Download - PUBLIC MEETING ON THE ENERGY CONSERVATION ......2010/05/18 · EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 1 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PUBLIC MEETING ON THE ENERGY CONSERVATION

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064

1 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING ON THE ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARD FRAMEWORK DOCUMENT FOR COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION

EQUIPMENT U.S. Department of Energy Room 8E–089 1000 Independence Avenue, Southwest

Washington, D.C. Tuesday, May 18, 2010 9:00 a.m. Participants

DOUG BROOKMAN, Facilitator

MASOOD ALI Kysor/Warren

ERIC ANDERSEN PNNL VIKTOR ANDERSON, P.E. Structural Concepts KARIM AMRANE, Ph.D.

AHRI TIMOTHY BALLO Earthjustice JEFF BAUMAN

Continental MICHELLE BRITT Pacific Northwest National Laboratory JOHN DAVIS

Traulsen REBECCA DUFF ICF International BURT M. FINKELSTEIN Kason Industries, Inc.

CHARLES HON True

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


2

Participants

CONSUELO GUZMAN-LEONG Pacific Northwest DR. DAN MANOLE Ingersoll Rand

ARISTOTLE MARANTAN, Ph.D. Navigant Consulting JOANNA MAUER ASAP

JOHN McHUGH, PE McHugh Energy Consultants ANDREW NAWROCKI Navigant Consulting

MASSOUD NESHAN Southern Store Fixtures, Inc. GRAHAM B. PARKER Pacific Northwest

MARYLINE RASSI AHRI DEVIN RAUSS Southern California Edison

CARL ROBERTS Zero Zone, Inc. R. DOUGLAS ROBERTS ThermoCor

HARVEY SACHS, Ph.D. ACEEE STEPHEN SCHAEFER HOSHIZAKI America, Inc. CHARLIE STEPHENS

Adjuvant Consulting

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


3 Participants

COLLIN WEBER Navigant Consulting SARAH WIDDER Pacific Northwest DAVID WINIARSKI

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory JOHN CYMBALSKY DOE BETSY KOHL

DOE CHARLES LLENZA DOE

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


4 A G E N D A

AGENDA ITEM: PAGE: Welcome, Introductions, Agenda Review and Opening Statements Doug Brookman 6

Rulemaking Overview Charles Llenza 17 Rulemaking Scope

Dave Winiarski 25 Test Procedure Background and Potential Changes Sarah Widder 58

Market and Technology Assessment Collin Weber 72 Screening and Engineering Analysis Collin Weber 90

Afternoon Session

Energy Use Characterization and Markups Dave Winiarski

Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis, Shipments Analysis, and National Impact Analysis Dave Winiarski

Life Cycle Subgroup Analysis and Manufacturer Impact Analysis Dave Winiarski Collin Weber

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


5

A G E N D A

AGENDA ITEM: PAGE: Utility Impact Analysis, Employment Analysis, Environmental Assessment, and Regulatory Impact Analysis

Dave Winiarski Other Issues, Questions & comments/Closing Remarks Doug Brookman

1

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


6

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

9:06 a.m. 2

WELCOME 3

DOUG BROOKMAN 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Good morning, everybody, and 5

welcome. Glad you could join us. This is the U.S. 6

Department of Energy’s Public Meeting on the Energy 7

Conservation Standard Framework Document for Commercial 8

Refrigeration Equipment. Today is Tuesday, March 18th

9

(sic). Glad you could join us. My name is Doug 10

Brookman from Public Solutions in Baltimore. 11

We are fortunate this morning to have John 12

Cymbalsky from the Department of Energy to also make 13

welcoming remarks. 14

WELCOME 15

JOHN CYMBALSKY 16

MR. CYMBALSKY: Thank you, Doug. This 17

morning before I left the house I was thinking, what do 18

I know about commercial refrigeration equipment. And 19

it turns out I have one in my house and I looked at it. 20

It's a 5.5 cubic foot Summit model that looks something 21

like that one on the left, but it has a stainless steel 22

handle. And I'm glad I looked at it because I realized 23

I'm woefully short of beer. 24

(Laughter.) 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


7

MR. CYMBALSKY: And probably not running very 1

efficiently being empty the way it is. 2

But, welcome to the meeting. It looks like 3

we have a decent schedule today running to 3:30, so I 4

don't think we're going to be too crunched for time. 5

And as always, please submit written comments to the 6

extent that you can. 7

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 8

It is our tradition to do introductions 9

around the room. I think all of you registered as you 10

entered the Department of Energy, so the Department 11

knows who is here and they will produce a photocopy of 12

everybody's business cards. So, we're going to go 13

around the room and do introductions. For those of you 14

who have microphones, the little green LED light needs 15

to be on for you to be captured by the record. 16

For those of you who don't have a microphone, 17

that's okay, we know who is here. 18

We will start here, your name and 19

organization affiliation. We'll go around the room. 20

MR. DAVIS: John Davis with Charleston. 21

MR. MANOLE: Dan Manole with Hussmann 22

Ingersoll Rand. 23

MR. McHUGH: John McHugh with McHugh Energy 24

representing the California Statewide Codes and 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


8

Standards Program. 1

MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo with Earthjustice. 2

MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer with the Appliance 3

Standards Awareness Project. 4

MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, Air Conditioning, 5

Heating and Refrigeration Institute. 6

MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs, American Council 7

for an Energy Efficient Economy. 8

MS. KOHL: Betsy Kohl, Department of Energy 9

General Counsel's office. 10

MR. CYMBALSKY: John Cymbalsky, DOE Appliance 11

Standards. 12

MR. LLENZA: Charles Llenza, DOE Appliance 13

Standards. 14

MR. WEBER: Collin Weber, Navigant 15

Consulting. 16

MS. WIDDER: Sarah Widder, Pacific Northwest 17

National Lab. 18

MR. NAWROCKI: Andrew Nawrocki, Navigant 19

Consulting. 20

MR. DOUG ROBERTS: Doug Roberts, Thermocore. 21

MR. HON: Charlie Hon, True Manufacturing. 22

MR. CARL ROBERTS: Carl Roberts, ZeroZone. 23

MR. ANDERSON: Viktor Anderson, Structural 24

Concepts. 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


9

MR. RAUSS: Devin Rauss, Southern California 1

Edison. 2

MR. FINKELSTEIN: Burl Finkelstein, Kason 3

Industries. 4

MR. BAUMAN: Jeff Bauman, Continental 5

Refrigerator. 6

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens, Adjuvant 7

Consulting. 8

MR. NESHAN: Massoud Neshan. 9

MR. SCHAEFER: Steven Schaefer, Hoshizaki 10

America. 11

MS. DUFF: Rebecca Duff, ICF International on 12

behalf of Energy Star. 13

MS. BRITT: Michelle Britt, Pacific 14

Northwest. 15

MR. PARKER: Graham Parker, Pacific Northwest 16

National Laboratory. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Great. Did everybody get a 18

chance? 19

(No response.) 20

MR. BROOKMAN: I'm going to do a very brief 21

agenda review and then we're going to go from there 22

straight into an opportunity for opening remarks. 23

Immediately following this agenda review, as 24

I said, there is an opportunity for anybody that wishes 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


10

to do so, to make brief statements on any issues that 1

matter to them, short, concise statements, we hope. 2

Following that, Charles Llenza will provide a 3

rulemaking overview and then we'll go straight into the 4

heart of the matter, the rulemaking scope. We will 5

take a break midmorning around about 10:30 or so. Then 6

from there an overview on test procedure background and 7

potential changes following that market and technology 8

assessment, screening and engineering analysis. I hope 9

all of you got a copy of this agenda as you walked in 10

as well the PowerPoint slides. That's what I'm 11

referring to. 12

We'll break for lunch midday around about 13

12:15 or so. 14

When we return from lunch, energy use 15

characterization and markups. Following that, life 16

cycle cost and payback period analysis, shipments 17

analysis and national impact analysis. 18

We'll break midafternoon around about 2:15 or 19

so and then returning, life cycle cost subgroup 20

analysis and manufacturer impact analysis and then 21

following on utility impact analysis, employment impact 22

analysis, environmental impact analysis, environmental 23

assessment, and regulatory impact analysis. And then 24

there is an opportunity once again at the end of the 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


11

day for any person to raise any additional issues that 1

they might wish to do and make other statements that 2

haven't been made already. So that's an opportunity or 3

yet another opportunity for comment at the end of the 4

day. 5

We intend to adjourn today around about 3:30. 6

The Department is trying hard to make sure 7

the meetings are run efficiently and not waste 8

anybody's time. So, appreciate your efforts to help 9

make that happen. 10

I'd ask for your consideration, simple ground 11

rules that have emerged for these meetings, please 12

speak one at a time. Please say your name for the 13

record. There will be a complete transcript of this 14

meeting posted on the EERE website all in the span of 15

say, seven or no more than ten days, I think. 16

I'm going to be cueing people as best I can 17

by name to speak. We also wish to encourage follow-on 18

comments. Sometimes the back and forth is very useful 19

to the Department to hear diversity of views. Please 20

say your name every time you speak. You don't need to 21

say your organization or affiliation, if you want to or 22

you're in the habit, that's okay. But, please say your 23

name and I'll be prompting you as best I can. If you 24

can keep the focus here, please turn your cell phones 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


12

on silent mode. 1

If you need to have a sidebar conversation 2

with anybody, make it brief, or take it up out of the 3

room. And, please, if you can, be concise, share the 4

air time. There's a lot to be said in the span of this 5

meeting today. 6

So that's what I would suggest as what I 7

think is common courtesy. Comments and questions here 8

before we get going with brief opening remarks? 9

(No response.) 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So let's do that. I 11

know a few individuals have requested that they get a 12

chance to speak here at the opening segment and one of 13

them is John McHugh. 14

MR. McHUGH: Thanks. Good morning. These 15

are my opening comments in support of -- or on behalf 16

of the California Statewide Investor Owned Utility and 17

Standards Program. This program serves a tenth of the 18

population of the United States, they're the Southern 19

California Edison, Pacific Gas and Electric, and San 20

Diego Gas and Electric. Commercial refrigeration is 21

very important to us in that commercial refrigeration 22

uses approximately as much electricity as does 23

commercial air conditioning. And so it's not a niche 24

market, it's a fairly substantial fraction of our 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


13

energy consumption in the state. And during the prior 1

rulemaking on commercial refrigeration DOE did not look 2

at a number of efficiency measures due to the fact that 3

they couldn't be modeled in the ASHRE Standard 72 test 4

method which is a steady-state test method. And 5

unfortunately that test method, because of steady-state 6

doesn't look at things that are affected by transient 7

conditions. And so there's a number of different 8

measures that potentially should be evaluated since 9

they have significant energy savings. So we need to 10

consider the test methods and our overall 11

responsibility to try to reduce energy consumption as 12

much as possible. So this is from Chapter 4 of the 13

last TSD. 14

One of those measures is liquid suction heat 15

exchangers. And for the walk-in proceeding I sent DOE 16

a copy of the Kline -- Drs. Kline and Rendell from the 17

University of Wisconsin, the description of evaluating 18

the efficiency impacts of liquid suction heat 19

exchangers. And briefly the liquid suction heat 20

exchanger what it does is it transfers heat from the 21

fluid leaving the condenser and subcools that fluid by 22

exchanging heat from -- or cool from the refrigerant 23

leaving the evaporator. And this is especially 24

desirable because in addition to the efficiency 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


14

benefits of doing this, it also makes sure that we 1

fully evaporate the gas -- hopefully there's no liquid, 2

but we make sure that it's fully evaporated before it 3

enters the compressor and so has a reliability benefit 4

for the compressors as well. 5

And if you look at the -- you know, this is 6

actually something that used to be done a number of 7

years ago and then when we shifted to R22 refrigerant, 8

liquid suction heat exchangers sort of fell out of use. 9

They don't have -- with R22 the benefits are not that 10

great and also there are issues about the discharge 11

temperatures increasing. 12

As DOE has noticed that, you know, the most 13

common refrigerants for remote condensing are 507A and 14

404A. Those are the refrigerants that have the most 15

benefits from liquid suction heat exchangers. And also 16

134 is the most common for self-contained. So these 17

are the types of refrigerants that benefit from this 18

technology. 19

Currently the walk-in proceeding hasn't 20

evaluated this technology. Certainly we would want in 21

setting new standards that this technology be part of 22

the measures considered. 23

I just returned from Light Fair which is the 24

lighting industry commercial meeting where all the new 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


15

technologies are unveiled and this year we could have 1

called it LED fair because almost all the technology 2

that we saw at Light Fair are LEDs. They are really 3

expanding dramatically. There's been a number of 4

different studies that have identified that LED 5

lighting substantially reduces the energy consumption 6

in display cases. And also they can be easily 7

controlled and so considering both LED lighting and 8

also motion sensing. And there's been a number of 9

retailers including Wal-Mart, Kroger, Target, just 10

about every large supermarket chain has been evaluating 11

this technology. 12

The last time I came and described -- or 13

during the last proceeding brought up the issue that 14

essentially vertical open display cases is like having 15

a refrigerator and taking the door off of it. And in 16

terms of an efficiency measure, doors on display cases 17

have a huge savings. And even if we can't agree on the 18

issue about medium temperature display cases, when we 19

look at low temperature display cases, you know, the 20

energy impacts are just so phenomenal that it would 21

just be ridiculous to consider having an open low 22

temperature vertical display case. So our 23

recommendation is that DOE consider either merging 24

those categories or at least setting the same energy 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


16

targets for open and closed low temperature vertical 1

display cases. 2

Finally, we want to make sure that the test 3

methods and standards are reflected market enforceable 4

and so as part of this I think it's really important 5

for DOE to understand how these products are sold. 6

As has been done in the past we want to make 7

sure that efficiency is enforceable at the level of the 8

product catalogue. We would like to see third party 9

certified rating so that the playing field is level. 10

And we would be interested in understanding how the -- 11

not only what the regulations are, but what the intent 12

is in terms of enforcement and, you know, that we look 13

at these various technologies, liquid suction heat 14

exchangers, LED lighting with occupancy sensors and 15

infiltration controls which includes windows. 16

Now, the other thing that I think is fairly 17

clear if you look at this standard right now it just 18

regulates the display case and in the case that you 19

have a self-contained condenser also the condenser is 20

part of that rating. And I think the other thing that 21

the industry needs is repeatable separate condenser 22

ratings. And this would be appropriate not only for 23

display cases in commercial refrigeration but also for 24

walk-ins. They are often sold separately. They can 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


17

serve multiple loads. So having a specific condenser 1

rating for a particular end-use piece of equipment 2

attached doesn't make as much sense as just regulating 3

that piece of equipment having a specific test method 4

and a way for the market to differentiate itself in 5

terms of energy efficiency. 6

So I think that it is appropriate that DOE 7

look at having a separate refrigerant condenser and 8

condensing unit standard that's outside of this 9

particular scope. And that display cases when they're 10

rated they're rated to accept a variety of different 11

refrigerant conditions to reflect the use of floating 12

head controls. Thank you. 13


Other brief opening remarks here at the 15

outset? 16

(No response.) 17

MR. BROOKMAN: No additional opening 18

statements before we proceed with the program? 19

(No response.) 20

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Then we are going to 21

keep right on going. Charles Llenza. 22

RULEMAKING OVERVIEW 23

(PowerPoint presentation) 24

MR. LLENZA: Hi, I'm Charles Llenza the 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


18

project manager for commercial refrigeration equipment 1

here at the Department of Energy and I welcome you all 2

back to the Department to start the rulemaking process 3

for commercial refrigeration equipment. 4

What I wanted to emphasize here, is that you 5

will see in the presentation throughout a request for 6

comment box. And there are two sets of questions in 7

terms of questions to the stakeholders. 8

You will see two types of questions, ones 9

that were laid out in the framework as the ones that 10

are numbered throughout and then we have another series 11

of questions that we have that are lettered as you go 12

through the presentation. They are laid out in this 13

comment box here so we would appreciate stakeholder 14

comments as we go through the presentation for the 15

public record. And if you would like to file written 16

comments you can do subsequently after this meeting up 17

to June 7th. 18

Okay. I'm going to talk about the rulemaking 19

overview. The regulatory history is kind of clear, 20

we've been through this before. EPCA 1975 established 21

the Energy Conservation Program and EPACT 2005 amended 22

EPCA and prescribed standards for self-contained 23

equipment with doors effective January 1st, 2010. It 24

also directed the Department to develop and publish by 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


19

January 1st, 2009, standards for commercial 1

refrigeration equipment. In addition to that, and 2

that's why we are here today, it directed the 3

Department to determine whether to amend the standards 4

both by DOE and prescribed by EPCA, if the Department 5

determined there was a “positive determination” to 6

publish amended standards by January 1st, 2013 through 7

a second rulemaking process and that's what brings us 8

here today. 9

Let me emphasize this last bullet. The 10

situation the Department is in, is as we go through 11

this determination/rulemaking, is that at by the time 12

we determine that we are to amend the standards, if we 13

determine that, we are to also to complete a 14

rulemaking. So that's why the Department at this point 15

in time has decided to start a rulemaking process in 16

order to get to that determination, whether it be 17

negative or positive, we have to actually start the 18

process of a rulemaking with the analysis to back us up 19

in terms of the findings for the Department. So it 20

doesn't give us a lot of time to do a determination and 21

then flip over and do a rulemaking. So we are in the 22

position to have to actually start a rulemaking process 23

at this point in time in order to complete it by 2013. 24

DOE published a final rule on January 9, 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


20

2009, with an effective date of January 1st, 2012. And 1

today we initiate this process with this framework 2

document which addresses the second directive from 3

EPACT 2005. 4

Again, the emphasis is that DOE must publish 5

a rule amending standards by January 1st, 2013. If it 6

determines to amend the standards, which, again, puts 7

us in the position that we have to go through a 8

rulemaking process to determine that. And the problem 9

is that once you go through a determination to get 10

there on the schedule we actually have to go through a 11

rulemaking process. So that's why we are here today. 12

With the last bullet here I wanted to 13

emphasize that we have a little bit of discretion in 14

terms of the effective date for the second rulemaking 15

process. And we have -- we usually have a three-year 16

timeframe in terms of the effective date, but if it's 17

determined we need more time we can go up to five 18

years. 19

Again, the EPCA factors will be used 20

throughout the rulemaking process to -- the Department 21

will consider the seven factors for setting energy 22

conservation standards and you see the list here and 23

the corresponding DOE analysis for each of the seven 24

factors. 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


21

Here is a description of the process that we 1

will go through. We are at the framework today. We 2

will have a preliminary analysis, notice of proposed 3

rulemaking and a final rule. 4

I encourage your comments to be submitted by 5

June 7th, 2010 for the framework document. And the 6

website is at the bottom of this slide. 7

I am just going to go through a few of the 8

chevrons here describing these sequential steps for us 9

getting to the standard. We're at the framework part 10

of the process and we will in the next several months 11

develop a preliminary analysis. And as you can see, 12

it's quite intricate. There will be several areas that 13

we'll be working on. Market technology, screening 14

analysis, engineering analysis, markups, energy use 15

characterizations, we'll be working on life cycle cost 16

analysis and payback period analysis, shipment 17

analysis, and national impacts analysis. And you can 18

see the flow of how all these different analyses works 19

in the preliminary analysis phase. 20

Subsequently we'll get to a phase of the 21

notice of proposed rulemaking and once the preliminary 22

analysis is out, we'll have another meeting. We will 23

collect stakeholder comments and we will revise the 24

preliminary analysis accordingly. And as you can see 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


22

we revise all the different analyses to update them to 1

the current information provided by the stakeholders 2

and in terms of the analysis as we go through the 3

process. And then we will generate a final rule which 4

revises the NOPR and concludes into a final rule by 5

2013; January 1st, 2013. 6

Here's the timeline that we developed for 7

this rule, the second rule for commercial refrigeration 8

equipment. 9

At this point I would like to just -- if 10

anybody has any comments that they can provide their 11

comments here on the scheduling and the overview of the 12

rulemaking. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Karim. 14

MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. I guess I 15

would like to go back to the fact that DOE now has 16

started a rulemaking on both the self-contained and the 17

remote condensing display cases. For those of you who 18

were not involved about five years ago, we, the 19

industry -- not just the industry, but AHRI and others 20

went to Congress and enacted legislation to basically 21

establish some federal minimum standard for the self-22

contained product and directed DOE to do rulemaking on 23

the other products, the remote cases. 24

Our consensus agreement in 2005 directed DOE 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


23

to review the self-contained standard by 2013, but 1

never intended to apply this effective date to the 2

remote cases. It was not part of the consensus 3

agreement that was reached back in 2005. 4

Now, it's true that Congress, the language 5

that Congress enacted requires DOE to do rulemaking and 6

I vaguely remember that the reason why it was written 7

that way was to make, I think, the language a little 8

bit cleaner. Otherwise commercial refrigeration 9

equipment would be handled in two different rulemaking 10

cycles. But the real intent was not for DOE to start 11

rulemaking, you know, two years ahead of the effective 12

date of the previous standard. I believe that's never 13

happened in the history of the parent state of 14

rulemaking process. When DOE started the rulemaking to 15

which the standards aren't effective yet. So, again, 16

for us I think it makes absolutely no sense for DOE to 17

do this rulemaking on the remote cases. And hope that 18

others agree with us that this was never the intent. 19

Thank you. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Michael McCabe. 21

MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe, Department of 22

Energy. Mr. Amrane, if I can follow up on your 23

comment. I can appreciate your recollection as to what 24

the parties had negotiated and offered the 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


24

recommendation to Congress. But in your reading of the 1

legislation as it stands, what do you believe the 2

legislation would require? 3

MR. AMRANE: Again, I'm not questioning the 4

language. I think DOE has the right interpretation of 5

what the language says. Yes, you have to start the 6

rulemaking. But, again, the language says that DOE 7

may. And, again, I believe that there is no need for 8

DOE to establish new standards given the fact that the 9

standards that were regulated just a year ago are not 10

yet effective. And now we are talking about revising 11

standards that are not even in place yet. So as far as 12

I'm concerned it does not make a lot of sense. And for 13

those of us who negotiated the language back then, it 14

was never the intent. 15

MR. McCABE: Yeah, this is Michael McCabe. I 16

don't have a copy of the text in front of me, but you 17

used the term "may" and it does -- does EPCA use the 18

term "may" in that language? 19

MR. AMRANE: I don't know. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: Betsy? 21

MS. KOHL: Yeah. This is Betsy Kohl from DOE 22

GC. It does direct DOE to consider whether to amend 23

the standards. So the determination is part, of as 24

Charlie was explaining, the process. 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


25

MR. BROOKMAN: Karim, do you want to follow 1

on? 2

MR. AMRANE: No. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. 4

Dave Winiarski. 5

(Pause.) 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Harvey Sachs. 7

MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. While Dave's 8

getting in place, ACEEE does not have a comment at this 9

time on the question of the interpretation Mr. Amrane 10

has raised. We have not prepared a comment on that. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Did you participate in those 12

negotiations? 13

MR. SACHS: I did not participate in those 14

negotiations. Therefore, I'm not familiar with the 15

context. 16


MR. SACHS: I should have said that. 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Dave Winiarski. 19

RULEMAKING SCOPE 20

MR. WINIARSKI: My name is Dave Winiarski I 21

am a researcher with Pacific Northwest Laboratory and 22

I'll be presenting scope and some of the other analyses 23

discussed in this framework presentation. 24

This slide is a little bit about the history 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


26

that's already been discussed. In EPACT 2005 it 1

prescribes standard for six classes of commercial 2

refrigeration equipment. Those are shown here along 3

with the standards. These are for self-contained 4

products. In 2009 -- let me go back. 5

Essentially what we have here are 6

refrigerators and freezers that are self-contained 7

either with solid or transparent doors. We also have 8

what is an effective combination product, a 9

refrigerator/freezer with both capabilities only with 10

solid doors. And a separate class of what we call 11

"self-contained refrigerator with transparent doors 12

that has been designed for a pull-down temperature 13

application. If you actually look at the numbers, 14

these are slightly different in terms of the standards 15

than the refrigerator with transparent doors. 16

So we start with these six classes. These 17

will certainly be in the scope of this rulemaking. 18

Karim, with respect to your comments right here, DOE 19

also set new standards for the remote condensing 20

commercial refrigeration equipment, self-contained 21

equipment without doors. So I want to say the class of 22

equipment referred to as an ice cream freezer 23

specifically designed for an ice cream application. 24

Those are in effect January 1st, 2012. So we are not 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


27

there yet. But DOE intends at this point to include in 1

the scope of the current proposed rulemaking here both 2

the products that were established in EPACT 2005 as 3

well as the equipment classes that were established and 4

for which standards were set in 2009. 5

In addition to that DOE is looking at some 6

other issues that were brought up through legislation. 7

EISA 2007 which also modified EPCA directed the DOE to 8

consider the incorporation of standby and off mode 9

standards where that was needed for classes of 10

equipment. Tentatively DOE has analyzed that and 11

commercial refrigeration equipment is typically 12

designed to operate on a 24-hour basis. And because of 13

that although the actual compressors and stuff may 14

cycle during that period, DOE doesn't feel that there 15

is a clear standby or a clear off mode period for which 16

it can establish separate standards. And that only the 17

active mode of energy consumption is applicable. For 18

that reason it at this time does not currently plan to 19

establish separate standby and off mode standards for 20

the equipment. 21

But we certainly welcome comments from 22

stakeholders as to whether that's an appropriate 23

interpretation. If it's not an appropriate 24

interpretation we will have to consider how we would 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


28

modify the test procedure for commercial refrigeration 1

equipment to separately characterize either a standby 2

or an off mode period and measure the energy 3

consumption during that period as well as figure out 4

how to incorporate that in any future analysis for any 5

new conservation standard. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: So that is the content that 7

you can see listed in slide 22, additional comment B. 8

So let's take comments in response to that request for 9

comments. 10

MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe, DOE. Mr. 11

Winiarski, if you could back up one slide and I would 12

like to put a question both to Mr. McHugh as a follow 13

up to your remarks and Mr. Amrane. 14

Mr. McHugh, when you commented you were 15

urging the Department to take, as I understand, the 16

products without doors, the freezer compartment 17

products and combine them with -- in a single class 18

with those with doors. I can appreciate the energy 19

impact on that and you recognize that yourself. 20

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act as 21

amended set standards for 18 classes of refrigerators, 22

refrigerator freezers and freezers recognizing the 23

design of where the door was placed, whether or not it 24

had an icemaker or not, and then subsequent amendments 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


29

to EPCA established separate categories of products 1

with -- in this case commercial refrigeration equipment 2

with and without doors. 3

EPCA also directs the Department in 4

considering standards to first go through a process to 5

determine what the classes of products are. And it 6

talks about classes as to whether or not it uses 7

different forms of energy, electricity, natural gas, or 8

oil, and then whether or not it has different utility 9

features that affect the performance of the product. 10

The legislation -- the history of the 11

legislation clearly recognizes geometry, placement of 12

doors, and the like in defining a utility and it would 13

seem that the legislation makes a very good case for 14

keeping the products in separate classes. You, 15

yourself, in talking about it talked about the energy 16

efficiency potential of those units with doors being 17

much higher than it is without doors. 18

If in your comments, or if you are prepared 19

to comment right now, you can offer why you think we 20

could combine then into a single class given the 21

requirements that are in the legislation. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: John McHugh. 23

MR. McHUGH: Thanks. John McHugh. Yes, I 24

think that there are two ways of addressing the issue 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


30

that's been brought up and it's a question of if you 1

look at sort of the history of air conditioning, for 2

instance, we have a couple of system types that 3

essentially are no longer allowed in our building code. 4

So, for instance, multi-zone systems that 5

simultaneously heat and cool the air in the space are 6

no longer allowed just because the efficiency is so 7

low. So similarly with low temperature display cases -8

- vertical display cases the inefficiency of an open, 9

low temperature display case is so low that it raises 10

the question about whether or not there should be a 11

product category that includes open, low temperature 12

vertical display cases. 13

As an alternative you could just set the 14

standard to be identical for open and closed display 15

cases. And if there is some new technology that allows 16

someone to make an open display case that has 17

comparable energy consumption to a closed display case 18

certainly we wouldn't be opposed. But it's -- you 19

know, we are too far down the path of recognizing the 20

impacts of excessive energy consumption. This is a 21

kind of a fairly blatant method or blatant example of 22

saying, I have enough money, I can use as much energy 23

as I want for this. 24

And if you look at the modern supermarkets, 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


31

because of the energy impacts, and also because of the 1

product quality impacts, there just aren't that many 2

open, low-temperature vertical display cases anymore. 3

I don't know if that answered the question. 4

MR. McCABE: No, I don't think it entirely 5

did. We, under this program we are bound by the law. 6

And so if you can take a look at what the legislation 7

discusses as far as classes of products, and what we 8

have to consider, I think in your comments I think 9

you've made a case that with and without doors are 10

separate classes. And then we would have to consider 11

them separately and then we would have to set the 12

standards for each class to the maximum improvement 13

that is technically feasible and economically justified 14

for that class. It's theoretically possible to set the 15

same level for both classes if that level meets the 16

legislative requirement for, you know, each class 17

separately. 18

But, we couldn't do it -- you know, it's 19

arguable as to whether or not we can do what you are 20

proposing. And I would encourage you in your written 21

comments to take a look at the legislation and what we 22

are allowed to do and how we can accomplish your 23

objectives. 24

MR. McHUGH: So related to that -- 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


32

MR. BROOKMAN: Let's just clarify. John 1

McHugh. 2

MR. McHUGH: John McHugh. Related to the 3

comment, you know, clearly the intent of these 4

efficiency acts are to enhance the efficiency of 5

products. What capability does DOE have in 6

recommending that certain classes of equipment be 7

eliminated due to their extremely high energy 8

consumption? So I guess that's the question to you 9

folks, how you see that. 10

MR. McCABE: This is Mike McCabe, if you have 11

any comments on how we could consider that within the 12

scope of the existing law we would appreciate that. 13

Similarly, addressing the same topic as Mr. Amrane, why 14

shouldn't we take and collapse the classes? Is there a 15

separate and distinct utility for without doors? 16

MR. AMRANE: I think there is and that's why 17

the language is clear, the legislative language is 18

clear. It defines those product classes. So I think 19

DOE is bound by the language that Congress enacted to 20

recognize those product categories and to establish the 21

efficiency of the level that technology could justify 22

and feasible and justified. That's -- so, yeah. 23

MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe again. What is 24

the utility of no door? What is the utility of a door? 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


33

If in your comments we would appreciate going into that 1

because that would certainly help us in looking at the 2

requirements within EPCA in establishing separate 3

classes. 4

MR. AMRANE: And we would in our comments. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Thank you. Harvey 6

Sachs? 7

MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. Mike, I believe 8

there is at least one loose precedent in the sunsetting 9

of through the wall air conditioning category which 10

took effect January 1s of this year. This was an 11

obsolete category, inherently inefficient of small 12

manufacturing volume and it was rolled into another 13

class. Thank you. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Tim Ballo. 15

MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, Earthjustice. Just 16

quickly on the intent of Congress. I think we heard 17

already today that the intent of Congress in 2005 was 18

to codify standards that had been agreed upon through a 19

negotiated process. I don't think we can infer from 20

that any intent of Congress regarding the utility of 21

doors or a lack of doors on a product. 22

It seems to me that a real value would be 23

data on sales in the -- in the retail market from 24

equipment with doors or without doors to see if the 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


34

doors actually have an impact on the end user of the 1

product whether you consider that to be the market, the 2

retailer, or the person who is going to the market to 3

purchase goods. I think we will be arguing that 4

there's no utility for doors on any equipment. But, 5

you know, the Department certainly does have some 6

discretion there. But it is certainly reasonable to 7

read the statute in a way that would define the product 8

class as refrigeration equipment with or without doors. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Yes, 10

please. Say your name for the record. 11

MR. CARL ROBERTS: Carl Roberts. There is 12

some research regarding the utility of doors or the 13

difference between open and closed display 14

merchandisers with glass doors. I would say it extends 15

to medium temp as well. There's no need to limit it to 16

low temp. A refrigerator is a refrigerator; a 17

merchandiser is a merchandiser and there is no evidence 18

that the presence or absence of doors impacts the 19

productivity of that equipment. 20

In fact, recent research has dispelled that 21

myth and ASHRI Research Project 1402 would be a good 22

example to show that there isn't any productivity 23

difference between vertical open cases and vertical 24

cases with glass doors. And the energy differences are 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


35

huge, about two or three times the energy goes into an 1

open case. 2

So if our goal is to achieve the maximum 3

improvement in energy efficiency that is 4

technologically feasible and economically justified, 5

why should we encourage the use of open display cases? 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, please. Say 7

your name for the record. 8

MR. HON: Charlie Hon. I have three comments 9

to make. First, the speaker indicated that the 10

commercial refrigerators are “typically designed”; 11

there is no such thing as "typical" they are designed 12

to run around the clock, so nobody manufactures a 13

commercial refrigerator that “typically” would be 14

running. You know, it has to run around the clock. 15

Number two comment is in regard to the 16

comment that was just made about the ASHRAE Research. 17

The ASHRAE research was done, unfortunately it's not 18

complete and I want to make sure that people 19

understand, that research program does not truly 20

indicate that there is no difference whether there are 21

doors or no doors as far as the productivity of the 22

case is concerned. There is no denying there is energy 23

savings, however, the other conclusions that are made 24

are inconclusive and are not to be taken as final. 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


36

Number three, I want to talk about the 1

standards that actually are in place and are going to 2

go into effective January 1st, 2012. There is a major 3

flaw in this standard, if I may. Commercial 4

refrigerators that are manufactured that are used in 5

supermarkets, as is stated in the standard, it is also 6

stated in the AHRI Standard 1200 and also discussed by 7

the FDA food code and the ASHRAE Standards. 8

ASHRAE standard establishes two -- I'm sorry, 9

FDA and NSF-7 standard establishes two operating 10

conditions. One is 75 degrees, room temperature, the 11

other one is 80 degrees room temperature. 12

Unfortunately, this standard only addresses the 75 13

degree room temperature ambient condition. That only 14

applies to supermarket operating conditions and not 15

convenience stores, restaurants, and the rest. 16

As the convenience stores are getting more 17

and more into the food side of the business their 18

operating conditions are not 75 degree dry temperature, 19

55 percent humidity, by far they are higher. And the 20

current standard does not address that and consequently 21

has a major impact on the performance of the commercial 22

refrigerators and consequently the applicability of 23

these cases indoor conditions and something needs to be 24

done about it. Otherwise, come January 1st, 2012, 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


37

those cases could not be sold to convenience stores and 1

restaurants. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Other comments in 3

this stream before we move on? 4

(No response.) 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. We're going to keep 6

going then. 7

MR. WINIARSKI: Okay. And in addition to 8

establishing -- or in addition to what we think of as 9

more typical systems in supermarket type applications 10

where a refrigerant is circulated from a remote 11

condensing application out to display cases and 12

commercial refrigeration equipment out in the sales 13

area, there is a second method of essentially providing 14

cooling to those display cases which we refer to here 15

as secondary coolant systems. 16

A secondary coolant system essentially 17

instead of distributing a liquid refrigerant out to 18

those display cases precools a secondary fluid, 19

typically a brine solution or I think in some cases CO2 20

solution out through the cases and back. In the 2009 21

final rule DOE determined that the language that was 22

called out in EPCA essentially precluded DOE covering 23

those secondary coolant systems in the scope of that 24

rulemaking. 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


38

There were some back and forth stakeholder 1

comments on it. I believe that those systems 2

currently, or at the time, represented something like 5 3

percent or 10 percent of the market. DOE also noted at 4

the time that the standard that had been adopted as a 5

test procedure, AHRI 1200-2006 also specifically 6

excluded secondary coolant systems in the coverage of 7

that test procedure. 8

So what I wanted to do here is just 9

reemphasize that that is in fact DOE's understanding of 10

the current legislation. And they have no plans at 11

this point to cover those secondary coolant systems in 12

the course of this rulemaking. But we certainly 13

welcome comments on how the very presence of secondary 14

coolant systems could be considered in the course of 15

the rulemaking, because obviously we are looking at 16

regulating one type of a product and not another type 17

of product that may serve essentially the same general 18

use. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: So, comments? You see the 20

issue box regarding the relevance of secondary coolant 21

applications to this rulemaking. Yes, please. If you 22

would say your name. 23

MR. HON: Charlie Hon. There are several 24

issues here that I think are misleading on that slide. 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


39

Number one is that AHRI standard 1200 also excludes 1

several other things that are covered in the rulemaking 2

quite clearly. If you read over all the exclusions in 3

1200 there are several of the presently regulated 4

products which are covered. 5

MR. WINIARSKI: That is true. 6

MR. HON: So I think it's rather erroneous 7

that we have some that basically tell you these are 8

excluded and now we are taking part of the exclusion 9

and part of it not. 10

The second issue is that there are secondary 11

coolant loops, there's a difficult factor which we are 12

addressing right now. Secondary coolant loops can be, 13

in some cases, tested under ASHRAE 72 which is the test 14

method under 1200 only if there's a complete -- if 15

there's no changes to a condition or there's complete 16

changes to a condition. If it starts out as a liquid 17

and stays a liquid, it can be tested under the test 18

method. If it starts out as a liquid and turns 19

completely to a gas, it can be tested under the test 20

method. With CO2 secondary loops and transcritical 21

conditions they start out as a slurry and maintain a 22

slurry, but change ratio of gas and liquid in the 23

slurry. And as such, at this time there's no 24

finalization of a test method which would allow that to 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


40

be rated. And we are looking at it right now under 1

this test standard. But at this moment it does not 2

exist. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: John McHugh. 4

MR. McHUGH: John McHugh. Related to the 5

issue of secondary coolant applications, the California 6

Air Resources Board is working on standards to address 7

leakage of refrigerant from supermarket refrigeration. 8

And this is a huge issue in that the global warming 9

potential of the modern refrigerants are about 2,000 10

times that of CO2. And current research indicates that 11

typical leakage rates in supermarkets are on the order 12

of 18 percent of the full refrigerant charge. And so 13

the greenhouse gas or global warming impact of 14

refrigerant leakage in supermarkets is fairly 15

significant. And I have a question for DOE about 16

whether or not mitigating greenhouse gas emissions 17

through refrigerant leakage is within the scope of this 18

proceeding and potentially issues around testing 19

equipment for leakage and that sort of thing? 20

MR. BROOKMAN: Betsy Kohl. 21

MS. KOHL: Betsy Kohl, DOE GC. The standards 22

are for energy efficiency. I mean, it could 23

potentially, maybe in the seven factor test, be 24

something that we consider. But the standards, you 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


41

know, the legal benchmark is this maximum improvement 1

that's technology feasible and economically justified. 2

MR. McHUGH: John McHugh, a follow up 3

question. Is it your understanding that federal 4

preemption would prohibit states from having additional 5

requirements for commercial refrigeration -- additional 6

requirements specifically around leakage or 7

specifically requiring secondary refrigerants or 8

regulations requiring distributed refrigerant systems 9

to minimize leakage? Is there anything in the 10

standards that would prohibit the states exercising 11

their rights to eliminate greenhouse gas from 12

supermarkets? 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Betsy Kohl. 14

MS. KOHL: Thank you. That's something that 15

we would have to think about. I'm not sure about that 16

right now. I mean, if it impacts the efficiency you 17

may run into problems, but that's something we would 18

have to think about. 19

MR. McHUGH: Thanks. 20

MR. LLENZA: This is Charles Llenza, 21

Department of Energy. Under current statute the thing 22

that we strive towards is the energy efficiency of the 23

equipment. Now, in tightening the efficiency standards 24

for this equipment that may impact the coolant in terms 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


42

of if there's leakage, that the equipment can't meet 1

the standards and you can't meet the efficiency levels. 2

But my understanding is that we don't cover the remote 3

condensing units and the actual refrigerant leakage 4

issues unless they are relevant to the standard. And I 5

don't think they are. I mean, in the case of a leakage 6

what happens is that it will end up with more service, 7

the unit gets charged up more to maintain the level of 8

performance. That doesn't help that leakage issue 9

though. 10

MR. CYMBALSKY: John Cymbalsky, Department of 11

Energy. I think this is true for any residential 12

cooling system in general. Right. Your air 13

conditioner can leak refrigerant as well. And this is 14

a general maintenance issue of the units, in my 15

opinion. 16

MR. McHUGH: John McHugh. My understanding 17

is that there is not anywhere close to the magnitude of 18

leakage for residential systems. If that was the case 19

you would be completely out of refrigerant after five 20

years, you know, at 18 percent leakage rate. So this 21

is fairly significant. The California Air Resources 22

Board has identified this as a significant source of 23

greenhouse gas emissions. And, you know, potentially 24

there's something that's inherently different about 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


43

commercial refrigeration equipment that has resulted in 1

these high leakage rates. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: So, John, in your written 3

comments, if you would address this. 4

MR. McHUGH: Yes. 5


MR. SACHS: John, be careful what you -- this 7

is Harvey Sachs. Be careful what you wish for. 8

I do have a slightly different question. If 9

I move from a self-contained air-cooled system to a 10

self-contained water-cooled system with a remote tower 11

for cooling, is this within the scope of the regulation 12

or are these separate classes? Are we eliminating 13

these? Where do they stand? 14

(Simultaneous conversation.) 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Dave Winiarski. 16

MR. WINIARSKI: Dave Winiarski, I have not 17

thought about that issue. I don't believe, and Betsy 18

could maybe correct me here, but I don't believe that 19

the language that was put into EPACT 2005 specifically 20

addresses an issue of a self-contained piece of 21

equipment with a water-cooled condenser. And that 22

would have to be something we would look into. 23

MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs again. We certainly 24

see such equipment in icemakers, and would not be 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


44

surprised to see the emergence of this kind of 1

equipment in conjunction with water-cooled heat pump 2

systems for a variety of applications, a specialized 3

case in brine perhaps. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Charles Llenza. 5

MR. LLENZA: Charles Llenza, Department of 6

Energy. I guess this would be under the secondary 7

coolant application characterization of the equipment; 8

right? 9

MR. SACHS: I think that's a good idea, but, 10

again the difference between a conventional secondary 11

coolant system and what I'm describing is that the 12

compressor is at the -- at the end unit, the commercial 13

refrigeration device whereas with a typical secondary 14

coolant system the compressor has a rack outside. 15

MR. LLENZA: Okay. 16

MR. SACHS: So it's much more analogous to 17

self -- it is a self-contained system except for 18

ejecting to a water loop instead of the ambient air in 19

the store. 20

MR. WINIARSKI: David Winiarski real quick. 21

I believe one of the things to look at would be the 22

actual text of the legislation to see whether in the 23

definition of self-contained equipment the condenser is 24

assumed to be directly connected to the compressor unit 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


45

as a single entity. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Tim Ballo. 2

MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, Earthjustice. Just 3

wanted to encourage the Department to revisit its legal 4

conclusion from the earlier rulemaking about secondary 5

coolant equipment. And if there are test procedure 6

issues, this final rule is not due until 2013, so maybe 7

those could be worked out in time for the Department to 8

issue a standard for that equipment. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: And would you be more 10

specific? What would you encourage them to reconsider? 11

MR. BALLO: I haven't looked closely at the 12

Department's legal conclusion from the 2009 rulemaking, 13

but I'll be looking at that to see if there's anything 14

that we can do about getting the Department to revisit 15

that. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. This gentleman 17

here. Did you have a comment, sir? Yes, you. Your 18

name again, please? 19

MR. NESHAN: Massoud Neshan. I want to ask 20

you a question. This 18 percent leak that is being 21

stated, is it average 18 percent for the state of 22

California? 23

MR. MCHUGH: Yes, I believe that's the case. 24

These are a couple of studies, I don't know if they 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


46

were across the state or is that a national? Eighteen 1

in the state of California. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. You can keep 3

going. 4

MR. NESHAN: Thank you for that information. 5

But 18 percent, that also includes a lot of old 6

condensing units, a lot of older stores. The new -- 7

the way the systems are designed by far, have less leak 8

rate than the 18 percent that was stated. There's a 9

lot of work being done to make sure that they're 10

leaking less refrigerant than the 18 percent, that's 11

for the record. 12

Number two, I want to ask a question. It was 13

stated -- actually it was stated that this open low 14

temperature case have less efficiency why don't we get 15

rid of them basically. A question I would like to pose 16

here is that, you know that the medium temperature 17

secondary cooling system where you use glycol, they are 18

less efficient than the DXes. Then why aren't we 19

talking about eliminating that? It is known that it 20

uses more energy period. So why are we promoting it? 21

If the DOE's responsibility is to only look at the 22

energy efficiency side of the system, then why are we 23

talking about having a standard even for secondary? 24

Why not eliminate it altogether? Because you know it 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


47

is less efficient. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, sir, please 2

say your name for the record. 3

MR. ALI: Sure. Masood Ali. Just to 4

Massoud's question on that, are a concern about 5

eliminating this. We are a manufacturer of 6

refrigeration systems and display cases. We are driven 7

by the needs of the customer to deliver the equipment 8

they need. We are not going to say that this is less 9

efficient, you cannot use it. It is dictated by their 10

demands. There is no doubt -- there is no doubt that 11

secondary systems that are open, freezer cases that are 12

open, display cases consume more energy. But it is the 13

merchandising needs that is needed to do it. So I 14

don't think we should be contemplating to eliminate 15

those things. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Yes, John 17

McHugh. 18

MR. McHUGH: John McHugh. It's true that the 19

brine systems are less efficient, but the CO2 systems 20

are more efficient. And there's a number of studies 21

about that. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, follow on. Your 23

name again. 24

MR. ALI: John, this is Masood. With the 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


48

experience we have with the CO2 systems I don't think 1

it is energy efficient with the recent experience. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes. 3

MR. CARL ROBERTS: Carl Roberts. It's also a 4

matter of degree. The differences with a secondary 5

system are on the order of, you know, a few percent 6

efficiency. The difference with open versus door is 7

huge. It's been estimated that if most of the 8

supermarkets nationwide used doors instead of open 9

cases it would eliminate the need for several coal-10

fired power plants, which I think you have to consider 11

the degree. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Okay. I think we are 13

ready to move on then. 14

MR. WINIARSKI: We titled this slide 15

"Stakeholder Equipment Issues." Primarily these are 16

issues that have come up since or right around January 17

1st, 2010 regarding compliance with those standards 18

that were put in place in EPACT 2005. DOE has received 19

a number of letters from manufacturers of what we call 20

self-contained equipment, with a service-over-counter 21

type application where you've got someone behind the 22

counter, they're selling a product to someone in the 23

sales area and both sides typically want to look at 24

what's inside the case, so these have lots of glass. 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


49

It's not clear how -- that these are the issues in 1

terms of the amount of energy lost through that glazed 2

area was considered in the EPACT 2005 requirements. 3

That's been a contention of manufacturers and they've 4

also contended at different points that maybe these 5

were never meant to be covered. 6

In addition there's a self-contained under-7

counter refrigeration unit. These typically have solid 8

doors but are small products. So there's a large 9

surface area for the amount of volume that's 10

refrigerated. And there have been some concerns from 11

manufacturers that they cannot meet the EPACT 2005 12

standards for these products. 13

Several manufacturers, I guess, went to OHA 14

and OHA basically reviews requests for exemption and 15

OHA said that we cannot grant a request for exemption 16

or exception for these products the standards were set 17

in the EPACT 2005 and not directly by DOE. 18

I'm not going to talk a lot about that, 19

that's a legal issue that has to be taken into account 20

between DOE and the manufacturers. However, one of the 21

important things for this upcoming rulemaking is how 22

should we consider that type of equipment design? Does 23

that require separate classifications in order to look 24

at it for other standards, future standards. 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


50

In addition, another issue that has come up 1

very recently is EPACT set requirements for equipment 2

with solid doors and equipment with transparent doors. 3

It was not very explicit on what requirements apply to 4

a solid door with a window cut into it. And so the 5

Department -- what I call a "hybrid door" -- so this is 6

another sort of classification issue that the 7

Department is struggling with and we certainly welcome 8

stakeholder comments on how we should treat both the 9

issue about the solid and transparent doors and those 10

particular classes of equipment that need special 11

consideration for this rulemaking. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. 13

MR. HON: Charlie Hon. The ASHRAE Committee, 14

test standard committee is looking at the mixed door 15

situation. This is tentative, but tentatively our 16

proposal will be coming out that any time you have more 17

than 50 percent of the door area as glass it would be 18

considered as transparent doors throughout the entire 19

system. Anything less than that would be considered 20

solid doors because we didn't want people taking the 21

full glass door and putting a little peephole window 22

and classifying it as a glass door; because that's not 23

inherently what we consider a reasonable test. 24

So the test standard probably will be 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


51

modified to take care of that last bullet point. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie, what is your 2

timetable for ASHRAE? 3

MR. HON: Our tentative target of conclusion 4

of discussions is January of next year. That is our 5

timeline for submittal to ANSI. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: January of 2011? 7

MR. HON: Yes. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 9

MR. LLENZA: Charles Llenza, Department of 10

Energy. As part of the process that we are going 11

through, we will be looking at updating the test 12

procedure and these are some of the issues that, you 13

know, that we have with our rulemaking now. I 14

understand, that we are already been set for the 2012 15

standards when they become effective. But this 16

rulemaking also gives us an opportunity to revise the 17

test procedure to get some of the intricacies that we 18

are finding that we are not exactly covered by the 19

current test procedure. 20

MR. HON: Charlie Hon again. The rulemaking 21

is open meetings and they are ASHRAE meetings. The 22

next one will be the last Sunday of June in 23

Albuquerque, New Mexico. It is an open meeting. So 24

anyone who wishes to come may. And then the last -- I 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


52

think it's the last Sunday of January that will be the 1

final meeting. But I have to look at that schedule. 2

One other comment there, extremely small, 3

under counter or self-contained units, those were 4

considered originally in California's negotiations 5

because that's how the initial lines and structures 6

were established and that's where those correction 7

factors of two or three kilowatts were allowed is to 8

allow for the loss of efficiency due to change of 9

external surface area. So I don't know that that is 10

that big an issue other than a few manufacturers 11

claiming that it is. 12

Service-over-counter is a very touchy subject 13

as well because there are multiple different designs 14

that fall under that category. I know that the ones 15

that are presently under review are what are considered 16

curved front for delis. That is because there is a 17

cleaning mechanism set into those products where the 18

glass itself opens up and makes it very easy to clean 19

the product which makes it very conducive to NSF design 20

but leaves huge amounts of air gaps. And that's the 21

problem with it. 22

There are old style frame structured designs 23

with flat panels in them that can meet the standard but 24

just barely and only certain sizes of those. If you 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


53

get very big it doesn't work. So, that's a touchy 1

subject, but that's a legal issue there. But I do not 2

understand the comment about the small, self-contained. 3

Because if you look at the standard, it allows 4

substantial energy -- a glass-front unit could be using 5

3.34 kilowatts of power with no internal volume 6

whatsoever. Just by the correction factors that were 7

built into the lines. 8


MR. SACHS: Harvey Sachs. Just to suggest 10

and request for the ASHRAE Committee on the hybrid 11

doors it would seem to be the one rational approach to 12

consider would be the area weighted minimum compliant 13

thermal conductivity for the transparent and solid 14

portions of the door. That would seem to give an 15

approach which maximizes flexibility for design 16

options. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie. 18

MR. HON: Charlie Hon. We've looked at it 19

extensively and thermal efficiencies are a set of tasks 20

which may or may not be relevant because the standard 21

is written to check the entire energy consumption of 22

the entire product. And we do not, at this time make 23

any special recognition of any component or special 24

method of componentry because the standard does allow 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


54

for water-cooled condensing. It allows for air-cooled 1

condensing. We do not wish to specify individual 2

components. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Karim. 4

MR. AMRANE: Karim Amrane, AHRI. Regarding 5

the service-over-the-counter issue, there is a 6

legislative fix. We have some language that we 7

negotiated with -- and others and this is an amendment 8

to the Energy Bill and hopefully that language will 9

establish a product class for service-over-the-counter 10

with an efficiency standard. So we will be 11

recommending that there be a separate product class for 12

service-over-the-counter moving forward. Thanks. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: In the preceding discussion 14

we've talked a lot about the scope of rulemaking and 15

now specifically regarding classification issues, are 16

there final comments on classification issues? Since 17

we are about to move on towards test procedures. Yes, 18

please. 19

MR. DAVIS: Yes, John Davis with Traulsen. I 20

think Charlie and I probably disagree on one of the 21

categories and that's the small under counter unit. 22

And I just would recommend that as we go forward with 23

this we give that close scrutiny. I think when the 24

initial standards were adopted there were probably some 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


55

assumptions back in 2005. So, just as we go forward, I 1

just want to make sure you know that there's a balance 2

to that argument, I guess. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Is there another place to take 4

that up, or should we describe that now? 5

MR. LLENZA: Describe it now. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: This is the place. Do you 7

want to say more about it now? 8

MR. DAVIS: No, I don't have all the 9

technical details. I mean, clearly Charlie talks about 10

there is an offset. I think it's 2.02 or something of 11

that. I don't have all the technical details, I'm just 12

saying that our information is telling us -- and 13

specifically, when they say refrigerators they mean 14

freezers. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 16

MR. DAVIS: That's where the issue was. And 17

we would say that small under counter freezers in the 18

current standard for the DOE is a technical challenge 19

when you take in all the factors and the set 20

requirements, et cetera. So, as we -- if this is the 21

chance for us to consider that, I'm just saying, we 22

need to look into different sizes of units and 23

different standards. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: I see. And, of course, your 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


56

detailed written comments would be much appreciated by 1

the Department. Charlie, do you want to add in here. 2

MR. HON: Just a history. This was -- these 3

lines were not actually developed by the Department of 4

Energy. These were developed by the California Energy 5

Commission and then it was part of the negotiations and 6

they were accepted as national standards rather than 7

just be California standards. 8

The history of it goes back far enough that 9

California did not have a very good database with very 10

small sized units which may be part of the problem we 11

faced. But they did have some database when they 12

established the line. 13

MR. LLENZA: This is Charles Llenza, 14

Department of Energy. My understanding is also that in 15

the California regulations they had some exceptions 16

which they did not carry forth in the language in 17

EPACT. And that's the current technical fix that we 18

were hoping the Hill was working on. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Final comments on these 20

classification issues? Yes, please. Your name for the 21

record. 22

MR. ANDERSON: Viktor Anderson, Structural 23

Concepts. We have one issue with application 24

temperatures not regarding any of this. Candy cases 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


57

and wine cases run 60 degrees, 55 degrees. To meet the 1

standard we would have to design that to run at the 38 2

degree in the average and when doing that they will not 3

pass the energy for that. It kind of goes hand in hand 4

with the door, no door type situation. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Is that mostly a no-door 6

application? 7

MR. ANDERSON: It's in a doored 8

configuration. So that this standard for 2012 will 9

totally eliminate that class. Actually the 2010 10

standard eliminates that class. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 12

Final comments on these classification 13

issues? 14

(No response.) 15

MR. BROOKMAN: I want to encourage you, John, 16

we are about to take a break. And to keep the record 17

as complete and continuous as possible, when we return 18

from the break if you want to add some additional 19

thoughts we'll give you an opportunity to do that. 20

MR. DAVIS: Fine, we'll put it in writing. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Great. Let's do that 22

then. 23

So it's now 10:25. By our schedule we were 24

scheduled to take a break, let's do that. It takes 15 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


58

minutes typically on a good day to get back here from a 1

break. So we will resume at 10:40. 2

(Brief recess taken at 10:25 a.m.) 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Please take your seats. 4

We are going to take up test procedure 5

background and potential changes. Sarah Widder. 6

TEST PROCEDURE BACKGROUND AND POTENTIAL CHANGES 7

MS. WIDDER: Okay. Welcome back everyone. 8

Thank you. Again, as Doug said, I'm Sarah Widder. I'm 9

from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and I'm 10

going to talk a little bit about a separate, but 11

related rulemaking that has already come up today which 12

is the test procedure. And it's designed to occur 13

concurrent with the energy conservation standard. 14

Right here is the schedule. You can see we are in the 15

framework document stage right now and so we are just 16

beginning the test procedure analysis. We plan on 17

publishing the test procedure NOPR concurrent with the 18

energy conservation standard preliminary analysis. And 19

those meetings, those public meetings, will occur, 20

hopefully, at a convenient similar time, either back to 21

back on the same day or possibly on two separate days. 22

But just for everyone's convenience since they are so 23

related. That will be in the spring of 2011; hopefully. 24

And then the test procedure final rule will 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


59

be published prior to the publication of the energy 1

conservation standard NOPR. 2

So just what DOE is thinking about doing with 3

their test procedure, this is a little history. The 4

previous or current DOE test procedure published in 5

2006 in a large publication of many test procedures 6

adapted to ANSI/ARI Standard 1200 2006 as the DOE test 7

procedure. And that standard, as many of you know, 8

references ASHRE 72 2005 version as the method of test 9

in AHAM Standard HRF1 2004 for measuring the 10

refrigerated compartment volume. 11

And since then ARI has become AHRI and has 12

published a new, revised test procedure in 2008. And 13

after reviewing that standard, there are a few changes 14

that have basically brought the test procedure in line 15

with the changes that DOE initially incorporated which 16

are relatively minor but now the two test procedures 17

agree fairly well. And it also references the updated 18

AHAM standard 2008. 19

DOE, because they are so similar now, is 20

considering adapting the revised AHRI version. 21

We are also considering a few other changes 22

to the test procedure that you've already heard 23

mentioned, accommodating some specific energy 24

conservation technologies that previously were not 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


60

covered in any existing test procedure. These would be 1

lighting sensors and controls, infiltration reduction 2

devices like night curtains, as you can see here, or 3

any other method that might try and keep the cool air 4

in the compartment. And then other energy management 5

controls or part-load testing as John McHugh mentioned. 6

As we said, the current DOE test procedures 7

don't quantify these energy conservation features. 8

They don't treat them at all. And so we are 9

considering amending the test procedure to accommodate 10

these technologies. And to address that we are 11

considering three potential methods. And these 12

potential methods, I'm going to go through them each a 13

little bit more in depth in the next few slides. But 14

just to mention now, these three methods, it could be 15

that an energy technology device will be treated by 16

specific method and another energy technology device 17

would be treated by a different method. And so we 18

could use all three of these or only one or some of 19

both. And just think about that, they're not mutually 20

exclusive at all. 21

So the first one I'm going to talk about is 22

analytical methods. This would be similar to the AHRI 23

test procedure. It would specify a percent time off or 24

some sort of scaling factor based on industry data by 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


61

which a manufacturer would use to calculate the daily 1

energy consumption. 2

And this is similar to AHRI’s alternate 3

component indirect effects. The advantage of this is 4

it's consistent across all manufacturers and across all 5

technologies and that it's simple to calculate. So 6

there's not a large increase in burden. The limitation 7

is that it's dependent on data which may or may not be 8

readily available and also does not capture differences 9

in energy technologies for a similar use. So different 10

types of lighting sensor that may use different amounts 11

of energy would receive the same scaling factor. 12

Another method would be physical testing. 13

This would be to specify a triggering schedule or some 14

sort of alternate test conditions. And you've heard 15

that mentioned. This would be similar to a triggering 16

schedule, similar to the doors in ASHRE 72. You could 17

do that for night curtains, for example, specify a 18

certain number of hours you would pull a night curtain 19

on a unit down for. Or different test conditions for 20

wine coolers, for example, or different loading of the 21

case. 22

This would potentially require a different 23

24-hour test. So then the limitation there would be it 24

would be an increased burden, it may be impractical and 25

EERE-2010-BT-STD-0003 DOC ID 1.2.006


62

would be expensive. However, it would have the 1

advantages of being very accurate and very accurately 2

characterize energy use associated with the device or 3

the energy conservation, and would represent the 4

difference in energy technologies. 5

And then the third would be a combination of 6

these methods. And so it would have limited additional 7

testing and then use that data with some sort of 8

calculation method to result in a daily energy 9

consumption. And so that would decrease the burden of 10

testing, but it would still have some limitations in 11

how you calculate it. It may not treat different 12

Download - PUBLIC MEETING ON THE ENERGY CONSERVATION ......2010/05/18 · EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 1 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PUBLIC MEETING ON THE ENERGY CONSERVATION

Top Related