1 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS 

WALK-IN COOLERS AND WALK-IN FREEZERS EQUIPMENT 

Room 1E-245, Forrestal Building

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20585 

9:00 a.m. 

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

 DOUG BROOKMAN, FACILITATOR 

U.S. Department of Energy Attendees: 

 CHARLES LlENZA 

 MICHAEL KIDO 

 MICHAEL McCABE 

 MARK FRIEDRICKS 

Attendees: 

 BARBARA A. FABIAN 

 Research and Development 

 Laboratory Leader Foamular 

 Insulating Systems Business 

Owens Corning Science and Technology, LLC

 275 Southwest Avenue 

Tallmadge, Ohio 44278 

 TALBOT GEE 

HARDI 

9455 Mill Run Drive, Suite 820

Columbus, Ohio 43026-7578 

TIMOTHY T. KALLNOWSKI, President

 Foam Supplies, Inc. 

4387 North Rider Trail 

 Earth City, Missouri 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 

Attendees: 

 REBECCA LEGETT 

 Navigant Consulting 

1801 K Street, Suite 500

Washington, D.C. 20006-1301 

BURL M. FINKELSTEIN, ESQ., PE, CMFGE

 KASON Industries, Inc. 

 57 Amlajack Boulevard 

Shenandoah, Georgia 30265-1093 

 MIKE HEGNER 

 Chase Industries, Inc. 

 Corporate Office 

10021 Commerce Park Drive 

Cincinnati, Ohio 45246 

MICHAEL DAVID LAYNE, Vice President

 Mr. Winter 

8080 W. 26th Court 

Hialeah, Florida 33016 

 CHARLES McCRUDDEN, Director 

 Government Relations 

ACCA 

2800 Shirlington Road, Suite 300

Arlington, Virginia 22208 

TIMOTHY BALLO, Associate Attorney

EarthJustice 

1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 702

Washington, D.C. 20036 

 STEVE COMBS 

 Manager of Engineering 

Carrier 

5878 Heards Mountain Road 

Dovesville, Virginia 22931 

 LUCAS CRAIG 

Vice President of Operations

 Craig Industries 

 401 Delaware 

Quincy, Illinois 62301 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 

Attendees: 

STEVE DUNLAP, PE, CEM, LEED AP

Dunlap Consulting Services, LLC

 1458 Acorn Way 

Mt. Olive, Alabama 35117 

ANTHONY CHRISTIE, Vice President

 Research and Development 

 Eliason Corporation 

P.O. Box 2128 

Kalamazoo, Michigan 49003 

 ELLIS CRAIG, President 

 Craig Industries 

 325 Payson Avenue 

Quincy, Illinois 62301 

MARCUS De La ROSA, Engineer

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Technology Systems Analysis Group

 902 Battelle Boulevard 

P.O. Box 999, MSIN KS-16

Richland, Washington 99352 

DARYL G. ERBS, Director

 Advanced Engineering 

 Manitowoc Foodservice Group 

 2110 South 26th Street 

P.O. Box 1720 

Manitowoc, Wisconsin 54221-1720 

JON McHUGH, PE, Principal

 McHugh Energy Consultants 

 9548 Golden Drive 

Orangevale, California 95882 

TIMOTHY M. NEAL, Marketing Manager

 Morrill Motors, Inc. 

1946 W. Cook Road 

Fort Wayne, Indiana 46818 

GRAHAM B. PARKER, Senior Staff Engineer

Technology Planning and Development

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

 902 Battelle Boulevard 

P.O. Box 999, MSIN K6-05

Richland, Washington 99352 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 

Attendees: 

WILLIAM J. RAMSEY, Research Technician

 Research and Development 

 Insulating Systems Business 

Owens Corning Science and Technology, LLC

 275 Southwest Avenue 

Tallmadge, Ohio 44278 

FRED MINELLI, Vice President

Engineering

 Kysor Panel Systems 

4201 North Beach Street 

Fort Worth, Texas 76137 

EDWARD F. OSANN, Senior Associate

ACEEE 

 National Press Building 

 529 14th Street, NW, Suite 600

Washington, D.C. 20045 

JIM PERRY, Plant Manager

 CrownTonka Thermalrite 

 Corporate Headquarters 

10700 Hwy 55, Suite 800

Plymouth, New Hampshire 05441 

 DEVIN KNAUSS, Engineer 

Refrigeration and Thermal Test Center

 Southern California Edison 

6060 N. Irwindale Avenue, Suite P

Irwindale, California 42372 

WARREN BEETON, Vice President of Engineering

 Emerson Electric 

1675 W. Campbell Road

 Sidney, Ohio 

STEVEN J. ROSENSTOCK, P.E.

 Manager, Energy Solutions 

 Edison Electric Institute 

701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20004-2596 

AMANDA SLOCUS STEVENS, Project Manager

 Energy Solutions 

 1610 Harrison Street 

Oakland, California 94612 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

Attendees: 

GRANT WILLIAMS, Associate Economist

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Technology Planning and Development

 902 Battelle Boulevard 

P.O. Box 999, MSIN K6-05

Richland, Washington 99352 

 HARVEY SACHS, Ph.D. 

Senior Fellow, Buildings Program

ACEEE 

 529 14th Street, NW, Suite 600

Washington, D.C. 20045 

DR. SRIRAM SOMASUNDARAM, FASME, FASHRAE

 Technical Group Manager 

Energy and Environment Directorate

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

 902 Battelle Boulevard 

P.O. Box 999, MSIN K5-20

Richland, Washington 99352 

KARIM AMRANE, Ph.D, Vice President

 Regulatory and Research 

AHRI 

2111 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 500

Arlington, Virginia 22201 

BELINDA CARR, Administrative Analyst

 Energetics, Inc. 

7067 Columbia Gateway Drive

Columbia, Maryland 21046 

TONY CHRISTIE, Vice President

Engineering

 Eliason Corporation 

P.O. Box 2128 

Kalamazoo, Michigan 49003 

EDWIN A. HORNQUIST, Project Manager

Design and Engineering Services

 Southern California Edison 

6042 N. Irwindale Avenue, Suite B

Irwindale, California 91702 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

6 

Attendees: 

 LOREN RASMUSSON 

 Walk-in Engineering Administrator 

Nodaka 

 727 Second Street 

P.O. Box 248 

Hudson, Wisconsin 54016 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064
 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

7 

A G E N D A 

ITEM: PAGE: 

Welcome 8 

Opening Remarks, Introductions and 8 

Agenda Review

 Doug Brookman 

Rulemaking Overview 8 

 Charles Llenza 

Test Procedure Development 49 

 Rebecca Legett 

Market & Technology Assessment & Screening 102 

Analysis

 Rebecca Legett 

Afternoon Session 

Engineering Analysis 146 

 Aris Marantan 

Markups for Equipment Price, Energy Use & 167 

End-Use Load Characterization 

Marcus De La Rosa 

Life-Cycle Cost & Payback Period Analyses 190 

 Grant Williams 

Shipments Analysis & National Impact Analysis 209

 Grant Williams 

NOPR & LCC Subgroup Analyses 220 

Sriram Somasundaram & Grant Williams 

Manufacturer Impact Analysis 223 

 Aris Marantan 

Utility Impact Analysis, Employment Impact 236 

Analysis, Environmental Assessment, Regulatory

Impact Analysis & Final Rule Analysis

 Sriram Somasundaram 

Other Issues, Questions & Comments/Closing 248 

Remarks 

Adjourn 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
5 

 

10 

 

15 

 

 

20 

 

25 

8 

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

2 (9:32 a.m.) 

3 Welcome 

4 Opening Remarks, Introductions & Agenda Overview 

MR. BROOKMAN: Good morning, everybody, and 

6 welcome. 

7 This is the U.S. Department of Energy’s 

8 Public Meeting on Energy Conservation Standards, 

9 specifically Walk-in Coolers and Walk-in Freezers 

Equipment. 

11 Today is February 4th, 2009. It’s a snowy 

12 day in Washington, D.C. We’re so glad you could make 

13 it, and I do apologize for starting a little bit late. 

14 We had a little bit of weather-related delays and also 

some technical delays. 

16 My name is Doug Brookman from Public 

17 Solutions in Baltimore. I’ll be facilitating today’s 

18 meeting. 

19 We’re going to start this morning with 

Welcoming Remarks from Charles Llenza. 

21 Rulemaking Overview 

22 MR. LLENZA: Well, welcome and we’re sorry 

23 for the delay. We’re not used to getting any kind of 

24 snow here, so it’s not much, but now we’re ready to 

start the meeting. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

9 

1 This is the start of a process here at DOE 

2 for establishing walk-in coolers and freezers standards 

3 and test procedures. The meeting discussions today are 

4 about establishing the procedures and to lay out the 

plan that the Department has in terms of establishing 

6 the process for those standards. 

7 We’re going to discuss basically six 

8 different areas here: an Introduction, Rulemaking 

9 Overview, a Preliminary Analysis, the NOPR Analysis, 

the Final Rule Analysis, and the Closing Remarks. 

11 I will be doing the Introduction part. 

12 The purpose of the framework public meeting 

13 is to present procedure and analytical approaches that 

14 the Department of Energy anticipates using in 

evaluating the proposed Energy Conservation Standards 

16 for Walk-in Coolers and Walk-in Freezers. 

17 We request for all parties and encourage 

18 participants to submit data information and written 

19 comments as we go through this process. 

This process is also to provide the framework 

21 for the rulemaking, to inform the parties of it’s 

22 content and to facilitate the rulemaking process. 

23 Background. The Energy Independence and 

24 Security Act, EISA, establishes in Section 312(a) terms 

applicable to the walk-in coolers and freezers; Section 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

10 

1 312(b) establishes specific requirements on equipment 

2 manufactured on and after January 1st, 2009. It 

3 directs DOE to publish the rule no later than January 

4 1st, 2012, and then three years after that effective 

date the standards take effect. 

6 Section 312 prescribes the methods for 

7 determining the K factor and calculating the R value of 

8 the insulation and it also directs the DOE to establish 

9 by January 1st, 2010, a test procedure for measuring 

the energy use of walk-in coolers and walk-in freezers. 

11 In Section 312(a), which defines the terms 

12 “walk-in coolers,” we are to regulate equipment, 

13 storage space, refrigerated to temperatures 

14 respectively above and/or below 32 degrees Fahrenheit, 

that can be walked into, and have a total chill storage 

16 areas of less than 3,000 square feet. 

17 The terms “walk-in cooler/walk-in freezer” do 

18 not include products designed or marketed exclusively 

19 for medical, scientific and research purposes. 

So, that is out of the scope of what we’re 

21 trying to do here at the Department of Energy. 

22 We provided a Federal Register Notice on 

23 January 6th that announced the meeting. We initially 

24 had planned to do this meeting at the end of January. 

We encountered some issues and then we issued another 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

11 

1 notification for today. 

2 I have to apologize. I know that there’s 

3 some other meetings for the industry down in Florida, 

4 but it’s difficult to establish these timelines and 

continue to move on and so this Framework meeting is 

6 taking place today. 

7 The Framework Document is in your package. 

8 It’s also on the website and basically it lays out our 

9 plan of attack for the standards that we’re trying to 

establish. 

11 We also have a series of questions throughout 

12 the Framework Document and we welcome your comments 

13 with respect to those questions as we go through the 

14 process. 

You can check the website again, you have the 

16 link, and you should be able to find the document 

17 online. 

18 There’s a process in submitting comments and 

19 all correspondence should have a RIN number and/or a 

docket number as you address this issue. There’s an e21 mail link on the website. There’s a postal and a 

22 courier method of sending comments in. 

23 I’m Charles Llenza again, and the email link 

24 is on the website. You also can submit comments to me 

directly. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

12 

1 Okay, one last thing, also, the comment 

2 period closes on February 12, 2009, for the framework 

3 period. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Steve. 

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, Edison 

6 Electric Institute. 

7 Why is the comment period so -- again, it 

8 just seems like very, very -- kind of a quick deadline, 

9 and I wasn’t sure -- you know, typically in the past, 

DOE usually provided at least a couple weeks after the 

11 workshop for people to review comments or any updates 

12 and this is, you know, eight days. 

13 MR. LLENZA: Well, usually we have a 

14 statutory requirement of 30 days after the publication 

of the documents and the problem is that we had moved 

16 the meeting out, so we gave an extra week, actually. 

17 It’s a little bit timely but at this moment, 

18 I can’t relieve anybody from the date, but the 

19 Department, you know, will still look at these comments 

as they come in. So we would appreciate that most 

21 people get the comments in by the 12th. At this point, 

22 I can’t change anything. 

23 MR. BROOKMAN: And we’ll see how that 

24 discussion develops today --

MR. LLENZA: Yes. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

13 

1 MR. BROOKMAN: -- as the day goes on. Okay. 

2 Good morning again, everybody. 

3 We would like to provide an opportunity for 

4 everybody to introduce him or herself and I’ll start 

over here. If you’d say your name and organizational 

6 affiliation, we’ll go around the room. 

7 DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, Air Conditioning, 

8 Heating and Refrigeration Institute. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: We have new microphones and 

they work so much better. So go ahead. 

11 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, Edison 

12 Electric Institute. 

13 DR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs, American Council 

14 for An Energy Efficient Economy. 

MR. OSANN: Ed Osann, Potomac Resources. I’m 

16 here today on behalf of the Appliance Standards 

17 Awareness Project. 

18 MR. McHUGH: John McHugh, McHugh Energy 

19 Consultants, here on behalf of Southern California 

Edison. 

21 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo with EarthJustice. 

22 MR. RAMSAY: Bill Ramsay with Owens Corning. 

23 MS. FABIAN: Barbara Fabian with Owens 

24 Corning. 

MR. L. CRAIG: Lucas Craig with Craig 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

14 

1 Industries. 

2 MR. E. CRAIG: Ellis Craig, Craig Industries. 

3 MR. CHRISTIE: Tony Christie with Eliason 

4 Corporation. 

MR. COMBS: Steve Combs, International Cold 

6 Storage Carrier. 

7 MR. GEE: Talbot Gee with the Heating, Air 

8 Conditioning and Refrigeration Distributors 

9 International. 

MR. DUNLAP: I’m Steve Dunlap. I’m with 

11 Dunlap Consulting Service, and I’m representing HH 

12 Technologies, which is a manufacturer of quick-acting 

13 doors for cold storage. 

14 MR. KIDO: Michael Kido, DOE. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Charles introduced himself. 

16 Aris? 

17 MR. MARANTAN: Aris Marantan, Navigant 

18 Consulting. 

19 MS. LEGETT: Rebecca Legett, Navigant 

Consulting. 

21 MR. WILLIAMS: Grant Williams, Pacific 

22 Northwest National Labs. 

23 MR. ERBS: Daryl Erbs, Manitowoc Foodservice. 

24 MR. MINELLI: Fred Minelli, Kysor Panel 

Systems. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

15 

1 MR. BEETON: Warren Beeton, Emerson Climate 

2 Technologies. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: How about we go to you next, 

4 please? 

MR. DE LA ROSA: Marcus De La Rosa, Pacific 

6 Northwest National Lab. 

7 MR. PARKER: Graham Parker, Pacific Northwest 

8 National Laboratory. 

9 MR. SOMASUNDARAM: Sriram Somasundaram, 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 

11 MR. FRIEDRICKS: Mark Friedricks, Office of 

12 Policy and International Affairs, DOE. 

13 MR. NEIL: Tim Neil with Morrill Motors. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, sir. 

MR. PERRY: Jim Perry with CrownTonka Walk-in 

16 Coolers. 

17 MR. LANGE: Mike Lange with Mr. Winter, a 

18 walk-in cooler manufacturer. 

19 MR. KALLNOWSKI: Tim Kallnowski, Foam 

Supplies. 

21 MR. HEGNER: Mike Hegner, Chase Doors. 

22 MR. RASMUSSON: Loren Rasmusson with Nodaka. 

23 MR. FINKELSTEIN: Burl Finkelstein with Kason 

24 Industries. 

MS. STEVENS: Amanda Stevens, Energy 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

16 

1 Solutions. 

2 MR. HORNQUIST: Edward Hornquist, Southern 

3 California Edison. 

4 MR. KNAUSS: Devin Knauss, Southern 

California Edison. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: In the back, yes. 

7 MR. McCRUDDEN: Charlie McCrudden, Air 

8 Conditioning Contractors of America. 

9 MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe, Department of 

Energy. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Did everybody get 

12 a chance? Okay. 

13 All of you received a packet when you walked 

14 in the door and registered. I’m going to do a very 

brief Agenda Review and then we’re going to launch 

16 right straight into this. 

17 You can -- we’ve already had Welcoming 

18 Remarks. This is the second substantive element there. 

19 Charlie, Charles has already done a small Rulemaking 

Overview. We’ll see how much more of that is needed, 

21 this frame right here. 

22 This is the framework meeting where the 

23 Department lays out the way this proceeding, this 

24 regulatory proceeding goes forward over the span of 

many months. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

17 

1 Following the Rulemaking Overview, we’ll have 

2 a Test Procedure Development description and following 

3 that Market & Technology Assessment & Screening 

4 Analysis, immediately following that Engineering 

Analysis. We’ll take a break midmorning, round about 

6 10:45 or 11. Immediately following the break, Markups 

7 for Equipment Price, Energy Use, End-Use Load 

8 Characterization, and then we’ll describe Life-Cycle 

9 Cost & Payback Period Analyses. 

We’ll break for lunch round about noon today, 

11 and then when we return from lunch, Shipments Analysis 

12 & National Impact Analysis, NOPR & LCC Subgroup 

13 Analysis, Manufacture Impact Analysis, Utility Impact 

14 Analysis, Employment Impact Analysis, Environmental 

Assessment & Regulatory Impact Analysis & then Final 

16 Rule Analysis. 

17 We’ll take a break midafternoon and then 

18 there’s an opportunity in the late afternoon for Other 

19 Issues, Questions or Comments and Closing Remarks, 

anything that anybody wishes to raise at that point. 

21 How many of you are new to these proceedings? 

22 (Show of hands.) 

23 MR. BROOKMAN: So quite a few of you. We 

24 encourage you, I would encourage you as facilitator, 

the Department benefits if you have questions, to speak 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

18 

1 up. That’s in your interests to do so and the 

2 Department wants to hear that kind of feedback and 

3 wants to hear from you. 

4 Questions or comments about the agenda? 

Steve Rosenstock? 

6 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Not about the agenda but for 

7 the new people, do you want to go over the ground 

8 rules? 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. I will. Yes, Michael 

Kido? 

11 MR. KIDO: Michael Kido, DOE. This is for 

12 the new folks. I just wanted to emphasize that your 

13 comments are extremely useful to us and with respect to 

14 what’s laid out in the statutory requirements that 

Congress had put into place. You should view this 

16 particular setting as a chance for you to help frame 

17 what the final regulations look like. 

18 So this is really -- it’s really important 

19 for the Department to get your input upfront so we can 

help frame this whole regulation in a way that will 

21 meet the energy goals as well as take into account any 

22 of the other concerns that you might have in terms of 

23 practicability and other issues. 

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. So I’d ask for 

your consideration, if you would, please. You can see 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

19 

1 this flip chart up here. I’m going to ask please speak 

2 one at a time. Please say your name for the record 

3 each time you speak. I’ll be doing my very best to cue 

4 you for speaking by name and then say your name, if you 

would, please, for the record. Please keep the focus 

6 here. Please turn your cell phones on silent mode or 

7 off. 

8 If you need to have a sidebar conversation 

9 with some, we’ll understand that if it’s more than 

about 20 seconds or so, you can simply take it out of 

11 the room. That will be fine. These microphones are 

12 now working very well, so we can now hear many of these 

13 sidebar conversations. 

14 I’d ask you to please be concise, share the 

air time with your colleagues. I know there’s a lot to 

16 be said today, and I’ll be queuing people as best I can 

17 to speak and also I wish to encourage follow-on 

18 comments; that is, to create dialogue back and forth. 

19 That’s helpful for the Department in explicating 

different points of view. 

21 So that’s the plan and the way we intend to 

22 proceed. All of you have a copy of the slides that 

23 will be presented. The general format is rather 

24 detailed slide presentations followed by opportunities 

for question and answer and comment. Okay. That’s all 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

5 

 

 

 

10 

 

15 

20 

25 

20 

1 that I had to cover. 

2 Harvey Sachs. The little green LED light 

3 should be on and bright on the microphones. 

4 DR. SACHS: In my case I try to keep it off. 

This is Harvey Sachs. 

6 Mr. Kido, are you -- may I ask if you’re from 

7 Standards side or General Counsel’s side? 

8 MR. KIDO: General Counsel. 

9 DR. SACHS: Thank you. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So then let’s proceed 

11 with Aris. 

12 Rulemaking Overview 

13 MR. MARANTAN: Good morning, everyone. Aris 

14 Marantan, Navigant Consulting. I’m one of the team, 

the analysis team leads for this project, and I’ll be 

16 going over the rulemaking process which may be useful 

17 for a lot of you here. I’ll describe each step of the 

18 overall rulemaking process and describe to you what’s 

19 included in each of these major steps. 

This slide here shows us the four major steps 

21 of the Rulemaking Analysis, where we start off with the 

22 Framework Document and that’s what we’re here today 

23 for. That is followed by the Preliminary Analysis and 

24 that’s triggered by the publication of the Preliminary 

Analysis. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

21 

1 Following that, several months later, we’ll 

2 have the NOPR or the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

3 That is the publication in the Federal Register that 

4 actually has a Proposed Energy Conservation Standard 

for consideration, and that’s followed by the Final 

6 Rule which, as Charlie mentioned earlier, is a deadline 

7 of January 1st, 2010. 

8 You can see here that the blue chevrons 

9 indicate the Federal Register Notices. So as you’ve 

seen, the Framework Document was published last month. 

11 The Preliminary Analysis will also be presented. The 

12 NOPR will be published in the Federal Register as well 

13 as the Final Rule. 

14 Then the green chevrons here indicate 

opportunities for feedback and you can see that, for 

16 the Framework Document, there’s a big green bar. The 

17 Preliminary Analysis, same thing, and for the NOPR, 

18 another opportunity for written and verbal feedback 

19 during the public meeting. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Karim. 

21 DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. Does it 

22 mean there will be no Federal Register Notice for the 

23 Preliminary Analysis? Are you going to be announcing 

24 it officially? 

MR. BROOKMAN: Charles. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

22 

1 MR. LLENZA: Charles Llenza, Department of 

2 Energy. We probably will provide a Notice that the 

3 Technical Standards Document is out there for review, 

4 the first iteration of it. So there will be some kind 

of notice out there. I’m sure we’re going to have to 

6 do that. 

7 MR. MARANTAN: The documents themselves will 

8 be published on the DOE website. 

9 Okay. A little more detail about the 

Framework Document which is the purpose of today’s 

11 public meeting. 

12 This covers the Framework Document that was 

13 also published last month on DOE’s website. It 

14 includes the framework for the analytical work that’s 

going to take place for this rulemaking. It provides 

16 an overview of the rulemaking process and encourages 

17 early participation by interested parties. 

18 As Charlie mentioned, also, there’s a lot of 

19 questions in there that we would like feedback on which 

will guide us through the analysis. So you’re 

21 encouraged to have a look at that and submit comments 

22 during the comment period and we provide here a link 

23 for that document. 

24 Moving on to the Preliminary Analysis, this 

analysis will cover the first set of analyses included. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

23 

1 We will be describing those to you today and I will 

2 highlight them for you. 

3 We start off with the Market & Technology 

4 Assessment and Screening Analysis. This feeds into the 

Engineering Analysis. Then the Engineering Analysis 

6 results will feed into subsequent analyses, including 

7 the Markups for Equipment Price Determination. The 

8 Energy Use and End-Use Load Characterization is 

9 conducted concurrently and both of those feed into the 

Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis, and then 

11 we include Shipments Analysis, as well, with the LCC 

12 that feed into the National Impact Analysis. 

13 The National Impact Analysis, we’ll describe 

14 to you later, that captures the national energy savings 

potential. 

16 Okay. The next step is the Notice of 

17 Proposed Rulemaking. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie. 

19 MR. LLENZA: On this step on the Preliminary 

Analysis, it’s a new process here, but what we’re 

21 planning to do is to provide notice of availability of 

22 data and then there will most likely be a public 

23 meeting to discuss that data. It’s going to be more of 

24 a technical meeting to discuss the data and to get more 

information from the industry at that point. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

24 

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock. 

2 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI. You 

3 know, under the previous -- the older procedure, this 

4 would be the Preliminary Analysis at the ANOPR stage, 

the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and it’s 

6 kind of a broader question. 

7 In terms of a Preliminary Analysis, are there 

8 still going -- is the Department still planning to put 

9 out, I’ll say, trial standard levels or candidate 

standard levels? I forget the exact acronym, because, 

11 you know, again to give stakeholders an idea of, you 

12 know, where the Department is going with Preliminary 

13 Analysis. 

14 MR. LLENZA: This is Charles Llenza. As part 

of the technical data that we will put out there, there 

16 would be -- the discussions are that we will put out a 

17 summary to the technical standards that we put out and 

18 in that summary some discussion to the level of what’s 

19 proposed trial standard levels we’re looking at for the 

discussions at the public meetings that would follow 

21 that. So yes, the answer is yes. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed. 

23 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann, ASAP. Under the 

24 previous framework, there would have been a technical 

support document, sort of a preliminary technical 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

25 

1 support document produced at the ANOPR stage. 

2 Will these preliminary analyses encompass 

3 what is typically found in the ANOPR stage of the 

4 Technical Support Document? 

MR. LLENZA: This is Charles Llenza, DOE. 

6 Yes, we plan to follow the same Technical Document 

7 Standard formats, except we’re probably going to be 

8 beefing up the preamble of those documents to encompass 

9 technical standard recommendations. So yes, they will 

follow the same format from a technical point of view. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Aris. 

12 MR. MARANTAN: Okay. Moving on to the Notice 

13 of Proposed Rulemaking, the first order of business for 

14 the NOPR is to update the Preliminary Analysis with any 

feedback we might receive from stakeholders and so 

16 first step here is to revise the Preliminary Analysis 

17 with updated information. 

18 Next, we conduct several analyses in this 

19 stage, including the Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis, 

Manufacturer Impact Analysis, Utility Impact Analysis, 

21 Employment Impact Analysis, Environmental Assessment, 

22 and Regulatory Impact Analysis, and we’ll hear more 

23 about each of these later today. 

24 The Final Rule consists of -- well, prior to 

the Final Rule, we include a Department of Justice 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

26 

1 review of our information and then we revise the NOPR 

2 Analyses to consider stakeholder feedback from the 

3 previous step. Then the Final Rule is published. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Comments about this? No? 

Okay. As I said early on before we started the 

6 meeting, we do provide -- pardon me -- the Department 

7 provides and encourages any individual who wishes to do 

8 so brief summary remarks on key issues, concerns that 

9 you have here at the outset for the Department’s 

consideration. So why don’t we just do that now? 

11 John, you want to start? Briefly. 

12 MR. McHUGH: Thank you. John McHugh on 

13 behalf of Southern California Edison. A couple of 

14 comments about the overall framework. 

Parallel to this proceeding, the State of 

16 California is pursuing a Title 20 Appliance Standard 

17 for walk-ins. It’s a prescriptive standard in terms of 

18 features required by walk-ins and this standard is 

19 allowed under NAECA and we plan to be well in advance 

of the 2011 deadline for that California-only appliance 

21 standard. 

22 So I just want to make sure that you’re aware 

23 of this information or this proceeding going on in 

24 parallel and we’d be very happy to share any of the 

information from our proceedings with DOE. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

27 

1 I guess the other, from an overall point of 

2 view of what’s presented here, the other issue is in 

3 terms of enforceability, the appliance standards are 

4 typically enforced at time of sale and unlike building 

standards, it becomes a little difficult to enforce 

6 whole assembly requirements when potentially some of 

7 these assemblies are sold separately. 

8 So, for instance, a standard that is based on 

9 a kilowatt hour per cubic meter-type standard might be 

difficult to enforce in that the efficiency of the box 

11 and the efficiency of the refrigerant system might --

12 you might want to regulate those separately because 

13 they could be sold separately. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Other 

summary comments here at the outset? Yes, please, and 

16 your name for the record. 

17 MR. CHRISTIE: Tony Christie with Eliason 

18 Corporation, and our concern with this Energy 

19 Independence and Security Act is that it makes no 

reference to a double-acting self-closing door which we 

21 manufacture many, many of for walk-in coolers and walk22 in freezers and that in a nutshell is our concern. 

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So in your written 

24 comments, if you’d tell the Department how you think 

that should be addressed, that would be very helpful to 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

28 

1 them. 

2 Please. 

3 MR. DUNLAP: Steve Dunlap with HH 

4 Technologies. Same comment about the performance of 

freezer doors and walk-in coolers. Infiltration 

6 losses, sealing of doors, integrity of the doors, the 

7 application itself, the operation, there’s no mention 

8 about cycles, the application itself, the number of 

9 cycles that you’ll see in a typical cold storage or 

walk-in cooler application. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. So the same 

12 thing applies. Your detailed written comments, your 

13 supportive arguments for how the Department should 

14 address that. 

Yes, please. It is Barbara? 

16 MS. FABIAN: Yes, Barbara Fabian with Owens 

17 Corning, and also representing the Extruded Polystyrene 

18 Alliance. 

19 Our concern is that in Section 312(c), 

Defining the Insulation Criteria and How You Measure 

21 the R Value, that is not a complete definition of how 

22 you would define an R value. You are missing some 

23 critical parameters there, and we will submit comments 

24 to do so. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, Michael Kido. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

29 

1 MR. KIDO: Michael Kido, DOE. Just briefly, 

2 could you sort of outline some of those, I guess, 

3 changes that you would suggest? 

4 MS. FABIAN: Yes. The one thing that you are 

missing is an age of the material. A lot of the 

6 material that is being used has a blowing agent that is 

7 retained in it for a long period of time and over time 

8 that blowing agent ages the R value changes. So you 

9 need to define an age. 

The second one is the Delta T of the 

11 equipment that is being used. You note a mean test 

12 temperature but you fail to note the Delta T that’s 

13 critical for the apparatus. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Great. Thank you. Michael 

McCabe. 

16 MR. McCABE: This is Michael McCabe with the 

17 Department. The last three questions, if I’m not 

18 mistaken, are focusing on the standards that were laid 

19 out in the 2007 legislation, the prescriptive 

requirements. 

21 For example, the foam insulation testing 

22 that’s in the existing standards, the double closure in 

23 the existing standards. 

24 This is going to be somewhat challenging 

since the proceeding today is focusing on the 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

1 performance standard which the Department will be 

2 adopting in the future, recognize that there are many 

3 issues with regards to the existing standards, and I 

4 say existing standards, referring to those laid out in 

the legislation. 

6 I would encourage you to not wait until the 

7 close of the comment period, not consider those 

8 comments as part of this proceeding, but to send them 

9 directly to Charles. If you have a question regarding 

the performance standards that are in the legislation, 

11 you can submit the question now, submit 

12 recommendations, what have you, to the Department 

13 because those are dealing with how we implement the 

14 existing requirements. They are not matter with 

regards to the standards that we will be developing 

16 that will result from this proceeding. 

17 Is that clear or anybody have any questions? 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: I see a question here and then 

19 you can go next. Steve Rosenstock. 

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI. I 

21 actually had kind of a follow-on, just as kind of an 

22 end point question. 

23 We’ve heard questions about specific 

24 requirements, for specific prescriptive requirements. 

As DOE goes down this path, and since my familiarity is 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

31 

1 that at the end point there’s going to be a, I’ll say, 

2 performance requirement based on the classes and the 

3 number of classes of equipment in this category, I’ll 

4 just refer you to the Commercial Refrigeration rule. I 

don’t know if you had a chance to look at it. 

6 There’s now 38 classes of products that have 

7 specific standards, I’ll say kilowatt hours per cubic 

8 foot or it’s based on TDA. You know, there’s an energy 

9 metric based on a size metric for the refrigeration 

equipment. I’ll just so there because I know it’s 

11 display area versus volume, depending on the equipment, 

12 but that could be the end point in terms of a 

13 performance requirement. 

14 The prescriptive requirements that are in the 

legislation still stay. They don’t change. From my 

16 understanding, from my, I’ll say, experience with the 

17 DOE rulemakings, is they are going to put out a, I’ll 

18 say, performance and energy metric that all the 

19 refrigeration equipment will have to meet, but they 

will not be able to change the legislation because the 

21 legislation mandated certain technologies and that, I 

22 think, can only be changed by other legislation, as I 

23 -- from what I understand. 

24 MR. BROOKMAN: We have Michael Kido. 

MR. KIDO: That’s right, but to the extent 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

32 

1 that there might be a gap in the statute itself that 

2 might be -- there might be a way for DOE to fill in 

3 that gap, but again it depends on the specificity of 

4 what’s being discussed within the particular statutory 

provisions. 

6 So, for example, just to say if all walk-in 

7 coolers and freezers have to be azure red or something 

8 like that, that’s something that the agency would not 

9 have any leeway to alter. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Yes, your 

11 name, please. 

12 MR. ERBS: Daryl Erbs. One of my comments 

13 relates to actually this slide and then the framework 

14 where it talks about the Final Rule for the Test 

Procedure being completed before the NOPR for the 

16 Performance Standard has been issued, and I think it’s 

17 very difficult to decouple the test method from the 

18 performance standard, that you almost need to have a 

19 good idea of what the metric is going to be and how 

you’re going to calculate that metric before you can 

21 really finalize a test method to be used in support of 

22 that. 

23 The other comment I would have, just briefly, 

24 is walk-ins are almost entirely field-assembled and so 

when I look at this, what we’re trying to take on here, 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

33 

1 it’s almost like including the house with the air 

2 conditioner in terms of a performance standard, and I 

3 think we really have to understand where we’re headed 

4 and make sure we don’t put in place something that’s 

very impractical for manufacturers to try to support. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you for those comments. 

7 So I want to return -- yes, let me see. Is it Ellis? 

8 MR. E. CRAIG: Yes, Ellis Craig, Craig 

9 Industries. I want to clarify a statement that was 

made here just a little bit earlier. 

11 I understand you can’t change the law but it 

12 was our understanding that we’re kind of defining what 

13 the law meant, but maybe I’m wrong on that. 

14 An example is that in the walk-in coolers, 

it’s got a specification of an R-32 for a freezer and 

16 an R-25 for a cooler, and it doesn’t have any time 

17 period on that. I mean, day one, it may be that way. 

18 Day two, it may be half of that, but the specification 

19 or the rule as written right now just says this is what 

it will be and if that can’t be clarified, then it’s a 

21 waste of time doing everything we’re doing here because 

22 that’s so -- such a huge fallacy, that if it can’t be 

23 defined and can’t be determined and better clarified, 

24 then we got a real big problem right here at the 

beginning. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

34 

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you for raising it. 

2 Michael Kido. 

3 MR. KIDO: I’m going to go out on a limb here 

4 and say that that is exactly the type of issue that 

we’d like to know more about because if, for example, 

6 -- I know that I am aware that there’s a number of 

7 different questions regarding the exact meaning of the 

8 various pieces that Congress inserted into this piece 

9 of legislation and, as I said before, to the extent 

that there are any gaps or some kind of vagueness in 

11 what is contained within the language of the 

12 legislation, we’d be interested in knowing your views 

13 on that and how it should be addressed or whether it 

14 needs addressing at all. 

MR. E. CRAIG: Is this -- Ellis Craig, Craig 

16 Industries. Our point of contention, which probably 

17 the main reason we’re here is because it affects our 

18 industry as a walk-in manufacturer, probably more than 

19 anything is this one simple specification that was in 

that legislation. 

21 Everybody should know in this room, according 

22 to your house, every insulation you’ve ever dealt with, 

23 that the highest R value that probably ever happens is 

24 the day it was manufactured and it changes from that 

point on. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

35 

1 So if I had a manufacturer of insulation and 

2 I could put in my walk-in that was an R-32 today and an 

3 R-5 tomorrow, I could meet this requirement and I could 

4 buy that insulation really inexpensively, I could meet 

this requirement and totally go away from the purpose 

6 of this law completely. So that’s a real concern of 

7 ours. 

8 We manufacture with three types of insulating 

9 materials. We manufacture with expanded polystyrene 

which is pretty well out of the ballgame now because of 

11 the existing rules, extruded polystyrene, and a foamed12 in-place urethane. We do all three and in the 

13 industry, everybody’s going to be in probably one of 

14 those three manufacturing processes. 

We can do all three of them, but we have 

16 found that some insulations do better in different 

17 performance criteria, different applications, like 

18 doors versus wall panels and that type of thing, and 

19 our big concern is the rules right now as written out, 

some of the options that we have to apply it may be 

21 better insulation materials than we are -- than we’re 

22 able to because the new law just rolled them out and 

23 that really concerns us. 

24 But if we don’t -- if we’re not able to 

change somehow of a better understanding of that R-32 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

36 

1 and that R-25 they put in that thing, this doesn’t meet 

2 any of these -- any of the wishes that this law is 

3 supposed to provide. 

4 MR. KIDO: Michael Kido, DOE. So if I hear 

you correctly, what you really want isn’t so much 

6 change, it’s clarification as to what these specific 

7 terms mean? 

8 MR. E. CRAIG: Yes, if clarification -- Ellis 

9 Craig, Craig Industries. If clarification takes into 

consideration of aging, then I agree with you. Okay. 

11 If that can’t be changed -- because there’s no -- if 

12 you said in your legislation that it needs to be an R13 32 in 15 years in operation, then that would be a very 

14 reasonable -- I mean that would be something -- I doubt 

very seriously there’s any insulation on the market 

16 today that could do it. 

17 But when you made this -- when -- not you but 

18 when this law came out specifying an exact insulation R 

19 value and didn’t specify any time in the future that 

that would be that, then it was kind of a worthless R 

21 value and it really impacted the industry and it 

22 impacted the product that’s being sold today. 

23 There’s several manufacturers in this room 

24 today that cannot make the product they did last year 

because of that law and it really didn’t take into 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

37 

1 consideration what that product would do. Your data 

2 here says 18-year life cycle on a walk-in and if 10 

3 years, the R value on the insulation that was more or 

4 less outlawed as of January 1st, that R value may be 

twice the size of the insulation that meets an R-32 

6 today. 

7 MR. KIDO: I think just to sum up, I think 

8 the agency is now aware of your concern and to the 

9 extent that you can sort of elaborate on that in some 

written comments to sort of lay all that out and 

11 explain it, I think that would be extremely helpful. 

12 MR. E. CRAIG: So we have submitted that 

13 comment already, but we will continue to submit 

14 comments on that order, but one thing I want to know is 

that it sounds like that’s not an etched-in-stone kind 

16 of requirement without some clarification that could 

17 have aging involved in the evaluation of it. 

18 MR. KIDO: Michael Kido, DOE. I’m not going 

19 to pin the agency down one way or another on what it 

might or might not do, but to the extent that you feel 

21 that there needs to be a clarification as to certain 

22 sections within the legislation, by all means, please 

23 let us know. 

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael McCabe. 

MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe, Department of 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

38 

1 Energy. To follow up on what Michael has said, dealing 

2 with the existing standards, those that were in EISA 

3 2007, such as the R value for the walls and the 

4 windows, the glazing requirements, there are two other 

things that are going on at this point in time dealing 

6 with those that folks may or may not be aware of. 

7 One is that we are in the process of 

8 preparing for publication in the Federal Register a 

9 final rule that adopts the standards that are in the 

legislation and adds some more detail, for example, as 

11 to the specific test procedure requirements that are in 

12 EISA for measuring the R value of the insulation. 

13 There are some issues, such as the time, the 

14 age of the insulation, which are not addressed in that 

proceeding that would be appropriate to raise in this 

16 second venue that we are dealing with. 

17 A number of people have provided -- a number 

18 of individuals and firms have provided questions to the 

19 Department and we are preparing an FAQ, frequentlyasked question, website on this product which we will 

21 answer many of those questions that we can. 

22 As far as, you know, going with what Michael 

23 said, there are going to be certain things that are in 

24 the legislation that we’re not going to be able to deal 

with. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

39 

1 The R value that is laid out, that is what it 

2 is. We’re going to -- Michael and the staff are going 

3 to have to look at some of the questions that are asked 

4 in the context of what the law requires and offer some 

interpretation, where we may have what some have 

6 referred to as a certain amount of wiggle room, if you 

7 would. 

8 To the questions both from Owens Corning and 

9 Craig Industries regarding the age of the insulation, 

the legislation generally is written for the 

11 establishing a standard for the manufacture of 

12 products. 

13 Now, for most products that are covered in 

14 this program, it is fairly straightforward. The 

manufacture is when it comes off of production and goes 

16 into a warehouse, goes into distribution. 

17 However, for central air conditioners, split18 system central air conditioners, walk-in coolers, walk19 in freezers, one can debate as to exactly when those 

products are manufactured. Are they manufactured when 

21 the panel is produced in the plant, when the door is 

22 produced at some other facility, when the strips -- I 

23 apologize that I’m not trying -- the plastic strips 

24 that are -- strip guards, when they are produced at 

some other place. What is the date of manufacture? 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

40 

1 When each of those are produced or when they’re brought 

2 together in the field? 

3 Those are some questions that you’ve touched 

4 on today and some others that we certainly need to 

consider and will influence some of the answers of 

6 questions that will probably come up, but please, with 

7 your questions, particularly with regards to questions 

8 on the existing standards, if you could be very 

9 specific as to what the question is, you know, what you 

would recommend and why, so that we can get a better 

11 appreciation of where you’re coming from because all 

12 too often we’ve found that within this program, with 

13 any conversation, we all make assumptions as to what 

14 the other person understands and we usually are wrong 

with those assumptions. 

16 So if you can ask the question, provide some 

17 background and your recommendation and the basis for 

18 that recommendation, that will help us immensely in 

19 understanding and answering and providing some guidance 

to those questions. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Mark Friedricks. 

22 MR. FRIEDRICKS: I’ll go out on a limb and 

23 mentioned a third process --

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Mark, identify yourself. 

MR. FRIEDRICKS: Mark Friedricks with the 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

41 

1 Policy Office. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

3 MR. FRIEDRICKS: A third process that, if 

4 you’re not aware of it you should be, and that is, it’s 

my understanding that there is a technical corrections 

6 bill being developed in the Senate and probably a 

7 parallel one in the House for EISA ’07. 

8 If you have specific statutory issues that 

9 you think should be addressed, you should at least 

investigate that process. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. That’s helpful. 

12 Thank you. Harvey Sachs. So we do want to still 

13 provide in the midst of this interpretive discussion 

14 here an opportunity for any stakeholder to raise 

additional issues of concern here at the outset. 

16 Harvey Sachs. 

17 DR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs, ACEEE. With really 

18 request for further clarification to both Michaels, 

19 this has been very helpful, but I’d like to turn back 

to Michael Kido’s comment that if the language had 

21 prescribed that walk-ins would be in azure, DOE would 

22 not have freedom to change to some other color. 

23 It would be my understanding that DOE would 

24 have the authority and, indeed, the expectation to 

interpret that as azure as per ASTM Standard such and 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

42 

1 such. 

2 So that paralleling that, it would seem to be 

3 within the regulatory authority of the Department and 

4 the expectation to define R value with reference to a 

particular ASTM or ANSI standard that has been 

6 developed through a consensus process. Am I wrong in 

7 that? 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael McCabe. 

9 MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe. I apologize 

that I probably was not as clear as I could have been. 

11 The first of the two proceedings that we have 

12 going on parallel to this, which is adopting the EISA 

13 standards, also has test procedures that we’re 

14 referring to as the ASTM Standard, I believe is where 

it is. All the EISA requirements are in there. 

16 So the test procedures are going to be 

17 specified and incorporated by reference and the 

18 industry test procedure. However, I do not believe 

19 that that test procedure is specific to the point as to 

saying what is the time frame after manufacture, after 

21 -- when you -- when the test is performed. 

22 It is providing the specifics as to how to 

23 set up the test, how to measure the test, and the like, 

24 but does not talk about when to test and some of the 

dialogue which has taken place so far is that -- I take 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

43 

1 from that is that the R value of certain products can 

2 change over time and so the question would be, as I 

3 would interpret it, is the R value to be X at the point 

4 in time of manufacture or one year after manufacture, 

15 years after manufacture? That’s not addressed and 

6 that is something that would, in my belief, be 

7 addressed in the second proceeding which is the 

8 frequently-asked questions. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael Kido, do you want to 

follow on there or are you okay? 

11 MR. KIDO: Actually, I had a much simpler 

12 answer for Harvey. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: We appreciate simple answers 

14 here. 

MR. KIDO: Well, if I understood your 

16 question correctly, Harvey, to the extent that, you 

17 know, there’s an expectation that somehow azure is 

18 defined somewhere, I think that’s correct because you 

19 have to have some sort of standard basis for everyone 

to follow, make sure everyone’s on the same level 

21 playing field, and if Congress had defined what that 

22 particular azure is that DOE is supposed to follow, 

23 then yes, that would be the case. 

24 If Congress didn’t mention that it has to be 

azure as defined by whatever, then I think that creates 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

44 

1 a question as to whether there needs to be some 

2 clarification there to make sure that everybody knows 

3 what azure means. 

4 Now, does that help or --

DR. SACHS: That’s very helpful. This is 

6 Harvey Sachs, and my final query on this area is that 

7 certainly in the Building Codes area where I have a 

8 little bit of experience, not much, if a standard is 

9 incorporated by reference in a regulation, then future 

versions of that are automatically incorporated by 

11 reference, and I’m getting some negative head shakes 

12 indicating --

13 MR. McCABE: This is Michael McCabe. In 

14 accordance with -- I always like to go into the General 

Counsel’s arena. I apologize. 

16 MR. LLENZA: I’ll keep you honest. 

17 MR. McCABE: The proceedings, the policy and 

18 the procedures of this program, which I understand are 

19 the norm, are that when an agency incorporates by 

reference the industry standard, that industry standard 

21 is available for public inspection at the Office of the 

22 Federal Register and at the agency that is 

23 incorporating by reference and we are incorporating by 

24 reference a specific version of the standard because it 

is what is known and it is a conscious action. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

45 

1 We cannot incorporate a standard without a 

2 specific date version to that standard because that 

3 standard could change and if that change could in this 

4 case, for this program, could affect the measure of 

efficiency and affect this program. 

6 So when we incorporate something by 

7 reference, we are incorporating a specific version and 

8 our Federal Register language is very explicit upon 

9 that, that we are incorporating that version and any 

subsequent versions are not adopted by the Department, 

11 unless the Department does such by rulemaking. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: We have to move on here pretty 

13 quick. 

14 DR. SACHS: Thank you. 

MR. BROOKMAN: I promise you. Ed, and then 

16 Steve, as briefly as possible. 

17 MR. OSANN: Yeah. Ed Osann, Appliance 

18 Standards Awareness Project. I just wanted to make a 

19 few general comments. 

We’re just beginning, I think, to get a taste 

21 for some of the challenges that will be involved in 

22 this proceeding. We’ve hardly gotten to the subject 

23 matter of this proceeding at all. 

24 We recognize that this will be an especially 

challenging rule to write. ASAP or Appliance Standards 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

46 

1 Awareness Project is sort of a joint venture of a 

2 number of efficiency advocate organizations. We intend 

3 to remain engaged throughout the process, through the 

4 development of a final rule. 

The rule that we seek is one that achieves 

6 the maximum energy savings that’s technically feasible 

7 and economically justified. That’s the standard that’s 

8 in the statute, but this will be quite a challenge. We 

9 sort of view this as kind of a shared journey. We’re 

glad to learn along the way, and we look forward to 

11 dialoguing with manufacturers and other stakeholders, 

12 both inside and outside of this room, over the next 

13 three years. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Please say your 

name. 

16 MR. FINKELSTEIN: Burl Finkelstein. Since 

17 we’ve been discussing the clarifications in the 

18 original Section 312, there’s two issues that have been 

19 brought back to our company a lot. We sell ancillary 

hardware, non-refrigeration hardware to the industry. 

21 One has been the section on saying that strip 

22 curtains or spring hinges shall be furnished to 

23 minimize air infiltration when doors are open. There’s 

24 been a lot of questions split between our customers, 

about 50/50, on what spring hinges mean. We interpret 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

47 

1 that to mean self-closing or double-acting door. A lot 

2 of customers are interpreting that just to mean spring 

3 hinges on the main door. 

4 The other issue is the 40 lumens per watt 

requirement on lighting. A number of our customers are 

6 trying to get compliance on that by saying to --

7 instructing their customers to use a certain type of 

8 bulb and we think that leaves a lot of interpretation. 

9 If it’s a fixture that doesn’t require a certain bulb, 

somebody can change the type of bulb later and you 

11 don’t have a sustainable standard and you don’t have 

12 the original intent even, depending on what they 

13 install in the field. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. So on both of 

those issues, as both Michael McCabe and Michael Kido 

16 have already said, very specific comments about how you 

17 think it should be and why to the Department and that 

18 will provide them a lot of information they need to 

19 proceed with their interpretation. 

 Steve Rosenstock. 

21 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, Edison 

22 Electric Institute. I’ve really enjoyed this 

23 discussion, and as DOE proceeds, I think it would be 

24 good for DOE and the manufacturers to get together in 

terms of frequently-asked questions, just think about 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

48 

1 it from the customer’s perspective. 

2 There’s a new standard and they’re buying a 

3 product. Maybe a how do you do know that you’re 

4 getting a product that complies with the new standard, 

what should you look for. 

6 Right now, you know, obviously there’s, you 

7 know, a custom-made versus, you know, non-custom-made, 

8 but think of it as people who have to, you know, buy 

9 these products in the market and there’s obviously a 

lot of confusion in the manufacturing community what 

11 meets the prescriptive standards. 

12 If there’s a way to work together and get 

13 something out, think about the end-use customers 

14 because, you know, that way we know they’re buying a 

product that meets the standards and will save energy 

16 for the next, you know, 15-18 years. So if possible. 

17 Thank you. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: So I think this interpretive 

19 discussion has been very useful, especially for those 

that may be new to this process. 

21 I want to turn now to our original intent 

22 which was to provide an opportunity for those that wish 

23 to do so to make summary brief remarks here at the 

24 outset before we plunge into the more detailed 

materials. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

5 

 

10 

 

15 

 

20 

25 

49 

1 Any additional comments, especially from the 

2 stakeholders? 

3 (No response.) 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So then let’s proceed 

and many of these issues will be covered in 

6 considerable depth and there’s plenty of opportunity 

7 for you to comment as we go. 

8 Test Procedure Development 

9 MS. LEGETT: Thank you, Doug. Rebecca 

Legett, Navigant Consulting. I’m going to discuss the 

11 Test Procedures for Walk-in Coolers and Freezers. 

12 As was mentioned, this is a requirement of 

13 EISA and the deadline for producing these test 

14 procedures is the end of this year. So we’re 

conducting a separate but concurrent rulemaking for the 

16 test procedures. 

17 We are not aware of any existing test 

18 procedures at this time for walk-in coolers and 

19 freezers. California has appliance efficiency 

regulations, but it states that there are no test 

21 procedures for walk-in coolers and freezers. Also, 

22 European and Australian test methods for commercial 

23 refrigeration equipment exclude walk-in coolers and 

24 freezers from their scope. 

So we would like to request comments on any 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

50 

1 existing test procedures that you are aware of either 

2 for walk-ins or for other equipment that could be used 

3 as a basis for developing the test procedures for walk4 in coolers and freezers. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Karim. 

6 DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. Well, the 

7 industry’s working on a standard as we speak and 

8 although we are on an aggressive schedule here, we are 

9 hoping to give you a draft standard by April this year 

for DOE to consider. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: A test procedure? 

12 DR. AMRANE: A test procedure. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Does it track some 

14 of the others that are mentioned here? 

DR. AMRANE: It’s going to be a new test 

16 procedure, although it’s going to be based probably on 

17 some of the standards that are already developed. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: By April of this year. 

19 Michael Kido. 

MR. KIDO: Michael Kido, DOE. Just a real 

21 quick follow-up. 

22 With respect to the development of that test 

23 procedure, just so that I have some understanding, is 

24 that internally developed or are you working with other 

stakeholders within this room to sort of flesh out how 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

51 

1 the procedure would look or --

2 DR. AMRANE: We are just starting the 

3 process. The HRA process is an open process, so 

4 anybody can participate, and if those in the room are 

interested, please let me know. 

6 DR. SACHS: Done. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. For the record, 

8 that was Harvey Sachs. 

9 Ellis. 

MR. E. CRAIG: Ellis Craig, Craig Industries. 

11 I noticed the gentleman said that the industry is 

12 working on a test procedure. What industry is he 

13 talking about? 

14 DR. AMRANE: I’m talking about the Air 

Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute. 

16 MR. E. CRAIG: Okay. And the test procedure 

17 you’re talking about is not just the refrigeration 

18 equipment but also the walk-in performance? 

19 DR. AMRANE: Right now, it’s going to be 

focusing -- and this may be part of the discussion 

21 we’re going to have today, but the way we are 

22 approaching it, I think what we want to do is separate 

23 the box from the refrigeration system and I would 

24 support what John said before. 

I think it’s going to be easier to separate 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

52 

1 the two and so we are focusing on the refrigeration 

2 system. 

3 MR. E. CRAIG: Okay. I agree with your idea 

4 of separating the two but that was confusing because I 

feel like I’m part of the industry and didn’t know 

6 anything about this test procedure being developed, so 

7 that’s why we’re asking. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: And so, Ed, just one 

9 clarification. So, Karim, the Department wants to 

develop a test procedure. Would they be welcomed to be 

11 engaged or exchange information and data with you? 

12 DR. AMRANE: Absolutely. I mean, the intent 

13 here is to open that to anybody who is interested and 

14 if Navigant or anybody wants to participate in the 

process, absolutely, they’re welcome to do so. We just 

16 started, so there is nothing yet, you know, being 

17 written. But we intend to have something done by April 

18 this year. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Ed Osann. 

MR. OSANN: Ed Osann, ASAP. This is a 

21 question for the Department. 

22 This idea of focusing on the development of a 

23 test procedure for the refrigeration elements as 

24 contrasted with sort of the thermal integrity of the 

box raises a question of whether the Department 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

53 

1 believes it has the authority in publishing a --

2 preparing a performance standard as directed by the 

3 statute, to have a performance standard that has two 

4 components. 

We had a pretty exasperating experience with 

6 the Department not too long ago, last couple years, 

7 about whether standard or standards meant that there 

8 could be more than one performance characteristic or 

9 more than one specification for a particular product 

category. 

11 It would be good to know sort of early in the 

12 process here, before we get two and a half years down 

13 the road, whether you think you have the authority 

14 under the law as it currently stands, to be able to 

adopt, should you choose that this is the most 

16 constructive way to go without precluding your options, 

17 but do you even have the authority to adopt a 

18 particular performance standard for the refrigeration 

19 components and a separately-stated performance metric 

for the thermal integrity of the box. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael Kido. 

22 MR. KIDO: Michael Kido, DOE. Since this is 

23 the first we’ve heard of this particular approach, 

24 we’ll obviously have to take a look at the statute and 

give it some thought. So I’m not going to give any 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

54 

1 position at this time. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Tim. To follow on, Ed. 

3 MR. OSANN: To follow on, I would only point 

4 out in this case, the law does say standards. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Tim. 

6 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, EarthJustice. I was 

7 just going to point out the standard does say or the 

8 statute does say standards for this one. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. John, you want to 

follow on there? 

11 MR. McHUGH: This is not a follow-on to that 

12 discussion. 

13 The next item -- I assume we’re talking right 

14 now about the Test Procedures and this is the time to 

take comment. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Before long, I want to also 

17 provide Rebecca an opportunity to finish the 

18 presentation materials, so I think that might inform 

19 any additional questions. 

So why don’t we return to that? Rebecca, you 

21 finish your slides. 

22 MS. LEGETT: Sure. Thanks, Doug. 

23 Manufacturers would follow the test procedure 

24 in order to rate their equipment, that is, to determine 

some test metric or rating value. For example, the 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

55 

1 daily energy consumption of the walk-in in kilowatt 

2 hours per day. 

3 We’re considering several options for 

4 manufacturers to be able to test their equipment, to 

rate their equipment. The first one is to test using a 

6 standard, a modified version of an existing standard, 

7 such as ARI-1200 (2008), which provides instructions 

8 for rating commercial refrigeration display cases. So 

9 we would have to modify that in order to be able to use 

it for walk-ins. 

11 Another alternative we’re considering is for 

12 manufacturers to calculate the energy consumption using 

13 an alternative efficiency determination method or AEDM 

14 that they would develop, and I’ll cover both of these 

options in more detail, but before that, I’d also say 

16 that we’re considering applying a normalization factor 

17 so that larger equipment is not at a disadvantage. For 

18 instance, dividing the test metric by a factor like the 

19 volume in cubic feet or the floor area in square feet. 

We’re considering floor area because that’s 

21 part of the EISA definition for walk-ins, less than 

22 3,000 square feet. 

23 I’m going to pause here for feedback on this 

24 question. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, briefly. Let’s leave 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

56 

1 that thing turned on. Okay? 

2 MR. ERBS: Daryl Erbs. Relative to the 

3 normalization factor, I think we would be much more 

4 supportive of a volume-based metric, not a floor. We 

manufacture walk-ins that have ceiling heights between, 

6 I think, six feet and 20 feet which could have the same 

7 floor area. 

8 So that, if you look at how much that could 

9 change the energy use, we think it’s impractical to use 

a floor area basis. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

12 MS. LEGETT: Thank you. That’s very helpful. 

13 The first rating method we’re considering is 

14 to use a modified version of ARI-1200, as I mentioned. 

This was developed for rating commercial refrigeration 

16 display cases. So it would need to be modified to be 

17 used for walk-ins. 

18 The test metric here is the daily energy 

19 consumption in kilowatt hours per day. It directs the 

manufacturer to test under the conditions in ASHRAE-72, 

21 the test method for commercial refrigerators and 

22 freezers. Although ASHRAE excludes walk-ins from its 

23 scope, we believe that the same test method could be 

24 used with modification for walk-in coolers and 

freezers. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

57 

1 This test method requires the test data to be 

2 recorded over a 24-hour period to determine the daily 

3 energy consumption and there are several pros and cons 

4 for this method. 

One advantage is basically that this has been 

6 developed already. It’s been used in the field. We 

7 know that it’s accurate and that it works for the 

8 equipment that it was written for and, like I said, we 

9 believe it could be modified. 

A disadvantage is that it would probably be 

11 more difficult to test a walk-in with this test method 

12 than a refrigerator because of the size of the walk13 ins. Also, because many walk-ins are custom-made, it 

14 might be impractical or expensive to test each one 

using this test method. 

16 I’d like to request your feedback on this 

17 issue. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock. 

19 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Kind of a big picture 

question. Steve Rosenstock, Edison Electric Institute. 

21 I don’t know if DOE’s had a chance to look (at)?. 

22 What percentage of walk-ins, and you might 

23 have to break it out between coolers and freezers, what 

24 percentage are custom-made versus, I’ll say, 

plant/manufactured, I don’t want to say mass produced, 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

58 

1 but I’ll say mass produced-made because that obviously 

2 could be a huge issue with any sort of test procedure. 

3 What’s the percentage? I don’t know. I’m just kind of 

4 curious what the percentage is, you know. If it’s 10 

percent, you know, but if it’s 90 percent, that’s a big 

6 deal. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: I’m looking to the --

8 MR. ERBS: I’ll actually -- Daryl Erbs. I 

9 can only give you a datapoint that reflects what our 

experience is. It’s not a 100 percent. It’s probably 

11 in the 90+ percent range in terms of our volume 

12 shipment --

13 MR. BROOKMAN: That are custom-made? 

14 MR. ERBS: -- that are custom. They’re 

custom-designed. We design walk-ins down to an eighth 

16 of an inch in any dimension and as many corners, 

17 angles, as people want, and that’s the majority of what 

18 we sell. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. And while you’re there, 

you wanted to have a follow-on. 

21 MR. ERBS: Yeah. I had another comment 

22 relative to limitations. 

23 The other two limitations that I think need 

24 to be brought out are the fact that the box may be 

manufactured by one company, the refrigeration system 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

59 

1 manufactured by another company. 

2 ARI-1200, the way that it measures 

3 performance would require that you integrate those two 

4 individual subsystems before you could run the test and 

that would then place the burden on the installer or 

6 someone beyond the manufacturer of those subsystems. 

7 So I think you need to consider that. 

8 Also, our walk-ins, a 3,000 square foot walk9 in is of a size where I doubt that any manufacturer has 

a large-enough test facility to put it into a 

11 controlled environment to be able to actually make that 

12 measurement. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. So I’d refer all 

14 of you to the question box which is at the bottom of 

this slide. “Walk-ins are excluded from the scope of 

16 ASHRAE-72. What might DOE need to address to be able 

17 to use this test method to rate walk-ins?” So that was 

18 responsive to that. 

19 Michael Kido. Ellis. 

MR. E. CRAIG: Yes, Ellis Craig, Craig 

21 Industries. I was going to comment that most of our 

22 walk-ins are also manufactured as custom products. So, 

23 I mean, I think you’ll find that pretty general in the 

24 industry, that custom is more, way more prevalent than 

any standard off-the-shelf. I wish it weren’t but it 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

60 

1 is. So that’s what it is. 

2 Another thing I just still want to bring up 

3 about this test method. Again, are we talking about 

4 fresh manufacturer? Are we talking about at the 

manufacturing plant on a brand-new product? If that’s 

6 all we’re testing, then it really has nothing to do 

7 with energy use over the life-cycle of 18 years that 

8 you’ve got in here because this is all -- it will look 

9 good on paper. It will look like we’re doing 

something, but that customer gets it and six months 

11 later, he has to change his compressor out because it’s 

12 not big enough because the box has changed in R value. 

13 This is all -- I don’t think it was the 

14 intent of the law to do this, but that’s what we’re 

coming to. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks. Okay. Thank you. I 

17 see -- let me see. First Tony, and then to Talbot. 

18 MR. CHRISTIE: Tony Christie with Eliason 

19 Corporation, and just as a follow-on to the 

customization of walk-in coolers and freezers, that 

21 customization includes a double-acting self-closing 

22 door as a replacement, an in-field install to the 

23 current cooler manufactured door. 

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Talbot. 

MR. GEE: This is Talbot Gee from HARDI, the 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

61 

1 Heating, Air Conditioning, Refrigeration Distributors. 

2 Along this point was our biggest questions 

3 with this because our members are primarily charged 

4 with the after-market of these once they are installed 

originally and how these standards would affect that 

6 because, to your point, our members are often charged 

7 with addressing changes in needs or parameters of the 

8 existing equipment in the servicing or replacement of 

9 that. 

So to what standard or how would you achieve 

11 whatever the standard might be in the after-market 

12 where my members will tell you that four of their 

13 engineers could look at the same spec and come up with 

14 four completely different solutions for that same 

specification? So that’s our question. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Barbara. 

17 MS. FABIAN: Yes. Barb Fabian, Owens 

18 Corning. Just another comment on the Test Procedure. 

19 We would really need to specify completely 

how it’s going to be tested. A lot of -- even though 

21 you make a panel that is completely skinned, a lot of 

22 the folks, when it’s in use, will put nails or 

23 fasteners to hold their shelving in place. There is a 

24 lot of moisture that penetrates through those 

penetrations and moisture is not a good insulator. So 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

62 

1 the R value changes. So depending on how you are going 

2 to state your test method that’s a critical parameter. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. That’s also 

4 helpful. 

Okay. We’re getting a lot of good feedback. 

6 Additional comments on issues related to the Test 

7 Procedure and how it could be made to work? Karim. 

8 DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. As I 

9 indicated, we believe that the (ARI) 1200 standard 

might not be the right approach here and we need to 

11 somehow separate the mechanical system from the box and 

12 maybe have two separate standards for that. 

13 So, as I said, we are working on the 

14 mechanical system and probably will get you something 

by April, but on the box itself, maybe we need to come 

16 up with something that would be acceptable to those who 

17 make the box. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Your plan is to work on the 

19 one but not the other? 

DR. AMRANE: Not the other, yes, at this 

21 point. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: John. 

23 MR. McHUGH: John McHugh. In preparing for 

24 our appliance standard for walk-ins, Southern 

California Edison had performed an initial evaluation 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

63 

1 of various measures. We found that there was 

2 approximately 75 gigawatt hours per year of savings 

3 just in the state of California associated with these 

4 measures. 

Two-thirds of the savings were associated 

6 with two measures. Those measures are floating head 

7 pressure control or at least preventing the head from 

8 being fixed at a condensing temperature greater than 70 

9 degrees, and also variable speed control of the 

evaporator fans. 

11 Both of those measures involve issues that 

12 are time-varying and weather-varying. So a steady 

13 state test would not capture either of those huge 

14 efficiency options. 

So in terms of developing the measure, you 

16 need to look at the changing temperatures and as well 

17 as the changing load conditions to capture that. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Let’s 

19 return to Rebecca and let her continue. 

MS. LEGETT: Another approach to the Test 

21 Procedures that we’re considering is for the 

22 manufacturing to develop an alternative efficiency 

23 determination method or AEDM. 

24 Examples of approaches to this method could 

include developing a calculation methodology or a 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

64 

1 computer simulation. However, in both cases the AEDM 

2 must be based on actual walk-in performance data and it 

3 must be verified by testing. 

4 There are several pros and cons to this 

possibility, as well. An advantage is that this could 

6 be easier to use than the test method and could address 

7 some of the difficulties that manufacturers might have 

8 with the other option. 

9 A limitation is that this method might not be 

as accurate as testing the equipment and it may be 

11 difficult to develop an AEDM, but we would like to 

12 emphasize that if a manufacturer already has a method 

13 that they use to design a walk-in or for something 

14 else, we believe that this could be modified to be able 

to determine the efficiency or energy consumption of 

16 the walk-in. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Barbara. 

18 MS. FABIAN: Barb Fabian, Owens Corning. Is 

19 the intent of that last comment to say that any 

manufacturer could develop their own methodology and 

21 how would you use that to be a comparison? How could 

22 people compare the different ratings? 

23 MS. LEGETT: We believe that this AEDM would 

24 be something that the manufacturer could develop. The 

manufacturer would have to verify that this test method 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

65 

1 actually returned a value that was true to that 

2 characteristic of the walk-in by testing a sample size 

3 of equipment, and the questions that we’re asking are 

4 requesting your feedback on what that sample size would 

be and how this test method could be verified. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Michael McCabe. 

7 MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe, Department of 

8 Energy. In follow-up, this is an approach that we have 

9 taken with a number of other products that are covered 

by the program. For example, electric distribution 

11 transformers, central air conditioners, residential 

12 central air conditioners, where there are a number of 

13 different models of products, depending --

14 specification of them may be done in the field, may be 

done in the plant. 

16 In our test procedures, we have added 

17 requirements that get to the accuracy, repeatability 

18 and the validity of the values. For example, as 

19 Rebecca was saying, that the approach, the model that 

is developed has to be validated by test data from the 

21 manufacturer. 

22 In the case of central air conditioners which 

23 I know better than the transformers, that approach, 

24 that model then has to be submitted to the Department 

for review by the Department and acceptance as a valid 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

66 

1 AEDM. 

2 So there are -- there may be ways that are 

3 unique to this industry to ensure the validity of the 

4 AEDM and that’s one of the things that we’d like to 

come out in the discussion. 

6 The purpose of the AEDM is to reduce the test 

7 burden because requiring manufacturers to test every 

8 basic model of product where you could end up having --

9 every product could end up being unique is extremely 

burdensome. So to have a computer modeling approach 

11 which has been validated, we believe, will take some of 

12 that burden off and reduce the costs of administering 

13 the program. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: And as an addition, as Rebecca 

said, you can see two specific questions there about 

16 sample size and percentage to which you would need to 

17 go to be accurate. 

18 Karim. 

19 DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. To follow 

up on what Michael just said, an AEDM may work very 

21 well for central AC because the manufacturer is in 

22 control of that central AC, so you can develop a model 

23 that will simulate the system. 

24 Here, we’re talking about a mechanical system 

and we’re talking about a box made by two different 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

67 

1 manufacturers and that’s where the challenge is going 

2 to be. 

3 So if we somehow decide to separate the two 

4 and to have a performance standard for the mechanical 

system and a performance standard for the box, then 

6 maybe that approach can be used where the manufacturers 

7 of the mechanical system would be able to have --

8 develop a program similar to program that will simulate 

9 the mechanical system and the manufacturers of the 

panels will be able to have a program that will 

11 simulate the panels. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Steve Rosenstock. 

13 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI. 

14 Since the Test Procedure is supposed to be finalized by 

January 1st of 2010, if the manufacturer -- just kind 

16 of a general question. 

17 If the manufacturers were interested in doing 

18 -- developing some sort of software methodology, would 

19 they need to get it to the Department of Energy before 

the Test Procedure was finalized or could they do it 

21 afterwards? 

22 MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe, Department of 

23 Energy. It could be -- given previous experience, I 

24 would expect that it would be done afterwards. 

MR. BROOKMAN: If at all possible -- yes. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

68 

1 MR. DUNLAP: Steve Dunlap. Real quick 

2 comment. Because of the customization of the walk-in 

3 coolers and freezers, our customers specify our doors. 

4 Consequently, we work with the walk-in cooler/freezer 

manufacturers and they don’t provide the door. So here 

6 we are talking about a box and the end user is not 

7 configured completely from the walk-in cooler 

8 manufacturer. 

9 So one of my comments is a little 

clarification on the end user. We have EISA? and today 

11 my interpretation is that the end user, our customer, 

12 is responsible to ensure that it complies with the 

13 standard and how can they and how can the manufacturer? 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. So can we 

get a response to the question of sample size and how 

16 accurate, how far, how much, how detailed, the 

17 percentage that would cause this AEDM to be accurate? 

18 Yes, Ellis. 

19 MR. E. CRAIG: Ellis Craig, Craig Industries. 

It seems to me like this is a recipe, since all the 

21 variables that we have in the walk-in business, it’s a 

22 recipe for working the system to your advantage, not 

23 that I couldn’t do it, that I could come up with a test 

24 procedure that meets the requirements set by the DOE, 

but I would probably try to write it in a way that 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

69 

1 makes it better for my company to present and so it 

2 lends itself to, I think, some really misgivings in 

3 what it’s really going to perform out in the field. 

4 So I really have a problem with each 

manufacturer coming up with their own test procedures 

6 or extrapolating out information too far without really 

7 backing it with some scientific data because it just 

8 lends itself. 

9 This is not a refrigerator that’s got an 

exact compressor and an exact box and all the doors are 

11 the same and all the -- these are all variables. It’s 

12 just not a good deal. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Karim. 

14 DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. To answer 

the question, and Michael can answer better than me, I 

16 think in the past anyway on the air conditioning side, 

17 before the model can be used it first has to be 

18 reviewed by DOE and make sure that it really does what 

19 it’s supposed to do. I think there is a check and 

balances that way. 

21 But to answer your question, you know, again 

22 we are talking here about the performance standard and 

23 we don’t even know what the metric is going to be. So, 

24 I mean, we are really -- I’m not sure that we can 

provide you feedback right now because we don’t even 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

70 

1 know what the metric is going to be. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, please. 

3 MR. ERBS: Just one last comment. Daryl 

4 Erbs. Further to that point, at least for the box, I 

don’t think we even understand what the proper test 

6 methodologies might be to collect data to then use to 

7 validate AEDMs. 

8 So we almost need to start with some basic, 

9 you know, physics around where’s the load come, what 

are all the factors that need to be considered and put 

11 into a design of experiment to collect data. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Ed, and 

13 then John. 

14 MR. OSANN: A couple things. This is Ed 

Osann, ASAP. A couple things coming out of this 

16 discussion. 

17 One is that there is in this rulemaking at 

18 least the potential for wider discussion as to what is 

19 the locus of responsibility for compliance. Who is the 

manufacturer? We’ve heard -- we can draw from some of 

21 the comments that have been made already that the locus 

22 of responsibility could be in several places and that 

23 sort of needs to be sorted out by the Department, but 

24 clearly there’s kind of a feedback loop there between 

what is the standard and who’s responsible for meeting 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

71 

1 it, you know, feedback loop in terms of ensuring its 

2 practicality. 

3 The other is that it’s also clear from this 

4 discussion that this question of whether the 

Department has the authority to adopt more than one 

6 metric for this product really can’t be deferred until 

7 the final rule, it’s got to be broached and resolved by 

8 the deadline for the Test Procedure. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. John. 

MR. McHUGH: This issue of having potentially 

11 different pieces of software by each manufacturer, I 

12 think raises a little bit of a concern in terms of the 

13 level playing field, in terms of people reporting 

14 efficiency numbers, based on potentially, you know, 

eight different pieces of software. 

16 Southern California Edison has been involved 

17 with the development of refrigeration software. It’s a 

18 huge expense and multiple years in developing that 

19 software. So, you know, to get to the levels of 

accuracy that would be desired for this kind of 

21 standard, I think, is problematic, and especially 

22 saying it’s going to be diffused and that there’s going 

23 to be someone or the whole group of engineers that are 

24 going to be reviewing this, I think there’s probably a 

lot of sense to having some kind of analysis method 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

72 

1 that is transparent, the algorithms are available to 

2 all participants, that the data collected to 

3 characterize equipment is in a standardized format so 

4 that test -- the tests are collected in a uniform 

manner and we have, you know, reasonable curves, that 

6 we’re not trying to extrapolate, you know, -- well, you 

7 know, we collected this information and now we’re 

8 trying to use it on completely different equipment, I 

9 think, is problematic, unless we have essentially 

developing curves for different pieces of equipment and 

11 doing this in the accepted manners of calculation. 

12 The other thing that this also brings up is 

13 if we’re looking at simulation, there has to be some 

14 kind of definition of what is the weather file that’s 

being used and then also raises a larger question of do 

16 the standards actually differ by climate zone in the 

17 United States. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael McCabe. 

19 MR. McCABE: This is Michael McCabe, 

Department of Energy. The discussion has been very 

21 valuable. I appreciate. It expands some of the 

22 difficult areas that the Department has recognized 

23 prior to this meeting. 

24 I’d like to take a couple steps back and just 

point out that the four slides that Rebecca has 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

73 

1 presented, the underlying assumption that we have had 

2 to this point in time is that we were looking to come 

3 up with an energy use metric, either kilowatt hours per 

4 cubic foot, kilowatt hours per square foot, kilowatt 

hours, you know, over a day, a year, an overall measure 

6 was what we were looking at. 

7 Some of the points that have been made and, 

8 Ed Osann, your comments are right on target. I think, 

9 Karim, you started some of them, talking about what 

AHRI is doing. 

11 Given the underlying approach that we have 

12 for these four slides as far as coming up with an 

13 annual metric or an overall metric for the measure of 

14 energy use of these products, you’ve raised some 

comments. 

16 The Department would appreciate some very 

17 specific suggestions as to what sort of approach, if 

18 this isn’t the right approach, makes sense for this 

19 industry because Ed has raised the question which I 

think is a very valid question, which we’ve struggled 

21 with, who is the manufacturer, that if we’re dealing 

22 with an overall energy metric, one could make a very 

23 good argument that the manufacturer is the heating, air 

24 conditioning contractor, the member who is assembling 

the product in the field and that they would need to 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

74 

1 have data from the refrigeration equipment 

2 manufacturer. They’d have to have information from the 

3 wall manufacturer, so on and so on, in order to come up 

4 with the annual energy use of that product, if it’s an 

annual energy use metric. 

6 If it’s a multiple standard, then it may be 

7 easier and it may be the individual refrigeration 

8 equipment manufacturer who’s going to have to certify, 

9 but you all know the industry a lot better than we do. 

Though it may very well be that nobody in this room 

11 really knows the industry particularly well, they know 

12 segments of it. 

13 AHRI knows the refrigeration manufacturers 

14 but knows nothing about -- I’m spinning -- nothing 

about the wall manufacturers. 

16 In your comments, if, with your understanding 

17 of the industry, what works and what doesn’t work, take 

18 a look at these four slides which has certain 

19 assumptions built into it and what makes sense in your 

mind as far as a metric or metrics for measuring the 

21 energy performance of these products and why is it an 

22 appropriate measure to use, in particular, going back 

23 to some of the legislative requirements, as I think 

24 that a number of you already have touched on as to why 

you believe some different approaches in one measure 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

75 

1 would be allowed in the legislation. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: This provides me an 

3 opportunity to finish with these two slides and then 

4 we’ll take additional final comments on the Test 

Procedure. 

6 So, Rebecca, please proceed. 

7 MS. LEGETT: Sure. Thank you. 

8 There are two more slides in this section. 

9 I’m going to briefly discuss the two AEDM approaches 

that I’ve mentioned: the calculation methodology 

11 approach and the computer simulation approach, and we 

12 would welcome your comments on each of those. 

13 The first one is a possible calculation 

14 methodology approach that a manufacturer could 

implement, how the manufacturer could calculate the 

16 test metric which is the daily energy consumption, and 

17 the method that we’re thinking of is to add the energy 

18 consumption of the different components. 

19 MR. ERBS: Daryl Erbs. I just have one brief 

comment. You have a box in blue over on the -- I guess 

21 my right-hand side. 

22 Some of the energy uses that you have there, 

23 I would argue, are actually related to the heat load 

24 and not independent of the heat load. So I’m not sure 

they belong over on that side of the chart. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

76 

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

2 MS. LEGETT: Okay. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl. 

4 MR. ERBS: I’m sorry. I was -- Daryl Erbs. 

Which ones and so an example might be defrost energy 

6 use, even fan energy use, depending on the control 

7 strategy that’s used for the refrigeration system. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks, Daryl. 

9 MS. LEGETT: All right. We do have a 

separate box on the left-hand side for the heat load 

11 from the electrical components but that might be a 

12 different issue. 

13 MR. LLENZA: This is Charles Llenza, 

14 Department of Energy. I encourage people to look at 

this slide and submit your comments specifically 

16 addressing those issues that have been mentioned and, 

17 you know, tell us what you think it should be so that 

18 we have an idea more specifically of what we need to 

19 change or consider. 

 Thank you. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Talbot. 

22 MR. GEE: This is Talbot from HARDI. Just 

23 for clarification on the goal here, is this a one-time 

24 calculation at the initial installation of the product 

or is this -- I just want to get a feel for what the 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

77 

1 objective is for this type of procedure. 

2 MR. LLENZA: This is Charles Llenza. Yes, 

3 the answer is yes to that. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So why don’t you finish 

with 20? 

6 MS. LEGETT: Sure. This is just a brief 

7 discussion of the computer simulation approach. 

8 As I mentioned, the manufacturer could also 

9 develop or use a computer program and again if the 

manufacturer already uses a program to design their 

11 system or to determine some other metric internally, 

12 they could modify it, we believe, to calculate the 

13 energy consumption and we would like your feedback as 

14 to whether there are any programs available for this 

for use or modification, and do they tend to be 

16 proprietary or would they be in the public domain? 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: So we have two content slides 

18 here, example of calculation methodology approach and 

19 the computer simulation approach. So comments on that. 

Ellis. 

21 MR. E. CRAIG: Ellis Craig, Craig Industries. 

22 Most manufacturers actually for the walk-ins have 

23 energy use requirements because we sell refrigeration 

24 equipment with our walk-ins and to size the right size 

refrigeration, you really kind of have to know how much 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

78 

1 energy requirement that box is going to be at a certain 

2 temperature with the load of the product that’s going 

3 in. So that’s pretty common, I would think, with most 

4 manufacturers to have. 

If not, a lot of the refrigeration equipment 

6 manufacturers have them that they will give them to the 

7 -- like Bohn and Heatcraft and several -- well, 

8 Russell. There are different manufacturers that have 

9 to have their own sizing programs which kind of go 

along that gist you’re talking about. 

11 I wanted to bring up one other idea, and I 

12 don’t know that you know this or not and it may vary by 

13 the manufacturers in here, but walk-in manufacturers, 

14 we probably sell 60 to -- 40 -- 30 to 40 percent of our 

walk-ins with no refrigeration at all. We don’t get to 

16 pick that refrigeration out. We sell to these guys 

17 over here who are the contractors and they like to go 

18 down to their local wholesaler and buy a refrigeration 

19 system and put it on locally because then they can go 

down and get the parts there locally and feel like 

21 they’re supporting them. 

22 So there are some of our customers that will 

23 not buy the refrigeration from us. So we’re sizing the 

24 walk-in according to your thing, we don’t even have 

anything to do with it, and by law, they do not have to 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

79 

1 follow the EISA law because they all have to do is walk 

2 into the wholesaler and say, well, this is an existing 

3 walk-in, we’re going to put -- and then they sell them 

4 a non-energy-efficient unit because the law is not made 

up for them. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: So you don’t even specify what 

7 the refrigeration load would be? 

8 MR. E. CRAIG: By National Sanitation 

9 Foundation, NSF, which is more of the health safety 

side, it’s a certification. You have to sell walk-ins 

11 with most health departments, they come in and inspect 

12 them. On that, there is a sticker that says the Btu 

13 requirement of that walk-in and all it says is the 

14 walk-in’s Btu requirement, okay, but we don’t sell the 

refrigeration. So we put that on the unit but the 

16 local contractor is the guy that’s going to pick what 

17 unit goes on there and how big it’s going to be. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: And whether it’s in 

19 compliance? 

MR. E. CRAIG: It won’t be in compliance. 

21 Nine times out of 10, knowing the people that we deal 

22 with, they’re not going to walk down there and say sell 

23 me the expensive stuff. They’re going to walk down 

24 there and say sell me the cheap stuff and I’m going to 

be competitive on this deal. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

80 

1 MR. BROOKMAN: I see. Okay. That’s 

2 interesting. 

3 MR. DUNLAP: Steve Dunlap. Real quick 

4 comment. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Did you say your name? 

6 MR. DUNLAP: Steve Dunlap. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

8 MR. DUNLAP: Real quick comment on 

9 infiltration, just to be sure I’m clear on that. You 

need to include air exchange between the door opening 

11 and closing because of the density differences, then 

12 infiltration could be sealing or penetrations from 

13 screws and things of that nature. So two components. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. So broad 

comments and specific comments. They’re both very 

16 helpful. 

17 Barbara. 

18 MS. FABIAN: Barb Fabian, Owens Corning. 

19 Just another quick comment to piggyback on what Charles 

said. 

21 If you are only going to do this measurement 

22 one time and you are looking to do a life-cycle cost 

23 analysis for the life of this product, that’s not going 

24 to give you the information you need. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. You’re next, sir. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

81

1 Please say your name. 

2 MR. McCRUDDEN: Charlie McCrudden, Air 

3 Conditioning Contractors of America. My members are 

4 installers and perhaps under certain definitions 

manufacturers. 

6 My question is on enforcement and penalties. 

7 As we’re creating these standards, what -- who would be 

8 -- what is the enforcement mechanism, and where would 

9 the penalties lie? With the facility owner, with the 

last person to touch the equipment, which in many cases 

11 may be my members, and is that part of this process, 

12 making comment on that? 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: So Michael McCabe, can you do 

14 that briefly? 

(Laughter.) 

16 MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe. I heard 

17 somebody behind me that said yes, to say yes. 

18 MR. DUNLAP: Steve Dunlap. We have customers 

19 today that are making changes to their walk-in cooler 

designs because of EISA and it’s their interpretation, 

21 don’t ask me where -- what authority, I’m not even sure 

22 how you would enforce it because it’s not in the 

23 buildings codes, but they’re already making changes 

24 which is a cost to the customer. It’s a cost to us to 

upgrade or, you know, provide a supplemental door of an 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

82 

1 R-32. 

2 So, consequently, you know, my understanding 

3 is that the end user is ultimately responsible to 

4 ensure that they’re in compliance with EISA, is that 

right or wrong? 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So Michael McCabe. 

7 MR. McCABE: This is Michael McCabe. Under 

8 the legislation and the regulations that we have 

9 adopted, the standard is the responsibility -- the 

manufacturer of the product is responsible for 

11 demonstrating that they comply with the standards. 

12 In this case, there are questions as to who 

13 the manufacturer is. Is it the individual who produces 

14 the refrigeration system or is it the individual who 

produces the walls, the doors, or the one who brings it 

16 all together? 

17 There is going to be a separate rulemaking on 

18 certification and enforcement standards which I would 

19 encourage folks to comment on the Test Procedure 

Rulemaking, even though the certification will not be 

21 part of that, because I think the Test Procedures will 

22 go hand in hand with the questions you’ve raised, and I 

23 would suggest that you comment as to who should be 

24 viewed as the manufacturer, how the standard would be, 

you know, enforced. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

83 

1 As far as penalties, the legislation is clear 

2 that penalties apply to the manufacturer of the 

3 product, not to the consumer of the product. So if the 

4 manufacturer is determined to be the one who brings all 

the parts together, then they put in a refrigeration 

6 system that, to take the whole, does not meet the 

7 standard, then that manufacturer, that assembler would 

8 then be, given the way the regulations are structured 

9 and applied to date, would be viewed as at fault and 

that the Department would seek penalties there. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: So I want to provide you an 

12 opportunity. Do you want to follow on? 

13 MR. DUNLAP: Yes, this is Steve Dunlap again. 

14 Then I’m not really sure exactly what I heard, but I’m 

taking it that there is no ruling as far as who is 

16 responsible for the final layout of the walk-in cooler, 

17 refrigeration, doors, the whole thing. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Since there are multiple 

19 players --

MR. DUNLAP: Since there are multiple 

21 players. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: -- in the assembly process and 

23 some determination would need to be made. 

24 I want to provide you an opportunity, as 

well. Do you want to follow on? 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

84 

1 MR. McCRUDDEN: Well, I guess my --

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Say your name again. 

3 MR. McCRUDDEN: Charlie McCrudden, Air 

4 Conditioning Contractors of America. My follow-up, I 

guess, is, is there a parallel regulation or somewhere 

6 else where this definition of manufacturer is one where 

7 it’s put in place, and then is there examples of 

8 enforcement actions and/or penalty actions that would 

9 be, you know, something that we could look at and have 

a better understanding of how this may be implemented? 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael Kido. 

12 MR. KIDO: Michael Kido, DOE. I’ll comment 

13 on the, I guess, scope issue with respect to what 

14 manufacturer means. 

If you look at -- I’ll give the citation. 

16 We’re talking about commercial products here, but a lot 

17 of the definitions refer back to those that are set out 

18 for consumer products. 

19 So, essentially, under the definition of 

manufacturer, it basically says that a manufacturer 

21 means any person who manufacturers a consumer product. 

22 So if you look at the definition of manufacturer within 

23 the statute, it says “manufacturer” means to 

24 manufacture and produce, assemble or import. 

So it’s possible that anyone who’s involved 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

85 

1 in any of those things could possibly be considered a 

2 manufacturer. So that’s what we’re dealing with right 

3 now. 

4 PARTICIPANT: Can you give the citation? 

MR. KIDO: That particular statutory 

6 provision is over in 42 USC 6291, Subparts 10 and 12. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: I want to provide an 

8 opportunity first to the manufacturers to speak on this 

9 subject. 

 Ellis, you’re next. 

11 MR. E. CRAIG: Yes, Ellis Craig, Craig 

12 Industries. We have been dealing with our 

13 refrigeration contractors out there and pretty much 

14 universally across the board our manufacturers that 

manufacture refrigeration equipment for us are making 

16 the comment that the contractor is exempt from this 

17 EISA law, more or less, because he’s doing retrofit and 

18 if he becomes the manufacturer, then he is as obligated 

19 to provide the right kind of equipment as I assume that 

I am at this point in time. 

21 We are providing EISA-compliant refrigeration 

22 systems, but the suppliers to us say, well, they’re 

23 selling a lot more that are non-EISA-compliant for 

24 retrofit than they are for EISA. They don’t stock as 

many. They’re not in inventory. They have some, but 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

86 

1 you can run out because they look at us as a small 

2 market compared to the retrofit market. 

3 Now, if they become the manufacturer of this 

4 product and they become like us, a manufacturer, does 

that mean that that retrofit exemption kind of goes by 

6 the wayside because that’s the way they’re interpreting 

7 it in the field? I’d like to know it. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: It’s hard for the Department 

9 to give a legal interpretation on the spot, I would 

imagine. 

11 MR. KIDO: We’re not going to do that now. 

12 Thanks for the comment. 

13 MR. E. CRAIG: Well, you see it’s a big 

14 important thing to us as manufacturers because my 

customer base out there right now is assuming that they 

16 are not obligated to the EISA law, so therefore they 

17 are exempt what you can say and if what we’re talking 

18 about here is including them in the manufacturing 

19 process, then on a competitive edge, I’m not 

competitive with them at this point in time, but if 

21 they become manufacturers, then we’re on the even 

22 playing field and I would say the intent of the law was 

23 to reduce energy. 

24 I don’t see how they got an exemption to 

start with, but the way they’re interpreting the law is 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

87 

1 it’s a new walk-in manufacturing situation. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: You’re raising a whole host of 

3 very practical issues and the Department -- this is 

4 very, very helpful to the Department and so if, in your 

written comments, you can very specifically tell the 

6 Department how you think they should address these 

7 issues, then that will be very helpful to them. 

8 Steve Rosenstock. 

9 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock. Is there 

another manufacturer? 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: I didn’t see any -- oh, do you 

12 want to -- please go ahead. 

13 MR. FINKELSTEIN: To emphasize what Mr. Craig 

14 said, the majority of this -- this is Burl Finkelstein 

with Kason Industries. 

16 The majority of problem installations I’ve 

17 been called out to help work on are ones where a third 

18 party contractor installed the refrigeration system. 

19 The manufacturer sold the box, somebody bought it, and 

the third party contractor installed the refrigeration 

21 system. The problems are generally related to 

22 controls, to sizing. 

23 A real common problem which would kill energy 

24 efficiency is the hot gas defrost. They don’t turn the 

fans off while the thing’s in defrost, so it fills the 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

88 

1 box with hot air which you have to defrost that later, 

2 but just to emphasize that point. 

3 The standard and testing will have to take 

4 into account the third party mechanical installation. 

MR. BROOKMAN: So thank you for that further 

6 description. 

7 Steve Rosenstock. 

8 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI. To 

9 follow up on Mr. Dunlap, working with the national 

account customers, they would say we didn’t install it, 

11 we might have specified it, but you’re responsible for 

12 all the standards, whether it’s safety or energy, 

13 whatever. We bought it, you install it and you make 

14 sure, you have to meet the standards, not us, we’re 

just the end users. That would probably be theirs. 

16 So I think they’d be stunned to hear that 

17 they’d be responsible for the federal efficiency 

18 standards. They’re responsible for operating and 

19 maintaining obviously but not for the initial 

efficiency standard. 

21 Also, in terms of the computer simulation 

22 approach --

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Respond to that, Talbot. 

24 MR. GEE: Well, yeah, let me just pretend I’m 

one of my members. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

89 

1 MR. BROOKMAN: I want to provide -- Steve 

2 wants to respond. I’ll give him a chance first since 

3 it was directed at him. Do you want to respond or just 

4 go to Talbot? 

MR. DUNLAP: No. Actually, I agree. The 

6 problem here is who’s the manufacturer? As a door 

7 manufacturer and not refrigeration, not walk-in 

8 coolers, you know, they could look at us, but there’s 

9 no single source in this whole situation because 

they’re customized products. 

11 This isn’t a unitary-type of design where the 

12 manufacturer makes a self-contained unit. It’s 

13 turnkey. So part of the challenge for DOE is to begin 

14 working on these customized types of solutions that 

vary, just like building houses. Somebody mentioned 

16 back here that you almost have to rate a house, not 

17 necessarily the air conditioning equipment. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: So, Talbot, please. 

19 MR. GEE: Well, yes, as the wholesale 

distributors of these products, I don’t necessarily 

21 want to speak for our contractor partners, but I do, to 

22 some degree, want to stick up for our customers here a 

23 little bit because they are in a tenuous situation with 

24 these things. 

So I don’t deny that there have been 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

90 

1 installation issues with some applications, but the 

2 bottom line is it’s a highly-competitive market with a 

3 lot of price pressures on it and the contractor doesn’t 

4 control all the variables either. So they’re brought 

in late in the game to try to fit the need here for 

6 this customized equipment. 

7 So that raises the point to how exactly could 

8 you make the contractor entirely responsible for the 

9 performance of the product when they really are only 

responsible for a portion of it anyway, and it really 

11 disincented from necessarily doing all of the things 

12 that the prescriptive measures would tell them they’re 

13 supposed to do in the competitive marketplace. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: So let’s let this gentleman 

follow on. Your name, please. 

16 MR. McCRUDDEN: Charlie McCrudden, Air 

17 Conditioning Contractors of America. Talbot did not 

18 want to speak for me or my members, but I will say he 

19 did a very eloquent job doing it. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Steve’s got a follow-on, then 

21 to Harvey. 

22 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Just a follow-on in terms of 

23 some of the computer simulation and again, and 

24 especially because of cost of jobs, I’m just kind of 

curious what kind of variation is there in the 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

91 

1 percentage of product in these units. Is it, you know, 

2 space filled, 10 percent versus to 90 percent? 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Ellis? 

4 MR. E. CRAIG: The variance in product going 

in -- I mean, we quote out every day and every single 

6 walk-in has a different amount of product coming in at 

7 a different temperature. It’s not like they’re 

8 bringing all frozen food in or all cool food. They may 

9 be bringing in, say, boiling soup to put in the thing. 

So there’s a huge difference in every one of these 

11 things. The load is one of the most important things 

12 when sizing the walk-in to start with, to know the 

13 refrigeration not only in just keeping the box cold but 

14 it has to cool down what you put in it. 

And just in terms of modeling, just in terms 

16 of the approach, you know, if there’s a way to, you 

17 know, -- if there was a way to do it, I’m not sure if 

18 -- I guess I’m sure some people have done it. We’re 

19 just saying in terms of energy modeling and then, of 

course, the behavior of the door opening, how often 

21 does the door open and for how long is a key 

22 determinant because of infiltration, and then, of 

23 course, there’s the, okay, what percentage of the 

24 market because I remember just doing some energy 

audits, the freezer’s located within the refrigerators. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

92 

1 I’ve seen that quite a bit, actually, just because as 

2 an energy saver, you know, it’s the ambient temperature 

3 is lower outside the freezer, so again --

4 MR. BROOKMAN: So the Department has a 

daunting challenge here. 

6 Harvey. 

7 DR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs, ACEEE. Without 

8 belaboring it, I’d like to go back and first cause a 

9 heart attack --

MR. BROOKMAN: Harvey, may I interrupt for 

11 just one second? I apologize. 

12 I wanted to make a process note. Since we 

13 started late and since we’ve got so much momentum at 

14 this point, I was going to suggest we just keep working 

till noon when we pause for lunch and I hope that no 

16 one’s going to be seriously discomfited by that. 

17 Okay. So we’re going to proceed then and 

18 keep working till noon. 

19 Harvey, please. 

DR. SACHS: Karim, please hold on so you 

21 don’t have a heart attack, but I would like to think 

22 about this a little bit from sort of first principles 

23 and suggest the Department lean toward two metrics, one 

24 for the analog of the building, which is the shell, and 

that we work as closely as possible to expressing that 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

93 

1 in kilowatt hours per square foot of surface per year, 

2 not per floor area. 

3 We have defaults for that in the language in 

4 terms of some lighting loads and other loads and a 

procedure built around this would allow the 

6 manufacturer to take credit for beating the default 

7 values which are in the prescriptive requirements. 

8 Coupled to that, I’d like to suggest we 

9 consider a refrigeration metric which has at least 

three values in it. One of them is capacity, one of 

11 them is steady state efficiency, and the third is a 

12 measure of part load efficiency, and that would subsume 

13 within it things like the default considerations for 

14 the evaporator fan and things like that. 

Einstein observed that everything should be 

16 made as simple as possible but no simpler and from what 

17 I’ve heard today and the work I did beforehand on the 

18 structure of this industry and the nature of the 

19 products, I cannot conceive of a simpler system than 

this dual metric which is going to get us anywhere at 

21 all in any finite time before all of us have retired. 

22 Thank you. 

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Would you offer who the 

24 manufacturer is? 

DR. SACHS: No. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

94

1 (Laughter.) 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: I just thought I’d ask the 

3 obvious question. 

4 Ellis. 

MR. E. CRAIG: I’ve just got a real short 

6 comment at the end. This AEDM that you were talking 

7 about, I wouldn’t be adverse to a computer model that 

8 all manufacturers followed the same model. That would 

9 not be bad at all, but to have each individual 

manufacturer come up with his own model is the problem 

11 that I would have out of that. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

13 DR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs with a follow-up. 

14 We would certainly agree with you about the 

difficulties of working with a lot of proprietary 

16 models that would be difficult to verify. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Karim. 

18 DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. I’d like to 

19 make a general comment here about Test Procedures. I 

understand that DOE is under the gun to complete the 

21 Test Procedures by the end of the year. In fact, 

22 actually, it’s going to be much less than the end of 

23 the year because you have to go through the process of 

24 publishing and so on. 

I think, and I hope Harvey would support me 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

95 

1 here because I think it’s very important that we get 

2 the Test Procedure right. If you don’t have it right, 

3 the rest is meaningless, and as far as AHRI, I can only 

4 speak for AHRI here, it doesn’t matter for us if DOE 

goes beyond the deadline of the end of the year to 

6 finish this procedure. It’s more important to us that 

7 it be done the right way and I hope that others would 

8 support me on this. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

DR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. Since my responses 

11 are questioned by Karim, I will not only endorse what 

12 he said but suggest that I will quote him when he get 

13 to the air conditioner procedure, as well. 

14 (Laughter.) 

MR. HEGNER: Mike Hegner with Chase Doors. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Mike, yes. 

17 MR. HEGNER: You know, one of the things as a 

18 manufacturer that is frustrating about this, and the 

19 sooner we get the Test Procedures done the better, is 

that we’re spending tooling and we’re doing design 

21 issues to make our products comply, based on what we 

22 think is right, and it’s possible that when the 

23 procedures come out we are not in compliance and then 

24 we have to go through the process again. 

So this is a very costly process and, quite 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

96 

1 frankly, it’s frustrating because we’re doing what we 

2 think is correct, spending the money on tooling, and 

3 then we find out we may or may not be actually in 

4 compliance. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Appreciate that. 

6 Okay. Ed Osann. 

7 MR. OSANN: I’ve a follow-up question to Mr. 

8 Craig and that is, he said awhile back --

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Is the mike on? Ed Osann. 

MR. OSANN: Ed Osann. That most 

11 manufacturers, in doing the box, most manufacturers 

12 need to have -- and I didn’t get the rest of the 

13 thought -- information on the expected load? Was that 

14 it? 

MR. E. CRAIG: Yes, in all of the -- Ellis 

16 Craig, Craig Industries. To -- when a customer calls 

17 in -- for our customer, an example would be a 

18 refrigeration contractor, calls in and has a customer 

19 who wants a walk-in, the first thing we go through is a 

series of a hundred questions just about that have to 

21 do with where is it located, is it outside, is it 

22 inside, what part of the country is it located, Arizona 

23 versus Minnesota, what product is going in, at what 

24 temperature is it going in, and how much of it is going 

in. That’s done on every single system that’s out 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

97 

1 there. 

2 So there’s a huge amount of variance that all 

3 this Test Procedure we’re talking about here really 

4 wouldn’t have anything to do with. That’s a different 

kind of load and a lot of times the refrigeration 

6 systems are way over-sized for the walk-in with a 

7 standard product load because it carries on another 

8 purpose which is cooling down the product that’s 

9 inside. 

So the efficiencies change by the product 

11 load because obviously if you’re bringing boiling 

12 material in and you want to cool it down and freeze it, 

13 it’s going to take a lot more energy than it would if 

14 you’re bringing in frozen hamburgers. 

So that’s all a big variable that’s not even 

16 being really talked about here. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Lucas, follow on there. 

18 MR. L. CRAIG: Yeah. A lot of the times it’s 

19 we establish a Btu requirement but that also handles 

worst case scenario. You may have only, you know, a 

21 week out of the year where you have a 120 degrees with 

22 95 percent humidity out there, but that’s when you get 

23 the call when, hey, our refrigeration is running 

24 constantly because it can’t keep the product at the 

given temperature that it needs to be held. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

98 

1 So when a lot of this is sized, it’s sized as 

2 a worst case scenario, not an average across the year 

3 or whatever product happened to be in there that one 

4 time, but at kind of the extremes. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Ed, follow-on, 

6 yes. 

7 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann. Does that suggest that 

8 the NSF specifications stated in Btu requirements tends 

9 to encourage the over-sizing of refrigeration 

equipment? 

11 MR. E. CRAIG: Ellis Craig, Craig Industries. 

12 The NSF requirement’s not necessarily load-based. 

13 It’s the box itself. If you have a variant, like if 

14 you’re bringing in product that’s liquid, usually 

liquids are going to take -- there’s more mass involved 

16 with them, like in your cooling them down. That would 

17 be a different Btu. That’s not what’s on the NSF box. 

18 The Btu requirement there is what it takes to 

19 keep that at a normal load which would be a frozen 

material coming in. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed, are you finished? 

22 MR. OSANN: I think so, yes. 

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Harvey. 

24 DR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs with follow-on and 

to thank Mr. Craig, both of you, that it’s, to me, 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

99 

1 very important in that you’ve helped clarify the 

2 distinction between capacity and efficiency and this is 

3 why, in my prior comment, I suggested that a 

4 refrigeration efficiency metric would have to include 

something like the part load requirements which for 

6 HVAC have often been expressed as IPLV or similar 

7 metrics. 

8 This is what allows us to have a worst case 

9 capability while having good part load efficiency and I 

certainly would be supportive of breaking apart this 

11 question of capacity from the question of efficiency. 

12 Thank you. 

13 MR. OSANN: Yes, I agree. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. Well, that 

was, I thought, a very interesting discussion, but I’d 

16 like to proceed with the slides and Rebecca’s going to 

17 continue on now and talk about Market & Technology 

18 Assessment & Screening Analysis. These are all 

19 critical bits of analyses that the Department would 

intend to conduct. 

21 Ed. 

22 MR. OSANN: Yeah. This has to do with sort 

23 of the wrap-up on Test Procedures. This is going on 

24 concurrently. 

What will be the next step in the 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

100 

1 development? What will be the next thing we see as 

2 stakeholders in the development of the Test Procedure? 

3 Will it -- do you go right to a Test Procedure NOPR? 

4 MR. McCABE: This is Michael McCabe, 

Department of Energy. The next formal publicly-noticed 

6 step in the process would be a Notice of Proposed 

7 Rulemaking regarding Test Procedures that would be 

8 published in the Federal Register. 

9 However, given the issues that have been 

raised in this morning’s conversation, there is -- we 

11 are going to have to review in detail, we always do, 

12 the comments received and on the Test Procedure issue, 

13 I fully expect that there will have to be a series of 

14 exchanges between the Department and others in a format 

that we don’t know whether or not it would be an 

16 informal one-on-one, public meeting, going to an 

17 organization, such as an AHRI or ACCEA or other 

18 organizations and talking to individuals about what 

19 their product, what works, what doesn’t work, but there 

will have to be some information exchange so that we 

21 can be better prepared and prepare that Test Procedure 

22 Proposed Rule. 

23 MR. OSANN: Might I suggest that if you make 

24 preliminary determinations as you sort of clear the 

underbrush on all these various issues that you’ve 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

101 

1 heard about today, that having something in advance of 

2 just the NOPR for people to look at and comment on 

3 would be helpful. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Ed. Karim. 

DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. I have a 

6 follow-up question. When do you expect the NOPR to go 

7 out for the Test Procedure? 

8 MR. LLENZA: Without giving a specific date 

9 --

MR. BROOKMAN: Charles Llenza. 

11 MR. LLENZA: Charles Llenza, Department of 

12 Energy. We’re expecting it some time in the summer, 

13 yes, probably late summer, but it can’t be too late. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, Karim. 

DR. AMRANE: I’d like to offer an invitation 

16 for those of you who are interested in participating in 

17 the standard development with DOE and for the 

18 contractor. So please come and see me and we’ll make 

19 sure that you are on the list so that you can 

participate with us in the development of the standard. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: A copy of everybody’s business 

22 card will be -- everybody who attended the meeting 

23 today, the Department will supply that listing of 

24 attendees and so that will have Karim’s business card 

on that with that list. Okay. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

5 

 

10 

 

15 

 

20 

25 

102 

1 So then let’s proceed with the presentation 

2 materials. We’re going to work till noon and then 

3 we’ll take a break for lunch. 

4 Market & Technology Assessment & Screening Analysis 

MS. LEGETT: Thanks, Doug. 

6 The first analysis conducted in this 

7 preliminary phase of the rulemaking is the Market & 

8 Technology Assessment or MTA and that’s what I’m going 

9 to discuss next. 

Like I said, the MTA is the first step in the 

11 preliminary analyses and it produces data that we then 

12 use in subsequent analyses, such as the Screening 

13 Analysis and the Engineering Analysis. 

14 The purpose of the MTA is to characterize the 

walk-in cooler and freezer industry and market, to 

16 determine equipment classes, and also to identify 

17 potential design options and baseline units for each 

18 equipment class. 

19 There are two parts: the Market part and the 

Technology part. In the Market Assessment, the 

21 Department will identify and characterize manufacturers 

22 of walk-in coolers and freezers, estimate market shares 

23 and trends, and address regulatory and non-regulatory 

24 initiatives intended to improve the energy efficiency 

or reduce the energy consumption of the walk-in cooler 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

103 

1 or freezer. 

2 Then in the Technology Assessment, we will 

3 identify technologies for improving energy efficiency 

4 of walk-in coolers and freezers. 

Here’s a very brief overview of the industry 

6 and market that we have information on. The numbers at 

7 the top represent totals, general totals for the 

8 industry and the pie charts at the bottom represent 

9 proportions of walk-ins that are at each temperature 

level and use for which applications, approximately. 

11 Here also -- go ahead. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Ed. 

13 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann. On the pie chart on 

14 the right, food includes beverage, would you say? 

MS. LEGETT: Possibly. 

16 MR. OSANN: And the distinction between sales 

17 and service, what -- how do you draw that? 

18 MS. LEGETT: Yeah. Sure. Food service 

19 includes applications like fast food establishments and 

restaurants, whereas food sales is retail or wholesale 

21 food, like grocery or convenience stores. 

22 MR. McHUGH: And what is Other? 

23 MR. BROOKMAN: John McHugh. 

24 MS. LEGETT: Other is anything else that 

meets the definition of a walk-in cooler or freezer. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

104 

1 MR. McHUGH: Such as? 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: John’s asking what is Other 

3 and to which Rebecca just replied and now the question 

4 is such as, Rebecca? 

MS. LEGETT: Yeah. We were hoping to receive 

6 your input on what other applications there might be. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Ellis. 

8 MR. E. CRAIG: Where do grocery store 

9 applications -- would that be --

MS. LEGETT: That would be food sales. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Wish for to gain a little bit 

12 of momentum here. So why don’t you keep going and then 

13 we’ll double back for some of these questions? 

14 MS. LEGETT: Okay. Yeah. We would like to 

receive your feedback on these issues of defining and 

16 identifying the market. 

17 So here are some typical characteristics of a 

18 walk-in. We understand that many walk-ins are custom19 made. This is not for a particular walk-in model or 

even the majority of walk-ins. We just wanted to 

21 represent the equipment in general with some of these 

22 numbers. 

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s take a question on this 

24 one. Steve Rosenstock. 

MS. LEGETT: Sure. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

105 

1 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Are we doubling back yet? 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead. 

3 MR. ROSENSTOCK: I’m sorry. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, go ahead. 

MR. ROSENSTOCK: I’m sorry. I was going to 

6 suggest that others might be medical and maybe some of 

7 the exempt categories, some of those -- when you say 

8 other in terms of end-use applications, could be 

9 medical/scientific. I just remember that. So it’s an 

FYI. 

11 MR. HEGNER: Excuse me. Mike Hegner with 

12 Chase Doors. Other also is pharmaceutical. A lot of 

13 medicines are stored in refrigerated facilities. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, please. 

MR. COMBS: Steve Combs, ICS. How about 

16 floral applications and convenience store applications 

17 and then meat processing or food processing 

18 applications? 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: That’s a help. Thank you. 

MS. LEGETT: Thank you. 

21 MR. ROSENSTOCK: And to follow up? 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock. 

23 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, Edison 

24 Electric Institute. On the next slide, I’m trying to 

go forward, the -- you know, when you say size, volume 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

106 

1 might be a better metric than -- I guess it’s floor 

2 area. 

3 MS. LEGETT: Thank you. 

4 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Square feet. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please, Talbot. 

6 MR. GEE: This is Talbot Gee with HARDI. 

7 Just a quick clarification, too. 

8 If I understood the medical applications were 

9 exempted from coverage, correct? So, in theory, it 

could be 30 some percent of the installed would not 

11 potentially be affected by this? 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Is that what you think medical 

13 is? 

14 MR. GEE: Well, I’m just -- I mean, it says 

39 percent other. We only named like three other 

16 categories, besides. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Michael McCabe. 

18 MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe. These data, the 

19 39 percent comes from the Energy Information 

Administration data and we’ll go back to the EIA data 

21 to find out exactly what it is and, of course, if this 

22 39 percent, some of it, maybe the majority, would not 

23 be covered by the regulations if they are some of the 

24 exempt products. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, Barbara. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

107 

1 MS. FABIAN: Just a question. The typical 

2 characterizations. When you came up with the 

3 insulation mean temperatures of 20 for freezers and 55 

4 for coolers, was that generated from an extrapolation 

of all of this information or where did that 

6 information come from? 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Can you repeat the question, 

8 Barbara? 

9 MS. FABIAN: Yes. You have a basis for the 

thermal R value of the insulation at mean temperature 

11 of 20 for the cooler application and 55 for the --

12 excuse me -- the other way around. 55 for the cooler, 

13 20 for the freezer. How did that -- those numbers --

14 how were they developed? 

MR. MARANTAN: Aris Marantan, Navigant 

16 Consulting. Those numbers that you described were in 

17 the legislation. 

18 Is your question as to how that came about? 

19 MS. FABIAN: Yes. 

MR. MARANTAN: Okay. I’m not at liberty -- I 

21 don’t have that information. I don’t know exactly how 

22 that was developed. 

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Karim. 

24 MR. MARANTAN: The information --

DR. AMRANE: Karim. I think most of what you 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

108 

1 have in the legislation was based on what California 

2 had done. So it was State of California who came up. 

3 MS. FABIAN: Barb Fabian, Owens Corning. I 

4 just wanted to see if we could relate that information 

back to this data. That’s all. Thank you. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks. Thanks for the 

7 query. 

8 MR. ERBS: And Daryl Erbs, and I don’t know 

9 how important these typical characteristics are because 

nothing’s typical in the walk-in world, but I don’t 

11 think your cooling capacity numbers are right. 

12 MS. LEGETT: Okay. Thank you. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Could you suggest what --

14 MR. ERBS: Well, the freezer number looks too 

small, you know, if you look at the size ratios. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. So to the extent 

17 you can provide specifics, that’s very helpful to the 

18 Department. Okay. 

19 MS. LEGETT: All right. And here’s another 

slide requesting feedback because there are no existing 

21 Federal energy conservation standards for walk-ins. 

22 The existing standards, like EISA, are design 

23 standards which specify design requirements. They 

24 don’t say anything about the energy conservation 

standards. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

109 

1 So in this rulemaking, we’re requesting input 

2 that will help us develop technologically-feasible and 

3 economically-justified energy conservation standards. 

4 So there are a couple of questions about 

market characteristics that we would like your feedback 

6 on. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed Osann. 

8 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann, ASAP. While we’re 

9 still on the subject of the market characterization 

here, I’m still struck by the extraordinarily-large 

11 fraction of other applications, and I wonder if the 

12 Department has -- is the Department intending to 

13 address perhaps in the rule or perhaps in the rule 

14 adopting the statutory standard or perhaps in the FAQs 

to provide further clarification of the exclusions? 

16 As a for instance, should walk-ins for 

17 pharmaceuticals necessarily come under the exclusions 

18 or should those be deemed to be covered products? 

19 MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe. The rule --

that language to adopt the EISA requirements is to the 

21 extent possible and in this case it will be in adopting 

22 the language in the legislation verbatim. So it will 

23 say have the exclusionary language but it will not go 

24 beyond to provide any interpretation as to where there 

may be some areas that you or others might question. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

110 

1 MR. OSANN: Did you also indicate that you’re 

2 doing an FAQ document, as well? 

3 MR. McCABE: Yes. 

4 MR. OSANN: is it possible that the FAQ 

document will contain some elaboration on that? 

6 MR. McCABE: The FAQ -- Michael McCabe. The 

7 FAQ that is in process right now does not, but specific 

8 questions, you know, can be -- and answers can be added 

9 to that. It will be a living document. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes. 

11 MR. HEGNER: Mike Hegner, Chase Doors. The 

12 other -- back to the other for a minute. I think 

13 another piece of that is most likely the food 

14 manufacturing. For example, Tyson or Sara Lee have a 

tremendous amount of refrigerated space that would go 

16 in there. Now, those are almost always going to be 

17 over 3,000 square feet. 

18 So I’m assuming that that would be exempt 

19 from this law, but that’s probably a big chunk of the 

other because any food manufacturing plant and also 

21 large distribution facilities, like a Kraft, they may 

22 have a 100,000 square feet of refrigerated space that 

23 is just for distribution that is in there, but again 

24 would not -- I’m assuming would not be under this law. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

111 

1 MR. LLENZA: This is Charles Llenza, 

2 Department of Energy. That’s part of the process here, 

3 is collecting better information, so we can 

4 characterize our market better. So we would appreciate 

all the input possible in terms of the characterization 

6 of that market and so we could define that 39 percent 

7 and get a better appreciation as to -- for the 

8 shipments, et. cetera, for our analysis. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Before we move on, two 

large question boxes, Item 3.1 and 3.2, on Slide 27, if 

11 you could just take a peak at those, I think these are 

12 consistent with some of the comments we’ve received 

13 already and also Charles’s last comment. 

14 Additional input based on Item 3.1 and 3.2. 

Sriram. 

16 MR. SOMASUNDARAM: This is Sriram 

17 Somasundaram, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 

18 One clarification on Item 3.1 is, is there a 

19 trade association or a manufacturer’s group that 

represents a majority of the manufacturers of the 

21 boxes/walk-in units? 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Ellis. 

23 MR. SOMASUNDARAM: And the other question, 

24 follow-up, was we also are asking about small or niche 

manufacturers as opposed to the major manufacturers. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

112 

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Ellis. 

2 MR. SOMASUNDARAM: So if you have any 

3 information. 

4 MR. E. CRAIG: There’s not a specific walk-in 

cooler manufacturers --

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Your name. 

7 MR. E. CRAIG: Ellis Craig, Craig Industries. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

9 MR. E. CRAIG: There’s not a specific walk-in 

cooler manufacturers association, be good if we had 

11 one, but there isn’t one. 

12 The best way to get a list of the 

13 manufacturers, though, it’s publicly available with the 

14 National Sanitation -- NSF, National Sanitation 

Foundation. To be able to sell a walk-in, like I said, 

16 in the country here, you really need to have an NSF 

17 sticker which has to do with the cleanability and 

18 everybody who sells in the food service industry has 

19 it. So those guys are already listed. It’s free. You 

can go on the Internet and download all the information 

21 about every manufacturer that has that listing and that 

22 would really include anybody who’s in the business 

23 seriously. It’s Section 7, by the way. 

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Please. 

MR. HEGNER: Mike Hegner, Chase Doors. Back 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

(301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

113 

1 to the other and the groups, there’s two other 

2 organizations. 

3 When we talk about coolers, we keep talking 

4 about cooler boxes and, you know, that smaller part, 

but if you go back to the larger side, you have an 

6 organization called International Association of Cold 

7 Storage Contractors, which is a group probably similar 

8 to your organization, but it does the larger 

9 facilities, and then there’s an organization called 

IARW, International Association of Refrigerated 

11 Warehousing, and that again will be the larger 

12 facilities. So those are both places you may want to 

13 reference. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. That’s helpful. 

Thank you. 

16 Karim. 

17 DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. We do 

18 represent manufacturers who make the mechanical system, 

19 the refrigeration system, but, unfortunately, we don’t 

have statistics or anything like that that would be 

21 helpful to this rulemaking. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks. Okay. So then 

23 let’s proceed. 

24 MS. LEGETT: Sure. Part of the Market 

Assessment is determining equipment classes for walk-in 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

114 

1 coolers and freezers. A list of the proposed equipment 

2 classes is presented in the Framework Document which I 

3 believe you all have, and here is a summary of the 

4 criteria for separation into different classes. 

For example, the capacity, whether it’s 

6 small, medium or large, whether it’s self-contained or 

7 remote-condensing, whether it’s located indoors or 

8 outdoors, or whether it’s a cooler or a freezer. 

9 These are some possibilities that we have 

considered. Based on your feedback, we will consider 

11 other criteria. We’re required to consider other 

12 performance-related features, such as those that 

13 provide utility to the consumer, or others that justify 

14 the establishment of a separate energy conservation 

standard. 

16 For example, one that’s not up here is a 

17 strictly storage walk-in versus a storage and display 

18 walk-in. Also, we will consider modifications to these 

19 divisions. For example, the size divisions. We would 

welcome feedback on how to characterize small, medium 

21 and large walk-ins and based on the feedback, we might 

22 define that differently from what’s shown here. 

23 Since you all have this in your slides, I’m 

24 going to put this next slide up just showing pictures 

of several of these equipment classes that I’ve 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

115 

1 mentioned. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. So any other major 

3 characteristics that would help further discriminate, 

4 show the differences in a useful way on class, by 

class? Talbot first. 

6 MR. GEE: I have a number of members who 

7 responded that 80 to 90 percent of the walk-ins that 

8 they touch or supply product to are actually, you know, 

9 around 200 square feet or less and there’s a big 

difference between them and even a 1,000 square foot 

11 walk-in. 

12 So there was some question of whether the 

13 small category was actually small enough. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed. 

MR. OSANN: Yeah. Ed Osann, ASAP. It wasn’t 

16 all clear that this division of 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 

17 square feet was necessarily the right way to set tiers 

18 on this or even whether square footage per se was the 

19 right way to set the tiers. 

For the same square footage, you can have 

21 different configurations that have, you know, 

22 substantially-different interior volume and also 

23 exterior surface area. 

24 MR. BROOKMAN: So you’d recommend? 

MR. OSANN: We’ll provide some comments on 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

116 

1 it. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Steve. 

3 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI. I 

4 was going to kind of agree with that, that you might 

want to have some sort of volumetric parameters, as 

6 well. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. John. 

8 MR. McHUGH: As shown in your picture, the 

9 walk-ins that have doors, the glass doors on them are 

going to have substantially different loads than those 

11 that don’t and so I think it makes sense to have a 

12 separate one with doors. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Karim. 

14 DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. Just a 

comment on the volume. I think volume makes more sense 

16 here than square footage, but also, I mean, should we 

17 distinguish between freezers and coolers? So maybe 

18 that’s something we need to add here, you know, when we 

19 classify the product. 

MR. BROOKMAN: What would you recommend to 

21 the Department? 

22 DR. AMRANE: Well, that we set up product 

23 classes with respect to coolers and to freezers. 

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Are these combined functions 

in many of these boxes? Ellis. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

117 

1 MR. E. CRAIG: Actually, the most prevalent 

2 -- Ellis Craig, Craig Industries. A lot of them are 

3 going to be combinations. If somebody is buying both 

4 of those boxes, they’re buying combinations. It’s 

cheaper to operate. They’re more efficient. They cost 

6 less. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Is it a separate --

8 MR. E. CRAIG: Separate unit. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Inside --

MR. E. CRAIG: Separate refrigeration system 

11 for both of them and they can be inside or outside. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: I see. 

13 MR. E. CRAIG: The combinations can. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl. 

MR. ERBS: Daryl Erbs. A couple other things 

16 to consider. You mentioned indoor and outdoor, but 

17 there’s actually a further distinction. You can have 

18 an outdoor box. You can have an indoor box with an 

19 outdoor condensing unit. So I think that’s a further 

subclass. 

21 And also on remote-condensing units, there 

22 are split-type condensing units where you essentially 

23 have a dedicated condensing unit that is remotely 

24 located, but in supermarket applications you also have 

rack, parallel rack systems which are remote but are 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

118 

1 very different in their characteristics and those would 

2 typically then be used to cool, to hook up to the 

3 evaporator in the walk-in. 

4 So I think on the -- it’s not enough to just 

say remote-condensing unit. We need to break that down 

6 further, as well. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, please, 

8 Steve. 

9 MR. COMBS: Steve Combs, ICS. I think there 

needs to be some consideration given to combined rooms 

11 of the same temperature storage where if you would have 

12 a large warehouse and you had two freezer units in 

13 there. Otherwise, I think that people might take 

14 liberty with that and combine the overall square 

footage and say that they exceed the 3,000 square foot 

16 limit, so they are exempt from the requirement. So it 

17 needs to be kind of considered on the units with the 

18 common wall, with a shared wall, if they’re at the same 

19 temperature potential. 

MR. BROOKMAN: That would be the feature that 

21 would cause them to fall within the definition. 

22 MR. COMBS: Right. Whether or not they used 

23 their combined square footage at that same storage 

24 temperature. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Common wall. Thank you. Yes, 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

119 

1 Aris. 

2 MR. MARANTAN: Aris from Navigant. Just a 

3 quick question for Mr. Craig. You described the 

4 combination unit earlier. 

Is there any case where you have a 

6 combination unit that’s served by one refrigeration 

7 system and provides two different temperature levels? 

8 MR. E. CRAIG: The only application that 

9 would get into that would be like a rack system that he 

was talking about. A convenience store could have a 

11 rack system with several compressors that supply to 

12 different items throughout the facility. That would be 

13 the only shared. 

14 Normal combinations are shared common wall 

with two complete separate refrigeration systems 

16 applying for it. 

17 MR. MARANTAN: Okay. Thank you. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: And those two separates would 

19 be freezer and refrigerator. 

MR. E. CRAIG: They’d be a freezer and a 

21 cooler. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: And a cooler. 

23 MR. E. CRAIG: Yeah. And usually they will 

24 try to make it so that the door enters into the cooler 

and then the door is in the common wall, so you would 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

120 

1 go from the cooler into the freezer, so it’s less 

2 expensive to open the door. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike. 

4 MR. HEGNER: Mike Hegner, Chase Doors. The 

rack systems you’re referring to, when you talk about 

6 supermarket industry, that is the common system that 

7 they use. So they almost always will have a rack system 

8 where it will be the same refrigerant literally in the 

9 cooler, the freezer, reach-in cases, stand-up cases. 

That’s all one system. So that’s a very, very common 

11 system in large supermarkets. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, please. 

13 MR. CHRISTIE: Tony Christie with Eliason 

14 Corporation. In all of these pictures that I see here 

and these classes, again there’s no reference or 

16 recognition of a double-acting self-closing door which 

17 there are thousands of them out there today and it is a 

18 preferred method of closure to a locking door which you 

19 see in a lot of these pictures here. 

So our concern is that these classes are not 

21 making those references that are preferred out there. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks for raising it. Thank 

23 you. Okay. So lots of good comment on equipment 

24 product classes. Discriminators that relate to how 

these classes might be characterized. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

121 

1 Are there additions before we move on? 

2 (No response.) 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. That was good. 

4 MS. LEGETT: This is just a slide with more 

questions. There have been a lot of questions going 

6 back and forth, but if there’s any additional feedback 

7 related to the questions up here, we’d like that. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: I think we pretty much covered 

9 these. 

MS. LEGETT: Okay. I’ll move on to discuss 

11 baseline units. Once the Department establishes the 

12 equipment classes, we’ll then select a baseline model 

13 for each class against which we can measure changes 

14 resulting from applying energy conservation standards. 

Typically, a baseline model would be a model 

16 that just meets the current energy conservation 

17 standards. However, in this case there are no current 

18 energy conservation standards. So we propose to use 

19 information provided by stakeholders, interested 

parties, in selecting appropriate baseline models for 

21 the different equipment classes. 

22 These baseline models are then used in 

23 subsequent analyses to determine energy savings and 

24 price increases as a result of implementing the 

standards. We’ll compare the higher-efficiency models 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

122 

1 to the baseline models. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed Osann. 

3 MR. OSANN: Yeah. I’m puzzled by the 

4 assertion that there aren’t any existing standards. 

The -- for purposes of this rulemaking, it would seem 

6 to be appropriate to use the existing design standards 

7 that are in EISA as comprising the baseline, assemble a 

8 baseline based upon the requirements applicable to 

9 those components. 

MR. BROOKMAN: What’s covered in EISA? 

11 MR. OSANN: Yeah. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock. 

13 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI. What 

14 also might help is to, if there’s any data available, 

to show people what is the difference between, I’ll 

16 say, 2007 baseline model that was out there and then 

17 the new EISA model, just to see what’s been 

18 accomplished from an energy efficiency standpoint. How 

19 much more efficient is it now. Have we improved the 

efficiency by 10 percent, 20 percent, 30 percent? That 

21 might also help people in terms of, as you go down the 

22 line, you know, how far -- how close are we to the 

23 ceiling in a way with some of these types of 

24 technologies. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Ellis. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

123 

1 MR. E. CRAIG: My concern is that if you --

2 and we haven’t really discussed it because we’ve kept 

3 of kept away, but if I understand it right, with the 

4 existing EISA requirements that are out there, they may 

or may not save us any energy at all. They may be 

6 costing us energy. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Karim. 

8 DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. I guess 

9 baseline should be a baseline and the legislation that 

now is in effect has been in effect for less than 30 

11 days. So I’m not sure what it means a baseline. So I 

12 think what DOE needs to do here is to go back and look 

13 at, you know, product that’s in the field for at least 

14 five years and maybe look at that and see and use that 

as the baseline because it’s really what it is. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed. 

17 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann, ASAP. I’d point out 

18 that EPCA or NAECA, the larger framework here in which 

19 DOE is operating, precludes the Secretary from setting 

a standard that’s weaker than current standards. 

21 So it’s going to be important to establish 

22 what the efficacy [efficiency?] of the current 

23 standards is or are and because any performance 

24 standard applicable to this equipment is really, 

certainly in our view, going to have to deliver an 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

124 

1 incremental addition of energy savings or the Secretary 

2 is not going to be able to adopt it. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: John. 

4 MR. McHUGH: Yes, I’d also like to point out 

that most of the requirements in the EISA standard have 

6 been required by California law for three years. So in 

7 terms of a baseline for 10 percent of the population 

8 that really is the baseline. 

9 I’d also like to make one more comment, that, 

you know, I was kind of surprised to see the choices 

11 being listed as things like ECM motors which have been 

12 required in California for awhile and are also in the 

13 EISA standard. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional -- yes, please, 

Tony. 

16 MR. CHRISTIE: Tony Christie with Eliason. I 

17 have a quick question regarding California. 

18 Is the R factor or the R value for California 

19 coolers 28 versus 25 that’s listed in the legislation? 

MR. McHUGH: That’s a good question. The 

21 California standard originally was the higher number 

22 and then because that’s preempted by EISA, until we 

23 adopt our new standard, we’ve adopted all the EISA and 

24 it’s under review right now. It will be posted, I 

think, within days. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

125 

1 MR. BROOKMAN: John, will you say again what 

2 your affiliation is and how you come by this 

3 information? 

4 MR. McHUGH: Sure. My affiliation -- John 

McHugh, McHugh Energy, and I’m working on behalf of 

6 Southern California Edison, and I’ve also been involved 

7 with the development of the California Building 

8 Standards. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks. That’s helpful. 

Daryl. 

11 MR. ERBS: Okay. Daryl Erbs. Relative to 

12 the baseline, because we don’t have any test method, we 

13 don’t have rating standards, I’m just questioning what 

14 are you going to measure to establish that baseline? 

Is it EER? I mean, if it’s something like R factor, 

16 then I think it’s almost self-defining, but some of 

17 these other metrics we’ve talked about, we don’t even 

18 know how to properly measure those. So I think that 

19 may be a step that you really have to take before you 

can get to a baseline. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Given your knowledge, what 

22 would you suggest the Department do? 

23 MR. ERBS: I think we need to work together 

24 on getting to at least a preliminary standard. Then 

some of the baselining could be done, I think, in 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

126 

1 parallel with completing that standard, but at least --

2 otherwise, we could spend a lot of time collecting 

3 information on something that we disagree or agree that 

4 wasn’t the correct metric. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Amanda. 

6 MS. STEVENS: Hi. Yes. I’m Amanda Stevens. 

7 I’m here for Energy Solutions on behalf of PG&E, and I 

8 just want to add to John’s comment. 

9 The original California standard for walkins, PG&E, that was a proposal developed by PG&E, and 

11 there is a report, I don’t know if the Navigant team 

12 has seen it, but I’d be happy to share it with you in 

13 our written comments as well as any other stakeholders 

14 who want to take a look and just -- there was some 

analysis done on the original California requirements. 

16 So that may provide some information because the 

17 California requirement then served as the baseline for 

18 the EISA standard. 

19 So to the extent that’s helpful, we’d be glad 

to provide that. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks very much. Talbot. 

22 MR. GEE: Well, my question for both the 

23 California representatives is what is the enforcement 

24 mechanism in California for that, that you’ve used for 

the last three years? 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

127 

1 MR. BROOKMAN: John, can you answer that? 

2 MR. McHUGH: Sure. The enforcement is at 

3 time of sale. So the state asked for registration of 

4 appliance in their appliance database. So when someone 

sells a new product, they’re supposed to insert that 

6 information into their database. 

7 Amanda, do you have any more comments about 

8 that? Okay. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Amanda, you have that 

information, though, yes? 

11 MS. STEVENS: Yes. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: So you can provide that to the 

13 Navigant team, the Department, all that information, 

14 right? Into the docket. Thank you. Charles reminds 

me that information will be inserted into the docket. 

16 Ellis, first. 

17 MR. E. CRAIG: On the baseline, I think we 

18 have to take into consideration the overall life cycle 

19 of this product. I can’t say that we have the full 

answer, but we have done some case studies on existing 

21 walk-ins that we’ve taken out in the field as we 

22 replaced them with walk-ins that we sold and the walk23 ins that we took out were full of ice. Okay. 

24 Now, I guarantee you that we have the data on 

the R values that were received out of those walk-ins 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

128 

1 that we took out of the field and they’ve been in 

2 existence from seven to 10 years, I think is what we 

3 were looking at. Owens Corning came down and we pulled 

4 some units that we were placing out and we actually 

sent them off to the laboratories and had them tested. 

6 But all this talk we’re doing today is not 

7 going to amount to anything if the walk-ins that we 

8 sell in the future turn into ice in five to seven 

9 years. This is all fun and games, guys, and it’s not 

going to have any effect on the energy use of that 

11 walk-in over the long times. 

12 So we have to -- the Department of Energy 

13 should go out and do some core sampling on existing 

14 walk-ins in varying applications in different areas of 

the country to get some real ideas of what we’re 

16 dealing with out there in the field because we’re 

17 talking about brand-new manufactured products which do 

18 not perform that way once they’re out in real-life 

19 environments. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Right. Okay. And what was 

21 the general life cycle of these? 

22 MR. E. CRAIG: Well, on here it’s 18 years, 

23 which I don’t think that’s unreasonable. 

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

MR. L. CRAIG: Most walk-in cooler 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

129 

1 manufacturers have a 10-year warranty. 

2 MR. E. CRAIG: Warranty. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

4 MR. L. CRAIG: That’s just the warranty 

period. So they’ll go 10 to 20 years, if they’re 

6 treated, you know, relatively well. They’ll last 20 

7 years easily. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So thank you. That 

9 last comment from Lucas. 

Karim. 

11 DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. Just a 

12 follow-up question -- I mean answer to John about 

13 California. 

14 Yes, the California standards have been in 

place in California for three years, but the feedback 

16 we are receiving is that there is no enforcement 

17 whatsoever. So I’m not sure if it really means or 

18 represents the baseline. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: So Amanda and others can at 

least supply what they say they’re going to do, 

21 correct? Yes, okay. 

22 So I want to take final comments on Slide 31 

23 because I promised you we’d go to lunch and I promise 

24 you we will. No, I’m not going to do that now because 

I think there’s a lot of content there that we don’t 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

130 

1 want to dance lightly over the technology options. I 

2 want to do that when we return from lunch. 

3 Ed Osann. 

4 MR. OSANN: Just following up on the last 

comment from AHRI in terms of the baseline, I want to 

6 be really clear here. I mean, we don’t view this, the 

7 development of the prescriptive standard, as a do-over 

8 of the EISA component-specific prescriptive standards. 

9 We view it as the -- as a standards revision that needs 

to comply with the criteria that governs standards 

11 revisions generally under EPCA. 

12 So this is going to have to provide 

13 additional increments of savings. The Secretary can’t 

14 go backwards. So we have to know what the general 

level of performance is for products that comply with 

16 the current standards, albeit the fact that the 

17 standards are very new, that they just went into effect 

18 January 1st, 2009, but that clearly has to be a 

19 baseline consideration for assessing the increments of 

savings and the cost effectiveness and so on of the 

21 standards that are being proposed in this proceeding. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Karim. 

23 DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. My comments 

24 do not contradict what you just said. I’m not saying 

that the DOE shouldn’t look at EISA and what the level, 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

131 

1 what that EISA standard means in terms of energy 

2 savings. 

3 I’m just saying that all the analysis will be 

4 based on the floor as far as the energy consumption of 

the products and I think, I mean, saying that the 

6 baseline is at the current EISA is wrong. 

7 So yes, DOE will look at the trial standard 

8 levels, they should look at EISA and make sure that we 

9 go beyond that, but I’m saying as far as the analysis 

is concerned, I think it should be based on what is 

11 happening and what the real situation is. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: John. 

13 MR. McHUGH: Just to go back to baseline 

14 units, I think the baseline should be what is the legal 

minimum currently and undoubtedly what the legal 

16 minimum is, and if someone’s violating the law, that’s 

17 something else, but in terms of what the legal minimum 

18 is, it’s pretty clear, it’s written in EISA, it’s 

19 written in Title 20 standard, and there’s really no --

you disagree with that? 

21 DR. AMRANE: No, I don’t. 

22 MR. McHUGH: Okay. 

23 DR. AMRANE: I’m truly perfectly fine with 

24 it, but we don’t even have a metric for what that 

baseline is. I mean that’s another thing, too. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

132 

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Tim. 

2 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, EarthJustice. Just to 

3 respond to something. It’s been suggested that because 

4 the California standards and the EISA standards are 

new, that in some way diminishes the role they should 

6 play in setting the baseline. 

7 It should be remembered that this rulemaking, 

8 I believe, will not even go into effect until something 

9 like 2015, if I remember the statute correctly. So 

we’re dealing with a situation where we need to study 

11 what the products are going to be like in 2015, not 

12 what they’re looking like as they begin to comply with 

13 the new requirements. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So let me make a 

process note. The Department and the consultant team 

16 thinks it makes sense to talk about the technology 

17 choices listed there in your Slides 32 and 33 right 

18 now. 

19 Can we hang on and do this for 10 more 

minutes? Let’s do it. Okay. No one’s objecting 

21 vigorously. 

22 Michael McCabe, are you going to object 

23 vigorously? 

24 MR. McCABE: I’m not going to object. This 

is Michael McCabe. I’m not going to object. I just 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

133 

1 want to -- I think there’s some violent agreement with 

2 regards to baseline that people don’t fully appreciate 

3 and want to add to that. 

4 In our analysis, we do have to identify a 

baseline unit in which the Engineering Analysis starts 

6 and in typical rulemakings, we then add technologies to 

7 that baseline in order to identify the costs and 

8 efficiency of improvements to that baseline. 

9 The comment with regards to the difference 

between the standard and the baseline is that, as the 

11 earlier slides indicated, we expect that the metric in 

12 which the standard is going to be is going to be 

13 different than what the prescriptive requirements were 

14 in the legislation. 

Typically, when we define a baseline unit, we 

16 already have standards in place where we know what --

17 and in that case, the baseline is with the same basis 

18 with which the future standards are going to be. So if 

19 it’s a central air conditioner, the baseline is an SEER 

and the standard levels are SEER. 

21 In this case, it’s quite possible that the 

22 baseline -- we’re going to be describing it in terms 

23 different than which the standard is going to be 

24 specified. 

MR. OSANN: Yes. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

134 

1 MR. McCABE: That’s what Rebecca’s comment 

2 was all about. 

3 As far as the baseline unit, that then goes 

4 into our -- some of the subsequent analysis which will 

be described in which we forecast what is going to be 

6 the base case, what’s going to happen in the 

7 marketplace without any further standards. That base 

8 case projection typically, and I think as far as almost 

9 -- typically shows an increase in efficiency in 

response to market demands from a number of factors. 

11 So further analyses which will be described. 

12 We’ll talk about a base case and improvement in 

13 efficiency. So for the purpose of the Engineering 

14 Analysis, the baseline unit, it has to represent, and I 

agree and I think the parties do agree, that it 

16 represents the units that are typically sold today. 

17 That’s EISA requirements, California looks like it. 

18 There are some questions as far as the 

19 compliance but that’s a separate issue. 

The Engineering Analysis and the technology 

21 choices which are the next two slides are part of how 

22 we build on the efficiency of the products and how we 

23 cost those out and that becomes our Engineering 

24 Analysis which is the foundation of all the economic 

analysis. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

135 

1 MR. BROOKMAN: So let’s let Rebecca lay out 

2 these next two slides on technology choices. 

3 MS. LEGETT: Sure. Here is a partial list of 

4 some technologies we’re considering. These are 

technologies that we believe can reduce the energy 

6 consumption or improve efficiency from the baseline 

7 level. 

8 Like I said, this is a partial list. The 

9 list is continued on the next slide. Initially, this 

list will include all those technologies that we 

11 consider technologically feasible, and this will serve 

12 to establish, and the technologies we end up with are 

13 finalists, will establish the maximum technologically14 feasible design - max tech. 

These specific technologies that we listed 

16 here that I believe you all have a list of are 

17 applicable to all walk-in coolers and freezers. Since 

18 you have that list, I’m going to move on to the next 

19 slide which is a continuation of that list. 

Here’s some more technology options that we 

21 have identified and some may be applicable only to 

22 specific classes of equipment. 

23 I’d like to -- since you have this list, as 

24 well, I’d like to advance to the Screening Analysis 

slide. This is because this list of technologies will 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

136 

1 be altered based on the results of the Screening 

2 Analysis in which we screen out technology options that 

3 will not be considered in the rulemaking, based on 

4 these four criteria on this slide. 

We will apply these four screening criteria 

6 and the reasons for eliminating any of those design 

7 options that were in the previous two slides will be 

8 fully documented and published as part of these 

9 analyses, but we request comment on which technology 

options can be added to that list or should be removed 

11 from that list based on these four criteria. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: So thank you, Rebecca. That 

13 was well done. 

14 Comments on these technology choices. Yes, 

Tony. Tony first. 

16 MR. DUNLAP: Just one comment. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve. 

18 MR. DUNLAP: This is primarily on the 

19 refrigeration side and there’s nothing in here about 

the box, the envelope, or the doors, and I’d submit 

21 that the energy consumption is heavily dependent on the 

22 application of the freezer and the amount of traffic 

23 that these applications see. 

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Mike. 

MR. HEGNER: Yes, to that point, I think 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

137 

1 operational efficiency, if you have, for example, a 

2 door that opens and closes very quickly, it’s a whole 

3 lot better than a door that’s going to open slowly and 

4 those sorts of things and that’s a big chunk of energy 

when you talk about cooler boxes where there’s people 

6 going in and out of them sometimes hundreds sometimes a 

7 day. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Tony. 

9 MR. CHRISTIE: Yes, Tony Christie with 

Eliason Corporation. I would suggest that the double11 action self-closing door be a design option that you 

12 would consider. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

14 MR. ERBS: Daryl Erbs. A couple of points. 

You have listed for all equipment types floating head 

16 pressure. Floating head pressure really doesn’t offer 

17 you any benefit if you place the condensing unit 

18 indoors in a constant temperature condition and you 

19 have external heat rejection. 

I think that’s probably in the same category, 

21 if you mean basically rejecting the condenser heat out 

22 of doors. That’s not going to apply to those cases 

23 where it’s in the indoor environment. 

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. I gotcha. 

Ed. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

138 

1 MR. OSANN: Yeah. I also noted the lack of 

2 reference to doors, door closures and seals and so on. 

3 In fact, I think you need to look at the 

4 elements that are covered by the EISA prescriptive 

requirements as potential technology choices. For 

6 instance, window insulation is specified and that might 

7 be an area for further improvement. 

8 Also for external systems, for systems that 

9 are installed outdoors, reflective roof coatings and 

shading systems. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. John. 

12 MR. McHUGH: You have listed here floating 

13 head pressure and I’d like to make sure you’re aware of 

14 sort of a -- it’s an alternative to floating head 

pressure which is floating head pressure usually refers 

16 to fan controls that are allowing the condensing 

17 temperature to be fixed -- to float down to a 

18 particular temperature. 

19 In some cases, especially for smaller units 

that use things like a head master, the issue is that 

21 the head master pressure is set too high and so one of 

22 the alternatives is to look at a head master that has a 

23 70 degree temperature. So it’s essentially eliminating 

24 controls that allow or that fix the condensing 

temperature above 70 degrees. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

139 

1 Also related to -- kind of related to the 

2 last one, you have high-efficiency evaporator fan 

3 motors. Since ECMs are already required in the 

4 standard, that doesn’t seem like that’s a screening 

option. I guess the only place would be is removing 

6 the 460-volt exception in the standard. 

7 In terms of evaporator fan motor controllers, 

8 is this referring to variable speed or what is the 

9 intent of that measure? 

MR. BROOKMAN: Aris. 

11 MR. MARANTAN: Aris from Navigant. Yes, that 

12 can refer to variable speed. 

13 MR. McHUGH: Okay. As I mentioned earlier, 

14 that was the second largest opportunity that we saw, 

and I’m hoping that as part of the process that we rank 

16 these or prioritize these measures by both their 

17 magnitude of the savings as well as their payback. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Karim. 

19 DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. I guess I 

would have a question for Navigant about the economizer 

21 cooling. 

22 Are you talking about the typical economizer 

23 that we have in air conditioning applications? 

24 MR. MARANTAN: Yes, that could be any kind of 

precooling that might be extra heat exchange or 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

140 

1 something like that. 

2 DR. AMRANE: I’m not sure that could be used 

3 in this kind of application, but I think it’s something 

4 that really shouldn’t be listed. 

MR. MARANTAN: Okay. 

6 DR. AMRANE: As far as those technology 

7 options, I think we need to be very careful. I mean, 

8 when we combine them, they’re not really simply 

9 additives. Okay. So Navigant has to really make sure 

that they’re just adding percentages. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Thanks for that. 

12 Yes, Steve. 

13 MR. COMBS: Yes, as follow on. Steve Combs, 

14 ICS. When -- as these initial technology choices are 

weeded out as to which ones are most applicable and 

16 which ones aren’t, I think we’re going to have to come 

17 down to some very definitive definitions and 

18 descriptions of what they are, and then on the last one 

19 on the initial technology choices where you have listed 

as freezers-only, defrost cycle control, we very 

21 frequently install defrost on what we would term as a 

22 cooler system that operates below or right around 35 

23 degrees, depending on the application. So we need to 

24 be careful about pinning that down to a freezer-only 

application. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

141 

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Thank you. A lot 

2 of good comments. 

3 John. 

4 MR. McHUGH: Just to point out that many of 

these control requirements require some kind of hourly 

6 or shorter time step simulation, that this is not a 

7 steady state, this evaluation is not steady state. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So additional and 

9 perhaps final comments on this initial listing of 

technology choices and options? Talbot. 

11 MR. GEE: This is Talbot from HARDI. I would 

12 just throw out one other thing that just jumped into my 

13 head and this may or may not be applicable, but this 

14 equipment, condensing units, compressors, is also in 

the middle of the refrigerant transition, too. 

16 So we’d want to make sure, because the 

17 effective date would only apply to HFC-using equipment 

18 and components, only consider those and their 

19 performance metrics in this. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Please say your name. 

21 MR. NEIL: Tim Neil with Morrill Motors. I 

22 just want to talk about what John was talking about 

23 with the ECM. It’s already being mandated and we’re 

24 talking about variable speed and also controllers. 

If you combine controllers along with ECM, 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

142 

1 you can save a lot of money by doing that. Going from 

2 the motors which most people are using today to the 

3 ECM, you’re going to save about 70 percent of your 

4 energy just from motor to motor savings, but a lot of 

these motors, they run 24 hours a day, seven days a 

6 week, 365 days a year, but the coolers aren’t always 

7 open and the temperature doesn’t always have to run at 

8 the full 1550 rpm which is mostly what they run at. 

9 If you have a way of controlling going down 

to a second speed, which I think California’s already 

11 looking at a rebate program to do that with retrofit, 

12 there’s a cubic relationship with efficiency to speed 

13 that you can save a lot of money by doing that, a lot 

14 of efficiency doing that. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Charles. 

16 Yes, Lucas. 

17 MR. L. CRAIG: Yeah. I was just going to add 

18 that we’re talking about ECM as currently mandated 

19 under EISA, but it doesn’t -- it’s not required for 

retrofit. One way that you could leave it in then 

21 would be to apply ECM for retrofit applications. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Charles. 

23 MR. LLENZA: I just wanted to add, also, we 

24 appreciate the comments and we would appreciate if you 

have more thoughts on this because this is very 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

143 

1 important in establishing the different kind of classes 

2 and types as we go through this. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: And I guess, as soon as we 

4 return from lunch, if there’s something that bubbles 

forward while you’re eating, we can discuss that 

6 briefly when we return, and having made that 

7 transition, let’s go to lunch. 

8 (Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the meeting was 

9 recessed for lunch, to reconvene this same day at 1:25 

p.m.) 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

144 

1 

2 

3 A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N 

4 (1:25 p.m.) 

MR. BROOKMAN: We’re going to begin. If you 

6 could start taking your seats, folks? 

7 As a housekeeping matter and also to bring 

8 you back to order, Brenda Edwards has provided, has 

9 made a Xerox copy of all of the compiled business cards 

and I hope you all received one, if you wish to have 

11 one, and they were at the Registration Desk right there 

12 in the back of the room, and so now I would want to 

13 proceed with the meeting. 

14 Thanks to all of you for getting back here 

pretty much on time so we can keep going. We still 

16 have a lot of material to cover, and I wanted to follow 

17 through on my offer to spend a few more minutes on 

18 technology options, if anybody wishes to revisit that 

19 briefly, but then we’ll press on. 

Anything else that came up while we were gone 

21 for lunch? I thought we had a pretty good discussion. 

22 We may have covered it. Mike. 

23 MR. HEGNER: Mike Hegner. You know, one 

24 thought as far as the technology, just thinking about 

the whole testing, it seems to me that it would be 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

145 

1 difficult, if not impossible, to set standards based on 

2 the cooler box -- we had a lot of discussions -- cooler 

3 box and refrigeration of the doors, and it seems to me 

4 that the better method would be to establish a standard 

for the insulated box panels, standards for the 

6 refrigeration, standards for the doors and those sorts 

7 of things, that you can establish the standard that’s 

8 manageable because again a cooler box, you know, the 

9 insulation value of that’s going to change depending on 

the size, depending on the application, those sorts of 

11 things. The same goes for door refrigeration. So I 

12 don’t see how you would manage that. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. That’s 

14 helpful, and it’s hard to say how much the Department 

would be bound by what Congress tells them to do, for 

16 example. 

17 (Laughter.) 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed. 

19 MR. OSANN: Yeah. Ed Osann, ASAP. I was 

intrigued by the comment earlier this morning about the 

21 effect of the screw-mounted racking systems degrading 

22 the thermal performance of the insulation, and I wonder 

23 if free-standing racking systems or rack attachments 

24 that don’t involve penetration of the panel might be 

considered as a technology option. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

5 

 

 

 

10 

 

15 

 

20 

25 

146 

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. So I 

2 thought we covered it pretty well the first time 

3 around. Final comments before we proceed with the 

4 presentation material? 

 (No response.) 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So then to Aris. 

7 Engineering Analysis 

8 MR. MARANTAN: Okay. Thank you, Doug. 

9 The next section in the preliminary analyses 

is the Engineering Analysis. 

11 The purpose of the Engineering Analysis is to 

12 characterize the relationship between manufacturing 

13 costs and energy consumption, and actually we take that 

14 a step further. It’s not just the manufacturing costs 

but the manufacturer price at which the manufacturer 

16 sells the equipment that we finally characterize in 

17 this analysis. 

18 We first start off by defining the baseline 

19 which was described to you earlier. That is one thing 

that needs to be developed. We collect baseline 

21 performance and cost data primarily from the Market & 

22 Technology Assessment as well as consultation with 

23 stakeholders, including manufacturers, and we apply a 

24 markup assumption which I’ll describe to you later and 

that just basically is an industry average, industryEXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

147 

1 weighted average multiplier that we multiply the 

2 manufacturer cost to to arrive at a manufacturer price. 

3 I’ll describe that in a little more detail. 

4 Next, we have a cost model development which 

is a model that we develop to estimate the production 

6 cost of equipment and this is basically to estimate the 

7 core case cost to begin with and then we apply design 

8 options with specific price increases for those 

9 options. 

The next step is design options where we take 

11 the initial list of technology choices that was 

12 described to you earlier and we screen out the ones 

13 that do not pass the screening criteria. 

14 What we’re left with are the applicable or 

available design options that we will consider in the 

16 analysis, and then the last step is to finalize the 

17 analysis by getting feedback on the actual results. So 

18 we’ll meet with manufacturers and we’ll present the 

19 results to them and say, you know, does this make 

sense? We’ll welcome any feedback on what needs to 

21 change, if we haven’t considered something specifically 

22 that needs to be, we’ll include that. If something we 

23 considered doesn’t make sense, we’ll remove it. So 

24 there is a feedback loop in terms of the engineering 

phase of this process. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

148 

1 Let me describe to you in a little more 

2 detail the cost-energy consumption curve. If you can 

3 imagine the energy consumption is on the X axis here 

4 and the manufacturing cost to begin with is on the Y 

axis. What we do first is establish that baseline and 

6 as we discussed earlier that needs to be developed. 

7 From the baseline, we implement design 

8 options and we calculate how much more it takes in 

9 costs to implement that design option and then we also 

estimate the energy consumption savings that that 

11 specific design option will achieve and so what you see 

12 here in the middle section of this graph is, you know, 

13 a baseline and three individual design options that 

14 we’re considering. 

The last step is to estimate which design 

16 options are the most practical or, the way we put it 

17 here, the most cost-efficient. So we see that we get 

18 more energy consumption for a little bit of 

19 manufacturing cost increase with the first design 

option implemented after the baseline and then that 

21 successively -- that slope successively gets steeper. 

22 So the last design option shown, the top 

23 point on that graph, is the one that doesn’t -- that is 

24 not -- it’s the least cost efficient in terms of a 

metric, like a simple payback. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

149 

1 So what you end up seeing is a curve with an 

2 increasing slope that describes design options that 

3 we’ve considered for a specific product class, with a 

4 specific baseline, and then that curve is the basis for 

all of the economic analyses downstream. 

6 Okay. Here are a couple of questions on the 

7 engineering approach. There are three. The first one 

8 is we request feedback on the design option approach. 

9 The second one is appropriate representative capacity. 

That has a lot to do with the product class or 

11 equipment classes we described earlier. 

12 Let’s take a look at the size category for a 

13 minute. If we look at a size category we had initially 

14 conceived of maybe zero to a thousand square feet, but 

for the analysis, should we be considering that 200 

16 square foot unit in our analysis? Would that be the 

17 typical one? 

18 So we need to establish a representative unit 

19 within each product class. 

The third one is what particular components 

21 and features characterize the baseline model and we 

22 touched upon that earlier. 

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Ellis. 

24 MR. E. CRAIG: Ellis Craig, Craig Industries. 

I don’t know. I think we’re, to a certain extent, 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

150 

1 typical, but it seems to me that your sizing of your 

2 walk-ins, the class of a thousand and lower, our Number 

3 1 selling product, if you added up all the walk-ins 

4 we’ve sold over the last 10 years and tried to pick the 

one or two models that we sold the most of, the most on 

6 a cooler would be an 8X10 cooler which is 80 square 

7 foot or panel-wise it’d be a little bit different, or 

8 on a freezer it’d be like a 6X8. 

9 So our numbers are kind of smaller than the 

numbers you’re using. So the impact on manufacturers 

11 like us, that’s a big number, a thousand down to 80. 

12 Most of your restaurants use fairly small units going 

13 in instead of huge large ones. You get into 

14 convenience stores and grocery stores and the larger 

units, that’s a different thing, but most of the food 

16 service is going to be a lot smaller units than we’re 

17 dealing with. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. That’s helpful. 

19 So other representative sizes, for example, or ones 

that if you were going to do a sampling across the 

21 industry, the ones that would be the most -- used most 

22 often, indicative, if you would? 

23 MR. MARANTAN: Just a follow-up question. 

24 Would those sizes also represent or be consistent with 

the combination units? 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

151 

1 MR. E. CRAIG: Yes. It just seems like -- I 

2 wanted to know because we did some analysis to find out 

3 what’s the Number 1 selling product out there and from 

4 what we’ve talked to friends of our competitors that 

are competitors and what we’ve seen, these are the two 

6 numbers that just come up consistently year after year 

7 after year, whether it be a combination or whether it 

8 be -- you know, you take a combination 8X10, well, then 

9 you’ll have the 8X10 cooler sitting next to a 6X8 

freezer and you’ll have a combination wall between the 

11 two of them. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Good. That’s helpful. 

13 Daryl, I’m looking over at you. Earlier, you talked 

14 about a lot of different configurations. Maybe you 

could describe which ones are most typical. 

16 MR. ERBS: Sure. Daryl Erbs. I think I’d 

17 echo some of the same comments. Restaurants, it 

18 depends a little bit on the volume. So some of the 

19 quick-serve restaurants do higher volume and also they 

have different menus, so we see that vary, but I would 

21 say that something that’s on the order of a 100 square 

22 foot is probably more representative of that class of 

23 application than a 1,000square foot. 

24 Then you’d have another class which would be 

convenience stores which would be larger, but then 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

152 

1 you’d find most of those would have glass doors. So, 

2 you know, maybe you need to pick some different typical 

3 application examples and even make them more 

4 representative of the real-life configurations that 

they tend to be. You know, grocery stores would be 

6 larger. They could be maybe a 1,000 square foot and 

7 that might be a better way to pick a few places to 

8 explore some of these technology options because I 

9 think with different sizes, you’ll find smaller 

compressors have different efficiency characteristics 

11 than larger compressors, for example, and that becomes 

12 important. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Yes, 

14 please, Steve. 

MR. COMBS: Steve Combs, ICS. Two to 400 to 

16 even 600 square feet would be fairly typical. When you 

17 get larger in footprint, you typically get a little bit 

18 higher in ceiling height, so your volume is going to go 

19 up. So again the standard needs to be based probably 

on a volumetric measurement rather than a square 

21 footage area. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, Ellis. 

23 MR. E. CRAIG: Ellis Craig, Craig Industries. 

24 It seems to me that on your costing, it needs to be 

considered the economies to scale in making a big box 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

153 

1 versus a little box. It’s a lot cheaper to make a big 

2 box than it is to make a little box because of the 

3 amount of size of panels and the same labor going into 

4 a big panel as goes into a little panel. So labor 

varies quite a bit. So when you’re doing your costing 

6 you have to take that little bit into consideration. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Good. Yes, Tony. 

8 MR. CHRISTIE: Tony Christie with Eliason 

9 Corporation. Just referring to the design option 

approach to determine cost versus efficiency and in our 

11 -- on our product, if that was a static type of test, 

12 then there’s a potential that the double-acting self13 closing door would not perform as well, but in a real14 world application, where that door is opened and closed 

and opened and closed a number of cycles, then I would 

16 agree that the design option would lend itself to a 

17 different type of door. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

19 MR. CHRISTIE: Does that make sense? 

MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. Okay. Yes, John. 

21 MR. McHUGH: Tony, I have a follow-on 

22 question. Have you guys collected any sort of typical 

23 number of door closings, number of entries, how long 

24 people leave doors open? What have you found? 

MR. CHRISTIE: Yes. Tony Christie with 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

154 

1 Eliason, and we have found that many of our customers 

2 actually prop a cooler door open in an effort to get in 

3 and out efficiently, and the efficiency goes right out 

4 the window. So that is why they prefer to use a door 

that they can just walk through and it closes right 

6 behind them which would lend itself to more efficient 

7 design. 

8 I can share with you some of those cycles if 

9 you would like. 

MR. McHUGH: That would be fantastic. 

11 Thanks. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve. 

13 MR. DUNLAP: Yes, our experience has been, 

14 and this is a grocery store, a large, you know, retail 

supermarket, we actually have the doors that cycle, 

16 roll-up/roll-down, automatically and we have counters 

17 and I can tell you we see anywhere from, in these 

18 applications, anywhere from 400 to 600 cycles a week. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Is that a big door? 

MR. DUNLAP: The majority of the doors that 

21 we have are over four feet. Typical size in these 

22 applications is six feet wide, seven feet tall. 

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Wow! Lucas. 

24 MR. L. CRAIG: I was just going to say on the 

side note, when we went to lunch the walk-in cooler in 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

155 

1 the cafeteria was propped open during the whole time. 

2 (Laughter.) 

3 MR. L. CRAIG: Just for your information. 

4 MR. E. CRAIG: Department of Energy, right. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Let me just say for the record 

6 the Department of Energy did install portable tanks on 

7 the roof of the Forrestal Building. 

8 MR. DUNLAP: That’s another plug for an 

9 automatic, you know, door that completely seals. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

11 MR. DUNLAP: Not to mention all the ice 

12 build-up from leaving the doors open. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So I’d like to ask you 

14 to look again at the Item 5.1 and Item 5.2 and Item 5.3 

on Page 39 and see if you have any additional comments 

16 before we move on. 

17 Yes, John. 

18 MR. McHUGH: I have a couple of questions 

19 about the first two pages. How does someone get 

involved in the feedback discussion? You said in this 

21 analysis you’re incorporating feedback. Is there a 

22 public process or is there an offline process where 

23 people can provide feedback, take a look at what you’re 

24 thinking about initially before the final analysis is 

conducted? 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

156 

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Charles. 

2 MR. LLENZA: Charles Llenza, Department of 

3 Energy. Usually the process is controlled in order to 

4 give everybody access and to cut everybody off 

literally so that there is no improprieties in between 

6 the processes that we do. So we have the comment 

7 period is what usually is the process for an open 

8 environment of feedback back and forth. 

9 You could always provide us feedback and once 

the modeling and the data is on the Web at some point 

11 at the analysis -- at the first analysis interval here, 

12 feedback is always taken into consideration. 

13 MR. McHUGH: So is there a list? Is there 

14 some kind of announcement when this is posted or how 

does that work? 

16 MR. LLENZA: There will be some kind of 

17 announcement and I would think that we would probably 

18 have to have something in the Federal Register. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Do you have a compiled 

interested persons list so that everybody sees an e21 mail about it or anything like that? 

22 MR. LLENZA: Well, we also do that. We do 

23 publish things because that way it goes on the record, 

24 but then we also have a database of stakeholders, 

parties of interest, and when information like that is 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

157 

1 available, we make use of that type of announcement. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 

3 MR. McHUGH: So the next question I have has 

4 to do with this cost-efficient application. Could you 

go into a little bit more description, Aris, about what 

6 you mean by cost-efficient? 

7 MR. MARANTAN: Are you referring to Slide 38, 

8 the right side? 

9 MR. McHUGH: Yes, Step 3 of Slide 38. 

MR. MARANTAN: Okay. Yes, okay. What we 

11 have done typically in our Engineering Analysis is 

12 analyzed design options one at a time and just in order 

13 to order the design options in terms of most effective, 

14 let’s say, we look at a simple payback of that design. 

So let’s say we’re implementing improved 

16 insulation, for example, on our analysis point which is 

17 a typical unit, our analysis point for a specific 

18 equipment class. 

19 We will have cost information about that 

design option and we will have performance information 

21 and so we do a simple payback on that and that’s how 

22 we’re able -- and we only use that payback information 

23 to order the design options. 

24 We do a different payback analysis in 

subsequent analyses after the engineering. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

158 

1 MR. McHUGH: So for the technical standard 

2 level when you, you know, go to Technical Standard 1, 

3 2, 3, 4, what is the basis of that ordering of those 

4 standards since that has a huge impact on what kind of 

ends up on the list and what ends up being dropped off? 

6 MR. MARANTAN: The Engineering Analysis will 

7 include any design options that are not screened out of 

8 the Screening Analysis. So we examine everything that 

9 you can possibly throw at a walk-in. 

Later on in subsequent analyses is when we 

11 identify, you know, what levels we should be 

12 considering. For example, in the LCC and the NES, and 

13 I think you may be referring to our candidate standards 

14 during the Preliminary Analysis. So that doesn’t 

happen here, it happens downstream of this. 

16 MR. McHUGH: Okay. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: And the candidate standard 

18 levels, they precede the trial standard levels. So 

19 moving from ANOPR to NOPR phases, right? 

 Ed, please. 

21 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann with ASAP. How then are 

22 the CSLs ordered, and if you have this -- you’re using 

23 a simple payback for ordering the technology options 

24 within the Engineering Analysis. Okay. That’s fine. 

When you approach the CSL tiering and 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

159 

1 ordering, what’s the basis for the sequencing of those? 

2 MR. MARANTAN: Okay. I can describe to you 

3 some of the typical choices that have been used in the 

4 past. For other rulemakings, the CSLs are composed of 

things such as maximum LCC savings, highest-efficiency 

6 level with positive LCC, max tech, which is actually 

7 the highest point on the cost-efficiency curve, that’s 

8 another option, and then intermediate levels in 

9 between. 

I think we may go into a little more detail 

11 about that when we get into LCC or some of the other 

12 analyses. 

13 MR. SOMASUNDARAM: Those are the four 

14 criteria that are required by EPCA to set the candidate 

standard levels. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Sriram. Okay. So 

17 then let’s proceed here with the next slide. 

18 MR. MARANTAN: Okay. Slide 40. This is 

19 Manufacturing Cost Components. 

Now, what I described to you in that curve in 

21 the other diagrams is a production cost and that’s how 

22 much it costs the manufacturer to produce that piece of 

23 equipment. 

24 However, I also mentioned that we apply a 

markup assumption. The markup is an industry-weighted 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

160 

1 average markup that we’re able to estimate based on 

2 publicly-available data. The markups, as you can see 

3 here, account for sales and marketing, research and 

4 development, interest, profit, anything above the 

production cost of the equipment. 

6 The way we estimate the markup is again from 

7 publicly-available information. This may include SEC 

8 10-K reports, company annual reports, Dun and 

9 Bradstreet reports, Value Line industry reports, 

Standard and Poor’s, and Ibbotson. 

11 One thing that we do, though, is later on 

12 I’ll be presenting to you a Manufacturer Impact 

13 Analysis Summary and that’s when we meet with 

14 manufacturers and this is one of the things that we 

will be discussing, along with other financial items. 

16 But anyway, to begin with, we come up with an 

17 estimate for the industry markup and we apply that to 

18 the full production cost estimate to get a 

19 manufacturer’s selling price. So you can think of this 

as a multiplier to the production cost. 

21 The manufacturer’s selling price is what the 

22 manufacturer sells the equipment for and then there may 

23 be a distribution chain which accounts for further 

24 markups before it gets to the end user. That markup 

will be described in the next section. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

161 

1 MR. BROOKMAN: So the Department would seek 

2 comment on this as their general approach. 

3 Yes, Talbot. 

4 MR. GEE: This is Talbot from HARDI, and I’d 

ask the manufacturers would there not also be a cost 

6 consideration for getting your product from where you 

7 manufacture it to where it’s going next, whether it be 

8 to the installation site or to whomever is delivering 

9 it to the installation site? 

There’s transportation and fulfillment costs 

11 that I don’t notice. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Ellis. 

13 MR. E. CRAIG: Yeah. Yes. Ellis Craig, 

14 Craig Industries. Walk-ins are not little items that 

you can ship in UPS by any means. So that is a 

16 significant part. 

17 If you look at it nationwide, probably three 

18 to four percent of the product cost is shipping, so if 

19 you want to get it in a number. We average ours all 

across the country. We come three-four percent of 

21 whatever our product is selling for. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: That’s a helpful rule of 

23 thumb, and the Department loves to have that kind of 

24 information. 

MR. E. CRAIG: Well, we have a process where 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

162 

1 we provide free shipping, so we keep tabs on it pretty 

2 closely so we know how much we’re giving away and it’s 

3 usually running -- now, if you get into fuel surcharges 

4 and stuff during high-energy use times that kind of 

goes up but then vice-versa, it goes back down, but you 

6 can pretty well figure about that much. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: As the analysis proceeds, the 

8 elements that you see listed in these boxes here on 

9 Page 40, the Department and its supporting contractors 

are going to be trying to fill in those blanks. 

11 Okay. Yes, Ellis. Lucas. 

12 MR. L. CRAIG: I do have a question. In the 

13 gray box, the first box, the full production costs, 

14 direct materials. Now, different manufacturers may use 

different materials. So is that going to be averaged 

16 in or how’s that going -- for example, say a foam 

17 place, urethane manufacturer may be a little -- will be 

18 a different cost of direct materials versus a laminator 

19 manufacturer. 

MR. MARANTAN: Yes, that will be accounted 

21 for. 

22 MR. L. CRAIG: Okay. 

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Additional comments on 

24 this aspect of the Engineering Analysis? 

 (No response.) 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

163 

1 MR. MARANTAN: Okay. Proprietary designs. 

2 The Department will evaluate all design options that 

3 are commercially available or are present in a working 

4 prototype, including proprietary designs. However, 

proprietary designs will only be considered if they do 

6 not present a unique path to a given energy consumption 

7 level. 

8 So, for example, if we have a design option 

9 that is covered by, you know, trademarks or copyright 

or something like that and that is the only option 

11 available to achieve a certain level of efficiency, we 

12 are not able to consider it. However, if there are 

13 other options available to achieve the same level of 

14 efficiency for energy consumption, then we can consider 

that. 

16 So we’re interested to know if there are any 

17 proprietary designs out there that may limit our scope 

18 of analysis. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed. 

MR. OSANN: The fact that a design is 

21 proprietary doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not widely 

22 available because proprietary designs can be licensed 

23 to multiple entities. 

24 Do you have the ability to take that into 

account? 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

164 

1 MR. McCABE: This is Michael McCabe. With 

2 the procedures and processes which we have established, 

3 you know, we are not picking winners or losers, so we 

4 do not have the ability to take that -- we’ve chosen 

not to have the ability to take that into account as we 

6 would interpret and apply the requirements of the 

7 legislation. 

8 MR. OSANN: Is there a particular provision 

9 in EPCA that you would point to that would limit your 

ability to consider the proprietary designs, if they 

11 were cross licensed? 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael Kido. 

13 MR. KIDO: We can get that to you later. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. So you can see two 

boxes there in 41, Proprietary Design Issues and 

16 Additional Outside Issues the Department should 

17 consider in its analysis of walk-in coolers and 

18 freezers. 

19 Daryl. 

MR. ERBS: Daryl Erbs. I’m not sure that 

21 you’ve had experience before with something that maybe 

22 is so entangled with food safety and so one of our 

23 considerations, you know, would be as we look at things 

24 like variable speed evaporator fans, that we not only 

consider what the cost and energy benefit is but 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

165 

1 somehow set some limits to the point where we might 

2 impact the food safety. 

3 A lot of the practices -- we talked earlier 

4 about sizing a refrigeration system. We have to be 

very cautious to make sure that under all conditions 

6 you maintain proper food storage temperatures. So I’d 

7 just want to make sure that somehow there’s a check in 

8 your process to make sure that we haven’t gone outside 

9 of those bounds. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, Ellis. 

11 MR. E. CRAIG: Ellis Craig, Craig Industries. 

12 He’s very right. Like velocity of the fans, drying out 

13 of food product. We have low-velocity fans you can put 

14 in some products that you can’t have a lot of, like 

pastries and stuff that you dry out or floral or 

16 whatever. 

17 So it’s very important that those are taken 

18 into consideration. You might have a great idea for 

19 energy savings but they won’t work, you know. So 

that’s a good point. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Aris, was 

22 there anything else you expected to get out of this 

23 segment? 

24 MR. MARANTAN: There is one more question 

that came to my mind. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

166 

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead. 

2 MR. MARANTAN: That was the last of my 

3 presentation, but I do want to ask, maybe this is a 

4 good time to ask, you know, what we understand about 

the commercial refrigeration industry is that it has, 

6 for the most part, transitioned over to HFC 

7 refrigerants. We know this from conducting the 

8 commercial refrigeration equipment rulemaking which 

9 just wrapped up in December. 

So is it a fair assumption to say that our 

11 analysis can be based on HFC refrigerant for walk-ins? 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: I see a few heads nodding, but 

13 we’d like to have that on the record. 

14 MR. ERBS: Daryl Erbs. Yeah. I would say 

that’s fair until such time as they no longer present 

16 an economic option. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, yes. Talbot. 

18 MR. GEE: A question back at you is I don’t 

19 know, given the timeline of the effective date of this, 

could you even consider a non-HFC piece of equipment? 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve, do you want to comment? 

22 MR. COMBS: Well, I believe it’s 2010, is it 

23 January 2010, is when the change-over, the phase-out of 

24 HCFCs begins. So I know there’s, you know, 

manufacturers throughout the industry that are right 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
5 

 

10 

 

 

 

15 

 

20 

 

25 

167 

1 now and contractors, as well, using R-22 or HCFC-22. 

2 So like you say, given the timeline for this 

3 legislation, I don’t think that it’s even possible that 

4 there could be any of those out there in use. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Karim. 

6 DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. I think I 

7 would agree. I think given that we’re phasing out HFCs 

8 by January 1st, 2010, I think the analysis should be 

9 based on the alternative refrigerants. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

11 DR. AMRANE: And for the foams, as well, 

12 whatever foams we use. 

13 MR. MARANTAN: By alternative, you mean HFC? 

14 DR. AMRANE: That’s what the industry is 

using, yes. For the foams, it’s something else. I 

16 know that there are different alternatives, other than 

17 HFCs, being used. 

18 MR. MARANTAN: Okay. Thank you. 

19 Markups for Equipment Price, Energy Use & 

End-Use Load Characterization 

21 MR. DE LA ROSA: My name is Marcus De La 

22 Rosa, and I will be presenting the Markups for 

23 Equipment Price Determination that Aris mentioned 

24 earlier. 

The purpose of the Markups for Equipment 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

168 

1 Price Determination is to develop overall distribution 

2 chain price markups from the manufacturer to the 

3 customer and to establish the customer prices for both 

4 baseline equipment and equipment at higher standard 

levels. 

6 To do this, DOE needs to determine 

7 distribution channels. Preliminary analysis of the 

8 available data suggested three such channels. 

9 Distribution Channel 1, the equipment goes from the 

manufacturer to a distributor, then through a 

11 mechanical contractor and finally to the customer. 

12 Distribution Channel 2 goes from the 

13 manufacturer to the distributor, then to the customer, 

14 and Distribution Channel 3 goes directly from the 

manufacturer to the customer. 

16 There are two types of markups in the 

17 distribution chain. They are the baseline and the 

18 incremental. Both markups relate customer price to 

19 cost of goods sold. The baseline markups relate the 

price to cost prior to the change in efficiency and 

21 they indicate a customer price that covers all the 

22 distributors or contractors expenses, plus profit. 

23 The incremental markups relate to incremental 

24 change in consumer price to the incremental change in 

cost of goods sold. The incremental markups cover only 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

169 

1 expenses that vary with cost of goods sold. So in this 

2 case, expenses that increase due to an increase in 

3 equipment efficiency. Certain costs, such as direct 

4 labor costs, do not vary with efficiency in induced 

changes in cost of goods sold and remain constant in 

6 the calculation of incremental markups. 

7 The Department requests information from 

8 interested parties on the proposed distribution paths 

9 for walk-in coolers and freezers covered under this 

rulemaking. It’s apparent from the discussion that 

11 these distribution paths aren’t necessarily linear. 

12 Your comments. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s list the other requests 

14 for information at the same time. 

MR. DE LA ROSA: Okay. The Department 

16 requests feedback on the overall markups for the walk17 in coolers and freezers, for each distribution path, 

18 and requests feedback on the proposal to use 

19 incremental distribution chain markups for the LifeCycle Cost Analysis, and the Department seeks comment 

21 on what are the sources of relevant data that could be 

22 used to characterize markups for the walk-in coolers 

23 and freezers. 

24 MR. BROOKMAN: This kind of information is 

very important to the Department. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

170 

1 So comments on this. Yes, Ellis. 

2 MR. E. CRAIG: Ellis Craig, Craig Industries. 

3 Your Number 2 distribution channel here, manufacturer4 distributor-customer, if that distributor could be a 

mechanical contractor, then that makes sense. If it’s 

6 a per se distributor, I don’t know. I’m assuming that 

7 when you have distributor here, you’re talking about 

8 something like a refrigeration wholesaler, somebody who 

9 stocks the product and sells it to a contractor and 

then the contractor sells it to a -- there’s another 

11 distribution channel where like a manufacturer would 

12 sell to the contractor, like a refrigeration 

13 contractor. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: So in this case, --

MR. E. CRAIG: And then to the customer. 

16 There wouldn’t be a distributor in that case. It’d be 

17 straight to a dealer and, generally speaking, there are 

18 two types of customers really that are out there that 

19 we sell to that are resellers and one of them, of 

course, refrigeration wholesalers, mechanical 

21 contractors, and food service equipment dealers. Those 

22 are the three avenues that you would have where the 

23 wholesaler would be a distributor, but the other two 

24 would be more or less retail. They would sell to the 

end user and service it and take care of it and that 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

171 

1 type of thing. 

2 So there’s another avenue where the 

3 manufacturer sells to the mechanical contractor and 

4 then to the customer, and I would say that was more 

prevalent than the distributor. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Ed. 

7 MR. OSANN: Follow-up question. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 

9 MR. OSANN: Follow-up question. Ed Osann, 

ASAP. Is it most typical in this business that the 

11 equipment is owned by the end user or is there a 

12 considerable amount of leasing as there is with a lot 

13 of food service equipment. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Ellis. 

MR. E. CRAIG: Who we work with, generally 

16 the end user ends up owning that. There are leasing 

17 programs out there. Food service dealers provide it. 

18 Some mechanical contractors provide it, but I would say 

19 that with our experience probably 98 percent of it is 

owned by the end user. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Talbot. 

22 MR. GEE: Yeah. I think I’d echo his 

23 comments, that probably that Distribution Channel 2 

24 would be more accurate if distributors were actually 

replaced probably with the term “contractor.” 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

172 

1 There are instances where the distributor may 

2 have done the spec but it will still run the product 

3 through the contractor, so that would be more like 

4 Channel 1, and, you know, I mean even with (Channel) 3, 

the national account is direct but there is still a 

6 contractor generally somewhere in that mix, too. So 

7 that’d be the thoughts on those channels. 

8 I think my guess is Number 1 is probably the 

9 best way to look at most, almost all retrofit and 

repair and maybe 10 percent, 20 percent of new 

11 installation, whereas 3 would be the predominant for 

12 new. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

14 MR. GEE: Well, 2, right. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Right. 

16 MR. E. CRAIG: May I make a comment. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please, Ellis. 

18 MR. E. CRAIG: When you’re talking about 

19 manufacture direct to the end user, that only happens 

in fairly large accounts where you’re talking about 

21 chain accounts or fairly large users, and a lot of them 

22 even set up their own buying groups or buying divisions 

23 to buy for them, such as McDonald’s or Hardee’s or 

24 whatever. They’ll have a little group they set up over 

there to be kind of like a dealer, more or less, to 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

173 

1 process the purchasing product. 

2 So it’s a very big no-no in our industry to 

3 sell from a manufacturer to an end user. It’s very 

4 highly looked down upon because it jeopardizes the 

whole stream of people. It’s looked down upon really 

6 strongly. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Even with those -- many of 

8 those are franchise operations, correct? So you have a 

9 buying group for them. 

MR. E. CRAIG: No. A franchise operation 

11 would buy through a dealer, unless they were fairly 

12 large. You have some franchises out there that may 

13 have a thousand stores. Well, now if they had a 

14 thousand stores, that’d be a little different than 

somebody that has five. So franchise operations are 

16 usually pretty small, but some of these have gotten 

17 fairly large, to the point that they’re justifiably an 

18 entity unto themselves and some manufacturers do sell 

19 them. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Helpful. Take a 

21 peak, if you would, at these other questions that are 

22 in this mix because we’d like to get your thoughts on 

23 those, as well. 

24 Overall markups, incremental distribution 

chain markups for life-cycle cost and other sources of 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

174 

1 relevant data. Karim. 

2 DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. I guess, 

3 you know, there has been issues with markups in the 

4 past, in past rulemakings. I mean, you estimate 

markups and if you can make mistakes, you compound the 

6 mistakes and then in the end, you end up with a price 

7 that might not make sense and we know it happened in 

8 past rulemakings. 

9 Can DOE consider to maybe estimate retail 

prices directly, so going through the process of 

11 estimating markups which we know is going to be 

12 difficult and not accurate? 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

14 DR. AMRANE: It’s a question. I guess I’m 

not sure. Are you considering doing that at all or 

16 it’s out of the --

17 MR. McCABE: This is Michael McCabe. It’s --

18 this analysis approach has evolved out of the Consumer 

19 Products Analysis where we looked at retail price. 

There was quite a range of retail prices for a given 

21 model for products. 

22 If you go in for a refrigerator, for example, 

23 and if you look at a major chain, there’d be a price 

24 for a model at a smaller store, very different price, 

and so we found quite a range in prices for models and 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

175 

1 so we ended up going back to the cost and building up 

2 markups in order to come up with a price. 

3 With these products, since they are, you 

4 know, not consumer products, they’re sold very 

differently than consumer products, be interesting to, 

6 you know, hear the opinion on others as far as 

7 alternative approaches to come up with the price. 

8 No, we are not wedded to a given path and 

9 that’s for the purpose for the framework. This meeting 

is to get comments on either the recommended path or 

11 alternative suggestions. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Karim. 

13 DR. AMRANE: I have follow-up. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 

DR. AMRANE: I guess that is a suggestion. 

16 Maybe do what you’re proposing to do, but at least 

17 check with some maybe service or maybe something like 

18 that, at least it gives you an idea that you are in the 

19 ballpark. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

21 MR. McCABE: Let me add one more thing. This 

22 is Michael McCabe. 

23 With other products we have seen a range in 

24 markups, depending upon what the efficiency is, that 

the high-volume products tended to have lower markups 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

176 

1 and the much more efficient products had much higher 

2 markups. 

3 What we’re -- we are not trying to capture in 

4 this analysis what is the price of a very efficient 

product with very small sales. These are what I’ll 

6 call high-volume markups in order to get an estimate as 

7 to what the sales price would be in high-volume 

8 situations; that is, if the standard were set at that 

9 level, and so that going into the marketplace to get 

information on the price of very efficient products 

11 today for any of the given product types where they may 

12 be truly an exception, their markups may not be 

13 representative at all as to what the high-volume 

14 product would be and as a result their price would not 

be representative of the high volume. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Talbot. 

17 MR. GEE: This is Talbot with HARDI. A few 

18 things to add to that. I agree with Karim’s point, but 

19 also in this channel, especially with new 

installations, I want to be clear we’re talking the 

21 final completed product because in some degree you 

22 could almost take like the Gillette shaver example 

23 where, you know, the shaver itself is one thing but 

24 then it’s really intended for the resale of all those 

blades later. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

177 

1 So, in other words, you can’t necessarily 

2 look at the final cost that might be attributed to one 

3 of the components because really that was factored into 

4 the final installation cost of the whole project. So 

that can mislead some of the analysis. 

6 I’ll also, just based on our experience with 

7 the residential standards, I’d do a friendly reminder 

8 that markup is not the same as gross margin, so just 

9 those multipliers don’t work exactly the same way, and 

we will be working to try to quantify as best we can 

11 for our written comment here, but the challenge with 

12 all these markups always is, again, how are we -- what 

13 are we talking about the end result because there could 

14 be a variety of suppliers and a variety of different 

channels that actually might have created the end 

16 result here. 

17 So I just will have to -- will give you 

18 whatever information we can try to find on this, but 

19 this could be a pretty difficult analysis to do. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Karim. 

21 DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. I have 

22 another question for DOE. 

23 How does DOE intend to estimate the baseline 

24 cost? Are you going to go through a reverse 

engineering analysis again or can you tell us a little 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

178 

1 bit about that? 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Aris. 

3 MR. MARANTAN: Aris Marantan, Navigant 

4 Consulting. 

That is certainly one of the options 

6 available to us, but we haven’t yet decided if that is 

7 a feasible approach, only considering the size of these 

8 units and, you know, all of the different components. 

9 So that hasn’t been established yet but it is one of 

the choices for us. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Do you have a previous 

12 position, Karim? 

13 DR. AMRANE: No, no. I’m just -- in the past 

14 rulemakings, this is what DOE had been doing and I’m 

just curious here are we following the same path. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: John. 

17 MR. McHUGH: In looking at your markups, I 

18 think Mr. McCabe alluded to earlier the products that 

19 we might look at. Our future standard might be 

something that’s considered a premium product now and 

21 might have a different markup structure than a 

22 commodity product that has higher volume and also more 

23 competition. 

24 Is it your intent to try to identify markups 

for essentially the commodity products that are 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

179 

1 essentially on the low end of the market for defining 

2 markups? 

3 MR. McCABE: Now I can have my one-word 

4 answer. This is Michael McCabe. Yes. 

MR. BROOKMAN: So maybe we should do a round 

6 of applause right now. Oh, no, we’ll wait and see if 

7 you can do it again. 

8 Yes, Ellis. 

9 MR. E. CRAIG: I have a comment. I don’t 

know if -- maybe I’m naïve about this, but I think I’m 

11 probably right. From what I see of competitors and not 

12 all competitors, but I don’t know if this industry is 

13 very sophisticated in pricing products. 

14 We know that because we’re pricing products 

and we see prices jumping all over the place. It’s 

16 like -- there’s no logical sense to the way the market 

17 is going. 

18 If you’re looking for something like specific 

19 -- like, well, this high-energy-efficient model costs a 

lot more markup, I don’t think you’re going to find 

21 that. I think most of the manufacturers that we’re 

22 competing with out there are waiting till their 

23 financial statement comes out once a quarter and 

24 decides what to set their price at. Okay. I think 

it’s more that than real sophistication. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

180 

1 Some manufacturers who are a little more 

2 sophisticated do take into -- do do real-time costing 

3 of the raw materials that are going into the product 

4 since it’s a custom product. It’s not simple that you 

have a bill of materials for this model. So you have 

6 to do it kind of on the fly and calculate that for 

7 every model that goes through the system and that’s 

8 pretty sophisticated to do that and then they will take 

9 a multiplier and apply that which will give them the 

exact margin to sell it to that end user or to the 

11 dealer, I should say, and then the dealer will take 

12 that, he’ll mark it up anywhere from five to 20 percent 

13 himself and that varies consistently throughout the 

14 industry. So it’s going to be hard to nail this down 

to where it gets the effect you’re looking for about 

16 this high-efficiency unit and how much is it really 

17 going to happen. I just don’t know if it’s going to 

18 work out that easy. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: When the order is made, 

there’s not an agreed-to price? 

21 MR. E. CRAIG: Yes, there’s an agreed-to 

22 price, but it’s -- every order that comes in has to be 

23 calculated. You remember we were talking about 90 

24 percent of it is not standard product. So somebody’s 

either calculating or using a computer system to 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

181 

1 calculate that and it’s usually not based on cost, it’s 

2 based on what they charged last month and whether they 

3 decide to take the price increase two months from now. 

4 It’s very crude. 

MR. BROOKMAN: And furthermore, there’s 

6 enough competition within -- among the different 

7 competitors that they might move their price --

8 MR. E. CRAIG: Oh, they move it all the time. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: -- all over the place. 

MR. E. CRAIG: In the middle of the winter -­

11 we’re a little bit seasonal because it’s a construction 

12 product. You get in the middle of the winter and 

13 you’ll see prices on walk-ins, oh, 10 to 15 percent, 20 

14 percent cheaper than you would in the middle of the 

summer. If they’re out six to 10 weeks in delivery, 

16 they’re not looking to take discount on product, you 

17 know, but you get in the winter and their plant’s not 

18 had anything to build and they’re looking for 

19 something, they’ll fill that plant with cost product, 

if they have to. 

21 So it’s like you said, it’s a moving target, 

22 depending on the market, and we deliver in two to three 

23 weeks. So if we don’t have an order in two to three 

24 weeks, we’re out of business, you know. So it’s a 

constant fluctuation going on in the market out there. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

182 

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks. That’s 

2 helpful. 

3 MR. E. CRAIG: It’s not real simple. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed. 

MR. OSANN: This is Ed Osann. A follow-up 

6 that gets back to the distribution channel, as well. 

7 Is there -- does this industry tend to be 

8 marked by sort of just-in-time manufacturing and 

9 shipping or do products get manufactured and placed in 

inventory somewhere? 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Ellis. 

12 MR. E. CRAIG: Ellis Craig, Craig Industries. 

13 The general industry out here is just-in-time, meaning 

14 they don’t build the product till they get an order. 

In the last five years, you’re beginning to see some 

16 manufacturers, there’s some over here, that have what 

17 they call a quick ship program which may be based on 

18 stocking panels that can be pulled off a shelf to make 

19 a certain size walk-in and shipped in a quick fashion, 

but, generally speaking, in the industry it’s not a 

21 matter of -- maybe you guys might be a little bit 

22 different, but most of them are made to order. 

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Talbot. 

24 MR. GEE: This is Talbot from HARDI. I’d add 

to that that the wholesalers, especially for smaller 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

183 

1 applications, may have all the parts and pieces that 

2 can be put together for a given installation, but it’s 

3 oftentimes the same equipment that would be used for a 

4 repair job, as well. So it wasn’t necessarily procured 

for a new installation. 

6 The other thing is, to exactly the same 

7 points as brought up by Craig Industries, is that, we 

8 do not necessarily see in all products this incremental 

9 markup model. That’s kind of -- somewhat of an 

antiquated model in some respects, especially with what 

11 we’ve seen in residential products and the same, too, 

12 the price fluctuations are so much of it, you can’t 

13 necessarily assume that this incremental model will 

14 apply for these systems, as well. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Helpful 

16 comments. Okay. So then, unless there’s any -- yes, 

17 Ed. 

18 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann. One more follow-up. 

19 If the nature of the production tends towards more 

just-in-time and the prevailing product is custom 

21 rather than standardized, how is it that manufacturers 

22 typically don’t distribute directly to end-use 

23 customers? Is the custom order coming back through a 

24 distributor? 

MR. BROOKMAN: Ellis. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

184 

1 MR. E. CRAIG: Yeah. Craig Industries, Ellis 

2 Craig. 

3 In this industry, pretty much everything is 

4 sold through a dealer. Not only that for the support 

aspect of it, I mean, the contractors, they are an 

6 integral part of this whole thing because it’s not just 

7 the sale but, like you said, this thing is actually 

8 assembled onsite. It’s not necessarily manufactured in 

9 a plant, shipped out and plugged in with a plug-in, you 

know. This thing is actually constructed onsite. 

11 So it’s good to have a support group out 

12 there of quality contractors that do -- even if you 

13 sell to a food service contractor -- food service 

14 dealer, they will have a contractor involved with them 

that does all their work. So this is -- if somebody 

16 wants to buy a walk-in, he’s going to call a dealer and 

17 the dealer’s going to call up three manufacturers of 

18 walk-ins and he’s going to give them exactly the same 

19 specification and they’re going to each one quote that 

specific custom-made box. Then he’s going to talk to 

21 the end user and give the quote he wants to give to 

22 them and then he’s going to get an order and he’s going 

23 to place it with one of those three and they’re going 

24 to build it and ship it. That’s kind of the way the 

system works. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

185 

1 MR. OSANN: So this is Ed Osann. So for all 

2 these custom products, all these sort of oddball angles 

3 and specific specifications that are very site4 specific, those get handled by three different people 

up the chain? 

6 MR. E. CRAIG: Yes, it’s not like a price 

7 list where you -- here’s my price list for next year 

8 and you buy your walk-in. It doesn’t work that way. 

9 Very seldom would anybody in the field ever buy a walkin off of a price list. They will all call and they’ll 

11 get a quote for that product and they will place that 

12 order according to -- usually price is the deciding 

13 factor. So the market really depends what -- and there 

14 will be three people handle it. 

Usually the end user will talk to a 

16 distributor, a dealer I’ll call them which could be a 

17 refrigeration contractor, a food service dealer. They 

18 will call a manufacturer. They will negotiate a price. 

19 They will get that price and call back that guy and 

they’ll sell it. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Does the specification, for 

22 example, include things like the insulation to be used 

23 and that sort of thing? 

24 MR. E. CRAIG: It can. In the past -- to be 

honest with you, unless you’re a sophisticated buyer, a 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

186 

1 restaurateur will walk in and he’ll say I need a walk2 in, I got about an 8X10 area here, see what you can do 

3 for me and he’ll come back with a walk-in and he 

4 doesn’t care the insulation value, the efficiency of 

the refrigeration system. It’s going to come down to a 

6 price issue 99 percent of the time. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Interesting. Thank you. 

8 That’s a very important clarification. Talbot. 

9 MR. GEE: Talbot from HARDI. To expand on 

that answer, to maybe simplify it, you could have any 

11 of the three players in the channel bidding or spec’ing 

12 a job. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Interesting, very interesting. 

14 All right. Okay. I think we need to keep pressing on 

to make sure we get as much coverage as possible. 

16 So back to you, Marcus. 

17 MR. DE LA ROSA: Next, I’ll cover the Energy 

18 Use and End-Use Load Characterization. 

19 The purpose of the Energy Use and End-Use 

Load Characterization is to develop energy use and peak 

21 electricity demand characteristics for buildings that 

22 use walk-in coolers and freezers and to provide the 

23 basis for the unit energy costs used in the Life-Cycle 

24 Cost Analysis. 

The Department is considering conducting a 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

187 

1 simplified analysis of walk-in coolers and freezers 

2 that does not address the impact of higher-efficiency 

3 design options on building space heating and cooling 

4 loads, but is based on the Engineering Analysis tools 

the Department is developing for walk-in coolers and 

6 freezers. 

7 Statistical data will then be used to develop 

8 appropriate weights for the resulting energy use data. 

9 These weights will be used to develop regional and 

national average net energy use figures as well as 

11 energy use distributions for specific equipment classes 

12 and efficiency levels. 

13 The Department seeks input on the relative 

14 merits of incorporating the whole building space 

heating and cooling energy in its Energy Analysis of 

16 walk-in coolers and freezers. If the whole building 

17 analysis is recommended, the Department seeks the 

18 reasons supporting this type of analysis as well as 

19 comments on what building types and analysis tools and 

for which equipment classes such analysis should be 

21 considered. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl. 

23 MR. ERBS: Daryl Erbs. I would really 

24 discourage that approach, just based on the -- we don’t 

always even know where these things are going inside 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

188 

1 the building. I mean, we have some idea, based on 

2 floor plans, but certainly from an energy standpoint, I 

3 think we’re a long, long ways from any kind of 

4 integration. So I think that would be a hard thing to 

do. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Ellis. 

7 MR. E. CRAIG: Ellis Craig, Craig Industries. 

8 I want to make one comment that’s very -- it was shown 

9 earlier, but it’s very important to realize that some 

walk-ins are indoors with indoor refrigeration 

11 equipment which dumps the heat inside the building 

12 which can make an extra load if you’re air conditioning 

13 the building, of course. 

14 It would be more efficient to dump it outside 

where you’re not, but then in the winter when you’re 

16 heating the building, it works the other way around. 

17 So there’s some issues involved with the building, but 

18 I don’t know how you take it into consideration. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Karim. 

DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. And I 

21 believe that DOE has done this kind of analysis for the 

22 commercial refrigeration rulemaking, and I’m not sure. 

23 If I recall correctly, the impact was not that much at 

24 all. 

So again, I mean, I think we had this same 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

189 

1 kind of issue before and if it didn’t make any 

2 difference, I don’t see why we should be doing it. 

3 MR. DE LA ROSA: On Page 27 of the Framework 

4 Document, there’s a discussion of that, of what was 

done for CRE and that’s correct. It wasn’t 

6 significant. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Sriram, do you have a 

8 contribution? Oh, Grant. 

9 So yes, Ed, and then to John. We’re going to 

keep moving. We need to keep moving along here, so 

11 let’s try and be as focused as possible. 

12 MR. OSANN: Yeah. On this subject, I don’t 

13 know that this is our final view on it today, but I 

14 think we recognize the considerable additional 

complexity that would be involved with this and are not 

16 recommending today that the Department pursue it. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Ed. 

18 MR. OSANN: But we would qualify that. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks, Ed. Appreciate that. 

John. 

21 MR. McHUGH: I can see that some sort of 

22 simplified approach might be taken, but just thinking 

23 about, you know, if you’re lucky and you had an R-13 

24 piece of equipment, you’re still talking about an extra 

30 percent of energy consumption to -- for the energy 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

5 

 

10 

 

15 

 

20 

 

25 

190 

1 to reject that heat. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks. We’re going to 

3 keep moving ahead here. 

4 Grant Williams. 

Life-Cycle Cost & Payback Period Analyses 

6 MR. WILLIAMS: My name is Grant Williams. 

7 I’m with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 

8 I’m going to discuss the Life-Cycle Cost & Payback 

9 Period Analyses and then on to the Shipments Analysis & 

the National Impact Analysis. 

11 So our purpose is to assess the net Life12 Cycle Cost or the LCC impacts of different efficiency 

13 levels for walk-in coolers and freezers and this is 

14 from the perspective of the customer, and when we at 

DOE develop new energy standards, this usually means a 

16 decrease in the operating expenses but an increase in 

17 the purchase price. 

18 The relative magnitudes of these two things 

19 have a big impact on the payback period which is really 

important to customers. 

21 The method we use. We look at it from, like 

22 I said, the customer perspective and we say that the 

23 life-cycle cost equals the customer’s purchase price, 

24 plus the sum of the operating costs, discounted to a 

particular base year every year. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

191 

1 Economic evaluation is from the customer 

2 perspective and we use this very, very large 

3 spreadsheet to accomplish this in Excel and the results 

4 are expressed as the difference between the baseline, 

which has been discussed and established, minus the 

6 standard level. 

7 So if we have a projection and we have a 

8 standard level, the difference is the value or the 

9 negative difference would be the dis-savings. 

If you look on the bottom of this -- excuse 

11 me. We take the operating expenses, which are for the 

12 lifetime of the equipment. We convert that to the 

13 present value and we combine that with the first costs, 

14 which is the consumer price plus the installation 

costs, and that is combined into the change of costs 

16 which comes the LCC results. 

17 So we take the baseline manufacturer price 

18 and the standard level manufacturer price, top upper 

19 left, and we combine -- those are from the Engineering 

Analysis. We combine those with the markup for 

21 Equipment and Price Determination Analysis, the 

22 mechanical contractor markup, the sales tax. We 

23 combine that into a consumer price. We combine that 

24 with the installation cost to come up with a total 

installed cost. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

192 

1 On the lower half, you’ll see that we take 

2 the Energy Use and End-Use Load and Characterization 

3 Analyses and we add those with the electricity prices 

4 which are regional, so we compare apples to apples. 

New York prices for New York power consumption, 

6 Washington prices for Washington power consumption. 

7 With those, we get annual energy expenditures 

8 which we would compare with repair costs -- excuse me 

9 -- which we add to with the repair costs and 

maintenance costs to come up with our annual operating 

11 expenses. 

12 The total -- excuse me. The total installed 

13 costs and the annual operating expenses we use to come 

14 up with the payback period and that’s the point at 

which the additional spending on the more expensive 

16 model and more efficient model of a walk-in freezer or 

17 cooler, it’s the point at which the savings will 

18 surpass the extra expenses. 

19 We take the annual operating expenses, like I 

said, plus the lifetime -- the discount rate and the 

21 electricity price trends, and we use those to establish 

22 lifetime operating expenses, and those are combined 

23 with the total installed costs to produce a life-cycle 

24 cost for the piece of equipment and the standard level. 

Energy prices are necessary to convert the 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

193 

1 energy consumption for the equipment analyzed to energy 

2 costs. DOE proposes to use regional average 

3 electricity and natural gas fuel prices for its 

4 analysis of walk-in coolers and freezers, like I said, 

to compare electricity use in New York with New York 

6 prices, so it’s more accurate. 

7 We will be using the Annual Energy Outlook as 

8 a default source of projections for these energy 

9 prices, and we will also use the latest AEO forecast 

for subsequent analysis as they become available. 

11 The Department seeks comment on the proposed 

12 approaches for estimating current and forecasted energy 

13 prices. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl. 

MR. ERBS: Hi. Daryl Erbs again. I think my 

16 biggest concern is whether we have an accurate picture 

17 of what the loads are on these walk-ins, both coolers 

18 and freezers, so that when you’re looking at increases 

19 in efficiency, if you’ve got the load wrong, then 

that’s going to directly translate to either too much 

21 or too little savings in electrical energy and you may 

22 attribute the wrong economic benefit to a particular 

23 technology. 

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Ed. 

MR. OSANN: Ed Osann, ASAP. I wonder if I 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

194 

1 could follow up that point. 

2 Are you suggesting the -- I mean, where do 

3 you go with that thought? Is there -- do you have in 

4 mind the development of a series of test loads for use 

in the test procedure or where does that take you? 

6 MR. ERBS: Daryl Erbs again. I think what 

7 I’m suggesting is maybe we need to do a little more 

8 research or maybe it’s just digging a bit more into 

9 studies that may have been done, although I’m not 

familiar with a lot of work. So I’m not sure if it’s 

11 something that is easy to do in a short period of time, 

12 but I would just be concerned that we try to go out and 

13 get some idea. 

14 I think we’ve heard some comments about 

sizing of refrigeration systems to be conservative and 

16 so you shouldn’t assume that the refrigeration system 

17 is running, you know, 90 percent of the time, it may be 

18 less than that, and it may depend upon the application. 

19 A convenience store may be much more a series of peak 

loads as people come in at lunch time to, you know, 

21 grab and go versus a restaurant in an institution where 

22 the door’s propped open a lot of the time. 

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. So additional 

24 comments on these issues, Life-Cycle Costing, the flow 

chart that’s there, the Energy Price and Payback Period 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

195 

1 Analysis. John. 

2 MR. McHUGH: Again, there’s been no 

3 discussion so far about for that Energy Analysis, if 

4 you’re using different temperatures for all those 

condensers that are outdoors and also different 

6 temperatures when the envelope is exposed to the 

7 outside. 

8 Is there an intent to -- how are -- you’re 

9 going to end up with different outcomes, depending on 

the temperatures. So what is DOE’s position on how 

11 they’re going to address that? 

12 MR. McCABE: This is Michael McCabe. This 

13 analysis is looking at regional values. Now within 

14 that, we can look at -- there are -- there’s a lot of 

variability that may or may not have any impact on the 

16 results of the Life-Cycle Cost. 

17 It would be particularly helpful if you could 

18 provide some recommendations as to specifically how the 

19 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis should be structured, again as 

-- should we be looking at regional differences in 

21 usage for the same piece of equipment? If so, what is 

22 it a function of? The outdoor temperature? If it’s an 

23 indoor unit, does it vary? You know, all those factors 

24 that may have an effect. 

Is there a regional variance to it, and if 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

196 

1 so, you know, please provide some of your suggestions 

2 on how we should take that into consideration. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Michael. Thank 

4 you. Yes, Karim. 

DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. But again, 

6 I would have to follow up on Michael’s response here. 

7 We’re not dealing here with regional 

8 standards, so yes, there would be variation, depending 

9 on where you are in the country, but, overall, I mean, 

we need to look at the U.S. as a country and make some 

11 judgment as to where we should be basing our analysis 

12 on. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael McCabe. 

14 MR. McCABE: You’re totally right, Karim. 

These are not regional standards. We do not have the 

16 legislative authority to set regional standards, but 

17 the analysis for most of our products are looking at 

18 the regional -- what it costs that consumer and we’re 

19 looking at the range of values, energy prices, usage 

and the like and so that our Life-Cycle Cost shows a 

21 distribution of Life-Cycle Cost savings that are a 

22 function of a number of factors that, you know, are 

23 appropriate and affect those individual users. 

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

MR. WILLIAMS: If I could, Doug? 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

197 

1 MR. BROOKMAN: I’m sorry. Yes. 

2 MR. WILLIAMS: If I could? Grant Williams. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. 

4 MR. WILLIAMS: We take into consideration in 

our Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis things such as 

6 electricity prices and energy use. So the model will 

7 capture, based on, you know, comments and 

8 considerations from the industry and advocates, et. 

9 cetera, will capture -- we can capture people who are 

-- individuals or groups who are going to be more 

11 likely to have atypical energy consumption. 

12 MR. SOMASUNDARAM: Sriram Somasundaram, 

13 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Further 

14 clarification on that would be that, depending on the 

data that you provide in terms of what percentage of 

16 these units are outdoors versus indoors, we have done a 

17 similar analysis for vending machines just recently 

18 based on that data, and then for the outdoor units, for 

19 example, we can run the climate files and the ambient 

temperatures over the year and basically do an annual 

21 simulation of energy use of this -- by this box. 

22 So it’s -- and then we aggregated up to state 

23 level and then we have state -- use state average 

24 energy prices to get the energy costs. So we aggregate 

all that state level analysis then to a national usage. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

198 

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

2 MR. WILLIAMS: And that will all be discussed 

3 in the continuing slides. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: And so, Grant, do you have 

anything else you wanted to raise here in this segment 

6 or did we cover it pretty well? We didn’t deal with 

7 discount rates yet. 

8 MR. WILLIAMS: Not yet. We’re coming to it. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So let’s proceed. 

MR. WILLIAMS: Grant Williams. Discount 

11 rates are used to convert the extremes of annual 

12 operating expenses to the present value in our LCC 

13 Analysis. 

14 The Department will use or will derive the 

LCC discount rates by estimating the weighted average 

16 costs, debt equity capital of the WACC, for companies 

17 that purchase walk-in coolers and freezers. 

18 The Department seeks comment on the proposed 

19 approaches for estimating discount rates for customers 

purchasing the equipment covered under this rulemaking 

21 and given the relatively narrow commercial application 

22 of most of the equipment covered under this rulemaking 

23 which, if any, commercial sectors beyond grocery stores 

24 and restaurants should be considered in the evaluation 

of these discount rates? 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

199 

1 In addition, do interested parties feel 

2 government purchase of equipment are large enough to 

3 require that they be included in the evaluation of 

4 discount rates? 

MR. BROOKMAN: Two questions regarding 

6 discount rates. Yes, Steve. 

7 MR. COMBS: Well, again, -- Steve Combs, 

8 ICS. Again, the convenience store market and then the 

9 floral application market, I know they’re pretty big 

segments of that whole thing and need to be given 

11 consideration, as well. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Other 

13 comments? 

14 (No response.) 

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

16 MR. WILLIAMS: Other Life-Cycle Costs & 

17 Payback Period Analysis inputs. We have four others. 

18 Installation costs, equipment lifetime, repair costs 

19 and maintenance costs. 

As far as installation costs are concerned, 

21 we don’t expect installation costs to really increase 

22 unless the rulemaking somehow results in larger or 

23 heavier equipment. 

24 As far as lifetime is concerned, we’re going 

to -- we grab most of our information from ASHRAE and 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

200 

1 other literature, such as appliance magazines. Of 

2 course, any data that could be provided by any of you 

3 would be really appreciated and DOE will consider and, 

4 to be honest, would make my job a lot easier. 

For repair costs and maintenance costs, 

6 typically these are incremental changes in equipment 

7 efficiencies and incur very small to no increases. 

8 However, the more efficient the machine is compared to 

9 the baseline the bigger changes. It does make a case 

for a significantly-larger increase for maintenance and 

11 repair costs. 

12 So changes based on the comments to these 

13 questions will be included in the preliminary and --

14 from this Preliminary Analysis will be included in the 

ANOPR documentation, so that’s something that we’ll see 

16 at a future meeting. 

17 So the questions. The Department seeks 

18 feedback on whether changes in the maintenance, repair 

19 and installation costs will be negligible for equipment 

with lower energy consumption, such as I said. 

21 The Department also seeks feedback on whether 

22 changes in maintenance, repair and installation costs 

23 will be changed as a result of the efficiency 

24 increases, and if so, whether those changes are likely 

to be negligible. If those costs are not likely to be 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

201 

1 negligible, please explain what those costs would be 

2 and why this would likely be the case. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s just deal with that one 

4 alone for now. 

MR. WILLIAMS: Sure. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, since that’s an important 

7 question. Karim. 

8 DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. I think, in 

9 addition to those costs, I think that there’s been some 

discussion before about transportation costs. So I 

11 think somehow this has to be captured in that LCC 

12 Analysis. 

13 Now, as far as the installation, I’m 

14 assuming, again, I mean, because of sizes, I’m sure 

that there will be an installation cost increase as 

16 product becomes bigger and so on. So I think maybe it 

17 might not be correlated with efficiency but it would be 

18 correlated with size, so something that probably needs 

19 to be looked. 

Now, on this issue of maintenance costs and 

21 repair costs, yes, in the past DOE has always assumed 

22 that, you know, as product becomes more and more 

23 efficient, as this cost is relatively flat and does not 

24 increase, and we have always commented against that. 

That’s not the case. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

202 

1 When product becomes more sophisticated, they 

2 become more expensive to repair. So I would again ask 

3 the DOE to consider that. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 

thoughts on installation costs, equipment lifetime, 

6 repair costs and maintenance costs. Ed. 

7 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann, ASAP. Just a follow-up 

8 question for Karim. 

9 The point about increasing size, is that 

within the current size distribution in this product 

11 class or are you suggesting there’s some exogenous 

12 increase in the size of walk-in coolers that’s going 

13 on? 

14 DR. AMRANE: No. What I’m saying here is 

that in the analysis, in previous analyses anyway, when 

16 installation was assumed to be constant regardless of 

17 the size of the equipment, regardless of its 

18 efficiencies, in this particular case, I’m not sure 

19 about efficiency but I’m sure that as the equipment is 

bigger in size, there would be changes in installation 

21 cost and somehow this has to be factored in and again 

22 I’m just saying that, you know, in the analysis DOE has 

23 to look at that and maybe, you know, try to estimate 

24 how this cost would vary. 

MR. OSANN: Is that bigger in size as a 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

203 

1 result of the standards? 

2 DR. AMRANE: No. I’m talking about size 

3 itself. I’m talking about the volume of the system. 

4 MR. WILLIAMS: If I could clarify, I think I 

may have misspoke or there’s a misinterpretation. 

6 What I meant by size, the installation costs 

7 for a unit of comparable size, so, you know, X many 

8 square feet or volume units, and then looking at that 

9 as opposed to the same unit of the same dimensions 

that’s more efficient. We don’t anticipate a very 

11 significant increase in the installation costs because 

12 it probably won’t be a heavier unit or a larger unit. 

13 If we change the metric or if the metric is 

14 decided to be in volume instead of square feet maybe 

some kind of issue could come up from that. 

16 DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. Again, 

17 what’s different here is that maybe for other products, 

18 like a central air, you know, the size of the equipment 

19 does not matter much as far as the installation, but in 

this case, I think size will matter. So it’s something 

21 that has to be --

22 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. 

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl. 

24 MR. ERBS: Daryl Erbs. One of the concerns I 

would have and will probably not have much historical 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

204 

1 data before we get pretty far along on this process, 

2 but as we introduce new technologies, electronically3 computated motors is an example of a good technology, 

4 but it hasn’t been out in the field, and even in cases 

where the products aren’t necessarily less reliable but 

6 they’re new, we tend to see at least over a period of 

7 time some incremental costs because people don’t 

8 understand them, they don’t have as much experience 

9 diagnosing them, and we end up with a higher rate of 

changes. 

11 So depending on the technology that gets 

12 introduced, I think there can be an impact on 

13 maintenance costs. I don’t know how you estimate that, 

14 but I’d just caution you that it’s not necessarily safe 

to take historical rates on some of these components if 

16 we’re radically changing the technology that goes into 

17 them. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: So then do you want to 

19 comment, can you comment about equipment lifetime then? 

MR. ERBS: I think the equipment lifetimes 

21 that you have down are not unreasonable. I think we 

22 tend to see, for example, refrigeration systems in 

23 freezers probably tend to last a bit less than one in a 

24 refrigerator just because of the stress it places on 

the components, but I’m not sure it’s worth trying to, 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

205 

1 you know, narrow that down, but I’m not too 

2 uncomfortable with the time period you’ve stated. 

3 I think it’s just a higher rate of 

4 replacement and they’re more expensive components and 

so that ends up being a higher cost over the life of 

6 the equipment. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Ellis. 

8 MR. E. CRAIG: Ellis Craig, Craig Industries. 

9 I think that you’ve got a 10-year life cycle on 

refrigeration. I thought that was a little high. I 

11 don’t know if that’s figured in your calculation, but 

12 it seems fairly high to me. You guys might think 

13 differently, but I think that’s pretty high. 

14 As the walk-ins begin to become less and less 

efficient due to moisture penetration and out-gassing, 

16 some things that go on then, the compressors run more 

17 and more all the time and we see -- everybody in this 

18 room knows that most warranties run five years on 

19 compressors and no farther, and there’s a good reason 

for that, because after five years they start failing 

21 at a higher and higher percentage rate. So I think a 

22 10-year life expectancy on a refrigeration system is 

23 pretty high. 

24 Now these new motors like we’re talking about 

here, there’s not much life experience out there, so 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

206 

1 they may be less maintenance or more maintenance, but 

2 he is right, as the new people are learning the new 

3 products, they’re going to be more apt to change out 

4 the motor quicker because they don’t know what to 

expect of it. So if there’s a problem, they’re going 

6 to do some things like that and I think they are a 

7 little bit bigger, aren’t they? The newer motors, 

8 aren’t they larger? It seems to me I heard that. 

9 MR. NEIL: Tim Neil with Morrill Motors. I 

can answer that. We’re a manufacturer of 

11 electronically-computated motors. 

12 They’re a little longer. There are some 

13 manufacturers that are larger in diameter. It depends 

14 on how they went about doing the technology. But we’ve 

been in the market with ECM products since 1985 for 

16 HVAC equipment, started to get into the commercial 

17 refrigeration applications in the lower wide ranges for 

18 display cases in 1995. 

19 We just introduced something for this 

legislation in 2007. We have one year of data out 

21 there and you guys are exactly right, that half of the 

22 returns that we’ve had have been no defect found, where 

23 people don’t know how to diagnose them yet, but, you 

24 know, even with that, we’re still at a 99.5 percent 10­

year reliability rate right now with those. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

207 

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Tim, say your name again. 

2 MS. STEVENS: Tim Neil with Morrill Motors. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks. Thank you. Talbot. 

4 MR. GEE: This is Talbot from HARDI. I 

wanted to pass on a comment from a representative from 

6 the RSES, which is the service side for a lot of the 

7 refrigeration equipment, the contractors and installers 

8 who couldn’t be here today, but one of their biggest 

9 concerns is they felt the maintenance costs were 

grossly underestimated in the commercial refrigeration 

11 standards that were recently completed and were 

12 concerned that that same type of estimate would be used 

13 in this rulemaking, as well. 

14 So I’m expecting them to provide you more 

detailed comment on that point, more specifics. 

16 From HARDI’s perspective, I’d say, too, 

17 because we don’t know what this performance standard 

18 might look like and that it’s in theory going to be an 

19 all-encompassing energy consumption figure for this end 

result, more than likely I would have to assume it’s 

21 going to require more labor time on the front end 

22 before you even touch the equipment to make sure that 

23 you have factored in all of these variables very, very 

24 thoroughly, and I don’t know how you account for that, 

but depending on how this standard goes forward, if 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

208 

1 this really is a holistic approach, then I hope that’s 

2 taken into account, the added labor cost that the 

3 installing contractor’s going to have with this stuff. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. John, and 

then Charles. 

6 MR. LLENZA: Charles Llenza, Department of 

7 Energy. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Charles. 

9 MR. LLENZA: If we could get more information 

in terms of specific costs, the Department would 

11 appreciate that. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Following Talbot’s? 

13 MR. LLENZA: Yes. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, okay. John. 

MR. McHUGH: This comment is kind of in 

16 response to Daryl’s comments, that yes, there’s, you 

17 know, new technologies brought into the market. 

18 Sometimes there’s -- you know, people have to get used 

19 to new technologies, but the question is for this 

proceedings, we’re talking about changing the market 

21 over the long term and the question is, you know, two 

22 years down the road, do we now still have people still 

23 scratching their head? 

24 So I think what we’re really trying to look 

at is what is the long-term cost of installation once 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
5 

 

 

10 

 

15 

 

 

20 

 

25 

209 

1 people have gotten used to whatever the new protocols 

2 or procedures are? What are the long-term effects on 

3 maintenance and that’s really the question rather than, 

4 yeah, the first time I installed one, I installed it 

backwards or whatever. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Tim. 

7 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, EarthJustice. Yeah. 

8 I was going to make a similar point, that we’re looking 

9 at sort of a 30-year analysis period and if there is 

any initial increase in maintenance costs due to lack 

11 of familiarity that would presumably disappear as the 

12 learning curve goes on. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So then additional 

14 comments on this Slide 55 before we move on? 

 (No response.) 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

17 Shipments Analysis & National Impact Analysis 

18 MR. WILLIAMS: So as I mentioned before --

19 Grant Williams. As I mentioned before, the Shipments 

Model that I’ll be discussing now is combined with our 

21 Life-Cycle Cost Model and Analysis to produce the 

22 National Impact Analysis choices, the end of my 

23 presentation. 

24 So the purpose is to project the rate of new 

equipment shipments under a proposed energy 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

210 

1 conservation standard and track the walk-in 

2 freezer/cooler equipment stock of equipment by vintage 

3 over the time frame of the standard, and we develop a 

4 base case of shipment forecasts to compare our 

standards case to this base case and in part of that is 

6 that we expect that the shipments for our base case 

7 will be higher than our shipments in the -- as a rule, 

8 than our shipments in the standards case because of the 

9 increase in first cost to customers. 

The method we used for this is we take the 

11 life-cycle of the equipment and it’s modeled as a 

12 cradle-to-grave process, so we follow it from one stage 

13 to another throughout its lifetime. New equipment is 

14 purchased and shipped to a building. This equipment 

operates over the years in a building. Also, some 

16 equipment is constructed onsite and eventually, after 

17 the equipment lifetime is up, it’s retired. 

18 Our data sources include product lifetime, 

19 estimates of commercial floor space, current product 

saturation rates by building type, and the shipment 

21 model is calibrated to historical shipments, and market 

22 saturation data, and again data on historical product 

23 shipments and market shares efficiency level by 

24 equipment class would be considered and appreciated. 

If data cannot be found for the distribution 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

211 

1 of equipment types and efficiencies, we’ll use a --

2 excuse me. We’ll develop an efficiency distribution 

3 model to estimate these numbers as a proxy. 

4 Additionally, when manufacturer tax credits 

or customer rebates or other incentive programs exist, 

6 the model does take these into consideration, as well. 

7 So request for feedback. The Department 

8 seeks information on representative saturation rates 

9 for each equipment class covered under this rulemaking 

as well as industry trend data regarding relative 

11 growth in each equipment class. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: And this may be the kind of 

13 thing that you would want to submit very detailed 

14 comments in writing rather than just try to talk about 

it now, but maybe there’s a way you can generally 

16 describe this now or something. Whatever you think is 

17 appropriate but the details are what matter to the 

18 Department. 

19 Talbot. 

MR. GEE: Well, I’m sorry, if you don’t mind 

21 to go back to just our last point of discussion since 

22 no one’s really jumped on this new point. 

23 Just in response to your comment, when we’re 

24 talking about, for example, --

MR. BROOKMAN: John’s comment? 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

212 

1 MR. GEE: Yes, for the ECM motors. For 

2 example, training in the industry right now is only 

3 focused on a very small percentage of installers 

4 because it only really applies to in theory new 

installations and that’s not likely to change 

6 significantly for quite awhile. 

7 So I’m not so sure we can assume that by the 

8 time this gets implemented that we really have caught 

9 up a whole lot on that learning curve for a lot of 

these installers because a lot of the guys who are 

11 servicing solely retrofit and replacement probably 

12 aren’t paying a whole lot of attention to that, but 

13 then all of a sudden one day they’re going to need to. 

14 So I’d just point that out there. I think 

there is a significant -- I can’t quantify it for you, 

16 but there’s a significant training and education cost 

17 that’s going to be borne by a lot of the distributor 

18 and contractor community to get caught up to speed with 

19 this. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Ed. 

21 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann, ASAP. This comment, 

22 though, seems to reflect that there’s kind of a blurred 

23 distinction between retrofit and new installations 

24 because if you had -- if the labor force that you’re 

referring to that primarily deals with retrofits --

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

213 

1 when is it that they’re suddenly going to all have to 

2 deal with this because this applies to new product 

3 installation. Are they doing new product installation 

4 now? 

MR. GEE: Well, I think the manufacturers can 

6 comment on this, too. That contractor base is a bit 

7 fragmented in that respect. You’ll have guys who are 

8 much more comfortable in service and repair work as 

9 versus new installations and what went into effect at 

the beginning of this year only technically applies to 

11 new installations. 

12 So in theory, you could be a service 

13 contractor doing plenty of work who maybe never touches 

14 an ECM drive. So I just throw it out there. I’m not 

making an argument one way or another. I’m just saying 

16 I think there’s actually probably a hidden cost in here 

17 that maybe we forget or would be prone to forget 

18 because we just think this is all going to work itself 

19 out between now and 2015 and I’m not so sure that’s the 

case. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Okay. So 

22 then you can see two requests for feedback, 9.1 and 

23 9.2. Are there -- do we have comments on these or 

24 shall we rely on detailed written remarks? Yes, let’s 

do it that way. Okay. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

214 

1 MR. WILLIAMS: All right. So the last step 

2 in this proposal is the National Impact Analysis. 

3 So the purpose is to develop a national 

4 energy savings and national net present value or NPV 

impact estimate for higher-efficiency standard levels. 

6 With this, we take a look at the aggregate 

7 impact of LCC savings and payback periods for 

8 individuals and we take that and aggregate it to the 

9 national level. We use a spreadsheet-based analysis 

tool, as we did before. We use a spreadsheet to 

11 develop annual time series of energy and economic 

12 impacts and this provides us with the national 

13 summations of impact for the defined analysis periods. 

14 We utilize the shipments model to estimate 

the total stock of walk-in coolers and freezers in the 

16 service in any year and we utilize the LCC to estimate 

17 costs and energy use per unit in any given year. 

18 Next, we aggregate the costs and energy use 

19 by vintage for all years in the analysis period and 

report estimates of energy use at the source of 

21 production in terms of quads, and we report estimates 

22 for economic impact as change in the net present value 

23 in the constant base year dollars. 

24 More details on this can be found in 10.3 in 

the Framework Document. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

215 

1 We use this to account for time value of 

2 money throughout the defined -- the defined lifetime 

3 throughout the discount rates. So the more detail in 

4 this process that we can have through industry 

comments, the more information the better. This is a 

6 really important step. 

7 So the last item, 10.1. The Department seeks 

8 comment on its plan to develop NES spreadsheet models 

9 for estimating national impacts of energy conservation 

for walk-in freezers/coolers. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: The last bit of analysis for 

12 the Preliminary Analysis. Ellis. 

13 MR. E. CRAIG: I have a comment that we 

14 really haven’t dealt with per se, but let’s say that in 

this process of defining this R value, that we decide 

16 that it’s not fresh but it’s an average of life-cycle 

17 of this product and it jumps up. It doesn’t change the 

18 law because the law is in existence and there may not 

19 be any installation out there that can do it in four 

inches because now we’ve said it’s an aged R value or 

21 we take in other considerations which means that the 

22 walk-in is going to get bigger and bigger to get that R 

23 value. So you might have an eight-inch walk-in instead 

24 of a four-inch walk-in now and that would be a huge 

impact on everybody. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

216 

1 Shipping is going to be big. We’ve thought 

2 about that ourselves. As these products get more 

3 thicker, they’re going to end up being more -- and then 

4 they -- the users of the walk-in whose space because 

now they can’t store as much stuff in it because 

6 they’ve got 10-inch walls on both sides and they’re 

7 losing 20 inches of space on all four walls. You begin 

8 to see some impacts that might happen if we take into 

9 consideration probably some of the impracticality of 

some of these R values that we’re dealing with. If we 

11 look at them in real use, they probably aren’t going 

12 to be performing the way we think they are. 

13 I just want to bring that up because no one’s 

14 talked about that, but there was a debate at the 

beginning of this year to decide whether to make a six16 inch walk-in panel out of expanded polystyrene to meet 

17 the R value, say, for a cooler or to go to a different 

18 installation and keep it smaller and the decision was, 

19 well, the customer truly was a little bit more 

resistant to going to a thicker wall panel. 

21 Well, some of this all may come out to find 

22 out that this really could end up being a lot bigger 

23 walk-in to provide this government-mandated R value and 

24 if it does, then you’re into a lot -- a different kind 

of costing than we’ve been talking about here that 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

217 

1 would have a huge impact on everybody in the industry. 

2 I just want to bring that to everybody’s 

3 attention because we’re dealing with fresh R values 

4 right now which everybody’s happy about and we’re 

living with and we’re doing our thing, but I think as 

6 we get to looking at this, it’s going to be kind of 

7 shocking to what spec was really written and it was not 

8 a very practical one to start with that can be 

9 attainable in a four-inch panel and be realistic. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Yes, Steve. 

11 MR. DUNLAP: I’d like to see an analysis on 

12 the transmission losses through conduction R value. 

13 What component, what contribution does that 

14 make to the cooler? In other words, is it a big value 

in terms of infiltration? What’s the biggest of the 

16 loads? 

17 You could tie that back into your Life-Cycle 

18 Analysis, as well, because I have a hard time believing 

19 that R value, even with age over time -- of course, we 

do have floors that are real crucial as far as picking 

21 up heat from the ground, but still I have a hard time 

22 thinking that there’s going to be a substantial 

23 economic value of having -- let’s say it degrades over 

24 time to an R-28 from an R-35. I don’t know what the 

numbers are, but there would be a substantial payback 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

218 

1 in achieving these higher R values. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Do you think that that’s about 

3 the magnitude of the degradation that would be 

4 experienced? 

MR. DUNLAP: I just threw that out. I’m not 

6 an expert in the installation or performance of 

7 installations. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Barbara. 

9 MS. FABIAN: Barb Fabian, Owens Corning. We 

have seen from case studies the effect of moisture and 

11 from a panel that would have started off at four-inch 

12 of an R-32, it went down to a four-inch of an R-8 with 

13 the moisture that was picked up in it. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: And how long did it take to 

get there? 

16 MS. FABIAN: About 10 years. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Ten years. 

18 MR. DUNLAP: And question. What was the 

19 source of the moisture? 

MS. FABIAN: The humidity, the doors opening, 

21 the defrost in the facility. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Penetration --

23 MS. FABIAN: The normal --

24 MR. BROOKMAN: -- of the surface as much? 

MS. FABIAN: Pardon me? 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

219 

1 MR. BROOKMAN: It was penetration of the 

2 surfaces? 

3 MS. FABIAN: There were penetrations in the 

4 surface by the racks being attached to the wall, 

thermometers being attached there, and forklifts 

6 banging into it. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. 

8 MR. DUNLAP: And actually, that brings me 

9 back to the same thing, is that, if infiltration and 

door openings allow that much moisture, it causes 

11 additional defrost, it causes maintenance and 

12 operational issues with people chopping down, trying to 

13 get the ice off the ceilings and things of that nature, 

14 I just feel like that the door performance is a 

critical element to this whole envelope. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

17 MR. DUNLAP: I’d be curious. There’s another 

18 parameter that I’d like to throw out to this group, is 

19 how many of the walk-in coolers and freezers are sold 

today that have doors that exceed three feet nine 

21 inches because there’s a good number of those and the 

22 door is even more of a critical part of this scenario. 

23 So how much surface area does the door comprise? 

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. So 

additional comments on this last Slide 60, National 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

5 

10 

 

 

15 

 

 

20 

25 

220 

1 Impact Analysis, and specifically National Energy 

2 Savings and National Net Present Value Impact? 

3 MR. WILLIAMS: Grant Williams. If I could? 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 

MR. WILLIAMS: I’d just like to remind 

6 everyone that the Department would really appreciate 

7 any kind of information you’d like to include in your 

8 written comments on these matters. This would be --

9 these are all really good questions that we’d like to 

take a look at. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So I’m wondering. 

12 We’re now about to go into the NOPR Analyses. 

13 Let’s take a break now. That’s what I was 

14 thinking. It’s now 3 o’clock. 

caught up, not quite. 

16 (Recess.) 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

18 We’re starting now. Okay. 

I think we’re almost 

So let’s do start. 

19 The discussion’s been really good today. 

We’ve really continued to kind of stay on focus and 

21 really make good progress. We still have quite a bit 

22 to cover. So let’s launch right back into it and our 

23 next speaker is Grant. 

24 NOPR and LCC Subgroup Analyses 

MR. WILLIAMS: All right. So after we finish 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

221 

1 our Preliminary Analysis, we move on to the NOPR. I’m 

2 sorry? 

3 MR. LLENZA: Go ahead. 

4 MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. Which is the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking. All right. 

6 So after we revise our -- excuse me. After 

7 we revise our Preliminary Analyses according to 

8 comments from industry, advocates and other interested 

9 parties, we move on to the Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup and 

as I mentioned before, the purpose of the Life-Cycle 

11 Cost Subgroup is to analyze the economic impact of 

12 standards on those customers who may be 

13 disproportionately impacted by the rulemaking compared 

14 with the general user. 

So in order to compare potential impacts, 

16 we’ll evaluate the variety of ways in which the 

17 electricity prices, energy use and installation costs, 

18 if any, how that may affect the net present value for 

19 this particular subgroup. 

So our method is essentially the same. We 

21 extend the Life-Cycle Cost Analysis to examine the 

22 impacts for the defined subgroup and we do this 

23 essentially by duplicating the process but with a 

24 different set of assumptions in terms of the energy 

prices, like I mentioned, installation costs, energy 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

222 

1 use, et. cetera, maintenance costs, and we change those 

2 assumptions to be more particular to this particular 

3 subgroup, and then we run the Energy Analysis Model, 

4 again the Life-Cycle Cost, excuse me, model, and we 

come up with a set of numbers and data points for them. 

6 So the Department seeks input as to what 

7 customer subgroups the Department should consider in 

8 the present rulemaking, examples of possible subgroups 

9 the Department could consider appropriate for walk-in 

coolers and freezers, include independent grocery 

11 stores and small convenience stores. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: And we’ve heard some of this 

13 already and perhaps there’s some others we’ve missed. 

14 We’ve heard, in addition, florists and what was the 

fourth one? And pharmacies and -- but maybe there’s 

16 some other subgroups that you would note that are big 

17 users. 

18 Steve. 

19 MR. COMBS: Yes. Steve Combs, ICS. There’s 

what we in the industry refer to as the mom and pop 

21 restaurants, you know, those guys that are not national 

22 chains. They may only have one or possibly two or 

23 three stores and they may be very region-specific or 

24 locale-specific. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Gotcha. They may need to have 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

5 

 

 

10 

 

15 

20 

 

25 

223 

1 a big walk-in fridge. 

2 MR. COMBS: Right. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Right. 

4 MR. COMBS: They would definitely be ones 

that would need to be considered. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any 

7 additional comments on this? 

8 (No response.) 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

MR. WILLIAMS: The next step in the NOPR is 

11 the Manufacturer Impact Analysis. 

12 Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

13 MR. MARANTAN: Okay. The Manufacturer Impact 

14 Analysis, the purpose is to assess the impacts of 

standards on manufacturers. Some other purposes 

16 include identifying and estimating the impacts of 

17 subgroups of manufacturers which is separate from the 

18 subgroups of consumers that may be more severely 

19 impacted than the rest of the industry as a whole. 

An example of this might be a small 

21 manufacturer compared to a large manufacturer and the 

22 size we’ve seen classified by the number of employees 

23 for other rulemakings. 

24 A third one is to examine the impact of 

cumulative regulatory burden on the industry and I’ll 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

224 

1 define that term briefly here. Cumulative regulatory 

2 burden for our purposes is the burden imposed on a 

3 manufacturer by several different federal regulations. 

4 For example, if the Department of Energy is imposing an 

energy conservation standard and the manufacturer also 

6 has to comply with, let’s say, an EPA requirement for 

7 refrigerants and they may have to comply with, you 

8 know, recycling requirements from another federal 

9 agency, all that is compounded, and we want to take 

that into account when setting the energy conservation 

11 standards because we know that that cumulative burden 

12 can exist. 

13 The method we used to conduct the MIA, the 

14 Manufacturer Impact Analysis, is the Government 

Regulatory Impact Model. Basically, this is a 

16 spreadsheet tool that analyzes the cash flow of the 

17 industry, not one particular manufacturer, but it’s a 

18 build-up of all the manufacturers to an industry cash 

19 flow analysis. 

The second tool we use is an interview with 

21 manufacturers. This is when the Rulemaking Analysis 

22 Team visits manufacturers who are willing to invite us 

23 to their facilities and we discuss the impacts, the key 

24 issues, the production, the engineering, the marketing, 

any number of things that are important to the 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

225 

1 manufacturer in terms of this rulemaking. 

2 We conduct that after the Preliminary 

3 Analysis is posted and we use the analysis -- we use 

4 that opportunity to gain more insight into what the 

manufacturers will have to deal with in terms of 

6 complying. 

7 So again that happens after the Preliminary 

8 Analysis, so I expect that would be some time late --

9 some time next year, we would conduct that. 

One other opportunity I mentioned is to meet 

11 with manufacturers for the Engineering Analysis and 

12 that happens after this framework. So some time this 

13 year we’ll be meeting with manufacturers for the 

14 Engineering. So I do want to mention that. 

The output of the Manufacturer Impact 

16 Analysis is the industry net present value, also the 

17 subgroup net present value, and other impacts. 

18 This is a diagram of what the Manufacturer 

19 Impact Analysis consists of and I’ll break this down 

for you. We conduct an industry profile which is 

21 largely based on publicly-available data that I 

22 mentioned earlier for the Engineering. 

23 We also create a Preliminary Manufacturer 

24 Impact Analysis Interview Guide, send that to the 

manufacturers and meet with them during the 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

226 

1 Engineering, so all that is wrapped up into Preliminary 

2 Analyses. 

3 Phase 2 is the development of a preliminary 

4 Government Regulatory Model, the cash flow analysis 

that I mentioned, and an interview guide for the 

6 regular manufacturer interviews. 

7 Phase 3 is prior to the NOPR where we go our 

8 and visit the manufacturers and conduct subgroup 

9 analysis and, finally, we assess the direct employment 

competition and cumulative burden and we post that as 

11 part of the results of our Manufacturer Impact Analysis 

12 in the NOPR TSD or Technical Support Document. 

13 So we have three questions here for the 

14 Manufacturer Impact Analysis. What procedures should 

DOE follow when scheduling interviews and requesting 

16 information? We would like comment on the 

17 establishment of manufacturer subgroups for walk-in 

18 coolers and freezers, and, finally, what regulations or 

19 pending regulations should DOE be concerned with in 

terms of cumulative regulatory burden? 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Charles. 

22 MR. LLENZA: Charles Llenza, DOE. I just 

23 wanted to mention the fact that after the Preliminary 

24 Analysis is done, the information that goes in TSD 

format will be out there and what we do at each step is 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

227 

1 we continuously update the database of information. 

2 So as we get more information in and as our 

3 modeling becomes better model based on comments and 

4 addressing the information that we’re getting, you get 

a better picture of the modeling and it’s updated until 

6 we go into the phase -- after Phase 3, it becomes 

7 almost final at that point. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Tony, you okay? Okay. 

9 So three questions, and I think the Department would 

like to hear, as they anticipate trying to find a way 

11 to connect with manufacturers, how you would like for 

12 them to do that, what kind of constraints you operate 

13 under, how much lead time you need, peak seasons, down 

14 seasons, that kind of stuff. 

Is it slower in the wintertime for you all? 

16 I thought I heard that earlier, just for an example. 

17 It would be nice to have this on the record. 

18 (Laughter.) 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Daryl, thank you. 

MR. ERBS: Daryl Erbs. Our business 

21 definitely is seasonal and a lot of it is driven just 

22 by construction periods. People can put in restaurants 

23 and other new facilities much more easily during the 

24 nicer months. Winter just tends to be slow from a 

construction period and that really drives when we can 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

228 

1 deliver product to new sites. So there’s definitely 

2 seasonality and winter would be better. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: For visits from the consultant 

4 team? 

MR. ERBS: Yeah. Definitely. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. And they will be, of 

7 course, seeking all kinds of detailed information in 

8 the interviews. 

9 Additional comments. Yes, Talbot. 

MR. GEE: This is Talbot from HARDI. Just a 

11 process question. 

12 Because of the wide variety of components 

13 that are put together to make these end users, will you 

14 have to come up with a sample of manufacturers for 

every single component and do this for every piece? 

16 How will that work? 

17 MR. MARANTAN: I think that’s one of the 

18 things we have to consider. I’m hearing that there’s a 

19 large refrigeration component, a large panel or box 

component. So those are the two we’re going to target 

21 from the outset. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: On the equipment side. Yes, 

23 Steve. 

24 MR. DUNLAP: And also doors. 

MR. BROOKMAN: And doors, yeah. Thank you. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

229 

1 MR. MARANTAN: Yes. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: You consider doors as being 

3 separate, yeah, and functionally -- beyond 

4 functionally, dynamically, efficiency-wise, it’s 

entirely different. 

6 MR. DUNLAP: Yes, it is, and it’s fundamental 

7 to the operation obviously to enter/exit and that’s 

8 where a lot of the energy inefficiencies in what we 

9 just heard earlier, was that R values drop because of 

moisture and one thing to think about is where does 

11 this moisture enter. 

12 Can you possibly develop a specification 

13 around the cabinet, that maybe it’s a pressure 

14 differential type of test on a sample cabinet. It gives 

you integrity that the vapor barriers are there, 

16 construction is tight, that you’ve checked the panels, 

17 whatever type of design is being used, and use that as 

18 a criteria because if you’re going to lose your R 

19 value, that’s unbelievable, you know, by that much, 

that people are pulling these things out simply because 

21 they can’t maintain the product load. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, sir. Your name, please. 

23 MR. MINELLI: I’m Fred Minelli with Kysor 

24 Panel. I thought what I heard was that the metal skins 

were abused, misused, punctured, urethane was 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

230 

1 comprised. That’s how you’re going to lose R value. 

2 An encapsulated panel with metal skins, not ruptured, 

3 will hold its R value. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Karim. 

DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. In 

6 addition, I think you need to look at component 

7 suppliers, compressor manufacturers, motor 

8 manufacturers, things like that, as subgroups that 

9 could be impacted by this rule. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Good. That’s helpful. 

11 Yes, Steve. 

12 MR. COMBS: Steve Combs, ICS. One helpful 

13 categorization there on Item 12.2 as far as the 

14 subgroups would be site-assembled versus factoryassembled. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Could you speculate about what 

17 the proportions are there? 

18 MR. COMBS: Well, in our business it’s about 

19 50/50, 50 percent of our product is site-assembled and 

the other 50 percent obviously would be factory21 assembled, but the factory-assembled product may be a 

22 very useful concise observation for the DOE to make as 

23 far as the longevity or the life-cycle cost of the 

24 product itself. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Daryl. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

231 

1 MR. ERBS: Daryl Erbs. Also under 12.2, I 

2 think it would really be useful to look at food 

3 service, so restaurant and other, you know, food prep 

4 kitchens, so it could be an institution, but basically, 

you know, food service for serving on the premises as 

6 one group. 

7 I think convenience stores deserve special 

8 treatment because of the construction of the box is 

9 different, particularly with the glass doors, and then 

I really think grocery stores are another subgroup 

11 because again they’re larger and the amount of product 

12 flow in a grocery store, I think, is very different 

13 from a lot of the other applications. 

14 So they really ought to be looked at as 

different subgroups, in my opinion. 

16 I had a comment on 12.3, too, if --

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Please do. 

18 MR. ERBS: -- I’m allowed? The one that I 

19 think you should make sure you keep track of in terms 

of pending regulations would be cap-and-trade, I mean 

21 especially as we increase efficiency of products, we 

22 add more refrigerant. We’re very concerned about what 

23 that cost of the refrigerant could be by 2015. 

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Right. Karim. 

DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. I would 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

232 

1 like to add to that. I think we’ve made the comment 

2 before and I think it’s still relevant here. You know, 

3 we’re expecting the cap-and-trade legislation in the 

4 next few years and at least in what we’ve seen so far, 

the impact on HFC refrigerant could be significant. 

6 So I think that’s something that DOE has to 

7 monitor and to follow very closely, and we’ve shared 

8 some studies with you before and we can share that 

9 again, if you want. 

On additional regulatory burden, I think we 

11 need to look at what states are doing. The State of 

12 California is writing regulations right now on walk-ins 

13 and that will have an impact on manufacturers and that 

14 has to be factored in, as well. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. I was 

16 curious. Daryl, can you stand back up? Okay. So as I 

17 think about retail generally and there’s all kinds of 

18 gradations that are happening between super big box, 

19 big box, medium box, all that kind of -- is that the 

way the grocery stores are oriented? Should there be 

21 subgroups, different -- do you know? Would you --

22 MR. ERBS: I’m going to ask Fred to come back 

23 up. He’s better qualified. 

24 MR. MINELLI: You’re talking about the 

breakdown? 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

233 

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. 

2 MR. MINELLI: The breakdown of groups in 

3 supermarkets? 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. 

MR. MINELLI: The big box clubs and then 

6 standard supermarkets and little mom and pop 

7 supermarkets and boxes vary a great deal from 8X10s to 

8 20X75X20. It would not be unusual in the big box. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Yes, Ed. 

MR. OSANN: Ed Osann, ASAP. Somehow we seem 

11 to have drifted into the end-use subgroup as contrasted 

12 with the manufacturer subgroup. 

13 I mean, this part of the analysis is -- this 

14 is the MIA, right, and you’re looking at -- you’re 

requesting information on and recommendations on 

16 manufacturer subgroups? 

17 MR. MARANTAN: Yes, that’s correct. I think 

18 the two responses earlier on Item 12.2 were very 

19 useful. I think we will consider that for the customer 

subgroups, you know, retail establishments, 

21 supermarkets, convenience stores, that sort of thing. 

22 12.2 is directed at the manufacturer subgroups, 

23 something like small manufacturers as compared to 

24 average manufacturers in the industry or component 

manufacturers as opposed to the walk-ins, walk-in 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

234 

1 manufacturers themselves. So there is a distinction. 

2 What we’re asking for here on 12.2 is 

3 manufacturer subgroups. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Right. Daryl. 

MR. ERBS: Daryl Erbs. Just to clarify, I 

6 was actually looking at it from a manufacturer’s 

7 perspective and there are crossovers, but you’ll find 

8 that the constructions, the preferred type of 

9 construction, and panel size capabilities tend to 

change in those different segments and so you’ll 

11 actually find manufacturers who specialize mainly in 

12 one of those categories, although again they will sell 

13 into other applications. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Thanks for the 

clarification, too. Okay. So, also, additional 

16 comments. You see all three of them here. We’ve begun 

17 to talk about cumulative regulatory burden, the things 

18 that will affect the industry generally. 

19 Other comments on that one specifically? 

Yes, Steve. 

21 MR. COMBS: Well, I just noted four of the 

22 major agencies that all manufacturers typically deal 

23 with, the National Sanitation Foundation and then 

24 Factory Mutual on the fire, the burn testing, the 

Underwriters Laboratories, and for many of us Canadian 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

235 

1 Standards Association. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: So do they have active ongoing 

3 additional regulatory investigations? 

4 MR. COMBS: They do. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Oh, they do. Okay. Michael 

6 Kido. 

7 MR. KIDO: Just for clarification and a 

8 follow-up. Those are private organizations, correct? 

9 MR. COMBS: I’m sorry. What was the 

question? 

11 MR. KIDO: UL, NSF, and excluding CSA. Were 

12 most of those -- most of those organizations are 

13 private? 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike, you’ve got to speak into 

the mike. 

16 MR. KIDO: Sorry. Most of those are 

17 privately-based organizations, correct? 

18 MR. COMBS: Yes, they are. 

19 MR. KIDO: Except for CSA. Okay. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Karim. 

21 DR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. I would 

22 like to add, also, as far as cumulative regulatory 

23 burden, there are certainly many factors when making 

24 walk-ins, certainly there’s the mechanical system, but 

also impacted by other rulemakings, such as the central 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

5 

10 

 

15 

20 

 

25 

236 

1 air rulemakings or whatever, water heaters or whatever, 

2 and I think that has to be looked at, as well. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Okay. So 

4 that was useful. Let’s keep moving on. 

MR. MARANTAN: Okay. The next section is the 

6 Utility Impact Analysis. 

7 Utility Impact Analysis, Employment Impact Analysis, 

8 Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Analysis, 

9 & Final Rule Analysis 

MR. SOMASUNDARAM: Good afternoon. I’m 

11 Sriram Somasundaram, Pacific Northwest National 

12 Laboratory. 

13 The last three steps in the NOPR Analysis, 

14 actually four steps in the NOPR Analysis are actually 

impacts, impact assessments of what the trial standard 

16 levels will have on the Utility Grid, the Employment in 

17 the energy or the manufacturing industry, the 

18 Environmental Assessment as it relates to the utility 

19 impact, and then, finally, the Regulatory Impact 

Analysis is also done by DOE to mainly report on what 

21 are some of the secondary impacts of setting these 

22 energy conservation standards for walk-in coolers and 

23 freezers. 

24 So the key output that comes out of the 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which will be published 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

237 

1 in the Federal Register in the Spring of 2010 time 

2 frame will be the so-called Trial Standard Levels. So 

3 the Department will basically propose certain standard 

4 levels as what they are considering towards 

establishing the final standard and with those Trial 

6 Standard Levels, we will assess the impact on the 

7 utility, energy supplies, in this case the electric 

8 supplies, and so the purpose of this analysis is 

9 basically to get the overall -- assess the overall 

impact on domestic electricity supplies that would 

11 result from implementation of these energy conservation 

12 standards. 

13 The method we have traditionally used for 

14 this is, first, to run the National Energy Modeling 

System, the NEMS, tool which in fact AEO or EIA uses 

16 for producing their AEO, Annual Energy Outlook, every 

17 year. 

18 So this actually is -- the NEMS has a 

19 variant, NEMS-BT, which was exclusively developed for 

use by the Building Technologies Office of DOE, and 

21 using the energy savings calculated from the Rulemaking 

22 Analysis, corresponding to those Trial Standard Levels, 

23 we then translate that, those energy savings, to 

24 reduction in electrical demand faced by the grid and 

thereby not having to build certain power plants or 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

238 

1 certain capacity. 

2 So the Department, in this step of the 

3 analysis, is seeking input from interested parties on 

4 the proposed use of NEMS-BT and to conduct the Utility 

Impact Analysis. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Comments on this? John. 

7 MR. McHUGH: Just briefly, during the time of 

8 peak electrical demand, we’ll typically be in an air 

9 conditioning mode for just about every commercial 

building. Economizers will be closed and so the 

11 additional load on the air conditioning system from a 

12 unit with an indoor condenser is going to have not only 

13 the impact of the walk-in but also the additional 

14 energy consumption of the cooling system. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments on the 

16 NEMS-BT application here? 

17 (No response.) 

18 MR. SOMASUNDARAM: The next step is the 

19 Employment Impact Analysis. 

Aris talked about the Manufacturer Impact 

21 Analysis where in fact the direct employment impact is 

22 assessed through the GRIM model, but there is also some 

23 indirect employment impacts resulting from shifting 

24 customer expenditures among goods and services and 

changing equipment and energy costs. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

239 

1 So these are respectively referred to as the 

2 substitution effect and the income effect, and this 

3 indirect employment impact in fact is assessed using an 

4 IMSET Model which is Impact of Sector Energy 

Technologies for evaluating this particular impact, and 

6 we have again traditionally used this model for all 

7 other product rulemakings and we intend to use the same 

8 model for this analysis, as well. 

9 The Department requests feedback on this 

approach in assessing the employment impacts. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Comments on this? 

12 (No response.) 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. No comments. Okay. 

14 MR. SOMASUNDARAM: Moving on, the next step 

is the Environmental Assessment. 

16 Like I said, this follows directly from the 

17 Utility Impact. So just as you have energy savings due 

18 to the energy conservation standards, there’s a direct 

19 impact on the environmental -- there are environmental 

impacts, as well, and the way we do this particular 

21 analysis is again the -- one of the outputs of the NEMS 

22 Model is what the emissions impacts or the reductions 

23 in emissions might be because of the energy savings due 

24 to the rulemaking. 

We’ve also been looking at, in addition to 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

240 

1 the CO2 impacts, we’ve also been looking at direct 

2 environmental impacts from reduction of fossil fuel use 

3 at the building level and any measurable impact from 

4 NEMS in terms of sulfur dioxide and subsequent impact 

on SO2 emissions into the air. 

6 DOE also has recently been examining the 

7 economic results or economic impacts as a result of the 

8 reduced emissions, and there are three questions that 

9 we have in the Framework Document which are 15.1, 15.2 

and 15.3, which again seeks input from interested 

11 parties on this particular methodology of doing the 

12 environmental assessment, and again specific comments 

13 on how to estimate the monetary values associated with 

14 the emissions reductions or on any widely-accepted 

values which may be used in DOE’s analysis. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: So comments about the economic 

17 values -- yes, the economic values and potential 

18 monetary values associated with emissions reductions. 

19 John. 

MR. McHUGH: The development of the 

21 California standards, there is a series of what’s known 

22 as TDV or Time-Dependent Valuation. In that valuation, 

23 they have monetized values for the various pollutants, 

24 SOX, NOX, and CO2. 

At this point in time, the CO2 is valued at 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

241 

1 $1250 a ton and also depending on the time of year and 

2 the time of day, the values are higher because during 

3 the peak periods we’re using less-efficient sources. 

4 That information is readily -- is on the California 

Energy Commission’s website and is readily available. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. And the final 

7 question, 15.3, asks about other environmental factors 

8 to be considered, should there be any. 

9 (No response.) 

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. I see no additions. 

11 MR. SOMASUNDARAM: The final step of the NOPR 

12 Analysis is the Regulatory Impact. 

13 This particular step is warranted more 

14 because of DOE’s assessment of certain non-regulatory 

approaches to supplant or augment energy conservation 

16 standards as a means of improving energy efficiency for 

17 these types of equipment. 

18 In other words, there could be voluntary 

19 programs or rebate programs by certain utilities for 

this kind of equipment. There could be an ENERGY STAR 

21 kind of voluntary program in certain other types of 

22 equipment. 

23 So we looked at an array of other non24 regulatory ways of getting at the same energy savings 

and compared that to what the results would be of 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

242 

1 setting these energy conservation standards. So we 

2 based the assessment here on actual impacts of any such 

3 voluntary initiatives to date and DOE will consider any 

4 information presented regarding these programs from 

again the interested parties to this process. 

6 Right now, we are unaware of any non7 regulatory initiatives at this point, but there may be 

8 certain things that utility companies might bring to 

9 our attention, and then 16.2 asks a specific question 

about are there specific subgroups of end users whom 

11 the Department should consider in its review of 

12 potentially-adverse impacts from standards developed 

13 under this rulemaking, and it’s again a subgroup 

14 analysis where the impact might be disproportionately 

larger than the general user. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: John. 

17 MR. McHUGH: The rating that -- John McHugh. 

18 The rating method that comes out of these regulations 

19 would assist utility programs to provide incentives for 

walk-ins that exceed the standards and that has 

21 traditionally been the method of setting incentives 

22 based on what is the regulatory minimum and then having 

23 some threshold above which incentives could be offered. 

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Are you saying that that 

exists now? 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

243 

1 MR. McHUGH: I don’t believe that’s the case. 

2 There’s a program called Savings By Design which offers 

3 designer and owner incentives and has been involved 

4 with supermarkets for particular measures, measurebased, but for other products in the past where there’s 

6 been a threshold standard, then that creates the 

7 opportunity to essentially more easily provide 

8 incentives. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. So I’m 

certain the Department would appreciate among the 

11 manufacturers if you know of incentive programs that 

12 exist or sometimes a trade group will do a promotional 

13 sort of incentive-based thing and so if such -- if 

14 those things exist, the Department would like to know 

about that in your written comments. 

16 Ed. 

17 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann. I want to loop back to 

18 Question 15.2, Monetary Values Associated with Emission 

19 Reductions, and point out that there are now -- there’s 

now a market for carbon -- for CO2 emission allowances 

21 and encourage the Department to consider the market 

22 values that are now being reported. 

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. So take 

24 another peak at 16.1 and 16.2 on Page 78. I think 

we’ve begun to address those. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

244 

1 Other comments on those before we move on? 

2 (No response.) 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

4 MR. SOMASUNDARAM: Okay. The last step in 

this rulemaking process is, of course, the Final Rule 

6 Analysis. 

7 So like I said before, there will be a public 

8 meeting right after we publish a Notice of Proposed 

9 Rulemaking, the NOPR, and following which there will be 

comments from you all to the Department which will 

11 dictate any changes or any final adjustments to the 

12 Trial Standard Levels, following which there will be a 

13 Department of Justice review of the Final Rule itself 

14 which -- to make sure that there is no anticompetitive 

impacts or issues related to that, following which DOE 

16 will revise the NOPR Analysis, set or establish a 

17 standard or standards for several of the product 

18 classes, equipment classes, and publish a final rule 

19 again in the Federal Register and that, as you saw in 

the morning, is due by the end of the year, calendar 

21 year 2010 or the first of January 2011. Sorry. End of 

22 the calendar year 2011 or first of January 2012. I 

23 misspoke. 

24 That would be the law of the land three years 

after the publication of that final rule. 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

245 

1 With that, I’ll hand it over to Charlie to 

2 make some closing remarks and where you should send 

3 your written comments and so on. 

4 Thank you. 

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Before you do, at 

6 this point in the day we also -- you have a question, 

7 Ed? 

8 MR. OSANN: Yeah. I do, and I’m not sure 

9 it’s been covered so far. I’d like to slip it in 

before the closing remarks. 

11 Does the Department have the authority to --

12 is there authority for a federal labeling requirement 

13 for walk-in coolers? 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael Kido. 

MR. KIDO: There is, but I don’t think -- at 

16 this point we haven’t -- yeah. Well, there’s that. As 

17 a practical matter, I don’t think we’ve -- we have one 

18 for these particular products, is that correct? 

19 MR. OSANN: I’m sorry. Could you restate 

that maybe with the microphone on? 

21 MR. KIDO: Sure. 

22 MR. McCABE: Wait a minute. This is Michael 

23 McCabe. The answer to the question is yes, the 

24 Department has the authority. For the commercial 

products which are part of A.1, EPACT, EPCA as amended, 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

246 

1 the Department of Energy has the direction for and 

2 responsibility for labeling rules for the commercial 

3 equipment, for most of them. I think there might be 

4 one or two where we’re specifically directed to the 

Federal Trade Commission in the commercial sector. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Good. Thank you. That’s 

7 helpful. 

8 Ed, additional follow-up there? 

9 MR. OSANN: Well, just simply that nothing’s 

been said today about labeling and presumably that 

11 would be folded into the NOPR, folded into the Final 

12 Rule on the efficiency standard or would that be 

13 subject to a separate rulemaking? 

14 MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe. The answer is 

going to be a little bit more involved than what you 

16 expect but that’s always the case. 

17 If there is going to be mandatory federal 

18 labeling under the authority of EPCA, it would be 

19 handled in a separate rulemaking. It has not been 

identified as a subject of this rulemaking or the Test 

21 Procedure rulemaking that’s been discussed. 

22 However, going back to one of the slides, one 

23 of the last slides that Sriram was presenting, the 

24 slide on the Regulatory Impact Analysis, the Regulatory 

Impact Analysis is performed by agencies in response to 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

247 

1 Executive Orders. 

2 What the Administration is looking for is 

3 what are the impacts, the net impacts on the economy of 

4 alternatives to the approach and so we have, for other 

products we’ve looked at enhanced ENERGY STAR, we’ve 

6 looked at -- as Sriram was talking about, rebates and 

7 tax credits and the like, and certainly a labeling 

8 program can be examined there in order to look at what 

9 those impacts would be and it is entirely --

theoretically, it’s possible, but we have never seen 

11 this to be the case, that some of the alternatives 

12 could have a higher benefit, net benefit to the nation 

13 than the regulatory approach and if that were the case, 

14 the agency could consider going to Congress for some 

changes in the legislation, but right now, we have the 

16 direction in the legislation to set the standards for 

17 dozens of products and we have not taken any action to 

18 make any -- to propose any changes to the legislative 

19 authority for any products based on the results of any 

regulatory impact analysis. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

22 MR. OSANN: A follow-up question. 

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed. 

24 MR. OSANN: Would the nature and timing of 

the certification by manufacturers that covered 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

5 

10 

15 

 

20 

 

 

 

25 

248 

1 products are in compliance, would that be covered by 

2 this rulemaking? 

3 MR. McCABE: There is a separate proceeding 

4 that we are -- we work on for each of the products when 

they are added which we -- the responsibility, however, 

6 for manufacturers to meet the standard and to be able 

7 to demonstrate compliance exists whether or not we have 

8 issued any certification and enforcement regulations, 

9 though there are many issues that have been raised 

during the course of today that are quite important 

11 that will need to be addressed and will be addressed 

12 through either this proceeding, through the Test 

13 Procedure, or potentially through the FAQs, if the 

14 certification and enforcement rules are not issued, you 

know, say at that point in time, and some clarification 

16 is necessary. 

17 MR. OSANN: So the answer to that was 

18 typically, this may not be typical, but typically 

19 there’s certification and enforcement is a separate 

rulemaking? 

21 MR. McCABE: Yes. 

22 MR. OSANN: Thank you. 

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Thank you, 

24 Michael, and thank you, Ed. I learned something there. 

Other Issues, Questions & Comments/Closing Remarks 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

249 

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Anyway, we always provide at 

2 the end of the day or at least we try to provide the 

3 Department and those supporting the Department an 

4 opportunity for people to make final comments, draw 

attention to a point or two that they may have missed 

6 during the course of the discussion today. 

7 Any other issues that you wish to raise or 

8 emphasize briefly? Talbot. 

9 MR. GEE: Well, I’ll just make -- this is 

Talbot from HARDI. I’ll make the same offer I did 

11 during our residential process, standards process, too, 

12 is we’re ready, willing and able to help if you want to 

13 visit any wholesalers who service these markets, as 

14 well, in addition to manufacturers, so you could get a 

feel for what the wholesale channel has to do for these 

16 products. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. And if the 

18 Department and their consultant team wanted to follow 

19 up with them, was there a time frame that would work 

best? Do they also slow down in the wintertime? 

21 MR. GEE: Yes, wintertime would be better. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, okay. So, of course, 

23 they’ll be trying to schedule those things, yes. 

24 Anybody else, closing remarks? John. 

MR. McHUGH: There was discussion -- a couple 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

250 

1 discussions about separate rulemakings and proceedings 

2 around certification, around the test standard, and I’m 

3 just interested to make sure that we’re aware of -- are 

4 we on a mailing list so that we’re given notice of 

these meetings, rulemakings, et. cetera, that also 

6 support this effort? 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Charles. 

8 MR. LLENZA: Charles Llenza, Department of 

9 Energy. Yes, we keep a database of parties of interest 

and stakeholders and anybody that wants to be on the 

11 mailing list can send me their name and mailing list 

12 back. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Is there one unified list and 

14 all relevant --

MR. LLENZA: We keep it for all the appliance 

16 standards, commercial and residential. So it’s just a 

17 matter of where you want to be. 

18 MR. McHUGH: Okay. Thank you. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. So then, okay, 

from my perspective, I just want to thank you. We had 

21 a very constructive discussion today and I’ll turn it 

22 back to Charles for closing remarks. 

23 MR. LLENZA: I just wanted to thank you all 

24 for attending this meeting and providing us a lot of 

good information. I appreciate your patience with 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

 

 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

251 

1 this. We -- the best way to keep in touch with the 

2 Department of what’s going on with this ruling would be 

3 through our website. We are very diligent about trying 

4 to post as soon as we are given the green light to do 

so internally with any information that’s germane to 

6 this rulemaking process, including the Test Procedures, 

7 also, for the standards. 

8 I also want to remind you that we have a 

9 deadline of February 12th for comments. I encourage 

you to try to make that deadline. I’m sure that at 

11 this point in time, we would be anxious to see what 

12 your comments are in written form. That will become 

13 part of the docket and we will address those as we go 

14 through the different steps here for the standards and 

the Test Procedures. 

16 And again, the way of submitting your 

17 comments is on the slide here. 

18 Thank you very much for attending. That’s 

19 all I have. 

(Whereupon, at 4 o’clock p.m., the meeting 

21 was concluded.) 

22 

23 

24 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15
 

 

252 

1 

2 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 

3 

4 This is to certify that the attached proceedings 

5 before: 

6 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

7 In the Matter of: 

8 PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS 

9 WALK-IN COOLERS AND WALK-IN FREEZERS EQUIPMENT

10 Were held as herein appears and that this is the 

11 original transcript thereof for the file of the 

12 Department, Commission, Board, Administrative Law Judge 

13 or the Agency. 

14 Further, I am neither counsel for or related to any 

15 party to the above proceedings. 

16 

17 

18 Debra Derr 

19 Official Reporter 

20 Dated: February 8, 2009 

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC.

 (301) 565-0064 

EERE-2008-BT-STD-0015 COMMENT 15