EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

TO: Cyrus Nasseri 

Carl Adams 

Gene Margolis 

George Kelly 

FOI Office 

File 

EE-431 

EE-431 

GC-41 

NIST 

RM. 1E-190 

6TH Floor 

Enclosed please find a set of comments regarding EE-RM-93-501 (NOPR to 

Amend Test Procedures for Furnaces, Direct Heating Equipment, and Pool 

Heaters), Should you have any questions, please contact us on 586-9138. 

Thank you. 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

#1 

#2 

#3 

#4 

#5 

#6 

#7 

SCHEDULE 

PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING 

TEST PROCEDURES FOR FURNACES/BOILERS, VENTED HOME 

HEATING EQUIPMENT, AND POOL HEATERS 

TIME 

9:30 

9:50 

10:10 

10:30 

10:50 

11: 10 

11:30 

12:50 

1:10 

1:30 

2:00 

DOCKET NUMBER EE-RM-93-50l 

JANUARY 5, 1994 

SPEAKER ORGANIZATION 

Carl Adams Department of Energy 

Joseph M. Mattingly GAM A 

James A. Ranfone AGA 

David B. Goldstein Natural Resources Defense Council 

Channing Starke Hydronics Institute 

David F. Lewis Lennox Industries Inc. 

David Fink Rajendra K. Narang 

LUNCH BREAK 

Marion O'Neill Public Service Electric & Gas Co. 

Unscheduled Speakers 

Rebuttal Statements 

Questions 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

Public Hearing Attendees 

Test Procedures for .Furnaces/Boilers, Vented Home 

Heating Equipment, and Pool Heaters 

Docket Number EE-RM-93-501 

Forrestal Building, Room I E-245 January 5, 1994 

Panel Members 

Carl E. Adams 

Presiding Official 

Cyrus Nasseri 

Eugene Margolis 

George Kelly 

James Mills 

Opening Remarks 

Carl E. Adams 

Presiding Official 

Scheduled Speakers 

1. Joseph M. Mattingly 

2. James A. Ranfone 

3. David B. Goldstein 

4. Channing Starke 

5. David F. Lewis 

6. David Fink 

7. Marion O'Neill 

Office of Codes and Standards 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Codes and Standards 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of General Counsel 

U.S. Department of Energy 

National Institute of Standards & Technology 

Federal Trade Commission 

SCHEDULE OF PRESENTATIONS 

9:30 

Organization 

GAMA 9:50 

AGA 10:10 

Natural Resources Defense Council 10:30 

Hydronics Institute 10:50 

Lennox Industries Inc. 11: 10 

Rajendra K. Narang 11:30 

Public Service Electric & Gas Company 12:50 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

Hearings and Dockets 

) 

In the Matter of: ) 

) 

PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING ) 

TEST PROCEDURES FOR FURNACES/) Docket Number 

BOILERS, VENTED HOME HEATING ) EE-RM-93-501 

EQUIPMENT AND POOL HEATERS ) 

) 

Room 1E245 

U.S. Department of Energy 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, D.C. 

Wednesday, 

January 5, 1993 

9:30 a.m. 

BEFORE: CARL E. ADAMS, Presiding Official 

Office of Codes and Standards 

U.S. Department of Energy 

APPEARANCES: 

CYRUS NASSERI 

Office of Codes and Standards 

U.S. Department of Energy 

EUGENE MARGOLIS 

Office of General Counsel 

U.S. Department of Energy 

GEORGE KELLY 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

JAMES MILLS 

Federal Trade Commission 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

I N D E X 

STATEMENT OF: 

Opening Remarks 

Carl E. Adams, Presiding Official 

Joseph M. Mattingly 

GAMA 

James A. Ranfone 

AGA 

David B. Goldstein 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Channing Starke 

Hydronics Institute 

David F. Lewis 

Lennox Industries, Inc. 

David Fink 

Rajendra K. Narang 

Marion O'Neill 

Public Services Electric & Gas Company 

Michael Martin 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 

2 

PAGE: 

3 

8 

52 

64 

74 

77 

91 

99 

110 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

3 

1 PRO C E E DIN G S 

2 9:30 a.m. 

3 MR. ADAMS: Well, it's 9:30, and I hope 

4 everyone is here. I know we're missing maybe a couple 

5 of people. 

6 opening Remarks 

7 MR. ADAMS: I'd like to welcome everyone. 

8 I'm Carl Adams, the Director of Compliance Standards 

9 Division of DOE's Office of Codes and Standards. 

10 The Department in the past has had a 

11 contractor who handled all of the detailed arrangements 

12 of arranging these hearings. We no longer have that 

13 contract. So, now it befalls to the Program Office to 

14 make all the detailed arrangements, and in the manual 

15 that we got, unfortunately, there were no instructions 

16 on controlling the weather. Today looks a lot better 

17 than yesterday, and I hope no one had difficulty 

18 getting here, and hope we all get home at the end of 

19 these hearings, those of you who are staying for the 

20 rest of them. 

21 But on behalf of the Department of Energy, 

- 22 I'd like to thank you for taking the time to 

23 participate in this public hearing, concerning the 

24 Department of Energy's Conservation Program for 

25 Consumer Products. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

4 

1 The purpose of today's public hearing is to 

2 receive oral testimony on the Notice of Proposed 

3 Rulemaking regarding amendments to the Department's 

4 Test Procedures for Furnaces and Boilers, Vented 

5 Heating Equipment and Pool Heaters as discussed in the 

6 Proposed Rule, published in the Federal Register on 

7 August 23rd. 

8 Comments received here today and those 

9 submitted during the written comment period will assist 

10 us in developing the final rule. Comment period for 

11 this rulemaking ends February 4th, 1994. 

12 All comments submitted on this Proposed Rule 

13 will be considered before DOE establishes the final 

14 rule. Comments received after the comment period will 

15 be considered to the fullest extent possible as time 

16 allows. 

17 As the DOE presiding official for this 

18 hearing, I will set forth the guidelines for conducting 

19 the hearing and provide other pertinent information. 

20 Complete transcript of this hearing will be available 

21 for inspection and copy at the Department of Energy's 

22 Freedom of Information Reading Room as described in the 

23 Notice. Anyone wishing to purchase a copy of the 

24 transcript may make arrangements with the court 

25 reporter. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

5 

1 This will not be an evidentiary or judicial2 type of hearing. It will be conducted in accordance 

3 with section 553, Title 5, united states C9des, and 

4 section 336 of the Act. 

5 To provide the Department of Energy with as 

6 much pertinent information and as many views as can 

7 reasonably be obtained, and to enable interested 

8 persons to express their views, the hearing will be 

9 conducted in accordance with the following procedures. 

10 Speakers will be called to testify based on 

11 the schedule of those people who responded to the 

12 Notice of this hearing, and the schedule is available. 

13 The speakers have been allocated 20 minutes for their 

14 oral statements, as stated in the Notice. Anyone, when 

15 making unscheduled oral statements, after all scheduled 

16 speakers have delivered their statements, and at the 

17 conclusion of all presentations, each speaker will be 

18 given the opportunity to make a rebuttal statement, 

19 subject to time limitations, and will be called in the 

20 order in which the initial statements were made. 

21 Questions may be asked only by panel members 

22 conducting the hearing. However, the presiding 

23 official will afford any interested person an 

24 opportunity to question speakers who have made oral 

25 presentations. This opportunity will be afforded after 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

6 

1 any rebuttal statements to the extent that the 

2 presiding official determines that such question is 

3 likely to result in a more timely ~nd effective 

4 resolution of the issue. 

5 Persons interested in making use of this 

6 opportunity must submit their requests shortly after 

7 the completion of any rebuttal statements to the 

8 Registration Desk. 

9 Questions submitted should be identified as 

10 to who the author of the question is and to whom the 

11 question is being directed. I will determine whether 

12 the question is relevant, and if the question is 

13 allowed, I will ask it. 

14 As mentioned earlier, the close of the 

15 comment period is February 4th of this year. All 

16 comments received will be available for public 

17 inspection at the DOE Freedom of Information Reading 

18 Room. Such comments should be addressed to the 

19 Department of Energy as noted in the Proposed Rule. 10 

20 copies of written comments are requested. 

21 In addition, the Department would appreciate 

22 an electronic copy of the comments, and we are 

23 currently using the Word Perfect Version of 5.1, and no 

24 faxed comments will be accepted. 

25 Any person submitting information which he or 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

1 she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from 

2 public disclosure should submit to that same address 

3 one complete copy and nine copies from which 

4 information is claimed to be confidential has been 

5 deleted. 

6 In accordance with the procedure established 

7 at 10 CFR 1004.11, the Department of Energy shall make 

8 its own determination as to whether or not the 

9 information shall be exempt from public disclosure. 

10 Again, we appreciate the time and effort 

11 you've taken in preparing your statements and are 

12 pleased to receive your comments and opinions. 

13 I'd now like to introduce the members of the 

14 panel. Cyrus Nasseri is the Program Manager for the 

15 subject products in my division. Eugene Margolis is 

16 from the Office of General Counsel. Dr. George Kelly 

17 is from NIST, who is under contract to DOE for 

18 assisting us in developing test procedures for these 

19 products, and James Mills from the Federal Trade 

20 Commission, who has responsibility for administering 

21 the labelling requirements of the program. 

22 At this time, I'll call the first speaker, 

23 and for the record, please state your name and who you 

24 represent. 

25 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 

7 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

8 

1 STATEMENT OF JOSEPH M. MATTINGLY, GAMA 

2 MR. MATTINGLY: Thank you. 

3 My name is Joe Mattingly, representing the 

4 Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association, and I have 

5 with me today a young intern in our office, Jack 

6 Langmead, who, of course, seriously is our Vice 

7 President and Director of Technical Services, and I 

8 want to say GAMA appreciates the brief delay that was 

9 granted in the scheduling of this, and that has allowed 

10 Jack to make a roaring comeback from his recent medical 

11 problems. 

12 The Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association 

13 is a national trade association that represents the 

14 vast majority of domestic manufacturers of residential 

15 gas and oil furnaces, gas boilers, vented gas-fired 

16 room heaters, and pool heaters. 

17 GAMA appreciates the opportunity to comment 

18 on the proposed revisions to DOE's Efficiency Test 

19 Procedures for Furnaces, Boilers, Vented Home Heating 

20 Equipment and Pool Heaters. 

21 GAMA's comments mostly concern the proposed 

22 revisions to the Furnace and Boiler Test Procedures. 

23 As a preliminary note, the current ASHRAE 

24 Furnace/Boiler Test Procedure is ASHRAE standard 103-

25 1993, and this is the edition that DOE should 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

9 

1 reference. 

2 The proposed changes to the Furnace and 

3 Boiler Test-Procedures can be divided into three 

4 distinct categories. In the first category are changes 

5 that would not lower efficiency ratings, including 

6 changes to bring the test procedures in line with 

7 waivers previously granted. GAMA supports immediate 

8 adoption of these proposed changes. I'm not going to 

9 read through all these proposed changes. You saw them 

10 in your paper that we submitted about a week ago. 

11 I will say, however, that in the category 1, 

12 Item Number 9, we have test requirements for modulating 

13 units. You'll notice that we've modified that to say 

14 that's for furnaces only, and I'll explain why in a 

15 second. 

16 Again, those changes GAMA would support 

17 immediate adoption of. 

18 The second category of proposed changes are 

19 again listed in our paper. I won't read them. On Item 

20 Number 9, under category 2, Test Requirements for 

21 Modulating Units, (boilers only). 

22 As will be explained later, adoption of these 

23 proposed changes in the second category will 

24 significantly reduce the measured AFUE of most 

25 furnaces, require DOE to amend the existing furnace 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

10 

1 efficiency standards and cause a great deal of 

2 confusion in the marketplace. 

3 For these reasons, GAMA objects to immediate 

4 implementation of these proposed changes and recommends 

5 that their implementation be made to coincide with the 

6 effective date of the next scheduled round of NAECA 

7 Furnace and Boiler Efficiency Standards. 

8 Now, the reason for placing the test 

9 requirements for modulating units in category 1 for 

10 Furnaces and category 2 for Boilers is that we know of 

11 no furnace on the market today whose efficiency rating 

12 would be negatively impacted by the requirement to set 

13 test at minimum input rate, whereas there are several 

14 boiler models whose efficiency rating would be 

15 negatively impacted. 

16 More details on this point will be included 

17 in our written comments. 

18 The third category of proposed changes is the 

19 addition of a new annual efficiency energy descriptor 

20 based on an indoor installation, including adoption of 

21 a 3.37 source energy multiplier or F factor to be 

22 applied to the electro-consumption. 

23 GAMA understands the need to consider 

24 electrical consumption, but urges DOE to correlate its 

25 adoption of any new efficiency descriptor with the 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

11 

1 effective date of the next scheduled round of NAECA 

2 Furnace and Boiler Efficiency Standards. 

3 Let me now elaborate further on why GAMA is 

4 opposed to immediate implementation of the second 

5 category of proposed changes. After that, problems 

6 associated with the use of the proposed annual 

7 efficiency descriptor will be discussed. 

8 In its Federal Register rulemaking notice, 

9 DOE states that the proposed test procedure 

10 modifications will not require any change in minimum 

11 efficiency standards for furnaces and boilers. In this 

12 respect, DOE is mistaken. 

13 At GAMA's request, ETL Testing Laboratories 

14 has tested a multitude of furnace models under both the 

15 existing and proposed revised test procedures. Test 

16 results show that individual proposed test procedure 

17 revisions would lower the measured AFUE of many furnace 

18 models any where from 0.3 to 1.0 percentage points. 

19 In many cases, the proposed test procedure 

20 revisions would have a cumulative effect of reducing 

21 the measured AFUE of the furnace by an even greater 

22 magnitude. 

23 A summary of test results will be provided 

24 with our written comments. 

25 If DOE consults GAMA's Efficiency 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

12 

1 Certification Director, DOE will note that more than 15 

2 percent of the furnace models listed have AFUE ratings 

3 between 78 percent and 78.2 percent. If retested and 

4 rerated using the proposed new test procedures, most, 

5 if not all, of these furnace models would no longer 

6 meet the minimum standards, which is 78 percent AFUE. 

7 DOE therefore is required by NAECA to lower the minimum 

8 standard. 

9 GAMA understands that under the law, DOE 

10 amendment of a test procedure cannot make a product 

11 that complies with the applicable federal minimum 

12 efficiency standard suddenly non-compliant. However, 

13 given marketplace realities, this protection is 

14 illusory. 

15 The marketplace is certain to be confused by 

16 a lowering of the federal minimum standard. Dealers 

17 and consumers have gotten used to the 78 percent AFUE 

18 furnace standard. It will be difficult to sell a 

19 furnace rated at less than 78 percent AFUE, even though 

20 the furnace complies with the amended federal minimum 

21 efficiency standard. 

22 utility rebate programs present a similar 

23 problem. To be eligible for most utility rebate 

24 programs, a furnace must have an efficiency rating of 

25 at least 80 percent AFUE. A look at the GAMA 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

13 

1 Efficiency certification Directory shows the extent to 

2 which furnace manufacturers have arranged their 

3 production mix to take advantage of the 80 percent 

4 utility rebate criterion. 

5 More than 20 percent of all the furnace 

6 models listed in the GAMA Directory are rated between 

7 80 percent and 80.2 percent AFUE. If DOE amends its 

8 test procedures now to incorporate these proposed 

9 changes, most, if not all, of these furnace models will 

10 have to be rerated and will fail to qualify for utility 

11 rebate programs. 

12 It is not realistic to expect that utilities 

13 will promptly modify their rebate eligibility criteria 

14 to account for the effects of revised DOE test 

15 procedures. They will not readily understand the 

16 significance of the test procedure revisions, and a 

17 major effort to educate them will be necessary. 

18 We are still having problems getting gas 

19 utility employees as well as consumers to understand 

20 the difference between the old indoor gas furnace AFUE 

21 and the newer isolated combustion system gas furnace 

22 AFUE rating. 

23 A look at what happened after DOE amended its 

24 test procedures for electric water heaters also 

25 illustrates this point. In October 1990, DOE issued 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

14 

1 revised test procedures for measuring the efficiency of 

2 residential water heaters. Along with these revised 

3 test procedures, DOE issued an amendment to the Federal 

4 Minimum Efficiency Requirements for Residential Water 

5 Heaters based on the revised test procedures. 

6 This amendment lowered the minimum energy 

7 factor requirement for electric residential water 

8 heaters by 0.02. The implementation of the revised 

9 test procedures caused significant problems in the 

10 marketplace, particularly in the area of utility rebate 

11 programs. 

12 There was major difficulty getting 

13 organizations that had rebate programs for electric 

14 water heaters already in effect to recognize that as a 

15 result of the revised test procedures, the eligibility 

16 criteria for the rebate program must be lowered by 

17 0.02. 

18 Despite extensive efforts to educate 

19 utilities, many rebate programs were very slow in 

20 making the adjustment required by the revised test 

21 procedures. 

22 MR. MARGOLIS: Excuse me. Why do the 

23 utilities have to make an adjustment because we've 

24 lowered the test procedures? The utilities could have 

25 a rebate program at any high level that they wish. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

15 

1 They don't -- just because the Department lowers the 

2 standard should have no bearing on the ability. 

3 Could you comment on that? 

4 MR. MATTINGLY: The fact is that the utility 

5 had set up a program where they had anticipated a 

6 certain percentage of models or types of models to be 

7 available for the rebate program. Then you changed the 

8 criteria and the utility no longer has those models 

9 available to it. That affects its own marketing plans. 

10 MR. MARGOLIS: But if they want to have a 

11 higher -- I mean if they want to give a rebate, if 

12 there's a higher level, that's all that this means, is 

13 that they're cutting out the --

14 MR. MATTINGLY: Well, 

15 MR. MARGOLIS: -- those products at a lower 

16 level. They'd still have the rebate. 

17 MR. MATTINGLY: Well,--

18 MR. MARGOLIS: If industry wants to make a 

19 more efficient product, they still could, and that 

20 would meet the rebate. 

21 MR. MATTINGLY: Well, Gene, that's true. In 

22 our past experience, it wasn't so much that the 

23 utilities didn't want to revise the criteria, they 

24 thought that was to keep the playing field level. They 

25 just didn't understand the changes that were required. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

16 

1 I certainly, Gene, am not here to speak for 

2 utilities. I am here, however, to speak for 

3 manufacturers, and manufacturers who arrange their 

4 production mix to take advantage of certain product 

5 utility rebate programs suddenly have all these models 

6 can't comply any longer. That's a big problem for the 

7 manufacturer, whether or not it's a problem for the 

8 utility. 

9 MR. MARGOLIS: Well, would it be any -- if 

10 they would then make a more efficient machine, would 

11 that solve the problem? To go back up --

12 MR. MATTINGLY: Well,--

13 MR. MARGOLIS: -- to the higher level? 

14 MR. MATTINGLY: Well, effectively, Gene, what 

15 you may have accomplished in that case is you've raised 

16 the efficiency standard, but you haven't raised the 

17 efficiency standard according to the schedule that 

18 NAECA laid out for DOE to amend efficiency standards. 

19 That's not the way we see the world. That's not the 

20 way it was supposed to happen. 

21 In this prior case I've been discussing, the 

22 organization sponsoring the rebate programs either did 

23 not understand that the water heaters themselves had 

24 not changed, only the means of measuring their 

25 efficiency, or they were uncomfortable with using what 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

17 

1 appeared to be a less stringent rebate eligibility 

2 criteria. 

3 Even today, some utilities have still not 

4 adjusted their rebate program criteria to residential 

5 electric waters. If DOE adopts these proposed changes 

6 at this time, industry will have to spend substantial 

7 resources retesting and rerating products and 

8 pUblishing new product literature. These resources 

9 will truly be wasted because no actual efficiency gains 

10 will result from retesting and rerating products. 

11 These resources could be better spent in 

12 product research and development, which could provide 

13 real benefits to consumers. 

14 Some manufacturers have indicated to GAMA 

15 that they will have to redesign products to increase 

16 their efficiency in order to maintain current AFUE 

17 ratings necessary for market acceptance or to qualify 

18 for the utility rebate programs. 

19 Such forced product redesign outside the 

20 prescribed NAECA standards revision schedule is 

21 contrary to the intent of the legislation. At the very 

22 least, manufacturers should be allowed sufficient time 

23 for product redesign. Even one year from the date 

24 DOE's final rule is published is not nearly enough 

25 time. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

18 

1 GAMA urges DOE to delay implementation of the 

2 second category of proposed test procedure revisions 

3 until the effective date of the next scheduled round of 

4 NAECA Furnace and Boiler Minimum Efficiency Standards. 

5 We recognize that DOE is required by law to amend its 

6 test procedures to incorporate waivers previously 

7 granted. 

8 However, there is no legal requirement for 

9 DOE to adopt these other proposed revisions at all, 

10 much less at this particular time. If DOE believes 

11 that it lacks the authority to prescribe a delayed 

12 effective date for its final rule or part thereof, then 

13 DOE should amend its test procedure to incorporate the 

14 first category of proposed changes described previously 

15 and terminate the rulemaking. 

16 DOE can start a new rulemaking to incorporate 

17 other proposed changes at a later date. In that case, 

18 we would recommend that in the preamble to its final 

19 rule adopting the first category of changes, DOE 

20 declare its intention to adopt the other proposed 

21 changes in a later rulemaking .. 

22 Let me now go in to some of the problems 

23 which would result from adoption and use of the 

24 proposed annual efficiency AE energy descriptor. 

25 First, any minimum AE standard would have to 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

19 

1 employ a sliding scale based on furnace air flow rate 

2 because the electrical consumption of a gas or oil 

3 furnace will increase with higher air flow rate. 

4 Higher air flow rates are required in areas where 

5 summer temperatures are high in order to maintain air 

6 conditioning efficiency. 

7 Any new furnace minimum efficiency standard 

8 should not be prejudiced against furnaces to provide 

9 the air flow needed to maintain air conditioning 

10 efficiency. 

11 Second, since the proposed AE descriptor is 

12 not applied to electric resistance furnaces, consumers 

13 would probably get the wrong impression that an 

14 electric resistance furnace with a 100 percent 

15 efficiency rating would have a lower cost of operation 

16 than a gas or oil furnace having an 80 percent AE 

17 rating. 

18 A third problem with the proposed AE 

19 descriptor is that two gas furnaces having the same AE 

20 could have significantly different operating costs. 

21 A furnace having a higher electrical 

22 consumption and a lower gas consumption than another 

23 furnace with the same AE rating could have a higher 

24 cost of operation. 

25 Fourth, any labelling requirement or other 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

20 

1 requirement for disclosure of annual efficiency or 

2 other efficiency descriptor in advance of new federal 

3 efficiency standards based on the new descriptor would 

4 cause considerable confusion in the marketplace which 

5 has become accustomed to the use of the AFUE 

6 descriptor, and it could have significant adverse 

7 effects on manufacturers. 

8 Even if the Federal Trade Commission does not 

9 prescribe new labelling rules based on annual 

10 efficiency, state and utility sponsored incentive 

11 programs could be modified to use AE as an eligibility 

12 criterion, especially if it is anticipated that DOE 

13 will prescribe revised NAECA standards based on AE. 

14 This would disrupt manufacturers' product 

15 planning, require rerating of all furnaces and probably 

16 also result in sUbstantial product redesigns which 

17 would require retesting for efficiency ratings. 

18 DOE has recently commenced a rulemaking 

19 proceeding to consider possible revision of the NAECA 

20 minimum efficiency standards for furnaces and boilers. 

21 Revised standards would be effective some time after 

22 2002, depending on when the final rule is promulgated. 

23 Understandably, DOE may wish to base its 

24 proposals for revised NAECA furnace and boiler 

25 standards on the proposed test procedure revisions, in 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

21 

1 particular the annual efficiency AE descriptor or some 

2 modification thereof. 

3 GAMA supports consideration of electrical 

4 consumption in the establishment of the next round of 

5 furnace and boiler minimum efficiency standards. GAMA 

6 members are reviewing this issue and will develop a 

7 suggested solution which may require the use of two 

8 efficiency descriptors for gas and oil furnaces and 

9 boilers. One descriptor would be for gas or oil 

10 consumption, and the other would be for electrical. 

11 Any new descriptor and other proposed new 

12 test procedure provisions do not have to be in effect 

13 or even formally adopted at the time DOE issues a 

14 revised standards proposal. In proposing new furnace 

15 and boiler standards, DOE simply needs to make its 

16 intentions clear as to what descriptors and test 

17 procedures the proposed revised standards will be based 

18 on. 

19 GAMA expects that in the very near future, 

20 DOE will publish proposed amended efficiency standards 

21 for mobile home furnaces. The proposed new standards 

22 may be based on the annual efficiency descriptor, and 

23 in anticipation of publication of final standards, DOE 

24 may wish to have the annual efficiency descriptor or 

25 some modification thereof in the furnace test 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

22 

1 procedures as soon as possible. 

2 If that is the case, DOE should amend the 

3 furnace test procedures to adopt the new descriptor, 

4 but for now, make the new descriptor applicable only to 

5 mobile home furnaces. 

6 Mobile home furnaces are marketed in a very 

7 different way than are furnaces and boilers generally. 

8 Adoption of a new descriptor for mobile home furnaces 

9 will not present the same potential for marketplace 

10 confusion and adverse impacts on manufacturers that 

11 adoption of this descriptor for all furnaces and 

12 boilers would. 

13 However, if DOE does choose to adopt a new 

14 energy descriptor for mobile home furnaces, it needs to 

15 recognize and avoid the problems noted previously, such 

16 as the sliding scale standards requirements. 

17 As previously indicated, GAMA supports 

18 immediate amendment of the test procedures to 

19 incorporate waivers previously granted relating to 

20 blower time delay and the use of combustion air 

21 dampers. 

22 However, we oppose DOE's proposal to specify 

23 a minimum blower delay time of 20 seconds during the 

24 heat-up test if the designed unvarying delay time is 

25 less than 20 seconds. We also oppose DOE's proposal to 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

23 

1 require furnaces that have an unvarying time delay that 

2 does not allow for a longer blower delay time than the 

3 blower delay time specified during the cool-down test 

4 to be tested with the fan control bypass and the blower 

5 manually controlled to give the unspecified delay time, 

6 to give the specified delay time. 

7 DOE cites cold drafts and a reasonable level 

8 of occupant comfort as its rationale for these proposed 

9 deviations from the ASHRAE standard. DOE is acting 

10 outside its authority in factoring occupant comfort 

11 into its efficiency test procedures. DOE also needs to 

12 recognize there are nine options now available which 

13 provide manufacturers the capability of devising blower 

14 operating schemes that ensure occupant comfort and 

15 enhance appliance efficiency yet utilize timings that 

16 are restricted by both current DOE requirements and 

17 DOE's proposed revisions. 

18 It is the function of the marketplace, not 

19 DOE, to discourage the sale of furnaces that do not 

20 provide a reasonable level of occupant comfort. 

21 In addition, GAMA questions proposed 

22 revisions to section 8 of the DOE Furnace Test 

23 Procedures which seem to be an attempt to account for 

24 electrical energy consumed by the combustion blower 

25 during post-purge and the electrical energy consumed by 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

24 

1 electrical intermittent or interrupted ignition 

2 devices. 

3 During studies of such conditions, the 

4 electrical energy consumed for the purposes of ignition 

5 and post-purge would be zero. Nonetheless, GAMA is 

6 opposed to any revision to the Furnace Test Procedures 

7 that would attempt to account for energy consumed by 

8 the combustion blower during post-purge and by 

9 intermittent or interrupted ignition devices. 

10 GAMA believes that the time and effort 

11 necessary for accurately measuring this extremely small 

12 amount of energy is not economically justified. GAMA 

13 also believes that DOE test procedures should not 

14 influence the decision of furnace manufacturers 

15 regarding which intermittent or interrupted ignition 

16 devices to use. 

17 All right. That's all for furnaces and 

18 boilers. I just have a few more comments relating to 

19 the other products. 

20 First, with respect to Vented Home Heating 

21 Equipment, GAMA full supports the proposed revisions to 

22 DOE's Test Procedures for Vented Home Heating Equipment 

23 relating to pilot light energy consumption and weighted 

24 average steady state efficiency and encourages their 

25 adoption. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

25 

1 However, for the reasons noted previously, 

2 GAMA does not support adoption of an annual efficiency 

3 descriptor for vented home heating equipment at this 

4 time. As with furnaces and boilers, GAMA members that 

5 manufacture vented home heating equipment are reviewing 

6 this issue and will develop a suggested solution which 

7 may also require the use of two energy descriptors, one 

8 for gas consumption and one for electrical consumption. 

9 with respect to Pool Heaters, DOE has also 

10 proposed to adopt annual efficiency as an additional 

11 energy descriptor. The AE descriptor would account for 

12 the annual energy consumption of continuous burning 

13 pilots and the electrical energy consumption of 

14 auxiliary equipment, in addition to the thermal 

15 efficiency of the pool heater. 

16 With respect to types of auxiliary equipment, 

17 the use of a recirculating pump should be factored in 

18 the AE descriptor only if it is used during the thermal 

19 efficiency test under section 2.8.1 of ANSI C-2156-

20 1990. Not all pool heater designs employ a 

21 recirculating pump during the thermal efficiency test. 

22 In addition, the pump used on any given 

23 installation in the field would be unknown to the pool 

24 heater manufacturer. Pool filter pumps are not 

25 associated with the use of a pool heater but with the 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

26 

1 pool itself, and should not be considered as auxiliary 

2 equipment. 

3 GAMA recommends that DOE focus on addressing 

4 a pool heater's primary electrical energy consumption 

5 rather than auxiliary losses. This will be useful in 

6 future rulemakings for electric and gas-fired heat pump 

7 pool heaters. 

8 Under proposed section 4.2, DOE has defined 

9 the average number of burner operating hours as being 

10 104 hours, but does not indicate the average pool and 

11 pool heater size this is based on. Under DOE's AE 

12 descriptor proposal, 100,000 BTUs per hour and 400,000 

13 BTU per pool heaters could have the same AE value. 

14 This would give the impression that a 400,000 BTU per 

15 hour pool heater is an effective choice for heating a 

16 500 gallon hot tub. Based on this, the DOE proposed AE 

17 descriptor would not be useful to the consumer. 

18 GAMA urges DOE not to adopt its proposed AE 

19 descriptor for pool heaters, but, instead, to develop a 

20 methodology to calculate total annual energy 

21 consumption based on thermal efficiency, electrical 

22 energy consumption and continuous pilot consumption. 

23 Consumers could then use this information to 

24 estimate annual energy consumption and operating costs 

25 applicable to a specific pool size and season of 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

27 

1 operation. 

2 Finally, if the DOE's main reason for 

3 proposing an AE descriptor is to discourage the use of 

4 continuous burning pilots, GAMA members that 

5 manufacture pool heaters would be receptive to 

6 supporting a proposed prescriptive rule to prohibit 

7 such pilots, rather than further complicating the pool 

8 heater efficiency test procedures. 

9 It should be noted that during pool non10 season hours, the continuous pilot is usually shut off. 

11 GAMA realizes that DOE plans to publish a 

12 proposed rule in the near future to revise the NAECA 

13 minimum efficiency standards for water heaters and pool 

14 heaters. Any changes to the pool heater test 

15 procedures should be made to coincide with the 

16 effective date of revised pool heater minimum 

17 efficiency standards. 

18 This concludes GAMA's prepared statement, and 

19 Jack and I would be happy to try to answer any 

20 questions you have at the appropriate time. 

21 Thank you. 

22 MR. ADAMS: Thank you for your testimony, and 

23 I do have some questions. 

24 

25 now? 

MR. MATTINGLY: Would you like to do them 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

1 MR. ADAMS: Yes. You may not have all the 

2 answers with you today, and certainly 

3 

4 

MR. MATTINGLY: I'm willing to bet I don't. 

MR. ADAMS: it would be helpful if you'd 

5 address them in your written comments. 

6 You indicated that the reference test data 

7 would accompany your written statement. However, 

28 

8 regarding your second category of proposed changes, you 

9 stated that "test results show that individual proposed 

10 test procedure revisions would lower the measured AFUE 

11 of many furnace models anywhere from 0.3 to 1.0 

12 percentage points". 

13 Does that mean that you tested each of the 

14 eight modifications listed individually and that each 

15 one taken by itself lowered the AFUE from 0.3 to 1.0? 

16 That's not a package number for each one? 

17 MR. MATTINGLY: Right. I don't know that we 

18 tested every single proposed change. We tested several 

19 of the proposed changes, and in many of those cases, 

20 the individual proposed test procedure revision did 

21 lower it by that factor. 

22 Do you have anything to add to that, Jack? 

23 MR. LANGMEAD: Jack Langmead with GAMA. 

24 Carl, I think we tested five. We have just 

25 had an ETL from five. It's individual manufactured 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

29 

1 data on the other, and each one of them, each one of 

2 the test procedures, each one of the ones we did at 

3 ETL, incorporated just one of the changes compared to 

4 the other, and we haven't done any cumulative work yet, 

5 but we will do that and have that in. 

6 DR. KELLY: You are going to provide that 

7 then? 

8 MR. LANGMEAD: Yes, sir. 

9 DR. KELLY: will you provide the model number 

10 and makes, too, for us? 

11 MR. LANGMEAD: Yes. 

12 DR. KELLY: Okay. 

13 MR. LANGMEAD: I can give you some of that 

14 data earlier than the close of the comment period and 

15 some we're still generating. 

16 MR. ADAMS: Okay. As soon as you can provide 

17 it, we'll be interested to look at it. 

18 MR. LANGMEAD: Very good. 

19 MR. ADAMS: Does GAMA have comparable data 

20 for the 12 modifications listed as category I? Did you 

21 test any of those individually? 

22 MR. MATTINGLY: Why don't you take that 

23 again, Jack? 

24 MR. LANGMEAD: We haven't done any test work 

25 at ETL on that, but the manufacturers have, and they 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

30 

1 all agreed that those changes, which are based on 

2 waivers that were granted, are already accounted for in 

3 the current AFUE number. Those changes don't lower the 

4 number. 

5 MR. ADAMS: Okay. Well, not all of those are 

6 waiver 

7 MR. LANGMEAD: But -- and, so, we tried to 

8 make the break point not what was waivers but those 

9 things that would have an adverse effect on the current 

10 AFUE rating. We said we adopt everything we could that 

11 didn't lower the rating. 

12 MR. ADAMS: Do any of those raise AFUE of the 

13 category 1 that you tested? 

14 MR. LANGMEAD: Yes. Oh, of the ones we 

15 tested on category 1? We didn't test, the 

16 manufacturers tested, but I'm sure some of those raised 

17 the AFUE rating, yes. 

18 MR. ADAMS: Okay. If DOE were to implement 

19 only the category 1 modifications, does GAMA have an 

20 estimate as to what the average AFUE increase might be 

21 for a marginally complying unit? 

22 In other words, if only category 1 

23 modifications were implemented, would your data refute 

24 or support any argument that DOE would be required to 

25 raise the standard? 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

31 

1 MR. LANGMEAD: Again, most of the revisions 

2 in there are already in place because they -- and taken 

3 and accounted for in the current AFUE rating because 

4 they were the subject of granted waivers. 

5 We will look at all other things that weren't 

6 the subject of standard waivers and provide you that 

7 information in the written comments. 

8 MR. ADAMS: Okay. Then, regarding the third 

9 category, the proposed new descriptor annual 

10 efficiency, I guess I want to be clear in my 

11 understanding that not only are you advocating that 

12 annual efficiency should not be used as the basis of 

13 the minimum efficiency standard until the next 

14 scheduled round of NAECA rulemaking, but also that DOE 

15 should not even include the descriptor in the test 

16 procedure until then. 

17 Is that a correct understanding of your 

18 position? 

19 MR. LANGMEAD: Yes. It shouldn't be included 

20 in the test procedure for all -- if you need it for 

21 mobile home furnaces, do it for only mobile home 

22 furnaces. But have it -- do the rulemaking so that 

23 it's in the test procedure, and that -- so it's in the 

24 test procedure coincident with the next round of NAECA 

25 standards. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

32 

1 MR. MATTINGLY: You might want to put it in 

2 the test procedure at some future date and project out 

3 the effective date, you know, a 180 days or 360 days, 

4 to coincide with the effective date of the next NAECA 

5 standards. 

6 MR. ADAMS: Okay. You stated that since the 

7 proposed AE descriptor is not applied to electrical 

8 resistance furnaces, consumers will probably get the 

9 wrong impression that an electric resistance furnace 

10 with a 100 percent efficiency rating would have a lower 

11 cost of operation than a gas or oil furnace having an 

12 80 percent AE rating, and also that state and utility 

13 sponsored incentive programs could be modified to use 

14 annual efficiency as an eligibility criteria. 

15 The current test procedure contains an unused 

16 energy descriptor, the energy factor, which measures 

17 furnace efficiency, including electrical consumption, 

18 when the furnace is installed as an isolated combustion 

19 system. 

20 Since the proposed annual efficiency 

21 descriptor is essentially the same measure as the 

22 energy factor, except for being an indoor installation, 

23 could you include in your written comments if these 

24 same concerns apply to the existing energy factor? 

25 MR. LANGMEAD: Okay. We can do that. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

33 

1 MR. ADAMS: Likewise, you mentioned some 

2 technical problems regarding air flow and how the gas 

3 and electrical consumption might be combined or whether 

4 they should be kept separate. 

5 Do these concerns also apply to the existing 

6 energy factor? 

7 MR. LANGMEAD: We can address that, Carl, but 

8 the existing energy factor is multiplied by a source 

9 energy, which magnifies the problem. 

10 MR. ADAMS: That's true. That may be 

11 something that we forgot to do. 

12 You've indicated that furnace and vented home 

13 heating equipment manufacturers are looking into 

14 resolving these issues regarding the annual efficiency 

15 descriptor, knowing that DOE might proposed efficiency 

16 standards for mobile home furnaces and vented home 

17 heating equipment in an upcoming rulemaking. 

18 Since DOE might do that, it would be helpful 

19 if those proposed solutions were in your written 

20 comments. I don't know what your time schedule is with 

21 the manufacturers to resolve those issues, but the 

22 sooner the better for us, I believe. 

23 MR. LANGMEAD: Carl, just in response to 

24 that, to try to get industry concurrence on that point 

25 in that period of time is going to be very difficult. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

34 

1 We will go as far as we can in our written 

2 comments, but I would be very optimistic to say that we 

3 can resolve that issue and get concurrence of the 

4 industry in that period of time. 

5 MR. ADAMS: Okay. And then, lastly for 

6 myself, regarding proposed changes relating to blower 

7 time delay, you stated that there are design options 

8 now available which provide manufacturers the 

9 capability of devising blower operating schemes that 

10 ensure occupant comfort and enhance appliance 

11 efficiency yet utilize timings that are restricted by 

12 both current DOE requirements and DOE's proposed 

13 revisions. 

14 For the record, would you provide to DOE what 

15 those design options are? Also, could you provide 

16 GAMA's opinion regarding the ease or difficulty of an 

17 installer modifying an unvarying blower time delay of 

18 less than 20 seconds to a longer delay in the event of 

19 a consumer complaint of discomfort? In other words, 

20 somebody complains that they have -- the furnace is not 

21 working properly, how hard or easy would it be for 

22 someone to change a short time delay? 

23 MR. LANGMEAD: We will include that in the 

24 written comments. 

25 MR. ADAMS: Okay. That's all the questions 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

35 

1 that I have. 

2 Cyrus, do you have any additional questions? 

3 MR. NASSERI: I think you kind of covered 

4 most of the things I was concerned with. 

5 One thing that we have asked in the notice 

6 was comment on input/output test as compared to what we 

7 have, and as I recall, GAMA had a contract awhile back 

8 with ETL to review that, and we haven't heard anything 

9 on that issue. 

10 I would like to see if you have any comments. 

11 If there is any data available, you're going to submit 

12 that to us at this time or not. 

13 MR. LANGMEAD: Cyrus, we don't have any data 

14 to submit for the record at this time, but I can tell 

15 you that the results of the work we've done is we have 

16 a great deal of difficulty in repeating the tests from 

17 one time to the next, and a great deal of difficulty in 

18 correlating the efficiency rating with what the 

19 efficiency rating currently is. 

20 So, the method we're using, that method test, 

21 needs work, and it probably needs -- if somebody wants 

22 to go that way, it's going to take -- maybe George can 

23 give a better estimate than I can on it, but I see 

24 three or four years worth of work to even come close on 

25 that method of testing. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

36 

1 MR. NASSERI: Okay. I don't have any more 

2 questions. 

3 MR. ADAMS: George? 

4 DR. KELLY: Yes. Joe and Jack, I would like 

5 to clarify GAMA's position on the second category of 

6 proposed changes. 

7 If I may put it in my own words, I guess 

8 you're saying that you feel it would be unfair for the 

9 Government to make these changes because it might lower 

10 some units that are just marginally above the minimum 

11 level, might have their efficiency lowered because of 

12 these changes, and that would be unfair. 

13 Is that what you're saying? 

14 MR. MATTINGLY: Well, I would say, first of 

15 all, it would be unfair and unwise from everybody's 

16 perspective to do it at this time. That's only part of 

17 our concerns, though, is the effect that some of them 

18 will no longer meet the now market accepted 78 percent 

19 minimum number. 

20 DR. KELLY: Let's say I'm a manufacturer, and 

21 I make a natural gas-fired furnace, a boiler that 

22 doesn't meet the minimum standard. So, if I'm a boiler 

23 manufacturer and I install a vent damper or furnace, I 

24 might install a power vented unit, okay, to meet the 

25 minimum standards, and I meet in, and that's what the 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

37 

1 minimum standards was intended to do, right? 

2 Now, if I discover that because of some holes 

3 in the test procedure, if I allow that post-purge 

4 period and allow the blower to run, the combustion 

5 blower to run for awhile after that, I get an even 

6 higher efficiency number, or if I don't close my stack 

7 damper right away, I get a higher efficiency number. 

8 So, I put in a less effective heat exchanger, 

9 and I get -- I still meet minimum standards. Now, I 

10 know I have a furnace that's less efficient, I know the 

11 heat exchange is less efficient, I know that I'm 

12 dumping heat'out the stack, but yet I still meet the 

13 minimum efficiency number, is that fair? 

14 MR. MATTINGLY: Is it fair? 

15 DR. KELLY: Yes. Is it fair? Is that what 

16 you -- do you think it's fair for a manufacturer to do 

17 that or for --

18 MR. MATTINGLY: Well, the way that the 

19 standards are set are be it the standard prescribed by 

20 DOE or be it legislated like the initial standards 

21 were, it was they were supposed to allow the 

22 manufacturer to meet the minimum efficiency standard 

23 any way he can. 

24 DR. KELLY: Okay. But if he finds loopholes 

25 in the test procedure that effectively allows him to do 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

38 

1 things that obviously are not in the interests of the 

2 country, not in the interests of the consumer, as long 

3 as he meets that efficiency number, that's okay? 

4 MR. LANGMEAD: George, you know, the 

5 difference between -- there is a difference between 

6 allow and has happened. 

7 The -- I know of no manufacturer that's ever 

8 reduced the effectiveness or would even consider 

9 reducing the effectiveness of a heat exchanger because 

10 he added a post-purge period. The post-purge period is 

11 added for another reason, and nobody is going to go 

12 back and redesign their furnace and spend the money to 

13 lower the efficiency rating or to lower the efficiency 

14 of the heat exchanger. It just isn't going to happen. 

15 DR. KELLY: Well,--

16 MR. LANGMEAD: So, it doesn't have to be 

17 worried about is what I'm saying. 

18 DR. KELLY: -- some of them may have 

19 discovered that if they do the post-purge period, they 

20 actually get a higher efficiency number because of 

21 the -- may be a hole in the test procedure. 

22 Most of these changes here in category 2 are 

23 patches to holes in the test procedures. okay? If you 

24 want to prevent a manufacturer from, let me put the 

25 word in quotes, cheating, okay, running the blower from 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

39 

1 long purge periods or not closing the damper right away 

2 and getting higher efficiency numbers than he actually 

3 should or of putting louvers in it so that he doesn't 

4 have any jacket losses for his isolated combustion 

5 jacket test or removing insulation in certain places so 

6 that he gets lower temperature numbers. 

7 All these are sort of patches to sort of 

8 prevent cheating. Now, you're turning it around, and 

9 you're saying that that's okay, but it's unfair for the 

10 Government to plug those holes because you're saying 

11 now that these units that are obviously cheating will 

12 not meet the minimum standards if they're made to do it 

13 right? 

14 MR. MATTINGLY: First of all, as Jack said, 

15 you say these models are obviously cheating, you 

16 haven't cited any particular examples. 

17 DR. KELLY: I cited long running of the post18 purge or leaving the stack damper open for periods of 

19 time. That's what these patches are for. Okay? 

20 I mean we have them in there. The standards 

21 right now covers closing stack dampers and closes power 

22 vented units. It just doesn't include -- what happens 

23 if you do a few more little perturbations or tricks 

24 upon them? 

25 MR. LANGMEAD: George? 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

40 

1 DR. KELLY: And these are to close the holes. 

2 MR. LANGMEAD: George, we have no objection 

3 to the adoption of the revisions in category 2. We 

4 have objection to the timing of the adoption of the 

5 revisions in category 2, and I kind 

6 DR. KELLY: But it's not going to affect 

7 those units that are doing it right now. It's only 

8 going to affect those units that have deliberately gone 

9 to, let's say, less than normal --

10 MR. LANGMEAD: Insulating the draft to it, 

11 insulating the stack is going to affect virtually every 

12 unit. A number of these changes would affect virtually 

13 every unit on the marketplace. 

14 Now, we can deal with each one of those in 

15 more detail --

16 DR. KELLY: You should, you should. 

17 MR. LANGMEAD: -- in our written comments. 

18 DR. KELLY: I think you need to break out 

19 each one of those things, okay, because the first two 

20 are definitely aimed at getting people that are doing 

21 maybe less than stuff in my opinion at the moment. 

22 Okay? 

23 MR. LANGMEAD: Okay. 

24 DR. KELLY: And some of the louvers, for 

25 instance, too, that have been added to a lot of units 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

41 

1 in recent years, so that now there's no jacket losses. 

2 That is just a way -- many of these things are methods 

3 of getting a better measurement. Okay. 

4 You're saying insulation is really to get a 

5 better flue management. Okay. The blocking of the 

6 louvers is to get a better jacket loss measurement. Of 

7 course, you're losing that heat anyway. Okay? It's 

8 just that it's going in convective losses instead of 

9 conduction losses, and it's a way of trying to account 

10 for it in a different form. 

11 MR. LANGMEAD: Or maybe it's a way to 

12 ventilate the cabinet of the heat -- of the unit to 

13 make the controls last longer and operate better over a 

14 longer period of time, and thus are very cost 

15 effective. 

16 DR. KELLY: It could be, but if we can 

17 measure the jacket losses that way, it would be fine, 

18 but --

19 MR. LANGMEAD: We will deal with each one in 

20 the written comments· in more detail than we have here. 

21 DR. KELLY: Okay. 

22 MR. LANGMEAD: And its impact. The--

23 DR. KELLY: I think you need to address how, 

24 if it's used as was originally intended in the test 

25 procedures, whether it has an impact at all, or if used 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

42 

1 in an appropriate way, like long post purges, you know, 

2 what effect that has on it. 

3 MR. LANGMEAD: George, and I think we want to 

4 be absolutely clear here, that the issue is not what 

5 but it's when. 

6 We are not opposed to the adoption of those 

7 provisions. It's how they get implemented and their 

8 impact on the process, the amount of work that has to 

9 be done to go back and reset a new minimum under the 

10 current size. with enough time, we can adjust to those 

11 things. We can't do it, and, unfortunately, the law is 

12 reasonably clear on the amount of time that it takes 

13 after you publish your proposed revision to make it 

14 effective, and it's too darn short. You can't do it in 

15 that period of time. 

16 So, it's an issue of what, not when, but we 

17 will address, try to address your concerns in the 

18 written comments. 

19 MR. MATTINGLY: Let me just add to that, that 

20 DOE has to understand that whether you think the 

21 current test procedure has a lot of loopholes in it or 

22 not, if I test my product according to that test 

23 procedure, then you change the test procedure on me, 

24 and it reduces my AFUE, and if that happens a 

25 significant number of instances, DOE has an obligation 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

43 

1 to go to the trouble to amend the test -- the minimum 

2 standards with all that that entails, and, you know, if 

3 we had some accommodation as to timing here, you know, 

4 maybe we could avoid some of that. 

5 But you really have to ask yourself whether 

6 you want to go to that trouble, and, secondly, you got 

7 to recognize the actual market impact of what you're 

8 doing. 

9 DR. KELLY: Okay. So, you're saying that 

10 it's okay for a manufacturer to cheat, but it's not 

11 okay for the Government to catch him because that may 

12 make stop him from cheating? 

13 

14 

15 

MR. MATTINGLY: Anybody who follows --

DR. KELLY: Is that right? 

MR. MATTINGLY: your current test 

16 procedures is not cheating. 

17 DR. KELLY: Oh. 

18 MR. MATTINGLY: You prescribed the test 

19 procedures. If I follow it, you can't accuse me of 

20 cheating. 

21 DR. KELLY: So, you can find any hole you 

22 want, and even if it's obvious that you're throwing 

23 heat away and that's okay. Is that what you're saying? 

24 Is that what GAMA is saying? 

25 MR. MATTINGLY: You know that's not what I'm 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

44 

1 saying. 

2 DR. KELLY: It sounded like it to me. 

3 MR. MATTINGLY: No, that's not what I said, 

4 and if you want to read the record back, you'll see 

5 that I didn't say that at all. 

6 MR. MARGOLIS: If there is a loophole in the 

7 test procedure, that would be, say, the fault of the 

8 Department of Energy for not catching it, and if we do 

9 know about it and we do catch it, we will make 

10 amendments to the test procedure. 

11 A similar situation has happened in the 

12 clothes washer test procedure. We found out about it 

13 because it was mentioned to us by one of the companies, 

14 and we have put out on the street an amended test 

15 procedure. 

16 But if the test procedure does read a certain 

17 way, then manufacturers can use that test procedure, 

18 and if it means a lower or a higher, not lower, a 

19 higher energy factor, that's the way it comes out, and 

20 we would have to make amendments. The manufacturers 

21 will not be informed for interpreting the test 

22 procedure the way it's written. We've had that 

23 problem, unfortunately. 

24 MR. MATTINGLY: We're not saying that DOE can 

25 never amend its test procedure. That's a ridiculous 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

45 

1 position to take, and one we're not taking. We're just 

2 saying understand there's market impacts here, and also 

3 some additional obligations for DOE. 

4 Can we do this in a way that doesn't create 

5 all that confusion, additional expense to 

6 manufacturers, and, for that matter, additional 

7 workload to DOE? 

8 MR. LANGMEAD: And I think, you know, the --

9 I object to the use of the term "manufacturers 

10 cheating" because I don't think anybody is. There were 

11 things that -- there was a test procedure there, people 

12 designed products. Everybody has agreed to go ahead 

13 and adopt at some point in time all of the proposed 

14 revisions contained in our Category 2 revisions. 

15 The issue again is not whether to adopt it. 

16 There's agreement there, and everybody working at this 

17 point in time, any new products being developed on old 

18 product, if it goes through any changes, those 

19 processes are being changes are being put in, the 

20 product's being looked at, in accordance with those 

21 because they know they're going to be adopted 

22 eventually. 

23 It's a timing issue of getting from where we 

24 are today to where we should be, and the time isn't 

25 enough, and to postpone their adoption allows a cost 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

46 

1 effective responsible transition into an improvement of 

2 the test procedure, and we would like to see that. 

3 But we'd like it in a responsible time period 

4 to allow the change to go through in an orderly fashion 

5 without costing significant sums of money that result 

6 in almost no energy saving. 

7 MR. ADAMS: Okay. I believe that we have 

8 sufficiently aired this issue. 

9 MR. MATTINGLY: That was getting enjoyable. 

10 MR. ADAMS: Do you have any other questions? 

11 DR. KELLY: Just one on a different subject. 

12 You expressed concern about new energy descriptor and 

13 misinterpretation for electric furnaces. 

14 Would GAMA recommend that the F factor be 

15 applied to electric furnaces then? 

16 MR. LANGMEAD: Yes. 

17 DR. KELLY: Okay. 

18 MR. LANGMEAD: We didn't suggest -- we say we 

19 ought to be accounting for electrical energy. 

20 DR. KELLY:" Right. 

21 MR. LANGMEAD: And we will try to work in a 

22 process that will look at a descriptor, but it may 

23 require two. We'd like to be able to combine it in 

24 one, but I don't see how we're going to in order to be 

25 able to take that descriptor and get back to the cost 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

47 

1 of operation, and cost of operation is the key point 

2 that we have to get to. 

3 We've got two different costs of energy, and 

4 all the decision the consumer makes is going to be 

5 based on cost, and the way the descriptor is proposed, 

6 you've got to get the cost some different way, and it 

7 makes it very complex. 

8 DR. KELLY: So, don't you think two factors 

9 plus the cost is just going to confuse the consumer 

10 even more? 

11 MR. LANGMEAD: It may. That's why I said we 

12 couldn't solve that issue between now and the end of 

13 the comment period. Exactly that reason. 

14 MR. ADAMS: James, any questions? 

15 MR. MILLS: I have no questions. 

16 MR. ADAMS: Eugene? 

17 MR. MARGOLIS: When you were mentioning that 

18 the test procedures need not be amended now and could 

19 be mentioned in the standard rulemaking for furnaces, 

20 and you were saying that that would -- all of that 

21 would be necessary, it seems to me that you being a 

22 lawyer, that the statute says that we have to have in 

23 place before we promulgate standards a test procedure 

24 which the standards are based on, so if we don't put 

25 into effect today or tomorrow or next week a test 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

48 

1 procedure that then would be used subsequently for the 

2 standards, I don't understand how you can say that at 

3 the time we would propose standards or promulgate 

4 standards, all we have to do then is mention the new 

5 type of test procedure. 

6 MR. MATTINGLY: Well, the problem -- first of 

7 all, I did a little work on trying to determine if you 

8 could prescribe a delayed effective date for your test 

9 procedure revisions and frankly had a lot of trouble 

10 coming up with a good argument for how you could do 

11 that. 

12 It does seem like under the current language 

13 of the law, a test procedure revision become effective 

14 a 180 days after you publish it in the Federal Register 

15 or you get a 180-day extension of time. So, that 

16 presents a that removes some of the freedom DOE 

17 might have in timing its actual adoption of test 

18 procedure revisions. 

19 But, Gene, what we would do, we would 

20 propose, this would require some delicate timing on 

21 your part in the future, but we would say that you 

22 could go ahead with a rulemaking on your standards 

23 proposal and try to be clear what test procedure, 

24 actual test procedures your proposed standards are 

25 based on, but then it's not so important that your test 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

49 

1 procedure actually be adopted at the time that the 

2 proposed standard is promulgated. 

3 What's more important, and we think all the 

4 law requires, is that the test procedure be in effect 

5 at the time that the revised standard becomes 

6 effective, so that at some point in the future, you 

7 would have to -- initially would have to publish a 

8 final rule adopting these other test procedure changes 

9 about, you know, six months or a year in advance of 

10 when the proposed standards, you know, new standards 

11 are going to be effective, so that at that time, when 

12 they become effective, these test procedures, new test 

13 procedures, are in place. 

14 But we're not saying -- they don't have to be 

15 in place, you know, six years or whatever it is before 

16 you -- the revised standard levels actually become 

17 effective. 

18 MR. LANGMEAD: And if we know what those are, 

19 we can do the test work and provide to DOE and its 

20 contractors the cost efficiency relationship of what 

21 those will be in the rulemaking process, so that it 

22 will be a known factor of what we're providing. 

23 We've to at least provide for DOE to make a 

24 decision on what the standard level is going to be. 

25 It's going to have to go through its analysis, and that 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

50 

1 analysis is going to have to be based on the efficiency 

2 rating you get under a test method. It will be the 

3 test method plus some intended revisions that are going 

4 to be effective at a given date. 

5 MR. MARGOLIS: Would you educate me, because 

6 I don't understand, what is the problem of having a 

7 test procedure in place, even as you said, six years 

8 before a standard is in place? A test procedure is a 

9 test procedure. It says how you will test. There is 

10 no penalties. There is no stringency levels. It's 

11 just telling you how to test, and if we don't come out 

12 with standards for 30 years, what is the harm in having 

13 a test procedure in place? You seem to be saying that 

14 there is a harm. 

15 MR. MATTINGLY: I feel like I have to reread 

16 my paper. Maybe I said something wrong or wasn't loud 

17 enough or something. 

18 The problem is, Gene, under the law, if DOE 

19 publishes a new revised test procedure, that it then 

20 becomes effective a 180 days after, you know, you 

21 publish it in the Federal Register, and then the 

22 manufacturer has to retest his product. He retests 

23 product that previously met the utility rebate 

24 criterion or that met the federal standards. 

25 Now he finds out, oops, I can't do it 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

51 

1 anymore. This product that I had to spend all this 

2 time tooling up for and producing for the last couple 

3 years is now suddenly an obsolete product. You know, 

4 in some cases, it doesn't -- it's one of those 20 

5 percent of my models that was positioned just to meet 

6 the utility rebate criterion, and in other cases, it's 

7 a product that was positioned to just meet the federal 

8 standards. It flunks out. 

9 MR. MARGOLIS: If we would have, as we have 

10 done in the past, have an alternate test procedure, 

11 have two test procedures in place, the one that we now 

12 have or with whatever modifications, and then procedure 

13 A prime, which would be to be used when we then 

14 --institute standards, which then would be based on that 

15 A prime test procedure but not to go into effect --

16 MR. ADAMS: And you are talking about the 

17 annual efficiency type of issue? 

18 MR. MARGOLIS: That's right. 

19 MR. MATTINGLY: Well, I would say that if you 

20 could -- if you want to prescribe an alternative test 

21 procedure which somehow clearly is not effective until 

22 a later date, you know, God bless you, Gene, if you can 

23 do that, because, you know, from the manufacturer's 

24 standpoint, the manufacturer, of course, needs to have 

25 advance notice. You don't just say, okay, new standard 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

52 

1 tomorrow, gee, I guess we'll start to redesign our 

2 products. It's a many years process of redesigning a 

3 product. So, the manufacturer needs lead time to know 

4 what's the new standard and what's the test procedure 

5 it's based on. 

6 So, we want maximum time on that. If you can 

7 do it that way, I don't see a problem with that. 

8 MR. ADAMS: Thank you very much. 

9 MR. MATTINGLY: Thank you. 

10 MR. ADAMS: Speaker Number 2, James Ranfone. 

11 STATEMENT OF JAMES RANFONE, AGA 

12 MR. RANFONE: Good morning. 

13 I'm Jim Ranfone, Director of Codes and 

14 Standards for the American Gas Association. 

15 I wanted to really overview my remarks. I'm 

16 not going to read them in detail. We will be 

17 submitting some detailed remarks, also. 

18 The American Gas Association or AGA is a 

19 national trade association comprising approximately 275 

20 natural gas distribution and transmission companies 

21 throughout the united States, Canada and Mexico. These 

22 firms deliver gas energy from the well head and various 

23 unconventional sources to the burner tube, serving over 

24 56 million customers. 

25 The residential sector represents a core 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

53 

1 market for the U.S. natural gas industry, accounting 

2 for nearly 92 percent of the total customers in 1992. 

3 Currently, residential gas use accounts for 24 percent 

4 of the total U.S. gas consumption, the majority of 

5 which is used for space heating purposes. 

6 In 1992, approximately 2.3 million natural 

7 gas central heating units, including furnaces and 

8 boilers, were shipped throughout the United states, 

9 and, accordingly, AGA has a sUbstantial interest in the 

10 proposed modifications to the method of testing the 

11 performance of residential furnaces and boilers. 

12 AGA is pleased to have the opportunity to 

13 provide input to the Office of Energy and Efficiency 

14 and Renewable Energy of DOE on the proposed 

15 modifications to the test procedures used to measure 

16 the performance of residential space heaters. 

17 The natural gas industry is committed to 

18 providing consumers with efficient, reliable and safe 

19 service. The gas industry in conjunction with 

20 appliance manufacturers have made sUbstantial progress 

21 in developing higher efficiency residential gas 

22 equipment in general and in particular gas central 

23 heating units. 

24 AGA, however, is concerned that the 

25 modifications to the current test procedure could have 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

54 

1 potentially significant adverse impact on the natural 

2 gas industry and the nation's energy resources, if not 

3 implemented in a fair, that is fuel neutral, and 

4 consistent manner. 

5 AGA has long supported a full cycle approach 

6 to energy decisions and is encouraged that DOE appears 

7 to be finally considering a full cycle analysis as 

8 evidenced in the proposed rulemaking. 

9 Clearly, attempts to improve energy 

10 efficiency must look beyond the burner tube. High end11 use efficiencies are meaningless if they must be 

12 coupled with low efficiencies in the production, 

13 transportation, conversion or distribution of energy. 

14 At the same time, AGA is discouraged since 

15 the full cycle approach is applied only to the fossil 

16 fuel equipment, ignoring electric equipment completely. 

17 One of the proposed modifications, for 

18 example, would establish an additional new annual 

19 efficiency descriptor that would include auxiliary 

20 electrical energy consumption, that is for motors, 

21 fans, etc., for fossil fuel furnaces. 

22 Moreover, or furthermore, the auxiliary 

23 electrical energy consumed by the fossil fuel furnaces 

24 would take into account the source of energy or, in 

25 other words, the energy used during the conversion 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

55 

1 process at the electric generating plant as well as the 

2 energy used or lost during the transmission of the 

3 electrical energy to the home. 

4 The source energy concept in this case has 

5 not been applied to electric equipment. We see no 

6 logic in the application of a full cycle approach to 

7 heating equipment which has a very minor dependence on 

8 electricity while forgoing this approach to equipment 

9 which is a hundred percent dependent on electricity. 

10 NOw, some specific comments on the energy 

11 descriptor of annual efficiency or AE. Establishing a 

12 new energy efficiency descriptor for furnaces and 

13 boilers to include auxiliary electric consumption 

14 expressed as a source of fuel equipment has merit if 

15 it's applied properly. 

16 The full benefits of establishing an AE will 

17 only be realized if the descriptor is generalized to 

18 all appliances used for the same purpose, that is 

19 electric furnaces which are used to heat in the winter. 

20 Only under these circumstances will the consumer be 

21 afforded the true comparison of the total resource 

22 efficiency and the actual energy conservation potential 

23 of the equipment decision. 

24 The definition of the energy factor, EF, and 

25 annual efficiency, AE, descriptors used by DOE for 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

56 

1 electric equipment needs to be revisited. Under the 

2 proposed rule, electric furnaces and boilers would be 

3 given the rating of an EF equal to AFUE and an AE equal 

4 to an AFUE which, following the ASHRAE 103 procedure, 

5 would produce values close to a hundred, and I must 

6 comment that Carl made a comment that we may have 

7 forgotten the UCF factor for electric furnaces, and 

8 maybe that's true, and I won't have to go through all 

9 this, but we'll continue on here. 

10 This contrasts with the more rigorous 

11 formulas used to calculate the EF and AE descriptors 

12 for fossil fuel furnaces and boilers which are required 

13 to be used in F factor of 3.37 to relate auxiliary 

14 electric input back to the source fuel used during the 

15 electricity generation process. 

16 If the purpose of accounting for electrical 

17 consumption in the proposed energy descriptor is to 

18 promote the development of more efficient electrical 

19 components, that is motors and blowers, this would 

20 necessarily apply to electric appliances as well. 

21 DOE must apply the F factor to oil, gas and 

22 electric appliances that are covered by NAECA to 

23 maintain consistency and equity between the energy 

24 sources. Ignoring the source efficiency of an oil 

25 furnace or boiler while including the source efficiency 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

57 

1 of the auxiliary electrical consumption of fossil fuel 

2 furnaces and boilers is illogical and biased. 

3 Furthermore, proceeding with the proposed 

4 approach could have the exact opposite effect of that 

5 which is intended by the law. Consumers may opt to 

6 purchase electric equipment which often has a lower 

7 purchase cost as opposed to comparable natural gas 

8 equipment, assuming that the electric equipment will 

9 cost less to operate. 

10 The net effect of the decision would be an 

11 increase in total energy consumption rather than a 

12 decrease. 

13 Now, on the impact on the current equipment 

14 ratings, AGA believes that DOE needs to test a 

15 sufficient number of furnaces and boilers using the 

16 modified test procedure being proposed to ensure that 

17 furnace and boiler models that are currently meeting 

18 the existing minimum efficiency requirements are not 

19 adversely impacted to the point where they no longer 

20 comply with the law. 

21 DOE's comments indicate that they believe the 

22 proposed changes "will not change the related existing 

23 energy conservation standards". However, no 

24 documentation is presented that indicates that an 

25 analysis supporting this claim has been performed. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

58 

1 We urge DOE to undertake such an analysis 

2 before the proposed modifications are finalized. Not 

3 doing so could result in revised equipment ratings that 

4 will impact the utility rebate programs as well as 

5 impacting equipment models currently in compliance. 

6 So, in conclusion, we firmly believe that the 

7 interest of the nation and its residential energy 

8 consumers are best served by testing and standards 

9 which reflect as completely as possible all the energy 

10 requirements from the point of energy production to the 

11 point of end use. 

12 However, to apply this concept on a limited 

13 basis, ignoring the class of equipment which is most 

14 relevant, that is electric, with the arbitrary, unfair 

15 and counterproductive from an efficiency, energy 

16 efficiency standpoint, and we will be supplementing 

17 these comments with some additional written comments, 

18 and I would be glad to try to answer any questions for 

19 you at this time. 

20 MR. ADAMS: Thank you. 

21 I have no questions of you at this time. 

22 Cyrus? 

23 MR. NASSERI: I don't have any questions, but 

24 I think this concern of the marginal units and testing 

25 and what we claim modification does not do any changes 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

59 

1 to the standards, I think, is a good thing that we had 

2 some concern, and we are waiting to see if they can 

3 submit some data, if it's necessary, obviously after 

4 some testing. 

5 MR. RANFONE: Okay. Well, I assume, though, 

6 under the law, section 323(e) (2), that you would have 

7 had to do this anyhow or you're not required to do 

8 that? 

9 MR. NASSERI: Well, we claim in our notice 

10 that there's no change, but now you're saying that 

11 you're not submitting any document to support our 

12 claim, right? 

13 MR. RANFONE: Well, I relate back to the 

14 water heater changes in the test procedure, where you 

15 did make some -- you did some testing to evaluate, and 

16 you did make an adjustment, at least to electric water 

17 heater efficiency, not to gas. 

18 But under some circumstances, you in the past 

19 have conducted some tests to see the impact of the test 

20 procedure, but in this particular case, it appears that 

21 you haven't, and I think some of the comments and 

22 questions raised by GAMA on the impact have to be 

23 addressed. 

24 MR. NASSERI: That was our feeling. Would 

25 there be any changes? It looks now there is some 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

60 

1 concern in terms of that. 

2 MR. RANFONE: But we really are concerned 

3 about the F factor for electric furnaces, the way that 

4 has been not addressed really for electric furnaces. 

5 Questions? 

6 MR. ADAMS: George? 

7 DR. KELLY: Just on the F factor. You know, 

8 the new energy descriptor was not meant to make 

9 everything equal across different categories of fuel10 consuming appliances, electric versus heat pumps or gas 

11 versus oil. It was to solve a problem within the one 

12 category of gas-firedjoil-fired equipment where you 

13 could have blower run times that were different, this 

14 problem of how long you let the blower run or you could 

15 have power vented units versus natural draft units and 

16 how much energy they consume or lIDs and stuff like 

17 that. 

18 Are you saying that it's not worthwhile to 

19 try and iron out those differences, to distinguish 

20 between those different products, if you can't have it 

21 extended across all the different energy heat pumps and 

22 electric furnaces --

23 MR. RANFONE: I'm not saying it's not logical 

24 to not do that. I mean use that mechanism to do what 

25 you want to do. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

61 

1 DR. KELLY: Suppose you can't do it. Are you 

2 saying you shouldn't do it then? You shouldn't try and 

3 at least bring water within the one category of fossil 

4 fuel-fired equipment? 

5 MR. RANFONE: Well, I guess my question would 

6 be then 

7 DR. KELLY: And if so, how would you suggest 

8 doing otherwise? 

9 MR. RANFONE: I'm missing your question 

10 because I guess all I'm -- all we're saying is that to 

11 count for electrical consumption, apparently the way 

12 the Federal Register reads, one of the reasons you're 

13 doing it is to use it to evaluate upcoming standards. 

14 Fine, do that. Take it back to source, which you're 

15 doing. 

16 All we are suggesting is that when you do 

17 that process, that it also be applied to other products 

18 covered by the --

19 DR. KELLY: I hear you, but I'm saying, being 

20 realistic, if, for political reasons, I mean you have 

21 heat pumps and you have ARI in here testifying the 

22 opposite, if that could not be done, are you saying 

23 it's not worth doing? 

24 MR. RANFONE: Well, I'm not saying -- you're 

25 saying it's for political reasons it can't be done. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

62 

1 I'm saying for --

2 DR. KELLY: I'm saying if, for political 

3 reasons, it could not be done, are you saying --

4 MR. RANFONE: I'm not here to talk politics. 

5 I'm here to talk about the technical merits of the test 

6 procedure. 

7 

8 

9 

DR. KELLY: Okay. 

MR. RANFONE: The 

DR. KELLY: What would AGA recommend to be 

10 able to solve, within just the furnace blower category, 

11 to distinguish between the different electrical 

12 consumptions by, say, the same furnace, where it has 

13 the high efficiency blower on it or how long the fan 

14 motor runs? 

15 I mean how would you suggest solving that? I 

16 mean you got a suggestion? 

17 MR. RANFONE: You have your solution here. 

18 You recognize electrical consumption. Take it back to 

19 the source. 

20 DR. KELLY: Are you backing that solution? 

21 MR. RANFONE: Yes. But apply it to other 

22 equipment. Why would you go ahead and say that the 

23 electricity that's being applied to a fossil fuel 

24 appliance should be accounted for and then adjust it 

25 for source or fossil fuel but, say, the electricity 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

63 

1 going to the furnace should not be? That's the 

2 question. 

3 DR. KELLY: Well, you know, I absolutely 

4 agree, but I think it's going to be a little political 

5 hard sell to take that heat pump with a HSPF of three 

6 down to .6 or something. I mean it would be nice, but 

7 it might run into a little opposition. 

8 MR. RANFONE: Well, I guess I'm not here to 

9 discuss political merits. I think we're here to 

10 conserve energy in the country, and if in fact the 

11 existing test procedures for other products are not 

12 do not recognize source energy, then maybe it's a time 

13 that -- through any way we can, to recognize it, and I 

14 think that's what this Administration is all about, and 

15 that's what we ought to be aiming for. 

16 Whether we're going to run into a buzz saw, 

17 which we've been doing it for 12 years, so I guess 

18 another year is not going to bother us, George, or how 

19 long it takes, but we're going to just keep pounding at 

20 this message because, you know, DOE opened up the 

21 issue. You were the ones that come out with the test 

22 procedure that says recognize electrical consumption. 

23 Secondly, take it back to the source. Fine. 

24 Do it. Do it consistently. We're talking about a 

25 furnace test procedure now. If you want to apply it to 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

64 

1 heat pumps, if you want to apply it to water heaters, 

2 we'll take on when that time comes. 

3 But in the meantime, it's just illogical to 

4 do this, to do it the way it's being presented. 

5 Perhaps in the labelling program in the future, there 

6 can be adjustments. Maybe we are going to use a 

7 different energy descriptor for labelling purposes, for 

8 example. I don't know that, but in the meantime, since 

9 you have this as an optional way of measuring 

10 efficiency for equipment, you have two different 

11 options in there. Make it correct, and that's all that 

12 we're asking for. 

13 MR. ADAMS: James? 

14 MR. MILLS: I have no questions. 

15 MR. ADAMS: Gene? 

16 MR. MARGOLIS: I have no questions. 

17 MR. ADAMS: Thank you very much. 

18 MR. RANFONE: okay. I appreciate the 

19 opportunity. 

20 MR. ADAMS: Speaker Number 3, David 

21 Goldstein. 

22 STATEMENT OF DAVID GOLDSTEIN 

23 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 

24 

25 

MR. GOLDSTEIN: Good morning. 

Thank you very much, gentlemen of the panel. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

65 

1 My name is David Goldstein. I'm the Energy Program 

2 Director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, 

3 which is an environmental organization with over a 

4 170,000 members and contributors nationwide. 

5 NRDC has promoted energy efficiency in home 

6 appliances through state efficiency standards, federal 

7 efficiency standards, building codes at both the state 

8 and federal and voluntary level, and utility incentive 

9 programs for some 20 years. 

10 To summarize our comments, NRDC supports the 

11 proposed changes for timely implementation. I'll focus 

12 our comments on the Department's proposed modifications 

13 to account for the electrical energy consumption of 

14 products whose primary energy use is oil and natural 

15 gas. 

16 NRDC strongly supports the Department's goals 

17 of providing energy descriptors that account for all of 

18 the actual energy use. The current absence of such 

19 procedures in the AFUE descriptor provides perverse 

20 incentives for manufacturers to meet the standards by 

21 in fact wasting energy. 

22 There is already anecdotal evidence that a 

23 manufacturer whose AFUE falls very slightly below the 

24 legal minimum of 78 will use extra-low efficiency fans 

25 and motors, essentially resistance heaters, in order to 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

66 

1 make the AFUE rating meet the standard but actually 

2 waste energy. 

3 DR. KELLY: Could I ask you how they do that? 

4 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Sure. If you have a if 

5 you would normally use an 80 percent motor but you 

6 choose a 40 percent efficient motor, then you're 

7 providing more heat into the supply air stream to the 

8 house that counts as useful heat, but the electric 

9 energy consumption to supply that is not counted in the 

10 test procedure. 

11 DR. KELLY: You realize the furnace boiler 

12 test procedure is a heat loss test procedure, it's not 

13 an input/output test procedure? So, none of the heat 

14 from the blower motor is measured as far as the 

15 procedure. 

16 MR. GOLDSTEIN: I haven't looked at the 

17 technical details of it, but I've heard that that 

18 loophole has been used by some manufacturers. My 

19 understanding 

20 DR. KELLY: I would like you to explain that 

21 maybe, how, because it's not obvious to me how that can 

22 be done. 

23 MR. GOLDSTEIN: I can't do that at this 

24 hearing. I could look back at the technical aspects 

25 and see how that works, but it had been explained to me 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

67 

1 that that input and -- the useful heat output would be 

2 measured in the fashion consistent with what I just 

3 said. 

4 Okay. Regardless of whether this kind of 

5 loophole is actually being used, the fact that it's 

6 allowed and the fact that consumers can't see whether 

7 it's being used is a credibility problem that I think 

8 needs to be addressed. 

9 This is a serious issue in principle because 

10 whenever the effect of a design option on rated 

11 efficiency is running in an opposite direction to its 

12 effect on true consumer costs or true energy 

13 efficiency, manufacturers are going to be encouraged to 

14 do the wrong thing. 

15 We all know that the market for equipment for 

16 home heating is very competitive. It's competitive on 

17 the basis of first cost. You'd be asking a lot of a 

18 manufacturer to voluntarily refrain from using a 

19 loophole if it's going to save him money at the expense 

20 of energy efficiency when the loss in energy efficiency 

21 will never be known to the consumer because all he sees 

22 is the AFUE rating, and he's not going to know the 

23 technical details of what went into it. 

24 The solution to this problem is what the 

25 Department has suggested to bring the performances 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

68 

1 rated by the descriptor into alignment with the actual 

2 energy performance that the consumer sees. We believe 

3 DOE's new proposals for energy factor and annual energy 

4 descriptors will accomplish this goal. 

5 The proposal that DOE specifically makes is 

6 to use a source energy approach. The energy needed to 

7 generate the electricity is the way that you count 

8 electric input to the furnace. NRDC strongly endorses 

9 this approach, but we do so while noting it is not the 

10 only possible way that you can take into account the 

11 higher thermo-dynamic value of the electricity that's 

12 being used. 

13 You could use BTUs as DOE has proposed. You 

14 could use consumer costs, which I think is what GAMA 

15 was suggesting earlier. You could use air pollution 

16 impacts or you could use climate pollution impacts. 

17 It's important to note that you will get a 

18 higher F factor using any of the other alternatives 

19 than you get using source energy. So, that's the most 

20 conservative approach. 

21 I said we supported that approach. We would 

22 also be supportive of an approach based on, for 

23 example, average consumer costs in the year where the 

24 revision was made. This is a much more accurate, much 

25 more useful approach than a possibility of what some 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

69 

1 would characterize as one for one accounting of 

2 electrical energy or an F factor of one, because using 

3 an F factor of one would say that a manufacturer wants 

4 to meet an AFUE target is indifferent to the choice of 

5 using one kilowatt hour or 3,413 BTUs. 

6 In fact, the one kilowatt hour costs a lot 

7 more, costs about eight cents, while the 3,413 BTUs 

8 typically cost about two cents. So, we want a trade9 off that is more reflective of what the consumer is 

10 seeing. DOE's F factor is one way of doing that. 

11 As I mentioned, a cost-based or an emissions12 based method would give you a different and higher F 

13 factor, and those would also be reasonable ways to 

14 approach the issue, particularly in the context I 

15 mentioned particularly in the context of the 

16 President's Climate Action Plan. A greenhouse 

17 emissions-based F factor would also be justifiable. 

18 NOw, we recognize by adopting these proposed 

19 changes, it's not going to affect the compliance of 

20 units with NAECA because of the procedures written into 

21 NAECA that say that any unit that meets the standards 

22 under the original test procedure can continue to be 

23 sold. 

24 However, we believe that it should be adopted 

25 in a timely fashion. These changes should be adopted 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

70 

1 in a timely fashion by the Department because it 

2 provides more realistic data to the consumers, more 

3 realistic data that be used by utilities in designing 

4 their incentive programs and getting what they're 

5 really paying for, and also more realistic numbers that 

6 can be used in state or local building codes. 

7 This is particularly important in the context 

8 of EPAC because DOE is supposed to be working with 

9 states to try to adopt the model energy code or an 

10 equivalent code within the next two years. 

11 If you look at either the MEC or you look at 

12 ASHRAE 90.2, both of them contain trade-off procedures 

13 that would allow trading off higher furnace efficiency, 

14 for example, for lower insulation levels. We want 

15 those trade-offs to be as accurate as possible. We 

16 also want them to be as simple as possible, and DOE's 

17 proposal accomplishes this. 

18 I noted earlier that the GAMA representative 

19 suggested that there should be a separate descriptor 

20 for electric energy use compared to gas energy use. We 

21 think that's a good idea. However, I don't think it 

22 obviates the need for a single simple descriptor that 

23 puts everything into one number. 

24 Building code compliance in most cases is 

25 going to be done with one number. We should have that 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

71 

1 as an official DOE certified test rating that can be 

2 used in these calculations, even if more sophisticated 

3 users may want to take the electric use and the gas use 

4 separately. 

5 In other words, doing one approach does not 

6 preclude doing the other approach. We would actually 

7 support you doing both; that is, having the annual 

8 energy descriptor as you've proposed and having a 

9 separate descriptor for electricity and energy use and 

10 gas separately for those who wanted to perform the 

11 calculations in more detail. 

12 These arguments that we're describing apply 

13 to all of the classes of products which DOE is seeking 

14 comment. 

15 The Department is also proposing a new 

16 efficiency descriptor to apply to furnaces to be 

17 installed indoors and changes to the methods for 

18 computing the draft factor for off-cycle losses, 

19 particularly for furnaces within the air dampers and 

20 draft diverters. 

21 NRDC supports these proposals because they 

22 provide better self-consistency and more accuracy than 

23 the current test procedures. In particular, the issue 

24 of what happens when a unit has a draft diverter and 

25 it's installed in conditioned space is handled in a 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

72 

1 self-consistent way by the new DOE proposals. So, we 

2 think they'll provide substantial increases in the 

3 accuracy compared to the current test methods. 

4 So, in summary, we support the changes in the 

5 August 23rd Notice, and that concludes our statement. 

6 We'll be happy to respond to questions. 

7 MR. ADAMS: Thank you. 

8 I have no further questions. 

9 cyrus? 

10 MR. NASSERI: If I understand, NRDC is 

11 proposing that we even consider F factor than what we 

12 have in the proposed rule? 

13 MR. GOLDSTEIN: We would be comfortable with 

14 an F factor that was based on, for example, consumer 

15 costs in 1993 or whatever the most recent data is or 

16 one based on air emissions. 

17 We would also be comfortable with the F 

18 factor as you've proposed it. So, we're not saying you 

19 must change it, but if you feel that would be a better 

20 solution in terms of policy and in terms of what would 

21 go down better with GAMA, we would be comfortable with 

22 that. 

23 The one caution we would have if you use 

24 costs, costs established by -- in the labelling program 

25 change from year to year, and it would not work to have 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

73 

1 ratings that changed every time the ratio of gas to 

2 electric costs changed. 

3 So, you have to pick one year, fix it, and 

4 say for the next 10 years or the next long period of 

5 time, until the ratio gets seriously out of kilter, 

6 we'll use the ratio from one year. 

7 MR. ADAMS: George? James? Gene? 

8 MR. MARGOLIS: David, I would just like to 

9 re-emphasize what Mr. Kelly said about the DOE test 

10 procedure, and would you, as you said you would do in 

11 your prepared comments, would you comment on what he 

12 said because of your written testimony, a lot of it 

13 goes into this loophole, which may -- which Mr. Kelly 

14 says does not exist, and you seem to say does exist. 

15 So, it would be important for us to see if 

16 you have any information to back up what you are 

17 saying. 

18 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Sure, Gene. I'll be happy to 

19 look into that and try to provide some more 

20 information. 

21 I guess I should also respond and say that 

22 this change is justified and would make sense, even if 

23 there weren't a loophole, because it is more accurately 

24 reflective of energy use to the consumer, energy use to 

25 the nation and costs to the consumer. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

74 

1 So, even if that loophole didn't really 

2 exist, it would still be a more accurate rating to 

3 include the F factor, include the energy inputs as DOE 

4 is proposing. 

5 

6 

7 

8 Starke. 

MR. MARGOLIS: Thank you. 

MR. GOLDSTEIN: Thank you. 

MR. ADAMS: I call Speaker Number 4, Channing 

9 STATEMENT OF CHANNING STARKE 

10 HYDRONICS INSTITUTE 

11 MR. STARKE: I'm Chan Starke. I'm Technical 

12 Director of the Hydronics Institute. 

13 Hydronics Institute is a non-profit trade 

14 association which represents the majority of domestic 

15 manufacturers of residential gas and oil-fired boilers. 

16 We appreciate this opportunity to provide 

17 input to the Department of Energy at this early stage 

18 of its consideration of possible changes in the test 

19 procedures affecting our members' products. 

20 Our concerns center on regard to test 

21 procedure, center on the main areas of the use of 103-

22 88. As of this meeting, this is not the current 

23 standard. Our understanding is that ASHRAE, once it 

24 brings out a new standard, ceases publication of the 

25 prior versions. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

75 

1 So, unless you reference 103-93, which is the 

2 current standard, manufacturers are going to have 

3 difficulty obtaining additional copies of the earlier 

4 standard. 

5 The second area of concern is the calculation 

6 of auxiliary electrical energy as part of the useful 

7 energy delivered to the building. If it's applied to 

8 gas or oil-fired equipment, it also needs to be 

9 uniformly applied to all heating equipment, including 

10 electric boilers, furnaces and heat pumps. To apply 

11 the 3.37 factor for electrical consumption to only 

12 group of products, furnaces and boilers, penalizes that 

13 product and affects competition where it occurs, and, 

14 further, it would cause a shift from direct combustion 

15 to indirect or electrical supply, and it's contrary to 

16 the DOE's goal of saving energy. 

17 That's our feelings on it. In other words, 

18 we do support applying that if you apply the factor 

19 across the board. 

20 Any questions, I'll be glad to answer. We 

21 will be submitting these comments in written form with 

22 additional data to support it. 

23 

24 

25 

MR. ADAMS: Thank you. 

I have no questions. 

Cyrus? 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

76 

1 MR. NASSERI: Just clarifying the ASHRAE 103, 

2 as everybody knows, the process of this proposed 

3 rulemaking for revision to test procedure for furnaces, 

4 boilers, other products, took place a long time, and 

5 during that period, obviously in '88, ASHRAE 103-88 was 

6 the only official document that we could reference. 

7 During this period, ASHRAE 103 also, which 

8 George and myself are the members, basically took the 

9 same revisions that we have in our present proposed 

10 test procedure, and I think it was one time that we 

11 don't even change the format, and the copy on the 

12 revision to the 93. 

13 Obviously, in '93 came and become official 

14 document a month ago, two months ago, whatever the time 

15 was, I don't remember when, but it is official 

16 document, and this is one of the things we're going to 

17 consider. 

18 But there is one thing that if you want to do 

19 that, obviously you have to reduce the volume of test 

20 procedures, the way it is right now, to maybe to half, 

21 and we have to see how that affects some of the 

22 internal GC and other people who looked at the previous 

23 one, and now they find out it's just half of what it 

24 was before, and see if they have any questions on that 

25 issue. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

77 

1 So, we do recognize that, and it's a very, 

2 very good comment that you brought up. 

3 MR. STARKE: Okay. 

4 MR. ADAMS: George? James? Gene? 

5 MR. MARGOLIS: No questions. 

6 MR. STARKE: Thank you. 

7 MR. ADAMS: Thank you very much. 

8 Next, Speaker Number 5, David Lewis. 

9 STATEMENT OF DAVID LEWIS 

10 LENNOX INDUSTRIES, INC. 

11 MR. LEWIS: My name is David Lewis. I work 

12 for Lennox Industries. My position there is Vice 

13 President of Industry and Regulatory Affairs, and this 

14 morning, I'll be delivering our company's statement. 

15 Lennox International is a privately-held 

16 corporation with consistent ownership dating back to 

17 1896. Lennox Industries, Inc., is a wholly-owned 

18 subsidiary of Lennox International. Lennox is focused 

19 on manufacturing high-quality efficient heating and air 

20 conditioning equipment for consumers and comfort 

21 products worldwide. 

22 Lennox is an active supporter of GAMA and an 

23 active member. GAMA has also provided testimony at 

24 this public hearing. It is our intention to support, 

25 reinforce, underscore some key points that GAMA has 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

78 

1 made. It is our belief that our comments are 

2 consistent with what GAMA is stating. 

3 Most of the proposed revisions contained in 

4 the NOPR in Lennox's opinion is reasonable and 

5 technically valid. Some of the proposed revisions will 

6 affect the efficiency levels of our product. Lennox 

7 does not believe that the proposed revisions benefit 

8 one manufacturer's equipment more than another's. An 

9 advantage does not exist for any manufacturer to 

10 support or oppose the proposed test procedure changes. 

11 DOE's current method of reinforcing ASHRAE --

12 of referencing ASHRAE Standard 103 and then listing a 

13 number of exceptions is difficult to use and can lead 

14 to errors if some of the exceptions are missed. A much 

15 more user friendly approach would be to publish the 

16 complete test procedure. 

17 The ASHRAE Standard 103 referenced in the 

18 NOPR was published and produced by the ASHRAE committee 

19 which was fully represented by distinguished engineers 

20 from the manufacturihg community. The ASHRAE 103 

21 committee has reached consensus and did approve the 

22 test procedure revisions that will soon be published as 

23 ASHRAE 103-1993. 

24 In our opinion, it would be much preferable 

25 for DOE to begin use of the current test procedure 1993 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

79 

1 instead of using the older 1988 edition; making 

2 additions and changes to the older revision only makes 

3 it more prone for mis-interpretation. 

4 The ASHRAE system of consensus standards 

5 surely has its shortages, but it is a good process for 

6 establishing a complete and solid base for industry and 

7 government and testing agencies to work from. The 

8 ASHRAE 103-1993 test standard did have one unresolved 

9 commenter. However, this is not a good reason to slow 

10 its usage. The standard committee did complete their 

11 work and produce a solid basis for future testing of 

12 residential furnaces. 

13 To not use the standard due to one unresolved 

14 commenter would be a tragedy to the entire ASHRAE 

15 system, it's our belief. 

16 It would be an incorrect assumption to 

17 believe, as intimated in the NOPR, that this proposed 

18 change in the test procedure will not represent a 

19 significant change to the ratings of furnaces. Many 

20 products that meet the standard today may not meet the 

21 standard under the new requirements. 

22 For DOE to suggest that a 180 days is 

23 sufficient for manufacturers to adjust to this new 

24 standard is quite unrealistic. Manufacturers do need 

25 sufficient time to make adjustments and design changes 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

80 

1 where necessary. This can be accomplished by the 

2 manufacturing community if adequate time is provided. 

3 MR. MARGOLIS: Do you have any idea what an 

4 adequate time would be? 

5 MR. LEWIS: I can only speak for Lennox, not 

6 for GAMA or the rest of industry. We personally feel 

7 that three years is a very fair look at this, and that 

8 three years is based upon a need for new furnace 

9 families to be developed, utilizing the tests as shown 

10 in the new ASHRAE standard. 

11 DR. KELLY: Could you provide data on which 

12 of your units would not meet the minimum efficiency 

13 standards because of the changes in the test 

14 procedures, and which changes cause them to not meet 

15 it? 

16 MR. LEWIS: Mr. Kelly, the new test standard 

17 would affect all of our products as far as we're aware. 

18 So, to begin with, I don't think we have gone through 

19 the complete testing of each and every unit that we 

20 manufacture today as far as its effect on the test 

21 procedure. 

22 But the changes in the te'st procedure are 

23 quite significant, and, therefore, --

24 

25 

DR. KELLY: Which ones are those? 

MR. LEWIS: Excuse me? 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

81 

1 DR. KELLY: Which ones are you referring to? 

2 MR. LEWIS: I am stating that our furnace 

3 products today --

4 DR. KELLY: Which changes in the test 

5 procedure are quite significant that you're referring 

6 to? 

7 MR. LEWIS: I would be happy to submit that 

8 in written form to you. 

9 DR. KELLY: That would be nice. Also, if 

10 you could provide some data on what the effect was for 

11 your furnace line. 

12 MR. LEWIS: I don't believe I don't want 

13 to mislead you. I don't believe that we would be able 

14 to provide information on each and every furnace and 

15 how it's affected, but we certainly could summarize 

16 some comments and show specifically where they would be 

17 affected to demonstrate the comment that we just made. 

18 DR. KELLY: It wouldn't have to be on each 

19 and every furnace; it could be some typical furnaces. 

20 MR. LEWIS: I guess the comment that I just 

21 got through making was that every furnace that we 

22 manufacture, with very, very few exceptions, would have 

23 an efficiency standard change based upon the new ASHRAE 

24 103 or what you're alluding to in the NOPR. 

25 DR. KELLY: But you can't tell me why? 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

82 

1 MR. LEWIS: Because it's a change in test 

2 procedure. If you have a measuring stick that's 12 

3 inches, and all of a sudden, you come up with a 

4 measuring stick that's 13 inches, everything you've 

5 measured previously at 12 inches is affected. 

6 MR. NASSERI: We are interested to receive 

7 any tested data concerning the proposed test procedure 

8 and the previous one, and how that affects your 

9 product, if you have something like that as part of 

10 your comments, written comments. 

11 MR. LEWIS: We would be happy to do that, and 

12 also I would want to underscore that we're 

13 participating in the information gathering that GAMA is 

14 currently doing, and obviously we will contribute 

15 through that process as we have already. 

16 DR. KELLY: But, you know, just saying that 

17 the whole test procedure reduces the efficiency by this 

18 much is not very helpful. If you can say that these 

19 changes have this effect or these have those 

20 significant factors, that would be helpful. 

21 MR. LEWIS: I'm not sure if you want me to 

22 proceed on that discussion or -- I understand what 

23 you're saying. 

24 DR. KELLY: I'm just saying that that would 

25 be useful data. The other is not very useful. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

83 

1 MR. LEWIS: Well, I guess what is useful and 

2 the point that the manufacturer would want made very 

3 clearly 

4 DR. KELLY: But you can hide an awful lot in 

5 the statistics, too. 

6 MR. LEWIS: Mr. Kelly, our desire is not to 

7 hide anything. The point that we're trying to bring 

8 here today is that the NOPR as written, the changes 

9 that would be or that would exist in going to that test 

10 procedure change would affect every product that we 

11 manufacture today, and we feel like that's significant, 

12 and that's why we want to bring this information to 

13 your body to consider. 

14 Regarding the waiver process, a large number 

15 of waivers were granted over a several-year period for 

16 furnaces with fixed-blower on times. Manufacturers 

17 spend a great deal of time applying for these waivers 

18 while a lot of DOE's time was also consumed with the 

19 repetitive processing of these waivers. 

20 Much of this effort could be avoided if DOE 

21 would comply with what is noted there in my statement 

22 and also it's specifically written out as far as how it 

23 appears in actual text. So, we believe that the waiver 

24 procedure and going along with the one-year basis would 

25 eliminate a lot of the repetitive work that has gone on 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

84 

1 so far in this process. 

2 There are a couple of areas where we do 

3 believe there needs to be some clarification. section 

4 323 of the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act 

5 of 1987 require amendments to the Energy Conservation 

6 Standard when new test procedures alter the measured 

7 energy efficiencies of furnaces and boilers. with such 

8 amendments, adequate time, and, in our opinion, not a 

9 180 days or even an additional 180 days, must be 

10 provided for equipment manufacturers governed by the 

11 new rule for adjustment and redesign. 

12 Then, secondly, clarification is needed in 

13 section 323, Paragraph (e) (3), of the National 

14 Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 where further 

15 explanation is needed as to the extent that 

16 grandfathered products can be revised or modified and 

17 still remain grandfathered. 

18 I guess a simple example of this would be as 

19 a manufacturer moves from one component supplier, such 

20 as a timed off switch, to another component supplier, 

21 we in our product actually change the dash number of 

22 our equipment, and it's rather confusing to try to 

23 figure out exactly what the grandfathering is 

24 addressing, and that clarification would be very 

25 helpful. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

85 

1 Regarding the new descriptor, Lennox assumes 

2 that DOE is beginning preparations to have a new 

3 descriptor developed to coincide with the next revision 

4 of the national standard. 

5 There is a lot of controversy surrounding 

6 this suggestion. We feel that if DOE desires a new 

7 descriptor to include electrical usage, then electrical 

8 usage should also be shown in similar fashion for 

9 electric furnaces and heat pumps. To penalize one 

10 product and confuse the consumer by including the 

11 source energy conversion multiplier is really a step 

12 backwards. 

13 We maintain that what is done to one product 

14 affecting the market should also be done to all 

15 competing equipment that provides the same purpose of 

16 conditioning space. Lennox supports the goal of 

17 identifying the electrical usage of a furnace product. 

18 The consumer must remain in the center of DOE's focus, 

19 if descriptor changes are made. 

20 Any change to the energy descriptor should 

21 help identify for the consumer the true effect that the 

22 new product will have, mirrored in their utility bill. 

23 The consumer is not interested in theory. An 

24 equipment's descriptor number should not be penalized 

25 to a utility's method of power generation. The 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

86 

1 consumer should be offered a clear presentation of the 

2 cost, and I guess we would make one additional comment 

3 here. 

4 It's clear that within the GAMA directory, as 

5 really was stated earlier, that the electrical usage is 

6 identified, and that the consumer can make the 

7 through a cost of operations simple analysis, be able 

8 to see what electrical usage is used by the product. 

9 So, that information is available today. 

10 Thank you. 

11 MR. ADAMS: Thank you. 

12 I have one question. It's an issue that's 

13 gotten quite a bit of discussion today. You stated in 

14 your overview, and then additionally, that some of the 

15 proposed revisions will affect efficiency levels of our 

16 product, and you stated that all of your -- essentially 

17 all of your furnaces would be affected. 

18 I guess what you didn't say was whether those 

19 are all reductions or some reductions and some 

20 increases in AFUE, and could you in your written 

21 comments provide any data that you might have on both 

22 increases and decreases in AFUE for the modifications, 

23 either separately or as packages, if you wanted to put 

24 it in packages of category 1, category 2, as GAMA has 

25 indicated, and since you indicated you supported GAMA's 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

87 

1 position, that would be helpful for us to come to grips 

2 with changes in the magnitude of changes. 

3 MR. LEWIS: We have already, and we'll 

4 definitely work, continue to work with GAMa to give you 

5 the best information for your decisions to be made 

6 from. I certainly understand the question and will 

7 work to try to provide that information. 

8 MR. ADAMS: Thank you. 

9 Cyrus? 

10 MR. NASSERI: I have one general comment on 

11 your comment about waiver process, and the specifics on 

12 this time delay on the blower, the fixed time. 

13 Obviously we have to obey the legislation 

14 that says one year after any waiver is given, it should 

15 revise the test procedure and include, but the 

16 interesting point is that since 1985, when these 

17 waivers came into the picture, that's before my time 

18 obviously, we had a variety of requests from 

19 manufacturers from 0 time delay up to 70 seconds time 

20 delay, and your company probably came up with 40 

21 seconds, 45 seconds, whatever, and it was difficult 

22 really for us to find out what is a good fixed time 

23 that should be, and then we selected 20 seconds, and 

24 GAMA is basically commenting on that issue. 

25 And basically that was one of the reasons 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

88 

1 that we were not able to really change the test 

2 procedure as you requested us to make the time saving 

3 for your effort or any manufacturers to do that. 

4 MR. LEWIS: Our statement generally was not a 

5 chastisement. Our statement was based on we have 

6 started the new process here, and this hearing is in 

7 itself a new process. One that started some time ago, 

8 but we're at a new juncture here, and we feel like now 

9 as we have learned from what has transpired as we look 

10 forward, we feel like the waiver process, while we 

11 understand the necessity of it, surely could be 

12 streamlined in many ways, and we are aware of the 

13 difficulty that that represents to DOE. 

14 MR. NASSERI: One of our concerns was that 

15 the way the test procedure is, it kind of dictates a 

16 waiver request from manufacturers, the way our test 

17 procedure is presently, and that's one of the comments 

18 that we requested everybody make with input/output, and 

19 obviously if that is -- was basically something that we 

20 could change to another method of disposition, would 

21 result in some of these waiver requests, but I don't 

22 know if you stay with the same test procedure, what 

23 would be the result of future requests for 

24 manufacturers for other waivers to make the minimum 

25 standards, basically, to improve their performance of 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

89 

1 their --

2 MR. LEWIS: We feel like 103-1993 really 

3 deals wIth giving us a good point from which to move 

4 from, and probably would eliminate a lot of those. 

5 MR. ADAMS: George? 

6 DR. KELLY: I would just like to reiterate, 

7 it doesn't do much good for us, at least for NIST, to 

8 evaluate these comments if you just say that all my 

9 units are affected by the test procedure or even 

10 category 1 or category 2 affects them by so much. 

11 It would really be helpful for my next -- for 

12 GAMA is to say where the effects are. It's the blower 

13 time. It's the insulation problem. It's the delay in 

14 stack damper. It's the post-purge. Where are your 

15 problems with your units? Where do you see the 

16 decrease or increase in AFUE? That would be useful. 

17 MR. ADAMS: James? 

18 MR. MILLS: I have no questions. 

19 MR. ADAMS: Gene? 

20 MR. MARGOLIS: You, in your prepared 

21 testimony and your oral comments, you talked about 

22 grandfathering, and you asked for the Department to 

23 give further clarification as to what does 

24 grandfathering mean. 

25 I don't think that that would be best for the 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

90 

1 Department to do in any generalities. I think that it 

2 would have to be on a case-by-case basis. The example 

3 . you gave was changing, what was it, a compressor or --

4 MR. LEWIS: Relay. 

5 MR. MARGOLIS: It would seem in that 

6 situation, whatever manufacturer you would get or would 

7 not be -- it still would be grandfathered, but it could 

8 be that the item that you get would be really a 

9 different item, even though it has the same name, it's 

10 a relay, but it serves a different purpose, and, 

11 therefore, by putting that into the machine, would not 

12 be -- might not be grandfathered. 

13 If you have any comments, written comments, 

14 that you would like to give with some examples, and 

15 then possibly from that make some general statements 

16 about grandfathering, it would be appreciated, but I 

17 don't think that we could at this time make any general 

18 statements about what product, you know, what would 

19 grandfathering consist of, other than on, as I said 

20 before, on a case-by-case basis. 

21 So, if you would like to put something into 

22 the record, it would be greatly appreciated. 

23 MR. LEWIS: I guess we would hope that the 

24 whole issue is not needed. We feel like with an 

25 adequate period of time, provided to the manufacturing 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

91 

1 community, to make the necessary design changes to our 

2 product, the grandfathering issue then becomes really 

3 quite moot. 

4 MR. MARGOLIS: But you're saying a 180 days 

5 or even the additional 180 days is not enough. If you 

6 could show us how we could extend that time, other than 

7 going back to Congress, which, since you were the ones 

8 who were instrumental in getting that passed, maybe you 

9 would have better luck in going to Congress and getting 

10 it extended, I don't know see how we could go beyond 

11 360 days. 

12 MR. LEWIS: Other than, I guess as mentioned 

13 earlier from GAMA, it would depend on when you chose to 

14 issue your final rule. 

15 MR. MARGOLIS: All right. Okay. But if you 

16 know of any other way. Thank you. I have no further 

17 questions. 

18 MR. ADAMS: Thank you. 

19 I call the next speaker, Speaker Number 6, 

20 David Fink. 

21 STATEMENT OF DAVID FINK 

22 RAJENDRA K. NARANG 

23 

24 

25 

MR. FINK: Good morning, gentlemen. 

My name is David Fink. I'm an attorney. 

I'm honored to have this opportunity on 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

92 

1 behalf of Mr. Rajendra K. Narang to address the 

2 Department of Energy on Test Procedures for 

3 Furnaces/Boilers, Vented Home Heating Equipment and 

4 Pool Heaters. 

5 I mention that Mr. Narang is one of those 

6 distinguished myriad independent inventors that you 

7 ought to hear about. 

8 The Department of Energy is providing 

9 critical leadership to industries to improve the 

10 equipment to meet the national challenge 0; energy 

11 conservation. It is my fervent hope that the various 

12 industries involved accept the necessity of improving 

13 equipment, to make equipment more efficient and more 

14 effective, thereby benefiting consumers and the country 

15 as a whole. 

16 This country has already experienced virtual 

17 loss of industrial leadership in many products due to 

18 resistance by our national companies to improve 

19 products and to be more conscious of consumer 

20 requirements. 

21 A search for common products and ~lectronics, 

22 cameras, carbon fibers, steel and many other areas, 

23 lead us to foreign manufactured products due to foreign 

24 leadership in establishing high levels of performance 

25 and quality. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

93 

1 Most cases, it was foreign governments which 

2 established the leadership for the companies to produce 

3 quality goods. Thus, there is ample basis for 

4 governments to urge its industries to supply consumers 

5 with products with high quality, to satisfy the 

6 consumers and to obtain commercial success. 

7 Similarly, it is appropriate that the u.S. 

8 consumers rely on its own government agencies, such as 

9 the Department of Energy, to establish test procedures 

10 which will encourage genuine improvements in products 

11 to benefit consumers. 

12 Over the years, the Department of Energy has 

13 provided waivers to many manufacturers to avoid 

14 creating economic hardships for these companies. This 

15 is reasonable and certainly within the discretion of 

16 the Department of Energy. 

17 The time, however, has come to move forward 

18 and gently but firmly urge industries to accept 

19 advancements and reasonable performance criteria for 

20 energy-intensive products. Anyone cognizant of the 

21 difficulty of encouraging the maturing of a child knows 

22 that tests and performance requirements are essential 

23 for change and improvement. Otherwise, the child 

24 stagnates and remains immature. 

25 The U.S. furnaces and boilers industries as 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

94 

1 examples are ready to mature through the establishment 

2 of higher performance criteria. It is astonishing that 

3 over the last decade, over 1,000 U.S. patents relating 

4 to furnaces and boilers have issued, and few of them 

5 have been utilized by companies and products. 

6 One possible explanation for this phenomena 

7 is that there has not been sufficient motivation of 

8 companies to incorporate changes to improve the 

9 products. Thus, the technology for advancement is 

10 readily available. However, there is a reluctance by 

11 manufacturers to incorporate changes and improvements 

12 if the consumer is unaware of the potential 

13 improvements and the Department of Energy does not 

14 require improved energy conservation. 

15 Industry should not wait for a consumer 

16 advocate or a foreign power to motivate change. It is 

17 better if the Department of Energy provides the 

18 leadership and that we take advantage of available 

19 technology. 

20 Mr. Narang, from the time he first came to 

21 the U.S., has been inventing improvements and 

22 advancements to products in our country, and has 

23 published most of these because he has been granted 

24 patents numerous times by the U.S. Patent and Trademark 

25 Office. Many of these patents provided important 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

95 

1 practical technology leading to significant 

2 improvements in energy conservation for improvements 

3 well suited for incorporation into presently4 manufactured products. 

5 Only a few of Mr. Narang's patents will be 

6 mentioned here. Additional information with specific 

7 examples and copies of some of the important patents 

8 will form part of the written comments to be submitted 

9 separately. 

10 Example, Mr. Narang has three patents 

11 entitled Fuel Burning Furnace, U.S. Patent Numbers 

12 4,922,890, 4,987,881 and 5,086,754. These patents 

13 provide increased heat exchange area, intermittent 

14 ignition device and vent damper, two-stage modulating 

15 burner, improved blower motor efficiency, power burner 

16 and induce draft, increased insulation, condensation of 

17 flue gases, and post-combustion. 

18 In many areas in the U.S., furnaces operate 

19 about four to five months a year, yet represent a 

20 substantial energy consuming device as compared to 

21 other devices. Thus, there are urgent needs to improve 

22 furnaces, to minimize the energy loss and improve 

23 efficiency. 

24 The aforementioned patents provide unique and 

25 practical embodiments for dramatically improved 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

96 

1 furnaces. 

2 Mr. Narang also has three patents entitled 

3 oil and Gas Water .Heater. These patents are 4,549,525, 

4 4,664,096, and 4,869,232. These patents provide jacket 

5 insulation, heat traps, reduced heat leaks from 

6 fittings, reduced pilot light input rate, automatic 

7 ignition with a flue damper, elimination of central 

8 flue and indirect heating of water, increased flue 

9 baffling with forced draft, multiple flues, submerged 

10 combustion chamber, use of post-combustion, 

11 condensation of flue gases. 

12 Water heaters constitute a billion dollar 

13 market and are essential for every home in the country 

14 as well as every commercial facility throughout the 

15 year. The impact of energy conservation of water 

16 heaters and furnaces along with boilers could be 

17 astonishing. 

18 In summary, it is earnestly hoped that the 

19 Department of Energy revises the test procedures to 

20 establish more stringent requirements to improve the 

21 products to benefit consumers by conserving energy, 

22 thereby benefiting the nation. 

23 Ultimately, industry will reluctantly accept 

24 the higher standards and in time will use the improved 

25 product performance to convince consumers to trade up 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

97 

1 so that the manufacturers will be well compensated for 

2 the investments and the changes. 

3 Gentlemen, that concludes my remarks, and 

4 basically I'm here as a cheerleader. 

5 MR. ADAMS: Thank you very much. 

6 I believe you're signed up to participate in 

7 tomorrow's hearing regarding efficiency standards for 

8 furnaces. 

9 MR. FINK: Yes. 

10 MR. ADAMS: And I would encourage you to 

11 participate in the Department's upcoming rulemaking 

12 regarding efficiency standards for water heaters. 

13 My question, however, regarding this hearing 

14 is whether you or Mr. Narang can provide any written 

15 comments on whether the proposed test procedures 

16 adequately address the testing of a furnace equipped 

17 with any of the mentioned modifications or patented 

18 items. 

19 MR. FINK: I believe that we will be 

20 addressing those aspects in the writing, but I didn't 

21 think it was appropriate at this time to get into the 

22 details. 

23 May I just mention to you? If you -- I'm 

24 sure if you take a look at a furnace or water heater, 

25 take a look at the patent numbers, take a look at the 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

98 

1 years corresponding to those patent numbers. We're 

2 just not getting innovation in products today, and 

3 that's a shame. 

4 MR. ADAMS: Cyrus? 

5 MR. NASSERI: As Mr. Adams mentioned, most of 

6 these nice features in Mr. Narang's patents are 

7 basically -- these are the design options concerning 

8 the next series of rulemakings for the standards, and 

9 it's very interesting. I had the same thing, that we 

10 would like to get written comments of these patents and 

11 what they are, so we can review them. 

12 MR. FINK: Thank you. 

13 MR. ADAMS: George? James? Gene? 

14 MR. MARGOLIS: I have no questions. 

15 MR. FINK: Thank you very much. 

16 MR. ADAMS: I'm wondering if -- what our 

17 possibilities are here. We are, according to the 

18 schedule, scheduled for lunch. We have one more 

19 scheduled speaker, Marion O'Neill. You are here? 

20 Okay. 

21 Is your -- does your statement fall within 

22 the 20-minute guidelines? Okay. 

23 I wonder if I could have a show of hands if 

24 there are anybody in the audience that wants to be 

25 unscheduled speaker. One. And do any of the speakers 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

99 

1 wish to offer rebuttal statements? 

2 (No response) 

3- MR. ADAMS: Are there any questions of 

4 speakers that anyone wishes to ask? Have there been 

5 anything submitted to the registration desk or if I 

6 could have a show of hands if there's one question. 

7 Okay. I think we'll try to go ahead and 

8 finish it all up in one session, unless there are any 

9 violent objections. Hearing none, I'd like to call 

10 Marion O'Neill and Speaker Number 7, please. 

11 STATEMENT OF MARION O'NEILL 

12 PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY 

13 MS. O'NEILL: Good morning. 

14 My name is Marion O'Neill, and I'm the 

15 Manager for Legislative and Regulatory Gas Issues at 

16 Public Service Electric and Gas Company in New Jersey. 

17 with me today is Mr. Fred Nguyen, who is a 

18 senior staff engineer in our Gas Utilization 

19 Department, with technical expertise on the proposal. 

20 I'll proceed with my written statement, which 

21 we did submit yesterday. 

22 Public Service Electric and Gas Company is 

23 the third largest combination electric and gas 

24 distribution company in the nation. Located in Newark, 

25 New Jersey, we serve over 5.5 million residents, that's 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

100 

1 70 percent of the state's population, with 1.6 million 

2 electric customers and 1.5 million gas customers. 

3 Since 1983, we have had an energy 

4 conservation department that has aggressively 

5 implemented a multitude of programs serving all 

6 customer segments. Over the years, this conservation 

7 effort has included free home energy audits, workshops, 

8 materials for the low-income customer, education 

9 programs for schools, special offers on such items as 

10 hot water heater wraps, low or no interest loans for 

11 the installation of conservation measures, and, of 

12 course, rebates for higher efficiency appliances. 

13 Our gas-based heating rebate program provides 

14 cash incentives to residential gas customers who 

15 purchase high efficiency gas furnaces and boilers that 

16 have an annual fuel utilization efficiency of 80 

17 percent or better. 

18 Since the program's inception in 1983, the 

19 company has moved the rebate threshold two percent 

20 above the u.S. DOE minimum standards. The market has 

21 responded to the rebates, and today we have provided 

22 over 85,000 rebates, totaling some $8.7 million. 

23 The AFUE levels that are applied to 

24 appliances per the Gas Manufacturers Association 

25 Directory of certified Furnace and Boiler Efficiency 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

101 

1 Ratings. In 1983, PSE&G initiated a demand-side 

2 management program which encourages energy conservation 

3 in a purposeful way, that defers electric generation 

4 and gas-therm consumption away from the peak usage 

5 periods as well as year-round. 

6 The program, called the standard Offer, 

7 relies on extensive measurement and verification of 

8 savings and is designed to not only improve our 

9 efficiency as a deliverer of energy but to help our 

10 customers make informed choices in specifying equipment 

11 and the fuel requirements to meet their demands. 

12 Trade-offs in comparisons between electric 

13 and gas options are not only allowed but encouraged. 

14 In addition to conservation efforts, PSE&G 

15 has a very active appliance service department which 

16 enables us to work with heating appliances firsthand 

17 and examine their application in real-life situations 

18 under all kinds of conditions. 

19 We have performed approximately 268,000 

20 heating calls in 1992. The combination of our 

21 conservation and service activities has provided us 

22 with a unique and, we believe, comprehensive 

23 perspective of applying efficiency standards and 

24 testing as they affect the energy savings, safety and 

25 economic well-being of our customers. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

102 

1 It is the insights derived from this 

2 experience with respect to the proposed testing 

3 standards that we would like to share with you today. 

4 We have five major considerations regarding the 

5 proposed rule for test procedures. 

6 They include the use of the annual efficiency 

7 descriptor, the applicability of EF and AE descriptors 

8 to electric furnaces and boilers, the use of the F 

9 factor in the EF and AE calculation, inclusion of an 

10 emissions factor, and pilot lights. 

11 We believe that the changes from AFUE, which 

12 is well understood by the consumer and installing 

13 contractors, and upon which our rebate program is 

14 predicated, to AE will accomplish little more than to 

15 create confusion, disqualifying some equipment that now 

16 qualifies as being energy efficient, and increasing the 

17 operating costs to us, the utility administrating 

18 program, to the manufacturers that now must recertify 

19 their equipment to a new standard, and to the consumers 

20 that ultimately will" bear the increased costs. 

21 Much of the existing equipment will remain 

22 the same. However, any benefits the new testing 

23 definition would make by culling out the equipment on 

24 the bottom rung of allowed efficiency in the name of 

25 better accuracy will cause an across-the-board increase 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

103 

1 in the costs of all equipment because all equipment 

2 will have to be retested and redefined. 

3 We also very strongly believe that if AFUE is 

4 no longer going to be acceptable to DOE, then the same 

5 energy efficiency descriptors should be used for 

6 electric appliances as for fossil fuel appliances. If 

7 source energy is being considered for the utility 

8 electrical input to a gas furnace, then source energy 

9 should be considered in determining the input to an 

10 electric furnace. 

11 Source energy use is a useful notion that 

12 will allow consumers to make their own informed 

13 decisions between appliances. However, the same 

14 methodology should be applied to all heating 

15 appliances. 

16 The definitions of EF and AE descriptors for 

17 electrical appliances will yield values closer to 100 

18 since the F factor is not included for these 

19 appliances. By including the F factor for electrical 

20 appliances, all ratings and consumer options will be on 

21 even ground. 

22 The widespread use of demand-side management 

23 programs among utilities nationally almost demands that 

24 DOE be sensitive to these conservation efforts and not 

25 further segregate the way differently-fueled appliances 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

104 

1 are evaluated. To take it one step further, summer 

2 cooling appliances should also be comparably measured. 

3 with respect to the use of the F factor in 

4 the AE calculation, the company understands the 

5 attractiveness of the single value factor. However, at 

6 minimum, it should be regionally and seasonally 

7 adjusted so that it could be sensitive to regional 

8 variations and can be fairly applied to Montana, 

9 Louisiana or New York. 

10 Means of electric generation distribution 

11 losses vary widely by region and season. For example, 

12 a combined cycle plant which is typically 40 percent 

13 efficient with seven percent distribution loss would 

14 yield F equal 2.69, while the combustion turbine, which 

15 is 25 percent efficient with 13 percent distribution 

16 loss, to account for summer high transformer losses, 

17 would yield F equal 4.6. 

18 Regional and seasonal adjustments are 

19 necessary to account for actual electric generation and 

20 systems so that decisions based on demand-side 

21 management programs at utilities will truly reflect 

22 what the regional situation is. 

23 In addition to our energy conservation 

24 efforts, PSE&G has made a public commitment to exceed 

25 legislative requirements in both our stationary and 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

105 

1 mobile source emissions programs. 

2 Most recently, we joined with President 

3 Clinton and Energy Secretary O'Leary as a partner in 

4 the Global Climate Change Action Plan. The action plan 

5 identifies a mix of partnership with business and 

6 utilities, economic incentives and new standards and 

7 building codes as the vehicle to achieve both 

8 environmental and energy targets. 

9 We feel that the energy descriptor should 

10 also account for air emissions and solid waste, either 

11 producer appliance operation or resulting from a source 

12 fuel, as not all BTUs were created equal. Certainly, 

13 there is a difference that weighs significantly upon 

14 the environment that must go hand-in-hand with 

15 consumers decisions on energy use. 

16 Lastly, regarding pilot lights, the energy 

17 descriptor calculations assume the use of pilot lights 

18 outside of the heating season as wasted energy. 

19 However, furnaces and boilers experience condensation 

20 or sweating during the summer months because of ambient 

21 humidity coupled with cooler temperatures, typically 

22 found in summer basements. 

23 Any gas service person would testify from 

24 experience that this condition creates corrosion in 

25 burners, heat exchangers and control components. This 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

106 

1 corrosion causes additional service calls and shortens 

2 appliance life. Maintaining a pilot light ameliorates 

3 this condition and saves additional service 

4 requirements and early equipment replacement. 

5 In conclusion, we do thank the DOE for the 

6 opportunity to address our concerns from our customers' 

7 perspective, and we would be happy to provide any 

8 additional written comments that you may require. 

9 MR. ADAMS: Thank you. 

10 I have no questions. 

11 Cyrus? 

12 MR. NASSERI: This issue concerning pilot 

13 light, I think we have some evidence that the one with 

14 the continuous pilot light, which you're recommending, 

15 is going to have an adverse effect. In other words, 

16 you see more corrosion on that one, which causes the 

17 evaporation of some of the vapor there by the flame or 

18 pilot light. 

19 So, if you have any evidence or documents 

20 that you have here, it would be helpful for us to 

21 review this. 

22 MS. O'NEILL: I'm not certain if we have --

23 we do have some documentation with respect to service 

24 calls and equipment, and in fact, before coming, we 

25 were trying to analyze what specific parts are most 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

107 

1 affected, and we can look into the data that we have, 

2 if we have anything on pilot lights. 

3 I don't know if you know, Fred. 

4 MR. NGUYEN: I think what we have here is 

5 more something that's based on experience, where we 

6 have years and years of service people who have built 

7 this idea that the pilot itself has beneficial for the 

8 furnace and the boilers, and it's still based on 

9 experience. 

10 I think we should talk to most of them, and 

11 you will want to poll them. It would be rather 

12 difficult to go back and test field-installed 

13 appliances and find out how long they stay since 

14 they've already been removed. 

15 However, when we find pilot lights or in 

16 New Jersey, we've tremendously humid basements, you 

17 would find that many cases when we go on a service call 

18 and we find a pilot that's out, you would get excessive 

19 corrosion on the components and also in the furnace 

20 itself due to the humidity in the basement. But it's 

21 based on service man experience. 

22 If you have any way you suggest that we could 

23 verify this, you know, the fact that the pilot has this 

24 beneficial, I don't know we would go about doing this. 

25 DR. KELLY: You know of no papers or no 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

108 

1 studies or no tests that back up what you're saying? 

2 MR. NGUYEN: We feel confident enough about 

3 this that we actually advertise through our customers 

4 to keep their pilot lights on during the summer. We 

5 actually have at the time it goes into the buildings. 

6 DR. KELLY: Do you give them that gas for 

7 free? 

8 MR. NGUYEN: No. 

9 MR. NASSERI: Another just to comment here 

10 that you say development of accurate and fuel test 

11 procedures. What do you mean by accurate here, 

12 accurate test procedure? Do you have any 

13 recommendation that we have to improve our test 

14 procedure to make it --

15 MS. O'NEILL: No. I think inconsistency with 

16 AGA was that if you're going to make it accurate, that 

17 it should be consistent for both electric and gas 

18 appliances, and --

19 MR. NASSERI: Well, in reference to that 

20 issue, 

21 MS. O'NEILL: Yes. Yes. I mean this comes 

22 from a gas and combination utility. So, we happen to 

23 be from the gas side of the house, but before drafting 

24 our comments, we did sit down with our energy 

25 conservation people to see, you know, what their 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

109 

1 thoughts or the electric industry's thoughts would be 

2 on this. 

3 MR. NGUYEN: I have a comment regarding this. 

4 There are rebates on, for instance, gas furnaces and 

5 other equipment, such as electric air conditioners, are 

6 all based on tests and ratings that are provided 

7 through DOE and ARI. 

8 There seems to be some contradictions here in 

9 certain of these -- the wording of some of these 

10 rebates. For instance, you have new equipment that 

11 comes out on the market that cannot qualify for a 

12 rebate because there is no testing method. For 

13 instance, there are gas-fired heat pumps which use both 

14 fuels, and because they don't have a rating will not 

15 receive a rebate, even though they are that much more 

16 efficient on the fuel source on the source fuel than an 

17 electric heat pump. 

18 Also, for instance, an electric heat pump 

19 would be rated on its summer rating while, for 

20 instance, in New Jersey, electric cooling is minimal 

21 compared to heating. So, we are actually awarding on 

22 something that's very fictitious, not on actual energy 

23 use. 

24 

25 

MR. ADAMS: James? 

MR. MILLS: No questions. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

110 

1 MR. ADAMS: Gene? 

2 DR. KELLY: I have no questions. 

3 MR. ADAMS: Thank you very much. 

4 MS. O'NEILL: Thank you. 

5 MR. ADAMS: We have had one request by an 

6 unscheduled speaker, and I would like to call that 

7 person now. Michael Martin. 

8 STATEMENT OF MICHAEL MARTIN 

9 MR. MARTIN: Thank you very much. 

10 My name is Michael Martin. I'm an engineer 

11 registered in the State of California. I work for the 

12 California Energy Commission. The commission consists 

13 of five commissioners, who are appointed by the 

14 Governor, without my advice, and they haven't decided 

15 exactly what they want to say in terms of testimony for 

16 DOE, and, so, I'm speaking strictly on my own, and you 

17 can expect some written testimony from the California 

18 Energy Commission before the closing date of the 

19 process. 

20 I am also the chairman of an ASHRAE Standards 

21 Project Committee, ASHRAE being the American Society of 

22 Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers, 

23 146P, which is a consensus test method for pool 

24 heaters, and Mr. Nasseri is one of my voting members. 

25 This -- a draft of this standard has been 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

111 

1 sent out for public comment, and we have received 

2 comments from 18 people. We're going to be meeting the 

3 last week of this month and trying to resolve these 

4 comments, and, fortunately, we have a few days after 

5 that in which time I can get a report in to you as to 

6 just what the status is. We had hoped that this would 

7 be in a state where you could reference it. Clearly, 

8 it isn't today, and we'll let you know when it is on 

9 paper. 

10 The major difference in the test method that 

11 you reference from this one is that we include heat 

12 pump pool heaters, which I understand are quite popular 

13 in Florida, though in California, we see virtually none 

14 of them. 

15 I have two other comments that I would like 

16 to make. One is at the California Energy Commission, 

17 we adopted standards for a great number of appliances, 

18 most of which are being preempted by federal standards, 

19 and our emphasis now is in the collecting and 

20 dissemination of information about efficiency. 

21 We have a computerized data base with some 

22 65,000 entries on it, including a great number of 

23 models of the appliances that you're discussing this 

24 morning, and it's an awful lot of numbers -- of models. 

25 This data is available electronically to 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

112 

1 state energy offices and to you, you can use it, and I 

2 have provided this in printed form to you, and on the 

3 basis of somebody who is working on this, I would urge 

4 you, if you are coming up with a new test parameter, 

5 that you do it as soon as possible. 

6 I recognize the concern that the people from 

7 GAMA have, but we do collect information voluntarily. 

8 There are people who want to give this information, and 

9 this information is extremely helpful in you in 

10 developing your standards, in Mr. Mills in developing 

11 his labelling requirements, and in those of us from out 

12 of town who comment on your efforts. 

13 So, I would urge that you do this as soon as 

14 possible. I do notice that you have a lot of catching 

15 up to do through no fault of your own, and the sooner 

16 we can get these things out of the way, the better. 

17 I see no advantage in having a delay in 

18 publishing a method of test. My personal experience is 

19 that nobody wants to test based on a proposal that they 

20 have reason to believe is going to change, and they all 

21 want this thing printed in the Federal Register or 

22 somewhere with a nice cover on it that they can justify 

23 the testing costs. 

24 This comes to my final point that I, in my 

25 duties at the Energy Commission, I do manage a testing 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

113 

1 contract, which we use for various purposes, and there 

2 is an item in there for testing appliances based on 

3 changes in DOE test methods, and I would volunteer our 

4 efforts to work with you should this be necessary for 

5 you to see whether what changes these changes in the 

6 standards have on the efficiency levels. 

7 Our contractor is the American Gas 

8 Association based in Los Angeles, who have been in the 

9 testing business for longer than I've been alive. 

10 Thank you very much. Unless you have any 

11 questions, that's all I have for you today. 

12 MR. ADAMS: Thank you. 

13 I have no additional questions. 

14 Cyrus? 

15 MR. NASSERI: Thank you. 

16 I don't have any questions. 

17 MR. MARTIN: Maybe I could remind Cyrus that 

18 I need his ballot back on that Standard 146, as soon as 

19 I can get it. 

20 MR. NASSER"!: Okay. 

21 MR. ADAMS: Eugene? 

22 DR. KELLY: I have no questions. 

23 MR. ADAMS: Thank you. 

24 Could the gentleman who indicated that he had 

25 a question that he would like to ask, please pass that 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

114 

1 question to the registration -- well, just up here, I 

2 guess, and we'll bypass the registration desk, and if 

3 there are any other people who have questions that they 

4 would like to be asked. 

5 I would like at this point to ask if any of 

6 the speakers would like to give rebuttal statements. 

7 Yes, Mr. Fink? You would like to give a rebuttal 

8 statement? 

9 MR. FINK: A statement. 

10 MR. ADAMS: Okay. Would you --

11 MR. FINK: I would like to tell a story. 

12 MR. ADAMS: Okay. Would you do so now? 

13 Hopefully it will be relevant and not very long. 

14 MR. FINK: All the requests for delays 

15 reminds me of an old story. Many years ago, a man was 

16 found guilty by a sultan of a heinous crime, and he was 

17 told that he would be executed, and he turned to the 

18 sultan, and he said, "Well, I could teach your horse 

19 how to fly in three years. You're going to miss that 

20 opportunity." And the sultan said, "Well, in that 

21 case, 

22 horse 

23 you." 

24 

25 friend 

then I'll let you live, but if you don't 

to fly in three years, then I'm going to 

And as this fellow was walking away, 

came over to him and said, "Why did you 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 

teach my 

execute 

his 

tell him 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

115 

1 such a crazy thing? You can't teach a horse how to 

2 fly." He says, "You never know what's going to happen 

3 in three years. In three years, the sultan might die. 

4 I might die. The horse might die. Who knows? Maybe I 

5 will teach it how to fly." 

6 So, all these requests for delays remind me 

7 of that story. 

8 MR. ADAMS: Thank you. 

9 (Pause) 

10 MR. ADAMS: The questioner, Frank Jacob. 

11 Could you state where you are -- what -- who you are 

12 from or who you represent? 

13 MR. JACOB: I'm employed by Battelle's 

14 Columbus Laboratories in Columbus, Ohio. 

15 MR. ADAMS: Okay. Procedurally, we are not 

16 allowing questions of the panel. You also had a 

17 question -- well, you had a comment for David Goldstein 

18 dealing with whether consumers are informed about 

19 energy usage by blowers. Is that -- you didn't state 

20 it in a question form. 

21 MR. JACOB: I directed the question to Mr. 

22 Mills. The question which followed that statement. 

23 MR. ADAMS: The question is for David. Does 

24 the cost of operation on the label and fact sheets 

25 include both gas and electricity? 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

116 

1 I guess the subject is whether or not 

2 consumers are informed about the energy usage of 

3 electrical consumption of presumably fans and blowers 

4 and so forth. 

5 David, would you like to respond to that or 

6 you can do so now or in your written comments as you 

7 choose? 

8 MR. GOLDSTEIN: Sure. I'd be happy to 

9 respond to the extent that I can. 

10 As I understand it, the label is consistent 

11 with the AFUE, and it includes only the costs of the 

12 gas usage. 

13 Jack? If Jack wants to elaborate? 

14 MR. LANGMEAD: The cost of operation that is 

15 shown on the fact sheet does include both gas and 

16 electric consumption and has for years, and the GAMA 

17 directory now lists the electrical consumption as 

18 determined by the DOE test procedure in each and every 

19 category and gives a method of taking that electrical 

20 consumption, the gas' consumption, you back in the cost 

21 of operations and you can do it right out of the GAMA 

22 directory, and it is available, and we'll have a copy 

23 in the -- along with our written statement or I think 

24 you've seen it before. 

25 But the electrical consumption in the cost of 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

117 

1 operation as dictated by the FTC labelling requirements 

2 includes electrical consumption. 

3 DR. KELLY: Tell us what's on the label, 

4 Jack. 

5 MR. LANGMEAD: What's that? 

6 DR. KELLY: Tell us what's on the label. 

7 MR. LANGMEAD: Oh, the label, the label is 

8 nothing. It's in the fact sheet. The label is saying 

9 look at the fact sheet, but we have the information in 

10 the directory that's provided to every public --

11 supplied free of charge to every public library in the 

12 United states of America twice a year, current and up13 to-date. 

14 NOW, if anybody wants to go look up their 

15 efficiency rating of their furnace, and if they want to 

16 pay attention to the electrical consumption, that 

17 information -- I don't think you can find readily 

18 available, more readily available than being sent to 

19 every public library in the united states. 

20 MR. MILLS: You may want to point out, Jack, 

21 that we have a proposal that was made and then remade 

22 to allow manufacturers the option of being listed in an 

23 acceptable industry-prepared directory meeting certain 

24 criteria which the GAMA directory does, instead of 

25 preparing fact sheets, and we also have a proposal to 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

118 

1 have more information on the label itself than 

2 currently is on the current required label. 

3 MR. LANGMEAD: Building on that just a little 

4 bit, I hope we can develop an energy descriptor that is 

5 reflective and simply to relate back to cost of 

6 operation, but if we get away from looking at cost to 

7 consumers, we lose a sales tool on selling more 

8 efficient equipment. 

9 MR. GOLDSTEIN: I think an important question 

10 for DOE to be considering in this context is the words 

11 "the consumer" are quite ambiguous. 

12 Jack is certainly correct that the 

13 information is available to an individual consumer who 

14 goes to the effort to find it out. Generally, when one 

15 talks about the consumer, one refers to the behavior of 

16 the bulk of consumers in the marketplace, and in that 

17 case, the use of single parameter descriptors like 

18 energy factor, AFUE, is, I think, all that -- the most 

19 that you can regularly count on on happening. 

20 We just heard some testimony this morning 

21 from a utility that presumably has a lot more 

22 engineering expertise than most of their customers, and 

23 they're basing their rebate program on simple AFUE 

24 descriptors. 

25 So, I think that's the way the market is 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

119 

1 responding dominantly right now, although as Mr. 

2 Langmead pointed out, the more detailed information is 

3 quite available. 

4 MR. ADAMS: Thank you. 

5 MR. MARGOLIS: Mr. Jacobs, with regard to 

6 your, quote unquote, first question, I will take that 

7 to be a point of clarification that you're asking, and 

8 not that as a question to a panel member, which is not 

9 authorized by our statute for this hearing. 

10 Tomorrow, yes, but, today, but your question 

11 was, and I -- in the current test procedure, the EF, 

12 energy factor, uses F equals 1.0, true or false? The 

13 answer is true. 

14 In the proposed changes, EF uses F equals 

15 3.37, true or false? As a matter of point of 

16 clarification, the answer is yes. So, the answer is 

17 yes for both those. We don't want to not answer you, 

18 but just want to see what the law is. So, I'm using 

19 that as a clarification. 

20 MR. ADAMS: Okay. At this point, there being 

21 no other speakers, no other rebuttal statements, and no 

22 other questions, I will adjourn the hearing. 

23 Thank you very much. 

24 (Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned.) 

25 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. 

(301) 565-0064 
 EE-RM-93-501 COMMENT 110

" Ii 

Ii 

2 :I 

'I 

I: 

:! 

3 ;i 

i! 

ij 

. " !i ~ ;j 

, II 

5 Ii 

II 

6 II 

1/ 

7 I. 

q 

Ii 

8 II .I 

n 

n 

9 il 

Ii 

10 I' 

'I I, 

11 Ii il 

12 II 

13 !I 

" 

" :! 

.; 

'I .. ,J .- ;1 

;1 

:; 

.; 

ii 

15 ;1 

;1 

.1 

16 II 

Ii 

17 II 

II 

is Ii 

q !. 

q 

19 q !I 

• I 

I 

20 I 

I 

21 

I 

22 

23 

24 

25 

~his is to certify that t~e attached proceedinss 

, c; DeJ..ore DEPT. OF ENERGY 

in the matter of: TEST PROCEDURES 

were held as herein aooears a~d that this is the oriGinal -.. -

transcri?t thereof for the file c: t~e De~ar~7le~t 

oi Cc;-:-.~.is5ion. 

D~rr~· .... _....., . 1-5-9'1 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS 

(J01) j6J-006-1 

r