Page 1

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

 + + + + + 

 ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS: 

 NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 

 FOR AUTOMATIC COMMERCIAL ICE MAKERS 

 + + + + + 

 PUBLIC MEETING 

 + + + + + 

 MONDAY 

 APRIL 14, 2014 

 + + + + + 

 The Public Meeting met in Room 

8E-089, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, D.C., at 9:00 a.m., Doug Brookman, 

Meeting Facilitator, presiding. 

PRESENT: 

DOUG BROOKMAN, Meeting Facilitator, Public 

Solutions, Inc. 

JOHN CYMBALSKY, Department of Energy 

FRANCINE PINTO, Department of Energy 

DOUG RAWALD, Department of Energy 

ALSO PRESENT: 
Page 2

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

KARIM AMRANE, AHRI 

BEN BARRINGTON, Navigant Consulting, Inc. 

SCOTT BINGHAM, Follett Corporation 

JAVIER BURGOS, Navigant Consulting, Inc. 

ALAN COOKE, Pacific Northwest National 

 Laboratory 

SCOTT DeSHETLER, Ice-O-Matic 

DARYL ERBS, Manitowoc Foodservice 

TOM LASECKI, Scotsman Ice Systems 

FRANK MOORE, North American Association of 

 Food Equipment Manufacturers 

MICHELLE NIEMEYER, Pacific Northwest National 

 Laboratory 

CHRIS NITZ, Danfoss LLC 

GEORGE PARSONS, Ice-O-Matic 

LAURA PETRILLO-GROH, AHRI 

CRAIG RANEY, Emerson Climate Technologies 

HOWARD RICKETTS, Ice-O-Matic 

CHRIS SALATINO, Scotsman Ice Systems 

STEVEN SCHAEFER, Hoshizaki America, Inc. 

LOUIS STARR, Northwest Energy Efficiency 

 Alliance 

RON SOBAN, Greenfield Worldtrade 

DETLEF WESTPHALEN, Navigant Consulting, Inc. 

ROBERT WILKINS, Danfoss, Inc. 

MARK WUTTKE, Scotsman Ice Systems 

 TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Page 3

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Welcome, Introductions, 

Opening Statements 

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

Overview, scope Market and Technology 

Assessment, Screening Analysis ............. 8 

Engineering Analysis 

 ....................... 96 

Markup Analysis, Energy Use, Life-Cycle 

Cost and Payback Period Analysis 

 ......... 108 

Markup Analysis, Energy Use, ............. 180 

Life-Cycle Cost and Payback 

Period Analysis (continued) 

Shipments, National Impact ............... 230 

Analysis, Regulatory Impact 

Analysis 

Manufacturer Impact Analysis ............. 247 

Emissions Analysis, Utility .............. 324 

Impact Analysis, Employment 

Analysis 

TSLs ....................................... 335 

Closing Remarks ........................... 355 
Page 4

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

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

2 9:10 a.m. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, let’s begin and 

4 hopefully the Internet connection is with us 

5 here. 

6 Good morning everyone. Welcome. 

7 This is the Appliance Standards meeting this 

8 Energy Conservation Standards Notice of 

9 Proposed Rulemaking for automatic commercial 

10 ice makers. Today is April 14, 2014 here in 

11 the Forrestal Building in Washington, D.C. and 

12 my name is Doug Brookman from Public Solutions 

13 in Baltimore. 

14 We’re going to start with welcoming 

15 remarks from John Cymbalsky. 

16 MR. CYMBALSKY: Thanks, Doug. 

17 I’m John Cymbalsky, I’m the Program 

18 Manager for Appliance Standards here at the 

19 Department and let me welcome you to the 

20 meeting. 

21 I’ll just say briefly, we’ve 

22 received a lot of interest in this meeting 
Page 5

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 which I think is very good that people are 

2 paying attention and commenting on what we’ve 

3 done so we appreciate that. 

4 And I said it a little bit ago, but 

5 it’s going to get very warm in this room, so 

6 you won’t be offending anybody by being a 

7 little more casual in the room to be 

8 comfortable. We’re going to be here a while, 

9 so might as well dig in and get comfortable. 

10 Thank you. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. We always 

12 start with introductions around the room. 

13 You can get used to turning these microphones 

14 on and off. The little green diode or 

15 whatever that is gets illuminated when it‘s 

16 on. Yes. 

17 Name and organization or 

18 affiliation. 

19 MR. BINGHAM: Scott Bingham, 

20 Follett Corporation. 

21 MR. PARSONS: George Parsons, 

22 Ice-O-Matic. 
Page 6

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 MR. ERBS: Daryl Erbs, Manitowoc 

2 Food Service. 

3 MR. NITZ: Good morning, Chris Nitz, 

4 Danfoss. 

5 MR. RANEY: Craig Raney, Emerson 

6 Climate Technologies. 

7 MR. SCHAEFER: Stephen Schaefer, 

8 Hoshizaki America. 

9 MR. SOBAN: Ron Soban, Kold-Draft. 

10 MR. MOORE: Frank Moore with NAFEM. 

11 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Laura 

12 Petrillo-Groh, AHRI. 

13 MR. STARR: Louis Starr, Northwest 

14 Energy Efficiency Alliance. 

15 MR. DELASKI: Andres deLaski, 

16 Appliance Standards Awareness Project. 

17 MR. SALATINO: Chris Salatino, 

18 Scotsman Ice Systems. 

19 MS. PINTO: Francine Pinto, Office 

20 of General Counsel, Department of Energy. 

21 MR. RAWALD: Doug Rawald, 

22 Department of Energy’s Office of General 
Page 7

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 Counsel. 

2 MR. BURGOS: Javier Burgos, 

3 Navigant Consulting. 

4 MR. WESTPHALEN: Detlef Westphalen, 

5 Navigant Consulting, did that work? 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: No, I don’t think so. 

7 It goes in and out in that spot. 

8 MR. WESTPHALEN: Detlef Westphalen, 

9 Navigant Consulting. 

10 MR. BARRINGTON: Ben Barrington, 

11 Navigant Consulting. 

12 MR. COOKE: Alan Cooke, Pacific 

13 Northwest National Laboratory. 

14 MS. NIEMEYER: Michelle Niemeyer, 

15 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 

16 MR. RICKETTS: Howard Ricketts, 

17 Ice-O-Matic. 

18 MR. DESHETLER: Scott DeShetler, 

19 Ice-O-Matic. 

20 MR. LASECKI: Tom Lasecki, Scotsman 

21 Ice Systems. 

22 MR. WUTTKE: Mark Wuttke, Scotsman 
Page 8

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 Ice Systems. 

2 MR. WILKINS: Robert Wilkins, 

3 Danfoss. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Did everyone get a 

5 chance to introduce him or herself? 

6 All of you received a packet of 

7 information when you came in this morning. 

8 There’s an agenda on Page 2. I’m going to go 

9 through that very briefly. 

10 Immediately following this agenda 

11 review, we’re going to hear a little more 

12 content, detailed comment from John Cymbalsky 

13 and then following John, an opportunity for 

14 opening statements, brief summary statements 

15 here at the outset, issues that matter to you 

16 surrounding this rule making. 

17 We’ll move from there directly into 

18 the content laden packet you have in front of 

19 you. Overviews, scope, market and technology 

20 assessments, screening analysis. 

21 We’ll take a break mid-morning 

22 around about 10:15 or so. 
Page 9

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 Following that, engineering 

2 analysis and proceeding directly marked up 

3 analysis, energy use, life-cycle costs and 

4 payback period analysis. 

5 We’ll take lunch around about noon 

6 today. 

7 Returning from lunch, shipments, 

8 national impact analysis, regulatory impact 

9 analysis and then directly manufacturer 

10 impact analysis and missions analysis, 

11 utility impact analysis, employment analysis. 

12 We’ll take a break mid-afternoon 

13 around about 2:00 or so. 

14 And then following the mid-afternoon 

15 break, or whenever we get there, the content 

16 on proposed standards themselves. 

17 And as you can see in the agenda, 

18 closing remarks at the end of the day. At the 

19 end of the day, yet another opportunity for 

20 anybody that wishes to raise additional issues 

21 that haven’t been covered sufficiently. 

22 Another opportunity right there. Okay? 
Page 10

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 I’d ask for your consideration, 

2 please, if you’d speak one at a time today. 

3 Everybody’s gotten used to turning these 

4 microphones on and off, please try and get them 

5 close to your face so we can capture a complete 

6 record of this meeting. 

7 Please say your name each time you 

8 speak. There’ll be a complete transcript of 

9 the meeting made available. If you can be 

10 concise and share the air-time. Keep the 

11 focus here. If your cell phones are not on 

12 silent or off at this point, please turn them 

13 on silent. Limit sidebar conversations. 

14 And webinar participants, we welcome 

15 you. We’re happy that you could join us via 

16 the web. The Department of Energy’s trying 

17 hard to make these meetings very accessible to 

18 all. 

19 If you would keep your telephones on 

20 mute, it will diminish the feedback we receive 

21 here in the room and you can raise your hand 

22 in the software that we’re using to be 
Page 11

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 recognized and, hopefully, we’ll be able to 

2 hear you in the room. You ought to be able to 

3 speak and we ought to be able to hear you. And 

4 if not, we’ll find a way to get messages passed 

5 back and forth to the webmaster here and we’ll 

6 get you included in this conversation. 

7 So that’s all the preliminary stuff 

8 from me. 

9 To John Cymbalsky. 

10 MR. CYMBALSKY: Thank you, Doug. 

11 John Cymbalsky, DOE. 

12 So the Department and, in fact, the 

13 entire United States Government, because I’ll 

14 speak on behalf of a couple different agencies 

15 here, understands the issues with R-404A and 

16 the refrigerant that you use for these 

17 products. 

18 I understand that EPA has a 

19 rulemaking underway in terms of deciding which 

20 end uses to delist, or not delist for that 

21 particular refrigerant. 

22 I just want to assure everybody in 
Page 12

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 the room that the agencies are talking to one 

2 another. Both agencies understand the 

3 importance of R-404A for this product. 

4 While I can’t say what EPA’s going to 

5 do, I can tell you at the highest levels of the 

6 Government, because I talk to people who are 

7 sort of overseeing both of us in this area, 

8 that they understand the issue with this. So 

9 I just want to say up front that I don’t want 

10 to mitigate your concerns because, obviously, 

11 you should be concerned. 

12 All I want to say is that we 

13 understand it. The standard that we 

14 eventually will proceed with here will be 

15 refrigerant neutral in any way that it can. 

16 And I point to what we wrote in the preamble 

17 for the final rule for commercial 

18 refrigeration equipment where we stated 

19 explicitly that if refrigerants became an 

20 issue, there would be a process to get relief 

21 from these standards. And so, we plan on 

22 going forward with that with this rule as well. 
Page 13

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 And so, the reason I bring this up is 

2 because I don’t want this to become a 

3 refrigerant meeting. That’s not what this is 

4 about. You will have your chance to comment 

5 on whatever EPA says over the summer with 

6 respect to the refrigerant for this product. 

7 I just want to say up front that DOE 

8 and EPA and the Administration, all three, 

9 understand the importance of that particular 

10 refrigerant for this product. So feel free to 

11 comment on that but please, if you want to make 

12 that comment, please make it brief or submit 

13 it in writing and we will, obviously, include 

14 it in the final rule. 

15 But again, I don’t want this meeting 

16 to be about 404A not being available so that 

17 this whole body of work in front of you is 

18 irrelevant because that’s not the case and we 

19 don’t want this meeting to become about that. 

20 A few other topics people have talked 

21 about, I received some communications about 

22 can we negotiate a final rule? Given that 
Page 14

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 we’ve put this proposal out and all I’ll say 

2 is, you know, DOE has put out a proposal and 

3 whether or not there’s room or the want to 

4 negotiate around this, you know, you know, the 

5 Department’s always open to ideas about that. 

6 But other than that, please let’s 

7 focus on the material that’s in the NOPR and 

8 I think, as always, your public comment is 

9 what’s going to form the final rule. So we 

10 appreciate that. And let’s have a very 

11 productive meeting. 

12 Thank you. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

14 As we had said at the outset, an 

15 opportunity for opening remarks. Laura? 

16 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Good morning. 

17 My name is Laura Petrillo-Groh. I am the 

18 Engineering Manager of Regulatory Affairs at 

19 Air Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration 

20 Institute. 

21 AHRI is a trade association 

22 representing 350 manufacturers of heating, 
Page 15

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 cooling, water heating and commercial 

2 refrigeration equipment. 

3 In the United States alone, AHRI’s 

4 members employ approximately 130,000 people 

5 and support some 800,000 dealers, contractors 

6 and technicians. Seven of AHRI’s members 

7 manufacture automatic commercial ice makers 

8 in the United States. 

9 DOE estimates that those seven 

10 companies account for approximately 95 

11 percent of all commercialized ice makers sold 

12 in the United States. 

13 We appreciate the opportunity to 

14 comment on the DOE Notice of Proposed 

15 Rulemaking on the Energy Conservation 

16 Standards for Automatic Commercial Ice 

17 Makers. However, we have several pressing 

18 concerns that need to be addressed before this 

19 regulation goes into effect. 

20 There are significant issues in the 

21 analysis and the current direction of this 

22 rulemaking will place significant burden on 
Page 16

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 the industry. The completion of this 

2 rulemaking under the current process will be 

3 difficult or require the expenditure of 

4 considerable resources by the DOE and the 

5 industry and will likely not be implemented in 

6 a timely fashion. 

7 We believe that a final rule for ACIM 

8 equipment can be developed more quickly and 

9 more efficiently through a negotiated 

10 rulemaking process. We request that a 

11 commercial ice maker working group be 

12 established through ASRAC to negotiate a 

13 revised efficiency standard for ACIM. 

14 Thank you, John, for acknowledging 

15 the Department’s commitment to creating a 

16 refrigerant neutral rule. Not only will SNAP 

17 ban R-404A, it’s also looking at 1R134A which 

18 these refrigerants are used in all commercial 

19 ice makers. 

20 While the DOE cannot be expected to 

21 speculate on the final rules that will result 

22 from the SNAP rulemakings, the burden that 
Page 17

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 will be imposed on the ACIM manufacturer by 

2 regulations will cause them to change 

3 refrigerants is significant and will require 

4 a major redesign just to maintain current 

5 efficiency levels. 

6 This burden must be accounted for in 

7 the rulemaking. In particular, the 

8 engineering analysis for ACIM efficiency 

9 rulemaking should reflect the use of 

10 alternative refrigerants instead of current 

11 Commercial refrigerants. 

12 DOE cannot simply estimate the cost 

13 -- 

14 OPERATOR: Star one to allow all 

15 attendees to hear you. This system will 

16 notify you once you begin your broadcast. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Keep going. 

18 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: DOE cannot 

19 simply estimate the cost effectiveness of new 

20 energy conservation standards and the energy 

21 savings over a 30 year period based on 

22 equipment designs that use refrigerants that 
Page 18

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 will unlikely be around three years from now. 

2 Since the -- 

3 OPERATOR: The broadcast is now 

4 starting. All attendees are in listen only 

5 mode. 

6 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Since the 

7 alternative refrigerants will not be known 

8 until the next SNAP rollout is completed. DOE 

9 should put a hold on the ACIM standards 

10 rulemaking. 

11 A three year compliance period is not 

12 adequate for this rulemaking given the 

13 severity of the proposed rule. It is more 

14 severe than the related change that was 

15 imposed by the January 2010 final rule and the 

16 scope of the proposed rule has expanded 

17 considerably. 

18 Further, a three year period is 

19 inadequate for manufacturers to obtain more 

20 efficient components from suppliers to meet 

21 proposed revision of standards. 

22 The DOE has underestimated the cost 
Page 19

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 efficiency approving design options and 

2 overestimated the energy savings. Section 

3 5.9.2 of the technical support document claims 

4 that for a ten percent increase in EER, this 

5 relationship yields a five percent increase in 

6 costs consistent with the approach used for 

7 the CRE rulemaking. 

8 This is not consistent with the 

9 approach as described in the final CRE 

10 rulemaking. 

11 There is significant concern about 

12 DOE’s assumptions regarding the advances in 

13 compressor technology anticipated before the 

14 compliance date. If a ten percent compressor 

15 efficiency improvement were possible for a 

16 five percent cost increase, then it is most 

17 likely that manufacturers would have already 

18 adopted this technology. 

19 During the CRE rulemaking, DOE 

20 received comments on this specific item. In 

21 the CRE final rule, DOE implemented the 

22 suggestion of Danfoss, a major supplier 
Page 20

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 present today, which stated that a two percent 

2 increase in performance over today’s 

3 standards offerings with the corresponding 

4 cost increase of five percent is attainable. 

5 The DOE needs to update its 

6 performance and cost modeling of compressors 

7 and provide adequate time for comments prior 

8 to publishing a final rule. 

9 There is significant concern that 

10 thorough testing has not been conducted to 

11 validate the calculated efficiency gain from 

12 design options. The engineering analysis 

13 treats the efficiency gains and costs for 

14 implementing each successive design option as 

15 a purely additive. 

16 Just as manufacturers are expected 

17 to validate and prove AEDMs, the DOE should 

18 validate and prove out claims made in the 

19 engineering analysis. 

20 For example, DOE references two 

21 IMH-A-Small-B ice makers that are currently 

22 available on the market but have different 
Page 21

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 design options. The difference in efficiency 

2 for these two machines is 15 percent. But 

3 when DOE applies the same design options in 

4 their model, the predicted reduction in energy 

5 use is 23.5 percent. This is incorrect and 

6 needs to be reevaluated. 

7 AHRI looks forward to working with 

8 the Department and others in establishing a 

9 workable and credible energy conservation 

10 standards for ice makers. 

11 Thank you for the opportunity to 

12 present our views. We will provide more 

13 detailed comments in writing. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

15 Additional comments here at the 

16 outset? Daryl? 

17 MR. ERBS: Good morning. I’d like 

18 to first off, my position is Vice-President of 

19 Technology with Manitowoc Foodservice. We 

20 manufacture and sell Commercial ice machines 

21 under the Manitowoc and other brands. 

22 In terms of my opening comments, I’ll 
Page 22

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 leave the refrigerant issue aside but in terms 

2 of just overall burden that it places on us as 

3 a manufacturer as DOE has noted, and I agree 

4 with, we would have to redesign probably 

5 something in the order of 90 percent of our 

6 models to comply with the proposed efficiency 

7 standards. 

8 When you look at the approach that we 

9 need to go through in terms of designing and 

10 validating those efficiency levels, it’s an 

11 experimental approach. We’re required to 

12 test multiple samples of each basic model. We 

13 don’t have an AEDM so each basic model 

14 basically represents any variant to the design 

15 that can affect energy efficiency. When you 

16 put that all together, it’s an enormous task 

17 for us. 

18 We also manufacture commercial 

19 reach-in equipment. That standard is now 

20 final. It’s going to take effect in the same 

21 time frame so and from a standpoint of how we 

22 do our engineering work at our company, we 
Page 23

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 leverage scarce resources. 

2 So test labs and other large capital 

3 investment resources are a shared resource for 

4 us and so to have to deal with the Commercial 

5 reach-in and the ice machine and I fully expect 

6 that there will be impact to our walk-in 

7 refrigeration systems which we also 

8 manufacture in that time frame. 

9 It’s really an incredible burden to 

10 us even if we don’t need to change the 

11 refrigerants that we’re working with and, you 

12 know, we’ll see how that plays out. But so I 

13 think there is a very significant burden 

14 that’s going to be placed on us. I don’t see 

15 any way that we could get all of that redesign 

16 work done on all those different product 

17 classes in a three year time period. It’s 

18 just -- 

19 And then when you look at could we go 

20 to third-party resources, we’re all going to 

21 be in that same boat and there aren’t enough 

22 third-party resources to really supplement 
Page 24

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 what the industry has available and get that 

2 work done. 

3 My next point would be the technical 

4 models for the ice machine performance based 

5 on test data that we’ve actually recently 

6 developed tells me that there some significant 

7 deficiencies in the models that were used to 

8 arrive at the proposed efficiency levels. 

9 I think that Navigant has done a 

10 really good job of trying to correct their 

11 model to take into account for some of the 

12 unique characteristics of ice machines but I 

13 don’t believe that it’s possible to really do 

14 that accurately for an ice machine. It’s 

15 something we’ve been trying to do for ten years 

16 and we’re not comfortable that we have a model 

17 that can predict all the effects yet. 

18 And so I think that, based on what 

19 we’ve seen, there’s a gross over prediction of 

20 the performance for some of the technical 

21 options. 

22 I think there’s also a big disconnect 
Page 25

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 in terms of the cost assumptions for these 

2 technical options and, again, we have data as 

3 a manufacturer that, you know, I think they’re 

4 off in some cases by a factor of two of the cost 

5 impact for some of the technical options. 

6 When you put those two together, it 

7 causes real concern for me as a manufacturer 

8 that the levels that were selected are not, in 

9 fact, the optimum from a life cycle cost 

10 standpoint. They may not even meet the 

11 requirement that the energy savings is 

12 basically that the cost addition to the 

13 product should be no more than three times the 

14 first year energy savings. 

15 I’m not convinced that these changes 

16 will satisfy that requirement. Oh, it isn’t? 

17 Well that’s what was written in the -- 

18 MR. CYMBALSKY: Sorry, you’re 

19 confusing the rebuttable presumption with the 

20 analysis that if it’s under three years, we can 

21 do it without any analysis essentially. 

22 MR. ERBS: Right. 
Page 26

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 MR. CYMBALSKY: But it could go up as 

2 high as the lifetime. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: That’s John 

4 Cymbalsky. Thank you, John. Now back to 

5 Daryl. 

6 MR. ERBS: So my mistake, but then I 

7 would say if it goes out beyond that level of 

8 payback, our customers basically will not find 

9 that to be an economic situation that they can 

10 accept. 

11 My next point would be that the 

12 analysis that’s been done has really been 

13 around 30-inch ice machines. There are 

14 smaller cabinets, there are 22-inch models 

15 that the technical options, I do not believe, 

16 would be something that could be included 

17 within. 

18 So I have real significant concerns 

19 that we would actually no longer be able to 

20 produce and sell a 22-inch air cooled ice 

21 machine as a result of these efficiency 

22 standards. 
Page 27

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 There are applications in the market 

2 where people can’t go to a 30-inch ice machine 

3 instead of a 22-inch so we’re going to take an 

4 entire segment of ice machines off the market 

5 as a result of this rulemaking. 

6 And then my final point would be all 

7 of the analysis is done at the rating point 

8 which is a 90 degree air, 70 degree water 

9 condition. We have to make ice machines that 

10 are reliable over a much wider range of 

11 ambient. 

12 Some of these technical design 

13 options could have significant impact to the 

14 reliability and the ability to make ice at the 

15 full range of ambient conditions and there 

16 hasn’t been any analysis done to show that 

17 there isn’t an adverse effect to the overall 

18 operating range that our customers require as 

19 a result of implementing these proposed 

20 efficiency standards. 

21 Thank you. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Let me just step back 
Page 28

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 one step here. Many of you, most of you are 

2 very familiar with this rulemaking process. 

3 You know that we’re going to go through the 

4 slides in great detail as the day goes on. So 

5 I would encourage you as best you can, while 

6 it’s nice to hear an overview statement, we 

7 don’t want to have a preview of the entire 

8 day’s discussion here at the outset. Okay? 

9 So if we can try and keep these truncated 

10 that’d be very helpful. 

11 Robert, do you have a comment here, 

12 please? 

13 MR. WILKINS: Yes, very truncated. 

14 First, I’d like to say thanks to John 

15 for your comments on refrigerants and R-404A 

16 in particular. This is a critical issue 

17 facing our industry. 

18 And to make a general point at this 

19 stage, I would urge DOE to be explicitly 

20 supportive and receptive to low GWP 

21 refrigerants, not just to say we know they’re 

22 out there and things might happen in EPA, but 
Page 29

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 rather to be supportive of moving towards more 

2 climate friendly refrigerants such as 

3 isobutane, propane and there are other 

4 synthetics as well. 

5 Thank you. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Robert. 

7 Did you wish to comment? Your name 

8 please. 

9 MR. PARSONS: George Parsons, 

10 Vice-President of Engineering for 

11 Ice-O-Matic. 

12 Mile High Equipment Ice-O-Matic is a 

13 60-year-old manufacturer of ice machines in 

14 the Denver, Colorado area where we manufacture 

15 97 percent of the ice machines we sell. And 

16 we’re very proud of the fact that we compete 

17 not only in the United States, but we compete 

18 globally. 

19 We have a number of our machines 

20 Energy Star rated and we continue to pursue new 

21 technology and systems to increase that number 

22 daily. 
Page 30

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 We make the continuous improvements 

2 while listening and responding to our 

3 customers’ ever-changing needs. What the 

4 customers tell us, that they want ice machines 

5 that deliver more product in a smaller space. 

6 That ever-shrinking footprint is threatened 

7 by the work we’re talking about here. 

8 We’re talking about making the 

9 product bigger to make it more energy 

10 efficient which will impact our customers. 

11 More importantly, the customers will 

12 not be getting the product that they want and 

13 need out in their retail space. 

14 As with all of my counterparts 

15 sitting around the table here, we continuously 

16 work through research and development to 

17 significantly improve our energy efficiency 

18 every day. It’s much greater today than it 

19 was just a few years ago. 

20 We’re everyday looking for more 

21 efficient compressors, more efficient fan 

22 motors, more efficient cool water pumps and 
Page 31

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 implementing clever control-circuit logic to 

2 take advantage of these new components. 

3 As with most technology, this has 

4 been an iterative process. However, the 

5 standard is demanding as much as a 35 percent 

6 energy efficiency improvement over our 

7 existing standards today. In some cases, up 

8 to 70 percent over the current Energy Star 

9 standards. 

10 Most people would say this is not a 

11 progressive or iterative approach, it’s a very 

12 disruptive approach. 

13 Through months of analysis by our 

14 engineering team working in conjunction with 

15 many of the component suppliers sitting around 

16 this table today, we firmly believe that the 

17 DOE claim of maximum available technology is 

18 not here and will not be here in the next five 

19 to six years. 

20 Even if these technologies were 

21 available, it would require a complete 

22 redesign of all of our ice machines resulting 
Page 32

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 in years of engineering workload. That would 

2 be a critical burden on our business, our 

3 agencies, but most importantly, our 

4 customers. 

5 In addition, we’re convinced that 

6 the DOE ice machine analysis is riddled with 

7 miscalculations and faulty assumptions based 

8 on learnings from past air conditioning and 

9 Commercial refrigeration technologies. 

10 As most everyone in this room knows, 

11 the unique freeze-thaw freeze-cycle of an ice 

12 machine in no way resembles the frost, defrost 

13 cycle of Commercial refrigeration. 

14 Our analysis suggests that larger 

15 condensers and higher efficiency compressors 

16 will result in a much larger footprint of these 

17 ice machines. Therefore, when an operator 

18 needs to replace an ice machine, they’ve got 

19 to find more space. Eighty percent of the 

20 sales in this market are replacement. 

21 If they have to find more space, it’s 

22 much more costly to replace an ice machine to 
Page 33

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 make those changes. Therefore, it’s unlikely 

2 that the operator sees any type of investment 

3 return solely from energy savings. 

4 The impact of this increased cost of 

5 a new ice machine installation will tend to 

6 make customers hold on to existing machines 

7 much longer by repairing them. This will have 

8 a devastating impact on the ice machine 

9 industry in the United States. 

10 I would say in closing, Ice-O-Matic 

11 fully understands the need for increased 

12 energy efficiency, lower water usage in our 

13 products. In fact, we support the work to 

14 achieve higher energy efficiency standards. 

15 However, we believe the technology is not yet 

16 where it needs to be to achieve the current 

17 lofty proposals or nor do we think the time 

18 frame allotted is realistic even if the said 

19 technology was available. 

20 Thank you. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

22 Additional opening statements? Scott? 
Page 34

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 MR. BINGHAM: Hi, my name is Scott 

2 Bingham. I’m with Follett Corporation. 

3 We’re a generation family business, small 

4 family business out of Easton, PA. 

5 Some of what I’m going to say is 

6 germane to the entire industry but some of this 

7 is specific to us kind of underscoring Daryl’s 

8 point that a model that would take into account 

9 all ice makers is impractical. 

10 We found that reliability is number 

11 one on our end-users list and many of the 

12 design criteria we’ve put in place to make a 

13 machine more reliable does not help the energy 

14 efficiency. 

15 For example, we only make continuous 

16 type ice makers. We have implemented a robust 

17 gear motor that tends to create long life but 

18 has a higher energy draw than a corresponding 

19 smaller deer motor. We flush regularly to 

20 help get scale out of the machine to keep it 

21 cleaner and keep it -- so they will last 

22 longer. Both of these impact the energy 
Page 35

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 efficiency. 

2 In addition, sanitation is a key 

3 piece for end-users. We’ve developed a 

4 machine that can automatically fill an ice and 

5 beverage dispenser from up to 75 feet away 

6 because the ice can be pumped through a tube. 

7 This ability to pump ice through a tube impacts 

8 the energy efficiency of this machine. 

9 The ice and beverage dispenser is 

10 more sanitary because there’s no ice maker on 

11 top of it. It makes it easier to sanitize 

12 because there’s no ice maker on top of it to 

13 remove. 

14 In addition, on occasion, ice and 

15 beverage dispensers are installed underneath 

16 a low ceiling or a soffit where it’s virtually 

17 impossible to place an ice maker on top of it. 

18 So this would be perhaps the only way for an 

19 operator to automatically fill an ice and 

20 beverage dispenser without the opportunity to 

21 bring it into contact with human hands to have 

22 potential cross contamination with that. 
Page 36

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 So many ice makers, ours included, 

2 have specific features that impact the energy 

3 efficiency of the machine and are dramatically 

4 different from the way other machines are 

5 manufactured. 

6 If this regulation were put into 

7 place, at a minimum, it would drive great costs 

8 into our product and into the resources within 

9 our building and, at a maximum, because of our 

10 nature as a small niche player in this business 

11 would call into question the viability of our 

12 business going forward. 

13 Thank you. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

15 Additional opening remarks? 

16 Stephen? 

17 MR. SCHAEFER: Good morning. I’m 

18 Stephen Schaefer with Hoshizaki America. I’m 

19 the team leader for an administration group. 

20 I’d like to say that sitting around 

21 this table, we’ve got many players who are 

22 stewards for our energy efficiency. We’ve 
Page 37

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 been recognized from Energy Star as Partners 

2 of the Year, Scotsman, Manitowoc, Hoshizaki 

3 America. 

4 We take great pride in not only the 

5 energy efficiency, but also the quality and 

6 reliability of our machines. 

7 Looking at the undertaking that 

8 would need to meet a 30 percent increase in 

9 energy efficiency will be a huge burden on our 

10 industry. 

11 If you look at our industry from 2005 

12 standard, on average, we’ve not only increased 

13 the energy efficiency by 20 percent -- 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Hold on just one 

15 second. Why doesn’t anyone not speaking make 

16 sure your microphone is turned off. Let’s try 

17 that first. Maybe that helped a little bit. 

18 Okay, Stephen, keep going. 

19 MR. SCHAEFER: We had a 20 percent 

20 increase in ice production, a 30 percent 

21 decrease in energy consumption and a 25 

22 percent decrease in water use. We’ve done a 
Page 38

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 great job with a very hard niche market. An 

2 ice machine is not like a refrigerator where 

3 you just have the compressors going and going 

4 and going and can stabilize to meet the needs. 

5 We’ve got to freeze the water and 

6 then slam it to go into harvest. So it’s a 

7 very complex system which our engineers have 

8 gone through great deal of time and effort to 

9 make the most energy efficient product. 

10 So looking at not only the commercial 

11 refrigeration field that we’re going to have 

12 to go through and redesign our refrigerators, 

13 we’re also looking at this and the SNAP. 

14 We greatly look forward to working 

15 together for a negotiated rulemaking to look 

16 at what the most benefit to our field is 

17 because we would like to do the best we can with 

18 our suppliers to make the most energy 

19 efficient. But right now, with our analysis, 

20 we do not see an additional five to ten percent 

21 available in the next three to five years. 

22 So we look forward to working with 
Page 39

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 you to make the best possible energy 

2 efficiency that we can do because in the end, 

3 ice makers are not the most energy users in the 

4 restaurant or the hospitals. We’re very 

5 minute compared to other areas. 

6 So let’s look at everything in 

7 comparison and we look forward to the 

8 challenge ahead of us. 

9 Thank you very much. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

11 Yes, Chris? 

12 MR. SALATINO: Good morning, Chris 

13 Salatino. I’m Vice-President of Engineering 

14 for Scotsman Ice Systems. 

15 I just want to take a couple minutes 

16 to give you some of our opening remarks. 

17 Scotsman endorses the Department of 

18 Energy’s efforts to increase the efficiency 

19 levels for the ice maker category. 

20 Additionally, we appreciate the numerous 

21 considerations that DOE have analyzed in 

22 setting new efficiency targets for our 
Page 40

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 industry. 

2 As an Energy Star Partner of the Year 

3 Award winner for the last two years, we are 

4 committed to developing and commercializing 

5 energy efficient ice makers that meet all of 

6 the demands of our customers and are compliant 

7 with government regulations. 

8 With that, based on our experience, 

9 the technological feasibility and performance 

10 improvement opportunity associated with the 

11 design options identified in this proposed 

12 rulemaking has been overestimated and the 

13 economic justification impact to equipment 

14 reliability and the development time required 

15 to meet the proposed standards have been 

16 underestimated. 

17 The targeted efficiency gains 

18 proposed in this proposed rulemaking are based 

19 on technological feasibility assessments of 

20 components not currently utilized in the ice 

21 maker industry. 

22 We have not been able to identify 
Page 41

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 components under consideration of this 

2 proposed rulemaking that meet the asserted 

3 efficiency gains in a system application, do 

4 not negatively impact equipment reliability 

5 across the operating envelope, and meet the 

6 purchase-cost-increase-to-energy-savings 

7 ratio expectations for ice makers. 

8 Additionally, the assessments of the 

9 proposed technology in this rulemaking are 

10 focused on one environmental condition. Our 

11 equipment must perform reliably over a much 

12 broader spectrum of environments. We are 

13 bound by our customers to develop equipment 

14 that maximizes ice production per cubic foot, 

15 maximizes reliability across the operating 

16 envelope and minimizes the operating costs 

17 across the envelope. 

18 Focusing ice maker performance at 

19 one condition is detrimental for the machine 

20 reliability across the operating envelope. 

21 The decreased machine reliability and 

22 lessening of available ice per cubic foot 
Page 42

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 negatively impacts the end user business model 

2 by constraining sales of primary profit 

3 generating beverage products supported by the 

4 ice maker in a food service application. 

5 We have requested component cost 

6 increases relative to our baseline technology 

7 from the ice maker vendor base and external 

8 components suppliers and have found that ECMs 

9 cost increase will be two to three hundred 

10 percent over baseline owners. High 

11 efficiency compressor cost increases will be 

12 up to 30 percent over baseline components. 

13 Please note that we have not 

14 successfully proven both components 

15 performance and reliability effectiveness 

16 within an ice maker across the application 

17 operating envelope. 

18 We have recorded data that indicates 

19 we are able to meet TSL-1 performance by 

20 increasing evaporator size 50 percent to 

21 condenser size 35 percent. These two changes 

22 would increase manufactured product costs 25 
Page 43

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 percent and would increase the cabinet size of 

2 our models. 

3 Increasing cabinet size requires our 

4 customers to invest in their facilities to 

5 accommodate newer equipment of larger cubic 

6 dimension. These investments vary by 

7 regional labor rates but can be up to 

8 $30,000.00 per outlet. The alternative to 

9 this is constrained beverage sales by 

10 minimized ice capacity for fountain beverage 

11 dispensers having fixed footprints. Neither 

12 of these economic impacts have been accounted 

13 for in the DOE evaluation. 

14 Another economic impact that has not 

15 been accounted for in the evaluation is the 

16 impact these regulations have on our ability 

17 to compete in the global market. We will be 

18 competing with lower manufactured product 

19 costs ice maker products not governed by the 

20 standard across global market segments in 

21 which customers’ primary decision criteria on 

22 the sale price. 
Page 44

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 This burden contradicts the 

2 President’s intent to increase American 

3 exports and remove barriers that prevent 

4 American businesses from selling their 

5 products and services in growing markets. 

6 In efforts to meet the DOE standards 

7 that went into effect in 2010, Scotsman Ice 

8 Systems expedited our development process to 

9 meet the implementation deadline, incurred 

10 expenses that exceeded 20 percent of sales 

11 dollars to develop and commercialize a 

12 complete product portfolio, increase 

13 manufacture product cost by eight percent and 

14 halted all other customer focused research and 

15 development efforts. 

16 Given the proposed efficiency levels 

17 and target implementation date of this 

18 proposed rulemaking, we would expect these 

19 costs to be incurred again prior to expiration 

20 of Scotsman internal metrics, financial 

21 metrics, associated with the previous 

22 standard increase of 2010. 
Page 45

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 Of our Commercial ice maker product 

2 line, 97 percent will need to be replaced in 

3 order to achieve the target efficiency levels. 

4 We will not be able to develop and 

5 commercialize the new portfolio products by 

6 this date without assuming excessive risk to 

7 our product reliability and warranty again. 

8 This risk will be compounded by 

9 regulatory measures dictating a change in 

10 acceptable refrigerants if implemented by 

11 EPA. 

12 Given the scope of work, the 

13 availability of technology and the assigned 

14 efficiency level, an eight year 

15 implementation deadline is more applicable 

16 based on our experience. 

17 The first three years of that time 

18 line would be ramping up the suppliers’ R&D 

19 investments for subcomponents, identifying 

20 technology performance evaluations, 

21 reliability evaluations and then negotiating 

22 technology costs and availability for the 
Page 46

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 components. 

2 The remaining five years would be 

3 required to integrate the technology into 

4 reliable commercial ice maker platforms and 

5 develop the manufacturing processes capable 

6 of reliably producing these new ice maker 

7 platforms. 

8 Scotsman Ice Systems supports DOE’s 

9 intent to improve ice maker efficiency 

10 performance across the entire category and 

11 strictly enforce these standards across all 

12 global and domestic manufacturers. We feel 

13 that establishing the efficiency thresholds 

14 at TSL-1 effective 2020 is technologically 

15 feasible, economically justified, saves a 

16 significant amount of energy for this category 

17 and is consistent with past regulatory 

18 implementation time commitments. 

19 Thank you. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Frank, 

21 yes? 

22 MR. MOORE: Thank you. Frank Moore 
Page 47

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 with NAFEM and I welcome the use of the acronym 

2 that would be North American Association to 

3 just slipped -- and missed a word, no problem, 

4 NAFEM. 

5 I just want to quickly echo much of 

6 what has been said here, certainly what Laura 

7 said in her opening remarks. But it’s 

8 refreshing to hear from the folks that 

9 actually make this equipment. NAFEM 

10 certainly has concerns as many of our members 

11 around the table do about the technological 

12 feasibility that’s based in the proposed rule, 

13 the economic impact and I think Daryl made 

14 mention of just the regulatory burden of these 

15 multiple rules coming down at once. 

16 These are realities that I think that 

17 DOE can in the rulemaking process take into 

18 consideration. We don’t think that DOE, and 

19 we’ve heard these before, it’s sort of deja vu 

20 all over again in a sense that a lot of these 

21 issues were raised in the CRE rulemaking. We 

22 do not feel like that those were adequately 
Page 48

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 responded to in the final rule. 

2 Look forward to a better process 

3 going forward. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

5 Final remarks here in the room? 

6 Opening remarks? Andrew deLaski? 

7 MR. DELASKI: I just want to thank 

8 the manufactures for their sort of deep 

9 engagement in this rulemaking and recognize as 

10 has been pointed out that the ice maker 

11 industry has made a lot of progress in energy 

12 efficiency improvement starting with the 

13 levels that were negotiated and included in 

14 the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and took effect 

15 in 2010. 

16 Based on state standards, initially 

17 had been developed in California and adopted 

18 by some other states, the industry embraced 

19 and supported as for national enactment. And 

20 as part of that statute and part of that 

21 agreement, that set up this rulemaking that 

22 we’re all participating in right now. Okay? 
Page 49

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 That was part of the statute that was agreed 

2 to by the industry along with the 

3 organizations that we continue to work with. 

4 I want to us all to partner for moving 

5 forward with that rulemaking. I think the 

6 initial intent was to try to start early. 

7 Right? The initial schedule at the framework 

8 stage, the Department had hoped to complete 

9 this rule in 2012. So at some level, we’re 

10 already a little bit later than we had hoped 

11 to be -- that the Department had hoped to be. 

12 The statutory deadline for a final 

 st

13 rule is I believe January 1 , 2015. So that’s 

14 a hard deadline. Right? That’s a law that 

15 they have to comply with that and we will be, 

16 you know, encouraging the Department very much 

17 to comply with that deadline. 

18 There’s some flexibility in terms of 

19 the effective date. Right? It’s three years 

20 is the default. The Department can do up to 

21 five years. Those are kind of the rules of the 

22 road as we understand them and I welcome if 
Page 50

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 Francine or Doug want to clarify that, that’d 

2 be helpful if I got that right or not. 

3 In terms of timing, we think those 

4 are kind of the parameters of what’s going on 

5 here. 

6 In terms of the levels, we very much 

7 look forward to the technical conversation 

8 that’s going to happen today and in terms of 

9 the written comments that I just heard 

10 previewed, there’s going to be some technical 

11 comments coming from you guys that’s going to 

12 be addressing your concerns with what these 

13 folks have prepared for us all to evaluate. 

14 And we look forward to evaluating those and 

15 considering those as we begin the discussion 

16 today and as part of the ongoing public 

17 rulemaking process. 

18 We support the proposed levels. I 

19 think they make sense. When we look at the 

20 levels and the analysis as published, we 

21 typically begin with the highest levels that 

22 are shown to be cost effective and will 
Page 51

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 typically look to support those levels and, in 

2 fact, higher levels than are proposed in 

3 today’s rule are cost effective per the DOE’s 

4 analysis as it exists today. 

5 The max tech levels are shown to be 

6 cost effective on a life cycle average basis 

7 for consumers for the purchase of ice 

8 machines. 

9 I hear you, you take issue with some 

10 of the analysis. We look forward to looking 

11 and to learning more about the issues that in 

12 that analysis. But based on DOE’s analysis, 

13 higher levels than proposed are cost effective 

14 on average. 

15 And the tests of life cycle cost to 

16 cost effective, not three years or something 

17 shorter. Is it cost effective over the useful 

18 life of the product? 

19 I’m a little surprised that the 

20 standards that are proposed have a range of 

21 efficiency improvement between ten percent 

22 and 30 percent, depending on the product 
Page 52

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 category. The levels that are cost effective 

2 at the maximum level also are a range of 

3 between 17 percent and eyeballing it here, 40 

4 percent improvements in efficiency at the 

5 maximum cost effective level. 

6 Based on our analysis of the DOE 

7 certification database, there are products in 

8 the market today at the proposed levels across 

9 the forays of equipment that meet the 

10 standards. 

11 So I’m a little surprised to hear -- 

12 I think I’m hearing some concerns that you 

13 can’t even make these machines but yet based 

14 on the certification database, they’re there. 

15 So again, we need to get to the bottom of that 

16 concern. 

17 On the refrigerants issue, I won’t 

18 belabor it, but John, I think that the way that 

19 the Department’s done with it in this 

20 rulemaking is consistent with how you’ve dealt 

21 with it in all other rulemakings along with 

22 other issues. But the Department has to base 
Page 53

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 its decisions based on existing policy, not 

2 all like may or may not happen. And because 

3 policy, we don’t, you know, we can’t predict 

4 what’s going to happen in that process, it has 

5 to move forward and in parallel, and I am very 

6 glad to hear the Department’s in a high level 

7 dialogue with our colleagues at the EPA to make 

8 sure the two are in sync. 

9 Thank you. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Final 

11 comments here? Edward Osann, who’s joining 

12 us via the web has an opening remark. I should 

13 back up one step to say we had a little bit of 

14 trouble getting the web working properly this 

15 morning. My apologies. The Department of 

16 Energy apologizes as well for some technical 

17 glitches. We hope it’s working well for you 

18 now. 

19 Edward Osann, please unmute your 

20 phone and speak. 

21 MR. OSANN: Okay, do we have a 

22 connection? 
Page 54

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 MR. BROOKMAN: You’re good, yes. 

2 MR. OSANN: Okay. 

3 Yes, my name is Ed Osann, I’m with the 

4 Natural Resources Defense Council. 

5 We have an interest in all aspects of 

6 this rulemaking but my remark will be confined 

7 to one area this morning, the outset. 

8 NRDC takes strong issue with the 

9 assertions in footnote three of the Notice 

10 regarding consideration of condenser water 

11 use in this rulemaking and will provide 

12 further written comments on this point for the 

13 record. 

14 We also note that we have previously 

15 urged the Department to evaluate and propose 

16 standards for potable water use for batch-type 

17 ice makers. Failure to consider potential 

18 standards for potable water use is 

19 particularly short-sighted as evidenced by 

20 the willingness of manufacturers to explore 

21 this issue as documented in comments at the 

22 framework stage of this rulemaking and by the 
Page 55

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 increasing severity of drought conditions in 

2 many states during the pendency of this rule 

3 making, most recently the January 2014 

4 declaration of a drought emergency by the 

5 Governor of California. 

6 Indeed, the failure to consider a 

7 meaningful standard for water use efficiency 

8 is a virtual invitation to the states to 

9 consider and adopt efficiency standards, test 

10 procedures and labeling requirements of their 

11 own for the water use of automatic commercial 

12 ice makers. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed, are you finished? 

14 MR. OSANN: Yes, that concludes it. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you, 

16 Ed. 

17 Okay, are we ready to move on then to 

18 the content here? Let’s do that. Let’s 

19 start with the presentation material which 

20 would be beginning on Slide 5 I believe. 

21 MR. RANEY: Doug, I did not get a 

22 packet. Can I get a packet? 
Page 56

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Sure, here’s an extra 

2 one. 

3 MR. CYMBALSKY: So we’re on the 

4 purpose of the public meeting? Is that what 

5 -- okay. 

6 So John Cymbalsky, DOE, I’m going to 

7 handle the first section here and then we’re 

8 going to turn it over to the technical team for 

9 the content and then at the end, I will deliver 

10 the levels of the standards. 

11 Okay, so the purpose of the meeting 

12 here is to present the analytical approaches 

13 that we took to evaluate the different levels 

14 here for automatic commercial ice makers. Of 

15 course, invite as much public comment as 

16 possible on what we’ve done so that we can 

17 incorporate it into the final rule. And then 

18 of course, we’ve already received your summary 

19 comments. 

20 As we go through, you’ll see a bunch 

21 of issue boxes in the presentation and at that 

22 point, we will pause to get your comments, your 
Page 57

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 particular comments on the issue that is 

2 raised in the issue box. So these will be 

3 sprinkled throughout. The numbers should 

4 line up with what we see in the document. 

5 And then the deadline for submitting 

 th

6 all comments is May 16 , 2014 so the goal here 

7 was to give you a full month after this public 

8 meeting to consider what was presented here 

9 and said by the rest of the stakeholders to 

10 provide your public comments. 

11 Here’s all the different ways in 

12 which you can submit your public comments. 

13 Obviously the e-mail is the best way to do it. 

14 Feel free to copy me and Brenda in the e-mail 

15 addresses because we’ve had people, 

16 unfortunately, transcribe some very difficult 

17 e-mail addresses. I can understand it. I’ve 

18 hit incorrect keys as well with dashes and dots 

19 and all that kind of thing. 

20 And unfortunately, if it gets sent to 

21 the wrong mailbox, you may not get an error 

22 that it went to the wrong place. So feel free 
Page 58

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 to copy me, a human being that you’ll know will 

2 get the e-mail and we’ll put it in the docket. 

3 Okay, so I’m going to handle the 

4 first box here which is the regulatory history 

5 of the rulemaking. 

6 So the Energy Policy and 

7 Conservation Act of 1975 is our sort of 

8 founding statutory authority for the program. 

9 This was amended in 1978 by the National Energy 

10 Conservation and Policy Act and it established 

11 the program for certain industrial equipment. 

12 Andrew alluded to EPACT 2005 which 

13 amended EPCA to add coverage for automatic 

14 Commercial ice makers between 50 and 2,500 

15 pounds of ice per day and it granted DOE the 

16 authority to set standards for additional 

17 types of Commercial ice makers that were not 

18 included. So flakes, nuggets and others. 

19 And then it required DOE to complete 

20 one rulemaking cycle to determine whether or 

21 not to amend the original standards and then 

22 Andrew also said the final rule is required by 
Page 59

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 no later than January 1 of 2015. 

2 Okay, the definition, so the 

3 definition here is very broad, automatic 

4 commercial ice maker means a factory made 

5 assembly, not necessarily shipped in one 

6 package that (a) consists of a condensing unit 

7 and ice making section operating as an 

8 integrated unit with means for making and 

9 harvesting ice; and (b) may include means for 

10 storing ice, dispensing ice or storing and 

11 dispensing ice. 

12 So in my mind, and DOE’s mind, this 

13 rather broad definition of ice makers includes 

14 quite a number of products. 

15 The test procedures, so pursuant to 

16 EPCA, DOE published a final rule that adopted 

17 a revised test method for calculating energy 

18 use based on the existing industry standards. 

 th

19 And then on January 11 , 2012, we published a 

20 final rule on a test procedure, it became 

21 mandatory for all automatic commercial ice 

 th

22 makers testing starting January 7 of 2013. 
Page 60

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 The test procedure included a few 

2 different revisions and so we referenced AHRI 

3 810-2007 and ANSI/ASHRAE 20-2009 that 

4 expanded the scope to include equipment up to 

5 4,000 pounds and it provided test methods for 

6 continuous ice makers. 

7 Okay, so we’ve heard these words used 

8 by a few different people in their opening 

9 remarks so, DOE must amend set standards that 

10 are technologically feasible and economically 

11 justified and so everything you see in our 

12 analysis today, you know, goes towards meeting 

13 that criteria and if it doesn’t, we can’t set 

14 a standard at that level. 

15 We perform lots of different 

16 analysis to determine the technological 

17 feasibility so we have the market and tech 

18 assessment to screening analysis and the 

19 engineering analysis all of which we will 

20 present to you today in detail. 

21 And then we have what’s known as the 

22 seven factors in EPCA. I’m not going to read 
Page 61

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 them all, I’ll just highlight a few that people 

2 have brought up. Sort the idea of utility has 

3 been sort of alluded to here in that whether 

4 or not the efficiency standards will continue 

5 to provide the level of service that customers 

6 demand, you know, ice hardness, that type of 

7 thing. 

8 And so we can’t set a standard 

9 whereby consumers’ utility will be impacted. 

10 And then there is the competition so 

11 we can’t set a standard to create a monopoly 

12 or things of that nature. 

13 Okay, the time line, so here we are. 

14 Andrew alluded to the fact that DOE really 

15 tried to get through this rulemaking at a 

16 quicker pace than we had but, obviously, this 

17 program has lots of things that have it wane 

18 and wax over a little over a three year period. 

19 But in any event, we are on track to 

 st

20 meet the January 1 , 2015 deadline for the 

21 final rule and so you can see that mark there 

22 towards the right of the time line and then to 
Page 62

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 be determined is the compliance date for that 

2 standard. 

 th

3 And today, we’re at April 14 , 2014 

4 with the NOPR meeting for the standard. 

5 Okay, unless we have any questions, 

6 I’m going to turn it over to my technical team 

7 to handle items two through seven. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Detlef? 

9 MR. WESTPHALEN: Thanks, John and 

10 Doug. 

11 I will be presenting on the Market 

12 and Technology Assessment and also the 

13 Screening Analysis. You can see here this 

14 chart shows the flow of some of the up-front 

15 analyses, how they feed into the downstream 

16 analyses. Many of you have seen this chart 

17 before, I won’t dwell on it. 

18 The market and technology assessment 

19 essentially is a data collection exercise 

20 trying to characterize the ice maker market 

21 and the industry involves gathering 

22 historical data, performance data for ice 
Page 63

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 makers trying to set appropriate equipment 

2 classes for the different types of products 

3 that are out there in the market and to 

4 identify technology options from proving 

5 efficiency. 

6 I’m not going to be spending much 

7 time on the market, now we’ve discussed that 

8 in the framework meeting and also the 

9 preliminary analysis meeting. There’s a 

10 detailed description in Chapter 3. 

11 Starting in on equipment classes, 

12 the current standards that were established by 

13 EPAC 2005 cover cube-type ice makers and 

14 harvest capacity rate range from 50 to 2,500 

15 pounds per day. 

16 In this NOPR, DOE is considering 

17 extension of coverage to total of 25 covered 

18 classes. When we get into the nitty gritty, 

19 the question of exactly is it 25, 26, 27, yes, 

20 but that’s a small point, roughly extending 

21 the coverage to continuous ice makers, those 

22 are the flake and nugget machines, that’s one 
Page 64

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 change. 

2 Another change is extending the 

3 capacity range to cover those ice makers in the 

4 2,500 to 4,000 pound per day range. 

5 And the coverage will now be applied 

6 to what are called batch ice makers rather than 

7 cube-type. For the most part, these are the 

8 same things. The only difference is really 

9 that cube-type was restricted to a particular 

10 size of ice whereas batch are simply the cyclic 

11 batch-type process that has a free cycle and 

12 then a harvest cycle. 

13 The test procedure final rule 

14 established these definitions, batch ice 

15 maker, continuous ice maker, there are some 

16 other definitions associated with 

17 understanding the classes. A lot of that 

18 information is already finalized in the test 

19 procedure. 

20 Here’s a seeing eye chart view of the 

21 equipment classes. These are the batch-type 

22 equipment classes and you can see that, you 
Page 65

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 know, it’s broken down first by equipment 

2 type. You can consider that as the packaging. 

3 The IMH, the ice-making head style are single 

4 packaged ice makers without an ice storage 

5 bin. The RCU are split-system two piece ice 

6 makers in which the condenser or the 

7 condensing unit are located outside. And SCU 

8 are single-packaged units with the ice storage 

9 bin located within the unit. 

10 MR. STARR: So, Louis Starr. 

11 Just on the remote condensing units, 

12 I’m wondering, there’s not a category for the 

13 water and the fact that we have the air cooled 

14 ones but not water cooled. There’s not 

15 adequate B- maybe provide an explanation why 

16 there’s maybe not a separate category for 

17 that. 

18 MR. WESTPHALEN: All right, here I 

19 have to, and somebody can correct me if I’m 

20 wrong, but my recollection is that water 

21 cooled remote are under the same category as 

22 water cooled. And there may just be one or two 
Page 66

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 of them in the market. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: I’m looking through 

3 the manufacturers for any clarification -- 

4 MR. ERBS: I guess I can make a 

5 comment -- 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: -- to offer. 

7 Daryl? 

8 MR. ERBS: For a water cooled unit, 

9 it’s generally not a difficult task to fit a 

10 water cooled condenser inside an ice-making 

11 head. So there hasn’t been, I guess enough of 

12 a reason to develop a range of products where 

13 a water cooled condensing unit would be remote 

14 from the ice-making head. So I think it’s 

15 just there really hasn’t been a market reason 

16 to do that. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Daryl. 

18 Do you wish to comment? Okay. 

19 MR. ERBS: Does that clarification 

20 work for you? 

21 MR. WESTPHALEN: Yes, I mean I think 

22 it answers the question. 
Page 67

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 MR. ERBS: Okay. 

2 MR. WESTPHALEN: The other -- the 

3 next column there shows, you know, another way 

4 to distinguish these ice makers, the type of 

5 cooling. This is the medium used to take the 

6 heat out of the refrigeration system, air 

7 cooled use ambient air and water have a water 

8 loop that goes through the unit. 

9 Then there is the distinction of the 

10 different harvest capacity rates for the 

11 different units for the different classes 

12 within each equipment and type of cooling 

13 category. 

14 The maximum efficiency standards or 

15 the maximum efficiency typically attainable 

16 follows a trend in which small ice makers use 

17 more energy and because of the trends in 

18 efficiency of the underlying components, that 

19 energy use starts to decline as you increase 

20 the capacity and then levels out as the 

21 component improvement potential is no 

22 longer-- there’s no longer much you that can 
Page 68

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 do at the higher capacities. 

2 And so these standards have been 

3 split out into separate lines which are then 

4 define the separate capacity ranges that are 

5 involved. 

6 There was a lot of talk about -- the 

7 reason I bring this up, there was a lot of talk 

8 in the past meetings on whether it should be 

9 a series of lines or a single equation. But 

10 the proposal here includes the piece-wise 

11 linear series of lines to represent that 

12 standard. 

13 Here is the table showing the 

14 equipment classes for continuous ice makers. 

15 A very similar structure to what we have for 

16 the batch-type. You’ll note that the change 

17 from the small to the large is at a different 

18 harvest capacity rate. You know, that it’s 

19 just if you look at the data it shows that that 

20 should occur at a higher capacity. 

21 During the course of the work on the 

22 NOPR, DOE spent more time looking at spending, 
Page 69

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 more time looking at more available data, 

2 looking at manufacturer websites and also 

3 looking at new data available during that time 

4 period on the AHRI website. 

5 One of the key things that was 

6 mentioned at the preliminary analysis meeting 

7 was that AHRI was, at that time, in the process 

8 of, you know, working through ratings of 

9 continuous ice makers and in particular 

10 getting measurements of ice hardness which is 

11 a key factor in the energy use metric for 

12 continuous ice makers. 

13 So during the course of 2012, you 

14 know, several new ice maker data sets were put 

15 on to the AHRI directory and that was factored 

16 into development of the baseline levels for 

17 the continuous classes. 

18 So baseline efficiency levels, for 

19 batch ice maker equipment classes, DOE looked 

20 to the current cube-type standards as the 

21 efficiency levels. This is generally for a 

22 product that is already covered by DOE 
Page 70

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 standard. This is defined as the baseline. 

2 The key new thing here is the 

3 extension of that standard out to the 4,000 

4 pound per day capacity rate. 

5 For continuous ice maker classes, 

6 DOE looked again at the available data since 

7 there was new available data and adjusted its 

8 baseline efficiency levels that initially 

9 were suggested at the preliminary analysis 

10 meeting. And this table shows the new 

11 baseline efficiency levels. 

12 The chart on the next page 

13 illustrates this new baseline as compared with 

14 the preliminary analysis baseline for two 

15 classes, IMHA air cooled continuous and also 

16 self-contained air cooled. 

17 And for instance, you can see with 

18 the self-contained, the preliminary analysis 

19 proposal really wasn’t representative of that 

20 data. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Scott, please use the 

22 microphone. 
Page 71

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 MR. BINGHAM: This is Scott Bingham. 

2 A question, so does this include the 

3 adjustment for ice hardness in these graphs? 

4 MR. WESTPHALEN: Yes, it does. 

5 MR. BINGHAM: And does it include 

6 data that was available as of the end of 2012? 

7 MR. WESTPHALEN: Yes. 

8 MR. BINGHAM: So there may be new 

9 data that we would want to make available to 

10 you. 

11 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay. Yes. We 

12 recently went through a process of looking at 

13 the AHRI database to see what was new and 

14 Javier, correct me if I’m wrong, but I think 

15 these charts already include that here. 

16 MR. BURGOS (Off microphone comment.) 

17 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay, but we have 

18 looked at the new data that has recently come 

19 on, you know, onto the directory and it doesn’t 

20 show that this curve should be changed a whole 

21 lot. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: So, Scott -- 
Page 72

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 MR. BINGHAM: Okay, I will handle 

2 that on the written comments. We’re Follett 

3 -- This is Scott Bingham, Follett is not a part 

4 of AHRI so it would not have been in there. 

5 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

7 MR. WESTPHALEN: Moving on to the 

8 technology assessment -- 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please, Louis? 

10 MR. STARR: Just one last question 

11 on the last slide there. 

12 I was hoping to understand, it looks 

13 like this might be good for a continuous-type 

14 equation here but it looks like you did it in 

15 segments. 

16 You maybe touched on why maybe you 

17 didn’t use the newest power equation or 

18 setting standard levels or is it just because 

19 that’s how they were previously set or what’s 

20 the rationale of not using the equation form? 

21 MR. WESTPHALEN: Well, I mean my 

22 feeling was that, you know, I’d like to be able 
Page 73

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 to do the calculation on, you know, a piece of 

2 paper. And, you know, I’m aware that, you 

3 know, Energy Star is using like a power law and 

4 I can’t do that on a piece of paper. 

5 But, you know, essentially it’s a 

6 piece-wise linear function. You know, I 

7 don’t, you know, we talked about the different 

8 classes for the different capacity ranges but 

9 my feeling is that this is just a function that 

10 goes all the way. It just has a different 

11 equation in this part than that part. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Louis? 

13 MR. STARR: Well, just kind of more 

14 of the thought too was aligning with Energy 

15 Star so it helps to -- if you’re both using 

16 power equations then it to some extent helps 

17 align the categories between Energy Star and 

18 what the DOE standards are. 

19 And I don’t know, maybe the 

20 manufacturers have a thought on that as well, 

21 but, you know, that was my thought about it. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl? 
Page 74

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 MR. ERBS: Yes, just one comment. I 

2 think our concern would be whether there will 

3 be an Energy Star category should the proposed 

4 standards go into effect. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, Stephen? 

6 MR. SCHAEFER: Stephen Schaefer. 

7 Just-- we’ll put in our comments also 

8 that looking at the data, it is not indicative 

9 of all the units on there and looking at our 

10 data for continuous units, about 80 percent of 

11 our units will not be able to meet these 

12 standards. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, you have new 

14 data that you can submit? 

15 MR. SCHAEFER: Yes, we’ll put that 

16 in the comment period. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Laura, I 

18 thought you said 95 percent of the ice makers 

19 were -- didn’t you say something like that in 

20 your opening remarks? 

21 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Laura Petrillo, 

22 AHRI. 
Page 75

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 Ninety-five percent of the product 

2 is produced by AHRI manufacturers. The 

3 certification programs are voluntary and not 

4 all manufacturers participate and there are 

5 manufacturers that are not members of AHRI. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks for the 

7 clarification. Yes, please, Frank. 

8 MR. MOORE: Frank Moore with NAFEM. 

9 Just a point of clarification, we’re 

10 plugging in 2012 data but we’re just 

11 discovering that maybe 2012 data and current 

12 data is not plugged in. Is that what I’m 

13 hearing? So we’ve got a model already here 

14 that’s does not have the current data. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: So we’re turning to 

16 Scott now. 

17 MR. BINGHAM: Yes, this is Scott 

18 Bingham. 

19 Yes, that’s correct, we’re not a 

20 member of AHRI. Our data is not in AHRI. Our 

21 data, some of it is available on the Energy 

22 Star website because we have many Energy Star 
Page 76

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 certified pieces of equipment but it would not 

2 be in the AHRI data. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Frank, follow up. 

4 MR. MOORE: This is Frank from 

5 NAFEM. 

6 I know that there has been some 

7 interviewing perhaps with manufacturers, but 

8 did this not occur with manufacturers to 

9 really get the data? 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Scott? 

11 MR. BINGHAM: Scott Bingham. 

12 From my standpoint, some of this data 

13 wasn’t available in 2012. The continuous 

14 type ice makers were not a part of the Energy 

15 Star program until the final ruling 

16 implementation was in 2013, so that’s when it 

17 was completed and on the Energy Star website. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: John Cymbalsky. 

19 MR. CYMBALSKY: John Cymbalsky, 

20 DOE. 

21 So, I guess I want to hear about the 

22 implications of what you’re saying. So if I’m 
Page 77

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 hearing it correctly, the points that we’re 

2 not capturing appear to be Energy Star units 

3 and in my mind, that signals that our baseline 

4 maybe too low. On these, I’m just trying to 

5 get what the data points -- 

6 MR. WESTPHALEN: Well, I mean I have 

7 some questions myself I mean if they are Energy 

8 Star units then they don’t really provide a 

9 good indication of what the baseline is which 

10 is supposed to be the highest energy users. 

11 And I guess my follow-up question, 

12 you know, regarding the units that don’t meet 

13 the standard, do you mean -- 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s go one question 

15 at a time. Scott? 

16 MR. BINGHAM: So I would state that 

17 -- Scott Bingham -- some of our machines are 

18 on the Energy Star website, some aren’t this 

19 is more recent data that we’ve done so a number 

20 of our machines could end up on this plot. I 

21 don’t know where they will end up without 

22 looking at it in more detail. So that line 
Page 78

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 might move up, might, you know, I don’t know. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Stephen, go ahead. 

3 MR. SCHAEFER: Stephen Schaefer, 

4 Hoshizaki America. 

5 Yes, Energy Star is the top 25 

6 percent. They went through a good analysis of 

7 our -- the total flake to nugget machines and 

8 at 2012, we were just not available to give all 

9 the energy and ice hardness data. 

10 So in 2013, and 14, there should be 

11 a full batch of data that we can look at and 

12 that is not reflected on these charts. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

14 And Detlef, you had a follow-up question. 

15 MR. WESTPHALEN: Yes, the follow-up 

16 question was you mentioned that, I think, you 

17 mentioned a number, eight percent of your 

18 units that use more energy than these baseline 

19 levels. Is that what you were saying? 

20 MR. SCHAEFER: That is correct. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Stephen. 

22 Have we resolved this -- these 
Page 79

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 questions about data? Detlef, if you’re 

2 clear, the data you received from AHRI that was 

3 through 2012. 

4 MR. WESTPHALEN: Initially through 

5 2012 and recently, we updated that and it would 

6 not have shown a very different trend. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, okay. We’re 

8 moving on now. 

9 MR. WESTPHALEN: So Technology 

10 Assessment, DOE identified technology 

11 assessments from a variety of sources, 

12 literature review, manufacturer information, 

13 looking at the equipment purchased by DOE to 

14 see what design options are in those pieces of 

15 equipment, comment and input from 

16 stakeholders. 

17 During the NOPR phase, DOE collected 

18 additional information. We mentioned the 

19 alternative refrigerants. At times, you 

20 know, there are comments that alternative 

21 refrigerants such as hydrocarbons should be 

22 considered in the analysis but they are not 
Page 80

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 SNAP approved so we did not consider them as 

2 a design option. 

3 And Chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD 

4 contains a more detailed discussion of all 

5 these issues. 

6 This is again a -- 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: We have a question. 

8 Your name please? 

9 MR. DESHETLER: Scott DeShetler, 

10 Ice-O-Matic. 

11 Just a point of clarification, did 

12 DOE actually put their hands on or test ice 

13 machines in any shape or form? 

14 MR. WESTPHALEN: We did put our 

15 hands on and test ice makers. We had 

16 third-party contractors test ice makers and we 

17 measured things other than energy so that we 

18 understand how they’re operating. 

19 MR. SCHAEFER: Additional question. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Stephen? 

21 MR. SCHAEFER: Stephen Schaefer. 

22 You’re saying that you tested the 
Page 81

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 units. Did you actually test them with all 

2 the parts specified inherent to validate the 

3 actual energy use considered for these levels? 

4 MR. WESTPHALEN: We had testing -- I 

5 don’t think we had -- all right, let me back 

6 up. Every design option that passed 

7 screening, you know, was involved in some of 

8 our testing except for permanent magnet motors 

9 for which none of the products that we had 

10 available to test had any of those. 

11 MR. CYMBALSKY: This is John 

12 Cymbalsky from DOE. Let me just add that we 

13 test ice makers for lots of different reasons 

14 in the program. 

15 First, when we developed a test 

16 method, we test to make sure it’s repeatable 

17 and all that. 

18 Second, for the standards analysis, 

19 we do testing and tear downs of lots of 

20 different units. 

21 And then third, we buy and test to 

22 enforce the standard. 
Page 82

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 So in all of those three platforms of 

2 testing, we have lots of test data on lots of 

3 different units. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: All right, thanks. 

5 Yes, okay? Detlef? 

6 MR. WESTPHALEN: Okay, back to the 

7 large chart. I’m not going to get into the 

8 details here. Some of these technologies are 

9 associated with the refrigeration systems. 

10 So are associated with reducing thermal load. 

11 Some are appropriate for batch ice makers, 

12 some for continuous, some for air cooled and 

13 some for water cooled, 

14 In the screening analysis, DOE 

15 screens out technologies that are not suitable 

16 for consideration in the engineering analysis 

17 due to these four criteria, technological 

18 feasability, practicability to manufacture 

19 install and service, impacts on equipment 

20 utility or equipment availability and adverse 

21 impacts on health or safety. 

22 Also, we did not consider 
Page 83

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 technologies that wouldn’t save energy using 

2 the DOE test procedure. The screening is 

3 discussed in more detail in Chapter 4 and this 

4 is the remaining list of design options now 

5 that they have passed screening, they’re 

6 called design options, that were considered in 

7 the engineering analysis. 

8 And at this point, we have a comment 

9 box. DOE requests comment on the screening 

10 analysis and specifically the design options 

11 DOE screened out of the rulemaking analysis. 

12 We could, at this point, also take 

13 comment on any other technologies that weren’t 

14 considered in the process that haven’t been 

15 listed yet. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Frank? 

17 MR. MOORE: So, Frank with NAFEM. 

18 And to Stephen’s point, when I look 

19 at -- and I’m not an engineer if that’s not 

20 already been revealed, I’ll just put that on 

21 the table -- these technology options here, so 

22 there was a real showing up. You have had it 
Page 84

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 your hand, compressor, real showing up, you 

2 hand, condenser and you built that machine to 

3 see that it could perform as you were 

4 recommending in the rule? 

5 MR. WESTPHALEN: We did not build 

6 machines. We’re not cut and try, you know. 

7 MR. MOORE: So but can you give a 

8 model number for each one of those things, at 

9 least one model number that I could go back 

10 today? I’m just trying to get a sense. 

11 Again, I’m not an engineer. 

12 MR. WESTPHALEN: If you’d like a 

13 model number, you know, I don’t have them in 

14 my back pocket, but -- 

15 MR. MOORE: But they are 

16 commercially available right now? 

17 MR. WESTPHALEN: Certainly, yes, 

18 they’re all commercially available. 

19 MR. MOORE: Okay. All right. I 

20 was just trying to get a sense. Okay. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Chris? 

22 MR. SALATINO: As far as your 
Page 85

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 testing evaluation, was it -- can you confirm 

2 what the rating was done at so from an 

3 electrical supply standpoint, from an 

4 environmental condition, was it done at one 

5 rating point or across an envelope? 

6 MR. WESTPHALEN: We conducted our 

7 testing according to the DOE test procedure 

8 which, you know, ha the, you know, references 

9 the AHRI and ASHRAE test procedures at the 

10 90/70 condition. 

11 MR .BROOKMAN: So is that multiple 

12 test data points or is that a single? 

13 MR. WESTPHALEN: That means 90 

14 Fahrenheit air temperature and 70 Fahrenheit 

15 in the water temperature at one condition. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, yes, Stephen. 

17 MR. SCHAEFER: Yes, Stephen 

18 Schaefer. 

19 It shows here increased surface 

20 area, one of the parts of the engineering 

21 analysis showed that there would be a 50 

22 percent increase in evaporator surface area 
Page 86

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 with only a ten percent increase in cost. 

2 Most of our evaporators are stainless steel 

3 with copper tubing, so I’d really like to see 

4 how we can go from a one foot evaporator up to 

5 a one and a half foot with only a one dollar 

6 increase in cost. 

7 MR. WESTPHALEN: I mean, we have, 

8 you know, manufacturing cost modeling tools 

9 which we use to develop the cost estimates. 

10 We visited, you know, the manufacturers, 

11 looked at the, you know, the production 

12 equipment, the way the components were 

13 fabricated. 

14 We developed cost estimates for, you 

15 know, a series of reversed engineered ice 

16 makers and, you know, sent that information 

17 for those manufacturers that we were in touch 

18 with under nondisclosure agreements to those 

19 manufacturers for comment on the costs that we 

20 estimated and also the cost of the components 

21 and tried to get feedback in that fashion and 

22 we did receive some feedback and we 
Page 87

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 incorporated that back into the analysis. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: George? 

3 MR. PARSONS: Yes, George Parsons, 

4 Ice-O-Matic. I have two questions. 

5 The first one would be a follow-up to 

6 what we just talked about terms of evaporator 

7 surface area. In the component cost, did you 

8 take into account the amount of money that will 

9 have to be spent from a capital aspect for all 

10 of us as manufacturers completely retool our 

11 factories to build larger evaporators? 

12 MR. WESTPHALEN: Well, the capital 

13 costs and also the R&D cost, you know, is 

14 generally treated as, you know, part of the 

15 manufacturer markup, the 1.25 which includes 

16 historical levels of, you know, R&D and 

17 capital, etc. 

18 And then the manufacturer impact 

19 analysis considered different levels of, you 

20 know, markup that the manufacturers may be 

21 able to see in the market downstream of a 

22 rulemaking. 
Page 88

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 Now DOE could potentially consider 

2 different scenarios of markup and including 

3 different than historical levels of capital 

4 investment and, you know, so all those factors 

5 are interrelated and if DOE then said okay, the 

6 manufacturer’s selling price will be higher 

7 because you’re including some of that in the, 

8 you know, in the customer price. Then, you 

9 know, the manufacturer impact assessment will 

10 show mitigated impacts. 

11 So, you know, it kind of goes hand in 

12 hand. It is considered an indirect level and 

13 it could be considered more directly. 

14 MR. PARSONS: I would propose that 

15 for many of us, it would need to be looked at 

16 directly because spending capital dollars on 

17 that tooling is not something that’s planned 

18 each and every year. It’s very discrete. 

19 My second question would be around 

20 compressor and just the base of improved 

21 compressor efficiency. When you talk about 

22 improved EER, did you actually take an 
Page 89

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 existing ice machine, pull that compressor 

2 out, put a new compressor in with a proposed 

3 EER increase from one of the suppliers and test 

4 it? 

5 Because we’ve got lab data that would 

6 show and substantiate that a rough 12 percent 

7 increase in EER at the compressor level only 

8 results in less than a 3 percent increase in 

9 efficiency in the ice machine. 

10 MR. WESTPHALEN: We’ve received 

11 similar information in our discussions with 

12 manufacturers and we did obtain information 

13 that there are some compressors that performed 

14 better in terms of, you know, you see the 

15 benefits downstream in the ice maker than 

16 others and we restricted our analyses to these 

17 compressors that, you know, that we have heard 

18 are appropriate for use in ice makers. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: But George, and 

20 anyone else, that sort of detailed comment, of 

21 course, the Department would like that in 

22 writing with as much data and backup as you can 
Page 90

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 supply. 

2 Frank and then back to Scott. 

3 MR. MOORE: Yes, just real quick and 

4 I don’t want to digress but the answer to the 

5 question was no, you did not put that other 

6 compressor in that existing machine and test 

7 it? 

8 MR. WESTPHALEN: That is correct. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Scott? 

10 MR. BINGHAM: Yes, just quick 

11 statements. Scott Bingham. 

12 I would kind of agree with George, 

13 that it’s a refrigeration system and it’s not 

14 a plug-n-play with components. 

15 And then the other issue is with a 

16 again, from my standpoint, a continuous style 

17 ice maker or evaporator can either get a 

18 cylinder can either get longer or higher 

19 diameter, both of which would push on the 

20 envelop of the machine and the larger diameter 

21 would increase the required portion. 

22 However, the auger motor, which 
Page 91

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 would again increase the power consumption of 

2 the machine. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

4 Robert? 

5 MR. WILKINS: Robert Wilkins, 

6 Danfoss. 

7 Is this the point or not to discuss 

8 the trade-off between compressor efficiency 

9 and cost increase? Or if it’s going to be 

10 discussed later I’ll hold my question. 

11 MR. WESTPHALEN: Well, it will be 

12 covered in the engineering analysis. 

13 MR. WILKINS: So we’ll have an 

14 opportunity at that time to discuss that? 

15 MR. WESTPHALEN: Yes. 

16 MR. WILKINS: Okay, thank you. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comment 

18 on screening analysis? 

19 Okay, yes, Stephen? 

20 MR. SCHAEFER: One last question. 

21 Looking at the improved compressor 

22 efficiency, and all this, was this back in 2012 
Page 92

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 data or is that the data that we’re looking at 

2 right now? And we might be looking at that 

3 we’ve already made these changes by 2014. 

4 MR. WESTPHALEN: I think the last 

5 bit of information we received from 

6 manufacturers on this topic was probably in 

7 2012, yes. 

8 MR. SCHAEFER: Thank you. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: So that’s the kind of 

10 comment, right, very detailed comment. 

11 MR. SCHAEFER: Yes. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thanks 

13 Stephen. 

14 We’re at a natural break point here. 

15 It’s now 10:35. Let’s take a break for 15 

16 minutes which means we’ll resume at 10:50 in 

17 this room. 

18 Most of you are familiar with the 

19 drill here in DOE. You must wear this badge, 

20 it must be visible on you. 

21 There are restrooms on both ends of 

22 the hall. 
Page 93

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 If you want coffee, please go quickly 

2 to the Dunkin Donuts shop which is on the 

3 ground floor. Go to the elevator, go down to 

4 the ground floor and the coffee shop’s about 

5 just where we are on the opposite side of the 

6 hallway. Okay? 

7 So we’ve had a good start on the day 

8 and we’ll resume at 10:50 and for those of you 

9 joining us via the web, we’re glad you’re 

10 listening in. We’ll resume at 10:50. 

11 (Whereupon the foregoing matter went 

12 off the record at 10:25 a.m. and went back on 

13 the record at 10:53 a.m.) 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, please take 

15 your seats. Yes, let’s resume, please take 

16 your seats. 

17 Okay, I have clarified that the 

18 folks, that the web connection’s still working 

19 so that’s positive and Chris had a question he 

20 wanted to return to some content we covered 

21 before the break. 

22 Microphone please. 
Page 94

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 MR. SALATINO: Chris Salatino, 

2 Scotsman Ice Systems. 

3 Quickly, as far as all the components 

4 that were identified in the evaluation, can 

5 you confirm which ones were actually tested in 

6 a unit? I know you had mentioned that the 

7 compressor was not. 

8 MR. BURGOS: Which ones were 

9 actually tested in the unit? 

10 MR. SALATINO: Yes. 

11 MR. BURGOS: Well, we did the 

12 evaluation -- 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: This is Javier 

14 speaking. 

15 MR. BURGOS: Sorry, this is 

16 Javier from Navigant Consulting. 

17 What we did is we did testing of 

18 commercially available ice makers so any of 

19 the design options that were available within 

20 those ice makers were included in that 

21 testing. 

22 So, Chris does that answer your 
Page 95

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 question? 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Right, so at the 

3 component level I thought perhaps. 

4 MR. SALATINO: Yes, and so the 

5 components identified here, were they 

6 actually reworked into a unit and tested to 

7 confirm the efficiency improvement that has 

8 been set forth in the NOPR? 

9 MR. BURGOS: no, they were not. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Frank? 

11 MR. MOORE: Yes, I just wanted to get 

12 that clarification, that’s all. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. 

14 MR. MOORE: Okay. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Now we’re moving on 

16 to the Engineering Analysis. 

17 MR. BURGOS: All right, great. My 

18 name’s Javier Burgos. I’m a consultant for 

19 Navigant and I’m here to present the 

20 Engineering Analysis. 

21 I think just to start off, I want to 

22 thank all the stakeholders, particularly 
Page 96

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 manufacturers who have been working with us 

2 throughout the NOPR process. I think we’ll 

3 enjoy continuing working with you and also 

4 look forward to any comments that you have on 

5 this. 

6 All right, this is where we are in the 

7 process, the engineering analysis. The 

8 engineering analysis will serve as one of the 

9 main inputs to the LCC, the NIA and the MIA 

10 analysis. 

11 Most of you are probably pretty 

12 familiar with this but the purpose of the 

13 engineering analysis is to establish the 

14 cost-efficiency curves, which basically 

15 establishes a relationship between cost 

16 increases and energy savings for design 

17 options that were analyzed. 

18 Analyses that go into this 

19 engineering analyses include reverse 

20 engineering of units, includes testing of 

21 commercially available units as well as 

22 testing of components once they get back 
Page 97

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 within our lab. 

2 It includes the discussions with 

3 manufacturers, both component manufacturers 

4 and in some cases, it does include energy 

5 modeling of units. 

6 All right, I’ll start off by saying, 

7 you know, most of the details covered here are 

8 covered extensively in Chapter 5 of TSD 

9 Analysis. But I’ll start off talking about 

10 the data collection efforts that DOE underwent 

11 during the engineering analysis. 

12 Now at the start of NOPR analysis, 

13 DOE performed a number of data collection 

14 efforts, one was already discussed by Detlef 

15 which was that data at the DOE database 

16 comprised of lots of different model ratings 

17 like condenser water use, harvest rates and 

18 retail costs. 

19 One of the other steps that we also 

20 took was performing testing and reverse 

21 engineering of 22 additional automatic ice 

22 maker units. On top of 19 that were looked at 
Page 98

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 during the preliminary analysis, that led to 

2 a total of 41 different ice makers that we had. 

3 These were all scattered throughout a bunch of 

4 different equipment classes and also include 

5 high efficiency as well as baseline units. 

6 In addition, DOE also did some 

7 exploratory testing, especially looking at 

8 the issue of condenser temperature versus 

9 energy use and the effects, you know, varying 

10 condenser temperature might have including 

11 the harvest energy use as well as looking at 

12 the energy savings provided by some components 

13 such as commercially available drain water 

14 heat exchangers. 

15 This is the list of units that were 

16 analyzed during the engineering analysis. 

17 Units in the middle are the ones that are 

18 purchased for the preliminary analysis. The 

19 ones on the right were the ones purchased for 

20 the NOPR analysis. 

21 As you’ll see, during the NOPR 

22 analysis, you know, DOE tested lots of 
Page 99

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 different units, some of them in some new 

2 equipment classes that were looked at and some 

3 of them in some existing product classes to 

4 gain a further understanding. 

5 MR. SCHAEFER: I have a question. 

6 MR. BURGOS: Sure. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Stephen? 

8 MR. SCHAEFER: Stephen Schaefer, 

9 Hoshizaki America. The question is, looking 

10 at this analysis, why are there so many zeros 

11 in the different areas? How could you do an 

12 accurate assessment of the preliminary 

13 analysis or testing without actually having 

14 units available. 

15 MR. BURGOS: DOE conducted testing 

16 of 12 of -- DOE produced cost efficiency curves 

17 for 12 different equipment classes. In the 

18 end, those were the ones that were based off 

19 of all those engineering analyses. 

20 The rest were folded into the 

21 downstream analyses, basically pairing cost 

22 efficiency curves with the equipment that 
Page 100

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 was, you know, that was similar to what was 

2 already analyzed. 

3 MR. SCHAEFER: So to further go over 

4 this, the units were purchased but then the 

5 curves were made up afterwards and then you 

6 realized that you didn’t have the units or did 

7 you just go and not actually purchase the units 

8 knowing these curves? 

9 My question is why are there so many 

10 holes here where there was not -- no one else 

11 has done? 

12 MR. CYMBALSKY: I’ll answer that. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: John Cymbalsky. 

14 MR. CYMBALSKY: So traditionally in 

15 our rulemakings we don’t necessarily purchase 

16 every single permutation or product class 

17 that’s out there. Clearly, you can do some 

18 scaling from class to class if you get one of 

19 these IMA-A-Small-Cs you may not have to buy 

20 a large one to do some engineering scaling of 

21 product to get you onto that cost efficiency 

22 curve. 
Page 101

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 So, you know, I won’t speak to what 

2 the engineers did here, but I’m sure they 

3 thought very hard about which ones to purchase 

4 and which ones were more important to purchase 

5 and which other ones could be scaled from the 

6 testing that we did on representative 

7 products. And so this type of thing is done 

8 all the time like motors for example. We 

9 don’t -- if we purchased every type of motor 

10 out there, you know, we wouldn’t be able to 

11 afford the rest of what we want to do. 

12 So I think here you could see we’ve 

13 purchased quite a number of units to test and 

14 I think these are very representative. 

15 If you’d like to point out something 

16 from this slide in your comment that want we 

17 could do from engineering scaling, that’s not 

18 appropriate based on this. We’d love to hear 

19 about it. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Stephen? 

21 MR. SCHAEFER: Just as a statement 

22 from Hoshizaki America and probably from 
Page 102

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 others, just looking at this large units 

2 perform differently that small units. The 

3 compressors and condensers marry together in 

4 a different way across the board. 

5 So maybe in the future, we can offer 

6 our machines as, you know, testing machines. 

7 We have people test our units across the nation 

8 for different purposes whether it’s end-users 

9 or whatnot. 

10 So maybe in the future, we can offer 

11 units on loan or, you know, just to test for 

12 this purpose. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: So let me note that 

14 DOE’s pretty clear on its deadline in this 

15 case. 

16 MR. CYMBALSKY: So we certainly 

17 accept the donations to test for our analysis. 

18 We’ve, you know, we’ve got that from other 

19 manufacturers for other rulemakings. 

20 You know, it’s some of the commercial 

21 equipment in particular is not easy for us to 

22 purchase sort of blindly, particularly if 
Page 103

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 we’re doing assessment testing. It’s 

2 sometimes hard to get our hands on it. 

3 But you know, we try our hardest to 

4 be representative in what we test and tear down 

5 to make sure that, you know, the curves that 

6 we create here are representative of all the 

7 product classes. But if you think there’s 

8 something we missed, please, you know, submit 

9 the comment. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, I guess, yes, 

11 Chris? 

12 MR. SALATINO: Sorry, Chris 

13 Salatino, Scotsman Ice. 

14 A quick question. In the purpose 

15 you say characterize manufacturer production 

16 costs versus efficiency for higher efficiency 

17 ice maker equipment. The definition of 

18 higher efficiency? 

19 MR. BURGOS: Anything above the 

20 current baseline as it’s defined. So what we 

21 do is we characterize the full manufacturing 

22 production cost of making the baseline unit 
Page 104

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 and then we aggregate the costs to the 

2 manufacturer on top of that. And that 

3 includes pretty much anything between 

4 baseline all the way up to the max tech. And 

5 we’ll -- we have a couple of numbers going into 

6 what those actual costs were and what the 

7 actual efficiency level we looked at with a bit 

8 more in use. 

9 All right, so with all this said, 

10 with all this data collection, DOE basically 

11 was able to do three different things. 

12 One was attempt to validate and 

13 adjust the assumptions made within the 

14 preliminary analysis. 

15 One was also done to also expand the 

16 analysis. Within the preliminary analysis, 

17 DOE analyzed and produced nine different cost 

18 efficiency curves. Within NOPR, we actually 

19 did this for 12 different cost efficiency 

20 curves. 

21 And finally, with all this data 

22 analysis, DOE is also able to explore some 
Page 105

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 alternative analysis pathways, basically 

2 provide a look at alternatives for potentially 

3 doing this engineering analysis. 

4 MR. MOORE: Is -- 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Frank? 

6 MR. MOORE: Frank with NAFEM. 

7 Is that, and again, the alternative 

8 analysis pathways, I’m just trying to get a 

9 sense of what that is. And is that detailed 

10 in the NOPR? Do we -- 

11 MR. BURGOS: Yes. 

12 MR. MOORE: - can we find that? 

13 MR. BURGOS: Yes. Those are 

14 detailed within both the NOPR and the TSD and 

15 we’ll go over a bit of them right now, 

16 actually. So -- 

17 MR. BURGOS: All right, so in terms 

18 of all these analysis pathways that DOE looked 

19 at, within the preliminary analysis, DOE 

20 performed a design option analysis which 

21 included energy modeling of the design options 

22 in order to estimate energy savings as well as 
Page 106

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 cost modeling using reverse engineering to 

2 estimate the cost increases. 

3 Now within the NOPR analysis, DOE 

4 considered three different alternative 

5 analysis approaches. 

6 One, DOE considered proceeding with 

7 design option analysis while incorporating 

8 both feedback from stakeholders and from all 

9 the additional test data. And we received a 

10 lot of that both from our own testing and from 

11 feedback from stakeholders. 

12 Two, DOE considered an empirical 

13 analysis that relied solely on test data and 

14 reverse engineering costs with the main 

15 purpose would be to identify the cost of going 

16 to a higher efficiency when analyzing two 

17 physical products at two different efficiency 

18 levels. 

19 And three, DOE also considered a 

20 retail cost analysis based on its market 

21 database looking for trends which indicated 

22 increased retail costs for increased energy 
Page 107

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 efficiency. 

2 And we’re probably getting a bit 

3 ahead of ourselves but, you know, in the end, 

4 DOE concluded after, you know, looking and 

5 analyzing all three different methods that the 

6 revised design option analysis was the only 

7 real viable approach to developing meaningful 

8 results and developing meaningful cost 

9 impacts for the model design options. 

10 On this slide, I’ll go over a little 

11 bit of the two alternative engineering 

12 approaches that, you know, were ultimately not 

13 used. 

14 One, I’ll start with the second one 

15 is the retail cost analysis. Now within its 

16 data collection, when DOE collected data for 

17 its database that Detlef alluded to, we 

18 collected energy use data, harvest use data, 

19 size impacts, condenser water use data, 

20 potable water use data and retail prices as 

21 well. And ultimately, we came up with a set 

22 of 470 different models that were currently 
Page 108

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 out there on the market today. 

2 And using this data set, we were able 

3 to analyze it from a bunch of different 

4 perspectives. Ultimately, you know, when we 

5 crunched the numbers, when we tried to 

6 establish really what’s the correlation 

7 between a retail cost and an energy 

8 efficiency. 

9 DOE found that there was, you know, 

10 little to no trend in the retail costs that 

11 matched what -- that basically showed a trend 

12 with energy efficiency. And in some cases, it 

13 showed a negative cost trend. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl? 

15 MR. ERBS: So I think that’s an 

16 interesting study you did and I’m glad you did 

17 that. I guess from my perspective, I think it 

18 helps to point out that from a customer, from 

19 and end-user perspective, there are many 

20 different reasons that they find value in an 

21 ice machine. It’s not just about energy 

22 efficiency. 
Page 109

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 Your classes are fairly broad and so 

2 you would find, if you did a more detailed 

3 analysis within those classes, some of the 

4 time, it may be because there’s a particular 

5 application need that drives and ice machine 

6 to fit a configuration size, a physical volume 

7 size, something like that that may constrain 

8 its energy efficiency. 

9 Those are real needs. I mean the 

10 market generally for products is pretty 

11 efficient. So people pay more for less 

12 efficiency for other reasons. It’s not that 

13 they don’t have a basis to compare all of the 

14 different ice machine options. 

15 In fact, if you look at the Internet, 

16 it’s done a wonderful job for the end customer 

17 to be able to very quickly ascertain what all 

18 the different options are for an ice machine 

19 to fit their need. 

20 And this finding that you comment on 

21 here, I think is, you know, something that we 

22 need to be careful that when we put in place 
Page 110

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 new efficiency standards, we don’t drive them 

2 purely on the basis of, you know, what’s 

3 technically possible in a particular 

4 configuration that fits into one of your 

5 categories, one of your equipment classes 

6 because there maybe some models out there that 

7 just can’t get there and there’s real need for 

8 those models. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Detlef? 

10 MR. WESTPHALEN: Detlef WESTPHALEN. 

11 Daryl, thanks for your comments. 

12 You know, I don’t know if we should dwell too 

13 much on these alternative analyses that were 

14 considered. I remember when we were here in 

15 the preliminary analysis Karim came up and 

16 asked us, did you conduct a retail cost 

17 analysis? And my answer was no we haven’t, 

18 but we could. And so we have and didn’t show 

19 us anything. 

20 And also in light of all the concern 

21 about the approach we used for the preliminary 

22 analysis, we said, okay, we ought to consider 
Page 111

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 alternative ways to do this and we did try an 

2 efficiency level analysis which is a very 

3 commonly used in these DOE rulemakings and, 

4 you know, Javier can get into the details but 

5 we didn’t find any meaningful results in that 

6 efficiency level analysis either. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, Daryl? 

8 MR. ERBS: So Daryl Erbs with 

9 Manitowoc. My point is, I think you did find 

10 something. It wasn’t what you would hope 

11 maybe to find in terms of a nice strong 

12 correlation between efficiency and price 

13 level. 

14 But my point is, is there’s a really 

15 good reason why there isn’t such a strong 

16 correlation and it’s not because the market 

17 isn’t aware of the options, it’s not because 

18 the manufacturers don’t worry about the 

19 efficiency for the different models they put 

20 out there. There are other causes that lead 

21 to that kind of scattered plot that you can’t 

22 really fit much of a line to. 
Page 112

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl, you’ve stated 

2 your points clearly. Javier, keep going. 

3 MR. BURGOS: Sure. Not sure if 

4 there is too much to add, but you know, I think 

5 the second approach that was also investigated 

6 was an efficiency analysis approach and that 

7 was basically taking the 41 reverse engineered 

8 units that, you know, we purchased and we were 

9 able to then investigate trends in nine 

10 different equipment classes. 

11 And again, you know, DOE’s main task 

12 is to determine what portion of that cost 

13 different could be attributed to increased 

14 energy efficiency? And when DOE ran these 

15 analyses, you know, it basically showed in 

16 some cases no trend, in some cases a it shows 

17 a positive trend and in some cases, the results 

18 were negative cost cares. 

19 And again, DPE wasn’t able to 

20 conclude that this was a viable pathway for 

21 determining cost efficiency curves. 

22 And so this leads us to the current 
Page 113

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 approach. The last one that we look and the 

2 one that was ultimately adopted was adjusting 

3 the preliminary analysis approach in response 

4 to the testing and feedback that we received. 

5 As you noted, there’s a lot of 

6 additional testing within the NOPR phase both 

7 the high efficiency models and to lower 

8 efficiency models as well as some testing to 

9 account for things like, you know, lower 

10 condensing temperatures, and adjusting 

11 component energy use. 

12 As well, DOE also made cost 

13 adjustments based on discussions with 

14 component manufacturers and equipment 

15 manufacturers some of the other idea. 

16 And then this is the flow diagram 

17 that basically shows, you know, how the 

18 information flows between different analyses. 

19 Again, you know, it’s different sub-analyses 

20 that were conducted include energy testing, 

21 manufacturer interviews, reverse engineering 

22 and vendor interviews. All that information 
Page 114

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 goes into one, the energy model and B, the 

2 manufacturing cost models. 

3 And, you know, ultimately that all 

4 results in the cost efficiency curves. 

5 Are there any questions on the 

6 approach at this point? Otherwise, we’ll 

7 jump into some of these design options. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Frank? 

9 MR. MOORE: So this is a flow 

10 diagram, again, I’m just trying to -- you know, 

11 I know I’ve got a lot of homework to do here 

12 -- but this is the flow diagram he revised 

13 design option analysis that was ultimately 

14 selected? 

15 MR. BURGOS: Yes. 

16 MR. MOORE: Okay, and that’s how you 

17 -- that’s what you used to arrives? And I 

18 think you also had a manufacturer impact model 

19 somewhere up there. Is that one and the same? 

20 MR. BURGOS: Yes, that’s one and the 

21 same. 

22 MR. MOORE: One and the same, okay. 
Page 115

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 MR. BURGOS: Yes. 

2 MR. MOORE: Now did -- in your 

3 interviewing with manufacturers, did you vet 

4 that with them and say does this look right and 

5 let’s run some numbers and beta test that? 

6 MR. BURGOS: Well, you know, 

7 clarifing one point I just made. 

8 Manufacturing impact analysis is actually 

9 different from the manufacturing cost model. 

10 MR. MOORE: And it’s not there, it’s 

11 something else? 

12 MR. BURGOS: No, that’s different 

13 process that happens downstream of the 

14 engineering analysis. But -- 

15 MR. MOORE: But so to that point, the 

16 manufacturing cost model, did you all at any 

17 point in time sit down with these 

18 manufacturers and runs some numbers and say, 

19 yes, that looks right? 

20 MR. BURGOS: Yes. 

21 MR. MOORE: That’s suggested, 

22 MR. BURGOS: Do we have the final 
Page 116

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 MPCs that went into producing these costs? I 

2 mean a lot of the discussions with the 

3 manufacturers and a lot of the inputs happened 

4 under NDA and so we’re not allowed to disclose 

5 those. 

6 MR. MOORE: I’m just trying to 

7 figure out how the one dollar increase for 

8 another foot of copper came out of that cost 

9 model. 

10 MR. BURGOS: Well, we did validate 

11 the costs which the manufacturers, but you 

12 know, I think we’re also open to any comments 

13 you have on the costs you’re seeing right now. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl? 

15 MR. ERBS: Yes, Daryl Erbs with 

16 Manitowoc Ice. I’m wondering if you did any 

17 testing of your manufacturing cost models 

18 maybe with two different sizes ice machines or 

19 something because from my perspective and when 

20 I went through the TSD, it doesn’t match what 

21 our costs are, especially in the case where the 

22 size of the ice machine is growing. 
Page 117

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 There’s a significant disconnect. 

2 I know we had conversations, it was a long time 

3 ago so I can’t remember exactly what we may or 

4 may not have shared with you. But from my 

5 perspective, something is incorrect with the 

6 cost model and I’m not sure what we’ll do in 

7 the way of how much detail we’ll share in the 

8 written comments, but from my perspective, the 

9 impact, particularly in cases where an 

10 evaporator is getting larger, some other 

11 change is occurring that requires the cabinet 

12 to also change. There’s a big disconnect. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: You referenced that 

14 in your opening remarks. 

15 Okay. Are we ready to move on now? 

16 We’re moving on. 

17 MR. BURGOS: I think we’ll take any 

18 comments that you have. 

19 All right. The next section 

20 concerns some of the design options that we 

21 looked at. This table is going to be pretty 

22 similar to the one Detlef showed. Basically, 
Page 118

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 it just breaks down some of the these cost 

2 options in the different equipment costs that 

3 they’re analyzed into. 

4 So something like condenser water 

5 flow can only be applied to water cooled units, 

6 something like high efficiency auger motors 

7 can only be applied to continuous products. 

8 Now the next two slides are going to 

9 briefly describe some of the analyses that we 

10 performed for each design option that we 

11 considered. Additional details of this, of 

12 course are available in Chapter 5 of the TSD. 

13 And I think the thing, I’ll try to 

14 stress is that, you know, DOE sought to base 

15 analysis of each option on the data it 

16 collected whether it was test data, whether it 

17 was physical data from the reverse 

18 engineering, whatever is market data in terms 

19 of some of the efficiencies that we’re looking 

20 at. 

21 We have notes here on drain water 

22 heat exchangers, condenser water flows, 
Page 119

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 increased water cooled condenser service area 

2 which was what was considered in lieu of 

3 condenser water flow as well as for chassis 

4 size increases. 

5 And I know we had a question as well 

6 on compressors. And that’s on the next slide 

7 but for anyone who has any questions in terms 

8 of some of these design options. 

9 MR. ERBS: Yes, Daryl Erbs, 

10 Manitowoc. 

11 I did have a comment on the 

12 condenser, water cooled condenser surface 

13 area. It’s not just a matter of space 

14 available but we also run into an issue where 

15 putting more surface area and reducing the 

16 condensing temperature at the rated condition 

17 can lead to the inability of the ice machine 

18 to harvest the ice at a low inlet water 

19 temperature condition. 

20 And so when you get into northern 

21 regions during the winter months and people 

22 use ice all year round, and it really comes 
Page 120

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 down to kind of model by model. 

2 We have to run testing and determine 

3 what the minimum condensing temperature that 

4 we can operate reliably at and so that becomes 

5 a constraint that I’m not sure was really 

6 properly analyzed. 

7 MR. BURGOS: Mind if I ask a 

8 question? Do you have any specific models 

9 that would be, I guess southern region models? 

10 Does this apply to -- 

11 MR. Erbs: No, we can’t afford to 

12 create special models for northern regions. 

13 I’m just saying that we may not be able to apply 

14 some of the potential increases in water 

15 cooled condenser surface area because of that 

16 reason. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Robert? 

18 MR. WILKINS: Robert Wilkins, 

19 Danfoss. Thanks Javier. 

20 In your point about chassis-size 

21 increases and obviously when you have a larger 

22 condenser, it forces to you a larger chassis. 
Page 121

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 The condenser costs more than the chassis 

2 itself. It’s also larger. But have you 

3 considered the applied cost of larger chassis? 

4 MR. BURGOS: Yes. Well let me make 

5 sure I got your question right. So did we 

6 incorporate the cost of the larger chassis 

7 into the cost of the design option? Is that 

8 your question? 

9 MR. WILKINS: I don’t think so. 

10 I’m always amazed when I go into a 

11 restaurant kitchen or fast food store kitchen 

12 how compact everything is and the people are 

13 scrambling around this equipment and it’s very 

14 compact. 

15 And so if we have to increase the size 

16 of the chassis to increase the efficiency, that 

17 adds more sheet metal and frame and I 

18 understand you have included that in the 

19 analysis. 

20 But what about the applied costs that 

21 now the restaurant has to have more floor space 

22 to fit this 30 inch unit intro or more ceiling 
Page 122

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 space that the 20 inch unit -- 22 inch unit or 

2 whatever it is won’t fit. 

3 And I think, you know, that seems to 

4 me there are two dimensions to the issue. One 

5 is the new applications, the new MacDonald’s 

6 store is going to have to allocate more floor 

7 space for these larger units and that cost 

8 should be imbedded in here in this analysis. 

9 But more importantly when that old 

10 15-year-old unit that’s 22 inches fails, and 

11 now I’ve got to put a 30 inch unit into the 22 

12 inch slot. What about the cost to retrofit 

13 the whole kitchen to enable that to happen. 

14 I think that’s a substantial figure 

15 and I’m reminded of when we went from 10 to 13 

16 SEER in air conditioning. The biggest issue 

17 we had was in the retrofit markets, 80 percent 

18 retrofit, the unit simply wouldn’t fit in the 

19 closet. And we had huge amount of costs and 

20 here -- and I’ll stop here but the biggest 

21 issue involved that was so frustrating was 

22 that it was inducing people to patch up old, 
Page 123

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 inefficient equipment at low, low efficience 

2 rather than to upgrade to new efficiency 

3 because they couldn’t afford the cost to do it. 

4 And I’m hoping you’ve got some way of 

5 analyzing the incremental applied costs to 

6 these new larger units. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Alan seems like 

8 he wants to respond. Alan? 

9 MR. COOKE: Alan Cooke, Pacific 

10 Northwest National Laboratory. 

11 We did the life cycle cost and other 

12 downstream analyses, part of which was 

13 estimating the installation cost which would 

14 probably be where this cost you’re talking 

15 about would logically be included and we did 

16 not include any such costs. 

17 So as Doug and others have said 

18 already a few times, we encourage you to give 

19 us specific comments on this subject. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Chris? 

21 MR. MOORE: Did the DOE engage in -- 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Pardon me, Frank, go 
Page 124

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 ahead. 

2 MR. MOORE: Frank, I’m sorry, Frank 

3 with NAFEM. 

4 Just in terms of that, that’s good 

5 information. But has DOE relied on the 

6 manufacturers or are they going to talk to the 

7 users? The folks that own the restaurants? 

8 MR. COOKE: We’ve relied on the 

9 manufacturers and the other trade groups 

10 largely that are here in the room for 

11 information. 

12 MR. MOORE: So the current proposal 

13 does not include input from the market that 

14 we’re building for? 

15 MR. COOKE: When we developed the 

16 installation costs, the repair costs and the 

17 maintenance cost. We did, try talking to 

18 contractors who do the installation and who do 

19 that kind of maintenance work. 

20 We did not talk to hotels or 

21 restaurants or hospitals. 

22 MR. MOORE: Okay, and I just again, 
Page 125

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 it gets to be in the written, but try to talk 

2 or did talk? 

3 MR. COOKE: We talked to a few. We 

4 had some luck actually getting them to answer 

5 questions. It seemed like the -- when we were 

6 honest and told them who we were, which I think 

7 is important to do, a lot of them weren’t very 

8 interested in answering our questions. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you, 

10 Frank. Now to Chris. 

11 MR. RAWALD: OH, pardon me, Doug, 

12 and I want to make something clear. This is 

13 a public process. We do publish these 

14 regulations or the Proposed Rules in the 

15 Federal Register so folks are asked to be 

16 involved. 

17 So the country knows about this and 

18 if they want to respond they can. And so if 

19 you feel there are folks that are not included, 

20 you think, hey, they folks would be interested 

21 ion that encourage them to -- 

22 MR. MOORE: Well, I appreciate that. 
Page 126

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 Again, I was trying to figure out if in fact, 

2 it is incumbent on us and if you all are relying 

3 on us to engage the rest of the world. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: All right, okay. 

5 Thank you, Frank. 

6 Chris? 

7 MR. SALATINO: This is Chris 

8 Salatino of Scotsman. 

9 All I want to do is endorse the two 

10 comments previous. 

11 One, the impact of the restaurant and 

12 it’s twofold so the restaurant can go one of 

13 two ways if we have to increase the footprint. 

14 They can either stay with the footprint they 

15 have which then limits them and cooling 

16 capacity for beverages which is one of their 

17 primary profit generators. 

18 Or they can then upgrade their 

19 facility. There’s not a lot of space so that 

20 upgrade would include plumbing and electrical 

21 and possibly relocating existing equipment. 

22 So that’s the impact that’s not 
Page 127

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 covered in the evaluation usually. But I 

2 think it’s important to consider. 

3 And then the other comment that Daryl 

4 had is as far as the evaluation goes, you know, 

5 we design for a much broader ambient whether 

6 it’s not only air and water but also electrical 

7 supplies. 

8 So I think those need to be taken into 

9 consideration in this evaluation as well. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Louis? 

11 MR. STARR: This is Louis Starr. 

12 I question in the chassis increase in 

13 the chassis size. Was it primarily limited to 

14 vertical increase in height or was it also the 

15 width or did you confirm it to one or the other? 

16 MR. BURGOS: So the chassis 

17 increases that were implemented were 

18 implemented in three of the product classes. 

19 One was the IMH-A-Small-Batch, one was the 

20 IMH-A-Medium-Batch, the last one was the 

21 IMH-A-Water-Small-Batch. And those were 

22 confined to height increases. 
Page 128

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 Mr. Starr: Okay, so that, in theory 

2 the ability there is just limiting the height 

3 which the thought is, is that there’s more 

4 flexibility in that so normally the design 

5 plan is mostly concerned with the footprint 

6 which is the plan view of things. 

7 So the thought is, is that that 

8 there’s more available for the vertical aspect 

9 to add the height increase in there. So I 

10 think that’s a little bit what DOE is thinking 

11 about. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Stephen? 

13 MR. SCHAEFER: Stephen Schaefer, 

14 Hoshizaki America. 

15 And I concur also with the water 

16 cooler condenser surface area and chassis size 

17 increase. We’ve been in a grassroots effort 

18 to talk to all our end-users with the help of 

19 NAFEM, AHRI and the other manufacturers. 

20 We’re working together to let them know that 

21 in could greatly increase the cost of their 

22 machines and change the size of their place. 
Page 129

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 I implore you all to look the next 

2 time you’re in a restaurant or a hotel how much 

3 space is actually close to the roof. We’re 

4 fitting into a very small area as it is and this 

5 could greatly impact the whole market. So you 

6 will be seeing a lot of comments from all our 

7 end-users. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, now we’re 

9 hearing this comment, let’s try not to be 

10 entirely duplicative but Daryl, please. 

11 MR. ERGS: Yes, Daryl Erbs. 

12 Manitowoc Ice. 

13 I just wanted to talk about one 

14 particular example that I think is very 

15 relevant which is drive-throughs and you think 

16 about the utility that drive-throughs provide 

17 to the nation in terms of, you know, in the 

18 morning when you want to get your coffee and 

19 beverage, you know with it. 

20 That’s one of those really space 

21 constrained application where there’s an ice 

22 machine that’s sitting on top of an ice 
Page 130

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 beverage dispenser and in some cases, we’re 

2 talking about very significant investments 

3 that people have made. 

4 There is really no alternative way to 

5 deal with the through-put that a drive-though 

6 has to manage and they’re not going to accept 

7 less ice capacity because that’s such a source 

8 of profit revenue for the ice or for the 

9 restaurant that they will not, they not back 

10 down from capacity. There’s no physical 

11 ceiling space and, you know, people aren’t 

12 going to raise the roof line on their 

13 restaurants to accommodate a larger ice 

14 machine. 

15 I think what’ll happen is they won’t 

16 replace them. They will fix them for 20 years 

17 because it’s the only way to keep their 

18 restaurant in business. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

20 Andrew? 

21 MR. DELASKI: Let me be clear, 

22 Javier, so there’s three out of all the product 
Page 131

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 classes -- 

2 MR. BURGOS: Out of the 12? 

3 MR. DELASKI: Out of 12, you only 

4 consider chassis changes in three. 

5 RE. BURGOS: Yes, and the -- 

6 MR. DELASKI: And you ruled it out 

7 for the others. Why? 

8 MR. BURGOS: Yes, the basis for that 

9 was we looked at chassis sizes within all the 

10 different equipment classes and in those three 

11 cases there, we saw an opportunity for chassis 

12 size increases based on all the models that are 

13 out there on the market. So the growths were 

14 basically from baseline unit to a higher 

15 efficiency unit. 

16 And the larger size is indicative of 

17 what the higher efficiency units are at, and 

18 they were at. And so basically, (a) the 

19 market had opportunity for a chassis size 

20 increase and (b) that was a pathway for higher 

21 energy efficiency. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: The remaining 
Page 132

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 chassis size -- pardon, backing up. 

2 You thought the chassis size 

3 increase in those three, but the remaining 

4 nine, you thought the existing configuration 

5 or size would accommodate the possible 

6 efficiency improvements? 

7 MR. BURGOS: Right, we did 

8 consider some condenser size increases within 

9 some of these product classes where we do not 

10 consider chassis size increase and would have 

11 occurred within the existing chassis. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, so now, we 

13 understand it. Okay, got it. 

14 Yes, Scott. 

15 MR. BINGHAM: So not to belabor 

16 chassis size, but another point to consider is 

17 even if the chassis doesn’t grow, if the 

18 components inside grow, that impacts that 

19 ability to service these machines. 

20 Often, they’re right up against the 

21 roof, right up against a wall and so there’s 

22 less ability to service and maintain these 
Page 133

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 machines. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Good point. 

3 Daryl? 

4 ERBS: Just quickly, Daryl Erbs, 

5 Manitowoc Ice. 

6 Just because there’s a taller, 30 

7 inch air-cooled ice making head, even with the 

8 same capacity still doesn’t mean that all 

9 end-users could accept a larger or a taller ice 

10 making cabinet. 

11 I think that’s the danger in assuming 

12 because there’s taller units out there, that 

13 all of them can become taller. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Right. Okay, we’re 

15 moving on now. 

16 MR. BURGOS: All right, I’ll get to 

17 the second slide. Basically, a lot more of 

18 the same but again, the slide covers heat 

19 exchanger size increases outside the chassis 

20 sizes as well as compressor efficiency 

21 improvements and motor efficiency 

22 improvements. 
Page 134

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 I think we had a question on 

2 compressors. I was maybe waiting for a while. 

3 Did we get that? 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Robert. 

5 MR. WILKINS: Yes, it’s Robert 

6 Wilkins with Danfoss. 

7 We kind of touched on it earlier, but 

8 the assumption of the compressor efficiency 

9 improvement versus cost improvement. Is that 

10 consistent with the assumption that was in the 

11 final rule in the commercial refrigeration 

12 document? Or if not, what assumptions do you 

13 have in there? 

14 MR. BURGOS: We have the assumption 

15 that’s outlined within the TSD and I believe 

16 it’s for a five percent -- maybe I should look 

17 at it. I don’t want to get this wrong. But 

18 it’s for a -- 

19 And I believe somebody actually 

20 brought this up a little bit earlier. But I 

21 believe it’s ten percent increase in costs for 

22 five percent increase in efficiency. 
Page 135

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Maybe you could, at 

2 some point, track that down. 

3 MR. BURGOS: Sure. Yes, what we 

4 have in there, it’s flipped; for ten percent 

5 increase in the efficiency relationship 

6 yields a five percent increase in cost. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, Daryl? 

8 Robert, did you want to follow on? 

9 MR. WILKINS: Yes. 

10 If I recall, and I don’t have my 

11 documents with me, but that was the initial 

12 assumption in the commercial refrigeration 

13 docket that you could achieve a ten percent 

14 increase in compressor efficiency for a five 

15 percent increase in cost. 

16 And I remember commenting on that. 

17 These are matured technologies. They’ve been 

18 around 50 or 60 years. If that sort of 

19 efficiency improvement could be made 

20 available, it would have -- these guys have 

21 been hammering on the compressor 

22 manufacturers for decades -- we would have 
Page 136

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 already done it. 

2 But I have heard that the final rule 

3 adjusted that assumption to be a more 

4 realistic assumption for a smaller increase in 

5 efficiency for a cost increase. And I am 

6 wondering, is this assumption -- should this 

7 assumption be the same assumption that you’ve 

8 used in the commercial refrigeration docket? 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Do you want to 

10 respond? 

11 Okay. Oh yes, Detlef? 

12 MR. WESTPHALEN: Just to clarify, 

13 you know -- 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: I don’t think it’s 

15 on. 

16 MR. WESTPHALEN: Detlef Westphalen. 

17 Just to clarify, in the CRE 

18 rulemaking, a baseline compressor efficiency 

19 was assumed and then a hypothetical ten 

20 percent improvement was then postulated as an 

21 efficiency improvement. 

22 In this rulemaking, we restricted 
Page 137

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 ourselves to use of compressors that are 

2 available in the market that we have seen in 

3 ice makers and that we have heard from ice 

4 maker manufacturers are acceptable to use in 

5 ice makers. 

6 Then what remains is, what should the 

7 cost relationship be? And we -- I think we 

8 requested comment on that item in the 

9 preliminary analysis. We also received 

10 information regarding compressor costs and it 

11 wasn’t clear from that information whether 

12 there was any trend with respect to efficiency 

13 for those existing compressors. 

14 And we know the story is more complex 

15 than that and I’m sure we’ll hear more about 

16 that. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Robert? 

18 MR. WILKINS: Thank you. Maybe I’m 

19 being overly simplistic, but I think I would 

20 urge DOE to at least align the assumptions 

21 between the two dockets and if you make a 

22 different assumption, at least substantiate 
Page 138

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 why you’ve made the additional difference in 

2 assumption. 

3 However, I would say this is a very 

4 mature technology. We’ve been making 

5 reciprocating compressors for ice makers for 

6 50 or 60 years and these guys that have been 

7 hammering on us compressor manufacturers for 

8 that entire period of time, please raise your 

9 energy efficiency. 

10 And I can attest from my experience 

11 that if we could get a ten percent increase in 

12 efficiency for a five percent increase in 

13 cost, it would have happened a long time ago. 

14 So I urge you to go back and relook 

15 that assumption and -- with the mindset of a 

16 more realistic assumption. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl and then I’m 

18 going to come back to you George. 

19 MR. ERBS: Yes, I believe we did 

20 comment at the preliminary phase and I thought 

21 we had provided at least commentary. I’m not 

22 sure how much data was actually given to you 
Page 139

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 where the assumption of, you know, ten percent 

2 for five percent was not in line with 

3 everything we’ve ever experienced in terms of 

4 working with all of the different compressors 

5 suppliers that we have. So my position is 

6 still that that’s unrealistic. 

7 But I wanted to talk about some 

8 recent experience that we’ve had. Because of 

9 the new Energy Star standards that went into 

10 effect, we and I suspect all of the 

11 manufacturers in the room, have done a lot of 

12 work on how to raise energy efficiency and 

13 that’s given us a lot of data in recent 

14 history, some of that, you know, only in the 

15 last year which actually is, you know, after 

16 most of our discussions during the preliminary 

17 phase occurred. 

18 And I had a specific example and I’ve 

19 already put in some additional written 

20 comments, but I’ll certainly expand on it. In 

21 Table 5.10.8 of the TSD, there was a compressor 

22 put in. Actually, I think it was two steps but 
Page 140

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 the total improvement in the EER for the 

2 compressor was 13 percent and the modeling 

3 that was done said that would lead to a 9.4 

4 percent improvement in ice machine 

5 efficiency. 

6 Well, we’ve recently done testing on 

7 a very similarly sized ice machine, same 

8 class, same configuration. The compressor 

9 that we tested has a 12 percent higher EER than 

10 the current compressor in it, and we were able 

11 to obtain a three percent improvement in ice 

12 machine efficiency. 

13 So there’s a factor of three 

14 difference between what a model predicted and 

15 what our test data -- now, all we changed was 

16 the compressor, so I think it’s a very well 

17 controlled experiment. Right? We swapped 

18 the compressor out in the same units. We did 

19 it in multiple samples. We think we know how 

20 to optimize the performance in ice machines. 

21 And so, I guess I’m going to suggest 

22 that there are some reasons. Now I happen to 
Page 141

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 know in this case, the higher-efficiency 

2 compressor had some design characteristics. 

3 It wasn’t a direct suction, so thank you for 

4 taking direct suction compressors out of 

5 consideration. But this one was still 

6 designed with a higher-efficiency motor. 

7 It had different routing of the gas, 

8 so that there was less heating of the 

9 discharged gas that leads to a lower discharge 

10 temperature. While that lower discharge 

11 temperature helps in the, you know, the ASHRAE 

12 rating, right, it gives you a better 

13 compressor efficiency rating. It really 

14 hurts the ice machine in harvest and your model 

15 doesn’t really give you a good basis for 

16 predicting that effect down to the level of 

17 detail that’s required. 

18 And my assertion is that there’s a 

19 big disconnect between what is assumed on the 

20 basis of the DOE models as to the contribution 

21 of higher efficiency compressors and, you 

22 know, given this is one example so there may 
Page 142

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 be other higher efficiency compressors that do 

2 better. 

3 But I think it’s very, you know, to 

4 kind of take the database of compressors out 

5 there and use that as an assumption to say, yes 

6 we can get a 12 percent better compressor and 

7 it’s going to get nine percent better 

8 efficiency. I have data to say that doesn’t 

9 always happen, okay. 

10 Second point. Heat exchanges, 

11 evaporators, put a 50 percent bigger 

12 evaporator in, two things happen that I don’t 

13 think that have been properly considered in 

14 the modeling. 

15 One is the refrigerant charge goes up 

16 significantly. Refrigerant charge is a big 

17 issue in an ice machine in terms of how you deal 

18 with that, particularly during harvest and 

19 even during ice making. So it may add 

20 additional cost factors. I may have to put an 

21 accumulator in the ice machine where I didn’t 

22 need one before. 
Page 143

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 Managing that charge becomes 

2 problematic in terms of, you know, the 

3 compressors that we have today can deal with 

4 a certain amount of flooding during harvest. 

5 A 50 percent bigger evaporator may mean those 

6 compressors are no longer reliable during a 

7 harvest event. We won’t know until we do the 

8 testing, right. There hasn’t been any 

9 analysis done around that. 

10 And then the other big thing that 

11 happens is the mass of the evaporator grows 

12 directly with its size. When you harvest an 

13 ice machine, you have to heat that evaporator 

14 up and cool it back down. 50 percent bigger 

15 evaporator takes 50 percent more energy to 

16 heat up and cool back down. Again, I don’t 

17 believe that’s been considered in the model 

18 that was used to predict the benefit of that 

19 larger evaporator. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: George, it seems like 

21 Craig has a follow-on comment. Craig? 

22 MR. RANEY: Yes, Craig Raney with 
Page 144

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 Emerson Climate Technologies. I guess my 

2 question is a point of clarification. 

3 So in the modeling that you did, what 

4 rating point for the compressors did you use? 

5 MR. BURGOS: It’S the AHRI rating. 

6 MR. RANEY: So the 20-120 rating, 

7 right? 

8 MR. BURGOS: Yes. 

9 MR. RANEY: And that’s not typically 

10 where an ice machine operates and I think 

11 that’s, you know, Daryl’s point, just to 

12 follow-on to that. I think that’s part of the 

13 issue with the modeling. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

15 MR. BURGOS: Well -- 

16 MR. ERBS: Well, yes, I don’t know if 

17 it will help you out, I’m sorry to jump in. 

18 Daryl -- 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl. 

20 MR. ERBS: We typically use like a 

21 10-105 condition. Now, other manufacturers 

22 may use something slightly different, but 
Page 145

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 that’s kind of a midpoint. It’s interesting 

2 to note that in the cost curves that were 

3 established for compressors, a 15-95 

4 condition was used and I’m curious, where did 

5 that come from because it really doesn’t match 

6 an operating condition that ever occurs in an 

7 operating ice machine? 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Detlef. 

9 MR. WESTPHALEN: So what part of the 

10 TSD are you referring to there? 

11 MR. ERBS: I think it’s in Section 5. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Turn your mic on. 

13 MR. ERBS: Yes, it’s in Section 5. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Maybe we can just dig 

15 for that, yes, and figure out where that is. 

16 MR. PETRILLO-GROH: I think that’s 

17 Section 5.9.2. 

18 MR. ERBS: Yes. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Laura. 

20 MR. BURGOS: I think one comment 

21 I’ll make in terms of that compressor is when 

22 we do a small one, we use the compressor maps. 
Page 146

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 So the performance of those compressors is 

2 based off of whatever the map tells us the 

3 performance is at, you know, at the 20 degree 

4 evaporating, 10 degree evaporating, whichever 

5 set that’s in. So hopefully I’ll help clarify 

6 how that’s done. 

7 Mr. Brookman: Daryl, follow-on. 

8 MR. ERBS: So I understand and 

9 probably wouldn’t be as concerned about the 

10 20-120 as the fact that those compressor maps, 

11 they can’t model what happens during the 

12 harvest event. They also cannot analyze what 

13 happens during the pre-chill time, before the 

14 ice starts freezing. 

15 The coefficient models that are 

16 fitted are based on data that doesn’t include 

17 those operating regions. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Detlef? 

19 MR. WESTPHALEN: Well, you know, in 

20 response to Daryl, I understand this is a 

21 complicated process and you know, I think 

22 there are many things that require, you know, 
Page 147

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 looking at, you know, different conditions, 

2 the way different components behave in 

3 different ice makers. It might be different, 

4 you know. 

5 The analysis was conducted based on 

6 the available information. And, you know, 

7 best estimates based on the information that 

8 we had available to use and, you know, we 

9 welcome additional information to understand 

10 that. 

11 For instance, the issue of, you know 

12 the harvest cycle impacts on, you know, the 

13 performance. You know, the DOE conducted 

14 some testing to understand that. We tried to 

15 obtain some test data, you know, asking 

16 manufacturers for some of that. We got a 

17 little bit and, you know, we made some 

18 comparisons of that data with our modeling 

19 and, you know, it looked like it had reasonable 

20 agreement. 

21 But, you know, we understand that 

22 you’ve got years of experience doing this 
Page 148

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 stuff and certainly you know, it sounds like 

2 you know, with the recent Energy Star work, 

3 much more experience and, you know, certainly, 

4 you know we welcome that input. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Laura, George has 

6 been in the queue a long time. George? 

7 MR. PARSONS: George Parsons, 

8 Ice-O-Matic and I’ll go quickly. 

9 But I just want to concur with what 

10 everybody said here and independent of exactly 

11 what Daryl talked about. We did testing with 

12 a batch ice machine where we took one 

13 compressor out and put a higher EER compressor 

14 in that was, in our case, roughly ten percent 

15 and we only seen a two percent improvement; and 

16 it relates back to the harvest cycle. 

17 And you have to remember the unique 

18 circumstances. A commercial refrigeration 

19 freezer is going to defrost once, maybe twice 

20 a day. That’s all you’re going to see it. 

21 We’re seeing the equivalent of a 

22 defrost, at harvest, every 15 to 20 minutes 
Page 149

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 inside of a customer’s busy operation. And so 

2 it’s a completely different model that you’ve 

3 got to look at because the effect of harvest 

4 will remove a lot of the improvements that 

5 you’re seeing with compressor efficiency 

6 improvement. 

7 And I would state that this is one of 

8 the large areas of this document that we’re 

9 very concerned with became we believe that the 

10 improvement stated with compressors and 

11 compressor technology is just completely 

12 overstated. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Laura? 

14 MR. PETRILLO-GROH: So just to be 

15 brief, the ten percent improvement was 

16 determined for the CRE rulemaking, but that 

17 was just the preliminary analysis. The final 

18 rule, you know, included across an efficiency 

19 increase of two percent for a cost increase of 

20 five percent of the compressor. 

21 Further, these, you know, 

22 compressors operate very differently than 
Page 150

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 they do in commercial refrigeration 

2 equipment. 

3 What’s the procedure for updating, 

4 you know, the analysis to reflect the, you 

5 know, more appropriate costs and efficiency 

6 increases as well as, you know, take into 

7 account this different operating map. 

8 You know, is there information that 

9 AHRI can provide? I know we’re on a very tight 

10 deadline and I’d like to respect that and, you 

11 know, do what we can to help. So, you know, 

12 but I’m fairly new to this process in 

13 general. So could you guys go over maybe 

14 what would be involved in updating his 

15 analysis and is it possible at this point? 

16 MR. CYMBALSKY: This is John 

17 Cymbalsky, DOE. 

18 So yes, we’re taking public comments 

19 on what we did. The process is fairly 

20 standard. If you take issue with what we’ve 

21 done, you provide data standard. If you take 

22 issue with what we’ve done, you provide data 
Page 151

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 to support your position. 

2 We weigh all the data and comments 

3 that we get and based on that, we’ll move 

4 forward with the final rule. 

5 As for the rating, it sounds like 

6 you’re asking about the test method. Maybe 

7 you’re not, maybe I’m misunderstanding. But 

8 the test procedure is what it is. That’s a 

9 final test procedure. We will be constrained 

10 to that. We’re not changing the test method 

11 simultaneously with this rulemaking, 

12 completely off the table. So let’s work 

13 within what the test method tells us to do to 

14 rate these ice makers. 

15 And so if you can provide data that 

16 suggests we need to adjust our analysis, we do 

17 that based on verifiable data and not 

18 assertions. Anyone can assert anything. We 

19 get a lot of assertions but we need to back that 

20 with data. So we -- 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Stephen and then I’m 

22 coming back to you, Louis. 
Page 152

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 MR. SCHAEFER: Yes, just quickly. 

2 I concur with George and Daryl on 

3 their analysis. We had similar analysis with 

4 about a 12 percent increase in EER, we only saw 

5 about three percent. So we’ll share our data 

6 on that. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: That’s good, you 

8 heard John. They need to see the data. 

9 Robert, go ahead. 

10 MR. WILKINS: So, I think this -- 

11 John’s made some very good points here. But 

12 most of my career has been with compressor 

13 manufacturing, 38 years. 

14 I would say that ice machines differ 

15 significantly from air conditioning and 

16 commercial refrigeration in that it’s almost 

17 like there’s a lot of art in air conditioning 

18 and a lot of experience required. You can’t 

19 put everything in a curve in a simulation and 

20 make it work. 

21 To illustrate the point a little bit, 

22 I think it’s fair to say when you’re making 
Page 153

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 ice, you want the most efficient compressor 

2 you can get. But when you’re harvesting ice, 

3 it would help to have the least efficient 

4 compressor you can get because you want the 

5 heat. You want that waste heat to harvest it. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Louis? 

7 MR. WILKINS: So I’m just using that 

8 to illustrate the complexity here, that it’s 

9 not just looking at an operating map set of 

10 curves on a compressor and trying to figure out 

11 a point and then make an assumption. It won’t 

12 work because you’ve got such diverse operating 

13 conditions during the production, the 

14 pre-production, the production and the 

15 harvesting of the ice. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Louis. 

17 MR. STARR: So I’ll start with, it 

18 seems like a common theme I’m hearing is that 

19 the ice machines, they have more defrost 

20 cycles which kind of implies that they may be 

21 harvesting more which also is also reflected 

22 in more operating hours than probably what’s 
Page 154

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 shown typically. 

2 So I think there’s -- while there may 

3 be some losses in efficiency, if they’re 

4 operating more, they’re operating more hours, 

5 there’s an opportunity to gain some of that 

6 energy back, too. 

7 So that’s -- it kind of goes back 

8 though to a little bit, but John was talking 

9 about -- John Cymbalsky was talking about in 

10 the test procedure. But I think it would be 

11 kind of good to understand if that’s a 

12 realistic reflection of what it is, we should 

13 be trying to reflect that in the test procedure 

14 rather than trying to redefine that in the 

15 NOPR. 

16 Mr. Brookman: Okay. Final comment 

17 from Daryl and then we’re moving on. 

18 MR. ERBS: So just -- so Daryl Erbs, 

19 Manitowoc Ice. 

20 There’s nothing wrong with the test 

21 procedure, in my opinion. I think the test 

22 procedure provides an accurate measurement of 
Page 155

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 the integrated performance of a batch ice 

2 machine. So we’re good with that. 

3 I think what we’re really -- and you 

4 know, Detlef and I have, you know, we’ve tried 

5 to explore the model that was used. It’s a -- 

6 I think it’s almost an impossible task so I’m 

7 really kind of sympathizing with, you know, 

8 what they were asked to do. I think they did 

9 the best they could. 

10 I don’t think it’s something that can 

11 be handled completely by modeling, that there 

12 needs to be experimental data to perhaps bring 

13 in some de-rating factors is typically what we 

14 would do in a model, if we understood that, you 

15 know, the model wasn’t correctly handling all 

16 of the physics that were going on. 

17 We’re not saying that there’s no way 

18 to come up with the right optimum for these 

19 proposed energy efficiency standards, but 

20 right now, our concern is the model would lead 

21 to not the optimum but something that in fact 

22 drives a lot more cost into the ice machine 
Page 156

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 because the expected gains from some of these 

2 technologies are not going to be realized at 

3 the levels that the model predicts. 

4 Once this goes into law, we’re stuck 

5 with it. We have to make those efficiency 

6 levels. We’ll end up putting a lot more money 

7 into the ice machine to get there. There will 

8 be utility, you know, end-use impacts and what 

9 I’m hoping is that we can work together to help 

10 make the model a more accurate reflection of 

11 what really happens and find the levels that 

12 really do make sense for the industry. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, so now we’re 

14 moving on. 

15 MR. CYMBALSKY: I have a question, 

16 I’m sorry. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: John Cymbalsky. 

18 MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay, so hopefully 

19 I’m right about this, but this is what I’ve 

20 been told, that our TSL-1 roughly reflects 

21 Energy Star, ten percent over the existing 

22 baseline. Is that about right? Okay, good. 
Page 157

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 So based on that, I think through the 

2 slide I’m looking at, I have the mapping in 

3 terms of what we assumed on how you get that 

4 extra ten percent. 

5 But my question to the 

6 manufacturers, and if you can’t answer this 

7 question, it’s fine, I understand. But many 

8 of you play in the Energy Star space, can you 

9 describe generally what you do in terms of 

10 efficiency upgrades to meet that ten percent? 

11 Is it the compressor or is it a combination of 

12 lots of things or what? What’s -- if you can’t 

13 answer that, that’s fine, but if you can, I’d 

14 appreciate just knowing what the -- 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl, start. 

16 MR. ERBS: So Daryl Erbs, Manitowoc 

17 Ice. 

18 We put more efficient compressor in. 

19 Our suppliers have been kind of slow, you know, 

20 as Robert mentioned. So we, you know, we -- 

21 but we do that when we can. We put larger 

22 evaporators in, you know, where we can. You 
Page 158

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 know, we can’t always do that because of some 

2 of the things I’ve mentioned. We put both 

3 larger and more efficient condenser surfaces 

4 in. And then there’s just a lot of system 

5 level optimizing. 

6 But we’re already taking advantage 

7 of everything but permanent magnet brushless 

8 DC motors for fans and that’s largely because 

9 of, one, they’re very, very expensive. 

10 They’re much more expensive than what’s 

11 assumed in the NOPR, and we’ll share data on 

12 that. And they’re not tested. Although 

13 they’re used in commercial refrigeration, we 

14 don’t use exactly the same frame 

15 configuration. And I think someone mentioned 

16 earlier today, reliability is the number one 

17 customer requirement. So we just have to go 

18 through that process. 

19 But when we’ve looked at them at the 

20 current pricing -- and we’ve just received new 

21 quotations -- they’re still not very 

22 cost-effective individual components when you 
Page 159

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 look at, you know, how do you get another three 

2 or four percent out of the ice machine? 

3 They’re still a relatively unattractive 

4 option from a cost standpoint. 

5 We’ve been able to get the Energy 

6 Star with compressor and surface area and some 

7 other things. If we have to go beyond that, 

8 we’re going to be driven to brushless DC fan 

9 motors. We’ll probably be driven to 

10 brushless DC compressors which, you know, they 

11 could be produced but at the cost that I think 

12 they’re going to be offered to us, again, it’s 

13 well beyond what’s assumed in the current 

14 NOPR. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Stephen, do you want 

16 to add in here? 

17 MR. SCHAEFER: Yes, I think, 

18 concurring with Daryl on that, go through 

19 depth or size. You look at compressor and 

20 condenser marriage. You look at the water 

21 valve output. So you’re looking at a lot of 

22 different parts where the engineers are trying 
Page 160

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 to see, okay, if I increase the production, how 

2 much increase in electrical usage or what can 

3 I do? 

4 So it’s a lot of trial and error in 

5 seeing what we can do, and there’s not just one 

6 typical answer because there’s so many 

7 different sizes. So we can work with you to 

8 show you some of the data that we have through 

9 it, but it’s a long, drawn-out process and we 

10 try to make it as efficient as we can in every 

11 aspect and keep the reliability so that 

12 they’re not going to be mad at us in three years 

13 if something’s wrong with the machine. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. George? 

15 MR. PARSONS: George Parsons, 

16 Ice-O-Matic. 

17 The only thing I would add to that in 

18 terms of looking at that specifically when you 

19 talk about a batch ice maker is exactly what 

20 was talked about earlier. During the normal 

21 refrigeration cycle, when we’re freezing the 

22 ice, we want the compressors as efficient as 
Page 161

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 possible. When you go into harvest, then you 

2 need it -- you’re into a period where it’s not 

3 as efficient as you want it to be. 

4 So when you’re looking at Energy Star 

5 models, you spend a lot of time in the details 

6 of that logic of exactly how you go into 

7 harvest. You come out of harvest, the 

8 controls around that, so that you spend -- you 

9 optimize that energy consumption there. 

10 We can spend a lot of test time 

11 looking at the very details of how that’s 

12 happening to gain -- to get what we can out of 

13 that compressor increase and get to those 

14 Energy Star levels. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Now we’re moving on. 

16 MR. BURGOS: All right, with that 

17 I’ll just conclude it. Of course, DOE will 

18 request comment and data on the efficiency 

19 gains. 

20 We have one more section to the 

21 engineering analysis. One is the Efficiency 

22 Levels for Batch Machines. This should look 
Page 162

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 pretty familiar because it’s pretty similar to 

2 what was presented in the preliminary 

3 analysis. 

4 The numbers have been updated to 

5 reflect new cost efficiency curves and also 

6 note the new IMH-A extended batch class, which 

7 is pretty much the IMH-A to large. . . 

8 Yes? 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl? 

10 MR. ERBS: I’m probably going to get 

11 in trouble, but can we just move back because 

12 there was -- you requested comment on utility 

13 impact. 

14 MR. BURGOS: Yes. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: At least comment on 

16 -- 

17 MR. ERBS: And the one that I’m most 

18 concerned about, again, is it’s not the 

19 largest class but it’s still a very important 

20 one, is there’s a 22 inch wide air-cooled ice 

21 making head that’s on the market. 

22 It’s growing in importance because 
Page 163

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 one of the trend that’s happening in our world 

2 of restaurants is what we’re calling tiny 

3 kitchens. People are downsizing their 

4 kitchen size because they’re moving back into 

5 urban areas and we think that’s really 

6 exciting that people are opening up 

7 restaurants but, you know, they have to fit 

8 into smaller spaces. 

9 There are ice beverage dispensers 

10 that are designed for a 22 inch wide machine. 

11 They’re very tall. That’s how they get their 

12 ice beverage dispenser down to 22 inches. The 

13 ice machine that goes on top of it ends up 

14 already being very tall because that’s how we 

15 can get 500 pounds or more of ice out of that. 

16 The ceiling prohibits that 

17 particular style of ice machine from growing 

18 any taller. The analysis that was done 

19 around, you know, a small class of air cooled 

20 ice-making head -- and I understand the 

21 reasons why DOE said we don’t want to have 

22 different efficiency standards for different 
Page 164

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 cabinet sizes, but the end result is to meet 

2 the proposed efficiency level for, let’s say 

3 a 400 pound air cooled ice-making head. 

4 You could do it in a 30 inch by 

5 growing the height. You could not do it in a 

6 22 inch because it can’t get any taller, both 

7 for, you know, functionality as well as just 

8 physical building space reasons. 

9 I’m pretty convinced, with the 

10 proposed levels, that that category could go 

11 away. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you. 

13 Scott? 

14 MR. BINGHAM: Scott Bingham with 

15 Follett. 

16 I had mentioned earlier, we have a 

17 proprietary technology that sends ice through 

18 a tube and so we put ice machines in places 

19 where nobody else puts them and we have ice 

20 machines that aren’t a standard 22 or aren’t 

21 a standard 30 inch machine and we’ve proved 

22 that there’s a market and a reason for machines 
Page 165

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 to be less than 22 inches, or less than 30 and 

2 in odd increments. 

3 And we’ve done design changes to 

4 reduce the height of a machine by one inch just 

5 so we could put it in more places. So it’s -- 

6 there’s additional reasons for chassis sizes. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Okay. 

8 MR. BURGOS: All right, thank you. 

9 So these are the efficiency levels 

10 for the batch machines and these are the 

11 efficiency levels for the continuous 

12 machines. 

13 We analyzed three different 

14 equipment classes for the continuous, nine in 

15 the batch category. 

16 If you’ll notice, the RCUs, for RCUs 

17 we had not considered those separately, the 

18 same as was proposed in the preliminary 

19 analysis. Those are subject to the .2 

20 kilowatt hour per 100 pounds adjustment. 

21 Mr. Brookman: Yes, please. Your 

22 name. 
Page 166

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 MR. DESHETLER: Scott DeShetler, 

2 Ice-O-Matic. 

3 Are these numbers taken from the AHRI 

4 database exclusively, or do they take into 

5 account offshore manufacturers that are 

6 coming in from other countries or what is the 

7 population that’s summarized here? 

8 MR. BURGOS: So I guess, for the 

9 efficiency levels, so the EL 2, EL 3, EL 4, EL 

10 5, EL 6, those are based off the cost 

11 efficiency curve and so the max tech as well. 

12 Maybe you’re asking about the max 

13 available category? 

14 MR. DESHETLER: I’m asking what the 

15 available population was that you used to 

16 obtain these numbers? 

17 MR. CYMBALSKY: It’S the entire 

18 market of what’s available, not just domestic. 

19 They could be foreign. 

20 MR. DESHETLER: So it’s -- you 

21 tested or you brought in numbers from all over 

22 the place, then. 
Page 167

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 MR. CYMBALSKY: Right, our cost 

2 efficient -- so what’s described here is what 

3 came out of the cost efficiency curves that 

4 we’ve been discussing over the past hour or so. 

5 MR. BURGOS: Yes. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Robert? 

7 MR. WILKINS: Just a clarifying 

8 question here a little bit and maybe gets to 

9 some of these other points. 

10 To help me understand this chart, the 

11 EL-4 and you’ve got the first one there, the 

12 IMH-W-Small-B. Does this mean that you are 

13 projecting, at that level, a possibility of 

14 increasing the efficiency by 20 percent? 

15 MR. BURGOS: Yes. 

16 MR. WILKINS: So that’s the 

17 efficiency improvement that could be achieved 

18 at an EL-4 cost increase? 

19 MR. CYMBALSKY: Right, EL-4 is 

20 several different things. It’s defined, what 

21 the improvements that go into what EL-4 is. 

22 MR. BURGOS: Right and what may well 
Page 168

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 help is if we jump ahead a bit. We have the 

2 full-cost efficiency curves and this pairs the 

3 efficiency levels with the costs that were 

4 used. These are MPCs and as you’ll see for 

5 each one of the equipment classes, there’s a 

6 cost associated with reaching a certain EL 

7 level along with the max tech at the end. 

8 MR. CYMBALSKY: And these are 

9 manufacturing costs, not consumer costs? Is 

10 that correct? 

11 MR. BURGOS: Yes. These are MPCs. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, John. 

13 Now Scott. 

14 MR. BINGHAM: Just really quick. 

15 Going back to the slide on continuous type ice 

16 makers, where the remotes were not analyzed. 

17 I don’t remember the woman’s name with AHRI but 

18 she had mentioned that 95 percent of the 

19 business is represented by AHRI companies and 

20 I had mentioned also that we’re not in AHRI, 

21 so it doesn’t take a lot of math to figure out 

22 the market space that a small company like mine 
Page 169

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 has. 

2 Also, when we only make continuous 

3 type ice makers, which are approximately 15 

4 percent of the market, we’re only playing in 

5 this one space and so this RCU section 

6 represents a significant portion of why I’m in 

7 business. 

8 And so, if these models that we’re 

9 talking about are not right, one line here 

10 could mean the viability of a company up in 

11 Pennsylvania. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, please. 

13 Chris? 

14 MR. SALATINO: Chris Salatino, 

15 Scotsman Ice. 

16 John, you had mentioned a couple of 

17 minutes ago about, you know, where if we 

18 thought some of the assumptions and test data 

19 didn’t support our experience to provide data. 

20 Forgive me for being new to the process, but 

21 as far as the data that you’re looking for, is 

22 that, you know, test data that we’ve tested 
Page 170

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 recorded or does that come from -- are your 

2 requirements independent third-party? What 

3 are your expectations for data from us? 

4 MR. CYMBALSKY: John Cymbalsky, 

5 DOE. 

6 So we’ll take any data, so that’s the 

7 first rule we have. Any data is better than 

8 no data. 

9 But having said that, and you can 

10 sign an NDA with Navigant if you feel you need 

11 to do that, like you don’t want to make the data 

12 public, we can still use it in our analysis and 

13 protect the identity of who provided that 

14 data. 

15 But the test results in particular 

16 would be very important. If you have a test 

17 report that’s very detailed about how you 

18 calculated the values, what set points you 

19 used, you know. 

20 If you use the DOE test method 

21 perfectly in a controlled environment like, 

22 you know, we like to see, it doesn’t 
Page 171

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 necessarily have to be from a third-party lab. 

2 You guys obviously self-test all the time and 

3 self-certify. And we’re good with that. 

4 So we’ll take it any way you have it. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So this is a 

6 rather complicated chart. Comments on -- I 

7 think we’re now on 44. 

8 MR. BURGOS: Yes, we have 44 and then 

9 the slide after that is 45. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Batch and then 

11 continuous. Comments on these two charts? 

12 Yes, Daryl. 

13 MR. ERBS: Daryl Erbs, Manitowoc 

14 Ice. I think I have to start with a question 

15 because these -- this chart shows EL, right, 

16 2 through 6 and TSD as TSLs 1 through 5 and -- 

17 but really when I look at it, I’m just looking 

18 at, okay the recommended, so like if I take my 

19 favorite case because it’s actually the 

20 highest volume category in the industry, 

21 right. So the ice-making head, small, 

22 air-cooled B and I think the target is to get 
Page 172

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 to 25 percent higher efficiency on that. 

2 And when I looked at Table 5.10.6 in 

3 the TSD, I can see how you get to 24.88 percent. 

4 So that’s kind of what -- and this is very 

5 helpful, by the way. I really, really 

6 appreciate the fact that you’ve shared a 

7 little more detail in terms of the cost model. 

8 MR. BURGOS: Right, for anyone who’s 

9 not following along in the TSD, we have 

10 descriptions of this process by design 

11 options, so showing for a certain compressor 

12 growth. We have an associated energy savings 

13 and associated energy costs, and that curve is 

14 then used to derive efficiency that’s some of 

15 these specific points. 

16 MR. ERBS: And that really helps a 

17 manufacturer get down to the cost assumptions 

18 for each technical element because it’s really 

19 hard to look at it in an aggregate. But when 

20 I looked at that table, I went back because we 

21 have data around cost elements and one of the 

22 ones in here was a 50 percent larger 
Page 173

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 evaporator. So you grow it taller, you put 

2 the extra surface area in and it’s -- I think 

3 that larger evaporator cost is $48.48 in the 

4 TSD. That’s the manufacturer cost impact 

5 just for that elements. 

6 For us as a manufacturer, it’s more 

7 than double that. I think part of that may 

8 have to do with there’s the evaporator and then 

9 there’s the cabinet. It’s made out of 

10 stainless. It’s relatively high cost 

11 material. We put a lot plastic parts into the 

12 food zone to make it cleanable to comply with 

13 NSF standards. 

14 Those plastic parts may shock you in 

15 terms of what they actually cost us. Again, 

16 you have to remember our highest volume 

17 models, we might make 4,000 or 5,000 pieces a 

18 year of that particular cabinet size and so we 

19 don’t get the same purchasing power that, 

20 let’s say if you went out in the appliance 

21 industry and looked at what do they pay for a 

22 plastic part, we pay a lot more. 
Page 174

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 And so just looking at a few 

2 examples, I think -- and again, we’ll share 

3 more specifics. I don’t believe that that -- 

4 particularly in the case where cabinets get 

5 larger, that these costs models are accurate 

6 in terms of what our true costs are. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Chris? 

8 MR. SALATINO: And then just to 

9 parallel onto the earlier comments. 

10 So as far as the test data, we know, 

11 you know, you’d pretty much accept something 

12 from an accredited lab or an accredited -- but 

13 then as far as to parallel Daryl’s comments on 

14 the cost assumptions, what would be valuable 

15 information and in what format would it be 

16 meaningful to continue this discussion? 

17 MR. CYMBALSKY: So -- John 

18 Cymbalsky, DOE -- so I know Navigant when they 

19 do their interviews with you all, they do a 

20 detailed cost modeling. You know, we’ve torn 

21 these down and we’ve costed out component by 

22 component and then we build it back up with 
Page 175

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 the, you know. 

2 You mentioned some very good points 

3 about all that factors in. How much can you 

4 get these little plastic parts for? 

5 And so we have the assumptions we 

6 make about that. They can talk to you again 

7 under the NDA about how these numbers looked. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, Robert? 

9 MR. WILKINS: Robert Wilkins, 

10 Danfoss. 

11 One of the things I’ve always been 

12 intrigued about the ice maker industry, as 

13 I’ve shared with you, it’s a lot of science and 

14 a lot of art, but it’s striking to me how low 

15 the volume in the industry is and I’m just -- 

16 I’m referring to your data on a subsequent 

17 page. 

18 The industry -- the total industry is 

19 somewhere around 150,000 units a year. 

20 That’s about 2.5 percent of the air 

21 conditioning industry. It’s a tiny sliver. 

22 And so the scale available to get the cost down 
Page 176

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 on these highly specialized parts, the scale’s 

2 not there. 

3 The ability of these manufacturers 

4 amazes me to be able to adapt these units with 

5 such very small scale. The industry’s 

6 150,000 units and we have three or four 

7 manufacturers sitting around the table here so 

8 you can just get a feel for -- this is very low 

9 volume application here. And if you need a 

10 very specialized stainless steel part or 

11 special NSF-proof plastic part or compressor, 

12 how are you going to persuade those 

13 manufacturers to produce those very 

14 specialized parts in extremely low volume? 

15 The leverage isn’t here that you have 

16 in the appliance industry and that you have in 

17 the unitary industry. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

19 MR. BURGOS: And that’s the end of 

20 the engineering presentation, but B 

21 Sure. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s start on 
Page 177

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 markups. 

2 MR. BURGOS: Laura has one. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Ready to go to lunch? 

4 (Laughter.) 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: We’re falling a 

6 little bit behind here but I’ve been but I’ve 

7 been encouraged to let us take lunch. 

8 Yes, Doug, please. 

9 MR. RAWALD: So, Daryl, you 

10 specifically mentioned a couple of times the 

11 niche kind of 22 inch wide model, and what I 

12 want to assure people is the Department has a 

13 mechanism through which, in developing 

14 standards, there comes a particular model that 

15 still wants to be in play that needs to be 

16 exempt from the standard where folks can apply 

17 for an exemption from the standard through the 

18 Office of Hearing and Appeals. 

19 So there is a way of keeping those 

20 product lines alive if they are unable to meet 

21 the standards. So that is something that 

22 let’s keep in mind as we’re progressing on 
Page 178

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 this. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: So, I will yield. 

3 Let’s take lunch. It’s ten after 12:00, which 

4 means we’ll resume at ten after 1:00 in this 

5 very same room. This room will be supervised. 

6 You can leave your stuff here and please 

7 remember to wear your badge as you’re walking 

8 around. You may need -- if you go to the big 

9 cafeteria down on the ground floor about 100 

10 yards in that direction, you might need an ID 

11 to get back through the security portal. 

12 Okay? 

13 So we’ll see you back here at ten 

14 after 1:00. 

15 We’ve covered a lot of ground 

16 already. We’ll cover more after lunch. 

17 (Whereupon the foregoing matter went 

18 off the record at 12:13 p.m.) 

19 

20 

21 

22
Page 179

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 

2 

3 
Page 180

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

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

2 1:17 p.m. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: We're going to start 

4 up with markups in energy use analysis, and we 

5 are going to hear from Alan. 

6 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Excuse me, 

7 Doug. Doug? 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes? 

9 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: I actually have 

10 one question about the engineering analysis 

11 before we go -- 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Before we move on, 

13 yes, please, Laura. 

14 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Okay. So, 

15 forgive me if I'm just -- Laura Petrillo, 

16 AHRI -- just forgive me if I'm new and don't 

17 understand quite what, from slide 42 -- 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 

19 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: -- what the max 

20 available levels are in relation to the 

21 efficiency levels and equipment, and how they 

22 relate to the TSL levels that are set or 
Page 181

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 proposed in the NOPR. 

2 Just looking at the first one, the 

3 IMHWb -- 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Uh-hum. 

5 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: -- the max 

6 available is 22 percent, but for TSL3 in the 

7 NOPR it's asking for, you know, it's proposed 

8 at EL5 level, which is 25 percent and above the 

9 max available level. Is that typical or what 

10 are considerations that are given for that 

11 sort of situation? 

12 MR. CYMBALSKY: John Cymbalsky. 

13 So, max tech and max available might 

14 be two different things here, right? So, it's 

15 the market, what's on the market versus what's 

16 technically feasible. 

17 So, we could propose a technology 

18 that we know can be designed to work, but is 

19 it necessarily on the market for purchase? 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: So, available is on 

21 the market. 

22 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: But available 
Page 182

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 is on the market, but is this not considering 

2 units with proprietary technology or two 

3 configurations? So, above 22 percent, 

4 between 22 and 25 percent, you are really only 

5 able to get to that level using proprietary 

6 technology or two ice configurations. Is it 

7 acceptable to sort of -- 

8 MR. CYMBALSKY: We haven't chosen a 

9 level that is a proprietary technology, but 

10 that doesn't mean you can't show it as an EL. 

11 It's just that you don't pick it because we 

12 don't do that. 

13 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: So, should we 

14 make all these part of our written comments? 

15 Is it discrepancy between what the level of 

16 proposed is? Because I think it was proposed 

17 as TSL3. 

18 MR. CYMBALSKY: It's not, the 

19 proprietary technology is not proposed here, 

20 as far as I can tell. So, I'm not sure what 

21 your question is. You can comment on whatever 

22 you would like is my answer, but we haven't 
Page 183

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 picked an EL that's either proprietary or not 

2 available on the market here. 

3 MR. WILKINS: John, Robert Wilkins 

4 here. 

5 It may just be a misunderstanding of 

6 what the definition of max tech and max 

7 available is. My interpretation, max 

8 available is available on the market today. 

9 MR. CYMBALSKY: Right. 

10 MR. WILKINS: You can go out and 

11 procure one. It is not dependent on any 

12 further work on the DOE. 

13 The max tech -- correct me, guys, if 

14 I'm wrong -- max tech does require 

15 development, and it's their view of what could 

16 be achievable with the technologies that they 

17 have evaluated. Is that fair enough? 

18 MR. CYMBALSKY: And max available 

19 might be a proprietary technology as well. 

20 There is nothing precluding someone on the 

21 market selling something that only they have 

22 in their unit. 
Page 184

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 DR. AMRANE: I think they're asking, 

2 if the proposed rule is 25 percent, what's 

3 going on between the two? 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: John Cymbalsky is 

5 next. 

6 MR. DELASKI: Yes, so for that 

7 particular one, 25 percent is what we chose. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Frank, do you want 

9 to -- 

10 MR. MOORE: You put a question in my 

11 mind, and it is interesting. So, if the 

12 proposal is 25 percent, what's going on 

13 between the 22 and 29 percent? Is that what 

14 you're asking? 

15 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Or above the 22 

16 and the 25 percent, if the 25 percent above 

17 baseline is what's proposed, and the max 

18 available on the market now is 22 percent 

19 before you get into proprietary technologies? 

20 MR. MOORE: It's those three points 

21 is what is going to be developed between now 

22 and '17. Is that the conclusion? 
Page 185

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 MR. COOKE: If I can jump in 

2 here -- I'll steal a little bit of Javier's 

3 thunder -- I think in a lot of cases what you 

4 will see is that there is something like a 

5 drain water heat exchanger or a motor that's 

6 not currently on the market in a machine that 

7 is for sale. 

8 So, if you take a machine that might 

9 otherwise be the max available and you add 

10 something onto it, you get to a higher number, 

11 which would be the max tech. 

12 MR. BURGOS: And that can also 

13 include things like higher efficiency 

14 compressors, if there's any on the market. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: So, as it is shown in 

16 this table, we know max available is at 22 

17 percent. So, in some span of years, with new 

18 component technologies, then DOE is 

19 suggesting you can get to 25 percent. 

20 Karim? 

21 DR. AMRANE: Karim. I'm with AHRI. 

22 So, is DOE saying that you could 
Page 186

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 establish a minimum energy conservation 

2 standard with using proprietary technology? 

3 Is it what DOE is saying? 

4 MR. CYMBALSKY: We didn't say that, 

5 no. 

6 DR. AMRANE: No? Okay. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: John Cymbalsky says 

8 no. 

9 MR. CYMBALSKY: I said I didn't say 

10 that. 

11 (Laughter.) 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: John Cymbalsky says 

13 he didn't say that. Sorry. 

14 (Laughter.) 

15 MR. CYMBALSKY: I mean, just for 

16 historical context, in the small motors rule, 

17 we set a standard for something that fell into 

18 that category where it was available to make 

19 the motor more efficient than what was 

20 currently on the market. 

21 And so, we modeled the situation 

22 where we did that. We were sued, and the rule 
Page 187

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 was upheld in the court. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Laura? 

3 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: I can't 

4 remember from earlier discussions, is this one 

5 of the categories where a larger machine was 

6 used for testing, and the analysis was 

7 extended to a smaller product category? 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Javier? Do you want 

9 to just sit here for a second? 

10 MR. BURGOS: Sure. No, in the case 

11 of all these efficiency levels, if you scroll, 

12 I guess, down a couple of slides, I mean, these 

13 are all ones that were directly analyzed. 

14 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Thank you. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Frank. 

16 MR. MOORE: John, could you provide 

17 us with that case, just to complete the record? 

18 You mentioned that -- yes, if you could, yes, 

19 somehow or another, get that to folks that 

20 might have an interest in that. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Okay. Now 

22 we're moving on to Alan. Thank you. 
Page 188

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 MR. COOKE: And I don't seem to have 

2 any control over -- 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: John's got that. 

4 MR. COOKE: Oh, okay. 

5 So, my name is Alan Cooke. I'm here 

6 to talk about some of the economic analyses to 

7 follow, starting with the markups for 

8 equipment. 

9 This is where we take the 

10 manufacturer's selling price and adjust it for 

11 what the retailer or what the public would see 

12 if they bought it retail, which means we add 

13 on some wholesale and distribution system 

14 costs and some costs for the folks that are 

15 closest to the customer who do the 

16 installation work. 

17 We use two different markups. The 

18 first one is the baseline markup, and that 

19 essentially recovers all of the overhead costs 

20 that we have identified for this process. So, 

21 I'll show you numbers in just a minute. 

22 We use another markup which is an 
Page 189

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 incremental markup. And then, the notion 

2 here is that we're trying to capture costs that 

3 would change. If you add a few dollars to the 

4 cost of an ice maker, the cost will go up and 

5 it will be marked up a little bit at the retail 

6 level. But what really changes? The 

7 warehouse and a number of other things are 

8 still the same. So, it's really just a profit 

9 margin, some insurance costs, and other things 

10 that would change with the value of that ice 

11 maker. 

12 So, here are the costs that we added 

13 for the distribution chain. You will see we 

14 do not have what we call a national account, 

15 which would be a manufacturer directly to the 

16 customer. At the preliminary analysis 

17 meeting we were told by the manufacturers 

18 that, whereas there might be sales that go 

19 directly from the manufacturer to the 

20 customer, that distribution chain looks a lot 

21 more like a chain that has two steps because 

22 somebody closer to the customer will actually 
Page 190

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 be involved. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl? 

3 MR. ERBS: I'm sure this comes up at 

4 every rulemaking, but has anyone ever 

5 validated this concept of a much smaller 

6 markup for the incremental? Has that 

7 actually ever worked in the marketplace? 

8 MR. COOKE: This model has been used 

9 for all of the rulemakings that I have seen. 

10 I remember your comment, which was at the 

11 preliminary analysis, which is if I add $20 to 

12 the actual physical cost of something, I will 

13 mark that up at the same rate that I would mark 

14 everything else up. 

15 I was just going to add, I think that 

16 that is a real short-term thing. You're in a 

17 very competitive market. You might do that 

18 until the next time you recalculate your 

19 overheads. And then, that markup rate might 

20 actually go down a little bit because your 

21 product values were higher overall. 

22 So, I think, in the end, we are still 
Page 191

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 looking at collecting costs that are 

2 incremental. And if you don't have an 

3 incremental overhead cost associated with 

4 that, I think it comes out in the wash in the 

5 end. 

6 MR. ERBS: I'm sorry, Daryl Erbs. 

7 For the most part, we are talking 

8 about material cost additions to the product. 

9 Is that included in the incremental? So, if 

10 I have to put a larger evaporator in, is that 

11 incremental, the difference between the 

12 evaporator cost I had before and what I have 

13 now? 

14 MR. COOKE: I do want to make one 

15 distinction here, just to make sure that it's 

16 clear. And that is that, at the manufacturer 

17 level, at your level, Daryl, when you add $20 

18 to the cost of an ice maker, it is being marked 

19 up 25 percent, which is the exact same markup 

20 that was applied to all of the rest of the 

21 machine. That is at the manufacturer level. 

22 This is at the wholesale/retail/distribution 
Page 192

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 level. 

2 MR. BARRINGTON: Yes, this is Ben 

3 Barrington from Navigant. 

4 Just so we're clear, we will talk 

5 about the changes to manufacturer markups in 

6 the manufacturer impact analysis section, 

7 which follows this. 

8 MR. ERBS: Yes, but just from our 

9 business model standpoint, I mean, maybe we 

10 just have to rethink our whole business model. 

11 But if we change our list prices, we just 

12 change our list price, and our channel 

13 partners are going to follow the same rules 

14 they always have in terms of what they, then, 

15 add as a markup for their step in the channel 

16 line. I mean, that's how they do it when we 

17 raise prices today. And I'm not sure that 

18 they would suddenly adopt a different 

19 approach. 

20 So, that's why I was asking, has it 

21 ever been validated out in the real world 

22 where, suddenly, a wholesale or dealer step 
Page 193

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 has changed their profit margin because a 

2 regulatory change drove a higher-cost product 

3 out? 

4 I mean, what happened with 

5 residential 13 SEER? 

6 MR. CYMBALSKY: Correct me if I'm 

7 wrong, but isn't this just getting at the 

8 percent markup is changing? 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: That's what this 

10 slide is intended to elicit. This slide is 

11 intended to receive comment on whether you 

12 think these markups make sense, whether they 

13 fit with the realities in the markets that 

14 you're in. 

15 Robert? 

16 MR. WILKINS: Robert Wilkins, 

17 Danfoss. 

18 I have attended several of these 

19 meetings and, invariably, this topic gets 

20 commented on, and largely the same comments. 

21 And the way I summarize it, why will 

22 I reduce my percentage margins? It doesn't 
Page 194

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 make sense that I would make that kind of 

2 business decision. And so, I have no evidence 

3 one way or the other. Just intuitively, it 

4 doesn't make sense. 

5 However, DOE has been in this 

6 business for a long time, and Navigant has 

7 worked with them for a long time. We have done 

8 rulemakings on all kinds of commercial 

9 products. 

10 Why not go back and take a look at 

11 some of those and see what happened when we 

12 went from 10 to 13 SEER or when we went from 

13 "X" percent motors to "Y" percent motors, or 

14 so forth? And try to get this out of the 

15 academic realm and down to some reality that 

16 we can make a decision and not sitting around 

17 the table debating about. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Well, but don't you 

19 have a sense of what your distributors' 

20 markups are? I mean, can't you say, can't 

21 some of you in the manufacturing sector say, 

22 "Yes, these look reasonable to me" or "They're 
Page 195

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 off, and a more reasonable number would be the 

2 following."? 

3 MR. WILKINS: I have always heard 

4 people sitting around this table who said that 

5 doesn't make sense. That's what I have always 

6 heard people say. 

7 And it, intuitively, doesn't make 

8 sense to me. I'm just thinking that we could 

9 add some credibility to it by doing some quick 

10 studies, maybe not in time for this 

11 rulemaking, but before the next one, that we 

12 are not debating this issue. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Andrew? 

14 MR. DELASKI: I guess I would make 

15 two points. One is that I have also sat 

16 through a lot of these hearings over the years. 

17 DOE used to do it the other way. Okay? So, 

18 that goes back, I think, before John even 

19 worked in the program. So, it goes back. 

20 It used to be every dollar spent got 

21 the same markup. Okay? So, that goes back to 

22 before the year 2000, right? 
Page 196

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 People who I work with argue that 

2 that's not the way the real world works 

3 because you've got some fixed costs and you've 

4 got some variable costs, and you're not going 

5 to mark it up the same. You have to cover your 

6 fixed costs in a certain fashion, and you've 

7 got to cover your variable costs in a certain 

8 fashion. 

9 But we're talking, I think we're 

10 talking -- 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Distributors. 

12 MR. DELASKI: And so, it has been 

13 going around, and there's a rich history there 

14 that you can go back and look at through 

15 various dockets. 

16 I think for this, in the rulemakings 

17 that I have been involved with, people 

18 typically want to comment on this, these 

19 numbers that are before us. So, I would urge 

20 people to do that. 

21 We actually have done some work to go 

22 back and ask the question, how good is DOE 
Page 197

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 predicting prices? And we actually find they 

2 actually aren't very good. They overpredict 

3 the prices, right? 

4 And our findings are that these tend 

5 to be higher than they should be, based on 

6 retrospective analysis. I would welcome more 

7 retrospective analysis. I think it is a good 

8 idea. But I don't know where it will take you. 

9 It won't help them in this docket. 

10 MR. WILKINS: No. And Robert 

11 Wilkins here again. 

12 And I recognize that. I wouldn't 

13 hold this docket up to resolve this, but I 

14 think it would be worth going back and doing 

15 some analysis on and have it going forward. 

16 You know, I have never been in the 

17 market, when I was selling something to a 

18 distributor and I came along with a price 

19 increase, and he said, "Well, now wait a 

20 minute. Is that baseline cost or is it 

21 incremental cost, because I need to know how 

22 much to increase my margin?" The world 
Page 198

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 doesn't work that way. 

2 And so, the assumption might 

3 implicitly move that way for some reason, but 

4 explicitly it doesn't happen. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Frank? 

6 MR. MOORE: So, has anyone actually 

7 asked a wholesaler or dealer what they do? 

8 MR. COOKE: These numbers are 

9 actually based on a survey that we purchased 

10 from HARDI. And we also use markups that go 

11 along with mechanical contracts to represent 

12 the leg of this distribution system that is 

13 closest to the customer. And we have actually 

14 asked the -- in fact, I think I went to your 

15 conference in Orlando and went around and 

16 talked to all of the associations there and 

17 tried to get better information on what the 

18 wholesalers and distributors were adding on. 

19 MR. MOORE: So, that's the extent of 

20 the inquiry. But I think Robert's point is 

21 that it sounds like to me that we're still in 

22 an academic world. It may have improved in 
Page 199

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 someone's mind, but we really actually haven't 

2 gone on in this instance and asked the 

3 wholesalers that touch ice machines what their 

4 markup is. 

5 MR. COOKE: We have not talked to a 

6 specific wholesaler, but we have talked to the 

7 associations. In fact, I'm pretty sure I 

8 talked to yours at that conference, trying to 

9 get information. We always welcome more 

10 information; that's for sure. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: So, if it's possible 

12 for the manufacturers to say, "That figure 

13 there, that makes sense to me," maybe it's a 

14 little low; maybe it's a little high, and 

15 comment in that sort of a vein, that would be 

16 helpful here. 

17 Karim? 

18 DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane with AHRI. 

19 I mean, to Robert's point, we have 

20 made those comments. For years I've been 

21 coming to these rulemakings for years, and we 

22 always make comments about this, but nothing 
Page 200

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 has happened. It's always the same. 

2 So, I think it's a good idea that 

3 Robert is suggesting, that maybe, gee, we 

4 should go back and try to verify, to validate 

5 those numbers at some point, maybe not for this 

6 rulemaking; maybe for the next rulemaking. 

7 Because we have been making those comments for 

8 years. 

9 MR. CYMBALSKY: John Cymbalsky, 

10 DOE. 

11 So, at the end of the day, we're going 

12 to get to the retail cost of these ice makers. 

13 And so, if those are right, does this, I guess, 

14 matter? I mean, the analysis is going to be 

15 built around what the retail cost is to the 

16 consumer. And we do the life-cycle cost to 

17 the consumer. And separately, we have the 

18 manufacturing analysis going on. And you've 

19 got these guys in the middle of that. Okay? 

20 If we've got the starting point right 

21 and the end-point right, I guess this is 

22 interesting to me, but we're doing an analysis 
Page 201

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 on what happens to wholesalers here per se to 

2 set the efficiency level. So, I just want to 

3 make sure -- we're all getting wrapped up in 

4 markups. When we get to the part where we show 

5 the retail cost of ice makers, if you think 

6 they're wrong and you think we got the 

7 manufacturing cost right, which I've heard and 

8 we can debate that for a while, because I don't 

9 think you agree with that, either, but then 

10 this stuff, to me, it is academic in a sense. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl? 

12 MR. ERBS: So, I'm not an economist; 

13 I'm an engineer. So, I may misunderstand 

14 this. 

15 But when I look at this, the concern 

16 I have is the incremental cost to the 

17 manufacturer gets multiplied by a different 

18 total multiplier than the base part of the ice 

19 machine. And so, when you look at the total 

20 cost to the end-purchaser for adding a 

21 technical option, it does matter to have these 

22 lower markups at the wholesaler and dealer 
Page 202

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 level. 

2 MR. CYMBALSKY: I agree. So, when 

3 we get to the part where we show what those 

4 costs are, I think that's where we should 

5 focus, maybe not so much on these scalers that 

6 are on this sheet of paper. But if the final 

7 cost comes out to be $1500 and you don't think 

8 that's right, I mean, like you said, we can go 

9 on the internet and do some searching. We buy 

10 a lot of these ourselves. So, we know how much 

11 we paid for them. I mean, there's real data 

12 there. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: No additional 

14 comments here? We're about to move on. 

15 We're moving on. 

16 MR. COOKE: I think we've covered 

17 the next slide, if I'm not mistaken. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 

19 MR. COOKE: So, moving on to the 

20 energy use analysis, this is a midpoint 

21 between the engineering analysis and the 

22 life-cycle cost and the national impacts 
Page 203

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 analysis. Essentially, we take numbers that 

2 come out of the engineering in the form of 

3 kilowatt hours or gallons of water per 

4 hundreds pound of ice, and we translate that 

5 into energy use or water use on an annual 

6 basis. 

7 Since the engineering analysis 

8 really follows the test procedure, we really 

9 don't have to do a lot of translation to this 

10 number other than to make it into an annual 

11 usage value. And we used two assumptions in 

12 addition to the engineering, one of which is 

13 a 50-percent capacity factor on this 

14 equipment, which means it's making ice half 

15 the time. And another of which is that, when 

16 it's not making ice, it's drawing 5 watts of 

17 power, powering controls, or whatever, when 

18 it's just sitting there not making ice. 

19 So, if there are any comments on the 

20 energy use analysis? 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Stephen? 

22 MR. SCHAEFER: Stephen Schaefer, 
Page 204

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 Hoshizaki America. 

2 Where did you get the basis for the 

3 50 percent? Is that from end-users? Is that 

4 from manufacturers? 

5 MR. COOKE: That number has been in 

6 our calculations now since the framework 

7 analysis. We proposed that number at the 

8 framework, and to be honest, that was so many 

9 moons ago that I don't even know where we 

10 actually got that. And we floated it out at 

11 the framework in the preliminary analysis. 

12 And I think the bottom line was 

13 everyone sort of thought maybe it's a good 

14 number; maybe it's high for some types of 

15 buildings. But I don't think anyone had any 

16 information that they could give us to hone-in 

17 on something better. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Louis Starr? 

19 MR. STARR: Actually, maybe the 

20 manufacturers could provide some numbers. I 

21 think the reason it may be 50 is because that's 

22 halfway between zero and 100. That's what I'm 
Page 205

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 guessing. 

2 (Laughter.) 

3 I mean, it's your best guess is what 

4 it is. And my tendency, just from what I have 

5 heard here, is to think it's higher than 50 

6 percent. 

7 But, yes, the manufacturers have 

8 information on that. I kind of assumed that, 

9 because we didn't hear any other numbers, that 

10 50 percent was probably a low number rather 

11 than a high number, is what my takeaway from 

12 the previous meeting was. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Stephen? 

14 MR. SCHAEFER: Yes, just looking at 

15 the end-users, I know that if you go in the 

16 place and they're running out of ice, that 

17 means that the machine is still running during 

18 the peak times. So, I think it should really 

19 be higher than 50 percent. We could ask our 

20 end-users for comments on that. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: I think, as I recall, 

22 the thrust of comment perhaps from the 
Page 206

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 framework meeting, it was that people, 

2 purchasers of ice machines, size them for July 

3 4th. 

4 MR. COOKE: Correct. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: So, there's a lot of 

6 capacity there, perhaps excess capacity for 

7 their everyday needs, which is why they 

8 arrived at a number more like this. That's my 

9 recollection. 

10 MR. COOKE: And I would have to say, 

11 for somebody who runs as many of these 

12 meetings, I am impressed with your 

13 recollection of that fact. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Surprising, isn't 

15 it? 

16 MR. CYMBALSKY: I can you tell you 

17 the name of a hotel that does not size their 

18 ice maker. 

19 (Laughter.) 

20 MR. COOKE: If there are other 

21 comments on this slide? 

22 (No response.) 
Page 207

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 If not, we will move on to the 

2 life-cycle cost and payback period analysis. 

3 Here's where it shows up in our little 

4 flowchart. 

5 The purpose of this analysis is to 

6 get at the economic impacts on the customers. 

7 And we measure this in two major ways, one of 

8 which is to look at the life-cycle cost of 

9 owning the equipment and to measure the 

10 savings that occur when you increase the cost 

11 of the equipment, but also increase the 

12 efficiency of it. We are measuring that 

13 upfront cost against the long-term benefits of 

14 the energy savings. 

15 We also look at this on a payback 

16 period basis, which is to say you have that 

17 one-time upfront cost. And in the first year, 

18 what would be the operating savings for that 

19 equipment. And if you divide one into the 

20 other, you get a payback. It is a simple 

21 payback period calculation. 

22 I'm not going to dwell on this. This 
Page 208

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 just shows you where our data comes from. 

2 I'll let you read this at your leisure. It is, 

3 by the way, straight from the TSD. 

4 MR. DESHETLER: A quick question? 

5 MR. COOKE: Yes. 

6 MR. DESHETLER: So, from an earlier 

7 conversation -- 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Please say your name 

9 again. 

10 MR. DESHETLER: This is Scott 

11 DeShetler, Ice-O-Matic. 

12 From an earlier conversation, I 

13 think we determined that cost of putting in a 

14 larger electrical service or bumping out a 

15 wall for a machine is not in this calculation, 

16 is that correct? 

17 MR. COOKE: That is correct. And I 

18 think we also discussed that the size changes 

19 were all for the ice-making heads that are 

20 designed, generally speaking, with maybe a 

21 couple of exceptions, to sit on top of 

22 something. So, the reason we didn't include 
Page 209

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 that was because the assumption was that you 

2 probably wouldn't be knocking out a wall. 

3 MR. DESHETLER: Not a good 

4 assumption. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

6 Daryl? 

7 MR. ERBS: Yes, I did have a 

8 question. 

9 When we make the cabinet larger to 

10 accommodate a bigger evaporator or condenser, 

11 or whatever, did you take into account the 

12 increased shipping cost for that product? 

13 MR. COOKE: Shipping cost, we have, 

14 until now, assumed was within the manufacturer 

15 markup. 

16 MR. ERBS: Well, yes, we actually 

17 cover shipping. But, I mean, if I take a row 

18 or two out of a trailer, then my cost per unit 

19 goes up. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Detlef? 

21 MR. WESTPHALEN: I believe that 

22 shipping is in there. That's something we can 
Page 210

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 confirm. You know, we do consider that. 

2 MR. DESHETLER: So, just back to the 

3 bumping-out of the wall, the more likely 

4 situation will be that the person who is buying 

5 this replacement machine will be going from, 

6 let's say, 115-volt service to a 230-volt 

7 service. Because our initial estimates are 

8 that you are going to have to go to higher 

9 service to get some of these efficiencies. 

10 So, they will have to rewire that 

11 restaurant. If they can physically get it in, 

12 they may still have to do that wiring. And 

13 that is certainly not an inconsequential cost. 

14 So, I think that needs to be built into this. 

15 MR. COOKE: Okay. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

17 MR. COOKE: Thank you for that. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Why don't you go to 

19 the next slide? 

20 MR. COOKE: Yes. So, we have 

21 already started talking about the 

22 installation cost. Installation cost, 
Page 211

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 repair cost, and maintenance cost were all 

2 estimated in the same way. We talked to as 

3 many installers as we could, which, as we 

4 discussed earlier, turned out to be an 

5 amazingly-small number, given that people 

6 wouldn't talk to us. 

7 We also used RS Means data. And when 

8 I get to the repair cost, that's a little bit 

9 different as well. 

10 So, as you can see, I tried to not 

11 have to summarize all the information that's 

12 in the TSD. There's a table in there that 

13 shows you what the installation cost is by 

14 equipment class. And basically, it varies 

15 with the size of the machine, with the small 

16 ones being set at about $300 and the very large 

17 ones, the large water-cooled batch machines, 

18 for example, at $1500. 

19 With the repair costs, we looked 

20 specifically at the equipment that was being 

21 changed, the compressors, the condensers, 

22 three different types of motors, and 
Page 212

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 essentially assumed that they would be 

2 replaced out if the expected lifetime of one 

3 of those things is less than eight-and-a-half 

4 years. And took a levelized cost, calculated 

5 from those repair costs. 

6 The maintenance cost looked at the 

7 cost of keeping this machine running. We're 

8 talking about preventative maintenance, 

9 looking for leaks in the refrigeration lines, 

10 cleaning the machine a couple or three times 

11 a year, and those types of costs. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Chris? 

13 MR. SALATINO: Chris Salatino from 

14 Scotsman Ice. 

15 As far as the annual repair costs and 

16 annual maintenance costs, did you factor in 

17 any higher level of repair cost due to an 

18 expedited product development schedule? 

19 MR. COOKE: We did not. We took 

20 literally it straight from the manufacturers' 

21 analysis or the engineering analysis, took the 

22 cost from that and marked it up for the various 
Page 213

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 costs that a repair person would mark things 

2 up for. 

3 Water and electric prices, this is in 

4 some respects a fairly standard slide. We use 

5 EIA base year numbers. In this case, it was 

6 from the calendar year 2012. We used the 

7 Annual Energy Outlook 2013 to provide us an 

8 escalation in electricity prices. 

9 Since water is a major component of 

10 the operating cost stream, we needed water 

11 costs, and those were based on the American 

12 Water Works Association Rate Survey. There 

13 was a new one that came out last summer. So, 

14 this is fairly fresh data. 

15 We escalated the base year water and 

16 wastewater price using an average calculated 

17 from a long-term CPI for water utility costs. 

18 As some of you might recall who have 

19 been around this process for a while, we have 

20 started adding in a factor to adjust the 

21 estimated manufacturer's cost for what's 

22 called experiential or price learning. In 
Page 214

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 this particular case, it turned out to be a 

2 very small number. 

3 For the LCC analysis, we need to take 

4 the engineering estimate of cost, which was 

5 done in 2012 and escalate that to the year when 

6 we assumed that this standard would go into 

7 effect, which I believe we assumed to be 2018. 

8 So, there's approximately a 4/10ths of 1 

9 percent decline during that period, just based 

10 on this experiential learning analysis. 

11 There are other inputs. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Karim? 

13 DR. AMRANE: Yes, Karim Amrane with 

14 AHRI. 

15 How did you get the data on the 

16 experimental learning? 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Experiential. 

18 DR. AMRANE: Experiential. 

19 MR. COOKE: The experiential 

20 learning. 

21 DR. AMRANE: Yes. 

22 MR. COOKE: We used a PPI that is 
Page 215

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 associated -- or excuse me -- a Producer Price 

2 Index associated with commercial 

3 refrigeration. There are three or four 

4 others -- it's actually in the NIA analysis; 

5 there's a slide about it. 

6 But it's the PPI that is closest to 

7 the commercial refrigeration category of 

8 equipment. 

9 DR. AMRANE: So, it was not even for 

10 commercial ice makers? 

11 MR. COOKE: It's not specific to 

12 commercial ice makers because there is not one 

13 at that level of -- 

14 DR. AMRANE: So, how confident are 

15 you that it applies to commercial ice makers? 

16 MR. COOKE: I am as confident as I 

17 can be, given that it is bundled into that 

18 group. And we actually did really look at 

19 this number. It is a small number. And even 

20 over the 30-year forecast period, it's still 

21 under, as you will see when we get to the NIA, 

22 is still under 2 percent. It is a very small 
Page 216

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 number, and we really looked at that and asked 

2 various questions about confidence in it, but 

3 decided to include it. 

4 And you are free to comment, Karim. 

5 DR. AMRANE: Sure, sure. Of 

6 course, I am free to comment. 

7 But I guess, from the stakeholder's 

8 standpoint, I think it's DOE's burden to show 

9 us that, indeed, those numbers mean something. 

10 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, to be clear, the 

11 commercial ice makers is bundled into this 

12 Producer Price Index that is more general 

13 commercial refrigeration. 

14 MR. COOKE: Correct. 

15 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, to the extent 

16 that commercial ice maker’s different from the 

17 entire category as a whole, that's what the 

18 argument is here, yes. 

19 MR. COOKE: That's correct. And 

20 the fact that commercial ice makers would 

21 probably be a very small part, under what, 5 

22 percent of the whole? I think that is the 
Page 217

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 argument. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Just to clarify for 

3 the record, that was John Cymbalsky and, then, 

4 back to Alan. 

5 So, thanks for both of those 

6 contributions. 

7 MR. COOKE: So, we use discount 

8 rates that are based on the types of customers 

9 that would be purchasing this equipment. 

10 There is a database that we can download off 

11 the web that has a lot of information. We 

12 calculate them. And when we do our Monte 

13 Carlo analysis and the life-cycle cost, we 

14 just pick a calculated discount rate out of the 

15 bin and run a specific customer's discount 

16 rate. 

17 We assumed an average lifetime of 

18 eight-and-a-half years, but in the LCC 

19 analysis that eight-and-a-half-year number 

20 really isn't used. We actually use a range of 

21 lifetimes ranging from 4 to 12 percent. And 

22 if you do a weighted average of our probability 
Page 218

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 of pulling the numbers out, it works out to 

2 eight-and-a-half years. 

3 All of the inputs are documented in 

4 TSD Chapter 8. 

5 DR. AMRANE: Chris? 

6 MR. SALATINO: Chris Salatino, 

7 Scotsman Ice. 

8 So, one of the items that I think I 

9 just commented on, or I know that I just 

10 commented on, are increased warranty due 

11 to -- or increased maintenance and repair due 

12 to an expedited development time. 

13 I think, well, I know we can provide 

14 data that would help give some context to that 

15 statement No. 1. 

16 And then, No. 2, does the evaluation 

17 include additional training required for the 

18 field for new equipment? 

19 MR. COOKE: It is not does. It is 

20 just looking at an estimate of cost based on 

21 information that is available today. 

22 MR. SALATINO: That would be 
Page 219

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 something that we would -- it would be helpful 

2 to train our -- 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: John Cymbalsky 

4 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, I know that in 

5 most of our rules -- and I'll assume that this 

6 is the same -- that the newer, more efficient 

7 technologies definitely have a higher 

8 incidence of both failure and repair costs 

9 associated with it. So, in my mind, that is 

10 a proxy for what you're describing, in the fact 

11 that these things aren't as established in the 

12 market for a long period of time. And so, to 

13 the extent that the way they're manufactured 

14 or the parts that they use or the fact that 

15 they're sophisticated and they break more and 

16 cost more to repair, that is in the analysis. 

17 So, I think we are picking up what 

18 you're describing in the upstream root cause 

19 of the issue in the downstream numbers for the 

20 repair costs. 

21 MR. COOKE: Right. 

22 MR. SALATINO: And that's only half 
Page 220

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 of it. The other half is the expedited 

2 development time. 

3 So, if we are required in our 

4 particular case to turn over 90 percent of our 

5 portfolio in three years, in order to do that, 

6 we would likely have to cut some of our 

7 traditional product development processes. 

8 If that's the case, then we're at risk of 

9 assuming more reliability issues because of 

10 that. 

11 So, it's twofold. It's, one, to 

12 what you were talking about, the increased 

13 technology and required service for that. 

14 The other part is that expedited development 

15 process and what we are at risk for there. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Chris. 

17 That's good. 

18 MR. CYMBALSKY: Yes. Yes, it would 

19 be interesting to see how we disentangle that, 

20 those two effects. But we would appreciate 

21 the data. 

22 MR. COOKE: I mentioned briefly the 
Page 221

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 Monte Carlo analysis. We run 10,000 

2 scenarios for each one of these equipment 

3 classes. We vary the items listed here on the 

4 page. You can read as well as I can. So, I'll 

5 let you look at that. 

6 And we welcome any comments on the 

7 average equipment lifetimes, any additional 

8 information that you might have that would 

9 help us estimate installation costs or repair 

10 and maintenance costs. And I think we have 

11 already gotten a lot of this feedback. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments 

13 on item 7, 8, and 20, as listed here on slide 

14 63? 

15 Yes, Andrew? 

16 MR. DELASKI: I want to talk about 

17 cost. I want to go back to a prior electrical 

18 cost topic, which is the loading issue. 

19 And what I heard is that perhaps that 

20 50-percent number is a bit low. And as I have 

21 been thinking here, it strikes me that the 

22 Department could reach out to some of the other 
Page 222

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 potential stakeholders, as has been mentioned 

2 earlier, the Restaurants Association, the 

3 Hotel Association. You might be able to get 

4 some additional data from folks like that, 

5 back to the user groups that we mentioned 

6 earlier as being a potential source. 

7 What I heard earlier from some of the 

8 manufacturers -- and you all can comment -- is 

9 that on some of these products, they are really 

10 maxed-out. Your drive-through example, 

11 right, that product is probably operating at 

12 higher than 50 percent. You know, there may 

13 be others that are -- 50 percent, as you said, 

14 is the midpoint. There is really a range 

15 happening here. And to capture that range, it 

16 may vary; it almost certainly varies by 

17 product type. And I would suggest that there 

18 may be a question that you could pose to these 

19 guys that might help you get at that as well. 

20 You guys can talk better to that, of course, 

21 than I would. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Scott? 
Page 223

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 MR. BINGHAM: This is Scott Bingham 

2 with Follett. 

3 I would say that there are some max 

4 times, but the industry has been trending 

5 towards moving ice makers away from large bins 

6 in the back and towards putting them onto 

7 smaller dispensers upfront. And this smaller 

8 storage space in that dispenser would lend 

9 itself to a lesser duty cycle because you have 

10 only, instead of a 2,000-pound bin, a 

11 200-pound hopper. And so, once the 

12 restaurant closes at 11 o'clock or midnight, 

13 the ice machine will run for a certain period 

14 of time to fill it up, and then, it is off for 

15 the rest of the night; whereas, that 

16 2,000-bin, if you used a great amount of that 

17 ice during the day, if you sized it properly, 

18 it will be running most of the night to catch 

19 up. 

20 And so, I would say that that number, 

21 I don't think that's a high number. We do have 

22 some data. I don't think our customers will 
Page 224

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 know the answer to that question. All they 

2 know is, if they open their bin, if there's ice 

3 there. They don't know how long it ran 

4 overnight. 

5 So, I will provide some comment 

6 there, and I don't think it's a high number. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: I thought you were 

8 saying, because the trend is towards smaller 

9 units delivering the ice, the amount of time 

10 that that unit is actually cranking is more. 

11 MR. BINGHAM: Is less. It is less. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

13 MR. BINGHAM: Because it doesn't 

14 have as large of a storage hopper to -- 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

16 MR. BINGHAM: -- fill through the 

17 night. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

19 Additional comments here? 

20 (No response.) 

21 MR. COOKE: This slide here is a 

22 little tiny bit out of order, but it is needed 
Page 225

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 to provide context for the tables that come 

2 along. 

3 This is where we transition, as Daryl 

4 was stumbling over, a little earlier, we 

5 transition from efficiency levels to TSLs. 

6 And we have defined TSLs in the way that we have 

7 here on this page. 

8 The TSL5 is the maximum efficiency 

9 level. That's that max tech level. 

10 TSL3, if you look at the National 

11 Impacts Analysis, TSL3 is the efficiency level 

12 for each equipment class that has the highest 

13 NPV. Generally speaking, they go up and, 

14 then, they go down. And the point where it is 

15 at the highest, that is the efficiency level 

16 for each equipment class that is included in 

17 TSL3. 

18 TSL4, which I skipped, is actually 

19 just an intermediate point between TSL3 and 

20 TSL5. There's a fairly-lengthy description 

21 in the NOPR of all of the conditions we've 

22 placed on determining what efficiency level 
Page 226

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 was TSL4. I didn't actually reproduce the 

2 whole description here. It is an 

3 intermediate point. 

4 TSL1 was set equal to the original 

5 ENERGY STAR 10-percent efficiency improvement 

6 level, and TSL2 is another intermediate point, 

7 just so we don't have any big jumps between 

8 these TSLs. 

9 So, with that in mind, these are the 

10 Life-Cycle Cost Savings by Equipment Class. 

11 I think John was mentioning earlier the total 

12 equipment cost for each of these classes after 

13 we add the markups. I don't have a slide for 

14 that in this deck. So, I would have to refer 

15 you to either the NOPR or the TSD to see that, 

16 and you should be able to see that in Chapter 

17 8 of the TSD. 

18 You can see just the highest NPV 

19 point tends to also be the highest life-cycle 

20 cost point. It's not true in all cases, but 

21 in most cases it is. So, you can see TSL3 

22 tends to be the best level on this slide as 
Page 227

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 well. 

2 The next slide, where we talk about 

3 payback periods, again, it is by TSL. And I 

4 would just highlight the fact that there's a 

5 fairly-marked jump between TSL3 and TSL4. In 

6 TSL3 you see a lot of -- well, none of the 

7 payback periods are greater than 2.27 years, 

8 and a lot of them are actually under one year. 

9 And there's a fairly big percentage 

10 jump in a lot of these between TSL3 and TSL4. 

11 That is because even though there's a lot more 

12 energy efficiency to be gleaned at TSL4, the 

13 cost that goes along with it is steep enough 

14 that it becomes a real hurdle. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Louis, do you want in 

16 here? 

17 MR. STARR: So, Louis Starr with 

18 NEEA. 

19 So, it sounds like there is 

20 cost-effective savings over the lifetime for 

21 all of them, but what you decide to set the 

22 standard level is when the incremental cost 
Page 228

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 got to be so much. I think you were talking 

2 about that. But, normally, you would think 

3 that, if the life-cycle costs were there and 

4 it paid back in its lifetime, that that would 

5 be the level that you would set it at. But you 

6 have set it at a lower level. Maybe you can 

7 explain that a little bit more. 

8 MR. COOKE: Well, I think that that 

9 was why I said that the TSL discussion was a 

10 little bit out of place because we have not 

11 covered the NIA and the Manufacture Impact 

12 Analysis, all of which figures into this. 

13 MR. STARR: So, that is what is 

14 really affecting it? It is not the cost 

15 affecting it, but it is how it impacts the 

16 manufacturer in terms of their ability to stay 

17 in business or reach those levels without -- 

18 MR. COOKE: You know, this clearly 

19 played into it because I think there is a 

20 fairly discrete jump between TSL3 and TSL4, 

21 but it really was a combination of all of these 

22 things. And you can't see a whole context 
Page 229

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 until you get all the pieces. So, hold that 

2 thought. 

3 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, I will 

4 say -- this is John Cymbalsky -- I will say I'm 

5 looking at my notes from when we put this 

6 together. 

7 And for TSL4 and 5, this is where the 

8 proprietary technology comes into play, 

9 another reason for rejection. 

10 MR. COOKE: We also did what we call 

11 a life-cycle cost subgroup analysis, where we 

12 look at some of the groups that we think might 

13 be particularly disadvantaged by a standard, 

14 and just look at the life-cycle costs impacts 

15 on them. 

16 We looked, in particular, at lodging 

17 and food service. Lodging faces the highest 

18 capital costs, according to this database that 

19 we pulled information out of. Food service 

20 experienced higher-than-average electricity 

21 prices and higher-than-average capital costs, 

22 although it is not nearly as high as the 
Page 230

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 lodging. 

2 In essence, the standard, the TSL3 

3 standard, I should say, remains 

4 cost-effective for both subgroups. They do 

5 take a hit on the life-cycle cost. And for the 

6 food service, it was a fairly small hit because 

7 their energy cost is higher, which means that 

8 the value of those energy savings is higher. 

9 For lodging, it was a little bit bigger hit 

10 because their energy cost, I think, if I 

11 remember correctly, is actually a little bit 

12 less than the national average. So, that 

13 higher capital cost hit them 

14 disproportionately. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl? 

16 MR. COOKE: Go ahead. 

17 MR. ERBS: Daryl Erbs, Manitowoc 

18 Ice. 

19 So, I won't go through all of my 

20 comments I've already made around how there 

21 might be some errors in the cost model. But, 

22 you know, one of the things that I do find 
Page 231

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 interesting is the small categories have the 

2 longest payback period. The small-sized ice 

3 machine, whether it be water-cooled or 

4 air-cooled, ice-making head or self-contained 

5 units, tend to be favored by small, individual 

6 proprietors who are just operating a 

7 restaurant, a coffee shop, as well as a lot of 

8 the lodging, and a lot of the ice machines on 

9 hotel floors, as someone mentioned earlier, 

10 don't make enough ice. They're small units. 

11 And particularly if there is some 

12 error on the side of these small units, which, 

13 by the way, are also the ones that can grow in 

14 size, like to meet the standard, so that's 

15 where I have the most concern about the 

16 accuracy of the cost. These are cash 

17 businesses. 

18 So, I understand life-cycle cost, 

19 and it should make sense to anyone, you know, 

20 to maximize their life-cycle cost, but the 

21 real situation we face in the marketplace is, 

22 if it pays back in a year, most of the time 
Page 232

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 they'll buy it. Two years, maybe if it is a 

2 large chain where there's some benefit to the 

3 brand, right, to do things that are 

4 environmentally -- but when you get to a 

5 mom-and-pop, they're just looking at, will I 

6 get my money back this year? 

7 And so, the categories where I think 

8 people are most sensitive to the payback 

9 period are the ones where we have the longest 

10 payback period. So, my view is we are 

11 disadvantaging what I would call, you know, 

12 the small, individual proprietor kind of 

13 operator of a restaurant. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: John Cymbalsky? 

15 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, I will say, you 

16 know, I didn't know this earlier when we were 

17 talking in the beginning about the rebuttable 

18 assumption and less than three years. So, I 

19 have been on this job for, I don't know, 

20 three-and-a-half years now. And I've never 

21 seen payback periods so low, actually. 

22 So, your point is taken about cash 
Page 233

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 businesses and paybacks. But, based on the 

2 rules I'm familiar with and worked on, these 

3 are very, very small paybacks in terms of what 

4 we have done compared to the life of the 

5 equipment, too. We are talking 

6 eight-and-a-half on average but 12 or 14 

7 total. So, the TSL3 pays back very quickly. 

8 MR. ERBS: And, yes, I was just 

9 looking at across all of the smalls listed on 

10 this chart. Some of the smalls, there is a big 

11 leap between TSL3 and 4. 

12 MR. CYMBALSKY: I'm just looking at 

13 this. I think Daryl is alluding to the top 

14 one. 

15 MR. ERBS: Yes, to the top one, I 

16 know, yes. Yes. 

17 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, to a two-year, 

18 two-years-and-a-few-months -- 

19 MR. ERBS: Yes. 

20 MR. CYMBALSKY: -- payback in my 

21 world is very short. 

22 MR. ERBS: Yes. So, Daryl, 
Page 234

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 Manitowoc Ice. 

2 I don't believe these, based on the 

3 data we have around cost assumptions. And 

4 that combined with, you know, the earlier 

5 discussion we had around some of the technical 

6 options -- so, if I really believed these were 

7 true, I might still have a little bit of 

8 concern with the ones that are two-plus years. 

9 The other ones, I would say, yes, but, again, 

10 I am very concerned that these are not 

11 accurate, and if it turns out to be five years 

12 instead of three years for a small 

13 water-cooled batch ice-making head, that is 

14 going to really impact the market. 

15 I think we, as manufacturers, are 

16 very concerned about what happens to the size 

17 of the ice machine market. You know, how many 

18 will we sell in light of these changes? There 

19 is a price elasticity point, and the smaller 

20 you get, the less elastic, right? And people 

21 will get to a point where they will buy bagged 

22 ice or they will do something, but they won't 
Page 235

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 buy ice machines anymore. 

2 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, you're setting 

3 Alan up for his next section on shipments 

4 analysis here. 

5 MR. COOKE: That's right. 

6 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, good segue. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Final comments 

8 before we move to shipments? 

9 Laura? 

10 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Laura Petrillo, 

11 AHRI. 

12 I just would like to echo what Daryl 

13 mentioned. We have a lot of concerns about 

14 the inputs into the analysis. To see numbers 

15 that are so favorable, I think that reinforces 

16 the point that there are problems with the 

17 concern that lead to such a favorable outcome 

18 for the payback periods. 

19 Just looking at the compressor cost, 

20 as we have discussed multiple times, you know, 

21 we would really like to see these numbers 

22 reevaluated and alternative refrigerants 
Page 236

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 included in this before we move forward. 

2 These numbers may not be accurate. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

4 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Thank you. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

6 On to shipments. 

7 MR. COOKE: Shipments, here we are 

8 on the graphic. The purpose of this analysis 

9 is, of course, to estimate shipments, just 

10 like the name says, over a 30-year period. 

11 The main source of the data that we 

12 used, the historical data, was AHRI data that 

13 was provided during the preliminary analysis, 

14 or actually prior to the preliminary analysis 

15 phase. So, it is basically AHRI data from 

16 2010. 

17 We did have information for consumer 

18 or current industrial reports from NAAFEM. I 

19 don't believe either of those datasets 

20 actually made their way into the analysis 

21 underlying this NOPR. 

22 We have been looking at ENERGY STAR 
Page 237

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 since we submitted this, essentially, put our 

2 pencils down and submitted this NOPR. There 

3 was a new ENERGY STAR report that came out. 

4 And if you look at the shipment 

5 numbers in there, it is a little bit higher 

6 than AHRI data over time, which would reflect 

7 the fact that there are companies like Follett 

8 that probably aren't in the AHRI data, but 

9 would be in the ENERGY STAR data. So, I am 

10 kind of thinking we might be using the ENERGY 

11 STAR shipments information at the final rule. 

12 So, it would be a little bit higher than this, 

13 but not much, a little, tiny bit for the 

14 shipments. 

15 We use, as a driver for new 

16 purchases, for new shipments, we use the AEO 

17 2013 commercial floorspace model. One of the 

18 things that came straight out of the AHRI data 

19 is the percentage of shipments by the type of 

20 equipment. And this probably actually 

21 underlines a little bit of Daryl's point, 

22 which is that a lot of the more important 
Page 238

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 classes are the small classes. 

2 I think if you add up four of the 

3 small classes, you get approximately 60 

4 percent of the shipments. So, small 

5 ice-making classes are very important. 

6 We held this constant throughout the 

7 30-year forecast period. I think there's a 

8 time later where we will be asking if there's 

9 additional information. 

10 Here's the projection of the 

11 shipments in a graph that, hopefully, those of 

12 you in the back of the room can see, given the 

13 color of the bar. 

14 In total, over the 30-year period, 

15 there's about 6.7 million ice makers that 

16 shipped. The stock in 2018 was estimated as 

17 about 1.44 million units. And it is somewhere 

18 in the neighborhood of the 150 to 200 thousand 

19 units per year that somebody was mentioning 

20 earlier. 

21 The shipments feed directly into the 

22 National Impacts Analysis where we estimate 
Page 239

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 the total national energy savings and in this 

2 case some water savings and, also, where we 

3 estimate the Net Present Value of these 

4 changes at a national level. 

5 So, we use a lot of the inputs that 

6 came from the LCC analysis. We also need a 

7 site-to-source ratio and, also, a full 

8 fuel-cycle ratio to take that end-use customer 

9 impact up to either the mine mouth or the 

10 natural gas well field, wherever it might be, 

11 to get the total impact on energy for the 

12 nation. 

13 We estimate a base case and, then, 

14 standards cases for each of these levels that 

15 we have analyzed, and the difference is the 

16 national impact. 

17 There was one other set of 

18 assumptions that hasn't been shown yet, and 

19 that has to do with what is the base case. 

20 Where are units shipped now in terms of 

21 efficiency? 

22 If you look at, for example, ENERGY 
Page 240

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 STAR, for the equipment that was in ENERGY 

2 STAR, the Version 1 of the standards, 

3 somewhere between 60 and 67 percent of 

4 equipment for like the last three or four years 

5 would actually be at Level 2, which is what we 

6 call the ENERGY STAR level, at Level 2 or 

7 higher. 

8 This was actually based on the 

9 available products in the market today, using 

10 the market database that Detlef discussed 

11 earlier. So, this is where the units are that 

12 you, the manufacturers, are currently making. 

13 Three questions. We certainly 

14 would welcome information that might help us 

15 to decide whether or not holding in place the 

16 market shares by equipment classes is 

17 appropriate, whether that base efficiency 

18 distribution is a good distribution. And 

19 there's a third one here. Oh, the third one, 

20 there is a product class that I think was 

21 alluded to earlier on in the engineering and 

22 the marketing or the market assessment level, 
Page 241

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 which has to do with remote compressor units 

2 that are actually designed to be attached to 

3 compressor racks as opposed to a dedicated 

4 remote compressor. So, we just wanted to get 

5 an idea of what kind of a market share that has 

6 because I don't think we have really good data 

7 on that. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Louis? 

9 MR. STARR: So, this is Louis Starr 

10 with NEEA. 

11 I was looking at slide 72 there. And 

12 so, you've got, it looks like, I'm assuming 

13 that you came up with that assuming the average 

14 life of the ice machine being eight years. 

15 So, essentially, you got 25,000 in new, and 

16 then, the rest is replacement, right? Is that 

17 kind of how you came up with that ratio of 

18 new-to-replaced or how -- 

19 MR. COOKE: I think that basic ratio 

20 is used to come up with that split. And then, 

21 that split gets held constant. 

22 MR. STARR: Okay. And so, then, the 
Page 242

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 new green or the green portion of that, the 

2 dark green portion is basically the growth in 

3 new restaurants, in other words, new places 

4 opening? And then, the multiplication is the 

5 replacement of those units? 

6 MR. COOKE: That would be new 

7 restaurants, hotels -- 

8 MR. STARR: Okay. 

9 MR. COOKE: -- offices, hospitals, 

10 retail, you know, grocery stores. There's 

11 one I'm missing, two that I'm missing. 

12 Anyway, so there's several different 

13 classes of businesses that actually use ice 

14 makers. 

15 MR. STARR: And the way you 

16 projected that growth is based upon 

17 population? Or how did you go about that? 

18 MR. COOKE: We split it out to the 

19 individual business type based on some 

20 information that came from a DOE report on 

21 technical potential and conservation 

22 potential in commercial buildings, commercial 
Page 243

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 refrigeration, in particular. 

2 I do believe there is a reference 

3 cited in there, in the TSD, that will give you 

4 that exact information. 

5 MR. CYMBALSKY: But I think for new 

6 placements of these things, you're using the 

7 AEO commercial building floorspace. 

8 MR. COOKE: That's right. 

9 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, the number of 

10 hotels that are built, you know. 

11 MR. COOKE: Right. 

12 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, additions to 

13 floorspace by the building type that uses this 

14 equipment is what drives the new purchases. 

15 MR. COOKE: Right. Well, what we 

16 did was we split it up to the building types, 

17 and then, we used the AEO. 

18 MR. CYMBALSKY: Right. 

19 MR. COOKE: Basically, a 

20 year-to-year ratio, what is this year to next 

21 year. We have a base year number and we just 

22 scale it either up or down, depending on what 
Page 244

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 the growth in commercial floorspace is. 

2 MR. CYMBALSKY: Right. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks, John. 

4 Yes? 

5 MR. RAWALD: I just want to close the 

6 loop. John was asked earlier about the 

7 citation for the case that he was talking 

8 about. He was talking about NEMA v. DOE, a 

9 case out of the 4th Circuit. I don't have the 

10 exact legal citation for it, but you can find 

11 it if you do a quick internet search. And it 

12 is from 2011. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you, 

14 Doug. 

15 Are we, then, back? 

16 MR. COOKE: Yes. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Back to Alan. 

18 MR. COOKE: Back to me and moving 

19 forward. 

20 So, we are now on the price trends. 

21 We discussed this earlier, and it is based on 

22 the PPI series refrigeration, air 
Page 245

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 conditioning, and warm air and heating 

2 equipment, which, as we discussed earlier, ice 

3 makers is part of it. It is a small part of 

4 it. It is the PPI that is essentially as close 

5 to ice makers as exists. 

6 And for those of you in the back of 

7 the room who can't see the scale on, I guess 

8 it would be the left side of the screen here, 

9 this starts at 1.0, which would be no change, 

10 and the bottom of it is .9. 

11 In essence, over the 30-year period, 

12 there's about a 2-percent decline in the 

13 price. And we have had some discussion on it. 

14 If there are any other comments, this would be 

15 the time. 

16 And this was used in the NIA. 

17 MR. DESHETLER: Scott DeShetler, 

18 Ice-O-Matic. 

19 And I'm not sure exactly how you have 

20 run your model here. But my sense is that what 

21 you're going to see is, when these new 

22 standards go into place, you are going to see 
Page 246

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 a significant bump in price. Your assumption 

2 that your price -- what did you call 

3 it? -- experiential price will take into 

4 effect is probably correct, but I think you 

5 have got to bump that whole piece up. I think 

6 your line goes like this. I don't think it 

7 goes like this. 

8 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, this is John 

9 Cymbalsky. 

10 So, the standard will come in and 

11 that equipment will cost more money. So, that 

12 is not what you are seeing here. 

13 What you are seeing is in the year 

14 that the standard comes in, let's say it costs 

15 $300 more for that piece of equipment. This 

16 scale would, then, over time knock down that 

17 $300 increment. 

18 MR. DESHETLER: Okay. So, this is 

19 from the time it comes into place? Got you. 

20 MR. CYMBALSKY: Correct. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, John. 

22 You can see the comment box there. 
Page 247

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 On methods to improve its equipment price 

2 forecasting as well as any data supporting 

3 alternative methods -- any additional 

4 thoughts here? 

5 (No response.) 

6 MR. COOKE: Other inputs to the 

7 National Impact Analysis are the discount 

8 rate. We use the 3 percent and the 7 percent 

9 that is derived from some official government 

10 guidance. We discounted all future expenses 

11 to 2013. Everything was denominated in 2012 

12 dollars, just in case that hasn't come up 

13 before now. 

14 And we have already talked about the 

15 site-to-source ratio. And that was developed 

16 from NEMS, which is the model that underlies 

17 the EIA's Annual Energy Outlook. 

18 So, here are the quad savings. You 

19 can see by equipment classes with the total for 

20 the TSLs at the bottom of the page. 

21 I'm not sure I have a whole lot to say 

22 about that, other than the TSL that we selected 
Page 248

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 for the standard TSL3 has a little bit over a 

2 quarter of a quad savings over the life of this 

3 equipment purchased between 2018 and 2047. 

4 Yes? 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Chris? 

6 MR. SALATINO: Chris Salatino. 

7 As far as the energy savings, is that 

8 with a 50-percent runtime assumption? 

9 MR. COOKE: Yes, it is. 

10 MR. SALATINO: Thank you. 

11 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, just to put this 

12 in perspective -- 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: John Cymbalsky. 

14 MR. CYMBALSKY: -- because -- I'm 

15 bad at that, aren't I? 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: You're doing better. 

17 John Cymbalsky. 

18 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, we are saving 

19 .286 quads over 30 years, and the U.S. economy 

20 uses 100 quads in a single year. So, I just 

21 want to put that in perspective. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl? 
Page 249

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 MR. ERBS: Daryl Erbs, Manitowoc 

2 Ice. 

3 I can't resist just saying, then why 

4 are we wasting all this time? 

5 (Laughter.) 

6 MR. CYMBALSKY: It's a statutory 

7 requirement. I set you up for that. 

8 (Laughter.) 

9 So, 100 quads is roughly what the 

10 entire U.S. economy uses in a year. So, that 

11 includes everything, transportation, 

12 residential, commercial, industrial. And 

13 so, over 30 years, this is saving about a third 

14 of a quad. So, I just want to put everything 

15 in perspective. But every little bit helps, 

16 right, Daryl? 

17 (Laughter.) 

18 MR. COOKE: The next slide is the Net 

19 Present Value. So, you can see clearly here 

20 TSL3 is the highest TSL, which is the one, the 

21 definition of TSL3. The Net Present Value of 

22 that is considerably higher than the other 
Page 250

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 levels. 

2 I don't believe when we get to the 

3 emissions analysis that there is a slide that 

4 talks about it, but if you actually take this 

5 up one level and add on the value of emissions 

6 to this, TSL3 is still the highest TSL level. 

7 So, it came out looking pretty good from that 

8 perspective. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Questions on this 

10 before we move on? 

11 (No response.) 

12 Okay. 

13 MR. COOKE: I'm going to go over one 

14 more small piece of this before I give it over 

15 to Ben Barrington to do the MIA. And that's 

16 the Regulatory Impact Analysis. 

17 In this, we investigate an 

18 alternative or some alternatives to setting 

19 standards. This slide here is, relatively 

20 speaking, a boilerplate kind of standard 

21 because there's a lot of things that we could 

22 look at. 
Page 251

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 In fact, what we ended up looking at 

2 was two things. We looked at consumer rebates 

3 and a consumer tax credit. And the model that 

4 we had in our line when we were analyzing this 

5 was what you see right now with ENERGY STAR, 

6 where utilities across the country almost all 

7 seem to peg their efficiency rebates to, if you 

8 have a unit that qualifies for ENERGY STAR or 

9 maybe if you have a unit that qualifies for 

10 CEE2, assuming that that still exists now that 

11 ENERGY STAR has changed their efficiency 

12 levels. 

13 If you look at the ENERGY STAR data, 

14 they have achieved, fairly consistently, 

15 about a 60-percent penetration year-in and 

16 year-out of the equipment costs that are 

17 covered by those standards. 

18 So, we asked the question, well, what 

19 would happen if we were to set a program that 

20 looked kind of like that, equivalent to TSL3, 

21 and we got 60 percent penetration? And what 

22 would happen if we looked at a tax credit that 
Page 252

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 looked sort of like that? 

2 DOE has put together some 

3 information in the past that showed that there 

4 is about an 80-percent -- that a tax credit 

5 would achieve about 80 percent of what a rebate 

6 would achieve. So, we're looking at one 

7 scenario with a 60-percent impact and one 

8 scenario with a 48-percent impact. 

9 So, the results from that, after 

10 putting those inputs into the model, we found 

11 about a 52 percent, that a tax credit would 

12 save about 52 percent of what the standards 

13 would actually save, and a rebate program 

14 would save about 64 percent of what the 

15 standard would save. And, of course, the NPV 

16 is also reduced somewhat from the standard 

17 level as well. 

18 There is one caveat here, and that is 

19 that, as I think we have heard a number of times 

20 before today, there aren't too many machines 

21 that actually would qualify for this ENERGY 

22 STAR. So, this would be a significant moving 
Page 253

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 of the market in a voluntary fashion. 

2 Yes? 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Laura? 

4 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: So, DOE is 

5 required to look at these options, is that 

6 correct? 

7 MR. COOKE: Yes. 

8 MR. RAWALD: Has DOE ever gone with 

9 one of these options? 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: John Cymbalsky? 

11 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, I think what all 

12 of our rules have said is that this standard 

13 is the most cost-effective way at achieving 

14 the level of energy savings that you see in the 

15 rulemaking. 

16 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: So no? 

17 MR. CYMBALSKY: I think that's 

18 correct. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks, Alan. 

20 Comments on the Regulatory Impact 

21 Analysis results? 

22 MR. DELASKI: Just to be clear, DOE 
Page 254

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 can't give out tax rebates or write tax law. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Andrew. 

3 I thought that was, yes, an important point. 

4 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Thank you. I 

5 understand that. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 

7 Karim? 

8 DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. 

9 Actually, I have a comment for 

10 following what John said about the energy 

11 savings. You said .3 or .286 quads, right, 

12 over 30 years? 

13 I think, by statute, DOE is required 

14 to show that the standard saves a significant 

15 amount of energy. And so, is .28 quads over 

16 30 years a significant amount of energy? 

17 MR. CYMBALSKY: Yes. We have 

18 determined previously that .001, I believe, or 

19 .01 was significant. 

20 DR. AMRANE: So, .1 is? 

21 MR. CYMBALSKY: Yes. I think the 

22 PTACs rule is the standard bearer. 
Page 255

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Would you spell that 

2 out? PTACs means? 

3 MR. CYMBALSKY: Package Terminal 

4 Air Conditioners had a .01, and that was deemed 

5 significant. 

6 DR. AMRANE: And where is it treated 

7 somewhere? It's in the rule? It's in 

8 statute? Or where is it? It is a DOE -- 

9 MR. CYMBALSKY: I think that is in 

10 the preamble of that rule, yes. Before my 

11 time. 

12 MR. DELASKI: I think the guiding 

13 force is NRDC v. Harrington. 

14 MR. CYMBALSKY: Yes. 

15 MR. DELASKI: So, the lawsuit was 

16 NRDC v. Harrington. 

17 DR. AMRANE: Okay. And it was the 

18 .00 -- 

19 MR. DELASKI: No, no. 

20 DR. AMRANE: No? 

21 MR. DELASKI: It goes back to the 

22 1980s. There were a number of standards that 
Page 256

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 were set where DOE determined there shall be 

2 no standard. The Department was sued by NRDC. 

3 And the result was all of the standards program 

4 we have today in large measure. 

5 So, the Department doesn't have much 

6 latitude to say, you know, it's insignificant. 

7 So, what is significant was termed to be 

8 non-trivial, was what was determined. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Andrew, 

10 for that bit of history. Thank you. 

11 Okay. We're moving on to MIA. 

12 MR. DELASKI: Doug, before we move 

13 on -- 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Andrew, please. 

15 MR. DELASKI: -- I want to come back 

16 to, because I am just struggling with that 

17 inconsistency that I have heard a few times 

18 today. And maybe the manufacturers can help 

19 me with this. 

20 I come back. I am looking at Daryl 

21 just because you have talked about it today. 

22 I am going to put it back on you. 
Page 257

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 (Laughter.) 

2 You seem to have some -- any of you 

3 guys could probably answer this. 

4 If you pop back to slide 74, this is 

5 a slide that says, is the market share by 

6 efficiency level? And, of course, this 

7 affects the analysis in a lot of different ways 

8 because it is the baseline picture here, a 

9 snapshot of the picture. You're getting a 

10 response to this when you put it up, which was 

11 striking to me, because earlier I thought I 

12 heard folks say, you know, you just can't get 

13 machines at these efficiency levels that are 

14 being considered for the rule. But, yet, this 

15 says that you can. Not only can you get them, 

16 but they have significant market share in some 

17 of the categories. 

18 So, I am struggling with this 

19 disconnect. Either the slide isn't correct 

20 or else, you know, there is substantial market 

21 share out there at the efficiency levels being 

22 considered. 
Page 258

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 MR. COOKE: Well, I'm not sure that 

2 I can tell you if this slide is correct in terms 

3 of market share. What this tells you is that, 

4 for example, ice-making, water-cooled, small 

5 batch, 10 percent of the machines for sale in 

6 the database that we compiled are at that 

7 efficiency level. 

8 MR. DELASKI: Okay. 

9 MR. COOKE: But we don't know what 

10 the shipments at that efficiency level are. 

11 MR. DELASKI: So, this says market 

12 share. What it shows us is available models? 

13 MR. COOKE: It's available models, 

14 but we don't have market share by efficiency 

15 level. So, we have used available models. 

16 I'm assuming that, if you manufacture a model, 

17 it's because you think there's a market for it. 

18 So, the market share and the available models 

19 were used interchangeably here. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Chris? 

21 MR. SALATINO: Chris Salatino, 

22 Scotsman. 
Page 259

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 My interpretation of this is this is 

2 strictly efficiency level, not TSL level. 

3 MR. COOKE: This is strictly 

4 efficiency level. Correct. So, you do have 

5 to be a little careful about doing the mapping 

6 in your mind to get that TSL3. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: John Cymbalsky? 

8 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, just as an 

9 example, jumping ahead, if you look on slide 

10 109, maybe this is a good place to do this, if 

11 everyone could -- no, no, Alan, you keep yours 

12 where it is. 

13 MR. COOKE: Okay. 

14 MR. CYMBALSKY: And then, everyone 

15 else go to slide 109. I think you could look 

16 at the gold line going down, and maybe this 

17 helps Andrew's point to make, that again 

18 you've got to mix and match. TSL3 doesn't 

19 mean Level 3 necessarily. It does for some, 

20 but not for all. 

21 So, for example, the second line up 

22 there, 11.9, so IMHW medium B, 12 percent of 
Page 260

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 the available models are what we are proposing 

2 to have the standard at. And then, you could 

3 just keep going down the list. 

4 So, to the extent that manufacturers 

5 want to comment on that -- Andrew is right, 

6 this is a key slide for us because it also 

7 determines the energy savings as well. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: George? 

9 MR. PARSONS: George Parsons, 

10 Ice-O-Matic. 

11 But the other point could be to 

12 exactly what you're saying, John. It's 12 

13 percent of the models available meet that 

14 standard. 

15 Around this table, we haven't looked 

16 at it. Whoever has those models may have 

17 shipped one this year, and that may be it. 

18 MR. CYMBALSKY: That's right. I 

19 think that is the point Alan was trying to 

20 make, that we don't have the shipment data. 

21 It was not provided to us and we cannot get it. 

22 But the best we can do is to look 
Page 261

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 through the catalogs and the offerings and the 

2 AHRI database, all those places we look. And 

3 the best we can do is to use this as a proxy 

4 for what efficiency distribution is because it 

5 is the best we have. 

6 And if AHRI or manufacturers can 

7 provide us the shipment data, you know, that's 

8 the Holy Grail for the analysis. So, we are 

9 more than happy to take that. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl? Then, to 

11 Frank and, then, to Karim. 

12 MR. ERBS: So, Daryl Erbs, Manitowoc 

13 Ice. 

14 I haven't had the time to sort 

15 through this, but I think a key point to keep 

16 in mind is, when you look at any of our range 

17 of model offerings across a particular cabinet 

18 size, because, again, we're low volume, we can 

19 only afford to tool up a limited number of 

20 discrete sizes. 

21 There are always models that happen 

22 to be the smallest-capacity model, after we 
Page 262

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 jump to the next bigger cabinet size that we 

2 need to, that end up looking really good, very 

3 high efficiency because it is a small output 

4 relative to that cabinet size that was 

5 selected to run across many different capacity 

6 increments. 

7 And so, when you look at this, you 

8 say, well, gee, there are some that are very 

9 high efficiency, and that's true. But when 

10 you have to deal with a new standard, every one 

11 of them has to get to that level, and we can't 

12 afford to go from having three or four cabinets 

13 to 15 or 20 to give us just the right cabinet 

14 size for every model to meet the efficiency. 

15 So, just because there are some 

16 doesn't mean that it is really we're ready to 

17 go today to meet those efficiency levels. It 

18 is we have to get 100 percent of them up to that 

19 level, and I think that is where it becomes 

20 difficult for us. 

21 We will end up, after we deal with 

22 whatever the final efficiency levels are, with 
Page 263

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 some that exceed those efficiency levels for 

2 that very same reason. 

3 MR. COOKE: Right. 

4 MR. MOORE: So, I was going to ask, 

5 John, do you all have -- or, Alan -- because 

6 it sounds like Table 74 and Table 109 are kind 

7 of key. We kind of really want to hunker-down 

8 on those. Do you have the model numbers? 

9 MR. COOKE: We have the database. 

10 MR. MOORE: The model numbers? I 

11 mean, they are discrete models, and that seems 

12 to be -- 

13 MR. COOKE: That's right. The 

14 model numbers are in the database, but -- 

15 MR. MOORE: I mean, maybe model 

16 number is not right. I mean, do you have the 

17 machine that went into that number? 

18 Because, to Daryl's point, that 

19 might have been shipped once. We could see. 

20 If we see the machine, we can tell you if it 

21 was shipped once; somebody could. 

22 I mean, if the data went in, where is 
Page 264

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 the data? We do want to see that. I mean, 

2 because these are important things. 

3 MR. CYMBALSKY: Right. So, I 

4 assume that, like the AHRI database has the 

5 basic model numbers. The CCMS that is 

6 reported to the Department -- 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Karim, microphone, 

8 please. Thank you. 

9 DR. AMRANE: So, the information is 

10 on the chart. 

11 MR. CYMBALSKY: Let me correct that, 

12 actually. 

13 DR. AMRANE: Ah, you're right. 

14 MR. CYMBALSKY: The AHRI database is 

15 reflecting ice makers since last summer. 

16 DR. AMRANE: Ice makers. I'm 

17 sorry. Yes. 

18 MR. CYMBALSKY: That's right. 

19 DR. AMRANE: We are 

20 submitting -- you're right. That's correct. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Thank 

22 you, Doug. 
Page 265

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 Andrew? 

2 MR. RAWALD: A small question. So, 

3 what's the vintage of the data that went into 

4 this? 

5 MR. COOKE: I think we drove a stake 

6 in the sand at about the end of 2012 and said 

7 this is the database that we are moving forward 

8 with. 

9 And one thing, while I have the 

10 microphone -- this is Alan Cooke -- one thing 

11 that I might add here, this is available units. 

12 And in some product classes, that is a lot of 

13 units, and in some product classes, what looks 

14 like a big number here, 12, 10.9 or 12 percent, 

15 might actually be one unit out of five or six. 

16 MR. PARSONS: Yes. George Parsons. 

17 I would agree with you, and I know for 

18 ourselves we could go to each one of those 

19 subdivisions and what models numbers of ours 

20 apply, and we could look at shipments in each 

21 one of those classes. 

22 Because it is exactly what Daryl is 
Page 266

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 talking about. We might have one point where 

2 this one hits, but it is either right at the 

3 beginning or right at the end. It's in a box 

4 that it's right here. But, then, as you go 

5 down the family, they change. 

6 And it may be in a place where it is 

7 low shipments. It could be high shipments. 

8 But, I mean, that distribution is out there. 

9 MR. CYMBALSKY: John Cymbalsky 

10 again. 

11 And so, that's great. I mean, 

12 that's the exact -- that's the data that helps 

13 the analysis become more rich in its outcome. 

14 And so, absent that data, what the Department 

15 is saying is, absent that, this is what we 

16 have. And if you think it's wrong and you have 

17 data to back up or fill this in better and more 

18 accurately reflect the shipments, we want that 

19 data. I mean, that's exactly what we need to 

20 get this to be a more rich standard. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, John. 

22 Now to Karim. 
Page 267

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 DR. AMRANE: Karim. I'm with AHRI. 

2 But I thought -- and maybe it has been 

3 a long time ago -- but I thought that we 

4 provided this data to you. Did we? 

5 MR. COOKE: You provided data that 

6 was based on a number of different sized bins. 

7 DR. AMRANE: Yes. 

8 MR. COOKE: And we also got ENERGY 

9 STAR or non-ENERGY STAR. So, basically, we 

10 could see that the split between Level 1 and 

11 Level 2 and above, more or less, on average, 

12 looks about like what you gave us, but we 

13 didn't actually get the bins across. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So, this is a 

15 lot of data. Any additional questions, 

16 clarifications here? 

17 Louis? 

18 MR. STARR: So, this is Louis Starr 

19 with NEEA. 

20 Another thought is that, since this 

21 is the 2012 data, there's ENERGY STAR 

22 information that is now available, and it 
Page 268

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 actually might bump those levels up to higher 

2 numbers potentially? In other words, the 

3 levels would move to the right? 

4 MR. COOKE: I don't recall right off 

5 the top of my head. ENERGY STAR, I have 

6 recently been looking at ENERGY STAR data, and 

7 it has been fairly consistent. And I don't 

8 remember if 2012 was higher or lower than 2011, 

9 but it has been right in that same range. 

10 MR. STARR: Well, my point more is 

11 this is AHRI data, right? And then ENERGY 

12 STAR -- 

13 MR. COOKE: Right. 

14 MR. STARR: -- we think would be at 

15 a higher level? 

16 MR. COOKE: But, even going back to 

17 2010, what I just said is true. Looking at 

18 2010 through 2012, it's like 60, 62, 67, and 

19 I don't remember which years were which. So, 

20 it might move it a little bit farther. But, 

21 right off the top of my head, I can't verify 

22 that. 
Page 269

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Question, please. 

2 MR. RANEY: Craig Raney with Emerson 

3 Climate Technologies. 

4 Looking at slide 72 -- I'm going to 

5 change just for a second -- that was the number 

6 of shipments. And the year 2020, your 

7 estimate is the number of shipments will go 

8 down. Why is that? 

9 MR. COOKE: We benchmarked the start 

10 of our model with about 10 years' worth of 

11 actual shipments from AHRI. So, if you look 

12 at where the peaks and the troughs were, and 

13 start to extend those out to the expiration of 

14 the equipment that was sold in 2008-2009, that 

15 explains part of that trough. 

16 There is also ups and downs built 

17 into the AEO 2013 forecast. It isn't just a 

18 line that goes upwards. It goes up and down. 

19 So, it is probably a combination of 

20 a trough playing itself out and, also, a 

21 downward year or two in the AEO 2013 forecast. 

22 MR. RANEY: So, there is some 
Page 270

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 acknowledgment that there's going to be some 

2 decline in demand, based off of the energy 

3 efficiency minimum standards that are put in 

4 place? 

5 MR. COOKE: That's not included in 

6 these numbers, no. 

7 MR. RANEY: So, what accounts for 

8 the 2020 drop? 

9 MR. COOKE: It's replacing units 

10 from a year that were lower than average. It 

11 is kind of a trough year in the historical 

12 data. 

13 MR. RANEY: Okay. 

14 MR. COOKE: And, also, probably a 

15 down year in the energy outlook projection of 

16 floorspace. 

17 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, this is John 

18 Cymbalsky. 

19 Just eyeballing the 2020 number, it 

20 looks to be even with the 2018 for the new 

21 construction. So, that bar, in particular, 

22 is picking up a historical trend in shipments 
Page 271

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 where you probably had a series of recession 

2 years. And when you map that three- or 

3 five-year period out 10 years, when they are 

4 all going to be replaced, they're not there 

5 anymore. So, you're going to have this 

6 natural pattern of shipments in the 

7 replacement market. 

8 MR. COOKE: That's correct. 

9 MR. CYMBALSKY: Matching the 

10 replacement rate, yes. 

11 MR. RANEY: I would say it has just 

12 been our experience every time a different 

13 efficiency level comes into place you see a 

14 ramp-up right before that of customers 

15 stocking up, whether it was the 13 SEER or 

16 other things. And you see this wild swing, 

17 and it puts the manufacturers through quite a 

18 bit of hassle with inventories and other 

19 issues. 

20 MR. CYMBALSKY: Yes, we would prefer 

21 you not to do that, but -- 

22 MR. RANEY: Well, it's not us. It's 
Page 272

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 the demand that drives that. 

2 MR. CYMBALSKY: I understand. I 

3 understand the reason why it is done. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you, 

5 John. 

6 Where are we now? 

7 MR. COOKE: We are up to the MIA. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Let's go to 

9 the MIA. 

10 Or should we take a break right here? 

11 Just keep going. Okay. 

12 MR. BARRINGTON: Thanks, Alan. 

13 My name is Ben Barrington. I'm with 

14 Navigant Consulting. I helped pull together 

15 the Manufacturer Impact Analysis to inform 

16 today's proposed standard levels. 

17 As this chart illustrates, the 

18 Manufacturer Impact Analysis is downstream of 

19 several of the other analyses that we 

20 discussed today. Specifically, we pulled 

21 from the engineering analysis. The cost 

22 efficiency curves are primary inputs to us, as 
Page 273

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 are the numbers from the shipments analysis. 

2 The purpose of the Manufacturer 

3 Impact Analysis is to fill several of the 

4 criteria for the statutory requirements put 

5 forth by EPCA in terms of economic 

6 justification for a proposed standard. 

7 Specifically, this is to assess the 

8 impact of standards on manufacturers, and we 

9 do so both quantitatively and qualitatively. 

10 Additionally, we identify several subgroups, 

11 well, any present subgroups of manufacturers 

12 that merit specific analysis in terms of 

13 disproportionate impacts that that part of the 

14 market might experience. 

15 Additionally, we look at the impacts 

16 on direct employment, competition, 

17 manufacturing capacity, and cumulative 

18 regulatory burden, several of which I think 

19 several people who have commented earlier 

20 today have alluded to, resulting from this 

21 particular rulemaking. 

22 The way we go about doing this, as I 
Page 274

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 mentioned, it is downstream analysis. So, we 

2 pull from both the engineering analysis and 

3 shipments analysis, but we also develop 

4 several critical inputs on our own, 

5 specifically, consulting with 

6 publicly-available financial information, as 

7 pulled from annual reports from the SEC on 

8 publicly-traded manufacturers. And then, we 

9 also conduct interviews with manufacturers 

10 under a non-disclosure agreement and 

11 aggregate the responses from those in refining 

12 our inputs for the analysis. 

13 Just a brief overview of some of how 

14 this all times out. Phase 1 of our analysis 

15 starts with an industry profile that builds 

16 upon information pulled together for the 

17 market and tech analysis, which Detlef spoke 

18 to earlier today. 

19 Phase 2 largely aligns with our 

20 pre-NOPR phase of the rulemaking. In that, we 

21 develop a strawman GRIM, which is the 

22 Government Regulatory Impact Model. It's a 
Page 275

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 discounted cashflow model that we use to 

2 assess the impact to the industry. 

3 We also at that point in time take the 

4 information that we have from the industry 

5 profile and fold that into an interview guide 

6 that we, then, take to manufacturers, willing 

7 participants in this interview process. 

8 And in Phase 3 we take that 

9 information, aggregate it, so as to not 

10 disclose any proprietary or confidential 

11 information that manufacturers shared with 

12 us, and integrate that with our Government 

13 Regulatory Impact Model and some other 

14 discrete analyses that we perform, and then, 

15 basically, report back on that. And those are 

16 the results that I will share with you today. 

17 With regards to the interviews that 

18 we conduct, we do feel it is important to share 

19 some of the key takeaways. 

20 We open every interview with asking 

21 manufacturers what are the key issues facing 

22 them as a result of this particular 
Page 276

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 rulemaking. And I'll just reiterate some of 

2 the aggregate points that came about in light 

3 of those interviews. I think several of these 

4 have been spoken to earlier today. But if 

5 there's anything people would like to add, 

6 we're happy to take those comments as well. 

7 First and foremost, manufacturers 

8 characterize the market for automatic 

9 commercial ice makers as being extremely 

10 price-sensitive. And in light of those 

11 comments, we did perform an analysis of retail 

12 price assessment and performed a regression 

13 analysis with the efficiency of those 

14 products, correcting for a variety of other 

15 product attributes, including size, ENERGY 

16 STAR rating, and other features that we could 

17 glean from the database. 

18 The long and short of this, though, 

19 is that manufacturers posited that there were 

20 several other key features that drove consumer 

21 decisions or purchasing decisions with regard 

22 to this equipment that took higher precedence 
Page 277

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 over the product efficiency. 

2 Secondly, there were some concerns 

3 expressed over enforcement of a standard, were 

4 that to be put in place. Manufacturers noted 

5 that several new entrants from foreign 

6 competition have entered the market as of 

7 recent, and there is some skepticism or 

8 concern that some of those products might not 

9 be compliant with existing standards. And 

10 so, going forward, they asserted that it would 

11 be critically important that enforcement was 

12 swift. 

13 One comment? 

14 MR. RAWALD: If I could jump in here? 

15 This is Doug Rawald from the Department of 

16 Energy. 

17 So, enforcement is kind of my area. 

18 So, folks should know, just as of last summer, 

19 the CBP issued a rule giving a lot of strength 

20 to our ability to keep out foreign imports that 

21 are non-compliant with our standards. 

22 I mean, we have this complaint across 
Page 278

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 the board from all manufacturers. It is not 

2 a unique concern about, hey, folks are 

3 importing things; they are going to import 

4 things that are not compliant, and we are 

5 trying to comply here domestically. 

6 And so, what this rule allows us to 

7 do is to notify CBP, "Hey, we are aware of this 

8 product coming in. Don't allow it in. It's 

9 not going to comply with the standards." 

10 So, we have a number of things that 

11 we do enforcement-wise, from testing and 

12 verifying what the actual energy efficiency of 

13 products is, and we use that in conjunction 

14 with the Customs and Border Protection to stop 

15 those things from coming in. So, the 

16 manufacturers should understand that this is 

17 something that we are doing and we are taking 

18 very seriously. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, Doug. Thank 

20 you. 

21 Yes, Scott? 

22 MR. BINGHAM: Scott Bingham at 
Page 279

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 Follett. 

2 Kind of a sister issue to this that 

3 Scott has alluded to earlier, but as we ship 

4 products outside the United States, there is 

5 the impact of a higher-cost product competing 

6 against units made overseas and sold overseas. 

7 Was that taken into, potential reduced sales, 

8 was that taken into account in this impact on 

9 manufacturers? 

10 MR. RAWALD: This is Doug Rawald 

11 again. 

12 So, the Department does not 

13 regulate -- 

14 MR. BINGHAM: I understand that. 

15 MR. RAWALD: -- products that are 

16 manufactured for sale overseas. 

17 MR. BINGHAM: I understand that. 

18 It's -- 

19 MR. RAWALD: It's a question of 

20 maintaining two product lines? 

21 MR. BINGHAM: It is a mirror-image 

22 question to this that doesn't speak to 
Page 280

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 enforcement. It is just impact on 

2 manufacturers. 

3 MR. RAWALD: Right. So, there is 

4 nothing preventing you from continuing to 

5 manufacture things, as long as market properly 

6 and still sell it overseas. You don't have to 

7 discontinue the line as long as you're going 

8 to keep selling it overseas. 

9 MR. BINGHAM: Right. Again, this 

10 is Scott Bingham. 

11 But, again, we would likely not make 

12 a separate model. And so, we will lose sales 

13 at an increased product cost, either lose 

14 margin or lose sales, if we pass that cost on. 

15 So, was that impact figured into the 

16 analysis, is the question. 

17 MR. BARRINGTON: So, for the 

18 purposes of this analysis where we are looking 

19 at the impact on standards for products that 

20 are sold into the U.S. market, no, that was not 

21 taken into account. 

22 Okay. I think we just have one more 
Page 281

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 key issue that was brought up in interviews, 

2 that being the impact -- oh, no, wait. You 

3 know what? I skipped over one. Sorry. 

4 Okay, we have two more. 

5 So, the impact on reliability, much 

6 along the lines of price sensitivity and 

7 noting that consumers wouldn't be willing to 

8 pay for a more efficient product, despite a 

9 very short payback period. 

10 Manufacturers also noted that 

11 reliability was really a paramount issue and 

12 concern to their consumers, making sure that 

13 the products that they install on their 

14 premises are operating 24/7 and can produce 

15 ice on demand. 

16 Further, along those lines, 

17 manufacturers also noted an impact on 

18 innovation outside of the scope of improving 

19 energy efficiency. So that, given the 

20 limited resources as it relates to product 

21 development and research, that those limited 

22 human and capital resources would be diverted 
Page 282

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 away from creating other product innovation 

2 during the timeframe in which they would be 

3 working to produce compliant products. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Laura? 

5 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Laura Petrillo, 

6 AHRI. 

7 Just out of curiosity, when were 

8 these surveys taken? 

9 MR. BARRINGTON: If I recall, a lot 

10 of these interviews were conducted following 

11 the preliminary analysis public meeting, 

12 which I believe was in February of 2012. So, 

13 I think the vast majority of our interviews 

14 were conducted throughout the summer of 2012. 

15 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: So, if the key 

16 issues have shifted somewhat, I expect we can 

17 write that in our comments. 

18 MR. BARRINGTON: Yes, absolutely. 

19 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: From what we 

20 heard today, those are maybe not the most 

21 pressing of concerns. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: So, Laura, that would 
Page 283

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 be helpful if the issues have shifted, yes, to 

2 write that out. 

3 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Such as 

4 refrigerants and, you know, the analysis 

5 being -- 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

7 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: And the size 

8 issues. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: John Cymbalsky? 

10 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, again, with the 

11 refrigerants, again, you're free to comment on 

12 what you want, but I can assure you that the 

13 Department and the Administration, in 

14 particular, understand the refrigerant issue. 

15 This analysis stands alone with or without the 

16 refrigerants issue. 

17 We have pointed to the fact that, if 

18 there is an issue, the final rule will contain 

19 language in the preamble consistent with what 

20 we wrote for the commercial refrigeration 

21 equipment, whereby manufacturers will be able 

22 to apply for relief based on the fact that the 
Page 284

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 refrigerant cannot -- if it is the case that 

2 it cannot achieve these efficiency levels, 

3 they can get relief from the standard. 

4 And so, in my mind, I know it's an 

5 issue. We don't know what is going to come out 

6 in EPA's rule. But, again, this rule is not 

7 about refrigerants. It's about the 

8 efficiency levels. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Karim? 

10 DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane with AHRI. 

11 But this is not an OHA issue. And 

12 that's why we feel it's very important that the 

13 Department of Energy make an effort to look at 

14 refrigerants, because all your analysis, all 

15 your cost/benefit analysis is based on current 

16 refrigerant that might not exist three years 

17 from now. And you are extrapolating all the 

18 savings over 30 years as if nothing will 

19 happen. And we know things are going to 

20 happen. 

21 So, I understand you are not in an 

22 easy situation here, and I understand what is 
Page 285

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 going on with the EPA. But, at the same time, 

2 I think you should make an effort at least to 

3 look at the current refrigerant, to look at 

4 what can be done with our current refrigerant, 

5 and to try at least to balance a little bit the 

6 analysis based on that. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: John? 

8 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, you said that 

9 you know what's going to happen. Can you 

10 please enlighten the room, since you said you 

11 know what's going to happen with the 

12 refrigerants? 

13 DR. AMRANE: Well, EPA has announced 

14 that they are going to be delisting some of the 

15 refrigerant from SNAP, and it has been 

16 announced officially by EPA. They are doing 

17 a rulemaking, that we know by the summer we 

18 will have something. 

19 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, they have stated 

20 that they're delisting the refrigerants that 

21 these products use? 

22 DR. AMRANE: They might. 
Page 286

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 MR. CYMBALSKY: They might? Oh, I 

2 thought you said you knew what was going to 

3 happen. Okay. 

4 DR. AMRANE: We are now talking 

5 about R44A, which is a refrigerant used in 

6 commercial refrigeration in ice makers. We 

7 know that. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl? 

9 MR. ERBS: Daryl Erbs, Manitowoc 

10 Ice. 

11 I have a little different 

12 perspective. I'm not sure we know exactly 

13 what will happen, but probably the biggest 

14 concern I have is that January 1 the clock 

15 starts for us to re-engineer all of our ice 

16 machines. Maybe a year later, two years 

17 later, EPA finally gets around to R404A for ice 

18 machines. We're two years into redesigning 

19 our entire platform. We have to start over. 

20 They give us relief on the efficiency 

21 levels, but the fact remains that we have to 

22 go back to square one and re-engineer all of 
Page 287

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 those refrigeration systems to deal with 

2 refrigerants. And so, no one knows what's 

3 going to happen. 

4 But I'm wondering, shouldn't you at 

5 least be doing a sensitivity analysis that 

6 says, what would happen to all of your 

7 projections around, you know, the benefit, the 

8 life-cycle cost, if, in fact, we had to do it 

9 twice? 

10 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, my 

11 understanding is that the EPA rules should be 

12 accounting for the impacts of what you just 

13 described there, right? This rule is 

14 not -- it is refrigerant-neutral. It is not 

15 saying anything about the refrigerant. So, 

16 I'm not sure how we can capture those costs. 

17 But, again, we are sympathetic to 

18 what you're saying, absolutely. We hear you. 

19 I have coordinated with the SNAP program. 

20 They are very well aware of the issue here. 

21 I can't tell you what's going to 

22 happen, and I don't know what they're going to 
Page 288

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 say. But I can tell you, you know, they said 

2 they will have their rule out in the 

3 summertime, and let's see what happens then. 

4 It should precede anything we do here. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you, 

6 John. 

7 Frank? 

8 MR. MOORE: Yes, Frank with NAAFEM. 

9 I just wanted to make sure. So, the 

10 potential cost, however many "mights" are 

11 involved or whatnot, is not baked into your 

12 cost impact on the manufacturers? 

13 MR. CYMBALSKY: Not for a 

14 refrigerant, right. So, this is not a 

15 refrigerant rule. And EPA in their 

16 rulemaking should take into account these 

17 costs. 

18 The Administration reviews these 

19 rules. They are very sensitive to this; trust 

20 me, we go through the review process. 

21 MR. MOORE: I have one other 

22 question. 
Page 289

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 Alan was speaking to you, and I have 

2 bad note-taking, again, one reason I'm not an 

3 engineer. You referenced some analysis you 

4 did at the retail level. Can you help me 

5 understand what retail means relative to this 

6 sector, and how that would extrapolate into 

7 what -- 

8 MR. BARRINGTON: So, what I was 

9 speaking to was one of the alternative 

10 approaches that we looked at as part of the 

11 engineering analysis. And I believe that 

12 used the retail price data that was included 

13 in the database that was developed as part of 

14 this rulemaking and performed a price 

15 regression analysis correcting for other 

16 product features, like capacity and 

17 throughput and other product attributes. And 

18 that's the analysis that led us to the 

19 conclusion that there was no consistent 

20 relationship between the efficiency of a 

21 product and its retail price. 

22 MR. MOORE: And again, when I think 
Page 290

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 retail, I think me, Frank Moore, walking 

2 through Home Depot. Is that -- 

3 MR. BARRINGTON: I don't know how 

4 many of these are sold through Home Depot. 

5 But, in terms of what -- no, I think the 

6 distribution channel is a little bit 

7 different, by and large, but -- 

8 MR. MOORE: So -- 

9 MR. BARRINGTON: So, the sale price 

10 to the end-consumer. 

11 MR. CYMBALSKY: To the consumer. 

12 So, you think of retail as Home Depot. But, 

13 for these, the end-consumer is probably a GC 

14 coming in with a truck into a restaurant and 

15 putting it in. So, that's what I think retail 

16 means here. 

17 MR. MOORE: Well, that's what I want 

18 to get clear, if, in fact, that's what you are 

19 looking at. 

20 MR. CYMBALSKY: Yes. 

21 MR. WESTPHALEN: This is Detlef 

22 Westphalen. 
Page 291

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 That retail analysis was based on 

2 list price. 

3 MR. BARRINGTON: Yes. List prices 

4 taken from the price sheets of various 

5 manufacturers. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

7 Yes, Chris? 

8 MR. SALATINO: Chris Salatino, 

9 Scotsman Ice. 

10 Just a quick comment or a question 

11 really. John, you had mentioned that the rule 

12 will be written so that it is 

13 refrigerant-neutral. And being ignorant to 

14 the process, how is that possible, given that 

15 the entire evaluation has been based on 404A? 

16 MR. CYMBALSKY: Because, in my mind, 

17 it's the only refrigerant that's being used 

18 today. That's my understanding. 

19 MR. SALATINO: Great. So, the 

20 standard that is going to be written, the 

21 efficiency levels, then, adjust more -- how 

22 will you accommodate that flexibility, should 
Page 292

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 refrigerants change? 

2 MR. CYMBALSKY: Right. So, you 

3 know, we have this written in the preamble of 

4 the CRE final rule. When I printed this, I 

5 thought I printed out the whole paragraph, but 

6 it was quick this morning. 

7 And I'm quoting from that. "DOE 

8 wishes to clarify that it will continue to 

9 consider CRE models meeting the definition of 

10 CRE to be part of the applicable covered 

11 equipment class, regardless of the 

12 refrigerant that the equipment uses. 

13 So, it's the definition of the 

14 equipment, not the refrigerant, that matters. 

15 If a manufacturer believes that its design is 

16 subjected to undue hardship by the 

17 regulations, in this case the refrigerant, the 

18 manufacturer may petition DOE's OHA for 

19 exemption, exception relief or exemption from 

20 the standard. 

21 So, what this had in mind was that, 

22 if there was a ruling where the refrigerant was 
Page 293

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 not available that we did our analysis on, and 

2 your testing or our testing showed that the new 

3 refrigerant could not meet these standards, it 

4 would be subject to this process to be excepted 

5 or exempt from the standards. 

6 MR. SALATINO: And I have a 

7 follow-up question. So, that potential 

8 appeal process, and then the legal fees that 

9 are associated with doing that potentially, is 

10 that included in the MIA analysis? 

11 MR. BARRINGTON: No. No, it's not. 

12 No. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Laura? 

14 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: So, we've heard 

15 going from SEER 10 AC unit to SEER 13, one of 

16 the problems that they faced was the increased 

17 coil size in the indoor unit led to, you know, 

18 significant increases in installation. 

19 That's correct, right? 

20 MR. BARRINGTON: Significant 

21 increases in the installation cost? Yes. 

22 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: So, one of the 
Page 294

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 design options we're looking at is an increase 

2 in coil size inside of a very size-constrained 

3 unit, the possibility of going to a 

4 refrigerant that has a lower heat transfer 

5 capability than 404A or 134A. It becomes 

6 problematic because you've eaten up now the 

7 increased coil size by gaining efficiency on 

8 a current refrigerant that will not be used 

9 within three years, and you are no longer able 

10 to use that potential size increase to account 

11 for a new, more global-warming-friendly, a 

12 new, more climate-friendly refrigerant. So, 

13 these are some of the concerns that we have 

14 voiced over and over again, and, really, we 

15 would like to see taken into account more 

16 because they are very real. 

17 Thank you. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: John Cymbalsky? 

19 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, what's not real 

20 is a decision made to delist this refrigerant. 

21 And so, again, hopefully for the last time, DOE 

22 and EPA are very aware of the reliance of a 
Page 295

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 particular refrigerant type with this piece of 

2 equipment. And I assure you that that 

3 situation will be factored very heavily into 

4 whatever decision EPA makes this summer, when 

5 you get to actually see which products are 

6 being delisted. 

7 Thank you. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Did you finish with 

9 the key issues? Did you do impacts on 

10 innovation? 

11 MR. BARRINGTON: We did. We did 

12 cover those. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: So, you see there the 

14 four that are listed on pages, slides No. 82 

15 and -- oops. 

16 MR. BARRINGTON: Eighty-six and 87, 

17 I believe. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Eighty-six and 87. 

19 MR. BARRINGTON: Yes. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments 

21 here, because we're about to move on? 

22 Yes, Scott? 
Page 296

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 MR. BINGHAM: This is Scott Bingham. 

2 So, if we're talking about the 

3 magnitude of investment in R&D for compliance, 

4 what's difficult to quantify but clearly an 

5 impact is the opportunity cost of not being 

6 able to innovate and develop other new 

7 products and increase markets that can be sold 

8 here and abroad. So, that is a very real 

9 impact that needs to be taken into 

10 consideration. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

12 MR. BARRINGTON: Okay. Moving on, 

13 in terms of the methodology for analyzing the 

14 impact on manufacturers, we did try to explore 

15 a range of potential impacts as they relate to 

16 a manufacturer's ability or inability to pass 

17 through the increased incremental cost of 

18 manufacturing higher-efficiency equipment. 

19 We do so with a markup scenario, and 

20 the markup within the Manufacturer Impact 

21 Analysis context is simply the ratio of 

22 manufacturer's selling price to manufacturer 
Page 297

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 production cost, including the materials, 

2 labor, overhead, and depreciation associated 

3 with production. 

4 The lower bound of impact on 

5 profitability is modeled by a 

6 preservation -- I'm sorry -- the upper bound 

7 of profitability, so the instance in which 

8 manufacturers are, in fact, able to maintain 

9 similar markups following amended and new 

10 standards for automatic commercial ice 

11 makers, is modeled under our preservation of 

12 gross margin scenario. So, we maintain the 

13 exact same markups before and after. 

14 We also modeled a scenario in which 

15 there are increasingly adverse impacts on 

16 manufacturers and explored a situation in 

17 which manufacturers were not able to pass 

18 through the entirety of the higher-cost 

19 equipment. And we did so by calibrating the 

20 markup, so that the earnings before interest 

21 and taxes were maintained, but not the entire 

22 gross margin. 
Page 298

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 And so, the effects of those two 

2 scenarios play out, in that you will see that, 

3 for each one of the cells we're reporting here 

4 we will have two values, a range of impacts on 

5 manufacturers. 

6 Using the Government Regulatory 

7 Impact Model, we estimate that the Industry 

8 Net Present Value over the analysis period is 

9 just a shade over $100 million discounted. It 

10 is the discounted future cashflows using the 

11 weighted-average cost of capital averaged 

12 across the industry, on a market share basis, 

13 I should add. 

14 At the proposed trial standard 

15 level, TSL3, we see impacts on manufacturer 

16 INPV ranging from a loss of $20.9 million to 

17 a loss of $23.9 million, which corresponds to 

18 20.5 to 23.5 percent loss of Industry Net 

19 Present Value. 

20 Question? 

21 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: What is the 

22 impact on a small manufacturer? 
Page 299

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 MR. BARRINGTON: We will get to that 

2 I think in the next slide. 

3 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Thank you. 

4 MR. BARRINGTON: As you can see, the 

5 conversion costs total $42.2 million, and I 

6 think this is something that was brought up in 

7 an early comment wondering about the scale of 

8 investments in both research and development 

9 and revisions, or not revisions, but changes 

10 to manufacturing capital and production lines 

11 to produce compliant equipment. 

12 Those costs are incurred prior to the 

13 effective date of the regulation. And so, 

14 they are spread across the three-year window 

15 between the announcement of a new standard and 

16 the compliance date. Over 90 percent of 

17 those, in our estimation, relate to 

18 investments in research and development, as 

19 opposed to actual changes in manufacturing 

20 capital. 

21 But we would also welcome comment on 

22 that. I think we solicited it in an earlier 
Page 300

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 slide, but any other comments on the magnitude 

2 of research and development or potential 

3 changes to manufacturing capital, as they are 

4 such key drivers of our analysis, we always 

5 welcome additional comment there. 

6 Okay. To your question, we also 

7 estimate the disproportionate impacts on 

8 small business manufacturers of automatic 

9 commercial ice makers. We determine which 

10 manufacturers are small businesses based on 

11 the recommended size limits from the Small 

12 Business Administration. And it is based on 

13 the North American Industry Classification 

14 System Code for automatic commercial ice 

15 makers, which I believe is 333415. It's air 

16 conditioning and warm air heating equipment 

17 and commercial and industrial refrigeration 

18 equipment manufacturing. 

19 We searched several 

20 publicly-available databases, including the 

21 SBA database, along with Hoover's, DOE's own 

22 CCMS database, various trade association 
Page 301

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 lists from AHRI, as well as just a general 

2 search of this NAICS code on the Hoover's 

3 database, as published by Dun & Bradstreet. 

4 And in doing so, we identified seven domestic 

5 small business manufacturers of automatic 

6 commercial ice makers. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Seven. 

8 MR. BARRINGTON: Seven. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. 

10 MR. DESHETLER: Scott DeShetler 

11 from Ice-O-Matic. 

12 Back to the chart for just one second 

13 for my clarification, so what was the 

14 timeframe that you estimated that Net Present 

15 Value? Was that five years, ten years? What 

16 was that? 

17 MR. BARRINGTON: It's the Net 

18 Present Value of the same analysis period for 

19 the other analyses. It's a 30-year analysis. 

20 MR. DESHETLER: Thirty-year Net 

21 Present Value? 

22 MR. BARRINGTON: Thirty-year Net 
Page 302

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 Present Value with a terminal value associated 

2 with it as well. 

3 MR. DESHETLER: And so, can we make 

4 the extrapolation here that the industry 

5 shrinks by 20 to 30 percent? 

6 MR. BARRINGTON: In what capacity 

7 shrinks? 

8 MR. DESHETLER: Well, you run the 

9 Net Present Value over 30 years at 101, and 

10 then, we implement TSL No. 3. And now, the 

11 industry is $78, $79, $80, $80 million. So, 

12 can we say that the industry, therefore, has 

13 shrunk 20 to 30 percent? 

14 MR. BARRINGTON: When you say "the 

15 industry has shrunk 20 to 30 percent," in what 

16 metric? 

17 MR. DESHETLER: In dollars. It 

18 went from 101 -- 

19 MR. BARRINGTON: Yes. 

20 MR. DESHETLER: -- million -- 

21 MR. BARRINGTON: In dollars, yes. 

22 MR. DESHETLER: Is that correct? 
Page 303

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 MR. BARRINGTON: The shipments are 

2 constant. 

3 MR. DESHETLER: Okay. So, the 

4 industry, if all of these assumptions, which 

5 we obviously don't all agree on, but if all 

6 these assumptions are correct, we're 

7 anticipating the industry shrinks 20 to 30 

8 percent? 

9 MR. BARRINGTON: In terms of 

10 Industry Net Present Value, yes, not in terms 

11 of annual revenues or free cashflow. The vast 

12 majority of those impacts are incurred in the 

13 form of conversion costs, which factor in in 

14 the interim period between the announcement of 

15 the new standard and its effective date. 

16 MR. CYMBALSKY: I just want to 

17 correct. He said 20 to 30. He meant to say 

18 21 to 23.5. 

19 MR. BARRINGTON: Yes, that's 

20 correct. Thank you, John. 

21 So, back to the impact on small 

22 business manufacturers, because of the size of 
Page 304

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 this industry and the limited number of 

2 products produced by small business 

3 manufacturers and their relative market 

4 share, as compared to larger competitors, we 

5 do anticipate there to be a disproportionate 

6 impact on small businesses, that being the 

7 expected INPV change at TSL2, which 

8 corresponds to the more severe set of impacts, 

9 is a loss of INPV of 78.6 percent for the whole 

10 industry. This, as I mentioned, is driven by 

11 lower shipment volumes relative to those same 

12 important investments to maintain production 

13 lines capable of producing compliant 

14 products. 

15 I should mention, though, that this 

16 estimate we believe to be overstated and 

17 highly conservative, following the vast 

18 majority of small businesses that we analyzed 

19 produce a variety of products outside the 

20 scope of this rulemaking, and the loss of INPV 

21 here really only relate to those products that 

22 are covered. A lot of small businesses 
Page 305

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 produce products that are covered under this 

2 rulemaking only because of the expanded 

3 capacity range being considered, where, 

4 otherwise, the vast majority of their revenues 

5 are derived from industrial ice-making 

6 equipment not covered by this. So, I should 

7 mention that that's not of all revenues for 

8 those small businesses, but just the revenues 

9 associated with production of covered 

10 equipment. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Ron? 

12 MR. SOBAN: Ron Soban, Kold-Draft. 

13 I really question these numbers. I 

14 know at least two ice machine manufacturers in 

15 here right now that are considered small 

16 business, and I would guess more. 

17 MR. BARRINGTON: As determined by 

18 the SBA limit on employment? 

19 MR. SOBAN: Yes, 750 employees. 

20 MR. BARRINGTON: Okay. We would 

21 welcome any additional information to support 

22 classification or declassification of certain 
Page 306

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 manufacturers. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Frank? 

3 MR. MOORE: And you're saying -- I 

4 just want to make sure -- we're talking a 

5 universe of seven small businesses when you 

6 said a lot do other products? A lot of seven, 

7 is that what you're -- 

8 MR. BARRINGTON: Yes. 

9 MR. MOORE: Okay. 

10 MR. BARRINGTON: Most of seven. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Laura? 

12 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: So, I'm not an 

13 economist. So, these numbers aren't really 

14 as clear for me. I don't want to take up a lot 

15 of time with this. 

16 But, with 78.6 percent loss of market 

17 share for seven manufacturers -- 

18 MR. BARRINGTON: It's loss of INPV. 

19 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: INPV? Okay. 

20 MR. BARRINGTON: Yes. Sure. 

21 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Is that 

22 acceptable? Is that comparable to other 
Page 307

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 rulemakings? It seems like a lot to me, but, 

2 again, I'm not an economist. 

3 MR. BARRINGTON: So, I can't comment 

4 on taking a position as to what is or what is 

5 not acceptable. 

6 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Is the value 

7 like this been acceptable in other 

8 rulemakings? 

9 MR. BARRINGTON: With regards to the 

10 impact on small businesses, I don't know 

11 offhand what the range of acceptable or 

12 unacceptable impacts on Net Present Value have 

13 been. With regards to the industry at large, 

14 I know that's within ranges that have been 

15 proposed in other rules. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Karim? 

17 DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane with AHRI. 

18 But, just by proposing TSL3, it looks 

19 like this is acceptable to DOE at least. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: John Cymbalsky? 

21 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, I think that Ben 

22 brought up a good point about what other things 
Page 308

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 these companies may do. So, that 78 percent 

2 is in relationship to this product that they 

3 make with a portfolio of a bunch of other 

4 products that are not part of this rulemaking. 

5 So, they could lose 78 percent of 

6 this commercial ice maker, what they make for 

7 this standard, and then, 80 percent of their 

8 business could be other stuff that's not 

9 impacted here. So, we should be a little bit 

10 careful about that. 

11 However, yes, this is our proposal 

12 that has been through interagency review with 

13 the SBA. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, George. 

15 MR. PARSONS: George Parsons, 

16 Ice-O-Matic. 

17 I'm just astounded that in the world 

18 we live in today that that kind of economic 

19 impact is acceptable. But, that being said, 

20 the other thing that doesn't go into this is, 

21 if we make a decision as a manufacturer to 

22 aggressively go after this, to the point he 
Page 309

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 made earlier, we've got to make a decision as 

2 to whether we try to still compete globally 

3 with multiple product lines. 

4 I will guarantee you all, as small 

5 businesses, we can't afford that. We can't 

6 afford designs just to sell in North America, 

7 designs to sell globally. So, the economic 

8 impact will be greater than this because we 

9 will lose global business. Frankly, our 

10 friends in Asia will take it all. I mean, I 

11 am just absolutely astounded by these numbers. 

12 MR. MOORE: Just for the record, I 

13 think I did hear that, in fact, DOE in its 

14 economic analysis did not include the lost 

15 sales overseas and it simply determined that 

16 it's not responsible for that. 

17 And one option for you, Daryl, is to 

18 have two business models. And that cost is 

19 also not included in the economic analysis. 

20 Is that what I understood? 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Frank, that was Frank 

22 speaking. 
Page 310

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 MR. CYMBALSKY: I lost my train of 

2 thought because I was thinking of something 

3 else. 

4 So, what I would like, if you could 

5 provide, if it is under an NDA, that's great, 

6 too. It would be nice to know how much product 

7 is exported versus sold domestically to help 

8 an analysis. So, I don't know if we have those 

9 numbers. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Laura? 

11 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: I know we 

12 mentioned PTACs earlier. And one of the 

13 reasons I raised the question in the first 

14 place was that, you know, for one of the 

15 previous rulemakings for PTACs, the 

16 acceptable life-cycle cost analysis was more 

17 than the lifetime of the equipment. It was 11 

18 years versus 10 years for the lifetime. 

19 And now, there are very few 

20 manufacturers making PTACs domestically. In 

21 fact, they were all driven to Asia. So, the 

22 sort of situation has happened, and there was 
Page 311

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 a very real impact of it. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: So, those sorts of 

3 comments would be helpful, I think, to the 

4 Department. 

5 George? 

6 MR. PARSONS: George Parsons, 

7 Ice-O-Matic. 

8 I would challenge you to find one 

9 PTACs manufacturer left in the United States. 

10 How much of the market do they serve? A very 

11 small portion. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: You can see on slide 

13 92, the next slide, request for comment. It 

14 may be that we have covered the majority of 

15 this already. 

16 Magnitude of potential impacts of 

17 amended standards on small businesses. 

18 Estimated capital and equipment 

19 conversion costs. 

20 Estimated shipments of automatic 

21 commercial ice makers produced by small 

22 business manufacturers. 
Page 312

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 Any additional comments on these? 

2 Karim? 

3 DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. 

4 I would like to ask a question to DOE. 

5 Those reviews by the Small Business 

6 Administration, are they available for the 

7 public to look at in the docket? 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: John Cymbalsky? 

9 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, I think what we 

10 post on our website is the version of the 

11 proposal that we drafted and the 

12 tracked-change version of what comes out of 

13 administrative review. 

14 So, you could see what those changes 

15 were. I can't say off the top of my head if 

16 they are attributed to small business or 

17 whoever, but you could see what changes were 

18 made, yes. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's move on to the 

20 next slide. 

21 MR. BARRINGTON: Okay. So, as 

22 outlined earlier, in the engineering analysis 
Page 313

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 a lot of the design options considered at TSL3 

2 relate to component swaps. And so, in our 

3 modeling of the impact on domestic production 

4 employment, we don't see a substantial 

5 departure from current employment levels 

6 resulting from these energy conservation 

7 standards. 

8 (Laughter.) 

9 We do request comment on that 

10 estimate. 

11 MR. PARSONS: I apologize. How do 

12 you show a market dropping by that much in Net 

13 Present Value and not have a loss of 

14 employment? Because the owners of these 

15 companies can't afford to build the 

16 product -- they are not going to do it for less 

17 profit than they're doing today. So, if the 

18 market loses Net Present Value, they're not 

19 going to accept less profit. There is no way 

20 they can employ the same number of people 

21 unless they pay them a lot less. That's basic 

22 economics 101. 
Page 314

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, George. 

2 I thought I saw another -- Scott? 

3 MR. DESHETLER: George articulated 

4 my position quite well. That mathematics 

5 just doesn't work. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

7 Frank? 

8 MR. MOORE: But do you have some 

9 numbers, some details, on that in the 

10 technical document? 

11 MR. BARRINGTON: Yes, certainly. 

12 MR. MOORE: What chapter do we need 

13 to look at? 

14 MR. BARRINGTON: So, Chapter 12 is 

15 the Manufacturers Impact Analysis. And 

16 there's the Government Regulatory Impact 

17 Model that accompanies that. 

18 MR. MOORE: So, that will show us how 

19 you got to 269 jobs lost? 

20 MR. BARRINGTON: Yes. Not lost, 

21 but -- so, that is the absolute number of 

22 production employment maintained through the 
Page 315

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 analysis period, estimated in 2018. Sorry. 

2 MR. MOORE: Then, we'll see the 

3 math? 

4 MR. BARRINGTON: Yes, absolutely. 

5 Yes. So, if it is at all helpful, that factor 

6 does include maintaining current shipment 

7 levels as from the shipment analysis, the cost 

8 structure as taken from the engineering 

9 analysis, and the impact on Industry Net 

10 Present Value -- I think I spoke to this 

11 earlier -- but the drop doesn't have to do with 

12 a reduction in production as much as it has to 

13 do with the investment, the upfront 

14 investment, in manufacturing capital and 

15 research and development. Okay. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Chris? 

17 MR. SALATINO: Chris Salatino, 

18 Scotsman. 

19 So, the numbers that you're showing 

20 for employment not dropping, essentially, 

21 remaining flat, is that domestic employment or 

22 is that saying the number of employees 
Page 316

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 required to build the equipment, whether it is 

2 here in the U.S. or some other market -- 

3 MR. BARRINGTON: So, it's -- 

4 MR. SALATINO: -- would be the same? 

5 MR. BARRINGTON: Pardon me. I 

6 didn't mean to cut you off there. 

7 It's for domestic production 

8 employment. So, we look at the portion of the 

9 industry that's manufactured domestically, 

10 whether that is owned by a parent company 

11 that's domestic or a parent company that's 

12 foreign-owned. We're agnostic to that. But 

13 those are manufacturer employment people, 

14 full-time equivalent, working in the United 

15 States producing this equipment. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Laura? 

17 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Again, I'm not 

18 an economist. So, are these limited to a 

19 particular type of employee, perhaps someone 

20 who is actually working on the line versus 

21 someone who is an engineer at the company or -- 

22 MR. BARRINGTON: Yes, that's 
Page 317

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 correct. So, it's limited to production 

2 employment alone, not engineering, not those 

3 associated with sales, general or other 

4 administrative tasks. 

5 There's a description of exactly 

6 where the cutoff is drawn in Chapter 12, and 

7 I believe it goes up to forklift operators, 

8 tied to warehousing of the equipment. 

9 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: So, if I'm 

10 correct, if you have estimated that the levels 

11 of production will stay the same, the number 

12 of people required to produce those same units 

13 will be the same? 

14 MR. BARRINGTON: That's correct. 

15 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Thank you. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Ron? 

17 MR. SOBAN: Ron Soban, Kold-Draft. 

18 What are those numbers that we are 

19 looking at? You are saying that's per 

20 factory? 

21 MR. BARRINGTON: No, that is the 

22 entire employment of domestic production 
Page 318

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 employees -- 

2 MR. SOBAN: In the -- 

3 MR. BARRINGTON: -- in the United 

4 States. 

5 MR. SOBAN: But what I'm saying, is 

6 it thousands, is it tens of thousands? What 

7 is it? 

8 MR. BARRINGTON: It is absolute 

9 numbers. 

10 MR. SOBAN: That 268? 

11 MR. BARRINGTON: Yes, 268 

12 employees. And you can see on the employment 

13 tab of the Government Regulatory Impact Model 

14 how those numbers are arrived using 

15 information from the U.S. Census Annual Survey 

16 of Manufacturers to achieve or to estimate 

17 both hourly wage rates for these full-time 

18 equivalents as well as their fringe benefits 

19 and medical costs. That would be added onto 

20 that to determine a production cost. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Do we have any 

22 additional comments as you see comment box 23, 
Page 319

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 estimated impact on domestic production 

2 employment for manufacturers of automatic 

3 commercial ice makers? Any additional 

4 comments? 

5 (No response.) 

6 Nothing additional? 

7 How are you all doing? We have about 

8 22 more slides? Do we need a break or are we 

9 able to keep going? We need to keep going? 

10 Okay, we'll keep going. Okay. 

11 Maybe we should just do this: let's 

12 break for five minutes, so people can dash to 

13 the restroom. Five minutes and, then, back 

14 here. Okay? Go quickly. 

15 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter 

16 went off the record at 3:28 p.m. and went back 

17 on the record at 3:35 p.m.) 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: We don't want to 

19 foreclose while we're here before we move on. 

20 Please, Chris, keep going. 

21 MR. SALATINO: So, I apologize for 

22 not being clear on it, but the numbers for 
Page 320

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 employment were 268, 269. What does that 

2 number actually mean? Is that 269 employees 

3 manufacturing ice makers per vendor, per 

4 manufacturer, or total in the industry? 

5 MR. BARRINGTON: This is Ben 

6 Barrington from Navigant. 

7 That's total domestic production 

8 employment in the industry in the U.S. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: And that's for 

10 production workers? 

11 MR. BARRINGTON: Yes, that's for 

12 production workers. 

13 MR. SALATINO: So, I apologize, this 

14 is going to be a remedial question. So, 

15 that's saying that, say, Manitowoc had 50 

16 production workers, Scotsman had 50 

17 production workers, Ice-O-Matic had 50 

18 production workers, down the line until you 

19 get to 268, 269? 

20 MR. BARRINGTON: That's correct. 

21 MR. SALATINO: So, as far as impact 

22 to employment, were there any assessments made 
Page 321

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 as to downstream? So, as far as component 

2 suppliers, manufacturer employment impact to 

3 them with these potential standards? 

4 MR. BARRINGTON: So, no, we did not 

5 directly assess the impact on -- is that -- 

6 MR. SALATINO: It's our suppliers, 

7 our vendors. 

8 MR. BARRINGTON: Right. So, for 

9 Danfoss, for instance, right, we did not 

10 assess the impact on employment of those 

11 component vendors. However, there is an 

12 employment impact on a national scale that's 

13 a separate analysis. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: An employment impact 

15 not for manufacturers of commercial ice 

16 makers? 

17 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, no. So, this is 

18 the indirect employment effect 

19 of -- essentially, the standard comes in. 

20 People have a positive cashflow on a monthly 

21 basis. So, there's more money to spend into 

22 the economy in general, which could, then, 
Page 322

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 instead of spending on electricity bills, 

2 people are spending on goods and services, is 

3 the general idea. 

4 It's the general equilibrium 

5 principle that if there's more money, more 

6 cashflow in people's pockets, they spend it on 

7 goods and services, not necessarily related to 

8 the commercial ice-making industry. So, 

9 restaurants and other service, generally 

10 service industry will grow based on that. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please, Scott. 

12 MR. DESHETLER: Scott DeShetler, 

13 Ice-O-Matic. 

14 Just for the record, and we'll put 

15 this in writing, but your employment 

16 assumptions are completely off. They're just 

17 completely off. You're not even close. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: I would think that 

19 AHRI could do some rather quick polling and 

20 masking and come up with some solid numbers 

21 that they could submit, Laura? 

22 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Yes, I'm happy 
Page 323

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 to provide that information to the DOE. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 

3 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: And if there's 

4 any other information, such as number of 

5 products sold in each of the efficiency bins, 

6 I would be happy to try to get that 

7 information. 

8 Before, it was stated that we didn't 

9 provide that information. I honestly don't 

10 think we were asked for that information 

11 because all the information we were asked for 

12 we certainly did provide. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Well, that 

14 would be most helpful. And you know the 

15 Department, that's kind of, as John said, 

16 that's the Holy Grail, that kind of 

17 information. And their submission date is a 

18 month. 

19 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Which is a 

20 problem. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Okay. 

22 Anyway, whenever you can get it. 
Page 324

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 Okay. Now we are going to move on, 

2 please. 

3 MS. NIEMEYER: Okay. Michelle 

4 Niemeyer, Pacific Northwest National 

5 Laboratory. 

6 All right. The last of the 

7 analyses, the emissions, the utility, and 

8 employment, different type of employment. 

9 So, the emissions analysis, this 

10 includes primary power plant emissions plus 

11 the upstream emissions. That includes 

12 extraction, processing, and transporting of 

13 fuels to the site. And you put those 

14 together, and you have the full fuel cycle 

15 emissions, which is what's on that table. 

16 Then, we monetize carbon. We do 

17 this using the latest interagency report that 

18 was released in November of 2013. It has 

19 values ranging from $11.8 to $117 per metric 

20 ton. Those values are for 2015 in 2012 

21 dollars. 

22 So, the numbers increase over time, 
Page 325

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 and the interagency report vetted values 

2 through 2050. But, since our analysis goes a 

3 little past 2050, we used the 2040-to-2050 

4 average annual growth rate to grow the numbers 

5 past 2050. 

6 For NOx it is much simpler. We just 

7 have three numbers, a low, a high, and then, 

8 an average medium value that we quote most 

9 often. 

10 Does anyone have any comments on the 

11 social cost of carbon numbers or the growth 

12 rates? 

13 (No response.) 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: No comments here. 

15 MS. NIEMEYER: Nothing? Okay, 

16 moving on. 

17 So, those are the actual Present 

18 Values of the carbon reduction for all four 

19 values. They each have their own discount 

20 rates, as dictated by the interagency report. 

21 So, for TSL3, the value of carbon ranges from 

22 102 million to 1,426 million. 
Page 326

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 And the Present Value of NOx, 

2 discounted at a 7 percent and 3 percent 

3 discount rate. 

4 And moving on to the utility 

5 analysis -- 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Frank? 

7 MR. MOORE: Just one question. Was 

8 this the same set of numbers used in CRE? And 

9 I know you all got a lot of comments, pro and 

10 con. So, no changes? The comments from CRE 

11 had no impact on what you decided to do going 

12 forward? 

13 MR. CYMBALSKY: No. So, in the 

14 final rule, we stuck with the latest 

15 interagency numbers, yes. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, John. 

17 Okay. 

18 MS. NIEMEYER: Okay. All right. 

19 So, the purpose of the utility analysis, to 

20 estimate changes on the install capacity and 

21 generation for the utility sector. 

22 We do this using NEMS, which is 
Page 327

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 released by EIA. Basically, we take EIA's 

2 reference case forecast for the utility 

3 sector, and then we kind of shave off the 

4 energy savings from the NIA model. And then, 

5 that gives us a reduction in electricity 

6 generation and install capacity. 

7 Okay. Employment. All right. 

8 So, the purpose of this is to estimate the net 

9 jobs nationally due to the proposed standards. 

10 This is different than what Ben presented, 

11 where he was looking directly at the 

12 manufacturing sector. 

13 So, here we use an input/output model 

14 called the ImSET, which it looks at the 

15 relationship between sectors and how dollars 

16 flowing out of one sector flow into another 

17 sector, and how they impact each other. 

18 So, if you have changes in equipment 

19 costs or reduced energy expenditures, you 

20 know, you end up spending that money in 

21 different parts of the economy. 

22 So, for TSL3 and the start year of 
Page 328

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 2018, it is estimated that there would be 75 

2 to 87 jobs created, and then, for 2022, 431 to 

3 442. 

4 Questions? 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Comments here? Yes? 

6 MR. SALATINO: I'm sorry. Chris 

7 Salatino. 

8 So, the employment analysis that 

9 we're referring to here refers to automatic 

10 commercial ice maker employers or employees? 

11 MS. NIEMEYER: No. 

12 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, it's what I 

13 described just a moment ago. So, the impact 

14 on the whole economy of people having more 

15 monthly cashflow, based on less electricity 

16 expenditures, and the fact that you don't 

17 build a power plant. You have this extra 

18 capital that is floating around that's being 

19 spent on other goods and services other than 

20 commercial ice maker manufacturing. It 

21 creates jobs in other sectors of the economy. 

22 MS. NIEMEYER: And some sectors of 
Page 329

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 the economy are very capital-intensive; some 

2 are very labor-intensive. So, if that money 

3 is moving into labor-intensive sectors, then 

4 you would -- 

5 MR. MOORE: So, can I just 

6 get -- because I want to make sure we're 

7 comparing apples to apples. So, I guess it's 

8 good news/good news, right, from your 

9 analysis? The good news is there are 270 

10 folks making ice machine, and with the new 

11 rule, they'll still be there. And then, the 

12 extra good news is that we'll be adding all 

13 these new jobs somewhere else in the economy? 

14 I mean, is that -- okay, all right. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments 

16 here? 

17 MR. CYMBALSKY: I could say this is 

18 not unique to this rulemaking. 

19 MR. MOORE: Yes, I know. I want to 

20 make sure that number, 270, are individuals 

21 using -- 

22 MR. DESHETLER: Scott DeShetler, 
Page 330

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 Ice-O-Matic. 

2 And I apologize, I don't have all the 

3 details behind this. But are the details 

4 behind this we can get to? I mean, you know, 

5 we know that the numbers on how many people are 

6 employed making ice machines are totally 

7 wrong. We know that. 

8 No. 2, the assumption that they're 

9 all going to stay here while we're sucking 20 

10 percent of the value of the companies out, the 

11 owners are just going to go along and just say, 

12 "Hey, this is cool. No problem. I'll quit 

13 trying to run my business the way I'm running 

14 it." -- they will change the way they run their 

15 business. 

16 And so, the likelihood is most, if 

17 not all, of those people making ice machines 

18 will be living in another country in 10 years. 

19 And No. 2, they won't be spending their money 

20 in this economy; they will be spending it in 

21 somebody else's economy. And so, somebody 

22 else may be experiencing the 100 additional, 
Page 331

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 but we won't. They will. That's guaranteed. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: John Cymbalsky? 

3 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, yes, I was 

4 taking to Ben at the break, and we're going to 

5 look into this, too, to see what happened in 

6 the industry when the first standard came in, 

7 how the industry may or may not have changed, 

8 and how this change may be relevant or not 

9 relevant to what we saw before. 

10 So, we're going to look into that, 

11 but if you, particularly the manufacturers, 

12 can provide us any information on that, 

13 obviously each standard level is different and 

14 what's assumed in the standards different. 

15 But it would be helpful to know how the 

16 industry changed with the last standard. I'm 

17 not saying it's completely relevant, but at 

18 least it's a good datapoint. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, please, 

20 George. 

21 MR. PARSONS: George Parsons, 

22 Ice-O-matic. 
Page 332

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 That will be encouraging. I will 

2 tell you, from my background, I've in the air 

3 conditioning industry, I've been in 

4 commercial refrigeration, and now I'm sitting 

5 here. 

6 And I believe if you go back and look 

7 at 10 to 15 years' worth of data in commercial 

8 HVACs, specifically, what you will see is unit 

9 cells may be there for many of them. They're 

10 big enough to maintain two designs, one to sell 

11 globally, one to sell in the United States. 

12 You will also find many of them have 

13 moved their production either into Asia or 

14 Mexico. And so, there has been an impact. 

15 And I do want to add, I think it is 

16 vital that you understand that, when you say 

17 you do a Net Present Value analysis, if I'm a 

18 business owner sitting around this table, if 

19 our owners were sitting here, whether it's 

20 shareholders or individual people, whoever it 

21 is, when you tell them they're going to spend 

22 more money on R&D, and whether you want to 
Page 333

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 realize it or not, we're going to spend more 

2 on hard capital; we'll have to retool our 

3 factories. We've got to make a bigger evap 

4 plate. It will cost capital. 

5 If you believe they are going to do 

6 those two things and accept the same basic 

7 revenue level with expenses going up, they're 

8 not. They are going to maintain their profit 

9 level. They will. 

10 And when they look at maintaining 

11 their profit level, you go after your 

12 component suppliers, frankly, but you'll look 

13 at the cost of your labor. We are in a very 

14 labor-intensive business. So, labor is a 

15 large component of our cost, larger than 

16 others. 

17 So, it's critical. I just don't 

18 think you can make the assumption that they're 

19 going to accept those additional expenses 

20 without reacting to that. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Karim? 

22 DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. 
Page 334

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 Just a couple of examples. I think 

2 we don't need to go too far. I mean, look at 

3 household refrigerators. I mean, all of them 

4 are made overseas now, and they aren't made 

5 anymore here. Look at room air conditioners. 

6 The entire industry moved overseas. 

7 So, those are real examples. This 

8 has happened over the years, starting from 

9 when NAECA was -- 

10 MR. CYMBALSKY: And I 

11 appreciate -- you know, American 

12 manufacturing is actually important to my 

13 boss -- so, we do appreciate that. To say that 

14 jobs moved overseas because of standards for 

15 room air conditioners, for example, these 

16 things happen because of globalization of 

17 capital and pretty much labor. You know, 

18 corporations made economic decisions to do 

19 that. 

20 For large commercial HVAC, we 

21 haven't set standards. So, if, in fact, 

22 they're all moving that overseas at the time 
Page 335

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 when there's no standards, obviously, there's 

2 other factors at play here. 

3 So, we need to be careful about 

4 attributing decline in U.S. manufacturing to 

5 at least appliance standards in total. But we 

6 understand the point and we do our due 

7 diligence to understand the employment impact 

8 better. 

9 Thank you. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: We're about to move 

11 on. Okay? Final comments? 

12 (No response.) 

13 Yes, we're moving on. 

14 MS. NIEMEYER: All right. 

15 MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay. So, at the 

16 end of the road here, I'll finish up with the 

17 TSLs. 

18 You have seen this slide already. I 

19 won't reread it, but you can see, based on all 

20 the engineering analysis, all the economic 

21 analysis, emissions analysis, et cetera, we 

22 bundled the TSLs, and, then, based on all of 
Page 336

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 that information, we chose TSL3, right there 

2 in the middle. 

3 Here is the chart I had you flip to 

4 earlier to try to help understand the TSLs and 

5 the ELs. Again, I request that everybody take 

6 a hard look at this, look at the engineering 

7 data, the retail cost data, the shipments 

8 data, all that, and help us make the analysis 

9 more robust by supplementing with whatever 

10 data you can. 

11 But you can see here, this is the 

12 mapping. And then, this chart shows you what 

13 actually happens as you step across into the 

14 TSLs by the product equipment classes. So, 

15 for example, the first line up there, TSL3, you 

16 basically have got to do what is in TSL1, and 

17 then, you then do what is in TSL3. So, it is 

18 a combination of those features being added 

19 together. 

20 And then, down at the bottom is the 

21 key as to what all those things mean. So, to 

22 get to the level of TSL3, you have to do those 
Page 337

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 four or five things that are listed there in 

2 both TSL1 and TSL3. And so, I won't read 

3 through this whole chart. 

4 But, again, this is where we ask you 

5 to look at very carefully and provide public 

6 comment for the final rule. 

7 And then, this is just going down the 

8 product classes again. We won't read through 

9 these. But this is where your public comment 

10 in written form will help us quite a bit. And 

11 we have a comment box here. 

12 I think at this point it would be 

13 better for everyone to actually put their 

14 comments in writing because reading this out 

15 of a transcript is less helpful than your 

16 written comments on these because it is very 

17 technical in nature. 

18 But, sure, go ahead. 

19 MR. SALATINO: Sorry. Chris 

20 Salatino, Scotsman Ice. 

21 And just one quick question. As far 

22 as providing data and comment up until May 
Page 338

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 16th, is there an opportunity -- I mean, so as 

2 you guys receive loads of data and you digest 

3 that, is there going to be any dialog or go back 

4 and forth to ask questions about our data, our 

5 interpretations? Or is it a closed period 

6 from May 16th until January 1? 

7 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, I think under 

8 the NDA with the contractors, there is the 

9 ability to have those meetings about your 

10 data. There will not be any policy dialog 

11 like this we have today. 

12 There is an opportunity for ex parte 

13 communications at any point. Basically, you 

14 request a meeting with me. It's on the 

15 record. We can't answer; we mostly are in 

16 listening mode. We can answer questions that 

17 are clarifying-type questions, but we can't 

18 say, "Oh, based on that data, we're going to 

19 do this." So, it is not that kind of 

20 back-and-forth. 

21 But I think a lot of stakeholders 

22 have found those meetings useful in the past, 
Page 339

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 just as a good back-and-forth. And again, 

2 it's on the record. So, we don't need to ask 

3 you to submit to the docket a summary of what 

4 the meeting was about. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Laura? 

6 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: So, I think some 

7 of the concerns raised today really do require 

8 a feedback loop. Is there any precedent or 

9 possibility of entertaining a negotiated 

10 rulemaking for this? 

11 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, we talked about 

12 this a little bit earlier. And so, you know, 

13 most people in the room -- well, maybe not most 

14 because a lot of you are not necessarily always 

15 plugged into our process. 

16 But, you know, it has been the 

17 Department's position to try to negotiate as 

18 many of these things as possible, and we have 

19 a few different ones going on. Personally, I 

20 think people have found the process quite 

21 good. There is real-time dialog in meetings, 

22 again, all on the record, of course, in a 
Page 340

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 public forum. 

2 At this point, the Department has 

3 already publicly stated what it thinks it is 

4 going to do, absent any different public 

5 comment to change that. So, in my sense, for 

6 us to negotiate anything here, a Committee 

7 would be made up of one DOE person, and then, 

8 the efficiency advocates and, then, 

9 manufacturers, whoever the stakeholders are. 

10 So, it is just difficult for me to 

11 think in my head what we would be negotiating 

12 and get consensus around the table, given that 

13 our proposal is already out. I'm not saying 

14 that we wouldn't do it. We're open to hearing 

15 what all the stakeholders say about that. 

16 I can say that would be sort of new 

17 ground. We usually start a negotiated 

18 rulemaking earlier in the process, where the 

19 Department hasn't, you know -- I have already 

20 put my two aces on the table. 

21 But that's not to say -- I mean, we 

22 always listen to what you think we -- you know, 
Page 341

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 negotiation is usually a give-and-get. So we 

2 have our cards on the table. We would have to 

3 negotiate around what is already proposed. 

4 And again, the efficiency, this 

5 wouldn't be a bilateral negotiation. It 

6 would be as many stakeholders that are 

7 relevant to this process. 

8 Andrew, it's not for today, but, 

9 obviously, they would be a voice at the table. 

10 So, in my mind, maybe it is not impossible. I 

11 guess I'm just wondering how that would go and 

12 where it would go, and given the January 1st 

13 deadline for final. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: And Laura, please. 

15 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: I mean, I think 

16 the most important point here is a corrected 

17 analysis, so that we're sure what we're 

18 looking at are real efficiency and real cost. 

19 MR. CYMBALSKY: Right. So, I think 

20 that can happen in the notice and comment, 

21 right? So, if we get a bunch of data that 

22 suggests what we did was not correct, we are 
Page 342

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 going to revise the analysis. We do that in 

2 every rulemaking. That doesn't have to be 

3 negotiated. That's standard operating 

4 procedure for us. We don't ignore the facts 

5 that are provided us. 

6 DR. AMRANE: And that's fine. This 

7 is Karim. I'm with the AHRI. 

8 That's fine, but at the same time we 

9 don't have any feedback. I mean, that is what 

10 we are asking here, is the feedback. 

11 I think there are serious concerns 

12 with the analysis that I believe require some 

13 feedback. So, as long as we have the 

14 feedback, we don't have maybe the need for 

15 negotiation. 

16 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, are you arguing 

17 for another public meeting before the final 

18 rule? Is that -- 

19 DR. AMRANE: No. I am suggesting 

20 that, please, there will be discussion between 

21 the contractor and the manufacturers and maybe 

22 everybody together in the same room, talking 
Page 343

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 about the data and talking about -- 

2 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: This is Laura. 

3 And not just one-sided, you know, 

4 conversations where the Department can't give 

5 feedback. Because there are issues that do 

6 require feedback, and even if this is 

7 unprecedented ground, it is a strong 

8 consideration. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: That was Laura. 

10 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, this is John 

11 again. 

12 So, when we were negotiating the 

13 transformer rule, there was something unique 

14 to that where we did post like a NODA, a Notice 

15 of Data Availability, which posted a new 

16 analysis after the NOPR but before the final 

17 rule. 

18 So, you know, if that's legally okay 

19 by my counsel, and it's something we could 

20 provide that will help -- again, we do have a 

21 bit of a time crunch here. So, I don't want 

22 to promise anything, but we do want to make 
Page 344

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 this as open as legally possible. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl? 

3 MR. ERBS: Yes, Daryl Erbs from 

4 Manitowoc Ice. 

5 I guess I want to echo the same 

6 sentiment, that I think we're pretty far 

7 apart. I think we feel that we have 

8 legitimate concerns. We have data to back it 

9 up. 

10 You know, we can set up meetings with 

11 your contractor. We can share data under NDA. 

12 But we really need to understand where that's 

13 going to take this. 

14 You know, the short time crunch that 

15 we're under is partly the result of the NOPR 

16 and the TSD only getting published very 

17 recently. So, we went for a period of -- I 

18 don't know; was it a year and a half? Or I 

19 can't even remember when we actually had the 

20 last preliminary public review. 

21 We turned in comments after that 

22 initial, you know, for that meeting. And some 
Page 345

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 of those things didn't change, and we had no 

2 real feedback that those things weren't going 

3 to change until a few weeks ago. 

4 So, I think the concern is that we 

5 will supply a lot of written comments and data, 

6 and then, there's no more public meeting and 

7 there isn't any guarantee of any kind of 

8 feedback process. And we'll maybe be 

9 surprised again. 

10 And so, I think it would be, maybe we 

11 would have a better chance of reaching some 

12 type of a compromise that the industry can 

13 support if we can sit down and somehow discuss 

14 what the middle ground might be that we can all 

15 live with. 

16 MR. CYMBALSKY: Yes. So, that's a 

17 little different than I think what Karim was 

18 describing. But we will do our best. You 

19 know, we will talk it over with counsel and see 

20 what options are available. 

21 You know, we're not here in a black 

22 box trying to hide anything. That's not our 
Page 346

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 intent. It never was our intent. 

2 And the data you provide us, to the 

3 extent that it changes the analysis, we will 

4 revise the analysis. There's no question 

5 about it. There are things we have heard 

6 today that will absolutely cause us to go back 

7 and revise things. 

8 We normally refresh the data anyway, 

9 but the fact that it sounds like you guys will 

10 come forward with a lot more data, that's 

11 great. And so, we will absolutely take that 

12 into account in the final rule. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Scott? 

14 MR. DESHETLER: Well, just a thought 

15 here. I think everybody in the room wants the 

16 rule that goes into place January to be the 

17 right rule. 

18 The manufacturers here today believe 

19 that there are so many discrepancies in the 

20 analysis that we may end up with a rule that's 

21 a wrong rule. And the consequences may not be 

22 what we all expected. 
Page 347

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 I don't think anybody wants that in 

2 the room. So, we, as manufacturers, are 

3 trying to figure out a way to actually work 

4 with something closer to reality and less 

5 academic. And we can bring that. We have got 

6 hundreds of years of experience here. These 

7 guys, not me -- I've only been in the industry 

8 three years -- but these guys here have built 

9 machines. I don't think there's probably 

10 anybody else in the room that actually built 

11 a machine. These guys grew up in this thing. 

12 They understand these machines. 

13 They are all committed to 

14 environmental responsibility. We are all 

15 committed to those types of things. But we 

16 have to do it in such a way that we don't kill 

17 businesses, ruin employment, or just simply 

18 kill an industry. 

19 And we think that's where we are 

20 right now. We need to be able to speak with 

21 you, bring the data to you, and look at these 

22 analyses to see if we can get closer to what 
Page 348

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 reality is. 

2 I don't mind a stretch, and I don't 

3 think anybody in this room minds a stretch. 

4 But there's a difference between a stretch and 

5 a leap of faith. And I think that's the 

6 difference we're dealing with here today. 

7 MR. CYMBALSKY: Yes, and DOE, I 

8 mean, I would echo everything you said. I'm 

9 not sitting here trying to kill an industry; 

10 that's for sure. I don't want that. Nobody 

11 in this Department wants that. 

12 And the data that you provide, the 

13 analysis is driving the reg here. And so, 

14 what drives the analysis is the data. So, you 

15 provide the data; we have the analysis. That 

16 should all come out precisely like you said, 

17 if all the data support what you said. And so, 

18 that will be the answer. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Karim? 

20 DR. AMRANE: Yes, this is Karim 

21 Amrane with AHRI. 

22 I have a request. I understand that 
Page 349

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 most of the analysis was done through 

2 modeling, and I understand that there have 

3 been some tests done. 

4 We would like that those tests be 

5 made available to us for review. We can keep 

6 the manufacturer's name confidential, but we 

7 would like to see those reports, and how many 

8 you have done, and those reports that validate 

9 your model, in particular. I think it should 

10 be public information. 

11 Thank you. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, thank you. 

13 So, we have reached the point in the 

14 meeting where -- 

15 MR. CYMBALSKY: Wait, wait. I 

16 didn't get to this slide. Sorry. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, there's one more 

18 small segment. 

19 MR. CYMBALSKY: Yes. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: I think we may have 

21 done this fully at this point. As I promised 

22 at the outset, an opportunity for final 
Page 350

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 remarks, closing remarks. 

2 MR. CYMBALSKY: I really didn't 

3 finish yet. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Oh, okay. 

5 MR. CYMBALSKY: Sorry. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

7 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, there's a couple 

8 more graphs here about the standard. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

10 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, here are the 

11 proposed standards in equation form or number. 

12 You can see going down. I'm not going to read 

13 them. 

14 But, again, similar to what we did 

15 for commercial refrigeration, and I spoke to 

16 a lot of manufacturers after the NOPR at 

17 meetings where they provided us spreadsheets 

18 of what they had. So, these are things you can 

19 do and submit them. So, we can have a look at 

20 how you think these equations map to what you 

21 consider your reality in the manufacturing 

22 world. 
Page 351

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 And then, here we go with a little bit 

2 graphically what we are talking about here. 

3 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: I'm sorry, just 

4 I don't understand what DOE standard versus 

5 the proposed standard is. Is that the red 

6 lines of the current standard level? 

7 MR. CYMBALSKY: Yes. 

8 MS. PETRILLO-GROH: Okay. Thank 

9 you. 

10 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, this is just for 

11 one example, but, you know, you can open up 

12 Excel, plug the formulas in. And trust me, 

13 the CRE guys gave me a bunch of spreadsheets 

14 where they did this. 

15 And then, continuous, the same 

16 thing. 

17 Just hold your thought just for a 

18 second. 

19 And then, finally, again, the 

20 comment period closes May 16th. Here's how 

21 you submit your written comments. And again, 

22 please copy either Brenda or myself or both 
Page 352

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 because we have had problems not receiving 

2 comment because those mailboxes, if you type 

3 even one thing wrong, you will not get a 

4 kickback, and we would like to get your 

5 comment. 

6 So, please. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: And also, in addition 

8 to whatever comments following these closing 

9 comments, additional remarks at the close of 

10 the day. 

11 Scott? 

12 MR. BINGHAM: This is Scott Bingham 

13 with Follett. 

14 If you go to the next slide, the 

15 continuous -- two forward -- that maximum 

16 energy use, is that the measured energy or the 

17 adjusted energy use, the adjustment with the 

18 ice hardness? 

19 MR. CYMBALSKY: Adjusted, for the 

20 record. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Closing remarks? 

22 MS. PINTO: Hey, Doug? 
Page 353

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Francine? 

2 MS. PINTO: Yes, Francine Pinto. 

3 I just wanted to confirm that Andrew 

4 DeLaski's comments on the compliance date this 

5 morning were correct. So, there's three 

6 years from the date that the final rule, 

7 amended rule, is published. And if the 

8 Secretary determines that three years is 

9 inadequate, then it is no later than five 

10 years. And you can find that in 42 USC 

11 6313(d)(3)(C). 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: That's helpful. 

13 Thank you. 

14 MR. MOORE: So, one just 

15 clarification on that. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Frank, please. And 

17 use the microphone, Frank. 

18 MR. MOORE: I'm sorry. 

19 So, the statutory clarification that 

20 something will come out by January of next year 

21 is that you determine whether or not a change 

22 needs to be made -- 
Page 354

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 MS. PINTO: Correct. 

2 MR. MOORE: -- not that you've got to 

3 make one? 

4 MS. PINTO: Correct, whether or not. 

5 MR. MOORE: All right. 

6 MS. PINTO: And then, if we set 

7 amended standards, then it's three years from 

8 the date of publication or three years is 

9 inadequate; five years. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. That is 

11 helpful. 

12 Final comments before we head in our 

13 separate ways? 

14 (No response.) 

15 So, for my part, I thank you. We 

16 covered a lot of ground today and some very 

17 important issues for all of you in the room. 

18 Closing remarks from John Cymbalsky? 

19 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, I would just 

20 thank everybody for coming. I know there's a 

21 lot of issues that were brought up. 

22 Like I said, the comments we receive 
Page 355

202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

1 in the next month or so will certainly 

2 determine the path of how we go on the final 

3 rule. 

4 As Francine just mentioned, the 

5 Secretary may determine that three years is 

6 not enough. He could potentially say five 

7 years. Again, public comment is going to 

8 determine whether or not the Secretary makes 

9 that decision. 

10 And then, otherwise, we look forward 

11 to getting your comments, and we will explore 

12 the data availability path going forward. 

13 So, thank you all for attending. 

14 (Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the 

15 meeting was adjourned.) 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 356

A

$100 298:9

$11.8 324:19

$117 324:19

$1500 202:7 211:18

$20 190:11 191:17

$20.9 298:16

$23.9 298:17

$30,000.00 43:8

$300 211:16 246:15

246:17

$42.2 299:5

$48.48 173:3

$78 302:11

$79 302:11

$80 302:11,11

A-F-T-E-R-N-O-...

180:1

a.m 1:12 4:2 93:12

93:13

ability 27:14 35:7

43:16 128:2

132:19,22 176:3

228:16 277:20

296:16 338:9

able 11:1,2,3 26:19

40:22 42:19 45:4

72:22 74:11 87:21

101:10 104:11,22

108:2 109:17

112:9,19 120:13

140:10 159:5

176:4 182:5 222:3

226:16 283:21

294:9 296:6 297:8

297:17 319:9

347:20

abroad 296:8

absent 266:14,15

340:4

absolute 314:21

318:8

absolutely 282:18

287:18 309:11

315:4 346:6,11

AC 293:15

academic 194:15

198:22 201:10

347:5

accept 26:10

102:17 130:6

133:9 174:11

313:19 333:6,19

acceptable 45:10

137:4 182:7

306:22 307:5,7,11

307:19 308:19

310:16

accessible 10:17

accommodate 43:5

130:13 132:5

209:10 291:22

accompanies

314:17

account 15:10

24:11 34:8 87:8

113:9 150:7 166:5

189:14 209:11

279:8 280:21

288:16 294:10,15

346:12

accounted 17:6

43:12,15

accounting 287:12

accounts 270:7

accredited 174:12

174:12

accumulator

142:21

accuracy 231:16

accurate 99:12

154:22 156:10

174:5 234:11

236:2

accurately 24:14

266:18

aces 340:20

achievable 183:16

achieve 33:14,16

45:3 135:13 252:5

252:6 284:2

318:16

achieved 167:17

251:14

achieving 253:13

ACIM 16:7,13 17:1

17:8 18:9

acknowledging

16:14

acknowledgment

270:1

acronym 47:1

Act 48:14 58:7,10

actual 81:3 104:6,7

190:12 269:11

278:12 299:19

325:17

adapt 176:4

add 58:13 81:12

112:4 128:9

142:19 159:16

160:17 185:9

188:12 189:3

190:11,15 191:17

192:15 195:9

226:13 238:2

250:5 265:11

276:5 298:13

332:15

added 189:12

318:19 336:18

adding 198:18

201:20 213:20

329:12

addition 25:12 32:5

35:2,14 98:6

203:12 352:7

additional 9:20

21:15 33:22 36:15

38:20 58:16 79:18

80:19 91:17 97:21

106:9 113:6

118:11 138:1

139:19 142:20

147:9 165:6

202:13 218:17

221:7,12 222:4

224:19 238:9

247:3 267:15

295:20 300:5

305:21 312:1

318:22 319:3,6

329:15 330:22

333:19 352:9

Additionally 39:20

41:8 273:10,15

additions 191:8

243:12

additive 20:15

addressed 15:18

addresses 57:15,17

addressing 50:12

adds 121:17

adequate 18:12

20:7 65:15

adequately 47:22

adjourned 355:15

adjust 104:13

151:16 188:10

213:20 291:21

adjusted 70:7

136:3 352:17,19

adjusting 113:2,10

adjustment 71:3

165:20 352:17

adjustments

113:13

administration

13:8 36:19 283:13

288:18 300:12

312:6

administrative

312:13 317:4

adopt 55:9 192:18

adopted 19:18

48:17 59:16 113:2

advances 19:12

advantage 31:2

158:6

adverse 27:17

82:20 297:15

advocates 340:8

AEDM 22:13

AEDMs 20:17

AEO 237:16 243:7

243:17 269:17,21

Affairs 14:18

affect 22:15

affiliation 5:18

afford 101:11

120:11 123:3

261:19 262:12

309:5,6 313:15

agencies 11:14 12:1

12:2 32:3

agenda 8:8,10 9:17

aggregate 104:1

172:19 274:11

275:9 276:2

aggressively

308:22

agnostic 316:12

ago 5:4 30:19 117:3

138:13 169:17

204:9 267:3

328:13 345:3

agree 22:3 90:12

201:9 202:2

265:17 303:5

agreed 49:1

agreement 48:21

147:20 274:10

agreements 86:18

Ah 264:13

ahead 39:8 78:2

107:3 124:1 152:9

168:1 230:16

259:9 337:18

AHRI 2:1,8 6:12

14:21 21:7 60:2

69:4,7,15 71:13

72:4 74:22 75:2,5

75:20,20 76:2

79:2 85:9 128:19

144:5 150:9 166:3

168:17,19,20

180:16 185:21

199:18 214:14

235:11 236:12,15

237:6,8,18 254:8

261:2,6 264:4,14

267:1 268:11

269:11 282:6

284:10 301:1

307:17 312:3
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 357

322:19 333:22

342:7 348:21

AHRI’s 15:3,6

air 14:19 26:20

27:8 32:8 65:13

67:6,7 70:15,16

82:12 85:14

122:16 127:6

152:15,17 163:19

164:3 175:20

244:22 245:1

255:4 300:15,16

332:2 334:5,15

air-cooled 133:7

162:20 171:22

231:4

air-time 10:10

Alan 2:3 7:12 123:7

123:8,9 180:5

187:22 188:5

217:4 235:3

244:17 253:19

259:11 260:19

263:5 265:10

272:12 289:1

align 73:17 137:20

aligning 73:14

aligns 274:19

alive 177:20

Alliance 2:11 6:14

allocate 122:6

allotted 33:18

allow 17:14 278:8

allowed 116:4

allows 278:6

alluded 58:12 61:3

61:14 107:17

240:21 273:20

279:3

alluding 233:13

alternative 17:10

18:7 43:8 79:19

79:20 105:1,7

106:4 107:11

110:13 111:1

130:4 235:22

247:3 250:18

289:9

alternatives 105:2

250:18

amazed 121:10

amazes 176:4

amazingly-small

211:5

ambient 27:11,15

67:7 127:5

amend 58:21 60:9

amended 58:9,13

297:9 311:17

353:7 354:7

America 2:10 6:8

36:18 37:3 78:4

99:9 101:22

128:14 204:1

309:6

American 2:5 44:2

44:4 47:2 213:11

300:13 334:11

amount 46:16 87:8

122:19 143:4

223:16 224:9

254:15,16

Amrane 2:1 184:1

185:21 186:6

199:18,18 214:13

214:13,18,21

215:9,14 216:5

218:5 254:8,8,20

255:6,17,20 264:9

264:13,16,19

267:1,7 284:10,10

285:13,22 286:4

307:17,17 312:3,3

333:22,22 342:6

342:19 348:20,21

analyses 62:15,16

89:16 96:18,19

99:19,21 110:13

112:15 113:18

118:9 123:12

188:6 272:19

275:14 301:19

324:7 347:22

analysis 3:3,4,6,6,8

3:9,10,11,12,13

3:14,14 8:20 9:2,3

9:4,8,9,10,10,11

9:11 15:21 17:8

20:12,19 25:20,21

26:12 27:7,16

31:13 32:6,14

38:19 50:20 51:4

51:10,12,12 52:6

60:12,16,18,19

62:13 63:9 69:6

70:9,14,18 78:6

79:22 81:18 82:14

82:16 83:7,10,11

85:21 87:1,19

91:12,18 95:16,20

96:7,8,10,13 97:9

97:11,12 98:1,16

98:18,20,22 99:10

99:13 102:17

104:14,16,16,22

105:1,3,8,18,19

105:20 106:3,5,7

106:13,20 107:6

107:15 109:3

110:15,17,22

111:2,6 112:6

113:3 114:13

115:8,14 118:15

121:19 122:8

137:9 143:9 147:5

149:17 150:4,15

151:16 152:3,3

161:21 162:3

163:18 165:19

170:12 180:4,10

187:6 189:16

190:11 192:6

197:6,7,15 200:14

200:18,22 202:20

202:21 203:1,7,20

204:7,11 207:2,5

212:21,21 214:3

214:10 215:4

217:13,19 219:16

221:1 225:11

228:12 229:11

235:4,14 236:8,13

236:14,20 238:22

239:6 247:7 250:3

250:16 253:21

257:7 261:8

266:13 272:15,18

272:21 273:1,3,12

274:1,2,3,12,14

274:17 276:11,13

280:16,18 282:11

283:4,15 284:14

284:15 285:6

287:5 289:3,11,15

289:18 291:1

293:1,10 296:21

298:8 300:4

301:18,19 309:14

309:19 310:8,16

312:22 314:15

315:1,7,9 321:13

324:9 325:2 326:5

326:19 328:8

329:9 332:17

335:20,21,21

336:8 341:17

342:1,12 343:16

346:3,4,20 348:13

348:14,15 349:1

analytical 56:12

analyze 108:3

146:12

analyzed 39:21

96:17 98:16 100:2

104:17 118:3

120:6 165:13

168:16 187:13

239:15 304:18

analyzing 106:16

107:5 123:5 251:4

296:13

Andres 6:15

Andrew 48:6 58:12

58:22 61:14

130:20 195:13

221:15 254:2

256:9,14 260:5

265:1 341:8 353:3

Andrew's 259:17

announced 285:13

285:16

announcement

299:15 303:14

annual 203:5,10

212:15,16 213:7

247:17 274:7

303:11 318:15

325:4

ANSI/ASHRAE

60:3

answer 90:4 94:22

100:12 110:17

125:4 157:6,13

160:6 182:22

224:1 257:3

338:15,16 348:18

answering 125:8

answers 66:22

anticipate 304:5

anticipated 19:13

anticipating 303:7

anybody 5:6 9:20

347:1,10 348:3

anymore 235:1

271:5 334:5

anyway 242:12

323:22 346:8

apart 344:7

apologies 53:15

apologize 313:11

319:21 320:13

330:2

apologizes 53:16

appeal 293:8

Appeals 177:18

appear 77:2

apples 329:7,7

appliance 4:7,18

6:16 173:20

176:16 335:5

applicable 45:15

292:10

application 41:3

42:4,16 109:5

129:21 176:9
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 358

applications 27:1

122:5

applied 64:5 118:5

118:7 121:3,20

123:5 191:20

applies 21:3 215:15

apply 120:10,13

177:16 265:20

283:22

appreciate 5:3

14:10 15:13 39:20

125:22 157:14

172:6 220:20

334:11,13

approach 19:6,9

22:8,11 31:11,12

107:7 110:21

112:5,6 113:1,3

114:6 192:19

approaches 56:12

106:5 107:12

289:10

appropriate 63:1

82:11 89:18

101:18 150:5

240:17

approved 80:1

approving 19:1

approximately

15:4,10 169:3

214:8 238:3

April 1:8 4:10 62:3

area 12:7 29:14

54:7 85:20,22

87:7 119:1,13,15

120:15 128:16

129:4 159:6 173:2

277:17

areas 39:5 99:11

149:8 163:5

aren’t 23:21 77:18

130:11 164:20,20

argue 196:1

arguing 342:16

argument 216:18

217:1

arrive 24:8

arrived 206:8

318:14

arrives 114:17

art 152:17 175:14

articulated 314:3

ascertain 109:17

ASHRAE 85:9

141:11

Asia 309:10 310:21

332:13

aside 22:1

asked 110:16

125:15 155:8

198:7,14 199:2

216:1 244:6

251:18 323:10,11

asking 147:15

151:6 166:12,14

181:7 184:1,14

192:20 238:8

275:20 342:10

aspect 87:9 128:8

160:11

aspects 54:5

ASRAC 16:12

assembly 59:5

assert 151:18

asserted 41:2

277:10

assertion 141:18

assertions 54:9

151:18,19

assess 273:7 275:2

321:5,10

assessment 3:3

60:18 62:12,18

72:8 79:10 88:9

99:12 103:1

240:22 276:12

assessments 8:20

40:19 41:8 79:11

320:22

assigned 45:13

associated 40:10

44:21 64:16 82:9

82:10 168:6

172:12,13 191:3

215:1,2 219:9

293:9 297:2 302:1

305:9 317:3

association 2:5

14:21 47:2 213:12

222:2,3 300:22

associations 198:16

199:7

assume 219:5

264:4

assumed 136:19

141:19 157:3

158:11 159:13

205:8 209:14

212:1 214:6,7

217:17 331:14

assuming 45:6

133:11 220:9

241:12,13 251:10

258:16

assumption 134:8

134:10,14 135:12

136:3,4,6,7,7

137:22 138:2,15

138:16 139:1

142:5 153:11

198:2 209:1,4

232:18 246:1

248:8 330:8

333:18

assumptions 19:12

25:1 32:7 104:13

134:12 137:20

169:18 172:17

174:14 175:5

203:11 234:3

239:18 303:4,6

322:16

assure 11:22

177:12 283:12

295:2

astounded 308:17

309:11

attached 241:2

attainable 20:4

67:15

attempt 104:12

attended 193:18

attendees 17:15

18:4

attending 355:13

attention 5:2

attest 138:10

attributed 112:13

312:16

attributes 276:15

289:17

attributing 335:4

auger 90:22 118:6

authority 58:8,16

automatic 1:4 4:9

15:7,16 55:11

56:14 58:13 59:3

59:21 97:21 276:8

297:10 300:8,14

301:5 311:20

319:2 328:9

automatically 35:4

35:19

availability 45:13

45:22 82:20

343:15 355:12

available 10:9

13:16 20:22 24:1

31:17,21 33:19

38:21 41:22 69:1

69:3 70:6,7 71:6,9

75:21 76:13 78:8

81:10 84:16,18

94:18,19 96:21

98:13 99:14

118:12 119:14

128:8 135:20

137:2 147:6,8

166:13,15,18

175:22 180:20

181:6,9,13,20,22

183:2,7,8,8,18

184:18 185:9,16

186:18 218:21

240:9 258:12,13

258:15,18 260:1

260:13 265:11

267:22 293:1

312:6 345:20

349:5

Avenue 1:12

average 37:12 51:6

51:14 213:16

217:17,22 221:7

230:12 233:6

241:13 267:11

270:10 325:4,8

averaged 298:11

Award 40:3

aware 73:2 111:17

278:7 287:20

294:22

Awareness 6:16

B

b 59:9 65:15 114:1

131:20 171:22

176:20 259:22

back 11:5 26:4

27:22 53:13 81:5

82:6 84:9,14 87:1

90:2 91:22 93:12

96:22 130:9

138:14,18 143:14

143:16 148:16

151:19,22 154:6,7

162:11 163:4

168:15 172:20

174:22 178:11,13

194:10 195:18,19

195:21 196:14,22

197:14 200:4

210:2 217:4

221:17 222:5

223:6 228:4

231:22 232:6

233:7 238:12

244:15,17,18

245:6 255:21

256:15,20,22

257:4 266:17

268:16 275:15

286:22 301:12

303:21 319:13,16

332:6 338:3 344:8
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 359

346:6

back-and-forth

338:20 339:1

background 332:2

backing 132:1

backup 89:22

bad 248:15 289:2

badge 92:19 178:7

bagged 234:21

baked 288:11

balance 285:5

Baltimore 4:13

ban 16:17

bar 238:13 270:21

barriers 44:3

Barrington 2:1

7:10,10 192:2,3

250:15 272:12,13

280:17 282:9,18

289:8 290:3,9

291:3 293:11,20

295:11,16,19

296:12 299:1,4

301:8,17,22 302:6

302:14,19,21

303:1,9,19 305:17

305:20 306:8,10

306:18,20 307:3,9

312:21 314:11,14

314:20 315:4

316:3,5,22 317:14

317:21 318:3,8,11

320:5,6,11,20

321:4,8

base 42:7 52:22

88:20 118:14

201:18 213:5,15

239:13,19 240:17

243:21

based 17:21 24:4

24:18 32:7 40:8

40:18 45:16 47:12

48:16 51:12 52:6

52:13 53:1 59:18

99:18 101:18

106:20 113:13

131:12 146:2,16

147:5,7 151:3,17

157:1 166:10

197:5 198:9

213:11 214:9

217:8 218:20

233:1 234:2 240:8

242:16,19 244:21

267:6 270:2

283:22 284:15

285:6 291:1,15

300:10,12 322:10

328:15 335:19,22

338:18

baseline 42:6,10,12

69:16,18 70:1,8

70:11,13,14 77:3

77:9 78:18 98:5

103:20,22 104:4

131:14 136:18

156:22 184:17

188:18 197:20

257:8

basic 22:12,13

241:19 264:5

313:21 333:6

basically 22:14

25:12 26:8 96:14

99:21 104:10

105:1 108:11

112:7,15 113:17

117:22 131:14,18

133:17 211:14

236:15 242:2

243:19 267:9

275:15 327:1

336:16 338:13

basis 51:6 109:13

110:2 131:8

141:15,20 203:6

204:2 207:16

298:12 321:21

batch 64:6,10,14

69:19 78:11 82:11

148:12 155:1

160:19 161:22

162:6 165:10,15

171:10 211:17

234:13 258:5

batch-type 54:16

64:11,21 68:16

bearer 254:22

beginning 55:20

232:17 266:3

behalf 11:14

behave 147:2

belabor 52:18

132:15

believe 16:7 24:13

26:15 31:16 33:15

49:13 55:20

134:15,19,21

138:19 143:17

149:9 174:3

209:21 214:7

234:2 236:19

243:2 250:2

254:18 282:12

289:11 295:17

300:15 304:16

317:7 332:6 333:5

342:12 346:18

believed 234:6

believes 292:15

Ben 2:1 7:10 192:2

250:15 272:13

307:21 320:5

327:10 331:4

benchmarked

269:9

benefit 38:16

143:18 232:2

287:7

benefits 89:15

207:13 318:18

best 28:5 38:17

39:1 57:13 147:7

155:9 205:3

226:22 260:22

261:3,5 345:18

beta 115:5

better 48:2 89:14

141:12 142:2,6,7

170:7 198:17

204:17 222:20

248:16 266:17

335:8 337:13

345:11

beverage 35:5,9,15

35:20 42:3 43:9

43:10 129:19

130:1 163:9,12

beverages 126:16

beyond 26:7 159:7

159:13

big 24:22 117:12

141:19 142:16

143:10 178:8

226:7 227:9

233:10 265:14

332:10

bigger 30:9 142:11

143:5,14 209:10

230:9 262:1 333:3

biggest 122:16,20

286:13

bilateral 341:5

bills 322:1

bin 65:5,9 217:15

223:10 224:2

Bingham 2:2 5:19

5:19 34:1,2 71:1,1

71:5,8 72:1,3

75:17,18 76:11,11

77:16,17 90:10,11

132:15 164:14,14

168:14 223:1,1

224:11,13,16

278:22,22 279:14

279:17,21 280:9

280:10 296:1,1

352:12,12

bins 223:5 267:6,13

323:5

bit 5:4 37:17 49:10

53:13 92:5 104:7

105:15 107:2,11

128:10 134:20

147:17 152:21

154:8 167:8 168:1

177:6 185:2 189:5

190:20 211:8

221:20 224:22

228:7,10 230:9,11

234:7 237:5,12,13

237:21 248:1

249:15 256:10

268:20 271:18

285:5 290:6 308:9

337:10 339:12

343:21 351:1

black 345:21

blindly 102:22

board 102:4 278:1

boat 23:21

body 13:17

boilerplate 250:20

Border 278:14

boss 334:13

bottom 52:15

204:12 245:10

247:20 336:20

bought 188:12

bound 41:13 297:4

297:6

box 57:2 58:4 83:9

246:22 266:3

318:22 337:11

345:22

boxes 56:21

Bradstreet 301:3

brand 232:3

brands 21:21

break 8:21 9:12,15

92:14,15 93:21

219:15 272:10

319:8,12 331:4

breaks 118:1

Brenda 57:14

351:22

brief 8:14 13:12

149:15 274:13

briefly 4:21 8:9

118:9 220:22

bring 13:1 35:21

68:7 155:12 347:5

347:21

broad 59:3,13

109:1
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 360

broadcast 17:16

18:3

broader 41:12

127:5

broken 65:1

Brookman 1:12,15

4:3,12 5:11 7:6

8:4 14:13 17:17

21:14 26:3 27:22

29:6 33:21 36:14

37:14 39:10 46:20

48:4 53:10 54:1

55:13,15 56:1

62:8 66:2,6,17

70:21 71:22 72:6

72:9 73:12,22

74:5,13,17 75:6

75:15 76:3,10,18

77:14 78:2,13,21

79:7 80:7,20 82:4

83:16 84:21 85:11

85:16 87:2 89:19

90:9 91:3,17 92:9

92:12 93:14 94:13

95:2,10,13,15

99:7 100:13

101:20 102:13

103:10 105:5

108:14 110:9

111:7 112:1 114:8

116:14 117:13

120:17 123:7,20

123:22 125:9

126:4 127:10

128:12 129:8

130:19 131:22

132:12 133:2,14

134:4 135:1,7

136:9,14 137:17

138:17 143:20

144:14,19 145:8

145:12,14,19

146:7,18 148:5

149:13 151:21

152:7 153:6,16

154:16 156:13,17

157:15 159:15

160:14 161:15

162:9,15 164:12

165:7,21 167:6

168:12 169:12

171:5,10 174:7

175:8 176:18,22

177:3,5 178:2

180:3,8,12,18

181:4,20 184:4,8

185:15 186:7,12

187:2,8,15,21

188:3 190:2 193:9

194:18 195:13

196:11 198:5

199:11 201:11

202:13,18 203:21

204:18 205:13,21

206:5,14 208:8

209:5,20 210:16

210:18 212:12

214:12,17 217:2

219:3 220:16

221:12 222:22

224:7,12,15,18

227:15 230:15

232:14 235:7

236:3,5 241:8

244:3,13,17

246:21 248:5,13

248:16,22 250:9

253:3,10,19 254:2

254:6 255:1 256:9

256:14 258:20

259:7 260:8

261:10 264:7,21

266:21 267:14

269:1 272:4,8

278:19 282:4,22

283:6,9 284:9

285:7 286:8 288:5

291:6 293:13

294:18 295:8,13

295:18,20 296:11

301:7,9 305:11

306:2,11 307:16

307:20 308:14

309:21 310:10

311:2,12 312:8,19

314:1,6 315:16

316:16 317:16

318:21 319:18

320:9 321:14

322:11,18 323:2

323:13,21 325:14

326:6,16 328:5

329:15 331:2,19

333:21 335:10

339:5 341:14

343:9 344:2

346:13 348:19

349:12,17,20

350:4,6,9 352:7

352:21 353:1,12

353:16 354:10

brought 61:2

134:20 166:21

281:1 299:6

307:22 354:21

brushless 158:7

159:8,10

build 84:5 87:11

174:22 313:15

316:1 328:17

building 4:11 36:9

124:14 164:8

243:7,13,16

buildings 204:15

242:22

builds 274:15

built 84:2 200:15

210:14 243:10

269:16 347:8,10

bump 246:1,5

268:1

bumping 208:14

bumping-out 210:3

bunch 56:20 98:3

108:3 308:3

341:21 351:13

bundled 215:17

216:11 335:22

burden 15:22

16:22 17:6 22:2

23:9,13 32:2 37:9

44:1 47:14 216:8

273:18

Burgos 2:2 7:2,2

71:16 94:8,11,15

95:9,17,18 99:6

99:15 103:19

105:11,13,17

112:3 114:15,20

115:1,6,12,20,22

116:10 117:17

120:7 121:4

127:16 131:2,5,8

132:7 133:16

134:14 135:3

144:5,8,15 145:20

161:16 162:14

165:8 166:8 167:5

167:15,22 168:11

171:8 172:8

176:19 177:2

185:12 187:10

business 32:2 34:3

34:4 36:10,12

42:1 130:18

168:19 169:7

192:9,10 194:2,6

228:17 242:19

300:8,12 301:5

303:22 304:2

305:16 308:8

309:9,18 311:22

312:5,16 330:13

330:15 332:18

333:14

businesses 44:4

231:17 233:1

242:13 300:10

304:6,18,22 305:8

306:5 307:10

309:5 311:17

347:17

busy 149:1

buy 81:21 100:19

202:9 232:1

234:21 235:1

buying 210:4

C

cabinet 43:1,3

117:11 133:10

164:1 173:9,18

209:9 261:17

262:1,4,13

cabinets 26:14

174:4 262:12

cafeteria 178:9

calculate 217:12

calculated 20:11

170:18 212:4

213:16 217:14

calculating 59:17

calculation 73:1

207:21 208:15

calculations 204:6

calendar 213:6

calibrating 297:19

California 48:17

55:5

call 36:11 189:14

229:10 232:11

240:6 246:2

called 64:6 83:6

213:22 327:14

calling 163:2

can’t 12:4 27:2

52:13 53:3 60:13

61:8,11 73:4

110:7 111:21

117:3 120:11

146:11 152:18

157:6,12 158:1

164:6

capability 294:5

capable 46:5

304:13

capacities 68:1

capacity 43:10

63:14 64:3 67:10

67:20 68:4,18,20

70:4 73:8 126:16

130:7,10 133:8

203:13 206:6,6

262:5 273:17

289:16 302:6
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 361

305:3 326:20

327:6

capital 23:2 87:9

87:12,17 88:3,16

229:18,21 230:13

281:22 298:11

299:10,20 300:3

311:18 315:14

328:18 333:2,4

334:17

capital-intensive

329:1

capture 10:5 189:2

222:15 287:16

capturing 77:2

carbon 324:16

325:11,18,21

cards 341:2

career 152:12

careful 109:22

259:5 308:10

335:3

carefully 337:5

cares 112:18

Carlo 217:13 221:1

case 13:18 102:15

116:21 141:1

148:14 171:19

174:4 187:10,17

213:5 214:1 220:4

220:8 239:2,13,19

244:7,9 247:12

284:1 292:17

327:2

cases 25:4 31:7

97:4 108:12

112:16,16,17

117:9 130:1

131:11 185:3

226:20,21 239:14

cash 231:16 232:22

cashflow 275:1

303:11 321:20

322:6 328:15

cashflows 298:10

casual 5:7

catalogs 261:1

catch 223:18

categories 73:17

110:5 187:5 231:1

232:7 257:17

category 39:19

46:10,16 52:1

65:12,16,21 67:13

74:3 164:10

165:15 166:13

171:20 186:18

187:7 215:7

216:17

cause 17:2 219:18

346:6

causes 25:7 111:20

caveat 252:18

CBP 277:19 278:7

CCMS 264:5

300:22

CEE2 251:10

ceiling 35:16

121:22 130:11

163:16

cell 10:11

cells 298:3 332:9

Census 318:15

certain 58:11 143:4

168:6 172:11

196:6,7 223:13

305:22

certainly 47:6,10

84:17 102:16

139:20 148:1,3

210:13 222:16

240:13 314:11

323:12 355:1

certification 52:7

52:14 75:3

certified 76:1

cetera 335:21

chain 189:13,20,21

232:2

challenge 39:8

311:8

chance 8:5 13:4

345:11

change 17:2 18:14

23:10 45:9 64:1,2

68:16 117:11,12

128:22 189:3,10

192:11,12 193:2

245:9 266:5 269:5

292:1 304:7

330:14 331:8

340:5 345:1,3

353:21

changed 71:20

140:15 193:1

211:21 251:11

331:7,16

changes 25:15 33:1

42:21 92:3 131:4

165:3 189:6 192:5

208:18 234:18

239:4 299:9,19

300:3 312:14,17

326:10,20 327:18

346:3

changing 151:10

193:8

channel 192:12,15

290:6

chapter 63:10 80:3

83:3 97:8 118:12

218:4 226:16

314:12,14 317:6

characteristics

24:12 141:2

characterize 62:20

103:15,21 276:8

charge 142:15,16

143:1

chart 62:14,16

64:20 70:12 82:7

167:10 171:6,15

233:10 264:10

272:17 301:12

336:3,12 337:3

charts 71:15 78:12

171:11

chassis 119:3

120:22 121:1,3,6

121:16 127:12,13

127:16 128:16

131:4,9,11,19

132:1,2,10,11,16

132:17 133:19

165:6

chassis-size 120:20

chose 184:7 336:1

chosen 182:8

Chris 2:7,10 6:3,17

39:11,12 84:21

93:19 94:1,22

103:11,12 123:20

125:10 126:6,7

169:13,14 174:7

212:12,13 218:5,6

220:16 248:5,6

258:20,21 291:7,8

315:16,17 319:20

328:6 337:19

Circuit 244:9

circumstances

148:18

citation 244:7,10

cited 243:3

claim 31:17

claims 19:3 20:18

clarification 66:3

66:19 75:7,9

80:11 95:12 144:2

301:13 353:15,19

clarifications

267:16

clarified 93:17

clarifing 115:7

clarify 50:1 136:12

136:17 146:5

217:2 292:8

clarifying 167:7

clarifying-type

338:17

class 100:16,18,18

140:8 162:6,19

163:19 211:14

225:12,16 226:10

240:20 292:11

classes 23:17 63:2

63:11,18 64:17,21

64:22 67:11 68:14

69:17,19 70:5,15

73:8 98:4 99:2,3

99:17 103:7 109:1

109:3 110:5

112:10 127:18

131:1,10 132:9

165:14 168:5

221:3 226:12

238:1,1,3,5

240:16 242:13

247:19 265:12,13

265:21 336:14

337:8

classification

300:13 305:22

cleanable 173:12

cleaner 34:21

cleaning 212:10

clear 79:2 102:14

125:12 130:21

137:11 191:16

192:4 216:10

253:22 290:18

306:14 319:22

clearly 100:17

112:2 228:18

249:19 296:4

clever 31:1

climate 2:9 6:6

29:2 144:1 269:3

climate-friendly

294:12

clock 286:14

close 10:5 129:3

244:5 245:4

322:17 352:9

closed 338:5

closer 189:22 347:4

347:22

closes 223:12

351:20

closest 188:15

198:13 215:6

closet 122:19

closing 3:16 9:18

33:10 350:1 352:8

352:21 354:18
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 362

code 300:14 301:2

coefficient 146:15

coffee 93:1,4

129:18 231:7

coil 293:17 294:2,7

colleagues 53:7

collected 79:17

107:16,18 118:16

collecting 191:1

collection 62:19

97:10,13 104:10

107:16

color 238:13

Colorado 29:14

column 67:3

combination

157:11 228:21

269:19 336:18

combined 234:4

come 71:18 138:18

145:5 155:18

161:7 170:1 203:2

225:1 241:20

246:10 247:12

256:15,20 284:5

322:20 346:10

348:16 353:20

comes 119:22

177:14 190:3

191:4 202:7 208:1

229:8 246:14,19

271:13 312:12

321:19

comfortable 5:8,9

24:16

coming 47:15

50:11 151:22

166:6 199:21

278:8,15 290:14

354:20

comment 8:12 13:4

13:11,12 14:8

15:14 28:11 29:7

56:15 66:5,18

71:16 74:1,16

79:15 83:8,9,13

86:19 89:20 91:17

92:10,10 101:16

103:9 109:20

119:11 127:3

129:9 137:8

138:20 143:21

145:20 154:16

161:18 162:12,15

182:21 190:10

193:11 196:18

199:15 205:22

216:4,6 222:8

224:5 246:22

254:9 260:5

277:13 283:11

291:10 299:7,21

300:5 307:3

311:13 313:9

318:22 337:6,9,11

337:22 340:5

341:20 351:20

352:2,5 355:7

commentary

138:21

commented 193:20

218:9,10 273:19

commenting 5:2

135:16

comments 19:20

20:7 21:13,15,22

28:15 50:9,11

53:11 54:12,21

56:19,22 57:1,6

57:10,12 72:2

74:7 79:20 96:4

110:11 116:12

117:8,18 123:19

126:10 129:6

139:20 150:18

151:2 171:6,11

174:9,13 182:14

193:20 199:20,22

200:7 202:14

203:19 205:20

206:21 221:6,12

224:19 230:20

235:7 245:14

253:20 276:6,11

282:17 295:20

300:1 311:3 312:1

318:22 319:4

325:10,14 326:9

326:10 328:5

329:15 335:11

337:14,16 344:21

345:5 351:21

352:8,9 353:4

354:12,22 355:11

commercial 1:4 4:9

12:17 15:1,7,16

16:11,18 17:11

21:20 22:18 23:4

32:9,13 38:10

45:1 46:4 55:11

56:14 58:14,17

59:4,21 102:20

134:11 135:12

136:8 148:18

150:1 152:16

158:13 194:8

215:2,7,10,12,15

216:11,13,16,20

237:17 242:22,22

243:7 244:1

249:12 276:9

283:20 286:6

297:10 300:9,14

300:17 301:6

308:6 311:21

319:3 321:15

322:8 328:10,20

332:4,7 334:20

350:15

commercialize

44:11 45:5

commercialized

15:11

commercializing

40:4

commercially

84:16,18 94:18

96:21 98:13

commitment 16:15

commitments

46:18

committed 40:4

347:13,15

Committee 340:6

common 153:18

commonly 111:3

communications

13:21 338:13

compact 121:12,14

companies 15:10

168:19 237:7

308:1 313:15

330:10

company 22:22

168:22 169:10

316:10,11,21

comparable 306:22

compare 109:13

compared 39:5

70:13 233:4 304:4

comparing 329:7

comparison 39:7

comparisons

147:18

compete 29:16,17

43:17 309:2

competing 43:18

279:5

competition 61:10

273:16 277:6

competitive 190:17

competitors 304:4

compiled 258:6

complaint 277:22

complete 10:5,8

31:21 44:12 49:8

58:19 187:17

completed 18:8

76:17

completely 87:10

149:2,11 151:12

155:11 322:16,17

331:17

completion 16:1

complex 38:7

137:14

complexity 153:8

compliance 18:11

19:14 62:1 296:3

299:16 353:4

compliant 40:6

277:9 278:4 282:3

299:11 304:13

complicated

146:21 171:6

comply 22:6 49:15

49:17 173:12

278:5,9

component 31:15

42:5 67:21 87:7

95:3 97:3 113:11

113:14 174:21,22

185:18 213:9

313:2 321:1,11

333:12,15

components 18:20

31:2 40:20 41:1

42:8,12,14 46:1

67:18 86:12,20

90:14 94:3 95:5

96:22 98:12

132:18 147:2

158:22

compounded 45:8

compressor 19:13

19:14 42:11 84:1

88:20,21 89:1,2,7

90:6 91:8,21 94:7

133:20 134:8

135:14,21 136:18

137:10 138:7

139:21 140:2,8,10

140:16,18 141:2

141:13 142:6

145:21,22 146:10

148:13,13 149:5

149:11,20 152:12

153:1,4,10 157:11

157:18 159:6,19

161:13 172:11

176:11 235:19

241:1,3,4

compressors 20:6

30:21 32:15 38:3

89:13,17 102:3
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 363

119:6 134:2 137:1

137:13 138:5

139:4 141:4,21

142:1,4 143:3,6

144:4 145:3 146:1

149:10,22 159:10

160:22 185:14

211:21

comprised 97:16

compromise

345:12

con 326:10

concept 190:5

concern 19:11 20:9

25:7 52:16 74:2

110:20 155:20

201:15 231:15

234:8 235:17

277:8 278:2

281:12 286:14

345:4

concerned 12:11

128:5 146:9 149:9

162:18 234:10,16

concerns 12:10

15:18 26:18 47:10

50:12 52:12

117:20 235:13

277:2 282:21

294:13 339:7

342:11 344:8

concise 10:10

conclude 112:20

161:17

concluded 107:4

concludes 55:14

conclusion 184:22

289:19

concur 128:15

148:9 152:2

concurring 159:18

condenser 42:21

54:10 65:6 66:10

84:2 97:17 98:8

98:10 107:19

118:4,22 119:1,3

119:12,12 120:15

120:22 121:1

128:16 132:8

158:3 159:20

209:10

condensers 32:15

102:3 211:21

condensing 59:6

65:7,11 66:13

113:10 119:16

120:3

condition 27:9

41:10,19 85:4,10

85:15 119:16,19

144:21 145:4,6

conditioners 255:4

334:5,15

conditioning 14:19

32:8 122:16

152:15,17 175:21

245:1 300:16

332:3

conditions 27:15

55:1 147:1 153:13

225:21

conduct 110:16

274:9 275:18

conducted 20:10

85:6 99:15 113:20

147:5,13 282:10

282:14

conference 198:15

199:8

confidence 216:2

confident 215:14

215:16

confidential 275:10

349:6

configuration

109:6 110:4 132:4

140:8 158:15

configurations

182:3,6

confined 54:6

127:22

confirm 85:1 94:5

95:7 127:15 210:1

353:3

confusing 25:19

conjunction 31:14

278:13

connection 4:4

53:22

connection’s 93:18

consensus 340:12

consequences

346:21

conservation 1:3

4:8 15:15 17:20

21:9 58:7,10

186:1 242:21

313:6

conservative

304:17

consider 54:17

55:6,9 57:8 65:2

80:1 82:22 88:1

110:22 127:2

131:4 132:8,10,16

210:1 292:9

350:21

considerable 16:4

considerably 18:17

249:22

consideration 10:1

41:1 47:18 54:10

82:16 127:9 141:5

296:10 343:8

considerations

39:21 181:10

considered 79:22

81:3 83:6,14

87:19 88:12,13

106:4,6,12,19

110:14 118:11

119:2 121:3

142:13 143:17

165:17 257:14,22

305:3,15 313:1

considering 50:15

63:16 182:1

consistent 19:6,8

46:17 52:20

134:10 268:7

283:19 289:19

consistently 251:14

consists 59:6

constant 238:6

241:21 303:2

constrain 109:7

constrained 43:9

129:21 151:9

constraining 42:2

constraint 120:5

construction

270:21

consultant 95:18

consulting 2:1,2,12

7:3,5,9,11 94:16

272:14 274:5

consumer 168:9

200:16,17 236:17

251:2,3 276:20

290:11

consumers 51:7

61:9 281:7,12

consumption 37:21

91:1 161:9

contact 35:21

contain 283:18

contains 80:4

contamination

35:22

content 8:12,18

9:15 55:18 56:9

93:20

CONTENTS 2:18

context 186:16

218:14 225:1

228:22 296:21

continue 29:20

49:3 61:4 174:16

292:8

continued 3:9

continuing 96:3

280:4

continuous 30:1

34:15 60:6 63:21

64:15 68:14 69:9

69:12,17 70:5,15

74:10 76:13 82:12

90:16 118:7

165:11,14 168:15

169:2 171:11

351:15 352:15

continuous-type

72:13

continuously 30:15

contractor 342:21

344:11

contractors 15:5

80:16 124:18

338:8

contracts 198:11

contradicts 44:1

contribution

141:20

contributions

217:6

control 188:2

control-circuit

31:1

controlled 140:17

170:21

controls 161:8

203:17

conversation 11:6

50:7 208:7,12

conversations

10:13 117:2 343:4

conversion 299:5

303:13 311:19

convinced 25:15

32:5 164:9

Cooke 2:3 7:12,12

123:9,9 124:8,15

125:3 185:1 188:1

188:4,5 190:8

191:14 198:8

199:5 202:16,19

204:5 206:4,10,20

208:5,17 209:13

210:15,17,20

212:19 214:19,22

215:11,16 216:14

216:19 217:7

218:19 219:21

220:22 224:21

228:8,18 229:10
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 364

230:16 235:5

236:7 241:19

242:6,9,18 243:8

243:11,15,19

244:16,18 247:6

248:9 249:18

250:13 253:7

258:1,9,13 259:3

259:13 263:3,9,13

265:5,10 267:5,8

268:4,13,16 269:9

270:5,9,14 271:8

272:7

cool 30:22 143:14

143:16 330:12

cooled 26:20 65:13

65:14,21,22 66:8

66:10,13 67:7

70:15,16 82:12,13

118:5 119:1,12

120:15 163:19

164:3

cooler 128:16

cooling 15:1 67:5

67:12 126:15

coordinated 287:19

copper 86:3 116:8

copy 57:14 58:1

351:22

Corporation 2:2

5:20 34:2

corporations

334:18

correct 24:10 65:19

71:14 75:19 78:20

90:8 168:10

183:13 193:6

206:4 208:16,17

216:14,19 246:4

246:20 253:6,18

257:19 258:2

259:4 264:11,20

271:8 293:19

302:22 303:6,17

303:20 317:1,10

317:14 320:20

341:22 353:5

354:1,4

corrected 341:16

correcting 276:14

289:15

correctly 77:1

155:15 230:11

correlation 108:6

111:12,16

corresponding

20:3 34:18

corresponds

298:17 304:8

cost 3:6,8 17:12,19

18:22 19:16 20:4

20:6 25:1,4,9,12

33:4 42:5,9,11

44:13 50:22 51:3

51:6,13,15,16,17

52:1,5 86:1,6,8,9

86:14,20 87:7,13

91:9 96:15 99:16

99:21 100:21

103:22 104:17,19

106:1,2,15,20

107:8,15 108:7,13

110:16 112:12,18

112:21 113:12

114:2,4 115:9,16

116:8,17 117:6

118:1 121:3,6,7

122:7,12 123:3,11

123:13,14 124:17

128:21 134:9

135:6,15 136:5

137:7 138:13

142:20 145:2

149:19 155:22

159:4,11 162:5

166:10 167:1,3,18

168:6 172:7,17,21

173:3,4,10,15

174:14,20 175:22

189:4,4 190:12

191:3,8,12,18

197:20,21 200:12

200:15,16 201:5,7

201:16,20 202:7

202:22 207:2,8,10

207:13,17 208:13

209:12,13,18

210:13,22,22

211:1,1,8,13

212:4,6,7,17,22

213:10,21 214:4

217:13 218:20

219:16 221:17,18

226:10,12,20

227:13,22 228:14

229:11 230:5,7,10

230:13,21 231:16

231:18,20 234:3

235:19 246:11

272:21 280:13,14

287:8 288:10,12

293:21 296:5,17

297:1 298:11

309:18 310:16

315:7 318:20

325:11 333:4,13

333:15 336:7

341:18

cost-effective

158:22 227:20

230:4 253:13

cost-efficiency

96:14

cost/benefit 284:15

costed 174:21

costly 32:22

costs 9:3 19:6 20:13

36:7 41:16 42:22

43:19 44:19 45:22

86:19 87:13 97:18

103:16 104:1,6

106:14,22 108:10

116:1,11,13,21

118:2 121:1,20

122:19 123:5,16

124:16,16 134:21

137:10 150:5

168:3,9,9 172:13

174:5,6 188:14,14

188:19 189:2,9,12

191:1 196:3,4,6,7

202:4 211:19

212:5,11,15,16

213:1,11,17 219:8

219:20 221:9,10

228:3 229:14,18

229:21 246:14

251:16 287:16

288:17 299:5,12

303:13 311:19

318:19 327:19

couldn’t 123:3

Council 54:4

counsel 6:20 7:1

343:19 345:19

counterparts 30:14

countries 166:6

country 125:17

251:6 330:18

couple 11:14 39:15

104:5 169:16

177:10 187:12

208:21 212:10

334:1 350:7

course 56:15,18

68:21 69:13 89:21

118:12 161:17

216:6 222:20

236:9 252:15

257:6 339:22

court 187:1

cover 63:13 64:3

178:16 196:5,7

209:17 295:12

coverage 58:13

63:17,21 64:5

covered 9:21 63:17

69:22 91:12 93:20

97:7,8 127:1

178:15 202:16

228:11 251:17

292:10 304:22

305:1,6,9 311:14

354:16

covers 133:18

CPI 213:17

Craig 2:9 6:5

143:21,21,22

269:2

cranking 224:10

CRE 19:7,9,19,21

47:21 136:17

149:16 292:4,9,10

326:8,10 351:13

create 34:17 61:11

103:6 120:12

created 328:2

creates 328:21

creating 16:15

282:1

credibility 195:9

credible 21:9

credit 251:3,22

252:4,11

criteria 34:12

43:21 60:13 82:17

273:4

critical 28:16 32:2

274:4 333:17

critically 277:11

cross 35:22

crunch 343:21

344:14

crunched 108:5

cube-type 63:13

64:7,9 69:20

cubic 41:14,22 43:5

cumulative 273:17

curiosity 282:7

curious 145:4

current 15:21 16:2

17:4,10 31:8

33:16 63:12 69:20

75:11,14 103:20

112:22 124:12

140:10 158:20

159:13 236:18

284:15 285:3,4

294:8 313:5 315:6

351:6

currently 20:21

40:20 107:22

185:6 186:20

240:12

curve 71:20 100:22
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 365

152:19 166:11

172:13

curves 96:14 99:16

99:22 100:5,8

103:5 104:18,20

112:21 114:4

145:2 153:10

162:5 167:3 168:2

272:22

customer 44:14

88:8 108:18

109:16 158:17

188:15 189:16,20

189:22 198:13

239:8

customer's 217:15

customer’s 149:1

customers 26:8

27:18 30:3,4,10

30:11 32:4 33:6

40:6 41:13 43:4

43:21 61:5 207:6

217:8 223:22

271:14

Customs 278:14

cut 84:6 220:6

316:6

cutoff 317:6

cycle 25:9 32:13

51:6,15 58:20

64:11,12 123:11

147:12 148:16

160:21 223:9

324:14

cycles 153:20

cyclic 64:10

cylinder 90:18

Cymbalsky 1:16

4:15,16,17 8:12

11:9,10,11 25:18

26:1,4 56:3,6

76:18,19,19 81:11

81:12 100:12,13

100:14 102:16

150:16,17 154:9

156:15,17,18

166:17 167:1,19

168:8 170:4,4

174:17,18 181:12

181:12 182:8,18

183:9,18 184:4

186:4,7,9,12,15

193:6 200:9,9

202:2 206:16

216:10,15 217:3

219:3,4 220:18

229:3,4 232:14,15

233:12,17,20

235:2,6 243:5,9

243:12,18 244:2

246:8,9,20 248:11

248:13,14,17,18

249:6 253:10,11

253:17 254:17,21

255:3,9,14 259:7

259:8,14 260:18

264:3,11,14,18

266:9,9 270:17,18

271:9,20 272:2

283:9,10 285:8,19

286:1 287:10

288:13 290:11,20

291:16 292:2

294:18,19 303:16

307:20,21 310:1

312:8,9 321:17

326:13 328:12

329:17 331:2,3

334:10 335:15

338:7 339:11

341:19 342:16

343:10 345:16

348:7 349:15,19

350:2,5,7,10

351:7,10 352:19

354:18,19

D

D.C 1:12 4:11

daily 29:22

Danfoss 2:7,13 6:4

8:3 19:22 91:6

120:19 134:6

175:10 193:17

321:9

danger 133:11

dark 242:2

Daryl 2:4 6:1 21:16

26:5 47:13 66:7

66:17 73:22

108:14 110:11

111:7,8 112:1

116:14,15 119:9

127:3 129:10,11

133:3,4 135:7

138:17 144:18,19

146:7,20 148:11

152:2 154:17,18

157:15,16 159:18

162:9 171:12,13

177:9 190:2 191:6

191:17 201:11

209:6 225:3

230:15,17 233:13

233:22 235:12

248:22 249:1,16

256:20 261:10,12

265:22 286:8,9

309:17 344:2,3

Daryl's 237:21

263:18

Daryl’s 34:7

144:11 174:13

dash 319:12

dashes 57:18

data 24:5 25:2

42:18 62:19,22,22

68:19 69:1,3,14

70:6,7,20 71:6,9

71:18 74:8,10,14

75:10,11,12,14,20

75:21 76:2,9,12

77:5,19 78:9,11

79:1,2 82:2 85:12

89:5,22 92:1,1

97:10,13,15

104:10,21 106:9

106:13 107:16,16

107:18,18,19,20

108:2 118:15,16

118:17,18 138:22

139:13 140:15

142:8 146:16

147:15,18 150:21

150:22 151:2,15

151:17,20 152:5,8

155:12 158:11

160:8 161:18

169:18,19,21,22

170:3,6,7,8,11,14

172:21 174:10

175:16 202:11

208:1 211:7

213:14 214:15

218:14 220:21

222:4 223:22

234:3 236:11,12

236:12,15 237:6,8

237:9,18 241:6

247:2 251:13

260:20 261:7

263:22 264:1

265:3 266:12,14

266:17,19 267:4,5

267:15,21 268:6

268:11 270:12

289:12 332:7

336:7,7,8,10

337:22 338:2,4,10

338:18 341:21

343:1,15 344:8,11

345:5 346:2,8,10

347:21 348:12,14

348:15,17 355:12

database 52:7,14

71:13 97:15

106:21 107:17

142:4 166:4

217:10 229:18

240:10 258:6

261:2 263:9,14

264:4,14 265:7

276:17 289:13

300:21,22 301:3

databases 300:20

datapoint 331:18

datasets 236:19

date 19:14 44:17

45:6 49:19 62:1

299:13,16 303:15

323:17 353:4,6

354:8

day 9:18,19 28:4

30:18 58:15 63:15

64:4 70:4 93:7

148:20 200:11

223:17 352:10

day’s 28:8

DC 158:8 159:8,10

de-rating 155:13

deadline 44:9

45:15 49:12,14,17

57:5 61:20 102:14

150:10 341:13

deal 23:4 38:8

130:5 142:17

143:3 262:10,21

287:1

dealer 192:22

198:7 201:22

dealers 15:5

dealing 348:6

dealt 52:20

debate 201:8

debating 194:17

195:12

decades 135:22

decide 227:21

240:15

decided 216:3

326:11

deciding 11:19

decision 43:21

194:2,16 294:20

295:4 308:21

309:1 355:9

decisions 53:1

276:21,21 334:18

deck 226:14

declaration 55:4

declassification

305:22

decline 67:19 214:9

245:12 270:2

335:4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 366

decrease 37:21,22

decreased 41:21

dedicated 241:3

deemed 255:4

deep 48:8

deer 34:19

default 49:20

Defense 54:4

deficiencies 24:7

define 68:4

defined 70:1

103:20 167:20

225:6

definitely 219:7

definition 59:2,3,13

103:17 183:6

249:21 292:9,13

definitions 64:14

64:16

defrost 32:12

148:19,22 153:19

degree 27:8,8 146:3

146:4

deja 47:19

deLaski 6:15,15

48:6,7 130:21

131:3,6 184:6

195:14 196:12

221:16 253:22

255:12,15,19,21

256:12,15 258:8

258:11

DeLaski's 353:4

delist 11:20,20

294:20

delisted 295:6

delisting 285:14,20

deliver 30:5 56:9

delivering 224:9

demand 61:6 270:2

272:1 281:15

demanding 31:5

demands 40:6

denominated

247:11

Denver 29:14

Department 1:1,16

1:16,17 4:19 6:20

6:22 10:16 11:12

21:8 39:17 49:8

49:11,16,20 52:22

53:15 54:15 89:21

177:12 221:22

256:2,5 264:6

266:14 277:15

279:12 283:13

284:13 311:4

323:15 340:2,19

343:4 348:11

Department's

339:17

Department’s 14:5

16:15 52:19 53:6

departure 313:5

dependent 183:11

depending 51:22

243:22

Depot 290:2,4,12

depreciation 297:2

depth 159:19

derive 172:14

derived 247:9

305:5

describe 118:9

157:9

described 19:9

167:2 287:13

328:13

describing 219:10

219:18 345:18

description 63:10

225:20 226:2

317:5

descriptions

172:10

DeSHETLER 2:4

7:18,18 80:9,9

166:1,1,14,20

208:4,6,10,11

209:3 210:2

245:17,17 246:18

301:10,10,20

302:3,8,17,20,22

303:3 314:3

322:12,12 329:22

329:22 346:14

design 19:1 20:12

20:14 21:1,3

22:14 27:12 34:12

40:11 79:14 80:2

81:6 83:4,6,10

94:19 96:16

105:20,21 106:7

107:6,9 114:7,13

117:20 118:10

119:8 121:7 127:5

128:4 141:2 165:3

172:10 292:15

294:1 313:1

designed 141:6

163:10 181:18

208:20 241:2

designing 22:9

designs 17:22

309:6,7 332:10

despite 281:8

detail 28:4 60:20

77:22 83:3 117:7

141:17 172:7

detailed 8:12 21:13

63:10 80:4 89:20

92:10 105:9,14

109:2 170:17

174:20

details 82:8 97:7

111:4 118:11

161:5,11 314:9

330:3,3

determine 58:20

60:16 112:12

120:2 300:9

318:20 353:21

355:2,5,8

determined 62:1

149:16 208:13

254:18 256:1,8

305:17 309:15

determines 260:7

353:8

determining

112:21 225:22

Detlef 2:12 7:4,8

62:8 78:14 79:1

82:5 97:14 107:17

110:9,10 117:22

136:11,16 145:8

146:18 155:4

209:20 240:10

274:17 290:21

detrimental 41:19

devastating 33:8

develop 41:13

44:11 45:4 46:5

66:12 86:9 274:3

274:21 296:6

developed 16:8

24:6 35:3 48:17

81:15 86:14

124:15 184:21

247:15 289:13

developing 40:4

107:7,8 177:13

development 30:16

40:14 44:8,15

69:16 183:15

212:18 218:12

220:2,7,14 281:21

299:8,18 300:2

315:15

diagram 113:16

114:10,12

dialog 338:3,10

339:21

dialogue 53:7

diameter 90:19,20

dictated 325:20

dictating 45:9

didn’t 72:17 74:19

100:6 110:18

111:5 142:21

169:19

differ 152:14

difference 21:1

64:8 138:1 140:14

191:11 239:15

348:4,6

different 11:14

20:22 23:16 36:4

56:13 57:11 60:2

60:8,15 63:2

67:10,11,11 68:17

73:7,8,10 79:6

81:13,20 82:3

87:19 88:2,3

97:16 98:2,4 99:1

99:11,17 102:4,8

104:11,17,19

106:4,17 107:5,22

108:3,20 109:14

109:18 111:19

112:10,13 113:18

113:19 115:9,12

116:18 118:2

131:10 137:22

139:4 141:7

144:22 147:1,2,3

147:3 149:2 150:7

159:22 160:7

163:22,22 165:13

167:20 181:14

188:17 192:18

201:17 211:9,22

216:16 242:12

257:7 262:5 267:6

271:12 286:11

290:7 324:8

327:10,21 331:13

331:14 339:19

340:4 345:17

differently 102:2

149:22

difficult 16:3 57:16

66:9 262:20 296:4

340:10

dig 5:9 145:14

digest 338:2

digress 90:4

diligence 335:7

dimension 43:6

dimensions 122:4

diminish 10:20

diode 5:14

direct 141:3,4

273:16

direction 15:21
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 367

178:10

directly 8:17 9:2,9

88:13,16 143:12

187:13 189:15,19

238:21 321:5

327:11

directory 69:15

71:19

disadvantaged

229:13

disadvantaging

232:11

discharge 141:9,10

discharged 141:9

disclose 116:4

275:10

disconnect 24:22

117:1,12 141:19

257:19

discontinue 280:7

discount 217:7,14

217:15 247:7

325:19 326:3

discounted 247:10

275:1 298:9,10

326:2

discovering 75:11

discrepancies

346:19

discrepancy 182:15

discrete 88:18

228:20 261:20

263:11 275:14

discuss 91:7,14

345:13

discussed 63:7 83:3

91:10 97:14

208:18 211:4

235:20 240:10

244:21 245:2

272:20

discussing 167:4

discussion 28:8

50:15 80:4 174:16

228:9 234:5

245:13 342:20

discussions 89:11

97:2 113:13 116:2

139:16 187:4

disentangle 220:19

dispenser 35:5,9,20

130:1 163:12

223:8

dispensers 35:15

43:11 163:9 223:7

dispensing 59:10

59:11

disproportionate

273:13 300:7

304:5

disproportionately

230:14

disruptive 31:12

distinction 67:9

191:15

distinguish 67:4

distribution 188:13

189:13,20 198:12

240:18,18 261:4

266:8 290:6

distributor 197:18

distributors 194:19

196:11 198:18

diverse 153:12

diverted 281:22

divide 207:19

docket 58:2 135:13

136:8 197:9,13

312:7 339:3

dockets 137:21

196:15

document 19:3

57:4 134:12 149:8

314:10

documented 54:21

218:3

documents 135:11

DOE 11:11 13:7

14:2 15:9,14 16:4

16:20 17:12,18

18:8,22 19:19,21

20:5,17,20 21:3

22:3 28:19 31:17

32:6 39:21 43:13

44:6 47:17,18

52:6 56:6 58:15

58:19 59:16 60:9

61:14 63:16 68:22

69:19,22 70:6

73:18 76:20 79:10

79:13,17 80:12

81:12 82:14 83:2

83:9,11 85:7 88:1

88:5 92:19 97:10

97:13,15 98:6,22

99:15,16 104:10

104:17,22 105:18

105:19 106:3,6,12

106:19 107:4,16

108:9 111:3

112:14 113:12

118:14 123:21

124:5 128:10

137:20 141:20

147:13 150:17

161:17 163:21

170:5,20 174:18

183:12 185:18,22

186:3 194:5

195:17 196:22

200:10 242:20

244:8 252:2 253:4

253:8,22 254:13

255:8 256:1 292:7

294:21 307:19

309:13 312:4

323:1 340:7 348:7

351:4

DOE's 216:8

292:18 300:21

DOE’s 19:12 46:8

51:3,12 59:12

102:14 112:11

doesn’t 37:15

60:13 71:19

116:20 132:17

133:8 141:15

142:8 145:5

146:16 168:21

170:22

doing 103:1 105:3

147:22 195:9

197:14 200:22

248:16 259:5

273:22 278:17

285:16 287:5

293:9 301:4

313:17 319:7

dollar 86:5 116:7

195:20

dollars 44:11 88:16

189:3 247:12

302:17,21 324:21

327:15

domestic 46:12

166:18 301:4

313:3 315:21

316:7,11 317:22

319:1 320:7

domestically 278:5

310:7,20 316:9

don’t 7:6 12:9 13:2

13:15,19 22:13

23:10,14 24:13

28:7 47:18 53:3

73:7,19 77:8,12

77:21 78:1 81:5

84:13 90:4 100:15

101:9 109:13

110:1,12 111:18

121:9 134:17

135:10 136:14

142:12 143:16

144:16 155:10

158:14 163:21

168:17 170:11

173:19 174:3

donations 102:17

Donuts 93:2

dots 57:18

double 173:7

Doug 1:12,15,17

4:12,16 6:21

11:10 50:1 55:21

62:10 123:17

125:11 177:8

180:7,7 244:14

256:12 264:22

277:15 278:19

279:10 352:22

download 217:10

downs 81:19

269:16

downsizing 163:3

downstream 62:15

87:21 89:15 99:21

115:13 123:12

219:19 272:18

274:1 321:1

downward 269:21

DPE 112:19

DR 184:1 185:21

186:6 199:18

214:13,18,21

215:9,14 216:5

218:5 254:8,20

255:6,17,20 264:9

264:13,16,19

267:1,7 284:10

285:13,22 286:4

307:17 312:3

333:22 342:6,19

348:20

drafted 312:11

drain 98:13 118:21

185:5

dramatically 36:3

draw 34:18

drawing 203:16

drawn 317:6

drawn-out 160:9

drill 92:19

drive 36:7 110:1

drive-though 130:5

drive-through

222:10

drive-throughs

129:15,16

driven 159:8,9

304:10 310:21

driver 237:15

drivers 300:4

drives 109:5

155:22 243:14

272:1 348:14
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 368

driving 348:13

drop 270:8 315:11

dropping 313:12

315:20

drought 55:1,4

drove 193:2 265:5

276:20

due 82:17 212:17

218:10,11 327:9

335:6

Dun 301:3

Dunkin 93:2

duplicative 129:10

duty 223:9

dwell 62:17 110:12

207:22

E

e-mail 57:13,14,17

58:2

earlier 134:7,20

158:16 160:20

164:16 174:9

187:4 208:6,12

211:4 222:2,6,7

225:4 226:11

231:9 232:16

234:4 238:20

240:11,21 244:6

244:21 245:2

257:11 273:19

274:18 276:4

279:3 299:22

309:1 310:12

312:22 315:11

336:4 339:12

340:18

early 49:6 299:7

earnings 297:20

easier 35:11

Easton 34:4

easy 102:21 284:22

eaten 294:6

echo 47:5 235:12

344:5 348:8

ECMs 42:8

economic 26:9

40:13 43:12,14

47:13 188:6 207:6

273:5 308:18

309:7,14,19

334:18 335:20

economically 46:15

60:10

economics 313:22

economist 201:12

306:13 307:2

316:18

economy 248:19

249:10 321:22

327:21 328:14,21

329:1,13 330:20

330:21

Ed 54:3 55:13,16

Edward 53:11,19

EER 19:4 88:22

89:3,7 140:1,9

148:13 152:4

effect 15:19 22:20

27:17 44:7 48:14

74:4 139:10

141:16 149:3

214:7 246:4

321:18

effective 46:14

49:19 50:22 51:3

51:6,13,16,17

52:1,5 299:13

303:15

effectiveness 17:19

42:15

effects 24:17 98:9

220:20 298:1

efficience 123:1

efficiencies 118:19

210:9

efficiency 2:11 6:14

16:13 17:5,8 19:1

19:15 20:11,13

21:1 22:6,10,15

24:8 26:21 27:20

30:17 31:6 32:15

33:12,14 34:14

35:1,8 36:3,22

37:5,9,13 39:2,18

39:22 40:17 41:3

42:11 44:16 45:3

45:14 46:9,13

48:12 51:21 52:4

55:7,9 61:4 63:5

67:14,15,18 69:18

69:21 70:8,11

88:21 89:9 91:8

91:22 95:7 98:5

99:16,22 100:21

103:16,16,18

104:7,18,19

106:16,17 107:1

108:8,12,22 109:8

109:12 110:1

111:2,6,12,19

112:6,14,21 113:7

113:8 114:4 118:6

121:16 123:2

131:15,17,21

132:6 133:20,21

134:8,22 135:5,14

135:19 136:5,18

136:21 137:12

138:9,12 139:12

140:5,12 141:13

141:21 142:1,8

149:5,18 150:5

154:3 155:19

156:5 157:10

161:18,21 162:5

163:22 164:2

165:9,11 166:9,11

167:3,14,17 168:2

168:3 172:1,14

180:21 185:13

187:11 201:2

207:12 225:5,8,11

225:15,22 226:5

227:12 239:21

240:17 251:7,11

257:6,13,21 258:7

258:10,14 259:2,4

261:4 262:3,9,14

262:17,22 263:1

270:3 271:13

272:22 276:13

277:1 278:12

281:19 284:2,8

286:20 289:20

291:21 294:7

323:5 340:8 341:4

341:18

efficient 18:20

30:10,21,21,22

38:9,19 40:5

109:11 153:1,3

157:18 158:3

160:10,22 161:3

167:2 186:19

219:6 281:8

efficiently 16:9

effort 38:8 128:17

284:13 285:2

efforts 39:18 44:6

44:15 97:10,14

EIA 213:5 327:1

EIA's 247:17 327:1

eight 44:13 45:14

78:17 241:14

eight-and-a-half

212:3 217:18

218:2 233:6

eight-and-a-half-...

217:19

Eighty 32:19

Eighty-six 295:16

295:18

either 90:17,18

111:6 126:14

183:1 201:9

226:15 236:19

239:9 243:22

257:19 266:2

280:13 332:13

351:22

EL 166:9,9,9,9,10

168:6 171:15

182:10 183:1

EL-4 167:11,18,19

167:21

EL5 181:8

elastic 234:20

elasticity 234:19

electric 213:3

electrical 85:3

126:20 127:6

160:2 208:14

221:17

electricity 213:8

229:20 322:1

327:5 328:15

element 172:18

elements 172:21

173:5

elevator 93:3

elicit 193:10

ELs 336:5

else's 330:21

embraced 48:18

emergency 55:4

Emerson 2:9 6:5

144:1 269:2

emissions 3:13

250:3,5 324:7,9

324:10,11,15

335:21

empirical 106:12

employ 15:4

313:20

employed 330:6

employee 316:19

employees 305:19

315:22 318:1,12

320:2 328:10

employers 328:10

employment 3:14

9:11 273:16

305:18 313:4,5,14

314:22 315:20,21

316:8,13 317:2,22

318:12 319:2

320:1,8,22 321:2

321:10,12,14,18

322:15 324:8,8

327:7 328:8 335:7

347:17

enable 122:13

enactment 48:19

encourage 28:5
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 369

123:18 125:21

encouraged 177:7

encouraging 49:16

332:1

end-consumer

290:10,13

end-point 200:21

end-purchaser

201:20

end-use 156:8

239:8

end-user 108:19

end-users 34:11

35:3 102:8 128:18

129:7 133:9 204:3

205:15,20

ended 251:1

endorse 126:9

endorses 39:17

ends 92:21 163:13

energy 1:1,3,16,16

1:17 2:11 3:6,8

4:8 6:14,20 9:3

15:15 17:20,20

19:2 21:4,9 22:15

25:11,14 29:20

30:9,17 31:6,8

33:3,12,14 34:13

34:18,22 35:8

36:2,22 37:1,5,9

37:13,21 38:9,18

39:1,3 40:2,5

46:16 48:11,14

53:16 58:6,9

59:17 67:17,19

69:11 73:3,14,17

74:3 75:21,22

76:14,17 77:2,7

77:10,18 78:5,9

78:18 80:17 81:3

83:1 96:16 97:4

98:9,11,12 105:21

105:22 106:22

107:18 108:7,12

108:21 109:8

112:14 113:11,20

114:1 131:21

138:9 139:9,12

143:15 148:2

154:6 155:19

156:21 157:8

159:5 161:4,9,14

172:12,13 180:4

186:1 202:20

203:5,20 207:14

213:7 226:5

227:12 230:7,8,10

236:22 237:3,9,10

239:1,11,22 240:1

240:6 247:17

248:7 251:5,8,11

251:13 252:21

253:14 254:10,15

254:16 260:7

267:8,21 268:5,6

268:11 270:2,15

276:15 277:16

278:12 281:19

284:13 313:6

327:4,19 352:16

352:16,17

Energy’s 6:22

10:16 39:18

enforce 46:11

81:22

enforcement 277:3

277:11,17 280:1

enforcement-wise

278:11

engage 123:21

126:3

engagement 48:9

engineer 83:19

84:11 201:13

289:3 316:21

engineered 86:15

112:7

engineering 3:4 9:1

14:18 17:8 20:12

20:19 22:22 29:10

31:14 32:1 39:13

60:19 82:16 83:7

85:20 91:12 95:16

95:20 96:7,8,13

96:19,20 97:11,21

98:16 99:19

100:20 101:17

105:3 106:1,14

107:11 113:21

115:14 118:18

161:21 176:20

180:10 202:21

203:2,7,12 212:21

214:4 240:21

272:21 274:2

289:11 312:22

315:8 317:2

335:20 336:6

engineers 38:7

101:2 159:22

enjoy 96:3

enlighten 285:10

enormous 22:16

entered 277:6

entertaining 339:9

entire 11:13 27:4

28:7 34:6 46:10

138:8 166:17

216:17 249:10

286:19 291:15

297:21 317:22

334:6

entirely 129:10

entirety 297:18

entrants 277:5

envelop 90:20

envelope 41:5,16

41:17,20 42:17

85:5

environment

170:21

environmental

41:10 85:4 347:14

environmentally

232:4

environments

41:12

EPA 11:18 13:5,8

28:22 45:11 53:7

285:1,13,16

286:17 287:11

288:15 294:22

295:4

EPA's 284:6

EPA’s 12:4

EPAC 63:13

EPACT 58:12

EPCA 58:13 59:16

60:22 273:5

equal 226:4

equation 68:9

72:14,17,20 73:11

350:11

equations 73:16

350:20

equilibrium 322:4

equipment 2:6

12:18 15:2 16:8

17:22 22:19 29:12

40:13 41:4,11,13

43:5 47:9 52:9

58:11 60:4 63:1

63:11 64:21,22

65:1 67:12 68:14

69:19 76:1 79:13

79:15 82:19,20

86:12 98:4 99:2

99:17,22 102:21

103:17 110:5

112:10 113:14

118:2 121:13

123:1 126:21

131:10 150:2

165:14 168:5

180:21 188:8

203:14 207:9,11

207:19 211:14,20

215:8 217:9

218:18 221:2,7

225:12,16 226:10

226:12 233:5

237:20 240:1,4,16

243:14 245:2

246:11,15 247:1

247:19 248:3

251:16 269:14

276:22 283:21

292:11,12,14

295:2 296:18

297:19 299:11

300:16,18 305:6

305:10 310:17

311:18 316:1,15

317:8 327:18

336:14

equivalent 148:21

251:20 316:14

equivalents 318:18

Erbs 2:4 6:1,1

21:17 25:22 26:6

66:4,8,19 67:1

74:1 108:15 111:8

111:8 116:15,15

119:9,9 120:11

129:11 133:4,4

138:19 144:16,20

145:11,13,18

146:8 154:18,18

157:16,16 162:10

162:17 171:13,13

172:16 190:3

191:6,6 192:8

201:12 209:7,16

230:17,17 233:8

233:15,19,22

249:1,1 261:12,12

286:9,9 344:3,3

ERGS 129:11

error 57:21 160:4

231:12

errors 230:21

escalate 214:5

escalated 213:15

escalation 213:8

especially 98:7

116:21

essence 230:2

245:11

essentially 25:21

62:19 73:5 188:19

203:1 212:1 237:1

241:15 245:4

315:20 321:19

establish 96:13

108:6 186:1
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 370

established 16:12

58:10 63:12 64:14

145:3 219:11

establishes 96:15

establishing 21:8

46:13

estimate 17:12,19

105:22 106:2

214:4 218:20

221:9 236:9

238:22 239:3,13

269:7 298:7 300:7

304:16 313:10

318:16 326:20

327:8

estimated 86:20

211:2 213:21

238:16 301:14

311:18,20 315:1

317:10 319:1

328:1

estimates 15:9 86:9

86:14 147:7 210:7

estimating 123:13

estimation 299:17

et 335:21

evaluate 50:13

54:15 56:13

evaluated 183:17

evaluating 50:14

evaluation 43:13

43:15 85:1 94:4

94:12 127:1,4,9

218:16 291:15

evaluations 45:20

45:21

evap 333:3

evaporating 146:4

146:4

evaporator 42:20

85:22 86:4 87:6

90:17 117:10

142:12 143:5,11

143:13,15,19

173:1,3,8 191:10

191:12 209:10

evaporators 86:2

87:11 142:11

157:22

event 61:19 143:7

146:12

eventually 12:14

ever-changing 30:3

ever-shrinking

30:6

everybody 11:22

148:10 336:5

342:22 346:15

354:20

Everybody’s 10:3

everyday 30:20

206:7

evidence 194:2

evidenced 54:19

ex 338:12

exact 191:19 243:4

244:10 266:12

297:13

exactly 63:19 117:3

148:10 158:14

160:19 161:6

245:19 260:12

265:22 266:19

286:12 317:5

example 20:20

34:15 101:8

129:14 139:18

141:22 211:18

222:10 239:22

258:4 259:9,21

334:15 336:15

351:11

examples 174:2

334:1,7

exceed 263:1

exceeded 44:10

Excel 351:12

excepted 293:4

exception 292:19

exceptions 208:21

excess 206:6

excessive 45:6

exchanger 133:19

185:5

exchangers 98:14

118:22

exchanges 142:10

exciting 163:6

exclusively 166:4

excuse 180:6 215:1

exempt 177:16

293:5

exemption 177:17

292:19,19

exercise 62:19

exist 284:16

existing 31:7 33:6

53:1 59:18 89:1

90:6 99:3 126:21

132:4,11 137:13

156:21 277:9

exists 51:4 245:5

251:10

expand 104:15

139:20

expanded 18:16

60:4 305:2

expect 23:5 44:18

282:16

expectations 41:7

170:3

expected 16:20

20:16 156:1 212:2

304:7 346:22

expedited 44:8

212:18 218:12

220:1,14

expenditure 16:3

expenditures

327:19 328:16

expenses 44:10

247:10 333:7,19

expensive 158:9,10

experience 40:8

45:16 138:10

139:8 147:22

148:3 152:18

169:19 271:12

273:14 347:6

experienced 139:3

229:20

experiencing

330:22

experiential 213:22

214:10,17,18,19

246:3

experiment 140:17

experimental 22:11

155:12 214:16

expiration 44:19

269:13

explain 228:7

explains 269:15

explanation 65:15

explicitly 12:19

28:19 198:4

exploratory 98:7

explore 54:20

104:22 155:5

296:14 355:11

explored 297:16

exported 310:7

exports 44:3

expressed 277:3

extend 269:13

extended 162:6

187:7

extending 63:20

64:2

extension 63:17

70:3

extensively 97:8

extent 73:16

198:19 216:15

219:13 260:4

346:3

external 42:7

extra 56:1 157:4

173:2 328:17

329:12

extraction 324:12

extrapolate 289:6

extrapolating

284:17

extrapolation

302:4

extremely 176:14

276:9

eye 64:20

eyeballing 52:3

270:19

F

fabricated 86:13

face 10:5 231:21

faced 293:16

faces 229:17

Facilitator 1:13,15

facilities 43:4

facility 126:19

facing 28:17

275:21

fact 11:12 25:9

29:16 33:13 51:2

61:14 65:13

109:15 126:1

146:10 155:21

172:6 198:14

199:7 206:13

216:20 219:10,14

227:4 237:7 251:1

283:17,22 286:21

287:8 290:18

297:8 309:13

310:21 328:16

334:21 346:9

factor 25:4 69:11

140:13 203:13

212:16 213:20

303:13 315:5

factored 69:15

295:3

factories 87:11

333:3

factors 60:22 88:4

142:20 155:13

175:3 335:2

factory 59:4 317:20

facts 342:4

Fahrenheit 85:14

85:14

fails 122:10

failure 54:17 55:6

219:8

fair 152:22 183:17
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 371

fairly 109:1 150:12

150:19 213:4,14

227:9 228:20

230:6 251:14

268:7

fairly-lengthy

225:20

fairly-marked

227:5

faith 348:5

falling 177:5

familiar 28:2 92:18

96:12 162:1 233:2

family 34:3,4 266:5

fan 30:21 159:8

fans 158:8

far 84:22 94:3

127:4 169:21

174:10,13 182:20

212:15 248:7

320:21 321:1

334:2 337:21

344:6

farther 268:20

fashion 16:6 86:21

196:6,8 253:1

fast 121:11

faulty 32:7

favorable 235:15

235:17

favored 231:5

favorite 171:19

feasability 82:18

feasibility 40:9,19

47:12 60:17

feasible 46:15

60:10 181:16

features 36:2

276:16,20 289:16

336:18

February 282:12

Federal 125:15

feed 62:15 238:21

feedback 10:20

86:21,22 106:8,11

113:4 221:11

339:8 342:9,10,13

342:14 343:5,6

345:2,8

feel 13:10 46:12

47:22 57:14,22

125:19 170:10

176:8 275:18

284:12 344:7

feeling 72:22 73:9

fees 293:8

feet 35:5

fell 186:17

field 38:11,16

218:18 239:10

figure 116:7 122:14

126:1 145:15

153:10 168:21

199:12 347:3

figured 280:15

figures 228:12

fill 35:4,19 223:14

224:16 266:17

273:3

final 12:17 13:14

13:22 14:9 16:7

16:21 18:15 19:9

19:21 20:8 22:20

27:6 48:1,5 49:12

53:10 56:17 58:22

59:16,20 61:21

64:13 76:15

115:22 134:11

136:2 149:17

151:4,9 154:16

202:6 235:7

237:11 262:22

283:18 292:4

326:14 335:11

337:6 341:13

342:17 343:16

346:12 349:22

353:6 354:12

355:2

finalized 64:18

finally 104:21

286:17 351:19

financial 44:20

274:6

find 11:4 26:8

32:19,21 105:12

108:20 109:2

111:5,9,11 156:11

197:1 230:22

244:10 311:8

332:12 353:10

finding 109:20

findings 197:4

fine 157:7,13 342:6

342:8

finish 295:8 335:16

350:3

finished 55:13

firmly 31:16

first 21:18 25:14

28:14 37:17 45:17

56:7 58:4 65:1

81:15 87:5 167:11

170:7 181:2

188:18 207:17

276:7 310:13

331:6 336:15

fit 66:9 109:6,19

111:22 121:22

122:2,18 163:7

193:13

fits 110:4

fitted 146:16

fitting 129:4

five 19:5,16 20:4

31:18 38:20,21

46:2 49:21 134:16

134:22 135:6,14

138:12 139:2

149:20 234:11

265:15 301:15

319:12,13 337:1

353:9 354:9 355:6

five-year 271:3

fix 130:16

fixed 43:11 196:3,6

flake 63:22 78:7

flakes 58:18

flat 315:21

flexibility 49:18

128:4 291:22

flip 336:3

flipped 135:4

floated 204:10

floating 328:18

flooding 143:4

floor 93:3,4 121:21

122:6 178:9

floors 231:9

floorspace 237:17

243:7,13 244:1

270:16

flow 62:14 113:16

114:9,12 118:5

119:3 327:16

flowchart 207:4

flowing 327:16

flows 113:18

118:22

flush 34:19

focus 10:11 14:7

202:5

focused 41:10

44:14

Focusing 41:18

fold 275:5

folded 99:20

folks 47:8 50:13

93:18 124:7

125:15,19,20

177:16 187:19

188:14 222:4

257:12 277:18

278:2 329:10

Follett 2:2 5:20

34:2 72:2,3

164:15 223:2

237:7 279:1

352:13

follow 76:3 135:8

188:7 192:13

follow-on 143:21

144:12 146:7

follow-up 77:11

78:14,15 87:5

293:7

following 8:10,13

9:1,14 172:9

195:2 254:10

282:10 297:9

304:17 352:8

follows 67:16 192:7

203:8

food 2:6 6:2 42:4

121:11 173:12

229:17,19 230:6

Foodservice 2:4

21:19

foot 41:14,22 86:4

86:5 116:8

footnote 54:9

footprint 30:6

32:16 126:13,14

128:5

footprints 43:11

forays 52:9

force 255:13

forces 120:22

forecast 215:20

238:7 269:17,21

327:2

forecasting 247:2

foreclose 319:19

foregoing 93:11

178:17 319:15

foreign 166:19

277:5,20

foreign-owned

316:12

foremost 276:7

forgive 169:20

180:15,16

forklift 317:7

form 14:9 72:20

80:13 203:2

303:13 337:10

350:11

format 174:15

formulas 351:12

Forrestal 4:11

forth 11:5 95:8

194:14 273:5

338:4

forum 340:1

forward 12:22 21:7
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 372

36:12 38:14,22

39:7 48:2,3 49:5

50:7,14 51:10

53:5 96:4 151:4

197:15 236:1

244:19 265:7

277:10 326:12

346:10 352:15

355:10,12

found 34:10 42:8

108:9 252:10

338:22 339:20

founding 58:8

fountain 43:10

four 82:17 159:2

176:6 215:3 238:2

240:4 262:12

295:14 325:18

337:1

frame 22:21 23:8

33:18 121:17

158:14

framework 49:7

54:22 63:8 204:6

204:8,11 206:1

Francine 1:16 6:19

50:1 353:1,2

355:4

Frank 2:5 6:10

46:20,22 75:7,8

76:3,4 83:16,17

90:2 95:10 105:5

105:6 114:8

123:22 124:2,2

125:10 126:5

184:8 187:15

198:5 261:11

288:7,8 290:1

306:2 309:21,21

314:7 326:6

353:16,17

frankly 309:9

333:12

free 13:10 57:14,22

64:11 216:4,6

283:11 303:11

freeze 38:5

freeze-cycle 32:11

freeze-thaw 32:11

freezer 148:19

freezing 146:14

160:21

fresh 213:14

friendly 29:2

friends 309:10

fringe 318:18

front 8:18 12:9

13:7,17

frost 32:12

frustrating 122:21

fuel 324:14

fuel-cycle 239:8

fuels 324:13

full 27:15 57:7

78:11 103:21

239:7 324:14

full-cost 168:2

full-time 316:14

318:17

fully 23:5 33:11

349:21

function 73:6,9

functionality 164:7

further 18:18

54:12 99:4 100:3

149:21 183:12

281:16

future 102:5,10

247:10 298:10

G

gain 20:11 99:4

154:5 161:12

gaining 294:7

gains 20:13 40:17

41:3 156:1 161:19

gallons 203:3

gas 141:7,9 239:10

gathering 62:21

GC 290:13

gear 34:17

gee 200:3 262:8

general 6:20,22

28:18 150:13

216:12 301:1

317:3 321:22

322:3,4

generally 66:9

69:21 87:14

109:10 157:9

208:20 225:13

322:9

generating 42:3

generation 34:3

326:21 327:6

generators 126:17

George 2:8 5:21

29:9 87:2,3 89:19

90:12 138:18

143:20 148:5,6,7

152:2 160:14,15

260:8,9 265:16

308:14,15 311:5,6

314:1,3 331:20,21

germane 34:6

getting 30:12 53:14

69:10 107:2

117:10 125:4

193:7 201:3 257:9

344:16 355:11

give 39:16 57:7

78:8 84:7 123:18

141:15 204:16

218:14 243:3

250:14 254:1

262:13 286:20

343:4

give-and-get 341:1

given 13:22 18:12

44:16 45:12

138:22 139:13

141:22 181:10

211:5 215:17

238:12 281:19

291:14 340:12

341:12

gives 141:12 327:5

giving 277:19

glad 53:6 93:9

108:16

glean 276:17

gleaned 227:12

glitches 53:17

global 43:17,20

46:12 309:9

global-warming-...

294:11

globalization

334:16

globally 29:18

309:2,7 332:11

go 8:8 22:9 23:19

26:1 27:2 28:3

38:6,12 56:20

74:4 77:14 78:2

84:9 86:4 93:1,3,3

96:18 100:3,7

105:15 107:10

121:10 123:22

126:12 138:14

148:8 150:13

152:9 158:17

159:7,18 161:1,6

164:10 167:21

177:3 178:8

180:11 183:10

189:4,18 190:20

194:10 196:14,21

198:10 200:4

202:8 205:15

210:8,18 214:6

221:17 225:13,14

230:16,19 242:17

245:22 250:13

259:15 262:12,17

265:18 266:4

269:7 272:8

273:22 286:22

288:20 308:20,22

319:14 330:11

332:6 333:11

334:2 337:18

338:3 341:11,12

346:6 351:1

352:14 355:2

goal 57:6

goes 7:7 15:19 26:7

28:4 60:12 67:8

73:10 88:11 114:1

127:4 142:15

154:7 156:4

163:13 195:18,19

195:21 209:19

227:13 246:6,7

255:21 269:18,18

317:7 325:2

346:16

going 4:14 5:5,8

8:8,11 12:4,22

14:9 17:17 22:20

23:14,20 27:3

28:3 34:5 36:12

37:18 38:3,3,4,11

48:3 50:4,8,10,11

53:4 56:6,8 58:3

60:22 62:6 63:6

82:7 91:9 104:5

106:15 112:2

117:21 118:8

122:6 124:6 130:6

130:12 138:18

140:21 142:7

148:19,20 155:16

156:2 159:8,12

160:12 162:10

168:15 176:12

180:3,5 184:3,12

184:21 190:15

192:13 196:4,13

197:14,15 200:11

200:14,18 207:22

210:5,8 234:14

245:21,22 250:13

256:22 259:16

260:3 263:4

268:16 269:4

270:1 271:4,5

272:11 277:10

278:3,9 280:7

284:5,19 285:1,9

285:11,14 286:2

287:3,21,22

291:20 293:15

294:3 313:16,19

319:9,9,10,20
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 373

320:14 324:1

326:11 330:9,11

331:4,10 332:21

333:1,5,7,8,19

337:7 338:3,18

339:19 340:4

342:1 344:13

345:2 350:12,12

355:7,12

gold 259:16

good 4:6 5:1 6:3

14:16 21:17 24:10

36:17 39:12 54:1

72:13 77:9 78:6

93:7 111:15 124:4

133:2 141:15

152:7,11 154:11

155:2 156:22

171:3 175:2

196:22 197:2,7

200:2 204:13

209:3 220:17

235:6 240:18

241:6 250:7

259:10 262:2

307:22 329:8,9,12

331:18 339:1,21

goods 322:2,7

328:19

gotten 10:3 221:11

governed 43:19

government 11:13

12:6 40:7 247:9

274:22 275:12

298:6 314:16

318:13

Governor 55:5

Grail 261:8 323:16

granted 58:15

graph 238:11

graphic 236:8

graphically 351:2

graphs 71:3 350:8

grassroots 128:17

great 28:4 36:7

37:4 38:1,8 95:17

223:16 266:11

291:19 310:5

346:11

greater 30:18

227:7 309:8

greatly 38:14

128:21 129:5

green 5:14 242:1,1

242:2

Greenfield 2:12

grew 347:11

GRIM 274:21

gritty 63:18

grocery 242:10

gross 24:19 297:12

297:22

ground 93:3,4

178:9,15 340:17

343:7 345:14

354:16

group 16:11 36:19

215:18

groups 124:9 222:5

229:12

grow 132:17,18

173:1 231:13

322:10 325:4

growing 44:5

116:22 162:22

163:17 164:5

grows 143:11

growth 172:12

242:2,16 244:1

325:4,11

growths 131:13

guarantee 309:4

345:7

guaranteed 331:1

guess 66:4,11 76:21

77:11 103:10

108:17 120:9

140:21 144:1

166:8 187:12

195:14 200:13,21

205:3 216:7 245:7

305:16 329:7

341:11 344:5

guessing 205:1

guidance 247:10

guide 275:5

guiding 255:12

guys 50:11 135:20

138:6 150:13

171:2 183:13

200:19 222:19,20

257:3 338:2 346:9

347:7,8,11 351:13

GWP 28:20

H

ha 85:8

half 86:5 203:14

219:22 220:1

344:18

halfway 204:22

hall 92:22

hallway 93:6

halted 44:14

hammering 135:21

138:7

hand 10:21 84:1,2

88:11,12

handle 56:7 58:3

62:7 72:1

handled 155:11

handling 155:15

hands 35:21 80:12

80:15 103:2

happen 28:22 50:8

53:2,4 122:13

130:15 140:22

142:9,12 198:4

251:19,22 261:21

284:19,20 285:9

285:11 286:3,13

287:3,6,22 334:16

341:20

happened 116:3

138:13 193:4

194:11 200:1

310:22 331:5

334:8

happening 161:12

163:1 222:15

happens 115:13

143:11 146:11,13

156:11 201:1

234:16 288:3

336:13

happy 10:15 261:9

276:6 322:22

323:6

hard 10:17 38:1

49:14 101:3 103:2

172:19 333:2

336:6

hardest 103:3

HARDI 198:10

hardness 61:6

69:10 71:3 78:9

352:18

hardship 292:16

Harrington 255:13

255:16

harvest 38:6 63:14

64:12 67:10 68:18

97:17 98:11

107:18 119:18

141:14 142:18

143:4,7,12 146:12

147:12 148:16,22

149:3 153:5 161:1

161:7,7

harvesting 59:9

153:2,15,21

hasn’t 27:16 66:11

66:15 143:8

hassle 271:18

haven’t 9:21 83:14

110:17

head 65:3 66:11,14

133:7 162:21

163:20 164:3

171:21 231:4

234:13 268:5,21

312:15 340:11

354:12

heads 208:19

health 82:21

hear 8:11 11:2,3

17:15 28:6 47:8

51:9 52:11 53:6

76:21 101:18

137:15 180:5

205:9 287:18

309:13

heard 47:19 50:9

60:7 89:17 136:2

137:3 152:8 195:3

195:6 201:7 205:5

221:19 222:7

252:19 256:17

257:12 282:20

293:14 346:5

hearing 52:12

75:13 77:1 129:9

153:18 177:18

340:14

hearings 195:16

heat 67:6 98:14

118:22 133:18

142:10 143:13,16

153:5,5 185:5

294:4

heating 14:19,22

15:1 141:8 245:1

300:16

heavily 295:3

height 127:14,22

128:2,9 164:5

165:4

held 238:6 241:21

help 34:13,20

128:18 144:17

146:5 150:11

153:3 156:9

167:10 168:1

197:9 218:14

221:9 222:19

240:14 256:18

289:4 310:7 336:4

336:8 337:10

343:20

helped 37:17

272:14

helpful 28:10 50:2

172:5 199:16

219:1 283:1 311:3

315:5 323:14
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 374

331:15 337:15

353:12 354:11

helps 73:15,16

108:18 141:11

172:16 249:15

259:17 266:12

here’s 56:1 57:11

64:20

hey 125:20 278:2,7

330:12 352:22

Hi 34:1

hide 345:22

high 26:2 29:12

42:10 53:6 98:5

113:7 118:6

173:10 199:14

204:14 205:11

223:21 224:6

229:22 262:3,9

266:7 325:7

higher 32:15 33:14

34:18 51:2,13

68:1,20 88:6

90:18 103:16,18

106:16 131:14,17

131:20 140:9

141:21 142:1

148:13 172:1

185:10,13 190:21

197:5 205:5,19

210:8 212:17

219:7 222:12

230:7,8,13 237:5

237:12 240:7

249:22 268:1,8,15

276:22

higher-cost 193:2

279:5 297:18

higher-efficiency

141:1,6 296:18

higher-than-aver...

229:20,21

highest 12:5 50:21

77:10 171:20

173:16 225:12,15

226:18,19 229:17

249:20 250:6

highlight 61:1

227:4

highly 176:1

304:17

historical 62:22

87:16 88:3 186:16

236:12 270:11,22

history 58:4 139:14

196:13 256:10

hit 57:18 230:5,6,9

230:13

hits 266:2

hold 18:9 33:6

37:14 91:10

197:13 229:1

351:17

holding 240:15

holes 100:10

Holy 261:8 323:16

Home 290:2,4,12

homework 114:11

hone-in 204:16

honest 125:6 204:8

honestly 323:9

Hoover's 300:21

301:2

hope 53:17 111:10

hoped 49:8,10,11

hopefully 4:4 11:1

146:5 156:18

238:11 294:21

hoping 72:12 123:4

156:9

hopper 223:11

224:14

Hoshizaki 2:10 6:8

36:18 37:2 78:4

99:9 101:22

128:14 204:1

hospitals 39:4

124:21 242:9

hotel 129:2 206:17

222:3 231:9

hotels 124:20 242:7

243:10

hour 165:20 167:4

hourly 318:17

hours 153:22 154:4

203:3

household 334:3

Howard 2:9 7:16

huge 37:9 122:19

human 35:21 58:1

281:22

hundred 42:9

hundreds 203:4

347:6

hunker-down

263:7

hurdle 227:14

hurts 141:14

HVAC 334:20

HVACs 332:8

hydrocarbons

79:21

hypothetical

136:19

I

I’d 10:1 21:17

28:14 36:20 72:22

86:3 150:10

157:13

I’ll 4:21 11:13 14:1

21:22 61:1 83:20

91:10 97:6,9

100:12 107:10,14

118:13 122:20

133:16 139:20

145:21 146:5

148:8 153:17

161:17

I’m 4:17,17 8:8

25:15 34:2,5

36:17,18 39:13

51:19 52:11,12

54:3 56:6 58:3

60:22 62:6 63:6

65:12,19 66:2

71:14 73:2 75:12

76:22 77:4 82:7

83:19 84:10,11

95:18,19 101:2

105:8 108:16

114:10 116:6,16

117:6 120:5,13

121:10 122:15

123:4 124:2

137:15,18 138:17

138:21 140:21

144:17 145:4

150:12 151:7,21

153:7,18 155:6

156:9,16,19 157:2

162:10,17 164:9

166:14 169:6

171:17 175:15,16

I’ve 57:17 114:11

122:11 139:18

156:19 158:2

175:11,13 177:6,6

ice 1:4 2:5,10,13

4:10 6:18 7:21

8:1 15:7,11,16

16:11,19 20:21

21:10,20 23:5

24:4,12,14 26:13

26:20 27:2,4,9,14

29:13,15 30:4

31:22 32:6,11,17

32:18,22 33:5,8

34:9,16 35:4,6,7,9

35:10,12,14,17,19

36:1 37:20 38:2

39:3,14,19 40:5

40:20 41:7,14,18

41:22 42:4,7,16

43:10,19 44:7

45:1 46:4,6,8,9

48:10 51:7 54:17

55:12 56:14 58:14

58:15,17 59:4,7,9

59:10,10,11,13,21

60:6 61:6 62:20

62:22 63:13,21

64:3,6,10,14,15

65:4,4,5,8 67:4,16

68:14 69:9,10,12

69:14,19 70:5

71:3 74:18 76:14

78:9 80:12,15,16

81:13 82:11 86:15

89:1,9,15,18

90:17 94:2,18,20

97:21 98:2 103:13

103:17 108:21

109:5,14,18

116:16,18,22

119:17,18,22

129:12,21,22

130:7,8,13 133:5

133:7,9 137:3,3,5

138:5 140:4,7,11

140:20 141:14

142:17,19,21

143:13 144:10

145:7 146:14

147:3 148:12

151:14 152:14

153:1,2,15,19

154:19 155:1,22

156:7 157:17

159:2 160:19,22

162:20 163:9,12

163:13,15,17

164:17,18,19

168:15 169:3,15

171:14 175:12

182:6 189:4,10

191:18 199:3

200:12 201:5,18

203:4,14,16,18

205:16 206:2,18

212:14 215:10,12

215:15 216:11,16

216:20 218:7

223:5,13,17 224:2

224:9 230:18

231:2,8,10 234:1

234:17,22 235:1

238:15 241:14

242:13 245:2,5

249:2 261:13

264:15,16 276:9

281:15 286:6,10

286:15,17 291:9

297:10 300:9,14

301:6 305:14
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 375

308:6 311:21

319:3 320:3

321:15 328:10,20

329:10 330:6,17

337:20 344:4

352:18

ice-making 65:3

66:10,14 163:20

164:3 171:21

208:19 231:4

234:13 238:5

258:4 305:5 322:8

Ice-O-Matic 2:4,8

2:9 5:22 7:17,19

29:11,12 33:10

80:10 87:4 148:8

160:16 166:2

208:11 245:18

260:10 301:11

308:16 311:7

320:17 322:13

330:1 331:22

ID 178:10

idea 61:2 113:15

197:8 200:2 241:5

322:3

ideas 14:5

identified 40:11

79:10 94:4 95:5

188:20 301:4

identify 40:22 63:4

106:15 273:10

identifying 45:19

identity 170:13

ignorant 291:13

ignore 342:4

illuminated 5:15

illustrate 152:21

153:8

illustrates 70:13

272:17

IMA-A-Small-Cs

100:19

imbedded 122:8

IMH 65:3

IMH-A 162:6,7

IMH-A-Medium...

127:20

IMH-A-Small-B

20:21

IMH-A-Small-B...

127:19

IMH-A-Water-S...

127:21

IMH-W-Small-B

167:12

IMHA 70:15

IMHW 259:22

IMHWb 181:3

Immediately 8:10

impact 3:10,10,12

3:14 9:8,8,10,11

23:6 25:5 27:13

30:10 33:4,8

34:22 36:2 40:13

41:4 43:14,16

47:13 87:18 88:9

114:18 115:8

117:9 126:11,22

129:5 162:13

173:4 192:6

228:11 234:14

239:9,11,16 247:7

250:16 252:7,8

253:20 272:15,18

273:3,8 274:22

275:2,13 279:5,8

280:1,15,19 281:2

281:5,17 288:12

296:5,9,14,20

297:4 298:7,22

303:21 304:6

307:10 308:19

309:8 311:1 313:3

314:15,16 315:9

318:13 319:1

320:21 321:2,5,10

321:12,14 326:11

327:17 328:13

332:14 335:7

impacted 61:9

308:9

impacts 35:7 42:1

43:12 82:19,21

88:10 107:9,19

132:18 147:12

156:8 202:22

207:6 225:11

228:15 229:14

238:22 273:13,15

287:12 295:9

296:15 297:15

298:4,15 300:7

303:12 304:8

307:12 311:16

implement 302:10

implementation

44:9,17 45:15

46:18 76:16

implemented 16:5

19:21 34:16 45:10

127:17,18

implementing

20:14 27:19 31:1

implications 76:22

implicitly 198:3

implies 153:20

implore 129:1

import 278:3

importance 12:3

13:9 162:22

important 101:4

125:7 127:2

162:19 170:16

237:22 238:5

254:3 264:2

275:18 277:11

284:12 304:12

334:12 341:16

354:17

importantly 30:11

32:3 122:9

importing 278:3

imports 277:20

imposed 17:1 18:15

impossible 35:17

155:6 341:10

impractical 34:9

impressed 206:12

improve 30:17 46:9

247:1

improved 88:20,22

91:21 198:22

improvement

19:15 31:6 40:10

48:12 51:21 67:21

95:7 134:9,9

135:19 136:20,21

140:1,4,11 148:15

149:6,10,15

167:17 226:5

improvements 30:1

52:4 132:6 133:21

133:22 149:4

167:21

improving 281:18

ImSET 327:14

inability 119:17

296:16

inadequate 18:19

353:9 354:9

inch 121:22 122:1,1

122:11,12 133:7

162:20 163:10

164:4,6,21 165:4

177:11

inches 122:10

163:12 165:1

incidence 219:8

include 13:13 59:9

60:4 71:2,5,15

96:19 97:4 98:4

113:20 123:16

124:13 126:20

146:16 185:13

208:22 216:3

218:17 309:14

315:6

included 11:6

26:16 36:1 48:13

58:18 60:1 94:20

105:21 121:18

123:15 125:19

149:18 191:9

225:16 236:1

270:5 289:12

293:10 309:19

includes 59:13

68:10 87:15 96:20

97:2 104:3 249:11

324:10,11

including 88:2,7

98:10 276:15

297:1 300:20

inconsequential

210:13

inconsistency

256:17

incorporate 56:17

121:6

incorporated 87:1

incorporating

106:7

incorrect 21:5

57:18 117:5

increase 19:4,5,16

20:2,4 29:21 37:8

37:20 39:18 42:9

42:22 43:1 44:2

44:12,22 67:19

85:22 86:1,6 89:3

89:7,8 90:21 91:1

91:9 116:7 121:15

121:16 126:13

127:12,14 128:9

128:17,21 131:20

132:3,10 134:21

134:22 135:5,6,14

135:15 136:4,5

138:11,12 149:19

149:19 152:4

160:1,2 161:13

167:18 197:19,22

207:10,11 294:1

294:10 296:7

324:22

increased 33:4,11

37:12 85:19

106:22,22 112:13

119:1 209:12

218:10,11 220:12

280:13 293:16

294:7 296:17

increases 42:6,11

96:16 106:2 119:4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 376

120:14,21 127:17

127:22 131:12

132:8 133:19

150:6 293:18,21

increasing 42:20

43:3 55:1 167:14

increasingly

297:15

incredible 23:9

increment 246:17

incremental 123:5

189:1 190:6 191:2

191:3,9,11 197:21

201:16 227:22

296:17

increments 165:2

262:6

incumbent 126:2

incurred 44:9,19

299:12 303:12

Independence 1:12

independent

148:10 170:2

Index 215:2 216:12

indicated 106:21

indicates 42:18

indication 77:9

indicative 74:8

131:16

indirect 88:12

321:18

individual 158:22

231:5 232:12

242:19 332:20

individuals 329:20

indoor 293:17

inducing 122:22

industrial 58:11

236:18 249:12

300:17 305:5

industry 16:1,5

24:1 28:17 33:9

34:6 37:10,11

40:1,21 48:11,18

49:2 59:18 62:21

156:12 171:20

173:21 175:12,15

175:18,18,21

176:16,17 223:4

274:15 275:2,4

298:7,12,18

300:13 302:4,11

302:12,15 303:4,7

303:10 304:1,10

307:13 315:9

316:9 320:4,8

322:8,10 331:6,7

331:16 332:3

334:6 345:12

347:7,18 348:9

industry’s 176:5

inefficient 123:1

inform 272:15

information 8:7

64:18 79:12,18

86:16 89:11,12

92:5 113:18,22

124:5,11 137:10

137:11 147:6,7,9

150:8 174:15

198:17 199:9,10

204:16 205:8

211:11 217:11

218:21 221:8

229:19 236:17

237:11 238:9

240:14 242:20

243:4 252:3 264:9

267:22 274:6,16

275:4,9,11 305:21

318:15 323:1,4,7

323:9,10,11,17

331:12 336:1

349:10

inherent 81:2

initial 49:6,7

135:11 210:7

344:22

initially 48:16 70:8

79:4

inlet 119:18

innovate 296:6

innovation 281:18

282:1 295:10

input 79:15 124:13

148:4

input/output

327:13

inputs 96:9 116:3

214:11 218:3

235:14 239:5

247:6 252:10

272:22 274:4,12

INPV 298:16 304:7

304:9,20 306:18

306:19

inquiry 198:20

inside 66:10 132:18

149:1 294:2

insignificant 256:6

install 82:19

281:13 326:20

327:6

installation 33:5

123:13 124:16,18

188:16 210:22,22

211:13 221:9

293:18,21

installed 35:15

installers 211:3

instance 70:17

147:11 199:2

297:7 321:9

Institute 14:20

insurance 189:9

integrate 46:3

275:12

integrated 59:8

155:1

intended 193:10,11

intent 44:2 46:9

49:6 346:1,1

interagency 308:12

324:17 325:1,20

326:15

interchangeably

258:19

interest 4:22 54:5

187:20 297:20

interested 125:8,20

interesting 108:16

145:1 184:11

200:22 220:19

231:1

interim 303:14

intermediate

225:19 226:3,6

internal 44:20

internet 4:4 109:15

202:9 244:11

interpretation

183:7 259:1

interpretations

338:5

interrelated 88:5

interview 275:5,7

275:20

interviewing 76:7

115:3

interviews 113:21

113:22 174:19

274:9 275:17

276:3 281:1

282:10,13

intrigued 175:12

intro 121:22

introduce 8:5

introductions 3:1

5:12

intuitively 194:3

195:7

invariably 193:19

inventories 271:18

invest 43:4

investigate 112:9

250:17

investigated 112:5

investment 23:3

33:2 88:4 296:3

315:13,14

investments 43:6

45:19 130:2 299:8

299:18 304:12

invitation 55:8

invite 56:15

involved 68:5 81:7

122:21 125:16

150:14 190:1

196:17 288:11

involves 62:21

ion 125:21

irrelevant 13:18

isn’t 25:16 27:17

111:15,17 176:15

isobutane 29:3

issue 12:8,20 22:1

28:16 51:9 52:17

54:8,21 56:21

57:1,2 90:15 98:8

119:14 122:4,16

122:21 142:17

144:13 147:11

150:20,22 195:12

219:19 221:18

279:2 281:1,11

283:14,16,18

284:5,11 287:20

issued 277:19

issues 8:15 9:20

11:15 15:20 47:21

51:11 52:22 80:5

220:9 271:19

275:21 282:16

283:1,8 295:9

343:5 354:17,21

it‘s 5:15

it’s 5:5 16:17 22:10

22:16,20 23:9,17

24:13,14 25:20

28:6 30:18 31:11

32:21 33:1 35:16

38:6 47:7,19

49:19 53:17 65:1

66:9,14 68:18

73:5 81:16 88:18

90:13,13 91:9

92:15 102:8,20

103:1,20 108:21

109:12,16 111:16

111:17 113:19

115:10,10 119:13

121:2,13 126:12

127:2,6 130:17

134:5,16,18,21

135:4 136:14
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 377

140:16 142:3,7

144:5 145:1,11,13

149:2 152:16,22

153:8 155:5,6,10

157:7 159:12

160:4,9 161:2

162:1,18,19,22

165:5 166:17,20

167:20 171:19

172:18 173:2,6,9

173:10 175:13,14

175:21 178:3

item 19:20 137:8

221:13

items 62:7 218:8

221:3

iterative 31:4,11

J

January 18:15

49:13 55:3 59:1

59:19,22 61:20

286:14 338:6

341:12 346:16

353:20

Javier 2:2 7:2

71:14 94:13,16

95:18 111:4 112:2

120:19 130:22

187:8

Javier's 185:2

job 24:10 38:1

109:16 232:19

jobs 314:19 327:9

328:2,21 329:13

334:14

John 1:16 4:15,17

8:12,13 11:9,11

16:14 26:3,4

28:14 52:18 56:6

62:9 76:18,19

81:11 100:13

150:16 152:8

154:8,9 156:17

168:12 169:16

170:4 174:17

181:12 183:3

184:4 186:7,12

187:16 195:18

200:9 217:3 219:3

226:11 229:4

232:14 244:3,6

246:8,21 248:13

248:17 253:10

254:10 259:7

260:12 263:5

266:9,21 270:17

272:5 283:9 285:7

288:6 291:11

294:18 303:20

307:20 312:8

323:15 326:16

331:2 343:10

354:18

John's 188:3

John’s 152:11

join 10:15

joining 53:11 93:9

July 206:2

jump 114:7 144:17

168:1 185:1 227:5

227:10 228:20

262:1 277:14

jumping 259:9

jumps 226:7

justification 40:13

273:6

justified 46:15

60:11

K

Karim 2:1 110:15

185:20,21 199:17

199:18 214:12,13

216:4 254:7,8

261:11 264:7

266:22 267:1

284:9,10 307:16

307:17 312:2,3

333:21,22 342:7

345:17 348:19,20

keep 10:10,19

17:17 28:9 34:20

34:21 37:18 112:2

130:17 160:11

177:22 259:11

260:3 261:15

272:11 277:20

280:8 319:9,9,10

319:20 349:5

keeping 177:19

212:7

key 35:2 69:5,11

70:2 260:6 261:15

263:7 275:19,21

276:20 281:1

282:15 295:9

300:4 336:21

keys 57:18

kickback 352:4

kill 347:16,18

348:9

kilowatt 165:20

203:3

kind 34:7 49:21

50:4 57:19 73:13

88:11 90:12 92:9

111:21 120:1

124:19 134:7

142:4 145:1

153:20 154:7,11

155:7 157:19

172:4 177:11

194:1 205:8

232:12 237:10

241:5,17 250:20

251:20 263:6,7

270:11 277:17

279:2 308:18

323:15,16 327:3

338:19 345:7

kinds 194:8

kitchen 121:11,11

122:13 163:4

kitchens 163:3

knew 286:2

knock 246:16

knocking 209:2

know 14:2,4,4

23:12 25:3 28:3

28:21 49:16 53:3

58:1 60:12 61:6

65:1 67:3 68:18

69:8,14 71:19

72:22 73:1,2,3,5,6

73:7,19,21 76:6

77:12,21 78:1,1

79:20 81:7 84:6

84:13 85:8,8 86:8

86:10,11,15,16

87:13,14,16,20

88:4,8,9,11 89:14

89:17 94:6 97:7

98:9,22 100:1

101:1,10 102:6,11

102:18,20 103:3,5

103:8 107:3,4,12

108:4,9 109:21

110:2,12,12 111:4

112:4,8,11,15

113:9,17,19 114:3

114:10,11 115:6

116:12 117:2

118:14 119:5

122:3 127:4

128:20 129:17,19

130:11 136:13

137:14 139:1,14

139:15 140:19

141:1,11,22 142:3

143:2,7 144:11,16

146:3,19,21,22

147:1,4,6,8,11,12

147:13,15,17,19

147:21 148:1,2,3

148:4 149:18,21

150:4,5,6,8,9,11

150:11 155:4,4,7

155:15 156:8

157:19,20,22

158:1 159:1,10

163:7,19 164:7

169:17,22 170:19

170:22 174:10,11

174:18,20 175:1

181:7,18 185:16

197:8,16,21

202:10 204:9

205:15 210:1

218:9,13 219:4

222:12 224:1,2,3

228:18 230:22

231:19 232:11,16

232:16,19 233:16

234:4,17 235:20

242:10 243:10

256:6 257:12,20

258:9 261:7

265:17 277:18

281:3 283:4 284:4

284:5,19 285:9,11

285:17 286:7,12

287:7,22 288:1

290:3 292:3

293:17 305:14

307:10,14 310:6,8

310:11,14 323:14

326:9 327:20

329:19 330:4,5,7

331:15 334:11,17

339:12,16 340:19

340:22 343:3,18

344:10,14,18,22

345:19,21 351:11

354:20

knowing 100:8

157:14

known 18:7 60:21

knows 32:10

125:17 287:2

Kold-Draft 6:9

305:12 317:17

L

lab 89:5 97:1 171:1

174:12

labeling 55:10

labor 43:7 297:2

333:13,14 334:17

labor-intensive

329:2,3 333:14

Laboratory 2:3,7

7:13,15 123:10

324:5

labs 23:2
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 378

laden 8:18

language 283:19

large 23:2 68:17

82:7 100:20 102:1

149:8 162:7

211:16,17 223:5

224:14 232:2

256:4 290:7

307:13 333:15

334:20

largely 124:10

158:8 193:20

274:19

larger 32:14,16

43:5 87:11 90:20

117:10 120:21,22

121:2,3,6 122:7

123:6 130:13

131:16 133:9

143:19 157:21

158:3 172:22

173:3 174:5 187:5

191:10 208:14

209:9 304:4

333:15

largest 162:19

Lasecki 2:5 7:20,20

latest 324:17

326:14

latitude 256:6

Laughter 177:4

186:11,14 205:2

206:19 249:5,8,17

257:1 313:8

Laura 2:8 6:11

14:15,17 47:6

74:17,21 145:19

148:5 149:13

177:2 180:13,15

187:2 235:9,10

253:3 282:4,5,22

293:13 306:11

310:10 316:16

322:21 339:5

341:14 343:2,9

law 49:14 73:3

156:4 254:1

lawsuit 255:15

LCC 96:9 214:3

217:18 239:6

lead 111:20 119:17

140:3 155:20

235:17

leader 36:19

leads 112:22 141:9

leaks 212:9

leap 233:11 348:5

learning 51:11

213:22 214:10,16

214:20

learnings 32:8

leave 22:1 178:6

led 98:1 289:18

293:17

left 245:8 311:9

leg 198:12

legal 244:10 293:8

legally 343:18

344:1

legitimate 344:8

leisure 208:2

lend 223:8

lessening 41:22

lesser 223:9

let's 210:6 246:14

272:8 288:3

312:19 319:11

let’s 4:3 14:6,10

37:16 39:6 55:18

55:18 77:14 92:15

93:15 115:5 129:9

151:12 164:2

173:20 176:22

177:22 178:3

level 26:7 45:14

49:9 52:2,5 53:6

60:14 61:5 88:12

89:7 95:3 104:7

111:2,6,13 141:16

158:5 164:2

167:13 168:7

181:8,9 182:5,9

182:15 189:6

191:17,17,21

192:1 201:2 202:1

212:17 215:13

225:9,9,11,15,22

226:6,22 227:22

228:5,6 239:4

240:5,6,6,22

250:5,6 252:17

253:14 257:6

258:7,10,15 259:2

259:2,4,19 262:11

262:19 267:10,11

268:15 271:13

289:4 298:15

331:13 333:7,9,11

336:22 351:6

levelized 212:4

levels 12:5 17:5

22:10 24:8 25:8

39:19 44:16 45:3

48:13 50:6,18,20

50:21 51:1,2,5,13

52:1,8 56:10,13

67:20 69:16,18,21

70:8,11 72:18

78:19 81:3 87:16

87:19 88:3 106:18

156:3,6,11 161:14

161:22 164:10

165:9,11 166:9

168:3 180:20,21

180:22 187:11

225:5 228:17

239:14 250:1

251:12 257:13,21

262:17,22 263:1

268:1,3 272:16

284:2,8 286:21

291:21 313:5

315:7 317:10

leverage 23:1

176:15

lieu 119:2

life 25:9 34:17 51:6

51:15,18 123:11

233:4 241:14

248:2

life-cycle 3:6,8 9:3

200:16 202:22

207:2,8 217:13

226:10,19 228:3

229:11,14 230:5

231:18,20 287:8

310:16

lifetime 26:2 212:2

217:17 227:20

228:4 310:17,18

lifetimes 217:21

221:7

light 110:20 234:18

276:2,10

likelihood 330:16

limit 10:13 305:18

limited 127:13

261:19 281:20,21

304:1 316:18

317:1

limiting 128:2

limits 126:15

300:11

line 45:2,18 57:4

61:13,22 77:22

111:22 130:12

139:2 169:9

192:16 204:12

246:6 251:4

259:16,21 269:18

280:7 316:20

320:18 336:15

linear 68:11 73:6

lines 68:3,9,11

177:20 212:9

279:20 281:6,16

299:10 304:13

309:3 351:6

list 34:11 83:4

98:15 192:11,12

260:3 291:2,3

listed 83:15 221:3

221:13 233:9

295:14 337:1

listen 18:4 340:22

listening 30:2

93:10 338:16

lists 301:1

literally 212:20

literature 79:12

little 5:4,7,14 8:11

37:17 49:10 51:19

52:11 53:13 61:18

107:10 108:10

128:10 134:20

147:17 152:21

154:8 167:8 172:7

175:4 177:6 185:2

189:5 190:20

199:14,14 207:3

211:8 224:22

225:4 228:7,10

230:9,11 234:7

237:5,12,13,21

248:1 249:15

259:5 268:20

285:5 286:11

290:6 308:9 325:3

339:12 345:17

351:1

live 308:18 345:15

living 330:18

LLC 2:7

load 82:10

loading 221:18

loads 338:2

loan 102:11

located 65:7,9

lodging 229:16,17

230:1,9 231:8

lofty 33:17

logic 31:1 161:6

logically 123:15

long 34:17 117:2

138:13 148:6

160:9 194:6,7

219:12 224:3

267:3 276:18

280:5,7 342:13

long-term 207:13

213:17

longer 26:19 33:7

34:22 67:22,22

90:18 143:6 294:9

longest 231:2 232:9
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 379

look 22:8 23:19

37:11 38:14,15,22

39:6,7 48:2 50:7

50:14,19 51:1,10

68:19 78:11 83:18

96:4 105:2 109:15

113:1 115:4 129:1

134:16 149:3

159:1,19,20

161:22 171:17

172:19 194:10,22

196:14 201:15,19

207:8,15 215:18

221:5 225:10

229:12,14 237:4

239:22 250:22

251:13 253:5

259:9,15 260:22

261:2,16 262:7

265:20 269:11

273:15 284:13

285:3,3 312:7

314:13 316:8

331:5,10 332:6

333:10,12 334:2,5

336:6,6 337:5

347:21 350:19

355:10

looked 69:19 70:6

71:18 86:11 88:15

97:22 99:2 104:7

105:18 117:21

131:9 147:19

158:19 172:2,20

173:21 175:7

211:19 212:6

216:1 229:16

251:2,20,22 252:1

260:15 289:10

looking 16:17

30:20 37:7 38:10

38:13 51:10 66:2

68:22 69:1,2,3

71:12 74:8,9

77:22 79:13 91:21

92:1,2 98:7,11

99:9 102:1 106:21

107:4 118:19

147:1 153:9 157:2

159:21 160:18

161:4,11 169:21

171:17 174:1

181:2 191:1

205:14 212:9

218:20 229:5

232:5 233:9,12

235:19 236:22

241:11 250:7

251:1 252:6

256:20 262:2

268:6,17 269:4

280:18 290:19

294:1 317:19

327:11 341:18

looks 21:7 72:12,14

115:19 189:20

241:12 265:13

267:12 270:20

307:18 327:14

loop 67:8 244:6

339:8

lose 280:12,13,14

308:5 309:9

loses 313:18

loss 298:16,17,18

304:9,20 306:16

306:18 313:13

losses 154:3

lost 309:14 310:1

314:19,20

lot 4:22 47:20

48:11 64:17 68:6

68:7 71:21 106:10

113:5 114:11

116:2,3 125:7

126:19 129:6

133:17 139:11,13

149:4 151:19

152:17,18 155:22

156:6 158:4

159:21 160:4

161:5,10 168:21

173:11,22 175:13

175:14 178:15

185:3 189:20

195:16 202:10

203:9 206:5

217:11 221:11

227:6,8,10,11

231:7,8 235:13

237:22 239:5

247:21 250:21

257:7 265:12

267:15 277:19

282:9 304:22

306:6,6,14 307:1

313:1,21 326:9

338:21 339:14

345:5 346:10

350:16 354:16,21

lots 60:15 61:17

81:13,19 82:2,2

97:16 98:22

157:12

Louis 2:11 6:13

65:10 72:9 73:12

127:10,11 151:22

153:6,16 204:18

227:15,17 241:8,9

267:17,18

love 101:18

low 28:20 35:16

77:4 119:18 123:1

123:1 175:14

176:8,14 199:14

205:10 221:20

232:21 261:18

266:7 325:7

lower 33:12 43:18

113:7,9 141:9,10

201:22 228:6

268:8 270:10

294:4 297:4

304:11

luck 125:4

lunch 9:5,7 177:3,7

178:3,16

M

MacDonald’s

122:5

machine 23:5 24:4

24:14 26:21 27:2

32:6,12,18,22

33:5,8 34:13,20

35:4,8 36:3 38:2

41:19,21 84:2

89:1,9 90:6,20

91:2 108:21 109:5

109:14,18 116:22

119:17 129:22

130:14 140:4,7,12

141:14 142:17,21

143:13 144:10

145:7 148:12

155:2,22 156:7

159:2 160:13

163:10,13,17

164:21 165:4

185:6,8 187:5

191:21 201:19

205:17 208:15

210:5 211:15

212:7,10 223:13

231:3 234:17

241:14 263:17,20

305:14 329:10

347:11

machines 21:2,20

24:12 26:13 27:4

27:9 29:13,15,19

30:4 31:22 32:17

33:6 36:4 37:6

51:8 52:13 63:22

77:17,20 78:7

80:13 84:6 102:6

102:6 116:18

128:22 132:19

133:1 140:20

152:14 153:19

161:22 164:18,20

164:22 165:10,12

199:3 206:2

211:17 231:8

235:1 252:20

257:13 258:5

286:16,18 330:6

330:17 347:9,12

mad 160:12

magnet 81:8 158:7

magnitude 296:3

300:1 311:16

mailbox 57:21

mailboxes 352:2

main 96:9 106:14

112:11 236:11

maintain 17:4

132:22 297:8,12

304:12 332:10

333:8

maintained 297:21

314:22

maintaining

279:20 315:6

333:10

maintenance

124:17,19 211:1

212:6,8,16 218:11

221:10

major 17:4 19:22

207:7 213:9

majority 282:13

303:12 304:18

305:4 311:14

maker 16:11 35:10

35:12,17 39:19

40:21 41:18 42:4

42:7,16 43:19

45:1 46:4,6,9

48:10 59:4 62:20

64:15,15 69:14,19

70:5 89:15 90:17

97:22 103:17

137:4 160:19

175:12 189:4,11

191:18 206:18

308:6 328:10,20

maker’s 216:16

makers 1:4 4:10

15:7,11,17 16:19

20:21 21:10 34:9

34:16 36:1 39:3

40:5 41:7 54:17

55:12 56:14 58:14

58:17 59:13,22
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 380

60:6 63:1,13,21

64:3,6 65:4,6 67:4

67:16 68:14 69:9

69:12 74:18 76:14

80:15,16 81:13

82:11 86:16 89:18

94:18,20 98:2

137:3,5 138:5

147:3 151:14

168:16 169:3

200:12 201:5

215:10,12,15

216:11,20 223:5

238:15 242:14

245:3,5 264:15,16

276:9 286:6

297:11 300:9,15

301:6 311:21

319:3 320:3

321:16

making 8:16 30:8

55:3 59:7,8

103:22 133:7,10

138:4 142:19

152:22 162:21

200:7 203:14,16

203:18 240:12

281:12 310:20

329:10 330:6,17

manage 130:6

Manager 4:18

14:18

Managing 143:1

mandatory 59:21

Manitowoc 2:4 6:1

21:19,21 37:2

111:9 116:16

119:10 129:12

133:5 154:19

157:16 171:13

230:17 234:1

249:1 261:12

286:9 320:15

344:4

manufacture 15:7

21:20 22:18 23:8

29:14 44:13 82:18

228:11 258:16

280:5

manufactured 36:5

42:22 43:18

219:13 279:16

316:9

manufacturer 3:12

9:9 17:1 22:3

25:3,7 29:13 69:2

79:12 87:15,18

88:9 103:15 104:2

113:21 114:18

172:17 173:4,6

189:15,19 191:16

191:21 192:5,6

201:17 209:14

228:16 272:15,18

273:2 292:15,18

296:20,22 298:15

298:22 308:21

311:9 316:13

320:4 321:2

manufacturer's

188:10 213:21

296:16,22 349:6

manufacturer’s

88:6

manufacturers 2:6

14:22 18:19 19:17

20:16 46:12 54:20

66:3 73:20 75:2,4

75:5 76:7,8 86:10

86:17,19 87:10,20

89:12 92:6 96:1

97:3,3 102:19

111:18 113:14,15

115:3,18 116:3,11

124:6,9 128:19

135:22 137:4

138:7 139:11

144:21 147:16

157:6 166:5 176:3

176:7,13 189:17

199:12 204:4,20

205:7 212:20

222:8 234:15

240:12 256:18

260:4 261:6

271:17 273:8,11

274:8,9 275:6,11

275:21 276:7,19

277:4 278:1,16

279:9 280:2

281:10,17 283:21

288:12 291:5

296:14 297:8,16

297:17 298:5

300:8,10 301:5

303:22 304:3

305:14 306:1,17

310:20 311:22

314:15 318:16

319:2 321:15

331:11 340:9

342:21 346:18

347:2 350:16

manufactures 48:8

manufacturing

46:5 86:8 103:21

114:2 115:8,9,16

116:17 152:13

168:9 194:21

200:18 201:7

273:17 296:18

299:10,19 300:3

300:18 315:14

320:3 327:12

328:20 334:12

335:4 350:21

map 146:2 150:7

153:9 271:2

350:20

mapping 157:2

259:5 336:12

maps 145:22

146:10

margin 189:9

193:1 197:22

280:14 297:12,22

margins 193:22

mark 2:13 7:22

61:21 190:13,13

196:5 213:1

marked 9:2 189:5

191:18 212:22

market 3:3 8:19

20:22 27:1,4

32:20 38:1 43:17

43:20 52:8 60:17

62:11,18,20 63:3

63:7 66:1,15

87:21 106:20

108:1 109:10

111:16 118:18

124:13 129:5

131:13,19 137:2

162:21 164:22

166:18 168:22

169:4 181:15,15

181:19,21 182:1

183:2,8,21 184:18

185:6,14 186:20

190:17 197:17

219:12 234:14,17

240:9,10,16,22

241:5 253:1 257:5

257:16,20 258:3

258:11,14,17,18

271:7 273:14

274:17 276:8

277:6 280:5,20

298:12 304:3

306:16 311:10

313:12,18 316:2

marketing 240:22

marketplace 190:7

231:21

markets 44:5

122:17 193:13

296:7

markup 3:6,8

87:15,20 88:2

188:18,22 189:1

190:6,19 191:19

192:15 193:8

195:21 199:4

209:15 296:19,20

297:20

markups 177:1

180:4 188:7,17

192:5 193:12

194:20 198:10

201:4,22 226:13

297:9,13

marriage 159:20

marry 102:3

masking 322:20

mass 143:11

match 116:20

145:5 259:18

matched 108:11

Matching 271:9

material 14:7

55:19 173:11

191:8

materials 297:1

math 168:21 315:3

mathematics 314:4

matter 8:15 93:11

119:13 178:17

200:14 201:21

319:15

matters 292:14

mature 138:4

matured 135:17

max 51:5 104:4

166:11,12 168:7

180:19 181:5,9,13

181:13 183:6,6,7

183:13,14,18

184:17 185:9,11

185:16 223:3

225:9

maxed-out 222:10

maximize 231:20

maximizes 41:14

41:15

maximum 31:17

36:9 52:2,5 67:14

67:15 225:8

352:15

mean 66:21 72:21

77:6,7,13 86:7

109:9 116:2 133:8

143:5 167:12

169:10 182:10

186:15 187:12

192:9,16 193:4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 381

194:20 199:19

200:14 202:8,11

205:3 209:17

216:9 259:19

262:16 263:11,15

263:16,22 264:1

266:8,11,19

277:22 309:10

316:6 320:2

329:14 330:4

334:2,3 336:21

338:1 340:21

341:15 342:9

348:8

meaningful 55:7

107:7,8 111:5

174:16

means 59:4,8,9

85:13 92:16 178:4

188:12 203:14

205:17 211:7

230:7 255:2 289:5

290:16

meant 303:17

measure 207:7,9

256:4

measured 80:17

352:16

measurement

154:22

measurements

69:10

measures 45:9

measuring 207:12

mechanical 198:11

mechanism 177:13

medical 318:19

medium 67:5

259:22 325:8

meet 18:20 25:10

37:8 38:4 40:5,15

41:2,5 42:19 44:6

44:9 52:9 61:20

74:11 77:12

157:10 164:1

177:20 231:14

260:13 262:14,17

293:3

meeting 1:6,11,13

1:15 4:7,20,22

10:6,9 13:3,15,19

14:11 56:4,11

57:8 60:12 62:4

63:8,9 69:6 70:10

189:17 205:12

206:1 282:11

292:9 338:14

339:4 342:17

344:22 345:6

349:14 355:15

meetings 10:17

68:8 193:19

206:12 338:9,22

339:21 344:10

350:17

member 75:20

members 15:4,6

47:10 75:5

mention 47:14

304:15 305:7

mentioned 69:6

78:16,17 79:18

94:6 157:20 158:2

158:15 164:16

168:18,20 169:16

175:2 177:10

187:18 220:22

222:1,5 231:9

235:13 274:1

291:11 304:10

310:12 355:4

mentioning 226:11

238:19

merit 273:12

messages 11:4

met 1:11

metal 121:17

method 59:17

81:16 151:6,10,13

170:20

methodology

296:13

methods 60:5

107:5 247:1,3

metric 69:11

302:16 324:19

metrics 44:20,21

Mexico 332:14

MIA 96:9 250:15

256:11 272:7,9

293:10

mic 145:12

Michelle 2:6 7:14

324:3

microphone 37:16

70:22 71:16 93:22

264:7 265:10

353:17

microphones 5:13

10:4

mid-afternoon

9:12,14

mid-morning 8:21

middle 98:17

200:19 336:2

345:14

midnight 223:12

midpoint 145:1

202:20 222:14

mights 288:10

Mile 29:12

million 238:15,17

298:9,16,17 299:5

302:11,20 325:22

325:22

mind 59:12,12 77:3

120:7 177:22

184:11 199:1

219:9 226:9 259:6

261:16 284:4

291:16 292:21

341:10 348:2

minds 348:3

mindset 138:15

mine 168:22 239:9

minimized 43:10

minimizes 41:16

minimum 36:7

120:3 186:1 270:3

minute 39:5 188:21

197:20

minutes 39:15

92:16 148:22

169:17 319:12,13

mirror-image

279:21

miscalculations

32:7

missed 47:3 103:8

missing 242:11,11

missions 9:10

mistake 26:6

mistaken 202:17

misunderstand

201:13

misunderstanding

151:7 183:5

mitigate 12:10

mitigated 88:10

mix 259:18

mode 18:5 338:16

model 21:4 22:12

22:13 24:11,16

34:8 42:1 75:13

84:8,9,13 97:16

107:9 114:1,18

115:9,16 116:9

117:6 120:1,1

140:14 141:14

143:17 146:11

149:2 155:5,14,15

155:20 156:3,10

172:7 177:11,14

190:8 192:9,10

230:21 237:17

245:20 247:16

251:3 252:10

258:16 261:17,22

262:14 263:8,10

263:14,15 264:5

269:10 274:22

275:1,13 280:12

298:7 314:17

318:13 327:4,13

349:9

modeled 186:21

297:5,11,14

modeling 20:6 86:8

97:5 105:21 106:1

140:2 142:14

144:3,13 147:18

155:11 174:20

313:3 349:2

models 22:6 24:4,7

26:14 43:2 107:22

110:6,8 111:19

113:7,8 114:2

116:17 120:8,9,12

131:12 141:20

146:15 161:5

169:8 173:17

174:5 258:12,13

258:15,18 260:1

260:13,16 261:21

263:11 265:19

292:9 309:18

mom-and-pop

232:5

moment 328:13

MONDAY 1:8

monetize 324:16

money 87:8 156:6

232:6 246:11

321:21 322:5

327:20 329:2

330:19 332:22

monopoly 61:11

Monte 217:12

221:1

month 57:7 323:18

355:1

monthly 321:20

328:15

months 31:13

119:21

moons 204:9

Moore 2:5 6:10,10

46:22,22 75:8,8

76:4 83:17 84:7

84:15,19 90:3

95:11,14 105:4,6

105:12 114:9,16

114:22 115:2,10

115:15,21 116:6

123:21 124:2,12
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 382

124:22 125:22

184:10,20 187:16

198:6,19 263:4,10

263:15 288:8,21

289:22 290:1,8,17

306:3,9 309:12

314:8,12,18 315:2

326:7 329:5,19

353:14,18 354:2,5

morning 4:6 6:3

8:7 14:16 21:17

36:17 39:12 53:15

54:7 129:18 292:6

353:5

motor 34:17,19

90:22 101:9

133:21 141:6

185:5 186:19

motors 30:22 81:8

101:8 118:6 158:8

159:9 186:16

194:13,13 211:22

mouth 239:9

move 8:17 53:5

55:17 78:1 117:15

151:3 162:11

180:12 198:3

202:14 207:1

235:8 236:1

250:10 256:12

268:3,20 295:21

312:19 319:19

324:1 335:10

moved 332:13

334:6,14

moving 29:1 49:4

72:7 79:8 95:15

117:16 133:15

154:17 156:14

161:15 163:4

187:22 202:15,19

223:5 244:18

252:22 256:11

265:7 296:12

325:16 326:4

329:3 334:22

335:13

MPCs 116:1 168:4

168:11

multiple 22:12

47:15 85:11

140:19 235:20

309:3

multiplication

242:4

multiplied 201:17

multiplier 201:18

mute 10:20

N

NAAFEM 236:18

288:8

NAECA 334:9

NAFEM 6:10 47:1

47:4,9 75:8 76:5

83:17 105:6 124:3

128:19

NAICS 301:2

name 4:12 5:17

10:7 14:17 29:7

34:1 54:3 80:8

165:22 168:17

188:5 206:17

208:8 236:10

272:13 349:6

name’s 95:18

nation 102:7

129:17 239:12

national 2:3,6 3:10

7:13,15 9:8 48:19

58:9 123:10

189:14 202:22

225:10 230:12

238:22 239:1,4,16

247:7 321:12

324:4

nationally 327:9

natural 54:4 92:14

239:10 271:6

nature 36:10 61:12

337:17

Navigant 2:1,2,12

7:3,5,9,11 24:9

94:16 95:19

170:10 174:18

192:3 194:6

272:14 320:6

NDA 116:4 170:10

175:7 310:5 338:8

344:11

nearly 229:22

necessarily 59:5

100:15 171:1

181:19 259:19

322:7 339:14

NEEA 227:18

241:10 267:19

need 15:18 22:9

23:10 30:13 33:11

37:8 45:2 52:15

88:15 109:5,19,22

110:7 127:8

142:22 151:16,19

152:8 161:2

170:10 176:9

178:8,10 197:21

214:3 239:6 262:2

266:19 314:12

319:8,9 334:2

335:3 339:2

342:14 344:12

347:20

needed 213:10

224:22

needs 20:5 21:6

30:3 32:18 33:16

38:4 109:9 155:12

177:15 206:7

210:14 296:9

353:22

negative 108:13

112:18

negatively 41:4

42:1

negotiate 13:22

14:4 16:12 339:17

340:6 341:3

negotiated 16:9

38:15 48:13 339:9

340:17 342:3

negotiating 45:21

340:11 343:12

negotiation 341:1,5

342:15

neighborhood

238:18

Neither 43:11

NEMA 244:8

NEMS 247:16

326:22

net 239:3 249:18,21

298:8,18 301:14

301:17,20,22

302:9 303:10

307:12 313:12,18

315:9 327:8

332:17

neutral 12:15

16:16

never 197:16

232:20 346:1

new 17:19 29:20

31:2 33:5 39:22

45:5 46:6 69:3,14

70:2,7,10,13 71:8

71:13,18 74:13

89:2 99:1 110:1

122:5,5 123:2,6

139:9 150:12

158:20 162:5,6

169:20 180:16

185:17 213:13

218:18 237:3,15

237:16 241:15

242:1,3,3,6 243:5

243:14 245:21

262:10 270:20

277:5 293:2

294:11,12 296:6

297:9 299:15

303:15 329:10,13

340:16 343:15

new-to-replaced

241:18

newer 43:5 219:6

newest 72:17

news 329:8,9,12

news/good 329:8

NIA 96:9 215:4,21

228:11 245:16

327:4

nice 28:6 111:11

310:6

niche 36:10 38:1

177:11

Niemeyer 2:6 7:14

7:14 324:3,4

325:15 326:18

328:11,22 335:14

night 223:15,18

224:17

nine 104:17 112:9

132:4 142:7

165:14

Ninety-five 75:1

nitty 63:18

Nitz 2:7 6:3,3

NODA 343:14

non-compliant

277:21

non-disclosure

274:10

non-ENERGY

267:9

non-trivial 256:8

nondisclosure

86:18

noon 9:5

NOPR 14:7 62:4

63:16 68:22 79:17

80:3 95:8 96:2

97:12 98:20,21

104:18 105:10,14

106:3 113:6

154:15 158:11

159:14 181:1,7

225:21 226:15

236:21 237:2

343:16 344:15

350:16

normal 160:20

normally 128:4

228:2 346:8

North 2:5 47:2

300:13 309:6
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 383

northern 119:20

120:12

Northwest 2:3,6,11

6:13 7:13,15

123:10 324:4

note 42:13 54:14

68:16 102:13

145:2 162:6

note-taking 289:2

noted 22:3 113:5

277:4 281:10,17

notes 118:21 229:5

notice 1:3 4:8 15:14

54:9 165:16

341:20 343:14

notify 17:16 278:7

noting 281:7

notion 189:1

November 324:18

NOx 325:6 326:1

NPV 225:13 226:18

252:15

NRDC 54:8 255:13

255:16 256:2

NSF 173:13

NSF-proof 176:11

nugget 63:22 78:7

nuggets 58:18

number 29:19,21

34:10 59:14 77:19

78:17 84:8,9,13

97:13 101:13

158:16 185:10

189:7 195:1

203:10 204:5,7,14

205:10,11 206:8

211:5 214:2

215:19,19 216:1

217:19 221:20

223:20,21 224:6

243:9,21 252:19

255:22 261:19

263:16,17 265:14

267:6 269:5,7

270:19 278:10

304:1 313:20

314:21 315:22

317:11 320:2

323:4 329:20

350:11

numbers 57:3

104:5 108:5 115:5

115:18 162:4

166:3,16,21 175:7

188:21 196:19

198:8 200:5 203:1

204:20 205:9

213:5 216:9 218:1

219:19 235:14,21

236:2 237:5 263:8

263:10,14 264:5

265:19 268:2

270:6 273:1

305:13 306:13

309:11 310:9

314:9 315:19

317:18 318:9,14

319:22 322:20

324:22 325:4,7,11

326:8,15 330:5

numerous 39:20

O

o'clock 223:12

obtain 18:19 89:12

140:11 147:15

166:16

obviously 12:10

13:13 57:13 61:16

120:21 171:2

303:5 331:13

335:1 341:9

occasion 35:14

occur 68:20 76:8

207:10

occurred 132:11

139:17

occurring 117:11

occurs 145:6

odd 165:2

offending 5:6

offer 66:6 102:5,10

offered 159:12

offerings 20:3

261:1,17

offhand 307:11

Office 6:19,22

177:18

offices 242:9

official 247:9

officially 285:16

offshore 166:5

oh 25:16 125:11

136:11 188:4

240:19 281:2

286:1 338:18

350:4

OHA 284:11

292:18

okay 4:3 5:11 9:22

28:8 37:18 39:10

48:4,22 53:21

54:2 55:15,17

56:5,11 58:3 59:2

60:7 61:13 62:5

66:18 67:1 71:11

71:17 72:1,5,6

74:5,13,17 78:13

79:7,7 82:5,6

84:19,20 85:16

88:5 91:3,16,19

92:12 93:6,14,17

95:13,14 110:22

111:7 114:16,22

117:15 124:22

125:9 126:4

127:10 128:1

130:19 132:12,13

133:2,14 135:7

136:11 142:9

144:14 154:16

156:13,18,22

160:1,14 164:12

165:7,7 169:12

171:5,18 174:7

175:8 176:18

178:12 180:14

186:6 187:21,21

188:4 195:17,21

198:5 200:19

210:15 224:12,15

224:18 236:3

241:22 242:8

244:3,13 246:18

250:12 255:17

256:11 258:8

259:13 267:14

270:13 272:4,8,11

278:19 280:22

281:4 283:6 286:3

288:5 291:6

296:11,12 300:6

303:3 305:20

306:9,19 308:14

312:21 315:15

319:10,10,14

323:21 324:1,3

325:15 326:17,18

327:7 329:14

331:19 335:11,15

343:18 350:4,6,9

351:8 354:10

old 122:9,22

once 17:16 47:15

96:22 148:19

156:4 223:11

263:19,21

one-sided 343:3

one-time 207:17

ones 65:14 94:5,8

98:17,19,19 99:18

101:3,4,5 172:22

187:13 211:16,17

231:13 232:9

234:8,9 339:19

ongoing 50:16

oops 295:15

open 14:5 116:12

224:2 275:20

340:14 344:1

351:11

opening 3:1 8:14

14:15 21:22 33:22

36:15 39:16 47:7

48:6 53:12 60:8

74:20 117:14

163:6 242:4

operate 120:4

149:22

operates 144:10

operating 27:18

41:5,15,16,20

42:17 59:7 80:18

145:6,7 146:17

150:7 153:9,12,22

154:4,4 207:18

213:10 222:11

231:6 281:14

342:3

operation 149:1

operator 17:14

18:3 32:17 33:2

35:19 232:13

operators 317:7

opinion 154:21

opportunity 8:13

9:19,22 14:15

15:13 21:11 35:20

40:10 91:14

131:11,19 154:5

296:5 338:1,12

349:22

opposed 241:3

299:19

opposite 93:5

optimize 140:20

161:9

optimizing 158:5

optimum 25:9

155:18,21

option 20:14 80:2

81:6 105:20 106:7

107:6 114:13

118:10,15 121:7

159:4 201:21

309:17

options 19:1 20:12

21:1,3 24:21 25:2

25:5 26:15 27:13

40:11 63:4 79:14

83:4,6,10,21

94:19 96:17

105:21 107:9

109:14,18 111:17

114:7 117:20
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 384

118:2 119:8

172:11 234:6

253:5,9 294:1

313:1 345:20

order 22:5 45:3

105:22 220:5

224:22

organization 5:17

organizations 49:3

original 58:21

226:4

Orlando 198:15

Osann 53:11,19,21

54:2,3 55:14

ought 11:2,3

110:22

outcome 235:17

266:13

outlet 43:8

outlined 134:15

312:22

outlook 213:7

247:17 270:15

output 159:21

262:3

outset 8:15 14:14

21:16 28:8 54:7

349:22

outside 65:7 133:19

279:4 281:18

304:19

overall 22:2 27:17

190:21

overestimated 19:2

40:12

overhead 188:19

191:3 297:2

overheads 190:19

overly 137:19

overnight 224:4

overpredict 197:2

overseas 279:6,6,16

280:6,8 309:15

334:4,6,14,22

overseeing 12:7

overstated 149:12

304:16

overview 3:3 28:6

274:13

Overviews 8:19

owned 316:10

owner 332:18

owners 42:10

313:14 330:11

332:19

owning 207:9

P

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-...

4:1

p.m 178:18 180:2

319:16,17 355:14

PA 34:4

pace 61:16

Pacific 2:3,6 7:12

7:15 123:9 324:4

package 59:6 255:3

packaged 65:4

packaging 65:2

packet 8:6,18 55:22

55:22

page 8:8 70:12

175:17 221:4

225:7 247:20

pages 295:14

paid 202:11 228:4

pairing 99:21

pairs 168:2

paper 73:2,4 202:6

paragraph 292:5

parallel 53:5 174:9

174:13

parameters 50:4

paramount 281:11

pardon 123:22

125:11 132:1

316:5

parent 316:10,11

Parsons 2:8 5:21

5:21 29:9,9 87:3,3

88:14 148:7,7

160:15,15 260:9,9

265:16,16 308:15

308:15 311:6,6

313:11 331:21,21

part 48:20,20 49:1

50:16 64:7 72:3

73:11,11 76:14

87:14 123:12

144:12 145:9

173:7,22 176:10

176:11 182:14

191:7 201:4,18

202:3 216:21

220:14 245:3,3

269:15 273:13

289:10,13 292:10

308:4 354:15

parte 338:12

participants 10:14

275:7

participate 75:4

participating 48:22

particular 11:21

13:9 17:7 28:16

57:1 64:9 69:9

102:21 109:4

110:3 129:14

163:17 170:15

173:18 177:14

184:7 214:1 220:4

229:16 243:1

261:17 270:21

273:21 275:22

283:14 295:1

316:19 349:9

particularly 54:19

95:22 102:22

117:9 142:18

174:4 229:13

231:11 331:11

partly 344:15

partner 40:2 49:4

partners 37:1

192:13

parts 81:2 85:20

159:22 173:11,14

175:4 176:1,14

219:14 327:21

pass 280:14 296:16

297:17

passed 11:4 81:6

83:5

patch 122:22

path 355:2,12

pathway 112:20

131:20

pathways 105:1,8

105:18

pattern 271:6

pause 56:22

pay 109:11 173:21

173:22 281:8

313:21

payback 3:6,8 9:4

26:8 207:2,15,20

207:21 227:3,7

231:2 232:8,10,21

233:20 235:18

281:9

paybacks 233:1,3

paying 5:2

pays 231:22 233:7

peak 205:18

peaks 269:12

peg 251:7

pencils 237:2

pendency 55:2

penetration 251:15

251:21

Pennsylvania

169:11

people 5:1 12:6

13:20 15:4 27:2

31:10 57:15 60:8

61:1 102:7 109:11

119:21 121:12

122:22 130:3,11

163:3,6 177:12

195:4,6 196:1,17

196:20 206:1

211:5 232:8

234:20 273:19

276:5 313:20

316:13 317:12

319:12 321:20

322:2 328:14

330:5,17 332:20

339:13,20

people's 322:6

percent 15:11 19:4

19:5,14,16 20:1,4

21:2,5 22:5 29:15

31:5,8 32:19 37:8

37:13,19,20,22

38:20 42:10,12,20

42:21 43:1 44:10

44:13 45:2 51:21

51:22 52:3,4

74:10,18 75:1

78:6,17 85:22

86:1 89:6,8

122:17 134:16,21

134:22 135:4,6,13

135:15 136:20

138:11,12 139:1,2

140:2,4,9,11

142:6,7,11 143:5

143:14,15 148:14

148:15 149:15,19

149:20 152:4,5

156:21 157:4,10

159:2 167:14

168:18 169:4

172:1,3,22 175:20

181:6,8 182:3,4

184:2,7,12,13,16

184:16,18 185:17

185:19 191:19

193:8 194:13,13

204:3 205:6,10,19

214:9 215:22

216:22 217:21

220:4 222:12,13

238:4 240:3 247:8

247:8 251:21

252:5,11,12,14

258:5 259:22

260:13 262:18

265:14 298:18

299:16 302:5,13

302:15 303:8

304:9 306:16

308:1,5,7 326:2,2

330:10
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 385

percentage 193:22

227:9 237:19

perfectly 170:21

perform 41:11

60:15 84:3 102:2

275:14 276:11

performance 20:2

20:6 24:4,20 40:9

41:18 42:15,19

45:20 46:10 62:22

140:20 146:1,3

147:13 155:1

performed 89:13

97:13 105:20

118:10 276:12

289:14

performing 97:20

period 3:6,9 9:4

17:21 18:11,18

23:17 61:18 69:4

74:16 138:8 161:2

207:2,16,21 214:9

215:20 219:12

223:13 231:2

232:9,10 236:10

238:7,14 245:11

271:3 281:9 298:8

301:18 303:14

315:1 338:5

344:17 351:20

periods 227:3,7

232:21 235:18

permanent 81:8

158:7

permutation

100:16

person 210:4 213:1

340:7

Personally 339:19

perspective 108:17

108:19 116:19

117:5,8 248:12,21

249:15 250:8

286:12

perspectives 108:4

persuade 176:12

petition 292:18

Petrillo 74:21

180:15 235:10

282:5

Petrillo-Groh 2:8

6:11,12 14:16,17

17:18 18:6 74:21

145:16 149:14

180:6,9,14,19

181:5,22 182:13

184:15 187:3,14

235:10 236:4

253:4,16 254:4

282:5,15,19 283:3

283:7 293:14,22

298:21 299:3

306:12,19,21

307:6 310:11

316:17 317:9,15

322:22 323:3,19

339:6 341:15

343:2 351:3,8

phase 79:17 113:6

138:20 139:17

236:15 274:14,19

274:20 275:8

phone 53:20

phones 10:11

physical 106:17

109:6 118:17

130:10 164:8

190:12

physically 210:11

physics 155:16

pick 182:11 217:14

picked 183:1

picking 219:17

270:22

picture 257:8,9

piece 35:3 65:5

73:1,4 246:5,15

250:14 295:1

piece-wise 68:10

73:6

pieces 76:1 79:14

173:17 229:1

Pinto 1:16 6:19,19

352:22 353:2,2

354:1,4,6

place 15:22 34:12

35:17 36:7 57:22

109:22 128:22

166:22 205:16

228:10 240:15

245:22 246:19

259:10 266:6

270:4 271:13

277:4 310:14

346:16

placed 23:14

225:22

placements 243:6

places 22:2 164:18

165:5 242:3 261:2

plan 12:21 128:5,6

planned 88:17

plant 324:10

328:17

plastic 173:11,14

173:22 175:4

176:11

plate 333:4

platform 286:19

platforms 46:4,7

82:1

play 157:8 177:15

229:8 298:2 335:2

played 228:19

player 36:10

players 36:21

playing 169:4

269:20

plays 23:12

please 10:2,4,7,12

13:11,12 14:6

28:12 29:8 42:13

53:19 70:21 72:9

75:7 80:8 93:1,14

93:15,22 103:8

129:10 138:8

165:21 169:12

177:8 178:6

180:13 208:8

256:14 264:8

269:1 285:10

301:9 319:20

322:11 324:2

331:19 341:14

342:20 351:22

352:6 353:16

plot 77:20 111:21

plug 351:12

plug-n-play 90:14

plugged 75:12

339:15

plugging 75:10

plumbing 126:20

plus 324:10

pocket 84:14

pockets 322:6

point 10:12 12:16

24:3 26:11 27:6,7

28:18 34:8 54:12

56:22 63:20 75:9

80:11 83:8,12,18

85:5 91:7 92:14

101:15 108:18

111:9,14 114:6

115:7,15,17

120:20 132:16

133:2 135:2

142:10 144:2,4,11

150:15 152:21

153:11 198:20

199:19 200:5,20

225:14,19 226:3,6

226:19,20 232:22

234:19,21 235:16

237:21 254:3

259:17 260:11,19

261:15 263:18

266:1 268:10

275:3 307:22

308:22 335:6

337:12 338:13

340:2 341:16

349:13,21

pointed 48:10

283:17

points 77:1,5 85:12

112:2 152:11

167:9 170:18

172:15 175:2

184:20 195:15

276:2

policy 48:14 53:1,3

58:6,10 338:10

polling 322:19

pop 257:4

population 166:7

166:15 242:17

portal 178:11

portfolio 44:12

45:5 220:5 308:3

portion 90:21

112:12 169:6

242:1,2 311:11

316:8

pose 222:18

posited 276:19

position 21:18

139:5 151:1 307:4

314:4 339:17

positive 93:19

112:17 321:20

possibility 167:13

294:3 339:9

possible 19:15

24:13 39:1 56:16

110:3 132:5

150:15 161:1

199:11 291:14

339:18 344:1

possibly 126:21

post 312:10 343:14

posted 343:15

postulated 136:20

potable 54:16,18

107:20

potential 35:22

54:17 67:21

120:14 222:1,6

242:21,22 279:7

288:10 293:7

294:10 296:15

300:2 311:16

321:3

potentially 88:1

105:2 268:2 293:9
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 386

355:6

pound 64:4 70:4

164:3 203:4

pounds 58:15 60:5

63:15 163:15

165:20

power 72:17 73:3

73:16 91:1 173:19

203:17 324:10

328:17

powering 203:17

PPI 214:22 215:6

244:22 245:4

practicability

82:18

pre-chill 146:13

pre-NOPR 274:20

pre-production

153:14

preamble 12:16

255:10 283:19

292:3

precede 288:4

precedence 276:22

precedent 339:8

precisely 348:16

precluding 183:20

predict 24:17 53:3

143:18

predicted 21:4

140:14

predicting 141:16

197:1

prediction 24:19

predicts 156:3

prefer 271:20

preliminary 11:7

63:9 69:6 70:9,14

70:18 98:1,18

99:12 104:14,16

105:19 110:15,21

113:3 137:9

138:20 139:16

149:17 162:2

165:18 189:16

190:11 204:11

236:13,14 282:11

344:20

premises 281:14

prepared 50:13

present 1:14,20

20:1 21:12 56:12

60:20 95:19 239:3

249:19,21 273:11

298:8,19 301:14

301:18,21 302:1,9

303:10 307:12

313:13,18 315:10

325:17 326:1

332:17

presentation 55:19

56:21 176:20

presented 57:8

162:2 327:10

presenting 62:11

preservation 297:6

297:11

President’s 44:2

presiding 1:13

pressing 15:17

282:21

presumption 25:19

pretty 96:11

102:14 104:3

109:10 117:21

162:1,1,7 164:9

174:11 199:7

250:7 334:17

344:6

prevent 44:3

preventative 212:8

preventing 280:4

preview 28:7

previewed 50:10

previous 44:21

126:10 205:12

310:15

previously 54:14

72:19 254:18

price 43:22 88:6,8

111:12 188:10

192:12 197:18

213:16,22 215:1

216:12 234:19

244:20 245:13

246:1,2,3 247:1

276:12 281:6

289:12,14,21

290:9 291:2,4

296:22

price-sensitive

276:10

prices 107:20

192:11,17 197:1,3

213:3,8 229:21

291:3

pricing 158:20

pride 37:4

primarily 127:13

primary 42:2 43:21

126:17 272:22

324:10

principle 322:5

printed 292:4,5

prior 20:7 44:19

221:17 236:14

299:12

pro 326:9

probability 217:22

probably 22:4 92:6

96:11 101:22

107:2 123:14

146:9 153:22

159:9 162:10

205:10 209:2

216:21 222:11

237:8,20 246:4

257:3 269:19

270:14 271:1

286:13 290:13

347:9

problem 47:3

323:20 330:12

problematic 143:2

294:6

problems 235:16

293:16 352:1

procedure 59:20

60:1 64:13,19

83:2 85:7 150:3

151:8,9 154:10,13

154:21,22 203:8

342:4

procedures 55:10

59:15 85:9

proceed 12:14

proceeding 9:2

106:6

process 12:20 16:2

16:10 28:2 31:4

44:8 47:17 48:2

50:17 53:4 64:11

69:7 71:12 83:14

96:2,7 115:13

125:13 146:21

150:12,19 158:18

160:9 169:20

172:10 188:20

213:19 220:15

275:7 288:20

291:14 293:4,8

339:15,20 340:18

341:7 345:8

processes 46:5

220:7

processing 324:12

procure 183:11

produce 26:20

176:13 281:14

282:3 299:11

304:19 305:1

317:12

produced 75:2

99:16 104:17

159:11 304:2

311:21

Producer 215:1

216:12

producing 46:6

116:1 304:13

316:15

product 12:3 13:6

13:10 23:16 25:13

30:5,9,12 36:8

38:9 42:22 43:18

44:12,13 45:1,7

51:18,22 69:22

75:1 99:3 100:16

100:21 103:7

127:18 130:22

132:9 177:20

187:7 190:21

191:8 193:2

209:12 212:18

220:7 222:11,17

240:20 265:12,13

276:15 277:1

278:8 279:5,20

280:13 281:8,20

282:1 289:16,17

289:21 308:2

309:3 310:6

313:16 336:14

337:8

production 37:20

41:14 86:11

103:15,22 153:13

153:14 160:1

297:1,3 299:10

304:12 305:9

313:3 314:22

315:12 316:7

317:1,11,22

318:20 319:1

320:7,10,12,16,17

320:18 332:13

productive 14:11

products 11:17

33:13 42:3 43:19

44:5 45:5 52:7

59:14 63:2 66:12

81:9 101:7 106:17

109:10 118:7

194:9 222:9 240:9

276:14 277:8

278:13 279:4,15

280:19 281:13

282:3 285:21

295:5 296:7 304:2

304:14,19,21

305:1 306:6 308:4

323:5

profile 274:15

275:5

profit 42:2 126:17
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 387

130:8 189:8 193:1

313:17,19 333:8

333:11

profitability 297:5

297:7

program 4:17 58:8

58:11 61:17 76:15

81:14 195:19

251:19 252:13

256:3 287:19

programs 75:3

progress 48:11

progressing 177:22

progressive 31:11

prohibits 163:16

Project 6:16

projected 242:16

projecting 167:13

projection 238:10

270:15

projections 287:7

promise 343:22

promised 349:21

propane 29:3

properly 53:14

120:6 142:13

223:17 280:5

proposal 14:1,2

68:10 70:19

124:12 184:12

308:11 312:11

340:13

proposals 33:17

propose 54:15

88:14 181:17

proposed 1:3 4:9

9:16 15:14 18:13

18:16,21 22:6

24:8 27:19 40:11

40:15,18,18 41:2

41:9 44:16,18

47:12 50:18 51:2

51:13,20 52:8

74:3 89:2 125:14

155:19 164:2,10

165:18 181:1,7

182:16,16,19

184:2,17 204:7

272:16 273:6

298:14 307:15

327:9 341:3

350:11 351:5

proposing 260:1

307:18

proprietary 164:17

182:2,5,9,19

183:1,19 184:19

186:2 229:8

275:10

proprietor 232:12

proprietors 231:6

protect 170:13

Protection 278:14

proud 29:16

prove 20:17,18

proved 164:21

proven 42:14

provide 20:7 21:12

54:11 57:10 61:5

65:15 77:8 105:2

129:16 150:9,21

150:22 151:15

169:19 187:16

204:20 213:7

218:13 224:5

225:1 261:7 310:5

323:1,9,12 331:12

337:5 343:20

346:2 348:12,15

provided 60:5

98:12 138:21

170:13 236:13

260:21 267:4,5

342:5 350:17

provides 154:22

providing 337:22

proving 63:4

proxy 219:10 261:3

PTACs 254:22

255:2 310:12,15

310:20 311:9

public 1:6,11,15

4:12 14:8 50:16

56:4,15 57:7,10

57:12 125:13

150:18 170:12

188:11 282:11

312:7 337:5,9

340:1,4 342:17

344:20 345:6

349:10 355:7

publication 354:8

publicly 340:3

publicly-available

274:6 300:20

publicly-traded

274:8

publish 125:13

published 50:20

59:16,19 301:3

344:16 353:7

publishing 20:8

pull 89:1 272:14

274:2

pulled 229:19

272:20 274:7,16

pulling 218:1

pump 35:7

pumped 35:6

pumps 30:22

purchase 51:7

100:7,15 101:3,4

102:22 181:19

purchase-cost-in...

41:6

purchased 79:13

98:18,19 100:4

101:9,13 112:8

198:9 248:3

purchasers 206:2

purchases 237:16

243:14

purchasing 173:19

217:9 276:21

purely 20:15 110:2

purpose 56:4,11

96:12 102:12

103:14 106:15

207:5 236:8 273:2

326:19 327:8

purposes 102:8

280:18

pursuant 59:15

pursue 29:20

push 90:19

put 14:1,2 18:9

22:16 25:6 34:12

36:6 58:2 69:14

74:7,15 80:12,14

83:20 89:2 90:5

109:22 111:19

122:11 139:19,22

142:11,20 148:13

152:19 157:18,21

158:2 164:18

165:5 173:1,11

184:10 191:10

229:5 237:1

248:11,21 249:14

252:2 256:22

257:10 270:3

273:4 277:4

322:14 324:13

337:13 340:20

puts 164:19 271:17

putting 119:15

156:6 208:13

223:6 252:10

290:15

Q

quad 247:18 248:2

249:14

quads 248:19,20

249:9 254:11,15

qualifies 251:8,9

qualify 252:21

qualitatively 273:9

quality 37:5

quantify 296:4

quantitatively

273:9

quarter 248:2

question 36:11

63:19 66:22 71:2

72:10 77:11,14

78:14,16 80:7,19

88:19 90:5 91:10

91:20 93:19 95:1

99:5,9 100:9

103:14 119:5

120:8 121:5,8

127:12 134:1

144:2 156:15

157:5,7 167:8

171:14 180:10

182:21 184:10

196:22 208:4

209:8 222:18

224:1 251:18

265:2 269:1

279:19,22 280:16

288:22 291:10

293:7 298:20

300:6 305:13

310:13 312:4

320:14 326:7

337:21 346:4

questions 62:5 77:7

79:1 87:4 114:5

119:7 125:5,8

216:2 240:13

250:9 267:15

328:4 338:4,16,17

queue 148:6

quick 90:3,10

103:14 168:14

195:9 208:4

244:11 291:10

292:6 322:19

337:21

quicker 61:16

quickly 16:8 47:5

93:1 94:3 109:17

133:4 148:8 152:1

233:7 319:14

quit 330:12

quite 59:14 101:13

180:17 271:17

314:4 337:10

339:20

quotations 158:21

quote 325:8

quoting 292:7
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 388

R

R-404A 11:15 12:3

16:17 28:15

R&D 45:18 87:13

87:16 296:3

332:22

R404A 286:17

R44A 286:5

racks 241:3

raise 9:20 10:21

130:12 138:8

139:12 192:17

raised 47:21 57:2

310:13 339:7

ramp-up 271:14

ramping 45:18

ran 112:14 224:3

Raney 2:9 6:5,5

55:21 143:22,22

144:6,9 269:2,2

269:22 270:7,13

271:11,22

range 27:10,15,18

51:20 52:2 63:14

64:3,4 66:12

217:20 222:14,15

261:16 268:9

296:15 298:4

305:3 307:11

ranges 68:4 73:8

307:14 325:21

ranging 217:21

298:16 324:19

rate 63:14 68:18

70:4 151:14

190:13,19 213:12

217:14,16 247:8

271:10 325:4

326:3

rated 29:20 119:16

rates 43:7 67:10

97:17 217:8

318:17 325:12,20

rating 27:7 85:2,5

141:12,13 144:4,5

144:6 151:5

276:16

ratings 69:8 97:16

ratio 41:7 239:7,8

241:17,19 243:20

247:15 296:21

rationale 72:20

Rawald 1:17 6:21

6:21 125:11 177:9

244:5 253:8 265:2

277:14,15 279:10

279:10,15,19

280:3

RCU 65:5 169:5

RCUs 165:16,16

re-engineer 286:15

286:22

reach 221:22

228:17

reach-in 22:19 23:5

reached 349:13

reaching 168:6

345:11

reacting 333:20

read 60:22 208:2

221:4 337:2,8

350:12

reading 337:14

ready 55:17 117:15

177:3 262:16

real 25:7 26:18

83:22 84:1 90:3

107:7 109:9 110:7

190:16 192:21

196:2 202:11

227:14 231:21

294:16,19 296:8

311:1 334:7

341:18,18 345:2

real-time 339:21

realistic 33:18

136:4 138:16

154:12

realities 47:16

193:13

reality 194:15

347:4 348:1

350:21

realize 333:1

realized 100:6

156:2

really 23:9,22

24:10,13 26:12

61:14 64:8 66:15

70:19 76:9 77:8

86:3 108:6 111:14

111:22 119:22

120:5 129:20

130:4 141:13,15

145:5 155:3,7

156:11,12 163:5

168:14 171:17

172:5,5,16,18

182:4 189:6,8

199:1 203:8,8

205:18 215:18

216:1 217:20

222:9,14 228:14

228:21 234:6,14

235:21 241:6

262:2,16 263:7

281:11 291:11

294:14 304:21

305:13 306:13

339:7 344:12

350:2

realm 194:15

reason 13:1 66:12

66:15 68:7 111:15

120:16 164:22

198:3 204:21

208:22 229:9

263:2 272:3 289:2

reasonable 147:19

194:22 195:1

reasons 81:13

108:20 109:12

140:22 163:21

164:8 165:6

310:13

rebate 252:5,13

rebates 251:2,7

254:1

rebuttable 25:19

232:17

recalculate 190:18

recall 135:10

205:21 213:18

268:4 282:9

receive 10:20 86:22

193:11 338:2

354:22

received 4:22 8:6

13:21 19:20 56:18

79:2 89:10 92:5

106:9 113:4 137:9

158:20

receiving 352:1

receptive 28:20

recession 271:1

reciprocating

138:5

recognize 48:9

197:12

recognized 11:1

37:1

recollection 65:20

206:9,13

recommended

171:18 300:11

recommending

84:4

record 10:6 54:13

93:12,13 178:18

187:17 217:3

309:12 319:16,17

322:14 338:15

339:2,22 352:20

recorded 42:18

170:1

recovers 188:19

red 351:5

redefine 154:14

redesign 17:4 22:4

23:15 31:22 38:12

redesigning 286:18

reduce 165:4

193:22

reduced 252:16

279:7 327:19

reducing 82:10

119:15

reduction 21:4

315:12 325:18

327:5

reevaluated 21:6

235:22

refer 226:14

reference 243:2

327:2

referenced 60:2

117:13 289:3

references 20:20

85:8

referring 145:10

175:16 328:9

refers 328:9

refining 274:11

reflect 17:9 150:4

154:13 162:5

237:6 266:18

reflected 78:12

153:21

reflecting 264:15

reflection 154:12

156:10

reflects 156:20

refresh 346:8

refreshing 47:8

refrigerant 11:16

11:21 12:15 13:3

13:6,10 16:16

22:1 142:15,16

283:14 284:1,16

285:3,4,15 286:5

287:15 288:14,15

291:17 292:12,14

292:17,22 293:3

294:4,8,12,20

295:1

refrigerant-neut...

287:14 291:13

refrigerants 12:19

16:18 17:3,10,11

17:22 18:7 23:11

28:15,21 29:2

45:10 52:17 79:19

79:21 235:22

283:4,11,16 284:7

284:14 285:12,20
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 389

287:2 292:1

refrigeration 12:18

14:19 15:2 23:7

32:9,13 38:11

67:6 82:9 90:13

134:11 135:12

136:8 148:18

150:1 152:16

158:13 160:21

212:9 215:3,7

216:13 243:1

244:22 283:20

286:6 287:1

300:17 332:4

350:15

refrigerator 38:2

refrigerators 38:12

334:3

reg 348:13

regard 276:21

regarding 19:12

54:10 77:12

137:10

regardless 292:11

regards 275:17

307:9,13

region 120:9

regional 43:7

regions 119:21

120:12 146:17

Register 125:15

regression 276:12

289:15

regularly 34:19

regulate 279:13

regulation 15:19

36:6 299:13

regulations 17:2

40:7 43:16 125:14

292:17

regulatory 3:10 9:8

14:18 45:9 46:17

47:14 58:4 193:2

250:16 253:20

273:18 274:22

275:13 298:6

314:16 318:13

reinforces 235:15

reiterate 276:1

rejection 229:9

relate 180:22

296:15 299:17

304:21 313:2

related 18:14 322:7

relates 148:16

281:20

relation 180:20

relationship 19:5

96:15 135:5 137:7

289:20 308:2

327:15

relative 42:6 262:4

289:5 304:3,11

relatively 159:3

173:10 250:19

released 324:18

327:1

relevant 129:15

331:8,9,17 341:7

reliability 27:14

34:10 37:6 40:14

41:4,15,20,21

42:15 45:7,21

158:16 160:11

220:9 281:5,11

reliable 27:10

34:13 46:4 143:6

reliably 41:11 46:6

120:4

reliance 294:22

relied 106:13 124:5

124:8

relief 12:20 283:22

284:3 286:20

292:19

relocating 126:21

relook 138:14

relying 126:2

remaining 46:2

83:4 131:22 132:3

315:21

remains 137:6

230:3 286:21

remark 53:12 54:6

remarks 3:16 4:15

9:18 14:15 36:15

39:16 47:7 48:5,6

60:9 74:20 117:14

350:1,1 352:9,21

354:18

remedial 320:14

remember 110:14

117:3 135:16

148:17 168:17

173:16 178:7

187:4 190:10

230:11 268:8,19

344:19

reminded 122:15

remote 65:11,21

66:13 241:1,4

remotes 168:16

remove 35:13 44:3

149:4

repair 124:16

211:1,8,19 212:5

212:15,17 213:1

218:11 219:8,16

219:20 221:9

repairing 33:7

repeatable 81:16

replace 32:18,22

130:16

replaced 45:2

212:2 271:4

replacement 32:20

210:5 241:16

242:5 271:7,10

replacing 270:9

report 170:17

237:3 242:20

275:15 324:17

325:1,20

reported 264:6

reporting 298:3

reports 236:18

274:7 349:7,8

represent 68:11

198:11

representative

70:19 101:6,14

103:4,6

represented 168:19

representing 14:22

represents 22:14

169:6

reproduce 226:1

request 16:10

161:18 311:13

313:9 336:5

338:14 348:22

requested 42:5

137:8 162:12

requests 83:9

require 16:3 17:3

27:18 31:21

146:22 183:14

339:7 342:12

343:6

required 22:11

40:14 46:3 58:19

58:22 90:21

141:17 152:18

218:17 220:3,13

253:5 254:13

316:1 317:12

requirement 25:11

25:16 158:17

249:7

requirements

55:10 170:2 273:4

requires 43:3

117:11

reread 335:19

research 30:16

44:14 281:21

299:8,18 300:2

315:15

resembles 32:12

residential 193:5

249:12

resist 249:3

resolve 197:13

resolved 78:22

resource 23:3

resources 16:4 23:1

23:3,20,22 36:8

54:4 281:20,22

respect 13:6 137:12

150:10

respects 213:4

respond 123:8

125:18 136:10

responded 48:1

responding 30:2

response 113:3

146:20 206:22

224:20 247:5

250:11 257:10

319:5 325:13

335:12 354:14

responses 274:11

responsibility

347:14

responsible 309:16

rest 57:9 99:20

101:11 126:3

191:20 223:15

241:16

restaurant 39:4

121:11,21 126:11

126:12 129:2

130:9,18 210:11

223:12 231:7

232:13 290:14

restaurants 124:7

124:21 130:13

163:2,7 222:2

242:3,7 322:9

restricted 64:9

89:16 136:22

restroom 319:13

restrooms 92:21

result 16:21 26:21

27:5,19 32:16

164:1 256:3

275:22 344:15

resulting 31:22

273:20 313:6

results 89:8 107:8

111:5 112:17

114:4 170:15

252:9 253:21

275:16

resume 92:16 93:8
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 390

93:10,15 178:4

retail 30:13 97:18

106:20,22 107:15

107:20 108:7,10

110:16 188:12

189:5 200:12,15

201:5 242:10

276:11 289:4,5,12

289:21 290:1,12

290:15 291:1

336:7

retailer 188:11

rethink 192:10

retool 87:10 333:2

retrofit 122:12,17

122:18

retrospective 197:6

197:7

return 33:3 93:20

Returning 9:7

revealed 83:20

revenue 130:8

333:7

revenues 303:11

305:4,7,8

reverse 96:19

97:20 106:1,14

112:7 113:21

118:17

reversed 86:15

review 8:11 79:12

288:20 308:12

312:13 344:20

349:5

reviews 288:18

312:5

revise 342:1 346:4

346:7

revised 16:13 59:17

107:6 114:12

revision 18:21

revisions 60:2

299:9,9

rewire 210:10

reworked 95:6

rich 196:13 266:13

266:20

Ricketts 2:9 7:16

7:16

riddled 32:6

right 9:22 25:22

38:19 48:22 49:7

49:14,19 50:2

61:22 65:18 81:5

82:4 84:16,19

92:2,10 95:2,17

96:6 97:6 98:19

104:9 105:15,17

115:4,19 116:13

117:19 121:5

126:4 132:7,20,21

133:14,16 140:17

141:12 143:8

144:7 155:18,20

156:19,22 161:16

165:8 167:1,19,22

169:9 171:15,21

172:8 181:14

183:9 195:22

197:3 200:13,20

200:21 201:7

202:8 219:21

222:11 232:3

234:20 235:5

241:16 243:8,11

243:15,18 244:2

249:16 251:5

254:11 260:5,18

262:13 263:3,13

263:16 264:3,13

264:18,20 266:2,3

266:4 268:3,4,9

268:11,13,21

271:14 272:10

280:3,9 287:13

288:14 292:2

293:19 305:15

321:8,9 324:6

326:18 327:7

329:8,14 335:14

336:1 341:19,21

346:17 347:20

354:5

risk 45:6,8 220:8

220:15

road 49:22 335:16

Robert 2:13 8:2

28:11 29:6 91:4,5

120:17,18 134:4,5

135:8 137:17

152:9 157:20

167:6 175:8,9

183:3 193:15,16

197:10 200:3

Robert's 198:20

199:19

robust 34:16 336:9

rollout 18:8

Ron 2:12 6:9

305:11,12 317:16

317:17

roof 129:3 130:12

132:21

room 1:11 5:5,7,12

10:21 11:2 12:1

14:3 32:10 48:5

92:17 124:10

139:11 178:5,5

238:12 245:7

285:10 334:5,15

339:13 342:22

346:15 347:2,10

348:3 354:17

root 219:18

rough 89:6

roughly 63:20

148:14 156:20

249:9

round 119:22

routing 141:7

row 209:17

RS 211:7

ruin 347:17

rule 8:16 12:17,22

13:14,22 14:9

16:7,16 18:13,15

18:16 19:21 20:8

47:12 48:1 49:9

49:13 51:3 55:2

56:17 58:22 59:16

59:20 61:21 64:13

84:4 134:11 136:2

149:18 151:4

170:7 184:2

186:16,22 237:11

254:22 255:7,10

257:14 277:19

278:6 283:18

284:6,6 287:13

288:2,15 291:11

292:4 326:14

329:11 337:6

342:18 343:13,17

346:12,16,17,20

346:21 353:6,7

355:3

ruled 131:6

rulemaking 1:3 4:9

11:19 15:15,22

16:2,10 17:7,9

18:10,12 19:7,10

19:19 27:5 28:2

38:15 40:12,18

41:2,9 44:18

47:17,21 48:9,21

49:5 50:17 52:20

54:6,11,22 58:5

58:20 61:15 83:11

87:22 136:18,22

149:16 151:11

190:4 195:11

200:6,6 253:15

273:21 274:20

276:1 285:17

288:16 289:14

304:20 305:2

308:4 329:18

339:10 340:18

342:2

rulemakings 16:22

52:21 100:15

102:19 111:3

190:9 194:8

196:16 199:21

307:1,8 310:15

rules 16:21 47:15

49:21 125:14

192:13 219:5

233:2 253:12

287:11 288:19

307:15

ruling 76:15

292:22

run 115:5 119:14

120:2 217:15

221:1 223:13

245:20 262:5

302:8 330:13,14

running 205:16,17

212:7 223:18

330:13

runs 115:18 206:11

runtime 248:8

S

S-E-S-S-I-O-N

180:1

safety 82:21

Salatino 2:10 6:17

6:17 39:12,13

84:22 94:1,1,10

95:4 103:12,13

126:7,8 169:14,14

174:8 212:13,13

218:6,6,22 219:22

248:6,6,10 258:21

258:21 291:8,8,19

293:6 315:17,17

316:4 319:21

320:13,21 321:6

328:6,7 337:19,20

sale 43:22 185:7

258:5 279:16

290:9

sales 32:20 42:2

43:9 44:10 189:18

279:7 280:12,14

309:15 317:3

samples 22:12

140:19

sand 265:6

sanitary 35:10

sanitation 35:2

sanitize 35:11

sat 195:15
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 391

satisfy 25:16

save 83:1 252:12,13

252:14,15

saves 46:15 254:14

saving 248:18

249:13

savings 17:21 19:2

25:11,14 33:3

96:16 98:12

105:22 172:12

207:10,14,18

226:10 227:20

230:8 239:1,2

247:18 248:2,7

253:14 254:11

260:7 284:18

327:4

saw 131:11 152:4

314:2 331:9

saying 76:22 78:19

80:22 97:6 120:13

155:17 185:22

186:3 224:8 249:3

260:12 266:15

287:15,18 306:3

315:22 317:19

318:5 320:15

331:17 340:13

says 13:5 186:7,12

236:10 257:5,15

258:11 287:6

SBA 300:21 305:18

308:13

scale 34:20 175:22

176:5 243:22

245:7 246:16

299:7 321:12

scale’s 176:1

scaled 101:5

scalers 202:5

scaling 100:18,20

101:17

scarce 23:1

scattered 98:3

111:21

scenario 252:7,8

296:19 297:12,14

scenarios 88:2

221:2 298:2

Schaefer 2:10 6:7,7

36:17,18 37:19

74:6,6,15 78:3,3

78:20 80:19,21,21

85:17,18 91:20

92:8,11 99:5,8,8

100:3 101:21

128:13,13 152:1

159:17 203:22,22

205:14

schedule 49:7

212:18

science 175:13

scope 3:3 8:19

18:16 45:12 60:4

281:18 304:20

Scotsman 2:5,10,13

6:18 7:20,22 37:2

39:14,17 44:7,20

46:8 94:2 103:13

126:8 169:15

212:14 218:7

258:22 291:9

315:18 320:16

337:20

Scott 2:2,4 5:19

7:18 33:22 34:1

70:21 71:1,22

72:3 75:16,17

76:10,11 77:15,17

80:9 90:2,9,11

132:14 164:13,14

166:1 168:13

208:10 222:22

223:1 245:17

278:21,22 279:3

280:10 295:22

296:1 301:10

314:2 322:11,12

329:22 346:13

352:11,12

scrambling 121:13

screen 245:8

screened 83:11

screening 3:3 8:20

60:18 62:13 81:7

82:14 83:2,5,9

91:18

screens 82:15

scroll 187:11

SCU 65:7

se 201:1

search 244:11

301:2

searched 300:19

searching 202:9

seats 93:15,16

SEC 274:7

second 37:15 81:18

88:19 107:14

112:5 133:17

142:10 187:9

259:21 269:5

301:12 351:18

Secondly 277:2

Secretary 353:8

355:5,8

section 19:2 56:7

59:7 117:19

145:11,13,17

161:20 169:5

192:6 235:3

sector 194:21 289:6

326:21 327:3,12

327:16,17

sectors 327:15

328:21,22 329:3

security 178:11

see 9:17 23:12,14

38:20 56:20 57:4

60:11 61:21 62:13

64:22 70:17 71:13

79:14 84:3 86:3

87:21 89:14 98:21

101:12 148:20

152:8 160:1 168:4

170:22 172:3

178:13 185:4

188:11 189:13

194:11 211:10

215:21 220:19

226:15,16,18,21

227:6 228:22

235:14,21 238:12

245:7,21,22

246:22 247:19

249:19 251:5

253:14 263:19,20

264:1 267:10

271:13,16 288:3

294:15 295:5,13

298:2,15 299:4

311:12 312:14,17

313:4 315:2

318:12,22 331:5

332:8 335:19

336:11 345:19

347:22 349:7

350:12

seeing 64:20

116:13 129:6

148:21 149:5

160:5 246:12,13

seen 24:19 62:16

137:2 148:15

190:9 232:21

335:18

SEER 122:16 193:5

194:12 271:15

293:15,15

sees 33:2

segment 27:4

349:18

segments 43:20

72:15

segue 235:6

selected 25:8

114:14 247:22

262:5

self-certify 171:3

self-contained

70:16,18 231:4

self-test 171:2

sell 21:20 26:20

29:15 234:18

280:6 309:6,7

332:10,11

selling 44:4 88:6

183:21 188:10

197:17 280:8

296:22

sends 164:17

sense 47:20 50:19

84:10,20 105:9

156:12 193:12

194:1,4,19 195:5

195:8 199:13

201:10 231:19

245:20 340:5

sensitive 232:8

288:19

sensitivity 281:6

287:5

sent 57:20 86:16

sentiment 344:6

separate 65:16

68:3,4 280:12

321:13 354:13

separately 165:17

200:17

series 68:9,11

86:15 244:22

271:1

serious 342:11

seriously 278:18

serve 96:8 311:10

service 6:2 42:4

61:5 82:19 119:1

132:19,22 208:14

210:6,7,9 220:13

229:17,19 230:6

322:9,10

services 44:5 322:2

322:7 328:19

set 48:21 58:16

60:9,13 61:8,11

63:1 72:19 95:8

107:21 108:2

146:5 153:9

170:18 180:22

186:17 201:2

211:16 226:4

227:21 228:5,6

239:17 249:7

251:19 256:1

304:8 326:8
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 392

334:21 344:10

354:6

sets 69:14

setting 39:22 72:18

235:2 250:18

seven 15:6,9 60:22

62:7 301:4,7,8

306:5,6,10,17

severe 18:14 304:8

severity 18:13 55:1

shade 298:9

shape 80:13

share 10:10 117:7

152:5 158:11

174:2 241:5 257:5

257:16,21 258:3

258:12,14,18

275:16,18 298:12

304:4 306:17

344:11

shared 23:3 117:4

172:6 175:13

275:11

shareholders

332:20

shares 240:16

shave 327:3

sheet 121:17 202:6

sheets 291:4

shifted 282:16

283:1

ship 279:3

shipment 237:4

260:20 261:7

304:11 315:6,7

shipments 3:10 9:7

235:3,8 236:6,7,9

237:11,14,16,19

238:4,11,21

258:10 265:20

266:7,7,18 269:6

269:7,11 270:22

271:6 273:1 274:3

303:1 311:20

336:7

shipped 59:5

238:16 239:20

260:17 263:19,21

shipping 209:12,13

209:17,22

shock 173:14

shop 93:2 231:7

shop’s 93:4

short 233:21

276:18 281:9

344:14

short-sighted 54:19

short-term 190:16

shorter 51:17

show 27:16 71:20

88:10 89:6 110:18

160:8 182:10

188:21 201:4

202:3 216:8

254:14 313:12

314:18

showed 85:21

108:11,13 112:15

117:22 252:3

293:2

showing 68:13

83:22 84:1 172:11

315:19

shown 50:22 51:5

79:6 154:1 185:15

239:18

shows 62:14 67:3

68:19 70:10 85:19

112:16 113:17

171:15 207:3

208:1 211:13

258:12 336:12

shrinks 302:5,7

303:7

shrunk 302:13,15

side 93:5 231:12

245:8

sidebar 10:13

sign 170:10

signals 77:3

significant 15:20

15:22 17:3 19:11

20:9 23:13 24:6

26:18 27:13 46:16

117:1 130:2 169:6

246:1 252:22

254:14,16,19

255:5 256:7

257:16 293:18,20

significantly 30:17

142:16 152:15

silent 10:12,13

similar 68:15 89:11

100:1 117:22

152:3 162:1 297:9

350:14

similarly 140:7

simple 207:20

simpler 325:6

simplistic 137:19

simply 17:12,19

64:10 122:18

296:21 309:15

347:17

simulation 152:19

simultaneously

151:11

single 65:3 68:9

85:12 100:16

248:20

single-packaged

65:8

sister 279:2

sit 115:17 187:9

208:21 345:13

site 324:13

site-to-source

239:7 247:15

sitting 30:15 31:15

36:20 129:22

176:7 194:16

195:4 203:18

332:4,18,19 348:9

situation 26:9

181:11 186:21

210:4 231:21

284:22 295:3

297:16 310:22

six 31:19 265:15

size 42:20,21 43:1,3

64:10 107:19

109:6,7 116:22

119:4 121:15

127:13 128:16,22

131:12,16,19

132:1,2,5,8,10,16

133:19 143:12

159:19 163:4

173:18 206:2,17

208:18 211:15

231:14 234:16

261:18 262:1,4,14

276:15 283:7

293:17 294:2,7,10

300:11 303:22

size-constrained

294:2

sized 140:7 223:17

267:6

sizes 116:18 131:9

133:20 160:7

164:1 165:6

261:20

skepticism 277:7

skipped 225:18

281:3

slam 38:6

slide 55:20 72:11

101:16 107:10

119:6 133:17,18

157:2 168:15

171:9 180:17

193:10,10 202:17

206:21 210:19

213:4 215:5

221:13 224:21

226:13,22 227:2

241:11 249:18

250:3,19 257:4,5

257:19 258:2

259:9,15 260:6

269:4 299:2 300:1

311:12,13 312:20

335:18 349:16

352:14

slides 28:4 118:8

187:12 295:14

319:8

slightly 144:22

slipped 47:3

sliver 175:21

slot 122:12

slow 157:19

small 34:3 36:10

63:20 67:16 68:17

102:2 129:4

145:22 163:19

168:22 171:21

176:5 186:16

211:15 214:2

215:19,22 216:21

230:6 231:1,5,10

231:12 232:12

233:3 234:12

238:1,3,4 245:3

250:14 258:4

262:3 265:2

298:22 300:8,10

300:11 301:5

303:21 304:2,6,18

304:22 305:8,15

306:5 307:10

309:4 311:11,17

311:21 312:5,16

349:18

small-sized 231:2

smaller 26:14 30:5

34:19 136:4 163:8

187:7 190:5 223:7

223:7 224:8

234:19

smallest-capacity

261:22

smalls 233:9,10

SNAP 16:16,22

18:8 38:13 80:1

285:15 287:19

snapshot 257:9

Soban 2:12 6:9,9

305:12,12,19

317:17,17 318:2,5

318:10

social 325:11

soffit 35:16

software 10:22
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 393

sold 15:11 269:14

279:6 280:20

290:4 296:7 310:7

323:5

solely 33:3 106:13

solicited 299:22

solid 322:20

Solutions 1:15 4:12

somebody 65:19

134:19 189:22

206:11 238:19

263:21 330:21,21

someone's 199:1

something’s 160:13

somewhat 252:16

282:16

sophisticated

219:15

sorry 25:18 94:15

103:12 124:2

144:17 156:16

186:13 191:6

264:17 281:3

297:6 315:1 328:6

337:19 349:16

350:5 351:3

353:18

sort 12:7 47:19

48:8 58:7 61:2,3

89:20 102:22

135:18 181:11

182:7 199:15

204:13 252:1

261:14 310:22

340:16

sorts 311:2

sought 118:14

sounds 148:1 151:5

198:21 227:19

263:6 346:9

source 130:7 222:6

236:11

sources 79:11

southern 120:9

space 30:5,13 32:19

32:21 119:13

121:21 122:1,7

126:19 129:3,20

130:11 157:8

164:8 168:22

169:5 223:8

spaces 163:8

span 185:17

speak 10:2,8 11:3

11:14 53:20 101:1

279:22 347:20

speaking 37:15

94:14 208:20

225:13 250:20

289:1,9 309:22

special 120:12

176:11

specialized 176:1

176:10,14

specific 19:20 34:7

36:2 120:8 123:19

139:18 172:15

199:6 215:11

217:15 273:12

specifically 83:10

160:18 177:10

211:20 272:20

273:7 274:5 332:8

specifics 174:3

specified 81:2

spectrum 41:12

speculate 16:21

spell 255:1

spend 161:5,8,10

321:21 322:6

332:21 333:1

spending 63:6

68:22 88:16 322:1

322:2 327:20

330:19,20

spent 68:22 87:9

195:20 328:19

split 68:3 241:20,21

242:18 243:16

267:10

split-system 65:5

spoke 274:17

315:10 350:15

spoken 276:4

spot 7:7

spread 299:14

spreadsheets

350:17 351:13

sprinkled 57:3

square 286:22

st 49:12 61:19

stabilize 38:4

stage 28:19 49:8

54:22

stainless 86:2

173:10 176:10

stake 265:5

stakeholder's

216:7

stakeholders 57:9

79:16 95:22 106:8

106:11 222:1

338:21 340:9,15

341:6

standard 12:13

16:13 22:19 31:5

37:12 43:20 44:22

55:7 60:14 61:8

61:11 62:2,4

68:12 70:1,3

72:18 77:13 81:22

150:20,21 164:20

164:21 177:16,17

186:2,17 213:4

214:6 227:22

229:13 230:2,3

231:14 246:10,14

248:1 250:20

252:15,16 253:12

254:14,22 256:2

260:2,14 262:10

266:20 272:16

273:6 277:3 284:3

291:20 292:20

298:14 299:15

303:15 308:7

321:19 331:6,13

331:16 342:3

350:8 351:4,5,6

standards 1:3 4:7,8

4:18 6:16 9:16

12:21 15:16 17:20

18:9,21 20:3

21:10 22:7 26:22

27:20 31:7,9

33:14 40:15 44:6

46:11 48:16 51:20

52:10 54:16,18

55:9 56:10 58:16

58:21 59:18 60:9

61:4 63:12 67:14

68:2 69:20 73:18

74:4,12 81:18

110:1 139:9

155:19 163:22

173:13 177:14,21

239:14 240:2

245:22 250:19

251:17 252:12

255:22 256:3

270:3 273:8 277:9

277:21 278:9

280:19 293:3,5

297:10 311:17

313:7 321:3 327:9

331:14 334:14,21

335:1,5 350:11

354:7

standpoint 22:21

25:10 76:12 85:3

90:16 159:4 192:9

216:8

stands 283:15

Star 17:14 29:20

31:8 37:1 40:2

73:3,15,17 74:3

75:22,22 76:15,17

77:2,8,18 78:5

139:9 148:2

156:21 157:8

159:6 161:4,14

226:5 236:22

237:3,9,11 240:1

240:2,6 251:5,8

251:11,13 252:22

267:9,9,21 268:5

268:6,12 276:16

Starr 2:11 6:13,13

65:10,10 72:10

73:13 127:11,11

128:1 153:17

204:18,19 227:17

227:17 228:13

241:9,9,22 242:8

242:15 267:18,18

268:10,14

start 4:14 5:12 49:6

55:19 93:7 95:21

97:6,9,12 107:14

153:17 157:15

171:14 176:22

180:3 269:9,13

286:19 327:22

340:17

started 210:21

213:20

starting 18:4 48:12

59:22 63:11 188:7

200:20 334:8

starts 67:19 146:14

245:9 274:15

286:15

state 48:16 77:16

149:7

stated 12:18 20:1

112:1 149:10

285:19 323:8

340:3

statement 28:6

101:21 218:15

statements 3:1 8:14

8:14 33:22 90:11

states 11:13 15:3,8

15:12 29:17 33:9

48:18 55:2,8

279:4 311:9

316:15 318:4

332:11

statute 48:20 49:1

254:13 255:8

statutory 49:12

58:8 249:6 273:4

353:19

stay 126:14 228:16

317:11 330:9
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 394

steal 185:2

steel 86:2 176:10

steep 227:13

step 27:22 28:1

53:13 192:15,22

336:13

Stephen 6:7 36:16

36:18 37:18 74:5

74:6 78:2,3,21

80:20,21 85:16,17

91:19 92:13 99:7

99:8 101:20

128:12,13 151:21

159:15 203:21,22

205:13

Stephen’s 83:18

steps 97:19 139:22

189:21

STEVEN 2:10

stewards 36:22

stock 238:16

stocking 271:15

stop 122:20 278:14

storage 65:4,8

223:8 224:14

store 121:11 122:6

stores 242:10

storing 59:10,10

story 137:14

straight 208:3

212:20 237:18

strawman 274:21

stream 213:10

strength 277:19

stress 118:14

stretch 348:2,3,4

strictly 46:11 259:2

259:3

strikes 221:21

striking 175:14

257:11

strong 54:8 111:11

111:15 343:7

structure 68:15

315:8

struggling 256:16

257:18

stuck 156:4 326:14

studies 195:10

study 108:16

stuff 11:7 148:1

178:6 201:10

308:8

stumbling 225:4

style 65:3 90:16

163:17

sub-analyses

113:19

subcomponents

45:19

subdivisions

265:19

subgroup 229:11

subgroups 230:4

273:10,11

subject 123:19

165:19 293:4

subjected 292:16

submission 323:17

submit 13:12 57:12

74:14 103:8

322:21 339:3

350:19 351:21

submitted 237:1,2

submitting 57:5

264:20

subsequent 175:16

substantial 122:14

257:20 313:4

substantiate 89:6

137:22

successfully 42:14

successive 20:14

sucking 330:9

suction 141:3,4

suddenly 192:18,22

sued 186:22 256:2

sufficiently 9:21

suggest 140:21

222:17

suggested 70:9

115:21

suggesting 185:19

200:3 342:19

suggestion 19:22

suggests 32:14

151:16 341:22

suitable 82:15

summarize 193:21

211:11

summarized 166:7

summary 8:14

56:18 339:3

summer 13:5

213:13 264:15

277:18 282:14

285:17 295:4

summertime 288:3

supervised 178:5

supplement 23:22

supplementing

336:9

supplier 19:22

suppliers 18:20

31:15 38:18 42:8

45:18 89:3 139:5

157:19 321:2,6

333:12

supplies 127:7

supply 85:3 90:1

345:5

support 15:5 19:3

33:13 50:18 51:1

151:1 169:19

305:21 345:13

348:17

supported 42:3

48:19

supporting 247:2

supportive 28:20

29:1

supports 46:8

supposed 77:10

sure 37:16 53:8

56:1 81:16 99:6

101:2 103:5 112:3

112:3 117:6 120:5

121:5 135:3

137:15 138:22

176:21 182:20

187:10 190:3

191:15 192:17

199:7,10 201:3

216:5,5 245:19

247:21 258:1

281:12 286:12

287:16 288:9

306:4,20 329:6,20

337:18 341:17

348:10

surface 85:19,22

87:7 119:12,15

120:15 128:16

159:6 173:2

surfaces 158:3

surprised 51:19

52:11 345:9

Surprising 206:14

surrounding 8:16

survey 198:9

213:12 318:15

surveys 282:8

suspect 139:10

SW 1:12

swapped 140:17

swaps 313:2

swift 277:12

swing 271:16

sympathetic

287:17

sympathizing

155:7

sync 53:8

synthetics 29:4

system 17:15 38:7

41:3 67:6 90:13

158:4 188:13

198:12 300:14

systems 2:5,10,13

6:18 7:21 8:1

23:7 29:21 39:14

44:8 46:8 82:9

94:2 287:1

T

tab 318:13

table 2:18 30:15

31:16 36:21 47:11

68:13 70:10 83:21

117:21 139:21

151:12 172:2,20

176:7 185:16

194:17 195:4

211:12 260:15

263:6,6 324:15

332:18 340:12,20

341:2,9

tables 225:1

take 8:21 9:5,12

22:20 24:11 27:3

31:2 34:8 37:4

39:15 47:17 51:9

67:5 83:12 87:8

88:22 92:15 93:14

93:15 117:17

142:4 150:6,20,21

166:4 168:21

170:6 171:4,18

177:7 178:3 185:8

188:9 194:10

197:8 203:1

209:11,17 214:3

230:5 239:8 246:3

250:4 261:9

272:10 275:3,6,8

276:6 288:16

306:14 309:10

327:1 336:5

344:13 346:11

takeaway 205:11

takeaways 275:19

taken 127:8 166:3

232:22 279:7,8

280:21 282:8

291:4 294:15

296:9 315:8

takes 54:8 143:15

talk 12:6 68:6,7

88:21 124:6,20

125:1,2 128:18

129:13 139:7

160:19 175:6

188:6 192:4 211:6

221:16 222:20

227:2 345:19
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 395

talked 13:20 73:7

87:6 125:3 148:11

160:20 198:16

199:5,6,8 211:2

247:14 256:21

339:11

talking 12:1 30:7,8

97:9 123:14

124:17 130:2

154:8,9 169:9

191:7 196:9,10

210:21 212:8

220:12 228:1

232:17 233:5

244:7,8 266:1

286:4 296:2 306:4

342:22 343:1

351:2

talks 250:4

tall 163:11,14

taller 133:6,9,12,13

163:18 164:6

173:1

target 44:17 45:3

171:22

targeted 40:17

targets 39:22

task 22:16 66:9

112:11 155:6

tasks 317:4

tax 251:3,22 252:4

252:11 254:1,1

taxes 297:21

team 31:14 36:19

56:8 62:6

tear 81:19 103:4

tech 51:5 60:17

104:4 166:11

168:7 181:13

183:6,13,14

185:11 225:9

274:17

technical 19:3 24:3

24:20 25:2,5

26:15 27:12 50:7

50:10 53:16 56:8

62:6 172:18

201:21 234:5

242:21 314:10

337:17

technically 110:3

181:16

technicians 15:6

technological 40:9

40:19 47:11 60:16

82:17

technologically

46:14 60:10

technologies 2:9

6:6 31:20 32:9

82:8,15 83:1,13

135:17 144:1

156:2 183:16

184:19 185:18

219:7 269:3

technology 3:3

8:19 19:13,18

21:19 29:21 31:3

31:17 33:15,19

41:9 42:6 45:13

45:20,22 46:3

62:12,18 63:4

72:8 79:9,10

83:21 138:4

149:11 164:17

181:17 182:2,6,9

182:19 183:19

186:2 220:13

229:8

telephones 10:19

tell 12:5 30:4

182:20 206:16

258:2 263:20

287:21 288:1

332:2,21

tells 24:6 146:2

151:13 258:3

temperature 85:14

85:15 98:8,10

119:16,19 120:3

141:10,11

temperatures

113:10

ten 19:4,14 24:15

38:20 51:21 86:1

134:21 135:4,13

136:19 138:11

139:1 148:14

149:15 156:21

157:4,10 178:3,4

178:13 301:15

tend 33:5 197:4

231:5

tendency 205:4

tends 34:17 226:19

226:22

tens 318:6

termed 256:7

terminal 255:3

302:1

terms 11:19 21:22

22:1,9 25:1 49:18

50:3,6,8 87:6

89:14 105:17

111:11 118:18

119:7 124:4

129:17 139:3

142:17 143:2

145:21 157:3,9

160:18 172:7

173:15 174:6

192:14 228:16

233:3 239:20

258:2 273:5,12

290:5 296:13

303:9,10

test 22:12 23:2 24:5

55:9 59:15,17,20

60:1,5 64:13,18

80:12,15,16 81:1

81:10,13,15,16,21

82:2 83:2 85:7,9

85:12 89:3 90:6

101:13 102:7,11

102:17 103:4

106:9,13 115:5

118:16 140:15

147:15 151:6,8,9

151:10,13 154:10

154:13,20,21

161:10 169:18,22

170:15,16,20

174:10 203:8

tested 80:22 94:5,9

95:6 98:22 140:9

158:12 166:21

169:22

testing 20:10 59:22

81:4,8,19 82:2

85:1,7 94:17,21

96:20,22 97:20

98:7 99:13,15

101:6 102:6 103:1

106:10 113:4,6,8

113:20 116:17

120:2 140:6 143:8

147:14 148:11

187:6 278:11

293:2,2

tests 51:15 349:3,4

th 57:5 59:18,21

62:2

thank 5:10 11:10

14:12,13 16:14

21:11,14 26:4

27:21 29:5,6

33:20,21 36:13,14

39:9,10 46:19,20

46:22 48:4,7 53:9

53:10 55:15 62:8

66:17 78:13,21

91:3,16 92:8

95:13,22 125:9

126:5 130:19

137:18 141:3

145:19 164:12

165:8 168:12

187:14,15,22

209:5 210:16,17

220:16 236:4,5

244:13 246:21

248:10 254:2,4

256:9,10 264:8,21

264:21 266:21

272:4 278:19

288:5 294:17

295:7 296:11

299:3 303:20

314:1,6 317:15

326:16 335:9

349:11,12 351:8

353:13 354:15,20

355:13

thanks 4:16 28:14

62:9 75:6 82:4

92:12 110:11

120:19 217:5

244:3 253:19

272:12

that’d 28:10 50:1

that’s 11:7 13:3,18

14:7 23:14 25:17

26:3,12 47:12

49:13,14 50:8,11

63:20,22 72:19

75:14,19 76:16

83:19 88:17 92:9

93:19 95:12

100:17 101:17

108:15 114:16,17

114:20 115:12,21

119:6 122:10,14

124:4 126:22,22

128:10 129:20,22

130:7 133:11

134:15 139:6,13

141:17 143:17

144:9,11,12 145:1

145:16 146:5,6

148:20 151:8

152:7 154:7,11

157:13 158:8

161:11 162:21

163:1,5,11,14

166:7 167:16

170:6,17 172:4,14

173:4 175:20

176:19

theme 153:18

theory 128:1

There’ll 10:8

there’s 8:8 14:3

24:19,22 35:10,12

49:18 50:10 63:9

65:12,14,16 67:22
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 396

103:7 109:4 110:7

111:14 113:5

117:1,12 126:19

128:3,8 129:21

130:10,22 132:21

133:6,12 140:13

141:18 152:17

154:2,5,20 155:17

158:4 160:5,6

162:20 164:22

165:6 168:5 173:8

173:9

thermal 82:10

they’re 25:3 28:21

52:14 80:18 83:5

84:18 118:3 130:6

132:20 154:3,4

158:9,10,12,13,21

159:3,12 160:12

163:4,11

they’ve 32:18

135:17

thing 57:19 61:7

70:2 101:7 118:13

143:10 160:17

190:16 265:9,10

308:20 347:11

351:16 352:3

things 28:22 61:12

61:17 64:8 69:5

80:17 84:8 104:11

113:9 128:6

142:12 146:22

157:12 158:2

159:7 167:20

175:11 181:14

185:13 189:7,9

212:3 213:1

219:11 228:22

230:22 232:3

237:18 243:6

250:21 251:2

264:2 271:16

278:3,4,10,15

280:5 284:19

307:22 333:6

334:16 336:21

337:1 339:18

345:1,2 346:5,7

347:15 350:18

think 5:1 7:6 14:8

23:13 24:9,18,22

25:3 33:17 47:13

47:16,18 49:5

50:3,19 52:12,18

66:14,21 71:14

74:2 78:16 81:5

92:4 95:21 96:2

101:12,14 103:7

108:15,17 109:21

111:9 112:4

114:18 116:12

117:17 118:13

121:9 122:3,14

125:6,20 127:2,8

128:10 129:14,15

130:15 133:11

134:1 136:14

137:7,19 139:22

140:16,19 142:3

142:13 144:10,12

145:11,16,20

146:21 152:10,22

154:2,10,21 155:3

155:6,8,10 157:1

158:15 159:11,17

163:5 171:7,14,22

173:2,7 174:2

182:16 184:1

185:3 190:15,22

191:4 193:12

195:18 196:9,16

197:7,14 198:14

198:20 200:2

201:5,6,9 202:4,7

202:16 204:12,15

204:21 205:5,18

205:21 208:13,18

210:14 216:8,22

218:8,13 219:17

221:10 223:21,22

224:6 226:11

228:1,2,8,19

229:12 230:10

232:7 233:13

234:15 235:15

238:2,7 240:20

241:6,19 243:5

246:4,5,6 252:19

253:11,17 254:13

254:21 255:9,12

258:17 259:15

260:19 261:15

262:19 265:5

266:16 268:14

273:18 276:3

280:22 282:13

285:2 289:22

290:1,5,12,15

299:2,6,22 307:21

309:13 311:3

312:9 315:10

322:18 323:10

332:15 333:18

334:1 337:12

338:7,21 339:6,20

340:11,22 341:15

341:19 342:11

344:6,7 345:4,10

345:17 346:15

347:1,9,19 348:3

348:5 349:9,20

350:20

thinking 128:10

195:8 221:21

237:10 310:2

thinks 340:3

third 81:21 240:19

240:19 249:13

third-party 23:20

23:22 80:16 170:2

171:1

Thirty-year 301:20

301:22

thorough 20:10

thought 73:14,20

73:21 74:18 95:3

101:3 128:3,7

132:2,4 138:20

169:18 204:13

224:7 229:2 254:3

257:11 267:2,3,20

286:2 292:5 310:2

314:2 346:14

351:17

thoughts 247:4

thousand 238:18

thousands 318:6,6

threatened 30:6

three 13:8 18:1,11

18:18 23:17 25:13

25:20 38:21 42:9

45:17 49:19 51:16

54:9 61:18 82:1

104:11 106:4,19

107:5 127:18

130:22 131:4,10

132:3 140:11,13

152:5 159:1

160:12 165:13

176:6 184:20

211:22 212:10

215:3 220:5

232:18 234:12

240:4,13 262:12

271:2 284:16

294:9 325:7 347:8

353:5,8 354:7,8

355:5

three-and-a-half

232:20

three-year 299:14

thresholds 46:13

through-put 130:5

throughput 289:17

thrust 205:22

thunder 185:3

tied 317:8

tight 150:9

time 10:2,7 20:7

22:21 23:8,17

33:17 38:8 40:14

45:17 46:18 61:13

61:22 63:7 68:22

69:1,3,7 77:15

91:14 101:8 109:4

115:17 117:2

129:2 138:8,13

146:13 148:6

161:5,10 171:2

190:18 194:6,7

195:10 203:15

218:12 219:12

220:2 223:14

224:9 231:22

237:6 238:8

245:15 246:16,19

249:4 255:11

261:14 267:3

271:12 275:3

285:1 294:21

306:15 324:22

334:22 342:8

343:21 344:14

timeframe 282:2

301:14

timely 16:6

times 25:13 79:19

123:18 177:10

205:18 212:10

223:4 235:20

252:19 256:17

274:14

timing 50:3

tiny 163:2 175:21

224:22 237:13

today 4:10 9:6 10:2

20:1 30:18 31:7

31:16 50:8,16

51:4 52:8 60:12

60:20 62:3 84:10

108:1 143:3

158:16 183:8

192:17 218:21

240:9 252:20

256:4,18,21

262:17 272:20

273:20 274:18

275:16 276:4

282:20 291:18

308:18 313:17

338:11 339:7

341:8 346:6,18

348:6 354:16

today's 272:16
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 397

today’s 20:2 51:3

told 125:6 156:20

189:17

Tom 2:5 7:20

ton 324:20

tool 261:19

tooling 88:17

tools 86:8

top 35:11,12,17

78:5 97:22 104:2

129:22 163:13

208:21 233:13,15

268:5,21 312:15

topic 92:6 193:19

221:18

topics 13:20

torn 174:20

total 63:17 78:7

98:2 140:1 175:18

201:18,19 226:11

233:7 238:14

239:1,11 247:19

299:5 320:4,7

335:5

totally 330:6

touch 86:17 199:3

touched 72:16

134:7

track 61:19 135:2

tracked-change

312:12

trade 14:21 124:9

300:22

trade-off 91:8

traditional 220:7

traditionally

100:14

trailer 209:18

train 219:2 310:1

training 218:17

transcribe 57:16

transcript 10:8

337:15

transfer 294:4

transformer

343:13

transition 225:3,5

translate 203:4

translation 203:9

transportation

249:11

transporting

324:12

treated 87:14 255:6

treats 20:13

trend 67:16 79:6

108:10,11,13

112:16,17 137:12

163:1 224:8

270:22

trending 223:4

trends 67:17

106:21 112:9

244:20

trial 160:4 298:14

tried 61:15 86:21

108:5 147:14

155:4 198:17

211:10

trouble 53:14

162:11

trough 269:15,20

270:11

troughs 269:12

truck 290:14

true 174:6 226:20

234:7 262:9

268:17

truncated 28:9,13

trust 288:19 351:12

try 10:4 28:9 37:16

49:6 84:6 103:3

111:1 118:13

124:17 125:1

129:9 160:10

194:14 200:4

285:5 296:14

309:2 323:6 336:4

339:17

trying 10:16 24:10

24:15 62:20 63:1

77:4 84:10,20

105:8 114:10

116:6 126:1

153:10 154:13,14

159:22 189:2

199:8 260:19

278:5 330:13

345:22 347:3

348:9

TSD 80:3 97:8

105:14 116:20

118:12 134:15

139:21 145:10

171:16 172:3,9

173:4 208:3

211:12 218:4

226:15,17 243:3

344:16

TSL 180:22 227:3

228:9 247:22

249:20 250:6

259:2 302:10

TSL-1 42:19 46:14

156:20

TSL1 226:4 336:16

337:2

TSL2 226:6 304:7

TSL3 181:6 182:17

225:10,11,17,19

226:21 227:5,6,10

228:20 230:2

233:7,11 248:1

249:20,21 250:6

251:20 259:6,18

298:15 307:18

313:1 325:21

327:22 336:1,15

336:17,22 337:2

TSL4 225:18 226:1

227:5,10,12

228:20 229:7

TSL5 225:8,20

TSLs 3:15 171:16

225:5,6 226:8

247:20 335:17,22

336:4,14

tube 35:6,7 164:18

tubing 86:3

turn 10:12 56:8

62:6 145:12 220:4

turned 37:16 211:4

214:1 344:21

turning 5:13 10:3

75:15

turns 234:11

twice 148:19 287:9

two 20:1,20 21:2

25:4,6 40:3 42:9

42:21 53:8 62:7

65:5,22 70:14

87:4 106:12,16,17

107:11 116:18

118:8 122:4 126:9

126:13 137:21

139:22 142:12

148:15 149:19

171:11 181:14

182:2,6 184:3

188:17 189:21

195:15 203:11

207:7 209:18

220:20 232:1

242:11 251:2

269:21 279:20

281:4 286:16,18

298:1,4 305:14

309:18 332:10

333:6 340:20

352:15

two-plus 234:8

two-year 233:17

two-years-and-a-...

233:18

twofold 126:12

220:11

type 33:2 34:16

61:6 65:2 67:4,12

76:14 101:7,9

168:15 169:3

222:17 237:19

242:19 243:13

295:1 316:19

324:8 345:12

352:2

types 58:17 63:2

204:14 211:22

212:11 217:8

243:16 347:15

typical 160:6 181:9

typically 50:21

51:1 67:15 144:9

144:20 154:1

155:13 196:18

U

U.S 1:1 248:19

249:10 280:20

316:2 318:15

320:8 335:4

Uh-hum 181:4

ultimately 107:12

107:21 108:4

113:2 114:3,13

unable 177:20

unacceptable

307:12

unattractive 159:3

underestimated

18:22 40:16

underlies 247:16

underlines 237:21

underlying 67:18

236:21

underneath 35:15

underscoring 34:7

understand 11:18

12:2,8,13 13:9

49:22 57:17 72:12

80:18 121:18

132:13 146:8,20

147:9,14,21

154:11 157:7

163:20 167:10

180:17 231:18

254:5 272:2,3

278:16 279:14,17

283:14 284:21,22

289:5 332:16

335:6,7 336:4

344:12 347:12

348:22 349:2

351:4

understanding

64:17 99:4 287:11
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 398

291:18

understands 11:15

33:11

understood 155:14

309:20

undertaking 37:7

underway 11:19

underwent 97:10

undue 292:16

unfortunately

57:16,20

unique 24:12 32:11

148:17 278:2

329:18 343:13

unit 59:6,8 65:7,9

66:8,13 67:8 94:6

94:9 95:6 103:22

121:22 122:1,1,10

122:11,18 131:14

131:15 183:22

209:18 224:10

251:8,9 265:15

293:15,17 294:3

332:8

unitary 176:17

United 11:13 15:3

15:8,12 29:17

33:9 279:4 311:9

316:14 318:3

332:11

units 65:8,11 67:11

74:9,10,11 77:2,8

77:12 78:18 81:1

81:20 82:3 96:20

96:21 97:5,22

98:5,15,17 99:1

99:14 100:4,6,7

101:13 102:1,2,7

102:11 112:8

118:5 122:7 123:6

131:17 133:12

140:18 175:19

176:4,6 182:2

224:9 231:5,10,12

238:17,19 239:20

240:11 241:1

242:5 265:11,13

270:9 279:6

317:12

universe 306:5

unmute 53:19

unprecedented

343:7

unrealistic 139:6

up-front 62:14

update 20:5

updated 79:5 162:4

updating 150:3,14

upfront 207:13,17

223:7 315:13

upgrade 123:2

126:18,20

upgrades 157:10

upheld 187:1

upper 297:6

ups 269:16

upstream 219:18

324:11

upwards 269:18

urban 163:5

urge 28:19 137:20

138:14 196:19

urged 54:15

usage 33:12 160:2

203:11

USC 353:10

use 3:6,8 9:3 11:16

17:9,22 21:5

37:22 47:1 54:11

54:16,18 55:7,11

59:18 67:7,16,19

69:11 70:21 72:17

78:18 81:3 86:9

89:18 97:17 98:9

98:11 104:8

107:18,18,19,20

113:11 119:22

137:1,4 142:5

144:4,20,22

145:22 147:8

158:14 170:12,20

180:4 188:17,22

198:10 202:20

203:5,5,20 213:4

217:7,20 219:14

237:15,16 239:5

242:13 247:8

261:3 275:1

278:13 285:21

294:10 327:13

352:16,17 353:17

useful 51:17 338:22

user 42:1 222:5

users 39:3 77:10

124:7

uses 11:20 243:13

248:20 249:10

292:12

usually 127:1

340:17 341:1

utilities 251:6

utility 3:13 9:11

61:2,9 82:20

129:16 156:8

162:12 213:17

324:7 326:4,19,21

327:2

utilized 40:20

V

v 244:8 255:13,16

validate 20:11,17

20:18 81:2 104:12

116:10 200:4

349:8

validated 190:5

192:21

validating 22:10

valuable 174:14

value 108:20

189:10 203:11

230:8 239:3

249:19,21 250:5

298:8,19 301:15

301:18,21 302:1,1

302:9 303:10

307:6,12 313:13

313:18 315:10

325:8,21 326:1

330:10 332:17

values 170:18

190:21 298:4

324:19,20 325:1

325:18,19

valve 159:21

variable 196:4,7

variant 22:14

varies 211:14

222:16

variety 79:11

276:14 304:19

various 196:15

212:22 216:2

291:4 300:22

vary 43:6 221:3

222:16

varying 98:9

vast 282:13 303:11

304:17 305:4

vein 199:15

vendor 42:7 113:22

320:3

vendors 321:7,11

verifiable 151:17

verify 200:4 268:21

verifying 278:12

version 240:2

312:10,12

versus 98:8 103:16

134:9 181:15

310:7,18 316:20

351:4

vertical 127:14

128:8

vet 115:3

vetted 325:1

viability 36:11

169:10

viable 107:7 112:20

Vice-President

21:18 29:10 39:13

view 64:20 128:6

183:15 232:10

views 21:12

vintage 265:3

virtual 55:8

virtually 35:16

visible 92:20

visited 86:10

vital 332:16

voice 341:9

voiced 294:14

volume 109:6

171:20 173:16

175:15 176:9,14

261:18

volumes 304:11

voluntary 75:3

253:1

vu 47:19

W

wage 318:17

wait 197:19 281:2

349:15,15

waiting 134:2

walk-in 23:6

walking 178:7

290:1

wall 132:21 208:15

209:2 210:3

wane 61:17

want 11:22 12:9,9

12:12 13:2,7,11

13:15,19 14:3

28:7 30:4,12

39:15 47:5 48:7

49:4 50:1 71:9

76:21 90:4 93:1

95:21 101:11,16

125:12,18 126:9

129:18 134:17

135:8 136:9 148:9

153:1,4,5 159:15

160:22 161:3

163:21 170:11

177:12 184:8

187:8 191:14

196:18 201:2

221:16,17 227:15

244:5 248:21

249:14 256:15

260:5 263:7 264:1

266:18 283:12

290:17 303:16
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 399

306:4,14 319:18

329:6,19 332:15

332:22 343:21,22

344:5 348:10

wanted 93:20 95:11

129:13 139:7

241:4 288:9 353:3

wants 123:8 177:15

346:15 347:1

348:11

warehouse 189:7

warehousing 317:8

warm 5:5 245:1

300:16

warranty 45:7

218:10

wash 191:4

Washington 1:12

4:11

wasn’t 70:19 76:13

111:10 112:19

137:11 141:3

155:15

waste 153:5

wastewater 213:16

wasting 249:4

water 15:1 27:8

30:22 33:12 37:22

38:5 54:10,16,18

55:7,11 65:13,14

65:20,22 66:8,10

66:13 67:7,7

82:13 85:15 97:17

98:13 107:19,20

118:4,5,21,22

119:1,3,12,18

120:14 127:6

128:15 159:20

185:5 203:3,5

213:3,9,10,12,15

213:17 239:2

water-cooled

211:17 231:3

234:13 258:4

watts 203:16

wax 61:18

way 11:4 12:15

23:15 32:12 35:18

36:4 52:18 57:13

67:3 73:10 86:12

102:4 104:4 117:7

123:4 130:4,17

147:2 155:17

171:4 172:5

177:19 193:21

194:3 195:17

196:2 198:1,3

208:3 211:2

219:13 225:6

231:13 236:20

242:15 253:13

273:22 313:19

330:13,14 347:3

347:16

ways 57:11 111:1

126:13 207:7

257:7 354:13

we'll 315:2 319:10

322:14 329:12

333:2 345:8

we're 180:3 187:22

189:2 192:4 196:9

196:9 198:21

200:11,22 201:3

202:14,15 212:7

220:8 252:6

256:11 261:18

262:16 276:6

286:18 294:1

295:21 296:2

298:3 303:6 306:4

316:12 319:19

328:9 329:6 330:9

331:4,10 333:1

335:10,13 338:18

340:14 341:17,17

344:6,15 345:21

348:6

we've 200:20

202:16 225:21

293:14 309:1

333:3

We’d 101:18

we’ll 8:17,21 9:5,12

11:1,4,5 23:12

58:2 74:7,15

91:13 92:16 93:8

93:10 96:2 104:5

105:15 114:6

117:6,7,17 137:15

151:3 152:5 156:6

158:11 159:9

170:6 171:4 174:2

178:4,13,16

we’re 4:14 5:8 8:11

10:15,22 22:11

23:11,20 24:16

27:3 28:3 29:16

30:7,8,20 32:5

34:3 38:11,13

39:4 48:22 49:9

56:3,7 62:3 72:2

75:9,10,15,19

77:1 79:7 84:6

92:1,14 93:9

95:15 103:1 107:2

116:4,12 117:16

118:19 124:14

128:20 129:3,8

130:1 133:14

148:21 149:8

150:9,18 151:10

154:17 155:2,3,17

156:4,13 158:6

159:8 160:21

161:15 163:2

168:20 169:4,8

171:3,7 177:5,22

we’ve 4:21 5:2 14:1

24:5,15,19 34:12

35:3 36:21,22

37:12,22 38:5

47:19 56:16,18

57:15 60:7 63:7

75:13 77:19 89:5

89:10 92:3 93:7

101:12 102:18,18

124:8 128:17

138:4 139:3,8

140:6 150:20,22

155:4 158:19,20

159:5 164:21

165:3 167:4

169:22 174:20,21

178:15

wear 92:19 178:7

web 10:16 53:12,14

93:9,18 217:11

webinar 10:14

webmaster 11:5

website 69:4 75:22

76:17 77:18

312:10

websites 69:2

weeks 345:3

weigh 151:2

weighted 217:22

weighted-average

298:11

welcome 3:1 4:6,19

10:14 47:1 49:22

147:9 148:4 197:6

199:9 221:6

240:14 299:21

300:5 305:21

welcoming 4:14

went 44:7 57:22

71:12 78:6 93:11

93:12 116:1,20

122:15 139:9

172:20 173:20

178:17 194:12,12

198:14,15 263:17

263:22 265:3

302:18 319:16,16

344:17

weren't 345:2

weren’t 83:13

125:7

Westphalen 2:12

7:4,4,8,8 62:9

65:18 66:21 67:2

71:4,7,11,17 72:5

72:7,21 77:6

78:15 79:4,9

80:14 81:4 82:6

84:5,12,17 85:6

85:13 86:7 87:12

89:10 90:8 91:11

91:15 92:4 110:10

110:10 136:12,16

136:16 145:9

146:19 209:21

290:21,22

what’ll 130:15

what’s 14:9 50:4

53:4 60:21 72:19

108:6 110:2 150:3

153:22 157:12

158:10 159:13

166:18 167:2

whatnot 102:9

288:11

whichever 146:4

who’s 53:11 172:8

wholesale 188:13

192:22

wholesale/retail/...

191:22

wholesaler 198:7

199:6 201:22

wholesalers 198:18

199:3 201:1

wide 162:20 163:10

177:11

wider 27:10

width 127:15

wild 271:16

Wilkins 2:13 8:2,2

28:13 91:5,5,13

91:16 120:18,18

121:9 134:5,6

135:9 137:18

152:10 153:7

167:7,16 175:9,9

183:3,3,10 193:16

193:16 195:3

197:10,11

willing 275:6 281:7

willingness 54:20

window 299:14

winner 40:3

winter 119:21

wiring 210:12

wish 29:7 66:18
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 400

wishes 9:20 292:8

woman’s 168:17

won’t 5:6 52:17

62:17 101:1 122:2

130:15 143:7

153:11

wonderful 109:16

wondering 65:12

116:16 136:6

287:4 299:7

341:11

word 47:3

words 60:7 242:3

268:2

work 7:5 13:17

22:22 23:16 24:2

30:7,16 33:13

45:12 49:3 66:20

68:21 124:19

139:12 148:2

151:12 152:20

153:12 156:9

160:7 181:18

183:12 188:16

196:1,21 198:1

314:5 347:3

workable 21:9

worked 190:7

194:7 195:19

233:2

workers 320:10,12

320:16,17,18

working 16:11 21:7

23:11 31:14 38:14

38:22 53:14,17

69:8 93:18 96:1,3

128:20 139:4

282:3 316:14,20

workload 32:1

works 196:2

213:12 218:1

world 126:3 163:1

192:21 196:2

197:22 198:22

233:21 308:17

350:22

Worldtrade 2:12

worry 111:18

worth 197:14

269:10 332:7

wouldn't 197:12

209:2 211:6 281:7

340:14 341:5

wouldn’t 83:1

101:10 122:18

146:9

wrapped 201:3

write 254:1 282:17

283:2

writing 13:13

21:13 89:22

322:15 337:14

written 25:17 50:9

54:12 72:2 117:8

125:1 139:19

182:14 291:12,20

292:3 337:10,16

345:5 351:21

wrong 57:21,22

65:20 71:14

134:17 154:20

160:13 183:14

193:7 201:6

266:16 330:7

346:21 352:3

wrote 12:16 283:20

Wuttke 2:13 7:22

7:22

X

X 194:13

Y

Y 194:13

yards 178:10

year 17:21 18:11

18:18 23:17 25:14

37:2 40:2 45:14

61:18 88:18

119:22 139:15

173:18 175:19

195:22 207:17

212:11 213:5,6,15

214:5 227:8

231:22 232:6

238:19 243:20,21

243:21 246:13

248:20 249:10

260:17 269:6,21

270:10,11,15

286:16 327:22

344:18 353:20

year-in 251:15

year-out 251:16

year-to-year

243:20

years 18:1 24:15

25:20 30:19 31:19

32:1 38:21 40:3

45:17 46:2 49:19

49:21 51:16

130:16 135:18

138:6 147:22

152:13 160:12

185:17 195:16

199:20,21 200:8

212:4 217:18

218:2 220:5 227:7

232:1,18,20 234:8

234:11,12 240:4

241:14 248:19

249:13 254:12,16

268:19 269:10

271:2,3 284:16,18

286:16,18 294:9

301:15,15 302:9

310:18,18 330:18

332:7 334:8 347:6

347:8 353:6,8,10

354:7,8,9 355:5,7

yield 178:2

yields 19:5 135:6

you’d 10:2 84:12

101:15 174:11

you’ll 56:20 58:1

68:16 98:21

165:16 168:4

you’re 25:18 54:1

73:15 76:22 79:1

80:22 88:7 93:9

116:13 123:14

129:2 148:20

149:5 151:6,7

152:22 153:2

159:21 161:2,4

166:12 169:21

178:7

you’ve 52:20 112:1

123:4 136:7 138:1

147:22 149:2

153:12 167:11

172:6

Z

zero 204:22

zeros 99:10

zone 173:12

0

00 255:18

001 254:18

01 254:19 255:4

1

1 49:13 59:1 61:20

171:16 179:1

214:8 218:15

240:2 254:20

267:10 274:14

286:14 338:6

1,426 325:22

1.0 245:9

1.25 87:15

1.44 238:17

1:00 178:4,14

1:17 180:2

10 122:15 146:4

194:12 258:5

269:10 271:3

293:15 310:18

330:18 332:7

10-105 144:21

10-percent 226:5

10,000 221:1

10.9 265:14

10:15 8:22

10:25 93:12

10:35 92:15

10:50 92:16 93:8,10

10:53 93:13

100 165:20 178:9

204:22 248:20

249:9 262:18

330:22

1000 1:12

101 302:9,18

313:22

102 325:22

108 3:7

109 259:10,15

263:6

11 59:19 223:12

310:17

11.9 259:22

115-volt 210:6

12 89:6 99:16,17

104:19 131:2,3

140:9 142:6 152:4

217:21 233:6

259:22 260:12

265:14,14 314:14

317:6

12:00 178:3

12:13 178:18

13 122:15 140:2

193:5 194:12

271:15 293:15

130,000 15:4

134A 294:5

14 1:8 4:10 62:3

78:10 233:6

15 21:2 92:15

148:22 169:3

262:13 332:7

15-95 145:3

15-year-old 122:10

150 238:18

150,000 175:19

176:6

16 57:6

16th 338:1,6

351:20

17 52:3 184:22

180 3:8

19 97:22
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross and Co., Inc.

Page 401

1975 58:7

1978 58:9

1980s 255:22

1R134A 16:17

1st 341:12

2

2 8:8 165:19 166:9

171:16 179:2

215:22 218:16

240:5,6 267:11

274:19 330:8,19

2-percent 245:12

2,000-bin 223:16

2,000-pound

223:10

2,500 58:14 63:14

64:4

2.27 227:7

2.5 175:20

2:00 9:13

20 37:13,19 44:10

122:1 130:16

146:3 148:22

167:14 221:13

262:13 302:5,13

302:15 303:7,17

330:9

20-120 144:6

146:10

20-2009 60:3

20.5 298:18

200 238:18

200-pound 223:11

2000 195:22

2005 37:11 48:14

58:12 63:13

2008-2009 269:14

2010 18:15 44:7,22

48:15 236:16

268:17,18

2011 244:12 268:8

2012 49:9 59:19

69:13 71:6 75:10

75:11 76:13 78:8

79:3,5 91:22 92:7

213:6 214:5

247:11 265:6

267:21 268:8,18

282:12,14 324:20

2013 59:22 76:16

78:10 213:7

237:17 247:11

269:17,21 324:18

2014 1:8 4:10 55:3

57:6 62:3 92:3

2015 49:13 59:1

61:20 324:20

2018 214:7 238:16

248:3 270:20

315:1 328:1

2020 46:14 269:6

270:8,19

2022 328:2

2040-to-2050 325:3

2047 248:3

2050 325:2,3,5

21 303:18

22 97:21 122:1,10

122:11 162:20

163:10,12 164:6

164:20 165:1

177:11 181:6

182:3,4 184:13,15

184:18 185:16

319:8

22-inch 26:14,20

27:3

23 318:22

23.5 21:5 298:18

303:18

230 3:10

230-volt 210:6

24.88 172:3

24/7 281:14

247 3:12

25 37:21 42:22

63:17,19 78:5

172:1 181:8 182:4

184:2,7,12,16,16

185:19 191:19

25,000 241:15

26 63:19

268 318:10,11

320:1,19

269 314:19 320:1,2

320:19

27 63:19

270 329:9,20

28 254:15

286 248:19 254:11

29 184:13

3

3 63:10 80:3 89:8

166:9 179:3 247:8

254:11 259:19

275:8 302:10

326:2

3:28 319:16

3:35 319:17

30 17:21 37:8,20

42:12 51:22

121:22 122:11

133:6 164:4,21

165:1 248:19

249:13 254:12,16

284:18 302:5,9,13

302:15 303:7,17

30-inch 26:13 27:2

30-year 215:20

236:10 238:7,14

245:11 301:19

324 3:13

333415 300:15

335 3:15

35 31:5 42:21

350 14:22

355 3:16

38 152:13

4

4 3:2 83:3 166:9

217:21 233:11

4,000 60:5 64:4

70:3 173:17

4/10ths 214:8

4:10 355:14

40 52:3

400 164:3

404A 13:16 291:15

294:5

41 98:2 112:7

42 180:17 353:10

431 328:2

44 171:7,8

442 328:3

45 171:9

470 107:22

48-percent 252:8

4th 206:3 244:9

5

5 55:20 97:8 118:12

145:11,13 166:10

171:16 203:16

216:21 229:7

5,000 173:17

5.10.6 172:2

5.10.8 139:21

5.9.2 19:3 145:17

50 42:20 58:14

63:14 85:21

135:18 138:6

142:11 143:5,14

143:15 172:22

204:3,21 205:5,10

205:19 222:12,13

320:15,16,17

50-percent 203:13

221:20 248:8

500 163:15

52 252:11,12

6

6 166:10 171:16

6.7 238:15

60 135:18 138:6

238:3 240:3

251:21 268:18

60-percent 251:15

252:7

60-year-old 29:13

62 268:18

63 221:14

6313(d)(3)(C)

353:11

64 252:14

67 240:3 268:18

7

7 59:22 221:13

247:8 326:2

70 27:8 31:8 85:14

72 241:11 269:4

74 257:4 263:6

75 35:5 328:1

750 305:19

78 308:1,5

78.6 304:9 306:16

8

8 3:3 218:4 221:13

226:17

80 74:10 122:17

252:5 308:7

80-percent 252:4

800,000 15:5

810-2007 60:3

82 295:14

87 295:16,18 328:2

8E-089 1:12

9
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

C E R T I F I C A T E

This is to certify that the foregoing transcript 

In the matter of: 

Before: 

Date: 

Place: 

was duly recorded and accurately transcribed under 

my direction; further, that said transcript is a 

true and accurate record of the proceedings. 

 

 ----------------------- Court Reporter 

402

Energy Conservation Standards for

Automatic Commercial Ice Makers

US DOE

04-14-14

Washington, DC