**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

**PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS** 

Room 8E-089 U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20585
9:00 a.m. Thursday, February 16, 2012 DOUG BROOKMAN, Facilitator U.S. Department of Energy Attendees

CHARLES LLENZA ARI ALTMAN Attendees TOM ECKMAN, Conservation Manager Power Division Northwest Power and Conservation Council 851 S.W. Sixth Avenue, Suite 1100 Portland, Oregon 97204-1348 MARY C. HOWE, President, Chairman Howe Corporation 1650 North Elston Avenue Chicago, Illinois 60642 LOUIS STARR, P.E., CEM Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance DETLEF WESTPHALEN, Associate Director Navigant Consulting 77 South Bedford Street, Suite 400 Burlington, Massachusetts 01803 DARYL ERBS, Director of Engineering Manitowoc, Inc. 2110 South 26th Street P.O. Box 1720 Manitowoc, Wisconsin 54221-1720**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  2

Attendees JOANNA MAUER, Technical Advocacy Coordinator Appliance Standards Awareness Project 529 14th Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20045 MEG WALTNER, Energy Efficiency Advocate Natural Resources Defense Council 1152 15th Street, NW, Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20005 KARIM AMRANE, Ph.D., Vice President Regulatory and Research Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) 2111 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 500 Arlington, Virginia 22201 TIMOTHY BALLO, Esquire, Associate Attorney EarthJustice 1625 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 702 Washington, D.C. 20036

ROB CARMICHAEL Navigant Consulting 1200 Nineteenth Street NW, Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20006 NATHANIEL L. CLAYVILLE, Associate Economist Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Technology Planning and Deployment 902 Battelle Boulevard P.O. Box 999, MSIN K6-05 Richland, Washington 99352 MATT ALLISON, Vice President of Engineering Scotsman Ice Systems 775 Corporate Woods Parkway Vernon Hills, Illinois 60061 BEN BARRINGTON, Energy Navigant Consulting 77 South Bedford Street, Suite 400 Burlington, Massachusetts 01803**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  3

Attendees ALAN COOKE, Senior Research Economist Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Technology Planning and Deployment 902 Battelle Boulevard P.O. Box 999, MSIN K6-05 Richland, Washington 99352

MARK O'MALLEY Howe Corporation 444 North Michigan Avenue Chicago, Illinois

KURT KLINKE Navigant Consulting 1200 Nineteenth Street NW, Suite 700 Washington, D.C. 20006

CHRISTOPHER KENT U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1400 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C.**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  4

A G E N D A

ITEM : PAGE : Morning Session Welcome, Introductions, Agenda Review, 5 and Opening Statements Doug Brookman Standards Rulemaking Overview 10 Charles Llenza Test Procedure Final Rule Availability 12 Charles Llenza Market and Technology Assessment, Screening 17 Analysis, and Engineering Analysis Detlef Westphalen Markups Analysis, Energy Use Analysis, and 94 Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis Alan Cooke Afternoon Session Shipments Analysis and National Impact 144 Analysis Nathaniel Clayville Manufacturer Impact Analysis 158 Ben Barrington NOPR Analyses: Utility Impact Analysis, 162 Employment Impact Analysis, Emissions Analysis and Valuation, and Regulatory Impact Analysis Ben Barrington Next Steps and Closing Remarks 175 Doug Brookman**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  5

P R O C E E D I N G S 1 (9:00a.m.) 2 Welcome, Introductions, Agenda Review, and Opening 3

Statements 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's start. Good morning, 5 everyone and welcome. 6 This is the U.S. Department of Energy's 7 Public Meeting on Energy Conservation Standards for 8 Automatic Commercial Ice Makers. Today is Thursday, 9 February 16th, 2012, here in the Forrestal Building. 10 My name's Doug Brookman from Public Solutions 11 in Baltimore. Glad you could join us this morning. 12 Happy to have you here. 13 We're going to start off this morning with 14 Welcoming Remarks from Charles Llenza. 15 MR. LLENZA: Welcome to today's proceedings 16 and we're here today to discuss the Preliminary 17 Analysis for the Energy Conservation Standards for the 18 Automatic Ice Makers Rulemaking here at the Department 19 of Energy. 20 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's start with 21**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  6

Introductions. Let's start over here. Please say your 1 name and organizational affiliation. You can also get 2 used to turning on these microphones. Are the mikes 3 working well today? They're okay? Okay. So I think 4 we'll start with Daryl, please. 5 MR. ERBS: Okay. Daryl Erbs, Manitowoc Ice. 6 MR. ALLISON: Matt Allison, Scotsman Ice 7 Systems. 8 MR. ECKMAN: Tom Eckman, Northwest Power and 9 Conservation Council. 10 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer, Appliance Standards 11 Awareness Project. 12 MS. WALTNER: Meg Waltner, Natural Resources 13 Defense Council. 14 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, EarthJustice. 15 MS. HOWE: Mary Howe, Howe Corporation. 16 DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, Air Conditioning, 17 Heating, and Refrigeration Institute. 18 MR. ALTMAN: Ari Altman, DOE GC's Office. 19 MR. BROOKMAN: You can just stand up. We 20 know who's here. 21 MR. WESTPHALEN: Detlef Westphalen, Navigant 22 Consulting. 23 MR. COOKE: Alan Cooke, Pacific Northwest 24 National Lab. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  7

MR. BARRINGTON: Ben Barrington, Navigant 1 Consulting. 2 MR. CLAYVILLE: Nathaniel Clayville, Pacific 3 Northwest National Laboratory. 4 MR. KENT: Christopher Kent, U.S. 5 Environmental Protection Agency, EnergyStar Program. 6 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, and thanks again to 7 all of you for being on time so we can get an early 8 start on this meeting. 9 All of you received a packet of information 10 as you walked in the door. I'm going to run through 11 this Agenda real quickly. You also received a copy of 12 the presentation slides. This will be the bulk of the 13 content that's presented today and there's plenty of 14 opportunity for question and comment as we go through 15 that content. 16 You can see immediately following this Agenda 17 Review and a few opening slides there's an opportunity 18 for anybody that wishes to do so to make opening 19 statements, brief summary comments about issues that 20 are important to you. Immediately following that, 21 we're going to have a Rulemaking Overview and also 22 information on Test Procedure Final Rule Availability. 23 Following that, we'll move into Market and Technology 24 Assessment Screening Analysis and Engineering Analysis. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  8

Immediately following that Markups Analysis, Energy Use 1 Analysis, Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Analysis. 2 I see in the Agenda there's no spot listed 3 for a midmorning coffee break but we'll probably take 4 one in there somewhere, 10:30ish or so. 5 I think I just referred to the Markups 6 Analysis, Energy Use, and Life-Cycle Cost Payback 7 Period Analysis. So then we'll go from there directly 8 into Shipments Analysis, National Impact Analysis, and 9 Manufacturer Impact Analysis, all before we break for 10 lunch around about noonish, and then immediately 11 following lunch, the NOPR Analyses. You can see them 12 listed: Utility, Employment, Emissions and Valuation, 13 Regulatory Impact, and then, finally, at the end of the 14 day today, around about 1:30 or 2, I'll describe Next 15 Steps, how you can file your comments and also another 16 opportunity for anybody that wants to to make 17 additional comments, raise any additional issues at 18 that point. 19 So that's the plan for the day. Questions, 20 comments about the Agenda? 21 (No response.) 22 MR. BROOKMAN: I see none. I'd ask for your 23 consideration. Please speak one at a time. Please say 24 your name for the record each time you speak. I'm 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  9

going to be queuing individuals by name as best I can. 1 I also wish to encourage follow-on comments, the back 2 and forth. It's sometimes very useful for the 3 department as they try to sort through these issues. 4 If you can keep the focus here, please turn your cell 5 phones on silent, limit your sidebar conversations, and 6 if you could also try to be concise, share the air 7 time. I'm sure there's lots to be said and we want to 8 be efficient about the conduct of these proceedings 9 today. 10 So any other issues to be raised before I 11 turn it over to Charles? 12 (No response.) 13

MR. BROOKMAN: I see none. 14 MR. LLENZA: Request for comment box. 15 MR. BROOKMAN: Request for comment box. You 16 will see, and Charles has on the screen, shown an 17 illustrative issue box. These boxes are a call-out 18 that the department has inserted into the slides to see 19 if they can get you specifically to address the issues 20 that they have listed there. 21 So if you will please -- we'll be queuing 22 them for your comment and if you would take the time to 23 thoroughly respond, that would be really, really 24 welcomed. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 0

And we have how many joining us via the Web, 1 Emily? 15. Okay. So for those of you that have 2 joined us via the Web, welcome. The Department of 3 Energy is trying hard to make these meetings Web4 accessible and we'll do our best to try to answer 5 questions and concerns from those of you that are 6 joining us via the Web, although it's hard to do it 7 completely, we'll try. Okay. 8 MR. LLENZA: Also, one additional comment. I 9 think we'll go with the people present at the meeting 10 first and then we'll make sure that the people 11 attending the webinar, if the time allows, we'll try to 12 make sure that their questions get read for the record 13 and then also answered here at the meeting. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: We'll do our best with that. 15

MR. LLENZA: Correct. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 17 Standards Rulemaking Overview 18 And Test Procedure Final Rule Availability 19 MR. LLENZA: Okay. So I'm going to give a 20 brief overview and a little bit on the test procedure 21 here today. 22
23 Today's purpose of this meeting is to inform 24 all interested parties that we're in the process of a 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 1

rulemaking and to facilitate this rulemaking process, 1 in addition to present the procedural and analytical 2 approaches in terms of what the department has come up 3 with as a preliminary for this rulemaking. We also 4 encourage the participation through this forum for 5 public discussion and we would greatly appreciate your 6 comments on our process and our presentation. 7 We strongly encourage all parties to submit 8 data, information, and/or written comments at some 9 point in time. 10 I'll be using the word "ACIM" to denominate 11 automatic commercial ice makers. So in terms of the 12 ACIM regulatory history, EPACT-2005 amended the Energy 13 Policy and Conservation Act, EPCA, to prescribe 14 standards for cube ice makers with capacities between 15 50 and 2,500 pounds per 24 hours effective January 1st, 16 2010. That authorized the department to issue 17 standards not only for these ice makers but for other 18 ice makers that are not covered under the cube ice 19 standards that were prescribed and it also directed the 20 department to issue these by no later than January 1st, 21
2015. 22 As part of this rulemaking, the initial part 23 of any type of rulemaking is that the department has to 24 have a test procedure for our rules for the automatic 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 2

ice makers and so we went through a process of getting 1 a test procedure issued, completed and issued on 2 January 11, 2012. 3 The effective date of this rule is February 4 10, 2012. So it's now effective, according to our 5 deadline here, and all testing starting January 7, 6 2013, is mandatory for all the automatic ice makers for 7 making representations on the energy levels for that 8 equipment to the department. 9 Let me talk a little bit about the rulemaking 10 timeline and it's changed a little since the last time 11 most of you have seen this. As you see, today is 12 February 16th, and in the timeline, if we look at the 13 lower boxes, we're in the third public meeting that 14 we're having in reference to this rulemaking. 15 We have issued the Test Procedure Final Rule 16 and that's denoted here with a little diamond as of 17 January 11th, and then we provided notification of the 18 Preliminary Analysis document which was published in 19 the Federal Register January 24th. 20 We're planning to collect the information 21 from these proceedings and then, if our timeline 22 continues, to have a NOPR document, a Notice of 23 Proposed Rulemaking document, for the Energy 24 Conservation Standard by Winter 2012, and a Final Rule 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 3

some time in 2013. For the planning purposes, we're 1 looking at the summer, but what I want to stress about 2 this timeline is that the statute has requested that we 3 have one by 2015. We are ahead of schedule. This was 4 one of the department's first advance regulatory 5 rulemakings and we're still ahead of schedule. This 6 has slid a little bit based on our review process. So 7 we will complete this ahead of schedule of 2015, but if 8 there are delays because we've had some delays with 9 some of the documents at the Office of Management and 10 Budget, it's possible that this could slide a little 11 bit, but we hope to complete this by the Summer of 12
2013. 13 This means that the Energy Conservation 14 Standards would become effective three years after the 15 date of publication which would be the Summer of 2016. 16 All right. We also want to stress here that 17 we'll have a public meeting on the Energy Conservation 18 Standard Notice of Proposed Rulemaking some time in the 19 Winter of 2012. 20 Okay. So today's proceedings, this is an 21 overview of today's proceedings and the different 22 topics that we will be covering today at this meeting, 23 at this public meeting. 24 Market Technology Assessment, Screening 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 4

Analysis, and Engineering Analysis, Preliminary 1 Manufacturer Impact Analysis, Energy Use, Markups, 2 Price Determination, and then we'll roll into Life3 Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis with Shipments 4 to come up with some National Impact Analysis 5 information. 6 So at this point, I would like to give this 7 back to Doug so that we can have opening remarks from 8 all the parties here present. 9 MR. BROOKMAN: As reflected in the Agenda, 10 now is an opportunity for anybody that wants to to make 11 brief opening remarks, raise issues that are important 12 to you. 13 Daryl. 14 MR. ERBS: Daryl Erbs, Manitowoc Ice. We'll 15 get into a lot of the details, but just for opening 16 remarks, a couple of things. 17 One is to, I guess, remind the department and 18 other stakeholders that, you know, we're a small 19 industry. You know, our production volumes compared to 20 appliances or air conditioning are, you know, orders of 21 magnitude smaller and that creates challenges for us in 22 terms of both our ability to implement new 23 technologies, but probably more importantly our ability 24 to influence the component suppliers that we depend on 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 5

for particularly energy efficiency gains, so 1 compressors, motors, and other things. 2 Our volumes do not drive them to make design 3 changes to implement new production. It's not economic 4 for them. So we tend to be restricted to those things 5 that they would do for other larger customers. When 6 you combine that with some of the unique 7 characteristics, particularly in batch ice machines, it 8 limits some of our options and that's something that we 9 can, you know, touch on in more detail, but I think 10 that's important. 11 In terms of the application, most ice 12 machines are part of an overall system for delivering, 13 you know, food service product, beverage, and other 14 related products, and so we're sort of in the middle of 15 a chain of equipment that places physical constraints 16 on what we can do. 17 It also has a broader impact to that whole 18 industry than you would just see by looking at changing 19 an ice machine and so I think that needs to be kept in 20 account, and then the last area is we're a big 21 proponent of EnergyStar. We've been a very strong 22 supporter. We've worked very hard on that. It's 23 important to us. It's important to our customers. 24 You know, there are, for LEED certification, 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 6

for utility rebates, for a lot of other reasons, 1 there's dependency on EnergyStar, and so one of my 2 concerns is that if we move efficiency standards out to 3 what's the maximum technology available, there's no 4 room for an EnergyStar category anymore and we're 5 actually right now struggling with, you know, a new 6 EnergyStar Program. We understand, we agree with how 7 that program operates, but, you know, we need to deal 8 with those new efficiency levels, and then I think we 9 just need to make sure everyone keeps in mind what 10 impact that will have on us and that if EnergyStar goes 11 away some time in the future because there's just no 12 more room for further efficiency gains beyond the 13 federal minimums, that's going to be very disruptive to 14 our whole industry. 15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Yes, Matt. 16 MR. ALLISON: Matt Allison with Scotsman Ice. 17 I just wanted to piggyback a little bit on what Daryl 18 said there. 19 Another point to consider with ice machines 20 is that our warranty periods are typically longer than 21 most appliances. Most of our products carry a three22 year warranty and adopting new technology into the 23 machines, because we use it in a unique fashion, where 24 batch-type machines are very particular where we're 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 7

cycling every 15 minutes or so, puts stresses on those 1 components that are not typical in most of their other 2 applications. 3 That, combined with the longer warranty 4 period, could have some adverse impact on the overall 5 reliability of our equipment and for us during our 6 warranty period. So I wanted to make sure that that's 7 kept in mind as we go through this. 8 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. I've been 9 told I need to talk louder or something. I'll work on 10 that. 11 Additional comments here at the outset? 12 (No response.) 13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So then let's proceed 14 with the content that is in the presentation slides and 15 you all have a copy of this and first we're going to 16 hear from Detlef Westphalen. 17 Market and Technology Assessment, Screening Analysis, 18 and Engineering Analysis 19 MR. WESTPHALEN: Thanks, Doug. I'm Detlef 20 Westphalen. I'm with Navigant Consulting. I'm going 21 to be talking about the first three assessments or 22 analyses that are part of the Preliminary Analysis: 23 the Market and Technology Assessment, the Screening, 24 and the Engineering Analysis. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 8

Starting with the Market Assessment, the 1 Market Assessment is kind of an information-gathering 2 phase of the rulemaking. DOE tries to characterize the 3 equipment market, get an understanding of who the 4 manufacturers are, what the applications are, collect 5 information on the equipment, what types of equipment, 6 what are the configurations, how are they used, and get 7 information on the different efficiency levels, and use 8 some of this information to develop what the product 9 class or the equipment classes would be for the 10 rulemaking. 11 Methods involve information-gathering 12 primarily, you know, from public sources and also from 13 talking to people in the industry, you know, end users, 14 you know, other sources that are available, and then a 15 key part of the Market Assessment is to develop the 16 equipment classes that would be used. You know, 17 different equipment classes would have different energy 18 standards associated with them and so it's important to 19 make sure those classes are appropriately defined. 20 More detail is in Chapter 3. You'll see this 21 bottom bullet here, a detailed description, you know. 22 We haven't put all the detail of all the work that 23 we've done in the presentation. There's more detail in 24 the report which, you know, I hope you'll take the time 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 9

to read, if you haven't already. 1 Equipment classes. Charlie mentioned EPACT2 2005 which established standards for cube-type ice 3 makers. There were 13 covered classes. These are 4 distinguished by, you know, the configurations: the 5 ice-making head in which you have a single package 6 which doesn't include ice storage; self-contained unit, 7 a single package which does include ice storage; remote 8 condensing unit which is a two-part split system ice 9 maker, and those are further divided into the remote 10 units with remote compressors versus the ones with the 11 compressors in the ice-making head portion of the ice 12 maker. 13 Air or water cooling for the condenser is 14 another characteristic that distinguishes equipment 15 classes, and then with each of these categories, there 16 are two or three divisions according to ice-making 17 capacity, from 50 to 2,500 pounds per day, for the 18 existing standards. 19 The existing standards do not cover 20 continuous ice makers. However, for this rulemaking, 21 DOE is considering a total of 25 covered classes for 22 batch and continuous and now, instead of calling them 23 cube ice makers, they'll be called batch ice makers, 24 and this has already been defined in the Test Procedure 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  2 0

Rulemaking which recently concluded. 1 And again, Chapter 3 contains a full listing 2 of all the equipment classes. We've repeated it here, 3 and this is our first seeing eye chart and, you know, 4 you have it in front of you, as well, but it gives the 5 relationship, you know, the equipment type, type of 6 cooling, the harvest rate ranges, type of ice maker for 7 the different equipment classes contemplated for this 8 rulemaking. 9 And there's a little bit of an inconsistency 10 in this slide as compared to some of the other, the 11 ice-making head air-cooled large capacity. You know, 12 as you'll see in some of the discussion further, we've 13 done some further separating of that class and we'll 14 get into that a little bit more later. 15 So on equipment classes, we have two requests 16 for comment boxes. The first, we generally seek 17 comment regarding this suggested structure for the 18 equipment classes and then we also have an Item A and 19 just to clarify, we have these comment boxes shown with 20 numbers and letters. We've put them in the 21 presentation, you know, consistent with the material 22 that we're presenting. However, the numbers refer to 23 their numbering in the Executive Summary. The ones 24 that have letters are in the presentation, but not in 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  2 1

the Executive Summary. So it's important to look at 1 the presentation requests for comment, in addition to 2 what is in the Executive Summary, for requesting 3

comment. 4 Also under Equipment Classes, we would like 5 to know if there are different types of equipment with 6 significant annual shipments that do not fall under any 7 of the equipment classes outlined that we're 8 considering. 9 MR. BROOKMAN: Charles Llenza. 10 MR. LLENZA: Yes. I just want to make the 11 comment that we included in the back of the 12 presentation under Backup Slides, there's a 13 comprehensive list of all the questions, so you don't 14 have to leaf through the documents, but we wanted to 15 make sure that, at least if you didn't want to do 16 anything else, you could just walk away with the list 17 and come back and maybe file some comments with the 18 department at a later time. 19 MR. BROOKMAN: That's good. Okay. Good. So 20 let's have comments on Item 3 and Item A as listed here 21 in this slide. 22 Tom Eckman. 23 MR. ECKMAN: Tom Eckman, Northwest Power and 24 Conservation Council. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  2 2

While there are numerous equipment classes 1 here, I presume that these will ultimately translate 2 into standards by class. Is that -- 3 MR. WESTPHALEN: That's the intent. 4 MR. ECKMAN: -- a reasonable interpretation? 5 So we'd have on the order of 25 different standards in 6 effect one by class and some of these classes span a 7 fairly large range of capacity, and I don't know -- you 8 know, I'm not an ice maker manufacturer, so this is 9 more a question than it is anything else, from the data 10 I've looked at, however, there's a fairly significant 11 range of efficiency across -- within each of these 12 capacity ranges and what generally happens when you 13 have a break point is the break point turns into a big 14 discontinuity over time. 15 When people deal with capacity, they stay at 16 499 instead of 500 or they go to 500 instead of 499 17 just to avoid a particular break point in a standard. 18 So my question is are we setting up a 19 situation where we're going to have rather large ranges 20 that have some discontinuities in efficiency 21 requirements that will cause manufacturers to seek one 22 level of capacity versus another? 23 MR. WESTPHALEN: I can partially respond to 24 that. This is Detlef Westphalen. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  2 3

The intent is that there will be no 1 discontinuities and, you know, that doesn't mean that 2 if you get to a break point where the slope suddenly 3 increases, that there wouldn't be an advantage, but the 4 intent would be that there would be absolutely no 5 discontinuities. 6 MR. ECKMAN: So we might have something more 7 like a curve than a slope intercept? 8 MR. WESTPHALEN: Yes. I don't really -- I 9 mean, people have talked about the capacity break 10 points as defining different equipment classes and, you 11 know, we’re strictly using that terminology because 12 there's a different equation, but in my mind, it's 13 just, you know, a relationship that's defined by piece14 wise linear equations. 15 MR. BROOKMAN: We have received our first 16 question from someone online who asks: can you explain 17 how DOE determined different harvest rate capacities 18 for each of the equipment classes? 19 I think they're talking about the capacity 20 that's listed here. 21 MR. WESTPHALEN: I'm assuming the question 22 asks how did we select the break points between the 23 equipment class capacity ranges. 24 MR. BROOKMAN: I read to you what's written 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  2 4

here. 1 MR. WESTPHALEN: And I'll respond to it based 2 on that understanding. 3 In some cases, these were the break points 4 for the existing equipment classes. We looked at the 5 data that was available to determine whether those 6 break points should change and there was not 7 overwhelming evidence that those should change. 8 For the new equipment classes, particularly 9 the continuous, we initially tried to maintain 10 consistency with the CEE Tier 2 break points, you know, 11 which is the CEE process which, you know, developed 12 their own voluntary standards and in some cases, you 13 know, part of this process is to try to get comment on 14 whether all of those break points make sense, 15 particularly for the continuous classes where this is 16 something new. 17 MR. BROOKMAN: So we have not heard yet from 18 manufacturers what they think about these classes. So 19 Daryl. 20 MR. ERBS: Yeah. I just don't always want to 21 go first. 22 MR. BROOKMAN: That's okay. We welcome 23 precocious commenters. 24 MR. ERBS: Just in terms of a general comment 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  2 5

around the equipment classes, I would say I would 1 support the current classification. It's important 2 from my perspective to differentiate between remote 3 condensing where just the condensing section is outside 4 versus the compressor because there are good reasons 5 for those different packaging of equipment based on 6 application and by moving the compressor to the outdoor 7 section, it does have a real measurable -- and I know 8 it was in the analysis -- it has an impact on the 9 potential energy efficiency of the ice machine, all 10 other things being equal. 11 So I would support continuing with that 12 distinction between those two categories. 13 In terms of within a particular configuration 14 classification, where you put a break point or whether 15 you do like EPA did where they went to a power-based 16 formula, I personally don't think it's that important, 17 as long as, you know, there's a reasonable 18 representation for what naturally happens as machines 19 get larger, components become more efficient, other 20 effects become less significant, you know. 21 From my perspective, it's sort of an 22 asymptotic relationship between size and efficiency in 23 a particular category and we would just ask that, that 24 through the analysis, that there not be any real 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  2 6

discontinuities or any large discrepancies between sort 1 of the industry mean because I think that is a good 2 representation of how efficiency varies with size. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So going back to the 4 comment boxes, the department is seeking comment on 5 what you think about these product classes and also you 6 can see Item A, if there are different types of 7 equipment with significant annual shipments that do not 8 fall under any of the equipment classes considered. 9 Yes, Matt. 10 MR. ALLISON: More of a question. It's 11 broken down here by batch and continuous type. There's 12 also a type of product that we manufacture. It's a 13 continuous ice maker but it also dispenses that ice. 14 It's used in various applications in the field. 15 I wondered if this standard intends to cover 16 those types of machines, also. 17 MR. WESTPHALEN: I'll try to start answering 18 that. 19 That type of an ice machine, you know, the 20 ice-making function of that would be covered under this 21 standard and so, you know, if you can use the existing 22 test procedure to measure the energy use of that ice 23 maker in its ice-making function, you know, then it 24 would be covered. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  2 7

Well, I want to make sure I'm not misleading 1 here. The ice-making function is covered. If there's 2 an issue with the test procedure, then, you know, that 3 needs to be addressed potentially with a waiver but, 4 you know, that kind of a machine would be covered. 5 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Mary. 6 MS. HOWE: I was wondering if there was any 7 intention of including the remote-to-rack units. 8 MR. WESTPHALEN: We have a category for, you 9 know, the RCU, you know, within the batch category. 10 Let me just back up here. You know, we have remote 11 condensing and remote compressor and that does not 12 distinguish between a product that would have its own 13 dedicated condensing unit and a product that would not 14 have its own dedicated condensing unit and I know 15 there's been some discussion and I think the direction 16 that DOE is headed is that if you have a product that 17 does not have a dedicated remote condensing unit with 18 which it is sold, that product would not officially be 19 covered under the definition for automatic ice makers 20 which is in EPCA. 21 If it is sold intended for rack connection, 22 but also sold with a dedicated remote condensing unit, 23 then it is covered and its rating would be based on 24 that test with the dedicated remote condensing unit. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  2 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. We also have received 1 another question from online. This is from Mike 2 Maertens and we're going to list those -- we're going 3 to get the names of those who are asking these 4 questions. 5 Mike Maertens asks: EnergyStar has moved to 6 exponential curves and eliminated the break points. 7 Would you consider this? 8 MR. LLENZA: Certainly we’ll consider it. 9 MR. BROOKMAN: We should assume you were new 10 to these proceedings. So, of course, the department 11 welcomes your request and wants everything in writing 12 in great detail. 13 Charles Llenza. 14 MR. LLENZA: Yes. Charles Llenza, Department 15 of Energy. 16 We welcome all comments here. So, you know, 17 some of these don't have to be all written down but if 18 you make comments here at these proceedings, we will 19 have a transcript that will become available, also, for 20 the public record. 21 But if things are more elaborate, we would 22 prefer things 23 written down so that we would have that to be able to 24 follow the details more thoroughly through something 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  2 9

written down or submitted in writing. 1 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Additional comments 2 responding to these two comment boxes? 3 (No response.) 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 5 MR. WESTPHALEN: Now we get into the 6 Technology Assessment and the purpose of the Technology 7 Assessment is to identify technologies which can be 8 used to improve the efficiency of automatic commercial 9 ice makers and again this is, you know, an information10 gathering part of the rulemaking involving literature 11 review, evaluation of detailed information for 12 products, manufacturer brochures, spec sheets, and 13 comments and inputs from stakeholders. 14 And the Chapter 3 in the TSD has a detailed 15 description for each of the technologies that were 16 considered. 17 This table shows all of the technologies. 18 Clearly not all the technologies are applicable to all 19 of the equipment types but it gives sort of a breakdown 20 of generally what equipment types they're applicable to 21 and so the comment box we have here for technologies is 22 whether there are any technologies that DOE should 23 consider that haven't already been listed. 24 MR. BROOKMAN: Tom Eckman. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  3 0

MR. ECKMAN: Tom Eckman. I see going ahead 1 we have the Screening Analysis, so I'm not quite 2 certain where to -- there are technologies that might 3 be considered that you screened out. I'm not sure 4 where to enter into the conversation on that since it's 5 coming up on the next slide. 6 MR. WESTPHALEN: I think this question is, is 7 there something on the big list that -- 8 MR. ECKMAN: Yeah. Something on there -- 9 MR. WESTPHALEN: -- is missing. 10 MR. ECKMAN: -- that you took out, so never 11 mind. 12 MR. WESTPHALEN: Right. 13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 14 MR. LLENZA: This is Charles Llenza, 15 Department of Energy. 16 I think what Detlef is trying to point out is 17 that did we miss anything on this list? That's 18 basically it, something we didn't know of, or did we 19 cover it pretty much? 20 MR. BROOKMAN: Mary Howe. 21 MS. HOWE: I was wondering on the continuous 22 ice makers why there were several things left off, 23 including the reduced potable water flow. 24 MR. WESTPHALEN: Reduced potable water flow. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  3 1

MR. BROOKMAN: That's a feature in continuous 1 ice makers? 2 MS. HOWE: I think there is -- maybe one of 3 the other manufacturers can answer this. I think there 4 are clean cycles or flush cycles on the continuous ice 5 machines. 6 MR. WESTPHALEN: I guess, I mean, I can try 7 to respond partly to that. 8 Now the Engineering Analysis is conducted on 9 the basis of the Test Procedure which calls for the 10 three 14.4-minute long ice-making measurements, 11 production and energy use. The flushing cycles 12 typically are not within those measurement periods, so 13 they would not -- you know, we can't evaluate an 14 improvement to the measurement that's outside of the 15 Test Procedure. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So other comments? I 17 guess we're looking for anything significant that's 18 missing from this list. Anything that comes to mind 19 because we're about to move on? 20 (No response.) 21 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 22 MR. WESTPHALEN: All right. So now we get to 23 the Screening. The purpose of the Screening is to 24 screen out the technologies that are not appropriate 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  3 2

for further consideration. 1 MR. BROOKMAN: Pardon me for interrupting. 2 We have another question from Mike Maertens. He says: 3 Were hydrocarbon refrigerants considered? This, I 4 think, relates to the previous slide. Were hydrocarbon 5 refrigerants considered? 6 MR. WESTPHALEN: Hydrocarbon refrigerants 7 were not considered because DOE could not identify any 8 particular hydrocarbon technologies that would reduce 9 energy use for this equipment type. 10 MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl. 11 MR. ERBS: Just one other comment. It's not 12 legal to use a hydrocarbon refrigerant in the U.S. Now 13 I don't know. That could change but, you know, at the 14 current time, it's not SNAP-approved. So I don't think 15 it would be appropriate to consider a technology that's 16 not a legal option for us. 17 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Karim. 18 DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. I want to 19 add a little bit on that. 20 I mean, any refrigerant that is used as an 21 alternative to CFCs and HCFCs have to be approved by 22 EPA and the SNAP Program, and, yes, they did approve 23 some hydrocarbons for household refrigerator 24 application and I believe some commercial refrigeration 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  3 3

display cases, but that's about it. So ice makers is 1 not part of it, so you cannot choose legally 2 hydrocarbons in ice makers today in the U.S. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks for that 4 amplification. Okay. 5 Yes, Daryl. 6 MR. ERBS: Just one other comment since we 7 brought up refrigerants. 8 You know, we may have to use some 9 refrigerants in the future based on other legislation 10 or influence that, quite honestly, based on everything 11 we know today would probably decrease the energy 12 efficiency of our products, and I will probably get to 13 that later on, but if anything on the refrigerants, I 14 see it as being a step backwards, not forward. 15 MR. BROOKMAN: So now we're going to 16 Screening. 17 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay. Okay. So there are 18 four regulation-defined screening criteria. First of 19 all, technological feasibility and just to make clear 20 what that means, that means that you have to be able to 21 identify products that are sold that have this 22 technology or prototypes that have been tested that 23 demonstrate the technology. 24 Then some of the other criteria are whether 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  3 4

the technology is practical to manufacture, install, 1 and service; whether it has adverse impacts on 2 equipment utility or availability to customers; and 3 whether it has adverse impacts on health and safety. 4 At this stage, we also screened out some 5 technologies for other reasons, such as that they 6 didn't affect the measured energy use using the DOE 7 Test Procedure, and proprietary technologies were also 8 taken off the table at this point, you know, where we 9 were able to identify that there's an issue with, you 10 know, intellectual property. 11 So, this slide shows the technologies that 12 were screened out and the key reasons for their being 13 screened out. This is at the point of the Preliminary 14 Analysis. 15 Some of these technologies we're considering 16 bringing back into the analysis for the NOPR phase and, 17 in particular, some of those include reduced potable 18 water flow, increased condenser water flow, and also 19 potentially technology options to reduce evaporative 20 thermal cycling. 21 MR. BROOKMAN: What was the third one again? 22 MR. WESTPHALEN: The technology options to 23 reduce evaporator thermal cycling. 24 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  3 5

MR. WESTPHALEN: And so we have a comment box 1 on this last one that I mentioned, the reduced thermal 2 cycling in batch ice makers, and looking at the 3 technological feasibility criterion, the only 4 technology that we could identify that is available in 5 products or prototype data for which we have the data 6 is that found in the Hoshizaki batch ice makers, for a 7 low thermal mass evaporator. There are patents on this 8 design. Some of them are fairly old. DOE was not able 9 to definitively determine is there a proprietary issue 10 here or not and so we seek feedback from the 11 stakeholders on whether they have more knowledge on 12 that topic. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Matt. 14 MR. ALLISON: Regarding the Hoshizaki 15 evaporators, I do know that they've incorporated some 16 design changes recently that they've patented or 17 attempted to patent to improve the performance of the 18 machines overall and based on looking at the patents or 19 the patent applications, it appears that they're really 20 centered around improving the energy performance of 21 those evaporators. 22 So I would say the answer to the question is, 23 yes, there are patents, either active or applied for 24 right now, that would go directly towards energy 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  3 6

reduction. 1 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Daryl, go ahead. 2 Daryl, please. 3 MR. ERBS: So obviously intellectual property 4 is a consideration, but I think generally there may be 5 ways to, you know, look at low thermal mass outside of 6 an exact duplication of someone else's designs. So I 7 wouldn't say we couldn't do that. 8 My concern is, I guess, twofold. One is 9 trying to really account for the impact of low thermal 10 mass on the potential energy efficiency. My view is 11 that's a very complicated phenomenon to accurately 12 model and predict and so I would be very concerned 13 about taking results from an evaporator in one machine 14 and trying to simply apply those improvements to 15 another machine because it's a very complex 16 thermodynamic process, and so I would be probably most 17 concerned about just how those assumptions find their 18 way into technology levels and the assumed energy 19 efficiency benefits. 20 The other comment is, you know, there's 21 product utility around all of our machines, the style 22 of ice we make. We all have our particular customers 23 who like what they get from our machines. They have 24 their relative advantages and there's certainly a huge 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  3 7

investment on the part of each of the manufacturers in 1 terms of, you know, how they go about making their 2 evaporator. 3 So if it were to drive us to have to do 4 something different, all I can tell you is it would 5 have huge economic impact to us. It would be, you 6 know, a very significant impact, and we would probably, 7 you know, look at other alternatives first. You know, 8 it may not have a very good payback, even though it may 9 result in some improvement in performance. 10 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Tom Eckman. 11 MR. ECKMAN: Yes. I just was wondering 12 whether DOE was considering or would consider the drain 13 water thermal exchange in other applications because it 14 changes the inlet water temperature differentials. It 15 can affect the capacity of the units. So the issue of 16 size becomes -- size and capacity impacts are related 17 here. So there's a synergistic effect because you 18 change the inlet water temperature. 19 So I'd ask you to at least investigate the 20 idea that the reason you eliminated it because it would 21 impact the size of the unit, you may be able to 22 incorporate it inside without increasing the overall 23 size of the unit because you can maintain the same 24 capacity. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  3 8

MR. WESTPHALEN: We would welcome any 1 information on designs that would fit that category, if 2 available. 3 MR. ECKMAN: I don't have any. Like I said, 4 I'm not an ice maker manufacturer but I do know that 5 that phenomenon certainly exists in other applications. 6 So it's just a question of whether the synergistic 7 effect of being able to use -- the inlet water 8 temperature reduction has an ability to maintain the 9 same capacity without increasing the size of the unit. 10 MR. BROOKMAN: You don't know if that 11 specific -- 12 MR. ECKMAN: I don't know if that’s specific 13 in this application, but in other applications I've 14 seen where for water heating you can reduce the size of 15 the tank capacity and still maintain the same output 16 because the differential temperature is less. 17 MR. WESTPHALEN: I understand the point. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: You see the list of items that 19 are screened out and the reasons why. Comments, 20 additional comments on this? 21 (No response.) 22 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 23 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay. And again to the 24 Engineering Analysis, there's a lot to cover here. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  3 9

The purpose of the Engineering Analysis is to 1 establish cost efficiency curves which describe the 2 relationship between increase in cost and the energy 3 saved associated with each technology option or 4 efficiency level. 5 The methods in the Engineering Analysis, you 6 know, we typically conduct reverse engineering, 7 purchase some units and look very closely at them and 8 that information feeds into both energy modeling and 9 manufacturing cost modeling. We conduct energy testing 10 according to the DOE Test Procedure with additional 11 measurements to get better understanding of how these 12 units are operating. That feeds into the energy 13 modeling. 14 Then we establish efficiency levels, baseline 15 efficiency levels for the different equipment classes, 16 and intermediate efficiency levels, and then develop 17 assessments to describe the cost impact of the design 18 options and what it takes to get to higher efficiency. 19 The details again are described in greater 20 depth in the Technical Support Document. 21 Generally, DOE talks about different types of 22 analyses, design option analyses, efficiency level 23 analyses, manufacturing cost approach, and we basically 24 use all of these themes in developing the Engineering 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  4 0

Analysis. You know, the manufacturing cost models and 1 the energy models were based on different design 2 descriptions, but the results were then characterized 3 at specific defined efficiency levels for downstream 4 analysis, life-cycle cost, and national impact. 5 Most of the rest of this I've already sort of 6 covered. Basically, you know, we conduct this analysis 7 and develop these cost efficiency curves, you know, 8 based on manufacturing cost analysis and energy 9 modeling. 10 This chart generally shows the information 11 flow inputs to the energy modeling and manufacturing 12 cost models output into the incremental cost estimates 13 and then the cost efficiency curves. 14 So now we're going to talk about efficiency 15 levels, first the baseline efficiency levels and then 16 the incremental efficiency levels, you know, at higher 17 efficiency. 18 For the currently-covered ice makers, these 19 we'll call the batch ice makers, we set the baseline 20 efficiency levels equal to the current DOE standards. 21 For harvest capacity beyond the range covered by the 22 current standards, the 2,500 to 4,000 pound a day, we 23 set the baseline levels at a constant energy use for a 24 machine of 2,500 pound per day capacity, basically a 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  4 1

flat line out to 4,000. 1 For continuous ice makers, one of the issues 2 here was the ice hardness adjustment that was 3 introduced by the Test Procedure for continuous 4 machines and when the efficiency levels for continuous 5 machines were being developed, we had no data available 6 for the ice hardness of the different machines, 7 although we did have data available for energy use in 8 kilowatt hours per hundred pounds. 9 So in order to develop our initial baseline 10 efficiency levels, we made assumptions for the ice 11 hardness -- 70 percent for flakers and 85 percent for 12 nugget machines -- and as mentioned before, we chose 13 harvest capacity break points consistent with the CEE 14 Tier 2 criteria, a thousand pounds a day for IMH and 15 RCU equipment and 175 pound per day for SCU, both for 16 air-cooled and water-cooled. 17 And the curves, I haven't put all the curves 18 in the presentation, but they're available, you know, 19 the data is in Chapter 5, and they're plotted in 20 Chapter 3 with the available energy use data. 21 Now getting on to incremental efficiency 22 levels, this chart is for the batch ice makers. The 23 efficiency levels are defined as the percent energy use 24 less than the baseline and in some of these cases, 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  4 2

these levels correspond to the EnergyStar levels. 1 The baseline efficiency level is defined as 2 EL1, Efficiency Level 1, and then we step up EL2, 3

etcetera. 4 Now you'll see here also we have the max 5 available -- this is the max available found in the 6 databases -- and also the max tech. Now this max tech 7 was developed from our analysis and in some cases the 8 max tech doesn't go all the way up to the max available 9 and in some cases that's because there are design 10 options required to get to a max available that we 11 didn't consider, like making the box 50 percent larger 12 than what's typical for a baseline unit, for instance. 13 So that's the table for the batch ice makers. 14 For ice-making head air-cooled in the large 15 capacity range, we did something a little bit 16 different. The existing standard for these products 17 has a sloping line going out to 2,500 pounds per day 18 and we noticed that there aren't any machines at 1,600 19 pounds or above and we didn't feel it made any sense to 20 continually extend this line down to 4,000 to levels 21 that would be down, you know, at two and a half range 22 at 4,000. 23 So we tried to flatten out this curve the way 24 we did with all the other efficiency levels. However, 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  4 3

we can't set a standard at a less stringent level than 1 the current standard. So you can see where we've put 2 the dashed line here for Efficiency Level 2, which is, 3 you know, in the intermediate zone, it's, I believe, 4 nine percent lower than the current standard. At 1,600 5 pounds per day, we said, okay, well, let's flatten that 6 out. Eventually, it hits the existing standard line 7 and it has to follow that down because we can't make it 8 less stringent and then at 2,500 we continue it 9 straight out. 10 Now if you get to an Efficiency Level 3 or 4, 11 it might not have this jog in the line and we realize 12 that this might be purely hypothetical because it may 13 be that nobody will ever manufacture a machine in these 14 large capacity size ranges, but we felt it was 15 necessary at least to establish a standard there, you 16 know, to say, okay, well, here's something reasonable 17 to extend beyond, you know, the existing curve. 18 So we have two, I believe two requests for 19 comments here on the equipment classes. The first one 20 speaks to the difference between remote compressor with 21 an RCU unit and compressor within the ice-making head, 22 and, you know, there's an analysis described in the 23 Engineering Analysis chapter that shows that the 0.2 24 kilowatt hour per hundred pounds of ice and, by the 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  4 4

way, this is incorrect as 0.2 kilowatt hours per day in 1 the hard copy write-up, that the 0.2 kilowatt hours is 2 reasonable based on the 25 feet of suction line 3 involved and the pressure drop associated and so we 4 would like some feedback on that assessment. 5 MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl. 6 MR. ERBS: Daryl Erbs, Manitowoc Ice. In my 7 earlier comments, I had indicated by category it made 8 sense. In terms of, you know, the value, I guess, you 9 know, we could look at it further, but it's really 10 driven primarily by just suction line loss which is a 11 function of the thermodynamics of the refrigerant and I 12 don't see any reason why that would change. It's not 13 really affected by any of the technology options. So I 14 guess from my perspective, it's valid. It needs to be 15 there and it's probably reasonable to keep it the same 16 for the new standards. 17 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Tom Eckman. 18 MR. ECKMAN: Tom Eckman. Going back to the 19 max tech versus the maximum available -- 20 MR. BROOKMAN: Hey, Tom. Excuse me. Matt 21 wanted to comment. 22 MR. ECKMAN: Oh, go ahead. 23 MR. BROOKMAN: It's in the same stream of 24 comment. Go ahead. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  4 5

MR. ALLISON: Yes. Matt Allison. Scotsman 1 supports keeping these classes separate since they do 2 perform separately in the field and there are different 3 customer desires for those types of equipment. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks, Matt. Tom, go 5 ahead. 6 MR. ECKMAN: And we agree with that, too. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Good. That helps the 8 department. 9 MR. ECKMAN: Yeah. No debate about that. 10 It's just physics. 11 But it would be helpful, I think, if the 12 department would indicate that where the max tech is 13 sizably less than the efficiency available, that that 14 was due to some technology you screened out 15 specifically and not just -- and I'm concerned in some 16 cases that this -- you get lowest common denominator 17 constraint here where you've got -- this may be related 18 to my earlier comment and others about binning these 19 things into certain capacities, some of which have size 20 constraints and some of which don't, and so when you 21 have a continuous function, this may not show up 22 because some of the units that don't have size 23 constraints can be sized more efficiently, and within 24 less than 500 you've got some that are size constrained 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  4 6

and some that aren't and the ones that aren’t can 1 achieve the 20 percent improvement and they may be 2 towards the 499 and the others are less. I don't know 3 what the -- but it may be related to just the binning 4 of the sizes and so if the fact is that the 20 percent 5 in the first category improvement is possible because 6 there's no size constraint, yet the max tech is only 10 7 or 14, then we've got an issue just in setting the 8 standards that end up being driven by the lowest common 9 denominator on the size constraint where it's not a 10 problem for others' equipment. Clear? 11 MR. WESTPHALEN: Yes, yes. I understand your 12 comment. We have a request for comment later on on 13 potential for physical size increase and that touches 14 on exactly what you're talking about. I don't know if 15 we can get good feedback on that comment. Let's wait 16 until we get to that box and we can drill into it a bit 17

more. 18 MR. ECKMAN: If there are models that can 19 achieve almost double the efficiency in the marketplace 20 already, having the max tech size, you know, less than 21 that seems overly-large constraint on design options. 22 MR. BROOKMAN: Tim Ballo. 23 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, EarthJustice. This 24 seems like an issue that's come up in other rulemakings 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  4 7

where certain design options would lead to a larger 1 product that would then create some extra installation 2 costs that, you know, maybe it doesn't make sense for a 3 standard, but I don't think this is the stage of the 4 rulemaking necessarily where you rule out that design 5 option. 6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. So you got 7 that, right? 8

MR. WESTPHALEN: Yes. 9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 10 MR. WESTPHALEN: We can move on from this. 11 MR. BROOKMAN: There's quite a bit of content 12 here in Item Number 5. So take a peek again, make sure 13 we've received all the comment that you wish to give on 14 this comment box. Okay, okay. 15 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay. Then we have a 16 comment box on the large batch ice maker efficiency 17 levels and there are two parts here. 18 Number 1 requesting comment on the intent to 19 use the flat curve for most of these equipment classes 20 in the 2,500 to 4,000 pound per day range and then the 21 second part has to do with the approach outlined in the 22 chart that I described earlier for the IMH air-cooled 23 units. 24 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Daryl. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  4 8

MR. ERBS: I guess from my perspective, once 1 you get out into the, I don't know, 2,000+ range in 2 terms of ice-making capacity, if it's not flat, it's 3 very close to flat. I mean, a lot of this is driven by 4 -- probably the biggest impact is compressor efficiency 5 and if you -- and I'm sure Detlef and his team have 6 done some analysis. 7 You know, as you look at compressor EERs, 8 once you get out into integral horsepower, you know, 9 you tend to see smaller and smaller gains in compressor 10 EER once you get above a certain size. 11 The effects on other losses also tend to 12 diminish, you know, fan motor, all the different 13 electrical-consuming devices. Once you get above a 14 certain size, you know, tends to again be relatively 15 the same in efficiency, and our large ice machines 16 typically will end up using multiple evaporators to get 17 to those very large capacities, really for economic 18 reasons, because they're so low volume and we can't 19 afford to make a new evaporator for every size, so 20 we'll just use multiple. 21 So the relative performance of the evaporator 22 doesn't get any better above a certain size. So I 23 guess from my experience and just from my engineering 24 knowledge, I would say that it's actually very 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  4 9

reasonable to have a flat efficiency line above a 1 certain size, and I don't know if that's, you know, 2 2,200 or 2,500 or where exactly that falls and we could 3 probably look at that, but I think just, you know, in 4 terms of a general trend, this is the correct approach 5 to take. 6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Other 7 comments here? 8 (No response.) 9 MR. BROOKMAN: I guess that's it. Okay. 10 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay. Now we get into 11 incremental efficiency levels for the continuous ice 12 machines and here I should say there is an error in 13 this chart under Efficiency Level 2 for the IMH air14 cooled. There is no EnergyStar at 10 percent as far as 15 I'm aware. I don't know why that got in there. 16 And again, this shows the efficiency levels 17 in a percent energy use less than the baseline. Here 18 we have in a lot of cases higher percentages and that 19 to some extent is based on just the nature of how the 20 baseline was defined, baseline having been defined for 21 continuous as achievable by nearly all the ice makers 22 in the dataset that we looked at. 23 MR. LLENZA: This is Charles Llenza, 24 Department of Energy. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  5 0

The corrections, we'll be submitting another 1 deck on the website with the final corrections on 2 everything. So, just in case you miss something at the 3 meeting here today. 4 I'll also do an e-mail blast with a clean 5 deck with all the updates just for everybody's 6 convenience. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Joanna Mauer. 8 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. Could you say a 9 little bit about for the remote condensing equipment 10 classes why there's such a big difference between the 11 max tech and the max available levels? 12 MR. WESTPHALEN: I would have to say I'm 13 sorry, I just don't have the details in my head right 14 now to respond to that. It's coming back to me. 15 MR. BROOKMAN: Please. 16 MR. WESTPHALEN: Sorry. This 42 percent, I 17 believe, was for a unit that recently has been re-rated 18 at quite a bit higher energy use. 19 MR. BROOKMAN: So maybe you can -- it's in 20 the TSD? 21 MR. WESTPHALEN: I don't think that's 22 mentioned in the TSD. The data point is on the chart 23 in the low lower energy use level, but AHRI has 24 recently published data for continuous machines and a 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  5 1

different number appeared for that unit. 1 MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl. 2 MR. ERBS: Yes. I think I have a comment and 3 a question and so on the comment, and this actually 4 applies to the batch as well as the continuous, what 5 I'm missing is the relationship between the efficiency 6 levels and the technology options that go into those 7 efficiency levels. 8 I don't understand how you build those. It 9 almost looks to me that it's just sort of kind of steps 10 upward and it would help a lot to understand if there's 11 a particular methodology to identifying the technology 12 options that can actually get you to those. I'd be 13 able to comment more carefully if I actually understood 14 that. Maybe it's in there somewhere. I couldn't find 15 it, though. 16 And then on the kind of what's available, my 17 only caution would be -- and I believe you corrected 18 these for the calorimetry of the ice, these values? 19 MR. WESTPHALEN: These values, yes. 20 MR. ERBS: But you had to assume one value 21 for flake and one value for nugget because there hasn't 22 been a certification program, there hasn't been, you 23 know, a database that's grounded in some industry 24 association or other thing. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  5 2

So there could be some effect on the validity 1 of some of those values if certain manufacturers' ice 2 was not at the assumed value of calorimetry that you 3 used. 4 MR. WESTPHALEN: Yes. We have looked at the 5 data that is on the AHRI website for the continuous 6 machines with reported hardness levels and looked at 7 the baseline efficiency levels compared to those data 8 and see how those compare with what we did before with 9 the fixed 70 percent and 85 and for the most part, you 10 know, the scatter of those points is very similar to 11 what it was before, here and there, you know, some 12 points have moved around a little bit. 13 Of course, not all the manufacturers have 14 reported that data, unless it's happened recently over 15 the last couple days. So, you know, it would be good 16 to get a good full picture obviously but we are trying 17 to look at that as we move to the NOPR phase. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: So having presented the -- 19 let's move to the next slide. 20 MR. WESTPHALEN: One thing I wanted to 21 respond to, you know, I thought that there were tables 22 in the Engineering Analysis chapter that detailed the 23 technology options by efficiency level for all of the 24 directly-analyzed products. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  5 3

MR. BROOKMAN: So that's where the features 1 that would be in each of these levels would be listed? 2 MR. WESTPHALEN: Exactly. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, okay. 4 MR. WESTPHALEN: And if it's not, I mean 5 that's something that we could post on the website, if 6 it would be useful. 7 Okay. I'll move on. So this is a general 8 comment box catchall for efficiency levels. Any other 9 comments on the suggested efficiency levels, both the 10 baselines and the incrementals? 11 (No response.) 12 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay. Well, maybe we'll 13

move on. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Tom Eckman, please. 15 MR. ECKMAN: Yes. Given the disparity 16 between product availability, efficiency levels and, in 17 some classes, at least, I think it's -- 18 MR. BROOKMAN: I didn't understand that. 19 Product availability disparity? 20 MR. ECKMAN: Yeah. The disparity between the 21 efficiency of the max tech and the product that's 22 available that's sizably more efficient. 23 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Okay. 24 MR. ECKMAN: It certainly would be worth 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  5 4

investigating whether the maximum technology level 1 that's being analyzed really satisfies the requirement 2 for max tech, that there is a technology out there 3 that's far superior, somehow it's being not analyzed, 4 and by definition you haven't got max tech defined in 5 the same way I view it. If it's certainly in the 6 product literature as an available product and you're 7 not looking at it, that's not max tech. You may decide 8 not to set it as a standard, but certainly not looking 9 at it as a potential standard and then saying we'll 10 screen it out because it's not available to all parties 11 because it's proprietary design or something like that, 12 that's fine, but it needs to be deliberately screened 13

out. 14 MR. WESTPHALEN: Yes. I'm going to, I guess, 15 try to shed a little light. 16 So one of the things that happens again, 17 especially in our world where we don't have huge 18 volumes and that's led the industry to adopt certain 19 size standards, not only for the ice machines but the 20 bins they sit on, the dispensers they sit on, the other 21 equipment that gets connected to the ice machines. 22 So you will find cases where a particular ice 23 machine is in a relatively large cabinet because for 24 purposes of economy every manufacturer's going to put 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  5 5

several different capacity increments into a certain 1 size cabinet. So you may have a small capacity ice 2 machine in a big cabinet. It couldn't quite fit in the 3 smaller cabinet. That one may end up being a very 4 efficient machine, so you can find examples and I think 5 if you look at where they picked out the most efficient 6 machine in a category, you know, it's one model and 7 when you look at max tech or an efficiency level, if 8 the idea is to apply that broadly across all of the 9 machines in a class, then you may not be able to 10 achieve that highest industry level universally across 11 a bunch of models and so I would caution saying, well, 12 just because you can find one example that's at that 13 efficiency level, that it's possible to bring every 14 model up to that efficiency level. 15 MR. ECKMAN: This is Tom Eckman. I would 16 agree with that. I think to satisfy me, that, you 17 know, if it's an outlier with respect to designs or 18 what have you, you know, that's reason to screen it out 19 as not available to the general populous of production. 20 However, if there's, you know, 25 percent of the 21 product that's well above the max tech you're looking 22 at, then we have a different issue or even 10 percent 23 of the product that satisfies that, that doesn’t sound 24 like a specialty or odd ball kind of design. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  5 6

So if it's one data point that's different 1 than a sizable number below max tech in terms of their 2

energy use. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Other comments related 4 to this comment box, Item Number 4? 5 (No response.) 6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 7 MR. WESTPHALEN: All right. Moving on, this 8 is a more general slide that answers Daryl's question 9 generally, which design options were considered for 10 which equipment types. It doesn't get into the nitty 11 gritty detail of which ones get you to which levels, 12 but these are the key design options that were 13 considered. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's just give a moment to 15 read this here. 16 MR. WESTPHALEN: Well, let me try to 17 introduce it verbally. This gets into the whole 18 question of if you can get more efficiency by making 19 the box larger and putting in larger heat exchangers, 20 you know, clearly that's a technology option. There's 21 a potential customer utility aspect there, you know. 22 There's the potential for issues if, you know, in a 23 replacement application where it won't fit on the 24 existing bin, but ice maker size affects multiple 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  5 7

design options, potentially the drain water thermal 1 recovery, for instance, and so, you know, we could 2 really drill down into a lot of detail here as to, 3 okay, well, you know, it relates also to the flat 4

curve. 5 Well, you know, maybe when you get to 3,000 6 you can put in a box that's twice as large and that 7 would then say that the curve should come back down 8 again and so there are a lot of implications here and, 9 you know, certainly for us to do our best job, you 10 know, the more detail we can get in responding to this 11 issue and what's reasonable in terms of sizes at 12 different levels would be very helpful. 13 MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl. 14 MR. ERBS: So I think I have a two-part 15 answer. So there are some machines which I would argue 16 don't have any flexibility whatsoever. They typically 17 are those machines that go into the drive-through of a 18 fast food restaurant which, quite honestly, they keep 19 asking us to make them smaller so they have more access 20 to them. We're kind of stuck between a rock and a hard 21 place in terms of making them any smaller when we're 22 faced with increasing energy requirements and all that, 23 but really there are seriously issues in terms of the 24 size and including even making it taller. They sit on 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  5 8

top of a dispenser. There's a ceiling there. Our ice 1 machine's touching the ceiling today. 2 So the footprint for almost all ice machines 3 is largely constrained by either the ice beverage 4 dispenser that it sits on or the storage bin that it 5 sits on. Those are industry standards. A high 6 percentage of the ice machine business is replacement. 7 It's not that common that the ice machine and the bin 8 are replaced at the same time, but even if they were to 9 replace both of them, if you were to go into most 10 restaurants, hotels, or other food service segments 11 where these products are used, there's a space that 12 that ice machine is wedged into and you can't make a 13 bigger space, right? It's an existing restaurant. 14 There's stuff installed all around it. 15 There, in some cases, is the ability to make 16 them a little bit taller, but I would say that it's 17 something that, you know, really needs to be viewed 18 with caution in terms of how widely available the 19 increase in size is available. 20 Of course, now with the remote condensing 21 unit, there probably is room in a lot of cases for a 22 larger outdoor unit. My only caution there is when you 23 start to make the outdoor unit larger to put more 24 condenser coil in, you now affect the refrigerant 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  5 9

management, right? You end up with more volume in that 1 outdoor coil. 2 An ice machine is kind of a funny device in 3 that it's got to run from minus 20 degrees to 120 4 degrees if it's got an outdoor condenser. That 5 presents severe challenges to us in terms of managing 6 all that refrigerant. So if we start putting more 7 refrigerant in to achieve higher efficiency levels, it 8 might affect the indoor unit. I have to put a much 9 larger receiver in now than what I've had in the past 10 and I may or may not have room for that. So it's just 11 a little complicated, and I would be cautious about 12 saying that's an easy design variable to use to 13 increase efficiency. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Matt. 15 MR. ALLISON: Related to remotes in 16 particular, you know, increasing the condenser size, 17 which I assume is where this increased package size is 18 going, a lot of times when we looked at doing this type 19 of thing in the past, it really hasn't yielded a 20 performance enhancement because when you're operating 21 with a more efficient freeze cycle, your compressor 22 runs cooler. When you go to harvest the ice, you have 23 less heat to work with to actually harvest the ice, so 24 the harvest cycle ends up lengthening and the net 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  6 0

impact on the overall performance of the machine is 1 little, or in some cases a step backwards. 2 So in the modeling of this and in the 3 consideration of a larger package size, we need to be 4 careful with batch-type machines in particular. 5 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Tom Eckman. 6 MR. ECKMAN: Tom Eckman. This will come up 7 later as we get to the Energy Use Analysis, but it 8 seems that we have very little information on the 9 loading of this equipment, that is, what the actual 10 duty cycle is, how many pounds it produces given its 11 rated capacity. Is it 50 percent loading, which is 12 what's assumed here, or is it some other number? 13 So without that information, it's really hard 14 for me to determine whether or not we're up against the 15 limit in terms of capacity and size that a smaller 16 capacity might satisfy the application, therefore could 17 be more efficient. If it's only being used 50 percent 18 of its capacity, maybe on July 4th it's used a 100 19 percent, but there are applications where this thing is 20 way over-sized for its particular application and 21 therefore you could make it more efficient because you 22 could downsize the capacity, maybe you could make it 23 more efficient. 24 Clearly as you get smaller, you can't always 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  6 1

maintain the efficiency. So it seems to me there's 1 that connection between what we don't know, which is 2 how often these units are loaded at their absolute peak 3 capability, and what their annual usage is. 4 MR. LLENZA: This is Charles Llenza, 5 Department of Energy. 6 Does the industry have any kind of standard 7 sizes that they use? Say like, okay, we build them in 8 this size by this size, and this size. Is there some 9 industry standard or some requirements size-wise? 10 MR. BROOKMAN: Matt Allison. 11 MR. ALLISON: This is Matt Allison. Yes, 12 there are. There are standard widths in particular, 13 22-inch wide, 30-inch wide, and 48-inch wide are the 14 standards that most all the machines are built around. 15 You'll find that heights vary a little bit, depending 16 on the machine, but the widths are pretty well set. 17 The depths are also pretty well set. Most 18 manufacturers are between 24 and 28 but, yes, there are 19 standards. 20 Relative to the other point that was made as 21 far as machine sizing, you know, if you look at the 22 energy use on a machine on a per hundred pounds of ice 23 produced basis, it actually goes down as the machine 24 size increases. So when somebody has a situation where 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  6 2

they have an ice machine that's too large, they 1 probably have a machine that's running more efficiently 2 than what they would have if they downsized that 3 machine to something smaller for their particular use. 4 So if they use 200 pounds of ice a day, if they use a 5 machine that's only using five kilowatt hours per 6 hundred pounds versus a machine, the smaller machine 7 that maybe uses, you know, eight kilowatt hours per 8 hundred pounds, they're actually better off with the 9 larger unit. 10 MR. WESTPHALEN: I guess I have a follow-up 11 question for Daryl. Is there any way to identify those 12 particular ice machines, the models, that might be 13 marketed specifically to like the drive-in type of 14 scenario? 15 MR. ERBS: I mean, some of them, yes, but we 16 don't have that good of information on where a 17 particular machine gets placed and there's a lot of 18 variability and it's not just drive-in. I mean, I use 19 that as an example, but just our ice-making heads get 20 put into a lot of constrained places. 21 Those of you who stay in hotels will, you 22 know, probably all note when you go to get ice, right, 23 it's sort of stuffed in a broom closet and actually 24 there, you know, it's not just the physical space 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  6 3

that's carved out for it but, you know, we have issues 1 with air recirculation and air-cooled machines. 2 You start making it bigger and even though it 3 fits, now you're going to create a lot of recirculation 4 of condenser air which will have a bigger detriment on 5 its efficiency and its reliability, even though you may 6 think you've improved its operation in real life. 7 So, I mean, there are -- I think it would be 8 difficult to really sort that out and to identify it 9 down to a model level. Someone would have to go out 10 and do a lot of study in the field. 11 Just a comment on the ice use, too. I think 12 it's one thing how many hours a year you assume for 13 your life-cycle analysis but in terms of sizing, again 14 this is a replacement business. Our customers really 15 do understand how much ice they need and not being able 16 to serve customers on the 4th of July is a reason to 17 buy a big machine. It's not about the average day, 18 it's about making sure you don't shut down. 19 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Additional comments on 20 this issue box? 21 (No response.) 22 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Let's move on. 23 MR. WESTPHALEN: Here we have a comment box 24 regarding potable water use minimums for batch ice 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  6 4

makers. 1 MR. BROOKMAN: Let me interrupt. I'm sorry. 2 I've been handed another question from online. This is 3 from Mike Maertens. I hope I'm pronouncing his name 4 correctly. 5 It should be noted that larger sizes will 6 increase cabinet costs, also. 7 Okay. Now. 8 MR. WESTPHALEN: Potable water use, as 9 mentioned, for the Preliminary Analysis, we did not 10 consider this in the analysis. However, you know, 11 certainly in some cases there's a potential for energy 12 use reduction associated with reducing the potable 13

water use. 14 There was discussion about the scaling that 15 could occur, you know, if potable water use is reduced, 16 you know, as part of the framework process and so we've 17 looked at some of the data to see what machines have 18 what minimums but we would like to get some comment on, 19 you know, what would be some reasonable minimum levels 20 to assume and should that change by equipment class 21 and, if so, how should that go? 22

MR. BROOKMAN: Matt. 23 MR. ALLISON: We might want to refer here to 24 EnergyStar. They've put use limits on potable water 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  6 5

use, and I think it's 25 now, and I think with the 1 revised, they're looking at going to 20 which there was 2 a lot of input that went into that. It's 20 gallons 3 per hundred pounds and that's for the new EnergyStar 4 level. That's, you know, considered the stretch. So, 5 you know, somewhere in that window is probably a 6 reasonable area to work with. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Daryl. 8 MR. ERBS: Yes. I would echo the same 9 comment, that I think the 20 gallons is something that 10 has been worked through with all the manufacturers and 11 while we're comfortable with that, taking it down any 12 further would, you know, get back into the same concern 13 over how that impacts long-term reliability. 14 You know, one of the considerations, again 15 due to the relatively low volume per model in our 16 designs, you know, we'll use a common water trough 17 water sump for a number of sizes and that causes us to, 18 you know, based on the model, have a little bit of 19 variability in how much water it uses. 20 So if we try to cut it too close for the one 21 that uses, you know, the most water, if we brought that 22 down, then it would drive some of the other models, I 23 think, you know, just below what we feel is acceptable. 24 So I would agree, 20, I think is probably where we're 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  6 6

all going to go for EnergyStar reasons and then 1 probably about as low as we're comfortable with. 2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Additional comments? 3 (No response.) 4 MR. WESTPHALEN: Now we get into condenser 5 water use, and condenser water use kind of is a totally 6 different picture from potable water use. Whereas 7 potable water use reduction would improve efficiency, 8 with the condenser water you can increase the condenser 9 water use and improve the efficiency. 10 And we talked about this in the framework 11 meeting, how, you know, potentially there's like, you 12 know, a 3-dimensional analysis here instead of, you 13 know, the two dimensions of efficiency and cost. Here 14 potentially you could consider, okay, well, you know, 15 if you could consider a surface in three dimensions, 16 cost being up, condenser water north, and, you know, 17 energy east, you know, you could say, okay, here we 18 have a surface of costs, you know, that describe 19 different designs and, you know, in the Engineering 20 Analysis we envisioned slicing that surface at 21 different condenser water levels and then passing that 22 information on to the downstream LCC Analysis and let 23 them decide, you know, when it makes sense to jump from 24 one condenser water curve to the next. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  6 7

Basically, you know, when you get to a point 1 where the next design option that you have available is 2 too expensive, it might make sense to take a hit on, 3 you know, the operating water cost in order to get to 4 another efficiency level and rather than taking that 5 approach, you know, what we're suggesting is that we 6 would take some of the LCC considerations into the 7 Engineering Analysis, using average costs for the water 8 and the energy, and essentially order the design 9 options with some consideration of life-cycle costs so 10 that, you know, when you get to a point where the next 11 design option becomes very expensive, then you could 12 say, okay, well, you know, here it makes sense to 13 instead increase the condenser water use. 14 Some background on this slide here, you know, 15 this whole issue of, you know, can the existing 16 regulations for, you know, the cube ice makers be 17 relaxed to allow higher condenser water use and, you 18 know, at this point our understanding is DOE does have 19 that option. 20 Just some other points about this proposed 21 approach. Consistent with the LCC Analysis, this 22 Modified Engineering Analysis, which will consider some 23 of the life-cycle cost aspects, will assume that all 24 water-cooled ice makers are installed in open loop, 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  6 8

single pass, pump and dump-type configurations. 1 Essentially, this is, you know, a tool that, 2 you know, we're planning on implementing that will 3 allow us to have some condenser water use optimization 4 in the analysis without requiring multiple development 5 of cost efficiency curves at different condenser water 6 use levels. 7 And this, as mentioned, is described in more 8 detail in the TSD but certainly we would like to get 9 some feedback on it. 10 MR. BROOKMAN: Before we get comments on Item 11 Number 9, we've received a comment from Scott Bingham 12 at Follett who talks about unique technology that his 13 machines use and we'll insert this comment into the 14 record. 15 So now we want comment on Item Number 9. 16 Yes, Karim. 17 DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. I guess I 18 have a question about expanding the scope to include 19 the condenser water usage here. 20 I mean, when Congress enacted the legislation 21 back in '05 or '07, I don't remember, but the condenser 22 water usage was not part of that. What gives DOE the 23 authority to expand the scope to cover that? I'd like 24 to have legal opinion on that. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  6 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Ari. 1 MR. ALTMAN: Ari Altman, DOE GC's Office. 2 Are you asking what gives -- right now we're 3 considering actually allowing additional condenser 4 water use. Are you asking what gives DOE the authority 5 to consider condenser water use at all or to restrict 6 condenser water use? 7 DR. AMRANE: I guess maybe I misunderstood 8 what the slide says, but I thought the condenser water 9 use was not part of the regulations. It is regulated. 10 MR. WESTPHALEN: Well, it is regulated for 11 batch ice -- cube ice makers currently. 12 DR. AMRANE: That's potable water. 13 MR. WESTPHALEN: Condenser water. 14 DR. AMRANE: Condenser water. Okay. I 15 confused them. 16 MR. WESTPHALEN: A condenser water use 17 standard was established by Congress. 18 DR. AMRANE: Disregard what I said. 19 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay. 20 MR. ALTMAN: There could be a question, 21 though, because a separate question would be does that 22 extend to other types of ice makers. So it's a valid 23 question and in this case, we're doing something, as 24 Detlef has mentioned, a little unusual, which is 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  7 0

considering increasing the water use. 1 So, in fact, this is a discussion that might 2 appear, will probably appear in the NOPR. So it's a 3 valid question. Thank you. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Matt. 5 MR. ALLISON: This is Matt Allison. I think 6 it would be fine to use the condenser water use in 7 manipulating the energy of the machine or use it to 8 change the energy of the machine, but again this is an 9 area where the impact on the harvest cycle would need 10 to be considered because of the freeze cycles operating 11 more efficiently, the harvest cycle could be less 12 efficient and we need to net out that performance 13 impact. 14 It would also have an impact on the 15 continuous ice machines. I notice there's a question 16 here about that, also. It could ultimately end up 17 impacting the ice hardness from a continuous type 18 machine, too. So again, that's something else that 19 would need to be considered in the analysis as the head 20 pressure goes up and down. 21 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Daryl. 22 MR. ERBS: The only other consideration, and 23 again it's just DOE would only look at increasing the 24 limits from where they are today. There's no chance 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  7 1

that it could go in the other direction based on, I 1 don't know, water costs changes over time. 2 MR. ALTMAN: This is Ari from the GC's 3 Office. I'll let Detlef also respond to this, but I 4 think the focus of this rulemaking is and this standard 5 is energy use. So what we're saying here is we're 6 considering all options to reduce energy use and one of 7 these options is increasing condenser water use. 8 Now if we could reduce condenser water use to 9 save energy we would also do that, but the endpoint 10 here is reducing energy use rather than reducing 11 condenser water use in this standard. 12 MR. ERBS: Okay. And then the only reason 13 I'm not sure is in the LCC whether the water cost is 14 part of that equation or not, which then, you know, you 15 bring in, well, what's -- because where we see the real 16 benefit in water-cooled are closed-loop systems and, 17 you know, we're seeing an increasing number of closed18 loop systems used out there and I know that's 19 problematic for DOE because you can't control how an 20 ice machine gets installed, whether it's an open-loop 21 or a closed-loop application, but that's -- the only 22 other caution is there's one other constraint on water23 cooled condenser and that's typically there's a maximum 24 velocity that you cannot exceed or you'll drastically 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  7 2

shorten the life of the water-cooled condenser due to 1 erosion. 2 So, you know, we have limits and I would make 3 sure that in your technical analysis you understand 4 those limits and don't drive designs into a region 5 where they wouldn't be reliable. 6 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay. 7 MR. COOKE: This is Alan Cooke at PNNL. Just 8 to respond to something Daryl said, he could see me 9 nodding my head, but I don't know if everyone on the 10 webinar could. 11 We are taking into account the water costs in 12 the LCC and that's also what Detlef was trying to 13 accomplish by bringing that into the Engineering 14 Analysis because water right now is really a big part 15 of the life-cycle cost of these machines. So if you do 16 change that, the energy savings might have to be pretty 17 substantial to pay for that water. So we are taking 18 that into account. 19 MR. WESTPHALEN: And just echoing what Ari 20 said, you know, this is about energy savings and so, 21 you know, we're not assessing water savings as part of 22 the rulemaking. 23 MR. BROOKMAN: We have received another 24 comment from someone on the Web. This is from Steven 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  7 3

Schaefer from Hoshizaki America and he writes: potable 1 water use varies from location to location, based on 2 water quality. We utilize water consumption figures 3 for safety of our machines. Potable water use should 4 not be taken too low to be detrimental to quality of 5 machines. 6 So additional comments? You see the comment 7 box there. Joanna. 8 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. I should have made 9 the comment when the comment box was up, but going back 10 to the size issue, I just wanted to say that without 11 seeing an analysis of incorporating size increases, 12 it's hard to evaluate what the utility impacts would be 13 and also what the potential savings would be. It's 14 certainly an appropriate consideration. 15 Kind of one recent rulemaking on room air 16 conditioners, kind of size and weight increases were an 17 issue that was raised and I think the approach that DOE 18 took in that rulemaking was to kind of evaluate two 19 different scenarios where I think in one the size of 20 the air conditioner was fixed and one it was allowed to 21 increase, and I think that approach allows stakeholders 22 to kind of look at what the impacts are, both, you 23 know, utility impacts and potential savings from that 24 size increase. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  7 4

So I think it's helpful to see analysis and, 1 as Tim said, not to kind of screen out those options at 2 this point. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Charles Llenza. 4 MR. LLENZA: Yes. This is Charles Llenza. 5 Based on what I've heard about the limitations on size, 6 there's a range, but the box is pretty fairly 7 consistent. So I guess we could do analysis based on 8 dimensions that we've been provided today with, right? 9 MR. WESTPHALEN: Yes. I mean, we have done 10 some careful looking at the data that we have available 11 of efficiency versus size, efficiency versus plan area 12 and things like that, and, you know, what I learn more 13 and more in working on the ice makers is that this is a 14 much more complicated piece of equipment than many of 15 the others that DOE is regulating. 16 For instance, for Room AC it was pretty 17 straightforward as you get larger -- you know, it's 18 pretty much monotonic. You don’t have this issue of, 19 for instance, when the condensing temperature goes 20 down, you might not get the benefit that you expect. 21 We can take a more careful look at that but, 22 you know, it is complicated and, you know, we may not 23 come up with a very clear story within the constraints 24 of the rulemaking schedule that we're trying to attain. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  7 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Let me get a temperature read 1 here. We have about four more slides or so before we 2 will reach a reasonable break point to take a coffee 3 break, but we've been at this about an hour and 45 4 minutes, which is typically about long enough. So we 5 can take a break now, if that serves folks' interests, 6 or we'll just keep going. What's your preference? No 7 serious discomfort. We'll keep going. Okay. 8 MR. WESTPHALEN: All right. So we're done 9 with the condenser water. I think I just have a few 10 more slides here anyway, so we should at least push on 11 through that. 12 Manufacturer Markup. The Engineering 13 Analysis initially focuses on manufacturing production 14 costs and then we apply a manufacturer markup to get to 15 a value that is the manufacturer's selling price, MSP, 16 and in each industry, you know, the markup which 17 incorporates, you know, the overhead, you know, is 18 different and it includes sales and marketing, research 19 and development, shipping paid by the manufacturer, 20

etcetera. 21 For this rulemaking, we developed a 22 manufacturer markup factor of 1.25 and so we have a 23 comment box here asking whether that's an appropriate 24 markup factor. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  7 6

MR. BROOKMAN: You could say something like 1 close or not close. So additional comments related to 2 this? 3 (No response.) 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 5 MR. WESTPHALEN: The next couple of slides 6 give sort of a top-level snapshot of a lot of the 7 results and I'm not going to get into this in too much 8 detail. Certainly, if you have particular questions, 9 you can ask them, but these are the initially-developed 10 costs at different efficiency levels for the different 11 equipment classes, including the max tech level. 12 This is for the batch ice makers and this one 13 here for the continuous. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. Daryl, please. 15 MR. ERBS: Again, I'll go back to my earlier 16 comment that I'm still not quite sure what goes into 17 each one of those. So to the extent that you could 18 make that available, I think we'd be able to give you 19 more meaningful feedback. 20 It does strike me, if you go back to the 21 batch one, a bit odd. Some of the changes from the one 22 efficiency level to another versus size, they're just a 23 little discontinuous. So that, you know, again tells 24 me there's something different going on for a 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  7 7

particular efficiency level category for a particular 1 size machine because the cost goes up a lot more in 2 some cases than it does in others and I'm not sure I'm 3 comfortable with that. 4 So again, I'd like to have more information 5 available and maybe if we had a little better insight 6 we could provide a little better guidance to the 7 department as to what we think might be more 8 reasonable. 9 MR. BROOKMAN: If you think that you've done 10 the analysis, you can say for this step between EL3 and 11 EL4 for one of these categories that you would 12 attribute certain kind of characteristics or 13 attributes. You've done that analysis? 14 MR. WESTPHALEN: We've done that analysis. 15 We have the data. I don't remember the details for 16 each of these. 17 MR. BROOKMAN: You can make that available. 18 MR. WESTPHALEN: We can make that available. 19 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 20 MR. Llenza: This is Charles Llenza. My 21 apologies. We should have put that out there because 22 it is important to see what the mix of options are on 23 how to get there. 24 MR. WESTPHALEN: Generally, we do that in the 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  7 8

TSD, sometimes in Engineering Appendix, and maybe it 1 just didn't happen this time. 2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So then, yes, Karim. 3 DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. I guess 4 when I look at those numbers, I kind of immediately 5 have this reaction to say, well, I can get 20 percent 6 improvement for 50 bucks basically is what it is, 7 right? I mean, it's what you're showing on this chart, 8 and, first of all, have you -- I know that this is 9 manufacturer cost, but even if you put the markups, you 10 put the entire markup through, okay, manufacturer, 11 contractor, whatever, have you done any checking of 12 those cost increases? I mean, have you looked at the 13 delta? Have you gone out and looked at how much a 15 14 percent, 20 percent increase in efficiency will get you 15 in terms of -- 16 MR. WESTPHALEN: You mean looking at the 17 retail costs? 18 DR. AMRANE: Absolutely. To compare what 19 you're saying here with what exists in reality, what's 20 being sold today. I mean, are you -- 21 MR. WESTPHALEN: We haven't done that. 22 Generally in the Engineering Analysis, if that data is 23 available in a way that we think it's meaningful, then 24 we look at that and we try to ask ourselves, well, why 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  7 9

is this different? 1 DR. AMRANE: I mean, have you done -- have 2 you questioned those numbers, the $50, and say, well, 3 it looks very low or very -- I mean, for 50 bucks, you 4 can get 20 percent. I mean, it's a great deal, and 5 have you at least went out and said, okay, is this 6 really the case? Am I getting that low -- 7 MR. WESTPHALEN: As I say, you know, we don't 8 -- you know, I mean, we would welcome, you know, 9 typical sales price data from the manufacturers for 10 each of their models so that we could really, you know, 11 do a good assessment but, you know, a lot of that 12 information is tough to get. 13 DR. AMRANE: No, no. But again, retail 14 prices are available. I guess just to be on the safe 15 side here, just to say, okay, fine, I have estimated 16 that price, that cost increase, now let's go and let's 17 see what's available in the market and see whether it's 18 close. I mean, am I right? 19 MR. WESTPHALEN: Well, you know, the other 20 thing is that ice makers aren't necessarily sold just 21 on efficiency and so there are price differences that 22 aren't associated with efficiency differences and this 23 happens in all the rulemakings. 24 For instance, you know, EnergyStar 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  8 0

refrigerators, you know, they don't just have 1 EnergyStar, they also have additional features that the 2 baseline units don't have. So that, you know, 3 sometimes it's very tough. Even if we did that, answer 4 the question, no, we haven't meticulously gone through 5 that, but even if you did that, you wouldn't 6 necessarily, you know, answer the question. 7 DR. AMRANE: Still, you're basing a standard 8 on that. So that's what I'm saying. I mean, 9 eventually, those cost efficiency curves will determine 10 which efficiency level DOE is going to pick which will 11 be cost effective. What do we mean by cost effective? 12 I mean, if it's not what consumers are paying at the 13 end of the day, that's for me, that doesn't mean 14 anything. 15 MR. WESTPHALEN: Well, that's why we have, 16 you know, this open process where we put the numbers in 17 front of people and we try to get feedback and the more 18 indepth feedback we can get the more we can say, okay, 19 well, yeah, I agree a high-efficiency compressor does 20 cost that much more than the low-efficiency compressor, 21 etcetera, etcetera. 22 MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl. 23 MR. ERBS: So as long as Karim opened up the 24 topic, I mean, actually in the Executive Summary there 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  8 1

was one table I found where you did give some specific 1 manufacturer production cost information relative to 2 some energy use reduction. Again, I still don't know 3 how it ties to those specific levels because these 4 numbers weren't nice five percent increments but some 5 of your assumptions are just off somewhat, other ones, 6 quite honestly, I either want to hire the department 7 for my purchasing people or I don't know where you guys 8 -- you know, to give you an example, going from a PSC 9 motor to an ECM motor is $4 and I challenge you to get 10 me a quote from a manufacturer of an ECM motor that's 11 only $4. I mean, we look at them all the time. 12 They're twice as much. They're not $4 more. 13 Even the condenser coil in some of the other 14 assumptions, they're off. I don’t know that it will 15 completely change your analysis, but we really -- and I 16 don't know how to help you. I'm not at a point where I 17 can, you know, give you my cost of bill of materials so 18 you can really see what I pay but I think we have to 19 work on how we give you some guidance so you're more in 20 the ballpark in terms of what these technology changes 21 really cost someone who manufactures at the volume we 22 do with the specific type of components that we need to 23 use for our ice machines. 24 MR. LLENZA: This is Charles LLENZA, 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  8 2

Department of Energy. 1 Two things. Anything that we're proposing 2 today, if we're not within the ballpark, you're more 3 than welcome to criticize, but in criticizing, also 4 please provide a more accurate figure. If it's double, 5 if double is a better estimate, then please tell us so. 6 In addition, you can send us confidential 7 information that the department will not publish that 8 we'll use internally just to do these estimates and we 9 can use the numbers without disclosing whom we got the 10 information from. So you can mark information that you 11 could say is proprietary or company confidential, but 12 we can then use that information to put out more 13 realistic numbers on incremental cost of equipment 14 based on features or options that were chosen for that 15 equipment. So we're more than willing to change 16 anything here. That's what I'm trying to say. 17 Tell us what you think it is and tell us what 18 you know, we're fine. We'll take the criticism if 19 we're completely off, this is part of the proceedings. 20 MR. BROOKMAN: Karim. 21 DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, and again it's 22 just if I were DOE, I think I would at least go out and 23 see what's going on and look at those regional prices 24 and see whether you are close or you're not close. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  8 3

Those products exist in the market. You can get those 1 prices and see, I mean, because eventually, as I said, 2 you're establishing a level that you would say is cost 3 effective for consumers but again if there's a big 4 difference between what DOE is estimating versus what's 5 available on the market, I mean, I think that has 6 somehow to be corrected. 7 Going back to the Table 3.3 on the TSD, 8 Executive Summary, it says, for example, that you are 9 increasing the condenser by two inches. Now when you 10 did that, I mean, are you also assuming that the 11 condenser will fit in the existing cabinet or have you 12 looked at that? 13 MR. WESTPHALEN: Yes. I mean, we didn't say, 14 okay, well, the condenser doesn't have any room for 15 growth and obviously there's a judgment call there and, 16 you know, somebody else might look at it and say, well, 17 no way, you know, it's too big already, but we didn't 18 make these assumptions without judgment. 19 DR. AMRANE: So it assumes that you increase 20 the condenser, it will fit in the existing cabinet, you 21 won't have to increase the size of the cabinet, for 22 example, to accommodate that new condenser. 23 MR. WESTPHALEN: That was the assumption for 24 all of the preliminary analyses. The ice-making head 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  8 4

portion would not have to grow. 1 MR. BROOKMAN: We've received a comment from 2 Steven Schaefer who says: We would like actual 3 examples for the cost for efficiency. These numbers do 4 not look accurate. 5 So, once again, following Charles Llenza's 6 comments, some way to get that information to the 7 department. They just mark it confidential and then 8 you'd be able to hold it. It would not be FOIAble? 9 MR. LLENZA: That's correct. Charles Llenza, 10 Department of Energy. 11 Yes, that's correct. You can send the 12 comments as part of the public comment period into the 13 department or at any time and what we do is we put a 14 placeholder in the public part of the docket and the 15 specific information/comment is removed, but it's used 16 internally to tweak the numbers or get the analysis 17 correct for better and realistic industry numbers. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: And then if you had multiple 19 comments from multiple manufacturers and a certain 20 sample size that would mask individual companies, then 21 you could kind of blend that into your final -- 22 DR. AMRANE: Yes, that's correct. What 23 happens is pretty much the information is used, 24 stripping out the source. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  8 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Please. Go ahead. 1 MR. BARRINGTON: Hi. This is Ben Barrington 2 from Navigant Consulting. 3 Additionally, there's an opportunity for 4 manufacturers to provide this type of information on a 5 confidential basis to Navigant Consulting as part of 6 our Manufacturer Impact Analysis interviews which we'll 7 conduct later as part of this rulemaking. I'll go into 8 greater depth on that later in the afternoon. 9 MR. BROOKMAN: When would you commence those 10 interviews about? 11

MR. BARRINGTON: Soon. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Good. 13 MR. BARRINGTON: Thank you. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike Maertens, if I'm saying 15 his name correctly, writes: We agree with Daryl. In 16 our opinion, the table is optimistic at best. Many 17 times changing one component will require changing 18 other components that will affect costs. So thanks, 19 Mike, for that. 20 Okay. Yes, Matt. 21 MR. ALLISON: I was just wondering, as part 22 of the standard process, there's obviously a model 23 that's driving a lot of these numbers as far as 24 increased efficiencies. Is there an intent at some 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  8 6

point to validate that model by actually putting one of 1 these changes on a machine and validating that it 2 actually performs as it's forecast to perform? 3 MR. WESTPHALEN: Well, as part of the work, 4 you know, we do calibration of the model with, you 5 know, existing models that we have and have tested. 6 Obviously you've got much more data than we have in 7 terms of being able to do that. 8 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 9 MR. WESTPHALEN: Regarding the comment on 10 motor costs, I believe the Engineering TSD provides a 11 very detailed, you know, list of assumptions for motor 12 costs and we haven't specifically put that up with 13 requests for comment but that's something where, if you 14 can provide indication, maybe not of, you know, total 15 costs or maybe just the incremental costs, you know, 16 that would be very helpful, as well. 17 MR. LLENZA: This is Charles Llenza, 18 Department of Energy, again. 19 Everything is subject to comment. So if 20 you're looking through any of our analysis, or 21 numbers,orselections here or assumptions and they are 22 just off base, just because we provided you a list, you 23 don't have to stick to that list of questions that 24 we're asking you. We're certainly not the experts. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  8 7

We're trying to become the experts to the best of our 1 abilities here through this pre-anlaysis and through 2 your expertise, through the rulemaking process in order 3 to come up with these standard levels of efficiency for 4 this equipment. So anything that you see throughout 5 these documents that we're just not getting right, we 6 welcome comment from the participants here and from 7 those people that are online. 8 MR. BROOKMAN: Matt Allison. 9 MR. ALLISON: Matt Allison with Scotsman. 10 Another thing that I think is going to be a challenge 11 as we go through and model these things, like you can 12 put in a two-inch wider condenser and assume that it 13 doesn't make the cabinet size go up. The way it plays 14 out, at least in our product line, is I mentioned those 15 standard cabinet widths before, we have a 30-inch 16 cabinet width and at a particular height, we satisfy 17 300 pounds, 400 pounds, 500 pounds, and 600 pounds of 18 ice out of that same cabinet size. 19 The reality is in a 300-pound machine, we can 20 add two inches of condenser without changing anything 21 else and that works fine. A 600-pound machine, we're 22 using up every single inch of space in that cabinet 23 that we possibly could to get that 600 pounds out of 24 that machine and in going to a two-inch wider condenser 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  8 8

in that same box size is not feasible for us, so to 1 keep that same 600-pound machine which is a defined 2 market price point in a market segment, we have to bump 3 that machine up to a larger box size, not necessarily 4 wider but taller, and in doing so, all of a sudden it 5 becomes less competitive. 6 This putting it on top of a dispenser and 7 fitting under a soffit in a convenience store, we can 8 no longer fit. So we've just lost that business to a 9 shorter machine. So I think making statements or 10 modeling where we can do a two-inch wider condenser and 11 it's going to result in X amount of savings, that may 12 be true on some models, it may not be true on others. 13 It's just something that needs to be considered in the 14 whole process. 15 MR. WESTPHALEN: Just one thing I'd like to 16 bring up. I know that you might recall in the 17 framework meeting, we brought up the possibility of the 18 industry getting together and, you know, maybe, you 19 know, Karim's organization collecting data and 20 consolidating it and then providing it to DOE and, you 21 know, we realize that that's a very time-intensive 22 process and there have been issues with that in the 23 past, but, you know, it's not like we don't want to try 24 to get that information, you know. There are issues on 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  8 9

how to get it obviously and, you know, we would be 1 willing to collect that under non-disclosure agreement 2 if you're willing to try to develop it at enough of a 3 level that we could really feed into the analysis and 4 then, you know, obviously consolidate so that, you 5 know, we could play that role. 6 MR. BROOKMAN: It could go directly to 7 Navigant. 8

MR. WESTPHALEN: Correct. 9 MR. BROOKMAN: Karim. 10 DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. I 11 appreciate the offer, but as you know, we went through 12 that before and we did, not for this rulemaking, for 13 other rulemakings, and we did develop those costs and 14 DOE at the end opted not to use them in the rule. 15 Okay? So we don't want to go again through that 16 because we spent a lot of time gathering that 17 information and at the end it was not used by DOE 18 because for reasons you felt it could be challenged and 19 so on. So I don't think that's a good option. 20 One good option, however, is to go out and 21 look at those retail prices because they exist and you 22 can at least look at that and see whether your analysis 23 compares well or not. That's all. 24 MR. LLENZA: This is Charles Llenza, 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  9 0

Department of Energy, again. 1 Through the manufacturing interviews, I 2 think, we'd be more than willing to listen to what 3 people have to say about these items, too, also, as 4 we're going through and talking to different companies 5 about pricing and options and particulars about their 6 equipment, etcetera, and that information, my 7 understanding, remains confidential. It's not 8 disclosed. 9 We use the generic information in developing 10 and tweaking our analysis. Sothis is again 11 preliminary. This is why it's called preliminary and I 12 also think, you know, the more input we get from the 13 industry, the better we will be at a later stage here. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: So this is the final -- oh, 15 I'm sorry. Tim. 16 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, EarthJustice. The 17 issue of cabinet sizes has come up several times this 18 morning and without actually endorsing the idea of 19 using cabinet size as an additional product class 20 defined in the criteria, I'm wondering if that's maybe 21 where this has to go. If the existing standard cabinet 22 sizes that the industry has do both provide a utility 23 to the consumer and serve as a real constraint on the 24 efficiency of products. That's typically what the 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  9 1

department has used to identify product classes. 1 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Daryl. 2 MR. ERBS: Just to shed more confusion on 3 that topic. Sorry. So we do make ice machines in 4 different cabinet sizes that deliver the same ice5 making capacity. So that's helpful. I can see that 6 getting complicated, you know, how you would sort that 7 out, I guess. So just food for thought. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Joanna. 9 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. Daryl, could you 10 just comment a little bit on kind of the reason for the 11 different cabinet sizes for a given capacity? 12 MR. ERBS: Yes. Again, it's we're more in a 13 position to conform to other people's decisions. So, 14 you know, a lot of the small narrow ice machines go on 15 top of ice beverage dispensers and those are narrow 16 because they go on countertops and people have limited 17 countertop space and so, you know, we have to make an 18 ice machine that's not wider than the ice beverage 19 dispenser that it fits on or the whole idea of a narrow 20 ice beverage dispenser, you know, has really kind of 21 lost its value to the customer. So that that's one 22 example. 23 The other common example is just ice storage 24 bins and an ice machine really needs to be the same 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  9 2

size as the opening at the top of the ice storage bin 1 or it gets very awkward and in some cases it's 2 dangerous, you know, if you try to put an ice machine 3 that's bigger than the ice storage bin, it's now an 4 unstable situation. 5 Those ice storage bins are really sized based 6 on kind of common categories of how much ice does a 7 particular type of end user require today and so it's 8 volume-related and the industry has fortunately worked 9 out some common sizes. So it's now possible for a 10 customer to buy an ice machine from company A and put 11 it on an existing bin or on a new bin from company B 12 and they're interchangeable and I don't think the 13 industry would fare very well if we tried to undo that. 14 I mean, it's worked very well. 15 MR. BROOKMAN: Detlef, have you described 16 this Slide 43 yet? 17 MR. WESTPHALEN: Slide 43, yes. It's 18 essentially the similar slide to the one previous, just 19 for continuous machines. 20 MR. BROOKMAN: Just for continuous. I 21 gotcha. Okay. 22 So comments on what you see here because 23 we're about to take a break and we can return if there 24 is additional information, additional things to be said 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  9 3

on this Slide 43, this big chart, after the break, if 1 there's additional comment there. 2 (No response.) 3 MR. BROOKMAN: So let's take a break now. 4 It's 10 minutes after 11. We're going to take a 15- 5 minute break. We're better than halfway done, a little 6 more than halfway. It's quite conceivable we'll push 7 straight through lunch, if we are in range. We don't 8 want to truncate anybody's opportunity for comment. 9 We'll keep going as we need to. So it's possible we'll 10 run till, say, 1 o'clock continuously and finish early. 11 However, we might keep going, just so you'll know. 12 It's 11:10. We'll return at 11:25. You must 13 wear your badge above the waist inside the Forrestal 14 Building. There are restrooms on both ends of the 15 hall. There's a coffee shop down on the ground floor. 16 Please go quickly if you're going for coffee. 17 Sometimes they're stacked up down there. 18 Okay. So thanks. We had a really good start 19 on the day, lots of good content here. We'll see you 20 back here at 11:25. 21 (Recess.) 22 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. One or two individuals 23 have joined us that didn't get a chance to introduce 24 themselves this morning. So let's have those 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  9 4

individuals do that now. Use the microphone and say 1 your name and organizational affiliation. 2 MR. STARR: Louis Starr with Northwest Energy 3 Efficiency Alliance. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Anybody else who 5 we missed this morning? Yes? 6 MR. CARMICHAEL: Rob Carmichael, Navigant 7 Consulting. 8 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Now 9 we're going to have Markups Analysis. You can see it 10 listed there on your Agenda. Alan Cooke. 11 Markups Analysis, Energy Use Analysis, and Life-Cycle 12 Cost and Payback Period Analysis 13 MR. COOKE: Good morning. My name's Alan 14 Cooke, and I'm with Pacific Northwest National 15 Laboratory. 16 So I'm here today to talk about Markups, 17 Energy Use, the Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 18 Analysis. 19 The purpose of the Markup Analysis is to take 20 the manufacturer's selling price that we receive from 21 the Engineering Analysis and translate that into the 22 sales price that's actually paid by a customer who buys 23 the equipment. In essence, we're adding on costs for 24 the wholesale and the dealer ends of this market. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  9 5

We define the market with three different 1 market distribution channels, the first one being the 2 national accounts channel which is directly from the 3 manufacturer to the customer, the second one being a 4 wholesaler channel which goes from the manufacturer to 5 a wholesaler who then sells directly to the customer, 6 and the third being what we're calling here a dealer 7 channel which is manufacturer to wholesaler to a dealer 8

or contractor. 9 At the framework meeting, we presented these 10 three channels and we were told they sounded okay as 11 far as describing the market but the one thing that we 12 heard was that there is almost no volume that goes 13 through the national account channel -- we had a much 14 bigger number that we presented in the framework -- and 15 that most of it goes through this third channel which 16 we're calling the dealer channel. 17 Since then -- well, actually, this came out 18 almost exactly the same day that we had the framework 19 meeting -- the Census Bureau issued a report that shows 20 for the commercial refrigeration NAICS Code as a whole, 21 distribution looks somewhat along these lines where 22 most of it is going through a dealer channel, about a 23 third of it is going through a wholesaler channel, and 24 a small amount going through a national accounts 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  9 6

channel. 1 So the question I want to ask here to the 2 parties present: does this distribution look 3 reasonable? This is, I should add, applied to all 4 equipment. Something else we heard at the framework 5 meeting is that the different types of equipment do not 6 require a different percentage. They all pretty much 7 go through the same market channels. 8 MR. BROOKMAN: All ice-making equipment? 9 MR. COOKE: All ice-making equipment. 10 MR. BROOKMAN: And this pie chart reflects 11
2007? 12 MR. COOKE: That's the most recent Census of 13 Manufacturers data. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So what do you think? 15 Is this pretty close? Charles Llenza. 16 MR. LLENZA: This is Charles Llenza, 17 Department of Energy. 18 Go back to the previous slide. First thing 19 is to note that we have made the correct assumptions 20 here on the flow for each one of these distribution 21 channels. That's the first thing that we want to make 22 sure that we got right, and then from that, when you 23 look at the next slide, then that shows the percentages 24 of what that distribution flows for each one of those 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  9 7

shows. 1 So the question is kind of a little tricky 2 because it assumes that we have gotten the distribution 3 channels correct on the previous slide. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: And so maybe those in the room 5 that know about it could confirm what was said in the 6 framework meeting, that those general distribution 7 channels are, what did you say, pretty close? 8 MR. COOKE: Pretty close, reasonably 9

accurate. 10 MR. BROOKMAN: What about that? Does it look 11 right? Before we talk about numbers. 12 MR. ALLISON: This is Matt Allison, Scotsman. 13 I'd say that the channels themselves, I don't know, I 14 think, like the national account channel, for instance, 15 we don't sell anything directly to a national account. 16 We'll negotiate pricing with the national account and 17 then they'll direct it through a kitchen equipment 18 supplier who is part of the mix then at the end of the 19 day, too. So it actually, even though it's a national 20 account, it looks more like what you have described as 21 the wholesaler channel. 22 So there's, you know, different ways to 23 market, I guess, than what's shown here. I don't know 24 that that national account channel, as it's shown, is 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  9 8

accurate. 1 MR. BROOKMAN: Although in the pie chart, it 2 reflects it's a very small amount, only six percent. 3 So, conceivably, -- 4 MR. ALLISON: Yes. As far as the breakdown 5 goes in the weighting, I think we might be able to give 6 you something there on a confidential-type basis. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 8 MR. LLENZA: Okay. Great. 9 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Other comments on 10 the distribution channels before we talk about the 11 percentages? 12 (No response.) 13 MR. BROOKMAN: Nothing additional there. Go 14 ahead, Daryl. 15 MR. ERBS: I'm not sure it's that relevant to 16 your analysis. I mean, the only other kind of unique 17 channel is where we actually sell equipment to someone 18 who leases it to the end user. I mean, that's probably 19 grown a little bit in history. I don't know. I mean, 20 it's basically like a dealer channel, except instead of 21 selling the equipment, they just lease it. So, I mean, 22 that's the only thing that I don't see represented here 23 that occurs. 24 MR. LLENZA: This is Charles Llenza, 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  9 9

Department of Energy. 1 Is it any different in terms of costs? 2 MR. ERBS: The pricing would be similar, you 3 know, based on kind of, you know, how much they buy 4 kind of usually sets what kind of price they get. So 5 it really doesn't affect too much the sale price of the 6 equipment then to that individual. They just don't 7 sell it to the end customer at the end of the day. 8 MR. BROOKMAN: It's, though, the same sort of 9 distribution. 10 MR. COOKE: Daryl, do you think that that's 11 -- has that achieved a measurable market penetration? 12 MR. ERBS: It's small. 13 MR. COOKE: Real small? 14 MR. ERBS: It's small. 15 MR. COOKE: Okay. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: I know some, for example, fast 17 food companies have kind of a regular change-out sort 18 of -- 19 MR. ERBS: But most of the big chains Matt 20 described will negotiate pricing but there is a 21 consolidator that basically is doing the installation 22 of various pieces of equipment and that's the 23 individual who actually receives the equipment. So it 24 doesn't go directly to the chain customer. It stops 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 00

along the way. 1 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, right. Okay. 2 MR. ERBS: That percentages, yes, we can, I 3 guess, take a look at that, adjust it a little. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Great. So are there comments 5 at this point on what you see in this pie chart of 6 percentages? 7 (No response.) 8 MR. BROOKMAN: No comments at this time. 9 MR. COOKE: Moving on, to do the markup, of 10 course, we need data. The data sources that we rely on 11 right now are balance sheet information from an 12 organization called HARDI, which is the Heating, Air 13 Conditioning, and Refrigeration Distributors 14 International, and they survey their members who are 15 wholesalers and provide a pretty detailed breakout of 16 their cost structure and they do this survey every 17 year. So we use the most current survey. 18 We also have Census Bureau data for 19 mechanical contractors and I'll come back to that in 20 just a minute. 21 To do this, we break everything down in cost 22 related to the cost of the goods sold. So if you have 23 labor costs of X dollars, we'll divide that by the cost 24 of the actual equipment itself and that will become a 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 01

percentage markup that will be applied to the equipment 1 cost. So we do that for all the major cost categories. 2 We assume that a number of these cost 3 categories do not vary with the efficiency of the 4 equipment which would basically be related to the price 5 of the equipment. Some things, like the labor, it's 6 going to be the same. So those costs are all added on 7 to the base unit, that Level 1 unit or Efficiency Level 8 1 unit that was referred to earlier. 9 Some of the other cost components vary more 10 with the value of the equipment, such as the profit and 11 the insurance rates. So these other expenses are added 12 on as incremental expenses when we start increasing the 13 efficiency level. So those get added on to the 14 incremental efficiency costs. 15 That's kind of the basic approach that we 16 have used for most of these rulemakings of this nature. 17 Now I want to come back to the contractor, 18 mechanical contractor profit data. We're using the 19 HARDI data for that first leg. If I back up a couple 20 of slides here, HARDI basically represents the 21 wholesaler cost channel. The dealer cost channel is 22 basically the wholesaler plus an additional markup for 23 a second leg or for a second step in this distribution 24 channel. So we're using right now mechanical 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 02

contractor cost data for that second step and that's 1 going to get me to a question in just a minute here. 2 These are the results that you get using the 3 data that we have available to us. At this step we 4 also add on sales tax. Given the fact that the Census 5 Bureau data is available to us on a state-by-state 6 basis, we can actually vary this by state. So what 7 we're looking at here is at the national average. 8 So I want to ask a question here basically 9 about the data sources and also open it up, as well, to 10 talk about the methodology, if anyone has comments 11 about the methodology. 12 A particular question that I have that I 13 would like to address is just simply that at the 14 framework meeting, we heard that mechanical contractors 15 are typically not involved in the distribution chain, 16 but right now that's the best data that we have to 17 characterize that second step and so what I'd like to 18 do is ask if anyone has any ideas about additional data 19 sources where we could find better information to 20 characterize that local dealer segment of this market, 21 and throw it open for just general questions on these 22 last two slides. 23 MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl. 24 MR. ERBS: So your comment about mechanical 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 03

contractors, I guess probably not the traditional ones. 1 I mean, there are special food service equipment 2 dealers and, depending on the company, they may have, 3 as part of their company, a servicing and installing 4 company that may get contracted separately. 5 Some of our dealers are servicing companies 6 that also sell because they tend to have a good lead on 7 a lot of the replacement equipment. They go out to fix 8 a machine, and it's failed, and in some cases they get 9 the sale of that. So maybe that's a little different 10 from the model. 11 I don't really know how you can access kind 12 of industry standard data on there. I don't know that 13 much about it, to be perfectly honest. They don't -- 14 you know, when we go through two-step, we're somewhat 15 isolated from some of those people in terms of just 16 what their cost structure is, even if we were going to 17 be willing to share it. I'm not sure. 18 So that's maybe a little bit of a challenge 19 for you. I don't know if you've tried to talk to NAFEM 20 or any other industry associations that might have some 21 information at an aggregate level, but that would be a 22 suggestion that you contact them. 23 MR. BROOKMAN: They are? NAFEM stands for? 24 MR. ERBS: National Association of Food 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 04

Equipment Manufacturers. So they may have some. 1 But then I have another comment for you that 2 isn't directly related to this question but it's back 3 on Slide 48. I'm not sure I understand this concept 4 that we would be willing to accept a lower margin on 5 the incremental costs for the additional -- if I 6 understand this correctly, it says I'm going to make 7 less margin on the additional cost I put into my 8 product to raise efficiency level than I make on the 9 base product today, is that correct? 10 MR. COOKE: It's correct, at least in part. 11 We've already covered most of the margin that the 12 wholesaler or the dealer needs to cover with that 13 baseline. So this is just a little bit of an 14 incremental price -- 15 MR. ERBS: If we raise our cost for the 16 product, we're only going to do that if we feel it's 17 adding value in the marketplace and so the market price 18 is going to go up and, you know, we, like most public 19 companies, get measured pretty carefully on how we do 20 in terms of overall profitability. 21 If we add cost to our product, we expect to 22 make the same gross margin on that product with the 23 added cost as what we make today. 24 MR. COOKE: I think you actually are making 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 05

the same gross margin on it because you've already 1 covered most of your overhead costs on that baseline 2 and what we're really just covering is -- well, 3 literally, your margin is -- your profit actually is 4 rolled into -- 5 MR. ERBS: I don't think it's that different 6 would be my question. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: You're referring to the 8 numbers here? 9

MR. ERBS: Yes. 10 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, okay. 11 MR. ERBS: The multipliers. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: He's saying you've got a lot 13 of vetted costs. Those costs aren't going to change 14 much, right? 15 MR. ERBS: Well, if 90 percent of my cost is 16 just materials and I add more material, then the price 17 is going to go up pretty much by the multiplier for the 18 base. So, you know, I'd have to go back and look at 19 your assumptions but, you know, we're an assembly 20 house. Most of our costs are just the parts we buy, 21 the materials we buy. 22 MR. COOKE: But this is not your markup. 23 This is the distribution channel markup. Your markup 24 was that 1.2 percent, 1.25 percent that was -- 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 06

MR. ERBS: Yes, but then you get out to the 1 other levels. They purely just take our list price. I 2 mean, because their costs are -- you know, they're just 3 going to take whatever we set as a list price and, you 4 know, discount it accordingly, but if we raise our list 5 based on our increased costs, then I think it flows 6 through. 7 To me, this understates the impact in the 8 marketplace of adding additional costs to raise the 9 efficiency level and it's not representative of what 10 will really happen. 11 MR. COOKE: Okay. Well, we'll take a note to 12 go back and think about this. Feel free to follow up 13 with some written comments. 14 DR. AMRANE: This is Karim Amrane. We have 15 made comments for years and years and it's coming back 16 the same way every time. So we gave up on making 17

comments. 18 MR. COOKE: Okay. Thank you. Moving on, the 19 Markups and then the Energy Use Analysis are two of the 20 kind of intermediate steps between the Engineering 21 Analysis and the Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 22 Analysis. 23 The Energy Use Analysis takes what comes in 24 the form of kilowatt hours per 100 pounds of ice or 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 07

gallons of water per 100 pounds of ice and translates 1 that into energy usage and water usage for purposes of 2 costing or assessing the impacts in the LCC. 3 One thing we noted here is that the DOE 4 Engineering Analysis is based on equations that are 5 based on the Test Procedure. So the numbers coming out 6 of this analysis should be relatively reflective or 7 reflect in a relatively good way what would be coming 8 out of a test procedure, as well. 9 As Mr. Eckman alluded to earlier, we're 10 assuming that the equipment runs at a 50 percent 11 capacity factor essentially. What we're given is a 12 potential output and we need to translate that into 13 output and the only way to do that is to use a factor 14 that looks at how much time it runs because it's either 15 running at a certain energy rate or it's not running, 16 it's in the standby mode and that's a different energy 17 rate, and we need to weight the two to get the annual 18 energy, and the factor that we used is 50 percent. 19 The final note on this page that I want to 20 bring your attention to is that when we did the 21 analysis for condenser water, we assumed that it was in 22 the single pass or the open loop kind of a format which 23 means it's pumped in, it's used, and it's pumped out. 24 So we have some questions about these and 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 08

feel free to make comments about any of these 1 assumptions, but, in particular, we have two questions, 2 one of which is about the utilization factor. Right 3 now, we're assuming that 50 percent and we do seek 4 information that could potentially be used to improve 5 upon that assumption of 50 percent, and the second one 6 is the single pass configuration. 7 At this point, we really have no information 8 to characterize this market as to how many or what 9 percentage of these units are a single pass or what 10 percentage might be on a loop. 11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So comments? You can 12 see the boxes. Matt. 13 MR. ALLISON: Matt Allison with Scotsman. 14 Regarding the 50 percent utilization factor, I think on 15 the aggregate that's a pretty accurate number to use. 16 There's a pretty wide spectrum, based on seasonality, 17 as well as installation location, but, overall, I think 18 that's relatively close. 19 Relative to the single pass configuration, 20 you know, we're a step or two removed, depending on 21 which channel, from the end user. So it's hard to say 22 for sure but based on the information that we do have, 23 we believe the vast majority of machines are installed 24 in a single pass-type configuration and not on a recirc 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 09

loop. 1 MR. BROOKMAN: Is that determination at the 2 point of installation or is it designed in one way 3 versus another? 4 MR. ALLISON: Usually it depends on type of 5 facility it's going into. You know, if it's going into 6 like a large-scale, let's use a hotel or a casino-type 7 environment, they'll typically have cooling towers on 8 them and recirc systems that they can just tap into. 9 If it's going into a smaller location that doesn't have 10 that type of a resource, then it would be a one-pass11 type configuration, typically. 12 MR. COOKE: Can I ask a follow-up question? 13 We certainly could model this differently by building 14 type. So if you were to hypothesize, say, that the 15 number for hotels and hospitals is a hundred percent 16 and restaurants is zero percent or something like that, 17 we could model this separately, if you could hazard 18 guesses like that. 19 MR. ALLISON: We could take a look and 20 perhaps submit something with written comments. I 21 don't have any numbers right now. 22 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Tom Eckman. 23 MR. ECKMAN: Tom Eckman. I was talking to 24 Louis. There may be some jurisdictions that don't 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 10

permit single pass systems because of the water usage. 1 MR. COOKE: We've heard that, I think. 2 MR. ECKMAN: So there may be a non-zero 3 number of those. I don't know what share of the 4 population of the ice maker they represent but 5 particularly in the West where water is a little more 6 precious than elsewhere, there may be some 7 jurisdictions that just will not allow that. 8 MR. COOKE: Okay. 9 MR. BROOKMAN: We have a comment from Steven 10 Schaefer on the Web and he says: We suggest to place 11 water-cooled units in closed-loop systems. 12 You can see the comment boxes. Additional 13 thoughts on both the 50 percent utilization factor and 14 single pass configuration? Daryl. 15 MR. ERBS: Yes. Just to weigh in, so I agree 16 50 percent is actually pretty close. I mean, we've 17 just done some pretty extensive monitoring on field 18 sites and we design our machines for a higher-duty 19 cycle but actually when you look across the range of 20 applications, I would agree that that's a good number 21

to use. 22 I took a note on the water cool to go back 23 and look again. The only time I'm aware that it's 24 going into a closed loop is if it's a casino or some 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 11

other large projects and we have visibility projects 1 because usually the engineering group will get dragged 2 into some of the special specifications but, you know, 3 all the other replacement, I suspect, is all historical 4 and it's all open loop. So we can try to come up with 5 some kind of a number. 6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Good. Tom Eckman. 7 MR. ECKMAN: Yes. I would hope that we could 8 have public availability of the information on the duty 9 cycles to see whether there's a product class 10 relationship between the duty cycles and, you know, so 11 if we know in casinos or restaurants we're seeing 12 different duty cycles than hotels significantly, and 13 it's that somehow or another related to the product 14 class or at least capacities, it seems to me that that 15 may determine whether one is more cost effective to 16 pursue than another. 17 MR. BROOKMAN: Steven Schaefer has provided 18 another comment. He says: 50 percent seems low based 19 on areas. I presume he means different areas. 20 Facilities could use 90 percent usage to meet demand 21 (24-hour restaurants). 22 MR. COOKE: Okay. Moving on, Life-Cycle Cost 23 and Payback Period Analysis. 24 The purpose of this is to estimate the actual 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 12

impact on the customers -- which is the people who are 1 buying and using the ice-making equipment. We do this 2 by calculating key metrics -- life-cycle cost savings 3 and payback period. 4 So life-cycle cost. We look at the upfront 5 cost of the equipment and the upfront incremental cost 6 of the improved equipment and the operating cost of the 7 equipment over the lifetime of the equipment. 8 The savings would be that base case or Level 9 1 equipment minus a standard case. 10 For the payback period, we just look at the 11 incremental cost of the equipment and look at the first 12 year operating and maintenance cost savings and we 13 divide the savings into the price and that's the 14 payback -- how many years it takes to payback the 15 initial investment. 16 Life-cycle cost is a discounted value because 17 the operating costs go on over years, whereas payback 18 is just simple. It's not discounted because it's that 19 first year. 20 Here's the second seeing eye -- actually, 21 it's probably more like the third or fourth seeing eye 22 slide but if you can't read this at the back of the of 23 the room, it should be in your deck of slides. 24 This just shows where the data comes from, 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 13

what data is used, and where it is in the flow. So if 1 you start over in the upper left-hand corner, you see 2 the price information coming in from the Engineering 3 Analysis and below that you see the Markup information 4 and that all combines into a customer price. There's 5 actually another input that goes into here that I'm 6 going to talk about in a minute and I think when you 7 see this final slide that will be a yellow box but it's 8 called Experiential Learning. 9 We add to that an installation cost and that 10 gets you your total installed cost of the equipment. 11 On the bottom side, starting at the left, you see the 12 energy and water consumption coming in. We combine 13 that with some electricity and water prices, repair and 14 maintenance costs, and then some other things, like the 15 lifetime of the equipment, the discount rates, and 16 growth rates in electricity and water prices and that 17 gets you an annual operating cost and an operating cost 18 over the life of the equipment. 19 Any questions on this? Yes? 20 MR. STARR: In your water cost -- 21 MR. BROOKMAN: Louis, say your name. 22 MR. STARR: Oh, sorry. Louis Starr with NEA. 23 In your water cost analysis, you're assuming the water 24 that's input to clean the thing as well as the 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 14

condenser side, is that correct? 1 MR. COOKE: That's correct. 2 MR. STARR: And does it also cause -- are you 3 looking at the sewer costs associated with water or 4

not? 5 MR. COOKE: That's correct. 6 MR. STARR: Okay. So all three of those. 7

MR. COOKE: Yes. 8 MR. STARR: Thanks. 9 MR. COOKE: And I think that's probably on 10 the next slide. Well, maybe not. 11 The next slide is experiential learning or 12 what we call price learning. The theory here is that, 13 as manufacturers make increasing amounts of their 14 equipment over time, that the price, the real price of 15 equipment tends to go down, and this is something 16 that's been observed for a number of years and 17 commented upon in the past. 18 DOE has assumed that this price would remain 19 constant but within the last year, we've started to 20 take a look at whether the real price of manufacturing 21 equipment does tend to go down over time. 22 There was a Notice of Data Availability. You 23 see that in the red comment at the bottom. This is a 24 new addition to help you find information on this, if 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 15

you're interested. That's where DOE first broached 1 this idea and talked about it. It's also talked about 2 or discussed in Appendix 8C of the TSD. 3 For this analysis, we looked at Producer 4 Price Indexes and historical shipments information that 5 we gleaned from a couple of different sources that Nate 6 will be talking about later on when he talks about the 7 National Impacts Analysis. 8 For the Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 9 Analysis, we're really only looking at one purchase of 10 equipment and that would be at the year that the 11 equipment goes into -- that the standard would go into 12 effect. So for purposes of the Life-Cycle Cost 13 Analysis, we basically had to calculate a factor to 14 take the cost of the equipment from the year in which 15 the estimated engineering costs were valid to that 2016 16 point, which is about five years. 17 So we actually decreased the costs that are 18 coming into us from the Manufacturer or from the 19 Engineering Analysis by approximately 1.7 percent. 20 So I'm going to throw this open for 21 questions. I see a few looks of puzzlement. 22 MR. BROOKMAN: Karim. 23 DR. AMRANE: I'll start, I guess. Karim 24 Amrane, AHRI. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 16

I guess we disagree with this approach and we 1 filed comments when DOE issued its Notice about that 2 and we gave you reasons why at the time, but for this 3 specific product, have you done any analysis to show 4 that the price will decline, has declined over time? 5 MR. COOKE: The analysis that we did actually 6 did use real -- I mean, it's high-level data. It's 7 compiled data but if you're talking about have we gone 8 out and done surveys or something like that -- 9 DR. AMRANE: Because I believe everything 10 you're basing it on is based on household refrigerators 11 or things like that. Have you looked at ice makers 12 over 30 years, 40 years, and see whether the price of 13 ice makers went down? 14 MR. COOKE: This is based on Price Index 15 information for the commercial refrigeration industry 16 as a whole which would include the ice makers and 17 probably some other HVAC type of equipment. This is at 18 a fairly high NAICS level. 19 DR. AMRANE: I think the whole basis of this 20 analysis came from household refrigerators and DOE had 21 40 years' worth of data. They looked at it and they 22 saw that over the years the price went down and that's 23 how this all started. Now you're applying this concept 24 to everything else and I guess in this particular case, 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 17

I don't think that you have the data to show the price 1 went down. The standard started in 2010. 2 So how can you estimate that? On what basis 3 are you doing it? 4 MR. COOKE: Well, you know, again, this is 5 based on real data. We will be looking -- at the NOPR 6 phase, we will again be revisiting this and we'll take 7 a look at what additional data might be available. 8 MR. LLENZA: This is Charles Llenza, 9 Department of Energy. 10 Can you -- the data that we have looked at, 11 how far back does it go? 12 MR. COOKE: This was estimated at least on 30 13 years' worth of data. 14 MR. LLENZA: What Karim is pointing out his 15 understanding was it was for residential refrigerators. 16 MR. COOKE: Well, this was not for 17 residential. This was done specifically for the 18 commercial refrigeration, the WICF, the ice makers. 19 This was done with data that applies to -- 20 MR. LLENZA: That particular equipment? 21 MR. COOKE: -- this kind of family of 22 equipment. 23 MR. LLENZA: Okay. So what he's saying -- 24 okay. Go ahead. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 18

MR. CLAYVILLE: Nate Clayville, PNNL. So 1 specifically, we used data from the United States 2 Census Bureau's Current Industrial Reports going back 3 to 1975 which was ice maker-specific, as well as PPI 4 data that was specific to the commercial refrigeration 5 equipment spectrum, you know, it was an umbrella term, 6 which also went back several years. Off the top of my 7 head, I don't remember exactly how many years, but we 8 did go ice maker-specific. This has been done but not 9 necessarily presented yet but done for several products 10 and we're able to kind of differentiate between the 11 products. We can actually quantify it and see 12 differences in ice makers specifically. 13 DR. AMRANE: But was the data based on energy 14 efficiency or what kind of data did you get? 15 MR. CLAYVILLE: The data was based on market 16 trends. It was based on shipments as well as actual 17 inflationary values that we were able to glean from the 18 Producer Price Index. 19 MR. BROOKMAN: And so you were able to 20 document the prices actually declined by this amount? 21

MR. CLAYVILLE: Yes. Yes. 22 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Matt. 23 MR. ALLISON: Just a comment. I'd like to be 24 able to see that data, if you could share with us. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 19

MR. BROOKMAN: NAICS, N-A-I-C-S, data. Is 1 that what you said? So that category is that? 2 MR. COOKE: What does NAICS stand for, Nate? 3 National -- 4 MR. CLAYVILLE: North American Ice – 5 MR. BARRINGTON: The North American Industry 6 Classification System. 7 MR. COOKE: Okay. Thank you. It's the 8 replacement for what we used to call Standard 9 Industrial Codes, SIC Codes. 10 MR. LLENZA: This is Charles again from the 11 department. 12 We will provide more details on the listing 13 of the data we used for this. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Matt. 15 MR. LLENZA: And then you 16 can make comments. 17 MR. ALLISON: Okay. And again, I guess I 18 would say here, it kind of depends on what technologies 19 you're looking at, if I understand what you're doing 20 here correctly, but if you start talking about a 21 condenser, for instance, and increasing the size of it, 22 you know, that price is going to be driven much more by 23 commodities of copper and aluminum by any experiential 24 learning. It's going to be zero experiential learning 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 20

with a condenser that gets two inches wider over the 1 course of time. 2 MR. COOKE: But I think that's actually 3 something that would be captured within this because 4 the experiential learning really is just looking at the 5 aggregate prices over time and the change could be from 6 any number of different things. It could be because 7 you figured out better ways to do things on your 8 manufacturing floor or found better ways or better 9 sources of inputs. So all that might very well factor 10 into it. 11 MR. LLENZA: From my knowledge of this, the 12 way they're doing this, is data actually would be 13 captured here because it would be prices of copper, 14 improvements in innovation in that particular 15 technology trend that are reflected in the market, data 16 that they captured, and they used it for residential 17 refrigerators, as referred to, but, you know, the 18 Office of Management and Budget now asked us to do this 19 for not only, I believe not only for residential 20 refrigerators but for all appliances now. So it's just 21 one of those --, I don't think we have much to say, 22 other than the fact that this is an offset of 23 additional analysis now. 24 MR. ALLISON: I think just to be able to give 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 21

some meaningful comment, I'd like to see it and get to 1 understand a little bit more about the background of it 2 compared to our experiences. 3 MR. CLAYVILLE: This is Nate Clayville again, 4

PNNL. 5 Just speaking to the data that you're 6 interested in seeing, in Appendix 8C of the Technical 7 Support Document, we documented this pretty well. 8 Almost, if not all, of the data that you would like to 9 see is in there as well as all the equations and 10 everything that went into actually documenting and in 11 coming up with these values. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 13 MR. COOKE: I'd like to add one other comment 14 with respect to Karim's comment and that is just that 15 we're not really -- we're changing the price of all of 16 the equipment. It's not just the incremental costs. 17 So this isn't really efficiency-related. We're not 18 changing just the incremental efficiency costs. We're 19 changing the base equipment costs, as well. So it's 20 all trending down. 21 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. We have 22 received a question from Scott Deschettler. He asks: 23 What is used as the discount rate on Slide 53? You're 24 going to be covering discount rates further on, right? 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 22

MR. COOKE: I'm about to turn to that in 1 about a minute. 2 MR. BROOKMAN: In two or three more slides, 3 right. Daryl. 4 MR. ERBS: I guess my comment or question 5 relates to I think you said you went back how many 6 years? 30 years? 7 MR. COOKE: We have data that actually starts 8 in '48 but I think the data that was done, used for 9 this went back to about 1970-1975. 10 MR. ERBS: So my question is how do you know 11 the next five years will follow the same trend of the 12 last 30? You know, when I think about the ice machine 13 industry specifically, there was a period of pretty 14 good year over year growth in terms of volume that I 15 think had to do with fast food rolling out across the 16 nation and there are a bunch of factors -- hotels, lots 17 of building. 18 If you look at the last three or four years, 19 and Karim probably, you know, would be a good source of 20 some recent trends, our volumes aren't growing and, you 21 know, there's been some kind of dips in the road due to 22 economic meltdowns and things, but if you look at more 23 of a weighted kind of trend over the last, I don't 24 know, five years or whatever, we're kind of flat. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 23

We're not really growing in terms of volume. 1 We all like to hope that, you know, suddenly 2 people are going to start buying lots and lots of more 3 ice machines but when you look at the demographics and 4 the replacement market driving it and everything else, 5 we're not seeing huge volume increases. So that's not 6 driving efficiency for us. We're working on better 7 ways to build products that helps us offset some of the 8 other things that have come to roost on our nest, you 9 know, in terms of environmental regulations and all 10 sorts of other things. 11 So, I mean, two percent's not a lot but again 12 I just would caution using a trendline that's based on 13 too far back in history to predict the future. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Nate, you want to comment? 15 MR. CLAYVILLE: Yes. I'd just comment on 16 that. So although we go back to 1975 using the CIRs or 17 the Current Industrial Reports, that really is just the 18 basis for building up shipments and to be able to 19 essentially forecast shipments. 20 In terms of having some idea about what it's 21 going to be in the next five years, we don't, of 22 course. All we have is available data to use to try to 23 forecast and get a good idea about what it might look 24 like over the next five years. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 24

Does that answer your question? I feel like 1 I missed an aspect of that. I'm sorry. 2 MR. ERBS: It does. I mean, I look at it 3 from what goes on in our factory perspective and none 4 of our processes have changed radically in the last 5 five years and they're not going to in the next five 6 years, right. The way we assemble things, the sheet 7 metal we make because of our volume is going to run on 8 turret presses in five years, just like it does today. 9 So, you know, I think about, well, where are 10 those efficiencies coming from for us, I struggle a 11 little bit. 12 MR. CLAYVILLE: And you're correct. The 13 assumption here is that efficiencies are built up not 14 from economies of scale. It's not that you're making a 15 lot of them and so the price is diminished because of 16 that but it's because there are just efficiencies that 17 naturally occur in making ice makers over time and, as 18 you're saying here, and it's important for us to note, 19 that you don't feel that there's much room for the 20 small efficiencies, correct? 21 MR. ERBS: Well, again, like I say, I think 22 what we hope to do is by improving worker productivity 23 a little bit, we offset the increasing healthcare costs 24 for them, you know, some of the other factors that 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 25

would otherwise cause it to be more expensive to build 1 the same machine in the future, but I just don't see us 2 making huge gains. Again, I don't know if it's worth 3 arguing over. 4 If it's just two percent, I thought I saw in 5 one of the appendices where it projected out over 20 6 years a 20 percent decrease in cost and that kind of 7 really took my breath away when I saw that. 8 DR. AMRANE: This is Karim with AHRI. Can 9 you talk about this a little bit because I think that 10 you are going much further than just two years or three 11

years. 12 MR. COOKE: Yes. This is just for the LCC 13 and Payback Period. So, yes, you are right. 14 DR. AMRANE: So the assumption is that you 15 are 20 years from now, the price of the ice maker will 16 cost 20 percent less or I don't know how much it is, 17 based on the curve, right? 18 MR. COOKE: That's correct. And that would 19 be -- and that does appear in the National Impacts 20 Analysis, and I don't know if it's 20 percent in the 21 base case, but when you get into the National Impact 22 Analysis where you're purchasing equipment 30 years in 23 the future, this is rolling out 30 years into the 24 future, correct. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 26

MR. BROOKMAN: Charles Llenza. 1 MR. LLENZA: Charles Llenza, Department of 2 Energy. 3 Part of the problem is that it's based on 4 statistics. So when the statisticians looked at this 5 and they compared the actual trending with the price, 6 they found that the trend actually was reflected in the 7 pricing and they did the curve fits to see if they had 8 a fit accordingly. I understand what you're saying, 9 it's hard to believe that you're going to see a 10 decrease in the equipment over years of 20 percent when 11 nothing's changed, right, and your pricing and your 12 costs are going up. 13 But basically it's statistically based and 14 they've done it for residential refrigerators and 15 they're doing it now with all these products. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: Karim. 17 DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane with AHRI. If I 18 may say, again maybe there wasn't enough good data for 19 household refrigerators. I don't think that you had 20 this data for ice makers. 21 For me, this is the way for DOE to justify 22 anything that DOE wants to justify as far as minimum 23 energy efficiency standard. If you use this analysis, 24 you can justify max tech which, by the way, you know, 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 27

that's what your analysis is showing. I don't think 1 it's right. I think it's totally flawed and in this 2 particular case, I don't think you have the data to 3 prove it. 4 MR. COOKE: Okay. Thank you. 5 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Matt. 6 MR. ALLISON: Yes. I can just relate what 7 our experience is and I don't know what it was, you 8 know, 30 years ago, but I can tell you now just from 9 year to year, just trying to maintain flat costs from 10 one year to the next is a struggle, and typically we do 11 see some sort of increase that we try to recapture at 12 least some of it in the form of price increases and 13 usually we can't even recapture all of it in doing 14 that. 15 So it is a struggle and I'm not sure how the 16 statistics feed into this or the past models but the 17 reality of how things seem to operate today just, I 18 don't know, there seems to be a disconnect somewhere 19 and to expect that these prices are going to go down 20 over the years, it just doesn't make a lot of sense. 21 I know if you look at some of the other 22 industries, such as household refrigerators or whatnot, 23 you know, a lot of that price decrease that they've 24 seen over the years, they've offshored manufacturing a 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 28

lot of that stuff, and, frankly, we just don't have the 1 scale to be able to even consider doing something like 2 that. 3 So, you know, certainly you can plug that 4 kind of stuff in and it might force some unintended 5 consequences, such as that, but I think we need to be 6 careful about this. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Final 8 comments on this? We're going to keep moving on. 9 MR. COOKE: And, of course, written comments 10 are appreciated. 11 I wanted to make one quick comment here about 12 the efficiency level that we're using for the base. 13 You heard earlier the Engineering Analysis where the 14 base for batch is basically the cube standards that has 15 been extended to reach to the full 4,000 pound per day. 16 For continuous, we have a different approach 17 where we're calculating a base or an Efficiency Level 1 18 that basically captures all of the equipment that's 19 available in the market or that's potentially available 20 in the market, and one of the things that we found 21 doing both the National Impacts Analysis which Nate 22 will be talking about in a little while and also in the 23 LCC is that if you look at the distribution of 24 equipment that's actually on the market that somebody 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 29

could purchase today, some of the really low efficiency 1 bins in the continuous class, especially, appear to 2 have no shipments and so I want to fill this out as a 3 question and I don't know if you have the ability to 4 answer this today. If not, in writing would be great. 5 We do seek comments on the methodology that's 6 basically used to determine what the baseline 7 efficiency level is for purposes of the LCC and Payback 8 Period Analysis. If the Engineering Analysis needs to 9 start at a lower level and build up, they can, but we 10 could also choose a different efficiency level for the 11 LCC and Payback Period, if we wanted to. 12 So I would ask you, as you look at the data 13 and as you look at what you know the market to be, if 14 you could comment on that. 15 MR. BROOKMAN: Tom Eckman. 16 MR. ECKMAN: Alan, do you have shipments by 17 efficiency level? 18 MR. COOKE: We have a very good shipments 19 database from AHRI and we also have availability of the 20 AHRI testing data that's posted on their website which 21 is not shipments, it's just what models are available, 22 and we've tried to combine those two to get at what the 23 actual shipments by efficiency level could be because I 24 don't think we actually have a shipments by efficiency 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 30

level per se. 1 MR. ECKMAN: Shipments by product 2 availability? 3 MR. COOKE: And by size of the product. 4 MR. ECKMAN: By size, yes, but not knowing 5 what the shipments of that product are, just that it's 6 available, is that right? That's what I'm trying to 7 understand. What is available? 8 MR. BROOKMAN: Karim. 9 DR. AMRANE: What's available in the website 10 is just, you know, product classes and with their 11 specific efficiencies model by model. It's not 12 shipments, but I believe that we shared the information 13 with you. Maybe I'm wrong but I think we did share 14 some shipment-weighted efficiency numbers with you. 15 MR. COOKE: And we did try to fit -- use the 16 shipments data that you gave us, the weighted 17 efficiencies, and also the availability of equipment 18 per what shows up in that database, and come up with 19 these bins. That's why I couched my question with I'm 20 not sure if you can actually address this question here 21 now off the top of your head, but as you look at that, 22 if you could give some thought to the baselining of 23 some of these commercial product classes, it would be 24 great. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 31

Electricity and water prices. Some of this 1 is pretty standard. The red, by the way, is basically 2 spelling out some abbreviations that not everyone might 3 have been familiar with. We use EIA, Energy 4 Information Agency, Form 861 data to get us baseline 5 electricity prices specific to, it should say major 6 classes, like commercial versus industrial, and 7 specific to state. We’re using growth rates that are 8 based on the Annual Energy Outlook from 2011. Again, 9 that's specific to sector. It's specific to region and 10 we kind of spread it around to the states so that we 11 can put together a state-by-state database. 12 Both of these will be updated. I should note 13 that everything on this slide will be updated if it's 14 possible to update it. 15 We extend the commercial sector pricing to 16 actual individual building types, like hotels or 17 hospitals, using data from the Commercial Building 18 Energy Consumption Survey. We came up with a base year 19 water cost using an American Waterworks Rate Survey and 20 we did use the water and wastewater, so water cost is a 21 combination of those two. 22 This was put together by state using the 23 observations that we could pull out of the AWWA, out of 24 their last two surveys, and the prices were chosen for 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 32

a size of service that would be more or less a 1 commercial size of service. 2 We based the growth in water prices on 3 Consumer Price Index for water costs or utility costs. 4 I think I don't have a slide particularly 5 asking questions for that. 6 Are there any comments on any of this before 7

we move on? 8 MR. ECKMAN: This is Tom Eckman. Have you 9 compared the CPI with the Wastewater Water Escalation 10 Rate increases over the last decade or something like 11 that? 12 MR. COOKE: Where would I find -- 13 MR. ECKMAN: My impression is that if you 14 looked at the prior AWWA surveys over a time series, 15 you might get a different rate of growth. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: You think the CPI wouldn't 17 reflect that? 18 MR. ECKMAN: Right. I think there might be 19 -- I think they're systematically higher than the CPI 20 has been, but I can't say that for sure. 21 MR. COOKE: They are. I think you're 22 absolutely right. We did look at that and part of why 23 we came to this is that there's actually federal 24 guidance if you're going to be doing analyses of this 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 33

type and you don't have a good forecast, that the CPI 1 is, shall we say, a default value that you can rely on. 2 We did look at a couple of historical surveys 3 and they are growing at a fast rate and I think if you 4 extrapolated that out 30 years, you would quickly find 5 that ice makers are spending a large amount of money on 6 water and this is one of those cases -- 7 MR. ECKMAN: And that might not be. 8 MR. COOKE: That's right. And this is one of 9 those cases where we seriously question whether recent 10 history is indeed reflective of the future, at least 11 the long-term future, and we went with the default 12 which is specified in that. 13 MR. ECKMAN: Tom Eckman. With Clean Water 14 Act provisions coming out from EPA and the requirement 15 to do whatever it is, American Drinking Water Act of 16 whatever the year was, I mean, I don't anticipate that 17 those escalation rates will diminish much but they will 18 probably level out once that Act's requirements are 19 satisfied. 20 So I guess the question is whether or not we 21 would use that escalation rate for the full 20 or 30 or 22 40 year period you're doing the analysis or at least in 23 the near term the CPI is an underestimate but may be 24 okay in the long run. I mean, it may be that you have 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 34

-- that the short run analysis needs to -- at least 1 till the time the standard goes into effect may be 2 representative of what you see past recent trends in 3 prices being and then longer term you might move to the 4 CPI but, you know, we're not done with the regulatory 5 impact of the Clean Water Act yet. 6 MR. COOKE: Okay. Noted. Yes. 7 MR. STARR: Louis Starr with NEEA. Along the 8 same kind of line of questioning on electricity and 9 then also whether that includes demand charges and 10 electricity costs and also some other things on the 11 discount factors and escalation rates, too, would be 12 nice. 13 MR. COOKE: Okay. Discount, we'll get to in 14 just a minute. The Annual Energy -- Energy Information 15 Agency's data does include total electricity costs. So 16 that would include demand and energy costs. It's all 17 rolled into one per kilowatt hour charge. I think that 18 was the only question you asked on material we've 19 covered. 20

MR. STARR: Yes. 21 MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments on electricity 22 and water prices? 23 (No response.) 24 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 35

MR. COOKE: Installation costs, repair costs, 1 and maintenance costs. In the Preliminary Analysis, 2 we've estimated all three of these using basically a 3 fixed percentage. 4 In the first case, it was a fixed percentage 5 of the manufacturer's selling price and I think that 6 percentage was actually 10 percent. It varies by state 7 and it varies by the type of equipment, so you can see 8 the averages for remote condensing, self-contained, and 9 ice-making heads. 10 For both annual repair costs and annual 11 maintenance costs, that percentage was three percent of 12 the base which is the Level 1 customer equipment costs 13 and again you can see the resulting numbers by the 14 types of equipment. Those were varied by equipment 15 class and again they don't increase with efficiency 16 levels. 17 So we have a page full of questions that will 18 follow and I might just let Doug read these questions 19 or lead the charge on these questions. 20 MR. BROOKMAN: I will just post the chart up 21 there, that is, the question box, Item 16, and you can 22 see they relate to what DOE has uncovered or described 23 here with respect to installation costs, maintenance 24 costs, repair costs, and generally the technology 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 36

options under consideration. You see that final 1 question at the bottom of the box. 2 We're getting down to some specifics here. 3 So comments would be very helpful, whether now or in 4 considerable detail in your written comments. 5 Daryl. 6 MR. ERBS: So I think, in general, I would 7 agree that there shouldn't be any large impact on 8 installation, maintenance. Repair costs, it depends on 9 the components. So, for example, if we go to ECM 10 motor, fan motors, they will fail at a certain rate. 11 In fact, my concern would be they're probably less 12 reliable than a standard PSC motor just because they're 13 more complex devices and, you know, generally the more 14 parts you have in a device the more it fails. 15 So we'd have a higher first cost motor that 16 would fail more often and that would impact us really 17 at a warranty cost level. So, you know, that's one 18 example. 19 I think other than that -- 20 MR. BROOKMAN: Fail within the warranty 21 period? 22 MR. ERBS: Some percentage will. I mean, you 23 know, we try to manage all of our -- well, one thing 24 you have to understand, we give a three-year warranty, 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 37

so it's a fairly long warranty, and it's not a high 1 percentage. So that would be a small impact but it 2 would be there. 3 I think in terms of installation costs, the 4 only thing I could think of is if the remote condenser 5 is twice as big, then that cost will go up, you know. 6 If it's a small change in its size, it's probably not a 7 big deal but, you know, a lot of the remote condensers 8 actually require a crane rental to install it and so if 9 it gets bigger, it'll cost more. If it's small, you 10 know, small effects. So, overall, I think it's a 11 pretty good assumption. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Other thoughts on installation 13 costs, maintenance costs, repair costs, and the general 14 question you see there? 15 (No response.) 16 MR. BROOKMAN: I think in a little bit we're 17 going to break for lunch. 18 MR. COOKE: We're almost done with this 19 section. 20 MR. BROOKMAN: I know. With this segment, 21 yes. I think we're -- 22 MR. COOKE: Discount rates are easy. 23 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 24 MR. COOKE: Discount rates. Speak of the 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 38

devil. 1 To start with, we're looking at running these 2 analyses by the type of establishments. So we're 3 looking at lodging, healthcare, food sales, food 4 service, retail, education, and office. To develop 5 discount rates, we actually go into publicly-available 6 financial information and using some fairly well7 established formulas that are documented in Chapter 8, 8 we estimate a cost of debt and a cost of equity for 9 each of the firms in this database and there's like 2 10 or 3,000 firms in our total database that we're using 11 for these building types. 12 So we estimate the cost of debt, cost of 13 equity, come up with a weighted average of the two, and 14 for some of the analyses we use an average that has 15 been averaged across, say, the building type, lodging. 16 For most of them -- I'm going to talk in a moment about 17 Monte Carlo Analysis -- we just sample. So we use a 18 discount rate that's based on company X or company Y or 19 company Z. 20 And in some of the building types, we might 21 add a little adder because we know that a certain 22 percentage of the building types are municipal 23 government buildings or something else. So there might 24 be a weighted average where we look at part of this and 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 39

part of, you know, what comes out of this WAC formula 1 and part weighting on municipal bond rates, something 2 like that. 3 The equipment lifetime is eight and a half 4 years. We use that for all equipment types and I'm 5 going to talk again in a minute about Monte Carlo. We 6 actually really didn't model anything at 8.5 years. We 7 pulled a year out of a hat based on a distribution that 8 comes out of some of the analysis done for the NIA 9 analysis where some of the equipment starts failing at 10 four years, some of it lasts as long as 12 years, and 11 the average is about eight and a half when you weight 12 this up. 13 So we do an uncertainty analysis where we 14 allow almost all these variables to vary. A lot of it 15 depends on what state you're located in, so the 16 installation costs we can vary using some RS means 17 data. Markups we can also vary using some of the 18 things in the Census Bureau and the sales tax. 19 Electricity prices vary by state. 20 So we just pick a state based on a population 21 weighting. Building types vary and that takes you to a 22 different discount rate and a different electricity 23 cost. The lifetime of the equipment is varied and we 24 also vary the efficiency level that we're starting from 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 40

when we do this analysis. We don't start every one of 1 them from Efficiency Level 1. We start it from a 2 weighted average or from a distribution that's based on 3 what we pulled out of that shipment and sales data that 4 we just talked about a minute ago. 5 I'm going to stop right there. That was a 6 lot. Comments? Feedback on any of this, these last 7 two slides? 8 (No response.) 9 MR. COOKE: They must want to have lunch. 10 MR. BROOKMAN: I think we're getting close to 11 lunch. In fact, maybe we should just pause now. It's 12
12:30. 13 MR. COOKE: This is the last slide. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: I know. I know there's one 15 more. We'll get through this. Okay. Go ahead. 16 MR. COOKE: So I just want to let you know 17 that when you add all of this up, you have the Life18 Cycle Cost and the Payback Analysis. Each one of the 19 equipment types that we look at has a table like this, 20 so you should know how to read this table. 21 The third, fourth, and fifth columns look at 22 the Life-Cycle Cost, assuming that you're starting at 23 an Efficiency Level 1 and just building up through the 24 efficiency levels. So you have the installed costs, 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 41

the total discounted operating costs, and the life1 cycle costs. 2 This middle set of columns here where it says 3 Life-Cycle Cost Savings across the top, we're actually 4 looking at who is affected by the standard, and by 5 that, I just mean simply if you are currently already 6 buying Level 3 equipment and we set a standard that 7 makes Level 1 equipment illegal, you're not affected 8 because you're already buying something higher than 9 that level. 10 So you see in the middle column there where 11 it says No Impact, at Level 2, 41 percent of the 12 customers had no impact. That means that, according to 13 the data we found, 41 percent of the customers were 14 actually already buying Level 3 or Level 4, i.e., 15 EnergyStar equipment, and in this particular case, 16 almost everybody had a net benefit. At Level 4, we see 17 92 percent net benefit which means that this is highly 18 cost effective. Indeed, at Level 4, we saw a 0.9 year 19 payback period. Of course, this gets back to some of 20 what Daryl was talking about earlier with the costs but 21 this is what will be looked at during the NOPR phase. 22 MR. ERBS: Just a question where the decimal 23 point is on there. 24 MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl, you want to say that 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 42

for the record? 1 MR. LLENZA: This is Charles again from the 2 department. 3 One of the things, this is why it's important 4 that we get the numbers right. What we're trying to 5 outline, also, is methodology. So we probably don't 6 have the right numbers in the right boxes. So once we 7 get the right numbers in the right boxes, this should 8 at least provide better information and an actual more 9 useful payback period and everything else, so. 10 MR. BROOKMAN: So there's a lot of information 11 here and Alan has in the preceding slides described 12 generally the methodology and, boy, the department 13 would really benefit from your detailed comments on 14 this stuff. This is important. 15 So I'm going to suggest we take lunch right 16 now. It's 12:30. We'll go for an hour. Please don't 17 leave the Forrestal Building. You won't get back in 18 time. We're going to break for an hour. We'll resume 19 at 1:30. We're through the bulk of it, so that's good. 20 The comments have been excellent, very, very helpful. 21 You must wear your badge in the building. 22 You know where the restrooms are. There's a big 23 cafeteria if you go down to the ground floor and go 24 about a hundred yards that way and then up the 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 43

escalators and there's also a Subway shop, a little 1 sandwich shop, right where the coffee shop is, also on 2 the ground floor. You turn left from the elevator 3 bank. 4 So this room will be locked. You can leave 5 your stuff here, and I'll just thank you. We had a 6 really good amount of information this morning. We'll 7 resume at 1:30. See you back here then. 8 (Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the meeting was 9 recessed for lunch, to reconvene this same day at 1:30 10 p.m.) 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 44

1
2

A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N 3 (1:30 p.m.) 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Welcome back. We are going to 5 pick up where we left off and we're going to hear from 6 Nathaniel, Nate, Clayville. 7 Shipments Analysis and National Impact Analysis 8 MR. CLAYVILLE: Perfect. Thank you. Again, 9 my name's Nathaniel Clayville. I'm with Pacific 10 Northwest National Laboratory, and I'm going to be 11 tackling the Shipments Analysis and National Impacts 12 Analysis, some of the methodology that we used in it 13 and some of the results that we were able to derive 14 from it. 15 For your reference, in the Technical Support 16 Document, the Shipments Analysis, Chapter 9, and the 17 National Impacts Analysis is Chapter 10, and there are 18 two Supplementary Appendices which are Chapter 10, the 19 National Impact Analysis. One of them is the 20 Instructions and another one gives some of the really 21 granular nice output tables. 22 Let's go ahead and jump right in talking 23 about the Shipments Analysis. 24 This is an important analysis for some of the 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 45

downstream analyses that we do, namely, the National 1 Impacts. One of the reasons it's important is that it 2 has a lot of ability to shape what the NIA looks like. 3 Now the purpose of the Shipments Analysis is 4 to actually estimate some of the future stock and 5 shipments of the ACIM equipment. We do this by 6 equipment class and we also do it by efficiency level. 7 Now to calculate and to estimate this future 8 stock, the first thing that we actually need is 9 historical shipments data. To do this, we're very 10 lucky in this rulemaking that we were able to obtain 11 shipments data from the year 2010 submitted by AHRI. 12 The data was able to give us a very easy breakdown of 13 shipments for the year 2010 that we were able to easily 14 convert into the equipment class market shares. 15 Once we had that data, we actually paired it 16 with a couple of other pieces of data. For instance, 17 we used the United States Census Bureau's Current 18 Industrial Reports which I spoke of earlier which gave 19 us a great set of historical data, as well as North 20 American Association of Food Manufacturers 2010 Report 21 which gave us data that allowed us to split the 22 shipments into domestic and international shipments, so 23 we can focus more on the domestic side, and all 24 equipment stock was estimated and started off based on 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 46

2010 shipments data. 1 To grow it in the future, we used future 2 shipments, a proxy that we were able to base off of the 3 historical growth rates that we derived from the 4 commercial floor space construction forecast from the 5 EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 2011. 6 Any questions on any of the sources so far? 7 (No response.) 8 MR. CLAYVILLE: This is a -- on the next 9 slide here, this is just a breakdown and a good visual 10 of the equipment class market share. Again, this is 11 based off of 2010 AHRI shipments data. It was the most 12 recent and complete shipments dataset that we were able 13 to obtain and it gave us very detailed data here. 14 One thing that's important to note on this 15 dataset is fourth from the bottom on the right-hand 16 column there you'll see that it's the self-contained 17 unit water-cooled small continuous unit. We actually 18 have a zero percent market share for that. We were 19 unable to identify any shipments in that product class. 20 We kept it there because we feel that it's still a 21 viable equipment class and we think that there may 22 still be some shipments that may be able to be 23 identified in the NOPR stage and in case there are, 24 it's easier to leave something in and take it out later 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 47

than it is to add it back in. So we left it there but 1 it might look a little funny later on. 2 Some of the output tables, you'll see just a 3 big blank across the screen for it and it's because 4 there were no shipments that were identified in there. 5 Are there any questions or any comments on 6 the way that we derived this or about any of these 7 actual figures? 8 MR. BROOKMAN: Tom Eckman. 9 MR. ECKMAN: Tom Eckman. So this 10 distribution is from the 2010 sales. So is 2010 11 typical or is it atypical of history? 12 MR. ERBS: It's better than 2009. 13 MR. CLAYVILLE: Again, 2010 -- at the time of 14 the analysis, 2010 was the most -- 15 MR. BROOKMAN: This is on the record. Go 16 ahead. 17 MR. ERBS: Daryl Erbs, Manitowoc. In terms 18 of 2010, I would say it was still a little below 19 historical levels but, you know, it was recovered from 20 2009. The mix, I would say, is probably -- yes, it's 21 -- you know, there's shifts over time between batch and 22 continuous type that I think are, you know, continuing 23 but I would say this is a pretty good snapshot. 24 MR. ECKMAN: I'm assuming that 2010, this is 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 48

Tom Eckman, was more dominated by replacement market 1 than, say, 2007 or 8, for example. So is the mix in 2 the replacement market much different than it is when 3 there's a new construction market? 4 MR. CLAYVILLE: Yes. Let me go ahead and 5 move into the next slide to kind of show you the 6 representation of that. 7 So this is what we were able to derive using 8 the floor space forecast from the AEO 2011 data, along 9 with the 2010 shipments data. We were able to grow 10 things out and one real big benefit that we were able 11 to derive by also using the CIR, the Current Industrial 12 Reports, was that we were able to break it out into new 13 and replacement items where the new items across the 14 bottom of this graph here are the dark green portions 15 and the replacement items are the top portions right 16 there. 17 We definitely were able to quantify this and 18 this is laid out in great detail in the TSD as well as 19 just in the Executive Summary which you have in front 20 of you. So you can actually get a little more granular 21 with it but now this doesn't go back to 2010 obviously. 22 We picked select years to kind of represent what the 23 output would be or what our analysis shows the forecast 24 for data, but we do have the data. I believe it's in 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 49

the Executive Summary that does summarize some of the 1 2010 shipments and the proportions there. 2 MR. ECKMAN: This is Tom Eckman. So the 3 class mix is the same, different? 4 MR. CLAYVILLE: No. This is based on the 5 exact same -- this is based on this market -- 6 MR. ECKMAN: Going forward? 7 MR. CLAYVILLE: -- share. Correct. Yes, 8 going forward. We didn't really have any data to 9 support the theory that the classes are going to change 10 over time and we would appreciate any data, if any 11 exists out there, to help us be able to incorporate 12 that into our analysis. 13 But because this is data we have, we actually 14 moved this forward and kept it constant over time, and 15 when it was constant over time, we were able to grow it 16 along with the appropriate growth rates. This is -- 17 and again, this is just kind of showing select years 18 that we picked out but it gives a good representation 19 of what kind of trend we're looking at over the 20 analysis period. 21 Now we did pick select years and you can see 22 the values there, but a good number to note is that the 23 total cumulative shipments were 8.8 million over the 24 entire analysis period and to contrast that, the total 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 50

stock that we forecast in 2006 was estimated at 1.75 1 million. So that gives an idea about the turnover rate 2 of these things over the years, too. 3 So we're going to move to the National Impact 4 Analysis and we're going to discuss a little more what 5 we -- some of the methodology used in the Shipments 6 Analysis as we kind of work our way through the 7 National Impacts. 8 Now National Impacts Analysis is a lot like 9 the LCC was. The LCC is able to quantify benefits and 10 costs on a customer level. National Impacts Analysis 11 uses shipments to extrapolate that out and to be able 12 to quantify the benefits and the costs on the aggregate 13 national level. It does this by measuring two things, 14 first the national energy savings or NES, and it also 15 quantifies and measures the net present value of the 16 total customer economic impacts. 17 To do this, DOE used two scenarios at a time 18 that we analyzed, two complete separate scenarios. 19 First is a base case for any given equipment class and 20 across all the shipments for all the equipment classes 21 rather, and the other is a standards case in which a 22 new standard has eliminated some of the lower levels. 23 In doing this, DOE calculated the national 24 energy consumption for both of the scenarios and also 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 51

the total customer expenditures on the ice makers, 1 whether it's operation and maintenance costs or the 2 total installed costs, and once DOE calculated both of 3 these, they were able to find the difference between 4 the base case and the standards case and it actually is 5 what helped us derive the national energy savings and 6 net present value of the customer economic impacts. 7 And once the differences were quantified, the 8 dollar values were discounted to the appropriate year, 9 in this case 2011, which was the year of the analysis 10 period. 11 A couple of key inputs that we pulled from 12 some of the upstream analyses, such as the shipments 13 model and the LCC model. First, the shipments model. 14 Once DOE was able to take the market shares that were 15 distributed across the equipment classes and use 16 available data about available model ice makers to 17 extrapolate the efficiency level market shares, also, 18 which is actually a table that's in the Executive 19 Summary, Page 22, which is what we were able to derive 20 once we found the market share across all efficiency 21 levels and all equipment classes, and in each standards 22 case where we eliminated some of the lower efficiency 23 levels, DOE used a roll-up scenario where we rolled up 24 the shipments associated with the lower levels into the 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 52

next newest lowest level. 1 Some of the additional costs in energy use 2 inputs that we received or that we brought in from the 3 LCC and Payback Period Analysis are things such as the 4 per unit annual electricity costs and other per unit 5 operation and maintenance costs and also installed 6 costs per unit, and we also developed and applied 7 experiential-learning or price-learning factors to the 8 equipment costs. 9 Some other inputs. Discount factor. The 10 National Impacts Analysis, we used seven percent and 11 three percent real discount rates so we could contrast 12 and compare the two to see what the differences would 13 be. Both are laid out in great detail in the Technical 14 Support Documents. 15 We also used a site-to-source conversion 16 factor, a set of them, rather. The factors that we 17 used in this case were developed using the 2009 18 Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Rulemaking as a 19 proxy, but in the NOPR stage, we will use the National 20 Energy Modeling System to create automatic commercial 21 ice-making-specific conversion factors. 22 So this is the output. When everything's 23 aggregated and we're able to put it together, we were 24 able to come up with tables like this. This one 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 53

specifically is the National Energy Savings by standard 1 level and equipment class and it's presented in 2 quadrillion BTUs of source energy savings. 3 Just a couple notes on reading this table. 4 The blank items should line up with the Page ES-22, 5 Market Share by Efficiency Level and Equipment Class, 6 and a blank in this case would indicate that there's no 7 associated equipment class in that level. So we 8 actually didn't analyze anything. 9 Also, oftentimes you'll see a .000, so 10 there's no identified savings that it shows right 11 there. That can mean one of two things. The first 12 thing it could mean is that there are savings there but 13 they would be in the fourth decimal place or further 14 down. The other thing it can mean is that we did not 15 identify any shipments in that level which meant that 16 there were no savings that were able to be achieved in 17 that level. 18 A similar one, the next page, actually shows 19 the cumulative net present value that we were able to 20 identify using a seven percent discount rate and these 21 numbers are in billions of 2010 dollars which is where 22 we levelized our dollar numbers to. 23 Again, one thing to note is fourth from the 24 bottom is self-contained unit water-cooled small 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 54

continuous, shows nothing there again because we were 1 unable to identify any shipments or models in that 2 category. 3 This is a list of questions we have about 4 both the shipments model and the National Impacts 5 Analysis model. We'd appreciate any input as well as 6 any other questions or input you have on any other 7 portion of the Shipments or the National Impacts 8 Analysis. 9 MR. BROOKMAN: A lot of data. Comments on 10 the shipments data differences, efficiency 11 distributions, and shipments equipment stock data 12 sources? Any that have not been described or disclosed 13 already? Tom Eckman. 14 MR. ECKMAN: Just how big are the 15 differences? 16 MR. CLAYVILLE: The differences here? 17 MR. ECKMAN: First question. 18 MR. CLAYVILLE: Oh, I'm sorry. So they vary. 19 I don't have the exact number off the top of my head, 20 unfortunately. I say they vary. That's not really the 21 best way to say it because they were kind of 22 consistently different across the board there and 23 there's a couple of things that we think may be the 24 reason for that. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 55

First of all, AHRI doesn't necessarily 1 comprise the entire domestic market of ice makers. 2 There's some smaller companies that aren't members that 3 we may not have gotten full data for. Another thing 4 that could have differentiated the two is that the 5 Census Bureau doesn't differentiate between domestic 6 and export. So that could have done it, also, but we 7 would like any other data that we could have or any 8 other suggestions that would help us determine exactly 9 why the reasons for the differences are just so we can 10 make sure to do a quality check on the data, get the 11 best data possible. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Karim. 13 DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. Our 14 experience has been that we have found this discrepancy 15 between the two and it has a lot to do with the way 16 manufacturers do report to Census and I wouldn't be 17 surprised if you have some maybe residential ice makers 18 being lumped into the Census data and so on. 19 So I think, yes, we don't represent the 20 hundred percent of the industry but we represent a big 21 chunk and I think we are confident about our data. So 22 I would trust our data rather than Census. That would 23 be my suggestion. 24 MR. CLAYVILLE: Terrific. Thank you. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 56

MR. BROOKMAN: Tom. No. So additional 1 comments on shipments data, efficiency distributions, 2 and shipments equipment stock data sources? Matt. 3 MR. ALLISON: As far as the accuracy of the 4 data goes, you know, it's hard to comment for sure but 5 I would agree with Karim that what goes through AHRI is 6 the vast majority of the market. 7 One thing this does bring up for me, though, 8 in just looking at this, I do wonder about the need to 9 even regulate at all the continuous ice makers when 10 they represent 16 percent of the market and most of all 11 these numbers here are rounding out to zero or near 12 zero in the savings. 13 If you look at the issues and the costs and 14 everything associated with regulating them, I'm 15 wondering is there value there or not. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 17 DR. AMRANE: If I may? Karim Amrane, AHRI. 18 What's the total quad savings? If you add those 19 numbers together, what is the total? 20 MR. CLAYVILLE: It's different. This is 21 something that I meant to have on my mind to be able to 22 give you. It's different. It depends on how you add 23 them up. You can't add the accumulation of all of 24 them. So if we took just Level 2 or if we decide to 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 57

take, you know, like a max tech scenario, they differ 1 right there. 2 I don't have off the top of my head but 3 they're documented in the Technical Support Document as 4 well as the spreadsheets online, too. They're 5 available on the website. 6 DR. AMRANE: But we're talking about less 7 than half a quad, I mean, right? 8 MR. CLAYVILLE: Yeah. Alan? 9 DR. AMRANE: Half a quad. This is over what, 10 30 years? 11 MR. CLAYVILLE: Yes, it is over 30 years. 12 It's a 30-year analysis period. Now we do take into 13 account the lifespan of the models that were purchased 14 in the last year of the analysis period as they go out 15 and they end their natural life. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments? 17 (No response.) 18 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 19 MR. CLAYVILLE: Thank you. 20 MR. BROOKMAN: Now on to Ben Barrington, 21 Manufacturer Impact Analysis. 22 Manufacturer Impact Analysis 23 MR. BARRINGTON: Hi. I'm Ben Barrington. I 24 work for Navigant Consulting. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 58

I'm just going to take you through the next 1 few slides which give you sort of a high-level overview 2 of some of the activities and methods that we use as 3 part of the Manufacturer Impact Analysis. 4 As the name suggests, the purpose of the 5 Manufacturer Impact Analysis is to identify and assess 6 the impact of the amended standards on manufacturing. 7 The key quantitative outputs of this is the 8 industry net present value as calculated through a 9 government regulatory impact model which is essentially 10 a discounted cash flow model that looks out over the 11 same 30-year analysis period for analyzing shipments 12 and product costs as well as the associated capital and 13 product conversion costs that would be associated with 14 bringing products into compliance over that 30-year 15 period. 16 The MIA is essentially broken out into three 17 phases, an industry profile phase in which we 18 characterize the industry, largely based on information 19 that was gained during the market and tech assessment 20 of who the key players are and some of the information 21 associated with that, and I'll talk more about the next 22 two phases which are sort of forward-looking at this 23 point in time in the next slide. 24 So the outset of Phase 2, which is basically 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 5 9

where we stand today, is that we'll develop a framework 1 for the industry cash flow model, the government 2 regulatory impact model, and start to populate that. 3 This is a downstream analysis. So the inputs for that 4 model hinge largely on other analyses, so the Shipments 5 Analysis, the Markups Analysis, the Engineering 6 Analysis, and the learning curve, as well, all factor 7 into this model. 8 However, in addition to that information, we 9 also develop an interview guide that we'll take to 10 manufacturers in this industry and provide an 11 opportunity for you in a confidential manner to provide 12 us with additional information that would help improve 13 the accuracy of our depiction of this particular 14 industry. 15 In Phase 3, we'll actually take that 16 interview guide to you and provide you that 17 opportunity, collect, aggregate that data and bring it 18 back and incorporate it into our model and try to 19 arrive at an accurate depiction of what the impact 20 would be to this industry at each particular standard 21 level that we're analyzing. 22 For the work that has been done to date, it's 23 largely part of the Preliminary Analysis. As 24 mentioned, when we went out to industry with an 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 60

interview guide looking to collect information on some 1 of the key issues that manufacturers anticipate coming 2 about as a result of amended standards, some of the 3 issues identified, at least by one, if not several 4 manufacturers, during that information collection 5 process are listed up here. 6 Manufacturers identified that new standards 7 may not be cost effective insofar as the energy savings 8 brought about by amended standards, may not justify the 9 increased product costs to manufacturers. 10 Additionally, manufacturers identified that 11 separate equipment classes should be established for 12 both continuous and batch ice makers which I think is 13 also addressed in the Test Procedure that recently was 14 published. 15 Additionally, within the continuous ice maker 16 product class, the amended standards should account for 17 varying hardnesses of ice, of the ice product. You 18 know, manufacturers also identified that, you know, 19 should prices rise as a result of amended standards, 20 customers do have an alternative source of receiving 21 ice and that they don't necessarily have to purchase an 22 ice maker. They could move to sourcing ice from a 23 different location, so bagged ice. 24 Manufacturers also cited the high conversion 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 61

costs anticipated as a result of this rulemaking. The 1 testing burden associated with the rulemaking, 2 potential impact to customers, so, you know, people 3 brought up form factors and the size of units here. 4 Additionally, there's a fair amount of the industry 5 represented by small restaurants who may have issues 6 with, you know, access to capital to buy new products 7 should the prices increase, and then, additionally, an 8 impact to domestic manufacturing. Several 9 manufacturers identified that they have both domestic 10 and international manufacturing facilities and they 11 could potentially shift some domestic manufacturing 12 overseas should that be more attractive. 13 And so with that, I'll open it up to comment 14 on our methods and as well as any particular specific 15 data that you'd like to provide with regards to 16 anticipated impact to the manufacturing industry as a 17 result of amended standards. 18 While I encourage people to, you know, 19 participate here and provide as much information as 20 they'd like, I'd also like to reiterate that we will 21 be, you know, proceeding with a manufacturer interview 22 guide that we'll circulate to representatives in this 23 industry and Navigant Consulting will enter into, with 24 anyone who'd like to participate in that process, into 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 62

a non-disclosure agreement that would protect the 1 information and keep it confidential to Navigant. 2 So in that regard, we would aggregate that 3 data and not disclose anything specific to any one 4 particular manufacturer under an NDA. 5 MR. BROOKMAN: So as you look at the key 6 issues listed in the Preliminary MIA, are there 7 additional comments there or more general comments 8 related to Manufacturer Impacts? 9 (No response.) 10 MR. BROOKMAN: I don't see any at this point. 11 MR. BARRINGTON: Okay. With that, I'll move 12 ahead. 13 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 14 NOPR Analyses: Utility Impact Analysis, Employment 15 Impact Analysis, Emissions Analysis and Valuation, and 16 Regulatory Impact Analysis 17 MR. BARRINGTON: So we're coming up on the 18 end of the presentation today which is great, and thank 19 you all for your participation to this point and your 20 continued participation in the process. 21 From here, I'm just going to take you through 22 basically sort of tee-up of what we've done thus far 23 and what we have moving forward into the NOPR phase of 24 this rulemaking. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 63

So people have presented on a variety of 1 topics today, detailing the Preliminary Analysis that's 2 happened to date. As a result of this meeting, we'll 3 go back and revise the results of those Preliminary 4 Analyses, incorporating any additional comments that 5 you provide in response to this meeting hereafter 6 during the comment period, and from there, there are a 7 variety of other analyses that need to happen as a part 8 of the rulemaking to determine what are the most 9 appropriate standards and way to proceed forward, and 10 I'll go into more of those on the next slide. 11 So this is the remaining analyses that we 12 didn't talk about specifically today, I guess some of 13 them we did, but, you know, moving forward in the NOPR 14 phase of the rulemaking, we'll conduct the LCC Subgroup 15 Analysis in which we look at the effect on any 16 particular subgroup of consumers, so whether that's 17 small businesses, small restaurants who might face 18 particularly harsh consequences as a result of the 19 amended standards, you know, we take a look at that. 20 Also, the Manufacturer Impact Analysis, we 21 take where we are today right now and, you know, I just 22 went through the remaining activities that follow in 23 that, but we do that. 24 Additionally, in the Utility Impact Analysis, 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 64

we'll model the effects on the generation capacity of 1 utilities using the NEMS and, Alan, if you'd refresh my 2 memory as to what that stands for. 3 MR. COOKE: The National Energy Modeling 4 System. 5 MR. BARRINGTON: Thank you. Additionally, 6 we'll look at the indirect effects on national 7 employment, so depending on what additional capital 8 energy savings to the consumer frees up, where that 9 money ends up in the economy, and the indirect impact 10 to employment. 11 We'll also attempt to analyze and monetize 12 the airborne pollutant emissions associated with this, 13 namely I believe it's SOX and carbon that we'll be 14 monetizing the savings, and then we'll also conduct the 15 Regulatory Impact Analysis in which we explore other 16 alternatives to a standards rulemaking that would 17 potentially elicit greater energy savings in the long 18

run. 19 I suppose I should leave that open to anyone 20 who would like to provide comment on any of these. 21 MR. ECKMAN: Doug? 22

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes? 23 MR. ECKMAN: Tom Eckman. On the Employment 24 Impact Analysis, traditionally you moved money saved 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 65

from energy savings into that analysis. Will this 1 include the money saved from lower water consumption, 2 as well? 3 MR. COOKE: Alan Cooke, PNNL, and I'd have to 4 say that if we actually identified water savings, that 5 that would be an operating cost that we probably would 6 move in there because it would be a direct result of 7 the standards. 8 I don't know. I think that might be new 9 ground. I don't know that we've analyzed any standards 10 where we've addressed that, but I don't know why you 11 wouldn't. 12 MR. ECKMAN: I mean, we heard earlier you 13 can't take it below 20 gallons of whatever it is per 14 hundred but -- 15 MR. COOKE: But with a lot of machines, -- 16 MR. ECKMAN: -- that's a lot of water if 17 you're using more than that today and water costs a 18 chunk of money in the West, at least. 19 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Louis. 20 MR. STARR: Louis Starr, NEEA. And just in 21 general, the single pass condensers, do we have an idea 22 of how much market that is because they use 23 substantially larger amount of water and it looks like 24 from all the numbers you have, if you know the amount 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 66

of them, you have the utilization rate of how much, how 1 often these machines are running, you can calculate 2 that water pretty easily. So maybe someone can mention 3 first what the market share of the single pass 4 condensers are and that should help inform the next one 5 and the water costs. 6 MR. BROOKMAN: Alan. 7 MR. COOKE: Alan Cooke, PNNL. We did discuss 8 this at some length earlier and I think we decided that 9 it's probably not zero or, I mean, it's probably not 10 100 percent single pass. It's probably something less 11 than that, especially in the large hotels, but at this 12 point, we still -- at this point, we're just making an 13 assumption and until we can find some real data or get 14 some feedback from the folks that are here today in the 15 form of some written comments, I'd have to say the 16 answer is we really don't know, don't have a good 17 handle on that number that you were just asking about. 18 MR. STARR: But you have something, right? 19 MR. COOKE: Right. Right now, we just have 20 an assumption that it's all single pass, 100 percent. 21 That's what we've assumed in our analyses thus far. 22 MR. STARR: This is Louis. So what are you 23 using for the water? For your water usage what are you 24 using as the number for an ice machine? 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 67

MR. COOKE: It's going to come straight out 1 of the Engineering Analysis in terms of gallons per 2 hundred pounds of ice and we'll translate that to 3 gallons of water just based on the use of a capacity 4 factor. 5 MR. STARR: Okay. So is that the 20 gallons 6 per hundred pounds of ice that we heard earlier or is 7 that a different number? Does anyone know what that 8 is? 9 MR. COOKE: It's the total of two numbers 10 actually because you have the condenser water in the 11 units with condensers that dump heat into water, plus 12 you also have the 20 gallons which is actually what we 13 call potable water. That's the actual water that comes 14 out in the form of ice, plus in batch machines there's 15 a fair amount of water that goes down the drain after 16 that batch process is over, and I think in some of the 17 continuous ones, there are some water, as well, that 18 comes in the form of a rinse or something in between 19 cycles. There's a little bit in some of those 20 machines, as well, but, anyway, it's potable water plus 21 condenser water. 22 MR. STARR: Okay. 23 MR. BROOKMAN: You can see the so-called 24 downstream analyses listed there. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 68

Other comments or questions related to these 1 analyses? Daryl. 2 MR. ERBS: I guess I'm just looking at this 3 and there's -- Daryl Erbs, Manitowoc Ice. 4 The comment about potential for non5 regulatory approaches, can someone help me with that? 6 MR. COOKE: This is Alan Cooke again. What 7 we'll do is we'll take our models, our Life-Cycle Cost 8 and our NIA models, and we'll look at what might happen 9 if you were to make some assumptions and run some of 10 other kinds of programs, like rebate programs, or 11 something else instead of having a standard. But, 12 generally speaking, it's going to be based on 13 assumptions and whatever data we can rustle up from 14 places like Mr. Eckman's organization that has good 15 data on the impacts of rebate programs. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 17 MR. COOKE: My colleague just suggested that 18 it would be worth asking you about what you think would 19 be good specific subgroups to look at in the LCC 20 Subgroup Analysis. As has been said, we are going to 21 look at those groups that we think will be specifically 22 hardest hit, like, say, the small mom and pop grocery 23 store or restaurant. What are your thoughts? 24 MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 69

MR. ERBS: Yes. Daryl Erbs, Manitowoc Ice. 1 Yes. I think I would encourage that. You know, if you 2 look at independent proprietor-run restaurants, mom and 3 pops, you know, most of them are very constrained from 4 a cash standpoint and so, you know, they don't have an 5 LCC approach. They have how much money do I have and, 6 you know, I'm going to buy the lowest cost ice machine 7 I can and it's very sensitive. They don't have a very 8 long payback window. I mean, I would say typically if 9 they don't see a payback in a year or less, it's not 10 going to be attractive to them. 11 You know, there are other segments, 12 institutional and other segments that, you know, have a 13 little longer window. So I would, you know, encourage 14 you to split those out because, you know, the mom and 15 pops still represent a large segment in the market and 16 it's not just restaurants. It's hotels that are 17 operated by franchisees, even chains. A lot of them 18 are franchise operations, so it's an individual that 19 has to put up the cash to buy the equipment and, you 20 know, they have a lot of needs for that cash every 21 year. So I'm not even sure it's by end use segment but 22 it may be by whether it's an individual owner versus a 23 corporate or, you know, some other type of larger 24 financial institution. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 70

MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments on affected 1 subgroups that would be helpful to the department to 2 explore? 3 (No response.) 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Nothing additional comes to 5 mind? People who would be -- groups who would be 6 disproportionately affected? 7 (No response.) 8 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 9 MR. BARRINGTON: Great. Terrific. With 10 that, we'll move forward then and I guess that brings 11 us right to Closing Remarks, which I think -- 12 MR. BROOKMAN: We're going to fast forward to 13 the -- 14 MR. BARRINGTON: Just go right to it? 15 MR. BROOKMAN: -- next one, to the -- is 16 there a final slide that shows how they profile their 17 comments? Here we go. 18 Now, as we said this morning first thing, 19 another opportunity for anybody that wants to make 20 closing remarks, raise any additional issues that 21 haven't been raised fully, describe issues that are 22 important to cover here at the close. 23 Yes. Daryl. 24 MR. ERBS: Daryl Erbs, Manitowoc Ice. I 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 71

guess I want to just kind of revisit some of the things 1 that were in the document but I think through our 2 discussion have really been, I don't know, confirmed 3 or, you know, brought more to the surface and to me, 4 it's really fundamentally important that we have an 5 accurate assessment of what the potential cost impact 6 is for these efficiency levels and, you know, as we 7 discussed, we'll work to help provide information so 8 that we can get to a more realistic basis for that 9 because without having a good set of cost basis for 10 improving efficiency, then everything else gets 11 affected and we could go down a very wrong path for the 12 industry. 13 I would like to hopefully in some follow-up 14 understand more about the modeling that's being used. 15 We really didn't get a chance to talk about the freeze 16 model and how it actually works and whether it's been 17 validated because, well, it's theoretically, I think, 18 possible to model the process of freezing water into 19 ice. When you get into the harvesting side of it, 20 that's even more dynamic and I think difficult to model 21 and I don't have a very good understanding for how that 22 model actually represents that part of the process. 23 You know, Matt had mentioned at one point in 24 the discussion, you know, putting a bigger condenser in 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 72

may look like it's going to improve the efficiency of 1 the cycle but because you have less heat to operate 2 with, when you're harvesting, you may not see as much 3 benefit as a model might predict if it doesn't fully 4 account for all those interactions. 5 So I think that's an important element that 6 needs to be explored further because that model is 7 somehow driving some of the decisions and some of the 8 estimations of the energy efficiency and these new 9 standards will, unfortunately, be written into law 10 before the manufacturers have the opportunity to go out 11 and try some of these things fully and really 12 understand how they're going to work in practice 13 because I don't believe the timing allows for DOE or 14 its contractors to actually build and test systems to 15 do any validation around some of these concepts. 16 So I think we have to be very cautious or we 17 could end up driving designs by efficiency standards 18 that will cause us to make larger ice machines that 19 don't fit anymore. I'm not convinced we can predict 20 where all of our designs will end up having to go to if 21 we have to stretch to very high-efficiency levels. 22 If they're sort of within the efficiency 23 levels that exist in the marketplace today, we probably 24 have, you know, a better handle on it. So I'm just 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 73

concerned that we push for these maximum levels that we 1 don't have a lot of experience with. 2 And then I've raised some other issues around 3 how some of the assumptions for how the added costs get 4 passed on to the end customer and so again I'd like to 5 explore that further to make sure that we're not 6 underestimating the actual price to the end customer, 7 you know, in terms of adding costs to the unit. 8 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Yes. Matt. 9 MR. ALLISON: Matt Allison with Scotsman. 10 Just to accentuate a couple points that Daryl made, you 11 know, it seems like there's a couple of really key 12 pieces that really drive where this goes and one of 13 those is being the cost that drives the model and the 14 cost for the technologies that we would incorporate. 15 We really need to make sure that those are accurate and 16 we'll do our best to supply information around that to 17 make sure they're what they need to be. 18 But the second area that I really don't see 19 getting addressed anywhere is validation of this model. 20 I mean, the model is really driving what efficiency 21 levels we can get to with what technologies and I don't 22 see where it's in this process anywhere where anybody's 23 going to put, you know, an ECM fan motor in an ice 24 machine and see if it really does give us two percent 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 74

or five percent energy reduction, whatever it is, and, 1 you know, it seems like the model's very incomplete 2 until that occurs. 3 So I don't know if that can be worked into 4 the process in any way, shape, or form. I mean, we can 5 attempt to do something like that but right now, I 6 think that model is driving a lot of decisions that may 7 be erroneous. 8 MR. BROOKMAN: Other closing remarks? Karim. 9 DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. Well, based 10 on what's presented to us today, I think it's at least 11 for AHRI, it's clear that there are some issues with 12 the analysis, in particular, the Engineering Analysis, 13 the cost efficiency curves, and also the LCC Analysis. 14 So, yes, we'll be working with you, with the 15 department to try to improve those analyses, but at the 16 same time, I would like to urge DOE not to rush this 17 rulemaking and to go back and revisit those analyses to 18 see where there could be improvement. 19 As I suggested before, you know, maybe a 20 retail survey might not be a bad idea to check where 21 equipment is in terms of cost and see whether your 22 model is predicting the right cost increase. 23 So I think we are very concerned with what 24 we've seen today and hopefully everybody will go back 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 75

and review all this, but we intend to supply you with 1 some information. 2 MR. BROOKMAN: Anything else? 3 (No response.) 4 Next Steps and Closing Remarks 5 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So then for my part, I 6 thank you all. This was a very constructive exchange 7 today, a lot of information for the Department of 8 Energy, and my personal thanks, and I'll send it back 9 to Charles Llenza for Closing Remarks. 10 MR. LLENZA: I want to thank everybody for 11 attending today's proceedings on the Automatic 12 Commercial Ice-Making Pre-Analysis, by the way, which 13 is a critical keyword here, and we do encourage 14 everybody here and everybody online to take another 15 look at our methodology and not only our numbers but 16 our methodology here and approach and to send us 17

comments. 18 As you can see on this slide, there's e-mail 19 address. You also can send it by slow mail and/or 20 courier and we do have a comment period that ends March 21 9th. I do think that, based on some of the comments 22 here today, while we don't necessarily like to extend 23 the comment period, we certainly could extend this 24 comment period a bit more in order to give the people 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 76

here attending this meeting and people online a bit 1 more time to provide more analysis or thought into the 2 process presented here. 3 MR. ALTMAN: Charlie, this is Ari, GC's 4 Office. What would be the procedure for those 5 commenters who are interested in extending the comment 6 period? That doesn’t just happen automatically, does 7 it? 8 MR. LLENZA: No. We just wouldn't extend it 9 automatically, if we received several parties' 10 requesting an extension to the comment period, we would 11 be probably be amenable to do that at this time. 12 We also will go back and because we have not 13 provided some of the details of the TSL levels that we 14 presented here today, efficiency levels, it's also 15 something that we will put together and to look for 16 either in an e-mail blast announcing that we have put 17 them on our website. We will provide an update to 18 today's presentation with the corrections from today's 19 proceedings and there will also be a transcript 20 available on the discussions of today for everybody to 21 take a good look at within the next week or so. 22 So I also wanted to provide some general 23 information in terms of our website and the web page 24 for our particular product here for automatic 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 77

commercial ice makers. My e-mail address and phone 1 number, you're certainly welcome to contact me, but I 2 would recommend e-mail better and most of the comments 3 or requests I will certainly enter to the record so 4 that we have those recorded, and also -- if there's 5 anything in particular that the Department should know 6 at a general level, there's John Cymbalsky's number and 7 e-mail information on there, too, if he needs to be 8 contacted. 9 So as I promised, the backup slide has the 10 listing of questions. I'm not going to go over all 11 them but, once again, thank you all for attending 12 today's proceedings on behalf of the Department of 13 Energy. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: And we should thank those that 15 have joined us via the Web. 16 MR. LLENZA: Also. 17 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Safe travels. 18 (Whereupon, at 2:17 p.m., the meeting was 19 concluded.) 20
21
22
23
24
25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 78
**REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE**

This is to certify that the attached proceedings
before:
**U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY** In the Matter of:

**PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS** 

Were held as herein appears and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Department, Commission, Board, Administrative Law Judge or the Agency. Further, I am neither counsel for or related to any party to the above proceedings.



### Debra Derr Official Reporter Dated: February 23, 2012