 

17 to have that data to run -- you see what I'm 

18 saying? I mean, we could run it as a voluntary 

19 program because Coca-Cola is voluntarily 

20 saying I want these levels. 

21 MR. COUSINS: Well, it's not just 

22 us. I mean, everyone is saying they want 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 310

1 different levels. And it looks to me like none 

2 of it has been considered, so you're saying 

3 that everyone in the country has to 

4 voluntarily step up to the DOE and give this 

5 information to -- 

6 MS. ARMSTRONG: No, no, no. I'm 

7 just saying, you know, if you would help us 

8 with that data, I think we could help improve 

9 our analysis. Correct? 

10 MR. COUSINS: Yes. 

11 MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, it goes 

12 both ways. 

13 MR. COUSINS: Yes. And my point is 

14 this, and I've already repeated this several 

15 times. We have companies like mine that are 

16 trying to push this as far as we can possibly 

17 push it technologically. And just as Charlie 

18 mentioned, and I can't dispute his numbers, 

19 we're talking about a 60-something percent 

20 reduction from where we are now with the 

21 equipment that we purchase. My point is that I 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 311

1 don't see this as being technologically 

2 feasible. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So, just to 

4 clarify for the record, that was an exchange 

5 between Ashley and Steve. Now, back to Katie. 

6 Do you have additional commentary on that last 

7 slide, or are you moving on? 

8 MS. COUGHLIN: No, this is -- 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: A couple of more --

10 pardon me. Robert, please, go ahead. 

11 MR. WILKINS: I would like to start 

12 by commending the analysis. Now, there are a 

13 few points that we question, and put question 

14 mark on this or the other. And in my mind, 

15 TSL4, I've got a question mark. Is that 

16 practical to reach that or not? But no doubt, 

17 you'll go back based on the input provided 

18 today and reevaluate that, and come back with 

19 some judgment. So, to really build on what 

20 Steve said, I think that TSL4 line needs to be 

21 considered. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 312

1 I'd like to ask a policy question, 

2 not to the consultants, but open to all of us, 

3 or to DOE. I think there are two questions 

4 that should be asking ourselves, or deciding 

5 between. One is, and it seems to be today how 

6 far can we go in saving energy through 

7 regulation? That seems to be the question 

8 that's been on the table here. The other one, 

9 I would suggest instead or in place of, how 

10 can the U.S. save the most energy in 

11 commercial refrigeration in the least 

12 disruptive way? In other words, find a way to 

13 save the energy, not stepping down from that. 

14 So, I would suggest if it were the 

15 second answer, let's raise minimum standards, 

16 but let's raise them to a baseline level. 

17 Let's not stretch beyond the available 

18 technology that we have today. We don't have 

19 these compressors in the market. We've got a 

20 number of questions. So, maybe that means TSL2 

21 or 3, I don't know what it means, but that 

22 order of magnitude, and then do the other 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 313

1 things. Get behind EPA Energy Star, and 

2 collaborate with them, and push it, and 

3 promote it, and get the whole industry to do 

4 that. 

5 There was a question in here well, 

6 we can't get anything with government 

7 procurement. Why not? Why aren't we pursuing 

8 that, GSA, military commissaries use a lot of 

9 this kind of equipment. Why aren't we pursuing 

10 that? 

11 DOE did a fantastic job in the 

12 rooftop challenge a year or two ago, and five 

13 manufacturers stepped forward with very high 

14 efficiency rooftop units. Why don't we do 

15 something like that? Why don't we do something 

16 creative in a collaborative approach and 

17 really focus on saving energy? I think we 

18 could get just as much, if not more, and have 

19 wholehearted support behind it. Thank you. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Joe Sanders has a 

21 comment. Joe, unmute your line and speak 

22 clearly. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 314

1 MR. SANDERS: This is Joe Sanders. 

2 –My comment was, using the EPA website as a 

3 certified group of data, most manufacturers, 

4 the industry as a whole, you have to redesign 

5 95 percent of all the models available for 

6 sale currently, plus 95 percent. And my 

7 question along with redesigning all those 

8 models, all these companies, are there 

9 resources available? Meaning if we design a 

10 cabinet has to go through UL, has to go 

11 through NSF, has to go through this energy 

12 consumption testing, we have to validate 

13 compressors and a whole host of things. Is 

14 this going to happen in three years? 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie? 

16 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. The 

17 Department knows that I am a pusher and a 

18 supporter of energy efficiency. I've been in 

19 lots of meetings with them and tried, and 

20 tried, and tried to get consistency and know -

21 - and giving them information about ways to 

22 get high efficiency equipment. But what's not 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 315

1 being considered here is that there is more 

2 than just energy efficiency involvement here, 

3 because if you take a home refrigerator and 

4 you take a commercial refrigerator, the 

5 commercial refrigerator at this time is 

6 allotted approximately 4.4 times the power 

7 consumption for the same internal volume. And 

8 that is because of the service that we do. We 

9 do not sell a home refrigerator because it is 

10 not capable of meeting the demands of constant 

11 door openings, NSF standards, and other 

12 things. So, if you tell me that you want to 

13 take 30 percent out of the market, 30 percent 

14 efficiency, I can easily see that happening. I 

15 see 70 percent, 73 percent. I have real 

16 problem with that because we cannot then 

17 guarantee food safety, because right now we've 

18 gone through and we've done an analysis of all 

19 of our products adding all the standard things 

20 that you brought up. We might have one product 

21 in the market. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Jeff. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 316

1 MR. BAUMAN: Getting back to the 

2 original part of the discussion, and the --

3 when we were discussing voluntary energy 

4 efficiency rather than regulatory, and I 

5 appreciate DOE being able to look at Version 3 

6 of Energy Star, which manufacturers have 

7 already expressed concerned to EPA in regards 

8 to the levels being proposed. But I think it's 

9 still a flaw to not consider Energy Star in 

10 the impact because again, I don't think EPA 

11 would be too happy to just go away from an 

12 Energy Star program in this category. Maybe 

13 they would, but my expectation would be by 

14 2017 they would come out with levels that are 

15 even lower, and are going to make 

16 manufacturers look at even higher efficiencies 

17 than whatever the DOE targets are. So,I don't 

18 expect EPA to just let that go away for our 

19 product category. And, again, as Charlie 

20 mentioned, as people mentioned, and Steve 

21 mentioned, government installations, they 

22 specify it's got to be an Energy Star product 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 317

1 and things, so I think there's either going to 

2 be a big re-education of some end-users, 

3 again, or letting the EPA Energy Star program 

4 go away for this product category, or it's 

5 going to put additional burden on 

6 manufacturers. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon. 

8 MR. McHUGH: Jon McHugh. I think 

9 that what we've heard here a number of times 

10 is that, in general, the measures that you 

11 guys have looked at is really not the issue. 

12 The question is the numbers that they have to 

13 live with, and there really needs to be some 

14 kind of reconciliation between the numbers and 

15 the model. 

16 So, I would ask the question, you 

17 know, I assume there's going to be some 

18 additional follow-up with the manufacturers 

19 and various market participants about the 

20 acceptability of different measures. And also 

21 asking that question, okay, of all these 

22 acceptable measures, when you put them 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 318

1 together, what do they actually look like in 

2 terms of the numbers? And, to me, that seems 

3 to be the crux of all the talking back and 

4 forth about what's achievable or not. 

5 Now, I have access to- actually, 

6 anybody has access to – the California Energy 

7 Commission database for equipment. 

8 Unfortunately, it's not fully populated. 

9 Ideally, in the future DOE will actually have 

10 a fully populated database by everybody, and 

11 we won't actually be guessing what the market 

12 looks like because we'd actually have the 

13 data. So, this is something that really should 

14 happen for all the products because DOE is 

15 supposed to be updating their standards, and 

16 what better thing to use than actually the 

17 full population rather than I've got my small 

18 telescope that I'm looking at some tiny 

19 fraction of the market. 

20 But just to go back to the issue 

21 with Energy Star because, you know, they're 

22 somewhat captive to making sure that there's 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 319

1 enough products that people participate. And 

2 just as an example, if you look at, was it 

3 vertical transparent cases, self-contained 

 th

4 compressors, medium temperature, the 50 

5 percentile in the California database is one6 half of the federal standard, so it's not like 

7 that there's not a bunch of head room. The 

8 question is, well, is it 50 percent versus 72 

9 percent, or whatever the number is? So, I 

10 think we need to get back to what are the real 

11 values. I mean, obviously, some people have 

12 tested, they have published to some fraction 

13 the database, and we could talk until we're 

14 blue in the face, but somehow we've got to say 

15 okay, what are the measures that are 

16 reasonable, and what do they really consume? 

17 Thanks. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

19 MS. COUGHLIN: I possibly shouldn't 

20 say this, but I will anyway. I want to clarify 

21 that the Department does not ignore the 

22 existence of Energy Star. The existence of 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 320

1 Energy Star affects our base case distribution 

2 of efficiencies. So, it's really, you know, in 

3 some sense the definition of what constitutes 

4 a new regulatory action or a new voluntary 

5 program that's at issue here. 

6 MR. BAUMAN: This is Jeff Bauman. I 

7 just want to ask for clarification then on 

8 that, because I think that's how this issue 

9 got brought up initially, is when Charlie or 

10 people saw the zero impact new regulatory, and 

11 zero involuntary. That, to me, as I said 

12 previously, Energy Star would have no impact 

13 on this. I think that was the original 

14 question. And then our impression was that 

15 yes, it was for reasons of whatever, it was 

16 ignored, or it did not have any impact. I 

17 think that's the question that we're going 

18 back to on this. 

19 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, let's try it 

20 again. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: John Cymbalsky. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 321

1 MR. CYMBALSKY: In the baseline 

2 there's a distribution of efficiencies which 

3 includes Energy Star. So, as Charlie pointed 

4 out, it's at 60 plus percent in Version 2, 

5 which is what we were working off of when we 

6 did this analysis. So, when you do the Reg 

7 Flex and you look at Version 2, the fact that 

8 everyone has already moved there, 62 percent, 

9 there's no impact of that program Version 2. 

10 So, what we're going to do is go back and 

11 estimate what the impact of Version 3 is. That 

12 number will be non-zero when you see it again. 

13 In the baseline when we go to 

14 measure the standard, the shipment 

15 efficiencies reflecting Energy Star Version 2 

16 are in the baseline, so what we're comparing 

17 is our standard versus the market which 

18 includes 62 market share for Energy Star 

19 Version 2, so that's the delta we're working 

20 off. Does that make sense? 

21 MR. BAUMAN: Yes, and I appreciate 

22 the clarification, John. My question would be 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 322

1 did DOE or in the new regulatory, do you 

2 consider the fact that under the standards, if 

3 your standard is lower than what an Energy 

4 Star standard is now, that Energy Star would 

5 then be expected to come back and create new 

6 voluntary or regulatory action that would 

7 affect manufacturers. 

8 MR. WILKINS: Yes. In other words, 

9 Energy Star is not static, it's dynamic. 

10 MR. CYMBALSKY: I understand, but 

11 that's not a regulatory burden. 

12 MR. BAUMAN: Voluntary is also on 

13 there as zero, so that's again where I'm 

14 coming -- 

15 MR. CYMBALSKY: Again, we're going 

16 to redo this number -- 

17 MR. BAUMAN: Okay. 

18 MR. CYMBALSKY: It will be non-zero 

19 for Version 3. Okay? However, I do want to 

20 point out, Energy Star has sunsetted many a 

21 product. Right? I'm not saying what's going to 

22 happen in 2017. I can tell you right now, if I 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 323

1 do my job really good, and hopefully I do, you 

2 know, nothing against Energy Star, but what I 

3 do does compete with what they do. And if we 

4 make a mandatory standard high enough that 

5 Energy Star doesn't need to exist for that 

6 product, I mean, so be it. They sunset the 

7 product. They've done it before. Will it 

8 happen here? I don't know. I'm not saying yes, 

9 and -- 

10 MR. THOMPSON: A question is, if 

11 you do that, then are you saying in the market 

12 there will be no differentiation based on 

13 energy for any customer at that point? It's a 

14 one-stop shop energy, deal with it. 

15 MR. CYMBALSKY: There are plenty of 

16 products like that now. Electric furnaces is a 

17 one-stop shop. 

18 MR. THOMPSON: So, we're comparing 

19 commercial refrigeration to electric furnaces? 

20 MR. CYMBALSKY: I am not. I'm just 

21 making a point, that that exists in the market 

22 today. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 324

1 MR. THOMPSON: Okay. 

2 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. My 

3 concern is we have two totally different 

4 government agencies working from different 

5 basic database information. You did 

6 Engineering Analysis on some of the possible 

7 add-ons to the systems. Energy Star just 

8 looked at the market as a whole and 

9 statistical numbers on energy efficiency of 

10 the products in the market today. And yet, 

11 actually, the regulatory activities are 

12 crossing over each other, the comment periods 

13 were still open for their comment period to 

14 your comment period, and yet you come up with 

15 a minimum efficiency almost 50 percent lower 

16 than theirs, which is supposedly a premium 

17 efficiency within a few months of data 

18 crossover. That's what bothers, I think, the 

19 industry as a whole. 

20 If you had come back and said you 

21 want to come back and hit these Energy Star 

22 numbers two years after they're effective from 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 325

1 2015 to 2017, a lot of the industry would have 

2 gone oh, this is horrible, but you would have 

3 definite statistical evidence to show that it 

4 could be done. This one, I don't know about 

5 it. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve. 

7 MR. COUSINS: We're having a 

8 discussion and we're looking at this in 

9 isolation when in reality there are other 

10 things that are happening. There's the 

11 reasoned expression of NGOs around commercial 

12 refrigeration. There's the GreenChill program. 

13 There's the EPA industry initiative. I mean, 

14 there are a lot of voluntary programs, some 

15 pseudo regulatory programs and voluntary 

16 programs that are affecting commercial 

17 refrigeration. And I don't see any of that 

18 being taken into consideration in the work 

19 that's been done on this NOPR. 

20 We, as a company, have demands 

21 placed on us by other agencies in government. 

22 Yes, we want to do what's right by energy, but 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 326

1 we also want to do what's right by the 

2 environment. So, I would just like to see 

3 everything taken into consideration when 

4 standards are set. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Are we ready 

6 to move on? I think we're ready to move on. 

7 Yes? Final comment. 

8 MR. MOORE: Frank Moore, NAFEM. So, 

9 just to get clarification on what -- because I 

10 think I hear what you're saying about the 

11 impact of Energy Star, but to get 

12 clarification on the zero there for voluntary 

13 energy efficiency targets, what -- is it 

14 correct to interpret that to mean that the 

15 Department on its own determined that it could 

16 come up with no voluntary energy alternatives 

17 to this rule? And, therefore, that's why the 

18 zero is there. 

19 MS. COUGHLIN: No. 

20 MR. MOORE: It does not mean that? 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 327

1 MS. COUGHLIN: No. The Department 

2 looks at existing voluntary programs to assess 

3 their effectiveness. 

4 MR. MOORE: But in terms of the -- 

5 MS. COUGHLIN: So, the Department 

6 is not -- 

7 MR. MOORE: -- Reg Flex, 

8 Regulatory Flexibility Act requirements, and I 

9 think this gentleman had mentioned that 

10 earlier, that the Department's responsibility 

11 to look to alternatives, among the 

12 alternatives it looked to before it 

13 promulgated this rule did not include any 

14 voluntary programs? Is that why there's a zero 

15 there? 

16 MS. COUGHLIN: No. 

17 MR. MOORE: Okay. 

18 MS. COUGHLIN: It's that the 

19 voluntary programs are essentially in the 

20 baseline. The voluntary programs the 

21 Department considered at the time -- 

22 MR. MOORE: I got that part but -- 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 328

1 MS. COUGHLIN: -- had already been 

2 incorporated into -- 

3 MR. MOORE: Any new voluntary 

4 programs that would be on Alternative 2, this 

5 proposed rule. 

6 MS. COUGHLIN: The Department, I 

7 believe, does not construct hypothetical 

8 voluntary programs for this analysis. 

9 MR. MOORE: Alright. 

10 MS. COUGHLIN: It just looks at 

11 what's on the horizon. 

12 MR. MOORE: Okay. I'm just trying 

13 to get clarification on that. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

15 MR. MOORE: Thank you. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Now we're 

17 moving on. Right? Okay. Yes? 

18 MS. COUGHLIN: Okay. So, the next 

19 few slides are simply a description of the 

20 TSL4 results. I don't think -- 

21 MR. CYMBALSKY: You want to read 

22 them all? 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 329

1 (Laughter.) 

2 MR. CYMBALSKY: Charlie has already 

3 calculated the number -- 

4 MS. COUGHLIN: This is the 

5 equations that describe how the efficiency 

6 level will scale with total display area. Yes, 

7 I don't think we want to comment on that. 

8 So, in terms of the numbers, the 

9 raw numbers, so the cumulative energy savings 

10 that we're currently predicting, again, given 

11 this baseline which includes a fairly high 

12 level of efficiency in the baseline, the 

13 cumulative energy savings from TSL 4 about one 

14 quad over the analysis period. The cumulative 

15 NPV is 1.6 billion at a 7 percent discount 

16 rate, and 4.1 at 3 percent. 

17 So, for the most part, life-cycle 

18 cost savings are positive, and payback periods 

19 are under five years, which means, again, to 

20 the best that we can model in this analysis 

21 for the consumer, the standard is favorable. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 330

1 The environmental benefits 

2 primarily in the form of CO2 reductions are 

3 about 55 million metric tons, and depending on 

4 the Social Cost of Carbon and the discount 

5 rate that you use, those scale between .3 and 

6 4.6 billion in avoided damages. 

7 I think this is the last issue to 

8 discuss. This is where you input, again, would 

9 be very useful. So, we've discussed the issue 

10 of doing all this in three years. There is a 

11 sort of statutory guideline about the lapse of 

12 time between the promulgation of the standard 

13 and the compliance date, but it's not written 

14 in stone. So, under certain special conditions 

15 DOE can consider extending the length of time 

16 between the passage of the rule and the 

17 compliance date. 

18 For this analysis, the compliance 

19 date is assumed to be three years after the 

20 passage of the rule. If people wish to submit 

21 comments about why, and what other compliance 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 331

1 dates they feel would be more appropriate, you 

2 can do that. 

3 Apart from the policy decision, we 

4 can model a later compliance date. And, 

5 generally, in order to inform the policy 

6 decision people like to know what happens to 

7 energy savings if you push compliance out 

8 another five years. So, if stakeholders want 

9 to submit suggestions for later compliance 

10 dates, we can include those in the modeling. 

11 That's it. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Comments here on 

13 compliance date? Harvey Sachs. 

14 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey, and 

15 someone asked me earlier what the advocates 

16 typically felt about this. And the answer to 

17 that as a generalization, is that we try to 

18 look at cumulative energy savings, which for 

19 consumer products is typically said that 

20 there's a tradeoff between a compliance 

21 deadline and the stringency of the standard. 

22 Of course, increasingly we're recognizing that 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 332

1 stringency of standards on single DOE metric 

2 may not have real close relationship to actual 

3 field energy savings, but the generalization, 

4 very much like Katie has suggested, is there 

5 is a tradeoff between annual energy savings 

6 and compliance date. But I certainly left 

7 feeling that I'm reeling from more information 

8 than I possibly could assimilate in a day in 

9 terms of what the proposed rules say and how 

10 it all interacts with everything else that's 

11 on the table. Thank you. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. Tim 

13 Ballo. 

14 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo. Just one 

15 thing to keep in mind on the issue of the 

16 compliance date, that it's not just 2017 

17 versus 2019, it's 2023 versus 2025, as we go 

18 through the next six-year review. And I know 

19 there's a lot happening in this industry right 

20 now with alternative refrigerants and it might 

21 be helpful to think about in 2020, 2021, how 

22 settled are things going to be with 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 333

1 alternative refrigerants, and how is that 

2 going to impact the next round of analysis, 

3 and what sort of certainty will we have? 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Jeff. 

5 MR. BAUMAN: I will not comment on 

6 this. I think from our standpoint usually, as 

7 Jon and Ash, we love the pushback, because 

8 sometimes where we think it's appropriate 

9 pushback test dates, and we've had some 

10 discussions with Harvey about this earlier, 

11 too. I think even from our standpoint, you 

12 know, your crystal ball gets blurrier as it 

13 goes further out, obviously. And when we talk 

14 about things like compressors and components 

15 that are based on theoretical, that maybe they 

16 would be available by 2017, and maybe if we 

17 stress that point on pushing the date out, 

18 maybe some of those features would be more 

19 feasible at that point. But I have less faith 

20 in the crystal ball, I think, and potentially 

21 some others. I would rather hold a closer 

22 date, and as Harvey said, you know, get an 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 334

1 impact and see a number that is achievable 

2 based on current technologies that we can come 

3 to agreement on. 

4 And I think, again, you've heard a 

5 lot around here with concerns on 

6 manufacturers, but I also think manufacturers 

7 are not trying to walk away from this or 

8 anything. I don't think we've done that on any 

9 of the proposals that are out there. We want 

10 continue to make better products, more 

11 efficient, be competitive, get the energy 

12 savings within a reasonable time so they can 

13 hit it. And I would rather see, what we would 

14 consider more feasible numbers, and be less 

15 worried about the timeline, and more worried 

16 about getting numbers that are achievable 

17 within a three-year period. 

18 MR. SACHS: This is Harvey. Jeff, 

19 one clarification. I don't know what the right 

20 numbers are. I'm fully prepared to put you on 

21 the rack, but not stretch much. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 335

1 MR. CYMBALSKY: I guess, you know, 

2 based on what was in the proposal and what's 

3 been said today, we've proposed TSL4. Did you 

4 have a TSL in mind based on all the numbers: I 

5 mean, Steve and Charlie have mostly carried 

6 the weight here in terms of throwing 

7 percentages out from where you are today. Does 

8 it line up to anything that you've seen here 

9 with our equations, or -- 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve. 

11 MR. COUSINS: When you get numbers 

12 from us, they'll be numbers representative of 

13 what we think the best technology will provide 

14 today, as well as numbers from what we're 

15 purchasing today, so I won't answer the 

16 question with specific numbers now, but I'll 

17 give you information that will help to answer 

18 that question. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Don Brundage. 

20 MR. BRUNDAGE: Don Brundage, 

21 Southern Company. I'm not a manufacturer, I'm 

22 a utility, but general philosophy: the way you 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 336

1 define TSL3 and TSL4, TSL4 is really not cost2 effective. You're saying you maximize the 

3 benefits of TSL3, and TSL4 is what comes out 

4 to be positive net present value compared to 

5 the current standard level. That means that if 

6 your standard level was already at TSL3, you 

7 would lose money by going to TSL4. It's purely 

8 a function of where your baseline current 

9 standard is. That would be like saying if the 

10 current residential air conditioner standard 

11 were still SEER 10, you could justify going to 

12 SEER 15 or 16 instead of 14. So, I don't 

13 really think philosophically across the 

14 different rulemakings that TSL4 as you defined 

15 it is in the best interest of society. Thank 

16 you. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Bruce. 

18 MR. HIERLMEIER: Bruce Hierlmeier. 

19 I think one of the issues is we see the 

20 numbers aren't right. I mean, it's not the 

21 technologies, it's that when you add them all 

22 up, we're not going to save 64 percent on a 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 337

1 cooler by slapping on a three-pane glass door. 

2 I mean, we can slap on a door, we can spend a 

3 couple of million dollars and put another 

4 half-inch of foam on our fixtures. We can put 

5 some light sensors on. We're not going to save 

6 64 percent, so we think the underlying 

7 engineering is wrong. That's the key. You 

8 know, it's like the last time around, we 

9 didn't have the sense at the last rulemaking 

10 that the numbers are wrong. If you want to 

11 force customers into using this type of 

12 technology, at least the underlying numbers 

13 are correct. You would save money, or save 

14 energy by going to an Argon-filled door. We 

15 could agree on that value of savings. These 

16 numbers don't look right. 

17 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, we will provide 

18 the spreadsheet, short answer to that one, and 

19 everyone could play with it, put in their 

20 numbers and see if, in fact, what you said is 

21 backed up by the spreadsheet. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 338

1 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. I 

2 agree with Bruce. There are lots of issues 

3 here as far as the underlying numbers. I just 

4 pointed out a few of them in one of the 

5 earlier slides where we were looking at a 

6 magnitude of three to four times the volume 

7 being sold, what you've included in your 

8 numbers. And that's a pretty solid estimate. 

9 It could be more than that. That's what we're 

10 aware of. 

11 MR. CYMBALSKY: That's good 

12 information, and I hope that the comments you 

13 can provide and any data you can provide to 

14 help us with our Shipment -- 

15 MR. HON: That's a very difficult 

16 thing, because a lot of our customers do not 

17 wish to have their sales data given out. And 

18 that'll be a difficult one. 

19 MR. CYMBALSKY: I mean, we honestly 

20 don't care who you're selling it to. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 339

1 MR. HON: I know that, but there's 

2 issues of private ownership companies, as 

3 well. 

4 MR. CYMBALSKY: Yes, okay. 

5 MR. HON: Because of market 

6 positioning, and things like that. It's a 

7 difficult thing we're looking at here. But do 

8 I believe the industry as a whole can achieve 

9 a great deal of what that carbon savings that 

10 is out there? Yes, I believe that we can. Do I 

11 believe we can cut the power consumption on 

12 these products a substantial amount? Yes, I 

13 do. I've been a proponent of that, but there 

14 comes a point when you can't do all the things 

15 at one time, because we're looking at changing 

16 fixtures in our foam structure here, adding 

17 more foam, thicker walls, more insulation. 

18 You know, if we want to look at 

19 vacuum panels, we drive the cost up 

20 astronomically. If we don't look at vacuum 

21 panels, we don't get enough insulation to make 

22 a major impact into the energy efficiency. So, 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 340

1 millions of dollars would be involved in 

2 changing foam fixtures for us alone, because 

3 there are that many of them, and they are very 

4 costly to remake. And depends on which type of 

5 foam you run. If you run certain types of 

6 foam, it's ambient temperature, and the 

7 fixture modification is minimal. It is costly, 

8 but it it can be done. If you're running other 

9 types of foam where you have to have a heated 

10 fixture, fixtures can be several hundred 

11 thousand dollars a piece, and modification of 

12 a fixture for that could be $40-50,000 change 

13 per item. And we have multiples of these, so 

14 then you start looking at okay, we have to 

15 discuss an alternate compressor, which means 

16 we discuss an alternate compressor, tubing, 

17 evaporators, fans all have to be balanced. So, 

18 now we have four or five hundred base products 

19 that take months to redesign. 

20 MR. COUSINS: Consider all 

21 refrigerants when you do that -- 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 341

1 MR. HON: Yes. So, we have to 

2 consider existing today refrigerants, 

3 refrigerants that are on the books as 

4 supposedly viable in the very near future for 

5 low carbon footprinting. And we have hundreds 

6 of products to do this on. This is eating the 

7 whole elephant in one bite. It'll usually 

8 choke you to death. 

9 MR. COUSINS: What I struggle with 

10 when I look at the numbers, and I ask myself 

11 does this pass the straight face test is when, 

12 for example, I look at these TSL4 numbers for 

13 pull-down units versus maintenance temperature 

14 units, and I see that the numbers allow a 

15 maintenance unit to consume much more energy 

16 than a pull-down unit. You know, there's 

17 something that's not right there. I know there 

18 was a great deal of analysis that took place, 

19 but intuitively, that just doesn't make any 

20 sense. 

21 I think these numbers really need 

22 to be looked at again, and not just looked at 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 342

1 from an analytical perspective, but from a 

2 practical perspective. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Steve. 

4 Charlie. 

5 MR. McCRUDDEN: Charlie McCrudden, 

6 Air Conditioning Contractors of America. I 

7 think there's a lot of people who have a stake 

8 here that aren't in the room, and we've heard 

9 that restaurant folks, chain gas stations, 

10 supermarkets, small supermarkets. You know, 

11 our members are a lot of small businesses, and 

12 I mean small businesses, but they do service, 

13 they do sell, install with air quotes this 

14 equipment. Their customers, ultimately, have 

15 to pay for this equipment. 

16 So, what I would recommend is -

17 since it's not too late – we still have 

18 another step in this process. I think that it 

19 would be beneficial, even if it's just for 

20 anecdotal information, to reach out to the 

21 Restaurant Association, perhaps NFIB or the 

22 Franchise Association; they represent a lot of 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 343

1 franchisees. I think the chain gas stations, 

2 and I can't remember the acronym or the name 

3 of that association. 

4 NACS, yes. And I think they have 

5 something to say because, ultimately, they're 

6 the ones buying it. The manufacturers do care 

7 what happens to this equipment after it leaves 

8 their loading dock because, ultimately, if no 

9 one is going to buy it , if my members aren't 

10 going to install it or buy it, we will see 

11 cases where the end-user elects to maintain, 

12 repair instead of buying new equipment. And, 

13 ultimately, the 1.001 quad number won't be 

14 achieved. 

15 So, with the time that we have in 

16 the comment period, and if the consultants or 

17 whoever can reach out, I think that would be 

18 helpful, again, even if it's just anecdotal 

19 information. Thanks. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: So, I think we've 

21 made the transition now, and I think we're 

22 getting closing remarks. So, let's finish 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 344

1 closing remarks, and I'm going to hand out the 

2 evaluation forms. Please take a minute, that's 

3 all it takes, to fill these out, and let's 

4 hear from anybody that hasn't done so already, 

5 closing remarks. Aniruddh. 

6 MR. ROY: More of a question. John 

7 just mentioned that the spreadsheet will be 

8 made available to us. Would DOE consider maybe 

9 extending the comment period by a few days so 

10 that manufacturers can review it, and provide 

11 substantive comments? I know you're already 

12 under the gun with respect to the deadline, 

13 but we'd really appreciate an extension, if 

14 possible. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, Robert. 

16 MR. WILKINS: Just to reiterate 

17 what I think everybody around this table has 

18 said. We all support energy efficiency 

19 improvements in this market sector, and we all 

20 believe that significant improvements can be 

21 made, so we support DOE on this effort. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 345

1 What I've heard is a lot of 

2 questions about some of the assumptions that 

3 are in TSL4. The difference between TSL3 and 

4 TSL4 is very small, about 10 percent. So, I 

5 would urge, let's get these questions answered 

6 by TSL regarding the technologies that are in 

7 TSL4, but let's get a solution that we are 

8 comfortable we can work with and get 

9 implemented, and do it within the time frame 

10 that's been proposed, and you'll have strong 

11 industry support. So, I'd urge just some 

12 pragmatism in this, and then let's complement 

13 it by doing some of the other voluntary things 

14 on there, and industry will support you in 

15 doing that. If there is an increment of 

16 difference between 3 and 4, we'll make it up. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Mary? 

18 MS. DANE: I'm kind of going by 

19 some of the other comments, but we think 

20 there's been a lot of questions raised about 

21 the assumptions that were used to come up with 

22 the numbers. And I believe that it really 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 346

1 warrants, if it's possible to slow down this 

2 process, at least because you have an 

3 aggressive date with your final rule. And 

4 there are so many things that need to be 

5 reevaluated that we hope the Department might 

6 slow down some of the speed at which they're 

7 going to this. And like Robert brought up, you 

8 know, if we could get some answers to those 

9 questions, if we could get some of these 

10 assumptions cleared up and there'd be a little 

11 more data that we can go back and actually 

12 recreate in our own companies, that would be 

13 very helpful to us. Thank you. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Jeff. 

15 MR. BAUMAN: I just want to say a 

16 couple of things, how much we appreciate as 

17 manufacturers being able to sit in a room with 

18 the Department of Energy and that people you 

19 have dedicated to this, and being a part of 

20 the discussion with you. Sometimes when you go 

21 through things in writing and provide written 

22 comments and such, it can be difficult. We hit 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 347

1 on different issues that maybe we didn't even 

2 consider when you're reading through several 

3 hundred pages of documentation, so we really 

4 appreciate being heard, and I think honestly 

5 discussing items. 

6 I would encourage, again based on, 

7 we've had some discussions about the deadline 

8 also. I think manufacturers and the numbers of 

9 issues that are here are going to have I'll 

10 say a tough time going into too much detail on 

11 some of the issues. I think my goal would be 

12 to make sure I hit at least a point on 

13 everything that I think is a concern or an 

14 item to be raised. 

15 I surely see that after that point 

16 there's going to be additional work that DOE 

17 will be doing. I encourage them to bring 

18 manufacturers into that process, the groups 

19 that are involved in that process. I think 

20 using a negotiated working group or negotiated 

21 rulemaking for the certification and 

22 compliance was very beneficial from a lot of 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 348

1 different ways. I don't know how those things 

2 progress, but that seems like it would be a 

3 possibility for something like this with as 

4 many issues as there are, not that I would 

5 look forward to spending every two weeks back 

6 in D.C. again, but I think that whether it's 

7 our company or other companies, that is an 

8 excellent way to get issues discussed across 

9 the table and openly, and be able to do the 

10 type of analysis and get the issues worked 

11 through. So, again, just appreciate DOE 

12 hearing us out on this. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Charlie. 

14 MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. I 

15 want to thank you for having this process, but 

16 as an industry whole, I am sure, because I 

17 know there are certain people in the industry 

18 who are very, very tight on their budgets, and 

19 fear any change whatsoever because of 

20 increased burden of cost, up front cost versus 

21 profitability today. That's going to happen, 

22 but there are also plenty of us in this room, 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 349

1 and you know that we exist after lots of 

2 meetings through the past, that are very 

3 strong believers in energy efficiency as a 

4 theme that we believe in and want to support. 

5 And we truly do want to make products that 

6 meet high standards of efficiency, but we also 

7 have other things that we have even more 

8 concerning to us, is product safety, because 

9 when we're talking of food stuffs, we're 

10 talking major health issues. And we will not 

11 compromise on those points, so we are going to 

12 say okay, what can we do and guarantee that 

13 all the niche sections of the market can meet 

14 the standard, make the standard reasonably 

15 tough, but make it so that we can guarantee 

16 that we will still have food safety, ability 

17 to pull down soft drink temperatures in a 

18 reasonable time window, ability to keep a 

19 refrigerator cold when it's constantly being 

20 opened. Those are things that we have to deal 

21 with that don't technically fit within the 

22 standards consideration, but we as engineering 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 350

1 groups and manufacturers know where we have to 

2 go to get these pieces of information, and 

3 know what we have to do to supply our 

4 customers with what they want, and what they 

5 need. And those are things that we are very 

6 concerned about, but we will definitely 

7 support energy efficiency because we believe 

8 it's the right thing to do. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Bruce. 

10 MR. HIERLMEIER: Earlier you 

11 mentioned there's a way to submit confidential 

12 data. How would you provide it to us, so we 

13 know how to do that? Are you going to send out 

14 an email, or do you have a -- 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 

16 MR. CYMBALSKY: Don't send anything 

17 to me. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Harvey. 

19 MR. SACHS: As we close out this 

20 meeting and recognize the constraints on DOE 

21 budgets and everyone else's, one of the things 

22 that I find missing is not so much the 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 351

1 correlation between the models and the test 

2 performance, as between the whole rating 

3 method and any field calibration of it. 

4 Somehow in this community, DOE, the 

5 manufacturers, and major customers, it really 

6 would be nice to think about ways that we can 

7 start getting information on a reasonable 

8 sample of products in the field to see what 

9 correlation there is between the standards to 

10 which they've been built and their actual 

11 field energy use. 

12 It's hardly a novel concept, but 

13 in the last 30 years we've never been able to 

14 find the resources or to think about 

15 collaborative methods by which we might do 

16 this so we could tune our rating methods to 

17 reflect the conditions under which these 

18 products work. End of rant. Thank you. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional closing 

20 remarks? Okay, seeing none then to Charles 

21 Llenza. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 352

1 MR. LLENZA: I just wanted to 

2 finish up with that there is summary of the 

3 requests for comments at the end of the 

4 presentation. These are the questions that you 

5 could key on in providing the Department. 

6 Also, I wanted to emphasize how to submit the 

7 written comments and the deadline, and in 

8 addition to keep an eye on the website since 

9 we are under shutdown conditions here, and we 

10 don't know when the Department is going to be 

11 fully operational. So, we don't have the 

12 capacity right now to do everything we need to 

13 do, but to keep an eye on the website because 

14 if anything we have, including the spreadsheet 

15 that was talked about, that's the place we 

16 would put it up. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. And closing 

18 remarks from John Cymbalsky. 

19 MR. CYMBALSKY: Thanks, Doug. So, 

20 once again, thanks everybody for coming, and I 

21 think we all learned a lot today about what 

22 you all do, and what's in our rule, and we're 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 353

1 going to take all your comments, both what was 

2 said here today and what you submit in written 

3 form, and we will take them under 

4 consideration as we prepare a final rule. 

5 As was said in the outset, 

6 currently our time line is February for 

7 release of the final rule, so we are committed 

8 to working towards that deadline, and we hope 

9 that all the data that you support will help 

10 the Department make a very informed decision 

11 on this rulemaking. 

12 And, again, travel safe home, and 

13 thanks again for coming. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: And we should thank 

15 those that joined us via the web. Please, the 

16 Department includes you in wanting to receive 

17 comments, and thanks to everybody in the room 

18 for all the good commentary today. 

19 (Whereupon, the proceedings went 

20 off the record at 4:19 p.m.) 

21

22
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 354

A

abatement 16:1

ability 122:17

123:6 147:14

246:14 349:16,18

able 11:12 26:2,11

55:14 85:11 93:17

97:18 100:16

102:16 128:14

129:17,21 152:10

156:9 159:14

238:13 271:9,14

272:1,8 297:20

316:5 346:17

348:9 351:13

absence 52:5 97:13

203:6 219:3

absent 53:12

absolute 187:8,10

271:20

absolutely 57:1

63:22 76:14 78:5

137:17 138:1

absorb 230:19

absorbed 229:18

academic 36:15

42:18

ACCA 2:3 8:3

accept 145:11

acceptability

317:20

acceptable 40:17

263:2 317:22

acceptance 305:16

305:17

access 203:9

219:12 242:13

273:17 283:3

318:5,6

accessible 11:7

20:8

accommodate

138:7

accommodated

38:8

accomplish 306:13

account 50:10

146:11 147:10

151:14 157:13

198:9 208:11,17

232:1 260:18

272:4 274:15,16

275:8,18

accounted 146:14

151:13 220:14

275:2

accounting 50:10

accounts 86:2

87:18 110:17

116:12 122:19

173:16 174:17

198:20 199:1

283:3

accurate 205:14

259:22 260:11,14

accurately 245:7

ACEEE 2:6 14:17

39:19 42:11

159:17 232:6

achievable 318:4

334:1,16

achieve 74:20 86:7

86:13 87:14 88:5

126:14 226:6

306:17 307:2

309:4 339:8

achieved 119:1

133:19 343:14

acronym 343:2

act 23:13 246:4

280:21 281:2

327:8

action 293:14

295:7 302:13

307:20 320:4

322:6

actions 15:19

active 54:2 216:10

296:17

actively 297:4

activities 174:15

285:5 324:11

activity 223:11,18

actors 245:21

270:10

actual 67:21 78:16

78:19 106:4

118:13 153:22

154:6 179:15

288:8 332:2

351:10

adapt 204:15

add 33:19 51:22

101:13 105:1

108:10 126:8

176:21 178:3

185:15 198:3

216:6 227:9 248:2

249:19 336:21

added 14:18 46:5

63:15 117:5

135:21 141:18

192:2 232:19

240:11 286:19

287:10

adder 92:15

adding 37:22 38:1

38:1 63:16 70:3

105:5 140:16

315:19 339:16

addition 33:12 48:8

110:20 263:9

285:1 287:19

288:19 352:8

additional 20:19,20

30:9 33:16 47:20

49:8 50:17 58:14

84:18 89:10

117:17 121:8

131:19,20 134:9

139:18 140:19

148:12 162:17

174:21 185:16

193:17 200:7,11

200:14 202:14

206:7 207:19

209:12 215:8

217:20 266:19

271:22 276:14

285:7 291:8

307:21 311:6

317:5,18 347:16

351:19

additions 232:15

address 26:22

27:10 129:3

184:18

addressing 12:13

add-ons 324:7

adjust 282:20

adjusted 150:1

151:5,6

adjustment 215:2,6

Administration

273:5

adopted 25:3

149:18

advance 125:13

advanced 68:14,15

adverse 39:9,11

89:16 90:17 98:3

98:4 282:12

advise 66:8

advisement 69:22

70:13,19 79:15

98:8

advocates 331:15

AD10 253:22

AD9 253:22

AEDM 124:18

125:6

AEDMs 125:19,22

AEO 223:9 290:1

affect 41:9,21

96:19,20 122:4

150:17 153:14

194:15 213:2,3

322:7

affiliated 234:1

affiliation 5:11

10:16

afforded 208:7

afternoon 9:22

age 232:17

agencies 285:15

324:4 325:21

agenda 8:20

agents 217:15

aggregate 51:13

aggregated 234:8

aggressive 100:8

346:3

ago 75:17 105:17

279:7,15 285:19

300:20 313:12

agree 123:3 133:15

262:22 337:15

338:2

agreed 80:11

agreeing 133:15

agreement 334:3

agricultural 286:5

Ah 160:7

AHAM 25:3

ahead 4:12 29:12

64:21 89:12

108:21 168:20

200:1 237:15

244:18 260:6

275:6 282:2

311:10

AHRI 2:5 116:21

219:14 232:11

233:11,22 234:10

242:18 265:20

274:12 277:15

290:5 295:15

air 6:3,19 27:16

38:6 42:6,8,12

53:16,16,18

110:21 113:22

114:3 116:5 122:4

122:20,22 123:8,8

123:9,12,16,17

150:15,21 151:6

151:12,15 152:1,5

154:14 157:11

161:4 162:6 163:2

163:7 212:4

280:18 336:10

342:6,13

algorithm 221:19

Alliance 7:21

allotted 315:6

allow 128:3 219:17
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 355

245:6 288:17

341:14

allowable 303:13

allowed 31:20 40:9

45:14 46:13

146:21 155:14

allowing 25:22

127:22

allows 100:15

alluding 130:17

Alright 328:9

altered 294:15

alternate 124:7

128:2 340:15,16

alternative 125:9

127:12 152:13

183:21 281:9

294:12,20 328:4

332:20 333:1

alternatives 293:10

293:13 295:1,6,10

326:16 327:11,12

ambient 112:21

113:3 122:22

340:6

amend 23:21

amended 4:18

22:12 23:4,13

26:5 108:16 268:2

268:19

amending 25:13

amendments 25:17

America 212:5

280:18 342:6

American 6:6

23:12 79:19

amount 104:16

123:17 129:16

147:12 150:11

259:1 260:15

266:2 288:13

339:12

amounts 128:1

290:8 297:18

ample 237:18

analyses 9:18 30:21

31:3,6 43:5

155:11 246:6

282:8

analysis 3:5,6,7,7,9

3:10,10,11,12

9:10,10,13,13,14

9:15,16,18 12:14

20:10 24:6,9 36:4

36:8,9 41:8 43:1,4

43:7,12,14,17,19

43:21 44:7,22

45:21 46:13 47:7

47:11,13,19,21

48:1 49:5 51:5,7

52:13 53:1,3

58:21 59:2,5,7,10

60:1 71:3 76:8

77:3,12 80:10

103:9 105:12,22

106:1,15,16 108:6

110:6 120:11,17

122:17 127:15

128:20 129:9

134:12 135:10

141:1 142:1,5,9

145:4,17 148:22

149:6,7,12,17

152:10 154:16,18

165:14 166:2,10

166:10,12,13,18

167:4 171:20

172:10,21 174:11

175:4,6,11,17

177:5,22 181:19

185:10 187:6

192:18 196:9

197:1 199:7 202:5

206:4 208:22

210:2 216:13

218:2,3,4,5,6,10

218:17,19,21

219:13 220:3

221:3 232:17

242:13 245:15

246:18,21 247:21

248:11,17,18

249:2 251:6,13

254:13 255:11

256:4 257:4

258:18 259:15

262:19 264:9

265:12,13,15,15

265:18 266:20

267:14,22 268:1

269:4,6,13,14

270:17 271:6

272:7 275:4

276:11 281:6,17

282:10 284:4,5,8

284:13 287:20,21

287:22 288:4,6,14

289:1,3,7 292:1,2

293:8 294:8

295:16 299:19

300:3,8,13 305:6

307:13 309:12

310:9 311:12

315:18 321:6

324:6 328:8

329:14,20 330:18

333:2 341:18

348:10

analysts 82:2

analytical 51:11,21

53:2 56:20 89:7

146:3 149:22

160:11,12 253:17

254:3 290:16

342:1

analyze 228:2

analyzed 47:18

48:6 51:6 54:6

155:6 157:15

158:17 174:2

284:3

analyzing 124:1

Anderson 1:13,14

5:12,12,22,22

72:13,13 75:12,12

83:19 84:3 89:13

89:13 98:18,18

99:1,3,15,15

104:20 127:5

132:5,5 141:12,16

142:3,12,14,16

143:4 188:14,14

189:16 190:5,12

190:16,21 191:17

234:22 236:5,7

237:1,4

and/or 39:8

anecdotal 342:20

343:18

angle 53:16

Aniruddh 2:5 6:19

265:19,20 274:11

274:12 290:5

295:15 344:5

ANNE 2:2

annual 167:1

178:12,15,21

179:20 183:10

194:1 201:17

204:3 221:5 332:5

annualize 191:19

annualized 179:10

182:22 183:9

191:13,20

answer 81:9 120:6

159:1 187:16

224:17 225:18

226:10,17 240:5

275:17 278:1

308:13 312:15

331:16 335:15,17

337:18

answered 20:16

345:5

answers 346:8

anti 19:10 111:3,20

anticipate 204:20

217:8

anticipated 277:4

anti-condensate

131:18

anti-fog 38:2

anti-sweat 19:3

38:3 41:14 42:2

111:16 112:16,18

117:21 129:7,11

131:2,5,15

anybody 8:22 10:2

82:1 237:10 318:6

344:4

anymore 45:6

228:13

anyway 210:20

244:19 319:20

apart 176:14

179:13 331:3

apologize 102:18

162:7

appear 295:11

appears 16:21

122:10 197:22

208:21

appendix 57:3

81:12 253:3

apples 78:22,22

192:4,4

appliance 2:1 6:12

13:6 20:3 87:5

88:21 225:21

appliances 247:11

applicable 37:5

38:21 62:13,15

77:18 109:21

140:15 154:19

application 27:2

50:5

applications 49:17

50:6 85:6,16,16

90:12 101:8 216:3

306:18

applied 62:18

135:17 149:12

152:12 172:15

173:3,9

applies 74:10

271:12,18

apply 37:2,19

46:22 144:18

178:17,19 260:17

261:7

applying 68:15

appreciate 12:15

123:4 185:17

186:16 195:10

256:11 300:2
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 356

316:5 321:21

344:13 346:16

347:4 348:11

approach 106:14

106:20 156:11

203:12 254:19

265:14 278:21

313:16

appropriate 36:10

260:16 282:22

331:1 333:8

approvals 127:21

approved 126:14

approximate

134:13

approximately

315:6

area 53:11,12,14

76:9 113:5,16,17

115:5 122:15

123:5 136:8 149:9

151:20 154:11

157:4 168:16

193:18 216:10

231:3 294:5

307:13 329:6

areas 109:6 122:1

131:17 222:18

229:14 237:18

argon-filled 63:12

63:12 337:14

ARI 24:21

Aris 1:22 8:9 81:3

81:4,5

arises 173:12

Armstrong 1:14

8:7,7 259:21

260:2,7,10 261:12

261:15,19 262:9

262:12 266:12

308:3,6 309:1,7

309:16 310:6,11

arrive 177:17

192:13

Ash 333:7

Ashley 1:14 8:7

260:2,3,6,7,9

261:17 263:9

266:17 311:5

ASHRAE 19:14

25:2 112:8 144:17

aside 38:20 90:8

98:5

asked 71:10 82:5

91:12 108:1

153:13 182:11

199:17 229:11

331:15

asking 61:8 81:7

87:9 107:13 108:5

120:3 127:1 195:3

229:6 312:4

317:21

aspect 121:11

137:21 286:14

aspects 40:18

ASRAC 125:11

233:20

assemblages 189:2

assembled 139:16

175:5

assembly 79:12

asserted 228:8

asserting 160:8

assess 44:1 268:2

327:2

assesses 77:16

assessment 3:5 9:9

31:9 33:21 35:17

35:20,22 36:13

44:6 59:1 80:9

assigned 67:7

175:1

assimilate 332:8

associated 15:14

166:16 174:15

176:3 177:18

178:13,22 180:7

188:8,15 189:6,11

189:19 192:19

193:3,4 200:11

210:15 223:4

231:20 232:3

244:15 248:3,5,14

254:11 265:5

266:11 283:17

284:20 285:9

286:1 287:4,15,16

291:18 295:8

associates 247:1

association 79:20

207:13 238:9,9,10

342:21,22 343:3

associations 238:8

246:3

assume 159:3

276:7 304:10

317:17

assumed 60:5 80:2

80:11,15 112:17

113:6 117:7,8

118:2 179:16

180:20 330:19

assumes 89:20

assuming 46:12

86:17 95:10 98:13

194:5

assumption 71:16

73:3,10 94:11

203:14 235:13

244:16

assumptions 53:6

57:5 66:9 110:13

129:20 179:4

208:3 288:9 345:2

345:21 346:10

astronomically

339:20

attached 192:22

attainable 65:11

90:7 92:10

attempt 75:1

attention 143:10

164:9

attractive 18:13

46:7

attributed 106:13

attributes 60:11

67:1,6 212:20

atypical 22:17

audience 134:5

audio 163:16

auxiliary 111:14,20

117:3

availability 39:10

98:4

available 36:5,6

48:17 56:20 60:18

60:21 69:12,17,20

72:6,10 74:2,22

75:18 80:5 85:10

86:10,13 87:7,8

88:13 92:9 95:7

95:16 96:3 120:19

121:17 122:13

126:11,15 127:20

128:7,14,15

133:20 138:11,14

138:15 147:9

200:22 203:20,21

222:2 231:22

236:13 301:13

312:17 314:5,9

333:16 344:8

Avenue 1:9

average 51:13

123:1 147:10,11

147:16 151:15

153:21 166:20,22

210:2,4,6 223:1

259:4 283:20

303:12

avoided 285:21

330:6

aware 65:13,14,15

72:9 83:16 204:12

234:9 280:8

338:10

Awareness 2:1 6:13

13:6

awful 40:11 299:12

axis 16:1

A-F-T-E-R-N-O-...

165:1

a.m 1:10 4:2 21:13

21:14 164:15

B

back 11:3 21:13,21

45:3,8 46:4 55:8

62:11 73:2 79:22

83:14 84:12 91:12

95:10 100:2

106:20 107:5,6,20

112:19 116:11

128:20 151:9

153:16,20 161:1

164:7,13 165:3

168:5 170:17

172:4 177:14

182:18 192:2,4

196:12 210:16

211:9 214:13

217:6 224:22

226:1 232:6 233:5

234:22 249:7

258:16 267:7,9

282:5 298:22

300:21 301:11

304:3 306:8

308:17 309:8

311:5,17,18 316:1

318:3,20 319:10

320:18 321:10

322:5 324:20,21

346:11 348:5

backed 337:21

background 22:11

70:9 193:17

218:11

backward 100:14

bad 17:15 102:2

270:10 299:11

badge 164:3

balance 50:10

204:4 247:14

265:8 283:13

balanced 340:17

balances 275:15

ball 333:12,20

Ballo 1:15 7:18,18

104:11,11 332:13

332:14,14

Baltimore 12:21

bands 263:22
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 357

Barrel 18:9

barrier 101:13,14

base 115:19 134:21

203:3 204:8,19

205:16 219:3

247:4 250:3 257:2

257:6,18,19

258:13 271:21

288:11 289:21

293:16 295:7

296:2,5 320:1

340:18

based 32:10 59:11

60:14 64:8 66:22

71:10,19 72:20

73:5 74:2,13

89:16 92:22 95:6

96:2 111:16 112:1

115:8,17,22

117:19 120:2,17

135:3 149:8

155:11 158:15

159:9 172:7 186:6

196:22 216:17

223:1,18 225:4

232:11 235:6

236:8 251:12

273:5 297:20

306:14 308:3

311:17 323:12

333:15 334:2

335:2,4 347:6

baseline 44:2,14,17

46:5,21 53:13

109:15,19 172:22

173:1,3,7,11

174:9,12,17

175:15 177:7

180:19 181:7,10

185:20,22 194:3

203:1 210:7

221:20 252:20

258:16 305:10

312:16 321:1,13

321:16 327:20

329:11,12 336:8

bases 259:16

basic 91:20 260:13

301:8 302:17

304:21 305:15

324:5

basically 32:2

49:21 68:15 141:1

149:13 150:15

179:22 223:8

269:6 301:2,12,14

303:6

basis 15:1 16:17

47:16 51:5 54:6

59:4 122:21 123:1

142:10 182:5

260:19 271:10

300:9 309:11

Bauman 1:15 6:2,2

49:10,10 95:1,3,3

103:2,2 121:15

123:3 124:14

153:12 157:21

158:6,12 159:2,13

161:9,20 162:1,19

162:19 184:12

185:1,13 193:15

194:14 237:13

238:6 304:17

316:1 320:6,6

321:21 322:12,17

333:5 346:15

bear 250:11

beaten 233:20

began 269:14

beginning 45:9

92:21 126:20

214:6

behavior 231:6

245:20

behavioral 246:5

belief 15:10

believe 13:9 74:17

75:5 81:11 87:11

99:16 214:7 225:6

238:19 253:3

260:10 274:16,21

279:14 290:15

307:12 328:7

339:8,10,11

344:20 345:22

349:4 350:7

believed 156:14

believers 349:3

bending 289:9

beneficial 342:19

347:22

benefit 211:2

252:11 262:4

265:10 307:12

benefits 265:8

286:20 330:1

336:3

benefitted 165:6

benign 88:20

Berkeley 1:16,17

7:12,14

best 10:22 12:1

85:9 86:12 87:1,7

87:14 92:8 93:20

138:11,13,15

139:17 145:20

147:7,9 295:12

301:10 329:20

335:13 336:15

best-in-class 140:4

better 20:1 27:11

63:21 86:22

121:22 145:22

152:3,3,14 154:15

159:15 194:6

249:12 318:16

334:10

beverage 85:17

96:7 296:19,20

beverages 35:1

86:3

beyond 140:9

169:19 208:13

224:18 306:4

312:17

bias 121:1 150:8

234:4

big 78:8 103:20

164:5 195:11

196:10 217:16

222:12 246:7

301:16 317:2

bigger 72:17 133:8

157:9

biggest 111:7

153:15

bill 13:12

billion 13:18

329:15 330:6

bin 222:5

bit 14:16 19:6 41:4

43:13 54:14 55:19

81:19 130:10

135:10 143:11

148:21 149:2

198:15 248:22

256:22 264:17

bite 341:7

blade 37:8 38:16

113:9

blah 108:12,12,12

108:13,13

blast 26:11

blessed 237:18

block 78:8

blowing 217:15

blue 112:7 319:14

blurrier 333:12

board 71:18 296:11

297:11

Bob 6:4 94:6

body 66:13

Bolduc 1:16 7:13

7:13 171:7,7,14

171:17 172:1,1

books 29:6 341:3

bothers 324:18

bottle 34:20

bottom 178:9 239:9

253:20

bound 271:8,16

box 48:14 215:9

266:18

boxes 12:10,12

93:9

boy 195:5

brain 10:17

brainer 94:15

brake 186:22

break 9:11,19,20

21:11 81:20 82:1

108:19 130:7

148:17 264:16

267:2

breakdown 219:15

breakdowns 255:3

breakpoint 68:4,4

breakpoints 50:14

breaks 202:4

244:13

Brenda 7:16

bridge 252:19

brief 9:1 293:10

briefly 9:6 24:19

bright 4:11

bring 13:3 248:4

275:16 301:11

347:17

bringing 98:14

broach 106:10

broad 19:2 36:5

brochures 36:17

broke 31:21

broken 36:22

110:14

Brookman 1:10,12

4:3 5:5 7:6 8:11

12:9,19,20 14:2,5

14:7,11,15 20:18

21:5,10,15 22:15

28:4,7,20 29:14

30:7,15 39:16,18

48:20 49:8 50:17

50:21 54:11 56:2

56:18 57:8 58:1

58:14,17 61:3

62:21 64:21 67:10

68:8 69:10 70:20

72:11 73:12,19

75:11 76:18,21

79:16 80:20 81:3

81:19 83:1,4,12

84:11 86:15 89:6

89:9 91:10 93:3
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 358

94:5,22 95:2 98:9

98:17 100:1 101:3

102:14 104:10

105:7 107:18

108:17 114:5,19

115:1 118:6 121:7

121:13 123:21

124:11 125:3

126:4 127:3,16

128:4,16 130:6

131:19 133:12

134:1,7 139:11

140:20 141:11

143:7 144:5

147:20 148:1,5,8

148:10,15 150:3

152:17 153:11

155:3 156:22

157:20 158:21

159:16 160:15

162:17 163:10,13

165:3,16 168:10

168:19 169:14

170:7,21 171:5,12

171:21 172:2,11

180:11 181:13,16

181:21 183:11

184:2,10 185:18

186:3 188:13

191:9 195:15

196:4,6 198:2

199:19 200:1,6

206:14 207:19

208:1 209:12,15

212:1 213:17

214:20 215:8,18

216:19 217:19,22

224:3 225:16

226:15 232:4

234:21 237:12,14

238:5 239:1

240:18 241:2,5,16

241:22 243:11,13

243:16,20 244:3

246:16 255:6

256:12 257:10,15

259:10 260:2,6

264:11,14 265:19

266:16 267:1,11

267:18 274:11

275:20 276:14

277:7,10 278:5,22

280:5,15 281:22

282:6 289:5 296:7

300:15 303:19

304:1,15 305:3,12

306:8 307:14

311:3,9 313:20

314:15 315:22

317:7 319:18

320:21 325:6

326:5 328:14,16

331:12 332:12

333:4 335:10,19

336:17 337:22

342:3 343:20

344:15 345:17

346:14 348:13

350:9,15,18

351:19 352:17

353:14

Brookman/John

3:3

brought 27:14

48:10 68:12

152:21 229:1

277:9,12 315:20

320:9 346:7

Bruce 1:19 6:14

44:20,21 54:12

56:2 62:21,22

64:22 68:11 69:10

82:3,4 89:18

101:3,4 105:8,9

128:17 144:5,6

148:2 182:1,2

183:12 184:14

257:15,17 336:17

336:18 338:2

350:9

Brundage 1:16 8:4

8:4 169:11,11,14

169:15,15 304:4,4

335:19,20,20

brushed 122:16

Btu 127:9 247:10

Budget 300:4,5

budgets 348:18

350:21

build 44:15 46:7

53:1 58:11 68:13

78:20 85:12 93:9

120:4 132:6

221:15 232:14

288:3 308:10

311:19

building 4:9 19:15

125:19 164:4

167:7 169:8,10,18

169:19,22 170:1

216:8 289:20

buildings 20:2

builds 53:9

buildup 169:20

build-out 221:7

288:15

built 54:5 55:18

119:20 125:22

151:19 351:10

bulb 189:20

bulbs 180:6 189:15

190:2 192:14,15

195:19

bulb-emitting

112:13

bulk 43:15,16

269:10 294:3

bullet 219:11 244:7

283:10

bunch 253:9,9

319:7

burden 252:10

276:17 280:7,19

317:5 322:11

348:20

burdensome 18:20

Bureau 255:19

burned 285:1

business 17:10,17

17:18 18:1 69:1

86:8 88:6 125:19

221:8 225:22

226:13 233:14

248:13 268:7

273:3,4,14 296:15

businesses 13:18

17:8 196:14 202:6

273:2,14 281:5

283:2,12 296:12

342:11,12

busy 26:7

buy 99:21 203:13

203:19 207:2

227:4 236:16

293:20 343:9,10

buyers 213:14,15

buying 343:6,12

buys 132:10

C

C 4:1

cabinet 85:12

86:18 88:7 93:12

93:19,20,21 96:11

103:14 123:9,17

134:20 154:21

162:9 191:14,16

193:11 307:1

314:10

cabinets 74:12,12

75:1,8 85:4 87:2

87:13,16 88:18

98:20 128:7,11

cafeteria 164:5

cakes 102:7

calculate 157:3

166:15 178:12

243:1 247:21

calculated 41:10,21

111:9,18 116:5

117:4 157:4 179:9

242:21 329:3

calculates 109:12

110:22

calculating 53:12

53:17 180:4 201:5

calculation 166:1

177:10 254:18

calculations 53:15

112:1,18 216:21

302:18

calibration 351:3

California 2:3 6:17

14:13 18:22 19:5

224:8,10,16,21

225:20 226:7,9

237:9 318:6 319:5

call 130:14 162:1

176:16 203:3

287:21

called 32:1 175:19

202:1 222:2

284:22 285:20

calm 126:13

capabilities 94:4

capability 129:14

137:16

capable 315:10

capacity 115:21

223:4 256:7

268:10 288:15,21

352:12

capital 138:20

271:21 272:20

273:17,17 283:6

283:14

captive 318:22

capture 19:10

55:15 176:2 292:8

captured 168:22

captures 183:6

capturing 169:2

car 99:6

carbon 15:8 16:1,3

16:8 126:17

285:17,20 286:1

286:10,17 287:5

290:7 296:19,21

330:4 339:9 341:5

care 306:21 338:20

343:6

Carlo 176:9

carried 131:10

335:5

carry 168:1
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 359

case 19:7 37:12

39:12 40:4 52:20

52:21,21,21 53:10

53:11,18,22 54:1

61:22 64:6 66:14

70:6 99:9,9,14

101:18,20 102:11

104:16 106:2

107:2 110:15,18

110:22 112:13,17

112:19 113:2

114:3,12 115:4,10

123:1 129:8,10

131:16 134:19

135:18 143:13

145:20,22 157:13

161:3,4,5 168:2,4

168:14 169:21

170:11 172:4

182:17 189:18

192:10 193:1

196:10,15 203:3

204:9,19 205:17

218:22 219:3

236:12 247:4

248:4 252:17

256:3 257:1,2,6

257:19 258:13

271:8 283:17

284:3 288:11

289:22 293:16

296:3 299:10,10

320:1

cases 34:6,8,18

37:21 45:6 60:17

61:13,15 62:4,6,8

62:11 99:14,16,17

99:22 101:6 102:5

102:13 113:6

116:18,22 117:2

128:22 147:11

151:16 167:18,21

170:15,17,19

174:2,7 177:8

180:21 185:21

202:6 209:21

219:19,19 220:11

221:12 228:10

231:5 234:7

235:17 252:16

255:15 257:18

258:19 294:18

299:12 319:3

343:11

case/closed 170:11

cash 268:15,16

cast 38:20

casts 36:4

catalogues 52:7

categories 127:20

206:17 210:11

255:13 257:13

298:10 302:18

categorizing 31:19

category 49:15

80:3 210:17 298:6

298:14 301:1

316:12,19 317:4

caught 39:21 143:9

212:10 249:13

cause 67:21

caused 15:11

caveat 83:2 215:21

CBECs 201:10

283:19

CC 276:20

cell 10:20

Census 269:9

census-driven

233:10

certain 20:1 25:22

26:20 52:5 67:1

76:12 87:10

127:20 196:15

206:19 221:10

229:14 255:13

279:22 288:9

309:10 330:14

340:5 348:17

certainly 15:5

50:13 55:20 69:21

70:18 125:16

143:9 150:2

154:11,16,18

165:5 187:3

215:20 216:15

232:2 237:17

291:7 300:7 332:6

certainty 333:3

certification 27:15

29:1,4,7,11 57:15

57:17 58:4 125:12

146:6,7 159:11

250:21 273:19

347:21

certifications

272:21

certified 126:22

234:1 314:3

certifies 77:16

certify 30:3 78:21

cetera 111:21

174:18 280:9

chain 47:3 134:15

342:9 343:1

chains 168:15

198:13

chain-related

207:14

chairman 127:19

chalkboard 100:19

challenge 313:12

chance 151:11

change 15:4 82:10

88:15 95:16 101:7

102:12 150:10

152:2 156:18

169:9 170:5

177:18 185:5

189:20 205:11,16

211:5,6 224:12,22

225:15 227:7

228:19 229:11

235:22 254:2

255:14 268:18

275:10 283:15

288:15 292:18

301:1 304:20

305:2 340:12

348:19

changed 102:4

105:15,18 106:17

106:21 184:6

changes 107:5

158:8,19 163:8

169:7 185:5 190:4

224:6 226:21

230:7 264:21

266:3 275:14

286:7 297:10

changing 169:22

180:5 189:19

224:7 339:15

340:2

channel 166:5

173:2,6 174:14,17

175:2 176:20

283:4

channels 166:8

172:18 173:14

174:1,6,19

chapter 33:20

36:21 41:19 49:2

49:7 60:12,21

81:14 141:2

142:10 156:21

159:21 197:9

characteristic

155:17

characteristics

43:19 49:20 50:3

51:20 52:12,16

54:4 159:6 162:6

167:12

characterize 44:5

59:21

charge 74:14 88:21

217:5

Charles 1:19,22 2:3

3:4,14 7:2 21:5,7

21:17 126:6

195:15 206:15

351:20

Charlie 5:16 8:2

28:4,9,21 29:14

30:7 32:21 38:9

67:10,11 89:11

91:10,11 93:3,4

107:21 121:14

123:21,22 125:3

127:17,18 150:3,4

152:20 157:1

195:16 198:6

206:16 212:3

216:19,20 224:3,4

229:9 239:2,3

277:1 278:22

280:17 281:20

300:15 302:7

304:18 310:17

314:15,16 316:19

320:9 321:3 324:2

329:2 335:5

337:22 338:1

342:4,5 348:13,14

chart 184:18 185:2

188:10 191:12,20

227:1

charts 206:18

cheap 170:17

cheaper 188:18

207:17 248:9

cheapest 222:1

check 66:7,8 94:17

107:1 119:19

192:13

checked 234:5

261:10

checking 258:2

checks 56:9

chest 34:16,16

Chevrolet 197:15

chill 34:22

chlorofluorocarb...

15:14

choice 251:16

choices 254:7

263:21

choke 341:8

choose 230:21

choosing 196:22

chose 43:9,14

257:20

chosen 52:13

143:12 252:3,6,14
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 360

252:18 253:5,12

299:13

Chris 1:16 2:7 6:8

7:13 76:18,19

83:3 136:3 171:7

172:1 267:21

280:6

Christopher 1:20

3:12 7:9 267:16

267:18

cited 233:13 269:20

claimed 301:2

clarification 45:11

123:4 157:22

180:10 184:13

185:20 320:7

321:22 326:9,12

328:13 334:19

clarify 26:20 83:18

95:4 169:6 174:21

307:16 311:4

319:20

clarifying 172:12

class 23:15 33:10

43:20 44:19 49:6

51:6,16 52:18

53:3,5,8 74:8 75:8

81:9,17 89:18

91:4,7,8 109:18

130:21 132:14

139:4,17 141:4,19

143:17 159:20

179:12 189:22

204:22 210:1,4

219:16 225:3

228:18,20 233:12

234:8 235:9,9

241:1 251:18

252:5,8,15 253:6

253:11,17 254:11

254:21 255:1,4

classes 31:10,15,20

33:16,20 34:3

35:18 37:4 43:9

43:10,13 47:9,12

47:13,13,17 48:4

48:4,8,13,16,17

48:21 49:3 50:12

50:19 54:5,7 57:2

57:7 61:20 72:15

89:15 90:13

110:11 142:15

155:6,8,12 156:9

157:15 186:1

188:9 189:4

211:11,20 219:21

220:18 222:13,21

223:5 234:2 235:2

235:5 239:16,18

240:2 241:6 245:9

253:10,12 254:2,8

classified 33:15

classifying 55:11

clean 182:14,18

185:8

cleaning 184:16

clear 45:18 83:22

143:2,6 152:7

297:17

cleared 346:10

clearly 7:7 102:17

200:10 220:17

280:9 313:22

cliff 143:20

clip 147:14

clog 67:20 79:13

close 84:19 124:15

126:4 207:15

240:19 282:9

332:2 350:19

closed 34:10,11,13

34:15 61:19 62:4

65:22 66:10 90:11

130:12 193:22

220:11 229:3

236:4 238:4

241:12

closed-door 49:16

122:3

closer 159:14

171:13 333:21

closes 150:21

closing 3:13 9:22

343:22 344:1,5

351:19 352:17

coal 285:1,3

Coast 229:19,19

coating 89:21 99:4

104:14

coatings 38:1 99:4

Coca 73:20

Coca-Cola 1:17

5:19 84:14 91:13

91:14,16,17 100:5

133:20 309:19

code 32:22 35:14

273:6 288:8

codified 23:19

coefficient 278:3

coffin 34:9

cognitive 298:16

coil 37:9 38:12

61:21 62:12 68:5

78:3,13 82:9

97:20 132:8

coils 37:9 67:13,13

67:16 78:7 116:15

132:16 133:9

153:15

Cola 73:21

cold 145:9 150:15

161:3,6 195:20

196:3 297:2

349:19

colder 145:7

collaborate 313:2

collaborative

313:16 351:15

collaborators

52:11

colleagues 187:7

199:10

collection 51:19

189:8

Collin 2:8 3:6,7 7:8

30:16,19 57:9

58:2 123:4 143:10

148:15,18 159:18

162:20 186:4,16

198:2

Collin's 92:13

column 133:6

209:18,22 210:1

211:2,3

columns 210:9

combination

210:12

combining 231:8

come 45:16 55:8

117:9 145:14

182:14 199:4

212:18 230:3

245:22 257:5

259:2,3 260:15

267:7 273:4

295:14 303:21

311:18 316:14

322:5 324:14,20

324:21 326:16

334:2 345:21

comes 233:3 274:3

289:22 336:3

339:14

comfortable 345:8

coming 59:2 84:11

100:2 141:6 142:8

146:16 218:20

260:17 280:10

281:17 304:3

308:1 322:14

352:20 353:13

commenced 1:8

commending

311:12

comment 9:3 11:1

22:3,5 26:15 41:4

48:15 52:15 54:9

55:20,22 61:1,8

62:19 68:2 69:8

70:11,18 73:11

77:22 81:4 82:21

86:17 89:3 90:16

92:13,17 96:4,6

96:11 97:8 98:12

102:15,18,19

108:5,10 118:5

125:15 127:4

129:9 131:20

134:9 136:4 139:4

139:7 147:22

148:2 150:2

152:16 156:21

160:16 162:20

185:15 195:10

196:7 199:12,15

199:20 200:3

212:19 215:9

218:11 243:21

256:10,13 266:18

279:2 291:7

300:19 304:2

313:21 314:2

324:12,13,14

326:7 329:7 333:5

343:16 344:9

commentary 165:6

311:6 353:18

commented 54:16

204:10

commenters 80:6

commenting 195:4

comments 10:9

12:15,17 20:19

21:4,21 22:1 30:9

36:18 48:19 49:9

50:14,17 54:10,17

58:15 60:19 61:4

67:8 76:14 89:4

89:10 121:8,12,15

131:20,21 138:4

139:14,15 148:7

148:12 152:17

156:22 162:17

163:11 165:9

174:9 181:22

183:12 197:4

199:13 200:13

206:14 207:19

209:12 215:8

217:19 256:14

266:19 274:8

276:15 300:17

330:21 331:12

338:12 344:11

345:19 346:22
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 361

352:3,7 353:1,17

commercial 1:3 4:6

4:17 13:13 22:10

22:13 23:6,15

24:12,20 25:12

26:1,9,19 27:15

29:2 31:10,18

34:15 45:13 49:13

54:19 60:15 67:19

84:17 86:2 87:18

124:3 127:22

150:6 201:19

213:10 214:8

221:7 223:10,10

225:19 232:13,14

233:22 246:3,11

255:20 268:3

274:20 276:21

278:8 298:13

312:11 315:4,5

323:19 325:11,16

commercially 42:7

126:18 133:20

commissaries

313:8

Commission 318:7

commitments

214:10

committed 123:12

353:7

commoditization

208:11,18

commoditized

208:9

common 15:10

104:6 120:16

160:3

commonly 195:20

communications

300:21

community 73:6,7

104:7 351:4

commutated 63:9

63:10

companies 214:3

214:10,16 273:7

310:15 314:8

339:2 346:12

348:7

company 1:16 5:19

8:5 65:3 74:9

83:11 84:15

129:19 133:21

169:16 224:6

237:8 240:21

241:3 296:16,22

301:19 304:5

306:15 325:20

335:21 348:7

compare 18:12

63:1 82:2 107:9

251:7 291:14

305:10

compared 54:20

60:6 91:9 118:18

196:2 222:21

295:3,13 303:3

336:4

comparing 260:22

321:16 323:18

comparison 63:18

192:5 290:17

comparisons 20:6

119:15

compartment 25:4

compete 323:3

competing 283:7

competition 90:13

132:9 241:4

296:16 297:5

competitive 82:14

268:9 270:15

334:11

competitors 65:14

82:6 270:16

273:16

complement

345:12

complete 9:5

completed 29:17

completely 131:6

137:5 216:22

235:22

complex 163:4

compliance 23:11

24:16 25:8 26:21

27:3 29:8 56:13

57:12,16,21

144:10 146:8

147:18 258:7,7

261:1,9 263:3

268:12 275:7

277:4 330:13,17

330:18,21 331:4,7

331:9,13,20 332:6

332:16 347:22

complications

254:5

complied 256:20

256:22

comply 259:5,7

261:10 262:1

270:8

complying 56:16

140:10 257:8

component 60:17

64:9 111:16,20

115:11 117:3

137:4,6 263:14

274:4

componentry 72:3

components 27:1

86:18 96:2 111:2

111:15 112:12

115:15 135:1,6

136:9,10 150:10

263:17 333:14

composed 51:18

192:9 252:20

composition 254:1

compressor 71:1,2

71:6,9,11,17 72:5

72:6,7,10,18

75:18 92:11,14

93:11,12 94:3,9

95:8 111:7,10,12

111:19 115:16,18

115:20,21 116:12

116:19 117:5,9

119:10 120:8

126:12 159:4,4

263:13 340:15,16

compressors 38:11

62:17 71:5 72:2,4

73:1,4 75:21 94:1

94:8 95:6,15

132:15 312:19

314:13 319:4

333:14

comprised 43:15

comprises 34:19

266:1

compromise

349:11

computer 100:20

119:21 177:13

conceivable 164:10

concept 56:15

208:13 351:12

Concepts 1:14 6:1

conceptually

175:22

concern 78:1 82:5

96:16 100:5 122:2

133:3 217:16

219:6 270:3 283:2

308:21 324:3

347:13

concerned 40:15

91:19 97:1 184:7

199:5 229:5 270:6

270:21 290:7

296:15 305:13

316:7 350:6

concerning 349:8

concerns 96:9

100:17 153:19

158:7 238:15

334:5

concluded 167:14

172:8

conclusion 19:18

condensate 238:1

condenser 32:13

38:12,13,14,15

42:1 52:20 62:12

62:14 67:13 76:2

84:6 117:8 119:9

132:8,16 182:14

182:19 185:7

condensers 184:16

condensing 32:11

32:12,14 35:14

54:1 116:4,9,18

132:6,10 133:5

143:16 180:1

182:4 188:17,18

condition 79:5

97:22 113:20,21

113:21

conditioner 336:10

conditioning 6:3,20

27:16 167:7,16

212:4 280:18

342:6

conditions 41:15

77:14,17,19 78:18

84:10 97:4,10,13

97:14 98:5 109:14

110:4,17 111:12

111:13 112:4,8,8

115:22 116:1,3,4

195:19,21 330:14

351:17 352:9

conduct 26:16 88:6

conducted 31:3

43:5 52:10 78:17

97:9 106:17 139:8

149:6 226:13

268:21 297:13

conducting 257:3

conduction 53:12

110:19 113:13

114:13

conducts 117:2

confidential 138:16

139:3,9 350:11

configuration 27:1

32:10 123:17

162:4 271:1

configurations

109:16 197:8

configured 118:19

confirmation

184:13
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 362

conflict 28:19

confluence 227:20

confused 190:7

194:3,15

confusion 162:2,8

193:18

conjunction 26:5

66:17,19

consequences

183:22 227:18

229:3

conservation 1:3

4:6,18 24:5 275:1

conservative

262:11

consider 37:4

39:22 59:20 61:9

82:21 108:15

120:22 126:17

136:13 139:16

167:15 177:3

184:8 185:3

197:12,20 215:14

226:19 283:11

301:20 316:9

322:2 330:15

334:14 340:20

341:2 344:8 347:2

considerably 40:14

consideration

10:12 40:20 41:8

73:14,21 103:6

132:19 175:16

180:14 189:13,14

215:1 227:11

247:5 276:10,13

295:17 325:18

326:3 349:22

353:4

considerations

197:18 268:9

considered 39:2

48:5 50:4 59:3,11

60:10 62:2 78:14

80:10 81:2,18

96:13 103:12

136:13 162:14

167:8 172:10

173:15 181:4,18

182:9 185:9 198:7

214:18 238:13

276:1,2 291:8,11

295:2 310:2

311:21 315:1

327:21

considering 24:4

85:13 172:17

considers 38:22

consistency 314:20

consistent 33:9

48:2 107:10 167:9

consisting 110:2

consists 43:8

constant 18:7

41:15 91:14,15

151:7 155:16

315:10

constantly 87:6,13

349:19

constants 53:7

constitutes 266:6

320:3

constrained 219:10

constraint 252:9

constraints 104:6

268:10 350:20

construct 51:9

55:13 263:20

328:7

constructed 49:21

118:16

construction 57:6

67:1 69:1 155:20

consultants 312:2

343:16

consume 319:16

341:15

consumer 39:10

172:16 178:4

201:6 214:1,3,10

230:18 247:22

265:8,10,11 295:8

329:21 331:19

consumers 99:10

203:13 205:18

282:19

consuming 280:12

consumption 15:2

41:10,22 43:16

44:2 67:22 77:19

84:8 104:18 110:3

111:18,20 115:16

116:20 117:4,6,19

122:7 151:2 156:2

166:14,19 167:2

167:13 178:11

194:9 206:5

222:11 247:1,22

250:20 254:17

284:17 297:2

314:12 315:7

339:11

contact 91:14,15

238:18

contacted 103:17

238:7

contain 219:21

contained 33:2

40:12 76:3 85:4

182:4 302:22

content 269:19

context 112:6

289:8

continual 225:10

continuation 71:14

continue 73:9 88:8

90:9 96:9 99:21

207:7,16 254:15

279:17 334:10

continuing 100:5

contract 297:6

307:5,7

contractor 173:20

178:2

Contractors 212:4

280:18 342:6

contradictory

28:14

contributes 170:20

contribution

151:18 154:13

contributor 167:13

control 19:11 112:6

117:14 237:21

controllers 37:8

41:14 42:2,3

59:15

controlling 59:16

152:21

controls 19:3 37:15

37:16 38:4 117:16

153:5

convection 169:4

convened 285:18

convenience

238:10 283:18

conversation 12:3

126:1 165:17

conversations

10:21

conversion 272:8

272:17 274:17

275:6

conversions 272:18

convert 222:20

converted 239:11

247:10

cooler 66:19 120:9

337:1

coolers 34:20 65:7

65:8 102:10

cooling 169:8 223:4

cope 306:5

copied 224:10

core 42:21 134:19

135:18

corner 15:18

Corporation 5:13

5:15 6:1

correct 56:7 85:19

95:11,12 99:22

142:3 144:15

146:17 153:3

184:19,22 185:11

185:12 234:11,19

262:9,19 266:15

281:11 290:10,11

291:15,21 310:9

326:14 337:13

Corrections 23:13

correctly 57:11

217:7,13 227:1

correlate 122:14

correlated 223:9

correlates 233:16

correlation 221:10

224:14 351:1,9

correlations 292:16

correspond 51:11

142:6

corresponding

24:9 109:20 152:1

cost 13:9,15 16:16

43:1 44:3 46:18

71:18 76:15 82:10

87:17,21,22 88:2

94:13 105:14

106:2 134:12,13

135:20 136:21

138:6 139:13

141:7 148:22

166:15 170:15

175:4,6,7,11,14

175:17,22 176:2

176:15,17,18,21

177:3,11,12 178:6

178:8,13,15,18,22

179:2,10 180:13

180:14 183:8

186:14 187:9

188:15 189:22

192:19 194:1,9

196:1 201:4,5,15

202:18 203:15

205:21 208:12,13

210:3,12,15 211:6

211:8 217:8,9,18

224:7 225:14,15

226:14 227:3,6,9

228:21 229:13,20

230:20 231:8,18

231:18 247:1,6,18

247:19 248:5

266:1,7,9,10

272:8 273:17,22
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 363

274:17 275:8,9,12

275:18 279:19

280:3 283:14

285:21 286:17

287:5 290:7 293:6

329:18 330:4

336:1 339:19

348:20,20

costed 76:1

costly 18:20 168:8

340:4,7

costs 3:8 9:14 16:7

16:14 46:19 47:2

76:6 91:17 106:3

106:4,13 134:13

134:17,19 135:5

135:13,17,18

136:18 138:18,20

138:20 173:2

176:17 177:1,2

178:5 179:5,6,12

179:14,16,21

180:3 181:2,7

184:22 185:16

186:20 187:3

188:3 189:19

193:6 199:3 200:5

200:5,15 203:16

204:6 208:4,19

211:7 222:9 227:2

230:7,9,11 237:7

247:16 248:2,12

254:9 265:8

271:14 272:17,18

273:19 275:6

279:2,8 283:5

285:20 286:9

cost-based 203:11

cost-effective

132:22 206:3

cost-efficiency

81:15,16 141:2

142:1

Coughlin 1:17 3:8

3:9,11,13 7:11,11

165:14,15,19,20

169:6,12 171:19

172:7,13 180:17

181:5,17 182:7

183:7 184:21

185:12,14,22

187:12,15 188:1,5

188:22 189:17

190:9,15,19 191:1

192:6 194:12

197:3,7 199:11,18

199:22 200:2,8

208:21 209:2,5,9

209:16 212:8,16

215:7 218:1

231:13 232:9,12

233:3,11 234:6,20

239:9,14,19 240:1

240:10,17 241:12

241:17,21 242:12

242:19 243:3,18

244:1,5 246:17

248:20 249:4

250:16 255:7

258:13 262:17

264:13,20 266:8

266:15 282:7

289:15,18,21

290:10,12 291:6

291:15,17,21

295:21 296:1

297:12 298:5,9

299:16 302:6,12

307:15 308:5

311:8 319:19

326:19 327:1,5,16

327:18 328:1,6,10

328:18 329:4

Counsel 6:7 7:1

count 299:9 307:19

counter 34:17

100:15

counteract 104:17

counterproductive

102:13

countless 301:20

countries 40:19

country 18:4 40:6

101:9 214:11

310:3

couple 14:3 70:21

89:9 95:18 96:5

114:22 124:13

179:3 183:3 216:9

236:8 311:9 337:3

346:16

course 76:17 132:1

209:22 243:7

246:11 270:10

331:22

Cousins 1:17 5:18

5:18 73:20,20

84:13,13 87:2

88:12 100:4,4

118:8,8,21 120:7

120:12,21 121:4

124:8 128:5

133:14 180:9,12

180:12,22 181:9

181:15,20 213:18

215:12,19 225:17

225:17 226:4

240:5,14,20 241:3

241:8,14,18 242:1

242:5 296:8 298:1

298:7,12 306:10

308:20 309:2,13

309:21 310:10,13

325:7 335:11

340:20 341:9

cover 47:13 110:10

154:6 276:21

covered 10:3 11:19

19:14 31:14,15

33:19 35:4 36:2

43:12 47:11 64:16

75:8 134:5 161:13

163:11 269:1

covering 93:14

covers 93:11

CO2 120:11,20

121:1 128:1

284:15 287:10

290:19,22 291:3

330:2

CO2-equivalent

287:11

Cracker 18:9

CRB 277:6

CRE 29:2 47:15

64:8 118:1 268:20

273:11 276:17,19

277:4 300:9

cream 32:7 35:13

62:5,9

create 98:1 251:19

269:6 322:5

created 33:14

47:20

creating 80:4

134:13

creation 292:3

creative 45:16

154:14,14 313:16

credit 117:15,17

250:14,14

credits 293:22,22

294:16 295:8

creed 301:8

criteria 39:5 80:13

305:15

critical 126:10

cross 193:7

crossing 324:12

crossover 127:21

324:18

crux 318:3

crystal 333:12,20

cube 157:10

cubic 303:5

cue 11:14,14

cuing 10:21

cull 241:5

cumulative 276:17

280:7,19 284:11

329:9,13,14

331:18

curious 57:10

142:20

current 22:11

25:19 26:6 29:12

45:2 46:14 74:3

74:19,22 156:14

170:4 186:10

204:11 206:11

221:3 334:2 336:5

336:8,10

currently 25:7

26:12 29:7 56:15

74:14 82:20 95:7

96:3 99:13 120:19

121:10 128:10

135:4 287:13,15

314:6 329:10

353:6

curtain 38:6 42:6,8

53:16

curtains 25:21 38:7

42:12 62:18

curve 15:22 141:3

186:8,14 208:13

208:14 282:2

289:10

curved-glass 34:18

curves 81:15,16

142:2 149:1

customer 101:13

108:12 178:10

198:19 199:8

220:19 235:7

242:2 245:10

248:14 291:19

323:13

customers 13:14

18:4,11 39:10

65:15 87:19 99:21

101:19 102:6

145:9 213:2

220:11 246:3,9

271:15 282:12

296:13 297:5,8

301:20 307:3,4,7

307:18 308:9,22

337:11 338:16

342:14 350:4

351:5

cut 37:3 52:8 194:9

251:20 253:8,9

274:5 339:11

cutting 87:12
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 364

cycle 37:15 117:8

154:22 168:6,8

201:15 284:22

cycles 187:20

237:20

cycling 84:10

Cymbalsky 1:18

3:3 4:14,15 7:4,4

21:3 28:20,21

30:1,6 58:1,2 83:4

83:5 86:15,16

88:11 92:2 98:11

98:21 99:2 107:19

119:17,20 124:5

124:10 125:16,17

126:21 147:20,21

182:21 183:5

193:9 215:10

216:6 223:12

224:20 227:21

228:3 236:3,6,19

237:3 242:3 262:7

262:10,15 281:19

302:7 305:5

320:19,21 321:1

322:10,15,18

323:15,20 328:21

329:2 335:1

337:17 338:11,19

339:4 350:16

352:18,19

D

D 3:1 4:1

daily 77:18 166:20

dairy 34:7 52:21

dairy/deli 235:10

damage 286:6

damages 286:1

330:6

Dane 1:18 5:20,20

191:10,18 345:18

Danfoss 2:9 6:11

54:14 94:8 126:8

167:18 170:10

226:17 275:22

dangerous 198:15

data 46:14 52:6

59:21 60:13 83:10

109:8,9 111:10

124:6 135:14

138:11,12,14,14

138:16,17 139:18

140:19 142:8,9

144:9,20 152:15

154:12,14 158:15

158:16 159:11

178:5 179:21

200:22 201:8

203:9,18 215:12

216:3,16,16

218:14 219:10,11

219:14 220:1

221:9 228:16

229:7 231:15,22

232:11 233:7,9,12

234:10,13 238:20

239:4 242:10

243:4,5,6,7,10

246:1 255:12,18

256:8 269:9,12

278:2 284:5

297:21 309:17

310:8 314:3

318:13 324:17

338:13,17 346:11

350:12 353:9

database 20:5,8

318:7,10 319:5,13

324:5

databases 273:8

data-limited

218:14

date 23:11,22 24:16

29:8,12 277:4

297:17 330:13,17

330:19 331:4,13

332:6,16 333:17

333:22 346:3

dates 26:21 27:4

28:15 275:7 331:1

331:10 333:9

day 4:12 5:3 85:18

109:14 332:8

days 145:6,7 230:2

307:6 344:9

day's 233:6

DC 1:9

deadline 12:17

331:21 344:12

347:7 352:7 353:8

deal 82:16 103:20

216:1 297:9

301:16 323:14

339:9 341:18

349:20

dealing 250:8

278:19 279:12

deals 29:4 173:17

250:21

death 341:8

debate 183:20

debaters 183:17

December 23:14,18

24:19 25:5

decide 101:12

306:21

decided 172:5

212:12

decides 244:17

deciding 312:4

decimals 300:14

decision 101:14

183:21 197:5

205:12 213:3

218:8 244:11,16

291:3 297:7,8

331:3,6 353:10

decisions 74:5

245:2,5,6 246:14

decline 278:10

declined 140:18

278:9

decrease 15:15

235:18 284:2

decreased 15:19

284:12

decreases 255:16

265:22 271:1

decreasing 141:9

208:19

decreasingly 46:6

dedicated 32:12

346:19

deduce 288:18

deemed 36:10

deep 263:5

deeply 159:19

defer 187:7 194:21

257:14

define 43:18 173:8

175:8,18,20

240:12 336:1

defined 51:6,10

159:20 160:3

201:22 205:1

336:14

defining 54:21

76:13

definite 123:19

325:3

definitely 29:16

41:2 50:8 52:15

60:22 76:7,9 99:8

127:6 138:4 158:6

185:17 244:2

350:6

definition 27:1

160:3 189:1 191:5

273:3 307:16

320:3

definitions 251:19

defrost 37:13,15

53:22 54:2 111:3

111:21 168:6

237:20

degrees 96:21

150:20

dehumidification

167:21,22 168:6,8

dehumidifying

169:18 170:3

delay 13:8 184:5

delayed 251:9

deli 34:7,9,17 61:15

62:11 161:11

deliver 13:10

delta 308:11

321:19

delved 159:19

demand 276:1

288:2,10,12,13

302:1 307:7

demands 315:10

325:20

demonstrate 25:8

Department 1:1,9

4:5 7:3 10:10

11:2,6 26:8 40:5

46:10 48:18 50:5

50:7,9,13 51:13

52:14 55:13,22

59:15,19 64:5

68:7 71:10 73:7

80:1 90:3 98:7

104:9 106:7

107:13 124:7

125:1,18 151:14

151:21 152:5

165:5,10 175:21

183:13 215:14

216:7 219:12

222:21 229:4

243:4 255:12

265:17 283:16

284:21 289:4

294:18 303:10,11

314:17 319:21

326:15 327:1,5,21

328:6 346:5,18

352:5,10 353:10

353:16

Department's

181:6 327:10

dependent 254:21

depending 123:15

123:16 167:11

186:13 215:4

294:15 330:3

depends 191:5

240:6 340:4

depth 47:6 122:11

derive 46:22

describe 175:7

329:5
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 365

described 36:21

45:17 46:1 69:3

77:13 83:14 92:19

92:19 140:6 197:8

description 9:21

173:13 328:19

deserves 264:16

design 37:11 42:6,8

44:5,8,13,15

51:20 53:19 58:22

59:4,22 60:9,20

61:8,21 62:2

64:14 66:9 67:5

70:14 75:19 76:6

76:12 78:3,13

81:17 86:21 87:2

90:5 106:3,7

107:5 108:11

109:2,9,21 112:2

115:6 116:5,6,7

116:13 120:9

131:11 135:6,17

138:18,20 141:4,8

144:21 145:11

146:10 152:2,4

155:12 158:17,19

161:3 179:8 189:3

189:5 191:4,6

192:22 193:2,4

197:13 200:9

212:22 224:6

236:10 253:15,18

254:3,6 265:1

314:9

designation 48:15

253:15

designed 34:22

68:13

designers 92:4

designing 133:5

designs 38:7,16

45:16 62:12 72:16

96:20

destruction 217:13

detail 36:8 49:12

60:9 71:7 109:16

111:22 132:1

253:2 259:1

347:10

detailed 47:10 49:6

81:11 82:5,7

165:9 187:16

255:2 270:17

detailing 211:18

details 60:20 110:5

156:20 188:10

269:19

determination

125:10

determinations

20:11

determine 23:21

39:1 55:5 63:19

172:15 222:9

261:1 291:13

determined 38:21

85:8 141:8 160:4

260:21 326:15

develop 35:22 47:4

51:21 70:10 96:1

103:18 200:22

201:8 218:19

222:7 285:19

developed 31:17

32:17 40:18 43:2

59:21 60:13 69:15

91:3 97:2 107:1

110:9 116:14

134:17 135:3,7,14

149:15 155:10

156:10 159:9

180:3 251:14

developing 86:20

134:19

development

280:13

deviations 249:10

249:12,20 259:19

diagram 166:3

dial 154:15

diesel 285:2

difference 54:15

63:14 155:14

173:9 175:14

177:11,12 180:18

181:6 185:3 198:7

216:17 230:5

247:4 288:10

289:14 345:3,16

differences 96:17

123:13 156:16

157:5 158:9 177:7

184:15 198:17,18

199:2,8 206:18

251:20 254:20

different 11:3

18:10 20:7 29:15

49:19 50:2,2 60:4

60:7 62:3 63:19

75:13 86:18 92:10

96:19 108:2

119:18 120:3

125:20 128:18

131:10 139:15

146:2 154:9,20

158:2 159:5,6

161:2 162:5

167:11 172:17

173:13 174:6,14

174:16 176:4,5

180:7 181:14,17

188:15 189:2,3

190:10 191:6,12

192:1,12,14,14,16

193:14 196:18

197:15,16 201:11

209:20 210:5

213:7 215:14,16

219:20 222:18

223:5 249:14

254:6,7,8 256:18

258:1 265:5 274:6

278:14 282:14

287:6,6,8 291:14

294:15 301:14

308:13,16 310:1

317:20 324:3,4

336:14 347:1

348:1

differential 37:10

113:19 114:2

156:2 207:9

273:13

differentiate

198:12

differentiation

155:13 323:12

differently 49:19

differing 206:20

difficult 139:22

154:12 206:21

207:11 220:13

226:6 230:1

273:22 279:1

338:15,18 339:7

346:22

digit 234:17 292:21

digits 234:18

dimensional

105:13

dioxide 15:8

126:17 285:11

287:18

direct 28:18 90:13

157:19 160:6

268:9 292:5

directed 23:8,20

direction 104:14

112:20 164:7

directly 32:22

47:18 48:6 66:16

116:17 155:6

156:10 157:8,15

173:17 199:15

284:16 292:7

disadvantage 270:9

270:15 273:15

disadvantages

273:15

discern 155:15

discernible 225:7

discharge 116:1,3

disconnect 249:1

discount 176:11

178:17 200:21

201:1 210:5 211:7

248:12,13,15,17

248:18 265:7

282:21 287:6

300:10 329:15

330:4

discounted 201:4

248:12 265:6

discounting 177:16

discuss 107:16

143:3 155:5 166:4

196:12 290:19

330:8 340:15,16

discussed 41:19

42:19 47:21 55:19

59:12 109:10

139:5 170:12

209:11 229:2

270:1 276:22

302:8 330:9 348:8

discussing 138:17

200:4 267:22

316:3 347:5

discussion 13:22

41:2,13 53:21

109:3,6 184:16

212:18 251:9

268:8 271:4 277:6

281:16 286:11

290:15,16,20

297:15 316:2

325:8 346:20

discussions 60:16

73:5 103:5 245:18

273:9 333:10

347:7

display 19:7 34:6

53:11 61:13 98:19

149:9 157:4 174:2

174:7 202:6

222:18 329:6

disposal 180:16

217:4

dispose 217:7

227:4

disposing 217:12

disproportionate

270:14

dispute 310:18

disruptive 312:12
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 366

dissonance 298:17

distinction 33:13

distribute 205:20

distributes 234:2

distribution 47:3

55:1,2,7 134:15

146:15 166:5,8

172:17 173:2,6,13

174:1,6,14,19

175:1 176:20

201:2 202:9,10

203:4,5 204:9,21

206:11 219:6,18

220:7 232:18

240:2 249:6

256:17 260:19,20

261:3,4,7 262:4,5

262:18 263:2,16

283:4 320:1 321:2

distributions 176:6

205:17 234:8

263:7 282:14

296:2

distributor 178:2

dive 109:7 263:6

divide 177:11

210:9

divided 183:8

divisions 50:15

doable 225:14

dobecause 72:21

dock 343:8

docket 22:2

document 33:22

39:21 81:10,22

192:3,3

documentation

347:3

documents 80:2

135:16

DOE 1:14,18,22

2:8 7:1,5,16 8:8

13:9,14,20 14:19

19:12 23:8,20

24:6,9 25:3,11

26:18 31:14,15,17

32:9,16 33:6,19

34:4 35:7 36:4

37:3 38:5,10,19

38:22 41:8 42:5,6

43:8,12,13,22

45:12 47:9 48:13

51:6 52:10 54:20

57:5 59:8 63:18

63:22 64:14,17

65:13 68:22 69:12

69:21 71:7 72:1

77:15,17 78:18

79:4,14 82:16

83:3 96:10 97:8,9

97:22 98:6 103:7

104:1 105:15

109:13 110:3,16

112:4,7 113:19

117:13,16,18

120:10,14,16

121:5,10,16 123:5

125:22 134:17

140:18 141:5

149:12,18 153:20

154:6 155:9,14

156:14,17 157:15

157:16 160:4

167:14 169:13

172:8 174:10,20

185:2 193:16

195:10 199:11

200:21 201:7

202:5 203:8 206:6

215:11 223:13

234:9 237:10

238:7,18 242:13

244:21 249:6,7

251:14,19 254:19

256:11 264:7

265:12 268:21

270:10 271:11,18

273:12 274:20

275:18,18 277:4

280:11 281:2

284:6 286:15

299:8 310:4 312:3

313:11 316:5,17

318:9,14 322:1

330:15 332:1

344:8,21 347:16

348:11 350:20

351:4

DOE's 33:10

109:11 112:17

DOE-2 171:9

doing 16:2 45:22

53:14 74:15 88:10

128:15 140:7

155:10 156:1

159:3 182:13

192:4 198:13

308:11 330:10

345:13,15 347:17

dollar 279:16,16

285:17 290:8

dollars 13:15 82:11

200:18 230:1

271:20 277:18

292:11,12,16,17

302:2,4 337:3

340:1,11

domestic 242:4,6

Don 8:4 169:11,14

169:15 304:2,4

335:19,20

DONALD 1:16

door 34:11,14 45:6

65:3 66:15,18,22

89:19,20 101:12

101:16,17 102:11

104:15 113:4,5

114:1 118:1 122:4

122:5 123:7,18

128:22 129:3,5

130:3,16 131:6,13

145:4 150:7,12,13

150:20,21 151:2,6

151:16 152:3,6,22

153:17,22 154:1

161:17,18 162:4,8

216:2 228:14

302:19,21,22

303:1,8,13,14,15

303:16 305:18,20

305:21 306:1

315:11 337:1,2,14

doored 302:20

doors 23:7 33:2,4,5

37:20,21,22 38:3

38:5 53:11 60:8

62:4,5,7,7,10,11

62:18 63:4,4,6,12

63:13 65:4,7

66:11,21 67:8

90:7 98:13 99:9

101:5,7,15 102:8

105:4 108:9

110:19 113:17

129:2 131:2,7,12

150:18 153:8

160:17 162:9,13

228:9

door-opening

112:10 151:4,12

151:18 154:22

162:14

double 66:6 106:22

doubt 311:16

Doug 1:10,12 3:3

4:15 12:20 51:2

58:19 89:1 109:1

352:19

download 176:8

downs 135:4

downstream 31:5

39:2 106:8 127:14

142:5 183:22

dramatically 15:9

drastic 230:9

drew 143:21

drink 297:2 349:17

drive 70:5 76:2

90:9 101:14

339:19

driven 221:4 256:9

279:8

driver 232:13

272:16,19 279:12

287:22

drivers 24:6 232:20

drives 83:15,17

driving 113:2

224:9 237:9 245:2

drop 37:12 277:22

dropped 277:20

drove 229:14 230:7

dual 137:2

due 26:10 28:15

48:9 53:18 67:19

110:21 113:8

194:13 209:20

220:11 235:3,5

272:19 277:14

284:12 293:4

303:20

duly 69:5

dynamic 225:1

235:22 322:9

D.C 4:10 348:6

E

E 3:1 4:1,1

earlier 57:14 68:10

77:2,13 79:9

83:18 89:19 149:5

151:11 154:11

162:5 170:12

215:11 229:11

251:16 256:14

275:4,22 276:22

306:11 327:10

331:15 333:10

338:5 350:10

early 4:11 130:9

183:20 293:16

Earthjustice 1:15

7:19 104:12

easier 212:13,13

228:5

easiest 251:21

easily 263:5 315:14

East 229:19

easy 204:18 230:3

293:13

eat 163:19

eating 341:6

echoes 299:5

ECM 64:4 132:17

ECMs 119:8
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 367

econometric

203:12

economic 177:16

202:1,15 218:8

244:8 252:10,11

276:11

economically 91:6

economics 106:8

175:11 265:11

economist 278:7

economists 278:17

278:18

economy 6:7

292:12,19

ecosystem 286:7,7

edge 87:12

Edison 19:5

Edwards 7:16,16

EER 71:17 119:10

effect 80:15 90:1

144:20 146:14

158:18 163:1,6

167:16 204:21

218:7 223:17,20

231:14 237:19

238:15 248:6

268:11 277:2

292:4,8 293:7

295:18,18 296:3

300:10 302:9

303:4,21

effective 13:10 38:2

56:7 145:17

205:22 229:21

294:16,17 298:10

307:8,9 324:22

336:2

effectively 10:9

101:18 207:4

229:17,20 279:11

effectiveness

111:11 327:3

effects 15:3 67:9

89:17 90:17,20,21

167:9 213:8 283:7

294:9

efficiencies 60:3

203:6 204:9 207:5

208:16 256:18

263:17 316:16

320:2 321:2,15

efficiency 7:21

13:10 19:16 20:3

20:7 36:2 40:14

44:10,14,17 45:17

46:9,21 61:9

62:17 64:7,8,11

69:5,7 71:5 87:14

92:16 94:12 97:22

110:4 127:15

132:7 134:16

135:2,19,20

140:16 141:5,12

141:16 142:5

149:1 156:17

166:16 170:1,5

177:8 179:7,13,18

181:8 189:1,5,6,8

190:10,19 191:2,7

192:20 193:10

203:4,10 204:14

204:22 205:3

206:12 208:6,8

215:15 219:7

220:7 222:8

225:21 230:18

237:9 249:21

250:19 251:17

252:7,14 253:14

255:3 293:11

296:2,10 297:10

307:10 313:14

314:18,22 315:2

315:14 316:4

324:9,15,17

326:13 329:5,12

339:22 344:18

349:3,6 350:7

efficient 6:7 16:5

44:16 60:4 63:21

65:17 72:18 75:1

93:14 107:3

132:14,15 157:10

173:10 213:1

227:16 255:17

259:20 271:11

293:20 309:5

334:11

efficiently 267:15

effort 151:14

195:13 344:21

efforts 125:11

160:12

EIA 201:8,18 288:7

288:11

eight 108:2 150:7

150:11,13 154:21

163:4 242:7

eight-hour 117:17

either 32:11 55:7

61:18 77:4 85:4

101:1 113:8 128:8

157:4 202:14

228:18 256:10

284:9 287:17

317:1

EL 205:8,9

elasticity 220:5,16

244:15 276:1

277:13,17

electric 323:16,19

electrical 52:4

111:1 115:14

electricity 117:5

178:12,20 201:7,9

201:11,16 248:3

283:6,13,20

284:13 288:2,9,12

288:13,16,22

289:11,12 292:10

electricity-using

247:11

electronically 63:9

63:10

elects 343:11

elements 78:2,12

80:4 114:11

elephant 341:7

else's 350:21

email 11:13 12:2

26:11 350:14

embrace 186:18

Emerging 216:7

emission 285:12

291:1

emissions 16:3

284:4,12 285:6,7

285:8,9,13,16

286:22 287:20

288:1,18,19 290:7

290:19 291:4,16

emitted 112:16

emphasis 126:8

246:10

emphasize 245:8

352:6

empirical 228:16

229:7

employees 273:6

employment 268:9

292:1,5,13,18

293:4

enclosed 170:15

encourage 11:1

125:1 199:15

238:17 347:6,17

ended 106:9 300:19

ends 27:18

end-of-life 216:21

217:17,17 227:3

end-user 343:11

end-users 317:2

energies 177:2

280:13

energy 1:1,3,9 3:7

4:6,18 6:7 7:3,21

9:13 10:10 11:6

13:11,12,17 14:13

15:2 16:5 19:16

23:12 24:5 25:9

25:20 41:10,21

43:16 44:2 55:3

65:9 66:5,12

67:22 69:13 70:6

72:17 77:18 84:8

87:14,17,21,22

88:5,9 90:10

91:16 96:9,22

97:3,22 100:12,12

101:8,21 102:3

104:18 105:1,2

110:3 111:8,14,17

111:20 113:9

115:16 116:19

117:4 122:6 125:9

129:2,3,7 132:18

133:18 135:2

136:9 141:20

147:8,12,16,17

150:11,12 156:2

166:2,10,11,12,13

166:15,18,19

167:1,13 169:9

172:10 176:12

178:11,13,21

194:8 201:17,20

204:1,3 206:5,9

210:5,14 221:5

222:10 230:18

232:2 236:20,21

237:2,9,20 238:20

247:1,6,9,12,21

249:1,21 250:19

252:8,12 253:1

254:10,17,22

257:4 259:16

274:21 282:20

284:16,21,22

288:4,7 294:11

295:3 296:10,16

297:1,4,6,10,16

298:1,3,7,9,21

299:20 300:8,18

301:2,4,18,21

302:10,14 303:3,3

303:10,11,13,17

303:19 304:6,12

304:19,22 305:1

305:16 307:6,8,18

308:22 309:5

312:6,10,13 313:1

313:17 314:11,18

315:2 316:3,6,9

316:12,22 317:3

318:6,21 319:22
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 368

320:1,12 321:3,15

321:18 322:3,4,9

322:20 323:2,5,13

323:14 324:7,9,21

325:22 326:11,13

326:16 329:9,13

331:7,18 332:3,5

334:11 337:14

339:22 341:15

344:18 346:18

349:3 350:7

351:11

Energy's 4:5

energy-consuming

135:5

energy-efficient

88:19 133:8

170:18

energy-related

238:2

enforceable 19:19

enforcement 146:8

258:12 270:4,7,11

engineering 3:6

9:10 31:5 36:9

42:21 43:4,7,11

47:7,11,19 49:4

51:18 52:9 58:21

59:5,10 60:1 61:8

75:15 76:6 80:10

85:9 87:3 106:3

107:10 114:15

116:2 133:9

134:12 141:1,22

142:9 148:22

149:6 166:13,19

177:22 181:19

182:9 186:2,5,8

188:7 190:1

192:12 197:9

202:3,15 205:1

222:17 244:9

246:5 258:18

269:13 271:5

272:6 324:6 337:7

349:22

engines 285:5

enjoy 4:22 164:12

enormous 199:2

ensemble 115:3

ensure 57:21

249:12 259:7

entire 118:10

254:13 292:19

306:6

entirely 143:5

entities 36:16

entry 189:12

environment 15:3

15:5 39:7 112:21

167:20 326:2

environmental

218:9 330:1

environmentally

88:20

EPA 40:9 126:14

299:9 313:1 314:2

316:7,10,18 317:3

325:13

EPACT 17:1 22:11

23:4,8,20 32:19

32:21 33:14,15

46:2 48:9 149:20

186:11 224:9

EPCA 22:12 23:4

23:13 24:3,7

108:3

equating 186:9

equation 92:22

149:12,18

equations 55:19

92:5 93:5 329:5

335:9

equipment 1:4 4:7

4:17 13:13 15:2

16:22 20:5 22:10

23:15,17 24:13,21

25:10,13 26:1,10

26:20 27:17 28:17

29:2,4,13 31:10

31:11,13,18,20,21

32:1,2,3,8,10,17

32:18,20 33:1,2,7

33:9,10,12,14,15

33:16 34:3,4,19

34:21 35:4,7,11

35:13,15,18 36:3

37:1,4,20,20 38:5

38:10 40:12 43:9

43:10,20 44:10,12

45:14 46:16 47:9

47:12 48:10,12,16

48:21 49:14,22

50:1,11,15,18

51:6,16 53:2

55:16 57:2,7

60:16 61:11,12,16

61:20 62:14,16,18

64:16 65:7,16,19

65:20,21 66:11

74:9 79:20 80:3,5

81:9 87:10,20

89:15 90:10,11,12

96:15 103:16,22

109:12,15,20

110:11 111:8

120:15 121:19

130:13,21 134:15

134:18 139:4

141:4 149:8

152:12 155:19

159:20 166:6,11

169:10 170:4,6

172:14,19 173:4,5

173:21 174:3,8

175:13 176:4,17

178:7,13,17,19

179:1,12,17 180:2

181:7,8,10 186:1

188:9,20 189:3,22

200:19 202:7,22

203:5,5 204:22

205:19 207:10

210:1,3,19 211:10

211:14,20 213:1,4

213:11 216:5

217:2,18 219:1,7

219:15 220:17,18

222:3,13 223:5

227:4,6,15,16,19

233:12 235:2,5

236:12,15 239:15

239:18 240:2,11

241:1 244:11,18

244:19 245:9

246:4,11 247:15

247:19 248:6,7

251:17,21 252:5,7

253:6,10,11,12,17

254:2,7,11,14,16

254:21,22 255:1,4

255:14,21 256:5

256:16,17,18

257:14 266:2,4,7

268:4 272:20

273:11 274:20

276:6,8,9,18,22

277:19 278:9

293:19,20 297:2,3

309:5,9 310:21

313:9 314:22

318:7 342:14,15

343:7,12

equitably 225:6

error 129:15

256:16

escalate 201:19

escalated 200:18

escalating 181:2

especially 76:10

195:12 227:12

essentially 16:7

166:21 167:5

173:15 175:5

180:3 192:19

209:20 221:4

222:3 223:1 233:4

242:12 244:6,9

247:13 257:5

265:16 282:18

284:9,16 293:15

327:19

establish 183:19

established 24:20

25:14

establishments

244:22

estimate 111:11

202:19 206:5

219:2 232:2 233:6

287:2,3 321:11

338:8

estimated 117:22

175:8

estimates 13:14

117:9 135:11

174:22 206:9

272:8 285:19

et 111:21 174:18

280:8

Europe 217:1

evaluate 25:20

90:20 107:6 153:2

153:4

evaluated 89:15

90:17 275:1

evaluation 344:2

evaporating 116:4

116:10

evaporating/con...

111:13

evaporator 37:7,7

37:12 53:20 59:14

59:17 61:21,22

67:13 78:3,7 84:1

96:20 117:7 119:8

152:22 153:5

160:17 185:7

evaporators 37:10

132:16 185:6

340:17

evenly 149:21

150:1

eventually 82:10

113:10

everybody 4:16

26:11 251:3 267:3

296:4 318:10

344:17 352:20

353:17

evidence 165:9

325:3

evolves 255:10

evolving 286:14

exact 46:3 68:6
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 369

145:6 188:20

exactly 64:19 143:2

189:10 240:6

259:8

examination 50:16

examined 36:7

example 33:3 34:5

34:9,16 37:14,20

41:12,16,20 52:17

59:13,14 64:4,13

67:7 70:15 74:7

98:11 112:12

119:12 131:16

143:22 155:18,21

201:12 205:6

213:9 220:9 228:9

241:8 253:7,16

287:12 294:13

319:2 341:12

examples 60:3,9

228:17 278:20

exceed 144:19

excellent 68:1

152:16 348:8

Excel-based 109:12

excessive 237:22

exchange 122:5

123:8 163:7 311:4

exchanged 123:18

exchanger 111:11

116:7,13

exchangers 38:14

42:4 116:7

excited 238:3

exclusively 184:8

Excuse 141:15

exercised 140:4

exercises 154:22

exist 29:16 30:2

74:4 80:3,17

86:11 88:14

204:20 305:1

323:5 349:1

existed 80:22

existence 203:2

319:22,22

existing 33:8 46:8

80:12 102:1

149:18 204:14

224:16 297:20

327:2 341:2

exists 74:14 256:8

323:21

expanded 110:10

110:12

expanding 290:1

expands 290:2

expansion 37:6

42:1

expect 100:11

198:16,22 237:17

245:22 249:2

263:15 304:6

316:18

expectation 257:3

316:13

expected 29:22

198:22 249:3,15

249:16,19 259:17

263:7 272:14

322:5

expecting 195:7

expenditures

138:21 247:15,19

248:1 292:10

expensive 168:1

228:18 244:20

experience 22:18

140:14 183:13

186:17

experimental 155:1

expert 116:16

experts 73:8

168:15

explain 125:7

explaining 246:13

explicit 54:8

explicitly 48:13

59:8 66:21 104:3

120:10 179:9

286:4

explore 199:7

expressed 100:6,13

270:3 316:7

expressing 100:17

expression 325:11

extend 156:10

227:15

extended 24:14

155:7

extending 330:15

344:9

extension 47:21

69:4 106:16

156:15 157:1,16

304:18 344:13

extensions 158:1

extensive 268:22

271:4

external 157:6

extra 92:11 105:5

142:21 292:11,12

extrapolate 139:21

extrapolated

242:10

extreme 236:12

eye 143:21 352:8

352:13

F

face 273:14 319:14

341:11

facilitate 89:3

Facilitator 1:10,13

facing 263:16

fact 15:8 19:22

29:5 48:4,9 56:15

56:16 58:3 64:5

80:16 84:7 159:10

169:17 216:12

224:18 244:7,10

248:7 321:7 322:2

337:20

factor 66:12 67:7

108:3,14 149:13

154:2 158:17

197:20 215:2

227:3 244:13

301:17

factored 291:2

factors 24:4,4,8

38:20 59:8 68:2,3

74:5 78:12 110:13

149:19,21 152:18

156:5,8 159:8

197:12 231:9

236:9 245:1

Fahrenheit 32:6,7

32:8 35:13 112:8

113:20

fail 39:4 57:19

195:20,21 264:5

failed 82:9

failure 199:2

202:10

fair 46:10

fairly 18:6 19:1

64:18 176:1

226:22 270:17

271:4 329:11

faith 333:19

falls 150:15,21

174:5

familiar 15:7

families 32:1 34:4

family 33:12

fan 37:7,7,8 38:13

38:15,16 42:2

53:20 59:14 61:22

62:14 84:1,6

96:19 113:5,7,9

113:11 115:7

117:3,9,10 132:17

132:18 133:8

153:5,16 162:22

258:20

fans 59:17 111:3,15

111:19 113:12

115:7 117:7,8

123:15 150:18

152:22 153:14,16

160:17 161:6

162:13,16 340:17

fantastic 313:11

far 49:13,16,20

50:5 103:4,4

122:6,13 147:4

153:16 195:13

225:12 229:11

231:12 290:6

310:16 312:6

338:3

fast 21:22

favor 124:20

favorable 329:21

fear 348:19

feasibility 76:12

79:3 138:5

feasible 39:6 44:18

64:18 67:2 71:12

71:17 74:18 75:6

77:8 80:12 91:6

95:9 252:4 306:14

306:16 311:2

333:19 334:14

feat 133:9

feature 13:2 57:6

features 27:2 31:22

51:10 52:5,16

53:4,19,20 54:3

60:10 61:16 103:6

119:14 155:21

212:21 333:18

February 24:16,17

25:11 353:6

fed 109:10 142:4

federal 245:22

268:11 285:17

290:13 319:6

feed 53:4,7

feedback 8:16 27:6

59:16 76:10,10

256:11

feeding 44:7 58:22

feeds 31:5 72:1

89:8 116:11

feel 50:15 69:4 73:9

73:10 106:11

121:22 143:10

204:10 239:5

272:12 331:1

feeling 4:21 332:7

feels 51:14 73:8

feet 222:22,22

239:11 241:19
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 370

fell 186:14

felt 46:10 162:12

331:16

fiddled 163:16

field 67:18 99:20

166:11,14 270:5

270:12 332:3

351:3,8,11

figure 276:3

filing 269:9

filings 272:5

fill 38:2 89:21

344:3

films 38:2

fin 37:10 68:4

79:10

final 23:10 24:15

25:12,16 28:17

29:17 31:13 46:17

136:1 149:19

155:9 163:11

165:22 166:7

172:16 268:7

326:7 346:3 353:4

353:7

finally 9:20 13:8

32:9 113:22

177:15 201:14

211:3 270:20

274:1 285:11

financial 47:1

135:15 269:7

272:4

find 42:6 85:21

91:22 92:1 93:22

94:10,18,19

124:17 144:10

152:10 154:12

171:5 230:2 253:5

279:9 307:11

312:12 350:22

351:14

finding 19:12 246:4

finish 34:2 115:2

121:7 343:22

352:2

finishing 109:2

fins 185:7

first 21:6 22:16

31:9,22 37:2 43:8

45:11 47:2,7

54:11 58:8 70:22

73:14 82:3 94:5

118:7 121:13

126:1 134:14,18

141:17,18 179:5

203:15 205:1

209:22 210:11

223:17 226:2

232:17 234:17

244:7 247:1 248:5

253:17 256:14

258:19 272:13

282:10 284:15

304:2

first-principles

116:14

fit 103:19 302:14

349:21

five 32:22 43:8

71:18 92:14 94:12

95:9 96:2 97:16

144:15,17,21

147:5 148:16

248:8 250:5 252:2

256:5 279:15

280:3 313:12

329:19 331:8

340:18

fix 182:19

fixed 19:8 109:14

181:3 235:14,18

273:19

fixture 61:17

112:15 340:7,10

340:12

fixtures 61:13

70:16 82:10

103:10 106:3

112:15 337:4

339:16 340:2,10

flag 296:13

flaw 316:9

flawed 203:18

235:15

flex 154:8 281:1

321:7 327:7

Flexibility 280:21

327:8

flipped 182:20

floor 79:13 145:10

164:6 182:16

221:4,7,11 223:10

232:13,14,19

flow 53:17 123:16

162:6 163:2

268:15,17

fluids 216:10

fluorescent 195:22

foam 82:10 106:4

217:14 337:4

339:16,17 340:2,5

340:6,9

foaming 103:10

106:3,13

foam-in-place

138:3

focus 10:19 22:7

43:11,14 155:15

175:13 177:6

180:18 181:6

212:9 313:17

focused 77:12

228:20

focusing 120:18

160:11

folks 20:8,22 164:9

165:16 227:12

342:9

follow 12:8 75:4

100:2 101:5 125:3

215:21

following 8:20 9:7

9:12

follows 286:15

follow-on 11:1

77:22

follow-up 234:16

317:18

food 39:13 59:18

79:20 84:5 96:15

96:16 99:8 153:7

161:14 201:12

228:13 244:22

271:2 315:17

349:9,16

foot 303:5

footprint 296:21

footprinting 341:5

footprints 103:19

force 90:4 170:16

236:20 337:11

forced 236:11

309:2

forces 235:5 278:10

forcing 259:6

fore 13:3

forecast 232:10

272:6

forecasted 240:8

forecasts 222:14

244:6

foregoing 267:8

foreign 279:10

forever 181:3

forgot 129:15

form 9:5 51:4

330:2 353:3

formed 132:21

former 299:3

forms 344:2

formula 66:3,4

formulas 107:7

303:10

Forrestal 4:9 164:4

forth 11:3 33:5

91:13 300:21

318:4

forum 214:1,2

230:19

forums 104:4

forward 13:22

71:13 208:4

221:16 223:8

226:19 256:19

258:8 313:13

348:5

found 37:3 41:21

44:6 59:9 64:6,18

67:2 91:5 122:14

147:1 194:8

306:15

four 17:5 18:12

39:4 59:7 70:4

105:17 144:13

211:12 234:18

249:20 300:14

302:18 338:6

340:18

fourth 44:11

FR 25:15

fraction 174:5

233:21 318:19

319:12

frame 40:7 129:5

131:6,8,14 345:9

frames 129:4 131:3

Franchise 342:22

franchisees 343:1

Frank 2:4 7:22

79:18 326:8

freeze 78:8

freezer 66:20 99:14

99:16,22 102:7

129:4,13 130:14

168:2,4 169:20

170:6 196:1

freezers 22:14 23:6

23:7 33:4 34:12

34:17 35:12 102:3

130:3 158:4,9

302:22 303:1,15

303:16 305:22

306:1

freezing 153:15

freight 135:21

fresh 267:7

friction 113:8

front 34:18 67:7

132:18 217:5

348:20

Fuel 284:22

full 4:12 33:20

41:18,18 48:16

52:12 57:3 59:12
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 371

60:9,20 81:21

156:20 159:9

178:16 217:3

284:22 318:17

fully 259:5 262:1

318:8,10 334:20

352:11

full-on 220:3

fun 5:1

function 32:3 50:11

116:5 151:4

284:14 336:8

functional 145:12

functionality 137:2

functions 71:9

furnaces 323:16,19

further 26:14

62:19 89:2 92:18

109:16 140:15

239:17 333:13

future 177:17

201:4 217:9 251:4

275:11,14,18,18

279:20 295:1

318:9 341:4

G

G 3:1 4:1

gain 70:7

gains 141:13,17

gallon 197:17

galore 229:16

gambit 303:6,7

gap 252:19

gaps 246:8,13

gas 37:14 38:2

89:21 120:8

154:19 215:13,16

283:18 285:10

342:9 343:1

gather 234:17

GC 82:16,17 83:3

Gee 65:10 107:2

general 7:1 17:2,5

53:6,6 71:15

153:9 169:18

179:6 198:17

204:4 225:19

228:22 255:13

272:14 273:3

286:13,15 287:20

295:1 317:10

335:22

generalization

331:17 332:3

generally 34:18,20

41:15 48:11 55:9

55:12 124:20

290:1 331:5

generate 16:18

46:18 204:2

generated 56:17

generation 288:3

288:16,22 289:11

289:12

generator 18:3

generic 78:4

gentleman 79:16

327:9

geometries 115:5

157:13,19

geometry 32:2 57:6

112:2 157:16

getting 8:15 22:21

46:1 93:2 121:19

121:20 126:3

197:21 206:8

214:13 223:3

231:11 245:17

300:20 306:3

316:1 334:16

343:22 351:7

gigawatt 288:22

give 22:8 86:22

94:3 96:9 97:11

109:5 117:15,17

187:15 192:15

216:4 233:14

264:1 293:18

295:9 302:5,15

305:14 310:4

335:17

given 46:12 74:17

86:9,12 89:15

173:5 180:14

192:19 200:19

201:5 202:20

203:1,14 218:13

260:12 264:20

288:13 299:18

329:10 338:17

gives 166:19 178:3

178:5,14 219:14

221:6 255:22

278:2

giving 314:21

glad 62:20 124:8

glass 34:11 37:21

38:1 60:8 89:20

99:6 113:1,4,5,14

113:16,17,18

118:1 131:13

132:20 302:20

303:1,14,16

305:20,22 337:1

glass-front 34:20

glazed 98:13 108:9

glitch 22:18

global 15:3,4 159:1

284:10,19

globally 84:21

128:11

go 17:17 20:16 21:1

21:8,21 22:5 23:3

26:13 45:8 47:6

58:11 64:21 78:20

80:5 86:20 88:17

89:11 92:17 107:6

107:19 108:20,21

111:22 112:14,20

125:21 129:2,6

136:6 140:15

148:16 149:16

158:3 161:10

163:19 164:5

168:19 176:5

179:1 188:6 189:1

190:1 192:2

194:17 195:14

196:12 207:6

209:17 221:19

225:12 232:2

236:8 237:14

244:18 249:19

253:1,20,22 254:3

258:16 260:6

261:13 267:12,14

268:11 270:2

275:14 277:2

279:22 284:1

285:3 300:16

304:7,19 311:10

311:17 312:6

314:10,10,11

316:11,18 317:4

318:20 321:10,13

332:17 346:11,20

350:2

goal 128:12 192:18

237:11 282:11

347:11

goals 281:10

309:14

goes 80:15 83:13

151:9 166:7 194:2

194:19,20 222:16

247:12 253:18,19

310:11 333:13

going 4:13 5:7 10:7

10:21 20:21 21:1

21:2,6,8,10,16

22:3,7 28:1,18

29:20,22 30:16

31:3 35:16 41:3

43:11,22 64:22

65:11 66:12 70:7

71:12 79:12 81:20

91:2 95:10 100:1

100:12 106:20

107:3 123:13

125:18 129:1,11

129:21 130:1,9

132:12 133:7,9

134:2 143:19

147:22 148:16,18

150:12 153:19

154:3 156:3 163:2

163:3,6,7,20

165:12,21,22

166:4 167:15

169:13 170:16

173:18,19 181:12

182:18 186:21

190:3 195:5,8,13

198:4,6 202:21

209:17 211:15

213:2,14 215:21

218:2 223:7

224:22 227:6,14

230:2,19 232:6

234:22 236:3

239:22 246:1

258:4,8 261:19

262:8,14 264:12

264:15,15 267:4

267:13,15 271:3

276:8 279:2,17

280:20 281:16

282:7 295:13

302:15 304:6

308:17 314:14

316:15 317:1,5,17

320:17 321:10

322:15,21 332:22

333:2 336:7,11,22

337:5,14 343:9,10

344:1 345:18

346:7 347:9,10,16

348:21 349:11

350:13 352:10

353:1

good 4:3,10 10:9,10

14:22 18:8,15

19:21 30:18 54:10

78:15 89:4 94:17

94:20,21 107:10

108:19 118:5

137:18,20 143:21

144:4 165:6

215:20 239:5

259:11,13 263:12

263:19 323:1

338:11 353:18

goods 214:1,3,10

230:19
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 372

gotten 56:10 307:4

government 15:1

15:20 29:20 83:7

268:14 269:2,15

285:15,18 286:14

294:3 313:6

316:21 324:4

325:21

gradual 225:9

gradually 101:6

gram 127:8

grams 40:10

127:22

grand 188:11

granted 64:3

graph 16:4,6,10

143:9

graphic 255:9

graphs 69:16

grease 67:18

great 47:14 63:14

79:11 118:6 132:1

151:8 199:16

259:1 297:9 339:9

341:18

greater 16:14 36:8

307:10

greatest 55:15

greatly 12:15

green 20:12 212:7

GreenChill 325:12

greenhouse 215:16

GRIM 271:6

274:13,14 275:2

grinding 217:14

grizzly 250:11

grocers 101:10

gross 271:10

ground 164:6

grounds 59:11

groundwork

263:10

group 16:22 32:18

127:19 188:16

210:18 233:20

263:11 264:8,16

277:9 282:19

314:3 347:20

grouped 251:18

groups 31:11 33:1

124:3 199:8

238:11,19 277:16

347:18 350:1

group's 125:11

grow 296:21

growing 121:11

growth 233:17

GSA 313:8

guarantee 315:17

349:12,15

guarantees 73:2

guess 61:7 92:3

100:10 103:3

121:16 157:21

159:18 190:7

213:13 214:15

215:21 223:15

228:5,11,15 229:6

238:6 245:17

274:13 275:16

290:16 296:9,11

298:16 299:14

308:16 335:1

guessing 318:11

guidance 109:5

guide 294:21

guideline 330:11

guidelines 286:16

gun 344:12

guy 79:22

guys 68:13 124:5

207:16 317:11

H

half 18:12 105:10

114:14 115:12

119:11 123:8

141:2 142:10

194:2,10 299:2

319:6

half-hour 245:18

half-inch 63:15,17

103:8 337:4

hammer 19:21

hand 11:9 12:2

30:12 282:4 344:1

handicapping

156:12

handle 145:2,18

handling 180:15

hands 92:7

hang 22:19

happen 205:6,16

297:1 314:14

318:14 322:22

323:8 348:21

happened 94:14

223:19 225:4

228:17 278:8

283:17

happening 315:14

325:10 332:19

happens 154:8

250:5 264:4 269:5

273:2 331:6 343:7

happy 48:18

316:11

hard 11:7 104:6

214:15 225:5

307:11

Harvey 2:6 6:6

14:17 39:18,19

41:1 42:11 57:8,9

121:4 124:12,15

125:7 126:6

127:10 143:7,8

154:17 155:3

159:16,17 160:20

183:11,14,15

185:18 198:10

232:4,5 234:15

237:16 245:16

250:1 258:22

260:14 263:5

298:15 300:1

331:13,14 333:10

333:22 334:18

350:18

Harvey's 162:3

hate 199:6

head 47:14 65:10

319:7

headers 209:18

heads 199:10

health 39:11 40:18

85:20 86:6 98:4

286:5 306:19

349:10

hear 11:12 21:3

48:19 62:20 68:7

90:15 98:8 102:16

102:17,20 200:12

213:5 238:3 260:3

267:15 277:5

302:16 326:10

344:4

heard 4:20 57:11

59:15 83:21 95:14

95:18 139:14

299:5 317:9 334:4

342:8 345:1 347:4

hearing 153:20

299:8 348:12

heat 38:14 42:3

53:17 66:13 106:1

110:15,16,20,22

111:10 112:1,11

112:16 113:6,10

114:8,14 116:7,7

116:13,18 129:5,5

129:11,16 131:2

145:4,12 152:1

157:7 163:1 167:6

168:5

Heatcraft 2:7 6:9

heated 340:9

heater 19:3,11 38:4

41:14 42:2 117:21

heaters 111:16

145:6,9,14

heating 6:20 27:15

27:17 169:8

heavy 246:19

held 155:15

help 89:3 94:19

174:21 194:4

204:13 229:7

310:7,8 335:17

338:14 353:9

helpful 11:2 107:15

131:22 183:14

186:16 193:16

206:13 233:19

238:11 246:12

332:21 343:18

346:13

helps 160:14

hey 140:6 165:16

HFC 184:8

HFCs 88:17 121:2

128:8 181:2 214:4

215:16 227:8

279:21

HFOs 280:2

hidden 278:15

hierarchically

44:16

Hierlmeier 1:19

6:14,14 44:21,21

56:3 62:22,22

65:1,6,20 66:2

69:11 70:1 82:4,4

82:19 89:18 101:4

105:9,9 106:19

128:18 130:18

131:1,9 144:6,6

146:13 147:1

182:2,2,10 183:4

257:17,17 258:15

336:18,18 350:10

high 48:11 109:19

145:15 215:2

287:1 313:13

314:22 323:4

329:11 349:6

higher 46:9 61:9

62:16 69:5 71:4

127:9 147:17

180:19 231:21

274:8 283:4,5,6

283:12,14,14

316:16

higher-efficiency

38:11,14 42:1

61:21 62:14 67:16
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 373

70:22

highest 43:6 143:20

160:12 187:4

252:2

high-efficiency

37:5,6 89:19

205:19 210:19

high-level 91:1

218:7

high-performance

63:11 130:15

high-shipment

51:15

high-temperature

217:13

high-usage 51:15

hinting 243:9

historical 255:12

history 225:1

233:15,16

hit 85:12 86:9

93:16 140:7

306:20 324:21

334:13 346:22

347:12

hitters 72:17

hitting 140:1

hockey 15:7

hold 130:4 333:21

holding 96:13 97:2

home 267:5 315:3,9

353:12

Hon 1:19 5:16,16

28:6,9,9 29:15

30:5 67:11,11

91:11,11 93:4,4

123:22,22 125:5

127:18,18 150:4,4

157:2 195:16,16

206:16,16 216:20

216:20 224:4,4

225:8 226:3 229:9

229:9 239:3,3,12

239:17,20 240:15

279:1 300:17

302:15 303:20

305:13 314:16,16

324:2,2 338:1,1

338:15 339:1,5

341:1 348:14,14

honestly 338:19

347:4

hop 31:8

hope 299:10 338:12

346:5 353:8

hopeful 10:6

hopefully 20:15

29:19 72:22 195:8

323:1

hoping 9:5

horizon 328:11

horizontal 34:9,11

34:15 61:12 62:8

62:9 161:1,3,5,17

161:19 162:4

horrible 325:2

host 314:13

hot 37:14 59:18

97:6 302:4

hour 122:21,21

163:19 166:20

199:3

hourly 151:15

hours 70:7 109:14

150:7,11,13

154:21 187:18,19

289:1

HRF-1 25:3

huge 19:4 66:12

102:4 183:22

225:11

human 15:11

humidity 19:9

112:9 237:18,21

hundred 81:22

95:19 293:2

340:10,18 347:3

hundreds 13:15

84:21 341:5

hurdle 133:10

Hurst 1:20 7:17,17

Hussman 5:13,14

Hussmann 1:13 2:6

89:14 237:8

HVAC 168:2

171:10 198:15

hydrocarbon 40:1

40:10 128:9

hydrocarbons

121:1

hypothesis 242:16

hypothetical 205:7

299:21 328:7

I

ice 32:7 35:12 62:4

62:8 78:8

icing 237:22

ID 164:9

idea 91:20 98:22

212:8 247:3

Ideally 318:9

identified 223:22

273:10 288:11

identifies 277:21

278:4

identify 36:13 44:4

44:8 49:2 79:7

80:6 200:10

213:10 253:10

268:5 273:7,12

282:11

ignore 169:13

171:3 319:21

ignored 320:16

ignoring 216:11

235:19

illustration 204:17

immediate 5:8

Immediately 8:20

impact 3:10,11

9:16,18 67:21

76:8 84:7 103:10

103:12 108:3,6,11

123:20 136:14,15

153:22 155:16

167:4 169:13,16

169:22 170:1

202:19 205:15

206:1,4 210:18

218:5,5 223:21

225:21 226:12

246:18 266:20

267:14,22 268:2

268:14 269:2,15

274:7,9 277:21

279:12 281:4

283:8,22 287:22

292:13 293:8

295:11 302:11

308:1 316:10

320:10,12,16

321:9,11 326:11

333:2 334:1

339:22

impacted 127:14

impacting 299:20

impacts 25:20 39:9

39:11 98:3,4

138:6,6 161:2

171:10 172:8

206:4,10 208:22

218:3 225:11

245:15 246:20

251:13 256:4

268:5,6,19 273:13

282:13,17 284:7

288:6,14 289:7

291:19 292:5

293:3 294:8

implement 138:18

implementation

28:16 44:13

109:21

implemented 44:9

141:9 345:9

implies 97:15

179:17

imply 97:12

important 12:11

21:22 245:11

267:6 299:16

301:17

importation 279:10

impose 16:16

impossible 74:19

86:9

impractical 96:1

imprecise 251:4

imprecision 251:2

impression 320:14

impressive 194:11

improve 27:5 36:2

72:19 73:1 256:7

310:8

improved 37:8,22

38:6,15 42:5,7

44:2 61:20,22

62:3,5,7,9,10,12

63:4,5,6 67:12

71:2 78:3 109:15

116:8 166:16

177:8 181:7

293:11

improvement

64:17 71:11,17

73:4 94:12 191:8

improvements 37:8

37:13 38:12 63:9

71:8,22 75:22

193:10 344:19,20

improves 40:14

improving 72:22

97:21

ImSET 292:14

inaccurate 106:12

240:3,4

inapplicable 59:9

incentive 293:17

307:21

incentives 19:1

20:12

incentivize 293:11

inch 79:10 103:13

103:14,19 105:11

119:11

incident 110:18

incidental 66:13

include 60:3 90:21

113:2 131:7 138:6

220:5 240:15

248:1 286:4

327:13 331:10

included 27:13

47:4 52:14 60:12
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 374

110:6 116:21

156:20 186:7

188:2 254:17

265:1 285:8 290:9

338:7

includes 49:5,5

52:3 131:13 150:7

219:13 265:11

285:1 286:17

296:3 321:3,18

329:11 353:16

including 25:17

27:14 36:14 72:17

111:3 113:15

151:15 263:6

272:5 352:14

inconsistent 198:1

270:7

incorporate 213:6

221:2 277:5

incorporated 186:7

264:22 328:2

incorporating

25:19

incorrect 95:12

increase 15:15 16:7

16:11 44:9 95:9

103:8 137:14

196:1 204:5,6

220:12 229:13

230:11 231:8

235:17 258:8

271:22 272:1

278:13,14 293:6

304:8

increased 132:7

170:5 177:14

180:6 247:15,19

271:14 277:14

348:20

increasers 225:14

increases 37:13

137:8,10 189:18

229:18 279:19

increasing 104:15

141:10 187:2

289:12

increasingly 46:6

109:19 331:22

increment 173:4

192:20 345:15

incremental 172:22

173:8 174:12,18

230:9 240:8 280:3

306:2

incrementally

196:11

incumbent 80:6

incurred 217:7

286:1

Independence 1:9

independent 66:7

137:5 170:13

independents

230:20

index 201:19

indexes 100:6

indicate 19:13

67:15 70:8 129:1

150:22 299:4

indicated 72:6

indirect 237:20

292:4,8

indirectly 87:17

88:1

individual 158:19

196:11 249:9

263:19

individually 206:22

206:22

individuals 10:22

11:12 304:2

industry 15:13,20

25:18 56:5 71:10

71:20 83:10 94:9

101:6 104:5 133:4

135:7 161:15

186:18 200:22

217:16 231:3

233:22 237:5

268:4,15,17 269:7

269:14,17 272:9

272:14,17,21,22

273:18 274:9

277:16 279:3,4

313:3 314:4

324:19 325:1,13

332:19 339:8

345:11,14 348:16

348:17

industry-vetted

71:16

ineffective 298:8

inefficient 227:19

276:9

inert 89:21

infiltrated 53:16

114:3 122:20,22

151:15 152:1

154:13

infiltration 53:18

110:21 114:1

122:2,19 151:13

153:1 157:7 169:1

inflation 278:15

influence 143:15

219:4

inform 331:5

information 8:18

21:18 47:1 82:6,7

82:14 83:6 122:9

122:12 144:8,9

159:14 165:11

189:10 194:4,21

195:3 202:14

206:7 207:5

213:15 214:15

220:17 221:1

234:14 245:13

246:8 277:17

287:9 291:8

294:19 299:19

300:7 310:5

314:21 324:5

332:7 335:17

338:12 342:20

343:19 350:2

351:7

informed 353:10

infrastructure

231:7

inherent 156:3,16

inherently 93:10

97:12 99:5

inhibits 37:11

initial 38:17 209:21

211:9

initially 39:22

320:9

initiative 325:13

input 36:18 56:1

60:14 64:11 71:19

103:18 111:7,17

113:11,11 115:22

151:21,22 159:15

174:21 204:13

206:8 218:4

311:17 330:8

inputs 69:6 70:15

104:8 105:22

107:4,14,17

109:10 110:12

166:1 175:6

177:21 178:7,9

200:14 206:15

245:5 256:11

269:2,12,16

274:14 288:17

294:9

input/output

292:15

INPV 268:18,18

272:9 275:10

inquiries 26:22

ins 170:9

insert 162:2

inside 103:14

104:16 111:2

112:6,19 114:3

150:14 193:11

296:22

insignificant 90:2

install 39:8 80:14

173:20 342:13

343:10

installation 176:21

176:22 178:5

180:7 200:15

installations

316:21

installed 19:7

176:16,18 177:11

178:6 211:6

288:21

instance 40:5 96:14

instances 64:19

161:7,7

Institute 6:21

instruction 286:21

insulated 132:20

132:21

insulation 37:13

53:13 62:1 63:16

103:8 105:11

113:15,16 115:5

119:11 134:21

136:12,13,14,15

137:2,8,10,11

217:14 339:17,21

integral 32:14

integrity 136:18

intend 11:15

intended 251:5

intends 270:10

intensity 57:20

intent 158:14

interact 177:21

191:7

interaction 167:5

218:16

interactions 176:10

interacts 332:10

interagency 285:18

286:15

intercept 149:14

interchanged 171:2

interest 124:17

336:15

interested 91:17

96:10 97:7 103:17

200:12 220:5,6

286:13

interior 53:14

intermediate

252:21
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 375

internal 17:8,14

111:1 150:18

157:5,6 315:7

international 42:13

242:6

internationally

40:3

interpret 326:14

interrelations 31:2

interrelationship

171:4

interruption 23:3

interview 135:15

138:16

interviews 52:9

60:15 66:18 95:8

115:9 117:11,20

117:22 118:3

135:9 139:9

268:22 269:18,21

introduce 12:20

79:5

introduced 110:22

introductions 3:1

5:6 8:21

intuitively 341:19

inventory 85:20

invest 275:6

investment 92:11

195:11 211:10

investments 18:2

18:16 270:8

271:22 272:2,20

273:18

Investor 14:13

Investor-Owned

2:3 6:17

invitation 200:3

invite 52:15 57:4

67:4 73:11

invited 104:4

involuntary 320:11

involve 264:5,8

285:5

involved 19:9

67:18 103:22

136:18 180:16

224:13 297:4

302:4 340:1

347:19

involvement

217:18 315:2

involves 268:8

in-depth 122:17

IOUs 18:22

isobutene 126:17

128:3

isolate 114:12

isolated 114:10

isolation 66:21

91:4 106:18 325:9

issue 12:10 15:14

48:14 55:10 57:21

75:19 84:5 98:1

98:14 102:9

125:20 126:10,12

136:10 152:21

153:13,15 167:4,8

169:7,7 170:10

173:12 192:17

197:5 215:13

216:11 224:1

228:21 245:3

256:15 258:7

277:12 297:19

307:16 317:11

318:20 320:5,8

330:7,9 332:15

issued 13:8 25:11

26:5,9 31:15 72:7

276:19

issues 10:3 12:12

27:10,13 59:18,19

76:3 79:2,2,5 88:3

97:21 105:13

106:2 139:2 153:6

157:12 195:17

199:13 200:3

220:9 250:21

269:3,17,19

336:19 338:2

339:2 347:1,9,11

348:4,8,10 349:10

item 207:2 302:4

340:13 347:14

items 16:9 69:14

194:17 206:19

347:5

iteration 71:13

It'll 341:7

J

January 23:9,10,11

24:1 31:16 295:18

Jason 102:14,15

Jeff 1:15 6:2 49:10

94:22 95:2,3

103:1,2 108:7

121:13 124:14

151:10 153:11

157:20 158:22

161:7 162:19

184:11 237:13,14

238:5 304:16

315:22 320:6

333:4 334:18

346:14

Jeff's 159:22

Jennifer 2:8 6:22

Jesuit 183:19

Joanna 2:1 6:12

13:4,5

job 99:7 292:3

313:11 323:1

jobs 293:2

Joe 56:18 57:1

70:20 160:15

313:20,21 314:1

John 1:18,20 4:14

7:4,17 21:3 58:1

58:13 68:8 83:4

86:15 91:12 95:4

95:12 98:10

139:11 147:20

199:19 215:10

223:12 226:17

249:7 258:21

320:21 321:22

344:6 352:18

John's 235:1

joined 353:15

joining 8:12 22:16

70:21 160:16

Jon 2:3 6:16 14:5

14:11,12 28:20

41:12 48:21 49:1

82:3 83:12 152:18

207:20 208:2

214:21,22 256:12

277:1,7 289:5,6

307:17 317:7,8

333:7

judgment 311:19

jump 148:21 161:9

justified 91:7

justify 336:11

K

Katie 1:17 3:8,9,11

3:13 7:11 165:14

165:15,19 188:4

196:8 232:6

241:22 245:16

264:12,19 278:16

282:5,6 290:6

298:15 311:5

332:4

keep 10:19 11:8

20:21 37:2 64:21

130:9 140:20

148:18 162:10

207:6 246:7

264:12 271:3

332:15 349:18

352:8,13

keeping 50:11

key 112:13 113:1

113:10,14 114:1

206:7 269:16,19

272:16,18 277:2

337:7 352:5

kilowatt 109:14

166:20

kind 22:18 49:21

65:9 93:2 122:15

126:12 136:4

168:22 177:2,16

182:17 194:5,17

215:1,6 216:4

234:7 251:20

274:17 275:15

277:20 278:2,3

293:17 313:9

317:14 345:18

kinds 18:2,21 144:1

150:10 197:15

kinetic 113:9

kitchen 34:15

67:19 97:6 103:20

knew 18:9

knock 144:12

301:9

know 5:6 15:21

16:21 18:17 19:4

19:20 22:3 63:7

65:12 68:11 75:20

76:1 78:2 82:7,13

83:10 86:11 87:19

89:21 90:16 91:18

91:22 92:1,18

95:19 103:3,18

104:17 105:17

114:12 125:6

127:2 129:13,15

129:18 132:18

136:6 139:19,20

139:21 140:2,10

145:4,5 154:7

161:11 162:3

168:12 170:8

182:5,16 187:7

191:3 194:5,6

197:14 208:4,15

213:19 214:18

215:3 216:4

220:18 221:9

224:17 225:20

226:10 227:10

228:1,8,11 229:1

230:13,17 231:17

231:20 234:1

235:10,11 236:17

237:5 241:4,14

242:10 245:4

256:15 257:12
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 376

260:14 266:8,14

272:10 275:11

277:15 278:1,7

279:6 281:13

282:13 289:13

290:21 291:7

297:3,19 301:5

302:5 305:7

306:10 310:7

312:21 314:20

317:17 318:21

320:2 323:2,8

325:4 331:6

332:18 333:12,22

334:19 335:1

337:8 339:1,18

341:16,17 342:10

344:11 346:8

348:1,17 349:1

350:1,3,13 352:10

knowledge 82:22

198:15 295:12

knows 314:17

L

lab 1:16,17 7:12,14

67:17 68:20 79:11

165:20 171:8

labor 180:6 189:19

190:4 255:19

laboratories 74:21

85:9

laboratory 42:9

101:2

lack 97:12 203:18

219:10

laid 108:14 263:10

286:16

lamp 188:2

lamps 195:22

lapse 330:11

large 13:11 173:16

173:17 182:18,19

198:12,20 201:12

211:17 233:21

264:8 265:22

283:15 286:11

292:20 293:6

304:13

largely 156:15

167:6,19 287:9

293:2

larger 103:13

247:18 270:16

273:16

largest 235:7

late 342:17

latent 168:9,17,22

170:19

Lau 1:20 3:12 7:9,9

267:16,17,20,21

275:3 276:12,16

281:1,11,15 282:2

282:4

Laughter 298:19

329:1

law 105:3

Lawrence 1:16,17

7:12,13

Lawrence-Berke...

165:20 171:8

lax 270:6

layer 15:16

laying 107:13

layout 103:20

LBNL 66:17

LCC 166:1 177:15

186:8,12 187:6

200:15 201:3

202:5,11 205:11

205:15,18,20

206:2,14 208:22

209:2 210:6

211:15,18 252:17

282:10,18 283:9

283:15,22 284:1

lead 59:18

leak 182:19

learned 298:18

352:21

learning 162:11

208:14

learning-type

37:16

leave 164:1 281:16

293:15

leaves 166:6 343:7

LED 70:3,16

132:16 186:13

190:3 194:7,7

264:21 265:1

266:1,1

LEDs 45:6 61:18

70:5 186:17 187:4

187:9,19 196:2

left 5:8 16:4,10

21:16 165:13

267:13 304:11

332:6

legal 304:12

legs 264:17

length 53:10

330:15

lengthy 9:2

Lennox 1:20 7:17

letting 125:20

317:3

let's 5:2 7:6 14:15

108:18,20 114:12

115:1 126:4 130:9

140:20 163:13

165:3,16 199:21

212:16 226:21

241:15 260:3,13

267:12 274:19

312:15,16,17

320:19 343:22

344:3 345:5,7,12

level 18:19 43:6

44:13 45:17 46:20

55:18 57:19 64:17

65:9 71:7 74:10

85:6 86:14 90:6

91:4 95:5 97:3

98:2 100:6,13

104:22 110:4,5

133:17 134:16

135:3,19,20 141:5

141:5,6,7 142:19

146:4,6,18 147:16

147:17 149:4,18

152:3,4 154:7

156:17 167:2

179:7,18 180:19

186:6,9 188:18

189:7,7 190:20

191:2 203:10

204:14 205:5

213:12 215:2

220:21 221:20,22

230:10 231:11

236:13 251:17

252:4,7,15 253:15

255:3 258:19

260:12,22 261:4,6

262:18 263:2

270:5,11 284:14

286:6 297:14

299:3 304:22

305:16,17 308:15

312:16 329:6,12

336:5,6

levels 13:10 15:8

44:3,17 46:2,3,8,9

46:18 62:3 66:22

69:5,7 72:5 74:18

75:14 76:15,15

77:9 106:13

109:20 133:2,11

142:6,7 144:12

147:8 149:3,16

175:16 189:1,5,8

190:10 195:7

204:22 205:3,4

215:15 237:22

251:12,15 252:21

253:5 265:5

292:22 306:5

308:3 309:10,20

310:1 316:8,14

lid 34:10

life 17:17 182:22

183:1 187:20

188:2 198:11,22

201:14 202:2

227:15 231:12

lifetime 178:16,18

178:22 183:8,8

201:15,22 202:1,3

202:5,15 210:14

211:15 221:14

231:19 244:8,9,10

254:16

lifetimes 176:13

180:4 194:13

202:12 210:6

219:1

life-cycle 3:8 9:13

13:15 175:4,6,7

175:10,14,17,22

176:15 178:8

179:2 201:5

202:18 210:3

329:17

lifting 246:19

light 15:6 112:13

180:5 191:14,15

337:5

lighting 25:21 37:6

37:17 53:20 61:10

61:11,18 104:16

105:1,5 111:3,15

111:21 112:14

117:12,14,18

132:17 179:8

180:2,5 184:19,22

185:21 186:7,13

187:2 188:3,7,20

188:20 189:11,22

190:12,13,14,21

191:2,13,20 193:6

193:12 194:6,7,7

196:1 197:8,16

198:18,21 254:5,7

254:8 258:20

264:21 266:1,20

lights 45:4 70:3

86:1 186:22

196:11

limit 10:20 127:8

limited 186:17

279:22

Lin 1:21 8:6,6

line 11:10 79:12

97:18 119:16
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 377

178:6 194:18

197:18 239:9

252:16 295:7

296:5 303:18

311:20 313:21

335:8 353:6

linear 149:11

222:22,22 239:11

241:19

lines 196:22

lineups 235:10,11

link 26:13,14

Linney 1:21 6:4,4

liquid 38:13

liquid-suction 42:3

list 35:22 36:7

48:16 58:21 67:14

70:15 80:1 219:11

295:5

listed 49:3 67:2

74:20 75:22 81:2

81:8,10 83:20

286:10 301:4,22

listening 11:20

listing 33:20 80:18

81:11

lists 53:4

literally 95:20

150:15 224:10

literature 36:15,16

36:17 38:18 42:18

52:7 115:9 117:10

117:19,22 135:8

literatures 60:14

little 14:16 41:4

50:16 51:22 54:14

57:10 81:19 92:9

92:20 126:8

130:10 135:9

143:11 145:7,7

148:20 149:2

183:16 198:15

227:22 248:22

253:8 256:22

264:17 287:1

346:10

live 296:12 297:9

317:13

lively 4:22 231:3

Llenza 1:22 3:4,14

7:2,2 12:7,10 21:7

21:8,17,20 22:21

23:2 28:1 351:21

352:1

load 53:17 66:13

110:15,16 112:1

112:12 114:8,13

114:14 116:19

122:3 123:14

152:2 163:1 168:9

168:17,22 170:19

170:20 193:22

loaded 26:12

loading 343:8

loads 110:18 127:9

167:7,16 169:8

locked 164:1

logic 228:12

long 13:8 235:11

260:15 262:17

279:7 286:11

longer 45:5 194:13

202:4,12 248:13

look 13:22 16:9,21

17:3,7,16 20:9

28:11 43:13 44:1

46:11 49:13 57:4

58:20 59:9 67:5

70:14 74:7 76:7

77:14 82:1 105:5

119:12 120:11

127:6 129:6 130:2

132:11,20 159:14

170:13 171:10

172:6 175:11

176:9 183:21

190:1,2 199:12

219:3,4,18 225:2

231:17 233:15

243:10 247:5

253:4 273:1

275:10,11 278:21

281:8 288:1,10,14

289:7 292:2 293:5

293:10 297:10

302:10 306:12

308:8 316:5,16

318:1 319:2 321:7

327:11 331:18

337:16 339:18,20

341:10,12 348:5

looked 32:19 38:6

38:11 40:6 44:22

48:9,13 57:2 60:1

65:2 72:4 80:16

110:11 122:11

132:19 137:8,9,21

171:19 184:20

201:9 317:11

324:8 327:12

341:22,22

looking 16:20

31:12 33:19 52:19

65:12 71:8 73:22

84:15 85:3 87:6

87:13 88:9,15,16

88:18 97:4 106:20

130:12,18 133:16

137:4 153:22

154:4,20 186:6

187:17 190:13,17

190:17 196:9

208:5,10 209:7

214:19 226:19

239:4 240:7

279:18,20 293:1

296:8 299:17

305:18 318:18

325:8 338:5 339:7

339:15 340:14

looks 18:13 19:21

34:4 36:5 74:10

99:5 110:16

122:19 191:12

246:21 255:12

292:5,15 310:1

318:12 327:2

328:10

lose 272:15 336:7

loss 150:11,12

154:20 270:21,22

272:19 293:4

lost 163:15

lot 28:16 40:11

50:8 63:8 67:14

72:15 85:15 90:12

101:8 103:7

121:22 122:12,16

132:6,9,9 135:2

143:11 158:8

159:10 161:6

163:5 167:11

184:5 195:2,4,5

197:22 209:19

214:16 220:6,16

223:13 229:2,19

230:15 238:10,12

265:2 279:9 285:4

294:19 297:13,14

297:15 299:12

300:12,17 304:11

313:8 325:1,14

332:19 334:5

338:16 342:7,11

342:22 345:1,20

347:22 352:21

lots 192:1 314:19

338:2 349:1

Louis 2:7 7:20

168:19,21

love 55:22 82:13

307:18 333:7

low 32:6 35:11 37:9

62:4,8 104:22

105:14 130:13

155:22 156:5

195:17,17 198:7

210:14 237:21

287:2 341:5

lower 116:8 147:16

156:3 168:3 237:7

256:6 271:16

273:21 279:11

283:19 308:19

316:15 322:3

324:15

lowering 274:2

lowest 26:2 44:14

88:5 145:12 186:6

222:5

lowest-priced

207:2

low-e 89:21 99:4,4

99:13 104:14

105:4

low-temp 194:19

luminance 105:6

lump 77:4

lunch 9:16,17

130:8,9 148:17

163:14,19 164:12

luncheon 164:14

M

M 241:15,16

machine 32:15

machines 226:7

magnet 60:5

magnitude 312:22

338:6

main 167:8 268:1

mainstay 302:19

maintain 85:19

188:19 270:11,11

271:9 306:19

343:11

maintaining 270:5

maintenance 85:5

100:7 153:7 177:3

178:14 179:5,6,14

179:15,21 180:2

180:13 183:8

185:3,16 186:20

187:3 190:22

191:13,20 193:6

194:2,10 198:19

199:9 200:5,11

231:21 248:2

254:6 341:13,15

major 75:19 102:6

109:10 133:10

155:12 224:6

225:14 230:7,7,17

242:17 268:16

280:21 296:14
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 378

306:3 339:22

349:10 351:5

majority 47:14

55:15 72:9 157:3

211:10 214:8

229:12

makers 88:8

making 101:7

214:17 226:11

228:17 291:3

318:22 323:21

manage 227:8

managed 264:8

management

197:19 300:4,5

Manager 7:3

mandated 248:16

287:7

mandatory 86:5

323:4

manner 33:10 69:3

manufacture 39:8

80:13 134:14

248:9

manufacturer 3:11

9:18 36:15,16

40:13 45:14 46:19

47:1,5 52:8 72:14

76:8 92:12,14

115:8 117:10,20

118:3 135:9,11,12

135:13,14,15,19

135:22 138:16

139:3 166:6

172:15 176:19

178:1 217:5

263:14,20 267:14

267:22 268:6

293:22 335:21

manufacturers

25:7 27:7 45:22

60:15 64:9 66:18

71:6 72:8,8 75:3

79:20 87:5 88:21

90:5 94:19 95:8

95:13,20 99:7

103:11 104:13

105:15 118:1,2

121:17 124:17

126:19 133:7

138:17 139:15

140:5 143:12,13

143:18 168:14

195:3,12,12

196:12,17 197:13

223:16 242:17

249:8,18 257:14

259:1,18 260:17

263:15 268:3,7,20

268:22 269:20

270:3,6,8,13,20

271:9,13,21

273:10,11,20

274:1,7,10 275:5

276:18 280:12

299:6 313:13

314:3 316:6,16

317:6,18 322:7

334:6,6 343:6

344:10 346:17

347:8,18 350:1

351:5

manufacturer's

51:12 98:2 263:1

manufacturing

5:17 23:12 28:10

63:8 67:12 73:5,7

91:12 93:5 138:19

139:2 150:5

255:17 292:6

map 116:12 188:7

189:4

mapping 116:21

117:1 159:4

maps 72:7,10

115:18,20

Marantan 1:22 8:9

8:9 81:4,5,5

margin 156:3

245:19 264:1

margins 237:6

271:10

mark 173:6 176:19

241:7 311:14,15

market 3:5 9:9

18:15 19:2 28:2

30:22 31:4,9

33:21 35:17 42:7

42:13,19 51:14

55:12 72:4 118:17

118:22 119:4

121:11 135:4

147:9 181:11

184:6 202:20

203:10 204:12,14

204:19 206:21

207:3,6,9 208:7

208:15 219:15,19

225:1,4 230:13

233:11,13 235:5

236:16,19 238:4

239:8 245:21

248:8,10 257:21

277:14 278:10

279:13,22 293:12

294:1 295:11

299:18,21 301:8

301:16 302:19

303:6 305:8

307:19 308:7

312:19 315:13,21

317:19 318:11,19

321:17,18 323:11

323:21 324:8,10

339:5 344:19

349:13

marketplace 82:14

129:14

markets 206:20

market-vetted

71:15

markup 9:12

135:11 165:13

172:21 173:1,1,8

173:8,14 174:11

174:17 176:20

178:2,2 271:7,12

271:18

markups 3:7 46:22

135:21 166:2,4,5

172:14,14 174:12

174:15 175:2

272:3 282:21

283:5,14

Mary 1:18 5:20

191:9,10 345:17

masked 83:9

mass 53:16 114:4

122:20 151:16

152:1

matched 155:11

material 10:1

30:10 138:19

math 66:3

matter 19:22 47:4

105:21,21 116:15

167:14 191:18

198:17 207:3

267:8

Mau 2:1 8:1,1

114:7,7

Mauer 2:1 6:12,12

13:4,5,5

max 46:21

maximize 336:2

maximized 93:8,13

maximum 44:18

252:3,8,15,16

max-tech 110:5

McCARTHY 2:2

McCRUDDEN 2:3

8:2,2 212:3,4,15

280:17,17 281:7

281:12,21 282:1,3

342:5,5

McDonald's 18:8

McHUGH 2:3 6:16

6:16 14:3,6,9,12

14:12,12,19,22

41:12 49:1,1 68:9

69:9 83:13 139:12

152:19 153:8,10

207:21 208:2,3

209:1,4,6,10

214:22,22 256:13

258:10 277:8,11

289:6,6,16,19

290:3 317:8,8

MDEC 100:7

mean 45:14 58:4

65:1 76:14 90:11

90:19 92:8 95:10

95:18,22 96:22

106:19 136:10

145:19 147:6

152:20 154:10

159:2 182:10

185:2 187:8 188:6

195:8 199:5,11

224:21 225:5

242:6 249:3,9,10

251:3 259:16,18

262:17 263:1

270:7 296:14

298:3 306:20

307:1 309:18,22

310:11 319:11

323:6 325:13

326:14,20 335:5

336:20 337:2

338:19 342:12

meaning 202:3

204:19 271:11

314:9

means 92:9 163:20

179:21 230:14

247:17 263:13

265:9 267:4

271:18 296:20

312:20,21 329:19

336:5 340:15

meant 83:18

118:11

measure 153:2

321:14

measured 41:10,11

77:18 84:8

measures 16:5

18:18,22 317:10

317:20,22 319:15

measuring 25:4

meat 52:21

mechanism 53:22

mechanisms 37:14

median 202:8
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 379

264:1

medium 32:5 34:21

35:10 52:20 53:22

62:6,10,11 65:7

65:22 101:5

155:22 156:6

196:15 241:9

287:2,3 319:4

medium-temp

132:13 142:17

medium-temper...

23:17 74:11 75:9

85:4 99:17 128:22

160:9 196:14

198:8 216:3

meet 45:17 58:5,6

75:14,17 87:10

94:4 95:13,22

215:15 349:6,13

meeting 1:3,8 4:5

4:16,22 12:1

13:21 148:11

215:11 315:10

350:20

meetings 11:7

22:17 26:16 28:14

246:2 260:15

314:19 349:2

meets 58:10 120:5

megawatts 288:21

members 213:22

214:2 242:18

342:11 343:9

mention 56:10

167:3 198:5,6

222:15

mentioned 28:22

32:21 35:3 41:13

41:20 47:8 67:12

73:16 77:2 96:7

97:19 114:16

154:11 158:1

162:5 184:14

231:14 236:1

251:16 310:18

316:20,20,21

327:9 344:7

350:11

mentioning 41:7

108:8,9

merchandise 85:22

merchandisers

98:20 101:12

236:10

merchandising

86:6

mercury 284:18

287:17

merits 106:18

met 236:14

metal 134:21

methane 285:9

287:12

method 19:9 25:2

36:12 68:17

155:10,10 175:21

282:17 351:3

methodology 41:18

43:7 48:3 152:14

156:13 219:8,9

245:4 256:10

292:14 294:6

methods 25:19

154:19 278:19

281:9 351:15,16

metric 77:18 149:8

175:18 251:6

284:22 330:3

332:1

metrics 60:11

218:9 247:7 269:8

272:4

MIA 82:17 268:8

268:21 275:3

292:5

mic 277:10

microphone 28:8

48:22 79:17 80:21

132:4 171:6 208:1

282:5

microphones 5:9

mid 29:18

middle 45:8 146:17

midmorning 9:11

mid-afternoon

9:19

mike 2:1,5 7:15 8:1

114:7 171:12,12

Mike's 118:9

miles 197:17

military 313:8

million 82:11 84:19

128:7 272:18

330:3 337:3

millions 340:1

million-mile

186:19

mimic 294:9

mind 37:2 226:20

235:15 261:14

311:14 332:15

335:4

mine 249:11

310:15

mined 272:5

minimal 225:15

252:11 340:7

minimally 140:10

minimum 208:8

304:12 312:15

324:15

mining 273:8

minute 21:11 76:16

81:15 109:17

344:2

minutes 22:22

47:22 108:20,21

148:17 162:16

163:16 267:2

miserably 82:9

misleading 143:11

283:11

misquote 278:18

missed 39:20 232:7

missing 90:4 187:5

350:22

misunderstood

102:19 261:8

mix 45:15 46:12

235:2

mode 10:20 65:21

model 44:12 49:16

51:12,18,21 53:2

53:4,8,9 56:4,11

56:12,17 57:11,13

58:12 61:9 68:13

69:2 89:5,7

107:16 109:11,11

110:8,8,14,16

111:6,6 114:8,14

114:17 115:13

116:2,11 118:19

119:13,21 120:2,4

121:17,18,22

122:3,19 123:6,15

124:16 125:10

128:21 134:17

139:21 140:4,14

140:15 141:7,13

162:16,21 166:19

176:4,7 203:11,17

203:22 208:10

210:20 218:19

220:14 221:15

222:7 231:15

233:4,5,8 243:8

244:15 245:4

260:13 266:9

268:14,15,17

269:3,15 271:7,8

289:8 292:15

317:15 329:20

331:4

modeled 46:20

52:6 57:7 66:21

77:20 96:17

104:14 109:18

110:2 112:3

117:12 120:14

134:16 135:18

153:21 154:5

286:4 293:13

modeling 46:16

47:10,18 51:8

54:6 66:15,20

67:3 78:17 96:11

97:10,15 109:4

111:10 112:5

114:8 115:13

116:15 120:8

122:8 134:13

158:16 159:3

163:3 203:12

204:1 213:6

220:13 288:7

331:10

models 43:21 55:6

75:13 95:21

118:22 119:5,7

123:11 124:21

154:4 191:22

192:1 218:12

221:2,4 247:2

256:8,17 278:16

294:8 298:22

314:5,8 351:1

model's 56:6

model-predicted

233:17

model-wise 246:19

modification 27:9

340:7,11

modify 294:9

moisture 110:20

169:20

mom 198:13

227:12

moment 175:20

255:11 286:4

monetization

287:17

monetize 286:22

monetized 286:17

286:18 287:13

monetizing 285:15

money 86:3 143:17

227:6 336:7

337:13

Monte 176:9

months 29:17

82:11 183:3

324:17 340:19

Moore 2:4 7:22,22

79:18,18 80:18,22

326:8,8,20 327:4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 380

327:7,17,22 328:3

328:9,12,15

morning 4:3,11,13

14:22 30:18 165:4

170:12 228:7

306:11

motion 70:4,17

motor 37:7 59:15

60:4,5,6,7 76:2

113:9 117:10

162:22

motors 38:13,15

61:22 62:15 63:10

63:11 84:1,6

96:19 132:17

133:8 258:20

mouth 171:13

move 16:17 31:4

35:19 42:20 109:3

125:12 132:2

134:2 148:13

175:4 199:22

212:16 218:2

228:10 245:14

255:5 267:3

276:16 290:21

306:18,19 307:10

326:6,6

moved 102:8 321:8

movement 157:11

moves 104:13

263:11

moving 9:8,15

20:21 144:20

170:16 172:13

181:1 200:1 208:4

220:11 229:3

246:17 252:6

256:19 258:8

263:22 267:20

271:3 296:4 302:3

311:7 328:17

MPCs 272:5

MSP 266:3

mullion-type 61:17

multiple 103:21

264:5 273:8

multiples 340:13

multiplier 156:11

multipliers 156:15

156:18 157:22

multiply 166:22

242:7

multi-deck 34:6

61:13

mute 8:15 11:9

myopic 216:1

M&TA 59:3

N

N 3:1 4:1

NAAFEM 79:19

NACS 343:4

NAFEM 2:4 7:22

326:8

NAICS 273:5

nail 19:22

name 5:10 10:14,18

10:22 14:11 28:8

79:17 165:19

171:6,22 212:2

218:6 280:16

343:2

named 31:20 33:16

43:12

naming 31:18,21

narrow 216:4

263:16

NASDAQ 18:5

nation 13:11

national 1:16,17

3:10 6:2 7:12,14

9:16 49:11 54:18

95:4 171:8 173:16

174:16 204:1

206:4 207:12,17

208:22 218:3,4,5

238:8,9 245:14,15

246:18,20 247:9

249:1 251:12

256:3 257:3

259:16 262:3

266:19 283:3

288:5,7,14 289:8

294:7,11

Nations 213:22

natural 285:10

nature 225:9

Navigant 1:20,22

2:2,5,8 7:8,10,15

8:10 30:19 81:6

82:17 83:6 186:5

267:21

NDA 83:5

near 207:4 230:10

279:20 341:4

nearly 230:3,21

necessarily 68:14

137:19 169:3

173:6 191:3

192:21 193:1

195:7 279:17

283:8

necessary 86:8

225:13

NEEA 2:7 168:21

need 10:15 70:8,10

108:19 125:6

128:21 131:18

147:17 163:17

164:8,9 185:8

188:6 189:4 213:9

220:7,16 231:16

245:5 256:19

257:18 265:2

305:9 308:2

319:10 323:5

341:21 346:4

350:5 352:12

needed 51:20

215:15

needs 68:7 147:3

151:21 195:6

311:20 317:13

negative 67:21

108:11 167:10

282:17 283:22

neglected 12:19

negotiate 87:19

negotiated 27:13

28:13,22 88:1

347:20,20

negotiations 29:10

126:2

net 13:18 16:2,12

36:5 101:19

210:11,15 211:2

247:13 266:21

268:17 292:3

336:4

never 140:18

183:18 234:13

261:14 351:13

new 4:18 30:2 66:4

101:22 105:19

107:8 110:11

138:18 141:14

142:19 200:17

207:10 218:20

227:4,16 229:21

231:6,19 232:19

240:11 244:18

275:9 276:8 286:9

288:3 293:14

294:14 295:6

302:13 303:9,11

307:20 320:4,4,10

322:1,5 328:3

343:12

NFIB 342:21

NGOs 325:11

nice 4:22 351:6

nicely 238:21

niche 349:13

night 25:21 38:7

62:17

nine-year 265:15

nitrous 284:19

285:7 287:12

noise 293:3

nomenclature

31:17,19 32:17

33:8,11

nominal 144:22,22

145:19

non 34:22

nontechnical 79:22

non-controllable

150:8

non-door 131:5,15

non-energy-cons...

134:22

non-Gaussian

263:6

Non-HFC 121:9

non-regulated

257:20

non-regulatory

281:9 293:10,12

non-significant

266:7

non-zero 321:12

322:18

noon 9:17 130:8

NOPR 3:12 9:18

12:12 16:21 18:3

26:9,18 33:21

269:11 270:18

274:5 276:19,20

282:9 325:19

normal 55:2

144:13 169:19

normalization

222:16

normalized 123:1

151:18

North 79:19

Northwest 7:20

notation 253:14

note 233:19

noted 234:12

270:13,20

notes 10:5 82:2

124:13

notice 27:9 85:6

193:21 270:18

290:14

noticeable 230:4

novel 351:12

November 12:18

NOx 284:17 285:6

285:7 286:22

287:15 290:19

291:1,3

NPV 177:18 247:17
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 381

252:9,15 265:4

286:19 287:10

290:9 291:11,18

294:11 329:15

NRAC 1:15

NSF 96:14 314:11

315:11

nuanced 35:6

nuances 71:5

number 22:2,2

25:16 50:11 53:19

70:3,9 82:12

101:10 108:3

112:15 113:12

115:7 139:14

151:17,22 156:4

157:15 176:5

189:15 190:2

192:14,16 193:14

211:18 217:11

218:11 221:12

223:2 226:8

239:10 240:3,21

240:22 255:1

258:3 265:9 266:9

266:13 281:4

284:7 287:16

299:11,11,14,15

300:18 301:5,6

305:11 308:18

312:20 317:9

319:9 321:12

322:16 329:3

334:1 343:13

numbers 43:2

53:21 68:21 69:16

70:2 74:1 75:5

78:19 85:12 86:9

86:14 93:7 102:3

106:7 123:12

131:7 144:13

150:22 166:14,20

167:1 174:8

178:11 179:22

182:20 192:5

200:18 204:15

205:14 207:13

209:18,19 212:9

212:10 215:4

224:9 225:12

238:19 239:6,7,20

247:2 249:15

254:21 259:6,15

286:20 287:12

288:1 291:1,12

292:19 294:11

301:13 302:16,17

303:2,3,8,9,12

305:8,15 306:17

306:21 307:2

310:18 317:12,14

318:2 324:9,22

329:8,9 334:14,16

334:20 335:4,11

335:12,14,16

336:20 337:10,12

337:16,20 338:3,8

341:10,12,14,21

345:22 347:8

O

O 4:1

observation 265:21

266:5

obsolete 300:3,3

obstructionist

300:5

obtained 115:18

obvious 159:22

obviously 24:1,14

31:14 36:18 53:11

55:21 62:13,15

66:10 77:12 95:14

96:15,17 98:7

111:7 113:7,14

123:11 149:7

153:14 159:5

195:2 238:14

319:11 333:13

occupancy 25:22

37:17 61:10

117:15

occur 176:21

275:15

occurring 226:21

occurs 146:5

207:10 269:10

October 1:6 4:8

OEMs 263:18

Office 7:1 216:9

300:4,5

official 305:16

offline 143:3

offset 149:13,19,20

151:4,5 152:18

offsetting 151:3

off-cycle 54:2

off-the-shelf

132:10

oh 102:18 125:22

148:8 168:18

208:2 209:1 212:8

289:4 325:2

oil 285:10

oils 67:18

okay 10:4 12:9 14:7

20:18,22 21:5,8

21:10 22:7 23:2

24:3 25:10 28:1

29:3 30:6,7,8,15

50:21 58:14,17

61:5 69:9 70:12

71:4 73:12 89:6

99:2,19 100:3

102:14 115:4

118:6 124:10

127:16 128:5

129:10 130:9

133:12 134:2

136:22 139:10

140:20 142:12

148:1,15,18

153:10 159:13

160:18 161:16,20

163:10 170:21

172:11 181:16,20

183:12 184:10

185:1,13 187:14

187:15 188:5,22

194:14 199:21

200:2 209:1,10,15

209:16 212:15,17

213:18 214:20

215:9 217:22

218:1 224:20

236:6 237:3

239:14,19 240:14

241:2,21 243:13

244:5 246:16,17

250:9,12 255:5

258:15 261:11

264:13,20 266:16

267:1,11,12,17,18

276:14 280:15

281:21 282:1,6,7

290:3,13 291:10

291:20 292:1

295:22 296:6

298:14 302:15

304:1,15 305:3,12

306:10 311:3

317:21 319:15,18

322:17,19 324:1

326:5 327:17

328:12,14,16,17

328:18 332:12

333:4 335:19

339:4 340:14

344:15 349:12

351:20 352:17

old 66:3 160:18

207:17 227:4,5,14

227:19 276:9

293:19

OMB 248:16

265:16

once 11:20 38:17

133:16 166:5

183:2 208:7

215:22 221:14

222:6 352:20

ones 241:6 286:3

343:6

one-fourth 239:7

one-sided 263:11

one-stop 323:14,17

one-third 239:6

ongoing 276:20

online 30:12 56:19

70:21 102:15

160:16

open 14:19 34:5,6,9

52:19 55:20,21

61:14,14 90:9

99:8 101:16,18,20

102:5,6,11,12

123:6 124:21

139:7 143:15

150:2,19,19 153:8

160:17 162:13

167:21 170:11,17

170:19 194:18

207:15 220:11

228:10 229:4

236:4 265:17

312:2 324:13

opened 349:20

opening 3:1 9:1

122:5 123:18

129:12 151:17

152:6 154:1

openings 110:20

114:1 122:4 150:7

150:13 151:3,6

152:22 153:17

154:1 315:11

openly 348:9

opens 150:12

open-top 161:11

open:angled 34:8

operate 26:3 87:20

196:13 197:13

294:22

operates 32:5,6

operating 35:3,14

41:14 62:6,8

111:12 113:20

115:22 155:13,21

155:22 156:3

157:17 158:2,13

176:2,17 177:1,12

178:15,22 187:18

187:19 188:2

203:16 204:6

211:7,8 222:8
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 382

237:7 247:16,18

271:17,19

operation 71:2

111:1 113:8

196:20 248:1

operational 60:3

98:5 352:11

operations 197:20

214:5,6

opinion 54:15

105:19,21

opportunity 8:22

10:2 11:22 13:1,2

13:20 140:13

opposed 228:21

236:10 264:9

opposite 182:12

opt 99:8

option 44:13 59:22

60:9,20 64:14

66:9 70:14 81:17

89:20 104:22

108:11 109:9,22

130:15 131:12

135:17 141:4,18

152:2,4 265:1

276:6

options 36:1,14,20

37:18 39:1,3 44:5

44:8,15 46:15

58:22 59:4 61:9

62:3 67:6 76:13

83:20 89:14 90:5

90:17 106:7 109:2

135:6 138:18

140:17 141:8

179:8 180:5 189:3

189:6 191:4,6

193:3,4 200:9

212:22 236:11

order 24:10 43:16

44:1,9 45:17

51:20 53:1 75:14

80:8 149:10,16

169:20 176:2

220:15 249:12

259:7,20 266:2

293:1 296:22

312:22 331:5

ordered 141:8

organizational

5:11 10:16

organizes 32:9

original 23:22

224:22 316:2

320:13

ought 100:14

102:16 125:16

220:16

outbound 47:2

135:21

outcome 64:15

outliers 93:15

outline 22:9 269:14

outlined 112:7

outlook 178:21

201:18 204:3

221:6

output 110:1 136:1

140:22 167:6

251:12 268:16

292:18 294:10

outs 170:9

outset 9:2 12:6,22

13:4 20:20 353:5

outside 15:6 116:15

146:16

overall 49:22

121:21 163:8

167:12 173:2

178:15 223:4

265:10 292:13,18

overanalyzing

245:19

overdue 267:2

overshoot 256:21

overview 3:3 9:7

21:9 22:8 35:18

110:7 177:20

over-comply 262:8

262:14

over-the-counter

23:16 61:15

owned 14:14

206:22 207:1

ownership 339:2

oxide 284:19 285:7

287:12

ozone 15:15,18

P

P 4:1

packaged 52:21

packed 150:14

packet 8:17 21:18

page 26:14 34:2

290:14 291:2,5

pages 82:1 347:3

pair 155:11

pane 38:1 89:20

99:13

panel 63:16

panels 37:17 62:1

132:21 137:11

339:19,21

panes 98:22

parameters 76:13

76:15 112:2,14

113:2,11,15 114:1

115:6 116:13

176:5 203:22

210:12 282:15,16

pardon 311:10

part 12:11,12 19:16

19:20 27:18 29:2

104:1 105:11

111:5 151:4

161:14 169:3

183:18 231:7

284:5 287:20

296:14 302:13

316:2 327:22

329:17 346:19

PARTICIPANT

258:6

participants 11:5

11:21 317:19

participate 11:22

13:21 319:1

particular 22:4

39:12 50:6 53:9

53:19 83:11 89:17

122:2 123:16

140:9 160:22

166:17 174:14

179:7 191:7

192:10,21 200:9

203:8 209:6 215:5

244:14 248:14

251:17 252:1

282:11 283:21

291:2 294:4

particularly 40:1

99:3 103:21 122:3

159:21 216:16

244:22 270:22

parties 12:16

parts 124:17 274:4

pass 80:8 164:7

271:14 341:11

passage 330:16,20

passed 59:6,7

passes 58:10

passing 59:3

path 15:13

patient 163:15

pattern 306:7

Paul 1:21 8:6

pause 22:20 23:1

163:13

pay 87:16,21,22

164:8 177:13

342:15

payback 3:8 9:14

17:2 18:13 141:10

141:10 175:8,19

177:9 211:4,13

329:18

paybacks 17:5,21

46:7 211:11

paying 280:4

penalized 147:5

274:3

penalty 263:12

penetration 294:14

people 20:6 26:13

56:15 78:20 82:13

101:21 124:21

125:5 144:1

145:21 163:5

170:16 202:21

203:19 205:8

210:18 220:6

230:15,19 238:12

245:22 250:6

258:12 264:8

280:13 293:18

316:20 319:1,11

320:10 330:20

331:6 342:7

346:18 348:17

percent 17:15,22

47:15 64:7,12

65:9,16 66:5 70:4

70:5 71:16,18

90:10 92:15,15

94:11,12 95:9

107:3 112:9,18

118:3 123:10

128:10,13 133:2

133:17 141:19

142:18,19,21

144:13,16,17,22

147:6 151:1

152:11,11 198:22

207:13 213:14,15

227:2 230:11

231:8 239:21

240:22 248:17,18

256:1,6 262:1

265:7 266:2

272:15,16 276:5

278:10,12 296:20

297:3 298:22

301:3,7,9,10,10

301:11,15 303:12

303:15,15,16

305:19,21,22

306:1,3 308:17

310:19 314:5,6

315:13,13,15,15

319:8,9 321:4,8

324:15 329:15,16

336:22 337:6

345:4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 383

percentage 235:16

266:6,10 271:10

279:16

percentages 175:1

214:14 335:7

percentile 20:10

319:5

percents 306:4

perfect 228:12

perform 79:4

performance 43:1

44:12 46:17,18

50:2 55:3 59:22

60:11,11 66:9,22

71:12 72:5,7

76:15 96:12,12,18

96:21 97:5,13,14

98:1 106:12 108:4

108:7 109:4,11,11

109:13,20 110:2,5

110:8 111:5,10

115:10,13,17,21

123:20 136:2

141:6 163:9 186:9

216:17 351:2

performed 120:16

performs 24:10

perimeter 157:7

period 3:8 9:14

112:10 123:2

141:10 151:19

162:15 175:8,19

177:9 201:20

211:4 218:21,21

220:4 229:10

232:17 247:21

254:13,14 255:11

265:12,15 274:18

275:4 279:6

284:13 288:4

289:1 295:20

300:19 324:13,14

329:14 334:17

343:16 344:9

periods 324:12

329:18

perishable 35:1

85:21

permanent 60:5

perpetuate 227:19

perpetuating

231:11

personally 105:18

perspective 138:8

175:12 342:1,2

per-case 182:5

per-product

136:21

phase 269:5,10,11

282:9

phases 134:18

269:5

phase-outs 279:21

phasing 214:4

phenomenon 228:6

philosophically

336:13

philosophy 335:22

phone 102:16

phones 10:20

physical 51:19 52:3

67:6 118:13

156:16

pick 55:3 204:17

267:13

picking 48:3 147:6

196:22

picture 196:10

213:7 232:14

235:16 237:11

piece 34:21 51:15

103:15 121:18

166:9 173:5 179:1

189:9 207:10

293:19,20 340:11

pieces 103:21

110:15 113:18

155:19 172:20

350:2

piling 183:17

pitch 79:10 82:9

PL 23:18

place 10:8 86:5

106:14 167:22

213:8 224:11

226:6 243:10

312:9 341:18

352:15

placed 84:19 93:5

325:21

placement 84:18

84:22 192:15

places 99:16

placing 226:8

plan 246:9

planning 136:6

plans 146:9

plant 247:12 285:2

285:4,12

plants 289:16,20

play 58:11 304:21

337:19

players 230:17

playing 126:13

270:5,12

plays 73:17,21

please 5:10 7:6,7

8:14 10:13,19

28:7 48:21 79:17

80:20 94:17

107:20 128:4

165:8,17 168:19

171:5,22 180:11

182:1 212:1

267:11 280:16

311:10 344:2

353:15

pleased 8:19 13:7

pledged 214:4

plenty 323:15

348:22

plotted 18:5

plug 302:17 308:14

plugged 303:9

plus 33:11 150:20

249:10 250:6

314:6 321:4

point 27:20 30:20

41:2,9 42:10

43:22,22 47:2

51:8 53:3 54:10

73:14 77:13 78:15

93:13 105:16

107:8 108:19

119:13 127:11

141:3 144:4 149:7

149:12,17 151:9

152:10 162:3

185:10 187:11

193:7 198:3 214:5

225:2 226:11

244:7 250:5

251:10 259:9,11

259:13,14 261:22

283:10 287:9

307:4 310:13,21

322:20 323:13,21

333:17,19 339:14

347:12,15

pointed 307:17

321:3 338:4

pointing 30:4

points 11:3 36:9

45:11 139:19

144:21 145:18

153:13 219:11

223:5 263:9

308:21 311:13

349:11

polarized 84:14

85:2

policy 16:17 91:1

120:17 167:15

218:7 286:14

291:7 295:6 312:1

331:3,5

poll 130:6

pollutant 284:18

284:19

pollutants 284:8,10

284:10

pollution 286:2

poor 258:20

pops 198:13 227:12

populated 20:5

318:8,10

population 210:10

232:20 265:10

318:17

portal 164:8

portends 5:2

portion 136:5

169:1 266:4 268:8

portions 89:5

position 309:3

positioning 339:6

positions 134:5

positive 167:10

211:15 247:17

252:10 265:9

293:3 329:18

336:4

possibilities 94:19

possibility 348:3

possible 55:15 88:5

91:16 94:13 124:3

126:13 169:7

172:18 189:18

191:6 205:13

221:19 231:19

279:9 324:6

344:14 346:1

possibles 128:3

possibly 255:8

292:20,21 309:6

310:16 319:19

332:8

potential 38:15

39:13 84:5 89:16

103:9 125:13

127:15 176:12

223:14 224:1

234:3 268:10

270:21 273:12

279:19

potentially 36:1

37:19 38:3,6 41:3

59:17 121:21

140:12 185:6

208:5,18 258:9

333:20

pounding 213:20

pounds 122:21

pounds-per 122:20

power 64:11 111:7
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 384

111:17 112:19

113:5,7,11,11

115:21 117:9,18

117:21 131:5

151:1 186:21

247:12 284:9,17

285:2,4,12 289:16

289:20 305:20,21

305:22 306:1

315:6 339:11

PowerPoint 10:7

21:18

PPI 255:18,20

practicability 98:2

practicable 39:7

practical 80:13

91:5 311:16 342:2

practice 47:4

107:11

practices 198:19

199:9

pragmatism

345:12

precautionary

233:19

precise 266:9

precisely 127:11

preclude 98:1

predict 119:21

203:13 206:21

predicted 238:17

250:19 288:5

299:18 300:9

predicting 251:4

294:22 329:10

prediction 221:6

preexisting 140:11

preferred 244:2

preliminary 11:18

12:5 35:22 167:4

174:9 269:6

premise 184:7

premises 183:19

premium 71:19

208:6,7 324:16

prepare 353:4

prepared 300:18

334:20

prescribe 22:12

23:5,14 191:2

prescriptive 45:12

105:3 293:21

presence 52:5

present 1:11 8:19

16:2,13 247:8,14

266:21 268:17

287:14 336:4

presentation 12:11

21:2 22:6 27:19

41:13 352:4

presented 30:11

92:5

presenting 30:17

presents 284:11

preservation

271:17

preserve 33:13

presiding 1:10

press 130:8

pressure 37:10,12

pressures 263:16

pretty 18:8,13

107:21 194:10

211:11 239:5

254:1 261:16

338:8

prevalent 104:7

prevent 169:20

237:22

preventative

179:20

prevents 140:3

previous 45:4 63:2

63:3,6 69:11

71:15 106:16

139:7 149:16

224:5 230:8 235:3

previously 69:3

97:19 109:9

114:16 320:12

price 46:14 135:8

135:13 172:15,16

173:4,9 176:1,19

177:14 178:1,4,20

179:17 201:16,19

204:7 207:9

209:21 210:14

212:20 220:5,12

220:15,21 229:14

229:17 230:4

248:3,5 255:8,10

255:16 264:22

266:4,7,21 275:22

276:4 277:19,22

priced 279:11

prices 18:6 47:5

135:22 176:12

178:12 201:7,9,11

201:20 207:6

210:5 255:14

256:5 264:22

277:14 278:9

279:14 282:20

283:7,13,20

pricing 270:9 274:4

primarily 16:5

72:16 175:13

177:1 235:6,10

255:12 285:11

330:2

primary 43:9,20

47:8,12 48:3,5,15

48:20 50:18 51:5

54:5 109:18 155:8

219:6 242:9

244:13 268:13

283:1 294:21

private 273:9 339:2

privately 60:18

302:8

proactive 15:19

probably 15:6

29:18 47:15

122:11 194:12

235:18 240:22

241:19 256:5

279:4 293:3

problem 15:16

229:8 315:16

problematic

157:12

problems 234:10

procedure 3:3 9:8

24:20 25:6,12,14

26:9,17,18,19

27:3,8,8,11 30:10

35:9 38:8 41:11

41:22 68:21 77:17

78:18 84:9 98:6

109:13 110:3,17

112:4,7 113:19

117:13,16,18

150:6 196:18

250:18 304:8

procedures 21:9

22:9 24:19 25:18

26:21

proceed 21:16 28:2

30:16 108:18

165:12 244:4

proceeding 20:16

31:14 32:19 33:17

40:8,9 48:11

146:20 147:2,5

proceedings 21:12

353:19

process 27:14

54:14 89:11 104:2

135:15 145:14

224:14 249:13

250:17 251:13

269:18 285:18

342:18 346:2

347:18,19 348:15

processes 255:17

264:4

processing 165:11

procurement 294:3

313:7

produce 34:7 52:21

87:9 191:7 192:18

249:18 276:18

285:3,5 287:21

298:2

produced 47:16

119:5 297:18

produces 118:19

142:1 177:22

producing 44:16

148:22

product 50:6,12

52:7 57:20 60:14

72:20 78:10 85:14

85:22 86:1 88:2

90:22 96:21 98:15

98:19 99:10

101:17,22 102:1

105:6 117:19

127:7,7 132:12

136:16 143:22

144:18 147:8,9,11

196:21 197:18

203:8 219:20

220:10 223:14,14

223:21 225:3

228:18,20 229:12

229:12 231:19

234:2,8 249:18

257:13,20,22

258:10 259:4

269:1 270:22

271:11 272:20

276:5 279:10

280:13 293:11

294:4 298:5,10

301:21 303:18

315:20 316:19,22

317:4 322:21

323:6,7 349:8

production 46:19

135:12,20 271:14

284:20 285:10

productive 5:3

165:5

productivity 286:5

products 17:11

20:7,11 54:19,20

57:13 68:19 85:21

95:7,17 96:7 97:1

103:7,19 139:17

140:5,9 149:10

154:9 194:16,16

197:14 208:5,6,15

231:15 256:20

257:7 259:5
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 385

277:22 294:2

299:2 301:3,22

315:19 318:14

319:1 323:16

324:10 331:19

334:10 339:12

340:18 341:6

349:5 351:8,18

profile 269:7

profit 271:17,19

profitability

348:21

profits 173:3 272:2

program 216:8

263:3 293:17

294:13 295:4

296:18 298:2,4

304:12,14 307:10

309:19 316:12

317:3 320:5 321:9

325:12

programs 294:2,10

294:17,20 296:17

297:13,17 325:14

325:15,16 327:2

327:14,19,20

328:4,8

progress 253:1

348:2

project 2:2 6:13 7:3

13:6 301:7

projected 24:15,16

289:1

projecting 239:8

projection 289:22

projections 221:5

223:7,9

projects 216:9

221:16

promise 264:15

promote 313:3

promulgated

327:13

promulgation

330:12

proof 56:14

prop 14:15

propane 40:2

126:17 127:6

128:1

properties 52:4

60:7

property 286:5

proponent 339:13

proportional 157:8

proportionally

151:3

proportionate

152:8

proportionately

149:21

proposal 4:17 92:5

142:13 303:2

305:18 335:2

proposals 100:18

133:18 303:11

334:9

proposed 9:21

12:14 13:7,9

18:19 27:9 28:12

47:19 74:2 77:9

103:8 104:21

119:2 142:7 149:4

224:1 235:19,21

257:8 295:14

302:9 303:17

308:15 316:8

328:5 332:9 335:3

345:10

proposes 26:18

proposing 68:16

prorated 151:17

prototype 69:1

prototypes 94:1

prototypical 51:9

prove 56:6

proven 99:20

provide 10:8 11:22

14:20 20:12 83:6

115:20 124:6

193:16 335:13

337:17 338:13,13

344:10 346:21

350:12

provided 10:6

26:13 69:6 184:18

281:5 311:17

provides 292:10

providing 19:1

352:5

provisions 26:4

27:3,4

proxy 158:18

PSC 60:6

pseudo 325:15

public 1:3,8,12 4:5

4:16 12:21 13:21

82:22 104:4 269:8

269:12 273:8

publicly 60:18 72:6

200:22 309:15

publish 145:21

284:6

published 23:18

201:18 255:19

276:20 283:16

286:9 287:2

319:12

pull 56:5 214:15

269:7 349:17

pulled 38:18 52:7

119:7 144:9

pull-down 33:12

34:19 61:20 74:12

75:8 85:5,16 86:7

93:18,21 94:3

100:9,11 306:18

341:13,16

pull-down-type

93:6

pump 182:15

punched 69:14

purchase 87:16

128:11 172:16

173:20 176:1

177:14,19 204:6

205:12 207:18

208:9 209:7,21

213:4 214:5

216:13 222:10

230:4 241:10

244:16 245:2

255:10 310:21

purchased 84:20

203:6 206:19

210:19

purchaser 173:17

175:12 204:5

210:10 309:9

purchasers 13:12

203:1 229:21

purchases 74:9

84:16 205:3

206:12 240:21

241:4

purchasing 35:1

202:22 205:9,19

241:19 244:18

274:2 309:4

335:15

pure 301:12

purely 235:5 237:1

336:7

purpose 35:21 39:1

78:10 137:3

166:12 175:10

198:18 212:7

218:18 268:1,4

purposes 43:19

51:11 146:6 186:8

186:12 287:9

pursuing 313:7,9

push 102:12 230:15

230:16 258:2

310:16,17 313:2

331:7

pushback 333:7,9

pushed 97:2 105:12

147:18 230:12

pusher 314:17

pushes 147:15

pushing 333:17

put 9:4 67:17 68:17

70:2 87:13 96:4

101:16 105:22

107:20 119:17

123:13 129:16

131:22 133:7

177:5 192:7

197:15 215:22

216:21 218:15

220:13 224:21

228:6,8 245:21

251:10,11 260:13

270:4 272:8

305:10 309:3

311:13 317:5,22

334:20 337:3,4,19

352:16

puts 288:7

putting 68:12

86:19 133:21

181:12

p.m 165:2 267:9,10

353:20

Q

quad 13:17 295:13

329:14 343:13

quadrillion 247:10

quads 247:10

254:11 295:9,10

qualified 299:2

qualify 257:19

268:5

qualifying 299:1

qualitative 245:12

266:13 269:3,17

quantifiable

297:16

quantifiably 79:6

quantification

51:19

quantified 177:5

quantify 168:11,13

204:13 227:10

268:19 284:6

297:20

quantitated 76:10

quantitative 104:8

213:7 245:12

269:16

quantity 221:10

quarter 256:1

question 15:4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 386

18:17 28:5 39:16

44:20 45:20 54:14

56:19 71:21 77:1

78:11 83:13 92:3

92:21 103:3

104:12 105:10

108:1 114:5 118:9

120:4 127:1

128:19 140:3

157:2 159:18,22

160:21 169:21

182:3 187:13

190:8 191:11

198:11 199:20

212:5 223:15

224:18 225:18

226:11,18 235:1

240:6 248:19,22

249:7 274:13

277:8 278:1 309:8

311:13,13,15

312:1,7 313:5

314:7 317:12,16

317:21 319:8

320:14,17 321:22

323:10 335:16,18

344:6

questioned 197:22

306:12

questions 12:13

20:15 27:19 58:15

60:19 61:3 68:11

70:21 121:16

207:22 208:3

211:21 301:18

312:3,20 345:2,5

345:20 346:9

352:4

quick 12:16 35:18

89:10 96:5 107:21

quickly 36:22

67:20 290:2

quite 19:5 40:11,17

43:13 67:20 72:14

118:11 195:19

198:20 217:10

218:12

quotes 135:8

342:13

R

R 4:1

raced 186:18

rack 32:12 334:21

radiation 53:15

110:19 113:1

raise 10:3 11:9 12:1

30:12 116:9 227:1

276:4 312:15,16

raised 18:18

220:10 345:20

347:14

raising 170:14

296:13

ramifications

230:14

ran 106:7 303:2,4

randomly 253:12

range 93:12,13,15

141:19 149:7

286:11

ranges 35:4

rant 184:9 351:18

rapid 264:21

rapidly 34:22

ratchet 259:6

rate 17:8 122:20

173:7 178:17

201:3 248:17,18

265:7 278:15

289:13 294:14

329:16 330:5

rated 97:11

rates 17:14,22

176:11 200:21

201:1 202:10

210:5 220:20

248:12,13,15

282:21 287:7

rating 32:4 35:5

77:13 113:21

158:15 260:18,21

260:21 351:2,16

ratio 211:5

ratios 157:6

raw 329:9

razor 237:6

RCL 131:1

RCM 89:19

rd 4:7

reach 104:2 196:14

281:9 311:16

342:20 343:17

reach-in 17:19

reach-ins 34:14

reach-in-type

34:11

read 82:7 102:21

204:18 212:13

328:21

readily 20:8

reading 145:19

187:1 260:12

290:20 291:5

347:2

ready 169:17 326:5

326:6

real 73:8 79:13

159:22 251:2

277:18,22 315:15

319:10 332:2

reality 51:22

157:11 325:9

realize 120:20

259:2,3

realized 121:10

realizes 50:8

realizing 192:6

really 10:8 19:10

31:11 42:21 43:7

72:3 81:11 100:21

110:14 126:9

127:8 128:6 135:2

139:12 154:8

170:2 177:7 188:9

191:5 202:18

204:11 209:17

212:5 224:5,18

226:10,14 228:5

228:20 229:4,6

230:17 236:14

250:17 259:8

291:6 295:2 299:6

302:2 311:19

313:17 317:11,13

318:13 319:16

320:2 323:1 336:1

336:13 341:21

344:13 345:22

347:3 351:5

realm 146:7 290:22

reason 45:20 59:20

87:15 124:16

128:21 301:21

reasonable 50:12

304:5,10 319:16

334:12 349:18

351:7

reasonably 76:1

349:14

reasoned 325:11

reasoning 142:20

reasons 36:11

38:22 85:20 88:4

180:22 251:8

279:6 307:11

320:15

rebate 230:1

293:18 294:17

302:1,3

rebates 229:15,20

293:22 295:9

rebuilding 231:4

rebuilt 276:6

recategorized 33:7

receive 199:12

353:16

received 8:17

174:10 199:13

243:6

recess 164:14

recognize 350:20

recognized 15:17

recognizing 184:5

331:22

recollection 29:9

125:18

recommend 238:7

342:16

recommendation

74:21 77:8

recommendations

74:6

recommended

74:13 81:8 85:7

reconcile 136:2

reconciles 141:6

reconciliation

317:14

record 9:4 10:14

21:4,13,14 28:8

102:21 148:4,6,9

198:5 243:15,19

244:1 267:9,10

291:11 311:4

353:20

recovery 273:22

recreate 346:12

recurring 177:4

recycle 207:16

recycling 217:4

redefine 269:1

redefining 291:17

redesign 138:7

272:21 273:18

314:4 340:19

redesigning 75:16

314:7

redo 322:16

reduce 16:3,12

88:8 91:16 152:22

186:20 194:8

286:7 296:18

297:1

reduced 288:2

reducing 163:4

reduction 39:13

65:8 66:5 133:17

141:20 142:18,19

152:11,11 208:12

288:22 289:10

292:9 297:4 298:3

305:20,21,22

306:1 310:20

reductions 15:18
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 387

284:12 286:22

287:15 288:18,20

288:20 330:2

redundant 79:21

reeling 332:7

reengineering

75:16

reevaluate 311:18

reevaluated 346:5

refer 132:13 172:4

reference 25:15

43:22 105:16

107:8 256:3

references 25:1,18

286:12

referencing 193:8

referred 293:9

referring 131:5

136:17 160:22

184:4

refine 174:22 243:7

refined 206:8

reflect 46:14

156:15 351:17

reflected 41:16

141:14,21

reflecting 64:19

321:15

reflects 142:19

244:10

refrigerant 40:10

126:9 128:2 158:8

159:5 180:14,15

180:15 181:14

215:3,5 216:18

227:7 280:9

refrigerants 40:1

41:4 54:18 88:16

124:7 126:18

127:12 134:6

181:18 183:22

184:9 214:12

216:14 217:12

227:8 274:18

275:9 280:4

332:20 333:1

340:21 341:2,3

refrigerant-neut...

120:18,22

refrigerated 25:4

134:20 168:1

refrigerating 214:6

refrigeration 1:4

4:7,17 5:21 6:3,9

6:20 13:13 15:20

17:19 22:10,13

23:6,15 24:13,21

25:13 26:1,10,20

27:16 31:10,18

45:13 49:11,14

54:19 60:16 111:6

111:19 115:14

124:4 127:22

150:6 167:6 214:9

225:19 233:22

241:10 255:21

268:3 276:22

277:19 278:8

298:13 312:11

323:19 325:12,17

refrigerator 23:7

39:14 93:6 111:2

196:2 315:3,4,5,9

349:19

refrigerators 33:3

34:13,16 84:17

158:4,9 302:20,21

303:8,14,14

305:19,20

refurbish 227:14

refurbished 231:20

276:7

refurbishing 231:4

refurbishment

231:18

Reg 281:1 321:6

327:7

Regal 1:21 8:6

regard 86:6 225:19

225:20

regarding 26:22

29:1 48:15 71:21

345:6

regardless 275:13

regards 256:14

316:7

regionally 201:8,21

Register 245:22

290:14

registered 10:15

regrets 16:17

regular 177:2

179:14 185:3

200:4

regulate 19:15

regulated 17:1,4,13

20:1 91:9 258:11

258:17 259:17

regulates 15:2

54:21

regulation 280:8

280:10,11,11

312:7

regulations 225:21

268:11 277:2

regulatory 226:21

268:14 269:2,15

276:17 280:7,19

280:20 293:8,14

294:13 295:4,6

307:20 316:4

320:4,10 322:1,6

322:11 324:11

325:15 327:8

reiterate 81:6

344:16

rejected 105:12

113:6

related 133:6 139:2

139:13 179:8

212:22 226:13,14

244:22 255:21

relation 43:4

relationship 278:4

332:2

relative 19:8 112:9

161:2 174:5,9

210:7 231:18

235:14 251:2

266:5 270:9,16

273:15,16 277:13

277:21

relatively 18:15

177:9 186:17

219:9 223:3 256:2

274:7 293:9

release 353:7

released 298:21

releasing 124:16

relevant 215:13

294:4

reliability 79:2

reluctant 183:16

relying 300:2

remaining 47:17

120:17 202:7

remake 340:4

remarks 3:2,13

4:14 9:1,22 12:6

13:1 20:19 343:22

344:1,5 351:20

352:18

remember 299:17

343:2

remind 30:11

reminder 12:16,16

remodel 244:17

Remodeling 244:13

remote 32:11,13

35:14 52:19 54:1

65:20 116:18,22

143:15 156:5

157:18 180:1

182:4,16 183:1

184:15 188:17

190:6,11 191:14

192:11 193:1,13

194:19 196:16

200:19

remotes 193:20

removal 124:3

remove 129:2

299:1

removed 36:11

39:4 41:8 132:17

removing 217:11

217:15

reorganize 26:19

rep 222:17

repair 178:14

179:5,10,12,16

200:5 343:12

repairs 177:4

179:15

repeated 310:14

repeating 68:10

306:11

rephrase 306:16

replace 187:10

198:20 222:1

244:11

replacement 187:9

221:19 293:16

replacements

240:16

report 145:1

reporting 28:16

reports 29:21

219:16 233:13

234:7 269:9

represent 201:3

203:4 240:7 245:6

268:15 342:22

representations

25:9

representative

43:20 46:20 51:4

51:7,14,17 52:13

53:3 54:22 55:4,5

55:14 56:20 68:19

69:6 109:8 143:22

182:8 204:11

335:12

represented 143:14

representing 6:17

79:19

represents 173:1

178:10 203:19

204:4 241:1 248:6

254:13

reproduce 36:22

request 54:8

215:20 265:16

requests 243:5

352:3
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 388

require 50:16

187:9 224:5 308:9

required 29:8 45:2

58:5 83:17 217:6

284:6,8

requirement 58:3

217:3 261:9

requirements

24:11 29:11 55:6

95:22 262:2

304:21 327:8

requires 281:2

rerun 305:9

research 135:7

269:9

resell 207:7,7,7

residential 336:10

resources 314:9

351:14

respect 42:12 55:17

76:5,11 106:1

274:17 344:12

respond 104:15,20

125:16 151:11

responded 57:13

responding 118:9

response 27:21

30:14 50:20 58:16

61:2 72:1 134:10

148:14 163:12

209:14 217:21

266:22 304:9

responsibility

327:10

rest 83:9 129:8

248:2

restaurant 206:22

207:1,12 221:11

221:13 238:8

342:9,21

restaurants 17:16

207:14 227:13

restrictive 236:15

restricts 127:8

result 19:14 101:19

169:9 211:16

257:2 272:13

289:9

resulting 25:20

246:13 292:3

results 16:20 41:18

49:6 97:11,16,18

110:2 114:17

118:13,18 119:1,5

120:1 121:20

146:3 148:22

149:22 159:10

205:20 206:2

211:19 271:19

290:17 328:20

resume 163:21

164:13 267:4,12

retained 48:6 64:8

64:10 156:13

179:11 200:16

retesting 75:16

rethinking 306:6

return 17:8,14,22

126:5 264:11

267:7

Returning 9:17

returns 160:12

reverse 52:9 236:2

review 8:20 26:14

36:15 56:21 69:17

280:20 300:22

332:18 344:10

reviewed 64:1,14

124:2 195:6

revise 26:18

revised 174:8

revolves 78:11

re-ask 191:11

re-education 317:2

RIA 281:17

rid 293:19

right 13:3 16:6,15

30:1 31:8 41:16

51:1 58:18 61:5

64:13 77:21 79:12

84:3,14 88:11

108:22 125:21

132:1 134:11

138:9 139:20

143:4 148:19

160:19 183:4,7

184:2 190:15

191:1,17 193:11

197:3 209:9 217:1

227:21 231:13

236:4,5 240:19

242:19 249:4

257:19 258:7,19

267:20 289:18,21

290:3 291:13

297:12 302:17

305:7 308:5 309:7

315:17 322:21,22

325:22 326:1

328:17 332:19

334:19 336:20

337:16 341:17

350:8 352:12

rise 280:21 286:6

rising 15:9

risk 227:17

Rivest 2:5 7:15,15

road 96:2

Robert 1:21 2:9

6:10 54:11,13

94:5,7 98:9 100:2

126:6,7 167:17

168:10 170:7,9

172:3 196:4,5

226:15,16 231:1

242:8 243:11

250:2 257:10,11

258:21 263:4

275:20,21 277:9

277:12 278:5,6

280:5,6 306:9

307:14 311:10

344:15 346:7

Robert's 256:14

roll 83:8

rolled 138:10

158:20 159:12

226:2

rolls 214:7

rollup 222:2

Ron 2:6 5:14

rooftop 313:12,14

room 1:9 5:7 8:18

11:13 82:13 85:17

125:6 126:19

163:21,21 182:18

214:2 250:6

304:11 319:7

342:8 346:17

348:22 353:17

rough 72:20 211:12

roughly 75:13

119:16 272:16

274:6 295:13

round 9:17,19

223:17 230:8

333:2

rounder 157:9

rounding 301:14

row 204:17 205:2

rows 212:6

Roy 2:5 6:19,19

265:20,20 274:12

274:12 290:5,5,11

290:13 291:10,16

291:20 295:15,15

295:22 296:6

344:6

Royal 1:21 2:1 6:4

8:1 114:7

RS 179:21

rule 13:7 23:10

24:15 25:12,16

29:17 31:13 32:16

66:20 80:14

149:19 155:9

156:14,14 166:17

169:18 171:9

179:4,11 200:16

211:12 235:3,4

249:6,8 280:19,22

326:17 327:13

328:5 330:16,20

346:3 352:22

353:4,7

rulemaking 24:13

26:6 27:10,14

29:1,3 30:21 31:3

31:12 33:6,11,18

45:3 48:6,7 56:13

58:7 63:2,3 64:3

64:12 69:12,20

71:15 83:8 110:9

110:10 139:8

144:7 156:19

218:13 230:8

234:3 235:16,20

235:21 250:21

252:1 268:12

281:3 282:9 283:1

337:9 347:21

353:11

rulemakings 48:1

63:20 228:4

246:12 274:19

275:19 276:21

336:14

rules 28:17 224:10

224:10 275:11

285:14 332:9

run 34:2 56:5 67:14

68:20,20 91:18

93:6 111:17

112:16 113:12

117:12 118:2

122:7 281:13

288:8 309:11,17

309:18 340:5,5

running 32:12

199:1 340:8

runs 38:19 182:17

R&D 92:10

R-value 113:15

R134a 120:15

124:1

R290 88:17

R404 120:15 124:1

R744 88:17 120:8

181:1

S

S 4:1

Sachs 2:6 6:6,6

14:17,17,21 39:18

39:19,19 41:5
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 389

42:11,11,16 57:8

57:9,10,18 58:13

121:3 124:12,13

124:15 125:8

127:10 143:7,8,8

154:17 159:16,17

159:17 160:7,13

160:20 162:10

183:11,15,15

184:3 185:18,19

186:15 187:13,17

188:4,11 198:10

199:17 232:5,5,10

233:1,9,18 234:15

237:16 245:16

250:1,4,10 263:4

298:15,20 300:1

331:13,14 334:18

350:19

safe 353:12

safety 39:12,13

40:18 59:18 84:5

96:15,16 98:5

126:22 153:7

264:1 271:2

315:17 349:8,16

Safeway 18:7

sale 314:6

sales 13:16 178:3

201:12 225:12

273:21 277:13,17

277:21 279:5

338:17

sample 351:8

sampling 146:9

250:22

Sanders 56:18

70:20 160:15

313:20 314:1,1

Sands 102:14

sat 144:7

satisfy 24:10

saturation 308:7

308:18

save 13:15,17 70:4

236:21 312:10,13

336:22 337:5,13

337:13

saved 162:22

saving 101:8 312:6

313:17

savings 13:11,12,16

13:19 16:13 17:3

19:4,10 105:14

166:15 177:17

178:18 201:4

206:9 210:7 232:3

237:2 247:6,6,9

247:16,18 249:2

252:8,12 253:1

254:10,22 257:4

259:16 284:1,1,2

288:5 294:11

295:3,7 297:16

329:9,13,18 331:7

331:18 332:3,5

334:12 337:15

339:9

savvy 230:21

saw 82:3 118:7

121:13 145:16

149:5 225:3 304:2

320:10

saying 23:4 85:2

100:10 104:21

118:12,21 139:15

145:4 146:16

147:3 152:5,9

172:5 181:13

185:15 187:14

191:14,21,22

192:21 197:12

209:8 214:14

231:5 239:13

250:13 262:7

265:21 290:6

304:18 309:18,20

309:22 310:2,7

322:21 323:8,11

326:10 336:2,9

says 150:20 162:21

191:20 256:4

SBA 273:4

scale 156:16 179:16

179:18 197:14

273:20 284:16

329:6 330:5

scaled 149:20

scars 250:11

scenario 147:7

271:17 283:17

scenarios 145:22

271:7 294:15

schedule 24:13,14

163:15

Scheduled 117:16

scope 3:3 9:7 21:9

22:8 26:22 48:10

scratch 65:10

screen 39:22

212:11 235:13

screened 39:3

40:16 42:5,10

89:16

screening 3:5 9:10

28:3 30:22 36:8

38:19 39:5 41:7

42:20 44:7 59:1,3

59:7,8 80:9,13

90:20 127:11

271:5

sea 286:6

seats 165:18 267:12

SEC 269:8 272:5

287:8

second 32:4,18

43:18 71:21 111:5

115:12 126:6

142:10 173:18

174:13 189:14

194:18 196:6

210:17 211:1

268:4 283:10

312:15

secondary 48:16,21

50:18 155:5

159:20 237:19

238:2

seconds 78:9 123:7

162:15 163:5

section 30:22

290:16

sections 151:2

349:13

sector 201:19

213:10,10 216:5

219:19 231:2,10

242:16,16 248:14

279:3 284:9,18

288:16 290:2

292:17,17 344:19

sectors 201:11

214:14 220:19

245:10 278:20

292:6

security 164:8

see 4:10 11:17 16:3

17:12,14 19:19

20:4 24:7,8 25:14

27:12 29:8 34:8

34:14 43:3 56:1

58:9 64:15 68:18

69:15 70:10 72:19

93:7 98:21 99:10

101:17 105:18

106:21 108:5

112:5,11,12

121:19 128:21

131:2,4 142:8

145:3 154:2

164:12 165:7

205:2 212:16

215:9 223:18

224:12 228:13

233:15 235:12

241:15 252:21

253:21 255:15

266:18 272:13,14

274:6 283:5,6

292:22 296:11,12

296:22 297:8,11

307:2,3,8 309:17

311:1 315:14,15

321:12 325:17

326:2 334:1,13

336:19 337:20

341:14 343:10

347:15 351:8

seeing 130:15

199:9 279:9

351:20

seek 197:4

seeking 48:14 69:8

seen 15:22 40:8,12

63:7,13 71:12,22

83:7 93:20 94:2

150:22 235:1,4,8

299:12,21 335:8

SEER 336:11,12

segment 126:5

132:3

select 47:8

selected 47:9,12

272:11

selection 60:20

self 33:1 40:11 76:2

85:3 182:3 302:21

self-contained

22:13 23:5,16

32:13 33:3,4

35:15 38:10 49:16

62:13,16 65:19

74:11 75:9 111:9

115:17 132:8,13

142:17 156:5

157:18 180:1

182:13 184:15

185:4 188:17

190:6,11 191:15

192:11 193:2,19

193:22 196:16

200:19 216:2

217:2 241:9

302:20,21 303:1

319:3

self-explanatory

113:14

sell 72:19 85:22

99:7 229:13 235:6

315:9 342:13

selling 47:5 86:3

135:13,22 178:1

338:20

SEM 100:8

semivertical 34:7
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 390

61:14

send 11:13 12:2

102:20 165:8

243:20 350:13,16

sense 54:22 106:22

147:6 220:1,13

223:3 228:13

275:16 283:22

320:3 321:20

337:9 341:20

sensitivity 203:14

203:15 204:5

213:13 220:21

231:16

sensors 25:22

37:15,17 61:10

70:4,17 117:15

337:5

separate 26:16

29:3 146:20 147:2

147:4 178:4

259:15

separately 19:7

174:2

September 23:19

26:8

sequentially 31:7

sequestration 16:8

series 20:14 21:6

27:6 131:21

139:14 219:21

220:8 255:20

seriously 126:16

127:14

serve 43:21 51:7

78:9

served 54:6

serves 56:14 116:8

158:18

service 23:16 34:17

39:8 61:15 80:14

85:18 96:15 98:3

131:16 161:14

198:11 199:3

201:12 206:20

245:1 315:8

342:12

serving 137:2

296:19

session 165:4

sessions 165:21

set 23:9,11,22

28:13 32:22 38:17

38:21 51:10 54:4

57:3 62:2 63:6

108:16 110:1

133:2 145:13

146:3,17 178:4,9

205:7 219:10

225:6 305:14

326:4

sets 57:6 155:11

setting 24:5 147:7,7

settled 332:22

settlement 28:13

seven 24:3,4 142:21

144:21 248:17

265:7

Seventeen 224:13

shaded 119:9 212:7

shaded-pool 60:6

shaft 64:11 115:7

shaking 199:10

share 56:3 203:10

204:14 233:12,13

238:22 321:18

shares 280:1

shave 288:12

Shebik 2:6 5:14,14

sheet 134:21

sheets 36:17 52:8,8

144:9 257:21

shelf 93:1 101:1,1

119:8 226:6

shelves 103:15

she'll 11:14

shift 145:17 152:8

174:5 222:4 225:4

235:1,4,8,17

238:3 249:17

276:8

shifted 261:3

shifting 146:15

shifts 63:14 225:13

ship 144:18

shipment 47:16

48:12 160:5,8

232:21 238:20

272:6 321:14

338:14

shipments 3:10

9:15 43:15 218:2

218:4,10,12,17,18

219:14,18 220:1,4

221:15 222:14

232:10,13 233:4

233:15 236:18

240:8,9,10,13

244:6 246:20

255:1 269:13

272:7 294:8

shipped 254:15,16

299:7

shipping 47:2

shop 323:14,17

short 210:13

211:11 337:18

shorter 17:16

202:4,12 231:19

244:10

shortly 264:15,17

shove 66:3

shoving 66:4

show 18:10 52:1

81:16 129:7

208:18 223:8

265:22 295:2

325:3

showing 31:1 121:1

212:11 238:15

shown 33:20 61:7

119:15 174:12

272:11

shows 166:3 174:4

211:4 216:16

228:16 290:1

shutdown 26:10

352:9

shutting 59:16

side 16:4,6,10,15

119:8,9 178:7,10

280:9 289:3 292:2

sidebar 10:20

165:17

sides 97:5

sign 83:5 167:10

significant 97:7

103:16 123:14

154:2 161:14

167:13 172:9

177:4 234:18

255:16 266:3,6,14

280:22 281:4

283:8 285:16

293:4 295:3

297:18 298:2

299:22 344:20

significantly 122:6

123:19 162:7

163:8 211:14

304:20

silent 10:20

similar 18:7 119:5

121:20 155:20

194:16,17

similarly 118:19

198:16

simple 17:2,5,20

18:12 46:5 49:15

162:21 166:18

176:1 177:10

189:21 212:5

221:15 275:17

simpler 287:1

simplest 221:18

simplified 175:18

simplistic 171:3

simply 33:6 78:14

106:15 152:9

160:11 218:19

219:9 246:21

286:15 328:19

simulate 44:1

119:6

simulation 77:3

78:17 114:15,17

118:10 119:4,6,21

120:6 176:9

simulations 118:20

125:14 171:9

simulator 109:12

simultaneous

280:14

simultaneously

226:22 231:9

single 64:1 149:6

149:17 155:12,16

227:12 296:19

332:1

singular 78:15

siphon 299:1

sir 41:5 136:2

sit 346:17

site 163:19 176:22

sitting 238:12

239:4

situation 30:2

207:11 257:7,9

six 70:7 97:17

123:7 144:21

147:5 205:2 250:5

274:21

six-fin 82:8

six-year 332:18

size 55:17 68:5

155:20 196:15

223:1

sizes 93:12 149:8

150:1 152:12

209:20 222:18

skew 191:22

skipped 21:22

SKUs 197:19

slap 337:2

slapping 337:1

slid 124:15

slide 11:19 22:5

52:1 107:20 112:5

120:14 121:7

143:9 184:22

192:7 232:6,7

244:4 265:21

269:19 272:12

281:19 296:9

297:11 311:7
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 391

slides 10:7 12:5

14:4,18 21:2,6,19

56:11 110:6

114:20 264:12

270:19 272:12

281:18 328:19

338:5

sliding 62:7,9,10

sliding-top 34:12

34:12

slight 278:14

slightly 35:6

150:17 190:10

212:13 256:1

290:21

slow 255:15,22

256:2 346:1,6

slowing 59:17

small 64:18 121:10

160:5,7 169:13,16

195:12 202:6

227:13 268:7

270:13 273:2,3,4

273:11,13,14,20

274:1,7,9 281:5

283:2,12 306:2

318:17 342:10,11

342:12 345:4

smaller 103:15

185:6 199:1

244:21 253:8

282:19

SNAP 40:8 124:2

snapshot 209:3,4

308:8

SOC 132:13 141:18

142:14,16 188:16

241:14

Social 285:20 286:9

286:17 287:4

290:6 330:4

societal 248:15

society 16:12,16,19

336:15

soft 349:17

software 11:10

66:17 125:21

sold 45:5 223:2

301:3 338:7

solicit 41:3

soliciting 212:19

solid 34:13,13,15

161:13 302:19,21

302:22 303:8,13

303:15 305:18,21

338:8

solid-door 174:3,7

solution 305:6

345:7

solutions 1:12

12:21 154:15

somewhat 174:16

192:11 193:19

244:20 283:11

318:22

soon 281:21,22

sophisticated

218:12

sorry 22:22 23:2

49:7 79:21 98:9

130:1 168:18

171:13 208:2

213:18 233:9

258:11 277:11

289:4

sort 16:8,17 17:9

20:9 42:9 45:3

46:10 51:8,12

53:7,15 56:14

68:5 70:17 71:22

97:20 106:4,22

114:13 115:6

129:21 134:22

138:8 140:9

145:21 146:2,10

155:15 156:7,11

172:20 176:13

177:3 178:10

179:14 190:4

196:18 197:1

208:10 222:18

223:3 232:15

234:16 250:17

256:21 285:14,14

292:9 294:1 296:4

298:16 330:11

333:3

sorts 17:19 68:2,6

94:18 124:22

221:8 250:22

285:6

sounds 94:14,17

139:17 140:8

source 36:6 124:21

242:9

sources 36:14

38:19 52:11 60:18

64:10 219:11

269:8

sourcing 86:18

Southeast 237:17

Southern 1:16 8:5

19:5 169:16 304:5

335:21

So,I 316:17

so-called 125:11

space 103:14 167:7

167:16 221:4,7,11

223:10 232:13,15

232:19 270:22

spacing 37:11 68:5

sparks 62:19

speak 7:7 10:13,14

11:11,15 30:13

35:17 45:19 66:16

73:13 82:17 91:2

102:17,18 121:6

136:7,12 146:11

153:12 169:5

195:1 313:21

speaking 55:10,12

64:9 65:18 75:7

89:18 132:7 190:6

speaks 75:20 244:7

spec 52:8 257:21

309:9

special 195:18,19

330:14

specific 33:1 37:19

50:14 51:12 53:5

60:2 70:14 71:8

72:2 97:3,3 103:6

104:6 105:22

114:11 115:22

154:13 158:22

188:21 201:1,8,21

238:14 243:15,17

243:18 293:12

335:16

specifically 12:13

37:9,21 42:14

43:10 75:7 79:6

80:12 85:3 91:2

106:12 151:20

171:10 238:18

specification 36:17

192:10

specifications 57:3

87:4

specifics 68:3

specified 117:13

specify 316:22

spec'd 309:11

speed 38:13 76:2

346:6

spend 265:2 337:2

spending 348:5

spent 124:18

210:15 250:6

292:11,16

spill 161:3

spinning 113:10

split 61:11 172:21

spot 10:8 56:8

59:18 93:16

119:19

spots 93:11,17

spreadsheet 69:13

69:17 176:7 294:7

337:18,21 344:7

352:14

spreadsheets 70:11

spur 231:10

square 157:9

stacking 44:15

staff 87:3

stage 58:15 69:20

76:17 166:22

stake 342:7

stakeholders 27:7

36:19 204:10

238:14 331:8

stand 7:7

standard 9:21

18:19 19:17 25:1

25:2,3 46:2,3,8

53:13 55:18 58:10

64:17 70:15,16

82:20 83:17 94:4

95:5 104:13,21

105:2 116:20,22

120:5 141:21

142:7,18 144:15

144:17,19 146:4,5

149:3,4,16,17

150:20 167:2

175:15 179:15

180:19 189:7

202:10,19 203:2,7

203:11 204:20

205:7,10 206:10

210:21 219:4,5

221:20,21 222:4,5

223:16 224:16

225:5,6,11 232:3

236:13 249:10,11

249:20 251:11,15

258:14 259:19

260:12,22 261:4,6

262:18 263:2

264:2 265:5,13

271:13,21 272:11

275:14 277:15

284:7,14 292:4,7

292:22 293:5

301:19 302:8

304:8 315:19

319:6 321:14,17

322:3,4 323:4

329:21 330:12

331:21 336:5,6,9

336:10 349:14,14

standardized 154:7

254:19

standardizing
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 392

196:20 197:19

standards 1:3 2:1

4:6,19 6:13 12:14

13:6,17 19:15,19

20:2,3,13 22:11

22:12 23:5,9,14

23:21 24:5 26:5

29:5 30:3 31:15

32:22 45:13 47:20

55:5 56:14,16

58:5,7 75:3 86:4,5

87:10 91:3 95:13

96:1,8 104:5

108:16 129:1

140:11 141:14

144:10 149:22

155:7 156:9 157:1

186:10,11 223:17

223:19,20 224:1,5

225:8 226:22

247:5 268:2,20

275:1,5 293:21

295:14,17 296:4

304:7,9,20 305:2

308:15 312:15

315:11 318:15

322:2 326:4 332:1

349:6,22 351:9

standard-level

149:11

standing 232:16,16

233:2,6

standpoint 333:6

333:11

Star 133:18 236:20

238:20 297:6

298:1,7,9,21

299:20 300:8,18

301:2,4,18,21

302:10,14 303:3

303:11,13,17,19

304:6,12,19,22

305:1 307:6,8,18

313:1 316:6,9,12

316:22 317:3

318:21 319:22

320:1,12 321:3,15

321:18 322:4,4,9

322:20 323:2,5

324:7,21 326:11

Starr 2:7 7:20,20

168:17,21,21

start 4:13 5:6,7 7:6

13:4 30:20,21

31:4 45:7 75:15

147:17 165:3,22

170:14 176:18

195:21 231:6

233:4 251:22

311:11 340:14

351:7

started 5:3 102:17

186:5 258:18

starting 44:14

starts 261:4 275:4

state 297:13

stated 57:11 58:3

220:17 309:15

statement 9:2 85:1

95:11 266:13

279:4 281:3

301:19

statements 9:6

28:11 40:13

states 1:1 84:16,20

128:12 139:8

224:13,17 226:8

301:4

static 322:9

station 283:18

stations 342:9

343:1

statistical 324:9

325:3

statistics 255:19

264:3 301:13

statute 108:15

statutory 160:3

330:11

stay 20:22 87:11

101:20 181:3

207:8 235:14,18

steady 278:10

steady-state 84:9

step 43:18 44:4,11

46:17 47:7,8

134:12,14 148:20

310:4 342:18

stepped 313:13

stepping 312:13

steps 43:8

stepwise 278:13

step-down 225:10

Steve 5:18 73:18,19

73:20 84:11,13

86:16 92:6,19

96:6 100:2,4

118:7,8 124:11

127:4 128:4

133:13 180:11,12

181:21 184:3

213:17 215:12,18

225:16,17 296:7

306:8 311:5,20

316:20 325:6

335:5,10 342:3

STEVEN 1:17

stick 15:7

stock 18:6,14

218:20 219:2,5

221:17,22 222:7,8

222:10,11 232:16

233:2,6 240:11

246:21 247:2

stone 330:14

stop 165:17 168:13

storage 98:20

store 244:17

stores 238:10

283:18

straight 9:8 341:11

Straighten 260:4,8

stream 128:19

177:17 178:18

201:4

streamline 43:17

stress 333:17

stretch 264:17

267:5 300:12

312:17 334:21

stringency 331:21

332:1

strive 88:8 309:4

strong 13:9 345:10

349:3

strongly 223:9

structural 1:14 6:1

135:1 136:9,14,18

137:3,5,20 138:8

structure 10:6

31:22 67:20 109:5

224:7 339:16

structured 294:20

struggle 341:9

struggling 296:9

stuck 10:17

studied 141:4,5

studies 42:9 246:5

study 19:6 69:18

172:5,8 277:20

stuff 11:18 140:7

164:1 186:19

195:5 207:17

267:6

stuffs 349:9

style 226:7

styles 60:8

sub 283:10

subcategories 77:5

subcategory 49:22

subgroup 273:2

282:10,22 283:21

subgroups 268:6

subject 47:10 60:22

116:15 125:10

252:9 258:22

submit 21:21 22:1

22:4 185:15

330:20 331:9

350:11 352:6

353:2

submitted 9:4

82:21 83:11

219:14,17

submitting 12:17

subsector 282:12

subsequent 274:19

substantial 195:22

217:11 234:4

279:19 339:12

substantially 170:3

186:20 281:4

substantive 344:11

sub-product

219:20

successful 307:9

succinctly 268:19

suction 38:13 116:1

116:3

sudden 65:16 107:2

144:11

sufficient 154:6

sufficiently 10:4

suggest 70:14

226:18 276:2

312:9,14

suggested 332:4

suggestion 89:2

suggestions 152:15

265:17 331:9

suggests 218:6

271:13 290:20

291:2

suite 29:12

sulfur 285:11

287:17

sum 111:18 176:15

summary 9:2,6

12:5 13:1 20:19

243:2 352:2

summed 254:12

summer 57:22

124:19 125:12

233:21 250:6

sunset 323:6

sunsetted 322:20

supermarket

167:19 168:15

198:12 201:13

231:3 235:12

237:4 238:9

supermarkets 17:9

17:12 171:11

227:14 235:7

342:10,10
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 393

supervised 164:2

supplier 135:8

173:18

suppliers 64:10

91:14 115:18

supplies 60:17

supply 15:22 221:1

350:3

supplying 263:18

support 33:22

39:20 81:10,22

313:19 344:18,21

345:11,14 349:4

350:7 353:9

supported 152:14

supporter 314:18

supporting 14:13

165:9

supposed 72:18,21

129:17 318:15

supposedly 324:16

341:4

suppositions 107:7

sure 8:14 10:5

45:10 58:6 75:10

81:21 95:11 107:9

123:5 126:2

130:16 139:22

140:22 143:1

152:20 158:11,14

163:2 170:2,4

230:12 256:19

261:16 299:9

309:1 318:22

347:12 348:16

surely 347:15

surface 53:14

surprising 94:10

survey 42:13

surveyed 42:17

surveys 201:10

sustainability

296:14

SW 1:9

sweat 19:11 111:4

111:21

sweet 93:10,16,17

sweetest 93:17

switch 101:22

228:19

switching 90:22

98:16 220:10,20

223:14,15,21

228:6 269:18

system 111:6,17,19

115:14 122:6

159:10 168:2

204:2 288:7

systems 324:7

S-E-S-S-I-O-N

165:1

T

T 89:13 98:18 99:1

99:3,15 104:20

234:22 236:5,7

237:1,4

table 116:20 129:6

130:2,11,19

131:10 144:2,8

174:4,13 189:12

204:16 212:13

215:6 222:12,17

228:7 235:20,22

238:12 240:7

253:8 265:4,9

284:11 295:5

312:8 332:11

344:17 348:9

tables 81:12 193:8

211:18 255:2

287:3

tail 55:7 146:17

take 9:11,16 21:11

49:15 50:9 54:10

64:2 69:21 70:18

73:2 74:22 79:14

81:20 82:11 86:4

89:2 98:8 118:5

121:8 130:6,7

150:9 156:9

159:13 165:17

177:10,13 178:16

178:20 188:16

195:14 198:9

201:17 205:17

213:8 216:15

217:6 221:22

222:3 241:10

247:4 250:13

252:12 261:12

264:16 267:11

273:1 275:7,17

276:10,12 282:8

282:19 288:4

291:18 294:7

315:3,4,13 340:19

344:2 353:1,3

taken 70:13 73:14

132:19 164:15

168:5 179:21

204:1 232:1 275:8

295:19 301:6

325:18 326:3

takes 22:22 87:20

163:18 165:13

204:21 211:9

344:3

take-away 263:8

take-home 245:17

talk 24:18 31:6,9

33:8 37:22 51:3

82:8 89:5 105:10

149:2 161:10

220:10 236:20

319:13 333:13

talked 29:10 38:9

136:8 151:10

236:9 280:7 296:1

352:15

talking 30:20 31:4

31:8 34:3 35:19

52:2,18 64:4,8,20

73:15 75:7 90:22

92:20 95:5 103:5

136:20 138:2,3

146:1 148:20,21

161:21,22 162:8

169:4 181:10

208:14 223:13

230:10 278:12

298:12,13 306:2

306:13 310:19

318:3 349:9,10

talks 192:8

target 35:8 103:4

140:1 146:4,19

147:3 259:18,19

targets 140:8 294:1

296:10 316:17

326:13

tax 293:21,22

294:16 295:8

taxes 178:3

TDA 66:3,4

team 192:13

teams 82:17

tear 58:11 135:3

tear-down 135:10

tear-downs 52:9

72:2

tease 156:1

tech 30:22 31:4

33:21 35:21 42:20

46:22 80:9

technical 22:18

23:13 33:22 39:20

59:11,19 80:1

81:10,21 205:2

technically 230:21

349:21

technician 199:4

technique 160:18

technological 71:8

76:12

technologically

39:6 44:18 74:18

75:6 91:6 252:4

306:14 310:17

311:1

technologies 38:18

38:20 41:9,20

45:1,15 46:6 59:2

59:6 60:2 63:1,2

63:20 64:2 68:16

72:16 77:4 78:14

81:7 85:11 93:22

120:19 126:10

128:6 216:8,9

334:2 336:21

345:6

technology 3:5 9:9

28:2 35:20 36:1,6

36:10,13,14,20

39:1,3 44:6 46:12

46:15 58:22 63:8

63:14 65:12 71:1

72:19 74:3,3,14

74:19,22 75:21

80:2,7,19 81:1,16

86:10 87:7,8,12

88:13,14 89:14

90:16 99:20

100:15 102:8

129:17 155:2

160:22 188:8

189:11,20 191:3

196:21 226:14

264:21 266:20

294:14 306:15

312:18 335:13

337:12

telephones 8:14

11:8

telescope 318:18

tell 189:5 203:20

308:10 315:12

322:22

telling 246:7

tells 204:18 222:7

temp 195:17

temperature 26:2

32:4,7 34:22 35:2

35:4,11,12 52:20

54:1 62:7,9,10,12

65:8 66:1 85:5,17

85:18 96:12,13,22

97:4 100:7 101:6

113:3,18 114:2

116:9,10 153:6

155:14,22 156:1,4

156:6,6 157:17

158:13 168:3,7

194:1 196:16

198:8 307:1 319:4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 394

340:6 341:13

temperatures 35:5

35:6,8 62:5 85:19

96:14 113:3 116:6

130:13 158:3

306:20 349:17

temperature-hol...

93:19

temps 195:18

ten 71:16 79:10

92:15 94:11

108:20,20 148:16

242:7 248:8 267:2

280:3

tend 208:9 283:5

283:13,21

tends 284:15

tens 84:16

term 78:4 92:8

159:20 298:17

terminology 143:2

terms 15:5 17:7

24:4 26:21 48:3

106:16 114:11

138:19 140:16

141:9 143:11,22

187:8,10 192:9

236:9 237:19

244:5 264:4

271:20 273:16

277:18 285:17

297:16 318:2

327:4 329:8 332:9

335:6

test 3:3 9:8 18:19

19:9 21:9 22:9

24:18,20 25:2,6

25:12,18 26:9,17

26:17,19 27:3,7,8

27:11 30:10 35:7

35:8 38:8 41:11

41:22 58:6,7,9,9

67:17 68:17,20

77:17 78:18,21

79:4 84:8 94:2

96:8 97:22 98:6

109:13 110:3,16

112:4,7 113:19

117:2,13,16,18

119:12 120:1,5

124:6 129:1

140:13 144:15,17

147:12 150:5

154:2 159:11

215:12 216:13,16

250:18 263:12

264:6 333:9

341:11 351:1

tested 35:11,12,13

56:4 118:17,22

119:3 319:12

testing 25:22 27:2

56:6 57:20 95:17

97:16 114:18

115:19 118:13

120:2 122:8 146:5

147:15 256:16

258:2 314:12

tests 67:15 77:15

114:9 264:5

th 319:3

thank 4:15 5:3,5

8:11 13:20,22

14:2,21 20:17,18

30:8 40:21 41:1,6

42:16,18 46:15

56:1 58:13 61:6

69:9 92:2 105:7

108:17 121:3

124:10,11 125:8

127:16 128:16

132:4 133:12

134:1 139:10

155:3 160:13

170:21 172:2

181:21 184:10

188:4,12 209:11

214:20 233:18

237:12 239:1

243:11 246:15,16

266:16 277:11

280:15 290:3

291:20 296:6

304:15 305:3

313:19 328:15

332:11,12 336:15

342:3 346:13,14

348:13,15 351:18

353:14

thanks 51:1 58:18

86:16 108:22

132:2 148:1

162:10 163:14

171:14 172:11

282:3 319:17

343:19 352:19,20

353:13,17

theirs 324:16

theme 349:4

theoretical 51:9

118:12,15 203:17

333:15

theoretically 91:8

92:17 157:10

theory 275:12,13

thermal 52:3 60:7

110:18 115:10

136:15 137:3,4,14

137:19 138:14

thick 78:8

thicker 339:17

thickness 53:14

113:16 115:5

119:11

thin 237:6

thing 16:8 17:9

42:9 53:7,16 58:8

58:20 68:5 70:17

94:10 97:21 106:5

114:14 115:6

116:17 134:22

138:8 146:10

152:7 155:4 156:7

176:13 184:5

190:4 193:13

213:20 222:1,19

229:10 238:2

256:9 302:2

318:16 332:15

338:16 339:7

350:8

things 13:2 16:2,7

16:11,14,15,18

17:4,12,18,20

20:1 29:20 37:5

40:6 45:4,5 46:11

49:12 65:2 68:6

76:7 78:7 84:19

86:8,21 93:7 96:5

96:7,18 100:21

106:9 118:16

125:1 137:10

143:18 144:1

146:2 158:2

176:10 182:14

184:13,17 185:9,9

192:1 195:2,10

202:17 203:21

217:9 218:16

226:19 232:1

245:20 250:22

263:6 278:19

285:6 293:15

297:20 300:12

301:15 303:7

313:1 314:13

315:12,19 317:1

325:10 332:22

333:14 339:6,14

345:13 346:4,16

346:21 348:1

349:7,20 350:5,21

think 4:13 11:17,19

12:7 14:9 15:10

18:18 21:21 39:21

44:20 49:13 54:9

63:5 65:10 70:5

74:18 78:1,11

81:6 82:19 89:3

90:3,6 91:21

92:20 95:10 96:8

103:7 107:15

108:1,2,6,8 109:4

118:4 121:20

122:13 124:14

125:2,5 126:9

131:21 132:14

134:4 143:21

153:13,15 163:3,5

163:5,10 165:4

167:18 168:13

169:3,17 170:12

171:2 186:15

187:12 193:15

195:6 196:8,19

197:21 206:16

212:17 213:1

214:1,16 226:1,1

226:9 227:11,21

228:4 232:6 236:7

238:11,16,21

250:4 255:22

258:11 259:14

263:8,18 264:7

265:2 278:7,13

285:21 292:21

299:5 304:10,17

305:5,9 310:8

311:20 312:3

313:17 316:8,10

317:1,8 319:10

320:8,13,17

324:18 326:6,10

327:9 328:20

329:7 330:7

332:21 333:6,8,11

333:20 334:4,6,8

335:13 336:13,19

337:6 341:21

342:7,18 343:1,4

343:17,20,21

344:17 345:19

347:4,8,11,13,19

348:6 351:6,14

352:21

thinking 297:15

third 44:4 58:20

173:19

Thirty-eight 35:10

Thompson 2:7 6:8

6:8 76:19,19 77:1

77:7,11,21 78:6

136:3,4,20 137:1

137:9,13,16,18

138:9,13 139:1,10
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 395

323:10,18 324:1

thought 50:16

83:19,21 89:11

125:17 138:2

182:11,12,20

213:19 261:9,22

306:6

thoughts 266:19

thousand 340:11

thousands 84:17,21

95:20,21

three 17:2,21 31:21

70:4,5 75:17

86:12 98:22

144:12 173:15

174:6 210:9,10

211:11 224:15

226:18 227:20

248:16 249:10,11

249:20 252:19

259:19 269:5

277:3,3 314:14

330:10,19 338:6

three-pane 337:1

three-year 334:17

threshold 100:7,13

273:6

thresholds 74:13

74:20 226:5,12

throw 59:13 143:17

throwing 335:6

thrown 84:2,6

thumb 211:12

Thursday 1:6 4:8

tie 46:17

tied 128:19 170:9

170:10

Tiedeman 2:8 6:22

6:22

tight 348:18

tightening 263:21

tighter 185:7

Tim 1:13,15 5:12

7:18 89:10,12,13

98:17,18 99:15

104:11 105:7

234:21 332:12,14

time 8:15 10:13,14

20:21 22:16 31:16

40:7 45:20 46:13

48:19 80:14 81:14

87:9 88:9 94:2

107:6 110:11

111:17 112:16

113:12 117:13

118:2,5 120:16

123:7 124:2 128:3

141:17 145:13

181:3 195:8

199:20 202:3,20

208:12,20 216:14

218:21 219:21

220:2,4,8 223:6

226:20 229:11,15

233:14,16 235:19

255:14 264:14

265:2 266:1

272:13 273:22

274:18 278:14

279:6 295:20

299:19 306:5

315:5 327:21

330:12,15 334:12

337:8 339:15

343:15 345:9

347:10 349:18

353:6

timeline 24:17

28:12,15 334:15

timelines 29:15

265:18

times 82:12 122:7

159:10 162:15

182:21 274:8

280:3 310:15

315:6 317:9 338:6

times-off 70:16

timing 102:2

tint 99:5

tinted 99:6,9

tinting 104:17

tiny 318:18

TLC 192:2

today 4:8 8:18

13:22 20:15,22

73:16 75:18 86:10

86:13 88:14,15

92:7,16 93:1,5

126:11,20 133:18

181:11 223:22

224:2 229:1

239:22 270:1

277:1 279:12,21

280:4 299:6,12

300:7 304:14

305:16 311:18

312:5,18 323:22

324:10 335:3,7,14

335:15 341:2

348:21 352:21

353:2,18

today's 13:21 32:19

33:16 39:6 239:8

told 153:5 298:20

tolerance 261:7,13

263:22

tolerances 146:9

260:16

tons 330:3

tool 160:11 268:13

top 47:14 129:19

178:6 199:6

204:17 205:4

249:20 251:22

252:19 303:17

topic 55:21

topics 97:20 300:22

tops 161:13

total 53:11 70:6

77:4 149:8 151:1

176:16,18 177:11

178:6 206:5 211:6

225:15 239:10,15

240:3,8,18 247:21

247:22 273:10

279:5 288:15,20

288:21 329:6

totaling 272:17

totally 88:19

278:13 324:3

touch 136:7 270:18

tough 347:10

349:15

tower 112:13

TP 27:4

trace 192:3

tracer 154:18

trade 246:2

tradeoff 331:20

332:5

trade-off 104:18

traditional 138:3

traditionally

195:18 246:10

transactions

208:16

transcript 148:11

transfer 106:2

198:14

transformation

294:2

transition 214:18

343:21

transitional 225:13

translate 137:19

149:11 166:13

translated 116:19

149:3

translation 189:21

transparent 33:4,5

34:10,12 37:22

38:3 61:19 65:22

66:11 130:13

193:22 216:2

241:12 319:3

Traulsen 1:18 5:20

191:11

travel 353:12

treated 201:2

treatment 155:5

tree 31:1

trend 72:20 73:4,9

170:15 178:20

201:17 248:5

255:8,16 256:2

264:22

trends 71:11 72:5

227:20 248:3

265:22 266:21

trial 142:6 149:3

189:7 251:11,15

tried 27:5 50:9

55:13 82:8 273:7

314:19,20,20

tries 27:10 251:19

293:17

trigger 280:20

triple 89:20 98:12

99:13 108:9

triple-glazed 228:9

trucking 186:18

true 1:19 5:16 28:9

67:11 91:11 93:4

94:17,20,21 150:4

167:19 186:1

249:16 261:6

279:4,16 297:14

301:5

truly 278:15 349:5

truncated 186:9

try 85:15 105:5

195:5 202:17

203:13 234:9,11

271:6 292:8

320:19 331:17

trying 11:6 18:10

85:13 88:6 101:12

140:7 191:19

193:7 198:14

228:5,15 237:7

255:9 261:18

306:13,19 310:16

328:12 334:7

TSC 142:10

TSD 24:7 36:21

41:19 48:17 52:14

57:4 59:12 60:12

60:21 67:2 81:12

122:9,14 211:18

255:2 283:16

286:12,18

TSL 74:10 85:6

86:14 100:6,13

133:17 143:20

187:3 189:2 191:5
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 396

192:3 193:1 210:2

210:3,15 231:11

252:2,6,12,14,18

252:18 253:4,6,13

253:16,18,18,19

253:21,22 254:3

254:12 271:18

287:5 289:2

329:13 335:4

345:6

TSLs 74:8 187:4

188:7 192:8 194:6

211:19 251:9,18

251:19 252:2

253:9 272:11

291:14

TSL2 312:20

TSL3 290:18 336:1

336:3,6 345:3

TSL4 290:18,22

291:13,18 304:13

304:20 306:14

311:15,20 328:20

335:3 336:1,1,3,7

336:14 341:12

345:3,4,7

TSL5 293:5

tubing 340:16

tune 351:16

turn 10:19 75:2

87:4 115:19

125:21 162:15

234:13 263:22

277:10

turned 15:17 65:13

232:18

turning 5:8 70:6

150:18 153:16

turnover 221:16

tweaked 119:6

two 31:11 45:11

60:8 61:17 90:12

93:9 102:6 110:15

114:21 121:15

144:12 146:2

153:13 155:18

165:21 166:1

170:13 172:20

179:1,22 226:18

232:20 235:4,14

242:17 247:8

249:14,19 259:15

271:7 278:11

283:7 287:6

292:21 295:10

300:20 312:3

313:12 324:3,22

348:5

type 34:10 50:6

66:11 111:8

172:18 189:20

213:11 215:3

221:7 233:14

251:21 337:11

340:4 348:10

types 17:18 18:10

37:1,19 45:5 50:1

54:20 60:4 61:10

61:18 154:21

180:8 218:15

238:14 340:5,9

typical 52:20 182:8

typically 17:9,12

17:20 189:18

201:15 202:2

210:13 269:4

281:2 331:16,19

T8 45:4 61:18

185:21,22 186:7

186:13 187:10

190:3 258:19,20

T8s 198:8

U

U 67:7

UL 126:22 127:19

314:10

ultimately 78:9

105:12 342:14

343:5,8,13

unaffected 205:10

unattainable 92:6

unbiased 46:11

uncertain 299:14

uncertainty 144:11

145:2,18

underanalyzing

245:20

undercapitalized

207:1

underestimating

262:3

underlying 337:6

337:12 338:3

understand 19:8

49:15 57:18,19

77:22 118:11

130:2 139:1 187:2

188:9 196:9

197:10,11 201:10

220:15 221:9

228:12,22 231:16

250:4 251:21

255:9 261:18

269:3 322:10

understanding

40:2 74:1,16

99:12 130:5

144:14 153:1

206:10 245:9

250:18 277:18

281:8

understands

244:21 251:3

understood 57:14

123:3 144:3 227:1

under-capitalized

207:4

under-counter

161:12

under-the-counter

49:18

undoable 92:22

93:1

unfavorable

282:15

unfeasible 18:20

unfortunately

67:14 150:5

203:18 318:8

unintended 227:18

229:3

unique 275:3

unit 32:11,13,14

51:7,10,17,21

52:6 53:9,20 55:4

55:5 58:9 76:3

100:11 109:8

112:2 118:14

119:13 127:9

150:9,14,16

158:16 160:9

161:17,17,18

162:4 173:10,11

174:5 182:7,8,8

193:11 197:16

202:2 210:8 217:6

217:12 222:20

223:2 230:4 238:1

249:9 261:5,10

341:15,16

United 1:1 84:16

84:20 128:12

213:22 301:4

units 44:16 46:20

47:15 49:17,18

51:4 52:13 54:22

55:13 56:4,20

77:16 86:7 95:19

95:21 97:10 100:8

100:9 115:17

118:17 119:3

121:9 122:3 132:6

132:8,10 133:5,21

135:4 157:4

161:10,12,12

186:6 196:17

202:11,12,16

207:6 216:13

217:1 218:20

222:17 223:2

229:21 231:21

262:2,20 313:14

341:13,14

unit-to-unit 260:19

universal 45:21

universe 149:10

unlimited 128:1

unmute 102:15

313:21

untangle 229:8

unusual 18:20

update 38:8 56:11

286:8

updated 110:10,13

updates 25:17

updating 25:17

318:15

upgrades 37:7,9

upgrading 227:16

231:4

upload 22:22

upper 271:8

upright 49:17

upstream 285:4

up-front 211:9

urge 94:16 126:16

276:9 345:5,11

urging 197:1

use 3:7 9:13 19:2

24:3 25:21 28:7

40:3,6,9 45:1,2,15

48:21 55:3,4 70:6

72:15 79:13 83:8

85:9 90:5,9 99:13

100:12 101:7,21

105:4 111:14

121:18 124:21

125:13 140:13

145:19 147:12

157:16 162:21

166:2,10,11,12,14

169:9 176:9

188:19 201:16

202:2,9 203:3

212:19 218:13

221:8 233:7

250:18 255:18

256:3 257:21

268:13 279:21

280:1 282:13

284:13 287:2,7

288:6 298:17

299:11,13 300:7

313:8 318:16
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 397

330:5 351:11

useful 104:8 213:16

234:14 255:8

330:9

user 90:21 103:6

104:7 111:8 166:7

198:19

users 89:17 90:2,9

90:18 103:13,17

104:3 176:4

199:14

uses 65:7 90:10

175:22 200:21

202:5 222:22

254:19 259:15

265:12,15 284:21

usual 34:6 177:16

usually 61:17 104:2

161:6 207:1 333:6

341:7

utilities 2:4 6:18

14:14 20:9 229:18

utility 39:9 79:3

98:3 102:1 108:4

108:6,12 213:2

228:19 270:22

287:21 289:7

297:14 335:22

utilize 126:20

utilizing 77:3

289:17

U-factor 113:4,4,17

U.S 4:4 101:20

312:10

V

V 72:13 75:12

83:19 84:3 127:5

132:5 141:12,16

142:3,12,14,16

143:4 188:14

189:16 190:5,12

190:16,21 191:17

vacuum 63:16

132:20 137:11

339:19,20

vacuum-insulated

37:16 62:1

valid 69:7 73:10

121:22 292:20

validate 70:2

140:14 233:7

269:1 314:12

validated 57:12

69:2 114:16

117:20 118:10

120:1,2 122:7

269:17

validation 56:6

73:6 249:13

value 16:2,13 70:8

70:10 79:8 105:14

106:1 154:5

199:16 247:14

249:3,15,16,19

259:17 266:21

268:17 272:16

279:16 286:7

287:14 302:5

336:4 337:15

values 69:13 107:1

202:8 217:9,17

282:15,20 286:9

286:18,18 287:4,8

319:11

valves 37:6 42:1

variability 50:9

54:16,18 176:3,11

176:11,12,14

201:10 209:19

variable 38:12 76:1

254:2

variables 147:13

variable-speed

83:15,16 84:1,5

variance 144:16

variant 265:14

variation 55:1,11

146:21 147:15

variations 55:17

146:11

variety 36:11 37:4

218:8

various 19:15 31:2

71:6 74:8 77:5

112:11 140:5

166:8 175:15

176:10 180:4

194:6 218:15

221:8 247:6 273:9

286:6 317:19

vary 123:19 135:2

179:6,11,13

varying 155:16

vast 157:5 206:18

VCS.SC.I 253:21

VCT 100:8 131:1

241:14

VCT.RCM 235:9

235:17

vending 226:7

vendors 1:21 2:1

6:5 8:1 86:21

87:4,9 88:7 92:4

114:7

ventilation 27:16

venues 36:19

verification 124:22

125:13 264:6

verified 114:9,11

115:9 118:12

verifies 77:16

version 212:6

244:14 288:6

298:21 300:8,10

300:19 308:4,14

316:5 321:4,7,9

321:11,15,19

322:19

versions 25:19 45:4

versus 96:21 97:4

99:9 136:14 137:5

153:22 156:5,6

161:1 162:9

175:15 180:1

181:11 188:17

192:11 194:7,19

201:12 203:15

204:6 231:18

289:19 305:16

319:8 321:17

332:17,17 341:13

348:20

vertical 34:5,7,10

34:13 52:19 61:14

61:16,19 62:4,6

65:22 66:10 74:11

85:3 130:12

143:15 161:1,4,18

162:3 193:21

194:18 216:2

241:9 319:3

viability 39:14

viable 42:7 126:18

341:4

Victor 5:22 72:11

72:12,13 75:11,12

83:14 127:3

131:19 132:4,5

141:11 188:13,14

193:18

view 11:4 218:7

vigorously 199:10

VIKTOR 1:14

VIPs 138:4

volatility 18:14

volume 25:5 47:16

48:12 51:15 53:10

111:2 112:6 149:9

157:5 273:20

315:7 338:6

volumes 157:6

160:5,8 273:21

274:2

voluntarily 309:19

310:4

voluntary 294:1

296:10 297:9

298:4 307:9,21

309:11,18 316:3

320:4 322:6,12

325:14,15 326:12

326:16 327:2,14

327:19,20 328:3,8

345:13

VOP.RCM 235:9

235:18

VTC 89:19

V2 305:7

V3 305:7,9

W

wait 72:18 95:14,15

walk 136:5 334:7

walking 164:4

walk-in 66:19

276:18

wall 53:12 113:16

115:5 136:10

161:6

walls 53:13 103:9

110:19 113:13

114:13 157:7

339:17

Walmart 18:6

want 11:18,21 12:4

21:20 66:15 81:6

85:19 86:7 87:21

87:22 88:4 95:4

96:3 98:7 102:11

102:11 109:6

120:13 125:21

130:2,4,7,8

146:16 149:1

157:21 158:21

162:20 165:7

184:12 185:14

196:20 216:11

236:21 244:3

257:15 264:11

296:18 299:8

300:10 308:10

309:10,20,22

315:12 319:20

320:7 322:19

324:21 325:22

326:1 328:21

329:7 331:8 334:9

337:10 339:18

346:15 348:15

349:4,5 350:4

wanted 96:6 152:7

152:19 352:1,6

wanting 353:16

wants 10:2 161:8
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 398

warm 53:18 110:21

113:22

warmer 145:8

warming 284:10,19

warrant 160:6

warrants 40:20

346:1

wash 257:5

Washington 1:9

4:10

wasn't 105:20

106:15 122:16

125:18 128:14

180:13 181:4

226:13 259:8

watched 153:18

water 27:17 145:10

182:15,16

watt 115:8

wattage 112:15

162:22

wattages 53:21

70:16

watts 130:3,16

131:12 145:5

way 29:19 44:18

45:3,8,21 46:3,11

46:21 75:19,20

91:16 106:10

119:18 122:18

125:2 153:20

155:7 159:8

168:11 170:16

177:20 191:12

194:8 199:14

204:4 206:19

214:17 236:8

241:6 255:9

260:13 261:13

262:5,6 270:4

279:8,18 282:21

288:2 312:12,12

335:22 348:8

350:11

ways 82:15,18

108:2 274:6

310:12 314:21

348:1 351:6

wealth 16:11,18

18:3

wear 164:3

web 8:12 11:8,12

11:20 26:14

353:15

Weber 2:8 3:6,7

7:8,8 30:16,18,19

39:17 41:1,6

42:14,17 45:10

49:4 50:7 51:1

55:9 56:8,22

57:16 58:18 61:5

63:22 65:5,18,21

66:6 68:1,22

69:19 70:12 71:4

73:3,13 75:10

76:5 77:6,10,15

78:5,16 80:8 81:1

81:13 82:15 83:2

83:22 84:4 89:1,7

90:19 97:9 98:15

99:12,19 104:1

105:20 107:12

108:22 114:10,22

115:4 118:15

119:3,19 120:10

120:13 121:5,9

122:18 130:1,11

130:20 131:4,11

134:4,8,11 136:17

136:22 137:7,12

137:15,17 138:1

138:10,15 139:6

140:18,22 141:15

141:22 142:4,13

142:15 143:1,5

144:3 146:1,19

148:19 151:8

153:4,9 154:10

155:4 157:14

158:5,11,14 159:8

160:2,10 161:5,16

161:22 162:12

186:4,4 187:6

198:4

webinar 11:5,21

webmaster 11:14

12:2 102:21

website 14:18

26:12 176:8 314:2

352:8,13

week 79:13 276:19

weeks 300:20 348:5

Weibull 202:9

weight 98:14 335:6

welcome 3:1 4:4,16

8:13 11:5,21

60:22 121:11

138:5,12 151:22

156:21 174:20

202:13 206:6

welcomed 76:16

154:16

welcomes 50:13

welcoming 4:14

well-defined

250:17 251:5

well-established

155:1

went 21:12,13 45:3

107:21 126:1

229:10 267:9,9

274:14 279:8

295:17 304:21

353:19

weren't 120:21

155:6 186:21

West 229:19

we'll 9:11,16,19

12:3,7 22:5 31:6,9

36:21 47:6 76:16

88:1 102:21

109:16 121:8

148:17 163:17

164:12 245:14

264:18 270:18

345:16

we're 4:13,21 8:15

9:5 13:7 21:1,2,10

22:21 28:1 30:15

31:3 45:2 52:1,18

52:19 54:21 63:16

65:3,11,13 69:8

73:15 84:11 87:12

88:6,16 95:5

103:4,5 121:19

128:15 129:17,18

129:20 130:12,15

131:5 133:16

134:2 147:5 187:3

191:13 204:12

214:12 216:11

218:14 220:4

230:10 238:15

240:7 242:1

245:19 253:13,15

261:17 264:15

267:1,4,5,13,15

272:8 278:12

279:9,11,18,20

280:8 287:7 297:4

299:17 300:2,20

306:2,3,6,13

310:19 319:13

320:17 321:10,16

321:19 322:15

323:18 325:7,8

326:6 328:16

329:10 331:22

335:14 336:22

337:5 338:9 339:7

339:15 343:21

349:9,9 352:22

we've 8:21 9:22

11:11 15:12,17

132:14,15 140:6,7

250:11 252:2

270:1 272:10

296:17 299:12,13

300:12 302:7

307:4 312:19

315:17,18 317:9

319:14 330:9

333:9 334:8 335:3

342:8 343:20

347:7 351:13

whatsoever 348:19

wholehearted

313:19

wholeheartedly

133:16

wholesaler 173:19

wide 54:16,18 55:1

55:21 260:20

widely 126:15

Wilkins 2:9 6:10,10

54:13,13 94:7,7

126:7,7 148:3,7,9

167:17,17 168:12

170:8,10 171:1,15

172:3,3 196:5,5,8

197:4,10 226:16

226:16 228:1

231:1,1 242:8,9

242:15,20 243:9

243:12,14 248:19

248:21 249:5

250:3,8,12 257:11

258:4,21 259:12

260:1,4,8 261:8

261:14,17,21

262:13,22 275:21

275:21 278:6

280:6,6 311:11

322:8 344:16

willing 207:2

wind 143:19

window 66:17

229:15 230:12

349:18

wiring 134:21

wise 246:14 279:16

wish 10:22 18:9

30:12 81:3 300:15

304:2 330:20

338:17

wishes 8:22

withdraw 190:7

won 183:20

wonderful 78:7

wondering 277:15

words 63:3 70:1

169:2 312:12

322:8

work 64:11 67:16

115:7 124:18
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 399

171:15,17 182:13

182:15,17 243:4

251:22 269:10

325:18 345:8

347:16 351:18

worked 257:21

348:10

working 11:11 53:2

101:11 125:11

127:19 216:10

224:15 233:20

246:2 263:11

300:6 321:5,19

324:4 347:20

353:8

works 79:11

104:18 230:18

work-top 161:10

161:12,16,19

world 87:5 126:15

251:3 296:11

297:9

worried 186:21

334:15,15

worst 283:16 284:3

worth 195:9 214:19

wouldn't 128:14

194:15

wrestled 57:22

wrestling 250:7,10

writing 132:1

165:8 183:13

346:21

written 9:3 22:2

60:22 297:6 307:6

330:13 346:21

352:7 353:2

wrong 291:4 337:7

337:10

X

X 152:10 225:3

Y

Y 16:1 149:13

yards 164:6

yeah 140:6 145:4

year 18:12 29:16

29:18,19 84:18,22

183:3 207:15,16

214:6 219:13

232:11,17 240:9

240:11 248:10

256:1 275:5

303:21 313:12

years 13:16 15:9,10

17:3,6,10,21 18:5

75:17 86:12 94:10

96:2 97:17,17

102:4 105:17

128:13 160:18

177:13 183:2

201:16 202:6,7

209:7,8 211:8,12

218:22 224:8,15

235:3 247:20

248:8 251:14

265:13 274:21

277:3 279:15

285:19 288:12

314:14 324:22

329:19 330:10,19

331:8 351:13

yield 135:19,22

Z

zero 1:19 6:15

35:12 44:22 101:4

129:3,7 205:11,18

205:21 206:2

207:5 228:5 302:5

320:10,11 322:13

326:12,18 327:14

zeroes 297:11

zeros 296:11

Zone 1:19 6:15

44:22 101:5

$

$1.6-4.1 13:18

$220 182:4

$35 182:3

$40-50,000 340:12

$87.5 272:18

0

0.15 295:9

0.2 295:10

09 33:11

1

1 24:8 226:3 252:18

1st 23:9,11 24:1

295:18

1.001 343:13

1.05 174:18

1.18 174:17

1.6 329:15

10 17:10 18:5 21:11

162:15 201:16

202:7 209:8 227:2

274:8 276:5

278:12 293:1

303:5 336:11

345:4

10C 253:4

10:30-10:45 9:12

100 15:10 96:21

118:3 123:10

128:13 164:6

262:1

100-degree 97:6

1000 1:9

11 33:15 107:20

11:50 163:18

11:51 164:15

112-210 23:18

12 12:18 82:11

12-watt 115:8

12:50 163:21

164:13

12:56 165:2

1200 116:21

1200-2006 25:1

14 336:12

15 35:13 151:1

201:16 202:6

231:8 276:5

278:12 336:12

15-20 230:11

240:22

150 40:10 127:7,22

16 336:12

165 3:7

17 242:11

172 3:9

18 17:15 23:18

29:16

180,000 241:20

1950 233:5

2

2 193:1 219:1 226:3

252:18 269:10

308:4 321:4,7,9

321:15,19 328:4

2.8-hour 117:15

2:00 9:19

2:15 9:20

2:34 267:9

2:35 267:4

2:45 267:5

2:51 267:10

20 17:22 163:15

209:7 227:2 231:8

276:5 278:12

303:5

20-plus 160:18

200,000 187:18

2001 225:9

2002 226:1,5

2004 25:4 225:9

2005 17:1 22:12

23:4,8,20 32:20

32:21 33:14,15

46:2 48:10 149:20

224:9 226:9

2006 24:19 25:5,14

225:9 226:9

2007 225:10

2009 17:13 23:9,10

23:22 31:13,16

32:16 46:2 48:2

56:12 63:11,13,15

64:3,7,16 71:2

105:11 106:21

107:4 110:9

149:19 155:9

171:8,20 179:11

186:11 200:16

279:7

2011 71:3

2012 23:11,14,18

25:11 38:8 57:12

186:11 200:18

235:4 258:14

295:18

2013 1:6 4:9 12:18

23:19 24:1 286:8

2014 24:16 29:21

2015 325:1

2016 297:3

2017 24:17 29:9

72:20 73:16,22

75:14 80:3 95:13

133:3 181:12

204:20 209:10

214:7 226:20

239:8 274:16

277:3 293:6

299:18,21 300:11

302:9,9 304:7

308:8 316:14

322:22 325:1

332:16 333:16

2019 332:17

2020 296:18 332:21

2021 332:21

2023 332:17

2025 332:17

2045 256:4

2046 254:16 274:16

21 3:4

21st 25:11

212 3:10

24 47:17 301:7,15

308:17

24-hour 123:2

25 47:12 49:2 151:1

239:21 296:20

297:3 298:22

301:10,11

26 197:17

267 3:11

27 197:17

28 128:10

282 3:12
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 400

3

3 1:6 4:8 11:19

33:21 36:21

128:13 219:1

226:21 252:14

253:13,16,18,21

269:11 298:21

300:9,10 303:19

303:20 312:21

316:5 321:11

322:19 329:16

330:5 345:16

3.0 300:19 303:4

308:14

3.95 272:15

30 3:5 13:16 23:19

112:20 133:1

218:22 239:21

265:13 288:12

303:5 315:13,13

351:13

30th 26:8

30-year 254:14

32 32:6,6 273:10

35 306:3

352 3:13

365 167:1

38 31:15

4

4 3:2 41:19 74:10

85:6 86:14 95:5

100:6,13 108:3

205:8,9 210:2,3

210:15 231:11

252:6,13 253:13

253:18,21 272:16

329:13 345:16

4's 133:17

4.1 329:16

4.4 315:6

4.6 330:6

4:19 353:20

40 94:10 133:2

141:19 142:18

303:5

400 75:13 214:3

41's 143:9

43 303:14

46 303:12

47 142:19

48 31:20 303:16

49 33:19 43:12

47:11 303:15 5

5 32:7,8 49:7 60:12

60:21 66:17 81:14

141:2 142:10

156:21 197:9

205:9 213:14

252:2 253:13,19

253:22 266:2

303:4

5A 52:14 57:3

81:12

5A.2.2 129:7

130:19,20

5.6.10 130:12

50 15:9 213:14

301:9,10 303:5

319:4,8 324:15

50,000 187:18

50,000-hour

187:20

51 3:6

55 112:9 330:3

55981 290:14 6 6 162:15 205:9

6-watt 115:7

60 303:5 321:4

60-something

310:19

600A 88:17

62 133:17 301:2

321:8,18

64 65:8,16 66:5

107:3 336:22

337:6

66 64:7,12

67-68 305:21

68 305:22

69 232:6

7

7 24:8 253:18

329:15

7.97 272:15

70 112:18 150:20

303:5 315:15

70s 306:4

71 305:19 306:1,4

72 319:8

72-2005 25:2

73 305:19 315:15

744 128:9,12

75 90:10 112:8

113:20

75-degree 96:22

75/55 122:22

750 273:6

76 265:218 8 24:19 25:5 162:16

253:18 272:16

8E-089 1:9

8-hour 112:9

162:14

80 130:3,15 131:12

145:5 207:13

85 198:21 272:12 9 9 23:10 31:16 115:7

253:19

9:00 1:10

9:04 4:2

9:23 21:13

9:36 21:14

90 207:13

90-plus 47:15

90.1 19:14

95 314:5,6
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

C E R T I F I C A T E

This is to certify that the foregoing transcript 

In the matter of: 

Before: 

Date: 

Place: 

was duly recorded and accurately transcribed under 

my direction; further, that said transcript is a 

true and accurate record of the proceedings. 

 

 ----------------------- Court Reporter 

401

Energy Conservation Standards for

Commercial Refrigeration Equipment

US DOE

10-03-13

Washington, DC