# TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION Official Reporters 1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20005

- 4 018 (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, 20151

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 BOSW ELL 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 LLC2

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 Berk eley 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 AHRI3

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 Associatio n of State Energy Officials

JOANNA MAUER Appliance Standards Awareness Project

JILL HOOTMAN Trane

PETER BUSHNELL Carrier4

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 P R O C E E D I N G S 1

(12:07 p.m.) 2

MR. BOSWELL: Good afternoon. Welcome to 3

this session of the ASRAC Fan Working G roup. So what 4

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

our normal go

- around the room so that everyone can 6

identify themselves and then start from there. 7

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

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

your facilitators. 10

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

another facilitator from the Office of Hearings & 12

Appeals. 13

MS. IYAMA: Sanaee Iyama, Lawrence Berkeley 14

National Lab. 15

MS. ARMSTRONG: Ashley Armstrong, DOE. 16

MR. JASINSKI: Sam Jasinski, N avigant 17

Consulting. 18

MR. SMILEY: Bill Smiley, Trane. 19

MR. FLY: Mark Fly, AAON. 20

MR. CATANIA: Tom Catania as alternate for 21

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

MR. ROY: Aniruddh Roy, Goodman. 23

MS. WALTNER: Meg Waltner, NRDC. 24

MR. FERNSTROM: Gary Fernstrom for the 255

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 California Investor

- Owned Utilities and their 30 1

million customers. They are Pacific Gas & Electric 2

Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego 3

Gas & Electric Company, and the Southern California 4

Gas Company. 5

MR. STARR: Louis Starr with Northwest 6

Energy Efficiency Alliance. 7

MR. WOLF: Mike Wolf with Greenheck. 8

MR. HARTLEIN: Dan Hartlein, TCF. 9

MR. BUBLITZ: Mark Bublitz, the New York 10

Blower Company. 11

MR. HAUER: Armin Hauer, ebm

- papst. 12

MR. HOWE: Ni ck Howe, Carnes Company. 13

MR. WAGNER: Greg Wagner, Morrison Products. 14

MS. JAKOBS: Diane Jakobs, Rheem. 15

MR. DIKEMAN: Steve Dikeman, AcoustiFLO. 16

MR. THOMAS: Phil Thomas, Berner 17

International. 18

MR. BURDICK: Larry Burdick representing 19

Cooling Tech nology Institute. 20

MS. PONTILLO: Pam Pontillo, Office of 21

Hearings & Appeals, DOE. 22

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

MR. WHITWELL: Bob Whitwell, United 24

Technologies, Carrier. 256

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MS. SHEPHERD: Amy Shepherd, AHRI. 1

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

the public gallery could introduce themselves as well 3

for the record. 4

MR. PERSFUL: Trinity Persful, Clarage Fan 5

Company. 6

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

Motors. 8

MR. MATHSON: Tim Mathson, Greenheck Fan. 9

MS. PRESENT: Elain a Present, Navigant 10

Consulting. 11

MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe, under contract 12

to Ingersoll Rand Trane. 13

MR. BOSWELL: We also have a couple working 14

group members as I understand that are participating 15

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

are on the webcast could also introduce themselves. 17

MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer, Appliance 18

Standards Awareness Project. 19

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

here representing NASEO. 21

MR. BOSWELL: Great. Thank you. 22

MALE VOICE: Who is the last one? 23

FEMALE VOICE: Deborah Miller. 24

MALE VOICE: Representing? 257

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 FEMALE VOICE: NASEO. 1

MR. HAUER: That's National Association of 2

State Energy Officials. 3

MALE VOICE: I've heard of it. 4

MR. BOSWELL: So it appears that based on 5

that kind of roll call identification that we do have 6

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

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

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

Shepherd is present. She is not a working group 10

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

where votes are taken, Amy will not be participating 12

in the vote but has been invited to participate to 13

make sure that their group's perspective is 14

represented in the discussions. Okay? 15

Any other preliminary matters that peopl e 16

would like to talk about? 17

(No response.) 18

MR. BOSWELL: You know, there were some 19

comments

-- 20

MR. WAGNER: Wade? 21

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

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

work for this

-- 24

MS. ARMSTRONG: Not yet. We're working o n 258

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 it. 1

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

right before this. 3

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

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

MALE VOICE: Please turn on your mic when 6

you speak. 7

MR. BOSWELL: Yeah. So, on that note, ma ke 8

sure you speak into the mic. Also remember to 9

identify yourself and your company for the transcript 10

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

You know, the protocol that we used last 12

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

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

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

little bit because what was happening last time is, 16

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

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

peopl e commented that it was getting confusing which 19

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

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

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

can take as the next topic. 23

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

different way that you wanted to start, but I know 259

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 that there had been some, when we ended the meeting 1

last time, there had been some discussion about things 2

that people would work on or share together between 3

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

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

what DOE's presentation would be. 6

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

both. 8

MR. BOSWELL: Okay. 9

MS. ARMSTRONG: Since we saw each other 10

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

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

PowerPoint that we used last time. We also sent 13

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

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

interested. 16

Midweek sometime we sent out a formal data 17

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

lacking some information to help inform our decisions 19

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

simplified approach, which basically tells us, okay, 21

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

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

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

shipments per year and some general high

- level 2510

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 information to help inform our discussions to go 1

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

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

running some more detailed analysis or information we 4

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

hopefully with the manufacturers in order to run the 6

more detai led cost/benefit analysis for the group to 7

consider later down the road. 8

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

asked I guess AHRI and its members and even individual 10

members to submit data to the department or its 11

contractors to the extent it's confid ential to help 12

inform the committee's discussions this week. 13

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

circulated a blank format, a blank version of their 15

data template sheet that they use for their fan 16

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

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

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

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

questions in the DOE requests were a little bit 21

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

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

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

our analysis for OEM equipment. 2511

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 And then last but not least, we developed 1

this presentation. I had hoped to get it done 2

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

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

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

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

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

get some readou ts on where we are with some of that 8

data collection, where we are with some of the 9

information that was promised from the last meeting. 10

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

available? 12

And then we want to talk about two things. 13

We had someone request to provide you guys with an 14

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

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

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

about testable configuration and the continuation of 18

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

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

understand the metric before they can really talk 21

about how it impacts them and their equipment. Other 22

people feel, well, we need to get through the sc ope 23

discussion before we really need to talk about test 24

procedures and metric and that kind of stuff. 2512

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 The department has no opinion either way. 1

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

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

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

get a readout from AHRI with regards to the data 5

collection efforts and when we should expect to see 6

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

because you guys are welcome to submit data 8

individu ally. 9

MR. BOSWELL: Diane. 10

MS. JAKOBS: This is Diane Jakobs from 11

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

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

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

to talk about the scope first. 15

MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. 16

MR. BOSWELL: So Amy. 17

MS. SHEPHERD: So, unfortunately, the 18

situation with Laura developed over the weekend, but I 19

know that she met with the manufacturers on Friday 20

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

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

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

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

certainly can follow up with her today and see where 2513

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 we are. 1

MR. BOSWELL: Greg. 2

MR. WAGNER: This is Greg Wagner, Morrison 3

Products. Having worked with the folks at AHRI on 4

this very issue, the challenge becomes what 5

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

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

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

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

unit performance test data. So it's not an apples

- to

10

apples comparison between the two testing procedures 11

or even the output data. 12

Applied fans have other things in their 13

airstream that affect the performance that change any 14

type of efficiency or energy metric relative to flow, 15

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

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

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

result s. 19

MR. BOSWELL: Okay. Tom. 20

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

the other

-- Tom Catania, AMCA

-- some of the other 22

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

sure Wade will. 24

Having said that, you know, again, I'm going 2514

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 to use my let's not make the perfect the enemy of the 1

good here. I think the data that AMCA collected 2

certainly gives you a reasonable proxy that there is a 3

reasonable amount of energy there that is worth 4

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

signifi cant. I'm a little concerned that this is 6

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

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

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

wanted for weeks. 10

MR. BOSWELL: Ashley, it looked lik e you 11

wanted to

-- 12

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

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

readout. So for those that are OEM equipment 15

manufacturers, I mean, did you look at

-- the reason 16

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

the DOE requests to you guys was because we 18

acknowledge there is going to be some differences with 19

OEM equipment as well as potentially the fan data that 20

AMCA was collecting from their members. 21

I think one of the things, one of the high

22

level th ings I asked and one of the things I noted 23

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

is a list of OEM equipment and/or accessories that are 2515

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 offered with fans, what category of fans those are, 1

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

infor mation you don't have. 3

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

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

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

question, where the airflow request

-- and this is 7

where it differs significantly f rom what AMCA did, 8

which is pretty straightforward. I can give you that 9

for ours because we manufacture fans and we can say 10

straightforward. 11

MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. 12

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

when you start looking at the combinations of products 14

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

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

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

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

doing. 19

MR. BOSWELL: Okay. Larry. 20

MR. BURDICK: Larry Burdick, SPX Cooling 21

Technologies, representing Cooling Technology 22

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

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

time now relative to CTI's position, you know, on the 2516

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 aspect of t his ASRAC ruling. You know, unfortunately, 1

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

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

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

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

clear case that the percentage of applied power or 6

power consumed in, you know, using the information 7

that was provided there, the percentage is very small 8

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

much more potential for energy savings is possible 10

with the type of heat exchanger that you apply. 11

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

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

a particular cooling tower connected to a chiller 14

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

with a rather small increase in the cost of the 16

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

two

- thirds the power, be it two

- thirds of the power of 18

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

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

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

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

fan. 23

I think there are other good arguments there 24

about the embedded fans where it's not always a bigger 2517

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 fan is better. It's not always a smaller fan is 1

better. I t's totally dependent on the entire system 2

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

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

know, to the question. 5

Several of these questions, you know, a 6

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

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

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

striving for is a system efficiency or overall system 10

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

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

that in the purchase of the product. 13

MR. BOSWELL: Does someone want to 14

respond to Larry? 15

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

think, you know, that's

-- so I think that's more or 17

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

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

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

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

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

you specifically asked why DOE hasn't respo nded to the 23

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

about. It's not just now for DOE to respond. It's 2518

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 for the working group to decide what the scope is. 1

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

other people at this table that need to decide what 3

the appropriate scope of these standards that we're 4

all here to negotiate. 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

for each of these end applied applications that people 13

are

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

people are asking the working group to consider not 15

regulating in this rule. 16

I think we're looking for the data to 17

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

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

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

you know, interject some details regarding like what 21

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

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

can decide what they deci de. 24

MR. BURDICK: And one other comment about 2519

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 that, Ashley, is that, you know, our industry is not 1

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

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

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

public or amongst ourselves. 5

MR. BOSWELL: Robert. 6

MR. WHITWELL: Yeah. I just wanted to 7

follow up

-- Bob Whitwell from Carrier. I wanted to 8

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

unitary equipment or other HVAC equipment. There are 10

m ultiple

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

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

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

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

nine condenser fans on it depending on the si ze of the 15

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

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

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

an ERV. So there's many different types of

-- or 19

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

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

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

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

whatever we do. 24

The other thing I think that we need to 2520

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 think about here in the working gro up related to scope 1

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

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

meeting right now on commercial unitary equipment up 4

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

included in the calculati ons on the new energy 6

efficiency metric there. 7

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

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

counting energy savings twice. So I just think that 10

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

MS. ARMS TRONG: So I would argue certain 12

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

all. 14

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

fan is included directly in the energy efficiency 16

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

savings for th e higher IER levels. There are other 18

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

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

in that equipment are included in the energy 21

calculations for that rulemaking. 22

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

had a discussion in about five minutes of exactly what 24

we were asking AHRI to collect for this meeting, and 2521

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 that just is what fans are we talking about, what 1

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

regulated products for which that consump tion is 3

regulated or not, including accessories. 4

MR. WHITWELL: Yeah, okay. 5

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

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

example, right? 8

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

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

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

all I'm saying. 12

MR. BOSWELL: Okay. Amy. 13

MS. SHEPHERD: I just wanted to expand on 14

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

degree, but I also think th at, you know, in the 16

framework document, DOE made a statement about the 17

covered products are not included in this rulemaking, 18

and so that was the presumption that we were working 19

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

be helpful to hear fro m DOE like the basis for that 21

determination and for opening that back up. 22

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

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

request that you look at the transcript. 2522

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MS. SHEPHERD: Okay. So that wasn't my 1

un derstanding, that there was a clear articulation of 2

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

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

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

why what's included and not included. I asked abou t 6

commercial construction equipment and other

-- there's 7

many fans out there beyond just what has been listed 8

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

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

forth. 11

MS. ARMSTRONG: So I think two t hings. One 12

is DOE has actually set a negotiated rulemaking, or 13

ultimately I guess AMCA and the advocates requested to 14

ASRAC to allow ASRAC to form a negotiated committee to 15

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

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

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

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

thought it would be good to have that discussion 20

around the table and to have the discussion and help 21

all

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

But we're not going to have the same 23

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

did DOE say this in the framework and now we've said 2523

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 that. We've been to AHRI. We presented the NODA back 1

in January

- ish I think was w hen I went over there. We 2

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

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

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

definition is fairly broad. 6

So why don't I suggest at this point instea d 7

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

have any additional data, that we walk through the 9

presentation for today. It gets into different 10

categories of fans, what a testable configuration of 11

those fans might look like, which is something we 12

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

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

Having a theoretical discussion of scope isn't going 15

to get us anywhere. 16

MR. FERNSTROM: So this is Gary speaking for 17

the California utilities an d the efficiency advocates 18

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

will not agree to scope until all of the potential 20

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

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

data. This is j ust like the pumps negotiation where 23

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

circulator pumps. Well, turns out that circulator 2524

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 pump energy use was equal to the savings of all the 1

rest of the rulemaking put together. So I definitely 2

want to assess the market data and energy use and 3

energy savings associated with all of the measures 4

that could potentially be within the scope as defined 5

by this working group. 6

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

that you wanted to move into the presentat ion at this 8

point? 9

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

this point

-- I've asked for the presentation slides 11

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

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

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

think

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

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

of certain categories of fans and what DOE regulations 17

might look like in terms of equipment classes and how 18

those would be treate d, how they will ultimately be 19

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

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

definitely need your feedback on this, and we would 22

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

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

terms of what may be excluded or may be considered to 2525

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 be excluded at the end of the day I guess. 1

MR. JASINSKI: Ready? 2

FEMALE VOICE: Go ahead. 3

MR. JASINSKI: Sam Jasinski, Navigant 4

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

through a little bit of the scope and definitions. 6

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

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

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

cetera. From there, we p ut together a deck that 10

expands on the testable configuration concept that was 11

discussed at the last meeting in hopes that we could 12

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

for this discussion. So

-- 14

MS. ARMSTRONG: I should just clarify that 15

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

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

are put in there just for discussion to get people 18

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

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

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

to the table ideas and considerations for this. 22

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

stops, allow people to discuss. Feel free to 24

interrupt me at any time. 2526

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 So the objective is to pr ovide a fan working 1

group

-- working definition and define testable 2

configurations in support of the working group 3

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

version of the fan definition that was discussed at 5

the previous meeting, and these edits are reflective 6

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

through it and see what was changed. So mechanical 8

was removed. There was a discussion around how it 9

wasn't always mechanical power that was being 10

converted. The

-- 11

MS. ARMSTRONG: I thi nk this one

-- so we're 12

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

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

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

this one may be different than our actual scope of 16

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

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

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

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

include probably things wider than we would ever 21

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

that further from a technical point of view. 23

To the extent anyone has any further 24

feedback

-- and I know, Wade, you were going to look 2527

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 into something at some point and get back to us. And 1

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

we really need to

-- 3

MR. JASINSKI: Okay. 4

MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, unless somebody has 5

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

MR. JASINSKI: Any further points of 7

discussion or

-- okay. I'll move on. This i s just 8

what I was getting into. Okay. 9

So here we are talking about the fan 10

categories and the concept of testable configuration. 11

In general, the working group last time agreed to 12

limit the scope of the regulation to specific fan 13

categories. Those spec ific fan categories were shown, 14

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

the challenges of analyzing fans integrated into 16

larger pieces of equipment, the working group agreed 17

to focus on standalone fans in testable configurations 18

to start, so t his diagram here is just a 19

representation of that. 20

You have a manufacturer that assembles some 21

or all of the fan components that we might discuss 22

later into what we're calling a testable 23

configuration. What that testable configuration 24

entails is up for discussion, and you'll see that on 2528

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 the slides after this. After that testable 1

configuration is assembled or packaged or shipped or 2

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

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

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

distributor where more things are added, whether they 6

are basic fan components. They could be accessories 7

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

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

they get embedd ed into a larger piece of equipment. 10

Any comments or issues with this very high

11

level schematic of how fans enter the market? Wade, I 12

think we have a comment here. 13

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

just chime in. It's okay. 15

MR. BURDICK: Yea h, all right. So Larry 16

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

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

test this particular arrangement. I am not sure that 19

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

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

or considered that we could have 40

- foot diameter 22

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

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

could be extremely large and essentially, you know, 2529

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 untestable, you know, as this definition shows here, 1

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

type of an airflow analysis on it is impractical. 3

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

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

the definitions a re being discussed, if you could give 6

us examples of specific sizes, specific size 7

thresholds that would become untestable based on the 8

definitions that the working group is discussing, that 9

would be useful. 10

MR. BURDICK: Surely. 11

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

the definitions after this. 13

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

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

that call out points of discussion. We can address 16

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

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

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

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

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

necessarily assembled, but all of the required 22

c omponents for operation are in these packaged kits 23

and sold, but they're not assembled. 24

So I guess a couple of points of discussion 2530

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 are, are fans ever sold in this way at any point in 1

the distribution channel as packaged kits but that are 2

unassembled, an d if so, maybe not now, but keep in 3

mind if they are how that might impact the definition 4

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

get into, who would be responsible for testing those 6

components. 7

MS. JAKOBS: This is Diane Jakobs from 8

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

of all the necessary parts sold together as opposed to 10

you could go to a catalog and pick out assorted 11

pieces. So you're talking about

-- it would be a 12

particular configuration that you would buy as one 13

uni fied whole somehow. Okay, okay. 14

MS. ARMSTRONG: Fan manufacturers? 15

MR. HARTLEIN: A question that I would 16

raise

-- Dan Hartlein, TCF. Does that include

-- I 17

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

does that include when that kit becomes a kit from 19

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

somebody were to buy this piece from one manufacturer, 21

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

that when it becomes testable? 23

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

going to be a discussion for the working group. 2531

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. That's true, but 1

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

if

-- 3

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

-- 4

MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. 5

MR. HARTLEIN: Go ahead. 6

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

putting together different parts in the field in terms 8

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

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

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

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

and controls already, in addition to rating the whole 13

kit, if they had a specific bare pump

- specific motor 14

and specific control system or drive package that 15

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

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

words. 18

MR. HARTLEIN: Yeah. But I think the 19

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

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

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

consid ered a testable

-- I mean, that's the big issue, 23

right? 24

MR. JASINSKI: So I think we're going to get 2532

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 to all of that in some of these slides. 1

MR. HARTLEIN: Right. Okay. 2

MR. JASINSKI: So maybe this is a good 3

reason why we save the points of discussi on for 4

afterwards and maybe we can come back to them. 5

MR. HARTLEIN: All right. Sure. 6

MS. ARMSTRONG: But purely for a fan 7

manufacturer

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

interrupting him on every slide here, but

-- 9

MR. JASINSKI: I'm used to i t. 10

MS. ARMSTRONG: I think what we were trying 11

to get at this point is do fan manufacturers actually 12

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

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

in there almost preassembled

-- or not assemble d but 15

unassembled in a box. 16

MALE VOICE: A combination. 17

MS. ARMSTRONG: And it sounds like the 18

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

really do this very well. 20

MR. HAUER: Armin Hauer for ebm

- pabst. Yes, 21

I have seen it in Europe and in Asia where forward

22

curved blower impellers, forward

- curved impellers, are 23

sold inside of squirrel cage housings, but no motor 24

and no motor mount. So it's two loose components 2533

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 lying inside of each other. 1

MR. HARTLEIN: In the industrial fan 2

business

-- D an Hartlein, TCF

-- industrial fan 3

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

saying, broken down because the fan is large enough 5

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

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

construction site so metimes as well. So you have a 8

disassembled or a field

- erected fan in that case. And 9

certainly the 200

- horsepower range would get us into 10

that in some cases. 11

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

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

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

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

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

the pump performance flange to flange? Did you 17

include suction diffusers and triple

- duty valves and 18

all the things that get directly connected to the 19

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

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

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

-- 22

where is the circle drawn in a kit? 23

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

So I think it's not necessarily a one to one. We 2534

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 could definitely do whatever we want here. I don't 1

think all the accessories that are necessarily 2

included are included in the pumps. There is some 3

streamlining t here to make it easier to test and come 4

up with ratings. There is a what I would call wire

5

to

- water metric that would encompass most of what's 6

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

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

the de tails with regards to fans specifically. 9

MR. BOSWELL: Diane, did your point get 10

covered? 11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

se ll impellers with housings. We sell housings 20

without impellers. We sell housings, impeller shafts, 21

and that is complete assemblies. We also sell 22

motorized. You can get pretty much any combination of 23

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

wh at your need is from a manufacturing and a product 2535

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 standpoint because oftentimes, as we've said many 1

times, the housing and other parts are often built 2

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

of the need for heat transfer. 4

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

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

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

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

come up with a set of definitions for testable 9

configuration that will allow the working group to 10

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

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

make sure that

-- where those definitions provide 13

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

drawn where the worki ng group wants it to be drawn. 15

So here are the fan categories that were 16

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

some time on these definitions. For instance, if 18

anybody remembers the discussion about the centrifugal 19

fan definition, and we added the word predominantly, 20

you'll see it in there. 21

So these have been discussed by the working 22

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

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

for discussion that they want to. If there ar en't 2536

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 any, then we can move on. Meg? 1

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

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

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

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

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

to be more specific in that definition? 7

MS. ARMSTRONG: So I think DOE would prefer 8

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

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

know, obviously, if people have su ggestions, that 11

would be welcome. 12

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

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

about ducted or nonducted, and then these categories 15

were kind of subcategories under those two broader 16

categories. 17

MR. JASIN SKI: Mm

- hmm. 18

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

that discussion at some point. 20

MR. JASINSKI: The unducted versus ducted? 21

MR. WOLF: Yeah, and where these things 22

might fall into those, because that also might give 23

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

know when to bring it up. 2537

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MR. JASINSKI: Okay. 1

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

MR. JASINSKI: So Mike basically presented 3

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

these into the ducted and unducted categor ies that 5

Mike is talking about. So the following

-- this table 6

lists the tentative equipment classes that DOE would 7

like to discuss. You can see that the equipment 8

classes themselves, which are tentative, align with 9

the categories that were on the previo us slide, except 10

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

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

these equipment classes map to the AMCA

- suggested 13

categories in their comment on the first NODA I 14

believe. 15

MR. WOLF: Sam, Mike W olf here again. So 16

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

participated in some of the AMCA discussions as well 18

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

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

feel like or some of us might. 21

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

maybe in helping to move this discussion forward on 23

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

another column to this table because some of these 2538

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 categories potentially fall into embedded and some do 1

not. 2

MR. JASINSKI: Okay. 3

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

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

think that might fall into those embedded fan 6

discussions. So just a suggestion. 7

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

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

before we get into the discussion of the testable 10

configurations. 11

MR. WHITWELL: This is Bob Whitwell. A 12

question just to clarify. So the powered roof 13

ventilator, that sounds like an application to me I 14

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

that's being used in that device? 16

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

the discussions last time in that that category itself 18

is a little bit different than the other equipment 19

classes or the equip ment classes that we have listed 20

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

to discuss whether the power roof ventilator is a 22

piece of equipment that has an embedded fan or is 23

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

we get into t he definitions of testable configuration, 2539

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 you'll see we have some template slides queued up for 1

the group that include some cases like this that were 2

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

the contractors thought might test some of the 4

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

evaluating them and ultimately tweaking them to 6

address cases like the power roof ventilator in the 7

way that the working group wants. 8

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

little bit convoluted because li ke housed centrifugal 10

fans are many times applied inside of embedded 11

equipment, unducted. And there is significant

-- 12

especially in FC fans, there's a significant 13

difference between ducting it with two and a half, 14

three times outlet area duct diameter and just blowing 15

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

think the ducted and unducted has its place, almost 17

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

vaneaxial fan unducted. Your performance would 19

suffer. 20

MR. SMITH: This is Wad e Smith from AMCA. 21

When we chose the categories and placed them into the 22

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

was a reflection of how the fan is normally applied 24

and how it's normally tested and normally catalogued. 2540

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 There are exceptions all around, but they aren't 1

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

as they did. 3

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

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

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

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

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

off the exhaust, you know, particular the axial 9

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

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

th ey would be best represented

-- 12

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

right? A vaneaxial fan and a tubeaxial fan are 14

designed to be attached to discharged ductwork. 15

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

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

ratings are established. 18

A panel fan is by definition

-- of course, 19

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

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

outlet. It doesn't have any duct attachment 22

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

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

unducted configuration. 2541

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MR. BURDICK: So I would interpret that 1

unducted would mean that it has infinite tip 2

clearance, has no

-- 3

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

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

talking about duct, ductwork. 6

MR. BURDICK: Okay. 7

MR. SMITH: Okay? 8

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

discussion is important, but I think most of these 10

discussions will gain mo re traction once we get into 11

the definitions themselves because these points can 12

become discussions around how the definitions 13

themselves might actually be changed in order to 14

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

also be metric or test proc edure issues that will also 16

be discussed later. 17

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

into the definitions, or does the working group want 19

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

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

categ ories end up embedded in other products and which 22

ones don't? 23

MR. WOLF: This is Mike here from Greenheck 24

again. The third option might be, how many more 2542

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 slides do you have? Do we just paw through and hear 1

them all? 2

MR. JASINSKI: I think we probably

-- 3

MS. ARMSTRONG: Twenty. 4

MR. JASINSKI: Yeah. 5

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

really detailed really quickly. 7

MR. WOLF: Yeah. 8

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

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

left sl ide, where it says ducted, unducted, that 11

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

each of the what we call equipment classes. Equipment 13

classes is a regulatory term. It means something in 14

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

groupings of products for the purposes of setting or 16

at least analyzing different standard levels. So they 17

have to have certain criteria within the statute to be 18

able to establish separate equipment classes. So 19

we've consolidated some of the original cat egories 20

that were looked at in the AMCA and the advocate 21

proposal because we believe this is how you make them 22

consistent with our statutory requirements for 23

equipment classes. 24

When it comes down to ducted and unducted, 2543

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 that really gets to how you determ ine the rating. And 1

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

application, I completely agree that it will impact 3

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

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

given equipment class consistent with either a ducted 6

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

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

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

say yes. All right. Move along. 10

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

the testable configuration concept. And before diving 12

into the 20

- plus slides, keep in mind that the 13

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

around the concept of the testable configuration that 15

was discussed in the form of definitions that are 16

constructed around the basic components of a fan, 17

which are up for discussion. What a basic component 18

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

And then once we go through those 20

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

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

those definitions, understand their impacts in terms 23

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

additional template slides that have cases that are of 2544

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 particular interest to the working group in terms of 1

what those impacts in those particular cases would be 2

for the working group to discuss and tweak the 3

definitions as they see fit in order to get the 4

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

goal. 6

So a testable configuration is the assembled 7

configuration of fan components required to test for 8

compliance with the DOE standard. This is sort of 9

just the underlying concept, a guiding definition, if 10

you will, but there will be more detailed definitions 11

following. 12

So here is an ove rview of the testable 13

configuration approach. Each equipment class will 14

have a different definition of testable configuration 15

which will state the fan components required and the 16

functional requirements of those components to meet 17

the definition of testab le configuration. 18

The working group agreed that testable 19

configurations will only include parts that are 20

structural or that impact fan aerodynamic performance, 21

not accessories such as a grill or casings or 22

weatherization only. This was from last meeting 's 23

discussion. Distinct equipment class definitions of 24

testable configuration allow for differentiation 2545

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 between the fan categories we've been discussing and 1

determination of the physical boundaries of the fan. 2

Testable configuration definitions provide i nstruction 3

on the party responsible for testing. 4

MS. ARMSTRONG: So I'm going to

-- yeah, I'm 5

going to clarify that last

-- can we modify that last 6

bullet? 7

MR. JASINSKI: Yeah. 8

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

party responsible for complia nce. What testing 10

configuration potentially allows us to do is to 11

streamline the party responsible for testing. Now, if 12

somebody is importing that fan or otherwise making a 13

fan, there could be responsibilities that that person 14

or entity may have with reg ards to compliance. But if 15

the fan manufacturer has already tested that, that 16

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

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

manufacturer, thus avoiding the need to retest or 19

eliminating their own test burden if they're a 20

different entity that falls under the scope of the 21

rule. 22

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

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

the test burden on multiple entities that may touch 2546

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 the same fan depending on where we fall out on 1

testable configuration. That being said, compliance 2

with standards will still be responsible

-- they would 3

still be responsible for compliance with standards. 4

MR. JASINSKI: Any questions at this point 5

before I get into the equipment cla ss definitions of 6

testable configuration? 7

MR. MATHSON: Sam? 8

MR. JASINSKI: Yeah. 9

MR. MATHSON: Tim Mathson from Greenheck. I 10

just thought maybe we should discuss a little bit 11

about what impact the market should have in this 12

decision. We've got man y catalogs out there with 13

tested performance based on what the customers would 14

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

part of this? 16

MR. JASINSKI: Yes. Any other comments, 17

questions? 18

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

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

things today, please speak up. 21

MR. JASINSKI: So here is that same diagram 22

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

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

We'll just do it in real ti me. 2547

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MS. JAKOBS: So this is Diane Jakobs from 1

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

catalog, that seems pretty definitive to me. Would 3

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

offered for sale as a standalone component in a 5

cata log? 6

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

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

understood at least the gentleman asking was, you 9

know, if we make representations today of certain fan 10

efficiency

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

If we make certain representations today of fan 12

efficiency and you guys end up changing that, you 13

change that methodology or you change that testable 14

configuration such that it would change the way our 15

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

consider those changes. And my response to him was 17

absolutely. You should inform us if we are changing 18

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

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

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

might have missed something. 22

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

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

making fan representations today, conceivably they're 2548

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 figuring how to test it somehow, right? 1

MR. JASINSKI: So the tak eaway from this 2

diagram is essentially to say that in that 3

distribution diagram that we showed earlier, 4

essentially there are a lot of potential points where 5

a testable configuration could occur and where testing 6

would be required. And I think the best wa y to think 7

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

is that depending on what the working group determines 9

the definitions for each equipment class should be, 10

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

become the actual points of the te stable configuration 12

and where testing would be required. 13

So presumably at the end of this exercise, 14

with a set of definitions that the working group 15

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

definitive for each or many of the fans that are 17

av ailable now within the scope. 18

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

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

should only be one star between the user and the 21

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

one or the other maybe, or

-- 23

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

where we're going in terms of setting up this whole 2549

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 approach where potentially at least what we're hopeful 1

the discussion will lead to is a strategy for which 2

the OEM either could use information alread y readily 3

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

the working group decides that they should be tested 5

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

OEM. It depends. 7

I think ultimately the person responsible 8

may be both. However, that responsibility for the 9

second star could be as simple as retaining records 10

that show you purchased a fan that had tested already 11

from a fan manufacturer, like a transfer kind of 12

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

deciding on how to t est these things, the metric, and 14

what the testable configuration is. Does that make 15

sense? 16

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

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

designed with no real specifics about how it would be 19

applied, that the operation in the final configuration 20

would change. 21

MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. So you would be 22

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

shifting the test responsibility to you. 24

MS. JAKOBS: Well, no. 2550

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MS. ARMSTRONG: I'm not sure that' s what you 1

want either. So that's what

-- I mean, that's

-- 2

MS. JAKOBS: Yeah. 3

MS. ARMSTRONG:

-- what this discussion is 4

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

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

certain fans ultimately ge t included in OEM equipment 7

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

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

have the discussion open

- ended here. 10

But you either test them at the blue dot 11

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

It would be more of a less

- applied test. Or you test 13

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

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

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

person testing. That is up for discussion here. 17

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

someone else

-- but just to me that would depend on 19

the test procedure. So would it be

-- 20

MS. ARMSTRONG: Well, do you have a 21

suggestion? 22

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

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

know, it comes down to specifics. And that's, I 2551

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 think, why we're struggling with there are so many 1

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

hard to come up with a single plan. 3

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

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

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

fan definition, you defined it basically as an 7

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

affects it aerodynam ically, which I assume, you know, 9

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

cones. 11

What is the reasoning behind structure other 12

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

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

get sol d as unembedded products if you just looked at 15

the impeller and inlet cone, possibly the drive and 16

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

integrated into the unit. And the structure gets 18

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

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

cabinet start and stop and end, and how many 21

components are included in that when we draw that box 22

around that fan. So

-- 23

MR. WHITWELL: And can you really put 24

that

-- can you put that together in a tes table 2552

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 combination, right? 1

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

it but is a testable combination. 3

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

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

saying, is perhaps a sub

- working group that would kind 6

of handle the topics you were just discussing. It 7

sounds like a fairly technical thing. Maybe some AMCA 8

members along with some of the manufacturers together 9

can come up with some thoughts on that because it 10

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

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

waste of time? 13

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

difference between the AMCA products and my products, 15

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

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

us, you know, will eliminate any roadblocks, so

-- 18

MALE VOICE: (Away from microphone.) 19

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

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

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

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

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

MS. SHEPHERD: So, on this, Ashley, you 2553

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 mentioned that there were other examples that you had 1

where you had done this sort of dual situatio n. And 2

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

manufacturers here, as opposed to a normal situation 4

where whoever purchases the fan is the consumer. In 5

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

consumer, and then they have a testin g burden behind 7

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

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

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

flying off my non

- lawyer's hat here. So our 11

definition of manufacturer is fairly broad under th e 12

statute depending on how certain companies are 13

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

compliance responsibilities, certification 15

responsibilities, testing responsibilities shift a 16

little bit. 17

But we have a situation now that we have 18

regul ations in place for ceiling fan light kits. The 19

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

essentially a bulb standard. Most of the 21

manufacturers of ceiling fan light kits, while they 22

have their responsibility for compliance and testing, 23

utili ze bulb manufacturers' test data. Bulbs are also 24

regulated under DOE's regs too. So we've harmonized 2554

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 that in a

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

test data and maintain it. But it doesn't

-- you 2

know, it's not in a

-- it's not a one

- to

- one 3

situ ation. It's a little bit different. 4

Like I said, we heard some feedback about 5

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

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

discuss what this structure would look like, how it 8

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

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

something that people around the table are receptive 11

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

point. What do you want? And the answer

-- you know, 13

we're here to negotia te in good faith standards and 14

test procedures and a metric and definitions. So the 15

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

this work for you? 17

MS. JAKOBS: So this is Diane Jakobs from 18

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

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

test it a second time. 21

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

do is find a way that that's

-- we can find a way to 23

do that, and testable configuration was the first way 24

we

-- was the easiest way we t hought that that might 2555

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 could be accomplished here going forward, that if 1

otherwise we could define the testable configuration 2

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

have access to test data that ultimately would allow 4

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

comply. 6

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

with the

-- 8

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

that. But I think that

-- and I think our position is 10

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

avenue to tha t resolution. And I still think there's 12

going to be

-- and I would suggest that DOE take this 13

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

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

that is set up, so

-- 16

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

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

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

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

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

this and other things. 22

You know, we tol d you otherwise, though, 23

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

entertain potentially a subset of exclusions or 2556

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 discussions of those, but a self

- declaration of I'm 1

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

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

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

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

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

going. 7

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

fundamental question before you get to the data as to 9

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

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

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

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

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

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

think that DOE only has the authority to impose that 16

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

have two. 18

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

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

the end of the day that embedded products are required 21

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

to do this. 23

MR. FERNSTROM: Ashley, this is Gary. 24

Didn't DOE explore

-- excuse me

-- a broader 2557

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 definitio n of manufacturer in the context of the 1

regional split system air conditioning standards where 2

various parties along the supply chain were deemed to 3

have responsibilities that sort of aligned with what 4

manufacturers do? So even though a manufacturer might 5

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

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

shroud which affects its performance, and that makes 8

them a second

- order manufacturer. 9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

this was just one idea. 19

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

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

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

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

discussed now that maybe the working group can make 24

some progress on in the meantime with these testable 2558

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 configuration definitions. 1

So, to co ntinue discussing the approach, all 2

equipment class definitions of testable configuration 3

will require the same basic fan components. Here you 4

can see in the cards on the left

- hand side are the 5

required components, impeller, blades, shaft and 6

bearings, ho using or structure. Not required just as 7

part of these working definitions are transmission 8

components, driver components, or controls components. 9

A note at the bottom here, not requiring 10

transmission, driver, and controls components will 11

result in stan dard levels that do not account for the 12

costs and benefits of these components but will not 13

preclude manufacturers from using these components to 14

increase equipment efficiency for testing. 15

MR. BURDICK: Are you going to change that 16

word, or is that going to be compliance? 17

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

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

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

without one? 21

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

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

describe a similar situation to what Ashley was 24

talking about with pumps in that test procedures can 2559

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 be structured in a way that allows to test I guess 1

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

for compliance with a DOE standard bu t also allow for 3

testing with higher efficiency motors, higher 4

efficiency controls, et cetera, to improve efficiency 5

for compliance. But those components under this type 6

of approach would not be considered in the analysis as 7

design options to set the leve ls. 8

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

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

drive component or the motor component has an 11

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

the drive

-- that the driver generally

-- I can't 13

thi nk of any pump in which case the driver is sitting 14

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

difference. Even belt drives and fan guards and all 16

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

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

permutations that this creates as you have products 19

that have all kinds of applications. 20

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

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

mind right now is the slide where we talked about 23

having wire

- t o

- air, where you had, you know, kind of a 24

green line around the fan and then the drive and then 2560

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 the motor, and then I think the control was the fourth 1

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

that, because it appears you're giving an option no w 3

on some of these not required components that were 4

part of that overall box last time. 5

MR. DIKEMAN: The way, the way that

-- I'll 6

let Sanaee answer. 7

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

that slide we presented last time, remember there was 9

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

impeller in it, the testable configuration is trying 11

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

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

nondriven fan on that slide, you could have a drive r, 14

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

delineate those right now. In the testable 16

configuration concept, we're really trying to define 17

the physical boundaries of the nondriven fan. 18

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

Just a couple of wiggle rooms here. An arrangement 20

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

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

So now that shaft and bearings is actually the motor 23

shaft and bearings. 24

MR. JASINSKI: So

-- 2561

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MR. DIKEMA N: And there is no structural 1

housing. 2

MR. JASINSKI: Right. So those are great 3

questions for when we get into these definitions. 4

MR. DIKEMAN: Okay. 5

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

have

-- 7

MR. DIKEMAN: You've got it? 8

MR. JASINSKI : Yeah. We

-- 9

MR. DIKEMAN: Bingo, okay. 10

MR. JASINSKI: We have it. 11

MR. DIKEMAN: Thank you. 12

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

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

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

is n ot part of the fan assembly until a motor is 16

added. Should the shaft be a required component for 17

testable configurations? 18

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

what you had. 20

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

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

the group will have

-- that discussion will be more 23

fruitful once we get into the testable configurations. 24

Any other questions, comments, before I 2562

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 continue? 1

(No response.) 2

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

the possibl e fan component definitions that were 4

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

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

fan components for the testable configuration 7

definitions. Anything to discuss here before I start 8

getting into the equipment class definitions for 9

testable configuration? 10

(No response.) 11

MR. JASINSKI: So here is our first example 12

of a testable configuration definition, and as you can 13

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

show how it was constr ucted based on the list of 15

components in that list of required fan components. 16

So for axial housed testable configuration, 17

you have the required component of the impeller or 18

blades. Here the functional description is that it 19

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

bearings required components, the functional 21

requirements for those are that they are secured to 22

the housing such that the impeller or blade can be 23

driven. The housing directs air flow parallel to axis 24

of rotation across blades and act s as primary mounting 2563

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 structure for shaft and bearings and driver. And they 1

also will be mounting structure for guide vanes and 2

the bell, et cetera. 3

And finally, structure, in this case, 4

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

there is some text highlighted or made bold. The 6

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

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

from the definition of testable configuration from 9

other equipment classes in order to help draw that 10

line where the working group wants to draw that line 11

in terms of the difference between an axial housed 12

testable configuration and an axial unhoused testable 13

configuration. 14

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

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

two definitions might work together to create a 17

situation, a certain situation for differentiating 18

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

working group wants those to be differentiated. 20

So here is the definition, testable 21

configuration d efinition of axial unhoused. 22

Similarly, impeller blades, axial, shaft and bearings 23

secured to structural components as opposed to the 24

housing in the previous definition, such that the 2564

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 impeller or blade can be driven. Housing, there is no 1

housing by defin ition. Structure not intended to 2

guide air flow parallel to axis of rotation across 3

blades. This is specifically to be differentiated 4

from the definition of housing, but acts as primary 5

mounting structure for shaft and bearings. 6

MR. FLY: So Mark Fly w ith AAON. So under 7

this definition or this testable configuration, if I 8

had the same unhoused fan with the same impeller and 9

the same inlet cone but three different support 10

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

motor, would that constitute three different regulated 12

models? 13

MR. JASINSKI: Yeah. I don't

-- 14

MR. FLY: I'm asking you. 15

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

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

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

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

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

agreement yet. We could do it a couple different 21

ways. At least as far as the motor side is

-- so the 22

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

depen ds on how we ultimately define what structure 24

needs to be there for testing. 2565

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 In terms of motors and drives, I think it 1

just depends on what representations want to be made. 2

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

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

fan type configuration and you test the fan in this 5

testable configuration, but ultimately to get to the 6

metric you add up components for the drive and the 7

transmission in the

-- yeah. We can normalize that 8

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

have different models unless you wanted to claim the 10

differentiation in more efficient motor and drive 11

systems that you would otherwise

-- so we could allow 12

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

would help stre amline your burden. 14

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

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

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

question. According to this slide and the previous 18

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

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

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

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

MR. JASINSKI: So the purpose is to 23

differentiate between axial unhoused and axial housed. 24

So, as A shley said, this is not a statement from DOE 2566

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 as to what is the in scope and out of scope. So I 1

would turn the question back to the working group and 2

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

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

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

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

separate them the way the working group wants them to 7

be separated. 8

So, for instance, you brought up tubeaxial 9

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

a point of discussion that says how can housing be 11

defined for axial housed and unhoused to differentiate 12

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

panel fan such that a tubeaxial falls into the axial 14

housed category and a panel fan falls into the axial 15

unhoused category if that's how the working group 16

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

-- 17

MR. SMILEY: Yeah. 18

MR. JASINSKI:

-- then I think

-- so the 19

answer is help us write these definitions in a way 20

that covers, in cludes in the scope of the negotiations 21

the fans that you want included and separates them the 22

way you want them to be separated. 23

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

think what throws us a little bit in your point of 2567

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 discussion is I believe

-- I know we as a company 1

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

a panel fan as a housed fan. 3

MR. JASINSKI: Okay. 4

MR. HARTLEIN: And maybe therein lies the 5

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

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

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

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

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

those are both housed fans. 11

The table fan that somebody referenced a 12

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

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

advantage to performance, to me would be an unhoused 15

axial fan in that case. Or

-- yeah, yeah. And, 16

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

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

housed fan. 19

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

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

definition of axial housed. Does the definition of 22

housing here

-- is it sufficient for exclu ding that 23

cage so that it would still fall under this definition 24

of axial unhoused? 2568

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MR. SMITH: Can I, please? 1

MR. JASINSKI: Wade. 2

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

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

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

the definitions of the different types of fans. What 6

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

would call a circulator fan. 8

MR. JASINSKI: Okay. 9

MR. SMITH: And a circulator fan 10

distinguishes itself because t here is no separation 11

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

static pressure that the fan fights is zero because 13

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

panel fan is distinguished in that it does have a 15

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

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

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

differential, from the suction side to the discharge 19

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

that panel. 21

S o I think everything Dan said, and no sense 22

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

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

has a crisp definition that's a little different than 2569

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 that, and it has to do with this separation. So the 1

box fan that you buy at K

- Mart has no separation from 2

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

MR. JASINSKI: Okay. 4

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

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

with those two separati ons is the ducted versus the 7

unducted. 8

MR. SMITH: No. 9

MR. WAGNER: No? Because

-- 10

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

normally applied without ductwork

-- 12

MR. WAGNER: Right. 13

MR. SMITH:

-- has no provision for ductwork 14

at all

-- 15

MR. WAGN ER: Right. 16

MR. SMITH:

-- while a tubeaxial and a 17

vaneaxial have provisions for ductwork and are 18

normally

-- 19

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

is not ducted. 21

MR. SMITH: Right. 22

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

So

-- 24

MR. SMITH: So ducted and nonducted and 2570

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 housed and unhoused, it gets a little foggy. 1

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

a panel fan or a circulating fan can be quite 3

different, and you can make a difference in 4

performance based upon what kind of orifice ven tured, 5

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

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

difference there. 8

MR. JASINSKI: So the question for the 9

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

include in the scope, and dependin g on that answer, 11

what changes can we make to these definitions in order 12

to make that

-- 13

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

this public negotiation, included in our NODA comment 15

was a request for an exclusion for circulating fans, 16

largely becaus e the connected load of circulating fans 17

below one horsepower

-- I mean above one

-- at one 18

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

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

to focus on the things that matter most, we 21

recommended t hat circulating fans be excluded. 22

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

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

boundary of panel fans. So

-- 2571

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MR. SMITH: What you have up here

-- 1

MS. IYAMA:

-- if this is

-- more to you 2

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

ended up looking more like we're defining circulating 4

fans, we probably need to rework this. 5

MR. SMITH: I think the unhoused could be 6

rewritten to define it as a circulating fan. 7

MR. JASINSKI: I mean, lay i t on me. I'm 8

ready to type. 9

MR. SMITH: Oh, we submitted it with our

-- 10

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

MR. JASINSKI: Okay. 12

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

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

committee, a nd so

-- 15

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

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

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

then said axial housed was ducted and axial unhoused 19

was unducted, and axial unhoused includes panel fans. 20

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

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

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

trying to exclude

-- or the intent is to exclude 24

circulating fans. So I think it 's not that we need 2572

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 to

-- I think we need to call this something other 1

than axial unhoused fans if the intent under that 2

category is to cover panel

-- unducted axial fans. 3

MR. SMITH: So what you've got in the 4

asterisk there, excluding circulating fans. And to 5

us, an unducted axial fan is a circulating fan, so 6

it's an oxymoron. Well, unducted, unhoused. I'm 7

sorry. You're right. 8

MS. WALTNER: But a panel fan is a housed 9

axial fan that is unducted generally. 10

MR. SMITH: Mm

- hmm. 11

MS. WALTNER: Right . And I think that's 12

what we want under that category. 13

MS. ARMSTRONG: So this is Ashley. And 14

maybe this is my lack of fan expertise, but now you've 15

completely confused me because what I thought you 16

defined as a framework in the response to the 17

framewo rk

-- you know, my understanding of a panel fan 18

was an axial fan without a cylindrical housing which 19

is mounted in an orifice, plate, or ring. And that's 20

the definition you provided to us. 21

MR. SMITH: Right. 22

MS. ARMSTRONG: So how does that fit with 23

t his? 24

MR. SMITH: Well, it's a fan

-- 2573

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MS. ARMSTRONG: Because that's what I call 1

axial unhoused

-- 2

MR. SMITH: Okay. If I could just

-- 3

MS. ARMSTRONG:

-- if I read that. 4

MR. SMITH: If I could just reword it, it's 5

an axial fan mounted in an orif ice ring, which is the 6

housing, but it doesn't have a tube, right? 7

FEMALE VOICE: A different type of housing. 8

MR. SMITH: It's a different type of 9

housing, exactly. 10

MALE VOICE: It's a really short tube. 11

FEMALE VOICE: It's housed, but

-- 12

MALE V OICE: But not ducted. 13

MALE VOICE: It's housed but unducted. 14

MS. ARMSTRONG: So I'm not worried about 15

ducting so much because that's going to get to how we 16

test. But I think what I'm hearing is that those two 17

should be tested differently. So what is another way 18

to talk about axial unhoused? I mean, how

-- 19

MR. SMITH: Circulator fan. 20

MALE VOICE: Yeah. 21

MS. ARMSTRONG: That's not

-- 22

MR. SMITH: All axial unhoused fans are 23

circulator fans. 24

MALE VOICE: Yes. 2574

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MS. ARMSTRONG: Can't we just cal l it panel 1

fans? 2

MR. SMITH: No. A panel fan has a housing. 3

MS. ARMSTRONG: But I'm not trying to talk 4

about the exclusion. I'm trying to talk about what's 5

in. So I need another category for that, for my 6

equipment class. And I think it's as simple as 7

calling them panel fans. 8

MR. SMITH: Great. 9

MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. We've made progress. 10

MR. HARTLEIN: No. I don't want to

-- 11

MS. ARMSTRONG: No? 12

MR. HARTLEIN: Yeah. Dan from TCF. I don't 13

want to complicate this, but, Wade, a tubeaxial fan 14

sitting on a roof can be unducted. 15

MR. SMITH: Can be but normally isn't. 16

Yeah. There's lots of can be's. But normally isn't. 17

MS. ARMSTRONG: So let me explain how this 18

would work just as a theoretical. Any axial housed 19

fan

-- let's say we set up a structure like this. Any 20

axial housed fan, for example, all vaneaxials, all 21

tubeaxials, would be tested with ducted 22

configurations, period, irrespective of how they're 23

applied in the field. 24

Second, panel fans. Panel fans would be a 2575

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 separate equipment class, separate standards. They 1

would be tested in an unducted configuration, period, 2

end of story. The question is, are these 3

categories

-- can you go back to your broad category 4

for the first one? 5

MR. JASINSKI: This

-- you want me to change 6

back. Is that what you're saying? 7

MS. ARMSTRONG: I do. Are these categories 8

as they are described by their general 9

characteristics

-- we will need to define them

-- are 10

they

-- I mean, do we have them correct at this point? 11

The left side is going to be

-- 12

MR. SMITH: So the only thing, Ashley, is 13

those of us

-- this is Wade Smith. Those of us from 14

AMCA think of a panel fan as a housed fan. And it's 15

unducted, as you've said. But it's part of the first 16

and the second group the way you have it. 17

MR. JASIN SKI: Right. That's why I made 18

that change, because now we have axial housed, and 19

then we have panel, which is an axial housed. 20

MR. SMITH: What you've got there is fine, 21

just so there's no confusion. 22

MR. JASINSKI: Yeah. 23

MS. ARMSTRONG: Does this d o it? 24

MR. HARTLEIN: Dan from TCF. I think you've 2576

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 got axial housed and you've got

-- or excuse me. 1

You've got axial housed ducted and you've got axial 2

housed unducted is what you have. And then you have 3

an air circulator. I can give you 100 examples of 4

axial fans which aren't ducted. There's a bunch of 5

them. 6

MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. So for the purpose of 7

regulation, though, right, whether it's there with 8

ducting or unducting, I don't think it matters too 9

much other than it will be how it's rated, rig ht? So, 10

if I'm going to make a distinction here and make 11

definitions for axial cylindrical

-- no, axial housed 12

ducted and axial housed unducted, that means every 13

axial housed fan you have because you won't know it's 14

being ducted or unducted you're going t o have to test 15

twice. I don't think that's what you want to do. 16

It's going to meet both definitions. 17

MR. JASINSKI: I think what Ashley is saying 18

is that

-- 19

MS. ARMSTRONG: Do you see where I'm going? 20

I mean, that's why you need the distinction. It 's 21

not a plot. It's not how it's installed, with or 22

without ducting, that gets to how it should be tested 23

and represented. It's how it leaves your factory and 24

what's the distinguishing point there. 2577

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MR. JASINSKI: And, Ashley, correct me if 1

I'm wrong. I think what you're also trying to say is 2

that what we name the classes is not passing up the 3

opportunity to keep the ducted versus unducted

-- 4

MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. 5

MR. JASINSKI:

-- in the regulation. Like 6

we're not ignoring that aspect. It's just that what 7

we're saying in the regulatory world, the equipment 8

class name, the unducted and ducted aspect is 9

something that will have to be picked up elsewhere. 10

There's other mechanisms for keeping that 11

differentiation, not the equipment class name. 12

MS. ARMSTRONG: So my ask of you guys is how 13

do we get that for axial housed fans that what you're 14

calling unducted, essentially panel fans

-- what is a 15

good descriptor for them that you can say at the point 16

of manufacture differentiates axial cylindrical hou sed 17

versus axial maybe housed or otherwise? 18

MR. JASINSKI: So why don't we do

-- 19

MR. SMITH: In our definitions, it has to do 20

with the accommodation for ductwork, a connection. 21

But I think what you've got there is not wrong. I 22

mean

-- 23

MR. BURDICK: Is the word cylindrical 24

necessary? 2578

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MS. ARMSTRONG: No. 1

MR. BURDICK: If it's not round, you've got 2

a problem. 3

MS. ARMSTRONG: Well, if it's not round, it 4

wouldn't be included here. So, if that's not our 5

intent, we should take that word out. 6

MR. P ERSFUL: This is Trinity with Clarage 7

Fan Company. Just kind of a general question. What 8

is the need for the equipment classes? Because, as I 9

look, we have centrifugal

-- later down in the slides 10

we have centrifugal housed, and then we'll have 11

radial. By putting these

-- maybe an unintended 12

consequence that we have when you put these in the 13

different categories, you limit the amount of product 14

substitution that we could have because the more 15

categories that you put these in, you allow or you 16

limit the a mount of cross

- pollenization. Or if I 17

wanted to go from a radial fan to let's say a backward 18

incline fan, now I'm crossing the streams. 19

And I don't know if that's an unintended 20

consequence that we want to try to avoid because I'm 21

not sure what the purpo se of having

-- it seems like 22

we could just have two equipment classes, ducted and 23

unducted. 24

MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. So just at a high 2579

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 level, DOE divides products into equipment classes for 1

the purposes of setting standards. If you were to 2

have fans that fall into multiple classes, that would 3

mean that those fans now have to meet multiple 4

standards. So what we're trying to do is set up a 5

structure for which you have fans grouped together 6

generally by equipment class for the purposes of 7

analyzing standard s. 8

They typically have utility

- related and 9

performance

- related features that would affect their 10

efficiency. So perhaps certain types of fans can't be 11

made as efficient as others. You wouldn't want to 12

group those together. It's typically equipment 13

clas ses are something, a tool that's utilized such 14

that you can't get rid of certain I would say 15

categories of fans off the market if they provide a 16

distinct utility to the customer. So it's not meant 17

to say you can't sell into cross

- markets, but it's 18

trying to say we're not going to regulate that fan 10 19

different ways. 20

MR. PERSFUL: I would say today

-- and 21

people can correct me if I'm wrong

-- we do have a 22

test standard today. We have a test standard, AMCA 23

210, that takes all of this into configuration. I 24

think there is probably 10 different configurations in 2580

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 which you can test a fan. Yet really we don't break 1

it down like this. It's however the fan yields itself 2

to be tested, you just look into the test metric and 3

you say, okay, it's ducted or unducted . It's going to 4

be Figure 12 of this test standard. And that's what 5

we use today. So today we do it, and we've done it 6

for, I don't know, however many years, and it seems to 7

work without getting bogged down into 15 different 8

categories. 9

MS. ARMSTRONG: So I think that works for 10

the purposes of how do I test, how do I get my metric, 11

how do I get my rating kind of thing. That really is 12

fundamentally different, though, than equipment 13

classes and how you group products for the purposes of 14

setting the stan dards. 15

MR. WOLF: So, Ashley, if I may. So based 16

on what I'm hearing you say with these different 17

equipment classes, you're assuming there's different 18

efficiency levels and targets you might be shooting 19

for. So, in the case of, you know, fans here, we 20

would talk about an FER or an FEI of one being the 21

baseline, okay? You know, based on I think the 22

proposal that AMCA and the advocates put forth, you 23

know, we've studied all this on the AMCA database and 24

we've tried to simplify it by coming up with this 2581

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 d ucted and unducted categories, and then these other 1

things fall into that. 2

And to the extent that we're pretty sure 3

we've studied it enough to feel comfortable that if we 4

have one metric for

-- 5

MR. SMITH: One level. 6

MR. WOLF: One level, I'm sorry. Thank you. 7

One level for unducted and another level for ducted, 8

and then now that's going to take us into this whole 9

discussion of static and total at some point down the 10

line here, we're comfortable with that. So, you know, 11

as you start to ramp things

-- as you start to move 12

forward with future regulations where you want to ramp 13

things up, we're relatively confident we've got that 14

addressed in the way we've proposed or made the 15

proposal. If I'm out of line there, Wade or someone 16

else, feel free to jump in here, but

-- 17

MR. JASINSKI: Maybe just to add some 18

clarity because I think it's relevant to this 19

discussion. It sounds like

-- I just want to make 20

sure that it's clear that what we're talking about 21

here, again to reiterate, is not eliminating the 22

ab ility to

-- yes. That was going to be my second 23

point. The first thing is we're not getting rid of 24

the ducted and unducted discussion by what we're 2582

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 showing here. And to Trinity's discussion, we're also 1

not saying that just because something is in a 2

diff erent equipment class that it has to use a 3

different test procedure or a different metric. 4

And to Wade's point, they don't have to have 5

different standard levels either. So under this 6

approach there is an ability to set different 7

standards for different equipment classes, but 8

ultimately, whether that's appropriate can be 9

determined later on, and the same level could be set 10

for multiple equipment classes. 11

So I think everyone's point is well taken. 12

I'm just trying to say that what we're doing here is 13

no t precluding the working group from being able to 14

come up with a final term sheet that involves those 15

aspects, which it sounds like are very important to 16

some of the parties. 17

MS. ARMSTRONG: But what it does allow in 18

the future is if there becomes a situ ation for which 19

as the regulations move forward that certain 20

categories of fans should be analyzed separately and 21

ultimately one day different standards should be 22

considered for them because they have certain 23

technical attributes that may impact their effi ciency 24

potentials as compared to other, this structure allows 2583

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 for that flexibility in the future. It reserves that 1

right. I'm not sure that's a bad thing that you want 2

to fight. 3

MR. SMITH: I think it's important to note 4

that there are utility differen ces, and if we strictly 5

consider the differences in utility, we come up with 6

more categories than you did. There's a couple that 7

are broken, that are lumped that we wouldn't lump, and 8

we would argue that there is a difference in utility 9

that justifies the ir separation. 10

At the same time, it's also true that many 11

of these fans in their application don't have a 12

difference in utility. So, in the example that 13

Trinity brought to the floor here, he's imagining a 14

application in which a radial fan or a backward 15

inclined fan would serve the customer's need. The 16

backward inclined fan is probably more efficient, and 17

we would want to encourage the substitution of a 18

backward inclined fan for a radial fan and would not 19

want to discourage that by having two different 20

e fficiency standards. 21

So, as we debated amongst our members what 22

we wanted for these different equipment classes, the 23

membership of AMCA settled on having one total 24

efficiency requirement for ducted fans and one static 2584

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 efficiency requirement for unducted fans to encourage 1

product substitution, specifically to encourage, you 2

know, people to move to the more efficient products 3

where their utility needs were satisfied, okay? 4

So we have this dilemma where on the one 5

hand we need to preserve certain types of fans because 6

they're peculiar and unique and needed, and yet on the 7

other hand, sometimes those peculiarities don't matter 8

and we want to encourage substitution. 9

MR. JASINSKI: Okay. 10

MS. JAKOBS: This is Diane Jakobs from 11

Rheem. And I agree with Ashle y. I mean, when you 12

design a test procedure so you get a number, that's 13

completely different from trying to estimate the 14

energy consumption for that product, especially what 15

we're doing here where we're taking a component and 16

we're building it into someth ing else. 17

So even though it's fine, you have some 18

apparatus, you can put a component on it, and you do 19

air to wire, and you make some reading at the end of 20

the wire, that doesn't mean there's any connection at 21

all to how that component will be installed in another 22

component and the energy consumption for the nation 23

based on a kazillion of those things being out there. 24

And also, in our lab, we have taken out a 2585

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 forward

- curved fan assembly and replaced it with a 1

backward inclined, and the energy went up. So this 2

assumption that substitution always fixes it, it's not 3

true. You have to

-- 4

MR. SMITH: I didn't make an assumption. 5

Sometimes it goes up, sometimes it goes down. 6

MS. JAKOBS: Okay. 7

MR. SMITH: The question of whether or not 8

the manufacture r chooses to substitute, we just want 9

to empower that decision that they would make rather 10

than disempower it. That's all. 11

MS. JAKOBS: I know. We've done it wrong, 12

so the

-- 13

MR. JASINSKI: Mark. Oh, sorry. 14

MR. BUBLITZ: Sam, Mark Bublitz, New Yor k 15

Blower Company. 16

MS. JAKOBS: Yeah. 17

MR. BUBLITZ: If you go back to you other

-- 18

I'm sorry. 19

MS. JAKOBS: Yeah. 20

MR. BUBLITZ: Your other grid. It seemed 21

like we generated a lot of confusion when we put panel 22

fans in the "wrong spot". 23

MS. JAKOBS: That was my other question. Is 24

a condenser fan a panel fan? 2586

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MALE VOICE: Yes. 1

MS. JAKOBS: Okay. 2

MR. BUBLITZ: Okay. If panel fans went up 3

into the axial housed grid, but you need another line, 4

we would argue, because it's unducted, and then if y ou 5

left the axial unhoused category, and then the example 6

became circular fans, would that not resolve all of 7

our discussions in the last few minutes? 8

MR. JASINSKI: Say that one more time. 9

MR. BUBLITZ: Okay. 10

MS. ARMSTRONG: Hold on. I have a quest ion 11

for you first. 12

MR. BUBLITZ: Sure. 13

MS. ARMSTRONG: Based on the designs today, 14

can panel fans let's say just tested to the AMCA 15

method to what's their max tech efficiency potential 16

as compared to axial ducted fans. In other words, are 17

they rating

-- 18

MR. BUBLITZ: I'm sorry to dodge the 19

question, but I'm not even assessing that. I'm just 20

saying you threw a category up there, axial housed and 21

axial unhoused, and if you put panel fans in the 22

housed section and you put circulator fans in the 23

unhouse d, I think we're done. 24

MALE VOICE: Yeah. 2587

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MR. BUBLITZ: Now you may need a panel fan 1

category. I don't know. I'm a little confused with 2

where you're coming from. 3

MR. JASINSKI: Well, what you're describing 4

is essentially what I did, except I put ax ial unhoused 5

outside of the table at the bottom. So what I did was 6

I created a separate category for panel fans. I 7

basically separated axial housed into axial 8

cylindrical housed to capture vane and tube panel 9

fans, and then the axial unhoused went into t he 10

footnote as excluded as circulator fans. 11

MR. BUBLITZ: Okay. This is Mark Bublitz. 12

Why does it need its own category? 13

MR. JASINSKI: Why does what

-- 14

MR. BUBLITZ: Why is it panel fans need its 15

own category? 16

MR. JASINSKI: Because to what Ashl ey was 17

describing earlier, the performance of panel fans

-- 18

so the example that Ashley was going to use is that if 19

a panel

-- if a tube or axial fan can achieve an 20

efficiency that is significantly lower or higher than 21

a panel fan, then lumping them togethe r might not make 22

sense in terms of where that standard ultimately gets 23

set because depending on their relative efficiencies, 24

if you set it at a certain point, you might eliminate 2588

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 one of those groupings of products

-- 1

MS. ARMSTRONG: From the market. 2

MR . JASINSKI:

-- from the market. 3

MS. ARMSTRONG: That's why we have to have 4

them separate, because they contain a what we call 5

performance

- related feature for which other products 6

do not have and such that feature might justify a 7

higher or lower standard . That's why equipment 8

classes to us make a difference. It's not necessarily 9

they can be tested in different ways. Unducted is 10

fine. But if we group them, they all get lumped 11

together for the purposes of analysis, in which case 12

you may end up with a le vel that one of those 13

groupings can't meet. Unintended consequence. 14

MR. JASINSKI: I think the last hour was a 15

really good example of how this could be used, but 16

obviously since this was sent out this morning

-- 17

MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. 18

MR. JASINSKI:

-- you need some time to 19

digest it. So now that everybody understands

-- I 20

think this was a perfect example of how we wanted 21

these slides to encourage discussions like this, make 22

changes so that we can talk about specific scenarios. 23

But in the essence of time, why don't I get through 24

the rest of the definitions, take notes on what you 2589

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 like and don't like, and then ultimately at the end 1

I'll show you how we've come up with a system for 2

evaluating them so that we can go through exercises 3

like the one we jus t did and say, well, we don't like 4

this definition because it has this unintended 5

consequence. Let's trace our way back and fix 6

everything that we need to fix in order to eliminate 7

that unintended consequence, see what comes out at the 8

end, and if it's wh at the working group wants, then 9

great, we've made some progress. 10

But I'll go through the rest of them and 11

then we'll see where we're at after that. So just 12

take notes on things you see in the definitions that 13

you may or may not like. But this might al so provide 14

some extra time, maybe tonight, to get more familiar 15

with these so that these types of discussions can be 16

more efficient and fruitful tomorrow. Everybody 17

agreeable to that? Okay. 18

MS. ARMSTRONG: Before you start, does 19

anybody

-- we've been g oing at this for about two 20

hours now. Does anybody want to take a 10

- minute 21

break, noting that the coffee shop closes in less than 22

an hour? 23

MALE VOICE: Yes. 24

MS. ARMSTRONG: Got it. 2590

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) 1

MR. BOSWELL: So it looks like we have 2

everyone back, so why don't we return to the 3

presentation that DOE was making. 4

MR. JASINSKI: Okay. So I'll get back into 5

the slides and we'll try to go through them without 6

getting into the details necessarily but just to 7

continue giving e xamples of the definitions for 8

testable configuration that the Department of Energy 9

put together as discussion points. Then into the 10

slides that will help evaluate the impacts of these 11

definitions to further discussions about some of the 12

scenarios that we 've already touched on and maybe some 13

additional ones later on. 14

So here's the testable configuration 15

definition for centrifugal housed. Centrifugal blade 16

or impeller. The shaft and bearings are secured to 17

the housing such that the impeller or blade can be 18

driven. Housing includes one or two inlets. This is 19

taken directly from the previous definition. And 20

structure may be present in addition to housing. 21

Here there's a point of discussion that I 22

think everybody has the printouts now, so it might be 23

a little bit easier to see it there, so be sure to 24

check that out and start thinking about maybe how to 2591

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 discuss that once we're going through a more thorough 1

evaluation of each of the definitions. 2

Centrifugal unhoused, the points of 3

differentiation here a re that the shaft and bearings 4

are

-- so this should say "structure". But the shaft 5

and bearings are secured to structure such that the 6

impeller or blade can be driven. There's no housing 7

and the structure is not intended to guide airflow the 8

way that th e housing would be in the centrifugal 9

housed testable configuration. 10

In

- line and mixed flow, again, they are 11

combined in this presentation, so impeller or blade, 12

centrifugal or mixed flow. The shaft and bearings are 13

secured to a housing such that the im peller can be 14

driven. The housing directs airflow parallel or at an 15

angle between 20 and 70 degrees relative to the axis 16

of rotation and acts as a primary mounting structure 17

for the shaft and bearings, for the shaft and bearings 18

and driver, and the housin g acts as the primary 19

structure. 20

For radial fans, radial blade, the shaft and 21

bearings are secured to the housing or structure such 22

that the impeller can be driven. The housing includes 23

one or two inlets to allow air to enter the impeller 24

parallel to th e axis of rotation, an outlet 2592

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 concentrating air and allowing it to exit 1

predominantly perpendicular to the axis of rotation, 2

and structure may be present in addition to the 3

housing. 4

Axial PRV, axial impeller or blades

-- 5

MR. SMITH: Sam? 6

MR. JASINSKI : Yup. 7

MR. SMITH: One of the things that we worked 8

on is the difference between radial and backward 9

incline and forward curve. 10

MR. JASINSKI: Okay. 11

MR. SMITH: And so I apologize for not 12

having this present to share with the group, but we 13

went thro ugh a debate and settled on angles at the 14

blade tip. 15

MR. JASINSKI: Okay. 16

MR. SMITH: So radial

-- 17

MR. JASINSKI: I remember this discussion. 18

MR. SMITH: You remember that? 19

MR. JASINSKI: Yup. 20

MR. SMITH: Okay. 21

MR. JASINSKI: So, Wade, what y ou're 22

suggesting is we add that to the impeller functional 23

requirements? 24

MR. SMITH: Right. I mean, we'll get you 2593

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 the revised definitions and then you can look at them. 1

MR. JASINSKI: Sure. Right. Just for the 2

purposes of the group. 3

MR. SMITH: I just wanted everybody to know 4

that we did some work on this stuff. 5

MS. WALTNER: This is Meg. One further 6

question on this. So what was the thinking on pulling 7

radial out separately from housed centrifugal going 8

forward? 9

MR. JASINSKI: I think this i s ultimately a 10

utility performance based on, yeah, material handling. 11

Axial PRV, to continue, secured to an axial 12

blade, the shaft and bearings are secured to housing 13

or structure such that the blades can be driven. 14

Housing directs airflow parallel to a xis rotation 15

across blades and may also provide protection from the 16

elements or severe

-- or serve as a mounting structure 17

for other weatherization features may be present in 18

addition to housing. 19

So I know this is

-- well, this and the 20

centrifugal PRV ar e of particular interest for 21

conversation. The group has mentioned that they blur 22

the lines between what is typically, you know, a basic 23

fan category and a piece of equipment that has a fan 24

embedded. But as I mentioned earlier, we're going to 2594

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 get into ho w we can evaluate these definitions to 1

clarify this situation in the way that the working 2

group wants it to be clarified. 3

MR. SMITH: Sam? 4

MR. JASINSKI: Yup. 5

MR. SMITH: The membership, because of the 6

way they catalog and test today, recommended tha t the 7

axial and the centrifugal power roof ventilators be 8

treated as a fan. 9

MR. JASINSKI: Okay. 10

MR. SMITH: And technically it can be argued 11

that there is a fan, but it's embedded inside a 12

housing that has other purposes, but in the interests 13

of reduc ing the testing burden and encouraging product 14

substitution to a certain extent, our consensus was to 15

treat these as individual

-- as products and then to 16

define them and to wrap the circle around the whole 17

thing, right? 18

MR. JASINSKI: Yup. 19

MR. SMITH: And for those in the room who 20

are making fans in a box or making a box that has a 21

fan in it, don't look at this as being any precedent 22

or establishing some rule that you have to follow. 23

That's not the case. That wasn't the intent and 24

that's certainly no t the case. It was right for our 2595

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 membership because they wanted to test

-- they wanted 1

to put the test out in the right

- hand part of your 2

chart. 3

MR. JASINSKI: Right, right. 4

MR. SMITH: And that was their preference, 5

and so that's what we ended up wit h. 6

MR. JASINSKI: So what I'm hearing from Wade 7

is that this may not be the

-- this might not be true 8

in all cases, but perhaps PRV is a model for a 9

situation where, as Diane mentioned, these are 10

catalogued and tested in this configuration, and to 11

your p oints earlier, Mark, it's very easy to draw a 12

circle around the mounting structure, et cetera, such 13

that it can be clarified that even though this might 14

be considered a piece of equipment with an embedded 15

fan, this enables an approach that allows it to be 16

just considered as its own equipment class or testable 17

configuration, which may or may not be the case in 18

some of the more complicated situations. 19

MR. HARTLEIN: Yeah. Dan from TCF. I was 20

just going to echo the fact it's a minimal testable

-- 21

minimum t estable configuration question, isn't it, at 22

the end of the day? 23

MR. JASINSKI: Yup. 24

MR. HARTLEIN: We test it as that. 2596

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MR. JASINSKI: Yup. Greg? 1

MR. WAGNER: If you go back to the

-- yes, 2

centrifugal unhoused, I notice it says

-- well, it's 3

chang ed on there. 4

MR. JASINSKI: I changed it from real time 5

because I saw the mistake. 6

MR. WAGNER: Oh, okay. Got it. I just, I 7

was sitting there going, what? 8

MR. JASINSKI: Yeah, thanks. I changed it 9

from secured to housing to secured to structure. 10

MR. WAGNER: Thank you. 11

MR. JASINSKI: Okay. So now into the fun 12

part. So here we've outlined a method for evaluating 13

these definitions. The first step would be to choose 14

a standalone fan or OEM equipment with embedded fan; 15

use the testable configura tion definition applicable 16

to the fan type to identify the physical boundary 17

around the components required to be tested, so that 18

circle would be drawn according to the definitions 19

that we have in the presentation, which can change, so 20

the circle can also change; third, identify the party 21

responsible for manufacturing and assembling each 22

required component, and ultimately tweak the 23

definitions to address ambiguities or outcomes that 24

are undesirable to the working group, and the outcomes 2597

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 we're talking about here I'll let Ashley speak to, but 1

ultimately the questions about who is responsible for 2

testing. 3

MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. So I think three

-- I 4

think the big issue for today is one and two. 5

MR. JASINSKI: Okay. 6

MS. ARMSTRONG: Three and four, I think it 7

depends ultimately on what we come out with our 8

regulatory scheme, so we can talk about different 9

options, but, you know, ultimately that depends on how 10

we end up creating our regulatory scheme, if we 11

ultimately end up adopting labeling, that has come u p, 12

and those types of things. So let's start with one 13

and two. Let's focus on one and two. 14

MR. JASINSKI: Okay. So we've provided an 15

example, and this should look familiar to most people 16

that were at the first meeting. We did that purposely 17

so that t here would be some precedent for the 18

discussion and some familiarity for everyone. 19

So here we have a louvered roof supply fan. 20

Ultimately it's up to the working group to determine 21

what the desired equipment class would be, but from 22

the first meeting, it sounded like housed centrifugal 23

was the fan, the agreed upon fan type represented 24

here. 2598

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 The second step is to identify the required 1

components using the definition of testable 2

configuration that was provided previously. So here 3

we have the same table, we have the list of required 4

components. I hope the color coding is easy enough to 5

see. Essentially each required component has a color, 6

and using the functional requirements to the right 7

we've tried to highlight what components meet that 8

definition. So , for instance, the impeller or blades, 9

which are hard to see in this picture, but I think 10

most people know where it is, we've indicated that in 11

blue. Secured to housing such that the impeller or 12

blade can be driven. For the shaft and bearings, you 13

can s ee in green there's a peak at the shaft to drive 14

the impeller. 15

The housing includes one or two inlets to 16

allow air to enter the impeller parallel to the axis 17

of rotation and an outlet concentrating air and 18

allowing it to exit predominantly perpendicular to the 19

axis of rotation. Here we've used orange to highlight 20

the component that meets that definition. If you're 21

skipping ahead, you'll notice that it does not 22

encompass the casing, the louvered casing, because the 23

louvered casing does not meet that defi nition of 24

housing. 2599

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 And, finally, the structure which may be 1

present in addition to the housing, it looks like 2

there's some skid plates there and some structural 3

components to allow for mounting the drive and 4

transmission components. 5

So, once we've gone through that exercise, 6

the black dotted line ultimately is the circle or the 7

physical boundary of the testable configuration, 8

which, again, you'll notice according to the 9

definitions the way we've gone through them does not 10

include that louvered casing. 11

Now this is an example of how to go through 12

that process and then show the impacts or the outcomes 13

of the definition so that the working group can 14

basically say we like where that dotted line is or we 15

don't like where that dotted line is and why. 16

MR. WO LF: So, Sam, Mike Wolf here. Just to 17

clarify kind of back to I think something I brought up 18

before when I am envisioning in my head again that the 19

green slide with the impeller, housing, drive, motor, 20

controls. 21

MR. JASINSKI: Sure. 22

MR. WOLF: You've got your black box drawn 23

around the motor, but you don't have that highlighted 24

as one of the main components. 25100

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MR. JASINSKI: Right. Under this approach, 1

the way it's been outlined, the drive, transmission, 2

controls were in the not required list. And so , in 3

this particular approach, what we're showing here is 4

that they're not required for testing, which means 5

that, you know, if you use the test approach used for 6

the NODA, you could use default values for those 7

components. However, in the test approach t hat was 8

used in the NODA, if you wanted to test with those 9

transmission components or motor, you could do that 10

also. 11

MR. WOLF: So maybe for the benefit

-- this 12

is Mike Wolf, Greenheck again. So for the benefit of 13

those who haven't been part of this dis cussion, why 14

would somebody may want to do one versus the other? 15

Do you want me to answer that or you want to go for 16

it? 17

MR. JASINSKI: If you have an answer, you 18

can. 19

MR. WOLF: Okay. So maybe I'm getting ahead 20

of the discussion here, so if I am, fe el free to cut 21

me off. But as Sam has outlined there, the minimal 22

test configuration includes those three components: 23

the impeller, the shaft and the housing

-- well, four 24

I guess if you count the structure. 25101

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 And the way I would envision doing this test 1

then in the minimal configuration is putting that 2

assembly onto a chamber and connecting a dynamometer 3

to it and running the test without the motor and belt 4

and drives. The drives

-- the bearings being part of 5

the drives would be there because that's par t of the 6

structure, but the motor and belt would not be part of 7

that minimal configurable test. 8

So does that

-- I guess I'll stop there and 9

just ask if there's any questions on that. 10

MR. BURDICK: This is Larry with SPX, and so 11

maybe a clarification on that. 12

MR. JASINSKI: Larry, can we get you a mic? 13

Thanks. 14

MR. BURDICK: Larry Burdick, SPX. So a 15

question on that. You know, I can appreciate that a 16

dynamometer and a motor there would provide a lot 17

better torque measurement for power going into th e 18

fan, but then it's a matter of what is allowed for the 19

drive efficiency. You know, it says that this is a 20

wire

- to

- air technique, and so I think there's lots of 21

things that would have to be resolved about that and, 22

you know, in general, it would seem tha t a more 23

accurate representation of the fan efficiency would 24

include a technique of a dynamometer with either a 25102

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 calibrated motor or a back calculation as to what the 1

efficiency is in the motor. 2

MR. WOLF: Yeah. Mike Wolf, Greenheck. And 3

you're exactly right, okay? So what AMCA has been 4

working towards is a, I'll call it a dual or parallel 5

path to the wire

- to

- air ultimate metric here, a rule, 6

in that if you do the test with a dynamometer, we're 7

developing another document, and I don't know if it's 8

a pub lication or standard, so feel free to jump in and 9

correct me if I'm wrong, anyone, but a parallel 10

document that would couple up to the AMCA 210 test 11

standard that would say, okay, if you want to or to 12

get from the shaft power with a dynamometer to the 13

wire or the power into the motor or the system, fan 14

system, we will have default values defined in that 15

document for the drive losses being belts and pulleys 16

and so on and so forth for the motor efficiency if 17

you, you know, have it, as well as the potential dr ive 18

efficiency of VFD, and that will get you to your

-- 19

I'm sorry? 20

MALE VOICE: And belts. 21

MR. WOLF: And belts, I mentioned that, 22

yeah. So that's one path to the wire to air. The 23

alternate path would be to take what Sam has got there 24

and actually te st the input power to some sort of a 25103

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 calibrated motor, and 210 has been

-- AMCA Standard 1

210 was just recently modified or is in the process of 2

being modified to allow for that test methodology. So 3

there would be parallel paths to the same thing, the 4

thou ght process being that the coefficients or the 5

standards we put in place that kind of get you there 6

via the pencil approach or, you know, the calculated 7

approach would be very conservative and ultimately 8

probably drive people to actually running the test 9

t hemselves because, you know, they're going to run the 10

test because they think they think they've got 11

something better than what the standard allows. 12

So I think I'll stop there because I think I 13

answered the question. 14

MR. JASINSKI: Could not have said it better 15

myself. 16

MR. HARTLEIN: Sam, can I add one comment to 17

that? I think you said calibrated motor in that case. 18

I think we're not worried about a calibrated motor in 19

that test. We're measuring the amp draw, the power in 20

to the motor, so it's the actual motor that we'd be 21

shipping with the product in that case. Sometimes we 22

use a calibrated motor in exchange for a dynamometer 23

in our testing method, so that's just to make sure we 24

didn't confuse anybody. 25104

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MR. SMILEY: This is Bill Smiley, Trane. I s 1

there any consideration for the effect of the sheave 2

in the inlet to the fan? Because if you test it in 3

this configuration, that sheave would be there. If 4

you test it with a jackshaft torque meter, dynamometer 5

type arrangement, you could or could not h ave that 6

sheave in there, and then it would depend on the 7

design of that sheave and the effect that it would 8

have on the performance. Or have you determined that 9

that's negligable? 10

MR. SMITH: There's a default value. This 11

is Wade. So there's a defaul t value for the motor 12

loss. There's a default value for the sheave and 13

drive losses, so the turbulence that's implicit in 14

that sheave being there is built into the default 15

value for the belt loss. 16

MR. SMILEY: It is? 17

MR. SMITH: Yeah. 18

MR. SMILEY: I t's not just the frictional 19

loss of the drive? 20

MR. SMITH: Right. Right. 21

MR. SMILEY: I'd like to see the data on 22

that. 23

MR. SMITH: Yeah, me too. 24

MR. SMILEY: Okay. You're saying there is 25105

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 no data on that? 1

MR. SMITH: No, I'm not saying that. I 2

would say that it's a very good question. You 3

remember what a very good question is? One for which 4

we don't have an answer. 5

(Laughter.) 6

MR. SMITH: It needs an answer. It needs an 7

answer. 8

MR. SMILEY: Okay. How do we get to the 9

answer then? 10

MR . WOLF: Well, Bill, this is Mike Wolf 11

here again. So, you know, the basis for that loss 12

comes out of, I think, an AMCA document that's been 13

around for many, many years. Does anybody recall what 14

the number is on that? 15

MR. SMILEY: Well, what I remember from the 16

AMCA stuff in the old days, it's just the frictional 17

losses

-- 18

MR. WOLF: Friction, yeah. 19

MR. SMILEY:

-- of the belts and the 20

sheaves, not the effect of the sheave being in the 21

airstream. That's my memory. 22

MR. WOLF: Yeah. And I would sa y that belt 23

drive loss is for steady

- state new stuff, not 24

necessarily for all situations and all drives because 25106

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 there's high variability with that. 1

MR. SMILEY: Well, you know, this is Bill 2

Smiley, Trane, again. If the option is there to test 3

with or wi thout the drive, then if you don't have the 4

drive in there you use the default values. You could 5

also test it with everything in there and then use 6

whichever one gave the best answer in your situation. 7

But it would be nice to know are the defaults 8

realis tic. 9

MR. SMITH: Yeah. So this is Wade again. 10

The reason that a fan manufacturer would use the 11

default values is principally to give their customer 12

the flexibility to buy a fan and couple it with 13

whatever motor that customer wants to buy, and we 14

don't want to have to test every possible 15

configuration. That's unreasonable, right? So, if 16

flexibility is the watch word in the sale, then the 17

default values serve us well. 18

On the other hand, if you pick a particular 19

motor, a particular drive, a particular variable speed 20

control if it's included that give you performance 21

that's better than the default values, then you would 22

probably test that assembly and offer it, but you 23

would only offer it with the motor that you picked and 24

the drive that you picked, righ t? Because you don't 25107

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 know

-- somebody says I really want that, but I want 1

to use XYZ motor. No. This is the efficiency for the 2

assembly that we've defined here. 3

And so those are the

-- probably what 4

companies will do is both, right? They'll offer a 5

p ackage, but then they'll also offer a rating that 6

facilitates the customer buying the components. 7

MR. FLY: So following down that line

-- 8

this is Mark Fly with AAON. Following down that line, 9

would you rate that fan with every size motor that 10

could be applied to that fan or drive, drive or speed? 11

MR. SMITH: Yes, and default values for all 12

of those options exist. Well, okay, so what we 13

proposed and what was in the most recent NODA requires 14

you to calculate the efficiency or the maximum 15

horsepower at any and all conditions. 16

MR. FLY: Okay. Sounds the same to me. 17

MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. So perhaps

-- well, 18

why don't we do this. Why don't we let Sam finish up 19

with this stuff and then let's move to what the test 20

procedure and metric type discussion that we're 21

getting to is because, in a sense, I would argue that 22

no, it's not every single combination. It's a self

23

declared range that a manufacturer wants to elect to 24

make representations is at least the approach that the 25108

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 AMCA and advocates have asked t he working group to 1

consider, and I think once we discuss that some of 2

these details will also fall out. It's in the white 3

paper. We asked you guys to read it last week. 4

MR. PERSFUL: Sam, this is Trinity with 5

Clarage Fan Company. I'm trying to find s ome 6

loopholes or trying to shoot holes in this, so that's 7

the spirit in which this is given. 8

MR. JASINSKI: Yup. 9

(Laughter.) 10

MR. PERSFUL: So we talked before about how 11

the fan market tends to be a little bit broken, 12

meaning that the person that actu ally buys the 13

equipment isn't the person that is paying the electric 14

bill. And so the person that buys the equipment 15

typically wants the cheapest product available, which 16

not necessarily means the most efficient product 17

available. 18

So, in that world that we live in, what is 19

keeping somebody from buying

-- let's say in this case 20

it's supposed to be an air foil, that's the most 21

efficient utility, but they want to side

- step that and 22

put a radial

- bladed fan in its place because it's 23

cheaper to build and it st ill meets that criterion for 24

being certified. It hits the efficiency point, but 25109

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 we're going the opposite way. 1

The world that we play in right now, because 2

the way the products are purchased and installed, it 3

seems like that that would be more the norm t han 4

trying to drive products to go from inefficient to 5

efficient. It seems like people are going to try to 6

skirt

-- by the definitions that we've laid out, 7

people are going to try to skirt that and, you know, 8

substitute radial

- bladed fans for other housed 9

centrifugal fans. So I just wanted to bring that up. 10

MR. SMITH: You mean substitute if the 11

radial fan has a lower efficiency requirement? 12

MR. PERSFUL: Correct. 13

MR. SMITH: Yeah. 14

MR. JASINSKI: Yeah. So that's getting a 15

little bit ahead. I mea n, I think that's part of 16

what's investigated once we talk about actual standard 17

levels and things like equipment class switching are 18

something that can be investigated in terms of what 19

the significance of that might be in the event of a 20

separate and diffe rent standards for radial versus 21

centrifugal. It also goes back to the conversation 22

about do they actually have differentiated utilities 23

such that there are technical and market factors that 24

limit the amount of that type of switching that would 25110

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 occur. So it's maybe a question of how significant 1

that would become in the event of standards, but that 2

can't really be evaluated until we know what those 3

standards might look like, but it is something that 4

would be considered. 5

So, Ashley, I have a question. So we have a 6

lot of example fans we could go through with the 7

group, these examples, and try to do this in real 8

time, or maybe we can make that a homework assignment 9

so that people do it on their own, and we can go right 10

into the metric and the test stuff be cause it sounded 11

like we were going down that path anyway. I think 12

it's up to the working group to determine which would 13

be more fruitful. 14

If we want to take more examples of fans and 15

go through this steps one and two together and see 16

what comes out fro m these definitions and start 17

tweaking definitions, we can do that, or that can be a 18

homework assignment and people can kind of do that on 19

their own and we'll see what everybody comes to the 20

table with tomorrow, and that will allow us to go 21

right into the metric if we go the homework route. 22

MS. JAKOBS: This is Diane Jakobs. We're 23

out of pictures in our handout. What do your examples 24

look like? 25111

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MR. JASINSKI: Oh, they must be in the 1

backup slides. Do you want me to show a few of them? 2

MS. JAKOBS: You don't have them on there. 3

MR. JASINSKI: Oh, I don't? 4

MS. JAKOBS: No. 5

MR. JASINSKI: Oh. Well, so then why don't 6

we make it a homework assignment? 7

MS. ARMSTRONG: Well, we can do it either 8

way. It doesn't matter to us, although the examples 9

aren't necessarily all

- encompassing, so you are going 10

to have to deal

-- we know you guys are just seeing 11

this. We know you need time to digest it, and 12

ultimately we want to be in a position to vote this 13

out, probably not necessarily tomorrow but not far 14

from now. We need to start making some serious 15

progress if we're going to get to actually talking 16

about levels in a reasonable timeframe. So I guess 17

it's more a question of does everyone generally 18

understand the concept of testable configuration as 19

we've been describing it. 20

MS. JAKOBS: This is Diane Jakobs. And I 21

think this is an easy example, but there are different 22

examples that I would struggle with. 23

MS. ARMSTRONG: Do you have one in mind? 24

We're happy to do your example. We could all struggle 25112

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 together. 1

MR. JASINSKI: Do we have those examples 2

anywhere, Ashley? 3

MS. ARMSTRONG: I have them right here. 4

(Pause.) 5

MR. JASINSKI: Ashley, what did you call 6

them? Are they just the

-- we're just trying to find 7

the file. 8

(Pause.) 9

MS. ARMSTRON G: You know, while Sam is 10

bringing this up, I'm sorry, we got a comment from the 11

webinar from Peter Bushnell, and I apologize if I said 12

that wrong, but he would like the working group to 13

review the definitions in the EU Regulation 3

- 27

- 2011, 14

and if you un mute him, Emily, he can explain to the 15

working group why this might be important. 16

So, Peter, you should be unmuted. 17

MR. BUSHNELL: Okay, I'll try this. Can you 18

hear me? 19

MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, we can hear you. 20

MR. BUSHNELL: Okay, very good. 21

So ac tually really I would encourage kind of 22

a very careful review of the EU 3

- 27 in general. I'm 23

sure people have been looking at that pretty closely, 24

but specifically in the area of definitions, I think 25113

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 on the question of ducted and unducted, housed and 1

unho used, you know, if you look at Annex 1 in their 2

regulation, they define all of that, and they have 3

measurement category as the distinguishing thing that 4

defines sort of those parameters. So they have 5

basically Category A is free inlet, free outlet. 6

Categ ory B is free inlet, ducted outlet. Category C 7

is ducted inlet, free outlet. And Category D is 8

ducted in and ducted out. 9

So those definitions are used in a general 10

way throughout all the fan types. They also define 11

the fan types, and then they also di stinguish 12

efficiency category as either static pressure

- based or 13

total pressure

- based. So I just think that, you know, 14

as we discuss all these things, and there's a lot of 15

conversations going around, I would recommend 16

baselining with this existing standar d that applies 17

and is in effect in Europe today and kind of use that 18

as a reference point, see if there's any problems with 19

that before kind of reinventing the whole process. 20

So that was my comment. I think you can 21

also see in there, you know, all the r atings that they 22

have in terms of efficiency grades and so forth that 23

they have in place in a two

- tier versus that are 24

already in existence. 25114

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MS. ARMSTRONG: So thanks. I'm wondering if 1

anyone has any specific comments with that. 2

One of the challenges I think DOE sees in an 3

approach like that, and it's not

-- keep in mind I 4

don't know all the details about it, but my 5

understanding is that essentially they let the 6

manufacturer declare which category they're in, in 7

other words, unducted, ducted, et cetera

. 8

And so we have some challenges in the past 9

with structuring regulations that way, and perhaps 10

that's not such an issue in here and I'm just not 11

aware. I'm happy to be educated about that. But one 12

of the things we see as a challenge is that fans sold 13

with the same characteristics or similar identical 14

definitions by different people are sometimes rated 15

different ways, and that's something that we're trying 16

to avoid. 17

So I don't know if anyone has thoughts about 18

that, but I think that's one of the chall enges we saw. 19

We did look at that, albeit it somewhat briefly, but 20

we did take a look at that at least from DOE's 21

perspective, but I'm interested to hear the working 22

group's feedback for those that know about the content 23

of EU 327, and I guess it's my und erstanding that 24

they're taking a second look at their regulations 25115

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 right now. 1

MR. HAUER: Armin Hauer of ebm

- papst. Yes, 2

I follow the EU regulation quite closely to 2013 3

levels and the 2015 levels, and yes, they are working 4

on 2017 levels now. It's all in effect now. It's law 5

in Europe. And with respect to the different 6

measurement categories, this is labeled very clearly 7

on the product, so you have to indicate what type of a 8

measurement category you have used and then you spell 9

it out on a nameplate a nd give your overall efficiency 10

accordingly. 11

MR. JASINSKI: Ready. 12

MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, does anybody have 13

anything else they would like to say on that issue? I 14

mean, is it something we want to consider further? 15

We're moving down the pathway of DOE specifying which 16

buckets products are going to be in so that comparable 17

products will have the same buckets rather than a 18

self

- declaration and a labeling approach. 19

MALE VOICE: Can you ask that question 20

again, Ashley? 21

(Laughter.) 22

MR. SMITH: So one of the things

-- this is 23

Wade Smith. One of the things we could do is we could 24

juxtapose and create a little spreadsheet that has a 25116

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 box for the EU definition so that they're side by side 1

so people can read them. I don't think that 2

they're

-- I mean, ther e might be some differences 3

that matter, but conceptually I think they're all 4

pretty close. 5

The one thing, as Ashley pointed out, that 6

we've done is we've said, you know, all tube axial 7

fans are ducted even though we know that sometimes 8

they're applied w ithout duct, but the test that's 9

used

-- in fact, I can't think of any exceptions. The 10

test that's used to rate the product is a ducted test, 11

and so it allows the recovery of velocity pressure as 12

static in the ductwork. 13

So we're sort of of the same mind set, 14

Ashley, and the AMCA joint recommendation with the 15

advocates, you know, reflects that mindset that says, 16

okay, we want to define this product into this 17

category, and if it meets this definition, that's how 18

it's going to be tested, that's how it's goin g to be 19

rated for its efficiency, and we're happy with that. 20

So that's kind of the direction that we've headed. 21

MR. HARTLEIN: Ashley, just a side comment 22

to that. This is Dan from TCF. We operate in 23

obviously both markets, and I'm trying to think of the 24

right way to say this, but at the end of the day the 25117

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 units that we have in Europe are completely unaffected 1

by the regulations that have been written so far. 2

There's basically workarounds and passes for 3

everything that we do. I don't suspect that we' ll 4

have the latitude and luxury of that happening here. 5

So, to that extent, there is a fairly substantial 6

difference. 7

MR. HAUER: It's Armin Hauer speaking. I'm 8

really interested in your comment about how

-- 9

(Laughter.) 10

MR. HARTLEIN: I can't discl ose specific 11

strategic advantages that we might hold. No, I'm 12

kidding. 13

(Laughter.) 14

MR. HARTLEIN: The big exemption is that we 15

participate largely in the industrial markets. That's 16

the big exemption, and there are temperature and other 17

requirements t hat just basically everything we do gets 18

a pass. 19

MR. WOLF: This is Mike Wolf of Greenheck. 20

Just one comment on that. You know, for the folks who 21

do business internationally, I guess I think it would 22

be a good exercise to go through what Wade suggested

. 23

To the extent we can use similar terminology or maybe 24

even the same terminology I think would be very 25118

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 helpful going forward. 1

The other thing I know, I was at a fan 2

conference over there last month in Lyon, France, and 3

talked to some of the people who have been involved in 4

that process, and they're actually, it appears to me, 5

going through some of the same dialogue we're having 6

even though they're ahead of us in certain ways, 7

trying to define the fan boundary or the testable 8

configuration. I got the fe eling that they're 9

wrestling with a lot of the same things we're 10

wrestling with right now. 11

The other thing that they shared was that 12

the metric they have now, and, Armin, feel free to 13

jump in here if I'm misstating this, but it's based on 14

a single effici ency point, the best efficiency point 15

for the fan, and the fact that what's in our latest 16

NODA here encompasses a range of operation, you know, 17

they didn't come out and say it, but Tim Mathson was 18

in one of the ISO meetings. I think they're looking 19

at may be moving towards again what we're trying to tee 20

up as our regulatory rulemaking. 21

So, again, there's a lot going on. It's not 22

quite in sync. To the extent we can try to get it in 23

sync with them, knowing that it never will be, would 24

be a good thing thou gh. 25119

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MR. DIKEMAN: This is Steve Dikeman. I 1

would argue that what was just described on the call

2

in is already in place with AMCA. Every AMCA 3

certification rating you must state what was the 4

ducted condition on the outlet and on the inlet, and 5

the four categories mentioned already exist. 6

MR. SMITH: Those are AMCA fans. 7

MR. DIKEMAN: Yeah. But, I mean, put a 8

letter on them, put a number on them, that's 9

semantics, right? But you could have each of the four 10

categories, and I have to state in my perfo rmance how 11

I tested it. So it's not being

-- it is self

12

compliance, but it's defined self

- compliance because 13

if I tested it with a ducted outlet, but then I used 14

it or suggested, you know, here's the ratings in 15

another thing, then you've got me. 16

MR. BUS HNELL: So hi. It's Peter Bushnell 17

of Carrier again. I guess I would just recommend that 18

the definitions that are in Annex 1 of the European 19

standard just be put on a slide and reviewed by the 20

working group and particularly the efficiency category 21

becaus e I think there's questions about whether or not 22

to include static efficiency or where to use static 23

efficiency or total efficiency. 24

MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. No problem. We can 25120

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 definitely prepare those slides for the next meeting 1

to the extent the working group believes it's helpful, 2

if we want to walk through that. If you want to do it 3

on your own, that's fine too, but we're happy to 4

prepare those slides for the next meeting if we want 5

to do it together. Anybody have an opinion? Yes, 6

please? Okay, not a problem. 7

All right, Sam, you want to keep going? 8

MR. JASINSKI: Sure. So I started with a 9

softball, one that we talked about a little bit 10

earlier just for the sake of having an easy example to 11

work through together for the first time. 12

So step one , choose a fan. Here we've 13

picked a power roof ventilator. So step two would be 14

to look at the testable configuration definition of 15

power roof ventilator. Since everybody now has a 16

handout, I would suggest going to that slide. I think 17

it's number

-- yo u can use the axial or centrifugal, 18

20 or 21. Here, why don't we use 21 since this is a 19

centrifugal. Oh, right, you guys don't

-- yeah, you 20

guys have the definitions, correct? 21

Okay. So everybody go to Slide 21, so we'll 22

work from that definition, and then I will in a 23

similar fashion just start drawing circles around the 24

components that meet the definition as it's stated on 25121

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 Slide 21. We can see where we end up and then we can 1

make tweaks or discuss any differences of opinion 2

among the group and ultimat ely draw our dotted line 3

around what we think should be the testable 4

configuration. 5

MR. HARTLEIN: Sam, you're referring to 21, 6

which is not in the document that we have. 7

MALE VOICE: Right down here, Dan, page 21. 8

MR. HARTLEIN: Oh, so we're just ta lking 9

about

-- I see. 10

MS. ARMSTRONG: I'm saying I'm keeping it 11

here and you guys can have the definition in front of 12

you as we walk through it. Sorry. 13

MR. HARTLEIN: Gotcha. 14

MS. ARMSTRONG: That way we don't have to do 15

like split screens or any of that. 16

Okay. So item one, impeller or blades, I 17

believe we used blue, so I'll use blue. I'll take the 18

first stab at drawing the circle around the

-- 19

MS. JAKOBS: So this is Diane Jakobs. So 20

this example, it's a fan in a product, but the class 21

is a pr oduct, so this might be less confusing than 22

trying to identify a portion of a product. 23

MALE VOICE: Why don't we fast forward to 24

the one you want to do. 25122

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MS. ARMSTRONG: So does everyone understand 1

what this would be? We can just skip the softball. 2

M S. JAKOBS: Well, unless you want to attach 3

a dynamometer to that. 4

MR. SMILEY: I would assume that eventually 5

we're going to draw a box around the whole thing, 6

right? 7

MR. JASINSKI: I'll do it right now if we 8

want to. 9

MR. SMILEY: But you don't have to. You 10

could just yank the fan and get rid of the housing 11

around there if you wanted to. 12

MALE VOICE: But the makers of this product 13

don't want to. 14

MR. SMILEY: Sure. But you get a different 15

answer depending on which way you do it. 16

MR. JASINSKI: The question is this is how 17

it would end up after we went through the process 18

outlined previously. The question to the group is, is 19

this how we want it to end up? So is the definition 20

as it's written get us to this point? 21

MS. JAKOBS: So this is Diane . And just as 22

Bill just said, are you allowed to yank out the wheel 23

and test it separately? 24

MR. SMITH: This is Wade. Yes, but the 25123

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 manufacturers of this product chose not to. They 1

chose to draw the box as you see it. They did that 2

for their own comme rcial reasons. The efficiency is 3

reduced by virtue of the fact that you have all this 4

paraphernalia around it. 5

MS. ARMSTRONG: So, to clarify Wade's 6

answer, the answer is no. 7

MR. SMITH: Right. 8

MS. ARMSTRONG: If we define it like this as 9

a testable configuration, you couldn't yank anything 10

out of that box. This is how you have to do it, 11

period. 12

MR. JASINSKI: All of those components would 13

have to be present. 14

MS. ARMSTRONG: This is how it has to be 15

tested. It's not at the manufacturer's discre tion 16

anymore. This is it. 17

MR. SMITH: Well, what I was saying is as a 18

working group, as a working group we can do anything 19

we want, yes? 20

MR. JASINSKI: Yes. 21

MS. ARMSTRONG: But your manufacturers agree 22

with me. 23

MR. SMITH: I know. 24

(Laughter.) 25124

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MR. SMITH: I know because that's where we 1

ended up. And so after you end up there, then you 2

can't change it, right? 3

MR. FLY: So this is Mark Fly with AAON. Is 4

this a class in and of itself then? This is an 5

equipment class, so therefore, if it's an e quipment 6

class, you can't dissect it. Right? If you choose to 7

define this as a class. 8

MS. ARMSTRONG: Correct. 9

MR. SMITH: You can do it without a motor 10

and drive, however, with a dynamometer. 11

MS. ARMSTRONG: We can get you a rating in a 12

number of different ways when we get to the test 13

procedure, but ultimately you need the box. 14

So do we generally agree with this approach 15

for the softball, it's a box? The record is really 16

going to like this conversation. 17

MR. FERNSTROM: This is Gary for the 18

Cal ifornia IOUs. I'd encourage us to select a 19

testable configuration which is as close as possible 20

to the way this equipment will be used in the field so 21

that the test results would be indicative of field 22

performance. 23

MS. ARMSTRONG: But just to clarify, y ou 24

would agree with this? 25125

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MR. FERNSTROM: Yes. 1

MR. JASINSKI: Tim. 2

MR. MATHSON: Tim Mathson from Greenheck 3

again. I don't think that manufacturers define this 4

as the testable unit. Our customers did. That's what 5

they wanted. 6

MR. JASINSKI: Okay . I mean, is this 7

something, Ashley, that we want to vote, anything like 8

that? 9

MS. ARMSTRONG: We'll officially vote on it. 10

Let's get through the whole

-- 11

MR. JASINSKI: Okay. 12

MS. ARMSTRONG:

-- all the examples. Then 13

we can officially vote on the details of everything 14

all at once. 15

MR. JASINSKI: Okay. I do have a question, 16

however. Is there any way that this

-- in the process 17

of assembling this piece of equipment, at any stage in 18

that process would this also meet the definition of an 19

unhoused centrifugal? For instance, our

-- 20

MR. SMILEY: Sure. 21

MR. JASINSKI: So one thing the working 22

group should try to do is write the definitions of 23

unhoused centrifugal and power roof ventilator such 24

that that's not the case. If the working group wants 25126

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 t hose to be exclusive, the definitions need to be 1

written in a manner that makes the testable 2

configurations exclusive. So look at the definition 3

of power roof ventilator and look at the definition of 4

unhoused centrifugal and figure out where we can make 5

d ifferentiations, mostly in the functional 6

requirements. 7

MR. WOLF: Sam, it could fit the definition 8

of which? Housed or unhoused? 9

MR. JASINSKI: Unhoused. 10

MR. WOLF: So I'm looking at Slide 17. 11

MR. JASINSKI: I mean, it could meet the 12

definition o f housed also. What we're saying is it 13

needs to meet one definition of testable 14

configuration, so we want to write the definitions of 15

testable configuration for all groups such that 16

they're exclusive. 17

MS. ARMSTRONG: Right, because the way our 18

regs work generally is if it meets multiple it has to 19

be tested and ultimately meet the standard for 20

multiple, and so we're trying that. 21

MR. WOLF: Okay. I understand. So do you 22

want to go into that detail right now or just hold 23

that thought? 24

MS. ARMSTRONG: Homework. 25127

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MR. JASINSKI: Homework. Yeah, I think that 1

would be a good homework assignment, to look at all 2

the definitions that this might, this and all of its 3

subassemblies might meet and try to write them such 4

that they're exclusive. 5

MR. HARTLEIN: A nd this may be a question to 6

other members of the AMCA group, but there are other 7

fans that get defined as a power roof ventilator, like 8

an axial fan with a cap. So that would be one 9

example. That's another one, yes. So we're going to 10

go through those a s well? That was going to be my 11

next question. Okay, thank you. 12

MR. JASINSKI: Do we want to just jump to 13

this one? 14

MR. SMILEY: Before you get too far

-- this 15

is Bill Smiley, Trane. The intent here is that this 16

would be a product class by itself or whatever 17

terminology you use that would have its own metric? 18

MS. ARMSTRONG: Standard. 19

MR. JASINSKI: Standard, the metric

-- 20

MS. ARMSTRONG: They all have the same 21

metric. 22

MR. SMILEY: They all have the same value of 23

the metric? 24

MS. ARMSTRONG: No, what's the standard. 25128

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MR. SMILEY: Well, see, get the terminology 1

right here. So, okay, thanks. 2

MR. JASINSKI: Okay. So do we want to

-- 3

MS. ARMSTRONG: Or at least they would be 4

analyzed such that the working group could consider 5

separate stan dard levels where appropriate for them or 6

similar if the working group desires such things. 7

(Pause.) 8

MS. ARMSTRONG: So any thoughts on this one? 9

Do you like the box? So we have general agreement 10

for the box. 11

MR. JASINSKI: Okay. 12

MS. ARMSTRONG: The question is, what 13

definition should this one fall into? 14

MR. SMITH: Is that a centrifugal fan? 15

MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes, centrifugal housed. 16

MR. SMILEY: It's an unhoused centrifugal 17

PRV. 18

MS. ARMSTRONG: Unhoused because it's open. 19

MR. SMILEY: If it's not ducted. 20

MS. ARMSTRONG: All right. 21

MR. JASINSKI: Well, that would depend on 22

the definition of the housing. 23

MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, that's why we're 24

having this discussion. So you believe this should be 25129

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 a centrifugal unhoused. 1

MR. WOLF: T his is Mike Wolf from Greenheck 2

here. So the answer is yes, but I don't know if it's 3

appropriate to

-- if you want to talk about it now. 4

The reason for that is because it's unducted. So the 5

question I think at some point here we have to tee up 6

is the un ducted versus ducted, total versus static 7

discussion. 8

MR. JASINSKI: So I think

-- 9

MR. WOLF: But we can do that later. 10

MR. JASINSKI: Well, I think remember now 11

this is a jumping off point. 12

MR. WOLF: Mm

- hmm. 13

MR. JASINSKI: So, for instance, if within 14

one of the component categories that are included

-- 15

structure, housing, et cetera

-- you can include in 16

the definition functional requirements that will allow 17

you to indicate ducted versus unducted. That might be 18

a mechanism. 19

You might even add another category. I 20

don't know what that would be called, but you can 21

certainly suggest one that would allow you to include 22

functional requirements that indicate ducted versus 23

unducted. I don't know if it's possible, but it's 24

worth considering, and that may be an avenue to 25130

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 differentiate between making this a unhoused 1

centrifugal and the previous example, a power roof 2

ventilator. 3

MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. So what we're trying 4

to do is go through some examples

-- they're going to 5

get increasingly a little b it more complex

-- to 6

understand at least what our general agreement of 7

intent is. Then we're probably going to have to 8

circle back and take a deep dive on the definitions to 9

try to make them mutually exclusive such that when you 10

look at definitions they would then reflect our 11

general intent. But let's see if we can come to 12

agreement on the general intent first. 13

MR. SMILEY: Quick question. Bill Smiley, 14

Trane. Can we say ducted or unducted? We are only 15

talking about the discharge flow, correct? Disc harge 16

of the impeller or discharge of the equipment, 17

discharge of the unit? 18

MR. SMITH: Discharge of the fan. 19

MR. SMILEY: Discharge of the fan, not inlet 20

to the fan. 21

MR. SMITH: That's correct. 22

MR. SMILEY: Thank you. 23

MR. JASINSKI: So I would s ay discharge of 24

the testable configuration if you want to make it 25131

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 compatible with this. 1

MR. SMILEY: If we don't get this stuff 2

written down, everybody's memory is not good. 3

MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, you have three people 4

taking notes. What we'll do is co nsolidate them. 5

Sam's taking some, we're taking others over here, so 6

we'll send out a red line like we did last time. 7

MR. JASINSKI: Okay, I'll let that happen. 8

MS. ARMSTRONG: That's fine. 9

MR. JASINSKI: Appreciate that. 10

MS. ARMSTRONG: And obvio usly we also have a 11

transcript to the extent you could read it and figure 12

out what we're talking about with softballs and all 13

kinds

-- boxes, and do we agree with that box, this 14

box, that circle. 15

MR. MATHSON: Sam, Tim Mathson, Greenheck 16

again. 17

MR. JAS INSKI: Yes. 18

MR. MATHSON: Again, I keep saying our 19

customers define what they want to include in fan 20

performance, and again this is an easy one. It's a 21

non

- ducted PRV. 22

But if you go back to that original one that 23

seemed like it was easy, the supply f an, our customers 24

would say they have no use for the performance of the 25132

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 blower, that what they want to see is the performance 1

of that louvered housing. And this is one of the, I 2

guess, rare cases of a PRV that's ducted on the 3

discharge, and so PRV in itse lf doesn't require it to 4

be unducted. This is a ducted fan. So it's not as 5

simple of an example. It seemed like it was a simple 6

one. 7

MR. SMILEY: Bill Smiley, Trane. You know, 8

the implication I've had is that PRV is something that 9

exhausts from an in terior space. This actually is set 10

up, I think, to blow or deliver air into an occupied 11

space. So it depends on how we define PRV. You know, 12

this might be a makeup air unit to provide ventilation 13

to a warehouse or something, so it could be ducted, it 14

co uld not be ducted on discharge. It depends on the 15

application. And like Tim said, the customer wants to 16

know what the performance of the equipment is so that 17

he knows he's getting the stuff he needs for his 18

environment that he's buying it for. 19

MR. WHIT WELL: This is Bob Whitwell from 20

Carrier. So the customer may have certain things that 21

they're interested in and the suppliers

-- the 22

manufacturers can always provide that. That can be 23

separate from what's regulated. I mean, it doesn't 24

have to be regula ted by DOE for the supplier to 25133

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 provide it to the customer, right? So it's still

-- I 1

mean, you can still draw the envelope like it's shown 2

here and the manufacturer could provide information on 3

the entire product. 4

MS. ARMSTRONG: So I'm going to say wit h 5

caution not exactly, but we could maybe find a way. I 6

mean, DOE, the statute does have representation 7

clauses that will govern what types of representations 8

manufacturers not only must make but can make, so 9

there's some details and nuances there. So I need to 10

better understand, you know, in addition to the ones 11

that you will have to be making in response to this 12

regulatory scheme that hopefully we ultimately agree 13

to, it would be good to know which ones you want to 14

continue to make if they are different than the 15

regulatory scheme if that makes sense. 16

MR. JASINSKI: Trinity? 17

MR. PERSFUL: Trinity Persful, Clarage. I 18

would be careful the way you term it. There's a 19

difference between minimal testable configuration and 20

testable configuration, so that's what we need to 21

define. Like if you draw the box around the 22

weathering, weather

- proofing thing, that's a testable 23

configuration. The way the dashed line is now, that 24

would be a minimal testable configuration. So we're 25134

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 mixing the two, so just keep that in mind. 1

MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, that's why I think 2

we're trying to define what it is because once we 3

define what it is there's no difference in minimal and 4

testable. It is what it is. So that's why we're 5

trying to at least have a general agreement fro m the 6

working group about what that is, because once we've 7

defined it and it is proposed and ultimately goes 8

through the regulations, that's what it will be used 9

as. 10

You want to go back? So? 11

MR. JASINSKI: So do you want to go on to 12

another example? I think we took some notes here and 13

there's some homework in terms of ducting, unducted. 14

Maybe, Bill, some of the aspects that you brought up 15

could also be included in the definitions to capture 16

exhaust versus supply in terms of roof

- mounted 17

equipment. 18

M R. FERNSTROM: This is Gary. I have a 19

question. Excuse me. I think it's important that we 20

try and get at a measurement of the performance from 21

the consumer's point of view or what we're going to 22

see in the real world, and in the drawing you have on 23

the screen now I see what appears to me to be the 24

cover of this thing included. But in the other 25135

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 example, we excluded the cover because it was termed 1

to be an environmental shelter to keep the rain out. 2

But I think we all agree that it would to some extent 3

o r other affect the performance. So don't we want to 4

try and include everything that affects the 5

performance in every testable configuration we find 6

here? 7

MR. HARTLEIN: So Dan from Twin City. You 8

know, that can be a really, really, really tough to 9

defi ne and broad and slippery slope. So while 10

conceptually I think we can all agree that that would 11

be a good thing to do, filters, elbows, ductwork, 12

where does the list end? Protrusions through the 13

ductwork. It's a very, very difficult thing. 14

MR. FERNSTR OM: So this is Gary. I agree, 15

but can't we define it as the way the product is sold? 16

And, you know, elbows and ductwork and things that 17

are added after the fact are excluded, but whatever is 18

included the way the product is sold would be 19

included. 20

MR. BURDICK: This is Larry with SPX. I 21

would more agree with Dan's point on that because of 22

the various inlet configurations that are possible, 23

whether the air entry is from two sides or one side. 24

There are just so many combinations that you can't 25136

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 include, you know, a dashed line around an entire box 1

on all of the options that you're going to run into. 2

MR. FERNSTROM: Okay. Well, let's try and 3

be as inclusive as we reasonably can. 4

MR. STARR: So this is Louis Starr. I think 5

the path that Gary's trying to go down is assuming a 6

certain static pressure for your fan that you're 7

connecting it to. This is kind of a similar 8

discussion we have with commercial AC where we're 9

trying to capture what's realistic in the field 10

condition. So while you cannot know ho w every single 11

ductwork system's designed, as a general rule of thumb 12

for a lot of these boxes you draw a box around each 13

one of them. I have a general number in my mind what 14

each one is, and I suspect the fan people have an idea 15

of generally what those r un in terms of static 16

pressure. So you actually wouldn't even have to get 17

it right. You just have to get it close. But I know 18

it's more than just the amount of air it takes to get 19

that across the fan wheel and down there. 20

You know, I look at that one, I'm going to 21

go with an inch and a half? So anyway. 22

MR. THOMAS: So just a point of 23

clarification. We talked about potentially certifying 24

for a range of operating points. If we do go down 25137

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 that path, if we draw the box where it is now and that 1

range o f operating points includes the

-- I'm assuming 2

that the person, the party responsible for selling 3

what's in that box and testing what's in that box, if 4

given the choice of where they want to certify that 5

assembly for operation, it would include the operat ing 6

points that would allow it to be installed in this 7

piece of equipment, and so that performance would be 8

captured. It's just a matter of before or after that 9

casing gets put on it. 10

So it's not that we would exclude the real

11

world operating point. Th e real

- world operating point 12

would under that regulatory approach be included. 13

MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. And what you would 14

see then, to the extent we end up implementing the 15

regulatory approach as we provided it in our second 16

NODA in response to the AMCA advocates' method, would 17

be a certified range of operation for a given fan 18

model, which would actually probably get you much 19

closer to what you're looking for than a single point. 20

MR. STARR: Yeah. Okay. So this approach 21

is definitely different than wh at DOE usually does. 22

So that's good. Ouch. 23

(Laughter.) 24

MS. ARMSTRONG: Take a bit of that apple. 251 38

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 (Laughter.) 1

MR. STARR: I think it came across the wrong 2

way. 3

MALE VOICE: Can we have a thumbs down or up 4

on that? Can we vote on that? 5

(Laught er.) 6

MR. THOMAS: Okay. So shall we move on to a 7

new example? 8

MS. ARMSTRONG: We have one more question. 9

MR. THOMAS: Okay. 10

MS. ARMSTRONG: So Jill Hootman at Trane 11

asked a question on the webinar that said, could 12

separate equipment classes have s eparate test metrics 13

as well? That saying maybe FER or whatever doesn't 14

cover something certain. 15

So, Jill, I don't know the specific answer 16

to that. Typically we have the same, we use single 17

metrics, but we use different test methods to come up 18

with

-- for different categories of equipment that may 19

have different characteristics or different field 20

consumptions or operating characteristics that need to 21

be appropriate reflected. But that's something that 22

DOE could investigate to the extent that that's of 23

interest to the committee. 24

MR. WOLF: Ashley, Mike Wolf here. I think 25139

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 the way the current metric is structured, it might 1

just be a different level. I mean, there's different 2

ways to skin that cat I think. 3

MR. JASINSKI: Why don't we go to the panel 4

fan. This I think is just a homework assignment. I 5

mean, I think in general I'll draw the shape, but I 6

think this one, basically a new definition needs to be 7

crafted because the definition in the current 8

presentation, which is on Slide 15, is now 9

encompa ssing circulator fans, which are being 10

excluded. So now we need to come up with a definition 11

of panel fan using the same methodology that's 12

presented here for the other equipment classes in 13

order to draw the box where we want it around this 14

panel fan. So I don't think we want to do that in 15

real time here, but I'll just draw the box and if 16

there's general agreement, we can make that also a 17

homework assignment. Any objections to that? 18

MS. JAKOBS: This is Diane. So I had asked 19

before, and I'm thinking a bout condenser fans. So you 20

said ducted is ducted outlet only. So a condenser fan 21

wouldn't have a duct on the outlet, but the air coming 22

into it would not be free, I mean, and the size of the 23

panel changes and, I mean, that one shows kind of a 24

minimal pa nel. So that's a part that's confusing me. 25140

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MR. SMITH: Right. So the reason that the 1

duct on the outlet matters is because the velocity 2

pressure leaving the fan can be recovered to overcome 3

duct resistance basically. And if you don't have a 4

duct on th e outlet, the velocity pressure is not 5

recovered. 6

When we get into talking, actually we might 7

do it right now. I don't know if you want to get into 8

static versus total, but there's something that you 9

can do to a panel fan on the outlet. ebm does it to 10

their product that they sell for condenser fans. A 11

lot of our other members do it for agricultural fans. 12

They put a transition, right, from the outlet of the 13

fan to the atmosphere and the more gradual and longer 14

that transition, the slower you have to tu rn the fan 15

and the less power you use because you're recovering 16

velocity pressure to overcome static resistance on the 17

inlet, which is curious. 18

So at some point we should talk about that. 19

But I think in general, you know, if you talk about a 20

unitary equ ipment that's got four or two or six 21

condenser fans in a panel and each of those fans 22

individually is sort of like the one that was shown 23

and the panels can be larger or smaller, it doesn't 24

matter. It's a panel fan. And it doesn't have, as 25141

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 you point out, it doesn't have duct on its outlet. 1

MS. JAKOBS: So I think we're talking about 2

the testable configuration. So, if we have the same 3

blades, the same hole, is one of them

-- we just test 4

one of them and then we use it in whatever patchwork 5

configuration we want? 6

MR. JASINSKI: Diane, are we talking about 7

this situation? 8

MS. JAKOBS: There you go. Okay. 9

MR. JASINSKI: Is that what we're trying to 10

talk about? So why don't we just go to that example. 11

I will change this. So what I'm hearing is

-- 12

MS. JAKOBS: So are we only worried about 13

one diameter and we test it once and we're done? 14

MR. SMITH: What do you want? This is for 15

you to tell them, not for them to tell you. 16

MS. JAKOBS: Well, I think they're already 17

tested, so

-- 18

MR. SMILEY: B ill Smiley, Trane. On 19

currently regulated products, the condenser fan 20

energy's already regulated as part of the overall 21

product regulation, so it doesn't need to be regulated 22

in this particular exercise. It's already included, 23

counted. Am I correct in a ssuming that, or I'm off 24

base here? 25142

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MR. WHITWELL: They run when the compressor 1

is running. They never run when the compressor is 2

off. It's in the EER or IEER metric or COP metric, 3

however you want to look at it. 4

MS. ARMSTRONG: I'll let others chime in 5

first before I articulate

-- 6

MR. SMILEY: It should not be regulated in 7

this exercise. 8

MS. ARMSTRONG: So maybe you guys can tell 9

me, so if we agree that a panel fan

-- can you go back 10

to the other slide

-- comes down to this in their 11

testable conf iguration, I want you to tell me how do I 12

differentiate that between that from the point of 13

manufacture. It's different if it's coming in before. 14

MR. SMILEY: It's sitting right there in a 15

regulated product. What more information do you need? 16

MR. HAU ER: Well, the basic fan is 17

cataloged. No trouble, right? The basic fan is used 18

in a chiller in an unregulated product. 19

MS. ARMSTRONG: Exactly. 20

MR. HAUER: It can be used in a regulated 21

condenser, it can be used for indirect evaporative 22

coolers, for all sorts of things, for barn fan. It 23

can be used anywhere. It cannot be told by the part 24

number or anything. 25143

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. So DOE would have no 1

way to distinguish this type of fan that goes into an 2

unregulated application versus one that go es into 3

ultimately an OEM regulated application, which you 4

guys are at least referring to as regulated, from 5

potentially the point of manufacture of an actual fan. 6

So I guess the question for the working group is, is 7

that something the working group is co mfortable 8

excluding? Speak up. 9

MR. WHITWELL: I think, couldn't we cover it 10

with the label? Labeled for use in regulated, I don't 11

know what the wording would be, but describe it as 12

being able to be used in products that are regulated 13

by DOE? 14

MR. PERS FUL: This is Trinity from Clarage. 15

You said that the fan is already regulated in this. 16

What's the fan efficiency requirement for that fan? 17

MR. SMILEY: There is none. There's a 18

product overall efficiency, which is what the consumer 19

pays when he operat es the equipment. So you don't 20

need to have

-- 21

MR. PERSFUL: Is the fan regulated in this? 22

MR. SMILEY: No, the fan by itself is not 23

regulated. The overall product is. The total energy 24

consumed by that product when it's in a cooling mode, 25144

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 which is t he only time those fans operate, is 1

included, the energy to that fan, which is what we're 2

after here is energy that people consume. 3

MR. STARR: So this is Louis Starr with 4

NEEA. One of the things, and this is kind of, so this 5

is a topic also on the comm ercial AC we're working on 6

this, but part of the energy advocates' concern about 7

this is that really is the test procedure really 8

accurately capturing the energy used such that it 9

drives the efficiency of these fans, and that's really 10

more the concern. 11

A nd, you know, a particular one, where I 12

wasn't so much concerned about the one that's circled 13

here, it would be more back further in the unit, that 14

big air handler unit, but, you know, really the issue 15

comes as how much is the weighting of that fan for the 16

other energy and does it actually drive those fans to 17

become efficient? If it is, then it becomes a little 18

better case for why you're double regulating it, 19

right? And so, in the case of the condenser fans, I 20

don't really necessarily know if they're adeq uately 21

really, are the fans being maximized? Are these the 22

best design? 23

If I were to look at similar applications 24

out here, and this is something maybe the fan guys can 25145

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 contribute on. Are these the best, most efficient 1

fans for operating or for cooling these systems, or is 2

what's currently on an existing air handler the best? 3

But, I mean, that's what kind of our concern 4

is really is the overall efficiency rating of the air 5

handler actually driving really efficient designs of 6

fans, and I'm not clear th at it is. Maybe you can 7

provide some information on that that would be helpful 8

in making a decision about whether there needs to be a 9

circle around this particular set or not. 10

MR. WHITWELL: But, Louis, this is Bob 11

Whitwell. So the power from these fan s, these 12

condenser fans, it's 100 percent captured in the 13

efficiency metric that we already have on this 14

equipment. And if you put another efficiency 15

requirement on those fans, it's starting to be 16

prescriptive. It's going to say okay, you have to use 17

a c ertain fan in order to meet, as part of the design 18

that meets something that's regulated with another 19

metric. 20

So I guess I don't quite understand that 21

argument. I mean, if there's a question about how do 22

you make sure that a fan that can be used here is n't 23

used in another product, okay, so that is an issue 24

that we have to deal with. But to say that this needs 25146

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 to be regulated because there might be a more 1

efficient fan that could be used in this equipment to 2

meet some energy efficiency requirement for th e 3

product overall, I don't agree that that's something 4

that this group should be worried about. 5

MR. STARR: Well, just one thing here. I 6

mean, I guess that is a good question. If they aren't 7

using a pretty efficient fan for this application, one 8

would ask why not, right? If we already are. 9

MR. WHITWELL: Because it's not the best 10

economic choice in order to meet the efficiency 11

metrics that we have for the equipment. It ends up 12

being an economic weight between compressor versus 13

condenser fans versus maybe indoor/outdoor fans. 14

MR. SMILEY: These condenser fans consume 15

maybe 8 percent or 5 percent of the total energy 16

that's being regulated. 17

MR. STARR: So I think an accurate thing to 18

say is the metric's not driving an efficient fan in 19

this case, rig ht? 20

MR. WHITWELL: You can't say that, Louis. 21

It's a system efficiency that we need. 22

MR. SMILEY: You can't suboptimize every 23

component and have the most optimized combination. 24

Show me how to do that. 25147

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MS. ARMSTRONG: So I take the discussion 1

going two ways, and I'm just going to summarize it. 2

I think from DOE's perspective, our ask is 3

to explain to me how we differentiate, and I want to 4

specifically understand because I do think it's 5

important if there are things that are unregulated, 6

same types o f fans, that I think that is a serious 7

concern for us, the working group, to consider whether 8

they should be in or they should be out. So I think 9

the differentiation point is an important one, and a 10

self

- declaration, there are some concerns with that, 11

as I noted right out the gate in day one. 12

To Louis's point, you know, I think what 13

he's asking of you is is the test procedure 14

representative of the fan energy use as it exists 15

today for rooftops. I think that's a little out of 16

the scope of this negotiatio n, but that seems to be 17

what he's bringing up. 18

MR. JASINSKI: Ashley, can I ask a quick 19

question of the group? In terms of a potential 20

pathway forward for differentiating between a panel 21

fan that goes into a nonregulated application and a 22

panel fan that goes into an already regulated 23

application, are there ways to draw exclusive circles 24

around the range of operation such that the range of 25148

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 operation in a regulated piece of equipment does not 1

need to be certified and the operating range for 2

unregulated app lications does? Maybe not in all 3

cases, but basically asking in cases where there's no 4

overlap between the two, I don't know if that's maybe 5

an opportunity. So maybe it's a non

- starter. 6

MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, so, I mean, this is 7

where it comes to you gu ys need to tell us. 8

MR. SMILEY: This is Bill Smiley, Trane. 9

Not all condenser fans are general use fans. Some are 10

specifically designed for only that application, and 11

that's the only place they're used. They're 12

manufactured specifically for that part icular unit. 13

So it doesn't have an unregulated application. 14

MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly with AAON. I 15

mean, many of these fans for many of us, we only buy 16

the impeller. The inlet cone, the mount and 17

everything on these fans is fabricated as part of the 18

box, you know. I may punch two inlet cones in one 19

piece of sheet metal there that goes all the way 20

across. That's a fairly common practice among all the 21

manufacturers. 22

So, if you regulate this as a panel fan, we 23

are going to be the manufacturer because our inlet 24

cone may not be the same as the inlet cone that the 25149

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 impeller manufacturer intends to go with that, so 1

we'll have to create a fan that will never be sold to 2

test. 3

MR. SMILEY: For what purpose? 4

MR. FERNSTROM: This is Gary. I kind of 5

like fa il to see why it is that if we put a more 6

efficient fan into some other regulated product and 7

that fan provides the same utility as the fan that was 8

previously there, that would be in terms of air flow 9

and static pressure and so on, why that would not be a 10

good thing? 11

MR. WHITWELL: Gary, I'm sorry for 12

interrupting. So what would happen, I mean, these are 13

cost

- sensitive products, right? So what would happen 14

then is that the manufacturers would most likely take 15

heat exchanger surface out of the unit to s ave money 16

and still hit the efficiency requirement for the 17

equipment on a system perspective. 18

MR. SMILEY: Then you'd end up with the same 19

power usage because the equipment is regulated. 20

MR. SMITH: At a higher cost. 21

MR. SMILEY: You'd add cost. Pot entially 22

you could decrease performance depending on how you 23

define what fan efficiency's required, stick that fan 24

in the unit. It doesn't work very good in the unit. 25150

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 A centrifugal fan that's housed has much higher 1

efficient potential than a panel fan. But it's the 2

wrong duty requirement. Of course, you said for the 3

same duty. 4

MR. STARR: So, if everybody has to make the 5

same efficient fan, why wouldn't they just buy the 6

same fan that's a little more efficient so it costs 7

more and potentially, you kno w, you'd just have the 8

same condenser? 9

MR. WHITWELL: But everybody doesn't buy the 10

same efficiency fan. I mean, different fans from 11

different suppliers are going to have different 12

efficiency, and then we design the orifice that it 13

goes into, which is g oing to be different from 14

manufacturer to manufacturer. We design it based on 15

what the application is. 16

MR. SMILEY: This is Bill Smiley, Trane. 17

The requirement for the condenser fan is driven by 18

other components of the unit, and every manufacturer 19

may have a different design coil, different fin 20

series, different fin shape, different thickness of 21

material. All those things are a function of the 22

manufacturer optimizing in their ability for cost to 23

meet that overall unit performance level. So this guy 24

ma y have a higher pressure drop coil than that guy. 25151

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 He may have a smaller coil and want more air. You 1

know, it's a variation. He's shooting for the overall 2

equipment efficiency level that's currently regulated. 3

MR. FERNSTROM: Okay. So this is Gary. A nd 4

thank you. That perspective was helpful. I think the 5

thing that occurs to me now is not all of the energy 6

use associated with this equipment is necessarily 7

regulated. The heating and cooling efficiency 8

performance is regulated, but the ventilation 9

pe rformance is not regulated. So, you know, we may 10

choose to have a poorer fan and a better heat 11

exchanger when in reality that fan is running a lot 12

more hours and using a lot more energy than we're 13

ultimately accounting for in the heating and cooling 14

perfo rmance. 15

MR. WHITWELL: So we can have that 16

discussion about other fans in this unit, but those 17

condenser fans are only running when the compressor is 18

on and it's fully captured in the metric. 19

MR. FERNSTROM: Okay. So I understand that 20

point for the co ndenser fans. I just wanted to make 21

that observation that it depends upon the application 22

of the fan how these tradeoffs work. 23

MR. STARR: So this is Louis. Back on the 24

condenser fans. To some extent

-- so part of the 25152

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 thing with the metric that most l ikely may go, and the 1

thing is, it depends on how the duty point of your 2

fan, how it's basically efficiency in the duty points, 3

basically the standard level that may be set on that. 4

In this case, I can understand that you 5

might want to take some metal le t's say out of, add 6

some condenser or fins in there. You'd have more flow 7

and pressure, right? But the efficiency of the fan, 8

you'd still always want to optimize that no matter 9

whether you had less pressure drop or more flow. 10

whatever the flow pressure characteristics are across 11

that piece of equipment, you'd want to maximize that 12

such that it seems like if you require a certain 13

efficiency level, you as a manufacturer would want to 14

be trying to get that. 15

And if you were choosing to have let's say a 16

les s efficient fan so that you could add more things 17

in there

-- it's kind of like one of those things when 18

everybody has to do a certain level, it seems like it 19

raises the whole boat, and, I mean, from my 20

standpoint, that's the advantage is that all of a 21

sud den everybody has to have a certain efficiency of 22

fan in those products, and so then it keeps everybody 23

from cheaping out on fan efficiency and making really 24

bad fan blades such that they, you know, are not very 25153

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 efficient fans because they can make a littl e bit of 1

cost savings there and add it somewhere else in the 2

unit where they get more. But if everybody has to 3

have a certain efficiency in the fan itself, it seems 4

like that inherently is a good thing, but maybe not. 5

MR. WHITWELL: It's always a tradeo ff, 6

right? It's always a tradeoff. You can put more 7

money in the fan and take it out of the coils, the 8

heat exchanger, or a lower efficiency compressor, or a 9

less energy efficient indoor fan. I mean, you've got 10

all these tradeoffs you can make. 11

MR. ST ARR: So you're essentially picking a 12

winner is what you're saying by making the fan

-- 13

MR. WHITWELL: You're designing the system 14

to meet the efficiency metric. 15

MR. SMILEY: And the engineer's job is to 16

optimally at minimum cost hit the maximum perfor mance 17

manufacturability that they can, and that's what we 18

engineers have always done and will continue to do. 19

But it's an economic decision to hit the overall goal. 20

MR. HARTLEIN: So can I weigh in here maybe 21

as one of the fan guys in the room. I certa inly get 22

this argument. I understand what you guys are saying. 23

But the challenge that I see as a fan manufacturer 24

participating heavily in North America, the U.S. 25154

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 market specifically, I don't know how we are going to 1

differentiate between that impeller b eing sold to you 2

and an impeller being sold to everybody else. 3

So what's going to happen here is that fan 4

is going to be

-- our selector platforms are going to 5

change. Our catalogs are going to change. We're not 6

going to even offer that product in nonc ompliant 7

ranges today. So that leads me to the conclusion that 8

the only place you're going to buy that is from an 9

offshore competitor that isn't participating in that 10

business, because

-- 11

MR. SMILEY: Not necessarily. 12

MR. HARTLEIN: Because I'm not go ing to have 13

that product anymore. 14

MR. SMILEY: We can make them ourselves. 15

MR. HARTLEIN: Then you're a fan 16

manufacturer. 17

MR. SMILEY: Or we can hire you to make it 18

for us. 19

MR. HARTLEIN: Which you can. I mean, 20

certainly, you know, you become a fa n manufacturer at 21

that point, which is fine. I mean, you certainly have 22

every open right to do that. But we've looked ahead a 23

little bit as an industry as well, and I'm not really 24

trying to argue either side of this. I see the 25155

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 complexity of it and tryin g to understand it. 1

One of the things we've really struggled 2

with as an industry is, what's going to happen to the 3

label requirements? We have a hard time, as you guys 4

know, from time to time getting the rotation arrow on 5

the right way. Okay? 6

(Laught er.) 7

MR. SMILEY: In how many different 8

languages. 9

MR. HARTLEIN: Yeah, exactly. And so now 10

we're going to have to keep track of all of this on 11

these products? I mean, to me, that's a big issue for 12

us too is simply the labeling burden and the burden of 13

compliance that we're going to have on this product. 14

So I'm certainly not arguing against AHRI's 15

position here. I'm just trying to share with 16

everybody in the room the perspective of the fan 17

manufacturer, because this is not going to be an easy 18

thing for us to deal with. And like I said, I fully 19

envision our selector platforms and catalogs are going 20

to change. We're only going to sell what's in North 21

America

-- or in the U.S., excuse me

-- sorry, Canada 22

-- we're only going to sell what's in the comp liant 23

range in that selector software. 24

MR. SMILEY: This is Bill Smiley, Trane 25156

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 again. I totally can appreciate your point of view, 1

but as an OEM equipment manufacturer, we make a 2

million variations of a lot of the different equipment 3

we make, and you th ink you guys would have a headache 4

with all this stuff. We already have labels out the 5

wazoo you wouldn't believe, and we're going to have 6

more and we're going to double up or triple the amount 7

of testing we have to do? 8

MR. HARTLEIN: The only question is why are 9

you labeling the wazoo? 10

(Laughter.) 11

MR. SMILEY: It's a requirement. I think 12

it's UL. I'm not for sure. 13

MR. HARTLEIN: It wasn't DOE, though, we can 14

be clear on that. 15

MS. ARMSTRONG: They do not have DOE labels. 16

MR. SMILEY: DOE woul d not do that. 17

(Laughter.) 18

MR. ROY: Aniruddh Roy, Goodman. I'd like 19

to ask Ashley one question. I think, Ashley, you 20

mentioned when we were discussing this example that 21

the EER or the regulated metric does not accurately 22

capture the condenser fan po wer, but

-- 23

MS. ARMSTRONG: I didn't necessarily make an 24

argument either way. I think that's what Louis was 25157

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 getting at with his question of is the energy use as 1

experienced in the field, does a test procedure 2

accurately represent those conditions such t hat you 3

would incentivize putting in a more efficient fan if 4

said another way. Obviously DOE has a test procedure 5

on the books. DOE hasn't taken a position on that. 6

So I'm not sure where we're going here. 7

MR. ROY: Okay. No, no. My only question 8

is that, you know, there is an equation out there in 9

the test procedure which also talks about condenser 10

fan power, so I just wanted to get some clarification 11

from your end on that. That's all. 12

MR. CATANIA: Well, Tom Catania, AMCA. I 13

guess there's nothin g like an embedded fan to serve 14

the same function as a double shot espresso for this 15

group here. 16

(Laughter.) 17

MR. CATANIA: We should just bring it up 18

periodically late in the afternoon just to wake 19

everybody up. 20

I guess that I want to reinforce a cou ple of 21

the points that were being made just for purposes of 22

organizing the discussion. I think the earlier 23

comment, I think it came from Carrier about the 24

distinction between these particular fans only 25158

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 operating during the cooling function and therefore 1

t heir energy being captured in the test procedure, as 2

distinguished from other fans. A couple people have 3

brought that up, where they're operating primarily 4

during a ventilation function. 5

MR. WHITWELL: Not primarily but often. 6

MR. CATANIA: Well, sign ificant, there's a 7

significant amount of energy. 8

The concern I have is that when we talk 9

about optimizing a design, there is a functional 10

element, but we're really talking about energy 11

regulation here, and I think it's quite clear that 12

part of the design is to optimize it to comply with 13

the, at minimal cost, to comply with the energy 14

standard. So, if the test procedure weight assigned 15

to the energy consumed during the only kind of 16

ventilation mode is not at present accurately 17

reflecting the percentage of energy devoted to that 18

mode, then it doesn't create incentives for the best, 19

you know, casing loss designs and so forth. 20

Now nobody wants to waste money on anything 21

anyway, but what I'm concerned about is we've got two 22

simultaneous rulemaking or working group proceedings 23

going on, and there's a test procedure as applied in 24

the current one that may be bleeding over into this 25159

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 one and driving the desire for regulating embedded 1

fans in these products because there's a bunch of 2

additional energy that's being consumed during the 3

ventilation mode that may not be fully reflected in 4

what's ultimately leading to the standard for these 5

products in the other proceeding. 6

So this is really a question. This is a 7

working group and the question is, how is this best 8

add ressed when you've got a combination of test 9

procedure issues and a standard in one proceeding and 10

the same sort of products in the same devices in this 11

proceeding? I think that's something we've got to 12

wrestle with. 13

MS. ARMSTRONG: So I'm going to try to 14

somewhat address that first for a minute. Well, I 15

think that from DOE's perspective, and one of the 16

reasons we asked you, the very first question we asked 17

you in that data request was, what fans are we talking 18

about and what OEM products? Are they cur rently 19

regulated or not? And the reason for that was to get 20

at some of this discussion. And, you know, secondary 21

to that I think perhaps as homework, still asking the 22

same question, how do you differentiate? 23

If the committee as a whole believes that 24

pa nel fans should be in, yet there's some sympathy to 25160

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 condenser fans that are also panel fans by definition, 1

because they're considered in IEER, being excluded, 2

how would you administer that? And I'm not sure a 3

self

- declaration approach works, so absent tha t, what 4

else works? 5

MR. WAGNER: Ashley, what would be the 6

enforcement for that? I mean, you're saying a self

7

declaration would not be acceptable. What would be 8

the enforcement? In other words, how do you find 9

panel fans or whatever being sold into th e marketplace 10

that aren't being applied? 11

MR. WHITWELL: Right, because just to build 12

on that, I look at that other case example that was up 13

there with the panel fan and I don't see really a 14

difference. A fan manufacturer, let's say the 15

component manufac turer that makes the impeller sells 16

it to the user who applies it in this application, and 17

then they sell a different one to an HVAC manufacturer 18

that applies it in the other unit. You know, it all 19

comes down to what the enforcement mechanism is I 20

guess, right? 21

MR. STARR: So one way you could do that, 22

and I think they do it with other equipment, is you 23

paint it a certain color or something so if it

-- 24

(Laughter.) 25161

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MR. STARR: Well, I think they do this with 1

life safety equipment. In other words, if you're 2

selling it into a given product

-- I mean, a lot of 3

these fans and things end up going through an 4

inspection process in buildings, and so if you saw 5

something that was painted red, you would probably 6

know it's not a

-- 7

MR. WHITWELL: But my point was

-- sorry, 8

Greg, if I cut you off. 9

MR. WAGNER: That's all right. 10

MR. WHITWELL: But my point was going to be 11

that it's kind of a self

- certification anyway, Ashley, 12

isn't it? I mean, somehow manufacturers are going to 13

say yes, my fan complies with this requirement. 14

MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, coverage in and of 15

itself in DOE's regs right now isn't a self

16

declaration. I can certainly find products that meet 17

our definitions that should be complying with our 18

standards that do not. 19

MR. WHITWELL: Okay, but

-- 20

MS. ARMSTRONG: I'm not asking them to self

21

declare whether they want to be regulated. 22

MR. WHITWELL: Yeah. It's maybe not called 23

self

- declaration. But, I mean, we certify our 24

equipment to DOE, right? 25162

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, you do. There ar e 1

others that don't. 2

MR. WAGNER: Well, I think that's a problem 3

that you're not going after them, because I'm a 4

manufacturer. I manufacture fans. 5

MS. ARMSTRONG: I think we are, but what I 6

want is a bright line in the sand to be able to do 7

that. Tha t's what I'm asking for. 8

MR. WAGNER: Okay. I'm a manufacturer of 9

fans. I don't sell any of those kind of things, but 10

we do sell a lot of them into condensing units, and 11

100 percent they're customized design for the 12

application. So they meet the perfo rmance 13

requirements of some of the folks in this room, some 14

other folks as well. But they are custom designed for 15

those specific applications to meet the minimum 16

requirement or to exceed the minimum requirements for 17

SEER or IEER or EER, whatever those sta ndards are. 18

But they're clearly traceable as to where they go and 19

who they're sold to. There is no unclarity there of 20

what these products are for and where they're going. 21

There's a huge paper trail. 22

MS. JAKOBS: This is Diane Jakobs. 23

According to the se tables, a required component is an 24

impeller, a shaft and bearings, housing and a 25163

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 structure. So even if you took those same blades and 1

we had them on a rooftop unit, it would be a different 2

fan. It would just be the same component part of a 3

fan, and th e efficiency would change depending on all 4

four of the pieces you put together. 5

MR. SMITH: I guess what she's saying, 6

Ashley, is that the fan manufacturer in this case is 7

the maker of the regulated unitary equipment. 8

MR. FINE: Can I make a suggestion ? This is 9

Steve Fine, one of the facilitators. I've been 10

listening over and over again over the three days 11

we've been doing this, and one issue just comes up 12

over and over again, and that's that of the embedded 13

products, although we use different words. 14

But anyhow, what I'm thinking might be 15

useful, for those who wish to exclude fans or think it 16

may be a good idea, perhaps they could come forward, 17

it might be helpful if they would come forward with a 18

written proposal or presentation on just justifying 19

t hat and explaining how it would work, finding 20

solutions or making suggestions of how they could 21

overcome I guess the various issues. Like, for 22

instance, how would you distinguish between, if you 23

were to have regulated and unregulated fans, how would 24

you d etermine or is there anything you can do to make 25164

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 sure that all of a sudden DOE didn't find that the 1

unregulated fans were showing up where regulated fans 2

were supposed to be, et cetera. 3

So anyhow, I'm talking about maybe doing 4

homework projects, having a subgroup or something that 5

would report back to the group with a proposal. For 6

instance, they could also flesh out the engineering 7

argument that a more efficient fan may hurt overall 8

system performance and also help with some language to 9

help you define those fans. 10

But anyhow, it's a suggestion and I was 11

wondering if anyone wanted to discuss that. 12

MR. FERNSTROM: Steve, this is Gary. I have 13

a point I'd like to make, and that is I don't think 14

this is a zero sum game. So what I kind of hear here 15

is th e air conditioning and heating industry saying 16

okay, if you regulate the fan and make us buy a more 17

expensive fan that provides the same utility but costs 18

more, perhaps it has better performance, we'll take 19

that out somewhere else because our engineers' jo b is 20

to optimize the construction and cost of this thing 21

such as to meet the standard. 22

But I call into consideration the computers 23

and the way that's working out. So we have some 24

regulations on computer power supply efficiency and 25165

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 the computer makers mi ght say, well, if you make us 1

put in a better power supply, in order to meet the 2

efficiency requirements, we'll just take it out of the 3

CPU, so we won't make the CPU as efficient. 4

But the reality is that it isn't a static 5

zero sum game. So, when we get the better fan, we 6

look at the heating and cooling appliance again and we 7

say, well, you know, you've got the better fan in 8

there. The cost picture has changed. We can make the 9

performance of the whole equipment better and still 10

have it be cost

- effective

. 11

So I don't really buy the idea that there's 12

no usefulness or benefit in regulating a component in 13

an already regulated piece of equipment. 14

MR. FINE: I hope that's not what I was 15

suggesting was perceived. I was suggesting that 16

there's this issue tha t people keep struggling with 17

and perhaps a good way to handle that issue or any 18

other issue like it would be to have a subgroup come 19

up with a proposal, people who I guess are proponents 20

of, for instance, excluding those products could come 21

up with a prop osal to present to the group. 22

MR. FERNSTROM: So I know I went off on a 23

tangent, but I thought that while these groups 24

considered your question and your idea, you know, they 25166

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 might be thinking about this issue of double 1

regulation and its futility or lack thereof in 2

general. 3

MS. JAKOBS: Diane Jakobs from Rheem. I 4

think that we're required to build the

-- while the 5

regulation has to be economically justified and 6

technically feasible, so you're talking about if you 7

require us to do everything possible th at's 8

technically feasible by requiring specific components, 9

then that doesn't give us any room to have an option 10

to make it economically justified. So you're kind of 11

tying our hands. If it's overly restrictive, you 12

know, maybe there's only one solution a nd all of our 13

products will look the same. 14

MR. HAUER: Armin Hauer of ebm

- papst. I 15

would be afraid that if embedded fans were exempt that 16

there would also be an impact on manufacturers like

-- 17

a manufacturer impact analyzes to properly show that 18

America n manufacturing of fans would be impacted 19

because the OEMs would just manufacture externally of 20

the United States where they use very cheap fans and 21

then American fan sales would not be possible anymore. 22

MR. JASINSKI: So, to follow on what Steve 23

suggest ed, for those that are trying to articulate why 24

embedded fans should not be included, are you willing 25167

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 to put forward a proposal in line with what Steve 1

described and especially to articulate this concept of 2

economically justified design options? And if so

, 3

anybody who is wanting to hear that articulation, is 4

that something that the working group is interested 5

in? 6

And I'll also add that this concept of cost 7

justified, if you look at any of the Department of 8

Energy rulemakings, that's a big part of these 9

a nalyses. So there are lots of examples and a 10

procedure for doing that type of evaluation in other 11

rulemakings that if you're not familiar with how it's 12

done now you might want to look into. It's also 13

something that was done in both of the NODAs. It's 14

al so something that with the right information could 15

be done as part of this working group. 16

But the idea of a cost justified design, 17

that might provide a good framework for articulating 18

how maybe in a rulemaking where a more efficient fan 19

was a design opti on that either did or did not get 20

included because of its cost justification, that would 21

be a good framework for explaining with numbers why it 22

did or did not. I can't think of an example off the 23

top of my head, but I'm sure you can find examples of 24

both. 25168

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MR. HARTLEIN: So Dan Hartlein, Twin City 1

Fans. A real quick question here to process, as a 2

neophyte to what we're doing here. We have a massive 3

market with infinite almost number of combinations, 4

permutations, applications and things that as a fan 5

ma nufacturer we're trying to deal with here in this 6

rulemaking. I can't help but think, be a little 7

frustrated. You know, I don't know about everybody 8

else, but my ticket to get back here on this trip 9

because of the, I think it was because of a hockey 10

play off and a basketball playoff, cost me $1500 to 11

make this trip, and here we are in day three stuck on 12

the same topic. 13

As a matter of process, is it possible that 14

we can deal with the rest of the industry and park 15

this? What happens if we as a working gro up don't 16

solve this? Can we get through the rest of them? Can 17

we move on? If we leave this for the DOE, what 18

happens? It will get solved, right? So I'm almost 19

advocating that we can this and move on because, I'm 20

sorry, we're not getting anywhere, and I understand 21

there's a lot of passion around this issue, and maybe 22

we as a working group can't get to consensus on this. 23

Fine. Let's go work on the rest of it. There's a 24

huge industry out here. 25169

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MS. JAKOBS: This is Diane Jakobs. So, if 1

we come to the end and you figure out all your 2

problems and they ask us all to vote and our issues 3

have not been settled, are you expecting us to vote 4

for yours? 5

MR. HARTLEIN: Absolutely not. But then 6

that moves to the next level, right. I don't know. I 7

don't know the process. That was not a

-- 8

MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. So actually for 9

process

-- 10

MR. HARTLEIN: Let me finish. That was a 11

question, not a statement. Yeah. 12

MS. ARMSTRONG: So actually for process, let 13

me

-- we certainly can do that. We can chart any 14

which way we want to. We can go through a couple more 15

examples if we think we are all in agreement. We can 16

move on to test procedure and metric with the 17

acknowledgment that we'll let these sink in, but we 18

need to be prepared to vote on June at least about 19

some of these. 20

Ultimately the whole term sheet has to be 21

agreed to. So, if we can't agree to some agreement of 22

scope, people are well within their right to not vote 23

for the term sheet. If ultimately the term sheet 24

doesn't get passed with consensu s, then hopefully 25170

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 unanimous, but if less than that, DOE will just go 1

forward. 2

You know, are people comfortable enough in 3

the room to let us table scope until at least we have 4

some additional information that was promised or some 5

proposals on the table of how to deal with it? I 6

mean, for DOE's perspective, I think we're open

- minded 7

about this, but I really need a clear differentiation 8

point, and there are some serious concerns about 9

impacts to certain businesses that may have to comply 10

while others don't. So I think that those concerns 11

need to be addressed. And if you are willing to do it 12

in some form of a proposal, we're welcome to entertain 13

that or table that until the very end and keep making 14

progress with

-- because he's right. If we don't get 15

throu gh test procedure and metric and don't start 16

talking about analysis and get analysis ready for the 17

June meeting or some type of June meetings, we're not 18

going to have time to talk about levels. 19

MR. WHITWELL: So, Ashley, Ashley, this is 20

Bob. So I think, I spoke to a couple of our members 21

here, Diane would probably agree, that we can take a 22

shot at that. It won't be for tomorrow, but we can 23

come back at the next meeting and come back with a 24

proposal. 25171

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 Dan, I think I understand some frustration, 1

but I th ink this has been good discussion here today 2

and I recommend that we continue to go through these 3

examples because we have products that are not 4

regulated that look just like this. They just happen 5

to be bigger. And this is helpful for me to 6

understand w hat it is that we might have to do. So I 7

suggest we continue going through this analysis. 8

MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. And I think my ask 9

is that you have certain fans that you sell with your 10

products like condenser fans that may be included in 11

the IEER metr ic. You have other fans which are also 12

part of rooftop equipment or accessories on them that 13

is not included whatsoever. 14

MR. WHITWELL: Okay. Yes. Absolutely. 15

MS. ARMSTRONG: And so I ask in your 16

proposal you make a distinction. 17

MR. WHITWELL: Yes

. 18

MALE VOICE: Maybe they should be part of 19

it. 20

MR. WHITWELL: They're not included. 21

MS. ARMSTRONG: So that can be part of your 22

distinction, but right now be careful what you're 23

arguing in both places. 24

MR. WHITWELL: I'm not arguing. They're not 25172

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 included in the metric. The exhaust fans, fans in 1

ERVs, et cetera, right? 2

MS. ARMSTRONG: Right, because last time we 3

negotiated you guys wanted specific features not 4

included because of this whole concept of model 5

proliferation and having different var iations thereof, 6

and that's fine. 7

MR. WHITWELL: Six trillion models, 8

remember? 9

MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes, 10 trillion, six 10

trillion, 30 trillion. We'll have to ask Mandy 11

exactly what the number is. 12

MR. JASINSKI: Ashley, we actually have 13

those examples. Do we want to

-- 14

MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, I think we should walk 15

through them. 16

MR. JASINSKI: I was just going to say 17

before we move, I think actually Steve's suggestion, 18

then followed by Sam's is a pretty good idea. I also 19

think there is progress. I think some of these 20

things, you know, whether it's in the metric or 21

captured in the metric, actually those discussions are 22

not as complicated as they might seem, and so I think 23

there's some general movement in the right direction 24

and I think we're making p rogress is my take on it. 25173

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MR. HARTLEIN: If I can maybe close since I 1

raised that issue, that's great to hear. Like I said, 2

I'm a neophyte, never been through this, so thank you. 3

MR. CATANIA: Yeah, and I guess I would just 4

add again at the highest le vel

-- Tom Catania of AMCA. 5

You know, it's my understanding in at least one 6

analysis of this potentially half a quad savings, if 7

we can find a way to wrestle this embedded fan issue 8

to the ground acceptably, we're talking about half of 9

the potential savin gs and a holistic combination of 10

standards and test procedures that create the right 11

cost

- effective incentives for manufacturers of this 12

kind of equipment to get credit, for example, because 13

of a test procedure that drives you to get credit for 14

improving t hat unit when it's operating in a 15

ventilation mode as opposed to an air conditioning 16

mode, to me, allows this group, the other group that's 17

working and the Department and the advocates to wrap a 18

much more interesting holistic system oriented package 19

togeth er than if we keep, every time we get stuck on a 20

tough issue we just keep subdividing it into smaller 21

and smaller pieces. I think what we will get at the 22

end is DOE saying, you know, in the absence of 23

consensus, we're going to take the approach we like 24

th e best. And I don't think any of us are here and 25174

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 investing in these plane tickets and everything 1

because we want to eventually punt and turn it over to 2

the DOE. 3

MR. FERNSTROM: This is Gary. I'm with Tom 4

on this. So we've got a neophyte, an optimist, and a 5

realist. 6

MS. ARMSTRONG: And then we have us who have 7

to do some really hard work and make some really hard 8

decisions that we would really like your input on, so 9

we hope to keep this moving in the right direction. 10

MR. JASINSKI: So I went ahead a nd drew an 11

analogous box to the previous example. I don't know 12

if we want to discuss whether this is where we want 13

it, should it be bigger, smaller, or essentially what 14

the impacts of the box being this way could have. It 15

sounds like, just to start it of f, that these are a 16

little different than the condenser fans that you see 17

a little to the right in that these might be operating 18

outside of the cooling operation hours and therefore 19

the ventilation operation of the fan is not accounted 20

for in the metric. Is that accurate? So, if that is 21

accurate, how does that

-- 22

MR. WHITWELL: So those fans provide the air 23

flow over the evaporator coil during cooling 24

operation. They also blow the air, if it's a unit 25175

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 with electric heat or gas heat, it blows the air ove r 1

the heat source to heat the building and also can be 2

used as an alternative to some other means to provide 3

ventilation to the building. 4

We're currently in a negotiated rulemaking 5

on new energy efficiency metrics for products like 6

this up to 760,000 BTU per hour, and the proposed 7

metric is moving from a full load EER metric to a part 8

load metric called IEER. 9

The analysis that's being done, the energy 10

analysis that's being done for that rulemaking is 11

taking into consideration the fan operation year 12

roun d. And the IEER metric will be driving the 13

industry. The industry's already moving this way, to 14

have fan speed control so that during part load 15

operation the fan runs at a lower speed. And as IEER 16

metrics go higher, there will be more and more 17

equipment that will have that capability. 18

So is it included in the test procedure? 19

Not all of it. The cooling operation is included in 20

the test procedure. But the energy benefit of let's 21

say some of the design approaches that help to get the 22

metric, that energ y benefit is being included in the 23

calculation going along with that rulemaking. So we 24

just can't account for it twice, right? 25176

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MR. STARR: So this is Louis Starr with 1

NEEA. So, in general, I would say, so I'm also on 2

that regulated negotiation as well, and part of the 3

problem is it's sort of the test procedure AHRI 4

340/360 that is the rating for IEER. You know, part 5

of the problem with it is it doesn't really adequately 6

capture the benefit of the fan energy usage that the 7

fan contributes to the air han dler. For instance, 8

static pressure is at .3 static inches, and most of 9

these air handlers are seeing three to four times that 10

when they're actually installed in the field. 11

And so there's a couple of thoughts about 12

that. One is is you can modify the te st procedure to 13

more reflect realistic fan energy savings. The other 14

thought is maybe perhaps you can try to capture that 15

in a fan rulemaking, which would be here. It does 16

present some problems obviously doing that, but I 17

think that's a little bit kind o f the discussion 18

that's going on. 19

Part of the problem, as we saw when they 20

started to do, it's interesting, they developed

-- 21

there's equipment that has the IEER levels. Based 22

upon, you know, higher standards level, you expect to 23

see, you know, less ene rgy use, and actually in the 24

way the analysis is done we haven't really seen that. 25177

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 A 20 percent higher IEER doesn't get you 20 percent 1

more energy savings, and a lot of that's because 2

the

-- well, there could be many reasons, but one of 3

the things they di d adjust is they adjusted to the 4

real

- world external static pressure and that 5

introduced more, more weighting on the fan side of 6

things. 7

And I think what kind of to my mind it 8

showed was that there wasn't really

-- the fan systems 9

didn't seem like they'r e being optimized in the 10

system, but I talked with the manufacturers about this 11

earlier today. One of the thoughts was it really had 12

more to do with representative units they had picked. 13

But anyway, in my mind at this point, I'm 14

still, we're still think ing about whether it makes 15

more sense to try to capture that inside of the AHRI 16

test procedure or try to capture that inside of the 17

fan regulations and so thinking about that. 18

MR. JASINSKI: Right. So what I'm hearing 19

is, well, I would imagine that part of the proposal 20

that might come forth in terms of regulated versus 21

unregulated and in addition the response to the data 22

request to AHRI, a lot of the details, such as what 23

operating modes are regulated, not regulated, et 24

cetera. 25178

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 Louis, what you were tal king about might be 1

better for a response or a discussion once those 2

details come forth because, for instance, when you're 3

talking about external static pressures, what the 4

actual difference is will indicate to some extent the 5

impact on how much energy we' re talking about or level 6

of accuracy, and that will allow for the group to 7

determine are we talking about a big missed 8

opportunity or opportunity or

-- and then ultimately 9

deciding, like you said, there are a couple different 10

mechanisms for addressing it. Maybe that will help 11

inform which one. This working group, a separate 12

negotiation or other rulemaking, et cetera. So why 13

don't we hold off on that discussion until we see the 14

proposal. 15

MR. WHITWELL: I think that's a good idea, 16

although I still am in terested in discussing this 17

because it's included in products that are not 18

covered. We have these types of fans. 19

MR. STARR: Yeah, that is true. Actually up 20

to 760,000, which is 60 tons, is that right? Sixty

21

three tons. So above 63 tons the AHRI 340/ 360 doesn't 22

apply. And then the question is

-- 23

MR. WHITWELL: Well, no. The standard still 24

applies. They're just not regulated by DOE. 25179

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MR. STARR: Oh, okay. 1

MR. WHITWELL: I mean, this is exactly the 2

same type of configuration we would have in an air 3

handler as well. 4

MR. JASINSKI: So, Ashley, does it make 5

sense

-- 6

MR. WHITWELL: Where is it on the box? 7

MALE VOICE: Yeah. Where is the box? 8

MR. JASINSKI: Well, the box right now is 9

just around the centrifugal fan, which, depending on 10

the de finition, right now looks like an unhoused 11

centrifugal fan according to the definition that's in 12

the slide deck. 13

MR. WHITWELL: It may be within a scroll 14

housing, but then it's flowing into

-- 15

MR. JASINSKI: Yeah. This isn't a great 16

picture, but this actually does not have the scroll 17

included. But there, like you said, it could. 18

MR. WHITWELL: It's flowing into a box, 19

flowing into a, inside the unit, right? 20

MR. JASINSKI: Right. So I would say 21

depending on how housing is defined for the 22

centrifug al housed and unhoused is where you make the 23

differentiation of where that box gets drawn. 24

MR. WHITWELL: Yeah. As I understand what 25180

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 we've been talking about so far, this would be a 1

unhoused

-- well, no, a unducted housed centrifugal. 2

Sorry, unhoused. Unhoused, unducted centrifugal. 3

MS. JAKOBS: This is Diane Jakobs from 4

Rheem. And I believe the size of that center 5

compartment can determine how much energy you would 6

need to drive those fans. So, as I said, we did it 7

wrong, but, you know, we're tryi ng to fit all this 8

equipment, we're trying to keep a certain footprint, 9

and if we try to take out one kind of fan and drop in 10

a different fan, we also have the same size 11

constraints and it may or may not work out. So by 12

just using that little box there yo u might get good 13

results, but then when you put it back in the big

-- 14

you know, this whole assembly of components it might 15

not work the way it would indicate based on the small 16

one. 17

MR. JASINSKI: Diane, if you're provided a 18

range of operating points, ar e you able to describe 19

the operating point that you need to achieve in order 20

for it to be a "good" fan in that application? So, if 21

you provided that to maybe a manufacturer of what's in 22

that box, would you be able to describe that to them 23

in terms of oper ating points or certain specifications 24

to mitigate or even prevent the scenario you're 25181

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 talking about? 1

MS. JAKOBS: I'm kind of struggling because 2

I don't think that way, because we're always aiming at 3

one number. And, you know, we're getting more into 4

s taging, you know, so you've got two of them in there. 5

Are they running together or are we going to stage it 6

and just run one at a time? Or is it going to have a 7

VFD on it? It does a whole variety of things. So I 8

don't know if spending a lot of time doc umenting, you 9

know, kind of a map of the energy consumption, what 10

good it will do. I don't know. 11

MR. HAUER: It's Armin Hauer speaking. Why 12

is a size increase completely taboo? You know, size 13

increase and reduction of air velocity would be an 14

energy s aving measure. Why is it taboo? 15

MR. WHITWELL: So the issue, the issue with 16

size

-- size reduction did you say or size increase? 17

MR. HAUER: Size increase as opposed to a 18

reduction. 19

MR. WHITWELL: Yeah. The issue with size 20

increase is that these un its can be 12 feet wide, for 21

example, and if you get wider than that, then it makes 22

them hard to put on a trailer and move down the road. 23

The other thing is that these are installed 24

on what's called a roof curb that goes up on the roof, 25182

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 and building owne rs do not like to change the roof 1

penetration. So what they will do is they will put an 2

adapter curb on these units, a conversion curb, which 3

can add external static pressure. They also get very 4

expensive. So you might make the unit bigger, put a 5

more e fficient fan in it, make it bigger, but then in 6

the application it might not be more efficient because 7

of what's done in order to apply a larger unit on the 8

roof on an existing

-- on a retrofit application. 9

MR. SMILEY: Yeah. It's Bill Smiley, Trane. 10

S ize increases are always going to cause issues in an 11

application. If that was an air handler that went 12

into an equipment room inside of a building, now you 13

would have to trade off footprint available in the 14

building for useful rental or sale for the equip ment. 15

In Washington, D.C. where there's a height 16

restriction on the buildings, how high they can be, 17

you might lose a whole floor of a building. So, from 18

an application standpoint, if you get too large, now 19

you're talking major costs that may prevent som ebody 20

from doing a big project of some kind. But you have 21

shipping issues, all that kind of stuff. 22

MR. HAUER: Major fuel costs, but not 23

necessarily life cycle costs. 24

MR. SMILEY: Right. Right. That is true. 25183

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly with AAON. The 1

other point is that air conditioning equipment has a 2

useful life that is less than the life of a building. 3

So a large portion, very large portion of this 4

equipment goes on existing buildings, so we're 5

constrained into what we already have. And I don' t 6

think that it's in any of our best interests to have 7

people trying to repair poor efficiency, very old 8

units because that's the only thing they can buy that 9

fits. 10

MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. So I think we can 11

get to that. I think what we're trying to show you 12

with this slide and what we were trying to pull up 13

from the testable configuration is the idea that at 14

least based on what we had on the slides earlier this 15

wouldn't be tested in that box. And what I'm hearing 16

is that there's all these other considera tions. DOE, 17

maybe you should be testing in the box. We were 18

actually trying to simplify it with testing not in a 19

box, and I guess we leave that open to you guys. We 20

were trying to make it easier for you. 21

MR. FLY: Yeah. No, and I appreciate that. 22

M S. ARMSTRONG: Right. 23

MR. FLY: But I think the response was in 24

response to the question about what would be the 25184

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 problem if the fans got bigger and we had to put 1

larger fans in the

-- 2

MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. So I think that's 3

going to come into play an d is key when we do our 4

cost/benefit analysis. I mean, there will be certain 5

levels for which you're going to have to tell DOE, 6

DOE, this would change my cabinetry size and the costs 7

in and of itself should take care of that in terms of, 8

if you work with us to get it right, that should come 9

through in the analysis. But at least from a 10

regulatory approach standpoint at the beginning, do we 11

all agree we don't agree on anything with regards to 12

scope quite yet, but for those fans ultimately that 13

would be incl uded in scope that are unhoused 14

centrifugal, do we generally agree with the concept 15

that they should have a testable configuration that's 16

without the embedded cabinetry? 17

MR. FLY: I agree. 18

MR. WHITWELL: I don't know that I have a 19

way to test that righ t now in large quantity. 20

MS. SHEPHERD: So this is Amy Shepherd from 21

AHRI. And so I think that it runs to the central 22

issue that we have, which is that this is, when you 23

have the embedded fan and you have the standard for 24

the embedded fan in this equipm ent, you have two 25185

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 standards applicable to the equipment. So, if you're 1

having to do that test as it's embedded, then you're 2

running two tests on that covered equipment. 3

And so I guess my general point from that, 4

and it's something that we can address wh en we do this 5

presentation that we're going to do, but also from 6

DOE's end is, how does DOE construe that it has the 7

authority to have more than one standard applicable to 8

this covered equipment? 9

MS. ARMSTRONG: I mean, you know, I think 10

ultimately it's something we can definitely have a 11

conversation about, but to the extent DOE has the 12

authority to cover fans, and ultimately there is no 13

definition defining what a covered fan is. If we go 14

through the process of adding a definition by 15

rulemaking and that fan definition is broad enough to 16

cover a variety of different fans and there's no 17

differentiation about whether those fans are embedded 18

or not, then anything that meets that definition would 19

need to comply with the regulations. 20

What we're trying to do i s work with the 21

committee to find what is that right balance between 22

fans that may

-- you know, we can argue authority, we 23

can definitely talk to our lawyers about that in more 24

detail. That's not really helping us make progress, 25186

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 though, at the end of the day. What we're trying to 1

do is, how can we thread that needle? And there are 2

some fans that are in embedded equipment that is the 3

exact same fan that aren't regulated otherwise. So I 4

think we're looking for that feedback from the OEMs, 5

and that gets to our first question on the data 6

request. 7

MS. SHEPHERD: Okay. Well, I think the 8

resolution of that issue and DOE's analysis of the 9

issue would be helpful and it is moving us in the 10

right direction because DOE doesn't have the authority 11

to act outside of what it can do. 12

And so, when you look at the consumer FER 13

metric, that was something that was different and it 14

was done through specific statutory authority. And 15

here that's not there. So I think this is something 16

that's central to us and we have this concern, and we 17

can't get to consensus on this issue until we can come 18

to that concern. So I guess we definitely have our 19

homework and I would ask that DOE come back with its 20

analysis of how under the statute that all works 21

because, otherwise, it's a res triction on what you can 22

do to the fan as a covered product. 23

MR. COCHRAN: This is Pete Cochran from DOE. 24

We've taken that issue, and we're discussing it. I 25187

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 just wanted to clarify, you're asking about applying 1

testing or compliance to fans in regulated products. 2

So for embedded in nonregulatory, you're not taking 3

that position. 4

MS. SHEPHERD: Well, I think

-- I was 5

thinking about this too and I think I have to think 6

about this a little bit more, but if you have an 7

energy efficiency metric that captur es the fan use in 8

the equipment, I guess then that would, if you were 9

looking back at it the other way, that could be two 10

standards on the fan equipment. But I think that's 11

right, but I think that we'll think about that a 12

little bit more and would want yo u to kind of think 13

about that as well. 14

MR. COCHRAN: Yeah, we are. I just wanted 15

to hear where you were coming from. 16

MS. SHEPHERD: Okay. Yeah. I recognize 17

that there's two different choices going on. 18

MR. JASINSKI: All right. So I think 19

there's a lot of homework assignments around this 20

example and I think it goes back to the proposal

-- 21

Bob, are you comfortable with where we are? I mean, 22

do you feel like you got what you were looking for out 23

of this discussion, or are there additional points 24

tha t you want to bring up from this example? 25188

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MR. WHITWELL: This example? No. 1

MR. JASINSKI: Okay. So why don't we move 2

to another one that I've heard, which is the ERVs. 3

MS. ARMSTRONG: Hang on one sec before you 4

move forward. Jill wants to talk fro m Trane. Can you 5

just unmute her? Sorry. Hello? 6

MS. HOOTMAN: Hello. 7

MS. ARMSTRONG: Hey. You're good. 8

MS. HOOTMAN: Thanks. I just want to 9

clarify something that you said, Ashley. And thank 10

you. That's my equipment there, so I can really 11

unde rstand what you're talking about. That fan that 12

you have the red lines around is never produced by 13

itself. That casing, et cetera, is all manufactured 14

by us. So you're saying that you would test this in 15

this 50 foot by 14 foot by 12 foot high casing and 16

test that fan, and then I would also have to turn 17

around and test for an energy metric on IEER as well, 18

that entire test, that very expensive test and that 19

very expensive unit? 20

MS. ARMSTRONG: So I think the answer is yes 21

depending on how we end up fall ing out with this 22

sticky issue of embedded products and how do you 23

differentiate. I think you get to the heart, you just 24

got to the heart of why we're asking what's the better 25189

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 way to do this or is there a better way to do this or 1

how would you do this. 2

And I think we were coming to grapple with 3

the issue of the red box. There's general agreement, 4

I think, around the table that if the red box ends up 5

in scope in some way, fashion, or form that it should 6

be tested before it's connected to I would say the 7

housing, the cabinetry type housing, thus allowing the 8

ability for it to be tested before it's fully 9

embedded. 10

MS. HOOTMAN: Right. And I understand and I 11

agree that we should come up with some definitions, 12

just like Bob was talking about. I'm not disa greeing 13

with any of that. I guess I just want for the record 14

to say that if you were trying to make us test this 15

entire unit twice, it's substantial. 16

MR. WOLF: Three times. Don't forget the 17

gas heat. 18

MS. HOOTMAN: Oh, very good point, Bob. 19

It's sub stantial. We're talking about millions, 20

probably getting into close to billions, every single 21

time we test this stuff. Like I just said, we're 22

talking about a piece of equipment that is 50 foot 23

long, 14 foot wide, 12 foot high. Just think about 24

the expe nse. You are going to shut down this 25190

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 industry. 1

MS. ARMSTRONG: Right. So, Jill, you're 2

welcome to explain to us. I mean, we've been asking 3

since I think day one for what is that right balance. 4

You know, there are some fans that look just like 5

that th at are in equipment that's today not regulated. 6

MS. HOOTMAN: I agree. 7

MS. ARMSTRONG: And there are some fans

-- 8

MS. HOOTMAN: I agree, Ashley. 9

MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. So, I mean, help us. 10

It's not that we're necessarily saying this is the 11

way it has to be. You've heard from some of the fan 12

manufacturers around the table about they have some 13

concerns if all fans, especially fans, aren't 14

equitably

-- you know, if you don't equitably treat it 15

or if there's not a red line in the sand, that, you 16

know, DOE can figure out one from another. It's just 17

how do we do this better? And we need your help in 18

terms of solution

- finding, not necessarily just the 19

answers of no. 20

MS. HOOTMAN: I agree. I agree. I just 21

want

-- I agree we need to do that definition . I just 22

want people to understand what you're talking about in 23

that triple testing. 24

MR. STARR: So this is Louis. I have a 25191

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 question. So typically, when you look up an air 1

handler like this, there will be a catalog not unlike 2

a fan

-- 3

MS. HOOTMAN: First of all, this is a 4

package

-- I want to correct you, Louis. 5

MR. STARR: It's not a rooftop. 6

MS. HOOTMAN: It's a packaged air 7

conditioning rooftop. This particular unit doesn't 8

actually have heat in it. 9

MR. STARR: Oh, okay. 10

MS. HOOTMAN: I c ould tell you that too. 11

MALE VOICE: Otherwise it would be bigger. 12

MR. STARR: Oh, I see. So, on this one, you 13

generally can look it up and you'll see an option of 14

the fan, it'll have the fan volume and the static 15

pressures. Are those numbers

-- how is that test

-- 16

so AMCA has a test procedure for coming up with those 17

numbers. Matter of fact, one of the reason AMCA was 18

formed is because so many people used to make fans and 19

they would claim a certain performance of the fan, but 20

it didn't actually perf orm that way. 21

How does that work in air handlers? I mean, 22

because they publish information about performance of 23

the air handler. How do you know that that is an 24

accurate representation of how the equipment performs? 25192

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 Because maybe that would be one way of dealing with 1

this. Is that possible or not really or? 2

MR. SMILEY: Hello. This is Bill Smiley, 3

Trane. Of course, a lot of the equipment is tested as 4

the total package or maybe just the supply air section 5

of that equipment. The problem you run int o is if you 6

test that as a package piece of equipment, what 7

metric, what level of efficiency do you assign versus 8

testing that fan all by itself, where if that's in the 9

package, there are a variety of other parts in there 10

that are needed for the function o f the equipment that 11

affect the fan performance and consume pressure on the 12

air side. So, you know, it gets to be very confusing. 13

What do you do? 14

Now you test the fan by itself and you say, 15

okay, well, if I want the most efficient fan for that 16

CFM and what I think the total static pressure is, I 17

might put in twice the diameter of the fan, but I put 18

it in there and I'm consuming more energy because of 19

the interaction of what's going on. 20

Now some of the equipment, you know, maybe 21

the larger stuff, we pr edict performance because it's 22

not practical to test. Like, you know, you take a 23

custom air house business where every unit they build 24

is different, tremendously different from the one they 25193

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 built last month, they ship it to a job site on 10 1

trucks and ass emble it there. You know, it's just not 2

practical. I don't know. Did I answer your question 3

maybe? 4

MR. STARR: Yeah. So it sounds like they 5

predict the performance of it. 6

MR. SMILEY: In some cases. 7

MR. STARR: You know, but it sounds almost 8

like an AEDM, but

-- 9

MR. WOLF: Well, there's some prediction, 10

Louis, but also it's tested, but it's tested in the 11

unit with the coil, the filters, and gas heat if it 12

has it. So, you know, some of that

-- so, for 13

example, you could test a fan in two differe nt units, 14

the same fan in two different units, and one might be 15

a high efficiency unit with a bigger, deeper 16

evaporator coil in it. It's going to have more 17

internal static pressure, the fan might be drawing 18

more power, but the unit's going to be more effi cient, 19

right? So you have to be careful about what you test, 20

right, for this kind of stuff. 21

MR. FINE: Other questions? 22

MR. JASINSKI: Okay. Ready for a new 23

example? 24

(Laughter.) 25194

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MR. SMILEY: We need the last one figured 1

out. 2

(Laughter.) 3

FEMAL E VOICE: (Away from microphone.) 4

MR. JASINSKI: I don't think I have anymore 5

softballs, unfortunately. So this is one that was 6

mentioned earlier, energy recovery ventilator. I 7

believe this would fall into the category of an 8

unregulated piece of equipm ent. 9

MR. SMILEY: This is Bill Smiley, Trane. I 10

just would like to make a point that there are a lot 11

of products that were created to reduce overall energy 12

consumption in this country: heat recovery, 13

ventilation. I mean, you don't open your window 14

any more in an office building. You turn the air 15

conditioner off and let the outside air provide the 16

cooling. Well, that's a damn efficient way to do it. 17

So, to start with, you know, these are 18

saving a lot of energy and a lot of money in real

19

world applica tions. Just want to make sure everybody 20

understood that. These are not consuming energy and 21

that's the only function they do. They're saving from 22

consumption by other means. 23

MR. FERNSTROM: This is Gary. I hear that 24

argument frequently and

-- 25195

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MR. S MILEY: You don't believe it? 1

MR. FERNSTROM: I believe you, but my point 2

is can't we save energy more efficiently? 3

MR. SMILEY: That's what we'd like to do. 4

Yeah. 5

MALE VOICE: Adjusting the standard I think 6

is what he's saying. 7

MR. FERNSTROM: So let's make the fan that 8

saves energy use less energy itself to save that other 9

energy. 10

MR. SMILEY: Hopefully it's cost

- effective. 11

MR. FERNSTROM: Well, of course, and 12

hopefully the industry impact isn't overly burdensome 13

and all of the other DOE crit eria are met. 14

MR. STARR: So I have a question. Isn't 15

this one just seems like you'd want to make it to the 16

same efficiency the rest of the fans are since

-- I 17

mean, the other ones are a little more contentious, 18

right? It's in a regulated piece of equi pment. 19

But in this case, if you required someone to 20

put in, you know, whatever FEI or whatever the metric 21

end up becoming, seems like

-- I'm still trying to 22

figure out what the problem with doing that is. 23

Are people making this and want to not have 24

it with a more efficient fan in there or is it kind of 25196

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 the same is it's a weighting of cost and production or 1

what's the

-- I understood with the air handler a lot 2

better because you're trading off between, you know, 3

the metric is adequately capturing potenti ally what 4

the energy use is, but in this one, how does that 5

work? 6

MR. FLY: This is Mark Fly with AAON. Let 7

me kind of walk down part of that. You can put a 8

bigger in this plate, bigger plate heat exchanger in 9

there and run it at a slower, at a lower s tatic 10

pressure and at a higher efficiency and it costs more, 11

or you can put a smaller one in there and put a bigger 12

fan in there. So, I mean, there's still a tradeoff in 13

efficiency between the static pressure and the 14

efficiency of the plate and the fan en ergy you're 15

consuming. So it goes all over the place. 16

And it's also a space constrained product, 17

like many of these things. These get shoved in places 18

where many times the original design in a retrofit, 19

there was no one who intended to ever have heat 20

r ecovery and there wasn't even a thought and we're 21

trying to fit it in there. Is it better to have 22

something than not have it? Absolutely. 23

MR. STARR: So, in this case, if you were to 24

put in a bigger or more efficient fan, chances are 25197

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 you'd have a large r fan wheel, right, which means 1

you'd either have to make the case bigger or make your 2

exchanger plate smaller. Okay. 3

MR. WAGNER: Then there's the other type of 4

ERVs with the desiccant type wheels that have other 5

tradeoffs in terms of that energy perfo rmance. 6

MR. STARR: So, you know, I'm thinking is 7

there something that you envision

-- I mean, there 8

must be engineers, when they specify things, they must 9

have some way of specifying, it may be a, I don't know 10

if it's CFM per watt for the heat exchange, or they 11

must have some way of differentiating a better heat 12

exchanger or a better efficient energy recovery 13

ventilator. How do they do that typically in order to 14

drive efficiency in their product? 15

MR. SMILEY: Well, I'm not familiar with all 16

the detail s, but it would be what's the available 17

energy in the incoming stream and how much of that do 18

you recover and then what is the wattage to run the 19

equipment. So it's probably a BTU, mass flow, energy 20

metric of some kind. 21

MR. WAGNER: There is kind of a c oefficient 22

of recovery I think it's called, something like that, 23

metric that measures how much energy is recovered from 24

it versus how much energy is used. But then it also 25198

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 gets into that latent versus sensible heat and you 1

get how are you counting. 2

MR. STARR: Yeah. Intuitively, though, if 3

you wanted to make something really cheap, wouldn't 4

you just put the cheapest fan you could in there? 5

Wouldn't that be the way to go? I mean

-- 6

MR. SMILEY: Well, it depends on, you know, 7

how much heat recovery yo u want. A lot of 8

specifications will specify the required recovery in 9

energy consumption, you know, within the coefficient 10

type relationship. I'm not sure how this industry is 11

currently, the standards that are available. I'm sure 12

there are some. 13

MS. J AKOBS: So the whole utility of the 14

device is to save energy, and if you're wasting energy 15

with the blowers, then you won't be saving as much 16

overall, so the whole value is lost. 17

MR. WIGGINS: This is Steve Wiggins from 18

Newcomb & Boyd. One thing I think we need to think 19

about with this equipment, we need to be careful what 20

we're talking about about the fan driving the size of 21

the equipment. That's not true at all. That's not 22

accurate at all. What drives the size of this 23

equipment is the heat exchanger . Let's just be quite 24

frank about it. I deal with this every single day in 25199

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 retrofit and new buildings, and this is not driven by 1

fan. Your fan will rarely, if ever, drive the size of 2

this equipment. It is going to be driven by the heat 3

exchanger. It's the least efficient part of it. It 4

is what requires the most area to try to capture 5

efficiency. 6

If you do bring latent into the picture and 7

have a latent element into it, it's even going to 8

increase the size even more. So this isn't a good 9

argument fo r this particular piece of equipment. The 10

fan size will not drive the size of this piece of 11

equipment, not at all. 12

MS. WALTNER: This is Meg from NRDC. One of 13

the concerns I heard on the rooftop units was that for 14

certain rooftop units, those fans are being made 15

specifically for that unit and would never be tested 16

except or won't be tested until you're testing the 17

entire unit. I'm curious if that is also an issue for 18

energy recovery ventilators. Or here are most of the 19

fans going into ERVs fans that a re being sold from a 20

fan manufacturer to the OEM? 21

MR. HAUER: I find that statement incorrect 22

in both places. 23

MS. WALTNER: Okay. 24

MR. HAUER: For the ERV and for the rooftop 25200

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 units. You know, the fans are very universal. They 1

can be used everywhere. 2

MS. WALTNER: Okay. So what I

-- 3

MS. HOOTMAN: Excuse me? 4

MR. SMILEY: I think that there are a number 5

of

-- this is Bill Smiley, Trane. I think there are a 6

number of manufacturers that manufacture their own 7

fans and they don't sell them to other people, okay? 8

We make a lot of our own fans and we don't sell them 9

to other people. We just use them in our equipment. 10

I'm not saying all. We buy. I don't know 11

what the percentage split is. I mean, we buy from you 12

guys, but sometimes you're too expe nsive. 13

(Laughter.) 14

MS. HOOTMAN: Exactly. There's a hybrid. 15

We make our own impellers, everything. But I said 16

about that product that you were showing, that exact 17

product, since I make it. 18

MS. WALTNER: So I'm not sure that fully 19

answered my quest ion. So for ERVs, are ERV 20

manufacturers making the fans for this equipment? 21

MR. SMILEY: Bill Smiley, Trane. I would 22

guess that they do not, but I don't know that. I have 23

no data to back that up. That's just my feel. 24

MR. HOWE: Yeah. Nick Howe, Ca rnes. I 25201

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 think you're right, and, Bill, you're right too. We 1

tend to just buy them. I mean, you may make one, but 2

it's most likely going to fit in a category that we're 3

talking about. 4

MR. WOLF: This is Mike Wolf with Greenheck. 5

Yeah, we're purchasing our fans as well. Again, I 6

can't speak for everybody, but we do. 7

MR. STARR: So was this just supposed to be 8

illustrative example of any kind of piece or this 9

particular kind of equipment? 10

MR. JASINSKI: It sounds like this 11

particular kind of equipme nt because it looked

-- I 12

don't think we can make any broad statements about

-- 13

MR. STARR: Okay. Well, sounds like you may 14

have gotten this one right I think is what I'm 15

hearing, but I'm not totally sure. 16

MR. WOLF: I guess

-- this is Mike Wolf here 17

again. You know, again, for the equipment we build, 18

I'd say maybe you've got it right, I think probably 19

you do, but I'm not sure. How big does this type of 20

equipment go? I mean, there are wheels that are very, 21

very large and the equipment can get very, very big, 22

in which case I'm not sure if it's better to test the 23

whole box or test the individual fan. I can go either 24

way honestly. 252 02

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MR. JASINSKI: So just to recap, I mean, I 1

think the intent here for these exercises is to draw 2

the box where the current definitions of testable 3

configuration would put them, talk through these 4

issues, understand the impacts, implications, and 5

ultimately, you know, we're not saying that this is 6

what the working group is agreeing to, but essentially 7

just trying to get close enough for now that it allows 8

for everyone to go back, look at those definitions in 9

a little bit more detail, and then come back with we 10

agree it should stay as is or we want to make these 11

modifications in order to change these impacts, 12

whether it be what' s in the box, who's testing what's 13

in the box, et cetera. 14

MR. HARTLEIN: Sam, Dan Hartlein, TCF. I 15

don't make either of those products, so I'm not sure 16

100 percent what I'm looking at and I'm not sure if 17

everybody else would have or if anybody else in t he 18

room feels the same way, but am I looking at simply a 19

wheel, a fan wheel mounted to a motor inside that red 20

box? Is that

-- 21

MR. JASINSKI: No. 22

MALE VOICE: There's a housing. 23

MR. HARTLEIN: Oh, is that a little scrolled 24

housing? 25203

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MR. JASINSKI: There's a scrolled housing. 1

MR. HARTLEIN: Oh, okay. 2

MALE VOICE: And there's probably a little 3

less in it. 4

MR. HARTLEIN: Got you. I'm good. Thank 5

you. I couldn't tell what I was looking at. 6

MR. JASINSKI: Sorry. Yeah. 7

MR. HARTLEIN: That's okay. 8

MALE VOICE: Yeah, the air comes in at the 9

bottom and goes up to the heat exchanger and out the 10

top. 11

MR. HARTLEIN: Yeah. Yeah. No, I'm 12

familiar how they work. I just couldn't tell what I 13

was looking at in the box, so

-- 14

MR. JASINSKI: Shoul d we try for another 15

example, Ashley, or do you want to

-- 16

MS. ARMSTRONG: We can go on. 17

MR. JASINSKI: So I think we touched on this 18

one a little bit in the panel fan discussion. 19

MR. SMILEY: It looks like a condenser. 20

FEMALE VOICE: It's a packag e unit. 21

MR. SMILEY: It almost looks like a 22

residential one which could be working in a good 23

commercial environment. That's a constant problem. 24

MR. JASINSKI: So

-- well, let's talk about 25204

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 what's just inside the circle. 1

MR. SMILEY: I think that's a potential 2

problem with the package unit. I mean, that's the 3

whole package unit. That's the problem with a package 4

unit. It's the same as coming off the exchange. I 5

think there's a blower in the bottom half of that 6

unit, yeah. 7

MALE VOICE: What you ci rcled is the fan? 8

MR. JASINSKI: What I circled is a panel 9

fan. That would be included in the definitions that 10

are in the slide deck for a panel fan. Feelings on 11

that? 12

MR. SMILEY: That's the same as a condensed 13

fan even though it's got the same func tion. 14

MR. JASINSKI: Okay. So same things apply. 15

MALE VOICE: We'll look at the transcript 16

for this section. 17

MR. JASINSKI: Okay. 18

MALE VOICE: Just repeat everything you said 19

before. 20

MR. JASINSKI: Let me just document that and 21

then we'll move o n to the next one. 22

MS. JAKOBS: So this is Diane Jakobs. So, 23

when we're talking about the same fan in different 24

applications, if they had the same diameter and it was 25205

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 on that other picture and it was on this picture, I 1

mean, maybe it's three feet in dia meter, we're not 2

saying they would perform the same. 3

MR. SMILEY: Not in the application. They 4

wouldn't. 5

MS. JAKOBS: So testing it as a individual 6

standalone component doesn't really tell you anything. 7

MR. FLY: But it would be a single fan that 8

wa s

-- Mark Fly with AAON. Would be a single fan that 9

would be regulated, right? 10

MR. JASINSKI: So I think the other thing to 11

remember is that

-- 12

MS. ARMSTRONG: So I think we have to get 13

to

-- 14

MR. JASINSKI: Yeah. 15

MS. ARMSTRONG: You know, we can c ontinue, 16

but this gets to the whole regulatory approach. And 17

if we end up, the working group ends up implementing 18

something like what has been discussed within AMCA and 19

the advocates, it has to do with operating range, so 20

the fan manufacturer, while that would be certifying, 21

would be self

- certifying the full operating range of 22

that fan themselves, so it would cover your different 23

applications. 24

MR. JASINSKI: So the next example and I 25206

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 think the last one, I'm not going to draw a box 1

because this calls into question our list of required 2

components, which you'll remember included shaft and/ 3

or bearings. In this particular case, we have a 4

forward

- curved impeller loose inside of a housing, so 5

the shaft would not be present, and therefore, 6

according to the defi nitions in this spec, this is not 7

a testable configuration. 8

It would become a testable configuration as 9

soon as a motor was applied because then the shaft 10

would be present. So I think the question is, does 11

this situation call into question whether or no t the 12

shaft should be in that list of required components or 13

not? So I don't know that we necessarily are going to 14

answer it, but maybe initial thoughts and then that 15

can be part of the homework as well. 16

MR. SMILEY: Bill Smiley, Trane. What you 17

would need if you wanted to test that, you would need 18

some support mechanism for the impeller relative to 19

the housing and some sort of drive. 20

MR. JASINSKI: Right. 21

MR. SMILEY: You couldn't test the loose 22

impeller in the housing just like it is there. 23

MR. JASINSKI: Right. So this

-- 24

MR. SMILEY: You can drop it, but you 25207

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 couldn't blow air with it. 1

MR. JASINSKI: Sure. But is

-- so I 2

think

-- 3

MS. ARMSTRONG: Does it need to be the 4

specific one that's included I guess when it's 5

embedded into a larger piece of equipment? That's the 6

question. Or is there one

-- you know, we have 7

certain motors

-- for example, my motor friends aren't 8

here today, but we have certain motors that are 9

partial motors and they have certain standardized 10

things that they're all owed to use for testing 11

purposes to reduce burden. I think that's what Sam's 12

kind of getting at here. Or do we need to revise the 13

definition of testable configuration to encomp

-- I 14

don't know. That's further discussion. How would you 15

test this? 16

MR. HAUER: I would say

-- Armin Hauer 17

speaking

-- it needs bearings at least. I'm not 18

really decided about a shaft. 19

MS. ARMSTRONG: Would that be standard 20

bearings? Like could you standardize bearings or do 21

you actually think specific? Because for motors we do 22

standard. 23

MR. HARTLEIN: This is Dan from TCF. To 24

Armin's point, people are making products today 25208

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 without a shaft and the motor and that wheel are 1

integrated together. So that's where his mind was 2

going, and he's right. And so it needs the abil ity to 3

rotate and be driven. In that capacity, it can't do 4

either, right? So it needs to be able to rotate and 5

it needs to be able to be driven, and then you have a 6

testable fan. 7

MR. JASINSKI: So maybe, Armin, the fan that 8

you're envisioning, maybe we can get a picture of that 9

one and put it up here because ultimately what we're 10

saying is this one, even if it had the shaft from the 11

motor, it might still not be a testable configuration. 12

But there are fans out there that basically all 13

that's missing is the shaft and then it can be, the 14

blade can be rotated because the bearings are 15

embedded, are in the housing and the

-- 16

MR. HARTLEIN: Your bearings are in the 17

motor. It's very similar to a direct drive, but 18

there's no shaft. 19

MR. JASINSKI: I see. Ok ay. 20

MR. SMILEY: There is a shaft. 21

MR. HARTLEIN: Well. 22

MALE VOICE: The shaft doesn't attach to the 23

fan. 24

MR. HARTLEIN: Right. 25209

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 MR. JASINSKI: Okay. I know which ones 1

you're talking about. Yeah. 2

MR. BUSHNELL: It's Peter Bushnell at 3

Carrier a gain. I had a comment on the previous chart 4

showing the panel, what you're calling the panel fan. 5

I wonder if we could go back to that. So I'm not 6

sure that we really even need a class called panel 7

fan. Basically this fan is a free inlet and free 8

disch arge fan. It has a short housing around it. 9

Kind of an orifice section. And typically these kinds 10

of fans have a wide range of different types of kind 11

of casings around the blades. But I guess I'm kind of 12

getting back to my comment previously about the EU

13

327. They would not distinguish this thing as a panel 14

fan. They don't have that category defined. They 15

would just say it's a free inlet, free outlet. 16

MR. JASINSKI: Okay. I think that can be 17

included in the slides that we're putting together 18

abou t those and we can call that out as a 19

differentiation for the group to take a look at. 20

MR. BUSHNELL: Okay. 21

MS. ARMSTRONG: So I think one note just 22

back and forth. We're kind of trying to look at the 23

EU regulations ad hoc here. And perhaps I don't h ave 24

this quite right, so feel free to speak up, but our 25210

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 understanding is that EU treats them both as axial 1

fans, but the differentiation gets introduced in the 2

test procedures. So they're not actually tested the 3

same, and thus it results in different rati ngs, and 4

thus the efficiency potentials may be different and 5

may need to be analyzed differently. This gets back 6

to why we need different equipment classes at least in 7

our regulations to be able to do that. Looks like 8

it's show and tell time. 9

MR. WAGNE R: This is Greg. I think

-- 10

MR. BUSHNELL: Yeah. I think this 11

particular case would

-- 12

MR. WAGNER: Anyhow, sorry. Peter, I think 13

you're trying to differentiate that there are 14

different ways of testing. 15

MR. BUSHNELL: What I was going to say is I 16

think this particular case, yeah, this would fall 17

under static pressure. You know, you'd actually rate 18

the fan in terms of static pressure because it's a 19

predischarge fan. 20

MR. JASINSKI: I think this was our last 21

example. 22

MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. So th is is as far as 23

we had in terms of examples and how we went through 24

testable configuration. I don't know if anyone has 25211

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 anything else they want to do for the next 50 minutes 1

or if you want to reassess, think about the testable 2

configuration stuff, and then tomorrow we're going to 3

be ready to talk about test procedure and metric. 4

We want to wrap this up in the morning, but 5

we're going to go ahead and move forward to test 6

procedure and metric. To the extent you guys could 7

think about some of this stuff as well as some of our 8

homework, because we do want to be in a position 9

perhaps not tomorrow but at least at the next meeting 10

to vote some of this stuff out. 11

MR. WOLF: This is Mike Wolf. Could we get 12

a copy of this last presentation? 13

MS. ARMSTRONG: Yep . I'll circulate it. 14

Okay? 15

MR. FERNSTROM: This is Gary. We had talked 16

at the last meeting about someone perhaps taking and 17

circulating notes from our meetings. Does anyone know 18

if that was done? 19

MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. I did it on Tuesday. 20

MR. FER NSTROM: Okay. I think I have an 21

issue with my email. I think you're sending it to my 22

PG&E email, which I no longer have access to. Thank 23

you. 24

MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. Can you just come see 25212

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 me? 1

MR. FERNSTROM: I will. I'll send you the 2

correct email. Thanks. 3

MS. ARMSTRONG: So I don't hear anyone like 4

begging to stay in this room for another 45 minutes. 5

(Laughter.) 6

MR. BUBLITZ: Did we answer that question? 7

MS. ARMSTRONG: Well, no. Go ahead. 8

MR. SMITH: Well, I want to circle back 9

around to the need for a panel fan. The panel fan is 10

a creation to distinguish it from a circulating fan. 11

And while the panel fan normally doesn't have duct on 12

the inlet or outlet, it does have a pressure 13

differential, whereas a circulating fan does not. 14

That 's not a fan, right? It's not a 15

testable fan. So the implication of the definitions 16

that you've drawn is that the entity, the business 17

entity that purchases and assembles those components 18

and turns it into a testable configuration would have 19

the test bur den. 20

MR. JASINSKI: Yes, as the definitions are 21

currently written. 22

MR. SMITH: Right. So just so folks here 23

understand the implications of seeing that. 24

MR. JASINSKI: So I'll do this so that it 25213

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 reflects what the current definitions result in. 1

That' s how it would come out with the current 2

definitions. If anyone wants it to be different, then 3

we would have to revise the definitions in order to 4

achieve that. 5

MR. SMILEY: Well, we're assuming there's no 6

external rotor motor mounted in the inlet on th e other 7

side. 8

MR. JASINSKI: Right. Impeller loose in 9

housing, so

-- 10

MS. ARMSTRONG: So we'll

-- 11

MALE VOICE: Oh, hold on. 12

MR. BUBLITZ: Would it be safe enough to 13

just say you couldn't convert power to air power? 14

It's in your basic definition of a fan. 15

MS. ARMSTRONG: It wouldn't be a fan yet. I 16

mean, this would be a fan downstream, just not as 17

that

-- 18

MR. BUBLITZ: Until it's capable of 19

converting

-- 20

MS. ARMSTRONG: Correct. 21

MR. BUBLITZ:

-- power to air power, it's 22

not a fan. 23

MS. ARM STRONG: So I think what our ask is 24

to you, and this is perhaps something you need to 25214

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628

- 4888 think about, is do you want it a different way? In 1

other words, our definitions as they exist today 2

prevent a fan like this

-- it's not really a fan

-- 3

prevent this thin g from being tested, and perhaps 4

that's okay until other components are added to it 5

either integral to it or externally. So, if we want 6

to consider doing it a different way

-- that's all 7

we're asking

-- what would that way be? Okay? 8

So, if anyone wants to bring back either, 9

and the morning would be great, any feedback on some 10

of these examples or our testable configuration 11

definitions, otherwise we're going to start back up 12

with test procedure and metric, okay? 13

MALE VOICE: At? 14

MS. ARMSTRONG: Eight o'clock. 15

MALE VOICE: Eight o'clock tomorrow morning. 16

This room? 17

MS. ARMSTRONG: This room. 18

(Whereupon, at 5:15 p.m., the meeting in the 19

above

- entitled matter was adjourned, to reconvene at 20

8:00 a.m. the following day, Tuesday, May 19, 2015.) 21

// 22

// 23

// 24

// 25215

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

t apes 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

H eritage Reporting Corporation Suite 206 1220 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005

- 4018