202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 1

 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

 + + + + + 

 EFFICIENCIES AND RENEWABLES 

 ADVISORY COMMITTEE 

 + + + + + 

 LIQUID-IMMERSED AND MEDIUM VOLTAGE 

 DRY-TYPE DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS 

 NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING WORKING GROUP 

 + + + + + 

 PUBLIC MEETING 

 + + + + + 

 THURSDAY, 

 SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 

 The Working Group met in Room 8E089, 

1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, 

D.C., at 9:00 a.m., Richard Parker, 

Facilitator, presiding. 

FACILITATOR: 

RICHARD PARKER, University of Connecticut Law 

School 

MEMBERS PRESENT: 

RICHARD ANDERSON, Manager of Electrical 

 Engineering, Fayetteville Public Works 

 Commission 

TIM BALLO, ESQ., Earthjustice 

SCOTT BECK, Product Engineering Manager, 

 Lakeview Metals 

JOHN CASKEY, Assistant Vice President of 

 Industry Operations, National 

 Electrical Manufacturers Association 

JERRY CORKRAN, Staff Engineer, Cooper Power 

 Systems 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 2

MEMBERS PRESENT (Continued): 

JOHN CYMBALSKY, Supervisory Operations 

 Research Analyst, U.S. Department of 

 Energy 

ANDREW DeLASKI, Executive Director, 

 Appliance Standards Awareness Project 

THOMAS ECKMAN, Manager, Northwest Power and 

 Conservation Council 

CARLOS GAYTAN, Manager of Engineering, 

 Prolec GE 

ROBERT GREESON, Senior Electrical Design 

 Engineer, Federal Pacific Company 

GERALD HODGE, Consulting Engineer, Howard 

 Industries 

MICHAEL HYLAND, Senior Vice President, 

 American Public Power Association 

DAVID MILLURE, Senior Vice President, 

 Metglas, Inc. 

WES PATTERSON, Vice President of Technology, 

 ABB, Inc. 

ERIC PETERSON, Director of Customer Services 

 and Research, AK Steel Corporation 

RAY POLINSKI, General Manager of Grain- 

 Oriented Electrical Steels, ATI- 

 Allegheny Ludlum 

ART ROSENFELD, Ph.D., Lawrence Berkeley 

 National Laboratory 

STEVE ROSENSTOCK, Manager of Energy 

 Solutions, Edison Electric Institute 

ROBIN ROY, Director, National Resources 

 Defense Council 

ROBERT SAINT, Principal Transmission and 

 Distribution Engineering, National 

 Rural Electric Cooperative Association 

CHUCK SIMMONS, Senior Engineer, Progress 

 Energy 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 3

ALSO PRESENT: 

ROBERT BERMAN, Berman Economics 

DAVID FLATENFLATEN, Xcel Energy (via 

telephone) 

BRIAN COFFEY, Consultant, Navigant 

 Consulting 

PATRICIA CORKRAN 

KATIE COUGHLIN, Lead Analyst, Lawrence 

 Berkeley National Laboratory 

GREG COULTER, Prolec GE 

JIM CREEVY, Director of Government 

 Relations, National Electrical 

 Manufacturers Association 

CHARLIE DREXLER, Kentucky Association of 

 Electric Co-ops 

CHUCK FOSTER, Edison Electric Institute 

JEREMIAH FREEMAN, Energy Analyst, New West 

 Technologies 

PHIL HOPKINSON, HVOLT, Inc. 

ZHIMEI LUO, Consultant, Navigant Consulting 

BENJAMIN LONGSTRETH, ESQ., National 

 Resources Defense Council 

KEVIN LOOBY, President, Lakeview Metals 

AARON MEYERS, Cooper Power Systems 

 (via telephone) 

EMILY MARCHETTI, Program Support Specialist, 

 Energetics Incorporated 

MATTHEW NARDOTTI, Navigant Consulting 

TOM PETROSINO, Consultant, Prolec GE 

MIKE RIVEST, Managing Director, Navigant 

 Consulting 

JOHN ROSSETTI, Memphis Light, Gas, and Water 

 (via telephone) 

PAUL RYAN, Hitachi Metals America 

MAHESH SAMPAT, EMS Consulting 

JERRY SCHOEN, Principal Engineer, Product 

 Research and Applications Engineering, 

 AK Steel Corporation 

MEG WALTNER, Energy Efficiency Advocate, 

 Natural Resources Defense Council 

KENNETH WINDER, Manager of Engineering, Moon 

 Lake Electric Association 

DANIEL YOUNG, Consultant, Pacific Gas & 

 Electric 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 4

STAFF PRESENT: 

BRENDA EDWARDS, Program Support Specialist, 

 U.S. Department of Energy 

DAN COHEN, ESQ., U.S. Department of Energy 

WAYNE GORDON, ESQ., U.S. Department of 

 Energy 

 TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Presentation by Wayne Gordon, 

 Chief Counsel's Office...............7 

Introductions.............................16 

Agenda....................................30 

Ground Rules for Committee...............486 

Discussion of Schedule and Location of 

 Meetings...........................167 

Overview of Navigant/LBL Analysis........209 

Adjourn..................................322 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 5

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

2 (9:07 a.m.) 

3 MR. PARKER: Welcome, everyone to 

4 our first meeting of the Liquid-Immersed and 

5 Medium Voltage Dry-Type Working Group 

6 Negotiated Rulemaking Process. Thank you all 

7 for coming out. It's great to see you. I 

8 look forward to working with you over the next 

9 few weeks. 

10 My apologies, first, for the last 

11 minute fire drill with getting you the rules 

12 of procedure and the handouts for the meeting. 

13 I hope everybody got the materials. If you 

14 didn't, please let us know and we'll make sure 

15 you get them. I will also display them on the 

16 screen for people joining us for the webinar 

17 and so forth. And we'll just try to work 

18 through the agenda beginning with what is the 

19 agenda as soon as possible. 

20 We'll go around and do 

21 introductions, but I'm told that we are 

22 fortunate to have Mr. Wayne Gordon from 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 6

1 General Counsel's Office to talk with us about 

2 the sort of law, the rules governing Federal 

3 Advisory Committee Act committees which this 

4 is. And he's here and he has a long day. 

5 We're happy to have him for a few minutes so 

6 that he can get in and out. 

7 Why don't we just turn it over to 

8 Mr. Gordon to make his presentation and then 

9 we will start our work. 

10 Mr. Gordon, thank you for coming. 

11 MR. GORDON: Thanks very much. 

12 Just briefly, as a subcommittee, you are all -

13 - you've all been appointed as representatives 

14 to this subcommittee which is a smaller part 

15 of the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

16 Advisory Committee (ERAC) which is the parent 

17 committee that you'll be reporting to and 

18 basically all of your recommendations to the 

19 Department regarding these rulemakings will go 

20 through -- Mr. Rosenfeld is on the parent 

21 committee and all of the recommendations that 

22 you come up with in your final recommendations 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 7

1 regarding the rulemaking on the topic that 

2 you're going to be doing this rulemaking, 

3 negotiated rulemaking, all of that will flow 

4 through the parent committee. 

5 I just wanted to briefly tell you, 

6 I'm the advisor, I'm the legal advisor to the 

7 parent committee and I wanted to just briefly 

8 go through with you some of the rules 

9 regarding advisory committees. 

10 As you have been appointed as 

11 representative members and this is a 

12 subcommittee, the full extent of Federal 

13 Advisory Committee Act rules do not apply to 

14 you. However, there's one specific area that 

15 I wanted you to be aware of and that is as 

16 representatives, you're here to represent the 

17 interests and in terms of your appointment 

18 letter, your appointment letter said you are 

19 being appointed to represent these following 

20 interests. And in that respect to the extent 

21 that there are topics that come up that would 

22 affect your own personal employers, you're not 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 8

1 allowed to make recommendations or involve 

2 yourselves in speeches that would affect those 

3 people individually or specifically. 

4 As I've looked through the agenda 

5 and I've talked with Dan Cohen, who is the 

6 program office attorney with regards to these 

7 topics, I don't see that there are going to be 

8 any topics that are going to come up that are 

9 going to specifically affect and individually 

10 affect any of your individual employers, but 

11 that's one of the over-arching conflict of 

12 interest rules that we want you to be aware 

13 of. 

14 So if anything really gets down in 

15 the weeds in terms of rulemaking and you know 

16 it's going to have a specific effect on your 

17 particular employer, your particular company, 

18 at that point I'd like you to talk to the 

19 facilitator and to John and see whether or not 

20 that's an area that we want to recuse you 

21 from. We don't expect that that's going to 

22 happen because the nature of rulemaking is 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 9

1 that it's a matter of general applicability. 

2 All of you in this room are going to be 

3 affected. All of the groups that you're 

4 representing are going to be affected equally 

5 by the nature of the work that you're going to 

6 do here. So from that perspective that's the 

7 only thing that I wanted to bring across to 

8 you. 

9 If there are conflict of interest 

10 issues that arise in your mind as you're going 

11 through these discussions, by all means talk 

12 to Richard, talk to John, and say should I get 

13 some legal advice on this particular area that 

14 we're going to be discussing in terms of 

15 rulemaking. 

16 When your decisions and when your 

17 recommendations go up to the parent committee, 

18 those will also be done in an open session, so 

19 all of those things, like this is a public 

20 meeting, when it comes to the parent committee 

21 and they should be voting and recommending 

22 putting that rulemaking forward to the 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 10

1 Secretary for action, all of those things will 

2 also be in a public forum. 

3 Are there any questions right off 

4 the bat? Go ahead, sir. 

5 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Good morning. 

6 This is Steve Rosenstock, Edison Electric 

7 Institute. You talked about the ERAC being 

8 the parent committee of this committee. 

9 MR. GORDON: Correct. 

10 MR. ROSENSTOCK: And I was not 

11 aware that our recommendations would have to 

12 be voted on by another committee. So what 

13 exactly is the role and what is -- what if 

14 their vote is -- I've looked at your ground 

15 rules and there's a termination date for the 

16 negotiations. And if our recommendations are 

17 going to parent committee, can they make 

18 changes to those recommendations? Can they 

19 send it back to the subcommittee? What 

20 exactly is their role? And what exactly, you 

21 know -- there's no information about that part 

22 of the process in any of these ground rules. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 11

1 MR. GORDON: Okay, the Federal 

2 Advisory Committee Act says that when you're 

3 going to have subcommittees do work on 

4 particular narrow issues that might not be 

5 appropriate for the full committee to look at, 

6 when you do that, you need to use a 

7 subcommittee process which this is. Those 

8 subcommittee recommendations also have to have 

9 and comply with all the aspects of the Federal 

10 Advisory Committee Act which means open 

11 hearings, the ability for public comment and 

12 the ability for a discussion regarding what 

13 ultimately comes back to the Department. 

14 That's why Mr. Rosenfeld is here. We cannot 

15 have subcommittees without at least one member 

16 of the parent committee being on the actual 

17 subcommittee. 

18 So from that perspective, the 

19 expectation is that the parent committee has 

20 effectively been given a charge. They have 

21 formed this group, this group of 

22 representatives, and said investigate this 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 12

1 charge, come up with recommendations for us 

2 and then deliver those to us. 

3 Realistically, the way that that 

4 works is that you guys are all the experts. 

5 You've been brought here to do that job for 

6 us. And to the extent that that has to go 

7 through the parent committee because of the 

8 Federal Advisory Committee Act, my expectation 

9 is that the advisory committee, it's not 

10 necessarily a rubber stamp, but they've 

11 actually put you guys here in the room to do 

12 the work that they need to get done to respond 

13 to their charges. 

14 So the expectation is that they're 

15 going to be looking at the work that you've 

16 done, that they're going to take into account 

17 the fact that you guys are the experts and the 

18 representatives that have been appointed to 

19 work on those issues. And to the extent that 

20 the Federal Advisory Committee Act has to be 

21 complied with, then there still is going to 

22 have that open process at some later point in 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 13

1 time. But it's not a process that I think 

2 would be disruptive to the work that you guys 

3 are going to be doing here. 

4 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Thank you very 

5 much. Again, Steve Rosenstock. However, 

6 there is an issue of the deadlines, final 

7 determination of deadlines for the 

8 subcommittee and would that affect the parent 

9 committee as well? 

10 Understanding they might -- I 

11 don't know how often they meet. They might 

12 only meet once every few months. If we finish 

13 our work in December, they might not address 

14 the issue until March of next year. 

15 MR. GORDON: My understanding is 

16 that ERAC is cognizant of the fact that you 

17 guys have time limits. ERAC doesn't do just 

18 subcommittee work. They have their own broad 

19 agenda of matters that they discuss and they 

20 meet several times a year. 

21 To the extent that you've got 

22 questions about that, then what I would do is 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 14

1 direct those, if you've got special concerns 

2 about that, JoAnn Milliken is the DFO that 

3 handles ERAC which is the parent committee. 

4 And if you want to specifically address those 

5 issues to her in terms of timing, that would 

6 be the recommendation that I would make to 

7 you. 

8 Any other issues? Okay, thanks 

9 very much for your time. 

10 MR. CYMBALSKY: Hi, John 

11 Cymbalsky, DOE. I want to welcome everybody 

12 to our first negotiated rulemaking for 

13 transformers, our first meeting here. 

14 Just to address that last comment, 

15 I'm not on the full ERAC Committee. Mr. 

16 Rosenfeld is. I highly doubt that they would 

17 not convene a meeting to discuss our work if 

18 there's a deadline. We're not doing this for 

19 our health that's for sure. 

20 Let's see, the other issue I 

21 wanted to address, I still have a bunch of 

22 emails flying around about making you all pay 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 15

1 for meeting space. That was never intended to 

2 be a public email. I'm really sorry about 

3 that. We will not extract anything but a 

4 pound of flesh at these meetings. 

5 (Laughter.) 

6 And we apologize. I didn't want 

7 to get into the fray with that, but we will 

8 not be charging you for admission to this. We 

9 appreciate you actually being on the committee 

10 and that's enough for us. 

11 With that, back to Richard. 

12 MR. PARKER: Okay, so why don't we 

13 get started, beginning with just everybody -- 

14 is it on now? Can you hear? All right. With 

15 just introductions around the table and then -

16 - 

17 MR. CYMBALSKY: Around the tables. 

18 MR. PARKER: Around the tables and 

19 chairs. I first just want to thank some of 

20 the support staff who have made all this 

21 possible. Of course, John, for hosting the 

22 meeting and DOE and Dan Cohen, Zhimei Luo back 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 16

1 there will be taking minutes for the meeting. 

2 She's with the Navigant team. She's been a 

3 great resource for this. 

4 Brian Coffey who you know back 

5 there and Matt Nardotti from Navigant. Is 

6 Katie -- we've talked on the phone, but if not 

7 in the room, good to meet you, from LBNL, 

8 providing analytical support. Emily Marchetti 

9 who has helped us with this meeting space and 

10 Tatiana over there. Their hard work makes all 

11 of this possible. And Jeremiah Freeman in the 

12 back there who has really done a tremendous 

13 amount of work to bring this meeting together. 

14 So I want to start off by just recognizing 

15 and thanking them. 

16 Let's just go around the table 

17 now. Everybody probably knows each other, but 

18 it would be good for me to know you and I'll 

19 tell you a little bit about myself and then 

20 we'll just get into our business. 

21 Starting with you. 

22 MR. ROSENFELD: Hi. I'm Art 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 17

1 Rosenfeld. I'm a member of the full 

2 committee. My job here is to listen 

3 attentively and hopefully get you prompt and 

4 unadulterated recommendations to the 

5 committee. 

6 I do want to apologize in advance. 

7 There was some confusion as to who was going 

8 to represent the full committee here today. I 

9 happen to be in Washington with some other 

10 conflicting dates, so I'm double booked today. 

11 I will try to be here for the majority of the 

12 meeting and all of tomorrow morning. But if I 

13 sneak out at 10:15, that's why, and I 

14 apologize in advance. 

15 MR. ECKMAN: I'm Tom Eckman with 

16 the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 

17 I work on the energy efficiency activities of 

18 the Council. We are a four-state body that 

19 deals with integrated resource planning for 

20 utilities in the Northwest, Oregon, 

21 Washington, Idaho, and Montana. 

22 MR. ANDERSON: I'm Rick Anderson 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 18

1 with the Fayetteville Public Works Commission. 

2 I'm here with Mike Hyland, American Public 

3 Power, and representing the interests of 

4 municipal electric systems. 

5 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steven 

6 Rosenstock, Edison Electric Institute. We're 

7 the trade association for investor-owned 

8 utilities. 

9 MR. SAINT: Good morning. I'm Bob 

10 Saint, with the National Rural Electric 

11 Cooperative Association, NRECA. We represent 

12 the rural electric cooperatives in the U.S. 

13 MR. HYLAND: Mike Hyland with the 

14 American Public Power Association, APPA. We 

15 represent 2,000 municipally-owned electric 

16 systems in the U.S. 

17 MR. ROY: Robin Roy, Natural 

18 Resources Defense Council. We're an 

19 environmental organization with over one 

20 million members and supporters. 

21 MR. PETERSON: Good morning. I'm 

22 Eric Peterson. I'm the Director of Research 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 19

1 and Customer Technical Services for AK Steel. 

2 AK Steel is a company that's been in the 

3 United States for about 110 years with 

4 employees in Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and 

5 Kentucky. 

6 MR. CREEVY: I'm Jim Creevy with 

7 the National Electrical Manufacturers 

8 Association. Today, I'm serving as an 

9 alternate for John Caskey who has a happy 

10 family event, probably occurring this morning. 

11 He should probably be here this afternoon and 

12 tomorrow, however. 

13 NEMA is the trade association for 

14 the electro industry manufacturers including 

15 manufacturers of transformers. 

16 MR. BECK: Scott Beck, Lakeview 

17 Metals. I'm the sales and product engineering 

18 manager and we are a core manufacturer. 

19 MR. PATTERSON: Wes Patterson. 

20 I'm with ABB, vice president of technology. 

21 ABB is a manufacturer of transformers in the 

22 U.S., among other things. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 20

1 MR. GAYTAN: My name is Carlos 

2 Gaytan, Prolec GE. I am manager of 

3 engineering of distribution transformers. 

4 Prolec GE is a manufacturer of liquid-filled 

5 distribution transformers. 

6 MR. SIMMONS: Hello. My name is 

7 Chuck Simmons. I'm with Progress Energy in 

8 Raleigh, North Carolina. I deal with 

9 distribution standards for distribution 

10 transformers, regulators, among many other 

11 devices, here as part of EEI. 

12 MR. CORKRAN: Hello, I'm Jerry 

13 Corkran. I've been a staff engineer for 

14 Cooper Power for the last 40 years, IEEE 

15 member. 

16 MR. POLINSKI: Hello, Ray Polinski 

17 from Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corporation, a 

18 division of Allegheny Technologies. I'm our 

19 general manager of our electrical steel 

20 business unit that produces grain-oriented 

21 electrical steel for transformer cores. 

22 MR. HODGE: I'm Gerry Hodge from 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 21

1 Howard Industries. I'm a consultant engineer 

2 for them. And we're a manufacturer of 

3 distribution transformers. 

4 MR. MILLURE: I'm Dave Millure, 

5 the commercial leader for Metglas, 

6 Incorporated. We're an electrical steel 

7 manufacturer with a factory in South Carolina. 

8 MR. GREESON: Robert Greeson. I'm 

9 the engineering manager at Federal Pacific 

10 Transformer in Bristol, Virginia. We 

11 manufacture medium voltage dry-type 

12 transformers as well as low voltage dry-type 

13 distribution transformers. And so we 

14 represent the manufacturing stakeholders. 

15 MR. DELASKI: I'm Andrew DeLaski. 

16 I'm the executive director of the Appliance 

17 Standards Awareness Project. ASAP is a 

18 coalition of energy efficiency proponents that 

19 includes energy efficiency organizations, 

20 consumer groups, environmental organizations, 

21 utility companies, and state government 

22 representatives. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 22

1 MR. COHEN: I'm Dan Cohen. I'm 

2 with the General Counsel's Office here at the 

3 Department of Energy. 

4 MR. CYMBALSKY: John Cymbalsky, 

5 supervisor of the Appliance Standards Program 

6 here at DOE. 

7 MR. PARKER: Let's go to the 

8 seats. Why don't we start off with the back 

9 row and just work our way forward? 

10 MS. COUGHLIN: I'm Katie Coughlin. 

11 I work at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. I 

12 worked on the energy use analysis. 

13 MR. RAYMOND: Jim Raymond, 

14 Department of Energy. 

15 MR. NARDOTTI: Matt Nardotti, 

16 Navigant Consulting. 

17 MR. COFFEY: Brian Coffey, 

18 Navigant Consulting. 

19 MR. COULTER: Greg Coulter, I'm 

20 with Prolec GE. 

21 MR. SCHOEN: Jerry Schoen, AK 

22 Steel, Division of Research. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 23

1 MR. FOSTER: Chuck Foster, Edison 

2 Electric Institute. 

3 MS. WALTNER: Meg Waltner, Natural 

4 Resources Defense Council. 

5 MR. LONGSTRETH: Ben Longstreth, 

6 Natural Resources Defense Council. 

7 MS. CORKRAN: Patricia Corkran. 

8 MR. WINDER: Ken WINDER. 

9 MR. SAMPAT: Mahesh Sampat, EMS 

10 Consulting. 

11 MR. LOOBY: Kevin Looby, 

12 alternate, Lakeview Metals. 

13 MR. RYAN: Paul Ryan, alternate 

14 for Hitachi Metals Metglas. 

15 MR. BERMAN: Robert Berman, Berman 

16 Economics. 

17 MR. PARKER: Great. 

18 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, 

19 Earthjustice. 

20 MR. PARKER: Thank you. Welcome, 

21 everyone. I'm Richard Parker. I'm a 

22 professor at the University of Connecticut Law 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 24

1 School. I specialize in administrative law 

2 and alternative dispute resolution mediation 

3 and I look forward to working with you as we 

4 go forward in trying to come up with a 

5 consensus rule or proposed rule. 

6 Just a couple of thoughts about 

7 what a negotiated rulemaking is. I thought we 

8 might just talk you through that process just 

9 very briefly so that we know sort of what to 

10 expect. First, my job is to simply be a 

11 facilitator of your discussion. I have no 

12 views on this and my background is in 

13 administrative law and process. I know very 

14 little about electric transformers and have no 

15 opinions on the subject whatsoever. So I hope 

16 to learn enough and know enough to maintain 

17 and promote an orderly discussion to help this 

18 group forge a consensus, but I don't have any 

19 dog in the race. 

20 Everybody else in this room and 

21 everybody at the table does have a dog in the 

22 race. The way negotiated rulemaking normally 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 25

1 works is it's really a meeting of stakeholders 

2 and representatives of stakeholders. Again, 

3 remembering what Mr. Gordon said, that you're 

4 representing your industry and not just your 

5 company. You're here in your capacity as 

6 citizens as well as industry experts. 

7 So there's a group of people, 

8 there is a literature. There is a discussion 

9 about whether you should have sort of free10 floating experts on the committee who bring a 

11 lot of vast knowledge of an industry, but 

12 don't necessarily represent anybody with 

13 financial or professional interest in it and 

14 we decided to focus this committee and the 

15 membership on stakeholders because a 

16 negotiation is designed to get results. If we 

17 are successful, we will produce a term sheet 

18 that will serve as the basis for DOE's 

19 proposed rule. 

20 DOE has committed, I understand as 

21 part of the ground rules, to propose to the 

22 public any consensus product that this 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 26

1 committee comes up with. I should mention 

2 that there is an act that governs our 

3 proceedings. I'm a lawyer. I find these 

4 things fascinating. 

5 I'm not sure to what degree you 

6 find these things fascinating, so I have not 

7 burdened you with a handout that contains the 

8 act, but I'd be happy to share that with you 

9 if anybody wants to see it. But basically the 

10 way the process works is that an independent 

11 facilitator convener is hired to sort of bring 

12 a committee together that is broadly 

13 representative of a diverse array of 

14 interests, that is balanced so that no one set 

15 of interests can dominate, either in terms of 

16 knowledge or numbers around the table, and 

17 that is public, so everything we say here is 

18 basically on the record and you should be 

19 aware of that. 

20 There will be a transcript of the 

21 meeting. It will be distributed to you. We 

22 are doing this on webinar and that reminds me 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 27

1 that I should as soon as I'm through with 

2 these remarks open it up to the phone and let 

3 people who are on the phone introduce 

4 themselves. I apologize to people joining us 

5 by webinar, welcome. 

6 But the proceedings are public. 

7 We can form into working groups, if people 

8 like, and caucuses and so forth. You are free 

9 to caucus with your own colleagues and 

10 industry members and so forth. And that, of 

11 course, is off the record. Everything said 

12 around the table is on the record. So this is 

13 a public proceeding. 

14 Anybody is welcome to attend these 

15 meetings and speak to the extent that the 

16 orderly business allows. That part is 

17 mandated by statute. That's why I don't 

18 discuss this in the ground rules section that 

19 we can agree on. There are certain things 

20 that the statute requires. And that's one of 

21 them. 

22 We will meet through several 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 28

1 sessions, the exact number to be determined, 

2 and try to forge what I call a term sheet 

3 which would be basically the guts of the deal 

4 in as much detail as people feel is necessary 

5 to ensure that the consensus is reflected. 

6 We found in the past that it is 

7 not productive to have 25 people haggling over 

8 the exact wording of the exact rule. So we 

9 would do a term sheet. It would go to DOE. 

10 They would draft the actual NOPR and the 

11 supporting preamble and it would come back to 

12 this committee to look at and presumably to 

13 bless or to offer, but mostly our product will 

14 be a term sheet. 

15 What the statute says is that we 

16 can go as far if people want as actually 

17 negotiating the draft rule, but that's 

18 absolutely the outer limits of what this 

19 committee can do under the statute. At that 

20 point, the rule is proposed, like any other 

21 NOPR and it is open to public comment and the 

22 public can come in and comment on the rule. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 29

1 And if it is determined that certain changes 

2 are required, those changes might be made. 

3 We'll talk more about that process when we get 

4 into the procedure. 

5 But all this committee is allowed 

6 to do under the statute is to negotiate the 

7 proposed rule. Experience shows, long 

8 experience with negotiated rulemaking shows 

9 that in the vast majority of cases, what is 

10 proposed ends up being the rule, but you never 

11 know, things can happen. And so there has to 

12 be some allowance for the public to be 

13 involved, in some sense that their input would 

14 be meaningful. And so we can't actually 

15 negotiate the final rule, but only the 

16 proposed rule. 

17 Other than that, it's a very open, 

18 informal process. And we as a group, you as a 

19 group, can decide how you want to operate, 

20 what issues you want to address, in what 

21 order, and so forth, and when you want to wrap 

22 up. The agenda that I've put on the table for 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 30

1 the day is just a draft. It's really up to 

2 you to decide how you'd like to do things. 

3 I propose that we start off with 

4 discussion of the ground rules and I've 

5 circulated a draft. It has been used in prior 

6 discussions, excuse me, prior negotiated 

7 rulemakings. And so that can be a basis for 

8 discussion. I do apologize for getting it to 

9 people last night. What we can do is if 

10 people want to look at the draft, we can just 

11 take a break for a few minutes after the 

12 introductions and when we get to the ground 

13 rules of the agenda and just let people read 

14 through it so people have a sense of it. 

15 They're not long. They're not rocket science. 

16 I think if you look at them, you can get a 

17 pretty good sense of it. 

18 Before I go any further though, 

19 let me again apologize to the people who are 

20 on the phone and just open the lines to people 

21 who are calling in. I hope everybody got the 

22 call-in information and the link for the 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 31

1 webinar access. So who is on the line? Does 

2 anybody want to step forward, speak up. 

3 MR. HOPKINSON: Yes, Phil 

4 Hopkinson here from HVOLT, Inc. 

5 MR. PARKER: Great, welcome, Phil. 

6 MR. PETROSINO: Tom -- 

7 MR. PARKER: I'm sorry, who was 

8 that? 

9 MR. PETROSINO: Tom Petrosino, 

10 consultant for Prolec GE. 

11 MR. MEYERS: Aaron Meyers, Cooper 

12 Power Systems. 

13 MR. DREXLER: Charlie Drexler, 

14 KAEC, Kentucky Association of Electric Co-ops. 

15 MR. PARKER: Anyone else? 

16 MR. YOUNG: Daniel Young, 

17 consultant to PG&E. 

18 MR. PARKER: Anyone else? 

19 MR. ROSSETTI: John Rossetti, 

20 Memphis Light, Gas, and Water. 

21 MR. PARKER: Anyone else? Could I 

22 ask everybody on the line if you could just -- 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 32

1 if you will email me your information, your 

2 contact information, we will make sure that 

3 you are copied on the documents that go out to 

4 the group and obviously, if you have enough of 

5 an interest to have tuned in today, you have 

6 enough interest to be apprised of what we come 

7 up with between meetings. 

8 So please, I can be reached at 

9 richardparkerdc and this is true for everybody 

10 in the room as well, if you need to reach me, 

11 richardparkerdc@gmail.com. We will add you to 

12 the contact list so that you get the 

13 information that is circulated. 

14 Could I also just ask everybody on 

15 the line to mute their phones so that we don't 

16 get noise in the room. And if everybody in 

17 the audience and the room here, please take a 

18 chance to turn off your cell phones if that's 

19 appropriate. 

20 Any thoughts, comments, before we 

21 start? Great. 

22 Well, what I thought we would do 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 33

1 initially is just agree on sort of what is our 

2 agenda for these next two meetings. And I 

3 have just a very, very informal proposal here. 

4 And it basically is that we discuss the 

5 ground rules. We need to talk a little bit 

6 about what our schedule is going to be. 

7 That's complicated a little bit by this issue 

8 of location. It's great to be here. I'd like 

9 to be in a place where we can get all 25 

10 people around the table if that's possible. 

11 So I thought we might have a preliminary 

12 discussion about how many meetings we think we 

13 will need. 

14 I don't think they can be more 

15 than preliminary. I think I'd like to have 

16 sort of a general discussion and then we'll do 

17 our work for a couple of days and at the end 

18 of -- during our wrap-up portion of the 

19 meeting tomorrow, we can revisit this, based 

20 upon how things go during the first meeting. 

21 I think we may have a better sense of how many 

22 meetings we'll need and what kind of time 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 34

1 frame we'll be on. 

2 I thought in the afternoon we 

3 would, if we can get done earlier, if we can 

4 get through the rules and procedure more 

5 quickly, that would be great. I'd love to get 

6 into the substance of the meeting this 

7 morning, if possible, but past experience 

8 indicates that sometimes these procedural 

9 issues and scheduling issues and so forth take 

10 longer than you expect, so I've given them the 

11 morning. 

12 We'll adjourn for lunch at noon. 

13 I'm giving everybody a two-hour lunch break 

14 because I know that people have other jobs as 

15 well as a desire to eat lunch. So it's a 

16 chance for you to check in with your home 

17 office and do some work and then come back at 

18 two o'clock. I thought we would start -- 

19 Navigant and LBL are here now so if we get to 

20 them early this morning, they're ready to go. 

21 But otherwise, we will plan on starting this 

22 afternoon with basically just a discussion of 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 35

1 their latest analysis that I think is posted 

2 on the website. Everybody should have it. 

3 And then essentially just a pretty 

4 open-ended discussion. I don't want to try to 

5 steer it too much. I want this to come from 

6 you, really what are the issues that you see 

7 as salient to the rulemaking that go into the 

8 selection of TSLs and efficiency levels of -- 

9 standard levels for the various design lines. 

10 And what are the key issues that bear on 

11 those issues? If we can specify those with as 

12 much clarity and specificity as possible, in 

13 the course of this meeting, figure out what we 

14 need to address those issues productively, and 

15 then hear from Navigant and LBL about what 

16 they can do because not every wish list can be 

17 fulfilled with reasonable resources and 

18 available data. 

19 And hopefully, we can then come up 

20 with an agenda not just for today, but for the 

21 rest of the rulemaking as to what issues we're 

22 going to address and in what order we're going 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 36

1 to address them and what data we need, if any, 

2 beyond what is already provided to us in order 

3 to do that productively and effectively. 

4 It might also talk a little bit 

5 about the analytical requirements that we need 

6 to do to support the analysis, to support our 

7 conclusions, excuse me. You know, the fact 

8 that we've agreed on it is great, but a court, 

9 if this is challenged, doesn't give this group 

10 any more deference than it would give any rule 

11 that comes straight out of DOE. It still has 

12 to pass the arbitrary and capricious test. It 

13 still has to conform to the law. 

14 And so we need to have a clear 

15 idea and maybe Dan can talk a little bit this 

16 afternoon about the statute and what the 

17 criteria are. I'm sure that people here are 

18 familiar with that. But it would be good to 

19 know what our parameters are, what we have to 

20 do to produce something that actually will 

21 withstand political scrutiny, judicial 

22 scrutiny, and so forth. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 37

1 OMB will review this rule, OIRA. 

2 And they have been known to weigh in on the 

3 past so we have to produce something that can 

4 answer their concerns and can pass muster 

5 there as well. So we don't have unlimited 

6 scope. 

7 And previous negotiated rulemaking 

8 committees have run aground, so to speak, with 

9 political, sometimes with political 

10 compromises that worked well for the people 

11 around the room, but when it went out people 

12 decided oh well, it actually isn't what the 

13 statute requires. So we'll be looking to Dan 

14 to keep us honest there so that we don't make 

15 the mistakes that some previous committees 

16 have made. 

17 And then tomorrow, I thought we 

18 would just continue the discussion and 

19 conclude with, you know, hopefully we'll work 

20 over the evening to try to synthesize what 

21 we've come up with today into something that 

22 will give us the basis for going forward 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 38

1 tomorrow. And then hopefully leave this 

2 meeting -- I'll consider it a successful 

3 meeting if we leave this meeting with a 

4 schedule for going forward and a clear agenda 

5 that involves the major issues that we need to 

6 discuss, the data needs, and the order of 

7 discussion. 

8 Does that seem like a sensible way 

9 to proceed? I'm sure people will have 

10 comment. This is just a discussion draft. I 

11 open it up to your thoughts, reactions. 

12 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Mr. Parker, you 

13 said that you'd give us time to review the 

14 ground rules and if we wanted to make any 

15 suggestions or additions, would that still be 

16 part of today's agenda? 

17 MR. PARKER: Yes, definitely. 

18 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Thank you. 

19 MR. PARKER: Any other thoughts? 

20 Does this agenda seem agreeable to people? 

21 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Just another 

22 follow up. You said about the LBL analysis, 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 39

1 you're still referring to the analysis that 

2 was posted, I believe it was dated August 

3 23rd. It was posted around August 30th. 

4 There's no other analysis that has been 

5 created since then, correct? 

6 MR. PARKER: Katie, would you like 

7 to speak to that? 

8 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes. We're still 

9 working on the NOPR analysis. 

10 MR. ROSENSTOCK: So just for the 

11 record, so everyone could hear, you said 

12 you're still working on the NOPR analysis. 

13 Does that mean you've changed the analysis 

14 since the August 23rd publication? 

15 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes. I mean, the 

16 NOPR is not concluded yet. 

17 MR. ROSENSTOCK: I can barely hear 

18 you. I'm sorry. 

19 MR. PARKER: Come to the mic here, 

20 if you would, please. Thanks. 

21 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes, there have 

22 been some changes. We're still in review of 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 40

1 the NOPR analyses, so there will be another 

2 publication of the NOPR. I don't know what 

3 the current target date is. 

4 MR. CYMBALSKY: I'm sorry. This 

5 is John Cymbalsky. So for the purpose of this 

6 negotiation, the data that was posted, the 

7 analysis that was posted is what we're working 

8 off of, any subsequent changes will come from 

9 this process and the NOPR comes from this 

10 process. However, concurrently, they will 

11 work -- if this breaks down and we run away 

12 from the negotiation, we're still on the hook 

13 for a NOPR. 

14 And so what Katie is referring to 

15 is the team still is working to produce a NOPR 

16 while we're doing our business here. And as 

17 we look at the numbers that are posted, that 

18 we're all looking at, if there are questions 

19 or concerns the team is here to address those. 

20 MR. ROSENSTOCK: I appreciate 

21 that. I guess my concern is we had the numbers 

22 from the March preliminary analysis for the 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 41

1 CSLs and then we have the draft efficiency 

2 levels. And if they're doing further analysis 

3 where they might come up with even a third set 

4 of efficiency levels, that makes it rather 

5 difficult for us because their numbers could 

6 be flying all over the place, and you know -- 

7 MR. CYMBALSKY: We'll post as we 

8 go. So I think, you know, let's work with 

9 what's posted and go from there, please. 

10 MR. PATTERSON: I have one 

11 question on this. What was published at the 

12 end of August essentially was three 

13 spreadsheets with detailed design information. 

14 Are we recalculating those designs? 

15 MR. COFFEY: That work represents 

16 the latest that we have, as John had 

17 mentioned, as a result of the proceedings of 

18 this committee. Sure, there could be some 

19 changes, some new thinking incorporated. 

20 MR. PATTERSON: But as we speak, 

21 we have not recalculated -- 

22 MR. COFFEY: That's right. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 42

1 MR. PARKER: We're going to have a 

2 lot of time to discuss the methodology, the 

3 scope, the definition of design lines and so 

4 forth. Let's hold that if we could for that 

5 discussion. 

6 Anything right now on the agenda? 

7 MR. DELASKI: A simple matter of 

8 logistics. You suggested a two-hour lunch. I 

9 would suggest it may be more efficient for 

10 some of us to do an hour lunch, finish early. 

11 Getting back to the office, hotel, may be a 

12 better use of our time than taking two hours 

13 in the DOE lunch room. 

14 MR. PARKER: How do people feel? 

15 I'm completely open. Do people prefer to 

16 break for an hour for lunch and get out of 

17 here at 4? 

18 MR. ROY: I definitely do for 

19 tomorrow. 

20 MR. PARKER: Okay. 

21 MR. ROY: I'll be running to the 

22 airport. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 43

1 MR. CREEVY: I would just caution 

2 that I've been to a lunch in this building 

3 before and the lines can be long, so I just 

4 would be concerned if everybody is counting on 

5 one hour, it might turn into an hour and 20 or 

6 so. 

7 MR. DELASKI: In my experience 

8 through many, many hearings, we're able to do 

9 it in an hour. I would say an hour -- you 

10 guys stay focused. Don't get distracted. 

11 (Laughter.) 

12 MR. ROSENSTOCK: I have to say 

13 it's not about the room, it's about everybody 

14 else in the building and when they're going to 

15 lunch, too. 

16 MR. PARKER: Can we eat here 

17 without having to check in again? 

18 MR. CYMBALSKY: There are two 

19 places that you can potentially have lunch. 

20 If you go directly below this room, there's a 

21 Subway. You don't have to worry about -- you 

22 haven't left the building. Your badge is 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 44

1 fine. No one checks you. 

2 If you go to the cafeteria, 

3 technically, you've left the building. You 

4 have to show your badge to go into the 

5 cafeteria and back out of the cafeteria and 

6 they'll make you go back through the metal 

7 detector that's in the cafeteria. So it's a 

8 little slower to go to the cafeteria. You 

9 don't have to go through the main. 

10 MR. PARKER: Do we agree on the 

11 square table? 

12 (Laughter.) 

13 MR. PARKER: So we will work until 

14 12:15. We'll adjourn at 12:15 until 1:15 and 

15 we'll see who's right, Jim or Andrew. 

16 Good. All right. Why don't we, 

17 again, with my apologies for the late notice 

18 in giving you this, why don't we just all take 

19 a five-minute, ten minutes to read over the 

20 rules of procedure, look at them. And again, 

21 these are basically more or less standard 

22 rules of procedure for negotiated rulemakings, 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 45

1 but there's absolutely no reason to be chained 

2 to them so long as whatever we do is 

3 consistent with the statute. 

4 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

5 matter went off the record at 9:50 a.m. and 

6 resumed at 10:17 a.m.) 

7 MR. PARKER: Okay, welcome. There 

8 were some comments, people couldn't hear me. 

9 Pardon my weak voice. I hope this is a little 

10 better. Is it audible in back now? Okay. 

11 Good. So I will be speaking up for the people 

12 in back and I will ask the people in back, the 

13 other comment was if people could please come 

14 to the mic to speak because it's virtually 

15 impossible to hear otherwise. And the people 

16 on the phone will not have any chance of 

17 hearing you if you don't come to the mic. So 

18 please come to the mic to speak. 

19 I also want to emphasize that 

20 people in the seats in back not around the 

21 table are absolutely welcome to speak. Just 

22 please raise your hand and I will make sure 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 46

1 that you are included in the conversation. 

2 You are very much a part of our dialogue. 

3 So please, when you come up to the 

4 mic, again, just give your name. We have a 

5 reporter here who is doing the transcript. 

6 Give your name, give your affiliation and then 

7 whatever question or comment you wanted to 

8 have, wanted to make. 

9 MR. CREEVY: May I ask how the 

10 folks on the phone may be able to chime in in 

11 that same fashion? 

12 MR. PARKER: Yes. I believe that 

13 there are two ways to chime in. One, if you 

14 want to just speak up on the phone, just feel 

15 free to holler and say can I speak? And don't 

16 be bashful at all. Thank you, Jim, for 

17 mentioning that. And we will pause and let 

18 you speak. 

19 Another way of doing it, I 

20 believe, is to email through the webinar, you 

21 can -- if you have a question, chatter 

22 questions, you can email and Tatiana will -- 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 47

1 I'm hoping it's self explanatory to people who 

2 are on the website. Tatiana will pass the 

3 comment to me and we'll make sure that it gets 

4 addressed. 

5 If this system is not working out, 

6 by the way, this is kind of a trial or 

7 everybody, our first time, so if there are 

8 problems, please let us know and we'll try to 

9 fix them. 

10 Okay, let's start with the draft 

11 ground rules. I trust people had more than 

12 enough time to read through these things. 

13 First, I will say that there obviously is one 

14 typo. In the meetings, there's a reference to 

15 the Department of Labor. It's the Department 

16 of Energy's negotiated rulemaking policy. The 

17 problem with taking ground rules that have 

18 been used before is they've been used before. 

19 So anyway, please substitute 

20 Energy there. 

21 Let's start off with just a brief 

22 discussion, presentation from Dan Cohen, 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 48

1 Assistant General Counsel, here at the 

2 Department about the issue of our timetable in 

3 the context of the pending Ninth Circuit 

4 litigation. 

5 MR. COHEN: This is Dan Cohen from 

6 the Department of Energy. If Tim would like 

7 to comment on this as well, as you all know, 

8 pursuant to an order in the Ninth Circuit in a 

9 case that was brought for the 2007 rule that 

10 we had promulgated, we took a voluntary remand 

11 which leads to the rulemaking we're now 

12 engaged in here. 

13 Under that remand, there was a 

14 requirement that we have a proposed rule 

15 published by October 1st of this year. 

16 Obviously, that date -- since we're just 

17 starting this process now -- is not going to 

18 be met. So we have jointly with the other 

19 parties in that litigation gone to the Ninth 

20 Circuit and asked for additional time. 

21 We are optimistic the court will 

22 grant that time, but we haven't heard back 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 49

1 from the court yet. I don't know if Tim wants 

2 to say any more about that. 

3 MR. BALLO: No. I think that 

4 covers it. We should hear something hopefully 

5 very soon from the court. 

6 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Question. Steve 

7 Rosenstock, Edison Electric Institute. When 

8 was that paperwork filed and how much time did 

9 you ask for? 

10 MR. COHEN: Fortunately, we have 

11 the guy whose email that actually went to the 

12 court sitting right here at the table with us. 

13 MR. BALLO: We didn't actually 

14 file anything. We just sent -- we had been 

15 working with the Mediator's Office of the 

16 Ninth Circuit to sort of pave the way with the 

17 Judges that the case was before to get an 

18 extension of the deadlines. So I sent an 

19 email on Wednesday, no, maybe late last week 

20 and we needed some clarifications. The 

21 Mediator's Office asked for some 

22 clarifications and I believe that email will 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 50

1 go to the Judges this week. So we should hear 

2 something hopefully in the next week or two. 

3 MR. COHEN: And also, the reason 

4 why we went back through the mediator was the 

5 original settlement agreement was reached 

6 through the mediator and that process worked 

7 very, very well. And it's the same mediator, 

8 the same person. 

9 MR. PARKER: And how much time was 

10 the other part of your question? 

11 MR. BALLO: February 1st would be 

12 the new date. So from October 1st to February 

13 1st. 

14 MR. DELASKI: And Tim, this is 

15 Andrew. Is the date for the final rule 

16 affected? 

17 MR. BALLO: No, it's still October 

18 1st, 2012. 

19 MR. DELASKI: So that's the court20 ordered deadline for a new final rule? 

21 MR. BALLO: Pursuant to the 

22 settlement agreement, yes. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 51

1 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, 

2 EEI. Mr. Cohen, for the record, the deadline 

3 was also for Option 1, a determination 

4 pursuant to EPCA that standards are not to be 

5 amended, correct? 

6 MR. COHEN: Yes. So all that's 

7 moving, this is Dan Cohen. All that's moving 

8 is the date for which that action has to be 

9 taken. 

10 MR. ROSENSTOCK: So it's one of 

11 those two actions. 

12 MR. COHEN: Yes, yes. 

13 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Thank you. 

14 MR. COHEN: Thank you for the 

15 clarification. 

16 MR. PARKER: Any other comments on 

17 the timetable? Okay, let's move on to the 

18 rules of procedure. Most of these things are 

19 self explanatory. You've read them. I don't 

20 think we need to walk you through them or 

21 anything. The one -- I don't want to say the 

22 one, but one big issue that faces every 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 52

1 committee of this type is what constitutes 

2 consensus. We will be striving for a 

3 consensus and the Department of Energy's 

4 commitment is to reflect any consensus reached 

5 by this on a new standard. 

6 And so what I thought I would do 

7 is if Dan wants to talk a little bit about 

8 under the Negotiated Rulemaking Act, what the 

9 statutory definition of consensus is, very 

10 briefly, and then we can discuss how this 

11 group wants to define consensus for purposes 

12 of going forward. 

13 Dan? 

14 MR. COHEN: Sure. Dan Cohen, DOE. 

15 So this is straight out of the statute. The 

16 definition of consensus is unanimous 

17 concurrence among the interests represented on 

18 a negotiated rulemaking committee established 

19 under the subchapter unless such committee 

20 agrees to define the term in general, but not 

21 unanimous consent concurrence or agrees upon 

22 another specified definition. So it's 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 53

1 unanimous, unless we unanimously agreed to not 

2 be unanimous. 

3 (Laughter.) 

4 MR. PARKER: Let's have an open 

5 discussion of what people think. Steve, go 

6 ahead. 

7 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Hi, Steve 

8 Rosenstock, EEI. I caucused with some of the 

9 utility representation here and we thought 

10 that it might be good that we'd always strive 

11 for consensus, unanimity, where possible, but 

12 maybe add a Part B where unanimous vote is not 

13 possible and please reword it. I'm not a 

14 lawyer, but please reword it to make it sound 

15 a lot better. 

16 Where the unanimous vote is not 

17 achieved or not possible, then an acceptable 

18 vote would be -- we can put in -- we suggest 

19 18 out of 25, that's 72 percent. Obviously, 

20 that number -- and the reason being is that we 

21 discussed it with other code making, like I 

22 work on ASHRAE, and there's other places where 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 54

1 they strive for unanimity, but they do take 

2 like a two-thirds vote to get things passed, 

3 basically. 

4 Other organizations have different 

5 thresholds, 70 percent,75 percent. We thought 

6 that might be a reasonable number as a backup 

7 position. So again, out there for everyone's 

8 consideration. Thank you. 

9 MR. PARKER: Reactions? 

10 MR. DELASKI: Talking about 

11 unanimity. And I guess I would distinguish 

12 what Steve's talking about. Steve, you're 

13 talking about a sort of -- you're just driving 

14 sort of decisions along the way. I think for 

15 decisions along the way, as the ground rules 

16 describe, everything is tentative until it's 

17 the final deal, right? 

18 That gives you a lot of 

19 flexibility in discussions because you're 

20 trying to find a way forward that meet the 

21 needs of all the parties, so in that give and 

22 take process, you may give something with the 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 55

1 hope of getting something later on, okay? 

2 That's why the nature of the tentativeness of 

3 agreements until there's a final agreement. 

4 But I would submit that unanimity 

5 is what we want for the final agreement. 

6 There's a variety of parties here. I think a 

7 majority rule or a super majority rule would 

8 leave some parties out in the cold, not being 

9 represented in that majority. I think at 

10 least the potential for that. 

11 I also think that there's nothing 

12 to stop a subset of this group from making a 

13 recommendation to the government. In fact, 

14 many of us already have as subsets. Utility 

15 industry represented by EEI, AGA, APPA, and 

16 NRECA have made recommendations which 

17 represents a subset of this committee, EMA 

18 representing manufacturers. My coalition has 

19 submitted joint comments, so subsets of the 

20 submitted comments. And we might form, get 

21 together as -- some of us might join together 

22 and make a recommendation to the government. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 56

1 EEI, APPA and my coalition made a 

2 recommendation in 2007 to the government of 

3 what a final rule should be. So there's no 

4 reason why we can't pursue that path, but that 

5 would not be a consensus under the ERAC or 

6 under the FACA. It would be a joint 

7 recommendation to the government which any of 

8 us can do at any time. Have done it in the 

9 past and you could do it again. But it's not 

10 the same as a consensus under the FACA. That 

11 would be my proposal for how we do business. 

12 MR. PARKER: One clarifying point 

13 just to mention because the rules of procedure 

14 obviously are packaged, they fit together. 

15 They represent an agreement among the 

16 committee members and they're like the 

17 contract for this committee. So embody 

18 commitments by DOE. They also embody 

19 commitments by people on the committee. 

20 And one of those commitments under 

21 the draft rules of procedure which is a fairly 

22 standard arrangement in negotiated rulemakings 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 57

1 is if there is a consensus, however that is 

2 defined, the members around the table extend 

3 to the people who are virtually around the 

4 table, that are on the committee, would agree 

5 not to file adverse comments, not to undermine 

6 the rule later on with their own oral or 

7 written comments on any final rule, so long as 

8 the proposal and the final rule reflect the 

9 consensus that is achieved. 

10 MR. DELASKI: Right, so just to 

11 clarify, Richard. So if you went with Steve's 

12 proposal, say 18 out of 25, then are you 

13 saying that you are in the minority, we're 

14 part of the 7 that was to be bound not to 

15 object under that contractual arrangement? 

16 MR. PARKER: Well, that's the way 

17 unless you alter that part of it. 

18 MR. DELASKI: We can't agree to 

19 that under any terms. 

20 MR. PARKER: And I think that's 

21 why, you know, in most negotiated rulemakings 

22 they adopt the unanimous approach, but the way 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 58

1 it's worded here in this agreement is you have 

2 to affirmatively dissent. What we do want to 

3 do is apply some kind of peer pressure, if 

4 there's one person who just absolutely won't 

5 give in, they can block a consensus and that's 

6 the concern. But we want to at least ask 

7 people to do that affirmatively rather than 

8 requiring everybody to vote aye. You have to 

9 actually vote to abstain or you have to 

10 exercise a veto, if you're the only person 

11 that is not consenting to something. 

12 So that's kind of the way the 

13 consensus is devoted here, but again, this is 

14 not the way -- but you're absolutely right. 

15 If consensus is defined as 18 out of 25, and 

16 these other things stay in, then people would 

17 contract not to oppose that. 

18 Yes, in the back. If you could 

19 come to the mic. 

20 MR. FOSTER: Good morning, Mr. 

21 Parker. Chuck Foster representing Edison 

22 Electric Institute. In a follow on to 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 59

1 Andrew's comment, do we perceive that the 

2 restrictions on -- that in the event that 

3 consensus is reached under this agreement, 

4 that extra regulatory comments, i.e., lobbying 

5 at DOE -- I mean on Capitol Hill, and to take 

6 a position that would be inconsistent with 

7 that, would that be viewed as undermining this 

8 and prohibited? 

9 So once we agree to consensus 

10 here, we're locked in, we can't go to 

11 Congress, we can't go to -- can't issue press 

12 releases saying that was a dumb thing? 

13 (Laughter.) 

14 MR. PARKER: I think most 

15 organizations would, you know, if they're 

16 representative is giving consent, they 

17 wouldn't say what their representative just 

18 agreed to is a dumb, stupid thing never to be 

19 enacted. 

20 MR. FOSTER: But we just heard 

21 Andrew describe -- we were part of his 

22 coalition where we said -- we took a position 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 60

1 with Congress and are we able to take a 

2 separate, distinct position with Congress than 

3 we are with -- in this setting? 

4 MR. PARKER: Well, I think there's 

5 -- I don't really have a strong answer. But 

6 in terms of the legal, the technicalities, I 

7 think -- certainly the spirit of good faith, 

8 you know, dealing would suggest that if you 

9 support a rule in one form, you support it in 

10 all form and don't have one message for one 

11 audience and another message for another 

12 audience. 

13 MR. DELASKI: I guess I would 

14 suggest perhaps that maybe under this no 

15 challenge clause, Chuck, under the agreement, 

16 maybe we need to add there or through 

17 legislation. 

18 MR. FOSTER: Right. I think 

19 Andrew's raising a good point. I can -- this 

20 will not be the first time I've seen people 

21 agree to something in a regulatory setting and 

22 then try to get it fixed legislatively with a 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 61

1 completely different approach. 

2 MR. PARKER: I think that's a good 

3 point. Thank you for raising that. 

4 MR. DELASKI: The other thing that 

5 I think has come up and we've done these 

6 negotiations not in this kind of format 

7 before, sponsored with the government's 

8 involvement, but on a private basis with NEMA 

9 and with other organizations. And some of 

10 those agreements have been governed by a 

11 written agreement at the end. And we 

12 typically have attached an end date to the 

13 agreement, so that you're not bound forever 

14 and ever and ever, you know, come the year 

15 2030, okay. So there is some sunset. 

16 MR. PARKER: Thoughts on the idea 

17 of a sunset? 

18 Steve, did you want to comment on 

19 that? 

20 MR. ROSENSTOCK: We really didn't 

21 discuss that, but in terms of being bound by 

22 the conditions I think a sunset date is a fair 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 62

1 thing. Again, I'm not going to suggest a 

2 date, but I think we're okay with some sort of 

3 sunset date to be bound by the conditions of 

4 this. 

5 MR. PARKER: Dan? 

6 MR. COHEN: I guess -- I was just 

7 going to ask about suggesting a date. But are 

8 we talking about the -- by the promulgation of 

9 the final rule maybe? Or the compliance date 

10 with the standards would seem to be two 

11 options for dates? 

12 MR. DELASKI: We typically, the 

13 thing that you're concerned about is two 

14 things. One is something seeking a court 

15 challenge and the other one is someone doing 

16 what Chuck has mentioned, running to the Hill 

17 for a legislative change. So I think that 

18 would need a little bit of a longer period. 

19 MR. COHEN: So Dan Cohen again, so 

20 -- 

21 MR. CORKRAN: Can I ask people to 

22 get closer to the microphone when you're 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 63

1 talking? 

2 MR. COHEN: I'm sorry. So in 

3 terms of a court challenge, of course, there's 

4 a 60-day limitation in the statute after the 

5 promulgation of the rule that sets the 

6 standards. If someone by the 61st day doesn't 

7 file that challenge, they've lost their 

8 ability to challenge. So that's just clearly 

9 -- 

10 MR. PARKER: Sixty days after the 

11 effective date? 

12 MR. COHEN: Sixty days after the 

13 effective date of the rule. Publication, I 

14 think, is the actual word in the statute. 

15 MR. DELASKI: The effective date 

16 not being the implemented date. Not the 

17 compliant date, but something close to the 

18 date it's published. 

19 MR. COHEN: I think it's the date 

20 of publication. Let me just look real quick. 

21 Sixty days from the date of publication which 

22 is basically the effective date, right. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 64

1 MR. DELASKI: But you figure the 

2 legislation option is also still open until 

3 the compliant date, that's three to five years 

4 technically. 

5 MR. COHEN: Theoretically, the 

6 legislation option is open forever, I guess. 

7 MR. CYMBALSKY: But you figure if 

8 it happens past when they had to comply -- 

9 MR. DELASKI: Not if you have to 

10 comply, you can't. 

11 MR. PARKER: Yes, Tim? 

12 MR. BALLO: Just a point on 

13 anything relative to supporting or working 

14 against legislation that frequently things are 

15 packaged together in Congress and we have to 

16 be careful how we phrase any sort of 

17 commitment to support or oppose legislation 

18 because I wouldn't want to foreclose anyone 

19 taking a position on say a bill that gets some 

20 transformer issue packaged together with a 

21 whole bunch of other measures. I guess we 

22 just need to be clear about how that situation 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 65

1 will be handled. 

2 MR. PARKER: Yes, I think the 

3 language that we have here, I had just by the 

4 way, I've typed in and this is all again just 

5 a draft to propose, not to challenge the 

6 standard in court or in any other forum, 

7 adding the phrase, "any other forum" to the 

8 extent the final standard and its preamble 

9 have the same substantive effect as the term 

10 sheet. 

11 So it doesn't say not challenge 

12 any bill containing the standard. It says not 

13 to challenge the standard. So I'm wondering 

14 if that answers your concern or if there would 

15 still be issues? I see what you mean about 

16 packaging. That's a great point. 

17 MR. BALLO: I'm not sure what it 

18 means to challenge a bill. 

19 MR. PARKER: Yes, not to challenge 

20 in court or oppose -- oppose the standard in 

21 any other forum. Does that help? Not to 

22 challenge the standard in court or oppose the 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 66

1 standard in any other forum to the extent that 

2 it is -- 

3 MR. BALLO: I guess that's fine 

4 because it covers the standard specifically 

5 and not the legislation. 

6 MR. PARKER: Right. Okay. Good, 

7 yes. 

8 MR. FOSTER: And just to add 

9 another two cents worth. 

10 MR. PARKER: I'm sorry, you're 

11 going to have to specify your name each time. 

12 MR. FOSTER: Chuck Foster, 

13 representing Edison Electric Institute. I 

14 think I was thinking more of a take of 

15 position materially and consistent with that 

16 expressed here as opposed to a challenge. 

17 Anybody working in Washington on legislative 

18 matters knows if a bill comes up and it's 

19 packaged in there, it's there. We didn't do 

20 it. We can't challenge it. But to go out and 

21 send a letter of endorsement, to go out 

22 promoting that, I think would be what I would 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 67

1 be looking for. It would be something that -- 

2 taking a position materially inconsistent. 

3 MR. PARKER: Okay, take a 

4 position, materially inconsistent. 

5 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Sorry. It's 

6 pretty daunting having your typing scrutinized 

7 by the entire -- 

8 (Laughter.) 

9 MR. PARKER: Take a position 

10 materially inconsistent with the standard in 

11 court or in any other forum then? Is that the 

12 proposal? Chuck? Does that work for people? 

13 Not to take -- 

14 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, 

15 EEI. Not inconsistent or consistent. 

16 MR. PARKER: There you go. Thank 

17 you. 

18 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Again, Steve 

19 Rosenstock, EEI. Since one of the options for 

20 some of these standards could be not to change 

21 the levels, you might standard or 

22 determination, just to do the shorthand. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 68

1 MR. PARKER: The standard or 

2 determination? 

3 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Yes. The 

4 determination being option one, determination 

5 that the product, the standards do not have to 

6 be amended. So I would leave that in there as 

7 a determination versus compared to a, quote, 

8 new standard. 

9 MR. PARKER: Okay. Yes, Mr. 

10 Berman. 

11 MR. BERMAN: Robert Berman, Berman 

12 Economics. I think the restriction may be a 

13 bit overly broad. We've got members of the 

14 public as well and others who are more loosely 

15 associated with the committee who on a 

16 consensus don't have a veto, if you will. To 

17 require they also give up any dissension 

18 rights is a bit strong. So I think the 

19 limitation to the extent that there is one 

20 needs to focus on only those committee members 

21 that have specific veto authority. 

22 MR. PARKER: I think that's kind 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 69

1 of more a definition of a party, right? This 

2 agreement is really is only binding on the 

3 parties which are the people that -- the 

4 organizations that are represented at the 

5 table. It doesn't bind and we cannot bind 

6 people who are not -- they participate 

7 informally in our proceedings or if they don't 

8 participate at all, you know, they're not 

9 bound. 

10 We hope that they will be 

11 persuaded by the wisdom of what we come up 

12 with, but we can't bind them or ask them to 

13 bind themselves. This is really a question of 

14 you know, an issue of good faith. People 

15 coming to the table, agreeing to something, 

16 and then agreeing that they won't go out and 

17 sabotage and undermine it in some other forum 

18 later on. 

19 Any other thoughts on this? Is 

20 this language acceptable? Can we just take a 

21 vote? Anybody have any problems with this 

22 language with regard to the challenge? We 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 70

1 will haven't dealt with the consensus issue. 

2 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, 

3 EEI. In terms of the sunset date, do you want 

4 to say 60 days after publication in the 

5 Federal Register or until the effective date 

6 there would be -- I just want to make sure 

7 that -- I can't remember if there's a specific 

8 definition or not. So I don't know if you 

9 want to say -- 

10 MR. DELASKI: What I would suggest 

11 for that sunset date would be the compliance 

12 date. 

13 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Compliance date 

14 meaning either the date that the standard 

15 actually takes effect. 

16 MR. PARKER: In 2016? 

17 MR. DELASKI: Whatever we agree, 

18 whatever the date is that is not 2016, but 

19 maybe that's what it will be, whatever the 

20 compliance date is agreed upon. 

21 MR. COHEN: Dan Cohen, DOE. Just 

22 one nomenclature issue here. We have two 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 71

1 dates we talk about. We talk about the 

2 effective date and the compliance date. The 

3 effective date is the date the rule becomes 

4 effective and usually is 60 days after 

5 publication. The compliance date is the date 

6 by which products manufactured that are 

7 subject to that rule need to meet the new 

8 standard. 

9 MR. PARKER: Okay, so that's the 

10 issue. Do people want effective date or 

11 compliance date? Two different dates. Will 

12 vary -- will differ from each other by years 

13 as I understand it. Compliance date? 

14 Yes, Gerry? 

15 MR. HODGE: I'm a little bit 

16 puzzled why the sunset date needs to be in 

17 there and not totally understanding. The 60 

18 days is a pretty short time. Why do we need 

19 that in there? 

20 MR. BALLO: Sixty dates is in the 

21 statute. You actually can't challenge the 

22 rule in court 60 days after it's published or 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 72

1 beyond 60 days after it's published. 

2 MR. PARKER: No, but if we're 

3 talking about the legislation now, you can 

4 always go to Congress on the 61st day. 

5 MR. DELASKI: I'm sorry, sir. 

6 What was your question? I didn't follow what 

7 your question was. 

8 MR. HODGE: I just wasn't 

9 understanding the effects of the 60 days, but 

10 I guess what I heard was that once the law 

11 takes effect and it doesn't matter and that's 

12 the reason for the 60 days. Is that correct? 

13 MR. COHEN: No, just again, Dan 

14 Cohen, DOE. Just a clarification. On the 

15 61st day after we publish the rule, if no one 

16 has yet brought a lawsuit, the ability to 

17 bring a lawsuit to challenge that rule has 

18 gone away. But that doesn't stop someone on 

19 the 61st day from, in other fora, doing 

20 whatever they want to do to try to undermine 

21 the -- 

22 MR. PARKER: Yes, so this is 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 73

1 really to Chuck's comment about these other 

2 fora where people can undermine the rule or 

3 the proposal, legislation, media, et cetera. 

4 Does anybody have an objection to 

5 compliance date? 

6 MR. MILLURE: This is Dave Millure 

7 of Metglas. Just one clarification. The 

8 definition of party I don't really see 

9 defined. Is party limited to the 25 members 

10 named on the committee or does it also include 

11 alternates? 

12 MR. PARKER: Oh, good question. 

13 Well, as nominated by the affected interest. 

14 Each organization, interest caucus, that is 

15 directly represented on the committee shall be 

16 deemed a party. That doesn't really indicate 

17 whether -- yes, each organization or interest 

18 caucus. 

19 MR. MILLURE: My question is are 

20 the alternates also included as a party? 

21 Because in my case, my alternate is a 

22 different legal entity than I am. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 74

1 MR. PARKER: I think that's 

2 something that we could decide as a group. 

3 How do people feel? That's a great question. 

4 MR. DELASKI: It's a little 

5 awkward. It seems that if your alternate is 

6 not here today, for example, I guess the 

7 question is is that a 26th member of the 

8 committee sort of -- in effect, right? That 

9 alternate then has to sign off. So you need 

10 to be able to speak for your alternate I guess 

11 is what I'm saying it seems to me. 

12 MR. MILLURE: My understanding is 

13 the alternate doesn't get a vote, if you want 

14 to call it, if I'm present. 

15 MR. COHEN: The question -- Dan 

16 Cohen, DOE. The question I'm asking is if the 

17 alternate is voting for the member, they're 

18 voting for the member not for -- really, 

19 they're representing Metglas at that point, 

20 don't you think? If the alternate is showing 

21 up for you, that alternate is representing 

22 your position in the negotiation. They're 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 75

1 representing Metglas, I would think, not the 

2 other organization. 

3 MR. MILLURE: I would agree with 

4 that. So the alternates' legal entities are 

5 not bound by limitations -- 

6 MR. PARKER: No, but again, to the 

7 extent that there's a corporate affiliation, I 

8 would hope that one wouldn't use the law of 

9 corporate groups as a way of circumventing -- 

10 I mean if it's an affiliate, if the corporate 

11 affiliate is jointly owned and so forth, 

12 unless you have the letter of the law would 

13 apply. I hope the spirit of the law would be 

14 clear. 

15 MR. BERMAN: Robert Berman, Berman 

16 Economics. Would it eliminate the confusion 

17 then if you remove the word alternates from 

18 the definition of a party and therefore when 

19 the -- if the alternate is voting, is speaking 

20 on behalf of the party, the alternate is 

21 standing in the shoes of the party, is not the 

22 alternate at that point. They're standing in 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 76

1 as the party. 

2 MR. PARKER: Right. 

3 MR. BERMAN: So after all is said 

4 and done, the alternate should not be bound as 

5 an alternate. 

6 MR. PARKER: Right. And I don't 

7 think this language does bind them. 

8 MR. BERMAN: It does as long as 

9 the word alternate is in there, it seems to me 

10 because it says that there is no distinction 

11 between the party and the alternate because 

12 you're saying and. Or the alternate, rather. 

13 MR. PARKER: It says each party in 

14 negotiation they designate an alternate 

15 committee member. Alternates may substitute 

16 for committee members in the event the member 

17 cannot attend a session of the committee. 

18 Does that not make clear that the alternate is 

19 standing in the shoes of the committee member? 

20 MR. BERMAN: It wouldn't hurt to 

21 be a little bit more redundant saying that in 

22 the case of the -- of any binding commitments, 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 77

1 the alternate is only bound to the extent that 

2 they are standing in the shoes of the 

3 committee member, not in their other shoes, if 

4 you will. 

5 MR. COHEN: Dan Cohen, DOE. Maybe 

6 it's that we just need to define at the end of 

7 D that the alternate is in the representative 

8 position of the committee member. In other 

9 words -- 

10 MR. PARKER: Yes -- 

11 MR. COHEN: The alternate can only 

12 represent the interest of the member of the 

13 committee. 

14 MR. PARKER: So I put my draft 

15 change in bold here. Only committee members 

16 may vote on any contentious recommendation. 

17 And any alternate casting a vote shall do so 

18 on behalf of the committee member. 

19 We can, again, we can define the 

20 language, but hopefully that will make the 

21 sense clear. 

22 MR. COHEN: Dan Cohen, DOE. And 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 78

1 should we add on the end of that, "and not in 

2 their own" and "not representing their own 

3 interests"? 

4 MR. BERMAN: Thank you. 

5 MR. PARKER: Or organization's 

6 interest. Okay. All right. Does that help? 

7 MR. CORKRAN: May committee 

8 members cast votes by telephone if they're not 

9 on site? 

10 MR. PARKER: Yes. 

11 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Is there a way to 

12 put that in the ground rules? 

13 MR. PARKER: Yes. Where would 

14 that go? Let's see. I guess that's really a 

15 definition of consensus. 

16 MR. ROY: Perhaps that's in 2F 

17 under definition of attendance and 

18 participation at meetings. 

19 MR. PARKER: Thank you. 

20 MR. ROY: To define the table as 

21 including the telephone at the table. 

22 MR. PARKER: Right. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 79

1 MR. COHEN: Or you can add a 

2 second sentence -- 

3 MR. PARKER: I'll just add a 

4 sentence at the end. 

5 MR. COHEN: Each committee member 

6 will make a good-faith effort to attend every 

7 session of the negotiating committee. 

8 Attendance may be telephone or other 

9 electronic means. 

10 MR. PARKER: Right. You can put 

11 that in, but I strongly encourage people to be 

12 here in person. It's just much better. 

13 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Just quickly, 

14 when you say other electronic means, if you 

15 think about internet voting, doesn't that 

16 require internet access and to ensure that the 

17 -- again, that's logistics in terms of that's 

18 how the vote is counted and recorded at the 

19 current time. 

20 MR. COHEN: Yes, Dan Cohen, DOE. 

21 I don't know that we're ever going to get that 

22 sophisticated, but theoretically we could set 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 80

1 up a videoconference. 

2 MR. PARKER: Okay. All of which 

3 is a nice way of doing business and dancing 

4 around the bigger issue which I want to return 

5 now is what constitutes a consensus. 

6 MR. ROY: I have a question, Robin 

7 Roy, NRDC, for Dan, I suppose. How unusual is 

8 it in negotiated rulemakings to have a 

9 definition of consensus which is other than 

10 unanimity? Would we be really stepping out 

11 from what is quite the norm or is this in the 

12 mainstream to have a different definition? 

13 MR. COHEN: Dan Cohen, DOE. The 

14 truthful answer is, I have not the slightest 

15 idea. This is the first one I've ever done. 

16 I don't know. 

17 MR. ROY: Because I would think it 

18 might be unusual. It would be interesting to 

19 know if we were really -- 

20 MR. COHEN: We do have this tome 

21 which apparently was put together by the guy 

22 who wrote the statute and so I'm going to go 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 81

1 look, actually. But I really just don't know. 

2 MR. ROY: I'm not inclined to go 

3 to unchartered waters particularly. I don't 

4 see a great advantage in having a definition 

5 of consensus that we come up with here that is 

6 different from the one which is the default 

7 case under the act. I like that. It's 

8 simple. It's easy to discuss, easy to explain 

9 and very workable. 

10 If you want to move away from 

11 that, you really have to have a good reason. 

12 MR. PARKER: My impression -- I am 

13 consulting fairly frequently with Phil Harter 

14 who invented the concept of negotiated 

15 rulemaking and got it enacted into statute, 

16 wrote this book and has done about a thousand 

17 of them. He tells me that unanimity -- what 

18 we have here in this text which is taken from 

19 one of this rulemaking rules is sort of the 

20 standard. There are departures from it, but 

21 they are not very frequent. But you know, 

22 there's unanimity, but dissent requires a very 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 82

1 affirmative act that's deliberately made and 

2 good cause show, hopefully. 

3 MR. HYLAND: Mike Hyland at APPA. 

4 As part of the Department of Labor OSHA 

5 Cranes and Derricks rulemaking and we deviated 

6 from 100 percent on the vote. We went to two 

7 negative votes were allowed. And it was a 22- 

8 to 24-person panel and the ground rules made 

9 it that two could vote negative and still be a 

10 consensus. 

11 MR. PARKER: Would have near 

12 unanimity be a sweet spot? Twenty-two out of 

13 24. One person can't or two people can't hold 

14 up the whole -- 

15 MR. HYLAND: This is Mike Hyland, 

16 EPA again. That was kind of the thought, 

17 regardless of voting and those kind of things, 

18 you may have one person who just has a crook 

19 in the craw here and they just don't want this 

20 to go forward. And they're going to continue 

21 to say no, no, no, no, no, because they would 

22 rather send up being dropped back to 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 83

1 Department of Energy. 

2 MR. PARKER: Excuse me, I'm 

3 getting urgent messages here. Could the 

4 people who are on the phone please mute their 

5 phones unless you want to speak to us? We're 

6 getting a lot of background noise that's 

7 making it hard for the transcript person to 

8 hear and to record. Thanks. 

9 Steve? 

10 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, 

11 EEI. I know that I work on building codes in 

12 ASHRAE, they strive for -- it's an anti13 process. It's a standards development 

14 organization. They strive for consensus 

15 whenever and wherever possible, but they do 

16 record the votes and they allow less than 

17 consensus to send out a new proposal for 

18 public review. And so I think that with all 

19 the different interests, it makes sense to 

20 strive for that consensus that's unanimous, 

21 but again, I think we need to be realistic and 

22 that we should have another reasonable 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 84

1 threshold that says again, not until -- I'll 

2 leave the final vote for another -- that could 

3 be another issue, but at least for all of our 

4 work up to the final vote and/or including the 

5 final vote, I think it helps to be realistic 

6 to say there could be some instances where we 

7 just cannot reach unanimous and that another 

8 threshold would be reasonable. Thank you. 

9 MR. CYMBALSKY: John Cymbalsky, 

10 DOE. I think -- I'm not a rocket scientist by 

11 any means, but if you look at the member list 

12 of the committee you can kind of draw lines at 

13 each interest, how many there are. So like 

14 six of these, six of those, six of the others 

15 and then there's Art and I who don't represent 

16 any interest. But I don't think we want to 

17 come up with a number that would say one of 

18 those blocks, for example, could be voted out. 

19 So if we're not going to go for 100 percent, 

20 if we go 3 members, that means every group 

21 will be covered if my rudimentary math skills 

22 are okay. Just an opinion. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 85

1 MR. ECKMAN: Tom Eckman, Northwest 

2 Power and Conservation Council. I'm inclined 

3 to lean either with John or Andrew that, given 

4 the other binding commitment to endorse the 

5 results of the group, that having a fairly 

6 large block not being behind that particular 

7 consensus agreement, but bound by the 

8 agreement, makes it pretty difficult to sign 

9 on to that idea as a concept. 

10 A more limited ability to move 

11 forward with minor departures from agreement 

12 is more palatable, but certainly three might 

13 be at the outside. That might be half of a 

14 block. And that doesn't mean we've got great 

15 agreement. I'm inclined to try and say 100 

16 percent, but knowing that that might be a 

17 limit on practicality. 

18 MR. BALLO: This is Tim Ballo. I 

19 have a question for the Department. If we 

20 were to keep the agreement limited to 

21 consensus as being 100 percent and we're not 

22 able to achieve a 100 percent agreement 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 86

1 through this process, will the Department 

2 nonetheless weigh in its determination 

3 analysis or in a NOPR the idea that several of 

4 the organizations in this process did support 

5 one particular standard level? Will that be 

6 considered by the Department in its analysis 

7 if we don't achieve 100 percent? 

8 MR. CYMBALSKY: John Cymbalsky, 

9 DOE. I think we would consider all of the 

10 work that's done in this group if there is not 

11 unanimity. 

12 MR. BALLO: That suggests to me 

13 there's probably more value than in keeping 

14 100 percent as a definition of consensus, 

15 particularly as one of the real values I see 

16 in this process is avoiding a potential for 

17 litigation over the ultimate standard in the 

18 future. And if there is a significant or even 

19 more than one or two parties who are unhappy 

20 with the negotiated standards, that suggests 

21 to me that there are going to be further 

22 parties out there who will also be unhappy and 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 87

1 will potentially end up in court again. 

2 MR. BERMAN: Robert Berman, Berman 

3 Economics. I think Tim is correct on that. 

4 It seems to me that consensus or near 

5 consensus is sort of like being a little bit 

6 pregnant, either you are or you aren't. 

7 Either you have consensus or you don't. 

8 For DOE, it would seem to me for 

9 DOE to say well, a majority or a large block 

10 of the group suggested this and therefore 

11 we're going with it, to rely on that would 

12 totally destroy the whole notion of what the 

13 consensus is for. So I think that if you 

14 adopt a consensus rule and 100 percent 

15 consensus and you don't get consensus, that 

16 DOE then should not be able to draw on the 

17 work as a basis. They could draw on the work 

18 certainly in terms of capability and in terms 

19 of what they learned, but to draw on the work 

20 of the committee or the existence of the 

21 committee as a basis for the decision I think 

22 would be inappropriate. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 88

1 MR. COHEN: This is Dan Cohen at 

2 DOE. I'll partly respond to that and maybe 

3 there's a bridging language here. I was just 

4 reading from this. So obviously, these are 

5 all public meetings so to the extent there's 

6 information generated and analysis and 

7 thoughts, we would consider that in developing 

8 a rule if the committee process broke down. 

9 MR. BERMAN: Exactly. The 

10 knowledge itself, in consideration itself, the 

11 information itself, of course should be 

12 considered, absolutely. There's a big 

13 investment in it. But it's one thing to 

14 consider the information. It's another thing 

15 to say -- to consider the fact that a large 

16 block of the committee supported that should 

17 not be available. 

18 MR. COHEN: If I could just read 

19 from the Negotiating Rulemaking Source Book 

20 that Richard mentioned was written by the same 

21 person who actually wrote the statute and has 

22 done any number of these. He actually says 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 89

1 here, "Achieving consensus does not 

2 necessarily require a formal yes or no vote, 

3 nor is it necessary that each interest 

4 representative affirmatively like the 

5 decision, merely, it does not or will not 

6 oppose the decision if implemented." 

7 So I guess one thought is whether, 

8 if there is somebody who is sort of not happy 

9 with a particular outcome just -- or can't 

10 vote yes for it for some reason, at least 

11 willing to say I won't -- I'll be bound to the 

12 agreement, not to subvert the agreement or 

13 work against the agreement. So unanimity 

14 would be consensus with the stipulation that 

15 there could be abstentions still being bound 

16 by the agreement not to challenge. 

17 MR. ROY: I think that's 

18 consistent with Richard's definition where he 

19 says that in 3A concurrence will be assumed 

20 absent overt dissenting. So you have to take 

21 action to dissent. So if you're quiet, you 

22 don't like it, you abstain, then you're 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 90

1 agreeing. 

2 MR. COHEN: Dan Cohen, DOE. The 

3 slight difference, what I heard Richard saying 

4 was that you actually had to affirmatively 

5 dissent. And I'm suggesting that abstention 

6 would maybe be okay. So you wouldn't have to 

7 affirmatively dissent. You just would have to 

8 affirmatively agree not to oppose. 

9 (Laughter.) 

10 MR. PARKER: By the way, I want to 

11 keep us moving here. We are getting still a 

12 lot of noise on the phone lines. So please, 

13 people on the phones, mute your phones. If we 

14 can't solve the problem, we're going to have 

15 to cut off your speaking access. So please 

16 mute your phones. It's becoming a real 

17 problem. I'm getting repeated urgent 

18 messages. Thank you. 

19 MR. DELASKI: Andrew DeLaski from 

20 ASAP. I think there's sort of two pieces to 

21 this. One is the decisions along the way. I 

22 think for decisions along the way, this tool 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 91

1 of abstention or I'm not going to object, 

2 we'll try to get to an agreement here. 

3 Everything is tentative. I'm okay with that 

4 for the moment. We're going to have to come 

5 back to that as we get towards a final 

6 decision. But that silence is acquiescence, I 

7 think, is an important rule to help things 

8 move along. 

9 I'd also -- you mentioned John 

10 described blocks and there are groups of us 

11 who work together a lot who have common 

12 interests and I think there's a function that 

13 I've observed in other negotiations I've been 

14 involved with where the blocks exert internal 

15 pressure on their members to -- if four out of 

16 five on a block are there, then it's incumbent 

17 on those four to work on the fifth, okay? 

18 Because the objective here is to come to a 

19 consensus that gets around a contested brutal 

20 rulemaking. I think that's where you start 

21 looking at -- if four out of five are 

22 convinced, but the fifth has the same set of 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 92

1 interests, but yet isn't there, then someone 

2 needs to work on them, okay? Let's get to 

3 that consensus because that's what we're 

4 trying to get to is a rule as Robin described 

5 that truly does recommend. If you can't 

6 convince something, then it's not a consensus. 

7 Then your arguments haven't prevailed and 

8 you're stuck. And then you're back to 

9 government makes a decision. They've got to. 

10 The law says they've got to and it's on the 

11 government to go forward with a normal 

12 rulemaking. 

13 MR. PARKER: I think the logic 

14 behind the nuance is that there are some 

15 people who don't want to go back to their own 

16 management and say I supported this. It's 

17 much easier to go back to them and say I 

18 decided not to create the whole process with 

19 my opposition to it. So that allows them to 

20 acquiesce without affirmatively supporting, 

21 but still allows to maintain a unanimity 

22 consensus rule. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 93

1 I'm really -- it's really up to 

2 the group and I think perhaps we should just 

3 take a vote. 

4 Steve, as I understand it, you 

5 would concede that perhaps 18 is not enough. 

6 That it should be, if anything, 22 or 23? 

7 MR. ROSENSTOCK: I'd like a vote 

8 on the record for 18, please. 

9 MR. PARKER: On 18, okay. 

10 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Thank you. 

11 MR. PARKER: So let's take a vote 

12 on -- there will be three votes. One on 18, 

13 one on 23, and one on unanimous, but with the 

14 affirmative dissent, basically the rule as 

15 written. 

16 Anything that departs from 

17 unanimous under the statute is -- requires 

18 consensus. So the default is unanimous. 

19 That's the statute. 

20 So first 18, all in favor? Let me 

21 count. One, two, three, four, five, six, 

22 seven eight. Okay. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 94

1 All in favor of -- 

2 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Obviously this can 

3 not be considered unanimous. Can this be 

4 considered a separate vote? 

5 MR. PARKER: Yes. It's Florida. 

6 Or Chicago, right. Right, right. Good, okay. 

7 So the next thing to vote on is 

8 what do the proponents want to put forward, 

9 23? There are 24 voting members of the 

10 committee because I don't count. 

11 MR. DELASKI: Is Art a member? 

12 MR. PARKER: Art is. Excuse me, 

13 25. He's replacing Mark Storey. So there's 

14 actually 24 members of the full committee 

15 including Art because he replaced Mark Storey 

16 who did not decide to do this. 

17 So one dissent would be 23. Two 

18 dissents would be 22. Who is proposing the 

19 modified? Was it Mike? 

20 Do you want to choose the number 

21 that you put up? 

22 MR. HYLAND: Two. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 95

1 MR. PARKER: Two. All in favor of 

2 a consensus defined as 22. One, two, three, 

3 four, five, six, seven, eight. 

4 Well, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 

5 10, 11, 12, 13; 13 in favor of 22. 

6 By the way, I apologize I should 

7 know this. Is there anybody in the seats who 

8 is on the committee or anybody on the phone 

9 who is on the committee? Okay, so we're all 

10 around the table. Great. 

11 MR. YOUNG: Gary Femstrom of PG&E, 

12 he is on the committee, but he was unable to 

13 attend this meeting, but he does plan to 

14 attend. 

15 MR. PARKER: Who is this? 

16 MR. YOUNG: Daniel Young. 

17 MR. PARKER: Oh, hi, Daniel. Can 

18 you speak for Gary? Would you like to cast a 

19 vote on his behalf? Are you authorized to do 

20 that? 

21 MR. YOUNG: No, I'm not. I'm just 

22 here to track what's going on. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 96

1 MR. PARKER: Okay. Okay, well, 

2 under the statute since neither of those 

3 commanded unanimous consent, we are left with 

4 unanimous consent unless somebody -- we didn't 

5 even get 23. But I think it has to be adopted 

6 by unanimous. All in favor of 23? It sounds 

7 like no. 

8 Okay, so now we have the issue of 

9 the current language. 

10 MR. SIMMONS: This is Chuck 

11 Simmons of Progress Energy. With at least one 

12 member being absent, are we still -- 

13 MR. PARKER: Present and voting, 

14 yes. It would be a lot to say it's got to be 

15 unanimous with regards to who was at the 

16 meeting. That would be tough. 

17 MR. DELASKI: What does it say? 

18 What does it say? 

19 MR. PARKER: It doesn't say. It 

20 says -- I think the -- does the statute say 

21 anything about presence in voting? 

22 MR. BERMAN: It just says 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 97

1 everybody. 

2 MR. PARKER: Can we agree that 

3 unanimity means consensus if everybody present 

4 is voting, understanding that you can vote to 

5 an alternate and you can vote telephonically. 

6 Can we agree on that? Not show up and the 

7 whole thing is paralyzed. 

8 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Can you roll 

9 that? 

10 MR. PARKER: Can we have a show of 

11 hands on present and voting being added to 

12 those words? All in favor? All opposed? 

13 Unanimous, yes, all right. 

14 Okay. Now the next sentence, I 

15 just want to make sure that we're all 

16 comfortable here. The next sentence, 

17 "Concurrence will be assumed absent overt 

18 dissent" is not mandated by statute. And I 

19 don't think it's forbidden by statute. So I 

20 think we can adopt this by whatever our rule 

21 is. But I just want to make sure people are 

22 comfortable with that. So let's have a vote 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 98

1 on that language and it's pretty critical. 

2 "Concurrence will be assumed 

3 absent overt dissent." We're not going to 

4 have separate votes on every sentence in this 

5 agreement. But is there any objection to that 

6 language? 

7 MR. ROSENSTOCK: I don't have an 

8 objection. I just have a question. I'm not 

9 exactly sure what that means in terms of the 

10 negotiation process. Concurrence meaning 

11 agreement and then what is overt dissent? I'm 

12 not exactly sure what -- 

13 MR. PARKER: It means if you 

14 abstain and you don't vote, we still have 

15 consensus. 

16 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Are you going to 

17 take abstention votes as well, as part of the 

18 process? 

19 MR. PARKER: We can if people 

20 like. I'd be happy to do that and abstention 

21 is -- yes, Paul, or Robert, excuse me. 

22 MR. BERMAN: Robert Berman, Berman 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 99

1 Economics. It seems that you've already 

2 effectively covered that with your present 

3 voting because if somebody wants to abstain -- 

4 MR. PARKER: They're not voting. 

5 MR. BERMAN: They can simply walk 

6 out of the room. 

7 MR. PARKER: Well, we won't make 

8 them walk out of the room. 

9 MR. BERMAN: It's covered if they 

10 do, then they've effectively abstained and you 

11 have your consensus through those present in 

12 voting. So I would say that you don't need to 

13 have the implied consensus clause in there. 

14 That's at best redundant and at least 

15 confusing. 

16 MR. PARKER: Well, I don't quite 

17 agree because we're not going to vote on every 

18 single thing. That would be quite a challenge 

19 from a parliamentary standpoint. We're going 

20 to be talking about analysis. We're going to 

21 have to agree on not only the term sheet, but 

22 supporting analysis and so forth that we use 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 100

1 to justify what we do because it's going to 

2 have to withstand review. And we're not going 

3 to have an opportunity to vote on everything. 

4 And so I think the point is that 

5 unless somebody tables some aspect of the 

6 analysis that they think is absolutely wrong 

7 and can't live with that, if we've had a 

8 discussion of it and everybody else feels it's 

9 fine, you know, you need to overtly dissent 

10 rather than just require that you get on 

11 board. 

12 Steve? 

13 MR. ROSENSTOCK: In other 

14 standards processes, they do take abstention 

15 votes, but I do not believe they're -- they 

16 are treated differently, but they're not 

17 necessarily counted as yes votes towards any 

18 sort of whatever the criteria is for passage, 

19 so again, I think it's kind of important. 

20 There might be some people that feel that 

21 they're rather not be on record as voting no, 

22 but they'd rather be on record as voting 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 101

1 abstaining from the issue, but again, I think 

2 there's an issue of if someone is present and 

3 they vote to abstain, does that still count 

4 towards this unanimous consensus? Because 

5 they are voting, but they're not voting 

6 affirmatively. 

7 MR. COHEN: This is Dan Cohen. 

8 That's exactly the hair that I was splitting 

9 earlier with Rob. I read that language 

10 requiring overt dissent. You actually had to 

11 vote no. And I was suggesting that we could 

12 allow if there were 22 yeses and two 

13 abstentions, that would be unanimous. So you 

14 didn't have to have someone to vote no, they 

15 could just say I choose not to vote and not 

16 hold up the consensus, but I will not 

17 affirmatively agree to that either. That was 

18 sort of the hair I was trying to split 

19 earlier. 

20 MR. DELASKI: And is that captured 

21 by the presence and voting. Don't vote, just 

22 abstain? 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 102

1 MR. COHEN: Well, do you want to 

2 actively abstain? 

3 MR. PARKER: Well, again, I mean 

4 we're not going to vote on every aspect of the 

5 analysis and every aspect -- so the idea is 

6 unless you have overtly dissented and vetoed 

7 some aspect of this for purposes of triggering 

8 the non-sabotage provisions later, you're 

9 considered to have consented. So in other 

10 words you can't say I abstain and therefore 

11 I'm not bound. 

12 MR. DELASKI: To a final 

13 agreement. 

14 MR. PARKER: To a final agreement, 

15 right. But in terms of the supporting 

16 analysis and so forth. But it may be there 

17 are aspects of the analysis and supporting 

18 analysis, the preamble and so forth that we 

19 discussed and form a basis for what we're 

20 doing that we put forward as the basis for 

21 what we're doing that we don't have a chance 

22 to vote on because it's just not practical to 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 103

1 vote on everything. So I think that's the 

2 baggage that that other sentence carries. 

3 MR. BERMAN: Hello. Is that 

4 better? Robert Berman, Berman Economics. It 

5 seems that if you're not going to vote on 

6 everything, but to take something that's not 

7 an overt exception is a bit strong, 

8 particularly when you're talking about 

9 analyses. You've got a number of esoteric 

10 analyses here that a lot of the people may not 

11 be familiar with, Monte Carlo analyses, those 

12 sorts of things that they may still be trying 

13 to figure out what's going on and how that 

14 works with the analyses that they are familiar 

15 with so to take their reluctance to object at 

16 that point as agreement to the analysis, I 

17 think, is a bit strong. 

18 MR. PARKER: Any other thoughts 

19 before we vote on this? 

20 MR. MILLURE: Dave Millure, 

21 Metglas. So the definition of overt dissent 

22 is a no vote, because it also could mean a 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 104

1 written dissent. In this case a no vote is 

2 overt dissent. 

3 MR. PARKER: Yes, if we vote. You 

4 know, I think, I mean just as a question of 

5 how do you handle aspects of the analysis that 

6 you may not agree with, but you don't decide 

7 to veto the thing and it doesn't come up for a 

8 vote. And because it's not something that is 

9 actually part of the term sheet that you vote 

10 on, but you think that methodology is suspect. 

11 I guess basically if you're voting 

12 on the term sheet that's what triggers the 

13 overall analysis, I mean the overall non14 sabotage rules, so I guess that's good enough. 

15 MR. GREESON: Rob Greeson, Federal 

16 Pacific. This is a very interesting 

17 discussion but my question for the DOE is we 

18 as a committee can say well, this is consensus 

19 and that is consensus. I wonder what DOE's 

20 position is on how these votes are 

21 interpreted. What are they looking to see 

22 because our decision ultimately has to be 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 105

1 concluded upon by DOE. So I think we should 

2 kind of work towards the framework that they 

3 kind of see to be -- I mean they agreed to 

4 this negotiated rulemaking because it would be 

5 advantageous in certain ways. So we don't 

6 need to be making up things that are going to 

7 obstruct their initial assumptions about why 

8 this negotiated rulemaking was going to be 

9 advantageous to begin with. I didn't really 

10 have a huge problem with the way things were 

11 worded initially, but I wonder what DOE's 

12 position is on that? 

13 (Laughter.) 

14 MR. PARKER: DOE abstains. 

15 MR. CYMBALSKY: I think in the 

16 beginning, Wayne, who talked about the FACA 

17 and why it was set up, the ERAC subcommittee, 

18 I think spelled out the work of this group. 

19 The conclusion would be brought up to ERAC for 

20 recommendation for the Secretary to consider 

21 the rule. I think that is exactly what we're 

22 doing. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 106

1 MR. COHEN: I would also, this is 

2 Dan Cohen, I would also point out that we're 

3 one member of this committee. We're not -- 

4 the judge. So we're here to participate in a 

5 negotiation, not to have something proved to 

6 us one way or the other. 

7 MR. GREESON: Rob Greeson, Federal 

8 Pacific. I guess I misunderstood. I thought 

9 we were going to propose a position and then 

10 it was going to be like a final vote by the 

11 DOE before it went on. 

12 MR. CYMBALSKY: No, no. I'm part 

13 of the process. 

14 MR. GREESON: That sort of changed 

15 my whole position because I'm thinking if 

16 we're passing it on to you we sort of need to 

17 be in line -- 

18 MR. CYMBALSKY: This negotiation 

19 is I have one vote as opposed to all votes. 

20 (Laughter.) 

21 MR. PARKER: He's a nice guy. 

22 He's paying for this, too. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 107

1 MR. GREESON: I thought DOE could 

2 veto the whole thing. That's where my 

3 confusion came in. 

4 MR. COHEN: Dan Cohen, DOE. In 

5 fact, one of the provisions in here is that we 

6 agree to publish as a proposed rule whatever 

7 this group comes up with. 

8 MR. ROY: But you can veto just 

9 like all of us by voting no. 

10 MR. COHEN: Sure. 

11 MR. PARKER: If consensus is such 

12 that, you know, it's not unanimous. 

13 MR. CYMBALSKY: That's why I voted 

14 for the two members. 

15 (Laughter.) 

16 MR. PARKER: But you only get one 

17 vote. 

18 MR. COHEN: I would point out I am 

19 not a member. 

20 MR. PARKER: He only gets one 

21 vote. 

22 MR. SIMMONS: This is Chuck 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 108

1 Simmons, Progress Energy. Just a quick 

2 question. What's ERAC's role in this whole 

3 process? I thought this subcommittee passed 

4 our recommendation to them and they did 

5 something with it, but I'm hearing something 

6 different now. 

7 MR. COHEN: Dan Cohen, DOE. So 

8 just as a legal matter, the way we set up this 

9 structure under what's called the Federal 

10 Advisory Committee Act, ERAC is a Federal 

11 Advisory Committee Act committee. We could 

12 have set this up as a wholly separate, this 

13 particular committee, as a wholly separate 

14 committee under that act, but that created a 

15 whole lot of procedural hurdles and what not 

16 that were better dealt with by setting this 

17 committee up as a subcommittee of that other 

18 committee. 

19 So as a result, certain 

20 requirements, certain procedural requirements 

21 don't apply to this subcommittee that would 

22 have otherwise applied to the establishment of 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 109

1 this committee. But the quid pro quo for that 

2 is that whatever this committee comes up with 

3 as a recommendation is not a recommendation 

4 directly to the Secretary. It's a 

5 recommendation to the ERAC that then votes to 

6 send that recommendation on to the Secretary. 

7 MR. PARKER: Okay. We've heard a 

8 lot yea and nay, why don't we just put it to a 

9 vote now in terms of adding that sentence or 

10 not. I'm not sure that it makes a huge 

11 difference because I think the present and 

12 voting does cover it, so you know, however you 

13 guys want to do it. 

14 I think it basically conveys the 

15 idea that if we're having a unanimous consent 

16 rule which I think we've failed to agree on a 

17 departure from, that we want to have some kind 

18 of peer pressure to not dissent unless there's 

19 really, really good reason and a strong 

20 manifestation of intent to dissent. With that 

21 said, let me just put it to a vote. 

22 All in favor of keeping the 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 110

1 sentence in, raise your hand? 

2 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Which sentence? 

3 MR. PARKER: I'm sorry, 

4 concurrence will be assumed absent overt 

5 dissent. 

6 I'm sorry, let me rephrase. This 

7 is the draft. Why don't we see if there's 

8 opposition to it. Those in favor of striking 

9 the sentence either because of redundancy or 

10 because of objection could you raise your 

11 hand? 

12 MR. ROSENSTOCK: I don't know if 

13 that sentence adds anything so to streamline 

14 it I am sorry, I am going to say I don't think 

15 that sentence adds anything. 

16 MR. PARKER: Okay. 

17 MR. HYLAND: Richard, have we 

18 decided the abstain thing yet? I'm confused 

19 on where we went with all that. If somebody 

20 abstains, the cutting of the hairs, if 

21 somebody abstains, is it still considered 

22 unanimous? 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 111

1 MR. PARKER: I think part of the 

2 function of that sentence is to clarify that 

3 abstentions are not no votes. They don't 

4 undermine concurrence. They don't prevent 

5 arrival at a consensus. 

6 MR. HYLAND: I guess I'm being too 

7 simple and maybe trying to keep things in the 

8 KISS method, if that's what you mean, then 

9 write that. I have a hard time working 

10 around these sentences that we're not sure 

11 what they mean. If you think abstains don't 

12 count, then please write abstentions don't 

13 count, and then let us vote on it and see if 

14 we get unanimous. Otherwise, I don't know 

15 what that sentence means. 

16 MR. PARKER: Great suggestion. 

17 Great suggestion. Abstentions shall not be 

18 construed as negative votes or as -- 

19 MR. ROY: As overt dissent. 

20 (Laughter.) 

21 MR. PARKER: How about that? Is 

22 that okay? 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 112

1 MR. COHEN: Dan Cohen. I guess do 

2 we want to add "concurrence will be assumed 

3 absent overt dissent evidenced by a no vote." 

4 MR. PARKER: Okay. Maybe that's 

5 all we need to do. Evidenced by a no vote. 

6 Thank you. There. Concurrence will be 

7 assumed absent overt dissent evidenced by a 

8 negative vote. 

9 MR. COHEN: What about 

10 abstentions? 

11 MR. PARKER: That covers 

12 abstentions, a negative vote is not an 

13 abstention. It's one or the other. Does 

14 anybody want to add that as an explicit -- 

15 abstention does not count -- is not a negative 

16 vote. 

17 MR. BERMAN: Robert Berman, Berman 

18 Economics. So to be clear then, there is no 

19 issue of assent or concurrence except in a 

20 voting process? 

21 MR. PARKER: Right, because here 

22 we're talking about a concurrence that has a 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 113

1 certain legal, you know, despite my prior 

2 statements about there may be things we don't 

3 vote on. I'm not sure that that actually is 

4 germane as I think more about it because the 

5 thing that triggers the non-sabotage language 

6 later is the concurrence by voting to adopt 

7 the standard. 

8 MR. BERMAN: Thank you. 

9 MR. PARKER: That's what we need 

10 to focus on. Okay, any other modifications of 

11 this language before we vote on it? All in 

12 favor of this language? I don't have a vote. 

13 Question? Any objections? All opposed? We 

14 have a deal. 

15 Okay, I will then remove the bold 

16 because it's agreed. Now that is the thing 

17 that most groups spend most time on and we 

18 have proved to be no exception. But let me 

19 now just turn to basically the rest of the 

20 agreement and people should feel free to bring 

21 up issues and hopefully we can make rapid 

22 progress getting through them. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 114

1 Go ahead, Steve. 

2 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Again, with 

3 talking to the other members of the group, we 

4 asked for the addition of an Item 7 at the end 

5 of the agreement. Is it called a working 

6 group or subcommittee? I don't know what the 

7 official term of it is. This working group 

8 reserves the right to amend or modify these 

9 rules in the future as necessary. 

10 We just got to see this last 

11 night. There might be something else that 

12 someone might want to consider. We just want 

13 to have at least a clause that if someone 

14 wants to propose a new rule or modification 

15 that at least that they would have the right, 

16 if there's something that could help the 

17 process along that they should have the right 

18 to amend or modify. 

19 MR. PARKER: Well, you can propose 

20 it. We'd have to agree on it. You mean if 

21 you have subsequent -- 

22 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Just put it in 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 115

1 writing that you still have -- anyone has a 

2 right to amend this agreement. It's not 

3 locked in stone period. That's it. It's just 

4 putting it in writing that it can be changed. 

5 Right now it's not in there. 

6 MR. PARKER: You want to say that 

7 people can propose future amendments? 

8 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Yes, committee 

9 members can propose amendments or 

10 modifications to this document. 

11 MR. PARKER: Let's just do it 

12 simply. 

13 (Pause.) 

14 We will further commit to actually 

15 giving it consideration. We'll make space at 

16 the table for it. Okay? 

17 Discussion? How do you get this 

18 thing to indent? 

19 MR. ROSENSTOCK: This is again 

20 Steve Rosenstock. Thank you. I think you 

21 don't need the words "in the future." 

22 MR. PARKER: Discussion? All in 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 116

1 favor? Any opposed? Adopted. Other 

2 comments? 

3 Jim? 

4 MR. CREEVY: Jim Creevy with NEMA. 

5 I'd like to return to the issue of adverse 

6 action in challenges that we were discussing 

7 earlier. 

8 MR. PARKER: Okay. 

9 MR. CREEVY: We had talked about 

10 the sunset date. I don't believe a vote was 

11 ever taken on this. 

12 MR. PARKER: Thank you for raising 

13 that. Good point. 

14 MR. CREEVY: And I guess before we 

15 take that vote I'd like to offer some views on 

16 that. The discussion was that no action may 

17 be taken inconsistent. Is the term "action" -

18 - how is that defined? 

19 To take a position materially 

20 inconsistent with the standard, how are we 

21 going to define "take a position" because if -

22 - I'll just offer a real world example that 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 117

1 certainly could occur, particularly if the 

2 sunset date is many years off, such as it 

3 would be with if it were tied to compliance. 

4 We write the rule. Everybody 

5 agrees with the rule. And not to get too much 

6 into all these issues we're going to be 

7 discussing, material costs skyrocket over the 

8 matter of a year or two. The rule is still 

9 two years away. It seems as though this 

10 language, if tied to compliance date, would 

11 prevent NEMA from taking any number of actions 

12 and particularly lobbying Capitol Hill for a 

13 delay in compliance. Or putting out a press 

14 release or telling your mother that you might 

15 disagree. 

16 (Laughter.) 

17 MR. DELASKI: Right, and there's a 

18 corollary to that, too. Say energy prices 

19 skyrocket, right? It goes both ways in terms 

20 of what is the right standard, right? Imagine 

21 an implementation date that's out, as you 

22 said, a number of years. Variables will 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 118

1 change. And we're bound to the agreement. 

2 That would be my view. 

3 MR. CREEVY: I guess NEMA would 

4 propose that the sunset date, we're fine being 

5 bound by the agreement, but that the sunset 

6 date ought to be when the effective date 

7 printed in the Federal Register, as opposed to 

8 the compliance date three or four years later, 

9 whatever we decide. 

10 MR. DELASKI: I guess that's awful 

11 short. That means that as of next -- so the 

12 rule is published in October, 2012, January 1, 

13 2013, any party here can go do something 

14 different. 

15 MR. CREEVY: There's a clause in 

16 here. This is Jim Creevy with NEMA, that 

17 would prevent any legal challenge. And I 

18 would believe that we're fine with that. But 

19 because we've expanded this to take a position 

20 materially inconsistent, that has nothing to 

21 do with the legal system or taking this rule 

22 to court. It can be your opinion pieces and 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 119

1 suggestions to Congress. 

2 I feel like the actions are 100 

3 percent broad here, that you can't do anything 

4 that anybody would potentially interpret as 

5 contravening the agreement. And I would think 

6 this would hold true for anybody in the room 

7 because of the uncertainties inherent in this 

8 process. Things can change and to be 

9 prevented from basically discussing this rule 

10 until it is in effect, not only in effect, but 

11 must be complied with. For instance, some of 

12 our guys may simply not be able to comply, 

13 therefore, they'd be out of business. 

14 We would like to reserve the right 

15 to make a political argument outside the legal 

16 framework, outside lobbying DOE, sort of after 

17 this committee has completed its work and DOE 

18 has signed the papers, it's all done, outside 

19 of the Department of Energy. 

20 I think NEMA would like to reserve 

21 the right to address it in sort of the 

22 political forum. And I think it holds for 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 120

1 anyone in the room for any number of reasons. 

2 MR. PARKER: Would putting in 

3 language about fundamental change of 

4 circumstances help with that or would that 

5 just introduce ambiguity? 

6 MR. CREEVY: I suppose one of the 

7 easiest ways to get at it is to limit the 

8 types of activities we're talking about: 

9 challenges in court, and I'm no attorney, but 

10 challenges in court. Petitioning DOE, I would 

11 think you're a member of the committee, you're 

12 writing the rule, you know those two and maybe 

13 some others should be overtly included and 

14 everything else that is excluded is excluded 

15 and is not addressed here. 

16 MR. PARKER: That's where we 

17 started. That was the original language, 

18 challenge in court. So I guess the question 

19 is does the latest comment change people's 

20 mind on that issue, the issue being whether 

21 you should extend this to extra judicial 

22 challenges or opposition. And if so, what -- 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 121

1 Jim, do you have language that is somewhat 

2 broader than what was there before that would 

3 deal with the legislation angle? 

4 MR. CREEVY: Well, to inhibit the 

5 adoption of the recommended proposed standard, 

6 when is adoption date? What does that mean 

7 legally? What is the adoption date? Is it 

8 the compliance date or is it the effective 

9 date? If it's the effective date, I think 

10 it's fine as is. But if we're changing -- 

11 we're basing this on the compliance date six 

12 years away, it prevents anyone in the room 

13 from having any opinion on this other than we 

14 support it 100 percent for those six years. 

15 MR. BERMAN: Robert Berman, Berman 

16 Economics. Would an option to shorten the 

17 compliance date, in other words, or to include 

18 the compliance date in the term sheet get us 

19 out of that problem? That is to say the 

20 closer the compliance date is to the -- what's 

21 the other date -- the effective date, the less 

22 likely conditions are to change and you don't 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 122

1 have to get into the definition of what 

2 significantly changing conditions are. 

3 MR. COHEN: Dan Cohen, DOE. Just 

4 on that point, one of the issues when we get 

5 to issue spotting that we're going to have to 

6 address here is going to be the compliance 

7 date. There's a question we're going to have 

8 to look at and come back to this group with in 

9 terms of just a legal position on the statute 

10 as to whether the statute specifies what that 

11 compliance date is going to be and is non12 negotiable or not. So we may or may not be 

13 able to shorten the compliance date. 

14 MR. DELASKI: Andrew DeLaski from 

15 ASAP. I certainly hope that the compliance 

16 date will become a dimension of discussions 

17 and negotiations I have been involved in in 

18 the past, compliance date has been an 

19 important dimension to the discussion, provide 

20 flexibility for the parties and often being 

21 flexible in multiple ways on compliance date 

22 has been a very helpful way to get -- have 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 123

1 discussions move forward. 

2 But to Jim's point about being 

3 locked in for a long period, I hear you. I 

4 agree with you that being locked in, imagine 

5 if we were to agree on ten years out as the 

6 compliance date, you know? A lot of folks 

7 might like that idea. But ten years out, but 

8 that would be too long to be locked in. I 

9 agree with your point on that. 

10 I think there probably is 

11 something that's longer than 60 days that 

12 makes sense, but short of say five years, 

13 maybe it's a year, maybe it's two years. I 

14 think it would be inappropriate for us to 

15 agree in October 1st to one thing and then go, 

16 say something different in an opinion piece on 

17 January 1st. That would be too short. 

18 MR. CREEVY: So is this something 

19 that can be addressed in the term sheet later 

20 on as part of the final agreement? 

21 MR. PARKER: The compliance date 

22 can. It would be nice to settle the rules of 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 124

1 procedure now. If the compliance date is 

2 uncertain, maybe that's another reason not to 

3 use the compliance date as the trigger, but to 

4 choose some other date, like maybe a year from 

5 the effective date. 

6 MR. DELASKI: A year from the 

7 agreement is what I would say. I think you're 

8 looking at -- not from the agreement, a year 

9 from the date it's published in the Federal 

10 Register. 

11 MR. PARKER: Right. 

12 MR. PATTERSON: Or why not a year 

13 from when this committee is dissolved? 

14 MR. DELASKI: I don't know when 

15 that would be officially. 

16 MR. PATTERSON: You set an 

17 official date for the dissolvement of this 

18 committee. 

19 MR. BALLO: The problem with that 

20 is if the Department falls behind in issuing 

21 the final rule, then we potentially have a 

22 final rule comes out after the year expires. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 125

1 I'd prefer to go with the issuance date or the 

2 effective date rather, a year from then maybe. 

3 MR. COHEN: Dan Cohen, DOE. I 

4 would say our view of this, the key date to us 

5 is 60 days after the rule is published because 

6 we would want to know that no one is going to 

7 take us to court. Absent that, I'd leave -- 

8 the policy -- 

9 MR. BALLO: After it's published -

10 - 

11 MR. COHEN: After the final rule 

12 is published. The effective date, right. 

13 MR. PARKER: That is the effective 

14 date. 

15 MR. CREEVY: That seems to me to 

16 be a change from what has been -- what was 

17 assumed to be the case before I asked my 

18 question. 

19 MR. PARKER: No, that's a good 

20 question. It was a good point. It's well 

21 taken. 

22 MR. CYMBALSKY: John Cymbalsky, 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 126

1 DOE. So I think the material costs, 

2 obviously, it's kind of random when they can 

3 ramp up or ramp down if you look at the costs 

4 of copper and steel. They change frequently, 

5 so I can understand you don't want to lock in 

6 for a long period of time, but it could happen 

7 in a day they skyrocket or it could not 

8 happen. It could take three years. But maybe 

9 we say like Andrew mentioned a year after the 

10 effective date, as opposed to the three or 

11 five years that I think is implied with the 

12 compliance date. 

13 MR. PATTERSON: John, I think in 

14 this industry you'll find that there was not a 

15 significant change in the material cost until 

16 about 2004. And over 40 years I've been in 

17 the business that was the only occurrence. It 

18 has never happened in the past. It was an 

19 unusual bubble. 

20 MR. PARKER: Okay, Andrew? 

21 MR. DELASKI: I would say in other 

22 agreements that we've struck again privately 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 127

1 with industry trade associations, I think 

2 we've typically used two years as the sunset 

3 date, but you're right, we haven't used five 

4 or six, typically two. 

5 MR. COHEN: Dan Cohen, DOE. So 

6 that was your agreement with other parties. 

7 We weren't there so it didn't tie into whether 

8 we ever even adopted that rule. It was just a 

9 matter of -- 

10 MR. DELASKI: But it spoke to the 

11 issue that Jim is raising about conditions 

12 changing that your views could change because 

13 conditions change and you don't want to lock 

14 in. 

15 MR. COHEN: Right. 

16 MR. PARKER: Would you like to 

17 propose two years? Reaction to that? Two 

18 years from the effective date? 

19 MR. FOSTER: Mr. Moderator, this 

20 is the original proponent of this language and 

21 I can tell you what, I'm sensitive to all 

22 these discussions. I'll tell you what my 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 128

1 intent was which was 60 days, it coincided 

2 with the expiration of the appeals period and 

3 -- 

4 MR. PARKER: But you raised the 

5 issue of going to Congress as well. 

6 MR. FOSTER: Yes. Well, where I 

7 was headed with that was during the period of 

8 these discussions I didn't want anybody to get 

9 some leverage by saying take what we're 

10 offering here or we're up on the Hill right 

11 now and this is what we're proposing. 

12 MR. PARKER: I see. 

13 MR. FOSTER: I think it's next to 

14 impossible to enforce this beyond the 60-day 

15 period. And I'm sensitive to further -- we 

16 can go out five years. We can go out two 

17 years. We can go out one year, but my intent 

18 was 60 days to have it coincide exactly. 

19 MR. PARKER: Okay, so there's two 

20 proposals on the table. One is 60 days and 

21 one is 2 years, as I understand it. Is that a 

22 correct formulation? 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 129

1 MR. ROSENSTOCK: You're talking 

2 about the effective date only, correct? 

3 MR. PARKER: Yes. I believe, my 

4 interpretation of the sense of the group is 

5 that we've moved away from compliance date as 

6 the trigger and that we're talking about 

7 effective date plus, plus X. And the question 

8 is what will X be. So let's just take a vote. 

9 All in favor of X plus two years raise your 

10 hand. One, two, three, four, five. 

11 All in favor of X plus 60 days, 

12 raise your hand. Well, we have 3, 4, 5, 6 -- 

13 3, 6, 9, 12. We have some abstentions. So 

14 now here we are in probably in a situation we 

15 will be facing fairly frequently where we 

16 don't have unanimous consent starting off. 

17 What can people live with? What 

18 can people live with? 

19 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Just a quick one, 

20 not saying one way or the other, do you want 

21 to put up the original language just as 

22 another marker just as another possible -- 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 130

1 MR. PARKER: Yes, thank you. And 

2 in the future I will avoid deleting the 

3 original language until we actually have an 

4 agreement. Can you give me the original 

5 language there? 

6 Each party agrees -- there was no 

7 date. 

8 MR. COHEN: Honestly, if you limit 

9 it to court challenges it has a sunset. It's 

10 60 days. You don't need to specify a sunset. 

11 MR. PARKER: Okay, so these 

12 brackets -- those are the options. Agrees not 

13 to challenge the standard in court, not to 

14 take a position clearly inconsistent with the 

15 standard determination in court or in any 

16 other forum. And then there's the question of 

17 sunset. 

18 MR. COULTER: Richard, this is 

19 Greg Coulter, Prolec GE. I propose one year. 

20 Let's find something between 60 days and two 

21 years. I think we as a manufacturer can live 

22 with one year. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 131

1 MR. PARKER: Greg Coulter proposes 

2 one year. 

3 MR. COHEN: Could I also just make 

4 a friendly clarification, if I may? 

5 MR. PARKER: Sure. 

6 MR. COHEN: Agrees not to 

7 challenge the standard or the determination, 

8 if we're going to be consistent with the -- 

9 MR. PARKER: Okay. Any objection 

10 to including the phrase "the determination?" 

11 To challenge the standard -- I can tell this 

12 is going to give me a nervous breakdown. 

13 (Laughter.) 

14 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, 

15 EEI again. The next sentence where it says 

16 "final standard" please add the word "or final 

17 determination." 

18 MR. PARKER: The final standard -- 

19 MR. ROSENSTOCK: The final 

20 determination. 

21 MR. PARKER: Is that right? Okay. 

22 Okay, we're going to have to curtail 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 132

1 comments, soon. But go ahead. 

2 MR. BERMAN: Robert Berman, Berman 

3 Economics. It seems that that's equivalent to 

4 simply saying no court challenge and allowing 

5 any sort of lobbying or legislative challenge 

6 prior to the effective date, regardless of 

7 what the outcome is or what the conditions in 

8 the market are. 

9 MR. PARKER: Well, there will be a 

10 period between the time that this group makes 

11 its recommendation and the time -- and 60 days 

12 past the effective date which will be a fairly 

13 extensive period in which case people could be 

14 going up to the Hill if they wish to, absent 

15 this agreement, and lobbying against on the 

16 Hill what they've just agreed to in this room. 

17 The only other forum does have 

18 operative, as I read it, does have operational 

19 effect. 

20 Chuck, did you want to -- no. So 

21 why don't we vote on the one-year proposal 

22 then, one year from the effective date, 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 133

1 sunset. With this language of not to take a 

2 position materially inconsistent with as part 

3 of it. 

4 And again, maybe what we should do 

5 is three votes. In favor, opposed, strongly 

6 opposed. 

7 (Laughter.) 

8 Negative vote, yes. As in can't 

9 live with. 

10 MR. DELASKI: If I can just 

11 comment? I think a year is reasonable. I 

12 think it's important that as we're sitting 

13 around this table we reach an agreement which 

14 at some time is going to go into effect or be 

15 a final rule as of a certain date, so then 

16 leave yourself the flexibility to say well, 

17 within 60 days I'm going to say something 

18 different, to me, seems like that's not the 

19 kind of spirit of this discussion. So I think 

20 a year gives us a bit of confidence that the 

21 scenario that Chuck painted would not play 

22 out. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 134

1 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Quick question. 

2 You just gave three votes. Favor, opposed, 

3 strongly opposed? Does that mean you're 

4 obliterating the consensus? 

5 (Laughter.) 

6 MR. PARKER: No, I was actually 

7 trying to apply them with concurrence, absent 

8 overt dissent. 

9 Okay, one year, one year from the 

10 effective date? All in favor. All opposed. 

11 You guys are marvelous. We have a deal. All 

12 right? One year from the effective date of 

13 the rule. 

14 We'll put in language to that 

15 effect. I don't want to spend any more time 

16 on it. 

17 Go ahead, Steve. 

18 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Above that 

19 language, I guess it's item 3D where it says 

20 "Deadline for negotiations" -- 

21 MR. PARKER: Excuse me, one 

22 second. Is there any objection to this -- to 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 135

1 changing -- to the second brackets basically, 

2 agree not to take a position materially 

3 inconsistent with. We didn't formally vote on 

4 that. Anybody opposed? If not -- 

5 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Okay, just to be 

6 consistent, you're taking out the first 

7 bracket and you're including the second 

8 bracket? 

9 MR. PARKER: Taking out the first 

10 bracket, including the second. Can I do that? 

11 Any objections? Overt dissent? Okay. 

12 MR. COHEN: Dan Cohen, DOE. Just 

13 one clarification that I would make just on 

14 the sunset date. 

15 MR. PARKER: Okay. 

16 MR. COHEN: One year from the 

17 effective date of the rule. I would point out 

18 that the rule, we would have to have a 

19 determination by rulemaking as well and that 

20 would have an effective date. So regardless 

21 of whether it's a proposed and final 

22 rulemaking to set a standard or a 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 136

1 determination of those standards -- it's the 

2 same -- the sunset is the same. 

3 MR. PARKER: Right. Okay. Any 

4 objection to that language? 

5 MR. ROSENSTOCK: You have to add 

6 in the word "agrees" before "not." Right now 

7 it says "Each party not" -- no, no, no. First 

8 -- 

9 MR. PARKER: I was just going to 

10 add in "Each party agrees for a period of one 

11 year" -- you can just actually put in the 

12 language. Maybe I can get a mouse pad later. 

13 Okay. Done? Why won't this work? 

14 Okay. It's sloppy, but it will get there. 

15 All right, any objection to F as 

16 it reads now? Cleaning up the bracket from 

17 the bold. Not hearing any, we'll move on. 

18 Any other comments on these ground 

19 rules? 

20 MR. MILLURE: Dave Millure, 

21 Metglas. E, right above that, does that not 

22 somewhat address the same issue we just hashed 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 137

1 out? 

2 MR. BALLO: This is Tim Ballo. I 

3 read E as being before the final rule, after 

4 the proposal, but before the final. 

5 MR. PARKER: So during the comment 

6 period after publication is that the idea, 

7 you'd like that clarification? 

8 MR. COHEN: This is Dan Cohen, 

9 DOE. I also read that to suggest that the 

10 parties to the agreement other than the 

11 Department would file comments in the 

12 rulemaking proceeding saying we like this. 

13 MR. PARKER: Right. 

14 MR. COHEN: So that's an on-going 

15 obligation. 

16 MR. PARKER: Right, so does adding 

17 the phrase "after publication of the NOPR" do 

18 it? 

19 MR. DELASKI: The phrase is 

20 already there. It says the "recommended 

21 proposed standard" and just put NOPR in 

22 brackets or something, you think? 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 138

1 MR. PARKER: Yes. 

2 MR. DELASKI: This is referring to 

3 the recommended proposed standard whereas the 

4 next paragraph is the quote unquote final. 

5 MR. PARKER: The final, right. 

6 MR. DELASKI: So maybe you put 

7 NOPR in brackets. 

8 MR. PARKER: I've got it. Thank 

9 you. 

10 MR. COHEN: Dan Cohen, DOE, the 

11 first one is to say that if we propose what 

12 the group comes up with, you will tell us you 

13 want us to adopt it as final. And once we 

14 adopt it as final, you won't then undermine 

15 it. 

16 MR. PARKER: Okay. I'm saving the 

17 work. It hope control-S does that on this 

18 machine, too. I have an Apple. 

19 Any other comments on the -- Tim? 

20 MR. BALLO: I just had a -- maybe 

21 it's a practical question. There's a couple 

22 places in here in E and in G where it 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 139

1 discusses the parties submitting a memorandum 

2 to the docket responding to any objections 

3 that are raised. And if the objections come 

4 in at the end of the comment period, how would 

5 we do that if the comment period is closed? 

6 MR. COHEN: If you're going to 

7 send us something, we'll be happy to extend 

8 the comment period. 

9 (Laughter.) 

10 MR. PARKER: Good. One of the 

11 bennies of going through this work. Anything 

12 else? 

13 Steve? 

14 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Again, following 

15 up on that item G, it depends on, I guess, are 

16 you talking about the docket during -- once 

17 you do a NOPR or determination based on these 

18 negotiations that we're required to submit a, 

19 quote, memorandum? Because that's what it 

20 seems to be. Some parties may just prefer not 

21 to -- and it's out for public review, but we 

22 don't feel the need to write a comment during 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 140

1 the comment period. I think that's -- 

2 MR. COHEN: Dan Cohen, DOE. This 

3 actually, it seems to me to go even one step 

4 further which is to say if some other party 

5 not party to these negotiations were to, in 

6 fact, challenge us in the court, you'd show up 

7 in the court, too, and say something positive 

8 about the rule. 

9 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Yes, and I guess 

10 especially with item one -- Steve Rosenstock, 

11 EEI -- we won't see the adverse comments until 

12 after the comment period has completed on 

13 regulations.gov. 

14 If there's a comment period on the 

15 NOPR, let's say it's 60 days after its 

16 publication, we won't see it until after the 

17 period is closed, so how would we be able to 

18 respond? 

19 MR. COHEN: Flippantly, but not 

20 completely flippantly, if -- we would be happy 

21 to reopen the comment period to allow you the 

22 opportunity to send us back a memo that says 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 141

1 we still like this regardless of that comment. 

2 MR. PARKER: Particularly if it's 

3 required by the -- if it's implicitly required 

4 by the ground rules of the procedure. 

5 MR. ROSENSTOCK: But then if 

6 you're opening the comment period, that means 

7 other negative comments can come in, too. It 

8 could just keep going forever. 

9 MR. COHEN: That's theoretically 

10 possible. 

11 MR. BERMAN: Robert Berman, Berman 

12 Economics. Following up on Dan's comment with 

13 more of a question, does this language, your 

14 interpretation, your understanding 

15 affirmatively commit a party to appearing in 

16 court on behalf of the DOE in the event of a 

17 challenge? 

18 MR. PARKER: Not to appear in 

19 court, just to agree to submit a memorandum. 

20 MR. BERMAN: A deposition, 

21 effectively. 

22 MR. PARKER: An affidavit of some 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 142

1 sort. And again, I think -- being actually 

2 called upon to do that would require some 

3 determination by Justice that it would be 

4 helpful in the litigation and you might or 

5 might not be asked, but you agree to be 

6 willing to do that, basically. 

7 Steve? 

8 MR. ROSENSTOCK: I'm going to 

9 propose that to move to strike item G because 

10 the Federal Register notice of September 9th 

11 already shows that we're participating and 

12 that we've agreed to the rules that the 

13 working group will adopt, so I'm going to move 

14 that item G be struck from these ground rules. 

15 MR. PARKER: I don't have any 

16 objection to that. Doesn't sound like DOE 

17 does either. This is boiler plate language. 

18 Nobody is going to live or die over it. 

19 Andrew? 

20 MR. DELASKI: This is something 

21 that we have used in other discussions which 

22 is that the parties might agree to consult in 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 143

1 submitting a joint comment, right? I would 

2 hope that if there's an objection to our 

3 comment, we all get together, we had an 

4 agreement. There's an objection to it, right, 

5 by some party outside this room. I would hope 

6 that we would talk to each other and figure 

7 out well, do we want to respond together as a 

8 committee? 

9 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock. 

10 I understand the idea behind that. The only 

11 problem is it's during the formal comment 

12 period that -- we can agree to respond, but 

13 again, it's still requiring us to do something 

14 that would extend the comment period. 

15 MR. PARKER: It's also, or the 

16 standard is challenged in court, so it applies 

17 after the end as well. 

18 MR. ROSENSTOCK: You know, again, 

19 that's another issue in terms of timing and 

20 consideration. I understand, but this 

21 requires and it requires every party to do it 

22 and that might not be possible. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 144

1 MR. PARKER: Andrew, do you want 

2 to comment? 

3 MR. DELASKI: I don't think it 

4 needs to be in there in terms of being part of 

5 the agreement. I think it's a good faith 

6 point. 

7 MR. PARKER: Any objection to 

8 striking this from the agreement? All in 

9 favor? Struck. 

10 We have a few minutes before 

11 lunch. We need to really move forward. 

12 Jerry? 

13 MR. CORKRAN: Jerry Corkran, 

14 Cooper Power. Maybe outside the scope of 

15 these ground rules, but as far as rural 

16 compliance, will that be discussed now during 

17 ground rules or is that something that comes 

18 up later? 

19 MR. PARKER: Compliance? 

20 MR. CORKRAN: Yes, the rule that 

21 we come up with and the effective date, is 

22 that part of the ground rules? 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 145

1 MR. PARKER: No, that's one of the 

2 issues. In fact, that's one of the reasons 

3 why we took out compliance date as a trigger 

4 for our ground rules because we're not sure 

5 what the compliance date will be. We still 

6 have to talk about that. So we'll talk about 

7 that later. 

8 MR. CORKRAN: To be determined. 

9 MR. PARKER: Yes, to be 

10 determined. Right. 

11 Tim? 

12 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, on E, I 

13 guess I have a concern that we're leaving open 

14 the possibility that DOE will be reopening the 

15 comment period if it gets adverse comment, it 

16 will reopen the comment period to get more 

17 comment from us, but potentially also get more 

18 adverse comment and I'm wondering if -- 

19 MR. PARKER: Well, we've now 

20 struck that. 

21 MR. BALLO: No, that was G. 

22 MR. PARKER: G, yes, yes, right. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 146

1 MR. BALLO: Which is potential for 

2 extending the comment deadline on the proposed 

3 rule or proposed determination. I'm wondering 

4 if it would maybe avoid that potential for a 

5 never-ending comment period if we just agree 

6 to have a meeting with the Department after 

7 the close of the comment period to provide the 

8 Department with feedback on any adverse 

9 comment so that the whole comment period 

10 doesn't have to be reopened, we don't get in 

11 that potential for significant delay. I don't 

12 know if that's a better solution. 

13 MR. PARKER: Thoughts? Steve. 

14 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Maybe it might 

15 help in the third sentence "if any person does 

16 anything to inhibit" -- maybe it's better to 

17 strike "person" and put in "participating 

18 party" because any person could be anyone in 

19 the United States, if you want to read that 

20 technically. 

21 MR. PARKER: Right, right. 

22 MR. ROSENSTOCK: So you might want 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 147

1 to replace person with "party." 

2 MR. COHEN: Dan Cohen. I thought 

3 that was inherent in what we just did on the 

4 no challenge provision. 

5 MR. PARKER: So the idea of this 

6 language is that if anybody -- but we just 

7 agreed to strike similar language in other 

8 context. So the question is -- we don't need 

9 it here either, right? Again, this is another 

10 requirement of affirmative action, very 

11 similar to the one we just struck. Is there 

12 any objection to just striking this as well? 

13 MR. COHEN: Dan Cohen, again, I'm 

14 not a committee member and I'm talking for my 

15 client here, I'm consulting him, but I would 

16 think we would want the parties to submit 

17 something in the rulemaking record saying 

18 their position is in support of the proposal, 

19 but the whole -- saying something about other 

20 parties' adverse comments, I don't think is 

21 necessary. 

22 MR. PARKER: Right. Well, what 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 148

1 about just changing this to say each party 

2 agrees to file comments indicating their 

3 support for this standard if they've consented 

4 to it? 

5 MR. ROY: Robin Roy, NRDC. I 

6 think that's okay, but to be consistent with 

7 the unanimity definition which involves no 

8 overt dissent, we'd be now asking for an overt 

9 approval. I don't see why we need to ask for 

10 that. You're putting some folks on the line 

11 who are being happily quiet about it because 

12 of a host of reasons. So maybe to change E to 

13 be no adverse action, drop the "and support" 

14 and drop everything after "if any person." 

15 MR. PARKER: Right. 

16 MR. ROY: We're not going to fight 

17 it. 

18 MR. PARKER: So moved. Any 

19 objection? Done. Further comments? Moving 

20 right along. 

21 MR. MILLURE: Dave Millure of 

22 Metglas. Is this going to remain a 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 149

1 gentleman's agreement or are we going to have 

2 to sign off on this? 

3 MR. PARKER: This is a formal 

4 agreement. 

5 MR. MILLURE: So we would have to 

6 sign off, sign, sign? 

7 MR. PARKER: Just vote yes. 

8 (Laughter.) 

9 MR. PARKER: And you might raise a 

10 point during the break about appointment 

11 letters? 

12 MR. MILLURE: Wayne referenced at 

13 the very beginning of this meeting today that 

14 we all received appointment letters. I don't 

15 recall getting a personalized appointment 

16 letter that defined my interest group that I'm 

17 representing. I'm representing Metglas, 

18 Incorporated. 

19 So first of all, for the record 

20 I'd like to say I don't think I got an 

21 appointment letter that said Dear Mr. Millure, 

22 this is the interest group you're going to be 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 150

1 representing. So I was a little confused 

2 about the whole conflict of interest. 

3 MR. PARKER: We'll have to check. 

4 I heard that for the first time this morning 

5 from Mr. Gordon. So I'm a little caught off 

6 guard. He can get back to us maybe tomorrow. 

7 Would that be okay. So Dan will get back to 

8 us tomorrow. 

9 Okay, so I'm going to ask 

10 everybody in the spirit of getting us to lunch 

11 that we confine our comments to the bare 

12 minimum now. 

13 Yes, Steve? 

14 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Okay, I promise 

15 this one is a bare minimum. In item D, 3D 

16 which is right above the agreement, for 

17 deadline for negotiations, we just wanted to 

18 clarify about -- it says "unless a committee 

19 decides to extend the deadline" so I just 

20 wanted to clarify that under this that only 

21 the ERAC Committee is allowed to extend the 

22 deadline for this working group. I'm just 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 151

1 trying to read it correctly. 

2 MR. COHEN: This is Dan Cohen. 

3 Are you talking about 1 on the first page? 

4 Committee is defined as this committee. 

5 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Oh, okay. Very 

6 good. I just got confused there with -- what 

7 the ERAC is. So we can ask for an extension. 

8 That's fine. 

9 MR. PARKER: Okay, now I don't 

10 want to -- we've had a long discussion on 

11 rules and procedure which is quite customary 

12 I'm told, and I think it's been a productive 

13 one. I don't want to force a vote, but I'd 

14 like to keep the process moving. Is there 

15 anybody who feels that they are not ready to 

16 vote yet? 

17 Steve, you had one more thing? 

18 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Yes, it's for 

19 item 4 and again because there is a 

20 possibility that there will be -- we're 

21 talking about 27 different products with 

22 different standards. There could be an 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 152

1 agreement, we'll see, that some standards 

2 don't change, so in a way it's a determination 

3 that the standards are not being amended. 

4 I think some of us would prefer -- 

5 there's a lot of talk about proposed rules. 

6 We've added the word determination. We'd kind 

7 of like to add there's a lot of places where 

8 it says proposed rule or standard or final 

9 rule or rulemaking, that the words "or 

10 determination" be added in there because that 

11 is one of the options for DOE and one of the 

12 options for this group whether it's for 

13 everything or for just one particular size 

14 transformer that there could be an agreement 

15 where we just keep the standards, but the 

16 standards are not amended. So again, it's 

17 just showing that it's not just a rule, it can 

18 also be a determination as part of the 

19 agreement. 

20 MR. PARKER: So you're basically 

21 proposing a global, more or less global search 

22 and replace for standard -- 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 153

1 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Search and add. 

2 MR. PARKER: Search and add 

3 standard -- 

4 MR. ROSENSTOCK: In area 4. 

5 MR. PARKER: -- to determination. 

6 MR. DELASKI: I'm fine with that. 

7 I think it's also fine to just sort of define 

8 it that way. There's a standard for these 

9 products today. We could decide they should 

10 stay the same and that's our recommendation. 

11 That's the new standard is the old standard. 

12 I think it's a little bit of semantics and 

13 what we agree to is what we agree to. I 

14 understand Steve's point is well taken. I 

15 don't think you need to muck up the language 

16 too much. 

17 MR. PARKER: Can anybody propose 

18 language very quickly or should we just take 

19 this under advisement and come back to it? 

20 MR. DELASKI: You could add a 

21 bullet. I don't know what it would be, but 

22 "proposed standards may entail keeping some 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 154

1 standards the same as they are today." 

2 MR. ROSENSTOCK: That would be 

3 fine with me if somebody wanted to put that as 

4 part of either the agreement or just the 

5 general definition in that, that's fine with 

6 me. 

7 MR. PARKER: Great. 

8 MR. DELASKI: Some or all. 

9 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Absolutely, one, 

10 some or all. 

11 MR. PARKER: Great, we will add a 

12 definition to that. 

13 MR. DELASKI: I think kind of in a 

14 similar vein, I think there's a possibility 

15 that -- I'm not sure this needs to be 

16 envisioned by this or not, but there's a 

17 possibility that, for example, we might reach 

18 agreement on say liquid-immersed transformers, 

19 but not medium voltage dry-type transformers. 

20 So agreement on some classes, but not others. 

21 MR. ROSENSTOCK: I'm fine with 

22 that. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 155

1 MR. DELASKI: Does that need to be 

2 envisioned by this document in some way or is 

3 that -- 

4 MR. PARKER: I'm sorry, I'm just 

5 writing this down. The term standard or rule 

6 shall be deemed to include any determination 

7 that a revision of the standard is 

8 unnecessary? Is unnecessary for some or all 

9 covered products. 

10 Okay, so that's the language. 

11 Does that do it for you, Steve? Good for you, 

12 Andrew? 

13 I'm sorry, I'm going to assert the 

14 prerogatives of the chair here and keep the 

15 focus. We're all hungry for lunch. Keep the 

16 focus. Any objections to this around the 

17 table? Okay. Agreed. 

18 Steve, did you have further -- 

19 MR. ROSENSTOCK: I don't have. 

20 MR. PARKER: Go ahead, Chuck. 

21 MR. FOSTER: This may, in fact, be 

22 covered by 6C kind of obliquely, but one thing 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 156

1 that I have some concern about is that we 

2 don't end up reaching consensus here, but 

3 during the process of trying to reach 

4 consensus we -- parties will articulate 

5 positions that in the absence of this group, 

6 they wouldn't have articulated. We might 

7 agree that TSL-4 for some line of transformers 

8 just to try to move the thing along, but if we 

9 don't go to -- reach consensus here, I don't 

10 want us to be locked into TSL-4 on that line 

11 in the formal rulemaking. I think that's a 

12 basic precept of any good faith negotiation of 

13 a settlement. 

14 So it might obliquely be addressed 

15 here in 6C where it says that there aren't any 

16 -- not to be construed as taken as the 

17 official position of any member, et cetera, 

18 for the transcripts, but we're going to have 

19 lots of other documents flying around. We're 

20 going to have emails, we're going to have 

21 personal positions. And this cuts against 

22 everybody, I believe. Andrew might agree to 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 157

1 something that he wouldn't otherwise have 

2 agreed to, just to make it move forward. If 

3 we don't reach consensus, though, I wouldn't 

4 want us to be locked into that position. 

5 MR. PARKER: Right. 

6 MR. DELASKI: Chuck raises a 

7 really good point, and I think in our private 

8 negotiations they're always private and a term 

9 of those negotiations is that you don't repeat 

10 what happens inside the room outside the room. 

11 That's very different in this situation 

12 because you guys are here. 

13 MR. PARKER: The public. 

14 (Laughter.) 

15 MR. PARKER: Maybe we should say 

16 in the absence of consensus positions taken 

17 are accepted by individual parties shall not 

18 be -- we want to capture something about 

19 "shall not be" -- 

20 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Parties shall not 

21 be bound? 

22 MR. PARKER: Parties shall not be 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 158

1 bound. Taken or accepted during these 

2 negotiations. Does that work? This is the 

3 language on the table being bolded right now. 

4 Any objection? The idea of taken or 

5 accepted, either want something that you have 

6 affirmatively proposed or something that you 

7 acquiesced to, you're not bound to it either 

8 way. You either all agree or it's not agreed, 

9 nothing is agreed. Any objection? Done. 

10 Any other comments? Are people 

11 ready for a vote on these rules of procedure? 

12 Yes. Anyone feels that we need more 

13 discussion? All in favor? 

14 MR. BALLO: Did we actually 

15 address Andrew's point about if we achieve 

16 consensus as to some transformers but not as 

17 to others? Do we need to include anything 

18 specific in the -- 

19 MR. DELASKI: So here's what -- as 

20 I said, there's a potential that we could 

21 reach agreement on some categories, but not 

22 others. So this says -- the beginning 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 159

1 sentence says "The goal of the committee is to 

2 reach consensus on a recommended set of energy 

3 efficiency standards for liquid-immersed and 

4 medium voltage dry-type distribution 

5 transformers." So what if we get part of that 

6 goal? 

7 MR. PARKER: This is what we need 

8 to do with DOE's commitment. Now where's the 

9 language dealing with DOE's commitment? 

10 MR. COHEN: This is Dan Cohen. I 

11 thought we just added this language in 

12 response to Steve talking about the proposed 

13 rule and determination for some or all of 

14 covered products. The second sentence I 

15 believe. 

16 MR. PARKER: For some or all 

17 covered products. Yes, okay. I see what 

18 you're saying. 

19 MR. ROY: It's different, what 

20 Andrew is suggesting is different. We 

21 couldn't figure it out for some as opposed to 

22 some don't need to have a change. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 160

1 MR. DELASKI: How about any 

2 agreement may include standards or standards 

3 for some or all. 

4 MR. PARKER: Any agreement reached 

5 by the committee on recommended standards for 

6 some or all covered products? 

7 MR. DELASKI: Yes. 

8 MR. PARKER: And then do we need 

9 to look at a commitment? Is DOE willing to 

10 commit to proposed partial consensus? 

11 We used the written statement -- 

12 MR. BALLO: You're still using it 

13 to the maximum extent practicable. It's just 

14 maximum extent practicable happens to -- only 

15 those products to which there's consensus. 

16 MR. PARKER: Right. Okay. I'm 

17 adding the words "written statement and 

18 recommended standards" because we're focusing 

19 here on standards. Written statement was 

20 taken from a -- yes, I think that covers it. 

21 I think you're right, Tim. Any recommended 

22 standards. Okay. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 161

1 Great. Any objection to the 

2 bolded language either in A or in B? Okay. 

3 Done. 

4 You'll get a track changes of this 

5 as well as a final, clean version as well. So 

6 you will know exactly -- have a record of 

7 exactly what we've amended from the original. 

8 Any other comments? 

9 MR. POLINSKI: Richard, Ray 

10 Polinski, Allegheny Ludlum. I'd just propose, 

11 as much as I would like to end this process, I 

12 do propose that we get a clean version of this 

13 to look at after lunch one last time. 

14 MR. PARKER: Fair enough. 

15 MR. POLINSKI: Right now it seems 

16 like we're just -- 

17 MR. PARKER: Yes, we'll print out 

18 a clean version of this and circulate it and 

19 let people review it and then we'll come back 

20 and you can look at it afterwards. That's a 

21 point well taken, particularly as hunger 

22 gnaws, right? 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 162

1 Discretion the better part of 

2 valor, let's adjourn for lunch and be back 

3 here at -- well, it's about 12:25 now, so why 

4 don't we say 1:45, an hour and 15 minutes. 

5 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

6 matter went off the record at 12:23 p.m. and 

7 resumed at 1:45 p.m.) 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 163

1 A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N 

2 (1:45 p.m.) 

3 MR. PARKER: Okay, everyone. 

4 Welcome back from lunch. I hope you had a good 

5 one. Everybody back on the phone? Again, not 

6 that you're not welcome, but if you're on the 

7 phone please mute your phone. It's very 

8 important for purposes of getting a record of 

9 things. Thank you so much. 

10 Okay. A couple of things. First, 

11 we need to finish up the Rules of Procedure, 

12 vote on them, talk about meeting options, and 

13 then get into substance. 

14 Let me -- I should have passed 

15 these around. I'll just pass around a little 

16 handout that contains a set of options for 

17 meetings that you can be glancing at as we 

18 discuss other stuff, so that when that comes 

19 up we'll be able to talk about it. 

20 I am told that it's a good thing 

21 we changed our lunch plans because this room 

22 will be locked down at 4:30, and they will 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 164

1 take the computer away, and we will all turn 

2 into pumpkins if we're still here, so we will 

3 adjourn come hell or high water promptly at 

4 4:15, and you'll be out of here. 

5 So, let's just start with the 

6 Rules of Procedure. We passed around rules --

7 the markup. Sorry, the production values are 

8 a bit rough. I should have left everything in 

9 bold that we had changed, but I designated it 

10 by not taking the bold once we agreed on it, 

11 but that means that it's kind of hard to spot 

12 our changes. Track changes was also an option 

13 but on these kinds of computers I'm not quite 

14 sure how they work. I use an Apple and it's 

15 different. But, in any case, I'm hoping that 

16 you guys have followed our discussions closely 

17 enough that you know where to look for the 

18 varied bodies. 

19 So, please take a look at it for 

20 just a minute or so, and then we will have any 

21 final discussion and hopefully bring it to a 

22 vote. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 165

1 MR. MILLURE: Richard. 

2 MR. PARKER: Yes? 

3 MR. MILLURE: On 2F(2) we sort of 

4 set a precedent that people that are not 

5 sitting around the table can go up to the mic 

6 without being called upon by people at the 

7 table. This says that you're not allowed --

8 if you're not at the table, that you have to 

9 be called upon to be -- to get permission to 

10 speak. 

11 MR. PARKER: I've basically just 

12 been calling upon people to talk without 

13 requiring them to get permission from someone 

14 else. 

15 MR. MILLURE: I'm just pointing out 

16 that's sort of -- 

17 MR. PARKER: I thought that was 

18 kind of under 2C, but presumably the 

19 facilitator makes the decision about whether 

20 time permits. And as you saw, when time 

21 started not permitting, I started getting 

22 tougher on the audience. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 166

1 MR. MILLURE: Okay. 

2 MR. PARKER: Any other thoughts, 

3 questions, comments? 

4 (Off mic comment.) 

5 MR. PARKER: Would you mind? I 

6 don't know if -- I hope there's enough copies. 

7 Okay. Any further discussion of 

8 the ground rules? Are we ready to vote on the 

9 ground rules? All in favor, raise your hand. 

10 All right. Any opposed? Okay, good. The 

11 ground rules are adopted. 

12 We will send out clean copies with 

13 the formatting cleaned up and so forth to you 

14 at the conclusion of the meeting. 

15 All right. Let's move on to the 

16 really hard stuff, meeting dates, and places. 

17 What's that? Well, I think I have a slide on 

18 the meeting dates for those people -- 

19 (Off mic comment.) 

20 MR. PARKER: Oh, DOE, sorry, thank 

21 you. Sorry, there's another one. 

22 Okay. So, we have up here 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 167

1 basically a list of options. Let me just try 

2 to set the -- a little background. All right, 

3 thank you. That's a little bit bigger. 

4 So, I'm beginning with the 

5 presumption based upon the experience of 

6 previous negotiated rulemaking committees --

7 of course, every committee has its own 

8 dynamic. I think you guys have a very positive 

9 dynamic, and I'm hopeful that we can move 

10 through expeditiously, and get things 

11 accomplished. 

12 In general, the experience is that 

13 six meetings are about the norm for how long 

14 it takes. They also like to have, basically, 

15 to have meetings of a particular group occur, 

16 including overnight, because oftentimes if you 

17 get log jammed on something or grid locked on 

18 something it helps to be able to just go home, 

19 talk to your principals, caucus with each 

20 other, let tempers cool, ideas germinate, and 

21 come back the next morning fresh and take 

22 another crack at it. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 168

1 So, we have tried to have each 

2 meeting -- the original idea was to have each 

3 meeting be two days, as this one will be. 

4 When the agreement was made -- and I should 

5 give you a little bit of history. I think all 

6 of you are aware of it, but we began under a 

7 court ordered deadline of October 1 to have 

8 the NOPR out. As a quid pro quo for the 

9 plaintiff's agreement to extend the deadline, 

 th

10 there was an agreement in the July 28 

11 meeting to include low voltage transformers in 

12 the scope of a parallel but separate 

13 rulemaking. There was also -- and to come up 

14 with either a determination or standards for 

15 low voltage, as well as medium voltage. 

16 The reason for separate meetings 

17 was that the utilities aren't typically 

18 involved as much in low voltage. There's 

19 different manufacturers, although Federal 

20 Pacific does both. A number of manufacturers 

21 don't do both. And the manufacturers who 

22 don't do both did not want to sit through the 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 169

1 meetings of medium voltage. And I'm sure you 

2 don't want to sit through the low voltage 

3 meetings. 

4 So, we agreed that the deadline 

5 would be extended until the end of January to 

6 give room for the medium voltage talks to 

7 proceed. The low voltage talks, which are not 

8 part of that settlement agreement are, 

9 nonetheless, racked into this process as a 

10 separate but equal process. And the idea for 

11 the -- there are a number of people who are 

12 doing both, and of organizations doing both. 

13 And for their convenience, as well as for the 

14 convenience of the staff on scheduling it 

15 seemed to make sense to schedule them 

16 adjacently. 

17 So, the ideal meeting situation is 

18 to have a day and a half of medium voltage 

19 followed by a day and a half of low voltage, 

20 or vice versa. I mean, there's no reason why 

21 one has to go first or second. But a three 

22 days period. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 170

1 Ideally, it would be four days, 

2 but that -- two days for each but that seems 

3 to test people's patience and schedules too 

4 much. So, we tried to pare it down to a day 

5 and a half for each working group. 

6 As -- we didn't discuss it because 

7 it wasn't really controversial, but there can 

8 be sub-working groups that can meet 

9 concurrently, but we have in mind that, 

10 basically, the medium voltage and low voltage 

11 will meet separately but on adjacent dates. 

12 The challenge then in the medium 

13 voltage committee is large. We don't all 

14 quite fit around this table. That's the 

15 second problem. Due to the absence of Bruce 

16 Hirsch, Steve Nadel, and Art Rosenfeld 

17 leaving, we actually can pack people around 

18 this table now who are on the committee, but 

19 it's a really tight squeeze, as you can see. 

20 And if all -- if everybody is present, we 

21 simply will not fit around the table, all of 

22 us. So, it would be nice, although not 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 171

1 essential, if we could find other meeting 

2 venues. And it is in the spirit of that kind 

3 of brainstorming that I had this idea, after 

4 talking with Phil, of well, what if everybody 

5 chipped in, maybe we could rent a space. That 

6 did not fly, and fortunately DOE is able to 

7 pony up funds for at least one session at the 

8 Pew Center, which is a beautiful facility. 

9 We're still working out a few kinks there, and 

10 it could still create -- I'm fairly confident 

11 that that will work out. 

12 They have very limited 

13 availability, however. In fact, the only 

 th

14 availability they have are the November 8 

 th th

15 through 11 , and then December 14 through 

 th

16 16 . That's the only time they're available. 

17 The other options were to just 

18 meet on the premises of various members of the 

19 committee. And several committee members 

20 graciously stepped forward and said we would 

21 be happy to host, subject to the availability 

22 of our conference rooms. And EEI was very 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 172

1 nice, but is a very busy organization. 

2 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Especially three 

3 days in a row. 

4 MR. PARKER: Three days in a row, 

5 yes. That's a tall order. 

6 By the way, I should mention that 

7 logistically the low voltage could actually 

8 meet in a separate place. It's a smaller 

9 group. There's only 15 or 16 members of that 

10 group, so there would be no problem here for 

11 low voltage. So, as we're thinking about 

12 options, one possibility might be to change 

13 venues. 

14 It's logistically much more 

15 complicated for everybody who's presenting, 

16 who's doing -- it's nice to be able to stay in 

17 one place, so there was a presumption in favor 

18 of that. But in extremis, that would be an 

19 option, I suppose. 

20 The question is, how many meetings 

21 do we need, and how many should we schedule, 

22 or might we need? And the problem is that we 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 173

1 can't really just kind of -- the ideal thing 

2 would be to say, okay, let's just see how it 

3 goes, and if we need meetings we'll then hold 

4 them. But the problem is that you have to 

5 book these places way in advance or they ain't 

6 available. So, the question is do -- is not 

7 really -- we're not going to -- let's all 

8 stipulate that we're not going to meet if we 

9 don't need to, even if we have a place booked. 

10 But it's much easier to have a place reserved 

11 and they say, gosh, we were really efficient. 

12 We got our agreement. Let's go see the 

13 monuments instead, than to not have a place 

14 done, and have no reservations, and no place 

15 to meet. So, that's the train wreck we're 

16 trying to avoid. 

17 So, the presumption -- so, my 

18 working assumption has been that we need to 

19 schedule, or try to schedule at least six 

20 meetings, and if we can get our work done 

21 faster, which is kind of the norm for these 

22 things, we can get our work done faster, 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 174

1 hooray. But let's give ourselves the option 

2 of meeting at least six times. 

3 Between now and December, that's a 

4 tall order. This is the only room in DOE, or 

5 I guess there's one more, but this is really 

6 the only room that's available, and it's only 

7 available on those very limited dates that --

8 basically, all the dates that this room is 

9 available are on this sheet in front of you. 

10 So, with that in mind, let's just 

11 talk through. Unfortunately, Mike Hyland at 

12 APPA, who will be our host -- they have a 

13 beautiful place up on Connecticut Avenue. He 

14 had to go out to another meeting, and he's not 

15 here for this discussion this afternoon. 

16 MR. ANDERSON: I can check with him 

17 tonight. 

18 MR. PARKER: Can you? 

19 MR. ANDERSON: Yes. 

20 MR. PARKER: Okay. 

21 MR. ANDERSON: I can check with 

22 Mike. I'll see him tonight. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 175

1 MR. PARKER: Okay. 

2 MR. ANDERSON: And I think, 

3 hopefully, will have an answer tomorrow. 

4 MR. PARKER: That would be great. 

5 MR. ANDERSON: But that would be 

 th th

6 the 12 through the 14 . 

7 MR. PARKER: Right. The other 

8 possibility, I think he said there might have 

9 been some time in December, but I'm a little 

10 bit vague. That's not on the sheet, but I 

11 think he may have mentioned it to me in some 

12 conversation. It's an either/or thing. I think 

13 APPA is willing to host one event, and that's 

14 very generous. 

15 MR. ANDERSON: Well, I think what 

16 it was in December, there was a conflict the 

 th

17 week of December 5 . 

18 MR. PARKER: Ah, but some other 

19 time in December might be possible. Okay. Yes? 

20 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Just one quick 

21 comment. I'll just say, in terms of December, 

22 the problem with Option D, according to our 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 176

1 ground rules, we have to be finished by 

 th

2 December 16 for the term sheet. 

3 MR. PARKER: Good point. Well, I 

4 think -- we have to be finished by December 

 th

5 16 . Is that -- 

6 MR. ROSENSTOCK: It says, every 

7 effort shall be made to conclude negotiations, 

 th

8 report a term sheet to DOE by December 16 . 

9 It says negotiations terminate by December 

 nd

10 22 , but there's the other deadline of 

11 December 16th. 

12 MR. PARKER: Right. Yes, that was -

13 - I'm glad you raised that. I put that in with 

14 regard to the Pew Center -- we're thinking the 

15 Pew Center. But I think probably we should 

16 modify that, if we can agree. 

17 Well, let's see. We may need to 

18 put that clause, that sole clause of the 

19 contingency agreement back on the table. 

20 Thank you for catching that, Steve. 

21 MR. DeLASKI: And as Steve -- we 

22 have provided a clause to be able to amend it 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 177

1 anytime we want to. 

2 (Laughter.) 

3 MR. PARKER: Good point. Okay. So, 

 th th

4 I think in terms of the 12 through the 14 , 

 th th

5 or the 17 through the 19 , in terms of 

6 keeping the trains running, those dates are 

7 pretty close together. I'm happy with any of 

8 them. What do you -- 

9 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Mr. Parker, just a 

10 quick one. But for those dates where it says 

11 medium voltage and low voltage, the assumption 

12 is that this committee will meet for one and a 

13 half days, and then the low voltage would meet 

14 for the other one and a half days. 

15 MR. PARKER: Right. 

16 MR. ROSENSTOCK: That's what it 

17 sounded like. 

18 MR. PARKER: Right. So, it would 

19 really only be -- you're absolutely right. 

20 So, we're really only talking about for this 

21 committee meeting, we're talking about a day 

22 and a half, the first two days. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 178

1 MR. ROSENSTOCK: But for those 

2 people it's all three days. 

3 MR. PARKER: Right. 

4 MR. ROSENSTOCK: For people on both 

5 it's all three days. 

6 MR. PARKER: Right. Exactly, a 

7 number of people in the room. 

8 MR. ROSENSTOCK: This is Steve 

9 Rosenstock, EEI. For the people on the phone, 

10 the meeting dates we're looking at for October 

 th th

11 are October 12 through the 14 in the 

12 Washington, D.C. area, since it could be out 

 th

13 in Virginia, if it's NRECA, or the 17 

 th

14 through the 19 at DOE headquarters in D.C. 

15 MR. PARKER: Right. By the way, is 

16 there anybody on the phone who does not have 

17 access to the webinar, cannot see the screen? 

18 MR. ROSENSTOCK: They're all on 

19 mute so they can't answer. 

20 PARTICIPANT: We can see it. 

21 MR. PARKER: Okay, good. I'm 

22 assuming that you can see the screen, so I 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 179

1 won't repeat things that are on the screen. 

2 So, go ahead. 

3 MR. SAINT: Well, one thing. NRECA 

4 is, again, happy to provide meeting rooms, but 

 th th

5 the 12 through 14 was the only date that 

6 we were given that we can accommodate -- 

7 MR. PARKER: Right. That you can 

8 accommodate. Right. 

9 MR. SAINT: And I, personally, 

10 would prefer that date versus the other date 

11 because I have a conflict with another 

12 meeting. 

13 MR. PARKER: Okay. Are you pretty 

14 sure that your conference room can accommodate 

15 everyone? 

16 MR. SAINT: Yes. And we might --

17 we probably will have a huge room, which will 

18 definitely accommodate. 

19 MR. PARKER: Okay. 

20 MR. SAINT: It is pretty big. 

21 MR. PARKER: If NRECA is willing, 

22 is there any objection to us taking them up on 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 180

1 their offer of hospitality? Yes? 

2 MR. CASKEY: I, unfortunately, have 

 th

3 a conflicting meeting on that week of the 12 

 th

4 through 14 . 

5 MR. PARKER: Oh. 

6 MR. CASKEY: But that's life in the 

7 big city. I'm sure somebody is going to have a 

8 conflict. 

9 MR. PARKER: Yes, okay. Is there 

10 anybody else on the committee who cannot make 

11 those dates? Show of hands who cannot make 

 th th

12 the dates, the 12 through the 14 . Because, 

13 obviously -- 

14 MR. MILLURE: I've got another 

 th

15 commitment on the 13 , but -- 

16 MR. PARKER: Is it the afternoon 

17 of, or the morning of? 

18 MR. MILLURE: Morning of. I could 

19 be here in the afternoon sometime. 

20 MR. PARKER: Okay. 

21 PARTICIPANT: Can I make a 

22 suggestion? 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 181

1 MR. PARKER: Sure. 

2 PARTICIPANT: Why would you not 

3 default to the DOE locations first, because 

4 this is a DOE meeting, so we work off that 

5 premise, rather than -- 

6 MR. PARKER: Well, the main thing 

7 is we can get everybody around the table. 

8 That's the only -- I think it would be really 

9 desirable for the committee to be able to fit 

10 around the table and not have three people 

11 relegated to second class. It may be that my 

12 concern is not really -- because we never have 

13 a full quorum anyway, and we're always going 

14 to have a few people away. Steve? 

15 MR. ROSENSTOCK: I would just say 

16 if you wanted to -- there are certain people 

17 who aren't here today, and I would just say, 

18 try to -- for the October dates, try to see 

19 who has the best availability in terms of 

20 numbers, and just see how the numbers pan out. 

21 Because everyone is busy this time of year, 

 th th

22 so I -- the 12 through the 14 works better 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 182

1 than the 17 through the 19 for me because 

2 of other commitments. But, again, just --

3 whatever numbers work best. And then if they 

4 can't make it, then they appoint alternates 

5 just to move forward. 

6 MR. PARKER: Okay. Can we agree on 

 th th

7 the 12 through the 14 ? 

8 MR. MILLURE: Just to clarify, 

 th th

9 that's the 12 through the 13 , actually. 

 th

10 MR. PARKER: 12 through -- 

11 MR. MILLURE: For this group. 

12 MR. PARKER: For this group, yes. 

13 MR. MILLURE: I have a conflict on 

 th

14 the 14 . I'm good 12 and 13. 

15 MR. PARKER: Right. So, this would 

 th

16 be 12 through 13 -- 12 through noon of 13. 

17 And then if you're doing low voltage, you 

18 would stay, and if you're doing medium 

19 voltage, you'd be done. If you're doing medium 

20 voltage only, you'd be done. Okay? 

21 At NRECA, yes. Okay, good. Thank you very 

22 much. Appreciate that, Bob. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 183

1 MR. SAINT: It's right next to the 

2 Ballston Metro Station. And I can send the 

3 group a list of hotels near there, and all the 

4 logistics. 

5 MR. PARKER: Right. And you have a 

6 projector for -- 

7 MR. SAINT: Yes, we have a 

8 projector. 

9 MR. ROSENSTOCK: It's Arlington, 

10 Virginia. 

11 MR. PARKER: Okay. So, the next 

 th th th

12 issue is the 8 through the 10 , or the 9 

 th

13 through 11 at the Pew Center. We still 

14 haven't totally locked on the Pew Center, but 

15 I'm confident enough that we can handle the 

16 remaining technicalities, that I'm willing to 

17 put it forward for discussion. And if for 

18 some reason that really blows up, the issue is 

19 basically, so you know, whether DOE can -- the 

20 Pew Center will only deal with non-profits. 

21 They only rent to non-profits, so Andrew 

22 DeLaski has kindly offered to provide ASAP as 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 184

1 a non-profit to rent with them, with them 

2 fully understanding that this is a hybrid 

3 committee, and that there -- 

4 But, apparently, DOE for 

5 appearance reasons, doesn't feel comfortable 

6 giving money to Andrew, even if he's going to 

7 give it right to Pew, so they have to be able 

8 to pay them directly. I think we can work 

9 through that problem, so I think they will be 

10 available. 

 th th

11 The issue is 8 through the 10 , 

 th th th

12 9 through the 11 . The 11 , obviously, is 

 th

13 Veteran's Day. It's a Friday. The 8 

 th

14 through the 10 , I know that there were some 

15 people who had conflicts. I think it -- I 

16 don't know how people think about 

17 memorializing Veteran's Day and not working on 

18 that day, and so forth. I tend to work on 

19 that day, frankly, but it is a federal 

20 holiday, yes. 

21 MR. CORKRAN: Could you break those 

 th th

22 two proposals apart? The 9 to 11 is much 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 185

1 more attractive as far as travel for some of 

 th th

2 us, than 8 to the 10 , so I would be much 

 th th

3 more in favor of the 9 to 11 . 

4 MR. PARKER: Yes, they are separate 

5 proposals. 

6 MR. PATTERSON: Well, again, this 

7 is going to be just a day and a half. 

 th

8 MR. PARKER: Right. So, the 11 

 th

9 is really -- I guess for this group, the 11 

10 is really more of an issue for the low voltage 

11 than -- I mean, it depends on whether this 

12 group meets first or second. And I guess, 

13 since you guys are meeting first, you get 

14 first dibs, right? 

 th

15 MR. PETERSON: I prefer 8 through 

 th

16 10 , personally. 

17 MR. PARKER: I'm willing to do 

18 that. I would have to reschedule my class, 

19 but I'll do that. But my students would prefer 

20 that, yes, exactly. Maybe I'll make them all 

21 sit back there. 

22 MR. PATTERSON: We're talking about 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 186

1 the 8 and the 9 . 

 th th

2 MR. PARKER: The 8 and the 9 . 

 th

3 MR. PATTERSON: Or the 9 and the 

 th

4 10 . 

5 MR. PARKER: Right. 

6 MR. PATTERSON: So, it's those two7 day windows. 

8 MR. PARKER: Right. And that 

9 raises a good point. Would you like to go 

10 second in that time frame and meet the second 

 th th

11 half of the 9 and the 10 , or would you 

12 like to go first? 

13 (Off mic comment.) 

14 MR. PARKER: So, in other words 

15 either medium voltage or low voltage, one 

 th

16 group will meet from the morning of the 8 

 th

17 until noon on the 9 . The other group will 

 th

18 meet from say 2:00 on the 9 until the end of 

 th

19 the 10 . Okay? Since you guys are first, 

20 you can choose which one of those blocks you 

21 want to fill. 

 th

22 MR. PATTERSON: How about the 8 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 187

1 and the 9 ? 

 th

2 MR. PARKER: Eighth and the 9 ? 

3 MR. PATTERSON: Is anybody opposed 

 th th

4 to the 8 and the 9 ? 

5 MR. PARKER: All right. Eighth and 

6 the ninth, done. 

7 Okay. I'm going to leave it on the 

 th

8 trolley for the 10 because that will help 

9 for our planning because we have to do both. 

10 Now, to get to the part where you 

11 guys are going to be really, really angry with 

12 me. That takes us to meeting number three. 

13 Meeting number three we're at mid-November. 

14 So, then the question becomes how -- we're in 

15 meeting number one. Right. That takes us 

16 through meeting number three. Right, I'm 

17 sorry. Takes us through, not to, through 

18 meeting number three, yes. 

19 So, then the question is how do we 

20 get three more meetings in, or how do we 

21 reserve time for three more meetings? Or do 

22 we want to play roulette and not reserve time 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 188

1 for three more meetings? 

2 But if we're going to do three 

3 more meetings, somehow we have to be willing 

4 to think about the margins of our holidays as 

5 work days. That's -- I don't know how to put 

6 it anymore bluntly than that. 

7 So, 21, 22 would be a possibility. 

 th th

8 It's pretty soon after the 8 and the 10 , 

9 but we could -- it's two weeks later. That's 

10 about as fast as we could turn things around. 

11 People have already vetoed Wednesday, so 

12 Wednesday is off the table. It would be a two13 day meeting, not a three, so it would be a 

14 one-day meeting of this group, not a one and a 

15 half day meeting. 

16 MR. ROSENSTOCK: So, all those 

17 meetings after, I'll say 2B are all one-day 

18 meetings for this group? 

19 MR. PARKER: What's that? 

20 MR. ROSENSTOCK: They're all -- 

21 you're showing two days except for 3C, so 

22 anything that's showing two days is just a 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 189

1 one-day meeting for this group, and one day 

2 for the low voltage group. 

3 MR. PARKER: Yes, that's right. 

4 It's a good point, because we don't have a 

 st

5 room for the other days. Well, the 21 and 

 nd

6 22 is because nobody wants to meet on a 

7 Wednesday before Thanksgiving, but the other 

8 days, we don't have rooms. 

 th th

9 Now, the 14 through the 16 is 

10 a three-day block, but it comes right in the 

11 middle of December. It's kind of too late to 

12 be early December, and too early to be late 

13 December. We could get -- 

14 MR. PATTERSON: Weren't you 

 th

15 supposed to have the term paper by the 16 ? 

16 MR. PARKER: What's that? 

17 MR. PATTERSON: I thought on this 

18 other paperwork you sent in -- 

19 MR. PARKER: Yes, Steve mentioned 

20 that earlier. 

21 MR. PATTERSON: You have to have 

 th

22 the term paper by the 16 . 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 190

1 MR. PARKER: Right, right, right. 

2 Steve mentioned that, and if we --obviously, 

 nd th nd

3 if we do the 22 -- 20 to 22 , we're going 

4 to have to invoke that amendment clause that 

5 we put in to change the ground rules to allow 

6 us time to finish. 

7 MR. PATTERSON: Then why don't we 

 st

8 see if people can do the 21 ? 

9 MR. PARKER: Well, the ground rules 

 th

10 said the 16 . Right? 

11 MR. PATTERSON: Yes, but you were -

12 - 

13 MR. PARKER: That was my screw up 

14 because I was thinking in terms of the Pew 

15 Center. 

 st

16 MR. PATTERSON: November 21 , why 

17 don't we see if we can do a meeting on 

 st

18 November 21 ? 

19 MR. DeLASKI: I guess I'd submit 

20 that that's just two weeks after the prior 

21 meeting. 

22 MR. PATTERSON: That's correct. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 191

1 MR. DeLASKI: I think that -- 

2 (Simultaneous speaking.) 

3 MR. DeLASKI: Yes. I mean, I would 

4 just make a general comment, which is that 

5 what this envisions right here for those of us 

6 involved in both meetings is 18 work days in 

7 meetings over the next two months. 

8 MR. PARKER: Yes. 

9 MR. DeLASKI: It's an extraordinary 

10 load on those of us who are NGOs. Okay? I 

11 mean, look at all the time -- coming from the 

12 west coast, got to add 10 travel days, big 

13 load, folks. I mean, I don't see six meetings 

14 happening. I see three meetings happening. 

15 Folks have to -- I mean, we used a lot of time 

16 today setting up the rules, and now we're 

17 spending an hour and a half talking about 

18 scheduling. We started late, we're breaking 

19 early. We've got to put in longer days, and 

20 put our -- we've got to figure out how to do 

21 this with less meetings. Two weeks I don't 

22 think gives us enough -- gives the consultants 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 192

1 -- hey, you have a meeting, come out of the 

2 meeting with some instructions to the 

3 consultants to run some scenarios, probably. 

4 Right? Help us move things forward. Is two 

5 weeks enough time for your team, John, to go 

6 run some numbers and give us new numbers? I 

7 mean, it's a question, so that's my thing for 

8 two weeks between meetings, is that we aren't 

9 going to know anything more to help us move 

10 the discussion forward with only a two-week 

11 window. 

12 (Off mic comment.) 

13 MR. PARKER: Yes. 

14 MR. CYMBALSKY: I would suggest -- 

15 MR. DeLASKI: I don't know how a 

16 two-week window works. And I would think that 

17 we need to figure out when to do this -- three 

18 meetings max for work. 

19 MR. PARKER: Okay. People want to 

20 do that? Yes? 

21 MR. ROSENSTOCK: I think I'm in 

22 agreement with that. And I would -- maybe I 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 193

1 would suggest again, just because of the 

2 schedule that maybe the last meeting be 

3 tentative for that -- again, I'd have to check 

 st nd

4 my calendar, but for the December 1 and 2 

5 at DOE, just because we know that -- 

6 MR. PARKER: It's there. 

7 MR. ROSENSTOCK: -- the financial 

8 problems if -- I see Item C might be --there's 

9 that other issue. And that way it could be 

10 almost like a tentative. 

11 MR. PARKER: Okay. 

12 MR. ROSENSTOCK: For the DOE on the 

 st nd

13 1 and 2 , again, that could be -- we could 

14 always say if needed. 

15 MR. PARKER: All right. So, you're 

 nd

16 saying September and October is the 2 --

 th th st

17 November 8 to 10 . Nothing on the 21 and 

 nd st nd

18 22 , and then meet here on the 1 and 2 at 

 th th

19 DOE, or the 14 to 16 at Pew. 

20 MR. ROSENSTOCK: I would say the 

 st nd

21 1 or 2 because if we're -- 

22 MR. PARKER: But we're only going 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 194

1 to have the room for one day. I think Andrew's 

2 point was that he'd like to really to crash 

3 and burn these meetings, and not -- have fewer 

4 meetings, but have them do more. So, that's 

5 kind of inconsistent with having -- 

6 MR. MILLURE: We should hold off on 

7 December and see if that APPA thing comes 

8 available. 

9 MR. PARKER: Yes. 

10 (Off mic comment.) 

11 MR. PARKER: Okay. 

12 MR. MILLURE: And do a one and a 

13 half day thing there. 

14 MR. PARKER: Okay. Is anybody -- 

15 so, why don't we hold off then? That's a good 

16 point, and see if APPA is available. 

17 The first week in December would 

18 be ideal. Right? 

19 MR. ANDERSON: Well, December is 

20 Thursday. My question is how about the week 

 th

21 of November 28 ? We'll find out from Mike 

22 whether or not -- 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 195

1 MR. PARKER: Right after 

2 Thanksgiving? 

3 MR. ANDERSON: Right, right after 

4 Thanksgiving. I know they've got a conflict 

 th

5 the week of December 5 . 

6 MR. PARKER: Okay. 

7 MR. ANDERSON: So, I'm saying, let 

8 me see if we can find out about availability 

 th

9 the week of November 28 . 

10 MR. PARKER: Okay. 

11 MR. SAINT: All right. So, you're 

 th st

12 talking about November 30 , December 1 , and 

 nd

13 December 2 . Right? 

14 MR. PARKER: Yes. 

15 MR. ECKMAN: For those of us who 

16 are traveling, midweek would be better because 

17 right after Thanksgiving, getting a plane 

18 coming back here on that Sunday won't be a 

19 good idea. 

 th

20 MR. ANDERSON: So, like the 29 --

 th

21 Tuesday the 29 through Friday the -- 

22 MR. ECKMAN: Well, I have to travel 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 196

1 on -- I've got a full day's travel to get 

2 here. 

3 MR. ANDERSON: So, you want 

4 Wednesday. 

5 MR. ECKMAN: Wednesday-Thursday is 

6 better than Monday-Tuesday. 

7 MR. ANDERSON: Right. 

 th

8 MR. PARKER:Okay. So, November 30 

9 through December -- Wednesday, that Wednesday 

 nd

10 through December 2 , is what we're checking? 

11 MR. ANDERSON: Yes. 

12 MR. PARKER: APPA. Okay. 

13 MR. SAINT: In don't think that's 

14 one of the dates that we were given, so I'll 

15 check with our -- 

16 MR. PARKER: Okay. Great. 

17 MR. SAINT: I'll check. 

18 MR. MILLURE: I'll just finalize 

19 December tomorrow. 

20 MR. PARKER: Okay. Finalize 

21 December tomorrow, absolutely. 

22 So, we are setting -- what we're 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 197

1 talking about is the 12 through the 14 of 

 th th th

2 October, 8 to the 10 of November, 8 to 

 th th

3 the 9 , November 30 to December 1, if APPA 

4 can host. Well, that would be for the low 

5 voltage. 

6 Can you still host for the low 

7 voltage? This is not -- well, the other thing 

8 is we could do the low voltage here. We can 

9 do low voltage at DOE, so let's keep that room 

10 here for low voltage as a stop gap. 

11 Okay. And then we are not doing 

 th th th

12 anything on the 14 to the 16 , or the 20 

 nd

13 through 22 . And we don't have to change the 

14 ground rules. Two, three, four. That means 

15 you're committing yourself to practically a 

16 word record pace for negotiated rulemaking. 

17 MR. GREESON: If we see that we're 

18 getting in a bind, is it possible to put a web 

19 conference -- would there be such thing as 

20 like a working session webinar to kind of iron 

21 out some details -- 

22 MR. PARKER: Well, that's -- I like 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 198

1 the idea of trying to set up some kind of a 

2 discussion forum, discussion board with 

3 different threads that people could just weigh 

4 in either in the form of a wiki or some kind 

5 of thing that we could keep some discussion 

6 going between meetings. 

7 There's no substitute for getting 

8 around a table, I mean, absolutely none, but 

9 it would be much better than -- particularly, 

10 if we're cutting the meetings down to do 

11 something like that. 

12 MR. SAINT: Right. If we start 

13 getting behind -- 

14 MR. PARKER: Yes. 

15 MR. SAINT: A couple of things 

16 we're concerned about -- 

17 MR. PARKER: Yes. 

18 MR. SAINT: -- just touch base 

19 with each other and see how it's going. 

20 MR. PARKER: Yes. I mean, I think 

21 at a minimum, does everybody have access to 

22 Gmail? Maybe we could set up a Google docs 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 199

1 things that would be a shared thing, which 

2 would be very, very low tech, or an email. 

3 (Off mic comment.) 

4 MR. PARKER: Oh, really. 

5 MR. ROSENSTOCK: This is Steve 

6 Rosenstock, EEI. Other organizations use GoTo 

7 Meeting, that seems -- a lot of people are 

8 using that to do the webinars, where the 

9 speaker, the moderator has the live session 

10 where they can play with a document and 

11 everybody else calls in. 

12 MR. PARKER: Right. 

13 MR. CYMBALSKY: We have that 

14 capability, actually. 

15 MR. PARKER: Great. Okay. 

16 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Using GoToMeeting, 

17 or some other software? 

18 MR. CYMBALSKY: Yes. 

19 MR. PARKER: Great, we can do that. 

20 Okay. 

21 (Off mic comment.) 

22 MR. PARKER: Nice idea. Nice idea. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 200

1 That'll allow us to economize on travel, 

2 economize on meeting time and so forth. I 

3 think this is great. 

4 Any dissent, any problems with 

5 this idea? 

6 MR. PETERSON: Is this saying that 

7 we'll be in a position to vote after three 

8 meetings? 

9 MR. PARKER: This is your group. 

10 This is the question. 

11 MR. PETERSON: Even though we've 

 th

12 got until the 16 , so I'm just wondering 

 th

13 should you tentatively schedule the 14 to 

 th

14 16 in case we get to that first and have an 

15 issue. I'm just stating, it seems an awfully 

16 fast pace to do in those -- 

17 MR. PARKER: Are you comfortable 

18 with that, Andrew? Schedule the -- reserve 

 th th

19 the room for the 14 to 16 if we need it, 

20 with the hope that we won't. 

21 MR. DeLASKI: Yes, I'm okay with 

22 that. I think part of what we'll have to 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 201

1 assess as we go forward this month, this is 

2 going to be a question at each meeting, is the 

3 next one worth doing. You know, we've got to 

4 make some progress, so it may be that we 

 st nd

5 decide to cancel the 1 and 2 . We may need 

6 more time between meetings is what I'm 

7 suggesting. In part, because I think we're 

8 going to be looking to the consultants to 

9 revise the analysis and do the scenarios, and 

10 it's not quick. So, I'm fine with you 

11 providing the space with the proviso that we 

12 might not use all the days. 

13 MR. CYMBALSKY: Well, we won't 

14 cancel any of the -- that are on the sheet of 

15 paper here at DOE. We will hold them. We 

16 don't have to commit to that amongst ourselves 

17 right now, but we'll hold them. 

18 MR. PARKER: I guess the question, 

19 should we hold the room at Pew -- I'm not sure 

20 we can -- I don't think we can reserve a room 

21 at Pew if we don't think we're going to use 

22 it. I guess that's the issue. But there wasn't 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 202

1 anything here on the 14 and 15 . There's 

 th nd

2 nothing here until the 20 to the 22 , so 

3 it's really -- I think let's just try to do it 

4 in four. 

5 MR. DeLASKI: Yes. And what I 

6 would add is kind of to the point that Bob is 

7 making, is that if you're 90 percent there 

8 after four, shuttle diplomacy is the way to 

9 get to the end usually anyway, so other 

10 mechanisms. It isn't like you stop talking 

11 when the meeting is over. Though, at that 

12 point, hopefully, if we're down to just a 

13 handful of issues, I think it's -- the folks 

14 who are the holdouts are the ones who need to 

15 figure out how to get the folks who are 

16 holding out to come on board, and that can 

17 happen through other venues. 

18 MR. PARKER: Well, those of us, we 

19 don't have to absolutely finalize this now. 

20 As I said when we started, I'd like to have a 

21 preliminary discussion. I think we've had a 

22 good discussion. I think perhaps what would 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 203

1 make the most sense now is for us to go ahead 

2 and get into substance, which we're all aching 

3 to do anyway. And work through the rest of 

4 this afternoon and tomorrow morning, and then 

5 see where we are. And I think we may have a 

6 better sense based on how things go in the 

7 next few hours or so, how things may look down 

8 the road. Maybe we can reassess this after 

9 lunch tomorrow before we adjourn. 

10 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock. 

11 I just want to be -- for all the out of 

12 towners, I just want to be fair, at least lock 

13 in the October meeting so people can book 

14 airfares and everything, just because airfares 

15 have been kind of rising recently. Be fair to 

16 that? 

17 MR. PARKER: Yes, absolutely. 

 th th

18 Let's say that the October 12 to 14 , 

 th th

19 November 8 to 10 are locked in. November 

 th nd

20 30 to 2 are locked in if APPA is available, 

21 and we'll find that out tonight. And the 

22 question is what do we do about December? 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 204

1 Okay, great. Now, let's get to 

2 what you're all here for, the analysis. I'd 

3 like to start off with Dan Cohen talking a 

4 little bit about the -- before we get into the 

5 numbers, into the charts, into the details, I 

6 thought you would talk about the legal 

7 framework. 

8 (Off mic comment.) 

9 MR. PARKER: Yes, we did vote. Is 

10 that it? 

11 MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay. I have 

12 handouts, as well. Okay. So, we thought it 

13 would be a good idea to just talk about some 

14 of the process in terms of selecting trial 

15 standard levels, what our thinking is when we 

16 do this. So, this basically just sets out 

17 some of the ground rules that we have here at 

18 the Department. Of course, we follow the 

19 statute. That pretty much guides us through 

20 this. 

21 I'm not going to read everything, 

22 but I think this is just something for 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 205

1 everyone to keep in their back pocket as we go 

2 through the analysis, and the negotiations. 

3 You're going to see the levels that are out 

4 there, and we're going to negotiate levels, et 

5 cetera, et cetera. So, I thought it would be a 

6 good idea just to hand this out and tell you 

7 how we actually decide on these levels. 

8 So, on the first slide should be a 

9 number one on the page. It's double-sided, so 

10 be careful. The purpose is just to develop a 

11 list of standard levels where we weigh the 

12 different impacts of each proposed standard 

13 level to select. Each one consists of a set 

14 of candidate standard levels covering all 

15 equipment classes, and may vary between 

16 equipment classes. So, one type of transformer 

17 with different kVAs could have different set 

18 of levels than the other, that kind of thing. 

19 The NOPR analysis assesses impacts 

20 for each of these. So, what method do we use? 

21 We usually start at the top with the most 

22 efficient, so we looked at -- in the 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 206

1 engineering, we try to develop what we would 

2 think is the top of the engineering curve. 

3 And we call that the max tech level. And then 

4 we come up with a few different options to 

5 sort of walk down to what would be sort of the 

6 lowest level where we are today; essentially, 

7 the baseline level. You could see there's 

8 different things we look at. I'm not going to 

9 read them all but -- so, that's how we get 

10 them. 

11 Go to the second page. Now, it's 

12 how we select the proposed standard level. 

13 So, this is what we call the walkdown method. 

14 So, we look at the entire list. And, again, 

15 we start at the top, and then we select the 

16 appropriate trial standard level from the list 

17 which will offer the maximum improvement in 

18 energy efficiency that is technologically 

19 feasible and economically justified. So, we 

20 start at the top, and when we get a positive 

21 number, we stop, we stop the walkdown. 

22 And then you could see all the 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 207

1 different things that are part of the statute 

2 that we look at, national energy savings and 

3 emission reductions, consumer impact. We look 

4 at manufacturing impact, other factors, 

5 including technology uncertainty, et cetera, 

6 et cetera. 

7 Again, if the benefits outweigh 

8 the burdens, we select the TSL. If they don't, 

9 again, we walk down, and we start at the max 

10 tech and work our way down, not the other way 

11 around. So, that's just a basic quick 

12 overview. And unless there's questions, we'll 

13 turn it over to Brian Coffey from Navigant to 

14 really get into the detailed engineering 

15 analysis. Steve? 

16 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, 

17 EEI. A quick question. The proposed standard 

18 levels, those are associated with the --

19 typically with the Notice of Proposed 

20 Rulemaking; correct? 

21 MR. CYMBALSKY: So, that's what 

22 we're going to do here. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 208

1 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Yes. The question 

2 I had is on the slide, there's nothing in here 

3 about incorporating information and 

4 suggestions from stakeholders. Why is that not 

5 in here? 

6 MR. CYMBALSKY: Right. So, I think 

7 during this process, that's where we can do 

8 new analyses as we go into this. I think as we 

9 -- the preliminary analysis, we had the public 

10 meeting, I assume you were here for that, so -

11 - 

12 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Right. And we 

13 provided input for the next -- 

14 MR. CYMBALSKY: Right. So, that's 

15 where Brian comes in, and he will -- yes. 

16 MR. COFFEY: Hello. Good 

17 afternoon, everybody. My name is Brian Coffey. 

18 I work for Navigant Consulting, who, in 

19 conjunction with Lawrence Berkeley National 

20 Laboratory, supports the Department of Energy 

21 in developing certain analyses for the 

22 rulemaking. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 209

1 I guess we need the presentation 

2 up, don't we? I can just go back and forth 

3 with this. Great. 

4 So, here on this slide you can see 

5 how these analyses relate to and inform each 

6 other. On the left, we have the market and 

7 technology assessment, which characterizes the 

8 market and explores the different technologies 

9 used to make more efficient transformers. 

10 Then we have the screening 

11 analysis, which evaluates those technologies 

12 on the basis of several criteria, including 

13 technological feasibility. And both of those 

14 inform the engineering analysis, which I'm 

15 going to discuss right now. 

16 Now, you've received an email that 

17 the results of the engineering analysis as 

18 they currently stand have been made available 

19 on the Department website. I assume that 

20 everyone here has had a chance to look at 

21 those. So, what I'm going to tell you is how 

22 we arrive at those, the methodology and 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 210

1 thinking behind those. 

2 (Off mic comment.) 

3 MR. COFFEY: That's right. Great, 

4 thank you. 

5 So, the purpose of the engineering 

6 analysis is to develop a relationship between 

7 the efficiency of distribution transformer and 

8 the manufacturer's selling price for that 

9 unit. 

10 DOE uses the design options 

11 discussed previously to characterize this 

12 relationship. The cost and efficiency outputs 

13 of the engineering analysis are then used 

14 downstream for the lifecycle cost and payback 

15 period analysis, as well as the national 

16 impacts analysis. 

17 So, this slide shows the key steps 

18 DOE uses in the engineering analysis. First, 

19 DOE subdivides the equipment class groupings 

20 into 14 design lines with similar design 

21 principles and then identifies a 

22 representative unit for analysis within each 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 211

1 design line. 

2 MR. PATTERSON: Brian, can we ask 

3 questions as you go through this? 

4 MR. COFFEY: Sure. 

5 MR. PATTERSON: So, one concern 

6 that I initially have was the selection of 

7 these representative design units, because 

8 when I look at at least the pad-mount market, 

9 it represented less than 2 percent of the 

10 market. And the pad-mount market is roughly 

11 half of the entire medium voltage liquid12 filled market. So, I don't understand how 

13 these representative design lines were 

14 selected. 

15 MR. COFFEY: Well, most -- I can 

16 tell you, obviously, resources mean that we 

17 can't analyze every possible transformer that 

18 anybody could ever build, so what DOE does is, 

19 tries to distill the general categories of 

20 transformers into certain units that are 

21 representative of the bunch. 

22 Now, how does it go about choosing 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 212

1 those? Well, often it chooses based on market 

2 share, and based on units that would share 

3 similar performance attributes. Most of these 

4 units that we have today were used in the 

5 previous rulemaking which concluded in 2007. 

6 Along the way, we've made slight modifications 

7 to those, and we've added one design line in 

8 the medium voltage dry-type space. 

9 MR. PATTERSON: But in the 2007 

10 analysis that was done, there was to my 

11 knowledge no cross-check on the legitimacy of 

12 the representative design lines, the ratings 

13 of the units that were used. So, since we 

14 have this committee now set up, I figured I'd 

15 go ahead and analyze what those units were. 

16 And, as I said, they're representing less than 

17 2 percent of the market. 

18 MR. COFFEY: Well, that's good 

19 feedback, and I think we do have an 

20 opportunity now to address any what you 

21 perceive to be deficiencies in terms of 

22 representative unit coverage. If everyone 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 213

1 agrees that more work needs to be done 

2 exploring a given area, I think we can talk 

3 about doing that. 

4 MR. PARKER: Can you give us a 

5 sense of how difficult it is for you to do 

6 that? Is it just a matter of pushing a button 

7 and putting in a different parameter, or does 

8 it require a lot of finagling and a lot of 

9 time? 

10 MR. COFFEY: It requires a little 

11 bit of finagling. Many of you know that we 

12 work with a company called Optimized Program 

13 Service based out of Ohio that does some 

14 simulation. I know some of your organizations 

15 also have done business with OPS, so we would 

16 need to specify parameters of the designs 

17 which we wish to generate, receive that data, 

18 process it, check it to make sure that we 

19 think it's free of errors and reasonable, and 

20 then begin compiling it to a report. It's 

21 certainly possible, but it couldn't happen 

22 overnight. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 214

1 MR. PATTERSON: We mixed an apple 

2 with an orange. OPS performs a calculation for 

3 a transformer rating, so with a given rating, 

4 then they will calculate many design options 

5 for that rating. My question was the rating 

6 itself. 

7 The fact that we chose a 14-4 

8 primary with a 208/120 secondary, right, at a 

9 particular kVA phase with a particular 

10 enclosure, to me this didn't represent the 

11 market. So, if we start at the rating itself, 

12 the transformer rating, we have difficulties 

13 with the data. 

14 MR. PARKER: Do you have data on 

15 what market share is accounted for by 

16 different design -- 

17 MR. PATTERSON: In, as a firm, 

18 represent about 20 percent of the pad-mount 

19 market, so I see a great deal of the business. 

20 I looked at roughly 40,000 units shipped 

21 between the first 12 months of the new DOE 

22 regulation, and then did an analysis of how 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 215

1 many of these units match those ratings. And 

2 this is where I come up with the 2 percent. 

3 That sets into my mind a big question mark. 

4 MR. RIVEST: This is Mike Rivest 

5 here. Mr. Patterson, I remember visiting your 

6 facility. I actually remember your pad7 mounts, too. It's pretty impressive. You 

8 know, this is -- I think the fact -- calling 

9 it representative is really not necessarily 

10 that it has to have those physical 

11 characteristics. The important thing is, are 

12 the results of the analysis that we obtain by 

13 looking at that transformer going to be 

14 scalable to other types of transformers, 

15 whether they be pull-mounts or of other kVA 

16 ratings. So, if you could help us understand 

17 why having those different voltage ratings, or 

18 the fact that it's a pad-mount, for example, 

19 if that's the problem, might result in a 

20 different answer, or might constrain the 

21 analysis differently. 

22 MR. PATTERSON: During the -- on 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 216

1 the lead up to the 2007 study that was done, 

2 there was a lot of discussion that related 

3 back to the BIL rating with dry-type 

4 transformers5 MR RIVEST: That I remember. 

6 MR. PATTERSON: And that's impact 

7 and influence of the selling price. Right? 

8 And it's the selling price versus the 

9 efficiency that's driving everything. 

10 And in the liquid-filled market, 

11 while the influence is not as big, it is still 

12 significant when you look at the difference 

13 between a 60 BIL transformer and a 150 BIL 

14 transformer. So, when we selected these 

15 ratings we didn't specify the BIL, which 

16 forces the BIL to default to the industry 

17 standard BIL rating. Okay? 

18 So, then this sets up a 

19 relationship of a certain market segment that 

20 we're trying to represent. So, we're saying 

21 that if we take this 150 BIL transformer, it 

22 represents the selling price of a 95 BIL 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 217

1 transformer, and it does not. 

2 MR. RIVEST: Could we -- so, I'm 

3 trying to save resources and time, because we 

4 don't have much of either. Is it possible to 

5 rather than get -- losing all the analysis we 

6 have of doing some select analysis at the 

7 different rating and see how we might scale 

8 our existing analysis to the new voltages? 

9 MR. PATTERSON: Could it be 

10 possible to come up with an engineering 

11 scaling factor to go from one BIL to the 

12 other, and the answer is yes. There is a 

13 relationship that can be ball parked, 

14 estimated. That can be done. And I am not 

15 suggesting that the analysis, the data that 

16 has been collected is garbage and start from 

17 scratch. 

18 MR. RIVEST: Okay, good. Thank 

19 you. 

20 MR. PATTERSON: We could definitely 

21 build on the data that's there. 

22 MR. RIVEST: Okay, great. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 218

1 MR. PATTERSON: But we have to 

2 recognize the deficiencies that are in the 

3 data, and make appropriate adjustments. 

4 MR. PARKER: Do you have 

5 adjustments that you would -- specific 

6 adjustments that you would propose? 

7 MR. PATTERSON: I haven't gotten as 

8 far as quantifying how much is there. My 

9 first challenge was to identify whether or not 

10 the data that we had represented the market. 

11 MR. PARKER: Okay. Steve? 

12 MR. RIVEST: So, when you say the 

13 data that you have, you're saying that the 

14 units that were analyzed were at a different, 

15 is it BIL rating than -- 

16 MR. PATTERSON: Actually, there was 

17 a whole lot of questions raised about the 

18 actual voltages. 

19 MR. RIVEST: The voltages. Okay. 

20 MR. PATTERSON: Right? But my 

21 design experience says that if I'm working 

22 within the same BIL class, whether or not I 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 219

1 change the voltages doesn't matter. 

2 MR. RIVEST: Okay. 

3 MR. PATTERSON: So, then when I 

4 look at your set of ratings and subset it at 

5 the BIL rate -- 

6 MR. RIVEST: I see. 

7 MR. PATTERSON: -- instead of only 

8 seeing 2 percent of the market, I now see 25 

9 percent of the market. 

10 MR. RIVEST: I understand. 

11 MR. PATTERSON: And that's a much 

12 better representation, but it's a concept 

13 change from the voltage of the BIL. 

14 MR. RIVEST: And this is something 

15 we simply didn't pick up. We missed it. 

16 MR. PATTERSON: Missed. 

17 MR. RIVEST: Years ago? Well, I 

18 mean, we've had multiple -- there have been 

19 multiple -- 

20 MR. PATTERSON: It was discussed 

21 years ago. 

22 MR. RIVEST: Right. And there have 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 220

1 been multiple reviews. So, as far as I know, 

2 this is the first time it comes up, because we 

3 would have reacted to this. 

4 MR. PATTERSON: We weren't asked. 

5 We're asked this time. 

6 MR. PARKER: Steve? 

7 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, 

8 EEI. In the April meeting, I have the slides, 

9 and there was a couple of slides on the 

10 scaling results. There was an issue about 

11 using the .5 scaling rule, and the issue of 

12 going outside of one standard deviation. The 

13 results don't really follow that scaling rule, 

14 so I guess I have to ask, since you only have 

15 the summary sheet, in this instant was the 

16 scaling rule changed based on all of the input 

17 that you received after the April meeting? And 

18 what was it changed to? 

19 MR. COFFEY: So, that's slightly 

20 different than the concern that Wes was 

21 raising. He was talking about scaling between 

22 BILs, this is across kVA ratings. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 221

1 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Right, it's about 

2 rating scale, yes. 

3 MR. COFFEY: The general approach 

4 is basically the same. We have added a 

5 representative unit. We've added a design 

6 line to address a -- what I'll call a bald 

7 patch in the medium voltage dry-type space. 

8 But that's -- in terms of adding design lines, 

9 that's all that we've done. 

10 MR. ROSENSTOCK: So, for the 

11 liquid-filled you still have the same scaling 

12 rule, even though there was a lot of input 

13 about how there's distortions outside of one 

14 standard deviation. 

15 MR. COFFEY: That's correct. 

16 MR. PARKER: Did your team address 

17 whether you can scale across different BILs? 

18 MR. COFFEY: Not in the liquid. We 

19 do do that in the medium voltage dry-type 

20 area, we set standards by BIL. 

21 MR. PARKER: And that's what you're 

22 proposing? 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 222

1 MR. PATTERSON: We're proposing 

2 that when we try to figure out the national 

3 impact based on the data that they have to 

4 work with, that we factor these dimensions in. 

5 We should recognize that you cannot take a 

6 150 BIL transformer price and assume that 

7 price is going to be directly the same price 

8 as a 60 BIL transformer. It's not going to 

9 happen. 

10 MR. PARKER: Do you have the data 

11 that would allow you to establish a 

12 relationship? It sounds like Wes is putting 

13 forward the notion that -- the hunch that 

14 there is a price BIL relationship that hasn't 

15 been factored in. And I guess the question 

16 is, does your data allow you to do a scaling 

17 factor based on that to calculate that, or 

18 would that be difficult? 

19 MR. COHEN: I would -- it's 

20 certainly something that we could look at. We 

21 may rely on input from manufacturers to help 

22 us develop that relationship to some extent, 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 223

1 but it's within the realm of possibility. 

2 MR. CORKRAN: I'm in 100 percent 

3 agreement with Wes, but I believe we need to 

4 take one step back on the basic approach. 

5 Utilities have been using total owning costs 

6 for about 30 years, and that evaluates the 

7 dollars per watt that it's worth to make a 

8 more efficient transformer. And the 

9 variations that Wes is talking about, whether 

10 it's a 150 BIL or a 30 BIL, are automatically 

11 taken into consideration on total owning cost. 

12 The present DOE standard comes out 

13 about $4 per watt, $1 for winding watt. We 

14 can either put in the efficiencies, or we can 

15 put in about $4/$1, and we get the 

16 efficiencies. And if the DOE finds watts are 

17 worth a certain amount, instead of $4/$1, if 

18 they decide it was worth $8 and $2, that would 

19 still be the 4 to 1 ratio which implies a 50 

20 percent load. And in doing that, the law 

21 would require that utilities and other 

22 transformer buyers purchase on total owning 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 224

1 cost. That's the end of story. 

2 We don't need 2,000 efficiencies 

3 or anything else. We need a rule that you 

4 have to buy according to total owning cost. 

5 And it automatically covers the difference in 

6 BILs, and difference in -- tomorrow the 

7 material costs are going to be different, but 

8 if we evaluate the watts, that saves the 

9 country the money for the efficiency, and it 

10 makes it a heck of a lot simpler because you 

11 guys are getting into engineering, and the 

12 engineering will change tomorrow, and your 

13 efficiencies are going to be locked in. So, 

14 it's a basic mistake of approach that the DOE 

15 is making. Should be applying at the total 

16 owning cost. 

17 MR. PARKER: I'm not sure that the 

18 DOE has the jurisdiction to mandate that 

19 utilities buy according to total owning cost. 

20 Right? I don't think that's within the 

21 jurisdiction of this committee, or even the 

22 DOE to determine. We set energy efficiency 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 225

1 standards for transformers. 

2 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, 

3 Edison Electric Institute. With all due 

4 respect, different utilities use different 

5 factors, and some utilities are not using 

6 total owning cost any more. As shown in some 

7 of the DOE analysis, different companies are 

8 using different criteria, and the DOE should 

9 adapt to all the criteria. 

10 We would be opposed to any sort of 

11 national mandate. There's no such national 

12 mandate for any other product under DOE 

13 purview. I don't know of any consumer who is 

14 forced to buy a refrigerator on total owning 

15 cost, or any commercial business that's forced 

16 to buy lighting products on total owning cost, 

17 so I don't think that really is part of the 

18 purview of this committee. Thank you. 

19 MR. PARKER: Well, I think it's one 

20 thing to recognize that they should if they're 

21 economically rational. But even if they 

22 should, it's not really -- we don't have the 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 226

1 authority to make them, so it's not really an 

2 issue that we have to -- 

3 MR. MILLURE: This is Dave Millure 

4 with Metglas. There are a couple of states 

5 and the District of Columbia that do actually 

6 have state laws on it, but not -- 

7 MR. PARKER: Right. If they choose 

8 to, they can, but it's not up to us. Are 

9 there others who share this concern about BILs 

10 being represented? Remember, taking Mike's 

11 point that it's not just a question of how 

12 much market share that they represent, but 

13 whether or not being a different BIL would 

14 actually change the analysis. 

15 MR. RIVEST: Just to follow-up on 

16 that -- Mike Rivest. So, if you look at the 

17 analysis, what really drives the results is 

18 the difference -- the incrementals. So, it's 

19 the incremental cost of going from one 

20 efficiency to the next higher up efficiency. 

21 So, as we look at the impact of BIL, two 

22 things to take into account is, does having a 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 227

1 different BIL change that incremental cost, 

2 and does it also create a barrier to 

3 efficiency? So, is it harder to increase 

4 efficiency, and also is it more -- is it 

5 limiting to increasing efficiency. So, those 

6 are the two things to look at doing that 

7 analysis. 

8 MR. PARKER: So, I think we have --

9 yes, Steve, did you want to add -- 

10 MR. ROSENSTOCK: I just want to say 

11 there is the other scaling issue across kVAs, 

12 as well. That credit was discussed. I got an 

13 answer from Brian, and it was not adjusted, 

14 but it was brought up in the April meeting. 

15 And many people expressed concerns about the 

16 scaling across kVA. 

17 MR. DeLASKI: I'm very impressed 

18 that you got a response to Mike's questions. 

19 Mike's questions I think are really helpful to 

20 help frame it for me, which is what's the 

21 impact on the increment. 

22 MR. PATTERSON: I've not done the 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 228

1 analysis, but I can -- 

2 MR. RIVEST: That wasn't really a 

3 question. That was just -- 

4 MR. ANDERSON: Well, to me it's a 

5 question. I'll pose it as a question. 

6 MR. PATTERSON: I can state this; 

7 that if I look at a 60 BIL transformer and I 

8 change its losses, I reduce its losses 10 

9 percent and come up with a new selling price, 

10 the ratio of the old price to the new price 

11 will be fundamentally different than if I look 

12 at a 150 BIL transformer, reduce its losses 10 

13 percent and come up with a new selling price. 

14 So, the ratio of the change in price for the 

15 same 10 percent change in loss will be greater 

16 on the higher BIL than the lower BIL. That's a 

17 fact. 

18 MR. RIVEST: Are you looking at 

19 ratio or just -- 

20 MR. PATTERSON: The ratio, that 

21 ratio of one price to the other price, the 

22 incremental change. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 229

1 MR. RIVEST: The ratios don't drive 

2 the analysis, it's the absolute dollars. It's 

3 like absolute dollars versus the absolute 

4 dollars of watts times hours of use. But, I 

5 mean, we can definitely look at that. I don't 

6 think we could answer right now. 

7 MR. PARKER: Let's put that as an 

8 issue that we need to discuss and come back 

9 to. Right now, this meeting is not to resolve 

10 the issue. This is to spot the issues. 

11 Right? So, I think we've done that in spades. 

12 Let's press on. 

13 MR. COFFEY: I think we left off at 

14 representative unit selection. So, once DOE 

15 has done that it identifies different design 

16 option combinations that characterize the 

17 range of possible efficiencies for each unit. 

18 Next, DOE developed cost inputs 

19 such as materials prices, mark ups and labor 

20 requirements for each design. DOE then used a 

21 software model to create hundreds of optimized 

22 designs for each design option combination 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 230

1 based on different A and B value combinations 

2 that I'll talk about in a few minutes, 

3 although we've already touched on them. 

4 And then these designs that are 

5 generated yield varying levels of efficiency 

6 so that DOE can develop efficiency levels or 

7 ELs, which are the former CSLs completely 

8 analogous, just new terminology when you get 

9 to the NOPR to identify specifically 

10 efficiency levels for the analysis. Those are 

11 the baseline for constructing TSLs. TSLs are 

12 just packages of these efficiency levels from 

13 each design line. 

14 MR. PATTERSON: Brian? 

15 MR. COFFEY: Sure. 

16 MR. PATTERSON: So, I understand we 

17 take component material prices and feed them 

18 into a calculation engine, and then through 

19 some optimization theories for A and B factor 

20 come up with an optimized unit, an optimized 

21 design. 

22 I also understand from many years 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 231

1 of working on developing such programs, 

2 there's a lot of assumptions go into the 

3 programs. Right? And I think we've done an 

4 excellent job from the DOE perspective with 

5 the amount of information they had available 

6 to them. 

7 But when I take the data, the 

8 output, the 40,000 designs that were in those 

9 there spreadsheets that were just released in 

10 August, and I overlay those designs on top of 

11 real data, then I see gaps. They don't line 

12 up. And then I have to question where is the 

13 error? Was the error in the material cost 

14 selection? Was the error in the algorithms of 

15 the optimization routine that you use, because 

16 it's not matching what is actually sold in the 

17 marketplace. It's not reflecting it, even on 

18 the specific BIL rating. It doesn't match 

19 selling prices. 

20 MR. COFFEY: I mean, there are two 

21 types of ways that it can't match. One is just 

22 that if you ask 10 different manufacturers to 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 232

1 simulate designs, you're going to get 10 

2 different ways of doing it. So, in that sense 

3 OPS is sort of like another manufacturer 

4 that's going to come out every time you ask 

5 them to do it with a slightly different 

6 answer. That's sort of random noise. 

7 The other source of error is a 

8 systematic error where there's some factor 

9 maybe that's not being considered, or 

10 considered in a different way than somebody 

11 else might be doing it. So, if we think that 

12 that might exist in any areas, I think this is 

13 a great opportunity to look at the assumptions 

14 and try to tease out where the discrepancies 

15 may lie. 

16 MR. ANDERSON: Excuse me. 

17 MR. PARKER: Go ahead. 

18 MR. ANDERSON: Wes, from a consumer 

19 standpoint, they'll go through the design 

20 optimization, they'll figure out the A and the 

21 B factors, and they'll use the best possible 

22 information they can. You've got to make 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 233

1 assumptions. So, recognizing that, what some 

2 people do is they'll say I'm going to throw in 

3 a 3 percent error for these assumptions. So, 

4 if I get a design from Howard, ABB, General 

5 Electric, I'll look at the total evaluated 

6 cost, and then I'll look at -- I'll apply a 3 

7 percent window. And if it's inside that 3 

8 percent window, I'll take the lowest first 

9 cost. So, that might be a little bit why it's 

10 not matching up. 

11 MR. PATTERSON: This is what we 

12 call the bandwidth of equivalence. And if I 

13 was referring to something that was in the 

14 bandwidth of equivalence, I wouldn't have even 

15 made the comment. I'm talking about 

16 significant differences, large differences 

17 that I cannot understand other than perhaps --

18 I did my analysis in the past month on pad19 mount transformers. They have designs which 

20 are figuring a construction of a pole-mount 

21 and applying that to the pad-mount. Okay? 

22 Their analysis basically on 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 234

1 liquid-filled assume that the whole market was 

2 just poles and pad, but we all know there's 

3 significant parts of this country that use 

4 things called network transformers. There's 

5 also a large segment of this market that's a 

6 substation transformer. Neither of these cost 

7 structures are reflected anywhere, and somehow 

8 there's a mechanism to apply a pole-mounted 

9 structure cost to a pad-mounted transformer. 

10 This introduces the errors. 

11 MR. RIVEST: So, that's true, and 

12 what we do -- when we go on interviews and 

13 when we get data, what we do is we try to 

14 normalize the data to eliminate the factors 

15 which like that would create large 

16 differences. And the first thing we do is we 

17 don't look at absolute costs because they're 

18 extremely misleading. 

19 Like you said, you can have one 

20 transformer that has the same electrical 

21 characteristics that might be 20,000, the 

22 other one might be 10,000. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 235

1 What we focus on is the 

2 incremental cost of going from 98 to 98.3 

3 percent efficient, because a lot of the 

4 features that you are talking about subtract 

5 out one from the other. And when we normalize 

6 that way to incremental cost, and I take 

7 Manufacturer A, B, C, D and then OPS and I 

8 just look at incremental cost of going from 

9 baseline to CSL 1, 2, and 3, when I've done 

10 that exercise, the data looks pretty good. 

11 And we've obtained -- 

12 MR. PATTERSON: It doesn't match 

13 what a manufacturer sees -- 

14 MR. RIVEST: Well, you're not going 

15 to see in the market what -- the way I do it. 

16 MR. PATTERSON: Well, we should. 

17 MR. RIVEST: I think -- we obtain a 

18 lot of data under confidentiality, so I'm not 

19 at liberty to show my numbers. But I would be 

20 happy to show my numbers to those who have 

21 provided the data. And if there's an occasion 

22 for a subset of people to do an engineering 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 236

1 review starting with those who provided the 

2 data, I'd be happy to do that and show that 

3 the information we have corroborates the 

4 designs that we have. 

5 MR. PATTERSON: So, let me make 

6 sure I understand. What you're saying is you 

7 have somewhere in your collection of data 

8 something that says that when I lower the 

9 losses of a substation transformer by 10 

10 percent, that relationship can be modeled by 

11 the same loss lowering in a pole-mount 

12 transformer. 

13 MR. RIVEST: That's not what I 

14 said. What I said is when I've obtained data 

15 from manufacturers that provided the cost of 

16 manufacturing transformers at various 

17 efficiencies on the representative units that 

18 we did the analysis on, and when I did two 

19 things, I looked at incremental costs, and I 

20 had sufficient design information, such as 

21 pounds of steel, pounds of copper, type of 

22 steel that I could common size, meaning apply 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 237

1 the same price to Manufacturer A, Manufacturer 

2 B, and OPS so that I'm comparing apples to 

3 apples. The data looks okay. 

4 MR. PARKER: So, here's what I 

5 think we should -- 

6 MR. PATTERSON: The data may look 

7 okay on the product segment that you've looked 

8 at. 

9 MR. RIVEST: Well, that's the 

10 framework of analysis. 

11 MR. PATTERSON: But when you try to 

12 extend that product framework, that product 

13 segment across the marketplace it doesn't seem 

14 to make sense. 

15 MR. PARKER: So, here's what we 

16 need to do, we need to keep this on track but 

17 I don't want to lose this thought. So, a 

18 couple of questions. First, did you document 

19 these concerns in any previous written comment 

20 either as part of the prior rulemaking or is 

21 this the first time this concern has been 

22 raised? 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 238

1 The only reason I'm questioning --

2 I'm asking is that if you have it, we can 

3 just refer people to it and they can read it, 

4 and everybody can have a better sense of what 

5 the issues are. If you have it, maybe you 

6 could supply it in writing for people to look 

7 at. Could you use the microphone. Sorry? 

8 MR. PATTERSON: I don't recollect 

9 back in 2007 whether I -- I know I brought up 

10 the issue of the BILs. I did not bring up the 

11 issue of the various product segments not 

12 being represented. 

13 MR. PARKER: What about in April of 

14 -- 

15 MR. PATTERSON: April? 

16 MR. PARKER: At the April public 

17 meeting or anything like that, comments prior 

18 to that? 

19 MR. PATTERSON: No. I brought up 

20 the scaling issue. 

21 MR. PARKER: Right. 

22 MR. PATTERSON: But they've 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 239

1 addressed the scaling issue. 

2 MR. PARKER: Okay. So, I guess the 

3 question would be -- and this is part of the -

4 - this gets into sort of the informal ground 

5 rules for this group. And I think one of the 

6 things that we have to really focus on is 

7 supply arguments, supplying data wherever we 

8 can to corroborate our own assertions and 

9 concerns. So, you've articulated very strong, 

10 very serious concern. It would be helpful if 

11 you could give us a document, give us 

12 something that lays out the specific nature of 

13 your concern in writing and the evidence to 

14 substantiate it, and then people could just 

15 take a look at it and see if others concur 

16 that this needs to be addressed in data. 

17 MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest, just on 

18 nomenclature here. So, there are product 

19 classes, and then we have representative units 

20 within those product classes. It sounds like 

21 there might be a bit of both here. There are 

22 products that -- we have correctly identified 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 240

1 the product class, but the representative unit 

2 might not be representative of its class. And 

3 you're saying there might be some product 

4 classes that have been lumped inappropriately 

5 with others. So, there's how many product 

6 classes, 14? 

7 MR. COFFEY: Fourteen design lines. 

8 MR. RIVEST: Fourteen design lines. 

9 MR. COFFEY: Ten equipment classes. 

10 MR. RIVEST: Ten equipment classes. 

11 MR. PATTERSON: But those ten 

12 equipment classes are scattered over medium 

13 voltage liquid, medium voltage dry, and low 

14 voltage dry. 

15 MR. COFFEY: That's right. 

16 MR. RIVEST: Right. I mean, this 

17 is the basic framework. 

18 MR. PATTERSON: When we look at the 

19 losses in the grid, by and large it's 

20 dominated by this liquid filled market. Okay? 

21 And when we look at this market, my challenge 

22 -- my discussion has to do with trying to take 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 241

1 the representative units that we've identified 

2 and saying how does that reflect that market? 

3 Does it represent the market? And the data I 

4 have says it does not represent the market. 

5 That was item one. But your point was whether 

6 it represents the real market or not is 

7 immaterial provided it shows the relative 

8 movement of price with efficiency. 

9 MR. RIVEST: Correct. 

10 MR. PATTERSON: That's what I 

11 understood you said. 

12 MR. RIVEST: Correct. 

13 MR. PATTERSON: Okay? And when I 

14 look at the relative movement which 

15 essentially would be the change in the slope 

16 of the curves relative to -- 

17 MR. RIVEST: Not the slope, the 

18 dollars. 

19 MR. PATTERSON: Relative to the 

20 efficiency versus the price, if I look at 

21 efficiency versus price and say okay, does the 

22 slope change the same, I find it does not, not 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 242

1 as far as what I see in the marketplace. And 

2 what I see in the marketplace is 20 percent of 

3 the true market. 

4 The data that I have is a 20 

5 percent slice of the entire U.S. market, so 

6 that's why I have difficulty. And I will 

7 provide the data so you guys can look at it 

8 and see it. 

9 MR. RIVEST: Right. So, the 

10 engineering analysis, as you see, is focused 

11 on those representative units. And then the 

12 standard is an equation that smooths out 

13 transitions between those design lines. And 

14 there's opportunity in this group to do that. 

15 But we can't analyze every kVA rating around 

16 2,000 designs. 

17 MR. PARKER: Okay. So, somebody --

18 so, I guess the question is if you wanted to 

19 supply data that has -- that suggests a 

20 different representative unit -- 

21 MR. RIVEST: Again, I would suggest 

22 that. I would suggest -- 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 243

1 MR. PATTERSON: We don't have 

2 within the time frame that we have to work, we 

3 don't have the capability to run a bunch of 

4 whole new calculations and start the whole 

5 thing over. So, what we have to do is 

6 recognize what we do have and then try to 

7 leverage the information that we have. 

8 MR. RIVEST: Correct. Yes. So, if 

9 there is an engineering principle that allows 

10 us to say: that slope is different, that's 

11 what we want. 

12 MR. PATTERSON: Right. And this --

13 I will try to work with the folks to try to 

14 come up with something that we can do. 

15 MR. PARKER: Great. Okay. 

16 MR. PATTERSON: To build on it, but 

17 I'd like to recognize the deficiencies that 

18 exist. 

19 MR. PARKER: Okay. Could I ask the 

20 other engineers around the table, do other 

21 people concur with this concern that he just 

22 brought up? Steve, did you want -- 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 244

1 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock 

2 EEI. I guess one thing is -- I'm following up 

3 on Mike is, yes, there are five design lines. 

4 Basically, we're looking at setting 27 

5 standards. There's 27 products shown right 

6 there. And what we're trying to do, again, 

7 we're trying to -- because of resources and 

8 everything, but the issue is, as Wes was 

9 saying, is that look, there could be some very 

10 unique things for each product line that could 

11 have a significant impact on the cost curves, 

12 on efficiency curves, and on --eventually on 

13 the life cycle cost analysis and efficiency 

14 level. And, yes, I understand why we're doing 

15 this, to really try to help streamline the 

16 analysis, but the problem comes in is that if 

17 there are issues with any specific class 

18 because of economies of scale, or because of 

19 any sort of new supply issues, is we basically 

20 have to look at every line as a separate 

21 entity because we're doing standards for every 

22 separate line. So, I don't know if it is 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 245

1 possible. I mean, I know there's 33 classes 

2 of residential refrigerators that have 

3 standards. It's a very large number, and with 

4 commercial refrigerators you did standards for 

5 25. And I think at some point analysis was 

6 done for each design line, basically, of 

7 refrigerators, as I recall. No? There's 

8 still substitution? How many were done with -

9 - 

10 MR. RIVEST: I would have to do it 

11 for every volume. 

12 MR. ROSENSTOCK: But for 

13 refrigerators, how many refrigerator -- 

14 MR. RIVEST: We did top mounts, 

15 bottom mounts, side-by-sides, but we didn't do 

16 every cubic foot. 

17 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Right, I know 

18 that, but you broke out cubic -- 

19 MR. RIVEST: That was scale. 

20 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Scale, all right. 

21 MR. RIVEST: Heat pumps, goes from 

22 one and a half ton to five in model 3. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 246

1 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Right, I know. 

2 MR. RIVEST: What happens is the 

3 representative unit is picked in the middle of 

4 the range -- 

5 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Right. 

6 MR. RIVEST: -- for a reason. 

7 It's because typically the engineering doesn't 

8 scale perfectly, but where one end gets 

9 slightly disadvantaged, the other end gets 

10 slightly advantaged. Right? 

11 MR. PARKER: So, it represents the 

12 middle. 

13 MR. GAYTAN: I would like to follow 

14 on on Wes' point, because I think he had more 

15 points to make with his data, at least I hope 

16 he did. And that is, if you just take 

17 Equipment Class Group 1 up there, he's doing a 

18 rectangular tank unit and a round tank unit. 

19 And on a simpler scale, the round tank unit 

20 doesn't scale to the rectangular unit, and the 

21 rectangular unit doesn't scale to the round 

22 unit; yet, we're using those two units to do 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 247

1 all the efficiencies across that range. We 

2 have a scaling factor we use, the .75 per kVA 

3 and you can't get the 25 kVA to a 50, and you 

4 can't get the 50 kVA to a 25 even on that 

5 methodology. And the reason is because it's a 

6 little bit apples and oranges. 

7 Now, I kind of hate to bring this 

8 up because that implies that we ought to have 

9 a different -- another class of efficiency, 

10 one for round tanks, another one for 

11 rectangular tanks. That would be a -- 

12 MR. PATTERSON: If I may, I have 

13 also had heartburn with round and rectangular. 

14 MR. GAYTAN: Right. 

15 MR. PATTERSON: Because, in 

16 essence, what we're talking about is the round 

17 is a pole-mount transformer. Okay? 

18 MR. GAYTAN: And the rectangular is 

19 a pad. 

20 MR. PATTERSON: It's not a round 

21 tank that sits on the floor. It is a specific 

22 product, hangs on a wooden pole where the 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 248

1 utilities have all kinds of issues with the 

2 pole size as I raise the efficiency. The 

3 rectangular unit that they're referring to is 

4 thought of as a pad-mount, but there are other 

5 rectangulars which are not scoped and scaled 

6 the same. 

7 That rectangular slice that they 

8 have there was conceptually a representation 

9 of the pad mount, and the round was a pole 

10 mount, but we missed two other major market 

11 segments. 

12 MR. PARKER: Okay. So, what I'm 

13 hearing is basically that there may be market 

14 segments that are not represented by their 

15 analysis because of the choice of 

16 representative unit, that are unrepresentative 

17 and significant both in the sense that they 

18 reflect a large segment of the market, and 

19 that they have a different relationship 

20 between price and efficiency than the other 

21 units have. You would get a biased answer. Is 

22 that right? 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 249

1 MR. PATTERSON: If I may, on the 

2 rectangular, just to give you an example. 

3 Right? A major market segment for urban areas 

4 in the U.S. is network transformers. Network 

5 transformers are stuck in a concrete vault. 

6 Okay? The pad-mount sits on a slab, nothing 

7 constraining its dimensions. Okay? 

8 MR. PARKER: Okay. 

9 MR. PATTERSON: So, if we raise the 

10 efficiency level, improve the efficiency 

11 level, which we may well be able to do for the 

12 pad-mount transformer because it's not 

13 constrained as much by physical size, we 

14 cannot apply that standard to the network -- 

15 MR. PARKER: So, you're saying 

16 there should be subcategories within the 

17 rectangular. 

18 MR. PATTERSON: Or we take and set 

19 an efficiency standard to the lowest common 

20 denominator which would end up being the 

21 network transformer. 

22 MR. PARKER: Okay. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 250

1 MR. PATTERSON: We can make it low 

2 so it will work with New York City. 

3 MR. PARKER: So, our task today is 

4 to identify -- thank you. Our task today is 

5 to identify issues, not to resolve them. But 

6 also to identify data needs that we need. So, 

7 what we need going forward then is, as a 

8 generic matter, anybody who feels that these 

9 design lines are too inclusive, too 

10 encompassing, which is I think what was Wes is 

11 saying in some cases, please specify those 

12 things in writing to the group. Indicate in 

13 what ways they are not representative, 

14 indicate the data that support that the best 

15 you can as if you're providing a written 

16 comment. Get it to me, and I will circulate 

17 it to the group as soon as possible so that we 

18 can take this up at the next meeting. This is 

19 clearly on the table as an issue. A member 

20 has raised it. We'll deal with it. 

21 I don't want to spend a lot of 

22 time trying to resolve an issue, that's not 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 251

1 our function today. It's clearly an issue, 

2 and we'll work on it. But, in general, the 

3 way to deal with issues then is to first 

4 document them in writing so that everybody has 

5 a very clear sense of what the issue is. And 

6 then based upon that, I think at that point is 

7 to ask Navigant -- it's fair to ask Navigant 

8 to come back and say okay, this is an issue, 

9 it isn't an issue, we don't agree. And, also, 

10 if it is an issue, is it feasible within the 

11 data that we have without going out to do a 

12 whole other set of manufacturing interviews. 

13 We're constrained really by the 

14 data that we have with the time frame that we 

15 have. Is it feasible to plug this into the 

16 computer model as a parameter and come up with 

17 a different outcome? Is that a reasonable way 

18 to proceed? 

19 MR. COHEN: I just want to point 

20 out, within the statute we can set up 

21 different product classes, but just -- I want 

22 to just make sure people understand what the 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 252

1 basis is for doing that. 

2 So, the Secretary has to determine 

3 that within the group different -- can set 

4 different product classes if consume a 

5 different kind of energy from that consumed by 

6 other covered products within such type or 

7 class do not have -- not only that, that's not 

8 -- or have a capacity or other performance9 related feature which other products within 

10 such type or class do not have and such 

11 feature justifies a higher or lower standard 

12 from that which applies, or will apply to 

13 other products within such type or class --so, 

14 capacity or other performance-related 

15 features. 

16 MR. PATTERSON: Yes, but a 

17 performance-related feature is whether or not 

18 it's installed in a vault in the ground or 

19 hanging off a wooden pole -- 

20 MR. PARKER: Sure. That gives you 

21 enough flexibility to set up a new product 

22 class, if it's justified. But the presumption 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 253

1 -- 

2 (Off mic comment.) 

3 MR. PARKER: Right. Thank you for 

4 keeping us honest on the law, really. Okay. 

5 So, please -- generic invitation challenge we 

6 have -- this is an issue, the representative -

7 - these representative units. Remember the 

8 two criteria that I think have been put 

9 forward that are helpful are market 

10 significance and bias results from choosing a 

11 different unit. Is that acceptable to you, 

12 Brian? Does that get us a path forward? 

13 MR. COFFEY: I think that's 

14 fair. You know, I skipped ahead to this slide 

15 right here that shows the relative positions 

16 of the design lines, equipment class groupings 

17 and representative units, and I think through 

18 our discussion that we kind of just had we 

19 explained how those all fit together. I'll go 

20 over it quickly here. 

21 These are only the liquid immersed 

22 units, a similar table could be constructed, 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 254

1 and has been constructed for the medium and 

2 low voltage dry-type units. You can see that 

3 we've got two blocks. We've got equipment 

4 class group 1, equipment class group 2. The 

5 equipment classes are collections of 

6 transformer designs that will ultimately be on 

7 the same standard trajectory. In other words, 

8 a standard is taken and scaled to touch on all 

9 the transformers within that equipment class. 

10 The points for scaling come from 

11 the cost efficiency data developed for each 

12 representative unit within a design line. So, 

13 you can see -- I can use as an example 

14 Equipment Class 1 here. Going down, we are 

15 increasing in kVA. At the low kVAs, 10 to 

16 167, we've got design lines 1 and 2. 

17 This is a little bit unique in 

18 that we'd have two design lines covering the 

19 same space. Again, the thought here is that 

20 we wanted to look at the round and rectangular 

21 tank units separately. Once we get into 250 

22 kVA, we've only got one design line now with 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 255

1 the rep unit at 500 kVA. So, collectively, 

2 those three representative units will give the 

3 cost of efficiency data that's ultimately used 

4 to scale standards to all the units covered 

5 under Equipment Class Group 1. Does that makes 

6 sense? 

7 MR. CASKEY: Can I ask you, you had 

8 a graph up there just a minute ago that 

9 actually showed the process that you went 

10 through. Right there. Okay. So, I've got a 

11 question concerning the fourth bullet, "Use 

12 Optimized Program Services software to model 

13 optimized design base" -- blah, blah, blah. 

14 So, I do have -- I didn't bring all my file 

15 with me, but I do have a letter from Phil 

16 Hopkinson for the Department of Energy 

17 actually identifying what were systematic 

18 errors, not just sort of random errors, but 

19 seem to be consistent errors in the model 

20 itself. And were those sort of errors or 

21 discrepancies ever adjusted between when there 

22 were some model runs that were done back in 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 256

1 the March-April time frame to what was 

2 actually just recently released in August? 

3 MR. COFFEY: Yes, there were. One 

4 of them that comes to mind is correcting the 

5 oil volumes in the three-phase liquid immersed 

6 units. We're certainly always looking at the 

7 data and trying to make sure that it's 

8 consistent with reality. 

9 And we've also gotten the chance 

10 to look, as Mike said earlier, at some 

11 manufacturer design data for the cost for the 

12 efficiency ranges that were relevant, we found 

13 that the OPS data was firmly in the middle of 

14 the range. In often cases, it would have been 

15 the median, so we took that as at least a 

16 first step in validating that OPS results are 

17 somewhat grounded in reality. 

18 But as we mentioned before, if 

19 somebody has market data that suggests that 

20 there could be a systematic difference with 

21 the way that OPS is modeling, we're always 

22 eager to see that. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 257

1 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Can I ask a 

2 follow-up question real quick? 

3 MR. PARKER: Go ahead. 

4 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steven Rosenstock, 

5 EEI. In terms of the optimized program it says 

6 several hundred A and B values. Was the 

7 program adjusted for the percentage of 

8 utilities that do not use A and B values? 

9 MR. COFFEY: So, that would come 

10 into play in the life cycle cost analysis. All 

11 this is doing is -- 

12 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Okay. 

13 MR. COFFEY: -- attempting to 

14 canvas the whole possibility that a utility 

15 could purchase that. 

16 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Including zero for 

17 both values. 

18 MR. COFFEY: Including zero, 

19 although now the lowest would be at the 

20 current standard now, not zero zero. 

21 MR. ROSENSTOCK: I meant just in 

22 terms of the -- 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 258

1 MR. COFFEY: Non-evaluator, sure. 

2 MR. GREESON: A question. Robert 

3 Greeson, Federal Pacific. It's my 

4 understanding from the last meeting that those 

5 A and B factors that OPS uses are solely 

6 parameters they use to essentially manipulate 

7 their optimized program to pick higher or 

8 lower efficiency levels. And that the A and B 

9 factors you're talking about having to do with 

10 loss evaluations, are we talking about two 

11 different A and B factors here? Because if 

12 we're not talking about A and B factors that 

13 they used to loss evaluate transformers, I 

14 think -- aren't those A and B factors the ones 

15 that OPS used to simulate their -- just for 

16 their modeling? 

17 In other words, they would tell 

18 this program, any A and B factor, just to get 

19 the efficiencies to do what they wanted them 

20 to do. That was my understanding. 

21 MR. COFFEY: That's right. So, we 

22 -- 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 259

1 MR. GREESON: Okay. 

2 MR. COFFEY: -- create a cloud of 

3 points, which is what was posted on the 

4 website and which I think many of you have 

5 already seen. And those -- each point 

6 corresponds to a specific A and B value. 

7 Now, the way that it's presented 

8 is with efficiency as measured at 50 percent 

9 load, so there will be a boundary of the curve 

10 with designs that have a 4 to 1, A to B ratio 

11 for the liquid immersed and medium voltage 

12 dry-type that are at the boundary of the 

13 curve. 

14 Not all customers have a 4 to 1, A 

15 to B ratio; not all utilities see that, so 

16 those utilities would come to a manufacturer 

17 and say hey, my A to B is 5 to 1 or 3 to 1, 

18 and they would end up purchasing a design that 

19 doesn't lie on the boundary of the curve as it 

20 is presented. Am I answering your question? 

21 MR. SAMPAT: I have a question, may 

22 I? 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 260

1 MR. PARKER: Yes. Go ahead, 

2 please. 

3 MR. SAMPAT: There is new data now 

4 compared to what was released in April. Would 

5 you help us understand what changed from April 

6 to now as far as engineering data? One thing 

7 you mentioned was there was some calculation 

8 error. Is that the only thing, or was it 

9 something more than just one calculation error 

10 that made you release more data? 

11 MR. COFFEY: Certainly. So, one 

12 thing is that materials prices are always 

13 changing, and so every time we go through 

14 another round of analysis we try to use the 

15 latest material price information that we have 

16 available to us. So, that's a big reason for 

17 the changes. 

18 MR. SAMPAT: Excuse me. The 

19 analysis you have released is for 2008 price, 

20 2010 price which is history. They don't 

21 change -- they didn't change, or did I miss 

22 something? 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 261

1 MR. COFFEY: No. So, the latest 

2 prices that we've used are 2010 prices. So, 

3 the way that we'll gather information is by 

4 going around and interviewing different 

5 manufacturers and asking what they pay for 

6 their various materials. We'll then take that 

7 and aggregate that, so the most recent prices 

8 we could get would be whatever the 

9 manufacturers told us. There could be a delay 

10 there. 

11 Then we have to process those, and 

12 then feed them to OPS to generate designs. 

13 Then once we get those designs, they have to 

14 be passed into the downstream analyses, so 

15 there's always a little bit of a lag in 

16 between when we're able to gather the material 

17 price data and when we publish it online. So, 

18 for instance when -- once it turns over to 

19 January 2012, we're not going to have 2012 

20 prices available right away. 

21 MR. SAMPAT: No, I understand that, 

22 but I think the April data had same analysis, 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 262

1 the price of 2006, 2008, and 2010. New sets 

2 of data has same analysis, price of 2006, 

3 2008, and 2010. So, the material price should 

4 not have been different between April analysis 

5 and now, because that's history. 

6 MR. COFFEY: The 2008 and 2006 are 

7 sensitivity cases that we run -- 

8 MR. SAMPAT: Right. 

9 MR. COFFEY: -- for high and lows. 

10 We used for this run the most recent data 

11 that we had available, which was gathered in 

12 2010. 

13 MR. SAMPAT: Okay. 

14 MR. PARKER: Are those the only 

15 differences between the April analysis and 

16 this, or there are other significant 

17 differences? 

18 MR. COFFEY: There are some other 

19 minor differences. For instance, the way that 

20 we modeled the amorphous cores initially 

21 assumed that amorphous ribbon was available in 

22 infinitely many strip widths. Since it's not, 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 263

1 we are constrained to using the widths that 

2 are available, and that has the effect of 

3 slightly lowering the cost efficiency 

4 proposition of amorphous designs. That's 

5 another change that was made. But by and 

6 large it's pretty similar to what was released 

7 in April with new materials prices. 

8 There were some additional 

9 hardware costs that commentators had noted for 

10 large medium voltage dry-type designs that 

11 were included, again, a fairly minor tweak. 

12 MR. HODGE: Gerry Hodge from Howard 

13 Industry. With regard to this oil error that 

14 you mentioned with the OPS, how long has that 

15 been going on? Was that error in effect when 

16 we made the rules back in 2007, or is this 

17 just something -- a short-term error? 

18 MR. COFFEY: No, this is a short19 term thing that we picked up on once we got 

20 data from manufacturers that seemed to be 

21 systematically different, so we alerted them 

22 and they spotted the error and fixed it. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 264

1 MR. HODGE: But when you ran the 

2 three-phase, did you just consider them all 

3 pad-mounted transformers, or as Wes pointed 

4 out, did you look at subways and other styles 

5 of transformers? Or did you really just use 

6 -- simulate a pole type and consider that as a 

7 three-phase pad? What did OPS do? 

8 MR. COFFEY: So, I would refer to 

9 this diagram again. The only place in which we 

10 look at the rectangular and the cylindrical 

11 transformers are for the low kVA single-phase 

12 units. Outside of that, there's only one 

13 representative unit for a given space. So, you 

14 can see on the right, this is the three-phase 

15 coverage. 

16 MR. PARKER: So, would that be a 

17 pad-mount? 

18 MR. HODGE: So, quite a bit of 

19 error? 

20 MR. PATTERSON: Design line 3 was a 

21 round tank, which means a pole-mount. So, 

22 design line 2 and design line 3 were poles, 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 265

1 and design line 1 was a pad. And design lines 

2 4 and 5 were both pads in the OPS calculation. 

3 MR. PARKER: So, is there a 

4 problem? 

5 MR. HODGE: I'm just concerned 

6 about design line 4 and 5 mainly for the most 

7 part. That's pad-mounts. 

8 MR. PATTERSON: Those are pads 

9 being used to represent poles. 

10 MR. HODGE: Pardon me? 

11 MR. PATTERSON: Being used to 

12 represent poles. 

13 MR. HODGE: Yes, that's what I'm 

14 wondering, what's going on here, and how much 

15 inaccuracies do you have? That concerns us. 

16 MR. COFFEY: Sure. And I think like 

17 we said before, if there's any data that you 

18 can submit that characterizes this difference 

19 in incremental efficiencies, again, the 

20 absolute efficiencies don't have a strong 

21 bearing on the final economic results. It's 

22 more if the increments are dramatically 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 266

1 different, and you have any data that can 

2 support that, we would be interested in seeing 

3 it. 

4 MR. PARKER: Do you have data that 

5 distinguishes between the different kinds of 

6 pad-mounts within DL 4 and 5? 

7 MR. COFFEY: For DL 4 and 5, again, 

8 when we choose a representative unit, we try 

9 to choose the thing that's most general. And 

10 inevitably, that's not going to be a perfect 

11 analog for every possible thing that you could 

12 build. So, we only have data for the 

13 representative units that are pictured on this 

14 graph. We don't have pole and pad for every 

15 single kVA rating. The only place that we do 

16 that is in this low kVA single-phase phase. 

17 MR. MILLURE: This is Dave Millure, 

18 Metglas. You mentioned you changed the 

19 material prices in the latest analysis. Is 

20 that what you said? I confess I didn't read or 

21 study that entire spreadsheet. Are those 

22 materials -- new material prices you used 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 267

1 published in that spreadsheet somewhere? 

2 MR. PATTERSON: No. No, they 

3 weren't published yet. 

4 MR. MILLURE: So, can't we see the 

5 new material prices assumed? 

6 MR. COFFEY: Yes, we can publish 

7 those. 

8 MR. PARKER: These are new material 

9 -- I'm not getting something now. These are 

10 new material prices -- these are new quotes of 

11 material prices for 2010, or are these just 

12 2010 dollars that you're expressing current 

13 prices in? 

14 MR. PATTERSON: If I might, as a 

15 point of clarification. We're talking about 

16 cost drivers from optimization program. So, 

17 in order to come up with a universe of designs 

18 they came up with this spectrum of A/B 

19 factors. And they said we will run an 

20 optimized lowest cost design, lowest total 

21 owning cost for an A/B combination. But behind 

22 that is material cost per commodity, so they 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 268

1 have so many dollars per pound for copper that 

2 they assume. So, when we look at 2006, the 

3 dollar per pound of copper was X. We looked 

4 at 2008, it was Y. They adjusted them for 

5 their best knowledge for 2010 prices, and then 

6 re-ran the 40,000 designs. 

7 MR. PARKER: Right. 

8 MR. PATTERSON: This is what I 

9 understood took place. 

10 MR. PARKER: But you had already 

11 done that in April, as well. Right? 

12 MR. COFFEY: That's right. Any 

13 time we run an analysis, we use the latest 

14 materials prices that we have available to us. 

15 MR. PATTERSON: And if I may, in 

16 your March publication, the pre-analysis, you 

17 had one of these TSDs that had a section in it 

18 with the material prices. 

19 MR. COFFEY: That's right. 

20 MR. PATTERSON: But the August 

21 release was just the spreadsheets. It was not 

22 a complete set of TSDs. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 269

1 MR. COFFEY: That's right. 

2 MR. PATTERSON: So, they have them 

3 somewhere. They just didn't send them out. 

4 MR. COFFEY: A TSD would normally 

5 accompany the publication of a NOPR, so we 

6 haven't published a NOPR yet, so we haven't 

7 published the TSD yet. Now, a lot of the 

8 information that would be contained in a TSD 

9 would be important for this committee to come 

10 to a conclusion. So, we'll make that 

11 available, as needed. 

12 I will add, while we always run 

13 our analysis using the latest materials prices 

14 that we have available, we did through a 

15 series of manufacturer interviews, several 

16 faces in the room I see that participated, we 

17 got some more input on 2011 materials prices. 

18 Those weren't available at the time that we 

19 ran the analysis that was reflected in the 

20 August release of data. Those will be 

21 reflected, if any future tables of materials 

22 prices that DOE were to release. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 270

1 MR. PARKER: Okay. Yes? 

2 MR. SIMMONS: This is Chuck 

3 Simmons, Progress Energy. Is it possible that 

4 we could ask for the material process 

5 associated with each set of design runs so 

6 that we, as a committee, could see what the 

7 changes are or have been? You know, I'd like 

8 to get some type of validation, that at least 

9 we know, I mean, are we close, or are we -- 

10 MR. COFFEY: That all gets 

11 published on the DOE website with each round 

12 of analysis, so we can refer you to that. 

13 MR. PARKER: Is it there now? 

14 MR. PATTERSON: You can see it's 

15 2008 numbers, and 2006 numbers from the data -

16 - the TSDs are on the website. It just doesn't 

17 have the latest ones on that website. 

18 MR. COFFEY: Just 2010. 

19 MR. PATTERSON: Updated 2010. 

20 MR. MILLURE: The original table 

21 541 has 2010 numbers in it. Now, you're 

22 saying those numbers have changed, changed in 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 271

1 2010. 

2 MR. COFFEY: This analysis was 

3 based on those 2010 numbers. Since we gathered 

4 those 2010 materials prices we've had an 

5 opportunity to go around, interview 

6 manufacturers, ask what they pay, and develop 

7 a new set of 2011 materials prices. However, 

8 at the time that the analysis was run those 

9 weren't available. 

10 MR. MILLURE: You said you used 

11 different material prices in the latest 

12 analysis, different 2010 numbers. Is that what 

13 you -- 

14 MR. PARKER: I think we have a 

15 general process issue here, which is on what 

16 basis of information is this committee going 

17 to act, recognizing that new information keeps 

18 coming in, and if we keep updating, we could 

19 never get closure on anything. So, I guess 

20 what we need to decide as a group is look, do 

21 we have a stable set of data that we're going 

22 to use and say this is what we're going to use 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 272

1 to run the analysis on. 

2 I think we certainly don't want to 

3 be producing a rule that could be undercut by 

4 later data that comes in as a result of 

5 information that was too recent for us to 

6 consider. So, I'm just wondering at what 

7 point we say we have a closed set of data and 

8 this is what we're going to rely on, or is not 

9 advisable to do that? 

10 MR. COFFEY: I mean, the materials 

11 prices will always be changing as anybody in 

12 the industry can tell you. 

13 MR. PARKER: Yes. 

14 MR. COFFEY: And nobody is able to 

15 predict where they're going to go in the 

16 future. 

17 MR. PARKER: But that's the thing, 

18 that's the point. That's the point. The 

19 latest data is no better a predictor in the 

20 future than it was a year ago. 

21 MR. COULTER: This conversation has 

22 -- excuse me. This is Greg Coulter with 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 273

1 Prolec GE. This conversation has come up, and 

2 Brian knows we've had it, is material prices 

3 is a moving target. And to be honest, that's 

4 one of the biggest scary things all the 

5 manufacturers have, anyway. And what we really 

6 ask for is sensitivity analysis. 

7 MR. PARKER: Right. 

8 MR. COULTER: You can't -- it is a 

9 moving target, and you've got to do 

10 sensitivity around how bad could this be, 

11 because we've seen bad over the last time 

12 period that Brian is going through, and he --

13 since he picks times in there, he hasn't seen 

14 the worst, and he hasn't seen the best in 

15 there, but that range has been big. So, as we 

16 do this, whatever numbers you agree on, I 

17 don't care if it's 2010, 2011, when you finish 

18 that, and as you say, drive your stake in the 

19 ground, now you've got to do sensitivity 

20 analysis. 

21 MR. PARKER: Exactly. 

22 MR. COULTER: And we have been 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 274

1 working on, because you've got to know what 

2 sensitivity analysis to do, what ranges it 

3 ought to be. We haven't brought it to Brian. 

4 We've suggested that we will, but that's a 

5 moving target also. But we think we're getting 

6 close. 

7 MR. PARKER: Right. 

8 MR. COULTER: I think the other 

9 manufacturers might have some different 

10 numbers. I think it has to be based on 

11 sensitivity analysis. 

12 MR. PARKER: So, it sounds like 

13 that's another issue that we need as a group. 

14 Basically, what is the range of material 

15 prices that we want to use, both midpoint and 

16 sensitivity analysis, what are the boundaries? 

17 And I guess what the usual -- 95 percentile, 

18 whatever, two standard deviation range, 

19 however you want to define it. But we need a 

20 reasonable range of price assumptions and then 

21 an impact study. And I assume you could do 

22 that pretty easily. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 275

1 MR. RIVEST: To that point -- Mike 

2 Rivest. You have a sensitivity analysis ready 

3 in a couple -- in a week or two? 

4 MR. COFFEY: Well, the data package 

5 that was released in late August includes 2008 

6 and 2006 sensitivity prices. 

7 MR. RIVEST: Okay. And to get to 

8 the specific question, were there two sets of 

9 2010 prices? 

10 MR. COFFEY: There was one set that 

11 was used to -- 

12 MR. RIVEST: Was it updated 2010? 

13 MR. COFFEY: That's right. So, not 

14 every design -- it takes -- as we update our 

15 design lines, they're done serially. They 

16 aren't all done in an instant, so during the 

17 preliminary analysis, most of those had been 

18 run with 2010 materials prices. Others had 

19 the 2010 materials prices applied to their 

20 designs, which causes the points to shift 

21 around. But those points had been optimized 

22 to earlier design prices. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 276

1 This most recent data has points 

2 optimized to 2010 prices, which were the 

3 latest that we had available at the time of 

4 optimization. 

5 MR. PARKER: Is that -- okay. 

6 MR. SAMPAT: Could you please 

7 publish -- what do we use for this latest 

8 venture. 

9 MR. COFFEY: Absolutely. That's 

10 something we plan to do. 

11 MR. MILLURE: But originally you 

12 had this table 541 that has 2010 prices on it. 

13 You're saying those numbers have not changed, 

14 it's just now all the designs have had those 

15 prices applied. 

16 MR. COFFEY: That's right. 

17 MR. PARKER: And let me just 

18 reinforce something that -- and I'm -- and 

19 obviously tell me if I'm misspeaking, but 

20 something Greg Coulter said, which is what we 

21 really care about is not what the prices were 

22 in 2011 or 2010, or whatever, but what they're 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 277

1 going to be going into the future. It's a 

2 predictive exercise that we're engaged in 

3 here. And 2011 prices, a no better validator 

4 of that than 2009 prices or 2010 prices, 

5 prices go all over. Right? 

6 There are periods that may have 

7 been atypical. Right? But the question is, 

8 what is the best predictor? And it sounds like 

9 the idea that you would come up with sort of a 

10 central point and have a sensitivity analysis 

11 around it, that can be done on the basis of a 

12 policy decision by this group looking at the 

13 data, looking at the historic data. And it 

14 doesn't change --that doesn't change week-to15 week depending upon what the latest set of 

16 interviews produces. Right? Yes? 

17 MR. PATTERSON: Richard, you might 

18 be missing a point in the design. When you fix 

19 the set of materials costs, specifically 

20 mainly the core steel cost relative to 

21 conductor and installation cost, those three 

22 as a block. And let's say there's a fixed 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 278

1 ratio of X, and then for a given design I run 

2 an optimized design, so my design when it's 

3 done weighs 10 pounds. 

4 Now, I change the ratio of one 

5 material relative to another, steel relative 

6 to copper. Now, my transformer weight will 

7 change 20 percent for that optimized design. 

8 The entire unit is a fundamentally different 

9 unit. 

10 Now, in this business we build a 

11 customized optimized design for every order 

12 that comes in the door. Right? Because it's 

13 very material-intensive. Right? So, we 

14 completely redesign the whole animal every 

15 time the material prices change relative to 

16 each other, which is -- it's not just looking 

17 at the change of materials, because those 

18 change of materials change the act of amount 

19 of material in the unit, which changes the 

20 efficiency of the unit. 

21 MR. PARKER: So, it's kind of a -- 

22 MR. PATTERSON: That's the nature 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 279

1 of the business we're in. 

2 MR. PARKER: Kind of a chaotic 

3 thing, small changes produce big 

4 perturbations. 

5 MR. PATTERSON: So, the sensitivity 

6 analysis is very complex. 

7 MR. PARKER: Right. 

8 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, 

9 EEI. And again, the baseline in the 

10 projections will have a big impact not only on 

11 -- materials, transformer price, and then some 

12 of the projections. And that's later on in 

13 the discussion, obviously, but again, it's not 

14 easy because we've seen what's happened with 

15 the material prices over the last several 

16 years. And it has gone up faster than 

17 inflation, and it's a matter of what is your 

18 baseline, and what is your projection. That 

19 will have a huge impact on a lot of the -- 

20 MR. PARKER: So, they could end up 

21 with a big boundary, big range. 

22 One quick question I want to -- 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 280

1 go ahead. 

2 MR. COULTER: Okay. This is Greg 

3 Coulter, again, Prolec. I don't want to point 

4 fingers at anybody at the table, but I will. 

5 (Laughter.) 

6 MR. COULTER: If you just take a 

7 quick look at the study, they show that 

8 depending on what efficiency level you choose, 

9 the usage of amorphous metal, people at the 

10 table, that's why I don't want to point to 

11 anybody here, could go from levels like 

12 20,000, 30,000, 40,000 tons a year to 140, to 

13 150,000 tons a year. For anybody to suggest 

14 there's going to be no change in price is 

15 crazy. And it isn't -- that isn't just 10 

16 percent, 15 percent, 20 percent change we've 

17 seen over the last couple of years. We're 

18 talking big numbers. 

19 Now we'll point a finger at a 

20 different -- so you don't feel bad. If high B 

21 steel has to go from the 30-40,000 tons a year 

22 to 170,000 tons a year, they can't make it 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 281

1 now. It isn't going to do it for a 10 percent 

2 increase in price. At least he'll shake his 

3 head. 

4 That's why I'm saying the 

5 sensitivity analysis is much bigger than 

6 looking at `04 data, `06 data, `08 data, `10 

7 data. 

8 MR. PARKER: Right. 

9 MR. COULTER: At least, let's say 

10 that's our concern. These cost analyses are 

11 way off when you look at this extreme shift in 

12 technology we're talking about over these 

13 efficiency levels. And I think that's what we 

14 have to take into account as we look at the 

15 effect of all the efficiency -- 

16 MR. MILLURE: Dave Millure, 

17 Metglas. So you're assuming a capacity 

18 increase goes hand-in-hand every time with a 

19 price increase? 

20 MR. COULTER: I'm saying you all 

21 are business people, we're business people, 

22 you get more price where you can, and if 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 282

1 you've got to put on all kinds of capacity, 

2 and you know you're the only game in town, 

3 yes, I think price is going to go up. That's 

4 my opinion. I could be wrong on that, market 

5 economics don't work that way. 

6 MR. PARKER: Well, that's another 

7 issue that's been identified before, that's 

8 been spoken of before, what is the impact of 

9 any shift towards amorphous on the likely 

10 price of the -- 

11 MR. COULTER: It might go down. I 

12 mean, we ought to look at that, too. I'm not 

13 saying only look at it in one direction, but I 

14 think you've got to look at it and make 

15 reasonable assumptions. 

16 MR. PARKER: Right. Totally -- 

17 MR. COULTER: Does that help, Dave? 

18 MR. MILLURE: Thanks for that, 

19 Greg. 

20 (Laughter.) 

21 MR. SCHOEN: Jerry Schoen, AK 

22 Steel. The other issue that you have, when 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 283

1 you talk about the overall supply of the 

2 market, there's one real Metglas manufacturer, 

3 amorphous metal manufacturer in the world of 

4 any commercial consequence and that is Hitachi 

5 Metglas. But then when you go to the 

6 electrical steel companies, and there are 14 

7 companies out there making grain-oriented 

8 electrical steels, transformer steels. But the 

9 standards in the U.S. are already so presently 

10 high that many of them really can't sell their 

11 product here, because to design a transformer 

12 using an M-4 or an M-5 today, you have to 

13 surrender a tremendous amount of price. You 

14 basically give the losses of the customer at a 

15 low price so they can design with it. So, 

16 what happens is you make the standards tighter 

17 and tighter, you're going to end up with fewer 

18 and fewer suppliers, as well. 

19 MR. PARKER: Right. So, another 

20 issue is the impact of any efficiency standard 

21 on manufacturing competitiveness and jobs, and 

22 so forth for the steel makers. Absolutely. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 284

1 That's going to be an issue we have to deal 

2 with. 

3 Brian, do you want to continue? 

4 How much -- 

5 MR. COFFEY: Sure, let's press 

6 onwards. So, here's a table that shows 

7 additional descriptive information about the 

8 representative units selected. We're looking 

9 at the first three design lines. The column 

10 all the way on the right indicates the 

11 characteristics of the representative unit DOE 

12 selected for its analysis. 

13 The bottom row shows that for its 

14 analysis of single-phase liquid immersed 

15 distribution transformers between 250 and 833 

16 kVA, DOE analyzed a 500 kVA unit with a 65 

17 degree rise operating at 60 hertz, 14/400 

18 primary, 277 secondary. I think it's pretty 

19 self-explanatory. 

20 DOE does understand that higher 

21 BIL ratings accompany higher primary voltages. 

22 And it's conducting several sensitivity 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 285

1 analyses to explore the effects of BIL on 

2 efficiency. 

3 MR. PATTERSON: If I may, on the 

4 OPS designs, you did select different BILs for 

5 those units. 

6 MR. COFFEY: That's right. 

7 MR. PATTERSON: OPS software has 

8 different BILs. 

9 MR. COFFEY: That's right. So, 

10 what I was saying is that we've run some 

11 sensitivities exploring the effect of higher 

12 BILs for the units that you see, and we'll be 

13 making that data available in the near future. 

14 After identifying the 

15 representative units, DOE selects design 

16 options to characterize the range of 

17 efficiencies possible for each of these 

18 representative units. DOE selected these 

19 design options from the list of potential 

20 technology options that weren't screened out 

21 of the analysis. 

22 When selecting design options, DOE 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 286

1 tried to capture the most common designs in 

2 the industry, and also the maximum efficiency 

3 for each rep unit. So, this includes core 

4 configuration, steels, and different winding 

5 materials. 

6 The table here presents the 

7 various designs that were considered in the 

8 analysis for each of these options. As you 

9 can see, DOE considered a very large variety 

10 of design options, including wound and stacked 

11 cores with and without mitering, various core 

12 steels from M-12 all the way up to amorphous 

13 and both aluminum and copper windings. 

14 As a note, in this rulemaking 

15 presently, DOE is considering amorphous cores 

16 for all of its designs; whereas, in the 

17 previous rulemaking, DOE considered amorphous 

18 for use only in liquid immersed. 

19 This slide presents an example of 

20 different design option combinations selected 

21 for a representative unit. This is design line 

22 7, which is a three-phase 75 kVA low voltage 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 287

1 dry-type. 

2 In general, these options are 

3 presented in ascending order of efficiency 

4 started with M-12 stacked butt lap cores with 

5 aluminum windings all the way up to an 

6 amorphous wound core with copper windings as 

7 the maximum of efficiency level, and then 12 

8 other steps in between. 

9 In the next step of the 

10 engineering analysis, DOE develops cost 

11 inputs. A list of materials prices was 

12 determined for a five-year time frame, and the 

13 total labor hours required to build each 

14 design were determined through conversations 

15 with manufacturers and industry experts. 

16 DOE considers the 2010 materials 

17 prices, as we've discussed, as the reference 

18 case, but also looked at high and low material 

19 price sensitivities in the 2008 and 2006 data, 

20 respectively. 

21 Following that, DOE calculated 

22 markups to use in its analysis to account for 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 288

1 items such as scrap and handling, factory 

2 overhead, and non-production costs, a fully 

3 burdened labor rate was also calculated to 

4 determine the total labor cost. Was there a 

5 question? 

6 MR. ROSENSTOCK: A quick question. 

7 Steve Rosenstock. What was the shipping rate 

8 you used for the April analysis? I'm just 

9 looking, I'm trying to find the -- has it 

10 changed? 

11 MR. COFFEY: This would be 28 cents 

12 a pound. 

13 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Right. I'm trying 

14 to see -- 

15 MR. COFFEY: Would be the most 

16 recent data. 

17 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Because there were 

18 some comments in April about that --okay. 

19 MR. COFFEY: I don't remember the 

20 old number off the top of my head. 

21 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Okay, it's 22 

22 cents. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 289

1 MR. COFFEY: It was lower, though. 

2 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Okay, very good. 

3 And that's based on current diesel prices? 

4 MR. COFFEY: That's the most recent 

5 that we have available, so if that's low or 

6 high, that's feedback that we could take. 

7 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Thank you. 

8 MR. COFFEY: For factory overhead, 

9 DOE applies a 12.5 percent markup to all 

10 designs, including amorphous designs using 

11 prefabricated cores, which we know some 

12 manufacturers purchase. 

13 Additionally, DOE accounts for the 

14 shipping costs in the manufacturer's cost 

15 calculation because DOE understands that these 

16 costs are typically borne by the manufacturer, 

17 and included in their profit markup 

18 calculations. Again, this treatment of 

19 shipping costs is different from the previous 

20 rulemaking, where shipping costs were 

21 effectively tacked on at the end. 

22 The remaining markups are 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 290

1 explained in this table, and in further detail 

2 in Chapter 5 of the TSD, the most recent 

3 published version, which would be for the 

4 preliminary analysis and available on the DOE 

5 website. 

6 Here is the labor hours for large 

7 dry-type designs using amorphous cores. This 

8 is a special case. Manufacturers and industry 

9 experts informed DOE that large dry-type 

10 designs would require special handling 

11 considerations for amorphous cores because the 

12 material is thin and could become difficult to 

13 work with in such a large core. As a result, 

14 DOE increased the labor requirements for each 

15 of these amorphous designs by 10 hours over 

16 other design options for these rep units. 

17 Similarly, DOE heard that large 

18 dry-type amorphous designs would require 

19 additional bracing to contain the coil and 

20 prevent in the case of a short circuit. So, 

21 industry experts estimated this incremental 

22 cost to be 7 percent of the core and coil 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 291

1 weight, which equals -- I'm sorry, the weight 

2 to be 7 percent of the core and coil weight, 

3 which equates to about 230 to 330 in materials 

4 per design. So, I think that wraps that. 

5 The next step in the engineering 

6 analysis is to model optimized designs for 

7 each of the design option combinations 

8 previously identified. As I mentioned, DOE 

9 contracted with Optimized Program Services to 

10 model these designs. 

11 For each design option 

12 combination, OPS creates designs based on over 

13 500 combinations of A and B values, which 

14 represent the present value of future core and 

15 windings losses respectively. These valuation 

16 inputs are oftentimes used by customers in the 

17 industry when placing an order, and are 

18 described in greater detail in the TSD. 

19 After running all of the A and B 

20 combinations for each design option, and 

21 removing any designs below the current minimum 

22 efficiency level, DOE was left with 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 292

1 approximately 2,500 unique designs for each of 

2 the 14 representative units, not including 

3 additional sensitivity cases. 

4 For each of these designs, DOE 

5 receives data on the construction, windings, 

6 electrical analysis, and the bill of 

7 materials. Using the bill of materials and the 

8 materials prices, the latest that it has 

9 available, DOE is able to estimate the 

10 materials cost of the design. DOE then applies 

11 other cost factors and markups to determine 

12 the total manufacturer's selling price. 

13 A temperature corrected efficiency 

14 is also determined from OPS's electrical 

15 analysis report. So, DOE uses the selling 

16 prices and efficiencies for each design as the 

17 output of the engineering analysis, and those 

18 service inputs into the downstream analyses, 

19 like the LCC and NIA. So, a complete listing 

20 of all the engineering outputs, including MSP 

21 and efficiency would be available in that 

22 August package that was published on the 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 293

1 website. 

2 Symmetric core designs, these have 

3 come up in different ways over the months that 

4 this rulemaking has gone on. DOE was unable 

5 to identify a commercial company that could 

6 model them in the same way that OPS could 

7 model conventional designs. DOE has received 

8 very limited design data on symmetric core 

9 designs. And I can -- in case anybody is 

10 unfamiliar, I can explain a little bit about 

11 what those are. So, that analysis would also 

12 come in the form of a sensitivity, but doesn't 

13 show up in the mainstream cost efficiency 

14 calculations. 

15 MR. COULTER: Brian? 

16 MR. COFFEY: Yes? 

17 MR. COULTER: This is Greg Coulter. 

18 I have a question. Does that mean you've 

19 eliminated -- can we say the symmetric core 

20 designs are now out of the equation, and we 

21 don't have to study those anymore? Can we 

22 just get one right out of the table and 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 294

1 eliminate something here as we go along? 

2 (Laughter.) 

3 MR. COULTER: Just take them right 

4 out. 

5 MR. COFFEY: I think that the way 

6 DOE works, it considers everything to be on 

7 the table, and it starts with the maximum 

8 technologically feasible, and then works its 

9 way down in efficiency. 

10 MR. COULTER: As we sit here as a 

11 committee, can we take those off the table? 

12 Could we just -- 

13 MR. PARKER: Well, I think in the 

14 absence of data, the burden would be upon 

15 those producing symmetric core designs to come 

16 forward with data that would enable us to deal 

17 intelligently. But we haven't -- 

18 MR. PATTERSON: I have a question. 

19 Why don't you ask what manufacturers are 

20 actually producing them commercially in the 

21 United States? 

22 MR. PARKER: What manufacturers 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 295

1 actually producing them commercially in the 

2 United States? Does that help? 

3 MR. PATTERSON: Do you see any 

4 hands? 

5 MR. PARKER: None? 

6 MR. PATTERSON: It's not -- 

7 MR. COULTER: Could anybody name 

8 one, even if they're not in the room? 

9 MR. PATTERSON: Actually, ABB does 

10 ship those things outside the United States. 

11 MR. PARKER: You sell them. I see. 

12 (Laughter.) 

13 MR. PARKER: A carefully crafted 

14 question. I better watch out for you next 

15 time. 

16 (Laughter.) 

17 MR. PARKER: It would be great to 

18 have some data on your European sales. 

19 MR. COFFEY: So, as I mentioned, I 

20 do have clearance to -- from the owner of the 

21 data to release what is the very small amount 

22 that we've gotten. We'll make that available. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 296

1 Based on the way that it looks so far, it 

2 doesn't appear to change the cost efficiency 

3 proposition of the design line. 

4 MR. FLATENFLATEN: This is Dave 

5 FlatenFLATEN at Xcel Energy. Did the A and B 

6 factors drive the 50 percent loading? 

7 MR. COFFEY: Say that one more 

8 time, please? 

9 MR. FLATENFLATEN: Do you have a 

10 ratio of A to B factors, did that drive your 

11 consideration of the loading of 50 percent? 

12 MR. COFFEY: The loading of 50 

13 percent comes from the current test procedure. 

14 MR. FLATENFLATEN: Not driven by 

15 the A and B factors then. 

16 MR. COFFEY: Some of the A and B 

17 factors would correspond to a 50 percent 

18 loading, others would not. 

19 MR. FLATENFLATEN: Okay, so the 4 

20 to 1 ratio didn't -- was not pushing the 50 

21 percent loading. 

22 MR. COFFEY: No. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 297

1 MR. FLATENFLATEN: Okay, thank you. 

2 MR. PARKER: Any other questions --

3 by the way, thank you for that question. Any 

4 other questions from people on the phone and 

5 the webinar attendees? I want to give you a 

6 chance to speak and ask questions if you'd 

7 like. 

8 (No response.) 

9 MR. PARKER: Okay. I'll take 

10 silence as a no. Brian. 

11 MR. COFFEY: Okay. Once DOE 

12 generates all its designs in the engineering 

13 analysis it selects several efficiency levels, 

14 or ELs as benchmarks. And I think everyone has 

15 probably seen, I wrote a short letter 

16 attempting to clarify some of the terminology 

17 ambiguity. 

18 Basically, ELs are the NOPR 

19 version of CSLs. They do the same thing. 

20 They're different points within -- different 

21 efficiency levels within a design line. In 

22 the NOPR, they get packaged together in 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 298

1 different TSLs, and those serve as the basis 

2 for a standards discussion. But, 

3 functionally, they do the same thing. 

4 MR. ROSENSTOCK: A quick question 

5 on your bullet points. I know that they did 

6 the harmonization for the final rule, and I'm 

7 fine with that. But for the second one, 

8 equally spaced efficiency increments -- are 

9 you saying in the same design line, or across 

10 design lines? And why is that so important to 

11 DOE? 

12 MR. COFFEY: So, that's within a 

13 design line, and that's not a philosophical 

14 action, that's just a convenient way to start. 

15 And they also get nudged left or right to 

16 align with significant boundaries in 

17 efficiencies that certain materials can hit 

18 and whatnot. 

19 MR. ROSENSTOCK: So, again, Steve 

20 Rosenstock. Equally spaced between the 

21 baseline and the max tech as identified, and 

22 then you do an equal space increment? 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 299

1 MR. COFFEY: That's right. It's 

2 within a design line equally spaced in 

3 efficiency. 

4 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Regardless of what 

5 the CSLs were. 

6 MR. COFFEY: Well, these are --

7 again, these are how the CSLs are formulated. 

8 So, it's -- how the ELs are formulated are 

9 the same as the CSLs, and the beginning of 

10 that process is to look at the range of 

11 possible efficiencies, and space several of 

12 them out equally, and then say how do they 

13 look? And then move them, if needed, to align 

14 with significant points in the efficiency 

15 space. 

16 MR. PARKER: Being different design 

17 parameters, different materials. 

18 MR. COFFEY: That's right. So, for 

19 instance, one that we might want to have a CSL 

20 for is sort of the highest efficiency that 

21 could be achieved with conventional steels. 

22 So, if there's -- if the equal spacing gives 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 300

1 rise to one that's just above that, we might 

2 nudge it down a little bit so that it's in the 

3 point cloud that is reached with conventional 

4 steels. 

5 MR. PARKER: Because that will 

6 dovetail nicer with the TSL that you do later, 

7 which is trying to -- where you try to match 

8 it to the various criteria. Right? 

9 MR. COFFEY: That's right. 

10 MR. PARKER: This is trying to sort 

11 of mesh the CSLs with the criteria, of course, 

12 that you take to the TSL. 

13 MR. PATTERSON: If I may, this is 

14 one point where I really got confused when I 

15 started to study the data after the August 

16 release. There are -- today as we sit here and 

17 speak, in March there's a set of what was 

18 called CSLs. In the spreadsheets that came out 

19 in August, very often the far right-hand side, 

20 there's a different set of CSLs. And then in, 

21 I think it's in the life cycle analysis, 

22 there's a third set of CSLs. So, as far as 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 301

1 looking at trying to say CSL 1, it's totally 

2 meaningless to me, because there's three CSL 

3 1s. Pick which one you want to talk about. 

4 MR. COFFEY: So, that was what I 

5 was attempting to resolve with the clarifying 

6 statement and reposting of the data with the 

7 new terminology. 

8 What happens is in the preliminary 

9 analysis, DOE develops CSLs. It then updates 

10 them for the NOPR, and picks a new name for 

11 them, ELs, or efficiency levels. They do the 

12 exact same thing, but it's just a difference 

13 in terminology. 

14 What you were seeing before was 

15 CSLs that had been updated using new data, but 

16 since we hadn't reached a NOPR yet, they 

17 hadn't officially been relabeled ELs. 

18 MR. PATTERSON: But I caution, 

19 because when we discuss the data that's in the 

20 spreadsheet and we're going to refer to 

21 efficiency levels, what efficiency level are 

22 we talking about in the spreadsheets, the ones 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 302

1 that are written in the upper right-hand 

2 corner, or the ones in the life cycle analysis 

3 report, or the ones in the TSD that came out 

4 in the pre-analysis? Which one are we talking 

5 about? 

6 MR. COFFEY: The one -- 

7 MR. PATTERSON: I would like to see 

8 here a ground rule somewhere that says here is 

9 the numbers that we're going to discuss. 

10 MR. PARKER: Okay, fair point. 

11 Steve, do you want to comment? 

12 MR. ROSENSTOCK: I think it would 

13 be helpful to get, but I'd also like to add as 

14 part of the -- one of the thoughts is, what if 

15 we want to look at a different number, are we 

16 allowed to do that? We should be allowed to -

17 - you know, right now for design line 1, the 

18 base case is 99.08, and on the LCC report 

19 efficiency level 1, I don't know what the new 

20 term is, 99.16, suppose you want to look at 

21 99.12? 

22 MR. PATTERSON: This is what I'm 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 303

1 saying, we should have one set to talk about. 

2 MR. ROSENSTOCK: But the thing is, 

3 what if someone -- because that way, suppose 

4 we say well, 99.12 has terrific payback 

5 numbers or whatever, there could be other 

6 numbers that have -- are we excluded from 

7 looking at those numbers? 

8 MR. PARKER: How difficult is it 

9 for you to input different numbers and come up 

10 with -- 

11 MR. COFFEY: So, those ELs are just 

12 numbers that are normally chosen to simplify 

13 the analysis so that you're not arguing over 

14 .001 in efficiency. I suppose it's within the 

15 committee's jurisdiction to look at other 

16 efficiency levels within a design line if it 

17 chose to do that. 

18 MR. PARKER: I mean, could you do 

19 that easily? How long would it take to -- 

20 MR. COFFEY: Assuming everything 

21 went well on the first try. 

22 (Laughter.) 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 304

1 MR. COFFEY: I think that's within 

2 the realm of possibility. But, again, I think 

3 that what's the compelling reason for doing 

4 that? Right? You'd have to ask yourself. If 

5 there is one, I think we'd be able to do that. 

6 MR. PARKER: Absolutely. 

7 MR. COFFEY: Maybe Katie has 

8 something to add, also. 

9 MR. PARKER: Katie, do you want to 

10 comment? 

11 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes, this is Katie 

12 Coughlin of LBNL. I just wanted to mention 

13 that this is actually part of the LCC. The 

14 importance of the efficiency levels really 

15 comes out in the LCC. And I will be 

16 discussing it, so we might want to defer some 

17 of these questions until I present those 

18 slides. 

19 MR. PARKER: Thank you. It looks 

20 like that will be tomorrow morning. Carlos? 

21 MR. GAYTAN: Carlos Gaytan, Prolec 

22 GE. You were asking about the reasons for 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 305

1 reconsidering the ELs. On the CSL levels in 

2 the document in April, we saw that there was a 

3 consistency between the different design lines 

4 in the relative cost of the designs for the 

5 different combinations of core and conductor 

6 materials. 

7 However, on these new ELs, we are 

8 observing that the -- some of the efficiency 

9 increments are no longer even the space, so we 

10 cannot correlate one of the new ELs to the 

11 previous CSL level easily. So, we can no 

12 longer -- we need to repeat a large number of 

13 design exercise in our case not to be able to 

14 derive new considerations for the behavior 

15 between the different combinations of core and 

16 conductor materials. 

17 For example, in this case speaking 

18 about liquid filled for the design line items 

19 3 and 5, the efficiency levels did not change 

20 significantly, but level 1, that was slightly 

21 decreased. But the other three design lines, 

22 1, 2 and 4 were more effective, especially on 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 306

1 the initial levels 1 and 2. 

2 MR. PARKER: So, there are some 

3 areas where you -- are you saying that you 

4 would want to have a different efficiency 

5 level specified? You would want to 

6 interpolate for some design lines, you might 

7 want to do some efficiency level between two 

8 existing ELs, and look at that. Is that the 

9 point? 

10 MR. GAYTAN: Well, we -- since the 

11 data was recently published, we have not had 

12 the time to recalculate the comparison for the 

13 different design line items. So, I was 

14 speaking to the benefit of staying with a 

15 certain relationship between the efficiency 

16 levels. 

17 As I said, in the original CSLs in 

18 the April document were in most cases evenly 

19 spaced with increments of 10 percent, roughly 

20 10 percent from one to another, 10 percent 

21 lower losses we were decreasing on each of the 

22 levels. Now in some of the cases, the levels 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 307

1 1 and 2 especially, where those were reduced 

2 in some of the single-phase design lines. 

3 MR. PARKER: Perhaps Katie's point 

4 was that some of the CSLs were altered, the 

5 ELs were changed because you were trying to 

6 C based upon the LCC analysis and the design 

7 analysis, you were trying to get the 

8 categories to match up. Is that right? You're 

9 trying to choose a CSL because it would be 

10 significant from the standpoint of design? 

11 MS. COUGHLIN: Not really, no. I 

12 think in the choice of CSLs the major issue is 

13 whether or not they make sense from an 

14 engineering perspective. So, theoretically, 

15 you can draw a line at any efficiency you want 

16 and call it an efficiency level. But whether 

17 or not as a standard that would represent a 

18 logical way to do -- to distinguish different 

19 engineering designs, that's the question. 

20 MR. PARKER: That's the point, 

21 yes. 

22 MS. COUGHLIN: So, I believe if 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 308

1 there were adjustments to the efficiency 

2 levels it would be to reflect that. But the 

3 other thing that will affect the way those --

4 you get these plots of cost versus efficiency 

5 out of the OPS software. And that cloud of 

6 points may change shapes slightly because of 

7 the updates in materials prices. And that 

8 may, in turn, create a slightly different --

9 if you're looking for, say, a change in slope 

10 of the minimum cost curve, that may move to a 

11 slightly different place because of the change 

12 in the shape of that cloud of points. 

13 So, I think nothing in terms of 

14 the principles has really altered, but some of 

15 the details of the data may have shifted 

16 around a bit between April and August. 

17 MR. PARKER: Any other comments? 

18 So, I take it that -- basically, what I'm 

19 hearing is that we need to early on table as 

20 an issue what are the CSLs we're evaluating. 

21 Do people feel comfortable using the latest 

22 version, or have they done already a bunch of 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 309

1 analysis that would suggest trying to go with 

2 the -- trying to stick with the April 

3 subdivisions? But mainly to decide, these are 

4 the CSLs that we're looking at. Katie, I'm 

5 sorry, did I get it wrong? 

6 MS. COUGHLIN: Just one more point. 

7 MR. PARKER: Yes. 

8 MS. COUGHLIN: From our 

9 perspective, we can regenerate new LCC results 

10 moving efficiency levels around without a lot 

11 of trouble. But the question is what are you 

12 going to do with them? So, every time we do 

13 that you have 13 design lines, and you start 

14 distributions of LCC results for each 

15 efficiency level for each design line, you're 

16 looking at on the order of 100 sets of results 

17 for every configuration. 

18 So, if the committee can come up 

19 with a preferred format for summarizing those 

20 results, we can go and do these alterations to 

21 the runs, because it's -- you know, it takes 

22 some effort but it's not that difficult to 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 310

1 just move the efficiency levels around. 

2 MR. PARKER: Okay. 

3 MS. COUGHLIN: But it's post4 processing that really requires a little bit 

5 of thought. 

6 MR. PARKER: Gotcha. Okay. Steve? 

7 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock. 

8 We're looking at five design lines, we're 

9 only looking at the liquid filled design lines 

10 for this one. 

11 Secondly, and again this is one of 

12 the clarifying questions is, in terms of some 

13 of the analysis and kind of getting back to 

14 kind of the earlier ones, we were wondering 

15 when the analysis of the current standards is 

16 going to be completed? That is one of DOE 

17 options. We were wondering about the DOE 

18 analysis of the current options and keeping 

19 the current standards. Because that is one of 

20 your options, and I've not seen any analysis 

21 whatsoever in terms of at least looking at 

22 that option. And we're wondering if that's 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 311

1 going to be able to be completed during our 

2 time frame. 

3 MR. PARKER: That's just the base 

4 case. 

5 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes, that's the 

6 baseline. So, the baseline analysis is what 

7 would happen if we kept the current standard. 

8 MR. PARKER: That's one column in 

9 all the tables. 

10 MS. COUGHLIN: Yes. 

11 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Okay. But it's a 

12 column, but there's also other issues in terms 

13 of -- there are other possible analytics in 

14 terms of keeping a standard versus going 

15 ahead. All the analysis as if we're going 

16 ahead, for this committee it might help for an 

17 analysis of allowing stakeholders to provide 

18 input about, okay, what if we kept the 

19 baseline values? All of this is just here's 

20 what happens if we go ahead. What happens if 

21 we stay here? And there's other just overall 

22 market and economic issues that are not being 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 312

1 addressed. 

2 MR. COHEN: Dan Cohen, DOE. So, 

3 Steve, what you're getting at is the walkdown 

4 issue that John was mentioning earlier. 

5 Because of the way the statute is set up that 

6 we're supposed to maximize energy efficiency 

7 as technologically feasible and economically 

8 justified, we start off at the highest 

9 efficiency level and apply those various 

10 factors that are set out in the statute that 

11 John had up on the screen earlier to determine 

12 whether or not one level -- the highest level 

13 is justified. 

14 If the answer to that is no, it's 

15 not justified, we then go down to the next 

16 level of efficiency, run the same test. 

17 Again, if the answer is no, we go down a 

18 level. So, the way we would make the 

19 determination that no standard change was 

20 necessary was to go through all those various 

21 more efficient levels first, and not reach a 

22 determination of economic justification for 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 313

1 those more efficient levels. Does that make 

2 sense? 

3 MR. ROSENSTOCK: That makes sense. 

4 But, again, there is the theory that why not 

5 go the other way? 

6 MR. COHEN: Because the law 

7 requires that -- 

8 (Laughter.) 

9 MR. PARKER: Okay. Very quickly, we 

10 have to wrap up very soon. Brian, you had one 

11 more slide. Right? The scaling issue. 

12 MR. COFFEY: I can speed through 

13 this. 

14 MR. PARKER: Okay. 

15 MR. COFFEY: Here's the -- here's a 

16 point cloud. These boxes actually still say 

17 CSL, but now they're ELs as the data was 

18 recently released. Developing trial standards 

19 for the NOPR level. If DOE does issue a NOPR, 

20 it will select TSLs based on groupings of ELs. 

21 I said all this. And there's different 

22 concepts, like per-phase harmonization that 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 314

1 need to be considered, minimum LCC could be a 

2 TSL that gets floated as a possibility, 

3 maximum net present value. 

4 Ordinarily, a TSL would have some 

5 sort of semantic significance to it; whereas, 

6 ELs may not. ELs may just be we think that 

7 1,000 of them are too many to cover an 

8 efficiency space, and two aren't enough. We 

9 chose seven, we spaced them out. TSLs usually 

10 say okay, this is the package of ELs that 

11 corresponds to the maximum net present value. 

12 This is the max LCC. This is the minimum LCC 

13 that's above zero. Things like that that have 

14 some semantic significance. 

15 MR. PARKER: Dan, do we have a 

16 legal constraint on TSLs? Are there criteria 

17 that are in the statute or OMB guidelines, 

18 that indicate that we have to follow some 

19 criteria or another? 

20 MR. COHEN: No. 

21 MR. COFFEY: So, then DOE proposes 

22 one of the TSLs from its list of possibilities 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 315

1 in a NOPR, which is what this committee is 

2 going to do. 

3 Medium voltage dry-type single4 phase. This is a special case. I know some 

5 in the room feel strongly about it. Single6 phase medium voltage dry-type have very low 

7 shipment volumes, and MVA capacity shipped, so 

8 instead of directly analyzing these, DOE has 

9 always just scaled the units from their three10 phase equivalents to create virtual rep units. 

11 It's the same thing as scaling across kVA 

12 values except we're scaling across phases. So, 

13 just so everybody is aware of that. I suspect 

14 many are. 

15 We are running a sensitivity to 

16 see what happens if you look at that directly, 

17 but that's not available right now. 

18 The final slide that I have is --

19 concerns the scaling results. Aside from 

20 scaling to the single-phase medium voltage 

21 dry-type, DOE also scales to each kVA rating 

22 that was not directly analyzed. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 316

1 To do this, DOE relies on the .75 

2 scaling rule, which states that "the total 

3 transformer losses scaled by the ratio of the 

4 kVA sizes that you're scaling raised to the 

5 .75 power when design characteristics, such as 

6 frequency and BIL ratings are kept constant." 

7 So, by holding those parameters constant, DOE 

8 can use this rule to scale losses, dimensions, 

9 and costs from its analyzed rep units to the 

10 unanalyzed kVA ratings. 

11 So, we give an example here, for 

12 design line 7, it's a three-phrase low voltage 

13 dry-type that generates standards for kVA 

14 ranges from 15 to 150. DOE analyzed the 75 kVA 

15 unit as representative, and then the 

16 corresponding efficiencies for all the rest of 

17 those ratings are scaled in directly from that 

18 75 kVA analysis. 

19 This is similar to what's done in 

20 the DOE's 2007 rulemaking, and further detail 

21 on that actually can be found in a TSD 

22 appendix. 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 317

1 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock. 

2 This issue came up -- again, we're coming 

3 back to it, but this issue did come up at the 

4 April hearing, and as I recall, I wrote some 

5 notes saying that it was okay for the first 

6 standard deviation. For example, 45 and 112, 

7 after that it didn't work so well. I'm pretty 

8 sure -- I believe that DOE received 

9 information in that regard, and I was 

10 wondering if you -- I'm pretty sure you did, 

11 that you received the information about it, 

12 and if you've made any adjustments? 

13 MR. COFFEY: We did. We split the 

14 former design line 13. There used to be 13 

15 design lines, there are now 14. There's 13A 

16 and 13B. Those are both medium voltage dry17 type units, and one is a low kVA design that 

18 is a low market volume, but -- 

19 MR. ROSENSTOCK: And how about on 

20 the liquid filled side, did you get any 

21 information about the liquid filled side in 

22 terms of this? 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 318

1 MR. COFFEY: So, DOE hasn't added 

2 any representative units in the liquid side, 

3 so scaling would be the same for those. 

4 MR. PARKER: Katie? 

5 MS. COUGHLIN: We have made some 

6 adjustments, and I'll go over that tomorrow. 

7 But we have not added design lines to the 

8 liquid immersed. 

9 MR. PARKER: Okay. Is that -- 

10 MR. COFFEY: That's all I had. 

11 MR. PARKER: Great. We are going 

12 to have to wrap up because the police are 

13 coming. But let me just briefly -- before you 

14 pack up, let me just briefly review for you 

15 what I came away with as the issues that we 

16 spotted in this session, and we'll continue I 

17 think with Katie's analysis tomorrow morning 

18 looking at her issues. But what I came away 

19 with, and tell me if I've missed anything or 

20 gotten it wrong, was the -- first, the issue 

21 of scaling across kVA. Steve's issue, BIL 

22 scaling, materials prices. Do we have a 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 319

1 satisfactory range of materials prices? Again, 

2 we don't have to have the latest prices, but 

3 is the central estimate reasonable, is the 

4 range reasonable? 

5 CSLs, do we have a choice of CSLs? 

6 If you have a view that there should be 

7 different CSLs, I think now or very soon is 

8 the time to raise that, probably between now 

9 and the next meeting send us an email 

10 documenting why you think there ought to be a 

11 change. I understand it is possible that it 

12 creates complexity, so I would propose that 

13 there be a presumption in favor of keeping the 

14 current CSLs that are in the latest analysis. 

15 But if people feel there's reasons not to, 

16 let's air those. 

17 There's a question that I think is 

18 implicit in everything that's been said, which 

19 is just how to handle in terms of our 

20 operations the huge diversity of designs and 

21 design lines that we have, both finding 

22 representative units within it, and also just 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 320

1 how do we want to organize ourselves to do 

2 this? Do we want to plow through this one 

3 design line at a time? Do we want to cut 

4 across it in different ways? So, think about 

5 how you want to sort of deal with this 

6 diversity problem as a decision making 

7 structure as we go forward. 

8 The final thing, last but not 

9 least that I got, and then we'll just open it 

10 for anything that I may have missed is the 

11 impact of any decision on steel manufacturers 

12 and jobs, particularly of moving from 

13 conventional steels to amorphous, impact on 

14 prices for utilities, and that's basically it. 

15 Impact on manufacturers and on prices. 

16 There were the other issues that 

17 come up tomorrow. Did I fairly capture the 

18 issues that were tabled today? Anything that 

19 I missed, anything that I misstated? 

20 (No response.) 

21 MR. PARKER: Great. Let's declare 

22 victory for the day and reconvene here 
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 321

1 tomorrow morning promptly at 9:00. Have a 

2 very good evening, enjoy D.C., and I'll see 

3 you tomorrow morning. 

4 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

5 matter went off the record at 4:23 p.m.) 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 322

A

Aaron 3:13 31:11

ABB 2:11 19:20,21

233:4 295:9

ability 11:11,12

63:8 72:16 85:10

able 43:8 46:10

60:1 74:10 85:22

87:16 119:12

122:13 140:17

163:19 167:18

171:6 172:16

176:22 181:9

184:7 249:11

261:16 272:14

292:9 304:5

305:13 311:1

above-entitled 45:4

162:5 321:4

absence 156:5

157:16 170:15

294:14

absent 89:20 96:12

97:17 98:3 110:4

112:3,7 125:7

132:14 134:7

absolute 229:2,3,3

234:17 265:20

absolutely 28:18

45:1,21 58:4,14

88:12 100:6 154:9

177:19 196:21

198:8 202:19

203:17 276:9

283:22 304:6

abstain 58:9 89:22

98:14 99:3 101:3

101:22 102:2,10

110:18

abstained 99:10

abstaining 101:1

abstains 105:14

110:20,21 111:11

abstention 90:5

91:1 98:17,20

100:14 112:13,15

abstentions 89:15

101:13 111:3,12

111:17 112:10,12

129:13

acceptable 53:17

69:20 253:11

accepted 157:17

158:1,5

access 31:1 79:16

90:15 178:17

198:21

accommodate

179:6,8,14,18

accompany 269:5

284:21

accomplished

167:11

account 12:16

226:22 281:14

287:22

accounted 214:15

accounts 289:13

achieve 85:22 86:7

158:15

achieved 53:17

57:9 299:21

Achieving 89:1

aching 203:2

acquiesce 92:20

acquiesced 158:7

acquiescence 91:6

act 6:3 7:13 11:2,10

12:8,20 26:2,8

52:8 81:7 82:1

108:10,11,14

271:17 278:18

action 10:1 51:8

89:21 116:6,16,17

147:10 148:13

298:14

actions 51:11

117:11 119:2

actively 102:2

activities 17:17

120:8

actual 11:16 28:10

63:14 218:18

adapt 225:9

add 32:11 53:12

60:16 66:8 78:1

79:1,3 112:2,14

131:16 136:5,10

152:7 153:1,2,20

154:11 191:12

202:6 227:9

269:12 302:13

304:8

added 97:11 152:6

152:10 159:11

212:7 221:4,5

318:1,7

adding 65:7 109:9

137:16 160:17

221:8

addition 114:4

additional 48:20

263:8 284:7

290:19 292:3

Additionally

289:13

additions 38:15

address 13:13 14:4

14:14,21 29:20

35:14,22 36:1

40:19 119:21

122:6 136:22

158:15 212:20

221:6,16

addressed 47:4

120:15 123:19

156:14 239:1,16

312:1

adds 110:13,15

adjacent 170:11

adjacently 169:16

adjourn 4:12 34:12

44:14 162:2 164:3

203:9

adjusted 227:13

255:21 257:7

268:4

adjustments 218:3

218:5,6 308:1

317:12 318:6

administrative

24:1,13

admission 15:8

adopt 57:22 87:14

97:20 113:6

138:13,14 142:13

adopted 96:5 116:1

127:8 166:11

adoption 121:5,6,7

advance 17:6,14

173:5

advantage 81:4

advantaged 246:10

advantageous

105:5,9

adverse 57:5 116:5

140:11 145:15,18

146:8 147:20

148:13

advice 9:13

advisable 272:9

advisement 153:19

advisor 7:6,6

advisory 1:3 6:3,16

7:9,13 11:2,10

12:8,9,20 108:10

108:11

Advocate 3:20

affect 7:22 8:2,9,10

13:8 308:3

affidavit 141:22

affiliate 75:10,11

affiliation 46:6

75:7

affirmative 82:1

93:14 147:10

affirmatively 58:2

58:7 89:4 90:4,7,8

92:20 101:6,17

141:15 158:6

afternoon 19:11

34:2,22 36:16

174:15 180:16,19

203:4 208:17

AGA 55:15

agenda 4:8 5:18,19

8:4 13:19 29:22

30:13 33:2 35:20

38:4,16,20 42:6

aggregate 261:7

ago 219:17,21

255:8 272:20

agree 27:19 33:1

44:10 57:4,18

59:9 60:21 70:17

75:3 90:8 97:2,6

99:17,21 101:17

104:6 107:6

109:16 114:20

123:4,5,9,15

135:2 141:19

142:5,22 143:12

146:5 153:13,13

156:7,22 158:8

176:16 182:6

251:9 273:16

agreeable 38:20

agreed 36:8 53:1

59:18 70:20 105:3

113:16 132:16

142:12 147:7

155:17 157:2

158:8,9 164:10

169:4

agreeing 69:15,16

90:1

agreement 50:5,22

55:3,5 56:15 58:1

59:3 60:15 61:11

61:13 69:2 85:7,8

85:11,15,20,22

89:12,12,13,16

91:2 98:5,11

102:13,14 103:16

113:20 114:5

115:2 118:1,5

119:5 123:20

124:7,8 127:6

130:4 132:15

133:13 137:10

143:4 144:5,8

149:1,4 150:16

152:1,14,19 154:4

154:18,20 158:21

160:2,4 168:4,9
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 323

168:10 169:8

173:12 176:19

192:22 223:3

agreements 55:3

61:10 126:22

agrees 52:20,21

117:5 130:6,12

131:6 136:6,10

148:2 213:1

aground 37:8

Ah 175:18

ahead 10:4 53:6

114:1 132:1

134:17 155:20

179:2 203:1

212:15 232:17

253:14 257:3

260:1 280:1

311:15,16,20

ain't 173:5

air 319:16

airfares 203:14,14

airport 42:22

AK 2:12 3:20 19:1

19:2 22:21 282:21

alerted 263:21

algorithms 231:14

align 298:16

299:13

Allegheny 2:13

20:17,18 161:10

allow 83:16 101:12

140:21 190:5

200:1 222:11,16

allowance 29:12

allowed 8:1 29:5

82:7 150:21 165:7

302:16,16

allowing 132:4

311:17

allows 27:16 92:19

92:21 243:9

alter 57:17

alterations 309:20

altered 307:4

308:14

alternate 19:9

23:12,13 73:21

74:5,9,10,13,17

74:20,21 75:19,20

75:22 76:4,5,9,11

76:12,14,18 77:1

77:7,11,17 97:5

alternates 73:11,20

75:4,17 76:15

182:4

alternative 24:2

aluminum 286:13

287:5

ambiguity 120:5

297:17

amend 114:8,18

115:2 176:22

amended 51:5 68:6

152:3,16 161:7

amendment 190:4

amendments 115:7

115:9

America 3:18

American 2:9 18:2

18:14

amorphous 262:20

262:21 263:4

280:9 282:9 283:3

286:12,15,17

287:6 289:10

290:7,11,15,18

320:13

amount 16:13

223:17 231:5

278:18 283:13

295:21

analog 266:11

analogous 230:8

analyses 40:1 103:9

103:10,11,14

208:8,21 209:5

261:14 281:10

285:1 292:18

analysis 4:11 22:12

35:1 36:6 38:22

39:1,4,9,12,13

40:7,22 41:2 86:3

86:6 88:6 99:20

99:22 100:6 102:5

102:16,17,18

103:16 104:5,13

201:9 204:2 205:2

205:19 207:15

208:9 209:11,14

209:17 210:6,13

210:15,16,18,22

212:10 214:22

215:12,21 217:5,6

217:8,15 225:7

226:14,17 227:7

228:1 229:2

230:10 233:18,22

236:18 237:10

242:10 244:13,16

245:5 248:15

257:10 260:14,19

261:22 262:2,4,15

266:19 268:13

269:13,19 270:12

271:2,8,12 272:1

273:6,20 274:2,11

274:16 275:2,17

277:10 279:6

281:5 284:12,14

285:21 286:8

287:10,22 288:8

290:4 291:6 292:6

292:15,17 293:11

297:13 300:21

301:9 302:2

303:13 307:6,7

309:1 310:13,15

310:18,20 311:6

311:15,17 316:18

318:17 319:14

Analyst 2:2 3:5,9

analytical 16:8

36:5

analytics 311:13

analyze 211:17

212:15 242:15

analyzed 218:14

284:16 315:22

316:9,14

analyzing 315:8

Anderson 1:18

17:22,22 174:16

174:19,21 175:2,5

175:15 194:19

195:3,7,20 196:3

196:7,11 228:4

232:16,18

Andrew 2:3 21:15

44:15 50:15 59:21

85:3 90:19 122:14

126:9,20 142:19

144:1 155:12

156:22 159:20

183:21 184:6

200:18

Andrew's 59:1

60:19 158:15

194:1

and/or 84:4

angle 121:3

angry 187:11

animal 278:14

answer 37:4 60:5

80:14 175:3

178:19 215:20

217:12 227:13

229:6 232:6

248:21 312:14,17

answering 259:20

answers 65:14

anti 83:12

anybody 25:12

26:9 27:14 31:2

66:17 69:21 73:4

95:7,8 112:14

119:4,6 128:8

135:4 147:6

151:15 153:17

178:16 180:10

187:3 194:14

211:18 250:8

272:11 280:4,11

280:13 293:9

295:7

anymore 188:6

293:21

anytime 177:1

anyway 47:19

181:13 202:9

203:3 273:5

apart 184:22

apologies 5:10

44:17

apologize 15:6 17:6

17:14 27:4 30:8

30:19 95:6

APPA 18:14 55:15

56:1 82:3 174:12

175:13 194:7,16

196:12 197:3

203:20

apparently 80:21

184:4

appeals 128:2

appear 141:18

296:2

appearance 184:5

appearing 141:15

appendix 316:22

apple 138:18

164:14 214:1

apples 237:2,3

247:6

Appliance 2:4

21:16 22:5

applicability 9:1

Applications 3:19

applied 108:22

275:19 276:15

applies 143:16

252:12 289:9

292:10

apply 7:13 58:3

75:13 108:21

134:7 233:6 234:8

236:22 249:14

252:12 312:9

applying 224:15

233:21

appoint 182:4

appointed 6:13

7:10,19 12:18

appointment 7:17

7:18 149:10,14,15
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 324

149:21

appreciate 15:9

40:20 182:22

apprised 32:6

approach 57:22

61:1 221:3 223:4

224:14

appropriate 11:5

32:19 206:16

218:3

approval 148:9

approximately

292:1

April 220:8,17

227:14 238:13,15

238:16 260:4,5

261:22 262:4,15

263:7 268:11

288:8,18 305:2

306:18 308:16

309:2 317:4

arbitrary 36:12

area 7:14 8:20 9:13

153:4 178:12

213:2 221:20

areas 232:12 249:3

306:3

arguing 303:13

argument 119:15

arguments 92:7

239:7

Arlington 183:9

arrangement 56:22

57:15

array 26:13

arrival 111:5

arrive 209:22

Art 2:14 16:22

84:15 94:11,12,15

170:16

articulate 156:4

articulated 156:6

239:9

ASAP 21:17 90:20

122:15 183:22

ascending 287:3

ASHRAE 53:22

83:12

Aside 315:19

asked 48:20 49:21

114:4 125:17

142:5 220:4,5

asking 74:16 148:8

238:2 261:5

304:22

aspect 100:5 102:4

102:5,7

aspects 11:9 102:17

104:5

assent 112:19

assert 155:13

assertions 239:8

assess 201:1

assesses 205:19

assessment 209:7

Assistant 1:21 48:1

associated 68:15

207:18 270:5

association 1:22

2:9,18 3:7,8,22

18:7,11,14 19:8

19:13 31:14

associations 127:1

assume 208:10

209:19 222:6

234:1 268:2

274:21

assumed 89:19

97:17 98:2 110:4

112:2,7 125:17

262:21 267:5

assuming 178:22

281:17 303:20

assumption 173:18

177:11

assumptions 105:7

231:2 232:13

233:1,3 274:20

282:15

ATI 2:13

attached 61:12

attempting 257:13

297:16 301:5

attend 27:14 76:17

79:6 95:13,14

attendance 78:17

79:8

attendees 297:5

attentively 17:3

attorney 8:6 120:9

attractive 185:1

attributes 212:3

atypical 277:7

audible 45:10

audience 32:17

60:11,12 165:22

August 39:2,3,14

41:12 231:10

256:2 268:20

269:20 275:5

292:22 300:15,19

308:16

authority 68:21

226:1

authorized 95:19

automatically

223:10 224:5

availability 171:13

171:14,21 181:19

195:8

available 35:18

88:17 171:16

173:6 174:6,7,9

184:10 194:8,16

203:20 209:18

231:5 260:16

261:20 262:11,21

263:2 268:14

269:11,14,18

271:9 276:3

285:13 289:5

290:4 292:9,21

295:22 315:17

Avenue 1:12

174:13

avoid 130:2 146:4

173:16

avoiding 86:16

aware 7:15 8:12

10:11 26:19 168:6

315:13

Awareness 2:4

21:17

awful 118:10

awfully 200:15

awkward 74:5

aye 58:8

A-F-T-E-R-N-O-...

163:1

a.m 1:13 5:2 45:5,6

A/B 267:18,21

B

B 53:12 161:2

230:1,19 232:21

235:7 237:2 257:6

257:8 258:5,8,11

258:12,14,18

259:6,10,15,17

280:20 291:13,19

296:5,10,15,16

back 10:19 11:13

15:11,22 16:4,12

22:8 28:11 34:17

42:11 44:5,6

45:10,12,12,20

48:22 50:4 58:18

82:22 91:5 92:8

92:15,17 122:8

140:22 150:6,7

153:19 161:19

162:2 163:4,5

167:21 176:19

185:21 195:18

205:1 209:2 216:3

223:4 229:8 238:9

251:8 255:22

263:16 310:13

317:3

background 24:12

83:6 167:2

backup 54:6

bad 273:10,11

280:20

badge 43:22 44:4

baggage 103:2

balanced 26:14

bald 221:6

ball 217:13

Ballo 1:19 23:18,18

49:3,13 50:11,17

50:21 64:12 65:17

66:3 71:20 85:18

85:18 86:12

124:19 125:9

137:2,2 138:20

145:12,12,21

146:1 158:14

160:12

Ballston 183:2

bandwidth 233:12

233:14

bare 150:11,15

barely 39:17

barrier 227:2

base 198:18 255:13

302:18 311:3

based 33:19 139:17

167:5 203:6 212:1

212:2 213:13

220:16 222:3,17

230:1 251:6 271:3

274:10 289:3

291:12 296:1

307:6 313:20

baseline 206:7

230:11 235:9

279:9,18 298:21

311:6,6,19

bashful 46:16

basic 156:12

207:11 223:4

224:14 240:17

basically 6:18 26:9

26:18 28:3 33:4

34:22 44:21 54:3

63:22 93:14

104:11 109:14

113:19 119:9

135:1 142:6

152:20 165:11

167:1,14 170:10

174:8 183:19

204:16 221:4

233:22 244:4,19
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 325

245:6 248:13

274:14 283:14

297:18 308:18

320:14

basing 121:11

basis 25:18 30:7

37:22 61:8 87:17

87:21 102:19,20

209:12 252:1

271:16 277:11

298:1

bat 10:4

bear 35:10

bearing 265:21

beautiful 171:8

174:13

Beck 1:20 19:16,16

becoming 90:16

began 168:6

beginning 5:18

15:13 105:16

149:13 158:22

167:4 299:9

behalf 75:20 77:18

95:19 141:16

behavior 305:14

believe 39:2 46:12

46:20 49:22

100:15 116:10

118:18 129:3

156:22 159:15

223:3 307:22

317:8

Ben 23:5

benchmarks

297:14

benefit 306:14

benefits 207:7

BENJAMIN 3:11

bennies 139:11

Berkeley 2:14 3:5

22:11 208:19

Berman 3:2,2

23:15,15,15 68:10

68:11,11,11 75:15

75:15,15 76:3,8

76:20 78:4 87:2,2

87:2 88:9 96:22

98:22,22,22 99:5

99:9 103:3,4,4

112:17,17,17

113:8 121:15,15

121:15 132:2,2,2

141:11,11,11,20

best 99:14 181:19

182:3 232:21

250:14 268:5

273:14 277:8

better 33:21 42:12

45:10 53:15 79:12

103:4 108:16

146:12,16 162:1

181:22 195:16

196:6 198:9 203:6

219:12 238:4

272:19 277:3

295:14

beyond 36:2 72:1

128:14

bias 253:10

biased 248:21

big 51:22 88:12

179:20 180:7

191:12 215:3

216:11 260:16

273:15 279:3,10

279:21,21 280:18

bigger 80:4 167:3

281:5

biggest 273:4

BIL 216:3,13,13,15

216:16,17,21,22

217:11 218:15,22

219:5,13 221:20

222:6,8,14 223:10

223:10 226:13,21

227:1 228:7,12,16

228:16 231:18

284:21 285:1

316:6 318:21

bill 64:19 65:12,18

66:18 292:6,7

BILs 220:22

221:17 224:6

226:9 238:10

285:4,8,12

bind 69:5,5,12,13

76:7 197:18

binding 69:2 76:22

85:4

bit 16:19 33:5,7

36:4,15 52:7

62:18 68:13,18

71:15 76:21 87:5

103:7,17 133:20

153:12 164:8

167:3 168:5

175:10 204:4

213:11 233:9

239:21 247:6

254:17 261:15

264:18 293:10

300:2 308:16

310:4

blah 255:13,13,13

bless 28:13

block 58:5 85:6,14

87:9 88:16 91:16

189:10 277:22

blocks 84:18 91:10

91:14 186:20

254:3

blows 183:18

bluntly 188:6

board 100:11 198:2

202:16

Bob 18:9 182:22

202:6

bodies 164:18

body 17:18

boiler 142:17

bold 77:15 113:15

136:17 164:9,10

bolded 158:3 161:2

book 81:16 88:19

173:5 203:13

booked 17:10

173:9

borne 289:16

bottom 245:15

284:13

bound 57:14 61:13

61:21 62:3 69:9

75:5 76:4 77:1

85:7 89:11,15

102:11 118:1,5

157:21 158:1,7

boundaries 274:16

298:16

boundary 259:9,12

259:19 279:21

boxes 313:16

bracing 290:19

bracket 135:7,8,10

136:16

brackets 130:12

135:1 137:22

138:7

brainstorming

171:3

break 30:11 34:13

42:16 149:10

184:21

breakdown 131:12

breaking 191:18

breaks 40:11

BRENDA 4:2

Brian 3:3 16:4

22:17 207:13

208:15,17 211:2

227:13 230:14

253:12 273:2,12

274:3 284:3

293:15 297:10

313:10

bridging 88:3

brief 47:21

briefly 6:12 7:5,7

24:9 52:10 318:13

318:14

bring 9:7 16:13

25:10 26:11 72:17

113:20 164:21

238:10 247:7

255:14

Bristol 21:10

broad 13:18 68:13

119:3

broader 121:2

broadly 26:12

broke 88:8 245:18

brought 12:5 48:9

72:16 105:19

227:14 238:9,19

243:22 274:3

Bruce 170:15

brutal 91:19

bubble 126:19

build 211:18

217:21 243:16

266:12 278:10

287:13

building 43:2,14,22

44:3 83:11

bullet 153:21

255:11 298:5

bunch 14:21 64:21

211:21 243:3

308:22

burden 294:14

burdened 26:7

288:3

burdens 207:8

burn 194:3

business 16:20

20:20 27:16 40:16

56:11 80:3 119:13

126:17 213:15

214:19 225:15

278:10 279:1

281:21,21

busy 172:1 181:21

butt 287:4

button 213:6

buy 224:4,19

225:14,16

buyers 223:22

C

C 193:8 235:7

307:6

cafeteria 44:2,5,5,7

44:8

calculate 214:4

222:17
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 326

calculated 287:21

288:3

calculation 214:2

230:18 260:7,9

265:2 289:15

calculations 243:4

289:18 293:14

calendar 193:4

call 28:2 74:14

206:3,13 221:6

233:12 307:16

called 108:9 114:5

142:2 165:6,9

213:12 234:4

300:18

calling 30:21

165:12 215:8

calls 199:11

call-in 30:22

cancel 201:5,14

candidate 205:14

canvas 257:14

capability 87:18

199:14 243:3

capacity 25:5 252:8

252:14 281:17

282:1 315:7

Capitol 59:5

117:12

capricious 36:12

capture 157:18

286:1 320:17

captured 101:20

care 273:17 276:21

careful 64:16

205:10

carefully 295:13

Carlo 103:11

Carlos 2:5 20:1

304:20,21

Carolina 20:8 21:7

carries 103:2

case 48:9 49:17

73:21 76:22 81:7

104:1 125:17

132:13 164:15

200:14 287:18

290:8,20 293:9

302:18 305:13,17

311:4 315:4

cases 29:9 250:11

256:14 262:7

292:3 306:18,22

Caskey 1:21 19:9

180:2,6 255:7

cast 78:8 95:18

casting 77:17

catching 176:20

categories 158:21

211:19 307:8

caucus 27:9 73:14

73:18 167:19

caucused 53:8

caucuses 27:8

caught 150:5

cause 82:2

causes 275:20

caution 43:1

301:18

cell 32:18

Center 171:8

176:14,15 183:13

183:14,20 190:15

central 277:10

319:3

cents 66:9 288:11

288:22

certain 27:19 29:1

105:5 108:19,20

113:1 133:15

181:16 208:21

211:20 216:19

223:17 298:17

306:15

certainly 60:7

85:12 87:18 117:1

122:15 213:21

222:20 256:6

260:11 272:2

cetera 73:3 156:17

205:5,5 207:5,6

chained 45:1

chair 155:14

chairs 15:19

challenge 60:15

62:15 63:3,7,8

65:5,11,13,18,19

65:22 66:16,20

69:22 71:21 72:17

89:16 99:18

118:17 120:18

130:13 131:7,11

132:4,5 140:6

141:17 147:4

170:12 218:9

240:21 253:5

challenged 36:9

143:16

challenges 116:6

120:9,10,22 130:9

chance 32:18 34:16

45:16 102:21

209:20 256:9

297:6

change 62:17 67:20

77:15 118:1 119:8

120:3,19 121:22

125:16 126:4,15

127:12,13 148:12

152:2 159:22

172:12 190:5

197:13 219:1,13

224:12 226:14

227:1 228:8,14,15

228:22 241:15,22

260:21,21 263:5

277:14,14 278:4,7

278:15,17,18,18

280:14,16 296:2

305:19 308:6,9,11

312:19 319:11

changed 39:13

106:14 115:4

163:21 164:9

220:16,18 260:5

266:18 270:22,22

276:13 288:10

307:5

changes 10:18 29:1

29:2 39:22 40:8

41:19 161:4

164:12,12 260:17

270:7 278:19

279:3

changing 121:10

122:2 127:12

135:1 148:1

260:13 272:11

chaotic 279:2

Chapter 290:2

characteristics

215:11 234:21

284:11 316:5

characterize

210:11 229:16

285:16

characterizes

209:7 265:18

charge 11:20 12:1

charges 12:13

charging 15:8

Charlie 3:8 31:13

charts 204:5

chatter 46:21

check 34:16 43:17

150:3 174:16,21

193:3 196:15,17

213:18

checking 196:10

checks 44:1

Chicago 94:6

Chief 4:6

chime 46:10,13

chipped 171:5

choice 248:15

307:12 319:5

choose 94:20

101:15 124:4

186:20 226:7

266:8,9 280:8

307:9

chooses 212:1

choosing 211:22

253:10

chose 214:7 303:17

314:9

chosen 303:12

Chuck 2:18 3:9

20:7 23:1 58:21

60:15 62:16 66:12

67:12 96:10

107:22 132:20

133:21 155:20

157:6 270:2

Chuck's 73:1

circuit 48:3,8,20

49:16 290:20

circulate 161:18

250:16

circulated 30:5

32:13

circumstances

120:4

circumventing

75:9

citizens 25:6

city 180:7 250:2

clarification 51:15

72:14 73:7 131:4

135:13 137:7

267:15

clarifications 49:20

49:22

clarify 57:11 111:2

150:18,20 182:8

297:16

clarifying 56:12

301:5 310:12

clarity 35:12

class 181:11 185:18

210:19 218:22

240:1,2 244:17

246:17 247:9

252:7,10,13,22

253:16 254:4,4,9

254:14 255:5

classes 154:20

205:15,16 239:19

239:20 240:4,6,9

240:10,12 245:1

251:21 252:4

254:5

clause 60:15 99:13

114:13 118:15

176:18,18,22
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 327

190:4

clean 161:5,12,18

166:12

cleaned 166:13

Cleaning 136:16

clear 36:14 38:4

64:22 75:14 76:18

77:21 112:18

251:5

clearance 295:20

clearly 63:8 130:14

250:19 251:1

client 147:15

close 63:17 146:7

177:7 270:9 274:6

closed 139:5

140:17 272:7

closely 164:16

closer 62:22 121:20

closure 271:19

cloud 259:2 300:3

308:5,12 313:16

coalition 21:18

55:18 56:1 59:22

coast 191:12

code 53:21

codes 83:11

Coffey 3:3 16:4

22:17,17 41:15,22

207:13 208:16,17

210:3 211:4,15

212:18 213:10

220:19 221:3,15

221:18 229:13

230:15 231:20

240:7,9,15 253:13

256:3 257:9,13,18

258:1,21 259:2

260:11 261:1

262:6,9,18 263:18

264:8 265:16

266:7 267:6

268:12,19 269:1,4

270:10,18 271:2

272:10,14 275:4

275:10,13 276:9

276:16 284:5

285:6,9 288:11,15

288:19 289:1,4,8

293:16 294:5

295:19 296:7,12

296:16,22 297:11

298:12 299:1,6,18

300:9 301:4 302:6

303:11,20 304:1,7

313:12,15 314:21

317:13 318:1,10

cognizant 13:16

Cohen 4:3 8:5

15:22 22:1,1

47:22 48:5,5

49:10 50:3 51:2,6

51:7,12,14 52:14

52:14 62:6,19,19

63:2,12,19 64:5

70:21,21 72:13,14

74:15,16 77:5,5

77:11,22,22 79:1

79:5,20,20 80:13

80:13,20 88:1,1

88:18 90:2,2

101:7,7 102:1

106:1,2 107:4,4

107:10,18 108:7,7

112:1,1,9 122:3,3

125:3,3,11 127:5

127:5,15 130:8

131:3,6 135:12,12

135:16 137:8,8,14

138:10,10 139:6

140:2,2,19 141:9

147:2,2,13,13

151:2,2 159:10,10

204:3 222:19

251:19 312:2,2

313:6 314:20

coil 290:19,22

291:2

coincide 128:18

coincided 128:1

cold 55:8

colleagues 27:9

collected 217:16

collection 236:7

collections 254:5

collectively 255:1

Columbia 226:5

column 284:9

311:8,12

combination

229:22 267:21

291:12

combinations

229:16 230:1

286:20 291:7,13

291:20 305:5,15

come 6:22 7:21 8:8

12:1 24:4 28:11

28:22 32:6 34:17

35:5,19 37:21

39:19 40:8 41:3

45:13,17,18 46:3

58:19 61:5,14

69:11 81:5 84:17

91:4,18 104:7

122:8 139:3 141:7

144:21 153:19

161:19 164:3

167:21 168:13

192:1 202:16

206:4 215:2

217:10 228:9,13

229:8 230:20

232:4 243:14

251:8,16 254:10

257:9 259:16

267:17 269:9

273:1 277:9 293:3

293:12 294:15

303:9 309:18

317:3 320:17

comes 9:20 11:13

26:1 36:11 40:9

66:18 107:7 109:2

124:22 138:12

144:17 163:18

189:10 194:7

208:15 220:2

223:12 244:16

256:4 272:4

278:12 296:13

304:15

comfortable 97:16

97:22 184:5

200:17 308:21

coming 5:7 6:10

69:15 191:11

195:18 271:18

317:2 318:13

commanded 96:3

comment 11:11

14:14 28:21,22

38:10 45:13 46:7

47:3 48:7 59:1

61:18 73:1 120:19

133:11 137:5

139:4,5,8,22

140:1,12,14,21

141:1,6,12 143:1

143:3,11,14 144:2

145:15,15,16,17

145:18 146:2,5,7

146:9,9 166:4,19

175:21 186:13

191:4 192:12

194:10 199:3,21

204:8 210:2

233:15 237:19

250:16 253:2

302:11 304:10

commentators

263:9

comments 32:20

45:8 51:16 55:19

55:20 57:5,7 59:4

116:2 132:1

136:18 137:11

138:19 140:11

141:7 147:20

148:2,19 150:11

158:10 161:8

166:3 238:17

288:18 308:17

commercial 21:5

225:15 245:4

283:4 293:5

commercially

294:20 295:1

Commission 1:19

18:1

commit 115:14

141:15 160:10

201:16

commitment 52:4

64:17 85:4 159:8

159:9 160:9

180:15

commitments

56:18,19,20 76:22

182:2

committed 25:20

committee 1:3 4:9

6:3,16,17,21 7:4,7

7:13 9:17,20 10:8

10:8,12,17 11:2,5

11:10,16,19 12:7

12:8,9,20 13:9

14:3,15 15:9 17:2

17:5,8 25:10,14

26:1,12 28:12,19

29:5 41:18 52:1

52:18,19 55:17

56:16,17,19 57:4

68:15,20 73:10,15

74:8 76:15,16,17

76:19 77:3,8,13

77:15,18 78:7

79:5,7 84:12

87:20,21 88:8,16

94:10,14 95:8,9

95:12 104:18

106:3 108:10,11

108:11,13,14,17

108:18 109:1,2

115:8 119:17

120:11 124:13,18

143:8 147:14

150:18,21 151:4,4

159:1 160:5 167:7

170:13,18 171:19

171:19 177:12,21

180:10 181:9

184:3 212:14

224:21 225:18

269:9 270:6
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 328

271:16 294:11

309:18 311:16

315:1

committees 6:3 7:9

37:8,15 167:6

committee's 303:15

committing 197:15

commodity 267:22

common 91:11

236:22 249:19

286:1

companies 21:21

225:7 283:6,7

company 2:7 8:17

19:2 25:5 213:12

293:5

compared 68:7

260:4

comparing 237:2

comparison 306:12

compelling 304:3

competitiveness

283:21

compiling 213:20

complete 268:22

292:19

completed 119:17

140:12 310:16

311:1

completely 42:15

61:1 140:20 230:7

278:14

complex 279:6

complexity 319:12

compliance 62:9

70:11,13,20 71:2

71:5,11,13 73:5

117:3,10,13 118:8

121:8,11,17,18,20

122:6,11,13,15,18

122:21 123:6,21

124:1,3 126:12

129:5 144:16,19

145:3,5

compliant 63:17

64:3

complicated 33:7

172:15

complied 12:21

119:11

comply 11:9 64:8

64:10 119:12

component 230:17

compromises 37:10

computer 164:1

251:16

computers 164:13

concede 93:5

concept 81:14 85:9

219:12

concepts 313:22

conceptually 248:8

concern 40:21 58:6

65:14 145:13

156:1 181:12

211:5 220:20

226:9 237:21

239:10,13 243:21

281:10

concerned 43:4

62:13 198:16

265:5

concerning 255:11

concerns 14:1 37:4

40:19 227:15

237:19 239:9

265:15 315:19

conclude 37:19

176:7

concluded 39:16

105:1 212:5

conclusion 105:19

166:14 269:10

conclusions 36:7

concrete 249:5

concur 239:15

243:21

concurrence 52:17

52:21 89:19 97:17

98:2,10 110:4

111:4 112:2,6,19

112:22 113:6

134:7

concurrently 40:10

170:9

conditions 61:22

62:3 121:22 122:2

127:11,13 132:7

conducting 284:22

conductor 277:21

305:5,16

conference 171:22

179:14 197:19

confess 266:20

confidence 133:20

confident 171:10

183:15

confidentiality

235:18

configuration

286:4 309:17

confine 150:11

conflict 8:11 9:9

150:2 175:16

179:11 180:8

182:13 195:4

conflicting 17:10

180:3

conflicts 184:15

conform 36:13

confused 110:18

150:1 151:6

300:14

confusing 99:15

confusion 17:7

75:16 107:3

Congress 59:11

60:1,2 64:15 72:4

119:1 128:5

conjunction 208:19

Connecticut 1:15

23:22 174:13

consensus 24:5,18

25:22 28:5 52:2,3

52:4,9,11,16

53:11 56:5,10

57:1,9 58:5,13,15

59:3,9 68:16 70:1

78:15 80:5,9 81:5

82:10 83:14,17,20

85:7,21 86:14

87:4,5,7,13,14,15

87:15 89:1,14

91:19 92:3,6,22

93:18 95:2 97:3

98:15 99:11,13

101:4,16 104:18

104:19 107:11

111:5 134:4 156:2

156:4,9 157:3,16

158:16 159:2

160:10,15

consent 52:21

59:16 96:3,4

109:15 129:16

consented 102:9

148:3

consenting 58:11

consequence 283:4

Conservation 2:5

17:16 85:2

consider 38:2 86:9

88:7,14,15 105:20

114:12 264:2,6

272:6

consideration 54:8

88:10 115:15

143:20 223:11

296:11

considerations

290:11 305:14

considered 86:6

88:12 94:3,4

102:9 110:21

232:9,10 286:7,9

286:17 314:1

considering 286:15

considers 287:16

294:6

consistency 305:3

consistent 45:3

66:15 67:15 89:18

131:8 135:6 148:6

255:19 256:8

consists 205:13

constant 316:6,7

constitutes 52:1

80:5

constrain 215:20

constrained 249:13

251:13 263:1

constraining 249:7

constraint 314:16

constructed 253:22

254:1

constructing

230:11

construction

233:20 292:5

construed 111:18

156:16

consult 142:22

consultant 3:3,11

3:15,22 21:1

31:10,17

consultants 191:22

192:3 201:8

consulting 2:7 3:4

3:11,15,16,18

22:16,18 23:10

81:13 147:15

208:18

consume 252:4

consumed 252:5

consumer 21:20

207:3 225:13

232:18

contact 32:2,12

contain 290:19

contained 269:8

containing 65:12

contains 26:7

163:16

contentious 77:16

CONTENTS 4:4

contested 91:19

context 48:3 147:8

contingency 176:19

continue 37:18

82:20 284:3

318:16

Continued 2:1

contract 56:17

58:17

contracted 291:9
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 329

contractual 57:15

contravening 119:5

control-S 138:17

controversial 170:7

convene 14:17

convener 26:11

convenience

169:13,14

convenient 298:14

conventional 293:7

299:21 300:3

320:13

conversation 46:1

175:12 272:21

273:1

conversations

287:14

conveys 109:14

convince 92:6

convinced 91:22

cool 167:20

Cooper 1:22 3:13

20:14 31:11

144:14

Cooperative 2:18

18:11

cooperatives 18:12

copied 32:3

copies 166:6,12

copper 126:4

236:21 268:1,3

278:6 286:13

287:6

core 19:18 277:20

286:3,11 287:6

290:13,22 291:2

291:14 293:2,8,19

294:15 305:5,15

cores 20:21 262:20

286:11,15 287:4

289:11 290:7,11

Corkran 1:22 3:4

20:12,13 23:7,7

62:21 78:7 144:13

144:13,20 145:8

184:21 223:2

corner 302:2

corollary 117:18

corporate 75:7,9

75:10

Corporation 2:12

3:20 20:17

correct 10:9 39:5

51:5 72:12 87:3

128:22 129:2

190:22 207:20

221:15 241:9,12

243:8

corrected 292:13

correcting 256:4

correctly 151:1

239:22

correlate 305:10

correspond 296:17

corresponding

316:16

corresponds 259:6

314:11

corroborate 239:8

corroborates 236:3

cost 126:15 210:12

210:14 223:11

224:1,4,16,19

225:6,15,16

226:19 227:1

229:18 231:13

233:6,9 234:6,9

235:2,6,8 236:15

244:11,13 254:11

255:3 256:11

257:10 263:3

267:16,20,21,22

277:20,21 281:10

287:10 288:4

289:14 290:22

292:10,11 293:13

296:2 305:4 308:4

308:10

costs 117:7 126:1,3

223:5 224:7

234:17 236:19

263:9 277:19

288:2 289:14,16

289:19,20 316:9

Coughlin 3:5 22:10

22:10 39:8,15,21

304:11,12 307:11

307:22 309:6,8

310:3 311:5,10

318:5

Coulter 3:6 22:19

22:19 130:18,19

131:1 272:21,22

273:8,22 274:8

276:20 280:2,3,6

281:9,20 282:11

282:17 293:15,17

293:17 294:3,10

295:7

Council 2:5,16 3:12

3:21 17:16,18

18:18 23:4,6 85:2

Counsel 48:1

Counsel's 4:6 6:1

22:2

count 93:21 94:10

101:3 111:12,13

112:15

counted 79:18

100:17

counting 43:4

country 224:9

234:3

couple 24:6 33:17

138:21 163:10

198:15 220:9

226:4 237:18

275:3 280:17

course 15:21 27:11

35:13 63:3 88:11

167:7 204:18

300:11

court 36:8 48:21

49:1,5,12 50:19

62:14 63:3 65:6

65:20,22 67:11

71:22 87:1 118:22

120:9,10,18 125:7

130:9,13,15 132:4

140:6,7 141:16,19

143:16 168:7

cover 109:12 314:7

coverage 212:22

264:15

covered 84:21 99:2

99:9 155:9,22

159:14,17 160:6

252:6 255:4

covering 205:14

254:18

covers 49:4 66:4

112:11 160:20

224:5

Co-ops 3:8 31:14

crack 167:22

crafted 295:13

Cranes 82:5

crash 194:2

craw 82:19

crazy 280:15

create 92:18

171:10 227:2

229:21 234:15

259:2 308:8

315:10

created 39:5

108:14

creates 291:12

319:12

credit 227:12

Creevy 3:6 19:6,6

43:1 46:9 116:4,4

116:9,14 118:3,15

118:16 120:6

121:4 123:18

125:15

criteria 36:17

100:18 209:12

225:8,9 253:8

300:8,11 314:16

314:19

critical 98:1

crook 82:18

cross-check 212:11

CSL 235:9 299:19

301:1,2 305:1,11

307:9 313:17

CSLs 41:1 230:7

297:19 299:5,7,9

300:11,18,20,22

301:9,15 306:17

307:4,12 308:20

309:4 319:5,5,7

319:14

cubic 245:16,18

current 40:3 79:19

96:9 257:20

267:12 289:3

291:21 296:13

310:15,18,19

311:7 319:14

currently 209:18

curtail 131:22

curve 206:2 259:9

259:13,19 308:10

curves 241:16

244:11,12

customary 151:11

customer 2:11 19:1

283:14

customers 259:14

291:16

customized 278:11

cut 90:15 320:3

cuts 156:21

cutting 110:20

198:10

cycle 244:13

257:10 300:21

302:2

cylindrical 264:10

Cymbalsky 2:2

14:10,11 15:17

22:4,4 40:4,5 41:7

43:18 64:7 84:9,9

86:8,8 105:15

106:12,18 107:13

125:22,22 192:14

199:13,18 201:13

204:11 207:21

208:6,14

D

D 77:7 150:15

175:22 235:7
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 330

Dan 4:3 8:5 15:22

22:1 36:15 37:13

47:22 48:5 51:7

52:7,13,14 62:5

62:19 70:21 72:13

74:15 77:5,22

79:20 80:7,13

88:1 90:2 101:7

106:2 107:4 108:7

112:1 122:3 125:3

127:5 135:12

137:8 138:10

140:2 147:2,13

150:7 151:2

159:10 204:3

312:2 314:15

dancing 80:3

Daniel 3:22 31:16

95:16,17

Dan's 141:12

data 35:18 36:1

38:6 40:6 213:17

214:13,14 217:15

217:21 218:3,10

218:13 222:3,10

222:16 231:7,11

234:13,14 235:10

235:18,21 236:2,7

236:14 237:3,6

239:7,16 241:3

242:4,7,19 246:15

250:6,14 251:11

251:14 254:11

255:3 256:7,11,13

256:19 260:3,6,10

261:17,22 262:2

262:10 263:20

265:17 266:1,4,12

269:20 270:15

271:21 272:4,7,19

275:4 276:1

277:13,13 281:6,6

281:6,7 285:13

287:19 288:16

292:5 293:8

294:14,16 295:18

295:21 300:15

301:6,15,19

306:11 308:15

313:17

date 10:15 40:3

48:16 50:12,15

51:8 61:12,22

62:2,3,7,9 63:11

63:13,15,16,17,18

63:19,21,22 64:3

70:3,5,11,12,13

70:14,18,20 71:2

71:2,3,3,5,5,10,11

71:13,16 73:5

116:10 117:2,10

117:21 118:4,6,6

118:8 121:6,7,8,9

121:9,11,17,18,20

121:21,21 122:7

122:11,13,16,18

122:21 123:6,21

124:1,3,4,5,9,17

125:1,2,4,12,14

126:10,12 127:3

127:18 129:2,5,7

130:7 132:6,12,22

133:15 134:10,12

135:14,17,20

144:21 145:3,5

179:5,10,10

dated 39:2

dates 17:10 62:11

71:1,11,20 166:16

166:18 170:11

174:7,8 177:6,10

178:10 180:11,12

181:18 196:14

daunting 67:6

Dave 21:4 73:6

103:20 136:20

148:21 226:3

266:17 281:16

282:17 296:4

DAVID 2:9 3:2

day 6:4 30:1 63:6

72:4,15,19 126:7

169:18,19 170:4

177:21 184:13,17

184:18,19 185:7

186:7 188:13,15

189:1 194:1,13

320:22

days 33:17 63:10

63:12,21 70:4

71:4,18,22 72:1,9

72:12 123:11

125:5 128:1,18,20

129:11 130:10,20

132:11 133:17

140:15 168:3

169:22 170:1,2

172:3,4 177:13,14

177:22 178:2,5

188:5,21,22 189:5

189:8 191:6,12,19

201:12

day's 196:1

deadline 14:18

50:20 51:2 134:20

146:2 150:17,19

150:22 168:7,9

169:4 176:10

deadlines 13:6,7

49:18

deal 20:8 28:3

54:17 113:14

121:3 134:11

183:20 214:19

250:20 251:3

284:1 294:16

320:5

dealing 60:8 159:9

deals 17:19

dealt 70:1 108:16

Dear 149:21

December 13:13

171:15 174:3

175:9,16,17,19,21

176:2,4,8,9,11

189:11,12,13

193:4 194:7,17,19

195:5,12,13 196:9

196:10,19,21

197:3 203:22

decide 29:19 30:2

74:2 94:16 104:6

118:9 153:9 201:5

205:7 223:18

271:20 309:3

decided 25:14

37:12 92:18

110:18

decides 150:19

decision 87:21 89:5

89:6 91:6 92:9

104:22 165:19

277:12 320:6,11

decisions 9:16

54:14,15 90:21,22

declare 320:21

decreased 305:21

decreasing 306:21

deemed 73:16

155:6

default 81:6 93:18

181:3 216:16

Defense 2:16 3:12

3:21 18:18 23:4,6

defer 304:16

deference 36:10

deficiencies 212:21

218:2 243:17

define 52:11,20

77:6,19 78:20

116:21 153:7

274:19

defined 57:2 58:15

73:9 95:2 116:18

149:16 151:4

definitely 38:17

42:18 179:18

217:20 229:5

definition 42:3

52:9,16,22 69:1

70:8 73:8 75:18

78:15,17 80:9,12

81:4 86:14 89:18

103:21 122:1

148:7 154:5,12

degree 26:5 284:17

DeLASKI 2:3

21:15,15 42:7

43:7 50:14,19

54:10 57:10,18

60:13 61:4 62:12

63:15 64:1,9

70:10,17 72:5

74:4 90:19,19

94:11 96:17

101:20 102:12

117:17 118:10

122:14,14 124:6

124:14 126:21

127:10 133:10

137:19 138:2,6

142:20 144:3

153:6,20 154:8,13

155:1 157:6

158:19 160:1,7

176:21 183:22

190:19 191:1,3,9

192:15 200:21

202:5 227:17

delay 117:13

146:11 261:9

deleting 130:2

deliberately 82:1

deliver 12:2

denominator

249:20

Department 1:1

2:2 4:2,3,3 6:19

11:13 22:3,14

47:15,15 48:2,6

52:3 82:4 83:1

85:19 86:1,6

119:19 124:20

137:11 146:6,8

204:18 208:20

209:19 255:16

departs 93:16

departure 109:17

departures 81:20

85:11

depending 277:15

280:8

depends 139:15

185:11

deposition 141:20
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 331

derive 305:14

Derricks 82:5

describe 54:16

59:21

described 91:10

92:4 291:18

descriptive 284:7

design 2:6 35:9

41:13 42:3 210:10

210:20,20 211:1,7

211:13 212:7,12

214:4,16 218:21

221:5,8 229:15,20

229:22 230:13,21

232:19 233:4

236:20 240:7,8

242:13 244:3

245:6 250:9

253:16 254:12,16

254:18,22 255:13

256:11 259:18

264:20,22,22

265:1,1,6 267:20

270:5 275:14,15

275:22 277:18

278:1,2,2,7,11

283:11,15 284:9

285:15,19,22

286:10,20,21

287:14 290:16

291:4,7,11,20

292:10,16 293:8

296:3 297:21

298:9,10,13 299:2

299:16 302:17

303:16 305:3,13

305:18,21 306:6

306:13 307:2,6,10

309:13,15 310:8,9

316:5,12 317:14

317:15,17 318:7

319:21 320:3

designate 76:14

designated 164:9

designed 25:16

designs 41:14

213:16 229:22

230:4 231:8,10

232:1 233:19

236:4 242:16

254:6 259:10

261:12,13 263:4

263:10 267:17

268:6 275:20

276:14 285:4

286:1,7,16 289:10

289:10 290:7,10

290:15,18 291:6

291:10,12,21

292:1,4 293:2,7,9

293:20 294:15

297:12 305:4

307:19 319:20

desirable 181:9

desire 34:15

despite 113:1

destroy 87:12

detail 28:4 290:1

291:18 316:20

detailed 41:13

207:14

details 197:21

204:5 308:15

detector 44:7

determination 13:7

51:3 67:22 68:2,4

68:4,7 86:2

130:15 131:7,10

131:17,20 135:19

136:1 139:17

142:3 146:3 152:2

152:6,10,18 153:5

155:6 159:13

168:14 312:19,22

determine 224:22

252:2 288:4

292:11 312:11

determined 28:1

29:1 145:8,10

287:12,14 292:14

develop 205:10

206:1 210:6

222:22 230:6

271:6

developed 229:18

254:11

developing 88:7

208:21 231:1

313:18

development 83:13

develops 287:10

301:9

deviated 82:5

deviation 220:12

221:14 274:18

317:6

devices 20:11

devoted 58:13

DFO 14:2

diagram 264:9

dialogue 46:2

dibs 185:14

die 142:18

diesel 289:3

differ 71:12

difference 90:3

109:11 216:12

224:5,6 226:18

256:20 265:18

301:12

differences 233:16

233:16 234:16

262:15,17,19

different 54:4 61:1

71:11 73:22 80:12

81:6 83:19 108:6

118:14 123:16

133:18 151:21,22

157:11 159:19,20

164:15 168:19

198:3 205:12,17

205:17 206:4,8

207:1 209:8 213:7

214:16 215:17,20

217:7 218:14

220:20 221:17

224:7 225:4,4,7,8

226:13 227:1

228:11 229:15

230:1 231:22

232:2,5,10 242:20

243:10 247:9

248:19 251:17,21

252:3,4,5 253:11

258:11 261:4

262:4 263:21

266:1,5 271:11,12

274:9 278:8

280:20 285:4,8

286:4,20 289:19

293:3 297:20,20

298:1 299:16,17

300:20 302:15

303:9 305:3,5,15

306:4,13 307:18

308:8,11 313:21

319:7 320:4

differently 100:16

215:21

difficult 41:5 85:8

213:5 222:18

290:12 303:8

309:22

difficulties 214:12

difficulty 242:6

dimension 122:16

122:19

dimensions 222:4

249:7 316:8

diplomacy 202:8

direct 14:1

direction 282:13

directly 43:20

73:15 109:4 184:8

222:7 315:8,16,22

316:17

director 2:3,11,16

3:6,16 18:22

21:16

disadvantaged

246:9

disagree 117:15

discrepancies

232:14 255:21

Discretion 162:1

discuss 13:19 14:17

27:18 33:4 38:6

42:2 52:10 61:21

81:8 163:18 170:6

209:15 229:8

301:19 302:9

discussed 53:21

102:19 144:16

210:11 219:20

227:12 287:17

discusses 139:1

discussing 9:14

116:6 117:7 119:9

304:16

discussion 4:10

11:12 24:11,17

25:8 30:4,8 33:12

33:16 34:22 35:4

37:18 38:7,10

42:5 47:22 53:5

100:8 104:17

115:17,22 116:16

122:19 133:19

151:10 158:13

164:21 166:7

174:15 183:17

192:10 198:2,2,5

202:21,22 216:2

240:22 253:18

279:13 298:2

discussions 9:11

30:6 54:19 122:16

123:1 127:22

128:8 142:21

164:16

display 5:15

dispute 24:2

disruptive 13:2

dissension 68:17

dissent 58:2 81:22

89:21 90:5,7

93:14 94:17 97:18

98:3,11 100:9

101:10 103:21

104:1,2 109:18,20

110:5 111:19

112:3,7 134:8

135:11 148:8

200:4

dissented 102:6
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 332

dissenting 89:20

dissents 94:18

dissolved 124:13

dissolvement

124:17

distill 211:19

distinct 60:2

distinction 76:10

distinguish 54:11

307:18

distinguishes 266:5

distortions 221:13

distracted 43:10

distributed 26:21

distribution 1:6

2:17 20:3,5,9,9

21:3,13 159:4

210:7 284:15

distributions

309:14

District 226:5

diverse 26:13

diversity 319:20

320:6

division 20:18

22:22

DL 266:6,7

docket 139:2,16

docs 198:22

document 115:10

155:2 199:10

237:18 239:11

251:4 305:2

306:18

documenting

319:10

documents 32:3

156:19

DOE 14:11 15:22

22:6 25:20 28:9

36:11 42:13 52:14

56:18 59:5 70:21

72:14 74:16 77:5

77:22 79:20 80:13

84:10 86:9 87:8,9

87:16 88:2 90:2

104:17 105:1,14

106:11 107:1,4

108:7 119:16,17

120:10 122:3

125:3 126:1 127:5

135:12 137:9

138:10 140:2

141:16 142:16

145:14 152:11

160:9 166:20

171:6 174:4 176:8

178:14 181:3,4

183:19 184:4

193:5,12,19 197:9

201:15 210:10,18

210:19 211:18

214:21 223:12,16

224:14,18,22

225:7,8,12 229:14

229:18,20 230:6

231:4 269:22

270:11 284:11,16

284:20 285:15,18

285:22 286:9,15

286:17 287:10,16

287:21 289:9,13

289:15 290:4,9,14

290:17 291:8,22

292:4,9,10,15

293:4,7 294:6

297:11 298:11

301:9 310:16,17

312:2 313:19

314:21 315:8,21

316:1,7,14 317:8

318:1

DOE's 25:18

104:19 105:11

159:8,9 316:20

dog 24:19,21

doing 7:2 13:3

14:18 26:22 40:16

41:2 46:5,19

62:15 72:19 80:3

102:20,21 105:22

169:12,12 172:16

182:17,18,19

197:11 201:3

213:3 217:6

223:20 227:6

232:2,11 244:14

244:21 246:17

252:1 257:11

304:3

dollar 268:3

dollars 223:7 229:2

229:3,4 241:18

267:12 268:1

dominate 26:15

dominated 240:20

door 278:12

double 17:10

double-sided 205:9

doubt 14:16

dovetail 300:6

downstream

210:14 261:14

292:18

draft 28:10,17 30:1

30:5,10 38:10

41:1 47:10 56:21

65:5 77:14 110:7

dramatically

265:22

draw 84:12 87:16

87:17,19 307:15

Drexler 3:8 31:13

31:13

drill 5:11

drive 229:1 273:18

296:6,10

driven 296:14

drivers 267:16

drives 226:17

driving 54:13

216:9

drop 148:13,14

dropped 82:22

dry 240:13,14

317:16

dry-type 1:6 5:5

21:11,12 154:19

159:4 212:8 216:3

221:7,19 254:2

259:12 263:10

287:1 290:7,9,18

315:3,6,21 316:13

due 170:15 225:3

dumb 59:12,18

dynamic 167:8,9

D.C 1:13 178:12,14

321:2

E

E 136:21 137:3

138:22 145:12

148:12

eager 256:22

earlier 34:3 101:9

101:19 116:7

189:20 256:10

275:22 310:14

312:4,11

early 34:20 42:10

189:12,12 191:19

308:19

Earthjustice 1:19

23:19

easier 92:17 173:10

easiest 120:7

easily 274:22

303:19 305:11

easy 81:8,8 279:14

eat 34:15 43:16

Eckman 2:4 17:15

17:15 85:1,1

195:15,22 196:5

economic 265:21

311:22 312:22

economically

206:19 225:21

312:7

economics 3:2

23:16 68:12 75:16

87:3 99:1 103:4

112:18 121:16

132:3 141:12

282:5

economies 244:18

economize 200:1,2

Edison 2:15 3:9

10:6 18:6 23:1

49:7 58:21 66:13

225:3

EDWARDS 4:2

EEI 20:11 51:2

53:8 55:15 56:1

67:15,19 70:3

83:11 131:15

140:11 171:22

178:9 199:6

207:17 220:8

244:2 257:5 279:9

effect 8:16 65:9

70:15 72:11 74:8

119:10,10 132:19

133:14 134:15

263:2,15 281:15

285:11

effective 63:11,13

63:15,22 70:5

71:2,3,4,10 118:6

121:8,9,21 124:5

125:2,12,13

126:10 127:18

129:2,7 132:6,12

132:22 134:10,12

135:17,20 144:21

305:22

effectively 11:20

36:3 99:2,10

141:21 289:21

effects 72:9 285:1

efficiencies 1:3

223:14,16 224:2

224:13 229:17

236:17 247:1

258:19 265:19,20

285:17 292:16

298:17 299:11

316:16

efficiency 3:20 6:15

17:17 21:18,19

35:8 41:1,4 159:3

206:18 210:7,12

216:9 224:9,22

226:20,20 227:3,4

227:5 230:5,6,10

230:12 241:8,20
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 333

241:21 244:12,13

247:9 248:2,20

249:10,10,19

254:11 255:3

256:12 258:8

259:8 263:3

278:20 280:8

281:13,15 283:20

285:2 286:2 287:3

287:7 291:22

292:13,21 293:13

294:9 296:2

297:13,21 298:8

299:3,14,20

301:11,21,21

302:19 303:14,16

304:14 305:8,19

306:4,7,15 307:15

307:16 308:1,4

309:10,15 310:1

312:6,9,16 314:8

efficient 42:9

173:11 205:22

209:9 223:8 235:3

312:21 313:1

effort 79:6 176:7

309:22

eight 93:22 95:3

Eighth 187:2,5

either 26:15 70:14

85:3 87:6,7

101:17 110:9

142:17 147:9

154:4 158:5,7,8

161:2 168:14

186:15 198:4

217:4 223:14

237:20

either/or 175:12

electric 2:15,18 3:8

3:9,22,23 10:6

18:4,6,10,12,15

23:2 24:14 31:14

49:7 58:22 66:13

225:3 233:5

electrical 1:18,22

2:6,13 3:7 19:7

20:19,21 21:6

234:20 283:6,8

292:6,14

electro 19:14

electronic 79:9,14

eliminate 75:16

234:14 294:1

eliminated 293:19

ELs 230:7 297:14

297:18 299:8

301:11,17 303:11

305:1,7,10 306:8

307:5 313:17,20

314:6,6,10

EMA 55:17

email 15:2 32:1

46:20,22 49:11,19

49:22 199:2

209:16 319:9

emails 14:22

156:20

embody 56:17,18

Emily 3:14 16:8

emission 207:3

emphasize 45:19

employees 19:4

employer 8:17

employers 7:22

8:10

EMS 3:18 23:9

enable 294:16

enacted 59:19

81:15

enclosure 214:10

encompassing

250:10

encourage 79:11

endorse 85:4

endorsement 66:21

ends 29:10

Energetics 3:14

energy 1:1 2:3,15

2:19 3:2,9,20 4:2

4:3,4 6:15,15

17:17 20:7 21:18

21:19 22:3,12,14

47:20 48:6 83:1

96:11 108:1

117:18 119:19

159:2 206:18

207:2 208:20

224:22 252:5

255:16 270:3

296:5 312:6

Energy's 47:16

52:3

enforce 128:14

engaged 48:12

277:2

engine 230:18

engineer 1:22 2:7,7

2:18 3:19 20:13

21:1

engineering 1:18

1:20 2:5,17 3:19

3:21 19:17 20:3

21:9 206:1,2

207:14 209:14,17

210:5,13,18

217:10 224:11,12

235:22 242:10

243:9 246:7 260:6

287:10 291:5

292:17,20 297:12

307:14,19

engineers 243:20

enjoy 321:2

ensure 28:5 79:16

entail 153:22

entire 67:7 206:14

211:11 242:5

266:21 278:8

entities 75:4

entity 73:22 244:21

environmental

18:19 21:20

envisioned 154:16

155:2

envisions 191:5

EPA 82:16

EPCA 51:4

equal 169:10

298:22 299:22

equally 9:4 298:8

298:20 299:2,12

equals 291:1

equates 291:3

equation 242:12

293:20

equipment 205:15

205:16 210:19

240:9,10,12

246:17 253:16

254:3,4,5,9,14

255:5

equivalence 233:12

233:14

equivalent 132:3

equivalents 315:10

ERAC 6:16 10:7

13:16,17 14:3,15

56:5 105:17,19

108:10 109:5

150:21 151:7

ERAC's 108:2

Eric 2:11 18:22

error 231:13,13,14

232:7,8 233:3

260:8,9 263:13,15

263:17,22 264:19

errors 213:19

234:10 255:18,18

255:19,20

esoteric 103:9

especially 140:10

172:2 305:22

307:1

ESQ 1:19 3:11 4:3

4:3

essence 247:16

essential 171:1

essentially 35:3

41:12 206:6

241:15 258:6

establish 222:11

established 52:18

establishment

108:22

estimate 292:9

319:3

estimated 217:14

290:21

et 73:3 156:17

205:4,5 207:5,6

European 295:18

evaluate 224:8

258:13

evaluated 233:5

evaluates 209:11

223:6

evaluating 308:20

evaluations 258:10

evening 37:20

321:2

evenly 306:18

event 19:10 59:2

76:16 141:16

175:13

eventually 244:12

everybody 5:13

14:11 15:13 16:17

24:20,21 30:21

31:22 32:9,14,16

34:13 35:2 43:4

43:13 47:7 58:8

97:1,3 100:8

117:4 150:10

156:22 163:5

170:20 171:4

172:15 181:7

198:21 199:11

208:17 238:4

251:4 315:13

everyone's 54:7

evidence 239:13

evidenced 112:3,5

112:7

exact 28:1,8,8

301:12

exactly 10:13,20,20

88:9 98:9,12

101:8 105:21

128:18 161:6,7

178:6 185:20

273:21

example 74:6 84:18

116:22 154:17

215:18 249:2
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 334

254:13 286:19

305:17 316:11

317:6

excellent 231:4

exception 103:7

113:18

excluded 120:14,14

303:6

excuse 30:6 36:7

83:2 94:12 98:21

134:21 232:16

260:18 272:22

executive 2:3 21:16

exercise 58:10

235:10 277:2

305:13

exert 91:14

exist 232:12 243:18

existence 87:20

existing 217:8

306:8

expanded 118:19

expect 8:21 24:10

34:10

expectation 11:19

12:8,14

expeditiously

167:10

experience 29:7,8

34:7 43:7 167:5

167:12 218:21

experts 12:4,17

25:6,10 287:15

290:9,21

expiration 128:2

expires 124:22

explain 81:8

293:10

explained 253:19

290:1

explanatory 47:1

51:19

explicit 112:14

explore 285:1

explores 209:8

exploring 213:2

285:11

expressed 66:16

227:15

expressing 267:12

extend 57:2 120:21

139:7 143:14

150:19,21 168:9

237:12

extended 169:5

extending 146:2

extension 49:18

151:7

extensive 132:13

extent 7:12,20 12:6

12:19 13:21 27:15

65:8 66:1 68:19

75:7 77:1 88:5

160:13,14 222:22

extra 59:4 120:21

extract 15:3

extraordinary

191:9

extreme 281:11

extremely 234:18

extremis 172:18

F

F 136:15

FACA 56:6,10

105:16

faces 51:22 269:16

facilitator 1:13,14

8:19 24:11 26:11

165:19

facility 171:8 215:6

facing 129:15

fact 12:17 13:16

36:7 55:13 88:15

107:5 140:6 145:2

155:21 171:13

214:7 215:8,18

228:17

factor 217:11 222:4

222:17 230:19

232:8 247:2

258:18

factored 222:15

factors 207:4 225:5

232:21 234:14

258:5,9,11,12,14

267:19 292:11

296:6,10,15,17

312:10

factory 21:7 288:1

289:8

failed 109:16

fair 61:22 161:14

203:12,15 251:7

253:14 302:10

fairly 56:21 81:13

85:5 129:15

132:12 171:10

263:11 320:17

faith 60:7 69:14

144:5 156:12

falls 124:20

familiar 36:18

103:11,14

family 19:10

far 28:16 144:15

185:1 218:8 220:1

242:1 260:6 296:1

300:19,22

fascinating 26:4,6

fashion 46:11

fast 188:10 200:16

faster 173:21,22

279:16

favor 93:20 94:1

95:1,5 96:6 97:12

109:22 110:8

113:12 116:1

129:9,11 133:5

134:2,10 144:9

158:13 166:9

172:17 185:3

319:13

Fayetteville 1:18

18:1

feasibility 209:13

feasible 206:19

251:10,15 294:8

312:7

feature 252:9,11,17

features 235:4

252:15

February 50:11,12

federal 2:7 6:2 7:12

11:1,9 12:8,20

21:9 70:5 104:15

106:7 108:9,10

118:7 124:9

142:10 168:19

184:19 258:3

feed 230:17 261:12

feedback 146:8

212:19 289:6

feel 28:4 42:14

46:14 74:3 100:20

113:20 119:2

139:22 184:5

280:20 308:21

315:5 319:15

feels 100:8 151:15

158:12 250:8

Femstrom 95:11

fewer 194:3 283:17

283:18

fifth 91:17,22

fight 148:16

figure 35:13 64:1,7

103:13 143:6

159:21 191:20

192:17 202:15

222:2 232:20

figured 212:14

figuring 233:20

file 49:14 57:5 63:7

137:11 148:2

255:14

filed 49:8

fill 186:21

filled 211:12

240:20 305:18

310:9 317:20,21

finagling 213:8,11

final 6:22 13:6

29:15 50:15,20

54:17 55:3,5 56:3

57:7,8 62:9 65:8

84:2,4,5 91:5

102:12,14 106:10

123:20 124:21,22

125:11 131:16,16

131:18,19 133:15

135:21 137:3,4

138:4,5,13,14

152:8 161:5

164:21 265:21

298:6 315:18

320:8

finalize 196:18,20

202:19

financial 25:13

193:7

find 26:3,6 54:20

126:14 130:20

171:1 194:21

195:8 203:21

241:22 288:9

finding 319:21

finds 223:16

fine 44:1 66:3

100:9 118:4,18

121:10 151:8

153:6,7 154:3,5

154:21 201:10

298:7

finger 280:19

fingers 280:4

finish 13:12 42:10

163:11 190:6

273:17

finished 176:1,4

fire 5:11

firm 214:17

firmly 256:13

first 5:4,10 14:12

14:13 15:19 24:10

33:20 47:7,13

60:20 80:15 93:20

135:6,9 136:7

138:11 149:19

150:4 151:3

163:10 169:21

177:22 181:3

185:12,13,14

186:12,19 194:17

200:14 205:8
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 335

210:18 214:21

218:9 220:2 233:8

234:16 237:18,21

251:3 256:16

284:9 303:21

312:21 317:5

318:20

fit 56:14 170:14,21

181:9 253:19

five 64:3 91:16,21

93:21 95:3 123:12

126:11 127:3

128:16 129:10

244:3 245:22

310:8

five-minute 44:19

five-year 287:12

fix 47:9 277:18

fixed 60:22 263:22

277:22

FlatenFLATEN

3:2 296:4,5,9,14

296:19 297:1

flesh 15:4

flexibility 54:19

122:20 133:16

252:21

flexible 122:21

flippantly 140:19

140:20

floated 314:2

floating 25:10

floor 247:21

Florida 94:5

flow 7:3

fly 171:6

flying 14:22 41:6

156:19

focus 25:14 68:20

113:10 155:15,16

235:1 239:6

focused 43:10

242:10

focusing 160:18

folks 46:10 123:6

148:10 191:13,15

202:13,15 243:13

follow 38:22 58:22

72:6 204:18

220:13 246:13

314:18

followed 164:16

169:19

following 7:19

139:14 141:12

244:2 287:21

follow-up 226:15

257:2

foot 245:16

fora 72:19 73:2

forbidden 97:19

force 151:13

forced 225:14,15

forces 216:16

foreclose 64:18

forever 61:13 64:6

141:8

forge 24:18 28:2

form 27:7 55:20

60:9,10 102:19

198:4 293:12

formal 89:2 143:11

149:3 156:11

formally 135:3

format 61:6 309:19

formatting 166:13

formed 11:21

former 230:7

317:14

formulated 299:7,8

formulation 128:22

forth 5:17 27:8,10

29:21 34:9 36:22

42:4 75:11 99:22

102:16,18 166:13

184:18 200:2

209:2 283:22

fortunate 5:22

fortunately 49:10

171:6

forum 10:2 65:6,7

65:21 66:1 67:11

69:17 119:22

130:16 132:17

198:2

forward 5:8 9:22

22:9 24:3,4 31:2

37:22 38:4 52:12

54:20 82:20 85:11

92:11 94:8 102:20

123:1 144:11

157:2 171:20

182:5 183:17

192:4,10 201:1

222:13 250:7

253:9,12 294:16

320:7

Foster 3:9 23:1,1

58:20,21 59:20

60:18 66:8,12,12

127:19 128:6,13

155:21

found 28:6 256:12

316:21

four 91:15,17,21

93:21 95:3 118:8

129:10 170:1

197:14 202:4,8

Fourteen 240:7,8

fourth 255:11

four-state 17:18

frame 34:1 186:10

227:20 243:2

251:14 256:1

287:12 311:2

framework 105:2

119:16 204:7

237:10,12 240:17

frankly 184:19

fray 15:7

free 25:9 27:8

46:15 113:20

213:19

Freeman 3:9 16:11

frequency 316:6

frequent 81:21

frequently 64:14

81:13 126:4

129:15

fresh 167:21

Friday 184:13

195:21

friendly 131:4

front 174:9

fulfilled 35:17

full 7:12 11:5 14:15

17:1,8 94:14

181:13 196:1

fully 184:2 288:2

function 91:12

111:2 251:1

functionally 298:3

fundamental 120:3

fundamentally

228:11 278:8

funds 171:7

further 30:18 41:2

86:21 115:14

128:15 140:4

148:19 155:18

166:7 290:1

316:20

future 86:18 114:9

115:7,21 130:2

269:21 272:16,20

277:1 285:13

291:14

G

G 138:22 139:15

142:9,14 145:21

145:22

game 282:2

gap 197:10

gaps 231:11

garbage 217:16

Gary 95:11,18

Gas 3:17,22 31:20

gather 261:3,16

gathered 262:11

271:3

Gaytan 2:5 20:1,2

246:13 247:14,18

304:21,21 306:10

GE 2:6 3:6,15 20:2

20:4 22:20 31:10

130:19 273:1

304:22

general 2:12 6:1

9:1 20:19 22:2

33:16 48:1 52:20

154:5 167:12

191:4 211:19

221:3 233:4 251:2

266:9 271:15

287:2

generate 213:17

261:12

generated 88:6

230:5

generates 297:12

316:13

generic 250:8

253:5

generous 175:14

gentleman's 149:1

GERALD 2:7

germane 113:4

germinate 167:20

Gerry 20:22 71:14

263:12

getting 5:11 30:8

42:11 55:1 83:3,6

90:11,17 113:22

149:15 150:10

163:8 165:21

195:17 197:18

198:7,13 224:11

267:9 274:5

310:13 312:3

give 36:9,10 37:22

38:13 46:4,6,6

54:21,22 58:5

68:17 130:4

131:12 168:5

169:6 174:1 184:7

192:6 213:4

239:11,11 249:2

255:2 283:14

297:5 316:11

given 11:20 34:10

85:3 179:6 196:14

213:2 214:3

264:13 278:1

gives 54:18 133:20
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 336

191:22,22 252:20

299:22

giving 34:13 44:18

59:16 115:15

184:6

glad 176:13

glancing 163:17

global 152:21,21

Gmail 198:22

gnaws 161:22

go 5:20 6:19 7:8

9:17 10:4 12:6

16:16 22:7 24:4

28:9,16 30:18

32:3 33:20 34:20

35:7 41:8,9 43:20

44:2,4,6,8,9 50:1

53:5 59:10,11

66:20,21 67:16

69:16 72:4 78:14

80:22 81:2 82:20

84:19,20 92:11,15

92:17 114:1

118:13 123:15

125:1 128:16,16

128:17 132:1

133:14 134:17

140:3 155:20

156:9 165:5

167:18 169:21

173:12 174:14

179:2 186:9,12

192:5 201:1 203:1

203:6 205:1

206:11 208:8

209:2 211:3,22

212:15 217:11

231:2 232:17,19

234:12 253:19

257:3 260:1,13

271:5 272:15

277:5 280:1,11,21

282:3,11 283:5

294:1 309:1,20

311:20 312:15,17

312:20 313:5

318:6 320:7

goal 159:1,6

goes 117:19 173:3

245:21 281:18

going 7:2 8:7,8,9,16

8:21 9:2,4,5,10,14

10:17 11:3 12:15

12:16,21 13:3

17:7 33:6 35:22

35:22 37:22 38:4

42:1 43:14 48:17

52:12 62:1,7

66:11 79:21 80:22

82:20 84:19 86:21

87:11 90:14 91:1

91:4 95:22 98:3

98:16 99:17,19,20

100:1,2 102:4

103:5,13 105:6,8

106:9,10 110:14

116:21 117:6

122:5,6,7,11

125:6 128:5 131:8

131:12,22 132:14

133:14,17 136:9

139:6,11 141:8

142:8,13,18

148:16,22 149:1

149:22 150:9

155:13 156:18,20

156:20 173:7,8

180:7 181:13

184:6 185:7 187:7

187:11 188:2

190:3 192:9

193:22 198:6,19

201:2,8,21 204:21

205:3,4 206:8

207:22 209:15,21

215:13 220:12

222:7,8 224:7,13

226:19 232:1,4

233:2 235:2,8,14

250:7 251:11

254:14 261:4,19

263:15 265:14

266:10 271:16,21

271:22 272:8,15

273:12 277:1,1

280:14 281:1

282:3 283:17

284:1 301:20

302:9 309:12

310:16 311:1,14

311:15 315:2

318:11

good 10:5 16:7,18

18:9,21 30:17

36:18 44:16 45:11

53:10 58:20 60:7

60:19 61:2 66:6

69:14 73:12 81:11

82:2 94:6 104:14

109:19 116:13

125:19,20 139:10

144:5 151:6

155:11 156:12

157:7 163:4,20

166:10 176:3

177:3 178:21

182:14,21 186:9

189:4 194:15

195:19 202:22

204:13 205:6

208:16 212:18

217:18 235:10

289:2 321:2

good-faith 79:6

Google 198:22

Gordon 4:3,5 5:22

6:8,10,11 10:9

11:1 13:15 25:3

150:5

gosh 173:11

Gotcha 310:6

GoTo 199:6

GoToMeeting

199:16

gotten 218:7 256:9

295:22 318:20

governed 61:10

governing 6:2

government 3:6

21:21 55:13,22

56:2,7 92:9,11

government's 61:7

governs 26:2

graciously 171:20

Grain 2:12

grain-oriented

20:20 283:7

grant 48:22

graph 255:8 266:14

great 5:7 16:3

23:17 31:5 32:21

33:8 34:5 36:8

65:16 74:3 81:4

85:14 95:10

111:16,17 154:7

154:11 161:1

175:4 196:16

199:15,19 200:3

204:1 209:3 210:3

214:19 217:22

232:13 243:15

295:17 318:11

320:21

greater 228:15

291:18

Greeson 2:6 21:8,8

104:15,15 106:7,7

106:14 107:1

197:17 258:2,3

259:1

Greg 3:6 22:19

130:19 131:1

272:22 276:20

280:2 282:19

293:17

grid 167:17 240:19

ground 4:9 10:14

10:22 25:21 27:18

30:4,12 33:5

38:14 47:11,17

54:15 78:12 82:8

136:18 141:4

142:14 144:15,17

144:22 145:4

166:8,9,11 176:1

190:5,9 197:14

204:17 239:4

252:18 273:19

302:8

grounded 256:17

group 1:6,12 5:5

11:21,21 24:18

25:7 29:18,19

32:4 36:9 52:11

55:12 74:2 84:20

85:5 86:10 87:10

93:2 105:18 107:7

114:3,6,7 122:8

129:4 132:10

138:12 142:13

149:16,22 150:22

152:12 156:5

167:15 170:5

172:9,10 182:11

182:12 183:3

185:9,12 186:16

186:17 188:14,18

189:1,2 200:9

239:5 242:14

246:17 250:12,17

252:3 254:4,4

255:5 271:20

274:13 277:12

groupings 210:19

253:16 313:20

groups 9:3 21:20

27:7 75:9 91:10

113:17 170:8

guard 150:6

guess 40:21 54:11

60:13 62:6 64:6

64:21 66:3 72:10

74:6,10 78:14

89:7 104:11,14

106:8 111:6 112:1

116:14 118:3,10

120:18 134:19

139:15 140:9

145:13 174:5

185:9,12 190:19

201:18,22 209:1

220:14 222:15

239:2 242:18

244:2 271:19

274:17
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 337

guidelines 314:17

guides 204:19

guts 28:3

guy 49:11 80:21

106:21

guys 12:4,11,17

13:2,17 43:10

109:13 119:12

134:11 157:12

164:16 167:8

185:13 186:19

187:11 224:11

242:7

H

haggling 28:7

hair 101:8,18

hairs 110:20

half 85:13 169:18

169:19 170:5

177:13,14,22

185:7 186:11

188:15 191:17

194:13 211:11

245:22

hand 45:22 110:1

110:11 129:10,12

166:9 205:6

handful 202:13

handle 104:5

183:15 319:19

handled 65:1

handles 14:3

handling 288:1

290:10

handout 26:7

163:16

handouts 5:12

204:12

hands 97:11 180:11

295:4

hand-in-hand

281:18

hanging 252:19

hangs 247:22

happen 8:22 17:9

29:11 126:6,8

202:17 213:21

222:9 311:7

happened 126:18

279:14

happening 191:14

191:14

happens 64:8

157:10 160:14

246:2 283:16

301:8 311:20,20

315:16

happily 148:11

happy 6:5 19:9

26:8 89:8 98:20

139:7 140:20

171:21 177:7

179:4 235:20

236:2

hard 16:10 83:7

111:9 164:11

166:16

harder 227:3

hardware 263:9

harmonization

298:6 313:22

Harter 81:13

hashed 136:22

hate 247:7

head 281:3 288:20

headed 128:7

headquarters

178:14

health 14:19

hear 15:14 35:15

39:11,17 45:8,15

49:4 50:1 83:8

123:3

heard 48:22 59:20

72:10 90:3 109:7

150:4 290:17

hearing 45:17

108:5 136:17

248:13 308:19

317:4

hearings 11:11

43:8

heartburn 247:13

Heat 245:21

heck 224:10

hell 164:3

Hello 20:6,12,16

103:3 208:16

help 24:17 65:21

78:6 91:7 114:16

120:4 146:15

187:8 192:4,9

215:16 222:21

227:20 244:15

260:5 282:17

295:2 311:16

helped 16:9

helpful 122:22

142:4 227:19

239:10 253:9

302:13

helps 84:5 167:18

hertz 284:17

hey 192:1 259:17

he'll 281:2

hi 14:10 16:22 53:7

95:17

high 164:3 262:9

280:20 283:10

287:18 289:6

higher 226:20

228:16 252:11

258:7 284:20,21

285:11

highest 299:20

312:8,12

highly 14:16

Hill 59:5 62:16

117:12 128:10

132:14,16

hired 26:11

Hirsch 170:16

historic 277:13

history 168:5

260:20 262:5

hit 298:17

Hitachi 3:18 23:14

283:4

Hodge 2:7 20:22,22

71:15 72:8 263:12

263:12 264:1,18

265:5,10,13

hold 42:4 82:13

101:16 119:6

173:3 194:6,15

201:15,17,19

holding 202:16

316:7

holdouts 202:14

holds 119:22

holiday 184:20

holidays 188:4

holler 46:15

home 34:16 167:18

honest 37:14 253:4

273:3

Honestly 130:8

hook 40:12

hooray 174:1

hope 5:13 24:15

30:21 45:9 55:1

69:10 75:8,13

122:15 138:17

143:2,5 163:4

166:6 200:20

246:15

hopeful 167:9

hopefully 17:3

35:19 37:19 38:1

49:4 50:2 77:20

82:2 113:21

164:21 175:3

202:12

hoping 47:1 164:15

Hopkinson 3:10

31:3,4 255:16

hospitality 180:1

host 148:12 171:21

174:12 175:13

197:4,6

hosting 15:21

hotel 42:11

hotels 183:3

hour 42:10,16 43:5

43:5,9,9 162:4

191:17

hours 42:12 203:7

229:4 287:13

290:6,15

Howard 2:7 21:1

233:4 263:12

huge 105:10 109:10

179:17 279:19

319:20

hunch 222:13

hundred 257:6

hundreds 229:21

hunger 161:21

hungry 155:15

hurdles 108:15

hurt 76:20

HVOLT 3:10 31:4

hybrid 184:2

Hyland 2:8 18:2,13

18:13 82:3,3,15

82:15 94:22

110:17 111:6

174:11

I

Idaho 17:21

idea 36:15 61:16

80:15 85:9 86:3

102:5 109:15

123:7 137:6

143:10 147:5

158:4 168:2

169:10 171:3

195:19 198:1

199:22,22 200:5

204:13 205:6

277:9

ideal 169:17 173:1

194:18

Ideally 170:1

ideas 167:20

identified 239:22

241:1 282:7 291:8

298:21

identifies 210:21

229:15

identify 218:9

230:9 250:4,5,6

293:5
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 338

identifying 255:17

285:14

IEEE 20:14

imagine 117:20

123:4

immaterial 241:7

immersed 253:21

256:5 259:11

284:14 286:18

318:8

impact 207:3,4

216:6 222:3

226:21 227:21

244:11 274:21

279:10,19 282:8

283:20 320:11,13

320:15

impacts 205:12,19

210:16

implementation

117:21

implemented 63:16

89:6

implicit 319:18

implicitly 141:3

implied 99:13

126:11

implies 223:19

247:8

importance 304:14

important 91:7

100:19 122:19

133:12 163:8

215:11 269:9

298:10

impossible 45:15

128:14

impressed 227:17

impression 81:12

impressive 215:7

improve 249:10

improvement

206:17

inaccuracies

265:15

inappropriate

87:22 123:14

inappropriately

240:4

inclined 81:2 85:2

85:15

include 73:10

121:17 155:6

158:17 160:2

168:11

included 46:1

73:20 120:13

263:11 289:17

includes 21:19

275:5 286:3

including 19:14

78:21 84:4 94:15

131:10 135:7,10

167:16 207:5

209:12 257:16,18

286:10 289:10

292:2,20

inclusive 250:9

inconsistent 59:6

67:2,4,10,15

116:17,20 118:20

130:14 133:2

135:3 194:5

incorporated 3:14

21:6 41:19 149:18

incorporating

208:3

increase 227:3

281:2,18,19

increased 290:14

increasing 227:5

254:15

increment 227:21

298:22

incremental 226:19

227:1 228:22

235:2,6,8 236:19

265:19 290:21

incrementals

226:18

increments 265:22

298:8 305:9

306:19

incumbent 91:16

indent 115:18

Independence 1:12

independent 26:10

Indiana 19:4

indicate 73:16

250:12,14 314:18

indicates 34:8

284:10

indicating 148:2

individual 8:10

157:17

individually 8:3,9

Industries 2:8 21:1

industry 1:21

19:14 25:4,6,11

27:10 55:15

126:14 127:1

216:16 263:13

272:12 286:2

287:15 290:8,21

291:17

inevitably 266:10

infinitely 262:22

inflation 279:17

influence 216:7,11

inform 209:5,14

informal 29:18

33:3 239:4

informally 69:7

information 10:21

30:22 32:1,2,13

41:13 88:6,11,14

208:3 231:5

232:22 236:3,20

243:7 260:15

261:3 269:8

271:16,17 272:5

284:7 317:9,11,21

informed 290:9

inherent 119:7

147:3

inhibit 121:4

146:16

initial 105:7 306:1

initially 33:1

105:11 211:6

262:20

input 29:13 208:13

220:16 221:12

222:21 269:17

303:9 311:18

inputs 229:18

287:11 291:16

292:18

inside 157:10 233:7

installation 277:21

installed 252:18

instance 119:11

261:18 262:19

299:19

instances 84:6

instant 220:15

275:16

Institute 2:15 3:9

10:7 18:6 23:2

49:7 58:22 66:13

225:3

instructions 192:2

integrated 17:19

intelligently 294:17

intended 15:1

intent 109:20 128:1

128:17

interest 8:12 9:9

25:13 32:5,6

73:13,14,17 77:12

78:6 84:13,16

89:3 149:16,22

150:2

interested 266:2

interesting 80:18

104:16

interests 7:17,20

18:3 26:14,15

52:17 78:3 83:19

91:12 92:1

internal 91:14

internet 79:15,16

interpolate 306:6

interpret 119:4

interpretation

129:4 141:14

interpreted 104:21

interview 271:5

interviewing 261:4

interviews 234:12

251:12 269:15

277:16

introduce 27:3

120:5

introduces 234:10

introductions 4:7

5:21 15:15 30:12

invented 81:14

investigate 11:22

investment 88:13

investor-owned

18:7

invitation 253:5

invoke 190:4

involve 8:1

involved 29:13

91:14 122:17

168:18 191:6

involvement 61:8

involves 38:5 148:7

iron 197:20

issuance 125:1

issue 13:6,14 14:20

33:7 48:2 51:22

59:11 64:20 69:14

70:1,22 71:10

80:4 84:3 96:8

101:1,2 112:19

116:5 120:20,20

122:5 127:11

128:5 136:22

143:19 183:12,18

184:11 185:10

193:9 200:15

201:22 220:10,11

226:2 227:11

229:8,10 238:10

238:11,20 239:1

244:8 250:19,22

251:1,5,8,9,10

253:6 271:15

274:13 282:7,22

283:20 284:1

307:12 308:20

312:4 313:11,19
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 339

317:2,3 318:20,21

issues 9:10 11:4

12:19 14:5,8

29:20 34:9,9 35:6

35:10,11,14,21

38:5 65:15 113:21

117:6 122:4 145:2

202:13 229:10

238:5 244:17,19

248:1 250:5 251:3

311:12,22 318:15

318:18 320:16,18

issuing 124:20

item 114:4 134:19

139:15 140:10

142:9,14 150:15

151:19 193:8

241:5

items 288:1 305:18

306:13

i.e 59:4

J

jammed 167:17

January 118:12

123:17 169:5

261:19

Jeremiah 3:9 16:11

Jerry 1:22 3:19

20:12 22:21

144:12,13 282:21

Jim 3:6 19:6 22:13

44:15 46:16 116:3

116:4 118:16

121:1 127:11

Jim's 123:2

JoAnn 14:2

job 12:5 17:2 24:10

231:4

jobs 34:14 283:21

320:12

John 1:21 2:2 3:17

8:19 9:12 14:10

15:21 19:9 22:4

31:19 40:5 41:16

84:9 85:3 86:8

91:9 125:22

126:13 192:5

312:4,11

join 55:21

joining 5:16 27:4

joint 55:19 56:6

143:1

jointly 48:18 75:11

judge 106:4

Judges 49:17 50:1

judicial 36:21

120:21

July 168:10

jurisdiction 224:18

224:21 303:15

Justice 142:3

justification 312:22

justified 206:19

252:22 312:8,13

312:15

justifies 252:11

justify 100:1

K

KAEC 31:14

Katie 3:5 16:6

22:10 39:6 40:14

304:7,9,11 309:4

318:4

Katie's 307:3

318:17

keep 37:14 85:20

90:11 111:7 141:8

151:14 152:15

155:14,15 197:9

198:5 205:1

237:16 271:18

keeping 86:13

109:22 153:22

177:6 253:4

310:18 311:14

319:13

keeps 271:17

Ken 23:8

KENNETH 3:21

Kentucky 3:8 19:5

31:14

kept 311:7,18

316:6

Kevin 3:12 23:11

key 35:10 125:4

210:17

kind 33:22 47:6

58:3,12 61:6

68:22 82:16,17

84:12 100:19

105:2,3 109:17

126:2 133:19

152:6 154:13

155:22 164:11

165:18 171:2

173:1,21 189:11

194:5 197:20

198:1,4 202:6

203:15 205:18

247:7 252:5

253:18 278:21

279:2 310:13,14

kindly 183:22

kinds 164:13 248:1

266:5 282:1

kinks 171:9

KISS 111:8

know 5:14 8:15

10:21 13:11 16:4

16:18 24:9,13,16

29:11 34:14 36:7

36:19 37:19 40:2

41:6,8 47:8 48:7

49:1 57:21 59:15

60:8 61:14 69:8

69:14 70:8 79:21

80:16,19 81:1,21

83:11 95:7 100:9

104:4 107:12

109:12 110:12

111:14 113:1

114:6 120:12

123:6 124:14

125:6 143:18

146:12 153:21

161:6 164:17

166:6 183:19

184:14,16 188:5

192:9,15 193:5

195:4 201:3

213:11,14 215:8

220:1 225:13

234:2 238:9

244:22 245:1,17

246:1 253:14

270:7,9 274:1

282:2 289:11

298:5 302:17,19

309:21 315:4

knowing 85:16

knowledge 25:11

26:16 88:10

212:11 268:5

known 37:2

knows 16:17 66:18

273:2

kVA 214:9 215:15

220:22 227:16

242:15 247:2,3,4

254:15,22 255:1

264:11 266:15,16

284:16,16 286:22

315:11,21 316:4

316:10,13,14,18

317:17 318:21

kVAs 205:17

227:11 254:15

L

Lab 22:11

labor 47:15 82:4

229:19 287:13

288:3,4 290:6,14

Laboratory 2:14

3:5 208:20

lag 261:15

Lake 3:22

Lakeview 1:20

3:12 19:16 23:12

language 65:3

69:20,22 76:7

77:20 88:3 96:9

98:1,6 101:9

113:5,11,12

117:10 120:3,17

121:1 127:20

129:21 130:3,5

133:1 134:14,19

136:4,12 141:13

142:17 147:6,7

153:15,18 155:10

158:3 159:9,11

161:2

lap 287:4

large 85:6 87:9

88:15 170:13

233:16 234:5,15

240:19 245:3

248:18 263:6,10

286:9 290:6,9,13

290:17 305:12

late 44:17 49:19

189:11,12 191:18

275:5

latest 35:1 41:16

120:19 260:15

261:1 266:19

268:13 269:13

270:17 271:11

272:19 276:3,7

277:15 292:8

308:21 319:2,14

Laughter 15:5

43:11 44:12 53:3

59:13 67:8 90:9

105:13 106:20

107:15 111:20

117:16 131:13

133:7 134:5 139:9

149:8 157:14

177:2 280:5

282:20 294:2

295:12,16 303:22

313:8

law 1:15 6:2 23:22

24:1,13 36:13

72:10 75:8,12,13

92:10 223:20

253:4 313:6

Lawrence 2:14 3:5

22:11 208:19

laws 226:6

lawsuit 72:16,17
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 340

lawyer 26:3 53:14

lays 239:12

LBL 34:19 35:15

38:22

LBNL 16:7 304:12

LCC 292:19 302:18

304:13,15 307:6

309:9,14 314:1,12

314:12

lead 3:5 216:1

leader 21:5

leads 48:11

lean 85:3

learn 24:16

learned 87:19

leave 38:1,3 55:8

68:6 84:2 125:7

133:16 187:7

leaving 145:13

170:17

left 43:22 44:3 96:3

164:8 209:6

229:13 291:22

298:15

legal 7:6 9:13 60:6

73:22 75:4 108:8

113:1 118:17,21

119:15 122:9

204:6 314:16

legally 121:7

legislation 60:17

64:2,6,14,17 66:5

72:3 73:3 121:3

legislative 62:17

66:17 132:5

legislatively 60:22

legitimacy 212:11

letter 7:18,18 66:21

75:12 149:16,21

255:15 297:15

letters 149:11,14

let's 14:20 16:16

22:7 41:8 42:4

47:10,21 51:17

53:4 78:14 92:2

93:11 97:22

115:11 129:8

130:20 140:15

162:2 164:5

166:15 173:2,7,12

174:1,10 176:17

197:9 202:3

203:18 204:1

229:7,12 277:22

281:9 284:5

319:16 320:21

level 86:5 205:13

206:3,6,7,12,16

244:14 249:10,11

280:8 287:7

291:22 301:21

302:19 305:11,20

306:5,7 307:16

309:15 312:9,12

312:12,16,18

313:19

levels 35:8,9 41:2,4

67:21 204:15

205:3,4,7,11,14

205:18 207:18

230:5,6,10,12

258:8 280:11

281:13 297:13,21

301:11,21 303:16

304:14 305:1,19

306:1,16,22,22

308:2 309:10

310:1 312:21

313:1

leverage 128:9

243:7

liberty 235:19

lie 232:15 259:19

life 180:6 244:13

257:10 300:21

302:2

lifecycle 210:14

Light 3:17 31:20

lighting 225:16

limit 85:17 120:7

130:8

limitation 63:4

68:19

limitations 75:5

limited 73:9 85:10

85:20 171:12

174:7 293:8

limiting 227:5

limits 13:17 28:18

line 31:1,22 32:15

106:17 148:10

156:7,10 211:1

212:7 221:6

230:13 231:11

244:10,20,22

245:6 254:12,22

264:20,22,22

265:1,6 286:21

296:3 297:21

298:9,13 299:2

302:17 303:16

305:18 306:13

307:15 309:15

316:12 317:14

320:3

lines 30:20 35:9

42:3 43:3 84:12

90:12 210:20

211:13 212:12

221:8 240:7,8

242:13 244:3

250:9 253:16

254:16,18 265:1

275:15 284:9

298:10 305:3,21

306:6 307:2

309:13 310:8,9

317:15 318:7

319:21

link 30:22

liquid 211:11

221:18 240:13,20

253:21 256:5

259:11 284:14

286:18 305:18

310:9 317:20,21

318:2,8

liquid-filled 20:4

216:10 221:11

234:1

liquid-immersed

1:5 5:4 154:18

159:3

list 32:12 35:16

84:11 167:1 183:3

205:11 206:14,16

285:19 287:11

314:22

listen 17:2

listing 292:19

literature 25:8

litigation 48:4,19

86:17 142:4

little 16:19 24:14

33:5,7 36:4,15

44:8 45:9 52:7

62:18 71:15 74:4

76:21 87:5 150:1

150:5 153:12

163:15 167:2,3

168:5 175:9 204:4

213:10 233:9

247:6 254:17

261:15 293:10

300:2 310:4

live 100:7 129:17

129:18 130:21

133:9 142:18

199:9

load 191:10,13

223:20 259:9

loading 296:6,11

296:12,18,21

lobbying 59:4

117:12 119:16

132:5,15

location 4:10 33:8

locations 181:3

lock 126:5 127:13

203:12

locked 59:10 115:3

123:3,4,8 156:10

157:4 163:22

167:17 183:14

203:19,20 224:13

log 167:17

logic 92:13

logical 307:18

logistically 172:7

172:14

logistics 42:8 79:17

183:4

long 6:4 29:7 30:15

43:3 45:2 57:7

76:8 123:3,8

126:6 151:10

167:13 263:14

303:19

longer 34:10 62:18

123:11 191:19

305:9,12

Longstreth 3:11

23:5,5

Looby 3:12 23:11

23:11

look 5:8 11:5 24:3

28:12 30:10,16

40:17 44:20 63:20

81:1 84:11 122:8

126:3 160:9

161:13,20 164:17

164:19 191:11

203:7 206:8,14

207:2,3 209:20

211:8 216:12

219:4 222:20

226:16,21 227:6

228:7,11 229:5

232:13 233:5,6

234:17 235:8

237:6 238:6

239:15 240:18,21

241:14,20 242:7

244:9,20 254:20

256:10 264:4,10

268:2 271:20

280:7 281:11,14

282:12,13,14

299:10,13 302:15

302:20 303:15

306:8 315:16

looked 8:4 10:14

205:22 214:20

236:19 237:7

268:3 287:18
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 341

looking 12:15

37:13 40:18 67:1

91:21 104:21

124:8 178:10

201:8 215:13

228:18 244:4

256:6 277:12,13

278:16 281:6

284:8 288:9 301:1

303:7 308:9 309:4

309:16 310:8,9,21

318:18

looks 235:10 237:3

296:1 304:19

loosely 68:14

lose 237:17

losing 217:5

loss 228:15 236:11

258:10,13

losses 228:8,8,12

236:9 240:19

283:14 291:15

306:21 316:3,8

lost 63:7

lot 25:11 42:2

53:15 54:18 83:6

90:12 91:11 96:14

103:10 108:15

109:8 123:6 152:5

152:7 191:15

199:7 213:8,8

216:2 218:17

221:12 224:10

231:2 235:3,18

250:21 269:7

279:19 309:10

lots 156:19

love 34:5

low 21:12 168:11

168:15,18 169:2,7

169:19 170:10

172:7,11 177:11

177:13 182:17

185:10 186:15

189:2 197:4,6,8,9

197:10 199:2

240:13 250:1

254:2,15 264:11

266:16 283:15

286:22 287:18

289:5 315:6

316:12 317:17,18

lower 228:16 236:8

252:11 258:8

289:1 306:21

lowering 236:11

263:3

lowest 206:6 233:8

249:19 257:19

267:20,20

lows 262:9

Ludlum 2:13 20:17

161:10

lumped 240:4

lunch 34:12,13,15

42:8,10,13,16

43:2,15,19 144:11

150:10 155:15

161:13 162:2

163:4,21 203:9

Luo 3:11 15:22

M

machine 138:18

Mahesh 3:18 23:9

main 44:9 181:6

mainstream 80:12

293:13

maintain 24:16

92:21

major 38:5 248:10

249:3 307:12

majority 17:11

29:9 55:7,7,9 87:9

makers 283:22

making 14:22

53:21 55:12 83:7

105:6 202:7

224:15 283:7

285:13 320:6

management 92:16

manager 1:18,20

2:4,5,12,15 3:21

19:18 20:2,19

21:9

Managing 3:16

mandate 224:18

225:11,12

mandated 27:17

97:18

manifestation

109:20

manipulate 258:6

manufacture 21:11

manufactured 71:6

manufacturer

19:18,21 20:4

21:2,7 130:21

232:3 235:7,13

237:1,1 256:11

259:16 269:15

283:2,3 289:16

manufacturers

1:22 3:7 19:7,14

19:15 55:18

168:19,20,21

222:21 231:22

236:15 261:5,9

263:20 271:6

273:5 274:9

287:15 289:12

290:8 294:19,22

320:11,15

manufacturer's

210:8 289:14

292:12

manufacturing

21:14 207:4

236:16 251:12

283:21

March 13:14 40:22

268:16 300:17

Marchetti 3:14

16:8

March-April 256:1

margins 188:4

mark 94:13,15

215:3 229:19

marker 129:22

market 132:8

209:6,8 211:8,10

211:10,12 212:1

212:17 214:11,15

214:19 216:10,19

218:10 219:8,9

226:12 234:1,5

235:15 240:20,21

241:2,3,4,6 242:3

242:5 248:10,13

248:18 249:3

253:9 256:19

282:4 283:2

311:22 317:18

marketplace

231:17 237:13

242:1,2

markup 164:7

289:9,17

markups 287:22

289:22 292:11

marvelous 134:11

match 215:1

231:18,21 235:12

300:7 307:8

matching 231:16

233:10

material 117:7

126:1,15 224:7

230:17 231:13

260:15 261:16

262:3 266:19,22

267:5,8,10,11,22

268:18 270:4

271:11 273:2

274:14 278:5,15

278:19 279:15

287:18 290:12

materially 66:15

67:2,4,10 116:19

118:20 133:2

135:2

materials 5:13

229:19 260:12

261:6 263:7

266:22 268:14

269:13,17,21

271:4,7 272:10

275:18,19 277:19

278:17,18 279:11

286:5 287:11,16

291:3 292:7,7,8

292:10 298:17

299:17 305:6,16

308:7 318:22

319:1

material-intensive

278:13

math 84:21

Matt 16:5 22:15

matter 9:1 42:7

45:5 72:11 108:8

117:8 127:9 162:6

213:6 219:1 250:8

279:17 321:5

matters 13:19

66:18

MATTHEW 3:15

max 192:18 206:3

207:9 298:21

314:12

maximize 312:6

maximum 160:13

160:14 206:17

286:2 287:7 294:7

314:3,11

mean 39:13,15 59:5

65:15 75:10 85:14

102:3 103:22

104:4,13 105:3

111:8,11 114:20

121:6 134:3

169:20 185:11

191:3,11,13,15

192:7 198:8,20

211:16 219:18

229:5 231:20

240:16 245:1

270:9 272:10

282:12 293:18

303:18

meaning 70:14

98:10 236:22

meaningful 29:14

meaningless 301:2

means 9:11 11:10
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 342

65:18 79:9,14

84:11,20 97:3

98:9,13 111:15

118:11 141:6

164:11 197:14

264:21

meant 257:21

measured 259:8

measures 64:21

mechanism 234:8

mechanisms

202:10

media 73:3

median 256:15

mediation 24:2

mediator 50:4,6,7

Mediator's 49:15

49:21

medium 1:5 5:5

21:11 154:19

159:4 168:15

169:1,6,18 170:10

170:12 177:11

182:18,19 186:15

211:11 212:8

221:7,19 240:12

240:13 254:1

259:11 263:10

315:3,6,20 317:16

meet 13:11,12,20

16:7 27:22 54:20

71:7 170:8,11

171:18 172:8

173:8,15 177:12

177:13 186:10,16

186:18 189:6

193:18

meeting 1:8 5:4,12

9:20 14:13,17

15:1,22 16:1,9,13

17:12 25:1 26:21

33:19,20 34:6

35:13 38:2,3,3

95:13 96:16 146:6

149:13 163:12

166:14,16,18

168:2,3,11 169:17

171:1 174:2,14

177:21 178:10

179:4,12 180:3

181:4 185:13

187:12,13,15,16

187:18 188:13,14

188:15 189:1

190:17,21 192:1,2

193:2 199:7 200:2

201:2 202:11

203:13 208:10

220:8,17 227:14

229:9 238:17

250:18 258:4

319:9

meetings 4:10 15:4

27:15 32:7 33:2

33:12,22 47:14

78:18 88:5 163:17

167:13,15 168:16

169:1,3 172:20

173:3,20 187:20

187:21 188:1,3,17

188:18 191:6,7,13

191:14,21 192:8

192:18 194:3,4

198:6,10 200:8

201:6

meets 185:12

Meg 3:20 23:3

member 11:15 17:1

20:15 74:7,17,18

76:15,16,19 77:3

77:8,12,18 79:5

84:11 94:11 96:12

106:3 107:19

120:11 147:14

156:17 250:19

members 1:17 2:1

7:11 18:20 27:10

56:16 57:2 68:13

68:20 73:9 76:16

77:15 78:8 84:20

91:15 94:9,14

107:14 114:3

115:9 171:18,19

172:9

membership 25:15

memo 140:22

memorandum

139:1,19 141:19

memorializing

184:17

Memphis 3:17

31:20

mention 26:1 56:13

172:6 304:12

mentioned 41:17

62:16 88:20 91:9

126:9 175:11

189:19 190:2

256:18 260:7

263:14 266:18

291:8 295:19

mentioning 46:17

312:4

merely 89:5

mesh 300:11

message 60:10,11

messages 83:3

90:18

met 1:12 48:18

metal 44:6 280:9

283:3

Metals 1:20 3:12

3:18 19:17 23:12

23:14

Metglas 2:10 21:5

23:14 73:7 74:19

75:1 103:21

136:21 148:22

149:17 226:4

266:18 281:17

283:2,5

method 111:8

205:20 206:13

methodology 42:2

104:10 209:22

247:5

Metro 183:2

Meyers 3:13 31:11

31:11

mic 39:19 45:14,17

45:18 46:4 58:19

165:5 166:4,19

186:13 192:12

194:10 199:3,21

204:8 210:2 253:2

MICHAEL 2:8

microphone 62:22

238:7

middle 189:11

246:3,12 256:13

midpoint 274:15

midweek 195:16

mid-November

187:13

Mike 3:16 18:2,13

82:3,15 94:19

174:11,22 194:21

215:4 226:16

239:17 244:3

256:10 275:1

Mike's 226:10

227:18,19

Milliken 14:2

million 18:20

Millure 2:9 21:4,4

73:6,6,19 74:12

75:3 103:20,20

136:20,20 148:21

148:21 149:5,12

149:21 165:1,3,15

166:1 180:14,18

182:8,11,13 194:6

194:12 196:18

226:3,3 266:17,17

267:4 270:20

271:10 276:11

281:16,16 282:18

mind 9:10 120:20

166:5 170:9

174:10 215:3

256:4

minimum 150:12

150:15 198:21

291:21 308:10

314:1,12

minor 85:11

262:19 263:11

minority 57:13

minute 5:11 164:20

255:8

minutes 6:5 16:1

30:11 44:19

144:10 162:4

230:2

misleading 234:18

missed 219:15,16

248:10 318:19

320:10,19

missing 277:18

misspeaking

276:19

misstated 320:19

mistake 224:14

mistakes 37:15

misunderstood

106:8

mitering 286:11

mixed 214:1

model 229:21

245:22 251:16

255:12,19,22

291:6,10 293:6,7

modeled 236:10

262:20

modeling 256:21

258:16

moderator 127:19

199:9

modification

114:14

modifications

113:10 115:10

212:6

modified 94:19

modify 114:8,18

176:16

moment 91:4

Monday-Tuesday

196:6

money 184:6 224:9

Montana 17:21

Monte 103:11

month 201:1

233:18

months 13:12
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 343

191:7 214:21

293:3

monuments 173:13

Moon 3:21

morning 10:5

17:12 18:9,21

19:10 34:7,11,20

58:20 150:4

167:21 180:17,18

186:16 203:4

304:20 318:17

321:1,3

mother 117:14

mount 233:19

248:9,10

mounts 215:7

245:14,15

mouse 136:12

move 51:17 81:10

85:10 91:8 123:1

136:17 142:9,13

144:11 156:8

157:2 166:15

167:9 182:5 192:4

192:9 299:13

308:10 310:1

moved 129:5

148:18

movement 241:8

241:14

moving 51:7,7

90:11 148:19

151:14 273:3,9

274:5 309:10

320:12

MSP 292:20

muck 153:15

multiple 122:21

219:18,19 220:1

municipal 18:4

municipally-own...

18:15

muster 37:4

mute 32:15 83:4

90:13,16 163:7

178:19

MVA 315:7

M-12 286:12 287:4

M-4 283:12

M-5 283:12

N

Nadel 170:16

name 20:1,6 46:4,6

66:11 208:17

295:7 301:10

named 73:10

Nardotti 3:15 16:5

22:15,15

narrow 11:4

national 1:21 2:14

2:16,17 3:5,7,11

18:10 19:7 22:11

207:2 208:19

210:15 222:2

225:11,11

Natural 3:21 18:17

23:3,6

nature 8:22 9:5

55:2 239:12

278:22

Navigant 3:3,11,15

3:16 16:2,5 22:16

22:18 34:19 35:15

207:13 208:18

251:7,7

Navigant/LBL

4:11

nay 109:8

nd 176:9 189:5

190:2,2 193:3,12

193:15,17,17,20

195:12 196:9

197:12 201:4

202:1 203:19

near 82:11 87:4

183:3 285:13

necessarily 12:10

25:12 89:2 100:17

215:9

necessary 28:4

89:3 114:9 147:21

312:20

need 11:6 12:12

32:10 33:5,13,22

35:14 36:1,5,14

38:5 51:20 60:16

62:18 64:22 71:7

71:18 74:9 77:6

83:21 99:12 100:9

105:6 106:16

112:5 113:9

115:21 130:10

139:22 144:11

147:8 148:9

153:15 155:1

158:12,17 159:7

159:22 160:8

163:11 172:21,22

173:3,9,18 176:17

192:17 200:19

201:5 202:14

209:1 213:16

223:3 224:2,3

229:8 237:16,16

250:6,7 271:20

274:13,19 305:12

308:19 314:1

needed 49:20

193:14 269:11

299:13

needs 38:6 54:21

68:20 71:16 92:2

144:4 154:15

213:1 239:16

250:6

negative 82:7,9

111:18 112:8,12

112:15 133:8

141:7

negotiable 122:12

negotiate 29:6,15

205:4

negotiated 1:6 5:6

7:3 14:12 24:7,22

29:8 30:6 37:7

44:22 47:16 52:8

52:18 56:22 57:21

80:8 81:14 86:20

105:4,8 167:6

197:16

negotiating 28:17

79:7 88:19

negotiation 25:16

40:6,12 74:22

76:14 98:10 106:5

106:18 156:12

negotiations 10:16

61:6 91:13 122:17

134:20 139:18

140:5 150:17

157:8,9 158:2

176:7,9 205:2

neither 96:2 234:6

NEMA 19:13 61:8

116:4 117:11

118:3,16 119:20

nervous 131:12

net 314:3,11

network 234:4

249:4,4,14,21

never 15:1 29:10

59:18 126:18

181:12 271:19

never-ending 146:5

new 3:9 41:19

50:12,20 52:5

68:8 71:7 83:17

114:14 153:11

192:6 208:8

214:21 217:8

228:9,10,13 230:8

243:4 244:19

250:2 252:21

260:3 262:1 263:7

266:22 267:5,8,10

267:10 271:7,17

301:7,10,15

302:19 305:7,10

305:14 309:9

NGOs 191:10

NIA 292:19

nice 80:3 106:21

123:22 170:22

172:1,16 199:22

199:22

nicer 300:6

night 30:9 114:11

ninth 48:3,8,19

49:16 187:6

noise 32:16 83:6

90:12 232:6

nomenclature

70:22 239:18

nominated 73:13

non 104:13 122:11

Non-evaluator

258:1

non-production

288:2

non-profit 184:1

non-profits 183:20

183:21

non-sabotage

102:8 113:5

noon 34:12 182:16

186:17

NOPR 28:10,21

39:9,12,16 40:1,2

40:9,13,15 86:3

137:17,21 138:7

139:17 140:15

168:8 205:19

230:9 269:5,6

297:18,22 301:10

301:16 313:19,19

315:1

norm 80:11 167:13

173:21

normal 92:11

normalize 234:14

235:5

normally 24:22

269:4 303:12

North 20:8

Northwest 2:4

17:16,20 85:1

note 286:14

noted 263:9

notes 317:5

notice 44:17 142:10

207:19

notion 87:12

222:13

November 171:14
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 344

190:16,18 193:17

194:21 195:9,12

196:8 197:2,3

203:19,19

NRDC 80:7 148:5

NRECA 18:11

55:16 178:13

179:3,21 182:21

nuance 92:14

nudge 300:2

nudged 298:15

number 28:1 53:20

54:6 84:17 88:22

94:20 103:9

117:11,22 120:1

168:20 169:11

178:7 187:12,13

187:15,16,18

205:9 206:21

245:3 288:20

302:15 305:12

numbers 26:16

40:17,21 41:5

181:20,20 182:3

192:6,6 204:5

235:19,20 270:15

270:15,21,22

271:3,12 273:16

274:10 276:13

280:18 302:9

303:5,6,7,9,12

O

object 57:15 91:1

103:15

objection 73:4 98:5

98:8 110:10 131:9

134:22 136:4,15

142:16 143:2,4

144:7 147:12

148:19 158:4,9

161:1 179:22

objections 113:13

135:11 139:2,3

155:16

objective 91:18

obligation 137:15

obliquely 155:22

156:14

obliterating 134:4

observed 91:13

observing 305:8

obstruct 105:7

obtain 215:12

235:17

obtained 235:11

236:14

obviously 32:4

47:13 48:16 53:19

56:14 88:4 94:2

126:2 180:13

184:12 190:2

211:16 276:19

279:13

occasion 235:21

occur 117:1 167:15

occurrence 126:17

occurring 19:10

October 48:15

50:12,17 118:12

123:15 168:7

178:10,11 181:18

193:16 197:2

203:13,18

offer 28:13 116:15

116:22 180:1

206:17

offered 183:22

offering 128:10

office 4:6 6:1 8:6

22:2 34:17 42:11

49:15,21

official 114:7

124:17 156:17

officially 124:15

301:17

oftentimes 167:16

291:16

oh 37:12 73:12

95:17 151:5

166:20 180:5

199:4

Ohio 19:4 213:13

oil 256:5 263:13

OIRA 37:1

okay 11:1 14:8

15:12 42:20 45:7

45:10 47:10 51:17

55:1 61:15 62:2

66:6 67:3 68:9

71:9 78:6 80:2

84:22 90:6 91:3

91:17 92:2 93:9

93:22 94:6 95:9

96:1,1,8 97:14

109:7 110:16

111:22 112:4

113:10,15 115:16

116:8 126:20

128:19 130:11

131:9,21,22 134:9

135:5,11,15 136:3

136:13,14 138:16

148:6 150:7,9,14

151:5,9 155:10,17

159:17 160:16,22

161:2 163:3,10

166:1,7,10,22

173:2 174:20

175:1,19 177:3

178:21 179:13,19

180:9,20 182:6,20

182:21 183:11

186:19 187:7

191:10 192:19

193:11 194:11,14

195:6,10 196:12

196:16,20 197:11

199:15,20 200:21

204:1,11,12

216:17 217:18,22

218:11,19 219:2

233:21 237:3,7

239:2 240:20

241:13,21 242:17

243:15,19 247:17

248:12 249:6,7,8

249:22 251:8

253:4 255:10

257:12 259:1

262:13 270:1

275:7 276:5 280:2

288:18,21 289:2

296:19 297:1,9,11

302:10 310:2,6

311:11,18 313:9

313:14 314:10

317:5 318:9

old 153:11 228:10

288:20

OMB 37:1 314:17

once 13:12 59:9

72:10 138:13

139:16 164:10

229:14 254:21

261:13,18 263:19

297:11

ones 202:14 258:14

270:17 301:22

302:2,3 310:14

one-day 188:14,17

189:1

one-year 132:21

online 261:17

onwards 284:6

on-going 137:14

open 9:18 11:10

12:22 27:2 28:21

29:17 30:20 38:11

42:15 53:4 64:2,6

145:13 320:9

opening 141:6

open-ended 35:4

operate 29:19

operating 284:17

operational 132:18

operations 1:21 2:2

319:20

operative 132:18

opinion 84:22

118:22 121:13

123:16 282:4

opinions 24:15

opportunity 100:3

140:22 212:20

232:13 242:14

271:5

oppose 58:17 64:17

65:20,20,22 89:6

90:8

opposed 66:16

97:12 106:19

113:13 116:1

118:7 126:10

133:5,6 134:2,3

134:10 135:4

159:21 166:10

187:3 225:10

opposition 92:19

110:8 120:22

OPS 213:15 214:2

232:3 235:7 237:2

256:13,16,21

258:5,15 261:12

263:14 264:7

265:2 285:4,7

291:12 293:6

308:5

OPS's 292:14

optimistic 48:21

optimization

230:19 231:15

232:20 267:16

276:4

optimized 213:12

229:21 230:20,20

255:12,13 257:5

258:7 267:20

275:21 276:2

278:2,7,11 291:6

291:9

option 51:3 64:2,6

68:4 121:16

164:12 172:19

174:1 175:22

229:16,22 286:20

291:7,11,20

310:22

options 62:11

67:19 130:12

152:11,12 163:12

163:16 167:1

171:17 172:12

206:4 210:10

214:4 285:16,19
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 345

285:20,22 286:8

286:10 287:2

290:16 310:17,18

310:20

oral 57:6

orange 214:2

oranges 247:6

order 29:21 35:22

36:2 38:6 48:8

172:5 174:4

267:17 278:11

287:3 291:17

309:16

ordered 50:20

168:7

orderly 24:17

27:16

Ordinarily 314:4

Oregon 17:20

organization 18:19

73:14,17 75:2

83:14 172:1

organizations

21:19,20 54:4

59:15 61:9 69:4

86:4 169:12 199:6

213:14

organization's 78:5

organize 320:1

Oriented 2:13

original 50:5

120:17 127:20

129:21 130:3,4

161:7 168:2

270:20 306:17

originally 276:11

OSHA 82:4

ought 118:6 247:8

274:3 282:12

319:10

outcome 89:9

132:7 251:17

outer 28:18

output 231:8

292:17

outputs 210:12

292:20

outside 85:13

119:15,16,18

143:5 144:14

157:10 220:12

221:13 264:12

295:10

outweigh 207:7

overall 104:13,13

283:1 311:21

overhead 288:2

289:8

overlay 231:10

overly 68:13

overnight 167:16

213:22

overt 89:20 97:17

98:3,11 101:10

103:7,21 104:2

110:4 111:19

112:3,7 134:8

135:11 148:8,8

overtly 100:9 102:6

120:13

overview 4:11

207:12

over-arching 8:11

owned 75:11

owner 295:20

owning 223:5,11,22

224:4,16,19 225:6

225:14,16 267:21

o'clock 34:18

P

pace 197:16 200:16

Pacific 2:7 3:22

21:9 104:16 106:8

168:20 258:3

pack 170:17 318:14

package 275:4

292:22 314:10

packaged 56:14

64:15,20 66:19

297:22

packages 230:12

packaging 65:16

pad 136:12 215:6

233:18 234:2

247:19 248:9

264:7 265:1

266:14

pads 265:2,8

pad-mount 211:8

211:10 214:18

215:18 233:21

248:4 249:6,12

264:17

pad-mounted

234:9 264:3

pad-mounts 265:7

266:6

page 151:3 205:9

206:11

painted 133:21

palatable 85:12

pan 181:20

panel 82:8

paper 189:15,22

201:15

papers 119:18

paperwork 49:8

189:18

paragraph 138:4

parallel 168:12

paralyzed 97:7

parameter 213:7

251:16

parameters 36:19

213:16 258:6

299:17 316:7

Pardon 45:9

265:10

pare 170:4

parent 6:16,20 7:4

7:7 9:17,20 10:8

10:17 11:16,19

12:7 13:8 14:3

parked 217:13

Parker 1:13,15 5:3

15:12,18 22:7

23:17,20,21 31:5

31:7,15,18,21

38:12,17,19 39:6

39:19 42:1,14,20

43:16 44:10,13

45:7 46:12 50:9

51:16 53:4 54:9

56:12 57:16,20

58:21 59:14 60:4

61:2,16 62:5

63:10 64:11 65:2

65:19 66:6,10

67:3,9,16 68:1,9

68:22 70:16 71:9

72:2,22 73:12

74:1 75:6 76:2,6

76:13 77:10,14

78:5,10,13,19,22

79:3,10 80:2

81:12 82:11 83:2

90:10 92:13 93:9

93:11 94:5,12

95:1,15,17 96:1

96:13,19 97:2,10

98:13,19 99:4,7

99:16 102:3,14

103:18 104:3

105:14 106:21

107:11,16,20

109:7 110:3,16

111:1,16,21 112:4

112:11,21 113:9

114:19 115:6,11

115:22 116:8,12

120:2,16 123:21

124:11 125:13,19

126:20 127:16

128:4,12,19 129:3

130:1,11 131:1,5

131:9,18,21 132:9

134:6,21 135:9,15

136:3,9 137:5,13

137:16 138:1,5,8

138:16 139:10

141:2,18,22

142:15 143:15

144:1,7,19 145:1

145:9,19,22

146:13,21 147:5

147:22 148:15,18

149:3,7,9 150:3

151:9 152:20

153:2,5,17 154:7

154:11 155:4,20

157:5,13,15,22

159:7,16 160:4,8

160:16 161:14,17

163:3 165:2,11,17

166:2,5,20 172:4

174:18,20 175:1,4

175:7,18 176:3,12

177:3,9,15,18

178:3,6,15,21

179:7,13,19,21

180:5,9,16,20

181:1,6 182:6,10

182:12,15 183:5

183:11 185:4,8,17

186:2,5,8,14

187:2,5 188:19

189:3,16,19 190:1

190:9,13 191:8

192:13,19 193:6

193:11,15,22

194:9,11,14 195:1

195:6,10,14

196:12,16,20

197:22 198:14,17

198:20 199:4,12

199:15,19,22

200:9,17 201:18

202:18 203:17

204:9 213:4

214:14 218:4,11

220:6 221:16,21

222:10 224:17

225:19 226:7

227:8 229:7

232:17 237:4,15

238:13,16,21

239:2 242:17

243:15,19 246:11

248:12 249:8,15

249:22 250:3

252:20 253:3

257:3 260:1

262:14 264:16

265:3 266:4 267:8
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 346

268:7,10 270:1,13

271:14 272:13,17

273:7,21 274:7,12

276:5,17 278:21

279:2,7,20 281:8

282:6,16 283:19

294:13,22 295:5

295:11,13,17

297:2,9 299:16

300:5,10 302:10

303:8,18 304:6,9

304:19 306:2

307:3,20 308:17

309:7 310:2,6

311:3,8 313:9,14

314:15 318:4,9,11

320:21

PARKER:Okay

196:8

parliamentary

99:19

part 6:14 10:21

20:11 25:21 27:16

38:16 46:2 50:10

53:12 57:14,17

59:21 82:4 98:17

104:9 106:12

111:1 123:20

133:2 144:4,22

152:18 154:4

159:5 162:1 169:8

187:10 200:22

201:7 207:1

225:17 237:20

239:3 265:7

302:14 304:13

partial 160:10

PARTICIPANT

178:20 180:21

181:2

participate 69:6,8

106:4

participated

269:16

participating

142:11 146:17

participation 78:18

particular 8:17,17

9:13 11:4 85:6

86:5 89:9 108:13

152:13 167:15

214:9,9

particularly 81:3

86:15 103:8 117:1

117:12 141:2

161:21 198:9

320:12

parties 48:19 54:21

55:6,8 69:3 86:19

86:22 122:20

127:6 137:10

139:1,20 142:22

147:16,20 156:4

157:17,20,22

partly 88:2

parts 234:3

party 69:1 73:8,9

73:16,20 75:18,20

75:21 76:1,11,13

118:13 130:6

136:7,10 140:4,5

141:15 143:5,21

146:18 147:1

148:1

pass 36:12 37:4

47:2 163:15

passage 100:18

passed 54:2 108:3

163:14 164:6

261:14

passing 106:16

patch 221:7

path 56:4 253:12

patience 170:3

Patricia 3:4 23:7

Patterson 2:10

19:19,19 41:10,20

124:12,16 126:13

185:6,22 186:3,6

186:22 187:3

189:14,17,21

190:7,11,16,22

211:2,5 212:9

214:1,17 215:5,22

216:6 217:9,20

218:1,7,16,20

219:3,7,11,16,20

220:4 222:1

227:22 228:6,20

230:14,16 233:11

235:12,16 236:5

237:6,11 238:8,15

238:19,22 240:11

240:18 241:10,13

241:19 243:1,12

243:16 247:12,15

247:20 249:1,9,18

250:1 252:16

264:20 265:8,11

267:2,14 268:8,15

268:20 269:2

270:14,19 277:17

278:22 279:5

285:3,7 294:18

295:3,6,9 300:13

301:18 302:7,22

Paul 3:18 23:13

98:21

pause 46:17 115:13

pave 49:16

pay 14:22 184:8

261:5 271:6

payback 210:14

303:4

paying 106:22

peer 58:3 109:18

pending 48:3

Pennsylvania 19:4

people 5:16 8:3

25:7 27:3,4,7 28:4

28:7,16 30:9,10

30:13,14,19,20

33:10 34:14 36:17

37:10,11 38:9,20

42:14,15 45:8,11

45:12,13,15,20

47:1,11 53:5

56:19 57:3 58:7

58:16 60:20 62:21

67:12 69:3,6,14

71:10 73:2 74:3

79:11 82:13 83:4

90:13 92:15 97:21

98:19 100:20

103:10 113:20

115:7 129:17,18

132:13 158:10

161:19 165:4,6,12

166:18 169:11

170:17 178:2,4,7

178:9 181:10,14

181:16 184:15,16

188:11 190:8

192:19 198:3

199:7 203:13

227:15 233:2

235:22 238:3,6

239:14 243:21

251:22 280:9

281:21,21 297:4

308:21 319:15

people's 120:19

170:3

perceive 59:1

212:21

percent 53:19 54:5

82:6 84:19 85:16

85:21,22 86:7,14

87:14 119:3

121:14 202:7

211:9 212:17

214:18 215:2

219:8,9 223:2,20

228:9,13,15 233:3

233:7,8 235:3

236:10 242:2,5

259:8 278:7

280:16,16,16

281:1 289:9

290:22 291:2

296:6,11,13,17,21

306:19,20,20

percentage 257:7

percentile 274:17

percent,75 54:5

perfect 266:10

perfectly 246:8

performance 212:3

252:8

performance-rel...

252:14,17

performs 214:2

period 62:18 115:3

123:3 126:6 128:2

128:7,15 132:10

132:13 136:10

137:6 139:4,5,8

140:1,12,14,17,21

141:6 143:12,14

145:15,16 146:5,7

146:9 169:22

210:15 273:12

periods 277:6

permission 165:9

165:13

permits 165:20

permitting 165:21

person 50:8 58:4

58:10 79:12 82:13

82:18 83:7 88:21

146:15,17,18

147:1 148:14

personal 7:22

156:21

personalized

149:15

personally 179:9

185:16

perspective 9:6

11:18 231:4

307:14 309:9

persuaded 69:11

perturbations

279:4

per-phase 313:22

Peterson 2:11

18:21,22 185:15

200:6,11

Petitioning 120:10

Petrosino 3:15 31:6

31:9,9

Pew 171:8 176:14

176:15 183:13,14

183:20 184:7

190:14 193:19
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 347

201:19,21

PG&E 31:17 95:11

phase 214:9 266:16

315:4,6,10

phases 315:12

Phil 3:10 31:3,5

81:13 171:4

255:15

philosophical

298:13

phone 16:6 27:2,3

30:20 45:16 46:10

46:14 83:4 90:12

95:8 163:5,7,7

178:9,16 297:4

phones 32:15,18

83:5 90:13,13,16

phrase 64:16 65:7

131:10 137:17,19

physical 215:10

249:13

Ph.D 2:14

pick 219:15 258:7

301:3

picked 246:3

263:19

picks 273:13

301:10

pictured 266:13

piece 123:16

pieces 90:20 118:22

place 33:9 41:6

172:8,17 173:9,10

173:13,14 174:13

264:9 266:15

268:9 308:11

places 43:19 53:22

138:22 152:7

166:16 173:5

placing 291:17

plaintiff's 168:9

plan 34:21 95:13

276:10

plane 195:17

planning 17:19

187:9

plans 163:21

plate 142:17

play 133:21 187:22

199:10 257:10

please 5:14 32:8,17

39:20 41:9 45:13

45:18,22 46:3

47:8,19 53:13,14

83:4 90:12,15

93:8 111:12

131:16 163:7

164:19 250:11

253:5 260:2 276:6

296:8

plots 308:4

plow 320:2

plug 251:15

plus 129:7,7,9,11

pocket 205:1

point 8:18 12:22

28:20 56:12 60:19

61:3 64:12 65:16

74:19 75:22 100:4

103:16 106:2

107:18 116:13

122:4 123:2,9

125:20 135:17

144:6 149:10

153:14 157:7

158:15 161:21

176:3 177:3 186:9

189:4 194:2,16

202:6,12 226:11

241:5 245:5

246:14 251:6,19

259:5 267:15

272:7,18,18 275:1

277:10,18 280:3

280:10,19 300:3

300:14 302:10

306:9 307:3,20

309:6 313:16

pointed 264:3

pointing 165:15

points 246:15

254:10 259:3

275:20,21 276:1

297:20 298:5

299:14 308:6,12

pole 247:22 248:2,9

252:19 264:6

266:14

poles 234:2 264:22

265:9,12

pole-mount 233:20

236:11 247:17

264:21

pole-mounted

234:8

police 318:12

policy 47:16 125:8

277:12

Polinski 2:12 20:16

20:16 161:9,10,15

political 36:21 37:9

37:9 119:15,22

pony 171:7

portion 33:18

pose 228:5

position 54:7 59:6

59:22 60:2 64:19

66:15 67:2,4,9

74:22 77:8 104:20

105:12 106:9,15

116:19,21 118:19

122:9 130:14

133:2 135:2

147:18 156:17

157:4 200:7

positions 156:5,21

157:16 253:15

positive 140:7

167:8 206:20

possibilities 314:22

possibility 145:14

151:20 154:14,17

172:12 175:8

188:7 223:1

257:14 304:2

314:2

possible 5:19 15:21

16:11 33:10 34:7

35:12 53:11,13,17

83:15 129:22

141:10 143:22

175:19 197:18

211:17 213:21

217:4,10 229:17

232:21 245:1

250:17 266:11

270:3 285:17

299:11 311:13

319:11

post 41:7 310:3

posted 35:1 39:2,3

40:6,7,17 41:9

259:3

potential 55:10

86:16 146:1,4,11

158:20 285:19

potentially 43:19

87:1 119:4 124:21

145:17

pound 15:4 268:1,3

288:12

pounds 236:21,21

278:3

power 1:22 2:4,9

3:13 17:16 18:3

18:14 20:14 31:12

85:2 144:14 316:5

practicable 160:13

160:14

practical 102:22

138:21

practicality 85:17

practically 197:15

preamble 28:11

65:8 102:18

precedent 165:4

precept 156:12

predict 272:15

predictive 277:2

predictor 272:19

277:8

prefabricated

289:11

prefer 42:15 125:1

139:20 152:4

179:10 185:15,19

preferred 309:19

pregnant 87:6

preliminary 33:11

33:15 40:22

202:21 208:9

275:17 290:4

301:8

premise 181:5

premises 171:18

prerogatives

155:14

presence 96:21

101:21

present 1:17 2:1

3:1 4:1 74:14

96:13 97:3,11

99:2,11 101:2

109:11 170:20

223:12 291:14

304:17 314:3,11

presentation 4:5

6:8 47:22 209:1

presented 259:7,20

287:3

presenting 172:15

presently 283:9

286:15

presents 286:6,19

president 1:21 2:8

2:9,10 3:12 19:20

presiding 1:13

press 59:11 117:13

229:12 284:5

pressure 58:3

91:15 109:18

presumably 28:12

165:18

presumption 167:5

172:17 173:17

252:22 319:13

pretty 30:17 35:3

67:6 71:18 85:8

98:1 177:7 179:13

179:20 188:8

204:19 215:7

235:10 263:6

274:22 284:18

317:7,10

prevailed 92:7
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 348

prevent 111:4

117:11 118:17

290:20

prevented 119:9

prevents 121:12

previous 37:7,15

167:6 212:5

237:19 286:17

289:19 305:11

previously 210:11

291:8

pre-analysis

268:16 302:4

price 210:8 216:7,8

216:22 222:6,7,7

222:14 228:9,10

228:10,13,14,21

228:21 237:1

241:8,20,21

248:20 260:15,19

260:20 261:17

262:1,2,3 274:20

279:11 280:14

281:2,19,22 282:3

282:10 283:13,15

287:19 292:12

prices 117:18

229:19 230:17

231:19 260:12

261:2,2,7,20

263:7 266:19,22

267:5,10,11,13

268:5,14,18

269:13,17,22

271:4,7,11 272:11

273:2 274:15

275:6,9,18,19,22

276:2,12,15,21

277:3,4,4,5

278:15 279:15

287:11,17 289:3

292:8,16 308:7

318:22 319:1,2

320:14,15

primary 214:8

284:18,21

Principal 2:17 3:19

principals 167:19

principle 243:9

principles 210:21

308:14

print 161:17

printed 118:7

prior 30:5,6 113:1

132:6 190:20

237:20 238:17

private 61:8 157:7

157:8

privately 126:22

pro 109:1 168:8

probably 16:17

19:10,11 86:13

123:10 129:14

176:15 179:17

192:3 297:15

319:8

problem 47:17

90:14,17 105:10

121:19 124:19

143:11 170:15

172:10,22 173:4

175:22 184:9

215:19 244:16

265:4 320:6

problems 47:8

69:21 193:8 200:4

procedural 34:8

108:15,20

procedure 5:12

29:4 34:4 44:20

44:22 51:18 56:13

56:21 124:1 141:4

151:11 158:11

163:11 164:6

296:13

proceed 38:9 169:7

251:18

proceeding 27:13

137:12

proceedings 26:3

27:6 41:17 69:7

process 5:6 10:22

11:7 12:22 13:1

24:8,13 26:10

29:3,18 40:9,10

48:17 50:6 54:22

83:13 86:1,4,16

88:8 92:18 98:10

98:18 106:13

108:3 112:20

114:17 119:8

151:14 156:3

161:11 169:9,10

204:14 208:7

213:18 255:9

261:11 270:4

271:15 299:10

processes 100:14

processing 310:4

produce 25:17

36:20 37:3 40:15

279:3

produces 20:20

277:16

producing 272:3

294:15,20 295:1

product 1:20 3:19

19:17 25:22 28:13

68:5 225:12 237:7

237:12,12 238:11

239:18,20 240:1,3

240:5 244:10

247:22 251:21

252:4,21 283:11

production 164:7

productive 28:7

151:12

productively 35:14

36:3

products 71:6

151:21 153:9

155:9 159:14,17

160:6,15 225:16

239:22 244:5

252:6,9,13

professional 25:13

professor 23:22

profit 289:17

program 3:14 4:2

8:6 22:5 213:12

255:12 257:5,7

258:7,18 267:16

291:9

programs 231:1,3

progress 2:18 20:7

96:11 108:1

113:22 201:4

270:3

prohibited 59:8

Project 2:4 21:17

projection 279:18

projections 279:10

279:12

projector 183:6,8

Prolec 2:6 3:6,15

20:2,4 22:20

31:10 130:19

273:1 280:3

304:21

promise 150:14

promote 24:17

promoting 66:22

prompt 17:3

promptly 164:3

321:1

promulgated 48:10

promulgation 62:8

63:5

proponent 127:20

proponents 21:18

94:8

proposal 33:3

56:11 57:8,12

67:12 73:3 83:17

132:21 137:4

147:18

proposals 128:20

184:22 185:5

propose 25:21 30:3

65:5 106:9 114:14

114:19 115:7,9

118:4 127:17

130:19 138:11

142:9 153:17

161:10,12 218:6

319:12

proposed 24:5

25:19 28:20 29:7

29:10,16 48:14

107:6 121:5

135:21 137:21

138:3 146:2,3

152:5,8 153:22

158:6 159:12

160:10 205:12

206:12 207:17,19

proposes 131:1

314:21

proposing 94:18

128:11 152:21

221:22 222:1

proposition 263:4

296:3

proved 106:5

113:18

provide 122:19

146:7 179:4

183:22 242:7

311:17

provided 36:2

176:22 208:13

235:21 236:1,15

241:7

providing 16:8

201:11 250:15

provision 147:4

provisions 102:8

107:5

proviso 201:11

public 1:8,18 2:9

9:19 10:2 11:11

15:2 18:1,2,14

25:22 26:17 27:6

27:13 28:21,22

29:12 68:14 83:18

88:5 139:21

157:13 208:9

238:16

publication 39:14

40:2 63:13,20,21

70:4 71:5 137:6

137:17 140:16

268:16 269:5

publish 72:15

107:6 261:17
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 349

267:6 276:7

published 41:11

48:15 63:18 71:22

72:1 118:12 124:9

125:5,9,12 267:1

267:3 269:6,7

270:11 290:3

292:22 306:11

pull-mounts

215:15

pumpkins 164:2

pumps 245:21

purchase 223:22

257:15 289:12

purchasing 259:18

purpose 40:5

205:10 210:5

purposes 52:11

102:7 163:8

pursuant 48:8

50:21 51:4

pursue 56:4

purview 225:13,18

pushing 213:6

296:20

put 12:11 29:22

53:18 77:14 78:12

79:10 80:21 94:8

94:21 102:20

109:8,21 114:22

129:21 134:14

136:11 137:21

138:6 146:17

154:3 176:13,18

183:17 188:5

190:5 191:19,20

197:18 223:14,15

229:7 253:8 282:1

putting 9:22 115:4

117:13 120:2

148:10 213:7

222:12

puzzled 71:16

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-...

5:1

p.m 162:6,7 163:2

321:5

Q

quantifying 218:8

question 41:11

46:7,21 49:6

50:10 69:13 72:6

72:7 73:12,19

74:3,7,15,16 80:6

85:19 98:8 104:4

104:17 108:2

113:13 120:18

122:7 125:18,20

129:7 130:16

134:1 138:21

141:13 147:8

172:20 173:6

187:14,19 192:7

194:20 200:10

201:2,18 203:22

207:17 208:1

214:5 215:3

222:15 226:11

228:3,5,5 231:12

239:3 242:18

255:11 257:2

258:2 259:20,21

275:8 277:7

279:22 288:5,6

293:18 294:18

295:14 297:3

298:4 307:19

309:11 319:17

questioning 238:1

questions 10:3

13:22 40:18 46:22

166:3 207:12

211:3 218:17

227:18,19 237:18

297:2,4,6 304:17

310:12

quick 63:20 108:1

129:19 134:1

175:20 177:10

201:10 207:11,17

257:2 279:22

280:7 288:6 298:4

quickly 34:5 79:13

153:18 253:20

313:9

quid 109:1 168:8

quiet 89:21 148:11

quite 80:11 99:16

99:18 151:11

164:13 170:14

264:18

quo 109:1 168:8

quorum 181:13

quote 68:7 138:4

139:19

quotes 267:10

R

race 24:19,22

racked 169:9

raise 45:22 110:1

110:10 129:9,12

149:9 166:9 248:2

249:9 319:8

raised 128:4 139:3

176:13 218:17

237:22 250:20

316:4

raises 157:6 186:9

raising 60:19 61:3

116:12 127:11

220:21

Raleigh 20:8

ramp 126:3,3

ran 264:1 269:19

random 126:2

232:6 255:18

range 229:17 246:4

247:1 256:14

273:15 274:14,18

274:20 279:21

285:16 299:10

319:1,4

ranges 256:12

274:2 316:14

rapid 113:21

rate 219:5 288:3,7

rating 214:3,3,5,5

214:11,12 216:3

216:17 217:7

218:15 221:2

231:18 242:15

266:15 315:21

ratings 212:12

215:1,16,17

216:15 219:4

220:22 284:21

316:6,10,17

ratio 223:19 228:10

228:14,19,20,21

259:10,15 278:1,4

296:10,20 316:3

rational 225:21

ratios 229:1

Ray 2:12 20:16

161:9

Raymond 22:13,13

reach 32:10 84:7

133:13 154:17

156:3,9 157:3

158:21 159:2

312:21

reached 32:8 50:5

52:4 59:3 160:4

300:3 301:16

reaching 156:2

reacted 220:3

Reaction 127:17

reactions 38:11

54:9

read 30:13 44:19

47:12 51:19 88:18

101:9 132:18

137:3,9 146:19

151:1 204:21

206:9 238:3

266:20

reading 88:4

reads 136:16

ready 34:20 151:15

158:11 166:8

275:2

real 63:20 86:15

90:16 116:22

231:11 241:6

257:2 283:2

realistic 83:21 84:5

Realistically 12:3

reality 256:8,17

really 8:14 15:2

16:12 25:1 30:1

35:6 60:5 61:20

69:2,13 73:1,8,16

74:18 78:14 80:10

80:19 81:1,11

93:1,1 105:9

109:19,19 144:11

157:7 166:16

170:7,19 173:1,7

173:11 174:5

177:19,20 181:8

181:12 183:18

185:9,10 187:11

187:11 194:2

199:4 202:3

207:14 215:9

220:13 225:17,22

226:1,17 227:19

228:2 239:6

244:15 251:13

253:4 264:5 273:5

276:21 283:10

300:14 304:14

307:11 308:14

310:4

realm 223:1 304:2

reason 45:1 50:3

53:20 56:4 72:12

81:11 89:10

109:19 124:2

168:16 169:20

183:18 238:1

246:6 247:5

260:16 304:3

reasonable 35:17

54:6 83:22 84:8

133:11 213:19

251:17 274:20

282:15 319:3,4

reasons 120:1

145:2 148:12

184:5 304:22

319:15

reassess 203:8

recalculate 306:12
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 350

recalculated 41:21

recalculating 41:14

recall 149:15 245:7

317:4

receive 213:17

received 149:14

209:16 220:17

293:7 317:8,11

receives 292:5

recognize 218:2

222:5 225:20

243:6,17

recognizing 16:14

233:1 271:17

recollect 238:8

recommend 92:5

recommendation

14:6 55:13,22

56:2,7 77:16

105:20 108:4

109:3,3,5,6

132:11 153:10

recommendations

6:18,21,22 8:1

9:17 10:11,16,18

11:8 12:1 17:4

55:16

recommended

121:5 137:20

138:3 159:2 160:5

160:18,21

recommending

9:21

reconsidering

305:1

reconvene 320:22

record 26:18 27:11

27:12 39:11 45:5

51:2 83:8,16 93:8

100:21,22 147:17

149:19 161:6

162:6 163:8

197:16 321:5

recorded 79:18

rectangular 246:18

246:20,21 247:11

247:13,18 248:3,7

249:2,17 254:20

264:10

rectangulars 248:5

recuse 8:20

redesign 278:14

reduce 228:8,12

reduced 307:1

reductions 207:3

redundancy 110:9

redundant 76:21

99:14

refer 238:3 264:8

270:12 301:20

reference 47:14

287:17

referenced 149:12

referring 39:1

40:14 138:2

233:13 248:3

reflect 52:4 57:8

241:2 248:18

308:2

reflected 28:5

234:7 269:19,21

reflecting 231:17

refrigerator 225:14

245:13

refrigerators 245:2

245:4,7,13

regard 69:22

176:14 263:13

317:9

regarding 6:19 7:1

7:9 11:12

regardless 82:17

132:6 135:20

141:1 299:4

regards 8:6 96:15

regenerate 309:9

Register 70:5 118:7

124:10 142:10

regulation 214:22

regulations.gov

140:13

regulators 20:10

regulatory 59:4

60:21

reinforce 276:18

relabeled 301:17

relate 209:5

related 216:2 252:9

Relations 3:7

relationship 210:6

210:12 216:19

217:13 222:12,14

222:22 236:10

248:19 306:15

relative 64:13

241:7,14,16,19

253:15 277:20

278:5,5,15 305:4

release 117:14

260:10 268:21

269:20,22 295:21

300:16

released 231:9

256:2 260:4,19

263:6 275:5

313:18

releases 59:12

relegated 181:11

relevant 256:12

relies 316:1

reluctance 103:15

rely 87:11 222:21

272:8

remain 148:22

remaining 183:16

289:22

remand 48:10,13

remarks 27:2

remember 70:7

215:5,6 216:5

226:10 253:7

288:19

remembering 25:3

reminds 26:22

remove 75:17

113:15

removing 291:21

Renewable 6:15

RENEWABLES

1:3

rent 171:5 183:21

184:1

reopen 140:21

145:16

reopened 146:10

reopening 145:14

rep 255:1 286:3

290:16 315:10

316:9

repeat 157:9 179:1

305:12

repeated 90:17

rephrase 110:6

replace 147:1

152:22

replaced 94:15

replacing 94:13

report 176:8

213:20 292:15

302:3,18

reporter 46:5

reporting 6:17

reposting 301:6

represent 7:16,19

17:8 18:11,15

21:14 25:12 56:15

77:12 84:15

214:10,18 216:20

226:12 241:3,4

265:9,12 291:14

307:17

representation

53:9 219:12 248:8

representative 7:11

26:13 59:16,17

77:7 89:4 210:22

211:7,13,21

212:12,22 215:9

221:5 229:14

236:17 239:19

240:1,2 241:1

242:11,20 246:3

248:16 250:13

253:6,7,17 254:12

255:2 264:13

266:8,13 284:8,11

285:15,18 286:21

292:2 316:15

318:2 319:22

representatives

6:13 7:16 11:22

12:18 21:22 25:2

represented 52:17

55:9,15 69:4

73:15 211:9

218:10 226:10

238:12 248:14

representing 9:4

18:3 25:4 55:18

58:21 66:13 74:19

74:21 75:1 78:2

149:17,17 150:1

212:16

represents 41:15

55:17 216:22

241:6 246:11

require 68:17

79:16 89:2 100:10

142:2 213:8

223:21 290:10,18

required 29:2

139:18 141:3,3

287:13

requirement 48:14

147:10

requirements 36:5

108:20,20 229:20

290:14

requires 27:20

37:13 81:22 93:17

143:21,21 213:10

310:4 313:7

requiring 58:8

101:10 143:13

165:13

reschedule 185:18

Research 2:2,12

3:19 18:22 22:22

reservations

173:14

reserve 119:14,20

187:21,22 200:18

201:20

reserved 173:10

reserves 114:8
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 351

residential 245:2

resolution 24:2

resolve 229:9 250:5

250:22 301:5

resource 16:3

17:19

resources 2:16 3:12

3:21 18:18 23:4,6

35:17 211:16

217:3 244:7

respect 7:20 225:4

respectively 287:20

291:15

respond 12:12 88:2

140:18 143:7,12

responding 139:2

response 159:12

227:18 297:8

320:20

rest 35:21 113:19

203:3 316:16

restriction 68:12

restrictions 59:2

result 41:17 108:19

215:19 272:4

290:13

results 25:16 85:5

209:17 215:12

220:10,13 226:17

253:10 256:16

265:21 309:9,14

309:16,20 315:19

resumed 45:6

162:7

return 80:4 116:5

review 37:1 38:13

39:22 83:18 100:2

139:21 161:19

236:1 318:14

reviews 220:1

revise 201:9

revision 155:7

revisit 33:19

reword 53:13,14

re-ran 268:6

ribbon 262:21

Richard 1:13,15,18

9:12 15:11 23:21

57:11 88:20 90:3

110:17 130:18

161:9 165:1

277:17

richardparkerdc

32:9

richardparkerdc...

32:11

Richard's 89:18

Rick 17:22

right 10:3 15:14

41:22 42:6 44:15

44:16 49:12 54:17

57:10 58:14 60:18

63:22 66:6 69:1

74:8 76:2,6 78:6

78:22 79:10 94:6

94:6,6 97:13

102:15 112:21

114:8,15,17 115:2

115:5 117:17,19

117:20,20 119:14

119:21 124:11

125:12 127:3,15

128:10 131:21

134:12 136:3,6,15

136:21 137:13,16

138:5 143:1,4

145:10,22 146:21

146:21 147:9,22

148:15,20 150:16

157:5 158:3

160:16,21 161:15

161:22 166:10,15

167:2 175:7

176:12 177:15,18

177:19 178:3,6,15

179:7,8 182:15

183:1,5 184:7

185:8,14 186:5,8

187:5,15,16 189:3

189:10 190:1,1,1

190:10 191:5

192:4 193:15

194:18 195:1,3,3

195:11,13,17

196:7 198:12

199:12 201:17

208:6,12,14

209:15 210:3

214:8 216:7

218:20 219:22

221:1 224:20

226:7 229:6,9,11

231:3 238:21

240:15,16 242:9

243:12 244:5

245:17,20 246:1,5

246:10 247:14

248:22 249:3

253:3,15 255:10

258:21 261:20

262:8 264:14

268:7,11,12,19

269:1 273:7 274:7

275:13 276:16

277:5,7,16 278:12

278:13 279:7

281:8 282:16

283:19 284:10

285:6,9 288:13

293:22 294:3

298:15 299:1,18

300:8,9 302:17

304:4 307:8

313:11 315:17

rights 68:18

right-hand 300:19

302:1

rise 284:17 300:1

rising 203:15

Rivest 3:16 215:4,4

216:5 217:2,18,22

218:12,19 219:2,6

219:10,14,17,22

226:15,16 228:2

228:18 229:1

234:11 235:14,17

236:13 237:9

239:17,17 240:8

240:10,16 241:9

241:12,17 242:9

242:21 243:8

245:10,14,19,21

246:2,6 275:1,2,7

275:12

road 203:8

Rob 101:9 104:15

106:7

Robert 2:6,17 3:2

21:8 23:15 68:11

75:15 87:2 98:21

98:22 103:4

112:17 121:15

132:2 141:11

258:2

Robin 2:16 18:17

80:6 92:4 148:5

rocket 30:15 84:10

role 10:13,20 108:2

roll 97:8

room 1:12 9:2

12:11 16:7 24:20

32:10,16,17 37:11

42:13 43:13,20

99:6,8 119:6

120:1 121:12

132:16 143:5

157:10,10 163:21

169:6 174:4,6,8

178:7 179:14,17

189:5 194:1 197:9

200:19 201:19,20

269:16 295:8

315:5

rooms 171:22

179:4 189:8

Rosenfeld 2:14

6:20 11:14 14:16

16:22 17:1 170:16

Rosenstock 2:15

10:5,6,10 13:4,5

18:5,6 38:12,18

38:21 39:10,17

40:20 43:12 49:6

49:7 51:1,1,10,13

53:7,8 61:20 67:5

67:14,14,18,19

68:3 70:2,2,13

78:11 79:13 83:10

83:10 93:7,10

94:2 97:8 98:7,16

100:13 110:2,12

114:2,22 115:8,19

115:20 129:1,19

131:14,14,19

134:1,18 135:5

136:5 139:14

140:9,10 141:5

142:8 143:9,9,18

146:14,22 150:14

151:5,18 153:1,4

154:2,9,21 155:19

157:20 172:2

175:20 176:6

177:9,16 178:1,4

178:8,9,18 181:15

183:9 188:16,20

192:21 193:7,12

193:20 199:5,6,16

203:10,10 207:16

207:16 208:1,12

220:7,7 221:1,10

225:2,2 227:10

244:1,1 245:12,17

245:20 246:1,5

257:1,4,4,12,16

257:21 279:8,8

288:6,7,13,17,21

289:2,7 298:4,19

298:20 299:4

302:12 303:2

310:7,7 311:11

313:3 317:1,1,19

Rossetti 3:17 31:19

31:19

rough 164:8

roughly 211:10

214:20 306:19

roulette 187:22

round 246:18,19,21

247:10,13,16,20

248:9 254:20

260:14 264:21

270:11

routine 231:15

row 22:9 172:3,4
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 352

284:13

Roy 2:16 18:17,17

42:18,21 78:16,20

80:6,7,17 81:2

89:17 107:8

111:19 148:5,5,16

159:19

rubber 12:10

rudimentary 84:21

rule 24:5,5 25:19

28:8,17,20,22

29:7,10,15,16

36:10 37:1 48:9

48:14 50:15,20

55:7,7 56:3 57:6,7

57:8 60:9 62:9

63:5,13 71:3,7,22

72:15,17 73:2

87:14 88:8 91:7

92:4,22 93:14

97:20 105:21

107:6 109:16

114:14 117:4,5,8

118:12,21 119:9

120:12 124:21,22

125:5,11 127:8

133:15 134:13

135:17,18 137:3

140:8 144:20

146:3 152:8,9,17

155:5 159:13

220:11,13,16

221:12 224:3

272:3 298:6 302:8

316:2,8

rulemaking 1:6 5:6

7:1,2,3 8:15,22

9:15,22 14:12

24:7,22 29:8 35:7

35:21 37:7 47:16

48:11 52:8,18

81:15,19 82:5

88:19 91:20 92:12

105:4,8 135:19,22

137:12 147:17

152:9 156:11

167:6 168:13

197:16 207:20

208:22 212:5

237:20 286:14,17

289:20 293:4

316:20

rulemakings 6:19

30:7 44:22 56:22

57:21 80:8

rules 4:9 5:11 6:2

7:8,13 8:12 10:15

10:22 25:21 27:18

30:4,13 33:5 34:4

38:14 44:20,22

47:11,17 51:18

54:15 56:13,21

78:12 81:19 82:8

104:14 114:9

123:22 136:19

141:4 142:12,14

144:15,17,22

145:4 151:11

152:5 158:11

163:11 164:6,6

166:8,9,11 176:1

190:5,9 191:16

197:14 204:17

239:5 263:16

run 37:8 40:11

192:3,6 243:3

262:7,10 267:19

268:13 269:12

271:8 272:1

275:18 278:1

285:10 312:16

running 42:21

62:16 177:6

291:19 315:15

runs 255:22 270:5

309:21

rural 2:18 18:10,12

144:15

Ryan 3:18 23:13,13

S

sabotage 69:17

104:14

Saint 2:17 18:9,10

179:3,9,16,20

183:1,7 195:11

196:13,17 198:12

198:15,18

sales 19:17 295:18

salient 35:7

Sampat 3:18 23:9,9

259:21 260:3,18

261:21 262:8,13

276:6

satisfactory 319:1

save 217:3

saves 224:8

saving 138:16

savings 207:2

saw 165:20 305:2

saying 57:13 59:12

74:11 76:12,21

90:3 128:9 129:20

132:4 137:12

147:17,19 159:18

193:16 195:7

200:6 216:20

218:13 236:6

240:3 241:2 244:9

249:15 250:11

270:22 276:13

281:4,20 282:13

285:10 298:9

303:1 306:3 317:5

says 11:2 28:15

65:12 76:10,13

84:1 88:22 89:19

92:10 96:20,22

131:15 134:19

136:7 137:20

140:22 150:18

152:8 156:15

158:22 159:1

165:7 176:6,9

177:10 218:21

236:8 241:4 257:5

302:8

scalable 215:14

scale 217:7 221:2

221:17 244:18

245:19,20 246:8

246:19,20,21

255:4 316:8

scaled 248:5 254:8

315:9 316:3,17

scales 315:21

scaling 217:11

220:10,11,13,16

220:21 221:11

222:16 227:11,16

238:20 239:1

247:2 254:10

313:11 315:11,12

315:19,20 316:2,4

318:3,21,22

scary 273:4

scattered 240:12

scenario 133:21

scenarios 192:3

201:9

schedule 4:10 33:6

38:4 169:15

172:21 173:19,19

193:2 200:13,18

schedules 170:3

scheduling 34:9

169:14 191:18

Schoen 3:19 22:21

22:21 282:21,21

School 1:16 24:1

science 30:15

scientist 84:10

scope 37:6 42:3

144:14 168:12

scoped 248:5

Scott 1:20 19:16

scrap 288:1

scratch 217:17

screen 5:16 178:17

178:22 179:1

312:11

screened 285:20

screening 209:10

screw 190:13

scrutinized 67:6

scrutiny 36:21,22

search 152:21

153:1,2

seats 22:8 45:20

95:7

second 79:2 134:22

135:1,7,10 159:14

169:21 170:15

181:11 185:12

186:10,10 206:11

298:7

secondary 214:8

284:18

Secondly 310:11

Secretary 10:1

105:20 109:4,6

252:2

section 27:18

268:17

see 5:7 8:7,19 14:20

26:9 35:6 44:15

65:15 73:8 78:14

81:4 86:15 104:21

105:3 110:7

111:13 114:10

128:12 140:11,16

148:9 152:1

159:17 170:19

173:2,12 174:22

176:17 178:17,20

178:22 181:18,20

190:8,17 191:13

191:14 193:8

194:7,16 195:8

197:17 198:19

203:5 205:3 206:7

206:22 209:4

214:19 217:7

219:6,8 231:11

235:15 239:15

242:1,2,8,10

254:2,13 256:22

259:15 264:14

267:4 269:16

270:6,14 285:12

286:9 288:14

295:3,11 302:7

315:16 321:2

seeing 219:8 266:2

301:14
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 353

seeking 62:14

seen 60:20 259:5

273:11,13,14

279:14 280:17

297:15 310:20

sees 235:13

segment 216:19

234:5 237:7,13

248:18 249:3

segments 238:11

248:11,14

select 205:13

206:12,15 207:8

217:6 285:4

313:20

selected 211:14

216:14 284:8,12

285:18 286:20

selecting 204:14

285:22

selection 35:8

211:6 229:14

231:14

selects 285:15

297:13

self 47:1 51:19

self-explanatory

284:19

sell 283:10 295:11

selling 210:8 216:7

216:8,22 228:9,13

231:19 292:12,15

semantic 314:5,14

semantics 153:12

send 10:19 66:21

82:22 83:17 109:6

139:7 140:22

166:12 183:2

269:3 319:9

Senior 2:6,8,9,18

sense 29:13 30:14

30:17 33:21 77:21

83:19 123:12

129:4 169:15

203:1,6 213:5

232:2 237:14

238:4 248:17

251:5 255:6

307:13 313:2,3

sensible 38:8

sensitive 127:21

128:15

sensitivities 285:11

287:19

sensitivity 262:7

273:6,10,19 274:2

274:11,16 275:2,6

277:10 279:5

281:5 284:22

292:3 293:12

315:15

sent 49:14,18

189:18

sentence 79:2,4

97:14,16 98:4

103:2 109:9 110:1

110:2,9,13,15

111:2,15 131:15

146:15 159:1,14

sentences 111:10

separate 60:2 94:4

98:4 108:12,13

168:12,16 169:10

172:8 185:4

244:20,22

separately 170:11

254:21

September 1:11

142:10 193:16

serially 275:15

series 269:15

serious 239:10

serve 25:18 298:1

service 213:13

292:18

Services 2:11 19:1

255:12 291:9

serving 19:8

session 9:18 76:17

79:7 171:7 197:20

199:9 318:16

sessions 28:1

set 26:14 41:3

79:22 91:22

105:17 108:8,12

124:16 135:22

159:2 163:16

165:4 167:2 198:1

198:22 205:13,17

212:14 219:4

221:20 224:22

249:18 251:12,20

252:3,21 268:22

270:5 271:7,21

272:7 275:10

277:15,19 300:17

300:20,22 303:1

312:5,10

sets 63:5 204:16

215:3 216:18

262:1 275:8

309:16

setting 60:3,21

108:16 191:16

196:22 244:4

settle 123:22

settlement 50:5,22

156:13 169:8

seven 93:22 95:3

314:9

shake 281:2

shape 308:12

shapes 308:6

share 26:8 212:2,2

214:15 226:9,12

shared 199:1

sheet 25:17 28:2,9

28:14 65:10 99:21

104:9,12 121:18

123:19 174:9

175:10 176:2,8

201:14 220:15

shift 275:20 281:11

282:9

shifted 308:15

ship 295:10

shipment 315:7

shipped 214:20

315:7

shipping 288:7

289:14,19,20

shoes 75:21 76:19

77:2,3

short 71:18 118:11

123:12,17 263:18

290:20 297:15

shorten 121:16

122:13

shorthand 67:22

short-term 263:17

show 44:4 82:2

97:6,10 140:6

180:11 235:19,20

236:2 280:7

293:13

showed 255:9

showing 74:20

152:17 188:21,22

shown 225:6 244:5

shows 29:7,8

142:11 210:17

241:7 253:15

284:6,13

shuttle 202:8

side 300:19 317:20

317:21 318:2

side-by-sides

245:15

sign 74:9 85:8

149:2,6,6,6

signed 119:18

significance 253:10

314:5,14

significant 86:18

126:15 146:11

216:12 233:16

234:3 244:11

248:17 262:16

298:16 299:14

307:10

significantly 122:2

305:20

silence 91:6 297:10

similar 147:7,11

154:14 210:20

212:3 253:22

263:6 316:19

Similarly 290:17

Simmons 2:18 20:6

20:7 96:10,11

107:22 108:1

270:2,3

simple 42:7 81:8

111:7

simpler 224:10

246:19

simplify 303:12

simply 24:10 99:5

115:12 119:12

132:4 170:21

219:15

simulate 232:1

258:15 264:6

simulation 213:14

Simultaneous

191:2

single 99:18 266:15

315:3,5

single-phase

264:11 266:16

284:14 307:2

315:20

sir 10:4 72:5

sit 168:22 169:2

185:21 294:10

300:16

site 78:9

sits 247:21 249:6

sitting 49:12

133:12 165:5

situation 64:22

129:14 157:11

169:17

six 84:14,14,14

93:21 95:3 121:11

121:14 127:4

167:13 173:19

174:2 191:13

Sixty 63:10,12,21

71:20

size 152:13 236:22

248:2 249:13

sizes 316:4

skills 84:21

skipped 253:14
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 354

skyrocket 117:7,19

126:7

slab 249:6

slice 242:5 248:7

slide 166:17 205:8

208:2 209:4

210:17 253:14

286:19 313:11

315:18

slides 220:8,9

304:18

slight 90:3 212:6

slightest 80:14

slightly 220:19

232:5 246:9,10

263:3 305:20

308:6,8,11

slope 241:15,17,22

243:10 308:9

sloppy 136:14

slower 44:8

small 279:3 295:21

smaller 6:14 172:8

smooths 242:12

sneak 17:13

software 199:17

229:21 255:12

285:7 308:5

sold 231:16

sole 176:18

solely 258:5

solution 146:12

Solutions 2:15

solve 90:14

somebody 89:8

96:4 99:3 100:5

110:19,21 154:3

180:7 232:10

242:17 256:19

somewhat 121:1

136:22 256:17

soon 5:19 27:1 49:5

132:1 188:8

250:17 313:10

319:7

sophisticated 79:22

sorry 15:2 31:7

39:18 40:4 63:2

66:10 67:5 72:5

110:3,6,14 155:4

155:13 164:7

166:20,21 187:17

238:7 291:1 309:5

sort 6:2 24:9 25:9

26:11 33:1,16

49:16 54:13,14

62:2 64:16 74:8

81:19 87:5 89:8

90:20 100:18

101:18 106:14,16

119:16,21 132:5

142:1 153:7 165:3

165:16 206:5,5

225:10 232:3,6

239:4 244:19

255:18,20 277:9

299:20 300:10

314:5 320:5

sorts 103:12

sound 53:14 142:16

sounded 177:17

sounds 96:6 222:12

239:20 274:12

277:8

source 88:19 232:7

South 21:7

space 15:1 16:9

115:15 171:5

201:11 212:8

221:7 254:19

264:13 298:22

299:11,15 305:9

314:8

spaced 298:8,20

299:2 306:19

314:9

spacing 299:22

spades 229:11

speak 27:15 31:2

37:8 39:7 41:20

45:14,18,21 46:14

46:15,18 74:10

83:5 95:18 165:10

297:6 300:17

speaker 199:9

speaking 45:11

75:19 90:15 191:2

305:17 306:14

special 14:1 290:8

290:10 315:4

Specialist 3:14 4:2

specialize 24:1

specific 7:14 8:16

68:21 70:7 158:18

218:5 231:18

239:12 244:17

247:21 259:6

275:8

specifically 8:3,9

14:4 66:4 230:9

277:19

specificity 35:12

specified 52:22

306:5

specifies 122:10

specify 35:11 66:11

130:10 213:16

216:15 250:11

spectrum 267:18

speeches 8:2

speed 313:12

spelled 105:18

spend 113:17

134:15 250:21

spending 191:17

spirit 60:7 75:13

133:19 150:10

171:2

split 101:18 317:13

splitting 101:8

spoke 127:10

spoken 282:8

sponsored 61:7

spot 82:12 164:11

229:10

spotted 263:22

318:16

spotting 122:5

spreadsheet 266:21

267:1 301:20

spreadsheets 41:13

231:9 268:21

300:18 301:22

square 44:11

squeeze 170:19

st 189:4 190:7,15

190:17 193:3,12

193:16,17,20

195:11 201:4

stable 271:21

stacked 286:10

287:4

staff 1:22 4:1 15:20

20:13 169:14

stake 273:18

stakeholders 21:14

25:1,2,15 208:4

311:17

stamp 12:10

stand 209:18

standard 35:9

44:21 52:5 56:22

65:6,8,12,13,20

65:22 66:1,4

67:10,21 68:1,8

70:14 71:8 81:20

86:5,17 113:7

116:20 117:20

121:5 130:13,15

131:7,11,16,18

135:22 137:21

138:3 143:16

148:3 152:8,22

153:3,8,11,11

155:5,7 204:15

205:11,12,14

206:12,16 207:17

216:17 220:12

221:14 223:12

242:12 249:14,19

252:11 254:7,8

257:20 274:18

283:20 307:17

311:7,14 312:19

317:6

standards 2:4 20:9

21:17 22:5 51:4

62:10 63:6 67:20

68:5 83:13 86:20

100:14 136:1

151:22 152:1,3,15

152:16 153:22

154:1 159:3 160:2

160:2,5,18,19,22

168:14 221:20

225:1 244:5,21

245:3,4 255:4

283:9,16 298:2

310:15,19 313:18

316:13

standing 75:21,22

76:19 77:2

standpoint 99:19

232:19 307:10

start 6:9 16:14 22:8

30:3 32:21 34:18

47:10,21 91:20

164:5 198:12

204:3 205:21

206:15,20 207:9

214:11 217:16

243:4 298:14

309:13 312:8

started 15:13

120:17 165:21,21

191:18 202:20

287:4 300:15

starting 16:21

34:21 48:17

129:16 236:1

starts 294:7

state 21:21 226:6

228:6

statement 160:11

160:17,19 301:6

statements 113:2

states 19:3 146:19

226:4 294:21

295:2,10 316:2

stating 200:15

Station 183:2

statute 27:17,20

28:15,19 29:6

36:16 37:13 45:3

52:15 63:4,14
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 355

71:21 80:22 81:15

88:21 93:17,19

96:2,20 97:18,19

122:9,10 204:19

207:1 251:20

312:5,10 314:17

statutory 52:9

stay 43:10 58:16

153:10 172:16

182:18 311:21

staying 306:14

steel 2:12 3:20 19:1

19:2 20:17,19,21

21:6 22:22 126:4

236:21,22 277:20

278:5 280:21

282:22 283:6,22

320:11

steels 2:13 283:8,8

286:4,12 299:21

300:4 320:13

steer 35:5

step 31:2 140:3

223:4 256:16

287:9 291:5

stepped 171:20

stepping 80:10

steps 210:17 287:8

Steve 2:15 10:6

13:5 49:6 51:1

53:5,7 54:12

61:18 67:14,18

70:2 83:9,10 93:4

100:12 114:1

115:20 131:14

134:17 139:13

140:10 142:7

143:9 146:13

150:13 151:17

155:11,18 159:12

170:16 176:20,21

178:8 181:14

189:19 190:2

199:5 203:10

207:15,16 218:11

220:6,7 225:2

227:9 243:22

244:1 279:8 288:7

298:19 302:11

310:6,7 312:3

317:1

Steven 18:5 257:4

Steve's 54:12 57:11

153:14 318:21

stick 309:2

stipulate 173:8

stipulation 89:14

stone 115:3

stop 55:12 72:18

197:10 202:10

206:21,21

Storey 94:13,15

story 224:1

straight 36:11

52:15

streamline 110:13

244:15

strike 142:9 146:17

147:7

striking 110:8

144:8 147:12

strip 262:22

strive 53:10 54:1

83:12,14,20

striving 52:2

strong 60:5 68:18

103:7,17 109:19

239:9 265:20

strongly 79:11

133:5 134:3 315:5

struck 126:22

142:14 144:9

145:20 147:11

structure 108:9

234:9 320:7

structures 234:7

stuck 92:8 249:5

students 185:19

study 216:1 266:21

274:21 280:7

293:21 300:15

stuff 163:18 166:16

stupid 59:18

styles 264:4

subcategories

249:16

subchapter 52:19

subcommittee 6:12

6:14 7:12 10:19

11:7,8,17 13:8,18

105:17 108:3,17

108:21 114:6

subcommittees

11:3,15

subdivides 210:19

subdivisions 309:3

subject 24:15 71:7

171:21

submit 55:4 139:18

141:19 147:16

190:19 265:18

submitted 55:19,20

submitting 139:1

143:1

subsequent 40:8

114:21

subset 55:12,17

219:4 235:22

subsets 55:14,19

substance 34:6

163:13 203:2

substantiate

239:14

substantive 65:9

substation 234:6

236:9

substitute 47:19

76:15 198:7

substitution 245:8

subtract 235:4

subvert 89:12

Subway 43:21

subways 264:4

sub-working 170:8

successful 25:17

38:2

sufficient 236:20

suggest 42:9 53:18

60:8,14 62:1

70:10 137:9

192:14 193:1

242:21,22 280:13

309:1

suggested 42:8

87:10 274:4

suggesting 62:7

90:5 101:11

159:20 201:7

217:15

suggestion 111:16

111:17 180:22

suggestions 38:15

119:1 208:4

suggests 86:12,20

242:19 256:19

summarizing

309:19

summary 220:15

Sunday 195:18

sunset 61:15,17,22

62:3 70:3,11

71:16 116:10

117:2 118:4,5

127:2 130:9,10,17

133:1 135:14

136:2

super 55:7

supervisor 22:5

Supervisory 2:2

suppliers 283:18

supply 238:6 239:7

242:19 244:19

283:1

supplying 239:7

support 3:14 4:2

15:20 16:8 36:6,6

60:9,9 64:17 86:4

121:14 147:18

148:3,13 250:14

266:2

supported 88:16

92:16

supporters 18:20

supporting 28:11

64:13 92:20 99:22

102:15,17

supports 208:20

suppose 80:7 120:6

172:19 302:20

303:3,14

supposed 189:15

312:6

sure 5:14 14:19

26:5 32:2 36:17

38:9 41:18 45:22

47:3 52:14 65:17

70:6 97:15,21

98:9,12 107:10

109:10 111:10

113:3 131:5 145:4

154:15 164:14

169:1 179:14

180:7 181:1

201:19 211:4

213:18 224:17

230:15 236:6

251:22 252:20

256:7 258:1

265:16 284:5

317:8,10

surrender 283:13

suspect 104:10

315:13

sweet 82:12

symmetric 293:2,8

293:19 294:15

synthesize 37:20

system 47:5 118:21

systematic 232:8

255:17 256:20

systematically

263:21

systems 1:23 3:13

18:4,16 31:12

S-E-S-S-I-O-N

163:1

S.W 1:12

T

table 4:4 15:15

16:16 24:21 26:16

27:12 29:22 33:10

44:11 45:21 49:12

57:2,4 69:5,15

78:20,21 95:10
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 356

115:16 128:20

133:13 155:17

158:3 165:5,7,8

170:14,18,21

176:19 181:7,10

188:12 198:8

243:20 250:19

253:22 270:20

276:12 280:4,10

284:6 286:6 290:1

293:22 294:7,11

308:19

tabled 320:18

tables 15:17,18

100:5 269:21

311:9

tacked 289:21

take 12:16 30:11

32:17 34:9 44:18

54:1,22 59:5 60:1

66:14 67:3,9,13

69:20 89:20 93:3

93:11 98:17

100:14 103:6,15

116:15,19,21

118:19 125:7

126:8 128:9 129:8

130:14 133:1

135:2 153:18

164:1,19 167:21

216:21 222:5

223:4 226:22

230:17 231:7

233:8 235:6

239:15 240:22

246:16 249:18

250:18 261:6

280:6 281:14

289:6 294:3,11

297:9 300:12

303:19 308:18

taken 51:9 81:18

116:11,17 125:21

153:14 156:16

157:16 158:1,4

160:20 161:21

223:11 254:8

takes 70:15 72:11

167:14 187:12,15

187:17 275:14

309:21

talk 6:1 8:18 9:11

9:12 24:8 29:3

33:5 36:4,15 52:7

71:1,1 143:6

145:6,6 152:5

163:12,19 165:12

167:19 174:11

204:6,13 213:2

230:2 283:1 301:3

303:1

talked 8:5 10:7

16:6 105:16 116:9

talking 54:10,12,13

62:8 63:1 72:3

99:20 103:8

112:22 114:3

120:8 129:1,6

139:16 147:14

151:3,21 159:12

171:4 177:20,21

185:22 191:17

195:12 197:1

202:10 204:3

220:21 223:9

233:15 235:4

247:16 258:9,10

258:12 267:15

280:18 281:12

301:22 302:4

talks 169:6,7

tall 172:5 174:4

tank 246:18,18,19

247:21 254:21

264:21

tanks 247:10,11

target 40:3 273:3,9

274:5

task 250:3,4

Tatiana 16:10

46:22 47:2

team 16:2 40:15,19

192:5 221:16

tease 232:14

tech 199:2 206:3

207:10 298:21

Technical 19:1

technicalities 60:6

183:16

technically 44:3

64:4 146:20

technological

209:13

technologically

206:18 294:8

312:7

technologies 3:10

20:18 209:8,11

technology 2:10

19:20 207:5 209:7

281:12 285:20

telephone 3:3,13,17

78:8,21 79:8

telephonically 97:5

tell 7:5 16:19

127:21,22 131:11

138:12 205:6

209:21 211:16

258:17 272:12

276:19 318:19

telling 117:14

tells 81:17

temperature

292:13

tempers 167:20

ten 44:19 123:5,7

240:9,10,11

tend 184:18

tentative 54:16

91:3 193:3,10

tentatively 200:13

tentativeness 55:2

term 25:17 28:2,9

28:14 52:20 65:9

99:21 104:9,12

114:7 116:17

121:18 123:19

155:5 157:8 176:2

176:8 189:15,22

263:19 302:20

terminate 176:9

termination 10:15

terminology 230:8

297:16 301:7,13

terms 7:17 8:15

9:14 14:5 26:15

57:19 60:6 61:21

63:3 70:3 79:17

87:18,18 98:9

102:15 109:9

117:19 122:9

143:19 144:4

175:21 177:4,5

181:19 190:14

204:14 212:21

221:8 257:5,22

308:13 310:12,21

311:12,14 317:22

319:19

terrific 303:4

test 36:12 170:3

296:13 312:16

text 81:18

th 168:9 171:13,14

171:14,15 175:5,5

175:16 176:1,4,7

177:3,3,4,4

178:10,10,12,13

179:4,4 180:2,3

180:11,11,14

181:21,21 182:6,6

182:8,8,9,13,15

183:11,11,11,12

184:10,10,11,11

184:11,12,13,21

184:21 185:1,1,2

185:2,7,8,14,15

186:1,1,2,3,10,10

186:15,16,17,18

186:21 187:1,3,3

187:7 188:7,7

189:8,8,14,21

190:2,9 193:16,16

193:18,18 194:20

195:4,8,11,19,20

196:7 197:1,1,1,2

197:2,11,11,11

200:11,12,13,18

200:18 202:1

203:17,17,18,18

203:19

thank 5:6 6:10 13:4

15:19 23:20 38:18

46:16 51:13,14

54:8 61:3 67:16

78:4,19 84:8

90:18 93:10 112:6

113:8 115:20

116:12 130:1

138:8 163:9

166:20 167:3

176:20 182:21

210:4 217:18

225:18 250:4

253:3 289:7 297:1

297:3 304:19

thanking 16:15

thanks 6:11 14:8

39:20 83:8 282:18

Thanksgiving

189:7 195:2,4,17

theoretically 64:5

79:22 141:9

307:14

theories 230:19

theory 313:4

they'd 100:22

119:13

thin 290:12

thing 9:7 59:12,18

61:4 62:1,13

88:13,14 94:7

97:7 99:18 104:7

107:2 110:18

113:5,16 115:18

123:15 151:17

155:22 156:8

163:20 173:1

175:12 179:3

181:6 192:7 194:7

194:13 197:7,19

198:5 199:1

205:18 215:11

225:20 234:16

243:5 244:2 260:6
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 357

260:8,12 263:19

266:9,11 272:17

279:3 297:19

298:3 301:12

303:2 308:3

315:11 320:8

things 9:19 10:1

19:22 26:4,6

27:19 29:11 30:2

33:20 47:12 51:18

54:2 58:16 62:14

64:14 82:17 91:7

103:12 105:6,10

111:7 113:2 119:8

163:9,10 167:10

173:22 179:1

188:10 192:4

198:15 199:1

203:6,7 206:8

207:1 226:22

227:6 234:4

236:19 239:6

244:10 250:12

273:4 295:10

314:13

think 13:1 30:16

33:12,14,15,21

35:1 41:8 49:3

51:20 53:5 54:14

55:6,9,11 57:20

59:14 60:4,7,18

61:2,5,22 62:2,17

63:14,19 65:2

66:14,22 68:12,18

68:22 74:1,20

75:1 76:7 79:15

80:17 83:18,21

84:5,10,16 86:9

87:3,13,21 89:17

90:20,22 91:7,12

91:20 92:13 93:2

96:5,20 97:19,20

100:4,6,19 101:1

103:1,17 104:4,10

105:1,15,18,21

109:11,14,16

110:14 111:1,11

113:4 115:20

119:5,20,22

120:11 121:9

123:10,14 124:7

126:1,11,13 127:1

128:13 130:21

133:11,12,19

137:22 140:1

142:1 144:3,5

147:16,20 148:6

149:20 151:12

152:4 153:7,12,15

154:13,14 156:11

157:7 160:20,21

166:17 167:8

168:5 175:2,8,11

175:12,15 176:4

176:15 177:4

181:8 184:8,9,15

184:16 188:4

191:1,22 192:16

192:21 194:1

196:13 198:20

200:3,22 201:7,20

201:21 202:3,13

202:21,22 203:5

204:22 206:2

208:6,8 212:19

213:2,19 215:8

224:20 225:17,19

227:8,19 229:6,11

229:13 231:3

232:11,12 235:17

237:5 239:5 245:5

246:14 250:10

251:6 253:8,13,17

258:14 259:4

261:22 265:16

271:14 272:2

274:5,8,10 281:13

282:3,14 284:18

291:4 294:5,13

297:14 300:21

302:12 304:1,2,5

307:12 308:13

314:6 318:17

319:7,10,17 320:4

thinking 41:19

66:14 106:15

172:11 176:14

190:14 204:15

210:1

third 41:3 146:15

300:22

THOMAS 2:4

thought 24:7 32:22

33:11 34:2,18

37:17 52:6 53:9

54:5 82:16 89:7

106:8 107:1 108:3

147:2 159:11

165:17 189:17

204:6,12 205:5

237:17 248:4

254:19 310:5

thoughts 24:6

32:20 38:11,19

61:16 69:19 88:7

103:18 146:13

166:2 302:14

thousand 81:16

threads 198:3

three 41:12 64:3

85:12 93:12,21

95:2 118:8 126:8

126:10 129:10

133:5 134:2

169:21 172:2,4

178:2,5 181:10

187:12,13,16,18

187:20,21 188:1,2

188:13 191:14

192:17 197:14

200:7 255:2

277:21 284:9

301:2 305:21

315:9

three-day 189:10

three-phase 256:5

264:2,7,14 286:22

three-phrase

316:12

threshold 84:1,8

thresholds 54:5

throw 233:2

Thursday 1:10

194:20

tie 127:7

tied 117:3,10

tight 170:19

tighter 283:16,17

Tim 1:19 23:18

48:6 49:1 50:14

64:11 85:18 87:3

137:2 138:19

145:11,12 160:21

time 13:1,17 14:9

33:22 38:13 42:2

42:12 47:7,12

48:20,22 49:8

50:9 56:8 60:20

66:11 71:18 79:19

111:9 113:17

126:6 132:10,11

133:14 134:15

150:4 161:13

165:20,20 171:16

175:9,19 181:21

186:10 187:21,22

190:6 191:11,15

192:5 200:2 201:6

213:9 217:3 220:2

220:5 232:4

237:21 243:2

250:22 251:14

256:1 260:13

268:13 269:18

271:8 273:11

276:3 278:15

281:18 287:12

295:15 296:8

306:12 309:12

311:2 319:8 320:3

times 13:20 174:2

229:4 273:13

timetable 48:2

51:17

timing 14:5 143:19

today 17:8,10 19:8

32:5 35:20 37:21

74:6 149:13 153:9

154:1 181:17

191:16 206:6

212:4 250:3,4

251:1 283:12

300:16 320:18

today's 38:16

told 5:21 151:12

163:20 261:9

Tom 3:15 17:15

31:6,9 85:1

tome 80:20

tomorrow 17:12

19:12 33:19 37:17

38:1 42:19 150:6

150:8 175:3

196:19,21 203:4,9

224:6,12 304:20

318:6,17 320:17

321:1,3

ton 245:22

tonight 174:17,22

203:21

tons 280:12,13,21

280:22

tool 90:22

top 205:21 206:2

206:15,20 231:10

245:14 288:20

topic 7:1

topics 7:21 8:7,8

total 223:5,11,22

224:4,15,19 225:6

225:14,16 233:5

267:20 287:13

288:4 292:12

316:2

totally 71:17 87:12

183:14 282:16

301:1

touch 198:18 254:8

touched 230:3

tough 96:16

tougher 165:22

town 282:2

towners 203:12

track 95:22 161:4

164:12 237:16
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 358

trade 18:7 19:13

127:1

train 173:15

trains 177:6

trajectory 254:7

transcript 26:20

46:5 83:7

transcripts 156:18

transformer 20:21

21:10 64:20

152:14 205:16

210:7 211:17

214:3,12 215:13

216:13,14,21

217:1 222:6,8

223:8,22 228:7,12

234:6,9,20 236:9

236:12 247:17

249:12,21 254:6

278:6 279:11

283:8,11 316:3

transformers 1:6

14:13 19:15,21

20:3,5,10 21:3,12

21:13 24:14

154:18,19 156:7

158:16 159:5

168:11 209:9

211:20 215:14

216:4 225:1

233:19 234:4

236:16 249:4,5

254:9 258:13

264:3,5,11 284:15

transitions 242:13

Transmission 2:17

travel 185:1 191:12

195:22 196:1

200:1

traveling 195:16

treated 100:16

treatment 289:18

tremendous 16:12

283:13

trial 47:6 204:14

206:16 313:18

tried 168:1 170:4

286:1

tries 211:19

trigger 124:3 129:6

145:3

triggering 102:7

triggers 104:12

113:5

trolley 187:8

trouble 309:11

true 32:9 119:6

234:11 242:3

truly 92:5

trust 47:11

truthful 80:14

try 5:17 17:11 28:2

35:4 37:20 47:8

60:22 72:20 85:15

91:2 156:8 167:1

173:19 181:18,18

202:3 206:1 222:2

232:14 234:13

237:11 243:6,13

243:13 244:15

260:14 266:8

300:7 303:21

trying 24:4 54:20

92:4 101:18

103:12 111:7

134:7 151:1 156:3

173:16 198:1

216:20 217:3

240:22 244:6,7

250:22 256:7

288:9,13 300:7,10

301:1 307:5,7,9

309:1,2

TSD 269:4,7,8

290:2 291:18

302:3 316:21

TSDs 268:17,22

270:16

TSL 207:8 300:6

300:12 314:2,4

TSLs 35:8 230:11

230:11 298:1

313:20 314:9,16

314:22

TSL-4 156:7,10

Tuesday 195:21

tuned 32:5

turn 6:7 32:18 43:5

113:19 164:1

188:10 207:13

308:8

turns 261:18

tweak 263:11

Twenty-two 82:12

two 33:2 34:18

42:12 43:18 46:13

50:2 51:11 62:10

62:13 66:9 70:22

71:11 82:6,9,13

86:19 90:20 93:21

94:17,22 95:1,2

101:12 107:14

117:8,9 120:12

123:13 127:2,4,17

127:17 128:16,19

129:9,10 130:20

168:3 170:2

177:22 184:22

186:6 188:9,12,21

188:22 190:20

191:7,21 192:4,8

197:14 226:21

227:6 231:20

236:18 246:22

248:10 253:8

254:3,18 258:10

274:18 275:3,8

306:7 314:8

two-hour 34:13

42:8

two-thirds 54:2

two-week 192:10

192:16

type 52:1 205:16

236:21 252:6,10

252:13 264:6

270:8 317:17

typed 65:4

types 120:8 215:14

231:21

typically 61:12

62:12 127:2,4

168:17 207:19

246:7 289:16

typing 67:6

typo 47:14

U

ultimate 86:17

ultimately 11:13

104:22 254:6

255:3

unable 95:12 293:4

unadulterated 17:4

unanalyzed 316:10

unanimity 53:11

54:1,11 55:4

80:10 81:17,22

82:12 86:11 89:13

92:21 97:3 148:7

unanimous 52:16

52:21 53:1,2,12

53:16 57:22 83:20

84:7 93:13,17,18

94:3 96:3,4,6,15

97:13 101:4,13

107:12 109:15

110:22 111:14

129:16

unanimously 53:1

uncertain 124:2

uncertainties 119:7

uncertainty 207:5

unchartered 81:3

undercut 272:3

undermine 57:5

69:17 72:20 73:2

111:4 138:14

undermining 59:7

understand 25:20

71:13 93:4 126:5

128:21 143:10,20

153:14 211:12

215:16 219:10

230:16,22 233:17

236:6 244:14

251:22 260:5

261:21 284:20

319:11

understanding

13:10,15 71:17

72:9 74:12 97:4

141:14 184:2

258:4,20

understands

289:15

understood 241:11

268:9

unfamiliar 293:10

unfortunately

174:11 180:2

unhappy 86:19,22

unique 244:10

254:17 292:1

unit 20:20 210:9,22

212:22 221:5

229:14,17 230:20

240:1 242:20

246:3,18,18,19,20

246:21,22 248:3

248:16 253:11

254:12 255:1

264:13 266:8

278:8,9,19,20

284:11,16 286:3

286:21 316:15

United 19:3 146:19

294:21 295:2,10

units 211:7,20

212:2,4,13,15

214:20 215:1

218:14 236:17

239:19 241:1

242:11 246:22

248:21 253:7,17

253:22 254:2,21

255:2,4 256:6

264:12 266:13

284:8 285:5,12,15

285:18 290:16

292:2 315:9,10

316:9 317:17

318:2 319:22

universe 267:17

University 1:15
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 359

23:22

unlimited 37:5

unnecessary 155:8

155:8

unquote 138:4

unrepresentative

248:16

unusual 80:7,18

126:19

update 275:14

updated 270:19

275:12 301:15

updates 301:9

308:7

updating 271:18

upper 302:1

ups 229:19

urban 249:3

urgent 83:3 90:17

usage 280:9

use 11:6 22:12

42:12 75:8 99:22

124:3 164:14

199:6 201:12,21

205:20 225:4

229:4 231:15

232:21 234:3

238:7 247:2

254:13 255:11

257:8 258:6

260:14 264:5

268:13 271:22,22

274:15 276:7

286:18 287:22

316:8

uses 210:10,18

258:5 292:15

usual 274:17

usually 71:4 202:9

205:21 314:9

utilities 17:20 18:8

168:17 223:5,21

224:19 225:4,5

248:1 257:8

259:15,16 320:14

utility 21:21 53:9

55:14 257:14

U.S 1:1 2:2 4:2,3,3

18:12,16 19:22

242:5 249:4 283:9

V

vague 175:10

validating 256:16

validation 270:8

validator 277:3

valor 162:2

valuation 291:15

value 86:13 230:1

259:6 291:14

314:3,11

values 86:15 164:7

257:6,8,17 291:13

311:19 315:12

Variables 117:22

variations 223:9

varied 164:18

variety 55:6 286:9

various 35:9

171:18 236:16

238:11 261:6

286:7,11 300:8

312:9,20

vary 71:12 205:15

varying 230:5

vast 25:11 29:9

vault 249:5 252:18

vein 154:14

venture 276:8

venues 171:2

172:13 202:17

versa 169:20

version 161:5,12,18

290:3 297:19

308:22

versus 68:7 179:10

216:8 229:3

241:20,21 308:4

311:14

Veteran's 184:13

184:17

veto 58:10 68:16,21

104:7 107:2,8

vetoed 102:6

188:11

vice 1:21 2:8,9,10

19:20 169:20

victory 320:22

videoconference

80:1

view 118:2 125:4

319:6

viewed 59:7

views 24:12 116:15

127:12

Virginia 21:10

178:13 183:10

virtual 315:10

virtually 45:14

57:3

visiting 215:5

voice 45:9

voltage 1:5 5:5

21:11,12 154:19

159:4 168:11,15

168:15,18 169:1,2

169:6,7,18,19

170:10,10,13

172:7,11 177:11

177:11,13 182:17

182:19,20 185:10

186:15,15 189:2

197:5,7,8,9,10

211:11 212:8

215:17 219:13

221:7,19 240:13

240:13,14 254:2

259:11 263:10

286:22 315:3,6,20

316:12 317:16

voltages 217:8

218:18,19 219:1

284:21

volume 245:11

317:18

volumes 256:5

315:7

voluntary 48:10

vote 10:14 53:12,16

53:18 54:2 58:8,9

69:21 74:13 77:16

77:17 79:18 82:6

82:9 84:2,4,5 89:2

89:10 93:3,7,11

94:4,7 95:19 97:4

97:5,22 98:14

99:17 100:3 101:3

101:11,14,15,21

102:4,22 103:1,5

103:19,22 104:1,3

104:8,9 106:10,19

107:17,21 109:9

109:21 111:13

112:3,5,8,12,16

113:3,11,12

116:10,15 129:8

132:21 133:8

135:3 149:7

151:13,16 158:11

163:12 164:22

166:8 200:7 204:9

voted 10:12 84:18

107:13

votes 78:8 82:7

83:16 93:12 98:4

98:17 100:15,17

104:20 106:19

109:5 111:3,18

133:5 134:2

voting 9:21 74:17

74:18 75:19 79:15

82:17 94:9 96:13

96:21 97:4,11

99:3,4,12 100:21

100:22 101:5,5,21

104:11 107:9

109:12 112:20

113:6

W

walk 51:20 99:5,8

206:5 207:9

walkdown 206:13

206:21 312:3

Waltner 3:20 23:3

23:3

want 8:12,20 14:4

14:11 15:6,19

16:14 17:6 28:16

29:19,20,21 30:10

31:2 35:4,5 45:19

46:14 51:21 55:5

58:2,6 61:18

64:18 70:3,6,9

71:10 72:20 74:13

80:4 81:10 82:19

83:5 84:16 90:10

92:15 94:8,20

97:15,21 102:1

109:13,17 112:2

112:14 114:12,12

115:6 125:6 126:5

127:13 128:8

129:20 132:20

134:15 138:13

143:7 144:1

146:19,22 147:16

151:10,13 156:10

157:4,18 158:5

168:22 169:2

177:1 186:21

187:22 192:19

196:3 203:11,12

227:9,10 237:17

243:11,22 250:21

251:19,21 272:2

274:15,19 279:22

280:3,10 284:3

297:5 299:19

301:3 302:11,15

302:20 304:9,16

306:4,5,7 307:15

320:1,2,3,5

wanted 7:5,7,15 9:7

14:21 38:14 46:7

46:8 150:17,20

154:3 181:16

242:18 254:20

258:19 304:12

wants 26:9 49:1

52:7,11 99:3

114:14 189:6

Washington 1:12

17:9,21 66:17

178:12
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 360

wasn't 72:8 170:7

201:22 228:2

watch 295:14

water 3:17 31:20

164:3

waters 81:3

watt 223:7,13,13

watts 223:16 224:8

229:4

way 12:3 22:9

24:22 26:10 38:8

46:19 47:6 49:16

54:14,15,20 57:16

57:22 58:12,14

65:4 75:9 78:11

80:3 90:10,21,22

95:6 105:10 106:6

108:8 122:22

129:20 152:2

153:8 155:2 158:8

172:6 173:5

178:15 193:9

202:8 207:10,10

212:6 232:10

235:6,15 251:3,17

256:21 259:7

261:3 262:19

281:11 282:5

284:10 286:12

287:5 293:6 294:5

294:9 296:1 297:3

298:14 303:3

307:18 308:3

312:5,18 313:5

Wayne 4:3,5 5:22

105:16 149:12

ways 46:13 105:5

117:19 120:7

122:21 231:21

232:2 250:13

293:3 320:4

weak 45:9

web 197:18

webinar 5:16 26:22

27:5 31:1 46:20

178:17 197:20

297:5

webinars 199:8

website 35:2 47:2

209:19 259:4

270:11,16,17

290:5 293:1

Wednesday 49:19

188:11,12 189:7

196:4,9,9

Wednesday-Thu...

196:5

weeds 8:15

week 49:19 50:1,2

175:17 180:3

194:17,20 195:5,9

275:3 277:15

weeks 5:9 188:9

190:20 191:21

192:5,8

week-to 277:14

weigh 37:2 86:2

198:3 205:11

weighs 278:3

weight 278:6 291:1

291:1,2

welcome 5:3 14:11

23:20 27:5,14

31:5 45:7,21

163:4,6

went 37:11 45:5

49:11 50:4 57:11

82:6 106:11

110:19 162:6

255:9 303:21

321:5

weren't 127:7

189:14 220:4

267:3 269:18

271:9 285:20

Wes 2:10 19:19

220:20 222:12

223:3,9 232:18

244:8 246:14

250:10 264:3

west 3:9 191:12

we'll 5:14,17,20

16:20 29:3 33:16

33:22 34:1,12

37:13,19 41:7

44:14,15 47:3,8

91:2 115:15

134:14 136:17

139:7 145:6 150:3

152:1 161:17,19

163:19 173:3

194:21 200:7,22

201:17 203:21

207:12 250:20

251:2 261:3,6

269:10 280:19

285:12 295:22

318:16 320:9

we're 6:5 9:14

14:18 18:6,18

21:2,6 35:21,22

39:8,22 40:7,12

40:16,18 42:1

43:8 48:11,16

57:13 59:10 62:2

72:2 79:21 83:5

84:19 85:21 87:11

90:14 91:4 92:3

95:9 97:15 98:3

99:17,19,20 100:2

102:4,19,21

105:21 106:2,3,4

106:16 109:15

111:10 112:22

117:6 118:1,4,18

120:8 121:10,11

122:5,7 128:9,10

128:11 129:6

131:8,22 133:12

139:18 142:11

145:4,13 148:16

151:20 155:15

156:18,19,20

160:18 161:16

164:2 171:9

172:11 173:7,8,15

176:14 177:20,21

178:10 181:13

185:22 187:13,14

188:2 190:3

191:16,18 193:21

193:22 196:10,22

197:17 198:10,16

201:7,21 202:12

203:2 205:4

207:22 216:20,20

220:5 222:1 244:4

244:6,7,14,21

246:22 247:16

251:13 256:6,21

258:12 261:16,19

267:15 271:21,22

272:8 274:5 277:2

279:1 280:17

281:12,21 284:8

301:20 302:9

308:20 309:4

310:8,8,22 311:15

312:6 315:12

317:2

we've 16:6 36:8

37:21 61:5 68:13

85:14 100:7 109:7

109:16 118:19

126:22 127:2

129:5 142:12

145:19 151:10

152:6 161:7

191:19,20 200:11

201:3 202:21

212:6,7 219:18

221:5,9 229:11

230:3 231:3

235:11 241:1

254:3,3,16,22

256:9 261:2 271:4

273:2,11 274:4

279:14 280:16

285:10 287:17

295:22

whatnot 298:18

whatsoever 24:15

310:21

wholly 108:12,13

widths 262:22

263:1

wiki 198:4

willing 89:11 142:6

160:9 175:13

179:21 183:16

185:17 188:3

WINDER 3:21

23:8,8

winding 223:13

286:4

windings 286:13

287:5,6 291:15

292:5

window 192:11,16

233:7,8

windows 186:7

wisdom 69:11

wish 35:16 132:14

213:17

withstand 36:21

100:2

wonder 104:19

105:11

wondering 65:13

145:18 146:3

200:12 265:14

272:6 310:14,17

310:22 317:10

wooden 247:22

252:19

word 63:14 75:17

76:9 131:16 136:6

152:6 197:16

worded 58:1

105:11

wording 28:8

words 77:9 97:12

102:10 115:21

121:17 152:9

160:17 186:14

254:7 258:17

work 5:17 6:9 9:5

11:3 12:12,15,19

13:2,13,18 14:17

16:10,13 17:17

22:9,11 33:17

34:17 37:19 40:11

41:8,15 44:13

53:22 67:12 83:11

84:4 86:10 87:17
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 361

87:17,19 89:13

91:11,17 92:2

105:2,18 119:17

136:13 138:17

139:11 158:2

164:14 171:11

173:20,22 181:4

182:3 184:8,18

188:5 191:6

192:18 203:3

207:10 208:18

213:1,12 222:4

243:2,13 250:2

251:2 282:5

290:13 317:7

workable 81:9

worked 22:12

37:10 50:6

working 1:6,12 5:5

5:8 24:3 27:7

39:9,12 40:7,15

47:5 49:15 64:13

66:17 111:9 114:5

114:7 142:13

150:22 170:5

171:9 173:18

184:17 197:20

218:21 231:1

274:1

works 1:18 12:4

18:1 25:1 26:10

103:14 181:22

192:16 294:6,8

world 116:22 283:3

worry 43:21

worst 273:14

worth 66:9 201:3

223:7,17,18

wouldn't 59:17

64:18 75:8 76:20

90:6 156:6 157:1

157:3 233:14

wound 286:10

287:6

wrap 29:21 313:10

318:12

wraps 291:4

wrap-up 33:18

wreck 173:15

write 111:9,12

117:4 139:22

writing 115:1,4

120:12 155:5

238:6 239:13

250:12 251:4

written 57:7 61:11

88:20 93:15 104:1

160:11,17,19

237:19 250:15

302:1

wrong 100:6 282:4

309:5 318:20

wrote 80:22 81:16

88:21 297:15

317:4

X

X 129:7,8,9,11

268:3 278:1

Xcel 3:2 296:5

Y

Y 268:4

yea 109:8

year 13:14,20

48:15 61:14 117:8

123:13 124:4,6,8

124:12,22 125:2

126:9 128:17

130:19,22 131:2

132:22 133:11,20

134:9,9,12 135:16

136:11 181:21

272:20 280:12,13

280:21,22

years 19:3 20:14

64:3 71:12 117:2

117:9,22 118:8

121:12,14 123:5,7

123:12,13 126:8

126:11,16 127:2

127:17,18 128:16

128:17,21 129:9

130:21 219:17,21

223:6 230:22

279:16 280:17

yeses 101:12

yield 230:5

York 250:2

Young 3:22 31:16

31:16 95:11,16,16

95:21

Z

zero 257:16,18,20

257:20 314:13

Zhimei 3:11 15:22

$

$1 223:13,15,17

$2 223:18

$4 223:13,15,17

$8 223:18

0

001 303:14

04 281:6

06 281:6

08 281:6

1

1 51:3 95:4 118:12

151:3 168:7 193:4

193:13,18,21

195:12 197:3

201:5 223:19

235:9 246:17

254:4,14,16 255:5

259:10,14,17,17

265:1 296:20

301:1 302:17,19

305:20,22 306:1

307:1

1s 301:3

1st 48:15 50:11,12

50:13,18 123:15

123:17

1,000 314:7

1:15 44:14

1:45 162:4,7 163:2

10 95:5 183:12

184:11,14 185:2

185:16 186:4,11

186:19 187:8

188:8 191:12

193:17 197:2

203:19 228:8,12

228:15 231:22

232:1 236:9

254:15 278:3

280:15 281:1,6

290:15 306:19,20

306:20

10,000 234:22

10:15 17:13

10:17 45:6

100 82:6 84:19

85:15,21,22 86:7

86:14 87:14 119:2

121:14 223:2

309:16

1000 1:12

11 95:5 171:15

183:13 184:12,12

184:22 185:3,8,9

110 19:3

112 317:6

12 95:5 129:13

175:6 177:4

178:11 179:5

180:3,12 181:22

182:7,9,10,14,16

182:16 197:1

203:18 214:21

287:7

12.5 289:9

12:15 44:14,14

12:23 162:6

12:25 162:3

13 95:5,5 180:15

182:9,14,16,16

309:13 317:14,14

13A 317:15

13B 317:16

14 171:15 175:6

177:4 178:11

179:5 180:4,12

181:22 182:7,14

189:9 193:19

197:1,12 200:13

200:19 202:1

203:18 210:20

240:6 283:6 292:2

317:15

14-4 214:7

14/400 284:17

140 280:12

15 1:11 162:4 172:9

202:1 280:16

316:14

150 216:13,21

222:6 223:10

228:12 316:14

150,000 280:13

16 4:7 171:16 172:9

176:2,5,8 189:9

189:15,22 190:10

193:19 197:12

200:12,14,19

16th 176:11

167 4:10 254:16

17 177:5 178:13

182:1

170,000 280:22

18 53:19 57:12

58:15 93:5,8,9,12

93:20 191:6

19 177:5 178:14

182:1

2

2 95:4 128:21 193:4

193:13,16,18,21

195:13 196:10

201:5 203:20

211:9 212:17

215:2 219:8 235:9

254:4,16 264:22

305:22 306:1

307:1

2B 188:17

2C 165:18

2F 78:16

2F(2) 165:3

2,000 18:15 224:2

242:16

2,500 292:1
202-234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 362

2:00 186:18

20 43:5 190:3

197:12 202:2

214:18 242:2,4

278:7 280:16

20,000 234:21

280:12

2004 126:16

2006 262:1,2,6

268:2 270:15

275:6 287:19

2007 48:9 56:2

212:5,9 216:1

238:9 263:16

316:20

2008 260:19 262:1

262:3,6 268:4

270:15 275:5

287:19

2009 277:4

2010 260:20 261:2

262:1,3,12 267:11

267:12 268:5

270:18,19,21

271:1,3,4,12

273:17 275:9,12

275:18,19 276:2

276:12,22 277:4

287:16

2011 1:11 269:17

271:7 273:17

276:22 277:3

2012 50:18 118:12

261:19,19

2013 118:13

2016 70:16,18

2030 61:15

208/120 214:8

209 4:11

21 188:7 189:5

190:8,16,18

193:17

22 82:7 93:6 94:18

95:2,5 101:12

176:10 188:7

189:6 190:3,3

193:18 197:13

202:2 288:21

23 93:6,13 94:9,17

96:5,6

23rd 39:3,14

230 291:3

24 82:13 94:9,14

24-person 82:8

25 28:7 33:9 53:19

57:12 58:15 73:9

94:13 219:8 245:5

247:3,4

250 254:21 284:15

26th 74:7

27 151:21 244:4,5

277 284:18

28 168:10 194:21

195:9 288:11

29 195:20,21

3

3 84:20 95:4 129:12

129:13 233:3,6,7

235:9 245:22

259:17 264:20,22

305:19

3A 89:19

3C 188:21

3D 134:19 150:15

30 4:8 195:12 196:8

197:3 203:20

223:6,10

30th 39:3

30,000 280:12

30-40,000 280:21

322 4:12

33 245:1

330 291:3

4

4 42:17 95:4 129:12

151:19 153:4

223:19 259:10,14

265:2,6 266:6,7

296:19 305:22

4:15 164:4

4:23 321:5

4:30 163:22

40 20:14 126:16

40,000 214:20

231:8 268:6

280:12

45 317:6

486 4:9

5

5 95:4 129:12

175:17 195:5

220:11 259:17

265:2,6 266:6,7

290:2 305:19

50 223:19 247:3,4

259:8 296:6,11,12

296:17,20

500 255:1 284:16

291:13

541 270:21 276:12

6

6 95:4 129:12,13

6C 155:22 156:15

60 70:4 71:4,17,22

72:1,9,12 123:11

125:5 128:1,18,20

129:11 130:10,20

132:11 133:17

140:15 216:13

222:8 228:7

284:17

60-day 63:4 128:14

61st 63:6 72:4,15

72:19

65 284:16

7

7 4:6 57:14 95:4

114:4 286:22

290:22 291:2

316:12

70 54:5

72 53:19

75 247:2 286:22

316:1,5,14,18

8

8 95:4 171:14

183:12 184:11,13

185:2,15 186:1,2

186:16,22 187:4

188:8 193:17

197:2,2 203:19

8E089 1:12

833 284:15

9

9 95:4 129:13

183:12 184:12,22

185:3 186:1,2,3

186:11,17,18

187:1,2,4 197:3

9th 142:10

9:00 1:13 321:1

9:07 5:2

9:50 45:5

90 202:7

95 216:22 274:17

98 235:2

98.3 235:2

99.08 302:18

99.12 302:21 303:4

99.16 302:20
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

C E R T I F I C A T E

This is to certify that the foregoing transcript 

In the matter of: 

Before: 

Date: 

Place: 

was duly recorded and accurately transcribed under 

my direction; further, that said transcript is a 

true and accurate record of the proceedings. 

 

 ----------------------- Court Reporter 

363

Liquid Immersed and Medium Voltage

Dry-Type Distribution Transformers

DOE

09-15-11

Washington, DC