TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION

Official Reporters

1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 600

Washington, D.C. 20005-4018

(202) 628-4888

contracts@hrccourtreporters.com

In the Matter of: )

 )

ASRAC FANS AND BLOWERS )

WORKING GROUP MEETING )

 )

Pages: 1 through 215

Place: Washington, D.C.

Date: May 18, 2015 
1

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY & RENEWABLE ENERGY

In the Matter of: )

 )

ASRAC FANS AND BLOWERS )

WORKING GROUP MEETING )

 )

Room 8E-089

Forrestal Building

1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C.

Monday,

May 18, 2015

The parties met, pursuant to notice, at 12:07 p.m.

PARTICIPANTS:

Department of Energy:

ASHLEY ARMSTRONG

WADE BOSWELL

PETE COCHRAN

STEVE FINE

PAM PONTILLO

Industry:

CHRISTOPHER AUTH

Baltimore Aircoil Company

MARK BUBLITZ

The New York Blower Company

LARRY BURDICK

SPX Cooling Technologies

TOM CATANIA

AMCA

STEVE DIKEMAN

AcoustiFLO LLC
2

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

PARTICIPANTS: (Cont'd.)

Industry: (Cont'd.)

GARY FERNSTROM

California IOUs

MARK FLY

AAON, Inc.

DAN HARTLEIN

Twin City Fan Companies Ltd.

ARMIN HAUER

ebm-pabst Inc.

NICHOLAS HOWE

Carnes Company

SANAEE IYAMA

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

DIANE JAKOBS

Rheem

SAM JASINSKI

Navigant Consulting

TIM MATHSON

Carrier

MICHAEL McCABE

Ingersoll Rand Corporation

DONALD McNEIL

Buffalo Air Handling Company

TRINITY PERSFUL

Clarage Fan Company

ELAINA PRESENT

Navigant Consulting

ANIRUDDH ROY

Goodman

AMY SHEPHERD

AHRI
3

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

PARTICIPANTS: (Cont'd.)

Industry: (Cont'd.)

WILLIAM SMILEY

Trane

WADE SMITH

Air Movement and Control Association,

 International

LOUIS STARR

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

MEG WALTNER

Natural Resources Defense Council

ROBERT WHITWELL

Carrier

STEVEN WIGGINS

Newcomb & Boyd

CHRIS WISEMAN

Nidec

MICHAEL WOLF

Greenheck

Webinar Participants:

DEBORAH MILLER

National Association of State Energy Officials

JOANNA MAUER

Appliance Standards Awareness Project

JILL HOOTMAN

Trane

PETER BUSHNELL

Carrier
4

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

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

2 (12:07 p.m.)

3 MR. BOSWELL: Good afternoon. Welcome to 

4 this session of the ASRAC Fan Working Group. So what 

5 I thought we would do for the transcript is just do 

6 our normal go-around the room so that everyone can 

7 identify themselves and then start from there.

8 So my name is Wade Boswell, and I'm with 

9 DOE's Office of Hearings & Appeals, and I am one of 

10 your facilitators.

11 MR. FINE: My name is Steve Fine. I'm 

12 another facilitator from the Office of Hearings & 

13 Appeals.

14 MS. IYAMA: Sanaee Iyama, Lawrence Berkeley 

15 National Lab.

16 MS. ARMSTRONG: Ashley Armstrong, DOE.

17 MR. JASINSKI: Sam Jasinski, Navigant 

18 Consulting.

19 MR. SMILEY: Bill Smiley, Trane.

20 MR. FLY: Mark Fly, AAON.

21 MR. CATANIA: Tom Catania as alternate for 

22 Wade Smith, who should be arriving within the hour.

23 MR. ROY: Aniruddh Roy, Goodman.

24 MS. WALTNER: Meg Waltner, NRDC.

25 MR. FERNSTROM: Gary Fernstrom for the 
5

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 California Investor-Owned Utilities and their 30 

2 million customers. They are Pacific Gas & Electric 

3 Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego 

4 Gas & Electric Company, and the Southern California 

5 Gas Company.

6 MR. STARR: Louis Starr with Northwest 

7 Energy Efficiency Alliance.

8 MR. WOLF: Mike Wolf with Greenheck.

9 MR. HARTLEIN: Dan Hartlein, TCF.

10 MR. BUBLITZ: Mark Bublitz, the New York 

11 Blower Company.

12 MR. HAUER: Armin Hauer, ebm-papst.

13 MR. HOWE: Nick Howe, Carnes Company.

14 MR. WAGNER: Greg Wagner, Morrison Products.

15 MS. JAKOBS: Diane Jakobs, Rheem.

16 MR. DIKEMAN: Steve Dikeman, AcoustiFLO.

17 MR. THOMAS: Phil Thomas, Berner 

18 International.

19 MR. BURDICK: Larry Burdick representing 

20 Cooling Technology Institute.

21 MS. PONTILLO: Pam Pontillo, Office of 

22 Hearings & Appeals, DOE.

23 MR. WIGGINS: Steve Wiggins, Newcomb & Boyd.

24 MR. WHITWELL: Bob Whitwell, United 

25 Technologies, Carrier.
6

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MS. SHEPHERD: Amy Shepherd, AHRI.

2 MR. BOSWELL: Okay. And if the people in 

3 the public gallery could introduce themselves as well 

4 for the record.

5 MR. PERSFUL: Trinity Persful, Clarage Fan 

6 Company.

7 MR. WISEMAN: Chris Wiseman, Nidec U.S. 

8 Motors.

9 MR. MATHSON: Tim Mathson, Greenheck Fan.

10 MS. PRESENT: Elaina Present, Navigant 

11 Consulting.

12 MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe, under contract 

13 to Ingersoll Rand Trane.

14 MR. BOSWELL: We also have a couple working 

15 group members as I understand that are participating 

16 via the webcast. So if the working group members that

17 are on the webcast could also introduce themselves.

18 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer, Appliance 

19 Standards Awareness Project.

20 MS. MILLER: Hi. It's Deborah Miller. I'm 

21 here representing NASEO.

22 MR. BOSWELL: Great. Thank you.

23 MALE VOICE: Who is the last one?

24 FEMALE VOICE: Deborah Miller.

25 MALE VOICE: Representing?
7

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 FEMALE VOICE: NASEO.

2 MR. HAUER: That's National Association of 

3 State Energy Officials.

4 MALE VOICE: I've heard of it.

5 MR. BOSWELL: So it appears that based on 

6 that kind of roll call identification that we do have 

7 a quorum, which is great. I want to mention that 

8 Laura from AHRI is not able to be with us. Her 

9 alternate is also not able to be with us. So Amy 

10 Shepherd is present. She is not a working group 

11 member or an alternate, so if we get to the point 

12 where votes are taken, Amy will not be participating 

13 in the vote but has been invited to participate to 

14 make sure that their group's perspective is 

15 represented in the discussions. Okay?

16 Any other preliminary matters that people 

17 would like to talk about?

18 (No response.)

19 MR. BOSWELL: You know, there were some 

20 comments --

21 MR. WAGNER: Wade?

22 MR. BOSWELL: Oh, I'm sorry.

23 MR. WAGNER: Do you have a printout of the 

24 work for this --

25 MS. ARMSTRONG: Not yet. We're working on 
8

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 it.

2 MR. WAGNER: Oh, okay. Yeah, it showed up 

3 right before this.

4 MS. ARMSTRONG: I know. And there is an 

5 apology in that email. We're working on it.

6 MALE VOICE: Please turn on your mic when 

7 you speak.

8 MR. BOSWELL: Yeah. So, on that note, make 

9 sure you speak into the mic. Also remember to 

10 identify yourself and your company for the transcript 

11 that's being prepared of today's proceedings.

12 You know, the protocol that we used last 

13 time is if people wanted to speak, we ask them to put 

14 tent cards up on the end. We're still going to 

15 continue that protocol, but I might try varying that a 

16 little bit because what was happening last time is, 

17 you know, we'd end up with four or five conversations 

18 going on at the same time, and I know that several 

19 people commented that it was getting confusing which 

20 conversation we were having. So I may ask even if 

21 you're the next person in line if your comment relates 

22 to the discussion we're having or if it's one that we 

23 can take as the next topic.

24 And, Ashley, I don't know if you have a 

25 different way that you wanted to start, but I know 
9

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 that there had been some, when we ended the meeting 

2 last time, there had been some discussion about things 

3 that people would work on or share together between 

4 meetings, and I don't know if it made sense to check 

5 in on that or if you wanted to give an overview of 

6 what DOE's presentation would be.

7 MS. ARMSTRONG: Correct. So a little bit of 

8 both.

9 MR. BOSWELL: Okay.

10 MS. ARMSTRONG: Since we saw each other 

11 last, I think a couple things have occurred. One is 

12 DOE sent out a kind of red line, quick version of the 

13 PowerPoint that we used last time. We also sent 

14 around the final ground rules, so hopefully you've had 

15 a chance to look at those to the extent you were 

16 interested.

17 Midweek sometime we sent out a formal data 

18 request to AHRI and the OEM members for which we were 

19 lacking some information to help inform our decisions 

20 of scope. It came in two parts. One, I’ll call a 

21 simplified approach, which basically tells us, okay, 

22 well, what fans are we really talking about, what 

23 equipment are we talking about, and then what are the 

24 types of fans in them. And from that, it talks about 

25 shipments per year and some general high-level 
10

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 information to help inform our discussions to go 

2 forward. And then there's a more detailed data 

3 request which goes hand in hand with, you know, DOE 

4 running some more detailed analysis or information we 

5 would need, or either DOE would need to develop, 

6 hopefully with the manufacturers in order to run the 

7 more detailed cost/benefit analysis for the group to 

8 consider later down the road.

9 So, as a first order of business, we had 

10 asked I guess AHRI and its members and even individual 

11 members to submit data to the department or its 

12 contractors to the extent it's confidential to help 

13 inform the committee's discussions this week.

14 So that's one thing. And then AMCA also 

15 circulated a blank format, a blank version of their 

16 data template sheet that they use for their fan 

17 manufacturers to get data. Tom, you can correct me if 

18 I'm wrong, but we looked at that, and some of the 

19 fields aren't as applicable to fans that are used in 

20 OEM equipment, so that's why you saw some of the 

21 questions in the DOE requests were a little bit 

22 different. I think that's probably more in tune with

23 what data you may have or some data that you may not 

24 have but data that we would need to develop as part of 

25 our analysis for OEM equipment.
11

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 And then last but not least, we developed 

2 this presentation. I had hoped to get it done 

3 earlier. I apologize. That's completely on me. I 

4 was on travel a couple days last week and didn't fly 

5 in 'til Saturday morning. So we did finalize it over 

6 the weekend, so I circulated it about an hour before 

7 the meeting. So what we're hoping to do today is a) 

8 get some readouts on where we are with some of that 

9 data collection, where we are with some of the 

10 information that was promised from the last meeting. 

11 If you don't have it available today, when will it be 

12 available?

13 And then we want to talk about two things. 

14 We had someone request to provide you guys with an 

15 overview of the AMCA metric and the AMCA approach, at 

16 least the one you see in the white paper, so we can do 

17 that at the outset of this meeting, or we can talk 

18 about testable configuration and the continuation of

19 scope. It's kind of up to the working group as to 

20 where we want to go. Some people feel they want to 

21 understand the metric before they can really talk 

22 about how it impacts them and their equipment. Other 

23 people feel, well, we need to get through the scope 

24 discussion before we really need to talk about test 

25 procedures and metric and that kind of stuff.
12

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 The department has no opinion either way. 

2 We're happy to do it either way, however you guys want 

3 it. So, with that, I'm going to open the floor to 

4 discussion. But as a first order of business, can we 

5 get a readout from AHRI with regards to the data 

6 collection efforts and when we should expect to see 

7 the first report back, or the OEMs for that matter, 

8 because you guys are welcome to submit data 

9 individually.

10 MR. BOSWELL: Diane.

11 MS. JAKOBS: This is Diane Jakobs from 

12 Rheem. And our company, we have kind of an issue 

13 about not knowing what data really to give you, so 

14 that's kind of a problem for us. And I would prefer 

15 to talk about the scope first.

16 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay.

17 MR. BOSWELL: So Amy.

18 MS. SHEPHERD: So, unfortunately, the 

19 situation with Laura developed over the weekend, but I 

20 know that she met with the manufacturers on Friday 

21 kind of to discuss some of these issues. So I have to 

22 kind of take back to them, but I can follow up. I 

23 don't have that information just due to the events as 

24 they occurred. So I would defer to them, and then I 

25 certainly can follow up with her today and see where 
13

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 we are.

2 MR. BOSWELL: Greg.

3 MR. WAGNER: This is Greg Wagner, Morrison 

4 Products. Having worked with the folks at AHRI on 

5 this very issue, the challenge becomes what 

6 information are we providing. I can't speak for all 

7 of them, but the vast majority of them don't have the 

8 information as was developed by AMCA, so the fan test 

9 data that they have is not fan test data, but it's 

10 unit performance test data. So it's not an apples-to11 apples comparison between the two testing procedures 

12 or even the output data.

13 Applied fans have other things in their 

14 airstream that affect the performance that change any 

15 type of efficiency or energy metric relative to flow, 

16 so they're not the same kind of tests. They also 

17 don't test to AMCA 210, which is a lot of what that 

18 test data was measured and analyzed in the DOE's 

19 results.

20 MR. BOSWELL: Okay. Tom.

21 MR. CATANIA: Yeah. I would invite some of 

22 the other -- Tom Catania, AMCA -- some of the other 

23 fan manufacturers to comment on this as well. And I'm 

24 sure Wade will.

25 Having said that, you know, again, I'm going 
14

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 to use my let's not make the perfect the enemy of the 

2 good here. I think the data that AMCA collected 

3 certainly gives you a reasonable proxy that there is a 

4 reasonable amount of energy there that is worth 

5 evaluating whether it's in or out, but its scale is 

6 significant. I'm a little concerned that this is 

7 going to stall the proceedings. We're on a really 

8 accelerated time frame, so I hope that we can get to 

9 consensus about data and not just wonder about what's 

10 wanted for weeks.

11 MR. BOSWELL: Ashley, it looked like you 

12 wanted to --

13 MS. ARMSTRONG: Well, so I somewhat agree, 

14 which is I think why we wanted to get at least a 

15 readout. So for those that are OEM equipment 

16 manufacturers, I mean, did you look at -- the reason 

17 we changed some of the inputs or some of the asks in 

18 the DOE requests to you guys was because we 

19 acknowledge there is going to be some differences with 

20 OEM equipment as well as potentially the fan data that 

21 AMCA was collecting from their members.

22 I think one of the things, one of the high23 level things I asked and one of the things I noted 

24 back to Laura in the emails, the first thing on there 

25 is a list of OEM equipment and/or accessories that are 
15

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 offered with fans, what category of fans those are, 

2 and then the shipments. I mean, that can't be 

3 information you don't have.

4 MR. WAGNER: I can't speak for AHRI or AMCA. 

5 But the data is being gathered, I do know that. I 

6 know they're looking at that. But the performance 

7 question, where the airflow request -- and this is 

8 where it differs significantly from what AMCA did, 

9 which is pretty straightforward. I can give you that 

10 for ours because we manufacture fans and we can say 

11 straightforward.

12 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right.

13 MR. WAGNER: That's easy to gather. But 

14 when you start looking at the combinations of products 

15 and the permutations with fans and motors, and I'll 

16 let the OEMs walk you through some of that, it gets to 

17 be quite a complex problem. It's not as simple as 

18 just saying here is a fan, as the AMCA folks were 

19 doing.

20 MR. BOSWELL: Okay. Larry.

21 MR. BURDICK: Larry Burdick, SPX Cooling 

22 Technologies, representing Cooling Technology 

23 Institute as well. And so there has been a comment 

24 filed and posted on the website, you know, for some 

25 time now relative to CTI's position, you know, on the 
16

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 aspect of this ASRAC ruling. You know, unfortunately, 

2 we really haven't heard anything about or any feedback 

3 relative to that type of position as to, you know, 

4 where DOE is with that or the rest of the meeting.

5 You know, I think, you know, we've made a 

6 clear case that the percentage of applied power or 

7 power consumed in, you know, using the information 

8 that was provided there, the percentage is very small 

9 when it comes to cooling equipment, and in reality, 

10 much more potential for energy savings is possible 

11 with the type of heat exchanger that you apply.

12 The fan is not so relevant. You know, I can 

13 show you an example here where we can, you know, have 

14 a particular cooling tower connected to a chiller 

15 system, and with a, you know, incremental increase, 

16 with a rather small increase in the cost of the 

17 relative costs of the overall unit, I can save like 

18 two-thirds the power, be it two-thirds of the power of 

19 the optimum size. You know, that extreme can be 

20 taken, you know, quite a ways longer where the 

21 consumed power is a fraction of it, but it's going to 

22 take a lot more real estate and space to install that 

23 fan.

24 I think there are other good arguments there 

25 about the embedded fans where it's not always a bigger 
17

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 fan is better. It's not always a smaller fan is 

2 better. It's totally dependent on the entire system 

3 that the fan is installed in, and you can't use just a 

4 carte blanche statement, you know, in response, you 

5 know, to the question.

6 Several of these questions, you know, a 

7 thing like what is a typical duty point, well, there 

8 is no typical duty point. You know, the operating 

9 points can be all over the map. And again, what we're 

10 striving for is a system efficiency or overall system 

11 effectiveness with the power that's consumed. And a 

12 great number of our customers, you know, do evaluate 

13 that in the purchase of the product.

14 MR. BOSWELL: Does someone want to 

15 respond to Larry?

16 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. I mean, I don't 

17 think, you know, that's -- so I think that's more or 

18 less what we're going to end up discussing today in 

19 terms of scope unless we just want to move to metric. 

20 But in terms of scope, what should be in and what 

21 should be out, it's how should it be tested, what 

22 parts need to be there for testing. You know, Larry, 

23 you specifically asked why DOE hasn't responded to the 

24 comments you filed. Well, that's what this is all 

25 about. It's not just now for DOE to respond. It's 
18

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 for the working group to decide what the scope is. 

2 DOE is one member, but we're only one. There are 24 

3 other people at this table that need to decide what 

4 the appropriate scope of these standards that we're 

5 all here to negotiate.

6 So I think that's what we're really looking 

7 to have a discussion around. Now I think part of that 

8 was we were trying to understand, you know, what type 

9 of fans you're even talking about. What do the 

10 shipments look like? I mean, I have some of your 

11 comment pulled up now so I can see some of the details 

12 of it. But I think that's what we're trying to get at 

13 for each of these end applied applications that people 

14 are -- not just cooling towers but for others, that 

15 people are asking the working group to consider not 

16 regulating in this rule.

17 I think we're looking for the data to 

18 support that. And that's the same discussion we had, 

19 you know, a week and a half ago and brought us here 

20 today. So perhaps as we walk through this, you can, 

21 you know, interject some details regarding like what 

22 types of fans we're talking about, what the shipments 

23 represent as we go through, and then the working group 

24 can decide what they decide.

25 MR. BURDICK: And one other comment about 
19

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 that, Ashley, is that, you know, our industry is not 

2 that big, and we're prohibited from talking about any 

3 market share, any unit volume, any price points, you 

4 know, or anything like that, you know, either in

5 public or amongst ourselves.

6 MR. BOSWELL: Robert.

7 MR. WHITWELL: Yeah. I just wanted to 

8 follow up -- Bob Whitwell from Carrier. I wanted to 

9 follow up a bit on Greg's comments on the commercial 

10 unitary equipment or other HVAC equipment. There are 

11 multiple -- it's going to take a while to collect the 

12 data. There's multiple fans in each unit. You have 

13 at least a condenser fan and a supply air fan on a 

14 rooftop unit, for example. You could have as many as 

15 nine condenser fans on it depending on the size of the 

16 equipment, at least for ours. Others maybe have more.

17 You have a supply air fan. You can have an 

18 exhaust fan or a return fan, or you can have fans in 

19 an ERV. So there's many different types of -- or 

20 different fans used, and to really get a good count on 

21 what they are, it's going to be difficult because we 

22 have to go and look at what each unit is that was 

23 produced. So there's going to be estimates in 

24 whatever we do.

25 The other thing I think that we need to 
20

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 think about here in the working group related to scope 

2 is covered products, whether they're included or not. 

3 And in fact, there's another working group that's 

4 meeting right now on commercial unitary equipment up 

5 to 760,000 BTU per hour, and the fan energy is being 

6 included in the calculations on the new energy 

7 efficiency metric there.

8 So, you know, I don't know. I mean, I think 

9 that we could get into a situation where we're 

10 counting energy savings twice. So I just think that 

11 that's something that we need to be thinking about.

12 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I would argue certain 

13 fans may be counted for in that other, definitely not 

14 all.

15 MR. WHITWELL: That's good. The condenser 

16 fan is included directly in the energy efficiency 

17 metric. The supply fan is being counted in the energy 

18 savings for the higher IER levels. There are other 

19 fans. The return fan or the exhaust fan are not 

20 counted in there. That's correct. But the main fans 

21 in that equipment are included in the energy 

22 calculations for that rulemaking.

23 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I think you and I just 

24 had a discussion in about five minutes of exactly what 

25 we were asking AHRI to collect for this meeting, and 
21

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 that just is what fans are we talking about, what 

2 kinds of fans are they, and are they actually in 

3 regulated products for which that consumption is 

4 regulated or not, including accessories.

5 MR. WHITWELL: Yeah, okay.

6 MS. ARMSTRONG: And that's it. It's as 

7 simple as that. You did it in five minutes for as an 

8 example, right?

9 MR. WHITWELL: So, okay, yes, except for the 

10 quantities and things like that. So it's going to 

11 take a little bit of time to pull together the data is 

12 all I'm saying.

13 MR. BOSWELL: Okay. Amy.

14 MS. SHEPHERD: I just wanted to expand on 

15 that a little bit. I think that that is true to some 

16 degree, but I also think that, you know, in the 

17 framework document, DOE made a statement about the 

18 covered products are not included in this rulemaking, 

19 and so that was the presumption that we were working 

20 on coming into this meeting. So I think that it would 

21 be helpful to hear from DOE like the basis for that 

22 determination and for opening that back up.

23 MS. ARMSTRONG: So we did it at the last 

24 meeting. We spent two days on that. So I would just 

25 request that you look at the transcript.
22

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MS. SHEPHERD: Okay. So that wasn't my 

2 understanding, that there was a clear articulation of 

3 that, from the OEMs. If I'm wrong, then that's fine.

4 MR. WAGNER: This is Greg. I'll echo that. 

5 I don't know that there was a clear articulation of 

6 why what's included and not included. I asked about 

7 commercial construction equipment and other -- there's 

8 many fans out there beyond just what has been listed 

9 in the scope of this. Why are some in, why are some 

10 not? And that articulation I don't believe was put 

11 forth.

12 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I think two things. One 

13 is DOE has actually set a negotiated rulemaking, or 

14 ultimately I guess AMCA and the advocates requested to 

15 ASRAC to allow ASRAC to form a negotiated committee to 

16 discuss this. DOE can make up its mind on its own, 

17 but then we don't need a negotiated rulemaking to do 

18 that. We can go forward in our separate process and 

19 put out a NOPR with DOE's determination of scope. We 

20 thought it would be good to have that discussion 

21 around the table and to have the discussion and help 

22 all -- you guys can all help inform that opinion.

23 But we're not going to have the same 

24 conversation at every meeting, which is, you know, why 

25 did DOE say this in the framework and now we've said 
23

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 that. We've been to AHRI. We presented the NODA back 

2 in January-ish I think was when I went over there. We 

3 made a statement there that anything we've put out so 

4 far is tentative. DOE hasn't made an opinion in terms 

5 of we haven't put out a proposal yet. Our fan 

6 definition is fairly broad.

7 So why don't I suggest at this point instead 

8 of talking in theoretical, because I guess we don't 

9 have any additional data, that we walk through the 

10 presentation for today. It gets into different 

11 categories of fans, what a testable configuration of 

12 those fans might look like, which is something we 

13 think we need to define to administer the regs, and we 

14 can have a discussion about the details of each one. 

15 Having a theoretical discussion of scope isn't going 

16 to get us anywhere.

17 MR. FERNSTROM: So this is Gary speaking for 

18 the California utilities and the efficiency advocates 

19 I believe. I'd like to support Ashley. We cannot and 

20 will not agree to scope until all of the potential 

21 measures that might be in it are evaluated. And, you 

22 know, I don't care how difficult it is to gather the 

23 data. This is just like the pumps negotiation where 

24 the Hydraulics Institute said we don't collect data on 

25 circulator pumps. Well, turns out that circulator 
24

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 pump energy use was equal to the savings of all the 

2 rest of the rulemaking put together. So I definitely 

3 want to assess the market data and energy use and 

4 energy savings associated with all of the measures 

5 that could potentially be within the scope as defined 

6 by this working group.

7 MR. BOSWELL: So, Ashley, are you saying 

8 that you wanted to move into the presentation at this 

9 point?

10 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. I mean, I think at 

11 this point -- I've asked for the presentation slides 

12 to be printed. They should have been distributed, so 

13 you have them by email. I don't have it, but we're 

14 going to start walking through this. I mean, I don't 

15 think -- yeah. Some of it's a recap of last week. 

16 Some of it's going to start talking about the details 

17 of certain categories of fans and what DOE regulations 

18 might look like in terms of equipment classes and how 

19 those would be treated, how they will ultimately be 

20 tested. So obviously some of this gets to what the 

21 different fan manufacturers are doing now, so we'll 

22 definitely need your feedback on this, and we would 

23 welcome a dialogue. And then, you know, to the extent 

24 we can get data, we'll have a discussion of scope in 

25 terms of what may be excluded or may be considered to 
25

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 be excluded at the end of the day I guess.

2 MR. JASINSKI: Ready?

3 FEMALE VOICE: Go ahead.

4 MR. JASINSKI: Sam Jasinski, Navigant 

5 Consulting. So, as was just discussed, we'll go 

6 through a little bit of the scope and definitions. 

7 There's a recap mainly to remind everybody of what was 

8 discussed in the last meeting, some of the edits that 

9 may have been made to some of the definitions, et 

10 cetera. From there, we put together a deck that 

11 expands on the testable configuration concept that was 

12 discussed at the last meeting in hopes that we could 

13 use it as a starting point here today and as a tool 

14 for this discussion. So --

15 MS. ARMSTRONG: I should just clarify that

16 what's on these slides, you know, doesn't necessarily 

17 represent DOE's opinion at this point. Some things 

18 are put in there just for discussion to get people 

19 talking. Other things, you know, may not be in there 

20 that we need to talk about. So do just that. I mean, 

21 name cards aside, I encourage you to discuss and bring 

22 to the table ideas and considerations for this.

23 MR. JASINSKI: Yeah. I'll make a lot of 

24 stops, allow people to discuss. Feel free to 

25 interrupt me at any time.
26

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 So the objective is to provide a fan working 

2 group -- working definition and define testable 

3 configurations in support of the working group 

4 discussions, scope discussions. Here's a red line 

5 version of the fan definition that was discussed at 

6 the previous meeting, and these edits are reflective 

7 of what was discussed, so I'll let everybody read 

8 through it and see what was changed. So mechanical 

9 was removed. There was a discussion around how it 

10 wasn't always mechanical power that was being 

11 converted. The --

12 MS. ARMSTRONG: I think this one -- so we're 

13 showing this to show you this is kind of where we are 

14 today. I think this one will be a little bit in flux 

15 until we actually figure out what the scope is. And 

16 this one may be different than our actual scope of 

17 standards that we're talking about. You know, I think 

18 we're bringing it up to say this is where we are 

19 today, this is kind of where we've landed in response 

20 to feedback. We realize this is quite broad and could 

21 include probably things wider than we would ever 

22 consider, and DOE has taken some homework to look into 

23 that further from a technical point of view.

24 To the extent anyone has any further 

25 feedback -- and I know, Wade, you were going to look 
27

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 into something at some point and get back to us. And 

2 so we encourage that at some point, but I don't think 

3 we really need to --

4 MR. JASINSKI: Okay.

5 MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, unless somebody has 

6 a new issue they want to raise with this one today.

7 MR. JASINSKI: Any further points of 

8 discussion or -- okay. I'll move on. This is just 

9 what I was getting into. Okay.

10 So here we are talking about the fan 

11 categories and the concept of testable configuration. 

12 In general, the working group last time agreed to 

13 limit the scope of the regulation to specific fan 

14 categories. Those specific fan categories were shown, 

15 and you'll see them a little bit later. Recognizing 

16 the challenges of analyzing fans integrated into 

17 larger pieces of equipment, the working group agreed 

18 to focus on standalone fans in testable configurations 

19 to start, so this diagram here is just a 

20 representation of that.

21 You have a manufacturer that assembles some 

22 or all of the fan components that we might discuss 

23 later into what we're calling a testable 

24 configuration. What that testable configuration 

25 entails is up for discussion, and you'll see that on 
28

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 the slides after this. After that testable 

2 configuration is assembled or packaged or shipped or 

3 however, you know, in whatever form the working group 

4 decides to define it as, it may end up going straight 

5 to the user, end user. It may go through a 

6 distributor where more things are added, whether they 

7 are basic fan components. They could be accessories 

8 that don't impact fan performance, et cetera, and then 

9 on to the end user and similarly with an OEM where 

10 they get embedded into a larger piece of equipment.

11 Any comments or issues with this very high12 level schematic of how fans enter the market? Wade, I 

13 think we have a comment here.

14 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, go ahead. You can 

15 just chime in. It's okay.

16 MR. BURDICK: Yeah, all right. So Larry 

17 Burdick, SPX. And so it's showing a concept of a 

18 testable configuration, like you'll always be able to 

19 test this particular arrangement. I am not sure that 

20 I'm clear on what the horsepower limits are or what 

21 the diameter limits are. It needs to be kept in mind 

22 or considered that we could have 40-foot diameter 

23 fans, you know, at 200 horsepower. It could be at 150 

24 horsepower, you know. So the size of these things 

25 could be extremely large and essentially, you know, 
29

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 untestable, you know, as this definition shows here, 

2 where you'd have the actual unit and performing some 

3 type of an airflow analysis on it is impractical.

4 MR. JASINSKI: So I think once we get to the 

5 actual definitions maybe we'll loop back. And when 

6 the definitions are being discussed, if you could give 

7 us examples of specific sizes, specific size 

8 thresholds that would become untestable based on the 

9 definitions that the working group is discussing, that 

10 would be useful.

11 MR. BURDICK: Surely.

12 MR. JASINSKI: Since, you know, we'll get to 

13 the definitions after this.

14 I don't know if everyone can see it because 

15 it's kind of low on the slide. We have some boxes 

16 that call out points of discussion. We can address 

17 them as we come across them, or we can use them as 

18 just flags to come back to later. I don't really know 

19 what would be best. I guess that's up to the working 

20 group. But for this one in particular, we know that 

21 pumps are sometimes packaged as kits. They're not 

22 necessarily assembled, but all of the required 

23 components for operation are in these packaged kits 

24 and sold, but they're not assembled.

25 So I guess a couple of points of discussion 
30

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 are, are fans ever sold in this way at any point in 

2 the distribution channel as packaged kits but that are 

3 unassembled, and if so, maybe not now, but keep in 

4 mind if they are how that might impact the definition 

5 of a testable configuration and ultimately, what we'll 

6 get into, who would be responsible for testing those 

7 components.

8 MS. JAKOBS: This is Diane Jakobs from 

9 Rheem. So you're saying a kit, so you would have one 

10 of all the necessary parts sold together as opposed to 

11 you could go to a catalog and pick out assorted 

12 pieces. So you're talking about -- it would be a 

13 particular configuration that you would buy as one 

14 unified whole somehow. Okay, okay.

15 MS. ARMSTRONG: Fan manufacturers?

16 MR. HARTLEIN: A question that I would

17 raise -- Dan Hartlein, TCF. Does that include -- I 

18 don't mean to complicate where you're going here, but 

19 does that include when that kit becomes a kit from 

20 several different sources? So, in the pump rule, if 

21 somebody were to buy this piece from one manufacturer, 

22 this piece from another, when it becomes that kit, is 

23 that when it becomes testable?

24 MR. JASINSKI: So I think ultimately that's 

25 going to be a discussion for the working group.
31

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. That's true, but 

2 that's not how we do it in pumps. I mean, in pumps, 

3 if --

4 MR. HARTLEIN: Right. Well, why don't we --

5 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah.

6 MR. HARTLEIN: Go ahead.

7 MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, in pumps, if you're 

8 putting together different parts in the field in terms 

9 of adding a motor, adding a drive system or controls 

10 for lack of a better term, and one manufacturer sells 

11 the bare pump, then the bare pump has the tools and 

12 ability to rate as a system as if they had the motors 

13 and controls already, in addition to rating the whole 

14 kit, if they had a specific bare pump-specific motor 

15 and specific control system or drive package that 

16 they're all putting together in a box. So it goes 

17 both ways. So it doesn't go downstream, in other 

18 words.

19 MR. HARTLEIN: Yeah. But I think the 

20 difficult thing in the room, especially with AHRI, is 

21 they may buy an impeller from a fan manufacturer, and 

22 at what point does that get packaged into what's 

23 considered a testable -- I mean, that's the big issue, 

24 right?

25 MR. JASINSKI: So I think we're going to get 
32

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 to all of that in some of these slides.

2 MR. HARTLEIN: Right. Okay.

3 MR. JASINSKI: So maybe this is a good 

4 reason why we save the points of discussion for 

5 afterwards and maybe we can come back to them.

6 MR. HARTLEIN: All right. Sure.

7 MS. ARMSTRONG: But purely for a fan 

8 manufacturer -- and poor Sam. I told him I would be 

9 interrupting him on every slide here, but --

10 MR. JASINSKI: I'm used to it.

11 MS. ARMSTRONG: I think what we were trying 

12 to get at this point is do fan manufacturers actually 

13 sell kits, purely fan. Do you sell kits where you 

14 have the shaft, the housing, the structure, everything 

15 in there almost preassembled -- or not assembled but 

16 unassembled in a box.

17 MALE VOICE: A combination.

18 MS. ARMSTRONG: And it sounds like the 

19 answer is yes. Just chime in. It's fine. I don't 

20 really do this very well.

21 MR. HAUER: Armin Hauer for ebm-pabst. Yes, 

22 I have seen it in Europe and in Asia where forward23 curved blower impellers, forward-curved impellers, are 

24 sold inside of squirrel cage housings, but no motor 

25 and no motor mount. So it's two loose components 
33

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 lying inside of each other.

2 MR. HARTLEIN: In the industrial fan 

3 business -- Dan Hartlein, TCF -- industrial fan 

4 business, we quite often will ship a kit, as you're 

5 saying, broken down because the fan is large enough 

6 that it can't get through the access doors or, you 

7 know, it's typically in a replacement or in a 

8 construction site sometimes as well. So you have a 

9 disassembled or a field-erected fan in that case. And 

10 certainly the 200-horsepower range would get us into 

11 that in some cases.

12 MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly at AAON. I just 

13 wanted to ask a question. I'm not real familiar with 

14 the pump rule because I don't get too involved with 

15 it. But when you rated a pump just, you know, as 

16 we're using this kind of as an analogy, did you rate 

17 the pump performance flange to flange? Did you 

18 include suction diffusers and triple-duty valves and 

19 all the things that get directly connected to the 

20 pump? Because that would be kind of similar to inlet 

21 vanes or many of the other accessories that end up on 

22 fans, backdraft dampers. I'm just trying to draw --

23 where is the circle drawn in a kit?

24 MS. ARMSTRONG: So that's a valid question. 

25 So I think it's not necessarily a one to one. We 
34

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 could definitely do whatever we want here. I don't 

2 think all the accessories that are necessarily 

3 included are included in the pumps. There is some 

4 streamlining there to make it easier to test and come 

5 up with ratings. There is a what I would call wire6 to-water metric that would encompass most of what's 

7 there in the system as a whole. But, yeah, let's go 

8 to the next slide and see if that helps with some of 

9 the details with regards to fans specifically.

10 MR. BOSWELL: Diane, did your point get 

11 covered?

12 MS. JAKOBS: Oh, this is Diane Jakobs. I 

13 was just going to say that we talk about blower kits, 

14 but I think we've done everything, you know, depending 

15 on like who the supplier is and what the costs are and 

16 whether we could buy the motor cheaper. It would be a 

17 housing, wheel kit, or, you know, it all just depends.

18 MR. WAGNER: I'll dovetail with that. This 

19 is Greg Wagner with Morrison. We sell impellers. We 

20 sell impellers with housings. We sell housings 

21 without impellers. We sell housings, impeller shafts, 

22 and that is complete assemblies. We also sell 

23 motorized. You can get pretty much any combination of 

24 bits and parts, if you will. It just depends upon 

25 what your need is from a manufacturing and a product 
35

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 standpoint because oftentimes, as we've said many 

2 times, the housing and other parts are often built 

3 into the unit itself as part of the structure, as part 

4 of the need for heat transfer.

5 MR. JASINSKI: So I'll keep going, but just 

6 to give a little bit of a spoiler, the box or the 

7 circle that you were talking about, Mark, you guys are 

8 going to see that later. And the intent here is to 

9 come up with a set of definitions for testable 

10 configuration that will allow the working group to 

11 draw that box, come to some agreement on where that 

12 box should be drawn, and rely on those definitions to 

13 make sure that -- where those definitions provide 

14 clarity about where that box is drawn and that it's 

15 drawn where the working group wants it to be drawn.

16 So here are the fan categories that were 

17 agreed upon by the working group last time. We spent 

18 some time on these definitions. For instance, if 

19 anybody remembers the discussion about the centrifugal 

20 fan definition, and we added the word predominantly, 

21 you'll see it in there.

22 So these have been discussed by the working 

23 group, so I won't go through them in any detail. I'll 

24 just leave them up and let anybody bring up any points 

25 for discussion that they want to. If there aren't 
36

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 any, then we can move on. Meg?

2 MS. WALTNER: So this may be too in the 

3 weeds. Meg Waltner from NRDC. For the definition of 

4 inline fans, Ashley, using the term "designed to be 

5 mounted," can you pick up an inline fan and know 

6 whether it was designed to be mounted, or do we need 

7 to be more specific in that definition?

8 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I think DOE would prefer 

9 not to use "designed" or "intended to". We try to 

10 stay away from that in our definitions now. But, you 

11 know, obviously, if people have suggestions, that 

12 would be welcome.

13 MR. WOLF: Sam, Mike Wolf, Greenheck. You 

14 know, in the NODA, if I remember right, we talked 

15 about ducted or nonducted, and then these categories 

16 were kind of subcategories under those two broader 

17 categories.

18 MR. JASINSKI: Mm-hmm.

19 MR. WOLF: I'd like to somehow get back to 

20 that discussion at some point.

21 MR. JASINSKI: The unducted versus ducted?

22 MR. WOLF: Yeah, and where these things 

23 might fall into those, because that also might give 

24 some better response to Meg's issue. I just didn't 

25 know when to bring it up.
37

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. JASINSKI: Okay.

2 MR. WOLF: You're welcome. Mike Wolf.

3 MR. JASINSKI: So Mike basically presented 

4 this slide for me. This adds a column that separates 

5 these into the ducted and unducted categories that 

6 Mike is talking about. So the following -- this table 

7 lists the tentative equipment classes that DOE would 

8 like to discuss. You can see that the equipment 

9 classes themselves, which are tentative, align with 

10 the categories that were on the previous slide, except 

11 the inline and mixed flow are combined. And then to 

12 the far right, we have another column to just show how 

13 these equipment classes map to the AMCA-suggested 

14 categories in their comment on the first NODA I 

15 believe.

16 MR. WOLF: Sam, Mike Wolf here again. So 

17 I'll just throw this out to the group. You know, I 

18 participated in some of the AMCA discussions as well 

19 as some of the AHRI discussions, so, you know, I feel 

20 like I'm on a fence and, you know, know what that can 

21 feel like or some of us might.

22 Anyway, I guess a suggestion I'd have is 

23 maybe in helping to move this discussion forward on 

24 these embedded products I'll call it, maybe add 

25 another column to this table because some of these 
38

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 categories potentially fall into embedded and some do 

2 not.

3 MR. JASINSKI: Okay.

4 MR. WOLF: So, if they don't, maybe we can 

5 somehow move past that and just focus on the few I 

6 think that might fall into those embedded fan 

7 discussions. So just a suggestion.

8 MR. JASINSKI: Yeah. I mean, if the working 

9 group wants to do that, I can edit these in real time 

10 before we get into the discussion of the testable 

11 configurations.

12 MR. WHITWELL: This is Bob Whitwell. A 

13 question just to clarify. So the powered roof 

14 ventilator, that sounds like an application to me I 

15 guess. So, I mean, that's a certain type of fan 

16 that's being used in that device?

17 MR. JASINSKI: So I think this was part of 

18 the discussions last time in that that category itself 

19 is a little bit different than the other equipment 

20 classes or the equipment classes that we have listed 

21 here. So, again, I think it's up to the working group 

22 to discuss whether the power roof ventilator is a 

23 piece of equipment that has an embedded fan or is 

24 considered a fan itself. And like I said before, when 

25 we get into the definitions of testable configuration, 
39

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 you'll see we have some template slides queued up for 

2 the group that include some cases like this that were 

3 brought up in the past meeting and cases that DOE and 

4 the contractors thought might test some of the 

5 definitions that we're coming up with as a means of 

6 evaluating them and ultimately tweaking them to 

7 address cases like the power roof ventilator in the 

8 way that the working group wants.

9 MR. FLY: Mark Fly with AAON. This is a 

10 little bit convoluted because like housed centrifugal 

11 fans are many times applied inside of embedded 

12 equipment, unducted. And there is significant --

13 especially in FC fans, there's a significant 

14 difference between ducting it with two and a half, 

15 three times outlet area duct diameter and just blowing 

16 into a coil or a heater. So, you know, even though I 

17 think the ducted and unducted has its place, almost 

18 any of these can be applied unducted. You can apply a 

19 vaneaxial fan unducted. Your performance would 

20 suffer.

21 MR. SMITH: This is Wade Smith from AMCA. 

22 When we chose the categories and placed them into the 

23 master category, if you will, ducted and unducted, it 

24 was a reflection of how the fan is normally applied 

25 and how it's normally tested and normally catalogued. 
40

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 There are exceptions all around, but they aren't 

2 material. And so that's how those categories ended up 

3 as they did.

4 MR. BURDICK: I guess I would have a comment 

5 about Wade's last message there. Larry Burdick, SPX. 

6 And so I would say that it is material about what 

7 type of duct is around the fan, you know, whether it 

8 has some type of an eased inlet or any other extension 

9 off the exhaust, you know, particular the axial 

10 housed. I don't know that you can just put them in 

11 the vane or tube category on the right column or that 

12 they would be best represented --

13 MR. SMITH: Well, let me be specific, all 

14 right? A vaneaxial fan and a tubeaxial fan are 

15 designed to be attached to discharged ductwork. 

16 That's how they're designed, and that's normally how 

17 they're applied, and that's certainly how the catalog 

18 ratings are established.

19 A panel fan is by definition -- of course, 

20 we haven't seen the definition, but the definition 

21 that we submitted is designed to not be ducted on its 

22 outlet. It doesn't have any duct attachment 

23 mechanisms. And so it's an unducted fan application. 

24 And when it's rated in the catalog, it's tested in an 

25 unducted configuration.
41

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. BURDICK: So I would interpret that 

2 unducted would mean that it has infinite tip 

3 clearance, has no --

4 MR. SMITH: No, no, no, no. The duct. 

5 We're not talking about the fan housing. We're 

6 talking about duct, ductwork.

7 MR. BURDICK: Okay.

8 MR. SMITH: Okay?

9 MR. JASINSKI: Okay. So again I think this 

10 discussion is important, but I think most of these 

11 discussions will gain more traction once we get into 

12 the definitions themselves because these points can 

13 become discussions around how the definitions 

14 themselves might actually be changed in order to 

15 address some of these issues, and some of them might 

16 also be metric or test procedure issues that will also 

17 be discussed later.

18 So I guess the question is do we want to get 

19 into the definitions, or does the working group want 

20 to follow Mike's suggestion of adding a column and 

21 trying at some high level to tag which of these fan 

22 categories end up embedded in other products and which 

23 ones don't?

24 MR. WOLF: This is Mike here from Greenheck 

25 again. The third option might be, how many more 
42

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 slides do you have? Do we just paw through and hear 

2 them all?

3 MR. JASINSKI: I think we probably --

4 MS. ARMSTRONG: Twenty.

5 MR. JASINSKI: Yeah.

6 MS. ARMSTRONG: And they're going to get 

7 really detailed really quickly.

8 MR. WOLF: Yeah.

9 MS. ARMSTRONG: So keep going? Okay. So go 

10 back one slide, Sam, before we keep going. So, on the 

11 left slide, where it says ducted, unducted, that 

12 really is going to come into play as Sam goes through 

13 each of the what we call equipment classes. Equipment 

14 classes is a regulatory term. It means something in 

15 DOE's regs. It's how we differentiate products and 

16 groupings of products for the purposes of setting or 

17 at least analyzing different standard levels. So they 

18 have to have certain criteria within the statute to be 

19 able to establish separate equipment classes. So 

20 we've consolidated some of the original categories 

21 that were looked at in the AMCA and the advocate 

22 proposal because we believe this is how you make them 

23 consistent with our statutory requirements for 

24 equipment classes.

25 When it comes down to ducted and unducted, 
43

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 that really gets to how you determine the rating. And 

2 if it's intended to be used in an unducted or ducted 

3 application, I completely agree that it will impact 

4 the rating, but perhaps we want to streamline this for 

5 the purposes of test burden and make the rating for a 

6 given equipment class consistent with either a ducted 

7 or an unducted configuration so that you're not doing 

8 both, if they could ever show up in both. Does that 

9 make sense? Everyone is just staring at me. You can 

10 say yes. All right. Move along.

11 MR. JASINSKI: Okay. So now I'll get into 

12 the testable configuration concept. And before diving 

13 into the 20-plus slides, keep in mind that the 

14 intention, the purpose of these is to add some content 

15 around the concept of the testable configuration that 

16 was discussed in the form of definitions that are 

17 constructed around the basic components of a fan, 

18 which are up for discussion. What a basic component 

19 might be, might not be is up to the working group.

20 And then once we go through those 

21 definitions, we've also included some slides, as I 

22 alluded to, that we can use as a tool to evaluate 

23 those definitions, understand their impacts in terms 

24 of what's being tested, who's testing it, and some 

25 additional template slides that have cases that are of 
44

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 particular interest to the working group in terms of 

2 what those impacts in those particular cases would be 

3 for the working group to discuss and tweak the 

4 definitions as they see fit in order to get the 

5 impacts that the working group desires. So that's the 

6 goal.

7 So a testable configuration is the assembled 

8 configuration of fan components required to test for 

9 compliance with the DOE standard. This is sort of 

10 just the underlying concept, a guiding definition, if 

11 you will, but there will be more detailed definitions 

12 following.

13 So here is an overview of the testable 

14 configuration approach. Each equipment class will 

15 have a different definition of testable configuration 

16 which will state the fan components required and the 

17 functional requirements of those components to meet 

18 the definition of testable configuration.

19 The working group agreed that testable 

20 configurations will only include parts that are 

21 structural or that impact fan aerodynamic performance, 

22 not accessories such as a grill or casings or 

23 weatherization only. This was from last meeting's 

24 discussion. Distinct equipment class definitions of 

25 testable configuration allow for differentiation 
45

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 between the fan categories we've been discussing and 

2 determination of the physical boundaries of the fan. 

3 Testable configuration definitions provide instruction 

4 on the party responsible for testing.

5 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I'm going to -- yeah, I'm 

6 going to clarify that last -- can we modify that last 

7 bullet?

8 MR. JASINSKI: Yeah.

9 MS. ARMSTRONG: So it's not going to be the 

10 party responsible for compliance. What testing 

11 configuration potentially allows us to do is to 

12 streamline the party responsible for testing. Now, if 

13 somebody is importing that fan or otherwise making a 

14 fan, there could be responsibilities that that person 

15 or entity may have with regards to compliance. But if 

16 the fan manufacturer has already tested that, that 

17 other party may be able, depending on the scheme that 

18 we set up, to get that test data from the fan 

19 manufacturer, thus avoiding the need to retest or 

20 eliminating their own test burden if they're a 

21 different entity that falls under the scope of the 

22 rule.

23 So it's a way, we've done this in other 

24 regulations, but it's a way to help alleviate some of 

25 the test burden on multiple entities that may touch 
46

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 the same fan depending on where we fall out on 

2 testable configuration. That being said, compliance 

3 with standards will still be responsible -- they would 

4 still be responsible for compliance with standards.

5 MR. JASINSKI: Any questions at this point 

6 before I get into the equipment class definitions of 

7 testable configuration?

8 MR. MATHSON: Sam?

9 MR. JASINSKI: Yeah.

10 MR. MATHSON: Tim Mathson from Greenheck. I 

11 just thought maybe we should discuss a little bit 

12 about what impact the market should have in this 

13 decision. We've got many catalogs out there with 

14 tested performance based on what the customers would 

15 like to see in tested performance, and should that be 

16 part of this?

17 MR. JASINSKI: Yes. Any other comments, 

18 questions?

19 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, if we get to something 

20 for which it is inconsistent with how you're doing 

21 things today, please speak up.

22 MR. JASINSKI: So here is that same diagram 

23 that was presented earlier. It's been recast a little 

24 bit. I was told that these were edited before. Okay. 

25 We'll just do it in real time.
47

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MS. JAKOBS: So this is Diane Jakobs from 

2 Rheem. So this thing about it being available in a 

3 catalog, that seems pretty definitive to me. Would 

4 that be a testable, I mean, configuration if it was 

5 offered for sale as a standalone component in a 

6 catalog?

7 MS. ARMSTRONG: I think that's something we 

8 could consider. I think it depends, right? What I 

9 understood at least the gentleman asking was, you 

10 know, if we make representations today of certain fan 

11 efficiency -- I don't know what's going on with this. 

12 If we make certain representations today of fan 

13 efficiency and you guys end up changing that, you 

14 change that methodology or you change that testable 

15 configuration such that it would change the way our 

16 ratings look today, should we note that or should we 

17 consider those changes. And my response to him was 

18 absolutely. You should inform us if we are changing 

19 anything that you're doing today. We'd like to 

20 understand what you're doing today. I think you're 

21 going to see there's a good consistency here, but we 

22 might have missed something.

23 But, yeah, I mean, I don't think that's a 

24 line for what's in and what's out. But if somebody is 

25 making fan representations today, conceivably they're 
48

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 figuring how to test it somehow, right?

2 MR. JASINSKI: So the takeaway from this 

3 diagram is essentially to say that in that 

4 distribution diagram that we showed earlier, 

5 essentially there are a lot of potential points where 

6 a testable configuration could occur and where testing 

7 would be required. And I think the best way to think 

8 about what we're going to discuss in these next slides 

9 is that depending on what the working group determines 

10 the definitions for each equipment class should be, 

11 we'll determine which of these get filled in and 

12 become the actual points of the testable configuration 

13 and where testing would be required.

14 So presumably at the end of this exercise, 

15 with a set of definitions that the working group 

16 agrees to, we could fill in this diagram and make it 

17 definitive for each or many of the fans that are 

18 available now within the scope.

19 MS. JAKOBS: This is Diane. You have two 

20 stars in line with OEM. Would you consider that there 

21 should only be one star between the user and the 

22 manufacturer just in general? You just need one star, 

23 one or the other maybe, or --

24 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I think ultimately that's 

25 where we're going in terms of setting up this whole 
49

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 approach where potentially at least what we're hopeful 

2 the discussion will lead to is a strategy for which 

3 the OEM either could use information already readily 

4 available to them about the fans they purchase, or if 

5 the working group decides that they should be tested 

6 in a different manner, then that it would shift to the 

7 OEM. It depends.

8 I think ultimately the person responsible 

9 may be both. However, that responsibility for the 

10 second star could be as simple as retaining records 

11 that show you purchased a fan that had tested already 

12 from a fan manufacturer, like a transfer kind of 

13 thing. It all depends on what we ultimately end up 

14 deciding on how to test these things, the metric, and 

15 what the testable configuration is. Does that make 

16 sense?

17 MS. JAKOBS: Yeah, I think so. I think one 

18 of the concerns is that if we purchase a fan that was 

19 designed with no real specifics about how it would be 

20 applied, that the operation in the final configuration 

21 would change.

22 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. So you would be 

23 arguing for that second star, but then you would be 

24 shifting the test responsibility to you.

25 MS. JAKOBS: Well, no.
50

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MS. ARMSTRONG: I'm not sure that's what you 

2 want either. So that's what -- I mean, that's --

3 MS. JAKOBS: Yeah.

4 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- what this discussion is 

5 all about. You can't have it two ways. And I'm not 

6 sure what the best way is, but to the extent that 

7 certain fans ultimately get included in OEM equipment 

8 are included in scope here, and since we don't have 

9 data to suggest what that scope may be, we're going to 

10 have the discussion open-ended here.

11 But you either test them at the blue dot 

12 before the OEM, which is like a fan manufacturer test. 

13 It would be more of a less-applied test. Or you test 

14 them like the right, in which case they're embedded in 

15 and it would be more like an applied test. Depending 

16 on what you do there, a different person would be the 

17 person testing. That is up for discussion here.

18 MS. JAKOBS: Well, so I don't know if 

19 someone else -- but just to me that would depend on 

20 the test procedure. So would it be --

21 MS. ARMSTRONG: Well, do you have a 

22 suggestion?

23 MS. JAKOBS: Yeah, I think there are a lot 

24 of things we could do. It's just which one or, you 

25 know, it comes down to specifics. And that's, I 
51

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 think, why we're struggling with there are so many 

2 applications, so many ways that fans are used. It's 

3 hard to come up with a single plan.

4 MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly with AAON. As I 

5 look at this, one thing that kind of occurs to me, and 

6 I'm going back a little bit, but when you look at the 

7 fan definition, you defined it basically as an 

8 impeller, the drive, the structure, and anything that 

9 affects it aerodynamically, which I assume, you know, 

10 when I look at impellers, I think impellers and inlet 

11 cones.

12 What is the reasoning behind structure other 

13 than that holds the pieces together? Because, I mean, 

14 a lot of the fans that we sell as embedded products 

15 get sold as unembedded products if you just looked at 

16 the impeller and inlet cone, possibly the drive and 

17 motor. But our structure is different because it's 

18 integrated into the unit. And the structure gets 

19 involved in all the cabinetry around it, and that's 

20 one of the big hangups that we have is where does the 

21 cabinet start and stop and end, and how many 

22 components are included in that when we draw that box 

23 around that fan. So --

24 MR. WHITWELL: And can you really put

25 that -- can you put that together in a testable 
52

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 combination, right?

2 MR. FLY: That might not be as you applied 

3 it but is a testable combination.

4 MR. STARR: So this is Louis with NEEA. One 

5 thought, just to kind of follow up with what Diane was 

6 saying, is perhaps a sub-working group that would kind 

7 of handle the topics you were just discussing. It 

8 sounds like a fairly technical thing. Maybe some AMCA 

9 members along with some of the manufacturers together 

10 can come up with some thoughts on that because it 

11 sounds like a fairly detailed item. I don't know. 

12 Would that be valuable, Diane, or do you see it as a 

13 waste of time?

14 MS. JAKOBS: I think there's kind of a 

15 difference between the AMCA products and my products, 

16 just the way they're used and the way they're sold and 

17 the way they're tested, so I don't know that blending 

18 us, you know, will eliminate any roadblocks, so --

19 MALE VOICE: (Away from microphone.)

20 MR. SMITH: This is Wade from AMCA. I think 

21 the question is for those of you that are buying fans 

22 and embedding them in your products, what do you want? 

23 Not what could it be. It could be many things. But 

24 the question is what do you want it to be.

25 MS. SHEPHERD: So, on this, Ashley, you 
53

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 mentioned that there were other examples that you had 

2 where you had done this sort of dual situation. And 

3 so where I'm confused is it looks like there's two 

4 manufacturers here, as opposed to a normal situation 

5 where whoever purchases the fan is the consumer. In 

6 this case, if a OEM purchases a fan, then they're the 

7 consumer, and then they have a testing burden behind 

8 that. So can you explain that a little bit?

9 MS. ARMSTRONG: So you can hit me if I say 

10 something wrong, okay? I'm flying off the, you know, 

11 flying off my non-lawyer's hat here. So our 

12 definition of manufacturer is fairly broad under the 

13 statute depending on how certain companies are 

14 situated. We do have regulations, you know, and the 

15 compliance responsibilities, certification 

16 responsibilities, testing responsibilities shift a 

17 little bit.

18 But we have a situation now that we have 

19 regulations in place for ceiling fan light kits. The 

20 regulated product is the ceiling fan light kit. It's 

21 essentially a bulb standard. Most of the 

22 manufacturers of ceiling fan light kits, while they 

23 have their responsibility for compliance and testing, 

24 utilize bulb manufacturers' test data. Bulbs are also 

25 regulated under DOE's regs too. So we've harmonized 
54

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 that in a -- we put them in a position to utilize the 

2 test data and maintain it. But it doesn't -- you 

3 know, it's not in a -- it's not a one-to-one 

4 situation. It's a little bit different.

5 Like I said, we heard some feedback about 

6 burden and compliance, so we've teed this up as a 

7 discussion point. We would have to take it back to 

8 discuss what this structure would look like, how it 

9 works with DOE's regs, that kind of stuff. But 

10 there's no point in me doing that if it's not even 

11 something that people around the table are receptive 

12 to, so I think it really does get back to Wade's 

13 point. What do you want? And the answer -- you know, 

14 we're here to negotiate in good faith standards and 

15 test procedures and a metric and definitions. So the 

16 ask is what is it that you actually want. How does 

17 this work for you?

18 MS. JAKOBS: So this is Diane Jakobs from 

19 Rheem. I think if I bought a certified fan to put in 

20 my piece of equipment, I would not want to have to 

21 test it a second time.

22 MS. ARMSTRONG: I think what we're trying to 

23 do is find a way that that's -- we can find a way to 

24 do that, and testable configuration was the first way 

25 we -- was the easiest way we thought that that might 
55

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 could be accomplished here going forward, that if 

2 otherwise we could define the testable configuration 

3 to be that star in front of you, you might otherwise 

4 have access to test data that ultimately would allow 

5 you not to have to test. But you still have to 

6 comply.

7 Anyway, so, Sam, why don't you keep going 

8 with the --

9 MS. SHEPHERD: Actually, I had a question on 

10 that. But I think that -- and I think our position is 

11 if covered products are not included, that's also an 

12 avenue to that resolution. And I still think there's 

13 going to be -- and I would suggest that DOE take this 

14 back and look at it from a legal perspective. But 

15 there's two manufacturers of one product in the how 

16 that is set up, so --

17 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, I mean, we'll certainly 

18 take it back and look at it, and it may be that 

19 ultimately the lawyers say we can't find a way to do 

20 that, and you guys are responsible for testing, and 

21 you have to test twice anyway, you know, because of 

22 this and other things.

23 You know, we told you otherwise, though, 

24 last week that I think the working group was happy to 

25 entertain potentially a subset of exclusions or 
56

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 discussions of those, but a self-declaration of I'm 

2 already regulated wasn't going to work. And then to 

3 support that, we've asked for data. So we're happy to 

4 continue the discussions, but I think they're stalled 

5 right now or put on the back burner until we get data 

6 to have those discussions. So we're going to keep 

7 going.

8 MS. SHEPHERD: But I think there's a 

9 fundamental question before you get to the data as to 

10 DOE's legal authority to regulate in this way, and 

11 that's our point, and I think that that's the 

12 discussion that we'd like to have because this is a 

13 situation where the OEM is the consumer. And there is 

14 a manufacturer, and then the OEM is a consumer, and 

15 then as a consumer now, they have a burden. And I 

16 think that DOE only has the authority to impose that 

17 burden on a manufacturer, so I don't see how you can 

18 have two.

19 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. So we can take it 

20 back and talk to our legal counsel, and it may be at 

21 the end of the day that embedded products are required 

22 to test in and of themselves, if we can't find a way 

23 to do this.

24 MR. FERNSTROM: Ashley, this is Gary. 

25 Didn't DOE explore -- excuse me -- a broader 
57

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 definition of manufacturer in the context of the 

2 regional split system air conditioning standards where 

3 various parties along the supply chain were deemed to 

4 have responsibilities that sort of aligned with what 

5 manufacturers do? So even though a manufacturer might

6 be a consumer of a fan, they're also a manufacturer to 

7 the extent that they put the fan inside some sort of 

8 shroud which affects its performance, and that makes 

9 them a second-order manufacturer.

10 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I'm not prepared to 

11 answer that one on the spot here. Like I said, I can 

12 tee it up for legal. You know, some of this has been 

13 teed up internally already, so I think what we were 

14 trying to do is be receptive to some of the concerns 

15 we had heard last week or a week ago about, you know, 

16 is there any way we could figure out a way to thread 

17 the needle such that perhaps the OEM wouldn't have to 

18 test or if some of the products end up in scope. So 

19 this was just one idea.

20 Sam, why don't we move into the details.

21 MR. JASINSKI: Yeah. I think once we get 

22 into this, like Ashley said, she can look into those 

23 things. And there are cases outside of what's being 

24 discussed now that maybe the working group can make 

25 some progress on in the meantime with these testable 
58

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 configuration definitions.

2 So, to continue discussing the approach, all 

3 equipment class definitions of testable configuration 

4 will require the same basic fan components. Here you 

5 can see in the cards on the left-hand side are the 

6 required components, impeller, blades, shaft and 

7 bearings, housing or structure. Not required just as 

8 part of these working definitions are transmission 

9 components, driver components, or controls components.

10 A note at the bottom here, not requiring 

11 transmission, driver, and controls components will 

12 result in standard levels that do not account for the 

13 costs and benefits of these components but will not 

14 preclude manufacturers from using these components to 

15 increase equipment efficiency for testing.

16 MR. BURDICK: Are you going to change that 

17 word, or is that going to be compliance?

18 MR. JASINSKI: I'm going to change it.

19 MS. JAKOBS: This is Diane Jakobs. So you 

20 were just saying you could test it with a motor and 

21 without one?

22 MR. JASINSKI: So we haven't gotten to the 

23 test procedure discussion, but the point of this is to 

24 describe a similar situation to what Ashley was 

25 talking about with pumps in that test procedures can 
59

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 be structured in a way that allows to test I guess 

2 what we would call a bare shaft fan in this scenario 

3 for compliance with a DOE standard but also allow for 

4 testing with higher efficiency motors, higher 

5 efficiency controls, et cetera, to improve efficiency 

6 for compliance. But those components under this type 

7 of approach would not be considered in the analysis as 

8 design options to set the levels.

9 MR. FLY: Mark Fly with AAON. There is a 

10 difference, though, between pumps and fans in that the 

11 drive component or the motor component has an 

12 aerodynamic effect, and in a pump, I don't think that 

13 the drive -- that the driver generally -- I can't 

14 think of any pump in which case the driver is sitting 

15 in the impeller area. So, I mean, it makes a big 

16 difference. Even belt drives and fan guards and all 

17 those things have a big effect on how they are. So, 

18 you know, one of our concerns is the combinations and 

19 permutations that this creates as you have products 

20 that have all kinds of applications.

21 MR. WOLF: Sam, Mike Wolf. Mike Wolf here, 

22 Sam. Sorry, Steve. So what I have envisioned in my 

23 mind right now is the slide where we talked about 

24 having wire-to-air, where you had, you know, kind of a 

25 green line around the fan and then the drive and then 
60

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 the motor, and then I think the control was the fourth 

2 box there. So help me understand how this relates to 

3 that, because it appears you're giving an option now 

4 on some of these not required components that were 

5 part of that overall box last time.

6 MR. DIKEMAN: The way, the way that -- I'll 

7 let Sanaee answer.

8 MS. IYAMA: Hi, Mike. So, if we go back to 

9 that slide we presented last time, remember there was 

10 a box, the last box on the right, which had the 

11 impeller in it, the testable configuration is trying 

12 to define what's in that box. And then in addition to 

13 that, what we're calling the bare shaft fan or the 

14 nondriven fan on that slide, you could have a driver, 

15 some transmission, controls, but we're not trying to 

16 delineate those right now. In the testable 

17 configuration concept, we're really trying to define 

18 the physical boundaries of the nondriven fan.

19 MR. DIKEMAN: Steve, Sam, Steve Dikeman. 

20 Just a couple of wiggle rooms here. An arrangement 

21 for plenum fan is mounted directly on the motor shaft. 

22 There are no fan bearings. There are no fan shaft. 

23 So now that shaft and bearings is actually the motor 

24 shaft and bearings.

25 MR. JASINSKI: So --
61

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. DIKEMAN: And there is no structural 

2 housing.

3 MR. JASINSKI: Right. So those are great 

4 questions for when we get into these definitions.

5 MR. DIKEMAN: Okay.

6 MR. JASINSKI: And at the end, you'll see we 

7 have --

8 MR. DIKEMAN: You've got it?

9 MR. JASINSKI: Yeah. We --

10 MR. DIKEMAN: Bingo, okay.

11 MR. JASINSKI: We have it.

12 MR. DIKEMAN: Thank you.

13 MR. JASINSKI: Yeah. We have a case like 

14 that, and it's actually in the point of discussion at 

15 the bottom of the slide. So, in some cases, a shaft 

16 is not part of the fan assembly until a motor is 

17 added. Should the shaft be a required component for 

18 testable configurations?

19 MR. DIKEMAN: Okay. I didn't read through 

20 what you had.

21 MR. JASINSKI: That's okay. And again, I 

22 don't think we should try to answer this now. I think 

23 the group will have -- that discussion will be more 

24 fruitful once we get into the testable configurations.

25 Any other questions, comments, before I 
62

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 continue?

2 (No response.)

3 MR. JASINSKI: So this is just a recap of 

4 the possible fan component definitions that were 

5 discussed in the last working group meeting. You'll 

6 see they align with what was in that box of required 

7 fan components for the testable configuration 

8 definitions. Anything to discuss here before I start 

9 getting into the equipment class definitions for 

10 testable configuration?

11 (No response.)

12 MR. JASINSKI: So here is our first example 

13 of a testable configuration definition, and as you can 

14 see, we provided it in table form because we wanted to 

15 show how it was constructed based on the list of 

16 components in that list of required fan components.

17 So for axial housed testable configuration, 

18 you have the required component of the impeller or 

19 blades. Here the functional description is that it 

20 has to be an axial impeller. For the shaft and 

21 bearings required components, the functional 

22 requirements for those are that they are secured to 

23 the housing such that the impeller or blade can be 

24 driven. The housing directs air flow parallel to axis 

25 of rotation across blades and acts as primary mounting 
63

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 structure for shaft and bearings and driver. And they 

2 also will be mounting structure for guide vanes and 

3 the bell, et cetera.

4 And finally, structure, in this case, 

5 housing acts as a primary structure. So you'll see 

6 there is some text highlighted or made bold. The 

7 intent here is that once we go to other definitions, 

8 you'll see that these can be points of differentiation 

9 from the definition of testable configuration from 

10 other equipment classes in order to help draw that 

11 line where the working group wants to draw that line 

12 in terms of the difference between an axial housed 

13 testable configuration and an axial unhoused testable 

14 configuration.

15 So why don't I actually go to the next one, 

16 which is axial unhoused, to provide one example of how 

17 two definitions might work together to create a 

18 situation, a certain situation for differentiating 

19 between two fans and whether that's the way the 

20 working group wants those to be differentiated.

21 So here is the definition, testable 

22 configuration definition of axial unhoused. 

23 Similarly, impeller blades, axial, shaft and bearings 

24 secured to structural components as opposed to the 

25 housing in the previous definition, such that the 
64

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 impeller or blade can be driven. Housing, there is no 

2 housing by definition. Structure not intended to 

3 guide air flow parallel to axis of rotation across 

4 blades. This is specifically to be differentiated 

5 from the definition of housing, but acts as primary 

6 mounting structure for shaft and bearings.

7 MR. FLY: So Mark Fly with AAON. So under 

8 this definition or this testable configuration, if I 

9 had the same unhoused fan with the same impeller and 

10 the same inlet cone but three different support 

11 structures for, let's say it's a direct drive for the 

12 motor, would that constitute three different regulated 

13 models?

14 MR. JASINSKI: Yeah. I don't --

15 MR. FLY: I'm asking you.

16 MS. ARMSTRONG: I just wasn't going to look. 

17 I thought after like we spent a lot of time together 

18 you could explain to the group basic model. So I 

19 think the answer is it depends. There's not a really 

20 good answer at this point because we don't have an 

21 agreement yet. We could do it a couple different 

22 ways. At least as far as the motor side is -- so the 

23 structure I don't know the answer to. It really 

24 depends on how we ultimately define what structure 

25 needs to be there for testing.
65

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 In terms of motors and drives, I think it 

2 just depends on what representations want to be made. 

3 If ultimately we move to a structure where, you know, 

4 if you have this base fan and it really is this base 

5 fan type configuration and you test the fan in this 

6 testable configuration, but ultimately to get to the 

7 metric you add up components for the drive and the 

8 transmission in the -- yeah. We can normalize that 

9 such that variations of those things don't make you 

10 have different models unless you wanted to claim the 

11 differentiation in more efficient motor and drive 

12 systems that you would otherwise -- so we could allow 

13 you to do that but not require you to do that. That 

14 would help streamline your burden.

15 So that's what we did in pumps kind of. But 

16 we could do that. That's not an issue.

17 MR. SMILEY: Bill Smiley, Trane. I have a 

18 question. According to this slide and the previous 

19 slide, this slide could apply to a ceiling fan or a 

20 table fan. The slide before could be a vaneaxial, 

21 tubeaxial, panel fan, condenser fan, anything. Is 

22 that intentional? I mean, what's the purpose here?

23 MR. JASINSKI: So the purpose is to 

24 differentiate between axial unhoused and axial housed. 

25 So, as Ashley said, this is not a statement from DOE 
66

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 as to what is the in scope and out of scope. So I 

2 would turn the question back to the working group and 

3 say, of those fans you listed, what do you want to be 

4 covered and how do you want them to be separated? And 

5 the point of, the intent of these definitions is to 

6 ask you how do we need to define structure in order to 

7 separate them the way the working group wants them to 

8 be separated.

9 So, for instance, you brought up tubeaxial 

10 versus panel. If you see at the bottom here, we have 

11 a point of discussion that says how can housing be 

12 defined for axial housed and unhoused to differentiate 

13 between the tube of a tubeaxial fan and the panel of a 

14 panel fan such that a tubeaxial falls into the axial 

15 housed category and a panel fan falls into the axial 

16 unhoused category if that's how the working group 

17 wants it to be. If not, you know, again --

18 MR. SMILEY: Yeah.

19 MR. JASINSKI: -- then I think -- so the 

20 answer is help us write these definitions in a way 

21 that covers, includes in the scope of the negotiations 

22 the fans that you want included and separates them the 

23 way you want them to be separated.

24 MR. HARTLEIN: So Dan Hartlein, TCF. I 

25 think what throws us a little bit in your point of 
67

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 discussion is I believe -- I know we as a company 

2 would and I would guess we as an industry would define 

3 a panel fan as a housed fan.

4 MR. JASINSKI: Okay.

5 MR. HARTLEIN: And maybe therein lies the 

6 discussion. A panel fan has an orifice. Typically, 

7 it has a controlled gap between the tip of the blade 

8 and the ring which it operates in. So I think that's 

9 the kind of thing you're looking for. The example 

10 might have thrown us a little bit because we would say 

11 those are both housed fans.

12 The table fan that somebody referenced a 

13 minute ago, where you see the propeller operating in a 

14 cage, which is simple there for safety reasons with no 

15 advantage to performance, to me would be an unhoused 

16 axial fan in that case. Or -- yeah, yeah. And, 

17 frankly, if we take that to a ridiculous level, that 

18 box fan that you throw in your window is in my mind a 

19 housed fan.

20 MR. JASINSKI: Okay. So for maybe the caged 

21 fan example that you give, I'll go back to the 

22 definition of axial housed. Does the definition of 

23 housing here -- is it sufficient for excluding that 

24 cage so that it would still fall under this definition 

25 of axial unhoused?
68

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. SMITH: Can I, please?

2 MR. JASINSKI: Wade.

3 MR. SMITH: This is Wade Smith. So, on this 

4 particular category, axial fans, it isn't very helpful 

5 to housed or unhoused. It's more helpful to look at 

6 the definitions of the different types of fans. What 

7 you've described as an unhoused axial fan here we 

8 would call a circulator fan.

9 MR. JASINSKI: Okay.

10 MR. SMITH: And a circulator fan 

11 distinguishes itself because there is no separation 

12 between the inlet and the outlet. In other words, the 

13 static pressure that the fan fights is zero because 

14 there's no separation from its inlet to its outlet. A 

15 panel fan is distinguished in that it does have a 

16 panel, a plate. It's designed to be mounted in a 

17 wall, in a panel, in a panel. That's why it's called 

18 a panel fan. And there is a differential, a pressure 

19 differential, from the suction side to the discharge 

20 side, and that is made possible by the existence of 

21 that panel.

22 So I think everything Dan said, and no sense 

23 repeating it. Basically, it's the same thing. But we 

24 would call this a circulator fan, and a circulator fan 

25 has a crisp definition that's a little different than 
69

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 that, and it has to do with this separation. So the 

2 box fan that you buy at K-Mart has no separation from 

3 the inlet to the outlet, and it's a circulator fan.

4 MR. JASINSKI: Okay.

5 MR. WAGNER: So let me add to that. It's 

6 Greg Wagner. I think that what we're trying to get to 

7 with those two separations is the ducted versus the 

8 unducted.

9 MR. SMITH: No.

10 MR. WAGNER: No? Because --

11 MR. SMITH: No. Because a panel fan is 

12 normally applied without ductwork --

13 MR. WAGNER: Right.

14 MR. SMITH: -- has no provision for ductwork 

15 at all --

16 MR. WAGNER: Right.

17 MR. SMITH: -- while a tubeaxial and a 

18 vaneaxial have provisions for ductwork and are 

19 normally --

20 MR. WAGNER: Right. So one is ducted, one 

21 is not ducted.

22 MR. SMITH: Right.

23 MR. WAGNER: That's what I'm getting at.

24 So --

25 MR. SMITH: So ducted and nonducted and 
70

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 housed and unhoused, it gets a little foggy.

2 MR. WAGNER: Right. And a fan operating as 

3 a panel fan or a circulating fan can be quite 

4 different, and you can make a difference in 

5 performance based upon what kind of orifice ventured, 

6 blade tip clearance, all those kind of things. So a 

7 panel fan versus a circulating fan, there is a big 

8 difference there.

9 MR. JASINSKI: So the question for the 

10 working group is which of those fans do you want to 

11 include in the scope, and depending on that answer, 

12 what changes can we make to these definitions in order 

13 to make that --

14 MR. SMITH: Well, in the work leading up to 

15 this public negotiation, included in our NODA comment 

16 was a request for an exclusion for circulating fans, 

17 largely because the connected load of circulating fans 

18 below one horsepower -- I mean above one -- at one 

19 horsepower and above is really small. It's a small 

20 market. And, you know, just in the interest of trying 

21 to focus on the things that matter most, we 

22 recommended that circulating fans be excluded.

23 MS. IYAMA: This is Sanaee. I think on this 

24 slide we're getting at trying to define the physical 

25 boundary of panel fans. So --
71

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. SMITH: What you have up here --

2 MS. IYAMA: -- if this is -- more to you 

3 seems like, you know, we didn't do a good job and it 

4 ended up looking more like we're defining circulating 

5 fans, we probably need to rework this.

6 MR. SMITH: I think the unhoused could be 

7 rewritten to define it as a circulating fan.

8 MR. JASINSKI: I mean, lay it on me. I'm 

9 ready to type.

10 MR. SMITH: Oh, we submitted it with our --

11 I mean, we'll bring it to the later meeting, okay?

12 MR. JASINSKI: Okay.

13 MR. SMITH: Because we've got it written up, 

14 and it's been kicked around and through our fan 

15 committee, and so --

16 MS. WALTNER: This is Meg. So I think part 

17 of the problem here and what's leading the confusion 

18 is back on Slide 8 we defined ducted and unducted and 

19 then said axial housed was ducted and axial unhoused 

20 was unducted, and axial unhoused includes panel fans. 

21 What I'm hearing is that panel fans are not unhoused 

22 fans. But that's what we're trying to capture in this 

23 unducted category, and you can see it does say we're 

24 trying to exclude -- or the intent is to exclude 

25 circulating fans. So I think it's not that we need
72

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 to -- I think we need to call this something other 

2 than axial unhoused fans if the intent under that 

3 category is to cover panel -- unducted axial fans.

4 MR. SMITH: So what you've got in the 

5 asterisk there, excluding circulating fans. And to 

6 us, an unducted axial fan is a circulating fan, so 

7 it's an oxymoron. Well, unducted, unhoused. I'm 

8 sorry. You're right.

9 MS. WALTNER: But a panel fan is a housed 

10 axial fan that is unducted generally.

11 MR. SMITH: Mm-hmm.

12 MS. WALTNER: Right. And I think that's 

13 what we want under that category.

14 MS. ARMSTRONG: So this is Ashley. And 

15 maybe this is my lack of fan expertise, but now you've 

16 completely confused me because what I thought you 

17 defined as a framework in the response to the 

18 framework -- you know, my understanding of a panel fan 

19 was an axial fan without a cylindrical housing which 

20 is mounted in an orifice, plate, or ring. And that's 

21 the definition you provided to us.

22 MR. SMITH: Right.

23 MS. ARMSTRONG: So how does that fit with 

24 this?

25 MR. SMITH: Well, it's a fan --
73

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MS. ARMSTRONG: Because that's what I call 

2 axial unhoused --

3 MR. SMITH: Okay. If I could just --

4 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- if I read that.

5 MR. SMITH: If I could just reword it, it's 

6 an axial fan mounted in an orifice ring, which is the 

7 housing, but it doesn't have a tube, right?

8 FEMALE VOICE: A different type of housing.

9 MR. SMITH: It's a different type of 

10 housing, exactly.

11 MALE VOICE: It's a really short tube.

12 FEMALE VOICE: It's housed, but --

13 MALE VOICE: But not ducted.

14 MALE VOICE: It's housed but unducted.

15 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I'm not worried about 

16 ducting so much because that's going to get to how we 

17 test. But I think what I'm hearing is that those two 

18 should be tested differently. So what is another way 

19 to talk about axial unhoused? I mean, how --

20 MR. SMITH: Circulator fan.

21 MALE VOICE: Yeah.

22 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's not --

23 MR. SMITH: All axial unhoused fans are 

24 circulator fans.

25 MALE VOICE: Yes.
74

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MS. ARMSTRONG: Can't we just call it panel 

2 fans?

3 MR. SMITH: No. A panel fan has a housing.

4 MS. ARMSTRONG: But I'm not trying to talk 

5 about the exclusion. I'm trying to talk about what's 

6 in. So I need another category for that, for my 

7 equipment class. And I think it's as simple as 

8 calling them panel fans.

9 MR. SMITH: Great.

10 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. We've made progress.

11 MR. HARTLEIN: No. I don't want to --

12 MS. ARMSTRONG: No?

13 MR. HARTLEIN: Yeah. Dan from TCF. I don't 

14 want to complicate this, but, Wade, a tubeaxial fan

15 sitting on a roof can be unducted.

16 MR. SMITH: Can be but normally isn't. 

17 Yeah. There's lots of can be's. But normally isn't.

18 MS. ARMSTRONG: So let me explain how this 

19 would work just as a theoretical. Any axial housed 

20 fan -- let's say we set up a structure like this. Any 

21 axial housed fan, for example, all vaneaxials, all 

22 tubeaxials, would be tested with ducted 

23 configurations, period, irrespective of how they're 

24 applied in the field.

25 Second, panel fans. Panel fans would be a 
75

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 separate equipment class, separate standards. They 

2 would be tested in an unducted configuration, period, 

3 end of story. The question is, are these

4 categories -- can you go back to your broad category 

5 for the first one?

6 MR. JASINSKI: This -- you want me to change 

7 back. Is that what you're saying?

8 MS. ARMSTRONG: I do. Are these categories 

9 as they are described by their general

10 characteristics -- we will need to define them -- are 

11 they -- I mean, do we have them correct at this point? 

12 The left side is going to be --

13 MR. SMITH: So the only thing, Ashley, is 

14 those of us -- this is Wade Smith. Those of us from 

15 AMCA think of a panel fan as a housed fan. And it's 

16 unducted, as you've said. But it's part of the first 

17 and the second group the way you have it.

18 MR. JASINSKI: Right. That's why I made 

19 that change, because now we have axial housed, and 

20 then we have panel, which is an axial housed.

21 MR. SMITH: What you've got there is fine, 

22 just so there's no confusion.

23 MR. JASINSKI: Yeah.

24 MS. ARMSTRONG: Does this do it?

25 MR. HARTLEIN: Dan from TCF. I think you've 
76

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 got axial housed and you've got -- or excuse me. 

2 You've got axial housed ducted and you've got axial 

3 housed unducted is what you have. And then you have 

4 an air circulator. I can give you 100 examples of 

5 axial fans which aren't ducted. There's a bunch of 

6 them.

7 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. So for the purpose of 

8 regulation, though, right, whether it's there with 

9 ducting or unducting, I don't think it matters too 

10 much other than it will be how it's rated, right? So, 

11 if I'm going to make a distinction here and make 

12 definitions for axial cylindrical -- no, axial housed 

13 ducted and axial housed unducted, that means every 

14 axial housed fan you have because you won't know it's 

15 being ducted or unducted you're going to have to test 

16 twice. I don't think that's what you want to do. 

17 It's going to meet both definitions.

18 MR. JASINSKI: I think what Ashley is saying 

19 is that --

20 MS. ARMSTRONG: Do you see where I'm going? 

21 I mean, that's why you need the distinction. It's 

22 not a plot. It's not how it's installed, with or 

23 without ducting, that gets to how it should be tested 

24 and represented. It's how it leaves your factory and 

25 what's the distinguishing point there.
77

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. JASINSKI: And, Ashley, correct me if 

2 I'm wrong. I think what you're also trying to say is 

3 that what we name the classes is not passing up the 

4 opportunity to keep the ducted versus unducted --

5 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right.

6 MR. JASINSKI: -- in the regulation. Like 

7 we're not ignoring that aspect. It's just that what 

8 we're saying in the regulatory world, the equipment 

9 class name, the unducted and ducted aspect is 

10 something that will have to be picked up elsewhere. 

11 There's other mechanisms for keeping that 

12 differentiation, not the equipment class name.

13 MS. ARMSTRONG: So my ask of you guys is how 

14 do we get that for axial housed fans that what you're 

15 calling unducted, essentially panel fans -- what is a 

16 good descriptor for them that you can say at the point 

17 of manufacture differentiates axial cylindrical housed 

18 versus axial maybe housed or otherwise?

19 MR. JASINSKI: So why don't we do --

20 MR. SMITH: In our definitions, it has to do 

21 with the accommodation for ductwork, a connection. 

22 But I think what you've got there is not wrong. I 

23 mean --

24 MR. BURDICK: Is the word cylindrical 

25 necessary?
78

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MS. ARMSTRONG: No.

2 MR. BURDICK: If it's not round, you've got 

3 a problem.

4 MS. ARMSTRONG: Well, if it's not round, it 

5 wouldn't be included here. So, if that's not our 

6 intent, we should take that word out.

7 MR. PERSFUL: This is Trinity with Clarage 

8 Fan Company. Just kind of a general question. What 

9 is the need for the equipment classes? Because, as I 

10 look, we have centrifugal -- later down in the slides 

11 we have centrifugal housed, and then we'll have 

12 radial. By putting these -- maybe an unintended 

13 consequence that we have when you put these in the 

14 different categories, you limit the amount of product 

15 substitution that we could have because the more 

16 categories that you put these in, you allow or you 

17 limit the amount of cross-pollenization. Or if I 

18 wanted to go from a radial fan to let's say a backward 

19 incline fan, now I'm crossing the streams.

20 And I don't know if that's an unintended 

21 consequence that we want to try to avoid because I'm 

22 not sure what the purpose of having -- it seems like 

23 we could just have two equipment classes, ducted and 

24 unducted.

25 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. So just at a high 
79

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 level, DOE divides products into equipment classes for 

2 the purposes of setting standards. If you were to 

3 have fans that fall into multiple classes, that would 

4 mean that those fans now have to meet multiple 

5 standards. So what we're trying to do is set up a 

6 structure for which you have fans grouped together 

7 generally by equipment class for the purposes of 

8 analyzing standards.

9 They typically have utility-related and 

10 performance-related features that would affect their 

11 efficiency. So perhaps certain types of fans can't be 

12 made as efficient as others. You wouldn't want to 

13 group those together. It's typically equipment 

14 classes are something, a tool that's utilized such 

15 that you can't get rid of certain I would say 

16 categories of fans off the market if they provide a 

17 distinct utility to the customer. So it's not meant 

18 to say you can't sell into cross-markets, but it's 

19 trying to say we're not going to regulate that fan 10 

20 different ways.

21 MR. PERSFUL: I would say today -- and 

22 people can correct me if I'm wrong -- we do have a 

23 test standard today. We have a test standard, AMCA 

24 210, that takes all of this into configuration. I 

25 think there is probably 10 different configurations in 
80

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 which you can test a fan. Yet really we don't break 

2 it down like this. It's however the fan yields itself 

3 to be tested, you just look into the test metric and 

4 you say, okay, it's ducted or unducted. It's going to 

5 be Figure 12 of this test standard. And that's what 

6 we use today. So today we do it, and we've done it 

7 for, I don't know, however many years, and it seems to 

8 work without getting bogged down into 15 different 

9 categories.

10 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I think that works for 

11 the purposes of how do I test, how do I get my metric, 

12 how do I get my rating kind of thing. That really is 

13 fundamentally different, though, than equipment 

14 classes and how you group products for the purposes of 

15 setting the standards.

16 MR. WOLF: So, Ashley, if I may. So based 

17 on what I'm hearing you say with these different 

18 equipment classes, you're assuming there's different 

19 efficiency levels and targets you might be shooting 

20 for. So, in the case of, you know, fans here, we 

21 would talk about an FER or an FEI of one being the 

22 baseline, okay? You know, based on I think the 

23 proposal that AMCA and the advocates put forth, you 

24 know, we've studied all this on the AMCA database and 

25 we've tried to simplify it by coming up with this 
81

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 ducted and unducted categories, and then these other 

2 things fall into that.

3 And to the extent that we're pretty sure 

4 we've studied it enough to feel comfortable that if we 

5 have one metric for --

6 MR. SMITH: One level.

7 MR. WOLF: One level, I'm sorry. Thank you. 

8 One level for unducted and another level for ducted, 

9 and then now that's going to take us into this whole 

10 discussion of static and total at some point down the 

11 line here, we're comfortable with that. So, you know, 

12 as you start to ramp things -- as you start to move 

13 forward with future regulations where you want to ramp 

14 things up, we're relatively confident we've got that 

15 addressed in the way we've proposed or made the 

16 proposal. If I'm out of line there, Wade or someone 

17 else, feel free to jump in here, but --

18 MR. JASINSKI: Maybe just to add some 

19 clarity because I think it's relevant to this 

20 discussion. It sounds like -- I just want to make 

21 sure that it's clear that what we're talking about 

22 here, again to reiterate, is not eliminating the 

23 ability to -- yes. That was going to be my second 

24 point. The first thing is we're not getting rid of 

25 the ducted and unducted discussion by what we're 
82

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 showing here. And to Trinity's discussion, we're also 

2 not saying that just because something is in a 

3 different equipment class that it has to use a 

4 different test procedure or a different metric.

5 And to Wade's point, they don't have to have 

6 different standard levels either. So under this 

7 approach there is an ability to set different 

8 standards for different equipment classes, but 

9 ultimately, whether that's appropriate can be 

10 determined later on, and the same level could be set 

11 for multiple equipment classes.

12 So I think everyone's point is well taken. 

13 I'm just trying to say that what we're doing here is 

14 not precluding the working group from being able to 

15 come up with a final term sheet that involves those 

16 aspects, which it sounds like are very important to 

17 some of the parties.

18 MS. ARMSTRONG: But what it does allow in 

19 the future is if there becomes a situation for which 

20 as the regulations move forward that certain 

21 categories of fans should be analyzed separately and 

22 ultimately one day different standards should be 

23 considered for them because they have certain 

24 technical attributes that may impact their efficiency 

25 potentials as compared to other, this structure allows 
83

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 for that flexibility in the future. It reserves that 

2 right. I'm not sure that's a bad thing that you want 

3 to fight.

4 MR. SMITH: I think it's important to note 

5 that there are utility differences, and if we strictly 

6 consider the differences in utility, we come up with 

7 more categories than you did. There's a couple that 

8 are broken, that are lumped that we wouldn't lump, and 

9 we would argue that there is a difference in utility 

10 that justifies their separation.

11 At the same time, it's also true that many 

12 of these fans in their application don't have a 

13 difference in utility. So, in the example that 

14 Trinity brought to the floor here, he's imagining a 

15 application in which a radial fan or a backward 

16 inclined fan would serve the customer's need. The 

17 backward inclined fan is probably more efficient, and 

18 we would want to encourage the substitution of a 

19 backward inclined fan for a radial fan and would not 

20 want to discourage that by having two different 

21 efficiency standards.

22 So, as we debated amongst our members what 

23 we wanted for these different equipment classes, the 

24 membership of AMCA settled on having one total 

25 efficiency requirement for ducted fans and one static 
84

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 efficiency requirement for unducted fans to encourage 

2 product substitution, specifically to encourage, you 

3 know, people to move to the more efficient products 

4 where their utility needs were satisfied, okay?

5 So we have this dilemma where on the one 

6 hand we need to preserve certain types of fans because 

7 they're peculiar and unique and needed, and yet on the 

8 other hand, sometimes those peculiarities don't matter 

9 and we want to encourage substitution.

10 MR. JASINSKI: Okay.

11 MS. JAKOBS: This is Diane Jakobs from 

12 Rheem. And I agree with Ashley. I mean, when you 

13 design a test procedure so you get a number, that's 

14 completely different from trying to estimate the 

15 energy consumption for that product, especially what 

16 we're doing here where we're taking a component and 

17 we're building it into something else.

18 So even though it's fine, you have some 

19 apparatus, you can put a component on it, and you do 

20 air to wire, and you make some reading at the end of 

21 the wire, that doesn't mean there's any connection at 

22 all to how that component will be installed in another 

23 component and the energy consumption for the nation 

24 based on a kazillion of those things being out there.

25 And also, in our lab, we have taken out a 
85

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 forward-curved fan assembly and replaced it with a 

2 backward inclined, and the energy went up. So this 

3 assumption that substitution always fixes it, it's not 

4 true. You have to --

5 MR. SMITH: I didn't make an assumption. 

6 Sometimes it goes up, sometimes it goes down.

7 MS. JAKOBS: Okay.

8 MR. SMITH: The question of whether or not 

9 the manufacturer chooses to substitute, we just want 

10 to empower that decision that they would make rather 

11 than disempower it. That's all.

12 MS. JAKOBS: I know. We've done it wrong, 

13 so the --

14 MR. JASINSKI: Mark. Oh, sorry.

15 MR. BUBLITZ: Sam, Mark Bublitz, New York 

16 Blower Company.

17 MS. JAKOBS: Yeah.

18 MR. BUBLITZ: If you go back to you other --

19 I'm sorry.

20 MS. JAKOBS: Yeah.

21 MR. BUBLITZ: Your other grid. It seemed 

22 like we generated a lot of confusion when we put panel 

23 fans in the "wrong spot".

24 MS. JAKOBS: That was my other question. Is 

25 a condenser fan a panel fan?
86

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MALE VOICE: Yes.

2 MS. JAKOBS: Okay.

3 MR. BUBLITZ: Okay. If panel fans went up 

4 into the axial housed grid, but you need another line, 

5 we would argue, because it's unducted, and then if you 

6 left the axial unhoused category, and then the example 

7 became circular fans, would that not resolve all of 

8 our discussions in the last few minutes?

9 MR. JASINSKI: Say that one more time.

10 MR. BUBLITZ: Okay.

11 MS. ARMSTRONG: Hold on. I have a question 

12 for you first.

13 MR. BUBLITZ: Sure.

14 MS. ARMSTRONG: Based on the designs today, 

15 can panel fans let's say just tested to the AMCA 

16 method to what's their max tech efficiency potential 

17 as compared to axial ducted fans. In other words, are 

18 they rating --

19 MR. BUBLITZ: I'm sorry to dodge the 

20 question, but I'm not even assessing that. I'm just 

21 saying you threw a category up there, axial housed and 

22 axial unhoused, and if you put panel fans in the 

23 housed section and you put circulator fans in the 

24 unhoused, I think we're done.

25 MALE VOICE: Yeah.
87

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. BUBLITZ: Now you may need a panel fan 

2 category. I don't know. I'm a little confused with 

3 where you're coming from.

4 MR. JASINSKI: Well, what you're describing 

5 is essentially what I did, except I put axial unhoused 

6 outside of the table at the bottom. So what I did was 

7 I created a separate category for panel fans. I 

8 basically separated axial housed into axial 

9 cylindrical housed to capture vane and tube panel 

10 fans, and then the axial unhoused went into the 

11 footnote as excluded as circulator fans.

12 MR. BUBLITZ: Okay. This is Mark Bublitz. 

13 Why does it need its own category?

14 MR. JASINSKI: Why does what --

15 MR. BUBLITZ: Why is it panel fans need its 

16 own category?

17 MR. JASINSKI: Because to what Ashley was 

18 describing earlier, the performance of panel fans --

19 so the example that Ashley was going to use is that if 

20 a panel -- if a tube or axial fan can achieve an 

21 efficiency that is significantly lower or higher than 

22 a panel fan, then lumping them together might not make 

23 sense in terms of where that standard ultimately gets 

24 set because depending on their relative efficiencies, 

25 if you set it at a certain point, you might eliminate 
88

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 one of those groupings of products --

2 MS. ARMSTRONG: From the market.

3 MR. JASINSKI: -- from the market.

4 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's why we have to have 

5 them separate, because they contain a what we call 

6 performance-related feature for which other products 

7 do not have and such that feature might justify a 

8 higher or lower standard. That's why equipment 

9 classes to us make a difference. It's not necessarily 

10 they can be tested in different ways. Unducted is 

11 fine. But if we group them, they all get lumped 

12 together for the purposes of analysis, in which case 

13 you may end up with a level that one of those 

14 groupings can't meet. Unintended consequence.

15 MR. JASINSKI: I think the last hour was a 

16 really good example of how this could be used, but 

17 obviously since this was sent out this morning --

18 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah.

19 MR. JASINSKI: -- you need some time to 

20 digest it. So now that everybody understands -- I 

21 think this was a perfect example of how we wanted 

22 these slides to encourage discussions like this, make 

23 changes so that we can talk about specific scenarios. 

24 But in the essence of time, why don't I get through 

25 the rest of the definitions, take notes on what you 
89

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 like and don't like, and then ultimately at the end 

2 I'll show you how we've come up with a system for 

3 evaluating them so that we can go through exercises 

4 like the one we just did and say, well, we don't like 

5 this definition because it has this unintended 

6 consequence. Let's trace our way back and fix 

7 everything that we need to fix in order to eliminate 

8 that unintended consequence, see what comes out at the 

9 end, and if it's what the working group wants, then 

10 great, we've made some progress.

11 But I'll go through the rest of them and 

12 then we'll see where we're at after that. So just 

13 take notes on things you see in the definitions that 

14 you may or may not like. But this might also provide 

15 some extra time, maybe tonight, to get more familiar 

16 with these so that these types of discussions can be 

17 more efficient and fruitful tomorrow. Everybody 

18 agreeable to that? Okay.

19 MS. ARMSTRONG: Before you start, does 

20 anybody -- we've been going at this for about two 

21 hours now. Does anybody want to take a 10-minute 

22 break, noting that the coffee shop closes in less than 

23 an hour?

24 MALE VOICE: Yes.

25 MS. ARMSTRONG: Got it.
90

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)

2 MR. BOSWELL: So it looks like we have 

3 everyone back, so why don't we return to the 

4 presentation that DOE was making.

5 MR. JASINSKI: Okay. So I'll get back into 

6 the slides and we'll try to go through them without 

7 getting into the details necessarily but just to 

8 continue giving examples of the definitions for 

9 testable configuration that the Department of Energy 

10 put together as discussion points. Then into the 

11 slides that will help evaluate the impacts of these 

12 definitions to further discussions about some of the 

13 scenarios that we've already touched on and maybe some 

14 additional ones later on.

15 So here's the testable configuration 

16 definition for centrifugal housed. Centrifugal blade 

17 or impeller. The shaft and bearings are secured to 

18 the housing such that the impeller or blade can be 

19 driven. Housing includes one or two inlets. This is 

20 taken directly from the previous definition. And 

21 structure may be present in addition to housing.

22 Here there's a point of discussion that I 

23 think everybody has the printouts now, so it might be 

24 a little bit easier to see it there, so be sure to 

25 check that out and start thinking about maybe how to 
91

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 discuss that once we're going through a more thorough 

2 evaluation of each of the definitions.

3 Centrifugal unhoused, the points of 

4 differentiation here are that the shaft and bearings 

5 are -- so this should say "structure". But the shaft 

6 and bearings are secured to structure such that the 

7 impeller or blade can be driven. There's no housing 

8 and the structure is not intended to guide airflow the 

9 way that the housing would be in the centrifugal 

10 housed testable configuration.

11 In-line and mixed flow, again, they are 

12 combined in this presentation, so impeller or blade, 

13 centrifugal or mixed flow. The shaft and bearings are 

14 secured to a housing such that the impeller can be 

15 driven. The housing directs airflow parallel or at an 

16 angle between 20 and 70 degrees relative to the axis 

17 of rotation and acts as a primary mounting structure 

18 for the shaft and bearings, for the shaft and bearings 

19 and driver, and the housing acts as the primary 

20 structure.

21 For radial fans, radial blade, the shaft and 

22 bearings are secured to the housing or structure such 

23 that the impeller can be driven. The housing includes 

24 one or two inlets to allow air to enter the impeller 

25 parallel to the axis of rotation, an outlet 
92

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 concentrating air and allowing it to exit 

2 predominantly perpendicular to the axis of rotation, 

3 and structure may be present in addition to the 

4 housing.

5 Axial PRV, axial impeller or blades --

6 MR. SMITH: Sam?

7 MR. JASINSKI: Yup.

8 MR. SMITH: One of the things that we worked 

9 on is the difference between radial and backward 

10 incline and forward curve.

11 MR. JASINSKI: Okay.

12 MR. SMITH: And so I apologize for not 

13 having this present to share with the group, but we 

14 went through a debate and settled on angles at the 

15 blade tip.

16 MR. JASINSKI: Okay.

17 MR. SMITH: So radial --

18 MR. JASINSKI: I remember this discussion.

19 MR. SMITH: You remember that?

20 MR. JASINSKI: Yup.

21 MR. SMITH: Okay.

22 MR. JASINSKI: So, Wade, what you're 

23 suggesting is we add that to the impeller functional 

24 requirements?

25 MR. SMITH: Right. I mean, we'll get you 
93

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 the revised definitions and then you can look at them.

2 MR. JASINSKI: Sure. Right. Just for the 

3 purposes of the group.

4 MR. SMITH: I just wanted everybody to know 

5 that we did some work on this stuff.

6 MS. WALTNER: This is Meg. One further 

7 question on this. So what was the thinking on pulling 

8 radial out separately from housed centrifugal going 

9 forward?

10 MR. JASINSKI: I think this is ultimately a 

11 utility performance based on, yeah, material handling.

12 Axial PRV, to continue, secured to an axial 

13 blade, the shaft and bearings are secured to housing 

14 or structure such that the blades can be driven. 

15 Housing directs airflow parallel to axis rotation 

16 across blades and may also provide protection from the 

17 elements or severe -- or serve as a mounting structure 

18 for other weatherization features may be present in 

19 addition to housing.

20 So I know this is -- well, this and the 

21 centrifugal PRV are of particular interest for 

22 conversation. The group has mentioned that they blur 

23 the lines between what is typically, you know, a basic 

24 fan category and a piece of equipment that has a fan 

25 embedded. But as I mentioned earlier, we're going to 
94

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 get into how we can evaluate these definitions to 

2 clarify this situation in the way that the working 

3 group wants it to be clarified.

4 MR. SMITH: Sam?

5 MR. JASINSKI: Yup.

6 MR. SMITH: The membership, because of the 

7 way they catalog and test today, recommended that the 

8 axial and the centrifugal power roof ventilators be 

9 treated as a fan.

10 MR. JASINSKI: Okay.

11 MR. SMITH: And technically it can be argued 

12 that there is a fan, but it's embedded inside a 

13 housing that has other purposes, but in the interests 

14 of reducing the testing burden and encouraging product 

15 substitution to a certain extent, our consensus was to 

16 treat these as individual -- as products and then to 

17 define them and to wrap the circle around the whole 

18 thing, right?

19 MR. JASINSKI: Yup.

20 MR. SMITH: And for those in the room who 

21 are making fans in a box or making a box that has a 

22 fan in it, don't look at this as being any precedent 

23 or establishing some rule that you have to follow. 

24 That's not the case. That wasn't the intent and 

25 that's certainly not the case. It was right for our 
95

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 membership because they wanted to test -- they wanted 

2 to put the test out in the right-hand part of your 

3 chart.

4 MR. JASINSKI: Right, right.

5 MR. SMITH: And that was their preference, 

6 and so that's what we ended up with.

7 MR. JASINSKI: So what I'm hearing from Wade 

8 is that this may not be the -- this might not be true 

9 in all cases, but perhaps PRV is a model for a 

10 situation where, as Diane mentioned, these are 

11 catalogued and tested in this configuration, and to 

12 your points earlier, Mark, it's very easy to draw a 

13 circle around the mounting structure, et cetera, such 

14 that it can be clarified that even though this might 

15 be considered a piece of equipment with an embedded 

16 fan, this enables an approach that allows it to be 

17 just considered as its own equipment class or testable 

18 configuration, which may or may not be the case in 

19 some of the more complicated situations.

20 MR. HARTLEIN: Yeah. Dan from TCF. I was 

21 just going to echo the fact it's a minimal testable --

22 minimum testable configuration question, isn't it, at 

23 the end of the day?

24 MR. JASINSKI: Yup.

25 MR. HARTLEIN: We test it as that.
96

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. JASINSKI: Yup. Greg?

2 MR. WAGNER: If you go back to the -- yes, 

3 centrifugal unhoused, I notice it says -- well, it's 

4 changed on there.

5 MR. JASINSKI: I changed it from real time 

6 because I saw the mistake.

7 MR. WAGNER: Oh, okay. Got it. I just, I 

8 was sitting there going, what?

9 MR. JASINSKI: Yeah, thanks. I changed it 

10 from secured to housing to secured to structure.

11 MR. WAGNER: Thank you.

12 MR. JASINSKI: Okay. So now into the fun 

13 part. So here we've outlined a method for evaluating 

14 these definitions. The first step would be to choose 

15 a standalone fan or OEM equipment with embedded fan; 

16 use the testable configuration definition applicable 

17 to the fan type to identify the physical boundary 

18 around the components required to be tested, so that 

19 circle would be drawn according to the definitions 

20 that we have in the presentation, which can change, so 

21 the circle can also change; third, identify the party 

22 responsible for manufacturing and assembling each 

23 required component, and ultimately tweak the 

24 definitions to address ambiguities or outcomes that 

25 are undesirable to the working group, and the outcomes 
97

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 we're talking about here I'll let Ashley speak to, but 

2 ultimately the questions about who is responsible for 

3 testing.

4 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. So I think three -- I 

5 think the big issue for today is one and two.

6 MR. JASINSKI: Okay.

7 MS. ARMSTRONG: Three and four, I think it 

8 depends ultimately on what we come out with our 

9 regulatory scheme, so we can talk about different 

10 options, but, you know, ultimately that depends on how 

11 we end up creating our regulatory scheme, if we 

12 ultimately end up adopting labeling, that has come up, 

13 and those types of things. So let's start with one 

14 and two. Let's focus on one and two.

15 MR. JASINSKI: Okay. So we've provided an 

16 example, and this should look familiar to most people 

17 that were at the first meeting. We did that purposely 

18 so that there would be some precedent for the 

19 discussion and some familiarity for everyone.

20 So here we have a louvered roof supply fan. 

21 Ultimately it's up to the working group to determine 

22 what the desired equipment class would be, but from 

23 the first meeting, it sounded like housed centrifugal 

24 was the fan, the agreed upon fan type represented 

25 here.
98

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 The second step is to identify the required 

2 components using the definition of testable 

3 configuration that was provided previously. So here 

4 we have the same table, we have the list of required 

5 components. I hope the color coding is easy enough to 

6 see. Essentially each required component has a color, 

7 and using the functional requirements to the right 

8 we've tried to highlight what components meet that 

9 definition. So, for instance, the impeller or blades, 

10 which are hard to see in this picture, but I think 

11 most people know where it is, we've indicated that in 

12 blue. Secured to housing such that the impeller or 

13 blade can be driven. For the shaft and bearings, you 

14 can see in green there's a peak at the shaft to drive 

15 the impeller.

16 The housing includes one or two inlets to 

17 allow air to enter the impeller parallel to the axis 

18 of rotation and an outlet concentrating air and 

19 allowing it to exit predominantly perpendicular to the 

20 axis of rotation. Here we've used orange to highlight 

21 the component that meets that definition. If you're 

22 skipping ahead, you'll notice that it does not 

23 encompass the casing, the louvered casing, because the 

24 louvered casing does not meet that definition of 

25 housing.
99

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 And, finally, the structure which may be 

2 present in addition to the housing, it looks like 

3 there's some skid plates there and some structural 

4 components to allow for mounting the drive and 

5 transmission components.

6 So, once we've gone through that exercise, 

7 the black dotted line ultimately is the circle or the 

8 physical boundary of the testable configuration, 

9 which, again, you'll notice according to the 

10 definitions the way we've gone through them does not 

11 include that louvered casing.

12 Now this is an example of how to go through 

13 that process and then show the impacts or the outcomes 

14 of the definition so that the working group can 

15 basically say we like where that dotted line is or we 

16 don't like where that dotted line is and why.

17 MR. WOLF: So, Sam, Mike Wolf here. Just to 

18 clarify kind of back to I think something I brought up 

19 before when I am envisioning in my head again that the 

20 green slide with the impeller, housing, drive, motor, 

21 controls.

22 MR. JASINSKI: Sure.

23 MR. WOLF: You've got your black box drawn 

24 around the motor, but you don't have that highlighted 

25 as one of the main components.
100

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. JASINSKI: Right. Under this approach, 

2 the way it's been outlined, the drive, transmission, 

3 controls were in the not required list. And so, in 

4 this particular approach, what we're showing here is 

5 that they're not required for testing, which means 

6 that, you know, if you use the test approach used for 

7 the NODA, you could use default values for those 

8 components. However, in the test approach that was 

9 used in the NODA, if you wanted to test with those 

10 transmission components or motor, you could do that 

11 also.

12 MR. WOLF: So maybe for the benefit -- this 

13 is Mike Wolf, Greenheck again. So for the benefit of 

14 those who haven't been part of this discussion, why 

15 would somebody may want to do one versus the other? 

16 Do you want me to answer that or you want to go for 

17 it?

18 MR. JASINSKI: If you have an answer, you 

19 can.

20 MR. WOLF: Okay. So maybe I'm getting ahead 

21 of the discussion here, so if I am, feel free to cut 

22 me off. But as Sam has outlined there, the minimal 

23 test configuration includes those three components: 

24 the impeller, the shaft and the housing -- well, four 

25 I guess if you count the structure.
101

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 And the way I would envision doing this test

2 then in the minimal configuration is putting that 

3 assembly onto a chamber and connecting a dynamometer 

4 to it and running the test without the motor and belt 

5 and drives. The drives -- the bearings being part of 

6 the drives would be there because that's part of the 

7 structure, but the motor and belt would not be part of 

8 that minimal configurable test.

9 So does that -- I guess I'll stop there and 

10 just ask if there's any questions on that.

11 MR. BURDICK: This is Larry with SPX, and so 

12 maybe a clarification on that.

13 MR. JASINSKI: Larry, can we get you a mic? 

14 Thanks.

15 MR. BURDICK: Larry Burdick, SPX. So a 

16 question on that. You know, I can appreciate that a 

17 dynamometer and a motor there would provide a lot 

18 better torque measurement for power going into the 

19 fan, but then it's a matter of what is allowed for the 

20 drive efficiency. You know, it says that this is a 

21 wire-to-air technique, and so I think there's lots of 

22 things that would have to be resolved about that and, 

23 you know, in general, it would seem that a more 

24 accurate representation of the fan efficiency would 

25 include a technique of a dynamometer with either a 
102

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 calibrated motor or a back calculation as to what the 

2 efficiency is in the motor.

3 MR. WOLF: Yeah. Mike Wolf, Greenheck. And 

4 you're exactly right, okay? So what AMCA has been 

5 working towards is a, I'll call it a dual or parallel 

6 path to the wire-to-air ultimate metric here, a rule, 

7 in that if you do the test with a dynamometer, we're 

8 developing another document, and I don't know if it's 

9 a publication or standard, so feel free to jump in and 

10 correct me if I'm wrong, anyone, but a parallel 

11 document that would couple up to the AMCA 210 test 

12 standard that would say, okay, if you want to or to 

13 get from the shaft power with a dynamometer to the 

14 wire or the power into the motor or the system, fan 

15 system, we will have default values defined in that 

16 document for the drive losses being belts and pulleys 

17 and so on and so forth for the motor efficiency if 

18 you, you know, have it, as well as the potential drive 

19 efficiency of VFD, and that will get you to your --

20 I'm sorry?

21 MALE VOICE: And belts.

22 MR. WOLF: And belts, I mentioned that, 

23 yeah. So that's one path to the wire to air. The 

24 alternate path would be to take what Sam has got there 

25 and actually test the input power to some sort of a 
103

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 calibrated motor, and 210 has been -- AMCA Standard 

2 210 was just recently modified or is in the process of 

3 being modified to allow for that test methodology. So 

4 there would be parallel paths to the same thing, the 

5 thought process being that the coefficients or the 

6 standards we put in place that kind of get you there 

7 via the pencil approach or, you know, the calculated 

8 approach would be very conservative and ultimately 

9 probably drive people to actually running the test 

10 themselves because, you know, they're going to run the 

11 test because they think they think they've got 

12 something better than what the standard allows.

13 So I think I'll stop there because I think I 

14 answered the question.

15 MR. JASINSKI: Could not have said it better 

16 myself.

17 MR. HARTLEIN: Sam, can I add one comment to 

18 that? I think you said calibrated motor in that case. 

19 I think we're not worried about a calibrated motor in 

20 that test. We're measuring the amp draw, the power in 

21 to the motor, so it's the actual motor that we'd be 

22 shipping with the product in that case. Sometimes we 

23 use a calibrated motor in exchange for a dynamometer 

24 in our testing method, so that's just to make sure we 

25 didn't confuse anybody.
104

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. SMILEY: This is Bill Smiley, Trane. Is 

2 there any consideration for the effect of the sheave 

3 in the inlet to the fan? Because if you test it in 

4 this configuration, that sheave would be there. If 

5 you test it with a jackshaft torque meter, dynamometer 

6 type arrangement, you could or could not have that 

7 sheave in there, and then it would depend on the 

8 design of that sheave and the effect that it would 

9 have on the performance. Or have you determined that 

10 that's negligable?

11 MR. SMITH: There's a default value. This 

12 is Wade. So there's a default value for the motor 

13 loss. There's a default value for the sheave and 

14 drive losses, so the turbulence that's implicit in 

15 that sheave being there is built into the default 

16 value for the belt loss.

17 MR. SMILEY: It is?

18 MR. SMITH: Yeah.

19 MR. SMILEY: It's not just the frictional 

20 loss of the drive?

21 MR. SMITH: Right. Right.

22 MR. SMILEY: I'd like to see the data on 

23 that.

24 MR. SMITH: Yeah, me too.

25 MR. SMILEY: Okay. You're saying there is 
105

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 no data on that?

2 MR. SMITH: No, I'm not saying that. I

3 would say that it's a very good question. You 

4 remember what a very good question is? One for which 

5 we don't have an answer.

6 (Laughter.)

7 MR. SMITH: It needs an answer. It needs an 

8 answer.

9 MR. SMILEY: Okay. How do we get to the 

10 answer then?

11 MR. WOLF: Well, Bill, this is Mike Wolf 

12 here again. So, you know, the basis for that loss 

13 comes out of, I think, an AMCA document that's been 

14 around for many, many years. Does anybody recall what 

15 the number is on that?

16 MR. SMILEY: Well, what I remember from the 

17 AMCA stuff in the old days, it's just the frictional 

18 losses --

19 MR. WOLF: Friction, yeah.

20 MR. SMILEY: -- of the belts and the 

21 sheaves, not the effect of the sheave being in the 

22 airstream. That's my memory.

23 MR. WOLF: Yeah. And I would say that belt 

24 drive loss is for steady-state new stuff, not 

25 necessarily for all situations and all drives because 
106

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 there's high variability with that.

2 MR. SMILEY: Well, you know, this is Bill 

3 Smiley, Trane, again. If the option is there to test 

4 with or without the drive, then if you don't have the 

5 drive in there you use the default values. You could 

6 also test it with everything in there and then use 

7 whichever one gave the best answer in your situation. 

8 But it would be nice to know are the defaults 

9 realistic.

10 MR. SMITH: Yeah. So this is Wade again. 

11 The reason that a fan manufacturer would use the 

12 default values is principally to give their customer 

13 the flexibility to buy a fan and couple it with 

14 whatever motor that customer wants to buy, and we 

15 don't want to have to test every possible 

16 configuration. That's unreasonable, right? So, if 

17 flexibility is the watch word in the sale, then the 

18 default values serve us well.

19 On the other hand, if you pick a particular 

20 motor, a particular drive, a particular variable speed 

21 control if it's included that give you performance 

22 that's better than the default values, then you would 

23 probably test that assembly and offer it, but you 

24 would only offer it with the motor that you picked and 

25 the drive that you picked, right? Because you don't 
107

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 know -- somebody says I really want that, but I want 

2 to use XYZ motor. No. This is the efficiency for the 

3 assembly that we've defined here.

4 And so those are the -- probably what 

5 companies will do is both, right? They'll offer a 

6 package, but then they'll also offer a rating that 

7 facilitates the customer buying the components.

8 MR. FLY: So following down that line --

9 this is Mark Fly with AAON. Following down that line, 

10 would you rate that fan with every size motor that 

11 could be applied to that fan or drive, drive or speed?

12 MR. SMITH: Yes, and default values for all 

13 of those options exist. Well, okay, so what we 

14 proposed and what was in the most recent NODA requires 

15 you to calculate the efficiency or the maximum 

16 horsepower at any and all conditions.

17 MR. FLY: Okay. Sounds the same to me.

18 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. So perhaps -- well, 

19 why don't we do this. Why don't we let Sam finish up 

20 with this stuff and then let's move to what the test 

21 procedure and metric type discussion that we're 

22 getting to is because, in a sense, I would argue that 

23 no, it's not every single combination. It's a self24 declared range that a manufacturer wants to elect to 

25 make representations is at least the approach that the 
108

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 AMCA and advocates have asked the working group to 

2 consider, and I think once we discuss that some of 

3 these details will also fall out. It's in the white 

4 paper. We asked you guys to read it last week.

5 MR. PERSFUL: Sam, this is Trinity with 

6 Clarage Fan Company. I'm trying to find some 

7 loopholes or trying to shoot holes in this, so that's 

8 the spirit in which this is given.

9 MR. JASINSKI: Yup.

10 (Laughter.)

11 MR. PERSFUL: So we talked before about how 

12 the fan market tends to be a little bit broken, 

13 meaning that the person that actually buys the 

14 equipment isn't the person that is paying the electric 

15 bill. And so the person that buys the equipment 

16 typically wants the cheapest product available, which 

17 not necessarily means the most efficient product 

18 available.

19 So, in that world that we live in, what is 

20 keeping somebody from buying -- let's say in this case 

21 it's supposed to be an air foil, that's the most 

22 efficient utility, but they want to side-step that and 

23 put a radial-bladed fan in its place because it's 

24 cheaper to build and it still meets that criterion for 

25 being certified. It hits the efficiency point, but 
109

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 we're going the opposite way.

2 The world that we play in right now, because 

3 the way the products are purchased and installed, it 

4 seems like that that would be more the norm than 

5 trying to drive products to go from inefficient to 

6 efficient. It seems like people are going to try to 

7 skirt -- by the definitions that we've laid out, 

8 people are going to try to skirt that and, you know, 

9 substitute radial-bladed fans for other housed

10 centrifugal fans. So I just wanted to bring that up.

11 MR. SMITH: You mean substitute if the 

12 radial fan has a lower efficiency requirement?

13 MR. PERSFUL: Correct.

14 MR. SMITH: Yeah.

15 MR. JASINSKI: Yeah. So that's getting a 

16 little bit ahead. I mean, I think that's part of 

17 what's investigated once we talk about actual standard 

18 levels and things like equipment class switching are 

19 something that can be investigated in terms of what 

20 the significance of that might be in the event of a 

21 separate and different standards for radial versus 

22 centrifugal. It also goes back to the conversation 

23 about do they actually have differentiated utilities 

24 such that there are technical and market factors that 

25 limit the amount of that type of switching that would 
110

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 occur. So it's maybe a question of how significant 

2 that would become in the event of standards, but that 

3 can't really be evaluated until we know what those 

4 standards might look like, but it is something that 

5 would be considered.

6 So, Ashley, I have a question. So we have a 

7 lot of example fans we could go through with the 

8 group, these examples, and try to do this in real 

9 time, or maybe we can make that a homework assignment 

10 so that people do it on their own, and we can go right 

11 into the metric and the test stuff because it sounded 

12 like we were going down that path anyway. I think 

13 it's up to the working group to determine which would 

14 be more fruitful.

15 If we want to take more examples of fans and 

16 go through this steps one and two together and see 

17 what comes out from these definitions and start 

18 tweaking definitions, we can do that, or that can be a 

19 homework assignment and people can kind of do that on 

20 their own and we'll see what everybody comes to the 

21 table with tomorrow, and that will allow us to go 

22 right into the metric if we go the homework route.

23 MS. JAKOBS: This is Diane Jakobs. We're 

24 out of pictures in our handout. What do your examples 

25 look like?
111

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. JASINSKI: Oh, they must be in the 

2 backup slides. Do you want me to show a few of them?

3 MS. JAKOBS: You don't have them on there.

4 MR. JASINSKI: Oh, I don't?

5 MS. JAKOBS: No.

6 MR. JASINSKI: Oh. Well, so then why don't 

7 we make it a homework assignment?

8 MS. ARMSTRONG: Well, we can do it either 

9 way. It doesn't matter to us, although the examples 

10 aren't necessarily all-encompassing, so you are going 

11 to have to deal -- we know you guys are just seeing 

12 this. We know you need time to digest it, and 

13 ultimately we want to be in a position to vote this 

14 out, probably not necessarily tomorrow but not far 

15 from now. We need to start making some serious 

16 progress if we're going to get to actually talking 

17 about levels in a reasonable timeframe. So I guess 

18 it's more a question of does everyone generally 

19 understand the concept of testable configuration as 

20 we've been describing it.

21 MS. JAKOBS: This is Diane Jakobs. And I 

22 think this is an easy example, but there are different 

23 examples that I would struggle with.

24 MS. ARMSTRONG: Do you have one in mind? 

25 We're happy to do your example. We could all struggle 
112

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 together.

2 MR. JASINSKI: Do we have those examples 

3 anywhere, Ashley?

4 MS. ARMSTRONG: I have them right here.

5 (Pause.)

6 MR. JASINSKI: Ashley, what did you call 

7 them? Are they just the -- we're just trying to find 

8 the file.

9 (Pause.)

10 MS. ARMSTRONG: You know, while Sam is 

11 bringing this up, I'm sorry, we got a comment from the 

12 webinar from Peter Bushnell, and I apologize if I said 

13 that wrong, but he would like the working group to 

14 review the definitions in the EU Regulation 3-27-2011, 

15 and if you unmute him, Emily, he can explain to the 

16 working group why this might be important.

17 So, Peter, you should be unmuted.

18 MR. BUSHNELL: Okay, I'll try this. Can you 

19 hear me?

20 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, we can hear you.

21 MR. BUSHNELL: Okay, very good.

22 So actually really I would encourage kind of 

23 a very careful review of the EU 3-27 in general. I'm 

24 sure people have been looking at that pretty closely, 

25 but specifically in the area of definitions, I think 
113

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 on the question of ducted and unducted, housed and 

2 unhoused, you know, if you look at Annex 1 in their 

3 regulation, they define all of that, and they have 

4 measurement category as the distinguishing thing that 

5 defines sort of those parameters. So they have 

6 basically Category A is free inlet, free outlet. 

7 Category B is free inlet, ducted outlet. Category C 

8 is ducted inlet, free outlet. And Category D is 

9 ducted in and ducted out.

10 So those definitions are used in a general 

11 way throughout all the fan types. They also define 

12 the fan types, and then they also distinguish 

13 efficiency category as either static pressure-based or 

14 total pressure-based. So I just think that, you know, 

15 as we discuss all these things, and there's a lot of 

16 conversations going around, I would recommend 

17 baselining with this existing standard that applies 

18 and is in effect in Europe today and kind of use that 

19 as a reference point, see if there's any problems with 

20 that before kind of reinventing the whole process.

21 So that was my comment. I think you can 

22 also see in there, you know, all the ratings that they 

23 have in terms of efficiency grades and so forth that 

24 they have in place in a two-tier versus that are 

25 already in existence.
114

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MS. ARMSTRONG: So thanks. I'm wondering if 

2 anyone has any specific comments with that.

3 One of the challenges I think DOE sees in an 

4 approach like that, and it's not -- keep in mind I 

5 don't know all the details about it, but my 

6 understanding is that essentially they let the 

7 manufacturer declare which category they're in, in 

8 other words, unducted, ducted, et cetera.

9 And so we have some challenges in the past 

10 with structuring regulations that way, and perhaps 

11 that's not such an issue in here and I'm just not 

12 aware. I'm happy to be educated about that. But one 

13 of the things we see as a challenge is that fans sold 

14 with the same characteristics or similar identical 

15 definitions by different people are sometimes rated 

16 different ways, and that's something that we're trying 

17 to avoid.

18 So I don't know if anyone has thoughts about 

19 that, but I think that's one of the challenges we saw. 

20 We did look at that, albeit it somewhat briefly, but 

21 we did take a look at that at least from DOE's 

22 perspective, but I'm interested to hear the working 

23 group's feedback for those that know about the content 

24 of EU 327, and I guess it's my understanding that 

25 they're taking a second look at their regulations 
115

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 right now.

2 MR. HAUER: Armin Hauer of ebm-papst. Yes, 

3 I follow the EU regulation quite closely to 2013 

4 levels and the 2015 levels, and yes, they are working 

5 on 2017 levels now. It's all in effect now. It's law 

6 in Europe. And with respect to the different 

7 measurement categories, this is labeled very clearly 

8 on the product, so you have to indicate what type of a 

9 measurement category you have used and then you spell 

10 it out on a nameplate and give your overall efficiency 

11 accordingly.

12 MR. JASINSKI: Ready.

13 MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, does anybody have 

14 anything else they would like to say on that issue? I 

15 mean, is it something we want to consider further? 

16 We're moving down the pathway of DOE specifying which 

17 buckets products are going to be in so that comparable 

18 products will have the same buckets rather than a 

19 self-declaration and a labeling approach.

20 MALE VOICE: Can you ask that question 

21 again, Ashley?

22 (Laughter.)

23 MR. SMITH: So one of the things -- this is 

24 Wade Smith. One of the things we could do is we could 

25 juxtapose and create a little spreadsheet that has a 
116

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 box for the EU definition so that they're side by side 

2 so people can read them. I don't think that

3 they're -- I mean, there might be some differences 

4 that matter, but conceptually I think they're all 

5 pretty close.

6 The one thing, as Ashley pointed out, that 

7 we've done is we've said, you know, all tube axial 

8 fans are ducted even though we know that sometimes 

9 they're applied without duct, but the test that's

10 used -- in fact, I can't think of any exceptions. The 

11 test that's used to rate the product is a ducted test, 

12 and so it allows the recovery of velocity pressure as 

13 static in the ductwork.

14 So we're sort of of the same mindset, 

15 Ashley, and the AMCA joint recommendation with the 

16 advocates, you know, reflects that mindset that says, 

17 okay, we want to define this product into this 

18 category, and if it meets this definition, that's how 

19 it's going to be tested, that's how it's going to be 

20 rated for its efficiency, and we're happy with that. 

21 So that's kind of the direction that we've headed.

22 MR. HARTLEIN: Ashley, just a side comment 

23 to that. This is Dan from TCF. We operate in 

24 obviously both markets, and I'm trying to think of the 

25 right way to say this, but at the end of the day the 
117

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 units that we have in Europe are completely unaffected 

2 by the regulations that have been written so far. 

3 There's basically workarounds and passes for 

4 everything that we do. I don't suspect that we'll 

5 have the latitude and luxury of that happening here. 

6 So, to that extent, there is a fairly substantial 

7 difference.

8 MR. HAUER: It's Armin Hauer speaking. I'm 

9 really interested in your comment about how --

10 (Laughter.)

11 MR. HARTLEIN: I can't disclose specific 

12 strategic advantages that we might hold. No, I'm 

13 kidding.

14 (Laughter.)

15 MR. HARTLEIN: The big exemption is that we 

16 participate largely in the industrial markets. That's 

17 the big exemption, and there are temperature and other 

18 requirements that just basically everything we do gets 

19 a pass.

20 MR. WOLF: This is Mike Wolf of Greenheck. 

21 Just one comment on that. You know, for the folks who 

22 do business internationally, I guess I think it would 

23 be a good exercise to go through what Wade suggested. 

24 To the extent we can use similar terminology or maybe 

25 even the same terminology I think would be very 
118

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 helpful going forward.

2 The other thing I know, I was at a fan 

3 conference over there last month in Lyon, France, and 

4 talked to some of the people who have been involved in 

5 that process, and they're actually, it appears to me, 

6 going through some of the same dialogue we're having 

7 even though they're ahead of us in certain ways, 

8 trying to define the fan boundary or the testable 

9 configuration. I got the feeling that they're 

10 wrestling with a lot of the same things we're 

11 wrestling with right now.

12 The other thing that they shared was that 

13 the metric they have now, and, Armin, feel free to 

14 jump in here if I'm misstating this, but it's based on 

15 a single efficiency point, the best efficiency point 

16 for the fan, and the fact that what's in our latest 

17 NODA here encompasses a range of operation, you know, 

18 they didn't come out and say it, but Tim Mathson was 

19 in one of the ISO meetings. I think they're looking 

20 at maybe moving towards again what we're trying to tee 

21 up as our regulatory rulemaking.

22 So, again, there's a lot going on. It's not 

23 quite in sync. To the extent we can try to get it in 

24 sync with them, knowing that it never will be, would 

25 be a good thing though.
119

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. DIKEMAN: This is Steve Dikeman. I 

2 would argue that what was just described on the call3 in is already in place with AMCA. Every AMCA 

4 certification rating you must state what was the 

5 ducted condition on the outlet and on the inlet, and 

6 the four categories mentioned already exist.

7 MR. SMITH: Those are AMCA fans.

8 MR. DIKEMAN: Yeah. But, I mean, put a 

9 letter on them, put a number on them, that's 

10 semantics, right? But you could have each of the four 

11 categories, and I have to state in my performance how 

12 I tested it. So it's not being -- it is self13 compliance, but it's defined self-compliance because 

14 if I tested it with a ducted outlet, but then I used 

15 it or suggested, you know, here's the ratings in 

16 another thing, then you've got me.

17 MR. BUSHNELL: So hi. It's Peter Bushnell 

18 of Carrier again. I guess I would just recommend that 

19 the definitions that are in Annex 1 of the European 

20 standard just be put on a slide and reviewed by the 

21 working group and particularly the efficiency category 

22 because I think there's questions about whether or not 

23 to include static efficiency or where to use static 

24 efficiency or total efficiency.

25 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. No problem. We can 
120

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 definitely prepare those slides for the next meeting 

2 to the extent the working group believes it's helpful, 

3 if we want to walk through that. If you want to do it 

4 on your own, that's fine too, but we're happy to 

5 prepare those slides for the next meeting if we want 

6 to do it together. Anybody have an opinion? Yes, 

7 please? Okay, not a problem.

8 All right, Sam, you want to keep going?

9 MR. JASINSKI: Sure. So I started with a 

10 softball, one that we talked about a little bit 

11 earlier just for the sake of having an easy example to 

12 work through together for the first time.

13 So step one, choose a fan. Here we've 

14 picked a power roof ventilator. So step two would be 

15 to look at the testable configuration definition of 

16 power roof ventilator. Since everybody now has a 

17 handout, I would suggest going to that slide. I think 

18 it's number -- you can use the axial or centrifugal, 

19 20 or 21. Here, why don't we use 21 since this is a 

20 centrifugal. Oh, right, you guys don't -- yeah, you 

21 guys have the definitions, correct?

22 Okay. So everybody go to Slide 21, so we'll 

23 work from that definition, and then I will in a 

24 similar fashion just start drawing circles around the 

25 components that meet the definition as it's stated on 
121

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 Slide 21. We can see where we end up and then we can 

2 make tweaks or discuss any differences of opinion 

3 among the group and ultimately draw our dotted line 

4 around what we think should be the testable 

5 configuration.

6 MR. HARTLEIN: Sam, you're referring to 21, 

7 which is not in the document that we have.

8 MALE VOICE: Right down here, Dan, page 21.

9 MR. HARTLEIN: Oh, so we're just talking 

10 about -- I see.

11 MS. ARMSTRONG: I'm saying I'm keeping it 

12 here and you guys can have the definition in front of 

13 you as we walk through it. Sorry.

14 MR. HARTLEIN: Gotcha.

15 MS. ARMSTRONG: That way we don't have to do 

16 like split screens or any of that.

17 Okay. So item one, impeller or blades, I 

18 believe we used blue, so I'll use blue. I'll take the 

19 first stab at drawing the circle around the --

20 MS. JAKOBS: So this is Diane Jakobs. So 

21 this example, it's a fan in a product, but the class 

22 is a product, so this might be less confusing than 

23 trying to identify a portion of a product.

24 MALE VOICE: Why don't we fast forward to 

25 the one you want to do.
122

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MS. ARMSTRONG: So does everyone understand 

2 what this would be? We can just skip the softball.

3 MS. JAKOBS: Well, unless you want to attach 

4 a dynamometer to that.

5 MR. SMILEY: I would assume that eventually 

6 we're going to draw a box around the whole thing, 

7 right?

8 MR. JASINSKI: I'll do it right now if we 

9 want to.

10 MR. SMILEY: But you don't have to. You 

11 could just yank the fan and get rid of the housing 

12 around there if you wanted to.

13 MALE VOICE: But the makers of this product 

14 don't want to.

15 MR. SMILEY: Sure. But you get a different 

16 answer depending on which way you do it.

17 MR. JASINSKI: The question is this is how 

18 it would end up after we went through the process 

19 outlined previously. The question to the group is, is 

20 this how we want it to end up? So is the definition 

21 as it's written get us to this point?

22 MS. JAKOBS: So this is Diane. And just as 

23 Bill just said, are you allowed to yank out the wheel 

24 and test it separately?

25 MR. SMITH: This is Wade. Yes, but the 
123

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 manufacturers of this product chose not to. They 

2 chose to draw the box as you see it. They did that 

3 for their own commercial reasons. The efficiency is 

4 reduced by virtue of the fact that you have all this 

5 paraphernalia around it.

6 MS. ARMSTRONG: So, to clarify Wade's 

7 answer, the answer is no.

8 MR. SMITH: Right.

9 MS. ARMSTRONG: If we define it like this as 

10 a testable configuration, you couldn't yank anything 

11 out of that box. This is how you have to do it, 

12 period.

13 MR. JASINSKI: All of those components would 

14 have to be present.

15 MS. ARMSTRONG: This is how it has to be 

16 tested. It's not at the manufacturer's discretion 

17 anymore. This is it.

18 MR. SMITH: Well, what I was saying is as a 

19 working group, as a working group we can do anything 

20 we want, yes?

21 MR. JASINSKI: Yes.

22 MS. ARMSTRONG: But your manufacturers agree 

23 with me.

24 MR. SMITH: I know.

25 (Laughter.)
124

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. SMITH: I know because that's where we 

2 ended up. And so after you end up there, then you 

3 can't change it, right?

4 MR. FLY: So this is Mark Fly with AAON. Is 

5 this a class in and of itself then? This is an 

6 equipment class, so therefore, if it's an equipment 

7 class, you can't dissect it. Right? If you choose to 

8 define this as a class.

9 MS. ARMSTRONG: Correct.

10 MR. SMITH: You can do it without a motor 

11 and drive, however, with a dynamometer.

12 MS. ARMSTRONG: We can get you a rating in a 

13 number of different ways when we get to the test 

14 procedure, but ultimately you need the box.

15 So do we generally agree with this approach 

16 for the softball, it's a box? The record is really 

17 going to like this conversation.

18 MR. FERNSTROM: This is Gary for the 

19 California IOUs. I'd encourage us to select a 

20 testable configuration which is as close as possible 

21 to the way this equipment will be used in the field so 

22 that the test results would be indicative of field 

23 performance.

24 MS. ARMSTRONG: But just to clarify, you 

25 would agree with this?
125

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. FERNSTROM: Yes.

2 MR. JASINSKI: Tim.

3 MR. MATHSON: Tim Mathson from Greenheck 

4 again. I don't think that manufacturers define this 

5 as the testable unit. Our customers did. That's what 

6 they wanted.

7 MR. JASINSKI: Okay. I mean, is this 

8 something, Ashley, that we want to vote, anything like 

9 that?

10 MS. ARMSTRONG: We'll officially vote on it. 

11 Let's get through the whole --

12 MR. JASINSKI: Okay.

13 MS. ARMSTRONG: -- all the examples. Then 

14 we can officially vote on the details of everything 

15 all at once.

16 MR. JASINSKI: Okay. I do have a question, 

17 however. Is there any way that this -- in the process 

18 of assembling this piece of equipment, at any stage in 

19 that process would this also meet the definition of an 

20 unhoused centrifugal? For instance, our --

21 MR. SMILEY: Sure.

22 MR. JASINSKI: So one thing the working 

23 group should try to do is write the definitions of 

24 unhoused centrifugal and power roof ventilator such 

25 that that's not the case. If the working group wants 
126

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 those to be exclusive, the definitions need to be 

2 written in a manner that makes the testable 

3 configurations exclusive. So look at the definition 

4 of power roof ventilator and look at the definition of 

5 unhoused centrifugal and figure out where we can make 

6 differentiations, mostly in the functional 

7 requirements.

8 MR. WOLF: Sam, it could fit the definition 

9 of which? Housed or unhoused?

10 MR. JASINSKI: Unhoused.

11 MR. WOLF: So I'm looking at Slide 17.

12 MR. JASINSKI: I mean, it could meet the 

13 definition of housed also. What we're saying is it 

14 needs to meet one definition of testable 

15 configuration, so we want to write the definitions of 

16 testable configuration for all groups such that 

17 they're exclusive.

18 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right, because the way our 

19 regs work generally is if it meets multiple it has to 

20 be tested and ultimately meet the standard for 

21 multiple, and so we're trying that.

22 MR. WOLF: Okay. I understand. So do you 

23 want to go into that detail right now or just hold 

24 that thought?

25 MS. ARMSTRONG: Homework.
127

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. JASINSKI: Homework. Yeah, I think that 

2 would be a good homework assignment, to look at all 

3 the definitions that this might, this and all of its 

4 subassemblies might meet and try to write them such 

5 that they're exclusive.

6 MR. HARTLEIN: And this may be a question to 

7 other members of the AMCA group, but there are other 

8 fans that get defined as a power roof ventilator, like 

9 an axial fan with a cap. So that would be one 

10 example. That's another one, yes. So we're going to 

11 go through those as well? That was going to be my 

12 next question. Okay, thank you.

13 MR. JASINSKI: Do we want to just jump to 

14 this one?

15 MR. SMILEY: Before you get too far -- this 

16 is Bill Smiley, Trane. The intent here is that this 

17 would be a product class by itself or whatever 

18 terminology you use that would have its own metric?

19 MS. ARMSTRONG: Standard.

20 MR. JASINSKI: Standard, the metric --

21 MS. ARMSTRONG: They all have the same 

22 metric.

23 MR. SMILEY: They all have the same value of 

24 the metric?

25 MS. ARMSTRONG: No, what's the standard.
128

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. SMILEY: Well, see, get the terminology 

2 right here. So, okay, thanks.

3 MR. JASINSKI: Okay. So do we want to --

4 MS. ARMSTRONG: Or at least they would be 

5 analyzed such that the working group could consider 

6 separate standard levels where appropriate for them or 

7 similar if the working group desires such things.

8 (Pause.)

9 MS. ARMSTRONG: So any thoughts on this one? 

10 Do you like the box? So we have general agreement 

11 for the box.

12 MR. JASINSKI: Okay.

13 MS. ARMSTRONG: The question is, what 

14 definition should this one fall into?

15 MR. SMITH: Is that a centrifugal fan?

16 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes, centrifugal housed.

17 MR. SMILEY: It's an unhoused centrifugal 

18 PRV.

19 MS. ARMSTRONG: Unhoused because it's open.

20 MR. SMILEY: If it's not ducted.

21 MS. ARMSTRONG: All right.

22 MR. JASINSKI: Well, that would depend on 

23 the definition of the housing.

24 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, that's why we're 

25 having this discussion. So you believe this should be 
129

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 a centrifugal unhoused.

2 MR. WOLF: This is Mike Wolf from Greenheck 

3 here. So the answer is yes, but I don't know if it's 

4 appropriate to -- if you want to talk about it now. 

5 The reason for that is because it's unducted. So the 

6 question I think at some point here we have to tee up 

7 is the unducted versus ducted, total versus static 

8 discussion.

9 MR. JASINSKI: So I think --

10 MR. WOLF: But we can do that later.

11 MR. JASINSKI: Well, I think remember now 

12 this is a jumping off point.

13 MR. WOLF: Mm-hmm.

14 MR. JASINSKI: So, for instance, if within 

15 one of the component categories that are included --

16 structure, housing, et cetera -- you can include in 

17 the definition functional requirements that will allow 

18 you to indicate ducted versus unducted. That might be 

19 a mechanism.

20 You might even add another category. I 

21 don't know what that would be called, but you can 

22 certainly suggest one that would allow you to include 

23 functional requirements that indicate ducted versus 

24 unducted. I don't know if it's possible, but it's 

25 worth considering, and that may be an avenue to 
130

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 differentiate between making this a unhoused 

2 centrifugal and the previous example, a power roof 

3 ventilator.

4 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. So what we're trying 

5 to do is go through some examples -- they're going to 

6 get increasingly a little bit more complex -- to 

7 understand at least what our general agreement of 

8 intent is. Then we're probably going to have to 

9 circle back and take a deep dive on the definitions to 

10 try to make them mutually exclusive such that when you 

11 look at definitions they would then reflect our 

12 general intent. But let's see if we can come to 

13 agreement on the general intent first.

14 MR. SMILEY: Quick question. Bill Smiley, 

15 Trane. Can we say ducted or unducted? We are only 

16 talking about the discharge flow, correct? Discharge 

17 of the impeller or discharge of the equipment, 

18 discharge of the unit?

19 MR. SMITH: Discharge of the fan.

20 MR. SMILEY: Discharge of the fan, not inlet 

21 to the fan.

22 MR. SMITH: That's correct.

23 MR. SMILEY: Thank you.

24 MR. JASINSKI: So I would say discharge of 

25 the testable configuration if you want to make it 
131

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 compatible with this.

2 MR. SMILEY: If we don't get this stuff 

3 written down, everybody's memory is not good.

4 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, you have three people 

5 taking notes. What we'll do is consolidate them. 

6 Sam's taking some, we're taking others over here, so 

7 we'll send out a red line like we did last time.

8 MR. JASINSKI: Okay, I'll let that happen.

9 MS. ARMSTRONG: That's fine.

10 MR. JASINSKI: Appreciate that.

11 MS. ARMSTRONG: And obviously we also have a 

12 transcript to the extent you could read it and figure 

13 out what we're talking about with softballs and all 

14 kinds -- boxes, and do we agree with that box, this 

15 box, that circle.

16 MR. MATHSON: Sam, Tim Mathson, Greenheck 

17 again.

18 MR. JASINSKI: Yes.

19 MR. MATHSON: Again, I keep saying our 

20 customers define what they want to include in fan 

21 performance, and again this is an easy one. It's a 

22 non-ducted PRV.

23 But if you go back to that original one that 

24 seemed like it was easy, the supply fan, our customers 

25 would say they have no use for the performance of the 
132

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 blower, that what they want to see is the performance 

2 of that louvered housing. And this is one of the, I 

3 guess, rare cases of a PRV that's ducted on the 

4 discharge, and so PRV in itself doesn't require it to 

5 be unducted. This is a ducted fan. So it's not as 

6 simple of an example. It seemed like it was a simple 

7 one.

8 MR. SMILEY: Bill Smiley, Trane. You know, 

9 the implication I've had is that PRV is something that 

10 exhausts from an interior space. This actually is set 

11 up, I think, to blow or deliver air into an occupied 

12 space. So it depends on how we define PRV. You know, 

13 this might be a makeup air unit to provide ventilation 

14 to a warehouse or something, so it could be ducted, it 

15 could not be ducted on discharge. It depends on the 

16 application. And like Tim said, the customer wants to 

17 know what the performance of the equipment is so that 

18 he knows he's getting the stuff he needs for his 

19 environment that he's buying it for.

20 MR. WHITWELL: This is Bob Whitwell from 

21 Carrier. So the customer may have certain things that 

22 they're interested in and the suppliers -- the 

23 manufacturers can always provide that. That can be 

24 separate from what's regulated. I mean, it doesn't 

25 have to be regulated by DOE for the supplier to 
133

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 provide it to the customer, right? So it's still -- I 

2 mean, you can still draw the envelope like it's shown 

3 here and the manufacturer could provide information on 

4 the entire product.

5 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I'm going to say with 

6 caution not exactly, but we could maybe find a way. I 

7 mean, DOE, the statute does have representation 

8 clauses that will govern what types of representations 

9 manufacturers not only must make but can make, so 

10 there's some details and nuances there. So I need to 

11 better understand, you know, in addition to the ones 

12 that you will have to be making in response to this 

13 regulatory scheme that hopefully we ultimately agree 

14 to, it would be good to know which ones you want to 

15 continue to make if they are different than the 

16 regulatory scheme if that makes sense.

17 MR. JASINSKI: Trinity?

18 MR. PERSFUL: Trinity Persful, Clarage. I 

19 would be careful the way you term it. There's a 

20 difference between minimal testable configuration and 

21 testable configuration, so that's what we need to 

22 define. Like if you draw the box around the 

23 weathering, weather-proofing thing, that's a testable 

24 configuration. The way the dashed line is now, that 

25 would be a minimal testable configuration. So we're 
134

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 mixing the two, so just keep that in mind.

2 MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, that's why I think 

3 we're trying to define what it is because once we 

4 define what it is there's no difference in minimal and 

5 testable. It is what it is. So that's why we're 

6 trying to at least have a general agreement from the 

7 working group about what that is, because once we've 

8 defined it and it is proposed and ultimately goes 

9 through the regulations, that's what it will be used 

10 as.

11 You want to go back? So?

12 MR. JASINSKI: So do you want to go on to 

13 another example? I think we took some notes here and 

14 there's some homework in terms of ducting, unducted. 

15 Maybe, Bill, some of the aspects that you brought up 

16 could also be included in the definitions to capture 

17 exhaust versus supply in terms of roof-mounted 

18 equipment.

19 MR. FERNSTROM: This is Gary. I have a 

20 question. Excuse me. I think it's important that we 

21 try and get at a measurement of the performance from 

22 the consumer's point of view or what we're going to 

23 see in the real world, and in the drawing you have on 

24 the screen now I see what appears to me to be the 

25 cover of this thing included. But in the other 
135

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 example, we excluded the cover because it was termed 

2 to be an environmental shelter to keep the rain out. 

3 But I think we all agree that it would to some extent 

4 or other affect the performance. So don't we want to 

5 try and include everything that affects the 

6 performance in every testable configuration we find 

7 here?

8 MR. HARTLEIN: So Dan from Twin City. You 

9 know, that can be a really, really, really tough to 

10 define and broad and slippery slope. So while 

11 conceptually I think we can all agree that that would 

12 be a good thing to do, filters, elbows, ductwork, 

13 where does the list end? Protrusions through the 

14 ductwork. It's a very, very difficult thing.

15 MR. FERNSTROM: So this is Gary. I agree, 

16 but can't we define it as the way the product is sold? 

17 And, you know, elbows and ductwork and things that 

18 are added after the fact are excluded, but whatever is 

19 included the way the product is sold would be 

20 included.

21 MR. BURDICK: This is Larry with SPX. I 

22 would more agree with Dan's point on that because of 

23 the various inlet configurations that are possible, 

24 whether the air entry is from two sides or one side. 

25 There are just so many combinations that you can't 
136

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 include, you know, a dashed line around an entire box 

2 on all of the options that you're going to run into.

3 MR. FERNSTROM: Okay. Well, let's try and 

4 be as inclusive as we reasonably can.

5 MR. STARR: So this is Louis Starr. I think 

6 the path that Gary's trying to go down is assuming a 

7 certain static pressure for your fan that you're 

8 connecting it to. This is kind of a similar 

9 discussion we have with commercial AC where we're 

10 trying to capture what's realistic in the field 

11 condition. So while you cannot know how every single 

12 ductwork system's designed, as a general rule of thumb 

13 for a lot of these boxes you draw a box around each 

14 one of them. I have a general number in my mind what 

15 each one is, and I suspect the fan people have an idea 

16 of generally what those run in terms of static 

17 pressure. So you actually wouldn't even have to get 

18 it right. You just have to get it close. But I know 

19 it's more than just the amount of air it takes to get 

20 that across the fan wheel and down there.

21 You know, I look at that one, I'm going to 

22 go with an inch and a half? So anyway.

23 MR. THOMAS: So just a point of 

24 clarification. We talked about potentially certifying 

25 for a range of operating points. If we do go down 
137

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 that path, if we draw the box where it is now and that 

2 range of operating points includes the -- I'm assuming 

3 that the person, the party responsible for selling 

4 what's in that box and testing what's in that box, if 

5 given the choice of where they want to certify that 

6 assembly for operation, it would include the operating 

7 points that would allow it to be installed in this 

8 piece of equipment, and so that performance would be 

9 captured. It's just a matter of before or after that 

10 casing gets put on it.

11 So it's not that we would exclude the real12 world operating point. The real-world operating point 

13 would under that regulatory approach be included.

14 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. And what you would 

15 see then, to the extent we end up implementing the 

16 regulatory approach as we provided it in our second 

17 NODA in response to the AMCA advocates' method, would 

18 be a certified range of operation for a given fan 

19 model, which would actually probably get you much 

20 closer to what you're looking for than a single point.

21 MR. STARR: Yeah. Okay. So this approach 

22 is definitely different than what DOE usually does. 

23 So that's good. Ouch.

24 (Laughter.)

25 MS. ARMSTRONG: Take a bit of that apple.
138

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 (Laughter.)

2 MR. STARR: I think it came across the wrong 

3 way.

4 MALE VOICE: Can we have a thumbs down or up 

5 on that? Can we vote on that?

6 (Laughter.)

7 MR. THOMAS: Okay. So shall we move on to a 

8 new example?

9 MS. ARMSTRONG: We have one more question.

10 MR. THOMAS: Okay.

11 MS. ARMSTRONG: So Jill Hootman at Trane 

12 asked a question on the webinar that said, could 

13 separate equipment classes have separate test metrics 

14 as well? That saying maybe FER or whatever doesn't 

15 cover something certain.

16 So, Jill, I don't know the specific answer 

17 to that. Typically we have the same, we use single 

18 metrics, but we use different test methods to come up 

19 with -- for different categories of equipment that may 

20 have different characteristics or different field 

21 consumptions or operating characteristics that need to 

22 be appropriate reflected. But that's something that 

23 DOE could investigate to the extent that that's of

24 interest to the committee.

25 MR. WOLF: Ashley, Mike Wolf here. I think 
139

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 the way the current metric is structured, it might 

2 just be a different level. I mean, there's different 

3 ways to skin that cat I think.

4 MR. JASINSKI: Why don't we go to the panel 

5 fan. This I think is just a homework assignment. I 

6 mean, I think in general I'll draw the shape, but I 

7 think this one, basically a new definition needs to be 

8 crafted because the definition in the current 

9 presentation, which is on Slide 15, is now 

10 encompassing circulator fans, which are being 

11 excluded. So now we need to come up with a definition 

12 of panel fan using the same methodology that's 

13 presented here for the other equipment classes in 

14 order to draw the box where we want it around this 

15 panel fan. So I don't think we want to do that in 

16 real time here, but I'll just draw the box and if 

17 there's general agreement, we can make that also a 

18 homework assignment. Any objections to that?

19 MS. JAKOBS: This is Diane. So I had asked 

20 before, and I'm thinking about condenser fans. So you 

21 said ducted is ducted outlet only. So a condenser fan 

22 wouldn't have a duct on the outlet, but the air coming 

23 into it would not be free, I mean, and the size of the 

24 panel changes and, I mean, that one shows kind of a 

25 minimal panel. So that's a part that's confusing me.
140

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. SMITH: Right. So the reason that the 

2 duct on the outlet matters is because the velocity 

3 pressure leaving the fan can be recovered to overcome 

4 duct resistance basically. And if you don't have a 

5 duct on the outlet, the velocity pressure is not 

6 recovered.

7 When we get into talking, actually we might 

8 do it right now. I don't know if you want to get into 

9 static versus total, but there's something that you 

10 can do to a panel fan on the outlet. ebm does it to 

11 their product that they sell for condenser fans. A 

12 lot of our other members do it for agricultural fans. 

13 They put a transition, right, from the outlet of the 

14 fan to the atmosphere and the more gradual and longer 

15 that transition, the slower you have to turn the fan 

16 and the less power you use because you're recovering 

17 velocity pressure to overcome static resistance on the 

18 inlet, which is curious.

19 So at some point we should talk about that. 

20 But I think in general, you know, if you talk about a 

21 unitary equipment that's got four or two or six 

22 condenser fans in a panel and each of those fans 

23 individually is sort of like the one that was shown 

24 and the panels can be larger or smaller, it doesn't 

25 matter. It's a panel fan. And it doesn't have, as 
141

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 you point out, it doesn't have duct on its outlet.

2 MS. JAKOBS: So I think we're talking about 

3 the testable configuration. So, if we have the same 

4 blades, the same hole, is one of them -- we just test 

5 one of them and then we use it in whatever patchwork 

6 configuration we want?

7 MR. JASINSKI: Diane, are we talking about 

8 this situation?

9 MS. JAKOBS: There you go. Okay.

10 MR. JASINSKI: Is that what we're trying to 

11 talk about? So why don't we just go to that example. 

12 I will change this. So what I'm hearing is --

13 MS. JAKOBS: So are we only worried about 

14 one diameter and we test it once and we're done?

15 MR. SMITH: What do you want? This is for 

16 you to tell them, not for them to tell you.

17 MS. JAKOBS: Well, I think they're already 

18 tested, so --

19 MR. SMILEY: Bill Smiley, Trane. On 

20 currently regulated products, the condenser fan 

21 energy's already regulated as part of the overall 

22 product regulation, so it doesn't need to be regulated 

23 in this particular exercise. It's already included, 

24 counted. Am I correct in assuming that, or I'm off 

25 base here?
142

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. WHITWELL: They run when the compressor 

2 is running. They never run when the compressor is 

3 off. It's in the EER or IEER metric or COP metric, 

4 however you want to look at it.

5 MS. ARMSTRONG: I'll let others chime in 

6 first before I articulate --

7 MR. SMILEY: It should not be regulated in 

8 this exercise.

9 MS. ARMSTRONG: So maybe you guys can tell 

10 me, so if we agree that a panel fan -- can you go back 

11 to the other slide -- comes down to this in their 

12 testable configuration, I want you to tell me how do I 

13 differentiate that between that from the point of 

14 manufacture. It's different if it's coming in before.

15 MR. SMILEY: It's sitting right there in a 

16 regulated product. What more information do you need?

17 MR. HAUER: Well, the basic fan is 

18 cataloged. No trouble, right? The basic fan is used 

19 in a chiller in an unregulated product.

20 MS. ARMSTRONG: Exactly.

21 MR. HAUER: It can be used in a regulated 

22 condenser, it can be used for indirect evaporative 

23 coolers, for all sorts of things, for barn fan. It 

24 can be used anywhere. It cannot be told by the part 

25 number or anything.
143

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. So DOE would have no 

2 way to distinguish this type of fan that goes into an 

3 unregulated application versus one that goes into 

4 ultimately an OEM regulated application, which you 

5 guys are at least referring to as regulated, from 

6 potentially the point of manufacture of an actual fan. 

7 So I guess the question for the working group is, is 

8 that something the working group is comfortable 

9 excluding? Speak up.

10 MR. WHITWELL: I think, couldn't we cover it 

11 with the label? Labeled for use in regulated, I don't 

12 know what the wording would be, but describe it as 

13 being able to be used in products that are regulated 

14 by DOE?

15 MR. PERSFUL: This is Trinity from Clarage. 

16 You said that the fan is already regulated in this. 

17 What's the fan efficiency requirement for that fan?

18 MR. SMILEY: There is none. There's a 

19 product overall efficiency, which is what the consumer 

20 pays when he operates the equipment. So you don't 

21 need to have --

22 MR. PERSFUL: Is the fan regulated in this?

23 MR. SMILEY: No, the fan by itself is not 

24 regulated. The overall product is. The total energy 

25 consumed by that product when it's in a cooling mode, 
144

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 which is the only time those fans operate, is 

2 included, the energy to that fan, which is what we're 

3 after here is energy that people consume.

4 MR. STARR: So this is Louis Starr with 

5 NEEA. One of the things, and this is kind of, so this 

6 is a topic also on the commercial AC we're working on 

7 this, but part of the energy advocates' concern about 

8 this is that really is the test procedure really 

9 accurately capturing the energy used such that it 

10 drives the efficiency of these fans, and that's really 

11 more the concern.

12 And, you know, a particular one, where I 

13 wasn't so much concerned about the one that's circled 

14 here, it would be more back further in the unit, that 

15 big air handler unit, but, you know, really the issue 

16 comes as how much is the weighting of that fan for the

17 other energy and does it actually drive those fans to 

18 become efficient? If it is, then it becomes a little 

19 better case for why you're double regulating it, 

20 right? And so, in the case of the condenser fans, I 

21 don't really necessarily know if they're adequately 

22 really, are the fans being maximized? Are these the 

23 best design?

24 If I were to look at similar applications 

25 out here, and this is something maybe the fan guys can 
145

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 contribute on. Are these the best, most efficient 

2 fans for operating or for cooling these systems, or is 

3 what's currently on an existing air handler the best?

4 But, I mean, that's what kind of our concern 

5 is really is the overall efficiency rating of the air 

6 handler actually driving really efficient designs of 

7 fans, and I'm not clear that it is. Maybe you can 

8 provide some information on that that would be helpful 

9 in making a decision about whether there needs to be a 

10 circle around this particular set or not.

11 MR. WHITWELL: But, Louis, this is Bob 

12 Whitwell. So the power from these fans, these 

13 condenser fans, it's 100 percent captured in the 

14 efficiency metric that we already have on this 

15 equipment. And if you put another efficiency 

16 requirement on those fans, it's starting to be 

17 prescriptive. It's going to say okay, you have to use 

18 a certain fan in order to meet, as part of the design 

19 that meets something that's regulated with another 

20 metric.

21 So I guess I don't quite understand that 

22 argument. I mean, if there's a question about how do 

23 you make sure that a fan that can be used here isn't 

24 used in another product, okay, so that is an issue 

25 that we have to deal with. But to say that this needs 
146

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 to be regulated because there might be a more 

2 efficient fan that could be used in this equipment to 

3 meet some energy efficiency requirement for the 

4 product overall, I don't agree that that's something 

5 that this group should be worried about.

6 MR. STARR: Well, just one thing here. I 

7 mean, I guess that is a good question. If they aren't 

8 using a pretty efficient fan for this application, one 

9 would ask why not, right? If we already are.

10 MR. WHITWELL: Because it's not the best 

11 economic choice in order to meet the efficiency 

12 metrics that we have for the equipment. It ends up 

13 being an economic weight between compressor versus 

14 condenser fans versus maybe indoor/outdoor fans.

15 MR. SMILEY: These condenser fans consume 

16 maybe 8 percent or 5 percent of the total energy 

17 that's being regulated.

18 MR. STARR: So I think an accurate thing to 

19 say is the metric's not driving an efficient fan in 

20 this case, right?

21 MR. WHITWELL: You can't say that, Louis. 

22 It's a system efficiency that we need.

23 MR. SMILEY: You can't suboptimize every 

24 component and have the most optimized combination. 

25 Show me how to do that.
147

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I take the discussion 

2 going two ways, and I'm just going to summarize it.

3 I think from DOE's perspective, our ask is 

4 to explain to me how we differentiate, and I want to 

5 specifically understand because I do think it's 

6 important if there are things that are unregulated, 

7 same types of fans, that I think that is a serious 

8 concern for us, the working group, to consider whether 

9 they should be in or they should be out. So I think 

10 the differentiation point is an important one, and a 

11 self-declaration, there are some concerns with that, 

12 as I noted right out the gate in day one.

13 To Louis's point, you know, I think what 

14 he's asking of you is is the test procedure 

15 representative of the fan energy use as it exists 

16 today for rooftops. I think that's a little out of 

17 the scope of this negotiation, but that seems to be 

18 what he's bringing up.

19 MR. JASINSKI: Ashley, can I ask a quick 

20 question of the group? In terms of a potential 

21 pathway forward for differentiating between a panel 

22 fan that goes into a nonregulated application and a 

23 panel fan that goes into an already regulated 

24 application, are there ways to draw exclusive circles 

25 around the range of operation such that the range of 
148

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 operation in a regulated piece of equipment does not 

2 need to be certified and the operating range for 

3 unregulated applications does? Maybe not in all 

4 cases, but basically asking in cases where there's no 

5 overlap between the two, I don't know if that's maybe 

6 an opportunity. So maybe it's a non-starter.

7 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, so, I mean, this is 

8 where it comes to you guys need to tell us.

9 MR. SMILEY: This is Bill Smiley, Trane. 

10 Not all condenser fans are general use fans. Some are 

11 specifically designed for only that application, and 

12 that's the only place they're used. They're 

13 manufactured specifically for that particular unit. 

14 So it doesn't have an unregulated application.

15 MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly with AAON. I 

16 mean, many of these fans for many of us, we only buy 

17 the impeller. The inlet cone, the mount and 

18 everything on these fans is fabricated as part of the 

19 box, you know. I may punch two inlet cones in one 

20 piece of sheet metal there that goes all the way 

21 across. That's a fairly common practice among all the 

22 manufacturers.

23 So, if you regulate this as a panel fan, we 

24 are going to be the manufacturer because our inlet 

25 cone may not be the same as the inlet cone that the 
149

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 impeller manufacturer intends to go with that, so 

2 we'll have to create a fan that will never be sold to 

3 test.

4 MR. SMILEY: For what purpose?

5 MR. FERNSTROM: This is Gary. I kind of 

6 like fail to see why it is that if we put a more 

7 efficient fan into some other regulated product and 

8 that fan provides the same utility as the fan that was 

9 previously there, that would be in terms of air flow 

10 and static pressure and so on, why that would not be a

11 good thing?

12 MR. WHITWELL: Gary, I'm sorry for 

13 interrupting. So what would happen, I mean, these are 

14 cost-sensitive products, right? So what would happen 

15 then is that the manufacturers would most likely take 

16 heat exchanger surface out of the unit to save money 

17 and still hit the efficiency requirement for the 

18 equipment on a system perspective.

19 MR. SMILEY: Then you'd end up with the same 

20 power usage because the equipment is regulated.

21 MR. SMITH: At a higher cost.

22 MR. SMILEY: You'd add cost. Potentially 

23 you could decrease performance depending on how you 

24 define what fan efficiency's required, stick that fan 

25 in the unit. It doesn't work very good in the unit. 
150

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 A centrifugal fan that's housed has much higher 

2 efficient potential than a panel fan. But it's the 

3 wrong duty requirement. Of course, you said for the 

4 same duty.

5 MR. STARR: So, if everybody has to make the 

6 same efficient fan, why wouldn't they just buy the 

7 same fan that's a little more efficient so it costs 

8 more and potentially, you know, you'd just have the 

9 same condenser?

10 MR. WHITWELL: But everybody doesn't buy the 

11 same efficiency fan. I mean, different fans from 

12 different suppliers are going to have different 

13 efficiency, and then we design the orifice that it 

14 goes into, which is going to be different from 

15 manufacturer to manufacturer. We design it based on 

16 what the application is.

17 MR. SMILEY: This is Bill Smiley, Trane. 

18 The requirement for the condenser fan is driven by 

19 other components of the unit, and every manufacturer 

20 may have a different design coil, different fin 

21 series, different fin shape, different thickness of 

22 material. All those things are a function of the 

23 manufacturer optimizing in their ability for cost to 

24 meet that overall unit performance level. So this guy 

25 may have a higher pressure drop coil than that guy. 
151

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 He may have a smaller coil and want more air. You 

2 know, it's a variation. He's shooting for the overall 

3 equipment efficiency level that's currently regulated.

4 MR. FERNSTROM: Okay. So this is Gary. And 

5 thank you. That perspective was helpful. I think the 

6 thing that occurs to me now is not all of the energy 

7 use associated with this equipment is necessarily 

8 regulated. The heating and cooling efficiency 

9 performance is regulated, but the ventilation 

10 performance is not regulated. So, you know, we may 

11 choose to have a poorer fan and a better heat 

12 exchanger when in reality that fan is running a lot 

13 more hours and using a lot more energy than we're 

14 ultimately accounting for in the heating and cooling 

15 performance.

16 MR. WHITWELL: So we can have that 

17 discussion about other fans in this unit, but those 

18 condenser fans are only running when the compressor is 

19 on and it's fully captured in the metric.

20 MR. FERNSTROM: Okay. So I understand that 

21 point for the condenser fans. I just wanted to make 

22 that observation that it depends upon the application 

23 of the fan how these tradeoffs work.

24 MR. STARR: So this is Louis. Back on the 

25 condenser fans. To some extent -- so part of the 
152

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 thing with the metric that most likely may go, and the 

2 thing is, it depends on how the duty point of your 

3 fan, how it's basically efficiency in the duty points, 

4 basically the standard level that may be set on that.

5 In this case, I can understand that you 

6 might want to take some metal let's say out of, add 

7 some condenser or fins in there. You'd have more flow 

8 and pressure, right? But the efficiency of the fan, 

9 you'd still always want to optimize that no matter 

10 whether you had less pressure drop or more flow. 

11 whatever the flow pressure characteristics are across 

12 that piece of equipment, you'd want to maximize that 

13 such that it seems like if you require a certain 

14 efficiency level, you as a manufacturer would want to 

15 be trying to get that.

16 And if you were choosing to have let's say a 

17 less efficient fan so that you could add more things 

18 in there -- it's kind of like one of those things when 

19 everybody has to do a certain level, it seems like it 

20 raises the whole boat, and, I mean, from my 

21 standpoint, that's the advantage is that all of a 

22 sudden everybody has to have a certain efficiency of 

23 fan in those products, and so then it keeps everybody 

24 from cheaping out on fan efficiency and making really 

25 bad fan blades such that they, you know, are not very 
153

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 efficient fans because they can make a little bit of 

2 cost savings there and add it somewhere else in the 

3 unit where they get more. But if everybody has to 

4 have a certain efficiency in the fan itself, it seems 

5 like that inherently is a good thing, but maybe not.

6 MR. WHITWELL: It's always a tradeoff, 

7 right? It's always a tradeoff. You can put more 

8 money in the fan and take it out of the coils, the 

9 heat exchanger, or a lower efficiency compressor, or a 

10 less energy efficient indoor fan. I mean, you've got 

11 all these tradeoffs you can make.

12 MR. STARR: So you're essentially picking a 

13 winner is what you're saying by making the fan --

14 MR. WHITWELL: You're designing the system 

15 to meet the efficiency metric.

16 MR. SMILEY: And the engineer's job is to 

17 optimally at minimum cost hit the maximum performance 

18 manufacturability that they can, and that's what we 

19 engineers have always done and will continue to do. 

20 But it's an economic decision to hit the overall goal.

21 MR. HARTLEIN: So can I weigh in here maybe 

22 as one of the fan guys in the room. I certainly get 

23 this argument. I understand what you guys are saying. 

24 But the challenge that I see as a fan manufacturer 

25 participating heavily in North America, the U.S. 
154

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 market specifically, I don't know how we are going to 

2 differentiate between that impeller being sold to you 

3 and an impeller being sold to everybody else.

4 So what's going to happen here is that fan 

5 is going to be -- our selector platforms are going to 

6 change. Our catalogs are going to change. We're not 

7 going to even offer that product in noncompliant 

8 ranges today. So that leads me to the conclusion that 

9 the only place you're going to buy that is from an 

10 offshore competitor that isn't participating in that 

11 business, because --

12 MR. SMILEY: Not necessarily.

13 MR. HARTLEIN: Because I'm not going to have 

14 that product anymore.

15 MR. SMILEY: We can make them ourselves.

16 MR. HARTLEIN: Then you're a fan 

17 manufacturer.

18 MR. SMILEY: Or we can hire you to make it 

19 for us.

20 MR. HARTLEIN: Which you can. I mean, 

21 certainly, you know, you become a fan manufacturer at 

22 that point, which is fine. I mean, you certainly have 

23 every open right to do that. But we've looked ahead a 

24 little bit as an industry as well, and I'm not really 

25 trying to argue either side of this. I see the 
155

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 complexity of it and trying to understand it.

2 One of the things we've really struggled 

3 with as an industry is, what's going to happen to the 

4 label requirements? We have a hard time, as you guys 

5 know, from time to time getting the rotation arrow on 

6 the right way. Okay?

7 (Laughter.)

8 MR. SMILEY: In how many different 

9 languages.

10 MR. HARTLEIN: Yeah, exactly. And so now 

11 we're going to have to keep track of all of this on 

12 these products? I mean, to me, that's a big issue for 

13 us too is simply the labeling burden and the burden of 

14 compliance that we're going to have on this product.

15 So I'm certainly not arguing against AHRI's 

16 position here. I'm just trying to share with 

17 everybody in the room the perspective of the fan 

18 manufacturer, because this is not going to be an easy 

19 thing for us to deal with. And like I said, I fully 

20 envision our selector platforms and catalogs are going 

21 to change. We're only going to sell what's in North 

22 America -- or in the U.S., excuse me -- sorry, Canada 

23 -- we're only going to sell what's in the compliant 

24 range in that selector software.

25 MR. SMILEY: This is Bill Smiley, Trane 
156

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 again. I totally can appreciate your point of view, 

2 but as an OEM equipment manufacturer, we make a 

3 million variations of a lot of the different equipment 

4 we make, and you think you guys would have a headache 

5 with all this stuff. We already have labels out the 

6 wazoo you wouldn't believe, and we're going to have 

7 more and we're going to double up or triple the amount 

8 of testing we have to do?

9 MR. HARTLEIN: The only question is why are 

10 you labeling the wazoo?

11 (Laughter.)

12 MR. SMILEY: It's a requirement. I think 

13 it's UL. I'm not for sure.

14 MR. HARTLEIN: It wasn't DOE, though, we can 

15 be clear on that.

16 MS. ARMSTRONG: They do not have DOE labels.

17 MR. SMILEY: DOE would not do that.

18 (Laughter.)

19 MR. ROY: Aniruddh Roy, Goodman. I'd like 

20 to ask Ashley one question. I think, Ashley, you 

21 mentioned when we were discussing this example that 

22 the EER or the regulated metric does not accurately 

23 capture the condenser fan power, but --

24 MS. ARMSTRONG: I didn't necessarily make an 

25 argument either way. I think that's what Louis was 
157

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 getting at with his question of is the energy use as 

2 experienced in the field, does a test procedure 

3 accurately represent those conditions such that you 

4 would incentivize putting in a more efficient fan if 

5 said another way. Obviously DOE has a test procedure 

6 on the books. DOE hasn't taken a position on that. 

7 So I'm not sure where we're going here.

8 MR. ROY: Okay. No, no. My only question 

9 is that, you know, there is an equation out there in 

10 the test procedure which also talks about condenser 

11 fan power, so I just wanted to get some clarification 

12 from your end on that. That's all.

13 MR. CATANIA: Well, Tom Catania, AMCA. I 

14 guess there's nothing like an embedded fan to serve 

15 the same function as a double shot espresso for this 

16 group here.

17 (Laughter.)

18 MR. CATANIA: We should just bring it up 

19 periodically late in the afternoon just to wake 

20 everybody up.

21 I guess that I want to reinforce a couple of 

22 the points that were being made just for purposes of 

23 organizing the discussion. I think the earlier 

24 comment, I think it came from Carrier about the 

25 distinction between these particular fans only 
158

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 operating during the cooling function and therefore 

2 their energy being captured in the test procedure, as 

3 distinguished from other fans. A couple people have 

4 brought that up, where they're operating primarily 

5 during a ventilation function.

6 MR. WHITWELL: Not primarily but often.

7 MR. CATANIA: Well, significant, there's a 

8 significant amount of energy.

9 The concern I have is that when we talk 

10 about optimizing a design, there is a functional 

11 element, but we're really talking about energy 

12 regulation here, and I think it's quite clear that 

13 part of the design is to optimize it to comply with 

14 the, at minimal cost, to comply with the energy 

15 standard. So, if the test procedure weight assigned 

16 to the energy consumed during the only kind of 

17 ventilation mode is not at present accurately 

18 reflecting the percentage of energy devoted to that 

19 mode, then it doesn't create incentives for the best, 

20 you know, casing loss designs and so forth.

21 Now nobody wants to waste money on anything 

22 anyway, but what I'm concerned about is we've got two 

23 simultaneous rulemaking or working group proceedings 

24 going on, and there's a test procedure as applied in 

25 the current one that may be bleeding over into this 
159

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 one and driving the desire for regulating embedded 

2 fans in these products because there's a bunch of 

3 additional energy that's being consumed during the 

4 ventilation mode that may not be fully reflected in 

5 what's ultimately leading to the standard for these 

6 products in the other proceeding.

7 So this is really a question. This is a 

8 working group and the question is, how is this best 

9 addressed when you've got a combination of test 

10 procedure issues and a standard in one proceeding and 

11 the same sort of products in the same devices in this 

12 proceeding? I think that's something we've got to 

13 wrestle with.

14 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I'm going to try to 

15 somewhat address that first for a minute. Well, I 

16 think that from DOE's perspective, and one of the 

17 reasons we asked you, the very first question we asked 

18 you in that data request was, what fans are we talking 

19 about and what OEM products? Are they currently 

20 regulated or not? And the reason for that was to get 

21 at some of this discussion. And, you know, secondary 

22 to that I think perhaps as homework, still asking the 

23 same question, how do you differentiate?

24 If the committee as a whole believes that 

25 panel fans should be in, yet there's some sympathy to 
160

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 condenser fans that are also panel fans by definition, 

2 because they're considered in IEER, being excluded, 

3 how would you administer that? And I'm not sure a 

4 self-declaration approach works, so absent that, what 

5 else works?

6 MR. WAGNER: Ashley, what would be the 

7 enforcement for that? I mean, you're saying a self8 declaration would not be acceptable. What would be 

9 the enforcement? In other words, how do you find 

10 panel fans or whatever being sold into the marketplace 

11 that aren't being applied?

12 MR. WHITWELL: Right, because just to build 

13 on that, I look at that other case example that was up 

14 there with the panel fan and I don't see really a 

15 difference. A fan manufacturer, let's say the 

16 component manufacturer that makes the impeller sells 

17 it to the user who applies it in this application, and 

18 then they sell a different one to an HVAC manufacturer 

19 that applies it in the other unit. You know, it all 

20 comes down to what the enforcement mechanism is I 

21 guess, right?

22 MR. STARR: So one way you could do that, 

23 and I think they do it with other equipment, is you 

24 paint it a certain color or something so if it --

25 (Laughter.)
161

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. STARR: Well, I think they do this with 

2 life safety equipment. In other words, if you're 

3 selling it into a given product -- I mean, a lot of 

4 these fans and things end up going through an 

5 inspection process in buildings, and so if you saw 

6 something that was painted red, you would probably 

7 know it's not a --

8 MR. WHITWELL: But my point was -- sorry, 

9 Greg, if I cut you off.

10 MR. WAGNER: That's all right.

11 MR. WHITWELL: But my point was going to be 

12 that it's kind of a self-certification anyway, Ashley, 

13 isn't it? I mean, somehow manufacturers are going to 

14 say yes, my fan complies with this requirement.

15 MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, coverage in and of 

16 itself in DOE's regs right now isn't a self17 declaration. I can certainly find products that meet 

18 our definitions that should be complying with our 

19 standards that do not.

20 MR. WHITWELL: Okay, but --

21 MS. ARMSTRONG: I'm not asking them to self22 declare whether they want to be regulated.

23 MR. WHITWELL: Yeah. It's maybe not called 

24 self-declaration. But, I mean, we certify our 

25 equipment to DOE, right?
162

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, you do. There are 

2 others that don't.

3 MR. WAGNER: Well, I think that's a problem 

4 that you're not going after them, because I'm a 

5 manufacturer. I manufacture fans.

6 MS. ARMSTRONG: I think we are, but what I 

7 want is a bright line in the sand to be able to do 

8 that. That's what I'm asking for.

9 MR. WAGNER: Okay. I'm a manufacturer of 

10 fans. I don't sell any of those kind of things, but 

11 we do sell a lot of them into condensing units, and 

12 100 percent they're customized design for the 

13 application. So they meet the performance 

14 requirements of some of the folks in this room, some 

15 other folks as well. But they are custom designed for 

16 those specific applications to meet the minimum 

17 requirement or to exceed the minimum requirements for 

18 SEER or IEER or EER, whatever those standards are. 

19 But they're clearly traceable as to where they go and 

20 who they're sold to. There is no unclarity there of 

21 what these products are for and where they're going. 

22 There's a huge paper trail.

23 MS. JAKOBS: This is Diane Jakobs. 

24 According to these tables, a required component is an 

25 impeller, a shaft and bearings, housing and a 
163

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 structure. So even if you took those same blades and 

2 we had them on a rooftop unit, it would be a different 

3 fan. It would just be the same component part of a 

4 fan, and the efficiency would change depending on all 

5 four of the pieces you put together.

6 MR. SMITH: I guess what she's saying, 

7 Ashley, is that the fan manufacturer in this case is 

8 the maker of the regulated unitary equipment.

9 MR. FINE: Can I make a suggestion? This is 

10 Steve Fine, one of the facilitators. I've been 

11 listening over and over again over the three days 

12 we've been doing this, and one issue just comes up 

13 over and over again, and that's that of the embedded 

14 products, although we use different words.

15 But anyhow, what I'm thinking might be 

16 useful, for those who wish to exclude fans or think it 

17 may be a good idea, perhaps they could come forward, 

18 it might be helpful if they would come forward with a 

19 written proposal or presentation on just justifying 

20 that and explaining how it would work, finding 

21 solutions or making suggestions of how they could 

22 overcome I guess the various issues. Like, for 

23 instance, how would you distinguish between, if you 

24 were to have regulated and unregulated fans, how would 

25 you determine or is there anything you can do to make 
164

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 sure that all of a sudden DOE didn't find that the 

2 unregulated fans were showing up where regulated fans 

3 were supposed to be, et cetera.

4 So anyhow, I'm talking about maybe doing 

5 homework projects, having a subgroup or something that 

6 would report back to the group with a proposal. For 

7 instance, they could also flesh out the engineering 

8 argument that a more efficient fan may hurt overall 

9 system performance and also help with some language to 

10 help you define those fans.

11 But anyhow, it's a suggestion and I was 

12 wondering if anyone wanted to discuss that.

13 MR. FERNSTROM: Steve, this is Gary. I have 

14 a point I'd like to make, and that is I don't think 

15 this is a zero sum game. So what I kind of hear here 

16 is the air conditioning and heating industry saying 

17 okay, if you regulate the fan and make us buy a more 

18 expensive fan that provides the same utility but costs 

19 more, perhaps it has better performance, we'll take 

20 that out somewhere else because our engineers' job is 

21 to optimize the construction and cost of this thing 

22 such as to meet the standard.

23 But I call into consideration the computers 

24 and the way that's working out. So we have some 

25 regulations on computer power supply efficiency and 
165

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 the computer makers might say, well, if you make us 

2 put in a better power supply, in order to meet the 

3 efficiency requirements, we'll just take it out of the 

4 CPU, so we won't make the CPU as efficient.

5 But the reality is that it isn't a static 

6 zero sum game. So, when we get the better fan, we 

7 look at the heating and cooling appliance again and we 

8 say, well, you know, you've got the better fan in 

9 there. The cost picture has changed. We can make the 

10 performance of the whole equipment better and still 

11 have it be cost-effective.

12 So I don't really buy the idea that there's 

13 no usefulness or benefit in regulating a component in 

14 an already regulated piece of equipment.

15 MR. FINE: I hope that's not what I was 

16 suggesting was perceived. I was suggesting that 

17 there's this issue that people keep struggling with 

18 and perhaps a good way to handle that issue or any 

19 other issue like it would be to have a subgroup come 

20 up with a proposal, people who I guess are proponents 

21 of, for instance, excluding those products could come 

22 up with a proposal to present to the group.

23 MR. FERNSTROM: So I know I went off on a 

24 tangent, but I thought that while these groups 

25 considered your question and your idea, you know, they 
166

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 might be thinking about this issue of double 

2 regulation and its futility or lack thereof in 

3 general.

4 MS. JAKOBS: Diane Jakobs from Rheem. I 

5 think that we're required to build the -- while the 

6 regulation has to be economically justified and 

7 technically feasible, so you're talking about if you 

8 require us to do everything possible that's 

9 technically feasible by requiring specific components, 

10 then that doesn't give us any room to have an option 

11 to make it economically justified. So you're kind of 

12 tying our hands. If it's overly restrictive, you 

13 know, maybe there's only one solution and all of our 

14 products will look the same.

15 MR. HAUER: Armin Hauer of ebm-papst. I 

16 would be afraid that if embedded fans were exempt that 

17 there would also be an impact on manufacturers like --

18 a manufacturer impact analyzes to properly show that 

19 American manufacturing of fans would be impacted 

20 because the OEMs would just manufacture externally of 

21 the United States where they use very cheap fans and 

22 then American fan sales would not be possible anymore.

23 MR. JASINSKI: So, to follow on what Steve 

24 suggested, for those that are trying to articulate why 

25 embedded fans should not be included, are you willing 
167

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 to put forward a proposal in line with what Steve 

2 described and especially to articulate this concept of 

3 economically justified design options? And if so, 

4 anybody who is wanting to hear that articulation, is 

5 that something that the working group is interested 

6 in?

7 And I'll also add that this concept of cost 

8 justified, if you look at any of the Department of 

9 Energy rulemakings, that's a big part of these 

10 analyses. So there are lots of examples and a 

11 procedure for doing that type of evaluation in other 

12 rulemakings that if you're not familiar with how it's 

13 done now you might want to look into. It's also 

14 something that was done in both of the NODAs. It's 

15 also something that with the right information could 

16 be done as part of this working group.

17 But the idea of a cost justified design, 

18 that might provide a good framework for articulating 

19 how maybe in a rulemaking where a more efficient fan 

20 was a design option that either did or did not get 

21 included because of its cost justification, that would 

22 be a good framework for explaining with numbers why it 

23 did or did not. I can't think of an example off the 

24 top of my head, but I'm sure you can find examples of 

25 both.
168

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. HARTLEIN: So Dan Hartlein, Twin City 

2 Fans. A real quick question here to process, as a 

3 neophyte to what we're doing here. We have a massive 

4 market with infinite almost number of combinations, 

5 permutations, applications and things that as a fan 

6 manufacturer we're trying to deal with here in this 

7 rulemaking. I can't help but think, be a little 

8 frustrated. You know, I don't know about everybody 

9 else, but my ticket to get back here on this trip 

10 because of the, I think it was because of a hockey 

11 playoff and a basketball playoff, cost me $1500 to 

12 make this trip, and here we are in day three stuck on 

13 the same topic.

14 As a matter of process, is it possible that 

15 we can deal with the rest of the industry and park 

16 this? What happens if we as a working group don't 

17 solve this? Can we get through the rest of them? Can 

18 we move on? If we leave this for the DOE, what 

19 happens? It will get solved, right? So I'm almost 

20 advocating that we can this and move on because, I'm 

21 sorry, we're not getting anywhere, and I understand 

22 there's a lot of passion around this issue, and maybe 

23 we as a working group can't get to consensus on this. 

24 Fine. Let's go work on the rest of it. There's a 

25 huge industry out here.
169

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MS. JAKOBS: This is Diane Jakobs. So, if 

2 we come to the end and you figure out all your 

3 problems and they ask us all to vote and our issues 

4 have not been settled, are you expecting us to vote 

5 for yours?

6 MR. HARTLEIN: Absolutely not. But then 

7 that moves to the next level, right. I don't know. I 

8 don't know the process. That was not a --

9 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. So actually for 

10 process --

11 MR. HARTLEIN: Let me finish. That was a 

12 question, not a statement. Yeah.

13 MS. ARMSTRONG: So actually for process, let 

14 me -- we certainly can do that. We can chart any 

15 which way we want to. We can go through a couple more 

16 examples if we think we are all in agreement. We can 

17 move on to test procedure and metric with the 

18 acknowledgment that we'll let these sink in, but we 

19 need to be prepared to vote on June at least about 

20 some of these.

21 Ultimately the whole term sheet has to be 

22 agreed to. So, if we can't agree to some agreement of 

23 scope, people are well within their right to not vote 

24 for the term sheet. If ultimately the term sheet 

25 doesn't get passed with consensus, then hopefully 
170

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 unanimous, but if less than that, DOE will just go 

2 forward.

3 You know, are people comfortable enough in 

4 the room to let us table scope until at least we have 

5 some additional information that was promised or some 

6 proposals on the table of how to deal with it? I 

7 mean, for DOE's perspective, I think we're open-minded 

8 about this, but I really need a clear differentiation 

9 point, and there are some serious concerns about 

10 impacts to certain businesses that may have to comply 

11 while others don't. So I think that those concerns 

12 need to be addressed. And if you are willing to do it 

13 in some form of a proposal, we're welcome to entertain 

14 that or table that until the very end and keep making 

15 progress with -- because he's right. If we don't get 

16 through test procedure and metric and don't start 

17 talking about analysis and get analysis ready for the 

18 June meeting or some type of June meetings, we're not 

19 going to have time to talk about levels.

20 MR. WHITWELL: So, Ashley, Ashley, this is 

21 Bob. So I think, I spoke to a couple of our members 

22 here, Diane would probably agree, that we can take a 

23 shot at that. It won't be for tomorrow, but we can 

24 come back at the next meeting and come back with a 

25 proposal.
171

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 Dan, I think I understand some frustration, 

2 but I think this has been good discussion here today 

3 and I recommend that we continue to go through these 

4 examples because we have products that are not 

5 regulated that look just like this. They just happen 

6 to be bigger. And this is helpful for me to 

7 understand what it is that we might have to do. So I 

8 suggest we continue going through this analysis.

9 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. And I think my ask 

10 is that you have certain fans that you sell with your 

11 products like condenser fans that may be included in 

12 the IEER metric. You have other fans which are also 

13 part of rooftop equipment or accessories on them that 

14 is not included whatsoever.

15 MR. WHITWELL: Okay. Yes. Absolutely.

16 MS. ARMSTRONG: And so I ask in your 

17 proposal you make a distinction.

18 MR. WHITWELL: Yes.

19 MALE VOICE: Maybe they should be part of 

20 it.

21 MR. WHITWELL: They're not included.

22 MS. ARMSTRONG: So that can be part of your 

23 distinction, but right now be careful what you're 

24 arguing in both places.

25 MR. WHITWELL: I'm not arguing. They're not 
172

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 included in the metric. The exhaust fans, fans in 

2 ERVs, et cetera, right?

3 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right, because last time we 

4 negotiated you guys wanted specific features not 

5 included because of this whole concept of model 

6 proliferation and having different variations thereof, 

7 and that's fine.

8 MR. WHITWELL: Six trillion models, 

9 remember?

10 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes, 10 trillion, six 

11 trillion, 30 trillion. We'll have to ask Mandy 

12 exactly what the number is.

13 MR. JASINSKI: Ashley, we actually have 

14 those examples. Do we want to --

15 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, I think we should walk 

16 through them.

17 MR. JASINSKI: I was just going to say 

18 before we move, I think actually Steve's suggestion, 

19 then followed by Sam's is a pretty good idea. I also 

20 think there is progress. I think some of these 

21 things, you know, whether it's in the metric or 

22 captured in the metric, actually those discussions are 

23 not as complicated as they might seem, and so I think 

24 there's some general movement in the right direction 

25 and I think we're making progress is my take on it.
173

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. HARTLEIN: If I can maybe close since I 

2 raised that issue, that's great to hear. Like I said, 

3 I'm a neophyte, never been through this, so thank you.

4 MR. CATANIA: Yeah, and I guess I would just 

5 add again at the highest level -- Tom Catania of AMCA. 

6 You know, it's my understanding in at least one 

7 analysis of this potentially half a quad savings, if 

8 we can find a way to wrestle this embedded fan issue 

9 to the ground acceptably, we're talking about half of 

10 the potential savings and a holistic combination of 

11 standards and test procedures that create the right 

12 cost-effective incentives for manufacturers of this 

13 kind of equipment to get credit, for example, because 

14 of a test procedure that drives you to get credit for 

15 improving that unit when it's operating in a 

16 ventilation mode as opposed to an air conditioning 

17 mode, to me, allows this group, the other group that's 

18 working and the Department and the advocates to wrap a 

19 much more interesting holistic system oriented package 

20 together than if we keep, every time we get stuck on a 

21 tough issue we just keep subdividing it into smaller 

22 and smaller pieces. I think what we will get at the 

23 end is DOE saying, you know, in the absence of 

24 consensus, we're going to take the approach we like 

25 the best. And I don't think any of us are here and 
174

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 investing in these plane tickets and everything 

2 because we want to eventually punt and turn it over to 

3 the DOE.

4 MR. FERNSTROM: This is Gary. I'm with Tom 

5 on this. So we've got a neophyte, an optimist, and a 

6 realist.

7 MS. ARMSTRONG: And then we have us who have 

8 to do some really hard work and make some really hard 

9 decisions that we would really like your input on, so 

10 we hope to keep this moving in the right direction.

11 MR. JASINSKI: So I went ahead and drew an 

12 analogous box to the previous example. I don't know 

13 if we want to discuss whether this is where we want 

14 it, should it be bigger, smaller, or essentially what 

15 the impacts of the box being this way could have. It 

16 sounds like, just to start it off, that these are a 

17 little different than the condenser fans that you see 

18 a little to the right in that these might be operating 

19 outside of the cooling operation hours and therefore 

20 the ventilation operation of the fan is not accounted 

21 for in the metric. Is that accurate? So, if that is 

22 accurate, how does that --

23 MR. WHITWELL: So those fans provide the air 

24 flow over the evaporator coil during cooling 

25 operation. They also blow the air, if it's a unit 
175

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 with electric heat or gas heat, it blows the air over 

2 the heat source to heat the building and also can be 

3 used as an alternative to some other means to provide 

4 ventilation to the building.

5 We're currently in a negotiated rulemaking 

6 on new energy efficiency metrics for products like 

7 this up to 760,000 BTU per hour, and the proposed 

8 metric is moving from a full load EER metric to a part 

9 load metric called IEER.

10 The analysis that's being done, the energy 

11 analysis that's being done for that rulemaking is 

12 taking into consideration the fan operation year 

13 round. And the IEER metric will be driving the 

14 industry. The industry's already moving this way, to 

15 have fan speed control so that during part load 

16 operation the fan runs at a lower speed. And as IEER 

17 metrics go higher, there will be more and more 

18 equipment that will have that capability.

19 So is it included in the test procedure? 

20 Not all of it. The cooling operation is included in 

21 the test procedure. But the energy benefit of let's 

22 say some of the design approaches that help to get the 

23 metric, that energy benefit is being included in the 

24 calculation going along with that rulemaking. So we 

25 just can't account for it twice, right?
176

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. STARR: So this is Louis Starr with 

2 NEEA. So, in general, I would say, so I'm also on 

3 that regulated negotiation as well, and part of the 

4 problem is it's sort of the test procedure AHRI 

5 340/360 that is the rating for IEER. You know, part 

6 of the problem with it is it doesn't really adequately 

7 capture the benefit of the fan energy usage that the 

8 fan contributes to the air handler. For instance, 

9 static pressure is at .3 static inches, and most of 

10 these air handlers are seeing three to four times that 

11 when they're actually installed in the field.

12 And so there's a couple of thoughts about 

13 that. One is is you can modify the test procedure to 

14 more reflect realistic fan energy savings. The other 

15 thought is maybe perhaps you can try to capture that 

16 in a fan rulemaking, which would be here. It does 

17 present some problems obviously doing that, but I 

18 think that's a little bit kind of the discussion 

19 that's going on.

20 Part of the problem, as we saw when they 

21 started to do, it's interesting, they developed --

22 there's equipment that has the IEER levels. Based 

23 upon, you know, higher standards level, you expect to 

24 see, you know, less energy use, and actually in the 

25 way the analysis is done we haven't really seen that. 
177

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 A 20 percent higher IEER doesn't get you 20 percent 

2 more energy savings, and a lot of that's because

3 the -- well, there could be many reasons, but one of 

4 the things they did adjust is they adjusted to the 

5 real-world external static pressure and that 

6 introduced more, more weighting on the fan side of 

7 things.

8 And I think what kind of to my mind it 

9 showed was that there wasn't really -- the fan systems 

10 didn't seem like they're being optimized in the 

11 system, but I talked with the manufacturers about this 

12 earlier today. One of the thoughts was it really had 

13 more to do with representative units they had picked.

14 But anyway, in my mind at this point, I'm 

15 still, we're still thinking about whether it makes 

16 more sense to try to capture that inside of the AHRI 

17 test procedure or try to capture that inside of the 

18 fan regulations and so thinking about that.

19 MR. JASINSKI: Right. So what I'm hearing 

20 is, well, I would imagine that part of the proposal 

21 that might come forth in terms of regulated versus 

22 unregulated and in addition the response to the data 

23 request to AHRI, a lot of the details, such as what 

24 operating modes are regulated, not regulated, et 

25 cetera.
178

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 Louis, what you were talking about might be 

2 better for a response or a discussion once those 

3 details come forth because, for instance, when you're 

4 talking about external static pressures, what the 

5 actual difference is will indicate to some extent the 

6 impact on how much energy we're talking about or level 

7 of accuracy, and that will allow for the group to 

8 determine are we talking about a big missed 

9 opportunity or opportunity or -- and then ultimately 

10 deciding, like you said, there are a couple different 

11 mechanisms for addressing it. Maybe that will help 

12 inform which one. This working group, a separate 

13 negotiation or other rulemaking, et cetera. So why 

14 don't we hold off on that discussion until we see the 

15 proposal.

16 MR. WHITWELL: I think that's a good idea, 

17 although I still am interested in discussing this 

18 because it's included in products that are not 

19 covered. We have these types of fans.

20 MR. STARR: Yeah, that is true. Actually up 

21 to 760,000, which is 60 tons, is that right? Sixty22 three tons. So above 63 tons the AHRI 340/360 doesn't 

23 apply. And then the question is --

24 MR. WHITWELL: Well, no. The standard still 

25 applies. They're just not regulated by DOE.
179

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. STARR: Oh, okay.

2 MR. WHITWELL: I mean, this is exactly the 

3 same type of configuration we would have in an air 

4 handler as well.

5 MR. JASINSKI: So, Ashley, does it make 

6 sense --

7 MR. WHITWELL: Where is it on the box?

8 MALE VOICE: Yeah. Where is the box?

9 MR. JASINSKI: Well, the box right now is 

10 just around the centrifugal fan, which, depending on 

11 the definition, right now looks like an unhoused 

12 centrifugal fan according to the definition that's in 

13 the slide deck.

14 MR. WHITWELL: It may be within a scroll 

15 housing, but then it's flowing into --

16 MR. JASINSKI: Yeah. This isn't a great 

17 picture, but this actually does not have the scroll 

18 included. But there, like you said, it could.

19 MR. WHITWELL: It's flowing into a box, 

20 flowing into a, inside the unit, right?

21 MR. JASINSKI: Right. So I would say 

22 depending on how housing is defined for the 

23 centrifugal housed and unhoused is where you make the 

24 differentiation of where that box gets drawn.

25 MR. WHITWELL: Yeah. As I understand what 
180

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 we've been talking about so far, this would be a 

2 unhoused -- well, no, a unducted housed centrifugal. 

3 Sorry, unhoused. Unhoused, unducted centrifugal.

4 MS. JAKOBS: This is Diane Jakobs from 

5 Rheem. And I believe the size of that center 

6 compartment can determine how much energy you would 

7 need to drive those fans. So, as I said, we did it 

8 wrong, but, you know, we're trying to fit all this 

9 equipment, we're trying to keep a certain footprint, 

10 and if we try to take out one kind of fan and drop in 

11 a different fan, we also have the same size 

12 constraints and it may or may not work out. So by 

13 just using that little box there you might get good 

14 results, but then when you put it back in the big --

15 you know, this whole assembly of components it might 

16 not work the way it would indicate based on the small 

17 one.

18 MR. JASINSKI: Diane, if you're provided a 

19 range of operating points, are you able to describe 

20 the operating point that you need to achieve in order 

21 for it to be a "good" fan in that application? So, if 

22 you provided that to maybe a manufacturer of what's in 

23 that box, would you be able to describe that to them 

24 in terms of operating points or certain specifications 

25 to mitigate or even prevent the scenario you're 
181

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 talking about?

2 MS. JAKOBS: I'm kind of struggling because 

3 I don't think that way, because we're always aiming at 

4 one number. And, you know, we're getting more into 

5 staging, you know, so you've got two of them in there. 

6 Are they running together or are we going to stage it 

7 and just run one at a time? Or is it going to have a 

8 VFD on it? It does a whole variety of things. So I 

9 don't know if spending a lot of time documenting, you 

10 know, kind of a map of the energy consumption, what 

11 good it will do. I don't know.

12 MR. HAUER: It's Armin Hauer speaking. Why 

13 is a size increase completely taboo? You know, size 

14 increase and reduction of air velocity would be an 

15 energy saving measure. Why is it taboo?

16 MR. WHITWELL: So the issue, the issue with 

17 size -- size reduction did you say or size increase?

18 MR. HAUER: Size increase as opposed to a 

19 reduction.

20 MR. WHITWELL: Yeah. The issue with size 

21 increase is that these units can be 12 feet wide, for 

22 example, and if you get wider than that, then it makes 

23 them hard to put on a trailer and move down the road.

24 The other thing is that these are installed 

25 on what's called a roof curb that goes up on the roof, 
182

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 and building owners do not like to change the roof 

2 penetration. So what they will do is they will put an 

3 adapter curb on these units, a conversion curb, which 

4 can add external static pressure. They also get very 

5 expensive. So you might make the unit bigger, put a 

6 more efficient fan in it, make it bigger, but then in 

7 the application it might not be more efficient because 

8 of what's done in order to apply a larger unit on the 

9 roof on an existing -- on a retrofit application.

10 MR. SMILEY: Yeah. It's Bill Smiley, Trane. 

11 Size increases are always going to cause issues in an 

12 application. If that was an air handler that went 

13 into an equipment room inside of a building, now you 

14 would have to trade off footprint available in the 

15 building for useful rental or sale for the equipment. 

16 In Washington, D.C. where there's a height 

17 restriction on the buildings, how high they can be, 

18 you might lose a whole floor of a building. So, from 

19 an application standpoint, if you get too large, now 

20 you're talking major costs that may prevent somebody 

21 from doing a big project of some kind. But you have 

22 shipping issues, all that kind of stuff.

23 MR. HAUER: Major fuel costs, but not 

24 necessarily life cycle costs.

25 MR. SMILEY: Right. Right. That is true.
183

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly with AAON. The 

2 other point is that air conditioning equipment has a 

3 useful life that is less than the life of a building. 

4 So a large portion, very large portion of this 

5 equipment goes on existing buildings, so we're 

6 constrained into what we already have. And I don't 

7 think that it's in any of our best interests to have 

8 people trying to repair poor efficiency, very old 

9 units because that's the only thing they can buy that 

10 fits.

11 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. So I think we can 

12 get to that. I think what we're trying to show you 

13 with this slide and what we were trying to pull up 

14 from the testable configuration is the idea that at 

15 least based on what we had on the slides earlier this 

16 wouldn't be tested in that box. And what I'm hearing 

17 is that there's all these other considerations. DOE, 

18 maybe you should be testing in the box. We were 

19 actually trying to simplify it with testing not in a 

20 box, and I guess we leave that open to you guys. We 

21 were trying to make it easier for you.

22 MR. FLY: Yeah. No, and I appreciate that.

23 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right.

24 MR. FLY: But I think the response was in 

25 response to the question about what would be the 
184

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 problem if the fans got bigger and we had to put 

2 larger fans in the --

3 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. So I think that's 

4 going to come into play and is key when we do our 

5 cost/benefit analysis. I mean, there will be certain 

6 levels for which you're going to have to tell DOE, 

7 DOE, this would change my cabinetry size and the costs 

8 in and of itself should take care of that in terms of, 

9 if you work with us to get it right, that should come 

10 through in the analysis. But at least from a 

11 regulatory approach standpoint at the beginning, do we 

12 all agree we don't agree on anything with regards to 

13 scope quite yet, but for those fans ultimately that 

14 would be included in scope that are unhoused 

15 centrifugal, do we generally agree with the concept 

16 that they should have a testable configuration that's 

17 without the embedded cabinetry?

18 MR. FLY: I agree.

19 MR. WHITWELL: I don't know that I have a 

20 way to test that right now in large quantity.

21 MS. SHEPHERD: So this is Amy Shepherd from 

22 AHRI. And so I think that it runs to the central 

23 issue that we have, which is that this is, when you 

24 have the embedded fan and you have the standard for 

25 the embedded fan in this equipment, you have two 
185

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 standards applicable to the equipment. So, if you're 

2 having to do that test as it's embedded, then you're 

3 running two tests on that covered equipment.

4 And so I guess my general point from that, 

5 and it's something that we can address when we do this 

6 presentation that we're going to do, but also from 

7 DOE's end is, how does DOE construe that it has the 

8 authority to have more than one standard applicable to 

9 this covered equipment?

10 MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, you know, I think 

11 ultimately it's something we can definitely have a 

12 conversation about, but to the extent DOE has the 

13 authority to cover fans, and ultimately there is no 

14 definition defining what a covered fan is. If we go 

15 through the process of adding a definition by 

16 rulemaking and that fan definition is broad enough to 

17 cover a variety of different fans and there's no 

18 differentiation about whether those fans are embedded 

19 or not, then anything that meets that definition would 

20 need to comply with the regulations.

21 What we're trying to do is work with the 

22 committee to find what is that right balance between 

23 fans that may -- you know, we can argue authority, we 

24 can definitely talk to our lawyers about that in more 

25 detail. That's not really helping us make progress, 
186

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 though, at the end of the day. What we're trying to 

2 do is, how can we thread that needle? And there are 

3 some fans that are in embedded equipment that is the 

4 exact same fan that aren't regulated otherwise. So I 

5 think we're looking for that feedback from the OEMs, 

6 and that gets to our first question on the data 

7 request.

8 MS. SHEPHERD: Okay. Well, I think the 

9 resolution of that issue and DOE's analysis of the 

10 issue would be helpful and it is moving us in the 

11 right direction because DOE doesn't have the authority 

12 to act outside of what it can do.

13 And so, when you look at the consumer FER 

14 metric, that was something that was different and it 

15 was done through specific statutory authority. And 

16 here that's not there. So I think this is something 

17 that's central to us and we have this concern, and we 

18 can't get to consensus on this issue until we can come 

19 to that concern. So I guess we definitely have our 

20 homework and I would ask that DOE come back with its 

21 analysis of how under the statute that all works 

22 because, otherwise, it's a restriction on what you can 

23 do to the fan as a covered product.

24 MR. COCHRAN: This is Pete Cochran from DOE. 

25 We've taken that issue, and we're discussing it. I 
187

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 just wanted to clarify, you're asking about applying 

2 testing or compliance to fans in regulated products. 

3 So for embedded in nonregulatory, you're not taking 

4 that position.

5 MS. SHEPHERD: Well, I think -- I was 

6 thinking about this too and I think I have to think 

7 about this a little bit more, but if you have an 

8 energy efficiency metric that captures the fan use in 

9 the equipment, I guess then that would, if you were 

10 looking back at it the other way, that could be two 

11 standards on the fan equipment. But I think that's 

12 right, but I think that we'll think about that a 

13 little bit more and would want you to kind of think 

14 about that as well.

15 MR. COCHRAN: Yeah, we are. I just wanted 

16 to hear where you were coming from.

17 MS. SHEPHERD: Okay. Yeah. I recognize 

18 that there's two different choices going on.

19 MR. JASINSKI: All right. So I think 

20 there's a lot of homework assignments around this 

21 example and I think it goes back to the proposal --

22 Bob, are you comfortable with where we are? I mean, 

23 do you feel like you got what you were looking for out 

24 of this discussion, or are there additional points 

25 that you want to bring up from this example?
188

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. WHITWELL: This example? No.

2 MR. JASINSKI: Okay. So why don't we move 

3 to another one that I've heard, which is the ERVs.

4 MS. ARMSTRONG: Hang on one sec before you 

5 move forward. Jill wants to talk from Trane. Can you 

6 just unmute her? Sorry. Hello?

7 MS. HOOTMAN: Hello.

8 MS. ARMSTRONG: Hey. You're good.

9 MS. HOOTMAN: Thanks. I just want to 

10 clarify something that you said, Ashley. And thank 

11 you. That's my equipment there, so I can really 

12 understand what you're talking about. That fan that 

13 you have the red lines around is never produced by 

14 itself. That casing, et cetera, is all manufactured 

15 by us. So you're saying that you would test this in 

16 this 50 foot by 14 foot by 12 foot high casing and

17 test that fan, and then I would also have to turn 

18 around and test for an energy metric on IEER as well, 

19 that entire test, that very expensive test and that 

20 very expensive unit?

21 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I think the answer is yes 

22 depending on how we end up falling out with this 

23 sticky issue of embedded products and how do you 

24 differentiate. I think you get to the heart, you just 

25 got to the heart of why we're asking what's the better 
189

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 way to do this or is there a better way to do this or 

2 how would you do this.

3 And I think we were coming to grapple with 

4 the issue of the red box. There's general agreement, 

5 I think, around the table that if the red box ends up 

6 in scope in some way, fashion, or form that it should 

7 be tested before it's connected to I would say the 

8 housing, the cabinetry type housing, thus allowing the 

9 ability for it to be tested before it's fully 

10 embedded.

11 MS. HOOTMAN: Right. And I understand and I 

12 agree that we should come up with some definitions, 

13 just like Bob was talking about. I'm not disagreeing 

14 with any of that. I guess I just want for the record 

15 to say that if you were trying to make us test this 

16 entire unit twice, it's substantial.

17 MR. WOLF: Three times. Don't forget the 

18 gas heat.

19 MS. HOOTMAN: Oh, very good point, Bob. 

20 It's substantial. We're talking about millions, 

21 probably getting into close to billions, every single 

22 time we test this stuff. Like I just said, we're 

23 talking about a piece of equipment that is 50 foot 

24 long, 14 foot wide, 12 foot high. Just think about 

25 the expense. You are going to shut down this 
190

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 industry.

2 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. So, Jill, you're 

3 welcome to explain to us. I mean, we've been asking 

4 since I think day one for what is that right balance. 

5 You know, there are some fans that look just like 

6 that that are in equipment that's today not regulated.

7 MS. HOOTMAN: I agree.

8 MS. ARMSTRONG: And there are some fans --

9 MS. HOOTMAN: I agree, Ashley.

10 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. So, I mean, help us. 

11 It's not that we're necessarily saying this is the 

12 way it has to be. You've heard from some of the fan 

13 manufacturers around the table about they have some 

14 concerns if all fans, especially fans, aren't 

15 equitably -- you know, if you don't equitably treat it 

16 or if there's not a red line in the sand, that, you 

17 know, DOE can figure out one from another. It's just 

18 how do we do this better? And we need your help in 

19 terms of solution-finding, not necessarily just the 

20 answers of no.

21 MS. HOOTMAN: I agree. I agree. I just 

22 want -- I agree we need to do that definition. I just 

23 want people to understand what you're talking about in 

24 that triple testing.

25 MR. STARR: So this is Louis. I have a 
191

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 question. So typically, when you look up an air 

2 handler like this, there will be a catalog not unlike

3 a fan --

4 MS. HOOTMAN: First of all, this is a 

5 package -- I want to correct you, Louis.

6 MR. STARR: It's not a rooftop.

7 MS. HOOTMAN: It's a packaged air 

8 conditioning rooftop. This particular unit doesn't 

9 actually have heat in it.

10 MR. STARR: Oh, okay.

11 MS. HOOTMAN: I could tell you that too.

12 MALE VOICE: Otherwise it would be bigger.

13 MR. STARR: Oh, I see. So, on this one, you 

14 generally can look it up and you'll see an option of 

15 the fan, it'll have the fan volume and the static 

16 pressures. Are those numbers -- how is that test --

17 so AMCA has a test procedure for coming up with those 

18 numbers. Matter of fact, one of the reason AMCA was 

19 formed is because so many people used to make fans and 

20 they would claim a certain performance of the fan, but 

21 it didn't actually perform that way.

22 How does that work in air handlers? I mean, 

23 because they publish information about performance of 

24 the air handler. How do you know that that is an 

25 accurate representation of how the equipment performs? 
192

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 Because maybe that would be one way of dealing with 

2 this. Is that possible or not really or?

3 MR. SMILEY: Hello. This is Bill Smiley, 

4 Trane. Of course, a lot of the equipment is tested as 

5 the total package or maybe just the supply air section 

6 of that equipment. The problem you run into is if you 

7 test that as a package piece of equipment, what 

8 metric, what level of efficiency do you assign versus 

9 testing that fan all by itself, where if that's in the 

10 package, there are a variety of other parts in there 

11 that are needed for the function of the equipment that 

12 affect the fan performance and consume pressure on the 

13 air side. So, you know, it gets to be very confusing. 

14 What do you do?

15 Now you test the fan by itself and you say, 

16 okay, well, if I want the most efficient fan for that 

17 CFM and what I think the total static pressure is, I 

18 might put in twice the diameter of the fan, but I put 

19 it in there and I'm consuming more energy because of 

20 the interaction of what's going on.

21 Now some of the equipment, you know, maybe 

22 the larger stuff, we predict performance because it's 

23 not practical to test. Like, you know, you take a 

24 custom air house business where every unit they build 

25 is different, tremendously different from the one they 
193

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 built last month, they ship it to a job site on 10 

2 trucks and assemble it there. You know, it's just not 

3 practical. I don't know. Did I answer your question 

4 maybe?

5 MR. STARR: Yeah. So it sounds like they 

6 predict the performance of it.

7 MR. SMILEY: In some cases.

8 MR. STARR: You know, but it sounds almost 

9 like an AEDM, but --

10 MR. WOLF: Well, there's some prediction, 

11 Louis, but also it's tested, but it's tested in the 

12 unit with the coil, the filters, and gas heat if it 

13 has it. So, you know, some of that -- so, for 

14 example, you could test a fan in two different units, 

15 the same fan in two different units, and one might be 

16 a high efficiency unit with a bigger, deeper 

17 evaporator coil in it. It's going to have more 

18 internal static pressure, the fan might be drawing 

19 more power, but the unit's going to be more efficient, 

20 right? So you have to be careful about what you test, 

21 right, for this kind of stuff.

22 MR. FINE: Other questions?

23 MR. JASINSKI: Okay. Ready for a new 

24 example?

25 (Laughter.)
194

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. SMILEY: We need the last one figured 

2 out.

3 (Laughter.)

4 FEMALE VOICE: (Away from microphone.)

5 MR. JASINSKI: I don't think I have anymore 

6 softballs, unfortunately. So this is one that was 

7 mentioned earlier, energy recovery ventilator. I 

8 believe this would fall into the category of an 

9 unregulated piece of equipment.

10 MR. SMILEY: This is Bill Smiley, Trane. I 

11 just would like to make a point that there are a lot 

12 of products that were created to reduce overall energy 

13 consumption in this country: heat recovery, 

14 ventilation. I mean, you don't open your window 

15 anymore in an office building. You turn the air 

16 conditioner off and let the outside air provide the 

17 cooling. Well, that's a damn efficient way to do it.

18 So, to start with, you know, these are 

19 saving a lot of energy and a lot of money in real20 world applications. Just want to make sure everybody 

21 understood that. These are not consuming energy and 

22 that's the only function they do. They're saving from 

23 consumption by other means.

24 MR. FERNSTROM: This is Gary. I hear that 

25 argument frequently and --
195

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. SMILEY: You don't believe it?

2 MR. FERNSTROM: I believe you, but my point 

3 is can't we save energy more efficiently?

4 MR. SMILEY: That's what we'd like to do. 

5 Yeah.

6 MALE VOICE: Adjusting the standard I think 

7 is what he's saying.

8 MR. FERNSTROM: So let's make the fan that 

9 saves energy use less energy itself to save that other 

10 energy.

11 MR. SMILEY: Hopefully it's cost-effective.

12 MR. FERNSTROM: Well, of course, and 

13 hopefully the industry impact isn't overly burdensome 

14 and all of the other DOE criteria are met.

15 MR. STARR: So I have a question. Isn't 

16 this one just seems like you'd want to make it to the 

17 same efficiency the rest of the fans are since -- I 

18 mean, the other ones are a little more contentious, 

19 right? It's in a regulated piece of equipment.

20 But in this case, if you required someone to 

21 put in, you know, whatever FEI or whatever the metric 

22 end up becoming, seems like -- I'm still trying to 

23 figure out what the problem with doing that is.

24 Are people making this and want to not have 

25 it with a more efficient fan in there or is it kind of 
196

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 the same is it's a weighting of cost and production or 

2 what's the -- I understood with the air handler a lot 

3 better because you're trading off between, you know, 

4 the metric is adequately capturing potentially what 

5 the energy use is, but in this one, how does that 

6 work?

7 MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly with AAON. Let 

8 me kind of walk down part of that. You can put a 

9 bigger in this plate, bigger plate heat exchanger in 

10 there and run it at a slower, at a lower static 

11 pressure and at a higher efficiency and it costs more, 

12 or you can put a smaller one in there and put a bigger 

13 fan in there. So, I mean, there's still a tradeoff in 

14 efficiency between the static pressure and the 

15 efficiency of the plate and the fan energy you're 

16 consuming. So it goes all over the place.

17 And it's also a space constrained product, 

18 like many of these things. These get shoved in places 

19 where many times the original design in a retrofit, 

20 there was no one who intended to ever have heat 

21 recovery and there wasn't even a thought and we're 

22 trying to fit it in there. Is it better to have 

23 something than not have it? Absolutely.

24 MR. STARR: So, in this case, if you were to 

25 put in a bigger or more efficient fan, chances are 
197

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 you'd have a larger fan wheel, right, which means 

2 you'd either have to make the case bigger or make your 

3 exchanger plate smaller. Okay.

4 MR. WAGNER: Then there's the other type of 

5 ERVs with the desiccant type wheels that have other 

6 tradeoffs in terms of that energy performance.

7 MR. STARR: So, you know, I'm thinking is 

8 there something that you envision -- I mean, there 

9 must be engineers, when they specify things, they must 

10 have some way of specifying, it may be a, I don't know 

11 if it's CFM per watt for the heat exchange, or they 

12 must have some way of differentiating a better heat 

13 exchanger or a better efficient energy recovery 

14 ventilator. How do they do that typically in order to 

15 drive efficiency in their product?

16 MR. SMILEY: Well, I'm not familiar with all 

17 the details, but it would be what's the available 

18 energy in the incoming stream and how much of that do 

19 you recover and then what is the wattage to run the 

20 equipment. So it's probably a BTU, mass flow, energy 

21 metric of some kind.

22 MR. WAGNER: There is kind of a coefficient 

23 of recovery I think it's called, something like that, 

24 metric that measures how much energy is recovered from 

25 it versus how much energy is used. But then it also 
198

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 gets into that latent versus sensible heat and you

2 get how are you counting.

3 MR. STARR: Yeah. Intuitively, though, if 

4 you wanted to make something really cheap, wouldn't 

5 you just put the cheapest fan you could in there? 

6 Wouldn't that be the way to go? I mean --

7 MR. SMILEY: Well, it depends on, you know, 

8 how much heat recovery you want. A lot of 

9 specifications will specify the required recovery in 

10 energy consumption, you know, within the coefficient 

11 type relationship. I'm not sure how this industry is 

12 currently, the standards that are available. I'm sure 

13 there are some.

14 MS. JAKOBS: So the whole utility of the 

15 device is to save energy, and if you're wasting energy 

16 with the blowers, then you won't be saving as much 

17 overall, so the whole value is lost.

18 MR. WIGGINS: This is Steve Wiggins from 

19 Newcomb & Boyd. One thing I think we need to think 

20 about with this equipment, we need to be careful what 

21 we're talking about about the fan driving the size of 

22 the equipment. That's not true at all. That's not 

23 accurate at all. What drives the size of this 

24 equipment is the heat exchanger. Let's just be quite 

25 frank about it. I deal with this every single day in 
199

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 retrofit and new buildings, and this is not driven by 

2 fan. Your fan will rarely, if ever, drive the size of 

3 this equipment. It is going to be driven by the heat 

4 exchanger. It's the least efficient part of it. It 

5 is what requires the most area to try to capture 

6 efficiency.

7 If you do bring latent into the picture and 

8 have a latent element into it, it's even going to 

9 increase the size even more. So this isn't a good 

10 argument for this particular piece of equipment. The 

11 fan size will not drive the size of this piece of 

12 equipment, not at all.

13 MS. WALTNER: This is Meg from NRDC. One of 

14 the concerns I heard on the rooftop units was that for 

15 certain rooftop units, those fans are being made 

16 specifically for that unit and would never be tested 

17 except or won't be tested until you're testing the 

18 entire unit. I'm curious if that is also an issue for 

19 energy recovery ventilators. Or here are most of the 

20 fans going into ERVs fans that are being sold from a 

21 fan manufacturer to the OEM?

22 MR. HAUER: I find that statement incorrect 

23 in both places.

24 MS. WALTNER: Okay.

25 MR. HAUER: For the ERV and for the rooftop 
200

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 units. You know, the fans are very universal. They 

2 can be used everywhere.

3 MS. WALTNER: Okay. So what I --

4 MS. HOOTMAN: Excuse me?

5 MR. SMILEY: I think that there are a number 

6 of -- this is Bill Smiley, Trane. I think there are a 

7 number of manufacturers that manufacture their own 

8 fans and they don't sell them to other people, okay? 

9 We make a lot of our own fans and we don't sell them 

10 to other people. We just use them in our equipment.

11 I'm not saying all. We buy. I don't know 

12 what the percentage split is. I mean, we buy from you 

13 guys, but sometimes you're too expensive.

14 (Laughter.)

15 MS. HOOTMAN: Exactly. There's a hybrid. 

16 We make our own impellers, everything. But I said 

17 about that product that you were showing, that exact 

18 product, since I make it.

19 MS. WALTNER: So I'm not sure that fully 

20 answered my question. So for ERVs, are ERV 

21 manufacturers making the fans for this equipment?

22 MR. SMILEY: Bill Smiley, Trane. I would 

23 guess that they do not, but I don't know that. I have 

24 no data to back that up. That's just my feel.

25 MR. HOWE: Yeah. Nick Howe, Carnes. I 
201

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 think you're right, and, Bill, you're right too. We 

2 tend to just buy them. I mean, you may make one, but 

3 it's most likely going to fit in a category that we're 

4 talking about.

5 MR. WOLF: This is Mike Wolf with Greenheck. 

6 Yeah, we're purchasing our fans as well. Again, I 

7 can't speak for everybody, but we do.

8 MR. STARR: So was this just supposed to be 

9 illustrative example of any kind of piece or this 

10 particular kind of equipment?

11 MR. JASINSKI: It sounds like this 

12 particular kind of equipment because it looked -- I 

13 don't think we can make any broad statements about --

14 MR. STARR: Okay. Well, sounds like you may 

15 have gotten this one right I think is what I'm 

16 hearing, but I'm not totally sure.

17 MR. WOLF: I guess -- this is Mike Wolf here 

18 again. You know, again, for the equipment we build, 

19 I'd say maybe you've got it right, I think probably 

20 you do, but I'm not sure. How big does this type of 

21 equipment go? I mean, there are wheels that are very, 

22 very large and the equipment can get very, very big, 

23 in which case I'm not sure if it's better to test the 

24 whole box or test the individual fan. I can go either 

25 way honestly.
202

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. JASINSKI: So just to recap, I mean, I 

2 think the intent here for these exercises is to draw 

3 the box where the current definitions of testable 

4 configuration would put them, talk through these 

5 issues, understand the impacts, implications, and 

6 ultimately, you know, we're not saying that this is 

7 what the working group is agreeing to, but essentially 

8 just trying to get close enough for now that it allows 

9 for everyone to go back, look at those definitions in 

10 a little bit more detail, and then come back with we 

11 agree it should stay as is or we want to make these 

12 modifications in order to change these impacts, 

13 whether it be what's in the box, who's testing what's 

14 in the box, et cetera.

15 MR. HARTLEIN: Sam, Dan Hartlein, TCF. I 

16 don't make either of those products, so I'm not sure 

17 100 percent what I'm looking at and I'm not sure if 

18 everybody else would have or if anybody else in the 

19 room feels the same way, but am I looking at simply a 

20 wheel, a fan wheel mounted to a motor inside that red 

21 box? Is that --

22 MR. JASINSKI: No.

23 MALE VOICE: There's a housing.

24 MR. HARTLEIN: Oh, is that a little scrolled 

25 housing?
203

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. JASINSKI: There's a scrolled housing.

2 MR. HARTLEIN: Oh, okay.

3 MALE VOICE: And there's probably a little 

4 less in it.

5 MR. HARTLEIN: Got you. I'm good. Thank 

6 you. I couldn't tell what I was looking at.

7 MR. JASINSKI: Sorry. Yeah.

8 MR. HARTLEIN: That's okay.

9 MALE VOICE: Yeah, the air comes in at the 

10 bottom and goes up to the heat exchanger and out the 

11 top.

12 MR. HARTLEIN: Yeah. Yeah. No, I'm 

13 familiar how they work. I just couldn't tell what I 

14 was looking at in the box, so --

15 MR. JASINSKI: Should we try for another 

16 example, Ashley, or do you want to --

17 MS. ARMSTRONG: We can go on.

18 MR. JASINSKI: So I think we touched on this 

19 one a little bit in the panel fan discussion.

20 MR. SMILEY: It looks like a condenser.

21 FEMALE VOICE: It's a package unit.

22 MR. SMILEY: It almost looks like a 

23 residential one which could be working in a good 

24 commercial environment. That's a constant problem.

25 MR. JASINSKI: So -- well, let's talk about 
204

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 what's just inside the circle.

2 MR. SMILEY: I think that's a potential 

3 problem with the package unit. I mean, that's the 

4 whole package unit. That's the problem with a package 

5 unit. It's the same as coming off the exchange. I 

6 think there's a blower in the bottom half of that 

7 unit, yeah.

8 MALE VOICE: What you circled is the fan?

9 MR. JASINSKI: What I circled is a panel 

10 fan. That would be included in the definitions that 

11 are in the slide deck for a panel fan. Feelings on 

12 that?

13 MR. SMILEY: That's the same as a condensed 

14 fan even though it's got the same function.

15 MR. JASINSKI: Okay. So same things apply.

16 MALE VOICE: We'll look at the transcript 

17 for this section.

18 MR. JASINSKI: Okay.

19 MALE VOICE: Just repeat everything you said 

20 before.

21 MR. JASINSKI: Let me just document that and 

22 then we'll move on to the next one.

23 MS. JAKOBS: So this is Diane Jakobs. So, 

24 when we're talking about the same fan in different 

25 applications, if they had the same diameter and it was 
205

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 on that other picture and it was on this picture, I 

2 mean, maybe it's three feet in diameter, we're not 

3 saying they would perform the same.

4 MR. SMILEY: Not in the application. They 

5 wouldn't.

6 MS. JAKOBS: So testing it as a individual 

7 standalone component doesn't really tell you anything.

8 MR. FLY: But it would be a single fan that 

9 was -- Mark Fly with AAON. Would be a single fan that 

10 would be regulated, right?

11 MR. JASINSKI: So I think the other thing to 

12 remember is that --

13 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I think we have to get

14 to --

15 MR. JASINSKI: Yeah.

16 MS. ARMSTRONG: You know, we can continue, 

17 but this gets to the whole regulatory approach. And 

18 if we end up, the working group ends up implementing 

19 something like what has been discussed within AMCA and 

20 the advocates, it has to do with operating range, so 

21 the fan manufacturer, while that would be certifying, 

22 would be self-certifying the full operating range of 

23 that fan themselves, so it would cover your different 

24 applications.

25 MR. JASINSKI: So the next example and I 
206

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 think the last one, I'm not going to draw a box 

2 because this calls into question our list of required 

3 components, which you'll remember included shaft and/ 

4 or bearings. In this particular case, we have a 

5 forward-curved impeller loose inside of a housing, so 

6 the shaft would not be present, and therefore, 

7 according to the definitions in this spec, this is not 

8 a testable configuration.

9 It would become a testable configuration as 

10 soon as a motor was applied because then the shaft 

11 would be present. So I think the question is, does 

12 this situation call into question whether or not the 

13 shaft should be in that list of required components or 

14 not? So I don't know that we necessarily are going to 

15 answer it, but maybe initial thoughts and then that 

16 can be part of the homework as well.

17 MR. SMILEY: Bill Smiley, Trane. What you 

18 would need if you wanted to test that, you would need 

19 some support mechanism for the impeller relative to 

20 the housing and some sort of drive.

21 MR. JASINSKI: Right.

22 MR. SMILEY: You couldn't test the loose 

23 impeller in the housing just like it is there.

24 MR. JASINSKI: Right. So this --

25 MR. SMILEY: You can drop it, but you 
207

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 couldn't blow air with it.

2 MR. JASINSKI: Sure. But is -- so I

3 think --

4 MS. ARMSTRONG: Does it need to be the 

5 specific one that's included I guess when it's 

6 embedded into a larger piece of equipment? That's the 

7 question. Or is there one -- you know, we have 

8 certain motors -- for example, my motor friends aren't 

9 here today, but we have certain motors that are 

10 partial motors and they have certain standardized 

11 things that they're allowed to use for testing 

12 purposes to reduce burden. I think that's what Sam's 

13 kind of getting at here. Or do we need to revise the 

14 definition of testable configuration to encomp -- I 

15 don't know. That's further discussion. How would you 

16 test this?

17 MR. HAUER: I would say -- Armin Hauer 

18 speaking -- it needs bearings at least. I'm not 

19 really decided about a shaft.

20 MS. ARMSTRONG: Would that be standard 

21 bearings? Like could you standardize bearings or do 

22 you actually think specific? Because for motors we do 

23 standard.

24 MR. HARTLEIN: This is Dan from TCF. To 

25 Armin's point, people are making products today 
208

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 without a shaft and the motor and that wheel are 

2 integrated together. So that's where his mind was 

3 going, and he's right. And so it needs the ability to 

4 rotate and be driven. In that capacity, it can't do 

5 either, right? So it needs to be able to rotate and 

6 it needs to be able to be driven, and then you have a 

7 testable fan.

8 MR. JASINSKI: So maybe, Armin, the fan that 

9 you're envisioning, maybe we can get a picture of that 

10 one and put it up here because ultimately what we're 

11 saying is this one, even if it had the shaft from the 

12 motor, it might still not be a testable configuration. 

13 But there are fans out there that basically all 

14 that's missing is the shaft and then it can be, the 

15 blade can be rotated because the bearings are 

16 embedded, are in the housing and the --

17 MR. HARTLEIN: Your bearings are in the 

18 motor. It's very similar to a direct drive, but 

19 there's no shaft.

20 MR. JASINSKI: I see. Okay.

21 MR. SMILEY: There is a shaft.

22 MR. HARTLEIN: Well.

23 MALE VOICE: The shaft doesn't attach to the 

24 fan.

25 MR. HARTLEIN: Right.
209

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 MR. JASINSKI: Okay. I know which ones 

2 you're talking about. Yeah.

3 MR. BUSHNELL: It's Peter Bushnell at 

4 Carrier again. I had a comment on the previous chart 

5 showing the panel, what you're calling the panel fan. 

6 I wonder if we could go back to that. So I'm not 

7 sure that we really even need a class called panel 

8 fan. Basically this fan is a free inlet and free 

9 discharge fan. It has a short housing around it. 

10 Kind of an orifice section. And typically these kinds 

11 of fans have a wide range of different types of kind 

12 of casings around the blades. But I guess I'm kind of 

13 getting back to my comment previously about the EU14 327. They would not distinguish this thing as a panel 

15 fan. They don't have that category defined. They 

16 would just say it's a free inlet, free outlet.

17 MR. JASINSKI: Okay. I think that can be 

18 included in the slides that we're putting together 

19 about those and we can call that out as a 

20 differentiation for the group to take a look at.

21 MR. BUSHNELL: Okay.

22 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I think one note just 

23 back and forth. We're kind of trying to look at the 

24 EU regulations ad hoc here. And perhaps I don't have 

25 this quite right, so feel free to speak up, but our 
210

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 understanding is that EU treats them both as axial 

2 fans, but the differentiation gets introduced in the 

3 test procedures. So they're not actually tested the 

4 same, and thus it results in different ratings, and 

5 thus the efficiency potentials may be different and 

6 may need to be analyzed differently. This gets back 

7 to why we need different equipment classes at least in 

8 our regulations to be able to do that. Looks like 

9 it's show and tell time.

10 MR. WAGNER: This is Greg. I think --

11 MR. BUSHNELL: Yeah. I think this 

12 particular case would --

13 MR. WAGNER: Anyhow, sorry. Peter, I think 

14 you're trying to differentiate that there are 

15 different ways of testing.

16 MR. BUSHNELL: What I was going to say is I

17 think this particular case, yeah, this would fall 

18 under static pressure. You know, you'd actually rate 

19 the fan in terms of static pressure because it's a 

20 predischarge fan.

21 MR. JASINSKI: I think this was our last 

22 example.

23 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. So this is as far as 

24 we had in terms of examples and how we went through 

25 testable configuration. I don't know if anyone has 
211

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 anything else they want to do for the next 50 minutes 

2 or if you want to reassess, think about the testable 

3 configuration stuff, and then tomorrow we're going to 

4 be ready to talk about test procedure and metric.

5 We want to wrap this up in the morning, but 

6 we're going to go ahead and move forward to test 

7 procedure and metric. To the extent you guys could 

8 think about some of this stuff as well as some of our 

9 homework, because we do want to be in a position 

10 perhaps not tomorrow but at least at the next meeting 

11 to vote some of this stuff out.

12 MR. WOLF: This is Mike Wolf. Could we get 

13 a copy of this last presentation?

14 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yep. I'll circulate it. 

15 Okay?

16 MR. FERNSTROM: This is Gary. We had talked 

17 at the last meeting about someone perhaps taking and 

18 circulating notes from our meetings. Does anyone know 

19 if that was done?

20 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. I did it on Tuesday.

21 MR. FERNSTROM: Okay. I think I have an 

22 issue with my email. I think you're sending it to my 

23 PG&E email, which I no longer have access to. Thank 

24 you.

25 MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. Can you just come see 
212

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 me?

2 MR. FERNSTROM: I will. I'll send you the 

3 correct email. Thanks.

4 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I don't hear anyone like 

5 begging to stay in this room for another 45 minutes.

6 (Laughter.)

7 MR. BUBLITZ: Did we answer that question?

8 MS. ARMSTRONG: Well, no. Go ahead.

9 MR. SMITH: Well, I want to circle back 

10 around to the need for a panel fan. The panel fan is 

11 a creation to distinguish it from a circulating fan. 

12 And while the panel fan normally doesn't have duct on 

13 the inlet or outlet, it does have a pressure 

14 differential, whereas a circulating fan does not.

15 That's not a fan, right? It's not a 

16 testable fan. So the implication of the definitions 

17 that you've drawn is that the entity, the business 

18 entity that purchases and assembles those components 

19 and turns it into a testable configuration would have 

20 the test burden.

21 MR. JASINSKI: Yes, as the definitions are 

22 currently written.

23 MR. SMITH: Right. So just so folks here 

24 understand the implications of seeing that.

25 MR. JASINSKI: So I'll do this so that it 
213

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 reflects what the current definitions result in. 

2 That's how it would come out with the current 

3 definitions. If anyone wants it to be different, then 

4 we would have to revise the definitions in order to 

5 achieve that.

6 MR. SMILEY: Well, we're assuming there's no 

7 external rotor motor mounted in the inlet on the other 

8 side.

9 MR. JASINSKI: Right. Impeller loose in 

10 housing, so --

11 MS. ARMSTRONG: So we'll --

12 MALE VOICE: Oh, hold on.

13 MR. BUBLITZ: Would it be safe enough to 

14 just say you couldn't convert power to air power? 

15 It's in your basic definition of a fan.

16 MS. ARMSTRONG: It wouldn't be a fan yet. I 

17 mean, this would be a fan downstream, just not as

18 that --

19 MR. BUBLITZ: Until it's capable of 

20 converting --

21 MS. ARMSTRONG: Correct.

22 MR. BUBLITZ: -- power to air power, it's 

23 not a fan.

24 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I think what our ask is 

25 to you, and this is perhaps something you need to 
214

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

1 think about, is do you want it a different way? In 

2 other words, our definitions as they exist today 

3 prevent a fan like this -- it's not really a fan --

4 prevent this thing from being tested, and perhaps 

5 that's okay until other components are added to it 

6 either integral to it or externally. So, if we want 

7 to consider doing it a different way -- that's all 

8 we're asking -- what would that way be? Okay?

9 So, if anyone wants to bring back either, 

10 and the morning would be great, any feedback on some 

11 of these examples or our testable configuration 

12 definitions, otherwise we're going to start back up 

13 with test procedure and metric, okay?

14 MALE VOICE: At?

15 MS. ARMSTRONG: Eight o'clock.

16 MALE VOICE: Eight o'clock tomorrow morning. 

17 This room?

18 MS. ARMSTRONG: This room.

19 (Whereupon, at 5:15 p.m., the meeting in the 

20 above-entitled matter was adjourned, to reconvene at 

21 8:00 a.m. the following day, Tuesday, May 19, 2015.)

22 //

23 //

24 //

25 //
215

Heritage Reporting Corporation

(202) 628-4888

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

DOCKET NO: N/A

TITLE: ASRAC Fans and Blowers

Working Group Meeting

HEARING DATE: May 18, 2015

LOCATION: Washington, D.C.

I hereby certify that the proceedings and 

evidence are contained fully and accurately on the 

tapes and notes reported by me at the meeting in the 

above case before the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy.

Date: May 18, 2015

 

David W. Jones

Official Reporter

Heritage Reporting Corporation

Suite 206

1220 L Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005-4018